Diplomacy
Economic sanctions, a political tool
Sanctions are a part of international diplomacy in today’s world, applied by sanctioning countries as a non-military tool to force the target countries to respond in a desired manner. In fact, sanctions are an economic weapon in the field of non-military struggle that takes diplomacy beyond the level of negotiation and into the realm of action.
Sanctions are usually designed in terms of three objectives: offensive, defensive, and communicative.
In the offensive dimension, the goal of the sanctioning country is to change a specific behavior of the target country. In other words, the sanctioning country tries to change the behavior and actions of the sanctioned state by applying pressure. In the defensive dimension, the goal of the sanction is to slow down the development process and reduce the strategic capabilities of the target country.
In the communication dimension, sanctions can be used as a tool to convey the message of the sanctioning country’s dissatisfaction with the policies or actions of the sanctioned country. Sanctions are imposed on countries in both political and economic areas. In the political dimension, the goal of sanctions is to force the target country to comply with the policies of the sanctioning countries. These types of sanctions can be imposed with goals such as overthrowing the political system of the target country or demonstrating the power of the sanctioning country.
In the economic dimension, sanctions may be imposed to pressure a country to change its political behavior or to destabilize the economy and domestic politics of the target country. Sanctions can be imposed unilaterally, multilaterally, or comprehensively. Unilateral sanctions are imposed by one country against another without regard to UN Security Council resolutions.
Comprehensive or global sanctions are adopted by international bodies such as the United Nations or the Security Council and are intended to change the policy or behavior of the targeted country. Multilateral sanctions are imposed by several countries or international organizations with different motives and often have a greater impact on the sanctioned country.
Economic sanctions
One of the most common types of sanctions globally is economic sanctions, which are implemented with the aim of weakening the economic power of the target country. In this type of sanction, the sanctioning country attempts to expose the target government’s inefficiency and make it appear incapable of responding to the needs of its citizens.
Economic sanctions inflict a heavy blow on the country’s economy; they cause a decrease in national output, a depreciation of the currency, an increase in unemployment, a rise in prices, and a budget deficit. These sanctions also lead to a significant decrease in gross domestic product, a decrease in exports and imports, an outflow of foreign capital, and a contraction in international investment.
A country that is subject to severe economic sanctions will, over time, face economic fragility and disrupt the balance between supply and demand, which will ultimately lead to economic stagnation.
Economic sanctions as a political tool
Hegemonic powers such as the United States, due to their political, economic, ideological, and military superiority, have always tried to shape the international system based on their interests and institutionalize the acceptance of their hegemony among other countries. Economic sanctions are an alternative to military power and reflect the anger and dissatisfaction of the sanctioning country with the policies of the target country.
United States uses economic sanctions as an effective political tool to impose its demands and national interests
These sanctions are usually imposed against developing countries or political regimes opposed to the United States.
Economic sanctions can have profound negative consequences in the political, social, economic, and legal spheres. These types of sanctions can also be called “international sanctions” because they are implemented with the aim of imposing trade restrictions, investment bans, increasing customs tariffs, restricting financial relations, and preventing the transfer of technology.
Economic sanctions can be imposed for a variety of reasons, but one of the most important is to change the political system of the target country. Sanctions are sometimes not only intended to isolate a country, but can also serve to overthrow its political system. A historical example of this type of sanctions is the economic and political pressure on Iran during the prime ministership of Dr. Mohammad Mosaddegh.
After the nationalization of the oil industry in 1950, Britain and the United States imposed an oil embargo and imposed severe financial restrictions to suppress this anti-colonial movement. These sanctions, aimed at weakening the Iranian economy, led to internal crises and ultimately the coup of 1953 that overthrew the Mossadegh government.
Sanctions are often designed to create internal unrest by pressuring the public and creating public discontent, in the hope that this discontent will lead to regime change. Another reason for imposing sanctions is to change the policy and policy of the target country.
Sanctions are powerful tools in international relations and are sometimes designed to force target countries to change their policies.
The purpose of sanctions, or so-called restrictions and pressure, is to force the target country to accept the demands of the international community or the sanctioning country. This pressure is usually applied in the form of economic, trade, financial or even diplomatic barriers.
The sanctioning country attempts to force the policymakers of the target country to change course and accept its demands by increasing costs and reducing benefits. Sanctions create indirect pressure on policymakers and decision-makers by affecting the country’s economic and social structure.
These sanctions restrict trade by reducing access to financial resources, technology, and technology, and cause welfare problems for citizens. The combination of factors that sanctions impose on the social and economic structure of society leads to the formation of public dissatisfaction and internal pressure on the government.
Prominent examples of sanctions aimed at changing the domestic policy of the target country were the sanctions imposed by the United Nations and Western countries on South Africa in the 1970s and 1980s. These sanctions were imposed due to apartheid and racial discrimination policies and included trade restrictions, sports embargoes, and blocking access to international financial markets.
Economic pressures, trade restrictions, and diplomatic isolation forced the South African government to move toward a more democratic and open system. Another important example is the sanctions imposed on Iran by the UN Security Council, the European Union, and the United States over its nuclear program.
These sanctions, which intensified in the early 2000s, imposed restrictions on oil exports, imports of sensitive technologies, and access to the global banking system. The aim of these sanctions was to force Iran to halt sensitive nuclear activities.
Sanctions are also imposed to weaken the economic structure of the target country
This effective tool limits the executive power of the target country to advance policies by reducing its financial and economic strength. This is done by creating barriers to access to global markets, advanced technologies, exports and imports, and freezing foreign assets.
Such restrictions can disrupt supply chains, reduce foreign exchange earnings, and halt the target country’s development or military programs. A prime example of these effects is the sanctions imposed on Iran, which have had particularly devastating effects on the oil and gas sector.
Declining oil revenues have led to a decline in domestic investment, high inflation, and a devaluation of the national currency. Banking sanctions have also restricted international trade, making it difficult to import essential goods and increasing economic and social pressure.
Sanctions accelerate the process of policy change by targeting the economic structure of the target country. In this type of sanctions, international financial resources are blocked and the bank accounts and foreign exchange reserves of the target country are frozen. This blockage increases the costs of production and imports and ultimately leads to the inability of the target country to pay its debts.
When exports and imports are restricted, key industries such as oil and gas are affected. Economic restrictions prevent access to advanced technologies and hinder economic development. This leads to higher inflation rates, economic stagnation, devaluation of the national currency, reduced foreign investment, and increased unemployment, ultimately putting more domestic pressure on the government.
Sanctions are often imposed in response to specific actions by countries.
These actions may include human rights violations, support for terrorism, or military aggression. Examples of this type of sanctions include sanctions imposed on Russia for its annexation of Crimea and its military aggression against Ukraine.
In response to the invasion of Ukraine, the United States, the European Union, the United Nations, and the Security Council imposed sweeping sanctions that have dealt a heavy blow to the Russian economy. These sanctions have included the removal of Russian banks from the SWIFT financial system, the freezing of central bank assets, and restrictions on dollar and euro transactions. Exports of advanced technology, military equipment, and sensitive industries such as oil and gas to Russia have also been banned. These measures have led to a depreciation of the ruble, rising inflation, and stagnation in key sectors of the Russian economy. Restrictions on access to foreign currency and advanced technologies have posed serious challenges to Russian industries.
In fact, economic sanctions are political tools that powerful and hegemonic countries use to implement national interests, exert power, and control the international order. Economic sanctions can cause a decrease in production, a collapse in the value of the national currency, an increase in unemployment, a decrease in investment, and inflation.
These sanctions are designed with various motives and goals and are usually imposed by developed countries against developing countries. These pressures are applied with the aim of forcing countries to accept the policies of the sanctioning country and have both positive and negative consequences. Economic pressure and sanctions cause inflation and public discontent, which can lead to political and social instability in the target country.
On the positive side, sanctions may lead to greater self-sufficiency, de-dependence, and independence for the sanctioned country. Sanctions force governments to increase their focus on domestic production and take measures to counter the pressures.
Diplomacy
Vance defends Iran nuclear deal and rebukes Israeli ministers over criticism
US Vice President JD Vance on Thursday criticised Israeli officials for refusing to support Washington’s nuclear agreement with Iran, defending the newly signed memorandum of understanding and urging Israel to back the deal.
Vance accused members of the Israeli government of failing to appreciate the value of American support and defended the agreement during a press conference at the White House.
Referring to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as “Bibi,” Vance told reporters: “You’ve seen some people in Bibi’s cabinet attack the agreement and, in some respects, attack the President of the United States in a very personal way.” He stopped short of directly criticising Netanyahu himself.
“First of all, Trump is currently the only head of state in the world who is sympathetic to the nation of Israel. And he is the head of state of the world’s superpower,” Vance said. “If I were in the cabinet of the Israeli government, I would not attack the only powerful ally I have left in the world.”
Vance noted that two-thirds of the munitions used in Israel’s defence over the past three months were manufactured in the United States and financed by American taxpayers. He said Israeli officials should reconsider the perception that the primary problem facing Israel is the US president and instead confront the realities of the situation.
The remarks were directed at Netanyahu’s coalition partners, Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir. Both have argued that the agreement poses a threat to Israel’s security and have called on Israel to disregard its provisions.
In an earlier interview with The New York Times, Vance said he found “the general panic in Israel a little strange,” arguing that concerns surrounding the agreement stemmed from distrust of the United States.
“It is obvious that broad segments of Israel’s political system and society are very sensitive about this agreement,” Vance said. “But I also think they have taken some misinformation about the agreement, amplified it and worked themselves into a kind of panic.”
Asked how he would respond to the ministers, Vance said: “I think my answer would be: What exactly is your proposal? You are a country of nine million people. You cannot solve every national security problem you have by killing people.”
Addressing the situation in Lebanon, Vance said hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah could continue for some time, but stressed that all parties must adhere to their commitments under the agreement. Reiterating expectations that Hezbollah halt rocket and drone attacks, he also said Israel should avoid acting without restraint in Lebanon.
Vance said the US administration expected a comprehensive ceasefire across all fronts, including Lebanon, Hezbollah and Israel. While recognising Israel’s right to self-defence, he said attacks on areas of Beirut populated by civilians were unacceptable.
“One thing that has frustrated the President at times is that it seems we are on the verge of a major breakthrough under the agreement, and then suddenly there is a large explosion in a civilian area of Beirut and many people with nothing to do with Hezbollah are killed,” Vance said. “That is unacceptable.”
Vance also addressed criticism concerning sanctions relief and funding provisions for Iran, two of the most controversial elements of the memorandum.
He said the United States had not fully lifted its blockade of Iran but had merely allowed certain transit activities in line with obligations under the early stages of the agreement. Vance added that Iran’s economy remained in severe decline.
Arguing that Iran’s industrial infrastructure had suffered extensive damage over the past three months, Vance said limited oil sales would not be sufficient to revive the Iranian economy.
He also said the pragmatic faction within Iran had prevailed in internal debates and asserted that Iran’s missile programme and nuclear facilities had been largely neutralised, leaving the situation at a level acceptable to the United States.
Israeli objections to the agreement
Meanwhile, Israel’s ambassador to Washington, Yechiel Leiter, voiced cautious opposition to what he described as a US willingness to allow Iran to retain some of its ballistic missiles.
Describing Iranian officials as “murderous thugs,” Leiter said Israel remained concerned that Tehran would use such missiles against its neighbours.
Leiter also argued that references to Lebanon in the memorandum were designed to protect Hezbollah. He said Israel could make no compromises on border security and would not tolerate the continued existence of the group’s military presence.
Ben Gvir responded directly to Vance’s criticism in a social media post, calling on the United States to confront Iran with the same determination it showed in fighting Nazi Germany during World War Two.
In his New York Times interview, Vance had referred specifically to “people like Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich” when discussing critics of the agreement, asking: “What exactly is your proposal?”
Writing in English on X, Ben Gvir addressed Vance directly, stating: “The proposal is this: Fight the Nazis of the 21st century the way the US fought the Nazis of the 20th century.”
Diplomacy
China’s tariff cuts for Africa boost trade and support wider yuan adoption
China’s decision to eliminate tariffs on imports from most African countries, combined with rapidly expanding trade flows, appears set to boost the use of the yuan across the continent, supporting Beijing’s broader objective of building alternatives to the Western financial system.
Customs data show that China-Africa trade grew by approximately 18% last year. The removal of tariffs on imports from 53 African countries in May is expected to further increase trade flows and encourage payments denominated in yuan.
Research by the International Monetary Fund indicates that yuan usage tends to rise alongside growing trade ties with China. On Wednesday, Beijing announced new measures aimed at promoting the global use of its currency.
From Nigerian cattle bone pellets and Kenyan avocado oil to South African apples, Chinese ports are receiving greater volumes of African cargo following the tariff cuts. The trend is increasing demand for payments and currency exchanges between the yuan and local African currencies.
Although reliable data on yuan usage in Africa remain limited, adoption is being supported by expanding trade with China, new payment platforms and efforts by some countries to shift debt obligations into lower-cost currencies.
Birju Sanghrajka, chief executive of Standard Chartered Kenya, said yuan transactions were increasing but added that there were still few signs that the currency was displacing the dollar.
“We see it as complementary,” Sanghrajka said.
South Africa-based Standard Bank became the first African commercial bank to connect to China’s Cross-Border Interbank Payment System (CIPS) in November and processed $500 million in transactions during its first four months on the network.
“The transactions we have seen were mainly driven by import and export activities between China and Africa,” said Ives Yang, head of transaction banking sales at Standard Bank CIB.
“We are working to expand CIPS to more countries,” he added.
Beijing says the tariff exemptions are intended to support African exports.
“In an environment where unilateralism and protectionism are creating difficulties and challenges for African countries, China is leveraging the advantages of its enormous market,” Chinese Commerce Ministry spokesman He Yadong said.
Trade flow perspective
Bankers say the shift toward the yuan reflects growing trade volumes rather than a direct challenge to the dominance of the US dollar.
Standard Chartered Kenya has begun issuing yuan-denominated letters of credit. According to Sanghrajka, this allows Kenyan clients to obtain discounts by avoiding conversion costs associated with the dollar.
China and several other countries, including Russia, have promoted payment channels that bypass the dollar. The trend has drawn warnings from US President Donald Trump against abandoning the US currency.
“Part of what we are seeing globally today concerns how the dominance of the dollar can be reduced,” said Muda Yusuf, chief executive of Nigeria’s Centre for the Promotion of Private Enterprise, adding that China is actively promoting yuan-based payment systems.
“When you export to them, you receive your payment in yuan,” Yusuf said.
Reducing foreign exchange risk
According to the African Export-Import Bank, which signed an agreement last year to connect to CIPS, China now accounts for 20% of Africa’s external trade, up from 5% two decades ago.
Other institutions are also seeking to capitalize on the trend.
Togo-based Ecobank, which operates in 34 African countries, and the Bank of China are working to launch a payment product this year that will facilitate transactions between the yuan and local African currencies.
“China is building its own payment and settlement rails that can make transactions almost instantaneous,” said Ecobank Chief Executive Jeremy Awori.
The development is welcome news for investors such as Qu Ming, a Chinese national who owns Kenya-based Sanmark Limited. Moving from dollar-denominated transactions to yuan payments could benefit the avocado oil producer, which employs 50 people.
“This will help us because of the exchange rate,” Qu said, adding that borrowing costs could also decline because yuan interest rates are lower.
China’s position as the largest bilateral creditor to countries including Senegal, Ethiopia and Kenya is also contributing to wider yuan adoption across Africa.
Last year, Kenya converted three Chinese-financed railway construction loans from dollars into yuan, reducing annual interest costs by approximately $215 million. Zambia has announced that from late 2025 it will begin accepting mining royalties and taxes from Chinese companies in yuan to strengthen its reserves and help service debt owed to China.
Avocado exports to China
According to Chinese government officials, the country’s yuan-denominated imports and exports rose 14% year-on-year in April to 4.38 trillion yuan ($647 billion). However, authorities did not provide a separate figure for Africa.
The trend is also visible in Kenya. Avocado exports to China’s vast consumer market have increased from 10 to 20 containers per week in 2022 to around 200 containers today. Volumes are expected to reach 1,000 containers by 2030, putting China on par with Europe, which has long been Kenya’s largest export market.
Speaking at a packing facility just outside Nairobi, Sunripe Managing Director Thiku Shah said China could surpass Europe between 2030 and 2035. He also said a shift by Kenya toward yuan-denominated financing could accelerate the currency’s use in trade.
“If we can invoice in yuan, if banks can accept payment in yuan, and if we can find a buyer for the yuan we hold, that would be perfect,” Shah said.
Diplomacy
EU drafts emergency trade support package for Armenia to counter Russian import bans
The European Union is preparing emergency trade measures to support the Armenian economy following a series of import restrictions imposed by Russia.
The European Commission is working on a trade support program for Armenia to offset the impact of the Russian-imposed restrictions, according to a Financial Times report citing sources familiar with the matter.
Under the planned measures, tariffs on Armenian exports to the EU would be reduced. The framework, which covers approximately 20 product categories, is estimated to have an annual volume of around €420 million.
Sources indicated that the proposal could be formally presented in the coming weeks.
“The European Commission will propose autonomous trade measures to help more Armenian businesses access new market opportunities in the EU and to support the most affected sectors of the country’s economy,” European Commission Spokesperson Olof Gill said.
However, sources noted that the plan could encounter certain obstacles. Specifically, the export of Armenian brandy may trigger disputes with French producers.
Furthermore, Armenia’s landlocked geography complicates the transportation of perishable goods to European markets.
In late May, Russia banned the import of floral products from Armenia. The Russian Federal Service for Veterinary and Phytosanitary Supervision (Rosselkhoznadzor) also halted the import and domestic distribution of all batches of Jermuk mineral water, citing exceedances of permitted levels of ions, chlorides, and sulfates.
The Russian restrictions also targeted brandies and wines from three Armenian producers, which Moscow alleged failed to meet mandatory standards. Additionally, limits were placed on imports of fresh tomatoes, cucumbers, greens, and strawberries.
Armenia’s Food Safety Inspection Body subsequently announced that it was conducting investigations to determine the causes of the restrictions and resolve the issue.
Following these developments, Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan stated that the government was prepared to compensate affected farmers for their losses.
In early June, temporary restrictions on the import of stone fruits and grapes from Armenia came into effect. Cherries, sour cherries, apricots, plums, peaches, and nectarines were included in the ban.
A temporary ban on certification procedures for live fish destined for export to Russia was also put into effect.
Armenian Economy Minister Gevorg Papoyan announced on June 11 that Yerevan had applied to the Eurasian Economic Commission (EEC) regarding the barriers encountered in exporting goods to Russia.
Armenia remains a member of the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU) while simultaneously pursuing closer integration with the European Union.
Following the imposition of the Russian restrictions, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced that the EU was preparing support for Yerevan in response to “economic pressure,” which includes financial assistance exceeding €50 million.
-
Diplomacy2 weeks agoEU authorizes Mediterranean naval mission to intercept suspected Russian shadow fleet tankers
-
Russia2 weeks agoRussia and US to sign agreement on Bering Strait tunnel design at St. Petersburg forum
-
Diplomacy2 weeks agoTrump administration weighs purchasing Chagos Islands from Mauritius to secure Diego Garcia base
-
Diplomacy2 weeks agoArmenia election: Pashinyan claims victory with near-majority as opposition alleges power usurpation
-
America2 weeks agoUS raises Israeli espionage threat to critical level amid surveillance concerns
-
Europe2 weeks agoUK underwater deterrent facing scrutiny as all active Astute-class submarines remain in port
-
Asia2 weeks agoPentagon adds Alibaba, Baidu and BYD to list of firms with alleged Chinese military ties
-
Europe1 week agoAfD says Ukraine should compensate Germany over Nord Stream sabotage
