Photo credit: www.theguardian.com
Sanctions and Tariffs: A Look at Their Efficacy and Impact on Syria and Beyond
Recently, President Donald Trump imposed a strikingly high tariff of 41% on Syria, framing it as a necessary measure against the perceived economic exploitation of the United States. This appears to be part of a broader political strategy following last year’s upheaval in Syria, where Bashar al-Assad was ousted.
The Syrian regime, now led by a new administration, is in urgent need of assistance to manage both social order and economic recovery. However, the real impediment to its progress is not Trump’s exorbitant tariff—which has since been dialed back to 10%—but rather the extensive sanctions that have been enforced over the past 14 years by western nations, including the UK. The United States has enacted measures that essentially restrict almost all trade and financial interactions with Syria, further complicating its struggles for economic revitalization while the EU’s sanctions focus on key sectors such as oil, banking, and telecommunications.
Such tariffs function similarly to sanctions, raising important questions about the consistency of Western criticisms toward Trump’s decisions given their own long-term application of similar economic pressures. Historically, sanctions have aimed to compel autocratic regimes to modify internal policies, yet conclusive evidence of success remains elusive. Often, they serve more as a marker of political virtue rather than a catalyst for real change.
Syria illustrates this point vividly. During the early 2010s Arab Spring, the British government, under David Cameron, considered military intervention but ultimately resorted to sanctions to expedite Assad’s downfall. Unexpectedly, these measures led to detrimental economic conditions that drove millions into exile and deepened poverty across the country, fortifying Assad’s position and pushing him deeper into alliances with Russia.
The new Syrian leader, Ahmed al-Sharaa, has called for the lifting of sanctions to help rebuild the economy but faced resistance from the West, which insists that support is contingent on demonstrable stability and unity—a demand complicated by the preexisting economic strife. Recent developments did show a modicum of progress in January, as the EU and UK lifted some transactional restrictions; however, there remains a prevalent aversion among western governments to relinquish sanctions entirely, reflecting a belief that such economic constraints, regardless of their actual impact, signify strength.
In the contemporary landscape, sanctions have effectively replaced more overt forms of geopolitical pressure, leading to greater economic hardship worldwide while failing to achieve intended policy changes. For example, the US has escalated its arsenal of sanctions from around 900 in the year 2000 to over 15,000 today, while the UK similarly maintains a complex sanctions framework that has shown little effectiveness in fostering meaningful political shifts.
The ongoing sanctions against Russia reveal further complexities. Despite their severity, particularly those established after the 2014 Ukraine crisis, there remains scant evidence that they have weakened Vladimir Putin’s standing domestically. On the contrary, reports indicate Russia has managed to align its economic performance with pre-invasion levels, demonstrating resilience amidst Western pressure. Notably, energy prices have surged, partially owing to sanctions that inadvertently constrained supply, which serves to highlight the unintended consequences of such measures.
In this evolving economic reality, it’s critical to recognize that sanctions don’t fundamentally isolate or weaken nations like Russia or Syria; rather, they often create new pathways for economic adaptation and resilience. Despite intentions to exert control and influence, the global economy has a remarkable capacity to find alternatives and adjust to new circumstances. For instance, reports show a significant increase in Iranian oil exports—largely due to Chinese support—as well as a growing volume of trade between Kazakhstan and Russia.
The broader implications of Western economic strategies reveal a disconnect between punitive measures and actual geopolitical outcomes. While leaders are quick to sanction nations like Syria in pursuit of short-term aims, they often overlook the long-term support and stabilization that those countries need. As the discourse surrounding trade and economic sanctions continues to evolve, it becomes increasingly clear that fostering free trade might yield more universal benefits than entrenched economic hostilities.
Source
www.theguardian.com