Sanctions Debate
The majority of conflicts between the United States and China have not been direct battle or warfare, but have been economic conflicts. The first major economic conflict was the Trade Embargo from 1950-1972 enacted by the Truman administration and the most recent economic sanctions are the ongoing tariffs and regulations implemented by the Trump administration. Another example are the economic sanctions enacted following the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests.
Clearly, the United States prefers to use this bargaining tool over physical combat, but there is an ongoing debate about the efficacy of economic sanctions. Political Scientist David A. Baldwin engages with this topic and draws on the perspectives of both politicians and economists. He elucidates the difficulty of utilizing economic sanctions because, as he says: "policymakers continue to use sanctions with increasing frequency, while scholars continue to deny the utility of such tools of foreign policy" (Baldwin 1999/2000, 80). This is a frightening disconnect between politicians and economists, both of whom should be in conversation with each other and consider the substitutions such as diplomacy, propaganda, and military force.
Baldwin asserts that in most assessments of using economic sanctions as foreign policy, the costs are disregarded and the benefits highlighted. Another important consideration is that policymakers and scholars are most likely discussing different questions; "the question of whether sanctions 'work' may be separated from the question of whether they should be used" (Baldwin 1999/2000, 81).
Essentially, economic sanctions such as embargoes, trade wars, and tariffs are used liberally by politicians despite limited support from economists and economic research that they are an effective foreign policy tool. In 1999 Baldwin suggested that "the scholarly analysis of instruments of statecraft has far to go before anything can be said one way or the other as to the extent to which sanctions can be a reliable alternative to military force" (Baldwin 1999/2000, 107).
20 years after Baldwin's publication, I agree that more research should be done before implementing economic sanctions. I believe that the three examples above, 1950 Trade Embargo, 1989 sanctions, and 2018 Trade War, were greatly influenced by emotional and visceral reactions to entry into the Korean War, infringements upon human rights, and upholding campaign promises.
Economic sanctions are an alternative to military force, but other options are diplomacy, propaganda, and economic incentives. Purposeful and intentional creation of foreign policy will be even more imperative as the world becomes more interconnected and reliant on the international movement of goods.
