Politicians often call for sanctions as a way of sounding tough when they don't want to take riskier measures.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Sanctions are a sign of irritation; they are not the instrument of serious policies.
I don't want to say that sanctions are ridiculous and that we couldn't care less; these are not pleasant things... We find little joy in that, but there are no painful sensations. We have lived through tougher times.
Sanctions are a bad idea.
Sanctions and negotiations can be very ineffective, and indeed foolish, unless the people you are talking with and negotiating with and trying to reach agreements with are people who can be trusted to keep their word.
Sanctions historically are quite counterproductive in the sense that if you impose sanctions on your enemy, it tends to strengthen your enemy.
People talk about smart sanctions and crippling sanctions. I've never seen smart sanctions, and crippling sanctions cripple everyone, including innocent civilians, and make the government more popular.
Attempts to settle crises by unilateral sanctions outside the framework of U.N. Security Council decisions threaten international peace and stability. Such attempts are counterproductive and contradict the norms and principles of international law.
Like all forms of collective security, multilateral sanctions require a unanimity rarely achieved in international politics.
It's a necessary quality of a diplomat or a politician that he will compromise. Uncompromising politicians or diplomats get you into the most terrible trouble.
Opponents of U.S. sanctions have made 'unilateral sanctions' their special target. They argue that sanctions observed by many nations would be much more effective. True enough. Far better for trade with an outlaw regime to be restricted by many nations than by just one.
No opposing quotes found.