Sanctions and boycotts would be tied to serious political dialogue.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
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.
Politicians often call for sanctions as a way of sounding tough when they don't want to take riskier measures.
There is a need for more effective dialogue... between the government and the international community.
A boycott is directed against a policy and the institutions which support that policy either actively or tacitly. Its aim is not to reject, but to bring about change.
We don't take a macro view... We'd look at every company to figure out if trade sanctions are helpful or hurtful.
A boycott is, inherently, a blunt instrument. It is an imperfect weapon, a carpet bomb, when all involved would prefer a surgical strike.
I'm concerned when certain movements or countries have been isolated from the international dialogue because then you have no way of influencing them.
Sanctions are a sign of irritation; they are not the instrument of serious policies.
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.