Sanctions historically are quite counterproductive in the sense that if you impose sanctions on your enemy, it tends to strengthen your enemy.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Sanctions are a bad idea.
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.
Sanctions are a sign of irritation; they are not the instrument of serious policies.
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.
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.
Politicians often call for sanctions as a way of sounding tough when they don't want to take riskier measures.
Like all forms of collective security, multilateral sanctions require a unanimity rarely achieved in international politics.
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.
Many Europeans are concerned that stronger sanctions are a slippery slope toward war unless the U.S. is at the table.
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.