United States sanctions

[9]

• Sergei Sergeevich Ivanov
• Sergei Borisovich Ivanov
• Andrey Patrushev
• Nikolai Platonovich Patrushev
• Ivan Igorevich Sechin
• Igor Ivanovich Sechin
• Alexander Aleksandrovich Vedyakhin
• Andrey Sergeyevich Puchkov
• Yuriy Alekseyevich Soloviev
• Galina Olegovna Ulyutina

[10]

• Aliaksandr Yauhenavich Shatrou
• Viktor Gennadievich Khrenin
• Aleksandr Grigorievich Volfovich
• Aliaksandr Mikalaevich Zaitsau

As of December 2020, the United States has sanctions against:[11]

Country	Year introduced	Article	Summary
North Korea	1950	North Korea–United States relations	Severe sanctions justified by extreme human rights abuses by North Korea and the North Korean nuclear program. North Korea and the US currently have no diplomatic relations. Country listed as Tier 3 on Trafficking in Persons Report which imposes ban on participating in International Military Education and Training (IMET), Foreign Military Financing (FMF), and Foreign Military Sales (FMS)[12]
Cuba	1958	United States embargo against Cuba	Reasons cited for the embargo include Cuba's poor human rights record. Since 1992, the UN General Assembly has regularly passed annual resolutions criticizing the ongoing impact of the embargo imposed by the United States.
Iran	1979 (lifted 1981), reintroduced 1987 [lower-alpha 2]	United States sanctions against Iran	Near total economic embargo on all economic activities, began in 1979; in response to the storming of U.S. Embassy in Tehran by Iranian Revolutionaries, precipitating a hostage crisis involving dozens of American diplomats. Though lifted in 1981, significant sanctions were again imposed in 1987 and rapidly expanded in the late 2010s due to the Iranian Nuclear Program and Iran's poor human rights record. Iran and the US have no diplomatic relations. Iran is listed as state sponsor of terrorism. Country listed as Tier 3 on Trafficking in Persons Report which imposes ban on participating in International Military Education and Training (IMET), Foreign Military Financing (FMF), and Foreign Military Sales (FMS)[12]
Syria	1986	Syria–United States relations	Reasons cited include Syria's poor human rights record, the Civil War, and being listed as a state sponsor of terrorism. Syria and the US have had no diplomatic relations since 2012. The country listed as Tier 3 on Trafficking in Persons Report which imposes ban on participating in International Military Education and Training (IMET), Foreign Military Financing (FMF), and Foreign Military Sales (FMS)[12]
Venezuela	2019[lower-alpha 3]	International sanctions during the Venezuelan crisis[13]	Reasons cited for sanctions include Venezuela's poor human rights record, links with illegal drug trade, high levels of state corruption and electoral rigging. Since 2019, Venezuela and the United States have no diplomatic relations under Nicolás Maduro but maintain relations through disputed president Juan Guaidó.[14] Country listed as Tier 3 on Trafficking in Persons Report which imposes ban on participating in International Military Education and Training (IMET), Foreign Military Financing (FMF), and Foreign Military Sales (FMS)[12]

Country	Description
Bangladesh	Certain persons affiliated with the elite paramilitary force, RAB, along with the force itself, the US government believes to be committing serious human rights violations.[15][16]
Belarus	Certain persons the US government believes to be undermining democratic processes or institutions in Belarus (including President Alexander Lukashenko and other officials). Country listed as Tier 3 on Trafficking in Persons Report. However Belarus is subject to some certain exemptions.[12]
Central African Republic	Persons the US government believes contribute to the conflict in the Central African Republic. Country listed as Tier 3 on Trafficking in Persons Report which imposes ban on participating in International Military Education and Training (IMET), Foreign Military Financing (FMF), and Foreign Military Sales (FMS).[1]
China	Persons the US government believe to be committing Genocide against the Uyghurs in Xinjiang and human rights abuses in Hong Kong and Tibet. Country listed as Tier 3 on Trafficking in Persons Report which imposes ban on participating in International Military Education and Training (IMET), Foreign Military Financing (FMF), and Foreign Military Sales (FMS)[12] Since 2020, Uyghur Human Rights Policy Act.[17]
Democratic Republic of the Congo	Certain persons the US government believes are contributing to the conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Eritrea	Persons Army officials and high-ranking officials Due to involvement in the Ethiopian war.[18]
Hong Kong	Persons the US government believes undermine Hong Kong's autonomy. This implements provision of the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act of 2019 and the Hong Kong Autonomy Act of 2020 as well as executive order no. 13936.
Iraq	Specific individuals and entities associated with the former Ba'athist regime of Saddam Hussein, as well as parties the US government believes have committed, or pose a significant risk of committing acts of violence that threaten the peace or stability of Iraq, undermine efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq, or make it more difficult for humanitarian workers to operate in Iraq.
Lebanon	Persons the US government believes undermine the sovereignty of Lebanon or its democratic processes and institutions.
Liberia	sanctions Liberia’s former warlord and senator Prince Johnson[19]
Mali	Persons contributing to the Conflict in Mali.
Myanmar	Officials associated with the Rohingya crisis[20] and the 2021 Myanmar coup d'état.[21] Country listed as Tier 3 on Trafficking in Persons Report which imposes ban on participating in International Military Education and Training (IMET), Foreign Military Financing (FMF), and Foreign Military Sales (FMS).[12]
Nicaragua	Persons associated with contributing to the 2018–2020 Nicaraguan protests.[22]
Russia	Persons believed to be responsible for the detention, abuse, and death of Sergei Magnitsky and other reported violations of human rights in Russia (see Magnitsky Act of 2012). Since 2014, International sanctions during the Russo-Ukrainian War, since 2017 Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act. Country listed as Tier 3 on Trafficking in Persons Report which imposes ban on participating in International Military Education and Training (IMET), Foreign Military Financing (FMF), and Foreign Military Sales (FMS).[12]
Somalia	Certain persons the US government believes are contributing to the conflict in Somalia.
South Sudan	Persons the US government alleges have contributed to the conflict in South Sudan or committed human rights abuses. Country listed as Tier 3 on Trafficking in Persons Report which imposes ban on participating in International Military Education and Training (IMET), Foreign Military Financing (FMF), and Foreign Military Sales (FMS).[12]
Turkey	After the purchase of a Russian-made S-400 air defense system, the US place anticipated sanctions on the Turkish Ministry of Defense and Presidency of Defense Industries (SSB)[23][24]
Ukraine  Russia ( Crimea)	Persons the US government believes undermine the peace, security, stability, territorial integrity and the democratic processes and institutions of Ukraine. Also persons administering areas of Ukraine without central government consent, also a number of Russian senior officials who are close to Vladimir Putin.
Venezuela	Persons who the US government believes are contributing to the ongoing crisis in Venezuela.
Yemen	Persons who the US government claims threaten peace, security, or stability in Yemen.
Zimbabwe	Persons the US government believes undermine democratic processes or institutions in Zimbabwe, including a number of Government Officials.

Some countries listed are members of the World Trade Organization, but WTO rules allow trade restrictions for non-economic purposes.

Combined, the Treasury Department, the Commerce Department and the State Department list embargoes against 20 countries or territories:

The increase in the use of economic leverage as a US foreign policy tool has prompted a debate about its usefulness and effectiveness.[25] According to Rawi Abdelal, sanctions have become the dominant tool of statecraft of the US and other Western countries in the post-Cold War era. Abdelal stated; "sanctions are useful when diplomacy is not sufficient but force is too costly".[26] British diplomat Jeremy Greenstock said sanctions are popular because "there is nothing else [to do] between words and military action if you want to bring pressure upon a government".[27]

Hufbauer, Schott, and Elliot said policymakers often have high expectations of the effectiveness of sanctions, especially in the US. They also stated there is at most a weak correlation between economic deprivation and the political inclination to change.[28] According to Daniel T. Griswold, the use of trade as a foreign policy weapon has harmed US interests without greatly enhancing national security. According to him, sanctions have failed to change the behavior of sanctioned countries but have barred American companies from economic opportunities and harmed the poorest people in the countries under sanctions. According to the president's Export Council, since 1993, the US has imposed more than 40 economic sanctions on 36 countries. The sanctions are estimated to have cost US exporters US$15 billion to US$19 billion a year in overseas sales, and have damaged their reputation as reliable suppliers. According to Griswold, trade sanctions have been a foreign policy failure; a study by the Peterson Institute for International Economics said sanctions have achieved their goals in fewer than 20% of cases. As an example, it is said the US Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Act of 1994 could not stop Pakistan and India from testing nuclear weapons.[4]

In this context, South Africa is often mentioned as a successful example of sanctions; according to Griswold, sanctions were not the only reason for the collapse of apartheid; the collapse of the Soviet Union was also responsible. Griswold said sanctions against South Africa were different from most 21st-century American sanctions; South African sanctions were multilateral whereas most US sanctions since 1993 have been unilateral; and South Africa was responsive to a limited but still significant number of votes of five million white people, which made the state more vulnerable to external pressures.[4]

According to Abdelal, US sanctions on its own internal economy cost almost nothing but overuse of them can be costly in the long run. Abdelal said the biggest threat is the US's gradual isolation and the continuing decline of US influence in the context of an emerging multi-polar world with differing financial and economic powers.[29] Abdelal also said the US and Europe largely agree on the "substance" of sanctions but disagree on their implementation. The main issue is secondary US sanctions—also known as extraterritorial sanctions[30]—which prohibit any trading in US dollars and prevent trade with a country, individuals and organizations under the US sanctions regime.[5] Primary sanctions restrict US companies, institutions, and citizens from doing business with the country or entities under sanctions.[30] According to Abdelal, secondary sanctions often separate the US and Europe because they reflect US interference in the affairs and interests of the EU. The more secondary sanctions are applied, the more they are seen in the EU as a violation of national and EU sovereignty—as an unacceptable interference in the EU's independent decision making.[5] The secondary sanctions imposed on Iran and Russia are central to these tensions,[26] and have become the primary tool for signaling and implementing secession from US and European political goals.[30]

According to Farrokh Habibzadeh, the editorial consultant for The Lancet, in ancient times, armies that could not conquer a city that was surrounded by defensive walls would besiege the city to prevent access by residents to necessary supplies. Habibzadeh said this strategy has not changed much since then.[31] According to Hufbauer, Schott and Elliot (2008), regime change is the most-frequent foreign policy objective of economic sanctions, accounting for just over 39% of cases of their imposition.[32]

There have been 29 consecutive nearly unanimous UN resolution demanding the US end its embargo of Cuba.[33] According to Chomsky, the supposed US economic war against Cuba has been condemned in almost all relevant international forums and has been outlawed by the Judiciary Commission of the Organization of American States, which usually complies. The EU has called on the World Trade Organization to condemn the sanctions. According to Chomsky, Bill Clinton's administration's response was; "Europe is challenging 'three decades of American Cuba policy that goes back to the Kennedy Administration', and is aimed entirely at forcing a change of government in Havana."[34]

When the US imposed its the first comprehensive commercial embargo on Cuba in 1961, Cuba did most of its commerce with the US. Griswold said since then, the sanctions have not had any effect on Fidel Castro's government, which used sanctions to justify the failure of policies and to attract international compassion. Griswold said although the sanctions formerly had international backing, nowadays no other country supports them. Forty years after they were imposed, the sanctions have only damaged US firms and the Cuban people while not much change in Castro's government seemed likely. Pope John Paul II stated during his visit to Cuba, embargoes "are always deplorable because they harm the needy".[4]

In May 2016, the US government announced its withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and launched a maximum pressure campaign against Iran, which resulted in public protests, and reproach from European political and business elites.[35] Excessive use of US financial sanctions has worried companies and prompted many EU member states and institutions to limit the exposure of their economies to the US-based clearing system that creates extreme vulnerability for all countries other than the US.[36] According to Abdelal, EU leaders, are increasingly recognizing EU security depends on political stability in the Middle East and argue US policies undermine this agenda by using destabilizing tactics in the region—particularly the US's strategy of maximum pressure on Iran. The refugee crisis caused deep divisions in the EU. An unstable Iran, most likely built by a US militant, runs counter to European interests.[37] The Trump administration reintroduced sanctions against Iran with an executive order, going against the wishes of many politicians. The consequences of these divisions could threaten the long-term European trade and security; according to Abdelal, Europeans are not prepared to bear the consequences of US internal strife.[37]

According to Noam Chomsky, Bill Clinton said Syria be removed from the list of State Sponsors of Terrorism (U.S. list) if it agreed to the US-Israeli peace terms. When Syria insisted on retaking the land Israel had occupied in 1967, it remained on the list of sponsors of terrorism despite the US's acknowledgment Syria had not been involved in supporting terrorism for many years and has been instrumental in providing intelligence about al-Qaeda and other radical Islamist groups to the US. Chomsky wrote:[38]

As a reward for the Syria's cooperation in the 'war on the terror,' last December congress passed legislation calling for even stricter sanction against Syria, nearly unanimously (the Syria Accountability Act). The legislation was recently implemented by the president, thus depriving the US of a major source of information about radical Islamist terrorism in order to achieve higher goal of establishing in Syria a regime that will accept US-Israel demands.[38]

Chomsky said Congress law, and news and commentary ignore the fact the 1982 United Nations Security Council Resolution 520 was explicitly against Israel rather than Syria, as well as the fact Israel has violated these and other Security Council resolutions on Lebanon for 22 years. There was no call for any sanctions against Israel or for a reduction in unconditional military and economic aid to Israel.[38]

The sanctions regime imposed by the US and UK pushed Iraq to a level of survival. UNICEF's "2003 Report on the State of the World's Children" stated Iraq's decline was the most severe in the last decade.[39] According to Chomsky, sanctions against Iraq killed hundreds of thousands of people and Iraq had the weakest economy and the weakest military force in the region.[40] Halliday, von Sponeck, and others had been sating for years the sanctions devastated the people while strengthening Saddam Hussein and his group, as well as increasing the Iraqi people's dependence on Hussein for their survival. Von Sponeck, who resigned in 2000, reported the US and UK "systematically tried to prevent [him and Halliday] from briefing the Security Council ... because they didn't want to hear what we had to say" about the effects of the sanctions.[41] Chomsky wrote; "after Hussein's atrocities against the Kurds, against Iran, against Iraqis—which we now denounce—the United States continued to support Saddam Hussein".[42] The Iraqi Army invaded and occupied Kuwait, which was met with international condemnation and brought immediate sanctions against Iraq. UK prime minister Margaret Thatcher[43] and US president George H. W. Bush deployed forces and formed the largest military alliance since World War II. Most of the coalition's military forces were from the US.[44]

According to Chomsky, more than ten years of sanctions "killed more people than Saddam Hussein ever did".[42] Accordin to Chomsky, the argument the sanctions regime was Saddam's fault because of his refusal to comply fully with UN resolutions, his construction of palaces and monuments to himself funded by money diverted from smuggling and other illegal operations, according to the testimony of UN humanitarian coordinators and the World Food Program), means the US had to punish Saddam by crushing his victims and strengthening their torturer. He also said if a criminal hijacks a school bus, we should blow it up and murder the passengers but rescue and reward the hijacker, justifying the actions on grounds that it was his fault.[45]

The sanctions of the following years, then, according to Chomsky, undercut the possibility of a popular uprising that would have left the country in the hands of Iraqis who might have been independent of Washington. The United States, Chomsky believes, sought to instigate the coup by groups it controlled, but a popular rebellion would not have left the US in charge. At the Azores Summit in March 2003, Bush reiterated his position that the United States would attack even if Saddam and his allies left the country.[46]

The effects of sanctions on the population of Iraq have been disputed. The figure of 500,000 child deaths was widely cited for a long period but in 2017, research showed that figure was the result of survey data manipulated by the Saddam Hussein regime. Three surveys conducted since 2003 all found the child mortality rate between 1995 and 2000 was approximately 40 per 1000, mening there was no major rise in child mortality in Iraq after sanctions were implemented.[47]

In recent years, US President Donald Trump said sanctions would be imposed against Iraq if US troops were forced to exit Iraq.[48]

Griswold said China as an example of how economic interaction can help a country slowly change for the better. Since 2000, China has become the fourth-largest US trading partner and the second-largest recipient of direct foreign investment after the US. China's domestic market reform and increasing openness have led to rapid growth, leading to higher living standards and greater independence for citizens. The share of government-controlled industry has fallen from almost 100% in 2000 to less than 50% today. Private ownership of homes and businesses is dramatically rising. Continued economic engagement has also helped admit China to organizations that promote religious and political freedom. More than a decade after the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre, the Chinese government began releasing political prisoners and allowing little internal criticism. As in Taiwan and South Korea, Chinese economic liberalization encouraged a stronger civil society independent of government control.[4]

In the case of Iraq, Hans von Sponeck said a "constructive solution" to regime change in Iraq "would be to lift the economic sanctions that have impoverished society, decimated the Iraqi middle class and eliminated any possibility for the emergence of alternative leadership ... twelve years of sanctions have only strengthened the current regime". Sanctions forced people to depend on the ruling dictatorship for their survival and further reduced the likelihood of a constructive solution. Denis Halliday commented:

We have saved [the regime] and missed opportunities for change ... if the Iraqis had their economy, had their lives back, and had their way of life restored, they would take care of the form of governance that they want, that they believe is suitable to their country.[49]