Sulaiman Damilola Salako

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SANCTION AND EMBARGO More often than not, the terms “sanction” and “embargo” are interchanged and used to imply the same thing, particularly in general contexts. However, for the purpose of disambiguation, this piece seeks to make clear, the distinction(s) between these terms as they apply in the parlance of international and global affairs. It should be noted that both sanctions and embargoes are political and economic tools used to elicit compliance from a country or group of countries, group(s) and individual(s) by the “superior” party. Both of these are also considered a midpoint between employing diplomatic channels and adopting the use of military force. Sanctions are generally adopted to establish and preserve global peace and security. Their differences and similarities are further discussed below: A sanction is the more general of the two terms, like a hypernym, meaning than a sanction may in fact involve the use of an embargo. A sanction is defined as a prohibition/ban placed on all forms of transactions and inter-dealings by one party on another. Recently, a sanction was placed on Chinese telecommunication powerhouse, Huawei, for acting as an agent for the country’s oppressive rulers to steal classified military and trade information. This sanction resulted in Huawei not being able to deal with its US suppliers of microchips and led to a cut in production. Also as a result of this sanction, Huawei lost the license to include Google’s popular android application store, Google Play Store, in its products, Google being a United States company. While the United Nations (UN), European Union (EU), African Union (AU), and individual countries have the powers to impose sanctions, embargoes are usually adopted by countries for strategic purposes. An embargo on the other hand, refers to a restriction placed on all trading activities between the countries so concerned, and may apply to trading in a particular commodity or service. It may also be for protective purposes, if for example a country finds that a particular consumable, item or technology puts its citizens at risk, then it may impose a ban on its importation. In 1960, the United States placed commercial embargo on Cuba when the country took-over (nationalized) the assets of US citizens and companies domiciled in the country. Although over time, yearly review has reduced the embargo to some extent and relaxed some of it initially stringent conditions, the embargo still remains in place today. This form of restriction will usually have more impact when they are imposed by a world power, for example, the United States or United Kingdom. A simple explanation is that once an economic heavyweight places a sanction on a country, it expects its allies to follow suit by equally restricting/reducing the volume of trade with the country so sanctioned. If a country in Europe imposes an EU-backed sanctioned on another country outside Europe, it will expect that its counterparts in the European Union will follow suit. This way, the embargo bites harder and facilitates achievement of the desired result/outcome on the issue concerned. Foreign availability, the ability of a country suffering an embargo to obtain the commodity from another source is a common argument against the use of embargoes. It was the primarily why the United States lifted the Vietnam embargo in 1994 as American Manufacturers complained that the Vietnamese still purchased and used their products, but from a third party. In addition to trade restrictions, other forms of sanctions include freezing the financial assets of the party which has been hit by a sanction. This happened when the countries in the West froze the assets of the late Libyan president, Muammar Gaddafi, when the US imposed sanctions on the oil-rich country. A country which has been sanctioned will not be able to receive any form of economic or financial assistance from the sanctioning party (ies). Total sanction may also imply that all form of military aid, education aid, and technological aid will be withdrawn from the country so sanctioned. An embargo may however be seen as a violation of international laws, if it is perceived that the country imposing it is wrongfully doing so, and hence victimizing the receiving country. Historically, sanctions have proven to be more effective than embargo, as a country upon which an embargo is imposed may simply find an alternative trading partner. We may therefore say that embargoes are only “economic” sanctions, and are hence not as fully encompassing as sanctions.