Sanctions

The world is currently experiencing rapid and significant geopolitical shifts, with rising global powers like the BRICS Group leading the charge to recalibrate the balance of influence within the Global Financial System. The recent expansion of the BRICS Group, now including 10 nations following the accession of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Iran, and Ethiopia, underscores their growing influence. This bloc is unwavering in its determination to challenge the dominance of the U.S. dollar and to overhaul a global financial infrastructure that it sees as deeply flawed. The BRICS nations argue that the current system, with its structural flaws, serves as a tool for exerting political and economic pressure and contributes to the fragmentation of economies and regions by weaponizing trade and financial constraints.   The BRICS+ nations acknowledge that Dollar Dominance is underpinned by entrenched factors, most notably, the U.S. military power and global confidence in the U.S. legal and regulatory frameworks. Nevertheless, these nations are actively exploring alternatives to reduce their reliance on the dollar, aiming to bolster their financial sovereignty. In pursuit of this goal, BRICS has ramped up efforts to reduce dependence on the dollar by employing innovative mechanisms. Chief among these is the proposal to issue a new, collective currency and establish a multilateral digital settlement and payment platform, dubbed as the “BRICS Bridge.” This platform is poised to foster greater trade integration among member states, particularly as some nations within the bloc, like Russia, face sanctions and exclusion from global systems such as the SWIFT System -The Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication-.   All eyes are now on the upcoming BRICS Summit, set to take place in October in Kazan. The summit is expected to showcase tangible steps toward implementing these initiatives, which could potentially redefine the structure of international trade and finance. The critical question remains: Will Russia and its BRICS allies break the dollar's stranglehold over the global financial order?

The documented history of employing a boycott as an economic weapon traces its origins to 432 B.C., Athens enacted the Megarian Decree, named after the city of Megara in ancient Greece. This decree comprised a series of economic sanctions, with a pivotal measure prohibiting Megarian goods from entering Athens. It extended to restricting Athenian ships from docking in Megara and, ultimately, barred Megarians from trading within the Athenian market.   In response, Megara and its allies in the Peloponnesian League took retaliatory economic actions, prominently featuring a boycott of Athenian goods. This reciprocal economic pressure adversely affected both entities, culminating in the onset of the Peloponnesian War. Lasting approximately 27 years, this conflict subsequently impeded the growth and continuity of Greek civilisation.   The following centuries witnessed the global utilisation of economic boycotts for various political purposes, primarily targeting the party subject to the sanctions, causing it to abandon a particular policy. Noteworthy instances include the Jews' first-century B.C. boycott of Roman goods, a protest against Roman occupation. In the 16th century, the Dutch Republic boycotted Spanish goods in opposition to Spanish rule. Additionally, during the 18th century, the U.S. colonies boycotted British goods as a protest against exorbitant taxes.   Contrary to common belief in the Arab world, the weaponisation of economic boycotts is not a recent phenomenon. Over the past two centuries, numerous academic studies have comprehensively examined and analysed its impact on both the boycotting and boycotted economies. These studies aim to gauge the effectiveness of economic boycotts in realising their intended goals.   The tactic of economic boycotts made its debut in the context of the Arab-Israeli conflict in 1922, when Palestinian Arab leaders initiated a boycott targeting Jewish-owned businesses in Palestine, aiming to inflict economic harm upon the Jewish population. These boycott attempts persisted sporadically throughout the 1930s and 1940s, with a notable instance occurring in 1936 when Palestinian Arab leaders advocated for a comprehensive boycott of all things associated with Jewish identity, even resorting to physical violence against Arabs who disregarded the boycott. Despite these efforts, the boycott proved unsuccessful, given the significant reliance of the Palestinian population on Jewish professionals such as lawyers, doctors, and hospitals.   Subsequently, the boycott assumed a regional dimension in December 1945 when the six states comprising the Arab League jointly issued the initial call for an economic boycott against the Jewish community in Palestine. This declaration went beyond mere encouragement and urged all Arab countries, regardless of their League membership status, to prohibit the trade of Jewish products.   In 1946, the situation evolved with the Arab League establishing the Permanent Boycott Committee, intending to heighten the implementation of the boycott. Despite these efforts, the boycott's lack of success became evident, as outlined in the first annual report of the Boycott Committee.   Following the committee's shortcomings, the League swiftly bolstered its structure, transforming it into the Central Boycott Office. Headquartered in Damascus, it established branch offices in every member state of the Arab League. The pivotal role of the county commissioner was instituted to lead the office, accompanied by appointed deputies serving as liaison officers accredited by each member state of the Arab League.   The Central Office in Damascus assumed the pivotal role of coordinating the boycott in tandem with its affiliated offices. It was responsible for presenting regular reports to the Council of the Arab League. Starting from 1951, semiannual meetings were scheduled to synchronise boycott policies and formulate blacklists of individuals and companies breaching the boycott. The punitive measures were executed locally, with each member state implementing decisions through legal and administrative executive procedures.   From 1951 to the present moment of composing this analysis, calls for boycotts have been recurrent with each political conflict between Palestinians and Israelis. They have been wielded as a means of resistance against Israeli occupation and its perceived unjust policies toward the Palestinian population. However, these calls have generally manifested in three distinct patterns, as explained below.