Sanctions as Signals: A Line in the Sand or a Lack of Resolve?

Abstract

Churchill’s sardonic comment came as the League of Nations debated continuing the economic sanctions imposed upon the Italians for their attack on Ethiopia. His remark pinpointed what was for him a crucial contradiction. On one hand, proponents emphasised the seriousness of intent behind sanctions. On the other hand, they emphasised sanctions as a ‘peaceful’ mode of coercive bargaining — that is, as an alternative to the use of force. In Churchill’s opinion, the two positions were inconsistent, and this inconsistency compromised the credibility of the League of Nations’ commitment to collective security. The Italians, faced with such a mixed message, had little reason to believe the League would take any further action to redress their invasion. They were correct, and the League’s failure to act condemned not only the Ethiopians but also ultimately the League itself.

First, the Prime Minister had declared that sanctions meant war; secondly, he was resolved that there must be no war; and thirdly, he decided upon sanctions.

(Winston Churchill, 1936, cited in Renwick, 1981, p. 23)