Sanctions as an Instrument of Power
Economic sanctions have become a preferred tool for powerful states to shape behavior abroad without firing a shot. In recent years they have evolved from targeted measures against individuals and firms to wide-ranging financial restrictions that can reach whole sectors, block access to international banking, and constrain trade in essentials. Because the modern global economy runs on a handful of financial rails and a dominant currency, sanctions that cut access to those rails quickly translate into real economic pain for the target and for third countries that depend on trade with that target.
You May Like to Read: Digital Trade, and E-commerce: Why Pakistan is Missing the Global Supply Chain Race
Why the Global South Feels the Pressure
Countries in the Global South often lack the economic buffers and diversified financial channels that richer states can use to soften the blow of coercive measures. When sanctions hit energy, fertilizers, or key banking links, food prices rise, industrial output slows, and ordinary people bear the cost. Recent reporting has shown how sanctions and the threat of secondary measures can force buyers to divert shipments, disrupt fertilizer supplies, and unsettle farmers and markets in Latin America, Africa and Asia, a pattern that can repeat anywhere markets are tightly integrated with sanctioned suppliers.
Legal, and Moral Pushback at the UN
The international debate is shifting. Human rights and humanitarian bodies have warned that unilateral coercive measures have broad negative effects on civilians and can undermine humanitarian action. UN-linked reports and calls for input from the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights highlight how these measures can create a “chilling effect” on aid and the delivery of basic services, and they call for greater legal scrutiny of sanctions that lack Security Council authorization. This growing international concern gives the Global South moral ground to press for clearer rules and safeguards.
Practical Responses: Diversify Partners, and Payments
One obvious strategic response is economic diversification. Many countries are already doing the obvious, shifting trade toward non-Western partners and deepening ties within blocs like BRICS. In 2025, BRICS leaders and analysts discussed concrete steps to reduce reliance on the dollar and build alternative payment channels. Leaders reinforced their commitment to multilateral reform, South-South cooperation, and reducing dependence on Western-dominated financial systems, even as U.S. pressure through tariffs intensified.
Expansion to 11 members, including Indonesia, has broadened the bloc’s reach, though internal diversity complicates consensus. Still, by linking their agenda to climate finance, IMF reform, and local currency trade, BRICS positions itself as a rising voice of the Global South challenging hegemonic tools like sanctions and dollar dominance.That effort is not a short-term fix, but it shows that states under pressure are seeking practical ways to keep trade flowing even when familiar financial paths are closed.
You May Like to Read: De-dollarization: Can Shifts in Global Currency Dynamics Reshape Pakistan’s Trade Prospects?
Building alternatives to SWIFT: realistic, incremental gains
Building parallel payment systems and settling trade in local currencies are central parts of this strategy. Technical platforms such as China’s CIPS and Russia’s SPFS already process a share of cross-border transactions, and initiatives to knit these systems into broader frameworks are gaining momentum. Yet these systems face scale, liquidity, and trust challenges; they are not immediate drop-in replacements for the global dollar-SWIFT architecture. Still, for countries seeking resilience, investing in these alternatives, and in bilateral central bank arrangements, is sensible insurance.
Strengthening Regional Trade and Supply Chains
The Global South can also reduce vulnerability by strengthening regional trade and production networks. Shortening supply chains for critical items such as fertilizers, medicine and food through regional cooperation, shared warehouses, and coordinated procurement can blunt the shock of sudden trade curbs. Countries with complementary economic profiles should deepen customs cooperation and harmonize standards so that regional trade becomes a credible fallback when long-distance trade is disrupted.
You May Like to Read: Pakistan’s Engagement with the Global South, and Emerging Economic Blocs
Diplomacy, Legal Safeguards, and Multilateral Forums
Beyond technical fixes, diplomacy matters. The Global South should press for clearer rules at the WTO and the UN that distinguish legitimate, proportionate sanctions from coercive measures that breach humanitarian obligations. Building coalitions in Geneva and New York to demand transparency, humanitarian exemptions, and review mechanisms would place legal and political pressure on sanctioning powers. Pakistan and other middle-sized states can play constructive roles by highlighting specific humanitarian impacts and proposing practical safeguards.
Pakistan’s Position, and Options
For Pakistan, the lessons are concrete. Islamabad has long pursued trade ties with a diverse set of partners and in 2025 continued dialogues with the USA and multiple capitals to protect market access and investment. Expanding payment relationships, protecting supply chains for essentials, and negotiating bilateral currency-swap lines or trade-in-rupee/renminbi arrangements are sensible steps that match Pakistan’s economic needs and political constraints. At the same time, Islamabad should use multilateral platforms to press for humanitarian safeguards in sanction regimes so that civilian needs are not collateral damage.
You May Like to Read: Debt, Development, and Dependency: Is Pakistan Trapped in the Global South’s Financial Cycle?
A Balanced, Practical Path Forward
Sanctions are likely to remain part of international statecraft. The Global South cannot eliminate their use, but it can reduce vulnerability through a combination of diversification, regional cooperation, investment in alternative payment rails, and legal diplomacy. None of these are magical cures: they take time, resources, and political will. Yet a clear, coordinated policy that blends short-term risk management with long-term structural change will make states less susceptible to coercion and better able to protect their citizens when geopolitical tensions flare.
Conclusion
The age of weaponized finance tests the resilience of states and the fairness of global institutions. For Pakistan and other Global South countries, the response must be practical and principled. Pragmatic steps to keep markets functioning, paired with firm demands at international forums for rules that protect humanitarian needs. That combination, hard-headed preparedness and principled diplomacy, offers the best chance to limit the damage of sanctions and to push the international system toward more predictable, lawful behavior.
