BY voting for a fresh set of sanctions against Russia by a huge majority (98-2), the US Senate has tied Trump’s hands by making a presidential veto impossible. The bill has reluctantly been signed by Trump who has been trying to improve relations with Russia. However, he has been thwarted by allegations that he and his team have been in improper — and possibly illegal — contact with Russian officials to obtain damaging information on Hillary Clinton during last year’s bitterly divisive presidential campaign. The new legislation forbids the president from lifting the sanctions it contains without congressional approval. Trump has grumbled that this restriction is unconstitutional as in theory he has wide powers to conduct foreign policy.
Part of the bill contains new sanctions against Iran and North Korea. But tellingly, these are not subject to the same checks on presidential powers as the ones on Russia. Putin has retaliated by imposing strict limits on the number of American diplomats and staff at US missions in Russia to bring them at par with the strength of Russian diplomats in America. This tit-for-tat seems to have scuppered Trump’s chances of mending fences with Russia.
Iranians are seething as well: after having met all the tough requirements of the agreement over its nuclear programme, it finds that it is still being punished by Washington. North Korea, too, is furious about yet more sanctions over its nuclear and missile tests.
And as the situation in Venezuela deteriorates with President Maduro adopting harsh measures to clamp down on protesters who oppose his unconstitutional moves and disastrous economic policies, the US has imposed sanctions on top politicians and generals, freezing their assets in America.
Pakistan enjoyed the dubious distinction of being America’s ‘most sanctioned ally’ in the Nineties over its nuclear programme, as well as Musharraf’s coup. It took a cataclysmic event like 9/11 for these punishing economic and military sanctions to be lifted.
So how effective are sanctions in modifying the behaviour and policies of countries that are seen to be crossing the lines in American (and occasionally in European and UN) eyes? They didn’t work in Pakistan: we went ahead to develop nuclear weapons and tested several. Musharraf went on to rule as a dictator for nearly eight years. But had it not been for 9/11, our economy would have been in even more of a shambles than it is now.
Iran was forced to give up its nuclear ambitions, at least for the time being, and enter into negotiations with the US, the EU and the UN. The resulting rollback of its programme unfroze its accounts in the US that had been seized in the aftermath of the Tehran US embassy hostage crisis, but the Americans have continued their restrictions on US banks doing business with Iran. The new sanctions have targeted individuals deemed to be involved with the Iranian missile programme.
Despite years of sanctions, the North Koreans have continued to develop their nuclear capability and delivery systems. But then its paranoid leader, Kim Un-Jong, isn’t obliged to ensure his citizens’ well-being, or bother about public opinion. Anybody questioning his policies is signing his own death warrant. Under such a hideous dictatorship, the leader’s sole concern is with his own survival. Having seen the fate of Saddam Hussein and Colonel Qadhafi at the hands of Western powers, Kim Un-Jong is hardly likely to give up his nuclear capability.
After the EU and the US imposed sanctions on Russia following its annexation of Crimea, Putin retaliated by cancelling contracts with European firms like Rolls Royce, and blocking the import of billions of roubles worth of agricultural products. Far from changing course in Ukraine, Putin has continued to support pro-Russian insurgents. And although the Russian economy has suffered, causing the rouble to fall against the dollar, there are no serious shortages, except of luxury imports.
Iraq, for the last decade and more of Saddam Hussein’s lifetime, was subjected to the most brutal sanctions we have seen: the import of medical supplies was banned, and as a result, tens of thousands of Iraqi children died. Oil could only be exported under special quotas approved by the UN, causing many allegations of corruption.
Perhaps the most successful use of sanctions to force countries to change their behaviour was against South Africa in the Eighties. Despite Margaret Thatcher’s earlier support of the country’s apartheid regime, a tipping point was reached and a range of sanctions imposed, including a ban on sporting exchanges. For a sports-mad country like South Africa, being locked out of international competitions was insupportable, and a few years of this isolation saw a free election and the rise of Nelson Mandela to the presidency.
So how effectively sanctions work depends on how strong an economy is, and how important public opinion is to the rulers. Even in a quasi-democracy like Iran, President Rouhani won the last election because of his promise to have sanctions lifted. Sanctions failed to work against Pakistan because there was a wide consensus supporting our nuclear programme.
Given the hit-and-miss nature of sanctions, why do states impose them? Largely because they are seen to be doing something short of getting into an armed confrontation. But they have to be carefully calibrated to ensure that matters do not get out of hand. For example, if a total embargo is placed on Iran’s oil
exports, it would force the country retaliate in unpredictable ways as it is largely dependent on this revenue stream to pay for imports. Similarly, a Chinese ban on the import of North Korean coal exports would push the country to the edge.
As the United States aggressively follows this policy to punish countries that don’t fall into line, we can expect some rulers to react. And under Trump, this could lead to a dangerous escalation.
Published in Dawn, August 7th, 2017
Dear visitor, the comments section is undergoing an overhaul and will return soon.