Do Sanctions Ever Work?
Here's the weekend's news from Turkey, and here's the part that has me thinking:
IRANIAN VP: "TEHRAN WILL PULL OUT ALL THE STOPS FOR TURKISH BUSINESSMEN"
Tehran will eliminate all hurdles facing Turkish businessmen doing business in Iran, said Iranian First Vice President Mohammad Reza Rahimi yesterday. Speaking at the Turkey-Iran Business Forum organized by Turkey's Foreign Economic Relations Board (DEIK) in Istanbul, Rahimi said that Tehran is eager to facilitate Turkish business operations in Iran. "We should support this," he explained at the forum, also attended by Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. "If you ever encounter a problem in Iran, please don't worry. We will remove all obstacles in line with our President (Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad's directives. We have no better friend than Turkey in today's world. Turkey indeed is a country of utmost importance for Iran's security, even economically." He added that both sides resolved during Erdogan's visit to Iran last year to boost the trade volume to $30 billion. Erdogan, for his part, said Ankara and Tehran should establish a free trade mechanism similar to the one between Turkey and the European Union. Erdogan added that the two countries should conclude talks on a preferential trade deal as soon as possible and that bilateral trade would reach the $30 billion target within five years.
Ricochet readers, being unusually well-informed about Turkish politics, will appreciate the Never-Never-Land I-can't-be-reading this feeling inspired by the juxtaposition of that headline with the one directly below it. But that's not my point, at least not for right now. I'm just wondering about a few things.
1) How seriously could this potentially undermine the entire sanctions regime? Is it reasonable to imagine that Iran could simply re-route a substantial part of the targeted sectors of its import/export economy through the Turkish border, or will the effects be marginal because this is logistically too challenging?
2) Doesn't Title 2, Sec. 303 of the Iran Sanctions Act imply that Turkey should be designated a "destination of diversion concern" and that therefore exports to Turkey should be restricted? Is this being discussed seriously? I have seen no discussion of this point in the news. Google search turns up nothing.
3) Shouldn't the Turkish banks financing these transactions be investigated as money-laundering entities? Are they under investigation for this by the Treasury?
It seems to me the entire sanctions package is a joke with that border wide open and no Turkish cooperation in enforcing inspections. As it is, Turkish customs agents are among the most corrupt actors in the government, and they're not under the slightest pressure--obviously--to keep a close watch on that border.
That said ...
The Turkish government, when pressed, will reply that "sanctions don't work."
There is a huge academic literature on this subject. I haven't mastered it. But it does seem to point toward just that conclusion: Sanctions don't work. The cases in which they have worked, if ever, are not relevantly similar to this one.
This may be ignoring the real political point: Any military action would have to be predicated on the argument, "We tried everything else first." But if that's the real point, perhaps it doesn't matter if the Turks are doing brisk trade with Iran. (Of course, there are other excellent reasons to be worried about the growing closeness in that relationship, but let's separate those from this one.)
I've heard reports, from Iranian refugees here in Istanbul, that the sanctions are causing real hardship in Iran. That doesn't mean anything--the point of the sanctions isn't to harm the Iranian people, it's to slow or stop the nuclear program. I have no idea whether that's being accomplished.
It's idiotic to criticize the Turks for undermining our policy initiative simply on the grounds that they should back us up, right or wrong.
Are they right?
- Comment (33)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Aug '10
Re: Do Sanctions Ever Work?
It's impossible to isolate Iran. Russia and China will actively undermine any sanctions regime, and that's all it takes to make a joke of it all. Sanctions worked on South Africa because there was effective worldwide pressure and it was a country with a conscience, after all was said and done. Nelson Mandela was a fine moral leader.
The world as a whole wants Iran to have a bomb; it's part of the grand scheme to destroy the Western Tradition and supplant it with an Eastern one. The effective elimination of the U.S. and Israel - as the only nations that stand in the way of the plan - is item number one on the agenda among world tyrants.
It's sad and bitterly funny that if we collapse as Rome did, the world will be plunged into a Dark Age that will make the last one look like child's play. Factions in worldwide Islam will cause violent chaos, as ii so often has in the past. The 'victors' will suffer most.
Jun '10
Re: Do Sanctions Ever Work?
I don't believe in sanctions, not in this case anyway, because the Obama administration is pursuing the wrong goal. Stopping the Iranian nuclear program should be a secondary consideration. I'm in agreement with Roger Simon and Michael Ledeen that our primary objective should be regime change. Alas, our president decided to engage the tyrants in Tehran even as a popular uprising threatened to topple the regime. Mr. Obama offered not even a tepid response in support of the Green Revolution. It was an opportunity missed.
I'm betting that the Turkish response has more to do with a cabal of greedy insiders and corrupt politicians cashing in on an opportunity than some sort of overall shift in the geopolitical arena. I could be completely wrong in my estimation, but betting on human nature is rarely a bad bet. It seems near universal that politicians act for the following reasons: serve myself, serve my friends, serve my backers, and serve my nation if I must. It's not that power necessarily corrupts, but the corruptible are most certainly drawn to power.
Re: Do Sanctions Ever Work?
I wonder if you're right about Russia, River. On the one hand, there's overwhelming evidence for your point--the Russians built the Bushehr reactor and they're loading it up with uranium pretty much as I type. On the other hand, more than a few prominent Russian policy makers--Konstantin Kosachyov, for example--are going berserk about the prospect of a nuclear Iran. Russia has nothing to gain and everything to lose if Iran goes nuclear, and this is so abundantly obvious that at some point, Realpolitik has got to out, don't you think? That country's not exactly in the hands of ideologues any more, after all. You can sort of explain Turkey's blindness to this point in ideological terms, or in terms of the leadership's short-sightedness or inexperience. The Russians just can't be under illusions about what an Iranian Bomb would mean for them, can they? After Chechnya?
Re: Do Sanctions Ever Work?
I reckon your instincts are exactly right, but I'd guess there's an overlay of utter naivete colored by Islamic feeling that makes this especially dangerous. I suspect Turkish policy makers do feel that it will all be okay because they're dealing with fellow Moslems. And I suspect strongly that this feeling is not reciprocated--that the Iranian regime views them as the sell-outs and traitors to Islam they've always held them to be. My guess is that they're viewing the Turks with complete contempt as they laugh at them and cash in on them. But I don't know. I'm not in Iran; I don't speak Farsi; I can only guess from second-hand sources. And I don't trust those that much anymore.
Jul '10
Re: Do Sanctions Ever Work?
How's those U.S. sanctions working with Cuba?
If terrorist bombings and murder of innocents equals a fine moral leader, I'll have to readjust my definitions in my OED.
River: Nelson Mandela was a fine moral leader.
Sep 19 at 5:11am
Aug '10
Re: Do Sanctions Ever Work?
I did think that, Claire. Ten years and a thousand sophisticated weapons shipments ago I said,"The Russians will have to be on our side with Iran. Russia has nothing to gain and everything to lose..."
Like you, I didn't see the game.
Churchill called them, "A riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma...the key is national interest".
Here's what Putin is thinking, I suspect: "America and the west must be checked and brought low, or Russia will never regain superpower status. The future belongs to the East. Europe is over, Islam is ascendant there. If Israel falls, America is done in the Middle East, and Iraq will follow. IslamoNazis will back off from attacking us if they see us helping Hamas and Hezbollah. We will divide Europe with Islam, and refugees from islam can come to us. China will be pleased to see America reduced. Individual lives mean nothing to me."
Jul '10
Re: Do Sanctions Ever Work?
River: I Sanctions worked on South Africa
I am not sure about that. I remember routinely seeing unmarked boxes of South African produce shipped to Mozambique where they were stamped "Produce of Mozambique" and sent to be consumed by Europeans who no doubt congratulated themselves on their moral victory over apartheid.
From the Turkish point of view it makes perfect sense to assert leadership where the US has relinquished its.
Aug '10
Re: Do Sanctions Ever Work?
I feel like C.S. Lewis must have felt, writing The Screwtape Letters. It's not easy trying to get into the head of the Anti-Christ, for purposes of understanding. The Anti-Christ is ascendant, now, but will fail in time.
To Michael Tee: Your low opinion of Nelson Mandela is unsupported, I think. It's a fact that many white South Africans at the time considered him to be a fine moral leader. He preached a non-violent and religious approach, and impressed his guards at Robbin Island Prison. They often aided him, and some said he was "saintly".
He lowered the boom on his wife when she went off the rails. Is he responsible for everything his followers have done, or do? He's old and retired now.
Whether he's a fine moral leader or not today, I don't know.
May '10
Re: Do Sanctions Ever Work?
Y'all have hit on what I consider the two reasons that sanctions usually fail:
1) Sanctions only work if everyone supports them. Otherwise, it's like telling a child to go to his room without supper and then someone sneaks him some cake -- lesson not learned.
2) Sanctions only work if the nation's leadership cares about their people. Otherwise, it empowers leaders by giving them a justification for redistributive government, which in turn empowers corruption (support the government, and you'll be taken care of).
That the U.N. prefers sanctions really says it all.
Jul '10
Re: Do Sanctions Ever Work?
It's simple...when I was growing up and my mother put sanctions on me, I followed them...only because I knew if said sanctions were violated, I would be receiving a butt whippin'...With this mom jeans wearin' pres, ummm, not so much! And as for them hurting the people of Iran, Iran is already doing that. The people getting effected are the ones that would be getting the bad end of the deal with out any sanctions. So I agree with you that they mean nothing, that's just fodder for the elite.
Aug '10
Re: Do Sanctions Ever Work?
Maybe Russia's thinking is a little less grand and a lot more veneal. Being the chess players that they are, they might figure that the only logical move for Israel or the US is to destroy the Iranian nukes. Since we must in the end do this, why not make a few bucks off them in the mean time selling them very expensive JDAM bait. Everybody wins, right?
Jun '10
Re: Do Sanctions Ever Work?
I always thought the main purpose of sanctions was to provide political cover for the nations imposing the sanctions. You may end up being tough on somebody, but it's never the target you had in mind. And since you never get the consensus it takes to make the sanctions unbearably painful, you can never "close the noose." They don't work on that level either. You just end up inconveniencing the people who have the least power of all to make the changes you want. Sanctions work about as well as blood-letting works to cure cholera.
Aug '10
Re: Do Sanctions Ever Work?
They are indeed brilliant chess players.
The military experts I've researched say it's highly improbable that we could destroy Iran's nuke capacity without using nukes ourselves - which will never happen. The Iranians have dispersed their factories in underground bunkers all over the country, with the help of European experts.
Without a certainty of destroying the nukes, we would just enrage Iran, giving them an excuse for using nukes on the countries that attacked.
Sep '10
Re: Do Sanctions Ever Work?
Off track, but I just listened to the audio of Mark Steyn accepting the Sappho Award in Denmark. Powerfull stuff. You can find in on Mark's site.
Jul '10
Re: Do Sanctions Ever Work?
A fine moral leader who somehow managed, in a very brief time, to amass a sizable fortune.
As to what he left behind, watch the movie "Disgrace". Excellent film about what's happening to white farmers in South Africa - thousands expropriated, brutalized, raped, murdered under the auspices of the ruling party. John Malkovich should have gotten an Oscar nod, but, given the subject, the film disappeared without a trace.
Jul '10
Re: Do Sanctions Ever Work?
River
I did think that, Claire. Ten years and a thousand sophisticated weapons shipments ago I said,"The Russians will have to be on our side with Iran. Russia has nothing to gain and everything to lose..."
Like you, I didn't see the game.
Churchill called them, "A riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma...the key is national interest".
Here's what Putin is thinking, I suspect: "America and the west must be checked and brought low, or Russia will never regain superpower status. The future belongs to the East. Europe is over, Islam is ascendant there. If Israel falls, America is done in the Middle East, and Iraq will follow. IslamoNazis will back off from attacking us if they see us helping Hamas and Hezbollah. We will divide Europe with Islam, and refugees from islam can come to us. China will be pleased to see America reduced. Individual lives mean nothing to me." · Sep 19 at 7:00am
Uh, I'm with you, River, up to a point.
I don't see how Iran going nuclear would advance Putin's strategy here. All that could be achieved without Iranian nukes.
Jul '10
Re: Do Sanctions Ever Work?
River:
To Michael Tee: Your low opinion of Nelson Mandela is unsupported, I think. It's a fact that many white South Africans at the time considered him to be a fine moral leader. He preached a non-violent and religious approach, and impressed his guards at Robbin Island Prison. They often aided him, and some said he was "saintly".
Oh, come on, River, you go too far: Michael Tee is correct: Mandela did use vicious terrorist tactics. That's just historical fact.
As for his "saintliness", well, let us not forget all those who wept and fainted so recently in the presence of our own Messiah.
Jul '10
Re: Do Sanctions Ever Work?
Sanctions don't work because the oligarchies of most countries are precisely those who stand to gain by evading them.
Under sanctions, corrupt arbitrage capitalism prevails: an extra premium can be added to the market price of any commodities which can be delivered to the target country.
If the world price of, say, corn, is $10 a bushel, a well-connected trading company in Russia, using their political connections to evade the sanctions regime, can demand $16 or $20 a bushel in Tehran.
And that premium, shared with their political cronies, is simply too delicious to resist.
In sanctions, as in all things economic, the profit motive prevails.
Re: Do Sanctions Ever Work?
I'm not sure whether this comment was made on the record, so to be safe I won't say where it comes from, but I received this e-mail today from an advocate of these sanctions:
"Bottom line: sanctions don't work until they do. The academic literature says they've worked in about a third of the cases studies. They don't work in isolation but need to be backed by tough diplomacy, the credible threat of military force, intrusive inspections in the case of nuclear proliferation and/or be directed against a target that is susceptible to moral pressure and resents its isolation. Some examples, Iraq (gives up its nukes post 1991); Libya (gives up its nukes); Apartheid South Africa (sanctions ratchet up economic and moral costs for maintaining Apartheid); and Serbia (severely weakens Milosovic's power, military strikes finish him off). ... As importantly, it is an effective way to move the policy and public narrative from engagement with a rational regime to the need to cripple an odious one."
What do you make of these arguments?
Edited on Sep 19, 2010 at 2:17pmJul '10
Re: Do Sanctions Ever Work?
Claire Berlinski, Ed.: They don't work in isolation but need to be backed by tough diplomacy, the credible threat of military force, intrusive inspections in the case of nuclear proliferation and/or be directed against a target that is susceptible to moral pressure and resents its isolation. Some examples, Iraq (gives up its nukes post 1991); Libya (gives up its nukes); Apartheid South Africa (sanctions ratchet up economic and moral costs for maintaining Apartheid); and Serbia (severely weakens Milosovic's power, military strikes finish him off). ... As importantly, it is an effective way to move the policy and public narrative from engagement with a rational regime to the need to cripple an odious one."
What do you make of these arguments? · Sep 19 at 2:14pm
Edited on Sep 19 at 02:17 pm
I would say that every example you gave was more about military force or threat of force, than sanctions.
With the exception of South Africa. And even there, sanctions weren't the deciding factor: it was DeKlerk's aspiration to have an historical legacy.
Sanctions don't work because, as I noted previously, they just present too much temptation for profit.