By Nico Nalbantian
The Goal of Sanctions
Cohen began the event by highlighting the purpose of
sanctions. Ultimately, sanctions are a diplomatic tool for coercing a country
into one of two things: (i) target the behavior of a country and change the
targeted behavior, or (ii) disable what that country is doing. The case Cohen
shared from the Obama administration was Iran. Iran had been causing global
concern due to its alleged nuclear weapons program. The sanctions imposed on
Iran were part of a “dual track strategy”. Should Iran continue down its path
of nuclear armament, then sanctions would be ratcheted up and cut more deeply
into the Iranian economy. Alternatively, should Iran be willing to negotiate
and step-away from its nuclear program, then sanctions would be lifted and Iran
could “return to the fold” of the international marketplace.
Cohen’s dual track analogy contrasts a common
misunderstanding of how sanctions should be used. Sanctions are effective
because they apply pressure on a country while simultaneously offering an
opportunity to relieve that pressure. Sanctions applied on a country simply for
the sake of harm produce no results beyond the harm itself caused to the target
country and the host country for bearing the economic cost of the sanction. Another
example of an appropriate use of sanctions are, at least initially, the
sanctions imposed by the United States and the EU against Russia. The sanctions
on Russia are in place to encourage Russian withdrawal from Ukraine. Like Iran,
should Russia continue illegal aggression against Ukraine sanctions should be
increased and cut deeper into the Russian economy. Alternatively, should Russia
begin talks and withdrawal from Ukraine, then the sanctions imposed on Russia
by the United States and the EU should be lifted.
Trump Administration
Complications
Having set out the theoretical underpinnings of the Trump
administration, Cohen explored how the new administration has evolved its
sanctions policy and some of their challenges going forward. The first
digression is the disagreement between Congress and the White House over Russia
sanctions. Of course, Congress has an important role in the sanctions process,
but Congress’s moves were far more prescriptive than in the past. Previously,
Congress would defer to the President or the Treasury Secretary on the lifting
and imposition of sanctions to complement the executive’s diplomatic efforts.
With the Russia sanctions legislation, some sanctions have been effectively
locked into place in such a manner that it is no longer an effective tool at
the disposal of the administration. Cohen conceded that Congress had legitimate
concerns over the White House’s commitment on punishing Russia for its invasion
of Ukraine. However, time will tell if sanctions will lose the flexibility and
nimbleness that makes them such an effective foreign policy tool.
The Trump administration’s most important challenge will be
establishing a North Korean sanctions regime. Cohen argued that it was possible
for the United States, in cooperation with China, to establish an effective
sanctions regime on North Korea. North Korea needs the ability to sell its
arms, labor, and textiles to earn foreign currency around the world. All those
transactions are vulnerable to the secondary sanctions that were effective
against Iran. Secondary sanctions would be cutting off any company that does
business with North Korea from the US economy. The challenge for the Trump
administration is, unlike Iran, North Korea does over 90% of its trade with
China. Therefore, any effective sanctions against China North Korea would
likely rely on effective communication with the Chinese. Unfortunately, the
Trump administration’s seeming desire to reimpose sanctions on Iran due simply
to the desire to punish them does not bode well for an effective and dynamic
sanctions policy.
Should readers wish to view David Cohen’s talk in full, an
online recording can be found here.
0 comments:
Post a Comment