By Professor John A. Tures, LaGrange College
After months of defiance, Iran seems to be knuckling under the new round of sanctions imposed this year. It may change the perception of whether or not sanctions work.
Sanctions have been debated in this country since Thomas Jefferson tried to end British impressment of American sailors in 1807 with an Embargo Act, without much success.
The track record of international sanctions didn't get better with the advent of the League of Nations. Boycotting some postage stamps didn't stop the Japanese from taking Manchuria from China. Withholding trade from Mussolini's Italy didn't keep them from brutally occupying Ethiopia before World War II.
Then there was the Cold War era. American sanctions didn't seem to stop Fidel Castro in Cuba, or the Ayatollahs in Iran. United Nations actions against South Africa's apartheid regime took forever. The Hoover Institute, New York Times, and even "Freakonomics" declared sanctions to be failures.
But sanctions have had a recent run of success. Myanmar's regime released Aung San Suu Kyi. Sanctions contributed to the overthrow of the genocidal regime of Slobodan Milosevic. And now Iran is crawling back to the negotiation table, after months of saying sanctions wouldn't hurt. Why are they working now?
1) You Need Support From Heavy Hitters. Sanctions fail when the target can buy from another source. That's why they failed in the days of early America, as well as the League of Nations. The Freakonomics source was wrong: sanctions didn't work in South Africa because the whites ashamed of European sanctions. Those had been around for years. They failed for so long because the United States didn't join in. Four years of American sanctions did more than 40+ years of anti-apartheid sanctions for a reason.
In the case of Iran, America used to be a lonely voice on sanctions. But with British, French and the rest of Europe with us, the sanctions have real teeth. Russia doesn't need a lot of what Iran has. China will trade, but at a lopsided rate that provides little benefits for Iran, citing the higher cost of doing business with a rogue state.
2) The Sanctions Need To Be "Smart." The old thinking was that sanctions would hurt the people, who would then rise up and topple the bad regime, or at least make life difficult for them. But all that did was make the government stronger, and the people too weak or desperate for their next meal to think about revolution.
George W. Bush deserves credit for implementing the concept of "smart sanctions." Those target the leadership, instead of the people. Those sanctions brought North Korea to the bargaining table. They are also making life difficult for leaders of Myanmar and Iran, leading to the prospect of real change, instead of continued defiance.
3) Somebody Has To Make Up For Market Losses. Iran thought they had the West over a barrel, vowing to jack up oil prices and close the Straits of Hormuz. But the Saudis and other oil producers made up for the losses in oil on the world market. Alternative pipelines bypassed the narrow straits in the Persian Gulf. That's why oil prices dramatically spiked, then climbed back down. Iran just lost their best weapon against sanctions.
4) You've Got To Punish Lawbreakers. In the past, folks got away with breaking sanctions, with little or no consequence. Sanctions-breaker Marc Rich got a pardon from the Clinton Administration. Bain & Co. got away with their Iran dealings. But newer legislation implemented this year by the Obama Administration and Republicans in Congress punishes those dealing with Iran.
Iran has now crawled back to the bargaining table after initial hubris and claims that sanctions wouldn't hurt. Their economy is in shambles. But the West doesn't have to agree to it. Ahmadinejad's allies got pounded at the polls. Continued sanctions should provide an even more favorable deal that would keep Iran nuclear-free, so long as the Israelis don't get jumpy and attack.
No comments:
Post a Comment