As discussed in class, sanctions against a state/regime can
be a weak signal and indirectly target the civilian population. In the case of Iran, we can see that sanctions
are used to influence and change domestic policy to deter human rights
violations. By engaging in the economic
statecraft we attempt to create an economic hold on other countries where
limitations are created to fight against political regimes or inappropriate
behavior. By using sanctions and
embargos it’s less costly than going to war, but becomes costly for the target
or opponent. The real question or
concern is whether it actually costs the political opponent, or are the civilians
of a corrupt country the ones who actually suffer the most? Currently there are deliberations discussing whether
the U.S will provide limited relief from economic sanctions if Iran follows
through with “freezing” their nuclear program.
“The official
said that the suspension of Iran’s nuclear efforts, perhaps for six months,
would give negotiators time to purse a comprehensive and far more challenging
agreement.” This is a crucial time
for Iran to take action and negotiate with the US. This provides Iran with the opportunity to
avoid on-going strenuous economic sanctions, the possible relief to its
citizens, and decreasing the tensions of other countries that fear Iran’s
nuclear program. Even though the steps
that will be taken to negotiate with Iran about halting their nuclear program are
not clear, the one thing that is clear and is encouraging is that newly elected
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani is
pledging to resolve the nuclear dispute and lift sanctions by engaging with
world powers.
An examples
we can look at is the Non-Proliferation Treaty which nuclear weapon states such
has U.S, Russia, Britain, France, and China have all signed agreeing to
negotiate in good faith to achieve nuclear disarmament. The latest round of talks in Geneva, bring
Iranian officials and representatives of the permanent five members of the UN plus
Germany together which may provide a great opportunity to discuss nuclear
programs not only in Iran but elsewhere. We have to follow through with treaties and
obligations we have signed such at the Non-Proliferation Treaty. It would be wise and a safer for Iran to take
the opportunity to be relieved of sanctions from the US, while also opening the
door for further discussion of nuclear disarmament.
Hopefully if the US decides to lift sanctions on Iran, it will lead to a cooperative and mutually beneficial relationship. This moment could mark a serious development in Iran's connection with the west. That is if this is something they actually want. North Korean periods of relative peace often result from harsh sanctions. Relations typically turn south following a certain level of satisfaction from the North Korean government. Iranian negotiations could potentially result in a similar situation.
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't appear that Iran wants interdependence in any significant way with the United States. This could potentially be the best way to repair relations. The best path towards developing interdependence is a transition to positive economic statecraft. By demonstrating that the west can maintain sanctions that significantly damage the Iranian economy, incentivizing certain policies could work. What the future holds for these negotiations is unclear, but it will be interesting to see how they proceed.
While i understand the inside of certain areas of the government of Iran the United States is referred to as the "great Satan" however, i have yet to see any real evidence that the bulk of the civilian population of Iran feels extreme hatred towards the west. Think any of you who either have family of friends from there, how have you heard of their depictions of iranian civilian attitudes towards the United States? This becomes especially important when considering scaling back or ramping up sanctions that without a doubt stress the civilian population, not only do you run the risk of making enemies out of potential allies (our soft power extends well into the civilian core of Iran, look at what the young people are wearing in the streets of Iran, it's without a doubt highly westernized fashion). While nuclear disarmament is I believe a worthwhile goal, we have to remember at what cost does blocking the creation of a threat? Might it create another potential threat in the process?
ReplyDeleteSanctions have a very large effect on the target, this much is certain simply by definition. However, there are large costs of sanctions to the implementer as well. In this specific case regarding the US sanctions on Iran I see many possible costs that the US is facing by keeping these sanctions. Iran has a large amount of oil, natural gas, and raw industrial materials that the US needs and uses daily. If these sanctions were to be lifted it is certain that the US would be able to trade for these exports and lower the costs to the US population. The effect of these sanctions on Iran hold a monetary cost to the citizens of the US. The question is, would lifting these sanctions have such a large effect on US prices to constitute disregarding the sections implemented. I personally would doubt that prices would be effected so dramatically that the US could disregard the reason the sanctions were implemented in the first place, meaning that the US should keep the sanctions until absolutely necessary.
ReplyDeleteAs mentioned in the debate, sanctions are largely ineffective because target states are willing to endure economic and other costs while sticking to their objectives. Iran has been stating for decades that it intends to use nuclear power for peaceful purposes and that under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, their rights to enrich uranium must be recognized. I see great hopes for future relations between Western countries and Iran, especially since Hassan Rouhani came to power. The optimal outcome for Iran would be a nuclear deal that allows the state to preserve it's core security interests while simultaneously ends it's economic isolaion. How the competing interests between nations will be resolved remains to be seen.
ReplyDeleteThis is a great first step in showing the U.S' willingness to negotiate with Iran. Iran has already elected Rouhani, and the U.S. is responding to this. I see this change in their government as allowing us to take softer measures, and from here we'll see if the relations better.
ReplyDeleteMuch like Mr. Johannes was mentioning in class over "rebel groups trusting the government after disarmament," doesn't is seem likely that states tend to choose having nuclear arms because other states have nuclear arms because other states have nuclear arms and so on. You have a cyclical problem and just telling one group to "lay down their slingshots" (I like analogies, sorry) puts the Iranian government in a "I'm vulnerable" mindset. What kind of incentive do they get, stripping themselves would there ever be future conflict with the surrounding region and their state? Yeah talks of peace are idealistic, but I doubt just talks of peace amongst officials will quickly force the Iranian state to abide by rules set by the big five.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Ray. I don't see these peace talks as having a substantial lasting impact on Iran's pursuit of obtaining a thriving nuclear program. I think that sanctions are really hurting Iranian civilians, not political elites, and because of this Iran doesn't have overall incentive to cooperate. I feel Iran will always seek to maximize their nuclear potential and the international community will continue to debate whether to increase or lift sanctions.
ReplyDeleteJacob and Ray bring up great points about incentives and I personally do not see Iran giving up their right to exercise nuclear power. Although the new President is a great step forward towards political and economic freedom from these imposing sanctions but I also do not see the sanctions punishing the government at all because Iran has been politically isolated from surrounding countries for some time now and improvements on human infringement have not improved. The US is the only country that has gotten Iran to cooperate this much thus far. This relates to what Johannes was talking about in class when he asked "who suffers from sanctions and in what form"? This is a question that we are going to continue to discuss in further detail in class this week so I am going to come back to this post when I learn more about how people suffer more from government sanctions than the actual political elites themselves. But so far the people are suffering the most from these sanctions because without United States trade, they are not able to reap the benefits of american products as well as invest in our foreign economy.
ReplyDeleteI think the very fact that Iran is suddenly so willing to discuss anything with the United States and allies at all may show that the country has been feeling the effect of the sanctions. In this case, the United States is getting what it wants through sanctions as it is forcing Iran to negotiate and at least talk about ceasing their nuclear development program. However, because they are willing to negotiate does not necessarily mean that these talks will produce any substantial changes. It still seems that this is a great example of sanctions being effectively used in the real world.
ReplyDelete