Tag: North Korea
Economic sanctions work, but…
The continued use of US economic sanctions against Iran, Venezuela, North Korea and Cuba was the focus for a Brookings panel, Economic Sanctions: Assessing their use and implications for U.S. foreign policy on January 27. Moderated by James Goldgeier, Robert Bosch Senior Visiting Fellow, the panel included Suzanne Maloney, Senior Fellow Center for Middle East Policy, Energy Security and Climate Initiative, Jung H. Pak, Senior Fellow Center for East Asia Policy Studies, and Ted Piccone, Nonresident Senior Fellow Security and Strategy.
Four Case Studies
Maloney believes the US uses sanctions in tandem with diplomacy with Iran, but usually is not joined by others. Two changes have occurred that altered the effectiveness of sanctions on Iran:
- After the 9/11 attacks, US sanctions became more targeted and were no longer only trade sanctions.
- The energy market has shifted with increased production outside the Persian Gulf.
US sanctions have not achieved their political goal of a dramatic reversal of core Iranian policy, but rather have only impacted the economy. Maloney argues that economic sanctions are effective in countries that already have dysfunctional economies, allowing the sanctions to compound structural problems.
Pak, an expert on North Korea, claims that the US only started piling on sanctions on North Korea since 2016, focused on sectors like seafood, iron, oil. The targeted sanctions of 2005 on Banco Delta Asia, which was helping facilitate North Korean illicit financing measures, led to serious economic problems. This sanction signaled to other banks and investment funds that doing business with North Korea was risky.
Piccone emphasizes that Cuba is an example of ineffective US sanctions, since they did not achieve their specified target of dislodging the Communist regime and removing Castro from power even if they were successful in stifling the economy. The US failed with Cuba sanctions to gain multilateral support. Due to the devastated economy, Cubans suffered and migrated: over 10% of the Cuban population lives outside Cuba, with the majority residing in the US.
Piccone contrasts Cuba sanctions with Venezuela, where the US shifted from targeted sanctions to sectoral ones, particularly on oil and gas. These sanctions amplified many of Venezuela’s existing economic problems. Sanctions effectiveness is closely tied to how dependent a country is on the US.
All panelists emphasized that even economically ‘successful’ sanctions can still be rendered ineffective if the political goals behind the sanctions are not realized.
Credibility is important
Maloney underlines the importance of sustaining credibility with regards to sanctions. Even before the May 2019 JCPOA withdrawal, Iran felt that the US was not upholding its side of the deal, as there continued to be new sanctions placed on the country.
All the panelists noted how muddled sanctions can be when the US makes exceptions for a program like the JCPOA, but maintains other sanctions related to support for terrorism and human rights violations. Maloney suggests that these remaining sanctions deter international banks and investors and reduce investment in Iran. The US withdrawal from the agreement undermined US credibility. Piccone adds that the inconsistencies between US administrations only further confuse the aims of sanctions, particularly in the case of Cuba.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Pompeo is a failure
Here is Secretary of State Pompeo in an interview with Mary Louise Kelly of NPR that demonstrates unequivocally his unfitness for office:
First he defends withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA or Iran nuclear deal), which has led inexorably to Iran acquiring more of the materials required for nuclear weapons. In self-defense, he simply asserts “we’ll stop them,” with no evidence whatsoever. That’s because there is none.
Then he declares himself happy with the Administration’s Ukraine policy, which he claims the State Department controls, and says he has defended every single State Department official. This despite the fact that he has not defended several officials who testified in Congress and that Rudy Giuliani was conducting Ukraine policy outside State Department channels.
In any event, listen to the end, since Kelly then reports on a subsequent conversation with the Secretary, in which he berates her for asking about Ukraine in ways that are simply unacceptable, even if unsurprising. No one should expect this Administration to show even minimal respect for a media professional. It prefers the hacks at Fox News who do its bidding.
Pompeo, again not surprisingly, also has bigoted views on Muslims and counts right-wing extremists among his greatest admirers. That may seem obscure or irrelevant to many Americans, but stop a moment to consider how the 1.8 billion Muslims on earth look at a country that has a bigot as Secretary of State.
The simple fact is that Pompeo is not qualified to lead American foreign policy, which is failing in the most important challenges he faces. In addition to precipitating Iran’s return to pursuit of nuclear weapons, the Administration is presiding over a stunning array of failures:
- North Korea continues to produce nuclear weapons and improve its missiles.
- Venezuela’s President Maduro continues in power.
- Russia continues to occupy a good slice of Ukraine.
- Iran and Russia are winning back control of Syria for President Assad.
- Iraqis are pushing back against the presence of US troops.
- The American “deal of the century” for Israel and Palestine stands no chance of acceptance by the Palestinians.
- The trade war with China has been suspended with few gains, in order to provide American farmers some relief before the 2020 election.
I could go on, but the overall picture is clear: “America First” foreign policy has failed, often because it has amounted to “America Alone.” Our major European allies (that’s now France and Germany, with the UK out of the European Union) are no longer cooperating voluntarily with the US. They can do better withholding cooperation and only giving in when they can get something in return from a transactional president. A few weaker reeds like Poland, Hungary, Italy as well as post-Brexit Britain may be more on board with this Administration, but mainly because of their own nationalist domestic politics. The sense of shared mission to make the world safer for democracy has evaporated. Its now every country for itself.
Lots of us, including me, thought Pompeo might be a relative success compared to his disastrous predecessor, Rex Tillerson. But succeeding as Secretary of State in an administration as wrong-headed about the world as this one just isn’t possible. It will take a decade or more to rebuild US influence in the world once Trump is out of office. Two decades or more if he wins a second term.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, January 23
-A trove of Cybercom documents has been declassified. They reveal interagency disputes over targeting ISIS. The National Security Archive, which gathers FOIA releases, has the documents here.
A Brookings analyst documents the unprecedented turnover of senior national security officials in the Trump administration.
No surprise, but lobbyists had a good year in 2019.
State Dept officials called as witnesses in the impeachment inquiry had staggering legal bills, only about 1/4 paid by the government.
North Korea has named a “hard-lined cantankerous” former military officer as its new foreign minister.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I plan to republish here. If you want to get it directly, To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Guilty as charged
The opening of the trial proceedings in the Senate has already produced an obvious result: the President has no defense against the charge that he tried to use US government aid to gain a personal political advantage over a potential rival, then obstructed Congress in its investigation. White House lawyers are not claiming he didn’t try to extort the Ukrainians to announce an investigation of Joe Biden, only that he was free to do it and to block witnesses and documents the House of Representatives requested.
This amounts to the inverse of nolo contendere, in which a defendant doesn’t admit guilt, but accepts punishment. Trump is admitting the facts, but the Republican-controlled Senate is protecting him from the penalty provided in the Constitution, removal from office. It has the power under the Constitution to do that and is exercising it with vigor, preventing even submission of documentary evidence and witness testimony to the wrongdoing.
The big question is how the country will react to a President who believes he can abuse power as much he wants and suffer no consequence. According to the first poll taken since the articles of impeachment were delivered to the Senate, a thin majority of Americans now believes he should be removed from office, a wider margin believes the charges against him are true, and two-thirds believe the proceedings in the Senate should include testimony from witnesses.
If confirmed, those results would be a substantial deviation from the trend line in recent months, which is basically flat. The partisan divide is still wide and Republicans in the Senate continue to believe that their prospects in the November election are more threatened by Trump-allied challengers in the primaries than by Democrats at the polls. None of the supposed Republican moderates in the Senate have budged from the majority on the many Democratic proposals to bring witnesses and documents into the process.
The Republicans have an option if the going gets rough. They could decide to defenestrate Trump and put Vice President Pence in his place. More genuinely conservative than Trump on social and religious issues, Pence could be relied on to appoint judges who would please the anti-abortion, pro-Christian, Republican base as well as continue the anti-immigration crusade (double meaning intended) Trump has conducted. What Pence lacks is even a rudimentary personality, never mind charisma.
The Democrats are meanwhile still engaged in the fratricidal warfare of the presidential primaries. For now the presidential hopefuls seem mostly incapable of refocusing their attacks on Trump rather than each other. That isn’t good, but the next month or two may well sort out who the candidate will be. If that doesn’t happen, the Democrats could go to the mid-July convention in Milwaukee without a candidate. A “brokered” convention would not be a good thing.
But the biggest single factor in the next election will be the economy. Trump’s bragging at Davos this week was based on falsehoods. The Obama expansion has continued, but growth is now slowing, though not dramatically yet. The Trump tax cut did little to stimulate the economy but a great deal to balloon the government deficit. The trade deal with China failed to correct most of the structural issues that have given the US such a large bilateral deficit. The trade deal with Mexico made desirable updates. Hourly wages have begun to perk up, but inequality continues its long rise.
The picture is worse on the national security front. The fights Trump has picked with North Korea, Venezuela, and Iran have produced no good results for the US. He has nothing to show for his lovefest with Russian President Putin, who still sits on a big piece of Ukraine. The Israel/Palestine peace plan is a bust. The NATO allies despise the President and are holding their breath for him to leave office. He ignores Latin America and Africa (to their benefit more than likely) while talking tough on China but doing precious little.
If there were professor who could judge the Trump Administration on its economic, social, and national security merits, it would get an F. He is not only guilty as charged, but incompetent as well.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Marching towards different wars
Both Iran and the United States are signaling escalation in the wake of the assassination of Quds force commander Qasem Soleimani. Tehran said it had identified 35 targets. President Trump responded with a tweet threat against 52:
Let this serve as a WARNING that if Iran strikes any Americans, or American assets, we have targeted 52 Iranian sites (representing the 52 American hostages taken by Iran many years ago), some at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture, and those targets, and Iran itself, WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD. The USA wants no more threats!
Both have the capability, and perhaps the will. It all sounds strikingly symmetrical.
But there the parallel ends. The wars they are contemplating are different. Iran can hit 35 US targets, but only using proxy forces in other countries or cyber attacks. The US can hit 52 sites, but only with stand-off weapons like drones and cruise missiles, in addition to cyber attacks. That I suspect makes cyber attacks less likely: the Americans presumably have the greater capability in that domain, but they also have far more to lose if the Iranians prove even marginally competent. Will Tehran care much if its citizens don’t have internet access?
Neither the US nor Iran wants a traditional ground war. The Iranians because they would lose, should the Americans deploy the kind of force they did in attacking Iraq in 2003. But that isn’t happening. The American electorate is not prepared to support that kind of effort, and the Administration has done nothing to try to mobilize it. President Trump can deploy a few thousand additional troops to the Middle East to protect American embassies and other facilities, but hundreds of thousands are not in the cards.
Trump is hoping his threats of escalation will bring Iran to the negotiating table, where he hopes to get a “better” agreement than President Obama’s nuclear deal. It’s the North Korea gambit: loud threats, some action, then hugs and kisses. If that fails, he will try a stand-off and cyber attack. If he has a game plan beyond that, he has kept it a good secret. He has so far been unwilling to loosen sanctions, which is what the Iranians want.
The Iranians are fighting on different battlefields. They may threaten proxy and cyber attacks, and even indulge in some, but their better bets are forcing the US troops out of Iraq (there is an advisory vote tomorrow on that in the Iraqi parliament) and acquiring all the material and technology they need to build nuclear weapons. Kim Jong-un got respect once he had nukes. Why shouldn’t the Supreme Leader expect the same?
Nothing about American intervention in the Middle East in the past two decades has brought much more than grief to the United States. Trillions of dollars and thousands of American deaths later, we have accomplished little. Iran has gained from the removal of arch-rival Saddam Hussein, protected its ally Bashar al Assad from insurgency, strengthened its position on Israel’s northern borders, and helped the Houthis in Yemen to harass Saudi Arabia.
President Trump had it right when he ran in 2016 on avoiding new Middle East wars and bringing American troops home. But that requires a serious strategy and commitment to diplomacy and alliances that he has been unwilling to make. Now he risks getting the Americans sent home and confronting an Iran that has nuclear capabilities. You tell me who is fighting on the right battlefield.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
New year, old problems
– US sending nearly 5K more troops to Middle East.
– David Sanger assesses Trump’s problems with Iran and North Korea.
–Kim warns of new tests.
– Marc Lynch foresees more problems in Middle East.
– Cyber developments affecting the battlefield.
-Congress wants more civilian power in Pentagon.
– Bruce Jentleson wants more attention to history in US foreign policy.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I plan to republish here. If you want to get it directly, To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
RSS - Posts
