The sagging sanctity of sanctions

LOOKING back at the age-long diplomacy and quest to checkmate recalcitrant administrations with economic and other curbs instead of military intervention, the catalogue of all regimes of sanctions by the various world peace stabilizing bodies put together present the picture of jinxed efforts. Of course the reason for this is not far-fetched: orthodoxy and disunity or sheer insincerity of the stakeholders. It is sad that world's comity of nations for decades, seemingly, has been trapped in the straight jack sanction vision, and delaying in blending strategies to match the revolutionary pop ups of dire consequences from different axes.

Over the past decades, same paradigms of resolutions have been hawked around each time the need arose to push for restraint by nations whose ambitions, perceived or confirmed, are capable of derailing global peace. Even where there have been attempts for tailed penalties on nations according to their perceived misdeeds, systematic flaws hampered effective implementation, and end up rubbishing the otherwise potent remedy. It is against this backdrop that one can begin to understand why sanctions against deviant nations, no matter the stringent contents, appear to be losing the desired effect.

The United Nations(UN), Commonwealth, and regional blocs such as European Union(EU) and African Union(AU) and Arab League to mention but a few, have each had a bunch of these botched sanction projects. Examples of these failed sanction projects abound across the continents and key regions. For instance, in Middle East, Asia and Africa, there are some regimes which have stood out as test cases of the phenomenal debasement of sanctions as a peace stabilizing tool. Disturbing nuclear driven rows have seen the international community engaging with North Korea and Iran severally but separately, for diplomatic reasoning to forestall a possible military intervention, which before now remained a not too remote option. In Africa, Zimbabwe is a classic example of a regime with an unenviable record of sanctions, but it shed a portion of the heavy burden by quitting The Commonwealth seven years ago.

In a not too surprising show of resentment over the lingering showdown, the world's peace fostering body, the UN, on June 10 slammed the fourth regime of sanctions on Iran still aiming to dissuade the Islamic republic from furthering its atomic weapon adventurism, though Tehran claims that fuel and relief for cancer patients are the utmost targets for now. Among other curb measures, the UN resolution toughens rules on financial transactions with Iranian banks, and increases the number of Iranian individuals and companies targeted with asset freezes and travel bans; and an expanded arms embargo which prohibits Iran from buying heavy weapons such as missiles and helicopters.
Those blacklisted include Iran's Post Bank, Defence Minister Ahmad Vahidi and the air force and missile command of the Revolutionary Guard Corps.

The UN Security Council voted 12:2 in favour to endorsed the fourth round of sanctions on Iran; Brazil and Turkey were against, while Lebanon abstained.

Iran's allies Russia and China, though favoured the UN action had ensured the measures were watered down.
In what smacks of double standards, the new sanctions are not expected to affect the Russian surface-to-air missiles supplies to Iran.
The deal was sealed several years ago when Russia agreed to supply Iran with S-300 systems but has never delivered the weapons.
The US and Israel are concerned the missiles, designed to counter both aircraft and cruise missiles, might be used to protect Iran's nuclear facilities from possible attack.

Following reports that the S-300 deal would have to be frozen, Russian officials clarified that the missiles were not subject to the new sanctions.
[Ahmadinejad]

Ahmadinejad
They pointed out that the new UN Security Council resolution affects only "missiles or missile systems as defined for the purpose of the UN Register of Conventional Arms".

The register states that this "does not include ground-to-air missiles".

In a swift implementation of the UN resolution, the United States, which is at the forefront of latest campaign to smelt Iran off the nuclear ambition, on Wednesday last week expanded its sanctions against the Islamic state.

Washington in announcing the sanctions claimed that the individuals and institutions targeted were helping Iran to develop its nuclear programme.

The US sanctions prohibit any American business or individual from trading with those named on the blacklist. The sanctions also freeze any assets they may have under US jurisdiction.

"We will continue to target Iran's support for terrorist organizations, we will continue to focus on Iran's Revolutionary Guard, and we will continue to expose Iran's efforts to evade international sanctions," U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told a White House news briefing on Wednesday.

The list also has a front company for the national shipping line, which is run by the Revolutionary Guards. The U.S. has designated 27 new ships and updated entries for 71 others whose names had been changed.
With the designation of Post Bank there are now 16 Iranian banks under sanctions. Post Bank, U.S. authorities say is a front for Bank Sepah, which was designated in 2007 for providing financial services to the Iranian missile industry.
EU leaders follow the U.S.' lead, on Thursday last week, at a summit in Brussels also approved an expanded new set of sanctions against Iran beyond the UN measures. They placed a ban on investments, technical assistance and technology transfers to Iran's key oil and gas industry.
In a statement, the EU leaders regretted “that Iran has not taken the many opportunities which have been offered to it to remove the concerns of the international community over the nature of the Iranian nuclear programme."

Furthermore, EU banned Iran's shipping and air cargo companies from operating in its territory, while target the Revolutionary Guards with new visa refusal and asset freezes.

While three earlier rounds of sanctions failed to halt Iran's programme, the latest UN action has come almost 18 months U.S. President Barack Obama promised a new strategy of engagement with Tehran on assumption of office.

But President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad despite the gag measures has remained undaunted. The physicist turned politician who appears to have become more daring than the tough leaderships in North Korea, Libya, Israel, and Sudan and of cause his latest paddy and Zimbabwean counterpart, Rpbert Mugabe, responded the UN with his characteristic caustic remarks, instead of mellowing. He dismissed the new UN sanctions as a "used handkerchief" fit for the dustbin. But Barack said it is an unmistakable statement, by implication red a alert.

Though the new regime of sanctions aims to put intensive pressure on Iran, world's fifth-largest oil exporter, which has limited refining capability, concern of the vision's derailment has mounted.

Indeed, the foundation of the sanctions is already fast disintegrating even before commencement of implementation. For instance, Beijing which endorsement of the UN sanctions drew Iranian ire, overnight said it "highly" valued its relations with the Islamic republic.
From Turkey, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has damned the new sanctions describing it as a "mistake," Reuters reported.
The big nuclear superpower, Russia which missiles contract with Iran was shielded from sanctions, has openly chided the U.S. and EU for daring to take a decision towards implement the new sanctions.

"We are extremely disappointed that neither the United States nor the European Union is heeding our calls to refrain from such steps," Russian news agencies quoted Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov as saying.

Now, it would appear the focus has shifted significantly from the arguments for and against the perceived Iranian nuclear weaponry vision to sanctions row. From all indications, the sanctions row if not nipped in the bud, could become explosive and shred the UN. Without prejudice, it is really saddening that key players in the UN should descend to such level of clandestinely scuttling restraint pressures, be it on Iran or any other recalcitrant state. Now with one hand these nations have whipped Tehran while offering it carrots with the other. The impetus derivable from the seeming double-standard disposition of these powers that be is the reason why Iran and its likes are bluffing the international community security watchdog. Until, the world’s superpowers sincerely view issues objectively, and agree to put the popular will above all other selfish considerations, the Security Council could as well save humanity the torment of churning out sanctions that may never work, but rather cast a pall on the relevance of the UN.