Weak Tea

The U.N. sanctions against Iran have been watered down to almost nothing.

BY CHRISTOPHER R. WALL | JUNE 8, 2010

After a year's worth of diplomacy, the United Nations Security Council finally passed a fourth round of Iran sanctions on Wednesday. The vote passed easily, with 12 states voting in favor and only two, Brazil and Turkey, voting against the sanctions resolution. At various points in the previous months, Barack Obama's administration has promised that these sanctions will be "crippling," "smart," and "targeted." In reality, however, the best adjective to describe the new sanctions is "ineffective."

In May, the Obama administration announced an agreement on the language of a draft resolution between the veto-wielding members of the Security Council. The administration patted itself on the back for getting China and Russia to go along with another round of sanctions. However, the White House paid a huge price for their agreement: It agreed to water down the obligations in the resolution, making its most important restrictions voluntary. As a result, the resolution is not strong enough to change Iran's strategic calculation any more than the three resolutions that preceded it.

Even with these concessions, doubt remained up to the last minute over whether the resolution would be adopted. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton rushed to announce the agreement before her negotiators had finished work on the annexes listing the names of the individuals and entities to be sanctioned. The quick announcement marked an attempt to manage the fallout from the nuclear-fuel swap negotiated by Turkey and Brazil, whereby Iran agreed to park 1,200 kilograms of its uranium stockpile in Turkey, while receiving in return a supply of enriched uranium ostensibly for use in its medical research reactor. China and Russia have reacted sympathetically to the terms of the deal, signaling their weak resolve to enforce the new U.N. sanctions despite their vote in favor of them.

The new draft resolution displays in the clearest possible terms the contrast between the administration's boundless faith in international institutions and reality. The White House considers it a major accomplishment that the resolution simply names the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (IRISL), Iran's principal maritime shipping company. The resolution also includes entities acting on behalf of the IRGC and IRISL, as well as entities that are owned or controlled by them. However, it falls short of actually mandating international action against these entities.

The new sanctions will only require countries to block IRGC or IRISL assets if these entities are proven to be engaged in activities that are "proliferation sensitive." In other words, if a country does not catch them red-handed while shipping centrifuges to Iran, it does not have to act.

The same qualification applies to the financial-services sanctions, which include a prohibition on opening new banks, branches of Iranian banks, and correspondent relationships. The sanctions only apply if there are grounds to believe a specific financial transaction relates to proliferation-sensitive activities. The Central Bank of Iran is mentioned only in passing, and the resolution only "encourages" countries to exercise vigilance over its transactions.

The resolution does offer some encouraging developments, but they are unlikely to have sufficient impact to change Iranian behavior. The sanctions give countries the authority to interdict ships they believe are carrying prohibited nuclear items to Iran. U.N. Security Council Resolution 1874, imposed after North Korea's 2009 nuclear-weapons test, gave countries the authority to stop North Korean vessels, and some countries -- including India, Thailand, and the United Arab Emirates -- have actually used it. However, this has obviously not stopped Kim Jong Il's nuclear program, which proceeds apace.

One of the resolution's few mandatory provisions requires countries to prohibit Tehran from acquiring an interest in commercial activity involving uranium mining, as well as production or use of nuclear materials and technology. Iran has been seeking to acquire uranium from Venezuela and Bolivia, which this resolution might affect. Prohibiting investment in a mine, however, will not stop Iran from buying the ore extracted from it.

The new resolution is also rife with loopholes when it comes to new arms restrictions. For example, it does not prohibit Russia from selling S-300 surface-to-air missiles to Iran because those weapons are not covered by the resolution's technical definition of a missile listed on the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms. Administration officials have said they have reached a separate understanding with the Russians, but there are no sanctions ready to go if they supply the S-300s anyway.

The voluntary nature of many of these sanctions guarantees that states will implement them in widely varying ways. The United States will likely use the resolution to expand its array of unilateral sanctions and enforce sanctions on Iranian financial transactions and shipping even more vigorously. EU member states will also strengthen their measures, but will not independently impose sanctions on new targets. Although they will be more aggressive in interdicting shipments, we are not likely to see Britain or France prohibiting the Iranian business of European oil companies such as Total and Shell. Russia and China, on the other hand, will probably parse the resolution's language to its barest essentials, doing the minimum necessary to meet its requirements. This will allow Russian energy giant Gazprom and the China National Petroleum Corp. to continue their Iran projects as usual.

Although the paltry effect of the new U.N. sanctions might not have much of an impact on Iran, it could spur the U.S. Congress to implement unilateral sanctions on Iran's petroleum exports, which the Security Council's resolution does not address. Congressional sanctions probably will not change Iran's strategic calculation either, but supporters can plausibly argue that they could choke off the money that pays for Iran's nuclear program. The U.S. Government Accountability Office estimates that oil sales comprise as much as 76 percent of the regime's revenues.

Of course, the new resolution is better than nothing. There should be no illusion, however, that it will stop Iran's drive toward nuclear weapons. U.N. sanctions will need to be a lot tougher to have an impact on the Islamic Republic, if it is not already too late for them to have any impact at all.

BULENT KILIC/AFP/Getty Images

 

Christopher R. Wall (cwall@pillsburylaw.com) is senior international trade partner in the Washington, D.C., office of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP. He served as U.S. assistant secretary of commerce for export administration from 2008 to 2009.

GEORGEKZ

2:03 AM ET

June 9, 2010

The sad truth that we all

The sad truth that we all have to admit is that in present-day conditions, given the easy accessibility of high-class research and transferability of technologies at very little expense, it is almost impossible to make any given country play by the rules, if it does not wish to. The case of Iran is telling, for this country has been under international pressure for many years and no round of sanctions has ever produced any tangible results. It seems at times that the Iran-American rivalry is a kind of bilateral game accommodating both parties' short-term interests. The US has used extensively the Iran argument to justify its not-too-peaceful actions or plans. Take the missile defence shield in Eastern Europe, now partly abandoned, but eagerly promoted by the Bush administration in 2008. It is clear to every international relations freshman that this shield would have been directed against Russia, as the Iranian or North Korean missiles could not reach America and the US's NATO allies did not express any specific concern in connection with the Iranian and North Korean military buildup plans at the time. Which means that the whole idea was authored by the Bush administration's people, namely Carl Rove. The Iranian danger is a nice pretext to step up military expenditure, continue to sponsor military operations in the nearby region and retain sizeable contingents there. As for Iran, it is not totally clear what advantages it might gain from this one-street game. What is evident is that Iran will not give up its plans, unless it sees absolute unanimity in the UNSC's decision-making. And this will not happen.

 

JJACKSON

7:36 AM ET

June 9, 2010

SC votes and vetoes

For all the good work the UN tries to do it is such a shame that the Security Council, and the SC vetoes in particular, bring the whole organisation into disrepute. The sooner it is disbanded the better.
This particular vicious little bit of abuse of power in the ongoing US-Iranian slanging match is fairly typical and just shows the problems any country can have if they piss of a major power without having a P5 benefactor. The danger is if you do have a protector your actions go unchecked and you get states behaving like N. Korea or Israel because no one can reign in their excesses.

The link is to a list of all SC vetoes what they were used to block, by whom and when. Reading it is enlightening rather than edifying.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security-council/tables-and-charts-on-the-security-council-0-82/subjects-of-un-security-council-vetoes.html

 

JJACKSON

7:58 AM ET

June 9, 2010

PS

What I should have added is the table gives the score in each vote with for, against and abstain. There are 15 seats, 10 rotate and five are permanent. When the score is consistently 14 for with none against and no abstentions over a long enough period of time, so that the rotating seats must have been regularly changing, you have to wonder why the P5 veto-er is so badly out of step with every other country and how they can have such an aberrant world view. What it fails to show is how many other resolution would have been tabled censoring unacceptable behavior if it were not a foregone conclusion that the P5 benefactor was going to abuse the use of veto yet again.

 

THEBLACKCAT

9:47 AM ET

June 9, 2010

"Although the paltry effect

"Although the paltry effect of the new U.N. sanctions might not have much of an impact on Iran, it could spur the U.S. Congress to implement unilateral sanctions on Iran's petroleum exports, which the Security Council's resolution does not address. Congressional sanctions probably will not change Iran's strategic calculation either, but supporters can plausibly argue that they could choke off the money that pays for Iran's nuclear program. The U.S. Government Accountability Office estimates that oil sales comprise as much as 76 percent of the regime's revenues. "

The Congressional legislation doesn't target petroleum exports, it targets refined petroleum IMPORTS, as well as refinery-building/expansion. It also expands the scope of pre-existing sanctions against investments in Iranian production of oil, but - repeat - doesn't target oil exports or oil product exports from Iran.

 

THEBLACKCAT

9:56 AM ET

June 9, 2010

After I wrote this, I

After I wrote this, I realised the author may be talking about additional, as yet, unformulated legislation other than the refined petroleum sanctions legislation currently under consideration/in caucus. If that's the case, apologies for the misunderstanding.

 

SURESH SHETH

5:29 PM ET

June 9, 2010

US nonproliferation policy is a mirage

This toothless UNSC resolution by US and its so-called partners is not going to stop Iran’s march towards nuclear weapons as US itself knows all too well. As long as such meaningless resolutions do NOT include Iran’s lucrative oil trade with China and nuclear reactor trade with Russia,
America’s nonproliferation goals are going to be just a mirage in the desert.

But then America’s nonproliferation ship sailed into oblivion when US decided to forgive China and Pakistan for making this world a lot more dangerous place by proliferating China’s nuclear weapons and ballistic missile technology to the rogue states of the world.

 

THEEASYWAY

3:22 AM ET

June 10, 2010

Time to disband the security council

The security council is nothing but a group of bullies. They couldn't care less about what's best for the world, only their own interests. Countries like Israel and North Korea can get away with their atrocious behaviour because one of the permanent members support them.

Instead, they're busy implementing idiotic sanctions against a genuinely peaceful country like Iran, which hasn't done anything agressive in over 500 years.

 

EVDENEVESEC

9:41 AM ET

June 10, 2010

respect

Helal olsun!!!

 

ANARCHIST

6:06 AM ET

June 10, 2010

Double standards

Why isn't Israel being questioned about their nuclear weapons which they have since the 1970's? Oh wait, the good ol' US of A is protecting Israel! It's outright hypocrisy that Israel can have nuclear weapons but not Iran. There is no proof that Iran would goto war with Israel let alone use nuclear weapons. I think anyone with a casual acquaintance with war/military history knows the effects of nuclear war.

The US must sever ties with Israel and then we will see a major change in world politics. Stop imperialism, withdraw all troops and close down all the international bases. All countries should focus on free trade, cultural exchange and less on defense, warfare and meddling in other nations affairs.

PS: End all central banks. Cut down sizes of all governments world over. Abolish all taxation. Return to sound money (gold or silver standard). Austrian economics all the way! Support market anarchism!

 

NICHOLAS WIBBERLEY

9:04 AM ET

June 10, 2010

Fizzling sanctions

Russia has already hastened to make it clear that it considers any unilateral sanctions over and above those authorised by the Security Council would be illegal. It has equally been swift to confirm, as the author anticipates, that the sanctions won’t affect its sales of S–300 missiles to Iran. The only positive benefit from all this palaver may be if it serves to keep Israel’s finger away from the red button a wee while longer.

 

SANTANA

9:11 AM ET

June 10, 2010

nukes not needed

just more and more stupidity from the so called UN.all the world needs to get rid of these dreadful weapons and that ban should first and foremost be applied to the government of rabbis in israel.think about it.the talmud,300 nukes and extreme hatred for the inferior goyim.

 

ANYA KHAN

5:35 AM ET

June 11, 2010

2 comments

Wow, it only took two comments before this turned into Israel bashing. That this is about a lunatic who leads a nation with the goal to destroy Israel, then Israel gets attacked is telling.