the sanctions game copy 2

“The Sanctions Game” The Impacts on US Foreign Policy and The Global Economy

Sally A. RussellWinter 2015

POLITICAL SCIENCE 219, !1

I. Introduction:

Unilateral economic sanctions are by no means a new concept. In fact, the “sanctions game”

has been a key weapon in American foreign policy, for over 200 years. Unfortunately, after

review of the various strategies used in the “sanctions game” by the United States and its

European counterparts, it became clear that sanctions are only a stop gap measure that can

result in serious implications to the global economy.

The most notable impact and an ongoing source of dispute, in the US Congress and United

Nations, is the use of sanctions to deter nuclear proliferation and the procurement of energy.

The question is not whether they work but rather, are they correct.This paper explores the

Obama Administration’s use of “hard power” and the effectiveness of Western sanctions to

effect foreign policy.

As described in Stephen Walt’s, “International Relations, One World Many Theories” and

Alexander George’s, “Bridging the Gap”, I will attempt to further analyze the United States ability

to bridge the gap, between abstract theory and real world policy ,in their application of sanctions

to achieve foreign policies.

A description of the background of United States/United Nations sanctions, an analyses of the

impacts of US sanctions to key world powers,that include: Russia, Iran, North Korea and China;

and recomendations, follow:

II. Background:

The Economic sanctions game is a “hard power” (see, II,c) method used by essentially all

countries and international organizations, to convince a particular government or group of

governments to change their policy, by restricting trade, investment or other commercial activity.


Most specifically, sanctions may be applied to countries which develop weapons of mass

destruction, violate human rights or trade. Trade sanctions are the most common and least

harmful, whereas economic sanctions are the most punitive and have the most significant

impact on the poor or impoverished .All countries utilize economic sanctions, as a leverage for

change, but few consider the overall impact to the global economy.

Famous United States sanctions have included the imposition of economic sanctions on South

Africa in opposition to its former apartheid policy. United States companies completely divested

themselves of South African assets in the 1980’s. President Carter boycotted the Moscow

Olympics in 1980, as a protest against the Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan. The US has

also promoted economic sanctions worldwide, against Iran to encourage cooperation with

international inspections of their nuclear program. Lastly, the United Nations council has

supported economic sanctions against North Korea for their involvement in the nuclear weapons

program.It is important to note, that of the fifty sanctions which Congress placed limits on, in


1976, remain in effect today, including the first, ordered by President Jimmy Carter in 1979 with

respect to Iran. (extended by President Barack Obama in 2014.) (See US Sanctions Timeline

above, in Figure 1 ).

Sanctions policy may originate in either the executive or legislative branches. Presidents start

the process by issuing an executive order (EO) declaring a national emergency in response to

an “unusual and extraordinary” foreign threat, such as “the proliferation of nuclear, biological,

and chemical weapons” (EO 12938) or “the actions and policies of the Government of the

Russian Federation with respect to Ukraine” (EO 13661). This allows the president to exercise

certain powers (pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act) to regulate

commerce during a crisis/threat for one year, unless extended or terminated by a joint resolution

of Congress. (Executive orders may also modify sanctions.)

The Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) administers and enforces economic sanctions

primarily against countries or groups that include terrorists and narcotics traffickers. “The

sanctions can be either comprehensive or selective, using the blocking of assets and trade

restrictions to accomplish foreign policy and national security goals. All U.S. persons (which by

legal definition includes firms) must abide by these sanctions—this is the meaning of

compliance” (OFAC webpage). Critical to our national security and economy and a key focus of

the OFAC, specifically in the last decade, involves sanctions effecting the deterrence of nuclear

proliferation and the procurement of energy.

What is the sanctions process at the United Nations?

As the UN’s principal crisis-management body, the Security Council may respond to global

threats by cutting economic ties with state and non-state groups. Sanctions resolutions must

pass the fifteen-member Council by a majority vote and without a veto from any of the five


permanent members: the United States, China, France, Russia, the UK. The most common

types of UN sanctions, which are binding on all member states, are asset freezes, travel bans,

and arms embargoes. UN sanctions regimes, including most of the sixteen in place in early

2015 (the most in history), are typically managed by a special committee and a monitoring

group. The global police agency Interpol assists some sanctions committees, particularly those

concerning al-Qaeda and the Taliban, but the UN has no independent means of enforcement

and relies greatly on member states, many of which have limited resources and little political

incentive. Anecdotal evidence suggests that enforcement is often weak. Figure 2 above,depicts

the UN Global sanctions regime:


a) Sanctions for Deterrence of Nuclear Proliferation

US foreign policy that ensures that nuclear materials are protected globally and prevents

terrorists from acquiring the material to build a crude nuclear bomb, is a top priority, but can it be

achieved through the use of hard power and economic sanctions ?

Since the 1970’s, US policymakers, have considered sanctions instrumental to U.S. efforts to

halt nuclear proliferation and have employed them regularly. Many theorists of nonproliferation

also believe in the role of sanctions, arguing they are an important component of the

nonproliferation policy toolkit. Despite the Obama administrations increased emphasis on US

sanctions, in support of U.S. nonproliferation policy, the success of these efforts,which include

financial and trade restrictions, economic and military aid cutoffs, termination of peaceful

nuclear cooperation, as well as threats to weaken military alliance relationships, remains a

source of controversy. This disagreement is reflected in policy debates over sanctions on Iran

and in a number of scholarly debates that include, former leaders: Schulz, Perry and Kissinger.


“Progress must be made through a joint enterprise among nations, recognizing the need for

greater cooperation, transparency and verification to create the global political environment for

stability and enhanced mutual security”. Schulz, Perry, Kissinger.

If the Obama administration hopes to successfully contain the nuclear arms race, it will require

the collaboration of the State Department, the White House and academia. I agree with Schulz,

Perry and Kissinger and their use of “soft power” to achieve a peaceful non-proliferation policy

among nations.The nuclear talks which have been at the forefront of the news and a primary

driver in the “sanctions game” between the Obama administration and foreign players are

discussed below:

b) Energy Sanctions and Foreign Policy

The procurement of energy dominates our economy and foreign policy more than any other

factor. Therefore, the implications of economic sanctions involving energy are critical to our

national security and economy. Energy Sanctions, and Commodities (ESC) is one of seven

issue-oriented organizations of the Bureau of Economic, Energy and Business Affairs, at the

U.S. Department of State, which monitors energy sanctions. ESC formulates and implements

U.S. foreign policy relating to energy, sanctions, and commodities. The global impacts of energy

with which ESC deals are critical to U.S. national security. Energy sanctions are a high priority,

specifically because the U.S. has only 2% of world oil reserves and its imports provide only half

of U.S. oil needs.It is clear that the competition for energy, has escalated conflicts in the United

States, Middle East, Russia/Ukraine and China.

Although, this paper provides a broad view of economic sanctions, the focus and interest, is its

ultimate impact to the global economy. The United States has been the most aggressive in the


application of hard power through economic sanctions with: Russia, Iran, Iraq, Korea, and

China. A definition/description, of “hard” and “soft power” as it applies to economic sanctions

and the economic impact to its key players, follows:

c) Hard Power Sanctions v Soft Power Negotiations

Since September 11, 2001, America’s foreign policy and the future of the global systems/

economies, have occupied a central place in current international affairs debates. The Bush and

Obama Administrations have relied, almost exclusively on “hard power” and economic

sanctions, since the crisis of 9/11, to persuade other nations to ascribe to their policies. The use

of soft power was lost during the Bush administration, specifically,during the war on Afghanistan

and Iraq. The Bush Doctrine, which was in prepared in response to the crisis of 9/11 and the war

on terrorism, was based on preventive warfare.

Nye, Harvard political scientist and practitioner, coined the term “soft power”, obviously the

opposite of hard power”, in 1990. Nye, former Chairman of the National Intelligence Council and

Assistant Secretary of Defense for Bill Clinton's administration, describes soft power as: "the

ability to get what you want through attraction rather than through coercion." Nye’s theory of

“Soft Power” provides alternatives to “hard power”, through the cultivation of strong relations

with allies, the provision of economic assistance programs, and cultural exchanges.

Although, the Obama campaign platform for the 2008 and 2012 Presidential Elections,

advocated soft power in foreign policy negotiations, the challenges in the Middle East, Russia

and the Ukraine, ultimately required hard power to effect policy change. In recent years ,the

Obama administration has relied heavily on economic sanctions to motivate other countries,

specifically Russia, to adhere to United States and United Nations policies.


The sanctions game is just one method of “hard power”, which also includes the use of military

force, coercion and intimidation. Economic sanctions may be used solely or in conjunction with

hard power methods. As stated by former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton the best and/or

most effective method of persuasion is “smart power”.

III. The Impact of US Sanctions on Russian Economy

The Russian economy is suffering its most severe economic decline since 1998, when Moscow

defaulted on its debt. The decline of Putin’s economy, is the direct result of United States

economic/energy sanctions and historically low oil prices. The Russian Ruble has depreciated,

well below the American dollar. Putin’s aggression towards Ukraine, coupled with Obama’s new

round of economic sanctions, is driving the Russian economy over the financial cliff.

According to a report, published by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), Russia saw near

zero growth in GDP in 2014 and was moving into a recession. As the Russian economy slows

and the US continues to impose sanctions on financial institutions, billions of dollars will

continue to be lost. A decrease in Russian economic growth will mean fewer jobs, rising inflation

and higher interest rates. The increase in interest rates will devalue large industries, particularly,

oil and gas energy companies.

The decline in the Russian economy will also impact foreign investors, who according to the

IMF, held nearly $200 billion of Russian securities, in their portfolios. The IMF’s experts believe

over half will be sold before the Ukraine crisis is over and will continue to decline in value as

Russian assets dissolve.

"The tense geopolitical situation between Russia and Ukraine could see additional significant

outflows of both foreign and domestic capital from the Russian economy and hence further


undermine already weakening growth prospects, Rating Company, Standards and Poor’s, April

25,2014.

Vladimir Putin has only exacerbated this situation by stopping the provision of gas supplies to

the Ukraine, which will ultimately impact Western Europe. The looming threat of US economic

sanctions on Russia, makes it even more attractive for Putin to play petro politics and to stop

transport of oil to Western Europe. Putin’s agitation with the Obama administration has

escalated and has resulted in numerous threats by Russia. In direct opposition, to the requests

of the Obama Administration to not arm Tehran, Putin has threatened to sell air-defense

systems to Iran.

The United States imposed broad sanctions on Russia in 2014, including: freezing assets of 45

of Putin’s associates and a number of their banks and companies. Although, the Obama

administration threatened Russia with energy and defense sanctions in July of 2014, they

deferred to other methods of negotiation, in an effort to protect the global economy. Although,

the Obama administration has not, to date, taken steps to impose energy/economic sanctions,

Putin has eluded, that the imposition of such sanctions, would warrant retaliation.

The Obama administration was accused of hollow threats by Senate Foreign Relations

Committee Chairman Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) (July 2014) for his inaction and/or failure to

impose further economic sanctions on Russia. Again, the concern for the European economy

took, precedence. “Acting alone might not change Russia’s policies, Nuland said, and would

hurt U.S. companies because European corporations would continue doing business with

Moscow”.

In December of 2014 Obama, signed a bill that would impose energy sanctions, intended to

impact President Vladimir Putin’s foundation of power and economy and to convince Putin to

return the Crimean peninsula to Ukraine and stop Russian aggression towards eastern Ukraine.


The United States sanctions on Russia, targeted state owned energy companies including oil

giant, Rosneft. Rosneft is a major player in the world oil market and holds the most debt. US

sanctions have locked Rosneft out of international capital markets, stoking the fire that may lead

to a Russian economic meltdown.

Secretary of State John Kerry and President Obama’s use of “hard power” to negotiate with

Russia, appears to have been the only alternative to motivate a reaction on the part of Russian

President Putin. As stated by Secretary Kerry, “It goes without saying that the purpose of the

European-U.S.-et al effort with respect to sanctions was to make it clear to Russia, to President

Putin, that there are costs attached to the unilateral annexation of Crimea and the continued

support for separatists within Ukraine and the violation of Ukraine’s territorial sovereignty and

integrity.”

Although, sanctions imposed by European nations and the United States were intended to

motivate Putin to cooperate with UN demands, it continues to be a struggle. The destruction of

Russian wealth and impact on the global economy has slowed but not deterred, Putin’s quest to

restore Russian power. It appears it will require a Russian revolution or military coup to

ultimately dampen the czar’s ambitions.

The question that remains ,is how aggressive will the United States need to be to stop Putin and

how far can the US take energy sanctions before they result in chaos to the global economy.

The recovering global economy is already on a slippery slope and unless the US roles back

sanctions imposed on Russia, in a timely manner, the impact could potentially be disastrous.

Perhaps, the Obama administration should rely more heavily on soft power techniques and offer

economic incentives to boost the Russian economy to leverage negotiations. Considering that

the energy industry has been the hardest hit, a debt resolution package should be considered.

Possibly a joint venture/treaty with Russia and the UN, NRC and/or State Department to


implement upgrades to their failing nuclear technology and/or the construction of renewable

energy facilities, may be a solution.

IV. The Impact of US sanctions on Iran

United States sanctions against Iran include over 26 executive orders, dating back to President

Jimmy Carter. President Carter froze Iranian assets during the embassy crisis of 1979. There

are also ten statutes, four United Nations Security Council resolutions, and tens of European

Union regulations and amendments to implement the U.N.’s sanctions against Iran.

“The United States has privately accused Iran of going on an international shopping spree to

acquire components for a heavy-water reactor that American officials have long feared could be

used in the production of nuclear weapons-grade plutonium. The American allegations, followed

a pledge by the Iranian government ,as part of an interim agreement with the United States and

other big powers to reduce Iran’s nuclear-related activities, including the enrichment of high-

grade uranium, in exchange for billions of dollars in sanctions relief”. Collin Fynch.

The ongoing nuclear talks with Iran, are at the heart of all conflicts between the United States

and Iran. On January 28, 2015, Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) and Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) re-introduced

the Nuclear Weapons Free Iran Act, which will impose new sanctions on Iran, if international

negotiators fail to reach a deal that would restrain Tehran’s nuclear program ,by June 30 2015.

Although, the sanctions bill has been delayed until April of 2015, oil prices have already

plummeted. New US economic sanctions on Iran will increase the economic strain in Iran and

motivate negotiations.

Iran estimates that sanctions have caused a 20 to 30 percent reduction in oil exports so far, and

the International Energy Agency calculates that reducing crude exports will cost Iran at least $8

billion in lost revenue each quarter. Obama’s aggressive use of sanctions on Iran has caused


massive inflation and a sharp increase in unemployment. The sanctions imposed on 24 Iranian

banks has made it very difficult for Iran to conduct international trade.

Although,the Iranian economy will continue to struggle, the recent rollback of sanctions resulted

in growth. “Sanctions got the Iranians to the negotiating table in the first place and Iran's only

going to agree to a deal, that actually rolls back its nuclear program for good, if it's under

serious pressure”, Kirk and Menendez.

Menendez and Kirk have been accused of not having faith in Obama’s ability to negotiate and

fear the aggressive sanctions, may result in war. "The end of these negotiations isn't an

unintended consequence of congressional action. It is very much an intended consequence -- a

feature, not a bug," Cotton said, calling for "immediate" and "crippling" sanctions.

This is an excellent example of hard power v soft power. Unfortunately, there is never a recipe

for success. Is President Obama’s hesitancy to impose further sanctions, a sign or weakness or

strength?

Vali Nasr’s take on Obama’s use of sanctions and his ability to effect foreign Policy

In Vali Nasr’s, book Dispensable Nation he is sharply critical of Obama’s role in foreign policy

and use of sanctions.Mr. Nasr, former senior advisor to Richard Holbrooke, the Obama

administrations special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, before his death in 2010,

suggests that “the foreign policy pursued under Mr. Obama has diminished America’s leadership

role in the world”.

To our allies, Mr. Nasr writes, “our constant tactical maneuvers don’t add up to a coherent

strategy or a vision of global leadership. Gone is the exuberant American desire to lead in the

world. In its place there is the image of a superpower tired of the world and in retreat, most


visibly from the one area of the world where it has been most intensely engaged,” the Middle

East.

Should one review the impact of the Bush administrations use of hard power and the results of

the war in Afghanistan to determine the appropriate next step for the Middle East? Possibly an

evaluation of the dynamics between the White House and the State Department. In Vali Nasr’s

book, he discusses the importance of recognizing, turf wars, clashing personalities and

philosophical differences, as elements of the political game. Nasr indicates that Secretary of

State Hillary Clinton was instrumental in mediating between President Obama and Hal

Holbrooke, on issues pertaining to the war in Afghanistan.

Holbrooke’s described methods of negotiation, which Hillary Clinton coined “Smart Power”.

Holbrooke believed that lasting political solutions would not result from military means alone but

through a combination of leverage and diplomacy, involving all the stakeholders in the region

(including countries like Iran and India). Holbrooke was of the mindset that such diplomacy

included engagement on issues of long-term social and economic interest to individual

countries.

Nasr claims that Obama’s current foreign policy in Iran is hardly distinguishable from Bush’s

policies, posing a new set of security concerns for the United States. Nasr believes that

Obama’s pivot to Asia policy, his mismanagement of the Middle East, Afghanistan and Pakistan,

coupled with, the out fall of the Arab Spring will simply be pushing the region “further into the

China’s bosom”.

I do not agree with Nasr’s argument regarding China and Russia’s dominance in Central Asia

and their potential to overtake the US ’s place in the world energy market , but I do agree the

European and United States energy markets must be vigilant in their pursuit of energy

independence. Nasr is also correct in his assumption that the US will face global threats but I


am confident it can be reversed. Lastly, I agree with Nasr’s suggestion to prepare a plan

equivalent, in scale, to the Marshall Plan, to assist the Middle East with their economy Nasr also

emphasizes the implementation of such a plan, will require international commitment .

V. US Sanctions, North Korea

“One thing we know about North Korea, is that we don’t know much about North Korea”, Gordon

Chang, Nuclear Showdown.

Gordon Chang, states that the concept of deterrence in a nuclear age, rests on the belief that

our adversaries will not launch nuclear missiles out of fear of retaliation. Based on North Korean

principles and past history, Chang suggests we should always err on the side of caution and

expect a scenario that includes nuclear warfare.

Obama’s recent imposition of economic sanctions, in response to a cyber attack by North

Korea on Sony Pictures, is a prime example of the necessity of hard power. Obama authorized

the Treasury Department to impose new sanctions on “ongoing provocative, destabilizing, and

repressive actions and policies, particularly its destructive and coercive cyber attack on Sony

Pictures Entertainment,” the White House said in a statement. This was the first , and possibly

the first of many, where a country has been punished for a cyberattack on an American

company.

The Obama administration rarely promotes sanctions when there’s diplomatic progress, but

when progress ceases, the the United States begins the never ending “sanctions game”.The

China contingent, as discussed in section VI, has almost no interest in playing the “sanctions

game” with North Korea, particularly sanctions directed at stopping the import of luxury goods

into North Korea, a measure designed to impact the Korean wealth and ultimately the ruling

power. While China supported UNSCR 1874, it appears to be primarily concerned with the


nuclear and ballistic missile programs but not the economic sanctions, intended to impact the

high North Korean society.

A U.N. panel of experts was assigned to monitor the implementation of the North Korean

sanctions which ultimately invigorated the sanctions regime and prevented their failure. The UN

panel offered innovative suggestions for better enforcement, identified key gaps in sanctions

coverage (including air cargo), and encouraged states to comply fully with their reporting

requirements (most countries have not).

Three North Korean government agencies: the Reconnaissance General Bureau, North

Korea’s primary intelligence agency; the Korea Mining Development Trading Corporation,

Pyongyang’s main arms dealer; and the Korea Tangun Trading Corporation, responsible for

procurement and technology connected to North Korean defense research and development,

have been sanctioned and prohibited from doing business with the United States. All three are

already being punished by previous sanctions.

VI.The Impact of US Sanctions on China

Is China a sanctions proof superpower ? China is in much a better position, economically to

deal with US sanctions than Moscow is. Although, China exports equal to, approximately 26% of

its GDP, its economy is strengthening and its vulnerably is decreasing. For example,the Peoples

Bank of China held over 4 Trillion in reserve in 2013,which is five times the level of their

investment abroad.President Obama continues to seek greater cooperation from the Chinese

government to stop Iran’s nuclear weapons program.

One of the primary concerns of the US Congress in past years, has been that Beijing is not

keeping up its end of the bargain, and not enforcing international arms sanctions on Iran and


were believed to be giving Iran technology to help missile and nuclear programs. Ultimately, the

US did not act and impose the US sanctions, based on the following statement:

“On the Iranian nuclear issue, the United States and China reiterated their commitment to

seeking a comprehensive and long-term solution that would restore international confidence in

the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear program. Both sides agreed that Iran has the

right to peaceful uses of nuclear energy under the Non-Proliferation Treaty and that Iran should

fulfill its due international obligations under that treaty. Both sides called for full implementation

of all relevant UN Security Council Resolutions. The United States and China welcomed and will

actively participate in the P5+1 process with Iran, and stressed the importance of all parties –

including Iran – committing to a constructive dialogue process.”

As China and Singapore continued cooperating with international nuclear deterrence initiatives

and decreased their crude oil imports to Iran ,the Obama administration rolled back economic

sanctions.

VII. Analysis

The foreign policy developments across the Middle East and South Asia, in Afghanistan,

Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Libya and Syria , are intertwined historically, economically and

politically with no easy answers or solutions.Although, Nasr made many valid criticisms of the

Obama administration’s foreign policy, he failed to provide solutions, aside from a Marshall Style

Plan. The State departments use of soft power has enhanced foreign relations with a number of

nations but the use of economic sanctions, although necessary, has created a significant

amount of friction, specifically with Russia.Unfortunately,the impacts of 9/11 have dictated the

future use of economic sanctions, as a path forward in foreign policy.


The Bush administration launched a campaign in 2001, to destroy the financial infrastructure

that supported terrorists, international criminals, and other rogue actors. This campaign focused

on accesses to the global financial system,international banks.” President George W. Bush

signed EO 13220, which provided Treasury Department officials with far-reaching authority to

freeze the assets and financial transactions of individuals and other entities suspected of

supporting terrorism. Bush also extended to the Treasury broad powers (under Section 311 of

the USA Patriot Act) to designate foreign jurisdictions and financial institutions as “primary

money laundering concerns.” (Notably, Treasury needs only a reasonable suspicion—not

necessarily any evidence—to target entities under these laws),”Jonathan Masters.

Economists indicate that with the imposition of economic sanctions on world banking

institutions, a permanent change occurred to the financial regulatory environment, that

ultimately impacts the global market.The penalties that resulted from sanctions violations

escalated the losses to business. The result,federal and state authorities have been vigilant in

their quest to prosecute banks, resulting in a dozen cases, with fines over $100 million, since

2009. The largest settlement, 9 billion, was BNP Paribus, France’s largest lender who was


found guilty of processing billions of dollars for blacklisted Cuban, Iranian, and Sudanese.

�

Table 1, above, depicts major US sanctions violations, from 2009 to 2015.“This new approach

worked, by focusing squarely on the behavior of financial institutions, rather than on the classic

sanctions framework of the past,” wrote Juan Zarate, a top Bush administration official involved

in counterterrorism efforts, in his book Treasury’s War (2013). “In this new approach, the policy

decisions of government are not nearly as persuasive as the risk-based compliance calculus of

financial institutions.”

Do US sanctions, as a hard power method to effect foreign policy work? Most academia’s/

theorists and practitioners believe they are somewhat effective and should be used in

conjunction with soft power methods. Sanctions may achieve their desired economic effect, but

they may fail to change behavior that ultimately caused the conflict. For example, UN sanctions

on Afghanistan in 2000 and 2001, agitated the Taliban regime to such an extent that they

refused to surrender Osama bin Laden.


Furthermore,U.S. and EU sanctions against Russia may not have prevented the crisis in

Ukraine, but inaction, may have resulted in disaster.

VIII. Recomendations for Successful Implementation of Sanctions Policy

The Council on Foreign Relations sites a number of best practices, to enhance the sanctions

process, that include:

1. An effective strategy (e.g.link the sanction with a positive outcome,financial aid).

2. The setting of attainable goals.

3. Building of multi-lateral support

4. Credibility and flexibility.

To ensure a successful economic sanctions strategy, the Obama administration should use best

practices and rely more heavily on smart power techniques. It requires, as described in, the

“Rise of the Vulcans”, a contingent of supporters to execute effective foreign policy. The

dynamics of a Presidential cabinet can be instrumental and/or detrimental, to a successful

foreign policy program. Although,Secretary of State, John Kerry, is an outstanding negotiator/

statesman, he has lost the negotiating power and expertise of Hal Holbrooke, in the Middle

East.

I am confident that the State Department will prevail in their current negotiations with Russia,

Iran, North Korea and China, to deter nuclear proliferation, but I am confident the economic

ramifications of current sanctions, will be significant. Unfortunately, the impacts to the current

energy market and global economy are deep and long lasting.

Aggressive steps must also be taken by the United States to roll back economic sanctions,

where possible, to bolster the global economy. The focus must be shifted to the enhancement


of energy independence in the United States and developing nations, in concert with the United

Nations.

The United States must pursue alternatives to the “sanctions game” and provide financial aid

programs, in support of climate change, energy independence, poverty and human rights, to

developing nations.

References:

Chang, Gordon, Nuclear Showdown


Foreign Policy Magazine,

Mann, James,Rise of the Vulcans, Viking Press, England, 2004

Masters, Jonathan, What are Economic Sanctions ?

Nasr, Vali The Dispensable Nation, Doubleday, 2013.

The study by Security Council Report (2013), an independent non-profit, provides an

explanatory guide on the fundamentals of UN sanctions.

The paper from the EU Non-Proliferation Consortium (2013) examines the effectiveness of

bloc’s sanctions policy , using Iran as a case study.

In Treasury War (2013), former senior Bush administration official Juan Zarate pens a definitive

account of how “financial warfare” developed into a major component of U.S. foreign policy

following the 9/11 attacks.

In the Georgetown Journal of International Law (2013), three attorneys at Steptoe & Johnson

LLP explain the basics of various U.S. sanctions regimes and the compliance implications for

multinationals companies.


the sanctions game copy 2

Documents