Search

Begin New Search Topic Sanctions Political Geography United States of America

101. International Collaboration Efforts to Denuclearize the Korean Peninsula

Author:
George Hutchinson
Publication Date:
04-2018
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
International Journal of Korean Studies
Institution:
International Council on Korean Studies
Abstract:
The international community’s confrontation with North Korea reached crisis proportions in 2017, following Pyongyang’s ballistic missile launches and its sixth nuclear test. In the wake of a series of high-level summits, tensions began to thaw in 2018. At the inter-Korean summit in Panmunjom on April 27, 2018, South Korean President Moon Jae-in and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un agreed to seek support from the international community to denuclearize. But the international community, led by the U.S. in concert with the United Nations Security Council, has already worked tirelessly over the past 26 years to coordinate efforts to prevent North Korea from developing nuclear weapons. Successive U.S. administrations have worked through the cycle of confrontation, crisis, discussions and agreements with North Korea. Nonetheless, all these agreements have ultimately fallen apart, allowing North Korea to advance its nuclear program. This paper focuses on two key questions: How has the international community contributed toward denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula, and what is its role in facilitating the complete, verifiable dismantlement of North Korea’s nuclear program? Ultimately, the success of denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula will be measured by whether North Korea completely dismantles its nuclear program. Fortunately, the international “tools” are on the table, but successfully denuclearizing North Korea will, in the end, be a matter of effectively enforcing existing international measures.
Topic:
Nuclear Weapons, United Nations, Sanctions, Nonproliferation, and Negotiation
Political Geography:
Asia, South Korea, North Korea, and United States of America

102. Lifting US Sanctions on Sudan: Rationale and Reality

Author:
Emile LeBrun and Claire McEvoy
Publication Date:
05-2018
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Small Arms Survey
Abstract:
In October 2017 the United States lifted three of the most significant components of its sanctions regime against Sudan as part of a shift in bilateral relations with Khartoum. Lifting US Sanctions on Sudan: Rationale and Reality describes the specific sanctions changes, their stated rationales, and their documented and likely future effects on Sudan’s internal conflicts, particularly in Darfur. It finds that although the sanctions themselves had a broad impact on Sudan’s economy, they did not consistently hinder key regime functions, including government institutions’ ability to transact in US dollars, obtain US-origin goods and services, and acquire military and dual-use materiel. The sanctions-easing process has improved the Sudanese government’s immediate adherence to its international humanitarian obligations in Darfur and the Two Areas, and its dialogue with diplomats and humanitarians. In the longer term, however, the easing of sanctions effectively reflects international acceptance of Sudan’s longstanding strategy of seeking militarized counter-insurgency solutions to its internal conflicts while largely ignoring efforts to achieve negotiated settlements. On the ground this approach is currently reflected in the government’s neglect of formal peace processes in favour of moving directly to ‘post-conflict’ civilian disarmament—which is being implemented by a militia, in violation of the UN arms embargo, and being used as a counter-insurgency instrument—and placing pressure on internally displaced persons to return home. The easing of sanctions is likely to legitimate these tactics.
Topic:
Bilateral Relations, Sanctions, Economy, and Disarmament
Political Geography:
Africa, Sudan, and United States of America

103. ALL STICK, NO CARROTS: THE SHORTSIGHTED GEOPOLITICS OF THE IRAN SANCTIONS

Author:
Cullen S. Hendrix
Publication Date:
08-2018
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Political Violence @ A Glance
Abstract:
The Trump administration, having withdrawn the United States from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action last May, is threatening US trading partners over doing business with Iran and attempting to freeze Iran out of global oil markets. The attempted freeze-out began with the re-imposition of US sanctions against Iran and businesses operating there, and the Trump administration set November 4 as the target date for US allies to zero out their purchases of Iranian crude. With some arm-twisting, NATO allies like Turkey and Asian security partners South Korea and India have agreed to curb Iranian imports, though it will be difficult for India to zero out its Iranian imports. Fearful of being caught up by US sanctions, major European firms like Total, Allianz, and Maersk have begun winding down operations in Iran in advance of the November 4 deadline. This whole episode reflects a fundamental misunderstanding, on the part of the Trump administration, of both the conditions under which sanctions can hope to be successful in winning policy concessions and the geopolitical realities of pursuing said course of action.
Topic:
NATO, Oil, Sanctions, Geopolitics, and Barack Obama
Political Geography:
China, Iran, Middle East, India, and United States of America

104. Economic and Financial Sanctions in U.S. National Security Strategy

Author:
Jill Jermano
Publication Date:
11-2018
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
PRISM
Institution:
Institute for National Strategic Studies (INSS), National Defense University
Abstract:
The U.S. Government (USG) has increased the use of economic and financial sanctions against other states and non-state actors in the post–Cold War era, refining their design to improve precision. Achieving desired effects with sanctions, however, requires careful assessment of target vulnerabilities, available U.S. leverage, orchestration with other policy tools, and potential obstacles and risks.
Topic:
Hegemony, Sanctions, Conflict, and Economic Policy
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

105. Three milestones of Russia’s foreign policy in 2017

Author:
Pavel Koshkin
Publication Date:
12-2017
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Rethinking Russia
Abstract:
2017 brought both successes and disappointments to Russia on the international arena. Moscow succeeded in establishing dialogue with its rivals in the Middle East — Saudi Arabia and Turkey. It also participated in the Astana peace talks to come up with a compromise with Ankara and Tehran on Syria. Besides, Russia together with its Syrian allies defeated the Islamic State of Iraq and the Greater Syria (ISIS). Afterwards, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced about the partial withdrawal of the Russian troops from Syria. One of the biggest challenges became the strengthening of the American sanctions against Russia for its alleged interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. The Russia dossier probe conducted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller and Congress is also a very important event, because it could deepen the crisis in U.S.-Russia relations. Parliamentary and presidential elections in Europe also matter: They took place amidst the buzz about the Russian cyber threat and hackers, and this indicates that there is not trust toward Russia in European countries today.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Sanctions, Elections, Islamic State, and Negotiation
Political Geography:
Russia, China, Eurasia, Middle East, Syria, and United States of America

106. China and the Korean Peninsula: Arming Kim, Gutting Sanctions, Opposing THAAD

Author:
Gordon G. Chang
Publication Date:
04-2017
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
International Journal of Korean Studies
Institution:
International Council on Korean Studies
Abstract:
China is playing a duplicitous game when it comes to North Korea. It proclaims it is enforcing Security Council resolutions when it is in fact not. The Chinese have overwhelming leverage over the North, but they will not use their power to disarm the Kim Family regime, at least in the absence of intense pressure from the United States. Beijing believes Pyongyang furthers important short-term Chinese objectives, and so views it as a weapon against Washington and others. Beijing’s attempts to punish Seoul over its decision to accept deployment of the THAAD missile defense system reveal true intentions.
Topic:
Sanctions, Authoritarianism, Weapons, Missile Defense, and UN Security Council
Political Geography:
China, Asia, South Korea, North Korea, and United States of America

107. Japan, Chongryon, and Sanctions

Author:
James F. Durand
Publication Date:
04-2017
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
International Journal of Korean Studies
Institution:
International Council on Korean Studies
Abstract:
With nearly 900,000 long-term residents, Japan has one of the largest populations of overseas Koreans. Japan is unique in that it is the only country that further classifies its Korean residents by external political affiliation; i.e., those not adopting Japanese nationality are affiliated with the Korean Residents Union of Japan (Mindan) or the General Association of Korean Residents in Japan (Chongryon), organizations that are linked to South and North Korea, respectively. The status of Korean residents in Japan, and both organizations supporting them, is a product of Japan’s complex relationship with the Korean Peninsula during the last century. American concerns about Japan’s Korean residents—both as an occupying power and a treaty ally—add another dimension to what should have been a domestic or bilateral issue between the Government of Japan, its Korean residents, and North or South Korea. Chongryon’s long-term financial, material, and technical support to Pyongyang’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs highlighted the differences between all governments. However, Pyongyang’s admission that it abducted Japanese citizens has brought about significant changes in the Japanese government’s policies toward North Korea and Chongryon. These include the suspension of ferry services between the two countries and limiting remittances to North Korea. As the Trump Administration considers tighter sanctions as part of its North Korean strategy, the history of the Japan’s relations with its proPyongyang residents provides a cautionary tale about the international community’s ability to use sanctions as a means to curb Pyongyang’s nuclear weapons and ballistic missile ambitions.
Topic:
Immigration, Sanctions, Weapons, Ethnicity, and Abductions
Political Geography:
Japan, Asia, South Korea, North Korea, North America, and United States of America

108. Belarus-West Relations: The New Normal

Author:
Dzianis Melyantsou
Publication Date:
03-2017
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Transatlantic Relations
Abstract:
This paper is part of CTR's Working Paper Series: "Eastern Voices: Europe's East Faces an Unsettled West." The new geopolitical environment formed after the annexation of Crimea and the war in the Donbas, together with emerging threats and challenges, are pressing both Belarus and the West to revise their policies in the region as well as their relations with each other. In this new context, Belarus is seeking a more balanced foreign policy and, at least towards the Ukrainian crisis, a more neutral stance.
Topic:
International Relations, Diplomacy, International Trade and Finance, War, Territorial Disputes, Foreign Aid, Sanctions, and Geopolitics
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, Ukraine, Belarus, Crimea, United States of America, and European Union

109. Getting Real on Sanctions Is Key to Pressuring North Korea

Author:
Melanie Hart and Renee Ding
Publication Date:
09-2017
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center for American Progress - CAP
Abstract:
As the Trump administration’s approach to North Korea appears to shift back and forth between saber rattling and hints of diplomacy—with leading administration officials at times sending contradictory signals—it is clear that the administration needs an overarching strategy for addressing the North Korean threat. That strategy must include a tough, smart, and carefully targeted sanctions offensive. However, given President Donald Trump’s fiery exchanges with Kim Jong Un, and the drumbeat of White House statements and media opinion pieces discussing potentially imminent military action, one can be forgiven for having the impression that the United States has already run its best sanction plays against North Korea. In reality, that effort has only just begun, and if the United States can stay the course, it has the potential to turn this crisis around. Chinese diplomats often claim that it is pointless for China to cut off its economic ties with North Korea because Kim Jong Un would rather let his people starve than give up his nuclear program.1 They give an impression that there is no middle ground: If China pushes North Korea economically, the regime will resist until it collapses, triggering a massive security crisis on the Korean Peninsula.2 There is an equal amount of hand-wringing on the U.S. side. American observers tend to view the past decade of apparently ineffective U.N. action as evidence that sanctions are a dead end and military action will eventually become inevitable. In truth, there is a middle road on sanctions and it runs in two directions: through China and through North Korea’s gateways to the international financial system. The reality is that North Korea is much more exposed than many observers recognize, and the United States has only just begun to target the regime’s biggest weak spots. Instead of blowing hot and cold with China and exchanging blustery rhetoric with North Korea—two approaches that give China maneuvering room to avoid action—the United States needs to double down on a strategy that deals an economic blow against North Korea on par with the blow that brought Iran to the negotiation table in 2013.3
Topic:
Diplomacy, Military Strategy, Sanctions, and Conflict
Political Geography:
China, Asia, South Korea, North Korea, North America, and United States of America

110. Allies Against Atrocities: The Imperative for Transatlantic Cooperation to Prevent and Stop Mass Killings

Author:
Lee Feinstein and Tod Lindberg
Publication Date:
03-2017
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Simon-Skjodt Center for the Prevention of Genocide, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
Abstract:
A generation after Rwanda and Bosnia, many of the world powers who apologized for their lack of an early and effective response to genocide during the 1990s have yet to organize themselves sufficiently to act early and effectively to prevent or stop mass atrocities. The horror of Syria is Exhibit A. As responses to past atrocity crimes show, averting and halting atrocities requires a coordinated and sustained effort by local, regional, and international actors. This report argues that a multilateral response is necessary and that the transatlantic region has a critical role to play in shaping and leading these efforts. The governments of the transatlantic community—the United States, Canada, and Europe—already devote significant resources and political capital to the prevention and amelioration of crises and conflicts, as well as to the pursuit of international development agendas. Without better cooperation among themselves and their like-minded cousins, efforts to address mass atrocities will continue to be reactive, slow, and devastating to human life and potential. Individual transatlantic countries should be involved in those efforts, each bringing its unique capacities to the table. From the vantage point of the report's authors, the United States has a particularly important role to play in encouraging greater transatlantic cooperation among states on this issue. Principle Recommendations: Devise and implement coordinated transatlantic atrocity prevention efforts Internationalize atrocity prevention efforts Improve coordination of financial sanctions Develop an international legal framework adequate to the challenge of atrocity prevention Prioritize civilian protection in military responses that include peacekeeping
Topic:
International Cooperation, Sanctions, Peacekeeping, Civilians, Atrocities, Transatlantic Relations, Atrocity Prevention, and Protection
Political Geography:
Europe, Canada, North America, and United States of America