Search

Begin New Search Topic Sanctions Publication Year within 5 Years

161. Ukraine’s Sanctions Against Pro-Russian Oligarch Medvedchuk—All About Oil and Coal

Author:
Alla Hurska
Publication Date:
02-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
The Jamestown Foundation
Abstract:
On February 19, the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine (NSDC) imposed sanctions on Ukrainian tycoon and politician Viktor Medvedchuk and his wife, Oksana Marchenko (Pravda.com.ua, February 19). Medvedchuk is a leader and people’s deputy of the pro-Russian party Opposition Platform–For Life, the largest opposition faction in the Ukrainian parliament. Moreover, he is a close acquaintance of Russian President Vladimir Putin. The NSDC sanctions list also includes five Russian nationals and Ukrainian national Nataliya Lavreniuk. The latter is Marchenko’s friend and the common-law spouse of Taras Kozak (already under sanctions), a people’s deputy from the same political party and Medvedchuk’s business partner. Apart from targeting those eight individuals, sanctions were imposed on nineteen associated businesses, including firms that own aircraft and operate direct flights from Kyiv to Moscow as well as a number of joint stock companies registered in Russia, Moldova and Portugal (Pravda.com.ua, February 20). These measures came two weeks after Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy ordered the shutdown of several television channels—ZIK, NewsOne and 112—connected to Kozak. The move was described by Zelenskyy as a necessary step to fight Russian propaganda. But according to the Security Service of Ukraine (SSU) and the NSDC, these actions were motivated by more complex issues. Specifically, the three aforementioned TV channels were being financed by limited liability company trading house Don Coal (Rostov, Russia), which receives revenue from smuggling coal out of the Luhansk and Donetsk “people’s republics” (LPR/DPR) (Pravda.com.ua, February 4).
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Oil, Sanctions, and Coal
Political Geography:
Russia, Ukraine, and Eastern Europe

162. Creativity Wanted: Countering the extraterritorial effects of US sanctions

Author:
Clara Portela
Publication Date:
10-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
European Union Institute for Security Studies
Abstract:
Scarcely familiar with sanctions as a policy tool, much of the European public has followed the headlines about international sanctions with some puzzlement. After the UN lifted sanctions on Iran following the conclusion of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), why was it necessary to create a channel for bilateral trade, the Instrument in Support of Trade Exchanges (INSTEX), following the US withdrawal from the deal in 2018? Why is Iran insisting that the US lift sanctions ‘in practice, not verbally or on paper’? How did the US Senate approval of new legislation targeting Nord Stream 2, a pipeline under construction between Russia and Germany, bring work to an immediate standstill in late 2019? Why do European banks and private companies fear the US Department of the Treasury’s sanctions enforcement agency, the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC)? If sanctions regimes are endowed with humanitarian exemptions, why do humanitarian agencies report difficulties in getting aid to places like Syria ? As it turns out, these are ramifications of the same phenomenon: the extraterritorial effects of US sanctions. The present Brief examines these effects, describing why they pose a challenge to the EU. It then outlines the responses that have been activated or are being contemplated to counter them, explaining why an effective remedy remains elusive. The Brief concludes by indicating possible ways forward.
Topic:
Humanitarian Aid, United Nations, Sanctions, and Transnational Actors
Political Geography:
Iran, Middle East, Syria, and North America

163. Recognizing ‘Geoeconomic Risk’: Rethinking Corporate Risk Management for the era of Great-Power Competition

Author:
Christian Fjader, Niklas Helwig, and Mikael Wigell
Publication Date:
06-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Finnish Institute of International Affairs (FIIA)
Abstract:
As economic policy has become a key strategic means in great-power rivalry, states are attempting to control the economic networks that connect the world. By instrumentalizing businesses they change the risk picture for both public and private companies. The securitization of the economy entails a first source of new risk as states attempt to strengthen their control of companies in sectors considered strategic and security-sensitive. Another source of risk stems from the balkanization of the global economy, whereby it would disintegrate into separate spheres of economies decoupled from each other. The competition for control of the global standard-setting regimes constitutes an emerging area of such risk. A final source of risk is the weaponization that accelerates the use of sanctions and export controls. It entails more barriers for companies and puts pressure on the rules-based international system. A novel concept of ‘geoeconomic risk’ is therefore needed to identify, assess and mitigate these new uncertainties associated with the repurposing of the global economy.
Topic:
Security, Sanctions, Conflict, Economic Development, and Rivalry
Political Geography:
Global Focus

164. Secondary sanctions and multilateralism – the way ahead

Author:
Jean De Ruyt
Publication Date:
05-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
EGMONT - The Royal Institute for International Relations
Abstract:
The sensitive issue of American ‘secondary sanctions’ imposed on its allies generated serious tensions in the transatlantic relationship when the US left the JCPOA with Iran. Some hoped these would ease with the Biden administration, but the current row about the Nord Stream 2 pipeline demonstrates that the extraterritoriality of sanctions is a well- entrenched US bipartisan policy. The EU has made numerous efforts to react by developing countermeasures, but these have not convinced European companies to challenge the sanctions. The perspective of enhancing the role of the Euro to reduce the dominance of the Dollar in world transactions is also still considered a long shot. New countermeasures have been suggested, notably by the Jacques Delors Institute and the European Commission has announced ‘additional policy options’ to that effect. But the issue should also be addressed in the context of a revival of multilateralism, which the Biden administration seems to favour. The renewed transatlantic dialogue and the G7 framework could be used to address this sensitive issue, in a context in which China’s power aims at challenging the US unipolarity - and the EU aims at developing its ‘strategic autonomy’.
Topic:
Diplomacy, Treaties and Agreements, Hegemony, Sanctions, Conflict, and Multilateralism
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

165. The EU and China: Sanctions, Signals, and Interests

Author:
Sven Biscop
Publication Date:
05-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
EGMONT - The Royal Institute for International Relations
Abstract:
Sanctions are much easier to use against your allies than against your enemies. A friend will want to stay in your good books, and is much more likely to modify his behaviour than an adversary, who will probably just harden his resolve to outdo you. The Trump administration liberally used sanctions against allies in Europe and Asia, who did not exactly cave in but did not want things to escalate either.1 The US trade war with China, on the other hand, cost both sides dearly, without resolving anything. In a coordinated move with the US, the UK, and Canada, the EU has adopted sanctions against four Chinese officials and one entity for violating the human rights of the Uighur people in Xinjiang province.2 That is fully legitimate: as a union of democracies, the EU has a moral duty to speak up for human rights everywhere. But are sanctions the most effective way of doing so?
Topic:
Security, International Cooperation, Sanctions, European Union, and Conflict
Political Geography:
China, Europe, and Asia

166. Mitigating Humanitarian Impact in a Complex Sanctions Environment: The European Union and the Sanctions Regimes against Iran

Author:
Keith A. Preble and Kolja Brockmann
Publication Date:
09-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI)
Abstract:
Iran is one of the most heavily sanctioned countries in the world. The combination of sanctions on Iran imposed by the United States, the United Nations and the European Union (EU) in response to, among others, nuclear and ballistic missile activities and human rights violations provides for a sanctions environment that is highly complex and difficult to navigate for exporters, financial institutions and humanitarian actors. Particularly in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic, there is renewed attention to the humanitarian impact of sanctions, especially in the case of Iran which became one of the flashpoints of the pandemic. The focus of this paper is on the array of overlapping sanctions and the mitigation of humanitarian impact, with a particular focus on EU sanctions policy and instruments. The paper outlines key milestones and phases in the imposition of sanctions on Iran by the three main sanctioning actors, the USA, the UN and the EU, thus demonstrating the complexity and the at times coordinated or contradictory nature of the different sanctions. It then explores the humanitarian impact of sanctions on Iran by discussing several illustrative indicators and the impact of sanctions on the provision of international humanitarian aid. The paper reviews existing mechanisms to mitigate the humanitarian impact of sanctions and how they could be improved. In the context of the sanctions of Iran, but also beyond, the paper finds that there is a clear need to further strengthen compliance, enforcement and coordination of EU sanctions, including in the context of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. It concludes by providing specific recommendations for the EU and its member states on improving the effective use of sanctions and reducing their humanitarian impact, including through strengthening key instruments and assessment processes, better coordination with the USA and more engagement with humanitarian actors.
Topic:
Arms Control and Proliferation, Sanctions, European Union, Arms Trade, Disarmament, and Exports
Political Geography:
Iran and Middle East

167. The impact of EU sanctions on Belarus will be limited

Author:
Izabela Surwillo
Publication Date:
11-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Danish Institute for International Studies (DIIS)
Abstract:
The current Belarusian crisis was set off by a disputed presidential election on 9 August 2020, which gave Alexander Lukashenko his sixth term in office. Once again, the EU’s capacity for leadership was put to the test. When faced with the escalating post-election crisis in Belarus, the EU acted relatively fast, and after at­tempts to establish a dialogue failed, first sanctions followed in October 2020. The sanctions policy sent a signal to the Belarusian regime that EU member states can reach a common agreement. However, according to regional experts, the sanctions should have been broader and implemented earlier to show support for Belarusian society. Tougher sanctions were introduced when a Ryanair flight was forced to land in Minsk in May 2021. The extended sanctions package that followed increased the targeting of financial assets and state companies that are important contributors to the Belarusian state’s budget. Broader personal and sectoral sanctions hit Belarusian national industry and Alexander Lukas­henko’s immediate political circles. In response, he has engineered a migration crisis on the EU’s external border in Poland, Lithuania and Latvia that is destabili­sing the security situation in the region. The effectiveness of the new sanctions remains limited, as even those high state officials who have been targeted generally do not travel extensively or hold assets abroad. Moreover, while some of the sectoral sanctions are particularly aggravating to, for example, Belarusian transportation and logistics sectors (e.g., banning air carriers such as Belavia), they have sometimes targeted companies that do not have very strong trading links with the West, but that cooperate extensively with Russia (e.g., the production of ma­chines for exports to the east). There are also nume­rous loopholes in the sanction’s regime (e.g., exceptions made for imports of potash fertilizers) that undermine its effectiveness and have been blamed on certain lobby groups in Europe connected to businesses that trade with the Belarusian regime. Furthermore, loopholes seem to have been left in place intentionally to leave room for future dialogue with Belarus.
Topic:
Sanctions, European Union, and Russia-Ukraine War
Political Geography:
Europe and Belarus

168. Biden and Belarus: A strategy for the new administration

Author:
Anders Åslund, Melinda Haring, John Herbst, and Alexander Vershbow
Publication Date:
01-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Atlantic Council
Abstract:
United States President Joseph R. Biden Jr. has an historic opportunity to bring Europe together and reverse the tide of dictatorship by building an international coalition to support democracy in Belarus. In 2020, Belarusians unexpectedly called Alyaksandr Lukashenka’s legitimacy into question in the country’s August presidential election. Lukashenka brazenly rigged the results, claiming that he took 80 percent of the vote, but neither the United States nor the European Union (EU) recognizes his victory. A months-long protest movement has coalesced that demands new elections under the supervision of the international community. Recent years have seen no better chance for US leadership to facilitate lasting positive change in Europe than the crisis in Belarus. But how to secure democratic change in Belarus is not simple given internal resistance and Moscow’s determination to prevent another “color revolution.” Lukashenka is likely finished, unable to restore any authority or legitimacy. But he is seeking to hang on despite Moscow’s efforts to arrange a pliable replacement who would preserve Minsk’s pro-Russian orientation. Managing Moscow’s efforts to prevent an aroused citizenry from choosing their own leader is no easy task. Russia remains the key geopolitical player in Belarus, often plays the long game, and may be willing to countenance military options that the United States cannot. Perhaps the key fact is that Belarusians have made it amply clear that they want accountable leaders that they can choose and dismiss for themselves. More than thirty thousand peaceful protesters have been detained since August, more than three hundred and fifty police officers have defected, and ordinary Belarusians are no longer afraid to voice their opposition to the regime. Kremlin support for the ongoing repression risks turning the Belarusian people—historically friendly toward Russia—in a pro-European direction. These changes in Belarus are something that Moscow cannot ignore, and the United States and its allies must nourish and strengthen them in consistent ways that avoid and deter a Kremlin overreaction. Biden, with his long experience promoting US values and interests and his determination to strengthen transatlantic relations, is ideally situated to promote clear support for the people of Belarus that does not directly challenge Moscow’s security interests.
Topic:
Economics, Human Rights, Sanctions, and Democracy
Political Geography:
Europe, Belarus, and United States of America

169. Hong Kong’s future on edge: Countering China’s national security law

Author:
Ash Jain, Joel Kesselbrenner, and Peter Mattis
Publication Date:
06-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Atlantic Council
Abstract:
Over the past seventy-five years, the United States and its allies have constructed and defended a rules-based international system that has provided unprecedented levels of peace, prosperity, and freedom. In recent years, the system has come under increasing strain, as a new era of great power competition has emerged. Despite hopes that China would become a “responsible stakeholder” in a rules-based system, Beijing has grown increasingly assertive, especially under President Xi Jinping. Beijing’s more confrontational path poses a significant challenge to a rules-based system. The challenge presented by China is particularly acute in the context of Hong Kong, where the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has brashly violated an international treaty and curtailed democratic institutions and human rights. As the world enters an era of strategic competition with China, Beijing’s actions in Hong Kong should be a priority for policymakers in the United States and allied countries. This report addresses the importance of Hong Kong within the context of China’s broader challenge to the rules-based system and offers recommendations for how the United States and its allies can prevent a further erosion of democracy in Hong Kong and, over time, seek to restore it. It suggests that the United States and its allies still have available a range of pragmatic policy tools that can can be used to exert pressure and impose meaningful costs on Beijing. These should be implemented as part of a broader, comprehensive strategy to prevent China from undermining the rules-based system in the security, economic, and governance domains. On June 30, 2020, the CCP imposed a sweeping new National Security Law on Hong Kong, effectively giving Beijing direct control over the autonomous territory. Since then, China has acted to erode Hong Kong’s liberal traditions, in violation of Beijing’s treaty commitments under the Sino-British Joint Declaration. The National Security Law has for all practical purposes outlawed democratic activism, organizing, and speech. Over the past year, Beijing has cracked down on Hong Kong’s democratic institutions and thrown the pro-democracy movement into disarray. Beijing’s crackdown in Hong Kong is aimed at achieving several objectives. First, China’s leaders seek to maintain the legitimacy of the CCP in the face of a pro-democracy movement that it fears could spread to the mainland. Second, they seek to advance the unification of China by harmonizing the cultural, social, and economic aspects of life across the country, including Hong Kong. Third, the CCP aims to achieve a comprehensive modernization of China, while retaining the Party’s leadership, including by reaping economic benefits from the Greater Bay Area Integration Plan. Finally, China’s crackdown is aimed at stemming the advance of a liberal, democratic world order by pushing back on democratic norms that it views as antithetical to the Party and a danger to its efforts to modernize China on its own terms.
Topic:
Diplomacy, Economics, Human Rights, Politics, Sanctions, and Business
Political Geography:
China, Asia, and Hong Kong

170. A strategic framework for countering China’s human-rights violations in Xinjiang

Author:
Jeffrey Cimmino
Publication Date:
07-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Atlantic Council
Abstract:
China is engaged in a systematic campaign of repression against predominantly Muslim ethnic minorities in Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR) in northwest China. Through a combination of detention camps, mass surveillance, birth suppression, and other means, China is responsible for gross human-rights violations. In recent years, the international community has devoted an increasing amount of attention to China’s actions in Xinjiang. Earlier this year, the United States declared that Beijing’s behavior constituted genocide. More recently, the United States and several key partners announced multilateral sanctions on Chinese officials facilitating repression in the region. To build on these developments, the United States and its allies and partners should adopt a more strategic approach to addressing China’s human-rights abuses. This Issue Brief proposes a framework for such a strategy, articulating a multilateral approach for dealing with China’s repressive actions in Xinjiang. This Issue Brief argues that addressing China’s abuses in Xinjiang is of strategic importance. Ultimately, the goal of this strategy is to achieve an end state in which China has ceased its repressive activities; however, even if achieving this objective proves elusive, imposing costs on Beijing’s actions in Xinjiang can still serve broader strategic ends vis-a-vis China. China has chosen an assertive path to attaining global power and influence, and decades of economic growth and incorporation in the global economic system have not been enough to transform Beijing into a responsible stakeholder in a rules-based international system. The United States and its allies and partners will need to impose costs on Chinese behavior that violates international norms. Imposing costs on China’s human-rights violations in Xinjiang is a critical element of a broader strategy to dissuade Chinese Communist Party (CCP) behavior that undermines international norms and to push Beijing toward becoming a cooperative member of a rules-based international system.
Topic:
Human Rights, International Organization, Politics, Sanctions, Economy, and Uyghurs
Political Geography:
China, Asia, and Xinjiang