<
One of the most important issues in the contemporary world is the nuclear proliferation. In 1945, with the explosion of the first atomic bomb in New Mexico(US) the ‘Atomic Age’ began (S. Chestnut Greitens,2013). Since then, nuclear technology for civil, as well as military purposes, has spread across the world. However, for its destructive power, the international community has worked for limiting nuclear proliferation. Since 1970s, the use of sanctions has emerged as the main tool of the US for halting the spread of nuclear weapons around the world (L. Muller,2014). There has been a great disagreement among scholars on the effectiveness of sanctions. However, with a careful analysis it is possible to notice that sanctions can work effectively just under certain conditions that are: sense of urgency shared by the main the senders of the sanctions; implementation of multilateral sanctions with unilateral ones; identifying the vulnerability of the laws in force; when target’s leadership has interest in changing the status quo (Bo R. Kwon, 2016). This essay is going to show, through the comparison of the cases of Iran and North Korea, how these conditions are fundamental for the success of sanctions for security purposes. In fact, these two countries have been considered great threats by the international community for decades. On one hand, despite of the imposition of sanctions, North Korea is continuing its project of building nuclear weapons. On the other hand, Iran has made an agreement with the P5+1 (USA, Russia,
Alfredo Valloreo SOAS ID:639818 IPA SOAS, University of London
China, UK, France and Germany), finally accepting to use the nuclear technology exclusively for civil purposes.
The international community has considered Iran as a serious threat for the international security and has acted with a great sense of urgency. In fact, in 2003 the International Atomic Energy Agency has declared that Iran has failed to declare enrichment activities as required under IAEA’s safeguards agreement (S. Chestnut Greitens). After that, the EU, willing to solve the issue, engaged in talks with Iran since 2003. Unfortunately, after failed attempts of cooperation in 2006, the IAEA reported the problem to the UN security council, which passed three comprehensive sanctions resolutions, including arms trade ban, investment restriction, financial sanctions, travel bans and cargo inspections (Bo R. Kwon, 2016). Moreover, the EU, joined the US, which began sanctioning the Islamic Republic after the hostage crisis of 1979, imposing gradually several unilateral sanctions that dramatically damaged the Iranian economy. In fact, because of the sanctions, there has been a significant fall of the Iranian GDP and the number of people living under poverty has doubled in just eight years (Bo R. Kwon, 2016). The Western sanctions made difficult also for other states, such as South Korea and Singapore to trade with Iran. On the other hand, North Korea, which was considered a threat since 1990s, caused the concerns of the international community because of nuclear and missile tests. Nevertheless, the UN security council did not impose sanctions until 2006. However, the UN sanctions included restrictions on weapons of
Alfredo Valloreo SOAS ID:639818 IPA SOAS, University of London
mass destruction and related materials and technologies, ban on the import of luxury goods, aid and travel bans (Bo R. Kwon, 2016).
Since the North Korea conducted its first nuclear test in October 2006, sanctions have been the principal coercive tool available to the United States and the international community to press Pyongyang to reverse course (J. Dethomas, 2016). Unfortunately, the North Korean threat has not been faced with unilateral sanctions by many countries. In fact, the US have been imposing sanctions to North Korea since 1990s. Japan has used sanctions as a response for the violence against some its citizens in North Korea. South Korea limited trade and partnerships with its neighbour, excluding the Kaesong industrial complex from the sanction (Bo R. Kwon, 2016). However, China, the most important North Korean partner, did not impose sanctions until 2013. For this reason, the damage caused by sanctions has been limited in the North Korean case. In fact, it is possible to notice that the Iranian GDP has decreased dramatically after the imposition of sanctions, falling of the 9 per cent just in 2012, whereas, the North Korean GDP did not have a significant loss (Bo R. Kwon, 2016). In fact, its most relevant damage has been a decrease of 1 per cent in 2006-2007 and 2009-2010 (Bo R. Kwon, 2016).
Moreover, in the Iranian case sanctions resulted extremely effective because they did not present vulnerabilities as for the North Korean case. In fact, in North Korea the government has secured several
Alfredo Valloreo SOAS ID:639818 IPA SOAS, University of London
internal channels in order to procure foreign capital by designating state institutions, state-owned firms and encouraging individuals to partake in market activities and clawing back the dollars they earn. In this way, the country secures enough money to pursue its nuclear project (Bo R. Kwon, 2016).
Another great difference between the two countries is the interest of leaders in changing the status quo, that is strongly related to political and economic factors. In fact, in Iran the 32 per cent of the GDP relied on exports and the 82 per cent of the total export was crude oil (Bo R. Kwon, 2016). With European and American sanctions that were banning the import of Iranian oil, the economy of the Islamic Republic has been extremely damaged, and the most relevant consequences have been experienced by the robust middle-class. However, in Iran it is possible to obtain a regime change through elections (Bo R. Kwon, 2016). For this reason, the population started not approving the political agenda of the president Mahmud Ahmadinejad and in the 2013 elections elected a more moderate president, Hassan Rouhani, who found an agreement with the international community in order to suspend the extremely damaging sanctions. By contrast, sanction did not have a severe impact in North Korea. In fact, the country’s economy is based on a self-subsistence system, for this reason external decisions had an extremely limited impact in the country. It should also be considered that trade between China and North Korea continues to
Alfredo Valloreo SOAS ID:639818 IPA SOAS, University of London
be massive. For example, the 85 per cent of North Korea export goes to China and the RPC continues to export oil to the sanctioned country (Bo R. Kwon, 2016). Furthermore, noteworthy is the fact that North Korea has a dictatorship. This is the reason why people cannot change their representatives and the government is not interested in changing its policies.
Analysing the presence of the four conditions for successful economic sanctions, it is possible to notice that in Iran all of them are satisfied. In fact, the international community has been able to find an agreement with the Islamic republic. By contrast, in North Korea not all of them are satisfied and the country is currently building its own nuclear weapons. In this way, it is possible to understand in which way sanctions could be improved. However, the complete participation of all the countries is required for halting nuclear proliferation. In fact, through the comparison of the two cases it is possible to see how the ambiguous role of China has contributed to the ineffectiveness of the sanctions and to the emergence of more serious security threats. In conclusion, the international community should continue to limit the nuclear proliferation using sanctions. However, when this tool is used, it is desirable to act for satisfying the conditions explained before.