Follow us on social

48122940472_ab6304656a_o-scaled

US sanctions make it harder to fight COVID-19

Suspending all sanctions now will not only help combat the coronavirus, but it will also create the conditions to resolve our differences diplomatically.

Analysis | Washington Politics

As the United States works to contain the catastrophic COVID-19 pandemic, resorting to extraordinary measures to limit health and economic damage to its own population, it should also suspend economic sanctions that are making it harder for some countries to fight COVID-19 and keep their citizens safe.

The mostly unilateral economic sanctions and export controls imposed by the United States affect 48 countries, home to a third of the world’s population. Eight of those countries, with the great majority of the affected population, say that the sanctions are undermining their response to COVID-19.

Iran, Syria, North Korea, Venezuela, and Cuba are under the most severe economic sanctions and face extreme risk of health, economic, and security failure, especially now. Expanding these sanctions on Iran during a pandemic, as the U.S. is threatening, is cruel.

Of these countries, Iran has been hit hardest by the pandemic – with over 114,000 confirmed infections and 6,800 deaths – and the numbers are rising rapidly. Other countries, including Syria, are reporting unrealistically low numbers of infections and deaths because they do not have the ability to test or are wary of unfavorable public reaction. A devastating eight-year war, that forced displacement of half of its population and severe sanctions combine to make Syria terribly vulnerable to a catastrophic spread of the epidemic.

Though reported cases in the occupied Palestinian territories are still less than 400, Palestinian authorities are also severely hampered in their effort to control COVID-19 because of the Israeli siege of Gaza and cuts in U.S. financial contributions, which are in essence another form of sanctions.

Most sanctions regimes provide for “humanitarian exceptions” to accommodate the provision of goods and services to the civilian population of countries affected by sanctions. However, the exception rarely works because the web of sanctions is often too complex for humanitarian organizations to navigate without violating one provision or another.

For humanitarian reasons, it’s time for the U.S. to suspend sanctions that affect the target nation’s health sector broadly. This would be a gesture of compassion in an extraordinary worldwide crisis, permitting the leaders of countries and international organizations to assist civilian populations under extreme threat. These measures should remain in effect for the duration of the health crisis – and extend beyond the crisis where possible.

An uncontrolled spread of COVID-19 in countries under sanction will have a ripple effect. In an April 5 statement, a bipartisan group of American and European national security leaders urged the U.S. government to ease sanctions on Iran, arguing, “We must remember that an outbreak anywhere impacts people everywhere. … reaching across borders to save lives is imperative for our own security and must override political differences among governments.”

Such measures are not unprecedented. In 2003, during a period of high tensions between the U.S. and Iran, the U.S. military sent planeloads of relief supplies to the government of Iran after an earthquake struck the city of Bam. In 1988, the U.S. sent aid to the Soviet Union for the first time since the 1940s when an earthquake hit Soviet Armenia.

In addition to the obvious health benefits, lifting sanctions could help thaw the icy relations between the U.S. and adversaries, opening doors for peace with some. On March 23, United Nations Secretary General Antonio Guterres called for waiving international sanctions around the world, stating “this is the time for solidarity not exclusion.” He added, “The fury of the virus illustrates the folly of war,” calling for a global ceasefire “in all corners of the world” to make it easier to fight the pandemic. Some warring parties have responded positively to the call.

The goodwill generated by suspending or easing sanctions would only save lives, it could also be the catalyst for peace talks. Chances for peace would increase if countries benefiting from sanctions relief reciprocated by at least temporarily ceasing war activities, releasing prisoners and hostages, initiating dialogue, or taking other meaningful steps toward resolving disputes.

The time to act is now; sanctions are impeding the effort to fight COVID-19. Suspending sanctions is both the compassionate and the smart thing to do.


President Donald J. Trump displays his signature on an Executive Order to place further sanctions on Iran Monday, June 24, 2019, in the Oval Office of the White House. (Official White House Photo by Joyce N. Boghosian)
Analysis | Washington Politics
Recep Tayyip Erdogan Benjamin Netanyahu
Top photo credit: President of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdogan (Shutterstock/ Mustafa Kirazli) and Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu (Salty View/Shutterstock)
Is Turkey's big break with Israel for real?

Why Israel is now turning its sights on Turkey

Middle East

As the distribution of power shifts in the region, with Iran losing relative power and Israel and Turkey emerging on top, an intensified rivalry between Tel Aviv and Ankara is not a question of if, but how. It is not a question of whether they choose the rivalry, but how they choose to react to it: through confrontation or peaceful management.

As I describe in Treacherous Alliance, a similar situation emerged after the end of the Cold War: The collapse of the Soviet Union dramatically changed the global distribution of power, and the defeat of Saddam's Iraq in the Persian Gulf War reshuffled the regional geopolitical deck. A nascent bipolar regional structure took shape with Iran and Israel emerging as the two main powers with no effective buffer between them (since Iraq had been defeated). The Israelis acted on this first, inverting the strategy that had guided them for the previous decades: The Doctrine of the Periphery. According to this doctrine, Israel would build alliances with the non-Arab states in its periphery (Iran, Turkey, and Ethiopia) to balance the Arab powers in its vicinity (Iraq, Syria, and Egypt, respectively).

keep readingShow less
Havana, Cuba
Top Image Credit: Havana, Cuba, 2019. (CLWphoto/Shutterstock)

Trump lifted sanctions on Syria. Now do Cuba.

North America

President Trump’s new National Security Presidential Memorandum (NSPM) on Cuba, announced on June 30, reaffirms the policy of sanctions and hostility he articulated at the start of his first term in office. In fact, the new NSPM is almost identical to the old one.

The policy’s stated purpose is to “improve human rights, encourage the rule of law, foster free markets and free enterprise, and promote democracy” by restricting financial flows to the Cuban government. It reaffirms Trump’s support for the 1996 Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act, which explicitly requires regime change — that Cuba become a multiparty democracy with a free market economy (among other conditions) before the U.S. embargo will be lifted.

keep readingShow less
SPD Germany Ukraine
Top Photo: Lars Klingbeil (l-r, SPD), Federal Minister of Finance, Vice-Chancellor and SPD Federal Chairman, and Bärbel Bas (SPD), Federal Minister of Labor and Social Affairs and SPD Party Chairwoman, bid farewell to the members of the previous Federal Cabinet Olaf Scholz (SPD), former Federal Chancellor, Nancy Faeser, Saskia Esken, SPD Federal Chairwoman, Karl Lauterbach, Svenja Schulze and Hubertus Heil at the SPD Federal Party Conference. At the party conference, the SPD intends to elect a new executive committee and initiate a program process. Kay Nietfeld/dpa via Reuters Connect

Does Germany’s ruling coalition have a peace problem?

Europe

Surfacing a long-dormant intra-party conflict, the Friedenskreise (peace circles) within the Social Democratic Party of Germany has published a “Manifesto on Securing Peace in Europe” in a stark challenge to the rearmament line taken by the SPD leaders governing in coalition with the conservative CDU-CSU under Chancellor Friedrich Merz.

Although the Manifesto clearly does not have broad support in the SPD, the party’s leader, Deputy Chancellor and Finance Minister Lars Klingbeil, won only 64% support from the June 28-29 party conference for his performance so far, a much weaker endorsement than anticipated. The views of the party’s peace camp may be part of the explanation.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.