Today the U.S. Treasury Department announced a general license (read: sanctions exemption) that permits the payment of taxes, fees, import duties, or the purchase or receipt of permits, licenses, or public utility services for all transactions–even commercial ones–so long as they aren’t for luxury goods or services that do not support basic needs.
Ok, why is this a big deal?
In practical terms, General License No. 20 opens up commercial transactions and cross-border trade in Afghanistan by allowing for the kinds of incidental payments listed above that are necessary to conduct business. This allows for commercial transactions related to imports from and exports to Afghanistan, including financial transfers to governing institutions such as Da Afghanistan Bank (central bank of Afghanistan).
Previously these types of payments were only permitted for non-commercial humanitarian activities. For example, General License No. 19 permits certain transactions and activities involving the Taliban so long as they are “ordinarily incident and necessary” to carry out specified humanitarian and development projects which includes the “payment of taxes, fees, or import duties, or the purchase or receipt of permits, licenses, or public utility services.” This implied that similar payments related to commercial activities were still subject to sanctions. This severely reduced critical cross-border trade between landlocked Afghanistan and its neighbors.
Is this going to attract big international banks or projects to Afghanistan anytime soon? Probably not. Afghanistan isn’t that lucrative for them to begin with and now that they’re left with Afghanistan’s real economy, it just doesn’t make sense from a business perspective. But this will be a game changer for regional traders and Afghanistan’s domestic commercial sector. The Biden administration has clearly recognized that Afghanistan cannot stay afloat through aid alone.
U.S. sanctions that were intended to limit the Taliban and Haqqani Network as non-state actors have now extended far beyond this limited scope to effectively sanction the de facto Afghan government. Today’s general license will reduce some of this harm but more still needs to be done to inject liquidity into Afghanistan’s economy and assuage the chilling effect of sanctions that no longer serve a purpose.
Thanks to our readers and supporters, Responsible Statecraft has had a tremendous year. A complete website overhaul made possible in part by generous contributions to RS, along with amazing writing by staff and outside contributors, has helped to increase our monthly page views by 133%! In continuing to provide independent and sharp analysis on the major conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East, as well as the tumult of Washington politics, RS has become a go-to for readers looking for alternatives and change in the foreign policy conversation.
Adam Weinstein is Deputy Director of the Middle East program at the Quincy Institute, whose current research focuses on security and rule of law in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq.
Afghan people walk past a Kabulbank branch in Kabul September 14, 2010. Afghanistan's central bank has stepped in to take control of the troubled Kabulbank, its governor said on Tuesday, after suspected irregularities raised concerns over the country's top private financial institution. REUTERS/Andrew Biraj (AFGHANISTAN - Tags: BUSINESS)
Revenues at the world’s top 100 global arms and military services producing companies totaled $632 billion in 2023, a 4.2% increase over the prior year, according to new data released by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).
The largest increases were tied to ongoing conflicts, including a 40% increase in revenues for Russian companies involved in supplying Moscow’s war on Ukraine and record sales for Israeli firms producing weapons used in that nation’s brutal war on Gaza. Revenues for Turkey’s top arms producing companies also rose sharply — by 24% — on the strength of increased domestic defense spending plus exports tied to the war in Ukraine.
The United States remains the world’s dominant arms producing nation, with $318 billion in revenues flowing to American firms in the world’s top 100 for 2023, more than half of the global total. And the five highest revenue earners globally were all based in the United States — Lockheed Martin, Raytheon (now RTX), Northrop Grumman, Boeing, and General Dynamics.
China ranked second to the United States in arms industry revenues, with nine firms accounting for 16% of the revenue received by companies in the global top 100. Two of the fastest growing countries in terms of revenue growth for top companies were also in Asia, South Korea (plus 39%) and Japan (plus 35%). South Korea’s increase was tied to major export deals with Poland and Australia, while Japan’s was driven by its largest military buildup since World War II.
SIPRI’s analysis takes a “just the facts” approach, tracking sales numbers and correlating them with increases in domestic and export spending tied to specific events. It does not address the dire humanitarian circumstances that underlie the growing revenues of top arms companies, most notably Israel’s unconscionable attacks on Gaza, which have killed over 40,000 people directly and many more through indirect causes, including over 62,000 who have died from starvation. The companies and countries fueling this mass slaughter — including U.S. firms that have supplied a substantial share of the bombs, missiles, and aircraft used in Gaza — should be held to account for their actions, even as they halt the supply of weapons and services that the Israeli government is using to commit ongoing war crimes.
Another major impact of the revenue surge for top arms makers is the diversion of funding and talent from addressing urgent global problems, from climate change to poverty to outbreaks of disease. And the more companies and countries become dependent on the profits of war, the harder it will be to shift funding towards other urgent priorities. The continuing militarization of the global economy has a double cost — lives lost in conflict and devastating problems left unsolved. The situation needs to be treated as far more than a grim parade of statistics about who benefits from a world at war. It should be treated as an urgent call to action for a change in global priorities.
Update 12/1: Rebel forces led by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) have taken most of Aleppo with Syrian army forces pulling back amid losses. According to reports, rebel forces were making their way to Hama early Sunday and "claiming control of government-held areas along the way."
HTS is derived from al Qaeda’s Syrian branch. Al Qaeda was pushed out of Syria by more radical splinter factions early in the civil war. HTS evolved once the conflict was well underway. When the smoke cleared, HTS remained in control of Idlib, which it turned into a mini-Islamic republic under Turkish protection. It was a good fit for Idlib, which had been a source of militant resistance to the Assad government at the very outset of the civil war.
As of this writing, HTS fighters have reached the center of Aleppo and seized a town that commands the M5 highway, a key route Assad’s forces would need to reach the city and try to pry the HTS militants from within. Assad had only taken Aleppo back from insurgents in a battle during the summer of 2016 with the help of Lebanese Hizballah.
Turkey’s role in this offensive is murky. The attackers, according to news reports, include not only HTS formations, but Sunni militias that have been mobilized and equipped by Turkey over the past few years. This suggests that the HTS campaign might be a Turkish wedge to complicate Assad’s already tenuous reach across Syrian territory and establish de facto Turkish control over a large swath of Syria and one of its largest cities. In this scenario, management of the area’s two million people could be left to HTS, while Turkey reaped the dubious strategic benefit.
For Assad, this is nearly the equivalent of October 7 for Israel. But he has none of the advantages that Israel enjoyed in stabilizing the situation after the attack, going on the offensive, and pulverizing Hamas. Although there are rumors of Russian airstrikes against HTS, the fact is that the Russians are stretched thin by their war against Ukraine and will find it hard to rescue their man in Damascus. And there will be no help from either Iran or Lebanese Hezbollah. Tehran lacks the means and whatever it can muster will be in Israel’s gunsights very quickly. And Hezbollah is reeling from Israel’s recent offensive and couldn’t mobilize the fighters needed to get HTS out of Aleppo let alone reach Aleppo on the ground.
Looking around Syria’s outer perimeter, it’s hard to see Saudi Arabia intervening militarily on behalf of Assad. With Turkey pressing from the North, Israel from the West and no countervailing pressures from the East or South, Assad could find his statelet shrinking fast.
keep readingShow less
Top Photo: Biden (left) meets with Russian President Putin (right). Ukrainian President Zelenskyy sits in between.
On Wednesday, a Ukrainian delegation led by Defense Minister Rustem Umerov met with South Korean officials, including President Yoon Suk Yeol. The AP reported that the two countries met to discuss ways to “cope with the security threat posed by the North Korean-Russian military cooperation including the North’s troop dispatch.”
During a previous meeting in October, Ukrainian President Volodomir Zelenskyy said he planned to present a “detailed request to Seoul for arms support including artillery and air defense systems.”
So far, South Korea has participated in sanctions against Moscow, has sent Kyiv financial aid, and supplied vehicles and de-mining equipment. However, Seoul has declined to provide weapons to Ukraine, even as North Korean forces are confirmed to be supporting Russian troops on the frontlines of the war.
South Koreans have been resistant to sending weapons to Ukraine. According to a Gallup poll, 82% of the public opposed such measures. While the government has not ruled out sending weapons to Ukraine, experts question whether Seoul is likely to provide weapons at this stage, as President Yoon’s approval ratings are very low, and South Korea has little to gain from such an escalatory action, even when considering North Korean involvement in the conflict.
“This kind of alleged collaboration between Russia and the DPRK only poses a concern for Seoul insofar as it is being used by Western leaders to rope South Korea into taking a more active role in aiding Ukraine,” says the Quincy Institute’s Mark Episkopos. “The ROK must balance any such pressure from the White House with the looming transition to a Trump administration that approaches the Ukraine war in a fundamentally different way.” He adds, “under the circumstances, Seoul has little to gain from radically upending its cautious, passive Ukraine policy in the waning days of the Biden administration.”
For its part, Moscow has responded harshly to the possibility of South Korea supplying Kyiv with arms. “Seoul must realize that the possible use of South Korean weapons to kill Russian citizens will fully destroy relations between our countries,” said Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Andrey Rudenko.
Neither Seoul nor Kyiv have commented on whether any agreements were made concerning weapons sharing but agreed to continue sharing security information related to North Korea and Russian cooperation.
Other Ukraine News This Week:
Reuters reports that Ukraine launched American-supplied ATACMS twice in the last week. Both strikes targeted Russian operations in Kursk. The Russian Defense Ministry said that “retaliatory measures are being prepared.”
A record-breaking 188 drones were launched by Russia on Tuesday. The AP reports that most of the drones were intercepted, but that damage was done to civilian infrastructure, with no reported casualties. The drones were launched all at once, targeting 17 of Ukraine’s regions.
An analysis of Russia’s Oreshnik missile indicates that it was potentially not loaded with any explosives, or possibly a very small amount. According to the New York Times, the missile launched last week caused less damage than would have been expected had it been heavily armed. Jeffery Lewis, a nuclear nonproliferation expert at the Middlebury Institute for International Studies, said that “the damage to the facility is quite specific — no large explosions, just big holes punched in the roofs.”
Even though the missile was seemingly minimally armed, the Times reported that “Nick Brown, an analyst at Janes, the British-based defense intelligence firm, said it was the longest-range weapon to ever have been used in conflict in Europe.”
Russian state media claims that the Kremlin complied with a 1988 ballistic missile agreement by warning the United States of the launch 30 minutes in advance.
According to Reuters, North Korea has begun to expand a plant that makes Russian-used missiles. The plant makes short-range missiles that are assumed to be used in Russia, but Moscow and Pyongyang have both denied the transfer of North Korean weapons into Russia.
The Financial Times reported that Russia has recruited potentially hundreds of Yemeni nationals to assist in its war against Ukraine. The Houthi-connected recruits were apparently promised well-paying jobs and even Russian citizenship, before being coerced into military service.
The Houthi government and Moscow have been working to deepen relations and secure contracts, according to U.S. special envoy for Yemen Tim Lenderking. Additionally, a member of the Houthi movement told Russian media that the Houthi government was in “constant contact” with Moscow.
According to FT, many of the recruits had no military training and were tricked into service by signing contracts that they could not read.
Spokesperson Matthew Miller said reports about Yemeni nationals being recruited to fight alongside Russian forces in Ukraine were concerning and reflected the desperation that Moscow was experiencing at this point in the war.
Miller also said that any deterioration of relations between North and South Korea and Russia would be the fault of the Kremlin, not the West or Ukraine. Additionally, he could not confirm whether Russia had begun to supply North Korea with missile defense systems or not.
Miller did not have any comment on the reports that some European officials were discussing the possibility of deploying forces to Ukraine.
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.