Pavliuk O. I.
Yuriy Fedkovych Chernivtsi National University,
Ukraine
AMERICAN CONTAINMENT POLICY ACCORDING IRAN AND
THE IMPOSITION OF INTERNATIONAL SANCTIONS AGAINST RUSSIA
At the
time of apparent violations of fundamental norms and principles of international
law by Russian Federation according Ukraine, which shook the foundations of
international relations of the XXI century, the problem of containment of the aggressor by the
international community is particularly topical.
At the
beginning of the Cold War John Kennan proposed a strategy of ”containment” of
the enemy state [4]. The policy of containment was an alternative strategy that
was used by the US to block political expansion, undermining the economy and
prevent military aggression of the USSR until the regime collapsed from
internal deficiencies in 1991.
After
the success of the policy of containment according the Soviet Union, the United
States have adapted it to a number of other external challenges, including
Iran. The Islamic Republic is determined to become the world’s tenth nuclear
power. To ensure regional security Tehran’s growing influence should be contained.
As the US national strategy during the Cold War, deterrence is increasingly
treated as the best option to deal with hostile states like Iran, where neither
war nor peace were not attractive or viable alternative [5, 43].
Sanctions
against Iran were first clearly aimed at weakening the Iranian energy sector by
refusing to import oil, and then to ban the access to the international financial
system, to the foreign exchange reserves of Iran. They also include visa
restrictions for individuals associated with human rights violations, as well
as a ban on trade and investment in Iran [6, 196].
Targeted
imposition of sanctions by the US, UN, EU has reduced by 50% of revenues from
the sale of Iranian oil in the budget, rising unemployment and a decline in the
currency more than doubled. As a result, Iran held a democratic presidential
election and November 24, 2013 signed an agreement, which was the result of
nearly 10 years of discussions and negotiations and is called the “Joint Action
Plan”. The government of the Islamic Republic agreed to limit its nuclear
program, in response the international community recognize Iran’s right to use
nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, and after the expiration will consider the
possibility of cancelation of UN sanctions.
This scenario can be
extrapolated to international relations with Russia, because its economy is
also energy-dependent from developed countries like Iranian one. After an armed
invasion of the Crimea in March 3, 2013 was a significant devaluation of the
ruble, and the Central Bank had to spend 11.6 billion dollars for its
maintenance. Immediately international sanctions against Russia began to apply,
aimed at ending the aggression of Russia against Ukraine. Their goal is to stop
the funding, arming and supplying terrorists by Russia to the East of Ukraine.
International community had
been imposing sanctions in stages. The first stage – limiting cooperation, was adopted March 16, 2014. Subsequently EU
has moved to the second stage – restrictions on the supply of certain types of
technology. July 16, 2014 the US imposed sanctions on the first key sectors of
the Russian economy. The EU supported the third stage of sanctions July 29,
2014.
As a result,
Western sanctions against Russia related to the Ukrainian crisis, stopped its economic
growth, paralyzed the flow of investment and can lead to economic isolation of
Russia, told the IMF in its report for 2014 [3].
Moreover, the sharp decline of
the ruble according to other currencies during 2014 and the decline of the
Russian economy led to a financial crisis. One of the factors contributing to
the economic recession is that oil – Russian main export, has fallen in price
by 50% [2]. Beside, specialists include to the basic causes of the crisis not
only the Russian intervention in Ukraine, which led to Western sanctions
against Russian industry that block refinancing in global financial markets,
but also inefficient and unreformed state of the Russian economy and contra-sanctions
by Russian government, such as measures to limit food imports from the US and
the EU, introduced in August 2014 [1].
It is clear that sanctions
imposed by the United States has more political consequences for Russia as US
share in the structure of foreign trade and foreign investment in Russia is
negligible. More effective are European sanctions, as the EU is a major foreign
trade partner of Russia, consuming about 30% of gas and 50% of oil. In
addition, the European Union is the main foreign investor in Russia. The share
of its investment is 83%. Accordingly, if the EU limits trade with Russia,
reduce investment and freeze Russian assets, it will have a significant
negative impact on the economy.
As a result, such influential
regional leaders like Russia and Iran will be held on the same trajectory of
the global isolation and economic constraints that ultimately encourage them to
respect the rules and principles of international law.
References:
1. Doff N. Russian Stocks Drop 12 Percent [Åëåêòðîííèé
ðåñóðñ] / Natasha Doff, Ksenia Galouchko // Bloomberg. – Ðåæèì äîñòóïó:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ 2014-12-16/russia-stocks-sink-most-in-world-as-ruble-crisis-pummels-banks
2.
Friedman N. U.S. Oil Prices Snap Losing Streak [Åëåêòðîííèé
ðåñóðñ] /
Nicole Friedman // Wall Street Journal. – Ðåæèì äîñòóïó:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/oil-prices-plunge-with-brent-crude-below-60-1418722523
3.
IMF downgraded its forecasts for the decline of the Russian economy
[Åëåêòðîííèé ðåñóðñ] // Òèæäåíü . – Ðåæèì äîñòóïó: http://tyzhden.ua/News/127995
4. Kennan G. The Sources of Soviet Conduct / George
Kennan // Foreign Affairs.
– 1946. – July [Åëåêòðîííèé ðåñóðñ]. – Ðåæèì äîñòóïó: http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/23331/x/the-sources-of-soviet-conduct
5. Lindsay J. After Iran Gets the Bomb / James M.
Lindsay, Ray Takeyh // Foreign Affairs. –
2010. – March/April. – P. 43
6. Pollack
K. Which Path to Persia? Options for a New
American Strategy toward Iran /
Keneth Pollack, Daniel Byman, Martin Indyk, Suzanne Maloney, Michael E.
O'Hanlon, and Bruce Riede. – Brookings Institution Press, 2009. – 196