Date:27/12/2006 URL: http://www.thehindu.com/2006/12/27/stories/2006122704461000.htm

Opinion - Editorials

Sanctions are counterproductive

Just as there is no such thing as being a little pregnant, there is, in the high-stakes game of coercive diplomacy the United States is playing with Iran, no such thing as "mild sanctions." It is true that Russia and China worked hard to water down some of the punitive provisions of resolution 1737, passed unanimously by the U.N. Security Council on Saturday. Nevertheless, the first set of sanctions imposed — a ban on the sale of enrichment, reprocessing, and heavy water-related equipment and technology, as well as the freezing of assets of select Iranian entities and scientists — is enough to set the Iranian crisis firmly on the path of further escalation. In line with a July 31 resolution, Iran has been asked peremptorily to suspend "without further delay" all "proliferation-sensitive nuclear activities." Predictably, Tehran has rejected this demand as illegal; it is not going to be cowed down by the UNSC diktat. On top of the sanctions, the Council stated its intention to take "further appropriate measures under Article 41 of Chapter VII" of the U.N. Charter. Although this article does not envisage the use of force, the range of sanctions that can be imposed is extensive. There is little doubt that Washington will seek to tighten the squeeze on Tehran within weeks, if not months.

If this sounds like déjà vu the international community, and particularly major countries like Russia, China, and India, have only themselves to blame. These three countries have repeatedly stressed the primacy of diplomacy and dialogue as a means of resolving the Iranian nuclear question but have, at crucial moments, ended up appeasing the U.S. What makes the latest resolution particularly counterproductive is the fact that Iran indicated to its European interlocutors more than two months ago that it was willing to meet their demand for a suspension of enrichment activities as soon as a formal dialogue, aimed at finding a permanent solution, would begin. The Iranian side objected only to suspension as a precondition for dialogue. The initial indication from most European capitals was that this might be an acceptable compromise but Washington leaned on its allies to reject what was a sensible way out of the current impasse. In opting for the logic of calibrated confrontation built into UNSC 1737, the Bush administration hopes to push Tehran into taking a drastic retaliatory step such as ending cooperation with routine IAEA inspections or perhaps even withdrawing from the NPT. This, in turn, would provide the U.S. an excuse to demand tougher sanctions based on its own timetable. There can be no future in confrontation. The world, it seems, has learnt little from the Iraq experience.