The irony is hard to ignore. The idea of a new cross-border payment system and a new currency was apparently discussed at the recently concluded BRICS summit in Russia, a country that has earned the reputation of being the most accepting nation in the world. Today, global transactions rely on the SWIFT system, in which the US dollar reigns supreme. These two pillars are heavy hitters in the US-led sanctions regime.
It was also ironic that Vladimir Putin, the world’s most accepted politician, whom the Western world considered one of the world’s most isolated leaders, hosted 36 countries as well as the UN Secretary with pomp and show. -General.
Russia is far from isolated
Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, a staggering 19,535 sanctions have been imposed on Putin and his country by the US and its friends. Russia’s assets worth billions of dollars abroad were confiscated. Reportedly its aim was to stall the country’s economy and war machine. And the idea was to make the Russian war against Ukraine so costly that Putin would be forced to concede defeat. Western officials and commentators predicted that Russia’s economy would collapse due to severe sanctions. There was a faint hope that the economic losses might provoke a popular revolt against him. But here he is, despite heavy restrictions, still hosting world leaders with warm hugs and handshakes and all the trappings of a grand host.
Despite all obstacles, Russia’s economy has shown surprising resilience. It is expected to grow by 3.6% in 2023, defying early forecasts. In fact, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) projects growth of 3.2% in 2024, according to its World Economic Outlook update. The irony is that this rate of growth is higher than that of some accepted countries. Inflation is low and unemployment has reached record lows. Experts point to factors such as economic diversification, increased domestic production, strong trade ties with countries like India and China, currency controls and well-managed reserves as keys to this unprecedented resilience.
This is not exactly the outcome the US and its allies had in mind. Yet, for the trigger-happy US, sanctions remain a favorite tool of its foreign policy, despite evidence that they may no longer be as effective as previously believed. From Russia to Iran and North Korea to Venezuela, many sanctioned nations have faced both economic collapse and political turmoil. As critics say, sanctions often have the greatest impact on civilians, deepening humanitarian crises without achieving political results.
Iran is also happy
Iran is another heavily sanctioned country, facing sanctions not only by the US and its Western allies but also by the United Nations. It has been under sanctions since the Islamic Revolution of 1979. The first set of sanctions came in November 1979, when pro-revolution students occupied the US Embassy in Tehran and took hostages. Since then, the US and its allies have imposed a range of sanctions against Iran, ranging from economic and trade sanctions to travel bans. America has also seized Iran’s foreign assets.
The United Nations has imposed dozens of sanctions of its own, some of which target its nuclear program, ballistic missile development and alleged human rights abuses. There is no doubt that these sanctions have had a significant impact on Iran’s economy and people, but they have not helped topple the regime. They have proven counterproductive in the sense that they have only pushed Iran towards Russia and China, both arch American rivals.
growing anti-western sentiment
As it turns out, sanctions don’t just punish economies and leaders – often, they seem to give rise to a kind of defiant patriotism and anti-Western sentiments. In places like Russia and Iran, sanctions are working less to “cripple” governments and more to cement public loyalty to the West. logic? For Russia, the sanctions have been an unexpected rallying point, fueling anti-Western rhetoric that plays directly into the Kremlin’s hands. These are presented as obstacles that Russia has heroically overcome.
Similarly, Iran has resorted to sanctions as evidence of Western hostility, using it to promote national unity and portray itself as a bulwark against outside interference. Iran’s leadership quite successfully presents decades of resistance against sanctions as a national victory. Rather than driving these countries to breaking point, sanctions have provided them with material for a powerful narrative.
India is no stranger
If you look closely at US sanctions on Russian companies, you will see a pattern emerging: many Russian companies that are direct competitors of US companies have faced sanctions. The second obvious pattern is the commission of Russian companies, on which the US depends heavily. For example, the US has decided not to impose sanctions on Russian agencies that supply titanium for Boeing’s commercial aircraft and rocket engines for NASA. America has no indigenous capability in either of these areas.
US sanctions against Iran have already had a major impact on India. Sanctions against Russia are also potentially a matter of concern for Indian companies. Russia is a strategic partner of India and a major supplier of defense hardware. Sanctions have cast a shadow on this essential relationship. With major Russian defense suppliers on the US sanctions list, Indian companies working with them risk being cut off from the US-controlled dollar-based financial system. Even Indian companies operating in sectors untouched by the restrictions may feel the pressure.
Recently, India also became a victim of US sanctions. After India conducted nuclear tests at Pokhran in 1974, the US imposed nuclear sanctions under the Symington Amendment. It also imposed an arms embargo against India. Then, after the Pokhran-II nuclear test of 1998, the US imposed sanctions under the Glenn Amendment. The measures included restrictions on nuclear technology and aid. Following the India-US nuclear deal in 2008, most of these restrictions were relaxed and lifted. America has now also given exemption to India to buy S-400 missile system from Russia.
America’s double standards
Many experts point to Western bias when it comes to taking action against friendly countries such as Israel. They highlight the White House’s unwillingness or inability to impose sanctions on Israel or its Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for alleged human rights violations and violations of international law. Amid the growing humanitarian crisis in northern Gaza and southern Lebanon and reports of increased attacks by Israeli settlers on Palestinians, the US and its Western allies are under increasing pressure to impose sanctions or an arms embargo on Israel. So far, he has done nothing except issue a one-month ultimatum to resort to arms embargo against Israel if it does not allow uninterrupted humanitarian aid into northern Gaza. The Biden administration also says it finds reports of possible starvation deeply troubling.
However, there is little evidence that Israel has complied. The truth is that the US and its European allies have imposed travel bans against a handful of radical Jewish residents who allegedly engaged in violence against Palestinians in the West Bank.
How sanctions have emboldened autocratic rulers
For the US, the question now is not just whether the sanctions are effective, but also whether they are counterproductive. Sanctions may weaken economies, but they also help autocratic regimes exploit public sentiment to stay in power. For example, in Russia, a wave of sanctions since 2014 (when Russia annexed Ukraine’s Crimea region) has increased domestic nationalism, allowing President Vladimir Putin to consolidate power and perceive Western aggression as It has helped garner public support against those portrayed. Similarly, Iran has developed a deadly arsenal of ballistic missiles and drones and pursued its nuclear project despite tough sanctions.
Is it time for a rethink? If sanctions are less effective than intended and more likely to turn public opinion against the West, who are they really benefiting?
(Syed Zubair Ahmed is a London-based senior Indian journalist with three decades of experience with western media)
Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author
