NEWS,18.09.2012

Dangerous Misconceptions About Sanctions on Iran and Its Nuclear Program

 

On August 27, 2012, the Public Affairs Alliance of Iranian Americans (PAAIA), an organization whose stated goal is to serve the interests of Iranian Americans, released a report discussing the impact of U.S. sanctions on Iranians and Iranian Americans. The report, while laudable in its efforts, makes a number of unsupported conclusions about U.S. sanctions and Iran's nuclear program. The report provides an opportunity to highlight four major misconceptions the public has about Iran's nuclear program and the impact of sanctions on Iranians and Iranian Americans.

1: Iran has a nuclear weapons program

The PAAIA report initially stated that sanctions have created "challenges in developing nuclear weapons" and still notes that "many experts still doubt that severe and sustained economic pressure will be sufficient to persuade Iran to abandon its drive for nuclear weapons capability." These assertions create the underlying assumption that Iran is seeking a nuclear weapons program, a misperception commonly used by advocates of military strikes. The reality is far more complicated. Both Israeli and U.S. intelligence agencies have consistently found that Iran has not made the decision to pursue nuclear weapons. In remarks to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on January 31, 2012, James R. Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence noted that "We do not know . . . if Iran will eventually decide to build nuclear weapons." A few months later, in an interview with the Israeli newspaper Haartz, General Benny Gantz, the Chief of Staff of the Israel Defense Forces, explained that while "[Iran is] going step by step to the place where it will be able to decide whether to manufacture a nuclear bomb. It hasn't yet decided whether to go the extra mile." While Iran's nuclear hedging is certainly a cause for serious international concern, a nuclear program does not necessarily equate a nuclear weapon, a misconception created by the sensationalized statements in the report. That Iran has not decided to develop nuclear weapons also emphasizes the importance of exhausting all diplomatic means.

2: Iranian-Americans have not been impacted by sanctions

The report states that "Though there are many anecdotal stories about the effect of sanctions on Iranian Americans, there is minimal scientific data to support these stories." This unsupported finding is outright incorrect and is incidentally contradicted by PAAIA's own poll, which found 44% of Iranian Americans reporting that sanctions are "somewhat burdensome or a very burdensome impact on their ability to support their families." Indeed, the effect of sanctions on Iranian Americans is far more serious than that claimed by PAAIA. Companies have refused to sell goods and services to Iranian Americans, even when such sales would be permitted by law. Numerous banks have refused to open checking or savings accounts for Iranian Americans. Some U.S. employers require background checks and prior approval from the Department of Treasury before hiring Iranians (regardless of their citizenship status). Furthermore, Iranian Americans have become the target and victims of federal prosecutions and investigations for transferring innocuous goods or services to or from Iran, such as donations to assist impoverished children in Iran or family remittances. The impact the sanctions have had on Iranian Americans is real and significant. Minimizing the effects also supports a pro-sanctions approach while also preventing sorely needed remedial measures. Indeed, this was the effect when PAAIA first issued a press release discrediting claims of Apple's discrimination against Iranian Americans (a statement picked up by Fox News) even though it later demanded that Apple cease discriminatory practices

3: The impact felt by Iranian civilians is minimal

PAAIA's 35-page report minimizes the devastating effects sanctions have had on ordinary Iranians to a few sentences which concludes that Iranians are "reluctant to obtain much needed medical care" due to the soaring cost of basic procedures. The reality is far worse, as has been extensively documented by the International Civil Society Action Network (ICAN), the Iranian Hemophilia Society, and others. As Al-Monitor reported, "an ever more complex web of US sanctions is depriving Iranians with life-threatening conditions of the drugs and other medical products they desperately need." As ICAN noted, the costs of both domestic and imported medicines skyrocketed, becoming increasingly unavailable. The ICAN report notes the harrowing fact that "Patients with poorer prognoses or those who cannot afford it are forgoing treatments and opting for an early death so they don't burden their families financially." A report by the Financial Times similarly found that "cancer patients and those being treated for complex disorders such as hemophilia, multiple sclerosis and thalassemia, as well as transplant and kidney dialysis patients" are dying because of the sanctions. A comprehensive picture of the sanctions policy requires an analysis of its success in achieving its strategic goals and outlining its collateral effect on Iranian civilians.

4: Diplomacy has failed and/or will not succeed

The report states that evidence supports the view that economic sanctions are the only means, short of military action, that could persuade Iran to change its position on the nuclear issue "primarily because of the Iranian government's potential willingness to make concessions on the nuclear issue if the economic sanctions are removed." The Report notes "[h]owever, whether the Islamic Republic of Iran will reach an agreement and actually uphold the commitment remains to be seen and is unlikely based on the failure of the recent P5+1 negotiations." The report feeds into the perspective of pro-war pundits who allege that diplomacy has failed. PAAIA's own board member, former senior advisor to the State Department, Vali Nasr, has noted that "Obama's critics on the right will look for the slightest opening to dismiss diplomacy as having failed and again push for war." The Obama administration has disputed that misperception, noting as recently as last week that "there remains time and space" for diplomacy and sanctions "to bring about a change in behavior from Iran."

Whitewashing the effects the sanctions have on Iranians and Iranian Americans while also making unsubstantiated claims about Iran's nuclear program or that diplomacy is likely to fail only serves one purpose: it furthers misconceptions held by the public while paving the way for an unnecessary and preventable conflict with Iran. As tensions between Iran and the U.S. reach fever pitch and as the conflict in Syria threatens to spill onto the rest of the region, the need for an informed public is greater now than at any other time in recent memory. Tackling misconceptions is necessary to ensure we have an informed society before and not after another avoidable and tragic U.S. war in the Middle East.

Can Africa Feed Africa? 

 

Africa does not produce all the food it needs. In fact, as more Africans leave their rural villages and move into cities, more maize, rice, wheat and other staples have to be shipped in from outside the continent. The cost is huge well above $20 billion per year and demand is projected to double by 2020. Yet politicians tend to worry about this only during times of crisis, when the all-too-frequent drought or war unleashes those uncomfortable images in the media of sick children with bloated stomachs and hungry adults begging behind distribution trucks. By then, there is no alternative but to bring even more food from abroad. But, why is Africa so "food insecure"? Doesn't it have some 400 million hectares of agricultural land waiting to be cultivated? A new report shows that the problem is mainly man-made you can't really blame fate or nature. It has to do with laws, regulations, policies and institutions that shut African farmers, especially small farmers, out of the urban centers where consumers are.Mind you, that's even before you consider the old handicap that has held back agriculture in the region: a land ownership structure that makes it difficult for large agricultural enterprises to set up shop and deploy the kind of modern technology and equipment that small, individual farmers can rarely access.] The entire way from the farm to the kitchen table, red-tape, monopolies and corruption block food trade within Africa, even within each African country. Here is how.First, each country has its own system to certify seeds and takes, on average, a couple of years to approve new varieties. Result: better seeds get stuck at the border, and local farmers are stuck with lower yields and sometimes without any seeds at all. Something similar is true for fertilizers, which in Burundi, Nigeria or Senegal can be five times more expensive than in Argentina, India or Turkey. To make matters worse, some African governments give away fertilizers or sell them below cost. Generous as that may sound, these schemes have mostly turned into political and fiscal nightmares, as waste and corruption make them virtually unaffordable.Then comes the problem of carrying the produce to the market. In Africa, it can cost ten times more than in the average rich country to transport one ton of food one kilometer. Much of this is simply due to a lack of adequate roads the need for investment is enormous. But much also is due to monopolistic and usually politically connected trucking companies and "informal" checkpoints from Cameroon to Kenya, governments struggle to keep locals from setting up road-blocks and charging tolls. Is there any African country that has managed to cut through this Gordian knot and reduce transport prices? Yes, Rwanda did. Hats off to it.But once farmers reach the border if they ever do their troubles really start. From one week to the next, food exports may be banned or taxed you may not know until you are about to cross. Or the country you are trying to enter may want you to prove where your products come from, or that they meet a sanitary standard which, you guessed it, is different from the one you had to meet back home. They may just want a bribe that would wipe out your, by now, meager profit. Or they may bluntly abuse their authority. How badly? Half of female cross-border traders in the Great Lakes region report to have been physically or sexually harassed by officials at the crossing points grim odds if you have to cross every week. If there is so much risk, why bother to trade food across countries in the first place? Only large, powerful traders can survive that. That's precisely the issue. Uncertainty and graft at customs agencies kill the benefits of food trade for Africa's smaller and poorer farmers, most of who are women.This all points to the potential gains from African governments acting together to free food trade within the continent of taking "collective action" towards integration. A set of rules, standards and taxes that are stable, predictable and common across countries would go a long way to convince farmers that investing in food trade makes sense. And imagine the impact that a continent-wide "Charter of Basic Rights for Traders" could have. This is not as easy as it sounds it took decades for Europe to do it. But it is beginning to happen keep an eye on COMESA, the Common Market of Eastern and Southern Africa. By some estimates, lifting barriers to food trade, from the farm to the market, could double Africa's production of cassava and rice, triple maize, millet and sorghum, and quintuple wheat. Think of how, in just five years, Thailand tripled its exports of cassava to other East Asian countries, and picture that success in African proportions. The region could indeed feed itself. That means higher income for farming families, a more secure food supply for city dwellers, and better opportunities for women. A win-win-win opportunity, which begs the question: Why has it not yet been done? Well, that brings us back to politics.African governments have for years expressed their support for integration. Summits were held and grand free-trade agreements were signed. In some cases, customs unions were created within which people, goods and money are supposed to circulate unfettered these unions, on paper, still exist. There has been no lack of commitment in public. In practice, though, little has happened. Like any reform, freeing food trade within Africa will have winners and losers. The latter, which include intermediaries, favored companies and crooked civil servants, can stop change. The only antidote to this is a mix of enlightened leadership, participatory democracy, and lots of user-friendly information. In other words, it will take time but it will come.