Motion: This house would repeal the sanctions placed on Iran
Background:
In 1979, after the U.S. permitted the exiled Shah of Iran to enter the United States for medical treatment, and after rumors of another U.S. backed coup and re-installation of the Shah, a group of radical students took action in Tehran by seizing the American Embassy and taking hostage the people inside.[1] The United States responded by freezing about $12 billion in Iranian assets, including bank deposits, gold and other properties. Some assets — Iranian officials say $10 billion, U.S. officials say much less — still remain frozen pending resolution of legal claims arising from the revolution.
After the invasion of Iran by Iraq, the U.S. increased sanctions against Iran. In 1984, sanctions were approved prohibiting weapons sales and all U.S. assistance to Iran. The U.S. also opposed all loans to Iran from international financial institutions. In 1987, the U.S. further prohibited the importation and exportation of any goods or services from Iran.
In April 1995, President Bill Clinton issued a total embargo on U.S. dealings with Iran, prohibiting all commercial and financial transactions with Iran. Trade with the U.S., which had been growing following the end of the Iran–Iraq War, ended abruptly. One exception is that US-made goods can be supplied to Iran under certain circumstances as long as they are shipped to Iran from another country.
In 1996, the United States Congress passed the Iran–Libya Sanctions Act (ILSA). Under ILSA, all foreign companies that provide investments over $20 million for the development of petroleum resources in Iran will have imposed against them two out of seven possible penalties by the U.S.:[2]
• denial of Export-Import Bank assistance;
• denial of export licenses for exports to the violating company;
• prohibition on loans or credits from U.S. financial institutions of over $10 million in any 12-month period;
• prohibition on designation as a primary dealer for U.S. government debt instruments;
• prohibition on serving as an agent of the United States or as a repository for U.S. government funds;
• denial of U.S. government procurement opportunities (consistent with WTO obligations); and
• a ban on all or some imports of the violating company.
In response to the election of Iranian reformist President Mohammad Khatami, President Clinton eased sanctions on Iran. A debate in the US Congress on whether to allow the expiration of ILSA, which some legislators argued hindered bilateral relations, and others argued would be seen as a concession on an effective program, ended on August 5, 2001, with its renewal by the Congress and signing into law by President George W. Bush.[3]
After being elected president in 2005 Ahmadinejad reversed the retroactive nuclear policy and lifted the suspension of uranium enrichment, that had been put in place by the reformists. This raised red flags in the United States government, which began pushing for international sanctions against Iran over its atomic ambitions.[6]
Iranian financial institutions are barred from directly accessing the U.S. financial system, but they are permitted to do so indirectly through banks in other countries. In September 2006, the U.S. government imposed sanctions on Bank Saderat Iran, barring it from dealing with U.S. financial institutions, even indirectly. The move was announced by Stuart Levey, the undersecretary for treasury, who accused the major state-owned bank in Iran of transferring funds for certain groups, including Hezbollah. Levey said that since 2001 a Hezbollah-controlled organization had received 50 million U.S. dollars directly from Iran through Bank Saderat. He said the U.S. government will also persuade European banks and financial institutions not to deal with Iran.[7]
As of early 2008, the targeted banks, such as Bank Mellat, had been able to replace banking relationships with a few large sanction-compliant banks with relationships with a larger number of smaller non-compliant banks.[11] The total assets frozen in Britain under the EU (European Union) and UN sanctions against Iran are approximately 976,110,000 pounds ($1.64 billion).[12] In 2008, the US Treasury ordered Citigroup Inc. to freeze over $2 billion allegedly held for Iran in Citigroup accounts.[13]
In June, 2010 in the case United States v. Banki, the use of the Hawala method of currency transfer led to a criminal conviction against a U.S. citizen of Iranian origin.
On June 9, 2010, the United Nations Security council passed 12-2 a resolution to impose new sanctions on Iran for the continued disagreement over its nuclear portfolio.
On June 24, 2010, the United States Senate and House of Representatives passed the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010 (CISADA), which President Obama signed into law July 1, 2010.
Arguments for:
The sanctions are hurting people, not the government
They hurt the U.S. more than they hurt Iran
• According to Bloomberg News, Exxon and Boeing have said that the new sanctions would cost $25 billion in U.S. exports
• According to the U.S. National Foreign Trade Council, Iran could reduce the world price of crude petroleum by 10%, which would save the U.S. up to $75 billion annually, if we were to repeal the sanctions
• Due to the strict restrictions on the Iranian economy, Iran was actually protected from the global recession that began in 2007.
• We as the U.S. are losing money, and we could be gaining so much more economically if we repealed these sanctions. We are really only protecting Iran, and since this is the fourth set of sanctions since 2006, it’s obvious that Iran will not concede anytime soon. It’s better to cut our losses now for the great gains that we can make in the future
The sanctions actually push the government further away from negotiating
• "The goal of these sanctions is to change the political behavior of the government - in the nuclear field," Mohammad Nahavandian, the head of the Iran Chamber of Commerce, Industries and Mines said. "But instead it has intensified their political stances."
• By stifling the Iranian economy, we have only hardened their stance to continue attempting to enrich uranium. The sanctions are not leading to a true solution of the problem
Arguments against:
The international community is in danger
• This is the best way that we have to prevent Iran from enriching uranium and developing nuclear weapons
• Iran has shown over and over again that they wish to use nuclear force against the U.S. and Israel
• If we simply repeal the sanctions, we are opening the door for Iran to use nuclear weapons against us or our allies
We cannot concede to a totalitarian dictatorship
• Iran’s leader, Ahmadinejad, runs a dictatorship that shuts off any opposition or questions about his authority. We have a duty as leader of the free world to stand up for our Western democratic values and not let a dictatorship like this win out in this conflict
• If we simply concede, we send a message internationally that we are weak and will back down easily
Sanctions are successful
• Case study: Indonesia
o In a time when Indonesia’s economy was crippled and the threat of bringing sanctions upon financial institutions in Jakarta was given, we saw that the Indonesian government gave in to international demands and pushed back the militias that were preventing East Timor from gaining independence. (1999)
Sources
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jun/9/obama-hails-un-vote-new-iran-sanctions/?page=1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._sanctions_against_Iran
http://www3.mb.com.ph/articles/261467/iran-sanctions-good-us
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/LF11Ak04.html
http://www.cfr.org/publication/22607/limits_of_new_iran_sanctions.html
http://www.jpost.com/IranianThreat/News/Article.aspx?id=177983
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65859420100610
No comments:
Post a Comment