Obama sanctions Syria’s Russian enablers (but not North Korea’s Chinese enablers)

Let’s resume this week’s “why not North Korea?” theme with a pithy summary of where we stand today. The Obama Administration has frozen the assets of Syrian, Iranian, and Sudanese (but not North Korean) officials for human rights violations. It has frozen the assets of Iranian and Syrian (but not North Korean) officials and entities for censorship, and fined the enablers of censorship in Sudan, Iran, and Syria (but not North Korea). Treasury has frozen the assets of nearly all of the leaders of Belarus and Zimbabwe (but not North Korea) for undermining democratic processes or institutions. The administration has frozen the assets of Russian (but not North Korean) officials and financiers for aggression against a neighboring country. Until two weeks ago, it had frozen the assets of Burmese generals for buying North Korean weapons, but no North Korean officials for selling Burma the weapons.

And on Sunday, of course, I wrote about President Obama’s imposition of sanctions against human rights violators in Burundi, something it has not done to a single North Korean official.

More broadly, the Treasury Department has designated Iran and Burma (and previously, Nauru and the Ukraine) as Primary Money Laundering Concerns, threatening their very access to the financial system, but not North Korea, which counterfeits our currency. It lists Iran and Syria as state sponsors of terrorism, but not North Korea, which sponsored terrorist threats against American moviegoers one year ago, sells arms to Hezbollah, and sends assassins to murder defectors and human rights activists. 

Why not North Korea? Which of these targets is a greater danger to our security, to our freedom, to our allies, or to its own people? But by now, you should know that this is no place to come for answers to that question. This is the place you come to watch the list of unanswered questions grow longer.

~   ~   ~

Last week, the Treasury Department added ten entities to its list of Specially Designated Nationals under its Syria sanctions program. Of these entities, four (including a bank) were based in Russia, three in Cyprus, one in Britain, one in Belize, and one in both Russia and Cyprus. The Treasury Department says it designated these targets — most of them bankers, financiers, and oil dealers — for “materially assisting and acting for or on behalf” Bashar Assad’s regime, thus helping him to continue his war against his own people.

Treasury’s new sanctions search tool shows a total of 209 Syrian entities designated, including Bashar Al-Assad, Foreign Minister Farouk Al-Sharaa, and most of the top officials and agencies in Syria’s security apparatus. (Not one senior North Korean official is designated.) There are also many Iranian, Lebanese, and Russian entities and individuals listed. Including the Iranian aircraft that are listed and blocked, there are more third-country entities blocked under the Syria sanctions program than there are total entities blocked (43) under North Korea-specific sanctions programs.

Now, using the sanctions search tool, highlight the two North Korea-specific sanctions programs, “DPRK” and “DPRK2,” and count the third-country entities designated. The good news is that it’s more than zero. The bad news is that it’s three. The list includes one Singaporean individual, one Singaporean company, and one Egyptian company, all designated within the last four months. I did not count vessels flagged by third countries, because these are mere flags of convenience for vessels that are owned or controlled by North Korea.

None of which is to argue against the need for financial sanctions against the Syrian government, and crucially, against the enablers that arm, support, and finance this horrendous, barrel-bombing recruiting machine for terrorists. There was a time when we used a similar strategy against North Korea, admittedly for different reasons. The strategy worked, even beyond Treasury’s expectations. We should be using it now. We should never have stopped using it at all. Instead, with its unserious approach to sanctions enforcement, the Obama Administration has declared North Korea a de facto free-fire zone for proliferation, terrorism, and crimes against humanity.

If the Obama Administration isn’t serious about sanctions, and if His Corpulency’s idea of a diplomatic solution is spurious to us, in what sense can anyone say that this administration has a plausible North Korea policy at all?