Wade Boese has an awesome and really timely article in October’s _Arms Control Today_ that discusses *the evolution of the Bush administration’s use of nonproliferation sanctions*.
Wade (whom I’ve admittedly never met, but whose work I’ve always found quite amazing) writes that during the second Bush term, the *Treasury Dept. has taken the sanctions baton from the State Dept.* He also notes that “over the course of the administration, *sanctions have decreased against Chinese entities and increased against Iranian entities*.” Most importantly, the article features great quotes from Chris Ford (and others) on *John Bolton’s nonpro sanctions obsession*. Anyway, “read the whole thing here”:http://armscontrol.org/act/2008_10/sanctions.
What I wonder about, however, is the *lack of discussion in the article of the sanctions trends against Russian entities*. Over 30 sanctions have been levied against Russian companies and private individuals during the past decade and, I would argue, these impositions were “more effective” than the sanctions against Iran or China in the sense that they’ve been more damaging to bilateral relations. Without the discussion of the Russia case, the nonpro sanctions story seems incomplete.
What I am also really curious about is *the reason behind the lack of State Dept. action on the last round of* “*INA sanctions*”:http://www.state.gov/t/isn/c15234.htm. These should have expired by now, but no _Federal Register_ notice has yet been issued. (And while I seemingly “jumped the gun in this post”:http://www.totalwonkerr.net/1673/last-round-of-ina-nonpro-sanctions-to-expire-monday, I am not admitting a mistake without an explanation.) Even if State, as Wade writes, has “taken a back seat,” surely this doesn’t mean that they won’t even issue expiration notices?