But as Emmanuel Bueya points out, while the colonial state opposed the colonial people, “the postcolonial system [often becomes] an instrument of oppression fused by the political elite.”7 In this case the postcolonial resistance of sanctions, though rooted in real historical exploitation at the hands of colonial powers, is primarily a tool of statecraft and upholding the legitimacy of the Islamic. [...] The target citizenry and authority alike begin to view sanctions as not a tool for justice, but instead yet another method of subjugation, in which values are imposed from the top to the detriment of those at the bottom.25 Indeed, the postcolonial perspective is convincing on the purpose, utility, and effect of sanctions. [...] Notably though, despite wanting to improve transatlantic relations, the EU continually voiced its disapproval of the ILSA/ISA, citing the illegality of extraterritorial sanctions.45 The EU also wanted to uphold the mandate of the non-proliferation treaty, and curbing Iran’s proliferation efforts would both address the problem of a nuclear Iran directly and strengthen the role of the IAEA.46 Howeve. [...] The conditions created by sanctions caused Ahmadinejad’s administration to enter a crisis of legitimacy as its “violent repression against Iranian civil society and the fractures within Iran’s ruling class have eroded the image of the government as the vanguard of resistance against oppressors in the Muslim World.”126 With the Arab Spring dissolving autocratic governments all around Iran, the ‘ral. [...] On the other, it is also clear that elites in the Islamic Republic utilise postcoloniality to justify policies that undermine the wellbeing and agency of Iranians, for the purpose of consolidating the power of the state resisting coercion.
- Pages
- 22
- Published in
- Türkiye
