Tim Harford floats a new idea for isolating Assad from his economic partners:
The proposal is that the international community would declare that all future contracts with a particular regime would be non-transferable. Lend money to President Assad after such a declaration, and you can kiss goodbye to it if he is toppled; sign an oil-production sharing agreement with him at your own risk. (In practice, it is the US and UK, as hosts to most sovereign debt markets and courts, who would wield the biggest influence in such a declaration.)
This is an elegant idea. By drawing a clear line between existing debt, which is to be respected, and all future debt, which will be regarded as odious, it reassures creditors lending to the governments of poor countries. It frees innocent people from debts not of their making. And, cleverly, it undermines odious regimes by making it hard for them to promise credibly that they will repay their creditors.
Kimberly Ann Elliott illustrates the idea in the above video. She and Owen Barder are more optimistic than Harford that the debt scheme is well-suited to Syria's situation:
Suppose the United States and the United Kingdom, which are home to the world’s leading financial centers, acting with support of the European Union and the Arab League, announced that any new contracts signed with the Assad regime are illegitimate. How would governments and firms considering doing business with Assad respond? Would Russians continue to sell weapons, knowing they might not get paid and that their contract could not be enforced? Would China and other countries consider investing in Syria’s oil sector, knowing that the contract—and promised oil deliveries—could be repudiated when the Assad regime falls?
The Dish 