Introduction

Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify today. I would like to commend Chairman Crane and Representative Hamilton for their work on this very important issue.

A Growing Problem

Mr. Chairman, over the past several years we've witnessed a disturbing trend in our foreign policy. And that is the explosive growth of unilateral sanctions. In recent years the U.S. Congress seems to be far more willing to employ unilateral economic sanctions to achieve rather nebulous foreign policy goals. Just this year we've seen a number of bills or amendments introduced which are designed to unilaterally sanction specific countries.

These include bills which would sanction Nigeria, Turkey, and Indonesia for human rights abuses, which would withdraw foreign assistance from Mexico and Colombia for failure to cooperate in international anti-narcotics efforts, and one bill which would sanction any number of countries from China, to Vietnam, to Saudi Arabia for failure to stop religious persecution.

Now, I am not saying that these are not legitimate foreign policy issues. I am just questioning the efficacy of the methods. Foreign policy 101 tells us that one size solutions do not fit all. These are complex issues we are dealing with. They require careful forethought before action, not knee-jerk unilateralism.

Nor am I saying that economic sanctions should never be imposed. They can be an effective tool of foreign policy, particularly in international trade policy and when applied selectively and multilaterally. But we must remember they are just a tool, not the ultimate solution. They should be used judiciously with due consideration given to their long-term impact.

An Example

Let's just take one example - our annual drug certification exercise. Each year, under the Foreign Assistance Act, the president is required to submit a list of drug producing and transit countries that he has certified as fully cooperative with the United States in controlling drugs. If the President fails to certify that a country is cooperative, then that country is "decertified" and it becomes ineligible for U.S. foreign aid and other economic and trade benefits. It also tends to paint the "decertified country" as something of a pariah state, hopefully, embarrassing the government into being more cooperative with the United States. If Congress disagrees with the President's certification of a particular country, a resolution of disapproval can be introduced which, if passed, overturns the President's decision.

The whole purpose of this statute is to encourage countries to cooperate with the United States in stopping narcotics trafficking. Does it work? No! Not even close. Countries subject to review resent the judgmental, unilateral nature of our certification process. Rather than increasing cooperation, it creates a political backlash against the United States, a backlash which often hampers the prospects for progress.

When we threaten to imposes unilateral sanctions on friendly countries such as Mexico we are jeopardizing cooperation on a large number of issues. We share a 2,000 mile border with Mexico. Mexico is our third largest trading partner. Because of these realities, the United States needs Mexican cooperation on a number of issues from illegal immigration to cross-border pollution. Decertification of Mexico is not likely to help solve the drug problem. But one thing is certain: it would definitely poison our bilateral relations and hamper cooperation on a number of important bilateral issues.

A Suggested Solution

The problem is real and growing. Unilateral sanctions are becoming an increasingly popular tool of foreign policy despite their limited utility. I think it is time we in Congress applied the brakes. This Congress, I introduced legislation to establish a high level bipartisan commission to take a hard look at our certification process to see if it is meeting our intended objectives. I am also pleased to be an original cosponsor of bipartisan legislation which will be introduced later today by myself, Representative Crane, Representative Hamilton and Senator Lugar. This bill will require Congress to take into account the economic cost of the proposed sanction and weigh it against its potential effectiveness before sanctions are imposed . Only if there is a good possibility that the sanctions would succeed should it become law.

Conclusion

I think it is clear that the United States cannot retreat from the world stage or the world economy. I also think it is becoming increasingly obvious that unilateral sanctions are a poor tool of foreign policy. There needs to be a recognition in Congress that unilateralism has limits and that we need to give greater deference to multilateral approaches. For in the end, world engagement and multilateralism do not reduce America's influence; but extend it. They do not reduce respect for America's power. They enhance it.

Thank you.

  Return to Top

Home |  About Us |  Resources |  Press Releases |  Federal Activity & Legislation
State & Local Activity |  NFTC Lawsuit |  Contact Us |  Site Index