Statement on Lugar-Hamilton Sanctions Bill--free trade, unilateral and economic trade sanctions

NEWS RELEASE

Senator Dick Lugar

U.S. Senator for Indiana

Contact: Andy Fisher 202-224-2079 Date: October 23, 1997

Statement on Lugar-Hamilton Sanctions Bill
Earlier this year, we held a press conference in the Senate Agriculture Committee hearing room to discuss concerns over our growing tendency to employ unilateral trade sanctions as a tool of American foreign policy.
We noted that between 1993 and 1996, there were some 63 instances involving 35 countries in which the United States imposed unilateral sanctions to achieve one or more foreign policy objectives.
Our disquiet over this trend stems from a number of findings about the use of unilateral economic sanctions:

First, that they rarely succeed in altering the behavior of the country or countries against whom they are aimed;

Second, they do not always serve U.S. interests and may, in fact, inflict more harm on the U.S. than on the target country against whom the sanctions are directed;

Third, unilateral sanctions frequently create the illusion of action by substituting for more decisive action or serving as palliative for those who demand some action, any action, be taken by the United States against another country;

Such sanctions often give a competitive edge to foreign companies by taking U.S. firms out of the game. Their long-term effects make it likely that foreign competitors will solidify trade ties with the targeted country that may be difficult to reverse in the future and may make it difficult for U.S. firms to re-enter that market;

Sanctions, furthermore, make it difficult to engage foreign governments in seeking an opening or change of policy. Serious trade sanctions can inhibit rather than facilitate dialogue that can lead to changes in policy that we seek.

We've learned in the past few years that sanctions create tensions with our friends and allies and affect other issues of national interest. They often make it more difficult to forge joint and cooperative action with others against the country we wish to sanction.

Sanctions should not be abandoned as a tool of foreign policy. There are situations in which other options have been exhausted, where the behavior of another country is so outrageous or so threatening, that our action, short of the use of force, requires strong and convincing response -- and economic sanctions may be a useful tool under those conditions.
Today we are introducing legislation which we believe will improve our procedures and achieve better results as we consider future trade sanctions -- in both the Congress and in the Executive branch.

We hope to shape U.S. policy in a way that retains economic sanctions as a tool of American foreign policy. But, our bill includes guidelines to help us understand better the likely effects of our actions and comprehend more fully the likelihood that sanctions will achieve the results we hope for.

We want to insure, at the bare minimum, that U.S. sanctions do more harm to the target country than to the United States.
Our bill will lead to a more deliberative process by requiring timely reports of the effects which sanctions may have on target countries, our allies and ourselves before the House or Senate votes or before the President acts to implement executive level sanctions.

These reports would also estimate the likelihood that the proposed sanctions will bring about changed behavior of the target country that we seek. We ought to know this information before acting.
We include a sunset provision which means new sanctions would expire after two years unless the Congress or the President reauthorizes them. To make this work, the bill requires periodic assessments on the effectiveness of new sanctions in achieving our policy objectives as well as the effects the sanctions are having on the U.S., our friends and allies once implemented.
The bill includes Presidential waiver authority so that the President has adequate flexibility to enhance the chances of success of sanctions or so that he can remove them if they are more harmful than useful to the U.S.
Finally, let me note that there is an agricultural compensation provision in the bill to take note of the disproportionate burden American farmers and ranchers bear under current sanctions. It authorizes additional agricultural export assistance to help offset any decline in exports due to markets closed to American agriculture.
I expect to introduce this legislation in the Senate before the end of the session.

Return to Top