Dear Colleague:

At the earliest opportunity, I intend to offer as a floor amendment S. 1413, the "Enhancement of Trade, Security, and Human Rights through Sanctions Reform Act" -- the Sanctions Policy Reform Act. Given the contagion of foreign policy crises and the increased tendency to use sanctions to resolve them, typically without success, I believe it is time to engage in a serious debate on the merits of using unilateral economic sanctions to achieve foreign policy goals.

My amendment, based on S. 1413, would revise the procedures in the executive branch and in Congress for considering unilateral economic sanctions and for reviewing those sanctions already in place. It does not preclude the use of sanctions nor would it affect existing sanctions already in force. Rather, it lays out a careful and deliberative process in both branches for considering new U.S. sanctions. The amendment is based on the principle that if we improve upon our policy process, we can improve upon the policy itself.

I introduced S. 1413 as a bipartisan bill last year and now have fifteen co-sponsors. A companion bill was introduced in the House where it has more than fifty co-sponsors. We introduced the sanctions reform bill because we believe unilateral economic sanctions, as a tool of foreign policy, rarely achieve their goals, frequently harm the United States more than the target country, and almost always limit our ability to resolve foreign policy challenges.

Unless sanctions are endorsed and implemented by other countries, they jeopardize billions in U.S. exports earnings, hundreds of thousands of American jobs and undermine our ability to provide humanitarian assistance abroad. They frequently weaken our international competitiveness by yielding to other countries those markets and opportunities which we unilaterally abandon. Unilateral sanctions unquestionably have a place in the arsenal of American foreign policy options, but too often they have been invoked as a policy of first choice when other foreign policy options remain unexplored.

The recent crisis involving nuclear tests by India and Pakistan is a case in point. The threat of U.S. sanctions did not deter India or Pakistan from testing their nuclear devices, nor have they been helpful in alleviating tensions between the two countries or in promoting worldwide non-proliferation goals. Because the President has no waiver authority under the law, our economic sanctions were invoked automatically. There is no defined statutory criteria for lifting the sanctions, apart from changing the law itself.

The inflexibility built into this otherwise meritorious effort to curb nuclear proliferation is hindering our efforts to develop solutions that work in South Asia and that promote our interests. It is difficult to understand, for example, how our punitive sanctions on India and Pakistan promote the goals of human rights, democracy and economic cooperation with either country or how they help gain cooperation in coping with other regional or global problems. Will our sanctions de-stabilize governments already burdened with enormous economic and political problems? An unstable Pakistan with nuclear weapons is not in our interests and that reality should give us pause to reconsider the wisdom of imposing punitive sanctions without a prior careful review.

Several decades ago, we faced a similar policy dilemma on how to manage American arms exports and security assistance programs. There were few checks and balances at the time and our policy was ill-defined and often ill-considered. Those concerns led to the adoption of the Arms Export Control Act. This law prescribed a set of procedural notifications and active consultations between the Congress and the President to ensure that our policy and actions were carefully considered and consistent with American national interests.

We now face a comparable policy dilemma on the unchecked tendency to resort to unilateral sanctions when confronting a foreign policy dilemma, even though numerous studies have shown they rarely succeed. Indeed, the l997 Report of the President's Export Council noted that 75 countries representing more than half the world's population have been subject to or threatened by U.S. unilateral economic sanctions. With a host of sanctions bills now pending before the Congress, U.S. sanctions in one form or another would affect more than seventy percent of the world's population. This is not a good way to protect and promote U.S. national interest. We must change our ways.

My amendment would establish procedural guidelines and informational requirements before unilateral economic sanctions are considered or imposed. It mandates that we be better informed about the likelihood that our sanctions will achieve clearly-defined goals, about the economic costs to the United States, and about the effects the sanctions will have on achieving other foreign policy goals.

In addition, my sanctions policy reform amendment provides for more active consultation between the Congress and the President and for Presidential waiver authority in emergencies or if the President determines it is in our national interest. It includes a sunset provision that would terminate unilateral sanctions after two years unless re-authorized by the Congress or the President. It authorizes agricultural assistance to American farmers and ranchers who typically bear a disproportionate burden and who are most vulnerable under our current sanctions policy.

The amendment is prospective and would not affect existing sanctions. It does not prohibit unilateral sanctions. It applies only to sanctions that are unilateral and that are intended to achieve foreign policy goals. As such, it excludes those trade remedies or trade sanctions imposed because of market access restrictions, unfair trade practices, or violations of U.S. commercial or trade laws.

We should not abandon our leadership role in the world nor forsake our basic values in the pursuit of foreign policy. We need to ask, however, whether we are always able to change objectionable actions of other countries. If we can influence another country's actions, we need to consider how best to proceed. In my judgment, unilateral sanctions will not always be the answer. But, if they are the answer, they should be structured so that they do as little harm as possible to ourselves and to our overall global interests. That is the intent of my amendment.

I have attached for your information a section-by-section description of the proposed amendment.

I hope you will support my amendment when it comes to the floor. If you want to co-sponsor the amendment or need additional information, please contact my office.

Sincerely,

Richard G. Lugar