30 July 1997
The Trenton Times
Editorial'Chicken Soup' Diplomacy:
Unilateral sanctions are being overdoneIncreasingly in recent years, the United States has applied the weapon of unilateral economic sanctions against foreign countries with whose policies we disagree. During President Clinton's first term, the White House and/or Congress imposed new unilateral sanctions on 35 nations - often without thorough consideration of their potential effectiveness of their consequences.
But the weapon can be a double-edged sword. Countries that are embargoed by the United States alone react exactly as one would expect them to: by shifting their business from U.S. suppliers to those from other countries. This happened, memorably, when former President Carter halted grain sales to the Soviet Union in 1980, hoping to force a Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan. Other nations broke ranks and sold grain to the Soviets, U.S. farmers lost heavily, and the Afghan war continued. To the extent that sanctions cause U.S. firms to be regarded as undependable business partners, they have an ill effect that lasts beyond their own particular lifespan. If a set of sanctions stiffens the resistance of the targeted country, as often happens, it's worse than ineffective: it's counter-productive. Cuba, still run by Castro after more than three decades of U.S. economic isolation, is a prime example.
To use another metaphor, sanctions have been labeled "chicken soup diplomacy" because their primary purpose is to make their advocates feel good. These advocates often are members of ethnic groups, such as the South Forida Cuban community, who can mobilize strong voting power on behalf of what they want. Politicians find it all too easy to give it to them.
The high cost of unilateral economic sanctions has been studied by the Institute for International Economics, the Heritage Foundation, the President's Export Council and USA Engage, a coalition of 609 companies formed to address the problem. These groups report that sanctions are most effective when they are imposed by a broad coalition of countries, as was done to pressure South Africa to abandon apartheid. Unilateral sanctions work only when (1) the goal is a minor policy change, (2) the sanctioning country has a strong historic relationship with the target country, (3) the target country's economy is weak and dependent on that of the sanctioning country, and (4) the sanctioning country can isolate the target country without help from others. Too often unilateral sanctions are imposed where few or none of these circumstances exist.
This feel-good tactic has cost the United States 200,000 jobs and $15 billion to $19 billion in exports in 1995 alone, the studies found. It has wiped out U.S. influence in the target countries, and in some instances it has damaged relations with our allies, most of whom choose a less political, more practical approach to resolving international differences.
This isn't to say that in some cases - those involving terrorist nations come to mind - the United States shouldn't act alone if it can't persuade other civilized countries to join in. Sanctions shouldn't be removed from the U.S. foreign policy arsenal. But they SHOULD be employed rationally in furtherance of legitimate U.S. interests not to buy political favor with some domestic political constituency or the other.
To this end, a bill is being drafted by two of the most respected foreign policy experts in Congress, Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., and Rep. Lee Hamilton, D-Ind. It would require: a finding that a new unilateral sanction is likely to work: a finding that the benefit exceeds the cost the sanction will impose on innocent parties: annual review of new sanctions to ensure that results meet expectations, and a "sunset clause" that would terminate sanctions after two years unless Congress acts to extend them.
The bill also would forbid state and local governments to impose their own sanctions (secondary boycotts) against companies that do business in countries that the states and localities deem offensive, such as a proposal in the New Jersey Legislature aimed at punishing Switzerland for alleged Nazi-era misdeeds. Because unilateral state and local sanctions can interfere with the making of foreign policy - a clear-cut federal responsibility - and prevent the United States from speaking with one voice on the international issues, they are an unwise indulgence.
The Lugar-Hamilton bill would impose a valuable discipline on a practice that has gotten very much out of hand.
.
Return to Top
Home | About Us | Resources | Press Releases | Federal Activity & Legislation
State & Local Activity | NFTC Lawsuit | Contact Us | Site Index