18 August 1997
The Stuart News/Port St. Lucie News
Editorial

Evaluating Sanctions
They're Used Too Much, and Often of Scant Value

Embargoes against misbehaving countries occasionally do good -- for example, the world's shunning of South Africa probably helped end apartheid -- but the United States seems to be employing sanctions promiscuously.

During the Cold War, Washington imposed economic measures 79 times on adversarial regimes. Since 1993, Washington, some American states, and even local governments have slapped 142 unilateral sanctions on 41 countries.

If these measures are so effective, why is our world still such a disagreeable place?

In truth, unilateral embargoes are rarely effective. Other nations are not nearly so inclined to employ them as we are. Embargoes allow the targeted country to go shopping elsewhere, and if that happens the injured party then becomes the American exporter -- businessperson and worker alike.

A study by the Institute of International Economics estimates that U.S. exports to 26 sanctioned countries fell by at least $15 billion in 1995, costing up to a quarter-million jobs. That's a high price just to feel noble -- or to appease a domestic constituency.

Two lawmakers from Indiana, Sen. Richard Luger and Rep. Lee Hamilton, hope to slow down our nation's embargo-mania. They reportedly will soon introduce a bill requiring a study of a proposed embargo to see if it would likely have its desired effect -- making Country X release political prisoners or Country Y stop polluting the oceans. Also, a sanction's benefits would have to outweigh any harm to innocent third parties. New sanctions would be reviewed annually and expire in two years unless renewed.

Almost all this seems reasonable, although the president should be able to override the law in a crisis. Aside from backfiring economically, embargoes tend to get a country angry enough to rally others against American "bullying." And embargoes have become ludicrously trendy. Burma's regime may be monstrous, but our federal government already bans investment there. Does the state of North Carolina really need to get in on the act?

Sometimes economic sanctions work. And sometimes they are morally compulsory (nobody admires the Swedes for trading with the Nazis) even if they have little practical effect. But a lot of thinking ought to precede their enactment. That's what the Lugar- Hamilton bill would ensure.

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

.