23 September 1997
Dayton Daily News
Opinion

Trade Sanctions used too often

They feel good, but they don't often work

Every time the United States gets mad at somebody, somebody proposes trade sanctions. It's an easy, emotionally satisfying option. It's a way of doing something serious without putting American troops in harm's way.

The trouble is, it doesn't seem to work very often. Sober think tanks, such as the Institute for International Economics, have studied the results and have concluded that these sanctions can have bad economic effects on businesses in this country without bringing about the desired change in the other country.

Multilateral sanctions - those applied by many countries - are one thing. They may have worked in, say, South Africa. But when one country - especially one that is not crucial to the well-being of the target country - goes it alone, failure beckons.

So now a group of leading foreign policy moderates in Congress, led by Republican Sen. Richard Lugar and Democrat Rep. Lee Hamilton, are proposing a go-slow approach to sanctions. They are pushing legislation that would require systematic studies of the potential costs and effects of any proposed sanctions before those sanctions are applied.

It's a good idea. So often, when a foreign country does something offensive - breaks a treaty, infringes on human rights - the public discussion is entirely about that country. Washington needs to think more about trade sanctions themselves and whether they work.

Otherwise, action is taken that doesn't work but relieves the pressure toward action that might work, and American businesses have to live in greater uncertainty than businesses in other countries, because American trade policy is more political than that of most countries.

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

.