26 September 1997
The Columbus Dispatch
Editorial
Trade Sanctions; U.S. Often Impulsive With Economic Slaps
The United States can and should be a leader in the world on such issues as human rights and anti-terrorism, but that does not mean leaders should be naive in believing that enforcing moral authority with trade sanctions routinely works.
There are plenty of examples around the world that trade sanctions rarely reach their objective, even when they are international in scope. Bringing apartheid to its knees in South Africa was a shining exception, but today the Mandela government finds that many multinational corporations still have not returned as investors and trading partners.
A similar international effort against Iraq, designed to oust President Saddam Hussein, has been under way since the Persian Gulf War. But Newsday reported this week that there is little sign that Saddam's regime is unstable. Meanwhile, the Iraqi people "remain, hungry, poor and perplexed."
More troublesome still are unilateral trade sanctions, where the United States attempts to exert a moral force while competing nations steal hard-won business from American companies. With the support of 600 of the nation's largest corporations, Sen. Richard G. Lugar, R-Ind., and Rep. Lee H. Hamilton, D-Ind., plan to introduce legislation that would require Congress to weigh the economic costs of proposed sanctions before imposing them.
This seems sensible. Who could argue against taking a second look at proposed sanctions: not banning or restricting them, but simply requiring a review?
Few, of course, except Sen. JesseHelms, R-N.C. Yes, the same Helms that made a mockery of due process by denying a hearing on the nomination of William Weld to be ambassador to Mexico could torpedo the opportunity for careful consideration of unilateral sanctions. As chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Helms is well-positioned to block the measure, given his past fondness for sanctions.
Protesting everything from nuclear proliferation to drug trafficking, the United States by one count has imposed 61 sanctions against 35 countries over the last four years. This is not to say that sanctions in pursuit of just causes should never be tried. But the United States often rushes to apply such sanctions without thinking through the cost and ramifications for American jobs and national interests.
Long-standing sanctions against Cuba, Iran and Libya seem to have perpetuated the regimes they were designed to topple.
The most recent effort in Cuba, the Helms-Burton Act, was a quick and emotional reaction to Cuba shooting down two harmless civilian aircraft, but the portion of the law that allows Americans to sue foreign companies that "traffic" in expropriated property from the island has created an international storm of protest and clearly was unwise.
The proposed Freedom from Religious Persecution Act now being debated in Congress, aimed at getting the United States to stand up to countries involved in religious persecution, is well-intentioned but could lead to an ill-advised expansion of unilateral sanctions.
Todate, the Clinton administration's decision to bar further U.S. investment in the military regime of Burma has received good reviews, at least for the principled stand it is taking against a barbaric government.
So it's important to realize that not all sanctions are created equal in the public mind, and there are some times when the United States must stand up for what is right and ignore the consequences.
But the point of the Lugar-Hamilton initiative is that the tool is being used too often, tooimpulsively and with questionable outcomes.
This conclusion is supported by the fact that former President Jimmy Carter, who ordered a grain embargo against the Soviet Union in the 1970s to force Soviet troops out of Afghanistan, has joined the effort for a more deliberative approach to sanctions. At the time of the embargo, Carter did not fully anticipate what would happen. It cost U.S. farmers $2.3 billion in lost sales.
Trade sanctions profess to be more about morality than economics, but history shows that their track record for bringing about the intended change is sketchy at best.
.
Home | About Us | Resources | Press Releases | Federal Activity & Legislation
State & Local Activity | NFTC Lawsuit | Contact Us | Site Index