Reps. Hamilton, Crane Introduce Bill to Slow Imposition of Unilateral U.S. Trade Sanctions--free trade, unilateral and economic trade sanctions

24 October 1997
Bureau of National Affairs - Daily Report for Executives
Gary G. Yerkey

Reps. Hamilton, Crane Introduce Bill to Slow Imposition of Unilateral U.S. Trade Sanctions

Reps. Lee H. Hamilton (D-Ind) and Philip M. Crane (R-Ill) Oct. 23 introduced legislation aimed at slowing the imposition of unilateral sanctions by the United States against other countries.
The legislation, in particular, would require the greater consultation on the use of sanctions between the administration and congress, including the consideration of alternatives such as multilateral pressure and diplomatic initiatives.
It would also insure that the administration and Congress had adequate information about the likely effectiveness and economic and humanitarian costs of the sanctions being considered before imposing penalties.
Sanctions in force would expire after two years under the bill, which would not affect sanctions already in place.
Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind) said that he plans to introduce similar legislation in the Senate in the next few weeks.
Plans to introduce the legislation were disclosed earlier this year.
Eizenstat Sees Positive Elements. Stuart E. Eizenstat, undersecretary of state for economic, business, and agricultural affairs, told reporters that the administration would have to study the legislation before taking a formal position on the measure. But he said that it appeared to have some "positive elements."
He said that imposing sanctions needed to be "reviewed in a careful and deliberate way."
Eizenstat said in testimony before the House Ways and Means Trade Subcommittee earlier in the day that the United States had turned to sanctions as a foreign policy tool with increasing frequency, particularly in this decade - 104 times since World War II but 61 times since 1993. He said that sanctions were an important and potentially effective tool for enforcing international norms and standards of behavior by other countries. But he said that sanctions also have "real costs" for U.S. companies as well as potential benefits for the country.
"Sanctions do offer important levers for behavior modification and will continue to do so," he said.
Administration Sanctions Policy. But Eizenstat said that the challenge for the United States was to substantially reduce the negative effects of sanctions while still achieving policy goals.
He said that the United States, therefore, will:
resort to sanctions only after appropriate diplomatic options have been pursued and have failed or would be inadequate;
focus on determining whether the sanctions would be effective in changing behavior;
target the sanctions so that, to the maximum extent possible, the target country "feels the pain" and not the innocent and "certainly" not the U.S. business community or citizens; and
work to "multilateralize" the sanctions by persuading other countries to join the United States.
Eizenstat was particularly critical of states and local authorities that have imposed sanctions against other countries, like Massachusetts, which has levied sanctions against Burma.
"While state and local governments should express the democratic will of their citizens," he said, "Unless sanctions measures are well conceived and coordinated, so that the United States is speaking with one voice and consistent with our international obligations, such uncoordinated responses can put the U.S. on the political defensive and shift attention away from the problem to the issue of the sanctions themselves... We are concerned about the impact of state and local sanctions on the presidentąs ability to send a clear and unified message to the rest of the world... We should have only one foreign policy at a time."
Congressmen Urge Restraint. Hamilton, ranking Democrat on the House International Relations Committee, said that the United States has been applying sanctions "too frequently" and that the legislation being introduced was meant as a "caution light."
Crane, chairman of the House Means and Ways Trade Subcommittee, said that the bill would allow the United States to "pause" and examine the impact that the sanctions would have before rushing into "what could be a counterproductive effort."
"We need this step to insure unilateral sanctions do not become a permanent, misused, knee-jerk response to a changing and dynamic world economy," he said.
U.S. companies that have been opposed to the use of unilateral sanctions - grouped most recently under the 652-member organization USA Engage - welcomed the new legislation.
James E. Perrella, chairman and chief executive officer of Ingersoll-Rand Co., speaking on behalf of USA Engage, said that unilateral sanctions endanger billions of dollars in U.S. exports a year and millions of American jobs.
He said at a news conference that unilateral sanctions "almost never help the people we want to help and almost always fail to bring about the actions we seek to promote."
Perrella said that the legislation introduced by Hamilton and Crane was about creating a "more deliberative, disciplined" approach to U.S. sanctions policy.

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