30 November 1997
Athens Banner-Herald
Editorial

Congress Should Take Another Look
At Use Of Economic Sanctions

Like a kid with a new toy, politicians in Washington increasingly are turning to the use of economic sanctions as the weapon of choice in foreign policy duels.

The current flurry of activity in Congress aimed at piling more trade and travel penalties on China in the wake of President Jiang Zemin's visit to Washington serves to illustrate the popularity of the practice.

The problem with these sanctions, especially the unilateral measures the United States is so quick to employ, is that they are generally ineffective and often counterproductive. No more familiar example exists than our relationship with Cuba, where Fidel Castro reigns supreme after more than three decades of U.S.-imposed embargoes designed to bring the Communist dictator to his knees.

While Cuba is one of the more vivid illustrations of the failure of unilateral sanctions, it is only one of many such attempts to punish or impose our will by cutting off trade or the use of similar penalties. The president or Congress have approved sanctions against China, Iran, Iraq, Libya, South Africa, Syria and a number of other nations.

While there was widespread popular support in this country for some of these, especially against nations engaging in international terrorism, they have only been effective when there is widespread support for them among other influential countries.

They fail to achieve such a degree of effcacy when, as we so often do here, they are used too frequently and too quickly by one nation and ignored by the rest of the world.

Sanctions are a tempting alternative to other foreign policy options on either extreme, such as military intervention or simply doing nothing. And there are times when they can be used effectively, but such cases are rare.

All too often, sanctions are called for by politicians eager to demonstrate to constituents that they are taking action, all the while hoping voters don't check back later to see if anything was accomplished.

According to a study by the Institute for International Economics, U.S. sanctions produced the desired results in fewer than one in five cases during the last two decades. Meanwhile, embargoes and other restrictions cost the United States dearly in terms of our relations with friendly countries and in real economic losses.

The Helmns-Burton Act, which imposed penalties on other nations for profiting from property expropriated by Castro, infuriated our neighbors in Mexico and Canada who resented our attempt to dictate their trade policies.

Opponents of unilateral sanctions claim that our affinity for embargoes cost the United States 200,000 jobs and the loss of $15 billion to $19 billion in exports in 1995 alone.

As the futility of unilateral trade sanctions becomes more apparent, there are some in Washington advocating a more reasoned and restrained approach to their use.

Among these are Reps. Lee Hamilton and Phil Crane who last month introduced a bill designed to discourage sanctions when it can be demonstrated they would not accomplish a clear objective and that their side effects would cause more harm than any good they achieve.

The measure also would require an annual review of such sanctions and put a two-year limit on these measures unless Congress votes to extend them.

It's time to re-think our indiscriminate use of unilateral economic sanctions as a tool of foreign policy. The Hamilton-Crane proposal will offer a good forum for discussions.

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

.