November 1997
www.DCpages.com
Shahriar Afshar

The U.S. Congress and Unilateral Trade Sanctions

We have reached a point where no one in academia, the think-tank community, or the business world disputes the fact that U.S. unilateral trade sanctions hurt us at home and undermine our global reach and credibility in the international trade arena. But nothing is changing. Everyday Congress imposes more sanctions, one on top of another, as in the case of Iran. According to the Cordesman & Hashim (1997) book on Iran, since November 8, 1979, the U.S. has imposed some 18 different types of sanctions on Iran.

Conversely, after many years of lobbying, on October 23, 1997, the Hamilton-Crane-Lugar Sanctions Reform Bill (H.R. 2708) was finally introduced. Certainly, Senator D'Amato, the biggest supporter of sanctions, will make every attempt to render the Bill ineffective. He may not have to bother. At first glance, the Bill seeks to deal a blow against Washington's isolationist sanction campaign. However, upon closer inspection, the Bill suffers from too much compromise. U.S. businesses may not notice any sizable change in their bottom line. The Bill should be applauded for its initiative and groundbreaking precedence, but there is still much to do. It seems that by the Bill's introduction, Washington wanted to appease the business community more than it wanted to substantially reform its sanctions policies. One can say they tried.

In a strange twist of irony, on October 24, 1997, the very next day after the Sanctions Reform Bill was announced, the House International Relations Committee introduced the Iran Missile Proliferation Sanctions Act of 1997 as H.R. 2709. The Bill provides for tougher sanctions on organizations and companies in Russia that have transferred missile hardware or technology to Iran. The bill, introduced by Committee Chairman Benjamin A. Gilman (20th-NY), provides that within 30 days of its enactment, the President must submit to Congress a report identifying organizations and companies which have transferred, or tried to, any missile materials or technology to Iran after August 8, 1995, when Russian joined the international Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR).

This sanctions campaign is beginning to look like the boy who cried wolf. The U.S. is complaining about Iran so often that when a bona-fide issue does come up, no one will believe us in the international community. Perhaps it would be best to speak once, speak loudly, and mean it.

Further, there are perhaps over two million Iranian expatriates living in the U.S. enjoying the American way of life. The U.S. government's campaign against their home country is weighing heavy on their minds. Much like children of a divorced couple that love both parents, they don't know what to think anymore. Additionally, the government's campaign is adding to anti-Islamic or Middle Eastern sentiments in the land of the free. As these Iranian-Americans are melting into a new pot, it seems they exchanged the uncertainties of post-revolutionary Iran with the prejudicial harassment of the New World.

As stated, enough has been said by every international affairs observer and participant in the past ten years that even the most vehement supporter of a sanctions policy can do little more than say "Well, you're right, but they started it!" Should we not expect more from our leadership? Anyone can throw their hands up and force a stalemate, but few can rise to the challenge, go against the flow of Washington, and do the right thing. The U.S. always refers to Iran as a "rouge" nation, unwilling to play ball. But why is the U.S. government acting against the will of it own corporate leadership and the international community?

To do more, we must ask ourselves: What exactly will it take for the U.S. to lift its sanctions and take a step towards Iran? What action can Iran take to change Washington's style of thinking? Perhaps a third party can help. The U.S. has always had the answer right here at home. Two million Iranian-American's can go a long way in helping the U.S. reach out to Iran, while saving face. There are literally hundreds of cultural, academic, and business organizations with ties to Iran that can pave a path for diplomacy to follow.

No one is disputing the soundness of the U.S. mission to prevent Iran, or any other country it deems not agreeable, to obtain weapons of mass destruction. But is the U.S. national security really threatened when a California farmer sells a ton of tomato paste to an Iranian soup factory? Or better yet, does obtaining rocket technology equate to being able to buy a pair of Nike's in Tehran? "Sanctioning Madness"? What a great motto for change.

Shahriar Afshar is the President of the Iranian Trade Association (ITA), a non-profit organization devoted to the re-establishment and expansion of trade and commerce between Iran and all three countries of North America.

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