Lugar bill defines criteria, eliminates punitive measures--free trade, unilateral and economic trade sanctions

15 December 1997
The Washington Times
Tom Carter

Lugar bill defines criteria, eliminates punitive measures

Sen. Richard G. Lugar, Indiana Republican, has introduced legislation that would create ground rules for imposing punitive economic sanctions. He spoke with Assistant Foreign Editor Tom Carter about what he hopes his proposed law might accomplish.

Question: How do you hope your new sanctions law will work?

Answer: The bill was prospective so it does not touch sanctions that we now have, but it does call for procedural guidelines and information requirements before unilateral economic sanctions can be considered or imposed.
Specifically, the president must submit a report that has an assessment of the likelihood that a proposed sanction would achieve its stated objective within a reasonable time.
It would weigh the likely foreign policy and national-security, economic and humanitarian benefits against the economic costs of acting unilaterally. The president would also report on alternatives such as prior diplomatic or other United States' steps and comparable multilateral measures that might be arranged with friends or foes.
The secretary of agriculture would report on the specific assessment of how agricultural exports would be affected if the sanction got into food or agriculture or nutrition. Since these reports come in a 60-day period - the president cannot affect the unilateral sanction for 60 days after proposing it - this gives some time for these reports to be considered for consultation to occur with the Congress. Then the bill provides that after two years, if the sanction is imposed, it would be sunsetted or there would be a need for renewal at some point.

Question: So we couldn't have cuba sanctions, for example, for 34 years without them being renewed every two years?

Answer: That's right, there would have to be a reconsideration.

Question: In the early '80s after the grain embargo on Russia for the Afghanistan invasion and the russian pipeline sanctions that the reagan administration imposed on europe, sanctions got a bad reputation. But now they seem to be flourishing. There are dozens of measures up on capitol hill right now trying to punish governments that do something that the united states doesn't like.

Answer: That's just the point that led Congressmen [Lee H.] Hamilton [Indiana Democrat] and [Philip M.] Crane [Illinois Republican] in the House and me in the Senate to introduce this bill.
In our opening statement, we pointed out that the United States between 1993 and 1996 imposed unilateral economic sanctions 61 times against 35 countries to achieve one or more foreign-policy objectives.
And the 1997 report of the President's Export Council cites 75 countries representing 52 percent of the world's population that had been subject to or threatened by United States unilateral economic sanctions.
This is a broad-brush stroke and there are certain different justifications for each of these activities, but it does appear that the sanction situation on a unilateral basis is being resorted to more and more by our country.

Question: How do you separate the human rights problem from trade interests?

Answer: Purely humanitarian goals, religious liberty goals, freedom goals generally are extremely important and our bill does not prohibit sanctions.
It does say the president in writing and the Congress are mandated to walk around the problem, as to what are clearly defined goals . . . what the economic costs are and what the effects are on other foreign-policy objectives, our reputation as a reliable supplier, in addition to how our goals with regards to human rights or humanitarian objectives might be forwarded.

Question: So, you're not against sanctions?

Answer: No. But our feeling is that many of the sanctions we have gone into have been ill-considered or barely considered at all.

Question: Sanctions are often proposed as a middle path between doing nothing or sending in the troops. If you don't do sanctions, what can you do?

Answer: You can use diplomacy as opposed to a unilateral sanction. You can form a group of countries who have a united clout that is more likely to make the sanction effective.
In most of the lectures that I've heard about sanctions over the years, the point is often made that sanctions never work unless the country is very small or unless the sanction that is adopted is adopted multilaterally so that there is an effective clout that comes from it.
Maybe a person could say this is such an outrage that even though we know that the sanctions are going to have very little effect, it's a statement. There may be cases where we decide to do that.

Question: So you're basically asking for a more a thoughtful application of sanctions?

Answer: Essentially this has been the objective of the whole group of 600 corporations involved in the so-called "USA-Engage" program. We would like a more thoughtful consideration of the economic effect upon jobs and people in this country.

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

Question:	How do you hope your new sanctions law will work?
Answer:	The bill was prospective so it does not touch sanctions that we now have, but it does call for procedural guidelines and information requirements before unilateral economic sanctions can be considered or imposed. Specifically, the president must submit a report that has an assessment of the likelihood that a proposed sanction would achieve its stated objective within a reasonable time. It would weigh the likely foreign policy and national-security, economic and humanitarian benefits against the economic costs of acting unilaterally. The president would also report on alternatives such as prior diplomatic or other United States' steps and comparable multilateral measures that might be arranged with friends or foes. The secretary of agriculture would report on the specific assessment of how agricultural exports would be affected if the sanction got into food or agriculture or nutrition. Since these reports come in a 60-day period - the president cannot affect the unilateral sanction for 60 days after proposing it - this gives some time for these reports to be considered for consultation to occur with the Congress. Then the bill provides that after two years, if the sanction is imposed, it would be sunsetted or there would be a need for renewal at some point.
Question:	So we couldn't have cuba sanctions, for example, for 34 years without them being renewed every two years?
Answer:	That's right, there would have to be a reconsideration.
Question:	In the early '80s after the grain embargo on Russia for the Afghanistan invasion and the russian pipeline sanctions that the reagan administration imposed on europe, sanctions got a bad reputation. But now they seem to be flourishing. There are dozens of measures up on capitol hill right now trying to punish governments that do something that the united states doesn't like.
Answer:	That's just the point that led Congressmen [Lee H.] Hamilton [Indiana Democrat] and [Philip M.] Crane [Illinois Republican] in the House and me in the Senate to introduce this bill. In our opening statement, we pointed out that the United States between 1993 and 1996 imposed unilateral economic sanctions 61 times against 35 countries to achieve one or more foreign-policy objectives. And the 1997 report of the President's Export Council cites 75 countries representing 52 percent of the world's population that had been subject to or threatened by United States unilateral economic sanctions. This is a broad-brush stroke and there are certain different justifications for each of these activities, but it does appear that the sanction situation on a unilateral basis is being resorted to more and more by our country.
Question:	How do you separate the human rights problem from trade interests?
Answer:	Purely humanitarian goals, religious liberty goals, freedom goals generally are extremely important and our bill does not prohibit sanctions. It does say the president in writing and the Congress are mandated to walk around the problem, as to what are clearly defined goals . . . what the economic costs are and what the effects are on other foreign-policy objectives, our reputation as a reliable supplier, in addition to how our goals with regards to human rights or humanitarian objectives might be forwarded.
Question:	So, you're not against sanctions?
Answer:	No. But our feeling is that many of the sanctions we have gone into have been ill-considered or barely considered at all.
Question:	Sanctions are often proposed as a middle path between doing nothing or sending in the troops. If you don't do sanctions, what can you do?
Answer:	You can use diplomacy as opposed to a unilateral sanction. You can form a group of countries who have a united clout that is more likely to make the sanction effective. In most of the lectures that I've heard about sanctions over the years, the point is often made that sanctions never work unless the country is very small or unless the sanction that is adopted is adopted multilaterally so that there is an effective clout that comes from it. Maybe a person could say this is such an outrage that even though we know that the sanctions are going to have very little effect, it's a statement. There may be cases where we decide to do that.
Question:	So you're basically asking for a more a thoughtful application of sanctions?
Answer:	Essentially this has been the objective of the whole group of 600 corporations involved in the so-called "USA-Engage" program. We would like a more thoughtful consideration of the economic effect upon jobs and people in this country.