USA*ENGAGE - Position Papers and Studies--free trade, unilateral and economic trade sanctions

POSITION PAPERS \| STUDIES
	Americans Opinions Towards Iran A new study from the Foreign Policy Association reveals that a majority of Americans would accept US steps toward normalizing relations with Iran. The study shows that 73% of Americans believe US companies should be able to do business with Iran, and that 89% of Americans think the US should increase efforts in this direction. Cato Institute Study Urges U.S. To Lift Cuba Sanctions A new study from the Cato Institute, "A Policy Toward Cuba That Serves U.S. Interests," says that Cuba is no longer a real U.S. security threat. Therefore, the U.S. should lift economic sanctions that it has had in place for nearly 40 years. Human Rights Watch opposes the embargo against Cuba for the reasons described below. Human Rights Watch released a report on Cuba last week that strongly criticized the US embargo as detrimental to the human rights of the Cuban people. "The embargo has become counterproductive to the promotion of human rights," said José Miguel Vivanco, executive director of Human Rights Watch's Americas division. "Rather than a calibrated tool that can respond to changes in Cuban human rights practices, the embargo is an all-or-nothing policy." State and Local Trade Sanctions: A Threat to U.S. Interests Understanding international trade policy and foreign policy used to be simple. The trade representative and the secretary of commerce were acknowledged as the representatives of the United States in trade matters, while the secretary of state was the voice of U.S. foreign policy. Unfortunately that is no longer the case. States, and even cities, are now entering the international arena, using the trade hammer to promote their own foreign policy. Economic Sanctions and American Diplomacy The widespread use of economic sanctions constitutes one of the great paradoxes of contemporary American foreign policy. While often derided as ineffective, sanctions are fast becoming the policy tool of choice for the United States in the post-Cold War world. A recent Council on Foreign Relations book, Economic Sanctionsand American Diplomacy, edited by Richard N. Haass, explores the growing importance of economic sanctions as a tool of American foreign policy. In addition, the book suggests reforms so that Congress and the Executive Branch can make better decisions about sanctions and implement them more effectively. To find out how to order this book click the link above. USA*ENGAGE: Statement of Position "The End of the Cold War, globalization of commerce, and the information revolution pose new challenges and provide new opportunities for U.S. foreign policy. Engagement abroad at all levels - political, diplomatic, economic, charitable, religious, educational and cultural - is America's best tool to promote freedom, human rights, security and prosperity. Unilateral economic sanctions cut off the benefits of engagement, isolating the United States." Economic Engagement Promotes Freedom "The engagement of Americans abroad is a powerful tool to promote freedom and peace. Economic activity -- businesses and farmers exporting, investing, purchasing -- is an important element of engagement. Democracy and human rights are strongly associated with free markets, open trade and investment, and rising living standards." The Foreign Policy Effects of Unilateral Sanctions "The proliferation of U.S. unilateral sanctions puts vital American national security and foreign policy interests at risk. Unilateral sanctions seldom persuade the target country to abandon its objectionable conduct, and frequently provoke the very conduct they seek to deter -- target governments build domestic political support by openly defying the United States." The High Costs of Unilateral Sanctions "Studies of past U.S. unilateral sanctions demonstrate that they impose high costs on American companies, workers, and farmers. U.S. sanctions cost an estimated $15 to $19 billion of lost exports in 1995. By acting alone, the United States hands these exports, and the jobs they support, to foreign competitors." State and Local Sanctions Undermine Engagement "States and localities should promote engagement at all levels. Engagement at all levels - political, economic, charitable, religious, educational and cultural - is the best tool to advance America's interests overseas. State and local governments can play a significant role through development offices, international exchanges and similar activities."

	The Economic Impact of American Sanctions on Iran: Effects of Unilateral Sanctions in a Global Environment .A policy of engagement along diplomatic, military, social, educational, and commercial avenues has the greatest potential for positive change within Iran. Restoration of relations would strongly aid the United States in guiding Iran into the global community of responsible nations. The powerful ability of the American commercial sector to foster constructive change within a country is an essential segment of the policy revision. The engagement of American citizens and corporations with their Iranian counterparts may potentially be the nations greatest policy instrument for fostering revolutionary change within Iran and stability in the volatile Middle East. Energy Intelligence Group The Guide To International Oil Sanctions: Policy and Economics in Conflict. Economic sanctions are being relied upon as economic weapons or tools of foreign policy in a world where the use of force is no longer easy or effective. With continued development of weapons of mass destruction, terrorism, human rights violations, and environmental degradation, the use of petroleum sanctions seems likely to increase. Therefore, oil company CEOs, legal and legislative departments, and planning departments will need to keep their corporate fingers on the pulse of current Washington, U.N. and European Union debate. American Association for World Health "The Impact of the U.S. Embargo on Health and Nutrition in Cuba" March 1997, "The U.S. embargo against Cuba has been in place since the early 1960s. It is one of the few embargoes of recent years that explicitly includes foods and medicines in its virtual ban on bilateral commercial ties." American Petroleum Institute "Impacts of Oil Sanctions In World Markets" December 1997, "For reasons related to domestic and international politics, the United States increasingly has employed economic sanctions and especially oil sanctions as a policy tool, seeking to influence the behavior of foreign regimes." The Cato Institute State and Local Sanctions Fail Constitutional Test "State and local sanctions conflict with three major constitutional principles. The first and most obvious problem is that they violate federal supremacy in making foreign policy..." Link to: "Cato Handbook for Congress: Unilateral Sanctions" "The attempt to punish foreign governments through unilateral sanctions and secondary boycotts is an unwelcome obstacle on the road to greater freedom of commerce. That development bodes ill for U.S. citizens, for America's diplomatic relations with our major trading partners, and for the poor of the targeted nations who are the most likely victims of economic sanctions." Link to: "U.S. Sanctions Against Burma A Failure on All Fronts " "The U.S. policy of imposing unilateral trade and investment sanctions against Burma has proven to be a failure on all fronts. By forcing U.S. firms to disengage from Burma, that policy has harmed American economic interests and done nothing to improve the living conditions or human rights of the people of Burma." Center for the Study of American Business From Isolation to Engagement: The Case Against Unilateral Sanctions, November 1997, The CEO Series Donald V. Fites, Chairman and CEO, Caterpillar Inc. "Unilateral sanctions cut off our citizens from some of the most promising export markets, while at the same time limiting our opportunities to communicate American ideals and values to people in other parts of the world." State and Local Trade Sanctions: A Threat to U.S. Interests, William H. Lash, III, Distinguished Senior Fellow, July 1998 Understanding international trade policy and foreign policy used to be simple. The trade representative and the secretary of commerce were acknowledged as the representatives of the United States in trade matters, while the secretary of state was the voice of U.S. foreign policy. Unfortunately that is no longer the case. States, and even cities, are now entering the international arena, using the trade hammer to promote their own foreign policy. Center for Strategic and International Studies Altering U.S. Sanctions Policy:Final Report of the CSIS Project on Unilateral Economic Sanctions There was recognition when this study began more than eighteen months ago that the achievement of many U.S. foreign policy goals requires coercive as well as cooperative tools. These measures include economic sanctions that are imposed unilaterally in those instances when the U.S. interest or its approach to foreign policy differs from that of our allies. The concern, however, was that unilateral U.S. economic sanctions were being used too frequently and with unsatisfactory results. "Unilateral Economic Sanctions" A bipartisan panel composed of members of Congress, industry, nongovernmental organizations, the United Nations, and the religious community says that unilateral economic sanctions at the federal, state,or local level against rogue states are ineffective and damage U.S. national interests." The Brookings Institution "Economic Sanctions: Too Much of a Bad Thing" Economic sanctions are increasingly being used to promote the full range of American foreign policy objectives. Yet all too often sanctions turn out to be little more than expressions of U.S. preferences that hurt American economic interests without changing the target's behavior for the better. Congressional Research Service: Report for Congress "Economic Sanctions to Achieve U.S. Foreign Policy Goals: Discussion and Guide to Current Law" January 22, 1998, "This report provides background on the range of actions that might be termed foreign policy sanctions and the events that might necessitate their use." Emergency Committee for American Trade "Mainstay III": Executive Summary Full Report (Adobe PDF Format) 1998, by Matthew J. Slaughter "In public and private-sector debates over U.S. trade and investment policies, the role in the U.S. economy of American companies with global operations has often been misunderstood. Although there is no doubt that the United States plays an important role in the world economy, most Americans are unaware of the critical contributions that trade and foreign direct investment (FDI) of American companies with global operations make to the U.S. economy" European-American Business Council Link to summary: Is the Price Too High? The Cost of US Sanctions "US policymakers at the federal, state and local levels have been increasingly turning to economic sanctions in attempts to influence the behavior of foreign governments. The EABC hopes that this study will help policymakers be aware of the harm that sanctions can cause for companies and workers when considering future measures." The Heritage Foundation "To Promote Religious Liberty, Cut Aid, Not Trade" 18 September 1997 "Using such economic sanctions as export, import, or investment restrictions is a questionable tactic. Historically, economic sanctions have not been very successful in persuading target countries to change objectionable policies." "A User's Guide to Economic Sanctions" 25 June 1997 "Although multilateral sanctions might succeed under the appropriate circumstances, unilateral sanctions will fail more often than not. By itself, a unilateral trade or investment embargo may not be enough to persuade a country's government to change its objectionable policies." Institute for International Economics Link to: "US Economic Sanctions: Their Impact on Trade, Jobs and Wages", April 1997 "A new study by the Institute for International Economics concludes that US exports to 26 target countries were reduced by $15 billion to $20 billion in 1995 as a result of economic sanctions implemented by the United States to pursue various foreign policy goals." National Association of Manufacturers "Unilateral Economic Sanctions 1997-98: A Preliminary Assessment" June 4, 1998, "What do India, Costa Rica, Mexico and Russia have in common? They are among dozens of countries now being threatened with U.S. unilateral economic sanctions at the federal level." "Catalog Of New US Unilateral Economic Sanctions For Foreign Policy Purposes 1993-96, With Analysis and Recommendations" March 1997, "The data in this report indicates that, since 1993, the United States has resorted to the widespread use of unilateral economic sanctions to pursue foreign-policy objectives. As tempting as this course of action may seem, it comes with a steep prices tag for U.S. commercial interests, with apparently little or no impact on the targeted governments' behavior." Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development "Open Markets Matter" May 1998, "Trade and foreign direct investment are major engines of growth in developed and developing countries alike. " The President's Export Council "Unilateral Economic Sanctions: A Review of Existing Sanctions and Their Impacts on U.S. Economic Interests with Recommendations for Policy and Process Improvement" June 1997, "The President's Export Council recently released its report to the President on foreign policy-based unilateral economic sanctions. The report responds to the President's request that the Council catalog and describe existing sanctions, assess their impact on U.S. business and workers, and recommend specific policy and process improvements." Sanctions Working Group, State Department Advisory Committee on International Economic Policy U.S. Unilateral Economic Sanctions: A Strategic Framework Submitted to the Department of State, September 1997 The Sanctions Working Group (SWG) of the Department of State's Advisory Committee on International Economic Policy has completed its assessment of the unilateral use of economic sanctions in support of U.S. foreign policy goals. U.S. Foreign Policy Tools: An Illustrative Matrix of Selected Options The Stanley Foundation Link to: "US Sanctions Policy: Balancing Principles and Interests" Report of the Thirty-Eighth Strategy for Peace, US Foreign Policy Conference, October 23-25, 1997 Recently, analysts from academia, federal government agencies, and private corporations have published the results of several recent research projects exploring the use of the sanctions policy tool. To consider the findings of these studies and to gather expert responses from a number of perspectives, the Stanley Foundation convened a meeting on "US Sanctions Policy: Balancing Principles and Interests" as a US policy tool. *USAENGAGE** Map of Countries Subject to US Unilateral Economic Sanctions Based on research by USAENGAGE* U.S. Religious Leaders Delegation to the People's Republic of China February 1998 Religious Freedom: A Report While realizing that dialogue is only one part of a multi-faceted approach to dealing with issues of religious freedom and human rights, we recommend that the kind of dialogue we began be continued and expanded. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law "The Unconstitutionality of State and Local Enactments in the United States Restricting Business Ties with Burma (Myanmar)" May 1997, David Schmahmann, James Finch "As a punitive measure against the military regime in Burma, state and municipal governments in the United States have adopted laws penalizing firms that conduct business in that nation. This Article analyzes the validity of these statutes and ordinances under various provisions of the U.S. Constitution." World Perspectives Inc. "USDA Puts A Price Tag On Sanctions" Gregg Doud, Vice President, Information Services, WPI For several months, U.S. policymakers had been asking the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to quantify the impact of U.S. sanctions on U.S. agricultural trade. The department has responded that U.S. sanctions on six particular countries cost the U.S. $500 million dollars in lost agricultural trade in 1996 alone. WPI credits USDA for its analysis but thinks the figure could be significantly higher.