Sanctions and logic

Patrick Crow
Washington, D.C.
[email protected]

U.S. sanctions policy is coming under hard attack early in the 106th Congress.

Legislation-with unusually wide support-recently was filed in Congress to restrain the use of unilateral economic sanctions (see editorial and OGJ, Mar. 29, 1999, Newsletter).

Meanwhile, the influential Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C., issued a report slamming the U.S. approach.

An 18-month study by a blue-ribbon panel concluded that U.S. policy should be junked in favor of a strategy of political and economic engagement aimed at changing the behavior of rogue states.

It said, "Comprehensive unilateral economic sanctions as they are used today are not only ineffective but are frequently misdirected at innocent populations. Constant engagement with offending countries, using the many political and economic instruments at our disposal, better serves the national interest than does a strategy of isolation.

"The U.S. should rely on governmental and private sector engagement for inspiring positive change in a targeted country's behavior."

New approach

The CSIS panel said that, before levying unilateral economic sanctions, the U.S. should evaluate the likely political, diplomatic, and strategic consequences, plus the likely economic impact on both the target country and the U.S.

On the occasions when sanctions are needed, the U.S. needs better intelligence on what measures would have optimum effect on the target nations.

But generally, CSIS said, the U.S. has used unilateral economic sanctions too frequently and with unsatisfactory results.

"The misgivings had primarily to do with those unilateral sanctions that were comprehensive: namely, those that terminated practically all economic contact with the target country and left little scope for political and diplomatic interaction."

It said that, on the occasions that unilateral sanctions had been successful in meeting their goals, in each case they were narrowly targeted and not comprehensive in nature.

Findings

The CSIS study said the ineffective use of broad sanctions has damaged U.S. prestige and its relations with allies.

"Economic withdrawal also removes the most important conveyer of U.S. values and principles-the private sector, including nongovernmental organizations of all varieties."

It said the main foreign policy goals of unilateral economic sanctions are rarely met, and they allow the U.S. to be portrayed as uncaring about people deprived of foodstuffs and medicines in the targeted nations.

And the study said that, rather than hurting target nations, sanctions usually benefit U.S. competitors for business overseas.

CSIS said that, sometimes a mix of "carrots and sticks" may be needed-like the current strategy to deter North Korea from acquiring nuclear weapons.

But it said, "Comprehensive unilateral economic sanctions, on the other hand, almost never achieve their main objectives, and for that reason alone should be seen as a measure of last resort rather than the first arrow out of the national quiver."