DATE=1/4/2000
TYPE=BACKGROUND REPORT
TITLE=U-S ECONOMIC SANCTIONS
NUMBER=5-45171
BYLINE=ED WARNER
DATELINE=WASHINGTON
CONTENT=
VOICED AT:


INTRO:  The U-S Congress did not enact a single 
unilateral economic sanction against another nation in 
1999, a sharp contrast to previous years.  The 
legislators were reacting to growing pressure from the 
American business community and from reports that 
sanctions often do more harm than good.  That still 
leaves U-S sanctions of varying severity on some 
seventy-five nations.  Supporters say this economic 
weapon is needed to uphold American values in the 
international arena. V-O-A's Ed Warner reports on the 
debate.

TEXT:  How many U-S foreign policies can there be? ask 
critics of economic sanctions.  Not only has the 
federal government used the sanctions weapon against 
some seventy-five countries, but more than 200 state 
and local governments have imposed their own 
sanctions.  This adds up to a bewildering array of 
punishments, say skeptics, that form no coherent 
whole.

Sanctions range from a total trade ban to cutting off 
arms sales, reducing foreign aid, freezing assets, 
increasing tariffs, limiting exports or imports or 
canceling air links.  They are supposed to be tailored 
to counter the alleged behavior that angers Congress 
or the White House.  In practice, many of the 
sanctions have only symbolic importance.

Bruce Bartlett of the National Center for Policy 
Analysis says sanctions have become the U-S weapon of 
choice in the post cold war era:

            /// Bartlett Act ///

      When something happens that leaders feel 
      deserves more than ordinary condemnation and 
      they feel the need to do something of substance, 
      trade sanctions are an all-purpose remedy that 
      makes them look tough without endangering any 
      troops.

            /// End Act ///

But sanctions are a blunt instrument that often does 
not work, says J. Daniel O'Flaherty, vice president of 
the National Foreign Trade Council.  The economic 
embargo against Iraq has punished average Iraqis, but 
it has not ousted Saddam Hussein:

            /// O'Flaherty Act ///

      You cannot overthrow a ruthless dictator like 
      Saddam by impoverishing his people.  He does not 
      care.  On the other hand, there are countries 
      like South Africa where it did have an impact on 
      the ruling group to cut them off from 
      international commerce because they cared a 
      little bit more about it.  And they were also a 
      little bit more easily embarrassed about what 
      they were doing at home than is Saddam Hussein 
      or the Burmese junta.

            /// End Act ///

Once sanctions are imposed, it is hard to remove them, 
says Mr. Bartlett.  If they were lifted from Iraq, for 
example, Saddam would declare victory.  So they remain 
in place, despite the suffering of the Iraqi people.

Critics point to other times sanctions have backfired.  
The economic embargo of Haiti wrecked the economy 
without restoring democracy.  The arms embargo on 
Pakistan may have caused it to rely more on nuclear 
weapons since it lost access to conventional ones.

A report of the Center for Strategic and International 
Studies in Washington concludes that almost all 
unilateral sanctions fail almost all the time.

That is a gross exaggeration, contends U-S Senator 
Jesse Helms, chairman of the Foreign Relations 
Committee, in an article in "Foreign Affairs" journal.  
Among other accomplishments, he cites the threat of 
sanctions causing Switzerland to pay one-point-two-
billion dollars in reparations to holocaust survivors.  
He writes that Americans should not sell their souls 
to create jobs and economic prosperity.

The impulse to sanctions continues on a state and 
local level in America.  Mr. O'Flaherty says many 
supporters put principle above pocketbook:

            /// O'Flaherty Act ///

      You will find in the human rights community lots 
      of people who will say, "We understand they do 
      not work.  We understand they may be counter-
      productive, but we need them as a tactic to lay 
      down a marker in our relations with certain 
      governments.  From their point of view, that is 
      a very legitimate thing to do.

            /// End Act ///

Responding to tyranny is at the heart of American 
democracy, says Robert Stumberg, professor of law at 
Georgetown University.  As in the case of South 
Africa, local democracy crafts the policies that later 
become national:

            /// Stumberg Act ///

      They are setting standards of public morality 
      for spending their own taxpayers' money.  They 
      are not regulating markets.  They are not 
      telling companies they can or cannot do business 
      anywhere.  They are not limiting opportunities 
      for investors.  They are simply saying that, 
      "We, the government of this city or this state 
      choose not to do business with certain companies 
      that violate our standards of public morality."

            /// End Act ///

This is the basis of a Massachusetts law that bars 
state contracts from any company doing business with 
the government of Burma.  But an American business 
coalition has filed a suit claiming the law is 
unconstitutional because it infringes on U-S foreign 
policy.  Federal courts have agreed and struck down 
the statute.  The case is now before the U-S Supreme 
Court with a decision expected later this year.  It 
will be crucial for the continued use of sanctions by 
state or local governments.

There is also a bill before Congress that would 
require a cost-benefit analysis before a sanction is 
imposed.  As Mr. O'Flaherty puts it, legislators will 
have to aim before they shoot. (signed)

NEB/EW/JP





04-Jan-2000 17:45 PM EDT (04-Jan-2000 2245 UTC)
NNNN

Source: Voice of America
.