• Military

• WMD Menu                           

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

BUSINESS GROUP DECRIES U.S. UNILATERAL ECONOMIC SANCTIONS
(NAM says sanctions cost jobs and are ineffective) (780)
By Jon Schaffer USIA Staff Writer 04 March 1997

Washington -- U.S. unilateral economic sanctions have cost U.S. businesses jobs, put at risk numerous U.S. investments and are rarely effective, says the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM).

"Our economic sanctions are a massive patchwork of good intentions with bad results," NAM President Jerry Jasinowski said in unveiling a study commissioned by the U.S. business group. "Unilateral sanctions are little more than postage stamps we use to send messages to other countries at the cost of thousands of American jobs."

The report shows that "it is difficult to argue that any of the 61 measures authorized over the past four years have changed the behavior of the 35 targeted governments," Jasinowski said.

The report, "A Catalog of New U.S. Unilateral Economic Sanctions for Foreign Policy Purposes 1993-1996," was produced by Professor Barry Carter of Georgetown University and released March 4.

The study comes amid considerable opposition by important U.S. allies to the Helms-Burton law targeting foreign companies and individuals for sanctions if they traffic in property confiscated from U.S. citizens in Cuba. The European Union has filed a case in the World Trade Organization challenging Helms-Burton.

The departments of State and Commerce declined to comment on the NAM report.

The study said that during the 1993-1996 period, 61 U.S. laws and executive actions were enacted authorizing unilateral economic sanctions for foreign policy purposes. Most of the actions did not involve embargoes and some included directions to vote against loans from international financial institutions.

Of the unilateral measures adopted over the four year period:

• 22 were adopted to promote human rights and democratization and 13 countries were specifically targeted: Angola, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Burma, Burundi, China, Croatia, Cuba, Gambia, Guatemala, Haiti, Nicaragua, Nigeria and Yugoslavia. Sanctions were also imposed against companies in Canada, Italy and Mexico due to prohibited activities in Cuba under the Helms-Burton Act.
• Anti-terrorism was the focus of 14 laws or executive actions, the report said. These measures targeted eight countries, including Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Nicaragua, North Korea, Sudan and Syria.
• Nine measures were adopted to prevent nuclear proliferation, with China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea and Pakistan specifically targeted. Third-party countries who trade and invest with Iran and Libya were also targeted.
• Eight measures were adopted to promote political stability, particularly in Afghanistan, Angola, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Rwanda, the New Independent States of the former Soviet Union (including Russia), Yugoslavia and Zaire.
• Eight anti-narcotics measures were targeted against Afghanistan, Burma, Colombia, Cuba, Haiti and Nigeria and two measures were targeted against any third-party country engaged in prohibited dealings with Cuba.
• Six unilateral sanctions measures were adopted to promote worker rights or the prevention of prison labor, with China, the Maldives, Mauritania, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates specifically targeted.
• Three measures were adopted targeting Brazil, China and Taiwan over environmental protection issues.

The report provides little aggregate data on the economic effects of the sanctions, instead including a few case studies of jobs lost to individual U.S. firms as a result of the sanctions. It said that foreign manufacturers are eager to fill the void left when American companies are denied the opportunity to export. Only in a handful of the 35 countries covered in the report could an arguable claim be made that the sanctions changed the behavior of the targeted government, the report said. "They have yet to topple a targeted government. They provide an external scapegoat for well-entrenched regimes to compensate for domestic failings. Once launched, they are extremely difficult to terminate."

The report also stressed that U.S. businesses are increasingly viewed as unreliable. "Foreign companies and governments are understandably reluctant to enter into any longer-term commercial relationship with U.S. companies if the threat of sanctions looms."

The report makes the following specific recommendations:

• Before considering economic sanctions, the United states should pursue diplomatic, political and military isolation alternatives that more effectively target a country's unique vulnerabilities. Except in the most unusual and extreme circumstances, all sanctions should be multilateral.
• If unilateral sanctions are considered, they should meet specific criteria relating to effectiveness, availability from foreign suppliers and enforceability. Provision should also be made for such measures to lapse absent reauthorization by Congress, or be waived if the president determines that it is in the national interest.
• The U.S. government should produce an annual report on all unilateral sanctions, analyzing both the impact on the targeted government and on U.S. companies.

NNNN