What Sanctions Epidemic? U.S. Business' Curious Crusade
Business lobbyists are peddling wildly inflated statistics to claim that sanctions are used too often, but America cannot have a principled foreign policy without them.
Senator Jesse Helms (R-N.C.) is Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
In the past year, a handful of Washington business lobbyists have waged a blistering campaign to persuade the world that Congress has been engaged in a spasm of sanctions proliferation.
Reliance on unilateral sanctions, these lobbyists warn us, is a disturbing new epidemic. Their campaign has sparked dozens of news articles and editorials decrying the "sanctions frenzy" and castigating Congress' "voracious appetite" for sanctions. Normally responsible journalists parrot statistics -- conveniently furnished by these business lobbyists -- alleging that in the last few years the United States has placed anywhere from one-half to two-thirds of the world's population under the yoke of unilateral economic sanctions. The New York Times clamors that "more than 60 laws or executive orders authorizing sanctions . . . have been enacted in the last five years." Even President Clinton jumped on the antisanctions bandwagon, announcing in 1998 that the United States has gone "sanctions happy."
This is sheer nonsense. The statistics peddled by these lobbyists are grossly inflated and intentionally misleading. Half of the world is not living under American sanctions -- nowhere near it. There is no epidemic. Congress has been cautious and circumspect, passing just a handful of carefully targeted sanctions laws. And unilateral economic sanctions are by no means new: they have been vital weapons in America's foreign policy arsenal for more than 200 years. I have been and continue to be a friend of American business. But the distortions spread by this small cabal of lobbyists in the name of American business are inexcusable. The time has come for a reality check.
LIES, DAMNED LIES, AND STATISTICS
This is a premium article
You must be a Foreign Affairs subscriber to continue reading. If you are already a print subscriber, click here to activate your online access.
Log In
Buy PDF
Buy a premium PDF reprint of this article.Related
The connection between American business and foreign policy is poorly thought out and mismanaged, on both sides. It is, however, vital to the national interest. For most of the country's history, foreign policy has reflected an obsession with open markets for American firms. At one time, protecting the interests of a company like United Fruit was synonymous with policy toward Latin America. While those days may be gone, commercial interests must still play a central role. Herewith, a framework for the second Clinton administration to guide cooperation between the government and the business community for the benefit of both.
Economic bans and political invective against Iran have not worked. America, not the Islamic Republic, has become isolated. Meanwhile, both because sanctions are leaky and because they have pushed it to become more self-sufficient, Iran is actually doing better than many countries the United States has assisted. The sanctions also give the Islamic regime a scapegoat for its serious problems at home, merely prolonging its hold on power. The United States should abandon containment for a strategy of critical dialogue.
American businessmen are daydreaming of Havana, lobbying harder for an end to the embargo against Cuba and grousing over business missed on the island. In navigating a thicket of laws, they have started a trickle of commerce, but do not expect a gush until well after the presidential election.
