...unilateral
measures
are much
less effective
...than
multilateral
sanctions.

Because the United States has dramatically increased the use of economic sanctions, the Stanley Foundation held a meeting this past fall about the role of sanctions in US foreign policy. A group of scholars, government officials, and representatives from corporate America generally agreed that sanctions can be effective if they're used thoughtfully as part of a larger foreign policy strategy.

Sanctions can be considered a sort of economic warfare, falling somewhere between diplomacy and violence. During an interview for the Stanley Foundation's radio program, Common Ground, Bruce Jentleson, who worked on sanctions as a member of the State Department's Policy Planning Staff, said sanctions are a necessary tool. But, "given that they're necessary, how do you make them effective? Because ineffective sanctions can actually be worse than no sanctions at all. We have tended to turn to sanctions as kind of the default option, and that's not useful for any kind of government policy. Sometimes we think that even if we do them and they don't work, well at least we did something. In fact, I think often they can be negative not only for US economic interests but also in terms of US political interests."

Many in the group supported the use of sanctions for moral reasons, as in the case of massive human rights violations—even if that demonstration of disapproval involves ineffective unilateral sanctions. Moreover, the group recognized that lawmakers sometimes apply sanctions as a response to domestic political demand.

From a US business perspective, the most obvious effect of unilateral sanctions is the loss of jobs and billions of dollars worth of exports annually to foreign competitors willing to do business with the offending nation. And Bill Lane is also concerned that "Americans are becoming tainted as unreliable suppliers," are giving foreign competitors protected home markets, and are violating treaty and trade obligations.

An additional concern for federal policymakers, according to the conference report, is that "local and state governments are relying on economic sanctions more and more to force multinational corporations to cease business relations with unacceptable foreign partners," in effect, creating their own local foreign policies. The report continues, "These state and local governments create a policy cacophony that eludes understanding."

While it is much more difficult and often takes time to build support among countries for multilateral sanctions, this group concluded that well-designed multilateral sanctions programs can be effective. "Sanctions have sometimes worked more than we give them credit for," says Bruce Jentleson. "For example, in both the Iraqi and the Iranian cases, there is little question in my assessment that sanctions have achieved a great deal in limiting the efforts of both countries to enhance their military capabilities, particularly with nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction.... There are even cases where sanctions have helped stop military coup d'etats right in their tracks. There are two Latin American examples in the first Clinton administration: in Guatemala in 1993 and Paraguay in April 1996. In both cases we threatened, with our Latin American allies, to impose sanctions. And the threat was sufficiently credible, in part because it was multilateral."

The group also discussed the need to manage relationships better to avoid the necessity of resorting to sanctions. That alternative, according to the report, "involves the use of incentives rather than punishment to alter the behavior of target states." However, the group noted obstacles to this approach, one being the lack of funds to provide incentives, another is that past experience reveals this approach may work in the long run, but not always in the short term. For example, the report says that "The policy of 'constructive engagement' did not lead to an alteration of South Africa's apartheid policy. Similarly, some observers have questioned whether engagement of the People's Republic of China will lead to significant alteration in that nation's human rights policy."

• Make sanctions part of a consistent larger package of foreign policy tools.
• Calculate the risk of humanitarian emergencies flowing from effective sanctions.
• Ensure that humanitarian relief will be available to unintended victims of the policy.
• Monitor constantly the effects of the sanctions on the target state.
• Explore new technologies that would promote the use of "smart" sanctions.
• Determine beforehand whether sanctions are more appropriate than other measures.
• Give every sanctions regime a "sunset clause," or a date when sanctions will be lifted, to maintain credibility.

MAP COURTESY OF USA ENGAGE

Lots of Them. Most attention to sanctions is placed on high profile cases like Iraq, Iran, and Libya. But this map shows the widespread use of sanctions in one form or another.

BACK TO COURIER ONLINE