A Case for Restraint On Trade Sanct

[moe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]

A Case for Restraint On Trade Sanctions 
   Sunday, March 8, 1998 
  
AMOXICILLIN can be hard to find in Karbala to treat a youngster's painful
infection. Rice and cooking oil are scarce in Basra unless a buyer can pay
the high price. Engineers and professors drive cabs in Baghdad to earn a
meager wage. These are the side-effects of tough sanctions lowered on Iraq
by the U.S. and the United Nations. 

Behind the bombs-away rhetoric on dealing with Iraq is a debate over
sanctions designed to undercut Saddam Hussein's lawless behavior by
hamstringing his country's economy. Should the cork be kept tight on Iraq's
commerce with the outside world? Or does this blockade miss the point by
punishing the average Iraqi while Saddam's entourage remains unscathed? The
discussion points up a new reality in modern-day diplomacy. Sanctions are
growing in numbers with the United States a major player. 

American sanctions circle the globe. They range from a recently lifted ban
on the sale of fighter jets to Latin America to a deep-freeze ostracism
against age-old foe North Korea. The sanctions can be the result of
peacekeeping missions (Serbia and Haiti), drug interdiction (Pakistan),
human rights campaigns (Burma and Nigeria), anti-terrorism (Iran) and Cold
War history (Cuba). They can be a politician's delight because the get-
tough measures pacify a persistent voting bloc, but they are a diplomat's
nightmare because sanctions can be impossible to lift and hard to peddle to
allies. By one count, of 140 international sanctions launched this century,
110 were U.S.-sponsored. Economist Gary Hufbauer, co-author on a major study
on sanctions, lists 38 measures of varying scope still in place. 

The real test is whether they work, and the answer is mixed. Examples abound
for almost any theory. North Korea remains an outcast nation, but its people
are starving. Cuba is still led by Fidel Castro although the island failed
to export its Communist economy to South America. An American-led boycott of
Libya creates friction with oil-needy Italy. The world of sanctions can
become a puzzle palace with evidence to support or knock down any argument. 

Hufbauer estimates sanctions cost American business $20 billion per year for
a smallish result. ``We don't find zero bang, but the trend has been
distinctly downward in terms of changing a country's foreign policy,'' he
said. Fighting in Bosnia ended with the Dayton peace accords, achieved at
the point of sanctions against trade with Serbia, he noted. South Africa
changed from apartheid to multiracial democracy after worldwide sanctions.
But proposed heavy sanctions against the People's Republic of China by the
United States would be a disaster if other nations swooped in to land
business contracts, he said. 

For Hufbauer and other policy experts, sanctions work when the targeted
government is weighing which way to go. South Africa was a success story
because its leaders were open to change. But Burma and Nigeria showcase the
opposite situation. ``Nobody in those places is listening,'' he said.
Hufbauer favors targeting tyrants for prosecution such as the seizure of
foreign assets or arrest if they leave their own country. 

The current wave of sanctions has peculiar origins. The end of the Cold War
makes it easier to impose the punishments because the target country cannot
run to the Soviet Union. American politics are well-suited to activist
groups such as Cuban emigres or Chinese dissidents who can pressure Congress
and the White House for help. Also, the moralist or flag-waver has always
played a major role in American foreign policy, and the present era of U.S.
super-strength has enlarged this personality trait. 

Sanctions are also a blunt weapon. The Duvalier family in Haiti parked their
money in Swiss accounts, shopped in New York boutiques and drove down the
island's dirt roads in BMWs, unhindered by a U.S. sanctions. Meanwhile, the
average Haitian suffered shortages of food and medicine. The collapse
finally came, but everyone in Haiti paid the price for the sins of a few. 

The crazy quilt of restrictions and barriers are subject to the laws of
unintended consequences. America's boycott of Cuba, dating back to 1960,
settled into an exercise in Cuban emigre politics until Congress approved
the Helms-Burton law. The measure, unenforced so far, punishes other
countries who make use of property such as land or factories once owned by
Americans. The law has infuriated down-the-line U.S. allies such as Canada
who are not caught up in the anti-Castro obsession of American politics. To
be effective, sanctions need to be carefully chosen with reasonable goals
plainly stated. With Iraq, the constant testing by Saddam needs the reality
check that sanctions and containment provide. Human suffering could be
alleviated if the U.N. could provide food. This instance should underscore
tough resolve by sanctioning country or world body, but it needs full
cooperation and support to succeed. 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



THE TARGETED COUNTRIES 


These are the countries that are currently under some form of active
foreign-policy sanctions by the United States government. 


ANGOLA 
AZERBAIJAN 
BURMA 
CAMBODIA 
CAMEROON 
CHINA 
CUBA 
GAMBIA 
HAITI 
INDONESIA 
IRAN 
IRAQ 
LIBERIA 
SUDAN 
LIBYA 
NIGER 
NIGERIA 
NORTH KOREA 
PAKISTAN 
SYRIA 
VIETNAM 
REPUBLICS OF EX-YUGOSLAVIA 
ZAMBIA 


Chronicle Graphic 


  Get a printer-friendly version of this article 
ON THE GATE 

Wire up, plug in, and log on: Technology on The Gate.  
 ©1998 San Francisco Chronicle