Global Policy Forum

By Robin Wright

They've been used against Hitler's Germany and Saddam Hussein's Iraq. They were imposed to isolate apartheid South Africa and force theocratic Iran to release 52 American hostages. They've been applied against friends like Israel, to force its withdrawal from the Sinai in 1956, and foes like Afghanistan's Taliban government, for harboring extremist Osama bin Laden.

But Secretary of State Colin L. Powell is about to launch a quiet revolution in American diplomacy by proposing to scrap many, maybe even most, of the punitive sanctions imposed by the United States--the vast majority over the last decade.

At his confirmation hearing last week, the mild-mannered former Army general was almost scornful in describing the use of sanctions, which, along with warfare, are one of the most enduring tools of foreign policy, dating back to ancient Greece. He served notice on Congress that he intends to push for change.

The pervasive use of trade embargoes and other forms of sanctions "shows a degree of American hubris and arrogance that may not, at the end of the day, serve our interests all that well," Powell told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

"I would like to participate with you in discussing how to get rid of most of them," Powell said. And he appealed to Congress not to apply any new sanctions before letting him have his say: "Stop, look and listen before you impose a sanction. . . . Count to 10, then call me."

About 75 of the world's nearly 200 countries are currently subject to U.S. sanctions. Several have been sanctioned for multiple offenses, ranging from mislabeling cans of tuna, at one end of the scale, to engaging in egregious human rights violations and narcotics trafficking at the other.

In contrast, the United Nations currently enforces sanctions against fewer than a dozen countries, according to the State Department Office of Economic Sanctions Policy.

One of the ironies for Powell is that many of today's sanctions were initiated by the Republican-controlled Congress, although the president is also empowered to levy embargoes.

Powell's proposed reversal would be a boon to American business. USA Engage, a coalition of more than 670 U.S. companies committed to easing embargoes, estimates that sanctions cost the United States as much as $ 19 billion annually in lost exports and deprive the economy of more than 200,000 high-wage jobs. A wide range of industries, from oil to aerospace to agriculture, has been hit hard.

Almost half of the 125 unilateral economic sanctions imposed by the United States since World War I were initiated from 1993 to 1998, according to surveys by USA Engage and the National Assn. of Manufacturers.

Powell's position reflects a growing wariness among politicians and policymakers of both parties. Sanctions imposed only by the United States "rarely succeed" in altering a country's behavior," according to Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.).

Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) has long called for a review. "In most cases, the issue is rushed to the Senate or House floor so that Congress can express its outrage at some perceived misdeed," Dodd said. "But there has never been any systematic effort by Congress to review sanctions once imposed, to consider whether they have achieved their objectives or have turned out to be counterproductive."

During its final two years, the Clinton administration became increasingly reluctant to impose or endorse sanctions because of the unintended consequences they sometimes have on innocent bystanders, such as women and children and neighboring countries, according to a senior U.S. official.

In 1999, President Clinton pushed to eliminate sanctions on humanitarian goods, opening the way for exports of food and medicine to Libya, Sudan and Iran, among others.

Yet sanctions are so central to U.S. policy that only two days before Clinton's term ended, the administration imposed new sanctions on Sierra Leone, restricting the importation of diamonds in response to a U.N. resolution.

Another set of U.N. sanctions promoted by the United States against Afghanistan, restricting travel by officials of the ruling Taliban and banning military aid, went into effect Friday, the day before Clinton left office.

In fact, sanctions played a central role in the birth of the United States. According to the State Department, America's first embargo was the refusal by the Colonies to buy tea from Britain, an event that helped set the stage for the Revolutionary War. Several decades later, President Jefferson imposed an embargo on British goods in the run-up to the War of 1812 after Britain stopped U.S. warships to seize troops who had deserted from the British military.

Supporters of sanctions argue that they will continue to play a role. "Sanctions as a tool of foreign policy can be very effective by exerting psychological and economic pressure. They make the cost of running a government much more expensive by increasing the costs of vital commercial goods or military wares," said Henri Barkey, a former member of the State Department's policy planning staff.

Along with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's bombardment, sanctions on the government of former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic helped isolate him from his own population, Barkey pointed out. Indeed, sanctions may have been critical to the process because the NATO airstrikes initially rallied the public around the regime. "Sanctions put a vital wedge between the population and the regime," he said.

Under U.S. law, countries can be sanctioned for dozens of offenses. Among them: disrupting the world economy, harboring terrorists, engaging in war crimes, selling weapons of mass destruction, refusing to provide information on American troops missing in action, operating coercive family planning programs and allowing excessive deforestation.

Sanctions can be imposed for mislabeling tuna under the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, which tries to ensure that commercial tuna-fishing practices don't kill dolphins and other species. A country can even be slapped with U.S. sanctions if its diplomats fail to pay parking fines.

Prescribed punishments also vary widely. Sanctions typically restrict or prohibit commercial trade with the United States or U.S. businesses.

Sanctions are under fire in large part because of their frequent failure, especially when applied by a lone country, as is the case with most U.S. embargoes.

"Sanctions tend to be effective only when you have modest goals and substantial international support," said Richard Haass of the Brookings Institution, the author of two books on sanctions.

"We've asked sanctions to do too much," he said. "In a wide range of situations, people want to do something short of sending troops. Too often, sanctions are used to fill that need to act without asking if that is the appropriate instrument."

The increasing complexity of world commerce as international barriers fall also diminishes the effectiveness of embargoes, Haass said.

"Sanctions demand a degree of control that is harder and harder to come by in a globalized world because there are more and more independent players--not just governments but companies, nongovernment organizations, cartels, even terrorist groups--to provide goods," he said.

The limits of sanctions are particularly visible in Iraq. The initial U.N. embargo failed to force President Saddam Hussein to withdraw from Kuwait in 1990. And over the subsequent decade, a sanctions regime regarded as the world's toughest has failed to force either compliance with the terms of the Persian Gulf War cease-fire or an end to Hussein's rule. And the sanctions are now rapidly crumbling.

At the same time, there are few good alternatives to sanctions in the post-Cold War world. Most governments tend to be reluctant to go to war and often prefer limited military objectives, supplemented by sanctions, in response to offenses or provocations by other nations.

Sanctions advocates point out that the international embargo deprived Hussein of an estimated $ 150 billion in oil revenues that he otherwise could have spent developing weapons of mass destruction. At his confirmation hearing, Powell acknowledged that sanctions generally have a "noble purpose from their origin."

He offered few details about which countries or sanctions he wants to review, or what he would propose as an alternative to them when countries transgress international standards. Addressing two specific cases, Powell said he would maintain sanctions on Iraq but favors reassessing current restrictions on India. The United States imposed sanctions on India and Pakistan, as required by law, after the two governments tested nuclear devices.

In the meantime, the new secretary of State called on Congress to show "restraint and discipline" in considering legislation that would require the Bush administration to impose additional embargoes.

If lawmakers feel they must mandate new sanctions, Powell urged, they should include a sunset clause "to make them all go away at the end of the year."