Evidence shows unilateral sanctions a no-win crusade<\/p>\n
By Arif Havas Ugroseno<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): Are sanctions becoming an increasingly important
\nforeign policy tool for enforcing international norms and
\nstandards of behavior?<\/p>\n
Yes, according to Stuart Eizenstat, U.S. Undersecretary for
\nInternational Trade, who cited U.S. sanctions against South
\nAfrica, Iraq, Libya and Serbia (The Jakarta Post, Oct. 4).<\/p>\n
But he is wrong on at least one count. Many U.S. sanctions are
\nunilateral, but the attractive ones that he quotes are
\nmultilateral.<\/p>\n
South Africa, for example, was sanctioned by a number of
\nmultilateral conventions, such as the International Convention on
\nthe Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid.<\/p>\n
But it is not likely that there will ever be an international
\nconvention backing the unilateral American Anti-Iran Act or Anti-
\nCuba Act.<\/p>\n
U.S. unilateral sanctions are also in direct contravention
\nwith general international law and the Charter of the United
\nNations.<\/p>\n
They run counter to the 1974 United Nations Charter of
\nEconomic Rights and Duties of States which declares that no state
\nmay use or encourage the use of economic, political or any other
\ntype of measures to coerce another state in order to take away
\nits sovereign powers.<\/p>\n
They completely ignore the 1993 Vienna Declaration and Program
\nof Actions which \"calls upon states to refrain from any
\nunilateral measure not in accordance with international law and
\nthe Charter of the United Nations that creates obstacles to trade
\nrelations among States and impedes the full realization of the
\nhuman rights set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human
\nRights and international human rights instruments\".<\/p>\n
These are the fundamentals that make America's call to the
\ninternational community to support its unilateral sanctions ring
\nhollow.<\/p>\n
Far from following the heed of the superpower, the
\ninternational community has flatly rejected it.<\/p>\n
Responding to a recent threat of unilateral economic
\nsanctions, Boris Yeltsin charged that the U.S. did not have the
\nright or authority to ban Russian investments and that the U.S.
\nmove was simply incomprehensible.<\/p>\n
The threat was set against a US$2 billion investment in
\nnatural gas by a group of three transnational companies --
\nRussia's Gazprom, France's Total SA and Malaysia's Petronas --
\nfor failing to comply with the American Anti-Iran Act.<\/p>\n
Meanwhile, French Foreign Minister Hubert Vedrine challenges
\nthat there is no responsible government that believes all
\neconomic sanctions are effective.<\/p>\n
In a U.S.-Iran conference held by Rutgers University and the
\nMiddle East Institute in Washington DC in April 1997, the
\nEuropean Union representative expounded that there exists a
\ndifferent cultural mentality in the U.S. toward questions like
\nhow to deal with difficult nation-states.<\/p>\n
The European Union's rejection of the U.S. call went even
\nfurther as the EU brought the Anti-Cuba Act, known as the Helms-
\nBurton Act, to the World Trade Organization in May 1996.<\/p>\n
The EU rightly claimed that the act and other legislation
\nenacted by the U.S. Congress regarding trade sanctions against
\nCuba violate several articles in the General Agreement on Tariffs
\nand Trade, and the General Agreement on Trade in Services.<\/p>\n
After desperately arguing that the unilateral sanctions were a
\nmatter of national security and therefore the WTO could not take
\naction on it, the U.S. called a truce and eventually yielded to
\nEU interests.<\/p>\n
The fact that even the closest allies of the U.S. rejected
\nthis American policy clearly demonstrates that it is the
\ncredibility of American leadership and power that is at stake and
\nsuffers.<\/p>\n
In the world where interdependence is increasingly critical
\nand strategic alliances and collective actions are more
\nindispensable than ever, pursuing unilateral sanctions would
\nundermine goodwill needed to garner friends and allies.<\/p>\n
Furthermore, by alienating itself from targeted countries, the
\nU.S. gains no leverage whatsoever to stay in touch and have an
\ninfluence in the happenings in those countries.<\/p>\n
Even worse, realizing that America's closest allies challenge
\nsuch policy, the targeted countries would not likely change their
\nattitude and would only consider the policy as no more than mere
\nbullying, thus hardening opposition against the U.S.<\/p>\n
U.S. international economic influence is also seriously hurt
\nby unilateral sanctions. Recent studies by the U.S. National
\nAssociation of Manufacturers show that from 1993 to 1996, U.S.
\nsanctions have created a cut in the export market worth US$790
\nbillion.<\/p>\n
While this number is large, the association says, it does not
\nconvey the full extent of U.S. loses. Not only did the U.S. lose
\nground in the export market but also in related export benefits,
\nsuch as service contracts and spare parts deals, as well as
\nconfidence in the international market that America is a reliable
\nsupplier.<\/p>\n
As the U.S. economy is heavily dependent on exports, the loss
\nin the market means a loss of jobs, and thus unemployment.
\nFurthermore, by isolating itself from the market, the U.S. also
\nstands to loose the opportunity to help build a strong middle
\nclass -- an important segment of society to support democracy --
\nwithin targeted countries.<\/p>\n
The situation is worsened by the proliferation of local and
\nstate sanctions in America. Currently there are 19 enacted local
\nand state sanctions, seven pending sanctions at local levels and
\n13 pending sanctions at state levels.<\/p>\n
These include those targeted at Indonesia which are sponsored
\nby Massachussets and Rhode Island. Most of these sanctions
\ntypically regulate investment and procurement.<\/p>\n
This foreign policy exercise by local and state authorities
\nviolates the U.S. Constitution which vests the power to conduct
\nforeign affairs and regulate foreign commerce in the hands of the
\nfederal government alone.<\/p>\n
The U.S. Supreme Court in a case referred to as \"Holland vs.
\nMissouri\" declared unconstitutional the attempt of Missouri to
\ncreate its own foreign policy regarding migratory birds from
\nCanada. The court established that international treaties
\nconstituted the ultimate law of the land and that individual
\nstates could not maintain their own foreign policies.<\/p>\n
The reason that the U.S. federal government does not take
\nlocal and state authorities to the Supreme Court is obviously
\npolitical. The administration needs congressional support from
\nsuch states to attain fast-track legislation authority on new
\nregional and multilateral trade negotiations.<\/p>\n
The administration also does not want to look soft in
\nhectoring and lecturing human rights the world over.<\/p>\n
So what is the moral of the story?<\/p>\n
Unilateral sanctions just do not work. Even when the cases of
\nPanama and Haiti are quoted as shining examples, one should
\nremember that Panama only surrendered when the U.S. sent in
\ncombat troops in violation of international law, kidnapping
\nManuel Noriega. Even poor Haiti managed to tough it out until yet
\nanother threat of military intervention was exerted.<\/p>\n
Thanks to the U.S., who negotiated relentlessly for the
\nestablishment of the World Trade Organization, an international
\nforum is now available to American-targeted countries to bring
\nU.S. sanctions to court.<\/p>\n
Even if U.S. sanctions may not be in violation of specific
\ninternational trade provisions, they nevertheless nullify or
\nimpair expected benefits and objectives sought after from the
\ncreation of these international norms.<\/p>\n
As a matter of fact, due to clear violations of international
\ntrade law, it would not be that expensive, nor difficult, to win
\na case against many U.S. sanctions.<\/p>\n
Clearly, as we learn from the \"I-will-sue-you\" mentality,
\nbringing the U.S. to the world trade court is the best possible
\nadvice for the international community to stop unwarranted
\nsanctions exerted by this numero uno cop.<\/p>\n
After all, police brutality is something that we all detest.<\/p>\n
The writer is a graduate of Harvard Law School.<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/evidence-shows-unilateral-sanctions-a-no-win-crusade-1447893297", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }