Economic sanctions as weapons.

• Author: Howell, Llewellyn D.

SINCE PRES. CLINTON usurped the previously Republican positions of free trader (China and globally) and successful employer of military might (Iraq and Haiti), the American right has been foundering for a stance on foreign policy. It ranges from the unilateral militarism of Bob Dole ("Lift the arms embargo on Bosnia and damn the allies") to the excessive isolationism of Pat Buchanan ("White family values inside fortress America"). However, both unilateralists and isolationists have found reason to support the use of economic sanctions as weapons, and on this issue they have found an ally in Clinton. As the U.S. has become more of an economic actor in the international system, the use of sanctions has increased as a tool of foreign policy. Wielding an economic stick potentially can result in as much or more damage than the military approach.

The U.S. already has a number of embargoes in place in one form or another. The embargoed countries include Cuba, Iraq, Serbia, and Libya, and sanctions recently were increased for Iran. There was one in place for Haiti until its ineffectiveness led to viable threats of U.S. invasion. Should Washington be considering more applications of embargoes and other sanctions to bring about changes in the behavior of what it regards as rogue states? If it attempts to turn from the use of military weapons to economic ones, what are the challenges to be faced? Will sanctions ever be more effective than the 35-year-old embargo of Cuba by the U.S.? The calculus of economic sanctions is intricate. Here are a few of the problems to be faced:

* Most, if not all, of the other national actors must be convinced to participate. One government exercising sanctions is a demonstration of principle, but will bring about no change in behavior. Assuming the usual diversity of ideologies and self-interest, convincing other nations will involve some trade-offs. To get all other governments to support the sanctions, something must be given up or some price must be paid. Calculate that as a cost of the embargo for the sanctioning country.

* Economic sanctions always involve something lost for both sides. A product (oil, weapons, equipment) is to be denied to the sanctioned country, but the income from its production and sale is denied equivalently to the sanctioning government and/or its businesses. These costs must be factored in. If sanctions are imposed by one country, not only might sales on the embargoed products be lost, but the sanctioned nation might and probably will retaliate if possible...