America: a Beacon, not a Policeman	The (moral) Trouble with Sanctions	Americans Against World Empire  Homepage

USA Today Magazine  (Sept., 1999)

The Trouble with Sanctions

Rev. Robert A. Sirico      

            Trade sanctions against foreign countries is the most-used weapon in the U.S. government's foreign-policy arsenal. But do sanctions really accomplish their purpose? Who do sanctions really hurt?       Consider this scene from just last month.      

      Alex Hasbany, the manager of a cigar room at a New York restaurant called the Patroon on East 46th Street, was minding his business, clipping cigars, and gabbing it up with thoroughly satisfied customers.       

            Suddenly, federal agents, armed with search warrants, stormed in and confiscated hundreds of boxes of cigars from his walk-in humidor. Then they arrested him. Kenneth Aretsky, the owner of the restaurant, was also arrested. So were four customers (who were then released on their own recognizance).       They were all charged with violating the Trading With the Enemy Act. It dates from World War I. What grave enemy had these men traded with to warrant a full-scale crack down by the federal government? They were buying and selling Cuban cigars, which is a felony that can land a man in jail for ten years and cost him $100,000.       

            Even so, in the club set, Cuban cigars are not considered contraband. They are a status symbol. People pay high dollars for them, and not only because of their quality. They represent a high status conferred by the sanctions themselves.        Sanctions against Cuba date from the earliest days of the Cold War. Fidel Castro has long blamed the sanctions for the miserable poverty that continues to wrack his once-prosperous island. The real cause is socialism and Castro's brutal regime. But s the sanctions haven't helped. Millions of Cubans who might be buying and selling with the rest of us are instead barely scraping by.      

            It's hard to justify on any grounds. Economically, it denies Americans products they want and Cubans jobs they need. Morally, sanctions hit the people of poor countries the hardest, while leaving the governments untouched. Making poor people suffer more is hard to justify. If sanctions haven't worked to unseat Castro in nearly four decades, they are not likely to do so in the future.      

            In 1970, most regimes in Latin America were not democratically elected. Today, all but Cuba is. And Cuba is the only one that consistently has born the burden of U.S. sanctions. Even after the Cold War ended, they have been tightened to punish even foreign governments that do business with Cuba.      

            If Congress repealed sanctions, Castro would  have to take responsibility for his own socialist failures. The Cuban people would have new opportunities to be in contact with American citizens and American ideals. There would be new access to books, television, and the Internet. In time, as with other Latin American countries, the regime would give in to democracy.       

            Far from backing away, however, Congress keeps adding countries to the list of countries with which American citizens cannot trade. The war with Iraq was seven years ago, but the U.S. continues to oppose any trade with the country other than tiny importations of some food and medicine. Saddam Hussein doesn't suffer from this policy. But the people do.      

            Americans do too. Farmers cannot sell their products to people who would buy them if they had the chance. Consumers must pay higher prices for gas and heating oil. The world is a more hostile place without trade, and angry terrorist strike out in the belief that they are retaliating against us.       

            To make matters worse, bills in Congress propose sanctions be imposed on another 23 countries, for reasons that appear plausible at first. Burma violates human rights. China does too. Colombia permits drug trafficking. Iran backs terrorism. So does Syria. Zaire persecutes political dissidents. But the real question is, what if anything do sanctions do to relieve the suffering of the people?        For the most part, they cause regimes to hunker down and point their fingers at the U.S. for domestic problems of their own creation. Factories close, throwing people out of work. Markets for goods dry up, which only makes the workers in them blame America. That's exactly the opposite message that we should be sending. We should be teaching the world free enterprise, not closing off opportunities to make it work.       

            Some people think that imposing sanctions on China would constitute a much-needed rebuke to the Chinese regime, and compel the government to change its policies regarding minority religions. I agree that the political rulers of China are in need of a moral rebuke, but one that is effective and is itself moral.        As a Catholic priest who has visited with members of the underground churches, I feel a strong spiritual bond to the members of the clergy who have been jailed for speaking out against government policies. We all have a moral responsibility to speak out whenever religious freedom is hindered, especially when it involves acts of violence and repression against individuals and groups.      

            But cutting China off from membership in the world community of trading nations is not going to bolster religious freedom in that country. On the other hand, we do know that imposing sanctions against China would seriously injure entrepreneurs, consumers, and impede the developing networks of civic and religious contacts  on all sides. It would hinder, as well, China's technological development, injure standards of living, and quite possibly throw China into a recession.      

            Free trade is not solely about economic matters of profit for corporations.  It is also about freedom and strengthening the civic order around the world. From my conversations with missionaries, Christian business people, and members of the Church hierarchy, it is clear that there is a struggle taking  place in China. It is between this growing civil sector made up of churches, business associations, and local governments, over against the state sector bureaucracy still dominated by old ways of thinking.      

            Economic exchange, within China and with the rest of the world, is helping to strengthen this civil sector. It is creating pockets of independent wealth that allow people to separate themselves from material dependence on the state. This is especially important to churches, which have to depend to a great extent on the charitable sector to flourish.      

            The dissemination of technologies like phone systems, computers, and the Internet allow dissident religious groups to be in contact with each other and with other groups around the world, and thereby draw attention to the plight of those persecuted for their beliefs.      

            Business promote this by donating computers to churches, providing communications technologies to civic groups, and getting dissident groups access to books they could not otherwise afford. At the Acton Institute, for example, we supply students, clerics  and academics in China with materials that promote the ideas of a free and virtuous society both through the post and increasingly by means of our web site.       

            In the last twenty years, China has set the world record for economic expansion, adding 8 to 10 percent to its GDP on an annual basis. This is a period in which the U.S. has had good trading relations with the country. It is not uncommon now to see average Chinese carrying cellular phones, drinking American soft drinks, and owning their own homes. This country is being Americanized and developed at a rapid rate.       

            What about China's one-child per family rule?  It is a terrible policy, and as a long-time pro-life activist, I find China's population control methods immoral. At the same time, rising prosperity in China has played a role in reducing the numbers of forced abortions in China.       

            Free enterprise is giving average people the strength and means to resist the bureaucrats. In many cases, families are finding that they have enough money to pay the fines and have the extra children.  Local officials are said to even encourage larger families as a means of raising revenue.       

            The way to further the process of reform and liberalization is to increase trading relations, not curb them. That doesn't mean we cannot also denounce human rights abuses. It means that in doing so, we don't punish innocent people in the process.       

            American consumers benefit greatly from imports from all over the world. But so do U.S. businesses employing American workers. When the government imposes sanctions, these business are not able to export their goods abroad. This can damage U.S. industry and cost jobs.      

            It's even worse when these sanctions are imposed unilaterally, as they are against Cuba. When U.S. companies are not importing and exporting, other countries step in to pick up the slack. For instance, in the case of Cuba cigars, most wholesalers in this country get them from Britain, Canada, Germany, or France.       

            At a time when the prosperity of Americans is increasingly tied to our relations with the rest of the world, it is a grave mistake to injure those relations, especially when there is little likelihood sanctions will achieve our objectives.        The use of unilateral sanctions even poses a danger in countries where our relations are temporarily peaceful. As Richard Cheney, former Secretary of Defense, has said, "foreign governments will be reluctant to work with U.S. companies since the U.S. government may attempt to use them for leverage when any political differences arise. We will be viewed as unreliable investors."       Commercial relations should not take place in a moral vacuum. U.S. business doing work abroad are in a better social position to discourage and denounce violations of freedom when they do take place. U.S. companies have a moral obligation to promote freedom and the rule of law in the countries they operate.        

           Speaking as a Catholic priest, I can only echo the words of the Pope John Paul II. He says that every decision to invest involves a moral choice  and implies certain moral obligations. Free enterprise must take place within a strict juridical framework of human rights, or its merits become morally and economically dubious and even counterproductive.       

            The Pope has also been an outspoken opponent of this dangerous trend of the U.S. to use sanctions as a means of imposing our will on the world. He is right to see it as counterproductive at best, and cruel and inhumane at worst.        With economic sanctions, we lose the chance to have any influence on the structure of government. Indeed, sanctions are more than just a foreign policy tool; they are really an act of aggression. Some countries regard them as a perpetual war against the people. Certainly, the U.S. would see it that way if a powerful foreign nation suddenly cut off all trade with us.       

            The crux of the issue involves how our government is going about its conduct of foreign policy around the world. We need not choose between free enterprise and morality. Economic liberty is essential to human rights, and the only way to promote both is through engagement, not acts of hostility and economic abuse.       

            My point is not merely about material prosperity, but about the potential and actual civil and social effect of that prosperity: It means a smaller role for government in people's lives, which in turn means a lessening of power on the part of the state to violate human rights.      

            In countries where we do not approve of the way the regimes treat their people, we face a choice. We can erect a wall that shuts out our influence. Or we can keep the door open, using moral suasion, commerce, and diplomatic ties to encourage and extend the process of reform.      

            A policy of  peace and trade, far from lacking a moral center, promotes a wider range of freedoms and actually holds out the prospect for making the right kind of difference, and provides a genuine moral center for our international political and economic relationships.

 * * * * * Father Robert A. Sirico is president of the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty in Grand Rapids, Michigan, a non-profit (501c3) research organization that promotes international contact between scholars, students, and civic organizations in pursuit of a classically liberal worldview of peace, prosperity, enterprise, and religious freedom.