August 06, 2018
America Is Addicted to Sanctions. Time for an Intervention.
In March 2016, shortly after the United States lifted sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program, then–Treasury Secretary Jack Lew gave a speech reflecting on the lessons Barack Obama’s administration had learned. Sanctions, he said, had “become a powerful force in service of clear and coordinated foreign policy objectives,” but the United States should be sure to use them “only to address significant threats to national security.” Overusing them, he warned, could dull their effectiveness. His logic was simple: Sanctions work because they cut targets off from dealing with U.S. citizens and American financial institutions—a complete severance from the world’s largest economy and its most important financial center. If Washington used this power idly, Lew suggested, it could encourage countries to find partners outside of the United States, and undermine sanctions’ deterrent effect.
Both the executive and legislative branches seem to have ignored Lew. Since his speech, the United States has reimposed sweeping sanctions on Iran, with restrictions on currency transactions and the trading of airplane and automotive parts going into effect on August 6; expanded the penalties against Russia and Venezuela; and pursued a maximum economic-pressure campaign against North Korea. Just after Donald Trump’s controversial Helsinki summit with Russia’s President Vladimir Putin, a bipartisan group of senators unveiled new legislation to tighten sanctions on Moscow. To punish Turkey for its detention of the American pastor Andrew Brunson, the administration imposed human-rights sanctions on Turkish officials.
These days, policy makers not only impose sanctions with greater frequency—they’re also considering ever more extreme measures, and paying less and less attention to the drawbacks. At their most effective, sanctions are the product of multilateral efforts to solve clearly articulated, shared global-security concerns. Now they are becoming strident expressions of displeasure from an isolated United States, often wielded in service of domestic partisan priorities—a careless approach that may well neutralize the effectiveness of these powerful tools.
Read the Full Article at The Atlantic
More from CNAS
-
Ziemba: U.S. Has To Be Ready To Accept Mideast Investments
US President Donald Trump has secured $200 billion in deals during a visit to the United Arab Emirates, according to the White House, as he wraps up his visit to the Middle Ea...
By Rachel Ziemba
-
Trump Inks $600 Bn Deal In Saudi Arabia | Musk, Blackrock CEO Flank Trump In Gulf Visit
In today's episode of India Global, U.S. President Donald Trump secured a $600 billion commitment from Saudi Arabia on Tuesday to invest in the United States. NDTV's Gaurie Dw...
By Daniel Silverberg
-
Lessons from the U.S.-China Trade War
America and China have agreed to a 90-day truce of their month-long trade war, but the economic uncertainty has not yet ended. Beyond tariffs, the spat had begun spilling over...
By Edward Fishman
-
Tariffs and Tech: An Uncertain Recipe
Higher tariffs could prompt American cloud companies to shift more of their capital investments abroad....
By Pablo Chavez