Submitted Written Testimony
I. Strategic Assessment
Co-Chairs McGovern and Smith and distinguished members of the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission, thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the role of sanctions as a foreign policy tool, and how they can be most effective in the context of the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act (“GloMag”).
I’m honored to have the opportunity to speak today on this very important topic, and humbled to be part of this illustrious group testifying today. I applaud Congress’s work to create this important legislation that provides the U.S. government with a flexible option to use when going after those involved in human rights abuses and corruption, and one that I believe has been a valuable addition to the sanctions toolkit.
Given the likelihood of the continued use of this powerful tool in the months and years ahead, my testimony focuses on how best to maximize its impact. This includes five steps: First, sanctions must be part of a broader, clearly defined strategy that takes into account the foreign policy objectives the U.S. government wishes to achieve; second, once this strategy is developed policymakers must decide which tools can best achieve its goals. Choosing the right tools requires a sober analysis of the benefits and limitations of the use of sanctions, and how their impact can be leveraged by other tools of economic statecraft, diplomacy, foreign aid, and, for Global Magnitsky, existing human rights and corruption-focused initiatives; third, once this framework is established it is important to decide on which targets to actually sanction. This requires robust coordination across the government, and, for Global Magnitsky in particular, should also include input from relevant stakeholders in civil society; fourth, sanctions must constantly be evaluated against the stated foreign policy objectives. This should include regular impact assessments, as well as after-action reports once sanctions have been lifted; and fifth, sanctions are best when done multilaterally, and therefore this process should prioritize outreach to, and coordination with, allies throughout.
Download the full testimony.
More from CNAS
Principles and Policy Options for Designing Better Investment Barriers
This testimony focuses on options for designing an effective program to address the national security risks that can arise from certain U.S. investments in countries of concer...
By Emily Kilcrease
U.S. Economic Security Strategy, Authorities, and Bureaucratic Capacity
By Emily Kilcrease
Comments on Provisions Pertaining to U.S. Investments in Certain National Security Technologies and Products in Countries of Concern
Submitted by: Sarah Bauerle Danzman (Associate Professor, Indiana University Bloomington; Senior Fellow, Atlantic Council), Tim Fist (Fellow, Technology and National Security ...
By Emily Kilcrease, Tim Fist, Sarah Bauerle Danzman, Ngor Luong & Emily Weinstein
Sharper: Economic Statecraft
As competition between the United States and China escalates, and the war in Ukraine continues, countries have embraced new forms of economic statecraft to accomplish key fore...
By Anna Pederson & Charles Horn