Waivers have reduced some of the worst features of legislation that penalizes non-American firms doing business with Cuba, Iran and Libya. And the absence of waivers is likely to haunt U.S. policy toward India and Pakistan, making it more difficult to influence their future decisions involving the deployment or use of nuclear weapons. Challenge the authority of states and municipalities to institute economic sanctions. Yet states and municipalities are adopting selective purchasing laws that prohibit public agencies from buying goods and services from companies doing business in or with target countries. The Clinton administration should support efforts to stop states and cities from conducting foreign policy, such as a recently filed lawsuit to enjoin Massachusetts from enforcing its law that would effectively ban the state from doing business with companies active in Burma.
Economic sanctions are a serious instrument of foreign policy.
They demand consideration as rigorous as that which precedes military intervention. The likely benefits of a particular sanction to U.S. foreign policy should be greater than the anticipated economic and political costs. U.S. politicians and policy makers often see sanctions as an expressive tool. In fact, they are a form of intervention that can cause great damage to innocent people, as well as to U.S. businesses, workers and foreign-policy interests. In addition, sanctions can reduce U.S. leverage.