Thus more than half the sanctions imposed in the past 80 years have been imposed in only the past five years. These figures do not include the increasing use of sanctions at the state and local levels. Our object must be to learn from our growing experience, to draw the appropriate lessons so that we can find the most effective way to employ this potentially powerful tool while minimizing the adverse costs. Used in an appropriate way, economic sanctions can be an effective means to further US policy goals. Used inappropriately, they can actually impede the attainment of our particular objectives and come at a significant cost to other US policy objectives.
Sanctions are neither a panacea nor are they cost free.
This article offers a perspective on several recent uses of sanctions, suggests a number of principles that should guide the use of economic sanctions, and closes by outlining the Clinton Administration s objective of meaningful reform of US sanctions policy in 1999. All of these sanctions regimes have succeeded, in whole or in part, because they are part of an integrated multilateral sanctions regime. There is also a role for unilateral sanctions. In the cases of Burma, Sudan and Iran, the President used executive authority to impose sanctions because the conduct of the countries targeted was so odious to US values or threatening to US interests that American leadership was required. Each caused sharp opposition from our allies, but in each case we found a way to reduce tensions and further the purposes of the Act.