Clinton Seeks Flexibility in Imposing Sanctions

Amid growing disenchantment about the impact of economic sanctions as a tool of U.S. foreign policy, the Clinton administration Tuesday asked Congress to give the president greater authority and flexibility in imposing punitive measures on other nations.

Leading members of Congress, however, seemed wary of ceding too much power to the White House by approving the proposal.

The plan, presented to a bipartisan Senate task force by Undersecretary of State Stuart E. Eizenstat, would give the president greater say in each case when sanctions are imposed. It also would require future legislation imposing sanctions to include a cost-gain analysis to ensure it would not end up hurting the United States more than the targeted country or countries.

Eizenstat told lawmakers that presidential authority to waive sanctions has been a defining factor in the effectiveness of such laws as the 1996 Helms-Burton Act, which is aimed at third-country investments in Cuba, and the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act, which is directed at certain third-country investments in those nations.

Conversely, he said, the automatic and mandatory sanctions imposed on India and Pakistan under the 1994 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act after they conducted nuclear tests in May clearly worked against U.S. diplomatic and commercial interests.

“Flexibility is an absolute necessity,” Eizenstat told members of the task force, which consists of eight Republicans and eight Democrats. “. . . The president needs the flexibility to tailor our response most appropriately to the specific situation.”

The task force, chaired by Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ken.), was established this summer by Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) after a series of sanctions imposed by Congress seemed to boomerang on the United States.

The congressional deliberations reflect concerns about the frequency with which the United States has opted for sanctions as a convenient political tool that falls between empty rhetoric and military force, at times hurting American exporters the most.

In his testimony, Eizenstat cited a study by the National Assn. of Manufacturers that found the United States had imposed unilateral sanctions on 62 occasions over the past 4 1/2 years, roughly twice the number imposed during the previous half a century. Another study found that 75 countries are currently affected by some form of unilateral U.S. economic measure.

“We have to do a much better job of defining where sanctions fit,” said Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.).

While sentiment has grown over the past year among lawmakers for a reevaluation of the use of sanctions and the president’s latitude in implementing them, there seems little chance the present Congress will enact the White House proposal.

With midterm elections only two months way, members of Congress are fast running out of time. And it was clear at Tuesday’s task force session that lawmakers are reluctant to give the president the degree of flexibility Eizenstat proposed.

While Eizenstat argued that effective sanctions policy requires cooperation and shared responsibility between Congress and the White House, several senators complained that the administration plan would give too much power to the president.

“The administration has pretty much frustrated our efforts,” said Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.), one of the most respected Republican voices on foreign affairs issues.

A long-simmering disquiet about the impact of sanctions came to a head last spring in the wake of the South Asia nuclear crisis, which triggered draconian punitive measures against India and Pakistan.

An amendment added to the 1994 nonproliferation act by Sen. John Glenn (D-Ohio) removed any presidential flexibility, forcing the president to impose sanctions against any nation that conducts nuclear tests.

After realizing that the sanctions against India and Pakistan would devastate U.S. farm exports to the region and leave the administration with little diplomatic maneuverability in its efforts to resolve the crisis, Congress granted President Clinton a one-year waiver authority.

At Tuesday’s session, even Glenn agreed his amendment was obsolete.

“We’re now in a new day,” he said.