Follow us on social

Screen-shot-2021-10-15-at-9.50.07-am-e1634305944715

US sanctions policies desperately need accountability

Congress can change that by including a House-passed amendment into the final version of this year’s National Defense Authorization Act.

Analysis | Military Industrial Complex

In the 20 years since 9/11 and the start of the “Global War on Terror,” sanctions have become one of the most dominant tools in the U.S. foreign policy tool chest. Yet despite limited evidence of success and abundant evidence of serious consequences, the U.S government does little to evaluate the impact these blunt instruments have on civilian populations or even on U.S. foreign policy objectives. Congress has a chance to change that.

With the Biden administration reportedly set to release its policy review of U.S. sanctions this week, Congress has an opportunity to play an important complementary role in ensuring that policymakers in both branches of government have the information they need to implement a more constructive, thoughtful and evidence-based approach to sanctions moving forward. An amendment to the FY2022 National Defense Authorization Act detailing that role, offered by Rep. Chuy García (D-Ill.) and passed by the House of Representatives in September, will likely become law if a conference committee decides to retain it in the NDAA’s final version. A coalition of humanitarian, peacebuilding, human rights, and other civil society groups have been advocating for impact assessments for years and are now calling on the conference chairs to retain the provision.

The amendment would require the Government Accountability Office, in consultation with the president and other relevant agencies, to report to Congress on the humanitarian impacts of comprehensive U.S. sanctions, including the ability of civilian populations to access water, food, sanitation, and public health, and their impact on the delivery of humanitarian aid and development projects. It would also require more transparency around exemption procedures for humanitarian aid and other exceptions to sanctions as well as an assessment of whether sanctions are achieving stated foreign policy goals.

Until now, only independent assessments have shed light on the true impacts of U.S. sanctions. Human Rights Watch has documented how sanctions have been depriving Iranians of their right to health, deterring financial institutions from facilitating transactions in Iran necessary for importing medicine and medical equipment, and necessary for international NGOs to pay their staff and keep their operations afloat.

Korea Peace Now, a global movement of women mobilizing to end the Korean War, has documented the gendered impacts of sanctions on North Korea, showing that the economic pressure sanctions impose on society “tends to exacerbate rates of domestic violence, sexual violence, and the trafficking and prostitution of women.”

Most recently, the Taliban’s rise to power in Afghanistan brought the consequences of sanctions into the international spotlight as humanitarian, human rights, and peacebuilding programs were forced to pause their operations while seeking clarity on what activities are still permissible now that the de facto government is a sanctioned entity. While two general licenses issued late last month by Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control have created broad allowances for humanitarian activities, essential programs to protect women’s rights and advance sustainable peace remain unprotected.

Particularly concerning is the wide gap between the academic consensus on sanctions and the political reliance on these tools. Empirical studies have shown repeatedly that — with few exceptions — sanctions rarely achieve their foreign policy objectives. Sanctions against North Korea failed to prevent it from advancing its nuclear weapons program, while serving its government as a rallying cry against the United States. Sanctions against Iran have yet to compel it to return to the nuclear agreement, unsurprisingly given that the sanctions were reimposed in violation of that accord.

With the widespread and almost reflexive use of sanctions by the administration and Congress, there is a dangerous lack of accountability when it comes to understanding the impacts of these measures. This begs the question — why is the U.S. government quick to put sanctions in place but reluctant to evaluate their impact? While the consequences and failures of sanctions are well established, civil society groups and journalists detailing their harmful impacts isn’t the same as the U.S. government taking responsibility for those impacts and failures and altering its policies accordingly. Requiring impact assessments and analysis is a critical step towards the shouldering of that responsibility.

A recent Ipsos poll commissioned by the American Friends Service Committee found that a majority of Americans (53 percent) agreed the United States should lift sanctions if they interfere with humanitarian aid and COVID relief efforts (compared to 26 percent who disagreed and 21 percent who didn’t know). It also found that a plurality (49 percent) agreed the United States should lift sanctions if they damage economic activity and livelihoods of ordinary citizens (28 percent disagreed and 23 percent didn’t know); and 48 percent agreed the United States should lift sanctions if they violate international legal principles (30 percent disagreed and 22 percent didn’t know).

While these figures show that a plurality of Americans are concerned with the consequences of sanctions, the poll’s arguably more telling finding was that in responding to each of these questions, more than 20 percent of those polled said they “don’t know.” Rep. García’s amendment can help inform both the public and policymakers about the true impacts of sanctions. 

Requiring the administration to report to Congress on the impacts of sanctions gets to the heart of a fundamental flaw in U.S. foreign policy — the frequent and overly broad application of sanctions with little to no accountability or critical assessment of their costs and benefits. Congress should exercise its authority to fix that flaw.

Images: Zwiebackesser and Milos Vucicevic via shutterstock.com
Analysis | Military Industrial Complex
The Ukraine War at two years: By the numbers


KYIV, UKRAINE - July 12, 2023: Destroyed and burned Russian military tanks and parts of equipment are exhibited at the Mykhailivska square in Kyiv city centre. (Oleksandr Popenko/Shutterstock)

The Ukraine War at two years: By the numbers

Europe

Two years ago on Feb. 24, 2022, the world watched as Russian tanks rolled into the outskirts of Kyiv and missiles struck the capital city.

Contrary to initial predictions, Kyiv never fell, but the country today remains embroiled in conflict. The front line holds in the southeastern region of the country, with contested areas largely focused on the Russian-speaking Donbas and port cities around the Black Sea.

keep readingShow less
Navalny's death shouldn't close off talks with Putin

A woman lays flowers at the monument to the victims of political repressions following the death of Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny, in Moscow, Russia February 16, 2024. REUTERS/Stringer

Navalny's death shouldn't close off talks with Putin

Analysis

President Biden was entirely correct in the first part of his judgment on the death of Alexei Navalny: “Putin is responsible, whether he ordered it, or he is responsible for the circumstances he put that man in.” Even if Navalny eventually died of “natural causes,” his previous poisoning, and the circumstances of his imprisonment, must obviously be considered as critical factors in his death.

For his tremendous courage in returning to Russia after his medical treatment in the West — knowing well the dangers that he faced — the memory of Navalny should be held in great honor. He joins the immense list of Russians who have died for their beliefs at the hands of the state. Public expressions of anger and disgust at the manner of his death are justified and correct.

keep readingShow less
Big US investors prop up the nuclear weapons industry

ProStockStudio via shutterstock.com

Big US investors prop up the nuclear weapons industry

Military Industrial Complex

Nuclear weapons aren’t just a threat to human survival, they’re a multi-billion-dollar business supported by some of the biggest institutional investors in the U.S. according to new data released today by the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) and PAX, the largest peace organization in the Netherlands.

For the third year in a row, globally, the number of investors in nuclear weapons producers has fallen but the overall amount invested in these companies has increased, largely thanks to some of the biggest investment banks and funds in the U.S.

keep readingShow less

Israel-Gaza Crisis

Latest