Follow us on social

As Pelosi Taiwan visit looms, Menendez bill would 'gut' One China policy

Top economists say Sen. Menendez spreading fake news on sanctions

A new letter with more than 50 signatories implores the lawmaker to stop using his power to maintain a cruel US policy in Venezuela.

Analysis | Reporting | Latin America

A new letter from dozens of economists and sanctions experts is calling on Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) to “stop spreading the false narrative that there is no association between economic sanctions and the economic and humanitarian crises in countries targeted by those sanctions.”

The impetus for the letter is a recent back-and-forth between Menendez, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and a group of Democratic lawmakers — mostly a collection of border state representatives and progressives from elsewhere in the country — over the effectiveness of maintaining Trump-era sanctions on Venezuela and Cuba.

In May, Democratic House members sent a letter to President Biden, urging him to reverse the sanctions in an effort to alleviate ongoing economic crises and consequently curb the high level of migrants currently seeking to enter the United States. The next day, Menendez issued a response “blasting” the letter, and placing the responsibility for the influx of people leaving Cuba and Venezuela entirely on their respective leaders and not U.S. sanctions.

This new letter, which has more than 50 signatories, including historian Greg Grandin, former Argentine minister of finance Martin Guzman, and economist Ha-Joon Chang, disputes Menendez’s claims.

“Unlike Rep. Escobar’s letter, your letter fails to cite any research or evidence supporting your central claim that US economic sanctions have not been a significant driver of migration from Cuba and Venezuela. This is hardly surprising, as there is in fact no serious research supporting this claim. In contrast, as a recent report on the human consequences of sanctions has highlighted, dozens of peer-reviewed academic studies document the substantive negative– and often lethal– effects of economic sanctions on people’s living conditions in target countries.”

Rep. Escobar’s letter was just one of a series of recent arguments against broad-based sanctions policy, both in Latin America, and also elsewhere in the world. Another group of prominent House Democrats, including the ranking member of the House Foreign Relations Committee, Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.), sent a letter to Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen asking them to consider adopting measures that would ease the ongoing economic and political crises in Venezuela, including the lifting of certain sanctions.

The letter elaborates on how two recent studies show that the sanctions on Venezuela’s oil industry contributed to a major drop in oil production, which is responsible for a huge proportion of Venezuela's export revenue. This decrease in production has subsequently “led to massive cuts in imports of food and inputs for agricultural production, which in turn has been the major factor behind widespread hunger and malnutrition in Venezuela.”

Francisco Rodriguez, a professor at the University of Denver and one of the letter’s signers, wrote a report for the Center for Economic and Policy Research in May on how sanctions impact the lives of ordinary citizens, which found that “economic sanctions are associated with declines in living standards and severely impact the most vulnerable groups in target countries. It is hard to think of other cases of policy interventions that continue to be pursued despite the accumulation of a similar array of evidence of their adverse effects on vulnerable populations.”

The missive lists a number of other recent op-eds, reports, studies, and comments from world leaders that analyzed the harmful humanitarian effects of sanctions policies. The global unpopularity of the American embargo on Cuba is underscored by the fact that last year, 185 countries voted for a resolution calling for its repeal and only two (the U.S. and Israel) voted against it.

“If you truly believe in protecting the human rights of ordinary Cubans and Venezuelans,” the letter concludes, “you should stop leveraging your considerable power in the Senate to maintain the cruel measures that cause profound human suffering, fuel humanitarian emergencies, and push many more people to migrate to the US."


Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.). Jan. 2019 (Photo: lev radin via shutterstock.com)
Analysis | Reporting | Latin America
Recep Tayyip Erdogan Benjamin Netanyahu
Top photo credit: President of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdogan (Shutterstock/ Mustafa Kirazli) and Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu (Salty View/Shutterstock)
Is Turkey's big break with Israel for real?

Why Israel is now turning its sights on Turkey

Middle East

As the distribution of power shifts in the region, with Iran losing relative power and Israel and Turkey emerging on top, an intensified rivalry between Tel Aviv and Ankara is not a question of if, but how. It is not a question of whether they choose the rivalry, but how they choose to react to it: through confrontation or peaceful management.

As I describe in Treacherous Alliance, a similar situation emerged after the end of the Cold War: The collapse of the Soviet Union dramatically changed the global distribution of power, and the defeat of Saddam's Iraq in the Persian Gulf War reshuffled the regional geopolitical deck. A nascent bipolar regional structure took shape with Iran and Israel emerging as the two main powers with no effective buffer between them (since Iraq had been defeated). The Israelis acted on this first, inverting the strategy that had guided them for the previous decades: The Doctrine of the Periphery. According to this doctrine, Israel would build alliances with the non-Arab states in its periphery (Iran, Turkey, and Ethiopia) to balance the Arab powers in its vicinity (Iraq, Syria, and Egypt, respectively).

keep readingShow less
Havana, Cuba
Top Image Credit: Havana, Cuba, 2019. (CLWphoto/Shutterstock)

Trump lifted sanctions on Syria. Now do Cuba.

North America

President Trump’s new National Security Presidential Memorandum (NSPM) on Cuba, announced on June 30, reaffirms the policy of sanctions and hostility he articulated at the start of his first term in office. In fact, the new NSPM is almost identical to the old one.

The policy’s stated purpose is to “improve human rights, encourage the rule of law, foster free markets and free enterprise, and promote democracy” by restricting financial flows to the Cuban government. It reaffirms Trump’s support for the 1996 Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act, which explicitly requires regime change — that Cuba become a multiparty democracy with a free market economy (among other conditions) before the U.S. embargo will be lifted.

keep readingShow less
SPD Germany Ukraine
Top Photo: Lars Klingbeil (l-r, SPD), Federal Minister of Finance, Vice-Chancellor and SPD Federal Chairman, and Bärbel Bas (SPD), Federal Minister of Labor and Social Affairs and SPD Party Chairwoman, bid farewell to the members of the previous Federal Cabinet Olaf Scholz (SPD), former Federal Chancellor, Nancy Faeser, Saskia Esken, SPD Federal Chairwoman, Karl Lauterbach, Svenja Schulze and Hubertus Heil at the SPD Federal Party Conference. At the party conference, the SPD intends to elect a new executive committee and initiate a program process. Kay Nietfeld/dpa via Reuters Connect

Does Germany’s ruling coalition have a peace problem?

Europe

Surfacing a long-dormant intra-party conflict, the Friedenskreise (peace circles) within the Social Democratic Party of Germany has published a “Manifesto on Securing Peace in Europe” in a stark challenge to the rearmament line taken by the SPD leaders governing in coalition with the conservative CDU-CSU under Chancellor Friedrich Merz.

Although the Manifesto clearly does not have broad support in the SPD, the party’s leader, Deputy Chancellor and Finance Minister Lars Klingbeil, won only 64% support from the June 28-29 party conference for his performance so far, a much weaker endorsement than anticipated. The views of the party’s peace camp may be part of the explanation.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.