Testimony for Delivery Before
 

THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE,
NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY

United States Senate
 
 

HEARING ON ECONOMIC SANCTIONS

Monday,    May  11, 1999

Room 328A  Russell Senate Office Building
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

JAMES H. MATLACK

Director,  Washington Office
AMERICAN FRIENDS SERVICE COMMITTEE
 
 
 
 
 

THE CONTEXT FOR ECONOMIC SANCTIONS
 

   My name is James Matlack and I serve as Director of the Washington Office of the
American Friends Service Committee.  The AFSC is the primary Quaker agency in the
United States engaged in refugee, relief, and humanitarian aid projects overseas, as well
as peace and social justice programs across the U.S.  The AFSC was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for its relief efforts during and after World War Two.

   Quakers have long experience in seeking to bring aid to those who suffer in complex
situations, often made more challenging by conflict, repression, and, in some cases,
economic sanctions. For example, we now have assistance programs to the people in
several countries under severe economic sanctions imposed by the U.S. government—
e.g.  Iraq,  Cuba,  and  North Korea.

   I have been asked to assess the role of international economic sanctions in a broad context both of policy and morality from the viewpoint of a faith-based agency. This
is a formidable task. I can only summarize key points drawn from our experience and
our underlying Quaker values. While I speak for myself and the AFSC, I think that a
broad range of agencies and non-governmental organizations would agree with my views.

   Given the brevity of today’s testimony, I ask that two documents be put in the record for future reference. The first is a study issued by the AFSC  entitled:  DOLLARS OR
BOMBS: THE SEARCH FOR JUSTICE THROUGH INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC
SANCTIONS.  The second is an article from Congressional Quarterly (September 13,
1997):  “Proliferation of Sanctions Creates A Tangle of Good Intentions.”  Both of these
documents review the rationales for and uses of sanctions in a balanced way, noting
both successes and failures in the complicated interplay between moral premises,
policy goals, and historical outcomes.

 
   The core concept of an economic sanction is to impose a penalty against a government
for behavior that is deemed unacceptable. This usually involves curtailing or cutting off
some or all flows of trade, financial support, or other forms of commerce. The goal is
(or should be) not to punish but to secure a change in conduct, after which the sanction
would be lifted.
 

                                                                                                                         Page 2.

   The use of economic sanctions might be called “behavior modification diplomacy.”
By this analogy I do not mean to oversimplify the complicated patterns of real-world
diplomacy, but the parallel to parenting is one that is readily understood. The intent is
to change problematic behavior through well-chosen incentives and deprivations. Yet the
endeavor often proves intense, unpredictable, longer than expected, and with no guaranteed outcome.

   The child-rearing model is instructive. Behavior modification is a difficult process,
filled with troubled judgments and painful dilemmas. It does not always succeed, even
when carefully implemented.  Most of us acquired humility about our expertise in the
course of being a parent, which provides a valuable perspective in assessing sanctions.

   Behavior modification is a viable approach that, in the parenting role, is far preferable
to corporal punishment.  Whatever the anger or provocation, to strike a child signals a
failure in the process, a loss of judgment and restraint.

   Carrying this lesson over to the realm of  sanctions, Quakers and our various colleagues
affirm that:
   1) We urge and support the use of economic sanctions in place of and prior to any
         large-scale use of force, much less resort to full-scale war.

   I note the bewildering array of economic sanctions in current law and say again that my
remarks cannot do justice to the details of this policy debate. Beyond the clear insistence
that sanctions are preferable as an alternative to use of military force, let me state four
additional basic points, and then discuss them briefly as time may allow.

Economic sanctions can be  appropriate, effective, and well-chosen
    instruments of national policy.

Each case for imposition of sanctions must be carefully analyzed and a decision
    reached on the specific facts and overall context.
 
    There is no “one size fits all” approach—no simple formula to apply in all cases.
In assessing whether or not to apply sanctions the review should examine not only  strategic, security, economic, and political aspects but also gauge  the social and
humanitarian impacts and thus the ethical dimensions of the proposed policy as well.
 

 
                                                                                                                            page 3.
   4)  Each and every sanctions plan must allow for full and effective HUMANITARIAN EXEMPTIONS.

   Food, medicine, and supplies essential to the lives of ordinary citizens must be allowed
to flow through even the most stringent embargo.  Nor should such humanitarian exemptions be nullified in their implementation by rigid regulations or administrative
stalling.

   Further, no sanctions regime should remain unchanged if it can be shown to cause grave damage to the civilian population in the targeted country. The current sanctions
scheme imposed upon Iraq is such a case,  posing a cruel dilemma between well-based
security concerns and a downward spiral of suffering among the people of Iraq. This
sanctions regime in its present form is morally indefensible and should be changed to
help redress the deepening social calamity in Iraq.

   5)  Governments that impose sanction and embargo regimes must MONITOR
        their social impacts so that corrective action can be taken promptly if the scale
        of social damage warrants.

   This important task of “social monitoring” is relatively new but essential in light of
the increased number of  strong sanction and embargo schemes imposed in recent years.
The principles that mandate this monitoring responsibility are embodied in the Geneva
Conventions and Protocols, the United Nations Charter, and the U.N. Declaration of
Human Rights.  On this point I commend to the Committee’s attention a new report from
The Office For the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs at the United Nations entitled:
“Coping With The Humanitarian Impact of Sanctions.”  (December, l998)
(A copy has been provided with my written testimony.)

   As our world becomes ever more closely inter-related in the Post-Cold-War era and as
economic links evolve into a truly global system, the potential leverage of economic sanctions has increased. At the same time, the growing lethality and destructiveness of
modern warfare has sharpened interest in non-military alternatives to the use of force by
most governments, including our own.

   Thus the Congress, the Executive Branch, and the American people will face more often over coming years the decision whether or not to impose economic sanctions.
 
 

                                                                                                                              Page 4.
Sanctions will remain a preferable option to gun-boat diplomacy, to covert operations
and “secret wars” that were prominent in the 1980’s, or to unleashing full military attacks. As I have noted, success is not assured and each case must be carefully
analyzed in its distinctive context as well as its projected impact upon civilian
populations.

   The Congress has at times legislated too rigid and punitive a framework for a specific
sanctions program.  The embargo against Cuba is such a case and is overdue for
modification and gradual elimination. On the other hand, I think it would be unwise for
Congress to attempt blanket legislation intended to limit this or future Administrations
from resort to economic sanctions on a case-by-case basis.

   Some sanctions regimes are based upon basic principles and deeply-held values that
deserve respect even when the details of proposed economic sanctions should remain
open to debate. Concern for human rights, for religious liberty, for environmental  protection, and for labor standards are examples of valid platforms upon which to
consider potential sanctions plans.

   Of special concern to Quakers are those behaviors of governments that increase violence and conflict. Economic sanctions are always relevant in response to cases of
armed aggression and clear instances of military intervention in neighboring states.
In this connection I commend to the Senate the “Code of Conduct on Arms Transfers”
ably championed by Senator Mark Hatfield until his retirement and now sponsored by
Senator John Kerry. The United States has no business sending weapons or military
technology to gross abusers of human rights, tyrannical governments, or those engaged
in attacks against their neighbors  (subject in all cases to a waiver through a Presidential
finding of “national interest”).

   When a decision is pending to impose an economic sanction, what guidelines should be
heeded? Let me briefly mention several relevant considerations in conclusion.

   ---Sanctions should be considered in response to flagrant and persistent conduct,
   not for minor or transient grievances.

   ---In most cases sanctions should be considered after full diplomatic efforts have been
   exhausted.  The path to renewed negotiations should remain open.
 

                                                                                                                                  Page 5.

   ---Sanctions to be imposed should be consistent with the United Nations Charter, the
   Geneva Conventions, international law, and recognized norms and values of the
   international community.

   ---Sanctions should be accompanied by clear articulation of the steps that the targeted
   government(s) must take to accomplish their removal by compliant behavior.

   ---Whenever possible sweeping economic sanctions should be undertaken through
   multi-lateral organizations with wide international support,  rather than by unilateral
   action of the United States government.

   ---When sanctions can be expected to cause social distress, clear support for such
   sanctions should be expressed by citizens and groups of the targeted country among
   those with a demonstrated record in favor of human rights, democratic participation,
   and civil society.  Grassroots backing for sanctions both in the U.S. and in the nation(s)
   affected looms large in the legitimacy and the success of any sanctions program.

   This concludes my prepared statement. I will respond to any questions you may have.
 
 
 

                                                                                       JAMES MATLACK
                                                                                       Director
                                                                                       Washington Office
                                                                                        AMERICAN FRIENDS
                                                                                  SERVICE COMMITTEE
                                                                                        1822 R Street, N.W.
                                                                                        Washington, D.C.
 
                                                                                         (202) 483-3341
                                                                                         FAX: 232-3197
                                                                                         jmatlack@erols.com