Powell Doesn't Like Sanctions He Inherited

0 Comments | Insight on the News, March 5, 2001 | by Jamie Dettmer

To sanction or not to sanction? That is the question. During his Senate confirmation hearing, Gen. Colin Powell reserved his sharpest words for Washington's practice of imposing economic sanctions on countries that offend. "I would encourage Congress to step back for a while, count to 10 and call me before imposing a new sanction," Powell said after recording his astonishment at discovering that 75 countries now are subject to partial or total U.S. trading bans, most of them imposed unilaterally.

No one recognized the irony that, back in 1990, the general proved to be a reluctant warrior who favored sanctions to try to force Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait.

That may well be the pattern of the future for Powell, who seems to get an easier ride than others, the result of several factors. According to Capitol Hill insiders these include the congressional tendency to behave like awestruck privates in the presence of successful generals, particularly one as popular as Powell.

Certainly, Powell's move surprised some Western diplomats, who argue that the general's timing was unfortunate, given the unraveling of U.S.-backed international sanctions against Libya and Iraq. "It struck me as odd that Powell brought the subject up now, and I am none too sure it was completely thought through" said a European diplomat. "The Americans are on us about our not standing firm on the sanctions on Baghdad and Tripoli, and then Powell goes off and implies that bans are a waste of time"

Even advocates of sanctions acknowledge that there probably are too many on the books. Many date back decades and clearly have failed to produce the desired effect either of correcting bad behavior or provoking reform and change. Sometimes they have served to bolster dictatorships and harmed opposition groups; at their very worst they can result in terrible suffering. They also can disrupt alliances.

The Clinton administration was keen on sanctions and, in its first term, approved unilateral economic measures to punish 35 countries ranging from Afghanistan to the former Yugoslavia. Trade bans may be costing the U.S. economy upwards of $15 billion annually.

The general, though, is going to have his work cut out for him if he wants to reduce the number of countries currently sanctioned. And ironically that lesson was taught to Powell within days of his being sworn as secretary of state. Shortly after his remarks in the Senate the Bush administration had to reaffirm publicly the sanctions on Cuba, Iraq and Libya. Not that Powell, even in private, is against continuing the bans on those three, although Insight sources say he would like to see the sanctions on Iraq more narrowly defined.

According to Washington lobbyists and congressional staffers, the reaffirmation of those sanctions, which are among the most controversial, begs the question, "Which bans are you going to lift?" No criteria were provided by Powell during his Senate testimony.

How will the general react if obstacles prove too great for the revoking of most of the bans? Some Washington veterans expect that Powell's military doctrine well could develop into his political one, too: Best not pick a fight you can't win and, if you do enter a fight, do so in overwhelming force and have an exit strategy. On this occasion Powell doesn't seem to have the overwhelming force.

There will be a lot of hurdles for Powell to clear before he will get even one trade ban revoked, say Capitol Hill insiders. Sure, he will find allies ready to assist him. And a lot of businesses will be keen to fund lobbying efforts to persuade lawmakers that this or that ban no longer is needed or desirable. During the election campaign, business executives frequently raised their frustrations about trade bans with the Bush team and they found a sympathetic listener in Dick Cheney.

But, for every business that wants a sanction done away with, there is another benefiting from the ban that will move heaven and earth to keep it in place. And then the general is going to find that ethnic constituencies also can apply a lot of pressure on the White House and lawmakers. Any attempt to roll back existing sanctions guarantees a nasty political spat with very dedicated, and sometimes even obsessive, opponents with electoral clout.

Skeptics of Powell's antisanctions position point to Cuba. Last year, U.S. business and farm groups won an easing of long-standing restrictions on trade with Cuba. But anti-Castro Cuban-American groups lobbied to have new restrictions limiting government or private-sector financing of any commercial deals with Cuba inserted in the same legislation.

Will Powell be successful in at least encouraging Washington to be less ready to impose new sanctions? The general already has signaled that one argument he will deploy with the president will be that trade bans only serve to encourage anti-Americanism, allowing foes to contend that the United States is being a bully. George W. already has indicated that he wants his administration to avoid arrogance on the foreign-policy front and to be more humble in its approach to other countries.