Republicans running the US Senate have a ready counterpunch for the scolding they received from President Bill Clinton on Oct. 14 over their rejection of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Whether they'll seize the opportunity is a large and telling question. A possibility that should trouble the oil and gas industry is that they might, in fact, be guilty as charged.
Clinton forced a doomed vote to ratify a treaty that a majority of senators considered flawed. Then, true to form, he flailed them in a press conference for moral lapses that included partisanship, disregard for the safety of children, and abrogation of responsibility to a world that looks to the US for leadership. It is that last point that deserves a response-if enough Republicans are of a mind to provide it.
New isolationism
Clinton said rejection of the treaty amounted to one of several "troubling" signs of "a new isolationism among some of the opponents of the treaty." Other such signs, he said, include refusals to pay dues to the United Nations, to fund foreign affairs at levels he wants, and to "adopt our proposals to do our part to stem the tide of global warming."
Treaty opponents "are saying America does not need to lead, either by effort or by example," the President said. "They are saying we don't need our friends or allies. They are betting our children's future on the reckless proposition that we can go it alone, that at the height of our power and prosperity we should bury our heads in the sand behind a wall."
This is quite an extrapolation to make from a single vote on one issue. If Republicans don't want the stereotype, they can easily do something about it by taking prompt action on a different issue. They can vote out of committee and pass legislation to reform US abuse of economic sanctions in foreign policy.
The country has developed a touchy and dangerous sanctions reflex. When a foreign government behaves contrary to US preference, someone at some level of government proposes that American business cease in the miscreant government's country. Too frequently, the sanctions become law.
USA*Engage, an interest group fighting the proliferation of sanctions and supporting reform legislation, keeps a list of countries subject to US sanctions of one form or another. On Oct. 19, the list showed 56 countries with sanctions present, 18 others with sanctions "present and pending," and 3 more with sanctions pending.
It is clear that sanctions have gotten out of hand. Too many of them have emerged from too many corners of government for too many, often incoherent reasons. Enlightened lawmakers earlier this year introduced bills in both houses of Congress that would require more-thoughtful use of this tool of foreign policy. The bills remain in committee. Meanwhile, lawmakers continue to propose sanctions. Just last week, Clinton properly vetoed legislation, the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act, containing sanctions against Indonesia. But, of course, he has pet sanctions of his own.
This is not the way to run foreign policy. Unilateral sanctions don't work. They alienate allies. They hurt the ability of US businesses to compete in world markets. To the extent they succeed in limiting trade, they make innocent people suffer without swaying target governments. They generate more resentment toward America than conformance with its ideals.
Dodges of responsibility
Sanctions, in other words are isolationist, go-it-alone dodges of the responsibility of global leadership. When the US imposes them it buries its political head in the sand behind a wall.
Sound familiar?
Republicans shouldn't relish the characterization with which Clinton smeared them on the issue of the nuclear test treaty. They can disprove the generalization, if they will, on the issue of sanctions-or do they like being called isolationist?
