DATE: Monday, November 10, 1997             TAG: 9711070020

SECTION: LOCAL                   PAGE: B10  EDITION: FINAL 

TYPE: Editorial 

                                            LENGTH:   59 lines

ECONOMIC SANCTIONS FOR JUDICIOUS USE ONLYUNILATERAL TRADE BOYCOTTS RARELY ACHIEVE THEIR PURPOSES BUT INJURE BUSINESSES, WORKERS AND THE U.S. ECONOMY.

King Canute demonstrated the limits of his power by forbidding the tide to rise. The king knew he could not affect the tide's movements. Some of his subjects believed otherwise.

But Washington has yet to learn that punitive restrictions on trade and commerce imposed solely by the United States rarely bring offending governments to heel but almost always financially injure businesses, workers and the nation.

U.S. Rep. Lee Hamilton, D-Ind., believes Washington should stop, look and listen before employing economic sanctions to shape up governments that trample human rights, sponsor terrorism, deal in drugs or threaten their neighbors.

Hamilton is not saying that the United States should never employ unilateral (U.S.-only) sanctions, and his bill would not prohibit them. The national interest or Americans' horror at times demands that Washington suspend or limit commerce with another country, regardless of the consequences to ourselves.

But time and again, under pressure from groups such as Cuban emigres, Washington imposes economic sanctions that make some feel good but do not achieve their objective and hurt the United States.

Hundreds of American corporations support Hamilton's attempt to put a brake on the adoption of unilateral economic sanctions until cool heads have analyzed how effective the sanctions might be and what damage might be inflicted upon U.S. businesses (including agriculture), on workers and the United States. A cost/benefit analysis of the step would be required.

The Hampton check on rash action is eminently sensible.

Economic sanctions are far more likely to effect change when many technologically advanced countries together shun pariah nations. Lengthy multilateral boycotts of Zimbabwe (when it was known as ``the breakaway republic of Rhodesia'') and South Africa hastened the end of rule by whites only in both countries.

Economic sanctions are a legitimate weapon in the arsenal of government, but they are most credible when employed judiciously. The multilateral boycott of Iraq, though leaky, is justified. But would it be smart to sever U.S. commercial relations with a swiftly evolving mainland China, which is a major buyer of Boeing aircraft, because of Beijing's transgressions against Tibet?

Europeans manufacture passenger aircraft, too, but China's leaders prefer to buy American. If pressured, they could easily switch. If sales of Boeing aircraft to China are cut off, who suffers? Will any unilateral trade embargo persuade China to return Tibet to the Tibetans? Improbable.

Yet the United States at present is imposing often ineffectual and sometimes counterproductive sanctions on more than four dozen countries. Hamilton is right. An examination of the pros and cons of any proposed unilateral economic sanctions should be required. Alternatives should also be studied - diplomacy, publicity, a military show of force. We should not reach blindly for the economic-sanctions weapon. Or employ it for domestic political reasons. We should act with our eyes open.

Send Suggestions or Comments to webmaster@scholar.lib.vt.edu