Skip to footer

When Congress wields a tool of peace

Lawmakers are strongly bipartisan in support of new sanctions on Iran, Russia, and North Korea. The mixed record on sanctions requires Congress to be vigilant in tracking their impact.

|
Reuters
A vendor receives Chinese banknotes after selling North Korean goods to tourists on a boat taking them from the Chinese side of the Yalu river for sightseeing close to the shores of North Korea near Dandong in China's Liaoning Province.
  • By The Monitor's Editorial Board

One shining example of bipartisan cooperation in Congress has been strong lawmaker support for a popular tool in foreign policy: sanctions on other nations or their leaders and companies. This week lawmakers are even more united as they move to approve new sanctions on Russia, Iran, and North Korea. The new measures, however, deserve a close watch.

If done well, sanctions can alter the behavior of a country, as happened in white-ruled South Africa and many countries that abused their own people or another country. They might even prevent war, and for good reason. Sanctions are not so much punitive as a hopeful view that a country’s people really want peace and democracy. They signal a better path. At the least, they bolster regular diplomacy and help delay possible military action.

Most sanctions restrict the flow of money, trade, or people. Scholars debate whether past sanctions actually “worked” as intended, or even backfired. The evidence is not always clear, especially in determining if they deterred other bad behavior or set a higher moral standard in international affairs.

US sanctions on Cuba, for example, have done little to alter the Castro regime’s abuses. Yet they might have given pause in other countries to emulate Cuba. And as the Trump administration stiffens US sanctions on individuals in Venezuela’s regime, it remains to be seen if the new measures force high-level defections.

Congress will need to keep engaged on events in Russia, Iran, and North Korea because the new measures, which include specific targeting of key individuals involved in military affairs, aim to reduce the president’s ability to fine-tune many sanctions. In Russia’s case, Congress aims to must determine if Moscow is intervening in the elections of other countries as well as ending its aggression against Ukraine. For Iran, Congress must be careful in how that country reacts to new sanctions as it continues to cooperate with a 2015 agreement to curb its nuclear program. And as for North Korea, Congress must judge not only whether that country seeks negotiations but how well China restricts its support of a regime making rapid progress on nuclearized missiles.

Sanctions have usually worked for the United States if a sufficient number of other countries join in. The US cannot rely solely on its power as a large trading nation or the prominent use of the US dollar in global financial transactions to ensure sanctions have an impact. Sanctions must have moral weight that draws allies.

The fact that most US sanctions enjoy bipartisan support in Congress helps in their effectiveness. Yet Congress cannot simply pass such measures without tracking whether they are working. The mixed record for sanctions requires vigilance in using this tool for peace.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.
editor@csmonitor.com
Subscribe
Mark Sappenfield
Editor

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

Subscribe to insightful journalism

QR Code to When Congress wields a tool of peace
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/the-monitors-view/2017/0727/When-Congress-wields-a-tool-of-peace
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe