POLITICAL PLAYBOOK
Iran and Libya:
IranNet: a bulletin board for Iranian communities.
The CIA World Factbook: Iran.
The CIA World Factbook: Libya.
Cuba:
The Cuba Solidarity Page has plenty of information about the effects of the sanctions.
CIA World Factbook: Cuba.
Burma:
The Free Burma homepage.
The CIA World Factbook: Burma.
Posted August 2, 1996
Although Congress and the President continue to be at loggerheads over most of their domestic policy agendas, laws continue to pour out of Washington designed to fight terrorism and promote democracy around the world. Playbook focuses on three bills recently debated by Congress and designed to pressure American foes this week. Two of the bills, one aimed at Iran and Libya and the other at Cuba, reflect a growing reliance on the controversial practice of "secondary boycotts." A secondary boycott describes a situation in which country A punishes country B for trading with country C, which is somehow an enemy of country A. Washington unsuccessfully pursued secondary boycott strategies as a Cold War tactic to pressure the Soviet Union. After abandoning the practice, the U.S. sharply criticized its use by Arab countries against Israel's trading partners. Now Washington politicians have found new value in the use of secondary boycotts, and normally friendly U.S.trading partners are steamed. The third bill, aimed at the dictatorship of Burma, fills the conventional mode of a cutback in foreign aid. Here are the details:
Nuts and Bolts: Spurred in part by rising fears over terrorism after the apparent bombing of a TWA 747, new sanctions have been imposed by Congress on Iran and Libya, which are considered two of the world's leading supporters of terrorist activity. Designed specifically to impact those country's oil industries, the bill would place sanctions on foreign companies that invest $40 million a year in the Iranian or Libyan energy industries (in the case of Libya, exports will also count toward the total). While the U.S. has already cut off all direct trade with both countries, many of its major allies have not. The bill would require the president to impose at least two of the following six sanctions on those allies:
- denying Export-Import bank loans
- denying export licenses
- preventing U.S. banks from making loans of more than $10 million a year to sanctioned businesses
- restricting the ability of sanctioned financial institutions to deal in U.S. government bonds
- imposing import sanctions
- banning federal purchases of goods or services from a sanctioned party
Status: The House passed initial sanctions by a unanimous 415-0 vote on June 19. The Senate version was approved by voice vote on July 22, and the House unanimously moved that same version to President Clinton the following day. Clinton is expected to sign the bill with some reservations next month.
Inside Scoop: Due to pressure from European countries with major investments in Libya's oil industry, the first version passed by the House had eased Senate-approved sanctions on that country and focused on Iran. But under the apparent cloud of terrorism in the wake of the TWA crash, both the House and Senate moved to fast agreement on an amendment offered by Sens. Edward Kennedy, D-MA, and Alfonse D'Amato, R-NY, which restored the tougher sanctions. Kennedy, D'Amato and others have argued that the international community has not done enough to pressure both countries, Libya in particular. Relatives of the Lockerbie victims have played an important role in pushing the legislation. America's trade allies, meanwhile, are bristling at U.S. attempts to influence their policies, and are threatening retaliation.
Nuts and Bolts: Although years of political and economic pressure have failed to topple the Communist dictatorship of Cuba's Fidel Castro, and U.S. trade and travel with Cuba is already severely restricted, Congress never tires of adding a new slap against the island nation's revolutionary regime. Most recent is the Helms-Burton Cuba sanctions law (named for its hawkish sponsors, Sen. Jesse Helms, R-NC, and Rep. Dan Burton, R-IN). Passed easily by Congress in March, the bill applied new pressures on the country, such as preventing the U.S. president from easing sanctions on Cuba without an act of Congress. But its most important provision didn't go immediately into effect -- and this month it put President Clinton in a tight political jam. That provision would allow American citizens to file lawsuits seeking compensation from foreign companies that are making use of land and property seized from them by Fidel Castro's government after the 1959 Cuban revolution. Nearly 6,000 (5,911 to be exact) U.S. citizens and corporations lost Cuban property after the revolution, some totalling millions of dollars in value. Foreign executives of firms making used of seized property would also be barred from traveling in the U.S. Even some supporters concede the lawsuit provision could be difficult to justify under international law.
Status: The Senate passed the bill 74-22 on March 5, and the House passed it, 336-86, the next day. Clinton signed the bill on March 12. The bill required Clinton to make a decision on its most controversial provision this month, and on July 16 he announced his approval of suits by former property owners, but only after a six-month suspension of the measure, applying until November 1997.
Inside Scoop: Faced with a choice between two unpalatable options -- alienating Cuban-Americans in the crucial electoral states of Florida and New Jersey and offending U.S. trade partners -- President Clinton split the difference. Clinton did suffer some scorn from hostile Republicans and general political ridicule ("Character of Jell-O. Backbone of Jell-O," offered Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart, R-FL, one of Congress' fiercest anti-Castro agitators). But his approval and subsequent waiver of the right to sue allows him to postpone a clear commitment until after the November election. Cuban-American leaders have offered tentative support for Clinton's decision. And while some U.S. trading partners are disgruntled, they are pleased with the lawsuit delay. Still, a good indicator of how some U.S. allies view the measure is a sarcastic bill proposed in the Canadian parliament earlier this month that would allow Canadians to seek compensation for Tory lands seized by Americans during the Revolutionary war. Like the sanctions against Iran and Libya, the Helms-Burton bill gained added momentum after a highly-publicized air disaster: last year's downing of two small planes piloted by anti-Communist exiles by Cuban air force jets off the island's coast.
Nuts and Bolts: Approval is near for a foreign aid bill that includes an amendment imposing economic sanctions against Burma, a country run by military dictators who seized power in a 1990 coup and are accused of widespread human rights violations. In May, the Burmese government arrested 262 members of a pro-democracy party led by 1991 Nobel Peace laureate Aung San Suu Kyi. The Senate has attached to its $12.25 billion foreign operations bill an amendment sponsored by Sen. William Cohen, R-ME, which would end U.S. assistance to Burma except for:
- humanitarian aid
- anti-drug aid under certain circumstances
- promotion of human rights and democracy
Status: The Senate approved the foreign aid bill July 26, 93-7. The House passed its sanctionless version on June 11, 366-57. The differences will be settled in a conference committee before the bill goes to the president, who supports Cohen's amendment.
Inside Scoop: Sens. Mitch McConnell, R-KY and Daniel Patrick Moynihan, D-NY, had sought a tougher provision barring any public or private U.S. investment in the country until Burma's rulers agreed to relinquish power and allow free elections. McConnell said the stronger version had the support of Suu Kyi. But major investments by U.S. corporations in Burma's petroleum industry may have pressured Senators to back off the harsher punishment.