http://www.mobil.com/pa/advocacy/961024_oped.html

Secondary boycotts: squeeze plays that hurt everyone


Despite America's superpower status, the U.S. often seems less-
than-powerful when it comes to achieving certain foreign policy goals. By
and large, America and its allies share a common view of what constitutes
acceptable international behavior. Partners agree with U.S. condemnation
of countries that sponsor or support terrorism. Many others share our
concern over nations that contribute to the spread of nuclear arms. And
many also support our governments desire for economic and political
reforms in some countries. How best to achieve these goals -- to effect a
change in the behavior of another country -- is where U.S. policy and our
allies often part company. 

Traditionally, the U.S. has used trade sanctions to bring pressure on
"rogue" states. Since 1941, America -- either unilaterally or in concert
with others -- has invoked sanctions more than 70 times. Despite the
popularity of this policy option, the success of sanctions has largely
been limited. Frustrated with the ineffectiveness of direct sanctions,
Congress is adding more fuel to the fire by providing the White House with
yet another economic weapon -- called a secondary boycott -- that extends
the reach of U.S. law to overseas companies that do business with targeted
countries. The possible use of this gambit -- some would call it a squeeze
play -- has irked friends and provoked pointed talk of retaliation. The
potential economic harm it could inflict on our trading relations may
ultimately hurt U.S. business and its workers. 

Allies, according to some reports, could stiffen requirements for visas
and work permits, pass legislation that would allow countersuits against
U.S. companies for damages awarded by U.S. courts and enact trade
sanctions on industries like aviation and telecommunications that are not
yet protected by the World Trade Organization. 

NAFTA partners to the north and south regard such boycotts as interference
with their sovereignty. Europeans view America's "bullying" its allies as
a way to deal with rogue regimes as myopic.

The U.S., we believe, should avoid using weapons like secondary boycotts
to achieve foreign policy objectives. Several leading newspapers have also
noted the dangers such boycotts can bring.

Financial Times (London), July 12, 1996: "Other governments need to remind
the U.S. forcefully of a fact that its own legislators appear to have
overlooked: it is part of an integrated global economy, on which its own
prosperity increasingly depends.... If it persists in playing the lone
cowboy, it will invite reprisals against its own commercial interests
abroad. Ultimately, it will undermine the rules governing the conduct of
international economic and trade relations. Those rules operate to the
advantage of all countries. The U.S. is no exception."

The New York Times, July 1, 1996: "...Even when deployed on behalf of an
otherwise worthy cause, secondary boycotts offend the sovereignty of
America's closest allies, invite retaliation and may violate international
trade treaties. ...Today's trading patterns involve many countries and to
be most effective, economic sanctions need to be applied internationally.
But the way to achieve concerted action is by diplomatic persuasion, not
by overreaching acts of Congress."

Global leadership requires moral courage and vision. The U.S. can lead by
example and deed; it need not resort to bullying its friends.

                                         Mobil OpEd's