U.S. Sanctions Policy in Sub-Saharan Africa, United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health Policy, One Hundred Fourteenth Congress, Second Session, June 8, 2016

摘要

This testimony compilation is from the June 8, 2016, hearing, U.S. Sanctions Policy in Sub-Saharan Africa before the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. From the opening statement of Sue E. Eckert: UN sanctions in Africa constitute the majority of all UN sanctions - about 70%. In the early days, sanctions were often imposed in an ad hoc manner, without a coherent coordinated strategy; rather than be part of a well -designed response to address conflict/threats to international peace and security, at times the imposition of sanctions has substituted as a policy. While understandable that during times of crisis, governments want to act quickly, the use of sanctions to show resolve without integrating them into an overall strategy is largely ineffective. Sanctions then take on a life of their own. For this reason, it is important that the objectives of sanctions are clearly articulated at the outset, for the targets to understand precise actions that need to be taken for sanctions to be lifted. Too often, vague criteria and moving goalposts prolong sanctions unnecessarily. The Security Council (and even Member States) have difficulty terminating sanctions regimes once imposed (for example, in Liberia). Automatic extensions of sanctions regimes diffuses signals as to expected actions, undermining their credibility. While important progress has been made in making UN sanctions more effective, more needs to be done for sanctions to be used to full effect and be effectual instruments to advance US and international security objectives in Africa. Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Sue E. Eckert, Todd Moss, Princeton N. Lyman, and Brad Brooks-Rubin.