One of the most contemptible and shameful side shows in every conflict is the frequency with which blood, exploitation, and human anguish are subordinated to profit. This is particularly reprehensible when the well-groomed, smooth-tongued brokers of this odious and sometimes deadly commerce claim to do so for the benefit of the worker, and on behalf of peace and security.
We have come to expect such sanctimonious duplicity from Russian President Vladimir Putin and his well-oiled, four-billion-dollar media machine, but what about all
his eager U.S. and European enablers who are collaborating with him to strangle
a nation that asks for nothing but to control its own destiny without outside
interference?
The most recent outrage are advertisements objecting to
“actions that would harm American manufacturers and cost American jobs.” Where were these business organizations
when U.S. manufacturing and jobs were shifted to the shores of a communist
dictatorship that is now a “strategic competitor” of the United
States?
The ad recapitulates Putin’s self-serving plea that
sanctions don’t work and even reminds readers of Ronald Reagan’s lifting of Jimmy Carter’s “ineffectual grain embargo.” against the Soviet Union for its invasion of Afghanistan.
But it fails to mention that economic
sanctions were only one of a five-part strategy that Reagan pursued to
bring down the Soviet Union, and that he ran into
as much business opposition to that one part as Jay Timmons and Thomas J. Donohue are
now voicing on the matter of the Obama
Administration sanctions. Despite this
opposition, Reagan held fast by drastically
reducing credit from Western lenders, and by engineering (with the Saudis) a
decline in oil and gas prices that crippled the Soviet economy.
Will sanctions work now?
At the time that Reagan imposed sanctions, the Soviet economy was only
one-fifth the size of that of the U.S. and dependent largely on the sale of
natural resources (especially oil and gas).
Today the Russian economy is less than 14 percent that of the U.S. and
dependent even more on oil and gas. Even if we were to reject any sanctions
involving Russia’s energy sector, its financial sector and need for high-tech
exchanges and purchases make it extremely
vulnerable to such sanctions as were proposed by President Reagan.
Sanctions never cut only one way. Ukraine alone, by means of its ban on any cooperation with Russia in the sale of
defense-related products and services, has set certain strategic sectors of
Russia’s rearmament and modernization program back by several years. If
Ukraine, with its immense difficulties and tiny economy, is prepared to risk
the loss of jobs from its ban – possibly costing $300 million in
defense-related sales to Russia – what kind of sales and job losses would American
manufacturers risk from Obama’s sanctions?
More importantly, would they be worth the cost to the U.S.?
The answer to this question lies in considering possible
costs and also whether America’s “global
influence” would be enhanced and the jobs of American workers secured if Russia
succeeds in its imperial ambitions. If
they would not, what kind of “multilateral diplomacy” and “pro-trade” policies
do Messrs. Timmons and Donohue propose as an alternative to putting pressure on
Russia through sanctions? No sanctions
is, in essence, acquiescence to brutality and war. Let them show otherwise.
Although I am certain that Ukraine will prevail in the
current struggle, and will become a magnet for foreign investors, the West cannot
forever remain neutral and pretend that new, powerful forces are not at work
and that friendly nations can always be summoned when convenient. When Ukraine
prevails I think it would be appropriate for its
government to maintain and publicize lists of those companies that stood by
Ukraine during its time of greatest need and those that
placed their own profit above the
well-being of Ukrainians.
George Woloshyn served as a member of U.S. President Ronald Reagan’s administration and was responsible for National Security Emergency Planning and
Preparedness.
