Date: 13 Mar 2000
Time: 11:24:34
Remote Name: 156.29.145.175
This ad appeared in The New York Times March 9, 2000.
Later this month, the United States (U.S.) Supreme Court will hear a case defining the reach of state and local governments that seek to influence U.S. foreign policies. The case is Natsios v. National Foreign Trade Council. The policy matter is economic sanctions. The object is Myanmar (Burma). But the core issue is who is empowered to run American foreign policy.
In 1996, Massachusetts passed a law prohibiting companies that do business with Myanmar from competing for state contracts. The state was registering its displeasure with the repressive policies of the government of Myanmar, which has resisted political liberalization and democratization.
In passing this economic sanctions legislation, Massachusetts was only mimicking many other states and local governments, which in recent years have sought to express their political views toward a variety of countries through similar sanctions. But with respect to the Massachusetts law, our view is that it is unwise and unconstitutional.
Unwise, because unilateral economic sanctions do not work. Unless broadly adopted by many countries, sanctions do little more than damage U.S. businesses that are unable to compete with foreign companies not similarly constrained. Moreover, government entities in the U.S. have been on a sanctions binge since the 1980s, so that now some form of U.S. sanctions applies to countries with more than two-thirds of the world's population. And this leads to more than simply an economic loss for Americans - it can also deprive developing nations of a positive force for change that is often associated with the participation of private U.S. enterprise in their national economies.
But this Supreme Court case is not about the wisdom of the policy - it is about its constitutionality. On foreign affairs matters, the people's voice is heard through our elected representatives in Washington, D.C.
However, if 50 states and thousands of cities attempt to legislate international policies and commerce, the U.S. will be unable to conduct a coherent foreign policy. This danger was recognized when the Constitution was written - in fact, state and local interference in commerce was one of the core reasons the Articles of Confederation were abandoned and our current Constitution adopted.
The people's voice on foreign affairs is heard and the U.S. must have a national government strong enough to control the conduct of foreign affairs and to limit state encroachments even where the intrusion, as in this case, is well-intentioned. The Supreme Court now has the opportunity to reassert one of the fundamental tenets of our form of government.
ExxonMobil™