ITA Statement Read into House Subcommittee Hearing Record on ILSA

5/9/2001 7:48:33 PM

7:48:33 PM

ITA Statement Read into House Subcommittee Hearing Record on ILSA

RE: Iran Libya Sanctions Act Reauthorization in 2001

I am deeply concerned over the proposal of Senators Gordon Smith (R-OR) and Charles Schumer (D-NY) to reauthorize the Iran Libya Sanctions Act of 1996, due to expire in August 2001, for another 5 years.

As an Iranian American, I oppose any further US sanctions against my homeland. ILSA reauthorization is not just about the use of foreign oil monies; it’s about the winds of change in Iran, ordinary people seeking prosperity, and the future of two great nations. US sanctions on Iran have an inseparable tendency to endorse negative perceptions of Iranians in the US, when in fact, sanctions are supposed to be aimed at certain policies of the Iranian government. With over one million Iranians in the US, we cannot sanction Iran without impacting the lives of Iranian Americans, because we cannot separate Iran from Iranians any more than we can separate America from Americans.

Reauthorizing ILSA for another five years will not help our relationship, dialogue, and exchanges with the Iranian people. It is time for the US to consider the benefits of building a bridge to Iran based on trade and trust. Further, the new Administration needs more time to develop its own cohesive Iran policy. We should at least wait on the ILSA debate until after the June 2001 Iranian elections. In the past, the US has responded positively to democratic developments in Iran. Renewing ILSA, irrespective of the Iranian elections, preempts a tremendous diplomatic opportunity that leaves Iran to conclude: If the US policy has not evolved since 1996, then why should we?

ILSA was erratically applied, nonetheless it also damaged the EU-US relationship and led its proponents into believing that it would get Iran to play ball. None of it worked as planned. The EU considers extraterritorial legislation to be unacceptable both in law and in principle. Iran and Libya are still among the most popular destinations for foreign oil investment.

There is also an agricultural effect to renewing ILSA. The US is still trying to recapture its $500 million agricultural export market to Iran that it once enjoyed in 1979. In today's dollars that would be well over a billion dollars in lost sales. According to the US Labor and Commerce Departments, each one billion dollars in US exports creates some 17,000 jobs in this country. That's just one industry. US manufacturing and heavy machinery makers like Caterpillar and Boeing have the ability to export billions to Iran every year. Don’t we want Iran to spend its hard currency on US goods rather than less desirable items?

There are a number of problems with ILSA. Why is Iran joined with Libya? Why renew for another five years instead of a sunset in August or an annual review? Why renew before the Iranian elections? Why not take measure of the EU and US company objections? And most importantly, why are we trying to isolate Iran, when the Iranian people, in the US and Iran, are clearly trying to reach out to us? I believe that ILSA hurts Iranian Americans, US farmers/companies, and the fragile course of dialogue between the US and Iran. Please do not cosponsor ILSA reauthorization and let it sunset in 2001.

Thank you for your leadership on this important issue.

Respectfully,

Shahriar Afshar

Website maintained by: Damodo Designs