US Human Rights Sanctions Against China Not Working, Expert Says
Although U.S. human rights sanctions against China (see 2204010039) may be imposing some financial consequences, they aren’t convincing Beijing to stop committing abuses, Chris Chivvis, a former State Department sanctions official, said during a webinar last week hosted by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. He said the U.S. may need to take a different tack with China if it wants to achieve its policy goals. Chivvis directs Carnegie's American Statecraft Program.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
“It’s really hard to claim that those are successful,” Chivvis said of the sanctions. “They really haven't had much effect there at all.”
Unlike Russia, where broad, multilateral sanctions have led many companies to exit the country, China is still benefiting from western business, he said. Chivvis specifically pointed to big retailers -- such as H&M -- and U.S. semiconductor companies, which are finding ways “around the sanctions because they have higher economic incentives” to continue operations in China.
“We need to find ways in which we think they may have more positive effects,” Chivvis said. “Sometimes quiet diplomacy helps better than sanctions for these very value-based issues.”
Chivvis said that one of the “biggest mistakes” surrounding sanctions decisions is “this assumption that because we have a lot of economic power, we're going to succeed by using our economic power.” He pointed to several countries that the U.S. has sanctioned for decades but with little progress, such as Cuba and North Korea. “You can argue you're still imposing costs,” Chivvis said, “but you’re not accomplishing your policy objective there.”