Vladimir I. Bartenev – Associate Professor, Director for Centre for Security and Development Studies at the School of World Politics, Lomonosov Moscow State University. Russia, 119991, Moscow, Leniskie Gory, 1. E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org.
The United States is indisputable global leader in utilizing tools of economic statecraft to secure national interests both through rewarding foreign countries for policies conforming the Washington interests and through punishing them for a deviant behavior. Foreign assistance is one of such mechanisms of global influence. This paper examines the issue of aid prohibition. The first section contains a catalog and an original typology of effective universal (not country-specific) restrictions on foreign aid provision based on the type of the recipient government’s actions or inactions through its domestic policy or international behavior that trigger harming the U.S. economic interests. The paper demonstrates that such a typology is equally applicable to the U.S. bilateral and multilateral aid and invites to differentiate between the restrictions within one category depending on whether they are imposed in response to the recipient’s actions against the United States or to its international policy as a whole. The second section assess the extent to which the U.S. government is consistent in imposing the aid restrictions. The conclusion is drawn that the U.S. has established a parallel (to the international law) legal regime of aid prohibitions that helps them control the developing countries’ behavior. Most of the active restrictions and prohibitions were imposed during the Cold War but not as byproducts of the bipolarity, which is another illustration of continuity in the U.S. global policies in the 20th and 21st centuries. The imposition of these restrictions reflects not only a diversification of external threats to the U.S. vital interests, but also the logic of the U.S. domestic political process and the legislators’ wish to restrain the executive branch. The President, however, is entitled by law to waive most of the norms out of political or strategic considerations. This helps the U.S. government impose restrictions selectively but does not eliminate a hypothetical risk of aid suspension that can refrain a recipient government from certain domestic or external actions. Nonetheless, the impact of the U.S. aid prohibition as a tool of coercion has been declining because of strengthening of non-Western donors – especially, China, Arab countries, Turkey and Russian Federation.
Key words: United States, foreign assistance, economic sanctions, deviant behavior, coercion, expropriation, military coup, human rights, terrorism, nuclear non-proliferation.
1. Baluev D. Evolyutsiya ekonomicheskikh sanktsiy kak instrumenta vneshney politiki: ot Vtoroy mirovoy voyny do sanktsiy protiv Rossii [Economic Sanctions as a Foreign Policy Tool: From World War II to Ukraine]. Mezhdunarodnye Processy, 2014, vol. 12, no.3, pp. 23-33. (In Russian).
2. Braterskii M.V. Ekonomicheskie instrumenty vneshnei politiki i politicheskie riski [Economic instruments of foreign policy]. Moscow, Higher School of Economics Publ., 2010. 232 p. (In Russian).
3. Sedlyar Yu.A. Ekonomicheskie sanktsii po nerasprostraneniyu vo vneshnei politike SShA: politiko-pravovoi aspect [Nonproliferation economic sanctions in US foreign policy: political and juridical aspects]. Vestnik RUDN. Seriya Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya, 2014, no. 2, pp. 33–41. (In Russian).
4. Timofeev I.N. Ekonomicheskie sanktsii kak politicheskoe ponyatie [Economic sanctions as a concept of power politics]. Vestnik MGIMO-Universiteta, 2018, no. 2, pp. 26–42. (In Russian).
5. Khlebnikova L.R. Instrumenty vneshnei pomoshchi v kontekste amerikanoizrail'skogo vzaimodeistviya (1948- 2014) [Foreign aid instruments in the context of the United States – Israel relations (1948–2014)]. Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Seriya 25: Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya i mirovaya politika, 2014, no. 3, pp. 115–149. (In Russian).
6. Shakirov A.R. Sostoyanie i perspektivy razvitiya sistemy ekonomicheskikh sanktsii SShA [The current state and prospects of economic sanctions system in the USA]. Vestnik MGIMO-Universiteta, 2011, no. 1, pp. 94–100. (In Russian).
7. Shakirov A.R. SShA: Ofitsial'naya pomoshch' razvitiyu [USA: official development aid]. Mirovaya ekonomika i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya, 2012, no. 3, pp. 43–51. (In Russian).
8. Apodaca C. Understanding U.S. Human Rights Policy: a Paradoxical Legacy. N.Y., Routledge, 2006. 256 p.
9. Barret R.W. Avoiding the Expropriation Nightmare – Tax Consequences and Asset Protection Techniques. University of Miami Law Review, 1998, vol. 52, pp. 831–854.
10. Brands H. The United States and the Peruvian Challenge, 1968-1975. Diplomacy & Statecraft, 2010, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 471–490.
11. Callaway R., Matthews E. Strategic US Foreign Assistance: the Battle between Human Rights and National Security. Aldershot, Ashgate, 2008. 236 p.
12. Cohen S. Conditioning U.S. Security Assistance on Human Rights Practices // American Journal of International Law. 1982. Vol. 76. Pp. 246-279.
13. Crawford G. Foreign Aid and Political Reform: a Comparative Analysis of Democracy Assistance and Political Conditionality. N.Y., St. Martin’s Press, 2001. 314 p.
14. Crawford G., Kacarska S. Aid sanctions and political conditionality: continuity and change. Journal of International Relations and Development, 2017. Pp. 1-31. DOI: 10.1057/s41268-017-0099-8
15. Drezner D. The Sanctions Paradox. Economic Statecraft and International Relations. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1999. 364 p.
16. Northrup C.C., Prange Turney E.C. (eds.) Encyclopedia of Tariffs and Trade in U.S. History. Westport, CT, Greenwood Press, 2003. 1631 p.
17. Finney L.D. Development Assistance – a Tool of Foreign Policy. Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, 1983, vol. 15, pp. 213–252.
18. Hufbauer G., Shott J., Elliott K., Oegg B. Economic Sanctions Reconsidered. Peterson Institute for International Economics, 2009. 248 p.
19. Johnston N. Political Risk and RealPolitik: the Politics of Compensation for Expropriation. SSRN Electronic Jour nal. 08.08.2012. 49 p. DOI: 10.2139/ ssrn.2134577.
20. Lancaster C. Transforming Foreign Aid: United States Assistance in the 21st Century. Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics, 2000. 127 p.
21. Maurer N. Much Ado about Nothing: Expropriation and Compensation in Peru and Venezuela, 1968-75. Harvard Business School Working Paper. 17.03.2011. No. 097. 18 p.
22. Meernik J., Krueger E., Poe S.C. Testing Models of U.S. Foreign Policy: Foreign Aid during and after the Cold War. The Journal of Politics, 1998, vol. 60, no.1, pp. 63–85.
23. Miles A. US Foreign Policy and the Rogue State Doctrine. London, Routledge, 2013. 208 p.
24. Miller N.L. The Secret Success of Non- Proliferation Sanctions. International Organization, 2014, vol. 68, no. 4, pp. 913–944.
25. Note. Congressional Control of Foreign Assistance to Post-Coup States. Harvard Law Review, 2014, vol. 127, pp. 2499- 2520.
26. Pape R. Why Economic Sanctions Do Not Work. International Security, 1997, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 90–136.
27. Schoultz L. Human Rights and United States Policy toward Latin America. Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1981. 421 p.
28. Schoultz L. The Responsiveness of Policy and Institutional Reform to Aid Conditionality. In: Central American Recovery and Development Task Force Report to the International Commission for Central American Recovery and Development. Ed by W. Ascher, A. Hubbard. London: Duke University Press, 1989, pp. 410- 453.
29. Starr D. The Leahy Laws: Alignment of Human Rights with Foreign Security Assistance. N.Y., Nova Publishers, 2014. 135 p.
30. Stohl M. et al. Human Rights and U.S. Foreign Assistance from Nixon to Carter. Journal of Peace Research, 1984, vol. 21, no. 21, pp. 225–226.
31. Swartz D. Indeterminate and Unrecognized: Exploring the Relationship Between the Morsi Ouster, Post-Coup Sanctions, and the Recognition Power. New York University Journal of Legislation and Public Policy, 2015, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 377-410.