The hypocrisy of U.S. sanctions and extraterritorial legislation

Jun 14, 2024 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

Kaieteur News – The United States of America (USA) prides itself as the bastion of democracy and the land of the free. However, it continues to behave in a manner reminiscent of an imperious imperial power.

This behaviour is evident in its foreign policies, particularly in the imposition of sanctions and the use of extraterritorial legislation to pressure and coerce other countries. The post-9/11 era saw a significant escalation in such actions, highlighting the U.S.’s propensity to set global rules, judge adherence, and impose its will on other sovereign nations.

Following the tragic events of September 11, 2001, the U.S. introduced stringent security protocols aimed at preventing future terrorist attacks. These protocols were not confined to its borders but were imposed globally, affecting international airports and airlines. Countries worldwide were compelled to comply with U.S.-dictated security measures or face the consequence of being barred from operating flights to and from the United States. The average traveller experiences the invasive nature of these protocols firsthand. The process often feels akin to being stripped-searched in a police station: belts and shoes must be removed, pockets emptied, and all jewellery and watches taken off. These measures, ostensibly for security, reflect a deeper issue of U.S. dominance and the expectation that other nations will conform to its standards without question.

The U.S. has a long history of imposing economic sanctions as a tool of foreign policy, particularly against nations it deems adversarial. Cuba and Venezuela are prime examples of this approach. The sanctions against these countries are severe, encompassing economic, financial, and travel restrictions aimed at crippling their economies and forcing political change.

What exacerbates the situation is the extraterritorial application of these sanctions. The U.S. not only restricts its own citizens and companies from doing business with Cuba and Venezuela but also dictates that foreign entities comply with these sanctions. This overreach extends U.S. jurisdiction globally, infringing on the sovereignty of other nations. Countries and companies that engage in business with Cuba or Venezuela risk facing punitive measures from the U.S., a clear violation of international law and norms.

The U.S. extends its heavy-handed tactics to individuals and companies in other sovereign nations, such as Guyana. By imposing sanctions without due process, the U.S. government bypasses the judicial systems of these countries, unilaterally condemning and penalizing entities through executive orders. This approach is hypocritical, as it starkly contrasts with the U.S.’s own legal principles of due process and fair trial.

Recently, individuals and companies have found themselves on the receiving end of U.S. sanctions, without any formal charges or court proceedings, either here or in the United States. This practice not only undermines the sovereignty of Guyana but also highlights the arbitrary nature of U.S. foreign policy. The notion that the U.S. can unilaterally impose its will on foreign nationals without any form of legal recourse is a stark reminder of its imperialistic tendencies.

Legislation with extraterritorial application is a powerful weapon of imperial overreach. The U.S. has enacted numerous laws that extend its jurisdiction beyond its borders, compelling foreign entities to adhere to American laws and regulations.

The Magnitsky Act, for example, aims to hold accountable foreign individuals responsible for human rights abuses and significant corruption. The Act authorizes the U.S. government to impose sanctions on foreign individuals and entities identified as being involved in human rights abuses or significant corruption. Sanctions can include visa bans and asset freezes, preventing these individuals from entering the United States and accessing the U.S. financial system.

The Magnitsky Act, however, has been criticized as having the potential to be used as a political tool by the United States to target its adversaries. There are also concerns that individuals and entities sanctioned under the Magnitsky Act do not receive adequate due process. Critics claim that the process of being added to the sanctions list lacks transparency and does not provide sufficient opportunity for the accused to defend themselves. The acquiescence of national leaders to U.S. demands exacerbates the issue. Many countries, particularly those dependent on U.S. economic and military support, often comply with these extraterritorial mandates without protest. This compliance undermines their own sovereignty and the rule of law within their borders.

In the context of Guyana, leaders who capitulate to U.S. pressures are betraying the principles of independence and sovereignty that figures like Forbes Burnham and Cheddi Jagan fought for. These founding leaders of Guyana’s independence would undoubtedly be dismayed to see their nation bending to the will of a foreign power, compromising its autonomy and the dignity of its citizens.

(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper.)

---

• extraterritorial, hypocrisy, legislation, U.S. sanctions, United States of America (USA)

---