OPINION:
Our justifiable efforts to halt Russian interference in our domestic political affairs should not come at the expense of American workers and businesses. And yet, two bills currently making their way through Congress would do exactly that. As a former U.S. ambassador to Latvia, a neighbor to Russia, I have firsthand experience that the way to increase leverage on Russia is by strengthening American enterprise in the region — not by erecting counterproductive sanctions.
The Defending Elections from Threats by Establishing Redlines Act (DETER) and the Defending American Security from Kremlin Aggression Act (DASKA) are two U.S. Senate bills that, if passed, would impose broad new sanctions on Russia. Unfortunately, they would also hurt American businesses, their employees and shareholders, as well as our economy on the whole.
While we should be doing everything within our power to insulate our electoral process from foreign intervention — and to specifically deter bad actors from engaging in nefarious influence operations on American soil — these two legislative remedies would fail to achieve either goal. Worse, they would disrupt the global financial markets and economic system, and disadvantage American businesses competing in Russia.
Particularly alarming are provisions in DASKA that would further sanction major Russian energy and financial entities. If implemented, they would have global impact, disrupting markets in oil, gas and refined products, as well as supply chains for a host of industries. The resultant price volatility for these products would impair economic performance in many countries beyond even the United States. However, implications for our national and economic security are vast, if entirely unnecessary and completely self-inflicted.
The Center for Strategic and International Studies’ William Reinsch detailed how the DETER Act would in effect limit American competition in the region. He asked, “why should American companies be shut out of lucrative, multibillion-dollar developing economies like Kazakhstan or Mongolia because of Russian wrongdoing?”
Expert testimony in a recent Senate Banking Committee hearing also featured equally dire predictions. Dan Fried, former Coordinator for Sanctions Policy and former assistant secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, cautioned “not to target current energy production or areas where U.S. and EU companies could be quickly replaced by less scrupulous actors. Doing so could panic markets and drive up prices, which might perversely give the Putin regime a windfall.”
Rachel Ziemba, adjunct senior fellow for the Energy, Economics and Security Program at the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), foresees “a high risk of damaging unintended consequences of any moves to sharply restrict Russian resource exports, on U.S. consumers and on U.S. allies in Asia and Europe, who are the primary buyers of Russian supplies. Given the tightening balance of global oil supplies, and the fact that OPEC is struggling to replace production declines in Venezuela and Iran, the United States might need to choose among its priorities or risk sharp increases in costs to consumers.”
Broad, unilateral sanctions against Russia have historically failed to curb their aggressive actions, and it is clear that DASKA and DETER will be equally ineffective in doing so — while inflicting real damage on American economic and security concerns. Still, it’s incumbent upon us to continue trying. Fortunately, there is an alternative route, a bipartisan bill called the Cyber Defense Response Act (CDRA), introduced by Sens. Cory Gardner and Chris Coons.
Unlike DASKA or DETER, CDRA is targeted specifically toward the threat of Russian political interference and is an instrument that may be precisely fine-tuned for American benefit. CDRA provides the president of the United States the specific authority to designate a foreign state or group as a “critical cyber threat actor.” Once this determination has been made by the president, CDRA allows him to choose from a menu of options to punish the bad actor. Just as important, it allows him to waive the imposition of sanctions on a case-by-case basis to ensure no harm comes to American interests.
I know from experience that one of the best ways to strengthen and improve relations is to encourage investment and trade; we need American businesses operating in Russia in order to maintain political leverage, and to share U.S. values of transparency, accountability and good governance. Our economic and security aspirations also demand it. For these reasons, Congress should focus on legislative solutions that hit intended Russian targets, not U.S. companies or the global economy. CDRA fits that bill. DASKA and DETER certainly do not.
• Charles Larson Jr. is the former U.S. ambassador to Latvia.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.