The Biden government imposed visa restrictions on 76 Saudi individuals who, according to the government, were involved in threats to dissidents abroad, but the list did not include the Crown Prince.
Defending Bin Salman’s omission on Sunday, White House press secretary Jen Psaki told CNN that there are “more effective ways to ensure this doesn’t happen again”, while leaving “space to work with the Saudis” in areas where there is a mutual agreement and a US national interest. Psaki said Biden made it clear that he would “recalibrate” the US-Saudi Arabia relationship, including ending support for the Saudi war in Yemen.
This is all fair enough. But Psaki also made another statement – an allegation that Biden’s decision to avoid direct sanctions on Bin Salman followed a precedent set by previous presidents.
“Historically, and even in recent history, in the Democratic and Republican governments, there have been no sanctions applied to leaders of foreign governments where we have diplomatic relations – and even where we have no diplomatic relations,” said Psaki.
Facts first: It is not true that “there have been no sanctions” against foreign government leaders, even in the recent past. In fact, all three of Biden’s predecessors who took office in the 21st century imposed direct sanctions on foreign leaders. Psaki made a more narrow and precise statement on Monday, saying the United States “normally” does not impose direct sanctions on leaders of countries with which it has diplomatic relations.
Gary Clyde Hufbauer, a senior non-resident researcher at the Peterson Institute of International Economics who studied sanctions, said Psaki’s statement on Sunday “is very broad” given the list of leaders the United States has actually imposed direct sanctions on. He added: “What Psaki meant is that the United States rarely or never sanctions the leaders of countries considered to be important US allies, nor does it sanction the leaders of nuclear adversaries.”
The list of leaders against the US has been hit by direct sanctions includes:
- Iranian supreme leader Ali Khamenei and Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, who were sanctioned by President Donald Trump;
- North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and then Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi, who were sanctioned by President Barack Obama;
- The then Myanmar leader Than Shwe, Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko and Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe, who were sanctioned by President George W. Bush.
There is some complexity about who qualifies as a leader of a foreign government. The official head of the Iranian government is the president, but the final authority is, as the title suggests, the supreme leader. Saudi Arabia is still officially led by King Salman, but the Crown Prince, his son, is the de facto ruler.
Regardless, Psaki’s statement went too far. Michael Beck, a sanctions expert at TradeSecure, LLC, said that when you consider the list of sanctioned leaders, “it is a bit of an exaggeration to suggest that the United States has not sanctioned or will not sanction foreign government leaders.”
The specifications of the sanctions against these leaders varied. They included travel restrictions, freezing assets and prohibiting Americans from doing financial business with them.
A stricter claim on Monday
Psaki narrowed the complaint at his daily press conference at the White House on Monday. She said this time: “Historically, the United States, through Democratic and Republican presidents, normally does not sanction government leaders in countries with which we have diplomatic relations.”
The “not typically” and “countries where we have diplomatic relations” make Psaki’s statement on Monday more accurate than the statement she made on CNN on Sunday. (Psaki did not respond to an email request for comment on his Sunday complaint.)
The United States maintained different levels of diplomatic relations with countries whose leaders sanctioned under Trump, Obama and Bush.
The United States did not maintain formal diplomatic relations with Iran or North Korea. It announced the suspension of embassy operations in Libya at the time it announced sanctions in 2011.
The United States maintained diplomatic relations with Zimbabwe at the time of sanctions in 2003. The United States maintained partial diplomatic relations with Myanmar in 2007, when it was represented by a business officer rather than an ambassador.
With Venezuela, Belarus and Syria, the United States maintained diplomatic relations at the time of the sanctions, but saw relations breaking up over the next two years, with diplomats being expelled or withdrawn.
A complex subject
Of course, there are foreign leaders that the United States has not directly sanctioned, even while accusing them of serious transgression. For example, the United States has imposed numerous sanctions on Russian individuals and entities close to President Vladimir Putin, but has not explicitly targeted Putin himself.
Michael Kimmage, a professor at the Catholic University of America who is an expert in US-Russia relations, noted that “given the overlapping ways in which Putin’s finances intersect with state-owned companies and the fortunes of his friends,” the issue of which constitutes a direct sanction against Putin “does not admit simple answers”. Hufbauer said that in cases such as severe US sanctions against Uganda of the late Idi Amin or Cuba of the late Fidel Castro, trying to separate sanctions against the country from sanctions against the leader is to create a “distinction without difference”.
George Lopez, a professor at Notre Dame University who previously participated in a panel of United Nations experts to monitor and implement sanctions against North Korea, interpreted Psaki’s statement more generously than Hufbauer and Beck.
Lopez said that, “in general,” the United States’ practice has been “to sanction all people directly under the leader,” rather than directly punishing the leader. Traditionally, he said, the attitude of the United States has been that “you don’t make politicians personal at that level.”
Given this general approach by the United States, Lopez argued that Psaki’s statement on Sunday was “accurate enough”, although there were exceptions to the rule. Because of how many exceptions there were, we respectfully disagree – although it is a good thing that Psaki became more accurate the next day.
