Blocking Property and Suspending Entry of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Mali

Overview

Executive Order 13882, issued by President Trump on July 26, 2019, endeavors to curb the multifaceted security threats in Mali by sanctioning individuals involved in activities that destabilize the region. This order is founded on the recognition that the Mali situation poses an "unusual and extraordinary threat" to the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States. It draws legal authority from the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and the National Emergencies Act (NEA), alongside United Nations Security Council Resolutions 2374 and 2432. The Executive Order's principal functions include freezing the U.S. assets of designated individuals and organizations and barring their entry into the United States.

The driver behind Executive Order 13882 is the escalating security crisis within Mali, characterized by terrorism, narcotics trafficking, human rights violations, and the breach of peace agreements. The overarching intention is to stabilize the region by targeting those fostering violence and violating human rights. By implementing these sanctions, the U.S. aligns its foreign policy with international objectives geared toward restoring order in the Sahel, a region of strategic significance for both regional and global actors.

Additionally, the Executive Order mirrors the broader foreign policy approach of the Trump administration, which favored unilateral sanctions as a means to exert international pressure, particularly in scenarios where multilateral diplomatic efforts have seen limited success. The order also emphasizes support for international peacekeeping initiatives, as seen through its acknowledgment of the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali (MINUSMA) and collaboration with regional governments to counter threats like terrorism and cross-border trafficking. This order exemplifies the administration's strategy of employing economic and diplomatic leverage to compel compliance with international norms.

Legal and Policy Implications

Constitutional and Statutory Framework: Rooted in several pivotal statutes, Executive Order 13882 underscores the President's authority under the IEEPA to regulate commerce in response to declared national emergencies. The NEA provides the procedural foundation for this declaration. These legislative instruments grant the executive branch the ability to act quickly in response to emerging threats, bypassing legislative delays. The order also utilizes section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act to manage the entry of foreign nationals, illustrating the intersection of immigration policy with national security concerns.

Policy and Regulatory Changes: The Executive Order assigns new duties to the Department of the Treasury, with a specific focus on the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). OFAC is tasked with identifying and sanctioning individuals and entities implicated in Mali's destabilization. The Treasury Department must coordinate with the State Department, ensuring an integrated governmental approach to enforcing these measures. The establishment of comprehensive monitoring and compliance processes is essential to assess the order's impact and deter non-compliance.

Broader Policy Impacts: As a policy tool, Executive Order 13882 reinforces the United States' commitment to multilateral efforts, even as it acts unilaterally. Operating within the framework of existing UN resolutions, the order enhances global efforts to maintain peace in Mali. Yet, it also highlights the United States' propensity to lead international issues, potentially encountering resistance concerning the scope and reach of unilateral American sanctions.

Who Benefits

International Peacekeeping Operations: The Executive Order primarily benefits international peacekeeping operations, notably the United Nations and MINUSMA. By sanctioning individuals who threaten peacekeeping personnel and missions, the order indirectly fortifies these operations' efficacy and security. Thus, it articulates U.S. backing for international peacekeeping, notwithstanding reservations about direct military interventions.

Local Communities in Mali: Theoretically, by targeting those fueling conflict and instability, Malian communities stand to benefit from enhanced security conditions. As violence diminishes and ceasefire agreements gain traction, prospects for humanitarian aid, economic growth, and eventual normalization become more viable. This is particularly significant for Mali's southern and central regions, most impacted by insurgent activity and political discord.

Global Security Interests: On a broader scale, states and coalitions with vested interests in counterterrorism and anti-trafficking efforts are beneficiaries. By addressing Mali's security dilemma through tailored sanctions, the U.S. bolsters international frameworks aimed at dismantling criminal networks spanning borders. This action coincides with the objectives of regional alliances like the African Union and G5 Sahel Joint Force, enhancing collective security efforts.

Who Suffers

Sanctioned Individuals and Groups: The immediate detrimental impact of the Executive Order is on those identified as complicit in destabilizing Mali. With asset freezes and travel bans curtailing economic and operational functions, the ability of these entities to perpetuate violence or corruption is theoretically diminished. These actions are intended to generate a ripple effect, stripping financial assets and global recognition.

Potential Collateral Impacts on Civilians: Despite targeting specific actors, there exists a risk that sanctions could inadvertently harm civilians. Economic pressures on sanctioned entities might reduce job availability and economic opportunities in affected regions, diverting resources and potentially worsening humanitarian issues.

Efficacy Concerns: A key concern is that sanctions may unintentionally drive targeted entities deeper into illicit pathways. As they lose access to legitimate financial systems, they might resort to clandestine channels, possibly escalating criminal and black market activities. Such developments could spawn adverse effects on local economies and governance.

Historical Context

Precedent and Policy Continuity: Executive Order 13882 continues a legacy of U.S. foreign policy tools employing sanctions to counter international threats. Historically, targeted financial measures have emerged as vital strategies in foreign policy, especially post-Cold War, when non-military tools became preferred mechanisms of engagement. Prior administrations have adopted comparable orders in conflict settings, like the Balkans, Liberia, and Sudan, providing a template for present actions.

Trump Administration's Foreign Policy: The issuance of this Executive Order complements the larger foreign policy orientation of the Trump administration, known for espousing an 'America First' narrative while asserting global order through firm measures. The administration frequently harnessed economic initiatives to advance U.S. interests overseas, discovering an alternative route to direct military intervention, regarded as costly and controversial.

Focus on Counterterrorism: Mali's strategic importance is underscored by its status as a springboard for terrorist actions impacting Sahelian stability. The Executive Order entrenches the U.S. focus on counterterrorism, as Mali functions as a corridor for extremist elements transcending borders, impacting security across West Africa and beyond. By reinforcing American opposition to such networks, the order contributes to ongoing global counterterrorism endeavors.

Potential Controversies or Challenges

Effectiveness and Enforcement: One prominent issue is related to effectiveness. Detractors of such Executive Orders maintain that sanctions alone rarely achieve targeted political results, potentially devolving into symbolic acts absent broader diplomatic strategies. The administration must navigate difficulties in enforcing sanctions amidst opaque financial operations in Mali and nearby areas.

Congressional Oversight and Pushback: The Executive Order may encounter scrutiny from Congress regarding its congruency with overarching U.S. strategic interests in Africa. Lawmakers could compel the administration to provide routine briefings and show substantive outcomes, stressing accountability and transparency to confirm that the actions taken don’t hinder potential peace negotiations.

Potential for International Disputes: On an international level, Executive Order 13882 could raise alarms about sovereignty implications stemming from unilateral sanctions by one nation. Allies and partners may voice concerns regarding the precedent set by the U.S.'s unilateral actions, urging further cooperation with international entities to forge consensus on security measures in Mali.