Finally, isn’t it better to have a “global” bill, one that allows sanctions to be placed on officials from any country—the preferred option in the Senate—rather than the House version which is Russia-specific? Given the amount of time left in this session, a “global bill” may not be feasible. However, this Congress already has a track record that creates the impression that Russia rather than human rights is the real motivating force. It was quite telling when new sanctions were passed against Iranian investment, the Congress chose to exempt one project, in Azerbaijan, that has Iranian participation—Shah Deniz. Indeed, despite all of the apocalyptic talk from Congressmen about Iran, the Iranian threat is apparently not so dangerous that the U.S. can exempt projects that “bring gas from Azerbaijan to Europe and Turkey," or which have the stated purpose to achieve "energy security and independence from Russia.” Replacing a Russia-specific Magnitsky bill with a global Magnitsky Act should be a top priority of the new Congress, to send a clear signal that America is concerned with values, rather than playing geopolitics with human rights. (And it goes without saying that a global bill should have the same features noted above, especially a presidential waiver.)

Congress knew the calendar, in terms of Russia joining the WTO. The fact that both houses did not move with greater dispatch is no excuse for ramming through a rushed bill that could have a number of unintended consequences for both U.S. values and interests.

Nikolas K. Gvosdev, a senior editor at The National Interest, is a professor of national-security studies at the U.S. Naval War College. The views expressed are entirely his own.

Image: Flickr/Dmitry Rozhkov.