Do sanctions really work?

Mon, Jul 7 02:14 AM

Should the international community impose sanctions on Zimbabwe to punish its president, Robert Mugabe, for not adhering to the electoral verdict of the people? Mugabe recently 'won' a run-off election marred by violence in which at least 86 opposition supporters were killed and 200,000 displaced. The United States and Britain have pressed for a vote in the United Nations to impose international sanctions, measures which would include an arms embargo on Zimbabwe.

Emphasising that these sanctions are 'smart' and 'targeted' only at the Mugabe regime elites, they announced travel restrictions on senior Zimbabwean officials and their families. Other plans include freezing the assets of the Zimbabwean elite, similar to the technique used in Iraq and North Korea. The International Cricket Council has still not taken a decision on expelling the Zimbabwean cricket board.

Sanctions stand between statements and soldiers. Military action is not a feasible tool as proven by the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. Countries use sanctions for three types of purposes: to compel compliance with international laws, to contain a conflict, and to express outrage without a clear political goal. Zimbabwe fits the third category, albeit with a political goal: to make the Mugabe regime relinquish power. To assess whether sanctions are the right way to pressure the Mugabe regime, we must make a distinction between the actual imposition of sanctions, and the use of sanctions as a threat.

Those opposed to sanctions focus on the ways the action produces deleterious effects on a country's economy and citizenry. Sanctions are counterproductive because, as Fareed Zakaria has pointed out, they shrink a country's economy, especially those parts that are not under government control. Private businesses suffer most, and are liable to shut down or at least shrink. The government ends up controlling - in the words of University of Chicago political scientist Robert Pape - a smaller pie, and shifts resources to groups it can control and away from those that oppose it. In addition, social scientists Simon Chesterton and Beatrice Pouligny have demonstrated how sanctions result in a criminalisation of the economy. For instance, the Burmese junta have stifled all protests while engaging in black marketeering in gems and drugs. In the Balkans, sanctions resulted in the establishment of crime networks.

Should sanctions be imposed on a country that is already reeling under a severe economic and political crisis? Even 'targeted' sanctions hurt the economy and will almost certainly end up punishing the very electorate that has voted against Mugabe. Zimbabwe is in the throes of an economic catastrophe, with the world's highest inflation rate at 1700 per cent, and crushing food shortages. The savings of the elderly have been eviscerated by inflation triggered by the financial sanctions. For instance, a US law called the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act (ZDERA) have, according to Zimbabwean commentators, effectively excluded the country from international financial markets while putting pressure on the country to repay its debts to the Bretton Woods institutions despite severe pressures on the government's revenues. Critics also blame Mugabe's policy of expropriating land from white farmers, who used large-scale, commercially viable methods, and giving it to black ones who were inexperienced, inefficient or inadequately funded, beggaring a country that was once the bread basket of Africa.

The international community should stop short of actually imposing sanctions because it will have the counterproductive effect of making Mugabe's regime stronger, not weaker. As Pape emphasises, the history of sanctions in Cuba, Iran, Iraq and elsewhere shows that coup attempts were fewer during such periods. Sanctions may push the country into a spiral of violence and authoritarian rule. Previous uses of sanctions in Myanmar and North Korea, among others, show that the ruling regime becomes more authoritarian in such circumstances.

The threat of sanctions works better than actually following through on the threat. This is the right time for key regional actors to design a solution that could facilitate Mugabe's exile or retirement, while granting immunity for any acts performed during his rule. Most authoritarian rulers - and some long-serving democratic ones - dread giving up the reins of power because they are afraid of being targeted by the succeeding regime. The international community and Mugabe would be well advised to clinch a deal immediately and carve out a win-win scenario. Otherwise Zimbabwe is doomed to relive its history of land wars, farm invasions, economic turmoil and a return to authoritarian rule.

The writer is a fellow at the Centre for Policy Research, Delhi express@expressindia.com

Inside News

Editor's picks