Washington, DC — Just as the United States is looking to tighten sanctions on the vicious regime of Bashar Assad in Syria, there is quiet momentum building to remove sanctions against another brutal dictator, Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe. But arguments in favor of easing pressure on his ruling ZANU-PF at this time are flawed. In fact, removing sanctions now would arguably make matters worse for Zimbabweans' hopes for a full return to democracy.
Mugabe and his cronies have been protesting ever since travel and financial sanctions were imposed by the U.S., EU, and Australia nearly a decade ago. Again last week Mugabe's Justice Minister insisted that the sanctions were illegal and must be removed. The UN's Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay visited Zimbabwe last week too and, after spending a grand total of 96 hours in the country, also called for sanctions to be lifted because they were probably hurting the poor. Such complaints from ZANU-PF and ill-informed UN officials can be easily dismissed.
In contrast, calls for lifting sanctions from other quarters, notably from highly respected opposition officials, should be taken very seriously. Finance Minister Tendai Biti and Education Minister David Coltart have each called for Western re-engagement and removal of sanctions. While I have only the highest regard for both of these accomplished and well-intentioned men, I believe they are wrong on the sanctions issue. Here's why.
There are three basic arguments for lifting sanctions now, only one of which is serious.
1. Sanctions are illegal. I won't pretend to understand the Australian or European legal case, but in the United States, financial sanctions are imposed via executive order of the President, under the authority of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), and are enforced by the U.S. Treasury. Here is the original 2003 order signed by President Bush, along with instructions to block transactions by 77 designated individuals. These provisions have since been amended several times and renewed by President Obama. Similarly, travel sanctions against most of the same people are imposed by the State Department which has wide discretion in visa matters. The Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act of 2001, legislation originally sponsored by then-Senators Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden, directs the U.S. Treasury to curtail aid and vote against new loans to Zimbabwe at the international financial institutions and could technically also be considered a form of sanctions. (ZDERA has long been an obsession of ZANU-PF, but in practice the Act is mostly beside the point. Zimbabwe put itself under IFI sanctions by failing to meet its loan repayment obligations beginning in the early 2000s, while ZDERA gives the administration significant leeway when to change course.) In any case, U.S. sanctions are on firm legal ground.
2. Sanctions hurt the poor. In a direct sense, this argument is silly. Despite ZANU-PF misinformation, sanctions are against specific individuals, not against the whole country. Even if you accept that the presence of sanctions is a disincentive to investors (yes, there is a compliance cost to ensure that you are not dealing with a designated individual), this effect must be weighed against what's really hurting the poor. The stigma of sanctions on the country or the gross malgovernance and political repression of the regime? It's not even a close call.
3. Sanctions provide ZANU-PF with a scapegoat. This is essentially the core argument of Coltart, Biti and others. As a fact, it is undoubtedly correct. Mugabe and his ZANU-PF cronies frequently invoke sanctions as the cause of the country's precipitous decline. Even if this makes no empirical sense, it does appear to have political salience inside Zimbabwe and no doubt some voters are swayed by such lies. But this alone does not imply that sanctions should be removed. Rather, such a change would be the right course of action only if there is a plausible case that denying ZANU-PF the sanctions excuse would: (a) fundamentally alter the political dynamics in the country and (b) make a transition to a post-Mugabe government more likely. I don't see that either condition really holds.
Let's think through what happens if the U.S. and its allies wake up tomorrow and cancel the sanctions. Would ZANU-PF stop blaming sanctions for the population's misery? Would the chances for a free and fair election improve? Would Mugabe's incentive to retire increase? Would the junta around Mugabe be more likely to allow the MDC to campaign fairly, and perhaps win, an election? Would Zimbabwe be any closer to a real democracy? Unfortunately, the answer to all these questions is a resounding no.
The inescapable fact is that Mugabe has already lost three elections to the MDC, has refused to accept those results, and has since shown no indication that he's ready for real reform. Why should we think that anything would change without sanctions? (Anyone who suggests Mugabe & Co. just need one more chance to show their good intentions should ask who is responsible for the disgusting 2008 election violence and where are they now? And what about the Matabeleland massacres?)
At the same time, there are potentially high costs to lifting sanctions. The U.S. would be handing a major propaganda victory to Mugabe who would no doubt claim that even the evil West now accepts him. The MDC would be no stronger. And worse, from a policymakers' perspective, the West would have gained exactly zero leverage. The probable outcome is that after another bloody and fraudulent election next year, we would have to fight all over again to clamp down on the very same people, while Zimbabwe would be no closer to escaping its nightmare.
Robert Mugabe and his circle have yet to show that they accept responsibility for their country's precipitous decline, nor any interest in trying to put the country back on a democratic and prosperous path. Until they do-or they go-sanctions should stay.
Todd Moss is vice president for programs and senior fellow at the Center for Global Development. Previously, he served as Deputy Assistant Secretary in the Bureau of African Affairs at the U.S. Department of State. He also was a consultant and advisor to the Chief Economist in the Africa Region of the World Bank.
Comments Post a comment
What is so nice about being a liar, and you end up believibg your own lies? Sanctions or not, Zimbabwe will prosper as it has been doing despite your diabolic plots.The land that has been repossesed it gone out of your filthy hands, so make peace with it.
What are you crying for, control of Victoria Falls and establishing game farms anew? Between Mugabe and Tony balair, or Obama, or Bush; who has got fresh blood dripping from his hands? You hypocrite! Who is dictating to other states right now about dealing with Iran? Who is busy bombing and killing innocent women an children in Yemen, Pakistan, Somalia and Afghanistan? And who is supporting human rights violations in Syria, Gaza Strip and Bahrain? Why are you not saying anything about Uganda 's record of military crack down? And Kenya's invasion of Somalia?
Stop seeing things in your white, neo-colonialist eyes. The African land and its resources belongs to Africans. The sooner you stop the propagandist crap that you are feeding your ignorant citizens, the better. Why not name your association, group or paper, CENTER FOR AFRICA DISTABILASATION & INVASION?
I totally agree with Moss the writer of the article in as far as sanctions are concerned.Zanupf is cunning if you did not know,they are skimmers for sure.If sanctions are removed,Zanupf will not stop blaming the West and Americans for Zimbabwe problems. Robert Mugabe and his propagandist will certainly use the new development only to hoondwink Zimbabweans into voting for them. For example,the recent Sadc troika resolutions were clear that elections will not be possible without reforms and will be held within twelve months.Using the ambiguity of that resolution,they are busy right now misinforming the nation that elections are possible this year as this year is within the twelve months stated by Sadc.I was trying to illustrate the cleverness of Zanupf when it comes to situations.The other point is that Zanupf does want sanctions or restrive measures to stay for one important reason which otherr political analysts are ignoring, they are scared to campaign to the zimbabweans in the diaspora.Most zimbos outside are not zanupf supporters and mugabe's policies are not bankable with those zimbos outside.So that means more tsvangirai votes from the diaspora and that will be the end of mugabe if that vote is factored in the election equation. Mugabe knows that anything that he says now will not be bought easily by the west and americans,so if it is strategically important and the west and americans do not see that,he has won!In the case of sanctions the americans are saying no removing of sanctions,a plus for zanupf,you see.Now,the issue of constitution comes in,zanupf will then say no sanctions removal,no diaspora vote because they can not campaign in the diaspora and that leaves Americans and the west bare with their sanctions,come election time mugabe cunningly rigs the election.the circle begins again and the zim problems will continue. After a careful analysis of zim politics,i will agree with Biti and Coltart for the lifting of sanctions so that there is no excuse from mugabe. I will agree with some open minded zimbos that sanctions are not the cause of our suffering,but poor political and economic management by mugabe regime was the cause.So Americans,food for thought!
First of all we need to analyse why Zimbabwe is under sanctions. The USA, through ZIDERA, clearly states that President Mugabe and his Government pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the foreign policy of the United States. So the question here becomes, How does small country like Zimbabwe, with a population of just 13 million, threaten the USA, the only world superpower with over 300 million people, has nuclear weapons and the best army and military arsenal, whose currency it also uses? If Zimbabwe were to engage the USA militarily, not even a single US soldier would be killed and I doubt if our soldiers would fire even a single shot. Furthermore, America can do without the resources of Zimbabwe. BUT Zimbabwe does indeed threaten America's existence. When Cde Mugabe became PM in 1980, he was a darling of the west because he forgave the whites and offered a hand of reconciliation. He also did not change the economic scales that were heavily tilted in favour the white minority. He was the only African leader to intervene militarily in Mozambique and DRC. He was also the only African Leader to achieve the objectives of the liberation struggle, chiefly by redistributing land and now indigenisation of the economy. COMMUNISTS SCARE THE HELL OUT OF THE AMERICANS. Mugabe deliberately made little noise about his intentions until after South Africa became independent in 1994, a fact most of his critics seem to conveniently downplay. The next question then becomes, what would have happened if, the USA, UK, Canada, Australia and EU and other western allied countries, had said that Zimbabweans had indeed been robbed and wronged over the land issue and therefore Mugabe did the right thing by taking land from the white minority and giving it to blacks, to fulfill goals of the liberation struggle? There would be no sanctions and Zimbabwe's economy would not have suffered the way it did. And becoz Zimbabwe has a sizeable number of people who can carry on with farming, given the resources as is becoming apparent, the land reforms would have succeeded in emancipating the lives of blacks as envisaged. Zimbabweans would have been filthy reach by now. If this had happened many African countries and probably others that were disenfranchised by slavery and colonialism would have followed the policies of Zimbabwe.We must remember that none of the developed countries run their economies in the way they prescribe for poor countries. Their economies are built on ownership of their resources.Not the aid or FDI.None of them acquired their wealthy fairly.They have gone to many wars and still fight wars to safeguard their economic interests.Can anyone imagine an Africa where blacks own a majority shareholding in major mines and corporations, where companies are required by law to have community share ownership schemes in areas that they mine or exploit resources.What would become of America and its allies? Where would they get cheap resources and labour. Who would work for them?Already the entry of China as a formidable economic challenger is causing untold suffering and sleepless nights to the Americans. Now add a developed Africa into the matrix. That, my dear friends is how Robert Mugabe and his government pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to America. If land reforms and indidenisation of the economy in Zimbabwe succeeds, other Africans will follow. America and its capitalist friends will lose control. They will have nowhere to start wars or sell their arms. America's economy thrives on war and conflict. What will they do with their millions of soldiers and armoury if there is no war and conflict in the world.What happens to all the people employed in the defence industry?Unfortunately for them, Mugabe's doctrine is now entrenched in many Zimbabweans and Africans.They now understand that in order to succeed one has to fight the current world order. Thats why America has to do everything it can to ensure that Mugabeism does does not succeed.The measures include manufacturing outright lies and imposing sanctions.This includes founding, funding and directing Morgan Tsvangirai and his MDC, private media, NGOs, unfounded human rights accusations and a media blackout of all the good things that go on in Zimbabwe.Countries that sympathise with him are also blackmailed.Zimbabweans must suffer so that they get rid of Mugabe.BUT this is not going to happen. Instead, the people will get rid of Tsvangirai. Becoz if Mugabe was such a bad leader, he would be long gone.EVEN if they succeed in getting rid of Mugabe by whatever means or eventuality, they will soon realise that there are millions of Mugabes to get rid of.
Kikikikikiki!Long live the Nationalist movements...Kikikiki!
"The USA, through ZIDERA, clearly states that President Mugabe and his Government pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the foreign policy of the United States."
No it does not. Try again.
See All Comments