Practical sanctions
I’m not sure whether to be elated or irritated that there are now some sort of negotiations going on behind closed doors in Pretoria between the MDC and Zanu PF. The MDC has said no formal negotiations have actually begun, but that their representatives are there simply to present the conditions under which genuine negotiations can take place.
Right now it has evolved that Tsvangirai has refused to sign the Memorandum of Understanding setting the agenda for dialogue between the MDC and Zanu PF. Since the ordinary individual whose welfare is at stake is being literally blacked out of information, one is not sure whether or not it’s a good thing. Nevertheless, they are talking about something, and we can only hope it’s about how to bring an end to the crises in this country. In any case one cannot help being haunted by the knowledge that Mugabe cannot be trusted to abide by any decisions reached at the negotiating table. Mugabe is into these talks only to seek legitimacy and probably because he thinks the MDC has the capacity and enough international backing to salvage the mess he has made of the economy through irrational policies.
It turns out the Security Council’s endeavor to impose sanctions on Zimbabwe, more specifically, Mugabe and crew, was thwarted by Russia and China who wielded their veto to kill the resolution in a defining vote by the 15-nation council. Most people were disappointed. I wasn’t sure whether to be or not because I hadn’t been in the full picture of what effect any form of sanctions would have on the larger, ordinary population. I say that because I had just read a 2007 paper written by the Reserve Band of Zimbabwe (RBZ) criticizing and explaining the effects of sanctions on ordinary folk. The authors, whom I assume, are Gono et al highlight the fact that sanctions are not and cannot be ring-fenced on a few targeted individuals. The paper further explains that imposition of sanctions generally precipitates negative perception…by the world at large. Those perceptions make it difficult for private/public enterprise to secure funding from donors.
I thought that maybe they had a point there. Negative perceptions about a country that’s already constantly under bad spotlight may also affect the already fragile and ailing economy. Gono et al also mentions what they call undeclared sanctions and define these as being not explicitly announced but are implied from the actions of the perpetrating nations. They may include NGOs and certain business interests pulling out of the country. In this case we need not worry about that. The world’s third largest supermarket, Tesco have pulled out (more likely out of concern for their own image, not for Zimbabwe), with or without sanctions. Barclays is also under pressure to follow suit.
However, further clarification was given that the sanctions were specific and tailor made to cripple Mugabe and 13 of his henchmen. These included extending travel bans, freezing offshore assets and imposing an arms embargo, among other things. But then again, weren’t the initial smart sanctions intended to do that too, and apparently failed to work?
I’m more inclined to agree with Gono et al that it is only the ordinary folk that get the raw end of the flak whatever form of sanctions are imposed. Look at it this way. You ban Mugabe from this and that but it only means he and his henchmen descend further on the economy and the little that’s left, grabbing all they can when they can. Life goes on for them and if he gets sick, Bob can just be airlifted to Malaysia or any such ‘friendly’ country like South Africa while the rest of us can hardly find Paracetamol. He will always have milk and bacon on his breakfast table while the rest of us queue for extinct bread and rolls. In short, the evil become richer and more secure while the poor get poorer.
This is what Paul Reynolds had to say in a BBC news article titled “Sanctions: How successful are they?” . . . “Sanctions sometimes have the appearance of being more about making those who impose them feel better than making those at whom they are aimed change their minds.” The bit about an arms embargo does smack more of a selfish endeavor rather than pure concern for Zimbabweans.
Proposals from abroad are claiming that economic sanctions must be imposed to ensure that foreign-owned companies do not support the Mugabe regime. Though well intentioned, they may easily fail to have the effect intended and would more likely become threats to any susceptible company’s financial survival. In fact, Mugabe may even respond by imposing on them even more controls, or possibly by nationalizing those companies of more strategic importance.
Today’s Zimbabwe Independent carries an article that talks about the raft of new European Union (EU) and United States (US) sanctions. It mentions that among a cocktail of other sanctions, the US and the EU are contemplating barring Air Zimbabwe from landing or flying over their territories. I bet that has Mugabe quivering with fear.
Much more effort had rather be put into formulating more workable alternatives. Maybe sanctions are still an option but let them target Zimbabwe’s ruling party rather than Zimbabwe’s general population.
And even if it means that the Security Council takes some extreme measures to oust Mugabe, I’d rather the world be debating that instead of waiting, seeing and pushing for an ‘African solution’ whilst the regime continues to run down the economy. Mugabe is doing exactly what Sudan’s president, Omar Hassan al-Bashir did, so why won’t the prosecutor at the International Criminal Court also formally request an arrest warrant of him too? Mugabe has needed no bullets but has rather master minded a silent genocide through rape, hunger and fear.
As long as the international community continues to pay homage to Mugabe without condemning his illegitimate government for what it is no headway will be made in improving the socio-economic crises in Zimbabwe.
The world watched as Rwanda, the DRC and Sudan degenerated into decrepit war zones. Will they watch Zimbabwe accelerate in that direction simply because diplomatic protocol and a couple of veto powers serving egotistical interests won’t allow any practical action?
