Do sanctions really work?

Zimbabwe at the turn of the new Millennium has received widespread condemnation particularly with the implementation of the controversial land reform. The image portrayed abroad has been tattered because of the reports of violence, instability and abandonment of the rule of law, which has created a serious challenge to the modern developments on democracy and human rights. Zimbabwe has seemingly lost many friends especially those  from the West and west-controlled institutions, through suspension from the IMF and the Commonwealth, the US and the European Union has applied targeted sanctions. Scandavian countries which have supported Zimbabwe’s social services, especially health, have cut and have threatened to close their missions.

Sanctions are barriers put against a country perceived to be autocratic, abusers of human rights and a threat to international peace and security. In other words it is a penalty specified or in the form of moral pressure that acts to ensure compliance when a country fails to abide by the international law. Sanctions are coercive measures adopted usually by several states acting together against a nation violating international law.

Targeted sanctions in Zimbabwe include:

·        Prohibition on arms sales to the government of Zimbabwe and its subsidiaries

·        Restrictions and bans on visas for members or supporters on the Mugabe regime including senior management officials.

·        Restrictions on financial transactions involving specified individuals and entities

·        Freezing assets on targeted individuals and entities

IMPACT ON TARGETED INDIVIDUALS

It is important to find out if the restrictive measures been strong enough to make an impact on ZANU-Pf and force it to change its political course.

ZANU-Pf officials have actually benefited in terms of political capital and unrestricted looting of national resources during the financial crisis in the country.

ZANU-PF has used measures as propaganda, a negotiating tool and as a pretext for non implementation of democratic reforms and the maintenance of power structures and patronage.

ZANU-PF regime has minimised the effect of targeted  financial sanctions on its international business operations through the use of false or proxy names, collaborating sanctions busters and front companies. As revealed in its own internal financial enquiry, held in 2004, to beat targeted sanctions, ZANU-PF had formed shelf-companies to warehouse its shares in various corners of the economy. The party also acknowledged that it had been moving funds from well-known party firms to lesser-known shelf-companies to secure its investments.

In other countries targeted individuals have circumvented the ban by using their adult children who are spread across Europe and the USA to conduct business on their behalf. The exemption of these children from travel bans has meant that their parents have been able to shield them away from the socio-economic hardships and the negative effects of the crumbling educational, health and other social services by sending them to study, or live in the very countries that have imposed the restrictive measures.

The limitations of the travel bans have not been clearly defined. International protocol allows heads of state to attend international meetings regardless of travel restrictions. For example, during the preparations for the 2003 EU-Africa Summit in Lisbon, confusion and controversy arose among participating states over the participation of Mugabe. African states heavily criticised the ban with South Africa threatening to boycott the summit altogether if Mugabe was not allowed to attend. However, travel bans have inconvenienced individuals within ZANU-PF in the sense that they cannot pick and choose destinations as they did in the past. The refusal of visas to travel through Europe  has been a major source of international embarrassment  among some of the targeted leaders. This has been apparent in comments made by restricted individuals who have been denied visas or detained at European airports. Travel bans have been a major impediment for those who have business and personal obligations in countries they are no longer able to enter.

IMPACT ON ORDINARY ZIMBABWEANS AND THE GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS.

The sanctions have managed to restrict the ability of the government to access international credit grants. The Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act (ZIDERA), for example has provisions which affect the country’s ability to access finance from international multilateral donors and US private commercial donors. The Act does not only empower the USA to its voting rights and influence in IFIs, such as IMF, WB and ADB to veto any application by Zimbabwe for finance, credit facilities, loan rescheduling and international debt cancellation bid, also has some veiled threats against American companies and individuals found to be conducting business with individuals and entities with links to targeted individuals.

The impact has mainly been felt through their restrictions on the flow of both bilateral funds and ODA. A number of European development partners such as the government of Sweden, Norway and Denmark who had since independence been the Zimbabwe government’s critical partners in human development, either pulled out of Zimbabwe or decreased their operations in the country after their governments downscaled their government to government contacts with the Zimbabwe government. While the country continued to receive financial assistance in a number of areas, the amount of loan inflows extended to the government progressively declined.

Furthermore, sanctions and the withdrawal of bilateral support, alongside the country’s political instability, are factors that have made Zimbabwe a high-risk business environment. As such, business face serious difficulties as the costs of infrastructure and labour have increased and government subsidies have been withdrawn. At the same time, foreign direct investment (FDI) has yet to seriously take root as political environment continues to be unstable.

Ordinary Zimbabweans have been indirectly affected by the decline in ODA. The scaling down of the ODA in the last few years seriously affected many poor communities which have been since independence relied on financial support from development partners  like UK. Denmark, Norway and Sweden. At the same time, withdrawal of bilateral aid to the government, coupled with corruption, has seriously undermined the government’s capacity to deliver basic services like health and education to ordinary members of the poor communities. However, humanitarian assistance for vulnerable communities has indeed been revived under the Humanitarian Plans  programme, with many of the western development assistance organisations preferred to focus on short-term humanitarian assistance rather than long term assistance and this intervention strategy has been less effective in helping communities deal with their chronic vulnerabilities.