The (In) Effectiveness of Sanctions: Zimbabwe

Adewunmi Alugbin

Institutional Affiliation: SUNY Albany, Department of Africana Studies

“The fortunes of Zimbabwe have for more than two decades been tied to President Robert Mugabe, who wrested control from a small white community and put the country on a stable course. Now, he presides over a nation whose economy is in tatters, where poverty and unemployment are endemic and political strife and repression commonplace.”[1]

The key to sustainability in Africa lies in addressing the issues of poverty and inequality that plague so many on the continent.

There are internal issues in the African nation of Zimbabwe that pose a challenge to sustainability in the country such as the unequal distribution of resources especially land, regional droughts, undemocratic governments in a one party state, the growing AIDS crisis in Sub Saharan Africa and a bankrupt economy.

The first step to sustainability is economic stability and the position I maintain is that sanctions being imposed on some African nations do little more than destabilize the already fragile economies. Looking at the examples of South Africa and Zimbabwe, we can see that unlike South Africa, the sanctions imposed on Zimbabwe are not causing a change in regime; in fact they are more destructive to the citizenry.   

When the West targeted a Mugabe for removal, the complexity of the country’s history and the legacy that colonialism left in the country seemed to have been ignored. As Zimbabwe moved away from the neo-liberal path dictated by Western financial institutions, Western hostility grew. And in September 2001, the IMF removed Zimbabwe from the list of countries eligible to borrow resources under the Poverty and Growth Facility because the country was $53 million behind in payments. Instead of working with Zimbabwe, as the IMF had elsewhere in similar circumstances, the IMF "urged the Zimbabwean authorities to adopt the economic and financial policies needed to enable Zimbabwe to achieve economic recovery as soon as possible."[2] In other words, the IMF felt nervous at indications that ZANU-PF (the Zimbabwean political party) was abandoning their Economic Structural Adjustment Plans.

In an effort to ‘discipline’ Zimbabwe and force it to return to a neo-liberal economic model, President George W. Bush On December 21, 2001 signed into law S. 494, the "Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act of 2001." The law instructed American officials in international financial institutions to "oppose and vote against any extension by the respective institution of any loan, credit, or guarantee to the government of Zimbabwe," and to vote against any reduction or cancellation of "indebtedness owed by the government of Zimbabwe." The law also authorized President Bush to provide $6 million to fund "an independent and free press and electronic media in Zimbabwe," referring to media opposed to the government of Zimbabwe.[3]

                                              

When these efforts did not make Mugabe grovel, at the Summit of the South African Development Community (SADC) conference in Malawi in January 2002, Great Britain threatened to withhold $18 million in budgetary support from Malawi, the chair of the SADC, unless it agreed to direct the SADC towards the imposition of sanctions against Zimbabwe. Similar threats were made against Mozambique.[4] When again Mugabe did not budge, the European Union in February 2002, voted unanimously to impose sanctions against Zimbabwe. Under terms of the sanctions, The European Union suspended budgetary support to Zimbabwe and terminated "financial support for all projects" except "those in direct support of the population."[5] Four days later, the united Stated followed suit and imposed sanctions against Zimbabwe also.

Foreign currency reserves rapidly diminished and severely restricted the import of fuel, causing manufacturing and mining operations to take a dive. Zimbabwe, which has no natural gas or oil reserves, relied entirely on imported fuel supplies, leaving it vulnerable to economic pressure. Due to the evaporation of foreign trade and the denial of credit, there was a wave of panicked withdrawals from foreign currency accounts at banks, further depleting reserves and Zimbabwe could not even purchase of food to feed its people.

It became very clear that Zimbabwe was facing what Jonathan Moyo referred to as “organized economic terrorism whose aim is clear and is to unseat a legitimately elected government which has decided to defend its national independence and national sovereignty."[6] Due to public scrutiny, the western states relented and offered food aid to Zimbabwe but not unless it allows private firms to purchase and speculate in strategic food commodities. When whole populations are starving to death- that is not the time to play economic “chicken”.

Land reform continues to be a major issue in Zimbabwe which needs to be addresses but you cannot mobilize a hungry people whose only concern is feeding themselves and their family to participate equitably in the country politically, socially and economically.  A hungry man is an angry man and the effects of these sanctions have been unbearable to the already suffering Zimbabwean. The EU/U.S./IMF should assist the Zimbabweans with food, health and especially education programs. Western officials maintain that the worsening economic crisis in Zimbabwe is not their responsibility because its policy of 'smart' sanctions targets government officials and not the country's population.

As of march 2, 2006, Bobby Pittman, the US principal deputy assistant secretary for Africa assured the world that the US is exploring other measures and ‘smarter’ sanctions against Zimbabwe because the sanctions from the past have not had the desired effect and 7 days later, the IMF vowed to uphold the sanctions they placed on Zimbabwe also.

Robert Mugabe may be portrayed as an evil, brutal, dictator that needs to be removed from office however, it is immoral to cause the removal of Mugabe from office by precipitating the collapse of a developing, only recently independent, now famine-ravished African country through “organized economic terrorism”.

---

[1] BBC Country Profile, Zimbabwe. < http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/country_profiles/1064589.stm>

[2] "IMF Declares Zimbabwe Ineligible to Use IMF Resources," IMF press release, September 25, 2001.

[3] Zimbabwe Economic and Recovery Act of 2001, S. 494.
"President Signs Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act," statement by President George W. Bush, December 21, 2001

[4] Innocent Gore, "UK Threatens Malawi," The Herald (Harare), January 14, 2002.

[5] "Council Decision of 18 February 2002 Concluding Consultations with Zimbabwe Under Article 96 of the ACP-EC Partnership Agreement," European Union Official Journal, February 18, 2002.

[6] "Anger Over Zimbabwe Sanctions," CNN, February 19, 2002.