Back to Index

Sanctions: In aid of transition or an obstacle to democracy
Ozias Tungwarara, OSISA
June 30, 2011

Download this document
- Acrobat PDF version (932KB)
If you do not have the free Acrobat reader on your computer, download it from the Adobe website by clicking here.

http://www.osisa.org/openspace/zimbabwe/sanctions-debate

There has been a lot of debate about whether the sanctions that were imposed on Zimbabwe and some of its leaders by members of the international community should be retained or removed. Questions have been raised about whether sanctions are a useful and justified way to respond to Zimbabwe's problems and whether, in light of the Global Political Agreement (GPA), they should now be axed.

This article examines the manner in which these debates have influenced the engagement of different actors on the Zimbabwean question and whether the removal or maintenance of sanctions will aid Zimbabwe's democratic transition. The article concludes that, while targeted sanctions in the form of travel bans may have sent a clear message that the flagrant flouting of human rights and other international laws by the Zimbabwean government would not be tolerated, retaining them after the signing of the GPA in 2008 may have provided President Robert Mugabe with an escape route from meeting obligations under the agreement but that removing them now would be counter-productive.

Sanctions and the GPA

The original rationale advanced for imposing sanctions on Zimbabwe is that they would alter the unacceptable behaviour of the government and those that presided over abuses. By limiting access to economic resources for elite members of the regime, sanctions would also limit their capacity to sustain repression against their own people.

A variety of sanctions and punitive measures have been imposed on Zimbabwe, including: the enactment of the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act (ZIDERA) of 2001 by the United States Congress; the suspension of budgetary support previously provided to the government by the European Union (EU); the imposition of visa bans and asset freezes by the US, EU, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia on influential individuals associated with the government and the ruling Zimbabwe African National Union Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF); and, the prohibition of military support and technical assistance that could enhance the government's repressive capacity.

ZIDERA empowers the US to veto Zimbabwe's applications to multilateral lending agencies, such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank (WB) and the African Development Bank (ADB), for finance, credit facilities, loan rescheduling and international debt cancellation. ZIDERA also permits travel bans and asset freezes to be imposed on individuals, who are regarded as being responsible for human rights abuses and undermining the rule of law. The EU initially imposed visa bans and asset freezes officially referred to as 'targeted measures' on almost 200 pro-ZANU-PF individuals, including senior political, military and business figures and even six journalists. Thirty five people were removed from this list in February 2011 but the sanctions on the others as well as a number of companies were extended for another year.

In Article 4, the GPA deals with 'sanctions and measures' imposed by some sections of the international community. The parties all agreed:

• to endorse the Southern African Development Community (SADC) resolution on sanctions concerning Zimbabwe;
• that all forms of measures and sanctions against Zimbabwe be lifted in order to facilitate a sustainable solution to the challenges that are currently facing Zimbabwe; and,
• to commit themselves to working together in re-engaging the international community with a view to bringing to an end the country's international isolation.

SADC and the African Union (AU) have both called for the removal of sanctions and restrictive measures against Zimbabwe in order to give the GPA a chance. The two Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) formations have also been publicly advocating for the removal of sanctions, although there are allegations that in private they prefer that targeted measures be retained in order to reign in ZANU-PF hardliners. Meanwhile, ZANU-PF asserts that sanctions are intended to turn Zimbabwean citizens against the government in order to effect regime change and has taken the position that it will not meet any further GPA obligations until sanctions are lifted. Addressing the ZANU-PF Congress in December 2010, Mugabe urged the promulgation of a law that makes it a treasonable offence to call for sanctions against the country. Currently, there is a ZANU-PF-led campaign to obtain two million signatures on a petition calling for the removal of sanctions.

However, key sanctions countries maintain that the Inclusive Government (IG) '...will have to make significant progress before the lifting of sanctions will be considered' (David Milliband UK's Foreign Secretary 2008). Despite the combined efforts of the parties to the GPA and the removal of some individuals from the EU sanctions' list, countries that imposed the sanctions steadfastly maintain that not enough reforms have been undertaken by the IG to warrant the total removal of sanctions.

Download full document

Please credit www.kubatana.net if you make use of material from this website. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License unless stated otherwise.

TOP