Should sanctions be imposed on a country that is already reeling under a severe economic and political crisis? Even ‘targeted’ sanctions hurt the economy and will almost certainly end up punishing the very electorate that has voted against Mugabe. Zimbabwe is in the throes of an economic catastrophe, with the world’s highest inflation rate at 1700 per cent, and crushing food shortages. The savings of the elderly have been eviscerated by inflation triggered by the financial sanctions. For instance, a US law called the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act (ZDERA) have, according to Zimbabwean commentators, effectively excluded the country from international financial markets while putting pressure on the country to repay its debts to the Bretton Woods institutions despite severe pressures on the government’s revenues. Critics also blame Mugabe’s policy of expropriating land from white farmers, who used large-scale, commercially viable methods, and giving it to black ones who were inexperienced, inefficient or inadequately funded, beggaring a country that was once the bread basket of Africa.

The international community should stop short of actually imposing sanctions because it will have the counterproductive effect of making Mugabe’s regime stronger, not weaker. As Pape emphasises, the history of sanctions in Cuba, Iran, Iraq and elsewhere shows that coup attempts were fewer during such periods. Sanctions may push the country into a spiral of violence and authoritarian rule. Previous uses of sanctions in Myanmar and North Korea, among others, show that the ruling regime becomes more authoritarian in such circumstances.

... contd.