China and Russia seldom do the right thing at the United Nations, but on
Friday they vetoed an economic war on Zimbabwe. They are also balking a
similar war on Iran. Whatever their motives, they are right. Sanctions are
an ineffective, or worse a counterproductive, weapon of interstate
aggression.
The foreign secretary, David Miliband, yesterday called the veto a “severe
blow . . . to timely and decisive security council action”. Sanctions are
never timely or decisive. They are a political demonstration. While the
decision will be greeted with glee by Robert Mugabe, Britain’s UN
ambassador, John Sawers, should never have proposed them as offering the
Zimbabwean people “an end in sight to their miseries”. They offer no such
thing.
Unlike war, which is violence aimed at conquering and replacing a regime,
merely engineering a shift in terms of trade is play-acting. As a gesture of
soft power, sanctions were first imposed on Italy during the Abyssinian
crisis of 1935 and did not work. Yet their appeal is undiminished. Macho in
rhetoric yet painless to the imposing nation, they replace guns and bombs
with trade returns and computers.
History offers one generalisation: that sanctions add longevity to anyone on
whom the West imposes them.The most sanctioned leaders of the past
half-century have been Fidel Castro, Colonel Gadaffi, Saddam Hussein,
Aya-tollah Khomeini, the Taliban, the Burmese generals and the rulers of
North Korea. None was brought down by them. Where intervention was
effective, as in the Falklands, Haiti, Afghanistan, Serbia and Iraq, it
required force.
Nothing is more arrogant than a powerful nation’s belief in the efficacy of
all it does. If a sanction is imposed and does not achieve its goal, it was
not tough enough. If the goal does occur, then its sanctions must have been
the cause. Such is the West’s omnipotence that lesser states must always be
dancing to its tune. Whenever there is trouble in the world, said Kipling,
“An’ then comes up the Regiment an’ pokes the ’eathen out” – even if the
regiment is nowadays a trade regulator.
Students of sanctions remain mystified by their appeal. They are near
impossible to make leak-proof and just establish more costly and corrupt
conduits of trade. Kofi Annan of the UN calls them a “blunt and even
counterproductive instrument”.
The most detailed examination, by Richard Haass of the Brookings Institution
for Congress in 1999, concluded that they were so blunt as “often to produce
unintentional and undesirable consequences”, such as strengthening the
regime they were supposed to be undermining. Free trade economies are by
their nature open and thus susceptible to pressure. Besieged ones are
authoritarian and closed against pressure.
This has not stopped South Africa being constantly cited as a prize exhibit of
the sanctions lobby. Through the 1980s that country experienced
comprehensive (although not leak-proof) embargoes on trade and finance. This
was indeed followed by regime change, albeit some 10 years later. Those
involved in impos-omy. Financial sanctions and, later, disinvestment
complicated credit lines, but the central bank behaved responsibly in
controlling money supply, unlike Zimbabwe’s. Ownership of foreign food,
retail and car manufacturing shifted into Afrikaner hands. Profit was no
longer exported to America and Europe.
Studying sanctions at the time, I concluded that they helped to prolong the
white regime by as much as a decade, shifting power from more liberal to
less liberal groups. Sanctions did not weaken the regime.
Ostracism hurt the pockets and the pride of many cosmopolitan South Africans –
the sort westerners meet – but they did not hurt half as much as socialism
hurt the rest of Africa. South Africa under sanctions was not poor in
African terms. Its leaders decided in 1989-90 to transfer power peacefully
to blacks, largely because they thought it was safe to do so. A body of
white opinion found apartheid intellectually and morally unsupportable.
In so far as South Africa felt under pressure it was not economic but
military. As long as Nel-son Mandela was in prison he was a catalyst for
terrorism, as was the presence of hostile regimes along the northern border.
Sanctions “worked” only for those outside the country, such as America’s
Jesse Jackson, determined to cast themselves as agents and heroes of change.
They were as patronising as they were wrong.
Sanctions may not make a country wealthy in the longer term, but they can make
a regime more secure in the short one. They also enrich its ruling elite.
Sanctions made Saddam the sixth richest man in the world and Serbia’s
Milosevic the king of a mafia organisation. They are pouring money into the
pockets of the cronies of Mugabe, Mahmoud Ahma-dinejad and the Burmese
generals.
The recent drift from general sanctions into “smart” ones is a measure of
their futility. But smart sanctions are no less absurd. In South Africa the
exclusion from Test matches did not lead Afrikaners to vote for progressive
MPs. The idea that Mugabe might decide to stand down because his wife cannot
shop at Harrods is like imagining the Iranian mullahs crying over their
exclusion from the Rue St-Honoré.
The threat of economic siege drives a nation towards state power, as does the
threat of terrorism in the West. It makes governments behave more not less
repressively and the populace become more not less dependent on it. The
middle-class customary reservoir of opposition to dictatorship is
debilitated and driven into exile, as happened in Iran and Iraq.
That impoverishing the poor and inconven-iencing the rich somehow leads to
bloody revolution must be the most brainless concept ever to pollute
international relations. People rarely rise up and topple governments and if
they do it is at the point of a gun, usually their own. Violence works.
Economics does not.
The appeal of sanctions is that they are a quick answer to public opinion
demanding that “something must be done”, something that does not mean body
bags. They are war by other means, bloodcurdling but not bloodthirsty. But
they are cowards’ war because those they hurt, usually the poor, are also
defenceless. Zimbabwe’s sanctions are inducing its regime to ensure that
only its supporters have food. That may make our Foreign Office feel better
but what good does it do?
The last desperate cry of the sanctions lobby is: if not sanctions, what? It
is as if any gesture were better than none. The truth is that if you want to
overthrow a regime you should do it, as the Victorians did. If not, stop
pretending.
In 1925, after the great war, the international community outlawed chemical
weapons as repellent even in total war. The agreement was remarkably
successful, at least until Saddam’s day. So too was a similar revulsion
against nuclear weapons after Hiroshima. There is honour even among
warmongers.
Perhaps one day economic sanctions, a weapon of international conflict that
uniquely attacks civilians, might also be removed from the arsenal.
thank you for intelligent view
i live in Myanmar the 'Axis of Evil' that is punished for years with sanctions which left the people poor and the top rulers very very rich BECAUSE, due to sanctions they and friends and families own all businesses, no strong competition.
san san, Mandalay, Myanmar
This a good, interesting article. Impartial point of view. Thank you, mr. Jenkins.
And all, who not agree with decision of Russia and China, recommend for begin acquaint with Charter of the United Nations (www.un.org). Item 2 point 7.
Dmitriy, Ekaterinburg, Russia
Certainly sanctions do often strengthen the rulers at the expense of the poor. But on the tenth anniversary of the ending of apartheid,. F.W. de Klerk defended his decision to bring about multi-racial democracy by saying that if he had not there would have been mass unemployment due to sanctions
Norman Moss, London,
America name should be changed to US of Sanction. American's are so quick to impose sanction on the country those does not follow American agenda or their policy, and a person as a terrorist.
Munna , London, UK
Anyone that lives here or is still connected with people here knows that sanctions are useless. The top guys are not going to give up power because they can't go to the West. Sanctions would just cause more pain here.
R Breese, Harare, Zimbabwe
their reasoning is of the there- but for- the grace -of - God - go - I variety.
expecting morality from irreligious countries is pointless
peter c, devizes, wessex
The Atlantic Charter presumed a post Second World War international settlement based on democracy. The United Nations was supposed to be its child. The non democratic nations were only prepared to join in on the basis of the Security Council veto.
The Zim vetoes followed. " Birds of a feather ..."
Stephen Green, Correns, France
Its about time someone says what need to be said about sanctions, bravo Simon Jenkins. As for providing an alternative, it doe exist, its called diplomacy, its not as satasifying or boost the ego of the imposer, but it works. Instead of "if you don't then starve", its "if you do, then reward".
John, Ottawa, Canada
Ian Bremmer had this discussion here in 2006 in an article entitled, "If we isolate Kim, he'll get stronger". The Times doesn't have too good a handle on keeping files available, so the search is up to the individual. Now that the U.S. is trading with Kim - what about Cuba? Ignorance is bliss.
CSE, Tampa, USA
Don't you see all the labour MPs are heading for Scotland to save the by-election? Our foreign policy is simple and clear: Brown needs something external to completely divert public's attention, a war or quasi-war. Zim is a nice target because it is so weak that victory is nearly guranteed.
Dr. Wang, Mayfair, London, UK
China and Russia vetoed the resolution, not because sanctions are ineffective, but because they opposed any kind of intervention in Zimbabwe. That's the worry. If Zimbabwe starts ethnic cleansing and a new resolution for military intervention is proposed, they will similarly veto it.
Charan Muzaya, London, UK
Mugabe = Big Daddy. The UK could just "let go" of any moral ownership for this one, and simply decide to support whatever the African assembly and EU comes up with. The UK role in the non-Euro world is now modest. Accept it and focus on the really pressing domestic issues.
Dennis, Sydney, Australia
Roger Ndaba....based on Mbeki's, the AU's and SADC's performaces to date, no, sorry, I don't trust African Politicians to get it right! I trust the people of Zimbabwe to elect a suitable leader - they did so - but I don't trust the rest of Africa to make sure their wishes are respected.
David Ashton, Bathurst , Australia
I think the most damning statement out of Zimbabwe said that the west are unhappy only because they are used to buying African leaders.............ouch!
Ken Wyatt, Todmorden, UK
This article is but part of the great British obsession with Mugabe.
He has won, get on with it.
That is Africa.
The British are beginning to look stupid now and it would be better to shut up.
Pity about the whites who we abandoned years ago. The Kenyan asians had a better deal.
john, woodbridge,
Simon in the end it was lack of foreign capital that made apartheid capitulate - SA was bankrupt. Zimbabwe is land-locked - cut off fuel (as Vorster threatened Smith) and Mugabe's lot is out.
haralambos, joburg,
Sanctions are indeed a pious and ineffective excuse.Iraqi deaths from the UN oil for food sanctions between 150k and 1.1 million.Iraqi deaths from liberation between 150k and 1.1 million.The truth is that if you want to overthrow a regime you should do it like the US, no need for Victorians, or UN!
Mike, Newmarket, UK
I must admit that when China and Russia voted no to sanctions, I thought they might have a point. This vile, egomaniac would respond much more to hitting his ego and selective sanctions eg arms and luxury goods - don't let him or his cronies land anywhere outside of Africa, humiliate and mock him.
sk, East Sussex, England
Sanctions are a form of siege extracted at the base of the kingdom. At best, it reduces the society to the bestial. It is a medieval tool used by those who wish they would be king. It is not consistent with the actions of democratic societies.
Bill Keller, BASKING RIDGE, USA
this article isn't to pose a solution, but rather show the public that sanctions are ineffective. I am a Zim and dictators do not step aside. They need to be removed. So there is a solution. Evil triumphs when good men fail to act. The world is not acting, it is pretending to. Good article Simon.
Keagan Chisnall, Townsville, Australia
Nations can trade, or not trade, with whoever they like. They can also admit, or not admit, any persons they like. Calling these actions cowardly is nonsense. If you can't stand someone at work, is it "cowardly" for you to avoid them as much as possible rather than assaulting them on sight?
Jim Connors, Durham,
Here's a novel solution; the majority of exports from Zimbabwe are not important as they were in the cold war, and apart from colonial ties there are no other reasons to be involved. Why not just leave it? We do this with the majority of other regimes, we cant afford military action, just walk away.
Stephen Green, Telford, UK
I'm with you John C Calhoun of Edinburgh and Qed of Geneva.
Its a wonderful luxury to be free to offer criticism (and be paid for it) without any responsibility to come up with a solution! Sir Simon is a serial offender.
Murf Oscar, Sydney, Australia
Tö respond to one of the posters who asked the question of our objectives in Zimbawe, they are quite simple. Gordon Brown needs a war. He needs one very badly to keep him and his mates in power. Wars make voters conservative (TB and GWB knew that) and deflect their attention. Mugabe and GB - same!
Sir Bruny Kingsley-Brutch, Bt, Idaho, USA
The false question is: should we impose sanctions?
The real question is: what is our objective in Zimbabwe?
Does anyone know what this is? Until we have a clear foreign policy objective, all other questions are pointless and self-indulgent.
Arthur, London,
Who in their right mind believes the problems in Zim can be attributed and isolated to Mugabe and 13 of his "henchmen".How simplistic. The fight for Zim is for us Zimbabweans. Its a slow evolution but we must be left to determine our own destiny. Or can we not be trusted as Africans to get it right
Roger Ndaba , St Albans,
Typical Jenkins piece - thoughtful analysis plus castigation of hapless politicians - but no alternative policies or solutions suggested. Come on Simon ! How would you solve the Zimbabwe crisis ?
John C Calhoun, Edinburgh, UK
After 10 years of a no fly zone over iraq, getting shot at while Europe makes millions in oil for food contract kickbacks we thought the same thing. All the while Saddam built guilded palaces and filled mass graves. The same UN/Europe then slandered us for taking acting saying we wanted the oil.
William, Atlanta, USA
Now I do see that proposed sanctions look like pre-war preparatory measures and aimed to weaken leaders of Zimbabwe. Travel ban in particular wont allow such a positive initiative as conversation of two opposed parties at some other countries' territory under UN supervision, that'll clarify things.
Alexey L.N, Novosibirsk, Russia
Well said, Simon. It'll be insane for major powers to fight a nuclear war, which is manifested through quasi-wars. Resource & dictator-rich Africa offers numerous motives & excuses for all. Anglo-Saxon won't give up sanction, since it's their patented WMD, even though it's invented in ancient China.
Dr. Wang, Mayfair, London, UK
The heart of the problem is that the West has double-standard, where ethic or moral obligation is concerned. The interventions in Falklands, Haiti, Afghanistan, Serbia and Iraq are due to wrong national pride, securing energy flow and false war on terrorism and not out of moral concern.
Sai Wansai, Uetersen, Germany
Limm, Johor Bahru, Malaysia
In reply. The MDC are the winners of an election. To arm them is not akin to arming terrorists. It is simply allowing defenceless people the chance to defend themselves against a brutal tyrant. China is openly selling arms to Mugabe and they ARE arming terrorists.
J Nowland, Leeds, United Kingdom
I lived in Rhodesia and yes, sanctions don't work. They actually made Rhodesia stronger and more self-sufficient. Nevertheless I'd support the UN resolution. Why? TARGETED sanctions hurt the government. They cannot hurt the people much because Mugabe hurts them far more by "sanctioning" food.
David Ashton, Bathurst , Australia
Gosh - Simon Jenkins - you have all the finger wagging and none of the solutions here Just what do you suggest would hurt Mugabe and his 14 gangster friends? For the life of me I can only see what you suggest should not be done. Easy - we can all do that. Find an answer!
Qed, Geneva, Switzerland
So what are your ideas for removing Mugabe? Or are you just making a noise about sanctions?
J Collins, Harare, Zimbabwe
Well said Sir Simon Jenkins:
"The truth is that if you want to overthrow a regime you should do it, as the Victorians did. If not, stop pretending. "
Richard Bruce, Cape Town, SA
I've never considered sanctions to be effective and I'm glad Simon agrees. However, I felt the same about sanctions against the Apartheid government of South Africa. I'll lay money on the belief that he didn't!
Tam Earl-Aine, Cheltenham,
Jenkins said a few months ago that the UK should run away from the Taliban because they can't be beat. He says now that sanctions should not be applied. No hard power. No soft power.
Surrender, seems all that is left. Or begging.
Jim, Oakland, USA
Stop talking of sanctions against Zimbabwe. Stopping criminals from travelling globally and not giving them access to their ill gotten assets cannot be bad. Mugabe craves legitimacy. He needs his luxury. If you kill and starve people, send out thugs to rape and torture, surely action is called for.
Alasdair , Malvern, uk,
One thing you wrote that is a sadly a fact today, being Coward has become politically-correct manner. From very top, who are suppose to protect the country. Instead of standing up and challenging their mortal enemies they lay down in front of them using politically correct language of the cowards.
John, Atlanta, GA, USA
Sounds strange that you include Falklands in your list and put at the same level than Afghanistan.
Pablo, Buenos Aires, Argentina
Whatever you think of the Iraq War, Saddam would have been 5X more dangerous if he was able to buy weapons on the world market. Serbia in 99' was badly weakened by sanctions before the Kosovo War. You'd be burying a lot more Brit soldiers if it wasn't for sanctions.
Steve , San Jose, USA
A Simon Jenkins article is always worth reading. Convincing and reflects both sides of the coin.
130708
Lim, Johor Bahru, Malaysia
J Nowland, Leeds, United Kingdom
Going by your logic you would not mind if someone arms the terrorists/opposition/rebels/etc to try and topple the British Government. Are there no discontentment in Britain?
Anyway I believe the West has done this type of clandestine stuff before.
130708
Lim, Johor Bahru, Malaysia
wrong, wrong,wrong.
china wants US/EU to impose unilateral sanctions on Zim. if Sudanese president were to be indicted, chinese would the first to celebrate. why? because these countries will have no choice but to come to china (the pawn shop of world) to work out some trade deals. Pawn shop owner usually gets a better price.
jack, new york,
Your point about the motive and efficacy of economic sanctions is valid, however the UN proposal was not for economic sanctions on Zimbabwe, but for the isolation and refusal to arm the military junta which now rules it. Sad you agree they should have the guns and money to continue the brutality.
Thandi, Edinburgh,
Sanctions... one step up from hand wringing and about as effective when dealing with a dictatorship!
Alan, Luton,
Simon Jenkins has again come up with another brainier. His article shows that history is replete with the ineffectiveness of sanctions. They only ‘enrich’ the regime they are meant to ‘undermine’ and ‘impoverish’ those whose miseries they intend to alleviate.
Sanctions are not a panacea for a disorder of any kind. They are in all a trade opportunity for sanction-busters like the “oil for food” rogues.
Oladeji N. Gabisi, Hamilton, Bermuda
Bravo! At least someone recognizes the cowardly nature of the world's political leaders. Remember the collective hand wringing over the futile sanctions against Saddam Hussein until the Yanks took action?
The reality is that the world does not give a damn as long as THEY remain safe and cozy.
Bob Evans, Anaheim, California
Why do we not one way or another arm the MDC and let them fight for their country. A one way civil war is already raging and will only get worse. If China arms Mugabe we, ( The West ), should arm the MDC. Sanctions would be more effective against South Africa. Then they would remove Mugabe quickly.
J Nowland, Leeds, United Kingdom
"Perhaps one day economic sanctions, a weapon of international conflict that uniquely attacks civilians, might also be removed from the arsenal"
Spot on Mr Jenkins. Sanctions should be classed as a terroristic technique used by the so called "civilised" west. It's a legal of killing civilians.
jayil, london, uk
You are absolutely right Simon. But you needed to end the article by referring back to your first sentence. Having done the right thing - vetoing sanctions - perhaps the Chinese and Russians might continue their good deeds by leading military intervention in Zimbabwe and removing Mugabe!? Chances?
M G Graham, Auckland, NZ
It seems that Mugabe was alright even when he killed over 20,000 of his own people during the Matabeleland uprising.During that time he qualified for honorary degrees from prestigious western universities.
He only became a monster when he "maltreated" white people.
Talk of hypocrisy, it stinks
K.Mate, Accra, Ghana
What an utterly sane and logical argument.
As one who lived through the anti-South African sanctions era, despite all the rhetoric and posturing, there was never a single day when I couldn't buy all the Coca Cola, Kodak film, IBM computers etc that my heart desired.
Sanctions don't work.
Donna, Cape Town, South Africa
Don't talk 'saft' Simon, as we say here in the Black Country !!!! Of course sanctions are the right approach to curbing Mugabe. Either that or an outright invasion !!!!!
Ian Payne, walsall,
An impressive, insightful analysis. Very convincing.
William R. Bauer, New York, USA
cannot agree more.
Siu Tung, Heidelberg, Germany
Sanctions impact civilians - but are you against the simple sanction of not selling Mugabe guns and ammunition?
Ken McCormack, Sydney, Australia
I don't know whether Mr. David Miliband has read the UN Charter. If no, please google and read it and then you know you are wrong. If the Charter disatisfies UK, you can get out of the UN. But, if you are a member state, OBEY it.
Ran, York, UK
Simon Jenkins for Prime Minister! I've never understood the morality of sanctions. In the case of Zimbabwe they're designed for no other purpose than to punish the poor black people. It's no longer about helping Zimbabwe, it's now mugabe vs "the west" while the poor suffer. I hate politics.
Roger Ndaba , St Albans,