Maravi

(TALKZIMBABWE) Are sanctions the solution?

Are sanctions the solution?
Itayi GARANDE
Thu, 10 Jul 2008 04:30:00 +0000

President Mugabe (above) and 11 of his cabinet members face more sanctions, sanctions that are likely to adversely affect the Zimbabwean population.

ARTICLE 41 of the United Nations Charter mandates the world body to impose economic and other types of non-military measures for maintaining or restoring international peace and security. These measures are binding for all member states and are coercive, but are also viewed as a prior step to military force as provided for in Article 42 of the U.N. Charter.

Only the Security Council is granted by the Charter, a monopoly in deciding whether a threat to peace, a breach of peace or an act of aggression exists. This is the crucial decision which is going to be made, as we understand, this week, in relation to Zimbabwe.

Russia does not think the situation in Zimbabwe poses a threat to international peace, is a breach of peace or an act of aggression. Britain, U.S. and their allies do and they are lobbying Security Council members to vote for sanctions to be imposed on President Robert Mugabe and 11 new members of his inner cabinet. At least that is what we know as of Thursday morning (Wednesday evening).

We also know that in Zimbabwe, Morgan Tsvangirai is playing politics. He waited for the outcome of the G8 Summit to make a decision on whether to engage in talks or not, or to strengthen his position in the talks and boost his confidence. Now he is waiting on the outcome of the Security Council vote on Zimbabwe. He has to present himself as not negotiating with the government of President Mugabe, in case international pressure eases. Pressure is unlikely to ease – it is going at supersonic speed at the moment.

Very few issues in the world have moved so fast to gain a place on the agenda of the G8, of the U.N. and of the U.N. Security Council. The U.S. and U.K. drafted sanctions proposal ‘turned blue’ last night. There’s no turning back. It’s been readied for voting and the heat is on.

“This is the only document that has ‘turned blue’ without serious lobbying – at least in the public arena – by groups within the country affected. Some countries are doing the bidding for and against Zimbabwe,” argues a University of Zimbabwe lecturer who did not want to be named.

U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad gave us a hint on the progress of the draft document. "The resolution went blue last night, so a vote can take place on the resolution at any time now," Khalilzad told reporters on Wednesday. without giving a precise date of voting. "So we are still on track, but it could happen any time," he added.

The U.N. Charter "does not empower the Security Council to interfere into the internal affairs of a state unless the situation there poses a threat to international peace and security," argues Russian Ambassador Vitaly Churkin and his country could veto the sanctions document which seeks to impose an arms embargo on Zimbabwe and freeze the assets of President Mugabe and the 11 extra senior officials and restrict them from travelling abroad. These sanctions will put a stop on any diplomatic or personal trips for President Mugabe and the 11 individuals, but that is just the icing on the cake.

There are other undisclosed clauses in the draft resolution that we do not know, that Russia and critics have branded ‘excessive’.

Britain has responded with a warning to Churkin’s statement especially the part where he says, "There are serious questions in our mind if the situation in Zimbabwe can be characterized as a threat to international peace and security." Sir John Sawers, the British ambassador to the U.N. said it would be ‘unwise’ for Russia to veto the sanctions. But is that warning enough for Russia to change its stance? Will the mixture of pressure and warning be enough to alter the Russian view that the draft resolution is “excessive, in fact incongruous, and clearly in conflict with the notion of sovereignty of a state member of the United Nations so some of these things have to be looked at very carefully”?

Zimbabwe will now join Al Qaeda, Iran, Ivory Coast, Liberia, North Korea and Sudan on the U.N. Security Council sanctions list if the resolution is passed.

Many people have ganged up on South African President, Thabo Mbeki whom they accuse of ‘impartiality’ in the talks. This is a man who would want the situation resolved more than anyone else: there are more illegal Zimbabwean immigrants in South Africa than in any other country and there are concerns over the 2010 World Cup. So he could be the best man to broker an agreement - a negotiated solution. His credentials in brokering conflictual situations speak for themselves. In April 2005, President Mbeki brokered a peace agreement in Ivory Coast - a bitter and protracted conflict.

In all cases where sanctions have been imposed only two possible scenarios have helped end the crises: negotiation or military force. In Ivory Coast negotiation helped, but in Iraq, the Allies had to use force. Sanctions regimes have been counter-productive in some instances, only managing to strengthen the resolve of the governments targeted by them and made peaceful resolution of crises more difficult.

Sanctions also alter the internal dialogue dynamics as groups find it difficult to go to the negotiating table. Sanctions also impact on the living conditions of the general population, who are meant to be protected by the same sanctions. The top brass is very slightly affected. But the disturbing trend in multilateral relations is that sanctions take precedence over human rights. The need to change a government outweighs the desire to protect citizens – a very disturbing reality. So sanctions are not ethical, by their own definition. Sanctions don’t care about human rights.

In fact human rights are disregarded because they are not the reason for imposing the sanctions in the first place, and are not considered in measuring the impact of the sanctions, i.e. the chances of survival of affected people surviving under the sanctions are disregarded.

Under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter, peace assumes priority over human rights, but ironically sanctions have never brought peace. So, by their very nature, sanctions neither bring peace nor protect human rights. Yet oftentimes the Security Council has tried to draw a connection (correlation) between human rights and the sanctions policy, viewing systematic human rights violations as threats to international peace.

One thing is clear then as powerful countries push for sanctions against Zimbabwe this week. They are not likely to change the manner in which Harare thinks, nor will they guarantee political progress in the country. Only negotiations, altruistic negotiations that address internal questions, will bring peace to Zimbabwe. The hearts and minds of the Zimbabwean people, and Zimbabwean leadership, will not be altered by sanctions. Sanctions are likely to polarise conflicting groups in Zimbabwe even further.

itayi@talkzimbabwe.com

Labels: RUSSIA, SANCTIONS, UN

posted by MrK @ 4:52 PM