FULLTEXT01.Pdf
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Abstract In the early 2000 the government of Zimbabwe was targeted by sanction and restrictive measures imposed by the United States and the European Union. Sanctions have for decades been used as a method to delegitimize and isolate wrongdoers in order to promote democratic transitioning. Unfortunately, in many cases this foreing policy method has failed to transform authoritarian ruling into democracy as the intentions, purposes and outcomes of sanctions have not been aligned. With a methodological qualitative approach, this study will utilize a case study research design with an semi structured interview approach to investigate the effects of sanctions against the government of Zimbabwe. Does sanctions result in the desired outcome? What consequences are caused by the design of sanctions for third world states? Sanctions have challenged the Government of Zimbabwe’s response to economic crises, unemployment and polarisation of internal politics together with many other outcomes. However, the ZANU-PF leadership have surprisingly gained tremendous support in the south African region in their anti-imperialistic fight against the west. In addition, this study questions and criticizes the imposition of sanctions upon weaker states by wealthy and dominant nations in world politics. To support the argument that sanctions operate in contradiction to their intentions and purposes, a detailed empirical examination and analysis of these four categories will be presented: political effects, economy, internal conflict and policy making. Key words Zimbabwe, ZANU-PF, United States, European Union, sanctions, effect Acknowledgments I would like to dedicate gratitude to my supervisor Elvis Bisong Tambe for his guidance through the process of this study. Furthermore, thank you to all interview participants for their contribution and additional support for this study to succeed. Table Abstract 3 Acknowledgments 3 1. Introduction 3 1.2 Purpose and issue 5 2. Theoretical background and previous research 7 2.1 Sanction 7 2.1.1 Variety of sanctions 9 2.2 U.S Sanctions: background and cause 10 2.3.1 European Union: foreign and security policy 12 2.3.2 EU Sanctions 13 2.4.1 Realism and the theory of sanctions 15 2.4.2 Theory of sanctions 16 2.5 Previous research 17 3. Method 19 3.1 Research Design 19 3.2 Material 21 4. Empirical research/ results 26 4.1 Analytical generalization of the interviews 26 4.1.1 Political Effects 26 4.1.3 Economy 28 4.1.4 Internal Conflicts 30 4.1.5 Policy Making 32 4.2 The international responses to sanctions 33 5. Analysis/Discussion 39 6. Conclusion 46 6.1 The purpose of this study : questions 46 6.2 Further research 49 7. Reference List 50 7.1 Books 50 7.2 Articles 51 7.3 Journal articles 52 7.4 Regulations 54 7.5 Statements 55 1 1. Introduction The country of Zimbabwe has experienced a traumatic two decades economically, politically and socially. Facing economic and humanitarian crisis, political violence, international isolation and mass migrations. This has challenged the response of the government extremely and in the early 2000 a sequence of targeted measures was introduced by the United States and the European Union (EU). The restrictive measures were claimed to have been enforced as a response to human rights violations, ragged elections both during the parliamentary and presidential election in 2000 and 2002. The intentions behind the imposition of sanctions were to provide measures of accountability of the breach of international norms by the ZANU-PF government in Zimbabwe and to bring awareness to the abuses of the Mugabe regime (OFAC 2013. p; 2). Some blame the failure of the state on the sanctions imposed by the U.S and EU, others hold the ZANU-PF government’s mismanagement and corruption responsible. The debate has been going on for a long time and in this thesis sanctions will be studied as a punishment tool of foreign policy and a form of soft power approach. Specifically, I seek to investigate the effect of sanctions imposed on the government of Zimbabwe from 2002 to 2020 by the United State of America and European Union (EU). The term soft power was first used by Joseph P. Nye Jr of Harvard University in his book Bound to Lead: the Changing Nature of American Power in 1990. Nye explains that soft power is a power that comes from a country’s culture, values, policies and institutions that attracts others to want what you have. A contrast to what hard power is, a more aggressive approach and actions involving military, political and economic use to produce a 2 special predicted outcome. Soft power is more about persuasion and the ability to win over people by having an attractive culture and ideology. Although one could argue that sanctions are a part of the hard power approach because of its ability to affect targets politically and financially. The limited ability to act makes sanctions more of a hard measure through a soft power approach (Roberts 2014. p; 246). One can partly argue that the international dominance of the United States of America can be explained through their use of soft power. Their position in the global community stands strong due to the continuance advantages they present. In today's interdependent system and the age of globalization, culture has become a tool of power and a way for nations to improve their strategic position in regions all over the world. But what do we actually mean when speaking of culture as the drive for soft power? It includes political values, lifestyles, traditions, ideologies and it is because of the special characteristics that the U.S has for a long time been a dominant influence in the world (Roberts 2014. p; 247). As the U.S argues for democracy and basic human rights, they have been serving as a global drift and guide for democratic transitions within developing countries. As Samual P. Huntington discusses in his book The Third wave: Democratization in the late Twentieth Century (1999), the pursuance for equality, freedom, standards for prosperity and independence is something many countries look up to and the U.S have gained their power in that way. If a state manages to persuade others to recognize that their way of ruling and power is legitimate, they will receive less opposition when striving for their desires (Ibid: 248). 3 1.2 Purpose and issue Sanctions seek to put pressure on certain states to change unwanted policy or ruling by internationally enforcing economic and political cost until further altercations. The use of this method has increased rapidly by political leaders in recent decades. The intention of sanctions is to target the right wrongdoer, people and entities while causing the general public as little harm as possible. But the undeveloped nature of international punishment and foreign policy tools has sparked the debate if it actually works as wished. The purpose of this study is to investigate in detail the effects of the sanction against the government of Zimbabwe. One desires to give a clear and deep perception of the consequence of international punishment. Together with touching on the considerable skepticism of the persistent use and imposition of sanction thus the little proof of success. With that being said the study aims to answer these questions: What are the effects of sanctions in Zimbabwe? Does sanctions result in the desired outcome? What consequences are caused by the design of sanctions for third world states? In order to answer the research questions the study will be divided in four categories: political effect, economy, internal conflict and policy making. Conflict comes in many shapes and forms and the thesis desires to highlight international punishment methods and maybe even spark further 4 investigation in the premature nature of organized punishment within foreign policy. 2. Theoretical background and previous research 2.1 Sanction Sanctions operate as a reaction to the disapproval of nonconformity with international norms established by the global community. The United Nations (UN) Security Council has the authority to take precautions to maintain or repair international peace and security under the UN Charter Chapter VII. The legality of the imposition of sanctions fall under Article 41, that includes non-armed force enforcement with a wider range of different types of sanctions. The different forms of sanctions is for the variety of different goals to support democratic transitions, deter non-constitutional changes, stop terrorism, protect human rights and promote non-proliferation like the spread of nuclear weapons. According to the UN Security Council, sanctions are the most effective tool to eliminate any threats against international peace and security, international law and national security interest (United Nations 2020). The Security Council constituted a variety of sanction committees working closely with the Panels of Experts. The UN Security Council cooperates with specialized agencies like INTERPOL and establishes agreement like INTERPOL-UN Security Council Special Notice. The cooperation assists the act of accomplishing order like travel bans, asset freeze and targeted arm embargoes for individuals, organisations, companies and states (United Nations 2020). 5 Sanctions can also be enforced by the EU and by individual states. Commonly in the practice of sanctions, the Security Council primarily institutes the sanctions that later gets adopted by the EU in the descriptor of Council determined regulations. The European Union can in certain cases enforce sanctions on their own without the consultation of the United Nations Security Council. Individual states can impose sanctions without the involvement of any international organs. Those types of sanctions are frequently against specific individuals affiliated with terrorism or private business, political leaders and even organisations (Government of Netherland w.p.y). The purpose of sanctions is to reduce the freedom and opportunities of states, organisations or leaders on the collective determination of other states.