Restrictive Measures and Zimbabwe
The report, from the Institute for Democracy in Africa (IDASA), evaluates the restrictive measures and seeks to determine their relevance in the quest for political and economic reforms, to assess their impact, and to consider the potential consequences of continuing the current scheme, a temporary lift or an unconditional removal of the measures.
Director Ivor Jenkins and Political Analyst Sydney Masamvu from IDASA presented the report's main findings at the seminar "Restrictive Measures and Zimbabwe: Political Implications, Economic Impact and a Way Forward". Their presentation was followed by a discussion between Professor Helge Rønning from the University of Oslo and Ambassador Gunnar Føreland, who recently returned from Zimbabwe.
About the Report
The situation in Zimbabwe has changed since restrictive measures by many Western countries came into effect in the early 2000s. The signing of the Global Political Agreement (GPA) and the formation of the Government of National Unity (GNU) also opened a new chapter, establishing a measure of political and economic stability in Zimbabwe. These initiatives beg the question - what sort of impact have these restrictive measures had in Zimbabwe?
Zimbabwe has been most affected by restrictions imposed by International Financial Institutions (IFIs) and from a marked decrease in Official Development Aid (ODA) entering the country. Additionally, the restrictive measures currently in place have been undermined by the lack of coordination among the West, members of the Southern African Development Community (SADC), particularly South Africa, and the internal Zimbabwean parties. Sanctions busting by other members of the international community, namely China, has further undermined the restrictive measures as an instrument for change in this situation.
Since the signing of the GPA, South Africa has attempted to find a common position with the international community but has consistently stated that sanctions targeted at one half of the GNU engender internal divisions and have complicated problem solving since members of the unity government are subject to different standards.
The international community has three options:
- maintain the status quo,
- completely lift restrictive measures,
- and the calibrated lifting of restrictive measures tied to six benchmarks.
Zanu-PF has successfully framed the restrictive measures debate within the context of Western neo-colonialism and imperialism. Maintaining the status quo would thus do little to encourage further concessions from Zanu-PF or achieve further gains within the GPA. This option is likely to prolong the stalemate between Zanu-PF, the Movement for Democratic Change - Mutambara (MDC-M) and the Movement for Democratic Change - Tsvangirai (MDC-T). Similarly, removing restrictive measures would be premature. Even if restrictive measures are completely lifted, it is unlikely that international donors would embark on significant re-engagement in the country.
The one point on which broad consensus may be possible is the calibrated lifting of restrictive measures tied to six benchmarks: a credible voters’ roll, an independent electoral commission, media freedom, a constitutional reform process, a land audit and security sector reform, all in cooperation with the SADC. Within the SADC, South Africa is the rational choice to head the initiative because of its own experience of political transition, its economic and political weight in Africa and its membership in the SADC, the African Union (AU) and the Commonwealth.
Download the report here:
More information on IDASA - Institute for Democracy in Africa