Sanctions: Bringing change or chaos?

George Rix questions the usefulness of sanctions as a political tool.

In Zimbabwe, Oxfam's focus is on sustainable livelihoods, health, and helping poor people to have enough food in times of need. “Like slavery and apartheid, poverty is man-made. It can be overcome and eradicated by the action of human beings.”

With the current crisis in Zimbabwe and the failure of Western interventionism in Iraq and Afghanistan, governments are increasingly looking at the imposition of sanctions as a middle way between soft diplomacy and war to bring about regime change in authoritarian regimes.
The idea behind sanctions is simple; by restricting trade with a country you cause its economy to collapse, and thus the people will become unhappy with their government and either overthrow it or force it to change.
The problem is that sanctions are often applied indiscriminately leading to shortages of vital supplies which hit the poor who desperately need them rather than the rich who can afford to smuggle things in from abroad or use the country’s own resources. Indeed there is significant evidence that the application of sanctions leads to totalitarian leaders achieving complete dominance of a country’s economy. Sanctions have already contributed to President Mugabe’s great wealth and helped Saddam Hussein become the 4th richest man in the world before Iraq was occupied by coalition forces.
Some argue for the application of “targeted sanctions,” that selectively affect the rich and powerful authoritarian rulers. Whilst these sanctions have far less impact upon the masses compared to indiscriminate sanctions, there are serious questions over whether they actually harm the rich and powerful who often manage to get luxury goods on the black market. The same goes for sanctions on the sales of arms to unstable countries; sanctions usually lead to a flourishing black market in arms sales, shown by the 1993 sanctions by the U.N against Angola. These failed to halt the civil war that killed an estimated 1.5 million people.
When examples are given of instances where sanctions have worked, South Africa is often cited, it is however difficult to prove that sanctions had any affect. Indeed in South Africa most people argue that it was the strong movement for change from within, led by Nelson Mandela, rather than the introduction of sanctions, that led to the end of apartheid.
In summary, sanctions often harm the very people they are designed to help, cement authoritarian rulers’ control of their country, and are ineffective at helping resolve international problems. Perhaps then we should be thankful that sanctions against Zimbabwe were vetoed in the U.N as they might only have shored up Mugabe’s regime and exaggerated the plight of those in need.