Guy Lamb, Head, Arms Management Programme, ISS Tshwane (Pretoria)

Last week the UN Security Council decided not to impose sanctions on Zimbabwe, including an arms embargo. In the build-up to this decision, the United States (US), with the support of France and the United Kingdom (all three permanent members of the Security Council) actively lobbied for the imposition of a full suite of sanctions. By Friday, these three states had gained the support of a number of non-permanent members, including Burkina Faso. However, China and Russia, the other permanent members of the Security Council, were opposed to such measures and vetoed the adoption of sanctions against Zimbabwe. South Africa, Angola and Tanzania, which are both part of the Southern African Development Community (SADC) and are non-permanent members of the Security Council, also opposed such action.

Initially there had been speculation within the UN that China and Russia would abstain from voting on the sanctions issue and that the sanctions would come into force. The ‘double-veto’ took a number of arms control specialists by surprise, and many are now concerned that that this rather rare occurrence is an indication that further discussion on sanctions against Zimbabwe is unlikely to take place within the Security Council, unless there is a serious outbreak of violence in Zimbabwe.

Russia, China and South Africa have been heavily criticised for their position. However, the assertive manner in which the US approached the matter raised some eyebrows and has appeared to have offended key members of the Security Council. For example, during the Security Council deliberations on Friday, the Russian representative stated: “In ignoring the voices of the sceptical and those who disagree with them, the sponsors [of the draft resolution] unfortunately squandered a genuine opportunity to coordinate a Council response to events in Zimbabwe that would truly have promoted the success of the political dialogue”.

Given this state of affairs, it is important for other regional organisations, especially the African Union (AU), the European Union (EU), the Organisation of American States (OAS) and SADC, to consider the sanctions option (especially an arms embargo) against Zimbabwe. There are seven compelling reasons to impose such an arms embargo.

Reason 1: A threat to regional peace and security

 An arms embargo is an instrument of coercive diplomacy that seeks to prevent the transfer of arms and military-related material to a specific state or armed group. They are typically against states or rebel groups that pose a significant threat to regional or international peace and security.

According to media reports, Zimbabwe’s permanent mission to the UN sent a letter to the UN Security Council last week. The letter allegedly stated that Zimbabwe is “not at war with itself and poses no threat to its neighbours or any other country”. However, the letter accused the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) of “premeditation, planning, stage management and exaggeration of this violence”, and suggested that sanctions imposed against Zimbabwe could result in civil war.

From March 2008, incidents of violence, torture and human rights abuses in Zimbabwe have increased dramatically. There have also been allegations that militias aligned to the ZANU-PF government have kidnapped MDC Members of Parliament. A 10 July 2008 report by the reputable Human Sciences Research Council (South Africa) has suggested that civil war in Zimbabwe is imminent. For the past eight years, there has been a significant movement of Zimbabweans into neighbouring countries in an attempt to escape the economic and political troubles of their home country. The flow of people has arguably been a contributing factor to the recent spate of xenophobic violence in South Africa. Given this state of affairs, it can be argued that there are compelling reasons to impose an arms embargo against Zimbabwe.

An arms embargo provides an acknowledgement by the UN and its Member States that the current actions by the ZANU-PF government pose a threat to regional peace and security.

 Reason 2: Restriction of the flow of arms to Zimbabwe

Arms embargoes are based on the assumption that the transfer of arms and military-related material into sub-regions or countries characterised by high levels of political tension, aggression and violence will have a destabilising effect.

An arms embargo has the potential to restrict the flow of arms, ammunition and military equipment to the government of Zimbabwe, which as indicated above, has been widely accused of human rights abuses and violence against its own people. In addition, if there is some credence in the Zimbabwean government’s allegation against the MDC that it has been planning to orchestrate violence in Zimbabwe, then an arms embargo will restrict these elements from acquiring arms.

Since 1992, more than 15 UN arms embargoes have been imposed against African states and/or rebel groups. There has been much criticism about the effectiveness and impact of these embargoes. Critics have claimed that an arms embargo leads to the establishment of a black market in arms, and as a result states and arms brokers often intentionally violate the embargo with profit in mind. In addition, where certain states are allied to a particular embargoed state or rebel group, the arms embargo is often ignored by the states in question. Nonetheless, a number of studies on sanctions indicate that arms embargoes make it more difficult for those states and rebel groups under such an embargo to acquire arms and ammunition.

 Reason 3: Reduction in human rights abuses

An arms embargo could possibly reduce the incidents of human rights abuses, politically motivated murders and the intensity of the violence in Zimbabwe.

Reason 4: Message of disapproval

In essence, an arms embargo is designed to be short-term measure that signifies condemnation of the actions of a specific state or armed group, as well as exerts coercive pressure on that country or armed group. An arms embargo sends a clear message of international disapproval of the recent anti-democratic and violent developments in Zimbabwe.

 Reason 5: Indication of political will

An arms embargo indicates that the international community has the political will to take punitive action against the ZANU-PF government.

Reason 6: Complementary to the mediation process

Contrary to statements by the South African government, an arms embargo has the potential to make a positive contribution to the current SADC mediation process in Zimbabwe. The ZANU-PF government has failed to adhere to a number of commitments it has made during the mediation process. An arms embargo can be used to pressurise the Zimbabwean government to negotiate in good faith on a more consistent basis.

Reason 7: Economic impact

Zimbabwe is currently experiencing the highest rate of national inflation in the world. Food and essential supplies are in short supply, and as a result the Zimbabwe government can ill afford to purchase arms under these circumstances. An arms embargo would limit the possibilities of arms purchases for Zimbabwe.

Guy has served on the UN Panel of Experts that monitors the enforcement of UN Security Council Sanctions against Liberia. He is currently in New York attending the Biennial Meeting of States on the UN Programme of Action on small arms.