Subscribe to my Feed
« Burtynsky’s Photos Prove It: Businesses Must Protect the Earth | Home | Business ethics start at the top »
How will the next President interact with Zimbabwe?
By Lauren | June 27, 2008
In honor of the 90th birthday of civil rights giant Nelson Mandela, I want to devote this post to an ethical dilemma facing the next U.S. President in future diplomatic relations with Zimbabwe.
Tomorrow, Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe is expected to be reelected in a “run-off” election that world governments are decrying as an outright sham. Mugabe’s opponent has dropped out of the election in an effort to protect his followers from physical harm, and he has a point. Particularly in rural areas, Mugabe’s supporters have been chasing, capturing and severely beating their fellow citizens until they “decide” to vote for Mugabe. It’s hard to imagine a much more blatant violation of civil rights and fundamental principles of democracy.
And Mugabe appears to be serenely unconcerned that he’ll retain power as the result not of an honest election, but of outright violence against the people he claims to lead. While Mugabe has offered vague assurances that he’ll meet with the opposition sometime after the “election” has been completed, he’s rejected all urgings to cancel or reschedule tomorrow’s charade and shows little inclination to bring his more vicious supporters to heel. Expressions of international disapproval appear to have little or no effect on Mugabe; even having his honorary British knighthood revoked by Queen Elizabeth seemingly made no impact.
Assuming Mugabe is able to hang onto his “victory” tomorrow, the next U.S. President will have to decide what diplomatic strategy to pursue in dealing with his government. Economic sanctions or withholding financial assistance might seem like a fitting punishment for Mugabe’s abuse of the electoral process, but such sanctions are most likely to punish not Mugabe and his supporters, but the Zimbabwean citizens who were literally forced to vote for him. Would it be ethical for the next President to condemn Mugabe with words, but not put America’s economic muscle behind its stated policies? Then again, would it be ethical to impose the hardship of economic sanctions on the citizens of Zimbabwe, who are already suffering under Mugabe’s tyrannical rule?
What is your Presidential candidate’s position on the Zimbabwean elections? How does he plan to address the ethical dilemma presented by Mugabe’s behavior, and are you okay with that? You decide.
Topics: Presidential Campaign, Social Ethics |
June 28th, 2008 at 11:16 am
Lauren,
With respect, I cannot agree that sanctions necessarily hurt citizens more than corrupt governments. Well designed and effectively targeted strategies should not do this.
Indeed, well designed sanctions can be designed in such a way as to punish corrupt governments without causing undue harm to citizens. One good example is the ban on importation of luxury goods which was placed in North Korea.
In response to the nuclear test which North Korea conducted in 2006, the United Nations imposed a range of sanctions against the country. Under one of those sanctions, imports of luxury goods were not allowed into the country.
This restriction had virtually no impact upon the starving ordinary citizens. They could not afford such goods anyway.
However, the restriction had a direct impact, both personally and politically, upon president Kim Jong Il, who himself is a lavish consumer of such goods, and who uses such goods to reward lietenants for their loyalty.
If they are targeted effectively, sanctions can hurt corrupt leaders without causing undue harm upon ordinary people.
With regard to action from the United States, I do not believe unilateral action from one country is the best approach. Ideally, what should happen is that the United Nations, as the true representative of the international community, should sit down and agree on a unified approach.
Effectively targeted sanctions should form part of this approach, as could the act of sending a UN peacekeeping force, at least on a temporary basis, to protect opposition supporters.
Cheers
Andrew
July 1st, 2008 at 3:57 pm
Hi Andrew,
Actually, I think we’re more in agreement than not. If sanctions are well designed and carefully implemented, I would agree that they can punish corrupt leaders without harming the citizens of their countries, especially if the corrupt leaders refrain from harming their citizens in retaliation for international sanctions.
My point is simply this: there are ethical implications to the imposition of sanctions that the next President will need to take into account. That hasn’t always been done well in the past, but I would hope the next President will do better.
Lauren
July 1st, 2008 at 9:26 pm
Hi Lauren,
I do agree that sanctions must take into account the impact on citizens as well as their leaders.
In Zimbabwe’s case, I think the sanctions under consideration (arms embargos, travel bans on perpetrators of the violence)sound quite sensible and will not cause undue harm to Zimbabweans.
I love your point about corrupt leaders harming their citizens in retaliation for international sanctions. Isn’t it awful that some leaders use their own people as a shield against international sanctions.
Also, I realize my comment above may have sounded slightly offensive to Americans (no offense was intented). I did not mean to say that America itself should not take action against Zimbabwe. All I meant was that an international approach was the best way to handle the problem.
Cheers
Andrew
July 17th, 2008 at 8:08 am
[...] presents How will the next President interact with Zimbabwe? posted at The Business Ethics Blog, saying, “A sham of a presidency is about to occur as [...]