January 24, 2002	Thursday	Ziqa’ad 9, 1422

BRUSSELS: The “smart sanctions” looming over Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe if he shuns world pressure to ensure fair elections will have to be precisely tailored and meticulously applied in order to work, experts say. Even then, past experience shows that targeted sanctions usually need to be combined with broader measures or be backed up by a readiness among the sanctioning states to use force.

The US is already trying to locate millions of dollars thought to have been deposited abroad by Mugabe and his inner circle in preparation for a possible punitive freeze of his assets. And EU foreign ministers could agree measures including an asset freeze in Brussels on Monday if they decide Mugabe has not done enough to meet their demand for a free and fair presidential election on March 9-10.

Other EU measures could include restrictions on personal travel and air links. The principle of “smart sanctions” is that they concentrate coercive pressure on decision-making elites. Unlike comprehensive sanctions — such as those imposed on Iraq after its invasion of Kuwait in 1990 — they should, in theory, have no impact on poor and vulnerable civilians in the targeted country or on third states.

They are also meant to divert the blame for people’s suffering away from sanctioning countries to their own leaders. However, a NATO official who asked not to be named said that sanctions can be a dictator’s best friend. “It depends whether you have got the right measure and whether you are able to control it,” he said. “Otherwise sanctions have a counter-productive effect.”

He said that in societies where information is not free and open, dictators can blame any bloody incident or economic failure on sanctions, and be readily believed.

Jonathan Stevenson, a research fellow at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, said that smart sanctions against Mugabe were not likely to be very effective. “They won’t force him to give up his ambition of maintaining the security of his regime or bending elections,” he said. “But they may force him to improve conditions on the ground, perhaps conducting elections with less intimidation. But it’s an outside chance.”

Indeed, there is little evidence that smart sanctions on their own successfully persuade rulers to change their ways. Research by international economics experts Gary Hufbauer and Barbara Oegg showed that the success rate of targeted sanctions — in the 20 cases where they were imposed outside of comprehensive embargoes — had been low.

They said in a paper for Law and Policy in International Business that only 25 pe rcent of these cases could be judged partially successful compared with a success rate of 34 per cent for economic sanctions in general.

Financial sanctions targeted at individuals can be problematic because of inadequate monitoring and enforcement, and the avenue that offshore financial centres provide for circumventing restrictions.

Travel bans and visa restrictions are tricky too. Although