30 June 2008: Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe has claimed victory in the runoff election held last week and has now been sworn into office for a new five-year term, in spite of international condemnation.

The result of this campaign was never in doubt as the leader of the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), Morgan Tsvangirai, who won the March election, pulled out of the poll, citing widespread violence and intimidation.

This drive by Mugabe and his Zanu-PF supporters claimed the lives of 86 MDC followers and forced 200,000 from their homes—though the Zanu-PF denies any involvement in these attacks. Tsvangirai has sought refuge in the Danish embassy on more than one occasion out of concerns for his safety. There were even reports of opposition supporters wearing Mugabe t-shirts to avoid attacks against them.

Not leaving anything to chance, voters were made to enter polling stations in groups of five or 10 to ensure dissenters could be monitored, according to reports. Ballots had serial numbers on them so that votes could be tracked. Veteran reporter, John Simpson, declared this intimidation “worse than anything I personally have seen around the world in 40 years of reporting.”

International leaders were quick to denounce the vote. Foreign ministers from the Group of Eight condemned the vote as a “sham,” and Prime Minister Gordon Brown has called for African leaders to reject the vote. A gaggle of celebrities and NGOs made public statements against Mugabe in an effort to rouse public support for the opposition.

Some had hoped that denunciations would have been enough. Christopher Hitchens goaded Nelson Mandela, labeling him “complicit in the pillage and murder of an entire nation” because of his silence. Mandela has now spoken out, lambasting Harare’s “tragic failure of leadership.” Similarly, Archbishop Desmond Tutu has called for a United Nations peacekeeping force to steam the violence. But words are not going to be enough it seems—even if they are to come from Africa’s most revered leaders.

This has led some western leaders to call for sanctions against Mugabe and his ilk. The UK and the U.S. are stepping up plans to increase political and economic pressure on Mugabe. President George W. Bush is pressing ahead with new U.S. sanctions “against this illegitimate government of Zimbabwe and those who support it.” Washington also plans strong action at the United Nations, including an arms embargo and travel ban on regime officials.

These sanctions are being implemented as punishment for “[undermining] democratic institutions and processes in Zimbabwe.” But what is their aim? Mugabe has proven his contempt for the opposition and democracy, instead choosing to let the country slip into disrepair as his rule has continued. More punishment will not persuade him otherwise.

Furthermore, what is there to punish? The former “breadbasket of Africa” has been gutted by Mugabe’s own economic policies and is crippled by rampant inflation and unemployment—unofficially estimated at around 1.7m% and 80%, respectively. It is quite clear that the economic pound of flesh the U.S. wants is not there to be had.

Just last year, United Nations and European Union officials warned about the effect that sanctions would have on Zimbabwe because of their adverse effect on the general population. African leaders have repeated this line; Kenya’s foreign minister, Moses Watangula, said “I think we need to engage Zimbabwe. The route of sanctions may not be the helpful one.”

Finally, the two countries that are most able to extract concessions for Harare—South Africa and China—are unwilling to do so. South Africa has strong economic ties to Zimbabwe and a strong interest in the country’s stability. Yet, it has stuck to quiet diplomacy, eschewing any talk of sanctions or tougher measures. Thabo Mbeki, South Africa’s president has garnered the most scorn for his country’s stance, but he seems resistant to change course even now.

For its part, Beijing continues its laissez-faire attitude to human rights abuses by impeding initiatives at the United Nations. Even if there is a larger buy in by UN, EU, and African officials, the West will face resistance from Mugabe’s international allies.

Taking all this into account, are sanctions really the best course of action? Such measures might look like the West is taking action, but results are what is really important. The challenge to the international community is to ensure the security and wellbeing of the Zimbabwean people, while bring this crisis to an end without it spiraling into violence.

Is there any way to resolve the situation in a peaceful, free and fair democratic manner? Or is more direct action required?

Send us your thoughts, as editors@diplomaticourier.org.