Global News : Passport : Ricks : Drezner : Walt : Rothkopf : Lynch
The Cable : The AfPak Blog : Net Effect : Shadow Govt. : Madam Secretary : The Call
Don't sanction dictators
It doesn't work.
By Jason McLure
As Islamist militants tighten their grip over southern Somalia, the international community is searching in vain for ways to keep the country's weak, U.N.-backed government from collapsing. The latest plan: sanctions for nearby Eritrea, which has channeled weapons to Somalia's Shabab and other Islamist militias. At the recent African Union summit in Libya, the continent's leaders reiterated their call for the U.N. Security Council to take action; condemnation of Eritrea has resonated from every corner of the globe.
There's no doubt that Eritrea has an awful government (Human Rights Watch recently labeled the country a "giant prison"). As gratifying as it may be to punish bad behavior, however, the question here is different: Would sanctions actually change this tiny dictatorial state or its delinquent behavior? It's a quandary that has plagued policymakers for decades -- from Cuba to North Korea to Burma. And despite sanctions' status as a go-to foreign-policy gadget, the answer is often no. When used on already-isolated regimes, sanctions may even be counterproductive. The Eritrean example shows us why.
Sanctions are made to cut countries off from vital international exchange. The trouble is, Eritrea already trades less with the outside world than any country in Africa and places 210th out of all 226 countries and islands for global commerce. The country's president, Isaias Afewerki, isn't interested in being a globe-trotting statesman. He regularly skips African Union summits and meetings of East African leaders. And anyway, sanctions won't deter his few, less savory allies in Libya, Sudan, and Iran who provide Eritrea with aid and diplomatic support. Sanctions will only drive the Eritrean government further into the arms of its dubious allies.
Nor will sanctioning Eritrea choke off the flow of arms and money heading toward Somalia's militants. There has been an arms embargo on Somalia for more than a decade, and it has been about as effective as a chastity belt on Silvio Berlusconi. The country has a 3,000-km coastline that the world has struggled to patrol for pirates -- let alone under-the-radar arms shipments. On land, Mogadishu is home to a dizzying array of traditional money-transfer services that keep Somalia's economy from further collapse -- and its Islamists propped up with foreign funds. Besides, as the United Nations has pointed out, both African Union peacekeepers and Ethiopian troops have apparently sold arms and equipment in Mogadishu to their ostensible enemies.
Aside from being ineffective, sanctions on Eritrea could carry a rather debilitating liability for the international community. Sanctioning Eritrea would dangerously border on taking sides in Eritrea's frozen conflict with Ethiopia, one that has stretched on in one form or another for nearly a decade. Following the two countries' border 1998-2000 war, Ethiopia refused to give back land that a U.N.-backed border commission awarded to Eritrea. So both sides took their struggle to Somalia, where Eritrea backs Islamist militias and Ethiopia props up a flailing government. Eritrea has behaved badly, true, but both countries have been arming Somali militias in a proxy war for years. The United Nations and the United States would do better to mediate the Ethiopia-Eritrea conflict rather than taking sides.
These lessons apply to sanctions on dictators more broadly. How do you punish North Korea with sanctions when its trading partners are already limited to a handful of countries -- none of which are likely to pay heed to a harsher set of rules? How do you choke Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe when his strongest rationale for staying in power is to save his country from the hands of countries who would (and do) impose sanctions? Perhaps it's no wonder that such countries' leaders not only survive sanctions, but use them to justify bad behavior.
After 18 years of civil war, it's possible there's nothing outsiders can do to fix Somalia. Certainly, sanctions on Eritrea are not the answer. Trying to get Ethiopia and Eritrea to stop using the country as a proxy battleground would be worth a shot.
Jason McLure is a journalist based in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. His reporting has appeared in Newsweek, The Economist, and Bloomberg News.
Photo: ASHRAF SHAZLY/AFP/Getty Images






I find it curious that you
I find it curious that you left Israel off your list of Eritrea's pariah allies, you know since Israel even has military bases there.
Israel is not a pariah nation
Israel is not a pariah nation and thus would not be included in that list. And what is the purpose of that alliance, exactly? It helps Israel monitor those nations which threaten its existence. Any nation would collaborate with an oppressive regime if it represents a choice of the lesser evil. Israel is not unique in this regard, sorry.
Nice article
I've always been uncomfortable about the long term prospects of economic sanctions as a tool of diplomacy. To be honest, there's only a certain extent to which diplomacy works with autocracies in the more backwards parts of the world.
I like the idea of mediating the Ethiopia-Eritrea conflict to have positive side-effects on Somalia, but that still leaves you with a collapsed state and a society at war.
I'm not being hawkish, but ideally, a much more substantial, truly multilateral coalition of UN peacekeepers would go a long way towards preserving stability. The military solution is necessary, since the basic condition for a state's existence is that it have monopoly over the use of violence. This is the first thing that needs to be established for order to result, not grassroots economic change or social reconciliation.
It absolutely must be multilateral, though, to prevent, or at least mitigate, the usual charges of neocolonialism and imperialism levelled by dictators to blunt international pressure. Thoughts?
I'd argue that it's not so
I'd argue that it's not so much that sanctioning dictators doesn't work - it's that it doesn't work unless you affect the power base that they are dependent on. All regimes are ultimately dependent on their security forces and usually a combination of groups in their country, as well as a source of revenue, and if you don't hit the factors like the above that underpin a dictator, you don't really affect his incentives.
UN Involvement in the Region
@Giorgio-
I don't want to sound pessimistic, but I don't think UN involvement will solve the problem either. With as much chaos as the region is under, and the involvement of NATO in Afghanistan and the US in Afghanistan and Iraq, who is left available to act as peacekeepers? Unfortunately, after peacekeeping and sanctions are out, they basically leaves only diplomacy; which for the next few years might be all we have.
Michael C
www.onviolence.com