Sanctions and Zimbabwe

Dan (not Clark) Griswold at Cato had this to say about imposing economic sanctions on Zimbabwe:

Events of the past few weeks have made it clear that President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe is a dictator and a bully who presides over a sham democracy epitomized by today’s mock “election.” But does that sad fact require or even justify imposing sanctions against that already tortured southern African country?...

I share the dismay with Mugabe’s thuggery and mismanagement of the economy, but count me skeptical that trade sanctions, oil embargoes and other economic reprisals would achieve anything positive.

If 165,000 percent inflation, widespread hunger, and mass shortages and unemployment have not undermined Mugabe’s government, Western sanctions are probably not going to make a crucial difference. Zimbabwe’s president and his sycophants will continue to enjoy their palatial homes, catered meals and chauffeured limos. Sanctions would only deepen the suffering of their unfortunate subjects. As our research at Cato has shown, economic sanctions almost never work.

Count me among that group. Because there are so many nation leaders out there willing to support rogue world leaders just to spite the U.S., my thought is that sanctions end up doing nothing more than punishing the citizens rather than the leaders. I think the more we expose the citizens to freedom and the wealth that free trade creates, the more likely they will demand more from their leaders. Cuba is a good example.