Why Economic Sanctions Failed to Kill Rhodesia
Rhodesia, a land where the people never die. A country that has more admirers that never lived in it and is glorified despite its glaring shortcomings. It would be better for those who may not be familiar with this country to call it by its modern name: Zimbabwe.
Before Mugabe gained political power in Zimbabwe, the country was a very different place. The economy was thriving, and in fact, some even liken its growth rate to Japan as it registered an average of 9% of economic growth for its first decade.
Despite the many differences with the modern entity that the country now is, there are many similarities. One of them was the openly racist leader who ruled for a considerable amount of time. It is not inaccurate to state that nations built on racial discrimination always meet their tipping point when one group decides to pick up the gun against the minority ruling class.
The world was not blind to the Rhodesian leadership, and the superpowers were openly against any form of a colonial enterprise. Even if Rhodesia had unilaterally declared independence from Britain in 1965, the visible racial disparity in all aspects of Rhodesian life appalled a considerable number of countries.
One solution commonly applied to rogue states today is economic sanctions. The effect of economic sanctions today is devastating, and they leave countries in absolute poverty. Good examples of this are North Korea and Iran.
So why did Rhodesia manage to thrive despite being sanctioned by numerous nations, including the United States?
Lack of Compliance
Sanctions today are met with dedicated compliance because a state risks losing their own economic sovereignty if they choose not to comply.
Rhodesia’s days were different. When the United Nations introduced the sanctions in 1966, many nations came forward supporting Rhodesia. The support was not by word of mouth but by economic incentives such as trade. Notable nations that came forward to increase their trade in 1967 were Japan, Iran, West Germany, and even France.
The United Nations and Britain were all for the opinion that the white minority would immediately cease to support their government’s rebellious actions, but the opposite happened. They fervently supported it and were patriotic to the cause that the government desired.
South Africa and Mozambique also played a significant role as Rhodesia was wedged between them and was landlocked. It relied heavily on their ports and also their internal infrastructure to smuggle in oil to allow for the development of the industry.
Foreign shipping companies also snubbed many of the international laws in place and decided to engage Rhodesians in trade with the outside world.
Primary Goods Excesses
Rhodesia was known as the breadbasket of Africa, and it was for a good reason. The number of primary products that came out of the country such as agricultural output impressively led to strong economic growth.
The time and age the country existed in allowed for it to form strong economic ties with other countries that were heavily interested in their primary produce. Once the great demand emerged from external sources such as Japan, Rhodesia willingly set itself apart as an exceptional exporter of these goods.
South African tobacco companies also heavily engaged themselves as purchasers of “Rhodesia’s chief export crop” which was tobacco. The Rhodesians had struck a goldfield as many were willing to turn a blind eye and even engage in black market activities just to get these goods in their country.
Conclusion
The country still fell as a result of the many external and internal pressures that it harbored from the beginning. Mugabe’s rise as a leader did signify the end of that economic boom but it heralded the start of a new era. A different era that had its own problems and far greater shortcomings than could have been foreseeable at the time.
Sources
[1]Shepherd, George W. “The Failure of the Sanctions against Rhodesia and the Effect on African States: A Growing Racial Crisis.” Africa Today 15, no. 1 (1968): 8–12. Accessed April 14, 2021. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4184863.
[2]The Christian Science Monitor. “Rhodesia’s Sanctions Experience: Poor Guide for South Africa? Internal Unrest Seen As Key Difference in Pretoria’s Case.” The Christian Science Monitor. Last modified October 20, 1986. https://www.csmonitor.com/1986/1020/orhod-f.html.
