Do sanctions work? Memories of a Rhodesian childhood

Professor Fareda Banda reflects on the role and limitations of sanctions in the Rhodesian liberation struggle, highlighting their symbolic and strategic impact within broader efforts for human rights and self-determination.

In November 1965, the world watched as Ian Smith's Rhodesian regime declared independence from British rule through a Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI). This act entrenched white minority control and dismissed mounting demands for black African self-governance. In response, the United Nations (UN) swiftly condemned Rhodesia, invoking Article 41 of its Charter to impose sanctions. 

These sanctions, the world’s tool for non-military intervention, aimed to pressure the regime back into constitutional rule. This blog revisits the Rhodesian case, reflecting on the complex efficacy of sanctions through the lens of a childhood spent amidst a civil war for Black liberation.

The framework and efficacy of sanctions

Article 41 of the UN Charter authorises measures to enforce Security Council resolutions through non-military means. These range from trade restrictions to cutting diplomatic ties. Sanctions, however, have varied impacts depending on their objectives and the geopolitical dynamics at play. They can signal disapproval, pressure states into compliance, or express solidarity with oppressed groups. Yet their success largely hinges on the enforcement capacity and interests of powerful states.

In an interconnected world, sanctions face growing challenges. Neutral or opposing states often circumvent them, offering sanctioned nations alternative markets. This not only diminishes sanctions' effectiveness but also highlights the tension between global solidarity and national self-interest. The case of Rhodesia is emblematic of these tensions.

The Rhodesian context

Until 1965, Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) was under British control, governed by a white minority unwilling to relinquish economic and political dominance. Modest proposals in the 1961 Constitution offering limited representation for Black Africans were rejected by the white leadership, who sought to replicate South Africa’s apartheid system. The 1965 UDI Constitution solidified white rule, prompting global condemnation.

The UN acted swiftly, adopting Security Council Resolution 217, which called on member states to sever economic ties with Rhodesia. Subsequent resolutions strengthened sanctions, banning arms, oil, and other key commodities. Resolution 253 even urged material and moral support for Rhodesia’s freedom fighters. Yet enforcement was inconsistent.

Sanctions in practice

While Britain and other Western powers publicly endorsed sanctions, their enforcement was riddled with loopholes. Britain maintained trade relations with apartheid South Africa, Rhodesia’s staunch ally. South Africa not only continued trading but also rebranded Rhodesian goods to circumvent restrictions. Portuguese-controlled Mozambique facilitated oil imports via its ports.

For many, including my family, sanctions were a backdrop to a broader struggle. Rhodesian life adapted: petrol rationing, resourcefulness in household management, and unwavering leisure activities. The white regime showcased its resilience through symbols like a national anthem set to Beethoven’s Ode to Joy, a declaration of defiance wrapped in European cultural pride.

The regime’s ability to circumvent sanctions stemmed from alliances with South Africa, Portugal, and others who prioritized economic benefits over ethical considerations. For Rhodesian freedom fighters, however, international solidarity—though inconsistent—bolstered their cause. Neighbouring Frontline States like Zambia and Tanzania supported guerilla operations, while the Cold War’s ideological battles ensured aid from the Soviet Union, China, and Cuba.

Legal and political manoeuvres

Sanctions faced legal challenges in global courts, often exposing the limits of international law. The 1972 Diggs v. Shultz case in the United States exemplifies this. Rhodesian chrome, critical for American manufacturing, was exempted from sanctions through the Byrd Amendment, prioritising domestic industry over international obligations. The US judiciary upheld this exemption under the “last-in-time doctrine,” illustrating how national laws could override treaty commitments.

Despite such setbacks, the UN continued to condemn sanction breaches. Resolution 314, for instance, criticised the Byrd Amendment, reaffirming sanctions' role as a moral stance against Rhodesian oppression.

Childhood memories of sanctioned Rhodesia

As a child in Rhodesia, I witnessed a civil war framed by the regime as a fight against "terrorism." Sanctions, though ever-present, rarely disrupted everyday life. Petrol rationing existed, but informal channels ensured supply continuity. The government promoted self-sufficiency, turning resourcefulness into a nationalist virtue.

The war was fought on many fronts: Rhodesian forces armed through South Africa, while freedom fighters gained support from global anti-colonial movements. Despite sanctions, Rhodesia remained resilient due to South African backing and Cold War dynamics.

Integrity vs. self-interest

The Rhodesian example reveals the tension between principled action and pragmatic interests. Western powers, particularly Britain and the US, often prioritised economic ties over enforcing sanctions. The Byrd Amendment starkly contrasted US public condemnation of Rhodesia with its private economic interests. Similarly, Britain’s reluctance to disrupt trade with South Africa underscored its economic dependencies.

This inconsistency highlights the selective application of sanctions. In cases like apartheid South Africa, sanctions helped dismantle systemic oppression, but their efficacy relied on sustained international pressure and widespread moral outrage.

Broader lessons on sanctions

Sanctions' effectiveness varies significantly depending on their objectives and context. They can pressure states, build international solidarity, and reaffirm human rights. For instance:

• Indonesia (1940s): US sanctions forced the Netherlands to grant independence.
• South Africa (1980s-90s): Global sanctions and boycotts contributed to apartheid’s end.
• Iran: Economic sanctions have had mixed results, as alliances with China and others mitigated their impact.

However, sanctions alone rarely suffice. As Professor Lutz Oette notes, they are often undermined by targeted governments using them for propaganda or finding ways to bypass restrictions. Advocacy, corporate pressure, and public awareness campaigns complement sanctions, creating a broader framework for change.

Pragmatism and solidarity

The Rhodesian story illustrates how external pressure, combined with local and regional dynamics, can influence change. As South Africa faced growing international isolation, it reduced its support for Rhodesia, nudging the regime toward negotiations. Meanwhile, newly independent African states and global organizations like the Commonwealth and Organisation of African Unity (OAU) kept the Rhodesian question on the international agenda.

Liberation movements also drew on moral arguments, invoking religion and human rights to expose the hypocrisy of colonial powers. This narrative of resilience and solidarity galvanized support for Rhodesia’s freedom fighters, even as sanctions alone struggled to deliver immediate results.

The symbolic power of sanctions

The Rhodesian case underscores the symbolic power of sanctions. While often circumvented, sanctions signal international disapproval and affirm human rights. For oppressed populations, they serve as a reminder that the world is watching, offering moral support amid adversity.

In isolation, sanctions may falter, but as part of a larger strategy - including advocacy, boycotts, and public shaming - they can amplify pressure for change. Rhodesia’s eventual transition to majority rule was a testament to the combined power of internal resistance, regional dynamics, and sustained international solidarity.

In the words of Rhodesia’s freedom fighters, sanctions were a price worth paying for liberation. Their story reminds us that the fight for human dignity often extends beyond immediate gains, demanding resilience, advocacy, and unwavering solidarity.

This is an extract of the longer blog that belongs to the Symposium “Unmasking the Intractable: Exploring Anti-Racism and the Law” hosted by Verfassungsblog and africanlegalstudies.blog.