The unanimous decision yesterday by European Union foreign ministers to withdraw their election observers from Zimbabwe and impose sanctions on President Mugabe and 20 of his close associates is a blunt acknowledgement that the forthcoming presidential elections there will not be free and fair.
The ministers faced a dilemma yesterday in deciding how to react to the expulsion of Mr Pierre Schori, the Swedish head of the EU mission monitoring the presidential elections in Zimbabwe on March 9th - 10th. They had to weigh up the likelihood that imposing sanctions would lead to the expulsion of the rest of the EU election monitors and others from neighbouring African states - thereby reducing the real possibility that Mr Mugabe could lose an election that was in some ways fair. Delaying final action until after the election might have made tactical sense in this context, even if it looked half-hearted. Reports from US and other sources that sufficient numbers of people are so angry about the conduct of the election as to swing a vote against Mr Mugabe are discounted by yesterday's decision.
Last month, the ministers drew up well-focussed sanctions designed to freeze overseas accounts held by Mr Mugabe and his close associates in the EU and impose a ban on them travelling to EU destinations. There would also be a ban on exports to Zimbabwe of any material that could be used to impose repressive measures, including an arms embargo. These sanctions would be applied if Mr Mugabe refused unfettered access to a team of EU observers, hampered media coverage of the elections and oversaw a serious deterioration of the human rights situation in Zimbabwe. They also insisted that international observers should be convinced the vote would be freely and fairly conducted.
Given the steadily declining circumstances in all three of these areas of concern over recent weeks, it is difficult to see how a decision to impose the sanctions could have been avoided. This was all the more so after Mr Mugabe refused to accept monitors from Britain, Sweden, Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark and Finland on the grounds that they are biased against him. Such a precedent, combined with the expulsion of Mr Schori on trumped-up grounds, has, with good reason, proved unacceptable.
EU ministers will now have to convince other international players that their analysis is correct. Britain has been strongly in favour of sanctions, but has failed to convince the Commonwealth to take similar measures or to suspend Zimbabwe from membership. Neighbouring states in southern Africa have been reluctant to draw such conclusions until after the presidential elections. Their observers will now come under similar pressure to disguise the extent of the vote-rigging and intimidation of opposition organisations and media reportage. The authoritarian surge is having dire effectson Zimbabwe's economy, as basic foodstuffs and consumer staples disappear from circulation. Harassment of opponents by militia gangs is on the increase. These are the conditions which have contributed to this auspicious decision in the history of EU foreign policy making.