THE OBJECTIF

International sanctions on pro-dictatorship countries have done very little to suffocate these regimes. These sanctions have unfortunately translated into severe livelihoods for the impoverished populations while these governments continue to live in unmitigated affluence. No one is bent on aggravating the plight of the poor and helpless in a country already ravaged by poverty and whose leaders do not show great concern to the problems faced by their citizens. Quite often, international goodwill to ratchet up pressure on such regimes has backfired as these pressures have often caused more harm to the ordinary citizens than good. Enacting good diplomatic sanctions that target corrupt and autocratic regime is an issue that seems elusive.

Previous sanctions such as asset freezing have inspired authoritarian governments with ingenuity to find ways around them. Trade embargoes on the industries supporting such regimes have hurt the employees of such industry who are primarily the ones suffering most form the sham actions of such dictatorships.

More recent examples are the worsening crisis in Zimbabwe with a geriatric president bent on staying in power for as long as he lives. The list includes countries like Equatorial Guinea, Cameroon, Gabon and many others that have a very contrived form of democracy. What is puzzling is the obstinate adherence to power of the leaders in such countries, and the plundering of the wealth of their countries to the detriment of the very citizens they claim to be fighting for.

Development in these countries technologically, economically, educationally, industrially and the list is long has been slow and sluggish with respect to the rest of the world. Economic growth is comparably small when compared to the substantial amount of resources they possess.

The question everyone asks is, how should such regimes be punished while promoting meaningful development? Should it be regime change? Regime change is as enticing as it is difficult to implement. Yes, there should be regime, but these autocratic leaders have gained so much expertise in their systems to foil any democratic attempt of regime change. Should a military intervention be considered? Military intervention will devastate these countries and push back progress several years behind if not decades. The psychological trauma that follows war is incomprehensible. Morally, war is not even a solution to a crisis.

These regimes have largely stayed in power by suppressing the will of their citizens and subjugating them to such low standards of living that they are deprived of the intellectual and financial capacity to develop their constituents. These obliterates any forces with a strong philosophically will to overturn their powerful grip on power democratically. A good number of the indigenes are quite often deprived of basic necessities like portable water, food and a shelter. Education is for the wealthy and powerful political brokers.

Countries do not exist in isolation. Many of such countries are active volcanoes waiting for large enough crevices to develop and then they erupt.  Major conflicts that erupt in such countries often spill across their borders and destabilize even young democracies. No one should afford to stand by and watch these catastrophes unfold. Of course, they are many who are morally concerned and willing to act. How does one act in a way that paralyses such regimes, but leaves the populace go unhurt? Many smart sanctions have so not really been effective. They either completely bring the whole economy to its knees or are too ineffective to match the alacrity and dexterity of the regimes that have become too shrewd to get strangled and hamstrung by a string of sanctions.

Smart sanctions will do. Smart sanctions will be effective in promoting democracy, economic development in these countries and genuinely handicap the despotic rule. Smart selective international dictatorship taxes will be effective. Instead of freezing the assets of the active individuals in such regimes, their assets should heavily taxed and the proceeds transferred into a trust fund that funds the education of the brightest and disadvantaged citizens. All trade embargoes, travel bans on influential members and the prohibition of business trips by the affluent members in such regimes should be lifted.  These should be replaced with a calculated heavy tax to be paid for any such trips and the money put into the trust fund. In these ways, these regimes will be reminded of their duty to look after their citizens and understand the primary aim to ascending to power is to take care of the broader need of their citizens. If their personal wealth is taxed and the proceeds transferred to their citizens, this will go a long to encourage good governance.

Is this foreign governance of a sovereign state? If foreign countries can take upon themselves to impose trade embargoes that cause more harm than good on the people they profess to help, then implementing a broader and a more positive and strategic vision like this should not be seen as foreign governance.  Is this transfer of wealth from the rich to the poor? I do not think the citizens of such countries see it as wealth transfer. It will be seen as given wealth to the legitimate owners whose wealth has been robbed by those they entrusted their country too.

Why keep giving huge sums of money as aid when the political brokers of these regimes have opulent accounts stashed with enough cash to run their countries effectively for even 10years. Its time to cease giving aid and press for a smart dictatorship tax. Even welfare donations as international aid instead have a negative impact on the local community. Aids such as rice, corn and so on stifle production of local agricultural produce. The international community should not take on the obligation to give fish to, but provide the tools for these communities to learn how to fish. In this way, the indigenes will have the necessary tools to build a better society for their children.

You may say, well the people will be charged higher taxes to pay for all additional expenses. The counter solution will be to raise the smart dictatorship taxes even higher.  The Zimbabwean situation exemplifies a situation where people refuse to go to work because the transportation cost alone is higher than their salaries. People now use paper currency as firewood because the cost of firewood is more than the value of money. If local industries pay too little salaries to their workers because of the higher costs they have to overcome, people will cease working. In essence, it is the common man that gains instead of the government if such a strategy is implemented.

What is interesting about such a strategy is that it not only encourages good governance and accountability, it is equally not detrimental to the citizens of such countries. It is also easy to determine which countries fit such a criteria in order to enforce a smart dictatorship tax. Corruption index units could be used as well as reliable data from other non-governmental organizations. Most importantly, the citizens of these countries will wholeheartedly support it and any foreign interest against it will be doing so at their own moral integrity. Interestingly, such a broad strategic vision is comparatively enforceable like current international sanctions.

The world should no longer sit idly by while crisis after crisis unfold before our eyes. It is time to make the world a better place by doing the smart things.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS