admin
On Tuesday the European Union announced a 12-month suspension of its travel ban on President Robert Mugabe.
The suspension relates to his work as African Union chairman, a position he assumed at the organisation’s summit last week but the general 13-year visa ban remains in force when he is on personal or Zimbabwe government business.
A revision of the EU’s sanctions against the President was widely expected given his elevation to lead the AU for the next 12 months. It was going to be impossible for the EU to engage the AU when the head of the latter was constrained by the sanctions.
Be that as it may, Zimbabweans once again reject the piecemeal suspension of the illegal sanctions and demand their unconditional and total removal. Tuesday’s decision is valid for a year and only when the President travels to Europe solely on AU work, which makes it temporary, partial and conditional.
We dismiss that self-serving action. There is nothing in it for the President, Zimbabwe or Africa. It is designed to ensure that the EU is able to continue its engagement with the continent even as President Mugabe is in the chair. Any other approach was to leave Europe further behind as China, Russia and other countries in the East consolidate their economic and diplomatic relations with Africa.
The EU imposed sanctions on Zimbabwe in 2002 after Britain prevailed over fellow Europeans claiming human rights abuses here. This was to mask the real reason for the embargo — British anger over the government’s repossession of farmland from whites for redistribution to landless blacks. Up to 100 people in Zanu-PF and government, dozens of companies, including parastatals were put on the sanctions list. The people were banned from travelling to Europe and the EU sought to freeze any assets the sanctioned individuals and organisations held on that continent.
Over the years, some people and companies were delisted. In November last year all were removed apart from President Mugabe and the First Lady, Cde Grace Mugabe.
Zimbabweans demand respect from the EU and other paternalistic countries like America, Australia and Canada which maintain illegal sanctions on this country in their failing efforts to effect illegal regime change.
Zanu-PF spokesman Cde Simon Khaya Moyo said:
“The illegal sanctions imposed on President Mugabe by EU were so done in his capacity as President and Head of State of Zimbabwe and not and chairperson of the African Union. The announcement is inconsequential. Our position as Zanu-PF remains that all sanctions imposed on President Mugabe as Head of State and citizen of the country be removed unconditionally. Any effort to hoodwink the continent is futile.”
Zimbabweans agree with this position. They have been made to suffer unjustly for reclaiming their land that was forcibly taken away from their ancestors in the 1890s when whites invaded Zimbabwe.
Many will remember that there is a document that says thousands of Zimbabweans have died because of poor access to health services as sanctions-hit hospitals and clinics fail to serve the sick. The health sub-sector, as others in the social services system, used to get assistance from Europe before it was stopped thanks to the economic embargo.
But Zimbabweans are a proud people, who don’t yearn for aid. They demand unfettered access to markets, they need to source spare parts for their factories and farm machinery, they demand access to loans and want free movement of capital from anywhere in the world.
These freedoms have been curtailed because of the sanctions, resulting in massive socio-economic challenges unseen outside a war zone. Economically, the punitive measures have cost the country about $42 billion. The social cost is incalculable.
In November, the EU removed some of the sanctions and promised that from June this year direct assistance to Zimbabwe through the government will resume. About $300 million has been touted for a five-year programme to support the agriculture, health and governance sectors.
When making that announcement, the EU promised to relook at its sanctions on the President and the First Lady this month. We were hopeful that even before he took over the AU chair, the embargo would be lifted in toto this month. With the new development at the AU and Tuesday’s announcement, we are keen to find out what will happen on the November pledge.
At the same time, clarity is lacking on whether the First Lady remains banned as the EU has only pronounced a suspension on the President. Such ambiguity can be dangerous for Africa-EU relations.
We say so because last year, the EU invited the President for the EU-Africa Summit in Belgium, but did not invite the First Lady. The President refused to travel for the meeting for the principle is that a man cannot allow someone to separate him from his wife.
EU spokeswoman Catherine Ray’s choice of words is also ambiguous. She said on Tuesday that under the suspension EU member states “may” grant exemptions.
“Member states,” she said, “may grant exemptions from the measures imposed (. . . ) where travel is justified on the grounds of urgent humanitarian need, or in exceptional cases on grounds of attending intergovernmental meetings and those promoted or hosted by the EU . . .”
Online Reporter