sanctions removal call mischievious

as some quarters would believe.
First, Inhofe, described as being “a leading advocate for Africa in the US Senate”, was simply being opportunistic as he sought to pilfer the international attention that Zimbabwe had got through the visit by United Nations Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay.
Inhofe has sought a revision of US policy on Zimbabwe, as lately defined by the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act (2001), by introducing a bill to repeal the legislation. His efforts dovetail into similar efforts by the likes of Russ Feingold via the Zimbabwe Transition to Democracy and Economic Recovery Act of 2010 (whatever has happened to it?), for the same cynical agenda, as will be illustrated. But this is not in the utmost good faith for Zimbabwe by this “leading advocate of Africa in the US Senate”.
It brings a major critical point in Inhofe’s “advocacy” on Zimbabwe, namely that of being dishonest and racist.
That he has fashioned himself as an advocate for Africa smacks of the “civilizers” of yore that brought light and Christianity to Africa — with disastrous consequences. Inhofe notes that, according to the US Senate statement, “Since 2001, economic sanctions against Zimbabwe have resulted in the denial of extension of loans, credits, or guarantees to the Government of Zimbabwe from the United States or any international financial institution.” This was not said so clearly earlier as the world was led to believe all the sanctions were merely travel bans on President Mugabe and his “cronies”.
Inhofe said: “Repealing economic sanctions against Zimbabwe is the only solution to bringing full economic recovery and democratic transition to this African nation.”
(What was the reason, for reminding his audience that Zimbabwe is an “African nation”, if not to remind his interlocutors of the duty to civilise?)
The crux of Inhofe’s submission, which underlines his and his government’s cynicism, went thus: “Repealing these US sanctions will provide Prime Minister Tsvangirai and his reformers the tools they need to return Zimbabwe to being called the ‘Breadbasket of Africa’ and engineer the transition to democracy that we all seek.”
It therefore becomes abundantly sanctions have been an instrument for illegal regime change and that while they have been a tool for the torture of the masses, this technique has not yielded results.
Academic Dr Tafataona Mahoso puts it poignantly that sanctions are an instrument of mass torture and mass pauperisation. Now that Zimbabwe has weathered the storm, we have civilisers like Inhofe, wanting to deliver us from the pauperisation and torture.
He seeks to now allow prosperity — that is after sanctions induced-poverty — so that Zimbabweans, so recovered will still go for the regime change that Inhofe and his ilk seek. Again, Dr Mahoso has a beautiful description of this kind of “humanitarianism”.
Inhofe does not mince his words. The idea of democracy he has is that personified by Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai and his MDC-T, even though the premier is not exactly noted for inclining towards democracy, as broadly understood. Needless to point out, PM Tsvangirai has been accused of being a puppet of the West.
The US senator’s assertions may have an effect of consolidating this view.
Someone pointed to this writer that efforts by the likes of Inhofe are towards saving face with the unpopularity or the ineffectiveness of US sanctions against Zimbabwe.
Perhaps this is to forget that the US has pigheadedly and cruelly maintained such embargoes on its opponents, most notably Cuba that has had to endure the sanctions for over half a century.
Could the stakes in Zimbabwe be lower?
They cannot be, much. The US has consistently tried to thwart Zimbabwe self-determination and this has even spread to the newfound diamond godsend.
Only recently, it was reported that the US was trying to bar Zimbabwe’s gems by smuggling human rights issues, a well-worn way of pinning Zimbabwe down.
It doesn’t matter, does it, that US and its western allies are the worst violators of human rights with a history of hundreds of years to the good (bad, really).
During the KPCS recent meeting in the US, KPCS chair Ambassador Gillian Milovanovic, from the US, outlined the US government’s position on the need to redefine “conflict diamonds”, saying that broadening the scope of the human rights discourse would enable the KPCS “to do a better job of monitoring its members and implementing the agreed rules.”
She said: “Fundamentally, we believe a carefully re-worded, redefinition will keep the KP relevant in future.”
Any fool would note that this could only have Zimbabwe in mind after similar bids in the last couple of years failed. America can only hope to abuse its chairmanship to put through this.
So, the likes of the Republican Inhofe, perhaps to placate — and deceive — can only go so far. It is clear that America remains self-centred, and the likes of Inhofe conceited.
However, they must spare Zimbabweans some of the patronising behaviour and attitudes that can only make the current impasse draw longer, at the expense of both countries.
The EU has been removing some people and organisations from its illegal embargo and recently engaged in “serious dialogue” with Zimbabwe.
Ambassador Ray’s comments are more in black and white — and instructive.