admin
Those defending sanctions by the United States and the European Union against Zimbabwe put out a lot of misleading information, basically saying that the sanctions are measures against a modest number of individuals within and around the Government and a ban on arms sales.
If that simply meant a number of leading Zimbabweans were unable to travel to the United States or the countries of the European Union, and were unable to open bank accounts in those countries, then the sanctions supporters would be correct, the effect on the country would be minimal and the sanctions would be little more than a minor irritation for those on the lists.
But the sanctions go far further, both in intention and in effect. And in many cases it seems the intention is to damage to Zimbabwean economy sufficiently to make Zimbabweans vote for a candidate preferred by the imposers of sanctions and to punish Zimbabwe for land reform. Besides the intentions, there is also the collateral damage caused by the sanctions on individual Zimbabweans, and this is severe.
The intention is laid out quite plainly in a United States law, the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act of 2001 (ZIDERA). This states in the clearest possible terms that until five conditions are met, the United States itself will not provide any debt relief to Zimbabwe and that its executive directors on the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and a slew of other multinational development banks will oppose these international institutions providing debt relief or extending any loans. The US is the dominant partner in the IMF, World Bank and most regional development banks and needs just a handful of other countries to vote with it to have its own way. So this is serious.
These serious sanctions can only be lifted if the US President, in his own subjective view and without independent input, certifies that the five conditions are met. Most people would now agree they have been, although the wording is weighted against Zimbabwe.
The first is the rule of law “is restored”, which means freedom of speech and association and an end to intimidation. That, as most casual glance at the range of news and views published or transmitted on social media each day in Zimbabwe is obviously the present state of affairs. The second is election conditions, that there has been a presidential election, or is about to be one, that independent observers see as free and fair. Last year’s election, monitored by just about everybody, clearly met that condition although there appears to be a hidden agenda that only the nominee of a party that is not Zanu-PF is really acceptable, as if Zimbabweans are not free to choose who they want.
The third condition applies to land reform. This, with the desired change in ruling parties, is obviously the major sticking point if you are the US President. But Zimbabwe has now started the process of compensating those who lost land for the improvements on that land, something laid down in Zimbabwean law, and could clearly move a lot faster on this process if sanctions were lifted. But even in a difficult year, some money has been found in the budget.
The fourth point is a bit dated, the end of the war in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Zimbabwe has faithfully supported the peace agreements and has worked within SADC and AU to help resolve later issues peacefully. In fact the African countries that had different approaches to clean up the mess in DRC after the fall of the American-backed kleptomaniac Mobutu Sese Seko are now on exceptionally good terms and have presented a united front towards those who might want instability and a loss of democracy in the DRC.
The fifth condition was that the military and police in Zimbabwe should be under civilian control, or more precisely under the control of the elected Government.
This is the case and in fact is a policy strictly enforced by SADC and the African Union. While three former military men are in the Government, they all had to retire from the defence forces before they could be appointed; many American presidents, from George Washington onwards, had military backgrounds — and three were the most senior generals in the US — but they all had to resign their commissions before they were allowed to enter the political arena. This is a standard and very necessary rule around the world.
But it is not the actual wording of ZIDERA that is the problem. In fact as a wish list it could easily be a sub-set of the more detailed agreements in SADC on how we are all to behave.
This is one reason why SADC is so strong in its support for Zimbabwe. The Second Republic has implemented very similar policies in letter and spirit, not because Americans think they are a good idea but because Africans think they are a good idea. We do not need to be taught democracy.
The problem is the way the Americans interpret their own law, and that interpretation regrettably leads to conclusions that unless Zimbabwe has something close to a puppet government and reverses land reform, no American president is going to make the required finding.
Zimbabwe has made mistakes since independence, and in the previous dispensation there was slack economic management and a degree of corruption.
This is being changed as the Government tackles economic reform and has started marching a procession of corrupt suspects through the courts.
The economic reforms would work far more quickly and with far less suffering in Zimbabwe if we were able to get the normal institutional backing from multilateral financial institutions. We have cleaned up our act so that such backing would be effective and not wasted, as some was in the past. But the US position makes getting that backing exceedingly difficult.
ZIDERA has, almost as an afterthought, a section tagged on that calls for the US president to consult Europe and “others” about levying travel and economic sanctions against individuals, their associates and their families. This was done and continues to be done. And has caused a great deal of collateral damage that does hurt the rest of the population.
Collateral damage is a military term. It is what happens when you bomb a city into rubble to destroy a single building.
This is because of the exceptionally strong and wide enforcement of these sanctions, unlike for example the perfunctory enforcement of the sanctions against the UDI regime of Ian Smith which saw almost normal trade with the rebel regime. A good number of banks and others are reluctant to do normal business with Zimbabwe because they might be hammered, as some have been, if one of the named people is in any way suspected to benefit from the normal business deal even in a very small way.
The time and cost of making the necessary checks puts off many, especially as Zimbabwe is a small developing country so the profits are going to be small in any case. This also makes investors wary. They do not need to face huge fines because the person washing the dishes in the canteen happens to be related to someone on the list. The fact that some are prepared to make the checks shows that there is a great deal of potential for more business and investment once sanctions are lifted, or if those imposing them insist, at least only enforced against the listed people rather than anyone even vaguely connected.
SADC has now entered the ring. Sanctions hurt business in the entire region as economies continue to integrate. So there are practical problems. But SADC has become a regional enforcer of rules and took a great deal of trouble last year to ensure Zimbabwe’s election did in fact follow normal democratic rules set by the grouping for all its members. These are more precise and tougher than the Americans and most Europeans use themselves and SADC does not see why the regional block’s certification of the results should be contested simply because the “wrong” person and the “wrong” party won.
Bongani Ndlovu