Sanctions: Violating Zim’s socio-economic aspirations

energies have instead been directed at bickering over the nature of these sanctions, whether they are “targeted”, “smart”, or merely “restrictive measures”.
Some have even pleaded with those imposing economic sanctions to maintain such sanctions. We have been like brothers who argue over the colour of a poisonous snake thrown in their midst, with little concern for the poison that lies within it.

There has been a failure on our part to engage in critical considerations about the implications of sanctions on our livelihoods and socio-economic rights, allowing our better judgment to be clouded by misrepresentations that these sanctions are for our own good after all. We thus remain blinded from the real possibility that sanctions are a calculated assault on our socio-economic rights, our right to education, health and livelihoods.

Sanctions do exist against the Zimbabwean people, whatever we might want to call them or however, we might want to define their nature. The United States of America’s sanctions law, the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act (ZIDERA) bars “international financial institutions” from extending “any loan, credit, or guarantee to the Government of Zimbabwe”.
It is clear that such access to “any loan, credit and guarantee”, which is necessary for any country to achieve economic growth and recovery, is not being denied to a few individuals but the “Government of Zimbabwe”.

Imposing sanctions which deprive the financial capacity of any government that has the primary duty to create an enabling economic environment within which socio-economic rights can be guaranteed, is as good as depriving all persons within the jurisdiction of such Government’s authority their enjoyment of such rights.
Further, one only needs to take note of the nature of the “international financial institutions” being directed by United States legislation to deny “the Government of Zimbabwe” any financial assistance to understand the economic consequences of such denial to Zimbabweans. The “international financial institutions” from which the Government of Zimbabwe is barred include the International Monetary Fund, the

International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the International Development Association, the International Finance Corporation, the Inter-American Development Bank, the Asian Development Bank, the Inter-American Investment Corporation, the African Development Bank, the African Development Fund, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.
It is ironic that ZIDERA claims its legitimacy as a law seeking to help Zimbabweans achieve “equitable economic growth” yet the same sanctions law denies the Government of Zimbabwe the financial assistance critical to ensuring economic measures and interventions that benefit the people of Zimbabwe.

Is it not clear that barring the Government of Zimbabwe access to such financial institutions has a direct consequence on the socio-economic fortunes of the people of Zimbabwe?
The former US Assistant Secretary of State for Africa, Chester Crocker, is on record, during US Senate hearings on ZIDERA, stating that, “To separate the Zimbabwean people from Zanu-PF, we are going to have to make their economy scream, and I hope you, senators, have the stomach for what you have to do.”
Such a statement can only be evidence to the fact that it is the economy of the Zimbabwean people which the American legislators had to have the stomach to devastate.

Having the stomach to impose such far reaching sanctions was called for given the fact that it was the most vulnerable Zimbabweans, including women, children, people living with HIV and AIDS, who would be most deprived of their right to health care, education and livelihoods by a screaming economy.
The primary objective of United States legislators was to create an economically deprived and desperate population, one whose democratic choice, exercised during elections, could be manipulated to rid of Zanu PF from government. A sanctioned people, having been deprived of their right to education, health care, livelihoods, is easier to manipulate against any government blamed for such deprivation.

Can we continue to believe that sanctions were imposed because Zanu-PF had deprived the people of Zimbabwe of democracy, of their human rights; when it is clear that the greatest attack against democracy has been the sanctions which deprive the Zimbabwean people of their socio-economic rights, leaving them vulnerable to manipulation when called upon to exercise their democratic choice during elections.
Of course the ability to effect such manipulation will be of good use to a foreign authority seeking to rid from government a political party vilified for the country’s economic challenges. The legislative intention of the US Senate for imposing sanctions against the Zimbabwean people’s economy was most recently affirmed by the United States president.

According to president Obama sanctions must be maintained because the policies of the Government of Zimbabwe “pose a continuing unusual and extraordinary threat to the foreign policy of the United States.” It becomes clearer then that sanctions are not a benevolent gesture to help Zimbabweans achieve democracy, human rights or economic growth. Rather, they are America’s self preservation mechanism directed at stopping a Government from leading its people, through indigenisation and economic empowerment, in reclaiming ownership and control of their own natural resources.

For the United States indigenisation translates to being deprived of cheap and easy access to the same natural resources that are critical to their economy facing self inflicted recession. The European Union has been no sincerer about the nature and objective of their sanctions against Zimbabwe.
Thanks to Wikileaks, we can now question the European Union’s claims that its sanctions against Zimbabwe have been motivated by a genuine concern for the human rights of Zimbabweans and that such sanctions are only targeted against a few politicians.

We are enlightened instead that the European Union has always desired an investment ban on Zimbabwe and were stopped from this far reaching measure by self preservation after realising the effect of such an investment ban on their own companies in Zimbabwe.

Zimbabweans were not the concern; theirs was that their companies would no longer have access to exploiting Zimbabwe’s natural resources the proceeds of which needed to be re-invested in European economies depleted by recession.

Following a land reform programme that reflected what economic empowerment policies a Zanu-PF led Government would pursue in future the United States and European Union imposed sanctions as a preemptive measure calculated at stopping such policies.

Sanctions have used the threat of disinvestment, economic collapse and socio-economic deprivation to make Zimbabweans fear supporting their Government’s indigenisation and economic empowerment policies. Sanctions are thus meant to intimidate and stop Zimbabwe from pursuing Article 2 of the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights and Article 29 of the African Charter on Human and People’s rights.

These international law provisions urge us to apply our natural resources in pursuit of our own ends, to our benefits and for our interests. Such pursuit will ultimately gain us real economic development and prosperity, translating into socio-economic rights for generations of Zimbabweans to come.

This may well be the lasting legacy of President Mugabe; Indigenisation and Economic Empowerment Minister Kasukuwere and Zanu- PF; their having successfully achieved an indigenisation policy that secured the socio-economic prosperity and rights of Zimbabwe’s indigenous people long deprived by colonialism.

The United Nations’ Committee on Economic Social and Cultural Rights, which interprets the extent of socio-economic rights, is clear in its position that socio-economic rights must not be violated by sanctions. In General Comment No 8 the Committee notes that sanctions have a dramatic effect on socio-economic rights, especially those of vulnerable groups, in that they “severely interfere with the functioning of basic health and education systems, and undermine the right to work”.