admin
Herald Correspondent
In mid-January, the United States Department of Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (Focac) issued a final rule increasing its maximum civil monetary penalties for violation of sanctions imposed on various countries and under numerous laws enacted by America.
With respect to Zimbabwe, the review cited the “Zimbabwe Sanctions Regulations” and stipulated penalties of US$105 083 (up from US$97 529) per violation on any person who violates any licence, order, or regulation issued under the so-called Trading with the Enemy Act.
A month earlier, in December 2021, the US had designated four Zimbabwean individuals and two Zimbabwean entities under its sanctions.
These individuals and entities were sanctioned “for their ties to the previously designated individual Mr Kudakwashe Tagwirei and his company, Sakunda Holdings”, according to a statement from Treasury.
Mr Tagwirei is a prominent businessman in Zimbabwe, running Sakunda Holdings.
The US has sanctioned him since August 2020 for allegedly, having materially-assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, logistical, or technical support for, or goods or services in support of, the Government of Zimbabwe and Sakunda for being owned or controlled by Mr Tagwirei.
Previously, international banks have been fined by the US for processing payments destined for Zimbabwe.
In the past years, between February and April, the president of the United States has been renewing Executive Orders to continue with sanctions measures imposed since 2003 on the false justification that the country poses extraordinary and continuing threats to the foreign policy of the US.
The above highlight various ways that Zimbabwe has been subjected to unilateral sanctions by the government of the United States.
In doing so, Zimbabwe has become a victim of what is termed the long arm jurisdiction by the US, which has drawn so much criticism in the world. However, the world’s only superpower maintains the practice with impunity.
Long arm jurisdiction: meaning and implications
The United States has over the years used the long arm jurisdiction law to criminalise, interfere and exercise both political and economic will on allies and other states outside its influence.
America has abused and undermined the law for its selfish gains which has had drastic effects on the countries involved.
No other country in the world has effected economic sabotage and undermined international law principles as the US has done in subduing and thwarting other states and economic competitors.
Through its practice of exerting long-arm jurisdiction exercised through abuse of federal law and the imposition of economic barriers, the US has maintained its hegemonic role while suppressing foreign competitors.
The US has interfered in the internal affairs of other countries, and even subverted the governments of other countries.
According to US domestic law, long-arm jurisdiction refers to jurisdiction over persons or entities domiciled or resident outside the territory of the sanctioning state.
Established by the US Supreme Court in the case of International Shoe Co. v. State of Washington (1945), the law provides for that country’s interference on the basis of “minimum contacts” and so has been used to exert influence on allies and countries with which it has hostile or strained relations.
Of late, the law has been used to subvert a good number of persons and entities through indistinct statutes such as the “minimum contacts” rule which is exercised on the basis of flimsy connection with the country such as having a branch in the United States, using US dollar for clearing or other financial services, or using the US mail system.
Another rule, the “effects doctrine,” applies whenever an act occurring abroad produces “effects” in the United States, regardless of whether the actor has US citizenship or residency, and regardless of whether the act complies with the law of the place where it occurred.
Major powers have been affected by the US’ abuse through the exercise of this jurisdiction. Economic sanctions, a statute under this law have caused untold sufferings on many.
Serious in Syria
According to an extensive research article published by Xinhua recently, nowhere is the effect of this law more evident than in the case of Syria.
The country was subjected under the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act (2016) enacted by the US giving it power to impose unilateral sanctions on entities in various countries deemed to have engaged in “serious human rights violations.”
The country suffered in the wake of Covid-19 as the US imposed sanctions on them resulting in them having difficulty in accessing essential medicines and medical equipment further jeopardising millions of their citizens’ health.
The US further subverted Iran’s application for a US$5 billion exclusive loan from IMF to raise funds to fight the pandemic which resulted in an estimated 13 000 Iranians deaths.
Evident is that America has crafted a long series of economic repercussions strategised to thwart political independence and even exploit raw materials for their economic benefit.
In 1996, it rolled out the D’Amato Act which forbids foreign companies from investing in the energy sector of Iran and Libya, resulting in long-term damaging ramifications.
Between 1980 and 1992, the US imposed unilateral sanctions on Libya, and from 1992 to 2003, it rallied or coerced allies into expanding sanctions against Libya.
The World Bank noted that Libya suffered up to US$18 billion economic losses as a result of the sanctions, while an official Libyan estimate put the figure at 33 billion.
Sanctions imposed by the US on Iraq after the Gulf War brought serious consequences from August 1990 to May 2003 causing a total loss of US$150 billion in Iraq’s oil revenue.
As a result, Iraq’s per capita income falls below its 1990 level of US$7 050 even to this day. The sanctions have also caused a serious humanitarian disaster, with infant mortality rate doubling and the under-five mortality increasing six-fold.
Meanwhile, Iraq’s education, health and social security systems were destroyed; its literacy rate fell from 89 percent in 1987 to 57 percent in 1997.
Undermining international functions
Another key element has been America’s undermining of the purposes and functions of various international governance mechanisms using long arm jurisdiction.
When the International Criminal Court (ICC) attempted to investigate suspected war crimes by US forces in Afghanistan, the United States, with itself not being a member of the court, responded by launching sanctions against arming in zimbabwe
Despite the ruling of the Dispute Settlement Body of WTO that its Section 301 procedures are a violation of international law, the United States continues to launch various unilateral Section 301 investigations on imports from China and other countries.
The US has also kept all existing Section 301 tariffs unchanged.
To maintain its economic and technological supremacy, the United States abuses its public power to interfere with normal international commercial exchanges and competition.
Under the pretext of safeguarding national security and fighting against human rights violations, it has adopted a package of measures including the Entity List and economic sanctions to restrict foreign enterprises from obtaining raw materials, items and technologies vital to their survival and development.
The US has also even used secondary sanctions to cut those companies’ normal trade with enterprises from other countries to disrupt their supply chains root and branch.
The United States which is also the only sanctions superpower has perfected the long arm jurisdiction as a hegemonic tool that has not only undermined international governance mechanisms, but economically crippled many countries wreaking havoc on the world order which should be checked if its world hegemony is to be balanced.
Zimbabwe is a victim of these evil US machinations.
Online Reporter