Andrew
Some might have incredulously thought that Bishop Lazarus was just idly musing when he indicated that the US would hold out on easing sanctions on Zimbabwe ahead of next year’s watershed elections despite incessant and overwhelming global pressure to do so.
We do not have to beat about the bush: Sanctions are specifically designed as a blunt tool to squeeze an economy so much that the population pours into the streets in violent resolve to overthrow the sitting government, or they simply vote out the condemned regime.
So, it would be counterintuitive for Washington to lift sanctions, especially when another opportune moment to overthrow the regime presents itself again when Zimbabwe goes to the polls in 2023.
So, the end-game is invariably the same — to overthrow the government by whatever means.
Time and again, Bishop Lazi keeps referring to the book “The Room Where it Happened: A White House Memoir”, which was written by that curiously blonde-moustached neocon Washington hawk John Bolton, a former US National Security Adviser.
It is a gold mine in understanding the inner workings of the White House and the US State Department.
Well, in it, Bolton, without equivocation, explains in elaborate detail the design, purpose and ultimate objective of sanctions as an interventionist foreign policy weapon against perceived adversaries.
Chapter 9, which covers Venezuela, is an interesting case in point.
“Under (Hugo) Chavez and now (Nicolas) Maduro, Venezuela’s revenues from petroleum-related exports had dropped dramatically, as production itself fell, from approximately 3,3 million barrels of oil pumped per day when Chavez took power in 1999 to approximately 1,1 million barrels per day in January 2019,” writes Bolton.
“This precipitous decline, dropping Venezuela to production levels not seen since the 1940s, had already substantially impoverished the country. Driving the state-owned oil monopoly’s production as low as possible, which the opposition (led by the young Juan Guiado) fully supported, might well have been enough to crash Maduro’s regime. There were many other sanctions necessary to eliminate the regime’s illicit income streams . . . but striking the oil company was key.”
Most importantly, he also explains both the philosophy behind sanctions and how they are supposed to work, putting paid to the oft-repeated but tired propaganda line that the coercive measures are actually for the common good, as they are meant to rehabilitate ostensibly rogue regimes.
Adds Bolton: “Treasury treated every new sanction decision as if we were prosecuting criminal cases in court, having to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That’s not how sanctions should work; they are about using America’s massive economic power to advance our national interests.
“They are most effective when applied massively, swiftly and decisively, and enforced with all the power available.”
You see, political mischief thrives when the economy is precipitously declining.
This is not rocket science.
But these anecdotes from Venezuela give us valuable insights, which we have had the opportunity to test in our own backyard.
They critically tell us that in instances where the economy, which is the main target, comes under siege, the opposition — as in Caracas that had its own version of young Nelson Chamisa in the person of the youthful and treacherous Juan Guiado — colludes with hostile powers in the hope they will richly benefit from the spoils of victory.
It often, if not always, does not work out.
We also learn that through sanctions, America leverages on its “massive economic power” to squeeze the targeted adversaries to submission.
In Zimbabwe, the Americans are even cynical to the extent that they claim the vicious circle of a volatile local currency, deindustrialisation, low investment in public services, unemployment and dwindling foreign direct investment is the result of misgovernance and incompetence by the ruling party, when they know full well that this is the handiwork of their evil unilateral coercive measures.
This specious claim is unfortunately even swallowed hook, line and sinker by the impressionable among us.
Turning point
But this narrative is way past its sell-by date and Africa is no longer having any of that.
Proverbs 6:16-19 says: “For there are six things the Lord hates — no, seven: haughtiness, lying, murdering, plotting evil, eagerness to do wrong, a false witness, sowing discord among brothers.”
Psalms 12:2-6 adds: “Everyone deceives and flatters and lies. There is no sincerity left. But the Lord will not deal gently with people who act like that; he will destroy those proud liars who say, ‘We will lie to our heart’s content. Our lips are our own; who can stop us?’
“The Lord replies, ‘I will arise and defend the oppressed, the poor, the needy. I will rescue them as they have longed for me to do.’
“The Lord’s promise is sure.
“He speaks no careless word; all he says is purest truth, like silver seven times refined.”
Last week, SADC, through its chairperson, DRC President Felix Tshisekedi, fell short of saying sanctions had poisoned our politics, making it difficult for ordinary citizens to make their political choices freely, especially during elections, as they generally create disaffection with the ruling party.
“Zimbabwe is expected to hold regular national elections in mid-2023,” said President Tshisekedi, adding: “In this context, SADC appeals to those who have imposed sanctions on Zimbabwe to give space to citizens of the country to exercise their democratic rights and not use sanctions as a covert mechanism to effect regime change.”
In essence, the import of his message, shorn of the usual diplomatic middle-of-the-road language of the past, was to unequivocally and emphatically note that sanctions had skewed the electoral playing field against ZANU PF, which is true.
This is why the opposition CCC, whose foundational politics lie in the pursuit of regime change on behalf of the West, which midwifed it, was deafeningly silent last week when Africa and the rest of the progressive world was calling for sanctions to be lifted.
They know that a Zimbabwean economy in tailspin is a much more effective manifesto than a stable economy, which is likely to make opposition politics nonsensical.
Stronger and bolder
Bishop has said it before and will say it again: As the economy recovers, ZANU PF is growing stronger, bolder and more assertive than at any time in the past 20 years.
Thanks to its new leadership that is no stranger to making tough and consequential decisions, Zimbabwe has turned the tide and turned the corner.
The vicious circle is progressively turning into a virtuous circle.
With the economy stabilised and growing, market volatility tamed and Africa rallying behind Harare, the opposition finds itself on the back foot and with no coherent message to sell, while its handlers are now at the crossroads.
The US Embassy in Harare, which is usually notorious for frenetically tweeting to deflect solidarity messages when the Anti-Sanctions Day is commemorated, could not do anything more than whimper in the face of overwhelming messages of support from around the world.
We have looked the beast in the eye and it has blinked.
Maybe it is because Madame Pamela Tremont, the ambassador-designate who was recently appointed by Joe Biden, has not taken up her post yet to give her troops new marching orders.
But, clearly, Washington has to rethink its foreign policy position on Zimbabwe.
By assiduously working to grow the economy through leveraging on the bountiful resources in our teapot-shaped Republic, including revitalising the critical organs of the economy such as agriculture and manufacturing, ZANU PF is effectively chipping away at the embargo.
Those who were throwing spanners in the works now grudgingly acknowledge that Zimbabwe is on the move.
After next year’s elections, which ZANU PF is likely to resoundingly win against an out-of-sorts opposition, something has got to give, and something will definitely give.
Bishop out!
Online Reporter