leeroy mupariri
Nick Mangwana
Government Up Close
ON 25 October, the Southern African Development Community (SADC) region observes Anti-Sanctions Day, a solemn reminder of the devastating impact of unilateral economic sanctions on Zimbabwe and the broader regional economy.
Tomorrow is indeed a special day on our regional calendar.
Declared in 2019, this day of solidarity is a collective rejection of the coercive measures imposed by Western powers, particularly the United States, which have crippled Zimbabwe’s economic growth, stifled poverty eradication and hindered regional integration.
As SADC member states stand together in defiance of these unjust measures, the Anti-Sanctions Day serves as a powerful assertion of African agency, sovereignty, and the unwavering commitment to regional co-operation, development and Ubuntu philosophy – I am, because we are.
This day also highlights the urgent need for international co-operation, diplomacy, and a nuanced understanding of the complex issues underlying these sanctions, ultimately seeking to amplify the voices of those most affected and promote a more equitable and just world order.
For this day, we will forever be grateful to the late Pan-Africanist, President John Pombe Magufuli.
Sanctions against Zimbabwe have been there for more than 20 years.
We have always argued that they hinder the country’s economic growth and harm its citizens.
These sanctions are out-dated and disproportionately affect the general population, rather than targeting specific individuals as the United States and its allies prefer to hoodwink the world into believing.
The sanctions regime against Zimbabwe has led to significant economic challenges, including high inflation and limited access to international credit. They are illegal and should be removed unconditionally.
Let us start by addressing the illegal nature of these sanctions or Unilateral Coercive Measures (UCMs) as they are characterised by the United Nations.
Article 41 of the United Nations Charter reads, “the Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed forces are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.”
It is clear from the above that sanctions can only be decided upon by the United Nations Security Council.
Sanctions imposed on Zimbabwe were unilaterally imposed by the United States and its allies, and in 2008, they failed to get a Security Council Resolution to impose those sanctions in terms of Article 41.
The UN has a standing resolution on hegemonic sanctions imposed by powerful nations, just because they can or because a certain country has sovereign policies which they do not like.
This position is articulated by Resolution 39/210 of December 18, 1984 which declared that, “no State may use or encourage the use of economic, political or any other type of measures to coerce another State in order to obtain from it the subordination of the exercise of its sovereign”.
It further deplored, “the fact that some developed countries continue to apply and, in some cases, have increased the scope of economic measures that have the purpose of exerting coercion on the sovereign decisions of developing countries subject to those measures”. This resolution and Article 41 stands as the authority that gives Zimbabwe and SADC the base to declare that the sanctions imposed on Zimbabwe are illegal and in contravention of international law and conventions.
This position is buttressed by the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action adopted by the World Conference on Human Rights on June 25, 1993 which called on States to “refrain from any unilateral measures not in accordance with international law and the Charter of the United Nations that create obstacles to trade relations among states and impedes full realisation of human rights set out in the Bill of Rights”.
We can go on and on making the case for the illegality of the sanctions against Zimbabwe but we see no argument to the contrary.
Let us just fast-forward to what the Special Rapporteur on the negative impact of the UCMs on the enjoyment of human rights, Dr Alena Douhan, said in October 2021.
She concluded that, “Sanctions including secondary sanctions, and different forms of over-compliance by foreign banks and companies have led to a significant impact on the population of Zimbabwe and the Government, exacerbating pre-existing economic and humanitarian challenges.” Well, here we are. The reach of sanctions tentacles extends well beyond any so-called list of “11 sanctioned people”.
Let those who want to pull some wool over the eyes of the Zimbabwean people explain away the issue of over compliance by foreign banks or the issue of secondary sanctions.
Now that the legal case against sanctions has been made, let us look at the moral case.
The US’ approach to international relations is riddled with glaring moral contradictions.
On one hand, the country imposes economic sanctions that cripple a nation’s economy, and on the other, it claims to offer humanitarian aid through USAID as a gesture of goodwill. This raises serious questions about the sincerity of US foreign policy.
Consider the devastating impact of sanctions on Zimbabwe’s economy and its people.
Sanctions have led to skyrocketing inflation, and widespread unemployment as well as untold suffering of innocent civilians.
Then, the US says it provides aid through USAID. Well, to us this is a mere token gesture compared to the damage inflicted by sanctions.
If they care about the welfare of the Zimbabwean people, they should just remove the shackles of sanctions chaining our ankles so we can run on our own.
The moral paradox is simply astounding. On one hand they claim that they imposed sanctions to enforce the respect of human rights, and on the other hand they are told by the UN that it is they who are impeding the Zimbabwean people from fully enjoying their human rights because of these sanctions.
The US surely cannot perch itself on a moral pedestal and claim to have some moral conscience above or else and yet impose sanctions that cause untold suffering as a means of leveraging ordinary Zimbabweans to turn against their Government. So, imposing sanctions with one hand and pretending to offer aid with another simply undermines US’ moral authority. Further, decimating economies and then providing limited aid exposes their true hegemonic intentions. And the rank hypocrisy!
The United States’ policy towards Zimbabwe is a classic case of double standards. On one hand, the US imposes economic sanctions on Zimbabwe, citing nonsensical human rights concerns and so-called democratic deficiencies. However, when it comes to its allies in the Middle East whose names we will not mention here, the US turns a blind eye to real and not imagined human rights abuses.
Thousands of children are being bombed to smithereens everyday and some are being maimed for life.
Hundreds of journalists have been killed in line of duty and many argue, deliberately so.
Doctors and aid workers are blown to thousand pieces for their efforts to save lives yet the US does not want to hear the word “sanctions”.
Instead, it provides the arsenal and ordinances for such operations.
This hypocrisy undermines the legitimacy of US foreign policy and raises questions about the true motivations behind its actions against Zimbabwe
The US sanctions against Zimbabwe have had devastating consequences, exacerbating poverty, inflation, and unemployment.
Meanwhile, the US continues to maintain lucrative trade and diplomatic relationships with countries that have questionable human rights records.
For instance, the US has failed to impose meaningful sanctions against a country which is involved in the civil war of another country and is accused of human rights abuses against its own citizens.
This selective application of sanctions suggests that the US is more interested in advancing its strategic interests than promoting human rights and democracy as it claims.
The real international community must demand consistency and fairness in US foreign policy to ensure economic sanctions are not used as a political tool to punish nations whose policies are considered as unfriendly to the US.
When Zimbabwe got involved in Operation Sovereign Legitimacy in the DR Congo, was the US not quickly off the blocks making all sorts of demands and making withdrawal from the country a ZIDERA deliverable?
Zimbabwe’s access to international finances has been blocked time and time again by ZIDERA.
How many countries have really developed living on a hand to mouth basis?
Let us face it, even the US cannot survive without borrowing. Does that country not owe China northwards of US$800 billion?
Sanctions give Zimbabwe an unfriendly risk profile and make borrowing virtually impossible.
To make matters worse, Section 4 of ZIDERA instructs the US executive directors at the International Financial Institutions (IFIs) to “oppose and vote against” any loan or financial assistance to Zimbabwe, unless authorised by the US president.
This restriction extends to institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank, and African Development Bank.
As a result, Zimbabwe is denied access to critical financing for infrastructure development, agriculture, and social services, exacerbating economic stagnation and poverty.
Furthermore, ZIDERA’s provisions also discourage private investors and international banks from lending to Zimbabwe, fearing reputational risk and potential US retaliation.
With its credit lines severely constrained, this has the effect of perpetuating a vicious cycle of debt, poverty, and underdevelopment. A friend who works at the African Development Bank confirmed that an American national who works for the bank consistently blocks any application for project funding emanating from Zimbabwe. That is ZIDERA for you.
As a nation we suggest that the US should not rely on sanctions and so-called aid, but rather prioritise diplomatic engagement, economic cooperation, and genuine partnership with other nations.
The impact of sanctions on Zimbabwe’s citizens cannot be overstated.
The country’s healthcare system, once considered one of the best in Africa, has struggled to cope with the lack of resources and medical supplies.
This has resulted in deaths and unnecessary suffering, particularly among vulnerable populations such as the elderly, women, and children.
Furthermore, the sanctions have crippled Zimbabwe’s education system, making it difficult for students to access quality education and limiting opportunities for future generations.
The restrictions on international trade have also led to widespread unemployment, forcing many Zimbabweans to seek livelihoods in neighbouring countries.
Even the battle against wildfires has been sanctioned.
Do we not have firefighting trucks held up somewhere in Lithuania and now on the verge of being “donated” to Ukraine because both Zimbabwe and Belarus have sanctions imposed on them?
Where on the so-called “targeted list” are fire trucks indexed? The human cost is staggering. And all that suffering for what? The imposition of a hegemonic will upon a people for taking a position you consider “a considerable threat to your foreign interest”?
The economic consequences of sanctions are far-reaching and devastating.
Zimbabwe’s GDP stagnated for years and would have remained so had it not been President Mnangagwa’s ingenuity in stirring the country’s economy to its current consistent sound footing.
Through his leadership, the country has found inner resilience and fortitude to develop and grow in spite of sanctions. Then someone says it is 11 people on some list!
Is it not time for the US and the collective West to re-evaluate their approach to Zimbabwe? Rather than perpetuating harmful sanctions should they not focus on constructive engagement?
The imposition of unilateral coercive measures (UCMs) on Zimbabwe by Western powers, particularly the US, has had far-reaching consequences that extend beyond the country’s borders to affect the entire region.
These measures, cloaked in the guise of promoting democracy and human rights, have instead exacerbated economic hardship and poverty, ultimately undermining regional integration and cooperation.
The entire SADC region has felt the ripple effects, as Zimbabwe’s economic challenges overflow across the borders, hindering efforts to promote economic integration.
The imposition of UCMs has undermined the sovereignty and independence of Zimbabwe, setting a dangerous precedent for external interference in the internal affairs of African nations. This has serious implications for regional peace and security. The removal of these UCMs is crucial to promoting economic development, regional integration, and peace in Zimbabwe and the SADC region.
It is time for Western powers to re-evaluate their approach, recognising that UCMs are a counterproductive tool that undermines, rather than promotes, human rights and democracy.
