Interim South Africa President and current SADC Chairman cannot cause the lifting of sanctions by countries he is not in charge of The rapidity of change of change demands that we adapt to changes at shortest possible notice in order to influence the impact environmental, social, economic and political changes has on our country.
For nearly a decade we have been reacting to sanctions imposed on our country by the West with a cocktail of orthodox and unorthodox economic interventions on an adhoc basis.
Could it be that we may be addressing a problem that is nonexistent or alternatively we are addressing the symptoms of a real problem afflicting our country?
Why is it everything we have done so far has not resolved the sanctions problem which consensus seem to identify as the root cause of our economic, social and political conundrum?
Because there is as much discord on the sanctions issue as there is a build up of consensus that whatever the discord is the sanctions must be lifted, it is important at the outset to be definitive about the meaning of sanctions used in this article.
In this article sanctions are generally accepted to be a punishment imposed as a result of breaking a law or rule and or a punitive measure taken by one or more nations to apply pressure on Zimbabwe to conform to international law or opinion.
There is no evidence of consensus that Zimbabwe is under such punitive measures but that is not of material consequence in this submission.
What is of material consequence is that there is a critical mass that is agitating for the removal of whatever punitive measures have been imposed by some USA, EU and Western countries on the Zanu PF leadership in the coalition government now in charge of the country.
The essence of the demand which is tacitly supported by SADC, AU some Asian and non aligned countries is that there is a new political order in the country which must be given a chance to turn around the country’s fortunes and more pertinently aided economically to do so.
Indeed there is a new political order in charge of the country which is severely handicapped from delivering turnaround programmes because it has inherited a bankrupt country.
The causes of the bankruptcy may be in dispute but the fact is the new political dispensation includes players who were not party to the reasons why sanctions were imposed and it would be unfair to paint them with the same brush as those they have agreed to coalesce with in government.
That line of argument is only sensible to politics. It is however a hopelessly flawed legal argument which is morally repugnant and bereft of common law due process logic.
It is analogous to a beneficiary of inheritance of stolen or laundered property seeking legal assistance support from the international community to contest an expropriation order issued to the deceased thief or launderer against the inherited proceeds.
Many solutions we prescribe for challenges we face fail not because the solutions are flawed but because we have failed to accurately identify the problem or challenge we are facing in terms of its real causes.
The current call for the lifting of any punitive measures imposed on Zimbabwe and or any of its political leadership while noble is unfortunately not the panacea to challenges facing the country.
The SADC leadership at the forefront of pushing this solution initially pushed for the formation of the coalition government arguing that it would resolve the political challenges faced by the country.
We all know that the political challenges remain with us despite the existence of the coalition government.
It is safe to conclude that without a workable economic intervention to turn around the country’s economic fortunes the political challenges currently held in abeyance while people wait for the economic solution will implode or explode sooner rather than later.
Before we get carried away with diversionary politics within SADC let us sit back and ask ourselves if SADC and AU have the capacity to help us mitigate sanctions.
The truth is SADC and AU do not have the capacity to aid us economically. That is why now they are leading us up the garden path of appealing for the West to lift sanctions.
We must ask if the SADC has any leverage of the Western nations that could cause them to lift the sanctions they have imposed on Zimbabwe.
The answer again is that they have absolutely no such leverage.
What it means is that if we foolishly decide to follow the good African brotherhood thrust to demand the lifting of sanctions and donations of aid or access to international credit lines we will find out two years down the line that we have wasted valuable time and worsened the extent of the challenges.
In response to the West’s sanctions regime we have experimented with;
• The look East intervention
• Money printing initiative
• Imposition of counter sanctions on Tony Blair and 95 others
• Excluding election monitors from countries that have sanctioned us
• Pulling out of the Commonwealth
• Racial and political thuggery and repression
• Unwarranted interference with the judiciary
• Stricter regulation of all facets of life
• Expulsion of foreign and critical local media
• Militarisation of State institutions
• Disobedience of unfavourable court orders
• Price wars
• Farm mechanisation
• Indigenisation legislation and opponent deprivation of property rights.
• Local Empowerment programmes and
• Various operations too numerous to enumerate.
These were all sold as noble solutions to our challenges but evidence on the ground seems to suggest otherwise. Were these wrong solutions altogether or could it be that we were not addressing the real problems besetting our country?
If the challenges were illegal sanctions, national sovereignty and empowerment how were the choices of solutions we applied intended to solve the challenges and to what extent have they achieved the desired result?
This evaluative question has not been asked as we are obsessed with adhoc reactions to new challenges that always seemingly seem to filter through the mitigatory measures we chose each time a new variation of the challenges reared its head.
Even the choice of the inclusive government to supplant the electoral process of forming a government is an adhoc reaction to fears about compromising our sovereignty.
Whether or not it will resolve our fears remains to be seen. It appears we are now being misled into believing that SADC and AU advocacy as well as our own Legislative debates will somehow miraculously cause the West to lift the hostile sanctions they illegally imposed against our country.
But let us sober up and ask ourselves why the sanctions were imposed and seek honest and factual answers for that and then speculate on other ulterior motives thereafter.
Our work is cut out in this regard because unlike the EU and other Western Nations in the sanctions class action against Zimbabwe the USA reduced its punitive measures to a statute.
The Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act of 2001(ZIDERA) is generally regarded as the basis upon which the Zimbabwe Sanctions are premised. It is therefore the most comprehensive factual basis upon which to address the factual basis of the sanctions.
All other reasons, and they are many, are speculative and in many instances more appealing politically depending on which persuasion the reader is from.
ZIDERA specifically stipulates that USA sanctions on Zimbabwe will only be lifted either by way of the USA President supplying the USA Congress a certificate to the effect that the following conditions are satisfied:
(1) RESTORATION OF THE RULE OF LAW.—The rule of law has been restored in Zimbabwe, including respect for ownership and title to property, freedom of speech and association, and an end to the lawlessness, violence, and intimidation sponsored, condoned, or tolerated by the Government of Zimbabwe, the ruling party, and their supporters or entities.
(2) ELECTION OR PRE-ELECTION CONDITIONS.—Either of the following two conditions is satisfied:
(A) PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.—Zimbabwe has held a presidential election that is widely accepted as free and fair by independent international monitors and the president- elect is free to assume the duties of the office.
(B) PRE-ELECTION CONDITIONS.—In the event the certification is made before the presidential election takes place, the Government of Zimbabwe has sufficiently improved the pre-election environment to a degree consistent with accepted international standards for security and freedom of movement and association.
(3) COMMITMENT TO EQUITABLE, LEGAL, AND TRANSPARENT LAND REFORM.—The Government of Zimbabwe has demonstrated a commitment to an equitable, legal, and transparent land reform program consistent with agreements reached at the International Donors’ Conference on Land Reform and Resettlement in Zimbabwe held in Harare, Zimbabwe, in September 1998.
(4) FULFILLMENT OF AGREEMENT ENDING WAR IN DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO.—The Government of Zimbabwe is making a good faith effort to fulfil the terms of the Lusaka, Zambia, agreement on ending the war in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
(5) MILITARY AND NATIONAL POLICE SUBORDINATE TO CIVILIAN GOVERNMENT.—The Zimbabwean Armed Forces, then National Police of Zimbabwe, and other state security forces are responsible to and serve the elected civilian government or by;
(6) WAIVER.—The President may waive the provisions of subsection (b)(1) or subsection (c), if the President determines that it is in the national interest of the United States to do so.
Under these considered and legislated USA conditions where unless the USA President so certifies to the contrary the USA shall restrict MULTILATERAL FINANCING to Zimbabwe except as may be required to meet basic human needs or for good governance, through its Secretary of the Treasury who is legally compelled to instruct the United States executive director to each international financial institution to oppose and vote against—
(1) any extension by the respective institution of any loan, credit, or guarantee to the Government of Zimbabwe; or
(2) any cancellation or reduction of indebtedness owed by the Government of Zimbabwe to the United States or any international financial institution.
How effective will a SADC and or AU call for the lifting of sanctions be in the circumstances at variance with USA law?
It’s an exercise in futility. Why if there is a new political dispensation in Zimbabwe is it so difficult for the new leadership to satisfy the six criteria outlined as necessary for the lifting of restrictions to accessing multilateral financing and travelling to the USA and EU and other Western countries by specified people to be lifted?
Formation of the coalition government is ultra vires the second condition but can be politically used to justify lifting of sanctions as it has been overtaken by the 15 September 2008 agreement that supplanted an electoral process.
Condition 4 has been overtaken by events and is of no consequence while condition 6 is discretionary upon the USA President.
Why is it so difficult for the new order to satisfy the remaining conditions on the rule of law, equitable land redistribution and military subordination to civilian rule to get the sanctions if there are any lifted rather than waste time whingeing about the sanctions and yet doing nothing to mitigate them?
How much does it cost for General Chiwenga and his military commanders to call an international press conference where they will announce that they will subordinate themselves to anyone the people of Zimbabwe choose as President and demonstrate that by not conveniently absenting themselves from national events presided over or graced by the presence of Prime Minister Tsvangirai to show that they respect his position in government?
Why are there sporadic and renewed efforts at possessing commercial farms by people claiming to have been allotted the farms but had not taken up occupation over a period of 9 years the disorderly programme has been in existence?
Let us not fool ourselves that sanctions if any will be lifted because SADC and AU or our Parliament and Premier has appealed for that.
None of these people are in charge of the imposition of the sanctions on the country or anyone else for that matter.
If we eliminate the factual basis upon which the sanctions if any are premised and they remain in place we have reason to justify the punitive actions as being motivated by those appealing reasons we are speculating to be the defacto basis of the sanctions.
As it is we are doing ourselves no favours by refusing to address specific reasons given for the sanctions most of which do not need financial outlays to satisfy.
Let us stop arbitrary arrests of politically incorrect opponents of the state, re-engage international media to scrutinise our dealings with human rights and application of the rule of law, deregulate economic activity, and amend restrictive laws that curtail fundamental human liberties.
We must resist being misled into fruitless advocacy against sanctions which will not yield any results other than delay final resolutions of the real challenges we face.
Sanctions are not the challenge. Our indebtedness, poor credit worthiness, poor international repute and corrupt tendencies are the problem. Lets deal with those and bring them to acceptable international standards transparently and the lien restrictions attached to our failure in this regard will automatically be rendered unjustifiable and unnecessary.
No comments:
Post a Comment