Maravi

(TALKZIMBABWE) Sanctions destroying Britain's reputation

Sanctions destroying Britain's reputation
By: Basil Mutoti
Posted: Monday, November 8, 2010 5:54 am

ILLEGAL and ruinous sanctions against Zimbabwe are now discredited and the west is only holding onto them as a trump card in the Zimbabwean debate; and for face-saving purposes.

They are counterproductive and present a dilemma for Britain especially. On one hand, the country needs the increasing numbers of Zimbabwean “asylum seekers” to return home, but cannot declare the country safe and thereby remove sanctions. Britain also needs to bring its immigration policy on Zimbabwe in line with general immigration policy in Britain; but will not declare Zimbabwe safe and peaceful.

The existence of the embargo is now based on some very whimsical unsustainable arguments, and British politicians look more and more confused in their justification for their existence.

The issues of human rights, freedom of the press, and other abstract issues are only cosmetic.

Sanctions are a direct response to the Fast Track Land Reform programme of 2000 that saw a lot of white commercial farmers lose land they had held for years under various racist tenure systems.

Most of those white commercial farmers who argue that they bought the land, only exchanged title deeds at Independence to legitimise ownership and give a semblance of legality to their tenure. Buying "stolen land" is tantamount to "handling stolen property".

Those who argue that government issued "Certificates of No Interest" can no longer sustain their argument because Britain, which aided the stealing of that property in the first place, decided to renege on its obligation (of funding the reform and the reconstruction of Zimbabwe); as agreed in 1979 at Lancaster House.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel made the E.U. position very clear when Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai visited Germany in June 2009. She wanted "expropriated property" returned. Ironically, she was talking about land being "returned" to white commercial farmers; not vice versa. Her appreciation of Zimbabwe's land tenure history starts in 1999-2000; and by some collective amnesia Zimbabweans are supposed to forget about the colonial stealing of land.

[Geraldine Hun has another reason to be antsy about land redistribution. Their kith and kin still occupy most of Namibia, former Deutsches Suedwest Afrika. Which is why for the longest time they did not address Germany's first genocide of the 20th century, which occurred in what is now called Namibia. See the documentary Germany And The Second Reich. Eerie resonances and omens of the genocide that was to follow in Europe 40 years later. Start with Part 1, and also check out part 9: Denial of History. - MrK]

Absentee landlords, many of whom were in the British House of Lords lost millions of pounds when farms were taken over by Government. They are bitter. These elements were instrumental in forming the Westminster Foundation that originally funded the MDC. This is the crux of the matter; not some argument about human rights, freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

There are places where human rights have been flouted and where the independent (free) press is virtually non-existent; but with no similar censure by Britain or the U.S.

In fact, the west, especially Britain and the U.S. (those who imposed sanctions) have a more recent history of flouting international laws; under the pretext of “protecting our national interest”.

Those who argue that sanctions against Zimbabwe were necessary because reconstruction funds paid by Britain before Tony Blair had been redirected to the offensive in the Democratic Republic of Congo need some psychological examination. This, again, is another pretext used for the imposition of sanctions.

The Labour Party came into power on 2 May 1997. DRC only became a member of Sadc in September 1997. Diplomatic negotiations to avert a military intervention continued until the end of the war. There were summits in September 1998 in Victoria Falls, in Addis Ababa and in Mauritius in that same month.

The Sadc meeting of 15 September in Mauritius endorsed intervention by Zimbabwe, Namibia and Angola, while Zambian President Frederick Chiluba continued with diplomatic efforts.

A summit organised by Gabonese President Omar Bongo in Libreville in 1998, and attended by the governments of Chad, Republic of the Congo, the Central African Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Cameron, Namibia and Angola endorsed President Kabila as legitimate leader and resolved to protect his leadership and peace in the region. Zimbabwe was not involved in this "francophone Africa" meeting. Subsequently, Chad dispatched 2,000 troops in September; which were denied by DRC.

Talks continued in Zambia, and others were facilitated by President Muammar Kaddafi to try and avert an all-out war; although Uganda, after talks with South Africa President Nelson Mandela was openly supporting Mouvement pou la libération du Congo (MLC) rebels in DRC. This was after recognition of President Kabila as leader by the region.

The Sadc offensive in the DRC started in earnest in 1999-2000; and diplomatic initiatives never stopped up until the end of the offensive.

So Blair and Claire Short could not have been fortune tellers; who would have foreseen what Zimbabwe's offensive in the DRC would be two years later; or its cost.

Zimbabwe as then Interim Chair of the newly created Organ on Politics, Defence and Security had to act promptly in DRC.

The organ had been founded to "allow more flexibility and timely response, at the highest level, to sensitive and potentially explosive situations." In a letter to regional leaders dated 14 May 2006, President Ketumile Masire of Botswana, as the chairperson of Sadc, declared that the organ "... should now begin to operate."

The DRC war was escalating into neighbouring countries; and was a threat to the sub region. Political analyst and linguist Noam Chomsky is of the view that the conflict in the DRC is the "worst catastrophe in Africa if not the world", killing 1,000 a day.

In fact the DRC offensive was a unanimous agreement by the regional group; not some unilateral decision by President Mugabe and the Zanu-PF government.

The threat to the stability of the region required a rapid response from a well-trained military entity (like the combined force of Zimbabwe, Namibia and Angola) that could be deployed to intervene in the conflict zone while a political solution to the crisis was being sought.

So the issue of sanctions is crucial. Britain and America’s arguments that sanctions were necessary to restore democratic rule in Zimbabwe are a red herring. There’s no democratic rule in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Sanctions are at the heart of the Zimbabwe-Britain debate (which translates itself into an all-out anti-Zimbabwe campaign by the West as Britain and the US hold the trump card in the EU and NATO respectively).

The issue is simply about land – the return of land to those who stole it in the first place.

Labels: DRC, LAURENT KABILA, NEOCOLONIALISM, SANCTIONS, ZDERA

posted by MrK @ 6:34 PM