Saturday, March 12, 2011
By The Post
Sat 12 Mar. 2011, 04:00 CAT
The proportions that the tantrums between Zimbabwe and the alliance of the European Union and the United States have reached over the issue of sanctions on Zimbabwe are beginning to be startling.
If not handled carefully, the resultant effect could be disastrous for all parties involved. Yet the issue could easily be resolved because the solution is within reach of all the parties and they all know what should be done.
The starting point is truth and sincerity.
These are priceless virtues in any kind of dealings.
These virtues make things better and easier.
Yet many people choose to shy away from them.
This is clearly happening with regard to sanctions that have been imposed on Zimbabwe by Western countries, and are said to be targeted towards 163 individuals close to President Robert Mugabe’s regime.
But clearly, they have caused massive suffering on the innocent and defenceless citizens during the last decade.
Not only that, they have been the main issue causing disgruntlement amongst the parties that came together to form the inclusive government in Zimbabwe.
In fact, the issue of sanctions is the single biggest threat to the inclusive government.
Last week, President Mugabe and his ZANU-PF party launched a campaign aimed at showing the world that the sanctions do not hurt the people purported to be targeted, but that they injure the ordinary citizens and must be done away with.
Although the Global Political Agreement that established the inclusive government contains a clause that all participating political parties must call for the lifting of sanctions and allow the country to move forward, there seems to be disagreement between ZANU-PF and the MDC.
ZANU-PF argues that the MDC must tell the West to remove the sanctions because they agitated for them, but the MDC says it has nothing to do with the embargo, as it is a result of ZANU-PF’s wrongdoing against the West.
But in January 2010, the truth, or at least what appeared to be the truth, was told by former British Foreign Secretary David Miliband when he said the EU would only remove sanctions on Zimbabwe at MDC’s request.
Here is what Miliband said while addressing the House of Commons on January 28, 2010:
“I agree that numerous aspects of the situation in Zimbabwe are of deep concern.
It is right to say that, over the past year, the economic situation has changed in a quite fundamental way, although it is not quite right to refer to the detention of Roy Bennett as a continued threat to him through a legal case.
In respect of sanctions, we have made it clear that they can be lifted only in a calibrated way, as progress is made.
I do not think that it is right to say that the choice is between lifting all sanctions and lifting none at all.
We have to calibrate our response to the progress on the ground, and, above all, to be guided by what the MDC says to us about the conditions under which it is working and leading the country.
A range of EU sanctions is in place.
Some of them refer to individuals, others to so-called parastatal organisations.
Different sanctions have been brought in at different points, and different sanctions are the responsibility of different ministries in the Zimbabwean system.
I believe that EU sanctions have helped to send a strong message, and that they have had a practical effect without hurting the Zimbabwean people, which would have been a sanction too far.”
Miliband had been asked by North-West Norfolk member of parliament, Henry Bellingham, whether he agreed that sanctions should not be lifted until the arrest of MDC treasurer Roy Bennett and concerns about human rights were addressed.
All along, the MDC has been untruthful and insincere about their role in the sanctions against Zimbabwe by the US and the EU.
They have maintained that they have no role in the removal of sanctions.
The US and EU have also been untruthful and insincere about the effects of the sanctions.
They have maintained that the only sanctions in place are “targeted” at the 163 members of Mugabe’s inner circle, who are only not permitted to travel or do business in Europe and America.
To the contrary, the sanctions have not affected even one of the so-called targeted individuals.
Yesterday we spoke to one of the people on the sanctions list, Chief Fortune Charumbira, and this is what he said:
“I have not been affected by the sanctions. I have never lost any sleep because I’m on the sanctions list. But I have seen a lot of people, innocent people suffering. It is clear for all to see that the sanctions have affected the poor and untargeted.”
It may be easy to dismiss Chief Charumbira’s comments but they hold truth.
Here is how. It is common knowledge that because of sanctions, the US and EU have suspended all forms of balance of payments support, technical assistance, grants and infrastructural development flows to both government and private sectors and stopped all lending operations to the country.
Yes, the humanitarian aid comes in and is channelled through US and European NGOs and agencies, not through the government. Is it not because of sanctions?
The shortage of foreign currency resulted in the country accumulating external payment arrears.
Zimbabwe's balance of payments position deteriorated significantly since 2000 from the combined effects of inadequate export performance and reduced capital inflows.
According to government figures, foreign exchange reserves declined as a result, from US $830 million or three months import cover in 1996 to less than one month's cover by 2010.
The foreign exchange shortages severely constrained the country's capacity to meet foreign payment obligations and finance critical imports such as drugs, grain, raw materials, fuel and electricity, leading to hunger, closure of hospitals, fuel shortages, power cuts etc.
This was only eased by the decision the country took to abandon its own currency that had become worthless.
The country has had a significant build up in external payments arrears.
Total foreign payments arrears increased from US$109 million at the end of 1999 to US$2.5 billion by the end of 2006.
The worsening of the country's creditworthiness and its risk profile led to the drying up of sources of external finance.
The withdrawal of the multilateral financial institutions from providing balance of payments support to Zimbabwe also had an effect on some bilateral creditors and donors who have followed suit by either scaling down or suspending disbursements on existing loans to the government and parastatal companies.
Prior to these developments, Zimbabwe was highly rated in the international financial markets.
The capital account, traditionally a surplus account, has been in deficit since 2000.
As such, international investors prefer other countries for investment, depriving Zimbabwe of much-needed foreign direct investment.
Sanctions have also affected the image of the country through negative perceptions by the international community. Zimbabwean companies are finding it extremely difficult to access lines of credit.
As a result, they have to pay cash for imports.
As a result of the risk premium, the country's private companies have been securing offshore funds at prohibitive interest rates.
This has had a ripple effect on employment levels and low capacity utilisation as reflected by the recent shortages of basic goods and services.
Declining export performance has also adversely affected the standards of living for the general populace, and because of the deteriorating economic conditions, the country has experienced large scale emigration, especially of skilled labour, thus further straining the economy.
As at last year, three million people were estimated to have emigrated.
The country recorded 90 per cent unemployment levels.
The sanctions have adversely impacted on Foreign Direct Investment to Zimbabwe.
Investors are shying away and FDI inflows have collapsed from US$444.3 million in 1998 to only US$50 million in 2006.
In addition, Anglo-American companies have been strongly discouraged from investing in Zimbabwe by their home governments.
This has adversely affected investment levels into the country, thus accentuating the foreign exchange shortages leading to further shortages of fuel and imported raw materials.
The shortage of fuel has a domino effect on all sectors of the economy.
All these things are there for all to see. Zimbabweans themselves have opted to move forward and rebuild their country.
But in order for Zimbabwe’s economic recovery to go ahead, these sanctions must be lifted. This is also a call from SADC and the African Union.
The MDC, which entered into a partnership with ZANU-PF, has always maintained it has no influence over the issue insisting removal of the sanctions
The question is, if the MDC has had no role in on the sanctions, why would the British government wait on its advice to remove them?
Also, what does their absence at the anti-sanction campaign suggest?
This only plays into what ZANU-PF has always believed and has said consistently since 2000, that the sanctions came about following a lobby by the MDC and can only be removed following a similar lobby by the same party.
This also plays into what Mugabe has been saying all along, that actually sanctions were never about democratic conditions in Zimbabwe but about an imperialistic agenda.
The MDC has found itself struggling under the weight of the same sanctions.
And as long as these sanctions continue to exist, they will undermine the position of the MDC in the unity government.
They were left exposed by Miliband. ZANU-PF can continue to point that the “MDC campaigned for these sanctions, it is their fault this has occurred and we will not implement our side of the GPA reforms until the MDC ask Britain or and the United States to lift these sanctions that these countries campaigned for.”
For the interest of progress in Zimbabwe, the sanctions must be removed.
There is a stalemate in the inclusive government and, as we have stated before, one of the sticking points is the issue of sanctions.
However, we think the removal of these sanctions must be a collective effort by all concerned.
MDC must play its role.
ZANU-PF must also play its role. The US and EU must play their role.
MDC must play its role by, according to Miliband, advising Britain to lift the sanctions.
ZANU-PF must also play its role by ensuring that conditions that brought about the sanctions are done away with.
Political violence, human rights abuses and violent farm disruptions, repressive laws, which were reasons advanced by the West for imposing sanctions, must end completely.
All agreed reforms must take place. ZANU-PF must realise that these sanctions are not entirely MDC’s baby.
The GPA does not in any way give the obligation of dealing with the restrictive measures on the MDC alone.
It is a collective effort in the GPA between ZANU-PF and MDC in the context and within the aegis of the inclusive government.
The US and EU must play their role by removing the sanctions and letting Zimbabweans solve their own problems.
As long as sanctions remain, the inclusive government will not function smoothly.
This means that the necessary constitutional, political and economic reforms that are necessary to usher free and fair elections later this year will not take place.
It also means there will be no free and fair elections even next time around and it will be back to square one.
It will be sad indeed for all these things to happen when everyone concerned knows what to do.