(NEWZIMBABWE) UN rights chief calls for lifting of Zimbabwe sanctions
COMMENT - Human rights fact finding mission on the bleeding obvious - that economic sanctions make the lives of the poor so miserable that they turn on their own leadership. Half a million women and children died because of the sanctions on Iraq (also see here)- why would Zimbabwe fare any better?UN rights chief calls for lifting of Zimbabwe sanctions
Zimbabwe visit ... Pillay meeting President Mugabe in Harare on Wednesday
25/05/2012 00:00:00
by Staff Reporter
UNITED Nations human rights chief Navi Pillay on Friday called on the European Union and the United States to lift sanctions on Zimbabwe, saying they have worsened the country’s economic problems with “quite serious ramifications” for the poorest and most vulnerable.
Pillay said allegations of human rights abuses cited by western countries when imposing the sanctions should be dealt with in a court of law, not through measures that affect ordinary people.
“The issues relating to the individuals targeted by the sanctions will, I hope – assuming there is sufficient evidence – one day be sorted out in a court of law, which is the proper place to deal with serious crimes,” she said during a lecture at the University of Zimbabwe.
“In the meantime, I would urge those countries that are currently applying sanctions on Zimbabwe to suspend them, at least until the conduct and outcome of the elections and related reforms are clear.”
The United States and the European Union imposed sanctions against Zimbabwe more than a decade ago, accusing President Robert Mugabe and key figures in his administration of gross human rights abuses and electoral fraud.
[And encroaching on the lands owend by De Beers, like the 117,000 hectare Debshan 'Ranch'. - MrK]
Mugabe denies the allegations and claims the sanctions were meant to punish him and his Zanu PF party for the country’s land reforms. The Zanu PF leader blames the sanctions for the country’s near-economic collapse over the last few years.
Western countries blame mismanagement for the country’s economic challenges and insist that the sanctions are only targeted at individuals and corporations linked to the alleged abuses.
[How can ZDERA be 'only targeted at individuals and corporations linked to the alleged abuses.'? Let's revisit their language, ZDERA Section 4 C:
SEC. 4. SUPPORT FOR DEMOCRATIC TRANSITION AND ECONOMIC RECOVERY.
(c) MULTILATERAL FINANCING RESTRICTION- ... the Secretary of the Treasury shall 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.
Notice that the term "the Government Of Zimbabwe" is mentioned TWICE. In other words, the claim that economic sanctions against Zimbabwe are limited to or aimed at "individuals and corporations linked to the alleged abuses" is an outright, documentable lie. The entire government of Zimbabwe (now including the MDC members) are subject to ZDERA. It was ZDERA that destroyed the Zimbabwe Dollar, destroying people's savings and salaries, by freezing the Government of Zimbabwe's lines of credit at international financial institutions, including the African Development Bank, African Development Fund, Asian Development Bank, etc (see Section 3 titled Definitions). The destruction of the Zimbabwe Dollar coincides perfectly with the coming into force of ZDERA on Jan. 1st 2002, the year the Zimbabwe Dollar fell as much against the US Dollar as in the previous 6 years combined. I would say that, and common sense, are conclusive proof that the Zimbabwe Dollar was destroyed by ZDERA. See this chart (correction, the chart says 31st December 2001 when it is Jan 1st 2002), and read this 2010 article.
Economic sanctions, through the Government of Zimbabwe, have ALWAYS been aimed at the people of Zimbabwe, to weaken their will and give Anglo-American De Beers a free hand at exploiting the people's diamonds through privatisation of the Chiadzwa and Marange diamond fields. - MrK]
But Pillay – whose five-day visit to Zimbabwe concluded on Friday – said the sanctions “are in fact having a wider impact on the general population”.
[No shit, Sherlock. In ms. Pillay's own words:
" According to the Zimbabwe Demographic Health Survey 2011, the Maternal Mortality rate now is at 960 per 100,000 live births, whereas in 2005-2006 it was at 555, an increase of more than forty percent in just six years. At the same time, the limited access to clean water has led to outbreaks of typhoid and cholera. "
Source: (NEWZIMBABWE) Full text: UN rights chief's lecture at University of Zimbabwe
I would say the Zimbabwean population has been the main target of economic sanctions, just as the Iraqi population was the target of economic sanctions back in the 1990s. - MrK]
“There seems little doubt that the existence of the sanctions regimes has, at the very least, acted as a serious disincentive to overseas banks and investors. It is also likely that the stigma of sanctions has limited certain imports and exports,” she said.
“Taken together, these and other unintended side-effects will in turn inevitably have had a negative impact on the economy at large, with possibly quite serious ramifications for the country’s poorest and most vulnerable populations who have also had to cope with the political instability and violence as well as a severe drought.”
Pillay said there was no reason for maintaining the sanctions when all the three parties to the coalition government were agreed that they should be removed.
“The continuation of sanctions is now opposed by all three parties that make up the inclusive government, and I have yet to hear a single Zimbabwean inside the country say they definitely think sanctions should continue,” she said.
“The reason for this is a perception that sanctions, which were targeted at various named individuals and companies, are in fact having a wider impact on the general population.”
posted by MrK @ 8:07 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home