Shame, shame, shame to the United States! ... Mugabe berates US over sanctions
by Staff Reporter
COMMENT - This is the US Ambassador to Zimbabwe - what a lying lawyer. Admit to the existence of economic sanctions, so you can admit to the effects of your economic sanctions. They are still lying about the existence and effect of economic sanctions, rather than repeal them. Shame on America for being used to implement Rockefeller/Rothschild/British Crown/Dutch Crown neo-colonial system (Rothschild Bank funded De Beers in 1887, after which the renowned imperialist Cecil Rhodes became it's Founding Chairman of the board of directors in 1888), shame on the MDC. However, in the la-la-land narrative of Ambassador Wharton, Zimbabwe is free from outside influence. Free to set it's own domestic and foreign policy. Liars, thieves and murderers.
On the various statistics surrounding the economic sanctions against Zimbabwe, see my April 2010 post here, which includes a statement from then Georgia Representative Cynthia McKinney, who had it right from the start. - MrK
ZIMBABWE’S economic and political problems are self-made and a shift in policy could assist in developing a new trajectory for the country, US ambassador to Zimbabwe Bruce Wharton said Thursday.
“My fundamental point in all of this is that Zimbabwe has the right and the power to make policy decisions.
Just not redistribute the land that was stolen under the colonialism and UDI, both of which the American government supported, land that should have a) never been stolen in the first place and 2) should have been given back in 1965. How about some back rent? - MrK
"Some of these have had significant demonstrable effects on the economy, effects far greater than the targeted sanctions,” Wharton told a Southern African Political Economy Series (SAPES) meeting in Harare.
Still lying about the existence of economic sanctions, like ZDERA. And pray tell, what are the 'economic effects' of 'targeted sanctions', you lying hypocrite?
Here is what is in ZDERA, and you can tell for yourself whether the objective of the sanctions are 'individuals' or 'the Government of Zimbabwe' as a whole. From the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act of 2001, S.494 of the 107th US Congress:
SEC. 4. SUPPORT FOR DEMOCRATIC TRANSITION AND ECONOMIC RECOVERY.
(c) MULTILATERAL FINANCING RESTRICTION- Until the President makes the certification described in subsection (d), and except as may be required to meet basic human needs or for good governance, 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.
So, what do your lying eyes tell you - are these sanctions against individuals (targeted or otherwise), or against 'the Government of Zimbabwe'?
Talking about 'targeted sanctions', blaming War Veterans' pensions, SHAMEFUL.
President Robert Mugabe and his Zanu PF party insist sanctions imposed by the US and European countries are responsible for Zimbabwe’s economic problems.
They are, and were intended to. As economic sanctions always are. If anyone is naive or ignorant enough to doubt the genocidal effect of economic sanctions, let's ask Madeleine Albright (of the Albright Stonebridge Group, which is co-chaired with Sandy Berger, who is also on the International Crisis Group), and Bill Richardson (former Sr. Managing Director at Kissinger & Associates, and executive at Citi Bank).
(YOUTUBE) Madeleine Albright Says Deaths Of 500,000 Iraqi Children Is Worth It
And in case you thought you misheard that, or she misspoke, here is fellow clintonite, the Kissinger Associates employee Bill Richardson:
(YOUTUBE) Richardson: 500,000 dead kids OK in pursuit of U.S. policy
Admit it, Bruce, a couple of tens of thousands of dead Zimbabweans is more than acceptable in the pursuit of US policy in Zimbabwe, after all, they own 20% of the world's known diamond reserves, and De Beers wants it. Over 60,000 dead Libyans, including the lynchings of Black Libyans, was more than acceptable in pursuit of Libya's 47.1 billion barrels of known oil reserves - just ask Susan E. Rice and her 'responsibility to protect'. - MrK
The sanctions were imposed over allegations of rights abuses and electoral fraud which the Zanu PF strongman denies.
Economic sanctions were imposed because De Beers wants to get hold of Zimbabwe's diamonds, and the MDC is their ticket. The MDC wants to privatise everything, except the diamond fields, so they can create a PPP with De Beers, like De Beers has in Namibia (NAMDEB) and Botswana (DEBSWANA), a ZIMDEB or DEBZIM. ("We will nationalise diamonds and ensure that government goes into partnership with genuine investors." - source: MDC’s plan for the mining sector, Saturday, 13 July 2013, from the very MDC friendly SW Radio Africa website.) - MrK
But President Barack Obama’s top man in Harare said blaming sanctions for Zimbabwe’s problems was a diversionary tactic by Mugabe's administration.
“The US takes great care to minimise any unintended consequences from targeted sanctions and I can tell you that my embassy works hard to try to resolve any that may arise. But, blaming targeted sanctions for Zimbabwe’s serious economic challenges or for issues such as potholes and road accidents is diversionary,” he said.
“Worse, such statements do not acknowledge Zimbabwe’s agency, its ability to address its challenges and to mobilize its magnificent natural resources and human capital.
Like, sell it's diamonds, which the United States has attempted to prevent at every turn? - MrK
“Zimbabwe is tremendously blessed in human and natural resources, and the narrative that targeted sanctions are the reason for economic woes undermines and obscures this nation’s vast capabilities.”
And you obscure the role of the United States, and the MDC in the creation of economic sanctions, like the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act of 2001. If it is so insignificant - REPEAL IT. If economic sanctions were so insignificant, why did they destroy the national currency the year they came into force - in 2002, not 2000 ('farm invasions'), or 1997 ('pensions for War Veterans')? And apologize to the Zimbabwean people for the economic sanctions that were imposed on them, just because they made the choice to exercise "Zimbabwe’s agency", by taking their stolen land back. They are the ones who should be compensated for a century of foreign occupation and theft of their land, cattle, labor and freedom. An occupation and harassment that goes on to this very day. - MrK
The US is willing to work with the Zanu PF government.
“We are also willing to work with members of the Zanu PF government that are willing to work with us,” Wharton added.
He means 'divide and rule'. - MrK
“As a Zanu PF-supporting friend of mine said … yes, I do have those … the burden of diplomacy is to keep seeking engagement until all conflict is ended. I agree with that and I am willing. The US government is willing”.
Wharton said decisions including the unbudgeted 1997 cash-pay-outs given to war veterans and the economic turnaround witnessed between 2008 and 2010 provide insight into the positive and negative effects of critical policy decisions by government.
Did the 'unbudgeted 1997 cash-pay-outs given to war veterans' have a worse effect on the Zimbabwean government, than the implementation of austerity through ESAP, from 1991 to 1996? And he is blaming the highly predictable and monotonously repeated destructive effect of structural adjustment on the economies of the world (job losses, reduction in healthcare and education, destruction of local businesses in favour of transnational corporations) - on pensions for War Veterans? What a neoliberal scumbag. - MrK
“There were no sanctions in 1997 and they had not been varied in 2008. Zimbabwe’s sovereign policy decisions are the primary drivers of its economic performance,” he insisted.
From 1991 to 1996, there was ESAP. Own up to THAT.
From Antonia Juhasz "The Tragic Tale of the IMF in Zimbabwe.", March 7th, 2004:
" An IMF-sponsored study of its policies in Zimbabwe concluded that it "radically underestimated the social consequences," of its policies and that the "social hardship was avoidably severe because of poor program design." In other words, the IMF is to blame for the deadly impacts of its policies in Zimbabwe. "
In essence, Zimbabwe was forced to implement every radical economic policy in the Fund’s arsenal immediately, without any concern for the impacts of those policies on the populace.
As a result,
The impacts were devastating.
Both employment and real wages declined sharply. During 1991-1996, manufacturing employment fell by 9 percent and wages dropped by 26 percent. Public sector employment fell by 23 percent, with wages dropping by 40 percent. While pocketbooks shrank, food prices soared, increasing by 36 percent. Private consumption levels declined by about one-fourth with urban households being particularly hard-hit. Worse still, the economy did not respond as the Fund had hoped and the government deficit increased. This put the country into a "debt trap" where it was losing money while simultaneously having to pay interest on its loans owed to the Fund and the World Bank. This created a losing spiral of increasing indebtedness and poverty.
However Ambassador Wharton is going on about a few 'pensions for War Veterans'? Is that neoliberal 'code', because it doesn't make sense in dollar terms.
“Zimbabwe’s economy has been through dramatic ups and downs in the last 15 years. You all know that better than I do. But the idea that targeted U.S. sanctions have caused Zimbabwe’s economic woes simply does not hold up to critical analysis, the evidence is clear,” he said
Oh, the evidence is clear alright. In Jan 1st 2002, ZDERA 2001 came into force. This is the effect on tobacco exports - notice that from 2001 to 2002, after the 2000 'farm invasions', long after the 1997 payments to War Veterans, tobacco exports grew, and in 2002, the year ZDERA came into effect, they dramatically fell.
Tobacco Exports in million US$:
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
548.8 594.1 434.6 321.3 226.7 203.8
Trade Deficit in million US$ (a negative deficit is a surplus):
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
-295.6 -322.5 18.2 108.3 305.2 387.9 231.3
Source: Special Report, FAO/WFP Crop And Food Supply Assessment Mission To Zimbabwe, 5 June 2007
Table 1: Zimbabwe - Key economic indicators, 2000–2007
It is also in 2002, that the Zimbabwe Dollar started it's hyperinflationary decline against the US Dollar - see chart here.
Hey, the evidence is in, Bruce.
“Now, this fact ought to be encouraging to Zimbabweans because it means that Zimbabwe need not wait until real or imagined external forces create the conditions needed for economic growth.
So repeal ZDERA, you jerk. - MrK
“Zimbabwe’s economy is in the hands of Zimbabweans. While businesses, labour unions, trade associations, courts and schools all have important roles, economic destiny starts with decisions made by the government of Zimbabwe.”
Sure, because unlike every other government in the world, the Zimbabwean government exists in a vacuum, free from external forces, even though their economy is heavily dependent on exports. - MrK
Mugabe had hoped that his victory in last year’s violence-free elections would lead to the immediate removal of the sanctions but the EU and the US have backed claims by the opposition that the vote was fraudulent, infuriating the Zanu PF leader.
However, the EU has indicated it will lift its remaining sanctions next week, although not on Mugabe and his wife Grace.