US IN WAR AGAINST ZIM

It is a war.
Last week United States president Barack Obama announced he was extending US sanctions on Zimbabwe for another year as his country continued with the "national emergency" against Zimbabwe that, he repeated, posed a "continuing and extraordinary threat to US foreign policy."
US sanctions, enabled by the sanctions law, the so-called Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act passed by George W Bush in 2002, bars US public and private citizens from doing business with Zimbabwe.
It instructs top US officers at multilateral lending institutions like IMF and World Bank to deny Zimbabwe access to funds or cancellation of indebtedness.
Sanctions also bar certain Zimbabweans from entering the US or having investments there.
This also applies to some journalists who have been questioning US' unfair treatment of Zimbabwe.
On the other hand, US sponsors what it terms "pro-democracy" organisations and individuals, who loosely defined are overthrow activists and reactionaries against veteran President Mugabe and his nationalist liberation movement, Zanu-PF.
Obama's latest move is his second in a space of a year, having renewed the sanctions last March.
It also follows hard on the heels of the 27-member EU bloc's recent resolution to extend sanctions on Zimbabwe by a further year, nominally easing the restrictions by removing nine companies and certain persons -- who passed on -- from the list comprising of around 200 individuals and companies.
While there could be little surprise regarding the latest round of sanctions on Zimbabwe, there are a number of interesting points of Western involvement in Zimbabwe.
One of these is the contempt for, or perhaps impatience with, the inclusive Government of Zimbabwe, predicated on the Global Political Agreement.
The agreement, signed by Zanu-PF and the two MDC formations in September 2008, set the tone for political, economic and social reform in the country.
The country's main political parties, Zanu-PF and the two MDC formations, have been implementing the reforms, albeit painstakingly, and still continue to do so.
Ironically, the West, which has been publicly proclaiming support for Zimbabwe in this reform agenda, has been subverting the same.
Sanctions, which the GPA says should go in all their forms, are not only undermining the economic recovery efforts but have also been a divisive element in the Government which has been trying and, largely successfully so, to eliminate polarisation in both society and the body politic.
The circumstances under which the US has renewed sanctions lately have an edge of keenness.
US' recent extension of sanctions came at a time when Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai appeared to have finally found the voice to join President Mugabe and Deputy Prime Minister Professor Arthur Mutambara in calling for the immediate and unconditional lifting of sanctions on Zimbabwe.
Last week, Tsvangirai told visiting Danish Development Co-operation Minister Soren Pind that sanctions were affecting the full implementation of the GPA and should thus go.
Parliament has since unanimously agreed on an anti-sanctions motion.
It will be recalled that July 2008, after the parties had just signed the Memorandum of Understanding, which begot the GPA, the Bush regime in Washington extended the embargo on Zimbabwe.
When Obama extended the sanctions on March 4 last year, the inclusive Government was just a couple of weeks old, with the euphoria of that momentous achievement having barely died down among people of all walks of life.
Sadc, the African Union and many countries across the world support the inclusive Government.
But perhaps the most critical point in US relations with Zimbabwe lies in the statement peddled since March 6, 2003's Executive Order 13288, repeated by Obama on Monday that it was "necessary to continue this national emergency and to maintain in force the sanctions to respond" to Zimbabwe's "unusual and extraordinary threat" to the foreign policy of the United States.
The extension is pursuant to its International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 USC 1701-17-06).
The 1977 Act allows freezing of assets, limiting of trade, and confiscation of property during a declared emergency.
The US is thus virtually in a war situation with Zimbabwe.
Authorities define a "state of emergency" as a governmental declaration that to suspend certain normal functions of government, alert citizens to alter their normal behaviour, or order government agencies to implement emergency preparedness plans.
Such declarations, renewable by the Executive, are usually common during times of natural disasters, civil disorder, or following a declaration of war.
The US has issued emergency declarations with respect to issues in the Middle East, Iran, September 11, among others.
Violators of emergency declarations face punishment, and in the case of Zimbabwe, American individuals and companies stand to pay thousands of dollars in fines if they engage Zimbabwe.
Apart from the overarching imperialist goal and the country's characteristic importation of Britain's bilateral wars, US policy towards Zimbabwe seems to border on something between lies, deception, hypocrisy and intrigue.
One of the basic questions is how little Zimbabwe can pose a continuous and extraordinary threat to the foreign policy of America.
If the US -- just like the EU -- predicate their re-engagement with Zimbabwe on the fulfilment of the GPA, it is to be wondered how Zimbabwe's domestic situation, which the GPA largely is, stand to pose or not pose a threat to US foreign policy.
It is also to be wondered how the alleged "actions and policies of certain members of the Government of Zimbabwe and other persons to undermine Zimbabwe's democratic processes or institutions" can amount to a threat to the foreign policy of America.
The wording and tone of Obama's latest contribution to America's blitz on Zimbabwe shows that part of America's foreign policy has not changed, just as been seen elsewhere, from the regressive, aggressive and senseless Bush era.
This also shows Obama's hypocritical side.
When the Obama administration got into office, it promised a new era of relations with those aggrieved by George W Bush's style of government, but it has been largely Zimbabwe -- whose doors have always been open to negotiations -- that Obama has continuously shunned.
Despite the fact that the US has manifested itself to be a continuous and extraordinary threat to Zimbabwe through economic and political strangulation of the country, Washington has managed to lie to its people and the world that actions of certain Zimbabweans are a threat to America.
(This is of course besides the point that the actions of Zimbabwe in empowering its people that have suffered colonial injustice set the tone for empowerment initiatives by oppressed peoples of the globe.)
Propaganda is also very much a component of USwar on Zimbabwe.
Apart from the American administrations' misleading and oft hysterical language in justifying the war, they have created, funded and hosted individuals and organisations that while systematically sanitising US aggression towards Zimbabwe, they also say and do things that necessitate American self-serving interests.
The so-called independent media, analysts and pro-democracy groups have been part of the intricate propaganda machinery.
And in the cover of the big lie about wanting to see democratic institutions and processes, the US with the help of the aforementioned acolytes has maintained its stranglehold on Zimbabwe.
Yet if truth be told, the US has subverted and bastardised Zimbabwe's institutions and processes for the whole existence of sanctions.
This is because sanctions, which by the US' own admission were designed to "make the economy scream", are by their very nature anti-people yet somehow the US and its partners have transferred their culpability to the "certain individuals" in Zanu-PF.
By funding political and media activities in and outside Zimbabwe, the US has also manipulated and suffocated Zimbabwe's political space, institutions and processes.
The US just does not have the moral ground to play god or disciple in matters of democracy and democratic institutions.
Washington's actions in Zimbabwe and elsewhere confirm such, and its economic war on Zimbabwe, which is known to stem from the desire to reverse indigenous ownership of natural resources, is as evident as it is evil, unjustifiable, and undesirable in any democratic and peace-loving society.