This brings to the fore the forthright issue that the European and American companies who wantonly and freely eat the fat of a Zimbabwe that is under their mother countries’ sanctions should get the taste of their medicine.The Herald
By Tichaona Zindoga
One can be forgiven for dismissing as damp squib the European Union’s renewal of sanctions against Zimbabwe on February 15.
The 27 member bloc instituted the measures in 2002, violating its own processes and the Cotonou Agreement governing relations between Europe and Africa Asia and Pacific countries, in an effort to effect regime change in Zimbabwe.
The EU sanctions followed a similar move by the United States of America which imposed similar coercive and punitive measures on Zimbabwe under a law called the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act which was signed into law on December 21 2001.
The EU cites issues of alleged human and property rights violations as reasons for the embargo, although from what German Chancellor Angela Merkel told Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai during his visit to Europe and America in 2009 it is all about "expropriated land" being returned to the former white commercial farmers.
In 2000, the Government of Zimbabwe embarked on the successful land reform programme that benefitted about 300 000 families which were previously marginalised under the British colonial land tenure in which only 4 000 whites held over 70 percent of all arable land in the country.
The majority indigenous people were condemned to arid, semi-arid, unproductive and inhospitable areas.
The EU sanctions then were a way of economically strangling Zimbabwe by imposing sanctions on the country’s productive sectors to first of all to bring down the agrarian revolution and the agro-based economy as well as its leaders in politics and business.
Hence, the EU imposed sanctions on close to 200 individuals and 31 companies in Zimbabwe.
The sanctions, which are outside the ambit of the United Nations, have drawn worldwide condemnation from the regional grouping Sadc, the African Union, the Non-Aligned Movement and powerhouses such as China and Russia.
Even other countries within the bloc are said to oppose the sanctions.
On February 15 the EU said that the sanctions it has imposed on the country and the economy would remain in force save for 35 individuals.
One can be forgiven for dismissing as damp squib the European Union’s renewal of sanctions against Zimbabwe on February 15.
The 27 member bloc instituted the measures in 2002, violating its own processes and the Cotonou Agreement governing relations between Europe and Africa Asia and Pacific countries, in an effort to effect regime change in Zimbabwe.
The EU sanctions followed a similar move by the United States of America which imposed similar coercive and punitive measures on Zimbabwe under a law called the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act which was signed into law on December 21 2001.
The EU cites issues of alleged human and property rights violations as reasons for the embargo, although from what German Chancellor Angela Merkel told Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai during his visit to Europe and America in 2009 it is all about "expropriated land" being returned to the former white commercial farmers.
In 2000, the Government of Zimbabwe embarked on the successful land reform programme that benefitted about 300 000 families which were previously marginalised under the British colonial land tenure in which only 4 000 whites held over 70 percent of all arable land in the country.
The majority indigenous people were condemned to arid, semi-arid, unproductive and inhospitable areas.
The EU sanctions then were a way of economically strangling Zimbabwe by imposing sanctions on the country’s productive sectors to first of all to bring down the agrarian revolution and the agro-based economy as well as its leaders in politics and business.
Hence, the EU imposed sanctions on close to 200 individuals and 31 companies in Zimbabwe.
The sanctions, which are outside the ambit of the United Nations, have drawn worldwide condemnation from the regional grouping Sadc, the African Union, the Non-Aligned Movement and powerhouses such as China and Russia.
Even other countries within the bloc are said to oppose the sanctions.
On February 15 the EU said that the sanctions it has imposed on the country and the economy would remain in force save for 35 individuals.
These people happen, to use a common phrase associated with the sanctions, be not "close to President Robert Mugabe", (meaning not influential enough on matters of State) being mainly wives of Government officials and dead persons.
But sanctions remain effective on the key institutions of the economy in areas of agriculture, mining, energy, banking, defence and security, among others.
Announcing the latest development EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton is quoted as having said that the EU review team noted "significant progress" in addressing Zimbabwe's economic crisis and delivering basic services to citizens.
"However," the BBC quoted her as saying, "economic and social developments have not been matched by equivalent progress on the political front."
Adding: "In this context, I have to express my deep concerns at the upsurge in political violence seen in recent weeks."
This confirms the damp squib that was the reviewing of the sanctions by the EU, much as has been the case with the US.
First of all is the Anglo-Saxon world’s determination to bring down the economy of Zimbabwe, which was traditionally linked to Europe and America as a colonial legacy, by refusing to trade and deal with the Government of Zimbabwe.
This explains why all key economic sectors and players have been targeted for death and dearth.
And it does not matter how the West tries to pretend easing anti-Zimbabwe sanctions because all key institutions and individuals remain under sanctions hit lists.
The latest EU move is similar to that of America which last year eased sanctions on some six companies, and removed dead people and those who were no longer part of President Mugabe’s "inner circle".
The EU cites "deep concerns at the upsurge in political violence seen in recent weeks" as one of the causes for the retention of the widely descredited sanctions.
This is despite the fact that it is known that the same violence was being orchestrated by the MDC-T for the obvious reason of grandstanding.
As such the EU exposes itself as both dishonest and devilish.
For, a whole bloc cannot be as daft as not to notice the typical grandstanding that the MDC-T puts up whenever European heads meet.
The trend of the so-called upsurge of violence always coinciding with EU meetings is just too good - or bad as it were - to be true.
As the EU cites these acts it exposes itself for a very dishonest group of individuals.
But it is also a very evil institution.
Forget about the destructive nature of sanctions.
The very act of feeding on the blood of African people butchering one another for the audience of Europeans only to punish them collectively makes the EU a sadistic body.
When one considers the statement by Emilio Rossetti, the chief EU representative in Zimbabwe the hypocrisy of the bloc is further exposed.
International media on February 15 quoted him as saying that EU sanctions "are not affecting the people of Zimbabwe at large and the economic impact of the sanctions is negligible."
He reasoned: "They are just preventing certain people from travelling and having their assets frozen."
Any sane person may question just how a useless regime should be, and is, reviewed every year for close to a decade and how shunning trade with key economic players of a country does constitute "negligible" impact.
For all the vicarious act, in European view, of preventing looters from enjoying in Europe money stolen from the European-loved people of Zimbabwe one wonders what happens if captains of industry are barred from attending world meetings at which they have to cut deals for the benefit of the country that they serve.
The fact of the matter is that there is simply an ashy taste in the pseudo-magnanimity of Ashton and the horrors of economic sanctions - as they are intended - make it hard to see Zimbabwe’s treatment at the hands of EU with the rose glasses of Rosetti.
This brings to the fore the forthright issue that the European and American companies who wantonly and freely eat the fat of a Zimbabwe that is under their mother countries’ sanctions should get the taste of their medicine.
But sanctions remain effective on the key institutions of the economy in areas of agriculture, mining, energy, banking, defence and security, among others.
Announcing the latest development EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton is quoted as having said that the EU review team noted "significant progress" in addressing Zimbabwe's economic crisis and delivering basic services to citizens.
"However," the BBC quoted her as saying, "economic and social developments have not been matched by equivalent progress on the political front."
Adding: "In this context, I have to express my deep concerns at the upsurge in political violence seen in recent weeks."
This confirms the damp squib that was the reviewing of the sanctions by the EU, much as has been the case with the US.
First of all is the Anglo-Saxon world’s determination to bring down the economy of Zimbabwe, which was traditionally linked to Europe and America as a colonial legacy, by refusing to trade and deal with the Government of Zimbabwe.
This explains why all key economic sectors and players have been targeted for death and dearth.
And it does not matter how the West tries to pretend easing anti-Zimbabwe sanctions because all key institutions and individuals remain under sanctions hit lists.
The latest EU move is similar to that of America which last year eased sanctions on some six companies, and removed dead people and those who were no longer part of President Mugabe’s "inner circle".
The EU cites "deep concerns at the upsurge in political violence seen in recent weeks" as one of the causes for the retention of the widely descredited sanctions.
This is despite the fact that it is known that the same violence was being orchestrated by the MDC-T for the obvious reason of grandstanding.
As such the EU exposes itself as both dishonest and devilish.
For, a whole bloc cannot be as daft as not to notice the typical grandstanding that the MDC-T puts up whenever European heads meet.
The trend of the so-called upsurge of violence always coinciding with EU meetings is just too good - or bad as it were - to be true.
As the EU cites these acts it exposes itself for a very dishonest group of individuals.
But it is also a very evil institution.
Forget about the destructive nature of sanctions.
The very act of feeding on the blood of African people butchering one another for the audience of Europeans only to punish them collectively makes the EU a sadistic body.
When one considers the statement by Emilio Rossetti, the chief EU representative in Zimbabwe the hypocrisy of the bloc is further exposed.
International media on February 15 quoted him as saying that EU sanctions "are not affecting the people of Zimbabwe at large and the economic impact of the sanctions is negligible."
He reasoned: "They are just preventing certain people from travelling and having their assets frozen."
Any sane person may question just how a useless regime should be, and is, reviewed every year for close to a decade and how shunning trade with key economic players of a country does constitute "negligible" impact.
For all the vicarious act, in European view, of preventing looters from enjoying in Europe money stolen from the European-loved people of Zimbabwe one wonders what happens if captains of industry are barred from attending world meetings at which they have to cut deals for the benefit of the country that they serve.
The fact of the matter is that there is simply an ashy taste in the pseudo-magnanimity of Ashton and the horrors of economic sanctions - as they are intended - make it hard to see Zimbabwe’s treatment at the hands of EU with the rose glasses of Rosetti.
This brings to the fore the forthright issue that the European and American companies who wantonly and freely eat the fat of a Zimbabwe that is under their mother countries’ sanctions should get the taste of their medicine.
President Mugabe said this at his party Zanu-PF’s annual conference in Mutare last December.
“We are not fools” to let the devil run with the gospel, he declared.
He demanded that British and American companies publicly denounce economic sanctions or face the boot.
He said in part: “We will only align with those that want to give us their hand.
“Those who give us their backs and bring sanctions we will kick out.”
He warned: “Countries without co-operation with us and which have not recognised the hospitality we have extended to them must not sit on their laurels thinking that yesterday will be tomorrow.
“Think again whether it is going to be sanctions or no sanctions. If the countries have organisations here; we will be very strict. In fact, we will refuse investment from those countries.”
President Mugabe said the same principle would also apply to financial institutions closely linked to hostile countries.
“We are not fools. If you thought we were fools you are fooling yourselves. Sanctions will never kill us if you thought we were going to die,” he told the West.
Thus the anti-sanctions campaign, which will see the collection of two signatures of Zimbabweans, does signal not only a tumultuous voice defiance of the death wish of sanctions.
It also should signal a people ready to take care of themselves and their destiny through the ownership of their indigenous resources.
“We are not fools” to let the devil run with the gospel, he declared.
He demanded that British and American companies publicly denounce economic sanctions or face the boot.
He said in part: “We will only align with those that want to give us their hand.
“Those who give us their backs and bring sanctions we will kick out.”
He warned: “Countries without co-operation with us and which have not recognised the hospitality we have extended to them must not sit on their laurels thinking that yesterday will be tomorrow.
“Think again whether it is going to be sanctions or no sanctions. If the countries have organisations here; we will be very strict. In fact, we will refuse investment from those countries.”
President Mugabe said the same principle would also apply to financial institutions closely linked to hostile countries.
“We are not fools. If you thought we were fools you are fooling yourselves. Sanctions will never kill us if you thought we were going to die,” he told the West.
Thus the anti-sanctions campaign, which will see the collection of two signatures of Zimbabweans, does signal not only a tumultuous voice defiance of the death wish of sanctions.
It also should signal a people ready to take care of themselves and their destiny through the ownership of their indigenous resources.
No comments:
Post a Comment