Zim sanctions: Less pique, more of bigger picture

Unless and until the EU lifts the sanctions as a whole, which makes perfect political and economic sense, its sincerity will be in serious doubt.
Or has a whole bloc reduced itself to the politics of personalities and egos and find itself bogged down by Britain’s whimsical demands? 

Tichaona Zindoga
ON February 18, 2002 the European Union Council adopted the “common position concerning restrictive measures against Zimbabwe” (2002/145/CFSP) authorising sanctions against the country. “The council has assessed that the Government of Zimbabwe continues to engage in serious violations of human rights and of the freedom of opinion, of association and of peaceful assembly,” said the paper signed by J Pique I Camps, Council president.
“Therefore, for as long as the violations occur, the Council deems it necessary to introduce restrictive measures against the Government of Zimbabwe and those who bear a wide responsibility for such violations.”
The sanctions would include an arms embargo, designation of certain individuals for travel sanctions and asset freezes and freezing of funds and financial assets or economic resources “directly or indirectly” to Government (since it was run by the listed individuals).
The paper also said: “In order to maximise the impact of the above mentioned measures, the European Union shall encourage third States to adopt restrictive measures similar to those contained in this common position.”
It said the measures would be “kept under constant review”.
On the eve of elections in July last year, the EU Ambassador to South Africa promised the removal of the embargo.
“If the process goes well, we will suspend (the sanctions) and I am sure they will be removed,” he said.
“We don’t have the right to continue with that if the elections are acceptable. If the outcome of the elections is clear, is accepted, who are we, all Europeans, to say (no). . .”
The elections were endorsed by all major observer missions, including Sadc, the African Union, the Pan African Parliament and scores of world leaders congratulated President Mugabe on his victory in the plebiscite.
Days later, though, EU ambassador to Zimbabwe Aldo Dell’Ariccia would say: “The elections were peaceful, but the weaknesses in the process reported by observers mean that they were not wholly transparent and that impacted on their credibility.”
Eight months after elections should give the EU a sober picture of Zimbabwe in relation to the political processes.
There are critical things to consider on whether to remove its sanctions or not. The first relates to the conduct of elections.
As outlined above, the main observer missions gave the process a clean bill of health.
The only gripe came from the losing opposition, in particular the MDC-T, which claimed “monumental fraud” and “grand theft”.
The party’s claims, contained in a dossier, formed the basis of Western misgivings about the elections. The British Ambassador to Zimbabwe Deborah Bronnert went to town with MDC-T’s wild claims that, for example, 10 000 voters had been assisted to vote in one constituency.
It turned out to be a lie and her office on August 10 wrote to the MDC-T, raising “concern over misleading election data”.
Reads part of the letter addressed to the party’s secretary general: “The British Embassy wishes to register its disquiet over misleading election information related to the July 31, 2013 polls which was received from your party.
“The information received related to the polling processes and your party’s monitoring efforts which unearthed, inter alia, that about 10 000 people were assisted to vote on election day in a certain constituency.
“It has, however, emerged that such information was not correct.”
The letter went on to regret that “based on this incorrect information, the British Ambassador, Her Excellency Deborah Bronnert went to give comments on the July 2013 polls . . . (which) exposed her to attacks from the state media much as it invited the wrath of the victorious Zanu-PF party.”
The embassy urged the MDC-T to channel information that is “credible, factual and have little potential to damage the image of the Embassy.”
Tendai Biti, the MDC-T secretary general, duly wrote back on August 20, to give the party’s “sincere apology for providing you with apparently false and misleading information on the electoral malpractices that were witnessed during the July 2013 harmonised elections.”
After this, any doubt about the credibility of elections should have been removed, and is it any wonder that a dossier by the MDC-T purporting to outline the “grand theft” never found any serious takers?
The elections may not have been perfect — they are never perfect anywhere on earth as former Nigerian president Olusegun Obasanjo told us — but they passed the legitimate test.
Holding them to further scrutiny may not be motivated by any good. So an honest EU is expected to take note.
The other critical thing, perhaps contextually and legally important, is how Zimbabwe has fared in relation to the benchmarks set out in the 2002/145/CFSP.
The EU claimed the Zimbabwe government was engaged in “serious violations of human rights and of the freedom of opinion, of association and of peaceful assembly”.
Zimbabwe is not involved in any human rights violations, serious or otherwise, and the evidence is there for all to see.
Navi Pillay, the United Nations Commissioner for Human Rights, visited Zimbabwe in 2012 and found no evidence of gross human rights violations.
Her visit was not well publicised. It would have been different if she had come up with an adverse report. Freedom of opinion and freedom of expression, which can be defined as the freedom to hold and impart opinion, including through the media, is flourishing in Zimbabwe.
Since 2009, Zimbabwe has licensed a dozen of newspapers and two private radio stations while hundreds of community radio stations will operationalise this year.
Commercial television stations will be licensed, too, in an unprecedented media liberalisation drive. On the other hand, freedoms of assembly and association are extensively enjoyed in Zimbabwe where political activity is unrestrained.
This year the opposition is too preoccupied with fighting itself to stage-manage persecutions and call for the extension of sanctions, which it has done previously. The EU may also look to its more honest and pragmatic members like Belgium that have seen a lot of economic opportunities fluffed by this ungainly policy which has little more sense than trying to placate or accommodate Britain, the originator of sanctions against Zimbabwe.
European People’s Party vice president Dr Mario David of Portugal has pointed out that the EU said: “At the end of the day they (sanctions) are damaging.”
It remains to be seen on what basis the EU will prolong the said damaging sanctions: will it be out of pique (no pun intended) or the bigger picture?
The decision on Monday to remove eight top officials leaving President Mugabe suggests that either the body is beset by pique or resentment of President Mugabe or it is not sincere in its revision of sanctions.
The sanctions should go in toto and a situation in which the President remains sanctioned means that the country cannot fully function or engage.
Unless and until the EU lifts the sanctions as a whole, which makes perfect political and economic sense, its sincerity will be in serious doubt.
Or has a whole bloc reduced itself to the politics of personalities and egos and find itself bogged down by Britain’s whimsical demands?
The hope is it is not.

SEE ALSO: EU, who are you trying to fool?