Chamisa exposed

In his 1997 report on the work of the United Nations, Secretary General Kofi Annan stressed the importance of economic sanctions: the Security Council's tool to bring pressure without recourse to force. At the same time Annan worried about the harm that sanctions inflict on vulnerable civilian groups, and their collateral damage to third states. He acknowledged that "[i]t is increasingly accepted that the design and implementation of sanctions mandated by the Security Council need to be improved, and their humanitarian costs to civilian populations reduced as far as possible."

Widely shared concerns about humanitarian and third country effects can undermine the political unity required for the effective implementation of multilateral sanctions. The effectiveness of a sanctions regime partly depends on how it addresses humanitarian issues. Although virtually all sanctions regimes launched during the 1990s allow trade in humanitarian goods, the "blunt weapon" of comprehensive embargo inevitably hurts those at the bottom of the economic heap. Many ask whether the costs of sanctions are worth the effort There is no system to fine-tune sanctions to direct their force against the those in power. Sanctions affect those in the bottom. Those who suffer are the people who have no clue on why there are sanctions in the place.  

"Targeted sanctions" or "smart sanctions", like "smart bombs", are meant to focus their impact on leaders, political elites and segments of society believed responsible for objectionable behavior, while reducing collateral damage to the general population. Growing emphasis on the individual accountability of those in power for the unlawful acts of states has made the concept of targeted sanctions all the more attractive. But the reality is that those sanctions are a serious breach of human rights

There is a very thin margin between targeted" and "selective" sanctions. "Selective" sanctions, which are less broad than comprehensive embargoes, involve restrictions on particular products or financial flows. "Targeted" sanctions focus on certain groups or individuals in the target country and aim to directly impact these groups.  

So as seen in the last few days the sanctions on Zimbabwe have caused more harm than good. It is clear that sanctions are the cause of our problems.

Sanctions pay high profits even in normal times to those try to beat the sanctions. Profits increase further with the imposition of an embargo, creating lucrative markets for illicit trade. These profits enrich precisely those the embargo is aimed to hurt, creating a financial interest in prolonged conflict. This is particularly true when the targeted group controls valuable natural resources controls money and are in charge of power.

Zimbabwe is under sanctions which are imposed by powerful countries and not by the United nations. We have powerful nations who have their eyes fixed on our natural  resources. They use their puppets within the country it has to be your own who creates suffering tables for you.

The used puppets create a none existent conflict in order to justify the sanctions. These episodes suggests that, as a stand-alone policy, targeted sanctions are unlikely to curtail local conflicts. They simply punish the peace loving citizens.  The assumption is that the flight ban will affect people in power substantially more than the general population but the reverse is true.

The assumption that targeted sanctions exert minimal humanitarian impact does not hold. Zimbabweans have suffered under these cruel sanctions.

There is no sense in saying the sanctions are targeted. If you sanction the president and his business partners it means whoever benefits under him are negatively affected. If you sanction those who have businesses the ripple effects will go down to the people.

It is only in Zimbabwe where a person lobbies for the suffering of his people and walks free in the streets. A person who encourages other countries to attack his country.

Now Chamisa and MDC Alliance are using the sanctions as a weapon to remove the country's lawfully elected government.

Sanctions are being used  to vindicate illegality. The sanctions are illegal used to enhance illegality.  Those who are imposing sanctions are the ones who are said to be the keepers of the law.  They deliberately break it put the Zimbabwean's in poverty.

There are reports by United Nations showing  that even a selective flight ban could cause humanitarian suffering. Taking these considerations into account, the UN Security Council should never  have allowed imposition of sanctions to Zimbabwe. The UN now becomes an accomplice.

Sanctions against individuals not only increase the possible humanitarian impacts of restrictions, but also are used in denying legitimacy to political leaders, military officials and their supporters. These supporters are the citizens and are being made to suffer for no reason.

The United nations of Must call on its members and others to suspend compliance with the unlawful sanctions.

Overall, sanctions seem to be primarily symbolic measures. It is often hard to identify the appropriate group or individuals that should be targeted. Deep knowledge of the country, the individuals and power structure is needed to enforce even travel bans.But in Zimbabwe's situation is an unfortunate one.

the effectiveness of targeted sanctions such as limiting access to financial markets, restricting economic assistance, or prohibiting new investment has impact on the economy.  sanctions in general have an  immediate impact on trade flows and therefore cause suffering. Empirical evidence also suggests that financial sanctions may be somewhat more likely to achieve a policy change in the monetary policy.

The concept of targeted sanctions as an alternative to comprehensive trade embargoes is relatively new.

An asset freeze, arms embargo and selective export bans did not persuade Ian Smith to allow majority rule in Rhodesia.

The international community should be under no illusion: these humanitarian and human rights policy goals cannot easily be reconciled with those of a sanctions regime. It cannot be too strongly emphasized that sanctions are a tool of enforcement and, like other methods of enforcement, they will do harm. This should be borne in mind when the decision to impose them is taken, and when the results are subsequently evaluated."  The UN.

Our economy is now down. Those who can help us  are scared to do so because we under the sanctions. Those who are supposed-targeted do not feel anything. They are already covered.
Sanctions destroy the country it is unimaginable that the opposition boast about being in control  of sanctions. Or being the ones who can bypass it.

The opposition at large Chamisa in person have begged the West to sanction Zimbabwe. The reason for sanctions is simply that ZANU PF has won and will always win. In order for MDC to have a say in the gvt.  

Sanctions are a weapon to force the  winners to include the losers in government.
In any civilised nation an opposition party will be banned if it is found to be working against the people. The idea of causing anarchy so that people's anger and frustration will be turned towards the government of the day must be declared illegal and the party must be outlawed.

Zimbabwe is facing an unprecedented draught which will trigger wide spread hunger. It is this time the country needs a unity of purpose. Surprisingly we have Chamisa stretching his bowl requesting for more sanctions.

While Zimbabweans are groaning in economic pains the opposition is requesting for more suffering of the people.

We must understand that targeting Zimbabwean businesses  is simply targeting the employment sector. Zimbabwe is a very rich country which is not allowed to utilise its resources by these cruel sanctions.

Zimbabwe must be allowed to be Zimbabwe we must all stand together and denounce sanctions. This opposition made suffering must be stopped.

We must all come down to the level of reality.

Vazet2000@yahoo.co.uk