Opinion / Interviews
US Ambassador explains US sanctions on Zimbabwe
26 Sep 2013 at 17:22hrs | Views
TRANSCRIPT: U.S. Sanctions Policy & Continued Strong Commitment to the People of Zimbabwe (Interview)
Harare, September 25, 2013: The following is a transcript of an interview Ambassador Wharton provided Short Wave Radio Africa on September 20, 2013 on the ongoing debate on U.S. targeted sanctions and the American commitment to support the people of Zimbabwe.
START:
SW RADIO AFRICA (Q): I want to really appreciate you joining us on SW Radio Africa and thank you for your time. (In this series) we are trying to unpack some of the mysteries, I suppose, about the targeted sanctions policy from the U.S. We have spoken to some officials from the U.S. about their particular measures, but Ambassador, I am hoping that you can help us clarify some of the issues that have been raised in recent weeks. I am sure you are aware of what the state media has been saying; so let's look at particularly what the U.S. policy on Zimbabwe is. Maybe you can explain exactly what the measures are on Zimbabwe and are there typical sanctions as are being described at the moment.
AMBASSADOR WHARTON: Thank you very much for the opportunity and for the work that Shortwave Radio Africa has done to get accurate and balanced news and information into Zimbabwe for several years now. I think it's important to understand there are really two different components of U.S. targeted sanctions on Zimbabwe; one comes from the executive branch of government and is authorized legally by an Executive Order from the President. These are the most talked about sets of sanctions. It's a combination of travel restrictions on 113 people, which makes it difficult -- not impossible, but difficult -- for them to travel to the United States, and financial restrictions that prevent Americans and American businesses from doing business with those 113 people and seventy entities. Most of the entities are farms and businesses owned by those 113 people. So, that's the executive branch of U.S. government approach to bring pressure to bear on those people that we believe have the power to make decisions that can either strengthen or weaken Zimbabwe.
The other part of our targeted sanctions is from the American Congress, it's a law called the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act, which was passed in 2001, and it essentially instructs American representatives to international financial institutions to oppose either debt relief or new loans for Zimbabwe until such time as respect for human rights, rule of law and democratic institutions are restored in Zimbabwe. The curious thing about that piece of legislation is that, in fact, it's a moot point. Zimbabwe lost the right to get new loans or debt relief from the international financial institutions about 18 months before ZIDERA was passed because it had stopped paying on its existing loans.
q: You have already mentioned that there are 113 individuals on the list that these targeted measures are against, but who exactly are they against and why were they imposed originally?
AMBASSADOR WHARTON: They were imposed originally against people that we felt were making decisions that were weakening Zimbabwe: decisions to abrogate the rule of law, decisions to not respect fully the human rights of people of Zimbabwe, and decisions that weakened democratic institutions in Zimbabwe. We believe that these targeted sanctions would bring pressure on these people, would make it more difficult for them to enjoy the benefits of some of their actions which had, you know, positive financial implications for them. And so, again, this is a small group of people that we think have the power to strengthen or weaken Zimbabwe, and so as long as we believe they are making decisions that weaken Zimbabwe, we will have these sanctions in place.
Q: Now, Ambassador, there is, of course, another great talk about these measures, so is it true that the measures are to blame for many issues like hyperinflation, the economic decline in the country, even the collapse of social services in Zimbabwe? Is this true?
AMBASSADOR WHARTON: No, not at all. I think it's important to make the point that Zimbabwe, as a sovereign nation, has the right to direct its policies - political and economic policies – but I think if you take a critical look at the trajectory of Zimbabwe's economy, you can see that starting in 1997, the government of Zimbabwe made some sovereign decisions that had very direct, clear effects on the economy. The infamous crash of the Zimbabwe dollar in November of 1997 is a very good example of that. Also, I look at the decision to send military forces to the DRC, which we calculate was costing Zimbabwe at least a million dollars a day for a couple of years. We look at the way the land reform process -- the fast track land reform process -- was conducted in Zimbabwe and the very clear effect that had on food security, on this nation's ability to export, and on this nation's ability to attract investors. We looked at the biggest change in Zimbabwe's economy in the last decade and a half occurred in 2009 when, completely independent of targeted sanctions, when there were no significant changes to targeted sanctions, the economy of this country reversed course and, instead of declining precipitously, grew by about 12 percent in 2010. I think it was seven and half percent in 2011, and about five or six percent in 2012. That change in direction for the economy was the result of a sovereign economic decision to change their currency regime here. So, when I add all of that up, it's pretty clear to me that the condition of Zimbabwe's economy today is directly related to sovereign policy decisions that Zimbabwe's leaders have made and not because of targeted sanctions.
Q: Now, we both know that there is a growing pressure on the nation to have these kinds of targeted measures on Zimbabwe -- the pressure on them is growing for them to lift these measures. What is the U.S. policy at the moment? I understand that the measures are not going to change right now; so, what's the plan moving forward?
AMBASSADOR WHARTON: In fact, there was a Congressional hearing last week in which one of our officials -- our Deputy Assistant Secretary of State -- said there has been a policy for some time and we regularly review the targeted sanctions. We could add some new names or entities or we can take some off. This has not been a static policy over the last decade. As recently as April, we removed a couple of institutions, we removed AgriBank and the Infrastructure Development Bank of Zimbabwe from the sanctions list and we have removed some individuals. So, it's not a static policy, and I think that given the fact, the real politik that Zanu-PF is going to be in charge of Zimbabwe for the next five years, we need now to look for reforms coming from government that will allow us to further review and revise our policy.
Q: So, obviously the ball is in the new government's court in this particular.
AMBASSADOR WHARTON: Well, I think we have a shared responsibility. Essentially, what we are looking for are further indications of reform or goodwill. For example, bringing the new constitution into full force by aligning existing laws with the guarantees in the new constitution, clarifying exactly how the indigenization program is going to work to build confidence in international business and investors, continuing on some of the reforms that were suggested under the Global Political Agreement – media reforms for example – ensuring that the Human Rights Commission is robust and effective – these sorts of signs of progress here in Zimbabwe will generate a positive response from my government.
Q: Your final comment then, Ambassador Wharton, I guess it's a further question and goes without saying that the U.S. commitment to helping Zimbabwe in any way – will it stand firm?
AMBASSADOR WHARTON: Absolutely, I mean, look, we were the first nation to recognize an independent Zimbabwe in 1980. We then made a strong commitment to the people of Zimbabwe, specifically, on issues such as health, education, economic growth, and I think we have been true to that commitment. Over the last 33 years, we provided over 2 billion dollars' worth of development assistance, health assistance and humanitarian assistance to Zimbabwe. We are concerned right now that there is a growing humanitarian need in Zimbabwe for food assistance and we are doing what we can to organize ourselves and other donors to step up and meet that challenge. I am very proud of the record we have here. We do stand for values, we do believe that stronger democratic institutions, respect for rule of law, respect for human rights will help strengthen Zimbabwe and, in the long term, that's why we do these things. That's why we impose sanctions against that small number of people we think can make a difference here and why we continue to support the people of Zimbabwe. It's because we recognize that a democratically stable, economically prosperous and healthy Zimbabwe is far and away in the best interests of the United States.
Q: On that note, I would like to say thank you very much, Ambassador Wharton, for joining us on SW Radio Africa.
AMBASSADOR WHARTON: My pleasure. Thanks for having me on.
Harare, September 25, 2013: The following is a transcript of an interview Ambassador Wharton provided Short Wave Radio Africa on September 20, 2013 on the ongoing debate on U.S. targeted sanctions and the American commitment to support the people of Zimbabwe.
START:
SW RADIO AFRICA (Q): I want to really appreciate you joining us on SW Radio Africa and thank you for your time. (In this series) we are trying to unpack some of the mysteries, I suppose, about the targeted sanctions policy from the U.S. We have spoken to some officials from the U.S. about their particular measures, but Ambassador, I am hoping that you can help us clarify some of the issues that have been raised in recent weeks. I am sure you are aware of what the state media has been saying; so let's look at particularly what the U.S. policy on Zimbabwe is. Maybe you can explain exactly what the measures are on Zimbabwe and are there typical sanctions as are being described at the moment.
AMBASSADOR WHARTON: Thank you very much for the opportunity and for the work that Shortwave Radio Africa has done to get accurate and balanced news and information into Zimbabwe for several years now. I think it's important to understand there are really two different components of U.S. targeted sanctions on Zimbabwe; one comes from the executive branch of government and is authorized legally by an Executive Order from the President. These are the most talked about sets of sanctions. It's a combination of travel restrictions on 113 people, which makes it difficult -- not impossible, but difficult -- for them to travel to the United States, and financial restrictions that prevent Americans and American businesses from doing business with those 113 people and seventy entities. Most of the entities are farms and businesses owned by those 113 people. So, that's the executive branch of U.S. government approach to bring pressure to bear on those people that we believe have the power to make decisions that can either strengthen or weaken Zimbabwe.
The other part of our targeted sanctions is from the American Congress, it's a law called the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act, which was passed in 2001, and it essentially instructs American representatives to international financial institutions to oppose either debt relief or new loans for Zimbabwe until such time as respect for human rights, rule of law and democratic institutions are restored in Zimbabwe. The curious thing about that piece of legislation is that, in fact, it's a moot point. Zimbabwe lost the right to get new loans or debt relief from the international financial institutions about 18 months before ZIDERA was passed because it had stopped paying on its existing loans.
q: You have already mentioned that there are 113 individuals on the list that these targeted measures are against, but who exactly are they against and why were they imposed originally?
AMBASSADOR WHARTON: They were imposed originally against people that we felt were making decisions that were weakening Zimbabwe: decisions to abrogate the rule of law, decisions to not respect fully the human rights of people of Zimbabwe, and decisions that weakened democratic institutions in Zimbabwe. We believe that these targeted sanctions would bring pressure on these people, would make it more difficult for them to enjoy the benefits of some of their actions which had, you know, positive financial implications for them. And so, again, this is a small group of people that we think have the power to strengthen or weaken Zimbabwe, and so as long as we believe they are making decisions that weaken Zimbabwe, we will have these sanctions in place.
Q: Now, Ambassador, there is, of course, another great talk about these measures, so is it true that the measures are to blame for many issues like hyperinflation, the economic decline in the country, even the collapse of social services in Zimbabwe? Is this true?
AMBASSADOR WHARTON: No, not at all. I think it's important to make the point that Zimbabwe, as a sovereign nation, has the right to direct its policies - political and economic policies – but I think if you take a critical look at the trajectory of Zimbabwe's economy, you can see that starting in 1997, the government of Zimbabwe made some sovereign decisions that had very direct, clear effects on the economy. The infamous crash of the Zimbabwe dollar in November of 1997 is a very good example of that. Also, I look at the decision to send military forces to the DRC, which we calculate was costing Zimbabwe at least a million dollars a day for a couple of years. We look at the way the land reform process -- the fast track land reform process -- was conducted in Zimbabwe and the very clear effect that had on food security, on this nation's ability to export, and on this nation's ability to attract investors. We looked at the biggest change in Zimbabwe's economy in the last decade and a half occurred in 2009 when, completely independent of targeted sanctions, when there were no significant changes to targeted sanctions, the economy of this country reversed course and, instead of declining precipitously, grew by about 12 percent in 2010. I think it was seven and half percent in 2011, and about five or six percent in 2012. That change in direction for the economy was the result of a sovereign economic decision to change their currency regime here. So, when I add all of that up, it's pretty clear to me that the condition of Zimbabwe's economy today is directly related to sovereign policy decisions that Zimbabwe's leaders have made and not because of targeted sanctions.
Q: Now, we both know that there is a growing pressure on the nation to have these kinds of targeted measures on Zimbabwe -- the pressure on them is growing for them to lift these measures. What is the U.S. policy at the moment? I understand that the measures are not going to change right now; so, what's the plan moving forward?
AMBASSADOR WHARTON: In fact, there was a Congressional hearing last week in which one of our officials -- our Deputy Assistant Secretary of State -- said there has been a policy for some time and we regularly review the targeted sanctions. We could add some new names or entities or we can take some off. This has not been a static policy over the last decade. As recently as April, we removed a couple of institutions, we removed AgriBank and the Infrastructure Development Bank of Zimbabwe from the sanctions list and we have removed some individuals. So, it's not a static policy, and I think that given the fact, the real politik that Zanu-PF is going to be in charge of Zimbabwe for the next five years, we need now to look for reforms coming from government that will allow us to further review and revise our policy.
Q: So, obviously the ball is in the new government's court in this particular.
AMBASSADOR WHARTON: Well, I think we have a shared responsibility. Essentially, what we are looking for are further indications of reform or goodwill. For example, bringing the new constitution into full force by aligning existing laws with the guarantees in the new constitution, clarifying exactly how the indigenization program is going to work to build confidence in international business and investors, continuing on some of the reforms that were suggested under the Global Political Agreement – media reforms for example – ensuring that the Human Rights Commission is robust and effective – these sorts of signs of progress here in Zimbabwe will generate a positive response from my government.
Q: Your final comment then, Ambassador Wharton, I guess it's a further question and goes without saying that the U.S. commitment to helping Zimbabwe in any way – will it stand firm?
AMBASSADOR WHARTON: Absolutely, I mean, look, we were the first nation to recognize an independent Zimbabwe in 1980. We then made a strong commitment to the people of Zimbabwe, specifically, on issues such as health, education, economic growth, and I think we have been true to that commitment. Over the last 33 years, we provided over 2 billion dollars' worth of development assistance, health assistance and humanitarian assistance to Zimbabwe. We are concerned right now that there is a growing humanitarian need in Zimbabwe for food assistance and we are doing what we can to organize ourselves and other donors to step up and meet that challenge. I am very proud of the record we have here. We do stand for values, we do believe that stronger democratic institutions, respect for rule of law, respect for human rights will help strengthen Zimbabwe and, in the long term, that's why we do these things. That's why we impose sanctions against that small number of people we think can make a difference here and why we continue to support the people of Zimbabwe. It's because we recognize that a democratically stable, economically prosperous and healthy Zimbabwe is far and away in the best interests of the United States.
Q: On that note, I would like to say thank you very much, Ambassador Wharton, for joining us on SW Radio Africa.
AMBASSADOR WHARTON: My pleasure. Thanks for having me on.
Source - SW Radio
All articles and letters published on Bulawayo24 have been independently written by members of Bulawayo24's community. The views of users published on Bulawayo24 are therefore their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Bulawayo24. Bulawayo24 editors also reserve the right to edit or delete any and all comments received.
