Opinion / Columnist
The sanctions lie: How Zimbabwe's ruling elite is misleading the nation
5 hrs ago | Views
As Zimbabwe moves towards the so-called "SADC Anti-Sanctions Day" on the 25th of October, the need arises again to unpack the shameful lies spread by the ruling establishment about these measures.
As expected, the noise surrounding these supposed sanctions has increased over the past few days, sprinkled with the now customary misinformation and disinformation.
This is obviously all intended to deceive both the people of Zimbabwe and the international community into believing that the myriad of economic challenges and poverty faced by ordinary Zimbabweans are the fault of these restrictive measures.
Most of us, however, know that this is not the truth.
The state-controlled broadcaster, Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation (ZBC), even has the audacity to regurgitate an old video clip of President Emmerson Dambudzo Mnangagwa speaking at the UN General Assembly a few years back, where he made reference to a report by the Special Rapporteur on the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights, Dr. Alena Douhan.
The government of Zimbabwe has made a huge deal out of this report ever since Dr. Douhan visited Zimbabwe in October 2021.
They have unashamedly used this as some form of confirmation that these "economic sanctions against Zimbabwe" are real and indeed the reason why the majority of ordinary Zimbabweans are suffering.
However, is this true?
To directly receive articles from Tendai Ruben Mbofana, please join his WhatsApp Channel on: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaqprWCIyPtRnKpkHe08
Did Dr. Douhan ever actually confirm that there were "economic sanctions on Zimbabwe"?
Have mere travel and financial restrictions on Mnangagwa and a few of his cronies been the real cause of our indescribable poverty?
Let's take a closer look at this issue.
Dr. Douhan submitted her findings in a report to the UN Human Rights Council titled "Secondary Sanctions, Civil and Criminal Penalties for Circumvention of Sanctions Regimes and Overcompliance with Sanctions."
In this report, she devoted the bulk of her findings to what she termed "unintended consequences" and "overcompliance."
What are these?
Overcompliance occurs when individuals, organizations, or governments exceed regulatory requirements, often due to fear of non-compliance, uncertainty, or risk aversion.
Examples include financial institutions over-enforcing anti-money laundering controls, companies over-reporting environmental data, and governments implementing stricter regulations than necessary.
In other words, overcompliance refers to exceeding what is actually stipulated under a law or regulation.
What does this mean in relation to Dr. Douhan's assessment of the situation in Zimbabwe?
It simply means that most actions taken by various entities, for instance, financial institutions that withdrew corresponding relationships with Zimbabwean banks, were merely overreactions.
There are no sanctions barring them from doing business with Zimbabwe and Zimbabweans.
The only financial restrictions are on a few individuals and entities named under the US Global Magnitsky Act of 2016, namely Mnangagwa, his wife Auxillia, Vice President Constantino Chiwenga, politician Owen Ncube, businessman Kudakwashe Tagwirei, and six others.
As such, the international community, including financial institutions, can freely do business with the 15 million other Zimbabweans.
In other words, what the US and its allies imposed on a few individuals and entities in Zimbabwe has very minimal direct impact on the economy.
This is where the "unintended consequences" referenced by Dr. Douhan come into play.
Due to this overcompliance, there are some Zimbabwean businesses that have indeed been negatively affected.
However, as the term "unintended" clearly implies, this was never the intention of these restrictive measures on a few individuals and entities.
In other words, these "sanctions" were never intended to harm Zimbabwe's economy or ordinary Zimbabweans.
Any adverse effects are purely unintended, as reported by Dr. Douhan.
We can go further.
Even with these "unintended consequences," Dr. Douhan was never able to link the abject poverty faced by millions of ordinary Zimbabweans to this "overcompliance."
As much as there were these unintended consequences, the impact on the people was relatively negligible since the international community is very free to do business with Zimbabwe.
Only two weeks ago, the then Foreign Affairs Minister Fredrick Shava hosted US businesspeople during the Zimbabwe-US Business Forum, where they explored potential investment opportunities in the country.
In March this year, a delegation of US investors from the Atlanta Chamber of Commerce visited Zimbabwe on a similar mission.
At least 75 investors from the Illinois Chamber of Commerce are also expected in the country in December.
In fact, Washington's ambassador to Harare, Pamela Tremont, revealed in August that the US was actively encouraging American businesses to explore investment opportunities in Zimbabwe.
So, what are these "sanctions" the authorities in Zimbabwe are making so much noise about?
If there were truly "economic sanctions on Zimbabwe," surely all these US businesspeople wouldn't be freely exploring investment opportunities in the country.
In fact, would the US ambassador even be encouraging American investors to plant their money in Zimbabwe?
This all goes to prove that there are no "economic sanctions on Zimbabwe."
If the ruling establishment wants to campaign for the removal of Mnangagwa and his cronies from the Global Magnitsky Act, that's all well and good.
They can go ahead.
Nevertheless, they should not mislead Zimbabweans and the rest of the world in the process.
Let them turn the 25th of October into "SADC Anti-Sanctions Against Mnangagwa Day!"
Please do not involve the rest of us in this campaign.
This fight is purely between Mnangagwa and the US and has absolutely nothing to do with us.
Surely, how can ordinary Zimbabweans be expected to campaign for the same people who have authored their suffering and poverty?
One more thing.
These restrictive measures against Mnangagwa and his cronies are not illegal in any way.
Even Dr. Douhan never characterized these restrictive measures as contrary to international law.
The UN Charter encourages good neighborliness and discourages any actions that may threaten this principle, including the imposition of unilateral sanctions.
However, there is nothing illegal about imposing unilateral sanctions.
Going against the spirit of something does not, by any stretch of the imagination, render it illegal.
Any country on the planet has the right to choose with whom it wants or does not want to associate.
Even Zimbabwe, as a sovereign state, has this same right.
If today, the Harare administration decides to bar, let's say, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over the events in the Middle East, that is the government's prerogative.
The same right applies to the US and its allies.
If they do not want Mnangagwa and his wife to set foot on their soil or do business with them, they are free to do so.
No one who understands international law will ever classify that as "illegal."
There is nowhere in international law where such measures are mandated to only come from the UN Security Council.
That is why Dr. Douhan's findings only "objected to" or "condemned" sanctions, but in no way did they proffer a general rule of international law prohibiting unilateral sanctions.
Obviously, there is a consequential difference between lamenting these restrictive measures and asserting that they violate international law.
In other words, the imposition of unilateral sanctions may be regarded as "wrong" in the sense that they go against the spirit of good neighborliness.
Nevertheless, that is as far as this "wrong" goes.
It is, therefore, stretching the truth for anyone to claim that the imposition of unilateral sanctions is illegal.
The debate over sanctions in Zimbabwe has gone on for far too long.
Surely, we can not spend the next 24 years arguing over the same issue.
Zimbabweans have every right to understand the truth about why they are suffering.
It has absolutely nothing to do with Mnangagwa and his wife being on some travel and financial restrictions list.
It has everything to do with the Mnangagwa regime's insatiable greed for looting national resources that should actually be shared equitably amongst all Zimbabweans.
Those are the real economic sanctions imposed on Zimbabwe!
© Tendai Ruben Mbofana is a social justice advocate and writer. Please feel free to WhatsApp or Call: +263715667700 | +263782283975, or email: mbofana.tendairuben73@gmail.com, or visit website: https://mbofanatendairuben.news.blog/
As expected, the noise surrounding these supposed sanctions has increased over the past few days, sprinkled with the now customary misinformation and disinformation.
This is obviously all intended to deceive both the people of Zimbabwe and the international community into believing that the myriad of economic challenges and poverty faced by ordinary Zimbabweans are the fault of these restrictive measures.
Most of us, however, know that this is not the truth.
The state-controlled broadcaster, Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation (ZBC), even has the audacity to regurgitate an old video clip of President Emmerson Dambudzo Mnangagwa speaking at the UN General Assembly a few years back, where he made reference to a report by the Special Rapporteur on the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights, Dr. Alena Douhan.
The government of Zimbabwe has made a huge deal out of this report ever since Dr. Douhan visited Zimbabwe in October 2021.
They have unashamedly used this as some form of confirmation that these "economic sanctions against Zimbabwe" are real and indeed the reason why the majority of ordinary Zimbabweans are suffering.
However, is this true?
To directly receive articles from Tendai Ruben Mbofana, please join his WhatsApp Channel on: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaqprWCIyPtRnKpkHe08
Did Dr. Douhan ever actually confirm that there were "economic sanctions on Zimbabwe"?
Have mere travel and financial restrictions on Mnangagwa and a few of his cronies been the real cause of our indescribable poverty?
Let's take a closer look at this issue.
Dr. Douhan submitted her findings in a report to the UN Human Rights Council titled "Secondary Sanctions, Civil and Criminal Penalties for Circumvention of Sanctions Regimes and Overcompliance with Sanctions."
In this report, she devoted the bulk of her findings to what she termed "unintended consequences" and "overcompliance."
What are these?
Overcompliance occurs when individuals, organizations, or governments exceed regulatory requirements, often due to fear of non-compliance, uncertainty, or risk aversion.
Examples include financial institutions over-enforcing anti-money laundering controls, companies over-reporting environmental data, and governments implementing stricter regulations than necessary.
In other words, overcompliance refers to exceeding what is actually stipulated under a law or regulation.
What does this mean in relation to Dr. Douhan's assessment of the situation in Zimbabwe?
It simply means that most actions taken by various entities, for instance, financial institutions that withdrew corresponding relationships with Zimbabwean banks, were merely overreactions.
There are no sanctions barring them from doing business with Zimbabwe and Zimbabweans.
The only financial restrictions are on a few individuals and entities named under the US Global Magnitsky Act of 2016, namely Mnangagwa, his wife Auxillia, Vice President Constantino Chiwenga, politician Owen Ncube, businessman Kudakwashe Tagwirei, and six others.
As such, the international community, including financial institutions, can freely do business with the 15 million other Zimbabweans.
In other words, what the US and its allies imposed on a few individuals and entities in Zimbabwe has very minimal direct impact on the economy.
This is where the "unintended consequences" referenced by Dr. Douhan come into play.
Due to this overcompliance, there are some Zimbabwean businesses that have indeed been negatively affected.
However, as the term "unintended" clearly implies, this was never the intention of these restrictive measures on a few individuals and entities.
In other words, these "sanctions" were never intended to harm Zimbabwe's economy or ordinary Zimbabweans.
Any adverse effects are purely unintended, as reported by Dr. Douhan.
We can go further.
Even with these "unintended consequences," Dr. Douhan was never able to link the abject poverty faced by millions of ordinary Zimbabweans to this "overcompliance."
As much as there were these unintended consequences, the impact on the people was relatively negligible since the international community is very free to do business with Zimbabwe.
Only two weeks ago, the then Foreign Affairs Minister Fredrick Shava hosted US businesspeople during the Zimbabwe-US Business Forum, where they explored potential investment opportunities in the country.
In March this year, a delegation of US investors from the Atlanta Chamber of Commerce visited Zimbabwe on a similar mission.
At least 75 investors from the Illinois Chamber of Commerce are also expected in the country in December.
In fact, Washington's ambassador to Harare, Pamela Tremont, revealed in August that the US was actively encouraging American businesses to explore investment opportunities in Zimbabwe.
So, what are these "sanctions" the authorities in Zimbabwe are making so much noise about?
If there were truly "economic sanctions on Zimbabwe," surely all these US businesspeople wouldn't be freely exploring investment opportunities in the country.
In fact, would the US ambassador even be encouraging American investors to plant their money in Zimbabwe?
This all goes to prove that there are no "economic sanctions on Zimbabwe."
If the ruling establishment wants to campaign for the removal of Mnangagwa and his cronies from the Global Magnitsky Act, that's all well and good.
They can go ahead.
Nevertheless, they should not mislead Zimbabweans and the rest of the world in the process.
Let them turn the 25th of October into "SADC Anti-Sanctions Against Mnangagwa Day!"
Please do not involve the rest of us in this campaign.
This fight is purely between Mnangagwa and the US and has absolutely nothing to do with us.
Surely, how can ordinary Zimbabweans be expected to campaign for the same people who have authored their suffering and poverty?
One more thing.
These restrictive measures against Mnangagwa and his cronies are not illegal in any way.
Even Dr. Douhan never characterized these restrictive measures as contrary to international law.
The UN Charter encourages good neighborliness and discourages any actions that may threaten this principle, including the imposition of unilateral sanctions.
However, there is nothing illegal about imposing unilateral sanctions.
Going against the spirit of something does not, by any stretch of the imagination, render it illegal.
Any country on the planet has the right to choose with whom it wants or does not want to associate.
Even Zimbabwe, as a sovereign state, has this same right.
If today, the Harare administration decides to bar, let's say, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over the events in the Middle East, that is the government's prerogative.
The same right applies to the US and its allies.
If they do not want Mnangagwa and his wife to set foot on their soil or do business with them, they are free to do so.
No one who understands international law will ever classify that as "illegal."
There is nowhere in international law where such measures are mandated to only come from the UN Security Council.
That is why Dr. Douhan's findings only "objected to" or "condemned" sanctions, but in no way did they proffer a general rule of international law prohibiting unilateral sanctions.
Obviously, there is a consequential difference between lamenting these restrictive measures and asserting that they violate international law.
In other words, the imposition of unilateral sanctions may be regarded as "wrong" in the sense that they go against the spirit of good neighborliness.
Nevertheless, that is as far as this "wrong" goes.
It is, therefore, stretching the truth for anyone to claim that the imposition of unilateral sanctions is illegal.
The debate over sanctions in Zimbabwe has gone on for far too long.
Surely, we can not spend the next 24 years arguing over the same issue.
Zimbabweans have every right to understand the truth about why they are suffering.
It has absolutely nothing to do with Mnangagwa and his wife being on some travel and financial restrictions list.
It has everything to do with the Mnangagwa regime's insatiable greed for looting national resources that should actually be shared equitably amongst all Zimbabweans.
Those are the real economic sanctions imposed on Zimbabwe!
© Tendai Ruben Mbofana is a social justice advocate and writer. Please feel free to WhatsApp or Call: +263715667700 | +263782283975, or email: mbofana.tendairuben73@gmail.com, or visit website: https://mbofanatendairuben.news.blog/
Source - Tendai Ruben Mbofana
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.
