Thread: The Sanctions Myth

I live in Harare and I want every Namibian to know that all this talk by Mugabe and ZANUPF about sanctions is rubbish. I'm tired of this talk, and everyone is suffering because of their failure. Please, Namibians if you believe these lies you must wake up. We are tired of these people, so very very tired and their deceptions.

The truth is that the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund suspended credit to Zimbabwe because our government defaulted on its debt servicing payments. Nobody will lend us money because we have no credit-worthiness. This is sad, but it is the truth.

And all this talk about the British. YOu may not love them, but UK simply has no unilateral or economic sanctions against Zimbabwe. The European Union measures is directed against 178 individuals and organisations in Zimbabwe who are deemed to be responsible for the worst excesses of the current regime, in terms of human rights abuse, corruption and undermining the rule of law. It is the elite, not the people who are targeted. IT is hurting and that is why they are crying.

Think about this: Who is pyaing for food, medicine? IT is the British, the Americans, the Europeans. The World Food Programme gets moeny from the Brisith, and they pay for anti HIV programmes. Read the article below in The Zimbabwe Independent and get the full picture once and for all:

YET again, undoubtedly motivated solely in order to deflect blame from
the real causes of the Zimbabwean economic morass, the political
hierarchy is alleging that Zimbabwe is the victim of unjust, malicious
and economically-crippling trade sanctions.

They repeatedly contend that the European Union and the United States
have imposed stringent sanctions which preclude trade and financial
interaction with Zimbabwe. They state that not only are there no
justifications for such sanctions, but also that those sanctions are a
primary cause (if not the only cause) for the myriad of economic ills
that beset Zimbabwe. And they amplify upon such contentions by citing,
as corroborative examples evidencing the existence of such sanctions,
that most, if not all, lines of credit have been withdrawn from
Zimbabwe, that balance of payments support is not forthcoming (and
hence the immense scarcity of critically required foreign currencies),
and that the USA does not accredit Zimbabwe with AGOA status, which
accords manufacturers of textiles and clothing elsewhere in Africa with
favoured, duty-free access to USA markets.

The claims that Zimbabwe is cruelly, and without foundation, burdened
with such sanctions were frequently a theme of the former Minister of
Fiction, Fable and Myth, now vehemently opposed to the same government
that was the recipient of his vociferous castigation until 1995, and of
his total enthusiastic support until the end of 2004. And he ensured
that the diverse media then controlled by him regularly restated the
claims that Zimbabwe was iniquitously oppressed by trade sanctions,
completely undeservedly.

He, and his media, recurrently argued that the supposed trade sanctions
were a deliberate strategy of Zimbabwe's alleged enemies to destroy
the Zimbabwean economy in order to bring about the collapse of the
government.

Since his departure from the governmental benches in parliament, and
from his ministerial post, the media which he had vigorously controlled
and manipulated has continued to publish frequent attributions of
Zimbabwe's economic distress to the trade sanctions which they, and
government, have so frequently used in the past to divert the attention
of the populace from the real causes of that economic distress.

But recently it has been not only the state media that has continued to
promote the theory that Zimbabwe's economic woes are due to trade
sanctions. Many of the political "elite", including the president
and several of his ministers, have once again resolved to promote that
theory in many of their speeches, including at recent congresses of
some economic sectors.

However, the fact is that no country currently applies legislated trade
sanctions against Zimbabwe. The only sanctions that exist are the
targeted sanctions of the European Union and USA, directed specifically
and exclusively at less than 200 leading members of the Zimbabwean
government, its ruling party, and certain public servants in high
office.

The Presidium, cabinet ministers and deputy ministers, politburo
members and various permanent secretaries have been targeted, to the
extent that they are barred from travel (other than for purposes of
gatherings of the United Nations and associated organisations) to any
countries in the European Union, USA and certain (but not all)
Commonwealth countries. These persons are also barred from operating
bank accounts and holding investments in any of the countries applying
the targetted sanctions.

However, none of those countries have applied trade sanctions against
Zimbabwe or any of its people, other than the few specifically stated
targets. In fact, most of the countries are actively trading with
Zimbabwe, supplying products and services to Zimbabwe, and importing
goods and commodities from Zimbabwe. Moreover, although the extent
thereof has diminished, many of them continue to provide humanitarian
aid to Zimbabwe, supporting non-governmental organisations engaged in
health-care, education and support for the destitute.

The argument that withdrawal of lines of credit prove the existence of
trade sanctions is spurious in the extreme. Virtually no financier, no
banker, and no supplier, anywhere in the world, including those in
Zimbabwe, is willing to extend credit to those who are proven
defaulters in the settlement of debt, or to those who have little or no
prospect of timeous settlement of debt and repayment of credit
facilities availed to them. To do so is contrary to the fundamental
principles of prudent business practice, and that is the sole reason
for any lines of credit having been withdrawn. Moreover, despite such
withdrawals, there are still some suppliers who are providing credit
terms to their Zimbabwean customers.

The same circumstances pertain to the provision of balance of payments
support. The principal provider of such support, internationally, is
the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and various other international
banking entities, most of whom take their lead from the IMF.

Zimbabwe has a very considerable and grossly overdue indebtedness to
the IMF, and that entity is precluded, in terms of its constitution,
from making advances of any nature to countries whose arrears in debt
repayment are such as to exceed prescribed default levels. In fact, so
great is Zimbabwe's default, that its membership of the IMF is
suspended, and there have been serious considerations that Zimbabwe's
membership should be terminated.

Hopefully the IMF will continue to show patience with Zimbabwe, in
anticipation of transformation, and not take such a drastic action.
However, the non-provision of balance of payments support by the IMF is
driven by its constitution, and not by any act of imposition of trade
sanctions. In turn, bodies such as the World Bank, European Investment
Bank, donor states and others, cannot provide balance of payments
support, not because any of them are seeking to impose trade sanctions,
but because their ruling structures, and the fundamental principles of
fiscal prudency and of good and sound corporate governance, so dictate.