The Sunday Mail
Xavier Zavare
WITH the day which the Southern Africa Development Community (Sadc) declared a year ago to officially stand in solidarity with Zimbabwe in condemnation of the sanctions imposed by the West and the United States of America now here, a thought just crossed this writer’s mind.
If truth be told, Zimbabwe has been under varied sanctions from the West for nearly 25 years even though in the whole they became apparent and stringent with the creation of the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act (ZDERA 2001) by the US Congress. Zimbabwe’s sanctions in essence date back to Zimbabwe’s military intervention in the second Democratic Republic of Congo war in 1998.
That was in addition to an ensuing bilateral disagreement between Zimbabwe and Britain which had started in 1997 when the British government of Tony Blair decided to renege on an international agreement to pay compensation to white farmers as agreed at the Lancaster House Conference on Zimbabwe in 1979.
Current economic sanctions on Zimbabwe were achieved with the support of opposition figures such as Tendai Biti, David Coltart and pretty much everyone in the original MDC hierarchy with the exception of Munyaradzi Gwisai, who was kicked out for objecting to having sanctions imposed on the people of Zimbabwe.
He probably remains the only person from the opposition who really cared about ordinary Zimbabweans and the impact sanctions would have even on the MDC supporters. The rest of the opposition figures are ruthless, careless and power hungry. But I digress.
Zimbabwe’s position regarding the fight to have economic sanctions removed has been made clear by his Excellency President Mnangagwa (he is the one who sets the foreign policy agenda for the country).
President Mnangagwa tasked the Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Rtd. Lt. Gen. Dr Sibusiso Moyo, to make the fight against economic sanctions a key component of the country’s re-engagement thrust.
The evidence of the Minister and his team’s diplomatic work is, of course, how SADC has come up with a firm, mutually agreed by all member states position that the voice demanding removal of sanctions on Zimbabwe should be amplified.
The amplified voice for economic coercion or sanctions to be lifted has gone beyond the Sadc region to other parts of Africa, even beyond to countries such as Russia, China and even America’s close allies such as Israel and the United Arab Emirates. The Secretary-General of the United Nations, António Guterres, on March 23, 2020 denounced the unjustified and illegal sanctions put on Zimbabwe.
These sanctions are making ordinary citizens suffer and constraining their potential to take themselves and their country out of economic quagmire and be an upper middle-income economy by 2030. The UN, Sadc, AU and other bodies have been issuing brilliant and encouraging solidarity statements, albeit very diplomatic in nature.
In the fight for removal of economic sanctions on Zimbabwe, as a famous British retail supermarket’s marketing advert would say, “Every little helps”.
While that is true, and every statement issued by any Sadc, AU state or anyone against economic sanctions is welcome, one must ask if more can be done to help Zimbabwe.
What else can the regional and continental bodies do to ensure that the voice against sanctions on Zimbabwe is amplified? Can Russia and China go beyond issuing solidarity speeches? Is Israel capable of leveraging on its relationship with the USA to help Zimbabwe?
What more can Zimbabwean diplomats do to achieve the country’s ultimate goal of having economic sanctions removed?
History shows us that Zimbabwe’s political Independence in 1980 came as a result of practical solidarity by countries in the Southern region known as the Frontline States, and those beyond in the continent as well as international giants such as China and the former Soviet Union now loosely referred to as Russia.
The same practical solidarity happened towards Namibia and South Africa. In fact, Zimbabwe sacrificed a lot for both, especially South Africa.
In this writer’s view, the country is often not given enough credit for sacrificing its people and economic well-being so that black South Africans could attain their Independence in 1994.
The Lancaster House talks on Zimbabwe’s Independence were complicated by the South African question and interests of that country.
Countries such as Tanzania then led by genuine pan-Africanist Julius Nyerere and Zambia under an African icon Kenneth Kaunda, gave Zimbabweans a platform from which to launch their war of liberation by providing everything they could to ZIPRA and ZANLA liberation war combatants. Botswana played a role as a gateway even in its complicated circumstances of being reliant on apartheid South Africa and Rhodesia for its economic life.
These countries were later joined by Mozambique and Angola when the two attained their independence from Portuguese colonialists in 1975 with practical support for Zimbabwe to attain its independence. Mozambique and Zambia in particular bore the blunt wrath of Rhodesia’s Ian Smith and South Africa’s Nationalist racist governments comprising of British and Dutch colonialists.
Rhodesians such as David Coltart embarked on numerous military raids into both Zambia and Mozambique, mercilessly killing not only Zimbabwe’s liberation combatants and refugees but Mozambique and Zambia’s citizens too.
This was in addition to the economic sabotage the racist Rhodesians and South African governments meted on these Frontline States for supporting Zimbabweans.
These countries sacrificed all and everything in solidarity. It indeed was a solidarity beyond carefully and diplomatically worded statements, but one of practicality by the leaders of these countries.
They were relentless in their support even as they and their citizens were suffering enormous pain economically and threats to their lives and livelihoods. After today, what happens next?
Solidarity statements and brilliant speeches just as those made at the United Nations General Assembly in September. But the question remains, then what? As some readers would know, the US has a perennial history of putting countries on economic sanctions dating back nearly a century. As of now, about 30 countries including China, Russia, Cuba, Iraq, Iran, Eritrea, DRC and Libya are among countries under various forms of embargoes from the United States.
And, of course, it goes without saying that Zimbabwe is under US-led economic sanctions. Cuba, in particular, has been under economic sanctions for over 60 years.
Iraq and Libya remain under nearly four decades of US sanctions despite the US leading the imposition of new governments in those countries in 2003 and 2011, respectively.
The US does not care, it will shift goal posts as it is doing with Zimbabwe. From demanding a withdrawal from the DRC, to demanding a complete reversal of the land reform, even with a global agreement to compensate white farmers in place, the US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo made it clear, all land should be returned to colonialists before any consideration is made.
Add the ambiguous human rights demands to the shifting goal posts and one realises that the US, like its ally Britain, practices diplomatic chicanery.
It must be noted that all the countries under US-led sanctions have received solidarity messages just as Zimbabwe is doing at one point or another over the years. A simple truth, the US is not fazed much about solidarity statements.
The US may appear shaken but no country should be deceived. As happened last year, we should expect the US Ambassador to Zimbabwe to come out guns blazing deflecting, trying to muzzle the solidarity voices and the cries of Zimbabweans against sanctions by his country.
It is part of his job and he will be just being proactive in defending and promoting the interests of his country regardless of what anyone may think about him.
He will even sponsor, as he is already doing, the gullible opposition to destabilise the narrative of the day by bringing other sideshows. It is the responsibility of Zimbabwe’s leaders and diplomats to have a strategy to counter and avoid falling into the American trap designed to put the country and its people on a back-foot and at each other’s throats.
It means as a country, we should not deceive ourselves and get excited about the occasional “investment crumbs” thrown towards us by the sanctioning US and its allies.
Those crumbs are targeted at blinding, not only Zimbabwe but its allies who are calling for the removal of sanctions.
Western countries led by the US are long game merchants as they work and oil their game plan at any given opportunity. The Soviet Union, Libya and Iraq should serve as a lesson to how Americans and their British cousins operate and swiftly go for the kill. It is the destruction of ZANU PF and everything it has always stood for they are after. As alluded to above, America relishes exerting its power and influence through a combination of hard and soft power to further its interests.
And it has profound geo-political as well as economic interests in Zimbabwe. This means it will not let go easily if at all. The ever changing demands from the US and its allies should inform every Zimbabwean on how this game will continue to play for some time to come.
Western countries led by the US will play a long game and Zimbabwe must be prepared to stand firm, summoning the liberation war spirit at every turn in order to survive.
We should not be under any illusion about the US game plan. Is Zimbabwe doomed to fail on the matter then? The answer to that question is not simple. History is littered with small nations that fell giant states. It is about strategy.
What happens is largely dependent on how Zimbabweans are ready to summon the liberation war spirit and go further in their diplomatic offensive. Zimbabwe’s diplomats should be prepared to roll up their sleeves like never before and start seeking more practical support beyond diplomatic platitudes, good and appreciated as they may be.
◆ Xavier Zavare is a political commentator and secretary for administration, ZANU PF UK/EU district. Views expressed in this article are all personal and not representative of any organisations he is associated with.
◆ Read more on www.sundaymail.co.zw
