Hey America, it’s time to end Zimbabwe’s economic punishment
US sanctions are undermining Zimbabwe’s access credit and investment. They’re supposedly about rule of law, but there’s likely an ulterior motive.
US sanctions under ZIDERA impose heavy conditions on Zimbabwe’s government, but hit ordinary citizens hardest. Credit: Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation.
Almost a year since Robert Mugabe was removed and months since elections, Zimbabwe’s economic crisis continues to deepen. A severe lack of foreign currency has crippled local businesses. Inflation is skyrocketing. And dire shortages of fuel, medical supplies and other essentials threaten social unrest.
There are many reasons for this worrying economic situation. Among them are decades of government mismanagement, widespread corruption and mistrust. But a significant part of responsibility for the ongoing crisis is in the hands of policymakers thousands of miles away.
Ordinarily, one would expect Zimbabwe’s economy to be improving right now. Its authoritarian strongman Mugabe is no longer in power. Multi-party elections have been held recently. And the new government, which includes respected technocrats in some key positions, has repeatedly declared the country “open for business“. One would have expected these changes to prompt promises of Western development assistance, access to IMF and World Bank credit, and international investment.
All of these things would be fundamental to stabilising Zimbabwe’s economy, and many Western partners are keen to invest. But this re-engagement has been made much more difficult because of US sanctions. These measures are undermining Zimbabwe’s ability to access credit from international financial institutions and attract much-needed foreign investment.
Renewing US sanctions
On paper, the US Zimbabwean Democracy and Economic Recovery Act (ZIDERA) is about rule of law. It was first passed in 2001 at the height of Zimbabwe’s land seizures and was purportedly a reaction to the Zimbabwean government not protecting the property rights of white farmers. The act was part of US- and UK-led efforts to cut off lending by international financial institutions, impose political and economic sanctions, and isolate Zimbabwe.
Specifically, ZIDERA placed individual sanctions on Mugabe and his cronies. It also enshrined into law the US stance that funding from the likes of the IMF and World Bank could not be reinstated until the act was lifted.
When President Mugabe was finally removed in 2017, many hoped that his departure would pave the way for Zimbabwe to end its isolation. President Emmerson Mnangagwa vowed to break with his dictatorial predecessor and allow democracy to flourish. The UK and others signalled their willingness to improve relations.
Yet ZIDERA remained in place. Not only that. This July, US Congress introduced an amended version of it. Passed just days before Zimbabwe’s first ever elections without Mugabe, this renewed act included the extra demand that the vote be free and fair.
It is debatable whether Zimbabwe’s 30 July elections passed that test. On the one hand, the defeated opposition alleged widespread fraud and irregularities. The army killed six people who were protesting the electoral commission’s delays in announcing the results. On the other hand, the polls were probably the most inclusive, free and fair elections ever held in Zimbabwe.
[Were Zimbabwe’s elections free, fair and credible? The final scoresheet.]
The real reasons behind ZIDERA?
Either way, President Trump signed the amended ZIDERA into law shortly after. In theory, it is possible that the US’ continued punishment of Zimbabwe is about rule of law. But this seems unlikely. Instead, it is more likely that the real reasons lie elsewhere.
When ZIDERA was recently amended, it also added another important requirement. It stated: “Zimbabwe and the Southern African Development Community (SADC) should enforce the SADC tribunal rulings from 2007 to 2010 including 18 disputes involving employment, commercial, and human rights cases surrounding dispossessed Zimbabwean commercial farmers and agricultural companies.”
These rulings claimed that Zimbabwe’s land reform was illegal. The tribunal demanded the government pay compensation to dispossessed white farmers. The sum for what these claims would cost has been estimated at $30 billion.
18 years since the land seizures, the landscape in Zimbabwe has dramatically changed. Instead of 6,000 commercial farmers controlling 70% of valuable farm land, there are an estimated 200,000 new small-scale farmers. In 2018, the country experienced its largest tobacco harvest ever. This new reality on the ground is accepted by most Zimbabweans, both white and black. So rather than being a realistic demand, the inclusion of this steep demand in the amended ZIDERA has been interpreted by many in southern Africa as a warning.
As South Africa and Namibia currently debate how to address historical injustices around land, Zimbabwe’s harsh treatment could be seen as a threat for what not to do. Adding weight to these suspicions, President Trump tweeted his concerns about South Africa’s land reform process shortly after signing ZIDERA into law. He is reported to have been informed by fringe white farmer lobbies in South Africa who have growing alliances with white supremacist groups in the US.
Punishing ordinary people
How much longer can Zimbabwe’s economic punishment be justified? If it is about property rights and land reform, will the new dispensation ever be recognised without the country being drawn further into debt? If it is about the rule of law and politically related violence, then would not the likes of Kenya, Cameroon, Uganda and many more warrant similar measures?
Under the current conditions, it is Zimbabwean citizens that are suffering most. ZIDERA is not so much stopping land reform or punishing elites, but contributing to economic collapse, which hits ordinary people hardest. Lines for petrol, shortages of basic medicines and business closures only bring more hunger, disease and social instability.
[“The situation is unbearable”: Life under Zimbabwe’s economic crisis]
The new Zimbabwean government should certainly do more to strengthen transparency, tackle corruption and safeguard human rights. But ZIDERA is not about such concerns, and even if it were, it would not be helping.
While President Trump demands American sovereignty, Zimbabwe’s ability to manage its own economy is severely hampered by the US. No country in our globalised world can both balance its budget and stabilise its currency without support. Zimbabweans have already paid a heavy enough price.
You never say what the ‘ulterior motive’ might be.
Why would you be advocating to keeping a murderous and corrupt regime that Zanu-PF is in power and then want the USA to support this regime why?
Have you forgotten about the murder of 7 people by the ZNA on the 1/8/18 all to do with Zanu-PF instilling fear and intimidation into the Zimbabwean people.
What about gross incompetence, mismanagement and corruption of Zanu-PF over the last 38 years that should all be absolved because Mugabe has gone from the political scene?
ZIDERA would have disappeared if Zanu-PF was prepared to have free and fair elections, allow opposition parties access to State media, provide a voters roll for scrutiny and not allow the ZNA to intimidate rural villagers – of course none of this happened – why then should ZIDERA be removed?
While trying to make a point that America has a sinister ulterior motive you gloss over important facts.
For example, while most Zimbabweans accept the fact that we will never go back to a situation where a small number of white farmers control most of the productive land, it doesn’t mean that we feel that our present situation is a good one. While highlighting Zimbabwe’s large tobacco crop, you hide the fact that we are importing massive amounts of maize and wheat since local production of these crops is now at a very low level. You emphasize the 200,000 new small-scale farmers but forget to mention that there are numerous well connected elites who were given large farms to themselves. You imply that requiring Zimbabwe to enforce the SADC tribunal rulings is punitive, rather than recognising this as a call for justice.
Zimbabwe’s economic fortunes do not depend on the US as much as you imply. Look at our economic recovery between 2009 and 2013. This was achieved by sound economic policy implemented locally. ZIDERA was still in force then. The economic decline from 2013 to 2018 was a result of poor economic policies, not ZIDERA. The reasons for our current economic misfortunes are clear, and are even admitted to in the most recent reserve Bank and Finance Ministry statements if you care to read them. Between 2009 and 2013 the government did not borrow and the economy grew. Between 2013 and 2018 the government borrowed nearly $10 billion, which is an unsustainable percentage of our GDP, and thereby created the problems they are now trying to fix. They don’t need sanctions to be removed to fix those problems. They need to change their policies.
ZIDERA would have been repealed if Zanu_PF was prepared to accept a free and fair election, ZEC provided a verified voters roll, all political parties were allowed access to state media and the ZNA was not involved in the electoral process. None of these things transpired and when challenged Zanu-PF resorted to their old and familiar traits and unleashed violence on the opposition murdering 6 Zimbabweans and harassing and pursuing any opposition to Zanu-PF rule.
Africans have always faced adversity and hardship for ages and in current world political climate continue to do so. It’s almost like a new age of slavery labelled “Sanctions”.
But hey that won’t stop us;
We would rather see the land destroyed then have descendants of European scums benefiting of the unlawful motions their ancestors proudly undertook ever since the Berlin Conference.
Africa is for Africans. Just like how Asia is for Asians.
chloroquine phosphate vs chloroquine sulphate https://chloroquineorigin.com/# hydroxychloroquine uses
cialis price cialis generic