Zimpapers Logo

Ranga Mataire, Zimpapers Politics Hub

SADC recently marked the Anti-Sanctions Day with President Mnangagwa as the chairperson of the regional bloc expressing gratitude to all member states that have always stood in solidarity with Zimbabwe against the illegal measures imposed by the West and the United States at the turn of the millennium.

The Anti-Sanctions Day marked on October 25 coincided with the holding of the Zanu-PF 21st National Annual People’s Conference that took place in Bulawayo from October 22-27. It was in Bulawayo that President Mnangagwa appended his signature to an anti-sanctions petition as a symbolic act expressing his repugnance against the continued existence of sanctions on Zimbabwe.

In his address to multitudes gathered inside the Large City Hall, President Mnangagwa said, “It is ordinary people, particularly the vulnerable, who bear the brunt of these heinous and inhumane measures, which also stifle economic and social progress in Zimbabwe.”

President Mnangagwa reiterated that sanctions were undermining regional collective efforts towards integration and sustainable development. 

Directly speaking to those who imposed the sanctions, President Mnangagwa said; “May this message transcend our borders and reach the ears and rattle the conscience of those perpetuating these cruel sanctions. They must realise the extent of harm their reprehensive actions inflict on the generality of the people of Zimbabwe, on the SADC region, and Africa, at large.”

It appears the message indeed rattled the progenitors of the heinous sanctions as on the day of the Anti-Sanctions Day, the United States embassy in Harare frantically populated Google space with adverts that said it was not “sanctions but corruption” stifling Zimbabwe’s growth.

The embassy also populated its own social media handles with the same message, in a desperate effort to hoodwink people into thinking that sanctions were not a factor in the performance of the country’s economy.

The attempt was to appeal to the uninitiated and try to deflate the impact of the Anti-Sanctions Day, which was advanced by the late Tanzanian President, John Magufuli, when he was the SADC chairperson in 2019.

Judging by the people’s responses on social media, the US’s attempt to distract people from the devastating effects of sanctions failed to have any gravitas as Zimbabweans disapproved of the country’s intrusive imperial machinations. Some reminded the United States of its former Assistant Secretary of African Affairs Chester Croker who during hearings of the sanctions law, the so-called Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act (ZIDERA) explicitly said; “To separate the Zimbabwean people from Zanu-PF, we are going to have to make their economy scream, and I hope you, Senators, have the stomach for what you have to do.”

Crocker’s statement clearly explains the overriding motive of sanctions as an instrument for regime change. 

Over two decades have passed and Zanu-PF is still in charge. Even the attempt in March to switch the Magnitsky Act to cover sanctions in Zimbabwe is a disingenuous act that tries to suggest that the sanctions are targeted. 

If the illegal measures are targeted at the country’s leadership and some critical institutions, it simply means that Zimbabwe as a country is still under sanctions.

The truth is that the United States still operates the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act (ZIDERA), which the congress passed in 2001. 

While the US says this is not a set of sanctions, ZIDERA prevents Zimbabwe from accessing loans and investment from international financial institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank, which experts say hampers its ability to develop economically.

Economist, Mr Eddie Cross, estimates that banks lose about US$1bn annually in higher bank charges because of ZIDERA.

“ZIDERA has been in place for 23 years, and a billion dollars a year could have easily settled our national debt,” said Mr Cross.

Mr Cross is right. Additional costs arise when local banks go through other financial institutions different from the regular correspondent ones, which sometimes refuse to deal directly with Zimbabwe for fear of being penalised by the US government.

There is no question about how sanctions have affected the people of Zimbabwe. 

In fact, at the core of the sanctions law, is the issue of the land. If Zimbabweans really cared to look at the genesis of sanctions and the people who sponsored the original bills in the US congress, they will come to the conclusion that racism propels America’s foreign policy particularly towards Africa.

A clear understanding of sanctions on Zimbabwe ultimately leads us to reveal who were the sponsors of the law from way back in 2001 when the law first came. 

Let us start where it started. 

On March 8, 2001, US Senators Bill First and Russ Feingold introduced the bill as a bipartisan effort.

It is not the likes of Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden, who were also part of the sponsors who tell the story best. It is in fact one Sen Jesse Helms in 2011 and Jeff Flake in 2018. Helms was the arch-promoter of the sanctions bill and it is barely surprising.

Sieving through the rubble of the original bill, from demands that Zimbabwe withdraw from the DRC, to democracy, the fulcrum of the law was the land issue. Helms was a strong supporter of Ian Smith’s UDI. An unapologetic racist throughout his political career.

He once ran an advert saying; “White people, wake up before it’s too late. Do you want negroes working beside you, your wife, your daughters, your mills or factories?” When the Civil Rights Act was passed (1964), he denounced it as “the single most dangerous piece of legislation ever introduced.”

He once described black civil rights leader, Dr Martin Luther Jr and his followers as “communists & sexual perverts.” Here is the irony; while Helms campaigned for sanctions on Zimbabwe in the post-independence era, he campaigned against sanctions on Rhodesia.

In July 1979, Bishop Muzorewa visited the US at the invitation of Helms. He wanted to introduce him to President Jimmy Carter as Rhodesia’s legitimate leader. Carter was by law supposed to end sanctions if the sham election that brought Muzorewa to power was deemed representative.

The election had disfranchised a large chunk of the populace but here was Helms hand-holding the Bishop through Capitol Hill seeking endorsement for an illegitimate leader and wanting Carter to lift sanctions.

Administration officials said President Carter had agreed to meet Bishop Muzorewa at the request of Senator Jesse Helms, Republican of North Carolina, who invited the cleric to Washington as his host.

TransAfrica, an organisation that included the leaders of most major American black organisations, protested at the Capitol against Mr Carter’s decision to see Bishop Muzorewa.

They charged that the Bishop’s Government is merely a black façade for continued white minority rule.

Helms wrote to say, “by any objective standard, Rhodesia’s elections were free and fair.” That’s not all. In the 1980s, Helms and Bob Dole-campaigned for the US not to support the Mozambique government but instead supported Renamo — a rebel movement founded and supported by apartheid South Africa.

The same racist man even campaigned against the new government of Zimbabwe including calling for the imposition of sanctions, cutting off all aid and trade as early as 1981. During the Lancaster House negotiations, Helms sent two of his aides to assist the Smith delegation. In essence, Helms was against freedom fighters.

Is it therefore not surprising that the same Helms who was a friend of Rhodesia was instrumental in the sanctions against Zimbabwe through what later got to be known as ZIDERA. Surely a friend of Rhodesia was never going to let the land reform that began in Zimbabwe in 2000 go unpunished.

Helms died in 2008, but what did not die are his ultra-conservative (racist) ideals. 

The likes of Jeff Flake were there to pick up the baton. Flake, together with Chris Coons are the sponsors of ZIDERA. Flake is no less colourful than his mentor Helms in the racial stakes.

In 1987, Flake testified before the Utah State Senate in support of a resolution expressing support for the apartheid government of South Africa. And here is more irony. While today Flake supports sanctions on Zimbabwe, he at the time opposed sanctions on South Africa saying it would worsen black lives.

So while ordinary Zimbabweans do not matter today under US sanctions, back then ordinary white South Africans had to be protected.

Flake’s own son, Tanner, went by the name “niggerkiller” on an online game and posted YouTube comments using the word “nigger”. Flake had to apologise.

With such history of Helms and Flake, it is not surprising that at the core of sanctions law is the demand for Zimbabwe to abide by the now defunct SADC Tribunal ruling on land reform. The demand for Zimbabwe to observe the ruling stands out among all other demands.

Whether it is today and Flake, an apartheid defender, or yesterday and Helms, a Rhodesia ardent supporter, the central demand has always been on land. 

The reality is that whoever takes charge of Zimbabwe has to live with the reality of working under the punishment of US sanctions.

You took land and you must be punished and made an example. If it was really about democracy or human rights, half the world would be under their own versions of ZIDERA.

Anyone who thinks this is about democracy or human rights transgressions is either naïve or simply refusing to read history. This is about white supremacy. The US government surely thinks all Zimbabweans are intellectual zombies who cannot see through their duplicitous actions.