Zimpapers Logo

should not be ambivalent about the following key issues that are hampering our economic well-being.
“The issues of sanctions: Way back in our national vision document as the church, we stated that we must engage our partners overseas to lobby their governments and other institutions to support Zimbabwe in the reconstruction efforts through the cancellation of our international debt and making generous grants towards the reconstruction of our economy.

“Sanctions of whatever form must go now and the church must lift up its collective voice against them. Let us not fool ourselves about targeted sanctions. Sanctions of whatever form are wrong, unjustified, unChristian and must be removed without further delay.”
The same meeting heard that the Christian population in Zimbabwe was almost 8 million, but this whole group was facing serious economic challenges. Congregants were not remitting tithes and offerings, not because they were being disobedient but because they do not have the wherewithal.

It seems then that the majority of pastors are running church affairs on empty coffers, just like our Government and other sectors. Giving poverty a legitimate Christian or spiritual tag!

Such reality cannot be flippantly dealt with. Christians know that both obedience and disobedience have rewards spiritually and physically. They also know the principles of sowing and reaping. They understand the importance of seed.
It is against such reality that I wished that the new US ambassador to Zimbabwe, David Bruce Wharton, who was credentialed on November 15, had been present at that conference.

He would have heard first hand information about the plight of heads of Christian denominations in Zimbabwe.
Maybe he would then have understood that much as successive US administrations would want to talk about targeted sanctions and/or measures against 120 individuals and 70 companies, the reality is that the illegal sanctions imposed 11 years ago have adversely affected all sectors of Zimbabwean life, the church included.
And, inasmuch as the US envoys make promises that initially give hope to the people of Zimbabwe, a lot needs to be done, and they have to walk the talk.

I used Bishop Manhanga’s remarks because the way the issue of sanctions has been presented and interrogated has polarised the people of Zimbabwe.

There are some who have bought into this mythical explanation that Zimbabwe is not under an illegal sanction regime, but rather that these are restrictive measures targeting some 120 individuals in Zanu-PF and 70 corporations that support it.
Others argue that Zanu-PF’s actions invited sanctions against itself (not against the people). With companies closing down one after another, it is amazing that you still find some who have bought into this numbers’ game — a sweetener that has lulled them to sleep and not question what exactly those numbers mean.

If sanctions are about 120 individuals, how about the companies, employees, communities, families and effects on the economy at large? How about the people that we hear about so much? The people do not want to live on aid because they know that they fought hard to gain their sovereignty and self-determination.

And, if it is really about these magical figures — 120 and 70, why did ambassador Ray tell some students in 2009: “It’s (sanctions) certainly an issue that gets a lot of attention both between me and policymakers in Washington.” Surely in a country with 13 million people, you can’t dedicate a lot of time on 120 individuals, who are not even the 1 percent.

These same people who have been duped into buying this line of thought have seen themselves being unable to get and/or give offerings in church, let alone tithe. When a policy targets your spiritual well-being, then you know that it seeks to send you into damnation.
On Monday, ambassador Wharton was on Star FM’s “The Hub” programme with Innocent Tshuma. When he was asked why the US was not making efforts to lift the illegal sanctions, he did not see them as illegal sanctions against the people of Zimbabwe, but as measures against 120 individuals and 70 corporations.

Ambassador Wharton is also not a newcomer to Zimbabwe. In fact, the number of top US officials with a working knowledge of Zimbabwe continues to grow.

Ambassador Susan Rice, who is likely to be the next US Secretary of State, did her PhD dissertation on Zimbabwe: “Commonwealth initiative in Zimbabwe, 1979-1980: Implication for international peacekeeping”. Then there is the Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, ambassador Johnnie Carson, who was US ambassador to Zimbabwe from 1995 to 1997.

Why is such a critical mass not playing a positive advisory role in shifting US policy toward Zimbabwe? If 2000 and 2008 are crucial, so, too, are 1890 to 1980!

Notwithstanding, we appreciate some of the sentiments ambassador Wharton echoed soon after presenting his credentials to President Mugabe on November 15, but we do so with cautious optimism for we have been disappointed in the past. He said:
l I will begin my term here by listening and learning about the goals of the Zimbabwean people and how the US can be a good partner.
l US policy towards Zimbabwe is not static, and will respond positively to Zimbabwe’s progress on the roadmap to constitutional reform and elections.

“When we differ on the best means of achieving those goals, I will seek to engage in dialogue that is respectful and that seeks to uphold the universal rights that Zimbabweans fought for so hard to gain 32 years ago.”
Regarding the second point, why does this look like a one-sided approach? Where are the people of Zimbabwe in this whole scenario? And, why should the Zimbabwe scenario be limited to a few issues, when there is so much to talk about?

In September 2011, ambassador Ray was asked about how the US intended to mend ties with Zimbabwe when illegal sanctions remained in place, and he said that he had “no control over ZIDERA” (the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act of 2001 — the legal instrument on the illegal sanctions against Zimbabwe). This was also consistent with what he said after he presented his credentials: “ . . . Sanctions were declared by the legislature. They are not solved in one conversation. Dialogue will continue as long as people are willing to talk.”

There has been some progress and the US has noted that. They applauded the formation of the Government of National Unity, and ambassador Wharton on Monday admitted that the progress made so far showed a willingness by Zimbabweans to move on. So then, in the eyes of the United States and its allies, what other benchmarks are required to normalise the situation and, more specifically, to remove sanctions unconditionally?
Were the calls made at the just-ended Zimbabwe Diamond Conference not loud and convincing enough that sanctions have hurt the people of Zimbabwe and therefore must be removed?

For those who have been made to believe that the illegal sanctions are justified and/or targeted, here is the statement made by former US president George W. Bush on December 21 2001 on signing ZIDERA:
“Today, I have signed into law S.494, the ‘Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act of 2001’. This Act symbolises the clear bipartisan resolve in the United States to promoting human rights, good governance, and economic development in Africa. (Not just Zimbabwe)
“My administration shares fully the Congress’s deep concerns about the political and economic hardships visited upon Zimbabwe by that country’s leadership. I hope the provisions of this important legislation will support the people of Zimbabwe in their struggle to effect peaceful democratic change, achieve economic growth, and restore the rule of law”.
Analysts have said time and again that this was a direct reaction to the irreversible land reform programme that Zimbabwe had embarked on, a programme that affected former white commercial farmers.
President Bush added, “Section 4(c) of the Act purports to direct the executive branch to oppose and vote against the extension of loans or the cancellation of debt in international financial institutions unless and until I make a certification or national interest determination.”
Zimbabweans would also be interested to know that House Representative Cynthia McKinney (Democrat-Georgia) accused the people who supported Zidera, an act of “anti-black racists”.

“She referred to it as “nothing more than a formal declaration of United States complicity in a programme to maintain white-skin privilege . . .  under the hypocritical guise of providing a transition to democracy.”
Finally, as we seek reprieve on the illegal sanctions, we ask, “Do two walk together unless they have agreed to do so?” (Amos 3 v 3)