Zimpapers Logo

Today our neighbours in SADC actively campaign for the removal of sanctions against Zimbabwe, sanctions that have harmed not just Zimbabwe but also most of Southern Africa partly as a result of the inability of Zimbabwe to get infrastructure finance but also because of the lower trade.

A great many countries have backed efforts to have these unilateral sanctions removed and a growing number of Zimbabweans and Zimbabwean groups and organisations are campaigning actively for their removal.

Besides our neighbours we have our own business organisations and most political parties now opposed to the sanctions, despite the fact that many business people and, obviously, members of the political parties backing the removal are not members of Zanu PF and vote against the party at elections.

The sanctions were imposed in 2002 as a direct result of the land reform.

Curiously, although obviously designed to apply pressure on the majority of Zimbabweans to change their Government, they were sold as targeted measures against a fairly small number in the political leadership and associated senior officials.

If a couple of dozen, or for that matter a couple of hundred, individual Zimbabweans, regardless of how important they were, were barred from holding foreign bank accounts, travelling to some countries, or dealing with those foreign countries, the effect on the Zimbabwean economy would be zero. And even the effect on those facing the assorted personal bars would not be great since many other countries were not applying sanctions.

Where the damage came was from the major effort to prevent Zimbabwe using the international banking sector and the global financial institutions.

And this was tied, directly, to the willingness of Zimbabwe to allow a change in Government, regardless of how people voted in an election.

Secondary damage came from a withdrawal of aid, but the lack of positive support for Zimbabwe was far less damaging than the financial constraints imposed.

These financial sanctions meant it is impossible for Zimbabwe to access ordinary finance from the World Bank, International Monetary Fund and other similar institutions.

The vote would go against us.

Most businesses in most countries can access various forms for trade finance to oil the process of buying and selling.

Zimbabwean businesses can find this very difficult to impossible, largely because so much of the global financial movements pass through American banks or banks with offices in America, and they have to be very careful, an extra cost few wish to incur.

Investors are coming into Zimbabwe after the Second Republic reforms, but as they note they need to use their own money since borrowing from banks for a Zimbabwean investment would be difficult at best and probably impossible.

And once we start talking about State-owned companies the constraints mean that they can forget about external financial arrangements. The European Union came aboard the sanctions train, but recently has effectively dropped almost all the ordinary financial sanctions against Zimbabwe.

Some EU countries have offered greater support than others but the main point is that no one is trying to crush or harm Zimbabwe.

The practical arms embargo in place is not a factor since we are not really buying any weapons, let alone European weapons.

The USA maintains its full sanctions regime, partly through Executive action and partly based on the ZIDERA law, the law that bars the US Government from helping Zimbabwe and the law that compels the US delegates at international financial institutions to vote against Zimbabwe. Since the US holds the largest block of votes in these organisations that is a serious sanction.

The same law, in effect, sets the change of Government as the practical test.

This is curious since the USA believes that people should be allowed to vote for who they want, but not apparently in Zimbabwe. In fact it is difficult to come to any other conclusion that the main aim of sanctions is to make life so miserable for Zimbabweans that they will vote differently.

The American authorities are also active in enforcing their rules on all banks operating in or from America, and some have faced very large fines for fairly small infringements.

The result is that, since Zimbabwe is such a small country, the small profits on Zimbabwean business can easily be washed away by the costs of making the required checks. So a lot of people simply do not want to bother.

The Second Republic has made a vast amount of progress of pushing through needed reforms and programmes, but none of these were driven by the sanctions agenda; rather they arose from Zimbabwean needs.

However,  some technical assistance in some areas came from the World Bank, eager to pass on its knowledge of international best practice, and the International Monetary Fund has been monitoring, with general approval, the fiscal and monetary reforms since we are not hiding anything.

So when sanctions are lifted both will obviously be more supportive.

One particular area will clearly benefit.

Zimbabwe has signed the compensation deal for all the decades of improvements with the land owners who lost their farms in land reform.

This deal was designed to do what was right for those who had invested and to close the books.

While the Government is determined to make the deal work, and has been able to make some payments, the consummation of the deal would be accelerated swiftly if we could access international finance institutions.

While it would be pleasant if the US was friendly to Zimbabwe, this is a lot less important than the US not showing its animosity.

It could lift financial sanctions without seeking to be a friend, treating us as it treats much of the world it dislikes but does not lean on.

Sanctions have not, and will not, trigger changes in Zimbabwe. They have, however, hit the ordinary people by slowing their economic development.

If they went the general population could move forward faster. And how they vote, and who they vote for, is their business and their right.