Zimpapers Logo

Let us state from the outset that individual countries – sovereign countries – have the right to decide their policies, domestic and foreign.

This also follows that the same countries send envoys to different parts of the world to represent their interests.

That is basic convention.

Zimbabwe does that, and as a Republic and member of the international community and family of nations, it has also received personages of different colours and hues to represent foreign interests here.

The United States of America is no exception.

Since Robert V. Keeley was appointed on May 23, 1980, as the first US Ambassador to independent Zimbabwe, a dozen more have followed his footsteps.

One Harry Thomas Jnr is the latest of this line of envoys.

Interestingly, he is one of the latter species of American envoys that have been antagonistic to Zimbabwe – of course in keeping with the hostile policies of the US which regards Zimbabwe as presenting some “extraordinary threat” to it.

Since 2000, Zimbabwe has received such characters as Christopher W. Dell, James D. McGee, Charles A. Ray, David B. Wharton and Harry Jnr — itself an impressive mix of colour, but scantily nothing else.

You have to give it that some characters such as Dell and James McGee were a bit more overzealous in pursuit of regime change and would make all sorts of actions, provocations, statements and pronouncements regarding Zimbabwe.

They were also responsible for trying to squeeze our lives out through sanctions, which Dell infamously called “tightening screws on (President) Mugabe” (that includes 4 000 people dying of cholera in 2008 because the health capacity had been eroded).

AMBASSADOR HARRY THOMAS JR

All came to naught, luckily.

The likes of Wharton, and indeed this Thomas have been a little more varnished, couching themselves in liberalism and some deceptive programmes and policies.

But they are devils all the same.

I propose, actually, that they are worse devils, just like Barack Obama, that deceptive little devil.

We make no apologies for stating this self-evident fact concerning people who have made us suffer and sought to defeat our independence.

It has also become clear that Obama-era people are dangerous, small-minded and obstructionist, as we have even seen with the new administration of President Donald J. Trump.

We have remarked that we hold no brief for the Trump administration and wouldn’t even try to expect anything from it.

However, we notice that as is the norm, the new leadership swept away old diplomatic postings including top civil servant of foreign affairs John Kerry.

We all thought we would see the sorry back of America’s envoy here – just for a change maybe!

But we have to demonstrate how, further, how this guy is undesirable as an obstructionist Obama remnant, and pretty much useless if any meaningful engagement is to be held.

Last week the Voice of America, which beams illegal hate speech into the country through pirate radio station Studio 7, held a discussion on Zimbabwe.

The subject of US’ illegal and unwarranted sanctions on Zimbabwe came up with the African Union (AU) ambassador to Washington Arikana Chihombori-Quao taking the US envoy to task.

Thomas was on that annoyingly dishonest and facile denial of sanctions.

Chihombori-Quao (who must now be watched as a serious diplomat) told him the fact that sanctions “do affect the everyday women and children”.

“…if you say the sanctions are not making a difference in Zimbabwe, why not remove them?”

The US envoy gave a wishy-washy response and claimed that the US was “not responsible for the economy”, without telling us how imposing sanctions of companies such as Agribank, Zimbabwe Fertiliser Company, Zesa, NRZ, Hwange – all major companies and executives that have been on the hit list – is not interfering in the economy.

Thomas apparently has such a low opinion of us.

“If you ask me if there have ever been an area where sanctions have affected people, I will say yes and where, but don’t give me everyday, every person. Where it has happened is when people have tried to send remittances back and there have been overzealous compliance officers in the private sector who have thought, conflated sanctions with the ability to send money back home, and they have held that money,” he reasoned.

Chihombori-Quao was forthright.

She pressed: “If the sanctions are insignificant and are not contributing to the issues in Zimbabwe, why do we still have them? Remove them, and then there will be one problem out of many that would have been addressed.”

And Thomas responded: “Those sanctions were imposed by Congress, those sanctions would have to be lifted by Congress . . . the place to lobby for the removal of sanctions is on The Hill, that is the way it will have to be done and that is in response to not only improved economy but democracy and governance.”

He is, without irony, as all dishonest people are.

The exchange becomes heated.

Chihombori-Quao: “. . . sanctions are one of the many issues that need to be addressed and I think it’s an issue that needs to be acknowledged as a fact and not swept under the rug, that’s all I’m saying.” Thomas: “Ma’am, I think we will just always have to agree to dis-agree.”

It pretty much sums it all.

This Thomas is just useless and will not be of value in forging a new paradigm or issues that can be of mutual interest to the people of Zimbabwe and the US.

It cannot be denied that the two countries need each other and that Zimbabwe is not an insignificant player on the geopolitical player.

Zimbabwe is an important country to the region and in Africa.

It is also crucial to note that some major countries, including Britain and China, are effectively seeking ways to engage Zimbabwe in a manner that is sustainable and goes beyond 2018.

We find it very doubtful if America can extract any value with obstructionist, Obama-era characters such as Harry Thomas Jnr.

But then we have said we do not care how America appoints its envoys – which is within its sovereign right to do so.