Business Publications

Sanctions, which sanctions?

New African, May 2007 by Ankomah, Baffour

(b) Funding - Of the funds authorised to be appropriated to carry out Part I and Chapter 4 of Part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 for fiscal year 2002

(1) $20m is authorised to be available to provide the assistance described in subsection (a) (2); and

(2) $6m is authorised to be available to provide the assistance described in subsection (a) (3).

Section 6: Sense of Congress on the actions to be taken against individuals responsible for violence and the breakdown of the rule of law in Zimbabwe:

It is the sense of Congress that the president [of the United States] should begin immediate consultation with the governments of European Union member states, Canada, and other appropriate foreign countries on ways in which to:

(1) Identify and share information regarding individuals responsible for the deliberate breakdown of the rule of law, politically motivated violence, and intimidation in Zimbabwe.

(2) Identify assecs of those individuals held outside Zimbabwe.

(3) Implement travel and economic sanctions against those individuals and their associates and families; and

(4) Provide for rhe eventual removal of amendment of those sanctions.

Act of war

Overall, this Act - which the Americans would otherwise consider "an act of war" if some other foreign country passed it against them - has effectively condemned 13 million Africans in Zimbabwe to severe economic suffering over the past six years, as the country is unable to borrow or get any credit or debt cancellation on the international markets.

It is interesting to note that while Uganda and Rwanda sent their troops to fight in Congo against the legitimate government in that country and stayed for eight years causing untold hardships to Congo, America passed no such punitive law to sanction them.

Rather Zimbabwe, which was invited by the legitimate government of Congo to help repel invadets attacking the country, "rendered itself ineligible," according to the US Congress, "to participate in [World Bank and IMF] programmes" because of "the costly deployment of troops to DRCongo".

Yet, even as Uganda and Rwanda increased their deployment of troops, and succeeded in reducing Congo to its knees in eight years of a devastating war, they still enjoyed massive Western economic, political and moral support. The real motivation for S.494, which was neatly summed up by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), was simply "economic sanctions" against Zimbabwe for daring to embark on land reform which negatively impacted on white commercial farmers in the country.

On 12 July 2001, the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations ordered the CBO to prepare a cost estimates for implementing S.494. In the preamble to the estimates, the CBO said:

"S.494 would support a transition to democracy and promote economic recovery in Zimbabwe through a set of incentives and sanctions. The bill would require the United States to oppose lending by international financial institutions to, or debt relief for, Zimbabwe until the [US] president certifies to the Congress that certain conditions are satisfied...