Sanctions, which sanctions?

New African, May 2007 by Ankomah, Baffour

"Assuming the appropriation of the authorised amounts, CBO estimates that implementing the bill would cost $23m over the 2002-2006 period... S.494 would earmark $20m for land reform and $6m for programmes to promote democracy and good governance in Zimbabwe [ie, antigovernment activities] from funds otherwise authorised to be appropriated in 2002 for development assistance and economic support fund."

On the day the House of Representatives passed the bill (Tuesday, 4 December 2001), a fuming Cynthia McKinney, one of the few African-American politicians in Congress ar the time to speak against the bill, stood on the floor of the House, and told the assembled gentlemen and women:

"Mr Speaker," she said, "at the International Relations Committee meeting on 28 November 2001, which considered the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act of 2001, I asked a question of my colleagues who were vociferously supporting this misdirected piece of legislation: 'Can anyone explain how the people in question who now have the land in question in Zimbabwe got title to the land?'

"My query was met with a deafening silence. Those who knew did not want to admit the truth and those who didn't know should have known - that the land was stolen from the indigenous peoples through die British South Africa Company and any 'titles' to it were illegal and invalid.

"Whatever the reason for their silence, the answer to this question is the unspoken but real reason for why the United -States Congress is now concentrating its time and resources on squeezing an economically-devastated African state under the hypocritical guise of providing a 'transition to democracy'. Zimbabwe is Africa's second-longest stable democracy. It is multi-party. It had elections last year [2000] where the opposition, Movement for Democratic Change, won over 50 seats in the parliament. It has an opposition press which vigorously criticises the government and governing party. It has an independent judiciary which issues decisions contrary to the wishes of the governing party. Zimbabwe is not without troubles, but neither is the United States. I have not heard anyone proposing a United States Democracy Act following last years [2000] presidential electoral debacle. And if a foreign country were to pass legislation calling for a United States Democracy Act which provided funding for United States opposition parties under the figleaf of Voter education', this body [Congress] and this country would not stand for it.

"There are many de jure and de facto one-party states in the world which are the recipients of support of the United States government. They are not the subject of congressional legislative sanctions.

"To any honest observer, Zimbabwe's sin is that it has taken the position to right a wrong, whose resolution has been too long overdue - to return its (and to its people. The Zimbabwcan government has said that a situation where 2% of the population owns 85% of the best land is untenable. Those who presently own more man one farm will no longer be able to do so.