Zimbabweans were disappointed when Barack Obama extended existing US sanctions on Zimbabwe for another one year beyond March 6, 2009, stating that the deep political crisis gripping the country remains unresolved.

The sanction would have lapsed had Obama not informed Congress that he intended to continue the sanctions regime targeting members of the Zimbabwe government. 

Ironically, this extension came on the same day that Zimbabwe’s Prime Minister Morgan Tsvingirai called for an end to political oppression and police violence in his first address to parliament as prime minister. Tsvingirai said that donor countries won’t help Zimbabwe unless its image improves. “No donor country or institution is going to offer any meaningful assistance unless our new government projects a positive new image.” 

The US Ambassador to Zimbabwe on March 25, 2009, and the International Monetary Fund following Barack Obama’s lead has confirmed that the sanction on Zimbabwe stays for now. - Sanctions Will Remain, U.S. Ambassador Says 

Tsvangirai’s government is desperate for foreign aid to save Zimbabwe from the economic abyss. Alas, it won’t be coming from the US any time soon when ordinary Zimbabweans look up to the Prime minister to undo the damage that has been wrought on these innocent victims of Robert Mugabe’s misrule. 

Almost all schools and hospitals have closed - due both to lack of money to pay the teachers, nurses and doctors, and to a lack of clean water, electricity and medicine. Six of the seven state universities have remained closed since the winter vacation in May 2008. In other words, there is a whole generation of young people whose future now lies in real danger, if not in ruins; and all because of Robert Mugabe. 

A Times Online report shows that Starvation, drugs and prostitution is the miserable fate of Mugabe's orphans; the 'lost generation' struggling to survive in South Africa. There have been more than 85,000 victims of a cholera epidemic that affects 90 per cent of the country and a death toll of more than 4,000. - Financial Times 

In 2002 and 2003, the United States under President George Bush imposed political and economic sanctions on the Government of Zimbabwe, including financial and visa sanctions against selected individuals, a ban on transfers of defence items and services, and a suspension of non-humanitarian government-to-government assistance. - et tu barack obama 

This executive order was taken to deal with the “unusual and extraordinary threat to the foreign policy of the United States” constituted by the actions and policies of certain members of the Government of Zimbabwe and other persons undermining democratic processes or institutions in Zimbabwe.

The United States government and the European Union have insisted that Robert Mugabe should resign and must be no part of a government of national unity. Now with the ICC warrant of arrest on President Omar Al-Bashir of Sudan, the spectre of arrest and trial dangles over Robert Mugabe like Damocles sword. 

When analysing Africa’s political problems, western commentators’ focuses almost exclusively on individual actors, ‘the autocratic and dictatorial regimes and their cronies’. The effect of ancient tribal allegiances, political dynamics, an infantile electoral process and most importantly, the distorting effect of British imperialism and the now-indigenous practice of divide and rule tend to be minimised if not ignored. 

In Zimbabwe, While all such explanations based on supposed “actions and policies of certain members of the Government of Zimbabwe and other persons to undermine Zimbabwe’s democratic processes or institutions”  have some merit they may also mislead the unwary, since they underplay the always slippery relations between ethnicity as a universal human attribute, politicised tribalism as a contingent process, and the state - any state, African or otherwise - as a cockpit of variously contested but always unequal power.

There are three different dynamics currently at work in Zimbabwe: Firstly, Robert Mugabe and his Zanu-PF will resist any move towards a transitional authority that totally excludes them. They are fully aware that handing over power to anyone, even a transitional authority, would be tantamount to committing political suicide. 

Secondly, Mugabe has proved remarkably adept at surviving a spectacular economic collapse and mega-inflation induced by his regime's own policies. He has managed this feat through a mix of military power, targeted repression, and political patronage; together, these mechanisms have enabled the political-military elite to resist every pressure if not actually to prosper. 

Thirdly, Mugabe’s travails have been dressed up in an anti-imperialist, liberationist guise. This till now has secured the necessary levels of African support to ensure continental and regional paralysis even in the face of mounting internal crisis. 

Also not to be overlooked is the influence of internal ethnic dissidence and external tribal and political rivalry. It is a very great deal to ask Zimbabweans to immediately think of themselves less as ethnically-defined clients. (Ask Nigerians). The normal inter-ethnic and inter-party rivalry of most daily lives may have been deeply poisoned by the recent cancelled election, the consequent violence, political assassinations and violence forecasting a broken state. 

Zimbabwe faces two possible futures: to have Robert Mugabe as a part of a Government of National Unity, or to leave him out of any political equation to face his fate. The opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) decided on 30 January 2009 to join a unity government for Zimbabwe in which power will ostensibly be shared between Robert Mugabe's Zanu-PF and Morgan Tsvangirai's MDC. This actualisation of the long-delayed compromise agreement brokered on 15 September 2008 might be the only pragmatic answer to the country's economic collapse however imperfect the arrangement. 

But the majority of the international community and in fact ordinary Zimbabweans view with suspicion any political arrangement that leaves Mugabe snugly in power as head of state and commander-in-chief of the armed forces. 

It is evident that the agreement is unfairly advantageous to the incumbent president, for it will enable Robert Mugabe to retain virtually all the executive powers that he has wielded since coming to power in 1980 - even though he lost the presidential election on 29 March 2008. It also denies Morgan Tsvangirai, the winner of that poll, the opportunity to lead Zimbabwe out of the social and economic quagmire that Mugabe has dragged it into through his iron-fist style of governance. 

However, anyone who opposes this contraption should come up with another plausible arrangement. While several NGOs had long advocated another and "better way" and which theoretically offers a far better prospect than leaving Robert Mugabe in power, the reality on the ground says otherwise. – Zimbabwe, right way, wrong way 

In Kenya, much looting, destruction of property and loss of life followed the “stealing” of the elections by then incumbent president, Nwai Kibaki. But today, Nwai Kibaki is still the president, sharing power with Raila Odinga as Prime Minister, in an internationally brokered compromise. Why and How is Zimbabwe different from Kenya? 

The Unity Government should be allowed to manage a transitional authority that can manage national affairs for a set period. They should oversee the drafting and adoption of a democratic constitution, rebuild the economy, and conduct democratic and internationally monitored elections. 

The national mourning that followed a recent accident involving Morgan Tsvangirai and the death of his wife and the release of a dissident MP from prison, Roy Bennett on the orders of a court illustrates that circumstances are changing rapidly and an appeal to lift international sanctions on Zimbabwe may have become irresistible.  With confidence and awareness growing, the rate of the cholera epidemic is gradually being controlled.

This improvement after months of government paralysis in the face of the epidemic is not just a sign that relief organisations are at last finding ways to address the crisis. It is also a sign the presence of the Unity Government is being felt. 

Shifting from successful humanitarian efforts to more sustainable progress will be a big challenge. Reviving an agricultural sector shattered by a violent and divisive land reform will take years. The country’s water and sanitation system has broken down. 

Tens of millions of dollars of investments will be needed to rebuild the network. Although South Africa has provided modest help, no big investment is expected in the short–term without the help of foreign donors. The World Bank and its International Finance Corporation announced in their Doing Business Report 2008 in September last year that Zimbabwe is one of the worst countries in the world to do business in. Drastic action is now needed to prevent Zimbabwe falling further into the abyss. 

This is where the Barack Obama’s lead was sorely lacking. If the US Government had taken the lead, it would have provided the needed stimulus to international donors. Continuing the economic sanctions at this stage would be unproductive. The use of economic sanctions to motivate foreign governments to change policy quite often had not worked. While it may be true that many of these governments could improve their countries with policy reforms, history shows that economic coercion often proves ineffective. 

The united States have been attempting to get rid of Fidel Castro by putting the screws to the Cuban population maintaining that economic coercion would get rid of Fidel Castro. But more than 4 decades after, Castro is still there. And today, Obama is loosening the sanctions on Cuba, why is Zimbabwe treated differently? 

The Obama administration promised change, it would be unwise to continue to advocate the use of a policy instrument that has an abysmal track record? Why follow the lead of UK Government, (whose major angst was the seizure of white farmlands) the major cause of the Zimbabwe quagmire, in a policy that have been counter-productive. 

Like Obama said, ‘You cannot continue the same old policies that have not worked and expect a different result.’ Is it not time to lift the economic sanctions for Zimbabweans to heave a little sigh of relief?

afamefuna@elombah.com

www.elombah.com

Robot  # 1 | 27.03.2009 07:26

Zimbabweans were disappointed when Barack Obama extended existing US sanctions on Zimbabwe for another one year beyond March 6, 2009, stating that the deep political crisis gripping the country remains unresolved. The sanction would have lapsed had Obama not informed Congress that he intended to continue the sanctions regime targeting members of the Zimbabwe government....Read the full article.

aguabata  # 2 | 27.03.2009 15:12

may i quickly add that Tvsangirai did not get the required number of votes to secure a victory, may i also add that a dictator could not have organised an election that announced less votes for him, a dictator will not form a government of unity with people he allegedly sent assassins after. may i also add that the western powers were disappointed the coalition government worked, may I also add that Mugabe will make the list of first ten democratic leaders in Africa definitely ahead of the government in Nigeria. may I finally add that it's time for Mugabe to go, he has made his point.