- US imposes new sanctions on Zimbabwe, targeting officials and companies
- Allegations of human rights abuses and corruption prompt sanctions
- US maintains sanctions to address governance, human rights concerns
In March, in response to allegations of human rights violations and corruption, the United States imposed additional sanctions on eight Zimbabwean individuals, including President Emmerson Mnangagwa and his spouse and other officials. Additionally, sanctions were imposed on three companies, citing purported instances of election manipulation, human rights violations, and corruption.
“Defamatory” was the word used by Mnangagwa’s office to characterise the allegations in a statement. They constituted “gratuitous slander” against Zimbabwe’s leaders and people, the statement continued.
Following a review of US sanctions that have been in effect since 2003, action was taken. From this point forward, entities and individuals designated under the Global Magnitsky Act of 2016 will be subject to sanctions against Zimbabwe. This Act grants the United States government the authority to impose sanctions, sequester the assets of foreign government officials suspected of human rights violations, and prohibit their unauthorised entry into the country for business purposes.
The United States stated that by applying the Magnitsky Act to sanctions in Zimbabwe, fewer businesses and individuals will be subject to sanctions than previously. Deputy Treasury Secretary Wally Adeyemo said, “The modifications we are implementing today are to put into effect what has always been the case: our sanctions do not target the Zimbabwean people.”
Rutendo Matinyarare, leader of the Zimbabwe Anti-Sanctions Movement and an outspoken government supporter, expressed his approval of modifying the sanctions regime. “Since the actual sanctions have been lifted, there is no longer room for justifications.” He tweeted, “Let’s build the nation immediately” on X, formerly Twitter.
What motivates the United States to sanction Zimbabwe?
The United States claims its objectives in Zimbabwe are to address human rights violations and promote democracy and accountability.
David Gainer, the acting deputy assistant secretary of state for the United States, stated, “We continue to urge the Government of Zimbabwe to move towards more open and democratic governance, including addressing corruption and protecting human rights, so that all Zimbabweans may prosper.”
Additionally, the United States is the leading donor of humanitarian assistance to Zimbabwe, having contributed over $3.5 billion since the nation’s liberation from British colonial rule in 1980 until 2020.
Are sanctions detrimental to Zimbabwe’s economy?
Vice President Constantino Chiwenga of Zimbabwe estimated that the country had lost over $150 billion due to sanctions imposed by the United States and the European Union in the previous year.
During her 2021 visit to Zimbabwe, Alena Douhan, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on unilateral coercive measures, stated that the sanctions “…had further aggravated pre-existing social and economic difficulties, resulting in catastrophic outcomes for the Zimbabwean people.” Those most adversely affected were the impoverished, women, children, elderly, individuals with disabilities, and marginalised and other vulnerable populations.
According to a report published in 2022 by the Institute of Security Studies Africa (ISS), investors generally avoid Zimbabwe because of the “high-risk premium” imposed on the nation by the targeted US sanctions.
Due to the sanctions imposed by the US Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) on US companies and individuals who conduct business with sanctioned entities, countries, or individuals, certain international banks have severed ties with Zimbabwean banks.
Do sanctions represent the sole impediment to economic growth?
According to Zimbabwean economist Gift Murano, corruption hinders Zimbabwe more than sanctions. He said, “Zimbabwe can mitigate the potential effects of so-called sanctions, but corruption is the primary issue.”
He further stated that the United States or any other nation has never imposed trade sanctions against Zimbabwe. “All nations are open to trade with us, including the Europeans and the Americans; the measures were purely financial and had no impact on commerce.”
Eddie Cross, a government advisor and author of a biography of President Mnangagwa, cited figures from Transparency International indicating that corruption has cost the country $100 billion since Zimbabwe’s independence. “That’s over $2.5 billion annually, but when corruption and sanctions are factored in, the total is enormous.”
Nevertheless, the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act (ZIDERA), enacted by Congress in 2001, remains in effect in the United States. ZIDERA prevents Zimbabwe from obtaining loans and investments from international financial institutions, including the IMF and the World Bank, thereby impeding the country’s economic development, despite the United States’ denial that this constitutes a set of sanctions. Before the establishment of ZIDERA, several institutions had ceased lending to Zimbabwe because of the country’s appalling loan servicing record.
Cross stated that experts estimate that ZIDERA causes banks to lose approximately $1 billion annually in higher bank fees. “Within the 23 years that ZIDERA has been operational, a billion dollars annually could have resolved our national debt relatively easily.” Furthermore, he explained that when local banks conduct business through correspondent banks other than the regular ones—banks that sometimes refuse to do business directly with Zimbabwean banks for fear of being penalised by the US government—additional expenses are incurred.
To have ZIDERA repealed, Zimbabwe must reinstate the rule of law, conduct free and fair elections, commit to equitable, legal, and transparent land reform (including compensation for former farmers whose land was lost as part of the country’s land reform programme), and withdraw the military and police from politics and government, among other conditions.
Are sanctions effective?
Sanctions, according to Cross, are ineffective against corruption. He inquired as to why the United States does not sanction nations such as China, which he considers to be an undemocratic regime. “They grant China unrestricted access to global financial markets, Western technology, and international markets, and permit China to borrow enormous sums of money at meager interest rates, which the country has utilised to finance its economic and infrastructure development.”
Furthermore, according to a report published in 2022 by the Institute of Security Studies Africa (ISS), sanctions have been largely ineffective in influencing the democratic conduct of the governing elites in Zimbabwe. Persisting human rights violations and severe restrictions on political freedoms are evident.
“Unlock your financial potential with free Webull shares in the UK.”
Amnesty International consistently draws attention to the harassment and arrests of journalists, threats to freedom of expression, and opposition police force and ruling ZANU-PF party members.
The Zimbabwean government sold gold worth hundreds of millions of dollars through smuggling organisations to mitigate the impact of sanctions. Gold is the largest exporter in the nation.
Zimbabwe is subject to sanctions. By whom else is it?
The European Union and the United Kingdom imposed comparable sanctions on Zimbabwe, citing the same justifications as the United States. The measures have been refined and reduced throughout the years.
Nonetheless, as of February, an embargo on the sale of weaponry and equipment that the government could potentially employ for internal repression remains in effect. The assets possessed by Zimbabwe Defence Industries, a state-owned arms manufacturer, continue to be frozen by both the EU and the UK.
Labour launches ‘cost of chaos’ website to criticise Tory spending
