US sanctions: A short-sighted approach to diplomacy
IN a move that has stirred controversy and raised eyebrows across the diplomatic community and among Zimbabweans, the United States sanctioned and designated 11 Zimbabwean individuals, including President Mnangagwa.
The decision, purportedly aimed at addressing human rights violations and fostering democracy, has been met with scepticism and criticism from various quarters.
While the intentions behind the sanctions may seem noble on the surface, a closer examination reveals a deeply flawed and short-sighted approach to diplomacy.
The United States, along with its Western allies, has long held a stance of moral superiority when it comes to global affairs.
The imposition of sanctions on Zimbabwe appears to be more about flexing political muscle than genuinely addressing human rights concerns.
By resorting to punitive measures, the US continues to hide behind the finger of its real intention to effect regime change in Zimbabwe.
Sanctions, by their nature, often inflict collateral damage on innocent civilians.
In Zimbabwe’s case, ordinary citizens are the ones who bear the brunt of the economic fallout resulting from these sanctions.
The external sanctions only serve to negatively affect living conditions of ordinary people.
The US government’s approach to Zimbabwe also raises questions about its consistency and credibility on the global stage.
While it condemns human rights abuses in Zimbabwe, it turns a blind eye to similar violations committed by its allies in other parts of the world.
Nonetheless, the sanctions dictum, from the US perspective, proved to be subjective and runs short of the real intention to address the alleged democratic crisis in Zimbabwe.
The targeted individuals, including the elected President, is a slap in the face of the electorate and gross human rights violation of its own kind.
In a recent press briefing by US Embassy in Harare, Washington defined gross human rights violations by the Zimbabwe’s leadership in the context of the opposition.
Washington continues to claim that opposition activists are being victimised by Zimbabwean Government.
This selective application of principles undermines the legitimacy of US foreign policy.
The US is silent on the violent nature of opposition activists who on several accounts have victimised Zanu PF members.
Washington continues to claim that opposition activists are being victimised by Zimbabwean Government. This selective application of principles undermines the legitimacy of US foreign policy
Defining corruption in the context of Zanu PF and Government and leaving out opposition members clearly exposes the selective application of US foreign policy.
Effective service delivery in Zimbabwe’s opposition-run urban councils has become a thing of the past due to rampant corruption by opposition leaders running the councils.
Harare and Bulawayo residents have suffered the brunt of poor service delivery, which ultimately costs human life through perennial cholera epidemics and poor health delivery system, among others.
Are opposition leaders not perfect candidates to be placed on the sanctions list?
This exposes the US’ ulterior motive of using the punitive measures, among other heinous strategies, in an attempt to unseat Zanu PF and replace it with a pliant opposition.
The ongoing political tiff within the opposition circles, which has been characterised by endemic factional and power wrangles, came into being as a result of corruption and criminal abuse of office by opposition leaders.
Where was democracy when Nelson Chamisa imposed his preferred election candidates against the will of those in his party.
Was this not a clear definition of electoral fraud?
Where was democracy when the same Chamisa conned Zimbabweans more US$100 000 donated ostensibly to purchase a bullet-proof vehicle which was never bought?
Is Chamisa, along with Professor Welshman Ncube, Tendai Biti, and all opposition city fathers, who are failing to curb corruption in urban councils innocent?
Subsequently, the US is silent on those transgressions.
Sanctioning a constitutionally elected President is as good as sanctioning the people at large.
The US has been making frantic efforts to discredit Zimbabwean elections and running with the opposition narrative that the same elections were not free and fair.
It raises a lot of questions on the US’ ideal free and fair elections.
It replicates the notion that free and fair elections, according to the US perspective, should be the ones won by the opposition, without really considering the strategic and innovative deficiency of the latter.
This marriage of convenience between the US and Zimbabwe’s opposition cohort conveniently accompanied by the continued application of punitive measures on Zimbabwe’s leadership is more than just a coincidence.
Sanctioning a democratically elected President undermines the will of the people and hampers diplomatic efforts for constructive engagement.
Zimbabwe has demonstrated a commitment to engaging with the international community under President Mnangagwa’s inclusive mantra, “Zimbabwe is a friend to all and an enemy to none.”
Instead of resorting to punitive measures, the United States should prioritise constructive engagement and dialogue with the Zimbabwean Government.
Diplomacy, not coercion, offers the best chance of bringing about positive change.
By fostering economic ties and promoting people-to-people exchanges, the US can exert influence in a more constructive, sustainable and acceptable manner.
The imposition of sanctions on Zimbabwe’s leadership reflects a onesided approach to diplomacy that is more about political posturing than genuine concern for human rights.
Rather than achieving its intended objectives, these sanctions are likely to inflict further suffering on the Zimbabwean people and undermine the prospects for positive change.
It is time for the US to rethink its strategy and pursue a more pragmatic and inclusive approach to international relations.