British House of Lords let the cat out on real motives behind sanctions on Zim
IF ever there was any confusion about the real motives behind the European sanctions on Zimbabwe, the British House of Lords let the cat out on March 7, 2024 when it called for a review of the economic sanctions to allow easy access to the country’s critical mineral resources.
Although the discussion in the House of Lords was prompted by the latest Zimbabwe sanctions adjustments by the United States, none missed the real import of the whole debate, which was a subtle warning to the British government to consider a new foreign policy approach towards Harare.
Of course it was not explicitly direct but close to 15 minutes was spent musing about Zimbabwe in a clear display of lingering colonial lordship inhabiting the minds of those unelectable individuals who still think that it is their God-given right to decide the fate of another sovereign country.
Far from the moribund narratives on human rights abuses and the lack of democracy, it appeared the House of Lords was more concerned about China and Russia’s strengthening bilateral relations with Zimbabwe, which have allowed the two countries to have some interest in mining.
One Lord Bellingham initiated the discussion by asking His Majesty’s government whether there were plans to revise the Zimbabwe sanctions in light of the recent announcement by the United States to adjust its own sanctions. Britain regards the United States as its ‘cousin’ ally and always follows suit when it comes to foreign affairs. Its recent intransigence in not voting to allow aid into Palestine is one such infamous example.
Without any tinge of irony that the question was essentially about encroaching into the domestic affairs of a sovereign nation, the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon who is the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office responded by saying that: “We note the US’s recent steps and continue to engage closely with out US partners. We continue to keep all sanctions, designations and regimes under review and do not comment on any future sanctions plans.”
So ironic that this is called a House of Lords and addresses each other in such feudalistic terms. For historical context, the House of Lords developed from the “Great Council” (Magnum Concilium) that advised the King during medieval times, dating back to the early 11th century.
This royal council came to be composed of ecclesiastics, noblemen, and representatives of the counties of England and Wales, that later included representatives of the boroughs as well.
It’s really shocking how a group of unelected individuals have the temerity of wanting to decide the fate of a sovereign nation thousands of miles away. It simply points to a sense of colonial entitlement. However, individuals are bestowed with the duty of defending and protecting Britishness. So we must take what they say very seriously because it reflects the real thinking of the ruling elite.
Although not on salary, members of this House receive allowances, travel expenses incurred for each sitting and for fulfilling their parliamentary duties.
The largesse of just benefiting taxpayers’ money is just astounding for people not elected by anyone. It’s understandable why many in Britain want this institution to be reformed to contain its ballooning size and restrict the Prime Minister’s power to appoint new peers.
Enough of this redundant British institution, which actually makes a mockery for the country to speak about democracy in other countries when Prime Ministers can just appoint their brothers or friends. Let’s go back to the debate on Zimbabwe, which members felt was an important subject on their itinerary last week.
Not satisfied with the response from the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth and Development Office, Lord Bellingham further expressed concern that the Ukraine and Gaza war had diverted attention from Zimbabwe. This kind of thinking is really shocking. So Britain thinks that the two wars are distracting them from their fixation with peaceful Zimbabwe, which has not provoked anyone? Well, Lord Bellingham suggested that Britain consider “tighter and wider smart sanctions, targeted at the ZANU-PF Cabinet, their wives and their cronies.”
Anyone reading this can easily see that this has nothing to do with any issues to do with human rights or democracy but clearly exhibit an embittered individual who feels exasperated by the failure to install a regime change in Zimbabwe.
They are bitter because the sanctions have essentially closed avenues for exploitation of Zimbabwe’s resources. We learn this bitterness from one Lord St John of Bletso who asked: “Is it not time to convene an all-party parliamentary conference in Zimbabwe to help pave the way for the incumbent Government to be more inclusive and address the reduction of poverty for millions of long-suffering
Zimbabweans?”
Lo and behold! So these “Lords” have the temerity of suggesting to hold a conference on Zimbabwean soil essentially to boot out the incumbent government out of power so that they make the country their own ‘fiefdom’. This is crass arrogance of the highest order. If one reads between the lines, it’s clear that the reference to “inclusive” implies a sense of exclusion that has been exacerbated by the economic sanctions that Britain together with its allies instigated and imposed on Zimbabwe.
But listen to this; if all the debate was camouflaged by euphemistic words and expressions, everything came to light when Lord Ahmad let the cat out by assuring the House that the British government would work “with key partners, to ensure that the current Government adopts that inclusive approach.” He went further: “The noble Lord is correct: looking at what Africa and particularly Zimbabwe provide, their critical mineral resources are a major opportunity. Zimbabwe is the biggest provider of lithium, along with the DRC. There are opportunities ahead, but it needs a Government who are inclusive and protects the rights of those coming in bits of their citizens.”
Now there you have it. The real issue here is about the rich mineral resources possessed by Zimbabwe. After irking the British government by embarking on the revolutionary land reform programme, the second crime that Zimbabwe is being persecuted for is its rich mineral resources.
Many Zimbabweans are aware of the gas and old exploration in Muzarabani-Mbire district that have yielded significant results of the discovery of light oil. This type of oil fetches higher prices, requires less refinery purification and produces a higher percentage of diesel and gasoline.
Last week, the Minister of Mines and Mining Development, Hon. Zhemu Soda confirmed this discovery saying in addition to natural gas, the investor- Geo Associates and its partners, Invictus Energy and One Gas Resource, undertaking exploration at Mukuyu -2 exploration well discovered light oil, helium and hydrogen.
Obviously the Americans and the British are aware of this and this may explain their current overtures about a change in foreign policy tact towards Harare.
It also explains the exasperations of the British House of Lords and their calls for inclusiveness. Anyone who still thinks that sanctions imposed on Zimbabwe are about human rights violations or lack of democracy is living in cloud-cuckoo-land. The real truth is now out- thanks to the British House of Lords.