WHEN former US Ambassador to Zimbabwe, Bruce Wharton, announced in 2015 that his country was going to construct a new embassy in Harare, the question was: Why?
And it was for many reasons that doubt now surrounding the new embassy generosity arose.
There is everything vexatious about the new embassy which is widely believed to be one of the biggest in Africa and will be located on a 16,5 acre site in Bluffhill near Westgate.
This is so, given the politics that the US has employed in order to paralyse Zimbabwe’s Land Reform and Resettlement and the ongoing Indigenisation and Economic Empowerment programmes through their illegal economic sanctions.
They have employed similar tactics with devastating effect in other parts of the world.
That the US are masters of deception is a fact manifesting in the new embassy project.
There is something extraordinarily unusual about this seemingly noble gesture by the Americans to support a country that, in its own words, ‘poses an unusual and extraordinary threat to the foreign policy of the United States’.
Why has the US chosen to ignore normalisation of relations first before embarking on the embassy project.
A clear demonstration of the duplicity is that after everything they have put us through, they want to sell us a dummy by pretending to be with us through constructing an embassy which has Great Zimbabwe architecture.
Is the new embassy not intended to increase its spying project in Zimbabwe?
One cannot help but wonder!
While Wharton claimed the construction of the new embassy was a sign of America’s ‘commitment’ to improving relations between his country and Zimbabwe, evidence on the ground proves otherwise.
This looks more like a deep infiltration project.
In June 2017, evidently disappointed by the slow pace of infiltration, US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, Carol O’Connel, publicly made her country’s anger known when she demanded a raft of political and economic reforms from the Government ahead of next year’s general elections.
Interference has been the bone of contention between Harare and Washington since the inception of the Land Reform Programme in 2000.
“The relationship with the Zimbabwean Government is part of the reason I am here,” she said.
“We are not trying to vet specific individuals from Zimbabwe, but we are looking to the Zimbabwean leadership and Government to make certain political and economic changes so that we can work robustly.”
When announcing the construction of the new embassy decision, Wharton did not hide his country’s intentions.
American ideals, he said, were central to the construction of the embassy.
“We continue to believe in the promise of our ideals. And, we continue to believe that we can build a future that honours those ideals. The same optimism guides our approach to Zimbabwe,” said Wharton.
The American Department of State Bureau of Overseas Building Operations (OBO) awarded the tender to design and build the complex to US firm, BL Harbert International of Alabama.
Citing security reasons, local contractors were ineligible to be contractors for this project.
In a statement posted on its website on July 16 2015, Mike Veal, senior vice-president of BL Harbert’s International Group, said:
“BL Harbert International is pleased to have been awarded the contract for the new US Embassy in Harare, Zimbabwe, and our organisation looks forward to working again with the US Department of State to design and construct another important diplomatic facility.”
The firm said the US$200 million project involved providing design-build services for an office building and associated support facilities.
“The design architect is AECOM of Washington, DC. PAGE of Washington, DC will be the architect of record. Construction is scheduled to commence in summer of 2015 and is slated for completion in 2018.”
BL Harbert International, LLC is a privately-owned construction company with US and International operations.
“BL Harbert is currently building across the US and in 15 countries around the world. The company is nationally ranked 78th in the US, according to Engineering News-Record, based on 2014 annual revenues of US$813,5 million.”
There have been frantic efforts by the US to make all things look attractive in the construction project.
In April 2017, US Ambassador Harry Thomas Jr issued a statement on the American Embassy website which sought to present a picture of a caring Uncle Sam.
Thomas said:
“We hope the future is bright and I will highlight why the United States Government thinks it is. Our commitment remains to Zimbabwe. We are building a US$200 million embassy; we have 700 Zimbabweans working every day who get paid in United States dollars, US$32 million each year is for Zimbabweans as salaries.”
But history is the best teacher when it comes to US Ambassadors in Zimbabwe.
Many will remember the bald-headed Christopher Dell who in July 2007 laid bare his country’s regime change agenda on Harare.
“Robert Mugabe has survived for so long because he is cleverer…than any other politician in Zimbabwe. To give the devil his due, he is a brilliant tactician,” said Dell.
This was the time the US illegal economic sanctions were taking a toll on the country’s economy.
But American and Western officials in Harare were under strict instructions to deny that Zimbabwe was under any form of sanctions.
Instead, at the Africa University in Mutare, in November 2005, Dell blamed President Mugabe for pursuing what he said was ‘voodoo economics’ in place of ‘economic orthodoxy’ to which he saw no other substitute.
In November 2012, the US Embassy Public Affairs Section held a presentation where a collection of articles authored by former American Ambassador to Harare, Charles Ray, were translated to Shona.
Titled ‘Kwaunoenda ndiko kwakanyanya kukosha kudarika kwaunobva’ the collection was aimed at rubbishing the country’s war of liberation, among other issues. 
Yet in 2002 the US had admitted that ‘it wants to see President Robert Mugabe removed from power and that it is working with the Zimbabwean opposition… trade unions, pro-democracy groups and human rights organisations… to bring about a change of administration’.
For instance, while the International Center for Non-violent Conflict and Freedom House, both then headed by Peter Ackerman, member of the US ruling class Council on Foreign Relations, a New York investment banker and former right hand man to Michael Milken of the ‘junk bond fame’, was lavishing money and training on civil society groups in Zimbabwe out of ‘humanitarian concern’, the opposite was true.
They kept on denying that they were pushing for regime change in the country.
Today, that lie is being perpetuated through the new embassy project creating the much needed cushion to hide the hypocrisy.
The Iraqis learnt their lesson.
According to Noam Chomsky in an article published by The Economist on November 19 1994: “There were no passionate calls for a military strike after Saddam’s gassing of Kurds at Halabja in March 1988; on the contrary, the US and UK extended their strong support for the mass murderer, then, also ‘our kind of guy”.
Since the imposition of sanctions against Zimbabwe by Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush, on December 21 2001, when he signed the so-called Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Bill (ZDERA) into law, the US has denied that the sanctions are hurting ordinary people.
Instead, Uncle Sam has maintained that the embargo is ‘targeted’ at President Mugabe and his ‘cronies’.
Prior to that, Harare had been ‘warned’ by former US Assistant Secretary for African Affairs, Chester Crocker, through his infamous ‘making the economy scream’ statement.
“To separate the Zimbabwe people from that man Robert Mugabe and ZANU PF, we are going to have to make their economy scream, and I hope you Senators have the stomach for what you have to do,” said Crocker while calling for the annihilation of the Zimbabwe economy by imploring the US Senate to impose sanctions in September 2001.
ZDERA itself is clear on what the US intends to do with Zimbabwe.
Section 5 of ZDERA demands a return to the land reform formulae proposed by Western donors that included the US itself.
It authorises the US President to:
“Support equitable, legal and transparent mechanisms of land reforms in Zimbabwe, including payment of costs related to the acquisition of land and the resettlement of individuals, constituent with International Donors’ Conference on Land Reform and Resettlement in Zimbabwe, in September 1998, or any subsequent agreements relating thereto.”
In simple terms, the US and the West are actually saying any land ownership patterns post-1998 are unacceptable to them and unless revoked, warrant the continued stay of sanctions.
This is why actions by the Americans in the aftermath of the imposition of the sanctions are important to keep in mind.
In November 2012, Zimbabwe lost over US$30 million that was in transit after the country had sold its diamonds at an auction.
This was after the US’ Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC) seized the money.
In its State Department report, Supporting Human Rights and Democracy: The US Record 2006, released in Washington DC on April 5 2007, the US proudly admitted to subverting President Mugabe’s Government and to supporting the opposition (MDC).
It added:
“To further strengthen pro-democracy elements, the US government continues to support the efforts of the political opposition, the media, and civil society to create and defend democratic space and to support persons who criticise the Government (of President Mugabe).”
The report itemised the following US subversion tactics:
– Direct funding to the opposition MDC.
– Direct funding to MDC- affiliated international and national NGOs.
– Direct funding to human rights groups affiliated to the opposition.
– Direct support to the labour union, ZCTU, from which the MDC emerged.
– Direct funding to committees of Parliament.
– Direct funding to various forums critical of the government of Zimbabwe.
– Hostile extra-territorial broadcasts targeting Zimbabwe through VOA’s Studio 7.
The US also sponsored the creation and funding of community newspapers in urban townships, especially in Harare, Kwekwe, Gweru, Masvingo and Bulawayo where opposition action was expected.
For rural areas, it sought to rely on its illegal broadcasts through its VOA Studio 7 station which came in to complement similar broadcasts from The Netherlands (Voice of the People and from the UK, SW Radio).
The idea was to specifically depose President Mugabe whose ‘time has come and gone’ as former US Secretary of State, Collin Powell, said in his July 4 2004 presentation, and replacing him with a pliant ZANU PF/MDC transitional authority which could be relied upon to reverse land reforms and safeguard Western interests in Zimbabwe.
Equally revealing were the comments made by Powell that:
“And we (Bush administration) will continue to assist directly, in many different ways, the brave men and women of Zimbabwe who are resisting tyranny. If that happens (regime change), the United States would be quick to pledge generous funding to the restoration of Zimbabwe’s political and economic institutions (which have been destroyed by the sanctions). Other donors (those Western countries that have imposed sanctions against Zimbabwe), I am sure, would be close behind (in restoring a Zimbabwe devastated by sanctions). Reading this, Robert Mugabe and his cohorts may cry, ‘Blackmail’. We should ignore them. Their time has come and gone.”
In the health sector, the sanctions are biting as well.
The Kaiser Networks’ Daily report of November 28 2004 which was confirmed by the French news agency AFP showed that Zimbabwe’s grant application for funding for its HIV and AIDS programme to the Global Fund for AIDS was rejected on political grounds.
Zimbabwe had applied for US$170 million for HIV and US$50 million for TB support funding.
A statement by the National Aids Council (NAC) then read:
“This has come as a shock especially to NAC because we are almost at the end of preparing the Zimbabwe National Strategic Plan. It means we would re-prioritise and focus on a few issues because the budget has been limited. This will make it difficult to attain the Millennium Development Goal of universal access to treatment. It’s unfortunate that they have not yet given us any reasons because we could have maybe re-applied. We were progressing very well, but the issue of funding is going to pull us back.”
The Global Fund to Fight HIV, Tuberculosis and Malaria did not give specific reasons for its refusal to fund Zimbabwe’s Round 10 application for financing.
Let us interrogate this new embassy project by asking ourselves: What is it that the US is seeing that we, as a nation, are not?