WHEN the rest of the progressive world joins Zimbabwe in demonstrating against the Western-imposed illegal economic sanctions on Monday, it will be slightly less than two months before the embargo turns two decades of indescribable suffering for the innocent people of this country.

Since the fateful imposition of those sanctions by the EU and the US at the turn of the millennium, the world has been rallying behind the country, denouncing the illegal embargo.

SADC has since added its voice by declaring October 25 as the Zimbabwe Anti-Sanctions Day.

Yet there is a certain part of the world that has remained steadfast in maintaining the sanctions.

There is an enduring history to the imposition of those sanctions.

It was on December 21 2001 when the US launched an aggressive onslaught on Zimbabwe through its so-called ZDERA law with the out-of-sorts EU being dragged by the abrasive Britain to join the anti-Zimbabwe fray with its own raft of sanctions on February 18 2002.

In between those years, many things have happened but one issue that remains a thorn in Zimbabwe’s relations with the West is the continued suffering of the majority in the country as a result of Western powers’ blunt refusal to remove that widely discredited illegal embargo.

Equally astounding is the disturbing fact that Western countries, for all their purported political brilliance, have yet to come to terms with the compelling reality that there will be no reversal of the Land Reform and Resettlement Programme, the source of the imposition of the sanctions.

Time and again they have sought to reverse that heroic and historic programme either through elections or outright confrontation with the authorities through their acolytes in the so-called civil society and the opposition MDC in its various formations. 

But all that has come to naught.

That is the power of the unity that the people of Zimbabwe have exhibited in their agonising fight against the sanctions over the years which have seen the likes of former US presidents George Bush, the sponsor of the sanctions, and Barak Obama together with Donald Trump leaving office confronted with the ignominy of their sanctions having failed to effect regime change in Zimbabwe through illegal means.

Even Uncle Sam’s new President Joseph Biden, who only assumed office early this year, has suffered the misfortune of supporting those who endorse those sanctions but failing to change the status quo in Zimbabwe.

Like his predecessors, he will also leave office burdened by the same embarrassing failure they encountered.

Across the Atlantic, Britain, which dragged the whole Western world in the fray against Zimbabwe over the Land Reform and Resettlement Programme, has had three Prime Ministers who have all failed to remove ZANU PF from power since they imposed their sanctions on Zimbabwe.

Former prime ministers Gordon Brown, who famously boycotted the EU-Africa Summit in Lisbon, Portugal, in 2007, because of  Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe’s attendance, Dave Cameron and Theresa May all came and went, leaving Zimbabwe standing firm.

Former Prime Minister Tony Blair, who was at the helm when Zimbabwe’s confrontation with Britain erupted, tried to lobby for a military invasion of Harare in 2007, as startlingly revealed by former South African President Thabo Mbeki, is now moseying wildly across Africa, trying to manipulate African leaders to embrace his ‘new imperialism’ agenda. Still Zimbabwe is very much alive and kicking.

Boris Johnson, the current British Prime Minister, has been huffing and puffing, failing to come out in the open on his country’s policy on Zimbabwe, despite showing cameo flickers of a thaw in British hostility towards Harare.

While both Britain and the US were clear that the sanctions were intended to effect illegal regime change in Zimbabwe, what they were not telling us, and the world, was that they wanted a bigger bite of the Zimbabwean cherry — its land and abundant natural resources!

For instance, while announcing the imposition of economic sanctions on Zimbabwe on December 21 2001, Bush made it clear that regime change was the ultimate objective of the sanctions.

“I hope that soon the people of Zimbabwe again will enjoy political and economic freedom,” he said.

That was the dummy that was being sold to some Zimbabweans, especially from the opposition.

The removal, from power, of ZANU PF will mean a reversal of the gains of independence while the Americans eat on our behalf.

Between 2003 and 2008, more than 180 Zimbabwean individuals and businesses were placed under sanctions by former President Bush, says a September 27 2021 Responsible Statecraft issue 

The report goes on:

“In 2008, the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control, or OFAC, was given the authority to place sanctions on additional individuals or entities associated with the Government (of Zimbabwe).”

Not to be outdone was Blair who wanted to recolonise Zimbabwe using the MDC as a conduit.

“It’s important to make it quite clear that if the opposition do win in Zimbabwe, they are given strong and unequivocal support and any attempt to interfere with the results would be an outrage to the democratic principles of the Commonwealth,” said Blair in February 2002.

At the EU, Italy’s Romano Prodi who was the EU Commission president from 1999-2004, was as useless as they come when the EU slapped Zimbabwe with sanctions.

He would be replaced by the abrasive Portugal’s Jose Manuel Barroso who had several confrontations with the Zimbabwean authorities over his meddlesome conduct.

Barroso assumed office on November 22 2004 before he was replaced by Luxembourg’s Jean-Claude Juncker on October 31 2014, who left office on November 30 2019.

The Portuguese was always on the wrong side of history, constantly meddling in Harare’s affairs.

In June 2006, Barroso, together with Bush and then European Council president and former Austrian Chancellor Wolfgang Schussel issued a statement soon after the US-EU Summit claiming that the sanctions against Zimbabwe were as a result of so-called human rights (abuses), (stiffling of) democratic freedoms and (lack of) rule of law.

These are the lies that the West continues to parrot in order to mask the real reasons behind their sanctions.

“We call on the Government of Zimbabwe to restore democratic freedoms and the rule of law, and to respect human rights. We are ready, as soon as significant action in this direction is taken, to reconsider the restrictive measures (sanctions) now in place against Zimbabwe,” their provocative statement read in part. 

In 2008, Barroso was all over the place again, claiming that the late MDC leader Morgan Tsvangirai had won the March 29 2008 harmonised election.

Barroso called for ‘swift transition to democracy’ claiming with no iota of shame that the people in Zimbabwe had ‘voted for change’ a statement that mirrored the MDC’s campaign prior to the elections.

“One thing should be made very clear to Mr Mugabe and his entourage: the people of Zimbabwe want a change, they want democracy, they want freedom, they want to be able to tackle poverty and the economic chaos they are living through,” he said.

“I would now hope that all those who have a role to play would be able to contribute to a peaceful transition under stable circumstances towards a fully democratic situation.

We need to do everything we can to avoid a deterioration of the situation.”

He then unwittingly let the cat out of the bag when he called on SADC countries to ‘help’ in the ‘transition process’.

There is no escaping from the painful fact that the sanctions have severely damaged the country.

They have left a dreadful pattern of destruction and a deeply polarised nation in their wretched wake.

That needs to be corrected.

We need to come up together and send a strong message to the West that Zimbabweans are sick and tired of the sanctions and they are yearning for development.

With the 2023 elections fast approaching, it is clear that the sanctions will be once again a focal point of the contesting parties’ campaigns.

Under the new dispensation, the country has done well under the prevailing economic conditions where the sanctions continue to wreak havoc on the masses.

This means more can be done in the absence of those sanctions.