Shame, shame, shame to the United States! ... Mugabe berates US over sanctions
13/02/2014 00:00:00
by Staff Reporter
COMMENT - This is the US Ambassador to Zimbabwe - what a lying lawyer. Admit to the existence of economic sanctions, so you can admit to the effects of your economic sanctions. They are still lying about the existence and effect of economic sanctions, rather than repeal them. Shame on America for being used to implement Rockefeller/Rothschild/British Crown/Dutch Crown neo-colonial system (Rothschild Bank funded De Beers in 1887, after which the renowned imperialist Cecil Rhodes became it's Founding Chairman of the board of directors in 1888), shame on the MDC. However, in the la-la-land narrative of Ambassador Wharton, Zimbabwe is free from outside influence. Free to set it's own domestic and foreign policy. Liars, thieves and murderers.
On the various statistics surrounding the economic sanctions against Zimbabwe, see my April 2010 post here, which includes a statement from then Georgia Representative Cynthia McKinney, who had it right from the start. - MrK
ZIMBABWE’S economic and political problems are self-made and a shift in policy could assist in developing a new trajectory for the country, US ambassador to Zimbabwe Bruce Wharton said Thursday.
“My fundamental point in all of this is that Zimbabwe has the right and the power to make policy decisions.
Just not redistribute the land that was stolen under the colonialism and UDI, both of which the American government supported, land that should have a) never been stolen in the first place and 2) should have been given back in 1965. How about some back rent? - MrK
"Some of these have had significant demonstrable effects on the economy, effects far greater than the targeted sanctions,” Wharton told a Southern African Political Economy Series (SAPES) meeting in Harare.
Still lying about the existence of economic sanctions, like ZDERA. And pray tell, what are the 'economic effects' of 'targeted sanctions', you lying hypocrite?
Here is what is in ZDERA, and you can tell for yourself whether the objective of the sanctions are 'individuals' or 'the Government of Zimbabwe' as a whole. From the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act of 2001, S.494 of the 107th US Congress:
SEC. 4. SUPPORT FOR DEMOCRATIC TRANSITION AND ECONOMIC RECOVERY.
(c) MULTILATERAL FINANCING RESTRICTION- Until the President makes the certification described in subsection (d), and except as may be required to meet basic human needs or for good governance, the Secretary of the Treasury shall instruct the United States executive director to each international financial institution to oppose and vote against--
(1) any extension by the respective institution of any loan, credit, or guarantee to the Government of Zimbabwe; or
(2) any cancellation or reduction of indebtedness owed by the Government of Zimbabwe to the United States or any international financial institution.
So, what do your lying eyes tell you - are these sanctions against individuals (targeted or otherwise), or against 'the Government of Zimbabwe'?
Talking about 'targeted sanctions', blaming War Veterans' pensions, SHAMEFUL.
- MrK
President Robert Mugabe and his Zanu PF party insist sanctions imposed by the US and European countries are responsible for Zimbabwe’s economic problems.
They are, and were intended to. As economic sanctions always are. If anyone is naive or ignorant enough to doubt the genocidal effect of economic sanctions, let's ask Madeleine Albright (of the Albright Stonebridge Group, which is co-chaired with Sandy Berger, who is also on the International Crisis Group), and Bill Richardson (former Sr. Managing Director at Kissinger & Associates, and executive at Citi Bank).
(YOUTUBE) Madeleine Albright Says Deaths Of 500,000 Iraqi Children Is Worth It
And in case you thought you misheard that, or she misspoke, here is fellow clintonite, the Kissinger Associates employee Bill Richardson:
(YOUTUBE) Richardson: 500,000 dead kids OK in pursuit of U.S. policy
Admit it, Bruce, a couple of tens of thousands of dead Zimbabweans is more than acceptable in the pursuit of US policy in Zimbabwe, after all, they own 20% of the world's known diamond reserves, and De Beers wants it. Over 60,000 dead Libyans, including the lynchings of Black Libyans, was more than acceptable in pursuit of Libya's 47.1 billion barrels of known oil reserves - just ask Susan E. Rice and her 'responsibility to protect'. - MrK
The sanctions were imposed over allegations of rights abuses and electoral fraud which the Zanu PF strongman denies.
Economic sanctions were imposed because De Beers wants to get hold of Zimbabwe's diamonds, and the MDC is their ticket. The MDC wants to privatise everything, except the diamond fields, so they can create a PPP with De Beers, like De Beers has in Namibia (NAMDEB) and Botswana (DEBSWANA), a ZIMDEB or DEBZIM. ("We will nationalise diamonds and ensure that government goes into partnership with genuine investors." - source: MDC’s plan for the mining sector, Saturday, 13 July 2013, from the very MDC friendly SW Radio Africa website.) - MrK
But President Barack Obama’s top man in Harare said blaming sanctions for Zimbabwe’s problems was a diversionary tactic by Mugabe's administration.
“The US takes great care to minimise any unintended consequences from targeted sanctions and I can tell you that my embassy works hard to try to resolve any that may arise. But, blaming targeted sanctions for Zimbabwe’s serious economic challenges or for issues such as potholes and road accidents is diversionary,” he said.
“Worse, such statements do not acknowledge Zimbabwe’s agency, its ability to address its challenges and to mobilize its magnificent natural resources and human capital.
Like, sell it's diamonds, which the United States has attempted to prevent at every turn? - MrK
“Zimbabwe is tremendously blessed in human and natural resources, and the narrative that targeted sanctions are the reason for economic woes undermines and obscures this nation’s vast capabilities.”
And you obscure the role of the United States, and the MDC in the creation of economic sanctions, like the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act of 2001. If it is so insignificant - REPEAL IT. If economic sanctions were so insignificant, why did they destroy the national currency the year they came into force - in 2002, not 2000 ('farm invasions'), or 1997 ('pensions for War Veterans')? And apologize to the Zimbabwean people for the economic sanctions that were imposed on them, just because they made the choice to exercise "Zimbabwe’s agency", by taking their stolen land back. They are the ones who should be compensated for a century of foreign occupation and theft of their land, cattle, labor and freedom. An occupation and harassment that goes on to this very day. - MrK
The US is willing to work with the Zanu PF government.
“We are also willing to work with members of the Zanu PF government that are willing to work with us,” Wharton added.
He means 'divide and rule'. - MrK
“As a Zanu PF-supporting friend of mine said … yes, I do have those … the burden of diplomacy is to keep seeking engagement until all conflict is ended. I agree with that and I am willing. The US government is willing”.
Wharton said decisions including the unbudgeted 1997 cash-pay-outs given to war veterans and the economic turnaround witnessed between 2008 and 2010 provide insight into the positive and negative effects of critical policy decisions by government.
Did the 'unbudgeted 1997 cash-pay-outs given to war veterans' have a worse effect on the Zimbabwean government, than the implementation of austerity through ESAP, from 1991 to 1996? And he is blaming the highly predictable and monotonously repeated destructive effect of structural adjustment on the economies of the world (job losses, reduction in healthcare and education, destruction of local businesses in favour of transnational corporations) - on pensions for War Veterans? What a neoliberal scumbag. - MrK
“There were no sanctions in 1997 and they had not been varied in 2008. Zimbabwe’s sovereign policy decisions are the primary drivers of its economic performance,” he insisted.
From 1991 to 1996, there was ESAP. Own up to THAT.
From Antonia Juhasz "The Tragic Tale of the IMF in Zimbabwe.", March 7th, 2004:
" An IMF-sponsored study of its policies in Zimbabwe concluded that it "radically underestimated the social consequences," of its policies and that the "social hardship was avoidably severe because of poor program design." In other words, the IMF is to blame for the deadly impacts of its policies in Zimbabwe. "
In essence,
In essence, Zimbabwe was forced to implement every radical economic policy in the Fund’s arsenal immediately, without any concern for the impacts of those policies on the populace.
As a result,
The impacts were devastating.
Both employment and real wages declined sharply. During 1991-1996, manufacturing employment fell by 9 percent and wages dropped by 26 percent. Public sector employment fell by 23 percent, with wages dropping by 40 percent. While pocketbooks shrank, food prices soared, increasing by 36 percent. Private consumption levels declined by about one-fourth with urban households being particularly hard-hit. Worse still, the economy did not respond as the Fund had hoped and the government deficit increased. This put the country into a "debt trap" where it was losing money while simultaneously having to pay interest on its loans owed to the Fund and the World Bank. This created a losing spiral of increasing indebtedness and poverty.
However Ambassador Wharton is going on about a few 'pensions for War Veterans'? Is that neoliberal 'code', because it doesn't make sense in dollar terms.
- MrK
“Zimbabwe’s economy has been through dramatic ups and downs in the last 15 years. You all know that better than I do. But the idea that targeted U.S. sanctions have caused Zimbabwe’s economic woes simply does not hold up to critical analysis, the evidence is clear,” he said
Oh, the evidence is clear alright. In Jan 1st 2002, ZDERA 2001 came into force. This is the effect on tobacco exports - notice that from 2001 to 2002, after the 2000 'farm invasions', long after the 1997 payments to War Veterans, tobacco exports grew, and in 2002, the year ZDERA came into effect, they dramatically fell.
Tobacco Exports in million US$:
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
548.8 594.1 434.6 321.3 226.7 203.8
Trade Deficit in million US$ (a negative deficit is a surplus):
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
-295.6 -322.5 18.2 108.3 305.2 387.9 231.3
Source: Special Report, FAO/WFP Crop And Food Supply Assessment Mission To Zimbabwe, 5 June 2007
Table 1: Zimbabwe - Key economic indicators, 2000–2007
It is also in 2002, that the Zimbabwe Dollar started it's hyperinflationary decline against the US Dollar - see chart here.
Hey, the evidence is in, Bruce.
- MrK
“Now, this fact ought to be encouraging to Zimbabweans because it means that Zimbabwe need not wait until real or imagined external forces create the conditions needed for economic growth.
So repeal ZDERA, you jerk. - MrK
“Zimbabwe’s economy is in the hands of Zimbabweans. While businesses, labour unions, trade associations, courts and schools all have important roles, economic destiny starts with decisions made by the government of Zimbabwe.”
Sure, because unlike every other government in the world, the Zimbabwean government exists in a vacuum, free from external forces, even though their economy is heavily dependent on exports. - MrK
Mugabe had hoped that his victory in last year’s violence-free elections would lead to the immediate removal of the sanctions but the EU and the US have backed claims by the opposition that the vote was fraudulent, infuriating the Zanu PF leader.
However, the EU has indicated it will lift its remaining sanctions next week, although not on Mugabe and his wife Grace.
Labels: AMBASSADOR, BRUCE WHARTON, LYING, SANCTIONS, ZDERA
posted by MrK @ 7:31 PM
7 Comments:
Chester Crocker, on 'regime change' in Zimbabwe, back in 2001, in front of the US Senate, before the introduction of ZDERA:
The second option, and I speak very candidly, is to work through all appropriate channels for a change in power in Zimbabwe, recognizing that perhaps it is destined to become Africa's Romania and that Mugabe is destined to become Africa's Ceausescu. It was, though, even in Romania, the people of Romania who made the change ultimately, not Americans.
So if we were to decide to try and work for change in power in Zimbabwe, I would hope that we would have the wisdom to be discrete, to be low-key and to avoid giving those in power there the excuse that foreigners are out to get them.
We would treat Zimbabwe basically like a pariah under this option. We would disengage from official government-to-government relationships, programming of any sort, and wait for the pressures to mount, helping them along as best we can.
Under either approach, we must recognize that we are only one country and that we should be in careful, practical and detailed consultations with the South Africans, with the Zambians, with the Mozambiquans and above all, with the British, who know this place and have more influence there than we do.
So I hope that our current penchant around the world for what I would call sloppy unilateralism can be brought under some semblance of control and that we can actually figure out how to work with key players in the region who also have interests at stake in Zimbabwe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
From the New York Amsterdam News - African Americans want an end to economic sanctions against Zimbabwe:
(Amsterdan New York News) International observers declare Zimbabwe elections free and fair
Originally published August 8, 2013 at 9:13 a.m., updated August 8, 2013 at 9:13 a.m.
International observers declare Zimbabwe elections free and fair
Open letter to President Barack Obama: End the economic sanctions now!
Mr. President:
Following Zimbabwe’s recently concluded elections, there is no longer a reason to maintain the illegal sanctions on Zimbabwe; therefore, they should be removed immediately.
From its inception, the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act of 2001 (ZDERA) has had nothing to do with democracy and everything to do with economics, i.e., improving the profits of the U.S. Zimbabwe’s “land reform program” of returning land to the indigenous Zimbabweans from whom it was stolen threatened the economic status quo. The goal of ZDERA and its companion sanctions that were brought by Great Britain and other former colonial powers were to maintain control of the land and secure for the West the vast natural resources of Zimbabwe: gold, diamonds, platinum, copper, coal, nickel, tin, tobacco, cotton, wheat, coffee, sugarcane, etc.
As outlined by Chester Crocker, Ronald Reagan’s assistant secretary of state for African affairs who testified in support of ZDERA, the sanctions were to create such international isolation, economic disruption and impoverishment that the people of Zimbabwe would oust President Robert Mugabe and ZANU-PF from power. If this regime change was successful, the British-created opposition, Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), would have put the country’s economy and resources back in Western hands.
The leading sponsors of and advocates for ZDERA used the “democracy” fig leaf to hide their personal/network financial interests, which intersected with prospective areas of investment in Zimbabwe, e.g., Jesse Helms, tobacco; Hilary Clinton, mining; Chester Crocker (through his marriage to a Rhodesian), land; National Security Advisor Susan Rice, coal.
Mr. President, our point simply is that ZDERA is a violation of the U.N. charter on non-interference in the domestic affairs of a sovereign nation. Its alleged concern with “democracy” is hypocritical and self-serving.
ZDERA is a Western imperial vehicle for regime change. The people of Zimbabwe have spoken and given their overwhelming support to President Robert Gabriel Mugabe and his ZANU-PF party. The international monitors in Zimbabwe—the African Union, SADC, COMESA, the ACP Group of states and the U.N.—have all acknowledged that the elections were “free and fair.” The U.S. must now acknowledge the failure of its would-be coup. You must take the first step by lifting the sanctions now and let Zimbabwe exercise its right to development free from outside interference.
Yours,
December 12th Movement International Secretariat
Pan African Solidarity Hague Committee
Afrocentricity International
CEMOTAP
African Poetry Theatre
Freedom Party
International Association Against Torture
Women in Support of the Million Man March
World African Diaspora Union
The list is growing …
(NEWZIMBABWE) Sanctions create massive sinkholes Mr Wharton
26/02/2014 00:00:00
by Bernard Bwoni
“THE US takes great care to minimise any unintended consequences from targeted sanctions and I can tell you that my embassy works hard to try to resolve any that may arise. But, blaming targeted sanctions for Zimbabwe’s serious economic challenges or for issues such as potholes and road accidents is diversionary,” US Ambassador to Zimbabwe, Bruce Wharton had this to say recently. This very unfortunate statement from the US Ambassador to Zimbabwe is not only disrespectful but highly insensitive to the predicament of the ordinary people whose lives have been downgraded to absolute destitution due to the effects of these unacceptable and unwarranted sanctions.
With all due respect to Ambassador Wharton, when he first arrived in Zimbabwe in November 2012, he vowed to “engage in a dialogue that was respectful” and expressed a commendable desire to “listen and learn”. But his recent remarks have compromised his initial promise to respect, listen and learn. The Ambassador clearly has not been listening to the sanction-induced poverty-stricken plight of the people of Zimbabwe. For Ambassador Wharton to say that the impact of the sanctions on Zimbabwe is “diversionary” is not only insincere but a clear denial of his government’s responsibilities as the real architects of these merciless economic measures.
Continued 1...
These sanctions have created massive sinkholes in the economic, social and political foundations of this unfortunate and undeserving nation. It is the indiscriminate nature of these economic measures that has fractured the very nucleus of this nation. The entire national fabric has been ripped to pieces beyond patching.
There is no way of correcting this raw reality, there is no way of patching the aftermath of these man-made sinkholes and all we can do is endure in the hope that the US moral compass starts navigating again. Obama might “take great care to minimise the unintended consequences from the sanctions” far removed in the comforts of the White House away from the maddening crowds and the commotion created by what Wharton calls the “unintended consequences” of these unlawful and heavy-handed sanctions.
Ambassador Wharton is well aware that there are no “unintended consequences” of these intended sanctions. What Zimbabwe is enduring is an intentional by-product of a consciously planned and intended outcome of the sanctions. Wharton is clearly aware of the economic impact of the sanctions on the Zimbabwe economy and the unbearable hardship this has caused the blame-free people of Zimbabwe. The Ambassador lives in Zimbabwe at the moment and has firsthand experience of the devastating nature of these abominable sanctions on the most vulnerable groups in our society.
It is those people at the bottom end of the scale who have had to bear the full brunt of it all and have seen their livelihoods reduced to abject poverty. These are the very same people whose civil liberties the Wharton’s government is purporting to be protecting and now relegating the crisis to ‘unintended consequences’!
The Ambassador goes on to deliberately reduce the Zimbabwe sanctions to mere “targeted measures” which again is very sneaky and insincere of him. These are and have always been full blown economic sanctions against Zimbabwe. It was only a few days ago that the European Union was lifting the “economic sanctions” against Zimbabwe and it seems only Wharton is still stuck in the now discontinued “targeted sanctions” mode. Even the white community in Zimbabwe has come out in full force in support of the complete removal of these economic sanctions. The "Zimbabweans against Sanctions" chairman, Matthew Smith said that the “sanctions were not targeted, but were a broad-based financial embargo in their nature and impact - whether you call them smart or targeted measures or financial sanctions, their effect has neither been smart nor targeted as it consumed Zimbabwe and all its citizens in one and the same negative way without discrimination”.
Continued 2...
What is incredible even to the most trusting is the fact that Wharton wants us to believe that the mighty USA drafted a whole Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act 2001 (ZDERA 2001) Bill with the sole and selfless intention of targeting Robert Mugabe and a few of his “cronies” in their philanthropic desire and self-appointed duty to “protect” the people of Zimbabwe and “promote” the rule of law and democracy. A Bill to target the President of a small sovereign country thousands of miles away - that I find far-fetched to believe the motives were all altruistic and humanitarian entirely.
Complex and duplicitous Bills aside, what is concrete is that the sanctions have significantly hindered Zimbabwe’s economic progress over the past twelve years. It is disingenuous for Ambassador Wharton to reduce the effects of this man-made immorality to “unintended consequences”. The impact of the sanctions on Zimbabwe has been as real as the harsh life that the ordinary man, woman and child on the street has to bear and will continue to endure daily as long as the US moral compass remains stuck in deliberate denial.
Bernard Bwoni can be contacted on bernardbwn@aol.com/ bernardbwoni.blogspot.com
By the way, George Soros (OSISA), is a business partner of Lord Jacob Rothschild, the 4th Baron Rothschild, along with Madeleine Albright. Lord Rothschild's only son is Nat Rothschild, Bullingdon man, mover and shaker in Glencore Xstrata.
Rothschild Bank funded De Beers, after which their agent Cecil Rhodes became the Founding Chairman of the board of directors in 1888, see more here.
Anyway, this $350 million deal establishes a direct connection between George Soros and the Rothschild family, as well as a similar connection with Madeleine Albright.
"(INSTITUTIONAL INVESTOR) Soros, Albright, Rothschild In $350M Deal
May 25, 2011
November 30, 2009
U.S. hedge fund manager, George Soros, has tied up with Madeline Albright and Jacob Rothschild, to set up a company which will build mobile masts in Africa, Financial News reports. The three will together invest $350 million to launch Helios Towers Africa.
Albright's emerging markets private equity firm, Albright Capital Management, and Rothschild's RIT Capital Partners will back the venture. The fourth, and lead, co-investor in the company will be funds advised by Helios Investment Partners. The company plans to build more than 5,000 masts in six countries outside of Nigeria.
Click here for the story from Financial News.
Click here for additional coverage from Business Wire.
On the Web Archive:
https://web.archive.org/web/20140302070501/https://www.newzimbabwe.com/columns-14600-Sanctions+create+huge+sinkholes+Mr+Wharton/columns.aspx
Sanctions create massive sinkholes Mr Wharton
26/02/2014 00:00:00
by Bernard Bwoni
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home