The Issue
Twenty one years ago, on 6 March 2003, US President George W. Bush claimed to have “determined” under Executive Order 13288 that some alleged actions and policies of certain members of the Government of Zimbabwe and other persons undermined, “Zimbabwe’s democratic processes or institutions”, and that their alleged actions and policies contributed “to the deliberate breakdown in the rule of law in Zimbabwe…and to political and economic instability in the southern African region”; and constituted “an unusual and extraordinary threat to the foreign policy of the United States”; and that therefore he had declared, “a national emergency to deal with that threat.”
This was flabbergasting, and far reaching.
The US government declared that there was “an unusual and extraordinary” situation in Zimbabwe which threatened “the foreign policy of the US”.
To deal with that situation, the US declared “a national emergency”, which empowered various organs of the US government to take unusual, extraordinary and thus hostile measures regarding Zimbabwe.
It is notable that the “national emergency” declared by Bush in March 2003 to “deal with” what he claimed was “an unusual and extraordinary threat to the foreign policy of the United States” in Zimbabwe was, in the words of his declaration, not a threat to Zimbabwe or Zimbabweans; but “an unusual and extraordinary threat to the foreign policy of the United States”.
The US government dealt with that alleged ‘threat’ through Executive Order 13288 of 6 March 2003, Executive Order 13391 of 22 November 2005 and Executive Order 13466 of 25 July 2008, all of them by George W. Bush, which imposed a panoply of visa restrictions and economic sanctions on government and Zanu PF officials, their families – as well as anyone else who was deemed to be working or associated with them in any way, shape or form – and a range of key commercial, state and non-state entities across the economy.
Significantly, last week on 4 March 2024, the current US President Joseph Biden issued Executive Order 14118 in which he found that, ”the declaration of a national emergency in Executive Order 13288 of March 6, 2003, with respect to the actions and policies of certain members of the Government of Zimbabwe and other persons…as relied upon for additional steps taken in Executive Order 13391 of November 22, 2005, and as expanded by Executive Order 13469 of July 25, 2008, should no longer be in effect… the declaration of a national emergency in Executive Order 13288 is no longer needed…
Accordingly, I hereby terminate the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13288, and revoke that order, Executive Order 13391, and Executive Order 13469.”
So, if after 21 years, the US declaration of a national emergency on Zimbabwe in Executive Order 13288 of March 6, 2003 “should no longer be in effect’, and “is no longer needed” and therefore Executive Orders 13288, 13391, and 13469 are revoked, as they have been, what does this development mean, what are its implications?
The implications of this development are highlighted below, while the meaning thereof is addressed in the conclusion of this write-up.
Implications of Biden’s Executive Order 14118
Among other considerations, Biden’s historic Executive Order 14118 has the following implications, some if not all of them with far reaching consequences:
1. Biden’s revocation of George W. Bush’s Executive Orders 13288 of 6 March 2003, 13391 of 23 November 2005 and 13469 of 25 July 2008 on grounds that the ‘national emergency’ claimed in these orders no longer exist or is no longer needed, is tantamount to a spectacular expression of catastrophic failure; given the untold suffering of Zimbabweans and the systematic and structural damage to Zimbabwe’s economy caused by the implementation of the orders by the US, as it sought regime change in the country in vain, over 21 years of the orders; and 23 years of the so-called Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act [Zdera] enacted on 21 December, 2001; upon which the failed orders were based, as the enabling Act.
While the US failed to achieve its regime-change objective over 23 years since Zdera and 21 years since the declaration of the national emergency, it unfortunately and destructively succeeded not only to entrench political polarisation and divisions among Zimbabweans; but also to sabotage, undermine and derail national economic development in Zimbabwe, with the consequence of crippling the country’s economy.
2. Given that Biden’s 4 March 2024 Executive Order clearly states that it is terminating orders – not relating to the economic sanctions that were said to be targeted at individuals, but orders – that were about an alleged ‘situation of a national emergency’ in Zimbabwe that allegedly threatened US security interests for 21 years; it stands to reason that this then exposes the mendacity that the US sanctions only targeted individuals, and not Zimbabwe itself or the country’s general population.
It is clear from Biden’s 4 March 2024 Executive Order that the sanctions imposed under the revoked orders were not about individuals, but were about the “situation in Zimbabwe”, which situation supposedly created a national emergency that required an extended emergency response from or by the US for some 21 years.
3. The revocation of the orders in question exposes the blatant lie told by US diplomats and often repeated and thoughtlessly peddled by their local running dogs, that Zdera not only has nothing to do with economic sanctions, but also that Zdera has never been implemented since it was enacted in 2001 when, in fact Zdera is the enabling or mother Act under which the revoked Executive Orders were made.
In a 4 March 2024 statement by the US National Security Council Spokesperson, Adrienne Watson who, while noting the Executive Orders revoked by Biden, said that the United States would go foreword by employing a new set of tools in Zimbabwe, including the flagship Global Magnitsky sanctions program, to punish “the egregious behaviour of some of the most powerful people and companies in Zimbabwe”.
Tellingly, the US National Security Council Statement concluded by declaring that, “The Administration reaffirms its commitment to work with the people of Zimbabwe; will continue to robustly support civil society, human rights defenders, and independent media to promote values consistent with the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act of 2001”.
There’s more to the fact that Zdera remains intact after the revocation of the mentioned Executive Orders, than meets the eye.
Only fools will be fooled by this. If the alleged ‘national emergency’ which lasted for 21 years “should no longer be in effect” and “is no longer needed”, as determined by Biden on 4 March 2024, why is Zdera – the mother law of the revoked national emergency national –still needed?
4. Whereas Biden’s Executive Order 14118 stated that it was a “termination of Emergency With Respect to the Situation in Zimbabwe”; it is telling that the US Treasury Department framed and cast it as “termination of the Zimbabwe sanctions program”.
Even more telling is that the Department’s press statement announced that the terminated ‘national emergency’, which it presented as the ‘Zimbabwe Sanctions Program’, would be under a new rubric, ‘Sanctions Transition Under the Global Magnitsky Program’.
Helpfully, and this is important to note and to welcome, the Department confirmed that:
· All persons blocked solely pursuant to E.O. 13288, E.O. 13391, or E.O. 13469 (the authorities of the Zimbabwe Sanctions Program) will be removed today from OFAC’s Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (SDN) List;
· All property and interests in property blocked solely pursuant to the Zimbabwe Sanctions Program will be unblocked today; and
· OFAC will remove the Zimbabwe Sanctions Regulations from the Code of Federal Regulations.
Clearly, what this means is that the sanctions are not and have never been about individuals.
5. It’s notable that, because they were about regime change in Zimbabwe, the revoked Executive Orders, and indeed all of the coercive US economic measures taken against the country thus far, were enforced after a general election of one sort or another. In other words, during the period covered by the orders, every general election in Zimbabwe was followed by US sanctions; starting with Zdera itself.
Zdera followed the 2000 parliamentary election; the 4 March 2002 Presidential Proclamation sanctioning designated individuals followed the 2002 presidential election, as did Executive Order 13288 of 6 March 2003; while Executive Order 13391 of 23 November 2005 followed the 2005 parliamentary election and Executive Order 13469 of 25 July 2008 – the most destructive – was a direct response to Zimbabwe’s first harmonised general election held on 29 March 2009, and particularly the 27 June 2008 presidential runoff election.
6. The use of cacophonic propaganda about 11 individuals, who include the country’s top leadership in government, said to have been sanctioned for alleged human rights abuses and corruption together with three private commercial entities – tellingly on the same day that Biden issued his termination of the ‘national emergency’ in Executive Order 14118, is clearly intended to distract attention from Biden’s embarrassing order which, as already pointed out, is a de factoacknowledgment of catastrophic failure of the US policy of regime change in Zimbabwe, over the last 21 years of the three Executive Orders; and the last 23 years of their enabling law, Zdera, which remains intact.
The US government and its running dogs in Zimbabwe want the media chatter to be more on the 11 individuals and three commercial entities that have been put under the Magnitsky Act, and less on the revoked orders for what turns out to be cheap and misleading propaganda purposes. ‘Cheap’ because geopolitics, international relations and international law are about states and their institutions, systems, processes and international law; not about individuals.
It is ‘cheap’ and ‘misleading’ for the US to make propaganda noise about 11 individuals, nine of whom were already under substantially the same sanctions – some of them for all the 21 years of the revoked orders – while pretending that there’s something substantially different or dramatic about the Magnitsky sanctions.
Being shrill about removing a handful of individuals from a 21-year-old failed and now rotten US sanctions basket, and putting them on another seven-year-old US basket with an exotic Russian name, and nothing else, and dubbing that propaganda basket; a “sanctions transition”, is actually a dumb stunt equivalent to gloating over transferring bones from one grave to another.
The stunt becomes a hostile act and an attack on Zimbabwe’s sovereignty with unpredictable consequences when, because it is bereft of substance and is in breach of international law – it is used as a propaganda tool to mock or humiliate the national leadership of a sovereign state or to cause divisions within the apex of the country’s national security ranks.
It is important to understand why the US, in the words of its officials, is “transitioning” from country-specific sanctions – such as the ‘Zimbabwe Sanctions Program’ – to the ‘Magnitsky Global Sanctions Program’. The devil is in this detail.
According to a 2021 assessment by the Congressional Research Service, “Global Magnitsky’s global remit may avoid some challenges associated with country-specific sanctions regimes; like Zdera.
Experts who spoke to the Congressional Research Service noted that creating a country-specific regime can be laborious and can sometimes complicate diplomatic relations and/or have unintended ramifications.
The experts said, pursuant to IEEPA, creating a country-specific sanctions programme like Zdera requires a national emergency declaration that must necessarily be claimed to be due to ‘an unusual and extraordinary threat … to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States.’
For example, the Congressional Research Service reported that, in 2015 testimony to Congress, an executive branch official noted that the use of IEEPA-mandated language in a national emergency declaration allowing for sanctions against individuals in Venezuela, for instance, generated blowback … from the region, including from some of US allies and partners in the region, and from the Government of Venezuela itself.
According to the official, the national emergency language can be used, as it must be, to show that the United States is, in effect, going to war against the country targeted by the declaration of a national emergency.
Interestingly, the Congressional Research Services notes that the United States has used Global Magnitsky authorities to designate nationals of some of its so-called democratic allies and/or countries with which it has generally positive bilateral relations, such as Bulgaria, Israel, Latvia, and South Africa.
Apparently, and unlike ‘country-specific sanctions programs’ that have previously been the norm, the Magnitsky Global Sanctions Program, provides the US government officials with greater diplomatic scope and flexibility to engage in quid pro quo wheeling and dealing under which sanctioned individuals are removed from the list in exchange of something beneficial to the US, such as access to resources like lithium, etc.
In effect, the Magnitsky sanctions are an “I scratch your back, and you scratch my back” type of sanctions.
The report of the Congressional Research Service noted that, pushed by the US whose unilateral sanctions like Zdera have invariably ended in embarrassing diplomatic failures, a number of countries have in recent years established sanctions regimes that mirror the Global Magnitsky sanctions; these countries include Canada, the UK, and the EU and a host of other jurisdictions such as Australia and Japan.
Through the US Treasury Department, and in the hope of to improving the effectiveness of and impact of its ‘Magnitsky Global Sanctions Program’ to further its foreign policy objectives, the US wants to use the sanctions similar to Magnitsky adopted by other countries; to create a circle of opportunities for it to impose alleged human rights or corruption related sanctions in some kind of a multilateral matrix, in the vain hope of rivalling the multilateralism of the United Nations Security Council sanctions.
However, because every action begets a reaction, the US multilateral experiment to globalise Magnitsky and to use it as a new imperialist policy tool is ill-fated, not least because it is certain to precipitate commensurate multilateral-solidarity responses; not only from the countries that have been targeted by the US Magnitsky imperialism, but also but from the global South in general, and in particular from emerging progressive multilateral organisations, such as the BRICS.
The 21-year old US sanctions regime on Zimbabwe, based on the failed 23-year old regime change policy in Zdera, should have by now taught the US that its unilateralism is doomed to fail, even if it is wrapped in the false language of promoting human rights or fighting corruption; or it is pursued under supposedly multilateral schemes like the ‘Magnitsky Global Sanctions Program’, which are in fact nothing but naked US imperialist foreign policy tools.
The only sanctions that can work from a multilateral point of view are those built on and imposed by membership based multilateral bodies such as the UN and its sub-regional affiliates like the African Union; anything else, such as the so-called Magnitsky Global Sanctions, is just drama.
The Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act: An Assessment, Dec 2021
7. A major and hitherto undiscussed consequence of the revoked Executive Orders is the end of the easy money to NGOs in Zimbabwe and the country’s main political opposition, which came with the ‘national emergency’ funding purportedly for democracy, governance, media, capacity building and related regime-change activism; which has been flowing like tap water since 6 March 2003.
The revoked orders were used by the US as a convenient cover to corruptly channel and abuse hundreds of millions of US dollars, of which USD 26 million was pledged by Zdera, in the name of all sorts of regime-change initiatives for which, 21 years later, there’s between little and nothing to show, and therefore lots of money down the drain and hence nothing tangible to audit.
There are untold movie-like stories about how briefcase NGOs became the order of the day in Zimbabwe’s civil society over the last 21 years of the revoked Executive Orders, as getting easy money under the guise of dealing with Zimbabwe’s ‘national emergency’ declared by the US became a lucrative industry.
The fact that nothing is being said about this open and well known secret in Zimbabwe’s donor and civil society communities is yet another window into the duplicitous and hypocritical politics of the US government, which typically looks for corruption anywhere except under its own nose.
8. In so far as the sum and substance of the revoked US Executive Orders was the pursuit of regime change, about which there’s no doubt, it amounted to an onslaught on Zimbabwe’s sovereignty; such that those who associated with that regime change agenda or who were part of it, basically engaged in treachery against their motherland and thus have some serious introspection to do.
9. It is important to emphasize the following outcomes of the revocation Executive Order 13288, Executive Order 13391, or Executive Order 13469:
· While Biden’s statement that “all persons blocked solely pursuant to Executive Order 13288, Executive Order 13391, or Executive Order 13469 were removed on 4 March 2024 [(the authorities of the Zimbabwe Sanctions Programme) were removed on 4 March 2024 from OFAC’s Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (SDN)] List; the true position is of course that some were moved or transferred to another sanctions list, in that they were ‘transitioned’, to the ‘Magnitsky Global Sanctions Program’.
Therefore, the US Zimbabwe sanctions programme remains, under a different basket.
· Given that Biden’s statement said “all property and interests in property blocked solely pursuant to the Zimbabwe Sanctions Programme was unblocked on 4 March 2024”’, it would be instructive, in fact necessary, to quantify the value of this unblocked property. How much was blocked?
· What was particularly most significant about Biden’s 4 Mach 2024 Executive terminating Executive Order 13288, Executive Order 13391 and Executive Order 13469 on the US ‘Emergency With Respect to the Situation in Zimbabwe’’ is that, at long last, OFAC will remove the Zimbabwe Sanctions Regulations ’31 CFR Part 541’ from the Code of Federal Regulations.
These are the destructive regulations that made the Zimbabwean economy to scream over the last 21 years.
Their removal is not a small thing by any stretch of the imagination as it will, among others positives, lower Zimbabwe’s sovereign risk and reduce the cost of doing business in the country.
10. Whether framed as a situation of a ‘national emergency in Zimbabwe threatening US Foreign or Security Interests’; or as a ‘Zimbabwe Sanctions Program’ or as ‘Transition’ to the ‘Magnitsky Global Sanctions Program’; the coercive US sanctions measures in the revoked Executive Orders 13288, 13391 and 13469 were a violation of Zimbabwe’s sovereignty and a breach of international law.
Zimbabwe has the sovereign right to self-determination with respect to the making of both its domestic and foreign policies under international law. This is the one principle that the US government has not understood and not respected over the last 21 years; and yet the same US has no qualms about touting the importance of national sovereignty for Ukraine, just as an example of its duplicity and hypocrisy.
On the back of the foregoing, the issues that are outlined below are further highlighted and explained in the order they’re listed for information, context and analysis of the implications of Biden’s Executive Order 14118 discussed above:
I. Biden’s Executive Order Terminating a false 21-year-old National Emergency
II. Zdera as the Enabling Act for the US ‘Zimbabwe Sanctions Programme’ since 2001
III. First and only US ‘Presidential Proclamation’ on Zimbabwe Sanctions made in 2002
IV. First US Declaration of False ‘National Emergency’ in Zimbabwe in 2003
V. Second US Declaration of False ‘National Emergency’ in Zimbabwe in 2005
VI. Third US Declaration of False ‘National Emergency’ in Zimbabwe in 2008
I. Biden’s Executive Order 14118 Terminating a false 21-year-old National Emergency
It is trite that Biden’s 4 March 2024 Executive Order 14118 primarily revoked Executive Order 13288 of 6 March 2003; and with that revocation it follows that the additional steps that were subsequently taken to fortify the primary 2003 order, under Executive Order 13391 of 22 November 2005, and Executive Order 13469 of 25 July 2008, must, consequentially, also fall away.
Tellingly, the reason given by Biden for the revocation of these orders is that the declaration of a national emergency in these three orders “should no longer be in effect” and “is no longer needed”.
But, crucially, there’s no explanation as to why the national emergency should no longer be in effect and is no longer needed; or why it in any event it was needed in the first place; on 6 March 2003 or for the last 21 years.
Why “the declaration of a national emergency in the three order in question “should no longer be in effect” and “is no longer needed”, is the question that must be answered; an answer is proffered in the conclusion of this write-up.
Below are two links, one to the Executive Order 14118 of 4 March 2024, and the other to Biden’s letter to Congress dispatched on the same date, informing Congress of his action.
“Executive Order 14118 on the Termination of Emergency With Respect to the Situation in Zimbabwe
Biden’s Letter to Congress on his Executive Order 14118
II. Zdera as the Enabling Act for the US ‘Zimbabwe Sanctions Programme’ since 2001
For the record, it should be noted that while Biden’s revocation Executive Order 14118 of 4 March 2024 gives the impression that US sanctions on Zimbabwe originate from or start with Executive Order 13288 of 6 March 2003, the historic fact is that this is grossly misleading because the foundation of US sanctions on Zimbabwe is in fact the so-called Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act of 2001 (Zdera); a notorious law that has become too inconvenient for the US to mention, let alone to acknowledge, in its propaganda that its sanctions have nothing to do with Zdera; and that the sanctions always and only targeted individuals that allegedly “undermine Zimbabwe’s democratic processes or institutions”; when in fact the US sanctions have, since their inception, targeted Zimbabwe itself as ‘country-sanctions’ with Zdera as the enabling law of the sanctions.
Over the last 21 years, US officials and their running dogs in Zimbabwe have falsely claimed that Zdera is not a sanctions law.
Even on the day Biden revoked the three ‘national emergency’ orders on 4 March 2024; David Gainer, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of State – Bureau of African Affairs, and Brad Brooks-Rubin, Senior Advisor to the Office of Sanctions Coordination – United States Department of State; made this false claim about Zdera:
“The actions this week do not affect the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act of 2001, also known as ZDERA. Importantly, ZDERA is not a sanction – it is legislation passed by the U.S. Congress and signed by the U.S. president in 2001. ZDERA – it is also very important to note – has never been invoked because Zimbabwe is in arrears to its international creditors.”
The false line that Zdera “is not a sanction”, but “it is legislation” about what Zimbabwe needs to do to access funding of one sort or another from multilateral financial institutions is one often touted by the US Embassy in Zimbabwe, with the example below being a case in point:
“The Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Amendment Act (ZDERA) of 2018 outlines the steps Zimbabwe needs to take to gain the support of the United States Government for new lending through international financial institutions”.
Commenting on ‘U.S. Sanctions on Zimbabwean Individuals and Entities’ in a statement that welcomed Biden’s Executive Order 14118 on 4 March 2024, the National Security Council Spokesperson Adrienne Watson drew a straight line linking sanctions with Zdera when he said:
“The Administration reaffirms its commitment to work with the people of Zimbabwe; will continue to robustly support civil society, human rights defenders, and independent media to promote values consistent with the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act of 2001.”
It is indeed true that section 4(c) of Zdera specifically directs the United States Executive Director to each international financial institution to oppose and vote against any extension by the institution of any loan, credit, or guarantee to the Government of Zimbabwe or any cancellation or reduction of indebtedness owed by the Government of Zimbabwe to the United States or any international financial institution.
But this is not all that Zdera provides.
It is also true that Zdera imposes visa restrictions and economic sanctions on individuals as provided in the three executive orders revoked by Biden on 4 March 2024, namely; Executive 13288 of 4 March 2003, Executive Order 13391 of 22 November 2005 and Executive Order 13469 of 25 July 2008.
That Zdera is a sanctions law was acknowledged upfront by the Congressional Budget Office in a cost estimate of the law when it was still a Bill on July 16, 2001, which observed that Zdera, “would support a transition to democracy and promote economic recovery in Zimbabwe through a set of incentives and sanctions.”
Just how can a law which, by the reckoning of the Congressional Budget Office, “would support a transition to democracy and promote economic recovery in Zimbabwe through a set of incentives and sanctions”, not be a sanction law?
For the avoidance of doubt, the visa restrictions and economic sanctions in Zdera are provided under the Act’s section 6 as shown below:
PUBLIC LAW 107–99—DEC. 21, 2001
The authority in this section supersedes any other provision of law.
SEC. 6. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON THE ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN AGAINST INDIVIDUALS RESPONSIBLE FOR VIOLENCE AND THE BREAKDOWN OF THE RULE OF LAW IN ZIMBABWE.
It is the sense of Congress that the President should begin immediate consultation with the governments of European Union member states, Canada, and other appropriate foreign countries on ways in which to—
(1) identify and share information regarding individuals responsible for the deliberate breakdown of the rule of law, politically motivated violence, and intimidation in Zimbabwe;
(2) identify assets of those individuals held outside Zimbabwe;
(3) implement travel and economic sanctions against those individuals and their associates and families; and,
(4) provide for the eventual removal or amendment of those sanctions.
Link: Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act of 2024
Given the above, anyone who says Zdera is not a sanctions law is either an ignorant or illiterate US propagandist masquerading as a US diplomat or a running dog of US propaganda and imperialism.
III. First and only US ‘Presidential Proclamation’ on Zimbabwe Sanctions made in 2002
Interestingly, after the enactment of Zdera as the enabling or mother law for the US sanctions on Zimbabwe as a country programme on 21 December 2001, and before the declaration of a national emergency on 6 March 2003 in Executive Order 13288, US President George W. Bush, issued a now seemingly or conveniently forgotten sanctions proclamation on 4 March 2002 as indicated below:
Zimbabwe Presidential Proclamation on Visa Restrictions
“In light of the political and humanitarian crisis in Zimbabwe and the continued failure of President Robert Mugabe, Zimbabwean government officials, and others to support the rule of law, and given the importance to the United States of fostering democratic institutions in Zimbabwe, I have determined that it is in the interest of the United States to take all available measures to restrict the international travel and to suspend the entry into the United States, as immigrants or non-immigrants, of senior members of the government of Robert Mugabe and others detailed below who formulate, implement, or benefit from policies that undermine or injure Zimbabwe’s democratic institutions or impede the transition to a multi-party democracy.” George W Bush, 4 March 2002
The above proclamation was without any doubt enabled by and based on Zdera and was the precursor to the devastating Executive Order 13288, which declared a national emergency and imposed sanctions that wreaked havoc on Zimbabwe’s economy.
IV. First US Declaration of False ‘National Emergency’ in Zimbabwe in 2003
On 6 March 2003, US President George W Bush issued Executive Order 13288 to the effect that he had, “determined that the actions and policies of certain members of the Government of Zimbabwe and other persons undermine Zimbabwe’s democratic processes or institutions, contributing to the deliberate breakdown in the rule of law in Zimbabwe, to politically motivated violence and intimidation in that country, and to political and economic instability in the southern African region [and] constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the foreign policy of the United States, and I hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat.”
Three things stand out about the extraordinary sanctions imposed on Zimbabwe by the US under Executive Order 13288:
First, the order was declared not to do anything for Zimbabwe or for the people of Zimbabwe but specifically and only to “deal with” what George W. Bush alleged was “an unusual and extraordinary threat to the foreign policy of the United States”.
Second, and tellingly, there was absolutely nothing about Executive Order 13288 which protected or even pretended to protect Zimbabwe or the people of Zimbabwe who, at the very minimum were treated as collateral damage of the national emergency declared by Bush.
Third, the original sanctions list ‘targeted’ persons that were listed in the annex to the order; and any person determined by the US Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to have been owned or controlled by, or acting or purporting to act directly or indirectly for or on behalf of, any of the persons listed in the annex to this order.
Basically, the sanctions under Executive Order 13288, which is reproduced in full in the link below, was only about US foreign policy which Bush felt was threatened by Zimbabwe’s sovereignty’
Link: US Executive Order 13288—Blocking Property of Persons Undermining Democratic Processes or Institutions in Zimbabwe
V. Second US Declaration of False ‘National Emergency’ in Zimbabwe in 2005
Below is a link to Executive Order 13391 issued on 22 November 2005, again by Bush, to reinforce and strengthen Executive Order 13288 of 6 March 2003. Like its predecessor, this 2005 order was about a US national emergency dealing with what US President George W. Bush determined in 2003 to be “an unusual and extraordinary threat to the foreign policy of the United States”
Notably, the order widened the list of the sanctioned individuals and entities to include the following:
· persons listed in a new, enlarged Annex to this order;
· any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State:
· to have engaged in actions or policies to undermine Zimbabwe’s democratic processes or institutions;
· to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services in support of, such actions or policies or any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order:
· to be or have been an immediate family member of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; or
· to be owned or controlled by, or acting or purporting to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order.
Again, as is clear in the order whose link is below, it should be emphasised that that, like the first national emergency issued in 2003, the 2005 order did not provide any protection to or for Zimbabwe nor Zimbabweans. It was all about responding to “an unusual and extraordinary threat to the foreign policy of the United States”.
Link: US Executive Order 13391—Blocking Property of Additional Persons Undermining Democratic Processes or Institutions in Zimbabwe
VI. Third US Declaration of False ‘National Emergency’ in Zimbabwe in 2008
The third and last order, still issued by George W. Bush the war monger, was the most draconian. It seems, with it, Bush was baying for blood on the floor.
In a move that demonstrated beyond doubt that the sanctions were in fact not targeted at some individuals but were aimed at Zimbabwe itself, in 2008 the sanctions list was radically revised to include, “any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, after consultation with the Secretary of State:
(a) to be a senior official of the Government of Zimbabwe; and
(b) to be owned or controlled by, directly or indirectly, the Government of Zimbabwe or an official or officials of the Government of Zimbabwe.
For all intents and purposes this was tantamount to a declaration of war as it amounted to sanctioning the entire state and government of Zimbabwe, and therefore the nation-state of Zimbabwe itself. And this is the situation that obtained on the ground for 16 years; from 2008 to 2024.
Below is a link to the order in question, which was by all counts the most damaging:
Link: US Executive Order 13469—which sanctioned the govt and state in Zimbabwe
VII. Conclusion
(i) It is understandable but unfortunate that, by and large, the public domain response to Biden’s 4 March 2024 Executive Order 14118 which terminated the 21-year-old ‘situation of national emergency” in Zimbabwe declared against the country by the US, has been more instinctive and opinionated than rational, informed or informing.
Regardless of what one might think about Biden’s order, it is obvious that its formulation took considerable intellectual effort by US government policy analysts and their usual consultants from academia, resources and time; to warrant better considered and commensurate responses to match the geopolitics behind the order.
Undoubtedly, Executive Order 14118 is important, significant and essentially positive for Zimbabwe although, predictably, it was announced with negatives that are potentially harmful to Zimbabwe’s sovereign interests and national security considerations and which, therefore, require special attention.
(ii) Much of the public domain commentary in the wake of Biden’s revocation of Executive Order 13288 of 6 March 2003; Executive Order 13391 of 22 November 2005 and Executive 13469 of 25 July 2008, which were all ordered by George W. Bush, has focussed on what some commenters – especially social media influencers – are claiming are ‘new sanctions’ and ‘hard hitting’ US sanctions that are targeted at designated individuals and entities under the politically acclaimed ‘Magnitsky Global Sanctions Program’.
This follows the designation of 11 individuals and three commercial entities by the Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) for their alleged involvement in corruption or serious human rights abuse.
After 23 years of seeking regime change in Zimbabwe under Zdera and 21 years under executive orders which are in fact enabled by Zdera, through imposing sanctions that ostensibly target individuals when they actually target Zimbabwe as a nation-state, the US has learnt nothing.
While the US makes all sorts of self-indulgent claims about its purported fight for human rights and against corruption, it nevertheless continues to use imperialist schemes like the Magnitsky global sanctions to target individuals in pursuit of its foreign policy goals, as has been the case under Zdera, without affording the targeted individuals the due process of law.
In the US scheme of things, the targeted individuals are guilty of human rights abuses and corruption merely and only by dint of the accusations that the US levels against the individuals, as repeated and peddled by the barking of US running dogs in the targeted country.
The foregoing is the context and background of the Magnitsky sanctions, whose 4 March 2024 list on Zimbabwean individuals and commercial entities is divided into three parts; the first being the first couple, President Emmerson Mnangagwa, first sanctioned on 6 March 2003, and Mrs Auxillia Mnangagwa, sanctioned for the first time, last week.
Next is the second part headed, “Corrupt Business Network” which lists Kudakwashe Regimond Tagwirei, first sanctioned on 5 August 2020; his wife Sandra Mpunga, first sanctioned on 12 December 2022; Obey Chimuka, first sanctioned on 12 December 2022; Sakunda Holdings, first sanctioned on 5 August 2020; Fossil Agro, a Sakunda Holdings subsidiary, first sanctioned on 12 December 2022; and Fossil Contracting, first sanctioned on 12 December 2022.
The heading of the third part is “Security Officials” and it starts with Vice-President Constantino Chiwenga, first sanctioned on 6 March 2003; Defence Minister Oppah Muchinguri, also first sanctioned on 6 March 2003; Commissioner-General of the Zimbabwe Republic Police, Godwin Matanga, first sanctioned on 23 November 2005; Deputy Commissioner-General of the Zimbabwe Republic Police, Stephen Mutamba, first sanctioned on 15 September 2022; Deputy Director General of the Central Intelligence Organization (CIO), Brigadier General [Rtd] Walter Tapfumaneyi, sanctioned for the first time, last week; and Owen Ncube, Minister of State for Provincial Affairs in the Midlands province, first sanctioned on 11 March 2020.
In putting President Mnangagwa in a sanctions basket it called “Sanctions Transition Under the Global Magnitsky Program”, the US Treasury Department said it was sanctioning him allegedly because he “is involved in corrupt activities, in particular those relating to gold and diamond smuggling networks.
Mnangagwa provides a protective shield to smugglers to operate in Zimbabwe and has directed Zimbabwean officials to facilitate the sale of gold and diamonds in illicit markets, taking bribes in exchange for his services. Mnangagwa also oversees Zimbabwe’s security services, which have violently repressed political opponents and civil society groups”.
It is clear from this that the US Treasury is principally but not only relying on Al Jazeera’s documentary, “Africa’s Gold Mafia screened between March and April in 2023”; and, notably, the Department is going by the unchallenged or un rebutted claims made in the documentary by Uebert Angel, who damagingly featured as a “senior diplomat’ and therefore a “senior official” of the government of Zimbabwe; as well as of Ewan Macmillan and Kamlesh Pattni who claimed throughout the documentary – without being challenged – to be the President’s ‘close’ business partners.
There are three serious due-process issues about this.
First, while it is apparently relying mainly on claims made in Al Jazeera’s ‘Africa’s Gold Mafia documentary screened between March 2023 and April 2023, the fact is that the claims were boastfully, opportunistically and scandalously made by Uebert Angel, Ewan Macmillan and Kamlesh Pattni; all of whom were too eager to name drop, some of them doing so apparently under the influence of whiskey.
Al Jazeera did not test or corroborate the claims to establish their veracity, before the documentary was broadcast.
Second, and aware that the veracity of the claims was not established by Al Jazeera in its documentary, and further aware that no other third party has done so since the documentary’s broadcast, the US Treasury Department has proceeded put oxygen onto the claims and light a fire purely on the strength of untested and unproven allegations – to the detriment of due process of the law – by merely regurgitating the claims and citing them as if the claims are now nothing but the truth beyond any doubt, without putting forward any independent corroboration of the claims.
Third, and last but not least, despite the self-evident fact that the claims in question were damaging and despite the manifest fact that the Al Jazeera documentary was obviously meant to make a case for the sanctioning of the implicated individuals and entities, the Zimbabwean authorities in government perhaps inadvertently but nevertheless surprisingly gave hostage to fortune by not providing robust and factually persuasive rebuttals to counter the Al Jazeera claims, when they were broadcast.
The lesson from this is clear.
What is said or done by people who claim to be ‘senior officials’ with governmental authority – as did Uebert Angel in the Al Jazeera documentary – or by people who claim to have presidential connections – as did Ewan Macmillan and Kamlesh Pattni in the same documentary – has huge and potentially damaging consequences, some of which can even be harmful to the country’s national, economic and security interests. Be that as it may, there’s still scope to rectify and put this right.
(iii) Ever since their inception in 2001 under Zdera, US sanctions on Zimbabwe have never been about travel bans or visa restrictions on targeted individuals. Never.
There’s no country that understands that politics, international relations and geopolitics is not about individuals, better than the US.
This is why the US first enacted Zdera before putting a travel ban or visa restrictions on any individual in Zimbabwe.
While it includes imposing travel bans and economic sanctions on individuals, as one of its multiple tactics or measures, the strategy of Zdera as a holistic piece of legislation is to make Zimbabwe’s economy to scream and the country’s state politics to be unstable and volatile to trigger regime change in favour of US foreign policy goals.
This is what was sought by Executive Orders 13288 of 6 March 2003; 13391 of 22 November 2005 and 13469 of 25 July 2008; which orders were revoked by Biden on 4 March 2024.
The revocation of the ‘national emergency’ measures in Executive Orders 13288, 13391 and 13469 was about changing tactics, but not about changing the US strategy of seeking regime change in Zimbabwe, which is encapsulated in Zdera, the US anti-Zimbabwe law, which remains intact.
It must be understood that it’s not travel bans, visa restrictions or economic sanctions on individuals that have made Zimbabwe’s economy to scream to the detriment of Zimbabwe’s sovereign reputation and the cost of doing business in the country; rather, it is two things:
· Zdera, the 23-yer old US regime-change law against Zimbabwe which, among many other things, enabled the three orders revoked by Biden on 4 March 2024; and,
· OFAC’s ‘Zimbabwe Sanctions’ 31 CFR Part 541 (Zimbabwe Sanctions Regulations) that have been part of the US Code of Federal Regulations for some 21 years. The failed objective of these regulations was to make Zimbabwe a failed state.
From 4 March 2024, the 21-yer old OFAC regulations against Zimbabwe will [should] be removed from the US Code of Federal Regulations; and this is undoubtedly a good and most welcome development. But the 23-year-old Zdera, the enabling law upon which the OFAC regulations were based, remains.
This is why Zimbabweans and friends of Zimbabwe in Sadc, AU and at the United Nations should continue to speak with one louder voice for the US to repeal Zdera.
(iv) In terms of the geopolitics of international relations, on the backdrop of international law, any measure by any foreign country or any foreign power that targets the national leadership or the security leadership of any country is by definition an attack on the sovereignty of the country whose national or security leadership has been targeted. That’s the way it is.
For example, imagine what would happen if any country – say China – were to impose sanctions on US President Joe Biden and UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak as individuals or in their individual capacities; and say it has imposed the sanctions to punish Biden and Sunak for their personal and public support of Israel’s abuse of Palestinians human rights in the Palestinian Territories occupied by Israel, and their complicity in Israel’s genocide in Gaza?
The proposition that the national leadership or national security leadership of any country can be targeted for sanctions, as individuals, by any country outside multilateral the realm of international law is outrageous and unacceptable; not least because it is tantamount to a hostile act against the country, not against the individuals, said to be targeted.
Although the US styles its Magnitsky sanctions as ‘global’, they are in fact US national sanctions, as they are not managed under a multilateral global, legal framework or instrument, but are in fact managed in terms of the US ‘31 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 583’ (Global Magnitsky Sanctions Regulations), based on Executive Order 13818 whose enabling statutes include: Suspending Normal Trade Relations with Russia and Belarus Act – Public Law 117–110; Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act 22 U.S.C. 2656 note – Public Law 114-32 and International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), 50 U.S.C. §§ 1701-1706.
As such, the application of the so-called Global Magnitsky Sanctions Programme, which is in fact a US imperialist foreign policy tool, to target Zimbabwe’s national leadership and senior elements of the country’s national security leadership is a hostile act, and a reckless breach of international law which must be collectively resisted by all countries that still believe in international law under membership based multilateral institutions.
(v) It is a modern tragedy that, as the leading but fading global superpower that styles itself as the paragon of the fight for human rights and against corruption in the world; and as it terminates its Executive Orders 13288, 13391 and 13469 made in 2003, 2005 and 2005 respectively, whose sanctions destroyed the lives and livelihoods of ordinary people in Zimbabwe; while simultaneously slapping sanctions on 11 individuals and three commercial entities, whom it accuses of human rights abuses and corruption; the US itself is abetting and aiding apartheid Israel’s genocide in Gaza.
There’s nothing more abusive of human rights and more corrupt than being complicity in the crime of crimes: genocide.
It’s common cause that President Biden; his Secretary of State, Antony Blinken; and his Secretary of Defence, Lloyd Austin are unquestionably complicity in apartheid Israel’s genocide in Gaza.
There can be no more deserving individuals to put on targeted sanctions and to take to The Hague, than these three.
Where does the US, actually where do these three individuals – Biden, Blinken and Austin – get the moral audacity to sanction anyone anywhere in the world for human rights abuses and corruption, purely and only on the basis of untested and uncorroborated allegations made in the media and through secret diplomatic cables, without due process of law?
Nothing undermines and even destroys the core principle of the rule of law in general and international law in particular more than the US led jungle-law-practice of alleging human rights abuses and corruption against targeted individuals or organisational entities, only to turn around in jiffy to convict and put them under US foreign policy based sanctions on the strength of allegations that are neither tested nor proven in terms of due process of law.
(vi) For a perspective which not only spotlights the fact that US sanctions under Executive Orders 13288, 13391 and 13469 – revoked last week by Biden – were in fact Zimbabwe-country-sanctions against the country and its people as a nation-state; but which also shows that, despite Biden’s Executive Order 14118 of 4 March 2024 which terminated the Zimbabwe sanctions; and the US Treasury’s communication [
] that the Office of Foreign Assets Control ( OFAC) “will remove the Zimbabwe Sanctions Regulations from the Code of Federal Regulations”; the movement in that direction is at a snail pace with OFAC apparently dragging its feet, and still publicising, as shown below, [at least at the time of the publication of this write-up this morning] the ‘Zimbabwe Sanctions Regulations’, which it should be removing, or should have by now removed, from the Code of Federal Regulations:
Zimbabwe OFAC Sanctions | Visual OFAC
Summary
Executive Order 13391 prohibits U.S. persons, wherever located, or anyone in the United States from engaging in any transactions with any person, entity or organization found to: 1) be undermining democratic institutions and processes in Zimbabwe; 2) have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support to these entities; 3) be or have been an immediate family member of a sanctions target; or 4) be owned, controlled or acting on behalf of a sanctions target. Persons, entities and organizations referenced in Annex A of the Executive Order are all incorporated into OFAC’s list of Specially Designated Nationals. Prohibited transactions include, but are not limited to, exports (direct and indirect), imports (direct and indirect), trade brokering, financing and facilitation, as well as most financial transactions.
Zimbabwe Sanctions: Executive Orders
-
13469 Blocking Property of Additional Persons Undermining Democratic Processes or Institutions in Zimbabwe (July 25, 2008)
-
13391 Blocking Property of Additional Persons Undermining Democratic Processes or Institutions in Zimbabwe (Effective Date—November 23, 2005)
-
13288 Blocking Property of Persons Undermining Democratic Processes or Institutions in Zimbabwe (Effective Date—March 7, 2003)
Zimbabwe Sanctions: Statutes
-
International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), 50 U.S.C. §§ 1701-1706
-
National Emergencies Act (NEA), 50 U.S.C. §§ 1601-1651
Zimbabwe Sanctions: Code of Federal Regulations
-
31 CFR Part 541—Zimbabwe Sanctions Regulations
Zimbabwe Sanctions: Federal Register Notices
-
79 FR 39312-14—Final Rule in the Federal Register Amending the Zimbabwe Sanctions Regulations
-
71 FR 29251-06 Revisions to IEEPA made by the Combating Terrorism Financing Act of 2005
-
69 FR 45246-04 New regulations to implement Executive Order 13288
Note: This information is provided [by OFAC] for reference only.
OFAC should now remove the above regulations, including from its website, pronto.
It cannot be emphasised that that the removal of the ‘Zimbabwe Sanctions: Code of Federal Regulations 31 CFR Part 541—Zimbabwe Sanctions Regulations’, in terms of Biden’s Executive Order 14118, will be a game changer, that economy in Zimbabwe needs. These regulations caused untold damage to the country’s economy.
(vii) In conclusion, the question that remains is the one posed right upfront in this write-up: if, after 21 years, the US declaration of a national emergency on Zimbabwe in Executive Order 13288 of March 6, 2003; and which was relied upon in Executive Order 13391 of November 22, 2005 and Executive Order 13469 of July 25, 2008; “should no longer be in effect”, and “is no longer needed” as determined by Biden under Executive Order 14118 and, if as such, orders 13288, 13391, and 13469 are revoked, as they were on 4 March 2024, what does this development mean?
The US ‘national emergency’ was declared on 6 March 2003 by George W Bush under Executive Order 13288to “deal with” the alleged actions and policies of certain members of the Government of Zimbabwe and other persons who were alleged to “undermine Zimbabwe’s democratic processes or institutions”, and were said to be “contributing to the deliberate breakdown in the rule of law in Zimbabwe…and to political and economic instability in the southern African region”; and that their alleged actions constituted “an unusual and extraordinary threat to the foreign policy of the United States”, and that therefore Bush declared, “a national emergency to deal with that threat.”
So, in the circumstances, why did Biden invoke Executive Order 14118 on 4 March 2024 to revoke the 6 March 2003 US declaration of a national emergency that was purportedly meant to deal with the situation in Zimbabwe, a situation which he says he remains concerned about, on grounds that the national emergency declaration “should no longer be in effect”, and it “is no longer needed”?
Has the revoked 2003 emergency declaration achieved its objective?
The best way of assessing this is by outlining – to compare and contrast – the national, regional and international environments that obtained in 2003 when the national emergency was first declared, versus what the environments are, 21 years later, in 2024; following the revocation of the emergency.
Geopolitically, in 2003 the US saw itself in a unipolar world as the sole superpower with a globally seductive currency that it threw around like confetti to sponsor regime-change trouble and to fund proxy wars around the globe; a trigger happy superpower with a seemingly invincible military power that enabled it to act at its whims and caprices, unilaterally, internationally and on any issue in any country; and had the reflexive disposition to willy-nilly invade any country anywhere, without risking any pushback.
For example, the US invaded Afghanistan on 7 October 2001; and on 21 December 2001, Zdera was approved to take effect as US Public Law 107-99. And on 20 March 2003, exactly 14 days after its 6 March 2003 declaration of a national emergency that the situation in Zimbabwe constituted “an unusual and extraordinary threat to the foreign policy of the United States”, the US invaded Iraq in an ‘awe and shock’ mass-murder attack which sent chills down the spines of national leaders around the world.
The geopolitics and surrounding circumstances of the declaration of the national emergency in March 2003 were unsettling.
By 2003, Britain, under the government of the Tony Blair led labour party, had succeeded in mobilising the US, the EU and the White Commonwealth to impose sanctions on Zimbabwe to reverse the country’s historic land reform programme; in the guise of good governance and the rule of law in Zimbabwe. The US, through the hand of President George W. Bush, used this ‘white front’ of Western nations to enact Zdera in 2001 and Executive Order 13288 in March 2003.
Around that time, Russia was on the back foot, with suggestions that it was even mulling over the possibility and implications of joining NATO; and seemed happy to be invited to the meetings of the G-7 Group of the ‘leading’ Western nations, which was then an important geopolitical forum. China was still carrying itself out as an inward looking Third World country, with little to no appetite for global politics.
But, 21 years later, the world in 2024 is radically different from what it was in 2003. The then unipolar world is rapidly becoming multipolar; while the US is not only no longer the sole superpower that it imagined itself to be; but it is also a palpably fading power with manifestly shrinking international influence, and is losing its nasty reputation a self-appointed global policeman.
In 2024, Russia and China are showing clear and present superpower competencies and capabilities, Russia as a top-notch military powerhouse, and China as virtually the world’s leading economy. Meanwhile, the US dollar is increasingly becoming a futureless currency.
New progressive formations, such as the BRICS, are looking more geopolitically palatable, and are increasingly having more sway in international affairs, than the likes of the EU or the white Commonwealth.
Britain, along with the EU, which got the US to impose sanctions on Zimbabwe between 2001 and 2003, long dropped their own sanctions on Zimbabwe, and left the US alone and exposed, clinging onto its 2003 Executive Order 13288, and its 2001 Zdera.
Along with the changed international environment, the regional dynamics in Sadc have also changed. There’s a new Sadc that has been in the making since 2003, aligned with the geopolitics of the emerging international order, a Sadc which is not dominated by the US. Gone is the 2003 Sadc whose politics were dominated by ideologically strong-willed nationalists, such as Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe; Thabo Mbeki in South Africa, whom George W. Bush mistakenly saw as his point man in Sadc to deal with Zimbabwe; Joaquim Chissano in Mozambique; Benjamin Mkapa in Tanzania; Sam Nujoma in Namibia; and Jose Eduardo dos Santos in Angola, who were targets of imperialists and imperialism – particularly Mugabe – as individuals and collectively.
While in 2003 Bush thought he could use South Africa against Zimbabwe, in 2024 Biden’s hawks are scheming ways – sticks and carrots that include the Magnitsky global sanctions – that they think they can manipulate to arm-twist Zimbabwe against South Africa, which Washington is increasingly viewing as the new “unusual and extraordinary threat to the foreign policy of the United States” in southern Africa; following South Africa’s ICJ action against Israel’s genocide in Gaza, and flirtation with a resurging Russia.
But the most thorough going changes over the last 21 years took place in Zimbabwe, itself.
The land revolution led by peasants and veterans of Zimbabwe’s armed revolution – popularly known as the Third Chimurenga or alternatively as the Fast Track Land Redistribution Programme (FTLRP) – which peaked between 2000 and 2003 transformed Zimbabwe for good. Today, the land the irreversible success of the land reform in Zimbabwe is an untold story.
In fact, it was the revolutionary wind of the land reform that triggered George W Bush’s 6 March 2003 declaration of a national emergency that the situation in Zimbabwe constituted “an unusual and extraordinary threat to the foreign policy of the United States”. This fact is apparent in Zdera, a law specifically enacted to fight for the reversal the FTLRP by enabling what OFAC calls the ‘Zimbabwe sanctions programme’.
When the US national emergency was declared on 6 March 2003, Zimbabwe had a visible and an active ‘civil society’, most if not all of it oppositional to the state. This included the likes of Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace (CCJP); Legal Resources Foundation (LRF); National Association of Non-Governmental Organisations (NANGO); Organisation of Rural Associations for Progress (ORAP) and Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions (ZCTU).
Following the declaration of emergency and particularly between 2003 and 2013 under the largesse of Executive Orders 13288, 13391 and 13469 on the back of Zdera’s deep pocket, hundreds of millions of US dollars in ‘emergency’ funding was poured into these and other related organisations, including the Movement for Democratic Change; which was the main intended beneficiary of the ‘emergency’ and Zdera funds.
The US literally invested in these organisations.
But as Biden invoked Executive Order 14118 on 4 March 2024 to revoke the 21-year old national emergency, none of the ‘civil society’ organisations that were visible and active in 2003, which were showered with US ‘emergency’ funding, were still standing tall if at all; they’re now either dead or dying or existing only in name and in briefcases. This includes the MDC, the intended main beneficiary of the national emergency.
The funding of ‘civil society’ under Zdera and from the hardly audited ‘national emergency’ funding till, killed civil society in that the old has virtually disappeared, while the new, established as ‘one person-centred’ briefcase NGOs, is nowhere to be seen or heard. This largely explains why both ‘civil society’ and the political opposition in Zimbabwe are at their weakest since the country’s independence in 1980.
In fact, today in 2024 unlike 21 years ago in 2003, there’s neither civil society nor political opposition in Zimbabwe, to speak of.
Meanwhile, the land reform grassroots structures of households drawn from peasant farmers and veterans of the armed liberation struggle who fought the liberation war with peasant support, have literally taken over agriculture and are doing exceedingly, even under harsh economic conditions. Their political home is Zanu PF, which is far stronger today – at the grassroots level in the majority of the country’s 1970 ward, 68 districts and 210 constituencies, than it was between 2003 and 2008, when the three orders in question were issued.
There are other notable developments that exposed the US national emergency and guaranteed its failure over the last 21 years, and these include the 2009 ZanuPF/MDC Government of National Unity (GNU); and the new Constitution of Zimbabwe enacted by the two political parties in 2013. Once in the GNU, the MDC cabinet ministers called for the removal of the sanctions, and they pointed to the adoption of the new 2013 Constitution as the birth of a New Zimbabwe; which rendered the US national emergency and economic sanctions counterproductive and unnecessary.
Even the military coup in November 2017, coupled with the government of Zimbabwe’s diplomatic ‘re-engagement’ policy based on the mantra that ‘Zimbabwe is an enemy of none and a friend of all”; complicated matters for the continuation of the national emergency declared by the US in 2003.
Against this backdrop of the radically changed geopolitics in the international environment, the new dynamics within Sadc and the current national situation in Zimbabwe, it stands to reason that Biden had to revoke the 2003 US national emergency declaration that the situation in Zimbabwe constituted “an unusual and extraordinary threat to the foreign policy of the United States” on grounds that it “should no longer be in effect”, and it “is no longer needed”.
LINK: FOUR EXECUTIVE ORDERS, ONE PROCLAMATION & ONE ENABLING LAW [ZDERA] DEALING WITH US SANCTIONS ON ZIMBABWE FROM 2001 TO 2024
