News / International
US tightened sanctions on Zimbabwe, blocks medicines destined for Harare
20 Jul 2014 at 07:26hrs | Views
The United States has tightened sanctions on Zimbabwe after endorsing "final rule" stringent measures that will see the Office of Foreign Assets Control intercepting funds and goods such as medicines destined for Harare.
International donations in the form of humanitarian aid, food, clothing, goods or money will not be spared under measures introduced on July 10.
Washington will also impose sanctions on any companies and financial institutions that do not follow orders to freeze money destined for Zimbabwe via international transactions.
It is understood the US is specifically targeting proceeds from the sale of diamonds from Chiadzwa, which are in strong demand worldwide.
In what could be construed as doublespeak, the "remodelling" of the sanctions comes a few weeks after US Ambassador to Zimbabwe Bruce Wharton said it was necessary to review the embargo since conditions under which it was imposed had changed.
Optimists had taken this to mean a relaxation of the widely-discredited embargo, especially in light of the European Union's indication that all its sanctions on Zimbabwe could be removed by the end of this year.
Former US secretary of state Hillary Clinton said during a visit to South Africa in 2012 that Washington would review the sanctions and "reward Zimbabwe action for action", citing a credible Constitutional referendum, a new Constitution as well as free and fair elections as benchmarks.
"I think the question now is whether they still make sense. I also think that it's very important for the United States to continue to review and revise those sanctions," said Mr Wharton during US Independence Day celebrations on July 4.
"Things that were appropriate in 2003 or 2008 may no longer be appropriate."
Zimbabwe last year conducted peaceful elections that were endorsed by Sadc, the African Union and other progressive members of the international community, following overwhelming adoption of a new Constitution.
Analysts said the timing of the sanctions was tailored to coincide with the US-Africa Summit next month, to cow African leaders who might harbour intentions of defying Washington in any way. America used similar tactics in Iraq in the 1990s when they blocked medical supplies, weaponry and chlorine for water purification, in a calculated attack on the country's social and economic structures.
The sanctions are estimated to have killed 500 000 Iraqis, mainly infants and toddlers over a decade, culminating in an invasion of that country in 2003 on the false pretext of searching for weapons of mass destruction.
Zimbabwe is also under a Western arms embargo that analysts say is designed to weaken defences, which is combined with an onslaught on the country's social and economic infrastructure.
Ofac Federal Register Number 79 (Volume 132) reads: "The department of the treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (Ofac) is adopting as final, with changes, the Zimbabwe Sanctions Regulations that previously were published in an interim final rule.
"These changes primarily amend the Zimbabwe Sanctions Regulations to implement Executive Order 13391 of November 22, 2005, ‘Blocking Property of Additional Persons Undermining Democracy'.
"In new section 1(b) of amended EO 13288, the president determined that the making of donations of certain articles, such as food, clothing, and medicine, intended to be used to relieve human suffering, as specified in section 203(b)(2) of IEEPA (50 USC 1702(b)(2)), by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to amended EO 13288, would seriously impair his ability to deal with the national emergency declared in EO 13288. The president, therefore, prohibited the donation of such items unless authorised by Ofac.
"New section 1(c) of amended EO 13288 replaces old section 2(a) and provides that the prohibition on any transaction or dealing in blocked property or interests in property includes, but is not limited to, the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to amended EO 13288, and the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person."
A senior Government official, who preferred anonymity, said the US was enforcing Ofac regulations on transactions that do not benefit its government or citizens in any way and only served to make Zimbabweans suffer.
"The new regulations are going to make it more difficult for banks, especially those with American origins, to transact with Zimbabwe. It is all political and a clear reality that sanctions are there," said the official.
"Routinely, we sell other minerals with no problems because American companies benefit. But in the case of diamonds they (the Americans) do not benefit. Most banks are threatened by the state department that they will be slapped with new sanctions if they do any transactions with Zimbabwe."
A US-based lawyer with Ofac expertise, Attorney Erich Ferrari, said the regulations were reinforced to continue the sanctions.
"This move was not too significant. The regulations were reissued merely to bring the law into conformity with Ofac's current policies regarding the Zimbabwe sanctions. They have done this over the past month for a number of programmes. Zimbabwe was just one of those.
"It doesn't indicate any change in Ofac's policy to review sanctions cases, and removal of parties from the sanctions list, under the Zimbabwe programme. Ofac will continue to review matters on a case-by-case basis to determine what action should be taken.
"I always think it is advisable to challenge US sanctions if the party believes the designation was imposed in error, or if the circumstances which called for the original designation no longer exist. By challenging the designations you at least get some movement towards a resolution and parties are often removed when they demonstrate a change in circumstances."
International donations in the form of humanitarian aid, food, clothing, goods or money will not be spared under measures introduced on July 10.
Washington will also impose sanctions on any companies and financial institutions that do not follow orders to freeze money destined for Zimbabwe via international transactions.
It is understood the US is specifically targeting proceeds from the sale of diamonds from Chiadzwa, which are in strong demand worldwide.
In what could be construed as doublespeak, the "remodelling" of the sanctions comes a few weeks after US Ambassador to Zimbabwe Bruce Wharton said it was necessary to review the embargo since conditions under which it was imposed had changed.
Optimists had taken this to mean a relaxation of the widely-discredited embargo, especially in light of the European Union's indication that all its sanctions on Zimbabwe could be removed by the end of this year.
Former US secretary of state Hillary Clinton said during a visit to South Africa in 2012 that Washington would review the sanctions and "reward Zimbabwe action for action", citing a credible Constitutional referendum, a new Constitution as well as free and fair elections as benchmarks.
"I think the question now is whether they still make sense. I also think that it's very important for the United States to continue to review and revise those sanctions," said Mr Wharton during US Independence Day celebrations on July 4.
"Things that were appropriate in 2003 or 2008 may no longer be appropriate."
Zimbabwe last year conducted peaceful elections that were endorsed by Sadc, the African Union and other progressive members of the international community, following overwhelming adoption of a new Constitution.
Analysts said the timing of the sanctions was tailored to coincide with the US-Africa Summit next month, to cow African leaders who might harbour intentions of defying Washington in any way. America used similar tactics in Iraq in the 1990s when they blocked medical supplies, weaponry and chlorine for water purification, in a calculated attack on the country's social and economic structures.
The sanctions are estimated to have killed 500 000 Iraqis, mainly infants and toddlers over a decade, culminating in an invasion of that country in 2003 on the false pretext of searching for weapons of mass destruction.
Ofac Federal Register Number 79 (Volume 132) reads: "The department of the treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (Ofac) is adopting as final, with changes, the Zimbabwe Sanctions Regulations that previously were published in an interim final rule.
"These changes primarily amend the Zimbabwe Sanctions Regulations to implement Executive Order 13391 of November 22, 2005, ‘Blocking Property of Additional Persons Undermining Democracy'.
"In new section 1(b) of amended EO 13288, the president determined that the making of donations of certain articles, such as food, clothing, and medicine, intended to be used to relieve human suffering, as specified in section 203(b)(2) of IEEPA (50 USC 1702(b)(2)), by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to amended EO 13288, would seriously impair his ability to deal with the national emergency declared in EO 13288. The president, therefore, prohibited the donation of such items unless authorised by Ofac.
"New section 1(c) of amended EO 13288 replaces old section 2(a) and provides that the prohibition on any transaction or dealing in blocked property or interests in property includes, but is not limited to, the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to amended EO 13288, and the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person."
A senior Government official, who preferred anonymity, said the US was enforcing Ofac regulations on transactions that do not benefit its government or citizens in any way and only served to make Zimbabweans suffer.
"The new regulations are going to make it more difficult for banks, especially those with American origins, to transact with Zimbabwe. It is all political and a clear reality that sanctions are there," said the official.
"Routinely, we sell other minerals with no problems because American companies benefit. But in the case of diamonds they (the Americans) do not benefit. Most banks are threatened by the state department that they will be slapped with new sanctions if they do any transactions with Zimbabwe."
A US-based lawyer with Ofac expertise, Attorney Erich Ferrari, said the regulations were reinforced to continue the sanctions.
"This move was not too significant. The regulations were reissued merely to bring the law into conformity with Ofac's current policies regarding the Zimbabwe sanctions. They have done this over the past month for a number of programmes. Zimbabwe was just one of those.
"It doesn't indicate any change in Ofac's policy to review sanctions cases, and removal of parties from the sanctions list, under the Zimbabwe programme. Ofac will continue to review matters on a case-by-case basis to determine what action should be taken.
"I always think it is advisable to challenge US sanctions if the party believes the designation was imposed in error, or if the circumstances which called for the original designation no longer exist. By challenging the designations you at least get some movement towards a resolution and parties are often removed when they demonstrate a change in circumstances."
Source - Sunday Mail
