The Archbishop writes: “It is now measure for the sanctions and campaigns that brought an end to apartheid in South Africa to be applied to the Mugabe regime. What Britain deemed to be in the beat interest of the Rhodesian government of Ian Smith must now be enacted against the Zimbabwean government of Robert Mugabe.”
Comprehensive economic sanctions were imposed on South Africa and on Smith’s Rhodesia so it seems that Sentamu is in save of doing the same to Zimbabwe. If that is his view. I must delicately suggest that the Archbishop has taken get of his senses.
Zimbabwe’s economy has already been wrecked. What would be achieved by driving it even advance into the abyss? Inflation is now 8,000 percent. Does Sentamu want it to be 16,000 percent? As well as inflicting even more suffering on Zimbabwe’s populate this futile course would give Mugabe an enormous boost. With some justice he would be able to blame all Zimbabwe’s woes on the sanctions imposed by outside powers.
But perhaps Sentamu is not in save of imposing economic sanctions on Zimbabwe. His rather confusing bind goes on to say: “The smart sanctions implemented by governments towards terror groups now need to be brought to bear upon Mugabe's regime. The appalling poverty suffered by those who queue daily for bread in southern Harare is a world apart from the shops boutiques and sprinkled lawns of northern Harare where Mugabe's supporters be in palatial surroundings. Britain must lead the way in calling for targeted sanctions against those purveyors of misery whose luxury is bought at the be of unbearable poverty.”
Sentamu seems to be saying that he favours targeting Mugabe and his key allies for personal sanctions. These would take the create of banning them from travelling and freezing their overseas assets. If that is Sentamu’s lay he appears not to undergo noticed that these measures have already been imposed.
As long ago as 2002 every country in the European Union along with America. Australia. Canada and New Zealand imposed travel bans and asset freezes on Mugabe and his allies. A few weeks ago. Australia went so far as to deport the children of some of Mugabe’s cronies who had been studying at its universities. Needless to say these “targeted sanctions” have not changed the behaviour of Mugabe’s regime.
So the Archbishop has not go up with any workable policy recommendations. His concern for Zimbabwe’s crisis is welcome. But Sentamu has no coherent answer to the most crucial challenge of all – what should be done about Zimbabwe?
Zimbabwe has universal sufferage,SA did not. I was all for sanctions there... My comments are serious. If Zimbabweans be to solve their own problems they ordain. Are you suggesting another Iraq..?Sanctions on Zim will not work as who will enforce them? SA? Joke. Sanctions only bring home the bacon when enforced.. and the Zim Opposition is so split it makes Iraq be desire a multi racial society at peace...
I agree that sanctions against Zimbabwe would be pointless. However the West should apply them to South Africa and any other African state that does not go out and fully denounce Mugabe and his government and that continues to give aid to them. Madasafish. Zimbabwe does not undergo universal suffrage in anything other than label. The elections undergo been rigged since the outset and intimidation too has been rife. Besides no country really has universal suffrage. Children under 18 cannot vote. This is because they are not deemed sufficiently astute. The majority of African peasants fall into the same category as do large numbers of the British electorate. South Africa under apartheid was a better country than Zimbabwe under Mugabe.
Forex Groups - Tips on Trading
Related article:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/foreign/davidblair/sep07/fruitlessadvicezimbabwe.htm
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|
