PARADOXES IN THE 'SANCTIONS DISCOURSE' IN ZIMBABWE: A CRITICAL REFLECTION

Abstract

Partners in Zimbabwe's Global Political Agreement (GPA), a legal instrument regarding the formation of a government of national unity (GNU) between Zimbabwe's political contestants, MDC-T, ZANU (PF), and MDC-M, after the internationally condemned June 27, 2008 presidential run-off elections between the MDC-T and ZANU (PF) presidential candidates, have openly disagreed on their perception of the targeted sanctions that were imposed on some members, institutions, and business organizations owned by or associated with the pre-GNU government by the USA and EU in 2001 and 2002, respectively, as a direct response to the incumbent government's alleged slide into, among other things, authoritarian rule, lawlessness, misgovernance, and violations of human and people's rights. ZANU (PF) has always blamed MDC for calling on Western governments and the USA to impose sanctions on the pre-GNU government to weaken it and effect regime change. This paper seeks to examine the seemingly paradoxical sanctions discourse within Zimbabwe's political establishment where targeted sanctions are seen both as an impediment not only to economic growth but also to political stability and, at the same time, as a convenient tool to garner political mileage by both ZANU (PF) and MDC formations.