Sanctions: Who is fooling who?
The latest European Union (EU) renewal of sanctions of individuals and companies in the country has sent tongues wagging in business and political circles.
The EU on Tuesday announced a revised list of individuals and firms it believes were hindering the full democratisation and economic recovery of Zimbabwe by their conduct.
The country’s politicians have tried to convince Zimbabweans and outsiders that the sanctions imposed on individuals and companies are directly linked to the collapse of the country’s economy and the general drop in the quality of life.
In 2002, the EU imposed targeted sanctions on President Robert Mugabe, members of his Zanu PF party, armed forces, the police, judges, individuals and companies with links to the party and its officials.
The sanctions were a direct response to the deterioration in human rights and political climate in the country.
While other companies continue to use sanctions as a scapegoat for their demise others seem to have been innovative, punching above their weight.
The question one asks is how companies like Delta Beverages have managed to perform beyond market expectations in a country under sanctions.
Delta recently installed machinery at its Bulawayo factory. The machinery was imported from Germany, a member of the 25 EU bloc.
The group’s turnover grew to $324 million last year from $104 million. This year Delta is targeting $480 million income on the back of increased consumption in lager beer.
Could there be something that Delta is doing differently that others are not?
In Delta’s league are companies such as Econet Wireless.
Curiously, a cursory look at the sanctions list showed most of the companies on it are owned by businessmen John Arnold Bredenkamp and Billy Rautenbach.
Other companies affected include those wholly-owned by Zanu PF and individuals including government ministers Saviour Kasukuwere, Didymus Mutasa, Webster Shamu and indigenisation board chairperson David Chapfika.
In his monetary policy statement last month, RBZ governor Gideon Gono said the country’s full recovery and return to the path of lasting prosperity continued to be heavily constrained by the debilitating effects of the sanctions being imposed on the country.
“The Reserve Bank continues to urge those responsible for the imposition of the sanctions to please free us from this unjust handicap which is negatively affecting not just the alleged targeted few, but the majority of vulnerable Zimbabweans,” Gono said.
EU ambassador to Zimbabwe Aldo Dell’Ariccia last November described sanctions as “restrictions on Zanu-PF officials, their entities and those individuals and entities associated with them”.
“The sanctions are not designed to hurt the ordinary people of Zimbabwe, but those targeted and those who are close to political power,” Dell’Ariccia said.
“To demonstrate this fact the EU remains Zimbabwe’s second-biggest trading partner after South Africa.”
To buttress his point, he said the EU is funding an $18 million project to support the recovery of the country’s sugar sector among other projects.
The EU also remains actively involved in several humanitarian projects in the country.
Confederation of Zimbabwe Industries president Joseph Kanyekanye has on numerous occasions described sanctions as inappropriate and could not advance democracy, as claimed by the imposing countries.
Kanyekanye called on the government to re-engage the EU and seek funding outside Zimbabwe urgently to revive the economy.
The million dollar question is, who is fooling who?
Is it the EU or local companies?
The country’s politicians have tried to convince Zimbabweans and outsiders that the sanctions imposed on individuals and companies are directly linked to the collapse of the country’s economy and the general drop in the quality of life.
In 2002, the EU imposed targeted sanctions on President Robert Mugabe, members of his Zanu PF party, armed forces, the police, judges, individuals and companies with links to the party and its officials.
The sanctions were a direct response to the deterioration in human rights and political climate in the country.
While other companies continue to use sanctions as a scapegoat for their demise others seem to have been innovative, punching above their weight.
The question one asks is how companies like Delta Beverages have managed to perform beyond market expectations in a country under sanctions.
Delta recently installed machinery at its Bulawayo factory. The machinery was imported from Germany, a member of the 25 EU bloc.
The group’s turnover grew to $324 million last year from $104 million. This year Delta is targeting $480 million income on the back of increased consumption in lager beer.
Could there be something that Delta is doing differently that others are not?
In Delta’s league are companies such as Econet Wireless.
Curiously, a cursory look at the sanctions list showed most of the companies on it are owned by businessmen John Arnold Bredenkamp and Billy Rautenbach.
Other companies affected include those wholly-owned by Zanu PF and individuals including government ministers Saviour Kasukuwere, Didymus Mutasa, Webster Shamu and indigenisation board chairperson David Chapfika.
In his monetary policy statement last month, RBZ governor Gideon Gono said the country’s full recovery and return to the path of lasting prosperity continued to be heavily constrained by the debilitating effects of the sanctions being imposed on the country.
“The Reserve Bank continues to urge those responsible for the imposition of the sanctions to please free us from this unjust handicap which is negatively affecting not just the alleged targeted few, but the majority of vulnerable Zimbabweans,” Gono said.
EU ambassador to Zimbabwe Aldo Dell’Ariccia last November described sanctions as “restrictions on Zanu-PF officials, their entities and those individuals and entities associated with them”.
“The sanctions are not designed to hurt the ordinary people of Zimbabwe, but those targeted and those who are close to political power,” Dell’Ariccia said.
“To demonstrate this fact the EU remains Zimbabwe’s second-biggest trading partner after South Africa.”
To buttress his point, he said the EU is funding an $18 million project to support the recovery of the country’s sugar sector among other projects.
The EU also remains actively involved in several humanitarian projects in the country.
Confederation of Zimbabwe Industries president Joseph Kanyekanye has on numerous occasions described sanctions as inappropriate and could not advance democracy, as claimed by the imposing countries.
Kanyekanye called on the government to re-engage the EU and seek funding outside Zimbabwe urgently to revive the economy.
The million dollar question is, who is fooling who?
Is it the EU or local companies?
