The Sunday News
If the Pentagon suddenly bombed North Korea, killing thousands of North Korean citizens that would clearly be considered an act of war.
Yet, when the US government intentionally targets North Korea with economic sanctions that kill thousands of North Koreans through starvation or illness, that’s considered to be simply a peaceful diplomatic measure. That’s odd because from a practical standpoint, people are dead either way — from bombs or sanctions. Since the violence associated with sanctions is indirect and difficult to see, people don’t put them in the same category as bombs. But the reality is that sanctions, by virtue of their targeting foreign citizens for death, are every bit an act of war as dropping bombs on them, argues Jacob G. Hornberger, in article titled Sanctions Are an Act of War (2017).
Another scholar explained, “Economic sanctions are commercial and financial penalties applied by one or more countries against a targeted self-governing state, group, or individual. Economic sanctions are not necessarily imposed because of economic circumstances — they may also be imposed for a variety of political, military, and social issues. Economic sanctions generally aim to change the behaviour of governments in the target country. However, the efficacy of sanctions is debatable and sanctions can have unintended consequences.”
Economic sanctions may include various forms of trade barriers, tariffs, and restrictions on financial transactions. However, analysts argue that imposing trade restrictions only serves to hurt ordinary people, with effects comparable to those of siege warfare. Retired British diplomat Jeremy Greenstock was quoted as saying the reason sanctions are used is not that they are known to be effective, but “that there is nothing else between words and military action if you want to bring pressure upon a government”. In short, they are an act of war because they kill economies, destroy infrastructure, disrupt social services and ultimately kill people. They are no different from a war situation.
Zimbabwe has lost business worth about US$42 billion since the illegal sanctions were imposed on the country at the turn of the new millennium, and their effects have had a bearing on the livehoods of ordinary people who have suffered job losses as large corporates collapsed as they failed to trade internationally, and the infrastructure and social services also suffered big time with lines of credit having been cut.
It was because of the negative effects of the illegal sanctions that Sadc threw its weight behind Zimbabwe and declared 25 October a Sadc Anti-Sanctions Day in the region, where activities to call for the removal of sanctions were held across member states. While the illegal sanctions may have been imposed on Zimbabwe, neighbouring countries are also feeling the heat, one way or the other.
President Mnangagwa, speaking in an interview with Russian News Agency, Sputnik, ahead of the Russia-Africa Summit praised Sadc member states for joining hands with Harare in the fight against the illegal sanctions. He said Africa’s vision was to be united as espoused by the continent’s founding fathers and speak with one voice.
“The issue is that Zimbabwe has been under sanctions for two decades. The Sadc Summit in August resolved that they (member states) will demonstrate against these illegal sanctions imposed on us by the West so that they can be removed. As Zimbabwe, we have always spoken against sanctions. As Sadc we have been speaking against sanctions and also as African Union (AU). But at this particular event, the region has taken the matter to another level, where as a region on one day — on the 25th of October — Sadc will demonstrate against these sanctions. Whether something will come out of it or not, our voice as Sadc will be heard. I am told that because of sanctions, Zimbabwe has lost billions and billions of dollars both in terms of investments and loss of lines of credit from international global capital.”
