Zimababwe crisis

A quick note to all:
"The government's own policies have done more to destroy the economy than any sanctions could."
Now, the US is in agreement with the lifting of sanctions. AFTER a proper and democratic election.
Having the sanctions lifted before it would diminish pressure on the government to take action and risk having it not comply with the UN terms. Plus, with such a corrupt government, if sanctions were lifted before the elections, the income would not reach the people. This financial situation of Zimbabwe's exists because of governement corruption and mismanagement, not sanctions. Lifting sanctions will give the governement money, not the people. What the people need is democracy, and Mugabe won't just grant them that. Sanctions are one of the few forms of convincing him.

What seems rather ironical to the South African delegation is that the delegate seems to be against the power-sharing deal between Mugabe and Tsvangirai, when the Kenyan government is in fact based on a power-sharing agreement. And still, the delegate has the audacity to propose an impeachment when its country recently suffered from a similar electoral crisis.
Delegate,
Kenya is not Zimbabwe. there is no Robert Mugabe in Kenya. the Power-sharing deal in Kenya was successful, rather than in Zimbabwe. Is the delegate confident in the Zimbabwean power-sharing deal???? I hope not. why wait until next year to hold new elections? will south africa continue to support A CORRUPT LEADER, ROBERT MUGABE????? The problem must be solved right now!!!! Kenya wants to solve it right now. Did the Zimbabweans agree in the power-sharing deal?
Thank you

Delegates,
The government of Zimbabwe is lying when it blames the country’s economic collapse on sanctions. The economy is collapsing because of government corruption, mismanagement, and the undermining of the rule of law.
Sanctions towards Zimbabwean government officials must not be lifted before the new elections due to the fact that it is a form to pressure the government. this type of sanctions has no effect on the Zimbabwean population.

A United States-led attempt to impose United Nations (UN) sanctions against Zimbabwe failed when on Friday, 11 July, China and Russia, both permanent members of the UN Security Council, voted against a draft resolution that would have instituted a travel ban and asset freeze against President Robert Mugabe and thirteen senior government/security officials in connection with the election violence in Zimbabwe....Both China’s and Russia’s ambassadors to the UN, however, stated that there was no mandate to impose sanctions on Zimbabwe because the present situation had not exceeded the context of domestic affairs.
What has the delegate of China has to say about this????
This IS RIDICULOUS. is the China complying with Robert Mugabe? Is China supporting a corrupt government. Delegate of China, do not even state that this sanction will have an effect on the Zimbabwean population. Thousands of being killed. 5.1 million starving. Corrupt Leader. political oppression.

"The government's own policies have done more to destroy the economy than any sanctions could."
That's exactly the point.
The government is the one harming its people, and it tries to blame the sanctions that are there to pressure the government to comply with new elections. While humanitarian aid, through programs likle USAID, is being given to the people. The sanctions are directed to the government officials and institutions linked to the government, who profit with corruption and mismanagement. The humanitarian aid, however, is ensuring that the the sanctions wont harm the people, and aiding the population until the new government gets to power.
The people is not being harmed by the sanctions, the government is, than why lift them? It could only result in negative effects to the government, and not to the people. Than why lift them? The attrocities suffered by the population are not due to sanctions, but due to the government. Than why lift them?
Let's keep control of Zimbabwe until the new elections, and not act with indifference.

delegates, it is practically impossible that sanctions imposed in a country only harm the government! Indeed, sanctions were imposed to pressure the government, however even if the government seems to be corrupt, decreasing a national income by its half ( or more) will affect the economy of the nation, and therefore will affect the people.
Kenya, the answer to your question is in your own quote: Both China’s and Russia’s ambassadors to the UN, however, stated that there was no mandate to impose sanctions on Zimbabwe because the present situation had not exceeded the context of domestic affairs.
if the situation has not exceeded domestic affairs, there is no need for the UN to impose sanctions! why impose more sanctions? the government has not shown any change after they were implemented, the only change proven is the change in economy, to a depracating situation, which adheres to suffering of Zimbabweans!!!

the delegation of Kenya would like to know when will new elections will be held in Zimbabwe, according to the solution proposed by the South African Delegate
thank you

Delegate of China
The delegate has stated that the sanctions are directed to the government, and therefore do not have direct impact on the people.
However, it certainly will have some degree of effect over the population, and that's humanitarian assistance is important, to make sure that these indirect effects are not felt by the people, the assistance is there exactly to ensure the people are not harmed, and conequently, making the sanctions harmful ONLY to the government. Intitutions such as the USAID are working on guaranteeing that the harm is directed exclusively to the government. This way, the negative effects of the sanctions upon the population are prevented.

Therefore, if one evaluates the negative influences (which are "taken care of") and the positive influences of the sanctions, which account for the compliance of the government towards the new elections, therefore, serving as a preemptive measure to quell further influence of Mugabe's administration on the upcoming elections, by keeping the government under control, the nations should keep the sanctions, that are not harming the people, and preventing them from further suffering.
Thank you
delegate of the UNited States

Delegate of South AFrica,
the delegate of Kenya is aware of the tumultous elections held in Kenya. but, when the power sharing deal was signed both presidents said:
[quote]This process has reminded us that as a nation there are more issues that unite than that divide us...

"We've been reminded we must do all in our power to safeguard the peace that is the foundation of our national unity... Kenya has room for all of us."
"With the signing of this agreement, we have opened a new chapter in our country's history - from the era or phase of confrontation to the beginning of co-operation.

"We, on our side, are completely committed to ensuring that this agreement will succeed."
...
While in Zimbabwe, Mugabe and tsvangirai are fighting for key ministries appointments.

Salam Fellow Delegates,
The delegation of Afghanistan believes that sanctions are indeed not an effective measure. The role of sanctions in theory aims a restriction of options for political actors in a crisis or war situation. Embargoes for example aim at the isolation of an economy, therefore accelerating the downward movement. Many agree that the shortage will lead to a political change however the problem with that idea is that people in these kinds of situations develop a whole range of surrounding strategies that can work against or even overbalance the initially wished results. People change their strategies in order to adapt themselves to the new situation. However the development of these new survival strategies are most of the times not beneficial. إله يبارك أنت

Quote :

The role of sanctions in theory aims a restriction of options for political actors in a crisis or war situation

Delegate of Afghanistan, that's exactly what we want, restrict options for the government. The government is the one responsible for the crisis, not the sanctions. (AGAIN) the sanctions are directed to the government, to officials and institutions linked to the government. What is directed to the people is the humanitarian aid of organizations such as the USAID. By restriscting the power of the government, we prevent a possible none compliance with upcoming elections, such as what happened in June, 2008. That's why we should maintain the sanctions. Not to harm the people, but to harm the government.

Furthermore fellow delegate of the USA,
The delegation of Afghanistan is pleased to know that institutions such as the USAID are aiding the country of Zimbabwe to ensure that the negative effects of sanctions don’t reach the people. However fellow delegate, it is impossible to completely protect the people from the effects of sanctions. The people always suffer more than the actual government since the ones in power always have more economical balance. In addition to that, why adopting two measures (reaching the government and protecting the people) instead of proposing only one effective measure? It will save time and money which could be used to solve other crisis in the world. إله يبارك أنت

Delegate,
the more power the government has, the more harm it will cause on the people, and therefore, the efforts to protect the population will also have to increase. As stated previously by the other delegate of the United States, "the government has harmed the people more than any sanction could" (or something like this).

Afghanistan still stands firm in its position that sanctions is not helping the Zimbabwean people -- it's undeniable that the economic sanctions imposed by the West and by the European Union harm the population, inevitably.

There is no gain in using economic sanctions to meet political ends... It's a cycle (like the American delegate has previously stated). The government has control over the people: if you hurt Mugabi, you're consequently hurting the people he controls. So therefore, you can't state that what harms the country is the government once you have gained control over that government, in financial terms, because you're basically saying that you're hurting the people -- which would be quite a paradox.

Quote :

The government has control over the people: if you hurt Mugabi, you're consequently hurting the people he controls.

What influence does Mugabe have over the people?
murders, attacks, violence, starvation, ilegal arrest and detention, midplacement.
Weakening the government means weakening these factors. When we diminish Mugabe's influence in the region, that's what we are diminishing.

We have to keep in mind that Mugabe's administration has only harmed the people, and therefore taking part of Mugabe's control means taking part of upcoming deaths, upcoming starvation, upcoming ilegal arrests, upcoming violence.

Now certainly there is some degree of negative influence over the people, and the humanitarian aid is there to diminish these factors, while the sanctions are there to diminish the ones quoted above.

Thank you,
delegate of the United States

Fellow delegate of the USA,
please understand that measures in theory are very different from measures put into practice. Keep in mind the sanctions imposed in the country of Iraq which caused huge reduction in the import of medicines, lack of financial resources as well of lack of minimum health care facilities, pharmaceutical and others, which were of great quality in the previous years. “The effect of this situation on Iraq's infant and child population is especially severe. From 1991 to 1998, children under 5 died from malnutrition-related diseases in numbers ranging from a conservative 2,690 a month to a more realistic 5,357 per month. The U.N. Oil-for-Food Program has kept the numbers of deaths and cases of malnutrition from rising still higher, but it was never intended as a remedy for the situation.” (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/iraq/effects.shtml) Fellow delegate of the USA, please let's not repeat this with the nation of Zimbabwe إله يبارك أنت

Delegate,
these sanctions occured in 1990 during the Iraq Kuwait war.
The United States, nowadays under the Bush administration, has spent billions of dollars on reconstructing Iraq.

And in order for such a thing not to happen in Zimbabwe, the United States is careful in imposing sanctions directed to the government, as well as willing to assist the Zimbabwean population with aid, through programs like the (one thousand times mentioned!) USAID.

American delegate,
I don't think that you're really comprehending what Afghanistan is trying to expose here, so let's make this clear for once: economic sanctions towards Mugabi's government undeniably affect the Zimbabwean people.
Do you disagree with this?
This is a simple "yes or no" question: I hope you won't deviate your answer to a point that it's no longer a response to what I asked.

I am quite familiar with the American art, which is to answer the question you want to, not the one you’ve been asked.

Delegate,
I believe you are the one who is not comprehending my answer...
in this case, the answer is "YES" I disagree.
It actually is undeniable that economic sanctions towards Mugabi's government affect the Zimbabwean people, even though in a small scale and indirectly. HOWEVER , we are countering these effects with aids, in a way that the humanitarian assistance given to the Zimbabwean population does not allow the population to suffer effects from the sanctions. This is why the answer to your question is "YES". This answer, by the way, is implicit in the previous posts, but I hpe that now my point is made clear to the Afghan delegate.

Afghanistan will not list all its arguments here of how the economic sanctions have been affecting the Zimbabwean population, however, I will give the United States the following:

"The majority of NGOs receive funding from Western Governments. Accordingly, some have realigned their policies in consultation with their donors. As a result, some donors have either responded by withdrawing their programmes or frozen further development assistance programmes in the country. The NGO community in Zimbabwe is now faced with dwindling resources, as donor funds have either been severely curtailed or re-directed to other countries."

Now you tell me how that doesn't affect the people.

PLUS, I would also like to thank the American delegate for making a point for me: if the USAID is being used to countering the "small scale and indirect" affects of the economic sanctions, then why is the United States spending 600 million US$ in aid to Zimbabweans? If the effects are so little, then why on earth would you be giving so much money? Certainly not to help finance the government!

Sarcasm, fellow delegate of the USA????
If the delegate of Afghanistan understood correctly, the USA policy consists in first ruining the country and then trying to find effective measures to cover the damage done. Now the delegate of Afghanistan will also repeat herself for the thousandth time: Sanctions are not an effective measure! There is no way of imposing sanctions only on the government! Even with aid, the ones that will suffer the consequences will be the people! Let’s not argue over sanctions anymore fellow delegate, because it doesn’t seem productive to neither of us. Stick to the delegate’s argument! Afghanistan will stick to theirs. Salam, إله يبارك أنت

Quote :

"The majority of NGOs receive funding from Western Governments. Accordingly, some have realigned their policies in consultation with their donors. As a result, some donors have either responded by withdrawing their programmes or frozen further development assistance programmes in the country. The NGO community in Zimbabwe is now faced with dwindling resources, as donor funds have either been severely curtailed or re-directed to other countries."

Why are NGO's withdrawing there assistance from Zimbabwe? Because together with the innumerous violations against people's rights, the government does banned NGO activities, preventing desperatly needed aids from reaching the millions that need them. This just proves the governments attempt to harm the people, than why grant them with such influence since they are the ones committed to harming the population?

Quote :

why is the United States spending 600 million US$ in aid to Zimbabweans

These numbers just demonstrate the commitment of the US towards ameliorating the situation in Zimbabwe. If there were no needs to sanctions, certainly they would be lifted by the US, who is investing lot's of money on this crisis, however, the US is thinking on what is best to the people, aiding them with such large amounts of assistance, and keeping the sanctions on such harmful administration.
Furthermore, the United States is looking forward for the UN to intensify the aiding to the people of Zimbabwe, as well as supervising the sanctions, in an attempt to guarantee there direction towards the government, only.
After so much investment from foreign nations, and suffering of the people, what the US calls upon as that the UN approves the best measures to end this conflict as fast as possible.
delegate, through the numbers presented by you one can observe United States' will to do the best for the people. What the delegation meant by small scale is in comparison to sanctions that directly punish the people, like the ones quoted by your partner. The sanctions that deny access to medication, to food assistance, etc. Thios is what the government is doing nowadays. The government is "imposing sanctions" on its own people. And the US is willing to help the Zimbabwean population.

Delegate of Afghanistan Chiara,
if each nation sticks to their arguments, a multilateral solution wont ever be possible. What the delegate of the United States is trying to explain is that, the sanction's effects over the people is not as direct and as harmful as the one over the government. The aid is there to "annul" these effects. The United States is not willing to harm the country and then assist it. It has been trying to harm the government, but remnants of these measures to harm the government could affect the people, and that's why it is aiding th population. It harms the belligerent part of the country (the government) and aids the part that needs assistance (the people)
thank you
delegate of the United States