Nelson Chamisa and Eddie Cross certainly think sanctions are nothing but a tool to inflict pain on their political rivals in Zanu-PF. They have this crabbed and peevish attitude that is absolutely blind to the human suffering brought about by the MDC-T-mobilised and Western-imposed decade long sanctions that have silently slaughtered thousands of our people.

Chamisa makes sad reading of a young, promising, handsome and intelligent politician going mad.

Eddie Cross has nothing to lose in terms of credibility because he is nothing more than a racially motivated sadist that hankers for the imploding of Zimbabwe so he can satisfy his warped Rhodesian view that says without white leadership no economy can ever grow.

It is Chamisa’s background as a young man born and bred in a rural setting among what we would normally call “our people” that makes one wonder if politics is a career with no regards for manners, principles, morality or respect for people around.

Chamisa has done everything any unmannered person can be accused of doing, from deriding war veterans, calling elderly statesman like President Mugabe unprintable names, celebrating economic sanctions, and lying that sanctions do not exist when it suites his goals of the moment.

This has been viewed as radicalism and political vibrancy by some of the young man’s cheerleaders, but surely there must be a difference between irascibility and political acumen.

No sane person has hope in Eddie Cross, but Nelson Chamisa comes from a background of a generational hope with a lot of young people looking up to him as a model and a pillar of inspiration.

This writer has no doubt in the political potential of Nelson and is very clear on the natural talent and eloquence of the young man, even basing the assertion on long periods of personal interaction with the young politician.

It is the realisation of this potential that makes it necessary to use tough love language against the recklessness like what we heard through Chamisa’s interview on sanctions; with the pirate radio station Studio Seven.

When Gorden Moyo says there are no sanctions on Zimbabwe not many serious people take note of that.

This is simply because there is no logical reason for anyone to take Moyo that seriously since he clearly does not take himself seriously at all.

This is a man who is still trying to find the difference between himself and the PM’s spokesperson, James Maridadi, and will always talk to attention givers rather than to the people. He is the show me the mike and the gallery kind of person.

Gorden Moyo recently shot down his own scandalous claims that there are no sanctions on Zimbabwe – a claim seemingly shared mutually in the PM’s office if one considers Maridadi’s similar position that he is not “aware of any sanctions” on Zimbabwe.

Moyo just decided to inform the world that there are 40 Zimbabwean companies that are officially listed under the Western sanctions regime, and he even pointed out that it would be difficult to resuscitate the economy if the sanctions are not lifted.

Moyo hardly did any damage to his reputation by his ludicrous somersault, and that is simply because he never had any reputation to damage anyway.

This is different from Nelson Chamisa. Very different actually.

Here is a young man who managed to rise among men and women double his age as a college dropout and came into top leadership of Zimbabwe’s largest opposition political party even without a single tertiary qualification then.

He even proved his sense of direction by completing a few tertiary courses including a post graduate qualification.

It is sad when such a man recklessly celebrates sanctions as a mere political tool against his political rivals, and when he turns a ruthlessly blind eye to the actual victims of the ruinous sanctions — the people.

Anyone who celebrates the suffering and death of his own people commits an irremissible sin. This is why politicking over the issue sanctions is despicable and unpardonable.

It is unacceptable but fully understandable when the US-led Western alliance makes sanctions a priority higher than human life.

They have always been like that, and history is full of examples of the superiority of the priority of Western interests.

In the eighties, US intervention in Central America was quite unpopular, but the potential cost was always regarded as minimal by Washington, even from Nicaragua, where a few elitist voices raised concerns over the ruthless atrocities masterminded by the CIA-backed Contras.

The far more savage attack against the population of El-Salvador was ruthless at its kindest, but it imposed no threat or serious costs for the supervisors of international terrorism in Washington.

The benefit was establishing Duarte’s client regime and a solid client state in El Salvador.

Between 1981 and 1983 it briefly appeared like the US-sponsored state terrorism in El-Salvador was failing to succeed and the result was that there was a bit of honest reporting about what was happening there – even in Western mainstream media.

By 1987 the leftist guerrillas were showing signs of weariness, and it became clear that state terrorism was slowly achieving the goals set by Washington — goals very similar to what we hear President Obama articulating about Zimbabwe — goals to do with US “commitment to democracy and human rights”.

Elitist concerns were stilled, and reporting virtually ceased.

By 1988, El Salvador barely existed in the consciousness of the media and the US Congress, except as a demonstration of the US commitment to democracy and human rights.

The sanctions on Zimbabwe were well publicised and even criticised in some Western quarters between 2001 and 2003.

There were no attempts to hide the sanctions and those opposed to the well know effect of sanctions raised concerns.

They predicted that ordinary people would suffer and die and they raised concerns over this. Cynthia McKinney, a US Senator, was one of these people.

But as the economy collapsed and it became clear that the sanctions were achieving the desired goals set in Washington and London, the concerns were stilled, and reporting on the sanctions ceased, or was limited to the tired lie that the sanctions are “mere travel bans”.

Now when the sanctions are mentioned, they are only mentioned in this iridescent context that says the sanctions are an expression of the West’s commitment to democracy and human rights.

Every measure of success by Zimbabwe’s inclusive Government will have a contrived meaning attached to it; that it is a success achieved in the pursuit of the West’s noble ends.

This is why all manner of artificial figures are thrown around as a measure of Western intervention each time a positive economic development is reported.

It must be Western NGOs, the EU aid or some such claim that reduces HIV prevalence or stabilises the economy. It cannot be anything else.

We have heard so much noise about the so-called “blood diamonds” from Chiadzwa, and the Kimberly Process has virtually become everyone’s business, with clowns and lunatics offering hostile advice on how the organisation should carry out its work on matters involving Zimbabwe.

Equally, we have heard of this invidious campaign against what has been called “blood milk” from Gushungo Dairy Estates.

As with Kimberly, everyone with a lunatic mind has anointed themselves the cyber role of imposing hostile advice on Nestle, dictating how they should be making decisions on Zimbabwe.

Both Nestle and Kimberly have taken independent positions on Zimbabwe, and those addicted to the blood of our people have come after that independent opinion with ruthless determination to have sanctions continue the demolition act that started in 2001.

They want more blood until they see the back of President Mugabe, and this is why Chamisa likened the sanctions to a goblin, the African equivalent of a vampire.

The aim of the sanctions is to decapitate and demolish Zimbabwean industries and we are told this is some model for supporting the push toward democracy and human rights.

This is the misplaced gospel that Nelson Chamisa wants to preach on radios and in newspapers.

The New Republic did inform the US public that Jose Napoleon Duarte’s government would continue with the assault on Salvadorian non-combatant civilians “regardless of how many are murdered” since “there are higher American priorities than Salvadorian human rights”.

Ronald Reagan welcomed this advice as sound and incisive.

This is the attitude we have seen from those who support the sanctions regime on Zimbabwe.

Eddie Cross wants the sanctions continued and he reveres the assault regardless of how many are killed.

To him there are higher priorities than Zimbabwean lives.

This is why he hankers for the day the country will “burn and crash”.

That is Eddie Cross and he is very understandable.

We all know where he is coming from, and no sane Zimbabwean takes Cross seriously for the simple reason that it is demeaning to do so.

But surely Cross does not deserve Nelson Chamisa’s support, explicit or implicit. That is a sad development for Zimbabwe’s politics — sad because those who admire Nelson Chamisa get confused and begin to think that they may need to revise their well-informed opinion on hopeless people like Eddie Cross.

There is no merit whatsoever in celebrating or attempting to justify the sanctions regime on Zimbabwe.

Whoever has done that in the past or continues to do so is either completely stupid or naive, or plainly heartless.

It is time we stood as a nation and start not only to advocate for the lifting of sanctions but also to actively defend our economic interests but supporting our local businesses with dedicated patriotism.

If we defended our diamond industry as a nation then no assault will ever succeed. It is as simple as that.

Reason Wafawarova is a political writer and can be contacted on wafawarova@yahoo.co.uk or reason@ rwafawarova.com or visit www.rwafawarova.com

©  EsinIslam.Com