Archive for the ‘Zimbabwe Sanctions’ Category


Jul

24

Mugabe’s Scottish Castle in the Sky


Posted by at 6:16 pm on July 24, 2014
Category: Economic SanctionsOFACSanctionsZimbabwe Sanctions

By User:Bigwikiaal (Own work) [CC-BY-SA-3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3AEilan_Donan_Castle%2C_Scotland_2013-09-12_12-29.jpg

The Herald, a Mugabe mouthpiece owned by the Zimbabwean government, recently criticized former British Prime Minister Tony Blair in two articles for reported comments the UK made to justify the imposition of sanctions against Zimbabwe.  Referring to “illegal sanctions,” The Herald cited an article in the “Journal of African Studies” that quoted former South African president Thabo Mbeki as saying that UK officials told him, presumably sometime in the early 2000s, that Zimbabwean president Robert Mugabe owned a Scottish castle and had UK bank accounts that the UK intended to freeze, only to allegedly tell Mbeki later that the UK could not locate the Scottish castle or the accounts but still intended to impose sanctions in any event. (Perhaps the UK momentarily confused Mugabe with Idi Amin who once offered to be the King of Scotland.)

The article in question appeared in the June 2014 edition of the Journal of Southern African Studies and was by Blessing-Miles Tendi a frequent writer on UK-Zimbabwe relations and lecturer at Oxford.  Professor Tendi did in fact cite to a discussion he had with Mbeki in 2011, during which Mbeki said that “Britain” and “Tony’s people” made such statements about Mugabe’s assets and that the British later admitted to finding no castle in Scotland or Mugabe accounts in the UK.  Tendi went on to describe a UK decision to freeze Mugabe’s assets as “devoid of rationality” inasmuch as the UK knew these assets did not exist.  (Interestingly, Tendi also asserts that Mbeki claims that British plans to invade Zimbabwe were thwarted by Mbeki’s decision not to let Britain use South Africa as a staging point for the invasion.)

Tendi and The Herald are misinformed about the UK sanctions.  In addition to freezing any current or future Mugabe’s assets in the UK, the sanctions also prohibit anyone from making any economic resources available to Mugabe or his co-sanctioned cronies.  If the UK believed that Zimbabwe was engaged in human rights abuses and suppression of democracy, as most countries and international organizations still believe, it would not be “devoid of rationality” to conclude that prohibiting financial assistance and freezing future assets are warranted to end such abuses and suppression.

Although Tendi and The Herald are misinformed as to the scope of UK economic sanctions law, the more important take-away from this curious vignette is the allegation that a country like the UK may have hastily taken to other countries its case for sanctions, even in small part, based on its own misinformation.  Imposing economic sanctions on identified targets are swift government decisions with immediate effects that are many times based on information that the target itself can’t readily confirm or deny.  The only administrative due process afforded to a foreign sanctions target in the United States is an “administrative reconsideration” of OFAC’s decision by … OFAC.  As we noted earlier this year, OFAC reconsiderations are no easy task and some petitioners are taking claims to U.S. courts to obtain removal from the SDN list.  Although Mugabe does not have a strong case for reconsideration and not likely to make one, other sanctions targets may, and should at least try, if the circumstances warrant.

 

Permalink Comments Off

Bookmark and Share



Apr

8

The Best Question on Burma Sanctions Is Still Unanswered


Posted by at 6:28 pm on April 8, 2014
Category: Burma SanctionsCompliance Programs and ProceduresEconomic SanctionsGeneralOFACSDN ListZimbabwe Sanctions

By Bild von Stefan Grünig, CH-3752 Wimmis (de:Benutzer:Sgruenig)Sgruenig at de.wikipedia [GFDL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html) or CC-BY-SA-3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/)], from Wikimedia Commons http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3ABurma06.jpg

OFAC announced last week that it issued additional Frequently Asked Questions and respective answers relating to what remain of U.S. sanctions against Burma.  None of the additional questions or answers is surprising or resolves an issue that is not otherwise answered by other OFAC guidance or applicable general licenses.

The questions and answers are, for the most part, a helpful recitation of the current landscape of sanctions involving Burma that summarize in one place the state of sanctions based on an assortment of scattered statutes, executive orders, regulations and licenses.  But one question stands out along with its non-responsive answer, in part, as follows:

What are the plans to update the SDN List for Burma?

Listings and any potential delistings under our Burma authorities will be pursued as appropriate to meet changing conditions in Burma.

The question itself has a colloquial quality to it as if the frequently asked question really put to OFAC has been along the lines of “What’s going on here?”

As other questions and answers describe, a number of banks remain on the SDN List but General License 19 authorizes U.S. persons to conduct most transactions with the banks.  In a similar situation about a year ago dealing with Zimbabwean banks, we posted about OFAC’s decision to keep those banks on the SDN List but, through a general license, to authorize almost all transactions with them.  At that time, I termed both the Burmese and Zimbabwean banks as SDN-lite designations and warned of the potential compliance difficulties such situations presented.

Keeping an entity on the SDN List would have the effect of blacklisting it from possible business with U.S. persons who rely solely on software to screen names on the SDN List to decide with whom to do business.  The results, of course, would create false positives because most transactions with these Burmese and Zimbabwean entities are permissible under U.S. law.  In fact, running these banks through OFAC’s SDN Search tool produces hits with no mention of any general license permitting dealings with them.

Delisting would, of course, be one option to correct the problem, but that would unblock any currently blocked assets, something OFAC might not wish to do.  Failing that, OFAC should at least put some annotation on the SDN List to denote that these very few entities are to be treated very differently than the thousands of others on the SDN List with whom U.S. persons may have no dealings.  At the moment, the question is back to OFAC, “What are the plans to update the SDN List?”

Permalink Comments Off

Bookmark and Share



Aug

27

Mugabe Lobbyists in U.S. Indicted


Posted by at 8:44 pm on August 27, 2013
Category: OFACZimbabwe Sanctions

U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Jesse B. Awalt/Released (DefenseImagery.mil, VIRIN 090202-N-0506A-310) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3ARobert_Mugabe%2C_12th_AU_Summit%2C_090202-N-0506A-310.jpg
ABOVE: Robert Mugabe

One way to make sure someone is sentenced to life on the SDN list is to make it illegal for anyone to argue for removal of an SDN from the list. Of course, that would be blatantly unfair, you say, in a nation dedicated to due process and the rule of law. We would never do that. Well, think again.

Earlier this month, a federal district court in Illinois unsealed a criminal complaint filed against Prince Asiel Ben Israel and C. Gregory Turner. The two defendants are charged with violating U.S. sanctions by providing “lobbying services” to Mugabe and other Zimbabweans on the SDN list without a license from OFAC. The 55-page affidavit attached to the complaint describes a number of innocuous actions by the defendants who had been engaged to lobby of the removal of Mugabe and friends from the SDN list. These actions included speaking to U.S. legislators about the Zimbabwe-based sanctions and attempting to obtain a speaking engagement for a Zimbabwean official in the United States. Helping to arrange visas for Zimbabweans to travel to the United States was also singled out as one of the illegal activities by the defendants.

What is odd is that buried within the criminal complaint are activities that go far beyond lobbying and seem clearly to have stepped over the line, including efforts to set up a diamond mining joint venture with SDNs in the Zimbabwean government. It’s hard to understand why the prosecution would focus on and call out what most people would see as First Amendment activities when the government has a much more supportable, and much less controversial, case involving a proposed business venture with the officials in Zimbabwe.

The affidavit mentions that the defendants sought to obtain compensation for their services. However, there is no requirement under the sanctions regulations that services must be compensated to be illegal. Free services are still services and potentially covered by the sanctions.

To make sure that I don’t get indicted for writing this post, let me be clear: I think Mugabe is a terrible person who truly deserves his spot on the SDN list. Forever. And I think the same thing about his cronies on the list as well. Seriously. I’m not just saying this to stay out of trouble with the Feds. Still, if I thought otherwise, I should be able to say that without worrying about getting indicted.

Permalink Comments Off

Bookmark and Share



Apr

30

The Bad News Is You’re Still on the SDN List


Posted by at 6:37 pm on April 30, 2013
Category: Burma SanctionsEconomic SanctionsOFACSanctionsSDN ListZimbabwe Sanctions

U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Jesse B. Awalt/Released (DefenseImagery.mil, VIRIN 090202-N-0506A-310) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3ARobert_Mugabe%2C_12th_AU_Summit%2C_090202-N-0506A-310.jpg
ABOVE: Robert Mugabe

OFAC last week issued its first general license for U.S. sanctions relating to Zimbabwe. The license authorizes for the most part “all transactions involving Agricultural Development Bank of Zimbabwe and Infrastructure Development Bank of Zimbabwe.” Both banks, however, are on OFAC’s SDN List.

Since the two banks have been and remain on the SDN List, the license does not unblock the banks’ property interests that had been blocked as of the date of the license. OFAC issued a similar general license in February of this year authorizing dealings with four banks in Burma but kept the banks on the SDN List and continue to block the banks’ property interests blocked prior to the license. A major development from these licenses is, of course, giving U.S. exporters local banking options that were previously unavailable and without them likely stymied business development in those countries.

Exporters should also take note, however, of how OFAC’s easing of sanctions through these licenses has an onerous side-effect on U.S. companies. If a company’s policy is to determine whether to deal with entities or individuals based on their presence on the SDN List or other relevant sanctioned party lists, the authorization granted to deal with listed banks through these general licenses would go unnoticed. Exporters now must check all the lists they routinely do as well as stay on top of licenses issued by OFAC to know whether someone has, from most exporters’ perspectives, been in effect delisted.

If these SDN-lite designations continue, exporters will either need to monitor closely OFAC’s daily activity or make sure their screening software is doing so for them, at least if they want to be sure they are not unnecessarily limiting their export opportunities.

Permalink Comments Off

Bookmark and Share



Nov

15

Diamonds Are An Ogre’s Best Friend


Posted by at 2:13 pm on November 15, 2012
Category: OFACZimbabwe Sanctions

Robert Mugabe
ABOVE: Robert Mugabe

A report in the Zimbabwe Herald, the state-owned mouthpiece for the Mugabe dictatorship, provides an entertaining, if somewhat fictive, account of the recently concluded Zimbabwe Diamond Conference in Victoria Falls. The purpose of the conference was to provide some support for the diamond industry in Zimbabwe which, although free of Kimberly Process Certification issues, is severely crippled by economic sanctions imposed by the U.S. Office of Foreign Assets Control against the Mugabe regime.

The pro-Mugabe news outlet had this to say:

KIMBERLEY Process Certification Scheme chairperson Mrs Gillian Milovanovic yesterday came under fire from delegates attending the inaugural Zimbabwe Diamond Conference here for failing to protect Zimbabwe’s diamond industry from America. Delegates expressed concern that Zimbabwe’s diamond sector continues to face obstacles despite the country receiving the KP’s nod to trade its gems.

They unanimously agreed that the American approach towards Zimbabwe’s gems sought to promote conflict diamonds.

During an open session, delegates said Mrs Milovanovic, who is American, should recuse herself from chairing the KP because she was failing to protect Zimbabwe from America’s Office of Foreign Assets Control sanctions.

This blog has noted before that the Kimberly Process certification and OFAC sanctions against the Zimbabwe Mining Development Corporation (“ZMDC”), which has a monopoly on sales of Zimbabwe diamonds, deal with completely separate issues.

The Kimberly Process certification is limited to finding that the certified diamonds are not conflict diamonds, which are defined as ‘“rough diamonds used by rebel movements or their allies to finance conflict aimed at undermining legitimate governments.” Obviously, Zimbabwe diamonds aren’t being used to undermine a legitimate government; indeed, they are being used to prop up the existing dictatorial regime in Zimbabwe.

The OFAC sanctions, however, arise not from any insurgency or rebel conflict in Zimbabwe. Instead, they are premised on human rights abuses by the Zimbabwe dictatorship. In the case of ZMDC, OFAC sanctions are presumably a response to documented reports of torture and forced labor in the diamond fields run by ZMDC.

Just because something isn’t a conflict diamond under the Kimberly Process, doesn’t mean it isn’t a blood diamond.

[For extra added amusement, unrelated to export issues, look carefully at the caption to the picture illustrating the Herald story.]

Permalink Comments (2)

Bookmark and Share