>> this is al jazeera and these are the top stories. joe biden does not appear to have the full support of his democratic party for his $1.75 trillion spending program. a key democratic group is saying they will not vote on the interceptor bill without the build back better act. why progressive democrats are holding up. reporter: this is a separate bill. but at the same time it is kind of linked. the infrastructure bill is a bipartisan bill.

this is what joe biden said he would do during the presidential debate, reaching out to republicans, saying let's make stuff happen together. it looked like it was going to be a slamdunk. but now there are members of the democrats who are saying hang on, we're going to hold off passing this bill because we want this bill to be voted on at the same time as the build back better plan. the reason they are doing this is this is an issue of trust. they think they might vote this info structure built in, and those who are holding out on the build back better plan might say thank you for that, but we are not going to put this through. >> the u.k. has summoned the french ambassador over post brexit fishing rights. it comes after french authorities seized a british ship operating in territorial waters. increasing the pressure on the sudan military as confrontations between security forces and protesters continue. the u.n. security council called

for a restoration of a civilian-led government. rebels in ethiopia's tigre region say at least 10 people including three children have been killed in another government airstrike. the ethiopian army says a targeted facility used by the liberation front. but a spokesperson for the rebels says his civilian residence was hit. argentina's former president is facing calls to face espionage charges, accused of warning intelligence agencies to spy on families and crew members of a submarine that sank four years ago. facebook has changed its name. while they will keep the name, the parent company is called meta. mark zuckerberg said it reflects the meta-verse and a future world with far more online interaction. the news continues here on al jazeera after "inside story." ♪

mohammed: should western sanctions on entities in zimbabwe be lifted? measures imposed are said to be destroying people's lives, but our sanctions to blame for their economic troubles? this is "inside story." ♪ a lot of welcome to the program. i am mohammed jamjoom. sanctions were placed on individuals and entities in zimbabwe in 2003.

the u.s., eu, and u.k. imposed the sanctions, accusing of human rights abuses and repressing democracy. but zimbabwe says the sanctions have led to widespread misery. the u.n. special -- on unilateral measures in greece. -- agrees. she visited for 10 days. douhan called for the sanctions to end. she says that had an city us effect on the economy and worsened people's access to health, food, education and deployment. here is what zimbabwe's justice minister had to say at the start of douhan's visit. >> we want the sanctions removed, because they have affected every facet of our life. so in a nutshell, our document that we are going to give them will clearly indicate the effects of sanctions on our

society. mohammed: the sanctions were imposed during former president's rule. and were extended in february last year. the u.s. and eu cited a lack of progress on political and human rights reforms. at least 59 companies and more than 140 people, including president mnangagwa, have been sanction for alleged rights abuses. the u.k. recently imposed punishments on four zimbabwe security officials over crackdowns on security officials in 2018 and 2019. they include embargo on sales of military equipment and a freeze on assets. the government says the financial measures are crippling the country's development, but critics blame government mismanagement and corruption. let's bring in our guests. from harare, obert gutu, former

deputy minister of justice and legal affairs. from johannesburg, piers pigou, international crisis group senior consultant for southern africa. and also from harare, ibbo mandaza, director of the southern africa political economy series trust. thanks to you all for joining us today. appreciate your time here. in the past, you have apologized for being part of opposition party politicians in zimbabwe who repeatedly called on the west to impose and maintain sanctions on zimbabwe. why did you apologize? obert: yes. i had to apologize because i had deep introspection and self inflection and thought analysis. and i was very naive to run along with the sanctions on

zimbabwe narrative. the politicians then. i thought then the sanctions were too little. the sanctions now are bigger. on reflection, no, my conceptualization of these so-called targeted sanctions was not exactly what happened. that was naive and perhaps too -- if anyone who has been targeted it is the poor men and poor women in theout in the very urb.

it is millions of poverty-stricken and toiling masses of zimbabwe who are targeted by these sanctions. with time, i then realized arguably -- and passionately doing so for sanctions on my beloved country, zimbabwe. up to now, i feel this deep sense of guilt, a deep sense of shame, this deep sense of regret. this is why i decided to go public. i'm sorry. let me take this opportunity once againon al jazeera to say that apology is from the depth of my part and it is unconditional. mohammed: ibbo expected

to hear from her? ibbo: i was quite surprised myself, because i think the first impression that people had, many people at least, thought this was an the government, she would simply say exactly what the government wants to hear. the itinerary set up for her appeared to be very state-centered and appeared to have left out the opposition. but i was surprised with the statement, which if it is issued as it is correct, i was surprised at what a balanced statement. on the one hand, yes, she acknowledges the issue of sanctions. that even though they were

targeted, they have had a bad effect on the economy. but she went on to highlight that we -- the need for political reforms -- [indiscernible] the needs some of us have been calling for. an apology. the party, the state is beyond redemption, they have no capacity to reform. and the opposition is decimated. therefore, there is a need to get together and have a trade additional authority -- a transitional authority. mohammed: piers, how much of an

impact will this statement from the special repartee or have and how much weight does it carry? piers: thanks for the question and thanks for the opportunity to have further discussion on this issue. i do not think the statement will necessarily have that much impact. although it does depend on the extent to which the parties, those doing the sanctioning and those being sanctioned, use this in a special -- constructive way. i think there is an opportunity to resume a more constructive dialogue about the issues on the table. i do think extremely important issues have been raised which sanctioned nations need to look at more seriously. not just with spec to these particular metrics.

the issue of over compliance that she emphasizes in her statement is an important one. but i do think there will be some questions asked about the extent to which are analysis is -- which her analysis is a cherry picking one. with respect to the major causal factors of the apparent lack of enjoyment that ordinary zimbabweans have with respect to human rights, institutional integrity, and so forth. and while certainly the inference on the call for reform dialogue and so forth points at those issues, there will be some that question and will wait to see whatever she puts on the table to support the superlatives that she has added around the impact of measures that have been put in place. i mean, i would for one fundamentally disagree with the

reflections that these measures have had such a devastating impact on the ordinary individuals. they certainly have had an impact, there is no doubt about that. the question is how do we weigh that impact. one would hope the process we have seen would enable a more constructive dialogue that looks forward with a view to seeing how these measures -- and relating those to the dialogue. mohammed: obert, piers just now disagreed with your viewpoint on the effects the sanctions have had. i want to give you a chance to reply. obert: yes. when you look at the effects of the legal sanctions on zimbabwe, the effect, for some of us, it's been miserable for all of our lives, born and bred here. we know zimbabwe, we know some places where -- out there in the

townships where you visit the poorest of the poor. so you get opportunities to see for yourself, to appreciate from a personal one-on-one position, to see that, look, this is what sanctions have done. the decimation of what was arguably one of southern africa's maybe most sophisticated places. people talk about corruption but you should look at the symbiotic relationship between sanctions and corruption. i believe that sanctions are one of the main drivers of corruption in zimbabwe. at the end of the day, when you look at the timing of the sanctions, it has nothing to do with nonobservance of human rights and the rule of law. it has everything to do with the revolutionary lending program which began around february 2000. so zimbabwe is actually being

published -- punished for embarking on something that was unheard of. i am sure those in power were taken aback. this country in southern africa, how dare they do that, take land from over 5000 white commercial farmers. that is unthinkable. let us make their economy scream. and boy, the economy did scream. mohammed: special envoy douhan says the unilateral sanctions and over compliance with the measures in their complexity had exacerbated pre-existing economic conditions, especially for those living in poverty, women, children, and the elderly among others. do you agree with that assessment? ibbo: it is very difficult to quantify that, to the extent to which sanctions or targeted

measures would have had that effect. and one does not want to be drawn into the debate that was try to be provoked, a polarized debate between those who think sanctions are bad and those who think they are good. i want to understand the sanctions context. and not add my view. 20 years of this so-called targeted measures. they have not achieved the purpose for which they were put in place. they have become more token, i n my view. they are different from the mandatory u.n. sanctions we have seen before in indonesia and other countries. secondly, they have not had -- they have not punished their so-called targeted individuals. on the contrary, these people remain very prosperous. they are more prosperous than they were in 2001 when the

sanctions were introduced. for me, the debate about sanctions must be placed on whether they are achieving the purpose, which is to improve, to influence, i don't want to say force, but influence clinical and economic reforms. they have not achieved that. on the contrary, we have gone downwards in terms of the economy. we have a coup government in place, so nothing has improved. they need to change the paradigm. and that's why i welcome the envoys to a structured dialogue. to me, a structured dialogue is quoting us and our statements. it's time to sit down and look

for a way forward through national, regional, and international cooperation towards -- zimbabwe is in need -- after that, oil follows. that -- all else follows. that is the bottom line. mohammed: you heard ibbo talking about calling for a structured dialogue. is that something you think can happen at this point? piers: i was watching, or listening to the spokesperson today who was talking about, this is an endorsement of the dialogue process, which is a controversial process which has been introduced by president

mnangagwa and is not have the support of mainstream opposition and the alliance. i do not think that what has been referred to is the process and i think it is this kind of dialogue that ibbo mandaza is referring to. one that also moved -- this is something douhan has said, moves beyond and abandons the rhetoric of sanctions. it's what we continue to see from some players here. it seems very unlikely in the run-up to the election in the next 18 months or so that we are going to see a real commitment from certain actors to that kind of dialogue. mohammed: obert, from your point of view, are there conditions in place right now in zimbabwe where there could be a framework

developed for some kind of national dialogue constructive dialogue going forward? obert: oh, yes. oh, yes. you know, the main challenge i think that some of our colleagues have had in zimbabwe is this issue of saying if the dialogue is not driven or enacted by foreign powers or foreign individuals, then it's not a legitimate dialogue. there have been calls for the united nations to initiate dialogue. why? looking at zimbabwe, it is one of africa's highest rates of literacy. we have tremendous human capital within the country. also human capital in the diaspora. we have some of the most skilled

people across whatever profession, or professional divide you want to think of. we have millions capable of doing that. so the moment people say the moment dialogue is initiative and does not include some foreign interests, we don't know who these foreign interests are. i have been in the opposition for more than 20 years of my life and i know how the opposition is driven. i know the foreign hand in politics in zimbabwe, because i was there in the mix. so i know what i'm talking about. i believe it's one of the -- [indiscernible] just say no, we want bilateral dialogue between president mnangagwa and ourselves that does not include all other players. it won't happen, it is not going to happen. why?

because politics influence everyone. the so-called big and small political players. it's a disease. mohammed: ibbo, you wrote a pice in which you said the vain expectations in which the november 2017 coup would redeem zimbabwe from international isolation have all but gone up in smoke. why is that? ibbo: i am very surprised to hear my brother, obert gutu, utt er those words. i mean, i'm shocked that he things -- is a way forward for zimbabwe. i'm shocked. we all know it is a cul-de-sac, going nowhere. i mean, the we jordy of zimbabwe's know that. if he doesn't, i am surprised. secondly, the way forward is a

dialogue which begins -- there are many interpretations of that. one is a most blatant failure. but i believe general dialogue must begin with the recognition or the restoration of the rule of law, and return of military to the barracks. that is the bottom line for a dialogue that takes us forward. and zimbabwe is always going to be an international situation. we believe we need to return to that kind of situation again, with the help of region and international community. i stated in the article you

cited that the international factors we have imposed the sanctions on zimbabwe need to have a shift to give some kind of -- to engage with zimbabweans across the divide. to engage the genuine dialogue that begins, as i said earlier, with a structured faction. when this lady referred to structured dialogue, i thought she was almost quoting the document we did in 2016 before the coup. when we saw the coup coming. we have reached a stage when we are not going anywhere. to think otherwise is delusional, to say the least. mohammed: piers, will this work be able to enable a broader

fact-based issues on the things she has been investigating? piers: it should be. this really is the next step. it is unfortunate we are only going to see a final report in september next year. but i think that is a great deal of interest that this is an issue that requires attention. there is a real opportunity in front of us to have that fact-based discussion that goes beyond the posturing we have seen and continuing, even in the face of the statement that she has made, cherry picking of the issues from that statement. the question as i said earlier is rather the key parties are prepared to come to the table on this front. it is not as if there are not opportunities and spaces for this kind of dialogue either internally or between the parties instituting sanctions and those who are receiving it. there's an opportunity to do this.

let's see really now how the actors respond to this. but i do think she has a responsibility to see how best she can facilitate that, and to catalyze the discussion. because what i see on the table at the moment from her is provocations, which are important provocations, but people will need to see with the evidence is to back up those provocations in order to enable -- mohammed: we only have a moment left, but what do you see for -- what do you see happening when special envoy prevents -- presents her special report next year? piers: they will have to be clear scrutiny of what she puts on the table. bearing in mind we are likely to still have these measures in place, that that provides another opportunity to drive this discussion forward. it seems to me that external

actors from the region could pla y an important role in enabling that conversation. but it requires something we have not had much of really, and that is a level of honesty. and the move away from posturing and a more empirically rooted discussion i think is the way to go. but unfortunately, i think as we see with the broader issues around dialogue, the key parties are not willing to go that way. mohammed: we have run out of time so we are going to have to lead the conversation there. thanks to all of our guests obert gutu, piers pigou, and ibbo mandaza. and thank you for watching. you can see the program any time by visiting our website, aljazeera.com. for further discussion go to our facebook page. you can also join the conversation on twitter, @ajinsidestory. from me mohammed jamjoom, and the whole team here, bye for now. ♪

qqqqqqqaaiiiayyykkkkkkkkkkkkkkkñ

woman: there's so much involved in working with clay on so many different levels that i find it totally fascinating. when you're throwing, if you're really into it, you can lose yourself completely, but it also centers you intellectually and emotionally so that you are totally one with the clay. a lady who came and stood in front of me and said, "you know, i'm not really artistic," and i looked at her and said, "yes, you are artistic.