admin
President Mugabe raised a very important, but oft-ignored, aspect of the indigenisation and economic empowerment programme in his address to the Zanu-PF’s Central Committee last week.He pointed out that indigenisation was more than just taking over foreign companies and was, more crucially, about building Zimbabwean companies.
Inasmuch as ensuring indigenous people own the majority stake in companies operating in Zimbabwe, it is even more important to establish our own industries.
President Mugabe said the success of Zim-Asset hinged on appreciating this central tenet of indigenisation. Indigenisation, Zim-Asset and neutralising the effects of the west’s illegal sanctions regime are all part of the development programme Government must embrace if it is to deliver on its election promises.
In this regard, there is much that Zimbabwe can learn from apartheid South Africa and Ian Smith’s Rhodesia. This is not about liking or detesting apartheid and Smith. Rather, it is about learning from others — friends and enemies alike — and appropriating those aspects of their development trajectory that we can adapt to our situation.
Of course, the point has to be made that apartheid and Smith benefited from near-slave labour and thus could carry out some economic functions much more cheaply than we can do today.
But that aside, there are certain things that we can learn from them. And while the argument that many countries assisted Rhodesia and
South Africa to bust sanctions is valid, it must also be borne in mind that Zimbabwe has many friends in Africa, Asia and Latin America who are prepared to help the country circumvent US and EU embargoes.
The UN Security Council authorised sanctions against Rhodesia through Resolution 216 of November 12, 1965 — a day after Smith unilaterally declared independence from the British Crown.
The sanctions involved a complete ban on imports into British territories of Rhodesian tobacco; a ban on purchases of Rhodesian sugar; a ban on exports to Rhodesia except only items of a “humanitarian nature” such as books and films and a total ban on imports. Rhodesia was further barred from oil, arms, motor vehicles or airplanes sales.
There were also the prohibition of the export of capital to Rhodesia and the closing of the London capital market to Rhodesia, while assets of the Rhodesia Reserve Bank in London were frozen. Despite all this, Rhodesia was still able to wage a protracted war against nationalists from 1966 to 1979.
In “An Inquiry Into How Rhodesia Managed to Survive Under Economic Sanctions: Lessons For The Zimbabwe Government”, a paper prepared for the Trade And Development Studies Centre by James Hurungo in January 2010, it is contended that apart from South Africa, Portugal, Israel, Iran and some Arabs ignoring the sanctions; Rhodesia implemented import controls, found new markets, embarked on price maintenance, import substitution and diversification, created a dualised cash/non-cash economy to forestall inflation, steadied wage levels, developed infrastructure, and froze payments to foreign creditors.
Hurungo noted that private firms like Rhodesia Pulp and Paper Industries looked for new lines of production and markets. This saw Rhodesia’s trade with South Africa, Portugal, France, Iran under the Shah, Japan, and West Germany all increase trade with the country as local goods were issued South African certificates of origin.
For food security — a key aspect of Zim-Asset today — some farmers were instructed, and assisted) to switch from tobacco to maize and beef production for local consumption.
The Rhodesian Air Force earned the name of “The Sanctions Busters” as it fought until 1980, even expanding the types of craft in use and this was partly attributable to “local ingenuity” as technologies were adopted and adapted.
Hurungo said, “Both the Rhodesia government and the Zimbabwean Government made some efforts to burst sanctions, but the Rhodesian measures were much more effective than those implemented by the Zimbabwe government.”
He says Zimbabwe is failing to match Rhodesia on import controls, finding new markets, sourcing foreign financing, import substitution, local business friendly industrial policies and price maintenance policies.
In South Africa, apartheid leaders supported the growth of firms like FNB Bank and Sanlam so as to offset the impact of sanctions.
They did not merely seize Barclays Bank and Old Mutual and “indigenise” them, rather they supported the creation and growth of their own enterprises and apartheid was able to thrive.
There is much Zimbabwe can do by way of creating and nurturing its own truly indigenous industry. It must always be remembered that simply bringing in more indigenous shareholders does not create sustainable wealth.
Online Reporter