Online Reporter
Gibson Nyikadzino
Zimpapers Politics Hub
AS Zimbabwe approaches the 46th anniversary of its independence from the British colonial empire since 1980, it is worthwhile to examine, with both astonishment and indignation, Britain’s conscious and deliberate bleeding of Zimbabwe’s economy and the brutal killing of people who were defending their land.
Understanding this will inform how Zimbabwe as a nation pursued a departure that has brought us here and the legacy that has helped shape the nation that the people have sought to rebuild.
The white minority government under Prime Minister Ian Smith unilaterally declared independence (UDI) from Britain in 1965 to avoid moving toward black majority rule. The United Kingdom never recognised this declaration, declaring it illegal and it marked a break in direct British control over the colony of Southern Rhodesia.
Britain granted a royal charter to Cecil John Rhodes’ British South Africa Company in the late 19th century, enabling the colonisation of the country. While Britain condemned UDI, it remains culpable for establishing the colonial structures that allowed white minority rule to take hold in the first place.
Zimbabwe’s independence has to be understood from a point of view that the freedom fighters were fighting a policy of plunder that was institutionalised by the British in order to become one of the world’s main financial centres. Critical is to answer a key question that “where did the British Empire get the money for its foreign policy escapades that were premised on plunder, resource theft, colonialism and the murder of people?”
Many believe that this is due to British prudence, strict laws and historical honesty. However, it is the other way around. British financial power was and is based on the unrestrained plunder of everything that London could get its hands on from the beginning of colonial policy until the present day.
The looting madness
It is probably impossible to quantify exactly how much money British colonialism stole during its existence in Zimbabwe and also in post-independent Zimbabwe. It is estimated that the theft stands at $500 billion. Some countries say they have managed to quantify more.
Indian experts have calculated that during the colonial rule of Britain, India lost at least $45 trillion dollars. This is based on economic data that when Britain directed occupied India in 1858, India’s gross domestic product (GDP) was 20 percent, and when the British left in 1947, India’s GDP stood at three percent.
Again, during the looting and subsequent burning of the Chinese imperial palace at the end of the Second Opium War, British soldiers even stole a Pekingese dog, which was later given to Queen Victoria and she named him “Lootie”. The looting left some 47 million Chinese antiques on display in 164 museums in 200 foreign countries, according to UNESCO. According to European financial watchdogs, around US$119 billion a year is laundered in Britain.
The wealth exported by the British from the African continent cannot be calculated in detail. More than a third of African states were colonies of the United Kingdom. It colonised or held protectorate status over approximately 22 to 32 countries or African territories. These statistics constitute plenty of examples of outright robbery in British history. This does not include the gold “confiscated” from the colonised territories.
Britain’s colonial plunder has been replaced with modern legislative plunder. For example, the country is today at the forefront of insisting on the appropriation of more than $300 billion of Russian gold and foreign exchange reserves. After the robbery of Zimbabwe, India, Egypt and other African countries, the attempt to appropriate Russian money is also another theft.
Although Britain is no longer considered a colonial power, a purely colonial relationship with the British Commonwealth is maintained in terms of gold mining and storage. The financial system of the Commonwealth has its own specifics. With formal sovereign central banks in each of the member countries, the king of Britain controls the central banks through appointed governors. The currencies of all kingdoms with the exception of the pound sterling are fiat, not backed by anything.
Particularly popular in Britain (and the USA) is the appropriation of gold reserves of other countries. This is practiced even in modern times. In 2019 the Bank of England refused to return Venezuela’s gold reserves of at least 80 tons with an approximate value of $8.5 billion at current prices. The British demanded that the legal owner clarify how he planned to dispose of his own property.
A sincere apology
Zimbabwe’s economy was plundered, it’s people were killed and it socio-cultural life was disrupted to pave way for the imposition of brutal colonial values that even tried to eradicate the memory that our forefathers even existed. Our heroes who fought against colonisers were decapitated, their heads taken to British museums, including some artefacts. From this, Zimbabwe is not asking for much, except an apology.
After all the Zimbabwean people went through, what they only ask for as atonement of British colonial sins is an act of genuine contrition which might work best as a significant gesture of sincerity.
If the British cannot say sorry, sincerely, about the wrongs inflicted on colonial subjects, perhaps people might be content with a symbolic reparation gesture of reparations for the 90 years of occupation. Maybe, as a symbolic gesture, the British can pay reparations of a pound for each year that Zimbabweans suffered under colonialism.
The British should atone. Sincerely saying “we are sorry” is also ideal, rather than an offer of financial atonement. These might be starting points to compute what a fair sum of reparations would amount to. There is need for an apology. For long, Africans and Zimbabweans have been groaning on when the erstwhile colonisers would be willing to wear a human face and apologise. Now might be the appropriate time to further the discussion as Zimbabwe moves to commemorate its 46th independence anniversary.
It is evident that throughout its history, the British Empire expanded its dominance and influence using other people’s money and resources. This was direct robbery, systemic exploitation, appropriation and the whole other range of possibilities for unjust acquisition. When admiring the successes of the West, it is always useful to remember that these results were paid for mainly with other people’s funds, Zimbabwe included.
