admin
Tichaona Zindoga Political Editor
On November 12, Jeffery Smith and Todd Moss wrote for the Foreign Affairs magazine a joint piece titled, “Two Steps Backwards for Zimbabwe and Why the IMF Can’t Help”.
The journal is published by the influential United States think tank, the Council on Foreign Relations.
The two analysed the relations between Zimbabwe and multilateral lending institutions, principally the International Monetary Fund.
It noted the progress that the country, in its latest attempts to re-engage the international community (read the West), has made in its debt clearance strategy and other macro-economic measures that are being spearheaded by Finance Minister Patrick Chinamasa.
The reader may be aware that Cde Chinamasa has been earning top marks from the IMF on the implementation of the so-called Staff Monitored Programme that has seen the country embarking on a wide range of austerity measures meant to cut Government expenditure albeit unleashing a significant quantum of social pain by way of retrenchments and spending cuts.
But everyone wishes Minister Chinamasa well.
Just this week, Cabinet approved the civil service audit and its recommendations such as reduction of student teachers and trainees’ allowances, termination of any salaries still paid to teachers at trust and private schools and resuscitation of pension contributions by civil servants.
At the weekend the United Nations had a statement praising, and supporting Minister Chinamasa for his commitment to “reforms” under the aegis of the IMF.
Even the generally anti-Government private media have also supported Minister Chinamasa and wish him well.
In an editorial at the beginning of last month, one private daily gushed in the following terms: “Finance Minister Patrick Chinamasa has done his reputation and his standing a lot of good by convincing world leaders to accept Zimbabwe’s debt repayment plan. When he took over the Finance Ministry, Chinamasa was guilty of a fair bit of posturing, but it has since dawned on him what to do to get Zimbabwe’s economy back on track.”
It urged him to “soldier on” and “ignore saboteurs (those opposed to IMF measures)”.
There is the barest doubt that Minister Chinamasa will pass IMF tests with flying colours.
However, it is in everyone’s best interests to realise that this is more than an accounting issue.
It’s politics, stupid!
This is where Jeffery Smith and Todd Moss of the Foreign Affairs come in.
Their article is replete with politics, and in particular political hatred for President Mugabe and the ruling Zanu-PF party whom they accuse of all sorts of ills.
We are all familiar with that Western narrative.
The writers have a rare praise for President Mugabe whom they divine “could finally be willing to fulfil his country’s obligations and re-engage with the international community”.
But the writers are also cynical, accusing President Mugabe of cunningness and putting up “a warm-up act for what Mugabe truly desires: new loans for his bankrupt Government”.
“Yet now is precisely the wrong time to embrace Mugabe and his coterie, who for 35 years have done little but devastate the country and enrich themselves,” Smith and Moss aver.
The writers then catalogue the alleged sins of the Government that they argue should disqualify it from being given credit; “More recently, in March 2015, a prominent activist was abducted in broad daylight on the streets of the capital. Itai Dzamara remains missing despite continued pressure from the diplomatic community and international human rights groups.”
The CFR also predicates extension of loans on succession, arguing that “the looming struggle over who will succeed him is another reason why rescuing the Mugabe Government now with fresh loans and an infusion of cash would be poorly timed”.
But the think tank offers by far the biggest insight into the politics of the whole issue and how the US political attitudes seek to determine the fate of Zimbabwe.
It says: “The United States should have no qualms about refusing to provide Mugabe with financial relief. Washington has almost no national security and few economic interests in Zimbabwe, and so it can afford to stand firm on its democratic principles. The United States alone likely cannot stop the proposed arrears clearance plan. But the administration of US President Barack Obama can use its diplomatic clout to insist upon clear and unequivocal human rights benchmarks ahead of any new lending or broader rapprochement.”
It is known that talk about human rights is just a smokescreen by a country that befriends despotic and murderous regimes such as Saudi Arabia.
The real catch lies in US interests and what the country seeks to gain from Zimbabwe.
If it fails, it simply evokes sanctions to stop any extension of new loans or cancellation of debt using the so-called Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act, its sanctions law against Zimbabwe.
Smith and Moss write: “This legislation requires that, prior to any debt relief or new loans to Zimbabwe, the President certify the restoration of the rule of law, satisfactory election conditions, transparent land reform, and civilian control of the security forces. Today, Mugabe is not close to meeting any of these requirements.”
This is for all the knobs who deny the existence of sanctions!
But Smith and Moss have a parting shot.
They write: “Now, as he (President Mugabe) asks for handouts from the international community, with his regime in crisis and his presidency nearing its end, Washington should not get fooled…”
That really drives home the point that the IMF is not about simply balancing the books.
It is about politics, and hard-nosed politics.
It should also be borne in mind that the Bretton Woods institutions have always been political animals whose policies and personnel are determined by America and Europe.
It is not in anyone’s interest to dissuade Minister Chinamasa – in fact clearing debts is a noble and respectable thing to do – but what follows such clearance of debts and access to new money will be interesting to watch.
That has always been the catch.
Online Reporter