Sanctions: Is Zim’s response adequate?

 

plebiscite for Zanu-PF. The central issue in this election is the economy and what has caused the country’s economic demise

The electorate will be looking at which party offers the best remedy. It is about jobs, incomes, social services, education and health. It is about creating that environment and atmosphere conducive to investment and production; getting business back on the rails.

The country is in the midst of a contentious and yet critical process towards the holding of a free and fair election whose outcome may not be contested, to resolve what has been a long-running political crisis.

This is in itself a source of hope and great expectations as well it should be, for a people that have endured years of hardship and social distress.

At the epicentre of the debate on the Zimbabwean political and economic question is the issue of whether sanctions, imposed on Zimbabwe by the United States under Zidera in 2001 and by the European Union in 2002,  caused Zimbabwe’s economic meltdown in 2008, or this resulted from maladministration, mismanagement, corruption and Government policy failure.

The comparison is often made of how the national economy grew under United Nations mandated sanctions imposed on Rhodesia in 1966 following Ian Smith’s 1965 Unilateral Declaration of Independence  and how it has fared under the US/EU sanctions imposed on Zimbabwe in the post-Independence era.

The simplistic argument often touted is that the difference lies in how the two governments crafted economic policy and in their management and administrative efficiency; that Smith’s regime grew the economy where the Zanu-PF Government has shrunk it.

It is therefore important and necessary at this critical juncture in the nation’s history to put matters into proper perspective and to refute the fallacy that the issues are as clear-cut as is often postulated.

Certain politico-historical facts often get glossed over in arguments around the issues confronting Zimbabwe. The situation in Zimbabwe, and indeed the rest of Africa, calls for a new awakening to the challenges confronting the post-independence nation in its quest for nationhood, social and economic development.

Is it about representative and responsive government, about democracy, good governance and human rights or policy failure, corruption, inefficiency or other more deep-rooted political factors?

To be sure, the issue of policy failure and mismanagement is not mutually exclusive. It cannot be seen in isolation of other more relevant and pertinent factors at play, especially in relation to the dynamics of modern day international relations. It is now widely acknowledged, not surprisingly even by Western economic pundits, that Africa, for its wealth in natural and human resources, is the continent of the future.

A new Scramble for Africa has started in earnest, and yet Africa and the African Union appear to be passive and inactive, oblivious to an even more sinister yet subtle neo-liberal agendas designed to advance neo-colonial manipulation.

The Western powers have never really abandoned the agenda of Otto Von Bismarck’s 1884 Berlin Conference that saw the partitioning of Africa. The independence struggle in Africa was nothing but a mere setback. The Western powers have never accepted the notion of independent, truly and fully sovereign African nation-states.

This factor is crucial in making any comparison between Rhodesia and Zimbabwe, in terms of goodwill and support from the West. In comparing Zimbabwe to Rhodesia the marked difference to be discerned in the 1967 to 1972 economic growth of Rhodesia and the economic meltdown of independent Zimbabwe in 2008 is in how international sanctions were applied and made effective on the two states.

The other factor, though less critical, is the responses of the different governments in the face of sanctions; what is  perceived to be administrative and management efficiency on the part of Rhodesia and the lack of it on Zimbabwe.

Here is why. The mandatory UN sanctions on Rhodesia entailed an arms, oil and trade embargo, banning the selling of motor vehicles and aeroplanes, among others, to Rhodesia.

It is a matter of public record that the Western powers openly flouted the UN sanctions on Rhodesia. The regime continued to enjoy trade with the West, importing all these things including much-needed agricultural equipment such as tractors, combine harvesters and other implements.

In turn Rhodesian exports of minerals, tobacco, cotton, textiles and much more continued to find their way to markets in the West.

This was done through elaborate sanctions busting strategies and measures master-minded by the Smith regime in response, with the open and tacit support of Washington, Whitehall and the rest of Western Europe.

Key politicians such as Jesse Helms of the US Congress also came into the fray. In short there was unwillingness on the part of the West to effectively implement sanctions on Rhodesia.

To jog your memory in terms of Western sentiment, recall the diplomatic contest in the 80s between President Mugabe and the former British Prime Minister the late Baroness Margaret Thatcher (May her soul rest in peace) who remained implacable over the tightening of UN sanctions on the apartheid regime in South Africa, for obvious economic reasons — to safeguard her own family business interests and massive British investments.

In the same vein Rhodesia was cushioned from harm as Western powers fashioned tactic after another to delay the granting of independence to Zimbabwe.

But to their credit, Rhodesians also responded through a raft of policy initiatives such as import substitution that saw the growth of the local manufacturing sector, agriculture, mining and tourism.

International brands were supplanted with locally manufactured goods. Through public service campaigns they also managed and controlled consumption of scarce utilities such as fuel.

Compare this to the high and sometimes primitive consumption that characterises life in Zimbabwe. In contrast, there has been a lot of enthusiasm by Western powers to impose and to make effective, sanctions on Zimbabwe, both overtly and covertly. Sanctions on Zimbabwe have not been mandated by the UN, thus rendering them illegal.

This explains the frantic propaganda to assert that the sanctions on Zimbabwe are of no force and economic effect, only targeted and limited to certain key individuals and institutions, regardless of the contagion effect on the populace. What a lot of baloney?

Are we to believe that the EU is so naive as to deliberate and adopt a Common position to impose “Restrictive Measures” which are of no force or effect?

We can feel the contagion effect from the social and economic distress visited upon us by the resultant economic malaise, however much the EU may deny it.

To be sure, since the collapse of the Soviet Union and the emergence of the US as the sole super power in a unipolar world, Washington’s foreign policy has become more bellicose and belligerent.

This is why claims that the US has no real interest in the policies of economic redistribution being pursued in Zimbabwe are laughable.

That the US has no concern with land redistribution in Zimbabwe is both fallacious and ignorant. The US is itself embroiled in the world’s most volatile land question in the Middle East, the long-running dispute between Israel and Palestine, occupation of the Syrian Golan Heights and parts of Lebanon.

This is why president Bush, in proclaiming Zidera, announced that events in Zimbabwe at the time, read land redistribution represented the “most serious threat” to US foreign policy. How so? Now Zidera has been succeeded by the so-called Zimbabwe Transition to Democracy and Economic Recovery Act.

What a misnomer? If it is about democracy, then what explains US propping of some of the most repressive Arab regimes and some in Africa and elsewhere whose human rights records make Zimbabwe pale in significance. The US foreign policy stance is that China is undemocratic and repressive.

But why has it not seen it fit to impose sanctions on China which continues to enjoy “most favoured nation” (MFN) status in trade with the US. The truth of it is that the US cannot afford to be bellicose and belligerent with China, now emerging as a world power.

That Zimbabwe has however not been pro-active in mitigating the attack on its economy in response to Western economic sanctions is somewhat plausible.

It is easy to criticise in retrospect and to state that perhaps the solution never was in Gono printing worthless money; that a more appropriate response would have been to support the supply side and to protect its then sound base in mining, manufacturing and institutional knowledge in agriculture that powered growth in the agro-industrial complex, especially food processing.

We have become all-too-dependent on cheap imports which have rendered our manufacturing sector uncompetitive leading to widespread company closures. That is why campaigns such Buy Zimbabwe was always not going to make any significant impact.

The Zimbabwe government response, when compared to that of Rhodesia, is at most passive, akin to the AU’s inaction in the face of a renewed thrust to maintain Western domination and manipulation of Africa.

It is not about policy failure or lack of administrative and management efficiency. If it were so how do you explain the fact that the nation recorded growth rates in gross domestic product as high as 11 percent in 1980, 10.7 percent in 1981 through to 1985 (9.3 percent) after which it slumped somewhat with the adoption of ESAP?  But it has to be mentioned that the period between 1986 through to the infamous Black Friday in1997 was a decade of economic recovery.

There is much that the government could have done and still can do to fight the US and EU sanctions on Zimbabwe. These sanctions are an albatross on our social and economic development efforts.

It is a fact well captured in the Global Political Agreement, which surprisingly, receives little or no mention as an outstanding issue requiring urgent resolution. Rather we harp on political and governance matter that are peripheral to bread and butter issues.

Why must we accept that Andrew Young and Jesse Jackson are US envoys to thaw our relations with Washington if Young can have the audacity to come to tell us that the US does not need Zimbabwe?

That we are insignificant to US foreign policy interests! And this when the US Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control is holding US$ 30 million earned from legal trade transactions by our Minerals Marketing Corporation, US$2 million for Olivine Industries, funds for ZMDC, IDC and others?

One would have thought that the Ministry of Mines, for example, would take legal action, at international law, or even the US Court system, to challenge these illegal actions? What explains this inaction?

We have not heard much by way of action and protest from the government of Zimbabwe, save for President Mugabe who has stood firm in condemnation of the abuse of power by Western powers.

Except for one Senator Aguy Georgias, who has taken singular action to litigate cases to contest the sanctions in the British court system, and now at the EU General Court in Brussels, however much it is difficult to obtain justice.

Of the three cases Georgias brought before the British Court system, he only got justice in one when he succeeded to challenge the deportation of his wife and five children at the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal after they had been allowed 24 hours to leave the United Kingdom for his listing on the EU travel ban list.

What we don’t know is whether it was coincidental that a house adjacent to where the Georgiases were living at No 35 Titian Road, Hove, East Sussex , Brighton was bombed at night at the time this was happening.

He was however not so successful in prosecuting the two other cases.
Says Georgias: “I always thought highly of the British legal system, but to my disappointment, I found that it is far worse than our own that they are so keen to admonish.

If one reads the judgements, even a person with the least knowledge of law can tell that the judgements were purely political. Even the solicitors who were supposed to represent me on appeal suddenly disappeared, with all the papers pertaining to the case.”

The issue of obtaining justice in cases such as the one Georgias is prosecuting at the EU General Court is as vexatious, as it is costly.

As it stands there is a disquieting delay in hearing Georgias case at the court in Brussels after the court turned down an application by the Senator’s solicitors for an expedited hearing.

The old adage that “justice delayed is justice denied” could well be at play. It is clear that as the national elections beckon, there already are spirited attempts to twist the facts about the Zimbabwean social and economic condition.

The real issues confronting the electorate are bread and butter issues, a scenario that would make sanctions the major concern to the GNU in terms of outstanding issues.

Adds Georgias: “To me the issue of serious concern as we enter the electoral season is the continued closure of companies. My concern is that my business interests are under threat due to the adverse effect of sanctions on the nation’s macro-economic condition.

I voiced this concern at two separate government meetings in Nyanga and at the Wild Geese with both Prime Minister Tsvangirai and Deputy Prime Minister Mutambara, who both promised to work for the removal of the sanctions.

To date I am still waiting to see what action they take.” The real concerns of most Zimbabweans going forward however have to do with bread and butter issues, i.e. jobs, food, access to good health care and education, recreation and opportunity in all social and economic aspects.