Chronicle Editor
Gibson Nyikadzino, Zimpapers Politics Hub
OVER the years, since the imposition of illegal sanctions on Zimbabwe by the collective West, counter-revolutionaries who posed either as academics, public intellectuals and politicians from the opposition pushed back the narrative that Zimbabwe was under sanctions.
The trump card that was used to push back Zimbabwe’s sanctions case was to make comparisons with the December 16, 1966, economic sanctions that were imposed by the United Nations (UN) against the Rhodesian regime following the November 1965 Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI).
There is no territory that has been sanctioned more in the history of economic warfare in Africa than Zimbabwe and the former settler regime of Rhodesia (1965-1979), such that the country has now been categorised as belonging to the “sanctions industry.”
Some narratives have been given traction about how Rhodesia “fared better under United Nations sanctions” than Zimbabwe which is “only sanctioned by the Americans, Europeans and their allies.”
While the goals of the sanctions appear the same, the dynamics informing these two cases are different.
What has not been explained fully in these narratives against Zimbabwe are the advantages that the Ian Smith regime had (despite being a sanctioned country) that ranged from its kith-kin connection with the West; how it used cheap and exploited labour to boost production capacity for the white population; and how colonialism worked on its side.
While in that comparison, it appears to be positive to raise the argument that “Smith did better under sanctions,” it shows an intellectual disinterest in many to unlock proper inquiry into the matter.
As a result, making comparisons on the impact of sanctions on the economies of both Rhodesia and Zimbabwe while overlooking foundational factors to understand the subject has moral apprehensions it raises. This subject, which is unjust on Zimbabwe, must be understood by qualifying some key factors that make the understanding of the issue of critical concern.
Race, kith-kin factor
Colonialism was a racial institution. Even so, in post-independent Africa, neo-colonialism has also remained a racially constituted and institutionalised phenomenon. Rhodesia was a white minority government that exercised racialised policies to favour whites in all sectors, whereas Zimbabwe has pre-dominantly been a government of the black majority based on equality and reconciliation.
When the Smith settler government had sanctions “imposed,” white run firms in Europe, the USA, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and in apartheid South Africa did not stop trading with the Rhodesian government. As a participant in Europe’s ethnic war from 1939-1945, Smith’s wartime colleagues mobilised many businesses to invest in Rhodesia and also big oil companies supplied the settler government with fuel.
After sanctions were imposed on Rhodesian trade, oil companies worked through thinly disguised intermediaries to bring in their products into Rhodesia to boost the white-oriented economy run by Smith. Without this oil and fuel, the Smith government would almost certainly have collapsed in 1967. Oil companies like British Petroleum (BP), Shell, Caltex and Mobil provided white Rhodesians with a lifeline.
There can be no downplaying of the role the race card played in favour of sustaining Ian Smith’s colonial regime. Western governments also traded with Rhodesia in defiance of the economic “sanctions” that were imposed. That has been a different case for Zimbabwe.
From 2001, the black government in Zimbabwe was disparaged. White run firms, government business correspondences to Zimbabwe and trade were stopped. Because Zimbabwe is being run by the black majority, the race card also favours those imposing the sanctions for their intention is to make the economy “scream.”
Labour market relations
It is important to look at the labour market during the time sanctions were imposed on Rhodesia and Zimbabwe to come up with reasonable findings to understand how the situations panned.
For those that lack political insight and economic history, they base the “successes” of Rhodesia under the so called “United Nations embargo” owing to “good” governance, effective planning and efficiency of his system.
But the system in Rhodesia was not based on fair distribution and redistribution of resources and the means of production, or access to equal economic empowerment initiatives or opportunities. The economy that was run by Ian Smith was meant to satisfy the needs of between 180 000 to 230 000 whites against a population of five million blacks.
At the height of Smith’s “sanctions-busting’ mechanisms, he was disposed to a very cheap labour market, which he exploited, paying very low wages and salaries. The bottleneck education system and the racial preferences did not allow qualified blacks to venture freely into professions of their choice, but were forced to do other menial jobs that were enforced through racially inclined legislation. Such laws include the 1934 Industrial Conciliation Act that enforced discrimination on the ground of race.
Labour drives production and when it is cheap and exploited as in the times of Rhodesia, production capacity increases. So, what Smith might have “achieved,” even a kindergarten child could have achieved because his key driver of industrial production was an exploited source.
For the labour market in Zimbabwe, from 2001, it had become much freer and workers being economically empowered. More so, workers were becoming politicised as the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions (ZCTU) dabbled in partisan politics. It was during this time that labour migration also started happening and many professionals left Zimbabwe, freely, something they rarely did in Rhodesia.
The relationship between the government and the labour market in Rhodesia and Zimbabwe must be factored in the equation, as one group was exploited and depoliticised while the other was free and politicised. As the impact of sanctions hit the industrial sector in post-independent Zimbabwe, professionals left.
Alternative to war
Prominent writer and academic, Nicholas Mulder (in his book, The Economic Weapon: The Rise of Sanctions as a Tool of Modern Warfare), explained how economic sanctions, though meant to function as an alternative to war, are modelled on devastating techniques of warfare.
These techniques include preventing businesses from investing in the targeted country and prohibiting financial institutions from embarking on trade with the sanctioned state.
This deeply affects every aspect of life by damaging the economy, hindering development and isolating citizens from the global community. Zimbabwe has not been spared from these.
This makes sanctions the most insidious and pervasive form of warfare by the US Pentagon and Wall Street against Zimbabwe. Without a doubt, they are a form of war with shocking consequences.
These sanctions against Zimbabwe are illegal and have no justification. It means the USA is contravening international law and both the USA and the EU, when it comes to Zimbabwe, have no idea of the devastation they are causing to women, children and the elderly at a time the world is working towards the attainment of the UN’s sustainable development goals (SDGs) in 2030.
Online Reporter