That Mugabe is highly qualified to join the ranks of the notorious and brutal “Mephisto Club”, there is no doubt. His buddies Stalin, Ceausescu and Sharon will certainly appreciate the arrival of fresh blood. Yet there exists many a brutal lifetime dictator gracing the African continent and beyond, such as Idriss Deby of Chad, a country renowned for poverty and corruption.
Deby’s position is secure, despite mass violation of human and environmental rights and the deliberately imposed state-disruption of the cotton belt located in the South – the scene of the Doba oil field and war. This has resulted in militarisation of the country, allegedly footed by the World Bank during the construction of the Chad-Cameroon pipeline and the rapidly dwindling state of wealth in circulation.
Why?
Because the US* purchased over $2.3-billion in oil from Chad in 2007 via a consortium headed by Exxon-Mobil, with a great deal more in the running; Deby is content to take his cut from the oil and siphon it out of the country. He has ensured the continuous relaxation of the already rotten rights-based system in Chad, relating to multinational accountability, International Finance Institutions (IFI) such as the World Bank; and of course, the geopolitical foreign policy of the US ie: access to oil-rich Sudan — currently keeping company with the Chinese. The Financial Times reported in February 2008 that Deby was crucial to Western strategy in the region. Chad is used as a base for the on-going US-China battle being waged in Sudan, the neighbour to the east, and for myriad schemes carried out by mercenary political actors in the “war on terror”. The Chadian economy has not sunk to Zimbabwe’s state, because foreign institutions, the primary lifeline of developing countries, have not deemed it to be so – yet.
In the late 1990s, the years in which the “Zimbabwean decline” first garnered serious international attention, Michael Novak of the IMF stated in an interview with the Financial Gazette, that if Zimbabwe’s response to the World Bank/IMF structural adjustment programmes did not bode well, they would not be receiving the $53-million loan.
What upset them? Mugabe imposed price controls on staple foods, against the orders of the IFIs, ensuring that the staples would be affordable to the majority – lest the people riot, again. A visit by the IMF two months later saw this policy undone. The loan was thereafter released by the IMF, which allowed for the Paris Club and other lending institutions to lend a further $800-million. The lesson was that nothing goes without the approval of the deadly duo.
As the BBC recently reported, privatisation kills, in the long and short run. But it gets worse. In 1998, Mugabe began to seriously default on debt payments to the World Bank and IMF, for the Z$90-billion that the country owed in external colonial and odious debt, in conjunction to domestic debt, bringing the total amount to Z$132, 6- billion (about $4.2-billion). Though this figure seems minor, it is the compound interest that tightens the noose e.g. Nigeria previously owed $6-billion, yet ended up paying out $15-billion in interest only. It is this point, among others, that the Meltzer Commission objected too, stating that the IMF should not be authorised to negotiate policy reforms, rollover debt more than once, or subvert the democratic processes of debtor and creditor countries through long-term that result in structural dependence of resource-rich cash-poor nations.
In 2008, the IMF questioned the source of hard currency used by Zimbabwe to clear arrears (Chinese) and blamed the hyperinflation on the lack of “fiscal reform” implemented. The lack of real financial assets and the subsequent monetary “bankruptcy” of the government, fueled by printing money delinked from value is the catalyst behind the hyperinflation, compounded by the penalisation of the economy. The decline of said economy did not begin when the media “discovered” Zimbabwe; it began in the mid 1970s – a few years before independence. [Although exports did increase during the 1980s, this was primarily due to the devaluation of the currency. In 1997 the currency was devalued from Z$: US$0.09 to US$0.025 – less bang for the buck.]
In 1999, Patrick Bond, author of Uneven Zimbabwe wrote, “Zimbabwe suffers several maladies: confusing populist government rhetoric on race/class issues; white corporate domination of the industrial, agricultural, financial and services sectors; and an inability to break into global markets.
“Since independence in 1980, Mugabe condoned an ever-greater role for the private sector in Zimbabwe’s development, in the process taking on vast quantities of international debt (whose repayment cost 35% of export earnings by 1987), culminating in the 1990 adoption of a structural adjustment programme that parroted the Washington Consensus.”
The issue of debt is bigger than Zimbabwe – the country is just one example of what happens when a dictator, addicted to power, refuses to be bent to the political will of another, equally brutal force.
The total estimated debt for 144 of the world’s poorest countries is $2.9-trillion. In 2006, these countries paid $573-billion in debt remuneration. In that same year, Official Development Assistance (ODA), composed of high-income donor countries, gave $103.9- billion in foreign aid – one fifth of funds received from debt payment. In 2008, Tanzania — a country where 60% of the population lives under the proverbial dollar a day, was still paying out one fifth of their GDP. According to the WB’s Global Finance Report, developing countries are net creditors to developed countries.
Back in the late 1990s, the years that Western institutions decided to isolate Zimbabwe economically to teach Mugabe a lesson, Zimbabwe owed 95% of their (GDP). The IMF and World Bank closed their coffins, eh, coffers. Could it be that the IFIs did so because Mugabe was dictatorial and nasty? Nay.
The WB alone, as mentioned before, has financed apartheid South Africa, Suharto, Arap-Moi, Duvalier, Franco, Ceausescu, Mobutu, Pinochet, Deby, Somoza Idi Amin and others.
Debt and debt relief measures, when stripped naked of jargon, were designed to ensure debt sustainability – a constant source of income for countries like the US, the largest debtor nation in the world, with debt standing at $13-trillion or 99% of their GDP.
Is this debt that has crippled developing countries valid given the context: a relationship involving the lending institutions, first world countries and third world dictatorships regimes?
While the West focuses on “debt sustainability”, their milking (dying) cow, the other creeping superpower China, focuses on development sustainability, directed toward the exploitation of resources and a market for Chinese labour.
It is in Zimbabwe that we are able to glimpse the battle won by China, labeled the “rogue donor” via their generous dollops of aid to many a resource-rich regime. Unlike the US, the Chinese government does not spend $1-trillion per annum in military expenditure; think $59-billion. Yet through soft loans and grants, the Chinese have managed to quietly establish a rapidly expanding presence in Africa. China is in negotiations with Zimbabwe for a multi-billion loan in exchange for access to mineral resources. In 2001, the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act was signed, actively preventing the government from applying for multilateral loans, in addition to freezing foreign-held accounts of certain members of the regime. No such legislation was drawn up concerning US-allied regimes including oil-rich Angola, E.Guinea, Gulf of Guinea, Chad or Nigeria amongst others.
In 1997, soon after the process of economic isolation was threatened, compounded by the Blair government reneging on the Lancaster House Agreement of 1979 — terms of which included a willing buyer-willing seller clause, allowing for the British government to buy out the land — Mugabe forged a plan to seize farms, by force, using his crony army as the framework in question, instead of the now defunct-Lancaster.
By 1998, Mugabe was raging against the IMF at conferences, conveniently so. In 1999, during a visit to Zimbabwe, the IMF demanded the Zimbabwean government remunerate white farmers, and pay the sum up front. Or not. The crisis in Zimbabwe is a case of a (black) dictator, with a damaged ego, unwilling to let go of power, and a former colonial landlord who doesn’t care too much about the fate of (white) farmers, so long as the right neoliberal policies were imposed when Zimbabwe fell apart.
Sadly, the power sharing deal does not let the British government out of the loop, stating that Britain must compensate the white farmers for confiscated farms. “The parties hereby call upon the United Kingdom government to accept the primary responsibility to pay compensation for land acquired from former landowners for resettlement.”
It is certain that Zimbabwe could have been freed of “Mugabe” had labour unions across Southern Africa united under one umbrella. But unions are often corrupt at the apogee, while those on the lower rungs have their own share of suffering and trouble.
Zimbabwe’s labour leader — Morgan Tsvangirai, head of the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), anticipated the land grab and, prior to the 2000 breakaway, began negotiating alliances with the minority Ndebele, the farmers and foreign governments.
What does the MDC envision for Zimbabwe?
Eddie Cross, an economist and founder member of the MDC, stated the following in 2000: “All fifty price parastatals will be privatised within a two-year frame, but we are going far beyond that. We are going to privatise many functions of the government. We are going to privatise virtually the entire school delivery system.”
Certainly, being unable to afford education with all doors closing in on you is far, far better than having to hear about an innocent two-year-old beaten in a prison, and anyone is better than Mugabe – the black George Bush, who did the “Iraq” in his own country.
But should Zimbabwe have to settle for policies with a proven track record of environmental, economic and socio-political devastation ie: the choice between a noose and shotgun?
Should Zimbabwe have to settle for just anything?
*Any mention of countries refers only to governments, distinct from the nation and their respective dogs and cats.
Very nicely done.
I should read your blogs more often, since most of the other bloggers seem to have their heads very firmly stuck up their bottoms.
Its good to see someone that doesn’t just type for the sake of seeing their byline and actually puts some effort into it.
A very well written piece. Thank you.
Richard
I quote: “His buddies Stalin, Ceausescu and Sharon will certainly appreciate the arrival of fresh blood.” I presume you mean Ariel Sharon? If so how did he make your list? And why no mention of Hitler?
Hi Pyrokinetix and Richard, thank you for reading:-)
Tom: Hitler is definitely a VIP member of the club for his treatment all who did not conform to the nationalist ideology of the empire envisioned by himself ie: jews, gypsies, communists, persons of different sexual orientation, handicapped people etc
Dear Khadija,
For your info there is a plague killing lots of them, whilst you try to claim it is the World bank “punishing them” for Mugabe putting price controls on staple foods.
It has more to do with ZANU removing water supply from the MDC run councils to a ZANU controlled water parastatal that was run by political appointees who stripped everything that wasn’t nailed down, and sold the water purification chemicals to Zambia on the Black Market.
And the World bank, like many “racist” institutions has this idea that Black Africans should pay their old debts, before they lend them any more, like every other race. But you seem to think this is some American Petro-country controlled conspiracy to insult the African Peoples’ intelligence by asking them to keep accounts and provide an Independent Audit.
(Which is a racial insult, apparently, asking African Govts to keep accounts.)
Why not stop posting disguised Race Hate, and protection of Mugabe, more suited to the Zimbabwean Herald and Govt controlled mouthpiece, and why not come down to Mbare in Harare at this present time, and come talk to my Black Zimbabwean In-laws so that they can make you aware of their opinion of your writing.
Or were you there, whipping their buttocks into pulp, like many other female ZANU activists, and making them sing slogans about ZANU protecting Zimbabwe from the Americans in order to vote correctly for the ZANU MP councillors, notorious for theft and expecting money or sexual favours from women (and men and young boys and underage girls) for anythng they do.
Which obviously has nothing to do with the collapse of the Zim economy, according to your “Analysis” since its only the Americanms and World Bank’s fault.
Forty years ago your writing might have had any semblance of truth.
Forty years later the “West” and world businesss community (Where Chineses and Japaneses banks are the biggest conglomorates) has learned from Mobuto Seso Seko.
And obviously the Black African Politicians and people like yourself have not.
much better analysis, freely available to all us “Neo-Colonialists in the UK with a book by a Black South African:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7824870.stm
If you’d like to show any interest in SA, or be able to use the Internet to read freely available archives and writings by Black Africans on the situations and Challenges Modern Africa faces:
http://www.issafrica.org/index.php?link_id=3&slink_id=6919&link_type=12&slink_type=12&tmpl_id=3
Khadija
The militarization of Chad was not funded by the World Bank. The FACTS are all there in Calderisi’s book which you pretend that you have read. And I have given you the facts before. The profits from the pipeline (which was very difficult to finance because no-one trusted Chad’s dictator) were to go to a trust for the benefit of developing the people. The first profits that came – the President bought weapons and a presidential jet. The result was that all Aid had to be suspended to Chad for violating the agreement.
That is as far as I read. If you are going to ignore facts and sources which you have already been referred to- then all I am going to be reading is prejudices.
Lyndall: the profits from the pipeline were to be managed by a trust initiated by the World Bank (Committee for the Control and Supervision of Oil Resources) composed of nine members; the WB allowed for Deby to select the five main players.
I’m going to ask that you go back to the board where the subject is discussed in detail.
Your ‘facts’ were addressed.
Alisdair, you stated: “And the World bank, like many “racist” institutions has this idea that Black Africans should pay their old debts, before they lend them any more, like every other race.”
It has nothing to do with race. Odious debt, irrespective of geographic location, must be repudiated.
The situation in Zimbabwe is far more complex than a simple US/WB conspiracy.
First, Zimbabwe was faced with serious economic problems in the early 90′s mostly because of excessive government spending and borrowing. The social programs (like the free-education) was partly responsible for this. We can debate about the merits of the IMF and World Bank suggestions but the Zimbabwean government under Mugabe choose to use structural adjustment programs.
The Lancaster House Agreement lasted for 15 years and ended in 1990. The British choose not to extend it based on corruption and differences over who must pay for what (see Moeletsi Mbeki’s argument). They were willing to still contribute but not without scrapping the willing-buyer willing-seller as done by legislation in 1992.
In debt studies on land and farming is Zimbabwe paint a far more complex picture than often portrait by ZANU-PF propaganda. For instance:
(1) Less than 5% of Zim farmers in 2000 could be traced to pioneering families. Less than 10% to families that settled before WW2 and since independence at least 50% of all farms had been sold at least once. This does not take away from the political problem that 1% owned 70% of the land but doesn’t mean it was stolen as such.
(2) It is not entirely accurate to say that most of the good land where given to white farmers. In many instances it was the improvements that made the difference as many pieces of land shared the same soil quality. This of course does not take away from the unequal allocation of land by colonial authorities. Many were trapped into native type reserves but the government repeated these mistakes by allocating new land on a similar basis and not encouraging private ownership. We see the same thing in SA.
(3) Many policy and bureaucratic problems bungled the reform program in the first 15 years. Many similar to that of SA. Less than 1% of the budget went to land reform during 1980-1990. In fact the government had a sort of alliance with the farmers (farm and bring in the money but stay out of politics). This only started to become a problem in 1990′s with the economic problems and political changes in ZANU-PF (more pressure by economic elites on regime to implement BEE programs and leadership reform/struggles in ZANU-PF).
(4) Then there are other issues like vacant land that was abandoned by white farms (because of the liberation war) not been given to new farmers because of laws introduced protecting squatters (war veterans). In the first 5 years more land was transfered than anywhere in Africa. Although it slowed down afterwards. The British could have done more to assist but the government also on their part did not have land reform as a priority. For instance 90% of all land initially marked for resettlement where already bought in 1987 but very few people where resettled on it based on the governments own targets. A lot of the British funding was never used because claims were still being processed.
Read Angus Selbys thesis on Land Reform and Farming in Zim for a sober analysis (British, government and farmers all to blame to some extend, some more than others)
The current collapse is a result of a couple of key decisions by the government since 1990:
(1) Massive payout to war veterans that seriously damaged the Zim currency and economy.
(2) Its Land Reform response after loosing the 2000 referendum.
(3) Putting the JOC and former military personnel in charge of key parastatals and basically running the country through the JOC. Stalling key developmental programs and infrastructure assistance for political reasons, like: Refusing MDC lead councils to take control of services and not funding dam projects in the dry Matabeleland province (MDC stronghold).
(4) Going into the DRC when there was no money for a sustained campaign.
(5) Quasi fiscal policies like printing money, price controls and wage freezes.
The IMF and WB will not provide funding to Zimbabwe before they stop these quasi fiscal activities and implement basic economic reforms.
It is simple they do not meet they lending standards of any financial institution including the African Bank. That is why the Chinese for instance want mineral concessions and have not provided any serious loans to Zimbabwe apart from some farm tractors and buses.
Ironically Zimbabwe is kept economically running by big Western multinational that provide foreign currency, remittances from mostly SA, US and UK and foreign aid – US, UK and EU.
The ZANU-PF government is at the end of the day responsible for making them more depended on the West and their financial institutions than they ever were…
HD: Thank you for the comment. In fact, the article does not reduce the situation to a conspiracy, but rather, attempts to enhance the narrativised (and simplified) version of Zimbabwe’s decline. Mugabe is as stated, a dictator. However, there are many others like him, bolstered by geopolitical relationships.
The Lancaster House Agreement was reneged by the British only in 1997, via the Blair government. Labor’s Short stated in that year that the government did not intend to honor the agreement as they were a ‘new diverse’ party, distinct from colonial interests.
The 1992 Land Acquisition Act, was aggressively enacted in 1997 + as the ‘justified’ response to the Blair government. We must note that land was also confiscated from commercial farmers who were not white, but were instead perceived as ‘collaborators’…necessary boogeymen to Mugabe’s ‘victimisation’.
Zim’s massive debt (servicing) was conditioned on yielding to the SAP programmes that undermined local industry and paralysed the economy, causing massive job losses, and the elimination of development infrastructure. IMF ‘fiscal reform’ – beginning in 1991, related to free trade additionally served to bankrupt small businesses and producers, inflating everything, such as the cost of food. From 1991 to 1995 there was a 40% decline in living standards due to the reforms then endorsed by Mugabe. Zimbabwe was also economically dependent on agriculture, significantly so, and this reality – the structural legacy of colonialism, when colonies were molded to specialise in certain sectors, is rarely interrogated or altered on ‘liberation’. On the contrary, as with SA, the policy of economic continuity is the primary factor determining independence, never won, always negotiated.
The act of territorial acquisition was packaged by the army under Mugabe as a form of leveling, while handing out chunks of land to cronies in order to buy their loyalty. Mugabe is quite an opportunist, courting the IMF when it suited him, raging against them when people rioted…
Most ‘liberation’ movements in Africa are characterised by the (over)accumulation and cannibalisation of capital. More importantly, those countries deemed success stories are inoculated by nothing more than their relationship to one superpower or another.
Khadija
Did you seriously even read HD’s post?
His facts are right, but much more politely put than I would have done.
And Britain never renaged on the Lancaster House agreement – Mugabe did. This was explained to Mbeki in 2001, who did not bother to tell us (or SADC no doubt) and even threw his toys out of the cot, and did one of his late night internet letters in Decamber 2003 supporting Mugabe’s fallacies, because the Commonwealth would not acceed to Mbeki’s request to let his pal back in!
Do you want to give me ONE example of Mbeki’s foreign policy which has not been an embarrassment?
Interesting reading. All statements and references show a divided insight/opinion on the Zim matters laying bare the complexity of the case.
Maybe SA Foreign Affairs (Mrs Dlamini Zuma) is right when she suggests that Zim must solve its own problems and SADC cannot do anything.
The questions arise: why give aid for the cholera plague? why let Zimbabweans come into SA to read in the newspapers how bad it is at home? Why not let Bob make their life so unbearable that they finally get angry, stand up and get him and his mates out of the way for good?
Or…? Does Africa see in Bob the first African leader standing up in public, giving the West the finger, branding the West as the source of all evil in Africa after Ghadaffi in Lybia towed the line with the West (in exchange for what will forever be a secret).
Some time ago, Africa was called the dark continent. It still is but for different reasons.
Good piece. Bound to draw a few white racists out of their hidey holes with guns blazing.
* I particlarly support the distinction you make between governments and nations.
I think this theme must be explored further, and why democracy has gone wrong, and where to from here. George Monbiot wrote the fascinating book “The Age of Concent” on the subject a few years ago.
In the book ‘The Sovereign Individual’ James Dale Davidson and Lord William Rees-Mogg pointed out that a government is nothing more than a legitimate mafia. They use violence to take money from you in return for protection.
Nay Lyndall: The UK officially reneged on LHA, as mentioned, in 1997. [LHA was signed in 1979. HD claims that the agreement was voided in 1990, having ‘lasted for 15 yrs’. Is there a special calculator that I wasn’t let in on?]
On LHA – in November 1997 Short wrote, ‘I should make it clear that we do not accept that Britain has a special responsibility to meet the costs of land purchase in Zimbabwe. We are a new government from diverse backgrounds without links to former colonial interests.’
This letter signified a shift in the UK’s foreign policy, distancing Britain from the legacy of colonialism and reparations. Short may have justified her statement by saying that she was Irish, but it was the decision of the Blair government to renege. [Her Irish ancestry has nothing to do with the UK’s foreign policy.]
Short thereafter intimated that the UK would be willing to assist with the land reform process – but this as a separate policy, delinked from just and due reparations – implying that the act would be a favor, and not the responsibility of former colonial landlords – note the word ‘special’. It should be noted that though the UK continuously hindered the process, by 1988, Mugabe’s government had already allegedly secreted away portions of the fund made available.
[These reparations – outlined in the new deal, should not be made to a) any regime under Mugabe, and b) must be independently monitored. The sanctions imposed on Zimbabwe (on certain individuals, and the blocking of any multilateral loans) is the best option given the circumstances. The sanctions should be continued, and the terms of the power sharing deal, related to land reform and financial reparations, must disclude Mugabe’s ‘intervention’.]
China maintains a two-pronged policy of ‘non-interference’ and direct negotiations with heads-of-state by-passing the state. In 2005, the $250 million worth of arms purchased by Mugabe overrode the Zimbabwean arms procurement board. The radar system, frequency disruptors etc sitting in Mugabe’s mansion, the borders of the country etc are quite unlike the ‘buses’ that HD mentions, though it is not unlikely that China also kindly provided buses;-) In 2008, China allegedly – and quietly, negotiated a $2 billion loan to Zimbabwe. Unfortunately, China has been forced to distance itself from Zimbabwe due to a) the overall situation, and b) the noted shipment of arms halted by Durban dockworkers.
The rape of the Congo by Museveni, Mugabe, and Kagame did not prove to be unsustainable for any of the parties involved, save for the people of said nations. In fact, as documented, the Congo desk generated 80% of the funds used by the Rwandan army, (and others such as Zimbabwe) via the looting of resources such as timber, diamonds, coltan etc..The armies involved became very rich. The Bredenkamp connection – Zim’s arms mercenary, also featured prominently, as highlighted by the UN Panel of Experts.
The economic collapse of the Zimbabwean economy was due in large part to debt, and the cannibalization and over-accumulation of capital and industry e.g. latter ratio for manufacturing sector increased to 28% in 1976, up 7% from 1973 (and kept climbing) in sectors ranging from textiles to tobacco, lending to cannibalization.
Best to read Bond’s excellent work – ‘Zimbabwe’s Long Economic Crisis’.
Benzol – you raise an interesting point, one recently mentioned by Mamdani in his piece published by the London Review of Books. However, we must define the ‘Africa’ that is spoken of. That Mugabe, the fake anti-west, anti-neoliberal, anti-imperialist etc could be branded a hero and the polar opposite of the west, is a facade, for both systems operate on the same premise (control, exploitation, media propaganda, militarisation) in different degrees.
While Mugabe is dependent on his army to keep the natives in line, the US is dependent on the media. The latter certainly has less of a bloody mess to clean up and a great deal of immunity even if it didn’t.
[The OECD recently revealed that income inequality in the US lagged just behind Mexico. Americans are heavily taxed to subsidise multinationals. Welfare turned upside down?]
If the choice is between Mugabe and the West, symbolised as the choice between (possibly East-maintained) Mugabe and for e.g. West-maintained Deby, then the notion of independence is yet to become a reality given that we are (or have allowed ourselves to be) structurally dependent on foreign powers, and y default, foreign policy.
Benzol
Mandela himself negotiated the peace between Libya and the West. Unlike Mbeki’s peace negotiations it was successful. Don’t forget that Mandela’s first grandchild is called Gadaffi.
As for this stupid idea that Zim must do it alone like SA did. That is garbage! UDM was successful in SA because their protest marches and strikes threatened the economy on which all depended. There is no economy to threaten in Zim – it is in ruins. Strikes will achieve nothing. Also the UN has been blocked from giving assistance in any way by Mbeki,SADC, and the AU. South Africa had massive assistance from the UN, including even a secret UN slush fund which they managed to manouvre to avoid the normal accounting processes. The details are in the book “White Lies” by Denis Herbstein.
Khadija
Britain had ALREADY spent 44 billion pounds which bought 30% of the farmland, which Mugabe had not given to the poor but to pals. When Mbeki started as one of the SADC negotiators in 2001, he listened to Mugabe’s garbage and thought he had an easy problem to solve – just re-instate the Lancaster House agreement. So in 2001 Britain agreed to spend another 30 plus billion pounds WHEN A LAND POLICY FOR THE POOR had been established, and the original 30% distributed in terms of such policy as agreed at Lancaster House. The facts are all in the book “Beyond The Miracle” by Allister Sparks. I don’t know who Bond is – could even be a Zanu front, but I have been reading Allister Sparks all my life, and him I trust.
Zimbabwe had NO DEBT in 1980, when Mugabe took over, and did NOT need to borrow at all.
“At independence, Tanzanian leader Julius Nyere told Zimbabwe’s new leader, Robert Mugabe, that he had inherited the jewel of Africa and urged him to protect it. Zimbabwe was to be the model for a new Africa. It was the region’s breadbasket. The economy’s potential was limitless”.
Cape Times 23rd June 2008 “Country teeters on the precipice” by James McGee.
Mugabe and his pal Mbeki are tempramentally the same – will take no advice, and consider themselves infallible! Luckily Mbeki only had 10 years!
Khadija: “That Mugabe……..is a facade, for both systems operate on the same premise in different degrees.” I do agree but in this world, facts do not count, perceptions do.
“While Mugabe is dependent on his army to keep the natives in line, the US is dependent on the media. The latter certainly has less of a bloody mess to clean up….”
The US is more subtle in supporting, they leave the bloody mess is on other peoples hands.
@Lyndall: “Mandela himself negotiated the peace between Libya and the West.”
With due respect to Mandela: Mandela had been imprisoned for 27 years, Ghadaffi had been in business for longer than that.
Does it make a difference to the fact that Ghadaffi sold his soul to the West and left his African mates to fight for themselves?
African solidarity is proven to be non existent when the Swiss bank accounts are opened. Global exploitation is the dire consequence.
Lyndall,
Zimbabwe DID have foreign debt at independence in 1980.
Angus Selby puts the figure at $500 million.
Patrick Bond in the 515 page book “Uneven Zimbabwe” puts the figure at GBP 102 million +R315 million owned to South Africa.
Britain’s offer for Land Reform in Zim was NOT reasonable, when compared against what Britain spent on Land Reform in Kenya in the 1960s.
Angus Selby has written a very detailed thesis of the history of white farmers in Rhodesia/Zimbabwe.
“This thesis is about the history and politics of white farmers in Zimbabwe. It is an analysis of
how they interacted with the state and an assessment of how they competed for access to and
control of land and other resources. It will help to explain the context of Zimbabwe’s post-2000
land crisis, and to improve our understanding of it. In this respect, it carries significant lessons for white farmers and other key interest groups in Namibia and South Africa as they face the challenges of rectifying similar land and race imbalances.”
If you want to be really knowledegeable about the land question in Zim, you should read Selby’s thesis, available on internet.
Lyndall,
Your figures of billions of pounds are grossly exaggerated. (I thought it was only SA politicians who often can’t distinguish between a million and a billion!)
I’ve seen two different references to £44 million donated by the UK for land reform post 1980. Bilateral aid from the UK however totalled £500 million, or half a billion £.
In the case of Kenya, the UK had however adopted a totally different approach to land reform.
“As with Zimbabwe, Kenya had had a comparable land problem and a guerrilla war fuelled by land grievances. In the case of Kenya, the British sought to defuse the situation by buying out white farmers. The British made available UK£500 million for land acquisition and settlement
support in Kenya.”
Khadija, you state above that China quietly negotiated a $2 billion loan to Zimbabwe in 2008. Are you perhaps mistakenly recycling 2006 reports of such a negotiation, which, on further investigation, turned out to be a request from Mugabe that went nowhere? Or do you have inside information that hasn’t yet been released?
I have to chuckle at Taynton’s “white racist” jibe. But I like his reference to government as a “legitimate Mafia”. I’m sure he means this to apply to the current SA government as well.
As for Zim, my take is another Monty Pythonesque argument (yes you did, no I didn’t). To me what matters is the current position (desperate-little sign of hope) and the lesson. The lesson is do not trust a politician and get any money you make in “dodgy” countries out asap. After all you don’t catch Bob investing in Zim do you? Wonder where the current SA elite inves their cash?
Khadija: As far as I know the Chinese loan has only been rumoured in the press and has not formally been agreed upon. The “Look East” policy has failed and not had any significant benefits. Proof to me that there has been significant investment by China, Iran and Malaysia that out strip that of western and sa interest in Zim.
As I said the British, white farmers and Zim government are all to blame. Ultimately the people making the decisions were Mugabe and ZANU-PF. In this sense they are more to blame since they did not do much about land for 10-15 years after independence only to then hijack it (a legitimate issue) when things got difficult inside and outside for the ruling elite.
I agree Zim was in a bad financial position because of the WB plans and colonial debt, but surely the points that I mention (DRC war, pension payouts, quasi fiscal activities) accelerated the crisis from just another developing country trapped in debt (which you correctly describe) into a basket case?
All that government spending on education, health and other social service are now lost on a new generation that will have to get used to crumbled infrastructure and a shortage of human capital/skills. Sure business will come back when things improve, but the rest will take longer and by most estimates will take lots of money and time.
The Lancaster House agreement entrenched protection for property rights for the first 10 years of independence and the distribution should take place according to the willing buyer-willing seller principle. No specific promises were made in terms of funding specifics except that the British would support such a program.
But a Zimbabwe Donors Conference in March 1981 raised £17-million (about R240-million) for development in Zimbabwe, including land reform. Between 1980 and 1985, the UK provided £47-million for land reform: £20-million as a specific Land Resettlement Grant (1981) and £27-million in the form of budgetary support to help the Zimbabwean government’s own contribution to the programme.
Selby’s thesis in detail outlines the different problems between 1980-1990 that entails plenty of blame going to all sides.
The fund closed in 1996 with some money still unspend. This was followed by the now infamous Short letter.
It is important here to stress the corruption that was prevelant in the land reform program especially since the 1992 Act scrapped the willing buyer willing seller – but made provision for compensation to farmers. Also during this time there was considerable pressure on ZANU-PF from the war veterans and black emerging farmers to speed up the land process.
In 1998 another land conference was organised that included doners and multilateral institutions. Even at this conference there were concerns about corruption and land being allocated to senior goverment and party members with public funds. An investigation uncovered at least 15 such farms being allocated to senior goverment and ZANU-PF members. The British was willing to continue to fund land reform but they could not agree with the Zimbabweans on the details. The zim government wanted the british to pay for compensation without detailed invoices (allowing for corruption, especially concerning the infrastructure improvements that added a lot to land values).
The point is that domestic politics had just as much to do with things as outside forces. Mugabe under pressure from veterans and people in his party tried to forces the land issue through and lost the referendum to a well organised civil society grouping that was to become the MDC. Just the fact that all these forces united to oppose the referendum indicate that at this stage there was lots of problems in Zim.
@Lyndal: “As for this stupid idea that Zim must do it alone like SA did.” SA did not do it alone. Apartheid fell after the Berlin wall fell.
Apartheid had served its purpose and a friendly transformation was desired by all, including apartheid supporters. A stable SA was (and still is) a necessity for global trade.
This reduces the importance of the ANC as a liberation movement. They never had to put up a proper fight. They were handed down the government of SA by the same parties who had previously supported apartheid.
The ANC has subsequently squandered the moral high ground they were offered on a golden platter. The real fight for control of SA with real guns is already raging.
We call it crime!
Deborah, thank for reading. From what I understand, the Zimbabwean ambassador to China (Mutsvangwa) prematurely revealed in 2006, that China was in the process of considering a $2 billion ‘loan’ to Zimbabwe. The loan was allegedly composed of several financial/corporate packages and contracts directed toward developing mining, agriculture and tourism. Beijing refuted these statements at the time, perhaps due to the fact that nothing was signed and/or following pressure to divest. In 2007/08 there followed meetings from Chinese officials, including the 34-member delegation that came down to discuss Zimbabwean resources such as platinum and gold. China is already said to hold shares in Zimbabwe’s electricity, chrome industry Zimasco (65% Sinosteel), tobacco etc The contracts/loans (allegedly the same) were proposed as operating capital for certain industries in the country. The Chinese Vice-Min of Commerce stated of the trip that, ‘Chinese companies have invested a further US$1, 6 billion in engineering and related contracts’ in addition to agri, mining et al contracts, (details not released) and various smaller financial packages such as the $42 million injected into agriculture etc This was reported by a few outlets. China has over 300 million smokers and tobacco is good source of hard currency for the government. The contracts was said to be dependent on satisfying several factors including whether or not the Zimbabwean government defaults from previous loans (they have apparently defaulted). China is under increasing pressure to distance itself from Zimbabwe, especially after the An Yuejiang incident (the ship allegedly held 1,500 rocket-propelled grenades, 3 million rounds of ammunition and other equipment).
japes
Governments around the world force you to pay tax on pain of some punishment and offer you protection (police, jusdiciary and legal system) in return. The Mafia also take protection money, the difference is governments are regarded as legitimate and the Mafia not.
Andrew – too true. Legitimate mafias in many cases.
HD – I agree. Mugabe did indeed condone the neoliberal ‘reform’ of the IFIs. Although these reforms eventually, sooner or later, cannibalise economies, the dictatorial nature of the regime acted as an accelerant in a gargantuan way.
Very nuanced piece, nice…im liking your INFORMED counter-establishment approach
Oldfox
I replied last Saturday. Everything bombed out and I was offline to TL for a week. Lets see if this gets through before I waste that much time again.
>>>>(1) Less than 5% of Zim farmers in 2000 could be traced to pioneering families. Less than 10% to families that settled before WW2 and since independence at least 50% of all farms had been sold at least once. This does not take away from the political problem that 1% owned 70% of the land but doesn’t mean it was stolen as such.