The Herald
To all intents and purposes, whatever "hat" he might wear, whether as the Prime Minister or leader of the Western friend in the MDC as a Zimbabwean should see the friend that is in Iran.
By Tichaona Zindoga
IT was quite easy to view the recent meeting between Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai and the Iranian ambassador here as one depicting the former as making an ironic "U-turn" four months after boycotting Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad when he visited Zimbabwe.
The one temptation was to point to the uncomplimentary pronouncements that PM Tsvangirai’s MDC-T party levelled against the Middle East country, apart from snubbing the Iranian leader on three separate occasions of his excursion.
Tsvangirai neither welcomed the Iranian leader when he touched down at the Harare International Airport on April 23, nor turned up at the State dinner hosted in honour of the visiting leader by President Mugabe at State House.
He did not also attend the Zimbabwe International Trade Fair in Bulawayo where President Ahmedinejad officially opened the 51st edition of the premier exhibition.
Several MDC-T senior officials who had been part of the ZITF declared business elsewhere.
However, it was a different matter on Thursday as, according to a report, "Mr Tsvangirai wearing his PM’s hat — which he was supposed to wear during the ZITF — welcomed President Ahmadinejad’s chief envoy to Harare at his Munhumutapa office."
The report then cited: "The satire couldn’t have been clearer given that an ambassador represents his head of state and government, and Mr Tsvangirai was apparently lost to the irony."
Whatever the import of the supposed "U-turn" by the premier who reportedly told the Iranian envoy that the inclusive Government is a unified Government and working well, it is a good sign.
The beauty of it stems not only from the correction of the April childish and irrational snub, which seemed to derive from MDC-T’s friends in the West who have decided to view Iran as an "outpost of tyranny".
It will be noted though that Iran has proved to be a friendlier global player than its accusers who have attacked and pillaged less powerful countries in the name of democracy.
Both Zimbabwe and Iran are victims of Western meddling.
Tsvangirai’s latest move apparently is thankfully informed by Zimbabwe’s long-held view that this hospitable country needs friends not enemies, which President Mugabe repeated in July when he met an envoy from the hostile West.
Iran has been an important power, since the historic 1979 Islamic Revolution that threw out the American puppet regime.
The emerging giant, whose land area equals that of Britain, Germany, Spain and France combined, is irresistible for its being an energy superpower and its shining example in busting unjust Western sanctions.
The people of Iran have devised homegrown solutions in fully exploiting their natural resources and maximising on their competitive advantages and developing their science and technology capacity.
The result has been that Iranian industries such as petro-chemicals, agriculture, pharmaceuticals, military, automobile, textile, among others have been phenomenal homegrown successes.
Over the years when Zimbabwe has been constricted, restricted and sanctioned by the West and decided to look East, this same success of Iran has trickled to the country.
In fact, Zimbabwe’s co-operation with fellow Non- Aligned Movement member Iran whose three leaders have visited the country to date was etched in the 1991 Zimbabwe-Iran Joint Commission.
The sixth edition of the commission preceded President Ahmedinejad’s visit that saw Zimbabwe and Iran focusing on political, economic, commercial and cultural issues.
Several Memoranda of Understanding and agreements covering such areas as the abolition of diplomatic visas, science and technology, training, mining, agriculture, tourism, culture and health were signed.
Cumulatively the Zimbabwe-Iran Joint Commission has resulted in the two countries increasingly co-operating in the areas of mining, trade, technology transfer, agriculture, health, energy, aviation, education, water management, defence and broadcasting.
The historic ZITF at which Iranian companies took more than 200 square metres of exhibition space, occupied by 40 companies, making Iran the friendliest foreign country at the fair, highlighted the growing ties between the two countries.
The country’s leader became the first non-African to officially open the fair in Zimbabwe’s history.
During his Zimbabwe visit the Iranian leader officially launched the Industrial Development Corporation tractor project in Harare and toured textile concern Modzone Enterprises in Chitungwiza.
The two are joint Zimbabwe/Iran ventures.
With Iranian companies strongly represented at the just-ended Harare Agricultural Show, which Tsvangirai also visited, he must have left with a feeling of deja vu before he met Ambassador Pournajaf.
To all intents and purposes, whatever "hat" he might wear, whether as the Prime Minister or leader of the Western friend in the MDC as a Zimbabwean should see the friend that is in Iran.
To be a bit romantic, some political scientists have even pointed to the strong cultural ties that exist between Zimbabwe and Iran dating back to the 13th century when people in the two countries traded in ivory and gold.
Contacts with Europeans, by contrast, are dated to have started some 200 years later.
In this vein, when the premier wears his other "hat" he is not only being ahistorical but also unscientific, naïve and hypocritical.
One analyst has pointed out in an article the extent of such hypocrisy and double-dealing.
MDC senior leaders reportedly have as of March 2009 been meeting, seeking and receiving donations from the Iranian Embassy.
"Their leader Morgan Tsvangirai has held several meetings with the Iranian Ambassador Rasool Momeni since 2009 where not only has he sought financial assistance for his party, but he also indicated that the MDC looks forward to cultivating a symbiotic relationship with Iran," said the analyst.
On March 6 2009 the premeir held a meeting with Ambassador Momeni.
He indicated that the Government of Zimbabwe would like to pursue the MOUs it has over the years signed with the government of Iran, chief of these being the refurbishment of the Feruka Oil Refinery and the digitalisation at the Zimbabwe Broadcasting Holdings.
The MDC-T-dominated town of Bindura benefited from the benevolence of the Iranian government and people, leading to the conferment of the freedom of the city on January 29 2010 to Ambassador Rassol Momeni.
Ms Thokozani Khupe, MDC-T vice-president and Deputy Prime Minister presided over the function.
Other examples of Iranian help include a US$1 000 donation to buy mealie-meal and cooking oil for distribution to his constituency extended to MDC Member of Parliament for Chikomba Central Moses Jiri by the Iranian Embassy.
Such exchanges were made in several other incidents involving the MDC-T.
In general terms, while Iran is not endowed with the Western megabucks, which have not been forthcoming as promised the MDC in particular and Zimbabweans in general, Iran has shown more than willingness to help Zimbabwe.
Where the others have wanted to see Zimbabwe "crash and burn", and perhaps sanitise that with "humanitarian" aid, Iran has co-operated with Zimbabwe in the same areas such as agriculture that the West wanted to see destroyed.
That the countries that Tsvangirai supports in his other "hat" represent a desperate and dying age of the empire is also a matter of fact, while emerging economies in the East and South represent the future.
Monday, August 30, 2010
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Robert Mugabe: The great Pan-African, teacher
By supporting others in the region to gain their independence, he helped to spread assertion of that identity.
By economically empowering his people, he helped to guarantee continuity and the future of the redeemed African persona.
That was the underlying philosophy and teaching of Africa’s founding fathers.
The President is an African statesman that is why Africans love him.
The Herald
By Alexander Kanengoni
PRESIDENT Mugabe’s speech at the Sadc Heads of State and Government meeting in Windhoek, Namibia, last week was one of the finest he has ever made.
Suddenly, standing there in front of the Sadc Heads of State and Government, he was the teacher, just as it was a long time ago at Hope Fountain Mission, teaching them nationalism and politics.
He pleaded with them to safeguard our forefathers’ legacy, the land, because it was the inheritance that our founding fathers bequeathed us.
This writer couldn’t help imagining DRC’s Joseph Kabila shifting in his chair, holding his head in his hand because he knew it was Sadc, based on the principles laid down by our founding fathers that saved his country from descending into civil strife and chaos a few years ago.
He knew it was because of them that he was.
This writer could not help imagining Botswana’s Seretse Khama Ian Khama raising his eyebrows in his usual stoic manner, smiling wryly.
The prize that was being bestowed on eminent African personalities like Kenneth Kaunda and Brigadier Hashim Mbita were named after his father, Sir Seretse Khama, to recognise his sterling effort to help liberate Africa.
It was an occasion the likes of Bishop Desmond Tutu would be ashamed to be seen anywhere near.
Brigadier Mbita, the man from the OAU’s Liberation Committee in Dar es Salaam, this writer remembers him during our time training as guerrilla fighters in Tanzania.
He was still a colonel then.
He brought supplies to the camps and urged us to fight on for our independence.
Africa was speaking. And then KK. What more can one say about this founding father of African nationalism?
It was Ian Khama of all people, who would later call to suspend the infamous Sadc Tribunal where whites were rushing with their cases to get favourable judgments.
Our own judiciary built the legal framework for the implementation of the land reform programme.
Our white farmers took their case to the Tribunal and it nullified that framework!
The Sadc Tribunal made a ruling that superseded our own courts and declared the land reform programme illegal!
That is why this writer is constantly surprised by the naivety of some learned people among us who talk about the sanctity of the rule of law without looking at the people making such judgments and whose interests they are trying to protect.
How long will it be until they see?
President Mugabe then talked about regional co-operation.
He gave the example where a project in Zambia might require Sadc support and another in South Africa that might also require the bloc’s assistance.
And then in a disarming classroom fashion he appealed: "We do not have to do too many things at the same time. We do little by little by little . . ."
And once during the emotional and profound speech, he unconsciously slipped into Shona, as if he had forgotten it was Namibia and not Hope Fountain many years ago when he was still a classroom teacher.
My God, where would one go to find a better teacher?
There was something valedictory about the speech that tinged it with a bit of sadness. Wouldn’t there be another occasion for another finer speech?
Recently, this writer attended a journalists and writers meeting on xenophobia in Johannesburg.
A young journalist from the Pretoria News asked why the demonic picture they paint of Robert Mugabe in the papers was the opposite of the tumultuous reception and standing ovations the man gets each time he comes to South Africa.
The young man wanted to understand why.
Even before some of us eventually provided the answer, it was there written clearly on the walls that even the ordinary man in the street who gave him the tumultuous reception could see.
By leading the struggle to free his country, President Mugabe helped to redeem the African’s trodden past and identity.
By supporting others in the region to gain their independence, he helped to spread assertion of that identity.
By economically empowering his people, he helped to guarantee continuity and the future of the redeemed African persona.
That was the underlying philosophy and teaching of Africa’s founding fathers.
The President is an African statesman that is why Africans love him.
It is therefore not surprising that US president Barack Obama should describe Zimbabwe as a heartbreak as he said recently.
Wait a moment, heartbreak?
There is something romantic about the word it reminds some of us of those days as teenagers writing highly strung love letters to our girlfriends at other boarding schools around the country.
We used the word quite often then to describe the crazy little pain that we felt in our chests because we suspected the girls were double-crossing us.
Could Obama’s sentiment signal a softening of America’s heart towards Zimbabwe?
This writer thinks his sentimentality has a lot to do with his strong African connection.
Deep inside his heart, Obama must be ashamed America has no defence and justification to continue imposing sanctions on Zimbabwe.
There cannot be anything wrong with an African man seeking the empowerment of his people.
There cannot be anything wrong with an African man seeking the celebration of the African identity.
It was the message that permeated Africa’s liberation education.
It was the reason why we went to war. It is what Robert Mugabe has always stood for.
Many books have been written about Robert Mugabe.
The last decade has particularly seen an upsurge from white writers vilifying him.
Among other accusations, they say his policies are racist.
In fact, the judgment by the Sadc Tribunal regarding the farmers who took their case there was based on the premise that Zimbabwe’s land reform programme was motivated by hatred for the whites.
It is unfortunate that in anti-colonial Africa, it is the inevitable appearance the conflict takes.
That is how the fight ends looking like: black versus white.
But that is inevitable because the whites were our former colonisers.
It is their entrenched interests, for example, that the land reform programme sought to address.
There is nothing racist about our land reform programme.
It was the whites who had the land.
It is the same dishonesty they use that the advent of independence automatically eliminated racism and levelled the political and economic playing field.
We were then asked to accept the status quo because we finally had our man in State House and they described that as independence. What hogwash!
If they thought we fought the war just to have our man in State House while they continued to exclude us from their privileged position and participation in the economic mainstream, they were obviously wrong.
In South Africa at the moment, they are labelling affirmative action reverse racism.
It’s the highest form of dishonesty to imagine that someone who has just got the opportunity a few years ago could compete with another who has had the same opportunity for several centuries.
That was why Robert Mugabe ended taking the land by decree.
In that context, whites’ vilification of President Mugabe is understandable.
Indigenisation is not about taking away from the whites but sharing with them what they have.
As Minister Kasukuwere said last week, it is more about creating wealth.
Wealth already created is a finite resource.
Our future lies in untapped resources and tapping them.
As President said in Namibia, our diamonds should be mined by our own people and not by De Beers or Anglo-American.
That we should not allow our continued marginalisation from our own resources.
That we should create our own wealth and add value to our raw materials to create more wealth.
This was the political philosophy of Africa’s founding fathers.
There is nothing racist about sharing.
If I were honoured to write the story of the life of President Mugabe, this writer would tell the story of a withdrawn boy herding cattle in the veld in Zvimba.
I would tell the story of a studious young man poring over voluminous books in quest for knowledge.
I would tell the story of a bespectacled young African teacher in a pin-striped suit with combed hair slightly parted at the side of the head standing in front of a class at Hope Fountain.
I would tell the story of a suburban family man who loved to visit his old mother in rural Zvimba. I would talk of a father who loved his children, especially the last born.
I would tell the story of a man who sometimes received urgent calls to rush home to the village to settle burning family disputes.
I would tell the story of a man who manoeuvred skillfully to smoothen the strained relationship between his wife and his sisters, the age-old vatete-muroora rivalry.
I would tell the story of a man presiding over the marriage proceedings of his niece, often disagreeing with the girl’s father over the lobola, a figure that Robert considers is so low it’s like giving the girl away for free.
And right at the end of the story I would say, as if it was an after thought: By the way, this man is the President of Zimbabwe.
Of course, it is impossible to write such a story leaving out politics because the two are so intertwined in his life it is impossible to separate one from the other.
There is a painful African story that still haunts the people of Ghana.
It took them more than a decade to exhume the body of their founding father, Kwame Nkrumah, from Guinea to give it a befitting hero’s status and burial back home.
Of course, we shall not be forced to endure such embarrassment because we have learnt our lesson from such shameful experiences like that of the people of Ghana.
Robert Mugabe is a true African hero. But above all, he is an excellent teacher.
By economically empowering his people, he helped to guarantee continuity and the future of the redeemed African persona.
That was the underlying philosophy and teaching of Africa’s founding fathers.
The President is an African statesman that is why Africans love him.
The Herald
By Alexander Kanengoni
PRESIDENT Mugabe’s speech at the Sadc Heads of State and Government meeting in Windhoek, Namibia, last week was one of the finest he has ever made.
Suddenly, standing there in front of the Sadc Heads of State and Government, he was the teacher, just as it was a long time ago at Hope Fountain Mission, teaching them nationalism and politics.
He pleaded with them to safeguard our forefathers’ legacy, the land, because it was the inheritance that our founding fathers bequeathed us.
This writer couldn’t help imagining DRC’s Joseph Kabila shifting in his chair, holding his head in his hand because he knew it was Sadc, based on the principles laid down by our founding fathers that saved his country from descending into civil strife and chaos a few years ago.
He knew it was because of them that he was.
This writer could not help imagining Botswana’s Seretse Khama Ian Khama raising his eyebrows in his usual stoic manner, smiling wryly.
The prize that was being bestowed on eminent African personalities like Kenneth Kaunda and Brigadier Hashim Mbita were named after his father, Sir Seretse Khama, to recognise his sterling effort to help liberate Africa.
It was an occasion the likes of Bishop Desmond Tutu would be ashamed to be seen anywhere near.
Brigadier Mbita, the man from the OAU’s Liberation Committee in Dar es Salaam, this writer remembers him during our time training as guerrilla fighters in Tanzania.
He was still a colonel then.
He brought supplies to the camps and urged us to fight on for our independence.
Africa was speaking. And then KK. What more can one say about this founding father of African nationalism?
It was Ian Khama of all people, who would later call to suspend the infamous Sadc Tribunal where whites were rushing with their cases to get favourable judgments.
Our own judiciary built the legal framework for the implementation of the land reform programme.
Our white farmers took their case to the Tribunal and it nullified that framework!
The Sadc Tribunal made a ruling that superseded our own courts and declared the land reform programme illegal!
That is why this writer is constantly surprised by the naivety of some learned people among us who talk about the sanctity of the rule of law without looking at the people making such judgments and whose interests they are trying to protect.
How long will it be until they see?
President Mugabe then talked about regional co-operation.
He gave the example where a project in Zambia might require Sadc support and another in South Africa that might also require the bloc’s assistance.
And then in a disarming classroom fashion he appealed: "We do not have to do too many things at the same time. We do little by little by little . . ."
And once during the emotional and profound speech, he unconsciously slipped into Shona, as if he had forgotten it was Namibia and not Hope Fountain many years ago when he was still a classroom teacher.
My God, where would one go to find a better teacher?
There was something valedictory about the speech that tinged it with a bit of sadness. Wouldn’t there be another occasion for another finer speech?
Recently, this writer attended a journalists and writers meeting on xenophobia in Johannesburg.
A young journalist from the Pretoria News asked why the demonic picture they paint of Robert Mugabe in the papers was the opposite of the tumultuous reception and standing ovations the man gets each time he comes to South Africa.
The young man wanted to understand why.
Even before some of us eventually provided the answer, it was there written clearly on the walls that even the ordinary man in the street who gave him the tumultuous reception could see.
By leading the struggle to free his country, President Mugabe helped to redeem the African’s trodden past and identity.
By supporting others in the region to gain their independence, he helped to spread assertion of that identity.
By economically empowering his people, he helped to guarantee continuity and the future of the redeemed African persona.
That was the underlying philosophy and teaching of Africa’s founding fathers.
The President is an African statesman that is why Africans love him.
It is therefore not surprising that US president Barack Obama should describe Zimbabwe as a heartbreak as he said recently.
Wait a moment, heartbreak?
There is something romantic about the word it reminds some of us of those days as teenagers writing highly strung love letters to our girlfriends at other boarding schools around the country.
We used the word quite often then to describe the crazy little pain that we felt in our chests because we suspected the girls were double-crossing us.
Could Obama’s sentiment signal a softening of America’s heart towards Zimbabwe?
This writer thinks his sentimentality has a lot to do with his strong African connection.
Deep inside his heart, Obama must be ashamed America has no defence and justification to continue imposing sanctions on Zimbabwe.
There cannot be anything wrong with an African man seeking the empowerment of his people.
There cannot be anything wrong with an African man seeking the celebration of the African identity.
It was the message that permeated Africa’s liberation education.
It was the reason why we went to war. It is what Robert Mugabe has always stood for.
Many books have been written about Robert Mugabe.
The last decade has particularly seen an upsurge from white writers vilifying him.
Among other accusations, they say his policies are racist.
In fact, the judgment by the Sadc Tribunal regarding the farmers who took their case there was based on the premise that Zimbabwe’s land reform programme was motivated by hatred for the whites.
It is unfortunate that in anti-colonial Africa, it is the inevitable appearance the conflict takes.
That is how the fight ends looking like: black versus white.
But that is inevitable because the whites were our former colonisers.
It is their entrenched interests, for example, that the land reform programme sought to address.
There is nothing racist about our land reform programme.
It was the whites who had the land.
It is the same dishonesty they use that the advent of independence automatically eliminated racism and levelled the political and economic playing field.
We were then asked to accept the status quo because we finally had our man in State House and they described that as independence. What hogwash!
If they thought we fought the war just to have our man in State House while they continued to exclude us from their privileged position and participation in the economic mainstream, they were obviously wrong.
In South Africa at the moment, they are labelling affirmative action reverse racism.
It’s the highest form of dishonesty to imagine that someone who has just got the opportunity a few years ago could compete with another who has had the same opportunity for several centuries.
That was why Robert Mugabe ended taking the land by decree.
In that context, whites’ vilification of President Mugabe is understandable.
Indigenisation is not about taking away from the whites but sharing with them what they have.
As Minister Kasukuwere said last week, it is more about creating wealth.
Wealth already created is a finite resource.
Our future lies in untapped resources and tapping them.
As President said in Namibia, our diamonds should be mined by our own people and not by De Beers or Anglo-American.
That we should not allow our continued marginalisation from our own resources.
That we should create our own wealth and add value to our raw materials to create more wealth.
This was the political philosophy of Africa’s founding fathers.
There is nothing racist about sharing.
If I were honoured to write the story of the life of President Mugabe, this writer would tell the story of a withdrawn boy herding cattle in the veld in Zvimba.
I would tell the story of a studious young man poring over voluminous books in quest for knowledge.
I would tell the story of a bespectacled young African teacher in a pin-striped suit with combed hair slightly parted at the side of the head standing in front of a class at Hope Fountain.
I would tell the story of a suburban family man who loved to visit his old mother in rural Zvimba. I would talk of a father who loved his children, especially the last born.
I would tell the story of a man who sometimes received urgent calls to rush home to the village to settle burning family disputes.
I would tell the story of a man who manoeuvred skillfully to smoothen the strained relationship between his wife and his sisters, the age-old vatete-muroora rivalry.
I would tell the story of a man presiding over the marriage proceedings of his niece, often disagreeing with the girl’s father over the lobola, a figure that Robert considers is so low it’s like giving the girl away for free.
And right at the end of the story I would say, as if it was an after thought: By the way, this man is the President of Zimbabwe.
Of course, it is impossible to write such a story leaving out politics because the two are so intertwined in his life it is impossible to separate one from the other.
There is a painful African story that still haunts the people of Ghana.
It took them more than a decade to exhume the body of their founding father, Kwame Nkrumah, from Guinea to give it a befitting hero’s status and burial back home.
Of course, we shall not be forced to endure such embarrassment because we have learnt our lesson from such shameful experiences like that of the people of Ghana.
Robert Mugabe is a true African hero. But above all, he is an excellent teacher.
Repeal Act: US owns up on Zim Sanctions
The fact of the matter is that the US government has deployed a range of propagandists, both within and outside Zimbabwe, in a bid to link every problem in Zimbabwe to the alleged folly of redistributing land stolen by European settlers to the descendants of the original owners.
What's Left
By Stephen Gowans
THE received wisdom among Western governments, journalists and some concerned progressive scholars is that there have been no broad-based, economic sanctions imposed upon Zimbabwe.
Instead, in their view, there are only targeted sanctions, with limited effects, aimed at punishing President Robert Mugabe and the top leadership of the Zanu PF party.
The sanctions issue, they say, is a red herring Robert Mugabe and his supporters use to divert attention from the true cause of Zimbabwe’s economic meltdown: redistribution of land from white commercial farmers to hundreds of thousands of indigenous families, a programme denigrated as "economic mismanagement".
Yet, it has always been clear to anyone willing to do a little digging that there are indeed broad-based economic sanctions against Zimbabwe; that there have been since 2001, when US president George W. Bush signed them into law; that they were imposed in response to Zimbabwe’s land reform program; and that Zimbabwe’s economic meltdown happened after sanctions were imposed, not before.
US sanctions, implemented under the US Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act, effectively block Zimbabwe’s access to debt relief and balance of payment support from international financial institutions. In addition, the EU and other Western countries have imposed their own sanctions.
On occasion, Mugabe’s detractors have been caught out in their deceptions about sanctions being targeted solely at a few highly-placed members of Zanu PF rather than the economy, and therefore Zimbabweans, as a whole.
At those times, they have countered that while sanctions may exist, they have had little impact, and anyway, they play into Mugabe’s hands. As progressive scholar Horace Campbell put it: "The Zimbabwe Government is very aware of the anti-imperialist and anti-racist sentiments among oppressed peoples and thus has deployed a range of propagandists inside and outside the country in a bid to link every problem in Zimbabwe to international sanctions by the EU and USA."
Campbell turns reality on its head. The fact of the matter is that the US government has deployed a range of propagandists, both within and outside Zimbabwe, in a bid to link every problem in Zimbabwe to the alleged folly of redistributing land stolen by European settlers to the descendants of the original owners.
Campbell’s argument echoes similar sophistry used to excuse the US blockade on Cuba. Economic sanctions on Cuba, the Castros’ detractors argue, have had little impact on the island’s economy, and are used by the Cuban government to falsely link its economic difficulties to US economic warfare.
The Castros, they say, stay in power by diverting attention from their own mismanagement and laying blame for their country’s economic problems at Washington’s doorstep.
That this argument holds no water is evidenced by the reality that Washington could easily deprive the Cuban communists of their alleged diversionary tactics by lifting the sanctions, but chooses not to.
The idea that power-hungry leaders exploit mild sanctions as a dishonest manoeuvre to disguise their failings is insupportable. Far from having little impact, economic sanctions devastate economies; that’s their purpose.
Denying the role they play in ruining economies is tantamount to denying that dropping napalm on villages creates wastelands. John Mueller and Karl Mueller pointed out in a famous 1999 article titled "Sanctions of Mass Destruction" — it appeared in the May/June 1999 issue of the uber-establishment journal Foreign Affairs — that: ‘‘…the big countries have at their disposal a credible, inexpensive, and potent weapon for use against small and medium-sized foes.
"The dominant powers have shown that they can inflict enormous pain at remarkably little cost to themselves or the global economy. Indeed, in a matter of months or years whole economies can be devastated…’’
The improbable idea that sanctions have little impact invites the question: If they make little difference, why do Western governments deploy them so often?
Supporters of the view that sanctions are minor inconveniences that punish a few powerful leaders, who then exploit them to draw attention away from their own economic management, expect us to believe that the leaders of major powers are simpletons who devise ineffective sanctions policies — and that they persist despite their sanctions playing into the hands of the sanctions’ targets.
If the sanctions supporters’ laughable logic and the reality that US sanction legislation is on the public record for all to see weren’t enough, legislation brought forward by US Senator Jim Inhofe ought to lay to rest the deception that sanctions haven’t torpedoed Zimbabwe’s economy.
The title of Inhofe’s bill, the Zimbabwe Sanctions Repeal Act of 2010, makes clear that sanctions have indeed been imposed on Zimbabwe and have had deleterious effects.
According to the bill, now that the Western-backed Movement for Democratic Change holds senior positions in Zimbabwe’s power-sharing government, US sanctions against Zimbabwe need to be repealed "in order to restore fully the economy of Zimbabwe".
In other words, sanctions are preventing Zimbabwe’s economy from flourishing — the same point Mugabe has been making for years, cynically say his critics.
Yet, while the implication of Inhofe’s bill is that sanctions have undermined Zimbabwe’s economy (otherwise, why would economic recovery require their repeal?)
Inhofe tries to disguise the role US sanctions originally played in creating an economic catastrophe in Zimbabwe, arguing that the sanctions were imposed only after Mugabe allegedly turned Zimbabwe into a basket case by democratising patterns of land ownership.
But it makes more sense to say that sanctions ruined the economy. After all, the purpose of economic sanctions is to wreak economic havoc. And what would be the point of trying to devastate Zimbabwe’s economy after Mugabe had allegedly already ruined it?
Finally, in pressing for the repeal of sanctions to allow for economic recovery, Inhofe acknowledges that the sanctions do indeed have crippling consequences.
Inhofe may be able to argue (improbably) that the sanctions were imposed to punish Zimbabwe for Harare’s economic mismanagement (which would mean that Washington expected Zimbabweans to suffer an additional blow on top of the one already meted out by Harare’s alleged mismanagement — a pointless cruelty, if true); but he can’t argue that the sanctions didn’t undermine the country’s economy: his bill acknowledges this very point
Finally, the fact that Inhofe’s legislation seeks repeal of the sanctions because the MDC holds key positions in the Zimbabwean government reveals that the MDC, as much as sanctions, is an instrument of US foreign policy.
Sanctions were rolled out in response to land redistribution with the aim of crippling the economy so that the ensuing economic chaos could be attributed to land reform itself.
With MDC members brought into a power-sharing government in key posts, it has become necessary in the view of Inhofe and others that sanctions be lifted to allow an economic recovery.
If the bill is ratified and signed into law, the ensuing recovery will be attributed to the efforts of the MDC cabinet members, an attribution that that will be just as misleading as linking the destructive effects of sanctions to Zanu-PF’s efforts to fulfil the land redistribution aspirations of the national liberation struggle.
The major part of Zimbabwe’s economic troubles — and a large part of the prospects for economic recovery — are sanctions-related.
What's Left
By Stephen Gowans
THE received wisdom among Western governments, journalists and some concerned progressive scholars is that there have been no broad-based, economic sanctions imposed upon Zimbabwe.
Instead, in their view, there are only targeted sanctions, with limited effects, aimed at punishing President Robert Mugabe and the top leadership of the Zanu PF party.
The sanctions issue, they say, is a red herring Robert Mugabe and his supporters use to divert attention from the true cause of Zimbabwe’s economic meltdown: redistribution of land from white commercial farmers to hundreds of thousands of indigenous families, a programme denigrated as "economic mismanagement".
Yet, it has always been clear to anyone willing to do a little digging that there are indeed broad-based economic sanctions against Zimbabwe; that there have been since 2001, when US president George W. Bush signed them into law; that they were imposed in response to Zimbabwe’s land reform program; and that Zimbabwe’s economic meltdown happened after sanctions were imposed, not before.
US sanctions, implemented under the US Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act, effectively block Zimbabwe’s access to debt relief and balance of payment support from international financial institutions. In addition, the EU and other Western countries have imposed their own sanctions.
On occasion, Mugabe’s detractors have been caught out in their deceptions about sanctions being targeted solely at a few highly-placed members of Zanu PF rather than the economy, and therefore Zimbabweans, as a whole.
At those times, they have countered that while sanctions may exist, they have had little impact, and anyway, they play into Mugabe’s hands. As progressive scholar Horace Campbell put it: "The Zimbabwe Government is very aware of the anti-imperialist and anti-racist sentiments among oppressed peoples and thus has deployed a range of propagandists inside and outside the country in a bid to link every problem in Zimbabwe to international sanctions by the EU and USA."
Campbell turns reality on its head. The fact of the matter is that the US government has deployed a range of propagandists, both within and outside Zimbabwe, in a bid to link every problem in Zimbabwe to the alleged folly of redistributing land stolen by European settlers to the descendants of the original owners.
Campbell’s argument echoes similar sophistry used to excuse the US blockade on Cuba. Economic sanctions on Cuba, the Castros’ detractors argue, have had little impact on the island’s economy, and are used by the Cuban government to falsely link its economic difficulties to US economic warfare.
The Castros, they say, stay in power by diverting attention from their own mismanagement and laying blame for their country’s economic problems at Washington’s doorstep.
That this argument holds no water is evidenced by the reality that Washington could easily deprive the Cuban communists of their alleged diversionary tactics by lifting the sanctions, but chooses not to.
The idea that power-hungry leaders exploit mild sanctions as a dishonest manoeuvre to disguise their failings is insupportable. Far from having little impact, economic sanctions devastate economies; that’s their purpose.
Denying the role they play in ruining economies is tantamount to denying that dropping napalm on villages creates wastelands. John Mueller and Karl Mueller pointed out in a famous 1999 article titled "Sanctions of Mass Destruction" — it appeared in the May/June 1999 issue of the uber-establishment journal Foreign Affairs — that: ‘‘…the big countries have at their disposal a credible, inexpensive, and potent weapon for use against small and medium-sized foes.
"The dominant powers have shown that they can inflict enormous pain at remarkably little cost to themselves or the global economy. Indeed, in a matter of months or years whole economies can be devastated…’’
The improbable idea that sanctions have little impact invites the question: If they make little difference, why do Western governments deploy them so often?
Supporters of the view that sanctions are minor inconveniences that punish a few powerful leaders, who then exploit them to draw attention away from their own economic management, expect us to believe that the leaders of major powers are simpletons who devise ineffective sanctions policies — and that they persist despite their sanctions playing into the hands of the sanctions’ targets.
If the sanctions supporters’ laughable logic and the reality that US sanction legislation is on the public record for all to see weren’t enough, legislation brought forward by US Senator Jim Inhofe ought to lay to rest the deception that sanctions haven’t torpedoed Zimbabwe’s economy.
The title of Inhofe’s bill, the Zimbabwe Sanctions Repeal Act of 2010, makes clear that sanctions have indeed been imposed on Zimbabwe and have had deleterious effects.
According to the bill, now that the Western-backed Movement for Democratic Change holds senior positions in Zimbabwe’s power-sharing government, US sanctions against Zimbabwe need to be repealed "in order to restore fully the economy of Zimbabwe".
In other words, sanctions are preventing Zimbabwe’s economy from flourishing — the same point Mugabe has been making for years, cynically say his critics.
Yet, while the implication of Inhofe’s bill is that sanctions have undermined Zimbabwe’s economy (otherwise, why would economic recovery require their repeal?)
Inhofe tries to disguise the role US sanctions originally played in creating an economic catastrophe in Zimbabwe, arguing that the sanctions were imposed only after Mugabe allegedly turned Zimbabwe into a basket case by democratising patterns of land ownership.
But it makes more sense to say that sanctions ruined the economy. After all, the purpose of economic sanctions is to wreak economic havoc. And what would be the point of trying to devastate Zimbabwe’s economy after Mugabe had allegedly already ruined it?
Finally, in pressing for the repeal of sanctions to allow for economic recovery, Inhofe acknowledges that the sanctions do indeed have crippling consequences.
Inhofe may be able to argue (improbably) that the sanctions were imposed to punish Zimbabwe for Harare’s economic mismanagement (which would mean that Washington expected Zimbabweans to suffer an additional blow on top of the one already meted out by Harare’s alleged mismanagement — a pointless cruelty, if true); but he can’t argue that the sanctions didn’t undermine the country’s economy: his bill acknowledges this very point
Finally, the fact that Inhofe’s legislation seeks repeal of the sanctions because the MDC holds key positions in the Zimbabwean government reveals that the MDC, as much as sanctions, is an instrument of US foreign policy.
Sanctions were rolled out in response to land redistribution with the aim of crippling the economy so that the ensuing economic chaos could be attributed to land reform itself.
With MDC members brought into a power-sharing government in key posts, it has become necessary in the view of Inhofe and others that sanctions be lifted to allow an economic recovery.
If the bill is ratified and signed into law, the ensuing recovery will be attributed to the efforts of the MDC cabinet members, an attribution that that will be just as misleading as linking the destructive effects of sanctions to Zanu-PF’s efforts to fulfil the land redistribution aspirations of the national liberation struggle.
The major part of Zimbabwe’s economic troubles — and a large part of the prospects for economic recovery — are sanctions-related.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)