Stembile Mpofu
The Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act (ZIDERA) has been renewed with some amendments. Looking at the name one could mistakenly assume that it promotes democracy and economic recovery in Zimbabwe. It does neither. Its intent is quite the opposite. It seeks to “promote democracy” through punitive measures and usurpation of the authority of Zimbabwe’s people to govern themselves. This is in much the same way the system of colonisation assumed the superiority of the coloniser’s belief and value system over that of the subjugated people.
ZIDERA provides that the sanctions put on Zimbabwe will only be lifted where, among other things, the US “Secretary of State certifies that all elements of the Constitution including devolution are being implemented”. It also seeks to override Zimbabwe’s electoral laws by including six new provisions. One of the provisions lists who must observe Zimbabwe’s election and bestows on these observers the power to implement what amounts to a parallel electoral process. It reads:
“(D) International observers including from the United States, the African Union, the Southern African Development Community, and the European Union are permitted to observe the entire process, both prior to, on, and following voting day, including by monitoring polling stations and counting centers, and are able to independently operate in a manner enabling them to access and analyse vote tallying, tabulation, and transmission and content of voting results.”(My emphasis)
Such a provision encapsulates the double standards that characterise US relations with the developing world. While the FBI is currently investigating Donald Trump for colluding with the Russians to win an election and undermining US democracy, the US Congress and Senate are passing a law aimed at forcing a sovereign state to enable the US to independently access, analyse, tabulate, tally and transmit voting results of that State’s election. Where does democracy reside in such an invasive action? Does this law not amount to undermining Zimbabwe’s democracy? Is this not a case of do unto others what should never be done unto you?
With regards the economic aspects of the Act which have nothing to do with economic recovery, Senator Coons himself enlightened the world in an interview he held with CGTN earlier this year. He aptly described the negative economic ramifications of ZIDERA exposing the fact that the US messaging that claimed sanctions were targeted and did not in any way impact ordinary Zimbabweans was false.
When asked what the effect of lifting sanctions would be on Zimbabwe, he answered saying, “Relieving sanctions would provide significant economic lift for Zimbabwe, both because then it would encourage Foreign Direct Investment, reestablishment of robust economic ties and it would bring engagement with the western world for Zimbabwe….” Senator Coons goes on to list all the things that are in Zimbabwe’s’ favour, human capital, natural resources, infrastructure, agricultural potential etc. before stating that “ as long as there are significant sanctions in place by western countries on Zimbabwe, that raises both direct and indirect challenges for them. Indirectly it raises the question, is this an economy where you could ever get your investment back out, where rule of law would be respected, where the courts are fair and where the Constitution will be followed? But it also directly makes it harder for them to access capital and attract that sort of interest and engagement that would revive the Zimbabwean economy.”
If we are to examine Senator Coons responses it is clear that the intent of the ZIDERA is to cripple Zimbabwe’s economy by stopping investors from bringing money into Zimbabwe and limiting Zimbabwe’s ability to access capital by punishing any institution that seeks to provide capital to Zimbabwe. As specifically stated in the Act’s amendment:
“WITHHOLDING OF FUNDING FOR AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT FUND – The United States Government shall withhold funding for the African Development Fund equivalent to any funding provided to Zimbabwe through Pillar II for arrears clearance.’’
Relief from these harsh economic penalties will be lifted on condition Zimbabwe restores the “rule of law” and “democracy”. Restoration of democratic practice includes among a host of other invasive conditions, the US and other external actors being allowed to run a parallel election process independent of Zimbabwe’s electoral bodies. It requires the US Secretary of State to have oversight of the implementation of Zimbabwe’s Constitution requiring his/her certification that all its all elements have been implemented before sanctions are lifted. This is hardly the pursuit of democratic ideals but the desire to exert control over the affairs of a Sovereign nation through autocratic means.
What is even more baffling is the fact that while US sanctions on Zimbabwe are being renewed, the US is building one of the largest US embassies on the African Continent on Zimbabwean soil. An infrastructural investment worth over 200 million dollars is surely intended to do more than process visas. This development coupled with the uncharacteristic involvement of the US government in Zimbabwe’s current electoral events leads one to believe that their desire to have overt control over Zimbabwe is hardly informed by democratic motivations.
So what is the real reason for these sanctions? Zimbabwe’s Land expropriation policy is the real reason why sanctions were placed on Zimbabwe. It has, as is always the case, little to do with human rights and democracy because there are many countries across the world that have worse human rights records than Zimbabwe but are not under sanctions. According to ZIDERA, Zimbabwe must enforce the SADC tribunal judgment on land. The Tribunal ruled that Zimbabwe must pay white farmers for the land that was expropriated during the land reform process.
“It is the sense of Congress that the Government of Zimbabwe and the Southern African Development Community (SADC) should enforce the SADC tribunal rulings from 2007 to 2010, including 18 disputes involving employment, commercial, and human rights cases surrounding dispossessed Zimbabwean commercial farmers and agricultural companies.”
Zimbabwean law however, states that the farmers will be paid for improvements made on the land. It is important to understand that the US does not really care if white farmers are compensated for their land. Their sanctions assault is on the IDEA of expropriation. They fear that this idea could inspire other African nations to reclaim their resources. It was essential for the US to demonstrate to the rest of Africa that no African government must ever consider reclaiming their natural resources from Western companies. The US had to make it clear that reclamation of this kind would have debilitating consequences for African countries. The fear lies in the fact that African resources are what provide wealth for western nations. A report entitled “the New Colonialism” published recently by an organisation called War on Want, states that 101 companies listed on the London Stock Exchange control 1.05 trillion dollars worth of mineral resources in 37 countries in Sub-Saharan Africa. This statistic is for 5 minerals only, gold, oil, platinum, coal and diamonds. Each year 192 billion dollars flows out of Africa to the West most of it through illicit means. It now becomes very clear what informs the US fear of the idea of expropriation. What would the consequence be for Western countries if these 37 countries reclaimed their resources?
What does all this mean for Zimbabwe? The US intention is to push the country to breaking point by creating conditions that it knows are impossible to meet. Zimbabwe must be punished for having mooted and acted on the idea of expropriation. It must be forced to accept US authority. Should the Zimbabwean government capitulate and allow the US to run Zimbabwe from Washington? Do Zimbabweans allow the US to use autocratic means to subdue their nation’s self-determination and relinquish autonomy over its resources?
The answer lies in the fact that there are no absolutes. I learnt this valuable lesson from a very dear Liberian friend of mine Emily Frank. When she was 15 years old she lived with her family on a Liberian Firestone rubber plantation. She had a cousin named Woloken, who was the same age as her who visited them regularly from the interior (rural areas). She came to dread his visits because he constantly made fun of her for studying; telling her that the little black marks in the books she was reading were what was used to kill her thoughts. He found the sight of her studying very amusing. On one of the days while she sat studying in her room, Woloken came in carrying a green bucket and asked her what it was. She replied, telling him that it was a bucket. He asked her who had told her that it was a bucket. She said she had learnt that at school. He then asked her what colour the bucket was and she replied, saying it was green. Again he asked her who had told her the bucket was green, she gave the same response, she had been taught at school. What he then said next remains the most profound lesson I have learnt in my life and I have coined it Woloken’s Rule. He then said to her, “ Do you know that you don’t have to call it a bucket? And you don’t have to call this colour green.”
His message was clear. There are no absolutes. The only reason a bucket is called a bucket is because someone, somewhere, at some point in time decided that a bucket would be called a bucket and that a particular colour would be identified as green. No rule or barrier exists (except the mental one created by the fact that that is what you have been taught), that forces you to call a bucket a bucket and as such you can call it by any name you choose.
Woloken’s Rule is what Zimbabwe should apply to overcoming the US sanctions challenge. The US Sanctions have been crafted based on a particular set of rules that assume that an African economy needs a specific set of variables to be in place for it to function successfully. It must have Foreign Direct Investment, meaning its investment must come from outside because it has no capacity to generate investment locally. It assumes that the country must borrow funds from banks or other financial institutions to drive industry and infrastructure development.
These assumptions are based on how the global financial infrastructure works. What Zimbabwe must do is to call the bucket by another name and create a new economic and financial paradigm within which to operate and build the economy. We must put aside what we have been taught and reignite our ability to think and formulate new and different concepts that conform to Zimbabwe’s reality.
Zimbabwe needs a model for wealth creation that is not based on the current models that are currently being used for African “upliftment”. It needs a model that does not mimic those of the developed world, which are based on assumptions that are not true of the African context.
Firstly, only 14 percent of Zimbabwe’s population is banked. The remaining percentage remain unbanked as a result of a variety of reasons, the main ones being that banks are not easy to access, they are expensive to use and most people do not have wealth that can be banked. Recall the ‘tsaona’ phenomena that emerged during 2008 in Zimbabwe, where market sellers sold decanted goods to cater for the small amounts of daily income people were able to earn. This is what mobile money has done for the Zimbabwean financial sector, by allowing people to move small amounts of money according to the size of their transactions. In 2015 the mobile money market generated $656 million in revenue in Africa alone.
Secondly the majority of Zimbabweans have assets that do not fall within the asset classification of formal financial transactions, cattle, goats, sheep, chickens, access to untitled land, their own labour, their own knowledge systems etc. Within the formal financial sector little weight is given to these in terms of their ability to generate wealth because they are seen singularly, one farmer with one cow. Yet the value that these assets could unleash if harnessed collectively and in a strategic way is massive, many farmers many cows. As an example Rwanda has established a dairy industry that is now exporting milk products after distributing one dairy cow to one farmer and setting up milk collection points in strategic locations. In Uganda a farmer in a village that had excess avocados that were rotting on trees started an avocado processing plant on his piece of land. He fashioned wooden frames and gauze netting to create solar dryers to produce avocado oil – a high value product.
Thirdly a large majority of Zimbabweans do not have formal training in many of the enterprises they participate in. There are many highly competent artisans, farmers, traders, cooks, gardeners, security personnel etc. who have no formal qualifications. They may have basic education or perhaps no education at all, and yet if given the opportunity, could easily run successful enterprises. This could be made possible by finding a wholly different set of criteria to assess competence and business acumen. Criteria that does not use formal education and qualifications to gauge an individual’s suitability for financial support. This would be similar to how the mobile money business removed the barriers of the formal application processes as a prerequisite to financial transactions.
What would the possibilities be of creating an investment vehicle into which Zimbabweans in the diaspora can invest/loan their money to support a commercial network of skilled Zimbabweans doing business?
Imagine this… competent carpenters from Glen view are commissioned to design and make food solar dryers. These are sold to tomato farmers from Murehwa who dry their surplus product in the sun using the land they own but have no title to. The product is graded and packaged at a strategic collection point and contracted transporters bring the product to Harare where cross border traders take the goods to markets across borders wherever the demand lies and the business climate is favourable.
I am neither an economist nor a financial whizz. There are however, many Zimbabweans qualified to sit and strategise on what concrete possibilities exist outside of the realm of economics and business as usual. The idea is to begin building from where Zimbabwe is at this point, using the resources that are at our disposal and the networks that are open at this time. It is possible to rebuild our economy under sanctions. We just have to remember Woloken’s Rule.
