Things can only get better for Zimbabwe

By Brilliant Pongo

Zimbabweans have endured the worst in the past couple of years, with 2008 described as the worst by many some simply described 2008 as ‘gore rendzara’, ‘gore re chakata’.  (The year of hunger, the year when people resorted to eating wild fruits).

2009 was a lot better as food stuffs became more available and the political tensions eased as the major political parties worked together in the inclusive government.

News that the MDC (T) has finally seen the light and is now working with other parties in the inclusive government to lobby the European Union, the United States and multilateral financial institutions to lift restrictions imposed on Zimbabwe is very welcome news indeed, the year concludes on a very positive note and this signals great hope for the future.

The long suffering Zimbabwean public bore the brunt of the so-called smart sanctions or were they restrictive measures? Sanctions impose hardship — affecting ordinary people, far more than leaders.

The political leaders and academics argued and debated for years whether Zimbabwe was under sanctions or not? However, it was the general public the ‘povo’ who were the real targets of these illegal sanctions or restrictive measures call them what you may.

The people of Zimbabwe went through the most part of the past decade under very stressful conditions, frustrated by unemployment and hunger, the majority of the population was faced with abject poverty as the restrictions placed on the Zimbabwean government meant that the public health, education and transport systems crumbled and fell apart.

Millions of Zimbabweans left the country seeking refuge in foreign lands further robbing their own country of important skills and social cohesion.
In a Supplement to An Agenda for Peace, published in January 1995, Secretary General Boutros Ghali called sanctions “a blunt instrument.”

He argued that “They raise the ethical question of whether suffering inflicted on vulnerable groups in the target country is a legitimate means of exerting pressure on political leaders whose behaviour is unlikely to be affected by the plight of their subjects” which begs the question, Why did the people of Zimbabwe have to endure so much pain and suffering as that seen in 2008?

Some people will be quick to apportion blame on President Mugabe and ZANU PF, but is it all down to one man? Proponents of regime change have a full toolbox of methods for bringing someone they deem an unfriendly leader to heel: diplomatic pressure, economic sanctions, international boycotts, trade embargoes, and support for local political factions.

But these tactics take time, and can produce limited results as was the case in Zimbabwe. Typically, sanctions cut off trade and investments, preventing a target country from buying or selling goods in the global marketplace. They drastically curtail diplomatic relations.

While the impact of sanctions may vary from country to country depending on the circumstances of each case, there are some commonalities. These are; an acute interruption with the distribution of food, pharmaceuticals and sanitation supplies, the quality of food, availability of clean drinking water, basic health and educational systems are interfered with.

Some indirect consequences can be the reinforcement of the power of the elite, the emergence of a black market and the enrichment of the privileged elite that take part in it.

Perhaps most damaging to Zimbabwe was the introduction of the “Zimbabwe Democracy Bill” by the US in 2001 set to entrench the financial starvation of Zimbabwe.

The law, among other things, instructed American officials in the IMF and multilateral development banks – including the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the International Development Association, the International Finance Corporation, the Inter-American Development Bank, the Asian Development Bank, the Inter-American Investment Corporation, the African Development Bank, the African Development Fund, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and the Multilateral Investment Guaranty Agency – to “oppose and vote against any extension by the respective institution of any loan, credit, or guarantee to the government of Zimbabwe,” and to vote against any reduction or cancellation of “indebtedness owed by the government of Zimbabwe.”

The above are virtually all the banks in the world that could potentially lend money to Zimbabwe. Disturbingly, Zimbabwe cannot even borrow from Africa’s own banks because of US sanctions. Prior to the Bill, at least Zimbabwe could obtain credit from other international financial institutions when the IMF and the World Bank cut its credit lines.

This effectively means that Zimbabwe is one of the very few countries in the world that currently exists without any balance of payments support and external lines of credit.

Speaking at the 61st session of the United Nations General Assembly in New York on 20 September 2006 under the theme “Implementation of the Global Partnership for Development as a follow-up to the 2005 World Summit”. 

The Zimbabwean President argued, “Zimbabwe’s Economic Development was restricted by the USA and UK, these countries he argued, have blocked any balance of payments and other support from the international financial institutions that they control. 

At this point it would be counter-productive to start an inquiry for who lobbied for economic sanctions and why, we should celebrate the fact that those who were blind can now see and the inclusive government has realised that we need to lobby for the lifting of any form of sanctions on our dear country, because it is the ‘povo’ that suffer from the effects of these sanctions more than those said to have been targeted.

The future looks bright for Zimbabwe, indeed things can only get better.

Did you find this information helpful? If you did, consider donating to fund our operations.