Of dummies, political midgets and Big Daddy Europe

By William Muchayi

Africa’s curse and Zimbabwe’s in particular, can hardly be detached from a misguided understanding of the geo-political and socio-economic dynamics that shape the global village.

Indeed, the impoverished Southern African state is caught by the fluid and fast changing forces that shape the globe, thereby, exposing it to vultures and marauding hyenas who thrive on the naivety of developing nations.

A  weird and distorted impression is created not only by evangelists of the re-engagement agenda in Mugabe’s cabinet , but, also by the West and in particular , the European Union(EU) , to the effect that a normalisation of relations between Harare and the former is a magic solution to the country’s socio-economic and political quagmire.

In the same vain, the scrapping of targeted sanctions is erroneously viewed as a panacea to the country’s recovery and subsequent prosperity. With due respect , in as much as it is naïve to dismiss the above two assertions , caution has to be exercised as to their significance in turning around Harare’s fortunes smeared in poo, for, the gravity of the crisis needs more than just re-engagement and the scrapping of sanctions.

In a goodwill gesture although still subject to controversy, the EU has promised to scrap all remaining targeted sanctions on Harare by November this year if Patrick Chinamasa’s statements are anything to go by, with overzealous members of the bloc headed by Belgium, Sweden, Switzerland and the Sick Man of Europe(Greece) , promising to pour in millions of dollars in aid to bail out Zimbabwe.

In this game of chess, Europe plays the Big Brother role, coming to the aid of a helpless child in Zimbabwe with a dummy in her mouth, unable to fend for herself for survival.

In light of this envisaged normalisation of relations between Brussels and Harare , the European Investment Bank (EIB) promises to bail out Zimbabwe’s private sector, and as Diederick Zambon , the EIB top official expressed , the aim is to work through banks , ‘to reinforce the financial sector.’

And, not to be outdone, the French diplomat Laurent Delahousse promised Zimbabweans that France and the EU are eager to resume direct funding to the Mugabe regime, thus, raising the expectations of many who are mislead into believing that the country’s crisis can only be resolved by capital injection from outside, a kind of Marshall Plan.

The premise on which any external solution to the country’s crisis is based on is grossly flawed, thus, rendering the conclusion invalid.  Firstly, in spite of Europe’s much acclaimed promise to re-engage and ultimately bail out Harare, the gesture will hardly have a magic solution to the corrupt, mismanaged and impoverished diamond rich nation.

In fact, Europe has its own problems to have the stamina to bail out Harare financially. Just recently  the EU  itself  was on the verge of being bailed out by Beijing, with Spain, Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Italy and even Britain still licking their wounds today, emerging from the recession.

In light of this evidence, who in their right minds would prematurely celebrate the Sick Man of Europe’s generosity in bailing out Harare? Is Patrick Chinamasa, the country’s Finance Minister, aware of this global trend as he carries his begging bowl from Brussels, Washington to Beijing to fund ZimAsset to the tune of US$27 billion?

Not only that, it raises eyebrows when Europe promises to bail out Zimbabwe without forcing the latter to implement stringent economic reforms first as a prerequisite for recipient countries to be bailed as was the case with its member states , notably , Ireland , Greece , Italy and Portugal.

Why, one would wonder, is Europe all that generous to bail out Harare without having strings attached to that aid and yet the bloc is careful to curb the spread of toxic economic mismanagement by its member states to the extent of even threatening to boot out Greece from the club if she fails to meet the bailout conditions?

Is the EU interested in finding a long lasting solution to Zimbabwe , or , as is now the case , she has  become an accomplice in perpetuating dictatorship, as the bloc fails to call for similar reforms in Zimbabwe which were a prerequisite its own members had to meet before being bailed out?

On the other hand, as the EU gives the green light to Mugabe, signalling the advent of re-engagement , evangelists of dialogue between Mugabe and the opposition claim that a solution to the country’s deepening crisis lies in this gesture. Not only is this view misguided, but, it’s premature as well, for, talking to Mugabe to resolve the impasse  is akin to having dialogue with a stone.

As ,Michael Rubin writes in his book, Dancing with the Devil: Perils of Engaging Rogue Regimes, ‘The idea that it never hurts to talk is wrong,’ he argues, as ‘poorly planned dialogue can exact a high cost..’ And, in Rubin’s view, talking can be a very costly strategy, more so , when it’s initiated by the wronged and not the wrongdoer.

In any case, what would be the framework of that dialogue and what would it aim to achieve? Who in their right minds would believe that Mugabe can negotiate himself out of power, for, his exit from the political stage should be a prerequisite for any meaningful dialogue?

In any case, in as much as it is a fact that dialogue is a prerequisite to the country’s recovery, it is also undeniable that any negotiations that leave Mugabe at the centre of the political stage are doomed as was the case with the previous GNU.

Any unity, transitional or caretaker government that may arise from the negotiations devoid of the agreed reforms in the previous GNU is doomed for, it’s akin to smearing lipstick on a frog, the weird assumption being that the make-up will transform the creature into a beauty.

Indeed, the last thing Mugabe will do is to negotiate himself out of power, hence the futility of dialogue to end the impasse. Even the opposition shouldn’t fool themselves into overestimating their negotiating prowess, taking into consideration their previous blundering.

Even Beijing, with all her economic might is reluctant to bail out Zimbabwe for the latter is unable to repay back, hence Chinamasa, returning back from the East empty handed. Unable to grasp global economic dynamics, Mugabe begs the Chinese to bail out his impoverished country, banking on his relationship with the Asian super power that dates back to the days of the liberation struggle.

The geriatric laments , ‘Our relations with China are historical relations , they are revolutionary relations…..We will be talking about how we can , together once more again , help each other now in our socio-economic programmes..’

What Mugabe fails to grasp is that the Chinese are in the country not on humanitarian grounds but are serious economic competitors. In any case , that previous relationship that dates back to the 1960s  is not in any way to shape China’s economic policies when she deals with Zimbabwe just like any other country on the global stage.

The Chinese are more willing to bail out the EU than Zimbabwe, for the former can repay back unlike the latter. Mugabe doesn’t realise let alone grasp this logic, for, in politics there are no permanent friends but interests. The Chinese invest their money where it generates dividends to feed their people and not on humanitarian grounds.

As the Australian ambassador to Zimbabwe accurately observed, Zimbabwe remains a risky investment destination, likening the move to swimming in the dangerous crocodile infested Zambezi river.

Matthew Neuhaus sarcastically expressed, ‘Investing in Zimbabwe is like swimming between crocodiles and hippos” he said, adding that “instead of policies to encourage FDI, you have chosen indigenisation especially in the mining sector.’ Because of this negative perception the country has in the eyes of investors, Zimbabwe can’t capitalise on Sino-Zim relationship that dates back to the 60s and regrettably, Mugabe doesn’t seem to grasp this fact.

With all these scenarios, what then can be done to extricate the country from the inferno? Mugabe at the age of 90 years is the ugly face and obstacle any investor would last want to do business with for he is the past and not the present nor the future.  No amount of globe- trotting by Chinamasa or Mugabe will change this negative perception and ultimately attract foreign direct investment.

Zimbabwe has to return to the simple basics of rule of law and respect for property rights. In addition, Mugabe has to exit the political stage for he is an embodiment of corruption, nepotism and economic mismanagement, the very evils at the centre of the country’s socio-economic and political crisis.

Restoration of legitimacy is a prerequisite to recovery and ultimate prosperity without which, there is no future for the impoverished Southern African country.  Any talk of a transitional arrangement that leaves Mugabe at the centre of the political stage at 90 years is a recipe for disaster, for, like the previous GNU, it’s an artificial cosmetic that masks the rot underneath.

The road to recovery doesn’t lie on financial bailout from the EU or China, but, a return to basics, starting with the implementation of the agreed reforms in the previous GNU, the rule of law, respect for property rights as well as Mugabe exiting the political stage.

Europe’s promise of a bailout is nothing other than a farce, for , more than anything else, the bloc has its eyes on the impoverished country’s mineral wealth as the West can’t afford to stand idle when the Second Scramble for Africa  gathers momentum . That is the way it is however sad it might be but the truth has to be told.

William Muchayi is a pro-democracy and political analyst who can be contacted on [email protected]