Sanctions have taught Zimbabweans to be resilient

Published: 30 June 2013

LEGEND has it that when Cecil John Rhodes colonised Zimbabwe he believed that a missing jewel from King Solomon's treasure chest, called Solomon's Ophir was to be found on the plateau between Zambezi and Limpopo rivers. Simply put, Zimbabwe was colonised like the rest of Africa out of the prevailing spirit of imperialism.

It was subjugated because of its economic potential as a source of "cheap" raw materials. Because of its abundant natural resources in the form minerals Zimbabwe, the Crown Jewel of Africa, fell into a category of colonies which not only the British sought, but also the Germans and Portuguese.

Rhodes, in a desperate bid to exclude other concession seekers who were flocking into Zimbabwe, quickly dispatched his delegation who tricked King Lobengula into signing the notorious document called the Rudd Concession, which mandated Rhodes and his company the British South Africa Company (BSAC) to effectively colonise Zimbabwe on behalf of Britain. It should be pointed out that when Rhodes declared Zimbabwe a British colony he wanted British citizens to stay permanently in the country as a way of depopulating the British Isles and by extension, securing a source of abundant raw materials for their growing industries.

Until independence in 1980, Zimbabwe was bedevilled by a skewed land ownership pattern which favoured white settlers, leaving blacks wallowing in land unfit for human habitation.

Indeed in February 2000 when the Government embarked on the fast-track land reform programme, which was founded on the ethic of correcting historical injustices, white settlers and their masters in Europe alleged that it was an ultimate "crime" by President Mugabe that dented Anglo-Saxon pride.

There is no doubt that Zimbabwe's successful land policy threw spanners into the British's scheme of economic policies and as a fight-back they repeatedly swore that they would never leave any stone unturned in their bid to discredit them, which they believe have a contagious effect in Southern Africa, especially in South Africa and Namibia which also have skewed land tenure systems that favour whites.

These die-hard imperialists vainly tried to demonise Zimbabwe's triumphant land reform programme knowing very well that it is a unique phenomenon that had indeed resoundingly earned President Mugabe respect as a giant Pan Africanist. As if the land redistribution programme is not good enough to economically empower the black majority, President Mugabe and Zanu-PF are spearheading the indigenisation programme, which allows local people to become major shareholders in foreign-owned companies.

These economic policies have managed to send clear signals to the region and the world at large about the prospects of having lasting policies of empowering people of means of production among the region's poverty stricken people. This observation is key to understanding not just Britain's stance on Zimbabwe, but also the spirited involvement of America, Germany, The Netherlands and the rest of Europe in supporting Britain's land-based bilateral difference with Zimbabwe.

By supporting Britain against Zimbabwe, the German and the Dutch governments have taken a stance in defence of their overseas landed gentry who dominate real estate in Namibia and South Africa respectively.

The US by supporting Britain on Zimbabwe, is making a statement regarding its own real estate interests across the globe, mostly notably in Latin America and the Caribbean.

It is thus not difficult to understand why Britain has been successful in mobilising the European Union and America against Zimbabwe and used blanket sanctions to stop all official assistance to the Government.

These stringent measures include suspension of grants, cancellation of lifeline projects, infrastructural development support and blocking of all financial relief to Zimbabwe from multilateral bodies such as the IMF and World Bank. The idea was undoubtedly designed to put the economy out of balance and create social challenges that could build disaffection for a regime change.

There is no doubt that the use of this lethal weapon of economic welfare is having a debilitating effect on the Zimbabwean economy and is indisputably claiming the lives of millions of people through the denial of medical equipment, drugs and food.

In the same vein the British government has brazenly admitted that these economic sanctions, "unless carefully targeted", have the capacity to kill more people than armed welfare.

The imposition of sanctions has precipitated negative perceptions about Zimbabwe by the world at large. These negative perceptions are making it difficult for private and public enterprises to secure funding, as donor funding agencies are no longer willing to support projects in Zimbabwe.

This has caused some local companies to stop operations or drastically downsize production resulting in the shortage of some locally manufactured products and commodities.

From this observation it is clear that the principal objective of the Anglo-Saxon and their ilk is to keep Zimbabwe in a pathetic, defenceless and begging position that will destabilise and polarise its people and presented as a security threat by other African countries.

It should be boldly expressed that despite all these challenges, barrage of attacks from the Western countries the will and resilience displayed by the people of Zimbabwe is amazing and highly commendable. Repeated calls for industrial unrest by the MDC-T affiliated Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Union to make the economy scream have failed dismally owing to optimism by self-respecting Zimbabweans.

Really had it been any other African country that went through the nightmarish experience that faced Zimbabwe, it would have buckled on its knees and labelled a failed state.

Poignant consequences of refusing to sup with the devil can be drawn from Chile. When Salvado Allende got into power some years ago, just like President Mugabe he redistributed land to the indigenous Chileans and in the process he courted the ire of the Americans and their companies who stood to lose the most.

Just like what Britain did to Zimbabwe he was slapped with sanctions that severely paralysed his economy.

But indeed on a seemingly positive note, sanctions have taught Zimbabweans that humanitarian assistance is, however, a short term effort and does not directly contribute to long-term economic development. This is so because the NGO community has been intermittently faced with several challenges among them the overall reduction in volumes of aid that they are receiving, thus leading to the redirection of donor aid to other countries.

It should also be highlighted that as we go for elections, the US entities like the NGOs are not duty bound to provide development policies that benefit the people but are only meant to fuel the illegal regime change agenda.

The same also goes for some pirate radio stations which are being used to churn out loads of propaganda against the Government and Zanu-PF and presenting the country a pariah state.

These spirited efforts by Britain and her Anglo-Saxon allies to isolate Zimbabwe from regional and international bodies like Sadc, AU and Non-Aligned Movement by directly funding counter-revolutionary political parties like the two MDC formations have been unsuccessful.

Continual threats by MDC-T leader Mr Morgan Tsvangirai to resettled farmers is a prelude on a micro-scale of what the future holds on a macro-scale if, in the unlikeliest of events, he becomes the leader of this country.

People of Zimbabwe should never be fooled that there is going to be a change of government. The only political change which people wanted or were clamoring for took place in 1980 following the defeat of the Ian Smith regime.

Zimbabweans should also never be fooled into believing that the removal of President Mugabe and his Zanu-PF party from power will see the Western leopard changing its colour. President Mugabe is a true African icon whose ruling values the emancipation and empowerment of black majority.

For these reasons and more President Mugabe and his party Zanu-PF deserve an overwhelming people's vote in the forthcoming harmonised elections penciled for 31 July.
- chronicle