Friends, readers - Africa’s sovereignty is at stake.

I am - as always, indisposed to dipping into politics on this blog, but I feel that something has to be said about the situation unraveling in the heart of Africa. Before I go on though, I’d like to issue a disclaimer. “I by no means support Mugabe’s autocratic regime.” This article is also not about the constitutional and human rights that have been so blatantly violated - enough has already been said. By proceeding I’m well aware that I’ll be opening myself up to intense criticism, but I’ll take my chances.

Canada’s prime minister John Turner said “… once you yield the economic levers of sovereignty you eventually lose the political levers,” in response to the controversial NAFTA agreement. Turner felt Canada had sold out to the USA. Sadly it was the truth. In 1980 (the same year as Zimbabwe’s independence), the IMF began to impose Structural Adjustment Programs (SAP’s) on African debtor nations. SAP’s generally mandated:

• The removal of protections in the manufacturing sector
• The elimination of government subsidies for food and some other items
• Trade liberalization;reductions in barriers to trade, as well as foreign investment and ownership
• Increased role of the private sector in industry, which were previously owned by the government
• Reductions in government spending on health and education

The results were disastrous and the reverberations are still being felt today. Africa’s poverty grew at an exponential rate, along with increased dependency on richer nations. This in effect lowered the standard of living of most Africans and set a stage for an era of neo-colonialism (yes I said it).

So you ask - what does this have to do with Zimbabwe? Zimbabwe (and Mugabe’s) problem is 3-fold:

• Land Reform - The 3 month Lancaster House Conference of 1979, which concluded with Zimbabwe’s independence failed to address the most important item - land reform. Mugabe was pressured to sign and land was the key stumbling block. Both the British and American governments offered to buy land from willing white settlers who could not accept reconciliation (the "Willing buyer, Willing seller" principle) and a fund was established, to operate from 1980 to 1990. The Conservative Party led by Former British Prime Margaret Thatcher and later John Major agreed to fund the program, which was immediately crushed by Tony Blair’s Labour government. Some can still remember the letter from Tony Blair’s minister - Claire Short that said "I should make it clear that we do not accept that Britain has a special responsibility to meet the costs of land purchase in Zimbabwe. We are a new Government from diverse backgrounds without links to former colonial interests…” - A smack in the face of a fledgling nation. In 1996 Mugabe took the controversial stance of supporting the seizure of white-owned land without compensation in order to reverse the economic imbalances that disadvantaged the majority blacks.
• Rejection of the Structural Adjustment Programs - Abandonment in the late '90s of International Monetary Fund-mandated "structural adjustment programs" was ultimately the beginning of Mugabe’s problems. This is a stance few 3rd world countries have won. This too poses a threat to vested Anglo-American interests as SAP’s require intense privatization.
• Involvement with the SADC - The South African Development Community includes all the southern African countries - from South Africa to DR Congo and Tanzania. In 1998 Zimbabwe, along with Angola and Namibia sent 6,000 troops to Laurent Kabila’s Congo to save a fellow SADC member country from an invasion by Ugandan and Rwandan troops (backed by the US and UK). This inadvertently or not was yet another provocative move against the west, and there would be a steep price to pay. I’m starting to hear echoes of Patrice Lumumba and Mobutu Sese Seko - but that is a story for another day.

At this point I should step back and state that Mugabe is no different from the other despots Africa has had since the 60’s. Corruption and violation of human rights are the order of the day. Beyond that, the indirect (and direct) involvement of the west in Africa’s affairs after independence remains deeply disturbing. Africa’s claim on the future depends on it being able to handle its own problems.

Zimbabwe’s debacle is a lose-lose situation at this point. The 'Great Hope' - MDC’s Morgan Tsvangirai has been bankrolled by a combination of western governments, corporate enterprises and ex-landowners. His stance on increasing foreign investment and supporting fair land reform sadly suggests we’ll see a return to structural adjustment programs, and NO land reform - this issue will expectantly be postponed for another decade (or longer). I should also point out that land reform is an open wound in countries like Namibia and South Africa, and continually threatens to rear its ugly head.

Finally, the continual meddling of foreign powers in Africa puts its sovereignty in question. Sometimes, I wonder - are we truly independent nations? Zimbabwe exposes Africa's true problems and the Wests deepest fears. Zimbabwe is the dog that went rabid and bit its master after years of having a chain around its neck.

 Email This Post