We all know that Robert Mugabe is a stupid man and worse dictator. Zimbabwe, once the breadbasket of southern Africa, is now starving. Terrible mismanagement, corruption, and crackdowns/abuses by the Mugabe regime have crippled the country. Inflation was at 10,000% in 2007 and higher than 200M% today (yes, that is 200,000,000%), so now a 10M bank note is worthless. And to make matters worse, thousands are now dying from preventable cholera, which is spreading to neighboring nations via waterways. That is partly why Zimbabwe's neighbors are finally starting to denounce formerly revered African nationalist Mugabe. The health care and clean water systems have broken down, so now cholera, which usually kills just 1% of infected, is now killing 10-40% in some areas. It's a horrible situation, yet some in Harare claim that the epidemic is "under control". But others are secretly or publicly begging for more foreign aid.
Zimbabwe's political dysfunctions have been well documented. Here is the State Dept's take: http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/16501.htm. Clearly the catastrophic Mugabe regime would prefer to blame the West for national ills rather than actually address them. Bordering on Rev. Wright territory, the Mugabe government has even accused the UK/US of deliberately infecting people with cholera/anthrax.
But Mugabe wouldn't have risen to power if he was all bad. Like Mandela, he protested against the white minority rule in British Rhodesia, and was imprisoned 11 years for his efforts (while jailed he earned 3 advanced degrees, including law). His 4-year-old son died while he was behind bars, and his jailors wouldn't even allow him to attend the funeral. Maybe that contributed to his disdain for whites and the West. In 1980 he came to power in a shady fashion (like many post-colonial nations), and adopted a pseudo-Maoist political platform. But while in power, he actually did some good and Zimbabwe thrived. According to a 1995 World Bank report, from 1980-1990 infant mortality/child malnutrition rates were nearly halved and immunizations tripled. Life expectancy rose 8 years, and Zimbabwe was above average on many social metrics vs. other developing nations. But short on cash in 1991, Mugabe began to print more cash, land reform backfired, foreign investment dried up, economic problems worsened, and things spiraled downward to present conditions. But it wasn't totally his fault.
Contrary to what we might expect, it was not Mugabe or other black revolutionaries who resisted British colonial rule and established an independent state. Zimbabwe was not an Algeria. Actually it was Ian Smith, the UK-appointed white leader of colonial Southern Rhodesia, who broke off ties with London and declared independence in 1965. Though the UK pushed for international sanctions, and Rhodesia was never officially recognized. Smith's Rhodesia implemented minority white rule and enforced apartheid (blacks couldn't vote and whites owned most of the usable land), which contributed to the rise of black nationalism resistance from groups like ZANU (Zimbabwe African Nat. Union) and UANC (United African Nat. Council), the former which Mugabe belonged to. The whites and blacks waged war from 1971-9 until the UK brokered the Lancaster House peace agreement that created Zimbabwe and launched Mugabe's political career.
http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/1196912834.59/
Surprisingly, relations between Mugabe and the UK were quite warm in the 1980s and early '90s under Thatcher/Major, and Britain invested heavily in the Zimbabwean military and public works projects. The UK even cooperated in Mugabe's land reform initiatives, buying back over 40M pounds worth of land from whites so Mugabe could redistribute it to blacks. But things changed overnight when Tony Blair became the new PM. Blair's government decided to cancel his predecessor's verbal promise to continue the land program, angering Mugabe. Things "seemed" to be going well between whites/blacks and the UK/Zimbabwe, but Blair unilaterally decided to change course. Partly because of this, Mugabe adopted a harder political line (and became more racist/xenophobic too), cracked down on his opponents, and forcefully seized white land instead. He believed that the Blair regime was supporting his political rivals to undermine and oust him, so in a sense, Blair pushed Mugabe into becoming a bigger tyrant. The Bush administration also got on board (maybe as quid pro quo for Iraq?), and the US/UK lobbied the UN for sanctions and foreign divestment from Zimbabwe. I guess it's not paranoia if some people really are out to get you.
http://www.gmanews.tv/story/63020/Western-sanctions-hurt-the-poor-Zimbabwe-central-bank-report-says
The US/UK claim that they just want to punish the Mugabe regime and won't hurt poor Zimbabweans. They want him out of power so Zimbabwe can fix its economy and move towards democratic reforms. That's all fair and good, but "targeted sanctions" are like smart bombs - more humane in principle but not so in practice. Yes it is true that despite soured relations, Western agencies have continued to pour millions of aid dollars to help Zimbabwe with HIV, hunger, and other problems. But official and unofficial sanctions have crippled the Zimbabwean economy. They have a harder time exporting their goods overseas in a competitive manner, and have to accept grossly unfair prices for the imported raw materials that they need. At least Saddam had "Oil for Food".
It's a vicious cycle: foreign divestment makes Zimbabwe poorer and lowers its economic appeal/credit rating for investors, which forces Zimbabwe to pursue riskier sources of capital or even print new money to try to balance its books, which further lowers its economic health. Foreign direct investment/donor grants fell from $240M/year in the 1990s to $60M in 2006. The WHO closed its Harare office, and the IMF/World Bank cancelled its loan programs (loans that literally kept the nation afloat), probably at the behest of the US/UK. There were many "legitimate" reasons for those org's to cut off Zimbabwe, but political foul play was obviously involved as well. Because if the IMF applied the same scrutiny of Zimbabwe's loans to other developing nations, they'd have to remove dozens more countries from their books too. But I guess their patience for Mugabe is particularly low? The Zimbabwe central bank is not full of idiots; they are printing all that money and suffering record inflation because they don't have a choice (they can't get funds from anyone else). Surely governments and companies have the right to withdraw investments as a form of political protest, but we shouldn't deceive ourselves into thinking that innocents won't be hurt in the process. Hospitals can't afford drugs/equipment, schools can't buy new books/computers, and infrastructure projects languish without funding. It's partly Mugabe's doing, but ultimately we let it happen.
Mugabe has a lot of blood on his hands and will go down in history as a failure, but we shouldn't overlook the West's role in Zimbabwe's suffering too (even if the media and history books do).
No comments:
Post a Comment