| The best Zimbabwe news site on the world wide web |  |
| NEWS |
| FORUMS |
| NEWS ANALYSIS |
| READERS' FORUM |
Bloch's deception, lies about economic sanctions
By
Kuthula Matshazi
ERIC Bloch’s
May 18 article in the Zimbabwe Independent (read)
headlined “Sanctions: lies and deception” undermines
his credibility and demonstrates that he is a beholden man.
He is disregarding inquiry and pragmatism for political correctness to seemingly please certain quarters. He comes up with several questionable arguments and vitriolic language to legitimise his flawed ideas.
The problem with these arguments is that they distort the proper understanding of issues related to economic sanctions.
More dangerously,
at face value, they are appealing arguments and therefore susceptible
to be easily believed and embraced by
casual readers.
Bloch says; “It’s [government] principal target for its deflection of blame has been the international community."
Zimbabwe has never blamed the “international community” but the West for some of its problems. It is very deceptive of Bloch to think that the West represents the entirety of other countries in the world.
The West comprises of only the industrialised countries while the international community consists of both the developed and developing countries. Zimbabwe has, for instance, never blamed East Timor, Pakistan, Namibia or Malawi for its many problems, as Bloch seems to suggest when he says Zimbabwe blames the “international community”.
The fact is that Zimbabwe has blamed Western countries, especially Britain and United States. It is deception for Bloch to suggest that the West is the “international community”, unless he is a white supremacist who believes that the West is representative of the rest of other countries of the world.
Bloch suggests that Zimbabweans do not think independently and, therefore, blindly take a cue from the government without figuring things out for themselves.
He further suggests that there is no intention by the West to re-colonise Zimbabwe. Well, this is not a claim by Zimbabweans alone. Call it whatever you like, neo-colonialism is a phenomenon that is being acknowledged all around the developing world. This neo-colonialism is acknowledged as a process that predicates the neoliberal economic development project that is being implemented in the developing world.
Of course, Bloch and his neoliberal buddies do not see it as such, but many of us do. We do not need the government of Zimbabwe to tell us this. We are able to figure out situations independently and make judgments. To suggest that we only have to be told by the government is an insult to our intelligence.
The economic control that the ilk of Bloch want to impose on us via disproportionate foreign direct investment is tantamount to re-colonisation. Bloch must come out clean and acknowledge the pre-requisite conditions of neoliberal economics projects, which he is pursuing: assassinating local currencies of developing countries, providing competition for companies of developing countries from disadvantaged positions against well supported and capitalised companies from the West and worst of all engaging in structural adjustment programmes that are based on grossly erroneous and bewildering assumptions.
If Bloch thinks this is not a form of colonialism, then I do not know what is. In arguing his position to demonstrate to us that neoliberal development is not re-colonisation, Bloch should avoid vitriolic language that he accuses the government of spewing and debate issues.
It is good that Bloch accepts that the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act of 2001 (ZDERA) imposes economic sanctions on Zimbabwe. However, he chooses not to show us the extensive extent of the effects of the Act on Zimbabwe.
The act freezes aid and support from international financial institutions such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. The freezing of aid based on these murky political reasons unfortunately carries a tag with which other international financial institutions, mostly Western, judge you.
It is the lack of balance of payments support and the consequent treatment of Zimbabwe by the international financial institutions that have squeezed Zimbabwe. Crucially, several other international financial players take a cue from the IMF and generally from the United States. So the effects are very profound and go just beyond ZDERA. The European Union has used the same institutions and sympathised with ZDERA to block the crucial aid from these institutions, whose strategic importance I explain below.
Bloch says that; “None of the countries that have supposedly imposed economic sanctions have barred trade with, travel to, or investment in Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe exports very extensively to the US and the European Union, and buys essential and other goods from them."
I think it would be important for Bloch to demonstrate whether he has a clear conceptual understanding of economic sanctions other than what the West merely says in its public propaganda messages. If I read Bloch’s understanding of the concept correctly, he wants to make us believe that only a total blockade of trade is what constitutes economic sanctions. Note that I do not even question his claim that Zimbabwe “exports very extensively to the US and the EU”. I think he should understand that the very term “targeted sanctions” is aimed at emphasising the targeted nature of sanctions to particular economic activities.
Before we even consider whether there are economic sanctions in Zimbabwe, it is important to interrogate the conceptual understanding of economic sanctions. Writing in the American Journal of Political Science, Yale University assistant professor Nikolay Marinov’s essay titled Do Economic Sanctions Destabilise Country Leaders?, defines economic sanctions as “government-inspired restrictions on customary trade or aid relations, designed to promote political objectives."
Donald Losman, in his book titled International Economic Sanctions: The Cases of Cuba, Israel and Rhodesia defines economic sanctions as penalties inflicted upon one or more states by one or more others, generally to coerce the target nation(s) to comply with certain norms that the boycott initiators deem proper or necessary. The forms that economic sanctions take also include interfering or restricting the movement of people, restriction of capital flows and withholding wealth in the boycotting countries.
Even without stretching our argument and restricting it to Bloch’s scope, the fact that the West has blocked Zimbabwe from accessing funds through the IMF and World Bank, where they have a majority shareholding (see), constitutes economic sanctions, according to the definitions given above. Section 4 (a) of ZDERA clearly outlines these sanctions.
So it is perplexing for someone to suggest that Europe, which is part of the Bretton Woods institutions’ majority shareholders have not applied sanctions on Zimbabwe when the ZDERA says so expressly. If Europe does not subscribe to the decisions taken to apply economic sanctions on Zimbabwe through the IMF and World Bank, why are they not then urging these developmental and international financial institutions to resume aid to Zimbabwe?
In fact, these countries, fiercely defended by Bloch, have actually supported the restriction of aid to Zimbabwe. One example is through the Highly Indebted Poor Countries Initiative where Zimbabwe was denied the opportunity to have its debt forgiven. The same section 4 (a) tells us that various financial institutions have been instructed to freeze lines of credit. Sure, not hundred percent lines of credit have been frozen but indeed – take note of this - “targeted” areas have been affected. Banks take their cue from the IMF.
If we suggest that there has not been explicit restrictions in trade and travel, however, the messages of the Western governments have been explicit in spreading the anti trade messages. The idea suggesting that by investing in Zimbabwe, companies are propping up the Zanu PF government is a form of sanction meant to starve Zimbabwe of foreign investment. Since this message was communicated, we have seen a drastic decrease in Foreign Direct Investment down from about US$400 million per year to about US$3 million in 2003.
Companies in the West have been told that investing in Zimbabwe is against national interest and runs counter to what the West perceive as their liberal democracy values.
However, those companies that are already operating in Zimbabwe can still operate. Of course, they cannot be expected to withdraw on a full scale, as this would indeed demonstrate the intention to apply full-scale economic sanctions. Besides, those countries would not have enough money to compensate those companies who already have established operations. The fact that there are still economic activities happening does not demonstrate that there are no economic sanctions. Rather, it demonstrates the lingering business presence that was established by the western companies stretching back to the colonial period for some.
In any case, economic sanctions are not only defined by economic activity. As Marinov shows, government decisions meant to achieve political ends and a clampdown on aid are economic sanctions too. While the EU could claim that it has poured money into Zimbabwe, it has also targeted another part of aid that comes through the IMF and World Bank.
In fact, the aid that comes through these institutions is more strategically critical since it is supposed to build sustainable social programmes as opposed to hand to mouth and unsustainable programmes that reduce people to beggars. Besides, Bloch does not tell us where this so-called increased aid given by the EU went.
The individual sanctions, which are a part of the “targeted sanctions” programme, have come in handy to provide cover-up for people such as Bloch to argue that there are no economic sanctions but individual sanctions.
The tragedy of such a view is that no compelling conceptual understanding underpins this argument. On the contrary and unfortunately, many people, including Bloch use one of the characteristics of economic sanctions – individual sanctions – to argue against the presence of economic sanctions. I think we also need to mention and highlight an important element that harmonises the trans-atlantic relations and actions.
In Article 7 of its Council Common Position, the document that applies economic sanctions on Zimbabwe, the EU says; “In order to maximise the impact of the above mentioned measures, the European Union shall encourage third States to adopt restrictive measures similar to those contained in this Common Position."
By obliging other countries to observe the economic sanctions, we have seen all other Western countries applying sanctions on Zimbabwe, including North American countries, even if they were not the ones who initially differed with Zimbabwe over the land reform programme.
Bloch says; “Admittedly, none of those countries are disposed to provide Zimbabwe with loan funding and lines of credit, but none have barred doing so." This quotation does not do justice to Bloch’s argument. Sure, he argues that there is no proof that there has been official restriction of trade or aid, but what Bloch conveniently forgets is what I have outlined above.
Through political statements, Zimbabwe has been demonised and deemed a place companies should avoid. The rationale is that further investment will perpetuate President Robert Mugabe’s government, something the Western governments are openly fighting. So even if Bloch’s assertion that it does not make economic and business sense to invest in Zimbabwe under the current environment and in terms of the country’s creditworthiness, he ignores to acknowledge that the very reason this problem came about and still persists is, to a very large extent, political. The Western countries intend to squeeze Zimbabwe to submission economically as a punishment for undertaking the land reforms.
Bloch is being disingenuous in trying to use demonising language to distort the debate on sanctions as opposed to focusing on issues. Unfortunately, even when he focuses on issues, he glosses over them to suite his agenda. But one can understand Bloch’s position: He has to avoid being viewed as pariah within the community he is beholden.
Kuthula Matshazi
is a Zimbabwean journalist and blogger writing from Canada. Visit his
blog: http://kuthula.blogspot.com
JOIN THE
DEBATE ON THIS ARTICLE ON THE NEWZIMBABWE.COM FORUMS
newsdesk@newzimbabwe.com
All material copyright newzimbabwe.com
Material may be published or reproduced in any form with appropriate credit to this website