Sanctions on Zimbabwe: Africa Under
Attack
By Connie White
|
The European Union and
the American government have imposed sanctions on
Zimbabwe? What is the main aim of these sanctions?
They are meant to .
. . weaken and remove the regime of
president Robert Mugabe. Like other actions
taken by institutions such as the International Monetary
Fund and the World
Bank, they seek to pressure and impose a government on
the people of Zimbabwe in the name of 'democratic
elections.' (AfricanPerspective.com, Issue #51,
Saturday February 3, 2002, "No Sanctions on
Zimbabwe") |
|
In 2002, the fifteen
member states of the European Union decided to impose
sanctions on Zimbabwe. Sanctions are war without
guns and bloodshed, and have limited, if any,
effectiveness for changing behavior or governments of
target countries. (Working Papers 1997 of the
Institute For International Economics). |
|
On the other hand,
sanctions target to kill or injure infants, children,
the elderly, and the chronically ill. (Ramsey
Clark: Report to UN Security Council re: Iraq, January
26, 2000) |
The Zimbabwe
Democracy and Economic Recovery Act of 2001 states that U.S.
sanctions will remain in place against the Zimbabwean
"government" [euphemism for "the people"]
until the U.S. president certifies that the "rule of law
has been restored in Zimbabwe, including respect for ownership
and title to property. . . and an end to. . .lawlessness."
The U.S. government and its imperialist cohorts around the world
are the ones who are "lawless" and defying the
"rule of law" in Zimbabwe. The Zimbabwean
government has declared that it is against the law in Zimbabwe
for 1 percent of the population in Zimbabwe -- i.e., white
settler colonists -- to own 1/2 of the arable land, while 95
percent or more of the population in Zimbabwe are impoverished
and without land.
Charles Rangels and Sheila
Jackson-Lee of the Congressional Black Caucus of the Democratic
Party support the lawlessness of the Zimbabwean White landed
gentry and agri-capitalist in that they backed the Zimbabwe
Democracy and Economic Recovery Act of 2001. The only
thing that Democratic Party members like Charles Rangels and
Sheila Jackson-Lee are trying to recover in Zimbabwe are the
economic interests of capital, and to maintain the presence of
those interests in Zimbabwe. The objective is not
"democracy" and "economic recovery" in
Zimbabwe.
Let's review the history of
Zimbabwe lest we forget how European White settlers killed,
plundered and stole in order to position themselves where they
are today in Zimbabwe.
A History of the Plunder
of Zimbabwe
In 1891, the British
government recognized the South African Company's
"investment" in Zimbabwe, and brokered that company's
expropriation of fertile farmland from the Shona population.
Supported by the military might of the British crown, the White
settlers who followed Cecil Rhodes to Zimbabwe were given 3,000
acres of choice farmland, plus 15 gold-mining claims by those
who had no right to give what was not theirs.
The White settlers
discovered that no significant wealth would be discovered in the
gold mines in Zimbabwe and, thus, were granted 6,000 acres of
choice farmland by the South African Company. White
settlers continued unabated in their invasion of Zimbabwe.
Cattle was seized from the native population, native lands were
taken, and the indigenous people were often forcibly prevented
from plowing and sewing the meager plots of soil that were left
them because of tax collection and coerced labor in White-owned
farms. By March 1899, the White settlers had seized
15,762,364 acres of choice farmland. (A History of
Africa: 1840-1914, by Michael Tidy and Donald Leeming;
London: E. Arnold, 1981.)
The Zimbabwean workers and
peasants rebelled on several occasions. The "Chi
Murenga" rebellion of 1896 was one rebellion that was
brutally crushed by the British. The brutal treatment of
Zimbabwean mine workers culminated in the enactment of the
Master and Servants Law, which made it a criminal offense to
break a labor contract.
These historical acts of
theft and plunder of African lands are the basis in Zimbabwe
today for what U.S. Democratic Party members like Charles
Rangels and Sheila Jackson-Lee call the "rule of law."
When U.S. Democratic and Republican Party members call for a
"return to the rule of law" in Zimbabwe, they speak of
a "rule of law" that continues to deny impoverished
Zimbabweans the right to shelter and to feed themselves and
their families. This
"rule of law" of White settlers who killed, stole, and
plundered Zimbabwe allows the ruling class to own the land and
control the economy in Zimbabwe, but also is the basis for
denying the Zimbabwean peasants the land, which has always been
rightfully theirs.
Europe Underdeveloped
Africa
The capitalist modes of
production in nations of Europe and North America gobbled up
Africa, which was fractured into colonial states and settler
colonies. The economic modes of production in the colonies
were determined by the economic polices of the colonizing
European power. Production in the respective colonies was
determined by the colonial power and, for the most part in
Africa, was agricultural production for export of goods or/and
geologically determined production of raw materials from natural
resources. Thus, a dialectical power-dependence
relationship grew between the European colonial power and the
developing African economies.
World capitalism developed
in the womb of monarchal feudal states in Europe, and was
personified in the rising merchant capitalist in the context of
competing mercantile systems and colonial rivalries. These
mercantile systems -- in particular, Britain and France --
subordinated the colonies to the resources of the rising
capitalist classes. The older colonial powers like Spain
and Portugal were more looters than producers, and were swept
aside as the rising British Empire was becoming the dominant
global economy.
In this world historical
framework, Europe under-developed Africa. In the midst of
the industrial revolution in England -- which at once engendered
and was engendering the capitalization of the productive forces,
and the correlating proletarianization of the peasants from the
countryside to the cities to be a surplus population of
destitute individuals with no means of subsistence -- the
conquered economies of the kingdoms of Africa were -- by way of
land expropriations by the conquerors-- being transformed from
diversified, self-sufficient economies into productive assets of
the capitalist, and dependent upon the economy and commodities
of capitalism.
The depopulation of Africa
by the trans-Atlantic slave trade also retarded Africa's
potential for industrial development. By becoming
dependent upon European industrial commodities -- e.g.,
firearms, manufactured textiles and rum -- the African countries
objectively surrendered political power to its European
colonizer.
Liberation War and the
Lancaster Agreement
The party of Robert Mugabe,
ZANU-PF, came to power in 1979 at the time of the Lancaster
Agreement, but left the land and the Zimbabwean economy in the
hands of the same class that owned the lands and managed the
economy prior to Zimbabwe's independence. ZANU-PF and
Mugabe achieved some measure of wealth, power, and privilege in
Zimbabwe for the formerly excluded Black bourgeoisie and
petty-bourgeoisie -- e.g., the Black domestic capitalists.
As owners of the means of production in Zimbabwe, including the
majority of the productive land, the capitalists -- both Black
and White – run the enterprises and determine what will be
governmental policy. To wit, the "rule of law"
-- established at the time of the Lancaster Agreement, and in
place until the recent enactment of the Zimbabwe Land
Redistribution Act -- supports stolen land acquired in the
historical plunder of Zimbabwe remaining in the hands of the
capitalists instead of being transferred to the Zimbabwean
peasants and workers who are the rightful owners. After
enacting the Zimbabwe Land Redistribution Act, ZANU-PF sees
itself on the road of Chimeranga 3 -- establishing that the
[indigenous] people of Zimbabwe own the land.
The IMF and World Bank
Continue the Plunder of Zimbabwe
One hundred years after the
South African Company comes the International Monetary Fund (IMF)
and the World Bank to Zimbabwe. As the economy in Zimbabwe
stagnated in 1990, the government turned to the IMF and the
World Bank and adopted structural adjustment plans. This has put
Zimbabwe on a chaotic road downwards. During the first
year of implementation of the structural adjustment plan(s),
gross domestic product, which had been growing at over 4 percent
a year, increased by only 1 percent in 1991. Industrial
production, which had been rising nearly 6 percent per year,
fell back to 2 percent.
Zimbabwe had always been a
surplus maize producer with stockpiles of more than 1 million
tons to tide the country over drought years. (Jean Duval,
April 20, 2000, from the "In Defense of Marxism"
website.) After implementing the structural adjustment
plan(s) of the World Bank -- which forced the government of
Zimbabwe to sell its stockpiles of maize to make a profit so as
to pay IMF and World Bank debt -- Zimbabwe now has to import
maize to feed its destitute population.
The IMF and World Bank
structural adjustment plan(s) have precipitated food shortages
in Zimbabwe, for which the ZANU-PF government is being blamed.
These food shortages (read: famine) are part of the excuses used
by the U.S. and EU to sanction Zimbabwe. Furthermore, the IMF
and World Bank structural adjustment plan(s) devastated the
economy of the South African country of Zimbabwe.
The Western world has
plundered Africa, killed and enslaved its population, and have
created the basis for the food crisis existing in Zimbabwe
today. But the Western donors -- including the World Bank
and the IMF – have cut aid to the Zimbabwean government until
that government puts a halt to land seizures by landless
peasants.
Western Media Blames
Zimbabweans For The Crisis
Western governments and
media pundits blame Zimbabwe's economic devastation on the
president of Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe. According to them,
Zimbabwe's economic crisis is the result of havoc rendered on
the economy by Mugabe's misrule of the country and his
mismanagement of its economy. But, more specifically,
these critics of the Zimbabwean government indicate that the
immediate cause of the economic crisis is land seizure by the
Zimbabwean peasants.
In reality, the damages to
the Zimbabwean economy are due to the structural adjustment
plan(s) of the IMF and World Bank, are due to tobacco planters
protesting land seizures by withholding tobacco crops at a time
when the Zimbabwean economy was being crushed under the
structural adjustment plan(s), and are due to the White settler
farmers destroying prize farmland with the chemical atrozin(sp?),
which kills crops for two to three seasons!
There Are No Dictators
To attribute the fate of a
national economy to the decisions made by a single individual is
absurd. There is no possibility that a single individual
can single-handedly rule a nation of millions -- all that needs
be done is to kill that individual while s/he sleeps.
In every class society,
without exception, the most powerful and dominant economic class
determines the political course of its government. Classes
rule. The state is a bureaucratic-military machine, which
functions in the interests of the economically dominant class.
Neither the state nor the rule of the economically dominant
class are in any way dependent upon -- let alone determined by
-- a single, egotistical will of a delusional individual.
As it is in Zimbabwe and
the world, so it is in the U.S. Charles Rangels and Sheila
Jackson-Lee of the Democratic Party's Congressional Black Caucus
advanced the interests of the most powerful and dominant
economic class in the U.S. -- against the Zimbabwean peasants --
when they rose to support the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic
Recovery Act of 2001, and to sanction Zimbabwe. Charles Rangels
supported the return to the "rule of law" in Zimbabwe,
and Sheila Jackson-Lee said that "[T]his legislation sends
a strong message to the rest of the world regarding our
intentions toward Zimbabwe."
Indeed, the Zimbabwe
Democracy and Economic Recovery Act of 2001 sends the message
that the U.S. government is at war with the Southern African
nation of Zimbabwe. Rangels and Jackson-Lee have sent a
message to the people of Zimbabwe that they have absolutely no
respect for the laws of Zimbabwe. The U.S. government, the
Democratic and Republican parties, and the Congressional Black
Caucus support lawless White settlers' defiance of Zimbabwe's
laws regarding redistribution of land in Zimbabwe.
Land Reform Is
Justifiable and Long Overdue (2002 Zimbabwe Fact-Finding
Mission, led by Elombe Brath of Harlem, New York)
The Minister of
Agricultural of the National Land Acquisition Committee in
Zimbabwe states that in the tradition of Zimbabwe the land does
not belong to any man, but to God and is managed and
administered for the good and in the interests of the people of
Zimbabwe. "[S]peaking in the language of the West, land is
not a commodity to be bought and sold." (Taken from the
video produced by Ron Wilkins of Los Angeles, California for the
2002 Zimbabwe Fact-Finding Mission.) The Minister of
Agriculture in Zimbabwe continues: "[W]e want the
landholding part of Zimbabwe to reflect the population of
Zimbabwe."
In fact, the land seizures
in Zimbabwe have not gone far enough, and have come late.
A member of ZANU-PF spoke
to the 2002 Zimbabwe Fact-Finding Mission and said: "We are
at war. We have no illusions about that. What the media
has missed deliberately is the fact that it is a war going on
[in Zimbabwe]. The war goes back to 1999-2000.
Resumption of a war that ended prematurely in 1979 with [the]
Lancaster [Agreement]. We had no illusion that that which
we agreed upon at Lancaster would come back to haunt us.
It was only a question of time. The agreement that
imperialism has forced us into in this region was deliberate and
reflected the balance of forces at the time they were concluded,
and reflected the extent to which the battle had not been won
fully."
Real Independence
Requires Expropriation of The Productive Forces
After the independence
struggles of Africa in the '50s and '60s, the ruling
"Black" governments govern in name only. The
real government of most of these independent nation states is
based in the hands of the dominant economic class, and not in
the hands of the "people of Africa." The poverty of
recently independent African nation-states from the overt
political shackles of colonialism is due to persistent economic
control of those economies by the same economic masters in a
neo-colonialist system. Colonialism and neo-colonialism
could not and would not have happened -- nor could it continue
-- without the collaboration of "Quislings" in the
colonial or/and neo-colonial countries.
ZANU-PF and Robert
Mugabe Fall Out of Favor With Capitalists in Zimbabwe and the
World
The food shortages and
economic crisis in Zimbabwe have been engendered by the economic
policies of Britain and the U.S. as concretized in the
structural adjustment plan(s) of the IMF and World Bank.
Additionally, the crisis has been exacerbated by the economic
policies of Zimbabwean capitalists -- especially the tobacco
capitalists who withheld or/and destroyed critical tobacco crops
-- the neo-colonial Black bourgeoisie, and the ZANU-PF
government.
In Zimbabwe today, we are
not seeing food shortages and economic crisis engendered by
famine and civil war as was/is in Ethiopia, Somalia, Sudan and
Afghanistan. Not at all!
The policies of Western
capital in Zimbabwe relegated Zimbabwe to being a source of
natural resources and raw materials, combined with a specialized
agricultural economy based in cash crops for export -- tobacco
being the most important export crop in Zimbabwe—rather than
diversified agricultural production that includes production of
food for domestic consumption. These economic policies of
Western capital were exacerbated by the structural adjustment
plan(s) of the IMF and World Bank. ZANU-PF and Robert
Mugabe have, until recently, been the "Quislings" of
British and American transnational corporations. ZANU-PF
sold out the Zimbabwean peasants and workers long ago when it
agreed to the Lancaster Agreement that left the Zimbabwean
economy and the arable land in the hands of domestic and
transnational capitalists.
Resources of Zimbabwean
State Placed at Disposal of Peasants and Workers of Zimbabwe
The peasant population
seizing arable lands in Zimbabwe for production of food stuffs
– for example, potatoes and cabbage -- was a "wake up
call" for ZANU-PF to return to the struggle for liberation
of the nation of Zimbabwe. The recent policies and
enactment of laws – like the Zimbabwe Land Redistribution Act
– are merely a return by ZANU-PF, and Robert Mugabe, to the
war of liberation that was (in the words of a ZANU-PF member)
"ended prematurely in 1979 with [the] Lancaster
[Agreement]." (Taken from the video produced by Ron
Wilkins of Los Angeles, California for the 2002 Zimbabwe
Fact-Finding Mission led by Elombe Brath of Harlem, New York.)
Twenty years after ZANU-PF
fought a liberation struggle and seized state power, landless
peasants and unemployed and homeless proletarians in Zimbabwe
desperately and spontaneously began to expropriate (seize)
fertile land. ZANU-PF and Robert Mugabe recognized their
former comrades of the national liberation struggle.
Instead of opposing the land seizures, ZANU-PF and Robert Mugabe
correctly supported the landless peasants in their efforts to
take back the land that had been forcibly expropriated from
their ancestors.
Capital interests in
Zimbabwe expected ZANU-PF to uphold the pilfering "rule of
law" of the Lancaster Agreement. ZANU-PF "did the
right thing" and stood with the dispossessed population of
Zimbabwe. As a consequence of supporting the land seizures in
Zimbabwe, ZANU-PF and Robert Mugabe have fallen out of favor
with the British and American transnational corporations,
as well as with the domestic capitalists in Zimbabwe -- both
Black and White.
Workers and Peasants in
Zimbabwe Must Take State Power
The arable land in Zimbabwe
should be transformed from production of export-oriented cash
crops to the production of foodstuffs for domestic consumption.
The mines and natural resources in Zimbabwe should be
nationalized or/and declared national treasures. All
foreign tools in Zimbabwe should be nationalized, and the
profits derived from mineral wealth production should belong to
the whole of the people of Zimbabwe.
The current economic crisis
in Zimbabwe also includes fuel price hikes that have forced bus
and taxi fares higher at a time when Zimbabweans are struggling
with record high unemployment and eroded wages. (Reuters,
July 6, 2001)
The economic struggle can
become a political struggle that leads to state power. The
urban working-class in Zimbabwe must move from the purely
economic struggle (strike) against rising taxes and fuel prices
to a movement for the economical emancipation of the proletariat
by -- following the example of the peasant land seizures --
expropriating the industrial capitalists in Zimbabwe. The
urban proletariat in Zimbabwe must seize industry, and the mine
workers must seize the mines. To make all this possible, the
praxis of the economic strike must displace the bourgeois
parliament in Zimbabwe by workers' and peasants' soviets.
Only the working class, in alliance with the peasant masses, can
make the expropriations of industry become public property.
The landless peasants in
Zimbabwe have begun the expropriations by seizing small family
farms, but the dispossessed in Zimbabwe will not own or be in
control of the Zimbabwean economy without peasant expropriation
of commercial plantations, and workers in Zimbabwe expropriating
mines and factories.
This is the way forward in Zimbabwe. (c) January 20, 2003
connierw@earthlin.net
If you like this article consider making a donation
* * *
* *
updated 30 September 2007 |