Zimpapers Logo

Gibson Nyikadzino
Correspondent
Voices of anti-Zimbabwe reactionaries and bourgeoisie apologists are being daily amplified without facts to advance a very dangerous political and historical issue.

In doing so, historical revisionists have resuscitated a sinister reminder that is difficult to imagine, saying Ian Douglas Smith better managed the Rhodesian economy under sanctions than in post-independent Zimbabwe.

These remarks are coming from fake nationalists and pseudo-democrats in the opposition circles who are being fed with the wealth of evil political influence by the country’s detractors through trading their conscience for money.

This has been the case within the opposition Citizens Coalition for Change (CCC) and its political-hallelujah boys who just sing praises without application of mind to detail.

They do a disservice unto their political standing by raising praises of a man, Smith, who killed over 50 000 Zimbabweans, maimed their forefathers, denied the black majority voting rights, instituted racist bigotries and presided over gross violations of human rights.

This writer dispels such views with historical and present truths and factors on the basis of at least four principal ideas in defence of Zimbabwe’s right to sovereignty and call to have the sanctions unconditionally lifted.

The Rhodesian government of Ian Smith was slapped with sanctions on December 16, 1966 after it had initiated the Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI) on November 11, 1965.

For Zimbabwe, the sanctions under the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act (ZIDERA) came into effect on December 22, 2001, followed by the EU sanctions in February 2002. Both the Rhodesia and Zimbabwe governments were accused of having defied the set-up of the global governance architecture by going against the expectations of Britain.

While this may be the similar issue between the two, the epochs on which sanctions were imposed are also determined by different factors.

Relationship with labour market

It is important to look at the labour market during the time sanctions were imposed on Rhodesia and Zimbabwe to come up with reasonable findings to understand how the situations panned.

For those that lack political insight and economic history, they base the “success” of Rhodesia under the so called “United Nations embargo” owing to “good” governance, effective planning and efficiency of his system.

But the system in Rhodesia was not based on fair distribution and redistribution of resources and the means of production, or access to equal economic empowerment initiatives of opportunities. The economy that was run by Ian Smith was meant to satisfy the needs of between 200 000 to 250 000 whites against a population of 5,5 million blacks. At the height of Smith’s “sanctions-busting” mechanisms, he was disposed to a very cheap labour market which he exploited, paying very low wages and salaries.

The bottleneck education system and the racial preferences did not allow qualified black Zimbabweans to venture into their professions freely, but were forced to do other menial jobs that were enforced through racially-inclined legislation. Labour drives production and when it is cheap and exploited as in the times of Rhodesia, production capacity increases.

So, what Smith might have “achieved”, even a kindergarten child could have achieved that because the key driver of industrial production was an exploited source.

For the labour market in Zimbabwe, from 2001, it had become much freer and workers being economically empowered. More so, workers were becoming politicised as the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions (ZCTU) dabbled in partisan politics.

It was during this time that labour migration started happening and many professionals left Zimbabwe, freely, something they rarely did in Rhodesia.

The relationship between the Government and the labour market in Rhodesia and Zimbabwe must be factored in the equation, as one group was exploited and depoliticised while the other was free and politicised.

As the impact of sanctions hit the industrial sector in post-independent Zimbabwe, professionals left.

The kith-kin, race card

Colonialism was a racial institution. Even so, in post-independent Africa, neo-colonialism has also remained a racially-constituted and institutionalised phenomenon. Rhodesia was a white minority government that looked at issues in a racialised way, and Zimbabwe has pre-dominantly been a Government of the black majority based on equality and reconciliation.

When Smith sanctions were imposed’ white run firms in Europe, the US, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and even during apartheid South Africa did not stop trading with the Rhodesian government.

As a participant in Europe’s ethnic war from 1939-1945, Smith’s wartime colleagues mobilised many businesses to invest in Zimbabwe, and also big oil companies supplied Rhodesia with fuel.

After sanctions were imposed on Rhodesian trade, oil companies worked through thinly disguised intermediaries to bring in their product into Rhodesia to boost the white-oriented economy run by Smith. Without this oil and fuel, the Smith government would almost certainly have collapsed in 1967.

However, oil trade was dominated then by British Petroleum (BP) and Shell acting as a unit, Caltex and Mobil they provided white Rhodesians with their lifeline. There can be no downplaying of the role the race card played in favour of sustaining Ian Smith’s colonial regime.

Western governments also traded with Rhodesia in defiance of the ‘sanctions’ that were imposed. That has been a different case for Zimbabwe.

From 2001, the black Government in Zimbabwe was disparaged. White run firms, government business correspondences to Zimbabwe and trade were stopped.

Because Zimbabwe is being run by the black majority, the race card also favours those imposing the sanctions for their intention is to make the economy “scream”.

These sanctions against Zimbabwe, especially by the US, ought to be captured in three ways which are ZIDERA, the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) and the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), all acts which directly and indirectly forbid trade with Zimbabwe.

This exposes the racist inclinations on how the sanctions, as a foreign policy tool, are being used to destroy the livelihoods of the ordinary citizenry, and in the case of these sanctions, they are targeting the black Zimbabweans.

UDI, Commonwealth transgression

A similarity that is rarely talked about pertaining the Rhodesia-Zimbabwe sanctions is the desire for both Rhodesia and Zimbabwe desire to chart new paths without the control of the British Empire.

This position does not praise Smith’s regime, but sees the use of sanctions as applied because Rhodesia was having administrative challenges with the British. The British, too, had to mobilise for sanctions against Zimbabwe by internationalising a bilateral dispute after Zimbabwe decided to protect its core and objective interests by pulling out of the Commonwealth. Western states had to bandwagon against Zimbabwe.

Bilateral relations cannot be managed through coercion.

Dealing with reactionaries

Government, through the ruling Zanu-PF, need to invoke measures that preserve the interests of the State.

It is demeaning and degrading to the people who experienced the brutality of the colonial governments to hear agents of the West praising Ian Smith.

In Europe, it is politically dangerous for someone to praise Adolf Hitler, for example.

There is a penal code in German that prohibits dissemination of Nazi propaganda, both off and online, including sharing images such as swastikas, wearing an SS uniform and making statements in support of Hitler.

Such views are extremist. It would be dangerous to leave people with the Smithian mentality and racist doctrine be allowed near the levers and institutions of power. Theirs will remain a representation of the racist values that defined Rhodesia even in independent Zimbabwe.

The citizens should be politically conscientised about the dangers posed to the security of Zimbabwe by those who present fake nationalistic views about Zimbabwe while doing the bidding of the West.

They remain colonial clerks who have waves of hatred for the good that is being done in Zimbabwe, mostly because those advancing the development of the country do not pay attention to the noise of their masters, despite calls for removal of the illegal sanctions.

Zimbabweans, remember we are one!