(BLOG) Zimbabwe's total economic colapse: The propaganda!?
Zimbabwe's total economic colapse: The propaganda!?23.26, Sun June 18 2007
By Kuthula Matshazi
In their article titled “Zimbabwe will collapse in six months” the Times newspaper of Britain and its other like minded media perpetuate a myth that has prevailed since 2000 to no avail.
It is no wonder that such a myth comes after announcements by Lonrho that they intend to invest 100 million pounds sterling in Zimbabwe. Lonrho also told us that there was an overwhelming interest in potential investors to contribute to the intended investment. The company went further and told us that Zimbabwe has a relatively good yet cheap infrastructure and real estate, which Lonrho could invest in.
Many anti Zimbabwe media were up in arms trying to scare Lonrho away from investing in Zimbabwe. One spectacular example comes from non other than a Zimbabwean Tererai Karimakwenda of SW Radio Africa. He states, in his 8 June article titled Zimbabwe: Lonrho Planning to Invest Despite Threat to Companies, “The mining and land giant company Lonrho is reported to be planning to re-invest heavily in Zimbabwe, despite pending legislation aimed at taking over all foreign owned companies”. Although Karimakwenda explained later in his article that it is only 51 percent of shareholding that is being targeted by government, he had already contradicted his earlier statement that government intends “taking over of all foreign owned companies”. The last time the issue was discussed, we did not hear President Robert Mugabe or his government ministers say that they would raid, for instance, the stock market and take a controlling stake of all foreign public traded companies. The issue of majority shareholding by the government had mainly been focused on mining companies because mineral resources are finite and therefore Zimbabweans had to duly benefit from their exploitation. Maybe there has since been a decree that was issued demanding the “taking over of all foreign owned companies” which some of us did not hear about. In that case we stand to be corrected.
On its part, the Telegraph of Britain informed us of the forbidden act that Lonrho had committed. In its 3 June 2007 article titled “Lonrho breaks taboo with Zimbabwe venture” it says that the move by the company will likely “prove controversial given its focus on Zimbabwe[‘s]…Robert Mugabe's rule”. The Telegraph report is important because it has clearly told us that it is a “taboo” to invest in Zimbabwe. It further confirms suggestions that Zimbabwe is under economic sanctions.
We might want to go back to the issue of economic collapse. The Times story on the “economic collapse” written by accomplished Zimbabwean critique Jan Raath, mentions “a group representing 34 organisations, including the United Nations, the International Federation of the Red Cross and Oxfam”. The British Broadcasting Corporation has reported this story on its website under the headline “Zimbabwe 'collapse in six months'. In their story, they tell us that their source is an “an unnamed aid worker”. The BBC also further tells us that “Several organisations contacted by the BBC News website denied commissioning the report”.
What one might want to know is at what stage would the Zimbabwean economy be said to have collapsed. As mentioned earlier on, we have been told many times that by this time, Zimbabwe as a whole would have collapsed and yet we have since seen multiple postponements of the death of this country, let alone the economy. Yes, things are tough, yet the resolve of the people of Zimbabwe to get by is amazing despite the difficult situation that they are facing. The flip side of this postponed economic collapse is the dynamism and ingenuity of the people of Zimbabwe to weather the unprecedented economic violence ever inflicted upon them.
By their own reporting, all these media are not talking about an economy that is going to collapse, but rather a mainly formal capitalist economy, which is stirring towards more serious problems. This is important to highlight because there is a big difference between an economy that collapses and one that is in trouble. It is also important to distinguish between a formal and informal economy. There are different implications for each of these, which is a different subject for another column.
Even if we give the doomsayers the benefit of doubt, on a possible “collapsing” economy, by their own very arguments it seems that it is one kind of economy that might be replaced by another. So it is important that they make it clear to us which economy is going to collapse. The formal or the non-formal? The economy of the rich or the poor? Or both? Again, there are different implications for each.
The fact that the source of the story remains anonymous and that mainstream organisations are distancing themselves from the report tells us a lot about the credibility of the report. But even if we give it the benefit of doubt and believe that it is a genuine report, we could probably say the authors are afraid of being unfairly criticised by the government of Zimbabwe for writing that report. But is that not part of the work of organisations such as those mentioned to make professional assessments of various development related situations? The UN took a professional position on Iraq against the threatening United States. The UN took a position on Operation Murambatsvina against the Zimbabwean government’s strong objections. Oxfam too, has taken controversial positions on Zimbabwe from what they perceive as their professional assessment. So why would these organisations suddenly balk at being quoted or identified? If indeed the report exists and these organisations wrote it and yet they are distancing themselves from it, then there are indications that their operations were clandestine. Also, if these organisations offer a possible true reflection of what might happen to Zimbabwe and yet fail to advise in a transparent manner, then they would be guilty of neglecting their obligations. Such an argument would be based on the view that Zimbabweans, including their government are myopic and cannot see further than five months to notice that “economic collapse” is imminent on the sixth month.
Therefore the end result of this story now remains without a face and any organisation commissioning it. These are some of the features of propagandistic material. The campaign is meant to spread despondency to Lonrho and other potential investors. The company has shown the world and indeed broken the “taboo” to demonstrate that Zimbabwe is an attractive destination for investment.
When such reports appear on the media it is important that we look beyond the immediate story. We look at the bigger picture and connect various events to understand what informs such malicious reporting and the agenda pursued.
Kuthula Matshazi is a Zimbabwean journalist and host of African Perspective, a CHRY radio current affairs programme in Toronto. Visit his blog at http://kuthula.blogspot.com
Labels: NEOCOLONIALISM, ZIMBABWE
posted by MrK @ 6:35 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home