(HERALD) Biti undermining STERP

Biti undermining STERP
By Tafataona Mahoso

ON August 30, 2009 we responded to Finance Minister Tendai Biti’s Standard newspaper declaration that "There is only one Finance Minister" in Zimbabwe by warning that: "Yes, There is only one Finance Minister and 14 million Zimbabweans" facing an acute economic emergency.

That emergency, as former MP Gabriel Chaibva confirms, was brought about by the same illegal economic sanctions which Biti’s party asked to be imposed on the people to help MDC-T grab power in a hurry. That emergency, precipitated by MDC-T- invited sanctions, is the one reason why 14 million Zimbabweans believe it is wrong for Biti’s ministry to continue sitting on the US$881 million offered by the G20 (via the IMF) and the African Export-Import Bank for the purpose of resolving that same emergency.

Almost two months after the Standard story, Biti’s outbursts in the same paper on October 11, 2009 clearly indicate that either the minister has never taken the economic emergency seriously or that he and his party’s leadership enjoy watching people suffer from the continuation of the same emergency because MDC-T leaders are cushioned by corrupting allowances and retainer fees paid to them through Prime Minister Tsvangirai’s Office.

In both the Standard version (October 11, 2009) and the Herald version (October 12, 2009) of Biti’s interviews, the minister was consistent. He refuses to confront the catastrophic conditions caused by illegal sanctions invited by his party. He wants 14 million Zimbabweans to continue believing that the hardships they have faced since the imposition of sanctions in 2000-2001 were solely caused by Zanu-PF "mismanagement and misrule."

He fails to explain why such mismanagement would start at the same time as the MDC-invited sanctions. He forgets that Zanu-PF’s rule in fact covers 30 years of the history of this country and includes the good days of the "free education" which Biti’s generation received all the way through law school.

Indeed, whatever criticisms Biti and his party may wish to level against Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe Governor Dr Gideon Gono and previous ministers of finance, there is no question that these people fought against the MDC-invited sanctions, enabled this nation to pull through the worst period of illegal sanctions, and left some real achievements which will last and be counted far beyond the life of the inclusive Government.

Despite the debilitating sanctions, Zimbabwe now boasts a vigilant African farming community, nursed by Dr Gono through the worst of the sanctions and capable of defending the Third Chimurenga. People understood what Gono was fighting against and what he fought for. They do not understand why Biti is fighting them.

All along we had assumed that by announcing to the whole world the Short-Term Emergency Recovery Programme on March 19, 2009, Minister Biti had at last started to live in the same world as the rest of the majority of Zimbabweans suffering the effects of the devastating sanctions.

We believed then that the minister had at last accepted the harsh realities facing the people and would therefore run the Ministry of Finance as a national institution serving a people facing an emergency, the very same emergency implied in the Short-Term Economic Recovery Programme.

Six months after that open declaration of an economic emergency, six months after that open statement of the need for economic recovery in the shortest term possible, we read the minister’s remarks according to the Standard newspaper of October 11, saying: "The Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe has proposed that part of the Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) [worth US$510 million] from the IMF be used to settle . . . debts. But Biti said this could only be done after a parliamentary process, which has not been initiated yet. Once the necessary legal measures have been taken, the funds can be released."

The minister then takes the position of a defensive lawyer who is out to win a legal point against an accuser or adversary. He is definitely not speaking as the finance minister of a country that invited the whole world to help it overcome a financial crisis as part and parcel of STERP six months ago. Here is a defensive lawyer out to win legal points but not bothered about the economic emergency, which remains, six months after STERP.

He says: "The law is very clear, if the Government is taking over the debt of another corporate body, it just cannot do it unless a Debt Assumption Act is passed by Parliament. This is an elementary legal position which is self-evident that it shocks me certain institutions don’t know about it."

There is no concern about the financial emergency declared through STERP six months ago.

Now, as the povo of Zimbabwe reeling under the crushing burden of the same illegal sanctions invited by Biti and company, we need to try to understand in povospeak what the learned minister is saying in his doublespeak and legalese.

First, he is definitely saying there is no economic emergency and no hurry, even though he told us and the rest of the world, six months ago, that we were facing an acute emergency, which required a short- term recovery plan.

Second, the learned minister is saying, because there is no emergency here, the G20 and the African Export/Import Bank (Afreximbank), were foolish to advance to Zimbabwe so promptly the US$510 million and US$371 million, respectively, before we were organised to action the disbursements! So the cash can wait.

The third thing he is saying has two possible meanings: Either that the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe is not part of the inclusive Government; therefore debts incurred through it are presumed to be unauthorised debts requiring Parliament’s condonation and assumption; OR, even more preposterous, that the inclusive Government cannot accept debts incurred before it became inclusive.

Therefore, we must wait for the inclusive Parliament to tell us whether or not it accepts the debts incurred via the RBZ. The latter theory can be used to try to bolster the idea that we are in a transition from one regime to another. Therefore the transitional regime cannot accept the debts of the one before it!

The fourth point Biti is making is equally questionable. That is, that neither the US$510 million from the G20 nor the US$371 from the African Export/Import Bank can be spent before all old debts are settled. In other words, settling old debts becomes more urgent than the short-term recovery in STERP and in the G20 plan for the global economy.

Before dealing with all these hair-splitting points one by one, it might help to consider the view of the expert language scientist Professor Noam Chomsky in Understating Power. He was asked why it was that when ordinary people wanted their straightforward needs and aspirations met, lawyers always seemed to come up with half a dozen reasons why their needs and aspirations had to wait forever.

Chomsky said: "Well, law is a bit like a printing press . . . you can make it do anything. I mean, what lawyers are taught in law school is chicanery: how to convert words on paper into instruments of power. And, depending on where the power is, the law will mean different things . . . what has a legal basis is a matter of power, not law . . ."

Biti is, in fact, attempting the sort of law-school chicanery which Chomsky warned about, converting words on paper into instruments of power on behalf of the same external sanctions lobby and regime change forces who have denied Zimbabwe credit for the last six years.

The words which Biti seeks to deploy as instruments of power are not being deployed on behalf of the 14 million Zimbabweans suffering the effects of illegal economic sanctions and waiting for a short-term recovery. There is no mention of the economic emergency, which the people face.

The words which Biti seeks to deploy as instruments of power are directed instead against the 14 million people under the pretence that Biti is engaged in a deadly struggle with RBZ Governor Dr Gideon Gono. The catastrophic financial emergency is not the enemy. Sanctions are not the enemy. Only Gono is.

How do we reach this conclusion? We reach this conclusion, first because the G20 resolution made it clear there were no conditions attached to the disbursement of the US$510 million. It was Biti who asked the IMF to impose conditions.

Second, if the real and only problem were the absence of a Debt Assumption Act to be passed by Parliament, such an instrument would have been created and presented for ratification as an integral part of STERP on March 19, 2009.

Indeed, how could STERP be taken seriously as a short-term recovery plan if it was known and it was true that any funds advanced by the international financial institutions in response to STERP could not be accessed until after the creation, presentation and approval of a Dept Assumption Act by Parliament?

Third the G20 allocated the US$510 million to Zimbabwe as part and parcel of a global financial emergency fund worth US$250 billion. Most countries have already disbursed their allocations to their relevant sectors as a matter of urgency and without preconditions imposed or volunteered. Any debts they have can be paid back using revenue earned from production stimulated through use of the loan funds.

The logic behind the refusal to set stringent conditions is that lack of liquidity is currently the main bottleneck in the national economy as in the global economy. Therefore, the removal of that bottleneck will lead to increased production and job creation which will enable the various countries to better meet their loan repayments.

Biti has instead put the cart in front of the horse. He wants the funds to remain idle and all past debts to be cleared before the IMF and Afreximbank funds can start contributing to production and employment creation.

Now, in any normal business organisation, whether private or public, anyone who allows funds to remain idle, even for a few days or weeks, is fired, transferred or demoted. Now, in Biti’s case the US$510 million has been stuck in the system for 46 days. The first tranche of US$408 million arrived on August 28, 2009. The second arrived on September 7, 2009.

In that 46 days, Biti has not requested the President to call an emergency session of Parliament to pass the enabling instrument, which he claims, is necessary. This lack of urgency leaves citizens in no doubt that Biti’s explanation is yet another excuse to justify his ministry’s enforcement of illegal sanctions upon the people on behalf of Britain, the EU and the US who have made it clear they want only charity funds to reach Zimbabwe through NGOs.