Maravi

(NEWZIMBABWE) CZI: Upsetting the sanctions applecart

CZI: Upsetting the sanctions applecart
by Nathaniel Manheru
21/03/2011 00:00:00

LET us get one thing clear on the ongoing anti-sanctions campaign. The fight is between Zimbabwe and the sanctions-imposing Western world.

As is now matter-of-factly obvious to all sincere men and women, sanctions against Zimbabwe are country-wide, people-wide, with reference to targetted individuals amounting to a bad lie wearing threadbare apparel. And when the threadbare apparel is on a man who is both drunk and brisk, something barely hidden obtrudes where there are people, to much embarrassment.

Equally, as is also matter-of-factly clear, the decision to impose sanctions on Zimbabwe was unilaterally taken by the European Union as a continental collectivity, and by bi-partisan America. Britain, itself the driver of this unilateral action against our country, against a people, agreed across parties to push for this spiteful, punitive measure as a way of both defending her vested colonial interests here, while repudiating all responsibilities arising from that forced relationship.

The issue of sanctions thus pits a small, 13-million plus African country against two continents whose common denominator is a medley of race, shared colonial interest and partnership in continuing global imperialism. The anti-sanctions measures which Zimbabwe has adopted amount to a national response to this western challenge founded on these triple affinities. This is so, so key to understanding who the real enemy is in this bruising fight, indeed in understanding the scope of mobilisation we need to achieve as we enter this decisive, make-or-break phase.
The "smalls" of sanctions

In this fight, collaborative political formations we have here - that is those formations collaborating with the culpable West - are the "smalls" of the whole equation. The matter very little, if at all. One hardly argues plausibly for a causal relationship between the MDC formations and the sanctions. To posit such a relationship is both to underestimate imperialism's direct vested interest in Zimbabwe, and to overestimate these local political formations' power over the bi-continental imperialism which has imposed sanctions here.

They cannot control or command it. True, the MDC formations asked for sanctions, itself a heavily reprehensible action; but they hardly caused them. Sanctions would have come anyway, come by dint of the land we retook from whites. That was enough to get Britain to want to go to war; to get Europe and America to want to act in sympathy.

It is a long story ...

The interest of imperialism in Zimbabwe predates both Zimbabwe and Rhodesia, let alone this recent, hydra-headed political phenomenon called the MDC. Rhodesia became the formal crystallisation of imperialism's interest in this formation we now call our country.

But the interest had begun well before, with the urge to territorially mark that interest having been felt towards the turn of the 19th Century. Even well before Berlin, imperialism in its mercantile phase, had already made trade contacts with this area we now call Zimbabwe.

No-one is foolish enough to postulate any other fate for Zimbabwe that that which it suffered from 1890 onwards. Equally, no one is foolish enough to postulate any other fate for Zimbabwe after 1980 than that which it became, namely a neo-colony of broader, multinational imperialism, well beyond the parameters of Britain's splendid isolation philosophy.

Just a look at history will show you that the very countries at the centre of present-day sanctions are exactly the same countries that had something to do with Berlin and its colonisation conference in the 1880s. Germany was there --host and convenor. Britain was there - the most anxious forerunner of colonial expansionism.

France was there, itself a competitor anxious for a mutually agreeable colonisation process which would be incident free. Tangier had happened. Fashoda had taken place. The Scandinavians were there, playing irritant conscience in a game in which they had vested material interest. America was there - uninvolved but hardly indifferent. For her the Americas were her backyard in the immediate. But she knew that in the long run, Europe would be a global competitor, that the so-called new world would be the battleground for men, markets and materials.

Today, what has merely changed is that America is a little keener, more directly involved, than was the case then. This is the genealogy of western interests on the continent, and within that, western interest on Zimbabwe. The MDC could not have caused it, much as it could have fought it like a truly begotten son of this land, born to imperialist strife.
Little fellahs who don't matter

Read against such vast time, vast history, vast interest and vast projection and trajectory, the absurdity of placing these little MDC fellahs any nearer the causal on sanctions, becomes obvious. I thought WikiLeaks made our comprehension of this very complex matter a lot easier.

It gave these little fellahs their proper places in the larger scheme of things. In fact well before WikiLeaks, both the Americans and the British made it very clear that sanctions against Zimbabwe went well beyond the little concerns of MDC formations, that they related to the defence of direct western interests here, which is why it would never be in the power of the MDC to call for their end.

The Americans were that blunt. Many people read this as an attempt to save the MDC from deserved pressure. That could very well have been, but only partly, only feebly. As has become quite plain, the stability and safety of MDC qua MDC cannot be the objective of the West here.
Overture to Zanu PF?

The West can, and actually has shown a readiness to sacrifice the MDC, its leadership - whether whole or in part -- for greater goals. Come to think of it, WikiLeaks was a massive show of readiness to sacrifice both MDC formations. How else can one explain such a massive blow dealt against their own? Spare me that crap about Assange.

He is a nobody whom America tolerated for definite outcomes pursued through the seemingly unintended. History shall one day tell us it was not fortuitous that overtures to Zanu PF - whether whole or in part - both preceded and followed WikiLeaks. Today, the British, the Germans and the Americans readily disclose and proclaim the inevitability of Zanu PF in Zimbabwe's stable future, with nuanced debate centering on what constitutes Zanu PF for purposes of shaping a stable future - or the obverse - what constitutes the MDC to be usefully appended to a body-politic whose frame and content is preeminently Zanu PF.

The West's vision of Zimbabwe's future makes nonsense of organisational boundaries. To say so in neither to lull Zanu PF into a nap. Or to take away from its stubbornly heroic resistance which has forced major concessions by the West. It is not also to suggest that this perverse vision of the West will come to pass in this country. It is simply to underline that we must never for once think that survival of the MDC or any political organisation in Zimbabwe, is the goal of imperialism.
Who dunnit?

I said WikiLeaks helped us comprehend an intricate matter. It did. As a character in WikiLeaks drama, the MDC comes across as a character who fades or dies too early in the plot to take action to the climax. The car broke down well before the destination.

And you notice this is a consensual judgment across the political divide in the West. The only debate is on who personifies the breakdown or fault, and what to do with the lamed vehicle. To abandon it by the roadside? To salvage it? It needs major repair work, massive apprenticing - "hand-holding" as Dell would put it. Historically, the MDC has been a western instrument initially designed for poking an increasingly truculent Zanu PF, for poking a reluctant Zanu PF which will not "move on", along the path designated for it by imperialism. After all the policy of reconciliation had been greeted in the West as proof enough that Zanu PF was a party imperialism could do business with. But Zanu PF moved from truculence to open rebellion and challenge. It was at that point that MDC became a weapon for putting Zanu PF down, much like a dog with rabies.

The depth of regime change

That, essentially is what was meant by "regime change", which many have narrowly interpreted to mean the removal of President Mugabe and Zanu PF from power. Imperialism seeks much more, which is why the concept of "de-zanufication" of the Zimbabwean body-politic came into currency. Imperialism is targetting a specific ethos - assertive liberation ethos - which it seeks to subdue, tame or even extirpate from the body politic, all to ensure that Zimbabwe becomes a safe haven for prowling capital. A regime is a bundle of political values and mores upon which a State is founded, indeed by which it is driven.

It is not an individual or necessarily a party, important though both may be. From the latest pronouncements, it is clear that imperialism needs Zanu PF as a party to stabilise Zimbabwe, both politically and governmentally. But it detests Zanu PF's radical, anti-imperialism stance, which is why there is talk of "a reformed Zanu PF" or a "pro-business Zanu PF". Which is why there is the talk of "hardliners" in Zanu PF who must be isolated and put away, radicals seeking to wreck the inclusive government. It should not be forgotten that the inclusive government is an experiment in de-radicalising a liberation movement by incorporating its oppositional antipode. You begin to understand the tag there is in the present government.

Locating the seed of Zanu PF

Much worse, the last decade has seen imperialism frantically trying to locate the essence and seed of radicalism in Zanu PF's superstructure. As always, Zanu PF's quick was thought to reside in individuals, which is why the campaign against it has assumed highly personalised dimensions, whether for or against given individuals.

Just remove this or that individual, this or that group of individuals, and Zanu PF will speedily collapse or better still, come back to the table, all to cut deals with imperialism. Maybe the whole notion of mounting a visceral anti-Mugabe campaign, and later, of targetting individuals within the wide repertoire of sanctions measures, was founded on such a diagnosis. Maybe the whole notion of seeking to win over prominent individuals in Zanu PF itself, including splitting it around personages, was also founded on such a diagnosis.

Assault on veterans

Then you have a reckoning that the carrier of the party must be its organs. This reading led to the targetting especially of war veterans who were viewed as Zanu PF's highly mobile reserve force. Their role in creating a new situation on the land issue demonstrated beyond any shadow of doubt that indeed these were the movers and shakers within Zanu PF. All sorts of initiatives were made to divide the war veterans, with some still in operation. Some day, we shall write about these measures. Similar efforts were also deployed towards destabilising the party parliamentary caucus, indeed towards destabilising government.

Few know how the issue of well-timed incremental resignations of ministers, was part of this whole agenda which was meant to leave the President grappling with dramatic defections and a collapsed government, more or less as has happened in Libya.
Security sector reform

I shall not make reference to the strategy of isolating Zimbabwe from its regional habitat, the same way that Allende of Chile and Castro of Cuba were isolated.

That is a story for another day. I want to make specific reference to attempts at destabilising security arms, this arising from another diagnosis that located Zanu PF's quick in the command. Much of that came from the historic Zvinavashe address which clearly indicated the military were part of the definition of power, specifically of Presidency in Zimbabwe. Still more came from post March 2008 politics which yielded the June 27 result.

Strangely, the West read all this as indicative of, and pointing towards a hitherto unknown sinew of Zanu PF by way of the security structures of the State.

Otherwise, why were the soldiers not rebelling against the party and the President? The recent debate in the British House of Lords clearly shows how a coup would be very much welcome as a way of bringing about a pro-West regime change in Zimbabwe.

A direct consequence of this discourse is what is termed "security sector reforms", or what Biti now calls "realigning security services". As a proposition, it swings between coercion and cajoling, between threatening commanders on the one end, and tempting them with fabulous offers of immunity and early retirement on the other. They forget this is a cadreship from the liberation war.
Names that never matter

We should not lose sight of the argument. What exercises imperialism here is not human bodies or political formations; it is a recalcitrant ethos born out of the war of liberation and seeking to elaborate itself into Independence by way of new empowerment programmes that remove this country from the long list of African neo-colonies. What exercises imperialism here are its deep interests, principally by way of natural resources, which must be secured at any cost and by any stable political arrangement however configured.

Names, whether of individuals and parties, do not matter at all. It could be anyone. It could be any party. It could be any combination. Anyone who thought Tsvangirai mattered, must be wondering today why America's envoy here was so dismissive of such a darling. Anyone who thought Biti mattered, must be wondering why such a sharp lawyer is reduced to a mere clerk responsible for compiling a hit list for angry imperialism. Anyone who thought Welshman Ncube mattered, must be wondering why imperialism now wants him "stopped". Which takes us to a very important rule on how imperialism functions in our African midst: not permanent structures; not permanent leaders. Only permanent goals and interests.

Only a twiddle of a pen, Mr PM!

All of which means what? Simply that what will break sanctions is not the disposition of the MDC formations, singly or combined. That does not matter at all in the sanctions equation. This is where I think those responsible for drafting the Global Political Agreement stumbled on truth in their search for something else totally different. In looking for common ground, for palatable clauses on sanctions, the negotiators in fact inadvertently put MDC in its proper place and gave it its proper task and one it could carry.

The GPA does not require MDC formations to remove sanctions. Not even to cause their removal. Both goals are beyond both MDCs. It is up to Imperialism, not them. The GPA merely, merely asks the formations to "commit themselves to working together" with Zanu PF to end sanctions. That is all! What Tsvangirai dreads is not the heavy burden of removing sanctions, a burden well beyond his imaginable stamina. What he dreads is just "committing" himself to joining Robert Mugabe and his Zanu PF in calling for the lifting of illegal sanctions. Chete, chete! This must tell you something about the fragility of his power and influence in the whole matter. Just the prospect of committing himself wrecks our Prime Minister with fright!
Europe's apron in sanctions workshop

But it also tells you the depth of his culpability, indeed the enormity of his treachery. If commitment against an illegal measure is all that is required of him, why won't he give it? It will not remove sanctions. I doubt very much if it will move anyone in the West. But it certainly will end his despicable role as an apron in this dirty business of securing interests of the West. They quote him; they quote his organisation as the reason for imposing sanctions against Zimbabwe. They claim he is the reason for the sanctions. He prefers silence to saying No! The GPA simply requires him to stop providing such cover, such justification, which is what this man from Buhera finds too enormous! And as 2nd March clearly demonstrated, the task can be as light as simply twiddling your name and R.C. number on a piece of paper, behind a banner saying Zimbabwe says No to sanctions. Just that, Mr Prime Minister!
America's greatest fear

Lest I drown an important point in levity, the issue is to mobilize all national forces against the illegal sanctions. This is a national fight which pits us against hostile foreigners pursuing their own hostile interests. Their own interests, not ours, whether reckoned singly or collectively. Who we are, what we are, where we are, how we are individually constituted and when, is totally immaterial to imperialism. What worries it is our unity across parties, regions and tribes, in calling for an end to sanctions, in struggling against sanctions. That worries imperialism.

Americans are discomfited by the prospects of a people turning against them, fear national hatred against themselves. They want to pose as friends of nations, of a whole people. It is a myth that nourishes America's delicate ego. We must shatter it. Zanu PF must show leadership, real leadership on this one. It must unite the nation in the fight against the illegal sanctions. It must mobilize the nation against the illegal western sanctions. In doing so, it must go beyond organisations to secure the unity of our people. That is for better and for worse for individual organisations. Where given organisations do exhibit sufficient national consciousness on this one matter, then quite naturally the mobilisation will occur through them. Where they do not, too bad, the appeal to individuals under them may have to be done outside of the organisations which claim their loyalty.
Beyond party politics

So much is at stake. Thank God Zimbabweans now know it. I doubt very much that Zanu PF alone accounts for the massive turnout we saw on the second day of March. Personally, I saw individuals I would remotely link to Zanu PF, in attendance. They had come as concerned and affected Zimbabweans, sanctions affected Zimbabweans who had come to register an anti-sanctions stance. That means the campaign is considered national, well beyond party politics. It should be possible to mobilise the whole nation, which is why the signing - by environment, by process - should be all-enabling.

Everyone must feel comfortable, must feel beckoned and duty-bound. It is a civic duty. It is a national struggle focusing on a national objective. Already, with the little symbolism we have done to date, the results have been tremendous. The campaign has drawn echoes from a number of nations within SADC. Solidarity signatures are already streaming in; sympathetic activities are already being planned in many capitals of SADC. I see this extending beyond SADC. After all, the call for an end to sanctions is African, indeed is continental.
When imperialism gets irritated

More revealingly, representatives of imperialism are panicking. They have made repeated denials, none any wiser, any better. Repeated gestures of altruism are being thrown about, none convincing. A gallon of mealie-meal donated here, a pack of books donated there, but none any more persuasive than the other. The village witch has been unhinged and any polite gesture he makes incriminates him/her the more. Statistics are being rolled out, statistics of claimed goodness.

Much worse, you read irritation and irritability. That is all we need: to irritate imperialism like the little ant that ventures into the trunk of the mighty elephant. How else does one read Obama's act of signing another executive order, arguably sooner than would have been programmed for him? And as the Americans get irritated, their proneness to error magnifies, which is what we need for more eloquent examples on the materiality of sanctions. And since 2nd March, examples of how sanctions are manifesting themselves in our real lives have been forthcoming. Which is what takes me to my main point.

A man called Kanyekanye

Joseph Kanyekanye graced the March 2 anti-sanctions event, representing business. Before then, many sub-sectors and representatives of business had met with the country's leadership, to pour out their own views and feelings about the sanctions and the proposed campaign against them. That included the bankers, all bankers operating in the country. This, presumably, is what the right wing media has called coercion. They should know better.

There has been a strange underestimation of the meaning of sanctions to general business in this country. Not by business whose bottom line gets besieged by the day. Not by the people against whom poverty begrimes deeper and deeper. But by the private media which is probably the only other sub-sector (second to NGOs) to have grown fat and fatter from these illegal sanctions. The private media has been such a diligent partner of the West on sanctions. Their accounts have grown healthier and healthier, all against a squeezed nation, which is why it is just hitting them now that indeed Zimbabweans do know that sanctions exist and hurt. March 2 was an embarrassment to the private media so uxoriously hitched to London, Washington, Berlin, Amsterdam and Copenhagen.
When business was in denial

But they are much better. They have healthy accounts to show for their loyalty, against mounting deficit in patriotism. Who cares? What of business? Until the era of Joseph Kanyekanye and Clifford Sileya at CZI, our business was in denial, stark denial of what in fact was hurting them. A few years back, well before the March 2008 elections, we had something called NEDPP by which government sought to revive the embattled economy. Then, sanctions were really biting. Expectedly, the issue of sanctions came up. It was put to the CZI, then as led by Jokonya. We had all our so-called captains of industry in that gathering: the Jokonyas, Mutizwas, Katsandes, you name them. They were all there.

Lots of persuasive effort went towards getting them to acknowledge that sanctions were indeed real, real enough as to hurt their businesses, to hurt them in other words. Copious examples were proffered, some by themselves. I remember one of them telling us about the sweet company Charhons; another about Heinz in Olivine, yet another on goings-on in the banking sector, all of it sanctions related. The gathering thought, aa-ah, we have now got Business on this one matter.

For a while things went smoothly. Until it came to proclaiming in public what Business had already vouched behind closed doors. Ndipo pavakatanga kutanhauka, one by one, until the room was empty, figuratively first, literally later. The NEDPP collapsed precisely from that point on. They could not be heard by overseas ears to have spoken against sanctions, NO! Never mind their bleeding books of accounts; never mind their luster-less black complexions, their sapped, anemic country. No, they would not talk about sanctions, would not hear about sanctions, let alone see them.
The day "Z" meant Zimbabweans

What has since happened? What has occasioned this volte face on the part of the CZI? Nothing inscrutable. For the first time, the CZI has come under a leadership that is consequentially national. Kanyekanye runs a business which is national, in fact whose shareholding is preponderantly in the public sector. Clifford Sileya, CZI's Chief Executive Officer, is a former Deputy Secretary in the President's Office, the then President Banana. He is the smiling bearded figure behind the historic 1987 Unity Accord picture. He played a national role in his past. In both men you have a national vista which CZI has never had since Independence. For the first time, the "Z" now denotes "Zimbabwean", as opposed to "Zimbabwe". It is an identity marker it could never be years back.
Business, the foundry of national leadership

But both men must know that outlook comes with prickles. They have upset the applecart and are set to pay dearly in the interim, but are set to be paid fabulously in the long run. Their nation will remember them. Their people will applaud them, as will history. Which is to say? That leadership matters and that such leadership does not come cheap. Zanu PF took too long to realize that political leadership needs a business complement, and that such a complement comes through growing an entrepreneurial class in the public sector, itself a prelude to creating a genuine national business sector. As the ownership structure changes, so also does the business leadership outlook.

Indeed, localising ownership is very good politics, which is why indigenisation and empowerment are a matter of national survival. See how with the conclusion of land redistribution, we are now rid of CFU - white and foreign CFU and its strange demands on the nation. We have indigenized the business of land, thereby its politics. In fact if what is happening at Chisumbanje is anything to go by, CFU's once-upon-a-time membership is beginning to sing a new song, to exhibit a national outlook. Who ever thought Graeme Smith would one day denounce white sanctions like he did this week?
The game changer

I said a painful cost is set to be levied against these two great men at the helm of the CZI. Until now, the issue of sanctions was political. Europe and America were comfortable with that level or engagement. Since March 2, the discourse on sanctions has become business. Europe and America now sit on the edge. The business level records accurately what is going on in the market. Not Zanu PF. Not government. The West has been winning the debate on sanctions by default. The entry of business in the whole equation is a game-changer, and the West knows that.

Much worse, with the national business elite already alienated or likely to be alienated on this one matter of sanctions, the West will have to struggle really hard to renew its African managerial elite. Which means the gospel on indigenisation is set to have new takers, set to pick pace. The times are beginning to be interesting, which is why I think the Prime Minister made a fatal mistake. He lost a golden opportunity to re-integrate into mainstream politics. As he struggles to invent a new message with which to overwrite the overbearing anti-sanctions discourse, he un-earths new hurdles for himself and his party. He thinks he can overwrite the sanctions message by launching what he terms an anti-violence campaign.

Apart from the fact that MDC-T has been hacking and macheting villagers in places like Nyanga - in which case it cannot pontificate on such a slippery theme - the Prime Minister will soon discover that sanctions are violent, the highest form of violence against a people, in this case his own people. Much worse, he will discover he is an accomplice in that imported violence. It is not too late though for him to be helpful to himself, for him to save himself politically, electorally and, simply humanly. Mambo haagadzwi nemutorwa.
Icho!
Nathaniel Manheru is a columnist for the Saturday Herald

Labels: CZI, SANCTIONS, ZDERA

posted by MrK @ 2:59 AM