South Korea’s “Chaebol Republic”: Hardline Conservatism with a Liberal Smile
By Nile Bowie
Global Research, December 21, 2012
The ever-changing political landscapes of the Korean Peninsula never fail to offer stark contrasts. To the north, a somber December is spent mourning the forefathers of the communist dynasty under the helm of a boy-king and his advisers. To the south, voters have elected the nation’s first female president, the daughter of South Korea’s iconic former leader, Park Chung-hee.
While their circumstances and rise to power cannot be more dissimilar, both Kim Jong-un and Park Geun-hye both derive some degree of public support through channeling the nostalgia of their parent’s legacies. In South Korea, one of the world’s most rapidly ageing societies, Park relied heavily on the elderly for her support base, who associate her with the economic prosperity brought in under her father’s rule, in much the same way as northerners regard the times of Kim il-Sung. As the new president prepares to take office in February 2013, many among South Korea’s left leaning youth see Park Geun-hye as an enabler of status quo conservatism veiled behind a thin liberal facade.
Park is widely credited with resuscitating legitimacy back into the ruling Saenuri party, which has garnered record-setting disapproval ratings under incumbent President Lee Myung-bak. Money laundering scandals, tax evasion, and accusations of embezzlement have followed the outgoing President Lee, who has come down hard on dissenters by jailing activists and artists who have criticized his rule. Lee is most responsible for dismantling Seoul’s liberal approach to North Korea as seen through the “Sunshine Policy” of previous administrations, at the cost of nearly reigniting the Korean war after a series of provocative live fire exchanges in disputed territorial waters in 2010 that saw the North shell the South’s Yeonpyeong island, and the sinking of a South Korean naval vessel. Despite running on the conservative ticket, Park has steered clear of openly advocating Lee’s hardline policies toward Pyongyang in her campaign rhetoric. Although an unpredictable North Korea looms just 70km from Seoul, domestic economic issues are the most immediate focus of the South Korean voter.
Controversial artwork by Hong Sung-dam depicting president elect Park Geun-hye giving birth to her father, the late president Park Chung-hee, signifying a revival of his conservative leadership in her administration. (right)
Leading a “Chaebol Republic”
An odious brand of crony-corporatism has prevailed in the South Korean economy, spearheaded by the chaebol, large-scale conglomerates like Hyundai, LG, and Samsung. While these recognizable brands have indeed brought much wealth and opportunity to the southern half of the peninsula, Koreans on the lower end of the economic food chain feel neglected by the nation’s mega-corporations and the wealthy political elite behind these companies. Prior to taking office, President Lee ran the Hyundai Engineering and Construction conglomerate, and has pardoned the chairs of Samsung and Hyundai Motors from jail time over convictions of fraud. Park’s opponent, the liberal Moon Jae-in of the Democratic United Party, has accused the country’s conglomerate-dominated economic model of being the main contributing factor to economic inequality, in addition to crediting Park’s father with developing the corporatist economic model still prevalent today.
The defeated Moon Jae-in spoke of increasing taxation on the wealthy and providing small businesses with economic protection from the chaebol. President Lee’s passing of a free-trade agreement with the United States enraged many working class people and farmers who fear the flooding of Korean markets with cheap foreign agricultural products. Moon publicly voiced his disapproval of the trade regime and vowed to re-negotiate it; this position resonated well with young leftists, but popular disdain for establishment parties like Moon’s Democratic United Party proved to be a major obstacle for the left. Park, on the other hand, has toed the party line of President Lee by championing economic and diplomatic ties with Washington, while resisting calls for taxing the chaebol in fear of hampering their growth. Park has played more of a centrist role than one would expect from a conservative ticket by advocating college tuition cuts, maternity assistance, free school lunches, and other social welfare programs, but has come under fire for being unable to answer basic questions about minimum wage figures during a debate, prompting tough statements from the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions:
“It is terribly discouraging when a person who wants to become president does not even know the country’s minimum wage, which is a minimal right for survival and the first step toward a welfare state.”
Park’s “Trustpolitik” & Inter-Korean relations
The failures of Lee Myung-bak’s loathed tenure are none more apparent than in the field of inter-Korean relations. As Kim Jong-un consolidates power in Pyongyang and toys with introducing seedlings of economic reform, it is high time for a change in frequency from the Blue House in Seoul toward more amenable relations between the two Koreas. Although Park has publicly stood clear of Lee’s tough stance, a closer look at her foreign policy signifies more acquiesce than divergence from the status quo. In a 2011 article published by Park in the Council on Foreign Relation’s Foreign Affairs website titled, “A New Kind of Korea,” the incoming president talks of adopting a policy of “trustpolitik,” aimed at developing a minimum level of trust between the two Koreas. Just as it exists under the current leadership of President Lee, the cornerstone of Park’s policy revolves around Pyongyang abandoning its nuclear program and de-weaponizing, or suffering the consequences.
Park is setting herself up to fail, and having herself visited Pyongyang to negotiate with Kim Jong il, one would assume she would be less naïve on the issue of Pyongyang’s nuclear program and the importance it holds to North Koreans. After the death of Kim il-Sung in 1994, his son oversaw general economic mismanagement and a series of natural disasters that led to widespread starvation. To legitimize his tenure, Kim Jong-il introduced Songun politics, a military-first policy aimed at appeasing the military and building up national defenses. The attainment of a “nuclear deterrent” has been trumpeted as a major accomplishment in domestic North Korean propaganda, despite very little concrete evidence known about these weapons, their capability, or the status of Pyongyang’s nuclear program.
It is unrealistic to expect Pyongyang to give up its nuclear program, primarily because achieving the status of a nuclear state (despite whether or not they actually have achieved that status) is Kim Jong-il’s main “accomplishment.” The upper echelons of leadership in the Korean Worker’s Party surely hold dear the lessons of Gaddafi after dismantling Libya’s nuclear program. Pyongyang continues to pursue provocative missile tests and belligerent rhetoric because they view this as a means of ensuring their security, the fact that the Pyongyang power-dynasty has moved into a third generation is proof enough that this policy has worked for them. Park has spoke of taking a middle-of-the-road approach, and buttressed an inter-Korean dialogue with Kim Jong-un. These are goals that represent a more practical shift, but if Park’s policy rests solely on being open to Pyongyang only if they disarm, the incoming administration will find itself mired in President Lee’s legacy of tension. In line with the militarism of her conservative party, Park has spoken of plans to create an East Asian military alliance and appears willing to continue the hardline against Pyongyang:
“Asian states must slow down their accelerating arms buildup, reduce military tensions, and establish a cooperative security regime that would complement existing bilateral agreements and help resolve persistent tensions in the region.”
“South Korea must first demonstrate, through a robust and credible deterrent posture, that it will no longer tolerate North Korea’s increasingly violent provocations. It must show Pyongyang that the North will pay a heavy price for its military and nuclear threats. This approach is not new, but in order to change the current situation, it must be enforced more vigorously than in the past.”
In contrast to Park, Moon Jae-in’s Democratic United Party has touted a return to the “Sunshine Policy,” and has advocated restarting unconditional aid to Pyongyang. The conservative political elite in Seoul fails to realize that relations with North Korea can more effectively be cooled not by pursuing hardline policies and provocative military drills, but by bolstering inter-Korean economic ties, tourism, and exchange. Kim Jong-un can only begin to dismantle the military-first policy by offering some alternative whereby he maintains his legitimacy – that could potentially be by increasing economic opportunity, raising standards of living, and developing North Korea’s economy. Seoul would be in a much better position to negotiate if they had a hand in mutually beneficial economic development with the North. Park’s ambitions of creating a “cooperative security regime” with Asian states (presuming North Korea is excluded) will certainly not help convince Pyongyang to disarm. An “Asian NATO” is counterproductive and would only make Pyongyang more unpredictable – as long as Seoul’s ballistic missiles are capable of hitting any part of North Korea, expecting Pyongyang to commit political suicide by disarming is simply not realistic.
Conclusions
The incoming South Korean administration has lots of problems on its hands; managing an ageing population with some of the world’s lowest birth rates, tackling increasing prostitution rates, high suicide rates and other social ills, and coping with an economic slowdown in China, the nation’s biggest export market. South Korea’s economic development has lifted millions out of poverty and into the economic space of high-income earners in the span of a few decades. It would be foolish for Park to pursue the foreign policy of her predecessor and risk bringing about a reignited Korean war and all that would come with it; enormous civilian casualty rates, an unprecedented refugee crisis, and a major handicap on the South Korean economy.
All signs point to Park Geun-hye continuing along the same economic trajectory as the incumbent President Lee, perhaps with a greater emphasis on social welfare programs. The next five years will be critical for inter-Korean relations. In attempting to emerge from her father’s shadow, one would hope that she could address the faults in the economic system her father helped create by reducing the income disparity, and also learn from his mistakes by allowing free and open political dissent and total freedom of expression.
Nile Bowie is an independent political commentator and photographer based in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. He can be reached at nilebowie@gmail.com
Labels: CHAEBOL, NEOLIBERALISM, SOUTH KOREA
Read more...
COMMENT - This could be an interesting model to study for the copper part of the economy (although SMEs should be the mainstay of a diversified economy), and this should be a great opportunity to discuss the concept of Chaebol (business associations) and Keiretsu (the original Japanese model).
The likes of Samsung are large corporations which were created through heavy state support, and were always completely locally owned. In fact the government at all times has their back and ensures they have no competition from foreign corporations.
It is impossible for a non-Japanese car manufacturer to set up a car factory in Japan. What they did, was 'steal' foreign ideas to set up their own industries. This is what Zambia must do, instead of going abroad for foreign investors to take ownership of Zambia, the government must levy taxes from the mines and use the money to create Zambian Chaebols. And the state owned corporations still exist, whether it is NCZ Chemicals or even ZCCM. And ZCCM should be Zambia's 'competetitive advantage', with complete control of the copper mines in the national interest, and spawning copper product manufacturing centers left and right. When Zambia a) receives all the profits from copper and b) only exports copper products, the jobs will start showing up. Saying 'foreigners will bring jobs' is an insult to the intelligence of every aware Zambian. It is saying - all you can hope for is to serve some foreign factory owner, who will pay you whenever and whatever they deem fit. Where is the national pride? Where is the pride in the creation of uniquely Zambian products?
From Thayer Watkins' post: THE CHAEBOL OF SOUTH KOREA:
There were family-owned enterprises in Korea in the period before 1961 but the particular state-corporate alliance came into being with the regime of Park Chung Hee (1961-1979).
Park modeled this arrangement on the zaibatsu system which developed in Japan during the Meiji Era. There were significant differences between the zaibatsu and the chaebol, the most significant of which was the source of capital.
The zaibatsu were organized around a bank for their source of capital. The chaebol in contrast were prohibited from owning a bank. The Park regime nationalized the banks of South Korea and could channel scarce capital to industries and firms it saw as necessary for achieving national objectives.
Clearly, this is not how the World Bank or IMF want Zambia to develop, and why Zambia has no Chaebol 'business associations'.
From: Korea, South The Origins and Development of Chaebol:
The chaebol were often compared with Japanese keiretsu (the successor of the zaibatsu), but as David I. Steinberg has noted, there were at least three major differences.
First, the chaebol were family dominated. In 1990, for example, in most cases the family that founded the major business in the chaebol remained in control, while in Japan the keiretsu were controlled by professional corporate management.
Second, individual chaebol were prevented from buying controlling shares of banks, and in 1990 government regulations made it difficult for a chaebol to develop an exclusive banking relationship. The keiretsu usually worked with an affiliated bank and had almost unlimited access to credit.
Third, the chaebol often formed subsidiaries to produce components for exports, while large Japanese corporations often employed outside contractors.
Without Samsung, there would be no Korea - Sata
By Joan Chirwa-Ngoma in Suwon, South Korea
Fri 19 Oct. 2012, 14:00 CAT
PRESIDENT Michael Sata says there would be no Korea without Samsung as the electronics giant has more money than the Asian country. And President Sata was elated when he discovered that a Zambian, Weston Chirwa, is part of Samsung Electronics' management and described him as "industrious".
President Sata took time to meet several Korean investors with the aim of luring them to invest in Zambia. Yesterday, the President, in the company of ministers Sylvia Masebo, Given Lubinda, Bob Sichinga and Emmanuel Chenda, visited Samsung City, the home of Samsung Electronics where he pleaded with them to set up a factory in Zambia.
President Sata said Zambia's central location and its land-linked status provides an opportunity for the country to become a major supplier of Samsung products and the company's business growth.
"I can see that there is a problem with organisation here…Korea is Samsung, without Samsung, there would be no Korea today. Samsung has more money than Korea," he said.
Samsung Electronics currently has a workforce of around 200,000 employees in 72 countries where it has a presence, with its operating profit hitting US $14.7 billion in 2011 (around K77 trillion), more than double Zambia's 2012 annual budget.
Earlier, Samsung Electronics president and chief financial officer Ju-Hwa Yoon said his company, now ranked 9th among the top 100 global brands in 2012, goes where the market exists for its wide range of products, hinting that they were in a process of setting up a plant in Egypt.
But President Sata objected and argued that Zambia had a much bigger market and presented attractive opportunities for business growth than Egypt.
"You will make more money in Zambia and you will see that for yourself…Instead of going to Egypt, come to Zambia because it has the largest market than Egypt," he said. "In Zambia and many other countries in Africa, Samsung is appreciated. Having known Samsung myself for more than 20 years, I have not been impressed with your development in Zambia.
I am told you are building another factory here; why not build in Zambia? And don't blame us if other Korean companies come and we give them incentives for investing in Zambia. So my main request to you is to come and open a factory in Zambia. When you do, you will have the entire central African market.
Zambia is surrounded by countries like Democratic Republic of Congo, Tanzania, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, Zimbabwe, Botswana…"
And President Sata was delighted when Chirwa was among top Samsung officials who welcomed him at the Samsung City.
"…There is a Tumbuka who is working here, he is very industrious," he said, jokingly adding, "As you come to Zambia, bring him (Chirwa) along so that he can take you to Lundazi for you to see how backward they are."
Ju-Hwa also said his company, through the existing bilateral ties between Zambia and Korea, would find ways to increase its presence in the southern African country following President Sata's appeal.
After a tour of the Samsung City, Lubinda and Sichinga laid a foundation stone at a construction site for Is Dingseo - a Korean company that is seeking opportunities to invest in Zambia - on behalf of President Sata.
Sichinga said the government was looking for credible companies that could invest in low-cost housing for a majority of Zambians owing to the current housing deficit in the country.
"And I invite you to come and be part of the Investment Summit which will be held from November 26-30. Please be part of that," said Sichinga.
Labels: CHAEBOL, MICHAEL SATA, NEOLIBERALISM, SOUTH KOREA
Read more...
Korea, DDF partner in building agriculture institute
Saturday, 21 July 2012 20:55
Agriculture Editor
A Korean non-governmental organisation, Korea International Co-operation Agency (Koica), will soon open an agricultural training centre in Seke communal lands to provide technical skills to farmers and students.
The institute, whose construction is scheduled to be completed next month, will be known as the Agriculture Training Institute. Most of the buildings are already complete while the District Development Fund (DDF) has already drilled three boreholes to support irrigation and the surrounding communities.
In an interview last week, Koica executive director Mr Hyeon Naesik said the training facility would help leverage the land reform programme by equipping beneficiaries with technical expertise.
He said students will attend classes free of charge, adding that the Ministry of Education, Sport, Arta and Culture would be involved in the formulation of the curriculum.
“We aim to train farmers as well as students in agriculture skills that will benefit the country,’’ he said.
He said Koica founder Mr Jaeheung Cho, who is also in Zimbabwe, decided to set up the institute after realising the need to equip farmers with technical skills.
“We are working hand in hand with Government departments to make sure those trained here will be of use to the agriculture sector considering that Zimbabwe’s economy is based on the growth of this critical sector,’’ said Mr Naesik.
Mr Naesik said apart from the agriculture institute, Koica has also set up a pre-school to cater for the local community.
The NGO provides their food and uniforms.
Labels: AGRICULTURE, SOUTH KOREA
Read more...
Sanctions affecting trade, says South Korean envoy
Saturday, 12 May 2012 19:46
Sunday Mail Reporter
The illegal economic sanctions imposed on the country by the West have negatively affected trade between Zimbabwe and the rest of the world, South Korea’s Ambassador to Harare, Mr Kwang-Chul Lew, has said.
Speaking at a policy dialogue meeting organised by Sapes Trust in the capital last Thursday, Mr Kwang said
trade relations between his country and Zimbabwe have not been immune to the illegal embargo.
“These sanctions have had a negative impact on our relations. Reports that Zimbabwe is under sanctions have a psychological impact on business people from our country.
“There is considerable interest in Zimbabwe by South Korean businesspeople, but not much business has been conducted between the two countries because of the imposition of sanctions.
“Our embassy is currently working on a programme to give our business leaders the true picture of the Zimbabwean economy as a way of encouraging them to come and invest here,” he said.
Ambassador Kwang disclosed that businesspeople from his country are eager to invest in infrastructure development.
“We are interested in investing in the construction of roads and railway infrastructure and prepared to send our specialists to assist in those areas,” he said.
Mr Kwang hailed the cordial relations between the two countries.
“We have kept good friendly relations and some good fruitful engagements,” he said.
He said it was important for developing countries like Zimbabwe to adopt a protectionist economy so as to protect its interests.
“The policy (protectionist) is very natural otherwise the country’s economy will be completely occupied by foreigners.
“However, as the economy grows, the policy becomes less meaningful.”
Labels: AMBASSADOR, SANCTIONS, SOUTH KOREA
Read more...
S/Korean firms seek investment opportunities in Zim
By Kingsley Kaswende in Harare, Zimbabwe
Fri 05 Nov. 2010, 04:00 CAT
SOUTH Korean industrial giants
Samsung, Daewoo and Hyundai are in Zimbabwe looking investment opportunities. Their representatives have met Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai to express their interest in investing in Zimbabwe.
Tsvangirai said the companies were seeking information on Zimbabwe’s investment climate and other relevant material for them to make informed decisions and some of them would sign Memoranda of Understanding with Zimbabwean companies before they leave for South Korea.
“We have been discussing potential areas of interest in business. Some of the key Korean companies such as Hyundai, Samsung, Daewoo are part of this delegation. We had very productive exchanges,” said Tsvangirai after meeting a delegation of Korean businesspeople.
He said the South Koreans expressed interest in mining, construction and technological fields.
Technology giant, Samsung’s business activities span advanced technology, semiconductors, skyscraper and plant construction, petrochemicals, fashion, medicine, finance, hotels, among many other investments.
Samsung electronics is the company’s flagship and is involved in high-tech electronics manufacturing and digital media.
Also represented at the meeting was another technology company, Daewoo, which is involved in the manufacture of a range of domestic appliances including refrigeration, laundry, microwaves and floorcare, the options are vast. Daewoo is also involved in the manufacture of motor vehicles.
Tsvangirai said he told the investors that Zimbabwe was ripe for investment.
Tsvangirai said Zimbabwe was hunting for investors and was establishing a one-stop-shop investment centre for ease.
CK/WK
Labels: MORGAN TSVANGIRAI, SOUTH KOREA, ZIMBABWE
Read more...
Zambia, Korea sign mineral exploration deal
By Mutale Kapekele
Wed 03 Nov. 2010, 03:59 CAT
ZAMBIA and Korea have agreed to cooperate in exploring minerals and chemicals in Mkushi, Kabwe and Kapiri Mposhi.
During the signing ceremony yesterday, mines minister Maxwell Mwale told the visiting Korean deputy minister of knowledge and trade Park Young June that the country was hoping to scale up the amount of copper being mined from from the current 750,000 metric tonnes per annum to two million metric tonnes in the next two years.
Mwale said with the improvement in copper production, Zambia was the best mining investment destination in Africa.
“Zambia still has a wide spectrum of minerals, abundant energy resources and proven potential for oil and gas,” Mwale said. “This is a clear indication of opportunities in the mining sector.”
He said Korea could consider investing in value addition for the country’s mineral resources, which he observed was missing in Zambia’s economy.
Mwale also said the government was committed to ensuring that investors got reasonable returns on their mining investments.
And June said Zambia was Korea’s best partner in mineral exploration as it could assist his country to reduce the cost of its US$120 billion energy and mineral annual needs.
He said in return for its minerals and energy resources, Korea would ensure that Zambia got the technical know-how from the relationship.
The Geological Survey Department has signed an MoU with Korea’s Institute for Geosciences and mineral development for training of staff and exploration works.
Labels: MAXWELL MWALE, MINING, SOUTH KOREA
Read more...
Stephen Gowans
interview on Russia Today, on the sinking of the Cheonan.
Labels: COLD WAR, NORTH KOREA, SOUTH KOREA, STEPHEN GOWANS
Read more...
MDC and the fictitious BIPPA
By: By Prof Jonathan Moyo, MP
Posted: Wednesday, June 16, 2010 7:54 am
ON Wednesday last week, Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai’s office attempted but failed to cause a political storm through an ill-informed statement issued by Minister Gorden Moyo charging that Cde George Charamba, the permanent secretary in the Ministry of Media, Information and Publicity should be disciplined by GPA principals for allegedly undermining the Prime Minister’s authority over a non-existent Bilateral Investment Protection and Promotion Agreement between Zimbabwe and South Korea.
There are three reasons why the attempted political storm failed.
First, it is not easy to generate a political storm over something that does not exist, as there is no procedurally and legally signed BIPPA between Zimbabwe and South Korea.
Second, the Prime Minister’s office needs to learn one or two things about timing when it comes to news-making because by Wednesday last week, Zimbabweans and South Koreans were, along with the rest of the world, already preoccupied with the start of the 2010 Soccer World Cup finals south of the Limpopo and could not be bothered with an alleged storm over a fictitious BIPPA.
Third, and most important, the attempted political storm was doomed to fail because it was based on the following four MDC-T falsehoods:
- The persistent and hopeless MDC-T lie that Prime Minister Tsvangirai is the head of the Government of the Republic of Zimbabwe;
- The ridiculous MDC-T presumption, which is of course false, that the very same architects, supporters and beneficiaries of the illegal and evil Western economic sanctions against Zimbabwe which have hurt ordinary people the most can also be the champions of direct foreign investment through instruments such as the purported BIPPA between Zimbabwe and South Korea;
- The MDC-T nonsense, which is worse than a falsehood, that a Cabinet minister can use a power of attorney to delegate his or her powers and functions to another Cabinet minister; and;
- The naive MDC-T belief, which falsely assumes that politicians, particularly the so-called GPA principals, have the constitutional power to discipline civil servants.
An examination of each of these falsehoods should show beyond any doubt why Minister Gorden Moyo’s outburst against Charamba was exactly the kind of political rubbish that has come to be expected from him. Here’s why.
For all the propaganda battering our country gets from its detractors whose main gripe is that they do not want to see the legacy of our liberation struggle taking permanent root, the fact remains that Zimbabwe has one of the most professional bureaucracies, including the army and police, you can get around the world. This is why our bureaucrats and officers are among the most sought-after by the international community.
A major reason for this is the well entrenched administrative practice in our bureaucracy which distinguishes between politics and administration such that our civil servants, including permanent secretaries, are employed and only disciplined not by politicians but by the Public Service Commission which is an independent, professional and constitutional body not run by politicians.
Gorden Moyo’s outburst that Charamba should be disciplined by politicians, one wonders by what means short of a public flogging, belies not only his ignorance of Zimbabwe’s system of governance but also exposes the MDC-T’s lie about its alleged commitment to good governance which more than anything else requires a clear separation between politics and administration.
Charamba is an administrator and not a politician and yet the unacceptable threats of jungle discipline against him are coming from dangerous politicians in the Prime Minister’s office with vested interests in Tsvangirai’s blundering. Surely, that cannot be an example of good governance.
Parenthetically, it is infantile for the Prime Minister’s office to imagine that referring Charamba to the so-called political principals as defined in the GPA is a big deal.
We are a constitutional democracy and we do not want to become a country of GPA or ABC political principals. More than that, we in Zanu-PF know our political principals by their names and led by President Robert Mugabe they include Vice Presidents Joice Mujuru and John Nkomo among others we have known for years.
Otherwise, on the matter at hand, the public record will show that one the MDC-T’s GPA afterthoughts is its political dislike and personal hatred of Charamba as permanent secretary in the media, information and publicity ministry. Gorden Moyo’s outburst had more to do with that than a non-existent BIPPA.
Indeed, if Charamba had a case to answer over the BIPPA issue, the competent authority to handle the matter would be the PSC but Gorden Moyo’s outburst did not even suggest that he knows there’s something called the PSC although he mumbled some mumbo jumbo about "ethics of the civil service" in his claim that Charamba was "unethical" when clarified the true position about the alleged BIPPA between Zimbabwe and South Korea. The clear but absurd implication was that it is unethical to correct Tsvangirai.
One thing should be very clear. While politicians can prevaricate or even lie for all they want, civil servants have a professional duty to tell things as they are. As things stand, what Charamba said about the alleged BIPPA between Zimbabwe and South Korea, which he had a duty to clarify as the permanent secretary responsible for information, is the factual, administrative and lawful position.
To call that position "unethical" or "irrational" as have done the Prime Minister’s office and its unthinking media hacks is hogwash.
The South Koreans and serious prospective investors understand that something unprocedural and illegal cannot be ethical or rational.
Then there is the claim by Gorden Moyo that the alleged BIPPA between Zimbabwe and South Korea, which was unprocedurally and illegally signed by the Minister of Science and Technology, Heneri Dzinotyiwei, is valid because the minister responsible for signing BIPPAs, Elton Mangoma who is in charge of Economic Planning and Investment, "officially" gave Dzinotyiwei "a power of attorney".
Now this is pathetic. Does the Prime Minister’s office really expect to be taken seriously by asserting that a Cabinet minister can delegate his or her powers and functions to another minister by dint of some power of attorney of all things? That is the stuff of banana republics or parallel governments.
For the record, it should be known and understood that in Zimbabwe the executive functions and powers of Cabinet ministers are assigned to ministers by the Head of State and Government and the Commander in Chief of the Zimbabwe Defence Forces and through Acts of Parliament and that is President Mugabe.
When there is a temporary need to reassign the powers and functions of a particular minister to another, it is done by the President, not some power of attorney, through a notice in the Government Gazette.
As such, if Minister Dzinotyiwei had lawful authority to sign a BIPPA with South Korea on behalf of the Republic of Zimbabwe as claimed by the Prime Minister’s office through Gorden Moyo, then it should produce or point to the relevant Government Gazette with the relevant notice. That would settle the matter but such a notice is as non-existent as the alleged BIPPA!
Then there is the amazing claim, touted by MDC-T media hacks, that the alleged BIPPA is an example of Prime Minister Tsvangirai’s efforts to bring foreign direct investment to our country. Well, one needs to sit down to deal with this one because it is breathtakingly ridiculous.
For the avoidance of doubt nobody is opposed to having foreign direct investment through whatever channel including any effort by Prime Minister Tsvangirai as long as that is done lawfully through the transparent and accountable systems of the State.
But we now know that the MDC-T does not believe in transparency and accountability, which it treats as relevant only where Tsvangirai is personally involved.
For example this has come through the MDC-T’s opposition to the Marange diamond mining activities of Mbada and Canadile despite the fact that the two companies are in lawful partnership with ZMDC who are lawful owners of the mining rights in the Marange diamond fields.
The MDC-T’s perverted view of transparency is akin to that of a naughty pastor who solemnises a couple’s marriage during the day only to show up in their bedroom at night demanding that they consummate the marriage with him watching it all in the name of transparency.
If Tsvangirai wants to bring investment to Zimbabwe, which would be most welcome, he should do so openly, procedurally and lawfully in the letter and spirit of good governance and he must allow the various arms of government outside his office, such as media, information and publicity, to do their work without poking his nose in their business.
That is the simple but important point which some overzealous MDC-T media hacks have conveniently missed in their apparent desperation to market their tired copy to the dwindling MDC-T constituency.
But there is also a more fundamental point here. It is very difficult if not impossible for any fair minded person to believe the notion that those like Prime Minister Tsvangirai who are architects or supporters or beneficiaries of the prevailing evil and illegal Western economic sanctions can also be champions of direct foreign investment in our country through BIPPAs or whatever channel. Surely, that is a contradiction.
If Prime Minister Tsvangirai and his office truly want foreign direct investment in Zimbabwe then the first and major thing they must do is to unequivocally and persistently seek the removal of the evil and illegal Western economic sanctions before pursuing any BIPPA, especially with Western aligned countries such as South Korea.
Even fools must know that the reason why we do not have foreign direct investment from Western countries and their allies at the moment is not because we do not have BIPPAs with countries such as South Korea but because we have evil and illegal economic sanctions.
Anyone who does not understand this will never ever understand anything.
Finally, the Prime Minister’s office and indeed the MDC-T and its founders and funders must appreciate that the real reason behind the failed furore over the false Zimbabwe-South Korea BIPPA is too apparent to hide.
The issue is not about the alleged BIPPA and it is not about Charamba either but about Tsvangirai’s long standing yet hopeless effort since February 13, 2009 to pose as the head of the Government of the Republic of Zimbabwe.
Despite the fact that everyone, including all MDC-T cabinet ministers and indeed Tsvangirai himself, knows that Zimbabwe’s Head of State and Government and the Commander in Chief of the Defence Forces is President Mugabe, there has been a continuous and thus relentless propaganda campaign to present Tsvangirai as the head of government in Zimbabwe when there’s no factual, legal, constitutional or even GPA basis for that.
The mess over the alleged Zimbabwe-South Korea BIPPA is nothing but an outrageous propaganda stunt. We are now supposed to think that, as the alleged head of government Tsvangirai went to South Korea to secure foreign direct investment from that country to help recover our economy when we all know that he actually went there to receive a dubious honorary degree with no national meaning or purpose beyond his personal interest.
The message to Tsvangirai, his founders and funders, cronies and media hacks should now be very clear: for the sake of all of us, the MDC-T’s propaganda that Tsvangirai is the head of government has gone too far and enough should be enough such that the time has now come for Tsvangirai to get real outside propaganda games.
Charamba is doing a sterling job for his country as a professional, Tsvangirai and Gorden Moyo should do theirs as politicians.
____________________________
This article is reproduced from The Herald newspaper.
Labels: BIPPA, GEORGE CHARAMBA, GORDEN MOYO, MORGAN TSVANGIRAI, SOUTH KOREA
Read more...
Tsvangirai: From east without wisdom
by Nathaniel Manheru
14/06/2010 00:00:00
LAST week saw a loud conflict between the Prime Minister and President Mugabe’s spokesman, George Charamba. The conflict is over the Prime Minister’s recent trip to South Korea, during which he claimed to have signed a BIPPA with the host country. The spokesperson says no, nothing of that sort happened.
The Prime Minister says no, the spokesperson is undermining his Office, in the process threatening disciplinary action. Charamba will not retract, and dares the Prime Minister.
What BIPPA?
BIPPAS are about relations between two countries intent on an investment relationship. They bind two governments, two peoples really. They are internationally enforced, which is what makes them serious documents. They have to be ratified by Parliament. Governments take BIPPAS very seriously. In our case, they are an inter-ministerial affair, with Economic Planning taking the lead. The idea is to make sure the country is not prejudiced.
The lead Ministry is expected to draw up broad principles which are discussed by a Committee of Cabinet on Legislation called CCL. These principles subsequently guide the Attorney General as he prepares a draft BIPPA document, working closely with the lead ministry. The draft goes back to CCL for another scrutiny and possible changes. It is only when the CCL is satisfied that the matter is booked with the Chief Secretary for tabling in Cabinet.
Cabinet will in turn look at the draft which is presented by chairman of CCL, Justice Minister Chinamasa. More changes, or even rejection, until Cabinet is satisfied. Only then does the President feel empowered to grant signing powers to the lead Minister, in this case Minister Mangoma. I have simplified complex process, but this helps give a feel of the general drift of things.
The responsible Minister will only get signing powers from the President who wields them by dint of the Constitution. No minister wields such powers inherently. They devolve from the President who remains solely responsible for their use. In terms of our laws, the Prime Minister has no such powers.
Relating all this to the matter on hand, Cabinet should have affirmed a draft document from CCL on a probable BIPPA with South Korea, on the strength of which the President would then have delegated signing powers to Minister Mangoma. And delegated authority cannot be further delegated by the immediate beneficiary to another.
You cannot parcel out powers you do not own. It is that simple. Equally, you cannot delegate power upwards. A tortoise cannot drop dung on an eagle in flight. Minister Mangoma could not delegate delegated powers to another Minister – ordinary or prime. These are not his powers in the first place, and Minister Gorden Moyo — the Prime Minister’s killer-man — appears to be having difficulties in comprehending that elementary rule.
Flowing against gravity
And since the Prime Minister is the one who took the ill-fated decision to proceed with the signing ceremony, apparently against advice from Foreign Affairs through Ambassador Stuart Comberbach, it means Minister Mangoma is assumed to have delegated the President’s powers upwards, to his senior, who in turn poured down those same borrowed powers to another Minister, Professor Dzinotyiwei.
I am surprised that after such giddy flight, there was still enough power left for him to finish writing his long surname! In theory the good professor would have used profoundly attenuated powers, powers badly fatigued by the long, tortuous road to him. Such powers have no spark, only trouble for the haver!
Surely if the President knew about this assignment, he would have released Minister Mangoma to go and do the job, or alternatively, given powers of attorney to Minister Dzinotyiwei as a Minister of Government?
But all this is to take matters to far, in fact to be too generous with a process so fraught, so drunk. Cabinet does not have before it any draft BIPPA document with South Korea. It may, some day, but presently there is no such document put before it by the Chief Secretary.
That it is there at CCL level can only be a rumour to the President and Prime Minister, both of whom are not members of that Committee. Matters must come before them to exist. They haven’t. I fail to see Minister Moyo’s point when he asserts that the document came before CCL. It could have, for all we know. But so what? That does not make it a document of Government.
It makes it a document in Government. And there are many documents generated every single day in Government. In any case and quite logically, a committee of Cabinet is not Cabinet itself. Surely Honourable Moyo is profound enough to know that? If not, God help us!
I repeat: the damn thing is not before Cabinet. Ask Honourable Chinamasa as has done I, Nhataniyere, the truly begotten son of dark Night! The Prime Minister knows that. Gorden Moyo knows that. Foreign Affairs dutifully reminded the Prime Minister about that. And at some point the Prime Minister appeared to have understood that.
Until a great happening took over and he chose — last minute — to go ahead with the mock signing ceremony, regardless. The Koreans knew that, as did our Honorary Consular General who did the dutiful. Their ambassador here knows that there is no documentation for a BIPPA between his country and my Zimbabwe.
Still the Prime Minister went ahead, adding "zvimwe zvese tichazonozvigadzirisa kumusha." He knew perfectly well his actions we fraught with legal and procedural deficits. But like the proverbial fly, he chose to follow the corpse into the grave. See where he is now!
Renegotiating GPA
Yet his actions sought to bind this country and the Government he is a part of. The agreement touches on our strategic minerals, something South Korea wants.
Yet the Prime Minister’s actions undermined the very Constitution he swore to uphold. He undermined the authority of the President, usurped his powers in fact. Apart from pretending to devolve powers he does not have, he called himself "head of Government", which he is not.
His actions in South Korea amount to the first material step towards turning this self-adulatory appellation his obliging minions wrongly shower him with, into concrete, executive action at the expense of the President and the Constitution.
It is an attempt to renegotiate the GPA and a new constitution by precedent-setting misdeeds! Actions calculated to place the man above Cabinet, to embolden him in intercepting documents still in the mill, documents well not before him.
Repairing life after burial
Let us situate this misbehaviour. Frankly, the problem is larger, its portents too serious to be ignored.
Firstly, this is the conduct of a man within striking distance of power, yet exhibiting such glib deference to the law and processes. He does not seem to know that this thing called government is a bundle of sensitive rules and procedures, the violation of which draws a line between democracy and dictatorship. Laws and procedures check power, while legitimising its exercise.
And power is no toy. When a man proceeds to do the unlawful, the un-procedural, on the proviso that tichazvigadzira pasure, what stops him from condemning life in the hope of repairing it after burial?
Secondly, for quite some time and on a number of trips, the Prime Minister has donned the garb of Government, drawn resources of the State, only to chase matters that have nothing to do with the interests of the State. He did so twice in America; did so in Europe and has now done so again in South Korea. Don’t get me wrong.
The Prime Minister can chase any matter of interest to him, in line with the bundle of roles that make up his public personality.
He leads a party; he is a prime minister; he is a father, a lover and all. But each role comes with its own identity, resources and mandate.
He is free to do anything as leader of his Party, his actions only drawing the concern of his Party members. But as a Government functionary, he is not free to do anything he pleases, his way and in his style.
He plays preordained roles, to rules that have to be obeyed, willy-nilly.
Dismissed at will
As Prime Minister of this country, you do not draw Government resources, wear the authority of the State, only to undermine that same State you serve.
The Prime Minister is in this shabby habit of summarily dismissing ambassadors of Zimbabwe from meetings with foreigners, meetings in which he purports to be pursuing interests of the State.
He did that in Washington, in Europe and lately in South Korea. Our ambassadors are dismissed at will, recalled at whim, to serve a Prime Minister who does not seem to know when to be Prime Minister, when to be a leader of a political party and when to be a private citizen. And all these whimsical decisions are done in front of foreigners to whom these ambassadors present credentials, with whom these ambassadors transact inter-state business.
Now, tell me which State respects an ambassador who is sacked, reinstated, sacked, sacked, reinstated in one day by his Principals? A Prime Minister of this country humiliates his own ambassador until his host asks the whereabouts of that ambassador? A Prime Minister who commits his entire programme to some white American woman unknown to his Government?
Can that be Government business? Why should it not be known by the envoy of Zimbabwe? Who follows up when the Prime Minister has gone back? And I am not talking of junior ambassadors at all. I am talking of men and women who are synonymous with diplomacy as we have known it since Independence. I challenge the Prime Minister to give this nation the value of his travels abroad.
When Trudy ran the President
Not so with the President. Recently, he went to Senegal where MDC-M’s Trudy Stevenson is Zimbabwe’s ambassador.
She not only shaped the President’s programme; she dictated where the President went, and with whom; determined what he ate, including eating in her home, from her pots.
Why does the Prime Minister humiliate senior career diplomats, substituting them with foreigners or those small, inexperienced boys in his Office when he purports to be doing Government work? Is that not undermining Government, taking advantage of it in fact? Are principals going to meet over that? Is it any surprise that Carson can afford to abuse our Mapuranga on the day we mark Africa and her futures?
The Prime Minister is free to walk the world, sourcing funding for his cause. But he goes on such errands as the president of MDC-T, never as the Prime Minister of this country.
He should never levy prime ministerial deference from us for errands that cut him out as a leader of a political party. We may not belong to his party, may not believe in his cause which has spawned so much suffering for the Zimbabwean people.
It is only when he fulfils his role as Prime Minister of this country that we doff and defer to him. Not this. Not this, this his bad habit of seeking to augment his mandate, of seeking to renegotiate the GPA, of seeking to rewrite the Constitution through calculated misdeeds.
Unwise from the East
Frankly, the conduct of the Prime Minister in South Korea makes one wonder whether at all he went there on Government business.
The honorary degree he got from his Korean counterpart’s former university is his to have, his to enjoy. It does not relieve pressure from a struggling family living in Mbare. The one-student-per-year scholarship he got from the Koreans will, quite predictably, go to his party activists.
It is not like the Presidential Programme that has educated thousands, including one of the Prime Minister’s own. The money he got there is going to his own party. It feeds not a single victim of the sanctions he asked for and got.
The strategy of using third nations to channel resources to his party is an American one. It is not Zimbabwean.
Equally his role in checkmating China in Zimbabwe, in defeating Zimbabwe’s Look East policy using South Korea as a springboard, satisfies America and her ignoble global calculations. Zimbabwe profits nothing from it. And his search for a greater symbolism for his person helps his party, not Zimbabwe. Mister Prime Minister, those from the East usually came back wiser.
Icho! This article was first published by The Herald
Labels: BIPPA, GEORGE CHARAMBA, MORGAN TSVANGIRAI, SOUTH KOREA
Read more...
Obama's Africa Speech: Lies, Hypocrisy, and a Prescription for Continued African Dependence
Q. Is Obama better than Bush?
A. It depends how you like your imperialism – with a white face or a black one.
By Stephen Gowans
July 19, 2009 - gowans.wordpress.com
US president Barack Obama's speech at Accra, Ghana on July 11, 2009 was equal parts jaw dropping hypocrisy, outright fiction, sound advice for Africans if taken literally, and advocacy for institutions ideally suited to capital accumulation in Africa by Western investors. Africans should heed the US president's call to embrace the idea that Africa's future is up to Africans (and Africans alone) and to build their own nations, but the path Obama proposes, if followed, would condemn Africa to continued underdevelopment and perpetual dependence on the West.
It should come as a surprise to no one but the weakly naïve and politically untutored that the role of the US president in Africa is to promote and defend the interests of the United States, not Africans. This is so, even if the US president shares the skin color of Africa's majority.
What may not be so apparent, but which is true nevertheless, is that Obama represents the interests of his country's hereditary capitalist families, banks, corporations and wealthy investors whose resources and backing have brought him to power, and in whose interests the logic of imperialism compels him to act. It is Obama's goal as representative of US capital to open, and keep open, Africa's vast resources to exploitation by Western, and particularly US, capital without impediments of corruption, war and pan-African, nationalist or socialist projects of independent development getting in the way. His color and African heritage give Obama a leg up on a white president, allowing him to immediately connect with an African audience. But his message is no less racist, imperialist and informed by the interests of Wall Street than that of his white predecessors.
Outright fiction
Obama used his speech to sell two fictions: (1) that Africa's underdevelopment has nothing to do with colonialism and neo-colonialism, but is rooted in corruption, tribalism and Africans' blaming others for their poverty; and (2) that Africa's development depends on adopting institutions that allow foreign capital unfettered access to African markets and resources.
"It is easy to point fingers, and to pin the blame for (Africa's) problems on others," said Obama, explaining that,
“Countries like Kenya, which had a per capita economy larger than South Korea's when I was born, have been badly outpaced. Disease and conflict have ravaged parts of the African continent. In many places, the hope of my (Kenyan) father's generation gave way to cynicism, even despair.”
During the years of its rapid economic growth, south Korea did not follow the development path Obama prescribes for Africa today. Instead, it built five-year industrial plans that singled out industries the government would nurture through tariff protection, subsidies and government support. Foreign currencies necessary for importing machinery and industrial inputs were accumulated through foreign exchange controls, whose violation was punishable by death. [1]
The government completely regulated foreign investment, welcoming it in some areas but banning it in others. Attitudes toward intellectual property were lax, with south Korean businesses encouraged to reverse engineer Western technology and pirate the West's patented products.
This approach to development was the rule, not the exception. Virtually every developed country has followed the same path, using tariffs, subsidies and discrimination against foreign investors, to industrialize.
The first countries to adopt free trade, apart from Britain, where weak countries on whom free trade was imposed by colonial masters. The free trade was typically one-way. Countries in Asia and Africa barely grew economically during the period of colonial rule, while Western Europe – the beneficiary of one-way free trade — grew rapidly. Latin America also grew strongly, but at the time, followed an import-substitution model, not the open markets model industrial powerhouses favored because it favored them.
Under the rule of Britain, the United States was treated much as African countries are today. It was denied the use of tariffs to protect its fledgling industry. It was barred from exporting products that competed with British products. And it was encouraged, through subsides, to concentrate on agriculture. Manufacturing industry was to be left to the British.
Alexander Hamilton rejected this model, creating an infant industry program that allowed the United States to industrialize rapidly. Hamilton's program — which remained the basis of US economic policy up to World War II — created the highest tariff barriers in the world. US federal mining laws restricted ownership of mines to US citizens and businesses incorporated in the United States. (When Zimbabwe's government developed legislation to require majority Zimbabwean ownership of the country's resources, along the lines of earlier US policy, it was denounced for grossly mismanaging the economy.)
Other developed countries also used foreign ownership restrictions to help them industrialize. Prior to 1962, Japan restricted foreign ownership to 49 percent and banned it altogether in certain industries.
In his speech, Obama created the impression that south Korea developed rapidly because it followed policies the World Bank endorses, while at the same time Africa stagnated, because it didn't. This is doubly false. Not only did south Korea not follow World Bank policies – in fact, it did the very opposite – Africa has been practically run by the IMF and World Bank since the 1980s. Under their guidance, African living standards have worsened, not improved. Over the same period, the Western world's financial elite – which exercises enormous influence over the World Bank and IMF – saw its wealth expand greatly.
Corruption, Obama argues, and not the legacy of colonialism, has also held Africa back. There must, he insists, be "concrete solutions to corruption like forensic accounting, automating services, strengthening hot lines and protecting whistle-blowers to advance transparency and accountability."
These measures are desirable. But spectacular corruption in Indonesia, Italy, Japan, south Korea, Taiwan and China didn't hold these countries back. The critical issue in development isn't whether corruption happens, but whether the dirty money stays in the country. Mobutu took stolen money out of Zaire, wrecking the Zairian economy. But massive corruption and economic growth can co-exist, if the dirty money is invested in the expansion of the country's productive assets.
Moreover, corruption is more a consequence, and less a cause, of underdevelopment. Poor countries, because they're poor, pay meager salaries to government officials. This increases the likelihood officials will stoop to corruption to pad their paltry incomes. And limited government budgets mean there are few resources to prevent graft.
But Obama's concern about corruption has little to do with its role in hindering development, and everything to do with safeguarding the investments of US banks, corporations and wealthy US citizens. US investors don't want to invest their capital in countries where the returns can be stolen by corrupt government officials, any more than they want to invest in countries in which there is a high risk of expropriation by nationalist or socialist governments following paths of independent development. A major foreign policy function of the US president is to create safe and stable overseas environments in which US businesses and investment can thrive. Corruption is inimical to that goal.
On top of corruption, conflict based on religious, ethnic and tribal differences is also keeping Africa poor, according to Obama.
"We all have many identities, of tribe and ethnicity, of religion and nationality. But defining oneself in opposition to someone who belongs to a different tribe, or who worships a different prophet, has no place in the 21st century."
It has long been a practice of imperialist countries to foment ethnic and religious tension as a means of keeping oppressed people fighting each other rather than their oppressor. The ancient Romans called it divide and conquer. The British elevated it to an art form, and used it to undergird their empire. It has always served to: (1) disrupt and disorganize a united front of the oppressed against the oppressor; and (2) to provide a humanitarian justification for imperialist countries to continue their domination of subordinate countries.
The imperialist country must maintain a guiding hand, it's said, otherwise the ethnic and religious tensions that roil beneath the surface will spill over into open warfare. The massacres in Rwanda have served the useful purpose for the West of reinforcing the imperialist idea that Africans are ready on the flimsiest pretext to go on bloody rampages out of atavistic tribal bloodlust. Exploitation, oppression, unequal access to critical resources, and foreign meddling: none of these causes of conflicts in Africa figure in Western accounts. Instead, the causes of war are to be understood to originate in irrational hatred. And irrational hatred, the narrative goes, is best held in check by Western powers.
While Obama attributed Africa's poverty to corruption and tribalism, he also, indirectly, and unintentionally, pointed to one of the true reasons for Africa's underdevelopment: one-way free trade. "Wealthy nations," he said "must open our doors to goods and services from Africa in a meaningful way," which says the doors of wealthy nations are not open in a meaningful way today. And they're not, and never have been. Despite African doors being pried open, usually by force, threat or economic coercion by wealthy nations, the doors of Western countries have only ever been open to Africa on terms that benefit the West. And that's because there has never really been anything Africa could do about the unfair bargain the West has forced upon it, except to unite and pursue a path of self-reliant development, drawing upon its own immense resources and seeking out critical machine and industrial inputs from sympathetic countries. It didn't have the military power to force the doors of Western Europe and North America open, as the West forced its doors open. Nor could it use the tools of economic coercion to exact concessions from wealthy countries, for African economies, having been adapted to the requirements of their colonial masters in the period of colonial rule, and never having escaped this legacy, have typically been based on agricultural monoculture.
What could African countries do — stop all exports of groundnuts, tobacco or bananas to force the West to open its doors? Doing so would hardly hurt the West, but would deprive Africa of the foreign exchange it uses to import a multitude of goods it depends on the West to provide. To put it succinctly: the West has always had Africa over a barrel.
There are two other egregious misconceptions that Obama articulated in his Accra speech: (1) That "the West is not responsible for the destruction of the Zimbabwean economy over the last decade…" and (2) that "African-Americans…have thrived in every sector of (US) society."
The decline in Zimbabwe's economy since 2000 is attributed by US officials to Robert Mugabe's mismanagement, an explanation amplified by the Western media and treated by both the media and Western publics as indisputable. The year 2000 marked the beginning of Zimbabwe's fast track land redistribution program. The goal of the program was to reclaim prized agricultural land stolen by force by European settlers. The land was to be redistributed to indigenous farmers. And it has been. Zimbabwe has democratized land ownership patterns, distributing land previously owned by 4,000 farmers, mostly of British origin, to 300,000 previously landless families, of African origin.
In more sophisticated analyses, the root cause of Zimbabwe's economic difficulties is understood to lie in the disruption of agriculture caused by land reform. According to this analysis, had the Mugabe government not pressed ahead with its aggressive land reform program and settled for the sedate, glacial affair that characterized land redistribution prior to 2000 — and which has marked agrarian reform elsewhere on the continent — Zimbabwe would not be in the straitened circumstances it finds itself today.
Until 2000, land reform moved at a snail's pace. As part of a negotiated settlement with Britain, the independence movement agreed to a willing buyer-willing seller arrangement, whereby land could only be acquired for redistribution if the owner wanted to sell. This restriction was to remain in effect for the first 10 years of independence. Since most farmers of European origin were unwilling to sell, little land was available to redistribute.
Eventually Harare was free to expropriate land from farmers who didn't want to sell. Britain had agreed to help compensate expropriated farmers but renounced the agreement, denying it was ever under any obligation to fund land reform. Since Harare didn't have the funds to pay for the land it needed for redistribution, it had two choices: Carry on as is, with land redistribution proceeding at a glacial pace, or expropriate the land and demand that expropriated farmers seek compensation from London, which after all, was ultimately responsible for the theft of the land and had promised to underwrite the land reform program. The Mugabe government chose the later course, setting off alarm bells in Western capitals. Mugabe couldn't be allowed to get away with uncompensated expropriation of productive property.
Analyses that attributed Zimbabwe's economic disaster to mismanagement overlooked the reaction of Washington to the Mugabe government's lese majesty against private property. For not only did the turn of the century mark the beginning of fast-track land reform, it also marked the passage of the US Democracy and Economic Recovery Act (ZDERA.)
ZDERA is not a regime of targeted sanctions against individuals, as many believe. Sanctions against individuals do exist, but ZDERA is something altogether different. ZDERA has two aspects.
First, it authorizes the US president to "support an independent and free press and electronic media in Zimbabwe" and "provide for democracy and governance programs in Zimbabwe." This is code for doing openly what the CIA used to do covertly: destabilize foreign governments.
Second, it instructs the United States executive director to each international financial institution (the World Bank and IMF, for example) to oppose and vote against:
(1) any extension by the respective institution of any loan, credit, or guarantee to the government of Zimbabwe; or
(2) any cancellation or reduction of indebtedness owed by the government of Zimbabwe to the United States or any international financial institution.
Since ZDERA was passed in 2001, Washington has blocked all lines of credit, development assistance and balance of payment support from international lending institutions to Zimbabwe.
When the act was passed, then US president George W. Bush declared his hope that "the provisions of this important legislation will support the people of Zimbabwe in their struggle to effect peaceful democratic change, achieve economic growth, and restore the rule of law." [2]
Since effecting peaceful democratic change meant ousting the Zanu-PF government and restoring the rule of law meant forbidding the uncompensated expropriation of white farm land, what Bush was really saying was that he hoped the legislation would help overthrow the government and put an end to fast-track land reform.
ZDERA was co-drafted by one of the opposition MDC’s white parliamentarians, and introduced as a bill in the US Congress in March of 2001 by the Republican senator, William Frist. The legislation was co-sponsored by the Republican rightwing senator, Jesse Helms, and the Democratic senators Hilary Clinton (now Secretary of State), Joseph Biden (now Vice-President) and Russell Feingold.
Helms died in early July, 2008. He denounced the 1964 Civil Rights Act, was a spokesman for the tobacco industry and was a slum landlord. He opposed school bussing, compensation for Japanese Americans and Communists. He complained that public schools were being used "to teach our children that cannibalism, wife-swapping, and the murder of infants and the elderly are acceptable behavior." [3] Helms was also fond of sanctions. He co-authored the Helms-Burton Act of 1996, which tightened the blockade on Cuba.
The MDC had always been reluctant to admit that sanctions had crippled Zimbabwe's economy, and more reluctant still to call for their removal. This is to be expected. In opposition, the MDC's goal was to blame the government for the country's economic difficulties. If it could do so convincingly, and at the same time persuade voters it could do a better job, it chances of prevailing at the polls would increase accordingly. Likewise, if it refused to add to the pressure on Western governments to lift sanctions, and even encouraged Western governments to maintain or escalate them, the government would remain burdened with the political liability of an ailing economy. But times have changed. The MDC has formed a coalition government with Zanu-PF, and the MDC controls the finance ministry. Sanctions are no longer in the party's interest, and the MDC has, as a consequence, changed its tune. Not only does it now acknowledge ZDERA, the finance minister, Tendai Biti, complains about it bitterly.
"The World Bank has right now billions and billions of dollars that we have access to but we can't access those dollars unless we have dealt with and normalized our relations with the IMF. We cannot normalize our relations with the IMF because of the voting power, it's a blocking voting power of America and people who represent America on that board cannot vote differently because of ZDERA." [4]
As bad as ZDERA is, it's not the only sanctions regime the United States has used to sabotage Zimbabwe's economy. Addressing the Senate Foreign Relations African Affairs Subcommittee, Jendaya Frazer, who was George W. Bush's top diplomat in Africa, noted that the United States had imposed financial and travel restrictions on 135 individuals and 30 businesses. US citizens and corporations who violate the sanctions face penalties ranging from $250,000 to $500,000. "We are looking to expand the category of Zimbabweans who are covered. We are also looking at sanctions on government entities as well, not just individuals." She added that the US Treasury Department was looking into ways to target sectors of Zimbabwe's critical mining industry. [5]
On July 25, 2008 Bush announced that sanctions on Zimbabwe would be stepped up. He outlawed US financial transactions with a number of key Zimbabwe companies and froze their US assets. The enterprises included: the Zimbabwe Mining Development Corporation (which controls all mineral exports); the Zimbabwe Iron and Steel Company; Minerals Marketing Corporation of Zimbabwe; Osleg, or Operation Sovereign Legitimacy, the commercial arm of Zimbabwe's army; Industrial Development Corporation; the Infrastructure Development Bank of Zimbabwe; ZB Financial Holdings; and the Agriculture Development Bank of Zimbabwe. [6]
In early March 2009, Obama extended sanctions for another year, announcing that,
"The crisis constituted by the actions and policies of certain members of the government of Zimbabwe and other persons to undermine Zimbabwe's democratic processes or institutions has not been resolved. These actions and policies pose a continuing unusual and extraordinary threat to the foreign policy of the United States." [7]
It would be more accurate to say that US sanctions pose a continuing unusual and extraordinary threat to the economy of Zimbabwe.
Topping off the falsehoods in Obama's speech was his assurance to Africans that "African-Americans…have thrived in every sector of (US) society." This is nonsense. Income, employment, education and opportunity are profoundly unequal in the United States, and inequality is inextricably bound up with race. The per capita income of blacks in the United States is 40 percent lower than that of whites. One in four blacks live in poverty, compared to eight percent of whites. The proportion of blacks without health insurance is twice that of whites. [8] And the official seasonally adjusted unemployment rate for blacks in June 2009 was almost twice as high as the jobless rate for whites. [9]
The degree to which blacks haven't thrived is evident in who languishes in the country's jails. While the United States has only five percent of the world's population, it has one-quarter of the world's prisoner population, and US prisoners are disproportionately black. One-third of black males born in 2001 are expected to be imprisoned at some point in their lifetime, compared to six percent of white males. [10] Poor, unemployed, without health insurance and in prison. That's hardly thriving.
Jaw dropping hypocrisy
As leader of a country currently engaged in three wars of aggression (Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan) and which threatens to escalate its aggressions against Iran and north Korea, one might think Obama would be ashamed to lecture anyone on the importance of resolving conflicts peacefully. But US presidents know no shame. Boldly, Obama told Africans that "for far too many Africans, conflict is a part of life, as constant as the sun. There are wars over land and wars over resources." Africans, he continued, must learn the "peaceful resolution of conflict."
Indeed, there are wars over land and wars over resources, and this, the United States knows well, for over the course of its history it has initiated many of them, and most of the wars over land and resources over the past 60 years have been planned at the Pentagon. The United States' vast military, which Washington methodically nurtures through the misappropriated tax dollars of ordinary US citizens, allows the country to dominate and plunder much of the world, while at the same time piling up profits for US corporations engaged in "defense" industry work.
Particularly galling is the reality that the United States had a hand in the bloodiest and deadliest war on the continent.
"In early May 1997, when it became apparent to western observers that the broad coalition of rebel forces in Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of Congo) headed by veteran freedom fighter, Laurent Kabila, would eventually topple the Mobutu kleptocracy and establish ‘a popular government, linking all sectors of our society,' the Financial Times, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and others in the corporate media slowly began to criticize the ‘excesses' of the CIA-installed Mobutu regime, in power since 1965. But at the same time they began a relentless campaign against Kabila and the rebel coalition.
“The Wall Street Journal spoke of Kabila as an ‘ideological throwback' to the politics of the 1960s. It decried his relationship with Che Guevara, who had gone to the Congo in the early l960s to work with a progressive coalition (including Kabila) to support the Patrice Lumumba forces and to oust another CIA-installed regime, which had been installed in the diamond-rich region of Katanga. The Journal warned that ‘western interests' would now be in jeopardy under Kabila.
"For thirteen months, Kabila sought to consolidate a broad coalition to democratize and develop the Congo. But by August 1998, two neighboring states, Rwanda and Uganda, aligned with ethnic forces inside the Congo, (and backed by Washington) invaded several towns and cities. Both invading countries charged Kabila with ‘corruption' and human rights violations, and with being ‘undemocratic.'
"Both Rwanda and Uganda are governed by de facto military regimes. Both governments are hosts to U.S. military training facilities and U.S. military personnel. The Congo has been regarded by leading scientists and economists as one of the most mineral-rich countries in the world. It contains roughly 70 percent of the world’s cobalt. More than half of the U.S. military’s cobalt comes from the Congo. It is the second largest producer of diamonds in the world and is known for large deposits of gold, manganese, and copper. The Congo’s peculiar type of high-grade uranium was used by the U.S. to make the atom bombs that were dropped on Japan in WWII. And the U.S. dominates mining in that area even today." [11]
An estimated five million died in the war from 1998 to 2003. The conflict continues, with 45,000 people dying each month from war-related causes, primarily hunger and disease. [12] And yet war in the DRCongo is barely mentioned in the Western media. Instead, attention is focused on Darfur, home to vast oil reserves the United States does not control, but would like to lay its hands on. Raising public alarm over Darfur is a way of manufacturing consent for Western intervention in Sudan. The outcome – and unstated goal – of such an intervention would be to bring another oil-rich country under Washington's domination.
“The United Nations has estimated some 300,000 may have died in total as a result of the years of conflict in Darfur; the same number die from the Congo conflict every six and a half months. And yet, in the New York Times, which covers the Congo more than most U.S. outlets, Darfur has consistently received more coverage since it emerged as a media story in 2004. The Times gave Darfur nearly four times the coverage it gave the Congo in 2006, while Congolese were dying of war-related causes at nearly 10 times the rate of those in Darfur. “[13]
Washington also orchestrated a recent war in Somalia. In 2006, the US-backed, UN-recognized government of Somalia was limited to the inland town of Baidoa. Mogadishu, the capital, had fallen to Islamic militias, who had formed a de facto government in June of that year. The militias' power wasn't based on their military strength, which consisted only of a few hundred armed pickup trucks and a few thousand fighters, but in their popular support. In the capital Mogadishu, the Islamists organized neighborhood cleanups, delivered food to the needy and brought dormant national institutions like the Supreme Court back to life.
According to Ted Dagne, the African analyst at the Congressional Research Service in Washington, the de facto government provided "a sense of stability in Somalia, education and other services, while the warlords maimed and killed innocent civilians." What's more, "instead of acting like the Taliban and ruthlessly imposing a harsh religious orthodoxy" the Islamists delivered social services and pushed for democratic elections.
That's when General John P. Abizaid of the United States Central Command, or Centcom, flew to neighboring Ethiopia to meet Prime Minister Meles Zenawi, who told the US proconsul that he could cripple the Islamist forces in one to two weeks. Abizaid gave the Ethiopian prime minister the go ahead, and soon Ethiopian soldiers — trained by US military advisors — were flooding over the border into Somalia. [14] The United States supplied battlefield intelligence, the US Fifth Fleet enforced a naval blockade, US Marines deployed along Somalia's border with Kenya, and US AC-130 gunships, operating out of Djibouti, struck targets within Somalia. [15]
The invasion was a brazen affront to the United Nations Charter. Somalia hadn't threatened Ethiopia, and indeed, couldn't. With a few hundred armed pickup trucks, Somali forces posed no danger to surrounding countries. And yet there wasn't a peep a protest from the "international community".
The war created what has been called Africa's largest and most ignored catastrophe. One million Somalis were displaced. Some 10,000 were killed. [16] And the United States, whose president counsels Africans to learn to resolve conflicts peacefully, started it.
To discourage what Obama views as Africa's addiction to war, the US president pledged to "stand behind efforts to hold war criminals accountable." What he didn't say was that he meant African war criminals, and only the ones who aren't puppets of the West. Obama has no intention of holding accountable either Meles Zenawi or Western war criminals (his predecessor, former British prime minister Tony Blair, or himself) or CIA operatives who used torture and those who authorized their crimes. Instead, he says, he would rather look forward, not backward. White war criminals are to be forgiven; black war criminals, who fail to toe the imperialist line, are to be held accountable.
The body through which most African war criminals are to be held accountable is the International Criminal Court (ICC), a court the United States itself refuses to join, on grounds its soldiers and officials would face frivolous prosecutions. If the United States would face frivolous prosecutions, why not other countries? The ICC has received
"2,889 communications about alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in at least 139 countries, and yet by March 2009, the prosecutor had opened investigations into just four cases: Uganda, DRCongo, the Central African Republic, and Sudan/Darfur. All of them in Africa. Thirteen public warrants of arrest have been issued, all against Africans." [17]
Conspicuously absent from the list of opened investigations are the perpetrators of the world's most blatant recent war crimes: the US, Britain and Israel.
Yes, but "there cannot be an African exception to (the Nuremberg) principles," argues David Crane, who was chief prosecutor for the special court on Sierra Leone (which is trying former Liberian president, Charles Taylor, for doing what practically every US president since World War II has done: support rebel troops in another country.) Crane's "no African exceptions" cry is taken up by the Western media. Referring to Taylor's trial, Guardian columnist Phil Clark, wrote that "for many, the trial represents another victory for international justice and another signal for the end of impunity for the likes of Taylor, Slobodan Milosevic, Saddam Hussein and Alberto Fujimori." [18] He might have added, but not for George W. Bush, Tony Blair, Bill Clinton, P.W. Botha, and Ian Smith. The Western media and state officials don't seem to be concerned about the impunity of these war criminals. The reality that there have been many African exceptions to humanitarian law – where whites are concerned – seems to have escaped the notice of Crane, a white US citizen, who indicted Taylor, a black African.
Martin Kargbo wonders why the West insists that black Africans be held accountable, while celebrating the truth and reconciliation commissions which have granted impunity to white war criminals.
"Impunity has not been an issue in DRCongo where the wars waged by Rwanda and Uganda between 1996 and 2003 on behalf of America and Western interests have led to an estimated five million deaths in Congo…
"Impunity, again, was not an issue when South Africa decided in 1994, in the interest of national peace and stability to forgive the perpetrators of war crimes and crimes against humanity – people who had terrorized and killed black Africans for 50 long years during the apartheid era. And no human rights group said it was wrong to forgive P.W. Botha & Co.
"Impunity was also not an issue when Zimbabwe decided in 1980 in the interest of national peace and stability to forgive the perpetrators of war crimes and crimes against humanity – people who had terrorized and killed black Africans for decades before independence. And no human rights group said it was wrong to forgive Ian Smith and Co.
"Impunity was again not an issue when Namibia did the same thing in 1990 — to forgive the atrocities committed against black people during the pre-independence era. And no human rights group spoke against Namibia's act of forgiveness." [19]
Obama also promised to "support strong and sustainable democratic governments" while supporting the strong, but hardly democratic, Egyptian government, with $1 billion per year in military aid. Washington has also been instrumental in undermining the popularly elected Hamas government. These two examples – and only two of many – show that Washington has no commitment to democracy abroad. It's all rhetoric. Washington supports governments which enlarge the interests of the US ruling class, whether democratic or not, and opposes foreign governments which don't, whether democratic or not. US democracy promotion, a multi-million dollar per year industry that does what the CIA used to do covertly, is simply a cover for regime change carried out by non-military means in countries that are open enough to allow US agents and fifth columns sufficient room to maneuver. Obama's administration will continue to run "democracy promotion" programs, working to ensure that foreign governments that pursue independent paths of development, including those in Africa, are overthrown.
Promoting the profit interests of US capital
Washington wants Africa to be a profitable place in which US corporations, banks and investors can do business. Africans want foreign investment to help Africa develop. It seems like a win-win situation. If Africa does what's necessary to help foreign investors reap handsome profits, corporate America gets profits and Africans get investment.
But the history of Africa's engagement with the world economy hasn't been the win-win situation US politicians and the West's mass media promise. Instead, foreign capital has profited and Africans have remained deeply mired in poverty.
That's because foreign capital can win bigger if it doesn't have to share the economic surplus it expropriates with the people who produce it. So, it goes for the big prize.
And why wouldn't it? Foreign capital, like all capital, wants to maximize profits. So it demands a low wage environment, unburdened by corporate taxes or stringent environmental regulations, in which profits can be taken out of the country, and in which governments abjure efforts to meet social goals by making demands on corporations and investors. Those with capital to invest don't want to pay high taxes (or any taxes at all if they can get away with it), comply with expensive environmental regulations, pay high wages, or be forced to take on local partners. They don't want to have to invest any of their profits in the host country if a higher return on investment can be obtained elsewhere. Neither do foreign corporations and investors want local governments to give local businesses a hand up by offering subsidies and tariff protections. And they don't want profitable areas of investment – like energy, telecommunication and banking – placed off limits. In short, all of the measures a local government might implement to satisfy local development needs – mandated re-investment of profits, state-controlled enterprises, foreign investment restrictions, price controls and meaningful minimum wage laws, a heavily graduated tax, and so on — are anathema to foreign capital.
In addition, foreign corporations, banks and investors want a business environment that is free from the threat of disruption by war, strikes and insurrections, and in which private productive property is protected from corruption and expropriation. Delivering what businesses want is called good governance.
As Obama explained,
"No country is going to create wealth (Obama means: for investors) if its leaders exploit the economy to enrich themselves, or police can be bought off by drug traffickers. No business wants to invest in a place where the government skims 20 percent off the top, or the head of the port authority is corrupt."
In Washington's view, good governance is created when societies are sufficiently open to domination by those who own the most wealth – that is, by those who own and control the world economy. For example, multi-party electoral democracy is lauded because it allows those who assume a leadership role in representing the interests of capital, to have the best chance of being elected. They're able to attract the funding that allows them to run effective campaigns. And what, as a consequence, ends up being a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, has enormous apparent legitimacy because it is based on an electoral exercise.
Likewise, a "free" society in which "anyone" can open a newspaper can seem to legitimately have independent journalists, even though the only people in a position to open their own newspaper and command a mass audience are members of the class that owns the society's productive property. An open society with a vibrant civil society which participates in the society's governance is also one in which the wealthy can pursue their interests by furnishing the funding on which civil society depends. This allows capital to influence the agenda of civil society through its funding decisions. In short, any government trying to achieve authentically democratic goals can be more readily opposed if it provides sufficient space for foreign capital to operate through strong parliaments, independent journalists and a vibrant civil society.
Accordingly, Obama speaks glowingly of institutions that open up space for foreign money to operate.
"In the 21st century, capable, reliable and transparent institutions are the key to success – strong parliaments and honest police forces; independent judges and journalists; a vibrant private sector and civil society. Those are the things that give life to democracy, because that is what matters in peoples' lives."
In point of fact, what matters in peoples' lives — that is, in the lives of ordinary people, and not the bankers, corporate lawyers and CEOs that Obama cares about — is having enough to eat, a job, shelter, clothing, health care, recreation, time with friends and family, dignity and social justice. Strong parliaments, journalists employed by the capitalist press, and a strong private sector, create environments adapted to capital accumulation; they have little to do with restoring stolen land to its rightful owners; investing the economic surplus created at home in local development; and using state-owned enterprises and fiscal and monetary policy to satisfy social welfare goals.
Sound advice, if taken literally
"Just as it is important to emerge from the control of another nation," observed Obama, "it is even more important to build one's own." And yet most African countries remain economic colonies of the West, their independence limited to political forms (their own flag, parliaments and political leaders) but whose economies are dominated by Western banks, foreign corporations, and the descendants of European settlers; whose militaries are trained and funded by the United States, Britain and France; and who rely on aid from Western governments, and receive it, in return for political and economic concessions. African countries that have followed Obama's advice to build their own countries have been harassed, undermined, destabilized, sanctioned and in many cases have seen their governments overthrown by the US and former colonial masters who pay lip service to independent development, but are deeply hostile to it. US presidents don't want Africans to build their own countries. They want them to turn their countries over to the US business elite, and to continue to do so indefinitely.
Under the leadership of Zanu-PF, Zimbabweans have tried to build their own country according to their own needs, expropriating land confiscated by European settlers when the former colonial master, Britain, reneged on its promise to fund land reform. Zanu-PF has also led efforts to bring Zimbabwe's resources and economy under the control of indigenous Zimbabweans, following methods reminiscent of the ones south Korea used to industrialize. But while south Korea's subsidies, tariff protections and foreign ownership restrictions were tolerated by Washington as a necessary evil of the Cold War –- south Korea needed to be given space to develop into a capitalist showpiece on the Cold War's frontlines – Washington has been unwilling to tolerate Zimbabwe's efforts to follow the same path.
Kwame Nkrumah, who led Ghana, the first African country to achieve independence, argued that the less developed world would not become developed through the goodwill and generosity of the developed world. Instead, it would only become developed by struggle against the external forces – foreign corporations, banks and investors — that had a vested interest in keeping it underdeveloped. [20] Nkrumah would have agreed with Obama that "Africa's future is up to Africans." He would surely have disagreed with Obama's prescription for how Africa ought to arrive at its future.
NOTES
Discussion of south Korea's development strategy, free trade, and corruption based on Ha-Joon Chang, Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism, Bloomsbury Press, New York, 2008.
"President Signs Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act, December 21, 2001. www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/12/200111221-15.html
The Guardian (UK), July 4, 2008.
The Herald (Zimbabwe) May 5, 2009.
TalkZimbabwe.com, July 16, 2008.
The New York Times, July 26, 2008; The Washington Post, July 26, 2008; The Sunday Mail (Zimbabwe), July 27, 2008.
"Obama extends Zimbabwe sanctions," TalkZimbabwe.com, March 8, 2009.
US Census Bureau Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2007, August 2008.
Bureau of Labor Statistics, Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey.
US Bureau of Justice Statistics, cited in Hannah Holleman, Robert W. McChesney, John Bellamy Foster and R. Jamil Jonna, "The Penal State in an Age of Crisis," Monthly Review, Vol. 61, No. 2, June, 2009.
Elombe Brath and Samori Marksman, "Conflict in the Congo: An Interview with President Laurent Kabila," Covert Action Quarterly, Winter, 1999, Issue 66.
Julie Hollar, "Congo Ignored, Not Forgotten,"
Extra, Magazine of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, May 2009.
Ibid.
Stephen Gowans, "US fomenting war in Somalia," What's Left, December 15, 2006, http://gowans.blogspot.com/2006/12/us-fomenting-war-in-somalia.html
Stephen Gowans, "Another US military intervention," What's Left, January 11, 2007, http://gowans.blogspot.com/2007/01/another-us-military-intervention.html
Stephanie McCrummen, "With Ethiopian pullout, Islamists rise again in Somalia," The Washington Post, January 22, 2009; Stephen Gowans, "Spielberg: Chauvinist in humanitarian drag," What's Left, February 13, 2008. http://gowans.wordpress.com/2008/02/13/spielberg-chauvinist-in-humanitarian-drag/
"Selective Justice," The New African, No. 484, May 2009.
Phil Clark, "Can Africa trust international justice?" The Guardian (UK) July 16, 2009.
Martin Kargbo, "The case against the ICC," New African, July, 2009.
Kwame Nkrumah, Neo-Colonialism: The Last Stage of Imperialism, Thomas Nelson & Sons, Ltd., London, 1965. www.marxists.org/subject/africa/nkrumah/neo-colonialism/index.htm
Source: gowans.wordpress.com
Labels: BARACK OBAMA, HA-JOON CHANG, LAND REFORM, NEOCOLONIALISM, NEOLIBERALISM, SOUTH KOREA, STEPHEN GOWANS, TARIFFS, ZIMBABWE
Read more...
