THE 2016 Chatham House Report on The Domestic and External Implications of Zimbabwe’s Economic Reform and Re-engagement Agenda presents itself as an authoritative voice on issues and matters to do with Zimbabwe while at the same time ‘proffering’ solutions to challenges bedevilling the country in typical British arrogance.
The British think tank, Chatham House, describes itself as an independent policy institute based in London, whose mission is ‘to help build a sustainably secure, prosperous and just world’.
But Chatham House is no mere policy institute, it is an instrument of the British Government to influence affairs and promote Britain’s interests across the world.
In as much as the UK wants to see regime change in the country, it realises that methods used elsewhere, like in Libya and Iraq, will not work in Zimbabwe, hence deployment of the likes of Knox Chitiyo, one of the authors of the report, ‘as their taskmaster’ to do the West’s dirty work.
Chatham House might masquerade as some research institution yet it is nothing, but a projection of the Western ‘soft-power’ concept.
From the report, one notes that the British remain relentless and are eager to see the back of the current ZANU PF-led Government, but they know that such a development is unlikely in the near future.
The report, therefore, is coached in seemingly ‘rational’, but in reality, outrageous tones.
“A successful transition from hard-line ‘patriotic liberationism’ to a more pragmatic economic liberalism will have considerable human development impacts and could lay the economic foundations for a resurgent 21st Century Zimbabwe,” states the report.
The report is nothing but an extension and continuation of Britain’s regime change agenda.
Hard power has miserably failed in the efforts to oust the country’s leadership made up of liberation struggle veterans who have been identified as the major impediment to Western looting and exploitation machinations.
An all-out campaign to tighten the screws on Zimbabwe’s economy and make it ‘scream’ with the intention of making the people revolt failed to yield desired results.
Calls by former British Prime Minister Tony Blair for a direct military attack on Zimbabwe were quickly dismissed as ludicrous by his military top brass.
But the British have not given up as seen by their latest report which in no uncertain terms claims that the country is headed for collapse.
“Financial support from IFIs (International Financial Institutions) would help the Government in Harare to manage the immediate economic crisis,” reads the report.
“Such assistance may already be too late to provide the country with a soft landing in its current economic deterioration, but it can ease the pain of collapse and act as a safety net for ordinary Zimbabweans as the country’s elites negotiate the eventual political succession.”
Clearly this report is part of the strategies of the soft power approach, which the West has now adopted.
And it should not be underestimated; it is soft power that eventually did in Libya, which had for years resisted domination and exploitation by the West.
After threats of military attacks and economic embargoes failed to dislodge Muammar Gaddafi, the West changed tack.
Hard power abandoned, the West adopted soft power which saw them ‘warming’ up to Gaddafi the ‘dictator’; suddenly the West felt it better and best to ‘re-engage’ Libya and iron-out ‘misunderstandings’.
The West approached Libya with various ‘sweeteners’, presenting reports indicating the errors of Gaddafi’s ways and gave ‘recommendations’ as well as ‘best’ solutions to solve his ‘problems’.
And Gaddafi, among other costly moves, abandoned his country’s nuclear programme.
It was a fatal decision that left his country exposed in terms of security.
However, London fully appreciates that the current Government and ZANU PF are firmly in control and there will be no repeat of the Arab Spring in the country; efforts in that direction have already failed.
In recent months, the West has employed the likes of so-called pastor Evan Mawarire to start an uprising of the citizens but the efforts came to naught.
The Chatham House Report, which totally ignores the role the West has played in decimating the economy, blaming the current black-run Government for the economic malaise, in its ‘calmness’ and ‘logic’ is a toxic document with a sinister agenda.
“A loan from the IMF would not in itself be the panacea some in the country expect,” says the report.
“In the long-term, it is not financial assistance from the IFIs that will transform the economy, but rather the deepening of reform.
“Re-engagement is undoubtedly a fragile and risky process, with no guarantee of a good outcome.”
And to effectively shove this toxic message down the throats of the masses and anyone who cares to listen, Knox Chitiyo is used as the black voice to give the report some form of credibility and legitimacy.
“What is clearly required is the assistance of the international community and investors, but their support will depend on the Government enacting a far-reaching economic and political reform programme,” reads the report.
Chatham House has been steady and consistent in the generation of now predictable negative responses to any question on Zimbabwe despite evidence to the contrary (Zimbabwe’s recent successes).
The institution has avoided and ignored information that contradicts its agenda.
Clearly, the authors of the report and their authors have not strayed from the regime change agenda though they tried very hard to present theirs as a rational and fair assessment.
The Land Reform Programme has been a success.
Leading British scholars have attested to this fact, including the highly respected Sussex University professor of agro-economics, Ian Scoones.
According to Prof Scoones, in a report titled Zimbabwe’s Land Reform: Myths and Realities: “In Masvingo, (land) reform saw more than a quarter of the land taken over by around 32 500 households on smallholder sites, 1 200 households on slightly larger sites and 8 500 households in informal resettlement sites.
“It has resulted in a new composition of people in the rural areas, with highly diverse livelihoods, based on mixed-crop and livestock farming.
“Another resettlement farmer, Petros Chakavanda, told us: ‘We are not employed, but we are getting higher incomes than those at work’.”
The Chatham House Report disparages the Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) sector, giving the impression that the country’s industry will only be successful when it is once again run by whites.
Yet the reality on the ground, the world over, is that SMEs have become the engine of economic growth.
According to a Finscope report: “In Zimbabwe there are 2,8 million SMEs owners, employing 2,9 million people, translating into 5,7 million people dependent on the sector, contributing more than 60 percent to the Gross Domestic Product.”
Yet Chatham House states that: International and domestic confidence in the Government is fraying.
No doubt, the Chatham House is a lethal weapon in the arms cache of the UK whose goal is to influence the hearts and minds of Zimbabweans to revolt.