Chatham Report… Nothing new

THE recent London-based Chatham House Report on Zimbabwe titled: Zimbabwe’s International Re-engagement – The Long Haul to Recovery is premised on several disputable assumptions.
As a Royal Institute of International Affairs to promote analysis and debate on how to build a prosperous and better world for all, as the Chatham House Report claims it was established to facilitate, it was obviously created and is financed by the British government.
Those with knowledge of British imperialism and colonialism know that the slave trade was never intended to make the victims prosper. It cannot be denied that when Cecil Rhodes’ Pioneer Column invaded and occupied our country in 1890, he was certainly not on a benevolent and humanitarian crusade to make the people prosper.
It was primarily intended to exploit our resources in order to raise the living standards and welfare of the British people back home.
If in the process we prospered, it was by the sheer scale of our determination to resist exploitation by the British and not by their design.
Chatham House was created to formulate mollified policies to reduce resistance to British exploitation of its former huge empire.
It was established to promote and protect British interests around the globe.
The second misconception that the report is based on is the assumption that the term ‘West’ constitutes the international community.
On several occasions, the report refers to the West as the international community.
When Zimbabwe embarked on the Land Reform Programme, its relations with Britain collapsed because the British owned most of the land that was acquired for redistribution.
It lobbied its friends, most of whom were former
colonisers themselves who had participated in the meeting to apportion themselves pieces of Africa at the Berlin
To page 8
Conference in 1884.
The countries that took sides with the British against Zimbabwe were the EU, Australia, New Zealand Canada and the USA.
These countries do not constitute the ‘international community’ by any stretch of the imagination.
There are about 200 countries in the world and only about 30 are opposed to Zimbabwe’s Land Reform Programme.
And so to refer to those 30 odd countries as the international community as the report implies is absurd.
The report is a positive, almost envious look at Zimbabwe and for the first time, an open appeal to Westminster and the West not to let Zimbabwe go.
But as usual, it is given in that imperial manner, as if they have nothing to gain from Zimbabwe except their desire to ‘see the country prosper’.
They are dishonest these people.
This is what the report suggests about indigenisation.
“Indigenisation is not unique to Zimbabwe.
“Nor is the 51 percent astronomically high; it is now commonplace throughout Africa.
“The issue is not whether indigenisation should happen; it is about the method to do so and the outcomes.”
This is what the report says about Zimbabwe’s mineral potential.
“Zimbabwe is at the cusp of being a global major mining power; but to become a permanent member of the global mining elite, it will have to invest in new mining technologies.”
After the report has painted such an optimistic and glowing picture of Zimbabwe, it suggests Zimbabwe should initiate the process to re-engage the West; as if it was Zimbabwe that broke off the relations in the first place.
But that is how the West deals with its former colonies: it possesses the right to punish and provides the former colonies the opportunity to beg for forgiveness.
It is true we cannot deny that we need investment from the West, but it is also true that once the West imposed sanctions on the country, we could not merely fold our arms and do nothing about it. We looked for alternative options to survive.
Zim-ASSET is one such option, but it requires a massive capital injection, about ten billion dollars, the Ministry of Finance says, to kick-start and drive the economy forward.
If it is true what the Chinese Ambassador said in a recent meeting that negotiations between his government and Zimbabwe were already at an advanced stage to provide the money to finance Zim-ASSET, it is another reason why the West should get worried.
The Chatham House report mentions Zimbabwe’s ‘look east’ policy as something that the West should view warily.
There is a whole chapter in the report about the security sector and its relationship with the state and various other institutions.
The report seems surprised by the strong connection between the security forces and politics, creating the impression that this strong connection is an irregularity.
It is this blatant dishonesty and the assumption that we cannot see through it that many people find offending.
If security forces across the globe are there to defend different political orders and interests, it is a myth to expect them to be apolitical; it is a myth to delink them from politics.
That is why NATO was created; to defend Western political and economic interests in Europe and across the globe.
It was NATO that toppled Colonel Gaddafi.
It is ridiculous to imagine our security forces should be guided by a different set of principles.
It is equally ridiculous to attempt to construct a wall between ZNA and Zimbabwe’s political and economic agenda.
If it wasn’t for the ZNA and ZRP, the Land Reform Programme might have been aborted.
That is the purpose of the security forces.
Therefore, any call for security sector reforms is a veiled attempt to re-create another force that can be manipulated by our former colonisers to protect their own economic interests.
It was the case with Mobutu Sese Seko’s army in Zaire; it was a shameless African extension of United States foreign policy.
But perhaps the most interesting point about the report is the absence of MDC in its suggestions on the way forward for Zimbabwe. Considering that it was at Chatham House in 1999 that Richard Dowden chaired a meeting that conceived the formation of the MDC, it is clear they no longer view the MDC as a significant factor in the matrix of Zimbabwe politics.
Because they made the MDC, they undid it.
Meanwhile, Tsvangirai and Biti remain at each other’s throats, foolishly believing they are fighting over anything at all.
The report concludes:
“Regional and international actors cannot continue to wait for regime change as a prerequisite for constructive engagement.
“The problems in Zimbabwe are not unique to the country.
“They are there across the region……..for the time being, ZANU PF is the dominant force in Zimbabwean politics.”
We have reached the most dangerous stage of our revolution.
The West is like a leopard, it cannot rub off its spots.
As we engage them, we should not lose sight of our empowerment agenda just because they are prepared to give us money.
We must remember numerous other cases before like the one involving the former Libyan strongman, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi. The West lured him to re-engage and embrace them before infiltrating and subverting the Libyan revolution.
They eventually killed him with the connivance of members of his own Libyan People’s Jamarhiya.
The West has a long memory and tentacles.
We must remember: it never forgives, it never forgets and it entangles and chokes like a creeping vine.