THE narratives emerging from Finance and Economic Development Minister Patrick Chinamasa’s visit to London and Paris would ordinarily point to a desperate Zimbabwe seeking salvation from the ‘almighty’ Britain, but the opposite is true.
Events in the United Kingdom over the past two weeks point to a former coloniser reneging on a hard-line stance it had taken on Zimbabwe over the Land Reform and Resettlement Programme.
But Minister Chinamasa, who led the re-engagement delegation, threw the gauntlet at the British whose anti-Zimbabwe propaganda revolved around media packages to the effect that Harare’s Land Reform Programme was violent, chaotic and rendered people of this country desperately hungry.
At Zimbabwe’s first high level investment conference in Britain in two decades, when Minister Chinamasa told delegates that Government would clear its arrears with multilateral creditors, London’s plan on Harare was thrown under the bus.
Britain had created its own Zimbabwe plan on making Harare beg for redemption.
And Minister Chinamasa’s debt repayment plan and compensation of white farmers, coupled with the so-called ill-fated Brexit has put Britain in a fix of some sort.
Britain needs Zimbabwe and indeed the rest of the world to help it clean the mess created by the recklessness of its leaders.
This is why Minister Chinamasa’s economic strategies have suddenly found traction among the once mighty and seemingly perpetually out of sorts London.
In spite of all this, British negligence continues to manifest itself subtly through filters send by its people.
The BBC HARDtalk programme, where the provocative question of our politics and economic policies kept popping up, is a case in point.
BBC HARDtalk host Zeinab Bawadi asked Minister Chinamasa whether it was not ironic that the Zimbabwe Government wanted finance facilities from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank which institutions are blamed for Zimbabwe’s economic meltdown.
What Bawadi forgot to grasp in her research was that Zimbabwe is a shareholder in these institutions.
“Please get this clear, we are a shareholder in the World Bank, we are a shareholder in African Development Bank and we are shareholder in the IMF,” said Minister Chinamasa.
“Even in the African Development Bank, we are the largest shareholder in Southern Africa.
“So, all we are doing in the engagement is to try to enjoy the benefits of our membership, access to credit.
“The rules provide, as it turns out, that we cannot enjoy those benefits until we clear our arrears.
“So the engagement is about clearing our arrears so that we enjoy the benefits of our membership.
“And we are not embarrassed by that.”
The country owes the AfDB US$600 million, the IMF US$120 million and the World Bank US$1 billion.
These institutions endorsed Minister Chinamasa’s debt clearance plan in Peru in October last year.
In order to pave way for new financing, Minister Chinamasa told the London investment conference that Government would set up a fund to compensate for land, developments and equipment ‘owned’ by previous farmers.
The Ministry of Lands and Rural Resettlement has already announced that it has so far valued nearly 2 000 farms out of 6 240.
But what does this fresh round of re-engagement talks mean for Zimbabwe?
In an opinion piece published by the New York Times in November last year, Stephen Chan, who is a professor of World Politics at the University of London’s School of Oriental and African Studies, brought to the fore London’s shift in position with regards to Zimbabwe.
“Should there be conditions for re-engagement? The West probably won’t be able to resist making calls for less opaque financial and political dealings. But the land issue is settled: There is no politically viable force that would seek to restore farms to ousted whites,” reads part of Chan’s instalment.
“And given the implosion of any viable opposition, the West has little choice, but to work with ZANU PF.
“The world will one day soon see the end of Robert Mugabe.
“But his party will likely live on, and it is within that party that, like it or not, the West must now find people with whom it can work toward some kind of viable future for this unhappy country.”
Chipping in was British Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Philip Hammond, who showered Zimbabwe with rare praises.
“Since the 2013 elections, our assessment of the political situation in Zimbabwe remains broad, with 2015 signalling some positive developments,” said Hammond in November last year.
“Within the Zimbabwe African Nation Union (ZANU PF) administration there are signs of reformist policies beginning to emerge, especially on the economy.”
And is there a cause for celebration for Zimbabwe?
Ordinarily, there should, but our recent history with Britain must surely have taught us that in times like these and when it comes to our erstwhile colonisers, caution should be the name of the game.
However, pinned both politically and economically the British are, there is no doubt these are people who have perfected the art of finding their way out of any mess to the disadvantage of their friends, partners or anyone entangling with them at any given time.
Commendable Minister Chinamasa’s efforts might be, the fact remains he and Harare must sleep with ‘one eye open’.