THE other day I was reading up on think tanks as the battle for the White House was coming to an end.
Needless to say, Hillary Clinton’s loss and the possibility of a giant wall being built by Donald Trump to keep immigrants out are stories for another day.
Coming back to think tanks in the world, I noted that their attention on Zimbabwe seems unusual.
Of the 30 top think tanks in the world, the following institutions have maintained interest in Zimbabwe over the years and this is despite various reports spelling doom and gloom and relegating Zimbabwe to the rubbish heap:
l Brookings Institution – United States.
l Chatham House – United Kingdom
l Carnegie Endowment for International Peace – United States
l Council of Foreign Relations – United States
l Amnesty International – United Kingdom
l Transparency International – Germany
l International Crisis Group (ICG) – Belgium
l International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) – United Kingdom
l Heritage Foundation – United States
l Cato Institute – United States
l Human Rights Watch – United States
Some of these characters we read about making pronouncements about Zimbabwe are housed by these think tanks.
Take for instance, Professor Steve Hanke and former US Ambassador to Botswana, Michelle Gavin.
Hanke is a professor of applied economics and co-director of the Institute for Applied Economics, Global Health and the Study of Business Enterprise at the Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore. He is a senior fellow and director of the Troubled Currencies Project at the Cato Institute, a senior adviser at the Renmin University of China’s International Monetary Research Institute in Beijing, a special counselor to the Centre for Financial Stability in New York, and a contributing editor at Globe Asia Magazine and at Central Banking in London.
Hanke is also a member of the Charter Council of the Society of Economic Measurement and of Euromoney Country Risk’s Experts Panel.
One of his recent books is, Zimbabwe: Hyperinflation to Growth (2008).
Gavin served as legislative director to US Senator Ken Salazar (D-CO).
She spent six years serving as the primary foreign policy adviser to Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI), where she worked on a broad range of initiatives, including the creation of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction and the reform of US policy relating to HIV and AIDS treatment abroad and of course the ‘cursed’ Zimbabwe Democracy Economic Recovery Act (ZDERA), among others.
She also served as the staff director of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s Subcommittee on African Affairs.
She served as special assistant to President Barack Obama and senior director for Africa on the National Security Council.
Gavin ‘excelled’ so much at the Council on Foreign Relations, her Council Special Report, Planning for Post-Mugabe Zimbabwe, pushed her to greater heights.
She served as US Ambassador to Botswana and is now managing director of the Africa Centre.
America’s cousin across the pond also has a vested interest in Zimbabwe.
It was the British who led the Western campaign against Zimbabwe over the Land Reform Programme that saw over 400 000 black households acquiring land previously owned by about 4 000 white commercial farmers.
Somewhere along the way, the Brits were overtaken by the Americans and now Zimbabwe is like the orphan that everyone publicly pities, but is unwilling to assist.
Last week, SAPES Trust held a debate in Harare which brought together some of the ‘Who is Who’ of the Zimbabwean issue:
l Dr Alex Vines – head Africa Programme, Chatham House; research director, Area Studies and International Law.
l Nicolas Cook – Specialist in African Affairs, Congressional Research Service
l Knox Chitiyo – associate fellow, Africa Programme, Chatham House
l Piers Pigou – senior consultant Southern Africa, International Crisis Group (ICG).
l Brian Kagoro – lawyer (although I feel that is not sufficient given how instrumental he has been in the setting up of various civil society initiatives).
What I have deduced from what was presented by the discussants is that the Americans and the British are yet to find each other on the way forward in relation to their engagement with Zimbabwe.
The Chatham House representatives (Chitiyo and Vines) were positive that Zimbabwe was steadily finding its way back into the community of nations.
This position was supported by ‘Africa’s representative’, Pigou, who expressed his desire for Zimbabwe to tow the line.
The American (Cook) was sceptical about Government’s reform programme, saying Zimbabwe was insincere.
He said the country was only targeting low-hanging fruits and recommended limited engagement with Government.
The one person who made some sense in all this was Kagoro, who highlighted that the British and Americans have no policy towards Zimbabweans, but have policies directed at President Robert Mugabe and Vice-President Emmerson Mnangagwa.
That has become our reality, as Zimbabweans, locally and abroad. There are those who see the bigger picture (continued isolation of Zimbabwe) and realise that until and unless we find home-grown solutions, we could end up going for over five decades under American sanctions.
The observations and recommendations of the likes of Gavin and Hanke, who are far removed from the ordinary Zimbabwean’s day-to-day existence, provide further justification for the West to maintain its sanctions on us.
The situation is worsened by what I call ‘enablers’, the likes of Chitiyo who have made it their life’s calling to facilitate the continued isolation of Zimbabwe.
Are these progressive Zimbabweans or mere quislings?