Thursday 11 August 2011

Lords of Wars

Since the 1970’s, at least 10 different African countries were engaged in some sort of war or internal conflict at any one time. The causes of war in Africa are complex: the consequences can span generations.
International influences, and the exchange of lucrative minerals for small arms, have worsened African wars. Every war in Africa is driven by the need to either gain access to resources or protect a foreign power’s   ‘special interests’. 
In Zimbabwe’s case, wars as early as the late 1800’s were fought over land.  The denial of access to arable land by a minority group led to further wars starting in the 1970’s. Ceremonial Independence was granted to Zimbabwe in 1980. Unfortunately due to foreign interference, land could not be fairly shared between inhabitants.  Disagreements in the newly Independent Zimbabwe led to ‘civil war’ between 1982 and 1987. All around Zimbabwe; both Mozambique and Angola had their own internal wars. Zimbabwe provided military support to both.  
By 1988, Angola had managed to regain its sovereignty, however, trouble was brewing in Rwanda and the Congo. The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), formerly called Zaire, played host to Africa’s First World War. Different ethnic groups had engaged in battle from 1963-1966. Between 1993 and 1996 further ethnic troubles and massacres in Rwanda led to full scale war. Rwanda, Uganda, Angola and DRC were the main participants. By 1988, Zimbabwe was involved- so were Namibia and Burundi. Zambia, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Chad, Sudan and Libya played minor roles. Major countries like the USA, Britain and France, provided financial and other support.
Over 5 million died as the result of direct conflict in Africa’s First Total War. Millions of refugees were displaced. Economies ground to a standstill, in the Great Lakes Region. Up to today conflicts have become endemic in Central Africa. Small weapons are rife and infrastructure is inexistent.
Zimbabwe expended millions of dollars, it did not have, and soldiers lost their lives. Given the government was unable to explain its war funding; it ultimately lost financial support from the IMF. This precipitated the collapse of the Zimbabwe Dollar.
After Zimbabwe’s struggle for liberation, liberation fighters were not compensated for their efforts. In 1997, with Zimbabwean troops fighting in the DRC, war veterans waged demonstrations demanding compensation. The Government printed billions of dollars in paper money further weakening the declining Zimbabwe Dollar. Land which had not been distributed after the war also became a sore point. Its partial redistribution destroyed productive capacity.
Wars cost money. At one point someone has to pay the bills. For African countries, wars have meant the destruction of human and financial resources. Furthermore attrition between nations and tribal groups fosters poor trade relations. In the long term the settling of old scores implies they will be no future peace or profit. For The African they is no war with profit. Even the elites end up exporting their children to escape the general poverty and resultant instability. This is on top of millions of other refugees in Africa. Does war benefit the Lords of War? This question will be answered in my next article The War & Debt Procession.

Monday 1 August 2011

Zimbabwe Indigenisation the Plot Thickens

The Zimbabwe Government wants to push through its Indigenisation & Economic Empowerment Act. The latter would force companies to sell 51% of their equity to local indigenous businessmen.So far, targeted mines are refusing to comply with indigenisation legislation. Surprisngly, The Reserve Bank Governor has brought forward interesting arguments against the current indigenisation strategy. The Governor identifies that equity ownership will not benefit the majority of Zimbabweans. Zimbabwe has high levels of poverty and the majority cannot buy shares in large mining concerns. Also, the Governor indentifies, The Land Reform process benefited connected cliques who are underutilizing farms.
The desire by Zim's rich ruling elites to get their hands on equity shows how disconnected they are from the needs of the masses. As these well connected elites have amassed wealth, they have egotistically reached levels of self actualization, in Maslow's Hierachy of Needs(MHoN). Dr Gono, the Central Bank Governor, advises; indigenisation should be carried out on a Supply and Distribution methodology. Such a method will require the poor and disadvantaged to be involved in the  mining and industry sectors as direct contributors to the production process. This would allow the socially excluded to cater for their basic needs(food & shelter) in MHoN, as they also take part in production. How disparate the needs of the majority have become from those of their rulers. The people need food, and the rulers promise them shares. Dr Gono even states shares will only fall into the hands of the already rich and powerful. As we all live in a world of creative accounting, share ownership does not gaurantee dividend payment.These pieces of paper are grand delusions of desire- in all cases not connected to true productivity and value.
Dr Gono has spoken like a humane economist-his analysis in this case deserves praise. However, the politically connected oligarchs will beg to differ, as the plot thickens. Soon, we will find out whether Dr Gono does have political ambitions.
For the full report by Dr Gono visit:  http://www.newzimbabwe.com/business-5710-Gono+pushes+indigenisation+re-think/business.aspx