On Monday, 30 March 2009, SADC leaders converged at Lozitha Royal Palace in Mbabane, Swaziland to consider a US$10billion economic recovery aid package for Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe was represented at the extraordinary summit by President Robert Mugabe of ZANU-PF and Finance Minister Tendai Biti of the MDC.

On the face of it, this was a very unusual meeting; the size of the aid needed and the targeted potential donor (SADC) made the whole affair strange. Firstly, Zimbabwe needs about US$10 billion in its begging bowl; SADC simply does not have that kind of money to throw around. Mozambique, like several other SADC countries, relies on donor funds for more than 80% of its own national budget needs. Most of the SADC member states themselves are beggars to whom another beggar, Zimbabwe was now turning. The only country with some financial muscle to speak of is South Africa. However, at the end of the meeting South Africa pledged just US$30 million to be disbursed in batches of $10 million over the next 3 months.

The extraordinary summit, as expected, failed to come up with the much needed aid. Instead, the summit did three highly significant things. First, it pledged support for Zimbabwe’s fundraising efforts. Second, the summit ‘urged the developed countries to lift all forms of sanctions against Zimbabwe as these sanctions will undermine the country’s and SADC efforts to normalise the situation in that Member State’. And, finally, the summit ‘established a Committee of Ministers of Finance comprising South Africa, Zambia, Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Botswana, Zimbabwe as well as the Executive Secretary of SADC to coordinate SADC support to the Zimbabwe recovery process.’

It was clear from the outset that SADC would not have the kind of money Zimbabwe was asking for, so that could not have been the main objective of the extraordinary summit. This was, l submit, not just another fundraising summit. It was a carefully planned manoeuvre by President Mugabe and ZANU-PF to neutralise the MDC and steal the limelight. It was a desperate attempt on the part of ZANU-PF to revive its propaganda and disguise it as a SADC position. Such a revelation would explain why President Mugabe travelled to Swaziland in person. How, one might ask, would a SADC summit that fails to give aid neutralise MDC?

We need to understand that the inclusive government in Zimbabwe is made up of rival political parties that are already looking to the next elections and scheming accordingly. Zimbabwe’s economy is in the intensive care unit and urgently needs to be revived. The only way to revive the economy is to get aid from external sources. The party that secures aid, and therefore revives the economy will get the credit in the eyes of the electorate. It is common cause that MDC is widely viewed as having friends in the international aid community and that ZANU-PF has burnt all bridges with the international donor community. Therefore, ZANU-PF’s political challenge would be how to secure aid without giving credit to MDC. And this is where the SADC Summit comes in.

The SADC Summit’s true purpose was to get SADC to collectively accept and endorse ZANNU-PF’s rhetoric and propaganda that Zimbabwe’s economy was destroyed by the ‘cruel sanctions of developed nations’ and that continuation of such ‘sanctions’ would undermine any efforts by Zimbabwe and SADC to normalise the situation in Zimbabwe. The SADC Communiqué at the end of the Summit embraced this view and by so doing achieved two things; it explained both the past failure of Zimbabwe’s economy and the potential future failure to revive the economy as a direct consequence of sanctions. We all know very well that this is nonsense. The so-called sanctions that exist are travel restrictions targeting ZANU-PF politicians that were put in place for reasons not yet addressed; reasons such as absence of rule of law, wanton human rights abuses and bad governance.

The SADC Summit Communiqué further proclaimed support for Zimbabwe’s fundraising efforts and immediately set up a ‘Committee of Ministers of Finance comprising South Africa, Zambia, Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Botswana, Zimbabwe as well as the Executive Secretary of SADC to coordinate SADC support to the Zimbabwe recovery process.’ This is a classical diplomatic coup that ZANU-PF pulled. It means MDC is no longer responsible for fundraising for Zimbabwe, but instead, SADC has that mandate, and necessarily, MDC cannot claim to have rescued the country and brought it back from the brink of collapse. Looking to elections ahead, l can predict ZANU-PF will be quick to dismiss the contribution of MDC and give all credit to ZANU-PF and the SADC Coordination Committee tasked with fundraising in Europe and the United States. The mandate of the SADC Coordination Committee is to ‘visit major capitals in Europe, Asia and America as well as major financial institutions to mobilise support for Zimbabwe’s economic recovery programme.’

The other purpose that the SADC Summit serves for ZANU-PF is that it gives ZANU-PF opportunity to save face and justifies going to the west to beg under some twisted logic that in fact ZANU-PF has not changed its stance, but rather, it is the west merely lifting sanctions. It would be interesting to find out from ZANU-PF what became of their glorified ‘Look East Policy.’ One would have expected China to be the knight in shining armour riding to Zimbabwe’s rescue. The problem with President Mugabe and ZANU-PF is that they are in denial. They are in denial about the huge role they both played in destroying the economy through mismanagement, cronyism, corruption and use of knee-jerk reaction policies such as the ill-fated look east policy. They are in denial that they have failed to deliver and as such must necessarily step aside and allow fresh brains and fresh blood to try new policies. Therefore, the driver who refused to take directions from anyone and landed us in this ditch, still insists on (ostensibly) driving us out of the ditch, and again, believes he knows the right direction! God have mercy on us.

The unfortunate part of it all is that for the past ten years of struggle for democracy in Zimbabwe, ZANU-PF has managed to run circles around SADC with the result that SADC has become a mere appendage of ZANU-PF unable to independently and objectively come to the aid of the people of Zimbabwe. Quite ironically, the same SADC, in the same Summit Communiqué, had quite strong language for Madagascar where a military coup took place two weeks ago. SADC leaders said they, ‘condemned in the strongest terms, the unconstitutional actions that have led to the illegal ousting of the democratically elected Government of Madagascar and called for an immediate restoration of constitutional order in the country’. SADC suspended Madagascar, with immediate effect, from participating in any of its organs until it returns to normalcy. Talk of double standards!

I’ve just finished Dead Aid, Zambian economist Dambisa Moyo’s book on “why aid isn’t working and how there is another way for Africa.”

At a time of STERP and budget slashing, Moyo’s book poses an interesting challenge to Zimbabwe’s Minister of Finance and the inclusive government as a whole.

Moyo is sharply critical of aid and its role in Africa’s development:

Sixty years, over US$ 1 trillion of African aid, and not much good to show for it. Were aid simply innocuous – just not doing what it claimed it would do – this book would not have been written. The problem is that aid is not benign – it’s malignant. No longer part of the potential solution, it’s part of the problem – in fact aid is the problem.

Foreign aid and concessional loans have contributed to Africa’s bad governance and human rights track record, Moyo posits, by supplanting the relationship between governing and governed with the relationship between government and donor.

Moyo doesn’t for a moment doubt Africa’s need to develop. But rather than relying on aid for this purpose, Moyo recommends that countries instead turn to a combination of:

• Bonds
• Trade – local, regional and foreign
• Foreign Direct Investment
• Micro-finance
• Leveraging remittances

In her book, Moyo outlines the potential each one of these areas has for promoting growth – and the challenges countries would face in leveraging each of these options.

Unfortunately, the principle challenge raised by Moyo’s suggestion is a governance one – it would require political will for governments to convert their aid dependency into a more business model approach to financing. Financing is hard work compared to getting aid, and it requires transparency, accountability, and sound decision making to keep it. For politicians who have themselves been getting rich off of aid – even as their countries don’t develop – there’s a disincentive to move to the harsher conditions of the market. Those politicians who would want to change would face stiff resistance from their more corrupt and less forward thinking colleagues.

Despite the obstacles, Moyo consistently argues that moving away from donor dependence and towards a more diversified, business model of finance, is good for its own sake, as well as having the potential to be more financially lucrative. Of course, as Moyo points out, having confidence in the institutions – the banking system, the government, the laws, and the government’s respect for these laws – is an important part of encouraging business in a country.  Zimbabwe has a long way to go on this score; suspicion is still rife.

But Moyo’s point on remittances particularly stood out, given recent conversations I’ve been having.

The UN estimates that there are around 33 million Africans living outside their country of origin. Remittances – the money Africans abroad sent home to their families – totalled around US$20 billion in 2006. According to a United Nations report entiteld Resource Flows to Africa: An Update on Statistical Trends, between 2000 and 2003 Africans sent home about US$17 billion each year, a figure that even tops Foreign Direct Investment, which averaged US$ 15 billion during this period.
…
Although the actual remittance sums taken individually are relatively small, taken collectively the remittance amounts flowing into African nations’ cofferes are enormous. On  a household level, remittances are used to finance basic consumption needs: housing, children’s education, healthcare, and even capital for small businesses and entrepreneurial activities – the heart of an economy.
…
Remittances are, of course, in some sense a form of aid (the recipient is essntially getting something for nothing). And like other forms of aid, there is the inherent risk that remittances encourage reckless consumption and laziness. But at least some part of the money is reaching the indigent and making its way to productive uses. And unlike aid, it does not increase corruption.

With Zimbabwe having moved to a US dollar based economy, obviating the official vs. parallel market exchange rate dilemma, and with the mandatory foreign currency remittance to the central bank lifted, moving money from overseas into local bank accounts should become easier. And hopefully, with an interim government that is able to engender a bit more trust in the population, encouraging remittances should be met with less cynicism than Gono’s Homelink initiative was some years back.

Even my lowly banking society, CABS, has created USD accounts for all of its existing ZWD account holders. One only has to deposit $10 into the account for it to be active – the same swipe card, account number and pin number apply.

One can imagine an economy in which shops again started offering point of sale services – for customers to swipe their USD account bank cards. Schools could offer their account details for both local and Diasporan Zimbabweans to pay school fees directly into their accounts. Relatives could make other purchases, for example for electronics, equipment or other investments directly into the supplier’s bank account.

Morgan Tsvangirai recently estimated that rebuilding Zimbabwe will require at least US$ 5 billion. The revised 2009 budget stands at about US$ 1 billion – and most of that is for running the country, not rebuilding it. And whilst Zimbabwe is asking for aid, Mugabe’s and Zanu PF’s assets remain untouched. Zimbabwe needs financial help – but it needs this help to solve its problems, not create new ones or compound the existing ones. It’s time to get creative about how we finance our future – and depending on donors to bail us out isn’t the only way.

If the response that we get from Kubatana subscribers is anything to go by, its quite clear that Zimbabweans need ways in which they can make their grievances known and know that their concerns are being heard and being addressed. Emails are flooding in from people who have a variety of things that they want to Shout Out, like . . .

The pressure must be kept on all persons involved with the future of our people. Decisions that are made by those in power must be looked at and either commended or criticised from now on. - Lionel

May you kindly open a new column/platform where we can air our grievances on unfair load shedding by Zimbabwe Electricity Supply Authority (ZESA). We are subjected to excessive load shedding whereas there are some areas which are enjoying at our expense. In other words, we are subsidising other areas that do not have load shedding. We are all bearing the pain of paying high bills in forex and the problem of power shortage is a national problem therefore it should affect every citizen without sparing anyone. 1. We need a fair load shedding timetable. 2. We need an explanation on why some areas are free from load shedding.
- Alan

Is there any action on protesting about the NetOne bills that we are getting from NetOne and First-tel. 90% of the time there is no network for Netone in Beitbridge. - Priscilla

Sorry to say these parastatals are milking people dry to pay off there salaries. We should not fund the expensive life styles of corrupt officials. They are not accountable to anyone other than themselves and their political bosses. We are sick and tired of patronising these people since 1980. - Wellington

I think serious Zimbabweans should shun from giving information, giving their opinions or commenting on various subjects when asked by ZBC or NEWSNET journalists. - Oliver

Don’t lift any sanctions, say Jenni Williams and Magodonga Mahlangu, the leaders of Women of Zimbabwe Arise (WOZA). A pom pom and more than a few cheers should go their way for saying so clearly what others are too timid, or too diplomatic, or too optimistic to go near.

I was pleased to read that Morgan Tsvangirai our new Prime Minister (is there any power in his “p”) is promising that farm invaders will be arrested. I suggest he starts with the Deputy Commissioner of the Zimbabwe Police, the invader Veterai.

An article titled Stimulus for Zimbabwe by Tom Woods and Roger Bate writing for The American suggests that Zimbabwe takes a leaf out of Liberia’s book when it comes to the reconstruction of our country.

According to the authors “Liberia faced a similar challenge in 2005. Strong bipartisan and international support for assistance existed, but the transition government had its hand in the proverbial cookie jar. The United States pushed for the creation of a Liberian Governance and Economic and Management Assistance Program (GEMAP), which controlled diamond, timber, and other revenues coming into the government’s coffers so that funds were fully accounted for and could not be embezzled to Swiss banks or allocated to corrupt activities.”

So Woods and Bate recommend that Zimbabwe adopt a Zimbabwe Economic Management Assistance Program (ZEMAP) similar to GEMAP to get us back on the road to recovery.

Here’s an excerpt from the article:

Zimbabwe’s power-sharing arrangement should be viewed as an imperfect and temporary solution to a profoundly unstable political and humanitarian situation. Transparent and internationally monitored elections should be pursued in the shortest timeframe possible and should be linked to any foreign assistance.