Shaping Zimbabwe's Economy Using African Model
Posted: Monday, December 9, 2002
Analysis By Dr. David Nyekorach-Matsanga in London
Printer friendly version
The Persistence of Vulnerabilities in Zimbabwe
During the past 9 months, the CNN, BBC and other western media outlets have been focusing the attention of its viewers on the imminence of another cataclysm in Zimbabwe: the collapse of the state of Zimbabwe. This expected to lead, before the end of this year or early in the new one, to devastating economic consequences in the Southern Africa state of ZIMBABWE. We are accordingly being reminded, should we ever pretend to have forgotten, of the extent the neo-colonial masters have predicted the vulnerability of the Zimbabwe economy then GOD will hate us.
This plus the current drums of war in Europe against President Mugabe has forced me to write this analysis for that doubting Thomas that never heard Dr. Herbert Murewa's quote from the Bible at the end of the Budget of 2003 in November. I had decided not make my feelings known but as humble Christian and Director of Africa Strategy whose voluntary duty is to defend and correct the wrong impression the British government and the opposition MDC are spreading in Europe about Mugabe I have to the dirty toxins on Zimbabwe now being spread by the followers of the Mad and Disoriented Creatures (MDC) in this country.
The negative notion on Zimbabwe has not changed a bit since 1997.The blame has been put on President Mugabe's policies yet the whole pattern of our economies in Africa remains the same. At the root of this lie structural imbalances and rigidities. These manifest themselves in the form of (i) demographic explosion; (ii) rapid desertification; (iii) frequent periodic drought in economies whose agriculture is virtually completely rain-dependent; (vi) dependencies; (v) economic and social disequilibria; (vi) lack of public accountability; (vii) destabilisation caused by conflict created by British and American systems, civil war, internal strife and coup d'etat; and, (viii) the debt overhang.
Unless and until these imbalances and inequalities are addressed at the root, the African economies will continue, at best, to achieve growth without development and at worse neither growth nor development. This requires a fundamental restructuring of the African and therefore Zimbabwean political economy is not an exception.
In my analysis I will try to show to those enemies in the Western World who hate President Mugabe that it is not his fault but it is a general trend on the continent. It requires an integrated approach to development that takes into account the effective inter dependence and linkage of economic sector activities, recognising the special role played by the food and agriculture sector as the leading production sector in an economy going through a period of demographic explosion like the one in Zimbabwe. Any government faced with this outside pressure needs measures for raising the general level of productivity to reverse the declining production trends. It will require giving very high priority to combating desertification including stopping all activities that bring about deforestation. This will increase production and stop future drought. Indeed, the protection of the environment and the cycle of reproduction of species require an optimum balance between population and nature and consequently the avoidance of a development profile that involves the depletion of or irreparable damage to environmental resources.
As political scientist I believe that most countries in the west have ignored the rules that govern environmental issues as far as Africa economies are concerned. The demand for timber in Europe has forced people in Africa to cut down forests that has caused the change of weather patterns. The colonial economy did not emphasis the need for human beings as the owners of the process, which has led to break down in relationship in most African nations like Zimbabwe. Above all, it requires a sustainable human-centred development process to be able to get out of economic hardships.
At present, in most SSA countries, less than one-third of the population have no access to potable water and electricity. Education for all still remains an unattained objective as a result Africa's illiterate population is increasing. The goals of competitiveness and efficiency will remain unattainable in a society burdened by deficient and inefficient economic and social infrastructure. So also will it be unattainable in a polity where the British and their stooges have demonised democracy, distorted governance and confused public accountability and where the fragile socio-political systems are often undermined by internal strife created by British and USA intelligence networks, coup d'etat, conflicts and civil war. Like Zimbabwe.
These often paralyse the state and turn them into a failure. States collapse when fragmented by internal strife like what the MDC and the British are advocating Zimbabwe in which none of the factions is capable of re-establishing central authority or when they lose their legitimacy in the eyes of the majority of their population and are therefore unable to exercise authority without excessive coercion or when they are rent by the unbridled greed and avarice, incompetence, negligence. The British and USA want to create such chaos in Zimbabwe by trying to overthrow the government of Mugabe. These signs are at advanced state in Zimbabwe.
A sound management of the economy is also a condition sine qua non of an effective viable and dynamic state. Macro-economic policy that alienates the government from the people, impoverishes the population and throws them out of jobs may achieve higher rates of economic growth for a while but certainly not sustainable human development. That is why I agreed with President Mugabe when he said no to devaluation and he has totally refused the instruments of neo-colonialism called IMF and World Bank.
No one now disputes that "demand management" which is a requirement of structural adjustment programmes of the 'World Bank and the IMF is largely politically motivated and shortsighted. Nor that these programmes have had little success in reviving economic growth on a sustainable basis in SSA. Impartial observers, particularly among Western experts, have now come round to my long-held view points that SAPs are too un-focused, typified by the proliferation of conditions, where more than hundred conditions per programme have not been unusual. As a person who has read some economics to a level of distinguishing between good and bad I will concur with the Zimbabwean approach that looks at the future of the nation not the interests of the current MDC demands and of the British hegemony.
How does Zimbabwe resume the struggle to forge the future?
Then the time is now and the delivery has been done by the land distribution programme, which has been completed.
The Economist in one of its leader articles - Emerging Africa - on the June 14, 1997 issue, inter-alia, urged Africa to forge its own future. This is no doubt a very opportune and appropriate counsel to give. This indeed is in conformity with the acknowledgement made from time to time by the Western world that the primary responsibility for the development of Africa is that of the people of Africa and their leaders. Indeed, at their Denver Summit in June 1997, the so-called Seven (now turned Eight) most industrialised democracies of the world echoed the same sentiments when they stated that developing countries have a fundamental responsibility for promoting their own development, and that developed countries must support these efforts. But when Zimbabwe brought out its land reform program most of these so called countries tried their level best to distort and reject these reforms. Hence the start of the economic hardships that this country is facing.
However, as all Zimbabweans know, the reality has been quite different. Every attempt that has been made by the Zimbabweans to forge their future, to craft their own development strategies and policies has been rebuffed by the so-called international financial institutions (IFIs) with the support or at least the connivance of the donor community. While the Zimbabwean leader can be faulted in some ways as alleged by the imperial monster powers, at least in this regard, fairness demands a full acknowledgement of the series of heroic efforts which he has made since the 1980s to craft his own indigenous development paradigms in the light of the perceptions of his people.
Mugabe has been the only African leader who has followed and understood all the declarations of the African meetings. The Lagos Plan of Action in 1980 (LPA); Africa's Priority Programme for Economic Recovery 1986 to 1990 (APPER) which was later turned into the United Nations Programme of Action for Africa's Economic Recovery and Development UN-PAAERD) by its adoption by the General Assembly of the United Nations at its Special Session of May/June 1986; the African Alternative Framework to Structural Adjustment Programmes for Socio-Economic Recovery and Transformation (AAF-SAP) in 1989 and, the African Charter for Popular Participation for Development in 1990. The UN General Assembly also adopted both AAF-SAP and the African Charter. I can mention a long list of all these important declarations whose ink has only dried on paper but not implemented by the same neo-colonial masters.
Unfortunately, all of these were opposed, pooh-poohed, undermined and jettisoned by the Bretton Woods institutions. This has been a matter of concern and bitter frustration to Africans who see these negative reactions as the blatant exercise of power by the rich over the poor and, more importantly, as a negation of the democratic principles and the denial of the rights of a people to make decisions about their future - regardless whether such decisions prove to be right or wrong.
The undermining of the ability of African governments to determine their development strategy and choose the package of public policies without fearing being turned into international pariahs has made a farce of the pro-democracy movement. It is indeed inconsistent to champion the cause of democracy all over Africa and deny the governments and people the elementary right to forge their own future. Thus, the failure to change course and direction of public policies discussed in Section III above has been due largely to both external pressure and resistance. Not the reasons advanced by those opposed to the land redistribution program in Zimbabwe. I am trying to pump sense into those who think that the problems in Zimbabwe were created by Mugabe's land redistribution process.
Debt overhangs as barrier to good economics
At present, it is clear that the only way Zimbabwe can avoid losing the right to be in charge of its own national economic management is by not being burdened by unserviceable debt. But as far as the land redistribution is concerned Mugabe has won the war. It is the only way Zimbabwe can avoid being obliged to pursue programmes that are adjudged to be unfocused. The Economist with its tremendous influence should see to it that the regrettable economic (including debt) situation of Zimbabwe is not l used to deny them the right to craft their own development strategies and policies. This will encourage the resumption of initiatives by the government to the road to recovery, which the new Minister of Finance announced on 15th November 2002.
Needless to add that the African governments and leaders have themselves to blame for their failure to put their money where their mouth is. To adopt, after great deal of effort, discussions, consultations and negotiations, common strategies, policies and programmes only to ignore them in deference to those crafted by donors and international financial institutions in order to have access to loans and credit shows how deep seated African leaders' dependency, lack of self-confidence and commitment have been I thank the leadership in Zimbabwe for the tenacity and steadfastness they have shown when standing firm against the whirl wind of poison from the British decayed foreign policy.
Zimbabwe will only be able to invent for itself a future that will bring rising prospects of prosperity through total commitment to its own programmes and through their vigorous implementation. The policies of economic policy consist not only in their conceptualisation, articulation, adoption and popularisation but also in total and unrelenting commitment to implementation. It is only by so doing that Zimbabwe, particularly as one of the countries in SSA, can rediscover its self-respect and remould its image. We need not to urgently shed the image that we are incapable, as a people, to run a modern society and sustain the independence of our political economies through the process of internally generated development. That is what I saw in the budget of November 2002. I had wanted to see what the British budget would look like before I make my analysis and contribution to the stability of Zimbabwe.
Framework of Zimbabwe's Indigenous Development Paradigm
It is clear from the foregoing that for Zimbabwe's economy to stop going to doldrums it has to fundamentally be reshaped through a human-centre holistic development strategy postulated in the Lagos Plan of Action and the with the Africa Charter on Popular Participation providing the political underpinning. In specific and operational terms, this means
(i) The pursuit of an increasing measure of self-reliance at the national level through (a) the internationalisation of the forces of demand, which determine the direction of development and economic growth reality. In any case, the strategy of export-oriented industrialisation is to enable Zimbabwe to rejoin the global economy more forcefully and more vigorously and take the fullest advantage of the new world order.
(ii) The promotion of private investment in Zimbabwe. While all this is welcome, I believe that Zimbabwe's experience under the Lome Convention however shows that duty-free access is useful if there is the capacity to produce and supply the market in the near future. It is this capacity that the pursuit of this strategy will create.
Zimbabwe's Achilles Heel: Debt Overhang and demonised democracy
To enable Zimbabwe to pursue vigorously and determinedly the pursuit of the goals of its human-centred holistic development paradigm, which the Hon. Minister of Finance put forward to the nation, and the priority goals, its major albatrosses must be successfully and speedily removed. They are the debt overhangs and the perennial attacks on Zimbabwe's democracy. This has led to a halt in development and smooth planning in all sectors of government.
Unfortunately, these cannot be adequately treated in this already long analysis for each of them, given that its importance and complexity, requires to be so treated separately. But this analysis will be considered rather empty if it does not deal, however briefly, with these all-important problems that currently overwhelm the Zimbabwean political economy and threaten to force it to collapse. Let us begin with the debt overhang.
Today, 32 developing countries are classified as Severely Indebted Low Income Countries (SILICs). 25 of these are in Africa. They are Burundi, Cote d'Ivoire, Ethiopia, Guinea, Kenya, Madagascar, Mauritania, Niger, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Sudan, Uganda, Zambia, Central African Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Ghana, Zimbabwe, Liberia, Mali, Mozambique, Nigeria, Sao Tome & Principle Somalia, Tanzania and the Democratic Republic of Congo (formerly Zaire).
These are countries whose 1993 GNP per capita was no more that US $695 per annum and for which either one of the following two key ratios for 1991 to 1993 is above a critical level: present value of debt service to GNP is 80 percent or more, and present debt service to export goods and services is 200 percent or more. In 1994, the total debt of these countries alone was $209.3 billion. 24 percent of this was owed to multilateral institutions, while the balance was made up of bilateral government-to-government and commercial loans. But the real burden of the debt lies in the growing weight of debt service obligations. Because multilateral institutions cannot, under existing rules be rescheduled or reduced, the burden of servicing the debt has risen to unsustainable levels. For the SILICs, the debt burden is like a millstone around their neck. This is what those who blame Mugabe should look at before jumping at conclusions.
Unfortunately, the several moves towards solving the debt crisis through debt relief, reduction and cancellation have been both too late and too little. And until September 1996 when the Highly Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Debt Initiative was launched by the World Bank and the IMF, multilateral debt was excluded from all solutions. The cumulative result of this exclusion was that whereas only 24 percent of total debt was owed to multilateral institutions in 1994, the SILICs debt service obligations to these institutions in the same year was 43 percent of their total debt service burden. In 1980, the percentages were 8.9 and 13 respectively.
Debt has thus become the major obstacle to Zimbabwe's development. Its most devastating impact is felt through the economic effects of debt overhang due to an unsustainable debt stock. Debt overhang discourages domestic and foreign investment by creating uncertainty about inflation, currency stability and future taxation. It also raises the risks of commercial transaction, by increasing the cost of access to trade credits. Consequently, the levels of investment are invariably very low in countries facing debt overhang like Zimbabwe. And needless to add that the rate of growth is low and little development takes place. The debt crisis has also exacerbated Zimbabwe's dependency.
Regrettable as it may sound, there is little evidence that an effective and permanent solution is in sight. The HIPC Debt Initiative, which is the first debt reduction mechanism, which promises to deal with the ongoing debt crisis in a comprehensive and concerted way, has had a very poor start. It is now more than five years since the initiative was heralded as a breakthrough and, in the words of the World Bank President James Wolfensohn, as "very good news for the poor of the world" this optimism remains to be justified. Instead the world institutions have turned heat on Zimbabwe by demonising and isolating the country.
Uganda was so far the only country to benefit from the HIPC Initiative. The debt relief package agreed for the country on April 23, 1997 by bilateral and multilateral creditors amounted to only 19 percent of Uganda's debt burden (i.e. US$338 million). The magnitude of the relief has come as a disappointment and, what was worse, is that it did not become effective until April 2000. As the country's former Minister of Finance, J.S. Mayanja stated, "any delay (in debt relief) was not merely an issue of timing.
But Uganda is still very lucky compared with other SILIC/HIPC countries. Of the other countries - Benin, Burkina Faso, Cote d'Ivoire, Ethiopia, Mali, Mozambique, Zimbabwe and Senegal - whose expected decision point is 1997 little progress has been reported. 6, 5 and 5 countries are slated for 1998, 1999 and 2000 respectively. The 1998 list consists of Chad, Ethiopia, Guinea Bissau, Mauritania, Sierra Leone and Togo; on the 1999 list are Congo, Madagascar, Niger, Tanzania and Zambia while the 2000 list is composed of Cameroon, Central Africa Republic, Rwanda, Sao Tome & Principe and The Democratic Republic of the Congo. Those who blame Mugabe for the mess of the economy of Zimbabwe should read and look at all the national budgets of these countries.
Judged by the slow progress made during the first year of the HIPC Initiative, considerable delay is inevitable in achieving the various completion points. Finally, the point must be that of the 32 SILICs, only 24 have been earmarked to benefit from the HIPC Initiative. The 8 countries - Burundi, Kenya, Sudan, Equatorial Guinea, Ghana, Liberia, Nigeria and Somalia - which have been excluded have no doubt been deemed to be unqualified for one reason or the other which has nothing to do with the objective data based on the ratios of debt service to export goods and services and of present value of debt service to GNP. Consequently, I have no alternative but to conclude rather grimly that it is a long way to the time when Zimbabwe like other African countries can hope to exit from the debt crisis and achieve debt sustainability.
The demonised democracy by the British and USA hegemony
If the persistence of the debt crisis gives cause for concern, the pervasiveness of internal strife caused by the British system has added chaos to the situation in Zimbabwe, continue to give credence to the basket case hypothesis and the sense of hopelessness that it generates. The Economist last year described Africa as a violent continent. Since 1990 it has had about 80 violent changes of government with more than two dozen heads of state and government having lost their lives through political violence changes of government. Six - Sudan, Uganda, Ghana, Burundi, DRC and Benin - have each gone through violence and brutalisation several times.
Nigeria tops the list with its six changes of government. Five other countries - Ethiopia, Sierra Leone, Congo, Comoros and Central African have had three battings each, while two - Burkina Faso and Chad - have experienced violent changes four times. Eight other countries - Mauritania, Mali, Niger, Somalia, Rwanda, Lesotho, Togo and Liberia - have had it two times with the remaining seven having one bout of violence each during the past four decades. Today, as many as ten SSA countries are engaged in severe political crisis. These conflicts are caused by the British and USA intelligence networks that benefit by looting the resources in Africa, as is the case of the DRC.
Zimbabwe faces of devils of western imperialism
There is no gainsaying the fact that wherever there are conflicts, civil strife and war, there are ipso facto brutalisation, poverty, hunger and starvation and, of course, also debt. They do indeed go hand in hand. There is also invariably democratic deficit. Despotism and kleptocracy engineered by the British intelligence are now rampant in Zimbabwe. Indeed, at the root of Zimbabwe's persistent economic crisis the British and USA perennial bouts of political strife might cause violence in the near future. As I have said again and again, we will never comprehend Zimbabwe's crisis so long as we continue to take a purely the economist viewpoint. What we confront in Zimbabwe is primarily a political crisis created by the British hegemony, albeit with devastating economic consequences.
To achieve lasting peace and sustainable democracy and development In Zimbabwe, it is imperative to fully comprehend and master the many complex factors and forces that have brought about these this current economic stand-off, and political instability. It is too simplistic to regard them as merely a post-independence teething problem and to resort to stereotypes by lumping them together under the banner of ethnicity or bad leadership. The truth of the matter is that we really do not know. We are yet to fully comprehend the many underlying causes and histories of conflicts that have, over the centuries, plagued the continent as a whole. And, thereafter, we need to master them by devising strategies and policy options for transcending the existing conflicts and averting potential ones. THIS IS ALL THE LEGACYOF COLONIALISM.
This requires serious, empirical and dispassionate research; not expressions of partisan commitment of MDC nor mouthing of "peace making" platitudes and devaluation of currency. By the very nature of these internal strife, there is an urgent need of applied, proactive research which involves looking back in order to look forward, taking two or three steps back from current or immediate past conflicts in order to understand their causes and dynamics more fully so that we can look one or two steps forward to master and transcend them.
It is only by so doing that we can lay a firm foundation for sustainable economic development and political peace in SSA. It is unforgivable to continue with the pretence that cessation of hostilities and change of government in Zimbabwe is tantamount to peace and economic miracle. It is imperative that we must, through proactive research seek ways and means of achieving lasting economic freedom and peace, which are much needed in Zimbabwe. To us this will be achieved by the tough line we have taken against the British government and the much lobby work that has shut down the rumour factory of the MDC in London.
Fortunately, the African Strategy (AS) which was established some 4 years ago as an independent, non-governmental, non-profit continental organisation for research and to fill the void of strategic thinking has embarked upon mobilising Africa's research and intellectual capacity to undertake such a projects. I have chosen eight countries for case studies. They are Rwanda and DRC in Central Africa; Liberia and Sierra Leone in West Africa; Angola and Mozambique in Southern Africa; Sudan in North Africa; and, Somalia in the Horn of Africa. While virtually every African country is potentially a conflict, country, it is believed that a comprehensive study of these eight countries, which are still engaged in conflict or have recently emerged from it, will enable us to realise the goals of comprehending and mastering African conflicts. (AS) enjoys the full support as of the United Nations in this endeavour. Hence I have applied to the UN for the project to be incorporated and registered into the United Nations System-wide Special Initiative on Africa, which will show our documents and analysis to the international community. Those countries like Zimbabwe will be able to benefit because most us who like Mugabe on the continent will fight tooth and nail to see his programs through.
The Way Forward for Zimbabwe: Facing the Daunting Challenge
To say that the task ahead of Zimbabwe is daunting is no exaggeration. There is also a time factor. I usually disagree with T.S Eliot in all his theories but one thing, which struck me as an African, is the quote "Time past is time future. Are both contained in the time present. And time present in time future" The rest of the world is moving so fast that the gap between it and Zimbabwe has become too wide. I have always been asking my self which way my beloved people of the great Southern African state will go? The Zimbabwean people themselves are yearning for the move forward. Their leaders have risen to the challenge and mobilised the entire people and thereby unleashing their energies for achievement of the Zimbabwean miracle. When I sat in the Zimbabwe Parliament in the Speakers Gallery on 15TH November 2002 and listened to the learned friend Hon. Dr. Herbert Murewa read word by word his plans for the future of Zimbabwe one thing that I was worried of was for him to mention the word "devaluation" which the MDC members were whispering in the Parliament Chambers. But his Bible sermon, which brought in tougher rules on monetary issues pleased and I have to tell you that compared to my dear friend Gordon Brown in the Labour government Hon. Dr. H.Murewa parable were fantastic. He never borrowed and borrowed like the Tony Blair's cash boss.
I want to thank him for having thought like some of who hate IMF and World Bank policies that would bring the downfall of the President Mugabe. There is no room in Zimbabwe politics to contend and simply to persist in continuing to elevate a collection of wrong signals unto national policy. That is why I support the abolition of the Bureau-de-change nightmare in Zimbabwe. They work well in an economy with IMF and World Bank policies not where the offices of IMF have dust on the shelves. That is the message I got as political analyst whose knowledge on economics and on political economy on Africa favours the Murewa approach. Simplification over the acknowledgement of complexity, quick fixes over patience, sustainability and the nominal over the real is not the route of "an economic war cabinet" of President Mugabe.
In other words, those opposed to Mugabe want to persist in the concerns for their "things" rather than for people which as the experience of the 1980s has showed and has created a divided society where the less fortunate are hurt, damaged and discounted by public policies which have jettisoned social justice and sacrificed the common good.
Is Zimbabwe capable of drawing inspiration from East Asia and turn its current basket case country into wonder country during the next two to three decades? Will the people develop the ability to accelerate the rate of accumulating physical and human capital, focus exclusively on productive investment agriculture, make human development the priorities and promote the mastering of technology? Will Zimbabwe strive to join humanity in the acquisition of the new and emerging technologies, which will dominate global economic activities in this twenty-first century? Finally, can I state that action during the next two to three decades should establish the African values, which are truly humanistic, pro-people enforcing social disciple, competitiveness and a high moral code.
If the answers to these questions are positive and affirmative as seen in Zimbabwe and Kenya as countries that have survived without IMF and World Bank then the African elite and policy makers will accept that economic development and transformation does not require mimicking the life-style of the West and that imitative development will not spark off the process of self-sustained development. I believe that we would have begun to develop the self-confidence essential for self-reliance. We need to keep reminding ourselves that development is not a matter of change; it is one of choice.
If Zimbabwe can put its act together, if it can wean itself of its colonial past, its unenviable heritage and its neo-colonial status, the sky is virtually the limit, given its potentials. No doubt leadership - in terms of quality, integrity and commitment - is a crucial factor in the pursuit of the development ethic that alone can bring about the second liberation of this country. Those leadership qualities are in ZANU-PF. The heroes of the first liberation - political independence - were well-known household names in their own times and are still useful to the current situation in Zimbabwe. Because they know all corners of the nation and they can seep with African broom of nationalism. The second liberation needs its own heroes modelled and guided by the fathers of the revolution on all matters and given the knowledge and experience of the first freedom fighters. These must not be the type of MDC sell-outs and turncoats bought by the British but people- both men and women imbued with vision and with fire in their belly who are totally and irrevocably committed to redeem Zimbabwe in the socio-economic fields and continue with the work of Mugabe t of the past two decades; men and women who will uncompromisingly pursue the goals of transforming the Zimbabwean polity, society and economy.
It is my earnest hope that Zimbabwe will succeed in producing such leaders, who can motivate and mobilise their people and galvanize and unleash their energies. In addition, an enabling international environment is, as has been made abundantly clear again and again in my analysis, essential. It is therefore important that the New Global Partnership for Development that the G.7 (now G.8) and the concepts of NEPAD be looked at seriously without destroying the national Independence of Zimbabwe. The major so-called industrialised democracies initiated at their Lyon Summit in 1996 the amorphous agency called NGPD that deal with African problems like they did in 2002 in Canada with NEPAD which I have always called "LEOPARD" because of the colours of the skin in the Canada meeting. But what must be known is that all these are simple "fixes" not solutions the problems of Africa or Zimbabwe.
The real solution is for the people of Zimbabwe to look at their Banking Laws that makes political weaklings in MDC to think that the whole economy is gone. The Kenyan case study and the Ugandan case of1979 after Idi Amin can be used as a comparison and there are lots of things that can be borrowed and learnt from these cases. Africa strategy is ready to avail the documentation of recovery for use as we did help to restore the foreign exchange saga in the Kenyan economy by standing firm against the IMF WARLORDS.
The continued support for democratic institutions of pluralism in Zimbabwe, the rule of law, which is in plenty in Zimbabwe and sustainable human development based on the land redistribution program as, agreed to by the Denver Summit is a welcome follow up development to Africa. However, it is imperative that these words must be matched by deeds. Not by demonising the government of President Mugabe. I have written this analysis for those who have not allowed the government of Zimbabwe to solve its own problems and for those MDC turncoats who are telling their masters in LONDON THAT ZIMBABWE IS FINISHED ECONOMICALLY.
Dr David Nyekorach-Matsanga can be contacted at firstname.lastname@example.org
Send page by E-Mail