Added: Saturday, 19 July 2008, 04:08 PM Mecca time, 01:08 PM GMT
J.: You summarized IMF's outlook quite well. But it is precisely this aim that has destroyed so many economies. SAP had not only failed in Zim. by 2000 but also in around 50 more countries around the world. IMF insists on exports and cutting govern. spending while a country like Zim. needed larger internal markets which needed govern. spending. IMF doesn't care about income inequalities so long it spurs export, but a country's over-all well-being needs social equity, IMF would rather that white-owned rain-fed farms in Zim. kept rearing cattle for beef export but Zim. govern. wanted this land for growing cereals because cattle ranching could also be done on drier low-land. Zim. economy failed because of reasons like ESAP in 1991, IMF sanctions, and drought which resulted in under-utilization of land. In Western press, these underlying reasons were never discussed, only re-distribution policy was attacked. For Zim. these policies made perfect social and economic sense.
SKS, Bangalore, India
Added: Friday, 18 July 2008, 09:16 PM Mecca time, 06:16 PM GMT
SKS The IMF decides on a case by case basis what should be done. All they really want is a good return on their investments. If that looks unlikely then they want to make sure that the country takes appropriate action so that they may be able to make good on their debts in the future (hence SAPs). If a country defaults on an SAP, the IMF has to decide if the investment is a total loss or not. In some instance (like Uganda) the IMF thinks that a defaulting country might still be able to make good on its debts, it will postpone any disciplinary actions. In the case of Zimbabwe, Mugabe only met IMF concerns with contempt. More importantly, the IMF became increasingly concerned that the Land Reforms would hurt it's agricultural output as evidenced by the decreasing yield of redistributed farms.. again Mugabe was unwilling to make any concessions so the IMF finally threw up their hands and said enough. The IMF website has a whole chronology of the Zimbabwe's case, its very informative
J., LA, United States
Added: Friday, 18 July 2008, 09:48 AM Mecca time, 06:48 AM GMT
J., LA, United States: You are quite correct about the IMF sanctions. However, you must bear in mind that IMF doesn't always behave this way. As an example, Uganda was being funded to fight a war in Congo while Zim. was being put under sanctions for fighting the same war. Also, most countries under IMF's SAP dictates defaulted at one point or another, but did IMF cut their credit lines (e.g. Uganda, Rwanda). How many businesses in the US will survive if the bank lending rate became 40%? (you could check what happened in the US in 1980s when the rates were sharply increased). Yet, a poor country like Zim, whose currency also collapsed as a resul,t was treated this way. White farms were taken but could not be sown owing to severe shortage of inputs, drought from 2000, and delays in assigning land owing to legal battles (backed by MDC). But without IMF sanctions, Zim might have been deep under debt but would have managed (e.g. Uganda).
SKS, Bangalore, India
Added: Friday, 18 July 2008, 01:30 AM Mecca time, 10:30 PM GMT
The world should be appalled by violence and aggression. But those who hate the usa's global dominance would support Mugabe regardless, as they would rather play politics than accept that Mugabe acts unjustly. Afterall, who are they more angry about, the big usa, or the almost tiny zimbabwe?
JohnBoy27, Leicester, Great Britain (UK)
Added: Wednesday, 16 July 2008, 06:20 PM Mecca time, 03:20 PM GMT
I would think that the same rules apply in Africa as in The Middle East. The USA should stay well out of it. This is Africa's problem. The Black man has to learn to stop killing his own in order to enrich himself. Quite frankly, the wholesale slaughter - starvation - cruelty - slavery - lawlessness and rape of blacks by blacks makes me wonder as a black man if Africans deserve freedom? The best answer for Mugabe is two too the back of the head. But let's not kid ourselves, Mugabe is no longer running anything but his mouth. The security forces and the military are in firm control. If you ask me, Mugabe is fighting for his life at the moment. The question becomes when will the security forces decide he needs to go and what can they get for him? That decision is question.
Hunucru, United States
Added: Wednesday, 16 July 2008, 06:15 PM Mecca time, 03:15 PM GMT
SKS, let me first ask you to clarify your statement "productivity of black farms was far higher in 1980s"... are you saying that the productivity of black farms was higher in the 1980s than it is now, or that it was higher than white farmers' in the 1980s? I disagree with your point: (1) we aren't talking about the "loss of agricultural productivity", we are talking about the complete collapse of the agricultural sector. NGO have documented a significant percentage of the farms going to high level ZANU-PF members and these farms were filled with weeds because of lack of care. I can dig up some papers if you want. In regard to the IMF, I agree that they are glorified loan sharks, but the sanctions you referenced were a direct result of Zimbabwe defaulting on its financial agreements. If they couldn't pay the loan back, they were supposed to follow the SAP and it didn't. Zimbabwe lost its international credit because it proved to the world that it could not honour its obligations.
J., LA, United States
Added: Tuesday, 15 July 2008, 03:15 PM Mecca time, 12:15 PM GMT
J., LA, United States: Your first and the last two facts are ok, the rest shows that you need to learn more: (1) The loss of agriculture productivity was more owing to high prices of important inputs such as fertilizers and fuel since early 1990. People who blame the land distribution programme miss two important facts: (a) productivity of black farms was far higher in 1980s, (b) the down-turn began much before the land redistribution programme was announced in 1998. (2) IMF sanctions on Zim were imposed in 2000. This meant Zim could not pick any credit from markets without paying very high interest rates, and not sell using international banking. This resulted in the collapse of Zim currency. For what IMF sanctions can do, read more about Argentina in 2001. Do not confuse minor US sanctions with much bigger sanctions already in place.
SKS, Bangalore, India
Added: Monday, 14 July 2008, 09:32 PM Mecca time, 06:32 PM GMT
SKS Fact: Zimbabwe is in a terrible economic crisis that's stemming from lack of food. Fact: one of the major reasons for lack of food is the inexperience of farmers. Fact: Mugabe made no efforts to train the farmers he installed in land redistribution campaign. Fact: Many of the farmers he did install were high ranking ZANU-PF cronies, not peasants. Fact: Mugabe says that this crisis was not caused by famine but was caused by Western Sanctions. Fact: Until the past several months, Western sanctions on Zimbabwe amounted to 19 high-ranking ZANU-PF party members having their bank accounts frozen and their travel privileges revoked. Fact: After the initial elections, Mugabe's veterans beat up and in some cases killed MDC supporters for "voting wrong". Fact: Mugabe never denounced this behaiviour and in some cases encouraged it. FactMugabe's wife said "Even if people vote for the MDC, Morgan Tsvangirai will never step foot inside State House. He will only get to hear about what it looks like inside State House fomwho've been there'' what conclusion should I draw SKS?
J., LA, United States
Added: Monday, 14 July 2008, 06:03 PM Mecca time, 03:03 PM GMT
WattsR, you say the West stopped a single slaughter in Africa? News to me. Tell me what slaughter has the West stopped? Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Somalia, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Kenya, Rwanda, Angola? A monstrous portion of the wealth of Western nations have been found on the backs, the ground underneath, and the plants of Africa from north to south, east to west. Slavery, slaughter, mining, theft, swindling ... you name it. Why did Condoleezza say a couple of years ago "hands off Viktor Bout?" If the West stopped any slaughters, I assure you, it was only because they were losing too many slave-waged workers to go unprotected into these toxic mines to pull up the diamonds, uranium, gold and everything else that makes the Western world function at opulent levels.
Nelson Rappaport, Stockholm, Sweden
Added: Monday, 14 July 2008, 05:56 PM Mecca time, 02:56 PM GMT
rainmaker, "I think they are not democrats, I think he sees them as traitors to the nation." There in lies the problem. IT IS THEIR CHOICE, NOT YOURS AND NOT HIS. Zimbabwe does not belong to Robert Mugabe or to rainmaker, it belongs to the people who live there. He is a traitor to his people if he is willing to betray them by silencing their voices... you know those voices he is supposedly fighting the West to defend. In reality, the only thing that he defends is his own narcissism, he defends this patriarchy in which he tells Africans how to lead their lives. If he is truly a freedom fighter, why won't he let his people freely choose their own futures? Does African freedom only mean doing exactly what Robert Mugabe says?
