If the government on Zimbabwe is deceptive on economic sanctions, then Eric Bloch is even more deceptive. In an article in the Zimbabwe Independent (18 May 2007) titled Sanctions: lies and deception, Bloch denies that there are economic sanctions in Zimbabwe and yet strangely uses the characteristics of economic sanctions to refute their presence.
He justifies the absence of the economic sanctions on the fact that the European Union said there were none and that trade still exists with the West. These are misleading and very simplistic arguments. His arguments show that Bloch either does not have a conceptual understanding of economic sanctions or as is common, he is being politically correct.
But also, we have to take into consideration that Bloch’s economics is informed by neoliberalism, which is in war with the current Zimbabwean government’s leftist policies.
It is wrong for Bloch to suggest that because the entire economic activities have not been blocked then economic sanctions are not present. That is conceptually and practically wrong.
Economic sanctions do not begin and end when there has been total blockade of economic activities. Even if we are to take the example of IMF where, even by his admission, there has been some problems with the relations, that on its own, are sanctions, and huge ones for that matter. The basis of the whole problem in Zimbabwe is because we do not have IMF balanced of payments support, therefore no foreign currency to buy from the external markets. So by Eric Bloch’s own admission (even if we do not extend our argument) he has clearly demonstrated that there are economic sanctions in Zimbabwe.
It is strange for Bloch to suggest that the government of Zimbabwe is lying if it suggests that there are economic sanctions.
It is true that there are economic sanctions and that they are hurting the ordinary people. In all fairness, it is Bloch who has lied about the sanctions.
A deeper analysis of Bloch’s argument is to follow soon.
6 comments:
Thanks for writing that i think it will enligten some of our people who dont the facts on ground
Matshazi, I appreciate your incisive analysis as it mostly has merit. My problem with people who subscribe to your thinking whilst living in the "neo-liberal West" and enjoying the fruits of neo-liberalism while riling against it really amazes me. If you are such a true Africanist who is anti-neocolonialism why don't you stand on principle and join the many in Zimbabwe voting by deed as well as word. The typical flaws in African thinking is that academia fills stomachs and is be al and end all. The real world is about bread and butter issues. One can't eat a degree certificate or academia, in fact, academics have destroyed many a country as they lack the basic intelligence to do what meets the people's basic needs (food, clothing and shelter) a la Robert Mugabe. Capitalism may not be the perfect system but it is the only proven one that has created an environment where man is given the opportunity to fend for his family's basic needs.
I am tired of this sort of cheap propoaganda, you probably still work for Zanu PF anyway as you did when you worked for ZRP.
Sorry for late response. I had not realised that there were comments. I had checked on the main story.
I wonder why it is a scandal for us to criticise neoliberal West when the next guy - born and bred in the neoliberal West - criticises the system. In other words, you are constraining my ability to engage in debate. Joseph Stiglitz, Naomi Klein, McMichael, in fact so many other people born and bred in the neoliberal West viciously criticise the system and the West, yet when Kuthula does so it becomes scandal. Why should I not criticise a system that has a direct link to the suffering of Zimbabweans? Should I keep quite because I stay here? That is flawed reasoning. So I should go back home and then start criticising when I get there. What is the rationale? You are trying to restrict the space to articulate our problems.
Bread and butter issues are determined by the neoliberalism I talk about. If you allow unrestrained neoliberalism, we are going to have to deal with retrenched people, expensive (or unaffordable) health care (in US currently 50 million don't have access to healthcare because of neoliberalism. So these are the bread and butter issues that we talk about.
It’s strange that you disregard academe and yet you appeal to its ideas to rationalise your positions and arguments. You use academic ideas to defend your capitalism, for instance, and yet when Matshazi does so he is scandalised!! Pure hypocrisy.
The other contributor says that my contribution is sheer propaganda. Sure, its his opinion, but he does not show us how exactly it is propaganda. In fact, what does he/she mean by propaganda? If I have written propaganda, let him pinpoint as opposed to using three sentences to make unsubstantiated claims. Which points of mine are propaganda.
"The basis of the whole problem in Zimbabwe is because we do not have IMF balanced of payments support, therefore no foreign currency to buy from the external markets".
Sooo, by your definition, if someone does not support you in your problems, it amounts to economic sanctions. African logic at its best! In the rest of the world you earn foreign currency by selling on external markets. In African logic, this does not apply to Zimbabwe! No , you may destroy your base for earning foreign exchange, and then blaming the IMF for not providing foreign currency! Eish, always something REALLY stupid out of Africa!
I did not say “if someone does not support you in your problems, it amounts to economic sanctions”. That’s your own definition. Don’t put it to me. What I am saying is that the economic problems are a result of shortage of forex, which was caused by the stopping of balance of payments support. I do not know why you want to twist my sentence, read it in the manner that appeals to you and then engage yourself with yourself in the pretext of engaging me. I will not be held responsible for such a careless approach to debate.
For clarity, the way the IMF and WB have behaved constitutes economic sanctions. What led to that or who is responsible is something else. Maybe you do not even have a conceptual understanding of economic sanctions. May you please define it to me, then we can go forward with this debate. Its key because I have a strong feeling that you are not clear with what you are arguing or you are just being difficult. But if you put a definition, then I will hold you word for word and concept for concept. I will also provide my 3 definitions.
Post a Comment