United States – Zimbabwe relations: The limits of Containment.
Tongkeh Fowale
January 15, 2008
Containment was the brand name for US policy towards Africa throughout the Cold War. It was inspired by economic, political as well as strategic considerations. Containment aimed principally at preventing communist incursions into Africa while protecting America´s vital interests in the continent. American policy makers saw Africa as central to US economic and security needs. "The resources of Africa are needed on the side of the free world to aid in the preservation of US security…," argued US strategic planners.
Southern Africa constituted an important area of focus of this policy. The resources of this sub-continent attracted considerable attention from the mineral-hungry US. Besides the US, (West) Germany, the United Kingdom, other European powers and Japan all jointly placed a high demand for minerals from this region to feed their metallurgical, machinery and electrical industries. As a result, the gold, diamond, manganese, bauxite and uranium from Southern Africa, placed this sub-continent as an important area of concern for the major capitalist powers. Such economic pressure exerted by these industrial nations largely shaped and determined the nature, direction and outlook of Southern African politics throughout the Cold War.
The main feature of Southern African politics during this period was the recurrence of armed conflicts against minority regimes throughout the region. Zimbabwe stood out as one of those examples of a prolonged "proxy war." This liberation struggle began in the mid-1960s. The nationalist forces received substantial assistance from the communist bloc especially China and Russia. In an effort to achieve what Ernest Lefever called "the outlook for political stability," the US entered into frantic negotiations to prevent Zimbabwe from radicalizing further. America therefore joined Britain in the search for a diplomatic solution in Zimbabwe.
Desperate to stabilize Zimbabwe before it completely fell into communist hands, US Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger proposed a peace deal to end the stalemate. This "Kissinger Package" as it was called, was deemed unsatisfactory and thus rejected by the Frontline States and Zimbabwean nationalists. This failure notwithstanding, the Carter administration lent its support to negotiations that called for free elections including all the rival parties in the struggle on the principle of equality. This resulted in a diplomatic breakthrough which opened the way to the Lusaka Conference. This conference laid the ground work for the final Lancaster House Conference which brought independence to Zimbabwe in 1980.
Having achieved its desired goal of enforcing a peaceful transition to democracy, the question of inequality in land ownership remained unanswered. The US alongside Britain, made commitments to finance land redistribution, though as the International Crisis Group (ICG) Africa Report No 85 suggests, "… both the UK and US ultimately provided far less financial support for land redistribution than anyone at the Lancaster Conference had envisioned." This half-hearted commitment on the part of Britain and America, marked the beginning of complications that ended up rupturing relations between the US and Zimbabwe.
The most significant change underlying world politics between 1980 and 2000 was the end of the Cold War. This was signaled by the collapse of the Soviet Union and the rise Uni-polarism under American leadership. This period marked the beginning of an era which President George Bush called "a new world Order." During this period of unparalleled authority, the US imposed a new world economic authority aimed at strengthening capitalism at the expense of communism. This was the climate that greeted US – Zimbabwe relations at the dawn of the 21 century.
Relations between Zimbabwe and the US went quite smoothly when President Robert Mugabe showed readiness to respect the Lancaster Constitution. At this time, Mugabe was hailed and showered with praises and honors throughout the West. The US, UK, IMF and World Bank provided financial support to land reforms. Zimbabwe at this time was hailed as one of Africa´s "rare success stories." The buoyant economy held out many investment opportunities. At this time, Mugabe was a good name in the West and he was adorned with honorary degrees from American and British Universities.
However, when Mugabe decided as from the year 2000 to arbitrarily confiscate land without compensation, dissenting voices began to emerge from the West. One of such loud calls for restraint came from the US. At the wake of land seizures in 2000, the US ambassador to Zimbabwe, Christopher Hill cried out loud, "nothing rattles investor confidence more than the prospect of expropriation." Dell further remarked that the constitutional amendment striking down the right to redress for victims of expropriation sent shockwaves through the business community who kept an eye on Zimbabwe.
When Mugabe refused to heed to calls for restraint, the US was among the first western countries to establish a blueprint that defined relations with Zimbwbwe. This blueprint was the Zimbwbwe Democracy Bill (ZDB) passed in March 2000. This bill was supposed to be an instrument of what the US called a "regime change in Zimbabwe." Among other things, the ZDB called for a travel ban and the freezing of foreign assets belonging to President Mugabe, his family and other top government officials. This bill had many implications for Zimbabwe. It sought to deny Zimbabwe access to international loans and credits, called on Zimbabwe to respect existing titles to ownership of property and demanded Zimbabwe to remove its troops from the Congo. The bill further authorized the US President to determine when Zimbabwe had returned to democracy before it could be repealed.
Since the year 2000, America has engaged Zimbabwe in a bitter diplomatic row, characterized by threats, sanctions and verbal exchanges. This period has been very sensitive in American diplomacy, especially in the fight against terrorism following the 9/11 attacks on the US. In this tense international climate, President George Bush ranked Mugabe´s Zimbabwe among what he called "the six outposts of tyranny" in the world.
In the area of sanctions, the US was very swift. Some "narrowly targeted sanctions," were imposed on specific high level individuals and their families in Zimbabwe. By 2003, this list of 77 individuals including Mugabe had their assets frozen in America. In November 2005, President Bush signed an ´executive Order´ expanding the number of those affected by US sanctions and 33 institutions whose assets were frozen in America.
Despite its hostility, threats and sanctions, American policy makers still recognized the importance of Zimbabwe in contemporary Southern African geo-politics, a vital area of western economic investment and vital resources. This importance was highlighted by Gregory Simpkins and Pearl-Alice Marsh, two influential US Senators
After a 10-day fact finding visit o Zimbabwe, they called for a co-ordinated policy to bring Zimbabwe into the ranks of African nations which have developed political and economic stability. "Failure to resolve the crisis [in Zimbabwe]" they said, "would not only have a negative impact on the country´s population, but also will be a tremendous burden for the entire Southern African region." They stressed the need for the US to help Zimbabwe in order to avert the certain fate of that country becoming "a failed state."
Based on their recommendation, the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act was passed in the US Senate in 2001. This act allowed for a selective waiver of visa sanctions such that cooperative elements within ZANU-PF could be allowed into the US for discussions. If a visit to the US would pose a problem for such ZANU-PF officials. The meetings could be arranged in more neutral settings. Simpkins and Marsh had insisted that by isolating the entire ruling party and government, there was hardly any encouragement for any officials to change their behavior or direction of the country.
Arguing further for a less hostile attitude towards Zimbabwe, the Senators stressed on the need to work with the business community to survive the economic crisis. This would also help improve the country´s economic situation and provide humanitarian assistance to the fullest extent possible to the many displaced people as swiftly as possible.
In spite of the seemingly hostile relations between Washington and Harare, the US was at the forefront of humanitarian assistance to Zimbabwe at the wake of the land crisis. "It is easy to write off the Zimbabwean government," said Tony Hall, US ambassador to the World Food Programme, "but we cannot write off the people." Added Hall. "Despite our differences with the government, the United States will stand by the people of Zimbabwe because there is no place for politics when it comes to feeding hungry people." Announcing a US$1.8 million donation for food relief to Zimbabwe and other drought stricken countries of Southern Africa, Hall cautioned that the donation "only scratched on the surface of an essentially political problem."
In the face of a torrent of rhetoric from Washington, Zimbabwe´s President Robert Mugabe has remained unbending. He has shown stubborn defiance to western threats and American-led sanctions. He has also summoned considerable courage to answer Bush´s rhetoric word for word. He has missed no opportunity to cry out loud as a victim of western vilification, double standards and what he has repeatedly called "rank hypocrisy."
Picking on the ZDB, the pivot of American sanctions diplomacy, Mugabe sparked out that the Americans were motivated by racism in passing such a bill. "At no point did the American Senate think of supporting our struggle here by drafting a sanctions bill against Rhodesians who had overthrown the supreme law of the land, the constitution," the furious Mugabe lashed out at the ZDB. "If anything," he continued, "the same Senators who today work with our own people in the opposition to draft the ´iniquitous´ so called Zimbabwe Democracy Bill were part of the infamous rightwing friends of Rhodesia meant to defend overseas white interests."
Adding his voice to Mugabe´s, Jonathan Moyo, one time minister in Mugabe´s cabinet denounced the US and the ZDB. "American legislation is not international law. Under international law, America can only make American laws." Moyo insisted that America was not the policeman of the world and should leave Zimbabwe to run its own affairs.
The most dramatic display in this exchange of words between Bush and Mugabe in recent times took place at the 62 Session of the UN General Assembly in New York in September 2007. Calling Mugabe´s regime "tyrannical," Bush insisted that Mugabe´s government was "an assault on his people." Mugabe on his part used this occasion to paint a picture of white ownership of African land throughout Southern Africa.
"…that control largely persists, though it stands largely challenged in Zimbabwe, thereby triggering the current standoff between us and Britain, supported by her cousin states, most notably the United States and Australia.
"Mr Bush and now Mr Brown´s sense of human rights. precludes our people´s rights to their God given resources, which in their view must be controlled by their kith and kin. I am termed dictator because I have rejected this supremacist view and frustrated the neo-colonialists
"He [Bush] has much to atone for, and very little to lecture us on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. His hands drip with the innocent blood of many nationalities. He kills in Iraq, he kills in Afghanistan. And this is supposed to be our master in human rights."
Mugabe emphatically called on the UN to restrain the big powers from molesting weaker nations. "We are averse to a body in which the economically and militarily powerful behave like bullies, trampling on the rights of weak and small states."
Since the rupture in relations between Harare and Washington, Mr Bush has repeatedly identified Mugabe´s regime with repression, disrespect for human rights and tyranny. Bush has supported every effort aimed at discrediting Mugabe´s government. Such pressure from the west has forced Mugabe to adopt a "look east" policy. "Zimbabwe is very much looking east and there is no turning back" said Mugabe as he turned his back on the west.
With the fall of the Soviet Union in the 1990s, there was a general cry of victory in the west that communism had been contained at last. China´s unrestricted expansion into (Southern) Africa offers new lessons for the western world. Containing communism is one thing, containing China is another. And containing the likes of Mugabe is yet another. The big question here is, what does a Beijing-Harare alliance hold for an 'oil-and-mineral-hungry' Washington?
Southern Africa constituted an important area of focus of this policy. The resources of this sub-continent attracted considerable attention from the mineral-hungry US. Besides the US, (West) Germany, the United Kingdom, other European powers and Japan all jointly placed a high demand for minerals from this region to feed their metallurgical, machinery and electrical industries. As a result, the gold, diamond, manganese, bauxite and uranium from Southern Africa, placed this sub-continent as an important area of concern for the major capitalist powers. Such economic pressure exerted by these industrial nations largely shaped and determined the nature, direction and outlook of Southern African politics throughout the Cold War.
The main feature of Southern African politics during this period was the recurrence of armed conflicts against minority regimes throughout the region. Zimbabwe stood out as one of those examples of a prolonged "proxy war." This liberation struggle began in the mid-1960s. The nationalist forces received substantial assistance from the communist bloc especially China and Russia. In an effort to achieve what Ernest Lefever called "the outlook for political stability," the US entered into frantic negotiations to prevent Zimbabwe from radicalizing further. America therefore joined Britain in the search for a diplomatic solution in Zimbabwe.
Desperate to stabilize Zimbabwe before it completely fell into communist hands, US Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger proposed a peace deal to end the stalemate. This "Kissinger Package" as it was called, was deemed unsatisfactory and thus rejected by the Frontline States and Zimbabwean nationalists. This failure notwithstanding, the Carter administration lent its support to negotiations that called for free elections including all the rival parties in the struggle on the principle of equality. This resulted in a diplomatic breakthrough which opened the way to the Lusaka Conference. This conference laid the ground work for the final Lancaster House Conference which brought independence to Zimbabwe in 1980.
Having achieved its desired goal of enforcing a peaceful transition to democracy, the question of inequality in land ownership remained unanswered. The US alongside Britain, made commitments to finance land redistribution, though as the International Crisis Group (ICG) Africa Report No 85 suggests, "… both the UK and US ultimately provided far less financial support for land redistribution than anyone at the Lancaster Conference had envisioned." This half-hearted commitment on the part of Britain and America, marked the beginning of complications that ended up rupturing relations between the US and Zimbabwe.
The most significant change underlying world politics between 1980 and 2000 was the end of the Cold War. This was signaled by the collapse of the Soviet Union and the rise Uni-polarism under American leadership. This period marked the beginning of an era which President George Bush called "a new world Order." During this period of unparalleled authority, the US imposed a new world economic authority aimed at strengthening capitalism at the expense of communism. This was the climate that greeted US – Zimbabwe relations at the dawn of the 21 century.
Relations between Zimbabwe and the US went quite smoothly when President Robert Mugabe showed readiness to respect the Lancaster Constitution. At this time, Mugabe was hailed and showered with praises and honors throughout the West. The US, UK, IMF and World Bank provided financial support to land reforms. Zimbabwe at this time was hailed as one of Africa´s "rare success stories." The buoyant economy held out many investment opportunities. At this time, Mugabe was a good name in the West and he was adorned with honorary degrees from American and British Universities.
However, when Mugabe decided as from the year 2000 to arbitrarily confiscate land without compensation, dissenting voices began to emerge from the West. One of such loud calls for restraint came from the US. At the wake of land seizures in 2000, the US ambassador to Zimbabwe, Christopher Hill cried out loud, "nothing rattles investor confidence more than the prospect of expropriation." Dell further remarked that the constitutional amendment striking down the right to redress for victims of expropriation sent shockwaves through the business community who kept an eye on Zimbabwe.
When Mugabe refused to heed to calls for restraint, the US was among the first western countries to establish a blueprint that defined relations with Zimbwbwe. This blueprint was the Zimbwbwe Democracy Bill (ZDB) passed in March 2000. This bill was supposed to be an instrument of what the US called a "regime change in Zimbabwe." Among other things, the ZDB called for a travel ban and the freezing of foreign assets belonging to President Mugabe, his family and other top government officials. This bill had many implications for Zimbabwe. It sought to deny Zimbabwe access to international loans and credits, called on Zimbabwe to respect existing titles to ownership of property and demanded Zimbabwe to remove its troops from the Congo. The bill further authorized the US President to determine when Zimbabwe had returned to democracy before it could be repealed.
Since the year 2000, America has engaged Zimbabwe in a bitter diplomatic row, characterized by threats, sanctions and verbal exchanges. This period has been very sensitive in American diplomacy, especially in the fight against terrorism following the 9/11 attacks on the US. In this tense international climate, President George Bush ranked Mugabe´s Zimbabwe among what he called "the six outposts of tyranny" in the world.
In the area of sanctions, the US was very swift. Some "narrowly targeted sanctions," were imposed on specific high level individuals and their families in Zimbabwe. By 2003, this list of 77 individuals including Mugabe had their assets frozen in America. In November 2005, President Bush signed an ´executive Order´ expanding the number of those affected by US sanctions and 33 institutions whose assets were frozen in America.
Despite its hostility, threats and sanctions, American policy makers still recognized the importance of Zimbabwe in contemporary Southern African geo-politics, a vital area of western economic investment and vital resources. This importance was highlighted by Gregory Simpkins and Pearl-Alice Marsh, two influential US Senators
After a 10-day fact finding visit o Zimbabwe, they called for a co-ordinated policy to bring Zimbabwe into the ranks of African nations which have developed political and economic stability. "Failure to resolve the crisis [in Zimbabwe]" they said, "would not only have a negative impact on the country´s population, but also will be a tremendous burden for the entire Southern African region." They stressed the need for the US to help Zimbabwe in order to avert the certain fate of that country becoming "a failed state."
Based on their recommendation, the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act was passed in the US Senate in 2001. This act allowed for a selective waiver of visa sanctions such that cooperative elements within ZANU-PF could be allowed into the US for discussions. If a visit to the US would pose a problem for such ZANU-PF officials. The meetings could be arranged in more neutral settings. Simpkins and Marsh had insisted that by isolating the entire ruling party and government, there was hardly any encouragement for any officials to change their behavior or direction of the country.
Arguing further for a less hostile attitude towards Zimbabwe, the Senators stressed on the need to work with the business community to survive the economic crisis. This would also help improve the country´s economic situation and provide humanitarian assistance to the fullest extent possible to the many displaced people as swiftly as possible.
In spite of the seemingly hostile relations between Washington and Harare, the US was at the forefront of humanitarian assistance to Zimbabwe at the wake of the land crisis. "It is easy to write off the Zimbabwean government," said Tony Hall, US ambassador to the World Food Programme, "but we cannot write off the people." Added Hall. "Despite our differences with the government, the United States will stand by the people of Zimbabwe because there is no place for politics when it comes to feeding hungry people." Announcing a US$1.8 million donation for food relief to Zimbabwe and other drought stricken countries of Southern Africa, Hall cautioned that the donation "only scratched on the surface of an essentially political problem."
In the face of a torrent of rhetoric from Washington, Zimbabwe´s President Robert Mugabe has remained unbending. He has shown stubborn defiance to western threats and American-led sanctions. He has also summoned considerable courage to answer Bush´s rhetoric word for word. He has missed no opportunity to cry out loud as a victim of western vilification, double standards and what he has repeatedly called "rank hypocrisy."
Picking on the ZDB, the pivot of American sanctions diplomacy, Mugabe sparked out that the Americans were motivated by racism in passing such a bill. "At no point did the American Senate think of supporting our struggle here by drafting a sanctions bill against Rhodesians who had overthrown the supreme law of the land, the constitution," the furious Mugabe lashed out at the ZDB. "If anything," he continued, "the same Senators who today work with our own people in the opposition to draft the ´iniquitous´ so called Zimbabwe Democracy Bill were part of the infamous rightwing friends of Rhodesia meant to defend overseas white interests."
Adding his voice to Mugabe´s, Jonathan Moyo, one time minister in Mugabe´s cabinet denounced the US and the ZDB. "American legislation is not international law. Under international law, America can only make American laws." Moyo insisted that America was not the policeman of the world and should leave Zimbabwe to run its own affairs.
The most dramatic display in this exchange of words between Bush and Mugabe in recent times took place at the 62 Session of the UN General Assembly in New York in September 2007. Calling Mugabe´s regime "tyrannical," Bush insisted that Mugabe´s government was "an assault on his people." Mugabe on his part used this occasion to paint a picture of white ownership of African land throughout Southern Africa.
"…that control largely persists, though it stands largely challenged in Zimbabwe, thereby triggering the current standoff between us and Britain, supported by her cousin states, most notably the United States and Australia.
"Mr Bush and now Mr Brown´s sense of human rights. precludes our people´s rights to their God given resources, which in their view must be controlled by their kith and kin. I am termed dictator because I have rejected this supremacist view and frustrated the neo-colonialists
"He [Bush] has much to atone for, and very little to lecture us on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. His hands drip with the innocent blood of many nationalities. He kills in Iraq, he kills in Afghanistan. And this is supposed to be our master in human rights."
Mugabe emphatically called on the UN to restrain the big powers from molesting weaker nations. "We are averse to a body in which the economically and militarily powerful behave like bullies, trampling on the rights of weak and small states."
Since the rupture in relations between Harare and Washington, Mr Bush has repeatedly identified Mugabe´s regime with repression, disrespect for human rights and tyranny. Bush has supported every effort aimed at discrediting Mugabe´s government. Such pressure from the west has forced Mugabe to adopt a "look east" policy. "Zimbabwe is very much looking east and there is no turning back" said Mugabe as he turned his back on the west.
With the fall of the Soviet Union in the 1990s, there was a general cry of victory in the west that communism had been contained at last. China´s unrestricted expansion into (Southern) Africa offers new lessons for the western world. Containing communism is one thing, containing China is another. And containing the likes of Mugabe is yet another. The big question here is, what does a Beijing-Harare alliance hold for an 'oil-and-mineral-hungry' Washington?