Back to Index

An America for Africa, No thank you!
Tinashe Chimedza
October 16, 2004

Tinashe Chimedza is a Zimbabwean, he can be contacted at chimedza@justice.com

Are we missing something as Zimbabweans? As a ‘patriotic’ Zimbabwean I have been digging around trying to understand what influences South Africa’s foreign policy towards Zimbabwe. I stumbled across a research report produced by the 70 years old South Africa Institute for International Affairs. The research report is entitled ‘Every continent needs an America (meaning the United States)’; luckily the author deliberately coined the title for the pursuit of controversy, it is this controversy that my article pursues. While the report focused on the investment of South African business in Mozambique it is more the title than the findings of the research that set my mind wagging. What is driving South Africa’s foreign policy in Africa?

This is a question that has disturbed my mind as we see Thabo Mbeki’s envoys shuttle in and out of Africa’s capitals, from Harare to Kinshasa and other crisis torn countries. It is the Zimbabwe-South Africa relations that I am interested in and that I explore in this article. The research report paints a picture that says the Pretoria Union Buildings in South Africa must become Africa’s White House in Washington DC. Dispensing a foreign policy designed and sustained the American way, of hegemony and dominance, of unilateralism and double standards, of American supremacy and world subjugation. A look at the US role has not been one that many people can proudly support.

US unilateralism has increased. Its history of intervening in other countries is very contradictory and just look at how the war on terrorism, the human rights abuses in Iraq prisons and the lies about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq have armed dictators like Mugabe with rhetoric. Some of the world’s notorious fascist dictators have been supported by the United States while the Central Intelligence Agency has stirred conflicts across the globe. The list of intervention is endless; Somalia, Panama, Philippines, Colombia, Chile, Afghanistan, Iraq, Cuba, Guatemala and God know who is next. If one could interact with Latin Americans and Canadians they could tell stories of the costs of having an "America’ on their continent. The North America Freed Trade Agreement has seen big opposition from social movements across the Americas including the launch of the Zapatistas rebellion and the Quebec protests.

The US treasury department has the biggest influence in the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organisation and we have seen the increased push for ‘free market’ growth mainly from the US. Its own airline, steel and agriculture industry is heavily subsidised while attempting to do the same in third world countries is called ‘state interventionist and commandist economics that distort the market forces’. If the nearly half a million people that turned out in opposition to Bush’s militarism outside the recent Republican Congress is anything to go by then even Americans are worried of having an America in their own country and are not very happy with the way that the US is being viewed globally. Yet we are informed that "Africa needs an America’.

Lets turn to Zimbabwe’s case and try to understand what has influenced Pretoria’s to develop the ‘quiet diplomacy’ approach. While there are other reasons that are important and considered in this analysis it is my conclusion that for South Africa the Zimbabwean crisis is a ‘cash cow’ for their foreign currency reserves. Interestingly a Zimbabwe Reference Group from Canada that interviewed South Africans and Zimbabweans who pointed to the fact that South Africa was buying Zimbabwean companies at ‘rock bottom’ prices. The predatory nature of South Africa’s capital in Zimbabwe is going to be the growing factor in determining South Africa’s foreign policy not only towards Zimbabwe but also any other African country in which the South Africans are intervening in the ‘name of African solidarity’.

Thanks to the New Economic Partnership for Africa’s Development this can all be achieved in the name of African Renaissance. Zimbabwe’s crisis is therefore responded to as just another ‘market’ with risks to be calculated and taken, if we can make profits while the Zimbabwean police and army keep trade unionists at bay then its business as usual. If South Africa is going to play the ‘US of Africa’ does it mean therefore that their support for Harare’s dictatorship is consistent with other US sponsored and supported dictators that we seen in history? Is this a subtle continuation of South Africa’s destabilization of Zimbabwe during the hey day of apartheid?

There are many theories that have been put forward to explain and try to understand the reasons and dynamics that have influenced Pretoria to develop its ‘quiet diplomacy’ policy in attempting to resolve the Zimbabwe crisis. The first one is that South Africa does not want to bee seen as a ‘run around dog’ for imperialism, to be the post-apartheid launch pad of United States, British and Australian sponsored interventions in Africa and in Zimbabwe in particular.

The second is that the Africa National Congress is determined to maintain its profile as a key African liberation movement and will therefore do all it can to support other liberation movements even ZANU PF in Zimbabwe. The third reason is that South Africa does not want to be seen to be encouraging the Congress of South African Trade Unions to break rank and do what the Zambia Congress of Trade Unions and the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions did, forming labour backed opposition political parties that have challenged liberation movements. The fourth reason is that the land issue is also a hot issue in South Africa and any attempt to ostracize the Mugabe regime over it would sow divisions in the support base for the Africa National Congress members who largely view Mugabe as a liberation hero. The fourth reason, which is the focus of this article, is that South Africa has investment interests in Zimbabwe and because of the predatory nature of South African capital the political instability in Zimbabwe is calculated in terms of the profit interests for South Africa. Is this not the way that an America in Africa would behave? After all, if Africa needs an America then we must be prepared to see Pretoria’s balance sheets as the biggest interests that influence its foreign policy.

It is the last reason that I wish to explore here. In South Africa itself business interests to begin with are being further influenced by other internal dynamics with reference in particular to the development of a small business elite linked to the ANC, being churned out in the name of Black Economic Empowerment. A dissection of the Zimbabwean economy reveals that South African investors are linked to almost every part of the economy, from agriculture, transport, airline, mining, legal services, supermarkets, clothes retailers, construction, cement companies and various other interests that have South African sleeping partners. South African Breweries, Stanbic Bank, Africa Bank of South Africa (ABSA), Impala Platinum, Khumalo Metallorn, Murray and Roberts and Pretoria Portland Cement own some of the major investments in Zimbabwe.

Lets look at two of the major sectors that these companies are involved in, banking and mining. In banking the major investments are in Stanbic and the Jewel Bank. ABSA, a South African company, has a controlling stake of 35% in the Jewel Bank and its share in when the Zimbabwean crisis was probably very acute and business competitiveness was dropping to the World Economic Forum indicators. In mining Mzi Khumalo who has been involved in ‘shoddy’ shares dealing in South Africa has become one of the closest to the regime and a friend of the Reserve Bank chief, his investments have been through a company called Khumalo Metallon and has acquired Freda Rebecca Mine and also has a whooping eighty percent shareholding of Independence Gold Mine’s eight mines formerly of Lonrho. In 2002 the South Africa Sunday Times reported that, " Impala Platinum has increased its mining interests, upping its shareholding in Zimbabwe Platinum Mines from 50.53% to 61.4%, to take effective control of the company, and raised its stake in smaller platinum company Mimosa."

Beyond these existing interests there is also evidence of ESKOM, the South African power company’s interests in converting its debt in the Zimbabwe Power Company into equity. This would result in massive equity of the Zimbabwe Power Company being owned by ESKOM and the profits will flow to the Johannesburg Stock Exchange (JSE) to the smiles of the Central Bank in South Africa. Furthermore South African investment concerns in Zimbabwe are protected by Bilateral Trade Agreements meaning if a group of inspired ‘war veterans’ aged 25 and below invade a farm all the owner has to do it to pick up the phone talk to the South African Ambassador and its sorted, while it might not be this easy the provision does exist. Is it not interesting that while South Africa has been advancing the NEPAD project it has been having bilateral trade talks with the US/Britain that would give ‘preferential treatment’ to South Africa business interests?

In South Africa itself there are other reasons to be considered. First is the strengthening of the South African currency, a process that has almost proved that the Zimbabwe contagion will never affect the South African bourse. In another incident the South African Reserve Bank Governor mentioned that, ‘South Africa is not Zimbabwe we do our things according to the law here’. Yet when the Africa Commission tables a report about state sponsored violence the South African Foreign Minister in typical big brother fashion jumps up and down to defend Harare.

Second is the question of the thousands of illegal workers and refugees thousands of whom have been refused asylum in South Africa. While admittedly their presence has caused pressure on services like health and police services the Zimbabwean migrants have been providing cheap labour to the South African labour market. Yet we all know not too long ago that the Zimbabwean workers were under paid, oppressed and deported when they worked in South African mines side by side with other South African workers. Some of the migrants are hard working, literate and can speak the Queen’s lingua franca, making them ideal for fast food take-away, restaurants, hotels and other menial jobs. It means they would not dare to be unionised, as this would jeopardise their stay.

Simply put my argument is that South Africa’s sub-imperialist tendency in Zimbabwe, in Southern Africa and in Africa will probably inform more and more of its relations and political interventions in the region. So the policy might as well be ‘let Zimbabwe bleed and we will rake in the benefits of the profits dividends’. Rather than use its influence to resolve the Zimbabwean crisis Pretoria is very comfortable with a ‘politically vulnerable situation and leadership’. It can use its support for ZANU PF as leverage to get Harare to support its positions in international and regional meetings because Harare sees Pretoria as a key Pan-Africanist movement whose support must be retained at all costs. A vulnerability that South Africa has exploited well, Zimbabwe bidding for the World Cup would be joke, a bid for the Pan-African Parliament will be a joke, so will be a bid for the African Cup of Nations or an bid by Harare’s leadership to be involved immensely with the NEPAD Project as other African leaders would not want Mugabe is the driving seats of African development initiatives.

And in the mean time until we revolt, until we shut down those shop floor machines, until profits tumble its business as usual for South Africa how more consistent can it be with being the ‘America of Africa’. We know our history fully well from slavery to modern day inequities, while we have documented the role of the Western world I hope one day we will not have to stand and shout ‘And you too Brutus (South Africa)’ when this country has been brought down to complete anarchy.

Please credit www.kubatana.net if you make use of material from this website. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License unless stated otherwise.

TOP