© 2018 by Robert Person.  The views expressed on this website are my own and do not represent the official policy of the U.S. Army, Department of Defense, or U.S. Government.

Mar 25

What's Driving the Crisis in Zimbabwe?

0 comments

 

After living under a repressive ruler for forty years, the people of Zimbabwe were hoping for economic reform and market openness under the rule of Emmerson Mnangagwa in which they have yet to receive. Elected in 2017, President Mnangagwa with the help from his Vice President, Constantino Chiwenga, has doubled the price of gas causing increased currency shortages and hardships and has allowed for violent military crackdowns. These two men have made it clear that their focus is on security and control of public discourse rather than on sound economic policy and the interests of the people. To this point, Zimbabwe has been unable to secure foreign direct investment in its markets due to its overwhelming debt and has resorted to using virtual transactions in the street market of the main city. Even China has refused to lend money to Zimbabwe. Due to President Mnangagwa’s lack of economic involvement, Zimbabwe has become a country of borrowing, acquisition and accumulation with no signs of change. Zimbabwe has instead accepted that money can be achieved through stealing rather than economic productivity. At this point the only real hope left for Zimbabwe is through the lifeline that South Africa has provided to them.

 

The party of which the President is associated, the ZANU-PF is most interested in staying in power, so its elite leaders can retain their privileges. President Mnangagwa was just as disconnected with the populous as the former President Robert Mugabe. In fact, not long after taking office, President Mnangagwa left the country to go on a European tour in a time of corruption and protest and only cut the trip short upon hearing news of violent riots occurring throughout the streets. The oligarchy that surrounds President Mnangagwa today can purchase beautiful mansions and obtain farmland while the rest of the populous can’t even afford to pay for sanitation products. They have shown no interest to invest in machinery and infrastructure to create a successful agricultural industry. Even though the ZANU-PF may technically be defined as an oligarchic party, there are astounding similarities between their parties’ structure and that of a tin-pot dictatorship. In a tin-pot dictatorship, the ruler is interested in minimizing resource cost to stay in office. They want to optimize the level of repression and loyalty that maintains the minimum power needed to stay in office and use any extra resources for their own personal benefit. As seen in Zimbabwe, President Mnangagwa and the ZANU-PF are not interested in the needs of the people, they only want to get rich quick and utilize extra resources for their personal benefit or family benefit. Due to such methods, the people are underrepresented, and the chances of economic development are slim to none. Foreign direct investment is non-existent, and their only hope lies with South Africa. It is because of this tin-pot dictatorship that Zimbabwe has and will continue to face economic disparity.

 

Article found at: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/zimbabwe/2019-02-21/whats-driving-crisis-zimbabwe

New Posts
  • In his article for Foreign Affairs David Cohen talks about the Trump administration's policy towards sanctions. He talks about how the conditional sanctions the Trump administrations has placed on Iran and now Venezuela will be ineffective because the changes the administration is trying to coerce will essentially mean regime change for the two nations. Cohen goes on to state that these will be ultimately ineffective because the relative cost of the sanctions is lower than the cost of losing power. This means that the leaders of Iran and Venezuela are more willing to bear the pain of the sanctions than lose the regime. This goes along with the lesson we had on sanctions in a couple of ways. First we learned that sanctions are used either as a method of deterrence or coercion. This means that the sanctions inflict financial and economic pain to make the target of the sanctions take or not take an action. These sanctions are meant to cause political changes that will in essence mean a change of regime which is why they will fail. They are effective in causing pain; however, there is not enough sanctions in the world to make it worth losing power. Article link: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2019-04-29/sanctions-cant-spark-regime-change
  • https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/09/us/politics/china-trade-tariffs.html Just before a scheduled round of trade negotiations began on Friday, President Trump announced that he was still going to levy additional tariffs on Chinese imports valued at approximately $250 billion. President Trump claimed that these tariffs would bring billions of dollars back to US manufacturers, but the main focus seems to be inflicting pain on China, as opposed to bringing prosperity to the US. China and the US have not been able to reach an agreement that would minimize or end outright the "trade war" between the two, which stems from the Trump Administration's belief that China is not doing all it can to protect American investments and intellectual property in China, as well as the belief that a large trade deficit with China is inherently bad. The Trump Administration's use of tariffs as a negotiating tool is inelegant, but effective. Unilateral tariffs immediately affect the Chinese export industry, whose products become less competitive in US markets. While this inflicts pain on Chinese exports, whose largest market is the US, it also affects US consumers, who have to pay higher costs for consumer goods. Additionally, because China retaliates with target tariffs (on politically-relevant goods like Kentucky Bourbon and soybeans from the Heartland), US exporters are equally hurt by the trade war. The only immediate winner is the US, who collects revenue from the applied tariffs; however, long-term, US domestic industry should improve, as they will become more competitive when Chinese imports are more expensive. Slowly, we are starting to see this happen: Dan DiMicco, the chairman of a lobby group "Coalition for a Prosperous America," explained that American manufacturing is already experiencing gains in their domestic market shares.
  • https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/may/8/feds-release-168k-illegal-immigrant-family-members/ In Stephen Dinan's article in the Washington Times, he explains the unforeseen immigration due to illegal border crossings. ICE border patrol has released 168,000 illegal immigrant family members this fiscal year, and the number is expected to increase as the border situation increases in volatility (Dinan). Dinan reports that 87% of families in this new pilot program skip their court hearings, and with an ill-equipted government to track them down judges deport them in absentia (Dinan). Dinan argues that this increase in illegal immigration in family units is caused by a 2015 court ruling that stated parents who travel with children must be released in 20 days. Since this is too little time try them in court, the families are set free (Dinan). This article is very relevant to this block in IPE as it highlights a crucial phase that the world is going through. As policies towards free and open borders begin to gain more and more traction, we can expect the number of border crossings into the country to continue. As we talked in class, this may actually be a good thing for the economy, as low skill labor is substituted due to a higher rate of college attenuation and graduation. Dinan says that most migrants interviewed are not criminals, they are just seeking jobs, and know that if they bring children they will find asylum in the US (Dinan). One of the unintended consequences is that some of these migrants are being used to smuggle drugs and weapons into the country, and in some extreme cases, children are being sold to impersonate children of felons migrants of south american countries to gain access with ease. As globalization brings countries closer together and as the trend for free an open borders continues incentivizing cheap labor, it will be interesting to see the effects of these policies 10-15 years in time.