| By Tawanda Kadungure,
on January 15 2008 12:24
|
Favoured : 27 |
Since the
onset of the Zimbabwean crisis South African businesses have been
maximising business in the former bread basket of Southern Africa
nation.
This has seen the role of
South Africa, as both a help and hindrance being continuously
debated. In particular there has been a certain cynicism about
South Africa’s policy of “quiet diplomacy” being
driven by the economic interests of the South African state and its
corporate sector.
A report by The Solidarity Peace Trust, a
non-governmental organisation registered in South Africa states
that the collapse of Zimbabwe’s economy in recent years has
been catastrophic. Records state that Zimbabwe’s gross
domestic product (GDP) plummeted 40% from 1999 to 2003 and it has
continued to decline. The drastic shrinkage of the economy has been
attributed to the collapse of the key contributors to the
country’s GDP namely agriculture, manufacturing and tourism
following the introduction of the government’s contentious
fast track land redistribution programme in 2000. Manufacturing,
mining and export sectors have declined steeply and unemployment
hovers near 80%. Production capacity has declined precipitously and
production costs have increased hugely. The deterioration of
agriculture, the mainstay of Zimbabwe’s economy which at its
prime constituted 50% of exports, has had a disastrous impact on
the economy.
Between 1998 and 2001, foreign direct
investment in Zimbabwe dropped by 99%. The risk premium on
investment jumped from 3, 4% in 2000 to 153, 2% by 2004. The
country’s financial institutions are in disarray and its once
productive farms sit idle. With national unemployment hovering
around 80%, the clean-up campaign (Operation Murambatsvina)
aggravated the already unbearable levels of poverty, social
suffering and hopelessness pervading Zimbabwe. Owing to
unreasonable price controls and ballooning overheads, many retail
outlets have not been able to stock foodstuffs and basic
commodities. The high demand for essential goods has led to high
prices for basics, denting the incomes of workers already reeling
from increases in transport and medical costs.
The response of the
Zimbabwean government to this economic catastrophe has thus far
added to the existing problems. Some have suggested that South
Africa’s diplomacy has bordered on collaboration with the
Mugabe regime. Concerns have also been raised about the
incompatibility of Mbeki’s Zimbabwe policy with his
proclaimed vision of an African Renaissance. Given Zimbabwe’s
economic dependence on South Africa, domestic and international
critics of Zimbabwe have urged South Africa to use its immense
economic leverage coercively against Zimbabwe by imposing economic
sanctions. Mbeki has adamantly opposed the implementation of
sanctions against Harare, pointing that punitive economic measures
would have potentially destabilising consequences, including a huge
influx of refugees, disruption of trade links, and general chaos on
the border.
However despite Zimbabwe’s political
and economic problems, trade and investment ties between South
Africa and Zimbabwe remain very strong. Perhaps because of its
troubles, Zimbabwe remains South Africa's most important trading
partner in Africa. South African companies are unlikely to pull out
of Zimbabwe because of the country’s internal crisis. Many
South African firms believe Zimbabwe is still a better and easier
place in which to do business than many other African countries and
they have found ways to negotiate Zimbabwe’s largely
dysfunctional economy in order to maintain a presence there in
expectation of eventual political change and economic recovery.
While the South African government’s
response to the Zimbabwean crisis has been driven by broad
political concerns, it is also clear that sections of the corporate
sector from South Africa engaged in Zimbabwe have exploited the
opportunities thrown up by the crisis in that country. |
|
|