ZIMBABWE’S International Investment Conference in Harare was apparently a major success in all respects bar one, but that one negative facet of the Conference negated all the positives achieved.
The conference was said to have attracted over 400 international investors, financiers, fund managers, and entrepreneurs, and with one exception most were initially filled with great conviction that Zimbabwe is now a very attractive investment environment. Much was demonstrated to evidence the magnitude of the investment potential that exists and, from the outset, the conference participants were greatly motivated and primed to embark upon some of the immense investment that Zimbabwe desperately needs if its economy is to be transformed from the cataclysmic lows to which it had sunk.
The conference attendees were convincingly appraised of the tremendous opportunities that exist in mining, manufacturing, tourism and other economic sectors, and which are likely to become available in Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) within diverse parastatals. Emphasis was justly placed upon the vast wealth of Zimbabwean national resources, upon the very considerable industrial opportunities, upon the unique magnificence of Zimbabwe’s diverse tourism attractions, and upon the economic transformation currently underway (including wide-ranging deregulation, deflation in substitution for hyperinflation, marked reduction in scarcities, focus upon restoring parastatals operational efficacy and service to the economy, and much else).However, the considerable mileage gained with the vigorously courted possible investors was markedly reversed when issues of land ownership were addressed. Conference participants understandably voiced concerns that, on the one hand, invasions of farms continue virtually unabated, with little or no attempt by the state to contain those invasions and that, on the other hand, evicted farmers have still not received compensation for the gargantuan deprivations they have suffered. President Mugabe reiterated the endlessly voiced contention that the lands were “stolen” by the British colonialists, lawfully belong to the Zimbabwean people, and that if there was any entitlement to compensation for the land, the obligation to that compensation lies with Britain.This contention has prevailed ad nauseum, in total disregard for the facts that when the colonialists entered the country, much of the land was unoccupied and unutilised, and that such land as was in usage had, in the main, been expropriated from the San people, without compensation to them (clearly that which is sauce for the goose is not sauce for the gander!). That disregard was matched (and continues to be matched) by contemptuously founded unconcern that at the Lancaster House agreement of 1979, bringing about Zimbabwean  Independence, Britain pledged agreed funding for land acquisition on a willing-buyer, willing-seller basis, and in the first four years of Independence, honoured its pledge. Similar disregard is demonstrated for the fact that the expropriated farms were acquired despite “certificates of no interest” issued by government.Not only does government seek to impose compensation obligations upon others, in respect of the unjustly —— and often violently —— acquired lands, but in addition after almost a decade of acquisitions, it has yet to effect compensation for improvements, for vandalised and misappropriated moveables, and for loss of income. So blatantly has there been compensation default that government has not even honoured Bilateral Investment Promotion and Protection Agreements (BIPPAs). So government assiduously fails to comply with international norms of justice and equity, continuously ascribes blame, culpability upon others in general, and strives to shed itself of all responsibility, by contentious ascription of that responsibility to others.Compounding this tragic mishandling of very necessary land reform (which has devastatingly destroyed agriculture, undermined a previously virile economy, and rendered millions poverty-stricken) is that the ongoing governmental stance on the land issues provides an insurmountable deterrent to much-needed international economic recovery support. That too is a deterrent to the investment which is essential to restoration of a virile economy, and much of the impressive mileage gained over the last six months by the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Ministers, Ministers of Finance and of Economic Planning and Development is reversed by the dogmatic adherence of some to the ill-conceived, unjust, and appallingly implemented land policies.With ongoing expropriation of farms, in many instances initiated by invasions led by some in high office within government, the army or the police, often pursued with violence and with theft of livestock, plant, machinery and equipment, and other privately-owned assets, all studiously ignored by the alleged guardians of law and order, it is inevitable that potential investors be fearful whether their future investments will be secure, or whether they too will be vulnerable to expropriation, even if not in the agricultural sector. These fears are reinforced by last year’s promulgation of the Indigenisation and Economic Empowerment Act, and the threatened amendments to the Mines and Minerals Act. Investors have an unavoidable reluctance to invest if they are faced with a possible expropriation of 51% of the investment equity, and that worsened by not even being accorded any credible assurance of recompense.The contradictions at the conference were pronounced. The President said that “Such policies as the Indigenisation and Economic Empowerment Act should not be viewed as obstacles to investment promotion; they should be welcomed as promoting the greater participation of our people in the economy, indeed the democratisation of our economic activity that builds up to good business returns for the investor”. He also said that “our stable political environment is making us more conducive to promoting the rule of law”. Some 4 000 displaced farmers, their families, and many of their employees, will credibly sneer at the suggestion that Zimbabwe upholds the sanctity of property rights. So too will be the many who were victimised by violent and abusive farm invasions, confronted by force, subjected to physical injuries, and immense suffering, insofar as the contention that rule of law is promoted. And many will query the president’s statements that government has “honoured” its obligations to pay compensation for improvements.In contrast to the president’s investment—discouraging stance at the conference, the Prime Minster sought to be more moderate, stating that whilst all agreed that land reform was needed, they differed on the approach. That land reform was (and is) necessary cannot be convincingly justified, and hence the land reform must be irreversible , but that does not preclude it being modified to be just, equitable, non-racialist, and effective.At the conference, Deputy Prime Minister Arthur Mutambara showed somewhat greater realism  than his “Unity Government” colleagues, saying that government should stop blaming the West for the socio- economic decline, and should uphold the rule of law, respect property rights, and ensure a moratorium on farm invasions and disruptions affecting white farmers.Until government “gets real” on land issues, unreservedly respects property rights, complies with the precepts of rule of law, and constructively —— not destructively —— pursues economic empowerment and indigenisation, prospects of major investment inflows and other substantial international support are tremendously minimised. Zimbabwe could have one of the greatest economies in Africa, and could almost wholly eradicate poverty, if it “gets real”, but in the meanwhile it continues to shoot itself in the foot.
BY ERIC BLOCH