shloboe boe
Tichaona Zindoga
In the past week, an article written by economic analyst and former legislator Eddie Cross, titled, “What is Chinese motivation in Zimbabwe(?)” has attracted considerable debate.
In the article, Cross says there are 85 000 Chinese nationals in Zimbabwe — a figure not based on fact as immigration accounts for about 25 000 — and asks, “What on earth are they doing here?”
Cross further makes a number of misleading claims about Chinese investments in Zimbabwe, which were meant to de-legitimise Chinese interests and ostracised Chinese nationals as though they were some undesirable people.
In a polarised environment like Zimbabwe, the article elicited pitched responses, including on social media, with some supporting him while others rejected and repudiated his claims.
Zimbabweans who challenged and refuted Cross’s assertions pointed to the contributions of China — the world’s second largest economy —and questioned why the writer had unfairly targeted a particular group.
“What’s wrong with having 85 000 Chinese people in Zimbabwe?” questioned one user on X.
“How many Zimbabweans are in other peoples countries? This mindset is just primitive. How many Europeans and Indians are in Zimbabwe? The biggest Open Pit mines in Zimbabwe are 100 percent European owned like Zimplats, Unki, Mimosa, Rio Tinto etc somehow big open pits at Ngezi or Mimosa are not a problem. But Chinese small and medium mines are a major problem.
“Without Chinese investments Zimbabweans will be the poorest Africans due to Western technology transfer sanctions. There would have been no electricity to talk of at all. No one has stopped Europeans from investing in Zimbabwe. Europeans decided political interference was more important than investing in Zimbabwe.”
Another user said: “Cross’s critique of the environmental impact of Chinese mining operations, likening the landscape to a ‘moonscape’ or a ‘World War I battlefield’ seems to simplify a complex issue…The relationship between Zimbabwe and China is multifaceted and requires a balanced perspective.”
The user added: “The narrative around Chinese presence in Zimbabwe should neither be one of unchecked praise nor unfounded criticism but should instead aim for a middle ground where both the advantages and the challenges are addressed thoughtfully.”
“The discourse around China’s role in Zimbabwe needs to evolve beyond sensationalism to a well-informed dialogue that considers economic sustainability, environmental stewardship, and social equity,” another one wrote.
“Only through such a balanced approach can Zimbabwe navigate its relationship with China in a way that truly benefits its citizens and preserves its natural heritage for future generations.”
Another discussant on social media said they were “very offended by the first paragraph of Eddie Cross’ article”.
“He starts by questioning what Chinese are doing in Zimbabwe as if anybody has ever questioned what the British (including him) are doing in Zimbabwe,” the user said.
So the heated argument went on and on.
Understanding the power of narrative
It is clear that Cross’ article was meant to excite negative feelings towards Chinese people in Zimbabwe in spite of the well-established historical good relations between the two peoples. Foregrounded by trade relations that started in ancient times, China-Zimbabwe relations in modern times were established in the 1960’s and ‘70s when the former assisted Zimbabwe during the liberation struggle against British colonial rule.
China would become the first foreign country to establish diplomatic relations with the newly established nation in 1980. Today, China — the world’s second biggest economy — is arguably Zimbabwe’s most important global ally.
However, against this spirit, Cross assumed a questionable stance with a right to question other people’s existence on the country.
In this context, he perpetuated a false narrative about the perceived threat of China in Zimbabwe.
In media and other studies, the power of “narratives”, is something that has gained increasing importance, especially where migration issues are concerned, including in the Western world.
In Africa, the influx of China has been subject to a lot of negative narratives — this is a fact — and more needs to be done to address the complex issue, which is located at the intersection of historical, cultural, economic and geopolitical dynamics.
To help us understand, British scholars, Boswell et al (2021) write in a paper, “The Emergence, Uses and Impacts of Narratives on Migration: State of the Art,” that narratives are powerful forms of influence or manipulation.
They write: “Social actors can strategically manipulate social meanings, for example through portraying certain groups as undeserving or deviant . . . In media studies, media narratives make reality intelligible to the public helping ‘naturalise and portray as commonsensical the ideology that informs’ the selection of just this story, handled in just this way”.
According to the authors, in politics, policy actors use narratives to “strategically craft policy narratives to resonate with the public, relevant stakeholders, and governmental decision makers’ and do so through deploying tactics such as the use of policy symbols, which are emotionally charged rhetoric characterising opponents in a negative light”.
The authors state that narratives are used to unite or divide people.
“Narratives thus play a fundamental role in uniting and separating people, but also in generating feelings of affinity, solidarity and group membership,” the academics say.
They add: “These distinctions may result not only in symbolic notions of ‘Us’ and ‘Them’ but also in influencing and legitimising social boundaries of inclusion and exclusion . . .”
The authors explain that those who shape narratives determine differential access to civil, social and political rights.
The “threat narrative” against China in Zimbabwe
It can be concluded that, whether intentionally or not, Cross’ article was divisive, particularly alienating Chinese nationals and investors who have chosen to come to Zimbabwe.
This, essentially, is what The Migration Policy Institute (MPI), an American think tank describes as a “threat narrative”, driven by certain sections of society, when confronted with the challenge of migration.
The think tank explains: “The most dominant threat narratives are driven by insecurity — whether related to economics, culture and identity, personal safety or national security. The stickiest negative narratives about migration are often interwoven with perceived threats to economic, physical or cultural security, even if these threats are not well supported by data.”
The authors argue that, “There is often a tipping point when feelings of acceptance shift and feelings of insecurity begin to dominate.”
It can be argued that Cross sought to manipulate feelings of insecurity among certain quarters of Zimbabweans, doing so through contriving resource nationalism and anger towards economic exploitation of natural resources such as chrome, diamonds, coal and gold.
Cross’ sense of entitlement exhibited in the article is gross and misplaced.
Zimbabweans supporting such sentiments are also reminded of how our compatriots have suffered in foreign countries when similar xenophobic attitudes and violence are directed against them.
It is thus prudent to reject this false and divisive narrative, and look objectively at what foreigners like the Chinese are benefiting the country, including investing in infrastructure, assisting vulnerable communities, transferring skills and technology as well as contributing to the economy at a time Zimbabwe has suffered from a quarter century of sanctions and isolation, which the likes of Cross, during his time in the opposition, called for.
At the same time, Zimbabwean stakeholders need to be cooperating with Chinese investors and interests in building a mutually beneficial relationship to achieve win-win outcomes.
l Tichaona Zindoga is the Director of Ruzivo Media and Resource Centre, a Harare-based think tank that analyses global and local issues.
Siphakeme .Mnindwa
