A few days ago I gave my opinion showing how flawed Zimbabwe’s Statutory Instrument 64 or 2016 is from an international trade law perspective.
In that analysis I pointed out that Zimbabwe’s SI 64/2016 is just but a measure being added to a cumulative series of trade measures Zimbabwe has been taking of a protectionist nature over the last few years.
Whilst I hazarded that our trading partners in the region and beyond would soon retaliate, I clearly overlooked that that retaliation could come so soon and from an unexpected constituency.
So today’s events at the Beitbridge border ((New Zimbabwe – Beitbridge border closed as ban on imports sparks protests)) must really be an urgent wake up call to Zimbabwean authorities that they may have crossed the line.
Considering that South Africa’s Musina has flourished out of thriving trade with Zimbabwe, I do not expect this violent response from the South African side to die a natural death.
This is also the reason why its been reported that the violent demo at the border apparently reflected a cross section of business people from the town of Musina including Indians, Chinese, South Africans and Zimbabweans operating from the South African side of the border.
While Statutory Instrument 64 of 2016 is only restricting a selected number of goods, today’s demonstration must also be understood in the context of frustrations that have been building up overtime.
In late 2015, the government of Zimbabwe reduced duty free rebate on Zimbabwean travelers from US$300 to $200 per month. This was under the SI 148/2015 notice by the Ministry of Finance.((The Herald – Government slashes traveller’s rebate)) This measure was also very discriminatory only targeting travelers on buses and sparing those using private vehicles.
This caused deep disgruntlement among frequent travelers particularly cross-border traders who benefited immensely from the $300 rebate each month. The reduction also indirectly affected South African businesses.
Today’s protest is therefore a demonstration against those earlier rebate measures, the latest SI 64/2016 and also a deterrence against any future actions by the government of Zimbabwe that may continue eating into the profits of South African businesses and cross-border traders in general.
Going by history and reputation, South African protests do not die out easily. It may have to take the South African government interfacing with their colleagues in Harare to resolve the matter.
In fact, if the protests persist or if security issues arise such as trucks being sabotaged on the South African side, it will soon shift from being a bilateral issue between two countries to involving other countries such as the DRC, Tanzania, Malawi and Zambia.
Beitbridge border is one of the busiest within the Southern African Development Community (SADC) because it is an important corridor to other SADC countries north of Zimbabwe.
What may have began as Zimbabwe’s internal issue, could easily spread to be a regional issue.
There is reason to think that South African manufacturers who have previously complained to their government about Zimbabwe’s protectionist tendencies, may view events by the public and small businesses at the boarder today as a quicker way to get a favorable response from Harare.
This is logically better than following the laborious, time consuming diplomatic channels through Pretoria. South African industrialists are therefore likely to be silent supporters of today’s ruckus.
Trade wars and trade retaliations are never a pleasant experience. They always turn out messy. I hope Harare is paying close attention in case it had something up its sleeves still to come after SI 64/2016.