July 14, 2008 - July 24, 2008
MoU: Zim must shape own destiny
Posted: Thursday, July 24, 2008
By Reason Wafawarova
July 24, 2008
The Memorandum of Understanding signed between Zanu-PF and the two MDC formations on the July 21 has been received as an act of assiduity on the part of the political leadership of Zimbabwe on the one hand and also as an exercise shrouded in dubiety on the other.
The MoU comes at a time when many of our people are beset by intolerance and the polarity that has become synonymous with the political landscape of Zimbabwe in the last nine years. It is an MoU between a ruling party that has become synonymous with liberation and the doctrine of sovereignty and an opposition that has become synonymous with neo-liberalism and the doctrine of liberties and human rights.
In the eyes of the mainstream African public opinion, it is an agreement between a revolutionary liberation movement and a somewhat insidiously pro-Western opposition movement. Yet in the mainstream Western public opinion this is an agreement between a perceived dictatorship and an assumed pro-democracy movement.
Some radicals in Zanu-PF will view this development as an unwary compromise with reactionaries bent on reversing the gains of the hard won independence of Zimbabwe while the radicals in the MDC will maintain that the memorandum is an inadvertent trap of their leadership by a seasoned political party capable of derailing the route and destiny of their party.
To the optimistic, moderate Zimbabwean this memorandum is a gesture of goodwill. It is a compendious act of maturity so meritorious that many are already convinced that the piece of paper is the beginning of the end of the economic and social instability in the country.
To the spiritual and the religious, the mere act of President Robert Mugabe and opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai holding hands is an undeniable sign of the beginning of a national healing process.
But what does this MoU mean to the politicians involved in its signing?
This is a trilateral treaty that obviously provides opportunities for these people who have opted to pursue the perplexing career called politics.
The politicians will be very busy in the next two weeks and it is very comforting to imagine that these men and women who should be the voice of the voiceless will be busy mapping the way out of Zimbabwe's economic problems.
This is the perception of the ordinary voter and it is one many politicians are very comfortable with for their own varying reasons.
It is not a secret that the negotiations are about power sharing. Basically, this means that the half-dozen negotiators are going to be talking about sharing what democracy would call the people's power on behalf of the generality of Zimbabweans.
This is not bad for as long as the negotiators will forever remember that they are negotiating to share the people's power, not their own. The guiding principle in such an exercise is neither the insatiable ambition to taste power nor the jingoistic quest to protect the same.
Rather, the guiding principle is to snatch Zimbabwe from the route of perdition – to sacrifice the self for the sake of the whole. This is why the signed MoU must, by popular demand, be a meritorious document carrying the hope of Zimbabweans and not an artifice carrying the fraudulent machinations of selfish political ambition.
This writer has been wrestling with the question of what the anti-imperialist position is on the talks between Zanu-PF and the opposition.
This question is surmised on the presumed position that the MDC represents or identifies with imperialism while Zanu-PF represents anti-imperialism, if one were to draw crude guidelines.
There is no doubt that the MDC is a beneficiary of financial and moral support from the most prominent imperialist countries on the planet and the West has openly bragged about this.
On the other hand, there is no doubt that Zanu-PF thrives on the legacy of sovereignty, self-rule and African emancipation.
This does not mean that Zanu-PF has a monopoly over sovereignty or that the party is the definition of emancipation and empowerment. Equally, the MDC has no monopoly over Western friendships and alliances, whether by calculated synergies or docile puppetry.
Zimbabwe can relate and partner with the West on anti-imperialist terms just like Zimbabwe can be sovereign and self-ruling on non-imperialist but Western friendly terms.
Simply, a self respecting MDC that enters talks on the basis of empowering Zimbabweans under the collective sense of the national interest is welcome just like is a Zanu-PF that defines sovereignty in the context of fair and sustainable international relations.
In these talks the gap between rhetoric and reality must be narrowed to zero. The repugnant and inimical approach that labels opponents as evil enemies must be rooted out of the political culture of Zimbabwe by both sides of the political divide.
The mediation process has so far been excellently executed by the able leadership of President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa and this is despite the baseless and politically motivated criticisms from Western countries.
The history and reputation of Western rationality continues to be written by the West, so not surprisingly, Western opinion is portrayed as based on right and justice – upholding the highest values and confronting evil and injustice with admirable courage and integrity. The record reveals a rather different picture and this is the picture by which Western opinion on President Mbeki and on Zimbabwe must be judged.
As former US President John Adams said two centuries ago, "Power always thinks it has a great soul and vast views beyond the comprehension of the weak."
That is the deep root of the combinations of savagery and self-righteousness that infects the imperial mentality – and in some measure, every structure of the imperial order as seen in the credo that drives the editorial policy of the Western media.
It can be added that reverence for that great soul is the normal stance of Western elites, who regularly insist that they should hold the levers of control, or at least be close by – whenever a process such as the current negotiations in Zimbabwe is in progress.
How does a peace loving Mbeki get to endure all this barbaric criticism from such countries as the US and the UK while Africans either stand aside and look or in some cases applaud such madness? Are we all oblivious to the atrocious aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Or is the English language so romanticising that we believe that the race that brought it to us cannot err? What morality can be preached by people who are obsessed with such cruel retribution as sanctions and military invasions?
A Mbeki who stretches a hand of peace is accused of ineffectiveness and advised to descend on his neighbours with a punitive hand that destroys what it will never be able to rebuild and some Zimbabweans and South Africans have the dishonour and indignity to chant "Amen".
The ongoing negotiations must, by definition be for the good of Zimbabweans and not for the good of their politicians or that of Zimbabwe's Western foes. Neither should they be for the good of President Mbeki's CV.
This is why Western interference must be fought like an intruding snake. There is simply no room for Western input into this process. It is not welcome, however noble or intended.
The context just does not allow for such interference. The tainted have no right to carry the sacrificial blood vessel of atonement just because they are not holy enough to do so.
The Western community might have heavily invested in the politics of Zimbabwe but there cannot be any hope that such an investment can make a justifiable locus standi on matters so sovereign and internal such as the current talks are. This the West must swallow without question and against such there is no law.
It is Zimbabwe's inalienable right to determine her own destiny and all children of Zimbabwe must stand as one on the protection of this right.
Zimbabwe we are one. It is homeland or death! Together we will overcome.
Reason Wafawarova can be contacted on wafawarova@yahoo.co.uk or info@rawafawarova.com or visit www.rwafawarova.com
Printer friendly version
Send page by E-Mail
Zimbabwe: Talks Pact Signed
Posted: Tuesday, July 22, 2008
By Itai Musengeyi and Takunda Maodza
July 22, 2008
The Herald
Let's be masters of our own destiny: President PRESIDENT Mugabe and leaders of the two MDC formations – Morgan Tsvangirai and Arthur Mutambara – yesterday signed a Memorandum of Understanding in Harare, setting the agenda for full-scale talks to resolve the country's political and economic problems.
All the parties expressed commitment to dialogue, saying it was the only way forward as President Mugabe and Tsvangirai met for the first time in a decade.
President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa, the Sadc-appointed and African Union-endorsed mediator – who flew into Harare yesterday afternoon for the signing ceremony–said the talks should be completed as quickly as possible.
Cde Mugabe and Tsvangirai were later to have lunch together while President Mbeki and Mutambara had theirs separately where they discussed for close to an hour.
The MoU states that the talks should be completed within two weeks from the date of signing.
Soon after the signing ceremony at the Rainbow Towers Hotel, the three parties' negotiators briefly consulted behind closed doors.
Speaking after the signing, President Mugabe said he and his party, Zanu-PF, were committed to the talks, but stressed that the three parties should engage as Zimbabweans without Western interference save for the assistance of South Africa and Africa.
"We sit here in order for us to chart a new way, a new way of political interaction and this out of the decision that we made, we of Southern Africa, some time ago, that we assist each other and in this particular case, we assist Zimbabwe to overcome the political and economic situation which requires support.
"Our having signed this MoU is a serious matter on my part and my party Zanu-PF; we take it seriously. The signatures we have appended there (on the MoU), I hope reflect the sincerity of all of us.
"As we begin the interaction, we shall be doing so as Zimbabweans, entirely as Zimba-bweans, with the help of South Africa and that we cut off whatever were influences on us from Europe or the United States.
"We must act as Zimbabweans, think as Zimbabweans, be masters of our own destiny.
"If we do that, there will be no need for us to suffer under sanctions, no need for us to call for Europe to impose sanctions. There will be no need for a European hand, we don't want it.
"That way we will find we are real, true, friendly, brotherly and sisterly Zimbabweans," said President Mugabe.
He said Africa could assist in the process, but not European and American masters.
"Let's move forward and start on what Professor Mutambara has been calling one vision for Zimbabwe, singing one national anthem, flying one flag,'' said Cde Mugabe.
But as President Mugabe warned against foreign meddling, Keith Scott, the first secretary at the British embassy, was trying to gatecrash into Jacaranda Room where the signing ceremony took place.
He and other officials from European embassies in Harare were milling outside the room and some could be seen jostling with journalists for a copy of the MoU, which was made available after the signing ceremony.
Tsvangirai said he was committed to dialogue and failure was not an option.
"My commitment to this process is unquestionable, it is not superficial, it is total because we want to achieve what Zimbabweans out there want to achieve.
"I sincerely acknowledge that if we put our heads together we can find a solution, not finding a solution is not an option.
"As we sign the MoU, we all commit ourselves to the first tentative step to solutions. I have been reluctant (to endorse the process), but I want to share a heavy commitment that the process of negotiation is successful. We want a better Zimbabwe," said Tsvangirai.
He described the occasion as historic as Zimbabwe's political leaders were sitting at the same table to discuss problems facing their country.
"This is a very historic occasion. I think the last time I had a tete-a-tete with Cde Mugabe was in 1998," he said.
Mutambara stressed that Zimbabweans needed a shared vision to resolve the political and economic problems.
He said the MoU was not about this or that political party, but about Zimbabweans.
"We must put national interest before personal interests. We must be driven by national interest as we negotiate in the next two weeks. The people's will must be supreme and sovereign.
"Let's have a shared national economic vision," said Mutambara.
He described the day as unique in the history of Zimbabwe as the country's political leaders had shown maturity to resolve the problems facing the country.
Mutambara described the MoU as a document of great significance that allowed for dialogue whose outcome should result in a political settlement and later a new Constitution.
"The signing of the MoU is very important, it allows us to begin negotiations. This political settlement we seek to achieve in two weeks is not the answer . . . we need national healing. Beyond the political settlement, we want gatherings like these where leaders speak to Zimbabweans," he said.
President Mbeki congratulated the three parties for "taking a very important step in this process of negotiations which must lead to our acting together to build Zimbabwe".
"It (the MoU) commits the negotiating parties to an intense programme of work to try and finalise the negotiations as quickly as possible," he said.
President Mbeki said he was confident the parties would reach an agreement because, as Tsvangirai had pointed out, failure was not an option and everybody agreed to that.
President Mbeki said no party had set conditions for the talks because all the three parties were ready and genuinely willing to engage.
He said he had never at any stage thought of abandoning the mediation process because
South Africa and Zimbabwe were neighbours and neighbours assist each other as problems in either of the two countries affected the other.
President Mbeki said an important decision was taken on April 18 1980 when Zimbabwe got its independence and took the responsibility to assist South Africa liberate itself from the shackles of apartheid.
President Mbeki said that decision by Zimbabwe made it important "for one not to walk away" while the spirit in Sadc was to assist each other in times of need.
President Mugabe thanked President Mbeki for his mediation efforts, which had yielded positive results despite the vilification he was subjected to from some quarters.
He said Constitutional Amendment Number 18, several changes to electoral laws which were implemented in the March harmonised elections and the amendments of the Public Order and Security Act and the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act were all a result of President Mbeki's mediation.
"I am mentioning this because out there, there is unfair criticism of President Mbeki on the front of his mediation, yet he has achieved all this. I thank him for his persistence and positive sensitivity to criticism. When criticism is ill-placed, ignorant and undeserving, it needs to be ignored because it is wrong," said President Mugabe.
President Mbeki arrived in Zimbabwe at noon and was welcomed at the Harare International Airport by President Mugabe, senior Government officials and service chiefs. He flew back to South Africa yesterday evening.
Officials from Zanu-PF, MDC-T and MDC – who included the negotiators Cde Patrick Chinamasa, Cde Nicholas Goche, Professor Welshman Ncube, Mrs Priscilla Misihairabwi-Mushonga, Mr Tendai Biti, Mr Elton Mangoma and Mr Lovemore Moyo – witnessed the signing.
Printer friendly version
Send page by E-Mail
Tribunal lacks power to reverse land reforms: Zim lawyer
Posted: Saturday, July 19, 2008
Southern Times Writer in Windhoek
July 20, 2008
The Southern Times
The Zimbabwean government said Wednesday that land reform in that country, in which about 4 000 white commercial farmers were forcibly removed from prime farming land, was inevitable given the skewed land ownership pattern inherited when the country attained independence in 1980.
In court submissions at the SADC Tribunal landmark farm case which opened in the Namibian capital Wednesday, Zimbabwean lawyers also argued that the SADC Tribunal could not legislate for member states and had no legal mandate to nullify laws made in member states.
Advocate Prince Machaya, who is representing the Zimbabwean government, argued that SADC heads of state are the only ones who could "arrogate penalties" against member states should a member fail to conform to set rules and regulations.
About 77 white commercial farmers in Zimbabwe lodged a complaint at the regional court seeking to halt farm expropriations in Zimbabwe.
Machaya, who is Zimbabwe's deputy attorney-general, told the regional court that the SADC Treaty was a set of "guidelines" for member states.
The commercial farmers, who are represented in the case by Advocates Jeremy Gauntlett and Adrian de Bourbon, accused the Zimbabwean government of instituting a racially-based land reform programme and of refusing to compensate white farmers of the expropriated land.
Gauntlett said that farmers took the case to the regional court after the Zimbabwean government effected constitutional legislation, Amendment 17, which effectively shut out an legal challenges in Zimbabwean courts against land expropriation.
But Machaya defended the country's land reform programme saying it was unavoidable that only whites would be targeted by landless blacks since they are the only ones who occupied lush farming land and have been living in an "island of prosperity" while the majority blacks were wallowing in abject poverty.
But above all, Machaya argued, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to force the Zimbabwean government to reverse its laws.
"SADC Treaty merely outlines and sets out frameworks within which binding obligations can then be created for purposes of their being enforced," Machaya said.
"Ouster of right to approach the Zimbabwean courts effected by Amendment 17 is not a contravention of the SADC Treaty and orders of this nature are not competent for the Tribunal to make..Tribunal should refer the matter to the summit..it cannot legislate on the government to nullify such legislation," Machaya said.
He added: "Land reform was inevitable: white farming community occupied just under 50 percent of all the fertile farming land while the rest of the land was occupied by the indigenous in areas of low rainfall and poor soils."
Machaya also said that a section of Amendment 17, provides for challenges to land reform through judicial review if an aggrieved party felt that the land was being expropriated for selfish reasons.
Gauntlett argued that the Zimbabwean government violated the SADC Treaty, alleging that the land reform programme was unconstitutional and discriminatory.
"The treaty says that SADC member states shall not discriminate against any person on grounds of gender, religion, political views, race, ethnic origin, culture, ill-health or disability."
He added that the complainants in the case were not against the land reform programme in Zimbabwe "if done according to the law".
"But what the Zimbabwean government did was to simply publish lists of the names of farms and took the farms away the next day, giving them to government officials, not even deserving black farmers," Gauntlett said.
Meanwhile, Zimbabwe's legal team withdrew from the SADC Tribunal hearing Thursday morning after the applicants in the watershed case filed an urgent application asking the Tribunal to hold the Zimbabwean government in contempt of court for non-compliance on orders issued last December.
White commercial farmers who are challenging compulsory expropriation of their farms by the Zimbabwean government filed the application seeking the Tribunal to hold Harare in contempt of court after three commercial farmers were beaten and harassed by what the Zimbabwe government says are thugs and common criminals.
Last December, the Tribunal ordered the Zimbabwean government not to expropriate farms belonging to the applicants pending the outcome of the court case.
The three farmers were beaten in the aftermath of the June 27 run-off election in which president Robert Mugabe was re-elected .
On the second day of the hearing at the SADC Tribunal in Windhoek, head of the five-panel judge, Louis Mondhlane ordered the applicants to proceed with their urgent application.
But the Zimbabwean legal team, headed by Prince Machaya, opposed the urgent application and after consultations with his legal advisers, told the court that if it was willing to proceed with the urgent application, they would not be part of it.
"After consultations with my advisors I have received specific instructions to the effect that the government of Zimbabwe takes this application very seriously in so far as the outcome may have an impact on the government of Zimbabwe.
"There have been developments in Zimbabwe and government feels it is necessary that the defence that we give be supplemented with additional material evidence," Machaya told the court.
There had been arrests of persons concerning the disturbances and pending prosecutions, and it would strengthen the respondent's case should the Zimbabwean police, army and Attornery-General's Office be called to the witness stand.
"The police, army and others should have an opportunity to place evidence with a view to answering the allegations raised...the Tribunal should get all the relevant evidence," Machaya said.
He added that he would not make a submission on the basis of previous evidence.
After Mondhlane said that the court would proceed with the urgent application since the respondent had been given ample time to make a response, Machaya asked to be excused from the proceedings regarding the urgent application.
"If the Tribunal decides to proceed, I would beg leave to be excused from the hearing of this application as I have received specific instructions from my government," Machaya said.
The five-panel judge, however, did not accent to Machaya's request to be excused and Judge Mondhlane ordered the applicants to proceed, and Machaya and his legal team walked out of the court room.
Jeremy Gauntlett, who is representing the applicants in the case, proceeded with the urgent application in which he told the court how the farmers and their family members were attacked, alleging failure by the Zimbabwean police to respond to the case.
Gauntlett also asked the court to refer the matter of contempt of court to heads of state at the SADC Summit, which is on this coming August.
Judgement in the main case, in which about 79 white commercial farmers are challenging expropriation of their farms, will be delivered in due course, Mondhlane said.
In a related matter, the Zimbabwean Embassy later denied that Zimbabwe had walked out saying their legal team had sought to be excused after finding out that the Tribunal was "disposed to proceed in an unusual manner".
Zimbabwean ambassador to Namibia Chipo Zindoga said that the white commercial farmers were victims of criminal activities by a gang of about 30 people who have since been apprehended.
"If the Zimbabwean government did not respect the rule of law, the white commercial farmers who have dragged the government to court, would not have been at the contested farms as we speak. The criminal elements who acted on their own accord, and assaulted the Campbells, have been apprehended," Zindoga said.
"It appears there are no more common criminals in Zimbabwe...all criminals belong to either government or Zanu- PF," she added.
Zindoga also said that the legal team did not walk but asked to be excused. "We are members of the Tribunal, so we cannot walk out from our own organ," Zindoga said.
"Zimbabwe, as a member of SADC, was instrumental in the formation of the Tribunal. Our legal team appeared at the SADC Tribunal in good faith. We are aware that the white commercial farmers are working in cahoots with their kith and kin to politicise the SADC Tribunal. They are using their case to injure the sovereign interests of Zimbabwe, to push the illegal regime change agenda on Zimbabwe, to the United Nations Security Council through the backdoor," Zindoga said.
Printer friendly version
Send page by E-Mail
'Sadc Tribunal has no legal mandate to nullify member states laws'
Posted: Saturday, July 19, 2008
Southern Times
July 19, 2008
THE Sadc Tribunal which is hearing a case filed by white farmers opposing Zimbabwe's land reform programme, cannot legislate for member states and has no legal mandate to nullify laws made in member states, the Zimbabwean Government has said.
In court submissions at the Sadc Tribunal in the land case which opened in the Namibian capital on Wednesday, Deputy Attorney General Advocate Prince Machaya, who is representing the Zimbabwean Government, argued that Sadc heads of state are the only ones who could "arrogate penalties" against member states should a member fail to conform to set rules and regulations.
He said the land reform, in which white commercial farmers' land was compulsorily acquired for resettlement of the landless, was inevitable given the skewed land ownership pattern inherited when the country attained independence in 1980.
About 77 white commercial farmers in Zimbabwe have lodged a complaint at the tribunal seeking to halt the land reform programme.
Adv Machaya told the tribunal the Sadc Treaty was a set of "guidelines" for member states.
The white commercial farmers, who are represented in the case by advocates Jeremy Gauntlett and Adrian de Bourbon, further accused the Zimbabwean Government of instituting a racially-based land reform programme and of refusing to compensate white farmers for the expropriated land.
Adv Gauntlett said that farmers took the case to the regional court after the Zimbabwean Government effected constitutional legislation, Amendment 17, which effectively shut out any legal challenges in Zimbabwean courts against land reform.
But Adv Machaya defended the country's land reform programme, saying it was unavoidable that only whites would be targeted by landless blacks since they were the only ones who occupied lush farming land and have been living in an "island of prosperity" while the majority blacks were wallowing in abject poverty.
But above all, Adv Machaya argued, the tribunal does not have jurisdiction to force the Zimbabwean Government to reverse its laws.
"(The) Sadc Treaty merely outlines and sets out frameworks within which binding obligations can then be created for purposes of their being enforced," Adv Machaya said.
"Ouster of right to approach the Zimbabwean courts effected by (Constitutional) Amendment 17 is not a contravention of the Sadc Treaty and orders of this nature are not competent for the Tribunal to make. (The) Tribunal should refer the matter to the (Sadc) summit. It cannot legislate on the government to nullify such legislation," Adv Machaya said.
He added: "Land reform was inevitable: the white farming community occupied just under 50 percent of all the fertile farming land while the rest of the land was occupied by the indigenous in areas of low rainfall and poor soils."
Adv Machaya also said that a section of Amendment 17 provides for challenges to land reform through judicial review if an aggrieved party felt that the land was being acquired for selfish reasons.
Adv Gauntlett argued that the Zimbabwean Government violated the Sadc Treaty, alleging that the land reform programme was unconstitutional and discriminatory.
"The treaty says that Sadc member states shall not discriminate against any person on grounds of gender, religion, political views, race, ethnic origin, culture, ill-health or disability."
He added that the complainants in the case were not against the land reform programme in Zimbabwe "if done according to the law".
Zimbabwe's legal team withdrew from the Sadc Tribunal hearing on Thursday morning after the plaintiffs in the watershed case filed an urgent application asking the tribunal to hold the Zimbabwean Government in contempt of court for non-compliance on orders issued last December.
White commercial farmers who are challenging compulsory acquisition of their farms by the Zimbabwean Government filed the application seeking the tribunal to hold Harare in contempt of court after three commercial farmers claimed they were beaten and harassed by what the Government says were thugs and common criminals.
Last December, the tribunal ordered the Zimbabwean Government not to acquire farms belonging to the applicants pending the outcome of the court case.
On the second day of the hearing at the Sadc Tribunal in Windhoek, the head of the five-panel bench, Judge Louis Mondhlane, ordered the applicants to proceed with their urgent application.
But the Zimbabwean legal team, headed by Adv Machaya, opposed the granting of the application and after consultations, told the court that if it was willing to proceed with the urgent application, they would not be part of it.
"After consultations with my advisors, I have received specific instructions to the effect that the Government of Zimbabwe takes this application very seriously in so far as the outcome may have an impact on the Government of Zimbabwe.
"There have been developments in Zimbabwe and Government feels it is necessary that the defence that we give be supplemented with additional material evidence," Adv Machaya told the court.
He said that there had been arrests of persons concerning the disturbances and pending prosecutions, adding that it would strengthen the respondent's case should the Zimbabwean police, army and Attornery-General's Office be called to the witness stand.
"The police, army and others should have an opportunity to place evidence with a view to answering the allegations raised . . . the Tribunal should get all the relevant evidence," Adv Machaya said.
He added that he would not make a submission on the basis of previous evidence.
After Judge Mondhlane said that the court would proceed with the urgent application since the respondent had been given ample time to make a response, Adv Machaya asked to be excused from the proceedings regarding the application.
"If the Tribunal decides to proceed, I would beg leave to be excused from the hearing of this application as I have received specific instructions from my Government," Adv Machaya said.
The five-judge panel, however, did not assent to Adv Machaya's request to be excused and Judge Mondhlane allowed the applicants to proceed, resulting in Adv Machaya and his team walking out of the courtroom.
Adv Gauntlett proceeded with the urgent application in which he claimed his clients were beaten up.
He asked the court to refer the matter of contempt of court to heads of state at the Sadc summit next month.
Judgment in the main case, in which about 79 white commercial farmers are challenging expropriation of their farms, will be delivered in due course, Judge Mondhlane said.
In a related matter, the Zimbabwean Embassy later denied that Zimbabwe's legal team had walked out, saying the team had sought to be excused after finding out that the tribunal was "disposed to proceed in an unusual manner".
Zimbabwean Ambassador to Namibia Cde Chipo Zindoga said the white commercial farmers were victims of criminal activities by a gang of about 30 people who have since been arrested.
"If the Zimbabwean Government did not respect the rule of law, the white commercial farmers who have dragged the Government to court, would not have been at the contested farms as we speak. The criminal elements who acted on their own accord, and assaulted the Campbells, have been apprehended," Cde Zindoga said.
"It appears there are no more common criminals in Zimbabwe . . . all criminals belong to either Government or Zanu-PF," she added.
Cde Zindoga also said the legal team did not walk but asked to be excused.
"We are members of the Tribunal, so we cannot walk out from our own organ," she said.
"Zimbabwe, as a member of Sadc, was instrumental in the formation of the Tribunal. Our legal team appeared at the Sadc Tribunal in good faith.
"We are aware that the white commercial farmers are working in cahoots with their kith and kin to politicise the Sadc Tribunal. They are using their case to injure the sovereign interests of Zimbabwe, to push the illegal regime change agenda on Zimbabwe, to the United Nations Security Council through the backdoor," Cde Zindoga said.
Printer friendly version
Send page by E-Mail
Zimbabwe: AU, UN set to monitor talks
Posted: Saturday, July 19, 2008
AFP-Herald Reporter.
July 19, 2008
The Herald
South African President Thabo Mbeki yesterday invited the African Union and the United Nations to join a new "reference group" with Sadc that will liaise on his efforts to mediate a solution to Zimbabwe's problems, a top aide said.
President Mbeki, however, remains fully in charge of the mediation process as mandated by Sadc and the AU, but the group can monitor progress and give him its views.
Speaking after President Mbeki met AU Commission chief Mr Jean Ping and UN envoy Mr Haile Menkerios in Pretoria, South African Local Government Minister Mr Sydney Mufamadi said the new group would support the Mr Mbeki in his mission to mediate between the ruling Zanu-PF and MDC in Harare on behalf of the 14-nation Sadc regional bloc.
"The special representantive of Sadc (Angolan Deputy Foreign Minister George Chikoti), the AU and the UN were briefed by President Mbeki and he invited them to constitute a reference group with the mediator on an ongoing basis," said Mr Mufamadi, who is President Mbeki's right-hand man in the mediation effort.
"They will appoint people who will be based at the venue country. They will get briefings on a regular basis from the facilitator."
President Mbeki, who was appointed by Sadc a year ago to mediate in Zimbabwe, met Mr Ping and Mr Menkerios behind closed doors, a spokesman in the president's office said.
"I can confirm there is a meeting. It is in Pretoria at the presidential guesthouse," Thabang Chiloane told AFP.
South African Foreign Minister Dr Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma was to give an update on her leader's mediation efforts at yesterday's meeting of Sadc foreign ministers in Durban, with the South African government insistent that a resolution to the Zimbabwe issue remains the sole preserve of Sadc.
"Our view has always been, and I am stressing it, we are being diverted by a fake argument about the expansion of the Sadc facilitation," Deputy Foreign Minister Mr Aziz Pahad told reporters earlier this week.
Yesterday's meeting between President Mbeki and the AU and UN officials is expected to pave the way for the signing of the Memorandum of Understanding setting the agenda for dialogue between Zanu-PF and the two MDC factions.
MDC-T leader Morgan Tsvangirai on Wednesday made a last-minute decision to withhold his signature from the MoU.
Tsvangirai told The Star newspaper of South Africa on Thursday that he was awaiting the outcome of yesterday's meeting between President Mbeki and Mr Ping before he could sign the MoU. – AFP-Herald Reporter.
Printer friendly version
Send page by E-Mail
India Unwilling to Censure Mugabe
Posted: Friday, July 18, 2008
Zimbabwe Watch Reporters
July 18, 2008
ZimbabweWatch.com
India is unwilling to censure its old ally, President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe.
President Mugabe earned another term in office last month in a run-off election that was boycotted by the MDC leader Morgan Tsvangirai.
Zimbabwe's Justice Minister Patrick Chinamasa called the MDC leader's announcement of withdrawal a 'nullity'. "Effectively, the official position, from a constitutional (legal) point of view is that the election should go ahead, regardless of the MDC leader's withdrawal. This is what the Electoral Law in Zimbabwe provides."
India's foreign secretary Shivshankar Menon told reporters last week that India was "...looking to the African Union on the Zimbabwe crisis and would follow its lead." "India does not interfere in the internal affairs of another country," he said at that time.
India's Minister of State for External Affairs Anand Sharma attended the African Union summit at Sharm el-Sheikh in Egypt in late June, where he met 23 African foreign ministers.
Prior to the summit, delivering a speech at the valedictory session of a seminar on Africa and Energy Security, organised by the Institute of Defence Studies Analyses and International Peace Research Institute, Sharma said India's engagement with the African continent is "distinct and different". He said, "India's approach has not been and never can be exploitative."
Contrary to US and European's hostile interference, especially with their relentless calls for more sanctions to be imposed on Zimbabwe, India's ongoing foreign policy is outlined as having close ties and cooperation to all African countries and intends to continue to consolidate those gains to intensify bilateral economic and commercial links for mutual benefit. As far back as 1996, India's Prime Minister, while in Harare, concluded a Memorandum of Understanding on the development of small-scale industries in Zimbabwe.
In June of this year, Indian Ambassador to Zimbabwe Venkatesan Vashok has said that Zimbabwe should fully exploit India's technological advancement to transform its economy and develop its infrastructure.
"I feel we have cutting edge technologies and human resources potential, both of which can be of great help to Zimbabwe particularly in key areas such as health, agriculture, infrastructure development and mining," Vashok said.
Some commodities exported by India to Zimbabwe include pharmaceuticals, fine chemicals, rubber products, fabrics and transport equipment while the Asian country imports metals, steel, tanning and coloring material from Zimbabwe.
It has been reported India's "deliberate go-slow" on Zimbabwe was also a reflection of the "double standards" on the part of many Western nations, according to an Indian diplomat who declined to be named given the sensitivity of the issue.
He, however, admitted that India's new-found zeal to get cracking on its strategic partnership with the US may also have something to do with the go-slow on Zimbabwe. "India is balancing the nay-sayers on its new pro-West policies with its silence on Zimbabwe."
"Will the US and Britain make the same comments about Kenya, or even Pakistan?" the diplomat asked, adding, "India is not China, and that cuts both ways."
Russia and China on Friday, July 11, 2008, vetoed a resolution backed by the US and Britain along with other Western nations to impose additional sanctions on Zimbabwe at the UN Security Council.
After years of praise and accolades from the West, President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe comes under severe criticism and sanctions from Western governments for expropriating stolen land from White settlers and their descendents for distribution to the Black majority in Zimbabwe. Since the accelerated land reclamation commenced, over 300.000 landless Black Africans have received land from this exercise.
Printer friendly version
Send page by E-Mail
The Cost of Being a Revolutionary
Posted: Friday, July 18, 2008
By Reason Wafawarova
July 18, 2008
THE British ambassador to the UN, John Sawers, was so devastated by the Russia-China veto on the politically-motivated US-drafted sanctions resolution that he described this Western humiliation as having put the British foreign policy "in disarray".
His boss, David Miliband, the foreign secretary, bemoaned the development as "incomprehensible" and Sawers vaingloriously postured as a humanitarian by claiming: "The people of Zimbabwe need to be given hope that there is an end in sight to their suffering. The Security Council today has failed to offer them that hope."
What threw the British foreign policy into disarray is not the failure to give Zimbabweans hope over their suffering. Rather, Russia and China chose to think for themselves when the US is convinced that they alone should do the thinking for all mortals on the planet.
The US-led Western alliance is dismayed that the world order that calls on all other nations not to think for themselves has been violated – that in a manner BBC correspondent Andy Gallacher can only describe as a "big blow to the West".
The West expects all nations to kow-tow to their dictates and to feed on canned and prepared stuff. They are after a world system that ensures that humanity worships at the shrine of the strong-armed Emperor.
This is the shrine at which the world must converge in condemnation of all the dissidents that dare rebel against the mighty Americans and their surrogate allies Britain.
The names of such dissidents as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran, Hugo Chavez Frias of Venezuela, Fidel Castro of Cuba and Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe are supposed to be used somewhat as English parents used Napoleon Bonaparte's name in the first decades of the 19th century, to frighten and admonish children.
This is what happened to Emma Goldman in the 1890s – that Russian-born American advocate of women's rights and anti-elitism. For angering the US ruling elite, Goldman was made to enjoy national notoriety and she was virtually turned into a national bugaboo the same way President Mugabe has been turned into a Western monster.
This is the cost of rebelling against the Emperor. It is a price every revolutionary that will stand against imperialism will have to pay. For President Mugabe the price was first paid during the liberation struggle when his preferred title in the West was "terrorist". He became Mr Mugabe after he preached reconciliation and he was even honoured with an English knighthood in 1994. This was four years after the expiry of the willing buyer-willing seller land policy, in the hope that President Mugabe would dare not touch the farms.
When he revived questions about land redistribution in the mid-90s he was "beginning to lose his marbles". He did not know what he was doing, just like Martin Luther King Jnr was losing the plot when he joined the striking sanitation workers in Memphis.
When the Government wrote to Tony Blair over compensation for land that was to be acquired from some of the white commercial farmers, he was dismissed as insane.
The 1999 momentum on the land question agitated the British so much they decided to directly start interfering in our internal affairs.
The 2000 farm occupation by landless peasants were labelled lawlessness. Countries like Kenya, South Africa and Zambia were cited as good examples to follow.
But the landless villagers continued occupation of white-held farms, triumphantly declaring they were no longer less equal than others.
This kind of a declaration has a price and the Zimbabwe has been ruthlessly sanctioned as a result.
These are the sanctions whose perpetuation the Russia-China power vetoed at the UN Security Council on July 11. For their pains, the Russians have been threatened with ejection from the G8 and China has been labelled the protector of totalitarian regimes.
Emma Goldman was certainly on the mark when she contrasted the puny violence of individuals with the large-scale violence of the American state and she almost prophetically put US state power in its very sad context.
Said Goldman: "We Americans claim to be peace-loving people. We hate bloodshed; we are opposed to violence. Yet we go into spasms of joy over the possibility of projecting dynamite bombs from flying machines upon helpless citizens of other nationalities."
This was in 1916, but one would think she could see Iraq and Afghanistan today.
To the Empire, social justice over little countries like Zimbabwe strikes as dangerous nonsense.
As such, the "nonsense" has to be stopped by any means possible. This explains the obsession with regime change in Zimbabwe.
Revolution is not a trade, as some people may suppose. If it were, then nobody would follow a trade at which you may work with the industry of a slave and die with the reputation of a mendicant.
The motives of any revolutionary must be deeper than mere pride, stronger than mere interest and nobler than just ego.
In this Zimbabwean revolution, some of us have been relegated to professional outcasts blacklisted by the mainstream capitalist job market – all for a prize that could easily be no different from what happened to Emma Goldman, to Thomas Sankara, Samora Machel, Simon Bolivar and all other heroes that were painted in the blackest of colours for standing up to the Empire.
This writer will testify that partaking in the revolution is driven by a motive far deeper than any financial reward, deeper than any form of family attachment, deeper than any level of friendship and stronger than any form of personal interest.
This is the invincible patriotic drive founded in the proud history of our motherland – the ethos we call our nationhood and our national identity. It is a quest for independence and sovereignty – values far deeper than personal ambition and so fundamental to the foundation of a nation.
No amount of persecution, ridicule or slander can possibly kill this passion enshrined in the infallible motive that drives a revolution. It is a motive no amount of riches can ever conquer and this is why the revolutionary spirit will manifest in the East, in the West, in the South and in the North – in all corners of this planet regardless of where one resides.
This is why threatening Peter Mavhunga with the withdrawal of his salary cannot silence his voice.
The path of a revolutionary for social justice and for the defeat of imperialism is strewn with thorns.
The path of a revolutionary is often obstructed by envy, sometimes growing to hatred, vanity and jealousy, and all these fill his or her heart with sadness.
It requires an inflexible will and tremendous enthusiasm not to lose all the faith in the cause under such conditions.
Even Venezuela's Simon Bolivar ended his last days in misery and called the revolution a "thankless" cause.
The representative of a revolutionising idea stands between two fires: on the one hand, the persecution by the existing powers which hold him responsible for all acts resulting from social and political conditions around him; and on the other, the lack of understanding on the part of his colleagues and would-be followers who often judge all his activity from the narrowest of a standpoint.
Thus it may happen that the representative of a revolution stands quite alone in the midst of a marauding multitude. After all, even the Jews gave Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the very same experience.
It is the cost of a revolution, sometimes paid by the shedding of blood.
The inevitable truth is that the mist that envelops the glory of a revolutionary walk will always dissipate, many times after the death of the revolutionary.
This will explain the mystery of the irony of honouring Nelson Mandela while young Nelson Mandelas doing exactly what Mandela did when he was their age in South Africa are being ridiculed and persecuted.
It explains the irony of honouring Martin Luther King while the Kings of today are still being crucified.
It explains the vanity of honouring Zimbabwe's Mbuya Nehanda and Sekuru Kaguvi while the living Nehandas and Kaguvis are daily ridiculed and labelled the lowest level barbarians ever.
The most publicised picture to date is arguably that of Che Guevara and he is honoured as a revolutionary who trembled with indignation at any form of injustice.
But why are the living Guevaras crucified and persecuted at the same time their dead icon is being honoured in an outstanding manner?
Those in the revolutionary walk to empower the ordinary Zimbabwean must not tire and must draw courage from the fact that the prize that awaits every true revolutionary far outweighs the tribulations of today.
Zimbabwe we are one. It is time to unite and build our nation.
The Cubans say, "It is homeland or death", and together we will overcome.
Reason Wafawarova is a political writer and can be contacted on wafawarova@yahoo.com or info@rwafawarova.com or visit www.rwafawarova.com
Printer friendly version
Send page by E-Mail
Zimbabwe is not Liberia
Posted: Friday, July 18, 2008
By Nomagugu M'simang
July 18, 2008
The Herald
I write as a Zimbabwean woman and mother of four who has lived in Zimbabwe all her life.
I also write as a woman and mother who has been a victim of the devastating effects of the illegal sanctions imposed on Zimbabwe by the United States, Britain and their European Union allies.
I also write as a Zimbabwean who wonders at the moral decency of why her country is being punished for repossessing its land and reasserting its national independence and sovereignty.
I am also writing as a Zimbabwean who is witnessing through leaps and bounds, the growth and development of our democratic systems since 1980 when Zimbabwe attained political independence.
And, I am also writing as an observer who has seen political spaces opened up by the Zanu-PF Government despite what may be said to the contrary.
I am also writing as someone who saw the present Government sitting down with their arch-rivals, the Rhodesian government, in 1979 at Lancaster House.
I also write as a woman and mother who also saw the hand of reconciliation being extended by President Mugabe to Ian Smith and Rhodesia.
I further write as someone who realised the importance of forgiveness and embracing one's foes regardless of how they might have hurt you.
I also write as someone who saw yet again the magnanimity in the Zimbabwean people and their leadership when in 1987, they buried the hatchet and chose peace and not war, through the Unity Accord. This is an accord that has now become the raison d'être (rupawo) of our nation. For as a nation we have since realised that unity breeds success and prosperity.
I am also writing as a Zimbabwean sick of outside interference in our internal affairs, aware that Zimbabweans can bridge their differences and come to a common understanding about their vision, and adequately plan for the realisation of that vision.
For, it is a fallacy that Western standards and value systems artificially imposed on Zimbabwe will work for the common good of our nation.
And now, I write as a woman, full of sadness as I see a fellow woman who holds a very powerful leadership position deciding to do the West's bidding against Zimbabwe.
Last week, on the eve of the United Nations Security Council vote on the US-sponsored draft resolution for sanctions against Zimbabwe, Liberian President Ellen Sirleaf-Johnson became one of the few lone voices outside of the UNSC membership to vocally support the imposition of sanctions against Zimbabwe.
President Johnson-Sirleaf as a woman, mother and grandmother, should know the serious consequences that sanctions have on the most vulnerable groups in society.
For through experience, she knows that the sanctions imposed on Liberia resulted in the suffering of the most vulnerable groups in that country.
The Liberian leader said she supported a Western push for sanctions as a way of illegally effecting regime change against President Mugabe's Government.
Sirleaf-Johnson said sanctions against Zimbabwe would be appropriate since they would send a "strong message" to the Zimbabwean Government. She has also denounced Zimbabwe's electoral system.
Sirleaf-Johnson also argued that her support for sanctions against Zimbabwe could be equated to the Liberian experience where she maintained that sanctions had assisted in bringing about "a satisfactory resolution" to Liberia's 14-year civil war that ended in 2003.
Since she made the comments while on South African soil, the Liberian leader should probably be reminded that another notable leader and a woman, former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher, opposed sanctions against the evil apartheid system as she argued that the most vulnerable groups – the black people – would suffer immensely.
The Liberian leader's comments also contrasted with those of other members of the African Union who opposed sanctions against Zimbabwe. South African Foreign Affairs Minister Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma had told the leaders at the G8 summit on July 8 that Africa would not back sanctions against Zimbabwe.
And, as such, the draft resolution did not pass, with the full support of South Africa, Libya and the vetoes of two of the UNSC's permanent members, China and Russia. And no one forgets Vitenam's sterling role in the whole matter.
So, are Liberia and Burkina Faso – which supported sanctions against Zimbabwe in the Security Council – not part of the African Union?
Or, they were simply doing the US's bidding? For it is now quite apparent that a few individuals in both the AU and Sadc are foot soldiers for the West in its quest to transform the geo-political sphere into a single entity governed by Western principles of democracy and governance.
The agenda that Sirleaf-Johnson appears to be pushing on behalf of the US could be one of the reasons why she occupies the highest office in Liberia at the expense of George Weah after the November 2005 presidential run-off election in that country.
Weah's heroism during the civil war was relegated to the dustbin of history as the "international community" preferred a Harvard-trained financier to the less "educated" football star and icon.
Many might wonder why Africa's first elected female head of state has been very vociferous about Zimbabwe. When Zimbabwe attained independence in 1980, Sirleaf-Johnson was a minister when William Tolbert's government sought exile in Kenya. How has the post-election Kenyan scenario to date, and the formation of the "grand coalition" influenced the Liberian leader?
Sirleaf-Johnson feels confident talking about Zimbabwe's presidential poll and its electoral system because she knows that there are a number of similarities in Zimbabwe and Liberia's electoral laws.
Her voice is also meant to add weight to the issue of the so-called transitional government, which was also in place in Liberia for three years before elections were eventually held in 2005.
However, it is a view that disregards the wishes of the Zimbabwean people, and a view that disregards that Liberia and Zimbabwe are shaped by different value systems.
Liberia's presidential and parliamentary elections of 2005 were only held after a two-year transitional period after the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement by representatives of the warring factions, political parties and civil society in 2003 in Ghana.
From October 2003 to 2005, the National Transitional Government of Liberia, a brainchild of the CPA, governed Liberia.
Liberia, like Zimbabwe, has the "50 percent plus one" clause in its electoral law, which means that unless a presidential candidate wins outrightly during the first round, then there would be a run-off poll between the top two candidates.
In the first round, Weah beat Sirleaf-Johnson by a wide margin despite the fact that there were 22 presidential hopefuls (28,3 and 19,8 percent of the votes, respectively).
Neither Sirleaf-Johnson nor Weah had garnered the absolute majority of "50 percent plus one" of valid votes required.
However, just like the Zimbabwe case, Weah initially refused to go for the second round maintaining that he had won convincingly.
The very tune that MDC-T leader Morgan Tsvangirai has been dancing to, failing to realise that "outrightly" and "convincingly" mean different things.
However, the Liberian case was "well managed" because there was an easy formula, and land was not the central issue in the former American slave colony.
The Liberian leader also makes it look like Liberia ran the best election after the brutal civil war. According to a report by the Carter Centre and the National Democratic Institute, "One of the most significant complaints was brought by the Liberty Party, on behalf of presidential aspirant Charles Brumskine, who came in third place in the presidential race.
"In a statement issued on October 18, 2005, the Liberty Party alleged that 'at least three aspects of the electoral process, namely ballot marking by illiterate voters, the counting of the votes, and the reporting of the votes counted, have been marred by serious irregularities, bordering on fraud'.
"The Liberty Party contended that many illiterate voters who requested help from poll workers were guided to mark areas on the ballot that did not reflect the voters' choice."
Today, the "international community" toasts the Liberian leader and berates Zimbabwe. But I would like to say to Zimbabweans: Keep on keeping on. After all, prescriptions are easier to make than clinical diagnoses.
Zimbabwe is not Liberia, just like it is not Kenya. And it is the will of Zimbabweans, not Sirleaf-Johnson's, that shall carry the day.
Printer friendly version
Send page by E-Mail
Sadc land case: Zim lawyers walk out
Posted: Friday, July 18, 2008
Herald Reporter
July 18, 2008
The Herald
LAWYERS representing the Government of Zimbabwe at the Sadc Tribunal Court in Namibia in the case in which white former commercial farmers are challenging the compulsory acquisition of land for resettlement yesterday walked out of court protesting against the manner in which the proceedings were being conducted.
What irked the lawyers was the reactivation of the contempt of court order against the Government of Zimbabwe that was thrown out on Wednesday by the tribunal.
The former farmers, claiming that the Government of Zimbabwe was not complying with an interim order to allow them to return to their farms granted last year, brought about the charge.
According to one of the lawyers, Advocate Martin Dinha, the tribunal reactivated the application of contempt of court that was heard after they had walked out.
"We sought to have more evidence heard from the security organs and Zanu-PF to prove that the Government of Zimbabwe was not in contempt of court, but the tribunal denied justice to the Government of Zimbabwe. They did not allow for evidence to be led from the relevant Government organs," he said.
Adv Dinha said they also wanted to prove that one Gift Moyo and other people in Mashonaland West were not assigned by the Government and that they had since been arrested for acts of violence, theft, vandalism and assault.
"We cannot legitimise the kangaroo process where rules of the court are not properly applied and manifest unfairness against our Government and its security organs by a Sadc tribunal funded by the European Union, the US and the British government," he said.
Adv Dinha said the Sadc Tribunal allowed itself to be an "instrument" of the so-called regime change agenda and to injure the sovereign interests of Zimbabwe.
He said the purpose of the contempt of court case was to have the matter referred to the Sadc summit and have the United Nations impose more sanctions on Harare.
"We will defend the interests of our country and we will not allow the Sadc Tribunal to be a football pitch where US and British interests become the soccer match," Adv Dinha.
On Wednesday, the tribunal was forced to throw out the application following a strenuous protest by the lawyers representing the 345 beneficiaries of the land reform programme.
The lawyers had insisted that the intervener application filed by the beneficiaries should be heard first before any inquiry into the alleged contempt of court by the Government of Zimbabwe.
The 345 resettled farmers who were affected by the interim order granted to
white former commercial farmers by the Sadc Tribunal filed a substantive intervener application with the regional tribunal last month.
This was after 77 other white farmers had filed intervener applications that have now been consolidated against the Government to lend weight to the case brought by Michael Campbell to the tribunal.
The case opened in October last year and Campbell, the former owner of Mount Camel Farm in Chegutu, successfully obtained an interdict order blocking Government from acquiring his farm.
The tribunal on Wednesday deferred the hearing of the intervener application to a date yet to be set in September, but it heard the main application in circumstances which legal experts have described as strange and unprocedural.
The setting down of the intervener application for hearing in September means the main case is supposed to be determined after the interlocutory application.
The tribunal cannot determine the main case unless it hears the arguments and reserve its ruling – until it hears arguments from the intervener before making a proper decision.
In their application, the beneficiaries are arguing that they have a right to be heard in accordance with principles of natural justice on a matter that affects their peaceful and lawful occupation of the farms allocated to them.
On the other hand, the farmers claim that Section 16B of the country's constitution constitutes a breach of the rule of law and human rights and violates provisions of the Sadc Treaty.
The section states that in the event that the Minister of Lands compulsorily acquires land, the decision to acquire that land cannot be challenged in court.
Advocate Adrian de Bourbon and Advocate Jeremy Guantlet are representing the white farmers while the Deputy Attorney-General (Civil Division) Adv Prince Machaya assisted by the Director (Civil Division) Mrs Fatima Maxwell and Adv Dinha is representing the Government of Zimbabwe.
Printer friendly version
Send page by E-Mail
Stand firm against US, UK arrogance
Posted: Thursday, July 17, 2008
Opinion & Analysis
July 17, 2008
The Herald
LAST week, the world was treated to yet another display of the kind of supreme arrogance that has characterised the West's engagement of Zimbabwe since the start of the Land Reform Programme.
In this instance, the United States, Britain, France and their allies in the illegal regime change agenda tried to get the United Nations to impose sanctions on Zimbabwe.
These countries were trying to find a way to legitimise the unilateral economic embargo they already have on the country through the structures of the UN.
Thankfully, reason and sanity prevailed and South Africa, Libya, Vietnam, Russia and China effectively opposed this latest attempt to interfere in the internal political affairs of a sovereign nation.
While the West learnt its lesson that the world will not roll over and accept whatever insults are thrown their way by military powers, there was also a poignant lesson for the UN and Africa from all this.
Firstly, the UN must find ways of ensuring that its offices and structures are not abused by individuals such as George W. Bush and Gordon Brown, who have their own personal scores to settle with Zimbabwe.
The most democratic organ of the UN, the General Assembly, must seriously consider
coming up with punitive measures to deter warmongers from bringing forward frivolous draft resolutions that only serve to divide what should be an organisation that seeks to foster global unity.
It is in the best interests of all UN members to send a clear and strong message to countries like the US and Britain that the organisation exists to deal with real issues, not to appease the flippant political desires of power-drunk Western countries.
Secondly, the African Union must realise that the West does not care about what this continent's leaders and people say or want.
The AU passed a resolution in Egypt earlier this month in which they made it clear that South Africa's President Thabo Mbeki should be given the room and support he requires to complete his facilitation of dialogue between Zimbabwe's political parties.
The AU was also unambiguous about the fact that there should be no interference by any interest group whether inside or outside Africa unless President Mbeki has expressed a desire for assistance.
By taking a draft resolution to the Security Council calling for sanctions on Zimbabwe, the US, Britain and their motley band of supporters have demonstrated that they are not interested in what Africa thinks.
As such, the AU must realise that the West simply wants to criticise and control the rest of the world.
If Africa allows such a thing to continue, history will judge the present crop of continental leaders harshly for watching as our sovereignty is compromised in such a blatantly crude manner.
Printer friendly version
Send page by E-Mail
Zimbabwe: UK hypocrisy exposed
Posted: Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Herald Reporter
July 16, 2008
The Herald
THE British government is building a £10 million complex for its Embassy in Harare despite its calls for foreign companies operating in Zimbabwe to pull out of the country.
Chief executive of leading construction group Murray & Roberts Mr Brian Bruce recently revealed that his company was contracted nearly 18 months ago to build the complex just outside Harare's central business district.
"It is a completely new facility from scratch, costing in the region of £10 million. Work began about 18 months ago and is pretty close to completion," Mr Bruce said.
Murray & Roberts Zimbabwe is 48 percent owned by Murray and Roberts, Johannesburg in South Africa and is listed separately on the local bourse.
The building is now close to completion and insiders said the UK's mission in Harare would relocate there "late this year or early next year".
Observers say the project exposes British hypocrisy following repeated claims by Prime Minister Gordon Brown and several of his ministers that Zimbabwe was not a safe country to do business in and that companies operating in the country should relocate as part of the illegal regime change agenda.
In essence, this means that the British government is investing in Zimbabwe while discouraging companies like Anglo-American and Barclays from doing so.
Keith Scott, the first secretary for political and public affairs at the British Embassy in Harare, yesterday admitted that the UK was indeed expanding its presence in the country despite official pronouncements calling for sanctions.
"It is right that the UK should plan an embassy commensurate with its interests in Zimbabwe," Scott said without explaining why they were expanding while at the same time coercing others to pull out.
He added that their position was that "individuals must look to their own consciences as regards investments" in Zimbabwe.
Presently, the local UK embassy rents space in the city centre.
Britain, together with the United States, has been at the forefront in urging companies to pull out of Zimbabwe and last week their bid to have United Nations sanctions imposed on the country was thwarted by several members of the UN Security Council.
Printer friendly version
Send page by E-Mail
Africa will never abandon Zimbabwe
Posted: Tuesday, July 15, 2008
By Dr Obediah Mazombwe
July 16, 2008
THE Western governments must stop being dismissive of African sentiment. It was most rude, undiplomatic, and even uncouth, for the French-led EU to announce, in the face of an AU-considered and published decision to conduct unity talks between rival Zimbabwean political parties, that the EU would only recognise a Mr Morgan Tsvangirai-led Zimbabwe government.
We fervently hope that Mr Tsvangirai, in his approach to the on-going talks, will not be unduly influenced by this irresponsible declaration by the French government and the EU. Neither the USA nor the EU has the moral or legal authority to declare who should rule a sovereign country like Zimbabwe.
This is a country that attained its independence and sovereignty through an armed struggle that the greater part of the US and EU establishments did not support, in fact, in some way undermined.
The unity talks under way in South Africa must proceed without any undue delay or hindrance, and without any preconditions. Both negotiating parties should realise that the Zimbabwean masses are suffering intensively under the current conditions. Indeed it is incumbent upon the negotiating parties to reach an agreement within the following week and establish a ruling authority in Zimbabwe to take immediate responsibility for the welfare of the suffering Zimbabweans.
The MDC leader in particular needs to start behaving like a true national leader and take full responsibility for his decisions rather than allow himself to be prompted by external forces, who do not have the interest of the Zimbabwean people at heart.
Zimbabwe and Africa are eagerly awaiting a positive outcome from these negotiations, and whilst Western governments can observe the process, they have no business interfering with and trying to direct the process.
In searching for future global peace and security, one does not want to endlessly refer to past ills, but Anglo-American policymakers need to be reminded that the cut inflicted by 500 years of slavery and colonialism was a most heinous crime. It was so deep and so close to the jugular that Africans are easily reminded of it. They will forgive but not forget.
Western, particularly American, policymakers need also to be reminded that African nationalism is well entrenched on the continent. It is very deep rooted in countries like Tanzania, Mozambique, Zimbabwe and South Africa.
It cannot be wiped away through a wild mixture of cajoling, persuasion, threats and bribery. This was demonstrated by the steadfast position adopted by the likes of President Abdoulaye Wade of Senegal, President Jakaya Kikwete of Tanzania, President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa, and its foreign minister, Mrs Nkosazana Dhlamini-Zuma, over the issue of Zimbabwe.
It is very clear that in spite of their own weaknesses, especially those pertaining to corruption and economic mismanagement, the majority of African leaders are very clear about their quest for a pan-Africanist destiny for Africa. America and Europe need to respect this.
More serious for the rich Western nations to note is the fact that African leaders are now very aware that the rich West are not yet serious about assisting Africa resolve her problems with abject poverty and the associated suffering of its people. They are also aware, thanks to the constant reminders by the West's behaviour, that most of Africa's problems are still attributable to the colonial legacy.
Worse still, African leaders know that current Western policies of unfair trade and economic relations, the instigation of conflict and sale of arms to the continent, are all major causal and sustaining factors of Africa's woes.
It is in this context that Africa will not abandon Zimbabwe and see President Mugabe as an African hero. It surely could not have escaped the notice of Western analysts that in spite of the massive media onslaught on President Mugabe, not a single African head of state has actually condemned the Zimbabwean Government and President Mugabe as such.
Only the rogue Prime Minister of Kenya, Raila Odinga, in clear contrast to the stance adopted by that country's deputy president and foreign minister, has directly attacked President Mugabe and called for his expulsion from Sadc and the AU. In his case it might only be a matter of time before the West drags him to The Hague for genocide related to the killing of thousands of Kenyans in the just ended Kenyan elections. The West has not hesitated to do so with Charles Taylor of Liberia, Pierre Bemba of the DRC, Saddam Hussein of Iraq, who they first supported when it was politically expedient but discarded when they were no longer useful for the West's own purposes.
The only other country that has formally condemned Zimbabwe is Botswana. That country has decided, in spite of its massive diamond wealth, to become America's client state in the region. This should perhaps be "understandable" given that its current head of state is the son of a British knight, Sir Seretse Khama. Unless it changes direction, that country could yet become an anomaly and anachronism on the African political landscape.
However, in differing with the rich countries over Zimbabwe, African nationalist leaders have not been confrontational. Both South Africa's Mbeki and Tanzania's Kikwete have literally said to the West: "We agree with you on a lot of issues, including the fact that there are critical problems in Zimbabwe, but we differ with you on the way forward. We think our way is better and we will, with respect, stick to that, irrespective of your stance, sirs".
The African nationalist leaders have maintained this composed mature African stance even in the face of provocative and insulting behaviour on the part of the West.
That way the African nationalists have won this round of their diplomatic war with the West and have enlisted world opinion to their side.
The re-emerging Russian power has on its part been firm but accommodating in its dealings with the leading global power that America has become. In the case of Zimbabwe, the Russians have clearly and politely explained their reasons for vetoing the draft US resolution on Zimbabwe.
The Russian foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, in addressing their approach to dealing with other countries, who he refers to as "partners", recently wrote:
"There is no reason to conceal or dramatise the existing contradictions with our partners. We have a great deal to do together in the future. This includes co-operation with the UN and the G8, Russia-EU partnership, and the Nato-Russia council, settlement of crises and bilateral agendas."
The Western establishments need to note the difference between their approach to global issues and that adopted by the African nationalists and Russia.
Iran last week went ahead and tested its war missiles even as America protested and its Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice warned that America would not hesitate to deploy its military might to subdue the world to its will and that of its allies.
The Americans should exercise their power more responsibly. Should other races and peoples of the world decide that a US-dominated globe is not fit for humanity, no one but no one, is going to be safe.
Printer friendly version
Send page by E-Mail
UK steps up regime change agenda, hunts for suspected assets
Posted: Tuesday, July 15, 2008
AFP-Herald Reporter
July 15, 2008
The Herald
Britain is increasingly getting desperate to act against Zimbabwe and has announced plans to hunt down assets of senior Zanu-PF and Government officials.
President Mugabe has previously said he has no assets in foreign countries and told the British and the European Union to seize any if they find them.
Yesterday British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said he had asked the finance ministry to hunt down the assets of senior Zimbabwean officials and pledged to ramp up the illegal sanctions.
The British efforts are also aimed at helping MDC-T leader Morgan Tsvangirai, who is growing desperate to save his political career, analysts have said.
Tsvangirai's term as leader of the opposition expires next February as the party's constitution clearly states that "the president shall serve for a maximum of two terms".
"Tsvangirai wants to get in (to the highest office in the land) by hook and crook. He wants to get in at the expense of people's interests, the country's interests and his own party's interests," said one Harare-based analyst.
Britain has turned to the EU for more sanctions against Zimbabwe after a bid to pass fresh United Nations sanctions against Zimbabwe's leadership was vetoed by Russia and China.
Part of the resolution the British and Americans were pushing attempted to impose Tsvangirai as president of Zimbabwe on the basis of the March 29 results in which he led in the first round before losing to President Mugabe in the run-off last month.
"I have this morning asked the Treasury to work with the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) to track the wealth and the assets that are owned by members of the Mugabe regime ... so that we are in position to take tougher action at a later date," Brown said at a monthly news conference.
He claimed the assets are held in Asia, Africa and Europe.
The FATF is an inter-governmental body which tackles money laundering and terrorist financing.
Brown said Britain, the former colonial power in Zimbabwe, would return to the UN Security Council to act against Zimbabwe.
Countries that opposed the draft UN resolution did so on the grounds that talks between Government and the opposition were underway.
So desperate are the British, they are now punishing anyone with the name Mugabe.
A furious Sam Mugabe was left without money when her wages "vanished" in Britain's banking system – because of sanctions against President Mugabe and other senior Government officials.
Her bank HSBC mistook Sam (23) for a relative of President Mugabe and froze her £1 200 pay cheque, The Sun newspaper reported yesterday.
Her bosses at a media firm near her home in Camden, North London, feared a computer glitch and arranged for her to be paid again – only for the same thing to happen.
It was 10 days before British citizen Sam – born in Zimbabwe but no relation to President Mugabe – got her money.
She fumed: "Mugabe is quite a common name in Zimbabwe."
HSBC later apologised. – AFP-Herald Reporter.
Printer friendly version
Send page by E-Mail
Minister to testify in land case
Posted: Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Herald Reporter
July 15, 2008
The Herald
THE Minister of Lands, Land Reform and Resettlement, Cde Didymus Mutasa, is expected to give oral evidence before the Sadc Tribunal in Namibia during the hearing of a case in which 78 former commercial farmers are seeking to stop the compulsory acquisition of their farms for resettlement in Zimbabwe.
The hearing resumes tomorrow in Windhoek.
"The Minister of State for National Security, Lands, Land Reform and Resettlement, Cde Didymus Mutasa, is going to attend a hearing of land matters before a Sadc Tribunal as from July 16 to July 18 2008 in Windhoek, Namibia," an official in the ministry said in an interview yesterday.
"The Minister is expected to give oral evidence before the court which is sitting at the Supreme Court Building in Namibia to hear the matter."
According to the ministry, the matter was set down for the hearing of full and substantive arguments from both sides.
Apart from Cde Mutasa, the Zimbabwean delegation comprises Deputy Attorney-General (Civil Division) Advocate Prince Machaya, Deputy Attorney-General (Criminal Division) Mr Johaness Tomana, Advocate Martin Dinha and senior officials from the Ministry of Lands, Land Reform and Resettlement.
The hearing of the case was postponed to tomorrow by the tribunal on May 28 this year.
It also reserved judgment in an application in which more than 300 000 beneficiaries of the same land reform programme were seeking to be part of the hearing.
The tribunal deferred the case to July after granting the Zimbabwean Government’s legal team an extension to file their arguments.
The tribunal reserved judgment on an application by the Zimbabwe Lawyers for Justice, a progressive grouping of Zimbabwean lawyers representing resettled farmers, who want to be part of the case as it directly affected them.
Analysts argue that it would have been awkward for the tribunal to make a ruling on a case of 78 people that would have affected more than 300 000 people and thousands more awaiting resettlement without hearing the arguments of the resettled farmers.
Printer friendly version
Send page by E-Mail
Zimbabwe thanks China, Russia for UN veto
Posted: Monday, July 14, 2008
Herald Reporter
July 14, 2008
The Herald
GOVERNMENT yesterday thanked Zimbabwe's true and trusted friends for thwarting efforts by the West to impose more sanctions on the country through the United Nations Security Council last week.
In an interview yesterday, Deputy Minister of Information and Publicity Cde Bright Matonga hailed China and Russia for vetoing concerted efforts by Britain and the United States to victimise Zimbabwe.
He also thanked Libya, South Africa and Vietnam for their unreserved support for Zimbabwe.
"We are grateful to our all-weather friends, particularly China and Russia. We thank them wholeheartedly for their continued support and for the work they have done before, during and after independence. They continue to support us even during these difficult times," he said. "We are very grateful for their support.
"As Zimbabweans, we now need to work together as a united front. We have to put our house in order and be organised. This is the time for nation building."
Cde Matonga said it was important for Zimbabweans to put their differences aside and join hands for the development of the country.
"We have to work together as a nation. We must be united and disciplined. We do not need to take our friends for granted by always putting them in difficult circumstances as they might fail to defend us next time," he said.
Cde Matonga acknowledged the support the country was receiving from Sadc and the African Union but noted that some African countries were being compromised by the budgetary support they receive from
the West.
He said there were no divisions in Sadc and the AU over Zimbabwe although the West had tried to use divide-and-rule tactics.
"The enemy has not rested. The enemy is very bitter, vindictive and racist. We should not relax and say we have defeated them. It may look as victory, but it is not. We did not want to be on the agenda. We have to focus on nation building," Cde Matonga said.
Moves in the Security Council to impose sanctions on Zimbabwe at the UN level failed on Friday when Russia and China, two of the 15-member body's permanent members, vetoed the US draft resolution that could have widened the current illegal embargo against Zimbabwe to include an arms ban, among others.
The US, Britain, Italy, France, Panama, Croatia, Belgium, Costa Rica and Burkina Faso voted in favour of the sanctions while China, Russia, Libya, Vietnam and South Africa voted against. Indonesia abstained.
The negative vote of a single permanent member kills a resolution.
Russia condemned the move, saying it was an attempt to take the Security Council beyond its mandate of maintaining international peace and security.
It noted that such "illegitimate and dangerous attempts" could unbalance the whole UN system, adding that the problems in Zimbabwe could not be solved by the imposition of sanctions.
Stung by their failure, Britain and the US criticised Russia with America's UN envoy saying Moscow's veto cast doubt on its reliability as a G8 ally.
But Russia slammed the accusation as "unacceptable".
"Representatives of the United States and Britain have declared that our vote betrayed the G8 Tokyo summit accords on Zimbabwe and that this posed questions about Russia's reliability as a partner in the G8," government spokesman Andrei Nesterenko said in a statement.
"We consider such statements unacceptable," he added.
In a separate statement, the Russian foreign ministry condemned violence but warned the proposed UN resolution would have set a "dangerous precedent" for interference in countries' internal affairs.
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said they would shift to the European Union to see what further action to take against Zimbabwe.
Printer friendly version
Send page by E-Mail
Share your views on the Online Forums
View last 5 days / Advance search
