April 2, 2007 - April 13, 2007
Zimbabwe revokes US official's visas
Posted: Friday, April 13, 2007
The government of Zimbabwe cancelled visas for a congressional staff delegation from the US, citing no reason for their abrupt decision.
The US five member delegation was to meet opposition and civic leaders to help sort out the political crisis in Zimbabwe.
The delegation was headed by Pearl-Alice Marsh, responsible for advising US House of Representatives International Relations Committee, and consisted of her staff members.
US embassy's public affairs officer, Paul Engelstad, stated: "We very much regret the government's self-defeating decision which only further isolates them internationally."
Full Article : presstv.ir
Printer friendly version
Send page by E-Mail
Black activists speak on Zimbabwe crisis
Posted: Friday, April 13, 2007
By Monica Moorehead
www.workers.org
Harlem, N.Y.
April 13, 2007
The Brooklyn-based December 12 International Secretariat held an emergency community forum in Harlem on April 5 on the current and ongoing crisis that the Robert Mugabe-led government in Zimbabwe faces from U.S.-British imperialist threats.
The majority Black, well-attended meeting included well-known activists such as Elombe Brath of the Patrice Lumumba Coalition and New York City Councilperson Charles Barron. Barron had publicly welcomed President Mugabe to New York's City Hall in 2005 when he came to the city for the opening of the United Nations General Assembly, but the majority of the City Council boycotted the event.
The April 5 meeting was held at Mount Olivet Church, the same venue where President Mugabe spoke to thousands of people in 2005.
Omowale Clay from D12, who chaired the forum, spoke about a March 11 prayer rally held in Zimbabwe and organized by the Movement for Democratic Change, an anti-Mugabe opposition group that has the full backing of British Prime Minister Tony Blair and U.S. President George W. Bush. A struggle ensued which reportedly resulted in one MDC member dying and 30 Zimbabwean police being injured.
Following this incident, a debate took place at a session in late March of the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva, Switzerland, between a representative of Britain and a representative from Zimbabwe. A portion of this debate was shown at the Harlem meeting. The British representative raised the March 11 incident and called for imposing more economic sanctions on Zimbabwe.
The Zimbabwean representative defended his country's right to sovereignty and stated that sanctions are being used to strangle the already fragile Zimbabwean economy and to isolate the country from the rest of the African continent.
Following this film clip, the rest of the Harlem meeting was devoted to opening up the floor to hear questions and comments from the audience. D12 leaders Viola Plummer, Coltrane Chimurenga and Roger Wareham, along with Clay, fielded the questions. All four of these leaders have traveled to Zimbabwe on a number of occasions, including before the last election when Mugabe won another term in office.
A number of important issues raised by these leaders point to the real reasons why the U.S. and British governments want a "regime change" in Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe is the only country in Africa where the land, stolen by white colonialists beginning in the late 1880s, has been returned to the Indigenous population in a systematic way.
During the height of anti-colonial struggle in Southern Africa decades ago, Zimbabwe was the first country to hold a caucus of the national liberation movements on the continent. Both China and North Korea have friendly relations with Zimbabwe in the areas of trade and economic development. President Hugo Chávez from Venezuela has pledged to President Mugabe to provide oil to Zimbabwe.
D12 explained that one consequence of the Western-imposed economic sanctions is that Zimbabwe is denied technologically advanced equipment to develop its land to grow enough food for the population, especially during long periods of drought that chronically plague regions in Africa. These sanctions have helped to deepen hunger in Zimbabwe.
As a follow-up to the meeting, D12 Movement and Patrice Lumumba Coalition called for a march and rally in Harlem beginning at 1 p.m. on April 14 to commemorate the 27th anniversary of the liberation of Zimbabwe. The main theme of this protest will be "Mugabe is right! Zimbabwe will never be a colony again!"
The march will begin at the Harlem State Office Building at 125th St. and Adam Clayton Powell Blvd. Endorsers of this activity include Africans Helping Africans, the All African Peoples' Socialist Party, Black Men's Movement, Nation of Islam, African Liberation Support Committee, CEMOTAP and International Action Center.
Articles copyright 1995-2007 Workers World. Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved.
Reprinted from:
www.workers.org/2007/world/zimbabwe-0419/
Email: zimbabwecrisis@yahoo.com
Visit: Zimbabwe Watch
Printer friendly version
Send page by E-Mail
Zimbabwe: Dare wasn't threatened
Posted: Wednesday, April 11, 2007
By David Samuriwo, The Herald
April 11, 2007
THE American and British governments' penchant for fomenting diplomatic rows knows no bounds. To this end, Ricketts thought it wise to dwell on the alleged threat to Dare's life ignoring the revelations of covert financial support his government is channelling to its embassy to back the opposition's attempts at unconstitutional regime change.
REPORTS that the British government last week summoned Zimbabwe's Ambassador to the United Kingdom, Cde Gabriel Machinga, to protest against an article that appeared on the opinion page in The Herald were hardly surprising.
For the benefit of readers who missed my article titled "Dare's anti-Zimbabwe media campaign misguided" (The Herald, April 3, 2007), I merely stated that should Gillian Dare, a political officer at the British Embassy in Harare, continue with her undiplomatic activities, she is bound to land herself in serious trouble.
I also warned that should she continue with her nefarious activities that are taboo in diplomatic circles, such as hopping from one police station to another trying to locate and identify arrested MDC hooligans, she might be caught in the crossfire and end up in a body bag.
Personally, I will not shed any tears, and as I stated, it would be a sad day to her family if ever she were to arrive at Heathrow Airport safely stashed in the baggage compartment instead of her usual first-class reservation.
There is absolutely no reason for Dare to get excited and start playing night nurse to arrested suspects who are helping the police with investigations.
Let the law take its course for goodness sake Gillian!
The American and British governments' penchant for fomenting diplomatic rows knows no bounds. It is very possible they might want to pull this one on you and point accusing fingers on the Government of Zimbabwe. So, be warned if I may repeat the obvious.
If the above could be described as a threat to her life, then the Geneva Conventions on diplomatic behaviour are, indeed, outdated and in need of urgent redefinition, modification and adoption by the United Nations.
The complaint lodged to Zimbabwe, through its ambassador, Cde Machinga, by the Under Secretary and Head of the Diplomatic Service at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Sir Peter Ricketts, on Dare's life should not be taken seriously.
What really should be taken seriously is the deafening silence by Sir Ricketts on Dare's anti-Zimbabwe media campaign and her role in influencing politically motivated violence by the MDC.
Obviously, British taxpayers are not aware that their hard-earned money is being used to finance the manufacturing of improvised explosive devices, such as petrol bombs, and for the purchase of weapons of destruction in the form of hand grenades and small arms.
How different are these acts of terror perpetrated by MDC thugs from the London bus and train bombings as well as the bombing of a train in Madrid?
When such acts of terrorism are directed at Western targets they receive international condemnation, but when similar acts are directed at Zimbabwe the Ricketts of this world look the other way, why?
To this end, Ricketts thought it wise to dwell on the alleged threat to Dare's life, ignoring the revelations of covert financial support his government is channelling to its embassy to back the opposition's attempts at unconstitutional regime change.
It is a fact that in pursuit of her country's unbridled ambition for the regime change agenda in Zimbabwe, Dare has become the focal point.
In his lukewarm protest, Ricketts foolishly avoided responding to real issues of substance raised in my article.
He did not deny that a huge amount of money from the FCO has been disbursed to a unit called the ADS for the setting-up of an anti-Zimbabwe media campaign.
He also found it unpalatable to disclose to the British public that part of this money is also being used to pay legal fees for those arrested and the treatment of those injured in the opposition's campaign of violence.
No wonder the man also conveniently avoided mentioning the role being played by the new head of ADS Zimbabwe, one Ben Llewlyn Johns, and his two colleagues, Neil Hammond and Simon Atkinson.
This trio is acting as conveyor belts of blood money that plunged Zimbabwe into unprecedented political violence last month.
Dare cannot dare challenge this impeccable evidence in any forum, she is aware of this funding; neither can her boss Ricketts.
As stated in my article, the anti-Zimbabwe media campaign will only find resonance in the British Houses of Commons and Lords and such other bodies which have steadfastly refused to accept or understand Zimbabwe's political chessboard.
True to shame, the obscure Liberal Democratic foreign affairs spokesman Michael Moore seized the opportunity for some kind of publicity.
"The Mugabe regime is beyond the pale as this outrageous statement shows. It is now about time he stepped down. Callous threats against diplomats will do nothing to solve Zimbabwe's isolation," he charged.
Thank goodness! A mere opinion piece authored by an obscure journalist now being manipulated and fabricated to be a Government statement or position!
This is totally absurd.
To sum it up, Ricketts' concerns have nothing to do with Dare's life. Even the woman knows it herself.
"We expect Zimbabwe to offer protection to our diplomats," he waffled to Zimbabwe's ambassador.
Plainly put, this is a botched-up attempt to water down revelations of gross abuse of the British taxpayers' money in funding violent political activity in Zimbabwe in the inane hope of achieving unconstitutional regime change.
Even their creation, the MDC, is on record telling its supporters to soldier on as the financial coffers "will now never run dry". Where is the money coming from, Ricketts, if I may ask?
The sensationalisation of an otherwise informative and revealing article on the clandestine operations of a British diplomat has also galvanised the rented journalists into action.
For the benefit of readers who do not have access to the Internet, here are some of the interesting headlines that hit the cyberspace:
"You'll leave Harare in body bag, UK diplomat warned."
"UK diplomat receives death threat from Mugabe government."
This is sheer madness.
At least newzimbabwe.com was sceptical, putting the "death threats" in quotation marks.
Ricketts' gaffe in summoning Zimbabwe's ambassador is part of a web of intricacies aimed at arming Dare's anti-Zimbabwe media campaign team with deception material.
The unprecedented reaction to the article on Dare's subversive activities indicated how massively the media is being manipulated to propel the British government agenda of regime change in Zimbabwe.
The recent Extraordinary Summit of Sadc Heads of State and Government held in Tanzania should be an eye-opener to the British establishment.
Much as the Dare anti-Zimbabwe project might want to portray the summit as a victory to Morgan Tsvangirai and his band of hooligans, the bottom line is regional leaders categorically refused any notion of outside-induced regime change.
South African President Thabo Mbeki has always stood out as the choice mediator to Zanu-PF and the MDC although the latter has not always been on the affirmative.
At one time, they called the South African President a dishonest broker. There is nothing new in that.
What is new is the realisation by Sadc leaders that if they prevaricate on Zimbabwe, any one of them could be the next target for the regime change agenda.
South Africa has, in its own backyard, the unpredictable Congress of South African Trade Unions, a union of sheep in wolves' clothing clandestinely waiting for an opportune time to pounce. The two protagonists will never retire to bed together. It is just a question of time when the wolf shows its true colours. This bunch of pseudo-trade unionists, who always indicate left when they are turning right, have remained on the mute mode as they brazenly watch their counterparts in Zimbabwe who have been transformed by the British government into a political grouping in bed stark-naked with the capitalists.
Thank God, we will soon be seeing the back of Tony Blair out of No. 10 Downing Street. Not that it makes any difference to the British government policy on Zimbabwe, but, perhaps, a new order might realise the necessity of engagement with the Government of Zimbabwe as an equal.
More importantly, Ricketts, Dare and the arsenal of weapons of mass deception that have been assembled must realise that Zimbabwe is no pushover.
Printer friendly version
Send page by E-Mail
Mbeki defends Zimbabwe's controversial land reform
Posted: Friday, April 6, 2007
South Africa's Mbeki defends Zimbabwe's controversial land reform
Apr 6, 2007, 16:39 GMT
Johannesburg - South African President Thabo Mbeki on Friday defended the controversial land reform policies of neighbouring Zimbabwe as necessary measures to correct the effects of colonialism, reports said.
The government of Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe in following the 2001 reform removed thousands of white farmers from farmland in his country in an often chaotic fashion. The action is considered one of the triggers of the collapse of the economy of the once prosperous country.
Mbeki, who has been appointed the point man of the regional Southern African Development Community (SADC) on Zimbabwe, said further that it was urgent that new black African farmers in Zimbabwe be provided with agricultural supplies.
© 2007 dpa - Deutsche Presse-Agentur
Source: http://news.monstersandcritics.com
Printer friendly version
Send page by E-Mail
Where truth should not get in the way of 'good copy'
Posted: Friday, April 6, 2007
By Peter Mavunga
The Herald
THE British government and Western media campaign against Zimbabwe is notable for its rabid bias; what is said or written has no concern for the truth or balance, that is getting the other side's point of view. It has a single-minded pre-occupation with demonising Zimbabwe and propping up the opposition, especially Morgan Tsvangirai, well above his station.
All this is at variance with the age-old notion of British fair play, if ever it existed. When I was studying journalism in London, my tutor was at pains to emphasise that there were always two sides to a story and the views of both sides ought to be reported.
From what has been written about Zimbabwe over the past four weeks, though, you might be excused to think that Tsvangirai, the "blameless" leader of one faction of the MDC, was the head of state while the President of the Republic has a monopoly of doing wrong.
The disturbances that occurred in Highfield at the beginning of last month caused injuries on both sides, yet the way the story was reported tells a different story. The newspapers here have a selective memory.
The pictures that accompany this week's London Letter depict the violence of the MDC. It is, therefore, not surprising that they never appeared anywhere in the British media. These real people, police officers serving the people of Zimbabwe, do not exist in the psyche of the British media.
British journalists saw only Tsvangirai as the victim of the "violence" of Zimbabwe's State apparatus.
In their newspapers they splashed Tsvangirai in a hospital bed with head injuries but giving long telephone interviews to journalists abroad. They did not see anything else. The violence by the opposition never features in the vocabulary of the media here neither is it given any consideration by those who serve in the government led by Tony Blair.
Presumably they will say I am being unfair to them because British journalists are banned from reporting from Zimbabwe and, therefore, cannot be expected to report what they do not see. The question is; why were they banned in the first place?
Was it something to do with their amnesia and selective memory when it came to reporting Zimbabwe? More to the point, how are they able to report so much about Tsvangirai then?
A few years ago there was media frenzy in the UK when The Guardian featured a front page story asserting that a female MDC supporter had been decapitated by a bunch of Zanu-PF youths in Magunje, Karoi. The story was a complete fabrication but as it fitted neatly into the agenda of the British Press, it received widespread coverage.
A serious political party aspiring to convince the electorate that it is fit to govern should think about its integrity and avoid using people's tragedies to achieve its political ends.
But it is an indictment of British journalism that such falsehoods, initiated by the old Daily News, should be replicated the world over without checking.
What is also interesting is that the papers here never bothered to correct their mistakes. When it became common knowledge that they had wrongly attributed the death of the Zimbabwean woman to Zanu-PF youths, they never retracted the rubbish they had been spreading.
It is done in other circumstances but when the lies are in respect of Zimbabwe no correction is necessary lest it weakens the campaign of discrediting the Government of Zimbabwe. Truth should never get in the way of running a good copy. Running the Government of Zimbabwe down, is the overarching objective.
The papers here also change their tune faster than a chameleon changes colour. In the build up to the flopped two-day stayaway this week, the papers were reporting confidently that this would be the largest demonstration Zimbabwe had ever seen
With "80 percent unemployment", so the story went, "the people of Zimbabwe, angry with the Mugabe regime were going to demonstrate because they have nothing to lose."
Their tune has changed now that the numbers, by the papers' own accounts, turned out to be lower than they had anticipated. They now say the people did not want to lose a day's wage and that many preferred to go to work where they get their only meal of the day!
I did not realise that companies in Zimbabwe are so generous that they now give their employees not just wages but lunch as well!
According to the British Press, everything bad happens in Zimbabwe.
Another feature of the media campaign here is that it is persistent and unrelenting. They have tried very hard to foster discord within the ranks of the ruling Zanu-PF party. It was said Vice President Amai Joice Mujuru had resigned not because she wanted the top job for herself but her husband is calling all the shots.
Yes, we were told he was behind all this. Then the news was that the former army commander had been arrested. Then it was said in the British papers that both the Politburo and Central Committee were divided. From this spin, they concluded that, for the President, the end was nigh.
They were, however, forced to report, albeit grudgingly, that the President had been endorsed as the sole candidate to fight the next presidential election, it was like an anti-climax for them though it never dampened their spirits. The Times, for instance, was this weekend regurgitating the same old story of disunity as if it was reporting it anew.
Clearly, President Mugabe had a good conference in Tanzania and one British journalist was forced to concede that he returned home "with a spring in his step."
The media hype had proved to be no more than the usual British froth and bubble. They had anticipated that the President would be told in no uncertain terms that his time was up. They expected the Sadc heads of state and government to tell him he should not seek re-election.
It was said President Mbeki of South Africa was going to use his muscle to bring President Mugabe down. But the meeting came and went, leaving Sadc even more united. Sadc rightly did not think it was its duty to dictate what should happen in Zimbabwe, which they have always said is a matter for Zimbabweans.
That was tangible proof of emerging African unity and the more progressive people I speak to in this country do accept that President Mugabe and his team's principled stance on the land question is to be admired.
The present British government hates that principled stance with a vengeance and that hatred dates back to 1998 just before the CHOGM held in Scotland. The economy of Zimbabwe has been in difficulties since then and the British use all the tricks in the book to put the blame on President Mugabe.
Are they right to blame the President? That is the subject of my next instalment.
Printer friendly version
Send page by E-Mail
Workers now aware of ZCTU's irrelevance
Posted: Friday, April 6, 2007
The Herald
EDITOR — Let me take this opportunity to congratulate all the progressive workers of Zimbabwe for ignoring ill-conceived calls for a stayaway called this week by the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions.
The long-suffering workers have long realised that one can not solve anything by staying away from work.
They also now know that the labour body long deviated from its mandate of representing and articulating workers’ interests in pursuit of a political agenda.
Instead of concentrating all their energies towards deliberations in the Tripartite Negotiating Forum to come up with a social contract beneficial to workers, Government and business, ZCTU leaders have half-heartedly applied themselves to the initiative.
It is hard to comprehend why the labour body calls for a stayaway in protest over the same issues the TNF is trying to address.
What is now clear to everyone is that the opposition-inclined ZCTU does not want a successful social contract as it will scupper the MDC's hopes of getting into power on the back of public discontent over prevailing economic hardships.
Wellington Chibebe and Lovemore Matombo have not been of any value to the ordinary worker in Zimbabwe, though they may have been of value to the MDC.
The ZCTU leadership, like their colleagues in the MDC, has failed to read the mood of Zimbabweans and continue to call for mass actions, stayaways, and the like that no longer appeal to the public. If these opposition activists masquerading as trade unionists want to be remembered in history as having contributed something meaningful to the welfare of workers, they must go back to the TNF and vigorously pursue a social contract.
Having said that, Government on its part needs to act quickly to address the deteriorating economic conditions that have reduced workers to near destitute status. Urgent steps need to be taken to remove the economic distortions that the West and its opposition lackeys hope to exploit in their quest for illegal regime change.
Kennedy Chiwa
Harare
Printer friendly version
Send page by E-Mail
Zimbabwe: Sadc decision a slap in the face for MDC
Posted: Thursday, April 5, 2007
The Herald
EDITOR - The MDC factions and their shameless sponsors were shocked by the outcome of the extraordinary summit of Sadc heads of state and government held in the Tanzanian capital, Dar es Salaam, at the end of last month.
While the West thought Sadc leaders were going to pressure President Mugabe to announce his retirement, the President told his colleagues the truth about the situation in the country and they expressed their unreserved solidarity with the Government and people of this great country.
When opposition leaders were arrested, security agents were merely reacting to provocation by MDC hooligans, what Morgan Tsvangirai called his supporters were thugs paid to cause mayhem in the country.
The MDC hoodlums, who continue bombing civilian and State infrastructure, are risking their lives for transient stipends not the so-called values Tsvangirai pontificates about.
The Sadc's support was, indeed, welcome.
Now the MDC knows our neighbours do not back terrorism or puppet politics. They will never support people who cannot think for themselves, but only wait to be agitated into barbaric acts by Westerners only for filthy lucre.
To MDC supporters, I say don't be like fish that is enticed to death by a very tiny worm on a fishing hook. Zimbabwe is your country, do not be tricked into destroying your motherland for the selfish interests of the British and Americans.
The Anglo-Saxons will not allow you to settle in their countries if you destroy your own. Wake up and smell the coffee.
Sixpence Manyengavana
Highlands
Email: zimbabwecrisis@yahoo.com
Visit: Zimbabwe Watch
Printer friendly version
Send page by E-Mail
West fails to apologise for Slavery
Posted: Thursday, April 5, 2007
By Sifelani Tsiko
herald.co.zw
April 05, 2007
EVENTS to mark the 200th anniversary of the day the British parliament passed a law banning the slave trade were held around the world with Africans at home and abroad bemoaning the absence of an explicit apology from the former slave-trading nations.
There was no commitment by British prime minister Tony Blair and churches, which profited from this inhuman and cruel trade to specific reparations aimed at compensating those who suffered from the trade.
A commemorative service was held at Westminster Abbey to mark the 200th anniversary of the abolition of the slave trade.
The Queen and Duke of Edinburgh, Blair and religious leaders were among 2 000 people who attended the service.
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, described slavery as an offence to human dignity and freedom and "the greatest cause of grief to God's spirit".
His church profited immensely from this cruel trade in humans.
"We, who are the heirs of the slave-owning and slave-trading nations of the past, have to face the fact that our historic prosperity was built in large part on this atrocity," he said.
"Those who are the heirs of the communities ravaged by the slave trade know very well that much of their present suffering and struggling is the result of centuries of abuse."
But the Queen, Blair or the Church of England made no apology.
Instead, the commemorative service was at best held to glorify William Wilberforce who was a prime mover of the abolition of slave trade motion which led to the enactment of an Act on March 25 1807.
The Slave Trade Act of March 1807 never stopped slavery but prohibited British ships from transporting slaves.
African scholars say Wilberforce was not the only person who helped end slavery.
It is worth noting that Britain did not abolish slavery in its territories until 1833.
Blacks like Olaudah Equiano, a former slave and thousands others who signed petitions, marched and lobbied against the Trans-Atlantic slave trade, were critical in the anti-slave trade movement.
It was sad that the role of these people was downplayed and restricted to the fringes of this movement at the commemorative service.
For the better part of the commemorations, Blair and the Queen only seized the event to glorify one of their own. They laid flowers on the memorial to William Wilberforce — who Europeans in their history text books say led the abolition movement — and then, of course to the Innocent Victims' Memorial, in honour of all those affected by slavery.
Lady (Kate) Davson, the great great great granddaughter of William Wilberforce was also used strengthen the belief that the British cared and saved black people from this evil human trade system.
She read a speech made by her ancestor to the House of Commons.
Africans at home and abroad wanted Blair and the Queen to go a step further — make an official apology.
Linda Ali, of the United Society for the Propagation of the Gospel said Blair who had expressed "deep sorrow and regret" at Britain's role in the slave trade must go a step further.
"I don't see what is so very difficult about apologising for what is such a great crime against humanity," said Ms Ali.
Even Lady Davson said she too thought Mr Blair should apologise.
"Slavery is one of the largest pieces of our wounded history, our worldwide wounded history, and ... [has] to be confronted in order to get peace in our world."
The British premier did not speak at the service.
"It is hard to believe that what would now be a crime against humanity was legal at the time," Blair said in an opinion piece on Britain's role in the Trans-Atlantic slave trade before the commemorations.
"Personally, I believe the bi-centenary offers us a chance not just to say how profoundly shameful the slave trade was — how we condemn its existence utterly and praise those who fought for its abolition — but also to express our deep sorrow that it ever happened, that it ever could have happened and to rejoice at the different and better times we live in today," Blair said.
Even though Blair admitted that Britain is richer in every way — in business, politics, sport, the arts and science because of the part played by the African and Caribbean communities — he remained adamant and never apologised.
Instead, he used the colourful language of racial equality and "the richness of our diversity" approach to tactically avoid the crucial apology which Africans at home and abroad so wanted.
But the African spirit remained unbowed despite the refusal by Blair to make an official apology.
According to media reports, people across the Caribbean bowed their heads for a moment of silence to mark the end of the Trans-Atlantic slave routes, which shaped the region's history.
In Jamaica, islanders held symbolic funeral rites in Kingston Harbour for African slaves who died during the perilous ocean crossing.
In the Dominica, the cries of African slaves being led to cell blocks pierced the air, as their lives were re-enacted.
Participants walked in chains to Roseau's Baraccoon building, where slaves were held before being auctioned off to plantation owners in the former French and British colony, and which now houses the City Council.
Media reports in Guyana say a tribute was held in the compound of parliament buildings where slaves were beaten and sometimes hanged.
"We unite as a region and as a people, in a collective moment of reflection, as we remember one of the greatest tragedies in the history of humanity, which denied over 25 million Africans, for over 400 years, the basic human right of freedom, the right to self-actualisation and for so many, denial of even their basic right to life," said Ralph Gonsalves, prime minister of St Vincent and the Grenadines and chairman of the Caribbean Community.
Dr John Sentamu, the second most senior cleric in the Church of England told the media that Britain was a country which once bought and sold slaves "as it did crops like onions or maize," and now had to make a formal apology.
"A nation of this quality should have the sense of saying we are very sorry and we have to put the record straight," he said.
At the anti-racism conference that was held three years ago in Durban, South Africa, participants agreed that the depredation of the systems of slavery and colonialism had a degrading and debilitating impact on those who are black.
The African delegations in Durban noted with concern the lack of an explicit apology from the former slave-trading nations or any commitment to specific reparations aimed at compensating those who suffered from the trade.
However, despite the criticism, the debates in Durban broke new ground in the decade-long campaign by African countries and representatives of the African Diaspora to gain international recognition for the injustices perpetrated against them in the era of the slave trade.
The issue was not just one of righting a historical wrong, they argued, but also of addressing the lasting legacy of poverty and discrimination suffered over centuries by Africa and its descendants.
In the early 1990s, the Organisation of African Unity, now the African Union officially embraced the idea of making claims for atonement, including specific reparations, for slavery and colonialism.
While there was general agreement on having the slave trade declared a crime against humanity, not everyone felt that an explicit apology or financial reparations were worth pursuing at the conference.
Others felt demanding money trivialised the impact of slavery.
Not "every apology must be followed by monetary compensation ... We must not forget that monetary compensation, as it is being proposed, may further hurt the dignity of Africa," Nigerian president Olusegun Obasanjo said in the build up to Durban conference.
In this renewed debate on slavery Africans must remain conscious of the historical injustices of the slave trade which critics say undeniably contributed to poverty, underdevelopment, marginalisation, social exclusion, economic disparities, instability and insecurity on the continent.
They must also begrudgingly accept that even though Britain and other countries that benefited from slavery have refused make official apologies, the most important thing is to ensure that this shameful and uncomfortable chapter of history is not forgotten.
Africans need a genuine apology not for monetary gain, but to help restore the dignity and humanity of those who suffered and still bear the scars of slavery.
Email: zimbabwecrisis@yahoo.com
Visit: Zimbabwe Watch
Printer friendly version
Send page by E-Mail
US reveals its efforts to topple Mugabe regime
Posted: Thursday, April 5, 2007
· State department tells of regime change strategy
· Washington funded opposition activities
Ewen MacAskill in Washington
Friday April 6, 2007
The Guardian UK
The US admitted openly for the first time yesterday that it was actively working to undermine Robert Mugabe, the president of Zimbabwe.
Although officially Washington does not support regime change, a US state department report published yesterday acknowledged that it was supporting opposition politicians in the country and others critical of Mr Mugabe.
The state department also admitted sponsoring events aimed at "discrediting" statements made by Mr Mugabe's government.
The report will be seized on by Mr Mugabe, who has repeatedly claimed that the US and Britain are seeking regime change.
The comments are contained in the state department's fifth annual Supporting Human Rights and Democracy report. It sets out in detail actions the US government is taking worldwide to promote human rights.
The report has had a troubled history. Three years ago publication had to be hastily delayed when details emerged about US human rights abuses at Abu Ghraib prison outside Baghdad.
The US, compared with the UK, was initially slow to criticise Mr Mugabe, but has since adopted an increasingly critical stance, most recently at the Human Rights Council in Geneva last month.
In an unusual piece of candour, the state department report says: "To encourage greater public debate on restoring good governance in [Zimbabwe], the United States sponsored public events that presented economic and social analyses discrediting the government's excuses for its failed policies.
"To further strengthen pro-democracy elements, the US government continued to support the efforts of the political opposition, the media and civil society to create and defend democratic space and to support persons who criticised the government."
While the US and British governments still insist their aim in Zimbabwe is not regime change, they have been encouraging the main opposition leader, Morgan Tsvangarai, who was beaten up last month.
The report says that while Zimbabwe is nominally democratic, the government of Mr Mugabe is "now authoritarian".
At a press conference to launch the document, the assistant secretary of state, Barry Lowenkren, said the US goal was not necessarily regime change but to create a level playing field for all parties. He added that where there was a country with record levels of inflation, denial of basic human rights and other abuses, the US had a duty to speak out so that people in Zimbabwe knew they had support.
Asked whether US efforts to promote human rights worldwide were being undermined by the hundreds of of people being held at Guantánamo, Mr Lowenkren insisted the issue was not raised by non-governmental groups at conferences he attended and participants were more interested in what the US could do to help them in their own countries.
He also denied the report was softer on authoritarian governments allied to the US, such as Belarus, than to Zimbabwe.
Mr Lowenkren said $66m was being spent on promotion of democracy and human rights in Iran, about half of which was devoted to broadcasts from outside the country and the rest spent on support for non-governmental exchanges, cultural exchanges such as the visit by the US wrestling team and a Persian internet service.
The report is critical of Russia, noting the killing of the journalist Anna Politkovskaya.
It says: "Political pressure on the judiciary, corruption and selectivity in enforcement of the law, continuing media restrictions and self-censorship, and government pressure on opposition political parties eroded the public accountability of government leaders.
"Security forces were involved in additional significant human rights problems."
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
Reprinted from:
www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,2051629,00.html
Email: zimbabwecrisis@yahoo.com
Visit: Zimbabwe Watch
Printer friendly version
Send page by E-Mail
The U.S. Admits Sponsoring Opposition in Zimbabwe
Posted: Thursday, April 5, 2007
The U.S. acknowledges sponsorship of public events in Zimbabwe aimes to undermine the President
The U.S. State Department acknowledged that sponsorship of public events in Zimbabwe had an aim to undermine the government of President Robert Mugabe. In it annual report on supporting democracy worldwide, the department said its strategy for Zimbabwe also included steps to "support persons who criticized the government."
Supporting Human Rights and Democracy:
The U.S. Record 2005 - 2006
On-The-Record Briefing on the Release of the Annual Report, "Supporting Human Rights and Democracy: The U.S. Record - 2006"
Abstract:
QUESTION: Yeah, can I go to -- I just want to go to Zimbabwe for a second. In this it says that the United States sponsored public events in Zimbabwe that presented economic and social analyses, discrediting the government's excuses for its failed policies. It also says that the United States continued to support the efforts of political opposition, the media, civil society, to create and defend democratic space and to support -- the last bit -- to support persons who criticize the government.
Now, granted, I've just given a cursory reading to the Zimbabwe and other -- the reports on other countries with which the United States has full diplomatic relations. The ones I looked at were Belarus, Syria, Vietnam and Eritrea. There may be more. Cuba, obviously, without full diplomatic relations, doesn't count.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY LOWENKRON: Sure.
QUESTION: My question is this: It doesn't appear that this kind of -- that these kind of things, i.e., discrediting the government's excuses for failed policies and support -- overt support for people who are critical of the government, happened, at least is being reported for these other countries. And my question is this: President Mugabe has often talked about how he thinks the West, the United States and Britain in particular, are trying to -- are trying for regime change in Zimbabwe, and this is exactly what this appears to look like, what you've acknowledged doing through your programs in Zimbabwe. And I'm just wondering, is it the United States -- does the United States believe that it's its responsibility to discredit the government's excuses -- the government and to openly support people who criticize the government? And if it is, which is what you're saying, why is Mugabe wrong when he says that you're trying for regime change?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY LOWENKRON: Well, first of all, I would say that your analysis of the report is a bit cursory because the fact of the matter is, whether it's Eritrea -- we've spoken out about the problems in Eritrea and the deteriorating human rights situation in Eritrea -- we are very clear, very public in terms of what was happening in Belarus. So it is not a matter of the West or the United States or several countries deciding to single out Mugabe and what's happening in Zimbabwe.
What I would like for the Zimbabwean people is something very, very simple: Give them a level playing field -- let them compete openly, let them compete fairly, let them compete transparently, let them compete freely -- so President Mugabe could stand there and say these are my policies and let the people of Zimbabwe decide on whether or not those are the policies that they want.
When you have a country which is now at 1600 percent inflation and rising, when you have in which economic policy consists of, "I hereby declare inflation illegal," when you have a country where when two people want to get together and have a discussion that's called a civil -- that's called a meeting and they had to have prior approval for, when you have a country in which individuals are protesting peacefully and they're clubbed, one almost to death, then I think it's the responsibility not only of the United States, but all countries, including southern Africa, including the African Union and including those international organizations, to stand up and ask how much longer are we going to sit passively by and allow this to continue? This gets back to my previous point which is people in Zimbabwe need to know that there are people outside Zimbabwe that care about their future.
QUESTION: Right. But the other countries that you -- okay, let's talk about Eritrea and Belarus -- does not say that the United States sponsored events at which the government was -- that attempted to discredit the government and does not say that they supported people -- overtly supported people who criticize the government. That may be because there aren't any opposition figures around in Belarus that you can support or in Eritrea. And if that's the case, which I assume it is, doesn't the fact that there are people to support in Zimbabwe show that there is some kind of -- that the situation may be not as bad as what you're saying? And believe me, I'm not trying to defend Mugabe, I just find it very interesting that this report says that the U.S. is openly sponsoring events at which it tries to discredit the government.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY LOWENKRON: I'm a little puzzled by your question. I think the implication is that things are better in Zimbabwe than in Eritrea --
QUESTION: No --
ASSISTANT SECRETARY LOWENKRON: -- or in Belarus.
QUESTION: No, no, no. There's no implication. It's just that there appear to be people in Zimbabwe who you can support, who you -- people who criticize the government who can be supported. I would suggest -- I think that in Eritrea there isn't anyone out there that you can in Eritrea who can --
ASSISTANT SECRETARY LOWENKRON: Yeah. Many of their organizations have been thrown out and many of them have been repressed. It's the same thing in Belarus. But the fact of the matter is just like there's not one size that fits all in terms of how do you advance democracy, there's not one size fits all in terms of saying these are all bad.
QUESTION: Well, okay.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY LOWENKRON: The issue that the way that we treat these countries and my conversations with the Secretary is, "tell me where the trajectory is." The trajectory in Belarus has been bad for a while. And when I say we, we and our European allies have been trying our best to try to maintain that sliver of civil society and that sliver of openness within Belarus. I don't think anybody can debate that the situation in Zimbabwe is deteriorating significantly and rapidly.
QUESTION: Well, is it the -- are these things mentioned in here part of a U.S. policy to try and encourage or promote regime change in Zimbabwe?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY LOWENKRON: U.S. policy in Zimbabwe is to promote a level playing field and support fundamental human rights. Let the people decide the future of Zimbabwe. The future of Zimbabwe is not going to be decided in any program that I run or anybody else in the United States runs.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) Al Jazeera. Mr. Lowenkron, there's a wide consensus among the international community and human rights organization that Guantanamo Bay detention center exists in defiance of the international law and human rights standards. Even Defense Secretary Robert Gates raised some concerns. And as you may know, Al Jazeera cameraman Sami Haj has been detained there for over five years now with no charges. So my question is, first, do you think that the whole issue of Guantanamo Bay undermines your efforts highlighted in this report to support human rights abroad? And from your own perspective, do you think that the detention of Sami Haj for so long with no charges violates his human rights?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY LOWENKRON: Let me say in the context of Guantanamo because I do address this. And if you take a look at the preface to this year's annual human rights report which we rolled out last month, we acknowledged at the outset that there are questions around the globe about our own human rights record. When I have talked about the promotion of democracy and the protection of human rights, what I've said is when people have said you think that democracy is the perfect system for all of these and my answer has always been, the strength of democracy, it's not that it is infallible but that it is that it is accountable. And then I highlight the issue of the press, I highlight the issue of the Congress and legislation. I highlight the issue of the courts, the independence of the courts. These are the essential elements that make democracy what it is. These are called self-corrective mechanisms.
I can tell you that in all of my travels and all the people that I've talked to and the people that we've tried to help, the issue of Guantanamo, the issue of the American standing in the world does not come up. The issue always comes up in the context of what can you do to help us, in terms of this crisis, what can you do in the context of Darfur, for example. What can you do in the context of Burma.
On the other issues related to Guantanamo, I would ask you to refer your questions to our legal counselor, John Bellinger as well as to the Defense Department.
QUESTION: Yeah, but I have a follow-up on the question.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY LOWENKRON: Which is?
QUESTION: But do you think that your efforts to promote human rights will be better off if you closed Guantanamo or it doesn't matter actually?
Email: zimbabwecrisis@yahoo.com
Visit: Zimbabwe Watch
Printer friendly version
Send page by E-Mail
Dialogue is the only solution for Zimbabwe crisis
Posted: Thursday, April 5, 2007
By David Masango, buanews.gov.za
The South African Government Communication and Information System
Pretoria - South Africa's Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs has reiterated the country's stance of constructive dialogue between the parties concerned, as the only solution to the crisis in Zimbabwe.
Speaking to reporters Wednesday, Mr Pahad acknowledged progress already being made to get the government, the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) and other relevant parties to engage in talks.
President Thabo Mbeki has been mandated by Southern African Development Community (SADC) leaders to facilitate dialogue between the government and opposition in Zimbabwe.
The decision was taken at a meeting of the SADC Double Troika and an Extraordinary SADC Summit in Dar-es-Salaam, Tanzania in late March.
A meeting was convened Wednesday, between a South African delegation and the two secretary-generals of the MDC who are in the country.
"The two secretary-generals will produce a discussion document on the MDC's position, on the basis President Mbeki will engage the Zimbabwean government on the recommendations from the MDC.
"President Mbeki will have to work out his own roadmap on how he wishes to fulfill his mandate to create the climate conducive for the two parties to meet to deal with the issues raised by the factions of the MDC," Deputy Minister Pahad said.
Mr Mbeki would also report back to the SADC Troika on the progress.
In addition to Mr Mbeki's efforts, the SADC leaders mandated the executive secretary to undertake a study of the situation in Zimbabwe and propose measures on how the region could assist the country with its economic recovery.
They also encouraged diplomatic contacts that would assist with the resolution of the conflict.
"The summit reiterated the appeal to Britain to honour its compensation obligations with regards to land reform made at the Lancaster House and called for the lifting of all forms of sanctions against Zimbabwe," said Mr Pahad.
The deputy minister noted the meeting of the ruling Zanu-PF Central Committee last week, which he said took important decisions.
These include that:
* President Robert Mugabe will be its presidential candidate for the 2008 presidential elections;
* Parliamentary elections will be held concurrently with the presidential election and that there is no need for a constitutional amendment as the current constitution allows the President is to bring parliamentary elections forward; and that
* The Presidential term will be reduced from six to five years and this will necessitate a constitutional amendment.
Mr Pahad explained that following decisions by the Zanu-PF Central Committee, the SADC and the international community had to intensify efforts to ensure that the necessary climate and conditions were created to ensure free and fair elections.
"To ensure that the necessary climate is created, all Zimbabweans must act with restraint and within the rule of law.
"Decisive action must be taken against those that are carrying out sabotage activities and Zimbabweans must continue to respect the independence and integrity of the justice system," he emphasised.
The deputy minister stressed that South Africa would not support any regime change in Zimbabwe as a means of resolving the political and economic crisis there. - BuaNews
Reprinted from:
www.buanews.gov.za/view.php?id="07040510451001&coll=buanew07
Email: zimbabwecrisis@yahoo.com
Visit: Zimbabwe Watch
Printer friendly version
Send page by E-Mail
Zimbabwe: Dare's Anti-Zim Media Campaign Misguided
Posted: Tuesday, April 3, 2007
By David Samuriwo
The Herald (Harare)
April 3, 2007
Harare
GILLIAN DARE, the purse holder and financier of the violence being perpetrated by the MDC, should be aware that by throwing all diplomatic etiquette into the dustbin and putting on her combat gear she has become a prime target for deportation.
Not only that, there is also a real possibility that the political officer, labelled in some sections of the media as a British spy, could one day be caught in cross fire as she plays night nurse to arrested MDC hooligans.
It will be a pity for her family to welcome her at Heathrow Airport in a body bag just like some of her colleagues from Iraq and Afghanistan.
To be honest, I must confess that I took this woman for granted. What with the numerous sponsored tours to British-funded projects that I attended together with her beloved Grace Mtandwa followed by the free lagers that I downed after her diplomatic pretensions.
Her latest blatant interference in the internal affairs of Zimbabwe has left me without any iota of respect for her.
According to a source in South Africa who is based at Rhodes University and is studying journalism, Dare has sent out word that a considerable number of Zimbabwean journalists could soon find themselves earning the much-sought-after British pound.
It does not matter whether one is based in Zimbabwe or in the Diaspora. All one has to do is to join an anti-Zimbabwe media campaign team that has been set up by the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO).
In pursuit of her country's unbridled ambition, Dare has received a huge amount of money from a section of the FCO known as ADS to pay Zimbabwean journalists, academics and opposition politicians to pen articles that paint President Mugabe and the Government in bad light after each arrest of MDC hooligans.
The articles will be forwarded to various media outlets worldwide and prompt payment will be made for each publication. Individuals responsible for Zimbabwe in the ADS are Ben Llewlyn Johns, Neil Hammond and Simon Atkinson.
Already listed as potential contributors to the demonisation campaign are Peter Robinson and Daniel Ndlela. The two were chosen on the basis of a project they worked on dubbed, "New Zimbabwe: Sustainable Growth and Transformation". The project was commissioned by the Zimbabwe Institute in South Africa, a so-called "think tank" of Zimbabweans-based in that country.
According to the sources, Dare insists the recruited journalists should also cover the dire need of the restoration of the rule of law, the need for a new constitution, regime change either through the ballot box or through street protests. Proper finalisation of the legal framework of the land resettlement programme with exceptional emphasis being placed on adequate compensation to those whites dispossessed of land.
In this respect, Dare argues, there is need for some of the white farmers who bought their land after obtaining a certificate of no interest from the Government to return to the farms.
Dare insists that the campaign should also sensitise the world that the "isolation Zimbabwe is facing" is self-imposed through disregard for property rights especially the forced eviction of "productive and highly skilled" white former farmers.
This she says will need a new government that has to take unpopular decisions like returning vast tracts of land to these white former commercial farmers.
Unfortunately, the anti-Zimbabwe media campaign as envisaged by Dare has taken off on a wrong footing. Last week, the British junior foreign minister, Ian McCartney lied to the House of Commons that President Mugabe's daughter was studying at the London School of Economics.
Authorities at the College were left with no choice but to put the record straight denying that they had no student by that name.
The generous payouts being made to these mercenaries to demonise the country are a blessing in disguise to the Government of Zimbabwe.
Dare's anti-Zimbabwe media campaign will never reach the envisaged earth-shattering crescendo, as she would wish, as evidenced by the false start it has made.
Instead, the lies will find resonance in the British Houses of Commons, and Lords, the US Congress and such other bodies who have steadfastly refused to understand Zimbabwe's political environment.
The Dare-led anti-Zimbabwe campaign is not without a precedent, despite acres of video footage depicting how Iraqis "welcomed" their "liberation," American forces are today still returning to their homeland in body bags. The US Democrats-led Congress has now put its foot down.
It is insisting that American soldiers must leave Iraq at the earliest possible opportunity.
As long as Dare's strategy is based on lies and deception like the ones US president George W. Bush used to invade Iraq, it is bound to fail.
It is against this background that the sudden change of strategy by the MDC to try to attain power through violence, not through the ballot box should be holistically looked at.
The British government, through its representatives in Zimbabwe, does not care about the country's economic decline as often stated by its Ambassador here, Andrew Pocock.
Dare's anti-Zimbabwe media campaign captures it all. The British are looking for a reversal of fortunes in favour of their national interests -- that is total control of any future Government of Zimbabwe that will enable a return to the pre-2000 skewed land distribution pattern.
The resources that are being copiously given to the MDC are no different to the vast arsenal of weaponry that was given to the Unita bandits at the height of the Angolan civil war.
However, of major concern to the MDC is the realisation that no neighbouring country is prepared to support its calls for civil war, hence its tactics of sporadic bombing of isolated police stations and instilling fear by bombing public transport utilities.
It is unfortunate that Dare and her allies in sponsoring the violence being perpetrated by MDC hooligans, the so-called democratic resistance committees, is not realising the futility of the exercise they have embarked on.
To start with, it is a foregone conclusion that Zimbabwe's security forces will definitely get an upper hand sooner rather than later.
Secondly, no sacred cows will be allowed to room in the wheat fields as the security organs of the state assert their authority.
It is an established fact that the formation and commissioning of these resistance committees has the blessing of almost all senior members of the Tsvangirai-led faction of the MDC. Dare and her co-conspirators are happily dolling out stipends to hooligans who are now well equipped with modern gadgets of destruction such as improvised explosive devices, hand grenades and teargas canisters.
As the net closes in Dare should not be surprised when charges of treason, sabotage and murder are eventually laid against some senior members of the opposition. This is the norm worldwide. Nobody is above the law. That the British and American governments, have, against all wisdom decided to sponsor a violent insurrection against a sitting government speaks volumes of the double standards in their favoured gospel of peace and democracy.
Already, police have picked up the special advisor to Morgan Tsvangirai, Ian Makone, for questioning following a spate of bombings that have rocked the nation.
Another MDC stalwart, Piniel Denga, is also under police custody while seven other activists have been picked up for petrol-bombing Zanu-PF offices in Mbare.
More MDC officials belonging to the Tsvangirai faction are likely to be arrested as police intensify their investigations.
Perhaps as a final footprint, Dare is strongly advised to incorporate into her anti-Zimbabwe media campaign team, one Basildon Peta, a famed chequebook journalist now based in South Africa. The gentleman will surely provide comic relief to the otherwise dull and stupid campaign.
Last week's reports in the western media that Vice President Joice Mujuru had resigned from Government were a typical example of how ambitious, ill-conceived and amateurish Dare's anti-Zimbabwe campaign project is turning out to be.
Reprinted from:
http://allafrica.com/stories/200704030196.html
Printer friendly version
Send page by E-Mail
Zimbabwe: Grassroots Lieutenants of Imperialism?
Posted: Tuesday, April 3, 2007
By Stephen Gowans
Stephen Gowans's Blog
April 03, 2007
Patrick Bond would probably never balk at being accused of contributing to the barrage of negative publicity against the Mugabe government. Bond appears to hate Mugabe with a passion.
Nor, I suspect, would he object to anyone pointing out that, where he can, he acts to alienate left support for Mugabe's government by portraying Mugabe as a reactionary who dishonestly exploits anti-imperialist rhetoric to cling to power at any cost.
Bond doesn't believe Mugabe is engaged in an anti-neo-colonial struggle. He sees Mugabe as nothing more than a corrupt demagogue who has become so addicted to the perks of power that he'll never give them up willingly.
Bond's argument resonates with some progressives because it gives them an easy way out of the dilemma of feeling obliged to support a beleaguered leader everyone says is a brutal dictator who steals elections and mismanages the economy. No one wants to be known as a thug-hugger. When Bond reinforces the crudest CNN and BBC propaganda, and tells progressives that Mugabe is a phony, he signals it's okay to join in the two minutes hate.
While there may be an emotional appeal to what Bond has to say, his argument, examined dispassionately, is weak. If Mugabe is the crypto reactionary, pro-imperialist Bond says he is, why are the openly reactionary, imperialists in London and Washington so agitated about Mugabe and his policies?
In an article posted at Counterpunch.org, and subsequently reposted at MRZine, Bond urges readers to look to the "independent" left to find out what's really going on in Zimbabwe.
Bond doesn't say what the "independent" left is independent of. What's clear, however, is that it isn't independent of the governments and foundations that want to replace Mugabe's economic and land reform policies with a neo-liberal tyranny and return to a glacial pace of land reform. Indeed, Bond's "independent" left appears to be as much a part of the US and British foreign policy apparatus as the Foreign Office, the Voice of America and the National Endowment for Democracy.
Consider, for example, Sokwanele, one of the groups Bond urges progressives to check out to find out what's really going on in Zimbabwe.
Sokwanele is an offspring of Otpor, the underground movement that was established, funded, trained and organized by the US State Department, USAID, and the US Congress-funded National Endowment for Democracy (which is said to do overtly what the CIA used to do covertly) to bring down the Milosevic government in 2000.
Here's how it worked: The West ordered the formal political opposition to unite under a single banner, and to select a name that emphasized the word "democracy," to invest the united party with moral gravitas. In Serbia, the anti-Milosevic opposition became known as the Democratic Opposition of Serbia. (In Zimbabwe, the opposition, following the same game plan, calls itself the Movement for Democratic Change.) The opposition's anointing itself as the champion of democracy serves the additional function of calling the government's commitment to democracy into question. If the opposition is "the democratic opposition" then what must the government be? The answer, of course, is undemocratic.
The plan called for the opposition to accuse the government of electoral fraud to justify a transition from electoral to insurrectionary politics. The accusations built and built as the day of the vote approached, until, by sheer repetition, they were accepted as a matter of indisputable truth. The failure of the opposition candidate, Kostunica, to win the election on the first ballot, provided the pretext for people to take to the streets to force the government to step down. Otpor was central to organizing the planned "spontaneous" demonstrations.
Wherever Washington is engaged in regime change operations, known now as color revolutions, the same plan is put into play. And where Washington is interfering in a country's internal politics to oust governments it doesn't like, you'll also find Sokwanele's sister organizations: Zubr in Belarus, Khmara in Georgia, Pora in the Ukraine. All translate into the same English phrase: enough is enough.
Zvakwana, "an underground movement that aims to .... undermine" the Mugabe government, is another Optor offspring. (Sokwanele, "specialize(s) in anonymous acts of civil disobedience.") (1) Both groups receive generous financing from Western sources. (2) While the original, Otpor, was largely a youth-oriented anarchist-leaning movement, at least one member of Sokwanele is "A conservative white businessman expressing a passion for freedom, tradition, polite manners and the British Royals." (3) That, in Bond's view, counts as the independent left.
Not surprisingly, the Bond-recommended Sokwanele Web site links to Zvakwana's Web site. Members of Zvakwana say their movement is homegrown and free of foreign control (4), but free from foreign control doesn't mean free from foreign funding. The US Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act, signed into law by US President George W. Bush in December 2001, empowers the president under the US Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to "support democratic institutions, the free press and independent media" in Zimbabwe – which is to say, groups like Sokwanele and Zvakwana.
Movements, political parties and media elsewhere have knowingly accepted funding from Western governments, their agencies and pro-imperialist foundations, while proclaiming their complete independence. (5) Members of these groups may genuinely believe they remain aloof from their backer's aims (and in the West it is often the very groups that claim not to take sides that are the favored recipients of this lucre), but self-deception is an insidious thing – and the promise of oodles of cash is hard to resist.
There's no doubt Sokwanele and Zvakwana are well-financed. Their Web sites alone betray a level of funding and organization that goes well beyond what the meager self-financing of truly independent grassroots movements – even in the far more affluent West – are able to scrape together.
If Zvakwana denies its links to the US, other elements of the Western-backed anti-Mugabe apparatus are less secretive. Studio 7, an anti-ZANU-PF radio program carries programming by the Voice of America, an agency whose existence can hardly be said to be left-oriented or independent. Studio 7 is carried on SW Radio Africa, a shortwave radio station operating from the UK, also endorsed by the Bond-recommended Sokwanele. The station is funded by "international pro-democracy groups" (6) (i.e., US ruling class foundations and Western governments.)
Groups like Sokwanele, Zvakwane and SW Radio Africa – and the arguments of individuals like Bond who promote them as the independent left – should be examined with a fair degree of skepticism. Are they really "independent"? If not, and they're bound up with the foreign policy apparatus of imperialist countries, are they really left, or do they simply talk left, to hide a fundamentally pro-imperialist orientation?
NOTES:
1. "Grass-Roots Effort Aims to Upend Mugabe in Zimbabwe," The New York Times, (March 28, 2005)
2. Los Angeles Times (July 8, 2005)
3. Ibid.
4. New York Times (March 27, 2005)
5. See Frances Stonor Saunders, "The Cultural Cold War: The CIA and the World of Arts and Letters," New Press, April 2000; and "The Economics and Politics or the World Social Forum," Aspects of India's Economy, No. 35, September 2003, http://www.rupe-india.org/35/contents.html
6. Globe and Mail (March 26, 2005)
Email: zimbabwecrisis@yahoo.com
Visit: Zimbabwe Watch
Printer friendly version
Send page by E-Mail
Zimbabwe: The Resistance to Colonialism
Posted: Monday, April 2, 2007
By K. Elford
April 02, 2007
We White people hardly ever realize our offense when discounting information being presented to us from a Black point of view. There are informed alternatives to the White-owned mainstream media, outlets that provide alternative views for important consideration.
There is excessive attention from the Western media on the Zimbabwe land reclamation program. Many Whites, White journalists, politicians, White landowners and former White landowners are voicing opposition to this exercise. Unfortunately Whites have the loudest voice with the least to say. That voice comes from a biased, emotionally charged and uninformed point of view based on White mainstream media propaganda. Whites just don't want to see the land reclamation issue differently than how the West is presenting it.
Land illegally obtained by Whites and the efforts to reclaim it by the rightful owners is an ongoing, significant point of contention between the minority White occupiers and the landless indigenous Black majority in Africa.
The ownership of land in any nation is the lifeblood of the sovereign people. Whose hands the land is in and how it is managed controls the welfare of the community.
Whites were enticed to Zimbabwe in search of gold by the White established British South Africa Company (BSAC); a company granted to Cecil Rhodes by England's Queen Victoria. Unsuccessful in their search, instead of the riches of gold promised, they were "given" large tracts of land by the BSAC. One of the problems with this land handout is the British and BSAC had no real authority to give any land to anyone.
Before Whites showed up in Africa, culturally there was a different concept towards land "ownership". Whites will tell tales of treaties and agreements made with local Africans (people who had no authority to make agreements), but I find those tales hard to believe since Whites were "negotiating the treaties". Besides the language barriers, the concepts of owning land individually would be foreign to many indigenous Africans so there is no way these treaties were anything but a White concocted and enacted affair. Closer to the truth is that the landgrab initiated by Whites brought the White settlers into conflict with the indigenous African populations.
Africans rebelled and wars were fought in attempts to rectify the White settler infestation and the environmental disasters being brought on by their presence. In response to African rebellions the BSAC officially "sanctioned" the use of force to enact their "new" land policy concocting a "racial solution" to the land issue.
What was the solution White settlers initiated? The 1899 Order in Council, "the Council shall assign to the natives land sufficient for their occupation, whether as tribes or portions of tribes, and suitable for agriculture and pastoral requirement" (Palmer, 1977). In other words, Black Africans were "resettled" onto reserves, while Whites allowed themselves new land occupancy with prospective settlers continuing to get lands grants. Is any of this sounding familiar?
Within a few years nearly half of the indigenous population were living on reserves and had lost nearly 16 million hectares of land to the White settlers. Not long after their arrival Whites had 2500 farms occupying approximately 15 million hectares.
White landgrabs in Africa were the beginning of the colonization of indigenous Africans. Do Whites have the same imagery of colonialism as those who Whites forced their institution of colonialism on? Very unlikely. In the U.S. Whites think of a colony, the fairytale Thanksgiving stories of White settlers taking care of the Native Americans and for the British it would be tales of conquest of what they feel are a lesser-type of human being under the guise of advancing "civilization" while increasing their material wealth.
Colonization in Zimbabwe was a minority of Whites illegally occupying the land, imposing a British structured control of resources, labor and government displacing the indigenous Black population by subjugation. The British colonizers became dominant using brutal force against Black Africans during their efforts to replace the established indigenous cultural structure.
The result has been the minority White colonizers accumulating wealth while the majority indigenous Black population, no longer in control of their land and resources, has been left in extreme poverty.
The occupation of land by Whites has had a direct impact on Africa's economy preventing the ability of the local indigenous population from competing fairly. Unless Black Africans gain access to land ownership they remain poor, while the White minority continues to profit. This unfair advantage in favor of Whites is what perpetuates the cycle of poverty: a middle class from within the indigenous peoples is not allowed to expand; the nation has the minority Whites accumulating the most wealth; a few Blacks are being promoted, often by chance or circumstance; and the majority Black population remains in poverty. As long as these few Whites hold the most and the best land, there is no way to break this poverty cycle.
Does the average citizen in the West have any idea why their governments are so interested in the land reclamation program in Zimbabwe? Whites tend to believe the propagandized vision of a benevolent government that "gives" assistance to the downtrodden. What is missing from that vision is that Western governments give nothing and through colonization (also known as imperialism) is the reason many are downtrodden.
If Western governments were really interested in the well-being of developing countries, why do Western governments knowingly support opposition organizations that have stated they will use violence to meet their goals? In which Western country can someone threaten to use violence to bring down a government and be free? In the U.S. and UK? No. But when the U.S. and Britain are campaigning and plotting a foreign government takeover, they will condone and defend opposition parties using violence while castigating the local democratically elected government for reacting exactly as the U.S. and European governments would to quell any violence being used against them.
The current White instigated and maintained war in Iraq is about land and resources.
It has become common knowledge including admissions from the U.S. elite that the information used to rally the citizenry of the U.S. behind the U.S. led War against Iraq was "faulty". What is the cost of this faulty information? Besides the loss of 655,000 people and counting, the Iraq nation has lost its identity and its land is being destroyed while being occupied by the White invaders. Does anyone really think that when this war ends the U.S. has any intention of giving back the land and other resources they are taking? Would the U.S. remove all traces of its presence and restore an Iraqi identity? This has not happened as yet anywhere else that the U.S. has invaded, so it would be prudent to suggest that will not be the case.
As horrifying as the Iraq War is, there is sufficient documentation of at least 56 instances of major U.S. aggressions abroad since World War II.
The majority of Whites overwhelmingly and blindly consider any alternative media, along with different perspectives (any source of information other than the mainstream media) as "conspiracy theories" or unpatriotic America-bashing.
The hypocrisy of this type of thinking is that the average U.S. citizen debunks as a "conspiracy theory" any information when it points out that the U.S. government is corrupt, but will easily accept other governments as being guilty of "conspiracies", especially if they perceive them as threats against them in the U.S. Imperialist empires do depend on individual paranoia to keep the charade of legitimacy going.
And so the U.S. and European imperialist aggressions against foreign governments go on using brute force by the most inhumane displays of aggression unabated with the mainstream press aiding every step of the way. The antagonistic Western governments keep propping up puppet governments and funding oppositions to take down resistant governments the world over and hardly a word is spoken. White people refuse to believe that Western governments are directly responsible for any wrongdoings. Could Whites ever fathom that Western, White governments are behind every major conflict in the world?
Email: zimbabwecrisis@yahoo.com
Visit: Zimbabwe Watch
Printer friendly version
Send page by E-Mail
Zimbabwe: Region shames MDC
Posted: Monday, April 2, 2007
By Reason Wafawarova
herald.co.zw
Aprol 02, 2007
THE resolutions, on Zimbabwe, at the just-ended Extraordinary Summit of Sadc Heads of State and Government did not only expose Western propaganda, but also sent a clear message to MDC and any would-be lapdog politicians that it's either the African way or the highway to foreign-backed oblivion.
The resolution calling for the scrapping of the ruinous sanctions behind economic decline in Zimbabwe is a test for MDC's sincerity in its claim to be standing for the interests of ordinary Zimbabweans.
MDC faction leader Morgan Tsvangirai publicly called for the same sanctions and the official MDC line is that the sanctions are "targeted", but the party's sponsors have since dropped the pretence with Washington recently pledging stiffer economic sanctions.
Now MDC has to choose between rallying behind Sadc's call to condemn the sanctions and endorsing the region's planned rescue package or continue the shameful support for the illegal sanctions along with its masters in London and Washington.
The former route will cost MDC as it comes with loss of both regional and domestic support while the latter will cost the opposition donor funds as well as their only known political weapon, foreign-sponsored campaigns to create anarchy and despondency in Zimbabwe.
The two MDCs are likely to register their disappointment with the Sadc position and dutifully front Western anger and frustrations.
While this may portray MDC as a resolute pliant party in the eyes of the West, it can only help further isolate it from the African cause and interest.
Sadc basically sees Tsvangirai the same way it sees Jean-Pierre Bemba, the way it saw Afonso Dhlakama and Jonas Savimbi, subversive individuals that needed to be tamed and reformed into acceptable Africans.
The clear message from Sadc is that MDC has to abandon its externally-induced political positions and start approaching its differences with Zanu-PF from the position of a loyal, homegrown political party.
The sanctions really put Tsvangirai and his cohorts between a rock and a hard place.
The resolution calling on Britain to honour its obligations to compensate white commercial farmers compounds MDC's woes.
The quisling party has to wait for London's response before pronouncing itself on the issue.
Open support for the British position can only further expose MDC as a sellout political party.
Tendai Biti's overused rhetoric in articulating Western-oriented policies will have to be at its tired best to come up with a face-saving position.
The proposal that Sadc should find ways of countering the effects of sanctions was probably the worst news Tsvangirai has ever received since 1999, family bereavements included.
On this he can either choose to fight Sadc and the people, or join Sadc and the Government in fighting his masters.
Panyanga dzaMushore chaipo (a real Catch-22 situation).
MDC factions will have to tell their masters that they need to be more African to remain relevant lest they go the way of Bishop Abel Muzorewa's UANC and Ndabaningi Sithole's Ndonga, the way to oblivion.
The decision to have South African President Thabo Mbeki mediate between MDC and Zanu-PF was not good news to Tsvangirai, his colleagues and their desperate masters in London and Washington.
This is the same Mbeki who ignored Tsvangirai's mad calls to cut off of power supplies to Zimbabwe.
This is the Mbeki who has repeatedly refused to condemn President Mugabe, much to the chagrin of Bush and Blair.
This is the Mbeki whose quiet diplomacy has irked the entire bloodthirsty Western political set up. This is the Mbeki whose government and ANC declared all elections in Zimbabwe free, fair and democratic.
For Tsvangirai, this is the Mbeki he called "a dishonest broker".'
Tsvangirai, Pius Ncube, Lovemore Madhuku and all other money-sniffing opposition supporters must really be extremely sad fellows today.
In one fell swoop; Sadc dealt a death blow to puppet politics in the region.
If it can't endorse Sadc's position, MDC may as well go and seek solidarity from Iraq's Nouri al Maliki, Israel's Ehud Olmert and Afghanistan's Hamid Karzai.
Africa is saying no to puppet politics and treachery and MDC has two options to deal with the situation, either to shape up or ship out.
What Sadc has done gives the world an opportunity to scrutinise the Western media and choose who to believe between Zimbabwe's neighbours or its distant detractors and enemies.
Of all five known styles of conflict management; that is dominating, obliging, compromising, integrating and avoiding; MDC seems to be having only one viable option and that is to oblige with the dictates of the African interest in general and Zimbabwe's national interest in particular.
They have no one to dominate, no room for compromises since they are a British outfit, nothing to integrate since their objective is unAfrican and they can no longer avoid engagement lest they be dismissed for what they are, puppet anarchists and counter-revolutionary Trojan horses.
For MDC, it is either the African way or the highway; there are no two ways about it.
Reason Wafawarova is a post-graduate student in International Relations at Macquarie University in Sydney, Australia.
Reprinted from:
www.herald.co.zw/inside.aspx?sectid=17075&cat=10
Printer friendly version
Send page by E-Mail
Share your views on the Online Forums
View last 5 days / Advance search
