March 13, 2007 - March 20, 2007
Zimbabwe: ZANU-PF Fights Back
Posted: Tuesday, March 20, 2007
By Stephen Gowans
Stephen Gowans's Blog
March 20, 2007
One thing opponents and supporters of Mugabe's government agree on is that the opposition is trying to oust the president (illegally and unconstitutionally if you acknowledge the plan isn't limited to victory at the polls.)
So which came first?
Attempts to overthrow Zimbabwe's ZANU-PF government, or the government's harsh crackdown on opposition?
According to the Western media spin, the answer is the government's harsh crackdown on opposition. Mugabe's government is inherently authoritarian, greedy for power for power's sake, and willing do anything – from stealing elections to cracking skulls — to hang on to its privileged position.
This is the typical slander leveled at the heads of governments the US and UK have trouble with, from Milosevic in his day, to Kim Jong Il, to Castro.
Another view is that the government's authoritarianism is an inevitable reaction to circumstances that are unfavorable to the attainment of its political (not its leaders' personal) goals. Mugabe's government came to power at the head of a movement that not only sought political independence, but aspired to reverse the historical theft of land by White settlers. That the opposition would be fierce and merciless – has been so – was inevitable.
Reaction to the opposition, if the government and its anti-colonial agenda were to survive, would need to be equally fierce and merciless.
At the core of the conflict is a clash of right against right: the right of White settlers to enjoy whatever benefits stolen land yields in profits and rent against the right of the original owners to reclaim their land.
Allied to this is a broader struggle for economic independence, which sets the rights of investors and corporations abroad to profit from untrammeled access to Zimbabwe's labor, land and resources and the right of Zimbabweans to restrict access on their own terms to facilitate their own economic development.
The dichotomy of personal versus political motivation as the basis for the actions of maligned governments recurs in debates over whether this or that leader or movement ought to be supported or reviled. The personal view says that all leaders are corrupt, chase after personal glory, power and wealth, and dishonestly manipulate the people they profess to champion. The political view doesn't deny the personal view as a possibility, but holds that the behavior of leaders is constrained by political goals.
"Even George Bush who rigs elections and manipulates news in order to stay in office and who clearly enjoys being 'the War President,' wants the presidency in order to carry out a particular program with messianic fervor," points out Richard Levins. "He would never protect the environment, provide healthcare, guarantee universal free education, or separate church and state, just to stay in office." ("Progressive Cuba Bashing," Socialism and Democracy, Vol. 19, No. 1, March 2005.)
Mugabe is sometimes criticized for being pushed into accelerating land reform by a restive population impatient with the glacial pace of redistribution allowed under the Lancaster House agreement. His detractors allege, implausibly, that he has no real commitment to land reforms. He only does what's necessary to stay in power.
If we accept this as true, then we're saying that the behavior of the government is constrained by one of the original goals of the liberation movement (land reform) and that the personal view is irrelevant. No matter what the motivations of the government's leaders, the course the government follows is conditioned by the goals of the larger movement of national liberation.
There's no question Mugabe reacted harshly to recent provocations by factions of the MDC, or that his government was deliberately provoked. But the germane question isn't whether beating Morgan Tsvangirai over the head was too much, but whether the ban on political rallies in Harare, which the opposition deliberately violated, is justified. That depends on whose side you're on, and whether you think Tsvangirai and his associates are simply earnest citizens trying to freely express their views or are proxies for imperialist governments bent on establishing (restoring in Britain's case) hegemony over Zimbabwe.
There's no question either that Mugabe's government is in a precarious position. The economy is in a shambles, due in part to drought, to the disruptions caused by land reform, and to sanctions.
White farmers want Mugabe gone (to slow land redistribution, or to stop it altogether), London and Washington want him gone (to ensure neo-liberal "reforms" are implemented), and it's likely that some members of his own party also want him to step down.
On top of acting to sabotage Zimbabwe economically through sanctions, London and Washington have been funneling financial, diplomatic and organizational assistance to groups and individuals who are committed to bringing about a color revolution (i.e., extra-constitutional regime change) in Zimbabwe. That includes Tsvangirai and the MDC factions, among others.
The timing of the MDC rally was suspicious (it coincided with the opening of the latest session of the UN Human Rights Council.) Its depiction as a prayer meeting is flagrantly disingenuous. Those of an unprejudiced mind will recognize it for what it was: a political rally, held in already volatile conditions, whose outcome would either be insurrection or a crackdown that could be used to call for tougher sanctions, even intervention.
For the Mugabe government, the options are two-fold: Capitulate (and surrender any chance of maintaining what independence Zimbabwe has managed to secure at considerable cost) or fight back.
Some people might deplore the methods used, but considering the actions and objectives of the opposition – and what's at stake – the crackdown has been both measured and necessary.
Email: zimbabwecrisis@yahoo.com
Visit: Zimbabwe Watch
Printer friendly version
Send page by E-Mail
Zimbabwe: West can't preach human rights
Posted: Tuesday, March 20, 2007
By Reason Wafawarova
March 20, 2007
ZIMBABWE
THE launch of the long-promised "defiance campaign" by the fractious MDC and its allies has, understandably, ignited debate on the political processes in Zimbabwe.
Whatever the merits or demerits of one's argument, it has to start from the realisation that the opposition launched a defiance campaign aimed at toppling the Government.
What then ensues is debate centering on the wisdom and acceptability of the strategy adopted and favoured by the opposition as well as the tactics adopted and effected by the Government as represented by its police force.
There are few pertinent questions to be pursued in this debate and these questions are centred on law and politics. If one were to pursue questions related to law and maybe to establish the relevant chronology of such questions then there might be need to start with the idea of a "defiance" campaign. A defiance campaign is different from protest and this is very important if one wants to contextualise what is happening within the confines of legality both at municipal or international law.
Defiance by definition is "daring or antagonistic resistance to authority . . ." according to The Macquarie Dictionary and protest is defined as "an expression or declaration of objection or disapproval".
It is common knowledge that both Arthur Mutambara and Morgan Tsvangirai, as leaders of the two factions of the MDC, have openly declared an official position to preside over a "defiance campaign" and they have not ignored the illegality of such a campaign.
Mutambara was quoted as saying following the law would be akin to allowing the Government to tell the opposition how to conduct its struggle while Tsvangirai is on record saying the Public Order and Security Act was there "to be broken." In the context of defiance, the statements from these opposition leaders are in line but there is the question of the legal legitimacy of taking up such a position.
Needless to say, at municipal law, that is Zimbabwean domestic law, such a resolve is outlawed as plain rebellion if not treason. At international law, there is the problem of how to balance the doctrine of sovereignty and non-interference with individual human rights such as association, expression, affiliation and conscience. While the Bill of Rights provides for a protection of all these rights, domestic law tends to determine such things as the legality and acceptability of what one associates with, of what one expresses themselves about, of what one affiliates themselves with and what one subscribes their conscience to.
To this end these human rights tend to lose their absolute status and to assume a regulated form with what respective governments and people view as acceptable limitations.
Before taking any position on the legality and acceptability of what the opposition has done or has resolved to do, let us take a look at the State's response.
Firstly, we are told there was a rally that turned violent when the opposition's "Democratic Resistance Commit-tees" clashed with police and there are reports of casualties on the police side. The police responded by evoking a temporary ban on political rallies in specific areas of the capital. They used the powers bestowed on them by the supreme law of Zimbabwe, the national Constitution. The ban was ignored as the opposition vowed to defy it and proceed with its plans, with or without the permission or blessing of the police.
The opposition went ahead with the planned rallies, this time using some church leaders as a front.
The police moved in and deployed details to seal off the rally venue and some of the invited people turned up for the rally. An argument ensued between the police and the leaders of the opposition and the crowd got excited if not incited. The police rounded up the leadership and ferried it to a police station while leaving a smaller and weaker deployment behind. The crowd and the remaining police officers clashed and one person was shot dead while opposition supporters assaulted several police officers.
The crowd was in a confrontational mood and the police were perhaps in a retaliatory mood following the assaults. There were reports that the arrested were beaten in police custody while police maintain they only used the force necessary to effect arrest on those resisting arrest. Again we will not take a position on the legality and acceptability of the police action for now, but we will do that later.
Now, the assaults and the shooting were all taken within the context of a defiance campaign until news filtered that the alleged beatings of those arrested included one of the faction leaders, Morgan Tsvangirai. The US, Britain and New Zealand quickly issued statements condemning the alleged beatings; threats and ultimatums were also issued against the Government in general and President Mugabe in particular.
British premier, Tony Blair described the situation as "truly tragic" and the Government concurred only for the reasons that it was Tony Blair's tragedy of losing the plot to topple a democratically elected government.
President Mugabe responded saying if the West was going to look the other way when the victims of political violence are perceived to be pro-Government and only cry foul for those from the opposition, then they (the West) could "go hang".
Now the political questions to be raised here would include the question of the West's political interests in the affairs of Zimbabwe. Who is best placed to serve those interests?
The other question is the Government's desire to safeguard its mandate and to protect the national interest. Interest accruing from the gains of the Second Chimurenga, which was a 14-year war of attrition against a conventional force powered by Ian Smith and the apartheid South Africa regime.
Zanu-PF sees in the West, an attempt by the erstwhile oppressor to return by proxy through the MDC which is distrusted by the larger rural populace that bore the brunt of the struggle. On the other hand, the West has resolved to topple President Mugabe for alleged bad governance.
Part of this includes the Government's decision to compulsorily acquire farms from white commercial farmers for redistribution to landless black peasants.
The land reform programme saw the EU, US, Australia, Canada and New Zealand slapping ruinous sanctions on Zimbabwe.
The Western interest in the MDC has not received the support of African governments. In fact, the MDC and its Western backers have openly expressed frustration with the African Union in general and South Africa in particular for what they perceive as their open support for the Government.
The same Western alliance was in Vietnam in the 1960s and 70s pursuing its ideological interests. It had a lot of bad things to say about the Vietnamese regime.
The alliance is in Iraq where it again talked itself "right" saying bad things about the Baath regime.
It also talked "right" about itself, vilifying the USSR, and got it all wrong when it declared the "end of history" after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1989.
It again said trash about China's human rights record but again got it wrong, as it now needs China more than China needs it.
The point here is the Zimbabwean situation falls in the context of Western battles for imperial authority and supreme control of the world system.
The legitimacy of the opposition's call for a defiance campaign is just as debatable as the Government's use of force to thwart such defiance or rebellion. If the opposition at least pretended to be protesting, then it would have been easier to argue its case. Instead it vowed to defy the Government and try to unseat it through violence.
Whether the force used to quell the attempted insurrection was proportionate or not is debatable but as it stands the West's biased support for the opposition, and the MDC's vow to continue street violence will only legitimise any action the police might take against those involved in the campaign.
The Government says the opposition has no right to disobey the law and the opposition's handlers from the West have no right to interfere in the domestic affairs of a sovereign state, while the opposition claims the laws it is meant to obey are repressive.
The question is; is it democratic for a group of people in a country that holds regular and periodic elections to adopt a strategy of using force in attempts to assume power unless there is consensus that the electoral system is undemocratic?
Is there such consensus among Zimbabweans, is there any in Sadc, is there any in the African Union and is there any in the United Nations?
Without taking any positions on what has just happened in recent days in Zimbabwe, one might just see the difference between talking it right on human rights and actually getting it right on internal contexts of conflicts, based on domestic politics, values, culture and historical factors.
This is where the West misses. It seems the West is driven by its own capitalist interests as evidenced by its silence on Pakistan were not less than six demonstrators, not sworn rebels, were shot down by police about the same time one Gift Tandare was gunned down in Highfield.
Such double standards make the implementation of law at international level very problematic.
Email: zimbabwecrisis@yahoo.com
Visit: Zimbabwe Watch
Printer friendly version
Send page by E-Mail
Zimbabwe: Africans Know Whose Agenda the West Serves
Posted: Monday, March 19, 2007
By Ayinde
rastafaritimes@yahoo.com
March 19, 2007
Face it: the West is not concerned about the human rights and the well-being of Africans. Their biggest concern is to protect the status quo of White land control in Africa. All this commotion from the western media over Zimbabwe is an orchestrated effort to remove President Robert Mugabe from office. Again. For those who might not recall, here is a refresher on the U.S. position in 2002:
"The United States government has said it wants to see President Robert Mugabe removed from power and that it is working with the Zimbabwean opposition to bring about a change of administration." (US admits plan to bring down Mugabe August 2002)
These are Morgan Tsvangirai words as reported by BBC (2000):
"What we would like to tell Mugabe is please go peacefully. If you don't want to go peacefully, we will remove you violently" (Opposition warning to Mugabe)
Without a doubt, there are Zimbabweans with legitimate complaints about their government as is the case with all countries, but there is a functioning democracy in Zimbabwe by which the opposition can attempt to gain office. The opposition cannot be unsuccessful at the polls, resort to violence and then want our sympathies. Morgan Tsvangirai threatened violence and was not condemned by Western governments and the media. That proves they have no problem with violence in Zimbabwe as long as it is to advance their own agenda.
It is not like Africans the world over are stupid and do not know what is at stake in Zimbabwe. In a 2004 survey for New African magazine, President Robert Mugabe was voted history's third-greatest African and this should have informed the world how Africans feel about the entire issue of land ownership and the efforts to redress this historical injustice in Zimbabwe. (Mugabe voted history's third-greatest African)
Although some African leaders may feel to kowtow to the "West" for aid, all African leaders know that land is central to the liberation struggle in Africa. Most African leaders know the West relentlessly goes about demonizing President Robert Mugabe for daring to reclaim land from White settlers. They have done all in their power to punish the Zimbabwe people through sanctions for supporting President Robert Mugabe's land reclamation campaign.
We should not support the White settlers, the U.S. and Europe in their campaign to force African nations to ostracize President Mugabe. The West must not be allowed to choose our friends and enemies for us.
If the minority opposition groups are embarking on a violent campaign of resistance in Zimbabwe, then it is expected that the police will defend themselves and the state.
Email: zimbabwecrisis@yahoo.com
Visit: Zimbabwe Watch
Printer friendly version
Send page by E-Mail
Zimbabwe: Racist anti-Mugabe Assault
Posted: Sunday, March 18, 2007
By Ayinde
rastafaritimes@yahoo.com
March 18, 2007
There are some opposition forces in and out of Zimbabwe whose only response to any alternative view is to send racially denigrating attacks via email. Some also have the false assumption that because my email address is rastafaritimes@yahoo.com, it somehow means I must be as delusional as many Whites... some marijuana smoking hippie.
In response to the article, 'Lack of Support for Zimbabwe's Land Reform is Africa's Shame', not one email so far has substantively addressed any of the points I raised. Several have pointed out that the Africans in Zimbabwe cannot utilize the land (of course, not worded so nicely).
One responder's reaction was even to foolishly ask, "Why have Africans not been able to grow sufficient food for themselves although colonialism ended many years ago?" while implying that the reason is some characteristic that is lacking in Africans that makes them unable to be productive. He (the respondent) cannot see that the efforts for land reform in Zimbabwe, which he thoroughly opposes, is about addressing this very issue. The reason many Africans cannot grow sufficient food for themselves is because WHITE SETTLERS OCCUPY THE BEST LAND.
All of this is part of the racist, dishonest propaganda that clouds the minds of the gullible and ignorant about the real issue of reclaiming lands that were stolen from Africans in Zimbabwe. What is taking place with Zimbabwe is similar to what the Western powers have done with Haiti. They have continually punished Haiti for being the first Black republic after a successful slave revolt. The European powers would never allow Haiti to be a success story because Haiti could become a model and a motivation to Africans to resist White domination.
In a similar manner, these White, Western powers know fully well that if Zimbabwe is allowed to succeed with its land reform, then other African nations would follow suit resulting in Western powers having less of a remote control on Africans who may suddenly choose to utilize the land in ways that first serves their own interest.
The White dominance agenda depends on the fictional image that Africans in Zimbabwe are unable to utilize their own land productively. Even if that image were true, that is still absolutely no reason for Whites to continually hold on to land that was unjustly handed down to them. If these White farmers feel they should be compensated then they should look to their colonial powers for any compensation. But the argument of unproductive Africans is absolutely false, "as black small farm owners account for the majority of maize grown in Zimbabwe" (See: Zimbabwe Under Siege). This White superiority complex reigns in the minds of many and it is clearly evident in the majority of news reports and email responses from those trying to give the impression that they are concerned with the plight of Africans in Zimbabwe.
The West is not concerned with human rights in Africa: they support brutal dictators around the world as long as these dictators do their bidding.
How come this same westernized media did not put forth a concentrated campaign to restore Africans to the more productive agricultural lands that they were driven from during colonial rule? How come they were contented with 70% of the best agricultural lands in Zimbabwe being held by Whites and used for growing tobacco and other crops for Europe? Why were they not concerned about all the racist imbalances that remain in Africa as the legacy of slavery and colonialism?
The mainstream media, which is mostly White-owned, have defended the status quo of White domination to such an extent that many today actually believe that the Africans, who they see in poverty, are in such a state because of some inherent flaw in their Blackness.
Many of these commentators are either ignorant, dishonest or both.
Email: zimbabwecrisis@yahoo.com
Visit: Zimbabwe Watch
Printer friendly version
Send page by E-Mail
Zimbabwe: The MDC Must Renounce the Sanctions
Posted: Sunday, March 18, 2007
There are Economic Sanctions on Zimbabwe by the West, the MDC is complicit and MUST renounce them
By Tadios Chisango
March 18, 2007
I have a bold claim to make: that nothing but the economic sanctions imposed on our country by the "Western world", with the complicity of the MDC, accounts for the economic decline that we have witnessed. As such, the MDC's connivance with the West to ferment the economic collapse takes away their legitimacy as a Zimbabwean political party. The MDC may legitimately and credibly be against Zanu (PF), but when they deliberately, or unwittingly courted Western sanctions that now render the living conditions of an ordinary Zimbabwe at Machipisa shopping centre insufferable, they downgraded to a much lower and sinister plane where they can never claim any legal, political or moral right: being anti-Zimbabwe.
The plan could have been quite astute on the MDC's part, and probably beneficial to the majority of Zimbabweans, if it had worked. Sub-plan 1: engage Western powers, South Africa, Zimbabwe's biggest partner in trade on the continent, SADC, other African countries etc to precipitate the fall of the economy. Sub-plan 2: incite people to revolt against the incumbent Government, either through the ballot, popular uprisings, or through the bullet, oust them, and get into power. Sub-plan 3: Mend diplomatic relations with the West, ask for revocation of sanctions, court their investment, re-establish rule of law etc and you have the ingredients of a bling-bling economy once again. Who would have the last laugh? Morgan. What a good plotter! As it stands right now, sub-plan 1 has worked rather successfully: the West has imposed some sanctions on Zimbabwe, but not South Africa nor other SADC nations nor other African countries. The West stands out as the only bloc of the world that has imposed sanctions on Zimbabwe, and we beg for an answer! Sub-plan 2 has worked to some extent, but has had a quite crucial paradoxical effect: entrenching Mugabe further into power; Sub-plan 3 lies in a perpetual limbo, perhaps never to happen.
The MDC have thus put our people in a never-ending crossfire, because they never had a back-up plan in case the sanctions did not work. Did they ever sign an agreement with the Western powers that if the sanctions did not work for a certain period, they would call them off? No, they did not! In fact, what they did not realise was that although they were fighting a common war with the "West" against Mugabe and his Government, the motives only correlated, but did not necessarily originate from the same source. The West won't relent until their ends have been met, and all this while it's our people who suffer. They obviously have nothing to lose if Zimbabweans starve. They will be able to sustain and retain their more dominant motives until they the MDC are able to get into power and satisfy the West's motives. Albeit I am not sure of the MDC's capacity to convince the West to take off the sanctions on Zimbabwe, what I am completely sure of is that they are readily being used as a pawn to justify the sanctions. The sanctions, through a myriad of processes, make it ever more financially difficult for my mother to be cured of her high blood pressure at High Glen hospital! While in the short or long run, the MDC may not be able to use this pawnship to get to power, it is surely destroying our economy. In a nutshell, I believe the benefit-cost ratio of the sanctions to our people and to our economy has since reached a highly negative value whose effects may never be undone.
Western Sanctions, the MDC's complicity and the Economy:
Enumerating the economic sanctions and documenting their direct effects in total on Zimbabwe is not an easy task, practically. The difficulty of this task should not necessarily mean that there are no sanctions on Zimbabwe, however. What is possible, and that other writers before me have tried to do is to demonstrate that there are definitely some economic sanctions by the West targeted upon the entirety of Zimbabwe, not only Zanu PF officials, which the MDC and its sympathizers deny. Inferences can then be made about the full extent of the sanctions. Far from dismissing the so-called targeted sanctions, I will argue how they have adversarial effects on our economy. I will also argue that the MDC has been complicit in all the sanctions that have been imposed, or maintained, after its inception. The love-hate relationship between the IMF and the World Bank predates the formation of the MDC, for example, but its maintenance and the imposition of further sanctions (such as the Zimbabwe Democracy Bill) that entrenched it and have done further damage, have received the blessing of the MDC. If the MDC supported the sanctions unwittingly, believing they would only damage the interests of Zanu PF, its high time they acknowledged their naivety, and start repairing their damage. As long as they continue playing to the West's gallery, without openly renouncing the sanctions, they are responsible for the suffering the sanctions are meting out on our country. Once they renounce the sanctions, the West will look lame, and not have the excuse for the anti-Zimbabwe din they are currently playing to the world. At least, I hope the evidence and arguments I will present in this article graphically demonstrate the existence of the West's sanctions on Zimbabwe, as I have witnessed much denial on the part of those who support the West and the MDC.
The IMF and World Bank's Sanctions
Both the IMF and the World Bank suspended balance of payments to Zimbabwe in 1997 after the Government gave gratuities to ex-combatants. This is despite the fact that they had been assured that money would not come from investment funds, but from a package of tax increases and spending cuts. The suspension of the balance-of-payment loans invoked fears of a ballooning budget deficit that resulted in the first ever crash of the Zimbabwean dollar, and has partly facilitated the incessant fall of the Zimbabwean currency up to the present time. It must be emphasized that it is not the payments to ex-combatants that caused the decline of our currency, but the reaction of the IMF and the World Bank. Had they let it pass, as it was a one-off event anyway, I doubt it could have created an impact as huge as the unexpected cutting of crucial balance-of-payment loans. When the IMF finally agreed to provide a loan in 1999, Zimbabwe was, for the first time since independence, $20 million a month behind in its foreign debt repayment, resulting in a $190 million deficit for 1999. The sanctions were re-introduced in 2001, and still stand today.
The "Zimbabwe Democracy Bill" (2001)
The introduction of the "Zimbabwe Democracy Bill" by the US in 2001 set to entrench the financial starvation of Zimbabwe, which the IMF had been sporadically engaging in, as shown above. On December 21, 2001, US President George W. Bush signed into law S. 494, the "Zimbabwe democracy bill." The law, among other things, instructed American officials in the IMF and multilateral development banks - including the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the International Development Association, the International Finance Corporation, the Inter-American Development Bank, the Asian Development Bank, the Inter-American Investment Corporation, the African Development Bank, the African Development Fund, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and the Multilateral Investment Guaranty Agency -to "oppose and vote against any extension by the respective institution of any loan, credit, or guarantee to the government of Zimbabwe," and to vote against any reduction or cancellation of "indebtedness owed by the government of Zimbabwe."
The above are virtually all the banks IN THE WORLD which could potentially lend money to Zimbabwe. Disturbingly, Zimbabwe cannot even borrow from Africa's own banks. Prior to the bill, at least Zimbabwe could obtain credit from other international financial institutions when the IMF and the World Bank cut its credit lines. This effectively means that Zimbabwe is one of the very few countries in the world that currently exists without any balance of payments support and external lines of credit. The only external alternative Zimbabwe is left with is borrowing from other governments, which is not very easy. Only recently, Zimbabwe failed to get a loan from both South Africa and China. We should note that in the developing world in general, it is the rule rather than the exception to experience persistent trade deficits that often necessitate government from some of the above institutions. Without such external funding, no economy in the developing world survives, and Zimbabwe is no exception. From the Zimbabwean perspective, this law can only be described as "cruel". On its own, I guess it has been significant enough to plunge the economy in its present down spiral, with any other sanctions/measures only having additive effects. The support the MDC gave to the enunciation of this law renders them an enemy of our people.
In addition, the so-called Zimbabwe Democracy Bill vetoes debt relief to Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe needs debt relief now more than ever, in order to invest in capital and social development, rather than spend its already depleted foreign reserves on servicing debt. Huge debt is not necessarily a sign of mismanagement, as some people will say, so Zimbabwe should not be punished for it, unless the motive is ulterior. For everyone's information, the most indebted countries have the biggest economies in Africa and India, quite a model economy for us, is easily the most indebted developing country in the world. The US and its allies are throttling Zimbabwe's throat!
European Union Sanctions:
On February 18, 2002, the European Union's foreign to imposed sanctions against Zimbabwe. Under terms of the sanctions, The European Union suspended budgetary support to Zimbabwe and terminated "financial support for all projects" except "those in direct support of the population." All financial aid would be "reoriented in support of the population, in particular in the social sectors, democratization, respect for human rights and the rule of law." With Zimbabwe banned from obtaining credit from the IMF and the World Bank, prohibited from borrowing money from any other of the World's major financial institutions by the USA, and with Europe terminating its support, the vicious stamp on Zimbabwe comes full-cycle. It is only paradoxical that the EU has "reoriented" its support to the "population" which will inevitably be hurt by its "suspension of budgetary support and termination of financial support for all projects".
The European Union denies that it has imposed trade sanctions on Zimbabwe (pdf). At the same time, some evidence at least points to the fact that the EU has withdrawn its sugar export quota it had for Zimbabwe. If these are not trade sanctions, then what the hell are they? This actually reminds me of an interview Jonathan Moyo gave to Zimnetradio.com, in which he appeared to claim that farms seized during the land reform program had been black-listed by the European Union. Having conveniently maintained the EU and the USA as traditional markets inherited from the colonial period, any trade sanctions they impose/have imposed on Zimbabwe, whether de jure or de facto certainly can be expected to have biting effects as building new ones cannot be done overnight.
Other De Facto Sanctions:
The above example on the trade sanctions suggests that not all sanctions targeted on Zimbabwe are in Black somewhere. The view I have expressed above is buttressed by the following example:
"Zimbabwe receives an average of just $4 per HIV-infected person compared with $74 elsewhere, Ms Bellamy told reporters in Johannesburg on her last tour of Africa as head of Unicef...The world must differentiate between the politics and people of Zimbabwe," she said, as reported by the BBC.
Can somebody tell me please: what justifies the condemnation of children to death? The fact that they hate Mugabe predicts their desire to actively partake in the demise of these kids!? This is but a tip of the iceberg! They at least feel that they do not really have an obligation, and it's just an act of charity that they are helping these kids, so they have at least the guts to publish their hate. There is much behind the scenes!
Another example demonstrates the extent to which the US and British Governments are ready to go, even against individual Zimbabweans. Long after Simba Makoni resigned from the Government, the US Government successfully blocked his campaign for the post of president of the African Development Bank. Surely, it is not at all sensible that they maintain sanctions against Simba Makoni because he is a FORMER Minister of finance. And to suggest, even at the most implicit level, that Simba Makoni is, or was involved in, or supported, or facilitated, or perpetuated, any of human rights abuses in Zimbabwe is sheer nonsense!
Simba Makoni is not a full-fledged politician at all, having been incorporated into government as the Minister of finance solely on his business, not political CV and had to be fast-tracked into the politburo to make his position as the Minister get in line with Zanu PF protocols. If the West [The US and EU] say the sanctions are targeted at Zimbabwe's ruling elite, which they accuse of stifling democracy as well as violating human rights, how is Simba Makoni part of the game? How is he stifling democracy? Is he violating/has he violated any human rights? I can only guess there are other de facto sanctions the EU, the US and their satellite states have imposed on us that we haven't yet been able to understand.
Depleting our national "goodwill" through Media Demonization
I make another bold claim that the demonization the West does of Zimbabwe is tantamount to sanctions. The Herald is a Zimbabwean government owned Newspaper and the BBC is a British owned government owned broadcaster. The Herald is a government owned newspaper in Zimbabwe, and the BBC is a British government owned broadcaster. The Herald is obviously pro Zimbabwe Government and anti-British Government, while the BBC is basically anti-Zimbabwe. One major difference between the 2 is that the BBC is able to harness its resources to inform and bias world opinion on Zimbabwe. The Herald cannot inform World opinion in any concrete way that is comparable to the BBC. They are able to paint the Zimbabwean Government and society as essentially anti-White, for example, such that any "White" person may be hacked to death upon alighting a plane at the Harare airport.
They don't tell the world that the majority of the major companies, mines, and conservancies are in fact owned by Whites in Zimbabwe, and that they live quite peacefully in Zimbabwe's picturesque suburbs like Glen Lorne. They paint a grotesque picture of Mugabe willfully starving his people, but don't tell us how much the sanctions they have imposed on Zimbabwe harm ordinary people. They make millions of the world's population believe that Zimbabwe is the hell on earth full of animal-like beings perpetually scrounging for food in the rubbish dumps. To my mind, this produces a profound effect that can be captured in $ terms.
The so-called targeted sanctions
While we celebrate that Zanu PF "fat cats" are reeling under the effects of the so-called targeted sanctions, they in fact have a broad side-effect on the economy. Who wants to do business with a people whose Government is treated like dare-devils by both the USA and the EU? Again, it's a matter of depleting our national goodwill. While the EU and the USA claim there are no trade sanctions on Zimbabwe (which I have disputed above anyway) is it not necessary for the trade minister of Zimbabwe to meet his British counterpart once in a while, or any other business people in Britain and the rest of the EU, the USA, or in Australia, New Zealand and Canada? Does this have a null effect on Zimbabwe's business capacity and on its business relations with the above countries and in fact the rest of the world? We would only be very naïve to believe the opposite. In addition, some of the Zanu PF officials, no matter that we may not like them, own businesses that contribute to the GDP of the country.
Did we not become a bit perturbed the other day when the father of Prince Charles of Britain's son's girlfriend, who runs conservancies in Zimbabwe, had to defend himself on the charges by the West that his businesses dealings help sustain the "Mugabe Regime?" The man lives in Zimbabwe and is not supposed to have business links which are deemed by the West to prop the Mugabe regime? My foot! This gives us a "privileged view" into the devilish intents of the West on Zimbabwe in general, and the Zimbabweans whose livelihoods depend upon Charles Davey's operations. More recently, the Western sponsored International Crisis Group, advocated for the addition of the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe's Governor to the targeted sanctions list. I am not naïve enough to believe that this would affect Gono as an individual, with zero effect on the Reserve Bank's activities. And somebody would have me believe that the Reserve Bank is part of Mugabe's regime, and not part of the Zimbabwean economy.
Pressure on Sadc and other African countries
Within the present context, I wish to highlight the fact that the West has also tried to coerce African countries into imposing economic sanctions on Zimbabwe. They were going for a kill! For example, the Extraordinary Summit of the South African Development Community (SADC) opened in Blantyre, Malawi on January 14, 2002, Britain threatened to withhold $18 million in budgetary support from Malawi, the chair of the SADC, unless it agreed to direct the SADC towards the imposition of sanctions against Zimbabwe. This was a significant portion of Malawi's budget. Britain also held the threat of withholding aid for Malawi's food crisis. Similar threats to withdraw budgetary support were wielded against Mozambique. At the summit, President Benjamin Mkapa of Tanzania announced that British Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Baroness Amos telephoned him directly and urged him not to support Zimbabwe at the SADC and at the upcoming meeting of the Commonwealth. When that call failed, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw then telephoned and attempted to bully him. Despite intense pressure from Britain, African leaders at the March 2002 Commonwealth meeting rejected the demand for sanctions against Zimbabwe. President Mkapa of Tanzania revealed that members of the Commonwealth had endured a "bombardment of an alliance against Mugabe"
Accepting that economic sanctions exist
All in all, thus, I hope I have shown clearly that there indeed are economic sanctions against Zimbabwe by the West. I have seen a lot of MDC supporters who are either ignorant of, or deny the fact that Zimbabwe as a country is under economic sanctions by the West. The denial or ignorance is in line with the ubiquitous belief that Mugabe has single-handedly "killed the economy". This belief cannot sit comfortably with the fact that the West has knowingly introduced insufferable conditions on ordinary Zimbabweans. It's high time we accommodated the fact that there is a Western plot on our economy and acknowledge that we do not have anything to gain as a country from the sanctions. The difficulty in defining them does not mean they are not there, only to reiterate. It is very easy for powerful bully countries to fire economic "missiles" to states they are in loggerheads with. Unlike military ones, these economic missiles are invisible. We may gladly blame Mugabe the monster for attracting the sanctions, but I cannot see how and why we should justify their existence, knowing fully well that they are hurting the very people we love.
What does the West want from Zimbabwe?
I have the gumption to say that the West hates the Zimbabwe Government precisely because they are not happy that it seized the land from the "White" farmers. The rule of law, human rights, democracy, method of land reform arguments they use are mere smokescreens to conceal their real aim: they did not want the land to be seized from the White farmers, and the White farmers themselves did not want to give back the land they inherited, even if the inheritance was stolen. They did not however, have the audacity to say so, because their unjust stand would be transparently untenable. So their desire to keep the land manifests via indirect avenues that impress most...they don't fool me. I say so because the timing of the USA and EU sanctions closely corresponded with the first land takeovers. Second, the Zimbabwe Democracy Bill was partly sponsored by Senator Jesse Helms, who has long supported the Rhodesians' cause and opposed the independence of Zimbabwe. Third, the Lancaster House Constitution barred the Zimbabwean Government from re-claiming privately owned land for the first 10 years after independence perhaps to buy time. Fourth, it is important to understand that all the White countries in the World have always made a united stand against Zimbabwe since the land takeovers - USA, EU, Canada, New Zealand, and Britain. It is perfectly sensible to believe that it is only the above countries that care about the democracy and human rights of Zimbabweans.
It is amazing that they have not imposed targeted sanctions on Rwanda, as evidence continues to accumulate that the incumbent Rwandan president Kagame is the one who ordered the shooting of the former president's plane, which sparked genocide of about 800,000 people. And it is a historical fact that there was no democracy and human rights for the Blacks in Zimbabwe until they fought in the liberation struggle. Ironically, the same people who never accorded Blacks their human rights all over Africa, in the USA and elsewhere are the ones who are now the ONLY people in the world who care about Blacks' human rights! The same people who racially abuse Black Zimbabweans in Britain presently care about the human rights of Black Zimbabweans in Zimbabwe they have never seen?! Interesting indeed! We can understand the Western perspective, but it is certainly of no benefit to us to justify it, for it is detrimental to our economy. Mugabe has mismanaged the economy, we know. If he is so good at mismanaging the economy, then why aid him with the sanctions? Why introduce the error to the mismanagement through the sanctions, and why deny their existence?
Why does it surprise the MDC and the West that Zimbabwe's inflation is the highest in the World when they know that the West has sanctions on Zimbabwe? Or are they in denial, as usual? Why doesn't the West say to Zanu PF, "Ok we know your economy is suffering because of our sanctions, and you know what you must do to avert them: give the MDC power, our favoured choice?" Similarly, why doesn't the MDC say, "You Zanu PF idiots must give us power to avert Western sanctions we called for that are now hurting the people, or else we will remove you violently, with the aid of the people's hunger and frustration and of course with the West on our side"?
It's high time they stopped pussyfooting about, thinking that marching in the streets will remove Zanu PF from power. That's merely playing to the Western media, who hatchet up the propaganda. Whether it is Zanu PF or the MDC that is ruling, what we don't want is the suffering of our people. Mugabe is going soon or later. As a human, he will either have to retire or will die. But whether the sanctions destroy the country or not, I do not visualize Zanu PF going away soon (not that I don't want them to go...). What we need now are visionaries that are able to abate the suffering of our people. The MDC can play their part here. Maintenance of economic sanctions to meet political ends - ends that may never be met - is definitely the last thing we need. With Zanu PF cognizant of the fact that the MDC is dining with the people who are making people suffer, then say "ah,look how Zanu PF is making people suffer", what they can only invoke from them is anger. Events like the ones we recently witnessed are set to continue. Let those with ears hear. Let those with eyes see.
Email: zimbabwecrisis@yahoo.com
Printer friendly version
Send page by E-Mail
Zimbabwe's opposition perpetrating terrorist attacks
Posted: Sunday, March 18, 2007
Mugabe accuses MDC of terror
news24.com
Johannesburg - Zimbabwe's President Robert Mugabe has accused the opposition party of perpetrating terrorist attacks on innocent civilians in a bid to oust his government, a newspaper reported Sunday.
Mugabe, 83, has defiantly rejected a torrent of international condemnation following the beating of opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai and a number of his colleagues last week.
He says the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) is a violent party sponsored by former colonial power Britain and other Western allies.
Speaking at a ceremony to mark International Women's Day in the capital Harare on Saturday, Mugabe said the authorities would brook no more lawless behaviour from the MDC.
"We have given too much room to mischief-makers and shameless stooges of the West," Mugabe was quoted as saying in the Sunday Mail.
"Scores of innocent people going about their legitimate business have fallen prey to terrorist attacks that are part of the desperate and illegal plot to unconstitutionally change the government of the country," he added.
He was addressing government ministers, MPs, religious groups and NGOs at a belated ceremony to mark International Women's Day under the theme: Ending Impunity for Violence Against Women.
www.news24.com/News24/Africa/Zimbabwe/0,9294,2-11-1662_2085397,00.html
Email: zimbabwecrisis@yahoo.com
Printer friendly version
Send page by E-Mail
All the Signs of US/European Govt Interference in Zimbabwe
Posted: Saturday, March 17, 2007
Robert Mugabe: A Servant Not Knowing His Place
By K. Elford
Posted: March 17, 2007
How do we know that the U.S. and Europe are behind the efforts to overthrow President Robert Mugabe?
According to William Blum: "Same way we know that the sun will rise tomorrow morning. That's what it's always done and there's no reason to think that tomorrow morning will be any different."
What is going on in Zimbabwe that has brought the western media out in full force? The stories being bandied about and manipulated by the media seem to be focusing on some claims of abuse to Morgan Tsvangirai. According to articles in the media, the opposition party MDC led by Morgan Tsvangirai has been operating to take down the current government of Zimbabwe for some time. As far back as 2000, Tsvangirai was threatening violence against Zimbabwe's President Robert Mugabe. These are calculated activities taking place in Zimbabwe on an ongoing basis.
It is reported in the media that Tsvangirai's MDC faction had already made a pledge to organize mass civil disobedience for some time. Other opposition groups, who have ties to the Christian Alliance that spearheads the Save Zimbabwe Campaign with the same agenda - to stop the land seizures being implemented and to remove President Robert Mugabe's government - have been staging protests relentlessly (Save Zimbabwe Campaign's Effectiveness and Viability In Question 30 November 2006).
Why all the attention on this particular protest? It can be argued that the excessive media attention is focusing on the opposition leader being injured in what appears to be a violent confrontation with the police. But this is not what we are getting via the media reports that have already declared human rights abuses at the hands of the government. Protests staged in any country often invite violence to later claim suppression and brutalization. Rarely do these worldwide protests receive the amount of media attention glaring on this recent protest in Zimbabwe except when there is a U.S./European backed attempt at 'regime change' in a country.
The bottom line on this sudden intensification of interest in the internal affairs of Zimbabwe by western governments and media is in opposition to the White settlers losing the stolen land they once occupied. They intend to punish Mugabe for daring to redress this grave injustice. The United States, Britain, White settlers and organizations formed for the purpose of giving the impression of widespread organized opposition to Robert Mugabe are willing to do whatever it takes to maintain White settler (European) domination in Zimbabwe.
The media frenzy involving Zimbabwe goes back to the land seizures from White settlers.
The United States and Britain try to cover all their bases as they try to destabilize more targets sighted in their longstanding agenda of world dominance. They do manage to find some unusual bedfellows as accomplices. These deceptions are too common these days to be believable. It would be nice if those making the loudest condemnations against the Zimbabwe government could see these events for what they are. I rather suspect many are simply being paid to make noise. Most of the reports in the western media are saying the same things with the same tone which demonstrates a U.S./European concentrated effort to force the Zimbabwe government from office.
Printer friendly version
Send page by E-Mail
Lack of Support for Zimbabwe's Land Reform is Africa's Shame
Posted: Saturday, March 17, 2007
By Ayinde
rastafaritimes@yahoo.com
March 17, 2007
It appears that Desmond Tutu, among others, have bought the stories of what transpired in Zimbabwe from Morgan Tsvangirai and the Western media, all of whom are against President Mugabe's land reclamation exercise. How else can one explain Tutu's strong condemnation of Zimbabwe's government?
There is evidence that the clash between Morgan Tsvangirai, together with his small band of supporters and the police was orchestrated by Tsvangirai. Tsvangirai has been trying to position himself centre stage, despite his defeat at the 2005 polls. He and his cohorts provoked a violent confrontation with the police, then cried abuse. This incident was staged. Little is being said about the police officers that were beaten by this small band of protesters. BBC's Eyewitness account of what transpired shows how youths are being coerced to wreak havoc on the country.
President Mugabe's government delayed Zimbabwe's land reform program so that Zimbabwe's liberation struggle would not overshadow negotiations for South Africa's liberation. In the article 'Zimbabwe land reform waited for SA' (28/07/2005) President Thabo Mbeki stated:
"The Zimbabwe government delayed its land-reform programme so that negotiations for South Africa's liberation succeeded, said President Thabo Mbeki on Thursday.
"They slowed down to get the negotiations in this country to succeed," said Mbeki as he arrived at the land summit without prior notification.
He said that when South Africa was negotiating its transition to democracy, around the time which Zimbabwe had started its land reform programme, the Organisation of African Unity had asked Zimbabwe to stop the programme as it would 'frighten the apartheid government in South Africa.'"
Zimbabwe under President Mugabe sacrificed much to assist the struggle in South Africa. It is only fitting that South Africa assist Zimbabwe in dealing with outside interferences from the U.S. and Europe in their attempts to prevent the ongoing effort to reclaim lands from the White settlers.
Land is one of the main issues in Zimbabwe's liberation struggle. A return of the land that was stolen should be the primary concern for all African nations in the liberation struggle.
Shame on any African nation that calls itself free when the best agricultural lands remain in the hands of White settlers. Is it not a shame that a rich continent feels dependant on these former colonial countries? It is a colonial mindset that maintains the fallacy that Africans cannot take care of their own affairs and must have White overlords in order to progress.
One of the legacies of colonialism is the dependency syndrome that developed. The worst of it comes from those who hold on to these colonial institutions and their pompous titles.
Where is Desmond Tutu's condemnation of the illegal U.S./Ethiopian invasion of Somalia? It seems he has no problem with 'truth and reconciliation' for letting Whites off the hook - the same Whites in and out of South Africa who are responsible for the deaths of countless Africans. His vilest comments should be reserved for George Bush, Tony Blair and others who are responsible for countless genocidal murders along with a multitude of crimes against humanity.
It should be obvious to all that the U.S., Britain and their lacquey Morgan Tsvangirai have no respect for the rule of law and democracy in Zimbabwe. Having failed at the ballot, they are trying to force the democratically elected government in Zimbabwe out of office.
Zimbabweans and their government should never cave into the U.S., British and White settlers' plan to destabilize the country. The Zimbabwe government should not allow the minority opposition forces in the country or abroad to chaotically run rampant in order to make the country ungovernable.
Africans the world over should be firm in demanding that lands in Africa be returned to the Africans they were taken from and that proper monetary compensation be paid. Africans should never allow the U.S. and Europe to choose our friends and enemies for us. We should not allow the enticement of economic aid and trade to be used as a weapon against other Africans.
Shame on all who have allowed the U.S. and Europe to get away with genocide. Shame on those not willing to stand for the completion of the Liberation struggle.
Reconciliation is a farce! The truth is there can be no reconciliation without justice.
Also Read:
U.S. and Britain are Fueling Violence in Zimbabwe
By Ayinde
Zimbabwe: White Lies, Black Victims
By Rosemary Ekosso
Zimbabwe Under Siege
By Gregory Elich
Visit Zimbabwe Watch:
www.raceandhistory.com/Zimbabwe
Email: zimbabwecrisis@yahoo.com
Printer friendly version
Send page by E-Mail
President Mugabe Accuses EU Of Meddling ...
Posted: Saturday, March 17, 2007
HARARE, March 16 (Bernama) -- Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe on Thursday hit out at Europe for continuing to meddle in the politics of the country, saying government does not accept the West's criticism of its reaction to the spate of violence being unleashed by opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) supporters.
Speaking to reporters just before meeting his Tanzanian counterpart, Jakaya Mrisho Kikwete, at State House to discuss various issues, including the volatile political situation prevailing in the country, the President accused the West of practicing double standards when dealing with political issues in Zimbabwe.
"Here groups of people were let out of the way to effect a campaign of violence and there was no criticism at all. None of these Missions have said a word in regard to that campaign and now when they criticise the government that is trying to prevent violence and punish the perpetrators of that violence, then we take the position that they can go hang," Zimbabwe's New Ziana news agency quoted Mugabe as saying, in reference to unconditional statements of support to the MDC by a number of western governments, including those of Britain, America and New Zealand.
Mugabe said his government does not brook any foreign interference in the politics of the country.
Full Article : bernama.com.my
Printer friendly version
Send page by E-Mail
Zim rejects conditional invitation to summit
Posted: Saturday, March 17, 2007
Zimbabwe has declined an invitation to the 24th France-Africa Summit that starts in Cannes, France, today because of certain conditions tied to it. In a statement yesterday, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs said Zimbabwe had initially not been invited and had rejected attempts to extend a conditional invitation. "The Ministry wishes to state that Zimbabwe was not invited to the Summit. However, enquiries were made as to whether the Government of Zimbabwe would accept an invitation with certain conditions attached to it. The Government of Zimbabwe indicated that it would not accept such an invitation," Foreign Affairs spokesperson Ms Charity Nzenza said. The Herald understands that the French government dispatched former Mozambican President Mr Joaquim Chissano to Harare towards the end of to last year with Zimbabwe’s invitation and to inform President Mugabe of the conditions attached to the invitation. Diplomatic sources said the invitation was pleading with President Mugabe to decline to attend and delegate either one of the Vice Presidents or the Foreign Minister.
Full Article : actsa.org
Printer friendly version
Send page by E-Mail
Zimbabwe: Deal decisively with security threat
Posted: Friday, March 16, 2007
By David Samuriwo, www.herald.co.zw
March 16, 2007
ON Monday, I attended a Press conference at Harvest House addressed by Thokozani Khupe, the vice president of the MDC Tsvangirai faction.
A few Zimbabwean journalists, Western diplomats and mostly foreign stringers disguised as diplomats attended the Press conference.
According to Khupe, the "chilling reality was that the police were now using live ammunition on innocent unarmed people, as a result, a well-known MDC activist -- Gift Tandare -- became a victim of police heavy handedness" when he was gunned down near Mhizha Primary School in Highfield.
According to sources, Tandare, who was the MDC Tsvangirai Glen View district youth chairman and a member of the security committee, was the ringleader of the assailants. A few years ago, he was also implicated in the burning of a Zupco bus in Glen View.
Khupe's version of events was totally different from what really transpired on that fateful Sunday afternoon, when a group of police officers, making their way towards Kutsanana Bar in Highfield, came under heavy attack from MDC youths.
The youths were pelting the officers with stones and also firing round metal bolts from catapults. Above all, they were armed with an assortment of teargas canisters which they threw at the police officers.
They were being ordered to advance and disarm the police officers. With my own ears, I heard the officers fire at least nineteen rounds of live ammunition, but this did not deter the youths who kept advancing towards the cornered policemen.
Left with no other choice, I saw one officer take aim and fire, Tandare fell down. The rest of the group immediately retreated and fled the scene.
Sensing danger, I drove home to Kuwadzana only to be confronted by another group of rowdy MDC youths who demanded that I ferry them to Kuwadzana Police Station in my Mazda B16 pick-up truck.
A neighbour who recognised me pleaded with the youth to let me go. They eventually did, but after breaking my front windscreen for no apparent reason.
I also saw a senior member of the MDC Tsvangirai faction, who is the former president of an income generating project that masqueraded as a political grouping, dolling out money to a group of about 100 MDC youths, part of the group that had damaged my car.
This group then made its way towards Kuwadzana Police Station where they threw teargas canisters. The police reacted by firing warning shots in the air and the attackers immediately dispersed.
This same group proceeded to the Kuwadzana/Bulawayo Roundabout where they stopped and overturned a commuter omnibus.
A few minutes later, another Kombi presumably from Botswana, judging from the luggage, was stopped and the occupants forced out. Their luggage was searched and anything of value looted.
The youths then doused the Kombi with petrol, and torched it, reducing it to a shell.
Six other private vehicles were stoned, while a Peugeot 404 was overturned.
It boggles the mind to fathom how a "small prayer" meeting ostensibly organised under the banner of non-violence, freedom of association and democracy could suddenly turn out to be an orgy of violence, looting and arson. The benefit of doubt could have been given if the violence took place in Highfield alone where the prayer meeting was supposed to be held.
That the violence simultaneously took place in different locations does not only suggest a well co-ordinated plan of civil disobedience, but points to well-planned acts of violence calculated to make the country ungovernable.
Sun Tzu, a Chinese military strategist who lived about 2500 years ago, saying that "all warfare is based on deception" is still plausible to this day. His critics were also right. They said deception could only be successful if the enemy is unaware of that deception.
Khupe cannot fool everyone by stating that a prayer meeting does not require police clearance under the Public Order and Security Act.
Sunday's orgy of violence and looting was definitely not a prayer meeting. The deception theory dismally failed here.
Khupe's assertion that the MDC remains unwavering in its commitment to bring peaceful change flies in the face of events that occurred on that Sunday and subsequently.
According to Khupe, Morgan Tsvangirai and fellow faction leader Arthur Mutambara were arrested while on their way to attend a Save Zimbabwe prayer meeting organised by the Christian Alliance of Zimbabwe.
Perhaps it is prudent for Khupe and her sidekicks to re-strategise.
Except for fly-by-night journalists, local journalists are aware that the Christian Alliance, Save Zimbabwe Campaign, both factions of the MDC, Lovemore Madhuku's NCA, Zinasu and a host of other such organisations are being fed from the same trough.
The American Embassy, through its Ambassador, Christopher Dell recently released funds to support the violent campaign.
Security forces have a duty to guard against any usurpation of the country's Constitution. Paid demonstrators will remain just that. They can never be genuine because they lack conviction in whatever they demonstrate against.
In essence, they will remain hired hands. If at all, the MDC has the support it claims to have why does it resort to paying its supporters to take to the streets?
Last Sunday's orgy of violence is a typical revelation how a country's constitution can be manipulated by paid hooligans.
The dolling out of cash at Kuwadzana by a senior official of the MDC said it all.
The much publicised report by the International Crisis Group made very interesting revelations.
It calls for increased funding for training and other capacity building assistance to all democratic forces in Zimbabwe.
This has been going on for quite some time even before this announcement. Capacity building funds have seen the MDC establish a core group of violent youth militias they call Democratic Resistance Committees.
On Wednesday, a cell of the democratic resistance committees attacked a house, in military precision, at Marimba Police station seriously injuring three police officers.
American secretary of state Condoleezza Rice, gleefully views all this violence as Government orchestrated yet it is precisely her government that is funding the MDC to foment anarchy in this country.
Constables Pretty Mushonga, Busani Moyo and Brenda Makamba are now at Parirenyatwa Hospital disfigured by the attack that can at best be described as a military style operation carried out by paid MDC thugs.
Also, in a military style attack, Nehanda Police post in Mkoba 16, Gweru was attacked with petrol bombs and teargas canisters almost at the same time as the attack at Marimba.
Zimbabwe's neighbours must be told loud and clear that the violence Zimbabwe is currently experiencing is a direct result of enormous funding, especially from the American Embassy, to the so-called MDC DRCs.
As such, the Government will not fold its arms while these elements, akin to the then rebel Renamo, and Unita movements of Mozambique, and Angola terrorise the nation.
It is obvious that the consequences of such action are too ghastly to contemplate.
Already Gift Tandare has lost his life; Constables Moyo, and Mushonga, and to a certain extent Makamba seriously injured, and probably disfigured.
How many more innocent Zimbabwean lives are still to be lost through actions of foreign governments bent on imposing their will on Zimbabwe?
I had a belief a long time ago and do still believe that without outside interference Zimbabwe could have solved its problems many seasons ago. It is only concerted interference by the US government and its allies in the European Union that has worsened things.
The bottom line is, law enforcement agencies should respond to this national security threat in an appropriate and deterrent manner.
Any threats, intimidation or noise from powerful, guilty Western nations should be dismissed and ignored with the contempt they deserve.
Reprinted from:
www.herald.co.zw/inside.aspx?sectid=16410&cat=10
Printer friendly version
Send page by E-Mail
Zimbabwe: Go hang, President tells West
Posted: Friday, March 16, 2007
PRESIDENT Mugabe yesterday told Western countries criticising the Government for dealing with violent opposition MDC members to "go hang".
He said the West was condemning the Government for punishing perpetrators of violence but ignoring the violent acts of the opposition, which have left a trail of destruction and seriously injured policewomen and men.
"When they criticise Government when it tries to prevent violence and punish perpetrators of that violence, we take the position that they can go hang," said President Mugabe.
He was responding to questions from journalists at State House after holding talks with Tanzanian President Jakaya Kikwete.
"This is the West, which has always supported the opposition here and elsewhere. We do not accept their criticism at all.
"Here are groups of persons who went out of their way to effect a campaign of violence.
"We hear no criticism of this campaign from Western governments. None of these (Western) missions here have said a word against that campaign of violence," said Cde Mugabe.
Full Article : herald.co.zw
Here is a link to the Guardian UK's article 'Zimbabwe president defiant but violence may be turning African leaders against him' that shows the divide and rule game the West in playing with African nations is working. The Guardian UK like other Western media has always been hostile to the efforts to reclaim lands from White settlers in Zimbabwe. - Ayinde
Printer friendly version
Send page by E-Mail
U.S. and Britain are Fueling Violence in Zimbabwe
Posted: Thursday, March 15, 2007
The latest negative media blitz on Zimbabwe manipulates what appear to be injuries sustained by Morgan Tsvangirai following a clash he had with the police after taking part in an MDC organized protest.
Morgan Tsvangirai, in alliance with Britain and the White settlers, regularly calls on the international community to impose comprehensive sanctions against the Zimbabwe government and President Robert Mugabe.
Morgan Tsvangirai is the leader of the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) - one of the opposition parties in Zimbabwe that lost in Zimbabwe's 2005 Parliamentary Elections.
Full Article : africaspeaks.com
Printer friendly version
Send page by E-Mail
Mugabe opponent in intensive care after arrest
Posted: Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Mugabe opponent in intensive care after arrest
The Zimbabwean opposition leader, Morgan Tsvangirai, was being treated in intensive care today for wounds apparently sustained while in police custody, his spokesman said.
The leader of the Movement for Democratic Change was taken to hospital yesterday after spending two days in custody following his arrest at an anti-government demonstration at the weekend.
His appearance in court yesterday with a deep head wound, swollen face and a limp prompted international condemnation amid accusations that he had been tortured by police.
Full Article : guardian.co.uk
Printer friendly version
Send page by E-Mail
Zimbabwe: Morgan Tsvangirai sent to hospital
Posted: Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Injured Tsvangirai taken to hospital
guardian.co.uk
Zimbabwean opposition leader sent for hospital tests after appearing in court with deep head wound from what activists say was attempt by police to kill him.
Zimbabwe: State Warns MDC Against Lawlessness
The Herald (Harare)
March 13, 2007
THE Government has warned the MDC against engaging in violent activities, saying it will not fold its arms and watch the opposition unleash lawlessness.
Minister of Home Affairs Cde Kembo Mohadi said it was the duty of the regulating authority (police) in a given area to impose a ban on all politically-related demonstrations and rallies if they had reasonable grounds to suspect the gatherings might disturb peace.
The minister said this at a Press conference last night flanked by his deputy Cde Obert Matshalaga and Police Commissioner Augustine Chihuri.
The regulatory authorities -- who are Officers Commanding Districts -- have the power to issue the ban without consulting the police commissioner or even the minister.
The powers are given to them under Section 27 of the Public Order and Security Act.
But if those whose activities are banned have a grievance, they can appeal to the minister who could vary, uphold or set aside such an order.
Cde Mohadi said following the ban on rallies in Harare and Chitungwiza by police last month, the MDC appealed to him on March 8, 2007 through their lawyers.
He said he responded to them and set March 17 as the date on which he would consider their appeal.
But POSA clearly stated that noting an appeal did not suspend the order of a regulatory authority, the minister said.
"This order was still standing and they decided to go ahead and convene the meeting disregarding the standing order given," said Cde Mohadi.
Cde Mohadi said last weekend's planned gathering was not a prayer meeting as the opposition had claimed under the so-called Save Zimbabwe Campaign co-ordinated by the MDC's purported Democratic Resistance Committees (DRC) and other anti-Government civic organisations.
"It was not a prayer meeting because there are flyers which said it was an MDC defiance campaign and they were coercing people to attend the rally," said Cde Mohadi.
"As police, we could not just stand by and see the country go on fire. So we deployed and managed to quell the disturbances. The leaders of the opposition (Morgan) Tsvangirai and (Arthur) Mutambara were actually commanding (hooligans) using children as shields.
The flyers read: "Save Zimbabwe Rally. MDC Defiance Campaign. MDC joins other democratic forces under the auspices of the Save Zimbabwe Campaign for the rally to be held on 11 March 2007 at Zimbabwe Grounds in Highfield, starting at 10am. 'It is defiance or death'."
Spokesperson of the Save Zimbabwe Campaign Jacob Mafume told reporters at a Press conference yesterday that they would continue to defy the law.
"We are not going to stop," he said.
But Cde Mohadi said they were just provoking a situation whose consequences they would regret.
"We are not going to be found wanting. We will enforce the law to its fullest. We expect people to adhere to the law."
He dismissed claims that police were in defiance of any court order, saying no member of the police force was served with the High Court order giving the green-light for the MDC to hold a rally at Zimbabwe Grounds in Highfield two weeks ago.
He said the arrested persons were in custody pending finalisation of investigations.
The minister took a swipe at Commonwealth Secretary General Mr Don McKinnon, saying he had no right to comment about Zimbabwe as it had long ceased to be a member of the grouping of mostly former British colonies.
"What has he got to do with Zimbabwe? We are not a member of the Commonwealth. We long moved out of the Commonwealth. We are not interfering with the Commonwealth."
Mr McKinnon was quoted on the BBC saying they had tried everything on Zimbabwe and did not know whether they should send a batallion.
The Herald is reliably informed that late yesterday afternoon the ambassadors of Germany, Britain and Sweden came unannounced to see Cde Chihuri at Police General Headquarters. They were turned away because they did not notify the police of their visit and were not even accompanied by an officer from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs as per diplomatic procedures.
It is believed they panicked over the unearthing of the plans they had mooted with the MDC. Cde Mohadi said the agenda of the MDC was regime change and they were paying youths to engage in violence.
"Although I have not got confirmation from the Police Commissioner, it would appear the report is credible. Government expects ambassadors to be procedural in their interface with Government and all diplomatic routes must be channelled through the Foreign Ministry," said Secretary for Information and Publicity Cde George Charamba.
MDC faction leaders Tsvangirai and Mutambara were arrested together with faction secretary general Tendai Biti, secretary for information and publicity Nelson Chamisa, his deputy Grace Kwinjeh, secretary for policy and research Sekai Holland and Job Sikhala, who is aligned to the Mutambara faction.
National Constitutional Assembly chairman Lovemore Madhuku was also arrested together with several other suspects, who are also in police custody.
The opposition and civic leaders were arrested in Highfield for allegedly going around inciting the people to engage in violent acts.
Police chief spokesperson Assistant Commissioner Wayne Bvudzijena said the eight were still in custody and were expected to appear in court soon.
"We are still detaining them with a view to preferring charges of public violence and instigating public violence," Asst Comm Bvudzijena said.
He said no arrests were made as of yesterday but investigations were continuing.
"We are still investigating the case and we will leave no stone unturned in our efforts to protect the public and to maintain law and order," Asst Comm Bvudzijena said.
He indicated that the police would screen and release those exonerated.
The opposition supporters, under the so-called Save Zimbabwe Campaign, had running battles with the police on Sunday which left one person dead and property worth millions of dollars destroyed.
Yesterday afternoon, diplomats from European Union countries accredited to Zimbabwe thronged at Harvest House, the Tsvangirai MDC faction's headquarters, to show their solidarity with the arrested opposition leaders.
Sources within the opposition said the faction's deputy president, Ms Thokozani Khupe, who is the acting party leader, addressed ambassadors from Western countries.
More than 20 vehicles with diplomatic registration numbers were parked along Nelson Mandela Avenue, almost causing a traffic jam as the diplomats came to get a briefing from the opposition officials.
In Highfield, business resumed and traders were operating normally at Machipisa and Gazaland shopping centres which were virtual war zones at the weekend as MDC supporters clashed with the police.
Police still maintained some presence in the suburb keeping vigil of the situation.
At Machipisa Police Station, Tsvangirai's Mercedes Benz, Chamisa's Nissan twin cab and Madhuku's Peugeot 306 could be seen parked within the grounds.
A police officer armed with a rifle was manning the gate at the police station.
http://www.herald.co.zw/inside.aspx?sectid=16285&cat=1
Printer friendly version
Send page by E-Mail
Share your views on the Online Forums
View last 5 days / Advance search
