Printer friendly versionTracing History of Capitalist Deceit
Posted: Monday, July 19, 2010
July 19, 2010 - herald.co.zw
A Fine Madness; By Mashingaidze Gomo, With a Preface By Ngugi wa Thiong'o, Oxfordshire, Ayebia Clarke Publishing Limited, 2010. 174 Pages
ISBN: 978-0-9562401-4-9 (Paperback)
MASHINGAIDZE Gomo's A Fine Madness is a book with a difference. It is a book whose value is found on every page from cover to cover. It is a book that you do not want to put down once you start reading.
However, the reader has to be fully conversant with the history of the Democratic Republic of Congo soon after independence from Belgium in 1960.
The name of Patrice Lumumba automatically comes to mind. That nationalist who became the first elected Prime Minister of the Republic of Congo in June 1960. His government did not last more than 10 weeks as it was deposed in a coup that enjoyed the support of the former colonial power as well as the United States.
Herein lies the continued desire by the US to have a grip and influence on the vast central African country.
Ngugi wa Thiong'o, who wrote the preface to the 35-part book, gives an apt comment on how difficult it is to ignore Congolese history.
He notes: "A Fine Madness is really a collage of verse and prose narrative, memories, images, thoughts and characters against the background of the 1988 Congo war following the death of the Congolese dictator Mobutu Sese Seko and the Senior Kabila coming to power.
"Kabila, a Lumumbaist was a long time foe of the Mobutu dictatorship." (p1)
Kabila himself is challenged by rebels with the backing of the West, which is suspicious of Kabila's links with Lumumba and his leanings towards Marxism and Maoism. In a way, it is things that happened years back that determine the contemporary politics of the Great Lakes region in general and the DRC in particular.
Ngugi continues; "The poet-narrator would seem part of the Zimbabwean forces operating from and around Boende, in the Congo.
From the air and on the ground he is able to observe and contemplate the chaos in the Congo, which in his eyes also becomes the story of an Africa that has seen so much blood and tragedy." (p1) What is sickening about all this is the fact that these conflicts are not authored in Africa but have their roots in the corridors of power in Western capitals.
Memory Chirere, an academic with the University of Zimbabwe says of the book: " A Fine Madness is charmed, mad and maddening prose poetry in which an armed man snoops into Africa's history of deprivation and strife to do the painful arithmetic.
Meanwhile, the Congo civil war rages on like a monstrous fire, eating and allowing brother and sister to get eaten by the syphilis of the West's relentless desire to plunder . . . But . . . Africa is a stubborn hope."
The author therefore seems to be able to identify the general African problem, which the continent has been trying to shake off. Africa goes through a long period of slavery, is forced to leap into the pit of colonial subjugation and lands in continued capitalist domination in the post-colonial nation.
He writes: "And they talked about legendary white explorers who discovered an Africa that was dark and chaotic and inhabited by savage black people who needed the light of Western civilisation, democracy and Christianity/ And we read about famous white men of the cloth who facilitated dispossession and forced labour of poor African people" (p39)
The title that Gomo chooses for his book is in itself reflective of his concerns. There is an element of paradox in A Fine Madness. How can madness be fine? The author uses his first hand experience in the DRC conflict to explore the themes of horror, loneliness of war, the beauty of resistance, peace among others. Resistance, in the writer's opinion, brings peace. He alludes to the resistance that Nehanda and her contemporaries put up against British occupation during the last decade of the 19th century.
A Fine Madness is unique in terms of style. The poet in Gomo can not be hidden and true, just as things happen spontaneously in real life, so is Gomo's style of capturing human experiences.
The writer himself says of his style; "This is some form of artistic rebellion. There is no form book in telling of our experiences. You do it in the way you feel and hence you can not follow prescriptions.
One of the major concerns of the writer is to show the world that soldiers are also human. They have feelings and can cry.
They can also love like any other human being. This explains the presence of Tinyarei in the book, a woman to which the poet-narrator is so much attracted. Gomo wishes women do not sell their beauty to propagate European commerce. "They have accused Tinyarei of sitting on money and insisted that she should invest herself in European fashion magazines.
They have insisted to me that Tinyarei should be walking the streets of London and Paris, signing contracts that shackle her to European . . ." (pp4-5) The perception that soldiers don't think and are tools of dictators is also demystified in A Fine Madness.
"And today's African soldier is a man who has studied the concepts for which he fights/ and he knows Zimbabwe's history has to be told by the spirits of the First Chimurenga who know that lessons of intolerance can be learnt from invading . . . has to be told by the descendants of the beheaded who know that no lessons on human rights and tolerance can be taken from a European community whose collective conscience is so hostile . . . " (p41)
The writer transports himself in memory from Boende in the DRC back home on several occasions. The actual geographical locations mentioned in the book, Bokungu, Goma, Manono, Mbandaka, Kinshasa, Kabalo among others, together with the names of fighter aircraft, the Alhouette III, Casa, M135 gunship all help render the narrative unparalleled authenticity.
The writer is talking about war. He brings the experiences close so the reader sees for himself that war is not good. It does not only affect the soldiers who are at the battlefront but families down the line.
The happenings around Club Fulangenge bear testimony to this. "And there were more such children around . . . some seated, some dancing around, watching their mother catching men . . . their bottoms being pinched and slapped randomly by armed men" (p31) Among the other consequences of war are the destruction of infrastructure as power and water supplies are cut plunging people into darkness and disease.
Related consequences down the line should also be highlighted. As mostly men troop to the battlefront, women and children are left at the mercy of invader forces. These are real issues like has been happening in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Gomo rightly identifies poverty as one of the major problems facing the continent of Africa. "Poverty wears the moral fabric of a society to a threadbare see-through clock through which the attractive valuables of a nation are spied on and made liable to exploitation . . . Poverty creates pimps and prostitutes/ Poverty sustains slavery/ Poverty erodes self-confidence to create a complex of inferiority and inadequacy and a sense of hopelessness" (p32).
Central in a Fine Madness is the role Western capital plays in fomenting conflicts in African countries. The DRC is not unique in this.
Renamo, the Mozambique rebel movement, enjoyed the support of apartheid South Africa, Savimbi's Unita actually maintained chaos in Angola so that US planes could continue to fly in and plunder that country's resources especially diamonds. Gomo writes: "armoured cars, helicopters, armed men, commandos, paratroopers and hired guns crawling into gigantic aircrafts to be airlifted to the borders of human dignity/ to the place of the skull/ To the weeping place? To prop up and hold an African civilisation together, where it was coming apart, dismantled by the insolent champions of Western civilisation . . . What was at stake was a birthright/ An African birthright!" (p17).
For Gomo, resistance breeds hope. The early resistance against colonial rule lost against imperial might. However, it is the battle that was lost but the war raged on as in later years nationalists were to draw on Nehanda's inspiration to continue with the fight. "He talked about how most of the early fighters had been captured and executed but kept on coming, until the myopic Rhodesians had so much on their hands that they lost all initiative. (p25)
Mashingaidze Gomo was born in 1964 in colonial Rhodesia. He lived through the euphoria of independence and joined the Air Force of Zimbabwe in 1984 as an aircraft engines technician, joining 7 Squadron as an Alouette helicopter technician and gunner which saw him involved in Zimbabwean campaigns to prop up the Frelimo government in Mozambique, as well as the DRC conflict in 1998.
He completed a BA in English and Communication Studies with the Zimbabwe Open University and after retiring from AFZ, he pursued a degree in Fine Arts with the Chinhoyi University of Technology.
This is evidence that Gomo is an artist at heart. The publication of A Fine Madness, he says marks the beginning of a long road as an artist.
This book is a must-read for those who seek to correct the misconceptions peddled by Western media on the various conflicts on the continent in general and the DRC in particular.
edmore.zvinonzwa@zimpapers.co.zw
Source: herald.co.zw
Printer friendly version 
Send page by E-Mail
Racism, Reparations and the Politics of Blame: Pardon You
Posted: Friday, May 7, 2010
By Tim Wise
May 07, 2010 - counterpunch.org
As a writer, there are times when you have something to say, and yet no particular "hook" upon which to hang the missive you are burning to release. In these moments, it is often best to wait, to hold on to the material you find so compelling, secure in the knowledge that soon enough something will happen--some personal experience or news event--that will render the intended screed relevant at long last.
Apparently, Harvard scholar Henry Louis Gates, Jr. believes not in this sagacious advice. To wit his recent essay for the New York Times, in which he addressed the issue of reparations for slavery, imparting therein the completely unoriginal and long-recognized wisdom that Africans were implicated in the enslavement of their continental peers. This, to Gates, is a revelation of monumental proportions, which demonstrates the complexity of the slavery issue, and implacably muddies the matter of who should pay whom for the damage done. Resolving this last point is, Gates wants you to know, far more difficult than the apparently simple-minded who clamor for repair might believe.
That literally no one in the dominant political culture had been raising the issue of actually paying reparations makes the timing of Gates's piece especially bizarre. It's as if he had been wanting to say these things for some time, had never previously been able to find the right opportunity, but now intuited his opening, given the presence of a black president ensconced in the White House. Let Obama be the hook, by suggesting as Gates did in the article, that because of the president's unique ancestry, he would be the perfect vessel for carrying this message of joint responsibility to the masses. Just as surely as Gates would no doubt advise a Jew, should one ever become German Chancellor, to ruminate often and endlessly about the responsibility of the Kapos in the camps, or other Jews who collaborated with the Nazis.
Or, since Gates is so recently enraptured by the discovery of his Celtic ancestry, I'm sure we can soon expect him to explain ever so patiently to those in Northern Ireland that while the Ulsterite Protestants have been mighty nasty, there have no doubt been many a Catholic collaborator with the oppressive conditions meted out over the centuries, including some who likely bedded down, in the political sense at least, with Bloody Cromwell right to the end.
Fair is fair, after all.
It is as if Gates wishes for Obama to wash clean the sins of the West--and indeed, expects he is capable of such a Herculean feat--by reminding us of the venal and corrupt ways of the African leaders who sold their kin into slavery in the first place. To Gates's way of thinking, such a clarification might help narrow the racial divide that so plagues us, and which occasionally manages to swallow even people like Gates himself. It was just last year, after all, when Gates was racially profiled as a likely burglar, trying to enter his own home in Cambridge, and was then unjustly arrested for disorderly conduct after an officer found Gates's anger at the notion a tad on the belligerent side. Just as Gates apparently found the Obama-convened "beer summit" between himself and officer James Crowley so palliative of the injury inflicted, so too does he appear to envision something of a transcontinental equivalent now. Perhaps the Presidents of Ghana and Congo could encamp in the Rose Garden along with the descendants of slaving families, all slamming back a few and saying their respective "I'm sorries" to the descendants of those they sold or owned as the solution to the intergenerational pain inflicted.
Which brings us to the moral and intellectual absurdity of his reparations column.
Aside from the mind-boggling timing, Gates's attempt to undermine the case for reparations by spreading the blame for the enslavement of African peoples falls flat on a number of levels.
To begin, there are really two issues in play, which Professor Gates utterly fails to disentangle. The first is the issue of responsibility for enslavement, and the second is reparations: from whom and to whom are they due, if they be due at all? The reason these are separate issues is simple enough: for starters, those who have long argued for some form of reparations or restitution for peoples of color have rarely based our claims on the harms done under enslavement alone. Rather, the claim has been (and whether one agrees with the position is not the point here), that repair is due for the centuries-long process of white supremacy, including enslavement, but also segregation, theft of indigenous land, and plain old discrimination, which collectively have robbed folks of color of literally trillions of dollars in income and assets.
In other words, even if one accepts Gates's historiography, it would fail to diminish the claim for reparations from the U.S. government, since that government and its colonial forebears practiced overt white supremacy from the 1640s until the 1960s, both before and after the large-scale importation of black bodies from the African continent directly to the place that would and did become the United States. That there were co-conspirators in the enterprise for some of those years is an interesting historical point, but ultimately irrelevant, in that it neglects the way in which white supremacy continued well after the ending of the African slave trade, and indeed became, by many accounts, even more vicious when the trade morphed into an intra-national, intra-regional affair. Then of course, we have the substantial scholarship indicating that the post-enslavement period for blacks was often just as cruel as the period of bondage, thanks to the brutal oppression of the Black Codes, debt peonage, the sharecropping system and Jim Crow. Surely even a man as quick to castigate Africans as Gates appears to be--and his role in the documentary travelogue, "Wonders of the African World" consisted of many a seeming lecture about the backwardness of that side of his ancestral lineage--it would prove more than a little difficult to blame lynchings, or the Greenwood massacre, or redlining on Nigerians.
A second and related point is this: the claim for reparations is not merely rooted in assigning blame for an injustice. It is rooted in the belief (backed up by copious volumes of evidence not to mention common sense--the first of which, at least, is still presumed to count for something among Harvard academics), that enslavement of African peoples led to the unjust enrichment of the West. The United States was built by the labor of the enslaved. White society was subsidized by the system of white supremacy and the economic base of the nation grew as a result of both enslavement and labor discrimination after the abolition of the same.
On the other hand, Africa did not benefit by the complicity of some of their own with that system. Quite the contrary: the depopulation of Africa limited the growth of African economies. Ten to fifteen million Africans were shipped to the Americas by 1800, while numbers at least that large died either at sea or on the march from their homes to the coast. At least 25 million, and more likely as many as 50 million lives were lost to Africa due to the system of enslavement. At the very moment that Europe was growing in population--enriched as they were by slavery--Africa was witnessing a rapid loss of peoples. Whereas Europe's population more than doubled during the centuries of the Middle Passage, Africa's grew by only about 30 percent, in large part because of the trade in human beings. And population growth was positively correlated with economic dynamism all throughout this period: modernization, mechanization, and advances in political and social well-being--the kinds of things in which African nations had actually led Europe in the centuries before enslavement began, but which would all but come to a halt after its initiation.
So reparations are due, according to the argument, not merely because a certain group committed a wrong, but because the wrong led to the unjust enrichment of an entire nation (the United States) and a continent (Europe), at the expense of those enslaved. Since Africa came out worse for wear in the bargain, they cannot be said to have benefitted from the process in the same way, nor, as such, owe a debt in the same fashion. Although individual African leaders no doubt profited from their role in the slave trade--and so their descendants if they be extant may owe restitution to the descendants of those made into chattel, as well as to the very Africa they helped impoverish in the process--in the United States it is not merely some who benefitted from human bondage, and afterward, from formal apartheid. The nation itself reaped enormous wealth on the backs of unpaid or underpaid black and brown labor, from imperial adventurism and conquest abroad, and from the capture of half of Mexico in a war that its advocates most assuredly conceived of as a battle for Anglo-Saxon supremacy.
In short, and to recast the old admonition that "to the winner goes the spoils," to the winner must also go the debt incurred. It is the flipside of the advantages afforded, indeed purchased, by that victory. Those riches come with a cost, however little we've wished to stare them in the face, and now that bill has come due. Especially because we are, contrary to popular belief, still living with the legacy of the system put in place so long ago and sustained over the centuries (and not by Africans but by red-white-and-blue Americans right on down the line). In addition to the obvious legacy of wealth inequality, as well as gaps in health, education, and professional accomplishment, there is the underlying thinking of white supremacy that keeps all of these things in place. After all, the mentality of white supremacy was in large measure the result of the slave system and its aftermath, rather than its progenitor.
It was slavery that brought forth the excuses, the rationalizations, the justifications and the pithy commentary down through the ages about the tainted blood or bile or genes of the African. It was enslavement that made necessary the mental and psychological game of Twister in the national psyche. How else, after all, could one smooth over the glaring contradiction between the talk of freedom on the one hand and the fact of bondage on the other? How else except by lying to oneself and others, and by making the spreading of that lie--that these people were not people, or at least not the kind about whom one should lose much sleep--the most important task of one's social order? No, racism did not give birth to slavery, so much as the other way around. And it is that issue from the womb of the American slave system with which we are still umbilically entangled. To the extent all of us have been born into a nation where racism remains a pervasive social force, we all bear the scars of that delivery. Modern racism is no bastard child; its father was the chattel system. In its absence there simply would have been no logical reason for the development of white supremacist ideology in the first place.
None of this is to say that fashioning a workable restitution scheme would be easy. It wouldn't be. But the difficulty of devising such a reparative framework (even the impossibility of doing so, for either practical or political reasons, should such a thing prove to be the case), alters not by one iota the moral claim for such an effort. Any more so than you could dodge your own moral responsibility--and 100 percent of it, truth be told--when as a child, and upon breaking some valuable in the family home, you chose to point to your friend or perhaps a sibling and insist that he or she too had been involved in the bouncing of the ball from which efforts the unhappy accident had flowed. As I recall it, one's mother, upon witnessing this ecumenical attempt at blame-sharing always seemed to respond with something about a bridge, and then followed this imagery by querying as to whether or not, if by chance your sibling or friend were to hurl him or herself off of it, you too would, in the manner of a damned fool, do the same?
Surely a nation that gave white America more than 240 million acres of essentially free land under the Homestead Act, and made possible over $120 billion in federally-guaranteed low interest home loans to whites under the FHA and VA programs at a time when those of color were being virtually excluded from the same, can do more than engage in a collective shrug when these matters are raised. Surely we can figure out a way to--at the very least--target economic stimulus to the neediest communities (which are disproportionately of color). Surely we can envision something akin to what was done in the post-World War Two era for our former enemies, Germany and Italy, under the Marshall Plan. Surely we can do better than silence, or the putrid suggestion put forward by some that welfare spending--most of which didn't even go to people of color, and which most people of color never received--somehow has already repaid the debt, and relieved the nation of any other obligations.
And surely a man as intelligent as Henry Louis Gates can do better than to try and make equivalent, between whites and Africans, the culpability for white supremacy and its legacy, as if the whole thing had been a wash in terms of who was up and who down as a result of the arrangement.
Tim Wise is the author of five books on race. His latest is, Colorblind: The Rise of Post-Racial Politics and the Retreat from Racial Equity. (San Francisco: City Lights Books, 2010).
Source: counterpunch.org
Printer friendly version Send page by E-Mail
Bridging The Divide to Rebuild Zimbabwe
Posted: Thursday, April 22, 2010
By Dambudzo Mapuranga
April 22, 2010
Zimbabweans are the masters of their destiny. SADC and AU despite pressure from the West to intervene militarily or other wise have over the past decade affirmed this with their repeated assertion that only Zimbabweans can find a solution to their problems.
The divide Zimbabweans have to bridge is an enormous one. As the saying goes the journey of a thousand miles begins with one step. ZANU PF and MDC leadership have taken the first step. President Mugabe and Prime Minister Tsvangirai have illustrated that as leaders they might have different opinions but this does not mean that they cannot work together for the betterment of Zimbabwe.
What does it mean to be Zimbabwean?
A people with no history have no identity and as such they have no direction. The ethos of the men and women who laid the foundation of Zimbabwe, a country born out of a protracted war, dictates that everyone who has the right to call themselves Zimbabwean embrace a philosophy that strives towards total black empowerment and freedom.
As Zimbabweans we have to find common ground and the tide that binds us together is that the land of our birth and heritage is meant to reflect the determinations of those who fought for our country's liberation. Independence came about because they were men and women who had a vision of a free society where opportunities were open to every individual regardless of colour, race or creed.
It is unfortunate that one can never rewrite the past despite several attempts by forces that seek to justify a colonial system that was not only discriminatory but also not reflective of our African values and way of life. Democracy comes at a cost as witnessed in Zimbabwe. Not only has the country and its people been under siege from neo-colonial forces who seek to maintain a value system that promotes a racial elite but creates and funds institutions and individuals whose primary role is to subversively maintain such a system under the disguise of democracy.
As Zimbabweans we are divided because we relaxed, we forgot that freedom is not something that we got on a platter but had to fight for. In our relaxation we created opportunities for our enemy who to this day maintains that it would eventually have won the war against Black nationalists had peace not been brokered. It is such unrepentant statements that make it quiet clear that 30 years into Zimbabwe there are still forces that are fighting to reverse the gains of Independence.
If there is anything that is constant in life it is change. Change whether good or bad is inevitable and as circumstances change those who have goals to achieve adapt to this change and take advantage of the relaxed. This explains why a plethora of groups mushroomed all over the place claiming to be fighting for democracy in Zimbabwe. Funded by the George Soros' of the West, economic hit men invest and trade on behalf of their governments, abusing human rights of developing nations and undermining their sovereignty.
Bridging the divide
He who controls the politics controls the economy and he who controls the economy controls the politics; it's one of the more complex but symbiotic relationships in the game of survival. This is why you find that the West has no problem getting into bed with some of this world's worst dictators; for them it's a numbers game and as long as there is a dollar more that can be squeezed out of a nation the West will turn a blind eye to activity which is immoral but will threaten their balance sheets.
The economy and politics divide Zimbabweans. Chester Crocker in his support for ZIDERA acknowledged that the only way to destroy ZANU PF was to make the economy scream and that would see its membership base dwindle. The current debate on the Indigenisation Act is very interesting because those who attack the act have not been willing to face the truth about the Act. In the same manner the Land Reform Program was attacked by "democrats and analysts", Zimbabweans are fed misinformation and half-truths because if there is one thing that capitalism does not support it is the concept of majority empowerment.
With the help of the media, analysts and commentators whose livelihood depends on a skewed system of resource and wealth allocation, manufacture fear and conspiracies in order to hamper development in Zimbabwe. Instead of focusing on this our attention had been diverted to petty squabbles fermented by those whose vision is not nationalistic in outlook but more self-centred and serving. They coin words like hardliner as taunts and insults creating negative perceptions in a bid to further their warped views.
As Zimbabweans we share common values that include our rights, our love of liberty and out commitment to principles of equality. Political acrimony can only be left on the roadside if we as Zimbabweans acknowledge our shared principles, which are nationalistic in outlook and are a basis for true political discourse and consensus building.
The Healing Process
The power of any nation lies within its people. It is the political grassroots that have to reach deep inside themselves and pick up the national ethos where they dropped it to take on current values that have cost the nation not only economically, but also socially and morally.
The majority sets the course and in this case Zimbabweans have to harmonize their politics and the national ethos in order to do away with confrontations and violence. Their political leadership should institutionalise a culture that engages in constructive dialogue.
In the rural areas traditional leaders have an important role to play as guardians of our "ubuntu". It is their duty to bring back decency to their subjects and bring finality to the violence of yesteryear.
Women and youth leagues from both sides of the political divide make up the largest constituency in Zimbabwe and as such their leaders should take it upon themselves to give direction and open room for discourse.
Now is the time to stop hate messages, violence, wilful destruction not only of infrastructure but also of institutions that are a symbol of the power Zimbabweans have in mapping their destiny. It is time to show those who sow seeds of discord among us that not all Zimbabweans are attracted by the filthy lucre but can rise above personal ambition and fight for their place as a sovereign state.
Printer friendly version Send page by E-Mail
African alibi: What we learn from Anglo-Saxon fear of Lumumba, President
Posted: Monday, March 8, 2010
AFRICAN FOCUS By Tafataona Mahoso
Sunday, March 07, 2010 - sundaymail.co.zw
Despite the nominal co-optation and ascendancy of an African-American, Barrack Obama, to the presidency of the leading Anglo-Saxon power on earth, the intensity of Anglo-Saxon fear of an African revolution in 2010 is at the same level if not worse than it was in 1961 during the Congo crisis.
This is the context in which renewals of illegal US and EU sanctions against Zimbabwe must be viewed.
One indicator of that fear is the frantic search for African masks and alibis to cover up the white man even so many centuries after the slave holocaust. For instance, Anglo-Saxon crimes against the Congo (DRC) in 1960 and Zimbabwe in 2010 are comparable:
-- Both have for a long time been considered too rich to be left alone; and Zimbabwe can use the Congo experience in 1960 to defend itself better in 2010.
-- Both have been subjected to multiple, well-documented Anglo-Saxon crimes which require and deserve massive reparations as well as prosecutions of the living criminals for war crimes and crimes against humanity. It is these well-documented crimes together with the natural riches of the two countries which make the Anglo-Saxon powers scared and yet unable to let go. For DRC some of the crimes are as follows:
Between the end of the Berlin Conference (1884-1885) and 1908, the people of the Congo were subjected to a holocaust and to modern slavery where they were forced to produce certain quotas of rubber on pain of having their fingers, toes and arms chopped off if they failed to meet those quotas.
During the Hitler wars, Belgium was over-run by the Nazis and the Belgian state wiped out. Belgians established a government in exile in London which subsisted on looted Congolese natural resources and minerals. Re-establishment of the Belgian state after 1945 was made possible through Congolese resources. Between 1960 and 1998, the people of the Congo were subjected to successive stooge regimes sponsored by the same Western powers and intelligence agencies which destroyed the first Congolese government and revolution and murdered Congo's popular and first prime minister Patrice Lumumba on January 17 1961. Between 1998 and 2003 the same Western powers interfered in the internal affairs of the DRC by opposing Sadc's intervention against their proxies and Zimbabwe was particularly singled out for punishment for leading the Sadc intervention and stopping genocide against the Congolese people.
In the Zimbabwe case, British settlers and companies dispossessed the people of their land and minerals for a hundred years; and when the people reclaimed that land between 1992 and 2002 they were put under illegal Anglo-Saxon sanctions which Europe and the US renewed in February and March 2010 respectively. For the people of Zimbabwe to be able to reclaim their land between 1992 and 2002, they had to wage a protracted guerilla war from 1965 to 1980 in which Europe, the US and white South Africa supported the white Rhodesian settler side. In 1973 the Convention for the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid made it clear that the punishable crimes of apartheid were committed not only in South Africa but throughout the Southern African region and against most of the indigenous people and nations of the region by white Rhodesia, white South Africa and their Anglo-Saxon supporters who provided arms, mercenaries, trade and finance to all the white settler regimes and to their puppet regimes in the then Zaire (DRC) and to Jonas Savimbi's Unita in Angola.
Therefore in both Zimbabwe and Congo (DRC), because of the historical realities of racism, war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes of mass dispossession and looting — the Anglo-Saxon powers have always been eager to use African masks and alibis. Before Jonas Savimbi of Angola, the biggest mask for white racist interests and the biggest provider of alibis for Anglo-Saxon imperialism was Moise Tshombe, the puppet African prime minister of the white corporate breakaway province of Katanga. With the agreement of all the key Western powers, the Belgians arranged a system where Tshombe himself and all the ministers of his puppet government were controlled and run by white Belgian private secretaries. The police and military structures were also managed by white officers in the same way. The Western powers figured that all the crimes and atrocities required to destroy Lumumba's government and reverse the small gains of the Congo National Movement (MNC) could be blamed on Tshombe and his stooge ministers, or on the African population itself, while maintaining the image of the white powers and their looting corporations as civilised, humane and well-meaning.
Coming to Zimbabwe, on Tuesday March 2 2010, the media reported that Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai had finally stated bluntly that all illegal Anglo-Saxon sanctions against Zimbabwe must be lifted. This was followed by passage of a double motion in the House of Assembly praising the Prime Minister for his decision to call the illegal sanctions by their real name and asking him and Deputy Prime Minister Arthur Mutambara to proceed to lobby the Anglo-Saxon powers for the complete removal of the same sanctions. These events mark a new stage in the struggle to unite the people against the illegal and racist sanctions in order to strip the Anglo-Saxon powers of the criminal mask and alibi which they have enjoyed through the MDC formations for the last 10 years. This is the moment to unite all people for Zimbabwe.
Mr Tsvangirai and MDC-T had reached a new stage indeed:
-- First, President Jacob Zuma of South Africa was going to the UK to deliver two messages: that South Africa under the ANC government will never play for imperialism in Zimbabwe the same role which South Africa under apartheid played for imperialism in Rhodesia; and that it makes no sense for the Anglo-Saxon powers to retain illegal sanctions against Zimbabwe in the hope that sanctions will motivate the liberation movement in the inclusive Government to implement the so-called GPA to its fullest, since the GPA document itself requires the very same illegal sanctions to be condemned and defeated or lifted before the GPA can be considered complete. How can the same evil sanctions condemned in the GPA be considered an incentive to encourage completion of the GPA?
-- Second, the demonstration against sanctions by the Zanu-PF Youth League which was followed by the music gala celebrating President Mugabe's 86th birthday in Bulawayo on February 26 2010 helped spread the anti-sanctions campaign from the realm of political commentary and party politics to the realm of popular Pan-African culture. Having Jamaican reggae musician Sizzla Kalonji as the focus of the gala and having him condemn the sanctions on behalf of both Rastafarians and Pan-Africanists was indeed the stroke of genius which crowned all the communiqués of Sadc, AU, ACP and NAM, which had condemned the same sanctions in the last seven years!
Linked to Bob Marley's performance of "Zimbabwe" and "Africa Unite" on April 18 1980, Kalonji's performance against white racist sanctions in Bulawayo truly globalised the struggle to defend Zimbabwe's sovereign independence and economic empowerment.
Popularising the defence of Zimbabwe's sovereign independence and economic empowerment at the same level as Bob Marley's 1980 visit increased pressure for the Anglo-Saxon powers to look for cover or for an alibi. Mr Tsvangirai, too, had to take cover because on January 19 2010, UK Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary David Miliband sought to reinforce imperialism's criminal mask by claiming a false alibi. He claimed that the sanctions were not hurting ordinary Zimbabweans because they had no impact on the economy. That was the alibi. But Miliband went further to say that the same illegal and racist sanctions, which supposedly did not hurt anyone, would, however, be lifted only when Tsvangirai's MDC-T (who originally begged for them to be imposed) came out and asked the same sanctions to be lifted. The Standard, through its UK-based writer Alex Magaisa, correctly sensed danger for Mr Tsvangirai in David Miliband's alibi and mask. In fact, he felt that Miliband should not have revealed that for the last 10 years the Anglo-Saxon powers had been using the MDC formations to create an alibi for their intrusive and illegal intervention in the internal affairs of Zimbabwe. Magaisa felt that the MDC-T as a British mask in Zimbabwe would no longer be able to perform its function once Miliband pointed to it and identified it as a British-EU mask. Magaisa's Standard article was entitled "A case of the embarrassing uncle".
Magaisa is worth quoting at length to demonstrate the importance of the present moment for patriots in Zimbabwe.
"It doesn't matter that Sekuru Rameki's (David Miliband's) speeches may contain a grain of truth. Often he says it as it is. The trouble (for whom?) is that he knows neither the location nor the time to make his utterances . . . I was reminded of the likes of Sekuru Rameki last week when the furore broke over the statements made by British Foreign Secretary David Miliband in relation to the contentions issue of sanctions in Zimbabwe."
It is obvious that Magaisa has painted a picture of the relationship between MDC-T and the white racist Anglo-Saxon powers which is meant to flatter MDC-T and dismiss Miliband as a drunken uncle. Yet it is significant that even Magaisa recognises or imagines that a family relationship does exist. Where in 2000 Mr Tsvangirai called the Rhodies "cousins" of the MDC formations, Magaisa says the Anglo-Saxons, represented by Miliband, are the same family as MDC-T, Miliband is the uncle of MDC-T who mis-spoke! History shows otherwise. The issue involved is more serious than a slip of the tongue. First it shows that the sanctions are illegal and racist. Therefore the people of Zimbabwe have the right to be compensated for the economic terror and damage caused. Tsvangirai cannot end by calling only for all the sanctions to go. Why must the sanctions be lifted immediately? Because they are evil and destructive. Why were they imposed in the first place? Well, to restore white Rhodesian property in land and minerals which the British stole from the African majority in 1890 and gave to their Rhodie children. So, how has the African nation been injured? Well, it has been doubly injured because it lost the use of its land and minerals for 100 years and then got 10 years of illegal and racist sanctions for reclaiming and redeeming that same stolen land!
Such serious crimes have always required alibis. When the slave holocaust against Africa came under moral attack, the Anglo-Saxon powers said they were not responsible because some African chiefs sold their people to white slave-catchers. What that was meant to hide was the fact that whites waged wars to capture African slaves.
Source: sundaymail.co.zw
Printer friendly version Send page by E-Mail
Africom - Latest U.S. Bid to Recolonise Continent
Posted: Tuesday, January 12, 2010
By Tichaona Nhamoyebonde
January 07, 2010 - The Herald
AFRICAN revolutionaries now have to sleep with one eye open because the United States of America is not stopping at anything in its bid to establish Africom, a highly-equipped US army that will be permanently resident in Africa to oversee the country's imperialist interests.
Towards the end of last year, the US government intensified its efforts to bring a permanent army to settle in Africa, dubbed the African Command (Africom) as a latest tool for the subtle recolonisation of Africa.
Just before end of last year, General William E. Garret, Commander US Army for Africa, met with defence attaches from all African embassies in Washington to lure them into selling the idea of an American army based in Africa to their governments.
Latest reports from the White House this January indicate that 75 percent of the army's establishment work has been done through a military unit based in Stuttgart, Germany, and that what is left is to get an African country to host the army and get things moving.
Liberia and Morocco have offered to host Africom while Sadc has closed out any possibility of any of its member states hosting the US army.
Other individual countries have remained quiet.
Liberia has longstanding ties with the US due to its slave history while errant Morocco, which is not a member of the African Union and does not hold elections, might want the US army to assist it to suppress any future democratic uprising.
Sadc's refusal is a small victory for the people of Africa in their struggle for total independence but the rest of the regional blocs in Africa are yet to come up with a common position. This is worrying.
The US itself wanted a more strategic country than Morocco and Liberia since the army will be the epicentre of influencing, articulating and safeguarding US foreign and economic policies.
The other danger is that Africom will open up Africa as a battleground between America and anti-US terrorist groups.
Africom is a smokescreen behind which America wants to hide its means to secure Africa's oil and other natural resources, nothing more.
African leaders must not forget that military might has been used by America and Europe again and again as the only effective way of accomplishing their agenda in ensuring that governments in each country are run by people who toe their line.
By virtue of its being resident in Africa, Africom will ensure that America has its tentacles easily reaching every African country and influencing every event to the American advantage.
By hosting the army, Africa will have sub-contracted its military independence to America and will have accepted the process that starts its recolonisation through an army that can subdue any attempts by Africa to show its own military prowess.
The major question is: Who will remove Africom once it is established? By what means?
By its origin Africom will be technically and financially superior to any African country's army and will dictate the pace for regime change in any country at will and also give depth, direction and impetus to the US natural resource exploitation scheme.
There is no doubt that as soon as the army gets operational in Africa, all the gains of independence will be reversed.
If the current leadership in Africa succumbs to the whims of the US and accept the operation of this army in Africa, they will go down in the annals of history as that generation of politicians who accepted the evil to prevail.
Even William Shakespeare would turn and twist in his grave and say: "I told you guys that it takes good men to do nothing for evil to prevail."
We must not forget that Africans, who are still smarting from colonialism-induced humiliation, subjugation, brutality and inferiority complex, do not need to be taken back to another form of colonialism, albeit subtle.
Africom has been controversial on the continent ever since former US president George W. Bush first announced it in February 2007.
African leaders must not forget that under the Barack Obama administration, US policy towards Africa and the rest of the developing world has not changed an inch. It remains militaristic and materialistic.
Officials in both the Bush and Obama administrations argue that the major objective of Africom is to professionalise security forces in key countries across Africa.
However, both administrations do not attempt to address the impact of the setting up of Africom on minority parties, governments and strong leaders considered errant or whether the US will not use Africom to promote friendly dictators.
Training and weapons programmes and arms transfers from Ukraine to Equatorial Guinea, Chad, Ethiopia and the transitional government in Somalia, clearly indicate the use of military might to maintain influence in governments in Africa, remains a priority of US foreign policy.
Ukraine's current leadership was put into power by the US under the Orange Revolution and is being given a free role to supply weaponry in African conflicts.
African leaders must show solidarity and block every move by America to set up its bases in the motherland unless they want to see a new round of colonisation.
Kwame Nkrumah, Robert Mugabe, Sam Nujoma, Nelson Mandela, Julius Nyerere, Hastings Kamuzu Banda, Kenneth Kaunda, Augustino Neto and Samora Machel, among others, will have fought liberation wars for nothing, if Africom is allowed a base in Africa.
Thousands of Africans who died in colonial prisons and in war fronts during the liberation struggles, will have shed their blood for nothing if Africa is recolonised.
Why should the current crop of African leaders accept systematic recolonisation when they have learnt a lot from colonialism, apartheid and racism? Why should the current crop of African leaders fail to stand measure for measure against the US administration and tell it straight in the face that Africa does not need a foreign army since the AU is working out its own army.
African leaders do not need prophets from Mars to know that US's fascination with oil, the war on terrorism and the military will now be centred on Africa, after that escapade in Iraq.
Tichaona Nhamoyebonde is a political scientist based in Cape Town, South Africa.
http://www.herald.co.zw/
Printer friendly version Send page by E-Mail
The Lancaster House Agreement: Tongogara's One Goal
Posted: Tuesday, December 29, 2009
By David Martin and Phyllis Johnson
December 29, 2009 - The Herald
The Lancaster House Agreement that brought a ceasefire in the war for liberation of Zimbabwe was signed on December 21 1979, effective one week later, on December 28. Just before the ceasefire date, the Zanla Commander was killed in a road accident in Mozambique, on December 26, 1979. This is the sixth in a series of eight articles on the events of late 1979 and early 1980, the last stages leading to independence of Zimbabwe.
Among the first people to realise that the causes of the war had been removed was Josiah Magama Tongogara, who came to be recognised by most parties as a key figure in reaching the agreement at Lancaster House.
Although not entirely happy with the ceasefire arrangements that were heavily stacked against the guerrillas and that were virtually impossible to implement within the allotted timescale, he believed that it was wrong to continue fighting when agreement had been reached on the principles he had gone to war to achieve.
He regarded Lancaster House as a kind of "second front" brought about by the people of Zimbabwe and their liberation forces, and by the end of November he was firm in his conviction that they had "scored a tremendous victory... in the near future the people of Zimbabwe will be proud to have their new Zimbabwe and this will never be reversed any more".
Tongogara did not pretend it was going to be easy, he acknowledged that "in the initial stages we have still a lot to do", and he thought he would be there to do it.
"I would like to see myself completing this, creating a new Zimbabwean army that has the interests of the people at heart. Probably after that one can ask me what I want to do.
"I may decide to go back to the countryside and do some ploughing."
It was not to be. He flew back to Maputo from London, and as he was rushing to Chimoio to brief commanders on ceasefire arrangements, the vehicle in which he was travelling rammed into the back of a lorry it was trying to overtake.
He was sitting in the front passenger seat and was crushed in the collision.
Given the timing of the accident and the fact that he was perhaps the man Zimbabwe could least afford to lose at that moment, there were inevitable questions.
The Mozambique government, shattered by the loss of a comrade-in-arms whom they had come to regard so highly, launched an inquiry; the Zanu-PF leadership, numb and immobile, held their own inquiry.
Both came to the same conclusion as did the reputable mortician summoned from Salisbury by the British embassy to embalm the body, at the request of the Mozambique government.
"The injuries are consistent with a car accident," said Ken Stokes of Mashford's and Son. "There is no doubt in my mind that there was no foul play."
There were no bullet holes — as a deliberately planted Salisbury rumour was later to suggest.
Born in Nhema Tribal Trust Land near Selukwe (now Shurugwi) in 1940 and named Josiah Magama — after Magama, his father — he was an exceptionally gifted child.
His older brother, Mike, said that schoolwork, which he found difficult, was easy for his brother, as were football and other sports, and even music.
He grew up, says his brother, with one intention, one goal, to liberate his country, "and I think he's done it."
His next most important goal was that his children and others should grow in peace in a free Zimbabwe and participate in reconstruction.
His untimely death could have disrupted that goal except for the courage and conviction of the young men who made up the High Command and General Staff, and the provincial and sectorial command in the field.
At 7pm on December 26 1979, Rex Nhongo (General Solomon Mujuru) and 41 Zanla commanders flew into Salisbury in a chartered Air Botswana Viscount.
Many thousands of delirious supporters jammed the airport, oblivious of the teargas and police dogs.
Rhodesian army sharpshooters were deployed around the airfield and soldiers had to be ordered by the British to remove a vehicle mounted with a machinegun from the runway.
Dumiso Dabengwa, Lookout Mafela Musuku and a similar number of Zipra commanders had arrived a little earlier from Lusaka.
None were aware that the man they all respected, and expected to be their overall commander in a new national army, was dead.
Nhongo heard the news on the radio at lunchtime the following day and immediately went to see the Governor, Lord Soames, who already had a message from the British embassy in Maputo.
The confidential message from his president, Robert Gabriel Mugabe, that should have gone first to Nhongo as the senior Zanu-PF man in Salisbury and the new acting commander of Zanla, must have been leaked to the Press by a British official or by Rhodesian monitoring of their communications.
Excerpt from The Struggle for Zimbabwe: The Chimurenga War, by David Martin and Phyllis Johnson, 1981. David Martin was a chronicler of the liberation struggle who passed away in August 2007.
Printer friendly version Send page by E-Mail
Land - A cornerstone of Lancaster House settlement
Posted: Monday, December 28, 2009
By David Martin
December 28, 2009 - The Herald
This is the fifth in a series of eight articles on the events of late 1979 and early 1980, the last stages leading to independence of Zimbabwe.
"You do not understand history. The right in power, not the left, solve major world problems: De Gaulle and Algiers, Macmillan and the 'wind of change', Nixon and China . . . I think we will have a settlement in Southern Rhodesia under this woman [Mrs Thatcher] within 12 months."
On May 4 1979, President Samora Moises Machel had arrived eight minutes late for a cabinet meeting that had been scheduled to begin at 9am in Maputo, the Indian Ocean capital of Mozambique.
He apologised to his assembled ministers and told them to be seated. Then he asked why they were so gloomy; had he not heard that Margaret Thatcher had won the British election the previous day, they asked?
Yes, he replied. That was why he was late for the meeting; he and his wife had stayed up the previous evening drinking champagne to celebrate Mrs Thatcher's victory. The assembled ministers looked at Machel as if he had taken leave of his senses.
Their reaction was predictable. The British shadow foreign secretary, Francis Pym, had said that if the Conservatives were elected they would recognise the "internal settlement" signed by Ian Smith, Bishop Abel Muzorewa, Reverend Ndabaningi Sithole and James Chikerema.
Such a move threatened to place British forces on the side of the white settlers against the liberation movements.
As the leader of a neighbouring country which had become the main rear base for Zanu-PF during the war of liberation, Machel had shared a keen interest in the Southern Rhodesian outcome, and particularly in the land issue.
He pre-empted the first interview he gave after Mozambique's independence in June 1975 by demanding of this writer: "Tell me about white Rhodesians."
We talked for two-and-a-half hours about the farmers and the land and Ian Smith (whom he called a "tobacco seller"), resulting in the formal interview for The Observer being postponed until the following day.
In August 1979, Commonwealth leaders assembled in Lusaka across the River Zambezi for their biannual summit. It was the first Commonwealth meeting attended by representatives of Mozambique, now a Commonwealth member.
The Lancaster House talks in London followed and by Christmas 1979 the ongoing Southern Rhodesian crisis had been resolved, at least on paper — three months ahead of Machel's predicted deadline.
But it was not an easy meeting. The former US Secretary of State, Dr Henry Kissinger, had laid out the principles for a settlement during his shuttle diplomacy in 1976. Kissinger, despite the pessimism at the time, had set in motion the diplomatic process that would lead eventually to the settlement of the Rhodesian impasse.
In the third volume of his memoirs of those years, Kissinger writes: "Our allies expressed their goodwill and avowed their readiness to make a financial contribution to reconstruction and transition costs for the European minorities should a breakthrough to majority rule actually be achieved."
It was upon this promised financial support (which by then had been increased) that a settlement became possible at Lancaster House. But, as is often the case when establishing principles, the details were glossed over by those who were not directly affected by the land and other issues.
Land became the sticking points at Lancaster House and the then Commonwealth Secretary-General, Sonny Ramphal, spoke privately to the US ambassador in London, Kingman Brewster, about the issue.
Brewster was a former president of Yale University and a close friend of the then US president, Jimmy Carter, and his Secretary of State, Cyrus Vance. Both men were extensively consulted by Brewster on the basis of the breakthrough Kissinger had achieved in getting Smith to accept majority rule.
There followed a secret meeting at in November 1979 at the Ramphal's official residence at Garden House, 40B Hill Street, London W1.
Initially, only three people were present: Ramphal, Robert Mugabe and Joshua Nkomo, as the political leaders of the Patriotic Front. Brewster was later invited to join the meeting.
They discussed "the fundamental rights guarantee proposed by the British for prompt and adequate compensation to the white farmers", Ramphal recalled.
"This took no account of the reality of land distribution in Zimbabwe and how future leaders would redress that reality without having to pay vast sums of money promptly and adequately.
"The meeting concluded that the constitutional provisions proposed by the British would have to be accepted, but these would only be accepted alongside the resources necessary to pay for the land.
"It was decided that the US would make a gesture by starting such a fund and Brewster immediately received approval from Carter and Vance. One American stipulation was that it be referred to as an 'Agricultural Development Fund' and not as money to buy out the white farmers. We thought this would encourage the British. But this never happened."
Ramphal blames Thatcher for not instituting the fund.
"In those first 10 years, all of this should have been worked out in London. But it was not," he said, adding that" "Robert was interested in the details as well as the principle regarding land at Lancaster House."
In Harare, the interpretation is different. Thatcher, they believe, partially accepted the agreement that had been worked out during the first 10 years of Zimbabwe's independence when an entrenched clause prevented land acquisition except on a "willing seller, willing buyer" basis.
Depending upon whether you choose to believe the British or Zimbabwean sums, the British government gave Zimbabwe GBP 44 million or GBP 30 million during those first 10 years.
This sum, however, pales into insignificance when measured against the amount that was actually promised. The British Foreign Secretary of the time, David Owen, wrote subsequently: "The last labour government in 1977 under Jim Callaghan promised substantial sums: GBP 75 million from Britain and US$520 million from the States."
That they did not deliver these sums is perhaps less important than the fact that they accepted the principle, which was the basis of the Lancaster Agreement.
Thatcher refused to renew the British support to buy out the white farmers once the 10-year clause had expired in 1990. Her successor, John Major, held discussions with the Zimbabwean Government and in 1996 sent an Overseas Development Assistance mission to Zimbabwe to evaluate the first phase.
This mission found that the first 10 years had been largely positive and recommended ways forward. However, before the recommendations could be implemented, John Major lost the 1997 elections to the Labour party and Tony Blair.
Blair flatly refused to accept Britain's colonial responsibility and the undertaking made by his predecessors in the Conservative government and on November 5 1997, the British Minister of Overseas Development, Clare Short, wrote the now infamous letter the then Zimbabwean Minister of Agriculture, Kumbirai Kangai, as follows:
"I should make it clear that we do not accept that Britain has a special responsibility to meet the costs of land purchase in Zimbabwe. We are a new government from diverse backgrounds without links to former colonial interests. My own origins are Irish and as you know we were colonised not colonisers."
With the stroke of a pen, Short sided with the racial land division which dated back to the days of white supremacy and terminated the agreement that Kissinger, the Lancaster talks, Thatcher and Major had so carefully nurtured.
It is scarcely surprising that the Zimbabwean government regarded the new British position as a "repudiation of a cornerstone of the Lancaster House Agreement".
David Martin was former Africa correspondent of The Observer, London, and a chronicler of the liberation struggle in Southern Africa, who passed away in August 2007.
Printer friendly version Send page by E-Mail
The Struggle for Zimbabwe - Encircling the Cities?
Posted: Thursday, December 24, 2009
By David Martin and Phyllis Johnson
December 24, 2009 - The Herald
This is the fourth in a series of eight articles on the events of late 1979 and early 1980, the last stages leading to the independence of Zimbabwe.
ON March 3 1978, Ian Smith, Abel Muzorewa, Ndabaningi Sithole and Chief Jeremiah Chirau had met in the Governor's Lodge in Salisbury under a portrait of Cecil Rhodes and signed an internal agreement for a one-year transitional arrangement leading to the hyphenated state of Zimbabwe-Rhodesia.
Though Smith had finally signed away exclusive white rule in Rhodesia, he had by no means signed away white power... Day-to-day administration would be handled by a Ministerial Council consisting of nine whites nominated by Smith and three from each of the black political parties.
The arrangement was in trouble almost immediately because Smith did not perceive the need to meet the expectations of the black electorate. His overriding concern continued to be the welfare of the whites...
Even more irritating to Smith, it became apparent they could not stop the war. Elaborate plans for an amnesty, including offers of jobs, education and money, were ignored by the guerillas, who by now controlled zones which were semi-liberated in the sense that the old administration had broken down, they moved relatively freely, and the security forces were able to penetrate only by air or concentrated ground attack...
On October 18, the Rhodesians bombed Freedom Camp, a few kilometres north of Lusaka, bluntly bringing the reality of war to the Zambian capital.
More than 200 people were killed and several hundred wounded, most of them young men, but again they were unarmed civilians - the ill-defined line between recruits and refugees - and the UN and the International Red Cross confirmed it was a refugee camp which they had visited.
Three days later there were several hundred more casualties in a second attack further north on a camp near Mkushi. Nkomo said the dead and wounded were mostly young women, and this was later confirmed by a senior member of Rhodesian Special Branch, Mike Edden, who claimed the wrong camp was attacked.
Edden said that when a ground force landed and found that the casualties were nearly all women, they decided to fly a handful of journalists 600km from Salisbury for a cover-up operation: they re-arranged the bodies so the visitors saw mostly men and lots of captured equipment.
The Front Line States tried to defend themselves militarily and to urge the Patriotic Front into greater unity, which, on paper, they achieved.
A constitution was drafted for a single political party, plans were worked out for military integration; both sides described them as sound, yet the problem of implementation remained...
White morale plummeted as, with blacks in government, it became unclear who or what they were fighting for.
Sanctions were not lifted. The economy began to ease slightly as more international money was made available to a partly black regime, but it was eaten away by the costs of defence.
"Censorship in Rhodesia is now virtually total. Telephones are tapped. Mail is opened. Torture of the African population is widespread," a white Rhodesian wrote in a letter smuggled out of the country.
Whites voted "Yes" in a referendum on majority rule and elections were organised on the basis of universal adult suffrage but with separate racial rolls, and with the entire country in the grip of martial law.
Zanla had long since stopped recruiting, with an instruction "that no one should pass through our operational area", the Zanla Commander, General Josiah Magama Tongogara, said. "If you feel that you want to fight, to contribute to the armed struggle, stay there, we are training people there, training doesn't mean shooting, but liberating their minds."
Small groups of Zanla guerillas had crossed the Bulawayo-Plumtree rail line and were advancing towards the western border. There were large concentrations along the main rail line through Gatooma, Hartley and Que Que (now Kadoma, Chegutu and Kwekwe).
There were guarded convoys on virtually every main road, and the Second Chimurenga was moving towards its goal of encircling the cities.
"Our purpose was to isolate the cities and cut them off, not to attack them," the Zanla chief political commissar Josiah Tungamirai explained, "a few well-planned strikes to frighten the white population. Salisbury had been vulnerable for some time, we had cadres in Bulawayo, but it was farther away from our areas."
Zipra was increasing its military activities in the west and north-west, and on one occasion a company of 150 Zipra guerillas fought jointly with a company of Zanla north of Karoi for a month or so before withdrawing.
Between February and May 1979, members of the Zanla High Command were instructed to go inside the country to help to set up formal structures of administration, and during intense security of the internal elections, their advice to the people was: "If you are forced, don't resist, go and vote -- for Muzorewa."
Among their tasks for 1979 were to create a people's military to defend the liberated zones, consolidate semi-liberated zones, step up attacks on enemy bases and economic targets, and intensify the programmes of politicisation.
"We are now entering a decisive phase of the war," Tongogara said. "When the enemy commits all sorts of atrocities in the battlefield and right in the capital he mushrooms up some groups to form a government.
"So all these symptoms we are seeing now convince us that we are really entering the decisive stage. I think this is the beginning, the internal arrangement, there's something more coming, because he's (Smith) going to try using Sithole and Muzorewa and everybody up to a point, then something else is going to come out."
D. Martin and P. Johnson, The Struggle for Zimbabwe: The Chimurenga War, Faber/ZPH, 1981
Printer friendly version Send page by E-Mail
The British Governor. Will he have plumes and a horse?
Posted: Wednesday, December 23, 2009
By Lord Peter Carrington - The British Governor
December 23, 2009 - The Herald
This is the third in a series of eight articles on the events of late 1979 and early 1980, the last stages leading to independence of Zimbabwe. Lord Carrington was the British Foreign Secretary.
IN April 1979 an election had been held under the auspices of the Salisbury government in an effort to break the deadlock and win general international respectability.
Nkomo and Mugabe (who had each spent 10 years in prison under the Smith regime) had, although released, been allowed no part in the election and had denounced it as a sham.
The only black contender, who thereafter nominally led a Rhodesian government, was Bishop Abel Muzorewa.
This was described as the "internal settlement" (Muzorewa was governing, with Ian Smith firmly behind his right shoulder) and we were urged, particularly by the right wing of the Conservative Party, to acknowledge its validity and to recognise an independent Rhodesia.
It would have been highly convenient if we had been able to do so...
I was certainly keen to emphasise how far the Smith government had come towards us and towards settlement.
"There had been a fundamental change inside Rhodesia," I said to the Lords in my first speech as Foreign Secretary.
"There has been an election in which every adult man and woman has been enabled to cast a vote... there is now an African majority in Parliament."
And I took every opportunity to speak encouraging words about Muzorewa and to remind that these developments under Smith, who had not long before spoken of white rule lasting a thousand years, could hardly be shrugged off as insignificant or not marking progress.
The trouble was that, although the election had been as full and fair as conditions permitted, Nkomo and Mugabe had not taken part; so that conditions had only permitted a vote for Muzorewa, as a black — and he collected what I am afraid was a great many more votes than he could have possibly scored in an open contest (ultimately he received a derisory share of the vote when weighed against Nkomo and Mugabe).
I was already, sadly, convinced that the "internal settlement" was probably a fudge, in terms of the domestic support it really commanded.
It was widely seen as a device to perpetuate the white man's rule behind an amenable and unrepresentative black front, and although this was by no means completely fair there was something in it.
Above all — which for me was decisive — it could not possibly be sold to the international community.
It has to be recalled that Smith's declaration of independence had been an unconstitutional act and his regime in consequence illegal — and thus difficult for the British Crown to recognise, even if sanitised, so to speak, by an appearance of democracy. The international community perceived the difficulty very clearly. I asked Lord Harlech to pay a series of visits, to form a view on who would be prepared to recognise the Rhodesian "internal settlement", if we ourselves did.
He reported that it would not be recognised by any black African states — Nigeria, very hostile to Rhodesia and carrying a lot of weight, was orchestrating this opposition.
It would not be recognised by a single member of the European Community. There would almost certainly be an adverse vote in the United Nations. There would also be a likely break-up of the Commonwealth.
The "internal settlement" did not look as if it had a chance of achieving my main object — international acceptance of Rhodesia, as well as a cessation of fighting; and I reiterate what this main object was because nothing less could possibly be in the long-term interest of Rhodesians themselves. Black and white...
I was not optimistic about the Lancaster House out-turn.
I was confident we had been right not to recognise the "internal settlement", to go for another conference, to get preliminary Commonwealth — and, on the whole, international — endorsement of the idea. But I thought it likely that the invited parties would come, and then create trouble at the moment they decided most favourable, break off proceedings, walk out, go away ...
I decided to give separate dinner parties at the start, one for the supporters of the "internal settlement", for Smith, Muzorewa and their followers; and another for the Patriotic Front ...
I think, in retrospect, that I at the time underestimated the difficulties of each of these sections and individuals had with the principle as well as the practice of sitting down with the others in conference.
There had been bad things done in Rhodesia and much bitterness both among whites and those blacks loyal to the Salisbury government; while, on the other side and at the second of my dinner parties, I was struck by the normality and poise of both Nkomo and Mugabe after their very long periods in gaol ...
I remember, too, Ian Smith at one of the private rather than plenary meetings. He said to me: "I think its disgraceful the way you're handling this conference ... [while] hundreds of people in Rhodesia are being killed."
I think I kept my temper during some pretty provoking moments at that conference, but on this particular occasion it was touch and go. I said to Smith: "Perhaps you might recollect that but for you nobody in Rhodesia would be being killed."
I think it was a fair reply. Ian Smith went home shortly afterwards. It was not he but David Smith and Peter Walls who had been convinced that the white Rhodesians should keep at the conference, keep going ...
The conference dragged on, looking like ending in failure more often than success ...
The eventual agreement set out a simple sequence — simple in concept, likely to be troubled in execution. There was to be a ceasefire: the guerrilla forces were to stand down, move to assembly points, accept disarmament.
There was to be a reversion to the constitutional situation before the Unilateral Declaration of Independence by Smith; and then there was to be elections in Rhodesia, based on universal suffrage, with all parties permitted to take part and with independence and recognition of a balanced constitution granted by the British Crown thereafter.
I was dreading the moment when I would have to announce that the first step would be the return of a British Governor, for although it was an inevitable consequence of our proposals for return to legality, I knew nobody expected it and nobody would like it ... I made the announcement at a plenary session.
There was dead silence. It lasted a long time. It was broken by Joshua Nkomo. He looked at me enquiringly. "Really? Will he have plumes and a horse?" The whole conference dissolved in laughter. The day was saved.
_________________________
*Reflections on Things Past: The Memoirs of Lord Carrington, Collins, 1988
Printer friendly version Send page by E-Mail
Zimbabwe: Lancaster House - the US Perspective
Posted: Tuesday, December 22, 2009
By Jeffrey Davidow
December 22, 2009 - The Herald
This is the second in a series of eight articles on the events of late 1979 and early 1980, the last stages leading to independence of Zimbabwe. Davidow is a retired US diplomat.
FOR more than three months in late 1979, British Foreign Secretary Peter Carrington chaired a conference at Lancaster House in London that the British government had convened to find, once and for all, a solution to "the Rhodesian problem".
At the outset and through most of its course, few observers or participants gave the conference much chance of success.
Most doubted that a settlement acceptable to all of the parties gathered there could be devised, that would bring an end to the war in Rhodesia and guide the country from minority white domination to majority African rule.
The pessimism was understandable.
For 15 years, successive British governments had failed in efforts to convince Ian Smith, the then Prime Minister of Rhodesia, to relinquish the control that he and approximately 200 000 white settlers maintained over Rhodesia's government and its black population, which by 1979 numbered approximately seven million ...
Nevertheless, the conference did succeed. On December 21, the head of the Salisbury delegation, Bishop Abel Muzorewa, the leaders of the Patriotic Front, Joshua Nkomo and Robert Mugabe, and Lord Carrington signed an agreement that contained a constitution for the independent state of Zimbabwe, ceasefire provisions to end the war, and transitional arrangements to guide the country through a brief period of British interim administration ...
The Lancaster House Conference was a three-act play, or, better put, a one-act play performed three times, but with enough variety and tension so as not to rob each performance of its drama.
Each dealt with a distinct area of the settlement - the constitution, the transitional arrangements, and the ceasefire - and lasted about one month.
Most of the performance was enacted outside of the conference hall.
At each stage the British were able to obtain early Muzorewa approval of their proposals and couple that with Lord Carrington's perceived willingness to pursue a second-class solution, to obtain the Patriotic Front's acquiescence.
In retrospect, the three acts take on an almost formalised predictability, but at the time few could be sanguine of success ...
On 7 June 1979, US President Jimmy Carter had issued a congressionally mandated report in which he stated that the conditions were not yet appropriate for the United States to lift sanctions against Rhodesia, which was technically still a colony in rebellion against Britain.
The US president's decision was not a popular one among many on Capitol Hill, where support for the Rhodesian regime of Bishop Abel Muzorewa, who had six weeks earlier replaced Ian Smith as Prime Minister, was increasing ...
Perhaps the most significant involvement of a supporting actor was that of US Ambassador Kingman Brewster. Responding to separate requests from [Commonwealth Secretary-General Sonny] Ramphal and Carrington, President Carter authorised Brewster to convey to the British, the Front Line States, and the Patriotic Front a pledge of US assistance should Lancaster House result in a success.
The wording of the US commitment was convoluted and cautious, reflecting the Carter administration's concern that it might face congressional criticism for participating in a "buyout" of white landlords or for opening the US.treasury to land-hungry peasants ...
In a statement to a plenary of October 18, Nkomo noted that the British and US assurances on land issues "go a long way in allaying the great concern we have over the whole land question".
Another factor that may have played a role in acceptance was the knowledge, leaked to the Press and discussed in general terms with Nkomo and Mugabe, of British intentions to take an active role in the transitional period, thus limiting, to some degree, their continued concern about Rhodesian regime control during the interim period.
Carrington's negotiating position was markedly strengthened by the situational factors surrounding the conference: its London venue and the wide panoply of tools - intelligence gathering, Press manipulation, tactic bargaining played out in Parliament - that he put to use.
The keystone of the British conference tactics, the step-by-step approach, generated momentum as intended, kept the parties engaged, and conveyed the impression of conference progress necessary for Carrington to maintain the support of Mrs Thatcher and interested onlookers such as the Front Line States and the US government.
A principle function of the supporting players was to reinforce Britain's credibility ... "One of our most important contributions throughout the Lancaster House Conference," writes [then US Secretary of State] Cyrus Vance, "was to vouch for British sincerity and impartiality with the suspicious Africans."
The categorical difficulty lies not entirely in the multiplicity of Carrington's roles [as negotiator, mediator, arbitrator]. It is also prompted by the blurring of distinctions that were once thought to neatly exist ... Certain subjects seem quite clear as long as we leave them alone.
The ideal mediator was once thought to be an impartial third party, with no particular stake in the outcome, able to elucidate the conflictive issues, promote co-operation among the parties, and generate compromise agreements.
Most mediators still perform these functions. In international relations, however ... many mediators represent entities that are not disinterested and have the capability of influencing participants by the use of threats and promises.
"Dominant third-party" mediation, in all its variations, will be a recurring feature of the diplomacy of the United States as well as other countries. It might help to know a bit more about it.
The author was US Diplomatic Observer in Rhodesia from July 1979 and stayed for three years until 1982. He was the senior US diplomat in Zimbabwe after independence in April 1980 and opened the US embassy. This article is from his book, A Peace in Southern Africa: The Lancaster House Conference on Rhodesia, 1979 published by Westview in 1984.
Printer friendly version Send page by E-Mail
Lancaster House revisited
Posted: Monday, December 21, 2009
By Phyllis Johnson
December 21, 2009 - The Herald
THIS is the first in a series of eight articles on the events of late 1979 and early 1980.
Thirty years ago, on December 21 1979, an agreement was signed in London that set in motion a series of events that put Zimbabwe on the course to where it is today.
The signatures appended reluctantly to that agreement beneath the chandeliers and subterfuge of Lancaster House ended the war in a place that some called Rhodesia and signalled a different route to independence for a country that the majority called Zimbabwe.
The 103 days of pressure and posturing conducted by the adroit Foreign Secretary of the United Kingdom, Lord Carrington, from September 10 until December 21 1979, were notable by the avoidance of the main issue in a 90-year-old dispute.
The parties simply agreed to disagree on the core issue of land and went on to reach agreement on all surrounding matters, including the sensitive question of a ceasefire and a brief return to British rule before elections and independence.
Land was discussed instead at strategic meetings on the sidelines and concluded at one such meeting convened at the Hill Street residence of the Commonwealth Secretary-General, Sonny Ramphal.
His deputy (and successor as Secretary-General), Chief Emeka Anyaoku, said in his memoirs (The Inside Story of the Modern Commonwealth, Evans 2004) that: "The two leaders of the nationalist movements (Mugabe and Nkomo) strongly objected to the proposal that the future government of the country should commit itself to paying full compensation to the white farm owners on a ‘willing seller/willing buyer' basis.
"For them, this amounted to mortgaging the future resources of Zimbabwe to buy back land that had been forcibly taken away from their people in the first instance.
"They argued that the land ownership structure was unacceptable to them, and that their people had taken up arms to fight the liberation war in order to regain the land.
"They certainly were not prepared to pay to recover what has been ‘stolen' from them, as the land had not been paid for when their people were forced off it.
"I took the point and reported these conversations and my impressions to Sonny Ramphal, while updating him on how far I was able to persuade them to go along with certain elements of the proposals," Anyaoku said.
"Sonny Ramphal then made approaches to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and President Jimmy Carter of the United States, both of whom indicated that they would be willing to provide assistance to independent Zimbabwe that would enable the new government to buy back land from white farmers on a ‘willing seller/willing buyer' basis.
"The British and American offer was conveyed to the nationalist leaders and, on the basis of this, it became possible to move the negotiating process forward."
Anyaoku also says that President Samora Machel of Mozambique played an important role "and swung his influence behind the Lancaster process".
Neighbouring countries in the person of the chairman of the Front Line States, Mwalimu Julius Kambarage Nyerere, President of the United Republic of Tanzania, urged the Patriotic Front leaders to settle, advising them that they could deal with the land issue after they formed the government of an independent Zimbabwe. Tanzania operates a successful system of long leases for land use, with bankable leases.
Carrington was clear on where British interests lay and that the nationalist forces fighting for independence had the upper hand.
"The war had strained Rhodesia's economy and society to the limits, and inspite of a good many local successes for government forces and some skilful military operations, it was not being won.
"It was exhausting Rhodesia, and in this context that meant it was particularly exhausting the white Rhodesians."
Although "Margaret Thatcher had not particularly bent her mind to Africa", Carrington said, "we were sure that the British interest demanded settlement of the Rhodesian issue and needed such a conference if it could possibly be attained."
Thatcher's education was advanced by Carrington and also by Machel who anticipated her election as British prime minister and had a ready strategy to engage her on Rhodesia.
On hearing confirmation of her election in early May 1979, Machel told his astonished cabinet that "this woman will bring us settlement in Rhodesia".
Among the rumbling of discontent from his colleagues, Machel dispatched a history lesson about the Right in power, giving examples of French president Charles de Gaulle granting independence to Algeria, US president Richard Nixon opening up to China, and British prime minister Harold Macmillan announcing the "wind of change" towards independence from colonial rule in Africa.
Carrington also commended the role of President Kenneth Kaunda of Zambia at the Commonwealth Summit held in July 1979 in Lusaka, where the plans firmed for a conference.
He described "how the prime minister's fears of personal animosity proved largely groundless and how she at once blossomed in the warmth of Kenneth Kaunda's friendly personality, dancing with him enthusiastically as she did at the first party".
In his memoirs (Reflections on Things Past: The Memoirs of Lord Carrington, Collins, 1998), Carrington described the many weeks at Lancaster House as a "tempestuous and testing time" and said he was not optimistic at the outset. But he added that he "was struck by the normality and poise of both Nkomo and Mugabe after their very long periods in gaol (jail)".
"The agreement set out a simple sequence — simple in concept, likely to be troubled in execution. There was to be a ceasefire: the guerilla forces were to stand down, move to assembly points, accept disarmament.
"There was to be a reversion to the constitutional situation before the Unilateral Declaration of Independence by Smith; and then there were to be elections in Rhodesia, based on universal suffrage, with all parties permitted to take part and with independence and recognition of a balanced constitution granted by the British Crown thereafter."
Senior British officials later admitted that a secret of their successful closure to the negotiations was placing electronic listening devices in the rooms of all of the principal players.
— sardc.net
Printer friendly version Send page by E-Mail
Zimbabwe: President Raps West's Carbon
Posted: Thursday, December 17, 2009
By Caesar Zvayi
December 17, 2009 - The Herald
PRESIDENT Mugabe has castigated Western nations' double standards over climate change saying the developed world was not approaching the peril of global warming with the same zeal it devotes to issues of human rights in the developing world.
The President, who was addressing 119 heads of state and government and other stakeholders gathered here for the ongoing UN Framework Convention on Climate Change Conference, spoke as the negotiations teetered on the brink of collapse with clear battle lines drawn between the developed and developing world.
The major bone of contention that has emerged is the nature and structure of the future global climate change mitigation regime.
Developed world countries, especially Japan and Europe, are insisting that a new agreement be established to replace the Kyoto Protocol.
Almost all members of the UNFCCC are members of the Kyoto Protocol, with the United States a notable exception.
Since the US does not want to join or be bound by the Kyoto Protocol, its developed world allies now no longer want to be bound by it and, instead, want to set a new treaty that not only includes the US, but sets new obligations on the developing world to act on its emissions.
The Kyoto Protocol does not bind the developing world to commit to emissions reduction.
This proposal has been shot down by developing countries, since the new treaty will most likely not place strict and legally-binding commitments on the developed countries to cut their emissions, unlike the Kyoto Protocol.
"Why is the guilty North not showing the same fundamentalist spirit it exhibits in our developing countries on human rights matters on this more menacing question of climate change? Where is its commitment to retributive justice, which we see it applying on other issues placed on the global agenda? Where are the sanctions for offenders? When we spit at the Kyoto Protocol by seeking to retreat from its dictates, or simply refusing to accede to it, are we not undermining the rule of global law?" President Mugabe asked to wild applause from activists who had picketed the lobby.
Some of them had earlier invaded the plenary demanding unity of purpose from the leaders.
"When we spew hazardous emissions for selfish, consumptionist ends, in the process threatening land masses and atmospheric space of smaller and weaker nations, are we not guilty of gross human rights violations?
"We raise these questions not out of spite or vindictiveness, but out of concern for our very endangered livelihoods," he said.
Climate change is manifest in protracted droughts, floods and erratic rains in Zimbabwe and other parts of the developing world, where the extreme weather conditions have not only displaced people, but severely undermined livelihoods.
To this end, the President said, the West's indifference was bound to see the developing world failing to attain the UN-set Millennium Development Goals by the target year of 2015.
"When these capitalist gods of carbon burp and belch their dangerous emissions, it is we, the lesser mortals of the developing sphere who gasp, sink and eventually die . . .
"The prospects of meeting our MDGs, or other welfare targets agreed to nationally, regionally or internationally, grow dimmer every day. We are the drowning, we are the burning, indeed we are the tragedy that climate changes have turned out to be for the larger half of mankind. Yet we never caused this crisis."
Zimbabwe, the President said, continued to suffer from illegal economic sanctions imposed by some Western countries, which sanctions had even extended to issues of the environment and climate change mitigation.
"Zimbabwe continues to suffer from illegal sanctions unilaterally imposed on her by the West. Because of these undeserved sanctions, we have only been able to draw a mere one million United States dollars in the last three years from the Global Environmental Fund. The situation is likely to grow worse in the wake of new changes to the operationalisation of this fund."
The developing world, the President said, had convened in Copenhagen hoping for justice and fairness, but had been met with hypocrisy from the instigators of the crisis - the developed world.
"Beneath the tip of well-intentioned rhetoric on climate change lies the iceberg of power and aspirations to global dominance. We are dealing with vested interests. We are dealing with dominant economies resting on a faulty, eco-unfriendly development paradigm, aspiring to misrule the world. In those circumstances, progress is bound to be glacial.
"Climate change, the latest and by far the most encompassing and insistent crisis spawned by this hegemonic development paradigm, yet again reveals the interconnectedness of issues of global imbalances: by way of uneven development, by way of unfair trade, by way of unclean politics, by way of hegemonic values, by way of arbitrary power and governance systems."
The President said Zimbabwe and Africa stood by the Kyoto Protocol and urged the Western nations to be bound by the same.
"It has simply become imperative that the developed world, itself the leading sinner on climate offences, takes serious and effective measures to cut emissions on one hand, while supporting developing countries to adapt to, and mitigate the effects of this man-made made planetary if not cosmic disaster."
He reminded delegates that the developing world, apart from being the least offender on climate crimes, owns the bio-carbon resources, required to clean up the mess of global warming, and by dint of that deserved the lion's share of climate change mitigation funds.
"The present global regime where resources are disproportionately allocated in terms of the degree to which a country endangers the climate is a skewed one. We cannot reward sinners. We cannot punish the righteous. We who bear the burden of healing the gasping earth must draw the most from the global purse for remedial action."
The developing world, the President said, would never accept climatic recovery paradigms predicated on denying it the right to development for the sake of cleaning up the mess created by the selfish North.
Earlier, Environment and Natural Resources Management Minister Francis Nhema told Zimbabwean journalists on the sidelines of the summit that a figure of US$10 billion was being bandied around as climate mitigation fund, with Africa set to receive 40 percent. However, the developing world felt the figure was minimal and was instead pressing for US$200 billion.
The conference enters its tenth day today.
Printer friendly version Send page by E-Mail
Zimbabwe: Kabila engages GPA principals
Posted: Tuesday, November 3, 2009
The Herald
November 03, 2009
DRC President Joseph Kabila, who is the Sadc chair, yesterday engaged the three principals to the Global Political Agreement on political developments in the country, with President Mugabe saying the regional bloc understands that Zimbabweans can solve their problems without undue external interference.
Speaking after a five-hour meeting with President Mugabe at State House, President Kabila said while he had come in fulfilment of a promise made to his Zimbabwean counterpart earlier, he would also use the opportunity to get an appreciation of the political landscape.
President Kabila will today also deliver the annual Dag Hammarskjold lecture at Africa University.
Asked on why he was in the country, President Kabila said he had promised President Mugabe to visit when the two leaders met at the last Sadc Summit in Kinshasa.
"I told him (President Mugabe) that I would be coming to Zimbabwe during the summit in Kinshasa.
"I will be meeting Prime Minister Tsvangirai either today or tomorrow before I go back to Congo," he said.
President Kabila last night met separately with PM Tsvangirai and Deputy PM Arthur Mutambara.
President Mugabe said President Kabila, as Sadc chairman, would take the opportunity to understand the situation in the country during his visit.
"President Kabila, as Sadc chairman, will listen to all sides in the inclusive Government, the marks of progress we have made and the handicaps we have encountered.
"He will, however, know that we are grown-ups and an intelligent people who know that we went into the agreement knowing that there will be handicaps to be met and we need to sit down and discuss the problems.
"He will also say there is a Sadc Troika that is seized with the matter at the moment," he said.
The three leaders who constitute the Sadc Organ on Politics, Defence and Security will likely meet in Mozambique on Thursday to review ministerial reports on the situations in Zimbabwe and Lesotho.
The Troika — composed of Mozambique, Zambia and Swaziland — dispatched a delegation of its foreign ministers to Zimbabwe last week as part of the mutually agreed six-monthly review of the GPA.
The delegation also visited Lesotho to assess the political situation there.
Both visits were sanctioned at the DRC Sadc Summit.
PM Tsvangirai and DPM Mutambara described their separate meetings with President Kabila as "very productive".
The meeting with PM Tsvangirai lasted about an hour while DPM Mutambara talked for less than an hour with President Kabila.
"The discussion was very productive . . . I want to say he gave me assurances that Sadc is committed to see this country move forward to ensure that the train is back on rail," PM Tsvangirai said.
He said it was "common cause that the GPA must be fulfilled" and Thursday's Troika meeting should "find a solution".
DPM Mutambara said he had a "very profitable discussion" with President Kabila and challenged Zimbabweans to be masters of their own destiny.
"Zimbabweans should be ashamed of themselves. Why should we not sit down and talk?" DPM Mutambara said, adding there was no alternative to the inclusive Government.
Last week, the Troika ministerial delegation had meetings with representatives from Zanu-PF and the two MDC formations before paying courtesy calls on the three principals.
The report of those meetings will be tabled before Mozambique's President Armando Guebuza (Troika chair), Zambia's President Rupiah Banda and Swaziland's King Mswati III.
The visiting delegation underscored the need for dialogue between Zanu-PF and the MDC formations, saying Sadc was only there to assist.
Printer friendly version Send page by E-Mail
Afghanistan exposes US double standards
Posted: Tuesday, November 3, 2009
The Herald
November 03, 2009
EDITOR – I was shocked and disgusted by the United States of America's double standards and their hypocritical behaviour over the situation in Afghanistan.
When our harmonised elections here failed to produce an outright winner as none of the four presidential; candidates managed to garner the 50 percent plus one vote required under the Constitution which made a run-off inevitable.
In the case of Afghanistan, rampant fraud and rigging were proved making a run-off necessary. In the Afghan case the challenger, Abdullah Abdullah, decided not to participate in the run-off in protest of what he terms "misconduct of the government and the Independent Election Commission".
Commenting on the pullout, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Abdullah's withdrawal from the run-off will not affect the legitimacy of the outcome simply because initially Abdullah accepted to participate in the run-off in the first place.
I do not profess to be a guru in politics, but how does this scenario differ from Zimbabwe's June 27, 2008 run-off where MDC-T leader Morgan Tsvangirai announced his "withdrawal" five days before the poll with the Anglo-Saxon alliance casting aspersions on the outcome?
If anything, the Afghan situation was worse because the run-off was necessitated by fraud. And in our case, Tsvangirai could not withdraw since the election had already started with postal ballots cast.
Zimbabwe, let's wake up and see things in their correct perspectives, otherwise other nations and interested parties will take advantage of our naivete and greed for greenbacks.
C. Kays.
Harare.
Printer friendly version Send page by E-Mail
Minister Biti Breaks Ranks With MDC-T
Posted: Friday, October 30, 2009
The Herald
October 30, 2009
Finance Minister Tendai Biti has broken ranks with MDC-T and has been advocating the lifting of the illegal sanctions that the West imposed on Zimbabwe, documents at hand show.
The documents authored by Minister Biti, who is MDC-T's secretary-general, recognise sanctions especially the US sanctions law, the so-called Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act as a major outstanding issue which must be addressed before the economy can develop.
He, however, abrogates the MDC-T of the duty to lead the anti-sanctions lobby that he says should be led by a group of "Elders" like ex-US president Jimmy Carter and former UN secretary-general Kofi Annan.
Under the Global Political Agreement that paved way for the inclusive Government, MDC-T undertook to push for the lifting of the illegal economic sanctions that they invited at the turn of the millennium.
In a document entitled "Debt and Arrears Clearance Strategy" presented to Cabinet recently, Minister Biti said his proposed thrust would only work if sanctions were busted.
"This strategy will be complemented by the need to repeal the Zimbabwe Economic and Democracy Act (Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act) of 2001, through lobbying for support for Zimbabwe's position in the USA Congress and Senate.
"This could be done by Government approaching such former US Presidents like Jim Carter and Bill Clinton using other luminaries such as J(ohn) Kuffour (Ghana), K(enneth) Kaunda (Zambia) and (J)oaquim Chissano (Mozambique) through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
"This should be seen within the context of the Government's overall strategy of busting sanctions through engaging the European Union, the Commonwealth and the USA," said Minister Biti.
MDC-T leaders have refused to admit that sanctions have crippled the economy and Minister Biti's admission marks a significant break from that tradition.
Minister Biti yesterday confirmed that he had presented the document to Cabinet and he becomes the second senior MDC-T member to admit to the reality of sanctions.
Early this month, co-Home Affairs Minister Giles Mutsekwa told a meeting of his colleagues and police chiefs at an Interpol conference that illegal sanctions had negatively affected the economy and the Zimbabwe Republic Police had not been spared.
It is understood that MDC-T's national executive grilled Minister Mutsekwa for making these remarks.
The US sanctions law, among other things, instructs all US citizens sitting on the boards of multilateral lending institutions to oppose any lines of credit or support to Zimbabwe.
The US Treasury has also reportedly instructed some companies not to deal with Zimbabwe, while concerns like Ziscosteel, the Infrastructure Development Bank of Zimbabwe and ZB Bank are barred from transacting with Americans.
The law also authorises the US Congress to extend funding for organisations opposed to President Mugabe and Zanu-PF.
However, observers have said while Minister Biti's remarks were a step in the right direction, they still fell short of the expectations of Zimbabweans.
Political scientist Professor Jonathan Moyo said the admission demonstrated that President Mugabe and Zanu-PF were right that the main outstanding GPA issue was the lifting of the illegal economic embargo.
Prof Moyo said it also showed that MDC-T was an "unreliable" partner in the inclusive Government.
"This demonstrates that the MDC-T position on sanctions shows a dishonest and unreliable partner who says different things at different times to different audiences.
"For example, (MDC-T leader Morgan) Tsvangirai does not want to use the term 'sanctions' yet Biti's document uses it. (Minister of State in the Prime Minister's Office) Gorden Moyo has flatly denied that there are sanctions," he said.
"Biti wants the panel that he is recommending to be set up to do the work that they as MDC-T are supposed to be doing. This vindicates President Mugabe and Zanu-PF's position that sanctions are the only outstanding issue in the GPA.
"It also validates the assessment that MDC-T is hypocritical in its engagement and actions," he noted.
Printer friendly version Send page by E-Mail
MDC-T "disengagement": Much ado about nothing
Posted: Saturday, October 24, 2009
The Herald
October 24, 2009
IT'S been more than a week since MDC-T announced its ill-fated decision to "partially disengage" from the inclusive Government.
The decision has completely failed to resonate with the feelings of the people on the ground.
The MDC-T leadership has tried in vain to explain itself by claiming it has only disengaged from Zanu-PF and not the Government.
Still that does not make sense.
Most people do not understand what the partial pullout is meant to achieve, other than mere political grandstanding.
Even traditional allies of MDC-T like ZCTU have said they don't see the wisdom of the action taken by MDC-T.
Whoever had told MDC-T leader Mr Morgan Tsvangirai that the "disengagement" would cause a constitutional crisis certainly misled him. Cabinet has met and is likely to meet again next week. It has been able to make binding decisions because no quorum is needed.
Mr Tsvangirai himself requested the Council of Ministers during the negotiations that led to the Global Political Agreement.
So he is boycotting his own creation, whose meetings he convenes and chairs.
He desperately needs to climb down from the high pedestal he has hoisted himself on.
The regional tour is more of a cry for someone to help him down than of genuine mediation.
He desperately needs a face-saver.
He needs the regional leaders to rescue him.
On Wednesday he had to spend the whole day waiting to see South African President Jacob Zuma and was only granted an audience late at night, more out of courtesy than anything else.
Mr Zuma's spokesman, Mr Zizi Kodwa, had earlier issued a statement saying: "President Zuma has a tight schedule for this week, and it does not accommodate the MDC president, Mr Tsvangirai."
This reveals the true view of South Africa and probably Sadc about the partial pullout and the issues at stake. They seem to believe that the so-called outstanding issues of the GPA are for Zimbabweans to sort out.
It appears they don't believe we need a mediator to deal with the allocation of positions of Governor of the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe and Attorney-General.
They now see us a nuisance for continuing to pester and nag them over issues that we should resolve on our own.
Mr Zuma actually told Democratic Alliance leader Mr Athol Trollip in the South African parliament that issues to do with Zimbabwe had been dealt with comprehensively at the Sadc Summit in the Democratic Republic of Congo last month. That summit had resolved that the GPA had been adequately implemented.
In other words, they don't see any major issue that should cause a collapse of the inclusive Government. Neither do we. Sadc is saying grow up and put your house in order.
Sadc leaders have been courteous enough to give Mr Tsvangirai an auidence so that he can explain himself.
We commend them for doing so.
We expect that in the next week or two one of them will come to his rescue by facilitating a meeting with the other principals of the GPA.
Sadc mediator Mr Thabo Mbeki has clearly refused to be bothered about issues he spent weeks and weeks going through with the Zimbabwean leaders. He deserves his rest.
So the grandstanding has not helped MDC-T at all.
Instead, it has further poisoned the environment. We have seen political temperatures rising again.
On Wednesday Zanu-PF members of the House of Assembly had to walk out of the chamber after Masvingo Urban MP Tongai Matutu and his fellow MDC-T legislators started denigrating the President.
Yet a fortnight ago the President had opened the current session of Parliament in a very friendly and strife-free atmosphere.
The people of Zimbabwe are disappointed at the behaviour of their leaders.
The same disappointment is shared within the Sadc region where the political settlement in Zimbabwe had come as a big relief.
We hope the inclusive Government will quickly re-group and continue with the work of rebuilding the Zimbabwean economy.
Printer friendly version Send page by E-Mail
MDC-T trying to muscle Zanu-PF from power: Pres Mugabe
Posted: Saturday, October 24, 2009
The Herald
October 24, 2009
PRESIDENT Mugabe has urged the MDC-T leadership to be guided by national fundamentals and not emotions in conducting Government business, saying it was Mr Morgan Tsvangirai's party that was still to meet its obligations under the Global Political Agreement.
Commenting for the first time on MDC-T's announcement last week that they had "disengaged" from the inclusive Government because Zanu-PF was "a dishonest partner", President Mugabe said his party had done its part under the GPA.
"The inclusive Government and the hiccups ... you will always get people in any arrangement who are guided by little emotional thoughts and act in accordance with them and who would want things to go their way, and not the national way, and not the agreed way.
"There is nothing in the GPA that has not been done by Zanu-PF, nothing at all. We have fulfilled everything that the GPA wanted us to fulfil; the legal aspects we were very accurate about them.
"The swearing in of all those who were supposed to be sworn in, that was done timeously and in an appropriate manner.
"The matters that had to do with what, beyond the legal aspect we had to do, we have done."
The MDC-T leadership, the President said, still had to meet its obligations regarding the West's subversive activities in the form of the ruinous economic sanctions and pirate radio broadcasts.
"They are not doing anything about sanctions, they are not doing anything about, you know, illegal radios, and other forms of communications which are daily undermining the principles of unity and other principles that underlie the Global Political Agreement. They are not doing anything about that."
He said MDC-T, which was moving freely all over the globe, was doing nothing about the fact that they had instigated the sanctioning against some of their counterparts in Government.
"Just now all members of the MDC are free to move, and all my Cabinet ministers have had their legs locked, vakasungwa kumakumbo uku nemasanctions, they cannot move.
"And not only that; the country is suffering under sanctions which the MDC called for. Are they doing anything about that?
"Those are matters that are fundamental, much more than the appointment of governors. Anyway that is a matter that is within the prerogative of the President and that is for me to decide."
The Head of State and Government and Commander-in-Chief of the Zimbabwe Defence Forces said MDC-T's antics appeared aimed at trying to muscle Zanu-PF from power.
He, however, said Zanu-PF would not budge on that score.
"The matters the people are complaining about in the MDC-T are that we should now voluntarily, from our side, you see, give away aspects of our authority, we will not do that.
"They can go to any summit, any part of the world to appeal — that will not happen."
He said no party in the inclusive Government could give another an ultimatum since the Government subsisted by virtue of agreements between the three parties.
Despite MDC-T's antics, the President said he was sure the party's leadership would not leave Government.
"I do not read that they would want to leave the inclusive Government, I think that they will come back to it soon."
Earlier this week, Mr Tsvangirai asked to meet President Mugabe and the request was granted.
The three principals to the GPA are expected to meet on Monday, for their routine meeting.
Ironically, soon after MDC-T supporters gave the inclusive Government the thumbs-up, the MDC-T leaders said they would not attend Cabinet and Council of Ministers meetings in protest over Roy Bennett's indictment for trial at the High Court on terror-related charges.
The "disengagement" has attracted condemnation from the party' supporters, political parties, labour, the church, civic bodies and society in general.
Observers have questioned why MDC-T was prepared to put the national interest at stake over a person who might be acquitted by the courts.
The action has been described as an attempt to unduly interfere with the operations of the judiciary and influence its decisions.
Printer friendly version Send page by E-Mail
Tsvangirai still PM, says Govt
Posted: Tuesday, October 20, 2009
By Mabasa Sasa and Takunda Maodza
October 20, 2009 - The Herald
MDC-T leader Mr Morgan Tsvangirai is yet to formally communicate his party's decision to "disengage" from the inclusive Government amid revelations that the Prime Minister yesterday left the country without Cabinet authority on a 10-day tour of the region.
According to regulations governing the Executive, Government officials do not leave the country without getting authority through the Chief Secretary to the President and Cabinet.
It is understood that the Permanent Secretary in the Prime Minister's Office, Ian Makone, tried to get permission for his boss when Mr Tsvangirai was already on his way to the airport.
MDC-T sources revealed that Mr Tsvangirai will visit Mozambique, Angola, the DRC, South Africa and possibly Botswana, presumably in a bid to canvass support for his "partial pullout" and will be back in Zimbabwe on October 29.
"Makone, as a senior civil servant in the PM's Office, tried to facilitate the Cabinet authority but it was too late. He wanted money for the journey, which he is also going on, but the funds could not be released at such short notice.
"We were told that the Chief Secretary needed sufficient reason to release the money, like what benefit the trip would be to Government as a whole," said the source.
Government sources confirmed that the PM did not have Cabinet authority while officials in his office could not be reached for comment.
Mr Tsvangirai announced the "partial pull-out" last week following MDC-T treasurer Roy Bennett's indictment for trial on terror-related charges.
The decision immediately drew ire from both inside and outside the party, with people questioning why Mr Tsvangirai was prepared to put the national interest at risk over the white former commercial farmer, and Rhodesian Security Forces member.
Yesterday, President Mugabe's spokesperson, Mr George Charamba, said as far as the Head of State and Government was concerned, Mr Tsvangirai was still the PM because he had not communicated anything to the contrary in a formal manner.
"Government is not run through media statements. In the same way that President Mugabe formally appointed him to the post of Prime Minister he must also communicate any decision to disengage, or whatever it is they are calling it, in a formal manner.
"This can be done orally or in writing but in a formal manner. From that point of view nothing has happened. Until the communication is done formally the President has no reason or any grounds to think or know otherwise."
Mr Charamba said today's Cabinet meeting would go ahead as scheduled and the agenda had already been sent out to all ministers.
"There has been no indication in writing or through the Chief Secretary that there will be no attendance en bloc from MDC-T's side."
Regulations require ministers unable to attend a Cabinet meeting to tell the Office of the Chief Secretary in advance.
Further, Cabinet decisions are not made by a quorum or through a vote and so any resolutions made today are binding on all ministers.
Yesterday Deputy PM Professor Arthur Mutambara said he and his MDC ministers would attend the meeting.
Addressing a Press conference in Harare, DPM Mutambara said he had thrice met Mr Tsvangirai over his decision to "disengage".
"We are there in the middle to promote dialogue, to push the national agenda," he said.
The DPM appealed to parties in the inclusive Government to desist from grandstanding at the expense of the national interest, saying MDC-T should not "be carried away".
"There are times to think of what is good for Zimbabwe not our parties . . . This country demands that we work together," he said.
Meanwhile, partial details emerged yesterday of the events leading to Mr Tsvangirai's announcement on Friday that MDC-T would not be attending Cabinet nor would he chair the Council of Ministers, which he previously complained had met too few times.
MDC-T sources said pressure from "some Western countries and NGOs" to act started as soon as Bennett was indicted and it was clear he would soon face trial.
The sources said a small group of officials met on Thursday morning with some of them saying the party should announce a "collapse of the inclusive Government" while others said that was too drastic a decision.
"The (party) president was supposed to have a Press conference on Thursday morning but the meetings dragged on.
"Later that day Mr Tsvangirai met representatives of various donor countries and told them about the route they thought was best," the sources said.
The representatives are from the European Commission, the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Norway, France, Switzerland, Holland and Australia.
The representatives, the sources said, said a "partial pullout" was the best option.
On Friday morning Mr Tsvangirai reportedly then met a group of ambassadors accredited to Zimbabwe after realising "that Thursday's meeting had the potential to re-affirm assertions that MDC-T took directives from Western countries".
However, that meeting was not sanctioned by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the relevant officials only found out about it just before it occurred.
"Prior to that a senior official (name supplied) also met the ambassador of a Nordic country (name also given) to brief him on what had happened.
"I can tell you that he told the ambassador that the announcement that Mr Tsvangirai was about to make would ‘catch (President) Mugabe by surprise'.
"He also intimated to the ambassador that they had decided on calling it a partial pullout so that they could continue using State institutions to advance the party's agenda," he said.
This ties in with MDC-T spokesperson Mr Nelson Chamisa's statement earlier this year to the International Crisis Group that they had entered the inclusive Government to take power from inside.
It also tallies with sentiments by the ICG's deputy president in his testimony to the US Senate Sub-Committee on Africa on September 30 that MDC-T had calculated that it could better further its cause by entering the inclusive Government.
Observers yesterday said the talk of a "partial pullout" added weight to allegations that MDC-T was forming a parallel government.
"From the very start the donors talked of setting up a Multi-Donor Trust Fund. This is a means to channel resources to a parallel structure without it getting into State coffers.
"You essentially create a structure that rivals a formal institution and then start working to erode the influence of the latter.
"This is why we had (US President Barack) Obama telling the world earlier this year that America would channel all resources to NGOs.
"They are empowering NGOs so that they act as quasi-ministries. Now they have said they are disengaging. This is, in a nutshell, a bureaucratic cessation and would not be accepted anywhere in the world."
Internet news reports yesterday said Sadc executive secretary Dr Tomaz Salamao would today fly to Mozambique to meet President Armando Guebuza to discuss MDC-T's "disengagement".
Printer friendly version Send page by E-Mail
MDC-T does not respect rule of law
Posted: Tuesday, October 20, 2009
EDITOR — MDC-T has shown lack of knowledge on governance issues by announcing the infamous disengagement at a time when Zimbabwe was hosting its biggest ever tourism exposition, the Sanganai/Hlanganani World Travel and Tourism Africa Fair and on the eve of the Cosafa Senior Challenge Cup.
The tourism expo attracted 300 international investors, tourist wholesalers, buyers and 40 international media houses, all of which saw Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai score an own goal.
In Africa, when two brothers are fighting, they stop the brawl as soon as a visitor appears and welcome him/her together. The brawl may, of course, resume as soon as the visitor leaves.
It was akin to shooting ourselves in the feet that as international investors were negotiating deals with the business community in Zimbabwe, PM Tsvangirai was busy throwing spanners in the works.
As Prime Minister, Mr Tsvangirai must have known that the whole country cannot lose important investment opportunities because of Roy Bennett, who is facing criminal charges like any other suspect.
MDC-T should know that the rule of law they talk a lot about involves going through court procedures step by step, once one is taken in as a suspect. MDC-T must practise what it preaches. Bennett must answer to the charges, get convicted or cleared.
My mother here in Dande must not suffer from economic sanctions imposed on this country because President Mugabe has not protected Bennett.
Why should he protect Bennett or why should MDC-T want President Mugabe to protect Bennett, or any other suspect for that matter?
What is the future of Zimbabwe when a political group like the MDC-T seeks to protect a suspect, without going through full trial?
It is clear that if left alone the MDC-T would violate the law at will.
Edna Mukotami
Mbare.
The Herald
Printer friendly version Send page by E-Mail
Bennett: Let the law take its course
Posted: Friday, October 16, 2009
EDITOR — So many things have been said and a lot is still being said, some of it sub judice, about MDC-T treasurer-general Roy Bennett's court case.
Let us all allow the law to take its course please.
What Bennett is going through is a clear court process that should be allowed to run its course.
If MDC-T and its functionaries want to walk their talk of good governance, democracy and the rule of law, this is the time they must zip up their mouths and allow the courts to determine Bennett's case.
It is a point of law that Bennett be behind bars when his trial starts and if his lawyers think otherwise, they must apply for bail at the High Court. Any lawyer worth his salt surely knows that this is the procedure.
This is the time for all Zimbabweans to show that the rule of law is upheld in this country and that law demands that Bennett be tried for the charges he is facing.
Let's not rubbish our judiciary to appease Westerners who have not made it a secret that Bennett is their kith and kin.
Everyone and virtually all of us should be prepared to go through what Bennett is going through, if we break the law, because that is what the law says.
Nomsa Mupere.
University of Zimbabwe.
Printer friendly version Send page by E-Mail
Zimbabwe: Roy Bennett locked up
Posted: Thursday, October 15, 2009
The Herald - Court Reporter
October 15, 2009
MDC-T treasurer-general Roy Bennett — charged with possessing arms for the purposes of terrorism and banditry and inciting acts of insurgency — was yesterday indicted for trial and locked up.
His trial is set to begin on Monday in Mutare.
According to the law, when one is indicted, he/she automatically loses bail and Bennett can only be released after making a fresh bail application.
In which case, Bennett must apply at the High Court.
Mutare provincial magistrate Mrs Lucy Mungwari ruled in favour of the State after chief law officer Mr Michael Mugabe and Manicaland area prosecutor Mr Arnold Chiwara produced a copy of the notice for indictment.
Bennett, who was dressed in a checked shirt and a pair of khaki trousers, was at a loss for words when Mrs Mungwari made the ruling.
Earlier on, Mrs Mungwari had given the State two days to comply with a court order to present the indictment papers.
She said failure to do so would have resulted in the court declining any further remand of the accused.
However, the State had come prepared and furnished the court with the relevant documents.
Bennett was represented by Messers Trust Maanda of Maunga Maanda and Associates and Mr Blessing Nyama-ropa of the Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights.
Mrs Mungwari ruled: "I commit the accused person to prison and if there are any defects in the process, he should raise them with the High Court."
Bennett was immediately whisked away by Zimbabwe Prison Services officers.
Among those present were Bennett’s wife, Heather, Minister of State in the Prime Minister’s Office Gorden Moyo, Mutare Mayor Brian James and several MDC-T supporters.
In an interview after the ruling, Mr Nyamaropa said they would work on the appeal papers overnight and were likely to apply for bail pending trial at the High Court today.
However, last night insiders revealed that there were "frantic efforts by senior MDC-T politicians" to get Government officials to act on the matter.
According to the indictment, the State shall call 12 witnesses to testify.
On Tuesday the State had applied for Bennett’s indictment for trial in the High Court.
The defence, led by Ms Beatrice Mtetwa, countered saying the State should have given their client notice for indictment as required by the law.
The magistrate at the time ruled: "The accused person was remanded to October 13, 2009, it being agreed between the State and the defence that this would be the trial date.
"The State being the dominus litus (party in control of the litigation), however, decided on this date that they would actually indict the accused person to appear before the High Court on an unknown date.
"The court, however, could not proceed to indict the accused person by virtue of Section 66 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act (Chapter 9:07), which makes it peremptory that a written notice be given to the provincial magistrate or a magistrate presiding over the matter.
"In my opinion, this was unprocedural as the court derives its authority to indict from the notice in question as indicated by the Act.
"Contrary to what the defence stated, the notice is also required to be given to the accused person and the court.
"He, however, still hasn’t been indicted because of the partial compliance with the requirements to have him indicted.
"I am prepared to give the State two days to comply with the court order, failure of which will result in the court declining any further remand of the accused person."
Mr Mugabe argued that an accused already on remand could be indicted at any time of his or her appearance.
He said the mere fact of the State indicting Bennett to appear before the High Court was notice in itself.
This is the second time Bennett has been remanded in custody after a Mutare court denied him bail in March, only to be released a month later by the Supreme Court on US$5 000 bail.
Charges against Bennett arose between 2002 and March 2006 when he allegedly provided one Peter Hitschmann with money for the procurement of 26 grenades, two-schermuly signal smoke hand, 12 rifles and other weapons.
After that, the State alleges Bennett incited Hitschmann to use the weapons to knock down a microwave link situated at a kopje along Melfort-Bromley Loop Road.
It is alleged Hitschmann used cellphone disabling devices to block cellphone signals and to detonate anti-riot water cannon trucks used by police.
Bennett was arrested in February this year upon his return from South Africa where he had fled as a fugitive in 2007.
Police, who had received information that Bennett was returning home, arrested him at Charles Prince Airport in Mt Hampden.
http://www.herald.co.zw/inside.aspx?sectid=11353&cat=1
Printer friendly version Send page by E-Mail
176 000 Farmers to Benefit From Input Scheme
Posted: Saturday, October 10, 2009
The Herald
October 10, 2009
The European Commission has revealed it will provide 25 percent of all fertilizer and cereal crop seed requirements for communal farmers for the 2009/10 summer cropping season.
The inputs were bought from local companies and are already being dispatched to various districts countrywide.
Speaking at a stakeholders meeting in Harare yesterday, Ambassador and head of the EC delegation in Zimbabwe, Mr Xavier Marchal, said this was part of a massive worldwide EC food facility worth one billion Euros, which was adopted at the end of last year.
"In response to the Short Term Emergency Recovery Programme (STERP) and the preparation for the coming cropping season, this grant will contribute to boost Zimbabwe's preparedness with mobilisation of agricultural inputs such as seeds, fertilizers and extension support to small scale farmers.
"The programme is expected to support 176 000 farmers in natural regions II, III and IV," Mr Marchal said.
Production costs in these areas are comparable to current import parity prices or below.
"With good rains, timely implementation and effective co-ordination, yields and production could easily double, further reducing production costs and contribute to making Zimbabwe self sufficient in staple grain production," he said.
Under the scheme, each household will receive 15 kgs maize seed and three 50kg bags of fertiliser, 5 kgs of small grain seed and one bag of fertiliser to the farmers in dry regions.
Most of the input provision is being done under the Food Agricultural Organisation (FAO), with EC acting on behalf of the European Union.
Mr Marchal said the EC was supporting rural populations to improve livelihood security including health, water, basic education, social services and this was being done through non governmental organisations, United nations agencies and Government level.
Inputs distribution would be complemented by well co-ordinated extension services provided by a range of implementing partners and Government to promote good farming practices.
Printer friendly version Send page by E-Mail
Transcript: Christiane Amanpour interviews Robert Mugabe
Posted: Saturday, September 26, 2009
September 25, 2009
President Mugabe visited New York last week to attend the 64th Session of the United Nations General Assembly. While in New York, he was interviewed by CNN's Christiane Amanpour on various issues. Below is the transcript of the interview.
NEW YORK (CNN) -- CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR: And here to address the United Nations, President Mugabe joins me now in the studio. So welcome to this program. Thank you for coming in.
ROBERT MUGABE, PRESIDENT, ZIMBABWE: Thank you.
AMANPOUR: What are you going to ask? Are you going to ask President Obama to lift the sanctions that are imposed?
MUGABE: Not really. I haven't come here for President Obama to address the United States alone. I've come here to address the General Assembly, which is part of the United Nations' structures. And we are entitled to discuss matters that affect us in the global environment and the matters that affect us in a particular way as Zimbabwe. And this is what I'm going to do.
AMANPOUR: So you -- but you obviously are calling for sanctions to be lifted.
MUGABE: Yes, that -- that I will do, certainly. The sanctions are unjustified, illegal, and they are meant for regime change, to address that illegal principle.
AMANPOUR: You say for regime change, but it all really is about trying to get the political situation stabilized. And for the last year, you've been in so-called power-sharing agreement with the leader of the opposition, Morgan Tsvangirai. What does power-sharing to you mean? Many people say that it's in name only right now.
MUGABE: No. It is really power-sharing. And that power-sharing is encapsulated in an agreement we call the global political agreement. And this was arrived at through the facilitation that we got from South Africa, and specifically through the facilitation by former President Thabo Mbeki.
AMANPOUR: The problem, though, is, Mr. President, that many people are saying that you're still -- and your party -- is trying to sort of reduce the MDC majority or their officials in parliament. There are MPs who are being arrested. They're being charged with alleged crimes to prevent them from being able to take office. Why is this still happening?
MUGABE: First, may I make this quite clear, that the global political agreement was arrived at after a series of meetings which involved not just ZANU-PF, as represented by myself and our negotiators, and numbered (ph) also between ZANU-PF and the MDC, as represented by Tsvangirai and Professor Chambara (ph) and their negotiators.
AMANPOUR: Right.
MUGABE: And these -- these provisions in the global agreement were reached after very strenuous discussions had taken place.
AMANPOUR: Right. But the question really is...
MUGABE: And so they were not -- they were not forced upon us. We -- we came to...
AMANPOUR: No, but the question really is...
MUGABE: We came to them deliberately.
AMANPOUR: All right. So why then...
MUGABE: We arrived at them deliberately.
AMANPOUR: All right. So if you say you arrived at them deliberately, why then are their MPs and officials still being harassed?
MUGABE: Because the issue of those who have been arrested is a different matter altogether. Some of them had committed crimes before the global agreement, crimes such as rape and kidnapping. You couldn't -- you couldn't let people who have committed such crimes get away with it merely because there is a global agreement.
AMANPOUR: Has Roy Bennett committed a crime? Why is he not being sworn in?
MUGABE: Roy Bennett has been charged, and on the face of it the charges are very serious. But I'm told -- and I'm told this by the leader of the MDC -- that the prosecution is addressing (ph) no evidence. There are no witnesses. And I've said, if there are no witnesses, the prosecution will arrive at a time when they will say so.
AMANPOUR: So charged with what?
MUGABE: But let's not read that for them. Let them read that conclusion on their own.
AMANPOUR: Do you think that he will -- do you think that he will be appointed?
MUGABE: I have -- yes, yes, yes, if he's acquitted, he will be appointed.
AMANPOUR: But charged with what?
MUGABE: Charged with -- with having, you know, tried to put -- I think he was found responsible for -- that's the allegation. The allegation is that he's responsible for organizing arms of war against Zimbabwe...
AMANPOUR: Well, we'll obviously have to ask him about that, but...
MUGABE: ... and -- and -- and that this -- these are the charges that are being made on the face of them.
AMANPOUR: Well...
MUGABE: But if the prosecution cannot prove that, in fact, he did so, that, in fact, he's guilty of, you know, trying to organize, you know...
AMANPOUR: Mr. Mugabe, that's certainly the first I'm hearing of it, and we will, obviously, put that to them. But can I say this? There are a lot of people -- and you heard in that report -- who considered you an African hero back in 1980, that you came and -- some of my own friends, Rhodesians, some of the people I've worked with who were in the Rhodesian army, then became journalists in Rhodesia were stunned by the conciliatory nature and the addresses that you gave back in 1980...
MUGABE: Yes.
AMANPOUR: ... and describe how, for 10 years, your policies led to prosperity, led to successes in mining and agriculture, and all sorts of things, and then, over the last 10 years, things have really gone south in a big and bad way. Why is it that that's happened?
MUGABE: Over the -- over the last 10 years...
AMANPOUR: No, no, since land reform. And -- and remember that the presidents of Mozambique and Tanzania, when you took the country to liberation, said to you that you have the jewel of Africa in your hands, now look after it.
MUGABE: Yes, we are looking...
AMANPOUR: Did you look after it?
MUGABE: Yes, in a very great way. Over the last 10 years, we have had ZIDERA, the sanctions imposed on us by -- by the United States, plus sanctions imposed upon us by the European Union, over the last 10 years.
AMANPOUR: Right, but they were specifically targeted sanctions...
MUGABE: No.
AMANPOUR: ... against individuals, not against the trade or development.
MUGABE: Zimbabwe -- no, no, no, no. The United States' sanctions on us are real sanctions, economic sanctions. Have you looked at that? Look at them, and you'll satisfy yourselves that they prevent companies from having any dealings with us.
AMANPOUR: But they're very, very specifically targeted.
MUGABE: They prevent any -- any -- they prevent any financial institutions...
AMANPOUR: But how do you account...
MUGABE: ... also from having any relations with us.
AMANPOUR: ... for these incredible statistics, where, since you took over, life expectancy has dropped, manufacturing has fallen...
MUGABE: But I'm just telling you -- I'm just telling you...
AMANPOUR: ... 1 in 14 people are malnourished...
MUGABE: I'm just telling you the reasons. It's because of sanctions mainly.
AMANPOUR: But everybody says it's not because of sanctions. It's because of mismanagement.
MUGABE: Not everybody says so.
AMANPOUR: Most people do. Most independent observers say that.
MUGABE: In Zimbabwe -- it's not true.
AMANPOUR: How to get out of this now? How to get out of this? Do you think -- for instance, right now...
MUGABE: The sanctions -- sanctions must be lifted. And we should have no interference from outside. The continued imperialistic interference in our affairs is affecting the country, obviously.
AMANPOUR: I would like to play one sound bite by a neighbor of yours, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who said the following.
[BEGIN VIDEO CLIP]
ARCHBISHOP DESMOND TUTU, NOBEL PEACE PRIZE WINNER: He's destroyed a wonderful country, a country that used to be a breadbasket. It has now become a basket case itself. But I think now, I mean, that the world must say, "Look, you -- you -- you have been responsible with your cohorts, you have been responsible for gross violations and you are going to face indictment in -- in the Hague, unless you step down.
[END VIDEO CLIP]
AMANPOUR: How do you respond to that, first that you've taken the breadbasket of Africa into a basket case?
MUGABE: No, it's not a basket case at all. Last -- last year, we managed to grow enough food for ourselves. We are not a basket case anymore.
AMANPOUR: One in fourteen people are called malnourished.
MUGABE: No, no, no, no...
AMANPOUR: Your country is practically dependent on humanitarian aid.
MUGABE: ... just now -- you're not talking of the present.
AMANPOUR: I know things have got slightly better in the last year...
MUGABE: They have got much better in terms of food.
AMANPOUR: ... but it's still like a war zone.
MUGABE: People have grown enough food for themselves. We have had years, continuous, successive years of drought. Don't forget that. And in addition...
AMANPOUR: I've seen the drought figures. I've got all the statistics here.
MUGABE: ...sanctions, as well...
AMANPOUR: Yes.
MUGABE: ...and combine the effects of drought with the effects of sanctions, and what do you get?
AMANPOUR: Well, and the effect of what many people are saying is the land reform that really created this huge discrepancy in your ability to farm.
MUGABE: The land...
AMANPOUR: We're going to go to a break, and we'll talk about that when we come back, all right?
MUGABE: Yes, but the land reform is the best thing that could ever have happened.
AMANPOUR: The best thing?
MUGABE: Yes, that could ever have happened to an African country.
AMANPOUR: We will talk about it in a second.
MUGABE: It has to do with national sovereignty.
AMANPOUR: OK. Let's talk about it in a second.
[COMMERCIAL BREAK]
[BEGIN VIDEO CLIP]
MUGABE: I will never, never, never, never surrender. Zimbabwe is mine. I am an Zimbabwean. Zimbabwe for Zimbabweans. Zimbabwe never for the British. Britain for the British.
[END VIDEO CLIP]
AMANPOUR: Is that just political rally rhetoric or -- or did you mean that? What did you mean?
MUGABE: That Zimbabwe belongs to the Zimbabwean people.
AMANPOUR: Right. Do you consider...
MUGABE: Pure and simple.
AMANPOUR: ... and everybody believes that?
MUGABE: Yes. All people believe it.
AMANPOUR: So do you consider white Zimbabweans to be Zimbabweans?
MUGABE: Those who are naturalized and have citizenship, yes.
AMANPOUR: Those who've been living there for years and years and years?
MUGABE: But historically...
AMANPOUR: Right.
MUGABE: ... historically, they have a debt.
AMANPOUR: The people who -- contributing to farming -- historically they have a debt to pay?
MUGABE: Yes, yes, their land. They -- they occupied the land illegally. They seized the land from our people.
AMANPOUR: Look...
MUGABE: And therefore, the process of reform, land reform, involved their handing -- having to hand over the land. We agreed upon this with the British, by the way.
AMANPOUR: Some 80 percent of that land was acquired after you took office, some of the farmland, and with the very certificates that mean government approval. Why are these people being hounded out of the country? Why are they being...
MUGABE: They are not -- they are not being hounded.
AMANPOUR: ... hounded off their land, then?
MUGABE: No, no, no, they're not being hounded out of the country at all.
AMANPOUR: We've just done reports about it.
MUGABE: Those who are in industry and manufacturing and mining are not being...
AMANPOUR: The farmers I'm talking about. Why is that...
MUGABE: ... are not being affected.
AMANPOUR: ... wonderful farmland and why are they being...
MUGABE: What are you talking about? We are getting land from them, and that's all. They're not being hounded out of the country, not at all.
AMANPOUR: They're being hounded off their land.
MUGABE: (inaudible) their land.
AMANPOUR: It's not theirs?
MUGABE: Our -- our land.
AMANPOUR: Even though they bought it, even though they bought it with the certificates of approval from the government?
MUGABE: But haven't you heard of the Lancaster House discussions and the agreement with the British government? Because they are British settlers; originally they have been British settlers. And we agreed at Lancaster House that there would be land reform.
AMANPOUR: But they're citizens. But they're citizens, aren't they? And isn't this farming disaster contributing to your...
MUGABE: Citizens by colonization, seizing land from the original people, indigenous people of the country.
AMANPOUR: But how did that all go so wrong?
MUGABE: You approve of that?
AMANPOUR: How did that all go so wrong? Because when you came in, you -- it was -- it was about reconciliation.
MUGABE: They knew about it. They knew we had this program of land acquisition and land reform. They knew about it.
AMANPOUR: But what about the blacks, then?
MUGABE: And the British knew about it.
AMANPOUR: OK. Let's -- let's talk about the black farm workers whose houses and shanty houses, who work on these farms, they're being bulldozed in an operation that was called "Drive Out the Rubbish"? These are black Zimbabweans.
MUGABE: No, no, there -- there was no -- no operation of that nature. That's...
AMANPOUR: But -- well, how come they're being driven off and their shanty houses...
MUGABE: Who?
AMANPOUR: The farm workers.
MUGABE: No, you're mistaken about the Murambatsvina program, which had to do with slums, getting rid of slums, not getting rid of farm -- farm workers. It had nothing to do with farm workers at all.
Farm workers, by the way, were to be given three choices. One, they could remain on the farm under the new owner and continue working on the farm. Two, if they were alien...
AMANPOUR: The accusation was that they were opposition.
MUGABE: Let -- let -- let me -- no, if they were alien -- and most of them from Mozambique and -- and -- and Zambia, they could choose to go home, in which case we would discuss the package that they deserved.
Three, they could decide to leave the farm and go elsewhere. And also, to -- if they wanted to -- to get resettled, we could resettle them...
AMANPOUR: Mr. Mugabe...
MUGABE: ... under our program of resettling.
AMANPOUR: The fact is, though, that the country has pretty much plunged into a pretty dysfunctional state by all international indicators.
MUGABE: No.
AMANPOUR: My question is, do you regret that some 4 million people have left in the last three to five years?
MUGABE: I don't know about those numbers.
AMANPOUR: But do you regret -- because these are the brain drain, these are the people who've helped make Zimbabwe the success that it was?
MUGABE: Because of the economic situation...
AMANPOUR: OK.
MUGABE: ... people are bound to leave any country. And they have not just left my country. They have left other countries, as well, to go to Britain, Australia, and -- and other places.
AMANPOUR: Let me ask you a question about...
MUGABE: And at the moment, they are coming back home, anyway.
AMANPOUR: Let me ask you a question. We'll move on from this, and we'll ask you a question about -- you heard what Archbishop Desmond Tutu said.
MUGABE: That's nonsense. It's just devilish talk.
AMANPOUR: Devilish talk?
MUGABE: Yes. Yes.
AMANPOUR: Do you -- do you...
MUGABE: He doesn't know what he's talking about, the little man.
AMANPOUR: The little man? He's a Nobel Peace Prize winner.
MUGABE: Oh, come on.
AMANPOUR: He's a liberation fighter, too.
MUGABE: What -- what liberation?
AMANPOUR: South Africa.
MUGABE: No, of course, you don't know what -- what he -- what his status in the ANC amounts to.
AMANPOUR: Can I ask you a question about Nelson Mandela?
MUGABE: He's a great man, that one, yes.
AMANPOUR: Nelson Mandela has got so much of the attention for being the great liberator of -- of Africa.
MUGABE: Yes.
AMANPOUR: You did it earlier. Do you sometimes wish that you had got as much attention?
MUGABE: President Mandela is President Mandela, and Robert Mugabe is Robert Mugabe. Look at him in his own circumstances, and that's it. If you damn him, well and good, but I know my people have great praise for me. I know the African people think -- think very highly of me.
AMANPOUR: Are you...
MUGABE: And that -- that satisfies me.
AMANPOUR: It does?
MUGABE: Yes.
AMANPOUR: Even though you lost these elections?
MUGABE: Which elections?
AMANPOUR: The last ones.
MUGABE: No, we didn't lose the elections at all.
AMANPOUR: But that's why you're going into a power-sharing group. Look...
MUGABE: Come on.
AMANPOUR: ... we can -- we can argue about this. But my question is this: Why is it so difficult to leave power in a reasonable way when you're up, instead of waiting until it gets to this stage?
MUGABE: You don't leave power when imperialists dictate that you leave.
AMANPOUR: No -- no imperialist. You are the president.
MUGABE: No, there is regime change. Haven't you heard of regime change program by Britain and the United States, which is aimed at getting not just Robert Mugabe out of power, but Robert Mugabe and his party out of power? And that naturally means we dig in, remain in our trenches.
AMANPOUR: Are you going to stand for election again?
MUGABE: That will depend on what I decide to do in the future.
AMANPOUR: Can you tell us?
MUGABE: No, not now.
AMANPOUR: Can you imagine running for another election?
MUGABE: I won't tell you that now, I say.
AMANPOUR: Are you afraid, as some have suggested, that one day you might be indicted by the International Criminal Court?
MUGABE: No, I don't care about that, the international -- what they decide is entirely their own affair -- their own affair. I'm concerned about Zimbabwe, and I'm concerned about the lives of the people of Zimbabwe. And don't forget, it was my party which brought democracy into the country. I fought the British. We had to fight the British for democracy for one man, one person, one vote.
AMANPOUR: And that's why people are so disappointed in what happened, because you do get the kudos for having brought that.
MUGABE: But that is still -- that's still the environment.
AMANPOUR: But now people -- and yet this election was so heavily disputed that you have to go into a power-sharing deal.
MUGABE: Well, elections -- elections are...
AMANPOUR: I guess I want to know why -- why to hang on for so long?
MUGABE: Elections -- elections don't go all that smoothly all the time in many countries. That's the situation. Look at what happens elsewhere. They didn't go smoothly here during -- during the first term -- before the first term of -- of office of President Bush. You know what happened in -- in Florida. The 400,000 votes, where did they go? They were stolen by Mr. Bush. And you people said nothing about it.
AMANPOUR: Well, it was very heavily covered, and there's a dispute about the word "stolen." But here's the thing. The power-sharing agreement in Zimbabwe, do you think that that's actually going to be a real power-sharing agreement? I mean, you do control all the heavy-duty ministries, defense, police, mining? Is there going to be real power- sharing? Is it going to get better?
MUGABE: The inclusive government is a real power-sharing arrangement. Don't denigrate it.
AMANPOUR: All right.
MUGABE: We have 14 countries in SADC which are responsible for assisting us in bringing that about and for assisting us also in making it run.
AMANPOUR: All right.
MUGABE: And read what they say. Listen to what they say.
AMANPOUR: All right, Mr. Mugabe. Thank you for coming in. Thank you for talking to us.
advertisement
MUGABE: Thank you.
AMANPOUR: That's all we have time for.
Printer friendly version Send page by E-Mail
South Africa, Namibia stand by Zimbabwe
Posted: Tuesday, September 22, 2009
CAJ News-New Era-Herald Reporter.
September 22, 2009 - herald.co.zw
South African President Jacob Zuma has reiterated his support for Zimbabwe's inclusive Government, adding that his country has a direct interest in seeing its neighbour prosper.
His sentiments came soon after former Namibian president Cde Sam Nujoma told a Swapo rally over the weekend that his country and the rest of the region would not sit back and watch the West carry out their illegal regime change agenda to topple President Mugabe.
The support for Zimbabwe came as the United States admitted openly for the first time that it had sanctions on Zimbabwe, but said it would not be lifting them.
Addressing over 4 000 delegates at the Congress of South African Trade Unions' 10th National Congress in Johannesburg yesterday, President Zuma said his African National Congress and its allies — the South African Communist Party and Cosatu — as well as Sadc were rallying behind Zimbabwe's inclusive Government in order to find solutions to the current challenges.
"As the Alliance we must continue to assist the Zimbabweans to find solutions. We must emphasise the need for the full implementation of the Global Political Agreement.
"As neighbours, the Zimbabwean situation is real for us, it is not theoretical. We have a direct interest in the sustainable finalisation of the political settlement," said President Zuma.
Two weeks ago, President Zuma made a similar call as he handed over the Sadc chairmanship to DRC President Joseph Kabila.
Sadc leaders at the summit also said they were backing the inclusive Government and urged the West to lift the sanctions.
Over the weekend, Namibia's founding president, Cde Nujoma, came out strongly against Western powers that funded opposition parties on the African continent and elsewhere in the world for their own interests and took exception to illegal attempts to topple President Mugabe.
"The white imperialists should be careful not to topple Cde President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, because if you touch Zimbabwe, then you touch Namibia and the whole Southern African Development Community."
He was addressing a Swapo star rally at Ongwediva in the Oshana region.
"It is because of the Western powers and those colonialists that oppositions are formed in our countries in the African continent and elsewhere in the world," he said.
Cde Nujoma said the US and Britain imposed sanctions on Zimbabwe because the Zimbabwean people had demanded their land from the white minority who were historically privileged by the racist colonial system.
"How could one impose sanctions against people who are demanding their own land? It was made that those who have too much land or many farms should give some to the Government so that the landless black people could be resettled there.
"The whites have been on our necks and colonised us for a long time, they crossed with our people through the Atlantic Ocean and made us slaves in their countries. 'Omushiningwa iha dhimbwa, ashike omushiningi oye owala ha dhimbwa'. (The victim will not forget, but the wrongdoer will forget easily.)
"The whites must be careful, if they play with us we will thoroughly deal with them," Cde Nujoma said in his fiery speech.
He said imperialist countries were facing the prospect of poverty and were redoubling their efforts to loot African resources to sustain their own economies.
Cde Nujoma compared the white minorities who refused to fully integrate after African independence to a black mamba, which even if you keep it in a room for years, it would one day bite you.
"Whites are dangerous, just like a black mamba, if they oust President Mugabe, they will oust another president in the African continent," he said.
Last week, US Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Johnnie Carson tacitly said Washington had imposed sanctions on Zimbabwe.
The West and its allies in Zimbabwe have often denied the existence of sanctions on the country and instead claimed these were either "restrictive" or "targeted" measures.
However, Mr Carson added: "We reserve the right to lift those sanctions when we want to do so and when we see progress."
He said the sanctions were primarily "targeted at individuals".
Observers have questioned this claim, pointing out that the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act, which provides the framework for the sanctions, has seen the US president placing an embargo on entities such as Ziscosteel, ZB Bank and the Zimbabwe Mining Development Corporation which are not owned by any one individual.
Printer friendly version Send page by E-Mail
Zimbabwe, Africa and Neo-Colonialism
Posted: Monday, July 13, 2009
Following are excerpts from a press conference given by Robert Mugabe at the African Union General Assembly in early July 2009. The interview was published in Zimbabwe's The Herald, July 6, 2009.
Q: Your Excellency, what is happening in Africa seems to be a realisation of the Pan-Africanism ideology. Would you say that, that idealism about bringing Africa together is still alive or it's something that is being pushed by what is happening somewhere else?
A: I think over the recent few years gone by there has been a development, a development I think which was more determined by the economic situations of our countries and a situation that greater reliance on Western funding would assist our economies in transforming, and because of that naturally if you are a beggar, you cannot at the same time prescribe, you see, the rules of how you should be given whether it's food or any items at all.
So we were subjected to certain conditionalities as a basis on which whatever was paid, be it food, be it humanitarian aid in other directions, was sent to us.
And in some countries, you see, they did not have even the necessary economic capacity, which could enable them to sustain their civil service, their security arms — the army, airforce and the police force — without outside help.
And once you are inadequate in terms of funding yourselves monetarily and you have got to look outside for someone to assist you, and that someone outside naturally dictates conditions on you, and the moment that happens you have lost a bit of your own sovereign right to determine how you run your affairs.
Those who give you money will naturally determine how you should run your country, and through that we tended to subject ourselves to the will of outsiders, to the will, even, of our erstwhile colonisers. It was neo-colonialism back again, what Nkrumah called neo-colonialism.
There it was, it was crammed into our system, they were deciding how we should run our elections; who should be in government, who should not, regime changes, that nonsense.
So our Pan-Africanism was lost because Pan-Africanism was based on the right of Africa determining its own future, the right of Africa standing on its own, and being the master of its own destiny, master of its own resources that had been lost.
But I think it is coming back because many countries have now realised that the West does not give money to enable us to build the capacity we require to be independent.
They will give you little funds, you know. ‘Yes, you are afflicted by this epidemic, we will give you a bit of help here and there.'
‘You are suffering from the effects of drought, yes, a bit of food here and there et cetera, et cetera', but with conditions that you run your system in a given way.
That now is our realisation. The funds we have been getting are, by and large, little humanitarian bits and pieces of funds. This has not helped Africa to industrialise. Just look around and tell me which country in Africa has industrialised?
Yes, you have South Africa, which has inherited that system of development, but the rest of Africa; we are still where we were.
There is no funding with an investment capacity from the West that will enable us to move from primary agriculture to secondary stages of development. They do not want us, the West, to be that.
They do not want us to be their equals, they enjoy being masters over us and this is what Zimbabwe rejects.
…look at the little funds (Western governments) were giving (in response to a request from Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai), and giving mainly for humanitarian purposes.
And how given?
Through NGOs and what do NGOs mean in our own situation where Government is running a country, running a country with definite demands, you see, in various sectors?
What they think of first is their own NGOs so that the money is absorbed by their own agents in the first place. Or it comes in a crooked way to serve their own political objectives in our country.
The Chinese fund does not come in that way. It has been targeted rightly, it's a fund coming to Government not NGOs, to Government, an inclusive Government, towards development and will assist us in turning around the economy, and that is the kind of help we would want to get, and not the Western dictates.
Q: Do you think there has been a realisation within the parties in the GPA that the West is only there to dictate the pace at which Africa develops, especially when you consider that the Prime Minister had gone for two weeks in Europe and America and got back with virtually nothing?
A: The lesson is there for everyone with a bit of brains to learn, and those who have not learnt the lesson that the West is always up to mischief, if they have not learnt that lesson, then they won't have any lesson to learn or they are hand-in-glove with the enemy.
Full interview at talkzimbabwe.com
Printer friendly version Send page by E-Mail
MDC-T boycott: President Mugabe Speaks Out
Posted: Monday, July 6, 2009
Monday, July 06, 2009
The Herald
PRESIDENT Mugabe was in Sirte, Libya, for the 13th Ordinary Session of the African Union General Assembly this past week. He fielded questions from Zimbabwean journalists on the outcome of the summit, the US$950 million Chinese facility to Zimbabwe, his meeting with the US Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs and the MDC-T boycott of the last Cabinet meeting, among other things. Here, we reproduce the full transcript of the interview held at Al Kabir Hotel in Tripoli, the Libyan capital.
QUESTION: Your Excellency, you had three days of intensive discussions in Sirte, we recollect sometimes you had to go to sleep in the early hours of the morning. What came out of Sirte (venue of the just-ended AU Summit)?
ANSWER: Well, quite an exercise it was, but at the end of the day we are happy about the result, we are very happy with the result indeed.
The entire exercise was about the transformation of our body, we have moved from the OAU (Organisation of African Unity) to the AU (African Union), then its administrative body as the Commission.
True we have had alternating chairpersons, but overall it was the administrative organ that determined the levels that we were going through.
Whether those levels were qualitative or transformative enough to enable us to say we are moving towards the goal of a real Union with political power or not, it remained to be decided. But this time, a definite decision was made to turn the organisation now into an authority.
And so you have now these levels that have been built; right at the top, the president and the deputy president, and, of course, you have the administrative subordinates, and each subordinate in charge of a different function.
Previously there were commissioners, about eight of them.
Just now the commissioners are secretaries responsible for the various portfolios assigned to them, but we have added two more: defence and foreign affairs, but coordinating functions only.
Co-ordinating defence and co-ordinating foreign affairs, that means consulting with, firstly the regional bloc organisations, and then, in a subsidiary way of course, with the nations themselves in regard to those portfolios.
They are sensitive ones, as you might have heard or seen.
Of course, countries were very sensitive about defence, the area of defence being completely an area where total authority was ceded to the new African Union Authority, and countries would not want that.
But they would want certain aspects of defence in the event, of course, of our taking action as the Authority, an African Authority, to naturally be coordinated somehow by an authority hence the creation of that portfolio, as well as the creation, of course, of the foreign affairs portfolio.
QUESTION: We collect that the operationalisation of this new animal (AU Authority) has got to have ratification by individual parliaments of the 53 member-states. Does it still hold that we have to go to our parliaments to ratify this?
ANSWER: I suppose that's purely now the arrangement to ensure that there is concurrence on the part of everybody, we have all voted for it, we have all agreed and ratification is a matter of procedural nicety, it's a technicality so I think countries will ratify.
QUESTION: Still in Sirte, agriculture was at the centre of your discussions?
ANSWER: Yes, we had agriculture; that was a project that was meant to be discussed, yes.
QUESTION: Any experiences drawn from the Zimbabwe Land Reform Programme?
ANSWER: Well, we are not the only ones who have had experiences, other countries had their own experiences.
But it was a combination of experiences that we were pooling together, and, of course, taking into account also the climatic vicissitudes that we have now which have yielded for us in Zimbabwe more drought seasons than rainy seasons and what we should do in those circumstances.
What it meant was we must gather the water that falls, little though it may be, and be able to conserve it, and then from it naturally we can gain the life of our crops through irrigation and utilisation of that water in various other ways.
So that is irrigation, mechanisation of our agriculture and making our agriculture really, really the basis of the transformation of our economy.
And you noticed that FAO was there also.
The Food and Agriculture Organisation, yes, it's Food and Agriculture Organisation, but food comes from agriculture.
QUESTION: We came to Sirte, but we could have been in Antananarivo where a coup happened, and you had to change the venue of the summit. Any hotspots you discussed, Madagascar for example?
ANSWER: Madagascar, you recall that Sadc decided there should be mediation, mediation through a facilitator and we chose former president Chissano, former president of Mozambique to be the facilitator of the mediation that we believe will bring about some understanding between the two sides; that of former president Ravalomanana and the other rebel, Rajoelina, who is only 35 years old and is barred by the constitution from assuming that role as the president but he has the support of the army.
We said it's not yet a moment for us to think of military intervention, let's try a peaceful thrust and that thrust should be regulated, supervised by a facilitator. Chissano is the right man because not only is he fluent in Portuguese and English, but he also speaks French fluently as well.
QUESTION: Your Excellency, what is happening in Africa seems to be a realisation of the Pan-Africanism ideology. Would you say that, that idealism about bringing Africa together is still alive or it's something that is being pushed by what is happening somewhere else?
ANSWER: I think over the recent few years gone by there has been a development, a development I think which was more determined by the economic situations of our countries and a situation that greater reliance on Western funding would assist our economies in transforming, and because of that naturally if you are a beggar, you cannot at the same time prescribe, you see, the rules of how you should be given whether it's food or any items at all.
So we were subjected to certain conditionalities as a basis on which whatever was paid, be it food, be it humanitarian aid in other directions, was sent to us.
And in some countries, you see, they did not have even the necessary economic capacity, which could enable them to sustain their civil service, their security arms — the army, airforce and the police force — without outside help.
And once you are inadequate in terms of funding yourselves monetarily and you have got to look outside for someone to assist you, and that someone outside naturally dictates conditions on you, and the moment that happens you have lost a bit of your own sovereign right to determine how you run your affairs.
Those who give you money will naturally determine how you should run your country, and through that we tended to subject ourselves to the will of outsiders, to the will, even, of our erstwhile colonisers. It was neo-colonialism back again, what Nkrumah called neo-colonialism.
There it was, it was crammed into our system, they were deciding how we should run our elections; who should be in government, who should not, regime changes, that nonsense.
So our Pan-Africanism was lost because Pan-Africanism was based on the right of Africa determining its own future, the right of Africa standing on its own, and being the master of its own destiny, master of its own resources that had been lost.
But I think it is coming back because many countries have now realised that the West does not give money to enable us to build the capacity we require to be independent.
They will give you little funds, you know. 'Yes, you are afflicted by this epidemic, we will give you a bit of help here and there.'
'You are suffering from the effects of drought, yes, a bit of food here and there et cetera, et cetera', but with conditions that you run your system in a given way.
That now is our realisation. The funds we have been getting are, by and large, little humanitarian bits and pieces of funds. This has not helped Africa to industrialise. Just look around and tell me which country in Africa has industrialised?
Yes, you have South Africa, which has inherited that system of development, but the rest of Africa; we are still where we were.
There is no funding with an investment capacity from the West that will enable us to move from primary agriculture to secondary stages of development. They do not want us, the West, to be that.
They do not want us to be their equals, they enjoy being masters over us and this is what Zimbabwe rejects.
QUESTION: Zimbabwe recently got an injection from the Chinese facility. How far do you think it will go for us?
ANSWER: Well, it's a fund that was negotiated long ago, and all that nonsense that it's the MDC and so on is just politicking.
It's a fund also that is targeted, it will come variously. There are amounts for the various sectors, for agriculture, for health, for mechanisation et cetera and so on, and they will cover energy as well and so we are happy.
But you don't get the political conditionalities from the E ast. Look at what has happened?
Look at the fund, that US$950 million, and we know there is more, there will be more; is given in circumstances quite different from what the West prescribed for the mini-funds that attended, you know, all that venture that the Prime Minister went on from the Netherlands to the United States, the United States back to Europe.
And they treated him in a mean way, very, very mean way even to the extent of trying to divide the inclusive Government as happened in America where they wanted just the non-Zanu-PF side, which meant the MDC side led by the Prime Minister, to accompany him to a meeting with Obama.
Fortunately, that did not happen elsewhere in Europe, but still in Europe look at the little funds that they were giving, and giving mainly for humanitarian purposes.
And how given?
Through NGOs and what do NGOs mean in our own situation where Government is running a country, running a country with definite demands, you see, in various sectors?
What they think of first is their own NGOs so that the money is absorbed by their own agents in the first place. Or it comes in a crooked way to serve their own political objectives in our country.
The Chinese fund does not come in that way. It has been targeted rightly, it's a fund coming to Government not NGOs, to Government, an inclusive Government, towards development and will assist us in turning around the economy, and that is the kind of help we would want to get, and not the Western dictates.
QUESTION: Do you think there has been a realisation within the parties in the GPA that the West is only there to dictate the pace at which Africa develops, especially when you consider that the Prime Minister had gone for two weeks in Europe and America and got back with virtually nothing?
ANSWER: The lesson is there for everyone with a bit of brains to learn, and those who have not learnt the lesson that the West is always up to mischief, if they have not learnt that lesson, then they won't have any lesson to learn or they are hand-in-glove with the enemy.
QUESTION: The American Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs sought an audience with you in Sirte. Anything which came out of that meeting?
ANSWER: No, you wouldn't speak to an idiot of that nature. I was very angry with him, and he thinks he could dictate to us what to do and what not to do in the inclusive Government.
We have the whole of Sadc working with us, and you have the likes of little fellows like Carson, you see, wanting to say 'you do this, you do that'.
Who is he? I hope he was not speaking for Obama. I told him he was a shame, a great shame being an African-American, an Afro-American for that matter.
QUESTION: On Monday, just the day before you left for Sirte,you had a Cabinet meeting which was boycotted by a section of the MDC-T. Any lessons which they learnt from that boycott, probably?
ANSWER: We talked a bit about it with the Prime Minister and he apologised for it, and thought they should have come and if they had any grievances, aired their grievances in the meeting.
It was a surprise to me to tell you the truth. I don't know whether this is going to be the order of doing things.
It's insolence on one hand, but it's also abysmal ignorance on the other.
Printer friendly version Send page by E-Mail
Media fabrications impede economic recovery efforts
Posted: Monday, May 25, 2009
By Dambudzo Muparanga
May 23, 2009, The Herald
ONE can make out a pattern when it comes to the popularity of the Zimbabwe Government in the West before the Land Reform Programme and after its inception.
The reason for this is not because the Government did something out of this world, the Government – all things considered – did a good thing for its people.
The only unfortunate thing is that in today’s world those with the money control the flow of information and if anyone crosses their path the wolves are released within seconds.
Such is the case with Zimbabwe.
The history of land in Zimbabwe has never been seriously discussed by any of the prominent broadcasts and newspapers across the globe and this is not by coincidence.
Watching BBC, CNN and the rest one would think that from nowhere black people in Zimbabwe woke up one day and decided to violently take over white-owned farms.
The truth is, however, very sad.
A close scrutiny of who owns what in the media world will prove quite revealing.
There are but a handful of media groups in the West that control just about everything their audiences’ and those across the globe see or read.
The biggest media group in the world is based in New York City – the News Corporation, which is owned by the right-winger Republican Rupert Murdoch.
Time Warner, another American corporation, is considered the world’s second largest media company.
Close behind these two comes the German based Bertelsmann AG, which operates in 63 countries; Hearst Communications, which is also based in New York City, is the largest group when it comes to print media and fourth in line.
These four companies control the flow of information on the Internet, newsprint, film, publishing, telecommunications and television across the globe.
These companies are privately owned and in such circumstances there is no impartiality to talk about.
For instance, the Foundation, which the Mohn family set up to run its 76 percent stake of Bertelsmann, is a political think tank.
Murdoch’s News Corporation holds an annual conference to discuss media issues related to geopolitics open only to selected politicians, senior journalists and celebrities.
Notable attendees have included loosing American presidential candidate Senator John McCain, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Tony Blair and Israeli Vice Premier Shimon Peres.
One only needs to add one and one to make two.
There is no way these media groups will ever give a balanced view of global political issues when their owners are major players in politics.
The British government appoints the BBC’s entire top management.
In fact one can safely say the BBC is a mouthpiece of the British government.
This being said, how then could the BBC be expected to report objectively concerning Zimbabwe?
CNN while privately owned is known to first check with the US State Department to ensure that any reports they might flight are in line with America’s foreign policy.
The monopoly of global media houses is very impressive.
They have managed to deceive their audience that it has a choice and yet all they are getting is the same witch on a different broom. Looking at our own region of Southern Africa one can get this choice through satellite channels.
A run down of these channels will prove that the majority of these channels are divided between these companies.
BBC, CNN, know their loyalties are with their respective governments.
Sky News is part of Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp; Al-Jazeera has become a BBC clone, which is run by David Frost the white haired guy formerly of BBC.
Bloomberg News is of course the baby of billionaire Mayor of New York City, the Republican Michael Bloomberg.
Apart from these conglomerates, the US government has established a plethora of pirate radio stations that churn vitriol against nations perceived to be threats to the US foreign policy.
Our own regional media has not lagged behind when it comes to spreading capitalistic opinions and strategic US foreign policies disguised as news.
In a bid to be seen as being on top of things in gathering news, many have picked up stories from the major news media and have run them without any research or verification of their own.
This is a common practice in the media fraternity.
I recall last year the internationally acclaimed New York Times was forced to make a retraction after splashing pictures of a child with rickets claiming he was a victim of political violence in Zimbabwe.
It turned out this was false and the mother admitted that she had been urged by some "political activists" to do this so she could get money for her child’s treatment.
From all this it goes without say that there is no way the global media would have embraced Zimbabwe’s Land Reform Programme when it goes against the institutions of capitalism.
The British government, which was the other party involved in the land issue, was able to exploit the mechanisms within the media establishment to demonise a move the Government of Zimbabwe made which when objectively scrutinised is decent and legitimate. What we got from the media and still continue to get are sensationalist pictures, deceiving information that portrayed a totally wrong picture of what the Land Reform Programme is all about.
That Zimbabwe’s heroes, Ambuya Nehanda and Sekuru Kaguvi, were hanged because of the violent resistance they marshalled against the parceling of land to colonial settlers is conveniently ignored by the likes of Peta Thorncraft and company, BBC, Sky News and even our neighbours at SABC who should know better. It is like discussing American history and leaving out Abraham Lincoln, or British history without Queen Elizabeth or even South African history without Nelson Mandela.
Most importantly these media houses conveniently never explain why thousands of Zimbabweans perished in the two wars they love to describe as the Rhodesian Bush War.
When the history of the war of Zimbabwe’s liberation is shown on ZTV it becomes propaganda but no one thinks it is propaganda when the BBC goes to great lengths in support of its annexation war on the Falklands war with Argentina.
The classification of Cecil John Rhodes as a pioneer of great standing demonstrates just how far apart Zimbabweans are from the British establishment and its media magnates.
Despite being called all forms of vile words ranging from "cowards" to others that cannot be mentioned in polite society, the support of the AU to Zimbabwe is unquestionable.
The reason that no African leader worth his salt would discredit the work the Government of Zimbabwe did in restoring a vital resource to its rightful owners is because Zimbabwe is an example of the disparities left by colonialism.
The wave of attention and applause that President Mugabe received at the inauguration of South African President Jacob Zuma came as a surprise to most of our media friends who were expecting him to be ignored like a poor cousin.
President Mugabe is a hero among his African brothers who acknowledge the sacrifices he has made fighting white oppression.
It was not cowardice that made the AU support Zimbabwe but it was the fact that as Africans they understood where President Mugabe was coming from and knew how it felt like to be in his shoes.
The global media failed to understand this because to them the Zimbabwe case was judged by Western standards, which were in fact a major cause of the problem in Zimbabwe.
Right at the beginning the AU made its position clear by stating that the inequitable colonial distribution of land where 1 percent of the population owned over 70 percent of the best arable land in Zimbabwe was the core of the political, economic and social struggle.
Recognition was given to the fact that the British government was frustrating the Land Reform Programme by not only refusing to meet the commitments it made at the Lancaster House Conference, but by introducing extraneous political issues into the land question and also by attempting to internationalise a bilateral dispute between itself and Zimbabwe.
Such bare facts have never seen the light of day in any Western newspaper.
The AU also applauded Zimbabwe for its determination to engage Britain to resolve once and for all the land question and urged Britain to respond positively to Zimbabwe’s readiness to engage in dialogue.
It condemned Britain’s move to mobilise European and North American countries to isolate and vilify Zimbabwe leading to the imposition of formal and informal sanctions.
Again such bold facts and statements are never interrogated on any Western TV channel.
It seems as if they such facts do not exit.
If media reports from the Western world were to be believed, the beneficiaries of land reform have largely been political cronies.
By focusing on a few individuals within Zanu-PF structures who have benefited from the Land Reform Programme, the media create an illusion and yet people from all walks of life benefited from this initiative.
Even those in the two MDCs have been allocated land through the reform process.
MDC chief whip in the Senate, Senator Orbert Gutu, was in fact one of the first beneficiaries of the Land Reform Programme.
He was allocated a farm in the Chinhoyi area where he tried among other things cattle ranching.
Even now as the inclusive Government makes strides, many of his colleagues are clamouring to have land allocated to them as they have realised – like he did a long time ago – that agriculture is the way to go. The truth is that land is key to economic development and for so long black Zimbabweans have been denied access to this resource and unless they fight for it, land will never be given back willingly.
Printer friendly version Send page by E-Mail
Swine flu exposes West's hypocrisy
Posted: Monday, May 25, 2009
By Henry Harry Makowa
May 23, 2009, The Herald
WITH the current swine flu plague hitting Mexico and now almost all parts of the world, one cannot help but wonder what international outcry would have been constructed had the deadly flu originated in Zimbabwe.
It is more important to understand this fact in light of and in so far as Zimbabweans are still very much aware of the condemnation and criminal discrimination against its citizens over the cholera outbreak that rocked the country towards the end of December 2008.
What is interesting about the swine flu in Mexico is that it has produced two outcomes totally opposite to how Zimbabwe was treated over the cholera.
The first outcome is that no single opposition party or lobby group in Mexico has sought to turn the deadly flu into a political manifesto to score sinister political points against the government at the expense of the dead, dying and ailing citizens as happened in Zimbabwe with cholera.
We have also not seen any organisation in Mexico claiming to represent the people but on the other hand doctoring and criminally falsifying figures of the dead through massive multiplications and presenting them to international bodies such as the United Nations Security Council for the sole purpose of having foreign troops deployed to Mexico over a medical issue as proposed for Zimbabwe, this point being part of the second outcome.
As for Zimbabwe, they would not have been foreign troops but international soldiers of fortune.
The second outcome is that we have not seen the flu in Mexico which is definitionally a medical issue just like the cholera in Zimbabwe was, being given an international and domestic political security status and not a medical status as Zimbabwe was subjected to and as already been briefly explained above.
The above two outcomes clearly show us how the regime change agenda in Zimbabwe is more real than some people care to believe or admit.
In Zimbabwe it has been interesting to note that with the cholera outbreak hitting the country, we all of a sudden saw political scientists and professors of politics became the analysts and observers of the medical issue whilst the analysis of trained medical doctors was deemed unhelpful, requiring those with political training.
This is what clearly exposed the regime change agenda to me as the purported international concerns over the cholera pandemic in Zimbabwe became clearly political through such actions of hearing political scholars to replace medical scholars in a field they no nothing in depth about.
Since when has a political scientist become qualified to comment on medical issues?
In the case of Zimbabwe was it because the Euro-American paid analysts and political scientists (nothing scientific in their findings) would be useful in positioning a medical pandemic into a political problem thus fuelling citizen dislike of their government?
The latter is exactly what in Zimbabwe the West had hoped for and still hopes for.
It was as if cholera was a thematic concept and chapter of a political science text.
What has also been interesting about the comparison of the flu in Mexico and the cholera in Zimbabwe is how other nations have been forced to react on the Mexico flu compared to the Zimbabwe cholera.
The correct position taken by the so-called international community has been for countries to be on high alert but not to discriminate against Mexicans something, which is good and not a problem.
The problem arises when you look at the Western position as clearly hypocrisy as it was the same West which falsely alarmed, and through the usage of clear racism through their media, that Zimbabweans were spreading cholera in neighbouring countries as all Zimbabweans were affected.
In the event that the opposition and its civic partners and international organisations were correct that the majority of Zimbabweans were cholera patience then how do they explain the fact that not even a single university in South Africa, where Zimbabweans of all walks of life exist, did not record cholera outbreaks as Zimbabweans trooped from the December 2008 holidays to go back to their schooling in South Africa?
Of course the British cannot lie to the world that it did not receive any Zimbabweans into its land from the period of the cholera outbreak and surprisingly no outbreak of the pandemic was discovered in Albion's land that had a tracing of Zimbabwe's rich Savannah soil.
It is important for us to take a comparison of Euro-American reaction to Mexico's swine flu with our cholera outbreak in Zimbabwe as it gives us more enlightenment on the evil nature of the unrepentant racist hand of the west and its regime change agenda on Zimbabwe.
Henry Harry Makowa is a Zimbabwean student studying at the University of Fort Hare, South Africa.
Printer friendly version Send page by E-Mail
U-turn in UK's Zimbabwe policy welcome
Posted: Monday, April 27, 2009
The Herald
Opinion & Analysis
Saturday, April 25, 2009
THE inclusive Government is not just gaining the support and confidence of Zimbabweans; it has now started attracting support in the international community and even from those countries that led the sanctions charge.
Britain this week very quietly announced, during a meeting between British Ambassador Mr Andrew Pocock and Deputy Prime Minister Arthur Mutambara, that the United Kingdom would no longer vote against funding for Zimbabwe at the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the International Finance Corporation.
Presumably, the lack of any fanfare in the British U-turn was because the British never wanted to admit in the first place that they had pushed so hard for the damaging financial sanctions. But any U-turn in this critical area is welcome.
On one hand, the quiet announcement, and it may just mean the British will abstain in votes, is far from a ringing endorsement, but on the other it is a big step forward, especially if the United States follows the British lead, as it did when the economic sanctions were originally introduced.
Without active opposition from the US and Britain, Zimbabwe now has a real chance of some support from these three international organisations.
But the amounts they lend are, in reality, quite modest, and with the international financial crisis in full swing, Zimbabwe is standing in a long queue with others looking for help; none of us are going to get that much simply because the IMF and World Bank do not have that much to distribute.
So the IMF and the World Bank are not going to solve our problems overnight. But being in their good books does give our country its credit rating back; generally no one will lend money, or even give reasonable credit, to a country that is not in reasonable standing with the major international financial organisations.
But again we need to recognise that while international and regional financial support will be useful, and even crucial, it will not solve any problems unless we take responsibility for our own future.
We cannot rely on outsiders, first because they simply do not have the funds in the present international crisis and, secondly, because most are only going to help those who help themselves.
We will find the IMF and our trading partners far more impressed and far more ready to help if we are doing something ourselves, rather than just waiting for a knight in shining armour to rescue us.
We are surprised that Finance Minister Tendai Biti has yet to float rand-denominated Government bonds to tap some of the money now starting to flow into private pension funds and the State's NSSA.
In the past a percentage of pension fund assets had to be in Government stock. This is now impossible because, for all practical purposes, there is no Government stock.
Those percentages were disliked, but every pension fund would like some of its assets in Government gilts so long as these were denominated in a stable currency. So even a voluntary gilts market would attract support and would impress the outside world, whose support we desire, that we are taking things seriously and putting some of our new savings where our mouths are.
We hope that the gradual attrition against the sanctions, both the major unannounced ones like the ban on IMF lending, and the more minor ones trumpeted across the world, the travel bans on a few score people, will be speeded up.
One set has seriously damaged Zimbabwe and the other, while only a nuisance, still gives the wrong impression about the new Government.
They both need to go.
Printer friendly version Send page by E-Mail
Zimbabwe's Land reform irreversible: Mutambara
Posted: Friday, April 10, 2009
Herald Reporter
Friday, April 10, 2009
The Herald
THE land reform programme is irreversible and Zimbabweans should now focus on improving yields per hectare, Deputy Prime Minister Professor Arthur Mutambara said yesterday.
Dep PM Mutambara said Government might adjust some parts of land reforms but the whole exercise was irrevocable.
"The land reform is irreversible, there is no going back on our revolution. Yes, we might change things here and there, but we are not going back.
"Our friends in Britain and other Western countries should understand that we agreed in the Global Political Agreement that the issue of land was not negotiable.
"We now want to talk about productivity on the land, how can we improve yields per hectare?" he said. He urged farmers to use the land productively to achieve food security.
The Deputy Premier, who was addressing a youth conference that ended in Harare yesterday, also urged the youths to venture into agriculture and mining.
"We want to make sure that our young people, especially those graduating from agricultural colleges, have land and that our women have land in their names.
"We must exploit our resources effectively and young people should take the leading role in making sure the country gets back on its feet.
"Let's learn from our mistakes. There is also need for research, starting from what we have done in our country and what our neighbours have done," he said.
Dep PM Mutambara called for unity of purpose among Zimbabweans, saying this was the only way the country would prosper.
"The sky is the limit. We are redefining the role of Government where our job is facilitative. We want to hear your views so we can work together," he said.
Printer friendly version Send page by E-Mail
Tsvangirai crash: More questions than answers
Posted: Saturday, March 14, 2009
By Professor Jonathan Moyo, MP
Saturday, March 14, 2009
The Herald
THE truism that people learn geology the day after an earthquake best explains why there is a growing list of troubling questions about probable criminal involvement of the American and British governments or their agents in the car accident that tragically claimed the life of the wife of Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai last week.
Among the questions that cannot be fully or satisfactorily answered without an independent and competent international probe are the following:
l) Who really owns the Nissan diesel truck, with registration number 81TCE128, which caused the tragic accident on March 6, 2009?
2) If the registered owner of the truck is not the American Embassy in Harare or the United States Agency for International Development why does the truck have a registration number whose diplomatic configuration is reserved for the United States Embassy?
3) If the truck is registered to a foreign organisation, other than the United States Embassy or Usaid, with neither presence nor legal standing in Zimbabwe, when and how was the registration effected, by whom and under what authority?
4) Whose money was used to purchase the truck?
5) Who employed the driver of the truck, when was he employed, and what is the source of his salary, that is, where is the money that he is paid actually funded from?
6) Was there another truck that drove immediately behind the accident truck at the time of the accident? If there was, whose truck was that in terms of both registration and ownership, who drove it and why has there been between little or no mention of that truck and its possible role or about the possible involvement of its driver in the tragic accident?
7) Without any prejudice, how did the driver come to be represented by Atherstone and Cook Legal Practitioners? Who instructed these lawyers to represent the driver, when was the instruction made, and who is paying the lawyers for the driver's legal representation?
8) Why did the British Foreign Office in London issue an official statement so soon after accident describing the tragedy as a "genuine accident"? What was genuine about the accident and why was the statement issued with self-evident haste?
9) Who are, or what is, Crown Agents? Where is this entity based? What are its connections or relationships with the accident truck and/or its driver? What other activities does this entity do in Zimbabwe, with whom, for what purposes, since when and under what legal auspices?
10) Following the tragic accident, why or on what basis did the American-based and owned news network, CNN, run continuous and inflammatory bulletins on the accident claiming that it was a result of foul play by Zanu-PF or by Zimbabwean State organs? Why or on what basis did those bulletins which ran from March 6 to March 10 boldly allege that Prime Minister Tsvangirai had told an unnamed MDC official that "the accident was deliberate"? Which alleged MDC official gave this information to CNN?
11) Why did the State Department in Washington or the United States Embassy in Harare or Usaid itself not correct or comment on the CNN bulletins that openly and daringly put the blame for the tragic accident on Zimbabwean State organs or Zanu-PF without basing that blame on any evidence other than a suspicion allegedly based on the history of tragic car accidents in Zimbabwe involving some prominent personalities?
12) Is it a mere coincidence, or is there more than what meets the eye about the fact, that a few months ago a Usaid driver was implicated in the attempted assassination of Air Marshal Perrance Shiri and now another Usaid driver is involved in a murky accident that left Prime Minister Tsvangirai with neck and head injuries while claiming the life of his wife?
13) Exactly what sort of activities has Usaid been doing or supporting in Zimbabwe and since when? Who else in or outside Zimbabwe has been part of those activities? What has been the purpose of those activities, how have they been financed, what has been their total bill and are American taxpayers aware of those activities and their true cost?
14) What joint activities or programs are the American and British governments involved in Zimbabwe whether through Usaid and DfID (the Department for International Development in Britain)
The above 14 questions are by no means exhaustive but they are indicative of some of the dark issues that Zimbabweans and others around the world, especially taxpayers in the United States and Britain, would like to have clarified about the tragic accident that took away the life of the wife of our Prime Minister and nearly plunged our country into the abyss. These issues can only be objectively clarified by a competent international probe that should be set up as soon as possible. Any delays would risk a major international cover-up which might very well be already underway.
It is important for the British and American governments and their local and international media and NGO supporters who never see, hear or speak any evil on matters British or American, to understand that this is not trivia pursuit or rabble-rousing. As a national legislator, I believe this is a fundamental international issue about the peace and security of Zimbabweans and their national leadership as well as about the need to protect the laws of the country within the context of international law.
Based on the facts of this case, and keeping in mind the experiences of countries like Cuba, Chile, Venezuela, Iran or Kwame Nkrumah's Ghana among many others, there is more than enough to suggest that the activities of the British and American governments in Zimbabwe today have become too daring, too entrenched and too dangerous to be left alone.
Following publication of an online story on Monday by NewZimbabwe.com which carried some concerns I expressed about probable criminal involvement of American and British governments or their agents in the tragic accident, I received a telephone call from a senior official in the United States Embassy, Glen Warren, who was apparently too keen to bring to my attention what he said was the fact that the driver of the accident truck was not an employee of Usaid. Furthermore, he told me that the American government was sure that there was no foul play behind the tragic accident based on what the embassy had been told in interviews they had held with a second truck driver whom he said had been driving behind the accident truck and had thus witnessed the accident. Warren also said the embassy had gotten more information from what he said was thorough briefing from the Prime Minister himself.
I then asked Warren why in that case the American government had not followed the example of its British counterparts to issue a statement clearly stating that the accident was genuine. To my surprise, he said the US government would not issue a statement unless and until there was an unequivocal statement from MDC-T indicating that the accident was just that.
This prompted me to ask Warren whether the US government was hiding behind or even fuelling the CNN bulletins that were continuously peddling innuendoes and even claiming outright that an alleged MDC official had told the news network that Prime Minister Tsvangirai believed the accident was deliberate with fingers pointing at Zanu-PF foul play. Warren's suspicious response which can only be believed by an alien from Mars was that CNN is a private news organisation entitled to its own opinions which have nothing to do with the US government.
Significantly though, Warren did not at any point in our telephone conversation which lasted for about 10 or so minutes deny that the truck belonged to Usaid not least because its registration spoke for itself. I have since found it not just shocking but also totally unacceptable that a day after Warren called me to say the accident truck was theirs but not the driver, the American Embassy issued a statement disowning both the ownership of the truck and the employment of its driver.
In any event, while agents of the American government seem to think that they can keep changing their story about the ownership of the accident truck and the employment of its driver and still remain credible when available facts tell a contrary story, the crucial part of the story in this sad saga which will be difficult if not impossible to change is the money trail.
Whose money was used to buy and register the accident truck? Whose money was used to recruit the accident driver and pay his salary? Whose money contracted Crown Agents? Indeed, whose money is paying the legal costs of the accident driver who is being represented by Atherstone and Cook?
And parenthetically, is there anybody out there including at CNN who really believes that Atherstone and Cook — and Chris Mhike in particular who — would countenance being the defence attorneys of record if the accident truck and accident driver had anything, even remotely, to do with Zanu-PF or organs of the State like the CIO, police or Zimbabwe Defence Forces? Who is fooling who here?
During the unravelling of the Watergate scandal in the 1970s, the legendary FBI agent known as "Deep Throat" famously advised the two Washington Post journalists who investigated the scandal, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, to "follow the money". Since then, following the money has become the stuff of seasoned and competent international investigators.
There's a clear and present need to follow the money trail behind the tragic accident that claimed the life of Amai Susan Tsvangirai, and which almost shook the foundations of the inclusive Government upon which Zimbabweans across the political divide have pinned their hopes for the country's economic and political turnaround.
It is common cause that the British and American governments have not supported the inclusive Government and that some in these governments believe Tsvangirai sold out by signing the September 15, 2008 agreement and joining the inclusive Government as Prime Minister.
This clearly means that the American and British governments, or some of their agents dealing with Zimbabwe, have the motive, incentives and means to derail the inclusive Government through foul play. This can only be formally concluded one way or the other through an international commission of enquiry led by Sadc and the African Union, the two bodies that are the guarantors of the inter-party agreement that produced Zimbabwe's current inclusive Government. The sooner that commission of enquiry is established, the better for everyone concerned.
Printer friendly version Send page by E-Mail
Tsvangirai's Accident with UK and US Aid
Posted: Monday, March 9, 2009
By Ayinde
March 09, 2009
The first Western news reports about the vehicular collision in Zimbabwe that claimed the life of Susan Tsvangirai and injured her husband, Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai, left many speculating that the accident could have been orchestrated by President Mugabe.
The Herald, the Zimbabwe state media, was the first to publish that the vehicle which collided with Tsvangirai's Toyota Landcruiser belonged to USAID -- an American 'charity' that operates in Zimbabwe. According to the Herald, the registration number of the vehicle is "one of those allocated to the American Embassy technical support staff vehicles."
In a subsequent report in the Guardian UK we learnt that the driver of the truck was employed using money from a British development agency.
With this information in the public domain, it became extremely difficult to pin the blame on Robert Mugabe and as of today, there are media reports from the UK's Foreign Office spokeswoman stating the smash-up was an accident.
"We can confirm that the truck was operated by a project jointly funded by the United States and United Kingdom," a Foreign Office spokeswoman said. "All indications are that this was a genuine accident." --news.morningstar.com
Why are they so quickly calling this a genuine accident?
There were many commentators who speculated that this accident was the work of Mugabe's henchmen to get rid of his rival, Tsvangirai. Why was it not possible that the US and or UK bothched an 'accident' in an attempt get rid of Tsvangirai for forming a unity government with Robert Mugabe? Why was it not possible that an individual or group aligned with the White settlers tried to kill Tsvangirai in order to derail the 'unity government'? We know that many were against him for eventually agreeing to be part of the 'unity' government.
I expect that the government of Zimbabwe would thoroughly investigate this accident; they should call on governments from the southern African states to assist or independently investigate the crash.
Yes, it could be an accident, but we should be suspicious amidst reports of US and UK 'charity' involvement and especially so because of the British haste to call this a genuine accident.
Printer friendly version Send page by E-Mail
Zimbabwe: Tsvangirai Crash a Genuine Accident - UK
Posted: Monday, March 9, 2009
March 09, 2009
The Herald
Harare — THE United States and British governments, who admit to jointly owning the Nissan UD truck that side-swiped Prime Minister Tsvangirai's vehicle along the Harare-Masvingo highway on Friday evening, killing his wife, Susan on the spot say the crash was a genuine accident.
The admission comes in the wake of speculation in certain quarters that the crash may not have been an accident.
"We can confirm that the truck was operated by a project jointly funded by the United States and United Kingdom.
"All indications are that this was a genuine accident," the British Foreign Office said yesterday.
The Foreign Office said the truck, owned by the United States Agency for International Development and driven by one Chinoona Mwanda (35), was delivering HIV and Aids drugs for a project co-funded by the US and British governments and run by the Zimbabwe National Family Planning Council, when the accident occurred.
Mwanda, on Saturday led police through accident indications on the scene, which has been identified as a black spot.
Printer friendly version Send page by E-Mail
Obama, Bush: Two sides of the same coin
Posted: Sunday, March 8, 2009
By Isdore Guvamombe
Saturday, March 07, 2009
UNITED States President Barack Obama has extended by another year illegal sanctions imposed on Zimbabwe despite the country's new inclusive Government and the demand by the entire African continent to have the sanctions lifted.
It is extremely evil, dictatorial and an abortion of justice for Obama to want to keep sanctions on Zimbabwe when Zimbabweans themselves have agreed on a political settlement.
It is laughable that Obama is behaving like an outsider mourning more than the bereaved.
Obama and his cronies should know that it is sacrosanct to respect the people of Zimbabwe in their broad totality and to respect them for their unity of purpose.
Sadly, Obama who came into power on January 20 and has been widely hailed by many as someone who would usher a new political dispensation that could improve mighty America's bullish and brutal image, is now slowly slipping into former president George W. Bush's shoes.
Ironically, Obama claims that some people in the Government of Zimbabwe were continuing to undermine Zimbabwe's democratic processes.
But Obama has become so myopic and his mind clouded with power too early that he does not want to give the inclusive Government a chance.
Who is interfering with Zimbabwe's democratic processes then?
Obama's problem is that he has kept diehard remnants of the Bush administration in strategic offices like the embassy in Harare who are still pushing the old agenda.
If Zimbabweans, through the facilitation of Sadc, have agreed on a path they believe will drive their country to prosperity, who is Obama to lecture to them about democracy?
That the White House issued the notice to extend the sanctions last Wednesday, the same day that Zimbabwe's former opposition leader and now Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai called for the lifting of sanctions might be coincidence.
But the fact is that it is an outright wrong to seek to prolong the suffering of the people of Zimbabwe.
It is clear that the political deal between veteran President Robert Mugabe and the two MDC leaders Tsvangirai and Arthur Mutambara has shattered the hopes of many political devils who wish to prolong the suffering of the people of Zimbabwe.
It is now evident that the United States wants Zimbabwe to remain exposed to the cruel politicised NGOs and vampire nations in the European Union who – like vultures looking for prey – have over the decade hovered above Zimbabwe's political space, chopping, munching and chewing up the humanity of the country's people, all to line their pockets.
Everyone who sang the song of no rule of law, human rights abuses and Mugabe must go, ended up driving a huge vehicle and stashing foreign currency under his pillow.
The people of Zimbabwe got nothing.
The very few lucky ones got crumbs when their names were used as pawns in a game of perceived human rights abuses, for amassing wealth for other people.
Those who sang about sovereignty and defending the revolution were placed under travel bans.
Their companies were placed under sanctions.
The future of the children of Zimbabwe looked gloom and doomed.
Today it is prudent for sanctions to be removed to allow Zimbabweans to work together for the prosperity of the country.
If America, Britain and their allies are the true democrats they claim to be to the whole world, they should show their respect for Africans by accepting an African solution to an African political scenario.
If Britain, America and their friends are the masters of good governance and accountability, they should account and govern the unconditional removal of sanctions.
Keeping the sanctions in place for whatever reason is extremely evil.
It is a death wish for Zimbabweans and should be seen as a way of condemning innocent Zimbabweans to death. Sanctions should be condemned.
It is fact, not fiction that the British, Americans and their allies should not judge the progress or effectiveness of the inclusive Government unless they remove sanctions and allow the political parties to manouvre freely.
Keeping sanctions and expecting the inclusive Government to function properly is expecting too much.
It is evil.
Sadc, the African Union, Russia, and China among others have always insisted that the sanctions should be removed and those who imposed the sanctions should show their genuineness by removing them.
Zimbabweans should be given the chance to rebuild their country without strings attached.
Only until the sanctions have been removed can anyone judge whether the inclusive Government is effective.
After years of polarisation, swelling emotions, hunger and teething economic hardships, Zimbabweans need a rest and deserve the best from the unity of purpose from their political parties.
It had became common practice for people with little or no knowledge of Zimbabwe to form NGOs and cash in on the crisis while Zimbabweans themselves reeled under hunger and an multifarious array of foreign-orchestrated problems that threatened their real existence.
Gullible pseudo-democrats and human rights activists in Europe and the United States lost millions of dollars championing causes they really never understood.
With sanctions still effective, it will be difficult to measure the level of success of the inclusive Government and it will be difficult for the three political formations to trust each other. Trust is important as the three political formations find each other on the radar of Zimbabwe's socio-political spectrum.
The sanctions, whichever name they were given – targeted or otherwise – destroy the essence of the existence of the Zimbabwean people regardless of whether they are Zanu-PF, MDC-T or MDC.
Sanctions are a disaster to every Zimbabwean.
The resultant blame game will have consequences too ghastly to contemplate for Zimbabwe.
The people of Zimbabwe are peace-loving and hardworking that without strings attached the country will soon prosper and return to its breadbasket status.
There is now need for a paradigm shift on the thinking and attitude of the international community that should cultivate a culture of knowing that what is good for Zimbabwe might not necessarily be good for Britain in particular and Europe and America in general.
Sadc leaders have proved to world that they are thinkers, masters and shapers of the region's political destination, despite limited resources.
The Zimbabwean situation exploded and polarised not only Zimbabweans but Africa and world.
Love him or hate him, President Mugabe has proved to the world that he has the political intelligence, maturity, composure and national interest at heart.
This is why he agreed to sit down and negotiate with his political opponent.
Like him or hate him, Prime Minister Tsvangirai has demonstrated his willingness to work with the veteran nationalist President and fiery revolutionary fighter that Cde Mugabe is.
The problem we have is that the Obama administration has not removed the remnants of the Bush administration in Harare and elsewhere so much that it will take time to have them change their attitude and advise their capital correctly.
The problem is that British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and his team still do not believe that the Zimbabwean politicians finally agreed to a political settlement arrived at without their involvement.
It is this judgmental attitude that Africa cannot do anything good without the help of Europe that has become the biggest stumbling block in world politics.
Printer friendly version Send page by E-Mail
Zimbabwe: Tsvangirai in horror crash
Posted: Friday, March 6, 2009
By Sydney Kawadza, Takunda Maodza and Fidelis Muny
March 07, 2009
The Herald
PRIME Minister Morgan Tsvangirai and his wife Susan were yesterday evening involved in a car crash 86km from Harare on the Masvingo Road when their Toyota Landcruiser was hit by a Nissan truck belonging to an American aid agency, Usaid.
Prime Minister Tsvangirai, hurt in the crash, was last night still in Harare's Avenues Clinic, and able to sit up, while Mrs Susan Tsvangirai was feared dead although a formal statement is only expected today from the family.
The Prime Minister's condition was described as "stable".
The couple were on their way to Buhera, the Prime Minister's rural home, where he was due to speak at a rally today at Murambinda in celebration of his appointment as Prime Minister.
The other two occupants of the Landcruiser — the driver and a bodyguard — were also injured and still hospitalised last night. The injured were taken to hospital by a security vehicle travelling with the PM.
Neither Government, police nor MDC-T party spokesmen last night would comment on Mrs Tsvangirai's condition although overseas media reports quoted Mr Eddie Cross, one of the Prime Minister's closest advisers, as saying she had died in the accident.
MDC-T spokesperson Nelson Chamisa simply described the accident as "very challenging and quite tragic for the president" (of MDC-T).
President Mugabe, First Lady Amai Grace Mugabe and Vice President Amai Joice Mujuru last night visited Prime Minister Tsvangirai and the other injured at the Avenues Clinic.
The Prime Minister had visible head injuries and a brace around his neck.
Prime Minister Tsvangirai was able to sit up in his bed to talk to President Mugabe.
The Ministry of Media, Information and Publicity said the PM's vehicle was sideswiped by the Usaid Nissan truck, registration number 81TCE128, near Mhondoro turn-off. The registration number is one of those allocated to the American Embassy technical support staff vehicles.
The driver and other occupants of the truck were last night still at Featherstone Police Station, a few kilometres south of the accident scene.
Featherstone is the nearest police station to the accident scene.
Last night the Landcruiser, under heavy police guard, was still lying by the roadside on its roof with extensive damage to both sides and the back.
Chief police spokesperson Senior Assistant Commissioner Wayne Bvudzijena said the accident occurred at about 6pm.
"There was an oncoming truck from Masvingo which encroached into the lane of the Prime Minister's vehicle and as the driver tried to take corrective action the vehicles side-swiped and his vehicle rolled three times."
Another police spokesman, Superintendent Andrew Phiri, told our Bulawayo Bureau that the Usaid truck may have struck an object on the road before it veered into Prime Minister Tsvangirai's vehicle.
MDC-T secretary-general and Finance Minister Tendai Biti last night said more information would be made available today.
"Prime Minister Tsvangirai is in a stable condition and doctors and family members would make a statement in due course," he said.
The accident comes barely a month after Prime Minister Tsvangirai joined the inclusive Government formed following the successful conclusion of talks brokered by former South African president Thabo Mbeki.
Printer friendly version Send page by E-Mail
Freedom of My Caribbean Soul
Posted: Wednesday, February 18, 2009
by Simone Galy-Laquis
January 29, 2009
Man did not always exist,
the big bang
was like a birth,
the inauguration of earth,
water filled the void
with light and life,
souls burst forth suddenly with splendor,
rooted by forces,
as place and purpose were realised,
mankind, goodness prevailed.
Man evolved, became thinking men,
they thought a canoe,
Carib cannibals and amiable Arawaks
canoed down the Caribbean Sea
and stumbled upon a chain of islands
where they lived happily
until Christopher Columbus conquered them,
it was an exploiting time in the fourteenth century,
from which came many legends/legacies
passed onto me.
In the dense ficus of these islands,
after many wars, exploitations, oppressions,
over many centuries of rape, molestation, incest,
there is the birth of a journey,
beyond the depths of true pain,
like cactus in my skin,
a mystery in suffering,
beyond the horizon of the sea,
that is bush medicine for my soul,
soothed by the sticky juice of aloe vera.
Agony averaged over time,
in the brutal exchange of ownership
by many Europeans/Pirates,
who forced my Amerindian ancestors to toil,
or killed them,
brought sugar slaves and indentured labourers,
pain that expounds a plenitude of power,
creativity, growth, freedom, eventually oil,
that led to murders of seven, indigenous tribes,
pollution, the greed of mankind.
With tribulation came the birth of Carnival,
in a melting pot of entrepreneurs,
French, English, Dutch, Portuguese,
Spanish, Chinese, Indian, Asian,
a time for high, low, rich, poor, coming together,
once a mockery/mimicry moment,
now an expression of talent,
as mokojumbies dance to the music,
calypso, soca, parang,
extempo, salsa, tambu, even reggae.
Pain that brings forth a love
that is undefineable,
that defines me,
in space and time
in this diverse ecosystem,
that allowed me to outgrow the seas,
float over into the clouds,
the product of moderated, bashed minds,
of the first man to bring snowcones to these islands,
reborn into crystallised thinking in me.
Trials from which I came into being,
I became, fearless, tolerant, strong,
as I rotate and tilt towards the sun,
which though shrinking, doubles in strength
and will eventually envelop us all,
I look forward to the impact
of a mere graze with It/God,
rhythms of my hot climate
produce changes in the course
of my historical journey and procures a Sacred circle.
Pain sinks down low, after generations of settlers passing through,
the sea dumps mud/sand onto reefs of pain,
I boil, cool, contract into molten lava then rock,
I metamorphosize as the pressure creates a lock,
water is liberated, cooling my volcanic mountain of anger,
I begin to form, limestone, granite, coal, clay,
stalagmites/stalactites, wind/rain sculptures me,
waterfalls wash my sins into the Caribbean Sea,
forest spirits/fauns/Papa Bois protect me,
the Goddess of flowers/Flora blooms in me.
I am a concoction of every part of history's mistakes,
I can fly where I want, I am free,
independent as Hummingbirds, Pelicans, Doves,
family to Mockingbirds, Parrots, Macaws,
I rub shoulders with the Red Howler Monkey,
I am friends with the Savannah Hawks, Bats, Blackbirds I see,
my roots lie in every tree,
from Orange Immortelles to Purple/Yellow Poui,
to Chaconias, Hibiscus, Amaryllis Lily, Poinsettia,
Palm, Almond, Breadfruit, Frangipani.
I am welcome to chirp on any tree,
they catch love in the winds and feed me,
the pickers of Bougainvillae cause me no pain,
the fruit of Machineel trees do not kill/poison me,
Heliconias and Anthuriums think I am pretty,
I am shut in by the virtues of Ornamental banana,
Giant Bromeliads, Alamandas, Exotic Orchids,
bouquets wrought in harmony,
there is agreement between mountains and plantations
of cocoa, coffee, citrus; the key to unlock historical pain.
I fly a local, colourful ancestry,
this is my purpose in my journey,
slow as Leatherback turtles,
hasty as butterflies,
cautious of grasshoppers,
the untreated pests/enemy,
having been hunted by deer, wild pigs,
I hunt/fish/dive now, like a tanager,
agouti, iguana, goats, mongoose,
squid, shrimp, queen conch satisfy my hunger.
Life is sweet like pigeon peas in pelau,
coo coo with callalloo leaves and okra,
I eat strength in the blue food for my soul,
sweet patato, yam, cassava, plantain, dasheen,
soaked in courage, a blend of figue, grapefruit,
pommecythere, sugarcane, banana, passion fruit,
nectar for my mind, avocado,
julie mango, soursop, sapodilla, gauva, sugar apple,
I swallow endurance in drinking coconut water and rum
whilst perched on my pawpaw tree, bearing fruit of angels.
I am connected to
the mangrove swamps and rainforests,
Coconut palms reach out and comfort me,
when life is as bitter as corailli,
soucouyant sucks my energy from my soul,
obeah and voodoo magic drag me
down to the dark energy of the Dirac Sea,
Mami wata rescues my mind
back to wholeness,
the liberation of my soul.
I am contented
in the peace of the
pink/white/black sands
of the many beaches I walk,
my anxiety subsides in the beauty of corals,
crocodiles/alligators pose no threat to me,
as I can fly
because of the transcendence
of order/harmony
in nature, in myself.
I rise above restriction,
yielding infinite qualites of peace that
manifests harmony,
that lingers,
like an elixir,
that sings in my ear like
steelpan, tassa drums,
that is like music, cyclical yet timeless,
that adapts,
is relevant, necessary.
Printer friendly version Send page by E-Mail
Zimbabwe: Tsvangirai sworn-in
Posted: Thursday, February 12, 2009
Herald Reporter
February 12, 2009
The Herald
MDC-T leader Mr Morgan Tsvangirai was sworn in as Prime Minister by President Mugabe together with his two deputies, Professor Arthur Mutambara and Ms Thokozani Khupe, at a colourful ceremony at State House in Harare yesterday.
The three took their oaths of office and loyalty, at midday, in the presence of Sadc leaders, the Zanu-PF leadership, MDC-T and MDC, MPs, chiefs, diplomats, senior civil servants and their families.
Mr Tsvangirai was the first to take his oath in which he pledged to "well and truly serve Zimbabwe in the Office of Prime Minister of Zimbabwe".
Leader of the MDC Prof Mutambara was next, followed by Ms Khupe of MDC-T.
The three also pledged to freely give their counsel and advice to President Mugabe in the management of the Republic's affairs and not to reveal matters discussed in Cabinet and those committed to their secrecy.
The chairman of the Sadc Organ on Politics, Defence and Security, King Mswati III of Swaziland, led invited guests in congratulating the trio before a photo session for the presidential party.
President Mugabe pledged to co-operate with his new partners in Government.
He called for the burying of differences, stressing that the three parties were now united by the imperative need to address the myriad of challenges that face Zimbabwe.
"We must stand together as fellow Zimbabweans, sons and daughters of the soil, to chart a common destiny for our country and our people, anchored on the fundamental principles of sovereignty and self-determination."
The President said the road to yesterday's "historic occasion had been long, tedious and often frustrating" while it was not easy to overcome the "deep-seated mistrust among ourselves".
"The situation was made worse when our detractors unashamedly sought to derail our negotiations by using overt and covert means. However, with the support of Sadc, we were able to remain focused and to overcome all obstacles," he said.
President Mugabe paid tribute to Sadc for its assistance in the process and the facilitator, Cde Thabo Mbeki, for his outstanding diplomatic skills and rising above the criticism and vilification that he was subjected to.
"Indeed, there were moments when even the negotiators lost patience with him. Yet today, we can say Thabo Mbeki's quiet diplomacy has spoken."
Cde Mugabe said King Mswati's presence and that of his deputy in the Troika, President Armando Guebuza of Mozambique, showed Sadc's goodwill while Zimbabwe was also gratified to have African Union Commission chairperson Mr Jean Ping, Sadc executive secretary Dr Tomaz Salomao, and South African foreign affairs minister Nkosazana Dhlamini-Zuma to witness the event.
He described the day as great and historic, saying it marked a number of milestones in the evolution of Zimbabwe's young democracy.
"It also marks a victory for Africa and, indeed, for Sadc.
"Today, we have demonstrated that Africans can resolve African problems. We, Africans, have the capability and culture to get together.
"Above all, it is a victory for Zimbabwe. It shows that we have the capacity to resolve our differences through negotiation and compromise. We must, therefore, build on this unity of purpose and demonstrate political maturity by turning our swords into ploughshares in our service to the nation."
President Mugabe said the inclusive Government faced many challenges that must be addressed urgently to ensure economic recovery and nation-building by making industries work and create jobs.
"In this regard, all of us should vigorously work together in calling for the immediate removal of sanctions in order to allow Zimbabwe to enjoy its membership rights to international financial institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank. Not only that, but to participate in bilateral relations."
Cde Mugabe said Zimbabwe should engage the international community on the basis of equality and partnership and not as beggars.
He said although Zimbabwe faced challenges of food, health, water and sanitation, these should not be allowed to characterise "our national condition".
"We are a nation of hard workers, certainly a people not content with being dependent on handouts. In this regard, as I thank those countries and organisations that have assisted us in addressing the current humanitarian challenges, it is our wish to see the current interventions in the humanitarian sector redirected from the provision of mere relief, to programmes that foster sustainable recovery and development."
President Mugabe said the inclusive Government should serve the people and not leaders by being responsive to the problems faced by people.
"In this regard, I once again pledge my personal commitment and that of my party, Zanu-PF, to the letter and spirit of the Global Political Agreement, as well as to the success of the inclusive Government. I, therefore, call upon the people
of Zimbabwe and the international community to lend the greatest support to this new Government."
Mr Tsvangirai said the new Government should prioritise education, health and food to ensure children go back to school, hospitals start working and people have enough food.
He assured those who were critical of the new Government that it might not have been a "perfect arrangement" but it was the "only workable arrangement".
Prof Mutambara called for unity and the immediate lifting of sanctions against Zimbabwe.
"This is a new era in Zimbabwe. We must work together as a team, we must speak the language of working together, the language of unity," he said.
Prof Mutambara said it was now time for the doubting Thomases to support and embrace the new Government.
Printer friendly version Send page by E-Mail
Zimbabwe President meets UN chief
Posted: Monday, February 2, 2009
From Takunda Maodza in ADDIS ABABA, Ethiopia
February 02, 2009
The Herald
THE 12th Ordinary Session of the Assembly of Heads of State and Government kicked off in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, yesterday with leaders from the continent calling for the lifting of illegal Western sanctions on Zimbabwe.
The 53-member African Union executive council on Saturday adopted a resolution calling for the immediate lifting of the American and European Union-led economic embargo, saying the international community should instead support Zimbabwe's inclusive Government.
The chair of the AU Commission, Dr Jean Ping, said: "I think that everybody today should help Zimbabwe to rebuild its economy because an agreement has been reached."
The AU head also asked all members and partners "to solidly back the implementation of a comprehensive pact", while commending the country's three main political parties for their "compromising spirit and mutual accommodation".
Dr Ping expressed his appreciation to Sadc for its efforts to bring the rival parties together.
AU chairperson and Tanzanian President Jakaya Kikwete said: "The situation looks promising, it is a step forward."
The messages of solidarity came after South Africa also reiterated its call for the lifting of the sanctions, while also indicating that they would remain involved in assisting Zimbabwe rebuild its economy.
Internet news reports quoted South African presidential spokesperson Mr Thabo Masebe as saying: "This stage is critical in terms of achieving political stability and the first step towards the economic recovery of that country."
South African President and Sadc chair Cde Kgalema Motlanthe is expected to table a report on their facilitation of the dialogue process in Zimbabwe that will see an inclusive Government being formed by February 13.
The AU's calls for an end to the illegal embargo come on the back of an EU decision last week to widen the sanctions on Zimbabwe.
At yesterday's official opening of the summit, African leaders debated the creation of a federal continental African government.
President Mugabe, who arrived in Addis Ababa on Saturday evening, joined other leaders in the discussions that lasted the whole day.
Libyan leader Cde Muammar Gaddafi is strongly advocating the establishment of a continent- wide federal government built on three pillars, namely departments of foreign affairs, defence and trade.
Some African countries have since endorsed the creation of a Union Government while others support the idea in principle, preferring a gradual movement towards its establishment.
Those countries advocating for a Union Government have set an ambitious goal of uniting the continent and sharing its wealth in a manner that benefits all Africans.
The decision to devote a special session on the Union Government was taken at the last summit held in July last year at Sharm-el-Sheikh, Egypt.
The matter has been under discussion for half a century now since Ghana's iconic leader Dr Kwame Nkrumah first mooted the idea of a United States of Africa.
AU foreign ministers met here last Friday and received a report outlining patterns for establishing the federal government.
They did not debate the report, instead opting to leave that question for the heads of state and government who met yesterday.
Meanwhile, President Mugabe held an hour-long closed-door meeting with United Nations Secretary-General Mr Ban Ki-moon yesterday evening on the sidelines of the summit.
Details of matters discussed were not revealed to the media, but Mr Ban is expected to address a Press conference today where he might make public details of the meeting.
Printer friendly version Send page by E-Mail
MDC-T rioters shot
Posted: Tuesday, January 27, 2009
CAJ News-Herald Reporter
January 27, 2009
The Herald
SOUTH African police yesterday opened fire on a group of rowdy MDC-T supporters who attempted to break into Union Buildings, venue of the Sadc Extraordinary Summit, wounding dozens and arresting 30 others.
South African police had to open fire with rubber bullets on about 1 000 MDC-T supporters, who comprised South African-based activists and their counterparts bussed from Zimbabwe, who claimed they wanted to confront President Mugabe, accusing him of running down Zimbabwe and stalling the process towards the envisaged inclusive Government.
Those wounded were hospitalised at Tshwane District Hospital in Pretoria while those arrested were later discharged after questioning.
CAJ News quoted one Reverend Mufaro Hove, who identified himself as Patron of the Youth Movement of Zimbabwe, as saying the group wanted to break into the summit venue.
"We wanted to break into the Union Buildings to confront President Mugabe. The police reacted swiftly and started firing rubber bullets at us. Women and children were injured," Hove, who was among those shot, was quoted as saying.
Among those arrested were 12 MDC-T regional and national leaders including deputy national spokesperson Thabitha Khumalo, MDC-T spokesperson for South Africa Sibanengi Dube, organising secretary Philemon Moyo and his deputy Rodgers Mudarikwa.
Observers condemned the actions of the hooligans saying they had shown utter disrespect for the regional leaders gathered in attempting to break into a meeting of heads of state and government.
Mandla Mlalazi, who called The Herald from Tshwane, said he hoped the opposition supporters had learnt a lesson.
"There is a difference between picketing and thuggery. Attempting to break into a meeting of heads of state was not only the height of folly as security officers can shoot anyone who threatens such a high-profile meeting, even with live ammunition. The rowdy behaviour also exposed the violence that has become the stock-in-trade of the opposition elements in Zimbabwe."
The group that comprised members of the Revolutionary Youth Movement of Zimbabwe, MDC-T, Crisis in Zimbabwe Coalition (South Africa Chapter), Zimbabwe Exiles Forum and other civic society organisations danced and sang at the venue of the talks demanding the removal of the facilitator, Cde Thabo Mbeki, whom they accused of siding with President Mugabe. The group exposed the MDC-T game plan, in an interview with CAJ News, where they said they wanted the matter to be taken to the African Union and then the UN.
"The talks being mediated by (Cde) Mbeki will not yield anything. This is the reason we are calling for both the United Nations and the African Union to intervene," Hove was quoted as saying. Observers say MDC-T has been frustrating the process in the hope that it will be referred to the AU en route to the UN, where the British having been itching for an excuse to have Zimbabwe on the agenda of the Security Council as a prelude to invasion. – CAJ News-Herald Reporter.
Printer friendly version Send page by E-Mail
Is Obama just playing good cop?
Posted: Sunday, January 25, 2009
By Ayinde
January 25, 2009
The Obama administration could be a case of the medicine being worse than the sickness, unless it addresses the abuses of the past Bush regime. Obama spoke of a new era of responsibility in the White House and we should hold him to his word.
Under the previous Bush administration, we witnessed the lack of limits that allow the U.S. governmental power to be abused. Whether or not the U.S. government had prior information and was complicit in the 9/11 attacks, it seized the event and the fear it generated to politicize its anti-Muslim, anti-non-White, pro-Christian agenda under the guise of a War on Terror that has had a far-reaching, negative impact in a multitude of countries worldwide. They manufactured evidence in order to get Congress' approval along with influencing a "coalition of the willing" to wage war on Iraq. The ongoing Iraq war, so far, has resulted in over 1,300,000 Iraqis being killed, hundreds of thousands seriously injured and destruction to the infrastructure of Iraq. Around 4,000 US military personnel have also been killed and countless others injured.
While Obama has suggested a withdrawal from Iraq, he has not suggested the same regarding Afghanistan. Four days in office and he has ordered his first strike in Pakistan.
"Barack Obama gave the go-ahead for his first military action yesterday: missile strikes against 'suspected militants' in Pakistan, which killed at least 18 people." ("President orders air strikes on villages in tribal area")
Similarly, speaking about U.S. acts of aggression, the Afghan president said that the US forces killed 16 civilians. President Karzai further stated the killing of innocent Afghans during U.S. military operations "is strengthening the terrorists."
"Civilian deaths during U.S. operations have been a huge point of friction between the Afghan government and U.S. and NATO militaries. Many of the deaths happen on overnight raids by U.S. Special Forces who launch operations against specific insurgent leaders." ("Afghan president: US forces killed 16 civilians")
The Bush administration sanctioned torture as well as illegal detentions in secret detention centers in Europe, Iraq, Afghanistan and Cuba. The torture of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib were just some of the extreme abuses that made it to the wider public's attention.
According to a report by Joby Warrick and Karen De Young, "A bipartisan panel of senators has concluded that former defense secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and other top Bush administration officials bear direct responsibility for the harsh treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, and that their decisions led to more serious abuses in Iraq and elsewhere." ("Report on Detainee Abuse Blames Top Bush Officials")
In Obama's new era of responsibility, he should, on behalf of the American government, also accept a measure of responsibility for the ongoing slaughter in Gaza. The weapons used in the recent slaughter saw over 1,300 Palestinians killed and countless others maimed, as well as the destruction to lives and property. Acts of aggression by Israel are done with weapons and technology supplied by the United States of America and quite possibly with the approval of past administrations.
Obama has called for the disarming and sidelining of Hamas, which is the democratically elected government in Palestine. He also called on Arabs to solidify behind the much discredited Palestinian Authority. So the wishes of Palestinians are being ignored as usual.
Would Obama be continuing the same U.S. policies in Africa? Would there be a continuation of the U.S. efforts in Zimbabwe to force President Robert Mugabe from office? Would there be a continuation of efforts to expand U.S. military bases in Africa?
While there is no clarity about how the Obama administration would deal with all these issues, he has signaled that he does not intend to investigate or prosecute those officials who were responsible for the policies of torture and illegal detention.
If those of the previous administration who are accused of war crimes are not brought to answer through the legal system, and if the laws of the U.S. are not amended to make it extremely difficult for any administration to engage in such acts of aggression, then the Obama presidency is about giving a false sense of security. The era of abuses from the last Bush administration, as well as previous administrations, can revisit us at any time (provided that they are not continued under Obama's administration). In such a case, Obama may be the 'good cop' in the traditional good cop/bad cop scenario: they both cooperate for the same agenda while appearing to be different.
Printer friendly version Send page by E-Mail
Zimbabwe: Talks inconclusive
Posted: Tuesday, January 20, 2009
By Mabasa Sasa and Sydney Kawadza
January 20, 2009
The Herald
EFFORTS to finalise the broad-based agreement appeared to have irretrievably collapsed yesterday after MDC-T leader Morgan Tsvangirai rejected Sadc proposals that would have seen an inclusive Govern-ment being formed by the end of this week.
President Mugabe and MDC leader Professor Arthur Mutambara assented to a proposal that would have resulted in a Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Ministers and Cabinet ministers being sworn into office starting from January 24 in line with the agreement reached by the three political parties in September last year.
Instead, another Extraordinary Summit of Sadc Heads of State and Government will be held either in Johannesburg or Gaborone on Monday next week where the chair of the regional bloc and President of South Africa, Cde Kgalema Motlanthe, will give a full briefing on yesterday’s meeting.
At a Press conference in the early hours of this morning after hours of negotiations, Sadc executive secretary Dr Tomaz Salomao said the talks were inconclusive and Presidents Motlanthe and Guebuza and Cde Mbeki had recommended that a summit be held next week.
Early this morning, President Mugabe expressed dissatisfaction with the manner in which Tsvangirai had frustrated the implementation of the agreement and the proposals brought forward.
"It didn't go well. We had a proposal from Sadc that would have brought us to a situation where the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Ministers and Ministers would have been sworn-in.
"We agreed to it, as did Mutambara's MDC but MDC-T did not agree. They instead came up with their own counter-proposal that naturally was in conflict with the position of Sadc which would have seen us move forward and that is where the talks broke down.
"We will continue to discuss here at home. There will be a meeting of Sadc in a few days time where a report will be made to Sadc. We are for the Sadc proposal and abide by it to the full," President Mugabe said.
(The full text of the Sadc proposal.)
President Mugabe added that Government would continue discussions in a bid to find common ground over the Sadc proposal.
Though Tsvangirai insinuated that it was Zanu-PF's fault that the talks had not yielded a positive outcome, he conspicuously refrained from mentioning to the Press that Presidents Motlanthe and Guebuza and Cde Mbeki had laid a proposal on the table.
Tsvangirai simply said: "The chairman of Sadc has suggested a meeting next week."
Initially, Tsvangirai is said to have given indications that he would support the proposals if President Mugabe and Prof Mutambara would also do so.
However, after both Zanu-PF and the MDC made it clear that they had no reservations on the proposals, Tsvangirai turned around and said he needed to "consult" on whether or not to proceed.
In an interview afterwards, one of Zanu-PF's negotiators to the talks, Cde Patrick Chinamasa, said Tsvangirai's latest U-turn had surprised everyone.
"We as Zanu-PF told the Sadc chair, Cde Mbeki and Cde Guebuza – who is the acting chair of the Organ on Politics, Defence and Security – that we had no problem with the proposal put before us.
"In essence, the proposal was that the three parties issue a statement declaring that we would all support Constitutional Amendment Number 19 Bill when Parliament resumes sitting on 20 January, 2009 (today).
"This would be followed by the swearing-in of the Prime Minister and the two Deputies by January 24, 2009, after which Cabinet ministers would be appointed.
"MDC-T would make an undertaking to submit a Draft Bill for the National Security Council by January 24 because this is essentially something that they have demanded today.
"On the issue of governors, the parties would agree that these would be shared as and when vacancies arose according to a formula that the parties would agree on and that the allocation of ministries would be reviewed after six months.
"We agreed with all of this in the spirit of the agreement that we all signed and Professor Mutambara also assented to this proposal.
"However, Tsvangirai suddenly, and to everyone's consternation, said he needed a bit of time to consult after initially saying he too would go with it if the other parties agreed.
"But as you know, and has become the norm with him, the little bit of time he asked for turned into hours and when he came back he said he had a counter-proposal and this was contradictory to the Sadc proposal.
"It is obvious that this is a delaying tactic meant to frustrate the implementation of the agreement in line with instructions from his handlers and advice from God-knows-who," Cde Chinamasa said.
Zanu-PF, Cde Chinamasa said, would welcome MDC-T's Draft Bill on the National Security Council, pointing out that the structure had always been in existence albeit in an administrative capacity and the opposition now wanted it reconstituted as a statutory body.
Cde Chinamasa added that Tsvangirai's demands for the rescinding of the appointments of the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe Governor and the Attorney-General were misplaced.
According to the agreement, he said, President Mugabe was only required to consult Tsvangirai after he became Prime Minister but since the opposition leader had refused to be sworn-in the Head of State had been left with no option but to proceed for the good of the country.
He said the President had no legal obligation to consult anyone from any party over a State appointment.
"If you read the agreement and Constitutional Amendment Number 19 Bill, it is very clear the President Mugabe makes such appointments after consulting with the Prime Minister.
"There is no Prime Minister right now for the simple reason that Tsvangirai has refused to join Government and so President Mugabe has made the appointments in line with the Constitution and the laws governing the country.
"There was an urgent need to fill in the two positions in question. The Governor of the RBZ has been playing a leading role in fighting the illegal sanctions that Zimbabwe is wilting under and there is no way we can allow a vacancy in that office.
"In the case of the Attorney-General, there has been an increase in banditry and insurgency and there is no way we can operate without such an appointment because that office is the chief crime fighter in the country."
Cde Chinamasa said it was clear that Tsvangirai wanted key offices to remain vacant so that the country would become ungovernable and this would advance his cause.
"MDC-T's intention is to create a vacuum so that they can advance their agenda to illegally and unconstitutionally remove Zanu-PF from Government.
"It is to everyone's knowledge that MDC-T was recruiting former soldiers and police officers for military training in Botswana with the intention of removing the Government. Without substantive people in crucial positions, they would create havoc and there would be no one to deal with the perpetrators of this insurgency."
On Constitutional Amendment Number 19 Bill, Cde Chinamasa said it has to be made clear that this was a tripartite undertaking and not a Zanu-PF project and as such the opposition had to fully support it.
"We have learnt our lessons from the 2000 Constitutional Draft that was made to appear as a Zanu-PF project when it was a national one.
"Zanu-PF will not want to be ambushed by a rejection from a party acting in bad faith. So our position is that the Bill should be pushed through Parliament by the Ministry of Constitutional and Parliamentary Affairs, which has been allocated to MDC-T according to the agreement.
"They should play a leading role and Zanu-PF would give all its support as we always honour our commitment to the agreement."
Insiders revealed that yesterday's proceedings started with a meeting between President Mugabe and Tsvangirai in which the latter presented a list of grievances.
Among them was a demand that all people arrested for politically-related crimes be released and that virtually all senior Government appointments be annulled.
"Tsvangirai wanted governors' appointments to be terminated, for all ambassadors to be recalled and for permanent secretaries to be dismissed.
"President Mugabe flatly told him that this was just not going to happen because this would cripple the country.
"Furthermore, he pointed out that he had no obligation to consult Tsvangirai on these appointments because the agreement and the proposed law only made room for the Head of State to work with the Prime Minister."
President Mugabe reportedly told Tsvangirai that there was no way he could consult him when he was not in Government and, therefore, not bound by the oaths of loyalty and secrecy.
Printer friendly version Send page by E-Mail
Sadc position paper on Zimbabwe
Posted: Tuesday, January 20, 2009
January 20, 2009
The Herald
Full text of Sadc's position paper on breaking the inclusive Government deadlock:
AGREEMENT AMONG THE ZIMBABWE POLITICAL LEADERS ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE "AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ZIMBABWE AFRICAN NATIONAL UNION-PATRIOTIC FRONT AND THE TWO MOVEMENT FOR DEMOCRATIC CHANGE FORMATIONS, ON RESOLVING THE CHALLENGES FACING ZIMBABWE" (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS "THE AGREEMENT")
After consultations held in Harare, Zimbabwe, on 19 January 2009, the Principals hereby agree to the following:
1. Proceed immediately with the formation of the Inclusive Government as prescribed in the Agreement
2. To support the adoption of the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment 19 at the sitting of Parliament on Tuesday 20 January 2009
3. To swear-in the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Ministers by 24 January 2009 and thereafter proceed to appoint ministers
4. The MDC-T shall submit a draft Bill on the National Security Council for consideration by the Parties by 24 January 2009
5. At the end of the contract of the incumbent Governors or should vacancies arise, the posts will be shared amongst the Parties, according to agreed formula
6. The allocation of ministerial portfolios shall be reviewed six (6) months after the inauguration of the Cabinet as per the decision of the Sadc Extraordinary Summit held in Sandton, South Africa, on 9 November 2008.
7. Outstanding issues raised by MDC-T shall be dealt with:
a. In terms of Article XXII, Paragraph 22.4 of the Agreement, which states:
"Joint Monitoring and Implementation Committee (JOMIC) shall be the principal body dealing with the issues of compliance and monitoring of this Agreement and to that end, the Parties hereby undertake to channel all complaints, grievances, concerns and issues relating to the compliance with this Agreement through JOMIC and to refrain from any conduct which might undermine the spirit of co-operation necessary for the fulfilment of this Agreement"; and/or
b. By the Inclusive Government after its formation.
Printer friendly version Send page by E-Mail
Zimbabwe: D-Day for inclusive Govt
Posted: Sunday, January 18, 2009
Herald Reporters
Monday, January 19, 2009
The Herald
IT is D-Day for the envisaged inclusive Government with both Zanu-PF and MDC-T intimating at the weekend that today's Sadc-brokered meeting could be the last attempt to make the broad-based agreement work.
In statements made over the weekend, Zanu-PF and MDC-T said today would be the last effort to make the deal work.
On Saturday, President Mugabe told The Sunday Mail that the meeting should be decisive, but indicated that Zanu-PF would not make further concessions while the MDC-T national executive met yesterday and called for finality to the talks, whether in success or failure.
South African President Cde Kgalema Motlanthe, Mozambican leader Cde Armando Guebuza and the Sadc-appointed facilitator, Cde Thabo Mbeki, are expected in Harare this morning for the meeting.
Sadc executive secretary Dr Tomaz Salamao arrived last night.
Cde Motlanthe attends the meeting in his capacity as the Sadc chairman while Cde Guebuza is the deputy chair of the regional bloc's Organ on Politics, Defence and Security.
Cde Mugabe said Zanu-PF had complied with all Sadc resolutions on the formation of the envisaged inclusive Government.
"This is the occasion when it's either they accept or it's a break. After all, this is an interim agreement," he said.
He said MDC-T leader Mr Morgan Tsvangirai and his MDC counterpart Professor Arthur Mutambara could be sworn in as Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister after today's meeting pending enactment of Constitutional Amendment (Number 19) Bill into law.
Yesterday, MDC-T spokesman Mr Nelson Chamisa said the party's national executive had emphasised at its meeting in Harare on the need to resolve the inter-party discussions.
"The national executive reiterated that there has to be finality on the protracted dialogue, either in success or in failure, because Zimbabweans cannot continue to be arrested by an inconclusive process.
"The executive also reiterated that all outstanding issues should be resolved first before an inclusive Government is formed," he said.
Asked if his party would support Constitutional Amendment (Number 19) Bill set to be tabled before Parliament, Mr Chamisa said there was need to address differences at the political level before bringing anything to Parliament.
"We will not put the cart before the horse. First things first. Let's clear all the political impediments and Parliament should become a platform for a smooth flow of political agreements," he said.
Constitutional Amendment (Number 19) Bill seeks to give legal effect to the broad-based agreement signed by the three principals on September 15 last year.
The Bill could be presented before Parliament when it resumes sitting tomorrow.
Sadc has urged MDC-T to urgently join the envisaged inclusive Government, but the opposition party is adamant that it cannot be part of the political arrangement until all its demands are met.
According to MDC-T, outstanding issues include appointment of provincial governors, ambassadors, and permanent secretaries; allocation of ministries; and release of terrorism suspects whose cases are in court.
But President Mugabe reaffirmed Sadc's position that any issues MDC-T deems as outstanding should be addressed when the inclusive Government has been put in place.
Presidents Motlanthe and Guebuza and Cde Mbeki will have to narrow the differences between Zanu-PF and MDC-T given the positions they have taken ahead of today's meeting.
The three will meet with President Mugabe, Mr Tsvangirai and Prof Mutambara.
The three parties' negotiating teams are expected to meet after the principals' consultations to iron out outstanding issues.
Printer friendly version Send page by E-Mail
MDC-T divided over inclusive Govt
Posted: Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Herald Reporter
January 13, 2009
THE MDC-T, rocked by internal divisions over whether or not to join the inclusive Government as well as a leadership battle that threatens to tear the party apart, will meet again in Harare at the weekend "to deliberate on issues affecting the party".
Sunday's meeting comes as pressure mounts on the MDC-T to urgently join the envisaged inclusive Government.
"The MDC national executive meets in Harare on January 18 2009 to deliberate on critical issues affecting the party and the people of Zimbabwe.
"The executive will also discuss the state and status of the Sadc-brokered negotiated political settlement," it said.
The meeting comes a few days after MDC-T leader Morgan Tsvangirai summoned his top leadership to a crisis meeting in South Africa following divisions that have rocked the party.
Sources said the purpose of the meeting in South Africa was to re-strategise following the party's failure to streamroll Sadc into forcing President Mugabe out of office in line with instructions from the West.
Sadc has stood by the decision it made at an extraordinary summit in Sandton, South Africa, last year, on the structure of the inclusive Government.
That meeting was held a day after Sadc chair and South African President Cde Kgalema Motlanthe rejected Tsvangirai's request to convene a "confidential meeting" with President Mugabe.
President Motlanthe urged Tsvangirai, who is holed up in Botswana, to urgently be part of the envisaged inclusive Government to enable Zimbabwe to move ahead and address the challenges facing the country.
Sadc executive secretary Dr Tomaz Salamao also confirmed that the regional body would not hold any summit to consider Tsvangirai's demands.
MDC-T is also worried President Mugabe met MDC leader Arthur Mutambara with a view to finalising the formation of the inclusive Government.
Tsvangirai has dithered on joining the inclusive Government a move political analysts say dovetails with instructions from the West.
US Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Jenadayi Frazer recently said the US would not support any Government that included President Mugabe.
Frazer is also reported to have said Washington could not allow Tsvangirai to enter into a Government with President Mugabe because the opposition leader was "too weak" and would be outmaneuvered.
Observers say Tsvangirai is running out of options after failing to get support from Sadc.
The internal leadership revolt, said to have been orchestrated by secretary general Tendai Biti, has added to Tsvangirai's problems.
It is understood that Biti wants the party to elect a new leadership that will take office in the inclusive Government, with himself assuming the post of at least one of the two deputy prime ministers.
Biti has secured the support of the party's white Rhodesian element that wants eight of the opposition's 13 Cabinet posts for themselves.
The group, led by Roy Bennett, Ian Kay and Eddie Cross has said they want all ministries that oversee lands, agriculture, mines and security.
http://www.herald.co.zw/
Printer friendly version Send page by E-Mail
Join Govt, SA tells MDC-T
Posted: Saturday, January 10, 2009
By Takunda Maodza
January 10, 2009
The Herald
SADC chairperson Cde Kgalema Motlanthe, who is also the President of South Africa, yesterday urged MDC-T to settle "outstanding issues" with Zanu-PF after the formation of the envisaged inclusive Government to address the challenges confronting the country.
Cde Motlanthe was quoted as blaming MDC-T for having a "lackadaisical" attitude towards the formation of the envisaged Government.
"The sooner an inclusive Government is formed, the sooner there can be concerted efforts by all parties to deal with a massive humanitarian crisis. But the fact is that the parties there have, sometimes, had a lackadaisical attitude to these matters," he was quoted as saying.
President Motlanthe’s call comes at a time when Sadc has rejected a request by MDC-T leader Mr Morgan Tsvangirai for a meeting to reopen debate on the allocation of ministries in the inclusive Government, an issue that was resolved at the bloc’s extraordinary meeting held in Sandton last year that urged the parties to form a government "forthwith".
Sadc executive secretary Dr Tomaz Salamao told journalists in Harare on Thursday that the regional bloc had no plans to convene another such meeting.
Earlier in the week, President Motlanthe rejected another request by Mr Tsvangirai asking him to facilitate a "confidential meeting" with President Mugabe.
Sources said Cde Montlanthe told Mr Tsvangirai that when Sadc urged Zimbabwean parties to form a government forthwith, he was in the chair, and Mr Tsvangirai had no reason approaching him as he was bound by the resolutions made at Sandton.
He, thus, told Mr Tsvangirai to immediately join the envisaged inclusive Government.
However, in the wake of pronouncements from the US State Department that Washington had "withdrawn support" for the envisaged inclusive Government, Mr Tsvangirai has been dithering over joining the inclusive Government.
US Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Jendayi Frazer was last month quoted as saying the US could not allow Mr Tsvangirai to join the inclusive Government as he was "too weak" and was bound to be outmanoeuvred by President Mugabe.
The shifting of goalposts by MDC-T has, however, not stopped Cde Mugabe from pressing ahead with the formation of a new Government with the full consent of Sadc.
Constitutional Amendment Number 19 Bill, which seeks to give legal effect to provisions of the broad-based agreement signed last year, has been gazetted; and President Mugabe has since terminated the executive appointments of ministers and deputy ministers who failed to win seats in last year’s harmonised elections.
Indications are that the new Government would be in place next month.
President Mugabe invited Mr Tsvangirai and Professor Mutambara for a swearing-in ceremony as Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, respectively, in accordance with the September 15 broad-based agreement.
Mr Tsvangirai, who remains holed up in Botswana, turned down the invitation, in light of Frazer’s statements, claiming further negotiations were required.
Printer friendly version Send page by E-Mail
MDC-T in crisis talks
Posted: Friday, January 9, 2009
By Mabasa Sasa & Sydney Kawadza
January 08, 2009
The Herald
MDC-T leader Mr Morgan Tsvangirai this week summoned his top leadership to a crisis meeting in South Africa amid growing indications that the opposition is becoming increasingly isolated in the region and internationally for prevaricating over joining an inclusive Government with Zanu-PF and MDC.
The purpose of the meeting, according to Harvest House sources, is to restrategise in the face of the party's apparent failure to steamroll Sadc into forcing President Mugabe out of office in line with instructions from the United States and Britain.
Mr Tsvangirai reportedly called the meeting after realising that Sadc was standing by its Extraordinary Summit decision on the structure of the inclusive Government and that support from the African Union and the United Nations Security Council would not be forthcoming.
The sources said the opposition was also "worried" by the fact that President Mugabe and MDC leader Professor Arthur Mutambara were meeting with a view to finalising the formation of the inclusive Government.
At the same time, several ambassadors from regional countries based in Harare yesterday said it was "highly unlikely that the Sadc chair will agree to a meeting with Tsvangirai".
Mr Tsvangirai last week wrote a letter to Sadc chair and South African President Cde Kgalema Motlanthe asking him to arrange a meeting with President Mugabe.
"There are several indications that we might not be able to enlist Sadc support in forcing (President) Mugabe to capitulate," said an official in MDC-T's international relations department.
"The leadership had been reassured by the Americans and British that once South Africa's tenure in the UN Security Council ended on 31 December 2008, the way would be cleared for tough measures to be taken against Zanu-PF and (President) Mugabe.
"But Uganda, which replaced South Africa, has since come out openly saying they will not support Western interference in Zimbabwe's affairs through UN structures like the Security Council.
"Then there is also the aspect of China and especially Russia at the Security Council. The Zanu-PF conference in Bindura instructed Government to recognise the statehood of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
"Such a move will definitely draw Russia closer to Zimbabwe because Moscow is the prime backer of these two territories' bid for sovereignty from Georgia.
"On the international front again, the Middle East bloc is decidedly against us and a hardening of positions against any pro-West political formation has accompanied the Israeli attacks on Palestine.
"Earlier this week the Arab League described Western involvement in Zimbabwe as demonic imperialism and blamed it for the situation prevailing in the country.
"At the same time, we had been assured that the US, through Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Jendayi Frazer, would get Sadc to take a hardline approach on Zanu-PF, but we are yet to get feedback on that front.
"The leadership is worried that (President) Mugabe and Mutambara will forge ahead and form a Government with the backing of Sadc before any of their plans come to fruition," the source revealed.
A Sadc diplomat said his country had found it "strange" that Mr Tsvangirai should request a meeting with President Motlanthe.
"I cannot speak on behalf of the South African presidency, but in my communications with my own head office there has been consensus that this request is quite strange.
"In his letter Mr Tsvangirai makes it clear that he does not accept the decision reached by the Extraordinary Summit in Sandton. That meeting was chaired by President Motlanthe and how then can he expect to be looked on favourably in such a situation?
"Frankly, I do not see President Motlanthe acceding to this request for a meeting and I would be inclined to think his position would be to urge Mr Tsvangirai to return home," the diplomat said.
Another diplomat concurred, pointing out that Mr Tsvangirai's request was designed to emasculate the facilitator, Cde Thabo Mbeki.
"Mr Mbeki is the Sadc-appointed facilitator and such requests should naturally be directed to him and his team. My assessment is that President Motlanthe would read this as an attempt to play one South African against another.
"The South African president would not want to be seen to be weakening the hand of a fellow South African, more so when that South African is his predecessor. So I don't think that will take off the ground," he said.
One ambassador was more blunt: "Previously, Mr Tsvangirai was battling Zimbabwe and President Mugabe, but his letter, particularly the rejection of a summit decision, means he is now battling Sadc as well.
"It is a monumental error on Mr Tsvangirai's part because he is now challenging, nay, forcing Sadc as a bloc to defend its decision and its honour. That is a very tall order.
"It is common knowledge that the man is a poodle of America and Britain. What is uncommon is why a fellow opposition leader (Prof Mutambara) has now let the cat out of the bag. Is this the parting of ways? If it is, it means Mr Tsvangirai is walking a very lonely path henceforth."
Efforts to get a comment from MDC-T on the crisis meeting in South Africa were fruitless yesterday.
Party deputy spokesperson Ms Tabitha Khumalo said she was not "aware of any meeting" and referred all queries to her boss Mr Nelson Chamisa.
However, Mr Chamisa is understood to be in South Africa attending the meeting, which reportedly also includes businessman Mr Strive Masiyiwa.
Asked if President Mugabe would attend a meeting with Mr Tsvangirai as requested by the MDC-T leader, Presidential spokesperson Cde George Charamba said: "The President is not in the country, but my gut feeling is that he may not wish to overrun the office of the facilitator."
MDC secretary-general Professor Welshman Ncube yesterday queried why Mr Tsvangirai wanted to meet President Mugabe in President Motlanthe's presence in South Africa when Sadc had already passed a resolution on the implementation of the inter-party agreement.
"Everyone has been calling for Tsvangirai to return home so that the party's principals can discuss the formation of a new Government according to the September 15 political settlement because there is no reason for a meeting to be held outside the country.
"Tsvangirai has been asking for a passport and he got it. He should come back, we should go ahead and implement the agreement without further delay," Prof Ncube said.
Printer friendly version Send page by E-Mail
West controlling Tsvangirai: Mutambara
Posted: Monday, January 5, 2009
By Mabasa Sasa
January 05, 2009
The Herald
MDC leader Professor Arthur Mutambara has revealed that the United States is directly behind MDC-T head Mr Morgan Tsvangirai's reluctance to take up the post of Prime Minister as per the September 15 inter-party agreement to form an inclusive Government.
In a paper titled "The Inconvenient Truths About the West and Zimbabwe", Prof Mutambara confirmed the Government's assertions that Mr Tsvangirai was taking instructions from Washington functionaries like Jendayi Frazer, the Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs.
He also said the West had never supported the idea of an inclusive Government, while slamming those agitating for a military invasion, branding them "arrogant and ignorant".
"The US and the UK are now taking advantage of the delay in implementation of the agreement to savage and destroy the Global Political Agreement.
"Do Frazer and her government have a workable alternative framework to the current GPA, together with an enforcement mechanism?
"And what is this that she said about the weakness and incompetence of her favourite GPA principal?
"Did she not say the following: 'Tsva-ngirai is too weak and incompetent for us to allow him to be in an inclusive Government with (President) Mugabe. He will be completely outmanoeuvred. Tsvangirai is not as strong as (Raila) Odinga. If he was, we would have allowed him to get into the GNU (Government of National Unity) with (President) Mugabe'?
"How can she possibly say such insulting remarks about her favourite opposition leader? With friends like these, who needs enemies? Incidentally, did she share her views about Tsvangirai with him? Why not?
"Anyway, who is she to allow or disallow African leaders? Does the US government have locus standi to do this? From where does she derive such legal, political or moral authority? Would a reverse scenario where international players seek to influence US politics be acceptable to the US?"
He added that the US had never liked the fact that Mr Tsvangirai signed an agreement recognising President Mugabe as both Head of State and Chair of Cabinet.
Prof Mutambara went further: "They despised the GPA positions on land reform and sanctions. Everyone knows this. We are not children."
He labelled the West's involvement as "ignorant and unstrategic", "uninformed and reckless", and that the US and UK's foreign policies had "negatively impacted on Zimbabwe's national interest".
"We can understand it if your defence (US and UK) is that you are slow learners and late bloomers where our matters are concerned. We can accept that.
"But it then also means you must take your cue from us who understand the Zimbabwean terrain better. You must accept that you are essentially ignorant, unstrategic, and hence ineffective where African matters are concerned," he said.
The opposition leader, who will be Deputy Prime Minister in the envisaged inclusive Government, said no African leader had spoken out against President Mugabe despite claims by the West to the contrary.
He said people like Odinga, John Sentamu and Desmond Tutu were of no consequence as they did not speak on behalf of a single African country.
"Soon after Odinga spoke, he was contradicted by his own foreign minister. This means he was not speaking on behalf of Kenya or President (Mwai) Kibaki.
"Archbishop Sentamu does not speak for any African country. Well, the same goes for Tutu; he is a good African who speaks for no African nation.
"Interestingly enough, even the usually reckless and unimaginative Ian Khama was not part of the African voices. So when these American and European leaders went into chorus, who were they supporting?
"In a continent of 53 countries, the US and UK could not convince a single African president to be part of their elegant chorus.
"If the Western leaders were indeed just supporting themselves, why did they lie that they were supporting voices of African leaders?"
He said the "Mugabe must go chorus" was both "unimaginative and predictable" and did not take into account the realities on the ground.
On the issue of military aggression, he said: "What has US military intervention produced in Iraq and Afghanistan? Do we have democratic outcomes in these countries? Are they peaceful, democratic and prosperous nations?
"Why would the Zimbabwean outcome be any different? If not, then why should this even be considered as an option?
"Only two African countries — Botswana and Kenya — have expressed an appetite for physical confrontation with Zimbabwe.
"We will not even dignify Botswana's posturing with too much discussion. They have no army but an incompetent police force which has no capacity to invade a desert, much less a country with Zimbabwe's military experience.
"Raila Odinga does not speak for the Kenyan government, so the analysis ends there."
Prof Mutambara said the world must realise that there could never be any negotiated agreement that excluded President Mugabe as they wished and they must accept this fact.
"One would expect someone of Jendayi Frazer's stature to understand all this. How does she say that the US supports the negotiated power-sharing, but insists that (President) Mugabe must not be involved?
"Making these statements while defying the consistent advice that she received from all the South African leaders that she interacted with means that Frazer is insulting the SA leadership at every level. By this disrespectful conduct, she is humiliating both Sadc and the AU.
"More specifically, US foreign policy is always characterised by double standards, hypocrisy and dishonesty, all rooted in the pursuit of US permanent interests.
"We seriously hope that incoming US president (Barack) Obama and his new team will depart from this ignorant, ruinous and ineffective foreign policy that effectively undermines its intended beneficiaries, strengthens the targeted villains, while blighting the US standing in the world."
Prof Mutambara slated those countries that sought to gain political mileage from things like the cholera outbreak, saying people's suffering should never be used as a political tool whether by politicians, foreign governments or civil society.
Last year Prof Mutambara wrote another paper in which he strongly chided the West for their ignorance on Zimbabwean affairs and for treating Africans like little children.
Printer friendly version Send page by E-Mail
Zimbabwe: New Govt by February
Posted: Monday, January 5, 2009
By Political & Features Editor
January 05, 2009
The Herald
PRESIDENT Mugabe is pressing ahead with the formation of a new Government with the full consent of Sadc following invitations extended to the opposition to join structures agreed upon in the broad-based agreement signed last year.
The President last week terminated the executive appointments of ministers and deputy ministers who failed to win seats in last year's harmonised elections and who are not holders of non-constituency seats in the Senate.
Sources close to developments said a Government was most likely to be in place by the end of February by which time it is expected that the three parliamentary political parties would have passed Constitutional Amendment Number 19 Bill and President Mugabe would have signed it into law.
The Herald is reliably informed that on Saturday one of Zanu-PF's negotiators met Cde Thabo Mbeki's South African facilitation team to discuss the latest developments and how best to proceed.
Cde Nicholas Goche, who is Zanu-PF's secretary for national security in the Politburo and Public Service Minister, was in Musina on Saturday to apprise the South African facilitators on recent developments and to map the way forward.
Though full details of the meeeting were not available yesterday, ruling party sources said Cde Goche met Mr Sydney Mufamadi to "compare notes".
"Though President Mugabe is on his annual retreat, he is reported to be fully seized with the finalisation of the broad-based agreement and that a fully functional Government focused on dealing with the economic problems should be in place sometime next month.
"The President has had enough of games from the opposition and he made this quite clear in his meeting with MDC leader Professor Arthur Mutambara. They agreed that a Government should be put in place sooner rather than later.
"Cde Goche met the South Africans on Saturday as part of the drive to ensure that this chapter is closed once and for all so that Zimbabweans can move forward," said a source.
The sources said in Saturday's meeting, the two sides discussed MDC-T leader Mr Morgan Tsvangirai's letter to President Mugabe in which he said he was not prepared to take up the post of Prime Minister and its implications on progress.
The letter was left at Zimbabwe's Embassy in Botswana by an "unidentified source" and was subsequently leaked by officials in President Seretse Khama Ian Khama's Government to the Post newspaper in Zambia last week.
The letterhead curiously said the letter was authored at "State House, Harare".
Efforts to get a comment from Cde Goche on his meeting were fruitless and it could not be ascertained if he had returned from Musina.
However, Presidential spokesperson Cde George Charamba said President Mugabe was determined to have a Government in place and was keeping Sadc appraised on the situation on the ground.
"The President is very clear that he should carry Sadc with him in putting together his Government. Equally, he is keeping the facilitator abreast of developments," Cde Charamba said.
Cde Charamba, who is also the Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Information and Publicity, said he could not comment on Cde Goche's meeting as that was "a party issue while I am a Government spokesperson".
Zanu-PF, MDC-T and the MDC have endorsed President Mugabe as Head of State and Government, and Commander-in-Chief of the Zimbabwe Defence Forces.
Mr Tsvangirai, however, has been playing hide-and-seek and has hardly been in the country prompting observers to question his commitment to the broad-based agreement he personally signed in the presence of Sadc leaders.
The President has made it clear that the country cannot wait much longer for Mr Tsvangirai to make up his mind and he has already made several moves to make his resolve to move forward clear.
Printer friendly version Send page by E-Mail
Engaging in the Illegal and the Illegitimate
Posted: Sunday, January 4, 2009
By Reason Wafawarova
December 27, 2008
rwafawarova.com
FROM the time Morgan Tsvangirai left the Sandton Convention Centre at the last Sadc summit that discussed Zimbabwe, the man has found good politics in playing melancholic before the media.
Here is a man, who not only buys a property in nearby South Africa and takes away his family from the health hazards that have become of water consumption in Zimbabwe, but also safely takes himself away from the country to wherever sympathy can be enjoyed, not least in the bosom of the wifeless and no-family Botswana President Seretse Khama Ian Khama.
Botswana as a country has no First family and Khama has got a Zimbabwean guest to fill in the attention gap for a while.
What we have seen in the last few weeks is a man running away from a progressive package that is meant to steer his country away from untold sufferings.
When he is not blaming Sadc and Africa for his strange behaviour, Tsvangirai is posturing before any bunch of journalists who care to listen — posturing melancholically as one utterly distressed to hypochondriac levels by the suffering of Zimbabweans.
He is obviously so distressed that the suffering can continue and the people can wait in pain until he gets what he perceives as equality with President Robert Mugabe, whatever that means.
Meanwhile his masters in Washington have been joined by his makers in London in calling for the ouster of President Mugabe.
It is not very surprising that Tsvangirai seeks equality with a target for ouster. Is he any cleverer than that?
If there is one person that cherishes every additional statistic to the cholera epidemic it is the opposition leader, who sees each dead body as a blow to President Robert Mugabe and not as an unnecessary loss to the family of Zimbabwe.
Here is a man propped up by crisis, being harboured by a Government that publicly calls for the switching off of electricity and fuel supplies to Zimbabwe, if only that can topple President Mugabe for Tsvangirai to take over.
When Serbia was invaded the intellectual community in the West agreed that the decision was illegal at international law just like they generally agreed when Iraq was invaded in 2003.
The phrase "illegal but legitimate" was used to try and justify this barbarism by the Western elite and those intellectuals from the rightwing went into overdrive in emphasising the legitimacy of these unwarranted and unwanted interventions.
Today we do not have any contesting voices to the assertions that Western sanctions on Zimbabwe are illegal although we are reminded every now and again that these measures are legitimate "in order to remove the regime".
The assumption is that "the regime" is a universally loathed organization, the support for whose ouster is a foregone conclusion.
This is why the South Africans must realise that in their moment of naivety they were taken advantage of and they were manipulated to oust Cde Thabo Mbeki on behalf of those who hold the view that not condemning the "Mugabe regime" is a punishable offence.
We have heard some of the most bizarre political statements being uttered since the cholera outbreak manifested earlier this year.
From politically powerful but morally deficient leaders like Gordon Brown and George W Bush, plainly directionless political lunatics like Kenyan opposition leader Raila Odinga, pseudo-religious activists like Desmond Tutu and the comic John Sentamu, all the way to minor players but absolute morons like SW Radio’s Tererai Karimakwenda — the call for war in Zimbabwe has been deafening and nauseating.
It is amazing that these crazy calls are made in the name of supporting Tsvangirai and the man hopelessly takes glee without reading the vainglorious irrationality for what it is.
Any responsible political leader would have long made a public statement not only condemning the prospect of conflict and war, but clearly dissociating himself from such campaigns.
It would appear like the Western elites are quickly forgetting how the hideous crimes of the 20th Century led to dedicated efforts to save humanity from the curse of war.
No rational person could tolerate any more the likelihood of ultimate doom after Nagasaki and Hiroshima.
These efforts led to the consensus that must today guide actions of nation states, a consensus formulated and outlined in the United Nations Charter.
The Charter opens by expressing the determination of the signatories "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind".
The "untold sorrow" here refers to the total destruction of infrastructure and civilian targets, as all the participants knew very well but refrained from mentioning.
It is not surprising that the words "atomic" and "nuclear" do not appear in the Charter.
‘Victors’ do not expose their evil, do they?
We have another post-war consensus on the use of force in the December 2004 UN High-level Panel on threats report, "Challenges and Change". The panel included high ranking personalities like Brent Scowcroft, the George Bush (Senior) security advisor.
The panel firmly endorsed the principles of the UN Charter; that force can be lawfully deployed only when authorised by the Security Council, or under Article 51 of the Charter.
Article 51 permits the "right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security".
It is also commonly interpreted with sufficient latitude to allow the use of force when the "necessity of self-defence is instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, no moment for deliberation", to quote Daniel Webster.
Any other resort to force is a war crime, which the Nuremburg Tribunal called "the supreme international crime". So the crowd that has been advocating for the use of force on Zimbabwe are advocates for the supreme international crime — they are international criminals.
The High-level Panel concluded, "Article 51 needs neither extension nor restriction of its long understood scope . . . and should be neither rewritten nor reinterpreted."
The UN World Summit of September 2005 also reaffirmed, "The relevant provisions of the Charter are sufficient to address the full range of threats to international peace and security, specifically the authority of the Security Council to mandate coercive action to maintain and restore international peace and security . . . acting in accordance with the purpose and principles of the Charter."
The Summit further committed itself through the UN to "help states build capacity to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity and to assisting those which are under stress before crises and conflicts break out".
Would "assisting those which under stress before crises and conflicts break out" not have been the right approach after the cholera outbreak in Zimbabwe?
It is clear that from any number of angles and by whatever length of stretch of interpretation, Article 51 of the UN Charter cannot be appropriate for military intervention in Zimbabwe, especially on the basis of a cholera outbreak.
The 2005 UN World Summit concluded that there was no new granting of the "right of intervention" to individual states or regional alliances, whether under humanitarian or other professed grounds.
The December 2004 UN High-level Panel concluded, "For those impatient with (the Panel’s conclusion on Article 51) the answer must be that, in a world full of perceived potential threats, the risk to the global order and the norm of non-intervention on which it continues to be based is simply too great for the legality of unilateral preventive action, as distinct from collectively endorsed action, to be accepted. Allowing one to so act is to allow all."
At international law it is not only baseless to call for military intervention on Zimbabwe, but also blatantly dangerous for the international community and most dire for those Zimbabweans who might be foolish enough to consider involvement in any form of military aggression.
Cholera might be spreading in Zimbabwe or in the region but its prevalence is not a threat to international peace by any measure of imagination.
If it were, HIV and Aids could have long caused the Third World War.
The call for military intervention, along with Tsvangirai’s continued calls for more sanctions on Zimbabwe, especially on its remaining productive companies; are all illegal and illegitimate and have neither place nor basis in international law.
The converse for accusing companies and certain individuals of "propping the Mugabe regime" is the accusation that sanctions, diseases and poverty are propping up Tsvangirai and MDC-T.
So Zimbabweans are meant to choose between those who "prop up the regime" by criticising the West and MDC-T or by condemning sanctions, or helping Zimbabweans materially and those who prop up Tsvangirai by mobilising more suffering for the generality of Zimbabweans in order to fail the regime.
This writer never imagined for once that there would be a day when Zimbabweans would be so divided as to have a bloc that hails and cherishes the idea of more and more suffering for ordinary people, applauding the enemy onslaught on the motherland, all in the name of bringing an insidious puppet politician into the highest public office.
We carry bleeding hearts over the crisis in our country but we have questions to answer.
Zanu-PF cannot be a benign factor to the treacherous behaviour we are witnessing today.
Not only has the party helped immensely in destroying the faith of the children of our revolution, but also there is this apparent lack of initiative to provide alternatives for the sufferings of our people.
Steven Gowans, the Canadian writer, rightfully and justifiably asks the question of what is expected of a Zanu-PF confronted by a treacherous opposition powered by powerful Western forces.
He demands to know the means of defence that are at the disposal of a weak and poor "Third World" Zimbabwe.
He demands to know how they are meant to fight back.
Very pertinent questions, but equally pertinent are the questions being asked by many Zimbabwean people today.
What is expected of a people the leadership of whose revolution has been infiltrated by thieves and selfish, criminally minded people?
What is expected of a people who only have known-enemies as the sole means to punish and discipline their own leadership? Do they, under these circumstances, hail or condemn the actions of the enemy?
The culture of corruption in Zimbabwe is too apparent to be covered even by all the rubble in the world today and what is expected of the people in these circumstances?
The best we have seen so far is indifference by many people when it comes to condemning the ruinous economic attacks by Western forces and the worst we have seen from some has been active cooperation with the economic aggressors.Whichever way, Zanu-PF’s leadership must realise that they cannot have the people carrying the sacrifices of defending the revolution on their shoulders while many of them choose to be carried around in luxury by the revolution.
That is not only stupid but suicidal and unacceptable.
Zimbabwe we are one and together we will overcome. It is homeland or death!
Reason Wafawarova is a political writer and can be contacted on reason@rwafawarova.com or visit www.rwafawarova.com.
Printer friendly version Send page by E-Mail
Tsvangirai behaving like Savimbi
Posted: Tuesday, December 23, 2008
By Gabriel Chaibva
December 23, 2008
The Herald
NEW doubts have surfaced about the sustainability of the power-sharing deal involving Zimbabwe's three main political parties.
Even if the parties were to agree virtually on everything in dispute, it is still doubtful whether or not the inclusive Government would last long.
The fanfare, jubilation, enthusiasm and sense of hope with which Zimbabweans greeted the signing of the Global Political Agreement on September 15, 2008, evaporated quickly amid acrimonious accusations and counter-accusations.
What is not in doubt in my mind is the fact that the opposition MDC-T does not seem to learn from others who have traversed this path before and hence a golden opportunity for a gigantic leap for Zimbabwe's democracy has been lost.
More shocking is the fact that MDC-T does not seem to have learnt from its own mistakes in the past and it is quite amazing how they have developed a propensity to repeat the same.
For instance, it is now generally agreed that the rejection of the 2000 Constitutional Commission's draft constitution was a grave mistake.
That draft constitution, its shortcomings notwithstanding, provided a good beginning for an improved political dispensation in Zimbabwe.
Instead of looking at the contents and substance and the principles enshrined in that draft constitution, emphasis was on who had authored it and all was lost in this quest for glory and self-gratification.
Eight years later, we still have the Lancaster House Constitution with the opposition at every turn quick to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
What is glaringly obvious is the lack of strategic thinking, serious commitment and sense of civic duty on the part of Morgan Tsvangirai and his party.
In all fairness, Tsvangirai – whose list of demands is endless and is growing by the day – is stalling this all-inclusive Government.
He behaves as if he signed the agreement under duress and without reading it.
One can only begin to suspect that he may not have understood its contents and import given Tsvangirai's limited academic exposure.
It is imperative to recall that the MDC-T leader thrice refused to sign the agreement even in the presence of Sadc leaders, asking for time to "consult and reflect" and thrice he had agreed on the power-sharing structure and thrice he reneged on it!
When he finally agreed to append his signature on September 15, Zimbabweans were dead certain that all outstanding issues and been "reflected and consulted" upon, thus a Government would soon be formed.
It is now more than 10 weeks since and the MDC-T leader's shopping list is growing daily and Zimbabweans do not know any more what this man and his gangsters want.
The agreement is very clear on who is Head of State and Executive President of Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe, who shall share executive power with the Prime Minister on a consultative basis.
Tsvangirai knows that, but from what has happened so far there is no doubt that he still wants to contest the "legitimacy" of the President as can be inferred from his behaviour and the issues he is raising.
It seems that Tsvangirai hopes to become President at the negotiating table, which is impossible and would be a miracle in the mould of the virgin birth of Jesus Christ!
All the same, he hopes it will happen and one can hardly imagine President Mugabe throwing his hands up in despair and calling on Tsvangirai to become President and admitting to a "flawed" presidential run-off and accepting defeat.
This is blatantly impossible and will just not happen.
The question is: Do Tsvangirai and his bunch of hangers-on, praise-singers and bootlickers not learn from other nations who have walked this path before?
Let there be no illusions and hallucinations on anyone's part. As it is right now, the truth of the matter is the President and Commander-in-Chief of the Zimbabwe Defence Forces is R. G. Mugabe, a fact one would think MDC-T knows as amply elaborated in the signed agreement.
MDC-T is using the intensity of the suffering of our people as a bargaining chip and this is abominable.
The elephants may enjoy the thrills of mating while the grass suffers only to turn around and want to graze it afterwards!
It is the MDCs who are not in Government and the negotiations were on how they could be integrated in an all-inclusive Government.
It is not Zanu-PF that is being invited to join Government because they are already in it.
That is the reality on the ground and, like it or not, it remains a fact.
Why can MDC-T not learn from the experiences of others? There have been the Lancaster House negotiations, negotiations between the ANC and the National Party in South Africa, the Pakistan People's Party and General Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan and many others.
There are many lessons to be drawn from these situations.
Even though apartheid was the worst form of institutional racism ever seen, with the exception of American slavery and Hitler's Nazism, the ANC never wasted time by insisting unduly that the talks should be chaired by a "neutral prominent person appointed by the UN"!
Nor did they demand that apartheid be dismantled before they could come to the negotiating table.
The ANC also had its hardliners who saw no need to negotiate with the Boers who for 50 years had brutalised the majority blacks and mercilessly murdered thousands of people like Steve Biko.
National Party hardliners demanded a deal that would guarantee enforced, not voluntary, power-sharing for at least 10 years.
It is instructive to note that the NP prevailed and indeed majority rule only existed in theory for exactly 10 years until 2004.
In fact, the first Police Commissioner and Commander of the South African National Defence Forces were whites from the apartheid era!
It was painful, but it resulted in peace.
Nelson Mandela was able to make an unpopular decision popular, for that is what leadership is all about.
There were no ANC national council meetings to "reflect and consult" on each and every proposal on the table as we tend to see with Morgan Tsvangirai.
In Pakistan, the Pakistan People's Party lost its leader Benazir Bhutto to a suicide bomber a few weeks before the general elections. It would have been easy to derail the political process by accusing General Musharraf of the attack, but the PPP did not waste time with things that could not be proved and would not in any way help the nation.
They did not even boycott the election and there were no attempts to force the president out so that a "transitional authority" could be established.
They grappled with the reality on the ground and the facts were that Bhutto was dead and Musharraf was in power.
They concentrated their efforts on consolidating the electoral and constitutional route to power.
No appeals were made to the Arab League or the United Nations for "internationally supervised elections and intervention".
The Pakistanis appreciated that they were the ones who had to deal with their own challenges in a manner acceptable and workable for their country.
The PPP had a strategy and it appears MDC-T is unaware of this and would rather promote British and American neo-colonial interests in Zimbabwe.
In Nigeria, the people never asked for sanctions against their own country even though they were suffering under General Sani Abacha who was indiscriminately killing people like Ken Saro Wiwa.
Repressive laws, which make Posa and Aippa look like child's play, were the order of the day.
America and Britain never said a word about "democracy, rule of law, free and fair elections, the will of the people" and never ever threatened to put sanctions in place.
Instead, they were milking that country's oil and output increased five-fold.
New drills, using state-of-the-art technology, were put in the volatile Niger Delta while deep-sea oil exploration intensified as if nothing was happening.
After Abacha's sudden death, his second in command, General Abdulsalami Abubakar, took over the reins of power and gave the usual rhetoric about a return to full democracy in six months' time.
The people could easily have appealed to the regional grouping Ecowas and the United Nations for intervention and even sanctions.
Were the Nigerians stupid not to invite such interference in their domestic affairs?
No, they soldiered on and, despite the lack of trust and the situation on the ground, they went to elections in 1999 and who can say their situation today is not better than it was under Abacha?
Why did they not do what comes so naturally to Tsvangirai and his friends, which is to invite foreign intervention?
Our brothers and sisters in Nigeria know very well that Nigeria is for Nigerians and that they alone have the responsibility to shape their destiny.
They were aware of the dangers that come with inviting foreign invaders and they were conversant with the double standards, hypocrisy and doublespeak inherent in Western countries' foreign policies.
What, therefore, are the lessons for the MDC-T leadership?
Let's take the debate to the Middle East to illustrate the dangers in cavorting with the United States and Britain.
There was no State of Israel in 1947.
The British had been granted protectorate status over the State of Palestine after the Second World War in the same way they got the same status over German East Africa (now Tanzania) and German West Africa (now Namibia) after the First World War.
What did they do there? Where is Palestine today? Where did Israel come from?
Just a year ago, in a free and fair election, the Palestinians elected their own government led by Hamas.
The US and Britain immediately imposed sanctions on Palestine and they tolerate the current Israeli embargo on the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip, inflicting untold suffering on innocent people.
Where is all the concern that the Americans claim to have for the downtrodden people of the world?
In May 1986, a pompous ceremony was held at the Pentagon where the then Israeli defence minister signed an MOU setting forth his country's participation in the Strategic Missile Defence Initiative, later dubbed Ronald Reagan's "Star Wars".
It involved the aggressive militarisation of outer space.
It was a happy occasion for Israel as it offered them an opportunity to secure military supremacy over the Arab world.
While other countries were bound by UN resolutions on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons (SALT 1 and SALT 2), the US was promoting Israel's rearmament.
In October that year, the British newspaper The Sunday Times revealed that Israel was building an atomic bomb at a facility called Dimona in the Negev Desert.
America has never said a word about Israel's weapons of mass destruction but is quick to bomb countries that do not even have any! What lessons are there for people like Tsvangirai?
Africans ought to know that US propaganda actively seeks to identify willing and gullible citizens who are ready to trade their sovereignty and independence for filthy pieces of silver.
Studio 7, SW Radio Africa, CNN, BBC and a coterie of NGOs masquerading as advocates of human rights are advancing a US and British neo-colonial and imperialistic agenda that seeks to reverse the gains of our liberation through installing puppet governments. Their selection of candidates for this is not without calculation. The targets are usually the financially unstable, the unintelligent and unclever, without record of personal achievement and vulnerable to seduction through money.
They suddenly find themselves driving expensive cars and owning houses with cash stacked in foreign bank accounts.
These puppets are made to look "presidential" and the puppets fall for the bait.
Regrettably, Tsvangirai fits very well into the category of suitable Western puppets who wittingly and unwittingly promote US and British permanent interests of amassing natural resources from other countries.
Why can he not see that the agitation for the deployment of international troops in Zimbabwe after some cholera deaths has nothing to do with humanitarian concerns?
Why were they not deployed when thousands started dying of HIV and Aids?
Such claims are trumpeted daily by BBC, CNN, Studio 7 and others at a time when over two million women and children have been displaced by war in the DRC's Kivu Province?
And by the way, who is funding that murderer called Laurent Nkunda?
A clever leader will know that the US and Britain have never been constructive allies who care to see Africa develop.
The problem Tsvangirai faces today is how to get out of the clutches of the West.
When America gives you money they expect a huge return on their investment and it is now payback time for Tsvangirai.
He may want to join the inclusive Government without giving into all the concessions that the West seeks, but that cannot happen as long as he is tied to America and Britain.
It is on record that the MDC-T national council resolved to join the Government but they have not because America has said no.
The tragedy is that decision-making is not at Harvest House, but is in London and Washington.
I wish Jonas Savimbi were still alive to tell Tsvangirai the whole story.
We don't want to have to stand up one day and say, "Mr Tsvangirai, I told you so!"
Gabriel Chaibva is a founder member of the MDC, a former parliamentarian and ex-spokesperson of the Professor Arthur Mutambara-led MDC formation.
Printer friendly version Send page by E-Mail
MDC's Chaibva slams Tsvangirai
Posted: Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Herald Reporter
December 23, 2008
The Herald
A SENIOR opposition MDC figure has blamed MDC-T leader Mr Morgan Tsvangirai for the lack of progress in implementing the September 15 Global Political Agreement and the formation of an inclusive Government.
Former MDC spokesperson Mr Gabriel Chaibva said Mr Tsvangirai was getting instructions from Washington and London not to be part of any Government that included President Mugabe and that he had an "endless list of demands".
In a scathing critique of Mr Tsvangirai and his party, Mr Chaibva said: "What is glaringly obvious is the lack of strategic thinking, serious commitment and sense of civic duty on the part of Mr Morgan Tsvangirai and his party.
"In all fairness, Tsvangirai – whose list of demands is endless and is growing by the day – is stalling this inclusive Government. He behaves as if he signed the agreement under duress and without reading it.
"One can only begin to suspect that he may not have understood its contents and import given Tsvangirai's limited academic exposure."
Mr Chaibva said it was imperative to recall that the MDC-T leader thrice refused to sign the agreement because he needed to "consult and reflect" with his party and "advisors".
"When he finally agreed to append his signature on September 15, Zimbabweans were dead certain that all outstanding issues had been "reflected and consulted" upon thus a Government would soon be formed.
"It is now more than 10 weeks since and the MDC-T leader's shopping list is growing daily and Zimbabweans do not know any more what this man and his gangsters want."
He said the agreement made it clear that President Mugabe would remain Head of State and would "share executive power with the Prime Minister on a consultative basis".
"It seems that Tsvangirai hopes to become President at the negotiating table which is impossible and would be a miracle in the mould of the virgin birth of Jesus Christ!"
He slammed MDC-T's use of the adverse economic and social situation in the country as a negotiating tool.
"MDC-T is using the intensity of the suffering of our people as a bargaining chip and this is abominable.
"It is the MDCs who are not in Government and the negotiations were on how they could be integrated in an all-inclusive Government.
"It is not Zanu-PF which is being invited to join Government because they are already in it. That is the reality on the ground and, like it or not, it remains a fact."
He said it was unfortunate that Mr Tsvangirai had all the hallmarks of a puppet leader.
"Regrettably, Tsvangirai fits very well into the category of suitable Western puppets who wittingly and unwittingly promote US and British permanent interests of amassing natural resources from other countries.
"A clever leader will know that the US and Britain have never been constructive allies who care to see Africa develop.
"The problem Tsvangirai faces today is how to get out of the clutches of the West. When America gives you money they expect a huge return on their investment and it is now payback time for Tsvangirai.
"He may want to join the inclusive Government without giving into all the concessions that the West seek, but that cannot happen as long as he is tied to America and Britain.
"It is on record that the MDC-T national council resolved to join the Government, but they have not because America has said no."
Mr Chaibva said it was a tragedy that MDC-T's decision-making was conducted in Western capitals.
Mr Chaibva was suspended as MDC spokesperson after he attended President Mugabe's inauguration at State House following his landslide victory in the June presidential election run-off.
Printer friendly version Send page by E-Mail
Zim Govt scoffs at US regime change calls
Posted: Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Herald Reporter
December 23, 2008
The Herald
GOVERNMENT has dismissed renewed attempts by the United States to instigate illegal regime change in the country, labelling the fresh onslaught the "last kicks of a dying administration".
This follows US Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Jendayi Frazer's statements that Washington would not recognise any Government that would have President Mugabe.
This is despite the fact that the country's three main political parties have already signed an agreement that upholds President Mugabe as Head of State and Government, and Commander-in-Chief of the Zimbabwe Defence Forces.
In addition, a mutually agreed-on Consti-tutional Amendment to give legal effect to this arrangement has already been gazetted.
"We have lost confidence in the power-sharing deal being a success with (President) Mugabe in power," Frazer told the media in South Africa.
She was in Pretoria to "consult with regional leaders about the deteriorating political and economic crises in Zimbabwe" and to communicate Washington's stance on the envisaged inclusive Government. Frazer also tried to "bribe" the opposition to pull out of the broad-based agreement saying the US would cancel Zimbabwe's debt to the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund if illegal regime change was effected.
She indicated that the US would not extend any assistance to fight cholera as long as President Mugabe remained in power, vindicating Government assertions that the West was trying to use the outbreak for illegal regime change purposes.
Yesterday, Britain's Africa Minister Mark Malloch-Brown echoed Frazer's call, saying: "Power-sharing isn't dead, but (President) Mugabe has become an absolute impossible obstacle to achieving it."
Secretary for Information and Publicity, Cde George Charamba, who is also President Mugabe's spokesperson, scoffed at Frazer's utterances, saying they were nothing new.
"We have no time for US President George W. Bush's diplomatic flute. We are talking about an administration whose sun has set. Why bother?"
He said Gordon Brown's administration was also on its way out in Britain and the British prime minister was ill-advisedly trying to gain relevance back home through posturing on Zimbabwe.
Bush leaves office on January 20 and the Government has accused him of trying to use Zimbabwe to salvage his poor foreign policy record. Washington has imposed illegal sanctions on Zimbabwe through the so-called Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act of 2001 and has been actively agitating for a military invasion of the country.
Independent MP, Professor Jonathan Moyo scoffed at Frazer's comments saying they were an indictment on the MDCs, particularly the faction led by Morgan Tsvangirai.
"The announcement by the US Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, Jendayi Frazer, that the US has withdrawn its support for Zimbabwe's September 15 inter-party political agreement is not only a pathetic self-fulfilling prophecy since the Bush administration did not support that agreement in the first place, but is also the clearest evidence that the US government's arrogantly neo-colonial stance on Zimbabwe is premised on the sad but real fact that America has a regime change puppet in Zimbabwe in the form of Morgan Tsvangirai and his MDC-T party who are ever ready to parrot an American line on Zimbabwe no matter how harmful," Prof Moyo said.
Prof Moyo said in the circumstances nobody should be surprised if Tsvangirai starts parroting Frazer's statement, and that the MDC-T leader should prepare himself for rejection by Zimbabweans.
Another political analyst questioned the logic of Malloch-Brown's statement saying: "How can he on one hand say power sharing is dead while at the same time saying President Mugabe should not be part of it when he is not only a signatory to the September 15 agreement but also the Head of State as endorsed even by the opposition here?"
Officially opening Zanu-PF's 10th National People's Conference in Bindura last week, President Mugabe described Frazer as a "little girl" who was out of touch with the reality in Zimbabwe and the rest of the world.
"There is this little girl called Jendayi Frazer. She was in South Africa recently making all sorts of noises.
"She thinks that Africans are idiots, little kids who cannot think for themselves."
The US, Britain, France and their African askaris like leader of the Botswana military junta Seretse Khama Ian Khama and Kenyan opposition leader Raila Odinga, have been calling for military intervention in Zimbabwe.
Yesterday, MDC-T spokesperson Nelson Chamisa was quoted by AFP as saying: "It is their (Britain and US) own view and we will not be drawn into commenting on it."
These calls have been rejected by Sadc and the African Union and last week Tsvangirai also dismissed military invasion as an option.
Tsvangirai is currently holed up in Botswana.
However, Botswana has backtracked on its recent sabre-rattling, with Foreign Minister Phandu Skelemani saying: "I do not think the army of Zimbabwe would remain in their barracks in the face of a foreign invasion. The problem with an invasion is that innocent civilians would be killed."
The British media have also warned against invading Zimbabwe saying that would be akin to sacrificing Britons against "the tried and tested veterans of the Congo," in reference to Zimbabwe's exploits during Operation Sovereign Legitimacy.
Printer friendly version Send page by E-Mail
Sadc unveils aid package
Posted: Monday, December 22, 2008
Herald Reporter
December 22, 2008
THE Southern African Development Community yesterday launched the Zimbabwe Humanitarian Development Assistance Framework in Harare to provide agricultural development and humanitarian assistance as countries in the region have stepped up the delivery of agricultural inputs and drugs to fight cholera.
In an interview after the launch of ZHDAF, Sadc executive secretary Dr Tomaz Salomao said they had made proposals to the Government on how the facility was going to help Zimbabwe and to also get feedback from stakeholders.
"We are here to launch the initiative and to find out how far the humanitarian assistance can be delivered," he said.
He said between December 8 and 9, a South African delegation — together with the representative of the executive of Sadc — held meetings with various stakeholders in the country.
The purpose of the meetings was to consult with them on the modalities of addressing the agriculture and humanitarian challenges facing the country.
Dr Salomao said they later discovered that two areas needed to be covered and this was agriculture and the cholera outbreak.
"The team realised that under the current situation, we cannot address the humanitarian assistance, if we don't address cholera.
"We are, however, already on the ground, in terms of cholera. The situation is difficult but we are receiving support from countries such as South Africa, Botswana, Namibia and Tanzania among others," he said.
He said they have also put in place mechanisms that would be chaired by Sadc.
"We have also agreed on how, along the borders, Sadc member-states can work together and assist each other, especially on cholera," said Dr Salomao.
On agriculture, Dr Salomao said they had received a report yesterday that South Africa had just delivered seed and fertilizer worth more than 300 million rand.
"Our appeal is that member-states are welcome to assist and we are doing this to assist our fellow Zimbabweans to overcome the challenges they face.
"It's clear that we cannot fail. Africa cannot fail on this in assisting Zimbabwe and the people. This is a region of solidarity and when you are facing difficulties, you have to encounter it," he said.
Director-General of Foreign Affairs in South Africa Dr Ayanda Ntsaluba said he was part of the team that recently visited Zimbabwe.
"The main interest was to try and get a sense of what needs to be done in Zimbabwe and any form of assistance that can be provided.
"It was clear that there was some support but the question was what can be done by Sadc," he said.
Dr Ntsaluba said the Sadc initiative was to invite assistance from other member-states and that the idea was that each country should do what it can to assist Zimbabwe.
He said last Wednesday, they had forwarded a list to member-states, with areas that needed assistance in Zimbabwe and some countries were beginning to respond.
"The commitment of Sadc is not to intervene but to assist Zimbabwe to get it back where it was," said Dr Ntsaluba.
Chief Secretary to the President and Cabinet Dr Misheck Sibanda, Zimbabwe's Ambassador to South Africa Cde Simon Khaya Moyo, Secretary for Industry and International Trade Retired Colonel Christian Katsande, South Africa's ambassador to Zimbabwe Dr Mlungisi Makhalima and other senior Government officials attended the launch which was held at the South African Embassy yesterday.
The delegation was taken to a warehouse in Msasa where 160 tonnes of maize seed, 44 tonnes of sorghum and 55 tonnes of cowpeas received from South Africa are currently stored.
Six more trucks from South Africa are at the border awaiting instructions from the Government to deliver the consignment from the neighbouring country.
Tanzania on Saturday joined other African states that have responded to Zimbabwe's call for assistance in fighting cholera and improving the situation in hospitals by donating 41,5 tonnes of drugs and water purification chemicals.
Printer friendly version Send page by E-Mail
Three questions to ask about Zimbabwe’s cholera outbreak
Posted: Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Angola reported 82,000 cases of cholera last year and over 3,000 deaths – five times as many cases as Zimbabwe has experienced this year and four times as many deaths. [1] The West, which has substantial investments in Angolan oil, did not say that Angola was approaching failed state status, call for its government to step down, or seek authorization to forcibly remove it.
The Nigerian Supreme Court recently ruled that the country's April 2007 elections were marred by widespread voting irregularities. Election observers declared the elections to be fraudulent and criticized the government for using violence and intimidation. Despite being the second wealthiest country in Africa, most Nigerians have no access to clean drinking water and basic healthcare. Western oil firms have substantial investments in Nigeria. They profit, while most Nigerians live in abject poverty. [2] The West has not said that Nigeria is approaching failed state status, called for its government to step down, or sought authorization to forcibly remove it.
By Stephen Gowans
December 14, 2008
Western powers have tried many ways to bring down the Mugabe government of Zimbabwe. They've created a political party, the MDC, whose policy platforms they've had a hand in shaping, to contest elections. They've nurtured human rights and other civil society groups to oppose the Mugabe government. They've funded community newspapers to spread anti-government propaganda. They've financed short-wave radio programs to broadcast anti-Mugabe programming. [3] They've materially backed campaigns of civil disobedience, in failed attempts to foment a color revolution. [4] And they've blocked, through the US Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act of 2001 (the act), Zimbabwe's access to balance of payment support and development aid. [5] All of these attempts to force the Mugabe government into submission have failed.
I've elaborated elsewhere on the reasons why Western powers have sought Mugabe's ouster. [6] The reasons can be briefly summarized as follows: the Mugabe government has acted to thwart imperialist designs on the Democratic Republic of Congo; it opposed the pro-foreign investment policies of the International Monetary Fund; it expropriated income-producing property (farms owned by Europeans and descendants of white settlers) without compensation – an affront against private property that the United States, the guarantor of the imperialist system, could not let stand.
The way the Western media tell the story, Zimbabweans are eager to see Mugabe go. But despite Western powers acting to poison public opinion against Mugabe, the Zanu-PF government retains considerable popular support. One indication that Mugabe commands the backing of at least a sizeable minority of the population is that the United States has acknowledged that "a popular Zimbabwean uprising against Mugabe is unlikely." [7] In elections earlier this year, which featured massive Western interference on the side of the opposition, Mugabe's Zanu-PF party won roughly half of the legislative assembly seats and roughly half of the Senate seats. In the first round of presidential voting, Mugabe got over 40 percent of the vote – despite the considerable pressure Western powers put on Zimbabweans to reject the national liberation hero. With the president retaining strong backing, Western powers are now using a cholera outbreak – a not uncommon event in poor countries – to argue that Zimbabwe has become a failed state. By making the case that Zimbabwe's government is no longer able to provide its citizens with basic hygiene and access to safe drinking water, Western powers hope to either secure a United Nations Security Council Resolution authorizing the use of force to oust Mugabe, or to pressure Zimbabwe's neighbors to close their borders to the landlocked country, starving the government – and the people of Zimbabwe – into submission. "The closure of the borders, literally, in a week, would bring this country to its knees," said a US official. [8] The readiness to escalate the misery Zimbabweans already endure with a total blockade undermines the Western powers' own claim that they are galvanized to act by humanitarian concern. One needn't be reminded that the greatest existing humanitarian catastrophes – to wit, Iraq and the Democratic Republic of Congo – have been authored by the United States and Britain (directly in Iraq and through Rwanda and Uganda in the Congo). These are the very same powers that claim a "responsibility to protect."
According to the World Health Organization, there were over 16,000 cases of cholera in Zimbabwe as of December 9, and 775 deaths. The WHO attributes the outbreak to an under-resourced and under-staffed health care system, and to inadequate access to safe drinking water. We should ask three questions. [9]
1. How common are cholera outbreaks in the Third World?
2. Have Western powers sought to forcibly remove governments in other countries that have suffered comparable or greater cholera outbreaks?
3. Why is Zimbabwe's health care system under-resourced and under-staffed and why do Zimbabweans have inadequate access to safe drinking water?
Cholera outbreaks are hardly rare in the Third World. Between 13 February 2006 and 9 May 2007, there were over 82,000 cases of cholera and almost 3,100 deaths in Angola [10]. Since May, there have been 13,781 cases of cholera in Guinea-Bisseau, with 221 deaths as of November. [11] There were 14,297 cases and 254 deaths in Tanzania in 2006 [12]. Last year, there were 30,000 cases of cholera in Iraq [13], almost twice as many as in Zimbabwe this year. In 2005, cholera swept through Western Africa, affecting 45,000 people in eight countries. [14] In none of these cases did Western powers call for the governments of the affected countries to step down, or seek authorization to remove them by force.
The inadequacies of Zimbabwe's health care system are due, in part, to doctors being lured away by the higher wages and better working conditions of the West. There are more than 13,000 doctors trained in sub-Saharan Africa who are now practicing in the United States, Britain, Canada and Australia. [15] This, according to the British medical journal, The Lancet, has led to the "dilapidation of health infrastructure" and has threatened to produce a "public health crisis." The West's pilfering of sub-Saharan Africa's doctors is "an international crime." [16]
Zimbabwe's health care system is also affected by the economic devastation wrought by the United States denying the country access to balance of payment support and development aid. If doctors are lured to the West under the best of circumstances, the incentives for abandoning a Zimbabwe in a virtual state of economic collapse are irresistible. Add to that the reality that hyperinflation – a by-product of Harare's attempts to deal with foreign exchange shortages caused by the act – has eroded the purchasing power of Zimbabwe's currency, deterring medical staff (and employees generally) from showing up for work. The act has also undermined the government's ability to secure funds to make needed repairs to water and sewage treatment infrastructure and to import water purification chemicals. While the purveyors of misinformation at the New York Times and other Western media outlets attribute the cholera outbreak to what are called Mugabe's "disastrously failed policies," the origins lie closer to home.
1. http://www.who.int/cholera/countries/Angola%20country%20profile%202007.pdf
2. Will Connors, "Legal victory can't erase Nigerian leader's troubles," The New York Times, December 13, 2008.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/14/world/africa/14nigeria.html?ref=world
3. http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PDACL121.pdf ; http://gowans.wordpress.com/2008/10/04/us-government-report-undermines-zimbabwe-opposition%e2%80%99s-claim-of-independence/
4. http://gowans.wordpress.com/2008/04/27/expressions-of-imperialism-within-zimbabwe/
5. http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_bills&docid=f:s494enr.txt.pdf
6. http://gowans.wordpress.com/2008/12/08/cholera-outbreak-outcome-of-west%e2%80%99s-war-on-zimbabwe/
7. US Government, "Zimbabwe approaching 'failed state' status, U.S. ambassador says," December 11, 2008. http://www.america.gov/st/democracy-english/2008/December/20081211164826esnamfuak0.6706354.html?CP.rss=true
8. Ibid.
9. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2008/pr49/en/index.html
10. http://www.who.int/cholera/countries/Angola%20country%20profile%202007.pdf
11. http://www.who.int/cholera/countries/GuineaBissauCountryProfile2008.pdf
12. http://www.who.int/cholera/countries/TanzaniaCountryProfile2008.pdf
13. http://www.who.int/cholera/countries/IraqCountryProfile2007.pdf
14. http://www.who.int/csr/don/2005_09_23/en/index.html
15. The Lancet, cited in Reuters, February 22, 2008.
16. Ibid.
Source: gowans.wordpress.com
Printer friendly version Send page by E-Mail
Fresh elections if inclusive Govt does not materialise
Posted: Saturday, December 13, 2008
No. 19 Bill to be gazetted today... Fresh polls likely if inclusive Govt does not materialise
December 13, 2008
The Herald
Constitutional Amendment Number 19, giving legal effect to the inclusive Government agreement, is expected to be gazetted today, but if it fails to become law, fresh elections will probably have to be held, Zanu-PF said yesterday.
Without the inclusive Government, the present division of power, with Zanu-PF holding the executive and majority in the Senate but the MDC formations holding the majority in the House of Assembly, is unlikely to work.
Cde Patrick Chinamasa, who is Zanu-PF's negotiator in the South African-facilitated talks, said it was up to the parties to ensure the Bill became an Act otherwise the country would have to go back to elections.
The Bill, agreed on and initialled by negotiators from Zanu-PF, MDC-T and MDC in South Africa on November 27, is expected to be published in an Extraordinary Government Gazette today.
That section of the Bill relevant to the formation of an inclusive Government will only subsist for as long as the agreement remains in force.
"As the public would know, no party in Parliament has a two-thirds majority to ensure passage of the amendment. This means that the Bill will only become law if fully supported by all signatories to the September 15 agreement.
"The gazetting of the amendment is a clarion call to all political parties to demonstrate their commitment in letter and spirit to the inter-party political agreement. If everything goes according to plan, the Bill can be put before any of the Houses 30 days following its gazetting.
"I envisage that it will require two weeks for it to be debated and passed through both Houses. If no support is forthcoming, it means that Amendment Number 19 Bill will be dead matter. In the event that the collaboration that we envisage is not forthcoming, then that will necessitate fresh harmonised elections at some point in time.
"The current Constitution requires that we hold harmonised elections and so we will have to go back to the people to elect councillors, House of Assembly representatives, senators and a President," Cde Chinamasa said.
Earlier this week, President Mugabe hinted at the possibility of fresh elections should the agreement fail to get off the ground.
He pointed out that it was important for the nation to understand that the Bill was not a Zanu-PF project and all parties signatory to the agreement were co-owners of the proposed amendment as demonstrated by the fact that all the negotiators had initialled it.
Cde Chinamasa also slated those people who were calling for President Mugabe to step down.
"I must reiterate that the March 29 elections produced a hung Parliament and no winner in the presidential race, necessitating a run-off on June 27. There is no valid constitutional or political basis to justify strident statements for the President to step down, especially in light of the developments pertaining to the Bill," he said.
However, Cde Chinamasa questioned the opposition MDC-T's commitment to making independent decisions in the context of political developments in Zimbabwe, though he fell short of saying he expected little co-operation on the Bill in Parliament.
He said: "MDC-T has demonstrated to all and sundry that it cannot take individual decisions or positions. It has to consult the British, the Europeans and the Americans before it makes any decisions affecting the destiny of the nation."
The Bill will most likely be tabled before Parliament in mid-January and President Mugabe could sign it into law by February if it gets the backing of all the parties.
Printer friendly version Send page by E-Mail
Sanctions to blame for cholera
Posted: Saturday, December 13, 2008
December 13, 2008
The Herald
WHILE cholera is a natural disease stemming from a bacterium, recent pronouncements by US Ambassador to Zimbabwe James D. McGee and the West's obsession at attempting to use cholera to build a case for war on Zimbabwe, make us wonder if they want to use natural suffering to pursue their ends.
Several of our neighbours have been afflicted by cholera outbreaks before yet at no time did we hear anyone suggesting military action on them.
In many cases, the Western media were quite indifferent.
In countries like Zambia, Mozambique and the Democratic Republic of Congo, for instance, cholera is endemic.
It is a way of life yet the West never agitated for invasion.
This raises the question, why Zimbabwe?
The answer lies in the feverish pronouncements by Western governments and their askaris that President "Mugabe must go."
One would almost think "Mugabe" is the name of the cholera pathogen or its vector.
What we would rather hear the West say, if they are really concerned about suffering Zimbabweans is "sanctions and cholera must go."
As President Mugabe said, what Zimbabwe needs are medical doctors, not invading armies.
To this end, we salute the bona fide international as represented by the UN through its agency, the World Health Organisation, Sadc and individual countries like China, South Africa, Namibia and Tanzania for heeding the Government's call for assistance.
The fact that they did not, as the Westerners tried to do, distort the appeal as "evidence of State failure" proved they are true friends of Zimbabwe.
To this end, we would like to draw the world's attention to recent Western media attempts to put the President's dismissal of cholera as a cause for war out of context.
If anything, their campaign only served to prove — as President Mugabe said — that they would stop at nothing, even outright lies to pursue their sanguine desires.
We urge the progressive world to see these people and their pronouncements on Zimbabwe for what they are, white lies.
The West would never admit that the outbreak is a consequence of the decade-long economic sanctions regime they have maintained on Zimbabwe.
Their ruinous sanctions have not only constrained the health delivery system but some Western countries, principally Britain, have been systematically poaching medical staff from our hospitals precipitating the ongoing health sector crisis.
So if culpability is to be apportioned over cholera, it lies solely and squarely with Number 10 Downing Street and 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, the residences of the British Prime Minister and US president respectively.
If there is to be an invasion, it should be directed at these axes of evil.
Printer friendly version Send page by E-Mail
'US masterminded cholera outbreak'
Posted: Saturday, December 13, 2008
Herald Reporter
December 13, 2008
The Herald
THERE are growing fears that there is more to the cholera outbreak than meets the eye following revelations by the US State Department that it has been preparing for the outbreak for quite sometime. The outbreak began last August though the US hinted at years of preparation.
In a briefing with the US State Department on Thursday, attended by Ambassador to Zimbabwe James D. McGee and Director of the Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance Ky Luu in Washington; United States Agency for International Develop-ment administrator Ms Henrietta Fore said the US had long prepared for the epidemic.
"The United States, working alongside the international community, has been preparing for a cholera outbreak for quite some time. Before the disease was widespread, Usaid began building contingencies into its ongoing emergency programmes, allowing us to quickly direct our assistance to specific targets for cholera outbreaks," Fore said, raising the fears that her country may have launched biological warfare on Zimbabwe.
US attempts to use cholera as an excuse to mobilise military action against Zimbabwe have fuelled suspicions of biological warfare.
Despite assurances from the Ministry of Health that fatalities were going down, Ky predicted that the outbreak would intensify over the festive season.
McGee said he hoped the intensification would force the UN to invoke the responsibility to protect proviso to facilitate invasion, the same resolution that was suspiciously made by the MDC-T national council that met in Harare yesterday.
"We’ve heard calls from Kenya, from Botswana, from Tanzania, from Zambia. Malawi recently stood up and said, you know, enough is enough; Zimbabwe has to clean up its act or President Mugabe has to go. This is what we’re really desperate to hear, and these are the types of things that we’re very pleased to hear," McGee said.
Observers questioned why the US was keen to use cholera as cause for war on Zimbabwe when it had not been similarly inclined when the water-borne disease hit other countries in the region.
Responding to the US campaign, the Minister of Information and Publicity, Cde Sikhanyiso Ndlovu, yesterday, described the epidemic as a calculated attack on Zimbabwe.
"The cholera epidemic in Zimbabwe is a serious biological chemical war force, a genocidal onslaught on the people of Zimbabwe by the British," he said.
"Cholera is a calculated racist terrorist attack on Zimbabwe by the unrepentant former colonial power which has enlisted support from its American and Western allies so that they invade the country."
Since the outbreak began in August, the American and British governments have led calls for military action against Zimbabwe to unseat the Government, claiming it was failing to protect its people.
Cde Ndlovu dismissed claims that the Government had abandoned the people saying the outbreak was a consequence of the illegal Western sanctions and Government was doing all it could to contain the outbreak.
"Because of sanctions we have not been able to import enough water purification chemicals and water restitution pipes," Cde Ndlovu said.
"Government through the RBZ has provided the Zimbabwe National Water Authority with foreign currency to import chemicals. We thank the World Health Organisation and all health workers for the support in our fight against cholera," Cde Ndlovu said.
Printer friendly version Send page by E-Mail
South Africa rallies behind President Mugabe
Posted: Thursday, December 11, 2008
Herald Reporters
December 11, 2008
The Herald
SOUTH Africa has rallied behind President Mugabe saying he is the legitimate Head of State of Zimbabwe as spelt out in the September 15 power-sharing agreement between Zanu-PF and the two MDC formations.
This comes in the wake of calls by Western countries for the military invasion of Zimbabwe to topple the Zanu-PF Government.
Ruling out deploying troops in Zimbabwe to topple the Government, South Africa urged everyone to abide by the September 15 agreement to establish an inclusive Government made up of the country's three main political parties.
The South African government also said the people of Zimbabwe and the political parties had chosen President Mugabe to be Head of State hence calls for him to step down were misplaced.
Addressing a Press conference in Pretoria, South Africa, on Tuesday, the director-general in the Department of Foreign Affairs, Dr Ayanda Ntsaluba, however, said it was difficult to manage the situation when MDC-T leader Mr Morgan Tsvangirai was spending "so much time outside Zimbabwe".
"Firstly, the negotiating parties in Zimbabwe signed an agreement on 15 September 2008 of which we are aware of and they have decided to enter into an agreement which by definition would imply that they did reflect on what, under the current circumstances, would best enable them to help their country emerge from its difficulties. I am sure both parties had to make very difficult compromises.
"It is in the nature of those agreements but I want to start there precisely, because South Africa's own approach is really to support the parties in Zimbabwe and the people of Zimba-bwe and to the extent that the people of Zimbabwe are represented by those parties for them to implement the decisions of the agreement they have entered into.
"So, South Africa cannot arrive at a decision that says that what is included in that agreement . . . that President Mugabe should be President and Morgan Tsvangirai should be Prime Minister – South Africa cannot disagree with this because this agreement is what is guiding all actions of Sadc, as you know," he said.
Dr Ntsaluba was part of a delegation led by Reverend Frank Chikane from Sadc that visited Zimbabwe early this week.
The West, led by Britain, the European Union and the United States, has been calling for the invasion of Zimbabwe to topple the Zanu-PF Government.
But Government has dismissed the call saying the West was trying to push its illegal regime change agenda using the cholera outbreak.
Africa has rejected the calls for a military invasion of Zimbabwe with Tanzania, the current chair of the African Union, and Kenya, leading the rejections.
Dr Ntsaluba said his government was focusing on ensuring "that we nudge, put as much peaceful pressure in all forms, on the different elements in Zimbabwe, on the leadership of Zimbabwe to finalise the discussions so that an inclusive Government can be established".
"So, the posture that we are assuming now is not the posture of pressurising President Mugabe to step down," he said.
He urged Sadc and all people genuinely interested in progress to "move with greater speed" towards concluding and establishing an inclusive Government.
"Today it is cholera, in two months' time it might be malaria, remembering that we are on the verge of the rainy season.
"Hence, we need an inclusive Government to assist the people of Zimbabwe. That is really the approach," he said.
Dr Ntsaluba said South Africa would not consider any military options.
"I do not believe that is on the agenda of the South African government at all although I cannot predict what will happen in the next 20 years.
"But for now, and of course, in the current debate, I do not think that the South African government is persuaded that that is the right way to go," he said.
He said Sadc was awaiting feedback following the three parties' agreement on the draft Constitutional Amendment Number 19 Bill which has been forwarded to the parties' principals.
"By and large, we remain hopeful that Ame-ndment 19 should be agreed upon.
"As you recall, there are three stages thereafter: the first one is that following agreement to Amendment 19, it should be gazetted but the agreement signed on 15 September 2008 also makes it clear that once it is gazetted and before it is even passed into law, that we need not wait for that, and once gazetted we can proceed to the appointment of a Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister.
"At the time of gazetting, it would pre-suppose that all the parties have agreed and therefore it would mean that all parties will co-sponsor it when it goes before Parliament and it would therefore be possible to achieve the required majority. So, I think that process is there," he said.
He expressed hope that the process would be accelerated.
"They do require an inclusive Government in place so that it can take full charge and responsibility for the country, and indeed so
there can be some comfort provided in terms of the international community to commence high-level and significant engagement with Zimbabwe," he said.
The SA facilitators to the inter-party dialogue are in the country and have been meeting the Zanu-PF and MDC negotiators.
MDC leader Professor Arthur Mutambara yesterday met the facilitators as part of consultations for the formation of an inclusive Government.
Prof Mutambara confirmed meeting the facilitators and that the gazetting of the Constitutional Amendment Number 19 should signal the formation of an inclusive Government.
He said there was no need to wait for the passage of Bill in Parliament because the mere gazetting should be enough to form the Government.
"I have just come out of a meeting with the facilitators this morning where we held discussions around Constitutional Amendment Number 19. Parties have been in agreement with its provisions and what is now left is to gazette it," said Prof Mutambara in an interview at Budiriro Polyclinic where he was visiting cholera patients.
"Once it is gazetted, an inclusive Government should be formed the next day, a delay by a day would be prolonging the suffering of the people of Zimbabwe. We should not wait for its passage, so I urge my colleagues, President Mugabe and Mr Tsvangirai, to put Zimbabwe first."
He said while Zimbabwe might need foreign partners in tackling the current challenges, it was critical to realise that only Zimbabweans held the keys in finding solutions to the political and economic challenges affecting the country.
"No day should go without forming an inclusive Government once the Bill has been gazetted. Zimbabwe are the masters of their destiny, we are in these problems because by the failure by us Zimbabweans, we must not pass the buck, we need to take charge of our destiny," he said.
Dr Ntsaluba said their mission focused mainly on assessing and discussing with relevant structures how South Africa could help Zimbabwe with its present challenges, including the cholera outbreak.
"There should be no political point scoring and games played when what is really needed right now is support.
"What we know is the evolution of the difficulties in Zimbabwe which is why we strongly support the conclusion arrived at by the leaders of Zimbabwe – that the problems of Zimbabwe have reached a point where you need all of the political leadership of Zimbabwe, across the political divide, to pull together in one direction and try to help their country, and so, all our efforts will be aimed at trying to nudge them to work for this and so, we would not really want to spend time on who is responsible."
Printer friendly version Send page by E-Mail
Zimbabwe: WHO visits Mudzi
Posted: Thursday, December 11, 2008
December 11, 2008
The Herald
World Health Organisation experts – who are in Zimbabwe to assist the country with technical support to fight cholera – yesterday visited Mudzi district to assess the situation there.
Another WHO team visited the National Pharmaceutical Company to verify the country's drug levels and what could be done to improve stocks.
The experts will remain in Zimbabwe until the country successfully deals with the epidemic.
A similar team of experts from Sadc is expected to present its findings this morning to the Sadc Troika on Health and Water in South Africa.
The troika is expected to receive another report prepared by the South African delegation that was also in the country on the same mission.
"I think the ministers will be discussing the package of support measures that can be offered to Zimbabwe – both in the interests of Zimbabwe and its people, but also in the interests of limiting the reach of these communicable diseases to the geographical borders of Zimbabwe.
"Our focus is then to work together with the region and the international community to render the necessary support to Zimbabwe to help their health system to cope but, more importantly, to look at what can be done on the prevention side," said South African director-general of Foreign Affairs Dr Ayanda Ntsaluba.
Zimbabwe has been hit by a severe cholera outbreak that has affected nine of its 10 provinces and the country has since appealed for international support.
Similar outbreaks have been reported in Tanzania, Mozambique, South Africa and Zambia but with low infections.
Zimbabwe has already started receiving help from such countries as China, Namibia, South Africa, the European Union, Usaid and other organisations.
Tanzania donated drugs and medical supplies worth US$60 000 while Namibia on Sunday became the first Sadc country to respond to the call by providing water purification chemicals, drugs and medical equipment worth US$200 000.
Meanwhile, MDC leader Professor Arthur Mutambara has said the cholera epidemic should push political leaders in Zimbabwe to quickly move ahead with the formation of an inclusive Government.
Speaking during a tour of the Budiriro Polyclinic, one of the designated cholera treatment centres in Harare yesterday, Prof Mutambara said Zimbabwe needed to come up with a framework that will direct operations and tackle problems currently bedevilling the country while other issues are being solved.
Prof Mutambara urged MDC-T leader Mr Morgan Tsvangirai and President Mugabe to compromise.
"We should come up with some form of government framework that will tackle the problems facing our people," Prof Mutambara said.
Earlier, losing presidential candidate in the March 2008 harmonised elections Dr Simba Makoni was denied entry after he failed to get clearance from Harare City authorities running the centre.
To date, cholera has claimed over 600 lives in the past two months, six of them at Musina Cholera Centre in South Africa where they had gone to seek treatment.
Five hundred and thirty-six others were treated and discharged. – HR.
Printer friendly version Send page by E-Mail
West must stop living in the past
Posted: Thursday, December 11, 2008
By Reason Wafawarova in SYDNEY, Australia
December 11, 2008
"LET'S bowl Bobby out!" This was a screaming header in a centre page article by mesmerist writer Alan Howe in the December 8 issue of The Herald Sun, an Australian daily.
The bowling parlance was directed at none other than President Mugabe, whose accompanying image to the article was escorted by the images of Adolf Hitler, Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milosevic and Benito Mussolini.
Alan Howe introduced his piece by asserting definitively that President Mugabe is but just the only remaining "giant of the 20th century genocide".
He mockingly describes this "giant" as "a wrinkled, poisonous poppy whose time has come".
It is ironic that the piece carried Howe's own ancient face with a multitude of wrinkles and that his style of writing would seriously tempt one to borrow from him the "poisonous poppy" phrase if there was any need to describe the writer.
Howe proudly reveals to his readers that there is a common trend of "a penchant for elegant (neck) ties" by all the five "tyrants" whose images accompanied the piece.
Howe alleges that President Mugabe is "like many a despot in overheated former British colonies".
This obviously an expression of the revisionist line of thought that says Africans were not ready to rule themselves and that the fall of colonial empires and the dawn of independence was an ill- advised idea.
In fact, Howe incorrectly but shamelessly blames Jimmy Carter and Malcolm Fraser for helping President Mugabe come to power.
Howe makes a passionate wish that his hope is that he does not see a day when President Mugabe "turns out at another Commonwealth Heads of Governments Meeting... wearing a necktie".
According to Howe, this is because "Mugabe is an unforgivably mad, genocidal mass murderer".
This description is given with no regard to the scientific meaning of the word "mad", no consideration of the internationally accepted definition of the term "genocide" and a reckless throwing of the phrase "mass murderer".
This is how tyrants and despots are made in Western media. You just describe them continually until the label sticks.
Howe bemoans the failure by the Commonwealth to deal with President Mugabe decisively, and for that he describes the organisation as "the Queen's preposterous and shameless glee club".
This writer will agree that the Commonwealth is a preposterous and shameless glee club but for different reasons.
It failed to recognise the importance of Zimbabwe's Land Reform Programme and undemocratically suspended Zimbabwe before slapping the country with wide-ranging sanctions shamelessly called "travel bans".
Britain, India, Canada and Australia are singled out in the article as having "done close to zero to tame Mugabe".
This is despite the fact that Britain's number one foreign policy agenda since 2000 has been Zimbabwe. This is also despite that the ravaging sanctions on the country have been mobilised by Britain and her allies.
Howe clearly thinks that the sanctions slapped on Zimbabwe by his country and other Western countries are of a benign effect and of no consequence.
Rather what is to be blamed is "the preposterous and shameless" Commonwealth that has stood by "while Mugabe has sentenced even those tribespeople nominally on his side to death by poverty and starvation, and – cholera".
So the Commonwealth that suspended economic dealings with Zimbabwe, joined the EU and America in blocking credit lines and balance of payments, is the same Commonwealth that is supposed to stand up and stop the poverty and starvation of Zimbabwe's "tribespeople".
How amazing!
Howe is not only obsessed with the delusions of grandeur he has about the Commonwealth.
He is still alive all alone in his own world of the good old days of the British Empire – the days when Great Britain was running the world.
In his article, he writes absolute lies as facts and no doubt many of his readers would fall victim to his wandering and fictitious mind.
Says Howe: "Think of this: The Union Jack flies in the top corner of the flags of three of the four poorest countries on earth. Two are British controlled, two Australia's Commonwealth allies."
Howe lists the three as being among the following five – Swaziland, Mozambique, Zambia, Sierra Leon and Lesotho.
Canberra displays all flags for the 192 countries of this world and not even one of these five countries carries the Union Jack at the top left-hand corner.
Just like with Rhodesians and the apartheid racists of South Africa, some people will never accept that the world has changed.
Despite the usual blaming of Mugabe for HIV and Aids, orphans, cricket team performance, inflation and so on, Howe urges Australia to "look beyond its traditional allies and, working with new South African President Kgalema Motlanthe, who recently replaced the Mugabe apologist Thabo Mbeki, should work towards a new coalition of the willing to invade Zimbabwe".
He further says: "Zimbabweans would be delighted and surprised, if we bothered." Surprised yes, but delighted NO.
This writer does not think there is any sane Zimbabwean that cherishes the idea of invading Westerners as something to cheer about.
In the typical fantasising that drove George W. Bush into Iraq in 2003, Howe wrote that soldiers, doctors and nurses "will line the streets to greet us".
This writer bets they would, but with petrol bombs, spears, arrows and every weapon they can lay their hands on, just as was done in Baghdad.
Those who think the Tsvangirai-Ian Khama alliance is a piece of nothing must revise their thoughts because the military mood towards Zimbabwe is badly shaping up in the West.
Condoleezza Rice says she has already discussed what needs to be done with David Miliband of Britain.
Back to what we started with, we have these "despots" whose main qualification is their stance against the Western alliance.
At the end these need to be attacked through military invasions.
This is the thinking that made The Herald Sun accompany the image of President Mugabe with the five other characters whose countries were all invaded by the Western forces at one time or another.
Hitler and Mussolini were fighting the war of expansionism – basically a war of European murderers and robbers bent on invading and colonising other territories to expand their empires.
The two felt they had been left out in the rush for colonies and Hitler's Germany had pulled out of the League of Nations in 1933 with Mussolini following suit in 1937 after the League had imposed sanctions on Italy for the invasion of Abyssinia.
Mussolini was feted as Europe's premier statesman after the glory of the Munich Peace Agreement of 1938 and he sought to consolidate his newly acquired status by having the "Pact of Steel" with Hitler leading to the invasions of Czechoslovakia, Albania and Poland in 1939.
Now, purely based on the colonial and imperial prowess of Hitler and Mussolini, we have the labels of despot, dictator, tyrant and so on and so forth.
The excesses of these other leaders were but an official excuse to justify a war between unrepentant robbers.
President Mugabe is a revolutionary African leader who made a decision to give back his country's land to its landless masses and his crusade cannot be compared with the colonial brutalities of Hitler and Mussolini.
It does not matter the reasons given for the comparisons, such an analysis is puerile and full of political mischief.
Milosevic was made infamous for "Serbian nationalism" and the Western media heavily criticised him for allegedly telling Serbians that were clashing with police that, "You will not be beaten," and, "No one should dare to beat you again".
These words were allegedly spoken on April 24 in 1987.
Surely, if one opposition leader from Zimbabwe says he will remove Mugabe "violently" he is hailed as a democrat but a "communist" Milosevic is not even allowed to tell his people that they should not be beaten up by the police.
Bill Clinton accused Milosevic of seeking to "expand his power by inciting religious and ethnic hatred in the cause of Greater Serbia, by demonising and dehumanising people, especially the Bosnian and Kosovar Muslims..."
His Secretary of State Madeleine Albright further accused Milosevic of starting four wars including Kosovo.
Christopher Smith, a US Congress representative, said Milosevic "relied on virulent Serbian nationalism to instigate conflict".
At The Hague, the core charges against Milosevic were centred on allegations that he desired to create a Greater Serbia.
All this was despite the fact that Milosevic supported and agreed with the Vance-Owen and Vance-Stotenberg peace plans, both rejected by Bosnia and others at the instruction of Washington.
James Barker, the former US secretary of state, wrote that despite the fact that Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia seceded in violation of the Helsinki Principles, they still received support and recognition at the UN by Western Europe and America.
Reynaud Theunens, the prosecution analyst at The Hague, admitted that they had no evidence that Milosevic ordered Serbian fighters in Croatia and Bosnia to carry out any subversive acts.
Despite this other side of the story we are told in no uncertain terms that Milosevic was guilty at The Hague even after having died of natural causes before the trial.
He is a convicted tyrant and despot just like Robert Mugabe.
If allegations of supporting and directing acts of subversion and banditry were the criterion for tyrants and Hague candidates then the world must prepare itself for the trial of George W. Bush.
As for Saddam Hussein's picture in the company of President Mugabe's image, well, this is a calculated move to whip up emotions and also to psyche the readers for such a travesty as was seen at the sad joke that was called a trial at the end of 2006.
Hussein was raised, natured, armed, backed and established by Washington and London.
He was a Reagan and Thatcher favourite and a good friend of Bush Senior up until he mistook the strength of his masters for his own.
Like Idi Amin of Uganda he fell out with the Western masters and was duly labelled a monster.
His similarities to President Mugabe can only be of having differences with the West and that is where the similarities start and end.
The motivation of the West in coming up with labels of dictatorships and tyranny is purely based on Western interests and not on such moral standards like the firebrand human rights gospel that is preached to us daily by irrelevant zealots like Alan Howe.
Yes, the world's history is littered with nasty acts that any decent human being is bound to denounce and such acts we will all denounce.
However, the rhetoric by those whose history and present tell us of a people with hands dripping with the blood of weaker peoples cannot be taken seriously by those who genuinely seek international social justice.
Zimbabweans we are one and together we will overcome. It is homeland or death!
Reason Wafawarova is a political writer and can be contacted on wafawarova@yahoo.co.uk or reason@rwafawarova.com or visit www.rwafawarova.com
Printer friendly version Send page by E-Mail
Tanzania rules out military intervention on Zimbabwe
Posted: Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Ikulu rules out military action on Zimbabwe: Vetoes suggestion by Kenyan PM Odinga
Thisday Reporter
Dar es Salaam
thisday.co.tz
December 10 2008
TANZANIA has categorically ruled out the possibility of authorizing military intervention in Zimbabwe to topple President Robert Mugabe.
This follows a controversial appeal by Kenyan Prime Minister Raila Odinga, who at the weekend called on President Jakaya Kikwete to push for Mugabe's ouster through military action.
Kikwete is the current chairman of the African Union (AU), and has been deeply involved in international efforts aimed at resolving the worsening Zimbabwe situation.
The State House Director of Communications, Salva Rweyemamu, told THISDAY in an interview yesterday that Tanzania's long-standing position has been that the crisis in Zimbabwe can only be solved through dialogue.
"Only dialogue between the Zimbabwean parties, supported by the AU and other regional actors, can restore peace and stability to that country," he said.
Rweyemamu described the Zimbabwe crisis as "a difficult and not an easy case to handle", that needs extra care to solve in order to avoid triggering an unending civil war "as has happened and is happening in other African countries."
He said the AU will continue to encourage dialogue between the two conflicting sides in Zimbabwe, in search of a "lasting" solution.
According to the Ikulu spokesman, this position was reached at the 11th AU summit held in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt.
Full Article : thisday.co.tz
Printer friendly version Send page by E-Mail
Zimbabwe: Africa says no to military intervention
Posted: Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Herald Reporters
December 10, 2008
The Herald
AFRICAN countries have rejected calls by Western countries for military intervention in Zimbabwe with Tanzania, the current chair of the African Union, and Kenya leading the rejections.
Kenya's position was particularly significant as it buttressed the view that Raila Odinga spews vitriol on Zimbabwe not in his capacity as Prime Minister of Kenya, but leader of the opposition Orange Democratic Movement.
Tanzania State House Director of Communications Mr Salva Rweyemamu was quoted on Monday as saying that his country was of the view that the challenges in Zimbabwe could only be solved through dialogue.
"Only dialogue between the Zimbabwean parties, supported by the AU and other regional actors can restore peace and stability to that country," media reports in Tanzania quoted him as saying.
Mr Rweyemamu, whose country holds the AU chair, said the political problems in Zimbabwe were "difficult and not easy to handle, (and) need extra care to solve in order to avoid triggering an unending civil war".
He said the AU would continue to encourage dialogue in search of a lasting solution.
In Kenya, Foreign Minister Mr Moses Wetangula condemned as uncalled for utterances by that country's Prime Minister Raila Odinga for the AU to deploy peacekeepers in Zimbabwe saying such calls contravened AU statutes.
"AU statutes do not provide for military invasion of sovereign states like Zimbabwe. Furthermore, the AU has no troops to send anywhere. It can only ask member states to donate," The Standard Online of Kenya quoted him as saying.
Mr Wetangula appealed to MDC-T leader Mr Morgan Tsvangirai to join the envisaged inclusive Government.
He also advised Western countries against imposing more sanctions on Zimbabwe saying they only hurt ordinary citizens.
Mr Wetangula's call comes at a time when the EU, which ironically claims to be extending "humanitarian" assistance to Zimbabwe, has intensified its sanctions, a development observers said was bound to worsen the cholera outbreak by constraining Government's capacity to respond.
ANC leader Cde Jacob Zuma said much of the world effort on Zimbabwe was misdirected.
He said he was firmly convinced that the course to take was to support former South African president Cde Thabo Mbeki's efforts to move Zimbabwean parties towards an inclusive Government.
Secretary for Information and Publicity Cde George Charamba said Government was aware that Africa would never support military action against Zimbabwe.
"We knew Africa would never agree to be turned into a mercenary force of invasion against Zimbabwe to uphold the interests of Britain and Europe," he said.
"Picture this: In Kenya at least 1 000 are killed in political unrest, in Zimbabwe slightly over 500 die of cholera, a natural disease. Bush and Brown make no case for armed intervention in Kenya, but find compelling reason to intervene in Zimbabwe. It does not make sense."
The Minister of Information and Publicity, Cde Sikhanyiso Ndlovu, said the Government would not entertain any peacekeeping forces as Zimbabwe was not a threat to international peace and security.
Addressing a Press conference in Harare yesterday, Cde Ndlovu said the so-called peacekeeping force would be an invading force.
"The Zimbabwe Government is taking serious measures to offset any threats, any further sanctions on our people. Any interference shall not be tolerated," he said.
Cde Ndlovu dismissed the idea of a peacekeeping force being suggested by some African leaders such as Kenya's Odinga.
"It is impossible. It is a no. The UN will not entertain that because we are not at civil war. Who is inviting them? We are alert that it (the peacekeeping force) is a camouflage of an invasion," Cde Ndlovu said.
He branded as unacceptable and despicable calls by Europe and some African leaders for President Mugabe to step down and castigated Odinga, Botswana President Ian Khama, Belgium, Britain and US for pushing for illegal regime change in Zimbabwe.
Cde Ndlovu said Belgium was not qualified to lecture Zimbabwe accusing it of sponsoring DRC rebels.
"Belgium and Javier Solana (the EU foreign policy chief) must shut up. We do not want the Belgians to come and give us lectures when their hands are full of blood from Congo," he said.
He reminded Odinga of the good relations that existed between Zimbabwe and Kenya.
"He must know that we are brothers and sisters. We need good relations between Zimbabwe and Kenya, these good relations are there. It is only Odinga's mouth that has bad breath. I think he must shut up," Cde Ndlovu said.
He said any efforts to incite violence in the country would not work as it had failed before.
Cde Ndlovu also castigated Botswana saying it was slowly turning into a monarchy.
"We all know that Botswana is turning into a monarch if not a military junta with the sitting President not elected but handed over power on account of his lineage and strategically filling all key government posts with military personnel loyal to that establishment," he said.
Cde Ndlovu said US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice must stop criticising Government and leave the incoming Obama administration to build ties with Zimbabwe.
Cde Ndlovu blasted the EU's decision to intensify sanctions on Zimbabwe.
EU foreign ministers met on Monday and resolved to intensify the sanctions at a time the progressive world was moving into help Zimbabwe.
"We are not surprised. They (EU) have never had an interest in the welfare of the people of Zimbabwe because these sanctions are not targeted as they claim to be but hurt ordinary persons," said Cde Ndlovu.
He said the addition of more people to the sanctions list was part of efforts to intimidate Zimbabwean leaders.
Printer friendly version Send page by E-Mail
Using Cholera for Regime Change in Zimbabwe
Posted: Tuesday, December 9, 2008
By Ayinde
December 09, 2007
The Cholera outbreak in Zimbabwe is a direct consequence of the sanctions on Zimbabwe that denies the government resources with which to treat its water supply, health sector and other essential services. The aim of Western powers is to claim that this Cholera outbreak is threatening neighbouring countries, thus is an international crisis warranting international intervention. They aim to topple the government in Zimbabwe to install their puppet, Morgan Tsvangirai.
Western powers hope this regime change exercise would cause a reversal of the Mugabe government's land redistribution program, where land that was previously occupied by an estimated 3000 White farmers has been redistributed to 300,000 landless descendents of Black Africans whose land was stolen by White settlers. They also hope that the destruction of Zimbabwe under President Robert Mugabe sends a strong warning to other African governments of what to expect if they too were to reclaim land that was stolen by White settlers.
Read Zimbabwe Watch for more historical information behind the ongoing attempts to topple the ZANU-PF government. www.zimbabwewatch.com
Printer friendly version Send page by E-Mail
Zimbabwe: UN, Sadc teams arrive
Posted: Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Herald Reporters
December 09, 2008
The Herald
ZIMBABWE'S request for assistance to fight the cholera epidemic has paid off with the United Nations responding at the highest level by dispatching a five-member team of health experts from Geneva, while Sadc sent another five-member emergency team.
Both teams arrived in the country yesterday.
The two teams are expected to give technical and logistical support to the Government using existing structures at a time some Western countries were gearing to politicise the outbreak to abet aggression by claiming structures of assistance in Zimbabwe had collapsed.
The WHO team – comprising head of delegation Dr Eric Laroche, director of operational platform Dr Dominique Legros, communication officer Mr Paul Garwood, logistician Mr Fred Urlep, water epidemiologist Dr Francesco Checchi – is expected to complement the existing WHO staff already in the country.
The Sadc team comprises Dr Antonica Hembe, Mr Joseph Mthethwa, Mr Ityai Muvandi, Mr Phera Ramoei and Dr Vonai Teveredzi.
The team arrives at a time Sadc has indicated that donor assistance to Zimbabwe should be Sadc-led.
Dr Laroche said the WHO team was in Zimbabwe to assist the Government through case investigation data management, surveillance and implementation of world guidelines in treating the disease.
"Our team will be in Zimbabwe, as long as it is required, to support the local WHO team control and stick to the guidelines of treating and registering patients among others. We are purely a technical team that will offer technical, logistical and financial support," he said.
He said the team would help Government source funds required to fight the epidemic.
WHO has already set up a National Command Centre.
Health and Child Welfare Minister Dr David Parirenyatwa welcomed the teams saying Zimbabwe was looking forward to sustainable measures to control cholera and other communicable diseases.
He said Government expected the experts to characterise the types of cholera in different areas in line with regional trends and offer assistance in improving water and sanitation in the country.
"The team is in the country to buttress what WHO is (already) doing and strengthening my team that is working on the disease. This is a team that is sent anywhere in the world where there is an outbreak and we hope it will deal decisively with the problem of cholera in the country.
"We hope the information that will be produced will be properly documented and available for the benefit of the country and the region because to me this is a unique outbreak," he said.
The team, he said, should help in coming up with a proper way of arriving at statistics since it was difficult for stakeholders to agree on figures.
Dr Parirenyatwa said there was need to come up with a point person within the ministry to work with the WHO personnel in co-ordinating the response to the epidemic.
The WHO team will be on the ground until Zimbabwe has successfully managed to deal with cholera outbreak that has claimed hundreds of lives since August.
The teams are expected to visit cholera hot spots that include Norton, Budiriro, Mudzi, Beitbridge and Chitungwiza.
Meanwhile, Dr Parirenyatwa complemented the support the country was receiving from the regional international and donor community following its request for assistance in the health sector.
He said: "The ministry is getting good response from donor agencies as exemplified by the support from Namibia, South Africa, the European Union and Tanzania. Donors and NGOs have also responded positively although the assistance is not enough and we still need more."
South Africa has been helping Zimbabwe battle cholera in Beitbridge while Namibia on Sunday donated a consignment of drugs and water treatment chemicals worth US$200 000 to help in the fight against cholera.
The assistance comes at a time the British and American governments have been agitating for aggression saying Zimbabwe's was in the grip of a humanitarian crisis that had outstripped Government capacity.
The two countries were spoiling to have Zimbabwe on the agenda of the UN Security Council with the UN reportedly being pressured to send an envoy to abet the cause.
Commenting on the development Presidential Spokesman, Cde George Charamba said the Westerners would stop at nothing to have Zimbabwe on the agenda of the UN Security Council.
"The British and the Americans are dead set on bringing Zimbabwe back to the UN Security Council, they are also dead set on ensuring that there is an invasion of Zimbabwe but without themselves carrying it out. In those circumstances they will stop at nothing including abusing both the office and personnel of the secretary general.
"We would not be surprised if they spring a 'mission' involving the UN."
Observers, however, say it remains to be seen whether the campaign will continue given that the UN has not only responded at the highest level, but also at the appropriate level by sending health experts.
More so, they said, the presence of the Sadc team and the recent MoU signed between the Government and WFP showed that Zimbabwe was open to genuine international assistance as bona fide international agencies were already on the ground.
Government appealed for help after declaring cholera and the state of central hospitals a national emergency.
Some countries and organisations such as China, Namibia, Unicef, the EU itself and Usaid among others have already chipped in with assistance in the form of vaccines, drugs, water purification tablets, drips and equipment.
Printer friendly version Send page by E-Mail
Cholera Outbreak Outcome of West's War on Zimbabwe
Posted: Tuesday, December 9, 2008
By Stephen Gowans
December 08, 2008
The crisis in Zimbabwe has intensified. Inflation is incalculably high. The central bank limits – to an inadequate level – the amount of money Zimbabweans can withdraw from their bank accounts daily. Unarmed soldiers riot, their guns kept under lock and key, to prevent an armed uprising. Hospital staff fail to show up for work. The water authority is short of chemicals to purify drinking water. Cholera, easily prevented and cured under normal circumstances, has broken out, leading the government to declare a humanitarian emergency.
In the West, state officials call for the country's president, Robert Mugabe, to step down and yield power to the leader of the largest faction of the Movement for Democratic Change, Morgan Tsvangirai. In this, the crisis is directly linked to Mugabe, its solution to Tsvangirai, but it's never said what Mugabe has done to cause the crisis, or how Tsvangirai's ascension to the presidency will make it go away.
Full Article : raceandhistory.com
Printer friendly version Send page by E-Mail
Botswana's Macho Politics on Zimbabwe
Posted: Saturday, December 6, 2008
New Era
newera.com.na
Namibia state-owned daily newspaper
December 05 2008
BOTSWANA'S call for the complete closure of borders with Zimbabwe by its neighbours to effect the downfall of President Robert Mugabe and his government amounts to a declaration of war through other means against its northern neighbour. It is a subtle call to arms and very dangerous.
Such brazen advocacy for regime change could escalate tensions between the two neighbours and lead to open conflict. Mugabe's government though has to be commended for maintaining its cool in this regard.
Botswana's bellicose behaviour is also reflected in its open invitation to the leader of Zimbabwe's opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), Morgan Tsvangirai, to relocate to Botswana and set up a so-called "democratic resistance movement", an apparent code phrase for a military project.
Tsvangirai is currently operating from Zimbabwe where he is agitating for his cause. He is among his people in Zimbabwe and his group is not banned. Why ask him to relocate if it is not for other sinister plans?
Needless to say the proposition to close down borders and effect regime change in Zimbabwe runs contrary to the letter and spirit of the Southern African Development Community (SADC), its stated objectives and treaties on open borders, free trade and other conventions that govern relations between member countries. Nowhere in any of SADC protocols is it stated that a member country can topple another government, let alone threaten to do so.
Open advocacy for regime change raises the bar and could lead to open hostility between the two countries. Botswana should therefore be told to mind its language on Zimbabwe.
Gaborone could articulate its displeasure with Harare without being arrogant and pompous. It can project its power the way it sees fit but has to understand that it does not own Zimbabwe. Neither is it a regional policeman – if at all, SADC is and not Botswana.
Only the people of Zimbabwe have the moral and legal right to remove their government and instal another one.
Botswana should not become to Zimbabwe what Rwanda is to the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Other SADC members have to put Gaborone on notice about the dangers of its political posturing and growing demagoguery.
The power play as being projected by Botswana is encouraged by, among other factors, the political dormancy of key power brokers in the region like South Africa, Namibia, Zambia and to a lesser extent Angola that are still consumed by their internal politics including the early departure of former South African president Thabo Mbeki from the political scene.
It is clear that SADC has a leadership deficit. SADC's strong men as were Kenneth Kaunda, Julius Nyerere, Augustinho Neto, Samora Machel, Sam Nujoma and Oliver Tambo are becoming a rare species in a region that once held hope for Africa.
For Botswana to suggest or contemplate toppling the Mugabe government in Zimbabwe contrary to SADC position is the height of folly. It is a failure to read the sign on the wall and history.
Botswana needs to understand that Mugabe and Zanu-PF will have to be part of any solution in Zimbabwe and not the other way round. Mugabe and Zanu-PF cannot be sidelined, let alone toppled willy-nilly and thrown to the wolves. Those who do so will never have their cake and eat it.
If we may ask, why did Botswana maintain open borders with Ian Smith and white supremacists in South Africa in the 1960s and 70s? Why did they not call for border closure then? Is the sin more the colour of Mugabe or what?
The mere thought of ejecting the Zimbabwe government out of power through force and economic strangulation as espoused by Botswana is dangerous to say the least because that would mean the collapse of the Zimbabwe state, as we know it today. What will follow will be a Somali type of situation and chaos.
And who says Zimbabwe will sit idle while being strangled by another country. No one should underestimate the capacity of Zimbabwe to retaliate ferociously against those seeking to turn the tables against it. Zimbabwe may be a tired and wounded tiger but that makes it even more dangerous.
Any regime change in Zimbabwe would have to be effected by the people of that country and not engineered from outside. But more importantly, such change has to come through a controlled process – dialogue or elections and not chaos.
It is foolhardy of Botswana's foreign minister, Pandu Skelemani, to assume that the government of Zimbabwe will collapse in a matter of a week should borders with that country be sealed as he was quoted as saying.
What and whose intelligence is Botswana relying on in this regard? Has he bothered to ask the Palestinians in Gaza or North Koreans why they are still there even after major blockades?
Reproduced for fair use only from:
www.newera.com.na/article.php?articleid=1249
Printer friendly version Send page by E-Mail
Namibia slams Botswana for 'war' on Zimbabwe
Posted: Saturday, December 6, 2008
en.afrik.com
December 05 2008
In a hard-hitting editorial, New Era, whose views are meant to reflect the thinking of the Namibian government, said that Botswana's call for complete closure of borders with Zimbabwe was 'foolhardy', adding that 'brazen advocacy for regime change could escalate tension between the two countries.
The Namibia state owned daily said that Botswana's behaviour amounted to 'a declaration of war through other means against its northern neighbour.'
Botswana, which has toughened its stance against the Harare regime, made headlines after it called for total isolation of the Robert Mugabe-led government.
Botswana foreign minister Pandu Skelemani has said that Botswana is ready to offer opposition party leader Morgan Tsvangirai a haven to set up 'democratic resistance movement'.
New Era said that the statement was an 'apparent code phrase for a military project', adding that Botswana could express its displeasure with Harare without being 'arrogant and pompous'.
Full Article : en.afrik.com
Printer friendly version Send page by E-Mail
Zimbabwe: Cholera now national emergency
Posted: Friday, December 5, 2008
By Paidamoyo Chipunza
December 04, 2008
The Herald
THE Government yesterday declared the cholera outbreak that has claimed 563 lives so far and the malfunctioning of central hospitals as national emergencies and appealed to the donor community for assistance to alleviate the situation.
Addressing stakeholders at a meeting to mobilise resources for the health sector held in Harare, the Minister of Health and Child Welfare, Dr David Parirenyatwa, said there was a critical shortage of resources in the health sector.
He said referral hospitals were in urgent need of drugs, food and equipment.
Dr Parirenyatwa also cited the critical shortage of staff in hospitals adding that those remaining had no zeal to work.
"Our central hospitals are literally not functioning. Our staff is demotivated and we need your support to ensure that they start coming to work and our health system is revived," Dr Parirenyatwa said.
Among the items urgently required by hospitals are medicines, laboratory reagents, surgical sundries, renal and laundry equipment, X-ray films and boilers.
He said 450 renal patients required dialysis.
Dr Parirenyatwa appealed for food to feed patients and for child supplementary feeding programmes.
He warned that the shortage of resources risked derailing the country's anti-retroviral programme to HIV patients that was going on well.
"The emergency appeal will help us reduce the morbidity and mortality associated with the current socio-economic environment by December 2009.
"We are hoping that within the next 12 months we would have achieved the package," Dr Parirenyatwa said.
He said 563 people had died of cholera throughout the country as of yesterday.
"There has been a reduction in the number of cholera cases in the past days from all provinces except for Harare where all cases are still being linked to Budiriro. We still have a challenge of controlling the movement of people in an effort to curb further prevalence of the outbreak," he said.
He said his ministry required US$1,5 million every month as incentives for health workers. "So far, US$7 million has been made available with effect from January 1 2009 and there is still a gap of US$11 million which we are requesting now," Dr Parirenyatwa said.
The incentives, Dr Parirenyatwa said, would cover all health personnel including those in training institutions.
The Deputy Minister of Water and Infrastructural Development, Cde Walter Mzembi, who also attended the meeting, said his ministry had water treatment chemicals enough to last the next 12 weeks.
"I am appealing for at least R40 million to purchase chemicals for the next two months and the money is needed between now and next Monday," Cde Mzembi said.
R10 million will buy aluminum sulphate solution and the remainder will pay for aluminum sulphate granular.
Donors who included United Nation agencies, embassies and non-governmental organisations pledged to assist Government address the critical needs within the specified period.
United Nations Development Programme country representative Dr Agostinho Zacarias said the current problems facing Zimbabwe's health sector needed a co-ordinated response.
"We need to pool our resources together and see how best we can respond to this emergency," he said.
World Health Organisation representative Dr Custodia Mandlate said while there has been overwhelming response from the donor community pledging to assist the Government of Zimbabwe, the Ministry of Health and Child Welfare should take a leadership and stewardship role in revamping the health sector.
Dr Parirenyatwa's Deputy Dr Edwin Muguti, Acting Finance Minister Cde Webster Shamu, the Dean of Diplomatic Corps and DRC Ambassador to Zimbabwe Mr Mwanananga Mwanapanga, UN agencies' representatives, NGOs and senior Government officials attended the meeting.
Printer friendly version Send page by E-Mail
No land changes: Zimbabwe Govt
Posted: Monday, December 1, 2008
December 01, 2008
Herald Reporter-Bulawayo Bureau
herald.co.zw
THE Sadc Tribunal's ruling that 78 white former commercial farmers whose properties were compulsorily acquired by Government for resettlement could keep their farms will not reverse land reforms.
Responding to the ruling made last Friday, the Minister of State for National Security, Lands, Land Reform and Resettlement, Cde Didymus Mutasa, described the tribunal as "daydreaming" and said the Government would disregard the judgment.
He said the Sadc Tribunal would not stall the land reform programme to please former colonial masters.
"They (the tribunal) are day-dreaming because we are not going to reverse the land reform exercise," he said.
Cde Mutasa emphasised that the Govern-ment would accelerate the land reform programme instead.
He said remaining white-owned farms would be acquired by Government for the benefit of those left out of the programme since 2000.
Cde Mutasa said it was important for the Government to protect the majority black farmers who were marginalised for decades.
On Friday, the Sadc Tribunal ruled that 78 white farmers could keep their farms because the land reform programme discriminated against them.
President of the tribunal Judge Luis Mondlane said the Zimbabwean Government had violated the treaty governing the 15-nation regional bloc by compulsorily acquiring white-owned farms for resettlement.
"The 78 applicants have a clear legal title (for their farms) and were denied access to the judiciary locally," he said.
Judge Mondlane ordered the Government "to take all measures to protect the possessions and ownership" of the 75 farmers still on their farms.
However, Cde Mutasa dismissed the call to protect the farmers, saying Government would treat white farmers equally as everyone else.
"There is nothing special about the 75 farmers and we will take more farms. It's not discrimination against farmers, but correcting land imbalances," he said.
The verdict was the first major ruling by the Sadc Tribunal since it first convened in April last year.
The group of white farmers was led by William Michael Campbell, who filed the case last December to seek court relief "from a continued onslaught of invasions and intimidation", according to court papers.
But a lawyer representing resettled farmers, Advocate Farai Mutamangira, described the ruling by the regional court as shocking because it ignored the history of the land issue in Zimbabwe.
He said the tribunal had consistently demonstrated lack of understanding of land reform in Zimbabwe and its meaning to Zimbabweans.
"The tribunal deliberately chose to ignore history and proceeded to decide the matter outside of its historical context. The tribunal got the whole matter wrong at both the municipal and international law. There were so many avenues of escape for the tribunal.
"There are more than 100 reasons and grounds upon which the tribunal could have made findings in favour of the beneficiaries of the land reform, but deliberately chose not to do so," he said.
Adv Mutamangira questioned the logic for and reasons as well as the jurisprudence that the tribunal is developing for the region.
He added that the tribunal decision was completely at variance with the whole essence of liberation and self-determination.
"In short, the tribunal has behaved like a colonial court of the 1950s and 60s by entrenching and protecting colonial minority interests," he said.
Government, Adv Mutamangira said, would not abandon its policy on land on the basis of the shocking ruling by the tribunal.
Printer friendly version Send page by E-Mail
Divisions rock MDC-T
Posted: Tuesday, November 18, 2008
By Mabasa Sasa
November 18, 2008
The Herald
SERIOUS divisions have rocked MDC-T over participation in the envisaged inclusive Government with a clique loyal to party president Mr Morgan Tsvangirai moving to postpone the party congress scheduled for the beginning of 2009 to 2012 to save Mr Tsvangirai from imminent ouster.
Sources within the MDC say the pro-Tsvangirai lobby wants their boss to be part of the inclusive Government. This, they say, is why the national council resolved to join the inclusive Government, while the anti-Tsvangirai camp reportedly wants the MDC-T leader to dither over the inclusive Government till the party congress as they feel the premiership would strengthen his position ahead of congress.
Though MDC-T spokesman Mr Nelson Chamisa dismissed the existence of a plot to oust his boss, he, however, confirmed that the party congress would be moved to 2012.
"First of all, understand that the deal is not about Morgan Tsvangirai; it is about the party and not any individual. Any position taken (concerning the inclusive Government) is an MDC position.
"Secondly, there is not going to be any congress next year. That is something that Zanu-PF is hoping for and maybe it will be held at Zanu-PF headquarters, so certainly it will not be an MDC congress.
"We held our congress in 2007 and it is held every five years. So the next congress is going to be in 2012," Mr Chamisa said.
The MDC constitution stipulates that a party president holds office for two five-year terms, and is not eligible for re-election thereafter. Mr Tsvangirai became MDC president at the party's inaugural congress in 1999 and his second and final term is set to expire at the end of January next year.
Sources at Harvest House, the MDC-T headquarters, however, said a powerful clique linked to a Zimbabwean businessman based in South Africa wants to block Mr Tsvangirai from joining the inclusive Government so that they can oust him at congress.
The hawks are said to be on a campaign to convince other party members that it is not in the opposition's best interests to be part of the inclusive Government.
The Herald is reliably informed that there is a strong push for Mr Tsvangirai's ouster.
"There is a group of about five influential officials who want regime change in the party and they feel that if Mr Tsvangirai joins Government as Prime Minister it will be difficult to oust him.
"So they are trying to stop him from joining in the first place. Some of them initially felt that it would not matter if Mr Tsvangirai were to become Prime Minister.
"But others thought that this would create a situation such as the one in South Africa where Thabo Mbeki was State President while Jacob Zuma was ANC president.
"They now want to ensure he does not become part of Government at all and they are being backed by a South Africa-based local businessman," one of the sources said.
Another insider confirmed that the pro-Tsvangirai faction had resolved the party would not hold a congress next year.
"It is more or less certain that there will be no congress next year because this would provide the enemy with an opportunity to initiate a leadership change.
"Our constitution states that a congress should be held every five years and that a person can only hold two successive terms as president. Next year Mr Tsvangirai will have been opposition president for 10 years.
"Our argument is that he has only been president of MDC-T since 2007 and hence he will be eligible for re-election when the next congress is held in 2012."
The MDC split on October 12, 2005 over differences to do with participation in that year's Senate elections and the breakaway faction chose Professor Arthur Mutambara to lead it.
Mr Tsvangirai's faction held its own congress in 2007.
It could not be established who was being earmarked to take over the party, though
party secretary-general Mr Tendai Biti's name was being bandied about.
Asked why some people wanted to oust Mr Tsvangirai, an official close to the plot said: "We feel that he tries to cater for too many diverse interest groups and some of them have been responsible for our failure to get (President) Mugabe out of office.
"He listens to the British, he listens to the Americans, he listens to the Scandinavians, he listens to white former commercial farmers, he listens to former Rhodesian soldiers and then he also wants to listen to Zimbabweans from all walks of life who are the voters.
"Things can't work like that. Zanu-PF has staked its political future on the rural populace and this has kept them in power. We have to admit that it has been a successful strategy while we have been failing to roll out a consistently strong strategy for any extended period of time.
"It must change. If Tsvangirai takes the party into the inclusive Government with the present convoluted approach to national politics, (President) Mugabe will have us for breakfast."
Mr Tsvangirai is in France where he is reported to have met the European Union presidency for "consultations".
Mr Chamisa could not say what Mr Tsvangirai was doing in France, where he is said to have gone for "consultations" following the recent Sadc Extraordinary Summit in Sandton, South Africa.
He also could not say what kind of travel document Mr Tsvangirai was using as he was issued with an emergency travel document valid for South Africa only, where the Sadc summit was held.
He referred all questions to Mr Tsvangirai's spokesman George Sibotshiwe, who could not be reached for comment.
Sadc leaders last week urged Zanu-PF and the MDC formations to form an inclusive Government immediately and to enact Constitutional Amendment Number 19 to give legal force to the provisions of the agreement.
Zanu-PF has stated its willingness to comply with Sadc's decision and President Mugabe has started the process of forming a Government.
MDC-T and MDC were invited to submit lists of their preferred ministers to President Mugabe to facilitate the formation of the inclusive Government.
Printer friendly version Send page by E-Mail
Western Media Bias in Coverage of Contested Elections
Posted: Wednesday, November 5, 2008
By Stephen Gowans
November 05, 2008
gowans.wordpress.com
While elections that bring populists and reformers to power are often contested as fraudulent by Western-backed opposition coalitions which receive favourable and substantial coverage in the Western media, when pro-foreign investment parties come to power in disputed elections, the event barely merits a footnote in the back pages of Western newspapers.
The latest example of the almost complete Western media silence on contested elections that pro-foreign investment parties win, can be found in the October 30 election of Rupiah Banda as president of Zambia.
Banda's election has been "welcomed by foreign leaders and investors who praise his government's conservative fiscal policies."
By contrast, opposition leader Michael Sata, "a populist with strong support among workers and the poor," has raised concerns among foreign investors by "the strident anti-investment tone of his last campaign for the presidency in 2006."
Sata, who leads the Patriotic Front, "branded the election a fraud" after a late surge of votes erased his lead. The Patriotic Front noted "discrepancies between vote tallies and the number of voters on registration lists."
In the former Yugoslavia, Belarus and Zimbabwe, elections which have brought, or have threatened to bring, leaders to power who are not prepared to welcome Western exports and investments on entirely favourable terms and without restriction, have been denounced as unfair before the first ballot is cast.
When this happens, the Western media routinely provide the pro-investment opposition wide and sympathetic coverage.
In what little Western media coverage the Patriotic Front has received, Sata's charges of electoral fraud have been treated as the whining of a poor loser.
According to the official tally, Banda won 40 percent of the 1.79 million votes cast, versus 38 percent for the leader of the Patriotic Front.
It's unclear whether Banda's election victory was fraudulent, but the double standard evident in Western media coverage of contested elections evinces an institutional bias consistent with the view that media coverage reflects the class interests of its owners.
Were Sata the comprador champion of foreign investment and Banda the populist backed by working people and the poor, we would have expected visible and sympathetic coverage of the opposition's complaint that the election had been stolen.
NOTES:
"Zambia opposition to contest Banda election", Reuters, November 2, 2008.
"Zambia swears in a new president," Reuters, November 3, 2008.
Printer friendly version Send page by E-Mail
Zimbabwe's undemocratic 'democrats'
Posted: Friday, October 10, 2008
By Reason Wafawarova
October 10, 2008
THE Western-sponsored political running by Zimbabwe's opposition is in many ways a replay of Washington's mindless and reckless games that started soon after the US declared the American century just after the Second World War.
There is nothing new in the sponsorship of client political parties and the regime change doctrine was actually overplayed in Latin America during the peak of the Cold War.
There is nothing new in the role of sanctions as a form of pressure to coerce compliant political behaviour and as a tool to force the public into submission and to create conditions that may lead to an uprising.
This writer will revisit Nicaragua in the 1980s and draw the attention of the readers to some glaring similarities between what was happening then and what we have seen happen in Zimbabwe in this first decade of the 21st century.
Nicaragua held an election in November 1984 and the United States clarified their subversive aims towards Nicaragua by an outstandingly hysterical reaction to this election.
It was a reaction not very different from what we saw in the run-up to Zimbabwe's March 29 harmonised elections and the subsequent June 27 presidential run-off.
The US carried out a classical well-crafted propaganda coup over the Nicaraguan election by deflecting attention from the voting itself through regular diatribes that were seriously reported as news in all Western media.
Equally, the Zimbabwean election was tactfully deprived of objective coverage as the Western media went into overdrive to paint the picture of an election contested by a ruthless military junta on behalf of the ruling Zanu-PF (or vice versa) and against a well-meaning and most civilised team of democrats in the opposition MDC, particularly the faction led by Morgan Tsvangirai.
In the run-up to the June presidential election run-off, the Western media and the South African media raved hysterical about a Chinese ship carrying military supplies destined for Zimbabwe in much the same way the US national Press went hysterical about a concocted story over Russian MIGs in Nicaragua, also in the run-up to the 1984 election.
The Chinese ship story was abandoned after it had served its function of eliminating potential allies to the Zimbabwe Government, especially those from Sadc. The Nicaragua MIG story was similarly abandoned quickly as soon as Washington realised that it had served its purpose of eliminating honest coverage of the election.
In fact, the concocted story elicited some highly emotional outrage by some dovish senators in the US, well exemplified by Massachusetts Democrat Paul Tsongas, who warned that the US would have to bomb Nicaragua to eliminate the MIGs because "they are also capable against the United States". It is obviously ludicrous for any sane person to ever imagine that Nicaragua would even for once consider the possibility of attacking the United States, but such is the mentality of US elites.
Well, the Chinese ship story ended up with suggestions for military intervention in the UK House of Lords and revelations that Tony Blair had long mooted the idea of military engagement over Zimbabwe. This time the ludicrous reasoning was that Zimbabweans needed protection from their own "monstrous government" and that Britain was too good to stand aside and watch the people of Zimbabwe suffer. There is nothing sweeter than rhetoric in politics.
The US Latin American Studies Association carried a study of the Nicaraguan election and its largely objective report was virtually ignored by the national Press in the US, as were the elections themselves.
The report rejected that Arturo Cruz, the official "democrat" according to Washington, was excluded from the elections. Rather, his business backed political grouping made an ill-advised decision to exclude themselves from the election despite the fair playing field, the report said.
The report submitted the "observers' doubts" that Cruz's group had a broad following in Nicaragua.
This LASA report resonates well with the view that Tsvangirai made an ill-advised decision to exclude himself from the presidential election run-off, just five days before voting day. He was not excluded from the process by anyone but himself, of course under instruction issued at a golf course.
The report noted that Cruz's agenda was "more attuned to the policy debate in Washington than to the hardships of life in Nicaragua". There is this perpetual argument that the MDC-T agenda is more attuned to policy debates in the UK House of Lords and to Washington's foreign policy than it is to the hardships of life in Zimbabwe — and the argument makes perfect sense when one considers the elusiveness of the MDC-T position whenever Africa comes in the open condemning the illegal sanctions against Zimbabwe.
Cruz's call for talks with the US-sponsored Contras was reported as failing to "strike a popular chord in Managua". Even Cruz's own sister, Lilian, opposed her brother's treacherous call by penning an open letter to two pro-government newspapers to remind her brother that her son, Sandinista army officer David Baez, had been slain battling the Contras.
Similarly, the July call by Zimbabwe's opposition for more sanctions against their own country through the UN Security Council was an embarrassment that was widely condemned by the African Union minus Burkina Faso and by Sadc minus Botswana.
China and Russia stood in defence of international law and the United Nations Charter by blocking the ruinous move by the West to effect a fatal punishment on the people of Zimbabwe for their "disappointing" failure to engage in an uprising against their own Government.
The LASA report made a very revealing observation saying: "We know of no election in Latin America or elsewhere, in which groups advocating the violent overthrow of an incumbent government have themselves been incorporated into the electoral process; particularly when these groups have been openly supported by a foreign power."
Well, in Zimbabwe we have now known of at least five such elections in just eight years. Not only that, the groups advocating the violent overthrow of the incumbent government have actually been offered an agreement that seeks to incorporate them in an inclusive government. Then we have the amazing reality that one of the groups has the temerity to declare the offer to be not good enough.
Surely, nothing of this sort would be tolerated for an instant in the US and in the West in general.
The LASA report noted that the Nicaragua elections were indeed "manipulated", but by the Reagan administration, which did everything in its power to block and discredit them, including the inducement of Cruz and others to abstain.
Wasn't Zimbabwe's March election manipulated through politicised food aid that was given campaign-style by Western-sponsored NGOs? We have heard such reports and surely we cannot just conveniently ignore them as Zanu-PF propaganda, not when the ban on such food distribution actually resulted in Tsvangirai chickening out of the subsequent run-off.
Were there no attempts to block and discredit the presidential run-off and did we not see the West inducing Tsvangirai to boycott? It is all part of the same old strategy and for sure we are going to see more of history repeating itself.
Anyone who will demand evidence for these assertions has no idea what four-hour golf sessions between a US-backed opposition leader and a US ambassador mean and this writer will excuse them.
Cruz was later busted as being on the CIA payroll and he defended himself saying he had only "received assistance for a short period from an institution that was dedicated to support the struggle for liberty".
Pressed to name the institution, Cruz went mute while his mate, Alfonso Robelo, admitted that Cruz "had been given money in the past by the Central Intelligence Agency to carry out what the (CIA) official called 'political work'."
It is this writer's hope that someone is not going to be busted too soon. If this so-called deal either fails or leaves out some over-ambitious novice out there, then we may in reality have our own Alfonso Robelo telling it like it is.
After all, we saw a bit of that with the 2006 split of the MDC-T branch based in the UK, didn't we? Remember Job Sikhala going berserk about a "donated" couple of million US dollars the other year?
Christopher Hitchens commented on the democratic credentials of Arturo Cruz. He said: "He would not take part in an election that he felt to be insufficiently democratic, but he will take part in a war of sabotage and attrition that has no democratic pretences at all."
Have we not seen in Zimbabwe, someone refusing to take part in a "sham" election but showing religious commitment to the perpetuation of the illegal sanctions under the so-called "Tongai Tione" slogan? There is obviously no semblance of democracy in calling for sanctions against one's own country and it is not surprising that the advocates are too ashamed to stand openly and publicly withdraw their call.
Arturo Cruz and his colleagues were labelled "democrats" by US commentators not on the basis of any credible information about such commitment, but because their concept of democracy rejected the logic of the majority, which meant that Nicaragua's poor majority would have access to, and be the primary beneficiaries of their country's resources and its public programmes.
This stance, much similar to the position of the Zimbabwe opposition in relation to the popular land reclamation policy of 2000, is what suffices to confer democratic credentials by Washington and London. It is the crowning of the undemocratic democrats.
The Managua correspondent for the London Guardian, Tony Jenkins, summed up what was happening in Nicaragua by saying: "The political opposition in Nicaragua has never really committed itself to trying to win power by democratic means."
Challenged to respond to this assertion, one of the leaders of the opposition Democratic Co-ordinating Committee, a group proudly named "democratic" by Washington, which abstained from the elections, explained this posture.
He said: "It is true that we have never really tried to build up a big membership or tried to show our strength by organising regular demonstrations. Perhaps it is a mistake, but we prefer to get European and Latin American governments to put pressure on the Sandinistas."
Do we know who is playing around with the idea of running away from the negotiating table in the hope of getting European and African governments to put pressure on Zanu-PF?
While some of the reasons advanced by the MDC-T for "boycotting" the run-off might have received a degree of plausibility, there is a more fundamental reason for "the true democrats" to refuse to condemn sanctions and to rely on outsiders more than they do on political mobilisation.
We have learnt the lessons from the "democratic opposition" of Nicaragua, Miami-based Cubans, Honduras, Venezuela and our very own Zimbabwe.
In Nicaragua, Tony Jenkins noted that the opposition "never accepted the basic Sandinista precept of the revolution; that society must be reorganised to the benefit of the workers and the peasants".
Did the Zimbabwean opposition ever accept the basic precept of the Chimurenga revolution and did they ever accept that Zimbabwean society must be reorganised in terms of the distribution of land for the benefit of the landless masses?
In the absence of such acceptances the only route is to bank on pressure from outside forces and this is the only logic behind ZDERA and the shameful support for the so-called targeted sanctions. The idea is to render conditions of life intolerable, forcing the Government to tougher measures, and reinforcing the true allies of the West by presenting them as the only "democratic hope" to end the people's suffering.
That idea has largely done its cycle in Zimbabwe although the opposition still runs a clear risk of overplaying its hand posturing as a party with a popular appeal among the masses.
After all, they just agreed and accepted that the ruling Zanu-PF commanded the most popular vote in March 2008, and accordingly conceded the majority Cabinet posts in the proposed inclusive government to the ruling party.
These comparisons have been made in light of the influences that are at play in the political process in Zimbabwe and this writer's position is that whatever negotiations might still be pending between the three political parties involved; such negotiations must be in the context of Zimbabwe's national interest and must be driven by a desire to build Zimbabwe and not to build on its ruins.
There must be no room for foreign influence in the running of Zimbabwe's affairs and any deviation from this commitment cannot be rewarded or honoured. Indeed, we all seek a solution to the biting problems bedevilling the country but none of us has a right to look for slavery and servitude.
We owe it to posterity to build a solid future for Zimbabwe and any weakness now will be a crack to be mended for many years to come.
Zimbabweans we are always one and together we will overcome. It is homeland or death!
Reason Wafawarova is a political writer and can be contacted on wafawarova@yahoo.co.uk or reason@rwafawarova. com or visit www.rwafawarova.com
Printer friendly version Send page by E-Mail
Remove 'demonic' illegal sanctions, President Mugabe tells West
Posted: Friday, September 26, 2008
From Itai Musengeyi at the United Nations in NEW YORK
September 26, 2008
The Herald
PRESIDENT Mugabe says he sees no hitches in implementing the power-sharing agreement between Zanu-PF and the two MDC formations and has called on the West to remove the illegal sanctions it imposed on Zimbabwe.
In an interview with Associated Press news agency at the UN headquarters on Wednesday, President Mugabe dismissed suggestions in the West that the power-sharing agreement was facing hitches.
"There is no one who is keen to resign from the agreement, only one area relating to four Cabinet posts is outstanding. I am surprised that the Americans and British are saying loud stupid things about us.
"Four Cabinet posts cannot unravel the process; there is nobody who wants to resign from the agreement. Everyone of us is positive about the agreement," President Mugabe said.
He said the agreement would work despite the fact that Zanu-PF and the two MDC formations had different backgrounds, the ruling party being a revolutionary party while the opposition leaned on the British and their Western allies for support.
"I don't see any reason why we can't work together. As Zimbabweans, we are all sons of the soil as we say. The only differences are on how we move forward."
Britain's problem with Zimbabwe was the land issue and London's determination to see him out of office, the President told AP when asked about the opposition's intimation that it wants a truth and reconciliation exercise on alleged human rights abuses.
"The fight is between us and the British and Americans. It is the British, it is the Americans who must be reconciled to us.
"It does not pay to have their stooges reconciling with us when the principals stand apart.
"Zimbabwe has not offended the US and Britain. Zimbabwe has not interfered in their domestic affairs, but they have offended us even to the extent of creating an opposition in our country. They want regime change.
"(Former British prime minister Tony) Blair, who was once in the saddle is no more, (Gordon) Brown is on his way out. This is not because of us, but their democratic processes," President Mugabe said.
Asked about the state of democracy in Zimbabwe, the President said this should be judged by Sadc and the African Union and not by the West, which he urged to remove its illegal sanctions.
"Sanctions must be lifted. Why were they imposed in the first place? There is dishonesty in their scope, these are overwhelming sanctions with the IMF and World Bank directed to stop aid to Zimbabwe. Is there anything more demonic than that?"
President Mugabe said he remains resolute despite spirited efforts by the British and Americans to dislodge him from power.
"They are waiting for a day when this man, this evil man called Robert Mugabe, is no longer in control. I don't know when that day is coming."
Asked if he was prepared to face trial at the International Criminal Court, President Mugabe said:
"They (the West) forget that I did not invade Iraq. I am not Mr Bush, is this not the man who must face trial? They must not confuse me with Mr Bush."
The President was optimistic Zimbabwe's economy would recover if the West lifted the illegal economic blockade and stopped meddling in the internal affairs of the country.
He said Zimbabwe welcomed investment from friendly countries.
"We don't expect investment from countries that are hostile. They can keep their investment, but we would hope in the first place that sanctions would be lifted. There is no reason for imposing sanctions on Zimbabwe at all. There has never been any reason for it, you see, except hostility."
The economy's revival hinged on a good agricultural season because sufficient food would help tame inflation, President Mugabe said.
"If the West can only leave us alone you will see us come up. It will take us some time, we have lost quite a lot because of the sanctions."
The President said executive power had never been exclusive to one person in Government when asked how he felt about sharing power with MDC-T leader Morgan Tsvangirai.
"Executive power in Zimbabwe resides in the presidency (but) that power is not held by one person but devolves from the President, Vice Presidents (and now) the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Ministers down to the ministers and the civil servants."
On whether the ouster of Cde Thabo Mbeki as South African president was right, President Mugabe said it was not for him to say but noted that Cde Mbeki had done a lot of good work with Zimbabwe.
Asked if the move did not show that democracy was at work in South Africa, he said:
"Well, democracy at work? I don't think democracy should work in that negative way. Democracy in one stroke pulls him down, democracy without morality is hollow."
Earlier President Mugabe held bilateral talks with his Iranian counterpart, Mr Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, at the UN Headquarters.
The two discussed the proposed establishment of a tractor manufacturing plant in Zimbabwe under a joint venture between the Industrial Development Corporation and Iran.
Mr Ahmadinejad undertook to find out what stage the project was as soon as he gets home.
Officials said the Iranian leader indicated that if need be, he would send the relevant minister to Zimbabwe to get the project off the ground.
Iran has provided Zimbabwe with tractors under the ongoing Farm Mechanisation Programme.
Printer friendly version Send page by E-Mail
Statement to the UN General Assembly by President Mugabe
Posted: Friday, September 26, 2008
Full text of the Statement by President Mugabe to the UN General Assembly delivered on Thursday 25 September 2008
Your Excellency Mr Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann, President of the 63rd session of the United Nations General Assembly,
Your Excellency Mr Ban Ki-moon, Secretary General of the United Nations,
Your Majesties,
Your Excellencies,
Heads of State and Government,
Distinguished Delegates,
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Comrades and Friends,
Mr President,
I wish to begin by joining those who have congratulated you on your election as President of the 63rd Session of the General Assembly. My delegation is confident that under your able stewardship the General Assembly will make progress on many issues due for discussion during the current session.
I would also like to pay special tribute to your predecessor Mr Srgjan Kerim who successfully presided over the 62nd Session of the General Assembly.
Mr President,
Our discussion focus this session, namely the impact of the global food crisis and poverty and hunger in the world as well as the need to democratise the United Nations relates well to our Millennium Development goals. For us in the developing world, the eradication of poverty is the first of our priorities and should indeed continue to receive serious attention.
The current global food crisis characterised by escalating food prices is causing untold suffering to the majority of poor people in many developing countries. This has been compounded by the energy crisis with devastating social economic consequences especially on the most vulnerable in society such as women, children, the elderly, as well as people living with HIV and AIDS. The crisis now qualifies as a humanitarian emergency which requires global solidarity to provide post haste assistance in the form of food, water and energy.
Mr President,
For most developing countries, the crisis is competing with other pressing demands for scarce resources for development, including achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), especially as are faced with declining Official Development Assistance (ODA) and foreign direct investment. The trend will, regrettably, reverse some of the progress made towards the attainment of the MDGs. It is, therefore, crucial that national efforts aimed at addressing these global food and energy crises be complemented by appropriate international assistance and interventions, including debt cancellation for low-income food-deficient developing countries so as to release more resources to fight hunger. Adequate support for food production programmes is absolutely necessary.
We call for more research into better seed varieties and assistance in irrigation technology and improved water harvesting methods, necessary to mitigate the effects of climate change on agriculture. Zimbabwe believes that the challenges of climate change should be addressed in the context of development programmes that recognise the three pillars of economic and social thrusts as well as environmental protection.
Mr President,
In the past year, Zimbabwe is proud to have played her modest part in promoting sustainable development through its chairmanship of the 16th Session of the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD16). The Session which examined the obstacles and barriers to development in the areas of agriculture, land use, and rural development, and to drought mitigatory measures and desertification prevention in Africa. My Government, which was an active participant at the International Conference on the global food crisis, under the Food and Agriculture Organisation in Rome, in June this year, will continue to play its active role in formulating policy recommendations on this subject of sustainable development targets.
Mr President,
We share the view that trade is an important tool for development and so we reiterate our call for an open, rule-based, predictable and non-discriminatory trading and financial system, that seeks the removal of the main trade barriers. Tariffs have unfortunately remained high on goods from developing economies such as textiles and farm products. It is, therefore, disturbing that the Doha Round negotiations have collapsed without any indication of when they will be reconvened.
Mr President,
The objectives of the U.N. Charter in the economic arena will remain unfulfilled unless all member states genuinely and seriously participate in efforts to redress challenges that persist in developing countries. Social justice, political stability and sustainable development in most developing countries can best be achieved through genuine and committed support for empowerment programmes through, inter alia, just land ownership patterns. We understand only too well in our context that sustainable development is not possible without agrarian reform.
Mt Government has, therefore, gone a long way in laying the foundation for sustainable food production through its Land Reform Programme. The majority of our rural people have been empowered to contribute to household and national food security and, indeed, to be masters of their own destiny. However, effects of climate change that have included recurrent droughts and floods in the past seven years, and the illegal, unilaterally-imposed sanctions on my country have hindered Zimbabwe's efforts to increase food production. Once again, I appeal to the world's collective conscience to apply pressure for the immediate removal of these sanctions by Britain, the United States and their allies, which have brought untold suffering to our people.
Mr President,
Zimbabwe has always been and continues to be a firm believer in multilateral approaches to solving disputes as opposed to the unilateralism favoured by some countries. Our experience has shown that the cooperative and pacific approach often leads to lasting solutions to conflicts. We, therefore, deplore the vindictive approach which often is characterised by self-righteous finger-pointing, double standards and the imposition of unilateral sanctions to coerce smaller and weaker countries to bow to the wishes of the militarily stronger states.
In addition, the unilateral and coercive economic measures that we have witnessed in recent years are again completely at cross purposes with the principles that guide international co-operation as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations.
Mr President,
Not long ago, some permanent members of the Security Council sought to invoke Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter so its weight of sanctions and other measures could be applied against my small country which by any stretch of imagination is no threat to international peace and security. What insanity is this that has afflicted some world leaders? Should the sacred document, the U.N. Charter be allowed to suffer such undeserved emasculation and disgraceful abuse? And where is the protection of the small and innocent countries like mine from the threatened and real acts of aggression and punitive acts, often based on completely false allegations of violations of the rule of law, democracy and human rights? By the way, those who falsely accuse us of these violations are themselves perpetrators of genocide, acts of aggression and mass destruction.
Mr President,
The masses of innocent men, women and children who have perished in their thousands in Iraq surely demand retribution and vengeance. Who shall heed their cry? Surely those who invaded Iraq under false pretences and on the strength of contrived lies and in blatant violation of the Charter and international law must be made liable for them!
Zimbabwe does derive solace from the fact that there are some members of the Security Council who have taken principled stands in defending the Charter and protecting our sovereignty by ensuring that the Security Council acts not only within its mandate but also impartially, objectively and justly. Indeed, their sense of justice ensured that Zimbabwe, a country that does not pose any threat to regional and international peace, did not fall prey to a cocktail of lies which had been designed by our detractors to call for U.N. sanctions against it under Chapter VII. We thank them for their stand for truth and objectivity!
Mr President,
While we recognise the important role of the offices of Secretary Gneral in assisting member states to resolve political and other problems, we are of the view that international civil servants should discharge their noble duties with sensitivity and neutrality. At no time should they seek to pander to the whims of the mighty against the weak. Similarly, we call on some Security Council members to desist from abusing the U.N. Secretariat in an attempt to promote their political interests. It is our firm belief that the Secretary General and his staff should be allowed to serve all member states without fear of favour.
Mr President,
We reiterate our long held view that the Security Council as presently constituted is undemocratic. The present configuration renders it subject to manipulation by the powerful countries that use the Council as a readily available legitimising forum for their political machinations. Thus it is imperative that the Security Council be democratised by ensuring equitable geographical representation through increasing its membership. Zimbabwe remains steadfast in its support of the Ezulwini Consensus which calls for Africa to have two permanent seats with the same powers and prerogatives as the current permanent members and two non permanent seats.
Mr President,
We share the view that the General Assembly, a body that represents all of us and enjoys wider representation of States, must continue to be the supreme decision-making body of the U.N. We call for its revitalisation to make it more effective and to enable it to fully discharge its Charter mandate. It is our fervent hope that a revitalised General Assembly will reassert its prestige, its pre-eminent role, its authority and its capacity to guide and direct other organs of the U.N. system. In that context, the tendency by some members of the Security Council to usurp the power and mandates of the General Assembly must be resisted.
Mr President,
I am pleased to report that the inter-party talks in Zimbabwe, for which our regional grouping, SADC, appointed a facilitator, ended with the signing of an agreement on the formation of an all-inclusive government on 15th September 2008. This was achieved entirely by African mediation, which is clear testimony that Africa is capable of