``xBy Samuel Cotton
African Americans have contended for decades with a rage born of remembrance--a resentment fomented by poignant images of black Africans captured, bound, and sent into the horrors of slavery. Some have been driven to travel to the continent of Africa, and stand on the shores of West Africa to view the actual places where the degradation of a race began. At these places, the grandchildren of ancient slaves--survivors of a holocaust--wrestle with a terrible mixture of emotions. The passions produced by the realization that the forts before them housed their African ancestors in their last days of freedom before a long voyage delivered them into the hands of cruel masters. The white hot anger that rises slowly in African Americans as they recall these events and the epithets that dance in the heads of these observers of the past, sometimes escapes their lips as curses and bitter mutterings. Occasionally, African Americans simply fulminate. These bitter expressions of resentment and grief have only been cooled and soothed by a belief that African Americans hold. The comforting assurance that the buying and selling of black African slaves ended in the distant past. More``xMember``x``xArab Masters-Black Slaves``x980150400,54336,History4``x``x
``x"Many Billions Gone:
Is It Time to Reconsider the Case for Black Reparations?" (excerpt)
by Robert Westley
Associate Professor, Tulane University Law School
Compensation to Blacks for the injustices suffered by them must first and foremost be monetary. It must be sufficient to indicate that the United States truly wishes to make Blacks whole for the losses they have endured. Sufficient, in other words, to reflect not only the extent of unjust Black suffering, but also the need for Black economic independence from societal discrimination. No less than with the freedmen, freedom for Black people today means economic freedom and security. A basis for that freedom and security can be assured through group reparations in the form of monetary compensation, along with free provision of goods and services to Black communities across the nation. The guiding principle of reparations must be self-determination in every sphere of life in which Blacks are currently dependent.
To this end, a private trust should be established for the benefit of all Black Americans. The trust should be administered by trustees popularly elected by the intended beneficiaries of the trust. The trust should be financed by funds drawn annually from the general revenue of the United States for a period not to exceed ten years. The trust funds should be expendable on any project or pursuit aimed at the educational and economic empowerment of the trust beneficiaries to be determined on the basis of need. Any trust beneficiary should have the right to submit proposals to the trustees for the expenditure of trust funds.
The above is only a suggestion about how to use group reparations for the benefit of Blacks as a whole. In the end, determining a method by which all Black people can participate in their own empowerment will require a much more refined instrument than it would be appropriate for me to attempt to describe here. My own beliefs about what institutions Black people need most certainly will not reflect the views of all Black people, just as my belief that individual compensation is not the best way to proceed probably does not place me in the majority. Everybody who could just get a check has many reasons to believe that it would be best to get a check. On this point, I must subscribe to the wisdom that holds, if you give a man a loaf, you feed him for a day. It is for those Blacks who survive on a "breadconcern level" that the demand for reparations assumes its greatest importance.
Citation: Westley, Robert. "Many Billions Gone: Is It Time to Reconsider the Case for Black Reparations?". Boston College Law Review, December 1998, Volume XL, Number 1.
"If the Shoe Fits, Wear It:
An Analysis of Reparations to African Americans" (excerpt)
by Vincene Verdun
Associate Professor, The Ohio State University College of Law
This almost constant plea for reparations over the past one hundred and thirty years appears mysterious and even irrational from the perspective of many Americans. The perception among many that reparations are threatening or ineffective is revealed in a number of contradictory arguments, for example: 1) reparations are unlikely ever to be awarded, after all, no relief has been given for the past one hundred and thirty years; 2) reparations are undeserved by African Americans since all ex-slaves have been dead for at least a generation; 3) white Americans living today have not injured African Americans and should not be required to pay for the sins of their slavemaster forbearers; 4) it is impossible to determine who should get what and how much; and 5) African Americans must become self-reliant and determine their own fate and stop waiting for relief from external sources. Opponents of reparations to African Americans are so overwhelmingly entrenched in the rightness of their position that they conceptualize the cry for reparations as frivolous, meritless, and divisive.
However, the reparations movement cannot be easily dismissed or discredited, in part because so many of its supporters are part of the American mainstream. For the same reason, the movement cannot be classified as radical or extremist. A movement that has been sustained through several generations and that has won the support of knowledgeable and reputable people throughout history, including members of Congress, business people, professionals, academicians, attorneys, educators, and other hard working people cannot be dismissed as frivolous. Proponents of reparations pursue their cause with fervor equivalent to that of its opponents and stand firm in their assertion that the reparations given to Jews by Germany, and to Native Americans and Japanese Americans by the United States, set precedents for the payment of reparations to African Americans. The moral basis for reparations is simply stated: 1) slaves were not paid for their labor for more than two hundred and sixty-five years, thereby depriving the descendants of slaves of their inheritance; the descendants of the slavemasters inherited the benefit derived from slave labor, which properly belonged to the descendants of slaves; 2) the United States Government promised ex-slaves forty acres and a mule and did not make good on that promise; and 3) systematic and government-sanctioned economic and racial oppression since the abolition of slavery impeded and interfered with the self-determination of African Americans and excluded them from sharing in the growth and prosperity of the nation.
Unfortunately, the proponents and opponents of reparations maintain diametrically opposed points of view, and both groups are deeply entrenched in the correctness of their beliefs. Reasonable people may differ on any topic, but when two groups of people from the same society assume such polar positions on an issue, the foundation of such opposition is usually traceable to some basic normative difference. For example, the underlying normative difference in the abortion debate between pro-choice and pro-life advocates is the belief by pro-life advocates that abortion is sinful or wrong - a belief that is usually grounded in religious or biblical principles so deeply imbedded in the perception of the believer that there is no room for compromise. Pro-choice advocates, who do not perceive abortion as a sin or wrong and who do not share the beliefs of the pro-life advocates, stand firm in their protection of the rights of individuals to make their own decisions.
Likewise, opponents and proponents of reparations approach the issue of reparations from two distinct perspectives that are based on differences in the beliefs imbedded in the perception of each group. Opponents of reparations, who are usually white, frequently approach the issue of reparations from the dominant perspective - a system of values and perceptions common to the group that exercises economic, political, and ideological control over society. Proponents of reparations, most often African Americans, evaluate reparations on the basis of a consciousness - the African-American consciousness - spawned from generations of survival as an oppressed people in a hostile environment and rooted in the heritage of the African culture, which survived the trip across the Atlantic Ocean and the institution of slavery. The differences in these two value systems and the perspectives they engender form the foundation for the polarity between opponents and proponents of reparations.
Citation: Verdun, Vincene. "If the Shoe Fits, Wear It: An Analysis of Reparations to African Americans". Tulane Law Review, February 1993, Volume 67, Number 3, p. 607-610.
Reproduced from:
http://www.thedebt.net/legal.shtml``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xLegal Arguments in Support of Reparations``x988933302,39826,Development``x``x
``xFewer than 50 people founded the entire population of Europe, according to a new and accurate way to read demographic history from the genome.
Scientists previously believed that the 500 million people that live in Europe today are descendants of about 10,000 people who left Africa around 100,000 years ago.
But scientists from the Whitehead Institute at MIT in Cambridge, Massachusetts have found so much genetic evidence of inbreeding, they believe all Europeans probably descended from fewer than about 50 people who interbred together over about 30 generations. This select group may have left Africa about 60,000 years ago.
Their data comes from maps of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), which are the single letter differences in DNA which can exist between people.
The discovery is good news for medicine because the unexpectedly low degree of genetic variation will make it far easier to isolate the genes that underpin common diseases. "I'm very, very excited about this," said Eric Lander of the Whitehead Institute. [More]``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xFewer than 50 people founded Europe``x989391600,16094,History4``x``x
``xBy Trinicenter Special
The theory that the ancestors of all modern humans came from Africa received a boost on Thursday with the publication of supporting research. Scientists based across Asia, in the US and the UK examined the Y-chromosomes of more than 12,000 people from across Asia and found no traces of any ancient non-African influence.
"This result indicates that modern humans of African origin completely replaced earlier populations in East Asia," the researchers write in the journal Science.
The main alternative explanation of human origins - that modern humans are descended from separate populations which developed in different places - is known as multiregionalism.
"This really puts the nail in the coffin of multiregionalism," R Spencer Wells, co-author of the research, told BBC News Online. The value of the new research lies in the scale of the project, he said. More``xEditor``xeditor@trinicenter.com``xModern Asians have African ancestors``x989478000,71221,``x``x
``x
The theory that the ancestors of all modern humans came from Africa received a boost on Thursday with the publication of supporting research. Scientists based across Asia, in the US and the UK examined the Y-chromosomes of more than 12,000 people from across Asia and found no traces of any ancient non-African influence. "This result indicates that modern humans of African origin completely replaced earlier populations in East Asia," the researchers write in the journal Science.
The main alternative explanation of human origins - that modern humans are descended from separate populations which developed in different places - is known as multiregionalism.
"This really puts the nail in the coffin of multiregionalism," R Spencer Wells, co-author of the research, told BBC News Online. The value of the new research lies in the scale of the project, he said More``xMember``x``xModern Asians have African ancestors``x989478000,29961,History4``x``x
``xThe United States and European nations are against any discussions about reparations at a major United Nations conference on racism.
South Africa is leading an African bloc that wants the conference to label slavery "a crime against humanity" - a description, which the UK, Spain and Portugal reject.
The European countries and the US are also resisting African calls for some kind of reparations for the slave trade.
UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson - who will host the anti-racism conference in the South African city of Durban later this year - urged delegates to "look for common ground" at the final meeting to prepare for the conference.
The BBC's Fergus Nicoll said that the Europeans and Africans would probably be able to work out a compromise on wording, perhaps calling present-day human trafficking a crime.
The US and European countries claim that it may be more difficult to reach consensus over compensation.
The US has threatened to withdraw funding for the conference if it includes a call for reparations. More``xMember``x``xSlavery is a crime against humanity!``x990514800,79329,History4``x``x
``xBy Shelagh Simmons
At a time when support for the death penalty has declined in the United States, Timothy James McVeigh poses perhaps the greatest challenge yet for the abolitionist movement. He has admitted planting the bomb that left 168 people dead in the Alfred P Murrah federal building, Oklahoma City. He has shown no remorse. And he has referred to the 19 children killed as "collateral damage".
Even some opponents of capital punishment say they could make an exception for McVeigh. And among the relatives who lost loved ones in the atrocity, there is disagreement. Some want him dead, believing it will bring what is often promised but rarely delivered - "closure". Some want him to live in the hope he may repent. But others want him spared simply because they do not believe in judicial killing. More``xMember``x``xMcVeigh Test for Abolitionists``x990687600,57891,History4``x``x
``xOne of Germany's most popular news magazines, Der Stern, has published a savage critique of modern-day Britain - describing pockets of abject poverty, a decrepit health service and school system, a disorganised civil service and bungling politicians.
Britain has been branded a country in "deep crisis" by Der Stern, which describes it as a country blighted by ill health, poor education and an incompetent government.
The 12-page article in current affairs magazine Stern, which sells around one million copies a week, paints a damning portrait of modern Britain under the title of The English Patient. More``xMember``x``xA Stern View of Britain``x990687600,24929,History4``x``x
``xBy Tim Wise
I think it's called 'projection.' When someone subconsciously realizes that a particular trait applies to them, and then attempts to locate that trait in others, so as to alleviate the stigma or self-doubt engendered by the trait in question.
It's a well-understood concept of modern psychology, and explains much: like why men who are struggling with their own sexuality are often the most outwardly homophobic. Or the way whites during slavery typified black men as rapists, even though the primary rapists were the white slaveowners themselves, taking liberties with their female property, or white men generally, raping their wives with impunity.
I got to thinking about projection recently, after receiving many an angry e-mail from folks who had read one or another of my previous commentaries, and felt the need to inform me that people of color are "looking for a handout," and are "dependent" on government, and of course, whites.
Such claims are making the rounds these days, especially as debate heats up about such issues as reparations for enslavement, or affirmative action. And this critique is a prime example of projection, for in truth, no people have been as dependent on others throughout history as white folks. More``xMember``x``xBreaking The Cycle Of White Dependence``x990774000,61113,History4``x``x
``xBy Paul Majendie
HAY-ON-WYE, Wales (Reuters) - We are all descended from the 33 daughters of Eve. Just take a swab from your cheek and you can find which one is your original ancestor.
That is the view of Professor Bryan Sykes, one of the world's top geneticists who has spent the last decade mapping out where we come from.
"Your genes have been through a fantastic journey," he told Britain's leading literary festival Tuesday in the Welsh border town of Hay-on-Wye where he laid out a fascinating DNA pathway to the past.
Now, after opening such a fascinating Pandora's Box, he has found that thousands of people around the world, from the United States to South Africa, are consumed with curiosity and want to find out who their original "clan mother" is.
"There are roughly 33 equivalent clusters if you take the whole world. Eventually it all comes down to Mitochondrial Eve in Africa 200,000 years ago," he added.
"This shows how closely connected we all are," he said More``xMember``x``xWe Descended From 33 Daughters of Eve in Africa ``x991206000,4763,History4``x``x
``xBy Richard Waddington
African rights activists said on Thursday they would press a world conference against racism to declare slavery and colonialism "a double Holocaust" and would call for compensation from former colonial powers.
Compensation from countries active in the then legal slave trade of the 17th and 19th centuries, such as France, Britain, Portugal and the United States, could take the form of aid for development, they said.
Speaking for African non-governmental organizations, Alioune Tine of Senegal, said the impact of colonialism was one of the prime causes of Africa's economic backwardness today.
He told a news conference: "We invite the world conference to declare without hesitation that slavery and colonialism are a double Holocaust and crimes against the humanity of African peoples."
International non-governmental organizations (NGO) are meeting in Geneva to prepare a common position to take to a United Nations (news - web sites) "World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance" to be held in Durban, South Africa from August 31-September 7. More``xEditor``xeditor@trinicenter.com``xActivists Want Slavery Called African 'Holocaust'``x991378800,51516,History4``x``x
``xBy Brenda Sutton
Recently, I broke away from the chemical plantation, releasing the thirty-year shackles that enslaved my pocketbook and consciousness---the previous thirteen years, my mother fried my hair with Dixie Peach hair grease and a straightening comb.
Many African Americans' perceptions of style and beauty manifest into self-hatred behavior against our natural state by slapping chemicals onto our hair. My natural hair was perceived as too thick, too curly, too bushy, time consuming, maintenance intensive and restricted my hair style choices. Such perceptions disguised true beauty with materialistic values. On the contrary, natural hair personifies natural beauty.
This liberating epiphany has resulted in freedom from all day sojourns to the beauty parlor and most importantly reduced health risks from chemical exposure [e.g. curling irons and burnt scalp to name a few]. More``xMember``x``xReclaiming My Roots ``x991897200,1629,History4``x``x
``xBy Dr. Iniyan Elango
Hinduism espouses the division of people into hierarchically placed groups called "castes". These castes are placed in a stepladder of ascending superiority and descending inferiority. People who are born into these castes should follow the ordained caste professions and marry only within their caste through arranged marriages. The beneficiaries of this system were the various Brahman castes who by virtue of their birth were free to follow intellectual pursuits at the advent of British colonial education making them modern India's intellectual, scientific, and bureaucratic class.
The various "Vysya" (trading) castes, placed below the Brahman castes and the Royal ("Kshatriya") castes, have enjoyed the monopoly in trading activities for centuries, by virtue of their birth, thus becoming modern India's corporate and business class.
The "Shudras" are the various lower castes in the hierarchy who are considered as Hindus and members of caste Hindu society.
The "Dalits" (meaning "broken people) are the "outcasts" and "slaves" of the Hindu society of hierarchical castes. That is why the Dalit people are considered untouchable and made to live in segregated colonies outside the towns and villages where the caste Hindus live. More``xEditor``xeditor@trinicenter.com``xA victim of Hindu bigotry``x992156400,39355,History4``x``x
``x"One of the most amazing things about solar flares," says Brian Dennis of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, "is the efficient way they accelerate subatomic particles to energies exceeding 109 eV." As much as 50% of the total explosion energy emerges as electrons and atomic nuclei traveling at nearly the speed of light. "Flares operate much more efficiently than any particle accelerator we've been able to build here on Earth." More``xamon``xeditor@trinicenter.com``xAmazing things about solar flares``x992395515,14245,History4``x``x
``xSource: University Of Washington (http://www.washington.edu/)
Date: Posted 6/12/2001
About one-third of the people who were exposed to a fake print advertisement that described a visit to Disneyland and how they met and shook hands with Bugs Bunny later said they remembered or knew the event happened to them.
The scenario described in the ad never occurred because Bugs Bunny is a Warner Bros. cartoon character and wouldn't be featured in any Walt Disney Co. property, according to University of Washington memory researchers Jacquie Pickrell and Elizabeth Loftus. Pickrell will make two presentations on the topic at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Society (APS) on Sunday (June 17) in Toronto and at a satellite session of the Society for Applied Research in Memory and Cognition in Kingston, Ontario, on Wednesday.
"The frightening thing about this study is that it suggests how easily a false memory can be created," said Pickrell, UW psychology doctoral student.
"It's not only people who go to a therapist who might implant a false memory or those who witness an accident and whose memory can be distorted who can have a false memory. Memory is very vulnerable and malleable. People are not always aware of the choices they make. This study shows the power of subtle association changes on memory." MORE``xamon``xeditor@trinicenter.com``xHow easily a false memory can be created``x992428391,43783,History4``x``x
``xSource: Renee
Date: Posted 6/12/2001
Greetings,
Very interestiong article..but I am not surprised or amazed at the ease of how "false memories" can be created.
Some Africans have to look no further than themselves to understand this ease of transformation of the mind and how it can be exposed with false events.
Many Africans have been exposed or implanted with a history that does not belong to us and some are living, thinking and responding from an Europeanized point of view without being aware of their behaviors and attitudes. Europeans have also been exposed to these "false memories" which allows most to believe that they are superior over all people of color (white supremacy). More at the Online Forum``xamon``xeditor@trinicenter.com``xHow "false memories" can be created``x992429156,44115,History4``x``x
``xJune 13th, 2001
By Joey Clarke
If there's one clear feature of T&T's social structure, it's that we are racially conscious, and in all the wrong ways. We are so far from HIM Sellassie's ideal where someone's race "is of no more significance than the colour of his eyes."; We have been so mentally tangled and mangled by ourselves as well as by those who imported us, that a lot of people don't even realize how racist they are. It's easy to spot people who openly attribute their bad attitude to the sins and follies of "the other", but there are other forms of racial prejudice that are harder to spot.
Hypocrisy is the problem here. Sometimes it's unintentional, and comes from having not thought things through, or from not having looked critically enough at one's self. Here are a few types i would class as hypocritical racists, as a guide to those who may not spot it at first. More``xBobby``xbobby@trinicenter.com``xSheep in Wolves’ Clothing``x992442210,12014,History4``x``x
``xFrom super-sized drinks to SUVs to big-screen TVs, cineplexes and houses in the suburbs - even Americans themselves - just about everything in the United States has been getting steadily larger. Even churches. MORE``xBrenda``xbrenda@trinicenter.com``xMega-Churches Grow Bigger and Bigger``x992444900,84117,History4``x``x
``xBy: Kirk Moss
It has been mentioned several times before, and became a heated topic that fueled the Pan-African movement during the 1960's. A time when various African countries were shaking their colonial oppressors off their backs, and becoming independent nations. They were consequently starting from ground zero. But today, the United States of Africa is still a burning issue that is been raised within the context of reparations and repatriation.
This cohesiveness is the key to the survival of African Peoples as a Race and an entity of the Human Family. Presently, we are the illegitimate children of the Human planet, who were kidnapped from our homelands, and our continental families have been subdued into impoverishment. This paradigm of the United States of Africa must begin with a rigorous overhaul of our motherland in order to form a solid distinctive cultural foundation. First, Economic Power. With this unity of African States comes the economic Power to fight white supremacy and capitalist conglomerates on a global and local level. It would prevent Africa as a continent, and individual African countries from falling prey to various forms of economic stagnation. In particular, embargoes or trade sanctions initiated by the neo-colonial and imperialist powers of Europe and the Western capitalist societies. This opens the door to a new sense of self-reliance, a fundamental principle that Marcus Garvey, the great Jamaican Pan-Africanist, profoundly expressed. More``xEditor``xeditor@trinicenter.com``xThe United States of Africa!``x992566695,61409,History4``x``x
``x(The Ind. Standard)
The demand for cell phones and computer chips is helping fuel a bloody civil war in the Democratic Republic of Congo
The offer turned up a few weeks ago on an Internet bulletin board called the Embassy Network. Among the postings about Dutch work visas and Italian pen pals lurked a surprisingly blunt proposal: "How much do you want to offer per kilogram? Please find me at least 100,000 U.S. dollars and I will deliver immediately."
The substance for sale wasn't cocaine or top-grade opium. It was an ore called Columbite-tantalite - coltan for short - one of the world's most sought-after materials. Refine coltan and you get a highly heat-resistant metal powder called tantalum. It sells for $100 a pound, and it's becoming increasingly vital to modern life. For the high-tech industry, tantalum is magic dust, a key component in everything from mobile phones made by Nokia (NOK) and Ericsson and computer chips from Intel (INTC) to Sony (SNE) stereos and VCRs.
Selling coltan is not illegal. Most of the worldwide tantalum supply - valued at as much as $6 billion a year - comes from legitimate mining operations in Australia, Canada and Brazil. But as demand for tantalum took off with the boom of high-tech products in recent years, a new, more sinister market began flourishing in the Democratic Republic of Congo. There, warring rebel groups - many funded and supplied by neighboring Rwanda and Uganda - are exploiting coltan mining to help finance a bloody civil war now in its third year. "There is a direct link between human rights abuses and the exploitation of resources in areas in the DRC occupied by Rwanda and Uganda," says Suliman Baldo, a senior researcher in the Africa division at Human Rights Watch, a New York-based nongovernmental organization that tracks human-rights abuses worldwide. More ``xMember``x``xCongo - Guns, Money and Cell Phones``x992614105,33608,History4``x``x
``xBy: Brenda Sutton
I begin writing this dialogue in doubt, what are my credentials? Am I an expert in spiritual growth? I can only speak about my journey, unique to my experience. I am reminded that when in obedience with one's spiritual destiny that knowledge will become awaken in one's Spirit. I feel like my soul is being fine-tuned for my tremendous journey through life experiences. Experiences of this present life, but more importantly those of my ancestors who will use my physical form as a conduit. Grandmother Rosie, Big Moma, Buerena and all the other souls who have merged with this soul, sharing pearls of wisdom to all those who listen. The Bible tells us that some are self-appointed but few are chosen. I have been chosen to contribute my energy to uplift humankind; it is my duty. Running from my destiny, does not diminish the task, it places my life in more spiritual turmoil and physical headaches. More ``xMember``x``xDialogue on Spirit...``x992629394,54570,History4``x``x
``xBy Dr. Kwame Nantambu
1. The stark historical reality is that during the B.C. era when the Emperor of Rome, Julius Caesar, had a sexual liaison with the ruler of Kemet (Egypt), Queen Cleopatra VII, a son named Caesarion was born on 23 June 47 B.C. in Kemet as a result of that sexual encounter. However, what is historically vital and relevant is that the birth of this boy child, Caesarion, was not a natural birth. In other words, the High Priests of ancient Kemet had to perform a special surgical procedure to deliver Caesarion; this surgical procedure that the ancient Egyptian High Priests/physicians performed in 47 B.C. to deliver Caesarion is what is called the “Caesarean Section” in modern A.D. medicine today. The ancient Egyptian High Priests named their medical procedure in honor of Caesarion’s father, Caesar. More``xMember``x``xHistorical Facts about ancient & modern Afrikans ``x992660809,81435,History4``x``x
``xBy Dr. Kwame Nantambu
When Wellesley College, Boston, Mass, U.S.A., Professor, Mary Lefkowitz published in her book, Not Out of Africa: How Afrocentrism Became an Excuse to Teach Myth as History, (1996), she received tremendous accolades and widespread newsprint from mainstream America. The notion that was bandied about was that finally a renowned experienced Eurocentric scholar has quieted the proponents of Afrocentrism; Dr. Mary Lefkowitz has destroyed the Afrocentrists’ claim to the multifaceted originality of ancient Kemet (Egypt) and its impact on Greece and Rome. However, a much deeper, closer and sober look and analysis of this hysteria reveals a different historical reality.
The salient reality is that no one can deny the historical truism that the Greeks (the world’s first Europeans) went to ancient Kemet to study at the Temple of Waset (later called Thebes by the Greeks and Luxor by the Arabs).
In his magnum opus, A Lost Tradition: African Philosophy in World History, (1995) Dr. Theophile Obenga quotes Aristotle ranking Egypt as “the most ancient archeological reserve in the world” and “that is how the Egyptians, whom we (Greeks) considered as the most ancient of the human race” More``xMember``x``xAncient Egypt's Role in European History ``x992661268,42504,History4``x``x
``xBy Dr. Kwame Nantambu
When in June 1997, Rep. Tony Hall, a Dayton, Ohio Democrat, proposed a national apology by the U.S. government for slavery, mixed public response and/or reaction followed together with some skepticism as to the apology's real intent. For his part, President Clinton has not only put the slavery apology question under consideration but has also adamantly opposed any compensation/reparations for the descendants of those slaves, viz, African-Americans.
Let's now put the institution of slavery in its proper historical context in order to get a more appropriate handle as to exactly who should apologize for this global inhumanity to man.
The first slaves were brought to Portugal in 1441 and this traffic and trade in gold, pepper and ivory, were so lucrative that Castilian (Spanish) sailors began to follow the Portuguese lead in 1453 along the west coast of Africa in search of slaves and financial wealth. It was to overt the danger of fierce competition and possibly war between these two European global powers (Spain and Portugal) that Papal sanction was sought for a Portuguese monopoly. And so it was that on 8 January 1455, the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church, Pope Nicholas V, issued a Papal Bull titled Romanus Pontifex in which he authorized the Portuguese “to subject to servitude, all infidel peoples”. In another Papal Bull, Inter Caetera issued on 13 March 1456, Pope Nicholas V “granted to Prince Henry, as Grand Master, of the Order of Christ in Portugal, all lands (and peoples) discovered or conquered form Cape Bojafor, in Africa, to and including the Indies.” More``xMember``x``xQuestion of Apology for Slavery: Global View ``x992661544,99760,History4``x``x
``xBy Time Wise
Let me get this straight: if three white guys chain a black man to a truck and decapitate him by dragging him down a dirt road, that's a hate crime; but if five white cops pump nineteen bullets into a black street vendor, having shot at him 41 times, that's just "bad judgment?" And what's more, we should pass hate crime laws that require enforcement by the police? Call me crazy, but something about this brings to mind the one about the foxes and the henhouse.
Now don't misunderstand: I realize there are horrible acts of violence perpetrated every day in America against people of color, not to mention gays and lesbians, women, and religious minorities. And I have no problem in principle with passing special laws to send a message that such hatred won't be tolerated. But is this really the point? Does it do anything to address the larger issues of racism, sexism, or homophobia that plague our society? And will it save Amadou Diallo, or prevent Abner Louima from getting a toilet plunger shoved up his ass by bigots in blue uniforms? Of course not. Hate crime laws make us feel better. But in the end, the biggest injuries suffered by people of color continue: job and housing discrimination; unequal access to health care; and the development of a prison-industrial- complex that is locking up black and brown people faster than you can say "three-strikes-and-you're-out;" all of which could and would persist, even if there was never another cross-burning on a black family's lawn, or another violent assault on an immigrant.
And this is what's wrong with the "national dialogue on race," as our therapist-in-chief calls it. It only takes place in a comfort zone where pretty much everyone can agree. More``xMember``x``xEveryday Racism, White Liberals & the Limits of Tolerance``x992847600,41686,History4``x``x
``x(BBC) Everything from liking rollercoasters to attitudes to the death penalty is influenced by our genes, say researchers.
A study carried out on twins has found differences in certain attitudes are partly due to genetic influences. Although attitudes are learnt, scientists in Canada believe individual differences may arise, at least in part, because of our genetic makeup.
Scientists in Canada surveyed 360 pairs of twins and looked at their attitudes to a wide range of issues - from reading to the death penalty for murder. Out of the 30 attitudes studied, 26 of them appeared to be under some genetic influence.
The death penalty, abortion, playing organised sport and rollercoaster rides were the ones that appeared to be most influenced by genes. The four found not to be subject to a genetic effect were attitudes towards separate roles for men and women, playing bingo, easy access to birth control, and being assertive.
There appeared to be trends in the study's findings. For instance, genetically inherited attitudes were most likely to be associated with the preservation of life, equality and exercise, while those with the least influence were intellectual activities like playing chess and reading. There is doubt, though, that genes are directly involved in how we perceive things.
The authors, based at the University of Western Ontario and the University of British Columbia, believe it is much more likely that a complex relationship between genes, personality and physical appearance is involved in shaping our attitudes. "Presumably, these characteristics predisposed individuals to form particular kinds of attitudes, thereby contributing to the genetic determination of individual differences in those attitudes," said Dr James Olson and colleagues. He said: "For example, a person with inherited physical abilities such as good coordination and strength might be more successful at sports than less athletically inclined individuals, resulting in the more athletic person developing favourable attitudes to sport." MORE``xMember``x``xMany attitudes 'in our genes'``x992880410,94435,History4``x``x
``xBy Selwyn Cudjoe
A lecture delivered to the Japanese Black Studies
Association at Nara Women's College, Nara, Japan
In a wondrous introduction to Party Politics in the West Indies, C. L. R. James, one of the most distinguished thinkers of the modern Caribbean, made the following statement about the people of the Anglophone Caribbean: "People of the West Indies, you do not know your own power. No one dares to tell you. You are a strange, a unique combination of the greatest driving force in the world today, the underdeveloped formerly colonial coloured peoples; and more than any of them, by education, way of life and language, you are completely part of Western civilization. Alone of all people in the world you began your historical existence in a highly developed modern society-the sugar plantation. More``xmeri``x``xIdentity and Caribbean Literature``x993360084,63201,History4``x``x
``x(www.namesite.com) Africa is a vast continent three times the size of the United Sates with over fifty countries and 1000 different ethnic groups or peoples and languages. All these peoples have different personal names in use in their cultures. As you can imagine there are a huge number of African names, ranging from those with Arabic roots and derivation in the northern parts of Africa to those of European origin to indigenous, African names through out the continent. As such we can not have every possible African name on the list.
Moreover we include in the list only names with meanings. There are many African names without meanings, simply because the original meaning is long forgotten or possibly did not exist in the first place. namesite.com | zoope.com | Naming Ga Children | Swagga.com | South African ``xmeri``x``xAfrican Names``x993423495,41100,History4``x``x
``xFrom: Renee
(Self-Development Forum) More and more Africans are turning to the illegall use of skin whitening creams. Many think that it is the ticket to upward mobility, socially and professionally - despite the countless health risk involved. Some Africans even believe that, "When you are lighter, people pay more attention to you." (Please read "YELLOW FEVER" AND "THEM A BLEACH" )
Are Africans trying to hang on to something that they can never become, WHITE?
______________________________________________________________
From: Gilbert Browne
Renee, they are not necessarily "...trying to hang on ....." just desperate to get close. This goes hand in hand with an interesting resurgence of that group in T&T called 'RED" people. The nearer one is to white is the more self important one can feel. Certainly access to the better jobs etc are in the offing and in addition one can assume a superiority over the black skinned ones. Parents are known to speak of 'wanting some milk in the coffee' when speaking of a mate for their darker skinned children.
40+ years after so called independence these conditions still largely apply in T&T and elsewhere in the region and is compounded by the latest wave - 'indian time now' - in T&T. The bleaching creams merely constitute the outward manifestations of a capitulation by some. The shade & class segmentation has been ingrained in this society. A RED woman/man would hardly give a darkskinned suitor of lower standing the time of day. Some dark skinned graduates of the UWI talk glibly of marrying 'up'. It used to amuse me living in Canada in the 70's & 80's to see how the same RED people would hook up with dark skinned persons out of sheer need. They no longer had the numbers at their disposal and by and large the whites were not interested.
Let us try to explain and understand what is at the root of our self - contempt. What is responsible for African Americans or West Indian Americans who are hardly the movers and shakers in the Northern situation immediately donning a mantle of superiority when they hit the black 3rd world countries? In such cases residence in a more powerful country often becomes a badge.
Given this urge to feel better about oneself and the sense that better days are never coming - so join them. Since the light skinned ones are making it go that route. Know of a PNM politician, big in the east-west corridor, who keeps his office temp 70 F and lower and rarely goes out into the sun without an umbrella. Thing he knows something about the shade game?
``xmeri``x``xShades Of Identity Crisis``x993666142,60503,History4``x``x
``xResponse: Anthony
(Self-Development Forum) Bleaching is an important example of the problems that confront modern human societies. It is good to recognize a problem because this is the first step to solving it. From my experience finding solutions to problems can be very difficult. Most approaches will minimize a problem but not solve it. I will define a behavior as being a problem to me if it inhibits me from participating in other available activities that will be more beneficial in helping me to understand myself. If I think that a certain activity is a problem, I will then consider the problem to be solved when I no longer feel a need to participate in that activity.
The action of the food and drug administration to control the dosage and availability of bleaching agents may minimize the problem but this action does not address people's need to use bleaching agents. Similarly the ban placed on bleaching substances by the some governments will only minimize the problem.
In my view a lasting solution to this problem lies in addressing the factors that cause people to accept the idea that it is better to be white than black. There are many institutions in modern societies that promote discrimination based on skin color, for example, the general media and the education offered by most schools. Many people are unable to recognize the ways in which the general media and schools promote racism. However in my view people get an unbalanced view of the world when the general media and schools promote the views and culture of one group of people while ignoring, minimizing or distorting the contributions of other groups to world history.
Therefore in my view an important step to solving this bleaching problem involve efforts to obtain more balance in school education and greater balance in the information reported by the general media. It is also my view that balanced media reporting and education will help to solve many other problems that plague modern societies.
``xmeri``x``xSkin Bleaching``x993705599,70952,History4``x``x
``xNEW YORK (NNPA)--Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan was in top form on Wednesday as he spoke at Russell Simmons' Hip-Hop Summit.
"Will you accept your responsibility as a leader and a teacher?" he asked of the several hundred artists and record industry insiders as they listened intently to his two-hour speech, giving loud applause, enthusiastic hollers and ovations more suited to a sold-out concert.
As close to 100 members of the media recorded his every word, the minister implored the rappers before him to analyze their roles. He asked them to lead and teach and to understand the power in their hands and the global impact that their lyrics have. More
Russell Simmons And Farrakhan Discuss Powerful
Genre's Next Agenda at Hip-Hop Conference``xmeri``x``xFarrakhan Talks Rap, Responsibility And Revolution ``x993711600,49996,History4``x``x
``xResponse: Renee
(Self-Development Forum) I truly understand that there are many different levels of self- hatred being displayed by many Africans and skin bleaching is one form of self-hatred that really begins to tell a story of how massive and wide spread the Europeans value system has infiltrated the African psyche. I am sure that many may not even be aware of the levels of self-hatred that many are obviously displaying and I can only say that they may not be aware, because I was not aware of some of the "false memories" which leads to "false attitudes" which keeps descending to "false behaviours" that I was/am displaying until more conscious individuals pointed them out. That is why it is of vital importance to dialogue and share different points of view so that all may have an opportunity to learn and grow.
Are all Africans that straighten their hair trying to be white…well we must all remember that Africans have various hair textures: from kinky (kingly), to curly, to wavy hair and also straight hair. Many Africans have made a choice to wear their hair natural…does this mean that because you wear your hair natural that you are the best example of what a true African is? What about the Clarence Thomas's and the Colin Powell's of this world, they wear their hair in its natural state and they have not decided to bleach their skins, however the conditions of their minds have been "white washed" and "bleached" I dare not make a comparison on who is in the worse or better state". Africans who choose to bleach externally or those who choose to bleach internally; it is a known fact that our very minds are in a state of disrepair and in need of an immediate upgrade.
And I have not lost sight of a persons right to choose to straighten or not to straighten their hair. People should do things that makes oneself happy, however I am sure when people obtain more information about a particular subject or a particular action (skin bleaching) then hopefully people will be able to make better choices.
The struggle continues...
``xmeri``x``xShades Of Identity Crisis``x993816554,70253,History4``x``x
``xResponse: Heather
(Self-Development Forum) It is not only Black people who are trying to look like the advertised image of White beauty. Contrary to popular belief, most Whites do not look like what is popularly portrayed in the media. Recently I saw them advertising White skin lighteners to White people, and lets not forget the phenomenal sales of blonde dye.
Also check how many of them are "dying" from bulimia and anorexia.
I guess White people are also "dying" to be "White".
``xmeri``x``xShades Of Identity Crisis``x993821244,15490,History4``x``x
``xWASHINGTON (NNPA)--At a packed and heated forum that scorched two of her White House colleagues, a Black U.S. State Department official said she will ask the Bush administration for a $3 million allocation toward the World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance (WCAR) in Durban, South Africa from Aug. 31 to Sept. 7.
Debra Carr, chair of the U.S. Interagency Task Force on the conference, made the commitment during a heated Congressional Black Caucus roundtable last week, chaired by Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-Ga.), who heads the CBC task force on WCAR. More``xmeri``x``xBush Aide Promises To Seek $3 Million For U.N. Race Conference``x994020557,37228,History4``x``x
``xFrederick Douglass || 5th July 1852
Mr. President, Friends and Fellow Citizens: He who could address this audience without a quailing sensation, has stronger nerves than I have. I do not remember ever to have appeared as a speaker before any assembly more shrinkingly, nor with greater distrust of my ability, than I do this day. A feeling has crept over me, quite unfavorable to the exercise of my limited powers of speech. The task before me is one which requires much previous thought and study for its proper performance. I know that apologies of this sort are generally considered flat and unmeaning. I trust, however, that mine will not be so considered. Should I seem at ease, my appearance would much misrepresent me. The little experience I have had in addressing public meetings, in country school houses, avails me nothing on the present occasion. More ``xmeri``x``xWhat to the Slave is the Fourth of July?``x994231559,69066,History4``x``x
``x(Kwame Nantambu) At the outset, it must be stated quite clearly that we Afrikan people, are the original, majority people with original ideas. Europeans are only an inherited, transmitting global minority people. Europeans did not invent, create or discover culture nor civilisation; they just inherited them and in some cases, stole them. Afrikans never lived in caves and in the icebox during the Ice Age for 20,000 years.
The bottom line is that Afrikans are the ancestors of Europeans. We created them, according to scientific research of the modern-day Imhotep, Dr. Cheikh Anta Diop in terms of the origin of humankind. These Afrikans who left Mother Afrika with their melanin intact to populate the world and with Black skin, large nose, big/thick lips, Black wooly hair, large-broad nostrils etc, got caught in the ice and lost everything. As a result of having to adapt to this new cold glacial environment, their Black skin then became white, nostrils became small and narrow, lips became thin, etc; they became white. [More]``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xColumbus & the falsification of history``x995072470,27322,History4``x``x
``x(Washington Post) The recent Post series documenting Prince George's County police as among the most brutal in the nation exposes a long-hidden truth: A racially diverse police force under the command of black elected officials is no guarantee against police violence.
The notion that racial diversity is the key to fighting police brutality has deep historical roots. In the wake of riots across American inner-cities in the 1960s, the Kerner Commission called for "increased Negro participation in police departments" because "for police in a Negro community to be predominately white can serve as a dangerous irritant."
But in Prince George's County, where the police force killed more people during the past decade than any police force in America, and where no officer during that time has been fired or demoted for shooting somebody, the police department is 41 percent African American. Moreover, the county that has become known as America's wealthiest black suburb has a black county executive and chief prosecutor. Nor is Prince George's alone: In recent years Los Angeles, Detroit and Washington all have suffered police misconduct scandals. Yet each of these cities has either significant black leadership or police force representation. [More]``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xDiversity Alone Won't Stop Police Violence``x995238033,16631,History4``x``x
``x(Ras Jahaziel) As a people who have been THE WHITE MAN'S PROPERTY for so very long, we have grown accustomed to searching for "GOD" through other people's eyes. If it is not the white man's eyes, it has been the Arab's, the Chinese or the Indian's eyes. This idea that "spirituality" means soaking up the White man's, the Indian's, the Chinese or the Arab's ideas, is all part and parcel of our own degraded sense of self-hood.
When we rediscover and resurrect an appreciation for ourselves as THAT UNIQUE PEOPLE OF CREATION WHO HAVE BEEN BLESSED WITH THE WOOLEN CROWN OF HAIR, we will find a greater link with the God that we have been seeking so vainly for so very long. It is only within our own image that we as a people will find our God. Never through any other people's eyes. [More]``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xClarifying The Concept Of "Spirituality"``x995262613,68212,History4``x``x
``x(Dr Kwame Nantambu) This writer argues that through their control of the global media apparatus and scholarship, Europeans have been able to portray themselves as the only creators of world history and to present themselves as the original peoples with original ideas.
In the process, the contributions and achievements of Afrikan people have been relegated to the ashheap of history. In reality then, HIS-STORY or His-Eurocentric version or interpretation of world events and history has been the prime mover in the thought process of the Eurocentric world view.
This analysis argues that since the 15th century, ethnocentrism (lack of tolerance of other cultures), etnocentrism (lack of tolerance of other races) and xenophobia (fear of other races) have conditioned, fashioned and determined the mind-set, attitude and thought process of Europeans towards Afrikan peoples. [More]``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xImpact of Eurocentric Thought Process``x995413454,84551,History4``x``x
``xThe activist campaign demanding payment of "slavery reparations" to today's black Americans probably strikes some readers as too far-fetched to take seriously. Better stop and look afresh. I myself realized that the concept had moved beyond faculty lounges, radical salons, and afrocentric pamphlets and into the realm of serious political struggle when I looked over the roster of a legal group convened to plot practical strategy for winning such compensation. It included not only DreamTeamer Johnny Cochran, Harvard Law School professor Charles Ogletree, and other ideologically predictable backers, but also one Richard J. Scruggs. [More]``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xHas the Debt Been Paid? ``x995473419,82485,History4``x``x
``xJanuary 05 2000
A special feature by Charles Finch, M.D. Chairman, Dept. of International Medicine, The Morehouse School of Medicine
It has become increasingly clear that traditional African cultures and civilizations knew and accomplished much more than has traditionally been assumed. Even after we've "restored" ancient Egypt - a civilization that was the fountainhead of science - to its true and natural place on African soil as an African creation, there is yet a profound reluctance to admit that Africa contributed anything of substance to world science.
In this article, the author hopes to show that traditional African physicians evolved effective - even sophisticated - diagnostic and therapeutic modalities in medicine which belie the notion that Africa was without a medical science.
Just as any discussion of the achievements of Western medicine harkens back to Hippocrates and Galen, so any discussion of African medical achievements harkens back to ancient Egypt. Newsome, among others, has shown what a debt Greek medicine owed to the priest-physicians of Egypt.(1) Not only was the most important Greek healing deity, Asclepios, identified with the legendary Egyptian physician-architect-aphorist Imhotep but Hippocratic therapeutics had direct antecedents in Egyptian medicine. The city-state of Athens used to import Egyptian physicians, as did most of the kingdoms of the Near East, and in the Odyssey, Homer says, "In medical knowledge, Egypt leaves the rest of the world behind."(2)
Like all African medicine, Egyptian medicine has baffled scholars because of the complete interpenetration of "magico-spiritual" and "rational" elements. Mostly, this magico-spiritual aspect has been downplayed or belittled. However, at least one researcher concedes that healing, being a complicated psychic as well as physical process, may be amenable to an approach that touches that hidden area of the psyche beyond the reach of rational therapy.(3) Even modern medicine concedes that as much as 60% of illness has a psychic base and indeed, the well-known "placebo" effect of modern pharmaco-medicine arises from this.(4) We moderns like to deride this magico-spiritual medicine but it can and does produce startling results that we do not understand.
The Egyptians were writing medical textbooks as early as 5,000 years ago.(5) This indicates not only a mature civilization but also a long period of medical development. Out of the hundreds and thousands of medical papyri that must have been written, only 10 have come down to us, the most important being the Ebers and Edwin Smith Papyri. These 10 papyri form the basis of most of what Egyptologists know about Egyptian medicine. It has been affirmed, however, that much of the training and instruction of the healing priests must have been orally transmitted, as it is in the rest of Africa.(6) It is likely, therefore, that we have only a partial grasp of the true scope of Egyptian medical knowledge. Moreover, like their counterparts in the rest of Africa, the Egyptian priest-physicians often kept their best knowledge secret.
Egyptian physicians were instructed in the "per ankh" or "house of life" which served as a university, library, medical school, clinic, temple, and seminary. The numerous Greek philosophers who studied in Egypt, such as Pythagorous, Thales, and Plato, must have spent their time in a per ankh. In these centers of learning, there was no sharp demarcation between the fields of study; religion, philosophy, science, astronomy, mathematics, music, and hieroglyphics were all part of the same species of knowledge and were reflected in one another.
It is of interest that the Egyptians were alone among the nations of antiquity in the development of specialty medicine. In the Old Kingdom, the diseases of each organ were under the care of a specialist. In the later epochs, the specialists disappeared as the Egyptian physician began to function as a generalist. However, during Ptolemaic times, specialization came back into the vogue, probably as a result of renewed interest in the archaic culture. Not until the 20th century did anything comparable in the sphere of medicine develop. Contemporary doctors are accustomed to believing that modern specialty medicine resulted from a progressive evolution of medical techniques and knowledge, hardly realizing that it is a throw back to the earliest form of Egyptian medical practice.
A study of ancient Egyptian diagnostic methods reads disconcertingly like a modern textbook on physical diagnosis. A physician summoned to examine a patient would begin with a careful appraisal of the patient's general appearance. This would be followed by a series of questions to elicit a description of the complaint. The color of the face and eyes, the quality of nasal secretions, the presence of perspiration, the stiffness of the limbs or abdomen, and the condition of the skin were all carefully noted. The physician was also at pains to take cognizance of the smell of the body, sweat, breath, and wounds. The urine and feces were inspected, the pulse palpated and measured, and the abdomen, swellings, and wounds probed and palpated. The pulse taking is worth noting because it indicates that the Egyptians knew of its circulatory and hemodynamic significance. Percussion of the abdomen and chest was performed and certain functional tests we still use today were done, i.e., the coughing test for hernia detection; the extension-flexion maneuver of the legs to test for a dislocated lumbar vertebra. Sometimes, the case required more than one consultation and the physician might, as is done today, embark on a "therapeutic trial" to ascertain the efficacy of treatment. It also seems that the Egyptians practiced a form of socialized medicine. All physicians were employees of the state and medical care was available to everyone.(7)
The extant medical papyri show us that the Egyptians had quite an extensive knowledge of anatomy and physiology. They understood the importance of pulsation and - 4500 years before Harvey - knew something of the structure and function of the cardiovascular system. They knew that the heart was the center of this system, had names for all the major vessels, knew the relation between heart and lung, and knew the distribution of the vessels through the limbs.(8) They had names for the brain and meninges (the covering of the brain and spinal cord) and also seem to have known the relation between the nervous system and voluntary movements. In addition, the ureters (the connections between the kidneys and the bladder) were known and named. Most writers state that the Egyptians’ anatomical knowledge while relatively sophisticated, was, by modern standards, rudimentary. They aver, for example, that the Egyptians attached no special significance to the brain.(9) But at least one researcher, utilizing sources entirely different from the papyri, contradicts this notion, asserting that their knowledge of neuroanatomy in particular was as detailed and advanced as that in modern times.(10)
The Egyptians were well-versed in many pathological syndromes. The identification of a disease syndrome necessitates acute and painstaking clinical observation, often over many years, and many of the ones described in the medical papyri are known today. Egyptian physicians understood the origin of paraplegia and paralysis from spinal cord injuries and recognized the traumatic origin of neurological symptoms such as deafness, urinary incontinence, and priapism. They described many syndromes of cardiac origin. They knew that excess blood in the heart and lungs was pathological which is consistent with what we know about congestive heart failure today. They also seem to have recognized the significance of heart palpitations and arrhythmias and gave a rather precise definition of angina pectoris:
"If thou examinest a man for illness in his cardia and he has pains in his arms, in his breast, and on one side of his cardia...it is death threatening him."(ll)
The modern description of angina pectoris can hardly improve upon this. The phrase seen in the Ebers Papyrus, "belly too narrow for food," seems to indicate an esophageal or stomach stricture perhaps from an inflammatory or ulcerating process. Egyptian physicians also knew that a weak heart adversely affected the liver, calling to mind the pathological enlargement of the liver which we know to be due to heart failure. Faintness due to a "dumb heart" was described which seems to be an allusion to a Stokes-Adams attack.(12) It is evident that the ancient Egyptian physicians had a fundamental grasp of the pathophysiology of many of the syndromes we know today.
Perhaps the most remarkable document among the medical papyri is the surgical Edwin Smith Papyrus, a compendium of Egyptian anatomical knowledge and surgical methods. It is in this papyrus that the remarkable descriptions of the traumatic surgical lesions and their treatment are found. We also find that the priest-physicians also recognized the signs and symptoms of sciatica, the sharp pain radiating down the leg caused by nerve compression in the lower spinal cord. Like many other peoples in Africa and the rest of the world, the Egyptians practiced trephination. (13) This operation, the forerunner of neurosurgery, involves boring a hole through the skull to the outer covering of the brain. This was done to remove fragments from a skull fracture compressing the brain, to treat epilepsy, or to relieve chronic headache. Today in Africa there are people who have undergone this operation with no apparent ill effects and there are skulls from ancient Egyptian graves with definite signs of healing around the trephination site so it is clear that patients survived this operation.
As is seen very commonly in Africa, there was a separate guild of bonesetters in Egypt who treated fractures and dislocations. These specialists devised a completely effective method for reducing collar bone fractures which Hippocrates later used. (14) The Edwin Smith Papyrus also describes maneuvers for reducing dislocated jaws and shoulders. Long bone fractures were immobilized with tight splints and nasal fractures were treated by the insertion of stiff nasal packings into the affected nostril, a method also used today for uncomplicated nasal fractures.
The Egyptians had perhaps 3-4 thousand years of experience dissecting and bandaging mummies and this must have had beneficial effects on surgical technique. They had an array of knives and scalpels to excise tumors and drain abscesses. They used red-hot metal instruments to seal off bleeding points and closed clean wounds with sutures or adhesive tape. They were unsurpassed as "bandagists" and used their techniques to control bleeding. Fresh meat was also used to stop oozing hemorrhage from surgical wounds. Like the ancient Chinese, they used molds from bread or cereals to treat wound infections. Modern penicillin was extracted from a mold so the priest-physicians must also have been aware of its bacteriacidal properties. (15)
Like all African peoples, the Egyptians had a large materia medica, using as many as 1000 animal, plant, and mineral products in the treatment of illness. Night blindness, caused by vitamin A deficiency, was treated with ox livers, known to be rich in vitamin A. Poppy extract - the source of opium - was used to treat colicky babies. Modern physicians use paregoric - whose active ingredient is opium - for exactly the same purpose. Patients with scurvy - caused by vitamin C deficiency - were fed onions, a known source of vitamin C. Castor seeds, the source of castor oil, were used to make cathartic preparations. Mandrake and henbane, sources of belladonna alkaloids, were also known and used. The belladonnas possess properties that stimulate the heart, decrease stomach motility, dilate the pupils, and cause sedation. The Egyptians dispensed their prescriptions as pills, enemas, suppositories, infusions, and elixirs in accurate, standardized doses causing some to wonder if they had separate pharmacies and pharmacists. (16)
The Egyptians were also quite knowledgeable in handling obstetric and gynecological problems. They knew and treated uterine prolapse. They had means of inducing abortions and preventing conception. They even had an effective pregnancy test! A sample of a woman's urine was sprinkled on growing cereals; if the cereals did not grow the woman was considered not pregnant; if they did grow she was declared pregnant. Modern experiments have shown that a pregnant woman's urine has a permissive effect on the growth of barley in about 40% of the case, demonstrating that there must have been some validity in the world's first pregnancy test. (17)
Our glimpse of the medical system of this ancient African civilization shows that it deserves its reputation as the best and most advanced of antiquity. Indeed, medicine as we know it today began in Egypt rather than Greece. A study of other African systems of medicine is more problematic, however, because of the absence of surviving written records. Thus, most of what we know comes from the testimony of European missionaries whose contemptuous view of traditional culture was most pointed when writing about traditional medical practices. Nonetheless, it can be shown that the best of the traditional healers in various parts of Africa acquired a startling level of proficiency and, contrary to contemporary opinion, were not without a medical science.
It is pertinent to remember that Africa has been subjected to centuries of almost continuous political, social, and cultural disruption and that - among cultures that rely heavily on oral transmission of knowledge - a tremendous amount of knowledge has been lost. Thus, the state of traditional medicine today does not reflect the best of what the traditional doctors knew and surviving fragments of eye-witness reports - as shall be shown - indicate that they knew quite a lot.
Like ancient Egypt, all traditional African cultures had a magico-spiritual conception of disease. Thus in this setting, moral, social, or spiritual transgressions are likely to lead to illness because they create both individual and communal disharmony. Without the psycho-spiritual cure - without re-establishing this sensitive harmony - the medicinal cure is considered useless. The traditional practitioner is intimately acquainted with the psychic, social, and cultural nuances of his people and more than one commentator has acknowledged that the traditional doctor is often an expert psychotherapist, achieving results with his patients that conventional Western psychotherapy cannot.
Though there is no single paradigm of medical practice that applies to all of Africa, many of the essential features of the various traditional systems are comparable and even identical. Among the Mano of Liberia, for example, all children's diseases, all obstetrics, all of the "everyday" complaints are handled by women, particularly the elderly women; surgery, bonesetting, and special diagnostic and therapeutic problems are handled almost exclusively by men. This is a pattern that repeats itself throughout Africa.
The approach to the patient can vary in different parts of Africa. In some societies, where the doctor is credited with paranormal insight, the physician may arrive at a diagnosis and prescribe treatment without questioning or examining the patient since he is supposed to know what is wrong by virtue of his special powers. However, other traditional doctors affect an approach toward physical diagnosis closer to our own:
"Many Western-trained doctors concede that the traditional medical experts have a profound knowledge of the human body and anatomy. This is demonstrated by a usually careful diagnosis beginning with a history of the disease followed by a thorough physical examination...He palpates the different parts and looks for tender spots. He feels the beating of the heart, the position of the inner organs, checks the eyes and ears, and smells the mouth for bad breath." (18)
Most commentators have disparaged the traditional doctor's knowledge of anatomy and physiology. The Mano, however, have names for most of the major organs and know the difference between normal and abnormal anatomy. (19) Another author notes that the Banyoro of Uganda, renowned in the last century for their surgical skill, had a wide knowledge of anatomy. (20) A Hausa maneuver to test for impotence has been described:
"An individual is stripped and placed on a mat lying on his back. A pin or thorn is lightly rubbed over the inside of his thigh. If the scrotum or testicles do not move, the individual is considered impotent."
There is a physiological basis for this procedure. The maneuver in effect tests the cremasteric reflex. The cremaster muscle contracts and pulls the testicles upward on stimulation of the inside of the thigh. (21) This passage belies the notion that African doctors were without a knowledge of some of the body's physiological processes. Moreover, Mano physicians - reputedly without an understanding of the body's cardiovascular system - knew that the conditions of anasarca and ascites were due to fluid overload and treated accordingly with diuretic preparations. These interesting fragments do not by themselves admit of a sophisticated anatomical or physiological knowledge but they hint at a greater degree of knowledge - perhaps in past ages - than has hitherto been recognized.
Some case studies of cultures in east-central Africa have brought to light some remarkable evidence revealing the presence of scientific medicine there. The practice of carrying out autopsies on patients dying of unknown causes among the Banyoro of Uganda and the Likundu of Central Africa has been described. Almost always these were carried out to detect a possible witchcraft etiology but may well have contributed to a more extensive knowledge of anatomy than previously supposed:
"The procedures for autopsying bodies under the Likundu culture have been reviewed, not for the purpose of considering the beliefs that impelled such procedures but to indicate that in some areas autopsies were frequently carried out and that they involved searching in the body, a search which might be casual and superficial but which in other cases might be prolonged and exacting and involved opening up and examining a variety of organs. These are precisely the circumstances under which considerable knowledge of anatomy and pathology could be acquired by persons who, for any purpose, might wish to do so. (22)
Further, there is a report of a Banyoro king who commissioned a traditional doctor to travel around the countryside to investigate, describe, and search for a cure for sleeping sickness, which was ravaging the country at the time.(23) This clearly indicates that a spirit of clinical investigation did exist among Banyoro physicians and probably among other traditional practitioners as well. In many parts of Africa, treatments were devised for new diseases like venereal disease and scrofula that were imported into Africa and this would presuppose some form of clinical investigation and experimentation.
In some parts of Africa, it would seem that the traditional doctor had a firm grasp of some fundamental public health principles. In Liberia, the Mano developed an admirable quarantine system for smallpox. They were well aware of its contagiousness and set aside a "sick bush" for affected patients. This was situated well away from the village and the patient was attended by only one person; no one else was allowed to approach the area. The patient was put on a careful diet and was rubbed with topical anesthetic medications to prevent scratching which could lead to infection. When the illness ran its course, the area wasburned. The "sick-bush" approach would do a modern epidemiologist proud. Of further interest is the centuries-old practice of small-pox variolation which is carried out all over Africa. During an epidemic, material from the pustule of a sick person is scratched into the skin of unaffected persons with a thorn. In the majority of instances, there is no reaction and the persons inoculated are protected against smallpox. In some cases, the inoculation will produce a mild, non-fatal form of the disease which will also confer permanent immunity.(24) Centuries before Jenner, Africans had devised an effective vaccination method against smallpox.
In the area of surgery, the best evidence indicates that some African surgeons attained a level of skill comparable, and in some respects superior, to that of Western surgeons up to the 20th century. As in ancient Egypt, the bonesetter guilds were separate from those of the traditional doctors and were renowned for their skill. Some commentators, observing the bonesetters of today, feel that this reputation was somewhat inflated and the bonesetters' results were less than optimum by Western standards.(25) Yet other reports cite techniques that led tohighly satisfactory results. Mano bonesetters treated a patient with a thigh fracture by placing him in the loft of a house allowing the affected leg to dangle free with a heavy stone attached. This was a very effective traction method and once the fracture was reduced, it was immobilized with a tight splint. (26) In addition, the patient was encouraged to exercise a fractured leg and we know today that new bone is laid down more rapidly over the fracture site when there is some exercise of the limb. Bonesetters in other parts of Africa would dig a deep pit for the purpose of exercising traction on a fractured limb and in East Africa, the bonesetters reduced fractures and dislocations by manual manipulation and traction. These examples indicate that the bonesetters' reputation was not entirely undeserved.
In many areas, especially among warlike peoples, the traditional physician was particularly adept in treating traumatic wounds. One report describes the treatment of an open wound by the following method: plant juices with anti-septic properties were squeezed into the open wound, a red hot metal tip was used to cauterize bleeding points and burn away damaged tissue, the wound edges were closed with a tough thorn, an awl, and fibrous suture and a fiber mat was wrapped tightly around the wound to prevent bleeding. The wound was never closed until the bleeding had been stopped. (27) In another documented instance, a native surgeon successfully resected part of a patient's lung to remove a penetrating arrow-head.(28) In the Congo, a native surgeon was seen using stiff elephant hairs to probe for and successfully remove a bullet.(29) In Nigeria, a man who had had his abdomen ripped open by an elephant was treated by the doctor by replacing the intestines in the abdominal cavity, securing them in place with a calabash covering, and finally suturing together the overlying abdominal wall and skin. Not only did the man recover but was soon back working on a road gang. (30) In the testimony of one author:
"Witch doctors of many tribes perform operations for cataract. They squeeze the juice from the leaves of an alkaloid-containing plant directly into the eye to desensitize it, then push the cataract aside with a sharp stick. A surprising number of these cases turn out successfully."(31)
In East Africa, Masai surgeons were known to successfully treat pleurisy and pneumonitis by creating a partial collapse of the lung by drilling holes into the chest of the sufferer.(32)
It is pertinent to now consider one of the most remarkable examples of African surgery ever documented. This is an eye-witness account by a missionary doctor named Felkin of a Caesarean section performed by a Banyoro surgeon in Uganda in 1879:
"The patient was a healthy-looking primipara (lst pregnancy) of about twenty years of age and she lay on an inclined bed, the head of which rested against the side of the hut. She was half-intoxicated with banana wine, was quite naked and was tied down to the bed by bands of bark cloth over the thorax and thighs. Her ankles were held by a man...while another man stood on her right steadying her abdomen...the surgeon was standing on her left side holding the knife aloft and muttering an incantation. He then washed his hands and the patient's abdomen first with banana wine and then water. The surgeon made a quick cut upwards from just above the pubis to just below the umbilicus severing the whole abdominal wall and uterus so that amniotic fluid escaped. Some bleeding points in the abdominal wall were touched with red hot irons. The surgeon completed the uterine incision, the assistant helping by holding up the sides of the abdominal wall with his hand and hooking two fingers into the uterus. The child was removed, the cord cut, and the child was handed to an assistant." (33)
The report goes on to say that the surgeon squeezed the uterus until it contracted, dilated the cervix from inside with his fingers (to allow post-partum blood to escape), removed clots and the placenta from the uterus, and then sparingly used red hot irons to seal the bleeding points. A porous mat was tightly secured over the wound and the patient turned over to the edge of the bed to permit drainage of any remaining fluid. The peritoneum, the abdominal wall, and the skin were approximated back together and secured with seven sharp spikes. A root paste was applied over the wound and a bandage of cloth was tightly wrapped around it. Within six days, all the spikes were removed. Felkin observed the patient for 11 days and when he left, mother and child were alive and well. (34)
In Scotland, Lister had pioneered antiseptic surgery just two years prior to this event but universal application of his methods in the operating rooms of Europe was still years away. Caesarean sections were performed only under the most desperate circumstances and only to save the life of the infant. A Caesarean section to save the lives of both mother and child was unheard of in Europe nor are there records of such a procedure among the great civilizations of antiquity. As one commentator has said:
"The whole conduct of the operation as Felkin described it suggests a skilled, long-practiced surgical team at work conducting a well-tried and familiar operation with smooth efficiency and unhurried skill...Lister's team in London could hardly have performed with greater smoothness." (35)
Not only did the surgeon understand the sophisticated concepts of anesthesia and antisepsis but also demonstrated advanced surgical technique. In his sparing use of the cautery iron, for example, he showed that he knew tissue damage could result from its overuse. The operation was without question a landmark, reflecting the best in African surgery.
African midwives possessed a good understanding of some fundamental obstetric and pediatric principles. Mano midwives pulled repeatedly at the breasts of women in labor, a maneuver which induces the release of oxytocin - a stimulator of uterine contractions - from the pituitary gland. They sometimes took laboring mothers upon their backs walking around with and shaking them. This undoubtedly had the effect of causing the cervix to dilate and the head to engage, thus facilitating labor.(36) Some Bantu midwives were known to use Indian hemp during labor for its sedative properties. Newborn babes and infants were taken and exposed to the sun for a period each day "to make them strong." One author attributed the rare occurrence of rickets among Mano children to this practice.(37) In addition, these women healers recognized the causes of malnutrition and retarded development, putting such children on special diets high in vitamins and carbohydrates with favorable results.(38)
Traditional African cultures have an abundant materia medica. The Zulus, for example are reputed to know the medicinal uses of some 700 plants. (39) Ouabain, capsicum, physostigmine, kola, and calabar beans are just a few of the substances from the African materia medica that have made their way into the Western pharmacopeia.(40) The traditional midwives often have drugs that can induce abortion in the first three months of pregnancy and in Uganda, in an area where there is a high incidence of dystocia (retarded labor), the midwives have preparations which stimulate uterine contractions. "Fever-leaf" is used all over Africa to treat the recurring fevers of malaria. Certain Bantu-speaking peoples use the bark of Salix capensis (willow) to treat the musculoskeletal complaints of rheumatism.(41) This family of plants yields salicylic acid, the active ingredient in aspirin, a sovereign remedy the world over for musculoskeletal pains. Kaolin, the active ingredient in Kaopectate is used in Mali to combat diarrhea. Caffeine-containing kola nuts are chewed all over Africa for their stimulating and fatigue-combating properties. To combat snakebite, plants containing ouabain and strichnine are used. The former is a heart stimulant and therefore useful against cardiotoxic venoms and the latter is a nerve tonic, useful against neurotoxic venoms. In
Nigeria in 1969, the rootbark Annona senegalensis was found to possess strong anti-cancer properties.(42) Even more recently in 1979, herbal preparations that were used in Nigeria to treat skin infections were found have definite bacteriocidal activity against gram-positive bacteria, the very organisms that cause skin infections. (43) There was an interesting case in 1925 of an eminent Nigerian in England who was suffering from severe psychotic episodes not amenable to treatment by English doctors. A traditional doctor from Nigeria was summoned who was able to relieve the patient of his symptoms with decoctions made from a rauwolfia root. (44) The Rauwolfia family of plants is the source of modern-day Reserpine, first used as a major tranquilizer to treat severe psychosis but now used mainly as an antihypertensive medication.
The list of effective drugs in the African pharmocopeia is too extensive to elucidate here but suffice to say that traditional doctors in Africa had and have effective remedies against intestinal parasites, vomiting, skin ulcers, rashes, catarrh, convulsions, tumors, venereal disease, bronchitis, conjunctivitis, urethral stricture and many other complaints.
There are at least two documented instances of Europeans benefiting from the ministrations of the traditional physician. In the last century, a Bushman doctor cured a European woman dying of sepsis that the European doctor could not treat. In Swaziland, a European doctor, dying of dysentery, was cured by a native physician. (45) Moreover, the native physicians in this area were so skilled at treating Typhoid Fever that the European doctors used their decoctions for the same purpose.
#
This article has attempted to show that the traditional doctors of Africa from the earliest times had a high level of medical and surgical skill, certainly much more than they have been given credit for. It is to be hoped that more substantive and careful investigations will be carried out among the traditional healers of Africa before Western-style medicine supplants them entirely.
Copyright (c)1998-1999:The Black Health Network. ``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xThe African Background of Medical Science``x995545990,4925,History4``x``x
``xAbstract: HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUES
Amnesty International reports on violence in Para out look under:
http://www.oneworld.org/sejup/
This issue is edited to point out the skin tone problem!
Efu Nyaki is a Maryknoll sister who works with the Black Movement in Joao Pessoa, Paraiba .......In reality however, race in Brazil is a complex and difficult issue. Although most of Brazilians claim a mixed African, European and Indigenous ancestry, the weight of racism causes many to "whiten" themselves. Many "morenos" straighten their hair and search for lighter-skinned marriage partners. They often identify themselves and each other with terms that indicate a lighter skin tone, such as: moreninho, café, mulatto, bronziado, chocolate, jambu, moreno claro, moreno escuro, etc. Rarely do they describe themselves as "negro" (black). Even those who call themselves black often have a hard time convincing other Brazilians not to identify them as "moreno" or "mulatto". For many people, to be black is still an insult.
Skin color profoundly influences life's chances. According to a 1992 study by Carlos Hasenbalg and Nelson do Valle Silva, non-white Brazilians are three times more likely than whites to be illiterate. The numbers deteriorate even further at higher educational level: whites are five times more likely than people of mixed ancestry and nine times more likely than blacks to obtain university degrees. The patterns repeats itself in the work force, where, according to the government statistics, whites have access to the highest-paying jobs, earning up to 75% more that blacks and 50% more that people of mixed ancestry. Other socio-economic indicators are no less grim. Infant mortality statistics are almost twice as high for non-white children, and the vast majority of detainees in the country's crowded prison system are non-whites.
Not all of the consequences of racism can be neatly packed into statistics and charts. Effects on self-esteem are not so easily measured. At a recent reflection group of Afro-Brazilian women in João Pessoa, the capital of Paraíba, a woman named Cida painfully recounted the end of her relationship with Chico, a lighter-skinned black. The two had dated for several years without their color difference seeming to create any difficulties. When they got engaged however, Chico s family exploded; "This little blackie is going to pollute our blood. Go and find someone who will purify it," Chico s mother raged. Chico caved in and broke off the engagement within days. Two years latter, Cida painfully asked the group, "How can you tell me not to feel inferior because of my color?"
There are many examples and stories like Cida's. We could go on and on to show just how complex the question of racism is in Brazil.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xColor problems in Brazil``x995712117,96864,History4``x``x
``x(A Hotep) All attempts at legitimizing the use of the 'N' word are absurd.
The word was used to degrade Africans and reinforce white supremacy and when used by other Blacks/Africans in their idea of a friendly way, they are trying to assert their superiority to make a point.
People should examine how and when the term is used.
I also find it very disgusting to here people refer to females as Bitches and it is pitiful when females accept this disrespect all because they wish to maintain some 'ghetto' status or lack thereof or income from these males. The use of these obscene terms is still to reinforce inferior/superior status and is the same even when done among so called friends.
While my main focus is equal opportunity to enlightenment, I am quite aware that in this effort we must accept equal opportunity to remain foolish.
It is in this light I have no problem with people using these words other than to explain the evil use. I consider these people to be extremely ignorant and disrespectful and as such I would not associate with them other than to help them learn the errors of their ways.
Our problem today is not simply 'White People' but ignorance, which is an equal opportunity sickness. In our development to equal opportunity we must first align ourselves with people whom we respect who equally respects us.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xAttempts to legitimize the use of the 'N' word ``x995997113,20416,History4``x``x
``x(BBC) The modern world has barely touched the Kalahari desert, in the middle of Botswana. Nature, not man, governs the daily pattern of life.
It is as bare, remote and harsh as life can get - and yet there is a natural, undisturbed order that gives this land its own sense of beauty.
But yet people do live here, as they have done for nearly 30,000 years. This is home to the San people - or the Bushmen of the Kalahari.
They have lived here as hunter-gatherers. Only several hundred remain on their ancestral lands. But now they face a battle to cling on to their way of life.
The Botswanan Government is urging - some would say forcing - them to move. Huddled around fires outside their huts in the cold early morning the villagers told me about their plight.
"It's up to us, we will stay here even if they try to kill us", said 28-year-old Gakemothowasepe Molapong. "We know this land. We are as free as birds and we will live as we want."
It is a competition between the indigenous rights of the San people, and the economic interests of Botswana.
The government says it wants to protect the wildlife, but many believe that they are motivated by the huge mineral wealth the Kalahari is believed to possess, including diamonds and possible uranium. And so, the government wants to relocate the San communities. More on this Story
South Africa's indigenous people, known as Khoisan,
are demanding better treatment from the country's government.
Country profile: Botswana``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xThe San people or the Bushmen battle for Kalahari``x996062708,50924,History4``x``x
``x(Guardian UK) The director of public prosecutions, David Calvert-Smith, acknowledged yesterday that the crown prosecution service is institutionally racist and admitted that this could affect how decisions are taken in the prosecution process.
He made the embarrassing confession after the publication of two damning reports highlighting widespread racial discrimination in the CPS. An 18-month inquiry by Sylvia Denman, a leading academic lawyer, concluded: "Institutional racism has been, and continues to be, at work in the CPS."
A separate report by the commission for racial equality discovered that two distinct prosecuting teams, split on racial lines, were operating in the Croydon branch of the CPS and managers had failed to take action to stop this.
It said: "The level of organisational and management failure was such as would meet the test for institutional racism, as defined by the Stephen Lawrence inquiry report." [More]
Report on Racism in UK``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xUK: We're racist, admits prosecution service chief``x996254800,8239,History4``x``x
``xThe genetic history of a group of populations is usually analyzed by reconstructing a tree of their origins. Reliability of the reconstruction depends on the validity of the hypothesis that genetic differentiation of the populations is mostly due to population fissions followed by independent evolution. If necessary, adjustment for major population admixtures can be made. Dating the fissions requires comparisons with paleoanthropological and paleontological dates, which are few and uncertain.
A method of absolute genetic dating recently introduced uses mutation rates as molecular clocks; it was applied to human evolution using microsatellites, which have a sufficiently high mutation rate. Results are comparable with those of other methods and agree with a recent expansion of modern humans from Africa. An alternative method of analysis, useful when there is adequate geographic coverage of regions, is the geographic study of frequencies of alleles or haplotypes.
As in the case of trees, it is necessary to summarize data from many loci for conclusions to be acceptable. Results must be independent from the loci used. Multivariate analyses like principal components or multidimensional scaling reveal a number of hidden patterns and evaluate their relative importance. Most patterns found in the analysis of human living populations are likely to be consequences of demographic expansions, determined by technological developments affecting food availability, transportation, or military power.
During such expansions, both genes and languages are spread to potentially vast areas. In principle, this tends to create a correlation between the respective evolutionary trees. The correlation is usually positive and often remarkably high. It can be decreased or hidden by phenomena of language replacement and also of gene replacement, usually partial, due to gene flow. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/94/15/7719``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xGenes, peoples, and languages ``x996380627,76940,History4``x``x
``xKwasi Akyeampong
My question for discussion:
WHAT IS RASTAFARIANISM?
IS THERE SUCH A THING AS RASTARIANISM?
WHO IS A RASTAFARIAN?
CAN ANYONE BECOME A RASTAFARIAN?
WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE A RASTAFARIAN?
WHAT IS THE RELEVANCE OF RASTAFARIANISM?
I believe...it was Prof. Rex Nettleford wrote of the culture of "The Dred."
SO WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BEING DRED AND BEING A RASTAFARIAN?
IF YOU ARE "BALD HEAD" - NOT A RASTA , HOW WOULD YOU DEFINE A RASTA?
These are question that have come up in casual conversations and many of us have not given thought to thoughtfully explore the questions.
The concept of Rastafarianism has seems to have changed since my youth. Men with dred-locks (dread(full) hair) does not seem to be dred-lack, dread(ed) and dread(full) men - warrior against "Babylon" with "blood and fire" on their tongues.
"The music of Africa's lost generation has become the music of the town."(sic), said Una Morrison, Jamaican poet.
HAS RASTAFARIANS BECOME THE CULTURAL LORDS OF "BABYLON?"
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Posted by: Ras for Self
There is a modern Rasta who identifies with His Imperial Majesty Emperor Haile Sellassie and a set of social practices including Dreadlocks. I see these Rastas as having commune outside of the general hypocrisies of the Western World and are more sensitive to social/African issues. I would leave this aspect for other Rastafari of the community.
InI deal in the essence of Rasta and Rastafari, which is wisdom, developed through self-identification and SELF-reunification. This is the area that speaks to and from our common good. InI await dialogue with man/woman who want to attain this cosmic Rastafari state. This is the highest calling of mankind and it can be adequately defined from the root of the word to the experience of higher development. InI will say more when more Rastafari engage this issue.
InI know, InI think, InI believe what InI know.
Rastafari, InI Speaks,
Ras for Self
More > Rastafari Speaks Message Board``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xWhat Is Rastafarianism?``x996503404,49297,Rasta``x``x
``xTHE EDITOR: "In Ghana, women have made some progress mostly because of the legacy of the former colonial rulers." So writes Kevin Baldeosingh in his flippant report on a brief and secluded visit to Accra, Ghana More > (Express 26/7/01).
For someone who is often at pains to appear learned, I find Kevin to be intellectually lazy when addressing histories of the non-European world.
You don't have to be an Afrocentrist to argue that his observation on the relationship between the progress of women in Africa and the legacy of colonialism, smacks of the most banal Eurocentrism.
There is a vast body of scholarship published from within the Euro-American academy that writers like Kevin revere, which has effectively challenged the idea that colonialism liberated and advanced the womenfolk of Africa.
This would have been a remarkable achievement for colonial rulers, especially since the European males who administered colonies in Africa brought with them a system of patriarchal domination that was common in Europe.
Indeed, researchers have shown that colonialism tended to strengthen the power of men (white and black) over women in Africa, in relation to issues ranging from household tasks to the allocation of land and property.
The notion that European intervention represented "progress" for the peoples of Africa began with the ideologues of the slave trade and colonial expansion and remains deeply embedded in the schools of thought with which Kevin seems to enjoy a close and uncritical relationship. He should broaden his intellectual interests.
In the course of doing so, he might discover that African leaders, culpable as they are for the continent's woes, did not act alone; there was no shortage of foreign benefactors.
When, for example, the peoples of the Congo demanded access to education, technology, democracy and the human rights mentioned in the article, various US administrations stood solidly behind Mobutu, the brutal dictator that ruled against the possibility of such.
No one seriously concerned about the plight of Africans will call upon them to forget the past and uncritically adopt the plans of their former colonial rulers and the US, as Kevin advises.
He should stick to his satire and commentaries on our local racial essentialists and spare us the trite analyses of contemporary Africa, of which there is an adequate supply in the local media.
DAVID JOHNSON
Associate Professor of African History
City University of New York``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xWhite men didn't free African women``x996576144,57277,History4``x``x
``xBorn in Slavery: Slave Narratives from the Federal Writers' Project, 1936-1938 contains more than 2,300 first-person accounts of slavery and 500 black-and-white photographs of former slaves. These narratives were collected in the 1930s as part of the Federal Writers' Project of the Works Progress Administration (WPA) and assembled and microfilmed in 1941 as the seventeen-volume Slave Narratives: A Folk History of Slavery in the United States from Interviews with Former Slaves. This online collection is a joint presentation of the Manuscript and Prints and Photographs Divisions of the Library of Congress and includes more than 200 photographs from the Prints and Photographs Division that are now made available to the public for the first time. Born in Slavery was made possible by a major gift from the Citigroup Foundation.
More > http://lcweb2.loc.gov/ammem/snhtml/``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xBorn in Slavery: Slave Narratives``x996578699,91325,History4``x``x
``x(Jamaica Gleaner) "The hour is at hand, the Monster is dying...in recounting the mood in his church that night he said- "the winds of freedom appeared to have been set loose, the very building shook at the strange yet sacred joy." - William Knibb, non-conformist Baptist preacher and abolitionist, at the dawning of Aug. 1, 1838
Freedom can be said to have arrived in two stages; the first being the early morning of Friday, August 1, 1834. On that day many slaves were said to have walked up hills and climbed trees so as to clearly witness the literal dawning of their freedom. Around the island thousands attended "Divine Services" to give thanks and praise. August 1, 1834, marked the emancipation of all slaves in British colonies but it was a case of freedom with conditions. Although the Abolition Act stated that slavery shall be and is hereby utterly abolished and unlawful, the only slaves truly freed were those not yet born and those under six years of age. All other slaves were to enter a six-year 'apprenticeship' during which they were to be 'apprenticed' to the plantations. [More]``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xEmancipation in Jamaica``x996649200,78926,History4``x``x
``xDuring the 18th century, the powerful Maroons, escaped ex-slaves who settled in the mountains of Jamaica, carved out a significant area of influence. Through the use of slave labor, the production of sugar in this British colony flourished. But the courageous resistance of the Maroons threatened this prosperous industry. These efforts included plantation raids, the killing of white militiamen, and the freeing of slaves. The threat to the system was clear and present; hence, the planters were willing to sign a treaty with the Maroons in 1738. The treaty offers good insight to the relationship between the planters and the Maroons at the time, and deserves further attention.
On March 1, 1738, the articles of pacification with the Maroons of Trelawny Town signaled to Jamaica that a new era was emerging. The English planters had feared the rising power of the Maroons, and therefore tried to subdue them. This proved to be unsuccessful, consequently causing the English to realize that making peace with the Maroons was the only possible solution. This treaty was the first of its kind and it demonstrated that a group of rebellious ex-slaves had forced a powerful class of planters to come to terms. This was an unlikely event during the eighteenth century, given the dominance of the planter class across the Caribbean. Yet the fact remains that the treaty did not solely serve the planters’ interest. For example, article three of the treaty states that the Maroons were given 1500 acres of crown land, a necessity for the Maroons to maintain their independent way of life. In addition, it made a boundary between the Maroons and the planters, which was to avoid future conflicts. [More]``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xThe Maroons of Jamaica``x996649200,73177,History4``x``x
``xWhen referring to the Amazigh people, the boundaries stretch across the borders of all of north Africa, and even beyond, including the Canary Islands, Mauritania, Niger, etc. (The area including north Africa and the Canary Islands is called Tamazgha, land of the Amazigh.)
Three terms which should be kept straight are: Amazigh, Imazighen, and Tamazight. The first is the singular for the people and the culture. Imazighen is the plural. Tamazight refers to the umbrella language group, as well as to a specific regionalism of the language, spoken in some areas of Morocco and Algeria. When the term is used by non-linguists, it inevitably refers to the language of the Imazighen in general. The term "Amazigh" is also used ideologically and politically to denote those who identify themselves first and foremost as Amazigh (rather than, for example, by the country of origin or as Muslim) and adhere to principles of democracy and secularism. More > http://www.waac.org/amazigh/amazigh_home.html
http://www.arab.net/morocco/morocco_contents.html
(BBC) King Mohammed VI of Morocco has promised to set up a body to preserve the language and culture of the country's Berbers, who make up a majority of the population.
In a speech to mark the second anniversary of his accession to the throne, the king said the body would work towards integrating the Berber language into the education system. [More]``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xThe Cultural Unity Of The Amazigh People``x996651853,96901,History4``x``x
``xCARLISLE, Pa. -- With its neatly trimmed lawn and plain, white gravestones, the small, well-kept cemetery near the rear gate of the U.S. Army War College at the Carlisle Barracks looks at first like many other Army cemeteries.
But a braid of sweetgrass here and a beaded hair clip there identify the site not as a soldiers' graveyard, but as the final resting place for more than 100 American Indian children who died far from home.
From 1879-1918, the Carlisle Barracks was home to the Carlisle Indian Industrial School, the model for a nationwide system of government-run Indian boarding schools intended to "civilize" American Indian children by teaching them farming and trades while squelching their language and traditions. More > http://www.sltrib.com/07292001/travel/116859.htm``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xAttempts to 'Civilize' American Indian Children``x996672361,96645,History4``x``x
``xWhat must be done to preserve Western Civilization?
By Rabbi Mayer Schiller
If current trends continue, some time in the middle of the next century the majority of this nation's inhabitants will be nonwhites. As has been shown repeatedly in the pages of American Renaissance, the presence of large numbers of nonwhites irrevocably changes the character of a school, neighborhood, city or state. Most whites find these changes so disagreeable that they simply move away. However, they can do this only because there are still many areas of the country that are overwhelm-ingly white. What will happen if whites become a minority? Even before whites are reduced to a minority, the shift towards a largely nonwhite population will be felt in all areas of life. Taxes, crime, and disease will rise. "Reverse discrimination" will become the norm. Ever larger parts of the country will be essentially off limits to whites, even as government resorts to ever more draconian measures to enforce integration. Legislatures and schools dominated by nonwhites will rewrite our history, belittle our heritage, overturn our monuments, and abandon the cultural norms of our civilization. This is the great crisis of our times.(1)
More > http://www.natesu.org/rabbi.htm``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xSeparation: Is There an Alternative?``x996751973,52965,History4``x``x
``xHere you will find information on the prehistoric people of Eurasia known as Neanderthals, and on the early modern humans who succeeded them.
Who were these two groups of people? (see below). How were they related? How did they interact? Where did the first modern humans come from? And what eventually became of the Neanderthals? Final answers to these questions have yet to be found, but this web site allows you to share in the quest for knowledge about this fascinating period of prehistory.
New evidence on the last Neanderthals and first modern humans of Eurasia is constantly pouring in. This web site uses a regional perspective to report these new findings and to help clarify the pattern of human evolution during this exciting epoch. It presents concise, objective summaries of the latest archeological and fossil evidence for each region of Eurasia where these ancient peoples once lived: http://www.neanderthal-modern.com/``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xNeanderthals and Modern Humans - A Regional Guide ``x996764285,54879,History4``x``x
``xSmall groups of Hadzabe bushmen live around Lake Eyasi. Their language resembles the click languages of other bushmen further south in the Kalahari. Their small population was seriously threatened, in particular during the period when Julius Nyere tried to introduce his Ujuma policy. The tribe resisted the forcible settlement policies of Julius Nyere and nowadays most of their children have never seen a doctor or school - the bush provides for all their needs and is a class room for their offspring.
They are often willing for visitors to come and see their simple bush homes where the tree canopy alone or a cave provides them with shelter. They live entirely off the bush and from hunting, generally small antelopes and baboons, although in rainy seasons gazelles and antelopes come down from the Ngorongoro or Serengeti to their then lush bush lands offering them richer pickings. In the recent past their hunting activities were resented by trophy hunters who tried to stop their "illegal"hunting. [More]``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xHadzabe Bushmen - Lake Eyasi``x996881504,93572,History4``x``x
``xReparation for slavery and colonialism, and the nature of Zionism,
put world conference in jeopardy
(Guardian Unlimited) International negotiators meeting in Geneva have a week to save the UN conference on racism from collapse.
The conference was intended for heads of government but some countries intend to send lesser representatives.
Although many leaders of the developing world are planning to attend, Tony Blair is among the western leaders who will be absent.
The decision whether to send the foreign secretary, Jack Straw, or a junior minister, is being delayed until a judgment can be made on the likely outcome of the meeting.
Diplomats from states planning to attend the conference, due to start in Durban, South Africa, on August 31, have to agree on the wording of a final draft of a declaration on racism for the conference to adopt, and a plan of action. The deadline is Friday.
If they fail some countries are likely to further lower their level of representation, and at at worst the US will withdraw.
Backed by the EU, Washington says it will not endorse a declaration equating Zionism with racism, or containing references to compensation or reparations for slavery and colonialism.
Discrimination, subjugation, and foreign occupation are, in the phrase used by the western camp, "not region specific". India, for example, has fought off an attempt to have its caste system classed as oppressive. [More]``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xThe past could defeat UN racism charter ``x997059958,40661,History4``x``x
``x( Dredeye ) If you feel you are seeking a perspective from Rasta people, I am more than willing to share my own views to dispel any confusion you have experienced from other people. I respect your sense of urgency in terms of establishing a sensible discourse about Rastafari so please feel free to respond at anytime.
Give thanks and praises to the Most High Jah Rastafari! His Imperial Majesty Emperor Haile Selassie I the revealed kingly character of InI true savior Yehoshua(Hebrew name for Jesus)
Dredeye Knight Out!
________________________________________________________
( Akinkawon ) Brother, search for the true meaning of those words, Yehoshua and Jesus, they have African originals.
Examine Jewish history and see how they have become lost for not getting the African meaning to the words they use. Yes brother, their entire doctrine has an African originality but is lost to them and all who copy them.
________________________________________________________
( Dredeye ) I know Yehoshua means "God is salvation" in Hebrew. But my brother Akinkawon, what African orignal name are you speaking of? Amongst the thousands of different cultures and languages, the names and the words that describes the manifestations of Jah are many. Yehoshua was living example of Jah but so were other Africans throughout history. I also agree that much of Hebrew(which does differ from Jewish culture)has been influenced by Ancient Kemetic rituals and practices. If you don't mind, could you please give a little jump start in finding some of these names and their sources. Give thanks sharing your POV, it only helps to affirm InI as the chosen in the sight of the Most High.
Dredeye Knight Out!
________________________________________________________
( Akinkawon ) The way some Rastas hold on to these Jewish and Christian stories it comes over as if Africans had no concept of these things.
It is not so much the names you choose but how and why you use them and if those words give you a clear understanding of what you are holding on to. I agree it is popular folktale to claim that Joshua and Jesus carry the same meaning but in Jewish history/folktales Joshua was a tribal leader whom the Jews were trying to make into the Egyptian concept of a savior.
In both Jewish and Egyptian history (the Jews copied from the Egyptians) the leaders were two characters, one was a leader of the people (like a king) and the other was a spiritual leader.
In modern Judaism and Christianity they lost the meaning of these two figureheads that was derived from Egypt, where they had a spiritual guide/leader/high-priest and a leader for the daily affairs of the society. Very often one would read of the pharaoh consulting with the Spiritual leader in the temple before making important decisions.
In Jewish history, Joshua was a warring leader assisting them in overrunning other tribes. So they held this character in high esteem. He may have been their idea of a savior in their quest for land. But for the people who were looted and killed in that drive, he was something else.
But on the other hand if one study the origin of the word Jesus is was a corruption of the Greek Iesous, which was, coined from the late Egyptian Horus, which means the same savior and can be traced back to the earlier Egyptian word Heru (Savior). When heru was used as a verb, it meant to save. The word hero in English was derived from the Greek heros, which came from the Egyptian heru - to save. That word can be traced back to an earlier word meaning the same life saving forces of the Universe.
There is more to this but I recommend people try to investigate what they hold on to and not come over like hard-line Christian fundamentalist; least they discourage others from sharing.
Please do not expect to find this in modern dictionaries.
________________________________________________________
( Dredeye ) Peace Akinkawon,
I agree with your statements. Let us not be deceived by filtered names and history that only masks our true history as Africans, the true creators and forerunners of highly developed civilizations.Again, Iman speaks for Iself when Iman say that Kemet is the root of all major civilizations including Israel. But even before there was Kemet in all of its profound glory, the ancient civilizations of Nubia which is based at the 1st cataract of the Nile(Blue Nile)were thriving. What is the current location of Nubia, Ethiopia and the Sudanese area East African areas. Basically, the land of the sun-burned faces.
I don't really know the how ancient Nubians practiced or worshipped their own higher beings but even still they influenced Kemetic culture. Matter of fact, I was watching a documentary one time on Discovery channel, and they were breaking down how there were smaller protype versions of pyramids that stand to this very day found in the central east african region of the continent. Who built them? Why? InI built them, why? I don't know but the knowledge is within, InI just have to find the same creativity, faith, and ingenuity to remember those lessons and skills.
My brother Akinkawon, InI are rootsmen. InI come from the ground of the so that the Most High put certain elements together to make His sheep(InI) tend to the earth in all of its beautiful and natural glory. Unfortunately, thru the course of thousands of years we have lost track of that great and powerful mental and spiritual knowledge. To InI, Rastafari is a way to attain that knowledge by rejecting the death and destruction that Babylon has InI plugged into daily and begin to reconstruct the great civilization of old but better. Because now we will not underestimate the abilities of the evil forces that combat us from acheiving this mighty goal. Europeans and our own black people have shown InI that.
I apologize for writing so much, but for Iman, once all the different ideological barriers are broken and all of InI to see InI's true stake in life and history, they won't matter much cuz they are all different ways of identifying with and acheiving the spirtual heights that we are capable of.
Rastafari Love
________________________________________________________
( Akinkawon ) Write as much as you wish.
I do not understand what you are trying to say here; "Let us not be deceived by filtered names and history that only masks our true history as Africans, the true creators and forerunners of highly developed civilizations."
I specifically wrote in reference to the use of Joshua and Jesus. Some may feel this is unimportant but how would you like it if someone controlled the media, documented that George Bush is the savior of mankind, then kill all the people who know better and future children are left to grow up with this propaganda as if it was a divine truth.
They would be all singing praises to a hoax and cannot become enlightened from the repetition of that lie. If they do not get access to better information, they would have to return to the land and live naturally to start realizing basic truths. (Most people should do this as a primary discipline to higher learning.)
Also, I do not accept that high civilization started with Egypt or Nubia. When I hear people with this I immediately question what they call civilized. The West is still to develop civilization if the character of people and not their material possessions measures it.
For me human civilization started with the earliest aboriginal humans, and along the way many people became uncivilized and some returned to brief periods of civilization.
________________________________________________________
( Dredeye ) I'm assuming this was the basis of your question below:
"I do not understand what you are trying to say here; "Let us not be deceived by filtered names and history that only masks our true history as Africans, the true creators and forerunners of highly developed civilizations."
I specifically wrote in reference to the use of Joshua and Jesus. Some may feel this is unimportant but how would you like it if someone controlled the media, documented that George Bush is the savior of mankind, then kill all the people who know better and future children are left to grow up with this propaganda as if it was a divine truth"
Okay Akinkawon. This is my overstanding of what you are asking. First of all, when you are trying to explain the true meaning behind Joshua and Jesus, I'm kind of got lost where you are coming from. Originally you asked about why Rasta people use the false term of Jesus only. Then I explained to you that the true name of so called Jesus is "Yehoshuah" which means (Yahweh is salvation) I'm not sure where the name Joshua came in but for now let InI deal with Yehoshua. If you research in a Jersulam Bible which provides linguistic and historical context for the scriptures it will tell you the Hebrew name for Jesus. (Check in Matthew, it should reveal something in the frist reference to "Jesus") I agree that the name Jesus Christ is a "filtered name" and his message and history has also been tampered with as well. If you diagree that Yehoshuah is his real name, please correct me by showing what substantiates the African name of the man many have known to be called Jesus the Christ or Jesus of Nazareth.
Secondly, your definition of civilization may be different than my own. Yet, Ancient Kemet and Nubia are still considered to be "High Civilizations" based upon the levels of social, political, economic, scientific, and spiritual interaction and expansion they acheived. Aborginals' history also supports humankind's place of origin in Africa. But name one a group that developed a complex language and writing system that baffles many African and European scholars til this very day. Name any aboriginal society that have fortified structures that have yet to determined exactly how they were built.
Aboriginal were nomadic at times and sustained fewer numbers within their groups because of a lack of basic viable resources(food and water). Ancient Kemet and Nubia were built upon a major water source(the Nile) that helped to yield an abundance of crops that fueled the livlihood of more people at one time. Iman speak for Iself, but this is what Iman define as "High civilization". Not to demean aboriginal civilization because they were the beginnings of Nubians, Mesopatiamians, etc. But there was also a significant development of human nature in order for aboriginals to evolve to humans of Ancient Kemet or Nubia.
________________________________________________________
( Sandra ) Mr Dredeye Knight
Please think about Akinkawon's last response and seriously tell me if knowing what is right and wrong does not matter.
Remember, you said you were opened to discussion so I am looking for discussion on your last post.
________________________________________________________
( Dredeye ) Blessings, Love, Guidance to you Sista Sandra,
I just left a post for Akinkawon, you are more welcome to read it. Again, we as people who actually have the time to spend on a discourse between right and wrong are truly blessed while the masses of InI people struggle from day to day to overstand the right and wrong of their own situations in life. Right and wrong truly weighs on the conscious of the indvidual. I realize there is a sense of urgency on your part to derive some peace of mind in regard to Rasta people. Like I wrote to Omawali in an earlier message, InI could poke holes in everyone's belief system based upon ostensible contradictions and fallacies, yet the heart of the matter truly concerns how each individual on Jah Rastafari's world can fill the God shaped hole in their hearts. I leave you with this:
Whenever conflict arises between material and spiritual values, the conscience plays an important role and anyone who suffers from a guilty conscience is never really free from this problem until he makes peace with himself and his conscience. Discipline of the mind is the basic ingredient of genuine morality and therefore spiritual strength. Spiritual power is the eternal guide, in this life and the life after, for man can reach the summit destined for him by the Great Creator. Since nobody can interfere in the realm of God we should tolerate and live side by side with people of different faiths, In the mystic tradition of the different religions we have a remarkable Unity of Spirit. Whatever religion they may profess, they are Spiritual Kinsmen.
Words of His Imperial Majesty Emperor Haile Selassie I
________________________________________________________
( Akinkawon ) I thought Yehoshua was your way of saying Joshua. I'll wait for clarity on this.
I can also give an extensive historical overview of Yahweh, but for the point I want to make that is not relevant.
It is these discussions that make it possible for others to understand the right and wrong of their 'own' situation and when people stop struggling to understand the relationship between their ideas and their own poverty they remain slaves.
Poking holes in the beliefs of others may be a good thing if it is done with the intent to uplift. However, this does not apply to me since I do not live by any belief system.
My point is simple, if Rastafarians expect cooperation and assistance from others, they better be prepared to have these concepts scrutinized. People should not contribute to anything in ignorance and if some Rastafarians do not want to be scrutinized then they would have to keep what they believe private and only seek help from other Rastafarians. I do not know how they would do that since many call themselves Rastafarians and all claim to be the true ones and they contradict each other. Yet some Rastafarians expect non-Rastafarians to be able to tell the difference.
I am in agreement with several non-Rastafarians on this forum who do not hold Haile Selassie in the same esteem like Rastafarians.
To Rastafarians, does that mean that such people including Africans are false or ungodly and Rastafarians are gods special chosen people. I have witnesses the long-term effects of such attitudes; the present Jews are living examples of this. Do I hate them? No. Do I dislike Rastafarians because I do not accept what I hear from most who claim Rastafari? No. But if our quest is not about defining common values then the distrust and conflicts continues.
________________________________________________________
( Dredeye ) Greetings Mi bredren Akinkawon,
I hope that our discussions have helped to breakdown some of the generalizations you feel about Rasta people. For some, the Rastafari faith gives an outlet to people either be more comforting and compassionate to people or a means to justify their egotistical and sometimes quite immoral actions. To generalize all of Rasta people based upon some religious zealots can be seen as quite unfair. Iman, personally, know quite a few Rastas that uphold the true liviti of Rastafari in expressing the One Love attitude.
Know this, as Iman grow in Jah wisdom, Iman have come to know that it is not worth judging people with right or wrong based upon one's personal ethical and spiritual codes. InI are here to overstand and receive the messages that Rastafari relate to InI thru His teachings, His speeches, InI life and liviti. Iman do not expect everyone to Hail His Majesty Emperor Haile Selassie I in the same way as people of Rastafari do. But as children of the Most High God, no matter how you recognize and give homage to His presence, I do expect their to be common respect, understanding, and humility to burn thru weakheart conceptons of the false ego, to reach the Iyah Ites of humanity as an African nation, as a human nation under Jah.
With that being said, you can continue to judge Iman and all InI bredren and sistren based upon what "Non-Rastafarians" hold to be rightful and truthful, but also recognize that is the same disdain that you will give to other people because they don't fit your particular standard of what is required to truly liberate InI people. My ancestors come from Haiti, the only black nation that successful ousted a European colonial power(besides Ethiopia) by galvanizing the people despite different ideaologies and spirtual practices.
Thus Iman know this same idea can be transplanted anywhere with the proper leadership and humblance to the Most High. Either way Akinkawon, right or wrong, you are the master of your own destiny for all of its successes and failures. Be open to learning despite what you think you want to know or already know because Jah Rastafari, God, Yaweh, Yehoshua, Buddha, Hare Krisna, Allah, Orishna, or even Jesus Christ manifests in ways beyond your own overstanding or control. If you are open to receive the blessings than it won't matter who it comes from, as long as you receive the blessing.
________________________________________________________
( Akinkawon ) The generalizations you feel about Rasta people?
Brother, in my previous posts I made references to some Rastafarians and I deliberately kept away from stereotyping all Rastafarians. You can review my post for yourself.
People could only judge right and wrong by their own ethical understanding and the purpose of discussions between diverse people is to refine those understandings.
"You can continue to judge Iman and all InI bredren and sistren based upon what "Non-Rastafarians" hold to be rightful and truthful, but also recognize that is the same disdain that you will give to other people because they don't fit your particular standard of what is required to truly liberate InI people."
Here again you are speaking from your own misunderstanding as we are simply having a discussing where you give your positions and I give mine. Where in my comments have I treated you with disdain (contempt)?
You agree with many of the points I made about some Rastafarians so I find it amusing that you would end the discussion with pointless rhetorical conclusions.
You would have to explain how my different views deny anyone from being and doing what they want.
You are making the same call others and myself have been making on this forum for people to be more open to different views. Let us see how many people are ready to accede to that request.
It is because I am opened, I study many different cultural points of view and draw from them what makes sense to me. I am not accepting anything because someone says so, but if it makes sense and can lead to greater understanding sure I'll use it.
________________________________________________________
( Dredeye ) Greetings Akinkawon,
I apologize if Iman misunderstood your message. I truly appreciate your open-minded attitudes as we all push for liberation and repatriation. Many times InI may falter because of basic misunderstanding. That is why Iman personally like to reason with people face to face to get better overstanding of what each person is saying. Being a defender of InI faith, can sometimes make Iman a little defensive. But let InI continue with the discussion.
Iman was discussing with a man who was in Ethiopia from 1972-1974 when His Majesty was ousted from His Palace. From this bredrens overstanding, His Majesty had imposed wonderful statues and programs to bring Ethiopia into the 20th century as well admired His Majesty for nobility in fighting Italian forces during the 1930's. He also mentioned that it was not until the latter few years of His reign that perhaps senility and disconnection with InI people caused for serious misjudgemens on His part. Its perception like these that help Iman shape Iman's view of His Majesty as a man of the flesh.
Truly, Iman recognize His significance in regard to biblical prophecy and lineage, and even as a true and living King of Israel. Emperor Haile Selassie I is one to be venerated to the utmost but absolute worship for Iman is another story. What Iman say is quite upsetting to many Rasta people, but InI know self, and this is Iman's take on His Majesty.
Let InI continue pon Iyah Ites of truth,
Dredeye Knight Out!
From the Rastafari Speaks Message Board ``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xAre Rastafarians Confusing?``x997081200,24831,Rasta``x``x
``x( Omawali ) How do you feel the Rastafarian movement can benefit all people?
From what I read, it is the African movement that gave rise to all the other movements from since Marcus Garvey. So how come Marcus Garvey and the General African Movement is not given serious consideration in the Rastafarian Movement, notwithstanding the fact that is African researchers and activists who brought most of European fallacies to light. Why is it necessary to keep the two apart when there is the same call for African Unity?
________________________________________________________
( Jeff ) Thank You for being open, having manners, and showing Respect! Some people, including some Rastas themselves (here on the internet especially), seem to leave their manners, honesty, and Respect at the door. ;-)
This is my own personal testimony, as I can only speak for myself and my own experiences with the Rastafari Movement. I am a male of European descent, with pale skin and a German-Lutheran background. I learned of Rasta from a religious standpoint, seeing Haile Selassie I as Jesus the Christ returned LITERALLY. My views have changed since then as I see the more mystical side of Christ and what it means to find JAH within. Along my Trod with Rastafari, I have also been awakend to the reality of racism and oppression, not only of Africans, but many people around the globe. But the thing I learned most about, that I was never taught in school or by my parents, was Black Consciousness and African history. Rasta really opened my eyes with the truth of European colonization, Imperialism, and slavery. Through rastafari, I have been awakened to the sad reality of racism here in America, through many Reasoning both online and off. About 2 years ago, on another message board, some very heated Reasonings went down, and my eyes were opened even more. Back in high school, when I was first learning about Rasta, 13 year ago, I started asking my Dad things like, "What if Jesus was Black?" He didn't know what to say, and thought I was involved with something that was turing my brain away from all that I had been taught. It scared the crap out of him! Now I have learned him a bit on the reality of the times, and the reality of our own hgistory here in America that many, many white people would like to soon forget. I even learned that my grandfather, who was a Lutheran minister, was chased out of his church in Texas for trying to desegregate it! Must run in my blood. (smiles)
Rastafari has also opened me up to other Spiritual Livities that the church kept me blinded to through labels such as "pagan" "heathens" and "unbelievers". I have learned a great deal about Livities throughout our Human Race, and think it a great shame when other Rastas use the same bullshit Western Christian mentality in regards to our Spiritual Kinsmen! What a waste of the precious tapestry of Life that JAH has given to us! I was so inspired by a speech from His Majesty that I am going to teach at a community college classes about REAL HISTORY, and comparative religious studies. I feel that my Life can be used as a tool for the greater purpose of Humanity. Wake people up to all that is going on out there! Taking the planks out of their eyes....
Rastafari has also helped me see the brutality of industrialized, mass-produced animal consumption, the danger of drugs, and the nessecity of getting back to the basics with the Earth that the Creator has given to us.
I know that if Rastafari has Inspired me personally in all the ways that it has, then it can be of help to others as well. I don't push anything on others, and get irritated when Rastas try and do that crap. Too much like colonialistic mentality to me! I am just going to use my Life, which has been so Inspired by Rastafari, to help in the progression of not only African Peoples, but all peoples of the HUman Race.
People can go on and on with Bible verses, who or what Selassie I means to them, etc etc....but only by the works of the hands, and the meditations of the Heart can a Truely Righteous individual be known.
JAH LOVE
Jeff
________________________________________________________
( Omawali ) Brother, there is a lot to work out and I strongly feel that most Rastafarians do not really know the true history of the Rastafarian movement coming out of Jamaica, the role of Marcus Garvey and the meaning of 'Ras' before the birth of the modern popular movement. I am trying to find out if there is a general consensus among Rastafarians that Christianity, be it through Jewish or other interpretations, is the only way to evaluate history and the cultural values of other people even African people who are tied to a richer legacy could be easily dismissed.
As a student of history I went through all the speeches and the history of Selassie and in my opinion (if I am entitled to have one on this forum) he did not say any new inspiring thing that cannot be found in the works of people like Garvey, the philosophies of Dogon people, the rich legacy of Egypt (before the first Europeans conquered there), the ancient Africans of India, China etc.
All these moral and ethical values were available long before the Jews, the Christians and even the Rastafarian movement. Is it not a type of disrespect to dismiss the earliest people who gave these messages to humanity and to give the impression that they originated with Selassie or the Rastafarian Movement?
The natural lifestyles - like what can be found on IanI Website - with all the experiences with the forces of nature, existed long before even the word Rastafari and certainly long before the modern movement. How could anyone try to claim that these natural ways and realizations that came from those states can be credited to any one group of Africans and not the common states of mankind?
The ancient Egyptians said "Man Know Thyself" (this was a Greek translation) and Rastafarians today say one have to know "I and I" which to me means the same thing. How could one be modern and the other obsolete and why don't some Rastafarians understand they are the same things?
The only major difference to me is language and the lack of understanding of the meaning of different cultural expressions (and European misunderstandings and deliberate distortions).
If people do not want to discuss these things then all this talk about spirituality is a waste and the Religion will not be properly understood.
________________________________________________________
( Jeff ) I have clipped and pasted from your post in order to bring some clarity to the Reasonings.
>Brother, there is a lot to work out and I strongly feel that most Rastafarians do not really know the true history of the Rastafarian movement out of Jamaica, the role of Marcus Garvey and the meaning of 'Ras' before the birth of the modern popular movement<
Yes, lots of work to do, both locally and globally. Even the smallest act helps in the larger scheme of things. And yes, many so-called Rastas do not know of Garvey, or Ethiopian-ism in jamaica that led to the birth of the Rastafarian Movement in Jamaica. And I would like to add to that, that Rasta is an evolutionary process, always growing and not getting stuck. Rasta is growing, and because of this, has many, many issues to deal with as it become cross-cultural. "Ras" means "Prince", and that is what Rastas consider themselves: Princes (sons) and Princesses (daughters) of His Imeprial Majesty.
>I am trying to find out if there is a general consensus among Rastafarians that Christianity, be it through Jewish or otherwise Interpretations, is the only means for evaluating history and the cultural values of other people even Africans who are tied to a richer legacy.<
History is just what it is, no matter what lenses it is viewed through. As the saying goes: there is three sides to the story, your side, my side, and the Truth. And I personally feel it a shame that many Africans deny the Ancient African Jews both in Ethiopia and other places on the African continent. I also would have to say that most Rastas that I know personally would never deny the rich African history, religion and culture, through all it's diversity and differences. Even before the advent of Western, European Christianity (aside from Ethiopia, of course) there was many, many wyas and beliefs, tribes, languages, ethnicities, and cultures throughout the African continent. I do feel that many African Americans that are trying to reach back to Africa for their Roots deny this reality. Africa was never a utopian place, as there is craziness and sin everywhere the Human Race dwells. The first African slave sold was a servant of the Ashante King, to the Portugese, for want of guns and power. The devil knows no boundries my Brother.
>As a student of history I went through all the speeches and the history of Selassie and in my opinion (if I am entitled to have one on this forum) he did not say any new thing inspiring that cannot be found in the works of people like Garvey, the philosophies of Dogon people, the rich legacy of Egypt (before the first Europeans conquered there), the ancient Africans of India, China etc.<
As a student of history myself, I totally and whole-heartedly agree. Much, much history found everywhere on earth. There is no "this-or-that" when dealing with Life, too many complexities involved for such over-simplifications.
As far as the working of JAH, JAH has been manifested in the physical many times throughout history, in my personal view of things. When rasta say that HIM was before Creation, one has to realize that HIM=JAH for the Rastafari Brethren, so therefore it is not untrue to make that claim that HIM was before creation. HIM represents, to the mystical Rasta, JAHS physical manifistation, so therefore we are speaking of the Eternal as seen through the physical existence of Haile Selassie I.
>The natural lifestyles - like what can be found on IanI Website - with all the experiences with the forces of nature, existed long before even the word Rastafari and certainly long before the modern movement. How could anyone try to claim that these natural ways and realizations that came from those states can be credited to any one group of Africans and not the common states of mankind?<
I personally see it as the common natural state of mankind. I don't go with the over-simplification of Life, seen?
>The ancient Egyptians said "Man Know Thyself" (this was a Greek translation) and Rastafarians today say one have to know "I and I" which to me means the same thing. How could one be modern and the other obsolete and why don't some Rastafarians understand they are the same things?<
InI=JAH in Man. And when Man knows thyself, they will know JAH. Truth can never be obsolete.
>If people do not want to discuss these things then all this talk about spirituality is a waste and the Religion will not be properly understood.<
The reason Rastas say that Rasta is not a religion, is due to it's lack of organization, dogma, creed, bishops, etc. To the many Rasta, these things only bring corruption, poli-tricks, and power play. And yes, I do agree that the many facets of Reality need to be Reasoned and learned. Ignorance is bliss, but is also our downfall.
JAH LOVE
Rastafari
Jeff
________________________________________________________
( Omawali ) I can easily go along with most of what you have said for now and I hope you can understand that as a student of history even though I am an African I hold no one greater than myself as it is myself (inner essence) that has to do all the reasoning to traverse this life. I respect the truth of everyone and I detest the notion that something should be accepted as fact without a reasonable explanation. (For the fundamentalists)
In my earlier Coptic studies 'Ras' had a different but loftier meaning, which I would share when I put my hands on my old Coptic texts.
I also feel the real meaning of the word religion is lost to many people. The word religion was coined from the Latin root words "RE" which means "BACK" and "LIGON" which means "to hold, to link, to bind." Therefore, the essence of true religion is that of linking back, specifically, linking people back to an original source.
A practical way to accomplish this would make interesting discussion, but it certainly cannot be about understanding any one group of people but an overall understanding of the relationship of all of life to the whole. This has to be done from the human aspect all the way back to the source in order for people to be truly conscious. (Again this is my view.)
Some of us may have a head start because of how we viewed life and the choices we made in relation to other humans and nature. To me the keys are improving one's character and understanding history through a guided multidisciplinary approach.
In my view everything else is pointless. I hope others share their views on this and not feel that exploring more is disrespect to a belief. Actually it is the only "respectful" (will define later) thing to do.
________________________________________________________
( IanI Rastafari ) Irie Ites Bredren an Sistren
Let me see if I can give the I's some clarification as to Rastafari. As me say before Rastafari is a Wisdom. With that Wisdom comes a realization of living Life. IanI do not con-form to "religions" or "worships" or "dogma" of any organized "belief system". IanI look into the Heart/Mind, knowing that the Almighty Creator has endowed each and every One with this Wisdom. It is merely a matter of the Realization of this Truth, that Forwards IanI to the Higher Heights of this Awareness.
With this Awareness and Wisdom comes the Forward Movement. And the Forward movement brings IanI to the Roots of Life and Living. Life in Harmony with all other Life and Creation. Seeing Nature as the pure and simple gift of the Creator in which the Creative Force of Love is manifested. Peoples have been forever Living this harmonious Life, but many have been led astray by the lure of Babylon. That is, the corruption caused by greed and vanity, lust and desire.
This overstanding and Livity can only help Humanity to leave behind the ways of the wicked that enslave the peoples minds and bodies. That keep the peoples in a perpetual state of want and longing. That con-vince the peoples that them be worthless and this peoples be better or of more value than that peoples!
The Wisdom of the Ages has been with IanI forever and no Rasta would reject them bredren and sistren from any of the roots peoples of indigenous Africa, or any other part of the earth! IanI Rastafari give great respect to them that Live Life in Natural Harmony with the earth. Seen.
There were those in Jamaica, Omawali, that came to the awareness that the British rule and the British life-style and 'religion' was a grotesque corruption of the Natural State of Being. And the colonialization and downpression of the African people, in Africa as well as in the diaspora, was finally brought to light for its wickedness, and not it's "civilization" and "redemption" of an already fine people. And so, those that saw the corruption, left. Left it all behind! Rejected it's lifestyle, it's form of government and it's religion. Rather than accepting the white British king... IanI peoples rejoiced in the news that Africans have a King! It must be overstood what the African slave children in this caribbean had been brainwashed with in education and government and religion. This island small majority of white British wealthy ones were harshly ruling a vast majority of black, poorly educated, terribly religiously brainwashed, Africans. Rastafari view bredren such as Marcus Garvey with the greatest of respect. He is looked upon as a prophet by many. There is no seperation of IanI, but realize that there are those that simply wish to take on the cloak of British thought and "civilization" and destroy the people that live simply and naturally. And IanI Rastafari cannot and do not and will not accept that!
I be hoping that this can make some of Rasta Livity more clear. I always welcome reasoning that leads to positive overstandings. Seen.
Guidance and Protection
IanI Rastafari
From the Rastafari Speaks Message Board ``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xHow can the Rastafarian movement benefit all people?``x997340400,81502,Rasta``x``x
``xDeclaration:
i. Sources, Causes, Forms And Contemporary Manifestations Of Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia And Related Intolerances
ii. Victims Of Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia And Related Intolerance
iii. Measures Of Prevention, Education And Protection Aimed At The Eradication Of Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia And Related Intolerance At The National, Regional And International Levels
iv. Provision Of Effective Remedies, Recourse, Redress, Compensatory And Other Measures At The National, Regional And International Levels
v. Strategies To Achieve Full And Effective Equality, Including International Co-Operation And Enhancement Of The United Nations And Other International Mechanisms In Combating Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia And Related Intolerance, And Follow-Up
(Click URL for relevant links)
http://www.racism.org.za/documents/declaration/index.htm``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xNgo Forum Declaration Working Draft For Durban ``x997544859,79839,History4``x``x
``xLibya has pulled off something of a diplomatic coup. Catching more powerful rivals like Nigeria and Egypt by surprise, Colonel Muammar Ghaddafi's regime has quickly marshaled many of the nations of the continent behind a plan to establish an African Union. The proposed political and economic bloc, which is set to replace the 38-year-old Organization of African Unity, is designed to more effectively manage the continent's affairs as well as its relations with the rest of the world. If all goes to plan, the Union's executive council, parliament, court of justice, peacekeeping force and financial institutions will foster greater cooperation, end wars, promote prosperity and evolve into a single political body to rival NAFTA and the European Union. As Africa's leaders gathered in Libya this week to discuss the Union, Dr. Ali Treki, the Libyan secretary for African unity, spoke to TIME Cairo bureau chief Scott MacLeod about the future of the continent.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,101184,00.html``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xTime Interview with Dr. Ali Treki on African Union``x997632686,10732,History4``x``x
``xLETTER FROM: Celtaca@webtv.net
I saw your old misinformed site about Asians coming from Africa, perhaps you did not see the special about this topic on the Discovery Channel, it has already been confirmed through genetic testing of a Homoerectus found in Asia that Asians descended from the Homoerectus. And of course it also featured that Native Indians and Caucasians both alike descended from Asians with geographical differences changing us sightly physically over a period of about 45,000 years.
The Out of Africa theory maybe true but only for the black race most likely.
________________________________________________
EDITOR: Amon Hotep
It is not the most pleasant thing to have to admit that all manner of people including the vile and corrupt came out of Africa and are part of the same human family. Sometimes I feel it may have been nice if the flawed multi-regional theory could have been true. But as nature also intended for humans to learn from the shortcomings and successes of each other, I see purpose and design, and then all is well. Many today, in light of all this technology and information still need educating and civilizing. Take your time and read! I'll keep updating this page.
Why Skin Comes in Colors
August 28, 2000
DNA analysis tracks Silk Road forbears
Modern humans migrated out of Africa into Central Asia before spreading both east and west into North America and Europe, says an international team of scientists who have used modern DNA analysis to trace ancient migrations.
"Around 40-50,000 years ago, Central Asia was full of tropical trees, a good place for hunting and fishing," said Nadira Yuldasheva of the Institute of Immunology at the Academy of Sciences, Tashkent, Uzbekistan.
Dr Wells and his colleagues believe that their work also traces the expansion of the Indo-Iranian people known as the Kurgan civilisation, or more popularly Aryans.
"We have a diagnostic Indo-Iranian marker," he said, referring to one of the Y-chromosome mutations. More
________________________________________________
August 13, 2001
Major genomic mitochondrial lineages delineate
early human expansions
After the out of Africa, modern humans first spread to Asia following two main routes. The southern one is represented by haplogroup M and related clades that are overwhelmingly present in India and eastern Asia. The northern one gave a posterior radiation that, through Central Asia, again reached North and East Asia carrying, among others, the prominent lineages A and B. Later expansions, can be detected by the presence of subclades of haplogroup U in India and Europe. There were also returns to Africa, most probably from the same two routes. The return from India could be detected by the presence of derivatives of M in Northeast Africa, and the arrival of Caucasoids by the existence of a subclade of haplogroup U that, today, is mainly confined to Northwest Africa. Full Article
________________________________________________
The prevailing view, known as the "Out of Africa" theory, holds that modern humans evolved from a common Homo erectus ancestor in Africa. Homo sapiens then left Africa and spread across the world, displacing other hominid species such as Neanderthals.
The competing theory, called "regional continuity," contends that Homo erectus came out of Africa and modern humans evolved from Homo erectus in several different places - what are now Africa, Europe and Asia - with interbreeding between the regions. More
________________________________________________
Other Views
Fourth Pre-Human Skull Found in Georgia (Yahoo)
Tuesday August 14, 2001
Homo ergaster falls in between the more primitive Homo habilis and Homo erectus, a robust creature with advanced stone tools that most scientists thought was the first to move out of Africa to populate Asia and Europe. Modern humans originated in Africa. From there bands of hominids migrated first to the Middle East, then throughout Europe and into Asia.
But exactly who moved away? A single population of already-evolved Homo sapiens? Or did several groups of more primitive humans migrate separately, then evolve independently into the modern variety?
Evolutionary geneticists struggle with this question, scrutinizing DNA samples from around the world for tell-tale variations. Until recently, they have relied heavily on mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA). Now, new studies using nuclear DNA are changing the debate. http://www.rps.psu.edu/0101/africa.html
http://sdmc.krdl.org.sg:8080/bic/groups/
OUT OF AFRICA, INTO ASIA
A debate of long-standing interest in human evolution centers around whether archaic human populations (such as the Neanderthals) have contributed to the modern gene pool. A model of ancient population structure with recent mixing is introduced, and it is determined how much information (i.e., sequence data from how many unlinked nuclear loci) would be necessary to distinguish between different demographic scenarios. It is found that ~50-100 loci are necessary if plausible parameter estimates are used. There are not enough data available at the present to support either the "single origin" or the "multiregional" model of modern human evolution. However, this information should be available in a few years.
Here are some links from that program. Please try reading:
For more information, please read Latest Homo erectus of Java: Potential Contemporaneity with Homo sapiens in Southeast Asia, in the journal Science.
Canadian analysis challenges theory of human evolution
http://www.discovery.ca/Stories/1996/12/13/02.asp
The "Nanjing Man" finding was recently published by the respected U.S. journal Science, which said the "Nanjing Man" dating was consistent and would now allow a more accurate assessment of early migration out of Africa and Asian evolution.
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/reu/20010220/nanjing.html
Evidence suggests that Homo erectus arrived in Asia from Africa almost 2 million years ago, and evolved there in isolation, possibly surviving up to less than 50,000 years ago, when modern humans moved in.
http://dsc.discovery.com/stories/science/stoneages/turkana.html
From a variety of different hominids one emerged 2 million years ago, Homo ergaster, 'working man'. These early people were carnivores and predators, and began to move out of Africa into the Middle East, Europe and Asia.
http://www.discovery.com/diginets/international/europe/highlight5.html
New research supports 'out of Africa' theory of human origin May 11, 2001
Click here for more links
IF YOU COME ACROSS ANOTHER VIEW SEND THE LINK TO US!``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xAsians came from Africa?``x997674377,65450,History4``x``x
``x( Dwayne ) Is It Wrong To Cut Your Beard?
________________________________________________________
( Akinkawon ) Once it's your beard go brave!
How people deal with hair on their body is mostly about symbolism and hygiene.
________________________________________________________
( Woizero Sera'el Tafari ) Sad to see that the only response to such an important question/issue is this flimsy answer. Gone are the days when the Rastaman was proud of his precepts, taking the vow of the Nazarite to neither use comb nor razor.
Honestly, I was looking forward to see more fundamental reasoning on this issue coming forth, particularly from brethrens. To I, frivolous matters have generated much more responses on this board.
I still hold out hope in seeing some serious reasoning on this matter from Rastaman who proudly carry their precepts.
Love and Fire
Sis. Sera'el
________________________________________________________
( Sandra ) Such an important question/issue to you, and you spent your time trying to make a federal case without explaining how it is so important to you?
I would like to hear your reasoning please.
________________________________________________________
( Woizero Sera'el Tafari ) Rastafari,
As I said before, Because this matter directly relates to the Rastaman, as he is the one who carries a beard, I was hoping to get much more feedback from him.
However, for I, one of the most important reason for a Lion carrying his precepts/beard, is to physically manifest him being a "Lion", with a mane (beard); where on earth have you seen a lion without a mane, and as I said in my previous response, the most fundamental reason is in the vow that he takes as a nazarite to neither use a comb or scissors/razor.
I Majesty
________________________________________________________
( Jenny ) Are you speaking about symbolizing a lion or magically turning into one?
We should also mention the male dominating and lazy characteristics of Lions.
________________________________________________________
( IanI ) Irie Sistren
In the Name of the Almighty Most High
Jah Rastafari
Yes Dawta Sera'el. Be patient, seen, all IanI not always pon the machine here right away to give response! :) Right.
Yes... the Vow of the Nazarite fe true. But it no be just blindly following some "rule" or "regulation", and it no be for no "symbolism", and it no be for no lion look-alike kind a thing. IanI Rastafari always look higher to see the Reality of the Covenant. And to IanI Rasta, the hair been placed pon IanI head and face by the Creator in the creation of Perfection and IanI no scrape that off, or cut at it, or put no chemical upon it to change it and such. Seen. What come Natural no one is to con-vert! The Almighty create IanI here in HIM own image and that is to be exalted and honoured!
All the other man-made "rules and codes" are just that... man-made, and IanI Rastafari live by the Laws of the Almighty, the Natural Laws. Nature a the Hand a the Almighty Creator and IanI give thanks and praises to the Almighty in humbleness and respect-fullness. The beard grow upon me face as the Will of the Creator, and Rasta honour that Will. Seen.
ONE LOVE/HEART/MIND
Give Thanks
Guidance and Protection
IanI Rastafari
________________________________________________________
( Ayinde ) IanI, when you have the time could you expand on this some more?
Are Rastafarians not supposed to cut their fingernails or toenails also?
________________________________________________________
( IanI ) Irie Irie
Give thanks Ayinde!
The I truely got me smiling here now!
Yes I... can be a puzzlement, no?
Well, I be asking the same sort of things to me own Rasta Father all the while! "Hey what!? Everything that grows from me body me just leff alone!? How can that be?"
We have some ROARING reasonings pon this! Man... me tell you fe true!
And Him say... "Watch. Sit there pon the rock an watch them goats them there. Or them bird there. Them go get nail sissor and cut them nail or them claw? Them grow sed way... no? So why them no get a sissor and cut them nails?"
So me say, "But wait... what them do then to get the nail out a them way? It can't just grow forever? Them go get too long!"
So... some things me no get the Fullness of. I have a hard time reasoning pon some of them. But I know what Iya say be true. The other living things them no have no sissor and them no have no comb and them no have no straightening iron and such... and them all alright! So what...?
Is a Natural thing me know, so how IanI deal with it? How do them before the sissor deal with it? How do them before the sharpen rock deal with it? Maybe the finger nail used a different way then IanI use it here today? Maybe it have a good use and so the Almighty put it there for that very use that IanI no seem to have here now? Maybe if IanI live a more Natural Life the nails them keep sort of close by digging and such? I know some of me locks them get long and them ends drop off...
Is a puzzlement fe true... but IanI no keep I-self in con-fusion about these things. Me just see what me can see and keep to look for the Fullness in All things.
Give thanks, Ayinde. A good reasoning!
Guidance and Protection
ONE LOVE
________________________________________________________
( Ayinde ) The real reason is not too difficult to understand but before I explain what I learnt about how the beard and dreadlocks developed to importance, I should explain what I was taught when I was searching and ended up in Trinidad by a Man somewhat like yourself.
He told me when I couldn’t unravel a mystery by observing nature, I had to revisit human history as the disruption and confusion is usually as a result of human intervention.
It took me several years to realize how much most people live disconnected from our ancestors and nature and as such we remain unable to understanding the workings of the SELF through the limited self in man. I had to be born anew into a way of viewing everything. (He does not say God like many people, but he speaks of the self. The Lower part of the self in all things in relation to the Inner Higher SELF of the Universe.) I observe people on several Websites and discussion groups explaining things this way today and immediately I know where they got it.
Lets see if other Rastafarians expand on this discussion if not I don't mind explaining what I discovered about dreadlocks and beards. Do you know they are connected to the wigs Judges wear?
I saw you smiling for the first time.
I see.
________________________________________________________
( IanI ) Yes I. A Wise One, the man from Trinidad. I allways find great interest and some revelation in the study of human history. At least what me can find that has been recorded, and scrutinize through the bias and partiality! And the mind MUST heighten and unfetter from the brainwashment of ages.
And I also find great enjoyment in true reasoning with me bredren an sistren! Not simply repetetive dogmatic rhetoric.
Give thanks, Ayinde.
Tell I a bit about the judges wig. Me no know that story. But me know them judges!
feel free to e-mail, Ayinde, if you wish.
ONE LOVE
Guidance and Protection
From: Rastafari Speaks Message Board``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xIs It Wrong To Cut Your Beard?``x997686000,17404,Rasta``x``x
``xIn the 1950s and 1960s in South Africa, the oppressiveness of apartheid enveloped many blacks who formed a silent majority. Apartheid means strict segregation of people based on race.
One person whose life was dedicated to the fight against apartheid was Steve Bantu Biko. When Steve was born on 18 Dec. 1946, his parents appropriately chose the name "Bantu" which means people.
Steve started fighting for people's rights while studying medicine in college. As a delegate for an organization called the National Union of South African Students, Steve participated in an annual conference. During the conference in July 1967 at Rhodes University, Steve became insulted when he and other black delegates were given accommodations further away at a church hall. Yet, white student delegates were placed on-site at the university residences.
Steve began to question the point of liberal groups comprised primarily of white persons. He advocated and formed a group two years later whose membership could only be black and named it the South African Student's Organisation (SASO). The goal was to remove the inferiority complex many blacks had and replace it with a positive social image.
This became known as the Black Consciousness Movement. Steve believed that blacks had to be in leadership positions and that only blacks could push the liberation movement. If white people did this for blacks, then this would reinforce the idea that blacks were not capable of taking control and responsibility for themselves. Steve saw the need to free people from both the physical and mental bonds of oppression.
To help create positive self-awareness in blacks, Steve started night-class schools encouraging education and the development of more skills. He advocated diversity and that each of us has different skills to contribute.
http://www.fallenmartyrs.com/southafrica.htm
http://www.biko.com/
http://home.ici.net/~nikos/biko3.html
http://www.mg.co.za/mg/news/97sep1/5sep-biko.html
South African activist Donald Woods dies
Sunday, August 19, 2001
Mr Woods had drawn world attention to the case of Steve Biko, the black consciousness leader who was killed by South African security forces while in detention. ``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xSteve Bantu Biko``x997721858,92253,History4``x``x
``x‘It is a racism that is not just directed at those with darker skins, from the former colonial territories, but at the newer categories of the displaced, the dispossessed and the uprooted, who are beating at western Europe’s doors, the Europe that helped to displace them in the first place. It is a racism, that is, that cannot be colour-coded, directed as it is at poor whites as well, and is therefore passed off as xenophobia, a "natural" fear of strangers. But in the way it denigrates and reifies people before segregating and/or expelling them, it is a xenophobia that bears all the marks of the old racism. It is racism in substance, but "xeno" in form. It is a racism that is meted out to impoverished strangers even if they are white. It is xeno-racism.’
A. Sivanandan, Director, Institute of Race Relations``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xThe Emergence of Xeno-Racism``x998031600,40896,History4``x``x
``x(Jamaica Observer) THE occasion of the widely publicised United Nations Conference on Racism, offers an opportunity to focus on one of the greatest leaders in racial justice during the 20th century. On this, the 114th anniversary of the birth of Marcus Garvey, we are once again challenged to assess his complex legacy.
While Garvey's contribution to the anti-colonial movement is widely acknowledged, he did not foresee that his dream of African redemption would flounder on the rocks of genocidal war, man-made famine and disease. Neither could he have known of the predations of the black business and political elites, for whom he sacrificed so much in their creation. Further, his exhortation to black people 'Up you mighty race, you can accomplish what you will' - has given way to deep insecurities and ambivalence, ensuring the revival of white supremacists values, made even more effective by an all-pervasive electronic medium. More``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xMarcus Garvey's journey to Heaven``x998031600,3692,History4``x``x
``xFrom: Tarikh Tehuti Bandele
Ankh Udja Soneb.
There are many, many issues within this article, both from the writer as well as the mental condition many of us still suffer from.
As I read, thoughts were literally racing around in my third eye, amazed (but at the same time understanding) that many of us (as Afrikan people) continue to legitimize our malignant self-hatred. For example, the writer writes "...nobody will ever accept us like we must learn to accept ourselves". Should this be on our agenda as we walk trance-like into the 21st century??? Should we even be concerned with what other group of people 'accept' us??? Indeed, we must learn to embrace ourselves. But for some, as is evidenced all throughout this article, this is extremely difficult and challenging to do.
Next, this writer postulates the same assumption that "...we wouldn't be here in the first place without the cooperation of Africans selling off their brothers from other tribes (a french term that did not exist in Afrika before European occupation)." First, there were some Afrikans that PARTICIPATED in the selling of other Afrikans during our Maafa (e.g. Tippu Tib, an East Afrikan who saw himself more as an Arab than an Afrikan; he also assisted Henry Morton Stanley in his 'opening up' of Congo). But what this writer (as well as Brookings Institute member Henry Louis Gates) fail to mention is that 1) there was no rampant shipping of Afrikans to the New World BEFORE European conquistadors came into Afrika; 2) serious disadvantages existed between Afrikans and the encroaching Europeans; and 3) Europeans were able to exacerbate the differences and skirmishes that existed between different NATIONS (not 'tribes'). Interestingly, some individuals, for obvious reasons, always seem to overlook these and other factors (the extreme humanity that existed within Afrikan culture all over the continent; the sincere hospitality that was exercised and practiced by Afrikan people; and our propensity to embrace and 'believe' other people [we have been double and triple crossed several times, and by almost every group of people on the earth; just ask those Afrikans in Ayaiti that assisted Simon Bolivar]).
The article gets intense. The writer himself answers many of his questions right in his article. His cultural confusion is blatantly obvious at times, especially where he writes: "That's why I use the term Black, although I use Afrikan American to describe our original heritage". First, he uses a term (black) that was placed upon us to describe how we, as Afrikan people, look. Black, however, does not tell us anything else about us. The name that a people refer to themselves should connect them with land, history and culture. With all due respect to those who use the term, black only tells us what we look like, not where we come from.
Second, the statement "...although I use Afrikan American to describe our original heritage", is misleading and nowhere near factual. Why doesn't the term Afrikan American describe our original heritage??? Because our 'original heritage' does not begin in 1619. Contrary to popular opinion, we are a very old people. If the term Afrikan American describes our original heritage, then our beginnings only go back 382 years. Maybe this is all the writer is willing to acknowledge, as he writes throughout the article "...that thought is depressing", "But that's another painful story", and "To think otherwise is too painful". True, we have had very painful episodes in our COLLECTIVE history, but we should never let that pain dictate to us how we will deal with our past, present and future.
As far as the "hair and color problem", the writer never acknowledges the origins of this self-hatred. A good example of this tendency among the Henry Louis Gates types in our community (to overlook the origins of the extreme self hatred among many of us) is where the writer offers "A recent Jenny Jones show featured Black women who had been teased as young girls in school...Pearl, 23... had been teased by Anthony, 24". Jenny Jones, as well as the writer of this article, both make it appear that Anthony was the source of Pearl's self hatred as a child, when in fact, Anthony was just as much a victim as Pearl was. This self hatred has been passed down from generation to generation by those of us that feel (or felt) that we are not beautiful unless we resemble Europeans. This phenomenon did not begin with Pearl, Anthony, Jenny Jones or even the writer. This phenomenon began when the first European told an Afrikan that he/she was ugly because he/she did not resemble that European. It has been exacerbated by countless Afrikans that have been mentally rewired into believing that they are worthless without permed hair, thin lips, eagle-beak like noses and light skin. This is still among us today.
Also, the self-hatred that is evident in individuals like Anthony, Pearl and the writer ("I've had this hair and color problem since i was a kid"; "I wanted to be Black as Nat King Cole. Conked my hair like his once".) is allowed to exist, in part, because so many of our parents and elders have failed to instill in some of us self confidence and self worth. Many of them are too busy trying to 'look appealing" (i.e. other than themselves) to concern themselves with instilling self-confidence and self worth in younger Afrikan people. Thus, many of us have no firm sense of self, making it extremely easy for people and cultures outside of ours to dictate how we should look and what we should purchase to make us look a certain way.
Just like in Toni Morrison's brilliant opus, The Bluest Eye, many of our children are debilitated mentally because they are being inundated with the notion that everything that is beautiful is European.
The writer then writes: "Finally, in the 1960's came the voice of Malcolm X", implying that with the entrance of the message of Malcolm X, self-hatred began its decline. I beg to differ with this contention. Why??? I differ with this contention because there have been countless others BEFORE the 1960s that have attempted to instill in us a firm sense of self. Whether or not we listened to them and embraced THE MESSAGE is something totally different. As far back as the 1790s, people like Paul Cuffie, Prince Hall, et al. were trying to instill in us a love of self (otherwise, why would Prince Hall name his Masonic Lodge the Afrikan Lodge???). In the 1800s, several individuals came along to relay the same message (Henry Highland Garnet, Martin Delaney, David Walker, et al). Forty years before Malcolm burst onto the scene, the Honorable Marcus Mosiah Garvey was teaching the same message of self-love and self worth. This is not an attempt to belittle the work and contribution that Malcolm X did and made.
Malcolm played a major role in quickening the tide that had always been there, in the quest to teach Afrikan people to love themselves as they are.
Lastly (but not least), I find it interesting that the writer postulates the notion that thick lips, broad noses and locked hair are, basically 'the rave' among Caucasian people. Indeed, there have been several (no, numerous) European people (women in particular) that have gotten their lips surgically enhanced, their hips surgically widened, and their behinds surgically enhanced. But, has this been because Afrikan people have, for the most part, embraced their Afrikanity??? Right now, Afrikan women are the biggest purchasers of hair relaxers and such items. Right now, bleaching creams (Ambi, Noxema, etc) are being sold in large numbers in several countries on the Afrikan continent. Right now, some communities spend more money on malt liquor than the same state (where these communities are) spends on education (for clarification, please read Blueprint for Black Power by Dr. Amos N. Wilson). As a whole, our spending power is more than 530 billion dollars, making us the 10th richest nation in the entire world (in terms of economic strength). However, of those 530 billion dollars, not a whole ten percent of the money comes back into the Afrikan community, into Afrikan hands and Afrikan businesses. So, when we see Jeep and Pepsi and Coke and American Airlines and hundreds of huge corporations lacing negro T.V. viewing time (i.e. when shows that are predominantly Afrikan casted are aired on television) with cool commercials that show Afrikan people driving cars and drinking Sprite and flying with Continental Airlines, it is not necessarily because we are loved or we have finally arrived or even because we have overcome. To the contrary, it is because 530 billion dollars is a lot of money.
Now Get Up.
Tarikh Tehuti Bandele'
SOULONE.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xBeing Too Black??? ``x998069265,71169,History4``x``x
``x(Tim Wise) Here we go again.
In a time of multiple school and workplace shootings, middle-aged mass murderers, drug-saturated rave parties, and moms who drown their kids in tubs, lakes, or dump them in garbage cans, one question comes to mind. How long will suburban white America get away with expressing shock at the criminal proclivities of its progeny, without media exposing their presumption of incorruptibility as fallacious and patently racist? Especially when government statistics indicate deviance and dysfunction are quite commonplace with such folks and in such places.
On Sunday, August 12, the front page of the Washington Post brought us yet another story about white suburban youth, who, to the amazement of their parents, friends, and the media, turn out to be stone cold criminals. This time the headlines emanate from "nice neighborhoods," in Northern Virginia: places where sinister crimes aren't supposed to happen.
But, as authorities have discovered, one of the most significant drug operations in the region's history was being run from this "nice, safe" place. And not by dark-skinned street-hustlers preying on vulnerable teens and getting them hooked; but rather, by the former soccer-playing little leaguers who this nation grooms to run major corporations, hold political office, or merely typifies as normal, all-American boys.
In this particular drama, one of the principal players, named (I kid you not) Owen Merton Barber IV, stands accused of murdering Daniel Petrole Jr., one of his drug-dealing colleagues at the behest of yet another fellow-dealer, Justin Michael Wolfe.
Seem implausible? Surreal even? Thanks to well-worn stereotypes about drug users, dealers, and criminals in general, we've come to expect the bad guys to look like them. Black and brown people, not those who are white like us. When we have to protect ourselves from folks with names like Owen Merton Barber the Fourth, well, what is the world coming to?
Actually, although underreported, drug data has long confirmed that the stereotypes of users and dealers (poor, black or Latino, and urban-dwelling) are not only racist, but also wrong.
According to the National Institutes on Drug Abuse, the Centers for Disease Control, and the Department of Health and Human Services, whites are equally or more likely to use drugs than their African American counterparts, despite common misperceptions to the contrary.
Although blacks and Hispanics tend to try drugs for the first time at a slightly younger age than whites, by the end of high school, whites have caught up and surpassed them in every drug category. White seniors are a third more likely to have smoked pot in the past year, seven times more likely to have used cocaine, three times more likely to have used heroin, and nine times more likely to have used LSD. And it's not just that there are more white users, as this would reflect mere population percentages, but rather, that the white rate of use is that much higher than the rate for blacks.
It's the same story for young adults. Whites are 66 percent of 18-25 year olds, but 70 percent of drug users that age. Blacks are 13.5 percent of persons in that age cohort, but only 13 percent of young adult users, while Hispanics are nearly 15 percent of that age group, but only 12 percent of drug users 18-25.
When it comes to drug dealing, the picture changes only slightly. According to the Justice Department, drug users tend to buy from same-race dealers. So the nearly three-quarters of users who are white, mainly rely on white dope peddlers, not the Jamaicans or Dominicans of popular imagery. And when it comes to drugs like Ecstasy -- a hot product for the Virginia cartel -- the dealers and users have long been known to be mostly white, middle class males between 14 and 32.
But one would know none of these things from reading the Post story on the recently uncovered suburban drug empire, or drug related articles in any other nationally-prominent paper. Instead, white suburban dealers and users are presented as exceptions to an otherwise law-abiding rule.
In the instant case, the accused, from the Prince William County hamlets of Chantilly and Centreville are youths who reporter Josh White describes as "good kids," who "went bad." When was the last time a black or Latino drug dealer or gang-banger was described this way? To those who study media, implicit in most news coverage when they do it is the suggestion that it's because they were congenital criminals; it was their IQ or pathological underclass families. They don't "go" bad, they just "are" bad.
But when stories are written about pale-faced killers or dealers, or in this case both, sympathetic adjectives fill the pages. Crime becomes human interest -- a cautionary tale. We are encouraged to identify with the instigators of the mayhem in ways we never would be were they dark or poor.
For example, Kip Kinkel, 1998's poster boy for school shootings, was likened in the major media to MAD Magazine's Alfred E. Newman: freckle-faced, and the "boy next door." Similar descriptions were offered for the school shooters in Arkansas, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Mississippi and Tennessee. Even Columbine shooters Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris, described by classmates as "dark and brooding," were still referred to by many as "basically normal," and gave off no warning signs in the eyes of Littleton families, teachers, or law enforcement. Andrea Yates, the Houston suburban mom who killed her five kids in their bathtub was described by one major newsmagazine as having "loved her children too much," and having been "overwhelmed" by the responsibilities of keeping hearth and home together.
And listen to those quoted in White's story. First there is Prince William Detective Greg Pass who explains, "None of this happened in bad neighborhoods...It bothers everyone involved that in many ways these kids are mirror images of the detectives working the case, except they have chosen to go the wrong way." Sympathy, recognition, identification, and all of it, by the officer's admission, due to the fact that these kids are "mirror images" of the detectives themselves. And what does one see in the mirror after all? One's face: one's white, middle class suburban face, to be precise.
Throughout the Post piece the ringleaders of this marijuana and ecstasy empire are described as kids who "went to church," "sold Christmas trees at the mall parking lot," were "polite, shy, friendly, non-threatening," "clean cut," "cautiously pensive," "kind and gentle," "fun-loving," "the class clown." The kind of boys who "you'd want your daughter to date," and who have been known to nurse sick birds back to health, "romp down the soccer field," and whose hooliganism was limited to writing their names in wet cement.
The alleged shooter, "relished fishing with his father along the Virginia coast, where the two would exchange high fives when reeling in a catch." Barber's father -- that's Owen Merton the third for those keeping count -- insists the family was solid and led a "normal life." Forced to contemplate what went wrong with his fishing buddy, he speculates that perhaps watching his mother die of cancer convinced his son "life wasn't important anymore." Again, sympathy conjured up for the wayward white youth, in ways that would be highly unlikely for an inner-city kid: even one who had watched his mom die of cancer, as many have, or perhaps had friends who had been killed or jailed.
The young man accused of ordering the hit on Petrole is described as a "role model for his brother and sister," a "religious Catholic," who is intensely "spiritual." For his part, Justin Wolfe is presented as a helpful son, who assisted his single mom in caring for his younger siblings. When was the last time the child of a black, inner-city single mom was applauded for helping out around the house?
And throughout the story we learn that the parents of these budding gangsters never suspected anything, even as their early-20's offspring jet-setted to Hawaii or Atlantic City, and bought $200,000 townhouses with their own money. As an additional sign of the times and the stupendous denial that afflicts so many white upper-middle class families, Petrole's father actually believed that his son was able to buy his own home because he had been lucky dabbling in the stock market. After all, said Petrole Sr., his boy always wanted to be an entrepreneur. As indeed he was. So should we now expect national condemnation of the culture of affluence and the capitalist emphasis on moneymaking as being implicated in these crimes? Don't count on it. That kind of analysis we reserve for the "underclass" values of ghetto-dwellers.
As evidence of how strong the stereotypes are, consider that at the height of his criminal activity, Justin Wolfe dated the daughter of the head of the DC regional office of the Drug Enforcement Administration, without being suspected of anything. The agent, having no doubt memorized the darker profile of a drug dealer used by law enforcement, naturally had no clue. Wolfe, according to DEA agent Frank Chellino seemed "well-mannered" and "stable."
Perhaps white folks in the ‘burbs need to stop listening to the voices of officialdom or the media, and start listening to the only folks who seem to know the score: the dealers themselves. As one associate of the accused explained: "American society doesn't want to face the fact that white kids deal and use drugs. They simply can't look in my face and see that a nice-looking white kid is selling drugs to their kids, because that would mean that their kids could do this too. The fact is, we do sell drugs to their kids, in their rich neighborhoods and in their rich schools."
Just as the media generally "deracializes" incidents of white deviance, portraying them as the aberrant, inexplicable acts of aberrant, inexplicable individuals, (unlike the same from the dark and poor which are often portrayed as group tendencies), so too did Josh White in his piece on Wolfe, Barber and Petrole. Instead of pointing out the fallacies of white suburban denial and the blindness that besets so many of the residents in these "nice," places, White and the Post offered up a quixotic melodrama: good kids gone wrong; sympathetic, misguided youths posing as hardened criminals and coming to a tragic end.
Powerful to be sure, but far too narrow a truth, lacking as it did the contextual information necessary to understand the common phenomenon of white substance abuse. Unfortunately, facts unspoken or unreported tend to remain hidden. The debilitating stereotypes they might unravel remain firmly in place. And those who have convinced themselves that it couldn't happen here remain in danger.
Tim Wise is a Nashville-based writer, lecturer and antiracism activist. He can be reached at tjwise@mindspring.com. Footnotes for this article can be obtained from that same email address.
Comment on The Blackboard``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xA New Round of White Denial: Drugs and Race in the 'Burbs``x998086273,59407,History4``x``x
``x( Akinkawon ) As a brother said before, Racial and Gender issues are the two interconnected issues that all people should be addressing. These are the central issues if people are serious about, justice, harmony and unity. If there are Rastafarians who feel that these are not core issues then I know they are far from the path to consciousness. It took centuries to develop some unsociable habits and everyone should give time to addressing these bad attitudes. Rastafarians like any other group cannot unite unless they address these issues as a collective and give adequate ventilation to better values that respects all people, male and female, black and white, and all others in-between.
You cannot respect people in ignorance of their history and without giving proper recognition to their sufferings and struggles. As Africans we demand this of all our oppressors and is in like manner some of us acknowledged the shortcomings of many of our ancestors and the vile, contemptuous character of many Europeans who contributed to the colonization of both people and minds.
It is with the understanding of better social values; some of us recognized that the rights males fought for were equal to the rights and freedoms of Women. Who can deny that Women were reduced to a life of servitude? This was not done deliberately by most males but resulted from that lost of empathy that came with the disconnection from a more natural way of life alongside the loss of our African folk stories?
Who, other than those who know history from both the male and female points of view can empathize with the whole human family? Absolutely no one!
We cannot take the position of not focusing on these things that deny freedom of choice and by extension consciousness in favor of not rocking someone else's poorly analyzed position. Some say lets not focus on the woman lets focus on JAH, but in the mean time they condemned Europeans who were making similar arguments.
Many Europeans were saying, lets not focus on the past lets look to the future. Stop bringing up the injustices, lets move on, while they build monuments and compensate each other for sins of the past. They dare not tell that to the Jews who are trying to corner the world market on sympathy. Are they the only ones who should remember the past and be compensated?
Today while the hearts of some Europeans are softening we see some Africans have learnt well the language of their former oppressors. Today, even on this message board, there are ‘Africans’ who are calling on other Africans to forget injustices and focus on God/JAH.
Should a more informed person give way to such immaturity? NO! No, it is the less informed that should give way to learning and sharing. A more informed person, be he or she, Jew or Gentile, African or European, can assist in shaping better values.
So brothers and sisters learn of the struggles of some Women and weigh their words well. Leave out the corruption of misrepresentation and look at the issue in the same way you were called upon to examine the oppression of the Euro-centric system against Africans. It is these struggles, which gave birth to the Rastafarian Movement.
If I am misguided in my belief that the Rastafarian movement could represent a better standard and model for all mankind, then I humbly apologize.
_________________________________________________________
I's Open
( IanI ) Irie, Irie
Well said for true... and no need to apologize.
In all me years of reasoning and listening and meditations, one of the most valuable lessons me learn is that no 'group' or 'movement' can organize without Wisdom as them guide. And is true that not everyone in the 'group' is of the same Awareness, the same consciousness. You see?
And this be where the issue of 'judgement' comes in. IanI must know right from wrong in order to reach Awareness and Wisdom. And IanI must be able to look at any given situation and determine it's correctness or it's folly. And so where does this determination come from? If me look upon the oppression of the Queen and say, "That no right!" Where has that Knowledge come from? Me know in me very inner depths that it no 'right' to downpress any Life... but to some, them no see that Fullness. Some a them just keep stuck pon one aspect of a situation and don't bother to look no further. Them say, "Glory be to God! Me see the Light!" But them only see the very distant pin-point of Light and never trod no further.
Many have attempted to drag and pull those of little consciousness (kicking and screaming at times!) into a greater Awareness. Wise words have been written and spoken in speeches and recorded on tape in the great hope of making others see. And often those wise words have been mis-taken and mis-used, clung to in their mis-taken-ness, leading 'groups' and 'organizations' into despair! More trivial issues become magnified and the Truth gets buried in the rubble. This has become obvious, to those that look, in the Babylonian 'civilization'. Vanity and greed get the focus, while Awareness and Wisdom get forgotten.
While I whole Heart-ily agree that knowledge of peoples history is an important thing... me seen that even those without this education can reach great Wisdom. Because consciousness comes from the Heart/Mind and one must have the drive to seek it. And continue to seek it in all it's Fullness. Not just be content to listen to others and 'follow', but to realize that the Almighty has given all IanI this Wisdome and Knowledge, right here in the Heart/Mind.
So, while I can look for right from wrong and determine the Truth, I must never place no 'judgement' upon those that have not achieved a Higher Awareness. If them wish to seek it and grow, then IanI can offer what Life has come to teach. But if them no care and simply wish to live them life blindly or to simply 'follow' without looking, then them Life will bring them their just reward. IanI cannot force no consciousness upon them.
Them that know Rastafari are the One that ever-looking, ever-living, ever-forwarding. And even if I no know you history, Jah give IanI that Looking, the Awareness to realize Truth from falseness, and forward pon the road of Love that leads to justice, harmony, balance, overstanding, honesty, integrity, equality, co-operation and I-nity! And this is how me know a Rasta when me meet One, and IanI I-nite in all the Joy of Living!
Me know suffering when me see it... me know oppression when me see it... me know persecution when me see it... me know subjugation when me see it. But is only because me Looking that me see! So, yes I, Akinkawon! IanI MUST LOOK! Throw off them blinders and seek Jah Guidance and all IanI Bredren and Sistren I-nite in Awareness, with Joy and Harmony. Rastafari forward in I-nity because of Love and Joy. When IanI have open I's, then I-nity is assured.
Give Thanks and Praises
Guidance and Protection
IanI Rastafari ``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xRace and Gender, the big picture ``x998243934,77266,Rasta``x``x
``x( Jamaica Gleaner ) By Norman Francis, Contributor
THAT RELIGION is regarded by some as another opium of the mind is no doubt reminiscent of Karl Marxis's famous pronouncement that religion "is the opium of the people".
Thus, Otto Maduro, himself a Marxist, correctly admits that religion has served as "one of the main (and sometimes the only) available channels to bring about a social revolution." But just how does religion function as an instrument of social change?
It does so by evoking a new awareness among the people, thereby providing them with an alternative consciousness to that of the dominant culture. This counter-consciousness is rooted in an understanding of God as the supreme Ruler, who, contrary to the god of the dominant culture, is not a mere instrument in the hands of the 'haves', but is free to act according to his own purposes of righteousness and justice.
The process of dismantling the oppressive structures in any society must necessarily begin by bringing to public expression, the pain of the suffering masses. In so doing, religion is able to lead persons to an understanding of why things are the way they are, to empower them to take responsibility for their own lives and to initiate the process of change. This is the most fundamental level of change the liberation of the mind!
It is precisely at this point that those who are exploited, marginalised and without hope are energised by a new spirituality that leads to the discovery of new possibilities and of hope, based on God's freedom to act with justice. Again, it is religion that brings to public expression these new possibilities, and contrasts them with the existing powerlessness of the present order to deliver the quality of life expected of it. And, as the process expands, similar changes will inevitably engulf communities, institutions, and ultimately entire nations.
MORE PART 2: http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xPART 2: CHRISTIANITY - Time for a wake-up call``x998262329,14303,History4``x``x
``x( Jamaica Gleaner ) THE FAMOUS socialist statement on religion has become one of the most enduring thorns in the side of the believer. However, there is another not quite so famous position on the topic, to the effect that religion is perhaps the only motive force in the world - but you have to reach someone through their religion, not yours.
Fortunately or unfortunately Christianity is also the dominant religion in Jamaica and hence the discussion will concentrate mainly on it.
Any belief system which is accepted and promoted by the ruling class will eventually be the proverbial 'opiate of the people', having them in a stupor of expectation of hardship - and actually welcoming it as some 'test'. It will eventually be used to entrench the position of the elite, and this is no less the case in Jamaica.
Christianity is not merely an opiate of the people in Jamaica. It is more of an anaesthetic, having the nation in an unthinking, unfeeling, helpless state to which it has agreed, hoping that when it opens its eyes again the surgeon will have done a miracle.
Instead, we are finding that the person with the scalpel is really an organ thief and when Jamaica awakens something vital like a kidney will be gone. Or we will not awaken, because the heart has been taken away.
MORE PART 1: http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xRASTAFARIAN - Christianity has Jamaica asleep ``x998262697,1110,History4``x``x
``x(Stewart Synopsis) David Horowitz is probably the leading American reporter who parades the Reparations Topic for whitewash and defeat. It is obvious that Mr. Horowitz, like many other Americans, must have gotten an "A" in 10th Grade American History but failed World and Ancient History and common sense.
Who's afraid of the big, bad Horowitz? By refusing to run his ad blasting reparations for slavery, cringing campus journalists are giving the racial provocateur publicity that money can't buy. David Horowitz is having a ball (9 Mar 2001 Joan Walsh). Horowitz’s troublesome theories are full of many huge holes. He has debated Dorothy Lewis on national television and Tim Wise. More``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xTen Reasons Why Reparations for Blacks is a Bad Idea``x998537029,350,History4``x``x
``xIn the book The Power of the Pride, by South African Ian Thomas, you learn that lionesses do most of the hunting, that they are fast and powerful, pro-active for their family's survival, and that they understand that if they have no food they will not eat and will ultimately starve.
The lionesses, of course, in addition to providing the food for their pride, also give birth to and raise their cubs. They train those cubs to be productive members of their pride.
So too with the women of Africa. In sub-Saharan Africa, women food farmers produce 80% of Africa's food, do 90% of the work to process Africa's food, do 80% of the work to transport and store Africa's food, do 60% of the work to market Africa's food, and provide 90% of the water, wood and fuel. You are about to be introduced to a program run by the Hunger Project of New York that awards great respect to this incredible performance.
We expect you will leave this article and your study of the Hunger Project with a sense that the more responsibility assigned to the women of Africa, the faster Africa will develop and the faster all Africa's people will have the chance to achieve their rightful destinies.
Much of this article was taken from one written by Hamilton Vokhiwa for the African Church Information Service, August 13, 2001. Inserts of additional and amplifying information were made by Your dot com for Africa. August 20, 2001
Go to full article``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xStrategy to defeat the apartheid of gender in Africa``x998636809,82039,History4``x``x
``xA Ghanaian secondary school teacher visiting London recently would not believe that a black man invented the traffic lights. "What?," he asked in utter incredulity. "How can a black man invent the traffic lights?"
Well, you can imagine the sort of education this secondary school teacher has imparted, or is imparting, to his students, not out of malice but sheer ignorance. Which speaks volumes about the kind of education Africans receive. All said, this Ghanaian secondary school teacher genuinely believes that black people "cannot or do not" (his words) invent things, they buy other people's inventions. Well, there is something here for him.
A new textbook, Black Scientists and Inventors Book One, published in London recently by BIS Publications dismantles the notion that black people are not inventors.
Co-authored by Ava Henry and Michael Williams (both directors of the London-based BIS Enterprises Ltd), the book is designed for use by children aged 7-16. "It is our hope that parents and teachers will help the children on this journey of knowledge and discovery," say the authors.
The issue of black inventions, like slavery and reparations, is now top of the topics in the Black Diaspora. Black people are finding it increasingly difficult to understand why, even in the Internet era of openness and liberalism, black inventors and scientists are still denied their due recognition. And this is despite the fact that there are records showing that right from ancient times, a number of key inventions that the world now takes for granted were made by black people. More``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xBLACK INVENTORS AND SCIENTISTS``x998661865,26354,History4``x``x
``x( JAH Truth ) Dear Rastas,
Greetings in the name of his imperial majesty, king rastafari i, who dwells forever in our spirits, as does satan, fire burn satan. Listen all those who are reading, king rastafari died on the cross for us! And whoever gives his sins to god, in the name of his son, he shall recieve the gift of righteousness, and shall work for heaven eternal. And never see hell! Thats why i, jah truth, who is living on earth in sodom and gommorah, and watching every wicked thing that the beasts of the earth are doing to the world, gathering their recruits for hell, I come as a shephard. I come in the name of christ. To speak the truth, and whoever puts faith in christs truth shall live forever. The lord god makes me speak no lie towards his precious stones. All rasman and raswoman, rastafari works in i, as bishop in the united states of america. I come to gather the flock, noah gathering the people before the flood, but in the second advent jah come with fire! The almighty really made sodom and gommorah hell, the fire is hot in the states, making the devil tempt the angels, all day, fire burn! We must build the temple of god in america! We must come together, physically and spiritually, and build the temple of god, in america, and whoever enters into the temple, will be saved from the soon to come destruction of the almighty god, jah! Rastafari!
I am in florida. North east florida. Many of you are far away from me. What I am saying is if we all come together, and buy our own land, and build our houses and set up camp in one location, we can have the house of the true god! King rastafari i, built here, or whatever location we come together to do! They did it in jamaica! They did it in africa! And kenya! Lets do it in america! God conquers the devil! This is the indians land, but really belongs to the righteous! Let us come together so we cant see no sin! We will just see heaven! Lets do it rasts! Lets make america paradise while we can! Lets do it, we can recruit people day and night, saving people from hell to come, or when they die! Rastafari! Jah!
"Come my sisters and brothers, motivate our mothers and fathers, we got works to do, works to do, works to dooooo!"
Let us please do this now, and not stall! Let us do it now! I am poor, I will sell my posessions for rastafari! Lets make a rasta camp or something, so we can be saved, and just stay far from the wicked! We dont need devils around us! We just need love! Which is jah! God! All people, repent to rastafari for all yours sins, what you did last night, or last week, repent! Please rastas, lets warn the united states what is to come! We need a movement or something! We need to warn! Unless you are afarid to die for what you believe in! You afraid of the devil? Conquer the devil! Work for rastafari! Face the truth!!!!!!
Jah rastafari! Is the almighty, who knows your imaginations, put recieve him, and recieve heaven eternal, all people, living right and happy forever, no bills to pay, just herbs and fruit to eat, and praising jah before his throne forever!!!!!!!!
________________________________________________________
( LUBA ZEBBY ) Thank you so much for posting this Topic of Rasta WORK. I also am a firm believer that We as a RastafarI Collective that chant down babylon must look and listen to what King Haile Selassie I, Honorable Marcus Garvey, Robert N. Marley, Peter Tosh, Bunny Wailer, Mutabaruka, Isreal Vibes...all them are talking about the Liberation of AFRICANS.....Rastafari is a Freedom Fighter for Mama Africa and so InI Must also work.
The Uhuru Movement is putting much needed financial resources back into the African Communtiy, into African populated schools, African communities get Health Food Stores and health care.
There are NO Race Riots in Beverley Hills
Revervations are NOT RESORTS!
so why are the white communities so rich and the african communities so poor?
why do African men go to prison for 30 years for stealing while White men get 12 years for Serial Rape???
ALL YOU WHO SING ALONG TO SONGS LIKE AFRICA UNITE AND BLACK MAN REDEMPTION, PLEASE PUT DOWN YOUR SPLIFF AND GET UP, STAND UP AND WORK! AS BOB SINGS EVERY DAY IS WORK!
Uhuru!
________________________________________________________
( Akinkawon ) Is your proposal up for discussion with other Africans or is it a 'done deal' exclusive for "Rastafarian" comments and support?
________________________________________________________
( LUBA ZEBBY ) Which proposal?
This message board is called RastafarI Speaks if I am not miss-taken. I personally well-come the input of progressive people but I also know talk is talk....we as a collective must also Do.
So if you please post your thoughts.
________________________________________________________
( Akinkawon ) ( JAH Truth's plan or idea. )
The problem is, when one person or group has an idea and that person is so convinced it is right, he or she does not like discussing it. Then, they accuse others of not supporting the idea. I hope this is not the case.
If you start with the notion that by setting up a group in a location the rest of the picture will fall into place, then history bears wittiness to that failure. Simply because if people cannot agree on a definition on who qualifies to be a Rastafarian, then all you would have is an array of impoverished people coming together with the hope and intent of fulfilling their own material gain, then as soon as there are funds in the account, infighting will take place.
Even with a 'semi-defined' people, we are left with the examples of the Jews in Israel and their ongoing conflict because of they trying to defend an ideal that makes no sense to others. We have other examples of this in Africa, Europe and India.
If the wider community does not agree with your policies and have little or no understanding of the group, they would fear such an organization and would do all in their power to ensure it fails.
Further to this if you are firm about setting up a separate lifestyle that the wider public does not understand and appreciate, it will have to be defended with military power and then you are back to square one, just like everyone else who tried to live apart and are having conflicts all over the world.
Even if a group 'succeeds' in setting up a different social model, they would still be under the jurisdiction of international policies and laws and as such would be alienated and or have many legal battles.
I could say more but I don't want to be too long.
Do you think people could discuss this some more?
________________________________________________________
( LUBA ZEBBY ) ++ Simply because if people cannot agree on a definition on who qualifies to be a Rastafarian ++
I want to know why people look for Validation of being a "rastafarian" in other people? It is NOT the Next Man that Determines weather one is or is Not a Rasta. So I dont ask others to accept me or approve of me simply because I am not here for them but for H.I.M Selassie I.
+++ If the wider community does not agree with your policies and have little or no understanding of the group, they would fear such an organization of people and would do all in their power to ensure it fails. +++
The "Wider Community" is Curruptable and Blind. This wider community loves Oprah, Mercedes and MTV....its so sad. Yes they have a REASON to Fear because they KNOW they are Brainwashed and this thought that Does not A-line with their own must be wrong.
Failure is up to you. Martin Luther King was Killed, Peter Tosh was killed, Malcolm X also Killed...but I know their name, why? how? the struggle continues and as Long as I have breath I will fight babylon mentallity.
+++ Further to this if you are firm about setting up a separate lifestyle that the wider public does not understand and appreciate, it will have to be defended with military power and then you are back to square one, just like everyone else who tried to live apart and are having conflicts all over the world. +++
Yes Back to Square One is True, but why do we keep trying? because the Wickedness that rules the masses is just that, Wicked. You can Fool some people some of the Time but You CANT fool ALL the People all the time. I choose not to be a fool.
+++ Even if a group 'succeeds' in setting up a different social model, they would still be under the jurisdiction of international policies and laws and as such would be alienated and or have many legal battles. +++
ABSOLUTLY! many Battles is what it is all about!, otherwise I might as well bend over and give them my ass for a good punking.
++Do you think people could discuss this some more?++
I am NO Different, I want people to see my side and Agree with me and Not Argue against me and Not Challenge me. Just like the next man that does not like those that dont agree with him.
I will try but I AM Partial to my Views and my life and the Struggle of AFRICAN People.
RastafarI Worked for the Liberation of AFRICANS and we as rastas MUST do the SAME!
________________________________________________________
( Akinkawon ) Conscious people work for the liberation of anyone and all who seek assistance and can either learn or show the deep connections in our cultural ways.
I know that people who do not share common values cannot cooperate and be successful as a people and would spend most time squabbling.
>>> I want to know why people look for Validation of being a "rastafarian" in other people? It is NOT the Next Man that Determines weather one is or is Not a Rasta. So I dont ask others to accept me or approve of me simply because I am not here for them but for H.I.M Selassie I. <<<
That is an unfortunate corruption of the meaning of 'a definition' and you completely misunderstand the purpose of defining one's space.
Defining space is the only way you can show your entitlement to a space. Without definition it is common property and cannot be the exclusive domain of any one group.
It has nothing to do with looking for validation in other people.
If you are building a house and cannot show or map out the boundaries then all can encroach, but with clear definable boundaries, you are claiming your space. However if no boundaries are necessary (this is the ideal) then there is nothing to associate around and no need for a separate group or space. How are you going to build the house?
>>>> Yes they have a REASON to Fear because they KNOW they are Brainwashed <<<
A person cannot know they are brainwashed, they could be aware something is wrong and unaware how to improve, but to know one is brainwashed calls for the person to be conscious and such a person would know he or she was brainwashed, (not is brainwashed.)
>>> Yes Back to Square One is True, but why do we keep trying? because the Wickedness that rules the masses is just that, Wicked. You can Fool some people some of the Time but You CANT fool ALL the People all the time. I choose not to be a fool. <<<
But sir, you will be a fool if you do not give these ideas careful consideration. It is foolish to do the same thing, the same way, over and over and expect a different result. You have not proposed anything different to what has been tried.
>>> ABSOLUTLY! many Battles is what it is all about!, otherwise I might as well bend over and give them my ass for a good punking. <<<
Carefully defining ones plans and putting them up for scrutiny by those who share similar objectives is the best way to engage a battle. It helps to examine what was tried and learn from the mistakes. History is important here.
>>> RastafarI Worked for the Liberation of AFRICANS and we as rastas MUST do the SAME! <<<
It is non-Rastafarians who first engaged the struggle for the liberation of Africans and the modern Rastafarian movement was born out of the struggles of non-Rastafarians. Some Rastafarians did and do struggle for the liberation of others, but the order was and is African first. ``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xRastafari Needs Help?``x998753846,64693,Rasta``x``x
``x(Shasta Darlington) RIO DE JANEIRO, Brazil (Reuters) - Dining at posh restaurants and strolling through upscale malls may not seem radical, but for Afro-Brazilians this is in-your-face activism -- aimed squarely at the myth of "racial democracy" in Brazil.
"The biggest cruelty we face is invisibility, the feeling that we don't exist," said Benedita da Silva, the vice-governor of Rio de Janeiro state and before that the first black woman elected to Brazil's Senate.
"We make up half of the population, but for the most part we don't occupy decisive political and social positions," she said. "We live on the margins, in the ghettos where people can't see us."
While many Brazilians argue that the country has been more successful than the United States in creating a multiracial society, critics say Brazil has ignored deep-seated racism for more than a century -- simply because racism was never institutionalized in segregation or apartheid laws as in other countries.
Activists are hoping a United Nations conference in South Africa this month will force Brazil to confront racism at home and will raise support for a wide range of proposals on better health, eduction and jobs for blacks.
In an effort to show just how absent blacks are from Brazil's upper and even middle class, activists have invaded locales where blacks are rare: exclusive Sao Paulo restaurants or shopping centers along Rio's beachfront promenades.
Joni Anderson, the owner of Agencia Noir model agency, has staged protests he calls "blackouts" outside fashion shows to demand more black models. He also rents limousines and sends his models to chic restaurants and theaters to make a statement.
"When a well-dressed black couple walks into an expensive restaurant
everybody assumes they're American. We want to alert people that this kind of racism is going on," he said.
BLACK DOESN'T SELL
The myth of a racial democracy in Brazil has persisted, however, due to the subtle nuances of prejudice and to the success of blacks in specific fields. Pele, the king of soccer, is by far the most famous Brazilian in the world, for example.
Blacks have traditionally excelled in music and sports, often becoming
ambassadors for Brazilian culture the world over. But at home they complain of police harassment and social insults.
Outside of Carnival season, black women accompanied by white men are often assumed to be prostitutes and black visitors to wealthy condos or high-rise office buildings are still often sent to the "service" elevators.
"Middle-class blacks exist and they live in condos, they just better not show up at the pool," said Ivanir dos Santos, president of the Center for the Articulation of Marginalized Populations.
In a bid to emphasize how few inroads have been made, Santos stormed a
fashionable Rio mall last month with dozens of black protesters decrying the minuscule number of black salespeople and shoppers.
"They say we don't sell, it's not a good image," he said.
Even attempts to appeal to Brazil's black middle class, like the foundering "Raca," or "Race," magazine, have not been very successful because blacks themselves avoid being pigeonholed, activists say.
Only 5.4 percent of Brazilians identified themselves as "black" in the last official survey while 40 percent say they are "dark-skinned" and 54 percent say they are white.
Brazil has one of the world's most progressive anti-racism laws but activists say the country has to take the next step, promoting integration and level the playing field for those who still suffer social and economic exclusion.
"It's not enough to have laws that prohibit, you have to have laws that obligate," said Santos.
In preparation for the U.N. meeting in Durban from Aug. 31 to Sept. 7,
delegates are pushing proposals that range from controversial quotas in public universities to work training programs and funding for research of diseases that plague the black community.
INEQUALITIES PERSIST
Almost half of Brazil's 170 million people are "Afro-descendants" but more than 100 years after the end of slavery, huge inequalities persist, according to the government's own statistics.
Unlike the United States, Brazil justified slavery on purely economic
grounds, not on racist arguments, creating the largest slave economy in the world to power its big agriculture and mining sectors. In 1850, Brazil finally agreed to halt trading in slaves, but didn't actually free slaves and abolish slavery until 1888.
"The gap between whites and nonwhites is the same as a century ago," said Alexandre Vidal Porto, a member of the government delegation headed to South Africa this month and an advisor to the Justice Ministry's human rights office.
"Brazil was the last country to abolish slavery. Maybe there isn't any formal segregation but there is a bias or handicap still faced by the black population," he said.
In 1999, Brazil's whiter half still earned more than double what blacks earned. While only 8 percent of Brazilian whites were illiterate, 20 percent of blacks couldn't read or write.
Still, President Fernando Henrique Cardoso's administration argues that it has done more than any previous government to combat racism and that it is one of the few governments in the world to openly admit the problem.
In a bid to enforce Brazil's much-lauded anti-racism laws, Cardoso's
government installed anti-discrimination centers in 21 states where people can call in to report racism and hate crimes. The government also recognized the existence of racism in Brazil in a report sent to the United Nations.
But activists are hoping that the U.N. meeting will be a kind of catalyst for new "integration" policies.
"We are expecting a concrete measure from the government before we get on a plane for South Africa," said Santos. "We are hoping for something that will promote black education or jobs ... quotas are one possibility."
The government has resisted the idea of quotas but is still pushing for schools in former runaway slave communities known as "quilombos," funding for job training for blacks and training programs to promote blacks in the diplomatic corps.
"We have swept away the myth of racial democracy, now we're trying to deal with the legacy of slavery," Vidal Porto said.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xBrazil's blacks battle myth of "racial democracy"``x998921073,20449,History4``x``x
``x(Barbara Crossette) HALIFAX, Nova Scotia - On the edge of Atlantic Canada, far from the American South and the slave-trading ports of Africa, a long-established community of black Canadians is beginning to join calls for reparations for slavery and for greater recognition of their history.
Like civil rights campaigners in the United States, black Canadians want their voices to be heard in Durban, South Africa, at the end of August at the United Nations international conference on racism and discrimination. That is especially true in this port city, where a once strong black community is in the midst of a cultural revival.
The black residents of greater Halifax - in the old city itself, across the harbor in Dartmouth and in the semirural township of Preston - form one of the oldest and largest black populations in Canada, their leaders say. Black immigrants arrived along with the French, British and Scottish settlers of the British colonial era.
"Well, you won't hear much about us on the regular tours," said Carolyn Thomas, as she guided a visitor around the Citadel, the fort that looms over the town of Halifax. Black residents say it may have been built in large part with forced labor by the Jamaican Maroons, sent here in the late 18th century because they were troublesome to the British in the Caribbean.
Although most of the Maroons were again forcibly moved, to help colonize Sierra Leone a few years later, hundreds managed to stay.
That is part of what Ms. Thomas calls "the other half of the story" of Halifax. In the mid-1990's, she and her husband, Matthew, distressed because black Nova Scotia seemed invisible, took early retirement from their government jobs to start Black Heritage Tours. It is still a two-person operation.
A former teacher and government affirmative action director, Ms. Thomas, 58, said she had not been able to increase significantly the participation of black residents or the inclusion of their history in the mainline tourism industry, which is important to the local economy. The struggle continues, she added.
"All traces of segregation were not removed from our statutes until 1954," she said, about the same time as the Supreme Court decision in the United States outlawing school segregation. Before that, most black students here had no opportunity to go beyond eighth grade, she said, and, "that denial included the denial of our history."
A conference on racism and discrimination - a kind of warm-up for Durban - was held here in early August. Among the organizers of the Halifax conference was Esmeralda Thornhill, who holds a chair in black Canadian studies at Dalhousie University in Halifax. She told a local newspaper that if governments could address the Holocaust, the incarceration of Japanese during World War II and the forced movements of indigenous people, then "reparation talks for slavery are needed to address the legacy of colonialism."
Black Canadians, whose ancestors were enslaved under both British and American rule, fear that their government will join the United States in trying to keep the issue off the agenda.
Greater Halifax has 12,000 to 15,000 black residents out of a population of close to 400,000. Their ancestors include slaves freed by the British in colonial America in return for their labor or willingness to fight for England in the Revolutionary War or in the War of 1812. Others escaped slavery along the Underground Railroad, often with help from Quakers.
"In my grandmother's house there was always a picture of the Quakers," Ms. Thomas said. "It was in my mother's house, too. Like by osmosis, it became part of my life. The picture now hangs over my computer."
Some people owned slaves in Nova Scotia, but slavery was not much in evidence by the time it was abolished throughout the British Empire in the 1830's. Black residents here say that there are enduring wounds, though.
When their ancestors arrived, they were given far smaller plots of land than white Loyalists, and rural townships where they were settled lacked basic services.
Ms. Thomas said that when she taught school three decades ago in Preston, there was no bus service or snow plow. Community leaders shoveled their way to the end of the bus line to take her to school.
The story of Africville is not a happy one. Black historians say it was settled by blacks in 1796 on a lush meadow beside Bedford Bay, outside Halifax. It was bulldozed away in the 1960's to make room for an approach to a bridge and other development. Many families who had built homes over several generations, scraping together savings from their wages as servants and porters, were moved. A park called Seaview was built where their community once stood. The name Africville disappeared from the map.
"The destruction of our community meant the loss of the physical - the land; the spiritual - our church, and the community - the people," said Irvine Carvery, president of the Africville Genealogy Society, founded to keep its history alive. "These three things had worked in harmony, cultivating the heritage and culture that allowed us to survive over two hundred years of exclusion and marginalization with a sense of worth and dignity."
Pictures and objects from old Africville are on display at the Black Cultural Center for Nova Scotia in Dartmouth, where black history has been reconstructed from the limited documents available, along with the stories of a rich oral tradition handed down through families and churches.
The center, which has grown steadily since its opening in 1983, promotes the achievements of local black heroes. They include church leaders like the 19th-century pastor Richard Preston, founder of the African United Baptist Association, a strong force for development in the region. It has a library and works by black artisans on display and offers musical performances to schools.
Linda Carvery, a Nova Scotian singer and actress, called the impact of the center phenomenal. On a recent morning, she brought her grandson, Dwayne Carvery, 8, to look at the exhibits. "To see these things is wonderful for our self-esteem, our being," Ms. Carvery said.
Like some other black Canadians, Ms. Carvery said she regretted that black Americans did not seem aware of these communities.
Matthew Thomas recalled that some years ago, when he and his wife were invited to speak at the Canadian Embassy in Washington, a black American asked afterward, "Where did you say you were from?" When he answered, "Nova Scotia," the response was, "We didn't know we went up that far."
Mr. Thomas said he told them, "Well, we've got news for you."
Copyright 2001 The New York Times Company
This has been posted for comments. ``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xBlack Canada Lifts Its Voice and Seeks the World Stage``x998921710,52321,History4``x``x
``x(Gwynne Dyer) Human beings, most philosophers would agree, are not a resource. (Human Resources Department, please note.) But since the rise of civilisation most human beings have been treated as an economic resource, and often treated very badly.
Indeed, five or ten per cent of all the people who have lived during the past 5,000 years have probably been slaves.
This makes it hard for today's Africans or African-Americans to claim compensation for the enslavement of their particular ancestors, just as the multitude of misdeeds committed in the name of nationalism over the years makes it implausible for Arabs to insist on singling out Zionism as a form of racism.
But these conflicting claims threaten to sabotage the global conference on racism that opens in Durban, South Africa, on August 31.
Who cares? Not the conference-going classes, certainly.
Washington has said it will boycott the conference unless the organisers drop the nonsense about condemning Zionism and demanding reparations for slavery, but around 10,000 of the usual suspects will go to Durban and enjoy a week of networking by the sea regardless of whether all, or some, or none of the US delegates show up at the World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance. (I know, they left out tooth decay.)
With or without a stripped-down, low-level US delegation, the conference will go through the motions (affecting the real world not one whit), and then they will all go home several good lunches heavier. Yet an opportunity is being lost here. The old "Zionism is racism" accusation has been allowed to steal centre-stage from a much more important debate about slavery.
Zionism is not racism. It's merely 19th-century European nationalism exported to the Middle East. It doesn't treat minorities well, but which old-fashioned European nationalist movement ever did?
The Arab states who forced the "Zionism" references into the conference texts were indulging in pointless point-scoring.
The slavery allegations are important not because 10-15 million black Africans unwillingly crossed the Atlantic as slaves between the 17th and 19th centuries, but because today's Africa is the world's poorest and most troubled region. Those demanding reparations for slavery are effectively saying that that's the reason for Africa's present problems, or a big part of it.
Today's African-Americans also tend to live near the bottom of the local heap in the US, Brazil and the West Indies: all places where the lighter you are, the higher you are likely to be in income and social status. A lot of people blame that on the legacy of slavery too.
The Durban conference would not have settled these issues for us, being an event where the working language is Cant, but if it hadn't been hijacked by the Zionism issue it would have stimulated a very useful debate around race, slavery and history.
The debate about all that is not now going to happen in Durban, but we can have a bit of it here anyway_and you have to start by splitting it in two down the middle of the Atlantic.
There is no evidence that the slave trade did any lasting harm to Africa as a whole between the 17th century and the early 19th century (by which time the British navy had effectively ended it). To remove an average of say, 60,000 people a year from regions of Africa with a total population of over 50 million would have had virtually no long-term demographic or economic impact, especially since the process did not involve European invasion and conquest.
The African kingdoms who raided their neighbours or enslaved their own lower classes for sale to the Europeans would have behaved in much the same way if there were no overseas market for slaves. Smaller tribes and kingdoms occasionally got smashed, but that was always happening anyway.
European colonisation in South Africa was a disaster for the local peoples, but elsewhere along the African coast things were not significantly different in 1800 than they had been in 1600.
By contrast, full-scale colonisation by Europeans after about 1875 had a huge impact on Africa, both negative and positive. Whether the negative aspects outweighed the positive is still deeply controversial: for example, much of Africa is now worse off economically and socially than it was before decolonisation in the 1960s. But that argument is about colonisation (which also happened to most other places); slavery had nothing to do with it.
The true victims of slavery, unsurprisingly, are not the descendants of the people who sold the slaves but the descendants of those who were sold. Though more than half of African-Americans in the United States and smaller proportions in the West Indies and Brazil have now made it into the middle class, a hugely disproportionate number remain outside it.
If it were simply "racism", more recent non-white immigrants to these countries would suffer similar disadvantages, which they obviously don't. Specifically, being the descendant of a slave is a huge social and economic handicap in the Americas. As to how much of this disadvantage is due to majority prejudice, and how much is the internalised residue of past trauma, consider this.
In Britain, where majority attitudes are less prejudiced because there has never been large-scale slavery at home, they track the performance of various ethnic groups in the schools. African-Americans (almost all from the West Indies, in Britain's case), come dead bottom in the rankings. Recent immigrants from black Africa come absolute top, ahead of Chinese, Indians, whites and everybody else. What's the difference?
Maybe it's that these Africans are not descended from slaves.
* Gwynne Dyer is a London-based independent journalist whose articles are published in 45 countries.
This has been posted for comments. ``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xThe legacy of slavery``x998922638,97554,``x``x
``x( RootsWomb(man) ) RELIGIOUS FANATICISM (excessive and irrational enthusiasm or zeal for a belief or cause)
IS RASTAFARI ALSO EFFECTED BY THIS?
Once again, much Raspek is due unto the I's (Ras Jahaziel) Epistles! The I has spoken TRUTH, and we all know that TRUTH stands on its own. It is in that Spirit that InI would like to address this very issue of RELIGIOSITY which also PLAGUES Rastafari. We ALL should know that when the finger is pointed out, there are always three pointing back at us. Part of the Healing of the Nations, and Afrikan Liberation, is not only to REVEAL the destructive OUTTER influences which plague us, but most importantly, how those ideals have been ingrained into the Mindz of the Black Nation, and to COURAGEOUSLY tackle our own "dirty laundry", so to speak. It is much easier to point the finger at the origin of the infection, than to begin to cleanse its stench and foul pus.
The Global White Supremist System has affected ALL of Creation and Her children. Only a fool could deny the RESIDUAL effects of the Afrikan Holocaust which continues to plague us. Indeed, the I mention Willy Lynch, which is an excellent point. Would the I agree that Willy Lynch is just as pleased with the ongoing effects of his MIND-SET inna Rastafari as he is with the rest of the Black Nations? Can it be denied that Rastafari Houses are also GUILTY of "allowing IGNORANCE and FANATICISM to disguise itself as RIGHTEOUS ZEAL for the cause"? When the Nyahbinghi House chants down the next house (or vice verca) because one sights "Jesus Christ" as being the "savior" while the other sights Gad, and yet the other sights or Prince Emmanuel, or Rastafari? Can it be denied that Rastafari also suffers DISUNITY and STAGNANCY due to squabbling over who is the "true messiah" and over the Divinity and Deification of Haile Selassie I? How many Rastafari Idren beat the next Idren over the Divine Nature of this god-man as opposed to INCULPORATING his Teachings and his Examples? It is in InI opinion (due to experience) that Rastafari sons and dawtahs spend much more energy in "comparing notes" (as to this house's principles/tenets versus that ones) than we do in Pan Afrikan WORKS. It is oddly remiscent of the the "jesus freaks" who exhault much more energy squabbling over the deification of the MAN rather than his teachings…
Is it so far fetched to say that the FALSE interpretations of our Afrikan Sacred Texts and Teachings have also bled into Rastafari? (EXCLUDING the Koptic Teachings, Faith, Church and Traditions of Haile Selassie and Eastern Koptic Christianity) Is it so far-fetched to admit that the OPRESSOR'S teachings and mindset also affect Rastafari? If RELIGIOSITY has effected the ENTIRE GLOBE, than how has Rastafari not been effected, seeing that we are still using his interpretations of the bible? How many Rastafarians actually follow the SAME TRADITIONS as His Majesty? How many Rastafarians read The Gospel of Myriam? How many venerate Myriam as did His Majesty? How many study Ge'ez and follow the ceremonies of the Koptic Church? How many Rastas have read the Quran, the Torah, etc, as did His Majesty? How many Rastafarians DEIFY the man rather than actually FOLLOW his teachings? Is Rastafari also guilty of BLIND FAITH and religious (King James) fanatisism? Who can deny having experienced the chanting down of one house or the other in the name of biblical differences, this scripture versus that one, and debates over who is the "messiah"? Can it be denied, for example, that the Nyahbinghi House would deny "membership to the inner circle" based on "religiosity" , treatment of the Afrikan goddess (woman), Pauline principles, etc?, or straight out deny the "rastaness" of this or that Idren based on their interpretations, rules, regulations, and order? Does not EVERY RASTA HOUSE consider itself more "rasta" then the next? Its akin to the "brown paper bag test", when degrees of melanin were used to define "blackness", only to turn around and have WE USE IT ON OURSELVES, not only in regards to light-skin/dark-skinn issues, but "degrees of Rastafarianism" based on this one or that one's interpretations, when in fact FEW, and I repeat FEW, actually follow the SAME TENETS AS HIS MAJESTY! Am I the only one to sight a CONtradiction here??
The treatment of RASTAFARI WOMEN and the SEVERE INBALANCE OF THE OMEGA PRINCIPLE is enough to make us realize that RELIGIOSITY and Pauline Teachings PERMEATE our "LIVITI". What about the Idren who INSULTS the Mother of Creation by sabotaging the works of Rastafari Women, in the name of "domestic duties", or chants down the sistren for being "feminists" or "lesbians" when in fact they are merely following the Nyahbingi Priniple of RESTORING THE OMEGA BALANCE? A nation which does NOT uplift its WOMEN is a nation DOOMED FOR FAILURE. The FACT that the eurocentric bible are still regurgitated among InI cannot be denied. The fact that EDUCATION is still considered "Babylon" by many Rases is not only a direct insult to Garvey and His Majesty, but "education" in and of itself is still misinterpreted among InI. Western education is mistaken for ecudation in general. How many Rases chant down the study of Ancient Khemet (Egypt) as being "pagan", STILL NOT OVERSTANDING that Khemet is KUSHITE in its very foundation. How many still chant down the Principle of Osiris and Isis (Auset and Ausar) as being "not rasta", when IN FACT, those very principles are IMBEDED and ORIGINATED out of Ethiopia? (ROOT of Rasta)
Indeed….RELIGIOSITY is alive and well among InI. Fanatisism and intolerance is alive and well inna Rastafari as it is elsewhere.
"Throughout the long history of black struggle for liberation there have always emerged leaders who became "GODS" AND "MESSIAHS". Their exalted status of honor and worship has been in most cases A RESPONSE TO THE SHEEP MENTALITY'S NEED FOR SOMEONE TO WORSHIP. In their SHEEP MENTALITY the people yearn for someone who will be SUPER-MAN, someone who will miraculously do all that they themselves fear to do or fail to do. This IRRESPONSIBLE condition opens the door wide for THOSE THAT CRAVE WORSHIP, and a circle of RELIGIOUS FANATICISM evolves to become an obstacle in the path of that liberation which both leader and follower claim to be pursuing."
"While the political campaigning, the fratricide, and CHARACTER ASSASSINATION is going on, the train of liberation slows to a halt...........AND WILLIE LYNCH LAUGHS. "Well done boys, keep it up"…
THE ABOVE TRUTHFUL STATEMENTS ARE JUST AS APPLICABLE TO SELF (RASTA NATION) AS THEY ARE TO BABYLON (OPPRESSOR)
THE ONLY TRUE "SAVIOR AND MESSIAH" IN THIS IWAH IS NOT IN THE HANDS OF ONE MAN, BUT IN THE RIZING OF OUR COLLECTIVE CONSCIOUSNESS AND RESPECT OF OUR DIFFERENCES WHILE ALL THE WHILE HONORING "ONE GOD, ONE AIM, ONE DESTINY AND ONE GOAL".
I have posed many THOUGHT PROVOKING questions, which may or may not present a response, however these questions are questions which we MUST ask of ourselves. It is not my intention to offend but to enlighten and create solutions in order for us to FORWARD IN UNITY UNDER THE BANNER OF THE BLACK, THE RED, GOLD AND GREEN. SELAH.
ROOTS
_________________________________________________
( IanI ) Irie Sistren
How could the I offend when the I writes such Wisdom? Only those that be guilty could be offended... seen.
The Wise One knows an sees the Truth. Perhaps the day or iwah will come when those that no see will recieve the Wisdom and embrace it. If not, sadly they too will go down and not forward. Jah know.
Give Thanks for the reasoning. Is strong and Power-Full!
In the Name of the Almighty Most High
Selassie I
IanI Rastafari
Guidance and Protection ``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xReligious Fanaticism: Is Rasta Guilty?``x998929088,43117,Rasta``x``x
``x "Racism has historically been a banner to justify the enterprises of expansion, conquest, colonization and domination and has walked hand in hand with intolerance, injustice and violence."
- Rigoberta Menchú Tum, Guatemalan Indigenous Leader and Nobel Peace Prize Laureate
"The Problem of Racism on the Threshold of the 21st Century"
"Doctrines of Dispossession" - Racism against Indigenous peoples
Historians and academics agree that the colonization of the New World saw extreme expressions of racism - massacres, forced-march relocations, the "Indian wars", death by starvation and disease. Today, such practices would be called ethnic cleansing and genocide. What seems even more appalling for contemporary minds is that the subjugation of the native peoples of the New World was legally sanctioned. "Laws" of "discovery", "conquest" and "terra nullius" made up the "doctrines of dispossession", according to Erica Irene Daes, chairperson/rapporteur of the United Nations Working Group on Indigenous Populations, in a study on indigenous peoples and their relationship to land.
Specifically, in the fifteenth century, two Papal Bulls set the stage for European domination of the New World and Africa. Romanus Pontifex, issued by Pope Nicholas V to King Alfonso V of Portugal in 1452, declared war against all non-Christians throughout the world, and specifically sanctioned and promoted the conquest, colonization, and exploitation of non-Christian nations and their territories. Inter Caetera, issued by Pope Alexander VI in 1493 to the King and Queen of Spain following the voyage of Christopher Columbus to the island he called Hispaniola, officially established Christian dominion over the New World. It called for the subjugation of the native inhabitants and their territories, and divided all newly discovered or yet-to-be discovered lands into two - giving Spain rights of conquest and dominion over one side of the globe and Portugal over the other. The subsequent Treaty of Tordesillas (1494) re-divided the globe with the result that most Brazilians today speak Portuguese rather than Spanish, as in the rest of Latin America. The Papal Bulls have never been revoked, although indigenous representatives have asked the Vatican to consider doing so.
These "doctrines of discovery" provided the basis for both the "law of nations" and subsequent international law. Thus, they allowed Christian nations to claim "unoccupied lands" (terra nullius), or lands belonging to "heathens" or "pagans". In many parts of the world, these concepts later gave rise to the situation of many Native peoples in the today - dependent nations or wards of the State, whose ownership of their land could be revoked - or "extinguished" -- at any time by the Government.
Indigenous leaders today contend that it is essentially discriminatory that native title does not confer the same privileges as ordinary title. According to Mick Dodson, an Australian Aboriginal lawyer, the concept of extinguishment "treats indigenous rights and interests in land as inferior to all other titles". According to indigenous law and custom, indigenous interests can only hold native title, and, according to the law put into place since then by the European immigrants, native title can be extinguished.
Indigenous Peoples in the 'New World'
The world's indigenous peoples - or "first peoples" - do not share the same story of colonization. In the New World, white European colonizers arrived and settled suddenly, with drastic results. The indigenous peoples were pushed aside and marginalized by the dominant descendents of Europeans. Some peoples have disappeared, or nearly so. Modern estimates place the 15th century, or pre-Columbus, population of North America at 10 to 12 million. By the 1890s, it had been reduced to approximately 300,000. In parts of Latin America, the results were similar; in others, there are still majority indigenous populations. But even in those areas, indigenous people are often at a disadvantage. Indigenous peoples in Latin America still face the same obstacles as indigenous peoples elsewhere - primarily, separation from their lands. And that separation is usually based on distinctions originally deriving from race.
Indigenous peoples in the 'Old World'
Among African peoples, there are clearly groups of peoples who have always lived where they are, who have struggled to maintain their culture, their language and their way of life, and who suffer problems similar to those of indigenous peoples everywhere, particularly when forcibly separated from their lands. These include poverty, marginalization, the loss of culture and language, and the subsequent problems of identity that often lead to social problems such as alcoholism and suicide. Because of these particular similarities, many people find it useful and suitable to consider such groups indigenous peoples.
The hunter-gatherer Forest Peoples (Pygmies) of the central African rainforests, comprising many groups, are threatened by conservation policies, logging, the spread of agriculture, and political upheavals and civil wars. They are usually at the bottom of the social structure. It is ironic that modern conservation policies intended to protect species of animals, not groups of humans, forbid many of these hunter-gatherers from hunting.
Nomadic pastoralist peoples like the Maasai and Samburu of east Africa are struggling with the encroachment of farming and conservation into their areas. As they are limited to smaller and smaller spaces, it becomes more and more difficult for them to maintain their livestock, especially in difficult periods, such as times of drought. Increasingly, they are being forced to move to urban areas.
The San, or Bushmen, of southern Africa have in some cases disappeared, or nearly so, as they have lost or been driven from their traditional homelands. Large numbers remain in Namibia, but they are usually impoverished and unable to live their traditional way of life. Many of them, with nowhere to go, have simply stayed, and now find themselves poorly paid laborers on farms - made up of their traditional territory -- now owned by whites or by other Africans.
The Imazighen (Berbers) are the indigenous peoples of northern Africa and the Sahel. The best known Imazighen may be the Tuareg. Most Imazighen who have not been assimilated live in the mountains or the desert. In Mediterranean areas, they have become sedentary; those living in the desert are usually nomadic. Today they exist as small linguistic pockets, with few, if any, cultural protections. Activists are working to maintain their language and culture.
"Well-intentioned" discrimination: the cost
In Australia, Canada and the United States, one practice which has only been recognized as discriminatory and damaging in the second half of the 20th century is the forced removal of Native/Aboriginal children from their homes. In Australia, the practice focused on mixed-race Aboriginal children, who were forcibly taken from their parents and given to adoptive white families. These children usually grew up without the knowledge that they were in fact partly Aboriginal. Today they have been named the "Stolen Generation".
In the US and Canada, Native children were sent to the notorious residential schools, which persisted well into the latter part of the 20th century. Language, religion and cultural beliefs were often the objects of ridicule. Speaking native words was forbidden, and often earned physical punishment - to force a stubborn Indian child to learn to speak good English. Contact with parents and family was often discouraged, or even disallowed. In the worst examples, to discourage run-aways, children were told their parents had died, that there was no home to return to; or, vice versa, to discourage parental visits, families were told that their children had died. In an ironic twist, these falsehoods sometimes proved prophetic: there were cases where children did run away in mid-winter, dressed only in nightclothes, hoping to find their way home. Today it is assumed that they froze to death, as their parents have never been able to find them.
In an earlier age, these actions were defended as being in the "best interests" of the Indian/Aboriginal child, to improve her chances in the modern world. Assimilation was the goal. The value inherent in indigenous cultures and knowledge was not then recognized.
In isolated areas, some residential schools attracted faculty and staff of the sort who prey on children. Extensive physical and sexual abuse has been documented. In North America, as the abuse has come to light, victims have been identified and there have been attempts to provide remedies and retribution.
The United Nations Tackles the Problem of Discrimination against Indigenous Populations
The United Nations first focused its attention formally on the problems of indigenous peoples in the context of its work against racism and discrimination.
In 1970, the Subcommission on Prevention and Discrimination and Protection of Minorities (a subsidiary body of the Commission on Human Rights) commissioned Special Rapporteur Martinez Cobo of Ecuador to undertake a study on "The Problem of Discrimination against Indigenous Populations". That monumental study, completed only in 1984, carefully documented modern discrimination against indigenous peoples and their precarious situation. His report catalogued the wide variety of laws in place to protect native peoples: some of these were discriminatory in concept, and others were routinely disregarded by the dominant community. It concluded that the continuous discrimination against indigenous peoples threatened their existence.
The report found that some governments denied that indigenous peoples existed within their borders. Others denied the existence of any kind of discrimination - in contradiction to the reality encountered. It described cases where the governmental authorities, when reporting on the situation of indigenous peoples, unwittingly betrayed their baldly discriminatory thinking. For example, a governmental official in the Americas replied to Mr. Cobo's request for information on "protective measures" by stating: "In our civil legislation, the Indians are not even included among the incapable persons." Another responded: "They are not inscribed in the Birth Register, which means that they have no legal civil personality. They are beings without political, social or economic obligations. They do not vote. They pay no taxes." A judicial decision concluded that an Indian could not be found guilty of homicide because of "unsurmountable ignorance", stating "Although in our country they belong to the category of Citizens with rights and duties…. The Indian does not reach the text of Law. He does not understand it."
The establishment of the United Nations Working Group on Indigenous Populations in 1982 was a direct result of the Cobo study. Consisting of five independent experts, the Working Group meets annually in Geneva, and, until now, has been the only arena in the United Nations system in which indigenous peoples could state their views. The United Nations International Decade of the World's Indigenous People (1995-2004) has helped to focus efforts in the UN system on two primary goals: the creation of a Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, and the drafting of a declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples. The draft Declaration is still under consideration by the UN Commission on Human Rights. The Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), the UN Charter body to which the Commission on Human Rights reports, recently took steps to establish the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, which will consist of eight governmental experts and eight indigenous representatives. Indigenous representatives will for the first time be allowed to address directly an official United Nations Charter body, ECOSOC.
Due to growing concerns about the environment, the activity undertaken by the Working Group and other United Nations bodies and the advocacy work carried on by indigenous groups and non-governmental organizations, indigenous peoples worldwide are receiving increasing attention from their respective governments. Countries such as Canada, Australia and the United States have focused efforts on settling land claims with indigenous groups and on achieving reconciliation for past injuries, including those done in the name of assimilation. In Scandinavia, the native Saami have established a parliamentary forum across their national borders. In Africa, indigenous groups have just begun to mobilize. In other areas, indigenous groups have taken strong positions in defiance of their governments. And in a first, a UN-brokered peace agreement in the civil war in Guatemala gave a specific role to indigenous peoples. But a lot has not been settled.
Retribution: Land claims and more
Native groups have made a great deal of progress in pursuing land claims, particularly in the Americas and Australia. Of particular note is is Nunavut, Canada's newest and largest territory. Established on 1 April 1999 to be a homeland for the Inuit, who make up 85 per cent of its population, it was the result of the process that began in the early 1970s when Canada decided to negotiate settlements with aboriginal groups that filed land claims. The establishment of Nunavut represents a new level of indigenous self-determination in Canada.
In response to the reports of widespread abuse in the residential school system, the Law Commission of Canada in 1996 published a report, "Restoring Dignity: Responding to Child Abuse in Canadian Institutions". In its research, the Commission found that, in addition to physical and sexual abuse, it was imperative to also consider the emotional, racial and cultural abuse. Following the report, the Government of Canada announced a new programme "Gathering Strength - an Aboriginal Action Plan". It called for a renewed partnership with Aboriginal people based on recognizing past mistakes and injustices, the advancement of reconciliation, healing and renewal, and the building of a joint plan for the future. The Government also offered a Statement of Reconciliation, in which it said "To those of you who suffered this tragedy at residential schools, we are deeply sorry."
Unfortunately, it has become apparent that resolving such emotionally charged issues will take a great deal of time and commitment. With over 6,000 lawsuits currently seeking reparations for physical and sexual abuse, the Churches who ran the schools for the Canadian Government and who are co-defendants in the suits report that they are facing almost certain bankruptcy. And a number of the victims of abuse have committed suicide.
Elsewhere in North America, the United States is also in the process of settling many land claims. Some Indian Nations have successfully established a level of sovereignty. A few have established casinos that have become multi-billion dollars industries and that provide needed jobs to depressed areas - and not just to residents of the reservation.
In one particularly difficult case, the Federal Government has filed suit against New York State for illegally acquiring and selling land belonging to the Oneida Nation - land that is now occupied by thousands of upset American homeowners. While the Oneida Nation has insisted throughout that they have no intention of seizing anyone's land or evicting anyone, feelings have run very high. Death threats have been made.
The Cayugas, the Senecas, the Mohawks and the Onondagas - all Haudenosaunee, or members of the Iroquois Confederacy, along with the Oneida Nation - also have claims on property in New York State. Because the population of New York State is much more dense than in most other areas of "Indian country", these may prove difficult to resolve to everyone's mutual satisfaction.
Pine Ridge Reservation, in South Dakota, is the poorest county in the United States of America. The midwestern states are also the site of more obvious racism against Native Americans. It has been commonly charged that there are two tiers of justce, one for Native Americans and another for "whites". Native Americans say that crimes committed against them - including those resulting in death - receive only a cursory investigation, while crimes committed against "whites", allegedly committed by Native Americans, are fiercely prosecuted. And daily expressions of racism of the type long thought to exist only in memory still occur -- but the apparent recipients are Native Americans. The segregated lunch counters of the South may no longer exist, but Native Americans say they are not surprised when they are refused service in a coffee shop. Such experiences of Native Americans living in Indian Country, however, are not known to vast majority of American citizens. Which gives rise to another question: is racism against Native Americans less likely to be covered by the mainstream media?
World Conference against Racism
Copyright United Nations 2001 ``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xThe Phantom of Racism Racism and Indigenous Peoples``x999041936,61391,Articles``x``x
``xAt least by 1,000BC Ethiopia, Eritrea and what is southern Yemen were part of a large empire known as the Sabean Kingdoms. The connections of Ethiopia and Arabia should not be surprising as the distance between the East African horn and Southern Arabia is minimal. In fact recent linguistic study indicates that the Semitic languages of Arabia and the Middle East may well be a branch of a larger Ethiopian language group.
It is also well known that this Eastern Horn-Arabian route was used for millennia by the earliest homonid migrants who later populated Asia. The people of Sabea were probably a mixture of East Africans and their Southern Arabian descendants who had long populated the region. Saba had a very matrifocal society with a host of female dieties. According to the Kebra Negast, a holy book of Ethiopia, it is said that Makedda herself created a dictate stating "only a woman can rule." Polyandry, the practice of taking more than one husband by a woman, and tracing one's kinship based upon matrilineal descent was common.
The earliest known Arabian temple was at Marib (in Southern Yemen), capital of Saba, and was called Mahram Bilqus, "precincts of the Queen of Saba." The Arabs called this woman, Bilqus or Balkis; in Ethiopia, Makedda (also Magda, Maqda and Makera), meaning "Greatness." Years later, the Jewish historian Josephus, referred to her as "Nikaulis, Queen of Ethiopia." She is the celebrated Queen of Sheba of the Bible who is described as "black and comely." Located in a strategic location, Saba flourished as a trading community in goods from Asia as well as Africa. Even coffee drinkers trace the original cup to Ethiopia's Kefa region. Pictured above are the ruins of Marib, built between the 1st and 2nd Millennium BC.
(Information Courtesy of Yemeni website and African Presence in Early Asia ed. by Ivan Van Sertima) MORE``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xAncient Abyssinia/Saba ``x999068400,8993,Articles``x``x
``xThe skin is the place where Vitamin D is synthesized using ultraviolet rays to catalyze the reaction. So you need some ultraviolet light to penetrate the skin in order to make Vitamin D. Vitamin D turns out to be critical to your body because it provides the means whereby you absorb calcium from your food in your digestive system. So if you don't have Vitamin D, you can't absorb calcium from your food and you can't build strong bones.
Making the proper skin color turns out to be a balancing act between having enough natural sunscreen to prevent a lot of damage to the contents of the blood system. On the other hand, you have to let in enough ultraviolet light to still permit the formation of Vitamin D in your skin. So people who live in conditions of lower ultraviolet light, away from the tropics and toward the poles, have to have lighter skin than those people who live closer to the tropics or closer to the equator. Those people really have to have darker skin to protect themselves from ultraviolet light.
Those who are sort of in the middle, like inhabitants of most of North America and most of Eurasia, have to have skin that is capable of some level of tanning so that we can protect ourselves from lots of ultraviolet radiation in the late spring and summer. But we can de-pigment ourselves as ultraviolet light becomes less intense in the winter so we can take advantage of the ambient ultraviolet radiation that does exist.
If we look at our earliest Homo sapiens ancestors (about 100 to 150 thousand years ago in eastern Africa), we can reconstruct that those ancestors would have had dark skin to protect themselves from the deleterious effects of ultraviolet light. But those populations began to move out of the tropics and colonize areas that were much less intense in terms of ultraviolet light. As they first moved into the Circum Mediterranean, Western Asia, then onward into Eastern Asia, Europe, Southeast Asia, Australia and so forth, these populations would have to undergo some depigmentation in order for them to be able to synthesize enough Vitamin D in their skin. More
Skin Comes in Colors
Human Skin Pigmentation
Testosterone and Evolution of Skin Color in Humans ``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xWhy Skin Comes in Colors``x999105886,73305,Members``x``x
``xBy Lord Anthony Gifford, British Queens Counsel
and Jamaican Attorney-at-Law
I believe that the cause of Reparations to Africa and Africans in the Diaspora is rooted in fundamental justice - a justice which over-arches every struggle and campaign which African people have waged to assert their human dignity. For the iniquities perpetrated against African people today - whether in South Africa by the apartheid regime, in Mozambique and Angola by terrorist forms of de stabilisation, in Britain and the USA by racist attacks and by systems of discrimination - are the continuing consequences, the damages as lawyers would say, flowing from the 400-years-long atrocity of the slave system.
For me as a lawyer it is essential to locate the claim for Reparations within a framework of law and justice. If this were merely an appeal to the conscience of the White world, it would be misconceived. For while there have been many committed individuals and movements of solidarity in the White world, its political an economic power centres have evidenced a ruthless lack of conscience when it comes to Black and African peoples.
But in my experience progress has been made when the powers that rule in the white world have been compelled to recognise that the rights of non-white peoples are founded in justice. It is then that forms of legal redress, which may not have existed before, have been devised.
For example, it used to be perfectly legal in Britain, only 25 years ago, for landlords or employers to put up notices which said "VACANCIES - NO COLOUREDS". Today any employer who discriminates on racial grounds can be required by a Tribunal to pay compensation.
At an intentional level, apartheid in South Africa used to be regarded as an internal affair, however regrettable. But over the years apartheid became recognised as a crime against humanity and a threat to peace, so that international sanctions could be imposed.
This is not to say that the achievement of legal sanctions brings automatic justice. This has not happened either in Britain or South Africa. But these examples show that the demand for justice and legality is an essential element in the struggle for a just cause.
So it is with the claim for Reparations. Indeed, once you accept, as I do, the truth of three propositions. More http://www.arm.arc.co.uk/legalBasis.html``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xThe legal basis of the claim for Reparations ``x999206405,75811,Articles``x``x
``xExcellencies:
Delegates and guests:
Racism, racial discrimination and xenophobia are not naturally instinctive reactions of the human beings but rather a social, cultural and political phenomenon born directly of wars, military conquests, slavery and the individual or collective exploitation of the weakest by the most powerful all along the history of human societies.
No one has the right to boycott this Conference which tries to bring some sort of relief to the overwhelming majority of mankind afflicted by unbearable suffering and enormous injustice. Neither has anyone the right to set preconditions to this conference or urge it to avoid the discussion of historical responsibility, fair compensation or the way we decide to rate the dreadful genocide perpetrated, at this very moment, against our Palestinian brothers by extreme right leaders who, in alliance with the hegemonic superpower, pretend to be acting on behalf of another people which throughout almost two thousand years was the victim of the most fierce persecution, discrimination and injustice that history has known.
Cuba speaks of reparations, and supports this idea as an unavoidable moral duty to the victims of racism, based on a major precedent, that is, the indemnification being paid to the descendants of the Hebrew people which in the very heart of Europe suffered the brutal and loathsome racist holocaust. However, it is not with the intent to undertake an impossible search for the direct descendants or the specific countries of the victims of actions occurred throughout centuries. The irrefutable truth is that tens of millions of Africans were captured, sold like a commodity and sent beyond the Atlantic to work in slavery while 70 million indigenous people in that hemisphere perished as a result of the European conquest and colonization.
The inhuman exploitation imposed on the peoples of three continents, including Asia, marked forever the destiny and lives of over 4.5 billion people living in the Third World today whose poverty, unemployment, illiteracy and health rates as well as their infant mortality, life expectancy and other calamities --too many, in fact, to enumerate here-- are certainly awesome and harrowing. They are the current victims of that atrocity which lasted centuries and the ones who clearly deserve compensation for the horrendous crimes perpetrated against their ancestors and peoples.
Actually, such a brutal exploitation did not end when many countries became independent, not even after the formal abolition of slavery. Right after independence, the main ideologists of the American Union that emerged when the 13 colonies got rid of the British domination at the end of the 18th century, advanced ideas and strategies unquestionably expansionist in nature.
It was based on such ideas that the ancient white settlers of European descent, in their march to the West, forcibly occupied the lands in which Native- Americans had lived for thousands of years thus exterminating millions of them in the process. But, they did not stop at the boundaries of the former Spanish possessions; consequently Mexico, a Latin American country that had attained its independence in 1821, was stripped off millions of square kilometers of territory and invaluable natural resources.
Meanwhile, in the increasingly powerful and expansionist nation born in North America, the obnoxious and inhumane slavery system stayed in place for almost a century after the famous Declaration of Independence of 1776 was issued, the same that proclaimed that all men were born free and equal.
After the purely formal slave emancipation, African- Americans were subjected during one hundred more years to the harshest racial discrimination, and many of its features and consequences still persist after almost four more decades of heroic struggles and the achievements of the 1960's, for which Martin Luther King, Jr., Malcolm X and other outstanding fighters gave their lives. Based on a purely racist rationale, the longest and most severe legal sentences are passed against African-Americans who in the wealthy American society are bound to live in dare poverty and with the lowest living standards.
Likewise, what is left of the Native-American peoples, which were the first to inhabit a large portion of the current territory of the United States of America, remain under even worse conditions of discrimination and neglect.
Needless to mention the data on the social and economic situation of Africa where entire countries and even whole regions of Sub-Saharan Africa are in risk of extinction the result of an extremely complex combination of economic backwardness, excruciating poverty and grave diseases, both old and new, that have become a true scourge. And the situation is no less dramatic in numerous Asian countries. On top of all this, there are the huge and unpayable debts, the disparate terms of trade, the ruinous prices of basic commodities, the demographic explosion, the neoliberal globalization and the climate changes that produce long draughts alternating with increasingly intensive rains and floods. It can be mathematically proven that such a predicament is unsustainable.
The developed countries and their consumer societies, presently responsible for the accelerated and almost unstoppable destruction of the environment, have been the main beneficiaries of the conquest and colonization, of slavery, of the ruthless exploitation and the extermination of hundreds of millions of people born in the countries that today constitute the Third World. They have also reaped the benefits of the economic order imposed on humanity after two atrocious and devastating wars for a new division of the world and its markets, of the privileges granted to the United States and its allies in Bretton-Woods, and of the IMF and the international financial institutions exclusively created by them and for them.
That rich and squandering world is in possession of the technical and financial resources necessary to pay what is due to mankind. The hegemonic superpower should also pay back its special debt to African- Americans, to Native-Americans living in reservations, and to the tens of millions of Latin American and Caribbean immigrants as well as others from poor nations, be they mulatto, yellow or black, but victims all of vicious discrimination and scorn.
It is high time to put an end to the dramatic situation of the indigenous communities in our hemisphere. Their own awakening and struggles, and the universal admission of the monstrosity of the crime committed against them make it imperative.
There are enough funds to save the world from the tragedy.
May the arms race and the weapon commerce that only bring devastation and death truly end.
Let it be used for development a good part of the one trillion US dollars annually spent on the commercial advertising that creates false illusions and inaccessible consumer habits while releasing the venom that destroys the national cultures and identities.
May the modest 0.7 percentage point of the Gross National Product promised as official development assistance be finally delivered.
May the tax suggested by Nobel Prize Laureate James Tobin be imposed in a reasonable and effective way on the current speculative operations accounting for trillions of US dollars every 24 hours, then the United Nations, which cannot go on depending on meager, inadequate, and belated donations and charities, will have one trillion US dollars annually to save and develop the world. Given the seriousness and urgency of the existing problems, which have become a real hazard for the very survival of our specie on the planet, that is what would actually be needed before it is too late.
Put and end to the ongoing genocide against the Palestinian people that is taking place while the world stares in amazement. May the basic right to life of that people, children and youth, be protected. May their right to peace and independence be respected; then, there will be nothing to fear from UN documents.
I am aware that the need for some relief from the awful situation their countries are facing has led many friends from Africa and other regions to suggest the need for such prudence as would allow something to come out of this conference. I sympathize with them but I cannot renounce my convictions, as I feel that the more candid we are in telling the truth the more possibilities there will be to be heeded and respected. There have been enough centuries of deception.
I have only three other short questions based on realities that cannot be ignored.
The capitalist, developed and wealthy countries today participate of the imperialist system born of capitalism itself and the economic order imposed to the world based on the philosophy of selfishness and the brutal competition between men, nations and groups of nations which in completely indifferent to any feelings of solidarity and honest international cooperation. They live under the misleading, irresponsible and hallucinating atmosphere of consumer societies. Thus, regardless the sincerity of their blind faith in such a system and the convictions of their most serious statesmen, I wonder: Will they be able to understand the grave problems of today's world which in its incoherent and uneven development is ruled by blind laws, by the huge power and the interests of the ever growing and increasingly uncontrollable and independent transnational corporations?
Will they come to understand the impending universal chaos and rebellion? And, even if they wanted to, could they put an end to racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and other related issues, which are precisely the rest of them all?
From my viewpoint we are on the verge of a huge economic, social and political global crisis. Let's try to build an awareness about these realities and the alternatives will come up. History has shown that it is only from deep crisis that great solutions have emerged. The peoples' right to life and justice will definitely impose itself under a thousand different shapes.
I believe in the mobilization and the struggle of the peoples! I believe in the idea of justice! I believe in truth! I believe in man!
Thank you.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xFidel Castro Address Durbin Conference on Racism``x999354203,4849,Development``x``x
``x( ABSTRACT BBC: ) African leaders at the international conference on racism in the South African city of Durban have agreed that the West must apologise for slavery and colonialism, but are still divided over the issue of reparations.
One of the speakers at the conference, Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo, has come out against reparations.
Mr Obasanjo told the delegates an apology would recognise the wrong that was committed against Africans and constitute a promise that such an atrocity would never happen again.
With an apology, "the issue of reparations ceases to be a rational option", he said during his formal address to the conference on Saturday morning.
But the President of Togo, Gnassingbe Eyadema, said reparations were necessary to compensate for the horrors of the slave trade and colonialism.
Africans and people of African descent have noted that compensation is now being paid to Jewish survivors of the Holocaust and their descendents.
They are demanding the same kind of reparations for the descendents of those who were enslaved because they were black.
Reparations could come in the form of a cancellation of African debt and greater development aid, some African delegates hope.
Cuban President Fidel Castro has supported the call for reparations, saying that countries that made money through human trafficking could afford to pay.
"This is an unavoidable moral duty," Mr Castro said.
The Cuban leader criticised the US for lowering the level of its delegation at the conference because of the discussion of what he called Israeli genocide against Palestinians.
"(Nobody) has the right to set preconditions to the conference or urge it to avoid the discussion...(of) the way we decide to rate the dreadful genocide perpetrated, at this very moment, against our Palestinian brothers," Mr Castro said. ``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xFidel Castro has supported the call for reparations``x999389257,73180,Members``x``x
``x( Jahmeek ) I have seen cotton but I have never seen a white man. I have seen crisp ash but I have never seen seen a black man. I have seen blood but I have never seen a red man. I have seen dandelion but have never seen a yellow man. As a child I was never taught about differance in people by skin so how could I beleive iNi are anything but one of a creation of JAH 1 LUV
________________________________________________________
( RootsWomb(man) ) InI have seen the Black Man's (Afrikan) Holocaust at the hands of white (european) men. Black Man was tortured for 500 years plus so the white man's cotton could make him richer. InI have seen the Black Woman raped for hundreds of years for the pleasure of white men. InI see a global white supremist system still oppressing ALL PEOPLE OF COLOR. InI sight that the white man's religions and texts still pass as the "infallible world of god." InI sight that the white man is still MISEDUCATING the world.
Yes we are all ONE inna Creation...
But WHICH MAN has caused more destruction everywhere he has stepped foot? WHich man has NOT been his brother's keeper? Which man has caused more destruction unto Creation than any other?
IT is one thing to have a Utopian vision, which we all look forward to...It is another to face REALITY.
Teach the youths the TRUTH. Teach the youths that a man without the knowledge of his past is as a tree without roots. Teach the youths about Marcus! Teach the youths about the HALF WHICH HAS NEVER BEEN TOLD! Teach the youths OUR-STORY! TEach the youths that "One Love" sounds pretty in songs, but a REVOLUTION of the Mind and Spirit must manifest, least "world peace" is but an illusion to be persued but never attained. Teach the youths GET UP, STAND UP FOR THEIR RIGHTS! Teach the youths to HONOR THEIR ANCESTORS and to RE-BUILD a New and United Afrika!
ROOTS
________________________________________________________
( Jeff ) I have tried to hold my tongue while I read messages like this on these Rasta boards. I have was even convinced that this philosophy might be True and Right. Well, I know that the history you and certain others speak of is True, of course! Why sweep history under a carpet?
Come out with it and accept it and move on.....try and work together to create solutions, for ALL race issues wreaking havoc on this earth. Even in Japan there is race issues within those of the same Asian Blood! Half caste and things.....Tibet and China, Irish Protestants and Catholics, Hindu caste shituation, not to mention race issue within the Latin community, or shall we forget the Greek Spartans enslaving the whole Greek Healots three thousand years ago....and race issues within the African Community!
Race/speration issues between Black and White, Asian and White, Latinos, Indian...etc etc....etc etc.......on and on.....and on and on.....and then on and on again and again.....Sister, the devil within rules Man's hearts again and again.
Time to stop all the foolishness, back-biting, blaming, GENRALIZING GROUPS OF PEOPLE....and start to work together before we decide our fate on this beautiful Creation JAH has given us. I am but a poor, struggling "White" guy with a family, but I still want to do my part in Forwarding the Human Race. This ain't no "hippy" one love-thing, this is REALITY for All of us! We need to put aside blame and generalizing and work together for the sake of our childrens' children.
JAH Bless Us All,
Jeff
________________________________________________________
( qe ) Blessed love, Ras Jeff, that was beautifully written in the spirit of HIM words that were left to guide us. though we surely can change no one's behavior but our own, give thanks for this timely and spiritual reminder of i'n'i goals--as set forth by Selassie-I, the Elect of God. BIG UP and raspect in every aspect--out of many i'n'i have CHOSEN to be ONE--one love, one people, one destiny, RASTAFARI!
________________________________________________________
( Ras Trevor Henry ) It is amazing how every time I an I try to move forward there are those who would see the need to distract and engage in debates that serves suspect purposes. There are many issues of Rastafari to be dealt with and there are those whose focus is on anything but I an I.
Please Brethren and Sistren do not get caught in those sterile debates. The nswers still would not satisfy some people, plus there is always Rastafari work to be doing. Several Boards have been destroyed by a certain attitude, but none has been built by it. Rastafari love
________________________________________________________
( Akinkawon ) >>>> Come out with it and accept it and move on.....try and work together to create solutions, for ALL race issues wreaking havoc on this earth. <<<<
That "come out with it and accept it and move on" comes over quite condescending and disrespectful. You can easily shave your head and fit into the echelons of the European Capitalistic System. You would have less of a problem getting a job and your wages may be far higher that that of an African with similar abilities. Whether you admit it or not although you are a White Rasta, you are still part of the European privileged class and at this time you are enjoying the best of two worlds; the soul of struggling people together with accessibility to a more materially 'privileged group'.
Why should any reasonable person choose to accept a wrong that persists today?
EXAMPLE:
Here it is qe rushes in again to agree with a platitude in another vain attempt to silence the voices of history. She has no problem with you posting without an email address. (This is not of concern to me but you are quite fortunate you were not someone else.)
What do you think we are dealing with if not the same slave mentality of worshiping Whites as superior coupled with another form of negative discrimination where wrongs are tolerated from one's peer group but for everyone else its a crime. Why do you feel so many christianized Rastafarians have a problem addressing Women's issues? We are dealing with the poor representation of women and Africans in their bibles and their ignorance of world history. Although many readily admit that these stories took place in Africa, it is done in a token manner and with contempt for our ancestors. Just examine what occurs whenever someone presents African History on this Board.
If people cannot find errors in Roots Woman's post, then what is there to oppose. Why is it necessary to mention all the other European crimes against other Europeans to show that everyone suffered? Whenever people talk about racial and gender discrimination that persists today Europeans try to control and dictate how the discussions must go.
It is not as if Europeans improved on what was in Africa when they went there but they destroyed what they placed their hands on. Even when they give 'aid/s' today it reaffirms in the minds of those ignorant of history that more White saviors have come (White idolatry is sustained).
Many on this Board use Christianity, with all its misrepresentations and contradictions coupled with their own misunderstandings to evaluate life.
How could reminding others of the atrocities committed against our ancestors be considered divisive or wrong if these events are true? We are still living through the oppressions of the past. Why is it necessary for Africans to develop amnesia in order to get along with others but everyone else is entitled to bombard us with their version of their sufferings? I do not hear many people calling the Jews divisive for showing numerous documentaries about their holocaust.
All the atrocities Jeff mentioned are about what Whites did to other Whites or non-whites and Europeans have little problems with compensating each other, but the issue of Slavery and cultural genocide should be placed on the back burner.
It was through slavery people were forced to adopt Christianity with its corruption of African philosophies. Today many Africans cannot even call a spade a spade. Look at the corruption before your eyes.
African Historians and sages have always spoken of the 'equality' of humans and Christianized Rastafarians and other Christianized Africans discard these brilliant minds in favor of a White Male Idol. Publicly they will disagree, but when you look at the amount of Africans who damage their skin using bleaching agents we know there is a serious problem.
With the exception of a few Rastafarians like IanI who post on this forum, most modern Rastafarians entered the movement because of both mental and material poverty. They just wanted to be accepted in a peer group notwithstanding their financial disposition. This is the reason many who call themselves Rastafarians today are no different to any other group of people who are ignorant of History and authentic cultural values. They were poor "Christians" and became poor Rastafarians with the same misunderstood Christian values.
People should not get me wrong as all of this is quite understandable but Rastafarian as a movement is still in search of core values to distinguish its body from the sea of ignorance.
This is the ongoing legacy of discrimination, which other Africans on this Board mentioned, that is part of the struggles of more enlightened African people today. Even on this Board Males and Females have problems conversing with reasoning Women.
For me, it is not a struggle about fighting for a bunch of ignorant people who don't care, or are unaware, but it is about the welfare of children under my tutorship.
In my country we have to privately raise funds (mostly from our own pockets) to put a better African story in schools. We have to use our personal funds to teach a better story about most other people. Christianized people including Africans do not support such efforts. They teach the children to live in hope of a salvation that never comes and is not of their understanding. All major ‘religious organizations’ are largely responsible for the poor mental health and the dependency syndrome that exists today.
Who are some persons on these public forums trying to put down? Is it the more enlightened person who can communicate a better story? Is it the person more knowledgeable of our past who can best ensure we do not repeat errors? Or are people advocating more hypocrisy, amnesia, and dependency so that a few could feel comfortable in the short term at the expense of our children’s well being.
I could only speak for myself as a teacher who encourages students to follow these discussions to get a better understanding of the problems.
My position is quite simple; any group that does not have at the head of its agenda, the issues of race and gender misrepresentations together with the reappraisal of World history/culture to encourage a better human story, is fraudulent and irrelevant in today’s context.
________________________________________________________
( qe ) THE SAD GAME
Blame
Keeps the sad game going.
It keeps stealing all your wealth -
Giving it to an imbecile with
No financial skills.
Dear one,
Wise
Up.
("The Gift" - versions of Hafiz by Daniel Ladinsky)
________________________________________________________
( TsunamiJobu ) I am new to this message board. Quite a few of the messages portray a people dwelling on the past and the anger associated with it. Justly so, I might add but, it is much better to learn from the past than to dwell on it.
I am a white man living in Compton, California, a ghetto of sorts, where I deal with people of all colors, races (if you believe they exist), ethic, and cultural backgrounds. I deal with discrimination on a daily basis, being THE minority in that city. I could take the discrimination to heart or just realize some people are ignorant. I choose the latter. The racial relations amongst the youngest generations are the best. We need to focus on these new generations to make it a better tomorrow.
I'm not saying ignore the past, we should teach the past and mourn its victims together as a society of equal, loving people. I feel the pain of the mistreated from the past and the present. Reparations have been made, my ancestors killed fighting for civil rights. I have decided to learn from the pasts mistakes and my own misfortune. I live my life to help better racial relations. We are all of the same person. It is time to teach that to our children in order to make their lives and the lives of their children better.
22 year old student
________________________________________________________
( Akinkawon ) >>>> Quite a few of the messages portray a people dwelling on the past and the anger associated with it. Justly so, I might add but, it is much better to learn from the past than to dwell on it. <<<<<
What you might call dwelling on the past could be people simply using the past to inform their present. Many do have a right to be angry and should remain angry until they realize justice. People who are profiting from past sins are tied to past and present oppressions.
An illusion of a future in amnesia of past oppressors and victims is a fertile ground for repeating oppressions. To me, people who live in ignorance of our greatest past are stuck in the abusive aspect of our past.
I can speak for a few of us, and we dwell so far back in the past that we are the future.
If the future is about a more enlightened, self-reliant, hard working, creative people who can comfortably take care of their needs without stepping on the rights of others? Then some of us live in that state presently, which is deeply, deeply rooted in the past. Not just the past of human degradation, but all of the past including our Universal origins.
In other words, some of us went back to the future. If you think of it you would realize it is the only way.
________________________________________________________
( TsunamiJobu ) True, yet while dwelling on the past some people do not realize the future. Some atrocities can never be repaid. Understand?
And even if I could repay those atrocities, why should I be held responsible for something people did a long time ago that just happened to have the same skin color as me? The enemies are in the past. You will never be able to fight them there. Understand? I realize that the majority of people in my surrounding area suffer from some sort of prejudice. I am here to tell you that I do not. It is possible to have a white person not act with prejudice. With that knowledge I know that it is possible to have a large society, like the U.S., not suffer from prejudices. All we need is time and effort. This is a circular argument so I will not go on much further.
One question for you: "What you might call dwelling on the past could be people simply using the past to inform their present. Many do have a right to be angry and should remain angry until they realize justice. People who are profiting from past sins are tied to past and present oppressions."
What is this "justice" people need to realize? Is it feasible? Is it productive to society? Will this "justice" make the world a better place? Will it be a race war? Or maybe we lock up all us white folk for being white? That will show us right? What is going to have to happen? I don't think there are any decent answers to these questions. Me and you are fighting the same fight. The enemy is the ignorance of the past. We need to teach it in order for people to learn from it. We shouldn't use it to fuel peoples anger.
Living in the past is a great idea. And quite feasible as well. How far do we want to go? Human origin? Just tell me where the undisputed place and time it was where life began.
________________________________________________________
( Akinkawon ) >>> True, yet while dwelling on the past some people do not realize the future. Some atrocities can never be repaid. Understand? <<<
This is funny, are you also the one to determine when people should evolve?
Yes, the atrocities committed against many people can never be repaid in a material sense, but at least Europeans and some so called Africans can make a good effort. A few trillion dollars to invest in education is a good place to start. The education is not only for Africans but for Europeans and everyone else also . Those with the slave mentality are equally as sick as those with the slave master's mentality.
>>> And even if I could repay those atrocities, why should I be held responsible for something people did a long time ago that just happened to have the same skin color as me? <<<
You are not being personally held responsible for everything. Most people including many Africans are also responsible. But there is the question of the personal responsibilities of individuals. You need to learn European History if you are really White, because you did not just happen to be White. White was the necessary depigmentation of some people for their survival and this should be understood and respected.
When some of us speak of White, we are mostly speaking about an attitude and not necessarily White/European people.
You are held responsible because you benefited from the sins. If you are advancing the argument that because you did not personally commit the crime you cannot be held liable, then the other side of that argument should be upheld as a principle. You did not work for the money so you are not entitled to any inheritance. I do not hear Whites questioning this principle whenever they are on the receiving end.
People live in societies that deny meritocracy and most Whites happily enjoy the comforts. These comforts are part of your inheritance; these are the sins of parents being passed onto children.
Why is it right for Israel, Britain, Spain, Portugal, France, Belgium etc to build memorials for their dead and preserve the legacy of their brutalities and it is wrong for Africans to revisit the past?
Today many Whites are revisiting the African past to learn more about where they came from but when Africans do the same many Whites and colonized Africans say we are dwelling on the past.
Some Whites in an attempt to deal with the legacy of European miseducation unintentionally commit more wrongs. They now often repeat the diatribe that race is insignificant, but they are the ones getting the large grants to do the explorations. They are still benefiting from their skin color but try to feed the lie that race is insignificant.
The differences in people are not only about melanin to protect from ultraviolet rays, but these differences speak about people’s evolution and how they developed their worldview. Today differences in many people explain greater sins and amnesia. People are doing dangerous things to get straight hair and lighten their complexion. This is about economics, which is tied to the White skin color, so for many of those bleaching their skins it is about survival for which they are prepared to risk their lives.
They know the truth about economic resources being tied to skin color and they are not easily going to move from that position unless more people can present a better model of development that respects all manner of people.
>>> The enemies are in the past. You will never be able to fight them there. Understand? I realize that the majority of people in my surrounding area suffer from some sort of prejudice. I am here to tell you that I do not. It is possible to have a white person not act with prejudice. <<<
Ignorance and Greed, the two major enemies are not in our past but are very present today. And people negatively discriminate against others today. Sir, apparently you do not know the meaning of prejudice and when you are clear on the meaning you should revisit these discussions. You may be surprised to discover you are prejudice and possibly a racist. But that does not necessarily make you an evil person. You could be unaware of the numerous things you say and do that negatively impact on others. You could be making these comments to simply provoke discussions.
It is impossible for America to rid itself of racial and gender discriminations. The entire American economy is built on these poor qualities and if America were ever to genuinely pay for crimes committed against other people then America would have no money. You sir would be migrating to Africa to seek employment.
Yes it is possible to have a White person act without prejudice but I have not met one as yet. It is even difficult to find people who are not prejudice among all other people. But yes, it is possible but that comes through constant work on oneself.
>>> What is this "justice" people need to realize? Is it feasible? Is it productive to society? Will this "justice" make the world a better place? Will it be a race war? <<<
Justice is achieved by individuals who are self realized. But this justice does not come through amnesia but through seeking out more improved ways to address problems and live in harmony with nature.
Some people may resort to fighting with Whites, and that is understandable, however they would not get my support as I know the problem is not simply about Whites versus Blacks, but good over bad and right over wrong and in this respect many Africans are also on the side of wrong.
Your last point is a muddle of your own senses. However, we all have our past with us presently. Most people are simply ignorant of the true meaning of "You must know where you came from to know where you are going."
I will end by saying that in essence where you came from is exactly where you are striving to go to achieve happiness.
________________________________________________________
( RootsWomb(man) ) Greetings Akinkawon,
Give thanks for the I's CRUCIAL WORD SOUND AND POWER!!!! Teach dem....teach dem!!!!!!
Also, it is CLASSICALLY EUROCENTRIC to seperate the Past from the Present and Future. The Afrikan Mind KNOWS that PAST PRESENT AND FUTURE ARE ONE! That is why First World Peoples HONOR their Ancestors. It is also why Marcus taught us that A MAN WITHOUT THE KNOWLEDGE OF HIS PAST IS AS A TREE WITHOUT ROOTS. We are the PRESENT which CONNECTS the past with the future. It is a CYCLICAL movement. Not a LINEAR one. The linear mentallity is european by nature.
ONWARD AND FORWARD TO ANCIENT FUTURE! SANKOFA!
ROOTS
________________________________________________________
( TsunamiJobu ) I never realized, until now, that I was born with sins that can never be repaid. And I am obligated for life to repay these sins to others simply based on the color of my skin. My children (as long as their white?) will inherit these sins and pass them to their children and so on and so on.
Thank you for opening my eyes to the eternal damnation of my race. Human? Is there a human race?
Afraid not, just a bunch of different colored people, without the ability to forgive, running around mad at each other, for the un-repayable, sinful actions they committed on each other.
It is nice to live in your world, where the word forgive does not exist.
I am no longer worried about teaching my children well. Why would I, a white man, even want to have a child?
________________________________________________________
( Akinkawon ) That is a mind-boggling evaluation of my prior contribution and if you cannot understand what you read that is further proof that the Eurocentric miseducation system does not even benefit White people in a meaningful way. This is the reason the holistic education about which we speak is for all people including Whites.
I hope you realize that I am responding to any person who may share your views and not only you because I do not know if you are White. You could be anyone trying to push a discussion.
Whites have no problem teaching innocent children that they were born in sin, so how come this concept coming from an African is so offensive to you? You and every other ignorant adult is a sinner by default of not knowing right actions to correct injustices.
You may be expecting Africans to only seek salvation in the spirit, (that is what the colonial interpretation of religion taught us) while Whites are continually trying to have it here and now in CA$H.
Our holistic approach to life teaches us to seek salvation on earth as it is in heaven. So we will no longer be blinded by the illusion of religion but instead be guided by the reality of true spirituality, which is about the restoration of justice here on earth for a fruitful life here and after.
Should you have children? Hmm... If you are not going to properly educate them so they develop to work for equal opportunity for all, they may become victims of others who may not be as non-violent and tolerant as myself. They may suffer for the sins of your ignorance and for the bigger sin you are committing today by trying to spread amnesia for education.
When I was a child and vulnerable, my ignorant teacher took me to church to confess, I was told to also give collection $. That is the teachings of 'colonial religion'. Europeans do not ask for forgiveness but expect others to forgive them. And even if they ask, it is up to whom ever they ask to grant or not grant forgiveness. All who are found guilty must also pay CA$H. (Restitution)
When European and American powers are truly sorry, they would not try to tell a free people what is adequate compensation. People do not commit crimes and dictate their own punishment.
You are not guilty because of your skin color, but for your attitude in relation to the 'benefits' you take for granted that comes with being White.
I have several White friends who understand the truth of our history and they work for the same restoration of justice like myself. In many ways they are still prejudice but at least they admit it and work on it daily. They don't go around trying to impose amnesia to replace education.
Now, I have communicated to you in the language that Europeans felt only they could master and interpret and I see you are having problems with the same English Language.
I could transmit this to you in many other ways but I feel you will not understand and may go mad from confusion.
________________________________________________________
( RootsWomb(man) ) Greetins!!!!
"Whites have no problem teaching innocent children that they were born in sin, so how come this concept coming from an African is so offensive to you? You and every other ignorant adult is a sinner by default of not knowing right actions to correct injustices."
INDEED!!!! Their whole religious foundations are built upon the "born in sin" CON-cept! Yet, when it comes from the Mind of an Afrikan...they rebuke it! BABBLE-ON....(babylon)...what a load of CON-fusion!
I just wanted to extend DEEP RAspect unto the I for the I's WISE Words. Teach dem!
ROOTS ``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xTeach your children well``x999734780,22683,Rasta``x``x
``xFOR Deadria Farmer-Paellmann, it started with 40 acres and a mule. Like most American blacks of her generation, she knew all about the offer of land and livestock that the US government promised in the 1860s to every freed slave. She also knew how swiftly that promise was broken.
One day, researching genealogy in a New York archive, Farmer-Paellmann, 35, stumbled on a document that is helping to transform one of America's most divisive racial debates. She found a book that told plantation owners where to insure their slaves.
For the first time African-Americans, who have been demanding reparations for more than 250 years of slavery, had an identifiable corporate target. The policy was issued by a company that became part of America's Aetna insurance conglomerate. A crucial link had been made between past sins and present corporate assets.
After years of moribund protest, Farmer-Paellmann's discovery has helped rejuvenate a movement demanding modern retribution. "It's hot and it's going to get hotter," she said.
Next week a group of black intellectuals, lawyers and activists known as N'Cobra (National Coalition of Blacks for Reparations in America) will hold a conference in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, when plans will be made to launch a barrage of lawsuits against state institutions and corporations with connections to slavery.
Prominent black lawyers, including Johnnie Cochran, the successful defender of OJ Simpson, plan to sue the federal government to establish rights to compensation. Other lawsuits will target corporations "in the same way that Jews sued IBM for their involvement in the Holocaust", one legal source said. MORE``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xBig business is sent bill for slave trade``x1000012270,72643,Members``x``x
``x( Jenny ) Who in the history of this world have perpetrated more cowardly acts than the US?
I see nothing cowardly about what those people did with the planes. Americans staying thousands of miles away and raining bombs on other countries is COWARDLY!
As the Trinicenter headline says, "The US suffers surgical strikes with heavy collateral damage"This is the language they use while killing others. The American public has not stopped their government from being the World's bully!!
While I do not support violence, in no way am I in sympathy with America or victims of this act. I am certain I have acquaintances who lost their lives in that attack but I would have felt the same if it was a member of my family or myself who suffered there.
I have been expecting more than this to hit America and have been warning family and friends that it will come. While some of us stay home and fight to develop our country, others prefer to run to 'greener pastures'. They don't care about all that America does to smaller countries. Even many African Americans have adopted the habit of using their American nationality as a badge of superiority. It is time for them to feel the vulnerability many of us feel and to know they will not be safe as long as they make us smaller countries feel unsafe. All it takes is a few people willing to die to inflict casualties like American military power does all over the world.
Many Americans felt insolated from American aggression and while as I said I do not support violence, I cannot help but feel a sense of joy that this insulation is shattered.
They could take their revenge now but once they remain dictating to other countries causing mayhem all over the world, there would always be a few willing to die to exact revenge.
It takes that type of ignorance to combat American arrogance. ``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xThe American DREAM zzzz ``x1000252800,17340,Members``x``x
``x( Woizero Sera'el Tafari ) Yesterday morning, I, like most of the world, sat and watched in awe, as the 'Great' America came under seige.
Again, I watched and listened to the responses of righteous indignation from the various leaders, governmental officials and the ordinary man on the streets of America, condeming this "cowardly act of terrorism on the strongest democratic nation in the world." That this 'evil and merciless' act, was the worst tragedy in the history of the world. BULLSHIT!!!
In watching this scenario unfold in America, the images conjuring in my mind, was that of my African homeland being invaded by a blood-thirsty, EVIL nation, hounding and capturing innocent BLACK people; uprooting them from their homes, their family and loved ones, their stability and sense of security, their FREEDOM.
I watched countless of ones jumping from the fifty-something and upper floors of the World Trade Center, trying to escape from the fury surrounding them; but instead jumping straight to their deaths. In my minds' eye, I saw countless of BLACK people jumping into the Great Ocean, to their deaths, from slave ships herding them off to a life of UNTOLD, UNFELT anguish, despair and sufferation.
I MAKE NO APOLOGIES, but the compassion and mercy that I could have afforded the Great America, is STILL not even enough, for my own people, and other deserving nations, MUCHLESS America.
Life follows the cycle of KARMA: Cause and Effect.
In the REVOLUTIONARY spirit of EQUAL RIGHTS AND JUSTICE,
Woizero Sera'el Tafari ``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xAmerica Under Attack``x1000252800,41796,Members``x``x
``x( Akinkawon ) For all who were not aware that America is more vulnerable than any other country in the world, the pictures tell a new story.
It is one thing to sympathize with the sufferings of some Americans but it is another thing to forget that America joined other nations in refusing to offer an unqualified apology for slavery. The American elites refuse to discuss reparations and they dictated the terms of the Racism conference.
It is not simply a case of being sorry for Blacks and others who were victims of the carnage but it is important to remember that in all struggles, even in the struggle for enlightenment, many people including Africans remain indifferent. Indifference is an enemy of us all.
While some of us speak in urgency about raising awareness and utilizing history to understand how the forces of nature work, others condemn such efforts and want us to focus on the illusion of now without deep reflection and attempts to correct past injustices.
Well as we see, while some of us are patient and tolerant, others act as the counter balance to that patience. Justice does not wait on mortals. It operates in the balance in nature between the enlightened and unenlightened, giving room for the enlightened to regroup and prepare for the new era while sending the unenlightened into heightened states of fear.
This is just the tip of the iceberg for those who felt we could get along without examining the past. The sins are here with us to be addressed.
Are those who did the damage innocent? No they are not. Is America innocent? No. Who but the dead should bury the dead?
I empathize with those who did not have access to a proper version of the history of the sufferings America caused many nations. I empathize with those who were not aware that there is a better version of World History, with which to evaluate their lives and make better alliances. But for those with the 'America first' Identity, they are the enemies of enlightenment as their arrogance of holding on to the illusion of an American (military brutal, and greedy) identity blinds them from their true identity. An American or an other identity that is not of our deep common bonds are all illusions and would leave people with false loyalties and totally unprepared to interpret the tides as they swell.
The Arabs are no better as they direct the world's attention to conflicts in Israel and Palestine; they are blinding many to Slavery in many Islamic nations like Sudan and Mauritania.
Now that Americans realize they are vulnerable like all other nations it is a good time for people to re-evaluate their identities and try to understand that our Identities must be shaped from and by our deepest common bonds.
``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xThe US Failed to prepare``x1000394270,34949,Members``x``x
``x( Sherri Muzher ) The rambunctious U.N. Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Racial Intolerance has ended, and language has finally been adopted to summarize the major points. "We recognize the inalienable right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to the establishment of an independent state and we recognize the right to security for all states in the region, including Israel," the text says.
The statement also recognizes the right of return for refugees. "We recognize the right of the refugees to return voluntarily to their homes and properties in dignity and safety, and urge all states to facilitate such return," the text continues.
The conference, the largest ever held on racism, unfolded like a soap opera. The issue of Zionism seemed to be the primary focus of the media, though many other issues were addressed.
Sadly, the United States walked out of the conference because of the Zionism issue. This upset many African-Americans, who wanted to see our nation finally address the issue of slavery and reparations. The U.S. role was never to be seen.
The European Union had also threatened to walk if specific references were made to Israel and racism. Ultimately, the Europeans agreed to stay after they viewed and agreed to a South-African-brokered compromise.
It was all truly mind-boggling. How could anyone claim that Israel is not a racist state? It is even called the Jewish state of Israel. It is a state for one religion and the founders of Zionism simply intended for such a homogenous state. Racism is defined as:
1) The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2) Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
More water is given to Jewish citizens than to Palestinians; jobs are more plentiful for Jewish citizens than Israeli Palestinians; Jewish citizens are not subjected to torture while in prison; only Israeli citizens and illegal Jewish settlers drive with yellow license plates, which allow them freedom to travel throughout the Holy Land; non-Jewish Israelis cannot buy or lease land in Israel; Israel's policies have involved planning regulations prohibiting Palestinian building on 40 percent of Gaza, 70 percent of the West Bank and 80 percent of East Jerusalem. While restricting Palestinian development, Israel builds housing for its people in the occupied territories.
According to an Amnesty International report, released shortly before the conference: "prejudice against Palestinian citizens of Israel is widespread in the criminal justice system, both in the courts and law enforcement methods." How can we forget the use of live ammunition, which killed 13 Israeli Palestinians last fall? Live ammunition was not used on Jewish rioters.
A few years ago, the Israeli government was shown to have a 70:30 policy in the City of Jerusalem which to maintain a 70 percent Jewish population over 29 percent Muslim and 1 percent Christian minorities. This has been accomplished through home demolitions, denial of building permits, ID card confiscations, and residency revocations.
Is their any question as to whether these would be considered racist policies in other regions of the world?
A few years back a survey in the Israeli daily newspaper Yedioth Ahranoth showed that the majority of Israeli teens believe that Palestinians do not deserve the same rights as them. One shudders to think what they are learning from their parents.
One would think that more than most individuals, Jews who survived the Holocaust or descended from victims and survivors would be among the greatest teachers of tolerance. Not as it pertains to Palestinians.
Here lies another of the great tragedies associated with the Palestinians: they have been expected to pay the price for the ills of the Europeans and Americans – the perpetrators and enablers of the Jewish Holocaust.
For decades we have seen the West try to wipe away its sins on the backs of Palestinians: often turning history upside down, or trying to solve problems by creating other problems. For example, the West lead in formulating the U.N. Partition Plan of 1947 which apportioned 55 percent of British Mandate Palestine to the Jewish community which owned less than 10 percent of the land, and it was American F-16 jet fighters and Apache helicopters that Israel has used in putting down the intifada.
The U.N. conference was yet another extension of these amelioration tactics. When does it stop? And when do these same countries begin to look within themselves and realize that just as they enabled the Jewish Holocaust, so they have and continue to enable another catastrophe?
It is understandable that the term "racist" bothers Israelis. Nobody wants to be called a racist, particularly those who were forced to wear patches to identify them in Nazi Germany. But the policies Israel pursues are exactly this.
If it doesn't like the well-deserved label, then it should stop its racist practices.
As to the West, which seems to suffer from the endless guilt and fear of the label "anti-Semitic," it is time to ask how it is advancing justice by refusing to call a spade a spade?
How many Palestinians have to die or suffer from Israel's policies before futile condemnations are translated into the kind of punitive policies that became commonplace with Apartheid South Africa?
It was Henry Katzew, a former South African journalist now living in Israel, who once stated in South Africa: a Country Without Friends: "What is the difference between the way in which the Jewish people struggles to remain what it is in the midst of a non-Jewish population, and the way the Afrikaners try to stay what they are?"
There is no difference.
Sherri Muzher is a Palestinian-American activist, lawyer, and freelance journalist.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xRacism: when will we face the facts?``x1000425600,91770,Articles``x``x
``x( Ras Forever ) Greetings Dearly Beloved in the name of His Imperial Majesty Emperor Haile Sellassie the First.
As Rastafari who have witnessed the most massive death and destruction caused by a combination of events and forces on Tuesday 11th September in the United States of America. We would firstly like to express our deepest and most sincere regrets to all those who are now experiencing pain and trauma that most would certainly have had no inputs in creating. Our sympathies and wishes is for quick and successful resolutions of all personal difficulties and negative effects of the aftermath of Tuesday's events.
Secondly it is hoped that none of our Rastafari Collective and their families have been affected by the tragic events. If any are, our firmest heartfelt sympathies go out to you and yours. Can you please inform of us of your respective situations as soon as you can afford to do so.
Thirdly it is imperative that the idea that anyone, anywhere in the world, can use their weapons of destruction to settle disputes among the human family, be totally denounced and condemned. The slaughter of innocent people going about their business of providing for their families is a crime against humanity, always was and always will be. So as Rastafari an emphatic rejection of any such notion is compulsory and must be non partisan.
Finally as the world has been brought to the crossroads by force to confront a moral and political crisis. The question to be asked is, can the solution to this crisis be more of the same that brought us to this path, or is it our duty to find and shine a light to show another way. As Rastafari Collective we must as a solution, support and promote enlightened leadership, which exhibits moral guidance and moves mankind away from the paths that has failed us, one that has caused so much grief, pain and suffering to our fellow man everywhere.
Rastafari can lead the way and our support right now goes out to those families and individuals who are now hurting. May Jah Almighty bring healing and comfort to all afflicted, in any manner. Jah Bless, Guide and Protect. ``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xA Rastafari View of the Tragedy``x1000427815,85451,Members``x``x
``x( Ijahnya Christian ) Heartical Love to the Rastafari Nation
May the Might and Iwa of the Hola Trinity reign within I an I hearts for Iver.
Blood and Fire, Death and Destruction in the USA. I an I join all Imanity in feeling the pain of the victims and their loved ones who were simply reporting to work another day - but not because Caribbean people are among them and not because all this is happening in the USA. It is the pain that I an I must feel everytime in every place for who can breathe the breath of life?
I am therefore responding to the media reportage that has given a particular face to the terrorist completely forgetting the unrepentant face of Timothy McVeigh at the time of his execution. The terrorist is the evil infidel who has different genes, a different religion and culture and who comes from a different part of the world. The mother of the terrorist feels no pain at his birth for she and his father are not created by the Almighty like the rest of us but by Satan. Decent, civilized, God-fearing people like Americans do things in a brave, civilized and God-fearing way. We train soldiers and raise armies and ask God's blessings on our troops before we go off to fight other armies, trained by other nations to respond in a similar manner. We tell righteous lies to our people about how we won the war and may or may not apologise for the tremendous loss of civilian life - not just human but the evil enemy. It is the same USA that just decided that it would not even be confronted with the demand for reparations much less issue an apology for the transatlantic slave trade as a crime against humanity. Remember, part of the rationale for our enslavement was that we were infidels, heathens who needed to be enslaved so we could be Christianised. The terrorist prays before he does the honourable thing of giving his life for his cause. Honourable? He is a coward and his god is not really God.
I say we Americans for in the Caribbean Region, our world view is shaped and influenced by the USA. For some of us this is literal as well as symbolic. Uncle Sam is really our Uncle. I live on the island of Anguilla which is still a British colony but the USA feeds us, clothes us, shelters us and provides us with medicine. We allow its greatest tool and weapon to raise our children and then wonder why their behaviours seem so akin to those they soak up so many hours of daily watching.
If America says the terrorists are evil, then they must be evil and conversely the victim nation must be good. Somehow I am helped to think not just "what a terrible act" but "what a terrible act upon so good and upright a nation as the USA." Unfortunately, the history of the USA does not look so good. Nothing much has changed in the world and shortly, we will witness more in a retaliation that will be "justified" but will not necessarily be just. The allies in the developed no doubt recognise their own vulnerabilities. We on these small islands may be of no interest to the terrorists but one good hurricane, earthquake or volcano can give us the same result.
As I reflect on the carnage, it is the words of HIM immortalised by Brother Bob as 'War' that remove not the horror but the surprise.
"Until the philosopy which holds one race superior and another inferior is finally and permanently discredited and abandoned, everywhere is War, Me say war
That until there are no longer first class and second class citizens of any nation
Until the colour of a man's skin is of no more significance than the colur of his eyes,
Me say war
That until the basic human rights are equally guaranteed to all, without regard to race,
Dis a war
That until that day
The dream of lasting peace, world citizenship,
Rule of international morality will remain but a fleeting illusion to be pursued but never attained
Now everywhere is War...
War in the East, War in the West,
War up North, War down South,
War, War, rumours of War..."
and further,
"These are crucial times when nations rise against nations, tensions increase and disaster is possible at any moment. Distances are shrinking. Peace and life itself are threatened by misunderstanding and conflict. Now is the time when man's relationship to God must be the foundation for all his efforts toward enlightenment, and learning, the basis for understanding, cooperation and peace..."
It is not the way our nation would have preferred to celebrate the New Year but let us learn from the events of September 11th. and let nothing detract us from the "basic premise...that men of all races, beliefs and status share some essential common goals..."
and further still,
"Our efforts as free men must be to establish new relationships, devoid of any resentment and hostility, restored to our belief and faith in ourselves as individuals, dealing on a basis of equality with other equally free people. We believe in cooperation and collaboration to promote the cause of international security, the equality of man and the welfare of mankind. We believe in the peaceful settlements of all disputes without resorting to force. All well ordered and modern states can only base themselves upon Courts of Justice and Conduct of Laws which are just, correct and geared towards the protection of the rights of individuals..."
Somehow I do not think that the USA is preparing to go to Court.
Just sharing the views of a Sister Empress with the Words of His Majesty. What do you think?
One Perfect Love ``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xAttack on America - the enemy is always evil``x1000475243,25015,Members``x``x
``x( Tim Wise ) I was not where I needed to be last night. Not physically, and not emotionally. My daughter is ten weeks old. And last night, and tonight as well, only her mother will be able to hold her, and kiss her goodnight, and hug her, and wipe up her spit.
I am somewhere else.
Tonight I will call home, and speak to my wife, who gave birth to that precious baby girl amidst such hope and pain. And in the background, I will hear that baby’s cry: as if she knows something is terribly wrong. Because babies can feel things that the rest of us have learned to repress.
And yet when I finally call I find her laughing, consumed with a desire to do nothing more than reach out, reach out, reach out, and bat at the soft hanging stars and moons that hang from her mobile.
I sigh a deep sigh of relief. The air escaping my lungs, and signifying recognition that 10-week-old babies do not, in fact, understand mass death. They have only begun, indeed, to understand their own life.
It is their parents, it is we, who must impose upon their innocent, naïve, and far preferable world, with the truth that one day mommy or daddy may leave for work and not come back.
It is the parents; it is we, who must impose upon their world, altering forever their smiling, drooling faces that you can only see through the bitter tears of your own disillusionment.
You cannot protect them. Cannot keep them young forever. Oh what I would give to be so young and naïve, as to require my mommy or daddy to wipe my nose and speak to me about anything but mass death.
It is their parents; it is we, who have to tell them of their nation’s talk of massive retaliation, and hunting down those responsible for mass death. And inflicting upon them some more mass death, to convince still others--once and for all--that mass death really doesn’t pay. And that our collective national dick is bigger than theirs.
And while I never expected to speak to you of such things at such a tender age, you might as well know that it is always and forever about the length and circumference of one’s national phallus.
Size, it seems, does matter, whether for missiles, or tall buildings, or the airplanes that bring them down. Their shapes (and make a note of it now for future reference), are no coincidence.
So if Osama Bin Laden is the man of the hour, then Al Haig and Hank Kissinger and their students--who, as it turns out know a little somethin’ ‘bout mass death--are apt to make sure he knows how killing is really done. Because they are hung like horses.
Killers have tutors, see, and the classes are full. How many people can they kill? Can we kill? (Kill, Kill). "Kill ‘em all, let God sort ‘em out." That’s what the bumper sticker prophets say. But God has better things to do, I figure, than to sort through the tangled mess that is both the New York financial district and also the human condition at this late date.
I have been in those buildings, have you? I have dropped my quarter in the silver, shiny viewfinders that you could look through, and get a close up view of Greenwich Village, or the Empire State Building, or the Hudson River, or Fort Lee, New Jersey. If for some strange and largely inexplicable reason you felt the need to see Fort Lee, with the assistance of a 1000x magnification lens.
I have dropped my quarters in slots my daughter will never see, in buildings she will never enter, on observation decks that do not exist any longer, except in my mind. And I have listened as the timer counted down the time left before the viewfinder would fade to black.
And I can imagine looking thru the viewfinder, and wondering why that plane looks so damned close.
I can imagine looking uptown as the plane came closer, and closer, and seeing Harlem, and thinking, damn: I shoulda gone to Sylvia’s Soul Food. ‘Cause Harlem, far from being the bad part of town, was one of the safest places in New York yesterday. Even terrorists know which victims count the most in America.
America, if you want safety, you’d best get your ass to the ‘hood. Get your boogie shoes to 123rd street. Move immediately into the Robert Taylor Homes, or Cabrini Green, or the lower 9th Ward in New Orleans. Do not pass go, let alone Wall Street. For there you are like sitting ducks.
And now what baby girl? Will we shed the blood of innocent babies so much like you, to demonstrate to the world how precious your life is? You had best hope not baby girl. Because if so you will never be safe. Not now, and not when you are old enough to understand, and fear, and tremble, like I am right now.
We will be signing a death warrant. If not yours, perhaps that of some other baby girl or boy. Maybe one that was being born at 8:42 this morning, while others were dying in mass death.
‘Cause what goes around, most definitely goes around, and around, and around, and around.
And all the tough talk and swagger and muscle flexing and chest thumping and pontifications that the folks who did this are cowards, cannot conceal the fact that so far there are no brave souls in the mix yet.
There is nothing brave about committing mass murder to be sure. But neither is there bravery in adding to the body count. Neither is there bravery in Senator Hatch’s testosterone-soaked diatribe about "going after the bastards," or officials saying no options are being ruled out, including nuclear weapons.
What a lesson that would teach. Like stealing the stereo of the guy who took your car to prove how much we respect private property. And then your VCR is at risk, and his watch, and your jewelry. Jewelry you could pawn on E-bay on any other day, but not tonight. ‘Cause folks are too busy bidding on chunks of the 39th floor.
So welcome to the world, dear baby girl. And sleep well tonight. And remain young for as long as you can. For one day, not so far from this day, everything will change again. As it always has.
And rivers of blood will be added to rivers of blood, all of it red and flowing downhill as blood tends to do as it seeks its own level. And mountains of bodies higher than the towers brought down on this day will be stacked: In the name of God. In the name of money. In the name of security. In the name of revenge. In the names of people with names like Osama and George and Ariel or Allah or Jesus.
Or to satisfy our desire for real, real, reality TV. So much so, that eating rats will seem like a day at Disney.
And your alarm system will not protect you baby girl. ‘The Club’ will not protect you. The police cannot protect you. Missile defense sure as shit can’t protect you. Even I can’t protect you. And I love you more than anything or anyone in this world. So my inadequacy is profound indeed
I wish that love could protect you; not just mine but that of others. But I’m not sure how much of that is left. It is on markdown; on the sale rack; on clearance; but no buyers today.
Love is too expensive for some, even when on sale. Too costly in time, if not in money. ‘Cause although money can’t buy you love, enough money can buy lots of cruise missiles, and napalm, and mass death.
It really isn’t complicated, baby girl. Most important things aren’t. You’ll learn this. Or more to the point, you’ll learn it and then forget it, as age makes you add layers of complication to what once seemed obvious. And that complexity will be called brilliance by your culture: nuance, depth. But really it’s just mostly vapid bullshit. Sterility posing as wisdom.
In the end it comes down to just a few simple truths. And while I wish I had thought of them myself, the simple truth about these simple truths is that they’ve been said before, and better than I could, by James Baldwin, who did not write them for this purpose, though they strangely seem to fit.
First, that those who treat other people as less than human must not be surprised when the bread they have cast upon the waters comes floating back to them, poisoned.
And secondly, that even in darkness, we must remember that there is a light somewhere. One discovers the light in darkness. That is what darkness is for. And what the light illuminates is danger, and what it demands is faith...I know that sometimes we fail, and that one often feels that one cannot start over again. And yet we must. The light, the light...one will perish without the light.
For nothing is fixed, forever and forever, it is not fixed. The earth is always shifting. The light is always changing. The sea does not cease to grind down rock. Generations do not cease to be born. And we are responsible to them, because we are the only witnesses they have. The sea rises, the light fails. Lovers cling to each other, and children cling to us. And the moment we break faith with one another, the sea engulfs us, and the light goes out.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xTo My Baby Girl, On the Day After ``x1000534281,87057,``x``x
``x( Orlando Marville ) The Conference on Racism has ended with the usual resolutions, but with a certain taste of defeat. I wonder if I am exaggerating when I suggest that this was a planned ending, with everyone saying that racism is the opposite of motherhood, but everyone somehow escaping any responsibility for what has happened to millions of persons on this globe. I would wish to make some observations on some of the fundamental problems involved in the idea of the conference.
The idea of a conference on racism was an excellent one. Racism is as rampant, if not more so, as it was in the distant seventeenth and eighteenth centuries when Europe began to talk of “progress” and of Indo-Europeans, when they pretended that Greece had created all the wisdom that mankind possessed independently and that Egypt was more of a backward, stagnant society than the marvel of civilisation and social organisation that it had been.
Racism grew up with the slave trade and Europe’s burgeoning cockiness that it was able to go out and conquer the rest of mankind. Surely, brutal conquest indicated a definitive superiority. Additionally, if Africans had been made into permanent slaves, how could one glorify Egypt?
Racism is a problem that we need to deal with. So is the question of what is happening in the Middle East. So is the question of the slave trade having been a crime against humanity. So is the continuing traffic in human beings in Sudan and elsewhere.
So is the horrendous treatment that colonising peoples, whether they were Spanish, white Australian, Euro-Canadian or Portuguese, dealt out to indigenous peoples everywhere. The problem arises when they are all lumped together in a single conference.
This benefits only those who have been the transgressors. They can then walk out of the conference on one pretext or another, but, if truth were to be told, they would never have been present at a conference that dealt either with slavery as a crime against humanity and reparations as the single topic of the conference, or the treatment of indigenous people in the past.
The problem was that we mistook this omnibus affair for a real opportunity to discuss the matters that are outstanding. There were, however, conferences that discussed single issues like reparations to Jewish people for the horrors of the holocaust. Was this proper? My unequivocal answer is in the affirmative.
What was done to the Jews was totally unacceptable by any modern standard that we now use, even if there are still Nazi apologists that pretend that the holocaust was a Hollywood myth. What was done to the Romer, whom we call Gypsies, by the same Nazis was even more horrendous in that it practically decimated the Romer population of Europe. By the same token, I would ask if slavery was a crime against humanity and my answer would be unequivocally yes.
It is therefore only proper that Europe apologise to the millions of descendants of the millions they enslaved and forced to work on their plantations. And, yes, there should be reparations as there were reparations for the Jews. How did the Jews succeed and we fail? There are several possible answers. However, the one that strikes me as the most compelling is that the Jews put forward their argument from a position of strength. They were organised at the level of the Press and at the level of a single state as well as in every public forum. We are not.
Indeed, while it would be extremely difficult to find anyone of the Jewish faith who would speak against reparations for the treatment that their ancestors received in the holocaust, there are some of us who think that slavery was not such a bad thing after all. Such people do not even see why anyone should talk about reparations far less try to understand what reparations involve.
Of course, they would not be averse to a bit of change in their pockets, but God forbid that we talk about reparation in terms of debt forgiveness for Africa or in terms of actually levelling the playing field or correcting the revisionist history that they taught both themselves and us. Frankly, if reparations are to mean anything, they must be focused on a correction of the past.
The simple disbursement of money will not do that. It means an apology from the Christian Church, which at every turn supported slavery. It also means an apology from that other great world religion, Islam. It means an apology to those dragged from Ireland and Scotland on the basis of some semi-slave system of indenture.
It means the recognition of where we have gone wrong as humanity and a commitment to do the right thing now and in the future.
It is simply not acceptable that the North Atlantic continue to preach about human rights as if they have some superior moral standing. We all know pretty well that they do not.
Now that we have had the conference, where do we go from here? Again, the simple answer is that we have had the conference and that is that. No! This is the sort of defeatism, which, had it been practised by the Jews would have left them in a continuing underclass to this day. We have to begin to learn from other people’s successes and not simply accept our defeats with finality.
There is only one way forward: the struggle must go on. We seem as a group of human beings, and here I refer to all of the disenfranchised, to stop whenever we gain a victory, almost as if the war had ended.
• Orlando Marville is a retired diplomat and an expert on African affairs ``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xMARVELLING: The Conference On Racism ``x1000598400,10977,Members``x``x
``x( Stephen R. Shalom ) The list below presents specific incidents of U.S. policy in the Middle East. The list minimizes the grievances against the United States in the region because it excludes more generalized long-standing policies, such as U.S. backing for authoritarian regimes (arming Saudi Arabia, training the secret police in Iran under the Shah, providing arms and aid to Turkey as it ruthlessly attacked Kurdish villages, etc.) The list also excludes actions of Israel in which the United States is indirectly implicated because Israel has been the leading or second-ranking recipient of U.S. aid for many years and has received U.S. high-tech weaponry and the diplomatic benefit of U.S. veto power in the Security Council.
1948: Israel established. U.S. declines to press Israel to allow expelled Palestinians to return.
1949: CIA backs military coup deposing elected government of Syria.
1953: CIA helps overthrow the democratically-elected Mossadeq government in Iran (which had nationalized the British oil company) leading to a quarter-century of repressive and dictatorial rule by the Shah, Mohammed Reza Pahlevi.
1956: U.S. cuts off promised funding for Aswan Dam in Egypt after Egypt receives Eastern bloc arms.
1956: Israel, Britain, and France invade Egypt. U.S. does not support invasion, but the involvement of its NATO allies severely diminishes Washington's reputation in the region.
1958: U.S. troops land in Lebanon to preserve "stability".
early 1960s: U.S. unsuccessfully attempts assassination of Iraqi leader, Abdul Karim Qassim.
1963: U.S. reported to gives Iraqi Ba'ath party (soon to be headed by Saddam Hussein) names of communists to murder, which they do with vigor.
1967-: U.S. blocks any effort in the Security Council to enforce SC Resolution 244, calling for Israeli withdrawal from territories occupied in the 1967 war.
1970: Civil war between Jordan and PLO. Israel and U.S. prepare to intervene on side of Jordan if Syria backs PLO.
1972: U.S. blocks Sadat's efforts to reach a peace agreement with Egypt.
1973: U.S. military aid enables Israel to turn the tide in war with Syria and Egypt.
1973-75: U.S. supports Kurdish rebels in Iraq. When Iran reaches an agreement with Iraq in 1975 and seals the border, Iraq slaughters Kurds and U.S. denies them refuge. Kissinger secretly explains that "covert action should not be confused with missionary work."
1978-79: Iranians begin demonstrations against the Shah. U.S. tells Shah it supports him "without reservation" and urges him to act forcefully. Until the last minute, U.S. tries to organize military coup to save the Shah, but to no avail.
1979-88: U.S. begins covert aid to Mujahideen in Afghanistan six months before Soviet invasion in Dec. 1979. Over the next decade U.S. provides training and more than $3 billion in arms and aid.
1980-88: Iran-Iraq war. When Iraq invades Iran, the U.S. opposes any Security Council action to condemn the invasion. U.S. soon removes Iraq from its list of nations supporting terrorism and allows U.S. arms to be transferred to Iraq. At the same time, U.S. lets Israel provide arms to Iran and in 1985 U.S. provides arms directly (though secretly) to Iran. U.S. provides intelligence information to Iraq. Iraq uses chemical weapons in 1984; U.S. restores diplomatic relations with Iraq. 1987 U.S. sends its navy into the Persian Gulf, taking Iraq's side; an overly-aggressive U.S. ship shoots down an Iranian civilian airliner, killing 290.
1981, 1986: U.S. holds military maneuvers off the coast of Libya in waters claimed by Libya with the clear purpose of provoking Qaddafi. In 1981, a Libyan plane fires a missile and two Libyan planes shot down. In 1986, Libya fires missiles that land far from any target and U.S. attacks Libyan patrol boats, killing 72, and shore installations. When a bomb goes off in a Berlin nightclub, killing two, the U.S. charges that Qaddafi was behind it (possibly true) and conducts major bombing raids in Libya, killing dozens of civilians, including Qaddafi's adopted daughter.
1982: U.S. gives "green light" to Israeli invasion of Lebanon, killing more than 10,000 civilians. U.S. chooses not to invoke its laws prohibiting Israeli use of U.S. weapons except in self-defense.
1983: U.S. troops sent to Lebanon as part of a multinational peacekeeping force; intervene on one side of a civil war. Withdraw after suicide bombing of marine barracks.
1984: U.S.-backed rebels in Afghanistan fire on civilian airliner.
1988: Saddam Hussein kills many thousands of his own Kurdish population and uses chemical weapons against them. The U.S. increases its economic ties to Iraq.
1990-91: U.S. rejects any diplomatic settlement of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait (for example, rebuffing any attempt to link the two regional occupations, of Kuwait and of Palestine). U.S. leads international coalition in war against Iraq. Civilian infrastructure targeted. To promote "stability" U.S. refuses to aid post-war uprisings by Shi'ites in the south and Kurds in the north, denying the rebels access to captured Iraqi weapons and refusing to prohibit Iraqi helicopter flights.
1991-: Devastating economic sanctions are imposed on Iraq. U.S. and Britain block all attempts to lift them. Hundreds of thousands die. Though Security Council had stated that sanctions were to be lifted once Saddam Hussein's programs to develop weapons of mass destruction were ended, Washington makes it known that the sanctions would remain as long as Saddam remains in power. Sanctions in fact strengthen Saddam's position. Asked about the horrendous human consequences of the sanctions, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright declares that "the price is worth it."
1993-: U.S. launches missile attack on Iraq, claiming self-defense against an alleged assassination attempt on former president Bush two months earlier.
1998: U.S. and U.K. bomb Iraq over the issue of weapons inspections, even though Security Council is just then meeting to discuss the matter.
1998: U.S. destroys factory producing half of Sudan's pharmaceutical supply, claiming retaliation for attacks on U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya and that factory was involved in chemical warfare. U.S. later acknowledges there is no evidence for the chemical warfare charge.
http://www.zmag.org/shalomhate.htm``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xThe United States and Middle East: Why Do "They" Hate Us?``x1000768401,93410,Articles``x``x
``x( Robert Jensen ) We are told that in this time of crisis, all good Americans should rally around the president and the flag.
I will rally, but not around a leader calling for war or a symbol of nationalism.
It is easy to understand the emotion behind the chanting of "USA, USA." But I will not chant.
In this time of crisis, I will rally around policies that seek peace and security, for all people everywhere. And instead of chanting, I will speak quietly about the grief we all feel, and loudly about the need to resist our leaders' plans for global war.
Decent people agree that in this time of crisis, we cannot let the lines of color and culture, of language and religion, divide us. But we need to go another step, to understand that the lines dividing people based on nations are just as dangerous. We must also agree not to give in to the urge to value the lives of innocent Americans over the lives of innocent people in other countries.
For the past few days -- in person and on the phone, through email and on the radio -- I have been called "unpatriotic," condemned as a "traitor" and labeled "anti-American" because my writing has opposed the drive to war, the call for blood to avenge those who died in the terror attacks.
But I also have heard from many others who also are concerned that U.S. officials will take us into a war that will bring only more death, pain and grief, leaving us less secure. They want to speak out but fear being attacked for not being "good Americans."
This is a moment when we need the courage to say that being a good American does not mean supporting a war so violent and so indiscriminate that more innocent people will die.
That does not mean we renounce the ideals of freedom and justice so often associated with the United States; we should hold onto those ideals more fiercely than ever and put them into practice by resisting the rush to war.
We should honor the ideals of this country by saying, in as clear a voice as we can manage: Not in our name will the United States seek vengeance or go forward to kill.
It is important to read closely the joint resolution passed by Congress, which authorizes the president "to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."
That is not a resolution based on a quest for justice. It is an open-ended invitation to attack anyone U.S. leaders decide to target. And those leaders -- Dick Cheney and Colin Powell among them -- are some of the same people who during the Gulf War unleashed attacks not only on military targets but on civilians and the entire civilian infrastructure of Iraq, killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people during and after the war. This resolution, and the statements from the Bush administration about an ongoing global war, suggest that what is coming will be even more frightening.
When we speak out against war in public, we will find support, but we also should expect hostility. We should expect the question posed by one of the people who wrote to condemn me: "Whose side are you on?"
The answers to that are simple:
I am on the side of the people -- no matter where they live -- who will suffer the violence, not the leaders -- no matter where they live -- who will plan it.
I am on the side of peace, not war.
I am on the side of justice, not vengeance.
And most important, I am on the side of hope, not despair.
We do not have the luxury of despair right now. There is too much at stake for too many people.
Robert Jensen is a professor of journalism at the University of Texas at Austin. He can be reached at rjensen@uts.cc.utexas.edu.
http://www.zmag.org/jensenres.htm``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xWhy I will not rally around the president``x1000768959,37458,Articles``x``x
``x( Brian Dominick ) On Wednesday, September 12, I was witness to the greatest argument against war the North American Left has ever had.
I've never liked New York City. I've only gone there for the most compelling of reasons. When I awoke to the horrifying news of the incidents there on Tuesday morning -- still occurring, unbeknownst to anyone -- I already knew I would be going again. As a certified emergency medical technician, and a radical activist with street experience in mass casualty scenarios (through my involvement in the little-known field called "action medical"), it wasn't a matter of weighing options. The only questions were how? and how soon?
I have told my story in great detail elsewhere. It isn't a story about my own heroism. It isn't a story about life-threatening or life-saving adventure. I wish it were. If I'd had any opportunity for heroism, any opportunity to save lives, that would mean so too did thousands of others. We already know thousands of lives were saved. My story begins at a point when there was little remaining success in such endeavors. It is a story about tragedy.
My partner, Rachel, and I spent most of the day Wednesday working in the decontamination area at St. Vincent's Trauma Center, one of the main hospitals where blast victims and injured rescuers had been and were being taken. We had the opportunity to meet dozens of emergency workers, and treated several of them for minor injuries and contamination resulting from their participation in this most massive of rescue operations.
What we did not see is even more depressing. Our job was to strip and scrub victims when they were first brought in, so the soot they'd arrive covered in would not contaminate the rest of the hospital., then deliver them to the ER. Unfortunately, despite rumors (even over official channels), these rescued victims simply weren't showing up. While the rest of the world was hoping and praying more rescues would be made, it was becoming ominously obvious at St. Vincent's that there would quite simply be few more survivors, if any.
In all, I would meet and talk to dozens of EMTs, hospital staff, firefighters, and other emergency workers. There was by now more exhaustion than dust in the air. Both tasted identical. One doctor who sat down near us was literally surprised by how it felt to actually sit down. It had been 24 hours, he announced, since he hadn't had his full weight on his feet. One nurse complained that her feet were so sore she was having trouble standing, much less walking -- I could only imagine.
What I didn't hear, at all, were emergency workers of any kind clamoring for retaliation or war. In fact, it occurs to me that one of the only groups of people in this country which isn't demanding vengeance are the very people tasked with taking care of survivors, and recovering the thousands of bodies left in the mess.
Among rescue and medical personnel in New York, the focus was on saving lives, not on taking more. This is certainly due in part to the necessity of staying focused on the job at hand, even during much-needed breaks. However, I think this restraint is also being shown because few people involved in the rescue efforts can bring themselves to wish upon others what they are currently going through.
That night, we milled around for a while, checking in with some EMTs to see how they were holding up. We actually engaged in a very normal, generic medical conversation with one EMT. Anything for a distraction...
It was during such a conversation that Senator Chuck Schumer passed by us while we sat on the steps to the ER. He stopped and turned to us. "I know what you've all been doing," he said. "You're all heroes." Four or five of us just stared back at him. I'm not sure about our newfound friends, but Rachel, Meredith and I didn't feel like heroes. It was odd to be referred to as such. We didn't know what to say. No one spoke. He didn't seem to mind. He turned and left.
After a little discussion, and a few cups of coffee handed over by smiling volunteers, we decided to go deeper into the security zones with us. We headed down on foot. We wouldn't need to consult a map -- smoke still rising skyward marked our heading for us.
It was well over a mile to Ground Zero. Halfway there, a police officer put us in a DPW truck and told the drivers to deliver us to the site. I was no longer surprised that, for this moment in time, not only were cops uninterested in bashing my head, they would go out of their way to help us try to be helpful. The oddities were piling up with the rubble. Many of them were welcome.
What we found at The Site was an incredible scene. A light grey ash was met by reflections and glares of floodlights overhead, giving every still surface the appearance of having been lightly snowed upon. Where water from fire hoses or water main leaks had come in contact with this substance, it created small pools that resembled slush. I almost shivered by association, but alas we had had beautiful weather all day, and it remained quite warm even after dark. In fact, it felt oddly warmer near the site than it had at the hospital.
Here the National Guard presence was quite obvious. We hadn't seen many Guardsmen before arriving at The Site. After asking around, we made our way to a place where dozens of ambulances were stationed in front of a school building. Here again we had the sense of being useless. Not because we weren't official or connected or skilled enough to help -- but because there was simply nothing for EMS to do. Few if any survivors were being recovered. The scene was a grim convention of chauffeurs awaiting passengers who were simply not going to arrive.
It was at The Site that the extent of this tragedy finally began to settle in on me. Until then, as for most people in the country and around the world, this monumental event had been a story, just like any other major piece of news. Granted, I had come all this way, expecting to experience the tragedy for myself, but it was difficult to accept that out of so many thousands of people known to have been in or around the buildings, so few were going to emerge. EMS workers milled about everywhere, attempting to ignore the fact that we were being ignored by those excavating the site, who simply didn't require our specialized assistance.
Fire crews marched into the misty air floating over the rubble, toward the flood lights and away from us. I wanted to follow them, but there was a limit to where my EMT credentials would allow me access. Most of what they were pulling out was concrete. That which was organic was far more likely to be a corpse or a body part than a living human being.
One of the things I noticed about Ground Zero was that pretty much the only people not wearing respirators or masks of some kind were the firefighters themselves. Nearly all EMS, National Guard and police personnel were covering their faces for protection from the dust. It was no secret that all sorts of horrible chemicals and substances were floating around in all that particulate debris. Yet almost none of the firefighters seemed to be wearing respiratory protection.
After thinking long and hard about that, I decided it might well be a demonstration of solidarity for their brethren trapped below. All day one got the impression that, for the firefighters, the sense of urgency was higher than for most everyone else. They all knew people buried beneath the rubble. Additionally, they identified with them very strongly. It reminded me of the bond among action medics, and the way I've seen my fellow action medics behave in the streets when medics were injured or in trouble.
We wandered into the command center -- the school cafeteria -- and made one last attempt to get involved through official channels. There the EMS dispatch officer expressed more gratitude, but explained that "freelance EMS people" were being told to go home. He saw our St. Vincent's security passes and inquired about the status there. I knew he didn't want to know "how many" patients were being brought in, like everyone else did. He knew that number all too well. We just told him St. Vincent's was running smoothly, and he seemed glad to hear it.
I sat down at a table, and noticed a piece of paper with a color photo attached to it. The picture was of a young woman in her early twenties. It had her name and other identifying information on it. Her family had managed to pass it along this far. She was missing. And like everyone else who was missing, she was presumed dead.
We didn't want to leave New York, but staying there had become too painful for me. Being unable to help kept me acutely aware of just how terrible this tragedy was. I didn't think I could stand it anymore.
The drive home was as fast as the drive down. It was more silent, though. We alternated between listening to the news -- which we'd hardly done all day -- and listening to music CDs. A million thoughts stewed around in my head. It felt good to have been able to do something, but in context, it seemed we'd done almost nothing at all. For medics, there simply wasn't enough to be done.
We listened to irate voices on the news, trying to reconcile the attitudes of those calling for vengeful murder, with those rescue workers struggling for life. This new wave of bloodlust, it occurred to me, is more a result of feeling helpless, than of anything rational or reasonable.
When we cry out for violence, we are indeed asking our leaders to do to other civilians and rescue workers precisely what has happened to us here. Let us use great caution and prudence in our solutions to this horror. We owe that to our counterparts the world over -- people who by no means deserve to suffer the way we are now.
I think most people, having seen what I just have, would be hesitant to call for an expansion of this horror. Our country's first-hand experience with the reality of warlike violence will prove, in the end, our best leverage against engaging in yet another senseless bloodbath. Now that we have felt the pain our nation has continually and relentlessly dealt other nations, we have a unique opportunity to learn the lessons of the images and ravages of war even before we start.
[Brian Dominick is a street first aid instructor and an active street medic, affiliated with the NorthEast Action Medics Association (NEAMA) and the Radical Emergency Squad (RESQ). Besides being a medic, Brian is a political commentator, a website developer/editor for ZNet (www.zmag.org), and a community activist.]
http://www.zmag.org/dominickcalam.htm``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xThe Greatest Argument Against War``x1000769783,84996,Articles``x``x
``x( Michael Albert ) Beyond Bush and his ilk predictably trying to use calamity to propel their reactionary agendas on every front they can, from repressive legislation about eavesdropping, to military expansion, and even to tax policy -- it is certainly also true and must be faced that many citizens are in a violent mood, suggesting all kinds of anti-civilian acts. So many that it feels overwhelming.
But how many U.S. citizens who are advocating bombings realize that the people of Afghanistan already live in a horrendously war-torn country, made virtually rubble from its war with Russia? How many understand that hunger and the danger of starvation for Afghanistan is so great that a misstep at this juncture – for example, cutting off all outside food aid, even without bombs – could cause not thousands but literally millions of innocent deaths by starvation? Not many of our citizens, is my guess. When such information is conveyed, how many will hold to the vengeful stance? When it becomes evident that vengeance by assault on civilians is precisely terrorism, that assault on civilians for political purposes is precisely terrorism, how many will want to hold to warring indiscriminately, to being a terrorist? One wonders how many of those working at Ground Zero in NYC would wish military devastation on innocent civilians in another country. Not many, if any, is my guess.
But what is even more promising, is that even in a moment of great pain and mourning, even at a time of national rallying, even when all public pressures cry for war, even before there has been opportunity to counter media madness and government manipulation with valid argument and evidence, even now many and probably most people are already wondering at least somewhat about the wisdom of Bush’s stance, and are even contemplating such unspeakable conclusions as that the cure for terrorism is not more and even greater terrorism, and that the cure for fanaticism is not to dispense with civil liberties.
I think there may be a tendency afoot among many activists, totally understandable, to see the great outpourings of nationalism and to be pessimistic beyond what evidence warrants. Yes, the events have been horrible in their immediate impact, of course. And yes the hypocritical willingness of Bush and others to try to parlay pain into more suffering in different forms, and even into more terror, has been stunning and terrifying. But there are good signs too – not solely in the humanity of the massive outpourings of sympathy, but also in the opposition to race hatred against Arabs that has erupted as quickly and perhaps more pervasively than the reverse, and in the almost instantaneous emergence of both reason and activism regarding war prospects.
Thus I want to share with you information from a communication from Portland Oregon. The letter writer communicates that:
“Today we had an anti-war demo in Portland. Like so many of you have expressed, I too have felt that we are heading into a very dark time for activism, no less radical politics.
“Now, Portland has seen a fair amount of activism lately - events large (1500+ for this year's May Day march, which had a permit taken out by the City Council because organizers refused to get one and the city didn't want to arrest everyone) and small (40 radical activists and union brothers and sisters shutting down the Port of Portland and delaying the offloading of an Italian vessel in protest of the G8 police rioting, a picket line which the longshoremen refused to cross, setting off similar actions as that ship proceeded along the west coast).
“I say all that for context, because I reckon things are a bit "better" here for that sort of activism than in many other communities around the country.
“Having said that, this was the largest demonstration I've been to in Portland since the Gulf War! Organizers were able to do a pretty good count as we were walking along a narrow area, and there were at least 2600 people there to speak against the incessant beating of the war drums.
“Nobody could believe it. Everyone (strangers I talked to, acquaintances I talked to) had been feeling very isolated and had taken on a very bleak attitude about the future of `the left.’
“We marched in the streets without a permit, spanning 12 or more blocks. There were no police anywhere to be seen. “This caused some problems, in that they *do* tend to be helpful with traffic control. Ah, well... we did ok without 'em on that one too, a few irate drivers notwithstanding :-)
“Well, 2600 isn't enough to stop the impending war, but it's a far bigger start than anyone expected. All is not lost! Let's not let our gloomy perspectives of the moment, (which are perfectly understandable as we watch the manufacture of consent occur before our very eyes, at breakneck speed) let's not let that gloom turn our very rational fears into a self-fulfilling prophesy.
“Afterward, I went to a `vigil’ organized by the Christian Coalition :-( This occurred in the main `public’ square in town (semi-privately owned and operated). There were fewer people at this one, but not by much. The creepy rhetoric of right-wing Christianity was toned down, but not by much. At least it was toned down though. We were there mostly in case of needing to protect any victims of the racism seething beneath the surface.
“I stood amidst the sea of American flags, amidst the `rousing’ renditions of the great patriotic hits, holding a `Jingoism Hurts America’ sign. I got into some rather interesting conversations with people who wanted to know what jingoism meant. I described it as a form of rhetoric using a chauvinistic patriotism to justify an arrogant and belligerent foreign policy. Some nodded and walked away, but many lingered to discuss. My friends and I were only too happy to oblige :-) With some sensitivity, it is possible to clue people in on the activities of the CIA in the overthrow of democratic governments, the institution of autocratic regimes such as the Taliban, and the creation of Osama bin Laden himself.
“I couldn't believe the conversations! Who knows if we did anything. Anyhow, it's not necessarily doom and gloom - let's get back out there and be visible, now!
I got the above letter without a return email address for its author. But here is my reply…Yes, you did something. You did precisely what we all need to be doing. You went out and worked for peace and justice, and you did it without fear and without arrogance, and without presuppositions. And you showed, in the process, what the potential is of such work.
http://www.zmag.org/perceiving.htm``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xPerceiving the US Situation ``x1000789677,3412,Articles``x``x
``x( Bukka Rennie ) What a world! What could the perpetrators of last Tuesday's dastardly, devastating horror of the levelling of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, symbolic seats of American capitalism and military might, really hope to gain?
They hope that America will eternally be true to its history and its national psyche. They hope that America, just as was the case in the aftermath of Pearl Harbour, will bomb the Arab regions into smithereens, confiscate the properties of Arab-Americans and imprison them in concentration camps, that the American news media with all their famous anchor-personnel will work their people's emotions to the hilt and whip up a frenzy given their penchant for melodrama, that American people will vent their spleen on their Arab-American neighbours, beating them up and, with the help of the police force, kill Arab-Americans in the street, etc.
The strategy of the powerless against the powerful is always about crawling into the bowels and hair of the powerful to create and foster internal animosity and strife, to expose the powerful-stupid bully with the big stick who paints all and sundry with a broad brush and who, in so doing, creates greater multitudes of victims and more harm to his own interests. It is all about utilising time and space to gain will and build resolve. It is the war of the flea.
Only time will tell if America once again will prove to be true to its past. So far, there is not much coming from American leadership to suggest that they have woken up. They seem hell bent on continuing to police the world, to beat everyone into shape and to "get rid of the low-down dirty dogs". They still seem not to understand who and what they are up against.
The pet labels of "terrorists" and "cowardly-criminals" against "freedom", etc can no longer fit the bill. Such labels are merely escapist mechanisms geared to prevent people, all of us, from facing up to the responsibility of asking the real questions: who are these people and why have they concluded that only such ultimate, desperate acts done in the name of their God can get the world to pay heed to their realities and human condition?
Only human beings, precisely because of our sense of reason and intelligence that connects past, present and future, can plan and commit such acts. Animals possess no such capacity.
If you take the view that all the alleged enemies of America are "non-people", infinitely evil, without any "truths" of their own, and if the people in the Arab regions were to do likewise, seeing all US citizens as ungodly "ugly Americans", then the whole world will never progress beyond this point.
We need at this time, particularly after Tuesday's debacle, to recognise and pay homage to each other, even to the "fleas" and the "mole-crickets" of the earth. They are people too!
Globalisation means exactly that. No one must be excluded and marginalised. No longer is anyone innocent, we are all responsible for each other and the sustainability of each other's human presence. Everybody has to be empowered to function.
There can no longer be any one group or any one nation policing the whole world for the sake only of its particular and specific political-economic interests. That will no longer be tolerated. There can no longer be "power" without "morality".
The late James Baldwin, probably the author with the most insightful analyses of the American psyche, said the following in his treatise titled "No Name in the Street":
"...In the under-developed nations... the most dedicated of the natives are driven mad or inactive or underground by frustration; while the misery of the hapless, voiceless millions is increased and not only that: their reaction to their misery is described to the world as criminal...
"Moreover as habits of thought reinforce and sustain the habits of power, it is not even remotely possible for the excluded to become included, for this inclusion means, precisely, the end of the status-quo.
"For power truly to feel itself menaced, it must somehow sense itself in the presence of another power or, more accurately, an energy which it has not known how to define and therefore does not really know how to control...
"For a very long time, for example, America prospered; ...this prosperity cost millions of people their lives... (America) cannot, or dare not, assess or imagine the price paid by their victims, or subjects, for (America's) way of life, and so they cannot afford to know why the victims are revolting. They (the Americans) are forced, then, to the conclusion that the victims the barbarians are revolting against all established civilised values...
"This is a formula for a nation's or a kingdom's decline, for no kingdom can maintain itself by force alone. Force does not work the ways its advocates seem to think it does. It does not, for example, reveal to the victim the strength of his adversary. On the contrary, it reveals the weakness, even the panic of his adversary, and this revelation invests the victim with patience.
"Furthermore, it is ultimately fatal to create too many victims... and as the honour roll of victims expands, so does their will become inexorable; they resolve that these dead, their brethren, will not have died in vain... (and) they realise, having endured everything, that they can endure everything..."
That was written back in 1969-1970. Baldwin is quite correct. What America faces today is not a "power" but an "energy", a morality that emerges out of decades of victimhood, a morality that emanates from the hopelessness of a particular human condition that have made certain people faceless and invisible, existing even today, in some instances as in Palestine, in caves and refugee tents, and who are quite conscious that their invisibility is their greatest strength, and that since they eke out existence out of nothing, can endure anything.
Will the big and the powerful-stupid ever learn? When General Giap told America that if they invaded Vietnam they will have to fight everyone from age nine to 99, McNamara, reputed to be of quite high IQ, laughed and suggested that no one running around all day in pajamas could defeat the greatest military power in the history of the world.
It is said that America dropped more bombs in Vietnam than the total dropped in both world wars and they were still defeated. American soldiers in Vietnam never saw who they were fighting until the evacuation of Saigon.
The logic of the typical powerful-stupid had been that if the Viet-Cong were hiding behind "trees" then they will remove the "trees". "Agent Orange" was the defoliant employed and the its carcinogenic effect is still today reeking havoc on veterans of that war.
We all must learn and learn fast, no matter how much our sensibilities are offended, the big-stick, broad brush powerful-stupid response is always counter-productive. Forget all the nonsense propaganda about people wanting to take away "America's freedom" and "destroy the civilised world", nothing could be further from the reality. America represents a benchmark in humanity's long march, and the point is that no one wants to be left out.
Gandhi was prophetic when he spoke words to the effect that: "The significance of nations should be measured not by their power and control over others but by their kindness and willingness to co-operate for mutual development."
That bigness of spirit is what is now essential, if not, we all may fly off the handle, engaging in prolonged, never-ending warfare, wondering, after each smooth, effective strike on either side, about whose God is more God. Then it's back to the stone-age days of crusades and infidels.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xWar of the flea``x1000812877,22180,Articles``x``x
``xAlafia Ndugu.
This so-called patriotism (which is really more arrogance than patriotism) will not last as long as we think it will. Sooner or later, Afrikan men in America will continue to be police profiled, Afrikan children in America will have their intellect questioned, Afrikan nations will continue to be destabilized for no clear reason other than greed.
It is straight hypocritical for this media to make it appear as if all is well here other than this tragic event. For those with either short memories or no inclination toward history, what happened to Afrikan people in this country AFTER the nation was rallied to 'defend democracy' in World War One??? What happened to Afrikan people in this country after the 'great nazi threat' was put down in World War Two???
Hypocrisy has NEVER been as blatant and at the same time as misleading as it has been in the last few days.
Am I being callious toward those families that may have lost loved ones in this 'mess'???
That would be up to those that read this. But i will never be drawn into some false sense of American patriotism and forget what has happened and continues to happen to certain groups of people in this nation.
And to think, there are capitalists out there making millions feeding people's so-called patriotism.
Interestingly, those whites that find themselves roaming streets with bats and sticks looking for some "foreigner" to exact vengeance upon are the very same ones that don't want to be lumped together with the sins of their slave-holding fore fathers and mothers.
I can hear them now: "I didn't have anything to do with slavery. Why should i pay???"
Tarikh Tehuti Bandele ``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xPatriotism? Just White Nationalism ``x1000820264,45631,Members``x``x
``x( Sam Burnham ) It disturbs me to know that we are not carefull enough in what we say and know concerning the recent and indescriminant attaks by evil people in New York. Some of us seem to think this attack has created some positive outcomes...it has not. Some think America is the first Nation to rush to eveyone's aid... this is only true under very, very, very, selfish circumstances! Some are trying to rationalize the killing of innocent people and equate it to the struggle of black folk...black freedom fighters have nothing in common with these devils, neither would true freedom fighters of any ethnicity. Black people..Where are our priorities???
First of all, we all know Amerikkka has no love for us black folk and really don't care to much for other "minorities" either. However, we should NOT identify with the "Arab world" just because they have been oppressed! Keep in mind that the Eastern Slave trade was the Catalyst for the Transatlantic Slave trade. The Eastern slave trade, for those who don't know, involved "white" Arabs, "white Asians", and Caste System loving people from India who were...and are...no less racists and anti-black/African than European whites. As our brothers and sisters in Sudan and Mauratania fight against extinction and Arabanization from black sellouts and downright racist Arabs, we identify with people in "Palistine" who have yet to identify with our struggle collectively. Many people who are being oppressed now by Euoropeans were oppressing us prior to that time! where are our priorities. I'm sure I'll recieve the usual attacks and accusations of being "anti-Islamic" or "the Arabs were black" (actually the black original black folk in the Arabian Penensula were Sabeans...and never considered themselves Arabs), etc.
Some will even say that the modern Arab slave trade is a "Jewish Conspiracy" even though Chancellor Williams and Moctar Teyeb (A Pan-Africanst and ex-Mauratanian slave respectively)have been spreading the word in the 70's and 80's, none of them relying on info from "Jewish" folk! But that's not the point. Are we sincere in our struggle to be free, or just identifying with eveyone else? Just because others hate America and are willing to destroy US along with THEM (Euro-Americans), is this a reason to rationalize or justify the recent murder of innocent bystanders? I think not. Furthermore, many of these folk were black! should the murder of our black brothers and sisters be brushed off as "casualties of war"? No! A true warrior would not target civilians...these devils did! This was a massacar, not a war on America.
Second...yes...America helped create the anti-American sentiment that led to these attacks. However, a true freedom fighter would not sacrifice the lives of innocents just to kill a handfull of people who perhaps did deserve death. As far as the America helping everyone out thing, we ought to know "The Art of War", when we see it. The fact Euro-America sends more "aid" to nations and people who don't need it in one month than they do to "third world" nations and "relief efforts" in an entire year! Hhhhhmmmm!
We must remember that Euro-America is running the show here in America and will always put Euro-Americans, Europeans, and other whites above black folk whenever and where ever possible. Furthermore, most of the aid America "rushes" to give other nations, or domestics "in need' have constrictions designed to economically oppress, not help, the intended recipiants. In some areas, America covertly supports dictators and publicly "rush" to the aid of the dictator's vicitims. This is excellent for creating the false image of a "kinder gentler nation" that George Bush Sr talked about. Under this false image, America can destabalize nations, thus destabalizing their economies, thus compelling them to ask the U.S., IMF, World Bank, for aid.
Since America has a strong economic stake in the IMF and World Bank, this is an excellent form of covert ECONOMIC WARFARE on "third world" nations. Hhhmmm! Examples of this can be found in the "history" of El Salvador, Haiti, and...Afghanistan! The U.S. used the Taliban to push out the Russians in during the "cold war". Now their enemies. Hhhmmm! During the Iran-Contra Scandal, for example, the U.S. used Drug Money to help finance the Contra's in Nicaragua. This drug money was derived largely from black and Latino neigborhoods...with the full knowledge of high ranking members of the CIA, FBI, police departments, white businessmen in suits,etc. When the scandal began to unfold, America did not rush to our aid! They accused black folk of "being paranoid" or "blaming white Americans for eveything".
No, America rushes to help itself, while doing just enough for PR purposes! As far as American individuals giving Aid to others, we must realize that America is economically among the richest nations in the world. Thus those with humanity in their hearts will give what they can. Since America, Britian, France, etc economically oppress other nations and steal their wealth...it is NOT suprising why no one is "rushing" to help us...they collectively are not able!
Should we get those responsible for the recent events in New York. Of course! However, going to war against an entire country when we have the resources to find and destroy those responsible is immoral, politically motivated, and likely to start a U.S. verses Arab war. The escalation in terrorist attacks would soon follow. Therefore, we should understand why one person in congress was wise enough not to vote for war. She already voted for Bush's plan to "hunt down" the terrorist. If we truly want justice...not revenge...then we will only "war" against those responsible. Terrorist don't claim any nationalism to any country, so why should we make Any nation a scapegoat? Isreali Commando's ventured into various nations, even as far as Brazil, to "kidnap" Nazi war criminals and bring them to justice. This happened in the 50's and 60's via Isreali's that bought U.S. technology and training! Since they got it from America, there is no excuse why America can't use these same principals...which are much improve from
the 60's...to hunt down the devils responsible...without starting a war!
We need to be about keeping our issues as a top priority. Nothing good will come out of the recent attacks...especially for blacks. Now the U.S. government, supported by thousands of "grieving" whites, are trying to make racial profiling legal! We should not get caught up in the "patriotism", "pull together America" slogans, etc. Neither should we buy the fantasy world that eveyone oppressed by Euro-America is down with us. They are not.
We need to be about black people and their "need to know" what is affecting them and how.
peace ``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xWhy Trust Arabs: Who clouds priorities ``x1000970579,5940,Members``x``x
``xBy BBC News Online's Helen Briggs
Stone tools dated to 1.36 million years ago provide the earliest evidence yet of human occupation of northeast Asia.
The tools, which were found at an ancient settlement in northern China, show that early humans were able to adapt to extremes of temperature relatively early in their history.
The crude implements were likely to have been made by early humans known as Homo erectus, a predecessor to our own species, Homo sapiens.
According to many scientists, Homo erectus was the first early human to move out of Africa to populate Asia and Europe.
The tools were found as far as 40 degrees north - at Xiaochangliang in the Nihewan Basin, north China.
This comes as a surprise because the area was thought to be inhospitable to early humans of the time, which were used to warmer climes. It suggests that early humans emerged from the tropics with an inbuilt ability to adapt to their environment.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/
tech/newsid_1564000/1564421.stm``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xEarliest presence of humans in east Asia``x1001601064,41044,Development``x``x
``x( Bhekin ) I've been watching world events for the past two weeks and, obviously, what happened in America last week has dominated these events. One thing that I found particularly interesting is how this event, like all other similar events, has shaken peoples' identities. People who identified themselves as Americans started fearing what they called an "anti-Arab or anti-Muslim backlash", and in some cases they were proven right by the way things have unfolded. For example, the first people to be suspected (just like in the Oklahoma bombing) were Muslims/Arabs, both those in Arab countries and those who identified themselves as Americans, i.e. those in America. If these people really believe that they are American, why does fear come over them in events like this? If the American government accepts them as Americans, why does it start by blaming them before it finds out who really did it and why?
Blacks in America seem to be in the same situation, those who call themselves African-Americans are treated by other Americans the same as those who identify themselves as Africans in America (the same as other Black people are treated all over the world). Not to mention Hispanics, Red Indians, etc.
What is an American? Who decides?
In South Africa it is the same, most Black people identify themselves as the "rainbow nation" in the "new" South Africa, but President Thabo Mbeki at some stage admitted that there are two kinds of South Africans, those who are white and rich (the minority) and those who are Black and poor (the majority). And then there are also some who identify themselves as "Coloureds", but in the eyes of the "system" they are Blacks. Can Blacks in South Africa be called South Africans when they are treated by the system as foreigners in their own country? Should we be happy with the situation as it is or should these people identify themselves with other Blacks, i.e. those in Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Congo, Burkina Faso, etc. If one identifies oneself as a South African, is one saying that Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Congo, Ivory Coast, etc. do not belong to him/her.
What is this thing called identity? Is there a worldwide identity crisis? If there is, how should it be solved?
POST YOUR VIEWS ON TRINICENTER FORUM
___________________________________________________________
``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xIs it an identity crisis?``x1001623615,51454,Members``x``x
``xRes. 101 (Nov 24, 53): Expressed 'strongest censure' of Israel for the first time because of its raid on Qibya.
Res. 106 (Mar 29, 55): Condemned Israel for Ghazzah raid.
Res. 111 (Jan 19, 56): Condemned Israel for raid on Syria that killed 56 people.
Res. 127 (Jan 22, 58): Recommended Israel to suspend its no-man's zone in Jerusalem.
Res. 162 (Apr 11, 61): Urged Israel to comply with UN decisions.
Res. 171 (Apr 9, 62): Determined 'flagrant violation' by Israel in its attack on Syria.
Res. 228 (Nov 25, 66): Censured Israel for its attack on Samu in Jordan.
Res. 237 (June 14, 67): Urged Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees.
Res. 248 (Mar 24, 68): Condemned Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan.Res. 250
(Apr 27, 68): Called on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem.
Res. 251 (May 2, 68): Deeply deplored Israel's military parade in Jerusalem and declared invalid
Israel's acts to unify Jerusalem as its capital.
Res. 256 (Aug 16, 68): Condemned Israeli raids on Jordan as 'flagrant violation'.
Res. 259 (Sep 27, 68): Deplored Israel's refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation.
Res. 262 (Dec 31, 68): Condemned Israel's attack on Beirut airport destroying the entire fleet of Middle East Airlines.
Res. 265 (Apr 1, 69): Condemned Israel for air attacks on Salt in Jordan.
Res. 267 (July 3, 69): Censured Israel for administrative acts to change status of Jerusalem.
Res. 270 (Aug. 26, 69): Condemned Israel for air attack on villages in southern Lebanon.
Res. 271 (Sep 15, 69): Condemned Israel's failure to comply with UN Resolutions on Jerusalem.
Res. 279 (May 12, 70): Demanded withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon.
Res. 280 (May 19, 70): Condemned Israeli attacks against Lebanon.
Res. 285 (Sep 5, 70): Demanded immediate Israeli troop withdrawal from Lebanon.
Res. 298 (Sep 25, 71): Deplored Israel's change of status of Jerusalem.
Res. 313 (Aug 8, 72): Demanded Israel stop attacks against Lebanon.
Res. 316 (June 26, 72): Condemned Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon.
Res. 317 (July 21, 72): Deplored Israel's refusal to release Arabs abducted from Lebanon.
Res. 332 (Apr 21, 73): Condemned Israel's repeated attacks against Lebanon.
Res. 337 (Aug 15, 73): Condemned Israel for violating Lebanon's sovereignty.
Res. 347 (Apr 24, 74): Condemned Israeli attacks on Lebanon.
Res. 425 (Mar 19, 78): Called on Israel to withdraw its forces unconditionally from Lebanon.
Res. 427 (May 3, 78): Called on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon.
Res. 444 (Jan 19, 79): Deplored Israel's lack of cooperation with UN peace forces.
Res. 446 (Mar 22, 79): Determined Israeli settlements as a 'serious obstruction' to peace, and called on Israel to abide by the Geneva Conventions.
Res. 450 (June 14, 79): Called on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon.
Res. 452 (July 20, 79): Called on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories.
Res. 465 (Mar 1, 80): Deplored Israel's settlements and asked all member States not to assist Israel's settlement programme.
Res. 467 (Apr 24, 80): Condemned Israel's military intervention in Lebanon.
Res. 468 (May 8, 80): Called on Israel to Rescind illegal expulsion of two Palestinian Mayors and a Judge, and to facilitate their return.
The History of Palestine 1895 - 1992
1895 The total population of Palestine was 500,000 of whom 47,000 were Jews who owned 0.5% of the land.
1896 Following the appearance of anti-Semitism in Europe, Theodor Herzl, the founder of Zionism tried to find a political solution for the problem in his book, 'The Jewish State'.
He advocated the creation of a Jewish state in Argentina or Palestine.
1897 The first Zionist Congress was held in Switzerland, which issued the Basle programme on the colonisation of Palestine and the establishment of the World Zionist Organisation (WZO).
1904 Fourth Zionist Congress decided to establish a national home for Jews in Argentina.
1906 The Zionist congress decided the Jewish homeland should be Palestine.
1914 With the outbreak of World War I, Britain promised the independence of Arab lands under Ottoman rule, including Palestine, in return for Arab support against Turkey which had entered the war on the side of Germany.
1916 Britain and France signed the Sykes-Picot Agreement, which divided the Arab region into zones of influence. Lebanon and Syria were assigned to France, Jordan and Iraq to Britain and Palestine was to be internationalised.
1917 Lord Balfour, the British Foreign Secretary sent a letter to the Zionist leader Lord Rothschild which later became known as "The Balfour declaration". He stated that Britain would use its best endeavours to facilitate the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people. At that time the population of Palestine was 700,000 of which 574,000 were Muslims, 74,000 were Christian, and 56,000 were Jews.
1919 The Palestinians convened their first National Conference and expressed their opposition to the Balfour Declaration.
1920 The San Remo Conference granted Britain a mandate over Palestine and two years later Palestine was effectively under British administration, and Sir Herbert Samuel, a declared Zionist, was sent as Britain's first High Commissioner to Palestine.
1936 The Palestinians held a six-month General Strike to protest against the confiscation of land and Jewish immigration.
1939 The British government published a new White Paper restricting Jewish immigration and offering independence for Palestine within ten years. This was rejected by the Zionists, who then organised terrorist groups and launched a bloody campaign against the British and the Palestinians. The aim was to drive them both out of Palestine and to pave the way for the establishment of the Zionist state.
1947 The United Nations approved the partition under which the Palestinian Arabs, who accounted for 70% of the population and owned 92% of the land, were allocated 47% of the country.
1948 British forces withdrew from Palestine in May and the Zionists proclaimed the state of Israel without defining its borders. Arab armies moved to defend the Palestinians.
1949 A cease fire was finally agreed. The Zionists controlled 77% of Palestinian land and over 1 million Palestinians were forced to leave their country. The West Bank was put under Jordanian control and the Gaza Strip under Egyptian control.
1964 The Palestine Liberation Organisation was established.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xUN Security Council Resolutions on Israel since 1948``x1001722447,66884,Articles``x``x
``xA July 11 editorial in The Boston Globe entitled "Mbeki's Blinders on AIDS" tells us that the "tragedy of President Thako Mbeki's speech Sunday is that it reinforces a culture of denial and confusion in South Africa." The real tragedy, which such commentaries exemplify, is an American culture of blame--blame attributed to Africans and a South African government that the editorial immodestly claims "is unwilling to make HIV prevention a national crusade."
By decrying Mbeki's government in such fashion, the Globe, like many other American press agencies who have commented on Mbeki's speech, has manufactured an enemy of Western beliefs whose opinions are nothing short of the ravings of said "cultures of denial." But are his words and those of his colleagues really just products of denial and confusion?
Mbeki's Health Minister, Manto Tshabalala-Msimang, has said, "It is inappropriate to blame everything around this epidemic on the HIV virus...clearly, the relationship between HIV and other social ills afflicting our society such as poverty and disease is complex." Mbeki himself, in his opening speech at the Durban AIDS conference, reiterated this central argument: alleviating poverty and social inequalities will play a pivotal role in conquering the African AIDS crisis.
Should poverty really be a priority in conquering African AIDS? Despite damning evidence, showcased both in the scientific literature and in the popular press, the Globe's editors say "no". "Mbeki ignores the reality [emphasis ours] that AIDS exists independent of economic circumstances," they claim. As evidence, they cite American gay men, "as affluent as the rest of US society in the 1980s, when the virus raced through their ranks." The editors credit positive outcomes among this population to the "effective
public health campaign" gay American men conducted in response to the AIDS threat.
But the firm and simple "reality" that AIDS prevalence is unrelated to economics is no reality at all. Recent CDC reports indicate that HIV incidence rates are growing fastest among poor young black and poor American women. Poverty has, in fact, been established as a key determinant for both HIV infection and the subsequent acquisition of AIDS. MORE
_________________________________________________
The ten thousand strong AIDS 'community" had been outraged by earlier comments attributed to the Head of State now hosting the first world AIDS meeting ever held in a non western country. Was Mbeki with them or against them? It was a question that grew out of a simmering controversy that began month earlier when the South African President spent a few nights conducting personal research on the Internet. It led him to the views of a handful of dissident doctors and researchers who had been challenging the conventional scientific wisdom about the origins of the AIDS virus for years.
He quickly began wondering aloud if South Africa's AIDS fighting program was on the right track. Staring down the barrel of drug costs that could bankrupt his treasury and plans for economic development, he provoked a debate about the proper strategies to pursue that is still reverberating globally.
Critics quickly elevated his stance into a heresy after he invited some of those dissidents to take part in a presidential advisory panel (which also included many mainstream researcher.) The 30 member group was charged with investigating some critical issues, including the accuracy of Aids tests, the safety of certain highly toxic anti-viral drugs like AZT which has been relatively effective in blocking transmission of the disease from mother to child, and the charged issue of what causes AIDS. Does HIV lead to Aids, as most scientists insist, or are there other causes and contributing factors? It will make its report at the end of the year.
Mbeki never openly denied an HIV-Aids link but his aggressively inquiring attitude appeared to many as if he that's what he was doing. Such questioning was viewed as a distratcion, evidence that he was in denial about an infection that the UN says is present in ten percent of the country's population, or some 4.2 million people, more than in any other comparable country.
For daring to challenge the consensus, Mbeki fell, in the words of a high level White House AIDs official I spoke with, "off the program." Soon he turned into a pariah and subject for ridicule in the world press, trashed by 60 Minutes in the US and criticized by one of South Africa's leading intellectuals Dr. Mamphela Ramphele for "irresponsibility bordering on criminality."
5000 researchers and scientists world-wide issued a "Durban Declaration" to rebuke him, insisting that that HIV causes Aids, full stop. End of story. His defensive press secretary dismissed their statement as fit for the "dustbin." Local political pressure was then brought to bear on those behind the declaration to cancel a planned press conference that could turn embarrassing. Feelings polarized. Over coffee in my hotel, an HIV positive ACT UP militant from Brooklyn New York snarled, "Mbeki should be impeached and arrested." MORE``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xAids: Misunderstanding Mbeki``x1001760898,77054,Articles``x``x
``xCUBAN PRESIDENT FIDEL CASTRO:
"THE TRAGEDY SHOULD NOT BE USED TO RECKLESSLY START A WAR"
No one can deny that terrorism is today a dangerous and ethically indefensible phenomenon, which should be eradicated regardless of its deep origins, the economic and political factors that brought it to live, and those responsible for it.
The unanimous irritation caused by the human and psychological damage brought on the American people by the unexpected and shocking death of thousands of innocent people whose images have shaken the world is perfectly understandable. But who have profited? The extreme right,
the most backward and right-wing forces, those in favor of crushing the growing world rebellion and sweeping away everything progressive that is still left on the planet. It was an enormous error, a huge injustice and a great crime, whoever organized or are responsible for such action.
However, the tragedy should not be used to recklessly start a war that could actually unleash an endless carnage of innocent people, all under the peculiar and bizarre name of "Infinite Justice."
In the last few days we have seen the hasty establishment of the basis, the concept, the true purposes, the spirit and the conditions for such a war. No one would be able to affirm that it was not something thought out well in advance, something that was just waiting for its chance to materialize. Those who, after the so-called end of the Cold War, continued a military build-up and the development of
the most sophisticated means to kill and exterminate human beings were aware that their large military investments would give them the privilege to impose an absolute and complete dominance over the other peoples of the world. The ideologists of the imperialist system knew very well what they were doing and why they were doing it.
After the shock and sincere sorrow felt by every people on Earth for the atrocious and insane terrorist attack that targeted the American people, the most extremist ideologists and the most belligerent hawks, already established in privileged power positions, have taken command of the most powerful country in the world, whose military and technological capabilities would seem infinite. Actually, its capacity to destroy and kill is enormous, while its inclination towards equanimity, serenity, thoughtfulness and restraint is minimal.
The combination of elements--including complicity and the common enjoyment of privileges--the prevailing opportunism, confusion and panic make it almost impossible to avoid a bloody and unpredictable outcome.e.
The first victims of whatever military actions are undertaken will be the billions of people living in the poor and underdeveloped world, with their unbelievable economic and social problems, their unpayable debts and the ruinous prices of their basic commodities; their growing natural and ecological catastrophes, their hunger and misery, the
massive undernourishment of their children, teenagers and adults, their terrible AIDS epidemic, their malaria, their tuberculosis and their infectious diseases that threaten whole nations with extermination.
The grave economic world crisis was already a real and irrefutable fact affecting absolutely every one of the big economic power centers. Such crisis will inevitably grow deeper under the new circumstances, and when it becomes unbearable for the overwhelming majority of the peoples, it will bring chaos, rebellion and the impossibility to govern.
But the price will also be unpayable for the rich countries. For years to come it would be impossible to speak strongly enough about the environment and ecology, or about ideas and research done and tested, or about projects for the protection of nature--because that space and possibility would be taken by military actions, war and crimes as infinite as "Infinite Justice," that is, the name given to the war operation to be unleashed..
Can there be any hope left after having listened, hardly 36 hours ago, to the speech made by the president before the U.S. Congress?
I will avoid the use of adjectives, qualifiers or offensive words towards the author of that speech. They would be absolutely unnecessary and untimely when the tensions and seriousness of the moment advise thoughtfulness and equanimity. I will limit myself to underline some short phrases that say it all:
"We will use every necessary weapon of war."
"Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign unlike any other we have ever seen."
"Every nation in every region now has a decision to make. Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists."
"I've called the armed forces to alert and there is a reason. The hour is coming when America will act and you will make us proud."
"This is the world's fight, this is civilization's fight."
"I ask for your patience [...] in what will be a long struggle."
"The great achievement of our time and the great hope of every time, now depend on us."
"The course of this conflict is not known, yet its outcome is certain. [...] And we know that God is not neutral."
I ask our fellow countrymen to meditate deeply and calmly on the ideas contained in several of the above-mentioned
phrases:
Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists.
No nation of the world has been left out of the dilemma, not even the big and powerful states; none has escaped the threat of war or attacks.
We will use any weapon.
No procedure has been excluded, regardless of ethics, or any threat, however fatal--either nuclear, chemical, biological or any other..
It will not be short combat but a lengthy war, lasting many years, unparalleled in history.
It is the world's fight; it is civilization's fight.
The achievements of our times and the hope of every time, now depend on us.
Finally, an unheard of confession in a political speech on the eve of a war, and no less than in times of apocalyptic risks:
The course of this conflict is not known; yet its outcome is certain. And we know that God is not neutral.
This is an amazing assertion. When I think about the real or imagined parties involved in that bizarre holy war that is about to begin, I find it difficult to make a distinction about where fanaticism is stronger.
On Thursday, before the United States Congress, the idea was sketched out of a world military dictatorship under the exclusive rule of force, irrespective of any international laws or institutions. The United Nations Organization, simply ignored in the present crisis, would fail to have any authority or prerogative whatsoever. There would be only one boss, only one judge, and only one law.
We have all been ordered to ally either with the United States government or with terrorism.
Cuba, the country that has suffered the most and the longest from terrorist actions, the one whose people are not afraid of anything because there is no threat or power in the world that can intimidate it--with a high morale, Cuba claims that it is opposed to terrorism and opposed to war. Although the possibilities are now remote, Cuba reaffirms the need to avert a war of unpredictable consequences whose very authors have admitted not having the least idea of how the events
will unfold. Likewise, Cuba reiterates its willingness to cooperate with every country in the total eradication of terrorism..
An objective and calm friend should advise the United States government against throwing young American soldiers into an uncertain war in remote, isolated and inaccessible places, like a fight against ghosts, not knowing where they are or even if they exist or not, or whether the people they kill are or are not responsible for the death of their innocent fellow countrymen killed in the United States.
Cuba will never declare itself an enemy of the American people, who are today subjected to an unprecedented campaign to sow hatred and a vengeful spirit, so much so that even the music that sings of peace has been banned. On the contrary, Cuba will make that music its own, and even our children will sing their songs to peace while the announced bloody war lasts.
Whatever happens, the territory of Cuba will never be used for terrorist actions against the American people and we will do everything within our reach to prevent such actions against that people. Today we are expressing our solidarity while urging to peace and calmness. One day they will admit we were right.
We will defend our independence, our principles and our social achievements with honor to the last drop of blood if we are attacked!
It will not be easy to fabricate pretexts to do it. They are already talking about a war using all the necessary weapons, but it will be good to recall that not even that would be a new experience. Almost four decades ago, hundreds of strategic and tactical nuclear weapons were aimed at Cuba and nobody remembers any one in our country sleepless over that.
We are the same sons and daughters of that heroic people, with a patriotic and revolutionary conscience that is higher than ever. It is time for serenity and courage.
The world will grow aware of this and will raise its voice in the face of the terrible threatening drama that it is about to suffer.
As for Cubans, this is the right time to proclaim more proudly and resolutely than ever:
Socialism or death!
Homeland or death!
We shall overcome!
- END -
(Copyright Workers World Service: Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this document, but changing it is not allowed. For more information contact Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011; via e-mail: ww@workers.org. For subscription info send message to: info@workers.org. Web: http://www.workers.org)``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xSpeech given by Cuban President Fidel Castro on Sept. 22``x1001864474,1852,Articles``x``x
``xBy Bukka Rennie
October 01, 2001
Haiti, the first black republic in the Western Hemisphere, paid reparations to France to the tune of 150 million in "gold francs". Imagine paying reparations for having won your independence in one of the bloodiest episodes in modern history. The oppressed compensating the oppressor for their freedom.
That was a shock to many in the audience at the recently-held CLR James conference who may not have been so informed previously.
Haiti is what it is today because of the numerous compounded negative effects it faced, such as the deliberate political and economic non-recognition by all the then major nations of the world, coupled, of course, with the geometric effect of having to pay such severe reparations.
That is a historic fact. But why the surprise? The white planters in the English-speaking Caribbean were the ones compensated to the tune of some £200 million for the loss of slave labour. The ex-slaves got nothing. Similarly, the rice and cotton planters of the southern states of America were likewise compensated after slavery was abolished.
The Euro-centrics have always sought reparation and compensation for their "kith and kin" wherever they may be and whatever may have been the disaster suffered. Similarity of treatment to those of us who are not of their kith and kin has never been their agenda.
The First Peoples of the Americas, the so-called Red Indians, culturally were of an entirely different view of the world to that of the British and Europeans with whom they clashed. The First Peoples had no concept of private ownership of the physical and natural environment.
"How can you own the rivers and the trees and the animals around? Can you own the air we breathe and all these things so necessary for living?"
Questions to that effect were posed by Chief Seattle and Chief Crazy Horse. And they were not afraid to die for their cause. They lost eventually and paid the ultimate price. Genocide and disappearance of their civilisation.
Reparations in any form to the minority groups of them still existing have never been considered. What is fundamental though is that they exist in an environment today in which there are mechanisms for sustainable development.
The people of Haiti were also not afraid to die, they embraced the modern concepts of "liberty, fraternity and equality" and fought the French Europeans to establish these principles. They won and yet they were made to pay and are still paying in different ways as they work out the essential mechanisms.
The USA's role in all of this is documented history even as she grew up and matured as a country projected as the bastion of freedom and democracy. But how could such a country at this time, in today's world, have the audacity to walk out of the Durban Conference on the question of reparations for the descendants of slavery that existed on their shores for well over 300 years? The simple answer is that black people are not considered their "kith and kin".
The point being made in the two previous columns is that America needs to review its foreign policies and its positions in relation to the rest of the world. And not only because of the events of October 11 when the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were attacked. The necessity existed all along.
Real enlightened, visionary leadership would have seen to that since the '60s when for the first time every aspect and facet of world civilisation, Eastern as well as Western, was put to question by conscious youth and progressive working-class forces everywhere.
In many instances, it was the skewed tenets of American foreign policy that served, inadvertently or not, to prop up all kinds of crazy, backward regimes such as that of fundamentalist "mullahs" with their anachronistic feudal political structures reminiscent of the Middle Ages, or even that of modern brutal dictatorships as existed in Chile and Panama and the Philippines.
What is ironic is that some of these very backward regimes would in the long run turn against America and foster popular hostilities against her when it seemed to be in their narrow economic interests to do so, eg the Taliban and Iraqi regimes.
While all this is happening the masses of people therein are deliberately kept hungry and trapped in some twilight time zone mouthing and screaming emotional epithets, and at the same time their progressive strata are effectively isolated and quietly but brutally liquidated.
Look, we have been saying over and over that America has a particular responsibility. Precisely because she is now the only super-power and that power must be exercised and be wielded with a firm sense of morality. The "person" or "nation" placed for whatever reason on a pedestal has to bear the greatest moral burden before the rest of the world.
Borges, the Argentine writer, claims that America is a country that has assigned to herself the name of an entire continent. If such is the case, is she to look or to continue to look upon the rest of the continent as her personal "backyard"?
We said in the column "War of the flea", that America "represents a benchmark in humanity's long march and the point is that no one wants to be left out..." A "benchmark" is a stage that measures or denotes significant and fundamental accomplishment and achievement.
America is the country that has taken the present prevalent mode of production, distribution and consumption to its highest levels. She manages and controls the global market and she is the one that profits the most from globalisation. It is a mode that warrants all the basic freedoms, including the freedom of choice and the right to the pursuit of knowledge and happiness.
In relative terms it is the mode of production that has extended the democratic process the furthest. All the known modes of the past, eg tribalism, communalism, feudalism, slavery, early capitalism and all its degenerate totalitarian variants, ie state capitalism/socialism, fascism, etc, have to one extent or another been hindrances to the democratic processes and been major blots on humanity's long march towards universal freedom.
America, just as she has assigned the name of a whole continent to herself, has likewise assigned to herself and her system, "Democracy" (with a capital "D"), as if to suggest that she is equivalent to the be-all and end-all of humanity's quest for complete fulfilment.
Nothing is further from the truth. Yet she is today a benchmark of modernity and what is supposed to accompany that is a moral burden and a moral responsibility; mess that up and the hostility towards America will intensify. Just as happens when any big chief anywhere betrays the moral trust.
There is this standing joke in our favoured "watering hole" in Tunapuna: Put two airplanes on the tarmac in any underdeveloped country in the world and say that one is bound for "America" and the other to anywhere else and see which of the two airplanes would be filled to capacity.
No one wants, nor is it possible, to destroy this benchmark of humanity's collective travail. All and sundry want to be part of it though on mutually beneficial terms and all wish to be respected for whatever unique particularity they may bring to the common agenda.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xMe big chief ``x1001941151,18862,Articles``x``x
``x( Akinkawon ) ABSTRACT: Gandhi7495
SUMMARY: To understand Gandhi's role towards the blacks, one requires a knowledge of Hinduism. Within the constraints, a few words on Hinduism will suffice: The caste is the bedrock of Hinduism. The Hindu term for caste is varna; which means arranging the society on a four-level hierarchy based on the skin color: The darker-skinned relegated to the lowest level, the lighter-skinned to the top three levels of the apartheid scale called the Caste System. The race factor underlies the intricate workings of Hinduism, not to mention the countless evil practices embedded within. Have no doubt, Gandhi loved the Caste system.
Gandhi lived in South Africa for roughly twenty one years from 1893 to 1914. In 1906, he joined the military with a rank of Sergeant-Major and actively participated in the war against the blacks. Gandhi's racist ideas are also evident in his writings of these periods. One should ask a question : Were our American Black leaders including Dr. King aware of Gandhi's anti-black activities? Painfully, we have researched the literature and the answer is, no. For this lapse, the blame lies on the Afro-American newspapers which portrayed Gandhi in ever glowing terms, setting the stage for African-American leaders Howard Thurman, Sue Baily Thurman, Reverend Edward Carroll, Benjamin E. Mays, Channing H. Tobias, and William Stuart Nelson to visit India at different time periods to meet Gandhi in person. None of these leaders had any deeper understanding of Hinduism, British India, or the complexities of Gandhi's convoluted multi-layered Hindu mind. Frankly speaking, these leaders were no match to Gandhi's deceit; Gandhi hoodwinked them all, and that too, with great ease. Understanding of Hindu India with our black leaders never really improved even considering years later in March 1959, much after Gandhi's death, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., his wife, and Professor Lawrence D. Reddick visited India and to our way of analysis, they fared no better than their predecessors. We are certain, had Dr. King known Gandhi's anti-black and other criminal activities, he would have distanced his civil-rights movement away from the name of Gandhi. full article...
________________________________________________________
( RootsWomb(man) ) Peace,
Give thanks for this article. Thought I'd forward some more information on the MYTH of Ghandi from "The Global African Presence" site by Ranuko Rashidi: http://www.cwo.com/~lucumi/gandhi.html
________________________________________________________
( Mica ) He may have been racist but the message of passive resistance does not change. As long as he was not oppressing blacks I'm fine with him. its not like people knew him for his equal rights ideas, people liked him for his anti-violence ideas. Marcus Garvey did not believe Selassie was Jah, but that's no reason to not like him...
________________________________________________________
( Steve ) That is a ridiculously mentally lazy response. If you took you time to learn history you may realize that Ghandi’s was disrespectful and oppressive to all Black and African people.
If you separate parts of his words from his conduct and ended up with your comment, you are a supporter of hypocrisy. A hypocrite is not a role model.
Incidentally Garvey was trying to get Africans to move from mental dependency and he was quite right to deny Selassie was Jah if Jah means the perfect spirit. Salassie surely was not perfect in thoughts and actions.
________________________________________________________
( Akinkawon ) Rather harsh but very correct comment in my view. You would not become popular with that.
I suspect the problem is the same lack of historical perspective where people do not evaluate for themselves. But how can they if they do not have a good idea of what is the self.
________________________________________________________
( IanI ) Sincerest Greetings Bredren an Sistren
IanI Rastafari as a POSITIVE One allways look to see the Truth. I also do the best me can to be overstanding and generous. Seen.
No One has absolute perfection and all are subject to the conditions into which they have been born. For some there be the ability to transend those conditions, for others there is no such a thing. I shall allways be generous to them that seek that transendance, even if them fail. This is generosity.
Mr. Gandhi:
"I am conscious of my own limitations. That consciousness is my only strength. Whatever I might have been able to do in my life has proceeded more than anything else out of my own limitations."
"Life is governed by a multitude of forces. It would be smooth sailing, if one could determine the course of one's actions only by one general principle whose application at a given moment was too obvious to need a moments reflection. But I cannot recall a single act which could be so easily determined."
"My position regarding the government is TOTALLY different today and hence I should not voluntarily participate in its wars and I should risk imprisonment and even the gallows if I were FORCED to take up arms or otherwise participate in its military operations."
"Language at best is but a poor vehicle for expressing one's thoughts in full. I know I fail often... it is a matter not of the intellect but of the Heart. True guidance comes by the constant waiting upon God, by utmost humility. It's practice requires fearlessness and courage of the Highest order. I am PAIN-FULLY aware of my failings."
"I know that war is wrong, is an unmitigated evil. I know too that it has got to go. I firmly believe that freedom won through bloodshed or fraud is no freedom."
"The more I reflect and look back on the past, the more vividly do I feel my limitations."
" I have gone through deep self-introspection, searched myself through and through, and examined and analysed every psychological situation. Yet I am far from claiming any finality or infallibility."
"There is no such thing as 'Gandhism' and I do not want to leave any sect after me. I do not claim to have originated any new principle or doctrine. I have simply TRIED in my own way to apply the eternal Truths to our daily life and problems. I have nothing new to teach the world. I have sometimes erred and learnt by my errors. There is no 'ism' about it."
"My imperfections and my failures are as much a blessing from God as my success and my talents, and I lay them both at His feet."
One can allways search anothers Life and find errors and failings. One can allways find them worst transgressions and build upon them. It is a great accomplishment when One can see them own and try to fix them, successfully or failingly. Life be a journey and experience brings Wisdom to them that seek it. Some achieve greater Wisdom than others. Some achieve Wisdom in one area of Life and not in another. Some do evil in the younger days of them Life and come to Realization when older and work to change them ways... others do not.
IanI Rastafari will allways seek the POSITIVE view and hope for an expansion of the consciousness of LOVE. Mr. Gandhi's racism may well have been what drove him to his continued striving for a more perfect world. His realizations of his failings gave him reason and direction to attempt a change, however erred those changes may be, or simply seem to others. It is those that DENY them own weaknesses and faults, and continue in arrogance that inevitably destroy and 'conquer' those they see as 'less than' them own selves. When IanI do not strive to reason and realize the ways for which humanity goes astray, to overstand the people and work towards solving the problems of society, with generosity and patience... there is war. A situation many find themselves in at this very moment. War. Violence. And not overstanding and guidance.
Racism is a scourge that has been pounded into the minds of the innocent for long, long ages now. IanI see a light beginning to SHINE. It is to that Light that IanI will forward. Continuing in the supreme effort to free the minds of the racists from them horrific brainwashment so that IanI People may live Free and unafraid.
Praises unto the Almighty Most High
Give Thanks.
IanI Rastafari
Guidance and Protection
________________________________________________________
( Akinkawon ) I posted that article because many people speak as if Gandhi was the highest moral example and quite clearly he was not.
I feel assured that many people do not take the time to study the lives of people whom they consider heroes and in so doing they fail to grasp the shortcomings in the personalities. There is a popular misconception that people should not examine the shortcomings of popular personalities and this is the reason they fail to rise above them.
Gandhi was not only low in understanding, but he said nothing that was original. He went to school, a right most others did not have and he would have grasped some of the more eloquent concepts in history, but the pacifist attitude that he is used to symbolize is part of the problem.
Whenever poor people are aggrieved, the media suddenly focuses on Gandhi and Martin Luther King as symbols of poor struggle. What they are trying to crystallize in the minds of the aggrieved is that they must remain non-violent while the aggressors, usually the Leaders in the society uses violence against them.
For those who understand African American struggles, there would have been no hero named Martin Luther King without the radical actions of the Black Panthers. Very often this is not appreciated. While I myself do not support using violence to address issues, I implore people to know the difference between self-defense on a human level and poorly contrived acts of aggression.
For what Gandhi symbolized and achieved during his time he should be thrown into the dustbin of history, as he offered no insightful means to end oppression and violence in India and anywhere else. His disrespect and ignorance of Africans kept him from understanding the Caste system in India and intelligently intervening to offer equity to all people.
Can people learn from him? Yes, only when they examine the entire history of Gandhi, clearly see his shortcomings and by not repeating them.
I know many people may be angered by my comments and they are entitled to their anger but my comments will stand the test of history and time.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xUnderstanding Gandhi``x1002131393,13989,Rasta``x``x
``xABSTRACT BBC: - Ethnic Berbers have rebuffed a series of concessions offered by the Algerian Government, including recognition of their language, and have vowed to press ahead with a mass rally.
Berber leaders from the Kabylie region say the offer falls short of their demands, and that the government is trying to engineer a split in their long-running campaign for official recognition and justice.
President Abdelaiz Bouteflika, who has portrayed the concessions as ground-breaking, hoped the offer would persuade the community to call off their demonstration on Friday.
Previous demonstrations of this kind have attracted hundreds of thousands of people. In June a protest which included many non-Berbers degenerated into rioting.
The Berbers' dissatisfaction with the offer is reportedly based on the exact wording of the text.
They want their language - Tamazight - to be classified as an official language of the state, giving it equal status with the majority language of Arabic.
But they say the government is offering to make amendments to the constitution which would merely recognize the Berber language as a national language of Algeria.
The Berbers are also suspicious about the wording of additional government offers over legal procedures against police suspected of killing Berber civilians.
Algerian paramilitary police are accused of shooting dead some 60 Berbers during the recent unrest.
An official inquiry has already judged that the deaths were a result of police over-reaction to peaceful protests.
Concessions to the Berbers have been strongly opposed by powerful circles in the majority Arab community, in particular the military, as well as by the Islamist movement.
Since independence from France in 1962, the majority Arab community has maintained that Arabic must be the sole language to be recognised by the state.
That has always been regarded as an affront by the Berbers, who claim to represent over a quarter of the population and say their culture and language are distinct.
These people call themselves Amazigh. "Berber is a name that has been given them by others and which they themselves do not use. Amazigh history in North Africa is extensive and diverse. Their ancient ancestors settled in the area just inland of the Medeterranean Sea to the east of Egypt. Many early Roman, Greek, and Phoenician colonial accounts mention a group of people collectively known as Berbers living in northern Africa. In actuality, Berber is a generic name given to numerous heterogeneous ethnic groups that share similar cultural, political, and economic practices. Over the last several hundred years many Berber peoples have converted to Islam.
Contrary to popular romanticism which portrays Amazigh as nomadic peoples crossing the desert on camels, most actually practice sedentary agriculture in the mountains and valleys throughout northern Africa. Some do, in fact, engage in trade throughout the region, and such practices certainly had a tremendous influence on the history of the African continent. Trade routes established from western Africa to the Mediterranean connected the peoples of southern Europe with much of sub-Saharan Africa thousands of years ago. There are basically five trade routes which extend across the Sahara from the northern Mediterranean coast of Africa to the great cities, which are situated on the southern edge of the Sahara. Berber merchants were responsible for bringing goods from these cities to the north. From there they were distributed throughout the world.
http://www.uiowa.edu/~africart/toc/people/Berber.html``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xAlgeria: Ethnic Berbers have rebuffed concessions``x1002231728,90609,Members``x``x
``xBy Dudley Thompson
First of all, I want to thank the students and those who are responsible for giving me the chance to participate in these "streets of intellect." Listening to George Lamming alone is worth the trip. I hope you will agree with me on that.
I will begin with a quotation that could have come from Walter Rodney himself. Actually it is a quotation from George Lamming. It goes like this:
There is a perennial debt to be paid to black people for continuing of enslavement and degradation. There are those who believe that the matter is over. They are completely wrong. Actually, there are those among us who believe that the demand and struggle for justice and restoration to full dignity would take a generation to win a crusade for reparations. In unison under concerted strategy....
There are other words of inspiration along the same lines, for instance Kwame Nkrumah has said: "We can no longer afford the luxury of delay"; and as I have stated elsewhere, "The debt has not been paid; the accounts have not been settled." MORE``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xThe debt has not been paid, the accounts have not been settled``x1002522617,69580,Members``x``x
``xBy Michael Delblond
This year is the centennial of the birth of our own C L R James and just as when he moved on "beyond the boundary", we can brace ourselves from a virtual deluge of encomiums from solicited as well as unsolicited sources of varying degrees of distinction and/or authority. It is also in the nature of things that some "glowing tributes" could well be thinly disguised, self-serving efforts to extract political mileage and attempt to glow in CLR's posthumous reflected glory.
Nevertheless, there are cogent reasons why we should wish to properly pay our national respects to one of our more gifted sons and perpetuate his memory in an appropriate way. That is not to say that James was either flawless or without his own "feet of clay".
CLR James is generally seen as a "self-made intellectual" who apparently turned his nose up at preparing himself for a free university education and refused to direct his efforts to winning the much-sought-after Island Scholarship which students of humble means saw as the "Open Sesame" to "fame and fortune" and the only alternative to some dead-end occupation which could have constituted the "graveyard of ambition".
I don't think people today are even dimly aware of the virtual absence of opportunities in days gone by for the bright young boy or girl, from the humbler walks of life, who aspired to a professional career in keeping with his/her intellectual potential.
In this respect, I call to mind Thomas Gray's lines:
"Full many a gem of purest ray serene The dark unfathomed caves of ocean bear; Full many a flower is born to blush unseen, And waste its sweetness on the desert air."
I also ask myself, in respect of young CLR, "What could have been operating in the mind of this lad who at the tender age of nine or ten was reading — with much interest, one might add — the British Classics and was the youngest boy to win an "exhibition" (a scholarship to QRC) from an intensively competitive field?" It might be worth mentioning here that CLR's father was a primary school headmaster (a position, which in those days and for a black man, was an indication of great diligence, ambition and intelligence). CLR's mother was also a voracious reader of quality literature.
It therefore cannot be said that James lacked a nurturing environment or the stimuli for success and academic achievement.
By his own admission, Mr James had a consuming passion for cricket. He also saw Pan-Africanism as a self-appointed mission and had a vision of world revolutionary politics. He was a self-avowed Marxist. More specifically, he was a Trotskyite. Although he expressed misgivings about the presumed role of Blacks within the movement. James appeared to be his own man, with his own mind, and he wasn't susceptible to being pigeonholed. The idea that he was simply "a communist" and ipso facto "a dangerous subversive character" may well have been a political oversimplification.
In understanding CLR one has to examine his attitude to fame and fortune. He seemed, from all accounts I've heard, quite indifferent to the security that fortune brings. This may well have been at the back of a certain writer's mind who apparently sneered at one of CLR's return to the country of his birth as, "his being washed up on our shores," — a gratuitous insult, I thought at the time.
The only items that I can figure out being washed up on any shores are the flotsam and jetsam of some wreckage at sea. Perhaps, having been bitten by the "political bug" James never became the prolific novelist that he might have been, with a comfortable livelihood ensured by the exercise of his craft.
One can perhaps surmise that young CLR was, initially, instinctively persuaded that a university education might just have got in the way of his real education and stultify his intellectual development or he had grasped the point that "education" and "qualification" were not necessarily synonymous with "formal accreditation." In today's world university professors are virtually "a dime a dozen" and one can think of cases where a dozen aren't worth a dime.
CLR (as he is popularly known) went on to create an international reputation for himself, to the point that he was once described by the “TIMES” of London as "... the black Plato of our generation and one of the most versatile intellectuals." In an obituary, the prestigious London newspaper, "THE INDEPENDENT" hailed James as probably the most versatile and accomplished Afro-American intellectual of the 20th Century."
Although there has been and, I imagine, will continue to be an unofficial competition to dredge "superlatives" to capture the quintessential character of the multifaceted talent of this extraordinary man, the comment that I found most apt was that of an E P Thompson which went like this: "It is not a question of whether one agrees with everything he (James) has said or done; but everything has had the mark of originality, of his own flexible and deeply cultured intelligence ... the intelligence has always been matched by a warm and outgoing personality." There was every reason to believe that Mr James was well-respected and highly regarded abroad and I rather suspect that it must have been a sore point with him that he had not been accorded the recognition and courtesies, at home, commensurate with his international stature.
He was subsequently awarded the Trinity Cross and an honorary UWI Doctorate. The government of the day committed itself to underwriting all expenses for his return from England and his medical and other needs. He was then, however, too weak to travel and died soon after. His mortal remains lie buried in Tunapuna from which he hails. His self-imposed exile and bitter quarrel with PM Dr Eric Williams will be the subject of a future article.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xCLR — Black Plato of our time``x1002722691,36943,Articles``x``x
``xBy John Maxwell
IT'S been more or less official -- as official as science ever gets: the family of man is African. Even the most die-hard supporters of the theory that modern human populations arose spontaneously in several different regions of the world have abandoned that theology. The so-called "Multi-regional" theory was used to justify theories of "racial" differences and racial superiority.
The Multi-regionalists were dealt a fatal blow by a study, the results of which were published earlier this year in the magazine Science. A team of geneticists took gene samples from 12,127 men in Asia and Oceania. They examined characteristic DNA "markers" sequences of genetic code, from the Y (male chromosomes) of these modern men, Australians, Chinese, Polynesians, Japanese et al, and discovered that every one of them had a characteristic sequence which could be traced back to African ancestors who lived between 35,000 and 89,000 years ago. The latest research complemented and bolstered an earlier, smaller study, published in the January issue of the Annals of Human Genetics which also pointed to a recent African origin for the Y chromosome in men from Africa, Europe, Asia, Australia, and the Americas.
Stanford University molecular biologist Peter Underhill and colleagues analysed 218 markers in 1,062 men from 21 populations in those regions. "They saw the greatest diversity in two distinct and long-separated clusters of Y chromosomes in African men. In contrast, they found that all men outside Africa share the same mutation, called M168, which arose in an African ancestor between 35,000 and 89,000 years ago."
This means that African populations are more genetically diverse than people outside of Africa, suggesting, subversively, that some Africans may be more genetically advanced than everybody else.
The latest studies should put an end to the pseudo-scientific energies which have been expended over five hundred years to prove the superiority of one set of people to another. There is, as far as anyone knows, just one human race.
Racial profiling
In the wake of the WTC/Pentagon atrocity, blacks in the United States have felt a general easing of pressure. The congenital dread felt by most has been replaced, it seems, by a consciousness that now that Middle Eastern people are all "suspect," they provide new targets for the old game of pinning the tail on the donkey. Blacks, even more than whites, are now reportedly in favour of racial profiling to determine who is or is not likely to be carrying a penknife in his pockets and harbouring murderous un-American sentiments.
It is sad that the American society is so divided in normal times, that in times like these, groups of people turn so easily to find others to victimise. (It is also true in China which on Saturday banned all 'Middle-Eastern people', including Israelis, from their aeroplanes).
Many Americans will be cheered by statements such as those made by Mr Donald Rumsfeld, the US secretary of defence: All he wants, he said, is that America should be able to continue to live and behave as it has always done.
Ex-President George H W Bush, cannot see that continuing as a partner in a consulting firm which advises the bin Laden family, may be a serious conflict of interest. But, as Calvin Coolidge said, long ago, "the business of America is business" and what is good for George Bush must be good for America, if I may resurrect the sentiments of Mr Charles Wilson, chairman of General Motors 40 years ago.
Corporate profiling
The European Parliament is now studying a complaint against several US corporations, including Unocal oil and the Halliburton Company, of which, until recently, Mr Dick Cheney, vice-president of the United States, was head.
During Mr Cheney's reign at Halliburton that company was not only in receipt of massive corporate welfare from the United States, it was also the beneficiary of forced labour in the forests of Burma where it was building an oil pipeline. Complaints to the EU parliament and to the International Labour Organisation suggest that Halliburton and Unocal must have been party to the brutalisation, murder and rape, which guaranteed their contracts and their profits in Burma.
Unfortunately, when ordinary Americans ask themselves why the US is so hated abroad, they lack the background knowledge of the brutal tactics of their government and their corporations in foreign countries over the years. The US press is increasingly owned by the largest corporations whose interests include forced labour, sweated labour and all kinds of sharp practice in foreign countries, little of which is ever reported in the United States.
It should therefore come as no surprise that the major American television networks tamely agreed to a US government request to censor the words of Osama bin Laden on the somewhat imaginative theory that he may be encoding terrorist instructions in his videos. The US had already tried to get the Arabic counterpart of CNN, the Al Jazeera network of Qatar, to censor bin Laden. They failed.
The problem is that as many people expected, the US is losing the propaganda war. It is almost impossible not to lose a propaganda war against an abstraction. Terrorism may, in the American view, be incarnated in Mr bin Laden, but getting rid of him will not end terrorism.
It must be becoming obvious to the major US planners that smart bombs on an empty landscape don't suggest a real war against anyone or anything. Besides which, as the stories of the deprivation and human misery of Afghanistan filter out, the whole exercise looks a little too much like bullying. Iraq was almost a credible antagonist, with tanks and SCUD missiles, while poison gas was always a danger. The Afghans have a few portable Stinger missiles and some Kalashnikov rifles, hardly likely to be effective against high flying bombers.
Bombing a myth
Having made Mr bin Laden into a myth, the warriors for freedom will find it very difficult to confine the myth even if they capture the man. In a way, to the Muslims of the world, it now hardly matters whether bin Laden is captured or killed. He is already up there with Saladin and nothing anyone can now do can unravel the effect of the millions of words spent by the Americans in making him into a kind of supernatural bogeyman.
Trying to "get" bin Laden, as the FBI got Al Capone, is impossible, and anyway, is sure to lead to further terrorist attacks. As I said in my first column on this subject, terrorists and/or "freedom fighters" do not need to be led, if they are sufficiently imbued with a righteous sense of injustice and grievance. It is, after all, perfectly possible that the WTC terrorists were a self-contained group, determined to do their bit for Allah and the greater glory of Islam. Did they really need a bin Laden?
The grievance and bitterness were there before bin Laden and will survive him. As long as the causes for this bitterness and grievance persist, so long will the destructive anger and the horrific self-sacrifices continue.
Fighting "terrorism" is fighting a symptom. The disease will continue as long as Corporate America continues to push the American state in the furtherance of its own, hidden agenda while concealing its true nature from its own people.
According to Greek mythology, the Hydra was a ferocious monster -- a beast three times as tall as a man, with the body of a hound and nine snakelike heads. So hideous was the Hydra that most people died of fright at the mere sight of it. Those who didn't die of fright were soon poisoned by its breath. Hercules, sentenced to seven labours to expiate his crimes, was given, as his second labour, the killing of the monster, a thing so horrific that it seemed to have been made of all the foulest thoughts conceived since time began. When Hercules confronted the Hydra, he discovered that every time he cut off one of its heads, two grew in its place. Hercules' nephew, Iolaus, had the bright idea of burning the stumps as Hercules chopped off each head. Thus cauterised, the stumps could not regenerate. The last head of the monster was, however, immortal, so when Hercules cut off that one, he buried it beneath a huge rock from which it could never escape.
Until now
The demonification of bin Laden is beginning to resemble some of the Hydra's publicity material. In the United States, impressionable people, brought up on a diet of horror movies and video games, have been ready to see the head of Satan in the smoke from the WTC towers. They will probably be having nightmares about bin Laden for years after he is dead and gone.
If terrorism is the modern Hydra, its immortal head may very well be the injustice from which most of the world suffers. It can't be buried under a rock -- even though bin Laden himself might very well be if an American bomb hits the right cave in Afghanistan.
But bombs can destroy neither myths nor injustice.
Copyright ©2001 John Maxwell ``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xBombing a Myth ``x1003204314,99810,Articles``x``x
``x1470 - Portuguese arrive in what is now Gabon.
1839 - Local Mpongwe ruler signs away sovereignty to the French.
1910 - Gabon becomes part of French Equatorial Africa.
1958 - Gabon votes to become autonomous republic in the French Community.
1960 - Gabon becomes independent.
1961 - Leon Mba elected president.
1964 - French forces restore Mba's presidency after crushing military coup.
1967 - Bongo becomes president after Mba dies.
1973 - Bongo converts to Islam and assumes the first name of Omar.
1990 - Opposition parties legalized, accuse the government of fraud in parliamentary elections held in September and October.
1991 - Parliament adopts a new constitution which formalises the multiparty system.
1993 - Bongo narrowly wins presidential election, the first held under the new multiparty constitution; opposition accuses government of electoral fraud.
1996 - Governing Gabonese Democratic Party wins significant majority in parliamentary elections.
1998 - Bongo re-elected to a seven-year term.
BBC - The slave children``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xGabon and modern Slavery in Africa``x1003708868,35159,Articles``x``x
``xEast and west are jockeying for influence in the Caucasus.
The prize is oil and gas
By Richard Norton-Taylor
GUARDIAN UK - A new and potentially explosive Great Game is being set up and few in Britain are aware of it. There are many players: far more than the two - Russia and Britain - who were engaged a century ago in imperial rivalry in central Asia and the north-west frontier. more
The oil behind Bush and Son's campaigns
By Ranjit Devraj
NEW DELHI - Just as the Gulf War in 1991 was all about oil, the new conflict in South and Central Asia is no less about access to the region's abundant petroleum resources, according to Indian analysts. more
The New Gold Mines of Central Asia
Dr. Walid Majid, Institue for Afghan Studies
It turns out that the Central Asian republics of Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan are sitting on what is thought to be one of the world's largest reserves of oil and gas. The total worth of the reserves is estimated to be somewhere between $2.5-$3.5 trillion at today's market prices.
Despite the vast resources, their current energy production is dwarfed by what could be in store in the coming decades. With their current low level of production and poor infra-structure everyone of these republics is in dire need of foreign capital as well as modern technology to exploit their buried natural reserves. Further complicating their plans, everyone of these new republics is landlocked, forcing them to find ways and means to reach consumer markets. By some accounts they need something like $50-$70 billion of foreign investment in the coming decades to enable them to extract and transport to energy hungry markets in Europe and Asia. (1) more
Lebanese-American businessman testified before the Senate
PBS - Richard Tamraz, a Lebanese-American businessman, testified before the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee that he donated $300,000 dollars to the Democratic National Committee to change U.S. policy towards plans to build a pipeline in Central Asia, but he is not the only one interested in bringing the oil out of the Caspian Sea region. Margaret Warner discusses the how geopolitics and oil money intersect with two experts. more
Afghan Pipeline: A New Great Game
BBC - Great-power interest in Afghanistan is once again rising, thanks to plans to build a new pipeline across the country, taking gas from landlocked Central Asia to Pakistan and world markets. In October the project took a step closer to reality with the signing of a deal between Turkmenistan, the primary source of the gas, and an international consortium led by the American UNOCAL company. But the problem, of course, is the continuing civil war in Afghanistan - and who, if anyone, in Afghanistan can guarantee security for the pipeline. Here's our regional analyst Malcolm Haslett: more
Unocal 'Smoking Gun' Alleged
By William Branigin Washington Post Staff Writer
Attorneys for a group of Burmese refugees say they have discovered a "smoking gun" document supporting their claims that a major U.S. oil company should be held accountable for human rights violations related to construction of a natural gas pipeline in Burma.
The 15 plaintiffs, representing thousands who fled to the Burma-Thailand border in the early 1990s, charge that Unocal Corp. and the French oil firm Total SA, partners in the project with the Burmese government, were complicit in human rights abuses by Burmese forces. The abuses allegedly included the forced relocation of entire villages, the use of slave labor, and numerous deaths, beatings, rapes and property seizures. Unocal denies the charges. more
A Taliban delegation visited Unocal's offices in Sugarland
When Kabul fell to Taliban forces, the US Oil company UNOCAL shocked world public opinion by announcing its optimism about developments in Afghanistan. The Taliban victory was perceived as a positive sign. It was revealed that UNOCAL had been involved in negotiations with Taliban over a gas pipeline construction project that is designed to pass through western Afghanistan, delivering Turkmen gas to Pakistan. Before the escalation of fighting in Afghanistan, Chris Taggart, UNOCAL's executive vice-president in charge of the gas pipeline project, told Reuters his company was providing "non-cash bonus payments" to Taliban in return for their cooperation with this US$2 billion project. The Saudi Arabian Delta Oil Company is also a project partner and is believed to have had contacts with Taliban. more
Taleban in Texas for talks on gas pipeline
BBC - A senior delegation from the Taleban movement in Afghanistan is in the United States for talks with an international energy company that wants to construct a gas pipeline from Turkmenistan across Afghanistan to Pakistan. A spokesman for the company, Unocal, said the Taleban were expected to spend several days at the company's headquarters in Sugarland, Texas. Unocal says it has agreements both with Turkmenistan to sell its gas and with Pakistan to buy it. more
Ironies of the current crisis
CURWOOD: One of the ironies of the current crisis of terrorism is that Osama bin Laden and the Taliban both enjoyed American support not so very long ago. In the '80s, the U.S. encouraged fighters from across the Arab world to go to Afghanistan and repel the Soviet invasion. Once the Soviets were defeated, this force stayed in Afghanistan and from there began exporting their violent politics. more
US Department of Energy
Afghanistan's significance from an energy standpoint stems from its geographical position as a potential transit route for oil and natural gas exports from Central Asia to the Arabian Sea. This potential includes the possible construction of oil and natural gas export pipelines through Afghanistan, which was under serious consideration in the mid-1990s. The idea has since been undermined by Afghanistan's instability. Since 1996, most of Afghanistan has been controlled by the Taliban movement, which the United States does not recognize as the government of Afghanistan. more
Unocal Looks To Afghanistan's Taliban For New Profits
The Central Asian republic of Turkmenistan will begin pumping gas to Pakistan through Afghanistan by the year 2001 under an agreement signed on July 23rd by the two countries with proposed pipeline builders. A senior Unocal official said that all major factions in Afghanistan, including the dominant Taliban Islamic movement, had also signed project support agreements or letters. more
But Unocal now denies that a firm agreement was ever reached
The company is not supporting the Taliban in Afghanistan in any way whatsoever. Nor do we have any project or involvement in Afghanistan. more
Gas pipeline could be a pipe dream
BBC - Two years ago, Unocal thought it had found the perfect route via Afghanistan to tap Turkmenistan's abundant natural gas and sell it to the energy-hungry markets of Pakistan and India. It then quickly found eager partners to share in the risks and began the quest for financing the $2bn project. more
Still, in 1999 reports from Pakistan suggested that Unocal was considering rejoining Centgas. Unocal vehemently denied the reports.
DRAW YOUR OWN CONCLUSIONS``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xCould Oil be the reason Britian and America rushed into this conflict?``x1004297541,22135,Articles``x``x
``xBy THABO MBEKI
The President of South Africa
------------
A struggle for political power is dragging the kingdom of Lesotho towards the abyss of a violent conflict. The Democratic Republic of Congo is sliding back into a conflict of arms, which its people had hoped they had escaped forever.
The silence of peace has died on the borders of Eritrea and Ethiopia because, in a debate about an acre or two of land, guns have usurped the place of reason. Those who had risked death in Guinea-Bissau, as they fought as comrades to evict the Portuguese colonialists, today stand behind opposing ramparts speaking to one fearsome rhythm of the beat of machine-gun fire.
A war seemingly without mercy rages in Algeria made more horrifying by a savagery which seeks to anoint itself with the sanctity of a religious faith.
Thus can we say that the children of Africa, from north to south, from the east to the west and at the very centre of our continent, continue to be consumed by death dealt out by those who have proclaimed a sentence of death on dialogue and reason and on the children of Africa, whose limbs are too weak to run away from the rage of the adults.
Both of these, the harbingers of death and the victims of their wrath, are as African as you and I. For that reason, for the reason that we are the disemboweled African mothers and the decapitated African children of Rwanda, we have to say: Enough and no more.
It is because of these pitiful souls, who are the casualties of a destructive force for whose birth they are not to blame, that Africa needs her renaissance. Were they alive and assured that the blight of human-made death had passed for ever, we would have less need to call for renaissance. In the summer of light and warmth and life-giving rain, it is to mock the gods to ask them for light and warmth and life-giving rain. The passionate hope for the warming rays of the sun is the offspring of the shill and dark nights of the winters of our lives.
Africa has no need for the criminals, who would acquire political power by slaughtering the innocents, as do the butchers of the people of Richmond in KwaZulu Natal. Nor has she need for such as those who, because they did not accept that power is legitimate only because it serves the interests of the people, laid Somalia to waste and deprived its people of a country which gave its citizens a sense of being, as well as the being to build themselves into a people.
Neither has Africa need for the petty gangsters who would be our governors by theft of elective positions, as a result of holding fraudulent elections, or by purchasing positions of authority through bribery and corruption. The thieves and their accomplices, the givers of the bribes and the recipients are as African as you and I. We are the corrupter and the harlot who act together to demean our continent and ourselves.
The time has come that we say enough and no more, and by acting to banish the shame remake ourselves as the midwives of the African renaissance.
An ill wind has blown me across the face of Africa. I have seen the poverty of Orlando East and the wealth of Morningside in Johannesburg. In Lusaka, I have seen the poor of Kanyama township and the prosperous risidents of Kubulonga. I have seen the African slums of Surulere in Lagos and the African opulence of Victoria Island. I have seen the faces of the poor in Mbari in Harare and the quiet wealth of Borrowdale.
And I have heard the stories of how those who had access to power, or access to those who had access to power, of how they have robbed and pillaged and broken all laws and all ethical norms with great abandon to acquire wealth, all of them tied by an invisible thread which they hope will connect them to Morningside and Borrowdale and Victoria Island and Kabulonga.
Every day, you and I see those who would be citizens of Kabulonga and Borowdale and Victoria Island and Morningside being born everywhere in our country. Their object in life is to acquire personal wealth by means both foul and fair. Their measure of success is the amount of wealth they can accumulate and the ostentation they can achieve which will convince all that they are a success because, in a visible way, they are people of means.
Thus they seek access to power or access to those who have access to power so that they can corrupt the political order for personal gain at all costs. In this equation, the poverty of the masses of the people becomes a necessary condition for the enrichment of the few and the corruption of political power the only possible condition for its exercise.
It is out of this pungent mixture of greed, dehumanizing poverty, obscene wealth and endemic public and private corrupt practice that many of Africa's coups d'etat, civil wars and situations of instability are born and entrenched.
The time has come that we call a halt to the seemingly socially approved deification of the acquisition of material wealth and the abuse of state power to impoverish the people and deny our continent the possibility to achieve sustainable economic development.
Africa cannot renew herself where its upper achelons are a mere parasite on the rest of society, enjoying a self-endowed mandate to use their political power and define the uses of such power such that its exercise ensures that our continent reproduces itself as the periphery of the world economic - poor, underdeveloped and incapable of development.
The African renaissance demands that we purge ourselves of the parasites and maintain a permanent vigilance against the danger of the entrenchment in African society of this rapacious stratum with its social morality according to which everything in society must be organized materially to benefit the few.
As we recall with pride the African scholar and author of the Middle Ages, Sadi of Timbuktu, who had mastered such subjects as law, logic, dialectics, grammar and rhetoric, and other African intellectuals who taught at the University of Timbuktu, we must ask the question: Where are Africa's intellectuals today?
In our world in which the generation of new knowledge and its application to change the human condition is the engine which moves human society further and further away from barbarism, do we have need to recall Africa's hundreds of thousands of intellectuals back from their places of emigration in Western Europe and North America to rejoin those who remain still within our shores?
I dream of the day when these, the African mathematicians and computer specialists in Washington and New York, the African physicists, engineers, doctors, business managers and economists, will return from London and Manchester and Paris and Brussels to add to the African pool of brain power to inquire into and find solutions to Africa's problems and challenges; to open the African door to the world of knowledge; to elevate Africa's place within the universe of research, the formation of new knowledge, education and information.
Africa's renewal demands that her intelligentia must immerse itself in the titanic and all-round struggle to end poverty, ignorance, disease and backwardness, inspired by the fact that the Africans of Egypt were, in some instances, two thousand years ahead of the Europeans of Greece in the mastery of such subjects as geometry, trigonometry, algebra and chemistry.
In the end, they wanted us to despise ourselves, convinced that if we were not subhuman we were, at least, not equal to the colonial master and mistress and were incapable of original thought and the African creativity which has endowed the world with an extraordinary treasure of masterpieces in architecture and the fine arts.
The beginning of our rebirth as a continent must be our own discovery of our soul, captured and made permanently available in the great works of creativity represented by the pyramids and sphinxes of Egypt, the stone buildings of Axum and the ruins of Carthage and Zimbabwe, the rock paintings of the San, the Benin bronzes and the African masks, the carvings of the Makonde and the stone sculptures of the Shona.
A people capable of such creativity could never have been less human than other human beings, and being as human as any other, such people can and must be its own liberator from the condition which seeks to describe our continent and its people as the poverty-stricken and disease-ridden primitives in a world riding the crest of a wave of progress and human upliftment. ``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xAFRICAN RENAISSANCE ``x1005878464,9220,Articles``x``x
``xBy Casper W Erichsen
In a recent M-Net documentary, Scorched Earth, an array of historians described how the deplorable and inhumane conditions in concentration camps accounted for the deaths of 27 297 Boers, as well as an estimated 20 000 black casualties.
The programme marked the centenary of the use of concentration camps in South Africa.
The ripples of the outcry that followed Emily Hobhouse's exposure of these British war atrocities are still felt today, as illustrated by the very emotional tone of the M-Net programme.
These emotions stand in stark contrast to the largely forgotten history of Namibia's equally sinister history of concentration camps.
There were five concentration camps in all in Namibia, then German South West Africa, between 1904 and 1908. They were called Konzentrationslagern in reports and succeeded South African camps by two years.
The anti-colonial struggles of 1904 to 1908 were characterised by two major uprisings: the Herero uprising in northern and central Namibia and the Nama uprising in the south.
In January 1904 war broke out between the Herero nation and the German colonial administration in Namibia. The colonists were caught by surprise and suffered many defeats in the early stages of the sporadic and uncoordinated war.
After about six months the picture changed. The battle at the Waterberg, in the north-east, on August 11 1904, marked the beginning of the end for the Herero, who fled in their thousands into the Omaheke sandveld, perishing in high numbers.
The Herero nation was literally uprooted as an entire people spread across the Kalahari, trying to flee German punitive patrols. Those who did not reach Bechuanaland, now Botswana, either succumbed to the desert or were picked up by German patrols and put in concentration camps.
In 1904 camps had been set up in Windhoek, Okahandja and at the coastal town of Swakopmund. In 1905 two new camps were opened in Karibib and Lüderitz.
In terms of mortality statistics, the Namibian camps were horrific. An official report on the camps in 1908 described the mortality rate as 45,2% of all prisoners held in the five camps.
The prisoners were typically fenced in, either by thorn-bush fences or by barbed wire. As the word concentration implies, thousands of people were crammed into small areas. The Windhoek camp held about 5 000 prisoners of war in 1906.
Rations were minimal, consisting of a daily allowance of a handful of uncooked rice, some salt and water. Rice was an unfamiliar foodstuff to most, and the uncommon diet was the cause of many deaths.
Disease was uncontrolled. An almost total lack of medical attention, unhygienic living quarters, insufficient clothing and a high concentration of people meant that diseases such as typhoid spread rapidly.
Beatings and maltreatment were also part of life in the camps - the sjambok was often swung over the backs of prisoners who were forced to work.
The concentration camp on Shark Island, in the coastal town of Lüderitz, was the worst of the five Namibian camps. Lüderitz lies in southern Namibia, flanked by desert and ocean. In the harbour lies Shark Island, which then was connected to the mainland only by a small causeway.
The island is now, as it was then, barren and characterised by solid rock carved into surreal formations by the hard ocean winds. The camp was placed on the far tip of the relatively small island, where the prisoners would have suffered complete exposure to the gale-force winds that sweep Lüderitz for most of the year.
The first prisoners to arrive were, according to a missionary called Kuhlman, 487 Herero ordered to work on the railway between Lüderitz and Kubub.
The island soon took its toll: in October 1905 Kuhlman reported the appalling conditions and high death rate among the Herero on the island.
Throughout 1906 the island had a steady inflow of prisoners, with 1 790 Nama prisoners arriving on September 9 alone.
In the annual report for Lüderitz in 1906, an unknown clerk remarked that "the Angel of Death" had come to Shark Island. German Commander Von Estorff wrote in a report that approximately 1 700 prisoners had died by April 1907, 1 203 of them Nama. In December 1906, four months after their arrival, 291 Nama died (a rate of more than nine people a day). Missionary reports put the death rate at between 12 and 18 a day.
As much as 80% of the prisoners sent to the Shark Island concentration camp never left the island.
Fred Cornell, a British aspirant diamond prospector, was in Lüderitz when the Shark Island camp was being used. Cornell wrote of the camp: "Cold - for the nights are often bitterly cold there - hunger, thirst, exposure, disease and madness claimed scores of victims every day, and cartloads of their bodies were every day carted over to the back beach, buried in a few inches of sand at low tide, and as the tide came in the bodies went out, food for the sharks."
During the war a number of people from the Cape, strapped for money, sought employment as transport riders for German troops in Namibia.
Upon their return to the Cape some of these people recounted their stories, causing debate in the local media. On September 28 1905 an article appeared in the Cape Argus, with the heading: "In German S. W. Africa: Further Startling Allegations: Horrible Cruelty".
In the article, Percival Griffith, "an accountant of profession, who owing to hard times, took up on transport work at Angra Pequena [Lüderitz]", related his experiences.
"There are hundreds of them, mostly women and children and a few old men ... when they fall they are sjamboked by the soldiers in charge of the gang, with full force, until they get up ... On one occasion I saw a woman carrying a child of under a year old slung at her back, and with a heavy sack of grain on her head ... she fell.
"The corporal sjamboked her for certainly more than four minutes and sjamboked the baby as well ... the woman struggled slowly to her feet, and went on with her load. She did not utter a sound the whole time, but the baby cried very hard."
These atrocities did not go unnoticed by the Germans, who wrote reports, articles and letters about the camps. Shark Island came up in a German Parliament debate in 1906, when the Social Democrats demanded to know what was going on there.
It seems, however, that generations since then have tried hard to forget this history.
The South African camps have memorials and written histories, the Namibian camps do not. On the site where Shark Island once lay now lies a caravan park. Even worse, at the entrance of the park is a monument to the German soldiers who died between 1905 and 1908 - a monument to the victor and not the victim.
The centenary of the 1904 war is just around the corner; perhaps Namibians will take the opportunity to reflect, not so much on what is remembered but rather on what is not.
-- The Mail&Guardian, August 23, 2001.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xConcentration camps were used by the Germans in South West Africa ``x1005964774,9800,Articles``x``x
``xby James W. Loewen
Over the last few years, I have asked hundreds of college students, "When was the country we now know as the United States first settled?"
That is a generous way of putting the question. Surely "we now know as" implies that the original settlement happened before the United States. I had hoped that students would suggest 30,000 BC, or some other pre-Columbian date. They did not. Their consensus answer was "1620."
Part of the the problem is the word "settle." "Settlers" were white. Indians did not settle. Nor are students the only people misled by "settle." One recent Thanksgiving weekend, I listened as a guide at the Statue of Liberty told about European immigrants "populating a wild East Coast." As we shall see, however, if Indians had not already settled New England, Europeans would have had a much tougher job of it.
Starting with the Pilgrims not only leaves out the Indians, but also the Spanish. In the summer of 1526 five hundred Spaniards and one hundred black slaves founded a town near the mouth of the Pedee River in what is now South Carolina. Disease and disputes with nearby Indians caused many deaths. Finally, in November the slaves rebelled, killed some of their masters, and escaped to the the Indians. By now only 150 Spaniards survived, and they evacuated back to Haiti. The ex-slaves remained behind. So the first non-Native settlers in "the country we now know as the United States" were Africans.
The Spanish continued their settling in 1565, when they massacred a settlement of French Protestants at St. Augustine, Florida, and replaced it with their own fort. Some Spanish were pilgrims, seeking regions new to them to secure religious liberty: these were Spanish Jews, who settled in New Mexico in the late 1500s. Few Americans know that one third of the United States, from San Francisco to Arkansas to Natchez to Floirda, has been Spanish longer than it has been "American." Moreover, Spanish culture left an indelible impact on the West. The Spanish introduced horses, cattle, sheep, pigs, and the basic elements of cowboy culture, including its vocabulary: mustang, bronco, rodeo, lariat, and so on.
Beginnning with 1620 also omits the Dutch, who were living in what is now Albany by 1614. Indeed, 1620 is not even the date of the first permanent British settlement, for in 1607, the London Company sent settlers to Jamestown, Virginia. No matter. The mythic origin of "the country we now know as the United States" is at Plymouth Rock, and the year is 1620. My students are not at fault. The myth is what their testbooks and their culture have offered them. I examined how twelve textbooks used in high school American history classes teach Thanksgiving. Here is the version in one high school history book, THE AMERICAN TRADITION:
After some exploring, the Pilgrims chose the land around Plymouth Harbor for their settlement. Unfortunately, they had arrived in December and were not prepared for the New England winter. However, they were aided by freindly Indians, who gave them food and showed them how to grow corn. When warm weather came, the colonists planted, fished, hunted, and prepared themselves for the next winter. After harvesting their first crop, they and their Indian friends celebrated the first Thanksgiving.
My students also learned that the Pilgrims were persecuted in England for their religion, so they moved to Holland. They sailed on the Mayflower to America and wrote the Mayflower Compact. Times were rough, until they met Squanto. He taught them how to put fish in each corn hill, so they had a bountiful harvest.
But when I ask them about the plague, they stare back at me. "What plague? The Black Plague?" No, that was three centuries earlier, I sigh.
"THE WONDERFUL PLAGUE AMONG THE SAVAGES"
The Black Plague does provide a useful introduction, however. Black (or bubonic) Plague "was undoubtedly the worst disaster that has ever befallen mankind." In three years it killed 30 percent of the population of Europe. Catastrophic as it was, the disease itself comprised only part of the horror. Thinking the day of judgment was imminent, farmers failed to plant crops. Many people gave themselves over to alcohol. Civil and economic disruption may have caused as much death as the disease itself.
For a variety of reasons --- their probable migration through cleansing Alaskan ice fields, better hygiene, no livestock or livestock-borne microbes --- Americans were in Howard Simpson's assessment "a remarkable healthy race" before Columbus. Ironically, their very health now proved their undoing, for they had built up no resistance, genetically or through childhood diseases, to the microbes Europeans and Africans now brought them. In 1617, just before the Pilgrims landed, the process started in southern New England. A plague struck that made the Black Death pale by comparison.
Today we think it was the bubonic plague, although pox and influencza are also candidates. British fishermen had been fishing off Massachusetts for decades before the Pilgrims landed. After filling their hulls with cod, they would set forth on land to get firewood and fresh water and perhaps capture a few Indians to sell into slavery in Europe. On one of these expeditions they probably transmitted the illness to the people they met. Whatever it was, within three years this plague wiped out between 90 percent and 96 percent of the inhabitants of southern New England. The Indian societies lay devastated. Only "the twentieth person is scare left alive," wrote British eyewitness Robert Cushman, describing a death rate unknown in all previous human experience. Unable to cope with so many corposes, survivors fled to the next tribe, carrying the infestation with them, so that Indians died who had never seen a white person. Simpson tells what the Pilgrims saw:
The summer after the Pilgrims landed, they sent two envoys on a diplomatic mission to treat with Massasoit, a famous chief encamped some 40 miles away at what is now Warren, Rhode Island. The envoys discovered and described a scene of absolutie havoc. Villages lay in ruins because there was no one to tend them. The ground was strewn with the skulls and the bones of thousands of Indians who had died and none was left to bury them.
During the next fifteen years, additional epidemics, most of which we know to have been smallpox, struck repeatedly. Europeans caught smallpox and the other maladies, to be sure, but most recovered, including, in a later century, the "heavily pockmarked George Washington." Indians usually died. Therefore, almost as profound as their effect on Indian demographics was the impact of the epidemics on the two cultures, European and Indian. The English Separatists, already seeing their lives as part of a divinely inspired morality play, inferred that they had God on their side. John Winthrop, Governor of Massachusetts Bay Colony, called the plague "miraculous." To a friend in England in 1634, he wrote:
But for the natives in these parts, God hath so pursued them, as for 300 miles space the greatest part of them are swept away by the small pox which still continues among them. So as God hath thereby cleared our title to this place, those who remain in these parts, being in all not fifty, have put themselves under our protect....
Many Indians likewise inferred that their God had abandoned them. Cushman, our British eyewitness, reported that "those that are left, have their courage much abated, and their countenance is dejected, and they seem as a people affrighted." After all, neither they nor the Pilgrims had access to the germ theory of disease. Indian healers offered no cure, their religion no explanation. That of the whites did. Like the Europeans three centuries before them, many Indians surrendered to alcohol or bagan to listen to Christianity.
These epidemics constituted perhaps the most important single geopolitical event of the first third of the 1600s, anywhere on the planet. They meant that the British would face no real Indian challenge for their first fifty years in America. Indeed, the plague helped cause the legendary warm reception Plymouth enjoyed in its first formative years from the Wampanoags. Massasoit needed to ally with the Pilgrims because the plague had so weakened his villages that he feared the Narragansetts to the west.
Moreover, the New England plagues exemplify a process which antedated the Pilgrims and endures to this day. In 1942, more than 3,000,000 Indians lived on the island of Haiti. Forty years later, fewer than 300 remained. The earliest Portuguese found that Labrador teemed with hospitable Indians who could easily be enslaved. It teems no more. In about 1780, smallpox reduced the Mandans of North Dakota from nine villages to two; then in 1837, a second smallpox epidemic reduced them from 1600 persons to just 31. The pestilence continues; a fourth of the Yanomamos of northern Brazil and souther Venezuela died in the year prior to my writing this sentence.
Europeans were never able to "settle" China, India, Indonesia, Japan, or most of Africa because too many people already lived there. Advantages in military and social technology would have enabled Europeans to dominate the Americas, as they eventually dominated China and Africa, but not to "settle" the New World. For that, the plague was required. Thus, except for the European (and African) invasion itself, the pestilence was surely the most important event in the history of America.
What do we learn of all this in the twelve histories I studied? Three offer some treatment of Indian disease as a factor in European colonization. LIFE AND LIBERTY does quite a good job. AMERICA PAST AND PRESENT supplies a fine analysis of the general impact of Indian disease in American history, though it leaves out the plague at Plymouth. THE AMERICAN WAY is the only text to draw the appropriate geopolitical inference about the importance of the Plymouth outbreak, but it never discuses Indian plagues anywhere else. Unfortunately, the remaining nine books offer almost nothing. Two totally omit the subject. Each of the other seven furnishes only a fragment of a paragraph that does not even make it into the index, let alone into students' minds.
Everyone knew all about the plague in colonial America. Even before the Mayflower sailed, King James of England gave thanks to "Almighty God in his great goodness and bounty towards us," for sending "this wonderful plague among the savages." Today it is no surprise that not one in a hundred of my college students has ever heard of the plague. Unless they read LIFE AND LIBERTY or PAST AND PRESENT, no student can come away from these books thinking of Indians as people who made an impact on North America, who lived here in considerable numbers, who settled, in short, and were then killed by disease or arms.
ERRAND INTO THE WILDERNESS
Instead of the plague, our schoolbooks present the story of the Pilgrims as a heroic myth. Referring to "the little party" in their "small, storm-battered English vessel," their story line follows Perry Miller's use of a Puritan sermon title, ERRAND INTO THE WILDERNESS. AMERICAN ADVENTURES even titles its chapter about British settlement in North America "Opening the Wilderness." The imagery is right out of Star Trek: "to go boldly where none dared go before."
The Pilgrims had intended to go to Virginia, where there already was a British settlement, according to the texts, but "violent storms blew their ship off course," according to some texts, or else an "error in navigation" caused them to end up hundreds of miles to the north. In fact, we are not sure where the Pilgrims planned to go. According to George Willison, Pilgrim leaders never intended to settle in Virginia. They had debated the relative merits of Guiana versus Massachusetts precisely because they wanted to be far from Anglican control in Virginia. They knew quite a bit about Massachusetts, from Cape Cod's fine fishing to that "wonderful plague." They brought with them maps drawn by Samuel Champlain when he toured the area in 1605 and a guidebook by John Smith, who had named it "New England" when he visited in 1614. One text, LAND OF PROMISE, follows Willison, pointing out that Pilgrims numbered only about thirty-five of the 102 settlers aboard the Mayflower. The rest were ordinary folk seeking their fortunes in the new Virginia colony. "The New England landing came as a rude surpise for the bedraggled and tired [non-Pilgrim] majority on board the Mayflower," says Promise. "Rumors of mutiny spread quickly." Promise then ties this unrest to the Mayflower Compact, giving its readers a uniquely fresh interpretation as to why the colonists adopted it.
Each text offers just one of three reasons---storm, pilot error, or managerial hijacking--to explain how the Pilgrims ended up in Massachusetts. Neither here nor in any other historical controversy after 1620 can any of the twelve bear to admit that it does not know the answer---that studying history is not just learning answers--that history contains debates. Thus each book shuts student sout from the intellectual excitement of the discipline.
Instead, textbooks parade ethnocentric assertions about the Pilgrims as a flawless unprecedented band laying the foundations of our democracy. John Garraty presents the Compact this way in AMERICAN HISTORY: "So far as any record shows, this was the first time in human history that a group of people consiously created a government where none had existed before." Such accounts deny students the opportunity to see the Pilgrims as anything other than pious stereotypes.
"IT WAS WITH GOD'S HELP...FOR HOW ELSE COULD WE HAVE DONE IT?"
Settlement proceeded, not with God's help but with the Indians'. The Pilgrims chose Plymouth because of its cleared fields, recently planted in corn, "and a brook of fresh water [that] flowed into the harbor," in the words of TRIUMPH OF THE AMERICAN NATION. It was a lovely site for a town. Indeed, until the plague, it had been a town. Everywhere in the hemisphere, Europeans pitched camp right in the middle of native populations---Cuzco, Mexico City, Natchez, Chicago. Throughout New England, colonists appropriated Indian cornfields, which explains why so many town names---Marshfield, Springfield, Deerfield--end in "field".
Inadvertent Indian assistance started on the Pilgrims' second full day in Massachusetts. A colonist's journal tells us:
We marched to the place we called Cornhill, where we had found the corn before. At another place we had seen before, we dug and found some more corn, two or three baskets full, and a bag of beans. ..In all we had about ten bushels, which will be enough for seed. It was with God's help that we found this corn, for how else could we have done it, without meeting some Indians who might trouble us. ...The next morning, we found a place like a grave. We decided to dig it up. We found first a mat, and under that a fine bow...We also found bowls , trays, dishes, and things like that. We took several of the prettiest things to carry away with us, and covered the body up again.
A place "like a grave!"
More help came from a alive Indian, Squanto. Here my students are on familiar turf, for they have all leanred the Squanto legend. LAND OF PROMISE provides an archetypal account"
Squanto had learned their language, he explained, from English fishermen who ventured into the New England waters each summer. Squanto taught the Pilgrims how to plant corn, squash, and pumpkins. Would the small band of settlers have survived without Squanto's help? We cannot say. But by the fall of 1621, colonists and Indians could sit down to several days of feast and thanksgiving to God (later celebrated as the first Thanksgiving).
What do the books leave out about Squanto? First, how he learned English. As a boy, along with four Penobscots, he was probably stolen by a British captain in about 1605 and taken to England. There he probably spent nine years, two in the employ of a Plymouth merchant who later helped finance the Mayflower. At length, the merchant helped him arrange passage back to Massachusetts. He was to enjoy home life for less than a year, however. In 1614, a British slave raider seized him and two dozen fellow Indians and sold them into slavery in Malaga, Spain. Squanto escaped from slavery, escaped from Spain, made his way back to England, and in 1619 talked a ship captain into taking him along on his next trip to Cape Cod.
It happens that Squanto's fabulous odyssey provides a "hook" into the plague story, a hook that our texts choose to ignore. For now Squanto walked to his home village, only to make the horrifying discovery that, in Simpson's words, "he was the sole member of his village still alive. All the others had perished in the epidemic two years before." No wonder he throws in his lot with the Pilgrims, who rename his village "Plymouth!" Now that is a story worth telling! Compare the pallid account in LAND OF PROMISE. "He had learned their language from English fishermen." What do we make of books that give us the unimportant details--Squanto's name, the occupation of his enslavers--while omitting not only his enslavement, but also the crucial fact of the plague? This is distortion on a grand scale.
William Bradford praised Squanto for many services, including his "bring[ing] them to unknow places for their profit." "Their profit" was the primary reason most Mayflower colonists made the trip. It too came from the Indians, from the fur trade; Plymouth would never have paid for itself without it. Europeans had neither the skill nor the desire to "go boldly where none dared go before.|" They went to the Indians.
"TRUTH SHOULD BE HELD SACRED, AT WHATEVER COST"
Should we teach these truths about Thanksgiving? Or, like our textbooks, should we look the other way? Again quoting LAND OF PROMISE. "By the fall of 1621, colonists and Indians could sit down to several days of feast and thanksgiving to God (later celebrated as the first Thanksgiving)." Throughout the nation, elementary school children still enact Thanksgiving every fall as our national origin myth, complete with Pilgrim hats made of construction paper and Indian braves with feathers in their hair. An early Massachusetts colonist, Colonel Thomas Aspinwall, advises us not to settle for this whitwash of feel - good - history.
"It is painful to advert to these things. But our forefathers, though wise, pious, and sincere, were nevertheless, in respect to Christian charity, under a cloud; and, in history, truth should be held sacred, at whatever cost."
Thanksgiving is full of embarrassing facts. The Pilgrims did not introduce the Native Americans to the tradition; Eastern Indians had observed autumnal harvest celebrations for centuries. Our modern celebrations date back only to 1863; not until the 1890s did the Pilgrims get included in the tradition; no one even called them "Pilgrims" until the 1870s. Plymouth Rock achieved ichnographic status only in the nineteenth century, when some enterprising residents of the town moved it down to the water so its significance as the "holy soil" the Pilgrims first touched might seem more plausible. The Rock has become a shrine, the Mayflower Compact a sacred text, and our textbooks play the same function as the Anglican BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER, teaching us the rudiments of the civil religion of Thanksgiving.
Indians are marginalized in this civic ritual. Our archetypal image of the first Thanksgiving portrays the groaning boards in the woods, with the Pilgrims in their starched Sunday best and the almost naked Indian guests. Thanksgiving silliness reaches some sort of zenith in the handouts that school children have carried home for decades, with captions like, "They served pumpkins and turkeys and corn and squash. The Indians had never seen such a feast!" When his son brought home this "information" from his New Hampshire elementary school, Native American novelist Michael Dorris pointed out "the Pilgrims had literally never seen `such a feast,' since all foods mentioned are exclusively indigenous to the Americas and had been provided by [or with the aid of] the local tribe."
I do not read Aspinwall as suggesting a "bash the Pilgrims" interpretation, emphasizing only the bad parts. I have emphasized untoward details only because our histories have suppressed everything awkward for so long. The Pilgrims' courage in setting forth in the late fall to make their way on a continent new to them remains unsurpassed. In their first year, like the Indians, they suffered from diseases. Half of them died. The Pilgrims did not cause the plague and were as baffled as to its true origin as the stricken Indian villagers. Pilgrim-Indian relations began reasonably postitively. Thus the antidote to feel-good history is not feel-bad history, but honest and inclusive history. "Knowing the truth about Thanksgiving, both its proud and its shameful motivations and history, might well benefit contemporary children," suggests Dorris. "But the glib retelling of an ethnocentric and self-serving falsehood does no one any good." Because Thanksgiving has roots in both Anglo and Native cultures, and because of the interracial cooperation the first celebration enshrines, Thanksgiving might yet develop into a holiday that promotes tolerance and understanding. Its emphasis on Native foods provides a teachable moment, for natives of the Americas first developed half of the world's food crops. Texts could tell this--only three even mention Indian foods---and could also relate other contributions form Indian societies, from sports to political ideas. The original Thanksgiving itself provides an interesting example: the Natives and newcomers spent the better part of three days showing each other their various recreations.
Origin myths do not come cheaply. To glorify the Pilgrims is dangerous. The genial ommissions and false details our texts use to retail the Pilgrim legend promote Anglocentrism, which only handicaps us when dealing with all those whose culture is no Anglo. Surely, in histor, "truth should be held sacred, at whatever cost."
Lies My Teacher Told Me
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.) ``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xThe Truth about The First Thanksgiving ``x1006609974,95667,Articles``x``x
``xBy John Noble Wilford, New York Times
December 2, 2001
More than 70,000 years ago, people occupied a cave in a high cliff facing the Indian Ocean at the tip of South Africa. They hunted grysbok, springbok and other game. They ate fish from the waters below them. In body and brain size, these cave dwellers were definitely anatomically modern humans.
Archaeologists are now finding persuasive evidence that these people were taking another important step toward modernity. They were turning animal bones into tools and finely worked weapon points, a skill more advanced in concept and application than the making of the usual stone tools. They were also engraving some artifacts with symbolic marks — manifestations of abstract and creative thought and, presumably, communication through articulate speech.
The new discoveries at Blombos Cave, 200 miles east of Cape Town, are turning long-held beliefs upside down.
Until now, modern human behavior was widely assumed to have been a very late and abrupt development that seemed to have originated in a kind of "creative explosion" in Europe. The most spectacular evidence for it showed up after modern Homo sapiens arrived there from Africa about 40,000 years ago. Although there had been suggestions of an African genesis of modern behavior, no proof had turned up, certainly nothing comparable to the fine tools and cave art of Upper Paleolithic Europe.
"I used to accept the `creative explosion' concept for the origin of modern human behavior," said Dr. Rick Potts, director of the human origins program at the Smithsonian Institution. "Now I think the nails are going into the coffin of that hypothesis. We are seeing many elements of modernity that were developing much earlier, in Africa, and more gradually."
One reason Europe's prehistoric surge of creativity held the attention of scholars for so long was that it had virtually no serious competition. Archaeologists had spent little time digging African sites of that period, while every year in Europe they seemed to find more cavern walls adorned with painted deer, horses and wild bulls. Enthralled, scholars perhaps could not bring themselves to look for earlier and more distant origins of modern behavior.
But after more than a decade of controversy, the South African cave artifacts are now being generally accepted as the earliest evidence of such modern human behavior. If correct, these and other findings establish that Homo sapiens came out of Africa not only with fully modern anatomies, but also with at least 30,000 years of experience in modern behavior. Dr. Potts said the beginning of this gradual behavioral evolution might reach back more than 200,000 years.
Archaeologists have described the new research and their interpretations in recent seminars and journal articles. A group led by Dr. Christopher S. Henshilwood of South Africa is publishing a comprehensive report in this month's issue of The Journal of Human Evolution.
The report includes an analysis of 28 bone tools and other artifacts from Blombos Cave, as well as 8,000 pieces of the iron oxide mineral ocher that might have been used for body decorations.
Taken together with other recent finds in Africa, Dr. Henshilwood's team reported, the Blombos evidence "for formal bone working, deliberate engraving on ochre, production of finely made bifacial points and sophisticated subsistence strategies is turning the tide in favor of models positing behavioral modernity in Africa at a time far earlier than previously accepted."
Many other archaeologists specializing in human evolution said the new research seemed to dispel previous doubts about the antiquity of the artifacts, which have been excavated and argued about since some of the first pieces were collected in 1992. Skeptics had suspected that artifacts of more recent vintage had somehow intruded into the cave's lower and thus older sediments.
The oldest such tools reliably dated in Africa had been only 25,000 years old. The lineage of the first human ancestors is estimated to have diverged between five million and seven million years ago in Africa from the line leading to apes. Anatomically modern humans, Homo sapiens sapiens, evolved in Africa about 150,000 to 100,000 years ago.
In an interview by telephone from the cave site, Dr. Henshilwood said: "We're absolutely convinced of the dating of the tools. Analysis of them makes us confident that what we have is evidence of a bone-tool industry, not just occasional pieces."
Most of the bone tools are awls, probably for working leather. But the most impressive ones, archaeologists say, are three sharp instruments. The bone appears to have been first roughly shaped with a stone blade. Then it was finished into a symmetrical shape and polished for hours, most likely with a piece of leather and ocher powder. Some etched marks might have identified the owner of what were hunting spear points.
"Why so finely polished?" Dr. Henshilwood asked. "It's actually unnecessary for projectile points to be so carefully made. It suggests to us that this is an expression of symbolic thinking. The people said, `Let's make a really beautiful object.' "
Like many hunter-gatherer societies, archaeologists say, these cave dwellers might have made some of these tools for exchange in long-distance trading. Beauty added value to the object, perhaps a value with symbolic meaning.
As Dr. Henshilwood explained: "Symbolic thinking means that people are using something to mean something else. The tools do not have to have only a practical purpose. And the ocher might be used to decorate their equipment, perhaps themselves. That is a symbol of something else, which we don't understand. But it suggests that these people must have had articulate speech to conceive and communicate such symbolism."
Dr. Henshilwood is an archaeologist at the South African Museum in Cape Town and an adjunct associate professor at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. His co- authors are Dr. Francesco d'Errico of the Institute of Prehistory in Talence, France; Dr. Curtis W. Marean of the Institute of Human Origins at Arizona State University; Dr. Richard G. Milo of Chicago State University, and Dr. Royden Yates, also of the South African Museum.
Another archaeologist, Dr. Alison Brooks of George Washington University, who has reported finding other early examples of African toolmaking in Congo, called Blombos Cave "a tremendously exciting site."
Dr. Brooks said the new research had produced "unquestionable evidence" that the artifacts were found in the layer of sediment in which they originated; they had not migrated there, through erosion or the action of burrowing animals, from higher and more recent strata.
Bone tools were indicative of modern behavior, Dr. Brooks said, because their production required a "higher level of planning and conceptualization than just knocking off flakes of stone." The toolmaker, she explained, had to have "a vision of the object in mind and be able to plan the creation of something complicated to solve a particular problem."
Not everyone is convinced that the Blombos discovery undercuts previous theories about the rise of sophisticated human behavior in Europe. Dr. Richard G. Klein, an archaeologist at Stanford University who has argued that human language and modern behavior appeared suddenly 50,000 years ago as a result of a genetic mutation in the brain, said he remained cautiously skeptical.
Dr. Klein said that he was still unconvinced that the bone tools had not originated in younger sediments and then migrated to the layer where they were found. And though he was impressed by the report of two pieces of ocher engraved in a crosshatched pattern, he questioned why, if the dating was correct, similar projectile points were not being found more widely in African sites.
Dr. Henshilwood and colleagues said that a thick layer of yellow sand separated the sediment layer in which the bone tools were found from a higher layer with evidence of human occupation only 2,000 years ago. No disturbances of this distinct break in the sediments, which could have allowed a downward movement of younger artifacts, were found in a recent re-examination of the cave, the archaeologists said.
Recent tests, Dr. Henshilwood said, showed that the chemical content of the bones in the tools was different from that of bones in the 2,000-year-old layer.
Dr. Marean of Arizona State University said that in the bone tools archaeologists were seeing a new picture of modern human evolution. "This puts the behavioral evolution in step with the anatomical evolution," he said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/02/science/
02BONE.html?ex=1008348890&ei=1&en=6c18ac7539d50ca8``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xAfrican Artifacts Suggest an Earlier Modern Human``x1007303664,63195,Development``x``x
``x( Ras Mandingo )
There's a very good book called "Jesus lived in India" wich can illustrate this topic. Also "the murder of Christ" is wonderful.
So interesting to see Jesus as an articulated disciple, who chose himself, to show how much we could do ourselves!
it's really degenerative this idea of Jesus as someone who could do our work for ourselves!
As Cheik Anta Diop said in Civilization or Barbarism " Crist is a title for someone who watch over the misteries".
Thanks for the cultural and educational vibes!
RAs Mandingo, posting from Brasil.
________________________________________________________
( Ingrid )
That is an interesting book, which I read a while back but it is important to remember that Christ or KRST is the title of a person at a particular stage of development and throughout African history there were many. That is the reason the descriptions vary from region to region. But at least from all evidence they were black.
________________________________________________________
( RootsWomb(man) )
The title "Christ" (anointed one) has its ROOTS from the word KRST, also seen in the word "Krishna" in its masculine form, "Kali" in its feminine form, both meaning and being BLACK.
"The earliest gods and messiahs on all the continents were black. Research has yielded an impressive amount of material on the subject...The Messiahs, some of whom lived many centuries before Christ, had lives which so closely paralleled that of Christ that it seems most likely that the story of the latter was adapted from them. Moreover, the word Christ comes from the Indian, Krishna or Chrisna, which means "The Black One." J.A. Rogers
ROOTS
________________________________________________________
( Akinkawon )
Generally most of J.A. Rogers work could be easily proven today and I maintain a healthy respect for his insights, however, I believe that the Greeks and Romans got their concept of a Christ from the Egyptians hence they got closer to the ancient meaning - the anointed one.
Given the fact that persons in training for higher enlightenment used to travel to distant lands to learn about our diversity, the Indians knew the concept of Christhood before the Greeks and Romans. They would have coined the meaning ‘the Black one’ from the appearance of the enlightened one. They may not have known what the Egyptians then later the Coptic meant by a KRST which is pronounced Christ before and after the use of vowels.
The Jews learned of this divine state from the Egyptians and they have been trying since then to make an anointed one for themselves. They do not know how that state is attained.
Egypt was the dominant power in the World at one time and people from all lands traveled to Egypt to get enlightened or at least sit at the feet of high priests.
A point of importance is that the enlightened ones of Egypt came from many different regions in Africa all the way to the Bantu people. The Egyptians were very fond of learning from the other African peoples with whom they traded and they held the elders in Nubia and Ethiopia in high regard.
I am drifting from the topic to make an important point often missed in the best of African history. All past and present enlightened Africans learned from all the peoples they encountered and they held the elders in the remotest parts of Africa in high regard.
Also there are many different African names for that same state of Christhood that is well depicted in the symbols of more indigenous Africans.
Even in the Christian concept of a Christ they show him traveling to many regions to learn. This was not only an Egyptian practice but was a practice developed in more Ancient African culture.
So as Ingrid alluded, a KRST is not one physical person for all eternity. Many different people have embodied the essence of life and have been able to assist in the evolution of humanity. KRST is the highest stage of human development. However what is depicted in the Christian concept of a Christ is not of the highest realization but more of a compilation of the characteristics of more indigenous anointed ones. There are many parts of their depiction that rings true but there are other parts that clearly show they did not grasp the essence of that stage of development. (QUITE UNDEDRSTANDABLE)
Looking for a Christ is a big deal today only because most people are lost but this was a natural developmental process for all people before people entered a new phase of corruption that started when Europeans migrated/invaded Africa, a land they had lost contact with and did not regard and remember was their former homeland.
I feel sorry for those who are in search of a White saviour because historically no one has stood out but the African saviours are many and legendary. That would make another interesting discussion. The idea that people could stay ignorant and simply claim to believe and that equals salvation or enlightenment is the most disrespectful thing they can do today. It means the very myths they hold they don’t understand. As even in the Christian book it shows how a saviour is a learned person who does not allow racial prejudice to block him from learning.
These are the good examples they could draw from their ‘bibles’ but no, today if you tell some Black Christians (that includes Rasta Christians) to examine the culture closest to them, they are more afraid than Whites. There can be no worst form of slavery than that.
________________________________________________________
( RootsWomb(man) )
HOTEP!
YES! You are absolutely correct! The KRST pre-dates KRISHNA, as Kush/Khemet is India's MOTHER...but I LOOOOOVED when you said this:
"These are the good examples they could draw from their ‘bibles’ but no, today if you tell some Black Christians (that includes Rasta Christians) to examine the culture closest to them, they are more afraid than Whites. There can be no worst form of slavery than that."
TRUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
AFRIKANS - ARIZE!
________________________________________________________
( livelyup )
Greetings,
I give thanks for the powerful reasoning.
I&I believe that there is an important relationship that has been alluded to here but not spoken of explicitly, that is the the need for a context out of which an elightened one (KRST, christ, buddha, sadhu, sage...) may emerge. It is probably not enough for any individual to simply wish to become wise. For this wish to become reality requires that they are able to exist in a community that values wisdom, as opposed to the rote repition of 'truth', and that has developed a respect for the methods of attaining that wisdom. This, of necessity, is synonymous with a repect for the importance of the individual reaching understanding by their own power, rather than this understanding being handed down via an institutionalised source.
This may be the reason for the large number of african sages that have achieved historical prominance. In the african communities there seems to have existed communities that treasured wisdom, activley researched and applied the means to its attainment, and who celebrated and protected the wise.
In my own ancestral lands of Europe this was not the case since the coming of the romans. With them came institutionalised truth, which served their broader aims of a total dominance of all forms of defining what was legitimate. They activley sought to completely destroy all traces of the existing wisdom culture in its druidic form sending their death squads to explicitly exterminate these forms of social practices. Any subsequent efforts on the part of european people to re-connect with traditions of wisdom were met with persecution, torture, and death. This institutionalised legitimacy became part and parcel of european culture, and was a significant part of the genocide that we wrought on the indiginous inhabitants of the lands that we subsequently subjegated. We became the new romans. On an individual level for the average european this situation that has only very recently been, to some extent, reversed, with the renewed interest in wisdom traditions that has taken place since the 1930's and a corresponding lessening in the institutional capacity to suppress this trend. While the wait continues for a visible manifestation and personification of this new appreciation of wisdom amongst those of european cultural origins, ini would suggest that appropriate icons and exemplars may be found in the myths and belief systems that existed before the influence of the roman conquerers. Scratch an old celtic god/goddess, hero / heroine deep enough and you may just find the faintest traces of the 'white krst' that currently proves so ellusive.
Far more insidious has been the position of women with respect to participation in the search for enlightenment. Even within cultures that have been tolerant and supportive of those who seek wisdom, i&i believe that it is true to say that women have not been able to participate with equal freedom and power. Once again, perhaps it is in the more symbolic forms of myth and legend that we see personifications of the female krst principle.
Ini believe that the rasta collective need to be aware of this. Perhaps it is important for us to reason on how we may best create a community that best supports and transmits wisdom, and that activley pursues and develops the ways of wisdom, for all people who have the desire to travel this road.
Much respect and love,
Paul
________________________________________________________
( Akinkawon )
Interesting point, but a wise one ‘a KRST’ does not have a fragile ego that needs massaging. A KRST comes with the wisdom for the times we live in and the time we live in is antagonistic to the truth and higher principles so a real enlightened one would know how to navigate these times. It is not as if an enlightened one could be ignorant of the present environment.
Those that are in search of higher heights would value the truth for what it is whether it comes through a Man or Woman. It is the arrogance of males that has opened the way for females to become Women. As most females had to rely on their wits and other senses to survive the arrogance of male superiority, many are more developed today to reason on higher levels. The principle of Christhood is gender neutral, therefore any one (male or female, Black or White can attain it) the key is in knowing the processes for developing that essence in your self. This can be discussed some time in the near future.
But for the purposes of this discussion, it does not matter if many or few people can detect the KRST as those that were/are on the path of resisting mental slavery would see the KRST first as a aid or teacher then in themselves.
The KRST has different levels of meaning.
First it relates to those who have attained that union with the universal essence therefore can reason from a Universal understanding, then as a principle.
Another point is the reason at a particular time different cultures see the KRST with different features is because it usually is more that one person.
One person attains this union, and then the lessons are passed to others who were seeking (disciples). This brings about many such enlightened persons who disperse to areas where enlightenment is needed. So in China they may depict an anointed one with different features around the same time others are being portrayed differently in other parts of the world.
It is about a body of ideas that are realized through a discipline.
To become the embodiment of higher divine essence those seeking must first develop their principle of Manhood and Womanhood (this is different from maleness and femaleness). These principles are what give birth to the neutral essence (kundalini), commonly called the Son of God.
There are female names for Women who have attained this balance of Christhood. We can always develop this further as I have seen RootsWomb(man) referred to a few.
The people who are aware of these forces always hold the principles in high regard and they hold their teachers in the highest esteem. This is present today. It is just that too few people are sufficiently aware of the rudiments of history to be mentally liberated.
That is what they mean by many are called but few a chosen. The words of truth go out to the multitude but few people are willing to overcome laziness to do their own investigation to realize the truths for themselves.
Today many are called but so few have done the preparatory work of informing themselves so they are unprepared to reason on any level above their emotions.
Many Whites are trying but they are yet to overcome their superiority complexes and to some extent arrogance when attempting to reason with the past and to a large extent Africans.
RA SPECT
________________________________________________________
( livelyup )
Greetings,
Thank you for the clarifications and reasoning. Seen. The importance of community that I was reffering to was not for the benifit of those that have achieved mastery. As you have quite rightly pointed out, the sage has little need for the approval of others, being as they are aware of the futility of such distinctions as approval and disapproval. Rather i considered it to be of importance to those (such as myself) who are beginning on the way. The sort of disciple/master relationship that you referred to is an example of what I had in mind, though I also had in mind some of the more practical elements of life. This concern stems from a growing unease about the fundamental incompatibility of modern forms of life and the attainment of any form of wisdom. I&i am wishing to reason further on this, the relationship of wisdom to both the culture that surrounds (and hopefully supports) it, and the meditations, methods, tools, and techniques used for the perfection and development of understanding.
Respect and love
Paul
________________________________________________________
( Akinkawon )
You have a good understanding as you interpreted the points quite well.
The point about finding a master is really something that you discover for yourself by you posing the questions and examining the responses you get. If you have the ability to grasp higher heights soon you would find yourself relating to several persons on a different level without any one telling you they are part of any particular group or school.
Discovering a Master is part of your own personal journey. I know my master and even if I introduce you to the individual, who has assisted many other individuals who in turn assist others, you still may not recognize them based on your needs.
Also, to ensure you do not waste your time in your search you should put on the table the deep questions you have and examine the different answers you get.
Finding masters is a major part of self-discovery as no one can do it on their own. But it is really up to you to recognize the master first through your own diligence and perseverance. Trust yourself!
RA SPECT
________________________________________________________
( Ras Mandingo )
Greetings Brehtren!
Someone told me that: "when the disciple is ready, the master will appear". Good topic that you point. One has to be honest and listen to the own conscience , that is always judging, comforting or praising us. In the old times, God was the voice of one's conscience. It's funny because in portugues, conscience means "with science. when I can realize what is wrong, I'm closer to re-vealing what is right.
There's a youniversal/universal truth that can be feel and experinced directly. And so, one will start to meet people that are also looking for answers, and will be able to compare, to inpire, to get inspiration... It's getting self-conscious that you are on a way. But to where? heaven or hell? How we die is how we live.
THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS
Jesus said: "Whoever finds the interpretation of this sayings will not taste death. Let one who seeks not stop seeking until one finds. When one finds, one will be disturbed. When one is disturbed, one will be amazed, and will reign over all."
________________________________________________________
( E.A.Sisi Tafari )
BLESSED BE THE HOLA ANNOINTED,HAILE SELLASSIE 1
Yes I;
Perfect trend;I give thanks.
To the brother from europe, pursue whatever is your righteous dream and help will come your way.
________________________________________________________
( IanI )
Ah! Greetings, Greetings!
Paul and Akinkawon!
What a refreshment for me morning to see the two reasoning here this day. And reaching overstandings and seeing the points made, how I must admit that brings I a wonderful sense of joy and a warmth. Seen.
Years ago, when I did first climb the hills to reason with James, quite a few white ones came to meet him, but me notice them brought with them pre-concieved attitudes and ideas of "enlightenment" from other religions or books or churches or temples. And all they saw when they saw James was, because of all that mind-conditioning and in-doctrination, was a 'dirty, scraggly, little, black man' that them could not relate to. A very, very few stayed and realized His Wisdom and accepted Him as their teacher and guide. But to most, Africa, Rastafari, Blackness, Natural Livity... all held undertones of the 'un-civilized'... the 'savages'. I think that for them this was sub-conscious, but isn't that what 'self knowledge' and 'enlightenment' is all about? Getting to know ones own self...consciously as well as sub-consciously?
I never felt any kind of ill feelings towards these people, just that I felt that maybe them would be on a very long, long journey since them did not seem to have a very good grasp on what them was really lookin for.
Irie Ites.
ONE LOVE/HEART/MIND
IanI Rastafari
Guidance and Protection
________________________________________________________
( Jenny )
That is quite true for even African people. A very intelligent friend introduced me to a man whom he said was a teacher of the way and I traveled all the way to another country to meet him. The man did not look like an intelligent person so I wrestled with the idea about what is the look of intelligence. I could remember struggling with the feeling of disappointment. It is funny, but I want to go back because I missed out on an opportunity. Ingrid supposed to know who I talking about.
Many people are unaware of how media and certain images in books have altered our perceptions. I had this image of how Sai Baba looks and moves so I expected someone like him. But this man was very ordinary looking and he didn’t do anything spectacular at first glance. When I got home I had these strong feelings and I still wish to go back. You are correct and it affects even African people who don’t know ordinariness. Simplicity, that’s it.
________________________________________________________
( IanI )
irie Sistren
Oh so true. In Jamaica is where IanI Rastafari get so much condemnation and rejection and scorn! And yet a white preacher man will come talkin about a white savior god and the people literally fall at his feet!! Pre-con-cieved brainwashment of the masses that can be that obvious, or as sub-conscious as I did speak of earlier.
The Realization for IanI is that the Naturalness of Creation is the Beauty of the Manifestation and that is the Simplicity the I speaks of. As far as 'going back', sistren, well may I suggest that the I forward when the opportunity presents itself once again and then perhaps the I will be in the mental and spiritual place where all that is being offered will be available unto the I. Seen. Give thanks.
Ites to the Most High.
IanI Rastafari
Guidance and Protection
________________________________________________________
( livelyup )
Greetings and thanks to all!
First may i&i thank Akinkawon and all of the others who have patiently taken the time to reason and respond to the questions that i&i asked. This board is a special place that produces a truly wonderous array of thought and vision. I&i am lucky indeed to have stumbled upon it, it is not at all what i expected.....
Which brings me to this. IanI, once again you have demonstrated your uncanny gift at seeing straight into my mind and past the pretense that it is so often guarded with. Indeed, i&i have struggled to accept this rasta way. I have compared it overmuch with that which i was familiar, the zen, the tao, and the other asian schools. I cannot count how many times i&i have said in my mind, "they are really just like......". But you aren't, are you? Rasta is itself, and while it may be true that this livity aims to the same place as others, that is not the same as it being an identical thing. And so i&i have struggled on, thinking, thinking, too much thinking, when it is surrender that i&i must be practising instead. I have been a poor student of history. The truth never comes in the form that you expect it to (is this the first trial on the quest?). All of the great teachers have come from unexpected places, which in itself is a teaching about the idiocy of expectation....
So, Akinkawon, i&i will practice accptance and surrender, and will meditate, and hopefully one day will have a question of some worth to ask of those that write on this board. I will attempt to reveal my deep questions. But there is work to be done first. Thank you, and all, again for your help along the way.
Respect and love
Paul ``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xJesus travel to Ethiopia according to Coptic ``x1008635917,69187,Rasta``x``x
``xBy Nubiyang
After Africa, Asia has the largest population of people of African descent. That number is about 500,000,000 (five hundred million people) who belong to the two branches of the Black race. One branch is the Negroid Branch composed of Africans, Americas-Africans, Afro-Europeans, Melanesians, Papuans, Agta of the Philipines, Fijians-New Caledonians and other Melanesians.
The other group are also of the Negroid African race and consist of the Black Dalit and Black Tribals of India (see http://dalitstan.org ), as well as Australian Aboriginals. In the case of Australian Aboriginals, studies show their origins to be in the Sahara and East Africa, where people who look exactly like them, such as the Tibbou, still exist.
Today, Blacks in East Timor, SE Asia, West Papua, Australia and Melanesia as well as the Indian Ocean Islands are being systematically oppressed and exterminated or wiped out. THE ATROCITIES COMMITTED AGAINST AFRICOIDS IN MELANESIA IS PART OF A POLICY CALLED THE "ASIANIZATION PROGRAM," WHERE ALL BLACKS AND EVENTUALLY AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND WHITES, CHINESE AND OTHERS LIVING IN PLACES LIKE INDONESIA ARE TO BE ELIMINATED AND THE LANDS OF BLACKS TAKEN OVER BY THE MALAYS OF INDONESIA ( see www.westpapua.net ) www.koteka.net www.gn.apc.org/tapol
Many of us who look around and see seas of Black faces may feel secure, but when we look at the Black Negro population around the world, we are being eliminated from many parts of the world and our aboriginal lands are being taken. India was the first land where Blacks were systematically exterminated and their lands taken by force. TODAY, BLACKS IN INDIA, BLACK UNTOUCHABLES...ARE THE MOST OPPRESSED PEOPLE ON EARTH. See http://dalitstan.org Yet, once in history, the entire India, Pakistan and Afghanistan region, Sri Lanka, Burma and Thiland...were dominated By Black races and Black culture. Today, Blacks are a a much lesser population.
GENOCIDE OF BLACKS IN SUDAN, MAURITANIA AND NORTHERN AFRICA
The same scheme of genocide and land theft taking place in West Papua, Melanesia, Australia and Indonesia agains Black Africoids is also happening in Sudan, Mauritania and northern Africa, where Semites are committing genocide against Black Africans.
Nubia-Kush (Sudan) was and still is the sacred and HOLY LANDS OF THE BLACK RACE, it was there that Black civilization began and spread to the rest of Africa and the world. Yet today, the Nubas, Dinkas and other PURE AFRICAN SUDANESE ARE BEING ELIMINATED BY THE CHILDREN AND HENCHMEN OF ARABS, WHO LIKE THE INDONESIANS, WANT TO CONQUER ALL AFRICA, EXTERMINATE ALL AFRICANS AND CONVERT THE REST TO ARAB CULTURE.
Africans around the world are very aware of these IMPERIALIST SCHEMES BY THE MALAYS OF INDONESIA AND THE ARABS IN THEIR ATTEMPT TO TAKE OVER THE LANDS OF BLACKS, WHILE PRETENDING TO BE "BROTHERS" OF THE SAME BELIEF.
Hence, it is the duty of all Africans to unite in working to create a strong BLACK AFRICAN SUPERPOWER THAT WILL SUPPORT AND HELP ESTABLISH STRONG BLACK NATIONS IN VARIOUS PARTS OF THE WORLD.
Like one Senegalese Leader of the sixties and seventies who supported the Liberation Movements against Portugese and Indonesian imperialism and genocide against Blacks in East Timor and Papua, we Africans should return to that policy and support our brothers and sisters in the Black lands of SE ASIA AND THE PACIFIC. WE SHOULD NOT TOLERATE ANY FORM OF GENOCIDE, WHETHER IT IS IN AFRICA OR IN MELANESIA. WE SHOULD BE UNITED SO THAT WE CAN DEVELOP A CULTURAL, ECONOMIC AND MILITARY POWERBLOCK ON A WORLDWIDE SCALE (See the Great book, "Susu Economics: The History of Pan-African Trade, Commerce, Money and Wealth," published by 1stBooks Library, 2595 Vernal Pike, Bloomington, Indiana U.S.A 47404 Also see "A History of the African-Olmecs," email; 1stBooks@1stbooks.com www.1stbooks.com See previews of all works at www.barnesandnoble.com
This is a very good book about West African trade, commerce and the development of civilization in Mexico, the Southern U.S. AND South America thousands of years before Christopher Columbus.
The economic, social and military power of Blacks over this world is rather huge. However, the Semites (Arabs) and Europeans, as well as Malays are deviding us by using religions and religious beliefs. Yet, not a single Arab nation is devided when it comes to protecting their group, their lands or customs. Not a single Asian nation is devided. WE BLACKS, WHETHER IN AFRICA, THE AMERICAS, EUROPE OR SE ASIA/ASIA MUST WORK TO UNITE. MANDELLA'S CALL FOR AN AFRICAN RENAISSANCE IS A GOOD STEP IN THAT DIRECTION (See www.raceandhistory.com also see http://community.webtv.net )
The potential of Blacks in Asia is very large. At the moment, the Blacks/Africoids of Melanesia, Papua-New Guinea, West Papua, India are all aware of their African connections. They have been aware of it for thousands of years, although the colonial period tried to devide them from the rest of the African Diaspora. This same trick is being used by the Arab occupiers of parts of Africa when they attempt to crush and destroy evidence of OUR ANCESTORS CONTRIBUTIONS TO CIVILIZATION AND REFUSE TO ACCEPT ANY CIVILIZATION AND CULTURE THAT EXISTED BEFORE THEM...WE AFRICANS SHOULD NOT ACCEPT THIS FORM OF SANCTIFIED RACISM AND ETHNIC CHAUVANISM AND SHOULD PAY RESPECTS TO OUR CULTURE, CIVILIZATIONS AND ANCESTORS.
Hence, African nations should establish Brotherly Unity with Blacks in Asia just as Europeans and Americans have "Brotherly Unity" with the whites in Australia and New Zealand or South Africa. We can do more than just acknowledging the existance of Africoid people in Asia and Melanesia, we should work to build cultural and economic, military and political ties as well. THE KENYAN GOVERNMENT IS ALREADY DOING THAT, WHEN MASAI PEOPLE AND AUSTRALIAN ABORIGINES GET TOGETHER TO LEARN ABOUT EACH OTHERS CULTURE EVEN THOUGH THE RACIAL CONNECTIONS BETWEEN THE MASAI AND AUSTRALIAN ABORIGINES IN AFRICA GO BACK THOUSANDS OF YEARS.
In retrospect, its time for us to unite as Blacks and Africans on a worldwide scale. It is time to build a powerful Black economy and improve African culture worldwide. (see the great book, "Susu and Susunomics: The Theory and Practice of Pan-African Economic, Cultural and Racial Self-Preservation," published by www.iuniverse.com (Iuniverse, Inc., 910 East Hamilton Avenue, Suite 100; Campbell, California, U.S.A. 95008 United States WE MUST UNITE, BUILD AND WORK TO PRESERVE OUR PEOPLE AND CULTURES, as the world takes a new turn. We are being ran over by other people who want to use Blacks as their allies, who want to push Blacks into their religions and culture, but who also want to eliminate Blacks from the face of the earth and take our MOTHERLANDS, WHILE WE WATCH, SIT AND SAY OR DO ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
Nubiyang
nubianem3@webtv.net
http://community.webtv.net/paulnubiaempire
http://WWW.RACEANDHISTORY.COM
http://www.cwo.com/~lucumi/runoko.html``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xRacism and Genocide against Africoids In West Papua and Melanesia``x1009171659,92536,Articles``x``x
``x( Ayinde )
I am now watching this White woman on BBC cable, who is relating how she is leading a group that is fighting for their rights to live in peace in Zimbabwe.
It is amazing to hear how she condemns Mugabe for passing laws to legitimize what he wants to do.
The bias, hypocritical BBC interviewer cannot even pose proper questions to this silly mindless female who thinks that the only rule of law are those set down by the British.
But hearing this female articulate how he is passing laws to legitimize what he wants to do would have been humorous if we were not addressing serious issues. These hypocrites pretend they cannot reflect and see that their occupation of Lands in Africa was illegal and staying there illegally over time does not make it legal. They cannot see that Britain and the rest of Europe and America continually pass laws in an attempt to legitimize their crimes.
In fact the debt to African Zimbabweans is far greater than they imagine and cannot simply be repaid with land reform only.
But this is the power of European Bias Media; they convey what they want to viewers without putting things in a proper historical context.
I am posting a link for another view...
Why Mugabe is right ... and these are the facts
________________________________________________________
( razmarcus )
The same hypocrisy is seen in South Africa. The World must understand: AFRICA for the AFRICANS!!!!
Some may argue but Idi Aimeen, gave the white racist usurpers 72 hours to get the raas claat out of the country to free up the land!!!!
Point Blank it is the Black man's land. To even debate and consider negotiating with Facist Nazis like De Klerk and those other SA murderers and these whites in Zimbabwe is an insult and disgrace to those millions of Africans who died under the treacherous colonial wickedness of these
human parasites!!!! They have no right to the land based upon their heinous crimes against African Humanity.
If anything they should be facing African Military tribunals and be charged with the crimes they are guilty of as conspirators, co-conspirators and beneficiaries of terrorist crimes against Humanity.
Africa must stand to drive these parasites from the contintent. "And some will say, not all of them are bad, see look we bring medicine to help you" as they kill off the African race with their genicide plan with AIDS and Ebola.
By their fruits you shall know them.....
More fire
________________________________________________________
( Akinkawon )
That is what I was trying to tell you on the other Message Board.
BBC has been waging its own war on Mugabe for a long time. They try to sell the image that all was well in Zimbabwe before the Mugabe reform program. But for those who know the history, they did not peacefully hand over power in that country, they fought to maintain White control over all the major assets of that country and White businesses remained profitable because of another racist policy in trade. They would pay their white businessmen far more than they would pay African businessmen. So there is an appearance that when businesses are in Black hands they are not as successful.
Most Africans having been reduced to subsistence farming and not having access to business connections especially in the European markets will find it very hard to remain viable once the European Markets can source products and strike better deals with other countries.
Most times they play Black traders against one another by offering a particular trader more in the hope that they could devastate another larger trader and farmer who would eventually be forced to sell back to Whites. These Whites suddenly get better prices.
Today Cadbury chocolate buys cocoa from Africa but under a trading policy these African Countries are not allowed to manufacture chocolate. So, they sell the cocoa cheap to London Cadbury and import chocolate in Africa. This happens with many other products e.g. twine.
There is much written about these colonial practices that are still present today. The colonial system is maintained by the desperation of a people whose values are tied to European tastes and Greed (a desperate form of greed).
There is no way out for African Businesses unless they are prepared to first get better informed about these global practices of exploitation and are willing to develop products based on the need of other African states. Also they must invest in Education that could give the people better values that are tied to them and not Europe based on desperation and media imagery.
We often speak of the past colonial era without remembering that for many the mental chains of slavery have not been removed and as such most people are remote controlled.
________________________________________________________
( Jeff )
Greets
I have reasoned with an African Brother from Zimbabwe and he said that in that country, there are two classes: the have, and the have-nots. He feels that Mugabe is using the have-nots for his own political purposes. He points out that the farms that have been taken over are not being used for farming, thus hurting the economy of the country.
Just because a man's skin is darker, doesn't make him a saint. Time to stop living in a utopia....
Peace
________________________________________________________
( Gman )
Yeah man I agree with you, Mugabe is no revolutionary. I too know some people from Zimbabwe (who are by no means supportive of the white farmers)and none a dem like Mugabe. He has broken up strikes with force of arms, and used tribalism to divide the people, Shona vs. Ndebele. However I have no sympathy whatsoever for those white farmers, the land most definitely needs to be taken back from them tiefin' scoundrels and if some or all a dem get deaded in the process me don't care. Cos they didn't care about the Africans when they was hunting InI down like animals a couple decades ago.
But you know you gotta ask why Mugabe waited so long to make this move. I feel he's doing the right thing for the wrong reasons (to shore up his popularity with rural landless people who have so far seen little or no benefit from his regime). And it's true, what is the use of taking over land if you're not going to use it for constructive purposes? And how you gonna attack the African people who only work for these white farmers because there's no other jobs?
Definitely run out dem invaders, but don't put uncritical trust in leaders like Mugabe, membah we don't wanna get tricked by mercenaries whether white or black. Living in Guyana under Burnham I get to see first-hand how hypocritical certain people are when using words like "socialism" and "black power". Often these words are just a mask for people's power-hungry intentions, the same way words like "democracy" are a mask for the capitalist's t'iefing intentions.
________________________________________________________
( Ayinde )
EVERY WHITE PERSON who did not fight to correct the Zimbabwe injustice and did not hand over all, ALL what they profited from that crime against humanity are 100,000,000 times worst than Mugabe.
It does not matter if people speak to all the Blacks in Zimbabwe, if Blacks did not push to get the lands back to the indigenous peoples and their descendents then they are already enslaved and are part of the problem. We will work to educate them. But no White can get me to have more than basic sympathies for them. If they did not contribute to the insults they would not be victims today.
Next: Every white person and to a lesser extent every African person who do not fight for reparations to be paid for slavery are part of the problem. If Blacks profited from Slavery, show us their profits so we can claim that also. But we understand their complicity.
I not buying this we are all one family and lets forget the past nonsense.
________________________________________________________
( Jeff )
Greets
You wrote: I not buying this we are all one family and lets forget the past nonsense.
Forget family....that's human con-cepts....we're talking down to the nitty-gritty....all is one...but yes, the past cannot be forgotten, but I refuse to let any more dishonesty and politricks, black or white, impede the work that needs to be done for all Humanity. What about the Asians? They are fighting amongst themselves. (China and Tibet) Ever see a Chicano tell a Mexican to speak English? Or how about the schism between Africans, Jamaicans, and Black Americans? Is this just more ego? (yep) When can anyone in the Human Race say that no one has suffered something along the way? (some more than others...and THAT needs to be dealt with by all of us)
Deal with the reality of the history of this bullshit democracy? Yes!
Fight for Human rights? Yes!
Learn about the past? Yes, of course! And LEARN FROM IT.
But I refuse to be plagued by WHITE GUILT for the crimes of many people of the Cauacasian race.
Come to my house, any color my Brother and Sister, be Good and Kind, and full of Respect, and it's mi casa su casa.....
God is looking at us ALL and wondering when we are gonna get it straight.
Peace and Love
Jeff
________________________________________________________
( Jeff )
BTW
Blame that one single Portugese man, and that one single Ashanti king for all the past four hundred years.
The Portugese wanted to build an alliance with the Ethiopian Prester John against the "infadel" Muslims, and the Ashanti king wanted those guns that would aquire more land.
Ego=Devil, and the devil doesn't knwo the difference between black and white (or japanese against Chinese, or Chinese against Tibetans, or the Ashanti against the Zulu, or the Irish Protestants against the Catholic...etc etc etc...)
Heaven Help Us All
Jeff
________________________________________________________
( Ayinde )
Yes, I am blaming the Whites and every fool who buys White false values and greed.
I am blaming greed and especially Whites who feel they know what is good for African people. I am no slave and no one is oppresses me. But that do not stop the White Economic power system from continually trying and working on the minds of the less fortunate and making it harder for them to wake up. It's not a fair battle.
Don't get me wrong, I have White friends but only the kind who promote African awareness and contribute towards Africans doing the Work. Not some who want to be in the front like if them saving Black people.
I not talking about any Asians here. That is White schemes. Every time we talk about payback they keep bringing up every other people and way-out claim trying to confuse the issue.
Mugabe is bad but every White in Zimbabwe who sat there and did not push the issue for correction is far worst. When reparations are paid and stupid Whites stop trying to dictate to people about what they should do with their own money and land, I will be the first to show more Whites how to live like family. Whites don't get this family thing yet. They have words but no idea of the rules of engagement.
________________________________________________________
( Gman )
Respect Ayinde. I agree with the I on most points but I have a couple comments.
The reason I posted my comments about Mugabe, was not to minimize the responsibility of the whites for all the suffering in Zimbabwe. But I feel everyone who posts on this board (well maybe a few exceptions) already knows the atrocities the settlers committed, and agrees that they should be driven off the land they stole, and that no tears should be shed for their blood, like Benjamin Zephaniah said awhile back about the Boers dem. So we done agree on that. But especially here in America I see most of the pan-African kinda groups give totally uncritical support for Mugabe and hold him up as a real revolutionary. I don't feel that's the case so me have to point that out. It's a simplistic "settlers bad, ZANU good" concept that doesn't do justice to the reality of the situation and doesn't take into account the many AFRICAN people Mugabe has had killed or imprisoned.
The white settlers have to go, dead or alive, and the land returned to the poor people of Zimbabwe, regardless of their political party allegiance or lack thereof. But now the big division between Black Zimbabweans is Mugabe's ZANU party vs. the MDC (so-called democracy movement party). The way I see it, MDC was trying to attract a lot of urban dwellers who was sick of Mugabe's regime, both poor people and their unions, and the petit bourgeouis, and whites as well. So dem have 3 groups of people who join them for 3 different reasons, but we done know who is really pulling their strings, they are the party that is going to invite in all the multinational corporations and so forth, abandon any kind of pretense of socialism, make Zimbabwe safe for investments. We know that is what they are about but a lot of urban poor people is a part of it because they are sick of Mugabe's repression and believe they will be allowed to have a true voice in society under the MDC. If the MDC comes into power, they will see how mistaken they were. But when Mugabe comes and starts cracking down and beating and killing people for attending a meeting or writing an article in a newspaper or peacefully assembling, all that is doing is driving more people into MDC's fold. ZANU is now desperate to hold onto power and they are using the rural landless the same way MDC is using the urban poor- promising them a better life. But is only the people can give themselves a better life, not no political party, them only want to use ya.
So I say, support the land reclamations- that is bigger than Mugabe anyway, that is the voice of the people. But watch out for Mugabe, MDC and all their ilk. Not all who claim to be revolutionary, truly are.
________________________________________________________
( Ayinde )
I am seeing you clearly.
I also will not support driving Whites out by any means but if some people do, I understand.
But I will never condemn Mugabe in front of Whites who do not push the reparations issue. I don't care if they say they love Blacks or they are Rastafarians. Until these main issues are settled I am not putting down Mugabe. From now until their doomsday or change of heart I remain firm. When I see Whites openly calling for reparations to be paid then I may join them.
The new white thing is to accuse Africans who push for land return and reparations of blaming Whites.
________________________________________________________
( Jeff )
Greets
This is kind of long, sorry....I am glad we are all Reasoning straight and not pretensiously, Respect.
I have mixed feelings for reperations, and that is because who pays who back? Do I pay for something my ancestors were never a part of?(looked into it, my family lineage, and that's when I found out that my grandpa actually desegregated a church in Texas and had to move to Colorado because of it)I am a poor, white family man, and 'ol Jesse Jackson and all his offspirng are way way ahead of me on the pay-thing, why should he get my daughter's money because I don't choose to go into politricks and make all the money he did? Does the poor, reservation-living Indians pay for what the Cherokee Nation did with slaves? Does the Ashanti tribes, and offspring thereof also pay back for their role in it? I would be all for it, if not for the many compexities. If black businesses got money, would they be honest with it? Money is money, black or white, and the love of money corrupts, straight and simple.
And whose land is it anyways? Don't we all live on stolen land? Before the white man came along, Africans were all over each other for land, just like the Europeans, and Asians, and Native Americans.....just more devil ego. You can't honestly tell me that Shaka had anything to do with the revolt against the British....he was on his own trip, BIG EGO, he actually liked the British army for their military strength...he wanted that strength. Why, so he could conquer more land? Nobody's perfect it seems....absolute power corrupts absolutely.
And yes, I do care about the struggle for Africans around the globe. I care about the struggle for what the whole Human Race is going through right now.
Is money that important? Or is the Human Race and our survival on this planet more important? Why did all the Spiritual Messengers come with nothing but the clothes on their back? Ever see a rich prophet? Yep, money is good, but the love of money, and power for that matter, corrupts like nothing else....
Just Reasoning, I am not upset...I Thank You and have Much Respect for our getting together and telling it straight. I like real people here on the Net...too many people fakin' it. :-)
Peace and Love Brother
________________________________________________________
( Akinkawon )
While I know the way of peace and divinity, none shall enter unless they know the way of the warrior. The warriors fight the battles here on earth for right understanding and right actions to the afflicted then they may graduate.
All who claim to know the way of peace and have not known the way of the warrior are frauds. They are the enemies within that lure the unsuspected away from the path.
How can a man claim to be one with all mankind and leave out the legacy of Earthly inequities? All of Europe was built on the backs of Slaves while many of the descendents of these earlier victims are now subjected to the absurdities of racial prejudice and gender discrimination. Those who have unconsciously accepted the 'profits' of this unjust system must first become conscious of it. They must work for a restoration of dignity and rights of belonging to the disadvantaged. Many impoverished people do not have the luxury of traveling to, and or settling where they wish. They do not have the mental comfort to even associate comfortably with other Blacks. They live under the scourge of False White Superiority superimposed over the Greatness of their ancestors. They have been nurtured on illusions.
Every White today receives far more consideration than a Black man or Woman and this evil blinds many to the built in inequities in the systems that disenfranchises so many.
Today the 'Arabs' and 'Palestinians' who were initially Black are now getting little experiences of what Africans in the West have long experienced. They are now getting a taste of what they have also done and continue to do to African people in their region.
Do we all live on stolen land?
Think of this for a minute and you may discover that while many live on land that was stolen from more indigenous Africans and Indians, the idea that a mortal can own and possess land is European and it is from that false notion of ownership and entitlement they took from many, and killed and displaced many more. Those who were dragged unto lands where people were forcefully removed are not thieves but victims of thieves.
Many may live on stolen land but the thieves were those who thought it was theirs to possess in the first place and it is necessary to address this wrong by recognizing that a debt is owed to the descendents of the people who by direct lineage were entitled to settle and roam as they please. Today all are forced to recognize land, as property and no African should continue claiming that land is free for all unless he or she has that land to so declare.
Yes Jeff, as I told you before, once you were the recipient of the benefits of White Superiority you are guilty by association and have inherited the sins of your forefather.
You have the attention of Whites and it is your responsibility to carry these truths to them and to bring resources/money to the table to further the process of enlightenment. You can set up your own school if you wish but you will receive no graces from enlightenment unless the dignity to all Blacks are restored and until they have all had a chance to taste material freedom, (which is short lived).
Being White, you can get the attention of White media and you can take to them the works of Great Africans for them to promotion. It is a sin for you to sit around with Blacks and remain materially poor while in many ways you can earn far more than Blacks with equal skills and you can bring this money for people like me to show you how to use it for good. Lean not on your own misunderstanding of trying to determine what Africans should do or not do with what is owed to them. It is a debt to be paid and the people can do as they wish with their money. Many will waste resources for they have learned the White ways of material excesses and adoration.
These are the lessons that were taken to Africa, while the young and brilliant were dragged off as slaves with the aid of some Africans who were already corrupted by European false values.
Do not confuse yourself with generalizations to mask the issues and to detract from the essence of this discourse which points to right actions for the liberation of you.
But please speak your mind and bring all the White counterarguments to the discussion so that more Africans can learn how to deal with Western Spin doctoring.
________________________________________________________
( IsisRastafari )
Blessed Love I's!
I am very glad to see this reasoning taking place and wanted to jump in and add my Iditations to the reasoning, for truelly it is more than past time that this reasoning needs to be massively, for only through repairing the past can InI move foward into the future, having built upon Truth and Right as the Foundation.
InI as white people do have a Collective Responsibility that must be upheld. I also am a "poor" white whose family, as far as I have been able to trace, had not hands in slavery, but still I feel this needs to be looked at in the Collective, InI know that the affects of slavery are still with InI today and also racism is alive and well today, re: preferential treatment in how our communities are alocated funds, public services, housing, racial profiling by police, landlords, employers, not to mention in the inequity of the justice system, now granted reparations may not fix these ills, but it is a step...the movement of reparations is also encompassing re-education of the masses. Also with the mentality of white supremecy it was used to secure the 'future' for whites in general, by putting whites above others in all aspects of life. That was done for all whites to feel supreme, even though InI don't accept and adhear to this, it is still something that is here and available to whites. It was still done for whites even if InI don't accept it, with this being put on InI plate since birth, InI have been thus given the responsibility to change it, and that is reparations to I.
No InI may not have money, and I think that when reparations are issued in the form of $, it will be from tax dollars that InI will pay, as it looks that the one who will be alocating funds will be the governments. For Surely InI can sight that reparations will be a positive step! InI tax dollars pay for pure evil, look at the defense budget and what it is used for. I dont feel it is up to InI whites to worry about how the funds are used....for I don't tell no one how to run them lives. So to I like anything, the Good that is brought about by reparations out weighs any adverse effects that may be.
Also there has been reparations by Ghana a prime example for InI to sight, now those in Ghana may not even be descendants of the Ashanti Tribe, their family may not have played a part in slavery, still them stand up for the inequity that has been committed........
FIHANKRA ~On December 9th, 1994 a Historical ceremony was conducted In Ghana, West Africa to Atone for the participation of those past traditional rulers who helped to sustain the trans-atlantic slave trade, first initiated by European powers in the 15th Century. The Atonement ceremony consisted of the customary purification of a carved stool (seat) and specifically prepared skin of an animal. Stool and Skin were customarily named Fihankra, which literally translated means: When Leaving Home Good-byes could not be said. At this time there is a Ghana Law expected to be passed giving dual citzinship to Africans of Diaspora and Ghanians who gave up their African Citzenship for American citzinship will be able to get back their Ghana citzenship, and I also hear of land being set a side...the contact bredren is
Nana Kwadwo O. Akpan
Chief and Custodian of the Stool and Skin of Fihankra
fihankra@africaonline.com.gh
So I sight it is just a diversion to contemplate what others will do to make right, when InI have In InI hands the ability to make right even if it is classified as "small" still good for the advancement of the Whole.
No I, money is not important ultimatly, "Life is worth more than Silver and Gold...." (so why do InI worry about how it will be spent by those recieving reparations) Money now-a-days can even buy life, and it does affect the freedom InI have in life. Some of us as white people also encounter the oppression of money, but this is a reflection of the matrix of the system, and the issue needs to be looked at piece by piece of the whole, there is more opportunities for white people as a whole in babylon, economics is another form of slavery, and for blacks this is a two-edge sword living in babylon. Slavery has not been addressed in no real form in babylon by whites, it hasnt been that long ago, for ones to forget it like they have, where I live in the south, once blacks were freed from slavery with little to nothing, many couldnt afford anything but to stay where they were and sharecrop or move to the cities projects, not too long ago at all actually within the last generation, and then from there to find a job in the city, yah right, to get in school was an issue, the whole 'majority mind frame' is based on non-equality, and this is massive non-comparable to anything else in the view of the collective communities, black and white.....the mentality is still present. Yes Ultimatley it is the human race and all of we's survival.....One Body....head, arms, shoulders, back, legs, etc....all parts need to be treated right for the body as a whole to prosper. I feel our duty as poor white people is to re-educte ourselves and pass it on to others, that in and of itself is a form of repartions, a way of working within the body to help make it whole and healthy.
Haile I Selassie I spoke of Collective Responsibility many times, in the Aspect of Collective Responsibility of Africa, Collective Responsibility of Ethiopia, Collective Responsibility of Humanity.
One Love~True many chant One Love! But is it true love, true love doesnt have any conditions, doesn't seek anything in return for giving true love, true love gives of it self freely, true love walks over hills and vallys for the one love!
I know I have rambled on, and don't know if I made any sense, please ask me about anything I wrote, sometimes I cant find the write words to truelly express what I feel, that is why I dont post much. And bredren Jeff I want you to know I am not one of the fakers online:) I am real and the I is welcome in I gates anytime to see....
Blessed Love!
One Love!
Just-Full Ites!
I-sis
________________________________________________________
( IsisRastafari )
Jeff....you are right, the love of money of corrupts....but the issue of reparations isn't for the pursuit of the love of the money, but of the pay that still hasn't been given for years and years of forced labor by millions of people. So in that aspect, money is important.
________________________________________________________
( E.A.S.Tafari )
HAIL THE LIVING I HAILE SELLASSIE 1
Greetings
Who is Jeff? Where is he.We just want to know if he's living in these times.
I so glad that there is a sister to catch some of his fire. Please sister re-educate Jeff for INI ,first by asking him to walk a mile and stop grudging those blacks who have what is righfully theirs. As a matter of fact people like Jesse and the rest dont even have enough because we know that they surely worked the righteous work for what they have and have been robbed on the way by people who think that what these africans have attained is in the wrong hands.
We are also asking Jeff to visit the ghetto and projects and the prisons; take a drive in the suburbs; fly to the continent and visit the african homelands and the suburbs on the continent; take a look at the status of african people who have the wealthiest continent and are the poorest in the world; find out who is controlling all the natural resources and the economy all over the world; who are the war mongers and the gun manufacturers.If after his position is still the same, then we invite him to one of the cliffs in the Caribbean where the slave masters used to throw the runaways, the sick and the elders,into the sea to get rid of living human beings who were not of any productive use to them on the slave plantations; and from the top of one of these haunting cliffs, he can take a dive.
Our hearts have no place for the rich or poor, black or white, who dont have a sense of justice.
Jeff,if you know the bible in out we ask you to join the jesuits and watch you empire catch fire!!!!!
Yes I "true love"
Fire oh RasTafari!!!!!!
________________________________________________________
( E.A.S.Tafari response to Akinkawon )
HAIL TO THE MOST HIGH ALMIGHTY JAH
YES I BROTHER;
The I said it for all of INI
Give thanks!!!!!!!!!!!!
________________________________________________________
( Jeff )
Greets
Brother, I was once Rasta, for the past 12 years....Reasoned with Elders, preached Black Consciousness to my white people, etc etc....I am not as ignorant as you think I am, believe me. I have thought long and hard about these topics before many on this here internet even heard about Rasta. It almost made me laugh to read you tell Sister Isis, who I've know for a while here on the Net, to educate me, but as of late I have been trying to transcend the ego and just show compassion and love...even to the smallest of God's creatures.
Lately, I have been greatly influenced by Buddhist teachings, which point directly to the heart, and not the color of the skin. Buddha taught that it is desire, and our want of things that cause suffering. All this desire comes from ego, and the Buddha has taught that we must cease hatred and all other things that come from the ego. I, me, etc etc...we are all connected, right down to the littlest molecule, so there is no I or you or me....
Yes, I do care about the world, and ALL the past inustices of Humans. And for me the answer isn't more money which causes more corruption, but straight up Enlightment for the Human Race.
Peace
Jeff
________________________________________________________
( Jeff )
Greets Once Again,
"It is proper to doubt. Do not be led by holy scriptures, or by mere logic or inference, or by appearences, or by the authority of religious teachers..."
-Gotama the Buddha
And that is what I do Brother....straight and simple. I don't believe in any -centric view, neither Euro or Afro....Life si way too compex for such simplifications.
Peace and Love
Happy Holy Days to All
Jeff
________________________________________________________
( IsisRastafari )
Greetings Jeff, I don't know what the I finds so laughable about learning from another, in specific I, Can we not learn from each other? Or can't InI even learn from the "smallest of God's Creatures"? I feel only ego stops InI to be open to learning. I am no way perfect and will gladly accept any righteous rebuke or lesson the I have...so please I tell I what the real deal is...and since when does the WANT for JUSTICE cause suffering? I allways thought it was the reverse the UN-WANT for JUSTICE causes suffering.
"Throughout history it has been the inaction of those who could have acted, the indifference of those who should have known better, the silence of the voice of justice when it mattered most, that has made it possible for evil to triumph." H.I.M. Haile I Selassie I.
In this society skin color does affect InI life experiences, InI life experiences shape InI heart.
True-Word-Sound-Power...."Straight up Enlightment for the Human Race"
Blessed Love!
I-sis
________________________________________________________
( Jeff responds to Akinkawon )
Greets
I am on my way to LA for Christmas....and just wanted to respond to one thing, and then I will try to get abck to the general discussion.
You wrote: All of Europe was built on the backs of Slaves
I would like to point out that yes, America was built on the backs of slaves, but Europe already had great empires before slavery, and they were built on the backs on poor, white people known as serfs. How about reperations for all the poor serfs of European history?
Again, I am asking in all seriousness, and still hold firm to my views that man to man is unjust...not just white against black, but all Humans are unjust to one another, and again, from my own spiritual views, it is all due to ego.
I will get back to you again, hopefully when I get to LA.
And again, thanks for the good, honest reasonings!
Peace
Jeff
________________________________________________________
( Akinkawon )
Yes, I mean the Europe we know today and I would go back further once we are through discussing returning lands and Reparations to Africans.
{{{ Europe already had great empires }}}
In your European view, and you are quite entitled to hold that view, Europe had great empires.
WHEN THE LION TELLS HISTORY THE HUNTER IS NO HERO.
In my African view, Europe never had a great Empire. All the European 'empires' were built on theft and murder. They were the world's greatest thieves. Many Africans tried to civilize Europeans and very few grasped a bit of what it meant to be civilized. The few that did were quickly executed or ostracized for promoting 'revolutionary' ideas.
As a White person you have the luxury of adopting any belief system you want. Today you are Rasta; tomorrow you are Buddhist and later on a Hindu. You can be anything and society would not discard you to the cesspool of the human race. They might consider you a crackpot but many material doors would remain open to you.
You are not even appreciative of the breaks you have and how much more you can do if you were not trying to escape the work here on earth. You mentioned that you used to promote African consciousness (which I doubt but I believe you thought you were). No one who understands the problems of race and gender discrimination would stop addressing it while it still affects so many people. It's like saying you used to treat cancer as if when you stopped there was no more cancer.
Whites have always exploited each other and the forced labour of the Slavs cannot be compared to chattel slavery and its legacy of racial discrimination and land deprivation.
Anyhow Europeans do not have a problem killing and compensating each other, it is the Africans they have a problem with.
I'll wait until you return before I continue….
________________________________________________________
( Jeff )
Greets
Going to LA tomorrow instead. First, I don't have a "European" mind...I have the mind of Jeff, no -centrics....just the mind God gave me. Second, I should have not used the word "great"....trust me when I say I don't find the history of Europe very great or exciting, but I do have yto study it just as I have to study African, or Asian, or any other history. Third, you too can be a Buddhist, or Rasta or anything else....nobody makes that decision but you, and nobody controls that but you. Economoics? Yes, the power structure is everything you say it is, but spirituality is between you and God, and so don't diss what I choose spiritually, cool? (Might I give you the webpage for the Pround Black Buddhist? Yes, he's from Africa, and he CHOSE his religion)Or do you want to reason with one of my Black friends about how he isnt Rasta anymore also? Did he have a choice????
Anyways, I will leave the board and let you and others speak of what you want...the oppressed will become the oppressors...etc etc...history repeats itself. Power and money....Thats why Buddha said to drop the desires and cravings of the ego (money and power included)....only then will wars and slavery end.
Peace Ya'll
Jeff
________________________________________________________
( E.A.S.Tafari )
PRAISES AND THANKS TO THE ALMIGHTY ONE JAH RAS TAFARI.
Greetings
INI are going to have a farewell reasoning for Jeff or maybe INI just had it.We see that is one who is retired hurt.....
wait until he comes out with his sellout biography twenty years from now when he has finally found his tower with all his donny. He is going to write of all his adventures and the things that were not so attractive in this religion and that one. He is heading to be a hero in time .. that is how these fickle people operate.They cower under the task when it becomes a reality because we are sure that his next new religion is going to expose his cowdice once more. he is going to move on like the typical rolling stone until he finds his true self. just another man (white this time) who couldnt take the light.
INI fare thee well until we meet in the land of CONSCIEINCE. we SEE THAT YOU DIDNT ACCEPT THE INVITATION TO THE HAUNTING CLIFFS IN THE CARIBBEAN.DONT MAKE THEM FOLLOW YOU.
From the hearts we wish you well in all your ventures.Carry some mariJahna in the inner coat(not coke) whenever the depression of injustice sets in and in your high just pray for those "those were not as fortunate as you" YES I IF YOU ARE SINCERE YOUR PRAYERS WILL REACH YOUR DISCOVERED GOD.WE WILL ALSO PRAY THAT YOU WILL NOT THINK BE BECOMING ANOTHER columbus.
Haaaaaa! we sighing another sigh of relief while we stack up all your past verbal contribution to what you once thought was your home.Fallcy eh!?
RUN AND CATCH YOUR SALVATION BEFORE IT BECOMES ANOTHER ILLUSION.
THERE IS NO PEACE WITHOUT JUSTICE.
TRUE LOVE IS LOVE. JAH THE MOST HIGH IS LOVE.
________________________________________________________
( Akinkawon )
BUDDHISM: The Dalai Lama is pushing for the return of lands.
When you meet him tell him that is material things and a waste of time.
You converse like a regular European even though you believe you are different.
It don't matter what an African joins or becomes he would be plagued with the negative effects of Racial prejudice. That's my point.
There is no escaping racism; there is no choice about that.
When you join what you want you are not faced with the negative effects of Racism.
I am a practicing Buddha, and Sufi etc, but when we are finished with the return of lands and compensation to all Africans affected by Slavery and its legacy of Racial abuses we could discuss Buddhism.
To be continued.....``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe: Whites condemn Mugabe``x1009218687,11163,Rasta``x``x
``xwww.wakeupmag.co.uk
"Who decides that a hue and cry must be made about one kind of atrocity while another gets away unpublicised? Who sets the agenda which sees imprisonment and torture as human rights violations while torture and death by starvation are not? And what gives some countries the right to become international arbiters, ignoring the blood on their own hands?… It's time for people who care about human rights to adopt a new cause: the Third World person's right to exist. Our people are under fire from global terrorism of a terminal new order. Many have already been wiped off the face of the earth."
- MARI MARCEL THEKAEKARA, Tamil Nadu State, India.
"Never before in history have the poor financed the rich on such a massive scale and paid so dearly for their servitude as today."
- JOHN PILGER
As the twentieth century draws to a close, the world is guilty of a colossal failure of compassion for its poorest people. Today, more than a thousand million people live in extreme poverty. A quarter of the world's people are starving. One in three children are being denied adequate food, education and health care. More than half a million children die each year as a result of austerity programmes imposed by the West on the Third World. Every three seconds a child under five dies due to poverty. In the time it took you to read that last sentence, another child's life was lost due to policies that Western governments have decided to enforce on the rest of the world.
1998 marked 50 years of the global trading system which was set up under the 1948 General Agreement On Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and the World Trade Organisation (WTO). While the bankers and leaders of the world's richest countries toasted the "success" of this economic system at the 1998 Ministerial Conference in Geneva, the people of the Third World saw little cause for celebration. Not only is this global economic system directly responsible for the starvation of millions throughout the Third World - it can be said that it actually depends on the impoverishment of these people. There is no more apt description for such a deliberate and calculated agenda than genocide.
Up to the mid 1970s, the worst excesses of the capitalist system were held in check by democratic national governments and strong unions. Big business was forced by legislation, regulations and labour contracts to share its profits, at least on some minimal basis, with workers, consumers and the state.
Over the past two decades, however, all these external constraints have been disposed of. Globalisation, free trade, deregulation and the conversion of nearly all political parties to the free market agenda have combined to subvert democracy and disempower unions. Unchallenged, corporate domination has quickly spread across the planet, causing disparities and inequalities on an unsurpassed scale. Poverty, crime, violence, ethnic conflict and environmental destruction have escalated as a result.
Inequality is on the increase. In 1960 the ratio of the world's richest 20% of the population to the poorest 20% was 30 to 1. In 1993 that ratio had doubled to 61 to 1. Today, a citizen of the richest country is over 500 times better off than one from the poorest. The gap between rich and poor countries has never been so vast.
THE ORIGINS OF THE THIRD WORLD DEBT CRISIS
The impoverishment of the Third World can be traced back to the 1960s when the US government spent more money than it earned. To make up for this, Washington printed more dollars. Thus, the world's stocks of dollars fell in value. This was bad news for the major oil-producing countries of OPEC, whose oil was priced in dollars. The money they made from exports now bought less. So in 1973 they hiked their prices, making huge sums of money which they deposited in Western banks. Meanwhile, the world was plunged into a recession. As interest rates plummeted, the banks were faced with an international financial crisis. They lent the money out fast, to stop the slide, and turned to the Third World, whose economies were doing well but who wanted to maintain development and meet the rising costs of oil. The banks lent lavishly, eager to make use of their surplus capital, offering loans by the barrowload at very low interest rates to the leaders of any developing country they could find, without much thought about how the money would be used or whether the recipients had the capacity to repay it.
In the end, little of the money benefited the poor. The money was almost entirely wasted; roughly a quarter of it went on increased oil bills; a quarter on misconceived large-scale development schemes such as dams, many of which proved of little value; a quarter on the military (often to shore up oppressive regimes); and a quarter went into the private banks of corrupt leaders.
The world's economic system is in fact based on debt. Every country in the world is in the red, even the richest and most successful. Most of the money is owed to multinational banks and financial institutions. Rich countries can survive periods of high indebtedness if there is confidence and investment in their economies, but poorer countries are crippled by their foreign debts. Some now owe more to the West than their total Gross National Product (GNP). The five countries with the biggest debt burdens (as a percentage of GNP) are: Cote d'Ivoire (338.9%), Guinea-Bissau (340.7%), Mozambique (450.4%), Congo (454.2%) and Nicaragua (a staggering 800.6%).
At the current rates of interest, it is a mathematical impossibility for most Third World countries to pay off their debt. Many have had to agree to the process known as "structural adjustment" by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) - the two main financial institutions of the West - who have insisted on these countries' conversion to free-market economics.
By the mid 1970s, Third World countries, encouraged by the West to grow cash crops, suddenly found that they weren't getting the prices they were used to for raw materials like copper, coffee, tea, cotton, and cocoa. Too many countries - advised by the West - were producing the same crops, so prices fell. Then interest rates began to rise, pushed further by an increase in US interest rates, and oil prices rose again. Third World countries were now earning less than ever for their exports while paying more than ever on their loans and imports. They had to borrow money just to pay off the interest. Debts piled up and the repayments mounted ever more as the commodity prices that most developing countries depended on sank through the floor (by mid 1987, they were at their lowest level for 50 years).
New loans by the World Bank and IMF have only added to the burden. Since 1980 debt to the World Bank has increased five times; in effect the poorest countries became bankrupt. The oldest human rights organisation in the world, the Anti-Slavery Society, has declared that debt is "contemporary slavery" and interest payments a form of national bondage.
IN THE GRIP OF THE WORLD BANK
The World Bank is run from Washington by a hierarchy of rich shareholders from the developed countries, and it is under the constant influence and manipulation of the United States. Loans from the World Bank and the IMF come with draconian conditions aimed at diverting the borrower's resources away from meeting domestic needs and towards fulfilling the Bank's corporate agenda. Elected governments have been forced to impose very strict economic policies, known as Structural Adjustment Programmes (SAPs) which have opened their markets to "free trade" - a euphemism for exploitation by transnational corporations (TNCs).
SAPs supposedly consist of measures designed to help a country repay its debts by earning more hard cash, but in most countries SAPs have worsened the economic situation and the poor have been hit the hardest. SAPs have particularly affected the countries of sub-Saharan Africa, whose economies are already the poorest in the world. In 1980 sub-Saharan Africa owed the West $60 billion. By 1997, after the introduction of structural adjustment, this had risen to $219 billion - $357 for every man, woman and child in the region, much more than a year's wage for many.
In the eyes of the people running the World Bank and the IMF, services that are "public" (i.e. those that people don't pay for directly, such as health, education, welfare, transport services, etc.) are deemed to be an unfair subsidy by the government. The private provision of services (which people do have to pay for) is looked on much more favourably. Other areas, such as clean air, reasonable conditions of work and health and safety considerations, are deemed irrelevant to trade.
Under the terms of the World Bank and IMF's structural adjustment programmes, the governments of poor countries are forced to cut spending on health, education, social services and welfare; to devalue the national currency; to cut back on food subsidies; to cut jobs and wages for workers in government industries and services; and to take over small subsistence farms growing staple foods and replace them with large-scale export crop farms. The SAPs also demand lower taxes on high income earners, privatisation of public industries (including their sale to foreign investors) and lower tariffs on imports. Third World nations have been forced by the IMF and World Bank to sell off state-owned enterprises at bargain basement prices. In 1990, more than 7O countries had privatisation programmes in place and sold off state firms worth $185 billion.
The results are lucrative for the West but socially disastrous for the poor countries, who have sunk deeper into recession, with mass unemployment, starvation and ill health. Millions of people in the developing world are trapped into a life of poverty and misery with little hope of improving their quality of life. Nonetheless, IMF loans are withheld if a country does not accept the terms of the West's plans. If ordinary people oppose these policies, the Bank and IMF are quite prepared to tacitly support violent suppression of demonstrations or protests. Thousands of people have been arrested or injured in protests in more than 30 countries implementing SAPs.
STRUCTURALLY ADJUSTING THE POOR
As the poor countries have been forced to relax foreign investment restrictions, Western transnational corporations have expanded investment in the Third World and there has been an exodus of Western industries to low wage Third World countries. In 1991, nearly 30 countries made it easier for multinationals to invest and corporate investment jumped from 19% of total foreign investment in 1990 to 30% in 1992.
The dependence on exports has made these countries vulnerable to the vagaries of the global market and has benefited only foreign investors and domestic elites. Most corporate investment goes to the rich world; of the $150 billion of direct foreign investment in 1991, more than two thirds went to the industrialised nations of the West.
Spending on healthcare has fallen drastically in many of the world's poorest countries since structural adjustment was introduced. In Zimbabwe, for example, spending per head on healthcare has fallen by a third since 1990 when a Structural Adjustment Programme was introduced. In Uganda, £2 per head is spent on healthcare, compared with £11.50 per head on debt repayments. After decades of falling numbers, the number of children who die before the age of five has risen in many indebted countries, including Zimbabwe, Zambia, Nicaragua, Chile and Jamaica. Diseases once thought to be eradicated, such as tuberculosis, yaws and yellow fever, are making a comeback as treatment and vaccination decline.
Massive job losses have also followed structural adjustment. Throughout the Third World, unemployment has gone up by 400% to 100 million. In Zambia, Tanzania and Ghana, over 20% of the working population are unemployed. In Mexico, Costa Rica and Bolivia, average wages have fallen by a third since 1980. Wages in most African countries have fallen by 50-60% since the early 1980s.
Many Western economists have seen the fallacy of SAPs. Hans Singer, a development specialist, stated: "The results of structural adjustment have been poor, indeed negative. The social costs have been enormous…. Growth has not happened, debt has not disappeared and investment has fallen."
SAPs demand that countries increase their export crops - and as many poorer countries are encouraged to grow the same crops, they cause a glut on the international market and prices fall, resulting in even lower wages for the workers on plantations and farms. Mexico first grew maize as a staple crop thousands of years ago, but today, thanks to World Bank/IMF economic policies, it has to import 20% of this staple food from the USA. The IMF encouraged Mexico to replace its vital food crops with cash crops like strawberries and exotic fruits. The IMF also made sure that any trade protection for the country's agricultural goods was lifted, so Mexico's export crops now compete with those from the USA, which are highly subsidised and use all available techniques to improve their quality. In such a one-sided fight, Mexico is the inevitable loser; almost 20% of Mexicans have no cash income; more than a third of the population make less than the minimum wage of $3 a day.
Since 1972, the Philippines' national debt has risen from $2.7 billion to $29 billion. Much of this was the result of secret and often fraudulent deals by the dictator Ferdinand Marcos and the World Bank. The Bank and the IMF quietly approved of Marcos and worked to keep him in power. According to internal World Bank documents, the martial law imposed by Marcos in 1972 made possible the "economic reforms that opened up the economy to the influx of foreign capital". Within two years, during which democratic institutions in the country were trampled on, World Bank loans to the Philippines increased fivefold. Since 1972 the World Bank poured more than $7.5 billion into the Philippines; during that time the growth rate fell and poverty rose by a third.
Marcos is believed to have looted some $15 billion from the Philippines' economy. In 1976, in return for $4.5 billion the IMF had given to him, Marcos built a number of luxury hotels to accommodate the World Bankers for their annual conference in Manila. Marcos sent the bill to the city authorities, who passed it on in municipal taxes. The poor of Manila are still paying it off. In 1981, US vice-president George Bush raised his glass to Marcos and said, "We love you sir… we love your adherence to democratic principles and democratic processes."
IMF structural adjustment of the Philippines led to the establishment of 'Export Processing Zones' in areas where food was once grown in abundance. This means that virtually all the forests will be lost within a few years. The IMF is currently demanding further reductions in public spending, a freeze on wages and new taxes. The Philippines' National Economic Development Authority estimated that as a result, 50,000 workers will lose their jobs in 1999. The Department of Health estimated that 399,000 children would be denied milk and vitamins, and 103,000 tuberculosis sufferers would be denied medical treatment.
The implication is clear: as a direct result of World Bank/IMF policies, tens of thousands of Filipino children will die - silently and unnecessarily. The Institute of Policy Studies in Washington has calculated that one child dies every hour because debt repayments consume vital services like health care.
Mozambique is another country that has paid a heavy price for the debt burden forced on it by the World Bank. During the 1980s the newly independent country of Mozambique helped the African National Congress in neighbouring South Africa to fight for majority black rule. South Africa's apartheid state fought back brutally, waging a war against Mozambique that did an incredible $25 billion in damage; a million people died and a third of all Mozambicans were forced to flee their homes. South African-backed Renamo guerrillas attacked factories, railways, bridges and other social facilities, crippling the economy.
They destroyed half the country's schools and hospitals - even massacring patients as they lay in their beds. The crisis was made worse because the United States and the West backed the apartheid South African forces as a bastion against Communism during the Cold War. When apartheid ended, South Africa stopped waging war on Mozambique but the country had been forced to borrow huge amounts of money for importing oil, food, clothing and arms for defence. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Mozambican government decided it had no option but to make a sudden and complete U-turn. It turned straight into a market economy dictated by the IMF, with strict monetary control, free trade and privatisation.
The IMF demanded that the Mozambican government reduce its spending, while insisting that it could not decrease the repayments of its debts. By 1992 the debt had mounted to more than $7 billion. Since then, Russia and many European countries have cancelled some of this debt, but $5 billion remains. Civil service salaries were slashed and nurses and teachers slipped below the poverty line. Some 100,000 workers - 25 per cent of the industrial workforce - lost their jobs as a result of privatisation. Each year, Mozambique is supposed to pay $350 million in interest on the outstanding debt, plus some repayments of the debt itself. In reality, Mozambique can only afford to pay less than a third of this - and the unpaid money is added onto the total debt. The country is caught in a trap from which it can never escape.
In 1976 Switzerland was 52 times richer than Mozambique; in 1997 it was 508 times richer. Mozambique is the poorest country in the world today.
Mozambique is not alone. All of Africa is caught in a similar trap caused by wars, falling export prices and other IMF-imposed policies. The people of DR Congo, for example, are now expected to repay $13 billion which was lent to ex-president Mobutu, who was supported as an anti-Communist ally by the West, despite their knowing that he would use the money to build palaces and filter the money into Swiss banks. Within the next two years, half the population of Indonesia will join the millions in sub-Saharan Africa who live below the poverty line.
India too has started along the road of structural adjustment, despite the disastrous results evident in Asian, African and Latin American countries. In 1991-2, a financial crisis persuaded the Indian government to borrow money from the World Bank/IMF. In return for the loan, the government promised to implement an ultra-liberal economic programme. By May 1993 India had, for the first time in its history, a budget which openly and unashamedly pandered to the rich.
Refrigerators, cars and colour TV sets became cheaper. A top-of-the-line colour TV had its price slashed by 2,500 rupees ($80) and advertisements now urge the rich to buy their second TV for the kids' bedrooms. But ration rice, the absolute basic food necessity in India, became more expensive, forcing the poorest to buy less food for their families.
In the railways, banks and steel manufacturing industries, the workforce was cut by 25% in just over two years under SAPs. During the same time, the number of unemployed in the cities increased by 4 million. Out of the active rural population of 400 million, there are now 110 million unemployed. Government figures estimate that 40% of India's population live below the poverty line.
India's poor face a chronic protein deficiency anyway because their diet consists of bulk rice and little else. Now that they have less rice, a heavy toll is being taken on their health, especially women and children. After five years' of health education, and of trying to encourage people to eat dal pulses (the only protein available to the poor), the price of dal has become prohibitive. Community health programmes are seeing children under five who have just made it out of malnutrition slipping back because their parents are buying less food. Ailments such as measles, diarrhoea and chest infections, which can be easily warded off by healthy children are wiping out malnourished children.
Hundreds of thousands of people have been made homeless all over India by flooding caused by World Bank dams and irrigation schemes, which have ignored the environmental impact. World Bank-sponsored hydro-electric projects have flooded over three million people off their land.
"If UN members can impose sanctions on Iraq and South Africa, environmental pollution and wasteful consumption are no less an act of war and a violation of the human rights of the people of the south."- MANEKA GANDHI, former Minister of State for Environment and Forests in India
"Debt is tearing down schools, clinics and hospitals and the effects are no less devastating than war."
- Dr ADABAYO ADEDEJI, former Under Secretary General of the UN
In China the Xiaolangdi Dam Project has relied heavily on World Bank loans, despite the fact that many independent experts have made it clear that the dam will have serious environmental consequences. The World Bank is equally unconcerned that hundreds of thousands of people are being forced out of their homes and resettled elsewhere, where they are suffering a serious drop in living standards, education and employment opportunities. The World Bank is also helping to fund a major water transfer project in Shanxi province in China. In return for the loan, the Bank insists that the Shanxi government must "commercialise" the water supply. The result will be that even something as basic as water will become too expensive for many poor farmers.
The current IMF loan programme for Ecuador has no less than 167 demands, which include the following: the country's government must raise the price of cooking gas by 80%. It must eliminate 26,000 jobs and halve real wages for the remaining workers by 50% in four steps in months specified by the IMF. It must transfer ownership of its biggest water system to foreign operators by July 2001 and it must grant BP's Arco subsidiary the right to build and own an oil pipeline over the Andes.
As Lobster magazine eloquently put it, "the only meaningful difference between the American international loan-sharking operation run by the IMF and US armed forces and the street level gangster version is this: the gangsters don't go round preaching to their victims that the beating and expropriation is going to be good for them."
In 1997 the European commission and World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) completed a devastating report about the destruction of tropical forests in developing countries, which named Third world governments, multinational companies, the World Bank and IMF of involvement in a conspiracy which threatened to destroy much of the remaining virgin primary forests in the Caribbean rim, central Africa and Pacific within five to ten years, due to the expansion of unsustainable logging operations.
The report named companies prepared to bribe and bully their way to lucrative logging concessions and blamed the IMF and World Bank for inducing countries to sell their forests for a quick cash return to pay off debts to the West. However, the report was suppressed for three years by the European commission, who were fearful of the repercussions if they named names and a second version of the report was printed with the names taken out - but even this was watered down.
The report stated: "Many of the countries are suffering severe economic difficulties with large foreign debts, high inflation and unemployment. In the majority of countries, decision making is controlled by a small group of powerful people or clans within the government that look at primary forests of their country as a short-term source of personal revenue, not as a productive ecosystem which can generate social, economic and ecological benefits on the long term for the entire country and its people."
The Solomon Islands, Papua new Guinea, Cameroon and Belize were all named as suffering large scale corruption and the report blamed the main donors to these countries - the World Bank, Japan, the EU, France, Germany, the UK and the US - for failing to enforce their own rules to promote forest conservation and responsible management. In fact the World Bank and IMF made things worse by imposing monetary reform on these countries, urging them to allow multinational companies and the selling of their forests for cash to pay back debts.
REAPING THE PROFITS
Structural adjustment programmes do benefit some - rich landowners, business tycoons, bankers, financiers, shareholders and heads of foreign multinational corporations. It is ordinary people and their children who pay for these peoples' luxuries.
Transnational corporations now have almost total control over the process of globalisation. Two thirds of international trade is accounted for by just 500 corporations; the ten largest TNCs have a total income greater than 100 of the world's poorest countries.
TNCs and banks have no national loyalty; they can be located anywhere and can operate effectively at any distance. They are unanswerable to no-one but their investors and shareholders, who are interested exclusively in making profit. At present, there is no government or regulatory body to monitor or tax their overall behaviour. The result is that these corporations enjoy vast economic power without accountability or concern for social justice.
In theory, both the World Bank and the IMF are overseen by a Board of Governors, consisting of one governor for each member country; in practice, authority is delegated to a Board of 24 full-time executive directors. The World Bank says that "most of the decisions are made by consensus"; this is a consensus that always goes along with the aims of the ruling classes of the seven richest governments in the world (Canada, Italy, Japan, France, UK, Germany and the US), known collectively as the G-7 (now called the G-8 with the participation of Russia)
The top three beneficiaries of foreign investment in the Third World are France (reaping $138 billion a year), Britain ($199 billion) and the United States (raking in a massive $477 billion).
Western countries are the sole beneficiaries of the free trade- promoting "Uruguay Round" of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). As a result of this, the poorest countries will lose $600 million a year to the West and sub-Saharan Africa will lose $1,200 million.
Meanwhile, the number of poor countries catching up with the industrialised states, in per capita terms, has fallen by three quarters in the past quarter century. In other words, poverty has never risen so fast.
The 6,000 employees of the World Bank enjoy a lifestyle a world removed from the penury of the people they are exploiting. Middle-ranking civil servants of the Bank earn 300 times the income of half of humanity, with perks including first-class air travel and deluxe hotel accommodation, costing over $50 million a year.
In October 1991, the World Bank held its annual conference in Bangkok. A few weeks before the conference began, a small town of people living beside the railway tracks along the route from the airport was bulldozed, including homes, a kindergarten and a school. The poor people were moved to wasteland well out of sight of the World Bankers. Each was given £90 as "removal expenses". They had no electricity and running water, and the army demanded its tents back once the conference was over.
A vast conference centre, with gilded lacquer and other adornments was built for the occasion. A three-star chef was flown in from Paris, accompanied by turkeys from the famous Bresse region. Belgian caviar was flown in from Iran, smoked salmon from Norway and prime rib from the US. Following the seminar on the conversion of socialism to capitalism and "the lessons learned", the delegates enjoyed a party featuring a display of gems consisting of an 89-karat diamond, a 100-karat emerald and a 336-karat opal. In a country where children routinely die from malnutrition and preventable diseases and where low wages, child labour, prostitution and illegal sweatshops support the "growing" economy" advocated by the World Bank, the poor ended up paying for this extravagance.
"Whose side are we on in the Third World War: the present war against the Third World, the war against the poor, the silent scandalous sacrifice of the children who perish in sight of images of luxury and excess?"
- JEREMY SEABROOK
"Inequality is an evil both in itself and because it is a cause of poverty. One of the chief reasons why the poor are very poor is that the rich are very rich."
- DOUGLAS JAY
THE MYTH OF AID
For all their expositions of magnanimity, the world's richest governments are not committed to eradicating global poverty. In 1998 total aid to poor countries from member states of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) was cut to the lowest level since 1950, to an average of only 0.22% of total GNP. The UN has set the target for overseas aid to 0.7% of a country's GNP. Only the Netherlands and Sweden currently meet this target and the US aid budget is the lowest of all Total aid from OECD countries fell by $3.8 billion in 1996, a decline of 4.2% in real terms from 1995.
There is little indication that this decline will be reversed. A 1997/98 Reality of Aid report condemned the fact that insufficient aid was being channelled to where it was most needed. While the poorest countries received a smaller share of aid, wealthier countries in Central and Eastern Europe enjoyed a 10% increase in aid.
"Aid can and does work, especially when it reaches people living in poverty, and when it focuses on things like education, health and clean water. Instead, governments, especially the G8, are focusing on new markets in developing countries where they can make a profit, and letting the least developed countries fall by the wayside."
- SABINA SINISCALCHI, chair of Eurostep
The great myth about aid is that Western banks lend money to Third World governments to help them develop their countries. In fact the majority of aid is not spent on direct poverty alleviation; most is tied to trade deals or debt repayments. In 1997 debt-service payments from sub-Saharan Africa amounted to 80% of aid. By making such loans, the West creams off huge amounts of interest paid by the poor countries. If indebted governments threaten to break off interest repayments, they are starved of further loans.
During the period 1983-90 for instance, the poor countries paid £98,000 million to the rich countries. That's a net figure, after taking into account new loans and all aid. It works out at about £1.4 million per hour. In 1995 alone, the poorest countries paid $1 billion more to the IMF than they received from it. The four main high street banks in the UK - Lloyds, Natwest, Midland and Barclays - have done very nicely out of this, making substantial profits from Third World debts, while collecting over £1 billion in tax relief on loans that are still current.
In 1985 Live Aid raised £50 million for the starving people of Ethiopia. That year the country had to pay £65 million in interest payments on loans from Western banks. At the same time 40 million tons of grain - enough to feed the starving ten times over - were stockpiled in Europe at a cost of £5 billion a year. Overall during the l980s, the Third World sent to the West $220 billion MORE than was sent to them in any form.
THE HYPOCRISY OF THE WEST
While decrying the lack of funds for foreign aid and famine relief, Western governments have never found money short when it comes to financing war. The World Bank found over $62 million to pay for bombs dropped by American B52 aircraft on Iraq during the Gulf War; this was the equivalent of Oxfam's entire budget for the year. £105 million was found to replace five British Tornado aircraft which crashed or were shot down during the war. This would have brought enough grain to feed for one month all the 20 million people likely to starve in Africa this year. And £3 million was found to train one Tornado pilot. This would have provided 25,000 Eritrean families with enough seeds and tools to recover from the current drought. In 1990 the British government gave to famine relief in Africa about the equivalent of two days' British military operations in the Gulf War. The next year the figure was even less.
Each cruise missile dropped in the 1999 Balkans crisis cost $1 million; the cost to NATO of bombing Kosovo and Serbia for four months was over $150 billion. Just a tenth of this sum would have provided massive economic regeneration of the region with a much greater chance of a lasting peace which protects the rights of the Kosovar Albanians.
The annual running costs to the British government (paid for by taxpayers) of the Trident nuclear submarine programme amounts to £1,500 million every year for the next 30 years.
Poverty is one of the root causes of violence. Many of the poorest countries in the world are currently engaged in, or emerging from conflict. Protracted war inevitably leads to highly militarised societies. But far from seeking to steer these countries towards peace, Western governments have a vested interest in maintaining the global arms trade. War provides lucrative markets for arms dealers.
Many Third World countries have become deeply indebted because of high military spending. In order to purchase arms, poor countries cut public expenditures in health and education and borrow foreign exchange. The poor become poorer and conflict becomes more widespread. This sets up a vicious circle of debt, underdevelopment and conflict. It has been estimated that between 1960 and 1987, Third World governments borrowed around $400 billion to fund arms imports from the West.
The British government has supposedly committed itself to the halving of global poverty by the year 2015 through the promotion of pro-poor bilateral aid programmes and by reform of the stringent conditions for debt repayments. Yet the British government's enthusiastic support for the arms trade undermines many of the goals of its debt and development agendas. Britain now sells almost a quarter of the world's arms, actively promoting the sales of its weapons to the Third World with extensive export credits to subsidise arms sales. In 1993/4, 50% of all export credits provided by the Department of Trade and Industry were for arms sales. In time, these credits became further debts for poor countries.
The Western banking system is at the heart of the global arms trade. Without the support of Midland bank, who underwrote the sale, the export of British Hawk ground-attack aircraft to Indonesia would not have been so straightforward; without the investments of pension funds and insurance firms, British Aerospace and other major arms traders would not have quite such a healthy turnover.
In 1997, 73% of the exports of major conventional weapons from the West were to developing countries, and 87% of the world's arms were supplied by member governments of the UN Security Council.
"The damage done to us now and in the future by a system that fills our heads with artificial needs so that we forget our real needs - how accurately can it be assessed? Can the mutation of the human soul be measured? The spread of violence, the debasement of daily life? The West is living the euphoria of victory. The collapse of the East served up the vindication: in the East it was worse. Was it worse? Rather, I think, one should ask whether it was essentially different. In the West: justice sacrificed in the name of freedom on the altar of the god of productivity. In the East: freedom sacrificed in the name of justice on the altar of the god of productivity. In the South, we still have to ask ourselves if that god deserves our lives."
- EDUARDO GALLEANO
THE IMPACT OF THE DEBT CRISIS ON ALL OF US
The debt crisis does not just affect people living in poor countries, but also those in developed countries. Many of the results of Third World debt boomerang back to hurt the West because taxpayers here have paid for billions of dollars in tax relief for unpaid debt to Western banks.
The unsustainable exploitation of Third World countries' natural resources has caused massive environmental destruction, contributing to increases in the greenhouse effect and global warming. Many ill-conceived development projects, such as large dam projects, power plants and charcoal-driven industries, began in Third World countries under structural adjustment programmes; apart from failing to help the poor, these have also caused serious environmental damage. According to the 1998 United Nations Human Development Report, environmentally-damaging industrial activities have been subsidised to the tune of over $170 billion every year. $710 billion is 14 times what is required to eradicate poverty in the world.
As Third World debts have mounted, environmental conservation programmes have been axed. It is the world's poorest countries who are chopping down their forests the fastest. Brazil is one of the world's largest debtors, owing $112 billion to the West; it is cutting a staggering 50,000 sq. km of forest every year.
In 1985 the Brazilian rubber-tapper Chico Mendes sent a letter to the World Bank protesting about the suffering caused to the Uru Eu Wau Indians in the north-west of Brazil as a result of a $300 million World Bank funding of a main road through the state of Rondonia as part of a development scheme. This had destroyed small communities of Indians and rubber tappers and led to large-scale clearance of the rainforests. The letter brought world-wide attention to Mendes as an impassioned environmental campaigner and defender of the "people of the forest". He was murdered by a landowner in December 1987. The World Bank's projects in Brazil continue today.
Thailand too faces an environmental disaster, with its great forests wiped out by uncontrollable logging and profiteering. In its report, The World Bank and the Environment 1993, the World Bank itself timidly acknowledged that for many of its projects, consultations with affected populations and local non-governmental organisations "have been limited at best".
Workers in the West are losing out on earnings from many factory and farm produced goods because it is so much cheaper to import them from the Third World. At the same time they are unable to export equipment and other manufactured goods to former trading partners in the Third World because those countries have no money to buy them - so jobs are also lost in the West. Before the debt crisis, Europe sold about a fifth of its exports to the Third World, particularly Africa. By 1990, it was only a tenth.
Struggling to repay debts, many poor countries have turned to the lucrative drugs trade to raise foreign capital. For instance, Bolivia is one of the poorest countries in Latin America, with the highest child mortality rate on the continent. The country has to spend half of its export income on paying its debt. It is estimated that no less than 40% of Bolivia's workforce depend on the drugs trade for a living.
THE NEW AGENDA
An astonishing 70% of all international trade is now controlled by just 500 corporations. The state of the world is increasingly being determined by the shadowy figures in the boardrooms of these corporations, rather than by elected governments. Without any major media exposure or democratic accountability, the World Bank and IMF have quietly finalised their most destructive treaty to date. This is called the Multilateral Agreement on Investments (MAI). The U.S. has been at the origin of MAI and is pushing to have this agreement adopted as quickly as possible by the rich industrialised countries of the OECD. MAI has so far received very little public attention but it is a devil's pact that will further enforce the dominance of transnational corporations over the entire planet and its dwindling resources, while bulldozing human rights and the fate of the poor. The MAI gives TNCs expansive new rights and powers (without any responsibilities) while burdening countries with new obligations to the corporations.
Amongst the MAI's agendas are:
Governments are required to give foreign investors access to all economic sectors. It abolishes the rights of all citizens and governments to control the entry, conditions, behaviour and operations of TNCs in their country.
If governments refuse to allow TNCs to do as they wish (for instance, by banning a corporation's products because they are dangerous), the government will have to pay stiff penalties.
TNCs will be given further powers to take law-suits against governments to protect their interests. For instance, a US corporation which has been barred by the Canadian government from selling its gasoline additive in Canada because it is harmful to people's health, is suing the Canadian government for $350 million in estimated lost revenues on the sale of the product in Canada.
The MAI attempts to bypass international standards, social security measures, and environmental laws. Under the MAI, foreign investors' rights are given legal priority over other countries' laws. The adverse social, economic and environmental consequences of the activities of TNCs, which occur now, even when they are subject to government legislation, will be greatly magnified. The power of democratically elected national or local governments to regulate TNCs and protect local people and their environment will be removed by this treaty.
In short, the MAI puts into practice the ideology that the entire natural and social diversity of the world are resources to be freely controlled and exploited by global corporations. The effects will be catastrophic.
WALLPAPERING THE PROBLEM
The right-wing ideologues who defend and run the global economic system see nothing wrong with it. For them, it is a process of weeding out the weak and the unfit. They have no compassion for people in other countries who suffer due to their policies; in their view, those who can't cope or compete don't deserve to survive. This is the rationale of the New World Order, the global economy.
The World Bank and the IMF have long been adamant that any cancellation of Third World debt is completely impossible. However the recognition that much of this debt is totally unpayable finally caused the Bank to agree, for the first time ever, that some debts could be cancelled. In 1996 the Bank agreed the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative, ostensibly intended to cancel a portion of some poor countries' debts. However, despite the Bank declaring that HIPC would "free budgetary resources" and allow poorer countries to "broaden the scope of their health and development efforts", it has turned out to be a cruel hoax.
In April 1998 Mozambique was by far the biggest beneficiary of HIPC, with over $2 billion of its debts supposedly "cancelled." This, however, turned out to be nothing more than an accounting trick. The World Bank and IMF agreed to cancel only that part of the debt that Mozambique was not paying in any case - that part which was being "rolled over" each year. HIPC only cancelled the uncollectable debt. After HIPC, the country is still paying back $100 million a year; just $10 million less than the $110 million it has been able to pay. Each day Mozambique's government pays just $100,000 for the country's entire health service; each day it pays $275,000 in debt repayment. The World Bank has lent Mozambique an extra $25 million a year for health, but this has merely forced the country into deeper debt.
Conservative foreign office minister Douglas Hurd once stated that Britain "will not give aid to any country unless the market dominates its economy". New Labour has readily adopted the Tories' mantle of free market economics at all costs. While Tony Blair's new Clause IV enthuses about "the enterprise of the market and the rigour of competition", Blair's Trade and Industry secretary Stephen Byers recently declared that "wealth creation is now more important than the redistribution of wealth" and went on to tell his audience in the City of London that "Government should not hinder entrepreneurs but work to ensure the market functions properly and contributes to creating a strong, just and fair society."
One of the beneficiaries of the kind of strong, just and fair society created by the market was Paula Duarte, a seventy-three-year-old pensioner living in downtown Buenos Aires. When the Argentine government bowed to World Bank pressure and slashed pensions in the spring of 1992, Paula began looking desperately for work. On August 20, still unemployed, she hanged herself with a nylon cord from a tree outside the University of Buenos Aires Law School. In her purse were just two pesos.
Paula Duarte's suicide was one of many among Argentine's pensioners. The World bank had insisted on a draconian reduction of social security benefits "to restore business confidence" and stabilise the shaky Argentine economy. The government of President Carlos Menem cut payments for most of Argentine's three million pensioners to just $150 a month - less than half the minimum needed for food and shelter. As neighbourhoods set up emergency food programmes, the Menem government tried to downplay their plight. Economy Minister Domingo Carvallo told pensioners they should get jobs (even though unemployment stood at record levels) or seek aid from their children. When a journalist asked Menem to explain why so many old people were taking their lives, he replied: "I am the President of the Republic, not a psychologist!"
When 32 residents of a government-run home for the elderly died of malnutrition, a storm of public criticism led to the resignation of the health minister, Mathilde Svatetz, a protégé of Carvallo's. But the cutbacks have continued.
Throughout the Third World millions of people are dying as a direct result of such blinkered belief in the absolute importance and infallibility of unfettered market forces. The mantra of free-trade is repeated endlessly by the leaders of Western governments as if they are God-given, incontrovertible truths. They argue that when all barriers are removed, the economy will function at a height of efficiency and benefit all. This is a folly of the most idiotic, blinkered kind. The introduction of free market economics to the Third World has resulted only in the greatest inequality between the rich and the poor in human history.
Menem and Carvallo were not the first Latin American leaders to be pressured by the World Bank to cut pensions. That distinction went to General Augusto Pinochet, the military dictator of Chile, back in 1981. When the World Bank and the IMF demanded that pensions be slashed, he did so. Peter Munk, chief executive of Horsham Corporation, one of the West's major investors in the Chilean free market, exuberantly praised General Pinochet at the company's shareholders meeting, for having turned Chile into one of the highest "profit per capita" countries in the world. His enthusiasm was not mirrored by the half of all Chilean workers who were suffering cuts so deep that they were getting pensions below the poverty line.
Encouraged by its "success" in Chile, the World Bank launched a world-wide campaign for lower pensions as part of its push to cut back public programmes and privatise public services. World Bank teams demanded access to the pension administrations of half a dozen Latin American countries in the mid-1980s and sharply criticised the existing systems. World Bank experts such as William McGeevy argued that with increasing numbers of older citizens, Third World governments simply couldn't afford to offer them adequate pensions; that was a luxury that only the richest countries could now afford. As a result of such demands, Latin America's 14 million pensioners received, on average, less than half the sum needed for "minimum necessities".
Pension cutbacks have now spread well beyond Latin America. In Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, pensioners have been selling their home furniture to buy bread, due largely to the "shock therapy" reforms imposed by the World bank and the IMF. China, with 100 million older citizens, is now at the top of the Bank's priority list for pension cuts.
Despite Tony Blair berating the Tories while in opposition for their mishandling of the economy, once in office, Blair took great delight in appointing three former Tory ministers to sit on a new government economic body - the British-Mexican Business Network, which aims to promote foreign trade with Mexico. No Labour member will sit on this body. The three Tories appointed by Blair are: ex-chancellor Kenneth Clarke, Lord Walker the former Welsh secretary and Lord Garel Jones, the former Foreign Office Minister. Clarke is deputy chairman of British American Tobacco, which has investments worth $1.7 billion in Mexico; Lord Walker is a director of financiers Dresdner-Kleinwort Benson; while Lord Garel Jones is a director of the Union Bank of Switzerland. Downing Street insisted that the three were chosen for their business expertise, apparently oblivious to any conflict of interests that the three might have in playing such a critical role in Mexico's economic affairs. Tony Blair's definition of "business expertise" appears to include the plundering of Third World countries such as Mexico.
If Blair and the other leaders of Western governments took the time to witness the reality of the effects of the free market, they would see that the gross inequalities between rich and poor countries are now worsening. Today, 20% of the world's population accounts for 86% of consumption. Westerners spend $37 billion a year on pet food and perfumes. In its 1998 Human Development Report, the UN says that amount would provide education, food, health care, water and sanitation for all those now deprived of those basics - with $9 billion to spare. Children in the Third World are starving to death so that their counterparts in the West can consume up to 20 times more resources "freely".
FIGHTING BACK
More people are becoming aware of the cracks in the system of global finance. Coalitions between movements such as the Campaign Against the Arms Trade and the Jubilee 2000 campaign for a one-off cancellation of the backlog of unpayable Third World debt by the year 2000 are mobilising public support. In May 1998 at the annual G8 summit at Birmingham, England, the leaders of the world's seven richest countries found their conference hall surrounded by 70,000 protesters holding hands to form a human chain calling for the cancellation of Third World debt. In June 1999, Jubilee 2000 organised hundreds of thousands of campaigners in over 20 countries to highlight the issue of debt relief before the G8 summit in Cologne, where a petition signed by 12 million people was delivered to the leaders of the G8 countries.
There have been many demonstrations throughout the Third World against World Bank/IMF-imposed policies. In South Korea, the biggest strike in the country's history forced the government to repeal part of a new labour law that was originally passed through the Korean parliament in secret. The strike terrified many of Asia's business and government leaders who were worried about similar protests taking place in their own countries.
Such international grassroots protests have had a dramatic effect in forcing the G8 leaders to discuss new initiatives on debt, and the World Bank itself has conceded that its structural adjustment programmes are harmful to the poor. Under pressure from intense international protests in the run-up to the G8 summit in Cologne, the Bank announced a $50 billion deal of debt relief. However, this was another of the Bank's con tricks; half of this figure did not represent actual money for the countries concerned but simply wrote off debts which were never going to be repaid and on which they were not meeting the annual interest bills.
Despite President Clinton's public proclamation that no country should be left with a "burden that keeps it from meeting its peoples' basic human needs", behind the closed doors of the G8 summit, the US showed its determination to link any debt relief to strict compliance with even more stringent economic "reform" programmes, while the World Bank insisted that Third World countries adhere to a further three years of SAPs before they get any debt relief.
Toronto, London, Naples, Lyon, Cologne, Okinawa - the annual world summits attended by the leaders of the G8 countries since 1988 to solve the problems of third-world debt have been little more than expensive talking shops full of empty words and promises while no significant progress on debt reduction has yet to take place.
Barely $15 billion of the $100 billion that rich nations promised to wipe off debts last year has actually been cancelled. The last G8 summit meeting at Okinawa in Japan was the most expensive ever, costing an astonishing £500 million, a sum big enough to have saved an entire African country. In fact Japan spent more on hosting the leaders of the world's seven richest nations for one weekend than it has contributed so far to the cause of cancelling third world debt. Amongst the entertainments lavished on the delegates were parades and song-and-dance troupes by a thousand artists and musicians performing on a floating stage on the shoreline. There was even an official G8 summit theme song called Never End. For those in the third world crippled by debt, the title could hardly be more appropriate.
Jubilee 2000 campaigns now exist in 38 countries, North and South, but a lot more campaigning is needed to convince the leaders of the West of the need for change. They must be made to view the world not just in terms of "markets", but in terms of ethical considerations and the social consequences. They must accept moral responsibility for the suffering and deaths their policies have caused throughout the Third World.
The West is not richer than the Third World because it is intrinsically "better" or more efficient; its riches are a direct result (in fact dependent upon) the exploitation of the Third World. The leaders of the West must be made to realise that their wealth should carry with it social obligations and that there is no "acceptable" level of poverty or hunger. And Third World starvation should be placed on the human rights agenda.
The idea of "social credit" is enjoying a renaissance among radical and green economists. Under the current system, private sector banks have been allowed a virtual monopoly over the creation of credit. Social credit seeks to counter economic globalisation by securing control over the institutions of finance by local communities, enabling socially-aware and economically responsible policies to be put into effect. The replacement of money lending with investment and the redistribution of wealth may not be acceptable to the West, but it is crucial to a development of the Third World which combines economic growth with political stability and ecological sustainability.
According to World Bank figures, developing countries owed $1.9 TRILLION to the West in 1996. The gap between rich and poor has never been so big in all the world's history, and the need for radical change has never been so great. Reforming the world's economic system may seem impossible. It is easy to say that nothing can be done; those who argue that there is no alternative to the current system say that there will always be poverty; that some people are born into it and there will always be inequalities; that there just aren't the resources or capital available to eradicate poverty world-wide. These are lies.
The world has all the resources and finances to deliver the basic needs of all its people, if only there was the collective will. Jubilee 2000 has calculated that it would cost each taxpayer in Britain just £2 per head to cancel debts owed directly to Britain by the poorest countries. And a mere 16% of the amount allocated to military spending in the developing world could provide basic health care and education for everyone in the world.
The 358 richest people in the world own, between them, more than the annual income of the poorest 45% of the world's population, some 2.5 billion people. These billionaires have a combined wealth of over $1 trillion. Just 4% of this wealth - $60 billion - would be enough for basic education, healthcare, adequate food, safe water and sanitation for all the world's people.
In 1998 the world's top six working billionaires were (in ascending order): media magnate Rupert Murdoch (net worth $5.3 billion); business tycoon Francois Pinault (net worth $6.6 billion); computer software owner Hasso Plattner (net worth $6.9 billion); oil, gas and real estate owner Philip F. Anscutz (net worth $8.8.billion); investor Prince Alwaleed bin Talal bin Abdulaziz (net worth $13.3 billion); and computer magnate Bill Gates (net worth $51 billion). A 1998 United Nations study noted that the combined income of these six men could wipe out poverty from the face of the earth and provide basic social services for the quarter of the world who live in severe need.
The top 358 billionaires are worth the combined income of 45%
of the planet's population, the 2.5 billion people on the bottom.
"The only effectual weapons are the facts, figures and arguments
that discredit the corporate agenda and reveal progressive alternatives.
If they - and the means of disseminating them - continue to lie rusting from disuse.… it won't be long before the New World Order is here to stay."
- ED FINN
"Our tragedy lies in the richness of the available alternatives and the fact that so few of them are ever seriously explored."
- TOM ATHANASIOU on free trade and global poverty.
"I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that."
- LAWRENCE SUMMERS, chief economist of the World Bank, in an internal memo, 12th December 1991
THE HAVES AND THE HAVE-NOTS: THE NORTH-SOUTH DIVIDE
IN THE NORTH:
Live one quarter of the world's people who consume 80% of the world's resources and pump out 80% of the world's greenhouse gases
IN THE SOUTH:
Live three quarters of the world's people who consume just 20% of the world's resources with average incomes 18 times lower than those in the north
Reproduced from:
http://www.wakeupmag.co.uk/``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xThe Myth of Western Aid and the Silent War``x1009916658,63190,Development``x``x
``xby Christopher Black [6 September 2001], Emperors Clothes
Last weekend a world conference on racism took place in Durban, South Africa at the request of the General Assembly of the United Nations. The following demonstrates that even those who set up this conference are guilty of racism.
On the 22nd of August a letter was sent to Adama Dieng, the Registrar of the UN's International Criminal Tribunal For Rwanda (ICTR), the sister tribunal to the one in the Hague. The ICTR sits at Arusha, Tanzania.
Voice of the Forgotten
The letter was written by the prisoners at the ICTR, every one a Hutu, in the name of common humanity and the moral well-being of men and women presumed to be innocent and in the name of equality of treatment and common justice.
Following this introductory note is a translation of that letter from the original French.
The letter demonstrates clearly the racism that drives the lies and propaganda against the Hutus, condemned as "genocidaires," and whose only crime was to defend their small country against a foreign invasion by Tutsis from outside Rwanda with the backing of the United States, Britain, Belgium, Uganda, Tanzania, Burundi and the United Nations itself.
This invasion had the objective of restoring the tyranny of minority Tutsi rule while reducing the majority Hutu people to serfdom and a life of terror and that was supported by the great powers in order to take control of all of central Africa and its vast and incalculable resources.
The propaganda against the Hutus is racist to the core and is generated by the Tutsi claim to be a superior race, more white than the "primitive" Hutus, a Bantu people, and it fits nicely with the racist attitudes of the Americans, British and Belgians who took part in the invasion and helped murder the Presidents of both Rwanda and Burundi on April 6, 1994.
Rwanda and Yugoslavia: Eery Similarities
It is time the world woke up to the truth about the war in central Africa and the events of April through July of 1994. These events parallel the attacks on Yugoslavia and the accusations of genocide against the Serbs and other Slavs. Moreover, these events had the same objectives, used the same strategies and tactics and were planned and controlled by the same Great Powers. Their lust for control of the world knows no bounds. They are willing to murder millions so they can make billions.
One of the greatest tragedies in the world since the Nazi attempt to exterminate the Jews took place in Rwanda in 1994.
In the West we are told that this tragedy involved genocide by Hutus against Tutsis and that the U.S. and other Western powers sinned by failing to intervene. Many people, including some on the Left, denounced the supposed Western failure to intervene, arguing that it demonstrates indifference to the suffering of Black Africans.
The Truth Turned Upside Down
Those of us who have defended Hutu leaders before the ICTR have accumulated massive evidence that paints an entirely different picture.
The violence started with a series of raids against Hutus in Rwanda, conducted by the so-called Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF), a U.S.-sponsored, Tutsi paramilitary organization. These raids occurred during the period 1990-1993. The raids were repelled; even so, they gave the RPF valuable information about the government's capacity to defend Rwanda. Based on this information, the U.S.-backed forces successfully invaded northern Rwanda in 1993, driving a million people from their homes. This massive campaign of terror, directed against civilians, is never mentioned in the Western media.
The second stage of violence was launched on April 6, 1994. At that time, the invading Tutsi RPF shot down the airplane carrying the Presidents of Rwanda and Burundi, both Hutus. The main victims of the widespread fighting that followed were Hutus and moderate Tutsis.
The western-backed Tutsi invaders of Rwanda murdered between one and a half and two million Hutus in the four months between April 6 and July 4, 1994 and have murdered more than two million more since then by attacking Hutu refugees in the Congo.
It is a tragedy made more macabre by the Tutsi claim that their Hutu victims were really Tutsis, a claim they use to justify their dictatorial stranglehold on the people of that beautiful country by portraying themselves as the victims. This macabre reversal of the truth is supported by various intellectuals, NGOs and western governments who easily fall into the racist trap of believing the lies of the Tutsi regime in Rwanda, and the lies of the Americans who, while actively involved in the murder of millions, claim to have had no involvement and to add insult to injury, 'admit' the lie that they were negligent in not taking steps to stop the war and the killing when in fact they were the sponsors.
This is the letter from the prisoners of Washington's International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda:
***********************
Letter to the ICTR
***********************
"Mr. Adama Djeng
Registrar, ICTR
Arusha, Tanzania
Object: Facilitation of family visits to the detainees.
We would like to call to your attention our request made on several occasions that the Registrar of the ICTR facilitate the visits of the families of the detainees in the UN Detention Facility. On May 26, 1999 in a meeting with your predecessor, Mr. Okali, we made the request to facilitate such visits and to reduce the formalities and permit meetings between the families in complete privacy and intimacy. By our letter of March 27, 2000 we asked that a suitable location be designated for such visits taking into consideration the social dimension, and the human dignity of the visitors and their moral well being.
In her report presented to the 55th session of the General Assembly of the United Nations, the president of the Tribunal affirmed in paragraph 101, f of the report that "The construction of a room for the members of the families making visits to the detainees is on the way to completion: One whole year has passed since then and we still have not seen even the foundation laid. We beg you to take steps to commence this project announced by the President of the Tribunal before the General Assembly.
However, our principal preoccupation is not only with respect to the location of such visits, but more with respect to the principle of family visits. While at The Hague the detainees of the United Nations receive assistance permitting their families to visit and facilities are provided for that purpose, nothing has been done to the present time to provide the benefit of the same facilities to the detainees of the United Nations here in Arusha, a deficiency that can only be called discriminatory.
The members of our families are dispersed throughout the world. Some still have not received even the protection of the High Commission for Refugees, which continues to refuse to recognize them as refugees. We feel that the Registrar of the ICTR should assist the detainees to be in contact with their families especially if one takes into account that certain prisoners have spent 5 years in prison in Arusha without the benefit of one visit. It is in this context that the request is made to arrange assistance for the expenses of the trip and stay in Arusha and for periodic visits with a view to allowing the detainees to remain in contact with their families.
For those family members who don't have travel documents we feel that the Registrar could make arrangements with their countries of residence, the Tanzanian authorities and the transportation companies.
We believe finally that this question of the visits of family be made the object of a written regulation, especially for the detainees already condemned and who could be transferred to other places of detention.
In the hope for a rapid and favourable response, we ask you to accept the assurance of our highest consideration.
Cc - Kofi Anan, Secretary-General of the United Nations at New York, The President of the ICTR, Arusha, Tanzania
All defense counsel
International Red Cross International Observer of Prisons,
40 rue de Hauteville,
Paris
Reproduced from
http://emperors-clothes.com/letters/racism.htm``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xRacism, Murder and Lies in Rwanda ``x1010700918,2310,Development``x``x
``x
scrutator
www.africaonline.co.zw
Thursday 17 January, 2002
IT was obvious that the ZANU PF election directorate -- and through the latter, also the ZBC and the state-related print media -- would capitalize on what, by any standards, must be the biggest gaffe on the part of a politician aspiring for the top job in any country.
But we are still to confirm to what extent this reflects on the nature of the MDC itself as an organization composed of a variety of forces and political aspirations, and whether Morgan Tsvangirai's call for sanctions against his own country represents more the views of the Rhodesians that constitute a major factor in the opposition movement and less that of the patriots in the latter.
What is worse is that Morgan Tsvangirai's call for South Africa to impose sanctions against Zimbabwe is in strong contrast to the position of both our southern neighbour and the former colonial power. In the very same broadcast in which Tsvangirai was elaborating on how South Africa could easily impose such sanctions, the British Foreign Office reiterated its earlier position that it could not favour such a policy since this would hurt the majority of the Zimbabwean population. Likewise, Tsvangirai's statement this week has only provoked the South African authorities into yet another reiteration that they are opposed to the policy of sanctions, in favour of 'quiet diplomacy'.
Reliable sources at our disposal confirm that the South African, British and European Union officials on the Zimbabwe desks are acutely embarrassed at Tsvangirai's gaffe.
"If only he had limited himself to smart sanctions as some of us in the EU have consistently done!", exclaims one of my colleagues in Brussels.
Indeed, for most Zimbabweans the threat of sanctions has been so remote until Morgan Tsvangirai brought the danger to their very door step this week. Such were his words during the BBC interview on Monday this week: "The threat to undermine the elections by the military, by President Mugabe himself, should actually send shock waves to South Africa and say, under those circumstances, we are going to cut fuel, we are going to cut transport links.
"Those kind of measures, even if they are implemented at a low level, send the right signals" As I stated earlier, it is a shame for Tsvangirai that even the neighbour he is calling upon to take such drastic action against his own country should seek to educate the opposition leader about both pan-Africanism and the folly of sanctions. As South Africa's Deputy Foreign Minister, Aziz Pahad, stated when reiterating that his country would never opt for sanctions against its neighbour, which is its major trading partner in the region, "we've been working at this for a long time, trying to convince people, that what is called (for is) quiet diplomacy.
"Calls for sanctions are misplaced. Effectively sanctions have been applied on Zimbabwe. All foreign aid has been terminated. There is effectively no new development aid. Investment has been frozen and exports from Zimbabwe have been dropped, I think.
"Sanctions are not the way to go" I am surprised that there are doubts in some quarters -- including our own parliament -- that Tsvangirai indeed uttered those words, including even a suggestion that he might have been quoted out of context. No! Morgan Tsvangirai was merely expressing a view-point shared by a large section of those who constitute the leadership and policy management of the MDC. Significantly, the latter factor excludes the majority of the rank and file membership, including a number of the black members of the national executive of the MDC.
For, even before the extent of Tsvangirai's gaffe became self-evident as the state-related media -- and Jonathan Moyo himself -- went to town, sections of the foreign media, particularly those based in Harare and associated with the MDC's policy management affairs, were boasting that "The presidential candidate of the Movement for Democratic Change opposition, Morgan Tsvangirai, called on the (SADC) meeting to impose sanctions on Zimbabwe, saying that two years of 'softly-softly' diplomacy had failed to curb Mugabe's abuses".
"The MDC wants the overseas bank accounts of Mr. Mugabe, his cabinet and leaders of his party, ZANU PF, frozen immediately, and a petrol, transport and electricity blockade to be imposed by South Africa", wrote Andrew Meldrum and Chris McGreal in Tuesday's Guardian, extrapolating in their own fashion, beyond what Morgan Tsvangirai actually said in his interview, but reflecting a policy position that is quite dominant in the upper echelons of MDC with a large Rhodesian contingent.
To be fair, Morgan's words during that BBC interview were less his own than those of his Rhodesian and/or Anglo-Saxon advisers. This was a theme borne out of desperation on the part of people, perhaps not him, who now want to see the whole house brought down. For, to be fair to Morgan, he would otherwise be aware of the difference between opposing and/or seeking to win office on the one hand, and reducing Zimbabwe into a bowl of hunger, civil war and internecine conflict on the other. Sadly, he had to be reminded of all this by a Zimbabwean public which, while critical about the government of the day, is largely patriotic, nationalist and, therefore, defensive of the national interest and their economic welfare and social security.
This is why Zimbabweans in general but also those observers of the current situation in this country need to be more discerning, if they, too, are not to fall prey to the dilemma which Morgan Tsvangirai created for himself this week.
For, the perception of the Zimbabwean situation which has become increasingly dominant at home and abroad is that established and developed upon by the Rhodesian element operating mainly from South Africa but also as representatives of such British media as The Daily Telegraph. This is the Zimbabwe according to Rhodesian eyes! Even the SABC Morning edition the other day broadcast a piece from Peta Thornicroft, described as a 'foreign correspondent from the London Daily Telegraph'. The point is that such white Zimbabweans as Peta Thornicroft have an axe to grind quite different from that which Morgan Tsvangirai or any other black Zimbabwean would have, even if some of my compatriots in the MDC would want to argue otherwise.
Therefore, it would help a great deal if the MDC began to disaggregate itself into the various segments that constitute it, so that those of us genuinely interested in an organic opposition that would further the cause of democracy can identify with that nationalist element within that organization.
Reprinted for Fair Use Only from:
www.africaonline.co.zw/mirror/stage/archive/020117/perspectives22352.html``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xMorgan Tsvangirai's gaffe ``x1011240000,11982,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Evy Potochny, rps.psu.edu
Jan 2002
Modern humans are thought to have originated in Africa. From there bands of hominids migrated first to the Middle East, then throughout Europe and into Asia.
But exactly who moved away? A single population of already-evolved Homo sapiens? Or did several groups of more primitive humans migrate separately, then evolve independently into the modern variety?
Evolutionary geneticists struggle with this question, scrutinizing DNA samples from around the world for tell-tale variations. Until recently, they have relied heavily on mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA). Now, new studies using nuclear DNA are changing the debate.
Mitochondrial DNA is found outside the cell nucleus in the organelles that produce a cell’s energy. MtDNA is useful to geneticists, explains Sarah Tishkoff, because it is plentiful (hundreds of copies of the mitochondrial genome exist in each cell), it does not recombine (portions of the mother’s DNA are not exchanged with the father’s), and it mutates quickly (so there is a lot of genetic variation to compare).
“But mtDNA only tells us half the story,” adds Tishkoff, who did postdoctoral research in genetics at Penn State. Only the mother passes on mtDNA to her progeny; the father’s contribution is lost.
The amount of genetic material in the nucleus is immense compared to what is in the mitochondria: some 80,000 genes versus only a few. And each gene can exist in several versions, or alleles. That is, there can be subtle changes in the sequence of A,C,T, and G, the four bases that make up DNA, without changing the gene’s function. For instance, a two-base sequence like TG might be repeated five times in a row (TGTGTGTGTG) — or six times, or four — without affecting the gene’s function. These “short tandem repeats” tend to mutate a lot. But that’s good: mutations are useful for comparing populations over time. TG repeated five times would be considered one allele, while TG repeated six times would be another allele. Tishkoff also looks at alleles caused by less frequent types of mutations — alterations by insertion or deletion of a DNA section several hundred bases long.
For one study, Tishkoff selected three human genes: CD4, which produces a cell-surface protein that enables HIV to enter and infect certain immune cells; DM, which causes myotonic dystrophy, a neuromuscular disease; and PLAT, short for tissue plasminogen activator locus, a gene involved in tissue remodeling and destruction.
Tishkoff compared these genes in DNA samples donated by collaborators from 45 different populations worldwide, including Europe, the Pacific islands, Africa, Asia, and the Middle East — making hers one of the largest data sets on human nuclear variation.
She found that while non-African populations were relatively similar genetically, the variations among African populations differed widely. In the CD4 gene, for instance, Tishkoff found only three major variants in populations outside of Africa. Among African samples, it was common to have 24 variations within a single population.
This lack of genetic diversity in non-Africans suggests that they are more closely related than the African populations, and that their differences evolved over a much shorter period of time. “The only variants that made it out of Africa,” says Tishkoff, “have both a characteristic deletion and a repeat of six on the chromosome with the CD4 gene.”
By calculating how much time it would have taken for these and the other mutations to accumulate, Tishkoff estimates the migration out of Africa occurred approximately 130,000 years ago, rather than over 300,000 years ago, as was previously thought. “In the non-African populations,” she explains, “there’s only been enough time for a few shuffled sets of genes to arise.”
Taken together, Tishkoff’s results provide strong new evidence that modern humans descended fairly recently from a single ancestral population, one that was already fully modern when it left its African home.
Sarah Tishkoff, Ph.D., completed her post-doctoral research fellowship in genetics and is currently an assistant professor of biology at the University of Maryland. Her adviser was Andrew Clark, Ph.D., professor of biology, the Eberly College of Science, 208 Mueller Bldg., University Park, PA 16802; 814-863-3891; c92@psu.edu. Kenneth Kidd of Yale University and Trefor Jenkins of the University of the Witwatersand, South Africa, collaborated on this study, which was funded by the National Science Foundation and a Burroughs-Wellcome Fund Career Award.
http://www.rps.psu.edu/0101/africa.html``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xOut of Africa``x1011537170,21214,Development``x``x
``x• Zimbabwe suspension rejected by ministers
Commonwealth foreign ministers rejected British-led calls on Wednesday for Zimbabwe's suspension from the organization as Harare arrested three journalists for protesting against a tough new media bill MORE``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xCommonwealth foreign ministers rejected British-led calls``x1012435985,77392,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xby Andrew Meldrum
Zimbabwe's parliament yesterday pressed ahead with the passage of a highly restrictive press bill in preparation for the March presidential election in which President Robert Mugabe faces an uphill battle. MORE``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe passes repressive media bill``x1012539136,45051,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xPRESIDENT Robert Mugabe heads an initial list of 20 Zimbabwean leaders—three of whom have since died—whose assets the United Kingdom and the United States are seeking to identify and seize under a process of targeted sanctions, The Standard has confirmed. MORE``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xUS and UK name Zimbabwe's targeted leaders``x1012708800,65572,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xSouth African Press Association (Johannesburg)
February 15, 2002
Posted to the web February 16, 2002
Lusaka
Organisation of African Unity (OAU) Secretary General Amara Essy on Friday endorsed Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe's rejection of foreign election observer teams, saying western countries do not invite African states to monitor elections in their countries.
A Sapa correspondent reported from Zambia that Essy told journalists at Lusaka's international airport that elections were an internal affair of any sovereign state and must be respected.
"I am not happy to see observers from outside. They do not ask or invite us to go to the (United States) or Europe to monitor elections there, or to check whether their elections were free and fair," Essy said.
He said that the western countries should not force themselves to monitor elections in other countries.
"I hope this will not continue in the next decade," he chided.
Essy said that Zambian President Levy Mwanawasa had acted within reason when he rejected the European Union (EU) report on his country's December 27, 2001 general polls.
An EU election observer mission said that the poll results announced as official by the Electoral Commission of Zambia were not true and did not represent the true wishes of the Zambian people.
Both the EU mission and the US-based Carter Centre have expressed grave concern over the legitimacy of the Mwanawasa government, while Britain, jointly with the US, has spearheaded political and economic sanctions against Mugabe's government.
The Zambian government has since accused the EU observer team of creating despondency and interfering in the country's internal affairs. Relations between the two have soured.
Essy confirmed that the Zimbabwean government had formally invited the continental body to monitor presidential polls in that country next month. He said the OAU observer team would be headed by former Liberian president Amassou Yere.
Essy was in Zambia for a one day visit and would hold talks with Mwanawasa, the current OAU chairperson, on among other things, the various conflict spots on the continent and the transition process of the OAU into the African Union.
Reprinted from:
http://allafrica.com/stories/200202160072.html``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xOAU Endorses Mugabe's Rejection of Foreign Observers``x1013955383,17012,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xby Ian Black and Andrew Meldrum
European Union foreign ministers face a tough decision today over whether to slap sanctions on Zimbabwe after President Robert Mugabe's government expelled the head of the EU election observer mission. MORE
• EU Withdraws Observers From Zimbabwe``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xEU agonises over Mugabe sanctions``x1014045521,77042,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xby Tim Wise, Alternet February 15, 2002
As we find ourselves in the midst of Black History Month -- a brief respite from the much whiter version of history we learn and celebrate the rest of the year -- and having recently commemorated another Martin Luther King Jr. holiday, perhaps it would do us well to reflect on the vision of this man, whom so many claim as their hero, but whose message so few seem truly to understand.
This year, as with the previous ten, I once again had the pleasure of addressing a number of audiences during January MLK-related events on campuses and in communities across the country. Much of my presentation was the same as always, focused on reminding the audience of the substantial unfinished business in the ongoing fight against racism. But there was also at least one significant difference. This year, the U.S. is at war, having been engaged in bombing one of the poorest nations on Earth since October.
Given Dr. King's commitment to non-violence, even in the face of attack by others, I felt obliged to mention the likely opposition to said bombing that would have been part of King's current message were he still alive. King, after all, understood terrorism and faced it down regularly. Yet he did so without resort to arms, knowing that rarely if ever has true peace, security or justice been won at gunpoint.
Those who would claim that fanatical racists were (or are) any less dangerous than Osama bin Laden and his minions, never fished black bodies out of rivers in Mississippi, nor picked up the pieces of bombed out churches. They have forgotten the swollen face of Emmett Till, the bullet-ridden car of Viola Liuzzo, or what Billie Holiday called the "strange fruit" found hanging from tree limbs, surrounded by conscience-numbed whites, admiring their craft the way others might gaze upon paintings in the Louvre.
The fact that Dr. King in his last years had come to the painful recognition that his own government "was the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today" was worth mentioning, or so I thought.
Needless to say, many in my audiences felt otherwise. Although virtually all the persons of color responded to such remarks with agreement, for most whites, the mention of Dr. King's anti-militarism and condemnations of his own nation's actions abroad was more than they could handle. Many were angry, and some wrote letters in protest to those who had brought in such a speaker as myself to say such scandalous things.
They wanted the safe Dr. King. The pleasant Dr. King. The Dr. King who they seem to think would pat them on the head for breaking bread at a banquet dinner with black people. The Dr. King who they seem to think sought nothing more than a good, spirited chorus of Kumbaya, or perhaps a burger at the Woolworth's counter. In short, they wanted the Dr. King spoken of by their President: a man who had been too busy drinking with his Deke buddies at Yale to have personally lent his voice to the fight against racism, but who thinks nothing of invoking the good Doctor's name now.
That particular Dr. King -- the one with whom the nation's frat-boy in chief is more comfortable -- is one who, to listen to the President's speech about him, might as well have died in 1963. For Bush mentioned not one word of King's activities, nor quoted him at all from any speech or writing in the last five years of his life -- and with good reason. For it was during those years that King raised serious questions about the moral propriety of capitalism, and insisted, "any nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death."
For much of white America, accepting Dr. King and celebrating him is something they seek to do on their own terms, not his. They accept part of the man, and part of his message, but not all of it. They certainly don't wish to acknowledge King's decided lack of support for nationalistic patriotism the likes of which we have seen since September 11. To wit, his claim in December of 1967 that "our loyalties must transcend our race, our tribe, our class, and our nation. This means we must develop a world perspective."
Of course, rejecting the totality of King's vision is nothing new for whites, most of whom never did like the Reverend all that much. In 1963, two-thirds of whites polled said that King and the movement were pushing for too much, too soon. Now, of course, white America embraces the King of 1963, because he seems so safe and ecumenical. And with the luxury of thirty-four years in the grave, they needn't worry that he will be correcting them for their conditional support anytime soon.
But even accolades for the early King are hardly rooted in a clear understanding of what the man stood for. For most whites, all they know of King is the "I Have A Dream" speech, and even then not all of it, but rather one line, taken out of context and interpreted as a simple plea for color-blindness.
It is that Dr. King whom conservatives, for example, have convinced themselves would have opposed affirmative action programs: another myth that whites in my holiday audiences weren't too happy to hear exploded.
A few weeks ago, I delivered an MLK day address at Dakota State University. Afterward, an irate math professor who hadn't attended the talk, but watched a portion of it on the internet, e-mailed the staff member who had sponsored my visit to complain. After the staffer relayed the professor's comments to me, I engaged him in a few rounds of e-banter. Among his concerns, was my statement that King would have supported affirmative action, and even reparations for the history of slavery and Jim Crow: a position he insisted was not at all certain, and which he sought to rebut via an archived discussion board post from David Horowitz, the resident gasbag at FrontPageMag.
Horowitz, who relies on financial support from the kind of right-wing conservatives who despised King and actively opposed the civil rights movement, claims that King detested any programs of "racial preferences" and would have been a sworn enemy of affirmative action. Of course, David also claims to be a true apostle of King, even while proudly displaying links for websites that allow one to slap cartoon likenesses of Hillary Clinton and Osama bin Laden: so the fact that he utterly miscomprehends the man he claims to consider a hero should come as no surprise. In the interest of full disclosure, I should note that Horowitz recently referred to me as "intellectual scum," but that I will refrain from returning the insult, seeing as how such an ad hominem would hardly apply to David, unless preceded by the modifier, "anti."
Of course, even Horowitz can read, as can Dinesh D'Souza, Clint Bolick, Shelby Steele, and any number of other conservative writers, all of whom have made the same claims about King's color-blind approach to civil rights, and what they insist would be his certain opposition to color-conscious remedies for discrimination, like affirmative action. Given the basic literacy that one assumes attaches to all of these fine folks, their continued repetition of the King-as-opponent-of-affirmative-action ruse demonstrates a nearly mind-boggling display of bad faith and intentional subterfuge.
For King himself was clear, as much as some would deny it. In 1961, after visiting India, King praised that nation's "preferential" policies that had been put in place to provide opportunity to those at the bottom of the caste system, and in a 1963 article in Newsweek, King actually suggested it might be necessary to have something akin to "discrimination in reverse" as a form of national "atonement" for the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow segregation.
The most direct articulation of his views on the subject are found in his 1963 classic, Why We Can't Wait. Therein, King discussed the subject of "compensatory treatment," and explained:
Whenever this issue is raised, some of our friends recoil in horror. The Negro should be granted equality, they agree, but should ask for nothing more. On the surface, this appears reasonable, but is not realistic. For it is obvious that if a man enters the starting line of a race three hundred years after another man, the first would have to perform some incredible feat in order to catch up.
In his 1967 book, Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos or Community? King argued:
A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for him, to equip him to compete on a just and equal basis.
Furthermore, King was clear as to what that "something special" might entail. In 1965, during an interview with Playboy, King stated his support for billions of dollars of direct aid to black America -- and not only the poorest of the poor -- even though some might consider it "preferential treatment." As King explained:
For two centuries the Negro was enslaved and robbed of any wages: potential accrued wealth which would have been the legacy of his descendants. All of America's wealth could not adequately compensate its Negroes for his centuries of exploitation and humiliation.
Also at this time, King helped lead "Operation Breadbasket," which threatened consumer boycotts against private employers who didn't hire blacks in rough proportion to their numbers in the community population. Such an effort went even further than affirmative action, since such programs don't require proportional representation in any workplace or school -- only good faith efforts, aimed at meeting what are considered reasonable goals for improved representation. And yet folks like Horowitz blast these kinds of pressure tactics against corporations as "shakedowns" when utilized by Jesse Jackson or the NAACP.
For some, however, no amount of evidence will suffice. My detractor from the Dakota State Math Department -- whose e-mail also included strangely out-of-place remarks about U2 being the only band worth listening to -- found my use of quotes from Dr. King irrelevant, and actually derided them by implying that quotes from someone don't actually indicate what they think: an interesting and counterintuitive kind of thing for a logician such as teaches math to say.
Of course, one can choose to disagree with King, and current supporters of affirmative action and reparations. Many do, and those debates can and should be joined openly and honestly. Certainly it is not automatically the case that simply because Dr. King supported such efforts, that such programs are ipso facto desirable. But regardless of one's conclusion about the legitimacy of affirmative action, or reparations, it seems only fair to insist that one present King's views honestly and not attempt to use his words for purposes he would have found unacceptable. If David Horowitz and his ilk wish to oppose affirmative action, so be it. But if they are desperate for a posthumous spokesperson, they will have to make do with the likes of George Wallace. Dr. King is already taken.
Tim Wise is a Nashville-based writer, lecturer and antiracism activist. He can be reached at tjwise@mindspring.com.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xFor Black History Month, Remember The True MLK``x1014072350,58151,Development``x``x
``xJack Straw immediately sought to widen the international pressure on Mr Mugabe by calling on the United States to join an EU embargo, which imposes an immediate travel ban on the ailing president and his inner circle and the freezing of their overseas assets. MORE``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xEU impose targeted sanctions on Zimbabwe``x1014101426,40407,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xZIMBABWE'S President Robert Mugabe has said he can resist European Union (EU) sanctions slapped on him and his close associates.
"They are saying that they are placing sanctions on leaders so that they don't come to Europe? What is Europe?" Mugabe was quoted as saying by the state daily The Herald on Thursday.
"What will I be wanting in Europe? We can visit other countries in Asia and Africa," Mugabe told a rally in the remote district of Nkayi, 600 kilometres west of the capital.
Mugabe was targeted on Monday by European Union sanctions, which include a freeze on the overseas assets of the president and 19 top officials, as well as a ban on travel to the 15-nation bloc.
President Mugabe has of late been forming close relations with such Asian nations as Malaysia and Thailand, while in Africa his closest ally is Libyan leader Moammar Gadaffi.
The EU sanctions include an arms embargo against Zimbabwe.
Mugabe said the sanctions would not deter him from his controversial scheme of taking land from whites giving it to landless blacks.
"We must be prepared to withstand these actions by Britain and its allies," he said.
Britain, the former colonial power, has led a vigorous campaign against Mugabe in recent years following serious differences over the land reform scheme.
"I won't go back (on the land exercise). Blair can bleat, he can cry, He can do anything, go into tantrums but I will not move. The government will not move," he said.
Meanwhile, the Zimbabwean government has lifted the accreditation ban it slapped on South African journalists intending to cover the upcoming presidential elections, the Independent Newspapers group said on Thursday.
"We are delighted at this," said Alan Dunn, the editor of the Independent News Network (INN). INN is part of the Independent Newspapers group which owns 14 titles in South Africa.
Dunn said he was informed by Deputy Foreign Affairs Minister Aziz Pahad about the decision to lift the ban.
Journalists from the Independent Newspapers group, the Sunday Times and Beeld were told earlier this week that their applications to cover the elections were turned down.
The new press rules in Zimbabwe dictate that foreign journalists must obtain permission from that government before covering the presidential election and the preceding campaign. - Sapa, AFP``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``x'What will I be wanting in Europe?': Mugabe``x1014327497,63572,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xZIMBABWE'S President Robert Mugabe has said he can resist European Union (EU) sanctions slapped on him and his close associates. "They are saying that they are placing sanctions on leaders so that they don't come to Europe? What is Europe?" MORE``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``x'What will I be wanting in Europe?': Mugabe``x1014327602,86847,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xGeorge W Bush has imposed limited travel sanctions on Zimbabwe.
He cites a "continued failure" by President Robert Mugabe to maintain democratic rule in the African country. MORE``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xBush imposes travel sanctions on Zimbabwe ``x1014466264,42313,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBritain and the US have strongly condemned the treason charge brought on Monday against Morgan Tsvangirai, Zimbabwe's opposition leader, ahead of elections in which he is standing against President Robert Mugabe on March 9 and 10. MORE``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xUS and UK condemn Zimbabwe treason charge``x1014609600,1626,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xHARARE, Zimbabwe (Reuters) - Zimbabwe's main opposition leader reported to police Monday to answer questions about an alleged plot to assassinate President Robert Mugabe before elections next month. MORE``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe Opposition Leader Reports to Police``x1014651480,81953,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xNUSA DUA: Australia has warned of a strong international reaction against any move to block Zimbabwe's opposition leader from taking part in the upcoming presidential election. Morgan Tsvangirai was yesterday charged with treason by plotting to kill President Robert Mugabe - a charge which he said was intended to keep him out of the election. MORE``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xAustralia warns Mugabe against blocking Tsvangirai ``x1014696000,89374,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xLess than two weeks before polling, Zimbabwean presidential challenger Mr Morgan Tsvangirai faces charges of high treason for allegedly plotting to assassinate President Robert Mugabe. MORE``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe opposition leader faces treason charge``x1014724011,20282,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xThe Australian journalist who broke the news of an alleged plot by Zimbabwe's opposition leader, Morgan Tsvangirai, to kill his rival, President Robert Mugabe, last night defended his story - and the videotape on which it rests. MORE``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xJournalist defends integrity of video``x1014871864,54389,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xMugabe's 'Taliban' torture opponents in terror camps
Torture camps where suspected opponents are being murdered and mutilated have been set up in Zimbabwe as Robert Mugabe unleashes a reign of terror ahead of elections this week.
Morgan Tsvangira, the man who can save Zimbabwe``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xThis is how Guardian UK sells it``x1015156915,38588,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xZimbabwe has accused Prime Minister Tony Blair of disgraceful colonialism for trying to have the country suspended from the Commonwealth.
The response from Zimbabwean Information Minister Jonathan Moyo came after Mr Blair warned the Commonwealth's reputation could be damaged if it did not take tough action against President Robert Mugabe.
Mr Moyo told BBC News it would be voters and not international observers who would decide the polls.
Mr Moyo was fiercely critical of Mr Blair, who he said was "suffering from a colonial hangover" and making arrogant statements.
"He needs to be told that Zimbabwe will never be a colony again, never," said the minister.
"He can make as much noise as he wants and the more noise he makes, the more he exposes himself to the international community.
"Some of the statements that have been attributed to him yesterday and today are disgraceful and shameful."
On Saturday, Mr Blair warned that if observers concluded the election, which has been tainted by reports of violence and intimidation, was unfair then it would be "essential" for the Commonwealth to act.
Foreign Office Minister Baroness Amos said the UK could take action on its own against Zimbabwe.
AIN'T NO STOPPING EUROPEAN ARROGANCE``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe attacks UK 'colonialism' ``x1015185947,30520,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xTONY Blair suffered an embarrassing snub today in his bid to boot Zimbabwe out of the Commonwealth.
Commonwealth leaders voted not to remove Zimbabwe's membership before presidential elections later this week, despite Mr Blair's views. MORE``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xCommonwealth Lets Mugabe Stay``x1015242746,73666,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xJOHANNESBURG, 8 Mar 2002 (IRIN) - As the reported cases of political violence in Zimbabwe rose on Friday, South African President Thabo Mbeki hit out at "white supremacists" critical of the Commonwealth and African response to the deepening crisis. MORE``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xSOUTH AFRICA-ZIMBABWE: Mbeki strikes back``x1015560000,71235,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xLong queues continued on Sunday in the Zimbabwean capital, Harare, for the second and final official day of voting in the country's presidential election. Most polling stations reopened at 7am (0500 GMT). But others were obliged to stay open late into the night on Saturday and early on Sunday to cater for the huge numbers of voters who had not been able cast their ballot before the 7pm (1700 GMT) closing time. MORE``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xVoting Delays Continue, Ministers Says Extension not Justified``x1015776788,49959,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xZimbabwe's high count on Sunday night allowed a third day of voting, after long delays at the polling stations.
The opposition called for the extension after huge queues built up at polling stations in Harare. By late Sunday, the second day of voting, the queues in Harare's high-income, low-density areas had dwindled to a few hundred voters, but in some high-density, low-income areas, thousands of people were still in the queues waiting for their chance to vote. MORE``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe election extended to third polling day``x1015792544,41474,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xTwo of the diplomats were 'accredited' as election observers. There was no immediate explanation for their arrests. The US government has threatened to join the European Union in imposing sanctions against the governing elite if the election result is blatantly rigged. Polling was extended by court order into a third day today but polling stations opened five hours late, heightening claims that Robert Mugabe's regime is stymieing opposition voters. MORE``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xFour US diplomats held in Zimbabwe ``x1015873267,35146,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xNAIROBI (PANA)—Like hundreds of thousands of his compatriots, Michael Karanja, who lives on the fringes of one of the large scale White-owned agricultural farms in Kenya’s Thika District, some 30 miles east of Nairobi—has been following with keen interest the ensuing feud in Zimbabwe between Pres. Robert Mugabe and White land holders. Mr. Karanja is especially interested in the European Union’s sanctions against Pres. Mugabe.
He says Mr. Mugabe is right to want to re-allocate stolen and unused land now owned by Whites to Black war veterans. Mr. Karanja also says that other African leaders are doing a disservice to the continent by not coming out openly to support an embattled freedom fighter. MORE``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xHow Kenyans see the land crisis in Zimbabwe``x1015905600,57234,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xR. FITZHERBERT,
Kikambala.
The Bush administration has become quite critical of the part being played by Mr Arafat in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But before he voices his criticisms too openly, it would be better for him to review the events of the past 85 years - the ones which have produced the present situation - and the role America has played in these events:
The 1917 British government's declaration supporting an organised immigration of Jews to settle in Palestine, where the Jews then formed a very small minority of the population.
The 1922 League of Nations mandate to Britain to administer Palestine, coupled with the requirement that first priority be given to Jewish immigration to establish there a national home, although the British administrators already working in the territory had warned that organised Jewish immigration was being, and would continue to be, vehemently opposed by the indigenous population.
The division of Palestine in 1947 into Arab areas (44 per cent) and Jewish areas (56 per cent) after approval by the United Nations General Assembly, gained to substantial foothold through active US support.
The founding of the state of Israel in 1948 after attacks by external Jewish organisations had increased the percentage of Jewish controlled land. The arrival of nearly one million Palestinians from refugee camps in neighbouring countries, where they had gone to escape war.
The occupation by Israel after the Six Day War of the remaining Palestinian areas and the establishment of Jewish settlements there, despite UN resolutions requiring Israel to withdraw.
The assumption by the United States of the role of Israel's main supporter and ally, both politically and financially, and its clear reluctance to let the UN give a free hand to deal with the continuing confrontation between Palestinian and Israeli.
As a result of this sequence of events, the Palestinians, who in 1918 were hoping that they would live according to their own traditions and ways of life, now find that three quarters of Palestine has been swallowed by Israel and that the remaining one quarter is under effective Israeli occupation.
At the same time, the only really active support being given to their cause is from organisations such as Hamas and the Islamic Jihad, which are classified as terrorist groups. The Palestinians regard these people as heroes. And these are the people Mr Arafat is now being accused of encouraging or failing to control.
In the various efforts to resolve the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians over the years, Israel has shown few indications to make concessions.
The logical ending of this attitude, if it does not change in some fundamental fashion, will be the sealing off by Israel of all the territory it controls and the expulsion of all the Arabs living there as potential terrorists.
Is that what the Bush administration really wants?
http://www.nationaudio.com/News/DailyNation/Today/Letters/Letters12.html``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xReasons why Israelis shall never know peace``x1015927419,2605,Articles``x``x
``xZANU PF founder member Eddison Zvobgo said President Mugabe should accept blame for Zimbabwe's mess and prepare for a dignified exit from power. "I would not want to see him living in exile," he said, referring to Mugabe. MORE``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xMugabe should go gracefully: Zvobgo ``x1015944455,98241,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xTwelve white farmers have been charged with corruption for offering food to polling officials in Zimbabwe's election as the state media blasted the white minority for supporting the opposition. A court in Chinhoyi, north-west of Harare, charged the farmers with corruption and possession of radio equipment tuned to police frequencies. Jonathan Samukange, a lawyer for the farmers, said his clients had been released on bail and ordered to surrender their passports. MORE
It is up to South Africa to tell the truth about President Mugabe``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xWhite farmers charged with bribing poll officials``x1015997977,53809,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xHarare - South African observers said on Wednesday that Zimbabwe's election, won by President Robert Mugabe, was "legitimate".
"Based on our observations, it is the view of the South African observer mission that the outcome of the 2002 Zimbabwe presidential election should be considered as legitimate," mission leader Samuel Motsuenyane told reporters in Harare. MORE
• Report: Mugabe Re-Elected in Zimbabwe
• Key dates in Zimbabwe's history
• Mugabe Declared Winner, Opposition Reject Results ``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe poll is legitimate, say SA observers``x1016025032,67994,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xWORLD PRESS REVIEW - Celebrating though it may now be, Zimbabwe's ruling Zimbabwe African National Union Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF) and its leader, Robert Mugabe, are taking a calculated risk in legitimizing the results of the elections held on March 9 and 10. Leaders and supporters of Zimbabwean opposition party the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) still see the election as stolen and as signaling the untimely death of democracy in Zimbabwe. MORE``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xPress Spars over Election Results``x1016078400,85288,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xAfrican observers say poll was free and fair
Britain and other western countries were left frustrated and impotent yesterday after Robert Mugabe formally declared that he had overwhelmingly won Zimbabwe's presidential election.
The extent to which Mr Mugabe outmanoeuvered the west was made clear yesterday when southern African countries issued a surprise statement declaring the conduct of the election free and fair. MORE``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xMugabe victory leaves west's policy in tatters``x1016080139,20802,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xThose discrediting Zimbabwe's electoral process should listen to what the Africans are saying," Zuma told Zimbabwean state radio MORE
• Secret mission to solve Zimbabwe crisis?
• MDC rejects prospects of a coalition govt
• Way forward for Zimbabwe
• Straw says no new sanctions on Zimbabwe``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe election draws rising number of critics``x1016164800,63389,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xHARARE (Reuters) - South Africa and Nigeria have stepped up diplomatic efforts to avert Zimbabwe's suspension from the Commonwealth over President Robert Mugabe's disputed election victory, diplomatic sources said on Saturday. MORE
SADC Statement on the Zimbabwe Elections
The Southern African Development Community (SADC) Parliamentary Forum has completed its interim assessment of the Zimbabwe 2002 elections.
On the invitation of the government of Zimbabwe by letter dated February 4, 2002, the SADC Parliamentary Forum Observer mission constituted a delegation of 70 members, consisting of 39 Members of Parliament and support staff drawn from the Secretariat in Windhoek, Namibia and eleven parliaments of the region. MORE``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xAfrica Moves to Avert Commonwealth Zimbabwe Ban``x1016259878,13390,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xHARARE, Zimbabwe –– Longtime President Robert Mugabe was sworn in for another six-year term Sunday after being declared the winner of elections that some observers said were flawed.
Mugabe, 78, swore to "bear true allegiance to Zimbabwe and uphold the laws of Zimbabwe." Mugabe then railed against colonialism and imperialism, and urged other African leaders to support him against hostile Western nations. MORE``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xMugabe Takes Zimbabwe's Top Office ``x1016375038,9073,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xPresident Robert Mugabe warned the white community in Zimbabwe yesterday that he intended to step up land reforms and would give economic control to black Zimbabweans. MORE
• Asian and white communities prepare to leave
QUOTE: "Jack Straw, Britain's Foreign Secretary, would strengthen his case against Mr Mugabe if he were to be more vociferous in his defence of human rights and democracy elsewhere – and especially elsewhere in Africa. Yoweri Museveni, the current president of Uganda, is favoured by the West because he allows a free press and pursues economic policies of which we approve, but his no-party system means Uganda's elections, while nominally free and fair, are democratically flawed. Kenya is a more obvious case, where President Daniel Arap Moi's repression of political opposition renders his multi-party system a mockery of democracy.
Britain and other democracies are right to condemn last week's vote in Zimbabwe as a fraud, but must adopt a similar uncompromising stance in demanding free and fair elections in the rest of Africa and the WORLD."``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xMugabe issues new warning to white businesses``x1016424000,43564,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xHARARE - Zimbabwe's main labour federation has called a three-day general strike later this week to protest the post-election harassment of workers.
Previously led by defeated presidential challenger Morgan Tsvangirai, the federation's members are believed to have been among his strongest backers against President Robert Mugabe, who won a fifth term as head of Zimbabwe's government last week in an election many countries and observers have said was rigged. MORE``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe trade unions call three-day general strike``x1016494812,14030,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xHARARE, Zimbabwe The presidents of South Africa and Nigeria flew to Zimbabwe on Monday and urged President Robert Mugabe and his opposition party rival to work together to salvage this troubled nation, which is racked by food shortages, unemployment and political tensions. MORE``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``x2 African leaders try to ease Zimbabwe tensions``x1016512553,77683,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xThree Commonwealth leaders meeting in London today suspended Zimbabwe from the councils of the Commonwealth for one year.
Australian Prime Minister John Howard, chairman of the troika, said Commonwealth observers had concluded that last week's elections were "marred by a high level of political violence" and had not allowed for a free expression of the wishes of the electorate. MORE``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xCommonwealth suspends Zimbabwe``x1016571265,47928,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xAustralian Prime Minister John Howard has ruled out sanctions against Zimbabwe, after the Commonwealth suspended the African country for one year.
Mr Howard has called on Zimbabwe to hold new presidential elections, after a committee of leaders ruled its elections earlier this month, which saw Robert Mugabe returned to power, were neither free nor fair.
However, the Commonwealth decided against imposing sanctions in the short-term. MORE``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xAustralia's PM rules out sanctions against Zimbabwe``x1016596800,89691,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xHINDUSTAN TIMES - Australia will go ahead with their cricket tour of Zimbabwe next month in spite of the African country being thrown out of the Commonwealth for a year.
Australian Cricket Board Chief Executive James Sutherland said his organisation was satisfied, at the moment, it was safe for the team to tour the strife-torn country.
But Sutherland said the ACB would continue to monitor the situation in Zimbabwe as the safety of players and officials was the board's major concern. "Sport is a powerful force for social cohesion," Sutherland said. MORE``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xAustralia confirm Zimbabwe tour ``x1016596800,80237,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xThe Federal Opposition has renewed its call for targeted sanctions against Zimbabwe, despite the overnight decision to suspend the country from the Commonwealth.
A committee of three Commonwealth heads of state, including Australian Prime Minister John Howard, made the decision to suspend Zimbabwe last night. MORE``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xCalls for targeted sanctions against Zimbabwe``x1016596800,30044,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xLINDA MOTTRAM: Zimbabwe's Opposition says the Commonwealth's decision is long overdue.
The Opposition Movement for Democratic Change says Commonwealth leaders have redeemed themselves after failing to take action for more than two years but the MDC says that the suspension won't relieve the suffering of the Zimbabwean people, now being compounded by deepening political unrest. MORE``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe Opp welcomes Commonwealth decision ``x1016604720,13271,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xHARARE, Zimbabwe (Reuters) - Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe's defeated presidential challenger, Morgan Tsvangirai, appeared in court on treason charges Wednesday and was granted bail. MORE``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe's Tsvangirai in Court on Treason Charge ``x1016648955,72064,Zimbabwe``x``x
``x
The charges, based on a videotape which shows Mr Tsvangirai discussing the assassination of Mr Mugabe with a political consultant.
The allegations against Mr Tsvangirai were made by a Canadian political consultancy, Dickens and Madson, headed by former Israeli intelligence officer.
The Canadian political consultancy claims that someone representing Mr Tsvangirai approached it in order to have Mr Mugabe killed.
The head of the consultancy, Ari Ben-Menashe, who had previously worked for Mr Mugabe says he was shocked by the proposal and immediately contacted the Zimbabwe Government.
Mr Tsvangirai admits meeting Mr Ben-Menashe, a former intelligence officer in the Israeli army, but stresses it was to carry out lobbying work in North America.
In one of the exchanges broadcast on Australian television, Mr Tsvangirai allegedly says:
"We can now definitely say that Mugabe is going to be eliminated?"
Mr Ben-Menashe replies:
"Are you in a position basically to ensure a smooth transition of power?"
"Yes, I have no doubt about it," replies Mr Tsvangirai.
Some reports claim that the tape was doctored.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xCharges against Tsvangirai based on videotape``x1016667651,58011,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xANANOVA - The Commonwealth cannot bar Zimbabwe from attending the Commonwealth Games, Australian Prime Minister John Howard says.
Mr Howard says the Commonwealth does not have the power to keep it away.
The Commonwealth suspended Zimbabwe's membership following accusations of corruption and intimidation during the recent presidential election.
"Under the rules that we are operating under, we didn't have the capacity to prevent Zimbabwe from competing. That is a matter for the Commonwealth Games Federation," he told Australia's Channel Nine television network. MORE``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xHoward: We can't stop Zimbabwe from Commonwealth Games``x1016683200,24133,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xMORGAN Tsvangirai, the MDC president, was yesterday arrested and, in an unprecedented move, quickly hauled into the Harare Magistrates' Court where he was granted bail of $1,5 million on allegations of plotting to assassinate President Mugabe.
Later, the MDC secretary-general, Professor Welshman Ncube, described the arrest and appearance in court of the MDC top brass as "an attempt to continue harassing the MDC leadership in order to stop us from resisting an illegitimate election process". MORE``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xTsvangirai charged with high treason ``x1016735285,53235,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xAFRICA CONFIDENTIAL - Quietly, within days of the widely-criticised 10-12 March presidential election, the outline of a deal between Zimbabwe's warring political parties emerged. After two years of rising tension, with one of Africa's most hopeful economies heading for the abyss, it looked like the last chance for political peace. Brokered by South Africa's President Thabo Mbeki and Nigeria's President Olusegun Obasanjo, the deal proposes: a coalition government with ministers from all parties and some non-partisan figures; a review of recent oppressive laws on public assembly and the media; full implementation of the Abuja agreement stipulating orderly land redistribution, to be financed by Britain and international financial institutions. Also under discussion is the dropping of treason charges against Morgan Tsvangirai, leader of the opposition Movement for Democratic Change, and its Secretary General, Welshman Ncube. Tsvangirai was formally charged on 20 March in a move that will make negotiations even more problematic. MORE``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xOn the knife-edge``x1016769600,87759,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xHARARE, Zimbabwe (AP) - Most businesses on Thursday ignored a national strike organized to protest disputed elections and remained open, and labor leaders blamed government intimidation.
Meanwhile, white farmers accused ruling party militants of attacking them as part of a new campaign of violence intended to punish them for perceived support of the opposition in the elections. MORE``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xMost businesses on Thursday ignored the national strike``x1016775279,21729,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xTHE planned Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions three-day stayaway has been a big flop after workers and industrialists did not heed the call to stay at home since Wednesday.
The ZCTU had called the strike over what it said was harassment of workers during the presidential election and attempts by the Government to weaken the unions.
During the three-days since Wednesday, life was as usual in towns and cities throughout the country.
Harare was yesterday functioning normally on the third and last day of the planned stoppage, with most workers putting their livelihoods ahead of politics. MORE``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xStayaway a Big Flop As Workers Ignore Strike Call``x1016856000,87433,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xA senior US official told African countries on Thursday that US aid to Africa could suffer if they did not take a stand against this month's presidential elections in Zimbabwe.
The US, Britain and the Commonwealth say the election, won by President Mugabe, was not free or fair because of violence and intimidation by Zanu PF.
But African governments have not been so critical, partly because of the feeling that Western outrage is driven in part by sympathy for the white farmers Mugabe wants to evict.
Charles Snyder, a Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, told a gathering at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Washington that Zimbabwe had become a test case for attitudes toward governance in Africa. MORE``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe Crisis Threatens Aid``x1016856000,59903,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xJOHANNESBURG, South Africa –– The re-election of another autocratic African leader in a vote dogged by accusations of rigging and violence has reignited an argument between Western and African leaders over democracy, colonialism and the continent's future.
President Robert Mugabe's purported victory in the first competitive presidential election in Zimbabwe's history was quickly welcomed by African leaders such as President Daniel arap Moi of Kenya and President Benjamin Mkapa of Tanzania.
"You have been firm defending the inalienable right of the people of your country to free, democratic and sovereign governance," Mkapa wrote Mugabe. "Your firmness was good for all of Africa." MORE``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe Election Reignites Argument``x1016856000,60022,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xThe Herald (Harare)
By Philip Magwaza
March 23, 2002
THE United States government has now resorted to blackmail in an effort to force African countries to isolate and condemn the Zimbabwean Government for winning the just ended presidential election.
In a desperate bid to build consensus on its anti-Zanu-PF and President Mugabe campaign, the American government has promised massive aid to African countries if they ditch Zimbabwe. The American administration has already slapped the country with sanctions.
According to Reuters news agency, a senior US official told African countries on Thursday that US aid to Africa could suffer if they did not take a stand against this month's presidential elections in Zimbabwe.
The United States, Britain and the Commonwealth say the election, won by incumbent President Robert Mugabe, was not free or fair because of violence and intimidation by President Mugabe's ruling Zanu-PF party.
But African governments have rallied behind President Mugabe and declared the election free and fair. Most of these governments felt that Western outrage is driven in part by sympathy for the white farmers who control most of the arable land that Mugabe is redistributing.
Charles Snyder, a deputy assistant of state for African affairs, told a gathering at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington that Zimbabwe had become a test case for attitudes toward governance in Africa.
He said: "We have begun a bargain with Africa in general, a new day in Africa in which we are looking for this new Economic Partnership for African Development.
"The rules of the game call on the Africans to provide good governance, peer review and, if you want, neighborhood watch."
"If Africa doesn't step up here it's going to cripple our ability to provide the kind of economic development assistance we want to provide - not the humanitarian aid, but serious economic assistance," he added.
"The Commonwealth has stepped up and we are gratified by that but we are looking forward to the rest of Africa stepping forward on this," he said.
Snyder said the Bush administration would impose financial sanctions on Zimbabwean leaders, on top of the US visa ban it has already slapped on Mugabe and about two dozen associates.
US officials have said for days they are moving in that direction but have not explained a delay in announcing a freeze of any assets the Zimbabwean leaders may have in the country.
Snyder said: "How that will come out is a matter of bureaucratic infighting, but stay tuned. There will be action on that front as well."
The US official repeated Washington's complaints about the conduct of the presidential elections, which ran from March 9 to March 11, and added that he doubted the authenticity of a tape purporting to support treason charges against the defeated opposition candidate, Morgan Tsvangirai.
"Those of you who have seen the tape, it looks doctored to me, speaking personally, and I've been in the Africa business a long time," he said.
"It's that kind of accusation that goes beyond the norms of politics. That's why we are so outraged."
The Zimbabwean ambassador to the United States, Dr Simbi Mubako, disputed the allegations that the election was rigged.
He said the voting was not perfect but the imperfections could not have changed the outcome.
Although there was a lot of pressure from the United States, the European Union, Britain and other members of the Commonwealth for the imposition of sanctions, the Commonwealth troika on Zimbabwe resisted this pressure resulting in a symbolic suspension of the country from the councils of the 54-nation grouping.
However, this has triggered a new frenzy from Western capitals threatening to impose individual sanctions, which unfortunately were already in place and are unlikely to cause any new damage.
Zimbabwe has survived for over five years now under unofficial sanctions from most European countries that had diverted their funding to promoting opposition politics and civic organisations opposed to the Zimbabwe government.
Canada a long time ally of Zimbabwe was expressing mixed signals following the one year suspension with critics of Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien arguing that the suspension was inadequate. Keith Martin a foreign affairs spokesman for the opposition Canadian Alliance Party, said the suspension was an inadequate slap on the wrist.
He called for tougher sanctions, which include an arms embargo and travel ban on President Mugabe and Government ministers. Chretien resisted moves in Australia at the Commonwealth Summit for harsh punitive action. Canada though has already suspended most of its development aid to Zimbabwe and extended its ban on travel to include most Government officials or people with connections to Zanu-PF.
Australia irked by the symbolic one-year suspension was urging its citizens not to come to Zimbabwe.
Without any tangible proof of violence breaking out in Zimbabwe, foreign affairs minister Alexander Downer called on Australian citizens to defer holiday and normal business to Zimbabwe.
Analysts wondered whether Australia was going to fuel unrest and create a chaotic state of affairs.
However, its cricket team due to tour Zimbabwe has refused to cancel its trip.
In London gay rights activist Peter Tatchell told Reuters that Zimbabwe human rights watchdog Amani Trust had documented hundreds of incidents of what they called state sanctioned torture which should be used to arrest President Mugabe.
However, it has since been revealed that the Amani Trust was just a front for the MDC used to document alleged cases of violence against the opposition party and to shelter alleged victims of political violence who were used for demonstrations and political attacks on the ruling party.
British foreign secretary Jack Straw is dying for stiffer penalties against Zimbabwe.
He is hoping that this weekend's European Union meeting in Barcelona should review sanctions against Zimbabwe.
Denmark because of its close links with MDC since its formation has openly shown its dislike for the Zimbabwe Government. The Danish Government has gone to the extent of closing its embassy in Harare and relocated to South Africa.
Switzerland according to reports is proposing travel and financial restrictions against Zimbabwe. New Zealand, the home country of the Commonwealth secretary general, Don McKinnon is advocating for the barring of Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth Games.
The agenda, it has since emerged, is not about elections which have been described as legitimate by African countries, China and other progressive nations but, the removal of President Mugabe because of his land reform programme which threatens the lavish lifestyles of white farmers in Zimbabwe.
Reprinted from:
http://allafrica.com/stories/200203230233.html``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xUS Blackmails Africa to Ditch Zimbabwe``x1016856000,5602,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xINDEPENDENT.CO.UK - The Government of Zimbabwe has said it will seize hundreds more white farms, despite rising international pressure on President Robert Mugabe after his controversial election victory.
The government has published a list of 388 farms, including ranches owned by South Africa's wealthy Oppenheimer family, for seizure.
Early yesterday hundreds of white farmers and black farm workers attended the funeral of a white farmer, Terry Ford, who was shot on Monday at his farm west of Harare. He was the 10th white farmer to have been killed since farm occupations by war veterans began two years ago.
The Government also announced plans yesterday for massive food imports. The country is facing starvation due to drought and the chaos which has followed the occupation of white-owned farms. MORE``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xMugabe launches fresh round of farm seizures``x1016857457,35962,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xMELBOURNE: Australia's planned two-Test tour of Zimbabwe next month is still on but is being reviewed daily because of safety concerns, the Australian Cricket Board (ACB) said on Tuesday.
Media reports on Tuesday had suggested the ACB was on the verge of cancelling the tour following advice from the Australia government that Australians should avoid Zimbabwe because of the risk in being caught up in violent incidents.
"We review it on a daily basis," ACB Public Affairs General Manager Brendan McClements said on Tuesday.
"We'll have no hesitation in pulling out if it becomes unsafe, at any stage during or before the tour.
"In the ideal world, if it becomes clear that it is unsafe, that decision will be made sooner rather than later. I don't think there's a question of compromising player safety." MORE``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xAustralia's Zimbabwe tour under review``x1017188457,50442,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xThe Australian Cricket Board (ACB) cancelled Australia's two-test tour of Zimbabwe next month due to player safety concerns in the troubled African nation.
ACB chairman Bob Merriman told a news conference that the decision to cancel the tour was based on the latest security reports which showed the situation in Zimbabwe would not improve in time for the tour's scheduled start.
"It is now clear that travelling to Zimbabwe will compromise their safety," Merriman said. "The security of our people is our first priority."
Merriman said the ACB and the Zimbabwe Cricket Union had discussed the possibility of playing matches on a neutral ground, but that Zimbabwe had wanted the tour to take place at home. MORE``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xAustralia cancels Zimbabwe tour over security fears ``x1017247930,89089,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Basildon Peta Zimbabwe Correspondent Independent UK
Ian Smith, the former white minority leader of Zimbabwe, accused the country's government yesterday of illegally stripping him of his Zimbabwean passport and citizenship.
"They have cancelled my nationality. It is illegal and I'm not going to let them get away with it," Mr Smith said. Officials at the Harare passport office refused to see him after telling him his passport was not being renewed before a trip to Britain and the US next week.
Mr Smith, the son of a Scottish immigrant, was born in western Rhodesia, as Zimbabwe was then known, and was prime minister when the government unilaterally declared independence from Britain. Although he renounced his British citizenship in 1984, four years after Zimbabwe became independent with black majority rule, he has not renounced it again as required under new rules introduced last year by President Robert Mugabe's government. MORE``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe strips former PM Smith of his citizenship``x1017288000,19446,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Mark Wilkinson Independent UK
Hopes were raised yesterday that a national newspaper reporter being held in prison in Zimbabwe would soon be freed.
Peta Thornycroft, of The Daily Telegraph, was arrested on Wednesday and led to believe she had been charged with "publishing false statements prejudicial to the state" under the widely condemned new Public Order Security Act.
But the newspaper today said she had been charged only with two lesser offences – possessing a car with an incorrect number plate and working illegally as a journalist. MORE``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xJournalist jailed in Zimbabwe 'may soon be freed'``x1017460800,746,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xWashington has added the Anglican bishop of Harare and Zimbabwe's richest businessman, who is a UK resident, to its list of Robert Mugabe's close associates subject to sanctions.
The Americans say the listing of politicians, generals and senior civil servants as banned from the US, and the freezing of their assets there, is designed to punish those who help keep Mr Mugabe in power or who profit from his rule. The spouses and children of those named are also barred from the US.
Washington is consulting the European Union to coordinate measures against the named individuals. The EU is expected to announce its own expanded blacklist before long.
The latest subjected to personal sanctions include Bishop Nolbert Kunonga, who has divided the Anglican church in Zimbabwe by his outspoken support for land seizures and his derision of Mr Mugabe's black opponents as puppets of the west. MORE``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xWashington adds bishop of Harare to sanctions list ``x1017513903,7802,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xHARARE, Zimbabwe –– A High Court judge on Sunday ordered police to free a Zimbabwean correspondent for a British newspaper who had been detained for allegedly violating severe new media laws.
Judge Mohammed Adam said he found no reason for the continued detention of Peta Thornycroft, 57, a Harare-based correspondent for the British Daily Telegraph and two South African newspapers.
Thornycroft was arrested Wednesday in Chimanimani, 300 miles southeast of Harare, lawyer Tapiwanashe Kujinga said. MORE``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xReporter in Zimbabwe Ordered Freed``x1017593512,12753,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xLUSAKA (Reuters) - African leaders started talks on Wednesday to end war in the Democratic Republic of Congo, and diplomats said the summit was piling pressure on Rwanda and Zimbabwe to withdraw their armies from the former Zaire.
Six African states have troops in the war dubbed Africa's World War One, but the diplomats said the two had the biggest deployment, and that a firm commitment was needed from Rwanda's Paul Kagame and Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe to implement a peace deal.
Rwanda has over 20,000 troops in the Congo while Zimbabwe has deployed around 15,000 troops, they said. MORE``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xAfrica Seeks Rwanda, Zimbabwe Pullout From Congo``x1017806400,42470,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Lovemore Mataire
WHEN the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Cde Stan Mudenge, concluded that by continuously reneging on its commitment to the Abuja agreement and ganging up against the country, Britain was attempting to recolonise Zimbabwe many sceptics did not take his assertions seriously.
Several months down the line the real motives of the British have now come out in the open as revealed by a senior aide to Mr Tony Blair who called for a return to colonialism.
British foreign affairs adviser Robert Cooper was quoted in the British Mirror saying the West needed to invent a new kind of imperialism.
"The opportunities, perhaps even the need for colonisation, is as great as it ever was in the 19th century," he said.
If there were some people who were doubtful about the real intentions of the British in Zimbabwe then Mr Cooper’s statements must convince them, that the former colonial master does not want to let go of his stranglehold on Zimbabwe.
The arrogance of the British and its imperialist expansionist policy was summed up when Mr Cooper further added: "The weak will need the strong and the strong still need an orderly world. A world in which the efficient and the well-governed export stability and liberty, which is open for investment and growth, seems eminently desirable."
Unashamedly, the foreign affairs adviser said Afghanistan showed what could happen if the West did not intervene in the Third World. Terrorists were using failed states as bases to attack "orderly" nations. MORE``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xBritain wants to maintain stranglehold on Zimbabwe``x1018355403,50918,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xby Ben J. Hanson
THE latest strategy being imposed by the Europeans on the awakening African states is the idea of a government of national unity.
After all, who can argue with that concept? Don't we all want peace and unity? Are these two not the major prerequisites for stability and development?
But let us examine this in practical terms. Many of us lived in the UK for years, and many more know its history from our academic studies.
It is a fact that even when the winning party had a majority of two, it never considered a government of national unity. Did Mrs Thatcher incorporate the Labour Party, thus forming a government?
Has Tony Blair's Labour Party thought of inviting the Conservatives into government?
Has either the Conservatives or the Labour once invited the Liberals, regardless of the proportion of the votes they secured, to join in a government of national unity? So why impose the concept on African states?
Now, let us look at the unfolding scenarios in Africa and in Southern Africa in particular and see if we can discern a sinister pattern emerging as we are led by the noses, into governments of national unity.
First, we are told by the Europeans that a one-party state is a dictatorship and dictatorships are evil. We must have multi-party democracy. So we agree. However, in strategic states and regions such as ours, it is the Europeans who take the initiative in selecting, organising and strategising the opposition parties.
Case No. 1 Zambia:
The MMD, like the MDC here in Zimbabwe, was created by external forces and interests from the trade union movement.
When it won the elections which ousted the Unip of Kenneth Kaunda, there was no call for, let alone insistence on a government of national unity. Instead, every effort was made to destroy the former ruling party turned-opposition!
However, when the once "darling" party (MMD) awakened to the fact that it was merely a tool of imperialism to destroy the roots of its own existence by selling its assets and sovereignty to the interloper that party was ditched and a new puppet created.
Every effort was made to install it in office. If the MMD had lost, it is clear that there would have been no call for a government of national unity.
Case No. 2. South Africa:
In 1994, the ANC won the first democratically run elections outright. Nelson Mandela, the grand old man of the liberation struggle and a world icon, had been emasculated by 27 years of incarceration and made innocuous and docile by being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
Politically, he was doing the right thing. De Clerk was brought in as co-president (who has ever heard of such a ridiculous thing?). He soon realised that the arrangement could not work so he pulled out.
Now, President Mbeki, who is proving to be "wayward" as far as the West is concerned, must be brought back in line.
He has been pressured into accepting the NNP as a partner in a government of national unity.
Did the West at any time during the struggle pressure the National Party to accept the ANC as a partner in government? No!
The real purpose here is to ensure that the ANC is weakened from within and eventually either destroyed or become ineffective in pursuing policies beneficial to the majority of its too-long disadvantaged constituents, particularly with regard to land reform.
Case No. 3. Mozambique:
For over ten years, the US and South Africa sponsored and supported the Renamo bandits to destabilise and create mayhem in that country.
When the Zimbabwean army helped to prevent a take-over by the externally created and sponsored movement, the enemy re-thought its strategy.
Renamo was organised and given a new image as a party with all their atrocities forgiven and forgotten, except by the traumatised people.
When they did not win the elections, they threatened to return to the bush and kill more of their fellow citizens. Now that President Chissano won, will they be persuaded/pressured into forming a government of national unity? I doubt it very much!
Case No. 4 Angola:
Unita rebels conducted the longest running and most brutal war in African history. In this, they were aided and abetted by the Western countries.
When in 1992 they were pressured into contesting a national election, they lost.
Rather than gracefully accepting the vice-president's office he had been offered, power-hungry Jonas Savimbi attempted a military coup.
When that failed he went back to the bush and continued with his destruction of the country and the traumatisation of the ordinary people.
Why was he not further pressured into joining a government of national unity?
He was too dominant a figure for the West to totally control and once he got into office they were not sure he could be depended on.
So now that President Mugabe has changed the dynamics of the region and the thinking of most of its leaders, there is urgent need for a change of strategy on the western front, ie, Angola.
Hence, in my view, Savimbi, having served his purpose, and having become a rabid dog, was clinically eliminated.
Dos Santos and Chissano were summoned to see the Emperor in Washington and told not to seek re-election just in case any of them might have been reconsidering his stated decision to step down.
Dos Santos was ordered to make peace quickly with the former butchers and forgive all the atrocities they had committed on innocent civilians.
There should be no bringing to justice for these African terrorists. Would Emperor Bush have been so magnanimous if a few precious American lives had been taken by those Unita terrorists?
Now it is unlikely that Unita, given its past infamous record and lack of popularity with the people, will win any free and fair elections.
But if the "international community", including the US and the EU, who are experts at ensuring the victory of their preferred candidates, are called in to organise and monitor those elections, who knows? Even the people who were killed may rise up and vote for a ritually cleansed Western-backed Unita.
Case No. 5. The DRC:
Everyone knows how well Mobutu Sese Seko served the interests of the West to the detriment and destruction of his own people.
When Laurent Kabila with Cde Mugabe's assistance took over, the West had him eliminated because he was perceived as being inimical to their interests.
The intention was to get rid of young Joseph at the same time also. I well remember that the first report emanating from Brussels stated that both father and son had been assassinated.
Joseph received his military training in China and not in Brussels, Sandhurst (UK) or West Point (US). He, therefore, cannot be fully trusted to follow instructions from the West.
Now that the peace talks are underway, the Western-backed rebels are pushing for a suspension of the young President Kabila's government until elections are held. Why? Because, if he remains in power during the interim, he would be in a position to influence the outcome of the election in some way.
After all, it is common knowledge that everywhere the incumbent government has some advantage, some edge, however small, in an election campaign.
I am sure that if Kabila's party should win the upcoming elections, there will be no call for and no Western insistence on a government of national unity.
Case No. 6. Zimbabwe:
Zanu-PF and politically astute Zimbabweans realise that we do not need another unity accord.
What we need now is a strong opposition (which, as we all know, is already in place) which is patriotic, willing always to make the interests of Zimbabwe paramount.
It does not matter how long a party in a Western country remains in opposition, it is never brought into government.
It may be consulted, but never given a chance to undermine the ruling party from within! That (undermining the Govern-ment), I believe, is the proposed and expected role of the MDC in this country. Because if they had won, I am sure and so are the Zanu-PF Politburo members, the MDC would not have been instructed to form a government of national unity.
The first duty that would have been demanded of them would have been the arrest and utter humiliation of President Mugabe.
I am hoping that the South African and Nigerian teams sent here to facilitate negotiations will not try to be surrogates of the West. We Africans are so good at selling our own into slavery.
I am saying to Zanu-PF, if the facilitators cannot persuade the MDC leadership (with or without Mr Tsvangirai) to accept their defeat gracefully and graciously, and spend some more time as the opposition, organising themselves and learning the ropes of serious politics, then there should be no deal.
The scenario I have outlined so far chronicles a series of African states in this region which are being brought under the hegemony and tutelage of the West through puppet governments.
Already, the MDC parliamentarians are under the tutelage of Canadians, with whom they are officially twinned.
Prof Welshman Ncube should be warned that should he be chosen to replace Mr Tsvangirai, and resist being dictated to by his handlers, he should expect the same fate as that of Zambia's former president Chiluba sooner than later, because he is an astute man, and I hope a real African.
In conclusion, until the West makes a coalition government, like they had made democracy the political norm of the day, we should not be persuaded or coerced into playing their games which will only lead to our destruction and re-enslavement.
We do not need to hear the voice of Jacob but feel the hand of Esau, the hunter.
http://allafrica.com/stories/200204080290.html``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xBeware of Europeans' Trojan Horse Strategy``x1018355440,8723,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xAccra Mail (Accra)
A bi-weekly newspaper published Monday and Thursday
http://www.africaonline.com.gh/accramail/
Addis Tribune (Addis Ababa)
Business-oriented weekly from the Ethiopian capital
http://www.addistribune.com
African Eye News Service (Nelspruit)
Independent investigative news agency focusing on south-eastern Africa
http://www.africamediaonline.com
African Soccer Magazine (London)
Africa's leading monthly football magazine
Archive only Aug 2000 - Jun 2001
http://www.sportscheduler.co.sz/afsocmag/index.html
Altervision (Abidjan)
http://www.altervision.org/
L'Avenir (Kinshasa)
http://www.groupelavenir.com/
Business Day (Johannesburg)
South Africa's major business-oriented daily
http://www.bday.co.za
Cairo Press Review (Cairo, Egypt)
Daily summary of the Egyptian Press
http://www.sis.gov.eg/pressrev/html/frame.htm
Cape Argus (Cape Town)
Major afternoon daily in South Africa's legislative capital
http://www.iol.co.za/html/newspapers/argus_main.html
Concord Times (Freetown)
Independent daily from Sierra Leone
http://www.oe-pages.com/BIZ/Homebiz/tod/
The Daily News (Harare)
A national daily published by the Associated Newspapers of Zimbabwe
http://www.dailynews.co.zw/
The Daily Observer (Banjul)
Daily independent newspaper from Gambia
http://www.qanet.gm/Observer/observer.html
Daily Trust (Abuja)
Abuja based daily newspaper focused on northern Nigerian affairs.
http://www.mtrustonline.com/dailytrust/
The East African (Nairobi)
Business-oriented regional weekly from the Nation Group
http://www.nationaudio.com/News/EastAfrican/Current/
The East African Standard (Nairobi)
http://www.eastandard.net/
Expo Times (Freetown)
Fortnightly news from Sierra Leone
Archive only Sep 1998 - Jun 2001
http://www.expotimes.net
Financial Gazette (Harare)
Weekly business coverage of Zimbabwe and southern African
http://www.fingaz.co.zw
Ghanaian Chronicle (Accra)
Weekly newspaper published in Accra, Ghana
http://www.ghanaian-chronicle.com/
The Guardian (Lagos)
Nigeria's leading independent daily newspaper
http://www.ngrguardiannews.com
Guinéenews (Toronto)
Daily reporting from Guinea and the surrounding region
http://www.boubah.com
The Herald (Harare)
Government-owned newspaper published in the capital city
http://www.herald.co.zw/
ITWeb (Johannesburg)
Technology & business news service from South Africa
http://www.itweb.co.za/sections/default.asp
The Independent (Banjul)
Gambian bi-weekly paper published Monday and Friday
http://www.qanet.gm/Independent/independent.html
The Independent (Accra)
Ghanaian weekly published Thursday
http://www.africaonline.com.gh/independent/
The Insider (Harare)
Business-oriented monthly that provides a daily e-mail service
http://insiderzim.bizland.com
Internews (Arusha)
Agency reporting on the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda
http://www.internews.org/PROJECTS/ICTRnews.html
Le Jour (Abidjan)
Daily published in Abidjan, commercial capital of Cote d'Ivoire
http://www.lejour.ci/
Le Journal de l'Economie (Dakar)
Weekly publication on Senegal's economy
Le Journal du Jeudi (Ouagadougou)
http://www.journaldujeudi.com/
Libération (Casablanca)
Francophone Moroccan Daily
http://www.liberation.press.ma/
Mail & Guardian (Johannesburg)
South African weekly newspaper and internet pioneer
http://www.mg.co.za/mg/
Le Marabout (Ouagadougou)
Mensuel satirique africain
http://www.marabout.net
Midi Madagasikara (Antananarivo)
Midi Madagasikara est le premier quotidien national d'information diffusé à Madagascar. Créé en 1983 par Marthe Andriambelo, il est édité par la société anonyme du même nom.
http://www.dts.mg/midi/
Miningweb (Johannesburg)
Global mining and resources investment
http://www.theminingweb.com
Mmegi/The Reporter (Gaborone)
Botswana weekly published Friday
http://www.mmegi.bw
Moneyweb (Johannesburg)
South African finance, investment business and economics.
http://www.moneyweb.co.za
The Monitor (Kampala)
Uganda's privately owned daily
http://www.monitor.co.ug
Mopheme/The Survivor (Maseru)
Botswana weekly published Friday
http://www.lesoff.co.za/mopheme/
The NEWS (Monrovia)
Liberian news weekly news published in Monrovia
The Namibian (Windhoek)
Leading independent daily published in Windhoek
http://www.namibian.com.na
The Nation (Nairobi)
Major private Kenyan daily and Sunday newspaper
http://www.nationaudio.com/News/DailyNation/Today
New Vision (Kampala)
Uganda's largest daily and Sunday newspaper
http://www.newvision.co.ug
Newswatch (Lagos)
Leading Nigerian weekly news magazine
http://www.newswatchngr.com
The North Africa Journal (Boston, USA)
Analysis and commentary on North Africa
http://www.north-africa.com/one.html
Notre Voie (Abidjan)
http://www.abidjan.net/kiosque/journaux/notrevoie.htm
L'Observateur Paalga (Ouagadougou)
http://www.lobservateur.bf/debq.htm
Panafrican News Agency (Dakar)
Africa's largest continent-wide news organization
Archive only Aug 1997 - Jul 2001
http://www.panapress.com/
Le Patriote (Abidjan)
Daily Ivorian newspaper
http://www.lepatriote.ci
The Perspective (Smyrna, Georgia)
Liberian opposition magazine published in Atlanta
http://www.theperspective.org
The Point (Banjul)
Gambian independent published three times a week
http://www.qanet.gm/point/point.html
The Post (Lusaka)
Crusading and award-wining Zambian daily
http://www.zamnet.zm/zamnet/post/post.html
The Post Express (Lagos)
Nigerian national daily published in Lagos
http://www.postexpresswired.com
Screen Africa (Johannesburg)
Monthly coverage of the entertainment industry
Archive only Apr 1999 - Feb 2000
http://www.screenafrica.com/
Sidwaya (Ouagadougou)
http://www.sidwaya.bf
Le Soleil (Dakar)
http://www.lesoleil.sn/
South African Press Association (Johannesburg)
http://www.sapa.org.za
SouthScan (London)
A bulletin of Southern African Affairs
http://www.gn.apc.org/southscan
The Sowetan (Johannesburg)
South Africa's largest black-oriented daily
http://www.sowetan.co.za/
Sud Quotidien (Dakar)
http://www.sudonline.sn/Rubriques%20Infos/Cadreunejournal.htm
Synergy Africa (Lusaka)
A website on Zambian and other African commercial activities and news
http://www.synergy-africa.com
This Day (Lagos)
Leading independent daily published in Lagos, Nigeria
http://www.thisdayonline.com
The Times of Zambia (Ndola)
Government-owned daily and Sunday newspaper
http://www.times.co.zm/
La Tribune (Algiers)
http://www.latribune-online.com/
Tunisia Online (Tunis)
News reports from the Tunisia Information Service
http://www.tunisiaonline.com/news/news.html
UN Integrated Regional Information Networks (Nairobi)
Updates on conflicts and news from all sub-Saharan regions
http://www.irinnews.org/
Vanguard (Lagos)
Major daily newspaper published in Lagos
http://www.vanguardngr.com/
Visafric (Toronto)
Website devoted to Eritrean news, information and products
Archive only Nov 1999 - May 2001
http://www.visafric.com/news.htm
WOZA (Johannesburg)
South African news and information website
http://www.woza.co.za
Wal Fadjri (Dakar)
http://www.walf.sn/
Weekly Trust (Kaduna)
Weekend edition of the "Daily Trust": see above
http://www.weeklytrust.com/
World Algerian Action Coalition (Washington, DC)
Daily updates and translations from Algeria
http://www.waac.org/
Zimbabwe Independent (Harare)
Independent newspaper published on Fridays
http://www.theindependent.co.zw/
Zimbabwe Standard (Harare)
Independent Sunday paper, sister publication of Zimbabwe Independent
http://www.thestandard.co.zw/``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xAfrican Newspapers``x1018356871,8323,``x``x
``xIT IS commendable that, at last, Zanu-PF and MDC have agreed on an agenda and despite what might transpire in the future the initial hurdle has been overcome in the inter-party dialogue.
The two parties have expressed willingness to put the country first and self later in this exercise to create an atmosphere conducive to nation building and not what has been the norm, that foreign interests have taken precedence.
It is still too early to read into the success of the inter-party dialogue as the areas of discussion are in themselves a hindrance to the eventual success of the whole exercise. The insistence by both parties on certain points is an indicator they are indeed at variance. MORE``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xMDC must stop making inflammatory statements``x1018501666,85498,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Phillip Magwaza
www.herald.co.zw
A leopard does not change its spots! How true for the MDC! While it was trying to hoodwink the nation into believing that it genuinely wanted dialogue, they were also compiling a court challenge against the presidential election result.
Yesterday, the MDC filed a court petition in the High Court challenging the presidential election and alleging that there was massive rigging.
This is the very same party which was pushing very hard for an election re-run to be the only item on the agenda of the talks with the ruling party.
How it now expects Zimbabweans to believe that it is serious about helping to solve the country’s many problems is mind-boggling.
MDC leader Mr Morgan Tsvangirai had said he was against a court challenge but gave in to the strong influence of his white handlers.
But are there grounds for the legal challenge?
The courts will now have to decide on that. MORE``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xMDC exhibits double-dealing ``x1018670400,63075,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xPresidential Reporter
www.herald.co.zw
President Mugabe yesterday said teachers should impart Zimbabwe’s correct history and instil pride in schoolchildren so that they appreciate the struggle that was fought for the country’s freedom and independence.
Cde Mugabe said the teachers should also impart a deep sense of reality that the country belonged to no one else but the children of Zimbabwe who were its future leaders. MORE``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xTeach children correct history``x1019132907,97559,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xFrom Bulawayo Bureau
www.herald.co.zw/
THE West cannot teach African countries democracy because they were oppressors, who had to be fought in order for Africans to liberate themselves, visiting Zambian President Mr Levy Mwanawasa said yesterday.
"We have nothing to learn from them. We taught them democracy. We were denied our right to liberate ourselves therefore we fought. We understand democracy more than them," President Mwanawasa said.
The Zambian leader, who is also the current chairman of the Africa Union, was speaking at a joint press conference with President Mugabe after officially opening the Zimbabwe International Trade Fair in Bulawayo. MORE``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xMwanawasa blasts West ``x1020010283,82178,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xHerald Reporter
THE Karoi woman the MDC and the Daily News claimed was beheaded by Zanu-PF supporters never existed, investigations have revealed — exposing the opposition party and newspaper's unrelenting stream of lies.
Investigations by The Herald, police and even the MDC and Daily News have shown that the murder victim, Brandina Tadyanemhandu, never existed.
The false story "broken" by The Daily News without elementary checks saw the MDC and the newspaper paying money to a man, Enos Tadyanemhandu, who claimed to be the victim’s husband. The cooked up story was published widely across the world.
Villagers and headman of the Magororo area where the supposed grisly murder was reportedly carried out, yesterday were shocked at the story.
Headman Jeke said the false story had caused a lot of anxiety in the community as well as unwarranted attention.
Sources yesterday said the Daily News reporter, Lloyd Mudiwa, had relied on information provided by the MDC treasurer in Mashonaland West, Godfrey Gumbo, who brought Enos Tadyanemhandu to the MDC offices at Harvest House on Monday. MORE``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xKaroi murder story a Daily News, MDC lie ``x1020010340,90523,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Pianke Nubiyang
AFRICAN PROGRAM FOR ELIMINATION OF FRENCH ECONOMIC AND NEO-COLONIALISM IN FRANCE WILL OCCUR AS SOON AS FACISTS BEGIN TO HARRASS AFRICANS IN FRANCE
There should be no surprise by anyone who knows the history of France, that France or a portion of the French population will have a putrid racist bone and that every time France and its people try to apply that racist mentality against Blacks, they the French are usually soundly defeated.
Fact one: The first people in France were prehistoric Africans. They lived in parts of Southern France, created many paintings and cave art throughout the region. It was in France that the Negroid featured "Cromagnon," people existed many thousands of years after the Grimaldi Negroids (watch the program about "Eve."), expanded to Europe. It was also in France that the first "Mongoloid" mixed-race type is said to have originated about fifteen thousand years ago. The name for that type of human is "Compe Combelle Man."
Caucasians as a race did not appear in existance in France and other parts of Europe untill about twenty to thirty thousand years after the first Africans arrived in France and the rest of Europe from Africa. The change from dark-skinned Negroid Africans to fair-skinned "Caucasian" was a process that came about due to the Ice-Age conditions in France and the living in caves of the early Africans. Hence, if there was no Ice Age in the north, the people would have remained Negroid/Black. Furthermore, in Tasmania, where the temperature is sometimes similar to Vladivostok and quite cold, some of the darkest Africoid peoples existed and still exist. These are Australian Aborigines and Tasmanians.
AFRICANS SHOULD BE PREPARED TO TAKE ACTION
The African experience with France is one of pure racism, colonialism and brutality. Yet, some of the worse defeats suffered by the French has been at the hands of Africans. It was French brutality during slavery in Haiti that led to the Haitian Revolution. The French with their multiple personalities, applied "code noir" in Haiti against African slaves and introduced some of the most brutal laws and treatment of Africans on earth. Yet, the same French slavemasters wanted to breed a "mulatto" or mixed race by ravaging and forcing the Africans into relations with the poor white surfs sent to Haiti and with some of the slavemasters who had their own harems in parts of Haiti.
Black soldiers and guerillas in Haiti, including the ordinary Black men and Black women slaves meted out a brutal war against the French (see the book, "Night of Fire,") and the upcoming (A History of Racism and Terrorism, Rebellion and Overcoming). Napoleon's brother Le Clerc was defeated and during that war about 250,000 French troops, planters and their families and slaves perished.
During the wars in West Africa to eliminate French colonialism, the French sent their armies against Samore Toure (nicknamed "The Napoleon of the Sudan,"). He defeated the French in many battles before he was defeated. The Mossi States of West Africa had some of the most enlightened leaders in Africa. They saw the great scheme of trickery and genocide that occurrs as soon as the Europeans began entering their territory. They saw the trickery and lies used by missionaries. They rejected the idea of any integration, sexual relations or collaboration with the French or any of the other colonial powers.
Unlike some of us Blacks today, who are fooled and brainwashed by the genocidal trick of 'integration" and mixing out of existence with the worse of the majority, the Africans of West Africa during the colonial period, Blacks of the Caribbean and even Black traditionalists in New Caledonia and the South Pacific have rejected and refused the trickery of the French, who will willfully pretend to accept Blacks as equal by defiling Black women and having "mullato" offspring who they train to hate the Black mother and Black people, while at the same time supporting facism, nazism and racism.
FRENCH NEO-COLONIALISM IN AFRICA, THE CARIBBEAN AND THE SOUTH PACIFIC
The French practically control the economy of West Africa. They are in the Caribbean and the South Pacific, especially New Caledonia, where their racism is rabid. If 25 percent of French middle class "enlightened" people will support modern Facism, that prods many to consider the French to have a significant racist element who simply tolerate the victims of Freench colonialism who clean the toilets and streets, work in the markets and live in the slums of France, and who come From African, Caribbean, South Pacific and North African lands that were former colonies of France.
AFRICANS ARE PREPARED TO EXPELL FRENCH EXPLOITERS OUT OF AFRICA
The rise of facism in France has not gone on without an equal and opposite reaction in Africa, the Caribbean and the South Pacific. In parts of West Africa, French control of the resources of these nation is quite expansive. They control everything from the importation of french bread to taking water from West Africa, sending it to France and reselling it as bottled water. The textile, iron, gold, and many industries of African origins and from African soil is controlled by Foreigners from France and the Middle East. These are the immigrants in Africa who come from France and who controle the economy of African nations, while Africans are starving.
Africans in Europe have made it clear already that any expulsion of Africans or any harrassment of Africans in France or any part of Europe will be met with retaliation. The question is who has the most to loose?? Obviously, Africans will have full controle of their nations economies when French racism and brutal treatment or expulsion of Africans from France brings about the expulsion of the hundreds of thousands of French who live in West Africa and who dominate the economies there.
On the other hand, African nations will gain from all the technically skilled Africans who will return to Africa to help rebuild their nations. These nations were economically ravaged by French colonialism in the first Place. Hence, the damage done by the French colonialists can be repaired.
French colonialism in Martinique, guadeloups and French Guyana is also of concern to the Blacks living in these lands who want their independence. With the facists in power, France will be tempted to expell these Afro-French citizens who come from these "departments" or colonial outposts of France but whose original homelands are under French colonial domination.
Again, Blacks in Martinique, French Guyana, Guadeloupe want the French out of their lands and the idea of Black Nationalism and Negritude in these nations is rising with a potency even more devastating to French neo-colonial interests than the devastation that would come if the French expell African/Blacks who have been living in France sice the Moorish period.
The French racists and neo-facists cannot have their cake and eat it too. If the French don't want Blacks in their nations, then they need to start packing up from West Africa, the South Pacific, "French" West Indies and elsewhere.
If the French racists and facists want to make Blacks in France scapegoats, then the idea of Negritude and Black nationalism in the French Caribbean and the South Pacific must continue to explode as it is already.
CLEAN AFRICA AND BLACK NATIONS OF FRENCH LANGUAGE, ART, CULTURE
After the racists have gotten their agenda and Africans and other victims of French colonialism, slavery and racial mixing by force and trickery have returned to their native lands, THE IDEA OF BANTUIZATION OR AFRICANIZATION (OR MELANIZATION IN THE SOUTH PACIFIC) SHOULD BEGIN.
The French language should be banned from all African nations.
The French religion (the one introduced to Africa/Black nations by the French and others) should be banned, and traditional religions should retuern (the Haitian response to French racism, brutality and slavery was the development of Vadu, which contributed to the spritual power and confidence needed to defeat the French slavemasters and colonialists).
All aspects of French culture should be banned from all African/Black nations. As Africans, we have our own cultures, religions, languages, customs and world view. We don't need to adopt the customs and language of any group of people who dispise us, whether they are French, British, Semite or others. We should work to improve African culture and change those that are not going to help make progress today.
Eliminate all French names: All French names should be eliminated. Why carry the names of people who scapegoat Blacks in France or have a racist mentality. Why carry their names, their ligions or their culture. As Africans who invented culture, it is our duty to find our own.
REJECT THE DIVISION OF AFRICA INTO ANGLOPHONE AND FRANCOPHONE AFRICA
There is only one Africa, Afrophone Black Africa.
The idea that Africa is for any colonialist who invaded, ravaged, enslaved and settled on African lands is totally absurd. If one is Negro, Black and is of African ancestry, lineage, blood origins and race, one is African. The violater of African women in North Africa, cannot be allowed to declare the offspring as belonging to his 'race" or group, because African tradition makes it clear; we trade our lineage by our mother's side in some African cultures and by our father's side in others, or by both in many. In the case of Sudan, where African women are being violated by occupiers of African lands, that violation is a crime and the invader's blood is not African. He having violated an African women also as no right to claim any rights as far as African traditions are concerned. Hence, as far as Black people are concerned (especially 300 million Blacks in the Americas who are victims of the ravaging of our ancestors), Africans in Sudan or elsewhere with the blood of the invader is African and no separate group, "mixed," "colored," or "multiracial" group whose father or legacy is one of the rape of African women should be recognized. The relationship was forced and therefore is not recognizable. In the U.S., Latin America, the U.s., the Caribbean, Europe, Melanesia, India and Australila, Blacks who are mixed should reject the idea of "multiracialism" as a positive, when its aim (especially in Middle Eastern, Latin and Asian nations is to destroy Africans and steal their culture. (Read more about ancient Black civilizations, "Susu Economics: The History of Pan-African Trade, Commerce, Money and Wealth," pub. by 1stBooks Library, 2595 Vernal Pike, Bloomington, Indiana 47404 U.S.A. email; 1stbooks@1stbooks.com www.1stbooks.com
Finally, the tide of racism in France and Europe against Blacks is nothing new. It is part of the feeling of superiority gone bust, because the "superior" finds out their original roots and it destroys their feeling of superiority. Yet, as long as we Blacks around the world contine to follow the culture, religions, languages, customs and beliefs of the Europeans, Arabs, Latin Americans and others and reject our own, they will always feel superior to us. As long as all our learned men and women, experts, doctors scientists and educators continue to help these nations develop while our own nations and communities continue to deterioriate, they will continue to turn their noses at us. As long as we continue to have pictures of people who resemble Europeans and worship these as "God" while believing that we depend on them and not on our own will and the power within us, they will always look down on us.
Its time to reject those who reject us.
There should be no acceptance of any descendants of invaders of Africa as "Africans." The term "African" should be restricted to Black people, just as "European," and "Chinese" is restricted to certain people. Do the French recognize the Africans/Blacks who have been living in France since prehistoric times as "European?" Absolutely not. Otherwise, they would not support facists and those who think solving France's or Europe's problems is expelling (as the Caucasians have done sine they invaded from Central Asia), the Black Negroid peoples who have been in Europe since prehistoric times.
THE EXPANSION OF BLACK NATIONAISM AND NEGRITUDE IN EUROPE
Europe is going through one of its usual "multiple personality," periods again. Since Roman times, Europe has seen various peoples settled in the region. in fact, the first people in Europe were Negroid Africans, who lived in the entire region. About 3500 B.C., people called Kurgans invaded from Central Asia. Blacks were driven Southward or racially absorbed (one of the tricks used today to eliminate Black Americans, by encouraging racial intermarriage and mixing). The Kurgans also used warfare to gain their aims (see the book, "Susu Economics: The History of Pan-African Trade, Commerce, Money and Wealth," pub. by iUniverse Inc., www.iuniverse.com ). Blacks also dominated parts of Europe long before the "Indo-Europeans" entered from Central Asia about 1700 B.c. During the Middle Ages from about 711 A.D. to 1492 A.D., Blacks occupied Southern Europe and Spain and contributed to the development of Spain and the rest of Europe. From the slavery period to today (1400's to 2002 Blacks from Africa and Northern Africa have existed in Europe).
These are the facts. Since the last expulsion of African Moors from Spain (of which millions spread throughout Europe, including Southern France) and millions more were enslaved, Blacks/Africans have lived in France and have contributed to the development of Europe.
BLACKS IN FACIST AND RACIST NATIONS SHOULD FORTIFY BLACK NATIONALISM AND BLACK UNITY
The support of facism by 25 percent of the French population and by a significant proportion of the European population has to be met with an equally and more nationalistic reaction by Blacks. After all, who has suffered from European racism, colonialism and brutality more than Blacks including those who live in Europe. Which nation enslaved Africans for four hundred years and ravaged African resources? Which linguistic group ravaged Congo and cut the hands of Africans who could not work fast enough?
Africans have survived racism from the policy of Semites in North Africa and Sudan who are committing genocide. Africoid people in Indonesia and West Papua are suffering from the same racism and sanctified racism that brought about the racism used by Christians and Christian nations to use as an excuse to enslave and dehumanize Blacks.
Mythology and lies have been in the forefront of many of the racist policies being used by the Semites and Europeans along with others. In order to destroy this mentality and the effects of these mentalities, Blacks in Europe, the Americas, North Africa, Indonesia, Africa, the Caribbean and India/Asia must unite and return to the the ideas of Pan-Negroism (Pan-Africanism/Black Nationalism).
The objective of eliminating colonialism from Black lands is far from finished. That colonialism also includes religious colonialism and sanctified racism practiced by Blacks in parts of the Middle East and S.E. Asia.
The most effective response to facism and racism, religious racism and neo-colonialism is Black nationalism, development of Black economies around the world, rejection and elimination of the cultures and habits, religions and customs of racists from Europe and the Middle East, India and East Asia. The rejection of all their racist religious teachings and the return to the acceptance of Black as equal and capable as all other humans.
Let the French have France. But French in African nations and the Caribbean and the Black South Pacific must be prepared to return to France and Let Blacks in Black lands with French invaders and exploiters return to France. If there is going to be a reorganization of this planet, let all the colonialists return to their original homelands. Finally, its time for Black nations to return to Black nationalism, Negritude and building self-confidence by putting Black/African culture,religions, language and customs at the top and rejecting the culture of the racists.
http://community.webtv.net/nubianem
http://community.webtv.net/paulnubiaempire``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xSupport for French Facists: Blessing in Disguise``x1020048870,66920,``x``x
``xBy Wole Akande
(YellowTimes.org) – It is hard to imagine a country with a lower public profile than Equatorial Guinea. Even though the tiny African nation was the setting for "Tropical Gangsters," a best-selling book of development, structural adjustment and the problems that sometimes go with it, few people outside West Africa could probably place it on the right continent.
Easily overlooked between Gabon and Cameroon - where it occupies both an island and a sliver of mainland - Equatorial Guinea was relatively prosperous for a few years after gaining independence from Spain in 1968, largely due to a thriving cocoa business. But years of authoritarian rule and mismanagement dragged the country into an economic abyss as deep as the oil fields off its coasts.
"Equatorial Guinea is one of the most backward countries in the world," wrote Robert Klitgaard in his book. But that was ten years ago. Today, according to the latest "Country Analysis Briefs" on Equatorial Guinea, published April 9, 2002 by the U.S. government agency Energy Information Administration (EIA), the small West African dictatorship Equatorial Guinea has become "the fourth largest destination for American investments in sub-Saharan Africa, behind only South Africa, Nigeria, and Angola." Recent offshore oil discoveries, and the prospects for additional finds, now make Equatorial Guinea "one of the leading areas for oil exploration in sub-Saharan Africa."
Contemporary economic developments in Equatorial Guinea have been dominated by rapid growth in the country's oil sector. Real gross domestic product (GDP) growth was estimated at 65.0 percent in 2001, up from the 16.9 percent growth in 2000, and narrowly missing the amazing 71.2 percent GDP growth witnessed in 1997. EIA reports that economic growth is "expected to remain strong with Real GDP growth of 33 percent in 2002 and 12 percent in 2003."
Equatorial Guinea recently has "emerged as an important oil producer in the Gulf of Guinea, one of the world's most prospective hydrocarbon regions," the EIA analysis explains. Oil production from Equatorial Guinea averaged 181,000 barrels per day (bbl/d) in 2001. Equatorial Guinea's oil production had increased more than tenfold since 1996.
The U.S. agency expects that continuing exploration activities and field development "could see production again increase dramatically over the next few years." The Norwegian company Norland Consultants had estimated that an estimated U.S. $3.4 billion would be invested in offshore field development projects in Equatorial Guinea between 2000 and 2004. Production currently comes from three offshore fields, with two located offshore Bioko and the third offshore the mainland enclave of Rio Muni.
Thanks to oil, Equatorial Guinea boasts one of the highest per capita gross domestic products in Africa, although sadly, few of the benefits have yet to be felt in important sectors such as health and social welfare.
Even though the EIA report provides a small summary of the political situation in the country, conveniently the systematic human rights violations are not mentioned. However, in his January 2002 report, presented before the UN Commission on Human rights, Mr. Gustavo Gallón, the Special Representative of the Commission for Equatorial Guinea, stressed that "the human rights situation in Equatorial Guinea has been a matter of concern to the Commission on Human Rights for longer than that of any other country."
The Equatorial Guinean opposition opposes the strong increase in foreign investment while the country is governed by Dictator Teodoro Obiang and the oil revenue does not reach the country's citizens. Investing in the country was "marginalizing our people together with the Equatorial Guinean opposition," the opposition party UDI stated. "Not one dollar arriving from the oil and gas exploitation and commercialization figures in neither the national budget or in the accounts of any other public agency," a party spokesman said.
Since the oil boom that started in 1997, Equatorial Guinea has not only been a target of pressure to improve its disastrous human rights situation, it has also been able to spend its new riches on pressuring other countries not to intervene in its affairs. Now an "African Switzerland," repression of the political opposition is stronger than ever but outside pressure remarkably low.
According to Amnesty International, "the need for ongoing international monitoring has dramatically increased since March 2002 when more than one hundred people, both civilians and military and security personnel, were arrested and are still held in detention, for alleged links with the Fuerza Democrática Republicana (FDR), Republican Democratic Force, an unofficial opposition party."
A wave of arrests - officially because a military coup was planned, allegedly in preparation of the upcoming presidential elections - has claimed its first victims; Guillermo Nguema Elá, a former Minister of Finance and opposition leader, reportedly died by the injuries he sustained during torture in detention. Relatives of FDR leader Felipe Ondó Obiang, former President of the Equatorial Guinean parliament, also fear he has succumbed to torture in a Bata prison. Three of the latter's sons and a pregnant woman are also detained for their family relations to opposition politicians.
Amnesty also deplored "the fact that the families are being denied access to their relatives and that nobody knows where they are currently being held." The group received "reliable information from eyewitnesses" who saw some of these detainees in prison with visible marks of torture during their first days of detention. Accordingly, the human rights organization agrees with the opposition's allegations that "torture by security forces is routine in Equatorial Guinea."
Unfortunately, such humanitarian issues in oil producing African countries like Equatorial Guinea do not concern American government officials. Oil is one of the main reasons why the U.S. policy makers are focusing on the African continent. In fact, it is the most valuable export encouraged by Washington from the continent. On February 11, 2002, the Kenyan Weekly newspaper, The East African, summed up this interest by reporting: "Speaking recently at a Washington forum on African oil's increasing importance to the U.S., Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Walter Kansteiner declared, "It is undeniable that this has become of national strategic interest to us." Added Congressman Edward Royce, chair of the House of Representatives subcommittee on Africa: "African oil should be treated as a priority for U.S. security post-September 11."
The paper adds: "American military and economic policy regarding Africa may thus focus more closely in coming years on those few sub-Saharan nations that export significant amounts of oil to the U.S. Non-oil producing countries such as Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda could consequently receive less attention from the architects of Washington's Africa policy.
"U.S. officials taking part in a January 25 forum argued that sub-Saharan oil-exporting countries are less likely than their Arab counterparts to use oil as a weapon to wrest concessions from the U.S. Political discord or dispute in African oil states is unlikely to take on a regional or ideological tone that would result in a joint embargo by suppliers at once, said Robert Murphy, an economist in the State Department's Office of African Analysis."
Congressman Royce stated in simpler terms that it is very, very difficult to imagine a Saddam Hussein in Africa. The congressman's remarks were reported in South Africa's Business Day newspaper.
Accordingly, with no end in sight to the volatility in the Middle East, it is more likely than ever that African oil producing dictators such as Equatorial Guinea’s Obiang will continue to be the darling of the U.S. government and powerful American corporate interests despite his unsavory record of frightening human rights violations. Despite Washington’s rhetoric of freedom and liberty, once again human rights are sacrificed for the sake of treasured commercial interests.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xTainted U.S. oil supplies from Africa's Switzerland``x1020062733,71897,Articles``x``x
``xOwen Bowcott
The Guardian UK
The story that led to Meldrum's arrest was published last week. It reported claims in the Daily News that Brandina Tadyanemhandu, 53, a mother of eight, had been decapitated by supporters of the ruling party near Karoi, 120 miles north-west of Harare. The Times and the Independent carried the same story.
The account was partially based on the husband's report of the incident. Doubts have since been raised about his credibility. The opposition Movement for Democratic Change said it might have been tricked into paying him compensation to cover burial expenses. Other government critics say the story might have been concocted to embarrass the press. The MDC and the Daily News are investigating. MORE``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xGuardian reporter arrested for false decapitated story``x1020312000,16768,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xStaff and agencies
Thursday May 2, 2002
Guardian UK
A Zimbabwean judge today released the Guardian's Zimbabwe correspondent, Andrew Meldrum, and two other journalists charged with violating the country's media laws.
Harare magistrate Lilian Kudya ordered police to release Mr Meldrum, 50, and two reporters from Zimbabwe's independent Daily News, Lloyd Mudiwa and Collin Chiwanza. The three were ordered to return to court on Friday.
The journalists were accused of breaching the laws by reporting last week on the killing - allegedly by ruling party supporters - of a woman near the town of Karoi, 120 miles north-west of Harare.
More ... Arrogant Guardian UK article``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xJudge releases Guardian correspondent ``x1020364469,83464,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Itai Musengeyi
www.herald.co.zw
THE African Commission on Human and People’s Rights has requested to visit Zimbabwe on a fact-finding mission and the Government has welcomed the request.
Addressing the 31st ordinary session of the Commission in Pretoria, South Africa, yesterday, the head of the Zimbabwean delegation to the meeting, Mr Godfrey Dzvairo, said Zimbabwe had always welcomed those who wish to examine the human rights situation in the country with an open mind.
"It is in this spirit that Zimbabwe welcomes the commission’s request to come to Zimbabwe on a fact-finding mission. MORE``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xAfrican rights body set to visit ``x1020794262,44312,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xwww.herald.co.zw
PRESIDENT Mugabe is today expected to address the UN General Assembly Special Session on Children during which he will highlight strides made by Zimbabwe on the welfare of children since the last summit in 1990.
This year's conference, which began on Wednesday, is a follow up to the one held in 1990 when 180 countries attended and out of these, 155, including Zimbabwe submitted their national plans of action to the UN.
Zimbabwe's permanent representative to the UN Ambassador Tichaona Jokonya told Zimbabwean journalists that the country had fulfilled its plan of action on children and had set in motion a lot of programmes focused on the welfare of children.
The country had made great strides in health and education. It was now one of the countries in the world that had eradicated polio and tetanus through its child immunisation programmes. MORE``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xPresident expected to address UN session``x1021003200,54492,Zimbabwe``x``x
``x
Book Review
by P. Barton
"A History of Racism and Terrorism, Rebellion and Overcoming," pub. by: Xlibris, 436 Walnut Street, 11th Floor, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States, 19106 www.xlibris.com 1 (888) 795-4274 or 1 (215) 923-4686
A HISTORY OF RACISM AND TERRORISM, REBELLION AND OVERCOMING.
THE INVENTION AN APPLICATION OF RACISM
One of the most powerful, exciting and important books on the reasons for the present, past and future conditions of Blacks in the Americas, Africa, the Middle East, South Asia, Melanesia, Australia, Europe and the Far East has been written. The title suits perfectly to the historical facts outlined in the book about how racism and terror were used to reduce Blacks and other people, including some Europeans to slavery and bondage.
The book begins with the invasion of ancient Black India by a number of nomadic wanderers from Northern Europe/Central Asia, who spoke languages called "Aryan" tongues. These groups waged a long series of wars against the Blacks of India and after many centuries were able to subjugate the population and establish a system of racism called "varna" (color consciousness) based on religion. This system is called the "caste" system and still affects Black Untouchables and other Untouchables in South Asia to this very day.
The books details the struggles that led to the rise of Buddhism in South Asia and how Buddha, a member of the Sakya Clan and a native Indian fought and established a separate religious ideology from that of the caste system. The book looks at the work of many Dalits and others of India who have been victims of caste/racism and their past and present genetic, cultural and racial connections to present-day Africans, African-Americans and Blacks in the rest of Asia.
THE LACK OF RACISM DURING THE GREEK AND ROMAN PERIOD
It may shock some to realize that racism was not invented by the European/white nations that exist in Europe. To be specific, the first form of racism to enter Europe and be followed as a religion appeared during the 1700's to the 1800's when the Europeans were using the Bible to justify the enslavement of Blacks and many pseudo-sciences and racist theories were advanced. The Europeans during the Greek and Roman period 1000 B.C. to 400 A.D., did not have the type of putrid racist feelings against Blacks that came after the time of Shakespeare. In fact, many European cultures had been culturally influenced by Blacks. Greek, Roman and others borrowed heavily from Black culture.
Some of the Greek writers such as Herodotus describes the "Ethiopians" the term used for the People of Sudan and the rest of Africa, as being the "most handsome of men; the inventors of pomp and ceremony, laws," and culture. The Greeks quote the Egyptian priests as saying that the Greek Isles were inhabited and developed by Egyptians long before the Greeks arrived. In fact the first Greeks to adopt Egyptian ideas appear to be the Dorian Greeks who came from Central Asia between 1700 B.C. to 1500 B.C.
RACIST SEMITIC RELIGIOUS WRITINGS HOLY BOOKS
One of the main perpetrators of racism through the ages have been said to be religious writings that appear in the Bible and other religious texts. The "curse of Ham" myth found in Genesis is one of these writings that have been used to reduce Blacks to enslavement. This fable is used by many of those whose religions are influenced by the ancient Semitic religions. Yet, these writings are thought by many writers to be based on Semitic envy (see History of Racism) of the Black Egyptians and other Blacks in ancient times.
The very continuation of enslavement of Blacks in Sudan, Mauritania and attacks on Blacks in West Papua and Melanesia, or the callous disregard for Black people in East Africa is evidence of the type of philosophy that promotes religious racism against Blacks, yet, many Blacks have fallen for and continue to follow religions that continue to promote the enslavement and destruction of Blacks, rather than developing and promoting the traditional religions of Africans/Blacks.
SLAVERY AND REBELLION
African slavery on a wide scale began by the very same people practicing and promoting African slavery in Sudan and Mauritania today.
In the past, Africans did not unite to stop this evil and today nothing is being done. Yet, the total destruction of African civilization in Nubia-Kush, the destruction of great cities and centers of civilization the enslavement of men, women and children, the mixing and wiping out of the African identities of Africans in places like Sudan (the invader takes African woman and the child is not considered African is racist genocidal scheme, which is unacceptable to Africans whose children must claim the African grandfather's race and the African mother's race and not the race of a conqueror or violator) continues today in a continuing and systematic application of the old Semitic system of racism.
SLAVERY IN THE AMERICAS
The book, "A History of Racism and Terrorism, Rebellion and Overcoming," pub. by www.xlibris.com presents a detailed explanation of how slaves were created in the Americas through the application of brainwashing, violence, terror, and genocidal policies. The "Willie Lynch Letter to the Planters of Virginia," is discussed and broken down chapter by chapter. The effects of the techniques applied to creating mental slaves continue to exist to this day.
SLAVE REBELLIONS AND REVOLUTIONS
Hundreds of slave rebellions took place in the America from Canada to Argentina. Some of these rebellions, such as that of Nat Turner and Denmark Vesey were crushed. Others such as the Haitian Revolution, the rebellion of the Maroons of Jamaica and various Maroon peoples in Latin America were successful. In fact, some of the most effective forms of martial arts and military techniques (guerilla fighting) came from slave rebellions, where Africans were applying techniques of warfare that came from Africa. A large percentage of African slaves including women were captured in the wars in regions like Dahomey (Benin), Nigeria, Congo/Angola and the Sudan/Ethiopia region.
HOW BLACKS OVERCAME DESPITE RACISM AND JIM CROW
The book ends with the struggles of Blacks after slavery and the introduction of a new form of slavery called "Jim Crow." When added to "sharecropping," where Black tenant farmers were kept on the land as semi-slaves for decades, slavery in the South had only taken a different form. Yet, Blacks created their own schools, businesses and institutions as well as secret organizations and continued to exist Before the Civil Rights Era, the use of confinement of Blacks for any little "crime" was established all over the South in order to create another form of slavery. Today's "Three Strikes," and "Mandatory Minimums" is nothing new, but simply a continuation of the type of slavery-related system used to keep Blacks in perpetual confinement and under control in the South. In lands like Australia, Britain, Latin America, West Papua and North America, these genocidal laws are being used as a means of keeping Blacks at a disadvantage. In many lands, Blacks are retaliating through population expansion, establishing and making sure bodies like the United Nations enforce their rights and working to stop such racist laws.
SLAVERY TODAY AND WHY AFRICANISM MUST BE ESTABLISHED AND ENFORCED ALL OVER AFRICA:
THE THOUGHTS AND FEELINGS OF PAN-AFRICANS
The time has come for African leadership and the people to STOP THE RACIST AND RELIGIOUS IMPERIALISM OF THE SEMITES.
Any attempt to turn Africa into "Land of the Abeds," ('abed' being the racist Semitic term for Africans, including those who follow the Semitic religions; it means "slave.").
No African in their right mind, regardless of religion should accept this form of colonialism. Show the African people the love and respect that the Semites have for Black Africans when they violate, ravage and carry off our mothers, sisters and women. Where is the love when they destroy our villages, culture and commit extermination?
Semitic colonialism through religious imperialism is just as racist as European colonialism and South African apartheid. Are we Africans without our own ideas and culture that we have to sit back and allow others to dominate and destroy what has been ours for tens of thousands of years?
The time has come for an ideology based on the needs of the African people, African culture and traditions and African realities and spirituality. We should develop African religions and reject those that continue to teach that Blacks are to be slaves. No religions should take priority over African religions.
Chinese believe in Confucianism, Japanese in Shintoism, Indians in Hinduism, Europeans in Christianity, Semites believe in their own religions. WHAT DO AFRICANS BELIEVE IN?
WELL HERE IT IS. WE BELIEVE IN HONORING OUR ANCESTORS, PRESERVING OUR CULTURE AND ENSURING THE RIGHTS OF AFRICNS ARE RESPECTED AND LANDS OF AFRICANS REMAIN AFRICAN.
THAT IS CALLED AFRICANISM. In the case of lands like Sudan, Ethiopia, Somalia, Kenya, and all the Black African lands, including the Blacks of Egypt, the idea that our ancestors created and built a great civilization in North Africa before the invasion of the Semites should be known and taught to those who need to know. Therefore, while others return to their religions as a means of applying their ideas and culture, IT IS TIME WE BLACK AFRICANS IN NORTH-EAST AFRICA FIND OUT WHO WE REALLY ARE AND RETURN TO OUR ROOTS CULTURE AND CIVILIZATION.
We are not Europeans or Semites. We are Black Africans and the core of Black civilization is the region from Egypt to Kenya. Both Kenya and Ethiopia is the original homeland of the Black race and the human race, for that matter. The world's religions began in Egypt, material civilization began in the area between south Egypt to South Sudan.
So, why would any African leader continue to allow their culture to be destroyed by the new type of imperialism and racial genocide that is being carried out on Blacks in Sudan and as far as Mauritania and West Papua. It is time to unite to stop it. The life of Black Africans fighting against Semitic occupation and religious imperialism in Sudan, is as important as the lives of those fighting against occupation and domination in the Middle East. Would the world accept the wiping out of two million Semites in the Middle East, as they have accepted the wiping out of two million Sudanese? There is no way that would be tolerated.
Blacks in the Americas, Europe, Christians and Africanists in the Americas and Africa do not and should not accept the attempt by Semites to re-enslave Africans and implement Semitic colonialism in any part of Africa. (See the great book, "The History of Racism and Terrorism, Rebellion and Overcoming" published by Xlibris, 436 Walnut Street, 11th Floor, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, U.S.A. www.xlibris.com
A History of Racism and Terrorism, Rebellion and Overcoming clearly shows that terror and oppression as a means of imposing racism and cultural chauvinism based on religious beliefs continues today and is behind the present atmosphere of worldwide conflict today.
BLACK NUBIAN EMPIRE PAN-AFRICAN INTERNETWORK
http://community.webtv.net/nubianem``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xThe History of Racism and Terrorism``x1021121858,1048,Development``x``x
``xBy Tim Wise
Webster’s New World Dictionary defines democracy as, among other things, “the principle of equality of rights, opportunity and treatment, or the practice of this principle.” Keep this in mind, as we’ll be coming back to it shortly. Now, imagine that the United States were to abolish our Constitution, or perhaps had never had one to begin with. No Bill of Rights. No guarantees of things like free speech, freedom of assembly and due process of law. And imagine that Congress were to pass a law stating that the U.S. was from this point forward to be legally defined as a Christian nation. As such, Christians would be given special privileges for jobs, loans, and land ownership. Furthermore, political candidates espousing certain beliefs--especially those who might argue that we should be a nation with equal rights for all, and not a “Christian nation”--were no longer allowed to hold office. And imagine that next month, new laws were passed that restricted certain ethnic and religious groups from acquiring land in particular parts of the country, and made it impossible for members of ethnic minorities to hold certain jobs, or live in particular communities. And imagine that in response to perceived threats to our nation’s internal security, new laws sailed through the House and Senate, providing for torture of those detained for suspected subversion. This, on top of still other laws providing for the detention of such suspects for long periods of time without trial or even a formal charge against them. In such a scenario, would anyone with an appreciation of the English language, and with the above definition in mind, dare suggest that we would be justified in calling ourselves a democracy? Of course not: and yet the term is repeatedly used to describe Israel--as in “the only democracy in the Middle East.”
This, despite the fact that said nation has no constitution.
This, despite the fact that said nation is defined as the state of the Jewish people, providing special rights and privileges to anyone in the world who is Jewish and seeks to live there, over and above longtime Arab residents.
This, despite the fact that said nation bars any candidate from holding office who thinks Israel should be a secular, democratic state with equal rights for all.
This, despite the fact that non-Jews are restricted in terms of how much land they can own, and in which places they can own land at all.
This, despite that fact that even the Israeli Supreme Court has acknowledged the use of torture against suspected “terrorists” and other “enemies” of the Jewish state. For some, it is apparently sufficient that Israel has an electoral system, and that Arabs have the right to vote in those elections (though just how equally this right is protected is of course a different matter). The fact that one can’t vote for a candidate who questions the special Jewish nature of the state, because such candidates can’t run for or hold office, strikes most as irrelevant: hardly enough to call into question their democratic credentials. But of course, the Soviet Union also had elections, of a sort. And in those elections, most people could vote, though candidates who espoused an end to the communist system were barred from participation. Voters got to choose between communists. In Israel, voters get to choose between Zionists. In the former case, we recognize such truncated freedom as authoritarianism. In the latter case, we call it democracy. If it was not already obvious that the English language was dead--what with the inanities introduced to it by the business-speak of corporate capitalism, such as “thinking outside the box,” “managing one’s human assets,” and “planned shrinkage”--this should pretty well prove the point. If what we see in Israel is indeed democracy, then what does fascism look like? I’m sorry, but I am over it. As a Jew--hear me now--I am over it. And if my language seems too harsh here, that’s tough. Because it’s nothing compared to the sickening things said by Israeli leaders throughout the years. Like Menachem Begin, former Prime Minister who told the Knesset in 1982 that the Palestinians were “beasts walking on two legs.” Or former P.M. Ehud Barak, who offered a more precise form of dehumanization when he referred to the Palestinians as “crocodiles.” And speaking of Barak, for more confirmation on the death of language, one should examine his April 14 op-ed in the New York Times. Therein, Barak insisted that democracy in Israel could be “maintained” (ahem), so long as the Jewish state was willing to set up security fences to separate itself from the Palestinians, and keep the Palestinians in their place.
Calling the process “unilateral disengagement,” Barak opined that limiting access by Arabs to Israel is the key to maintaining a Jewish majority, and thus the Jewish nature of the state. That the Jewish nature of the state is inimical to democracy as defined by every dictionary in the world matters not, one supposes. Barak even went so far as to warn that in the absence of such security fences, Israel might actually become an apartheid state. Imagine that: unless they institute separation they might become an apartheid state. The irony of such a statement is nearly perfect, and once again signals that words no longer have meaning. They are but the sounds that emanate from one’s throat and are accompanied by breath and occasionally spittle. They mean nothing. Define them as you choose. Interestingly, amidst the subterfuge, other elements of Barak’s essay struck me as surprisingly honest: much more honest, in fact, than when he had been Prime Minister and supposedly made that “generous offer” to Arafat about which we keep hearing.
You know, the one that would have allowed the maintenance of most Jewish settlements in the territories, and would have restricted the Palestinian state to the worst land, devoid of its own water supply, and cutoff at numerous chokepoints by Israeli security. Yeah that one. The one that has been described variously (without any acknowledgement of the inconsistency) as having offered the Palestinians either 93%, or is it 95%, or maybe 96%, or perhaps 98% of the West Bank and Gaza. Well, in the Times piece, Barak finally came clean, admitting that Israel would need to erect the fences in such a manner as to incorporate at least one-quarter of the territories into Israel, so as to subsume the settlements. So not 93 percent, or 96%, or 98%, but at best 75%, and still on the worst land.
Furthermore, the fences would slice up Jerusalem and restrict Arab access to the Holy Basin and the Old City: a direct swipe at Muslims who seek access on a par with their fellow descendants of Abraham. That this was Barak’s idea all along should surprise no one. And that such a “solution” would mean the final loss for the Palestinians of all but 17% of their pre-Israel territory will likely not strike many in the U.S. media or political elite as being terribly unfair.
If anything, we will continue to hear about the intransigence of the Arabs, and their unwillingness to accept these “generous offers,” which can only be seen as generous to a people who have become so inured to human suffering that their very souls are in jeopardy. Or to those who have never consulted a dictionary. For once again, it defines generous as: “willing to give or share; unselfish; large; ample; rich in yield; fertile.” In a world such as this, where words have lost all meaning, we might as well just burn all the dictionaries. Sometimes, the linguistic obfuscation goes beyond single words, and begins to encompass entire phrases. One such example is the oft-repeated statement to the effect that “Jews should be able to live anywhere in the world, and to say otherwise is to endorse anti-Semitism.” Thus, it is asked, why shouldn’t Jews be able to settle in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem? Of course, whoever says such a thing must know of its absurdity beforehand. After all, the right to live wherever one chooses has never included the right to live in someone else’s house, after taking it by force or fraud.
Nor does it include the right to set up house in territories that are conquered and occupied as the result of military conflict: indeed, international law expressly forbids such a thing.
And furthermore, those who insist on the right of Jews to live wherever they choose, by definition deny the same right to Palestinians, who cannot live in the place of their choosing, or even in the homes that were once theirs. Needless to say, many Palestinians would like to live inside Israel’s pre-1948 borders, and exercise a right of return in order to do so. But don’t expect those who demand the right for Jews to plant stakes anywhere we choose to offer the same right to Arabs.
Many of these are among the voices that insist Jordan is “the Palestinian state,” and thus, Palestinians should be perfectly happy living there. Since Palestinians are Semites, one could properly call such an attitude “anti-Semitic”--seeing as how it limits the rights of Semitic peoples to live wherever they wish--but given the transmogrification of the term “anti-Semitism” into something that can only apply to Jew-hatred, such a usage would seem bizarre to many, one suspects. The rhetorical shenanigans even extend to the world of statistics. Witness the full-page advertisement in the New York Times placed by the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, which ran the same day as the Barak op-ed.
Therein, these supposed spokespersons for American Judaism stated their unyielding support for Israel, and claimed that the 450 Israeli deaths caused by terrorism since the beginning of the second intifada, were equal to 21,000 deaths in the U.S. from terrorism, as a comparable percentage of each nation’s overall population.
Playing upon fears and outrage over the attacks of 9/11, the intent was quite transparent: get U.S. readers to envision 9/11 all over again, only with seven times more casualties! A brilliant move, indeed. But of course, honesty--an intellectual commodity in short supply these days, and altogether missing from the rhetorical shelves of the Conference of Presidents--would require one to point out that the numbers of Palestinian non-combatant (that is to say civilian) deaths, at the hands of Israel in that same time period, is much higher, and indeed would be “equal to” far more than 21,000 in the U.S., as a comparable share of respective populations.
To be honest to a fault would be to note that the 900 or so Palestinians slaughtered with Israeli support in the Sabra and Shatilla camps during the 1982 invasion of Lebanon, would be equal to over 40,000 Americans. Even more, the 17,500 Arabs killed overall by Israel during that invasion would be roughly equivalent to over 800,000 Americans today: the size of many large cities. In the dictionary such a thing might fall under the heading of terrorism. But remember, words no longer have any meaning. Sounding eerily like Adolph Hitler, Ariel Sharon once said, “a lie should be tried in a place where it will attract the attention of the world.” And so it has been: throughout the media and the U.S. political scene, on CNN in the personage of Benjamin Netanyahu, and in the pages of the New York Times. And in my Hebrew School, where we were taught that Jews were to be “a light unto the nations,” instead of this dim bulb, this flickering nightlight, this barely visible spark, whose radiance is only sufficient to make visible the death-rattle of the more noble aspects of the Jewish tradition.
Unless we who are Jews insist on a return to honest language, and an end to the hijacking of our culture and faith by madmen, racists and liars, I fear that the light may be extinguished forever.
Tim Wise is an antiracist essayist, activist and educator. He can be reached at tjwise@mindspring.com ``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xDefining Democracy Down ``x1021177705,44009,Development``x``x
``xBy Lovemore Mataire
THE Zimbabwe National Liberation War Veterans Association secretary for projects Andrew Ndlovu was on Wednesday arrested for allegedly threatening members of the Indian community to leave their properties or risk eviction.
At least twelve other rogue war veterans who were allegedly working in cahoots with the war veterans’ leader were also nabbed as police intensify efforts to ensure peace and order in the post-presidential election period.
In an interview with The Herald yesterday, the Minister of Home Affairs, Cde John Nkomo said people should not take advantage of the Government’s land reform programme to pursue their own personal agendas. MORE``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xWar vets leader arrested ``x1021636710,45634,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xby David Pallister
The Guardian
The Guardian's Zimbabwe correspondent, Andrew Meldrum, and a local reporter were yesterday the first journalists to be sent for trial under President Robert Mugabe's draconian new media law which carries penalties of up to two years in jail.
Harare magistrate Joyce Negonde said Mr Meldrum, a US citizen, would stand trial on June 12 and Lloyd Mudiwa, of the Daily News, on June 20. They are charged under the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act with publishing "falsehoods".
They are among 12 journalists charged under the act since it came into force 10 weeks ago. Bornwell Chakaodza, the editor of the independent Standard, has been charged on five separate occasions.
Critics of the law - which makes it an offence to get any facts in a story wrong, however trivial - have protested that it is really about muzzling the press and suppressing dissent.
The case against Mr Meldrum and Mr Mudiwa originated from a story run in the Daily News and the Guardian about allegations that Mr Mugabe's vigilante supporters had beheaded a woman. Although the Daily News apologised to the ruling Zanu-PF after failing to find a grave, the woman's body has since been found.
Neither journalist spoke after yesterday's hearing. Their lawyer Beatrice Mtetwa said: "We are happy the state has finally set a date and we hope we can prove our case that the state is being vindictive with these prosecutions."``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xGuardian reporter sent for trial in Harare ``x1022856625,43776,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xby Willie Thompson, Jun 02, 2002
Choco, Colombia, South America, is the ancestral home of 18 million poor and marginalized African Colombians. On May 2, 302 people, 32 percent of the population of Bellavista, a town in Choco of more than 800 people, were killed, wounded or disappeared. Four other massacres have been committed against these small internally displaced African Colombians - at La Mejor Esquina, Machuca, El Naya and Baudo. These massacres reaffirm the charges by African Colombians that they have been targeted for physical and cultural genocide.
The Unified African Colombian Movement, in an email on May 9, says that the current massacre of African Colombians is related to the "massive abduction of women and men from Africa to be enslaved in the Americas." The enslavement of our ancestors, the report continues, "was one of the most abominable violations of human rights. ... Enslavement violated the right to life, to liberty, to the family, to sexuality, to religion and to the exercise of our right to think freely for ourselves."
The Movement believes that the world is witnessing the extermination of African Colombians, emphasizing that the "barbarities committed against civil society and the holocaust at Bojaya are historical war crimes that damage the consciousness and human dignity." This is a clear allusion to the United Nations' Final Resolution and Plan of Action that makes crimes against humanity actionable under the U.N. Charter.
These acts as well as the social and economic conditions of the African Colombians, which are worse now, 150 years after enslavement ended, deserve to be repudiated by the national and international communities. The Unified African Colombian Movement invited all institutions and the social and political groups throughout the country to convene on May 8, 2002, to demand an end to violence and the exclusion of the African Colombian population from the armed conflict. Further, the Movement demands that the United Nations Human Rights Commission against Racism be invited to Colombia.
A second email from an African Colombian about the massacre in Colombia states, "We have repeatedly asked the Congressional Black Caucus to collaborate with us and help us by dismantling Plan Colombia as an apparatus of war and to make greater social investments, especially in the most critical sectors." Plan Colombia is a multi-billion dollar United States aid package to Colombia which goes mostly to the anti-African Colombian military and paramilitary,
"We hope this year," continues the report from an African Colombian professional, "that we are able to attend the meeting of the Congressional Black Caucus (in September 2002) in order to expose the desperate situation in which we live. As leaders, members of civil societies, academics, artists and sports persons, we expect more than solidarity and compromise."
This message ends in tears: "Dear Willie, forgive my language today, but my tears gush forth from the futility of our protest. We survive day by day."
African Colombian leaders meeting recently in Bogota, Colombia, declared 2002 the year for African Colombian unity. They are demonstrating to their country and the international community that African Colombians can work together, that they agree on the proposals for meeting the needs of the African Colombian community and that their differences will be dealt with by themselves.
Most African Colombians live in the green and hot regions of the coast and the inter-Andean valleys. Two of the principal areas are the Caribbean region, including Guajira, Magdalena, Atlantico, Bolivar, Cordoba, Antioquia and the islands of San Andres and Providencia, and the Pacific Coast, including Choco and the Coastal Zones of the Departamiento del Valle del Cauca, Cauca and Narino. (See "El Negro en Colombia" by Alquilles Escalante, July 1964, Sociology Faculty of the National University of Colombia.)
This becomes important because of the violence that has been taking place in Colombia since about 1946, when the Conservative Party halted the liberal land and other reforms of the 1930s. The violence has taken 200,000 lives, and 2 million Colombians have emigrated or been displaced, according to the Spring 2002 edition of Inside CLAS, a publication of UC Berkeley’s Center for Latin American Studies.
The CLAS publication also quotes Mary Roldan, professor of history at Cornell, whose research established that African Colombians are concentrated in areas neighboring Antioquia. Antioquia itself, Roldan says, which was hard hit by violence from 1946 to 1957, is a wealthy population center. It self identifies as "white and hard working, legitimately married, religiously devout and politically conservative." The peripheral area, which includes Choco, is identified by others as racially inferior to the Antioquian "white ideal." This is the area of Bellavista where the Catholic church was bombed on May 2, killing, wounding and scattering 302 African Colombians
Enslaved African Colombians mined the gold and silver and produced the agricultural products of Colombia. It was said that much smaller groups of Africans were more useful in mining than 1,500 Indians. According to Escalante (page 121), half-nude Blacks lashed by the enslaver’s whip were the base of the colonial economy.
Today, says Professor Roldan, the extractive industries of logging, gold mining and oil, plus capital intensive cattle ranching and commercial agriculture, are concentrated in the towns peripheral to Antioquia. In addition, Antioquia’s access to the Caribbean Sea and the Magdelana River are through the peripheral towns.
These towns have had little investment from the government. Having no police, army or customs officers, they suffer violence at the hands of armed bands hired by both liberals and conservative extremists. The bands prey on workers and poor settlers. Certain sectors of the regional government spearhead violence to achieve political control over historically uncooperative and politically left-leaning populations, Inside CLAS reports (page 12). They deploy police and paramilitary forces to remove locally elected authorities from office and recalcitrant populations from strategic areas.
Liberal groups or guerillas have come to resist the increasing number of official and paramilitary forces. In Western and Eastern Antioquia, state agents or paramilitary groups, endorsed by regional governments, instigate local disorder.
Sociology Professor Emeritus Willie Thompson, a member of the Program Council of KPFA Radio 94.1 FM and the Malcolm X Chapter of N’COBRA, is on the steering committee for the Millions for Reparations March in Washington, D.C., on Aug. 17.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xGenocide of African-Colombians``x1023007854,20280,Development``x``x
``xHARARE (Reuters) - Zimbabwe has placed British ambassador Brian Donnelly under surveillance over accusations that he is co-ordinating efforts to overthrow President Robert Mugabe, government officials say.
The officials, including the chief police spokesman, confirmed an article printed on Saturday in the government-controlled Herald newspaper reporting that Donnelly had been placed on 24-hour surveillance by security agents for "activities to undermine the legitimate government of President Mugabe".
Britain's Foreign and Commonwealth Office said the allegations against Donnelly, who was posted to Zimbabwe a year ago from Belgrade, were false. MORE``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe puts UK ambassador under surveillance``x1024390252,74108,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Patrick Bond ZMag
South African president Thabo Mbeki made the cover page of the international edition of Time magazine in early June, with the misleading heading: `He has finally faced up to the AIDS crisis and is now leading the charge for a new African development plan. Will the rich world listen?'
Mbeki's opportunity for a day-long hearing at the G8 meeting at the end of June in Kananaskis, Canada, will centre around requested annual commitments of US$64 billion in aid, loans and investments. Anticapitalist demonstrators massing in Calgary and Ottawa will be told by the G8 and Canadian press that they must not worry anymore about corporate globalisation's flaws and can go home now, because Mbeki is here to ensure Africa ends its `marginalisation' from international capitalism.
But is the plan--the New Partnership for Africa's Development (Nepad)--really a `new framework of interaction with the rest of the world... based on the agenda set by African peoples through their own initiatives and of their own volition, to shape their own destiny'--as claimed in the base document (http://www.nepad.org)?
Or is it a sell-out of Africa's legitimate aspirations for social, environmental and economic justice?
And even if a case can be made that it is the former, can it work? Have anybody or any organisations aside from a few ruling elites and their international capitalist allies and backroom technocrats been party to its authorship? What do Mbeki's meanderings on AIDS tell us about the nature of partnership, and of Africa’s ability to confront its holocaust-scale challenge?
`We do not want the old partnership of a rider and a horse,' Mbeki insisted in mid-June when Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi criticised Nepad for its obeisance to `former colonisers and racists.'
Gaddafi may have money to bail out both the African Union—formerly the Organisation of African Unity--in the run-up to its July launch, as well as his bankrupt continental allies who include Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, a Nepad spoiler due to debt default, retreat from structural adjustment, malgovernance and the stolen presidential election in March.
Mbeki and Nigerian leader Olusegun Obasanjo, the plan’s two main backers, are considered disingenuous for `talking left’ on human rights and democracy, while `acting right,’ by endorsing Mugabe’s election as `legitimate’ so as to maintain unity amongst African rulers.
Transcending the distractions of venal nationalists like Mugabe, Africa's progressive movements and intellectuals are uniting in anger mainly because Mbeki’s plan surrenders so much terrain to the international structural power relationships which are responsible for Africa’s last quarter-century of social dislocation, economic austerity and deindustrialisation, ecological degradation and state fragmentation.
Nepad evolved under conditions of smoke-filled-room secrecy, in close contact with Bill Clinton and Tony Blair (several times during 2000), the G8 (in Okinawa in 2000 and Genoa in 2001), the Bretton Woods Institutions (in repeated meetings) and international capital (at Davos in 2001). As a result, the plan denies the rich contributions of African social struggles in its very genesis. Instead, it empowers transnational corporations, Northern donor agency technocrats, Washington financial agencies, Geneva trade bureaucrats, machiavellian Pretoria geopoliticians and Johannesburg capitalists, in a coy mix of imperialism and South African subimperialism.
Critical conclusions such as these have come from more than a dozen major consultations within and between social movements and intellectuals across the continent, beginning in January with the African Social Forum's summit in Bamako, Mali (many statements are collected at http://www.aidc.org.za).
The first public protest against Nepad occurred in early June, at the World Economic Forum’s Southern African regional meeting in Durban, where anti-apartheid poet Dennis Brutus--now acting secretary of Jubilee South Africa--led more than a hundred nonviolent demonstrators against horse-charging policemen. Brutus held up a sign for national television viewers: `No Kneepad!' and gave Pretoria a taste of protests that will grow in coming months (http://southafrica.indymedia.org).
The main concern is Mbeki’s promotion of the failed neoliberalism of free market economic policies. Nepad's slippery premise is that poverty in Africa can be cured, if only the world elite gives the continent a chance: `The continued marginalisation of Africa from the globalisation process and the social exclusion of the vast majority of its peoples constitute a serious threat to global stability... We readily admit that globalisation is a product of scientific and technological advances, many of which have been market-driven... The locomotive for these major advances is the highly industrialised nations.'
All of these arguments are better put by reversing the logic. Africa's continued poverty (`marginalisation') is a direct outcome of excess globalisation, not of insufficient globalisation, because of the drain from ever declining prices of raw materials (Africa’s main exports), crippling debt repayments and profit repatriation to transnational corporations.
Technology lubricates but does not cause international economic dynamics. The advanced capitalist economies have witnessed substantially lower profits and growth since the mid-1970s, compared to the 1950s-60s, and the dot.com craze is only one indication of technology's failure to resolve intrinsic capitalist crisis tendencies.
As a result, the main organisations of the African left, including women's groups which know very well who must pay the bill, are expressing skepticism about Nepad's main strategies:
• privatisation, especially of infrastructure such as water, electricity, telcoms and transport, will fail because of the insufficient buying power of most African consumers;
• more insertion of Africa into the world economy will simply worsen fast-declining terms of trade, given that African countries produce so many cash-crop and minerals whose global markets are glutted;
• multi-party elections are held, typically, between variants of neoliberal parties, and cannot substitute for the genuine democracy required to restore legitimacy to so many failing African states;
• grand visions of information and communications technology are hopelessly unrealistic considering the lack of simple reliable electricity across the continent; and
• South Africa's self-mandate for peace-keeping provides no peace of mind, in the wake of Pretoria's ongoing purchase of US$5 billion worth of offensive weaponry and its unhappy record of regional military interventions.
As for economic aspirations, such as lower foreign debt, more stable capital financial flows and increased foreign investment, Mbeki offers only the status quo.
Instead of promoting full and immediate debt cancellation, as do virtually all serious reformers, the Nepad strategy is to `support existing poverty reduction initiatives at the multilateral level, such as the Comprehensive Development Framework of the World Bank and the Poverty Reduction Strategy approach linked to the Highly Indebted Poor Country debt relief initiative.' Jubilee South labels these a `cruel hoax’ and even the World Bank now concedes its HIPC plan has failed to make Africa’s foreign debt `sustainable.’
Only after implementing these discredited strategies, replete with neoliberal conditions such as further privatisation, can African leaders `seek recourse' through Nepad. Malawi's worsening starvation, due to a famine amplified when the country's grain stocks were sold thanks to International Monetary Fund `advice’ to first repay commercial bankers, is emblematic, and so extreme that even that wretched country’s leaders are publicly blaming the IMF.
When it comes to other financial flows, speculative `hot-money' investments in emerging markets such as South Africa have harmed not helped the vast majority. And most foreign loans over the past thirty years have detracted from local capital accumulation, because they have allied corrupt African state elites with foreign bankers who drain the continent by facilitating capital flight. Nepad calls for more of each.
Nepad's solution to foreign investment drought includes `Public-Private Partnerships' in privatised infrastructure: `Establish and nurture PPPs as well as grant concessions towards the construction, development and maintenance of ports, roads, railways and maritime transportation... With the assistance of sector-specialised agencies, put in place policy and legislative frameworks to encourage competition.'
But most infrastructure is of a `natural monopoly' type, for which competition is unsuitable: roads and railroads, telephone land lines, water and sewage reticulation systems, electricity transmission, ports and the like. Nepad cannot make a case for competition in these areas. There is, in contrast, an extremely strong case, based on `public-good' features of infrastructure, for state control and non-profit operation. Most noticeably, privatisation of infrastructure usually prevents the cross-subsidisation required to serve poor consumers, especially women-headed households.
Finally, Nepad is at its most self-contradictory when appealing `to all the peoples of Africa, in all their diversity, to become aware of the seriousness of the situation and the need to mobilise themselves in order to put an end to further marginalisation of the continent and ensure its development by bridging the gap with the developed countries.'
The hypocrisy is breathtaking. Africans falling further into poverty as a result of leadership compradorism and globalisation do not need to `become aware of the seriousness of the situation,' as much as do the elite rulers who generally live in luxury, at great distance from the masses. And when progressive Africans express `the need to mobilise themselves,' they are nearly invariably met with repression.
Pretoria's own practice in all these regards--repaying apartheid debt, allowing speculative finance and capital flight to wreck the currency, privatising basic services like water and electricity at great social cost (especially damage to public health and the standards of living of women, the youth, elderly and HIV+ people), and meting out repression to those who object--are reminders of the fact that Nepad is being tried at home, and isn't working.
As for `mobilising,' Nepad does not mention the mass civil-society protests that threw off the yokes of slavery, colonialism, apartheid and dictatorships. Those protests are increasingly turning against Pretoria's neoliberal, subimperialist agenda.
One burst of activism occurred in May, when thousands of Treatment Action Campaign supporters went to the South African Constitutional Court to make the case that the country's five million HIV+ people have a human right to anti-retroviral medicines.
On May 2, just two weeks after Mbeki's cabinet announced an alleged U-turn on AIDS medication policy, the government’s defense in the court case rested upon denying that AIDS drugs could help due to the canard of toxicity. Still today, the SA Department of Health continues prevaricating on AIDS treatment, including inexpensive nevirapine for pregnant women--to prevent transmission to their babies--and rape survivors.
If Mbeki told a jejune Time journalist that he has `finally faced up to the AIDS crisis,' that reporter missed abundant evidence of the president's continuing denialism, such as the recent circulation to African National Congress branches of a 114 page dissident rant allegedly drafted by the late Peter Mokaba, but with Mbeki’s embedded signature on the formatted Word document and quotes by Mbeki’s favourite poet, Yeats (see http://www.mg.co.za).
Following the G8 meeting, at which George W. Bush, Jean Chretien, Tony Blair and the rest will seek legitimacy for more trade and financial liberalisation by fronting their plans with Nepad, African progressives will have two important opportunities to make a different case to the local and global public. In early July, the African Union will be launched in Durban, with Mbeki as chairperson in 2002-03. In late August, the UN World Summit on Sustainable Development convenes in Johannesburg's plush Sandton suburb, with Nepad.already serving as a key chapter in the Chairman’s Text (http://www.johannesburgsummit.org).
At all these elite events, progressives will protest neoliberalism, imperialism, global ecological degradation and other manifestations of what even Mbeki terms `global apartheid.’ They will argue that the alternatives to Nepad, like South Africa’s own Freedom Charter (1955) and the Reconstruction and Development Programme (1994) in previous eras, are to be found embedded not in Western free market ideology, but in the struggles of Africans for a thorough-going transformation of society that ultimately breaks, not shines, the chains of apartheid.
(Bond is editor of a new book, Fanon's Warning: A Civil Society Reader on Nepad, available internationally through Africa World Press at http://www.africanworld.com)
Reproduced from:
http://www.zmag.org/``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``x"Nepad, no thanks," say African progressives``x1024604223,48860,Development``x``x
``xBy Tim Wise
Recently, when speaking to a group of high school students, I was asked why I only seemed to be concerned about white racism towards people of color. We had been discussing racial slurs, and a number of white students wondered why I didn’t get as upset about blacks using terms like “honky” or “cracker,” as I did about whites using words like “nigger.”
Although such an issue may seem trivial in the larger scheme of things—especially given the more significant discussions about racism in the educational system that I had hoped to engage in that day—the challenge posed by the students was actually an important one. In fact, it allowed a discussion about the very essence of what racism is and how it operates.
On the one hand, of course, such slurs are quite obviously inappropriate and offensive, and ought not to be used. That said, I pointed out that even the mention of the words “honky” and “cracker” had elicited laughter; and not only from the black students in attendance, but also from other whites.
The words are so silly, so juvenile, so utterly pathetic that they hardly qualify as racial slurs at all, let alone slurs on a par with those that have been historically deployed against people of color.
The lack of symmetry between a word like honky and a slur such as “nigger” was made apparent in an old Saturday Night Live skit, with Chevy Chase and guest, Richard Pryor.
In the skit, Chase and Pryor face one another and trade off racial epithets during a segment of Weekend Update. Chase calls Pryor a “porch monkey.” Pryor responds with “honky.” Chase ups the ante with “jungle bunny.” Pryor, unable to counter with a more vicious slur against whites, responds with “honky, honky.” Chase then trumps all previous slurs with “nigger,” to which Pryor responds: “dead honky.”
The line elicits laughs all around, but also makes clear, at least implicitly that when it comes to racial antilocution, people of color are limited in the repertoire of slurs they can use against whites, and even the ones of which they can avail themselves sound more comic than hateful. The impact of hearing the antiblack slurs in the skit was of a magnitude unparalleled by hearing Pryor say “honky” over and over again.
As a white person I always saw terms like honky or cracker as evidence of how much more potent white racism was than any variation on the theme practiced by the black or brown.
When a group of people has little or no power over you institutionally, they don’t get to define the terms of your existence, they can’t limit your opportunities, and you needn’t worry much about the use of a slur to describe you and yours, since, in all likelihood, the slur is as far as it’s going to go. What are they going to do next: deny you a bank loan? Yeah, right.
So whereas “nigger” was and is a term used by whites to dehumanize blacks, to imply their inferiority, to “put them in their place” if you will, the same cannot be said of honky: after all, you can’t put white people in their place when they own the place to begin with.
Power is like body armor. And while not all white folks have the same degree of power, there is a very real extent to which all of us have more than we need vis-à-vis people of color: at least when it comes to racial position, privilege and perceptions.
Consider poor whites. To be sure, they are less financially powerful than wealthy people of color. But that misses the point of how racial privilege operates within a class system.
Within a class system, people tend to compete for “stuff” against others of their same basic economic status. In other words, rich and poor are not competing for the same homes, bank loans, jobs, or even educations to a large extent. Rich competes against rich, working class against working class and poor against poor. And in those competitions racial privilege most certainly attaches.
Poor whites are rarely typified as pathological, dangerous, lazy or shiftless the way poor blacks are, for example. Nor are they demonized the way poor Latino/a immigrants tend to be.
When politicians want to scapegoat welfare recipients they don’t pick Bubba and Crystal from some Appalachian trailer park; they choose Shawonda Jefferson from the Robert Taylor Homes, with her seven children.
And according to reports from a number of states, ever since so-called welfare reform, white recipients have been treated far better by caseworkers, are less likely to be bumped off the rolls for presumed failure to comply with new regulations, and have been given far more assistance at finding new jobs than their black or brown counterparts.
Poor whites are more likely to have a job, tend to earn more than poor people of color, and are even more likely to own their own home. Indeed, whites with incomes under $13,000 annually are more likely to own their own home than blacks with incomes that are three times higher due to having inherited property.
None of this is to say that poor whites aren’t being screwed eight ways to Sunday by an economic system that relies on their immiseration: they are. But they nonetheless retain a certain “one-up” on equally poor or even somewhat better off people of color thanks to racism.
It is that one-up that renders the potency of certain prejudices less threatening than others. It is what makes cracker or honky less problematic than any of the slurs used so commonly against the black and brown.
In response to all this, skeptics might say that people of color can indeed exercise power over whites, at least by way of racially-motivated violence. Such was the case, for example, this week in New York City where a black man shot two whites and one Asian-Pacific Islander before being overpowered. Apparently he announced that he wanted to kill white people, and had hoped to set a wine bar on fire to bring such a goal to fruition.
There is no doubt his act was one of racial bigotry, and that to those he was attempting to murder his power must have seemed quite real. Yet there are problems with claiming that this “power” proves racism from people of color is just as bad as the reverse.
First, racial violence is also a power whites have, so the power that might obtain in such a situation is hardly unique to non-whites, unlike the power to deny a bank loan for racial reasons, to "steer" certain homebuyers away from living in “nicer" neighborhoods, or to racially profile in terms of policing. Those are powers that can only be exercised by the more dominant group as a practical and systemic matter.
Additionally, the "power" of violence is not really power at all, since to exercise it, one has to break the law and subject themselves to probable legal sanction.
Power is much more potent when it can be deployed without having to break the law to do it, or when doing it would only risk a small civil penalty at worst. So discrimination in lending, though illegal is not going to result in the perp going to jail; so too with employment discrimination or racial profiling.
There are plenty of ways that more powerful groups can deploy racism against less powerful groups without having to break the law: by moving away when too many of "them" move in (which one can only do if one has the option of moving without having to worry about discrimination in housing.)
Or one can discriminate in employment but not be subjected to penalty, so long as one makes the claim that the applicant of color was "less qualified," even though that determination is wholly subjective and rarely scrutinized to see if it was determined accurately, as opposed to being a mere proxy for racial bias. In short, it is institutional power that matters most.
Likewise, it’s the difference in power and position that has made recent attempts by American Indian activists in Colorado to turn the tables on white racists so utterly ineffective.
Indian students at Northern Colorado University, fed up by the unwillingness of white school district administrators in Greeley to change the name and grotesque Indian caricature of the Eaton High School “Reds,” recently set out to flip the script on the common practice of mascot-oriented racism.
Thinking they would show white folks what it’s like to “be in their shoes” and experience the objectification of being a team icon, indigenous members of an intramural basketball team renamed themselves the “Fightin’ Whiteys,” and donned t-shirts with the team mascot: a 1950’s-style caricature of a suburban, middle class white guy, next to the phrase “every thang’s gonna be all white.”
Funny though the effort was, it has not only failed to make the point intended, but indeed has been met with laughter and even outright support by white folks. Rush Limbaugh actually advertised for the team’s t-shirts on his radio program, and whites from coast to coast have been requesting team gear, thinking it funny to be turned into a mascot, as opposed to demeaning.
Of course the difference is that it’s tough to negatively objectify a group whose power and position allows them to define the meaning of another group’s attempts at humor: in this case the attempt by Indians to teach them a lesson. It’s tough to school the headmaster, in other words.
Objectification works against the disempowered because they are disempowered. The process doesn’t work in reverse, or at least, making it work is a lot tougher than one might think.
Turning Indians into mascots has been offensive precisely because it is a continuation of the dehumanization of such persons over many centuries; the perpetuation of the mentality of colonization and conquest.
It is not as if one group—whites—merely chose to turn another group—Indians—into mascots. Rather, it is that one group, whites, have consistently viewed Indians as less than fully human, as savage, as “wild,” and have been able to not merely portray such imagery on athletic banners and uniforms, but in history books and literature more crucially.
In the case of the students at Northern, they would need to be a lot more acerbic in their appraisal of whites, in order for their attempts at “reverse racism” to make the point intended. After all, “fightin” is not a negative trait in the eyes of most white folks, and the 1950’s iconography chosen for the uniforms was unlikely to be seen as that big a deal.
Perhaps if they had settled on “slave-owning whiteys,” or “murdering whiteys,” or “land-stealing whiteys,” or “smallpox-giving-on-purpose whiteys,” or “Native-people-butchering whiteys,” or “mass raping whiteys,” the point would have been made.
And instead of a smiling “company man” logo, perhaps a Klansman, or skinhead as representative of the white race: now that would have been a nice functional equivalent of the screaming Indian warrior. But see, you gotta go strong to turn the tables on the man, and ironic sarcasm just ain’t gonna get it nine times out of ten.
Without the power to define another group’s reality, Indian activists are simply incapable of turning the tables by way of well-placed humor.
Simply put, what separates white racism from any other form, and what makes anti-black, anti-brown, anti-yellow, or anti-red humor more biting and more dangerous than its anti-white equivalent is the ability of the former to become lodged in the minds of and perceptions of the citizenry.
White perceptions are what end up counting in a white-dominated society. If whites say Indians are savages (be they of the “noble” or vicious type), then by God, they’ll be seen as savages. If Indians say whites are mayonnaise-eating Amway salespeople, who the hell is going to care? If anything, whites will simply turn it into a marketing opportunity. When you have the power, you can afford to be self-deprecating, after all.
The day that someone produces a newspaper ad that reads: “Twenty honkies for sale today: good condition, best offer accepted,” or “Cracker to be lynched tonight: whistled at black woman,” then perhaps I’ll see the equivalence of these slurs with the more common type to which we’ve grown accustomed.
When white churches start getting burned down by militant blacks who spray paint “kill the honkies” on the sidewalks outside, then maybe I’ll take seriously these concerns over “reverse racism.”
Until then, I guess I’ll find myself laughing at the thought of another old Saturday Night Live skit: this time with Garrett Morris as a convict in the prison talent show who sings:
Gonna get me a shotgun and kill all the whiteys I see. Gonna get me a shotgun and kill all the whiteys I see. And once I kill all the whiteys I see Then whitey he won’t bother me Gonna get me a shotgun and kill all the whiteys I see.
Sorry, but it just isn’t the same.
Tim Wise is an anti-racist essayist, activist and lecturer. He can be reached at timjwise@msn.com ``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xA Look at the Myth of Reverse Racism ``x1024893033,80611,Development``x``x
``xHARARE, Zimbabwe (AP) - With Zimbabwe facing a potentially devastating hunger crisis, nearly 3,000 white commercial farmers faced a deadline Monday to immediately forfeit their farms, some of which still had crops in the fields.
Under the government's "fast track" land seizure program to redistribute White-owned farms to landless blacks, about 2,900 farmers faced a midnight deadline to cease all farming activities, said Jenni Williams, a spokeswoman for the Commercial Farmers Union.
With hundreds of other farms already seized, about 95 percent of the nation's more than 4,000 white farmers would be out of business after the deadline passed, Williams said. MORE``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xFarm Shutdown Looms In Zimbabwe``x1024940759,92088,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy John Kamau, herald.co.zw
Anthropologist Jacque Dimarosimana watched as women cradling bundles of firewood emerged from southern Madagascar’s Toliara forest.
Some few yards down the once-paved road, a large section of the forest had been cleared by charcoal dealers who were now packing the content into gunny sacks, ready for the 450-kilometre journey north-east to Antananarivo, the capital of this Indian Ocean island nation.
Charcoal made of hardwood from Madagascar’s famed forests has become the only source of energy for millions of people in a nation whose only oil refinery remains closed and where fuel paraffin has run dry — driving the fuel business underground.
To make matters worse, a power struggle between newly elected President Marc Ravalomanana and former president Didier Ratsiraka has engulfed the island in a political crisis since January. The rivalry has split the nation.
"If this crisis continues," Dimarosimana warns, "the spiny forests (of south Madagascar) will be lost for good."
Attempts to unite the political rivals and form a government of national unity have yet to bear fruit, although Ravalomanana made a gesture of reconciliation by dissolving the government on 16 June, with talk of being more inclusive with the opposition.
Ratsiraka, meanwhile, fled to France in early June as sporadic fighting flared across the island’s northern peninsula.
With fear of political violence running high in Antananarivo, those who can are packing their bags. Jean Habrokurouhou left his job as a clerical officer at the defence ministry and travelled south to his home village of Andranamaitso, some 12 km east of Toliara town.
"I have to be near my family," he said.
Every morning, the father of four boys enters Toliara forest to check his kilns, where hardwood from Madagascan forests is burned until it becomes charcoal.
The wood is arranged in these kilns and covered with leaves and soil. A fire is lit through a tiny opening at the bottom. Smoke escapes from another opening on top.
These openings allow the right amount of airflow — if there’s a leak, the wood could burn too fast or unevenly.
These charcoal kilns have now become a source of livelihood for Habrokurouhou’s family — one gunny sack fetches US$3 in his village, or as much as US$12 in the capital.
When asked about the long-term implications of forest destruction, he replies: "We have to eat; the next generation will take care of itself."
With every gunny sack that is filled, south Madagascar’s forests are slowly giving in to wanton destruction by both charcoal dealers and farmers who practice the traditional slash-and-burn farming methods.
"Madagascar will slowly bleed to its death," warns Racas Funtalorinana, a 25-year-old activist with a local environmental group.
Southern Madagascar is famous for impenetrable thickets of weirdly adapted succulents, cactus plants and bloated giant baobabs.
Its rich collection of plants and animals is one of the many tourist attractions on this island.
Far from netting profits from tourism, it is the poverty that sticks amid the surrounding beauty — like the hundreds of tombs that dot Madagascar’s hilltops.
Although Madagascar has one of the most unique ecosystems in the world, poverty and political uncertainty remain the new threats as thousands of villagers invade the forests in search of ever more fuel wood and agricultural land.
"Politicians are pushing this country into an abyss," Dimarosimana says.
With as many as 90 per cent of the people on the island subsisting directly on income from the land, and a per capita annual income of US$300, environmentalists here say that the country’s rulers will find it increasingly difficult in coming years to maintain such unsustainable livelihoods.
"The fate of the people and the forest are inextricably linked but the people do not know this," says Racas Funtalorinana of the Madagascar Environment Trust.
"The people want to be able to support themselves and better their lives. But at the moment there is growing temptation to cut down the forests in this lawlessness."
Scientists estimate that in the southern Madagascar province of Fianarantosoa alone there are 200 000 plus species of plants and animals that are found nowhere else on earth.
"Madagascar is an ecological Garden of Eden," says Adan Erow, a Canadian researcher.
"But all these cannot last a lifetime with all the poverty in this nation and if the current crisis continues."
Erow has been studying the adaptation of the white Sifaka lemur, a primate found only in Madagascar — in one of the poorest and most environmentally challenged parts of the country.
If the crisis gets out of hand, he says, Madagascar could go the Congo way — where too environmental poachers targetted forests and other natural resources.
He thumbs through a local Catholic newspaper La Kroan’i Madagasikara. The editorial was catchy. It said: "Time to be pessimistic."
Everybody in Madagascar is these days.
Madagascar may be a geological and ecological wonderland (it snapped from mainland Africa some 180 million years ago), but as the crisis continues there is only one option before its 16 million people. As one villager said, "It is survival." — Gemini News.
JOHN KAMAU is the editor of Nairobi-based Rights Features Service.
Reproduced from: http://www.herald.co.zw/index.php?id=11545&pubdate=2002-06-24``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xTurmoil fuels plunder of African 'Garden of Eden'``x1024945970,95370,Development``x``x
``x( empresschantee )
Greetings in the name of His Imperial Majesty Emperor Haile Selassie I Jah Rastafari Holy Emmanuel I King Selassie I...John Marcus Mosiah Garvey I
Blessed my Lord and Empress!!!
Yes InI give thanx for the reasonings here on this message board. I give thanx for the bredren and sistren here and the knowledge and Wise-eye they share.
I have been observing this board for quite some time and I notice a lot of issues raised here. One thing I have noticed is Non-Africans trying to tell or "suggest" to Africans how they should think and all this "I'm not white, or black,(sometimes they throw in alien colors{purple, green}...lol I'm just human". Yeah that's easy for you to say. InI have never been thought of as human so we are proud to say we are Africans period. Don't come and try to REIGN on our parade. I ask you Non-Africans do you go to the Aryan Nation and tell them they shouldn't say "white power" or such??? Do you talk to people in your white neighborhoods, talk to your families and tell them the truth about the western mindest and they have been lied to as well??? DO your part..I am interested in knowing. Tell us to leave out some words and lets not think like that and lets do away with Black Supremacy. But you always compare Black Supremacy to White Supremacy and now using the reVERSED discrimination saying Africans are racist. I can only chuckle when I hear such a thing. In order for a person to be racist there are three main negative ingredients:
-(Power x Prejudice x Priviledge)=|-Racist|.
Sorry my dear Africans know they do not have all three. The most important is the priviledge. Ask any so called "big timer" African. They are still reminded of their color everytime. We do not have the privilegde to be racist no matter how much material wealth no matter how much prejudice.
Now if you take that same word and make it a positive vibration you will notice the suffix -ist
means to be a specialist in a specified art, science, or skill eg: biologist, pianist, anthropologist etc. So that means the noun(person) that's assoicated with the suffix dedicate there lives and achievements to their specialty, so if that means I dedicate my life to my RACE, then I am proud to be a racist.
With no apology!!! Every man/woman should be under their own vine and fig tree. This is not hate in any way, but the Western mindset cannot allow you to open up your minds and hearts. We also hear this chat about "let's move on and it was so long ago", why must InI do that?? So the same thing can happen again?? "And lets not talk about it". Why is it too much to swallow??? InI forgive but we will NEVER forget and your conscious will remind you of your deeds. That is the burden you MUST carry and we have our OWN as well. When InI chant Nyahbinghi InI chant downpression from white and black. We know there are some careless Africans and they will be addressed as well... EVERYTHING HAS ITS SEASON.
The InI RAStafari came to conquer with love and truth. So chant Rastafari chant !!!! Jah Rastafari!!!!! When AFRICA is set Free and all are FREE. And that goes for each race, tribe people and tongue.
There is more to be said and I won't hold the floor too long cuz I like to listen and get some spiritual food as well. So I leave with these seven words:
Emmanuel is love so let us love!!!
Holy Emmanuel I King Selassie I Jah Rastafari
Ethiopian Royal Sons and Dawtas
Princess Chantee
________________________________________________________
( ras adam simeon )
Rastafari DOES speak, but many can't seem to hear his words or selectively edit them to fit their agenda.
**********
Empress Chantee explained that there is no such thing as a black racist by the argument that"..In order for a person to be racist there are three main negative ingredients:
(Power x Prejudice x Priviledge)=|-Racist|.
Sorry my dear Africans know they do not have all three. The most important is the priviledge. Ask any so called "big timer" African. They are still reminded of their color everytime. We do not have the privilegde to be racist no matter how much material wealth no matter how much prejudice"
*******
The quote above about "ask big timers" is very true. a disguised oprah winfrey was trying to shop on 5th ave. the attendand locked the door when he saw her coming. She thought it was closed until she saw white customers enter without problem. Actor Blair Underwood is often pulled over for driving a nice car in his own neighborhood.
about people implying Afrikan rascists on this board, I think it's a matter semantics.People are misuing that term because they feel rasicm is one set of folks hating on another set based on race period.
I think the issues that people are trying to bring up are BIGOTRY, PREJUDICE and Generalizing a whole set of people, and these sentiments are falling under the umbrella of RACISM because race is at the root of these arguments.
This debate isnt going anywhere. Like palestinians and jews, ethiopians and eritreans, etc.. the sides may never get that we are all kinspeople. not sure why people can't get MLK's message to judge individuals by their character and need to lump and stereotype whole races as being this or that. good and bad come in every color. idi amin, jeff dahmer, chairman mao, etc..
How about we agree to fight downpression and downpressors?
no one is "erasing/whitewashing history" or "taking over",just beacuse they suggest people shouldn't make sweeping generalizations and
biased statements. If you are a rastafarian you dont have to dig too deep to read the words of Haile Selassie on world citizenship. anyone of any color is free to Praise JAH. PEACE,
________________________________________________________
( Ayinde )
I am in disagreement with what may be implied in parts of your contribution and I will explain what parts and why.
"This debate isnt going anywhere." (sic)
It may appear this way to some but as new people come to the board they express their views and engage the issue from their point of view. Some views are valid and some need proper responses. Once racism, gender discrimination and their offsprings, poverty (mentally and materially), crime and economic exploitation persist, then these discussions should be ongoing.
It is easy to say it isn't going anywhere because some are 'probably' looking at the repetition of the debate and fail to see the new posters who are now jumping into the debate. This Palestinian and Jews issue, the Ethiopia and Eritrea issues can be rationalized but there is no way all people would agree on anything because not all people can balance simultaneous ideas. People are at different stages of awareness so they will interpret to suit their awareness. That means the issues will have to be revisited time and time again as people grow in awareness.
No one tells a child the alphabet once and expects the child to get it. (I am not saying this is what you meant but I am defining my position.)
I have previously explained my position of generalizations. Generalizations are for simplifying discussions. Not all generalizations are bad. Whether the generalization is true or false should be of concern. A generalization is never about specifics or could it ever mean that every single one is the same. It speaks about the majority in the range of some people's experiences. It is only when people engage the discussion and relay their issues could they deal with specifics.
Often people are condemned for a generalization that is true and many times people make bad ones. So the distinction must be made.
The main point I strongly disagree with is the notion that people could put aside those issues and "fight downpression and downpressors" (sic)
The issue of racism and gender discrimination is at the root of the oppression. It is about attitudes and 'power' play. So if one tries to address oppressive issues and neglect examining the attitudes of ones who claim to be on your side in the fight, you might find that you are sleeping with the enemy. That is the reason most struggles do not resolve disputes. People do not take the time to examine the character of people they align themselves with and examining attitudes along racial and gender lines are about discerning character. It is impossible to discern the character of someone without discussing racial and gender issues.
Very often people come with the 'one love' talk and after a while one quickly finds they do not have a clue about love or respect. They are simply massaging egos for attention. So in keeping with your premise about judging people based on character, sensible ones will have to test awareness on race and gender issues to ensure we are not inadvertently promoting an oppressor.
There is no agreement until there is proper respect to all of our history and the emulation of the best human values. Simply saying we are one human race never solved anything. Getting to the root of the attitudes is about building on a more solid foundation
.
Racism is a European invention and they openly promoted it and continue to this day so I find it funny that people want the discussions on the effect of it to be buried by some notion that it would get us nowhere. It is not as if proper African history is in the mainstream media and in schools to correct the misrepresentations. There is still a fight to bring these issues and discussions mainstream. So the debate must continue so new ones can test their awareness and learn from others who have learned.
All of this is about Rastafari. It is about each one teaching one and getting away from cosmetics and dealing with the hard nerve racking issues to bring about greater awareness.
I AM NOT SAYING THAT YOU IMPLIED ALL THAT I DISAGREE WITH.
But I felt to add my views.
________________________________________________________
( ras adam simeon )
Greetings,
wow. a very thoughtful post.
Thank you. i respect what you wrote and just wanted to clarify that when i typed the race debate is going nowhere. i meant it should still be on the table, in other words; it's not going anywhere(away) fast, is what i meant. not, its at a stale mate. but when i typed about middle east mess. i see do see a stale mate with the sides saying the same things over and over and not much concilliation(sp) to bend, so it reminded me of the race threads on this board sometimes. also by saying i think we should fight oppression + oppresors of all colors, that was not meant as a colorblind panacea that wipes away all racial problems.again i was trying to point out that there are wicked folks of every color out there doing dirty works not just whitey. you said we generalize for simplification reasons and i agree, but i think it can be very damning.
Anyway i appreciate your response. That is what i call intelligent + well written reasoning. respect to you. a sim``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xRastafari Speaks!``x1025031019,29562,Rasta``x``x
``x(Guardian UK) Two white Zimbabwean farmers took the government to court yesterday in an effort to block its order that they abandon their farms. It was a test case closely watched by 3,000 others also facing eviction.
A 45-day countdown for the white farmers to leave their land began yesterday, but many vowed to stay put rather than watch crops rot in a country short of food.
Zimbabwe's Commercial Farmers' Union has not joined the action, but is keenly awaiting the outcome, which is expected on Friday.
The order was the latest shot in the government's battle to redistribute farms to landless black Zimbabweans. MORE``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xNew legal battle to keep White Zimbabwe farming``x1025095369,84510,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xOriginally Published, January 21, 2002, ABC NEWS
DRC is home to 80% of the world's coltan reserves PHOTO: BBC
You may not have heard of coltan, but you have it in your cell phone, laptops, pagers and other electronic devices. It is important to everyday communication in the United States, but it is making the conflict in Congo more complicated.
What Is Coltan?
Columbite-tantalite — coltan for short — is a dull metallic ore found in major quantities in the eastern areas of Congo. When refined, coltan becomes metallic tantalum, a heat-resistant powder that can hold a high electrical charge. These properties make it a vital element in creating capacitors, the electronic elements that control current flow inside miniature circuit boards. Tantalum capacitors are used in almost all cell phones, laptops, pagers and many other electronics. The recent technology boom caused the price of coltan to skyrocket to as much as $400 a kilogram at one point, as companies such as Nokia and Sony struggled to meet demand.
How Is Coltan Mined?
Coltan is mined through a fairly primitive process similar to how gold was mined in California during the 1800s. Dozens of men work together digging large craters in streambeds, scraping away dirt from the surface in order to get to the coltan underground. The workers then slosh water and mud around in large washtubs, allowing the coltan to settle to the bottom due to its heavy weight. A good worker can produce one kilogram of coltan a day.
Coltan mining is very well paid in Congo terms. The average Congolese worker makes $10 a month, while a coltan miner can make anywhere from $10 to $50 a week.
Financing the Conflict
A highly controversial U.N. Security Council report recently outlined the alleged exploitation of natural resources, including coltan, from Congo by other countries involved in the current war. There are reports that forces from neighboring Rwanda, Uganda and Burundi are involved in smuggling coltan from Congo, using the revenues generated from the high price of coltan to sustain their efforts in the war. By one estimate, the Rwandan army made at least $250 million over a period of 18 months through the sale of coltan, even though no coltan is mined in Rwanda. All countries involved in the war deny exploiting Congo's natural resources.
Environmental Consequences
In order to mine for coltan, rebels have overrun Congo's national parks, clearing out large chunks of the area's lush forests. In addition, the poverty and starvation caused by the war have driven some miners and rebels to hunt the parks' endangered elephants and gorillas for food. In Kahuzi Biega National Park, for example, the gorilla population has been cut nearly in half, from 258 to 130.
Tracing the Source
The path that coltan takes to get from Central Africa to the world market is a highly convoluted one, with legitimate mining operations often being confused with illegal rebel operations, and vice versa, making it difficult to trace the origin. To be safe, in recent months many electronics companies have publicly rejected the use of coltan from anywhere in Central Africa, instead relying on their main suppliers in Australia. American-based Kemet, the world's largest maker of tantalum capacitors, has asked its suppliers to certify that their coltan ore does not come from Congo or bordering countries. But it may be a case of too little, too late. Much of the coltan illegally stolen from Congo is already in laptops, cell phones and electronics all over the world.
Congo War and the Role of Coltan - Natalie D. Ware
Congo's coltan rush - BBC``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xCell phones, Laptops, Pagers and Congo's Coltan``x1025577748,26267,Development``x``x
``xHerald Reporter
POLICE recovered basic foodstuffs worth a staggering $37 million in a crackdown on hoarding, black market trading and illegal exports in June alone.
The basic goods recovered were sugar worth $967 147, salt valued at $31,9 million, cooking oil worth $1,6 million and maize meal valued at $2,5 million in nine of the country’s 10 provinces.
Police did not recover any basic commodities in Matabeleland South.
Sugar, cooking oil, maize meal and of late salt have been in short supply. The commodities are not available in retail outlets but readily found on the black market where they are sold at exorbitant prices.
According to a police report, the shortages began to worsen after the March presidential election won by President Mugabe. "This unprecedented development initially manifested itself through shortages of maize and mealie meal.
"While concerted efforts were being made to address the maize problem, sugar and cooking oil also became scarce on shop shelves. The latest commodity to be in short supply is salt," the police report said.
It said while there might be various reasons proffered by stakeholders for the shortages, "it is believed that the underlying cause is economic sabotage maliciously intended to discredit the lawfully elected Government of Zimbabwe".
"The artificial shortages in the minds of the detractors would ferment or agitate the masses to engage in looting and defiance of law.
"The unimaginable dream theory would lead to an ungovernable state or anarchy, which would pave way for the overthrow of the Government."
According to the report, the opposition MDC was also hoping to gain political mileage "by orchestrating artificial shortages".
In line with its mandate to maintain law and order in Zimbabwe, police impounded goods being sold on the black market in order to ensure the continued availability of basic commodities and promote peace and stability.
The force established price control inspectorate teams tasked with monitoring activities of manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers. The teams also helped enforce price controls.
Roadblocks were mounted countrywide to cut off supply routes and trafficking routes by dealers. Police also tightened border security to curb illegal exports and launched special operations to monitor black market trade of basic commodities.
The police recommended that the Government make concerted efforts on total control of the production and distribution systems of all basic commodities because they formed the backbone for the sustenance and survival of any sovereign nation.
Police also urged the Government to ensure key positions in parastatals and board memberships were offered to patriotic Zimbabweans who have the nation at heart.
"Serious collusion in these clandestine dealings or hoarding of basic commodities should be nipped in the bud."
Some notorious wholesalers and retailers were known to be profiteering from illegal dealings in basic commodities. These should be considered for suspension from trading by revoking their licences, police said.
Security forces should also be adequately equipped to be able to screen all baggage to enhance tight control on all goods leaving or coming into the country.
Police also called on the Government to re-visit foreign currency regulations and operations of bureau de changes as some dealers were illegally exporting basic goods.
"The lucrative foreign currency earned from outside the country is largely contributing to the illegal exportation of basic commodities.
"Basic commodities meant for local consumption end up being smuggled out of the country due to the profitability of foreign currency sold on the black market."
President Mugabe has said that the Government would not hesitate to take over companies that hoard basic commodities after it was discovered that National Foods was keeping salt at some of its depots countrywide.
While salt was not available in most retail outlets last week, hundreds of tonnes of the commodity were discovered stashed away at National Foods depots promoting allegations of hoarding.
However, National Foods has denied that it was hoarding the commodity saying it could not import adequate supplies due to the shortage of foreign currency, which is available at black market rates.
The company has since suggested that the Government take over stocks of the commodity it currently has and distribute them.
The company however said the take-over would be on the understanding that the Government would replace the stock, without National Foods incurring any costs.
"It would be necessary for packaging, distribution and direct packing costs to be charged to the Government so that we return to the status quo," National Foods managing director, Mr Ian Kind said in a letter to the Permanent Secretary for Industry and International Trade, Mr Stuart Comberbach.
Mr Kind also suggested that the Government immediately approve price increases of the commodity for his company to release onto the market, stocks it is holding.
He said the cost of importing salt had risen dramatically over the past month and was continuing to rise on a daily basis.
Delays in the approval have resulted in the shortage of salt on the market, he said, as National Foods hung on to stocks at its depots and plants.
Mr Kind claimed that his staff at depots were now being "roundly abused" by the public, politicians and subjected to "forced entry" by ZBC.
"This position is unacceptable and can only lead to future decision making by National Foods being based on no imports till price increases.
"This will lead to no stocks being available at all and delays even the price increase approvals until the material can be brought in, packed and distributed to outlets,’’ he said.
© Copyright of Zimbabwe Newspapers (1980) Limited 2001.
Reproduced from:
http://www.herald.co.zw/index.php?id=11824&pubdate=2002-07-03``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``x$37m foodstuffs recovered ``x1025738516,71593,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xFIFTEEN white commercial farmers in Chiredzi, south of the country, have been charged with defying a Government directive to cease farming operations on designated farms as a High Court judge granted one farmer a 10-day reprieve to challenge the directive.
The farmers, who recorded warned and cautioned statements at Chiredzi Police, were charged for contravening the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act.
In one of the warned and cautioned statements sent to The Herald and signed on Thursday, the police noted that the farmers had contravened section 8 (7) of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act.
The ban to cease farming activities on the land came into effect last week.
Police were not immediately available for comment. MORE``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``x15 farmers charged``x1025956465,96671,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xby Alleyne George, Wednesday JULY 17,
newsday.co.tt.
African slavery was perhaps the worst form of terrorism of the last 500 years, with the physical subjugation and economic hobbling of countries running a close second. Sometimes it was difficult to differentiate between the two groups, the horror of it all. Western European nations have been the greatest colonisers and enslavers in world history.
Yet, ironically, they have been able to do a mental sleight of hand with respect to the enslavement and colonising of Africa and similar positions vis a vis the African Diasporas, as against their being overrun and their economic and industrial growth crippled by the Germans during World Wars 1 and 11.
The Allies, having defeated Germany at the end of World War 1, established a Reparations Commission, which just under two and a half years later in April of 1921 required reparation payments from Germany to the tune of US$33 billion! The British, who were part of the Allied Forces, which defeated Germany, had paid at the abolition of slavery 20 million pounds sterling, not to the slaves, but to those who had enslaved them. I write this without bitterness, without rancour, but merely to demonstrate why any seeking of the redressing of the imbalance of history, with particular reference to reparations to the descendants of African slaves, as well as to former colonised Africans, has validity.
The position of Allied Europe, immediately following on World Wars 1 and 11, clearly approximated that of colonised Africa, not merely after slavery, but during the long depressing night of colonialism.
Let us begin with World War 1. Germany, which had declared war on and had fought the Allied nations had crushed France for the second time in a little over 40 years. At the end of the war, France, had demanded and received reparations from Germany, not only in the form of money, but raw materials. France, whose economic and industrial growth had been set back by the war, sought and won the ceding for a period of 15 years the extensive Saar coal mines of Germany, as well as the return of Alsace and Lorraine, with its vast coal mines, which Germany had seized from it years earlier in 1871.
Germany's rapid industrial development had been made possible by the vast mineral resources in the Saar, the Ruhr and Alsace and Lorraine. The reparations received by the European countries, which had been occupied and ravaged by Germany had set a precedent for the manoeuvre to help similarly affected countries back on their feet.
It had been Europe's colonies in Africa and India which had forged the industrial growth and economic expansion of Western Europe. Industrialisation of European occupied Africa was deliberately discouraged, even to the extent, at once ludicrous and sad, of a Governor rejecting a proposal to establish a factory in Uganda to produce blankets! "The estimated levels of per capita industrialisation around 1750" in what is today called the developed world and the now so-called developing world, saw the developing world responsible for 73 percent of the world's manufactured goods, while the developed world produced 27 per cent: Paul Bairoch, "Economics and World History: Myths and Paradoxes".
By 1860, after more than a century of cruel exploitation and deliberate underdevelopment by Europe, the situation had been reversed. The developing countries now produced 36.6 percent of the world's manufactured goods, and the developed nations 63.4 percent.
By 1900 the developing world, with the colonies largely restricted to being primary producers, turned out 11 per cent of the world's manufactured goods, and the developed world 89 per cent.
This was not due to hurricanes, earthquakes and pestilence, but part of an almost diabolical policy of Western Europe. But even these sad differences in production levels slipped yet further in 1953 to 7.2 percent and 93 percent respectively, rising a bit to 16.7 percent developing world and sliding back a mere whisper to 83.3 percent for the developed world.
Germany's policy, as it sought to colonise Tanganyika, about 1880, instituted a scorched earth policy to subjugate the area. There was "the systematic destruction of houses, crops and storages, as well as the capture of available stock....The military command found that famine was its most useful weapon....Troops were stationed in a strategic food production location to prevent any farm activity during the main seeding periods. The local people were faced with the cruel choice of surrendering or facing death by starvation": Helge Kjekshus, "Ecology Control and Economic Development in East African History: The Case of Tanganyika 1850-1950".
As a result of this, the man made famine, Kjekshus would note in Pages 143 to 146, became the strategy relied on almost entirely by the German Army as it sought to overcome resistance. Indeed, so proud were the Germans of this strategy that they went so far as to incorporate it in their standard military handbook at the time. It was, the handbook cynically described it, a cruel but useful ally which the Army should not refrain from putting to use.
When German military operations ended in August of 1907, one estimate, put 75,000 Africans as having died during the war. In another estimate, 120,000 were supposed to have died mainly from famine.
If it was all right for the European Allies to demand and obtain reparations from the Germans after World War 11, is it not in order for East Africa to demand reparations from Germany. And for Africa and the African Diaspora in the Caribbean and the Americas to demand and expect reparations as well for, where relevant, slavery and colonisation and all that went with it?
Following the end of World War 11, total reparations demanded of Germany and Italy by principally Russia, Greece, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia totalled US$1.27 billion, plus raw materials and what have you. At the end of World War 1 the sum of US$33 billion had been demanded and agreed to for the restoration of Belgium, France.
If Europe (the Allies) could demand and receive reparations from Germany, then why can’t Africa and the African Diaspora not be able to demand and receive reparations from their former colonisers who had suffered far worse. Reparations, Africa and its Diaspora should insist, must be paid.
Links:
• Reparations Discussion
• Depths of Global Apartheid Exposed
• Small Reparations FAQ
• An Estimate of Unpaid Labor Wages to American Slaves
• The Economics of Chattel Slavery
• Did U.S. laws mandate the economic oppression of African-Americans?
• Lynchings by State and Race, 1882-1968*
• Ten reasons why reparations for slavery are a bad idea for black people
• Princeton University An online video of the reparations debate ``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xReparations must be paid``x1026896151,92196,Development``x``x
``xBRUSSELS, July 22 (AFP) - The European Union on Monday added the names of 52 associates of Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe, including that of his wife Grace, to a blacklist of officials facing "targetted sanctions".
The sanctions by the world's biggest trading bloc, initially applied to Mugabe and 19 close associates. They bar the individuals from obtaining visas to travel to EU member states and freeze any assets they may have in the eurozone.
In a joint statement, EU foreign ministers said the sanctions would apply to Grace Mugabe, and include all remaining cabinet ministers, politburo secretaries, deputy ministers, and assistant politburo secretaries in Mugabe's ruling Zimbabwe National African Union - Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF). MORE``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xEU explands Zimbabwe sanctions blacklist``x1027372653,62473,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Wole Akande, YellowTimes.org
The recent news of the successes of Nigerian village women protesting against the excesses of Chevron-Texaco (the multinational oil company) captured headlines worldwide. Every news organization, major or minor, reported the unusual drama as it developed.
However, I doubt if any news report captured the essence of the story better than D'Arcy Doran’s report for the Associated Press: "Village women carrying straw mats, umbrellas and thermoses left Chevron-Texaco's main oil terminal on Thursday, ending a 10-day occupation that paralyzed most of the oil giant's Nigerian operation." Not only does it capture the essence of the news, but the delivery is so elegant that I can see the protesting women right before my eyes.
There are key lessons to be learnt from the Nigerian women's experience of negotiating with a giant conglomerate. Think of the detail for a moment: You have this bunch of women who have no education to speak of and with babies strapped to their backs, they have barely enough English to ask for water. But they know that someone somewhere is cheating them out of very fundamental rights. And so they set about putting it right in the only way they can: turning the mundane into the political.
As protests go, it doesn't get much more political than a confrontation with the multinationals and international funding agencies, which have long exploited Africans on the grounds that the poor have no bargaining power and must accept investment under any terms. Yet these women, who have probably never before even considered standing for elections or any other political activity, achieved the undreamed of. And after the success of the women’s protest at Escravos, a town in the oil-producing Niger delta region of Nigeria, where will African governments and political leaders hide?
Far too often across Africa, the interests of local people have been shunted to the side in the interests of keeping multinational bucks flowing. Indeed, there have been times when the very health of the African people has been compromised, especially in the horticulture industry, just to keep giant investors happy. Well, now we know blackmail of this kind can cut both ways.
The Nigerian village women's takeover served one key purpose: it proved that women have the power to change African politics. At Escravos, we saw village women armed with no more than determination taking over negotiations for jobs and better social facilities for their people.
Indeed, Doran notes "a departure in Nigeria, where armed men frequently use kidnapping and sabotage to pressure oil multinationals into giving them jobs, protection money or compensation for alleged environmental damage."
Of course, the recent drama at Escravos is not the first time Nigerian women have revolted.
In her new book The Bluest Hands, Judith Byfield, a history professor at Dartmouth College, highlights the political consciousness and political activism of women indigo dyers in Abeokuta, a prominent town in southwestern Nigeria. In the mid 1930s, the women dyers successfully mobilized themselves to protect their industry. However, this recent incident is the first time women in Nigeria have collectively confronted the authority of the all-powerful multinational oil companies.
Yet the people of the oil-producing regions of Nigeria can now bank on a new era of power relations with some of the world's most powerful countries. Under the deal that these women negotiated, Chevron-Texaco will hire 25 villagers over five years and help build clinics, schools, fish and chicken farms.
The second great achievement of these women is their success in turning the female body into a political tool. It has been done before, of course, but not quite in the same manner. Often, we are more likely to hear of women using their sexual allure to entrap political leaders into disclosing the top secrets of their governments. And the biblical tales of Samson and Delilah and of Jezebel capitalize on the so-called treachery of women using their beauty to unleash terror.
In modern times, we are inundated with skimpily dressed women being used to sell just about anything.
The protesters in Nigeria have given us a new take on the power of a woman's body, getting their side of the story heard by the simple expedient of threatening to strip to their bare essentials. It seems no one wanted to see that which could be something to do with the fact that the women were aged between 30 and 90 - over the hill in terms of sexual exploitation. They like them young and firm in all the right places in the advertising and power games, you see.
So, it is in their maternal roles that women can hope to pull off the naked-body threat. Indeed, it is the ultimate curse in some African cultures if your mother should ever point at you with the same breast that fed you in infancy. I don't know whether this is really an effective curse but some things are best left untested - as the village women protesters at Escravos decided early in the occupation.
The experience in Nigeria could herald a new form of governance based on respect for the wishes of the people. In a country that has known more military rule than democracy, the two forces of authority - government and multinational - took the time to consider the legitimacy of the claims being put on the table. And when the retreating Nigerian women expressed reservations about some elements of the agreement, the Chevron-Texaco side promised to visit their villages for further discussions and ferried them peacefully back to their homes without a drop of spilled blood or any broken bones.
For women and other ill empowered people across Africa and elsewhere, desperately lacking in political power, the Escravos drama offers a useful lesson: strategy pays. The village women in Nigeria had one agenda and one agenda only - to get their voices heard, whatever it took, however long. They did their homework, and it showed.
[Wole Akande, a former opinion columnist with Ireland's Irish Examiner newspaper, is a freelance journalist. In addition to his work with YellowTimes.org, Wole also maintains http://www.abeokuta.org, a Nigerian community website.]``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xVictory for a new kind of women’s power at Escravos``x1027738172,60505,Development``x``x
``xFrom Bulawayo Bureau, www.herald.co.zw
ANOTHER MDC legislator has been indicted for trial to the High Court on charges of murdering two senior Zanu-PF officials.
The opposition MP for Lobengula-Magwegwe, Fletcher Dulini-Ncube, together with two other MDC activists were implicated in the murder of Bulawayo war veterans’ leader and national hero Cde Cain Nkala and Cde Limukani Luphahla of Lupane District.
Bulawayo High Court judge, Justice George Chiweshe, yesterday dropped the provisional order, which barred the Attorney General’s office from indicting for trial the three on two counts of murder.
In his judgment, handed down by Justice Maphios Cheda, Justice Chiweshe said the reasons for discharging the provisional order would follow later.
The ruling means that the State can now lock in remand prison the trio — Fletcher Dulini-Ncube, Sony Nicholas Masera and Army Zulu until their trial at the Harare High Court on 11 November.
The trio can now remain in remand prison until the trial date.
This comes in the wake of the pending trial of former MDC spokesman and MP for Kuwadzana Learnmore Jongwe for killing his wife with a kitchen knife last month.
Last week, Justice Lawrence Kamocha granted Dulini-Ncube, Masera and Zulu a provisional order stopping the State from indicting them for trial pending the determination of the matter by the High Court.
The judge further ordered that the Attorney General should show cause why the three should not be removed from remand.
The trio had argued that the evidence submitted by the State in its indictment papers did not implicate them at all in the commission of the offences preferred against them.
They further argued that there was no evidence in the papers that would justify that they be indicted for trial.
It was also their contention that the State had no right to continue placing them on remand and asked the court to order that they be removed from remand.
The AG’s office in reply argued that the trio’s application should be dismissed, as it had no basis in law.
It was their contention that the application was frivolous, vexatious and went against the provisions of the country’s Constitution and sections of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act as it sought to usurp the powers of the AG.
The trio’s lawyers, Mr Josphat Tshuma and Mr Nicholas Mathonsi, both of Webb, Low and Barry Legal Practitioners, indicated soon after the judgment that they would appeal to the Supreme Court against the High Court’s decision.
Mrs Mercy Moya-Matshaga of the Attorney General’s office appeared for the State.
The three are some of the suspects alleged to have been hired by MDC to murder senior Zanu-PF officials to avenge the alleged kidnapping and disappearance of Mr Patrick Nabanyama in the run-up to the 2000 parliamentary elections.
Mr Nabanyama was the election agent for Bulawayo South Member of Parliament, Mr David Coltart.
After their recruitment, the State alleges Masera, the party’s deputy national secretary for security, taught them the skills to kill people using strong strings or fishing twine.
Dulini-Ncube allegedly provided them with a motor vehicle, which was used in the murder of national hero, Cde Nkala and Cde Luphahla of Lupane district.
Cde Nkala’s body was found buried in a shallow grave at Norwood Farm near Solusi University outside Bulawayo.
Three other suspects, Augustine Khethani Sibanda, Remember Moyo and Sazini Mpofu have already been indicted for trial and are now in remand prison.
They had all been granted bail but the indictment meant that they had to be placed in prison.
A seventh suspect, Gilbert Moyo, is on a warrant of arrest after he skipped bail.
However, the State has since dropped charges against Direen Spooner, who was suspected to have taken part in the murder of Cdes Nkala and Luphahla.
Reproduced from:
http://www.herald.co.zw/index.php?id=12798&pubdate=2002-08-02 ``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xAnother opposition MP up for murder ``x1028270493,35843,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Wanjiku Ngugi www.herald.co.zw
A few years after the attainment of independence in most African states, it soon became clear to the majority of the people that the neo-liberal policies advanced by the ruling class were in complete contradiction with what they had struggled for during colonialism.
For instance, the land question, which had been the driving force for most of these struggles, remained unresolved.
The non-reversal of the ownership of the means of production meant that the people’s economic status did not change even after independence.
The people, therefore, felt provoked by these policies.
In Kenya for instance, people started regrouping in order to challenge what they perceived as continuation of colonial injustices.
The government, not happy with the new developments, responded by placing most people in jails, detention and putting them through other daunting experiences.
Around this time, a few Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) started sprouting all over the developing nations purporting to back weak government policies in order to enhance them.
They also portrayed themselves as advocates of the poor and marginalised, and denounced human rights violations and dictatorships, largely supported by Europe, the United States and international NGOs.
This created a rather favourable image of NGOs, which explains today’s confusion regarding their political nature, because then, they had successfully manifested themselves as advocates of the underprivileged.
These international NGOs went further to complement their new-found role by establishing strong links with liberal national NGOs in various countries.
What is interesting is that even in their denouncement of human rights violations, these NGOs never explained to the people they supported the relationship between their government policy and Western states.
Indeed, they refused to recognise the historical context of the issues they criticised and supported.
Of course, by virtue of their being funded by their imperial governments, it was naive of us to think that they would have pursued our genuine struggles.
Having noted their limitations and hideous intentions, we are able to see that these NGOs could not therefore halt or manage the increasing dissatisfaction among the people who still wanted land and socio-economic issues resolved.
Today, these issues are still at the centre and as pressure from the people mounts, so do NGOs increase.
Zimbabwe is a case in point. As Zanu-PF, war veterans, Government as well as the citizens demanded correction of past injustices, so did the NGOs multiply.
These NGOs can be linked to imperialism as they openly pursue the agenda of the former colonial masters under the guise of the people’s struggle.
What then is the relationship between radical social solutions and the so-called NGOs?
It is important to note that most international NGOs, despite their claim to be non-governmental organisations, are in fact aligned to their governments.
After all, their funding is from Western governments. As we all know, all governments have local and foreign policies and they will not give money to any NGO or social movements or organisations that seek to promote policies or issues that are in direct contradiction with their foreign policy.
We, on the other hand, have allowed these liberal funds to penetrate our countries without much checking and created avenues through which those in direct conflict with us have room to interfere with policies in our society.
We need to ask questions like who is funding these NGOs? What are they preaching? What are their short-term and long-term objectives?
In other words, people must question NGOs in much the same way they question motives of say political parties or donor agencies. We must have a politically conscious approach to NGOs.
In most cases, international and local NGOs are entities that will rarely, if ever, align themselves with a genuine class struggle or with the struggle to control the means of production.
In most instances and very recently in Zimbabwe, the NGOs subvert issues like the land policy by creating and fabricating issues to sway the people’s focus.
Instead of supporting the poor as they claim, they instead undermine issues of national importance meant to subvert the hand of imperialism.
It is rather sad that these NGOs have managed through monetary means to lure activists whose once revolutionary zeal has since been tamed.
These organisations, packaged as "people based" or "participatory" are, in fact, meant to and do replace radical ideas.
They will not get involved or align themselves to issues such as education, overhaul of IMF policies, and will not campaign against structural adjustment policies whose outcome every African is aware of.
They, instead, tackle issues from very simplistic and superficial angles. For instance, they will not take up real issues affecting the population. A case in point is the women’s struggle (a favourite of NGOs).
They only embark on sectors of women’s concerns, usually by setting up self-help projects, or approach women’s concerns only at a cultural level, which at the end of the day leads to misunderstanding of women and their real concerns.
In order to empower women one has to empower them not only culturally but also economically and politically. The women’s struggle has to be seen in whole, as a struggle against sexism, imperialism, neo-colonialism, and located within a class struggle.
An NGO purporting to advance women’s rights has to situate women within a global framework and fight the continued monopoly and dominance of countries over others.
The agrarian revolution taking place right here in Zimbabwe is an area that NGOs, if genuine about change in women’s social status, should have embarked on.
There is also the problem of dependency being created by these NGOs. They do not teach people how to fish so that tomorrow they can be able to fish for themselves but provide fish so that people are continuously dependent on them.
By the nature of their structures, they cannot provide long-term services to communities. We have witnessed NGOs claiming to support local initiatives but withdraw development assistance in the middle of programmes, leaving the people they sought to help in dire straits.
Usually it is not a problem with the way the project is being carried out but rather a shift in funding priorities.
The beneficiaries and their projects are usually dumped after scanty evaluations meant to justify and arrive at already drawn conclusions.
In other words, NGOs are less accountable to the poor people but rather to their governments, the source of their funds.
In most instances these projects are set up in such a way that a pullout of funds results in collapse. One wonders why international NGOs would rather spend billions on self-help projects rather than spending the same on building institutions which would in turn be self-sufficient.
In countries such as Kenya and Uganda where NGOs enjoy a rather enthusiastic haven, one notes that the radical social movements have decreased as the conservative NGOs have increased.
Their training programmes and workshops have depoliticised people and turned their once genuine concerns into self-help projects and "killed" movements that would have had a larger and more direct bearing on people’s predicaments.
As pointed out earlier, these NGOs have cast themselves as alternatives to radical change. They have adopted the language of genuine revolutionary movements and ideas and reduced them to a marginal level.
By failing to paint the larger picture, these organisations have failed nation states and their citizens who are struggling to fight imperialism.
We really ought to re-assess this NGO dependency syndrome and continue to raise radical consciousness and find real solutions.
Reproduced from:
http://www.herald.co.zw/index.php?id=12791&pubdate=2002-08-02``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xNGOs pursue agenda of Western governments ``x1028270645,77090,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xSINGAPORE Prime Minister Mr Goh Chok Tong yesterday said land reforms in Zimbabwe should succeed to ensure the country’s food security.
He said what now remained was the need for Zimbabweans to put land to good use and focus on productivity.
Mr Goh was speaking to President Mugabe during a meeting between the two leaders here.
Mr Goh said, for Singapore, what was crucial was to make the land reforms an agricultural success and that the land could turn green and secure the country’s food requirements.
President Mugabe said land acquisition was over and the Government was now preparing the new farmer for the coming season. MORE``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xFocus on agricultural productivity, locals urged ``x1028697005,72900,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xTHE Government has stepped up efforts to avert hunger by diverting $1 billion from a special fund set aside for the revival of closed companies towards mitigating the effects of the drought while the European Union yesterday announced a €35 million ($1,8billion) food aid package for Zimbabwe.
A senior official with the Ministry of Industry and International Trade confirmed that $1billion of the $2billion special fund had been diverted towards drought relief.
The official said the Ministry of Finance and Economic Development took the decision to meet pressing drought requirements. MORE``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``x$1,8bn food aid for Zimbabwe``x1028697049,51616,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xPopulation: Black 99.4%, White 0.6% Best Farming Land: 70% White 'owned'
Zimbabwe's white farmers own much of the country's best agricultural land.
According to government figures published before the current crisis, some 4, 400 whites owned 32% of Zimbabwe's agricultural land - around 10m ha - while about one million black peasant families farmed 16m ha or 38%.
But much of the white-owned land is in more fertile areas with better rainfall, while the black farming areas are often in drought-prone regions. So in terms of prime farming land, whites own a disproportionate share.
Where they do exist side by side, huge, modern, mechanised estates are divided by a mere fence from subsistence farmers living in mud huts.
The situation was created in colonial times when blacks were forced off their ancestral lands.
"The land question" was a major cause of the guerrilla war which led to Zimbabwe's independence in 1980.
Twenty years later, little has changed.
Who pays?
Land reform and redistribution is expensive: farmers asked to give up some of their property demand compensation; and infrastructure, such as roads, bore-holes, schools and clinics, is needed for those who are given the land.
President Robert Mugabe says Britain should pay because it was in charge when the problem was created.
He also points out that the colonialists did not compensate Africans when they first took the land.
UK Prime Minister Tony Blair's government responds that £44m has been provided for Zimbabwe's land reform since 1980, and that much of the redistributed land has so far ended up in the hands of cabinet ministers and other government officials. MORE``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xWho owns the land?``x1028787204,91942,Zimbabwe``x``x
``x
BBC - The remains of an indigenous South African, who was paraded around Europe in the early 19th century, have been laid to rest as part of the country's Women's Day celebrations. The burial ceremony for Sarah (Saartje) Baartman - who was dubbed the "Hottentot Venus" in Europe - took place in a remote valley in the eastern Cape where she was born more than two centuries ago.
Her remains were brought back to South Africa from France where they had been on display at the Museum of Mankind.
A celebration of diverse South African cultures began the burial ceremony.
Sideshow attraction
Sarah Baartman - a Khoisan, or indigenous woman - was taken from her homeland in 1810 and paraded around Europe as an oddity.
She became a sideshow attraction investigated by supposed scientists and put under the voyeuristic eye of the general public. She died in 1816 aged 26, a pauper.
Today's ceremony formed the centre-piece of Women's Day.
Sarah has become an icon for South African women who continue to suffer abuse and exploitation in a country with one of the highest number of rapes in the world.
That was the theme touched upon by President Thabo Mbeki when he addressed the ceremony.
"Sarah Baartman should never have been transported to Europe," he said.
"Sarah Baartman should never have been stripped of her native, her Khoisan, her African identity and paraded in Europe as a savage monstrosity.
"Today we celebrate our national Women's Day to ensure that we move with greater speed towards the accomplishment of the goal of the creation of a non-sexist society."
The burial ceremony began with the burning of a traditional Khoisan herb to purify her spirit.
Her coffin was lowered into the ground near the place where she was born.
Khoisan tribal chiefs broke a bow and arrows and scattered them into the grave in a traditional ceremony honouring their ancestors.
It was a final resting place after two centuries, giving her dignity in death that was missing from her short life.
Khoisan chief Joseph Little told dignitaries around the grave: "We are closing a chapter in history. I feel her dignity has been restored."
Reproduced from:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/2183271.stm``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``x'Hottentot Venus' laid to rest``x1028906601,60842,Development``x``x
``xHerald Reporter
MOST of the 1 600 white commercial farmers who have lost ownership of their pieces of land through the land resettlement programme left their properties over the weekend without any protest.
However, it is believed that a handful of the farmers, who had up to Saturday night to leave their farms, might have ignored the Government deadline although no such cases have been identified yet.
Police have also not handled any such cases although they have said they are on the lookout for those who break the law.
Police spokesman Assistant Commis-sioner Wayne Bvudzijena yesterday said most of the commercial farmers who had up to Saturday to leave their properties had complied with the Government’s directive while others were still packing their belongings.
"We have not received any reports of resistance from commercial farmers who have been served with the eviction orders to vacate their properties so far. We can safely say that the process is going on smoothly,’’ said Asst Comm Bvudzijena. MORE``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xMore farmers leave ``x1029138837,81375,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xHerald, By Wisdom Mdzungairi
ZIMBABWE'S Land Reform Programme, expected to be emulated by most African countries as a means of ending poverty, will take centre-stage at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in South Africa later this month.
The discussion of the issue at the world summit might become a springboard to ending the world's discontent over agrarian land reforms in Africa.
Over 100 world leaders have confirmed their attendance at the summit.
United Nations Development Programme director of communications Mr Djibril Diallo told The Herald last week that the land redistribution issue and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) would be high on the agenda at the World Summit. MORE``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xLand reform to take centre-stage at summit``x1029138979,73834,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xLast Thursday, women blocked the entrances of two oil company facilities, the latest in a month of protests.
by Michael Peel
LAGOS, NIGERIA - The town museum in Calabar, southern Nigeria, contains a striking section on a 1929 Niger Delta protest known as the "women's war." The conflict, which stemmed from opposition to British colonial rule, escalated after villagers in the Owerri province clashed with a mission teacher carrying out a tax assessment. Local women sent folded fresh palm leaves to neighboring communities as a signal to begin attacks against buildings symbolizing the imperial presence.
Hundreds of Ijaw women protest inside a fuel station in Abiteye, Nigeria in this photo taken on Tuesday, July 16, 2002. The Ijaw women took over the flow station soon after the Itsekeris had taken over the ChevronTexaco oil terminal in Escravos, to ensure that their tribe got a better deal from Chevron and did not have to lag behind the Itsekeris. (AP Photo/Saurabh Das)
"The white men should return to their own country," says a piece of contemporary propaganda quoted at the museum, "so that the land in the area may remain as it was many years before the advent of the white man."
More than 70 years later, the women of the oil-rich delta are stirring once more. On Thursday, hundreds of women blocked the gates of ChevronTexaco and Shell offices in the southern port of Warri. For several hours, workers at the two locations were kept from entering or leaving the facilities. By Friday, the protest had ended peacefully. MORE``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xPeacefully, Nigerian Women Win Changes From Big Oil``x1029140388,82250,Development``x``x
``xBBC - "All genuine and well-meaning white farmers who wish to pursue a farming career as loyal citizens of this country have land to do so," he said, adding that "no farmer need go without land".
Mr Mugabe also attacked former colonial power Britain and Prime Minister Tony Blair, whom he labelled a gangster and said had "gone insane". MORE
• BBC's Guide to Zimbabwe's land question``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xMugabe orders white farmers to leave``x1029155018,44986,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xStaff and agencies, Guardian UK
The president of Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe, today signalled the death of white farming in his country by insisting he would enforce last week's deadline for nearly 2,000 white farmers to abandon their land or face two years in jail.
About 2,900 of Zimbabwe's remaining 4,500 white commercial farmers were told in May to hand over their farms to government control without compensation by midnight last Thursday. About 60% of the farmers facing eviction chose to ignore the deadline and remain on their farms, according to Jenni Williams, a spokeswoman for the new Justice for Agriculture (JAG) pressure group.
The farmers had hoped that either Zimbabwe's courts or Mr Mugabe himself would rescind the land seizure order, but today the president announced: "We set ourselves an August deadline for the redistribution of land and that deadline stands."
Speaking at a Harare cemetery during the funeral of former finance minister, Bernard Chidzero, Mr Mugabe was greeted by about 15,000 supporters carrying posters proclaiming "This land is ours" and "Damn the western world for its racism in Zimbabwe". His speech marked Heroes' Day, a holiday honouring those who fought in the battle for independence.
Mr Mugabe hopes to install new landowners on the farms in time for planting the next crop in autumn.
The white farmers are worried that the president's words could unleash attacks by pro-government militias seeking to redistribute land by force.
The shadow foreign secretary, Michael Ancram, said today in advance of Mr Mugabe's speech that the prime minister, Tony Blair, should use the upcoming Earth summit in Johannesburg to take a stand against the violence, famine and land seizures in Zimbabwe.
"Mugabe and his people, I think, will be out in Johannesburg. They have got to be faced out. They world has got to say to them that this type of behaviour - the murder, the mayhem, the obscenity of starvation on the one side against agricultural land which could be producing food laying idle on the other - this is simply not on," Mr Ancram said.
Britain has led international condemnation of Mr Mugabe's government and recently arrested a member of the ruling Zanu PF party who entered the UK in breach of EU sanctions.
Such actions led Mr Mugabe to refer to Mr Blair this morning as "the gangster of No 10 Downing Street".
Reproduced from:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/zimbabwe/article/0,2763,773256,00.html``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xMugabe 'will enforce farm evictions'``x1029167113,90619,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Tim Wise
Failing the Test of Fairness
Ever noticed how expensive restaurants go out of their way to fill the air of their bathrooms with the refreshing scents of a pine forest after a gentle rain? Hoping to cover up the smells that would otherwise predominate in such an environment, the keepers of luxury lavatories bombard their patrons with diversionary scents, presumably to make one's overall dining experience more pleasant.
Frankly, I've always perceived such efforts as more than a little inadequate to the task at hand. Shit, after all, even on a pinecone, is still shit. Likewise, there's a good reason why the makers of incense don't market a patchouli and crap stick. As we say in the south, you can "pretty up" a pig by slapping a dress on it, but in the end, it's still a pig.
Such is a lesson we would do well to remember in the wake of the recent announcement that the Educational Testing Service is going to "revamp" the SAT, ostensibly to make it more fair and relevant for a 21st century educational system.
Despite their insistence that the new SAT will better predict student ability while reducing unfairness by eliminating culture-bound items like analogies, the announced changes actually overlook the largest problems with standardized tests.
Although eliminating analogies is an admirable first step since studies have found these to be biased against those from non-white, non-middle-class backgrounds—what with questions involving words like "regatta"—the problems with the SAT were always deeper than that.
In fact, whatever cultural bias the ETS has eliminated with the ban on analogies will likely be re-triggered with the addition of a "writing" section, whose graders no doubt will emphasize stylistically and grammatically Standard English, marking students down whose writing style employs idioms, phrases, or merely word patterns more common to communities of color. Poetic license will have no place, one suspects, on the SAT writing test.
Though internal cultural bias is a real phenomenon, and one that has been observed in testing for many years, the bigger issue is that supporters of the SAT presuppose that administering a standardized test to profoundly unstandardized students, from unstandardized schools, and then using results on that test to determine college placement can ever be fair.
The fact is, even if such biased items are removed from the SAT, the unequal educational experience of the students taking the test—especially in terms of class and race—all but guarantees a persistent scoring gap between whites on the one hand, and blacks, American Indians or Latinos on the other.
Furthermore, the announcement that Algebra II will be added to the test can only cause alarm for those concerned about the racial score gaps; after all, tracking in schools is so pernicious that blacks, even when they score at the top of 8th grade achievement test distributions, are about 40% less likely than whites whose scores are merely average to be placed in upper-level math courses in high school. As such, they won't even get around to Algebra II by the time the SAT is taken.
But indeed, even tracking isn't the biggest issue here. Oh sure, it matters. On the one hand it means that certain students of color will be underexposed to the kind of material found on a test like the SAT; and on the other hand it means that certain students—especially whites and many Asians who are presumed to be "good at math" early on, and thus tracked accordingly—will have an edge going in to the test. But still, tracking is not the clincher that makes the SAT inherently problematic.
The two biggest issues are of a different nature altogether and incapable of being fixed with piecemeal reforms.
The first is what Claude Steele, Chair of the Psychology department at Stanford University has called "stereotype threat." As Steele and his colleagues have noted in a number of ingenious experiments, black students take standardized tests under a cloud of group suspicion that hinders performance—suspicion on the part of the larger society that they are less intelligent and capable than others.
Black students are well aware of the negative stereotypes held about them by members of the larger society. As such, when blacks who are highly motivated and value educational achievement take a standardized test and expect the results to be used to indicate cognitive ability, the fear of living down to the stereotype negatively impacts their performance. These students may rush through the test—so as to seem more confident than they truly are—or alternately take too much time, trying desperately not to make mistakes. The self-doubt engendered by the racist beliefs of the larger culture is added to the general anxiety that all test-takers feel, to produce, for black students, a unique disadvantage.
As proof that it is stereotype threat and not inherent ability differences that explain racial gaps on standardized admissions tests, Steele notes that when the same test questions are given to whites and blacks in experimental settings, and yet the students are told that the results are not indicative of ability, and will not be graded, the stereotype threat dissipates and they perform as well as their white counterparts.
In other words, so long as racist beliefs about black ability are common, those stigmatized by these beliefs will often underperform as a function of the anxiety generated by the stereotype itself. Certainly there is nothing that ETS can do to the structure of the test that can alleviate this problem.
And finally, racial gaps are ultimately a function of the way that tests like the SAT are developed. Indeed, the gaps are all but built-in.
As anyone who has taken the SAT or a similar test remembers, there is an experimental section on the exam—either an extra verbal or extra math section—which contains questions that are not counted toward a student's score. The section exists so as to "pre-test" questions for use on future versions of the test.
But as ETS concedes, questions chosen for future use must produce (in the pre-test phase) similar gaps between test-takers as existed in the overall test taken at that time. In other words, questions are rarely if ever selected for future use if students who received lower scores overall answer that particular question correctly as often or more often than those who scored higher overall.
The racial implications of such a policy should be clear. Because blacks, Latinos, and American Indian students tend to score lower on these exams than whites and Asians, any question in the pre-test phase that black students answer correctly as often as (or more often than) whites would be virtually guaranteed never to appear on an actual standardized exam!
In practice, questions answered correctly by blacks more than whites have been routinely excluded from future use on the SAT. Although questions that whites answer correctly 30% more often than blacks are allowed to remain on the test, questions answered correctly even 7% more often by blacks than whites have been thrown out.
Although the rationale for this practice is not overtly racist—the testing company, for example, does not intentionally seek to maintain lower scores for blacks—the thinking has a racist impact.
Essentially, the company's position is that for any question to have "predictive validity," it should be answered correctly or incorrectly in rough proportion to the overall number of correct or incorrect answers given by test-takers. But since the general scores have tended to exhibit a racial gap, such logic results in the virtual guarantee of maintaining that gap, as a function of test development itself.
If test questions were made less culturally biased, so that the racial gap shrunk or disappeared in the pre-test phase, those questions would likely be thrown out, simply because—being less culturally biased—they failed to replicate the racial gaps produced by the rest of the exam.
Interestingly, as testing expert Jay Rosner has demonstrated, the makers of the SAT could reduce the racial gap between whites and blacks while still maintaining the same level of overall test difficulty by choosing questions that, although equally tough, produce less differentiation between white and black test-takers. That instead they maximize these differences by way of the questions they choose, and that reforms of this nature are not being offered by ETS indicates how unconcerned they truly are about test fairness.
Instead of trying to pretty up this pig, persons concerned about educational equity, true opportunity and fairness should be calling for colleges and Universities to either eliminate the use of the SAT in admissions decisions, or at least to massively downplay its importance, given its irrelevance in predicting actual academic ability.
SAT gaps of as many as 300 points between two students (or groups of students) can be completely insignificant in terms of indicating actual ability differences, and gaps of 125 points between students are considered random by the test-makers themselves, and say nothing about the different abilities of the students in question.
That SAT scores have little to do with one's ability is borne out by a number of studies and even data provided by the test-makers themselves, which indicate that only ten percent (at most) of the difference between students in terms of freshman grades can be explained by results on the SAT. Further, the correlation between SAT scores and overall four-year college grades or graduation rates, has been so low as to be essentially nonexistent, explaining no more than 3% of the difference between any two students.
If ETS wants to promote fairness—and indeed they insist that they are committed to changing the unequal educational system that helps produce scoring gaps—they must first stop promoting a test battery that replicates and reinforces that inequity. If they wish to provide tests purely for the purpose of gauging how much is being taught and learned in K-12 schools, so be it.
But so long as they release test scores prior to college admission, knowing that such scores will be used to dole out opportunities that themselves result in still more opportunities upon graduation, ETS can only be seen as complicit in the maintenance of racial and economic stratification. They are not reformers, but merely gatekeepers for the status quo. And that smells the same, no matter how one tries to cover it up.
Tim Wise is an antiracist essayist, activist and lecturer. He can be reached at (and footnotes procured from) timjwise@msn.com``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xInstitutional Racism and the SAT``x1029200579,64577,Development``x``x
``xZIMBABWE is now preparing to withdraw all troops from the Democratic Republic of Congo following the brightening of peace prospects in the war-torn country, President Mugabe has said.
Cde Mugabe said developments in the DRC, including the signing of a peace agreement between that country and Rwanda, provided an opportunity for the withdrawal of Zimbabwean troops in accordance with the Lusaka peace deal.
"I would want to extend that notion by assuring the nation that we are now working on a programme to withdraw all our forces from the DRC," he said.
Cde Mugabe, who is the Commander-in-Chief of the Zimbabwe Defence Forces, was speaking at the commemoration of the 22nd anniversary of the ZDF at Rufaro Stadium. MORE``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe to leave the DRC``x1029309032,28544,Zimbabwe``x``x
``x(The Herald) PRESIDENT Robert Mugabe, Zimbabwe's ruler, has assured whites that they will not be left landless or homeless under an ongoing land reform programme in the southern African nation.
Zimbabwe has embarked on a programme to redistribute land, which was hitherto in the hands of a white minority numbering less than 3 000, while the black majority - about 12 million -was condemned to infertile land measuring less than 30 percent of the country's total arable land.
Mugabe told a visiting American delegation on Thursday that some white farmers did not want to lose the privilige of owning many farms hence their reluctance to vacate properties designated for resettlement.
Several white farmers have been arrested in the past few days for defying Government directives to have vacated designated farms by Saturday.
Mugabe also reiterated that Zimbabwe did not fear the might of Britain and its Western allies when it came to the question of sovereignty.
The Zimbabwe government, he added, would remain resolute in its quest to equitably redistribute land even when some African countries seemed to waver in support.
"Britain is a great nation and so is the United States. But it does not mean we will fear that greatness when our sovereignty is at threat," he said.- The Herald-SNNi``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xMugabe Assures Whites That They Won't Be Left Landless``x1029478880,32942,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Deborah John, trinidadexpress.com
“No one remembers old Marcus Garvey, no one remembers old Marcus Garvey”, reggae artiste Burning Spear’s plaintive complaint becomes an affirmation ensuring that in essence we never forget his name.
Tomorrow is his birthday to be celebrated with bashments throughout the country.
Marcus Moziah Garvey was born in the quiet little town of St Ann’s Bay, on the northern coast of Jamaica, on August 17, 1887.
He was named Marcus, after his father, and legend has it that his mother, Sarah, sought to give him the middle name of Moses, explaining prophetically, “I hope he will be like Moses and lead his people,” Not a religious man, his father compromised with the less prominent biblical middle name of Moziah.
The Garveys had 11 children but only Marcus, the youngest, and his sister, Indiana, lived to maturity.
When he was 14, family financial difficulties forced Garvey to leave school and go to work. He was apprenticed to learn the printing trade with his godfather, a Mr Burrowes. After two years he left St Ann’s Bay to go to Kingston to work at his new trade.
By age 18 he had become foreman of PA Benjamin and Co and in 1908 he headed the printers’ strike and was blacklisted.
Subsequently, conscious of the need for organised action to improve the lot of the black worker, he began editing a periodical known as Garvey’s Watchman. He was involved in other efforts and in 1912 journeyed to London to learn what he could about the condition of blacks in other parts of the British empire.
He also became interested in the position of blacks in the United States, and it was in London he came across a copy of Booker T Washington’s autobiography Up From Slavery.
This book had a profound effect upon him as he later testified: “I read Up From Slavery by Booker T Washington and then my doom—if I may so call it—of being a race leader dawned upon me... I asked... ‘Where is the black man’s Government? Where is his King and his Kingdom? Where is his President, his country, and his ambassador, his army, his navy, his men of big affairs?’ I could not find them and then I declared, ‘I will help to make them.’”
The seeds of Garveyism had unwittingly been sown.
In the summer of 1914 Garvey went back home to Jamaica, his head spinning with plans for a programme of race redemption. “My brain was afire,” he recalled as he considered the possibility of “uniting all the Negro peoples of the world into one great body to establish a country and government absolutely their own”.
Back in Jamaica, he contacted some of his old friends and on August 1, 1914, he established the organisation that would occupy his time and energy until his death, the Universal Negro Improvement Association (UNIA) and African Communities League.
UNIA soon boasted of a membership of 4,000,000 members internationally. Garvey also created within the UNIA, the Black Cross Nurses to take care of the sick and disabled Africans.
A poster advertising the Black Star Line Steamship Corp. Sometime in early 1919, Garvey projected the idea of an all black steamship company that would link the coloured peoples of the world in commercial and industrial intercourse. “Now is the time,” he said, “for the Negro to invest in the Black Star Line so that in the near future he may exert the same influence upon the world as the white man does today.”
Soon, The Negro Factories Co-operation was formed. This co-operative included a chain of groceries, restaurants, steam laundries, small-scale industries and publishing houses and under Garvey’s dynamic leadership. The UNIA also founded the Black Star Shipping Line and later, the Black Cross Navigation Co. To further propagate the philosophy of Pan African nationalism, Garvey and the UNIA founded the weekly newspaper, Negro World, which was distributed in America, England, Canada, Africa, the entire Caribbean and almost every corner of the world where Africans lived at that period in time.
Tony Martin writes: “The UNIA was an international movement of massive proportions. At its height in the 1920s it contained over 1,200 branches in over 40 countries. Its membership spread to almost every nook and cranny of the world where African people lived in appreciable numbers.
“In many areas where there were no organised units of the association, individuals could still be found in spirit and who subscribed to Garvey’s principles.”
It wasn’t long before his enemies saw the UNIA as a threat and began to wage a campaign of terror against the UNIA and the progressive works of Marcus Garvey.
This campaign not only arose from the governments of England and the United States, but also from communists and certain African intellectuals, such as WEB Dubois, CLR James, A Phillip Randolph and George Padmore (who would later change his philosophy to Pan Africanism after being rejected by the Communist party).
The UNIA and Garvey’s philosophy has often been misinterpreted by many, as being the “Back to African Movement”, as being a racist organisation and under the leadership of a racist leader.
Garvey had never advocated total repatriation for all Africans in the Diaspora to Africa. Garvey and the UNIA advocated that Africans in the Diaspora with high technological skills should make their contributions to the development of the Motherland, Africa.
He sent doctors, lawyers, engineers, technicians and other professionals to Liberia as part of the UNIA’s contribution to the industrialisation, liberation and unification of Africa and African people.
Before his untimely death on June 10, 1940, in England, Garvey left statements with us that were to be beneficial to all African people, if put into practice at all times. He said:
“The greatest weapon used against African people is disorganisation” and “Africa for the Africans, those at home and those abroad. We have a beautiful history and we shall create another in the future that will astonish the world.”
Garvey inspired generations of great Africans, past and present, including: Patrice Lumumba, Kwame Nkrumah, Malcolm X, Elijah Muhammed, Kwame Ture (Stokley Carmichael), Yosef Ben Jochannan and Hoki Madhubuti.
This weekend, various Rastafarian groups and popular entertainment personalities will honour the memory of the Honourable Marcus Garvey on the anniversary of (what would have been) his 115 birthday.
—Additional reporting Nigel Telesford``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xHonouring an African leader``x1029527485,55627,Development``x``x
``xBy Elton Dzikiti Recently in Malaysia, herald.co.zw
SOME developing countries in Africa and Asia have embarked on a programme to counter inaccurate and biased news reports disseminated by Western news agencies and media houses.
Although this appears to be an onerous task considering the limited resources available in the developing countries, the participants are determined to put in a good fight.
Leaders from the concerned countries have pledged to back the project, dubbed the Smart News Network International (SNNi).
The Internet will be heavily relied upon to offer alternative voices to stories carried mostly by Western media institutions like Reuters, AFP, the British Broadcasting Corporation and Cable News Network.
SNNi was launched in August last year in Kampala, Uganda by host president Yoweri Museveni, Mozambican leader Joachim Chissano and Malaysian premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad.
It encompasses a number of media organisations from some African countries, Malaysia and other nations, which subscribe to the concept of smart partnership.
Current participating members include the Daily News of Botswana, Bernama, The New Strait Times, The Star and Utusan Malaysia — all of Malaysia, the Mozambique News Agency, Namibia Today, BuaNews (South Africa), New Vision (Uganda) and The Herald (Zimbabwe).
More players from Africa have already expressed interest in joining the network, which has started producing encouraging results since its inception.
The New Ziana (Zimbabwe) is also due to join the network, while other news agencies and media houses in the Republic of Guinea, Malawi, Ghana and Laos are expected to follow suit.
The thrust involves daily contribution of accurate, fair and balanced news items — including photographs and video images — by the members to the SNNi website (www.snni.org).
Newspapers or agencies from participating countries can then access that site and use stories filed by members on their respective countries.
That would, it is hoped, provide the developing countries with objective, fair, accurate and balanced news about their peer nations as opposed to reports from or supported by the West.
More than 20 senior journalists from Africa, Malaysia and Laos recently attended a workshop in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, on SNNi.
Malaysian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr Seri Syed Hamid Albar, told the scribes that most Western media organisations were prone to projecting a distorted and slanted coverage of developing countries.
"They tend to highlight our failures instead of our successes. They choose to interpret events to suit their own agendas rather than to report facts objectively," Mr Albar said.
"They try to impose their so-called journalistic values and judgment on us in the name of Press freedom and freedom of expression without taking into consideration the local circumstances, conditions and sensitivity peculiar to our countries or region."
He said on the other hand, the Western countries were more often than not projected in positive light.
Countries of the South, he added, have over the last two decades started to marshal their own forces to create channels to distribute their own news and information.
"Various regional media groupings have grown up to disseminating news about their countries among one another, thereby providing alternative sources of news and information other than those from the Western media."
He said there was evidence that such exchanges of news helped to provide objective and accurate news and information to the outside world in efforts to counter the distortion and half truths or even fabrications that some Western-based media organisations churn.
Chairman of the SNNi project, Mr Tan Sri Kamarul Ariffin, said journalists were expected to uphold the principles of natural justice, one of which is audi alterem partem (listening to the other side).
"Unfortunately, some of them deliberately ignore the basic ethical standard of fair and accurate reporting by succumbing to political or ethnic bias, and worse by being downright dishonest," said Mr Ariffin.
He also criticised coverage of developing countries by global media players, which he said was from "their own blinkered perspective with scant regard for alternative views".
"It is not uncommon for the global television networks and news agencies to slant their stories to suit the vested interest of their political or corporate masters.
"News disseminated by certain wire agencies have not always been fair and balanced, and accordingly they must be regarded with care and circumspection."
A few days after the workshop, leaders attending the Langkawi International Dialogue challenged the media to report objectively and accurately about events in the so-called Third World.
They also encouraged journalists from the developing world to start trusting each other and rely on news items generated by them and not from "parachute journalists".
In opening the dialogue, Prime Minister Mohamad said when governments in developing democracies are stable and remain in power for long, even if democratically elected and above board, they are accused of being undemocratic.
"The international media and the governments of the liberal countries will all work hard to undermine these countries. They cannot bring themselves to believe that the people want it this way. They cannot believe that the natives they had ruled before understand democracy and the rule of law."
He said the international media fabricates stories that if developing democracies were stable, then the leaders must be dictators.
"Or they would report, despite evidence on the contrary, that these leaders were ignored by the people, that the people fear them.
"For the media and the Western governments there is nothing right that these governments of the natives can do. And because they have convinced themselves through their own lies that these governments are bad, they would do their best to destabilise these countries. They would support and encourage anyone, NGOs in particular, to overthrow the government."
Describing the practice as economic terrorism Mr Mohamad said to fend it off, developing countries must work together within their own borders and between countries.
He acknowledged that although the countries were weak and client states largely dependent on aid and loans, it was still possible to take a common stand in the fight.
"In this we are not alone. There are forces within the rich countries themselves which are with us and we can enlist their help."
During a session at the LID whereby leaders turned the tables and grilled journalists, the theme was mainly on why the developing countries were always portrayed negatively.
The leaders included President Mugabe, Mr Mohamad, South African Deputy President Jacob Zuma, Mozambique Prime Minister Pascoal Mocumbi, Ghana’s President John Kufuor, President of Sudan Colonel Al-Bashir, Uganda Vice-President Specioza Kazibwe, King Mswati of Swaziland, Dr Pakalitha Mosisili of Lesotho and former Botswana premier Ketumile Masire.
In Zimbabwe, the Minister of State in Vice-President Msika’s office, Dr Olivia Muchena, this week called upon black consciousness movements across the world to create their own media houses.
She told a delegation of visiting Americans that there was need to educate the world, starting with the United States congress, about the actual situation in Zimbabwe.
"It is completely weird that the US Congress sits down and decides to impose sanctions on Zimbabwe when they get their information from CNN an the BBC who have no moral obligation to judge us.
"Zimbabwe is an independent jurisdiction and therefore must not be persecuted on account of false reports by the Western media," said Dr Muchena.
This growing realisation by the so-called developing countries to tell their own stories is set to change the way events have been reported, bringing relief to governments and leaders long demonised unjustly by biased media organisations.
Reproduced from:
http://www.herald.co.zw/index.php?id=13172&pubdate=2002-08-16``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xTime to take the bull by the horns``x1029554996,24791,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xHerald
THIRTEEN more white commercial farmers have been arrested for defying a Govern-ment directive to vacate their premises.
They were expected to spend the night in police custody.
Yesterday’s arrests, made in the Nyamandlovu, Fort Rixon and Mhangura commercial farming areas, bring to 19 the total number of such arrests since Thursday.
The Government has said it is losing patience with defiant farmers, most of whose eviction notices expired last Saturday.
Chief police spokesman Assistant Commissioner Way-ne Bvudzijena last night confirmed the arrests of the 13.
Eight were arrested in Nyamandlovu, three in Fort Rixon and two in Mhangura.
Asst Comm Bvudzijena said that more arrests were to be expected as the force was receiving more information on defiant farmers from the acquiring authority, the Minister of Lands, Agriculture and Rural Resettlement. MORE``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``x13 more farmers arrested ``x1029585039,9626,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xHerald
THIS year’s farming season is a litmus test for the newly resettled farmers to prove their competence and shame the country’s detractors, President Mugabe said yesterday.
Addressing the 63rd Zimbabwe Farmers’ Union congress in Harare, he reminded members of the union who include the newly resettled farmers that they faced a test to prove they could produce and feed the nation.
"This congress, therefore, could not have come at a better time for preparations to be properly discussed and agreed towards ensuring the success of the coming agricultural season," he said.
The Government would help farmers with inputs and seek the participation of the private sector and other institutions to come up with credit schemes to enable easy access to inputs.
On their part, the farmers should fully utilise the land allocated to them under resettlement. MORE``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xNewly Resettled Farmers Face Litmus Test``x1029585145,21728,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xby Ayinde
August 18, 2002
The BBC, Guardian UK, Independent UK, Daily Telegraph UK and most news feeds are misinforming the public about the Zimbabwe land affair. They choose to feature or highlight articles that sympathize with the White farmers that are crammed with lies.
They all claim that the shortage of food in Zimbabwe is due to the farm seizures, however this is not the entire story.
Many regions in Africa are presently experiencing a drought and that is responsible for low food production. Most of the White farmers in Zimbabwe grew tobacco while peasant farmers grow about 70% of the maize used in Zimbabwe. ( Famine in southern Africa Guardian UK )
The shortage of food is directly related to the drought and trade restrictions imposed by Britain and the U.S.
It should be noted that these farms are being seized and turned over in time to get the new farmers ready for the next crop season.
Another fact usually left out is that most of the farm workers were from Malawi or Mozambique and they received an average of about US$25 a month, furthermore living conditions on the farms were awfully poor.
These Malawian and Mozambican laborers were heavily dependent on their White employers, relying on them for 'free' or heavily subsidized housing and 'health care', as well as 'education' for their children. This is the modern day slavery that these White farmers wickedly benefited from.
Most of the food problems in Africa are directly related to the colonial policy of seizing the most fertile lands in Africa to produce food for Europe. Africans were to supply cheap labour. In many cases indigenous Africans who usually grew their own food were forced unto the worst lands and as such they became dependant of food imports.
Whether we like Mugabe or not has nothing to do with the fact that the frontline media reports fail to give the readers the true picture.
####
Articles that give a better picture of the situation:
Britain's Guardian: An apologia for imperialist intervention in Zimbabwe
By Barbara Slaughter; 3 April 2002
On March 14, in the immediate aftermath President Robert Mugabe’s election victory in Zimbabwe, the Guardian newspaper published an editorial pronouncing its verdict on the result.
The Guardian has, along with its predecessor the Manchester Guardian, been the voice of English liberalism for almost two centuries, priding itself on its encouragement of critical debate. As such it has a very definite constituency amongst the educated middle class. Undoubtedly therefore, some of its readers will have been concerned about the open colonial character of the recent British intervention in Zimbabwean affairs. The country’s opposition party, the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) received financial and political support from Britain and even before the election had taken place, Prime Minister Tony Blair demanded an MDC victory and stated openly that no other result would be acceptable.
Full Article : wsws.org
Zimbabwe Under Siege
Aug 26, 2002 by Gregory Elich
http://allafrica.com/stories/printable/200209040535.html
Farm workers caught in the middle -BBC
(Not featured on BBC's front pages)
Zimbabwe: War on the Peasantry by George Monbiot
Wholly Derelict Journalism
Letter to the Editor
by Alex Jay Berman, Sept 09, 2002
http://www.swans.com/library/art8/berman02.html
My Journalistic Dereliction:
Response to Mr. Berman's Letter
by Gregory Elich, Sept 09, 2002
http://www.swans.com/library/art8/elich005.html
Zimbabwe: Life After The Election
by Baffour Ankomah, Sept 09, 2002
http://www.swans.com/library/art8/ankomah1.html``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xMedia bias on the Zimbabwe Crisis``x1029678235,27870,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xHerald
ALL commercial farmers whose pieces of land have been designated for resettlement are now forced to pay terminal benefits to their former workers following a new rule now in force.
In the amendment of the Labour Relations (Terminal Benefits and Entitlements of Agricultural Employees Affected by Compulsory Acquisition) Regulations gazetted last week, all farm workers will be entitled to receive benefits even if their employers were served with notices before the regulations came into effect.
Affected farm workers will also receive their terminal benefits whether or not their employment was terminated before or after the regulations were introduced.
According to a statutory instrument published in the Government Gazette, the amendment was necessary to avoid doubt over what category of workers qualified for compensation.
In April this year, an Agricultural Employees’ Compensation Committee to determine terminal benefits to farm workers whose employers’ farms are acquired for resettlement was set up.
The committee, chaired by the Secretary for Public Service, Labour and Social Welfare or his nominee, comprises representatives from the ministries of Agriculture, Local Government and the National Employment Council for the Agricultural Industry.
It determines what terminal benefits and entitlements, if any, are due to any employee of an employer in respect of whom the committee receives notification of payment of compensation for land compulsorily acquired for resettlement. MORE``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xNew rule on farm workers’ benefits``x1029819670,56999,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Zvenyika E. Mugari, herald.co.zw
Historical records show that Chief Huchu, a descendant of Chief Chirimu-hanzu, together with his people, were the first people to settle in and around the area between the little towns of Chivhu and Mvuma. The name of their first Chief was Chivasa.
Oral accounts from those who were old enough to recall how things were in the early 1900s say this area was virgin land when their fathers first settled there.
There was no European settlement anywhere near this area. It was our land.
Mr Fidelis Musemburi is reported (in the book Civil War In Rhodesia, A Report from the Rhodesian Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace published in 1976) as saying: "Things changed when a certain Mr Frog came and said to my father, ‘I have come to tell you that this land on which you plough and keep your cattle has been bought by Willoughby’s company (Central Estates) and is now their land.’"
The obvious question the people asked was: From whom has the land been bought since it is our land?
But as white rule became entrenched, it became clear that Huchu and his people could only remain on the land provided they gave their labour to the European Company, the new owners of the land, in a quasi-slavery arrangement.
It was really a form of internal slavery (chibharo) where each head of a family together with wife and children earned food rations plus half a crown per month, out of which they could pay their taxes.
They remained on their original homeland for the next three to four decades working as the company’s vassals (varanda).
In the early 1950s, when the process of implementing the Land apportionment Act intensified, the Huchu people had to be moved just like other Africans who were unfortunate to find themselves in areas demarcated as European areas.
They had to be relocated in those areas, which had been marked as Native Reserves.
But because the company still needed their services they moved from kuMacha to Hunyani Reserve, about 20 km to the west of Mvuma town along the Mvuma- Gweru road.
Their status remained unclear as the company continued to demand their labour as before.
The people’s resistance to the continued slavery sparked conflict between the Huchu people and the Central Estates authorities.
This conflict, compounded with the enactment of the Land Tenure Act of 1969, resulted in more land being annexed by white settlers.
All land in natural regions 1 and 2 as well as most of the land falling in natural region 3 was declared European land.
Hunyani Reserve was thus "legally" lost to the Europeans.
Those who lived in this area — chiefs Huchu, Gobo and Ruya — were to be moved to new tribal trust lands.
The initial plan was to relocate all these three chiefs with their people in Silobela.
While his colleagues willingly complied, chief Stephen Jojo Huchu, with the support of his people, offered resistance to this forced eviction from their homeland.
He refused to be resettled in an area whose agricultural potential was inferior to the place they were leaving behind.
He only agreed to be relocated to Charama area in Gokwe after the white regime had threatened to use force.
Because Charama was a tsetse-infested zone, the Huchu people were not allowed to take any of their livestock with them.
"We were forced to sell all our goats, sheep and cattle to the white man.
"As for pigs, we had to slaughter as many as we could dry in that short space of time, leaving the rest to roam in the ruins," recalls Mbuya Mazvidzeni Makoni, of Makoni village, Chief Huchu.
"The white man had decided that he was not going to buy the pigs. We were allowed to carry chicken and dogs with us, only after serious bargaining with the white man.
"Unfortunately, the dogs did not last long in our new land. They all died of a very mysterious disease, which caused dog blindness.
"I suspect that was the same disease which killed my husband and many other men we came with in the early 1970s. People died in many numbers then," she said.
Surprisingly, in 1970, when the Huchu people were being forcibly evicted from Hunyani and when they were being forced to sell their cattle, all the civilised talk about "willing buyer willing seller" had not been invented.
Incidentally, it was in this year when the colonial regime changed its currency from the pound to the dollar .
"And it caused so much confusion among our people, the majority of whom were semi-numerate when our cattle were being auctioned in the new currency.
"We tended to think that the dollar was equivalent to the pound when in actual fact the value of the dollar was half that of the pound," said Tozivepi Matimbe, one of the few remaining old men who migrated from Hunyani in 1970.
"The whole auctioning process was not only unfair to us, it was downright fraudulent.
"There were no prices for calves. They were simply taken over free of charge by the buyer.
"I was not always as poor as you see me today. I owned a flock of 15 sheep, 11 goats and 7 head of cattle, but that is all history now.
"With the money I got after selling all these, I was only able to buy a bicycle and the balance did not last until the next rainy season."
Unfortunately again for the Huchu people, the language of journalism of that time had not yet evolved such damning epithets as "land grabbing, farm invasions, farm looting, forced evictions and so on".
The media of the time was mum over the forced mass evictions and expropriation of the black populations, who formerly lived in the Central Estates area, Rhodesdale area, Fort Rixon area, to name only a few.
The black populations involved then were much larger than the 3 000 odd white commercial farmers who must make way for the new farmers now.
Such racial injustices on a national scale as were perpetrated on the Huchu people surely should have merited international media attention and condemnation.
But it was not to be because it was not in the interest of their capitalist financiers.
The tragic story of the Huchu people was something which the mellow drums of the journalistic fraternity ought to have been drumming loudly about for all the world to know instead of the melodramatic fictions about mayhem on the farms, hapless women getting beheaded by party functionaries and general breakdown of the rule of law in Zimbabwe.
The legacy of those racial crimes committed during the colonial chapter of Africa’s history is still with us today in the form of a social class of the black peasantry.
To put the record straight, it must be known that peasant agriculture itself was a creation of colonialism.
Both the Shona and the Ndebele people had established a vibrant agricultural economy by the advent of white colonial settlerism on the sub-continent.
They kept enough livestock and grew enough crops for self-sustenance as well as for trade.
Mandivamba Rukuni’s book Zimbabwe’s Agricultural Revolution (1994) gives a clear historical perspective to Zimbabwe’s land question and on how the dual system of commercial/peasant agriculture was a deliberate outcome of the racial settlement patterns of the colonial system.
The centrality of the land question explains why revolutionary songs such as "Tinodawo nyika zuva rayo rasvika" inspired many generations of black Zimbabweans to fight for the restoration of their land.
Ask any ordinary Zimbabwean what they think the liberation struggle was about and they will tell you that it was fought so that we could take back our land, not about democracy, rule of law or good governance.
"Hunyani remains a lost paradise to us, and the whites who forcibly evicted us should be held responsible for this poverty which we are in today," said Mbuya Madzungudza.
She was pounding the dried fruits of a thorn bush, which they recently discovered as a good substitute for washing soap powder, which has been priced beyond their reach.
"Given the choice, going back to Hunyani would be paradise restored for me, and I don’t doubt for most of my people," said the acting chief Mr Tadios Huchu.
His father, the then chief Regis Huchu, had succeeded the legendary chief Stephen Jojo Huchu who died soon after his release from prison for the crime of harbouring three armed insurgents in his area in the year 1975.
Reproduced from:
http://www.herald.co.zw/index.php?id=13279&pubdate=2002-08-20
Zimbabwe Under Siege - by Gregory Elich
For a case study on the politics and economics behind 'sustainability,' one needs look no further than Zimbabwe. Gregory Elich presents an excellent and comprehensive review of the history of Zimbabwe and its ongoing land reform struggles in the face of drought, starvation and economic disaster perpetuated by Western intervention and demands.
Elich's work is particularly timely as Great Britain and the U.S. are considering making the sanctions against Zimbabwe more severe and will be working very hard at the Earth Summit to force African states to also impose sanctions. MORE...``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xRacial crimes committed during colonial era``x1029820287,46074,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xFred Bridgland In Johannesburg
PRESSURE is growing on South Africa’s president, Thabo Mbeki, to take a tough stand against his northern neighbour, Zimbabwe’s President Robert Mugabe.
A robust statement last weekend by Pacific Commonwealth leaders was followed yesterday by a demand from the official opposition in Pretoria, the Democratic Alliance (DA), that Mr Mbeki "end his chronic silence on the issue".
At the Commonwealth meeting, Australia’s premier, John Howard, said that he wanted "to throw the book" at Mr Mugabe.
Tony Leon, the DA leader, insisted that an emergency parliamentary debate be convened on the situation in Zimbabwe, where 176 white farmers have been arrested for defying orders to vacate their farms.
Mr Leon said that the arrests of two South Africans demanded a firm response. "It is time that President Mbeki ended his chronic silence on the reign of terror and cruel discrimination being practised by Robert Mugabe," Mr Leon said. MORE``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xMbeki faces new pressure over Zimbabwe``x1029917084,47895,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xChris McGreal in Johannesburg
Thursday August 22, 2002
The Guardian UK
The United States government has said it wants to see President Robert Mugabe removed from power and that it is working with the Zimbabwean opposition to bring about a change of administration.
As scores of white farmers went into hiding to escape a round-up by Zimbabwean police, a senior Bush administration official called Mr Mugabe's rule "illegitimate and irrational" and said that his re-election as president in March was won through fraud.
Walter Kansteiner, the assistant secretary of state for African affairs, went on to blame Mr Mugabe's policies for contributing to the threat of famine in Zimbabwe.
"We do not see President Mugabe as the democratically legitimate leader of the country," he said. "The political status quo is unacceptable because the elections were fraudulent. So we're working with others, other countries in the region as well as throughout the world, on how we can in fact, together, encourage the body politic of Zimbabwe to in fact go forward and correct that situation."
Mr Kansteiner said the US was working with trade unions, pro-democracy groups and human rights organisations to bring about change. He did not say how he believed Mr Mugabe could be brought down, but dismissed the possibility of a trade embargo, calling it "a blunt instrument" that would hurt ordinary Zimbabweans.
Mr Mugabe is likely to seize on Mr Kansteiner's statement to reinforce his contention that his opponents are stooges for western neo-colonialism.
Shortly after the US official's remarks, a senior Zimbabwean foreign affairs official told Reuters: "The legitimacy of our political system or our president is not dependent on America, Britain or any other country, but on Zimbabweans.
"The bullying tactics that America and Britain are using against us are meant to frustrate our quest for social and economic justice, to stop our programme to redistribute some of the very large tracts of land held by whites here to the indigenous black people."
The US attack on Mr Mugabe came after police began arresting white farmers for defying an August 9 deadline to vacate their land and homes. Initially, more than half of the 2,900 farmers had refused to obey, but after police began making arrests, many packed up and went.
So far, 215 commercial farmers have been arrested on a charge that carries a two-year prison sentence. Many have been released on bail, sometimes on condition that they leave their farms within days.
One of those detained has been charged with attempted murder after allegedly driving his vehicle at four policemen.
Police spokesman Sergeant Lovemore Sibanda said that scores more had gone into hiding.
"The farmers we are looking for are those who vacated their farms, leaving behind their wives and children. Others left the doors of their farmhouses locked, with all the property inside, hoping to return later," he said.
The government has appealed to poor black people to move on to the expropriated land immediately in an attempt to help address the country's dire food shortages.
Harare blames drought for a massive shortfall in this year's harvest. But Andrew Natsios, the head of the US Agency for International Development, says Mr Mugabe's policies have contributed to the threat of famine. "It is madness to arrest commercial farmers in the middle of a drought when they could grow food to save people from starvation," he said.
Mr Natsios accused the Zimbabwean government of using the expropriated farms to reward politicians loyal to Mr Mugabe, and military officers, instead of giving them to the poor and landless.
About six million people, half of Zimbabwe's population, are likely to be in need of food aid within weeks, according to the UN. But only a fraction of the 1.5m tonnes of food needed to avert famine has arrived.
Reprinted from:
www.guardian.co.uk/zimbabwe/article/0,2763,778557,00.html
Ayinde
Nice to know where the Bush is coming from but sorry Bush we do not see you as the democratically elected leader of the US.
Theft of the US Presidency by Gregory Palast
The World Reacts to the US Election Crisis``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xUS admits plan to bring down Mugabe ``x1030001158,89403,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xby Pianke Nubiyang
First of all, the text in the Bible, which was written by the Hebrews when they were in Babylon, clearly led the way for the enslavement of Blacks.
The Hebrews were envious of the Black people of Egypt. It is believed that the Hebrews entered Egypt with the Hyksos and were among a number of Semitic peoples who ravaged the nation. Ahmose 1 led a rebellion and drove out he Hyksos three hundred years after they invaded (Hyksos invasion about 1694 - 1600 B.C. After the Hyksos were overthrown, their people were held in slavery in Egypt. The Jews were among them. Around 1100 B.C. (Merneptah or Rameses was Pharaoh), the Hebrews were released.
During the time in Egypt, the Hebrews or Hyksos occupiers ravaged the Egyptians, committed all types of atrocities. The Egyptians took revenge after they freed themselves from the Hyksos and enslaved the Hyksos and related groups associated with them.
After the Hebrews were freed, they began writing some of the texts of what became the Bible; however, many of the stories were ancient Egyptian, Babylonian and other cultures stories. The "creation" story and Genesis was actually first written by an Egyptian. However, due to the hatred that the Hebrews had for the Egyptians, the Hebrews included many stories that demonized the character of Blacks in general... many being outright lies and mythology. From these writings, the entire basis of Western Religious writings and beliefs were formed.
That is the main reason for racism today. It is rooted in Religion as Dr. F.K. Price plainly pointed out in "Race and Religion," (Chrenshaw Christian Center, Los Angeles, Ca).
So, as long as Africans follow foreign Semitic Religions, the Semites and Jepethites (Whites) as well as the Brown "Aryans" of India whose system of caste is rooted in ancient conquest, they will continue to oppress Black people.
HERE IS THE SOLUTION
Black folk will do better when we return to the religions that God gave us and when we keep the covenant of recognition of the Sun, Nature and the Divine word "N-G-R" (pronounced "en-ger"). As long as Egypt, Nubia, Ghana, Wagadu, Nok, Abbysinia (today's Ethiopia) and ancient India retained their original religions, they prospered and no invader conquered their lands. As soon as they began to kneel in front of the statues of other people as "God," they began to loose confidence in themselves...they began to see others as superior, letting them enter their lands, thinking their goods were better, trusting them...all hell broke loose after that.
THOSE WHO FORGET HISTORY ARE APT TO REPEAT IT.
At present, when I see tall, majestic Black brothers and sisters of the Dinka, Nuba and other Africans being wiped out, their villages burned, their woman ravaged, I would be a fool to think that being in the religions of the people doing it will make them stop. What about the thousands of Africans of the same religion who are being enslaved in Sudan and Mauritania? What about our ancestors, many who were of the same religions?
Those who are spreading their religions on gullible Africans are interested in building an empire at the expense of Africans and their lands and resources. They don't care one bit about the Black race, because Blacks in their lands are treated just as slaves are (find out for yourself)
So where does that leave the Black race, following religions that continue to believe we should be their slaves?
What we should do is return to our ancient religions, refine and reform them, remove bad practices, build temples, write the sacred lore, write the prayers, legends and so on, mark an recognize the sacred sites and days.
Look, no other group is more spiritual than the Dogon. These are people who perform a scientific religion. No one is more religious than the Vadu of Benin and the Dahomey area of West Africa or the Yorubas, the South African Shamans, the Pacomanias of Jamaica, the Shango of Trinidad, the Yorubas of Cuba, Mexico, Brazil...Instead of allowing trickster "missionaries" to fool us into rejecting our scientific Religions, we should work to consolidate all of them and start developing systems of "churches" temples and places of worship, a priesthood, lore, religious rituals and finding ways to save them and pass them down.
Religion is part of the SOUL of a people. If we decide to become or adopt the religions, names, clothing styles, language and habits of other people, then we become slaves and copies of THEM, and we loose OUR "SOUL."
When we worship and praise the way we had done before our culture was destroyed, that is when we will rediscover our potential and our power. Believe it.
SEE "BLACK HISTORY TIMELINE" http://community.webtv.net/paulnubiaempire``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xReturn to African Religion``x1030034271,8978,Development``x``x
``xJOHANNESBURG, (IRIN) - South Africa and Botswana have denied they have signed up to a US plan to isolate Zimbabwe's President Robert Mugabe, and said their policy was rather to influence Harare through dialogue.
"There can never be a policy for South Africa to replace any government ... to discuss with anybody about how to replace another government," South African Deputy Foreign Minister Aziz Pahad was quoted as saying on Thursday. He said Pretoria and the region had an obligation to help Zimbabwe find a way out of its economic and political crisis.
Botswana's permanent secretary for foreign affairs, Ernest Mpofu, also rejected any suggestion of working with Washington to sideline Mugabe. "Why would we isolate him? Our policy is to work with Zimbabwe to try and sort out the problems there. If you isolate Zimbabwe what problem are you solving?" the South African news agency SAPA reported him as saying.
US Assistant Secretary of State for Africa Walter Kansteiner said on Tuesday that Zimbabwe's presidential election in March was fraudulent, and Washington did not recognise Mugabe as the country's legitimate leader.
"What we're trying to do is influence those policymakers at the top. And so, in that sense, we're continuing to work with the South Africans and the Botswanans and Mozambicans on what are some of the strategies that we can use to isolate Mugabe in the sense that he has to realise that the political status quo is not acceptable," Kansteiner said.
A Zimbabwe presidential spokesman told IRIN that there was nothing new in Kansteiner's statement. "They stated shortly after the election that they didn't recognise the poll, and we are aware that for quite some time they have tried to influence the sub-region to take a hostile position," the official said.
Ross Herbert of the South African Institute of International Affairs said that regional leaders preferred a policy of quiet diplomacy. But "there is rising concern outside of Africa to want to do something", triggered by Zimbabwe's controversial land reform programme and human rights record.
He said with half the Zimbabwean population facing starvation as a result of drought and land reform, Americans found it hard to understand the Zimbabwean government "saying please give us food while kicking out its white farmers".
The Namibian National Society for Human Rights said in a statement on Thursday that while western criticism of Mugabe seemed related to the government's "persecution of white farmers", they condemned Zimbabwe's human rights record in general.
The society called on African leaders to "subject President Mugabe to the peer review system as envisaged in the Constitutive Act of the African Union and the New Partnership for Africa's Development".
But director of the Pretoria-based Africa Institute, Eddie Maloka, told IRIN that Washington's global policy of pursuing regime change in countries it perceived as "rogue states" was not compatible with "African realities".
"It complicates the policy space available to countries in the region", and would fatally brand any neighbour that publicly lined up with Washington as "a stooge".
Maloka said the region's quiet diplomacy was not aimed at overthrowing the government, but focused on promoting internal dialogue. For the time being, with both the government and opposition remaining "intransigent", there was little sign of progress. But the situation would inevitably change as the economy further deteriorated and food shortages bit harder towards the end of the year.
"The fast-track land reform process is irreversible, but the reality of economic pain is going to be much more pronounced [and Zimbabwe] will need its neighbours," Maloka said.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xRegion backs away from US plan``x1030035560,89922,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xby Pianke Nubiyang
GENETICALLY ENGINEERED SEEDS SELF-DESTRUCT AFTER ONE PLANTING, FORCING FARMERS IN "THIRD WORLD" NATIONS TO CONTINUALLY DEPEND ON FOREIGN COMPANIES FOR THEIR SEEDS.
One may not believe their eyes after reading this (AFRICANS OF SOUTHERN AFRICA, TROPICAL AFRICA, INDIA, THE WORLD, LISTEN GOOD).
According to the September issue of Scientific American Magazine, seed companies and their scientists are now thinking about developing genetically engineered seeds, from natural foods found in the tropics. These seeds will only be capable of producing foods ONCE, and the genetic engineers will have the power to sell more seeds, while the local seeds would become contaminated and local farmers would have to depend on foreign companies for their seeds.
In California, there is about 11 months of dry weather. In fact much of California is in the high mountains or desert regions, some of it is near the coasts or the far north. Yet, most of California's best land is in regions that were dry lake beds or deserts that are sometimes identical in looks to parts of West Africa Sahel and the regions of Sudan and Southern Africa. In fact after Texas, California has the type of hot climate (110-125 degrees F, that one finds in parts of Africa), yet because of good and efficient irrigation, California's billion-dollar industry is agricultural produce. (hear this African leaders...West Indians others...its agriculture)
Therefore, the idea of taking African seeds and having foreign scientists genetically engineer seeds to produce only once is really committing genocide. How can any nation on earth agree to this scheme of destruction and dependence?
Here is the scheme again. Seed producing companies and scientists are planning to create genetically engineered seeds that will produce crops only once. After that, nations will have to depend on the seed companies to create more seeds, because the crop seeds will not be of any use.
AFRICANS/OTHERS AROUND THE WORLD MUST UNITE IN STOPPING THE DESTRUCTION OF CROP YIELDS AND PLANT LIFE
In stead of creating seeds that self-destruct after one planting, so that farmers will be held like slaves to the producers of seeds that originated in tropical lands, farmers around the world should unite and work to stop the attempt to control the production of food by a few people. Let's get farmers and Ministers of Agriculture from Africa, the Caribbean, China, Europe, America, Australia and other lands to unite on this issue.
Farmers are the people who keep the world alive. If there were no farming, civilization would not exist. Farmers, especially Black farmers in the U.S., some White family farmers in the U.S. and Europe, farmers of China, Japan, India, Africa, the Caribbean and around the world are a breed of people who make great sacrifices, and many of us have seen what they have to go through on the news or read it in the paper. Imagine being a farmer in Trinidad and Jamaica, St. Lucia or Haiti and planting a crop, tending it and watching it get near harvest, only to have a hurricane wipe it out. That is heart breaking. Imagine you are a farmer in Europe and floods destroy all your livestock and crops. Imagine a farmer in China having to cut down because its not attracting people, who prefer to move in the cities. Imagine a Midwestern U.S. farmer selling his equipment due to being broke. Imagine peasant farmers in parts of Southern Africa having no land and have to work on the farm of foreigners like semi-slaves for a few dollars, while a few people control the entire system of agriculture.
FARMERS AND GOVERNMENTS SHOULD BE AWARE AND PREPARED
Farmers and governments in Africa, the Caribbean, Asia, Latin America and elsewhere should be very careful about the trickery of selling their national heritage in the form of seeds, so that companies can control the food supply of the entire world and hold the rest of humanity hostage with their scheme to genetically modify seeds and crops.
Zambia must take GM crops or starve
The United States, which grows genetically modified, or GM crops, provides 75 percent of the food WFP distributes to southern Africa.
The Zambian government says it is concerned about the safety of biotech food, and is afraid that GM grains might be planted, thus contaminating its food crop.
Donors are exaggerating food crisis
www.zamnet.zm - PRESIDENT Levy Mwanawasa has saild Government's rejection of Genetically Modified maize does not warrant a smear campaign from some donors who are now exaggerating the extent of hunger in the country.
Mr Mwanawasa said contrary to assertions by some donors, it was not true that 2 million Zambians face starvation now that Government had rejected the GM maize.
Speaking in Sinazongwe at the start of his tour of Southern Province yesterday, the President warned that Government may be forced to give matching orders to such donors if reports that 2 million Zambians may die of starvation persist.
"If these people think we have committed a sin to reject the GMOs, then they should go before we give them matching orders," the President said when he addressed Sinazongwe residents yesterday.
Mr Mwanawasa said if the donors had information that some people in areas they know were dying of hunger, they should go to his office where upon he would give them relief food.
"If these people know who is starving because of lack of food, let them come to me and say so and so is starving. We will give them relief food to give those people," Mr Mwanawasa said.
The President said the government's decision to reject the GMOs did not mean that the country undermined the people who offered her food.
He said the decision was made in the interest of the public and he did not have any regrets for taking such a stance.
Mr Mwanawasa stated that no one would die of hunger for as long as the MMD government remained in office.
Mr Mwanawasa underscored Government's decision to provide for the hungry when he announced that 100 metric tonnes of maize had been supplied to Sinazongwe while 150 tonnes were destined for Choma.
The President wondered how else the country could have accepted GMOs when in fact these foods had been rejected in Europe.
"If Europe has rejected the GMOs why should we accept them just because we are poor," Mr Mwanawasa asked.
Mr Mwanawasa said if Zambia produced GMOs, Europe would have been the first to reject the items.
He said Zambia should be proud that her agriculture products were accepted in Europe because they were not genetically modified.
Mr Mwanawasa urged the people of Sinazongwe to work hard and ensure there was food throughout the year to feed themselves.
He said it was a shame that despite having been independent for the past 37 years, Zambia depended on food imports.
Mr Mwanawasa said the winter maize project going on in the area should be supported because it would create employment and ensure food security.
He warned the people not to steal the produce from Agriflora because doing so would frustrate investors who may end up leaving the area.
Mr Mwanawasa said he was impressed with the performance of the winter maize project in Sinazongwe.
And KELVIN CHONGO reports that Agriflora general manager Niel Sledge said their farm was making K400 million per day in agricultural products exported to European markets representing sales of K12 billion per month.
Mr Sledge said the company supported the government's efforts and policy on agriculture.
Speaking when he took President Mwanawasa on a conducted tour of the farm, Mr Sledge said the farm has employed 7,000 workers and at full scale can produce 20,000 metric tonnes of winter maize and a similar quantity of rain-fed maize.
He said from the current winter maize grown, his company would produce 800 metric tonnes of maize.
Agriculture and Cooperatives Minister Mundia Sikatana said he was happy with the project because it had also guaranteed employment throughout the year to the villagers.
Zambia Rejects U.N. Appeal
August 25, 2002 RaceandHistory Message Board
NGOs pursue agenda of Western governments
Bush baits Brussels over GM crops August 25, 2002
The US government is to launch a trade war over GM crops in an attempt to force the European Union to back down in its tough stance against GM.
Will GM crops deliver benefits to farmers?
African nations ban biofood aid despite famine
San Francisco Chronicle - (Aug 23, 2002)
Hungry nations balk at gene-altered food
Boston Globe - (Aug 23, 2002)
Panel Urges Caution on Cloned, Engineered Food
Reuters - (Aug 21, 2002)
Better rice, less global warming
BBC - (Aug 20, 2002)
GM crop trials spread pollen
The Guardian (UK). - (Aug 19, 2002)
Zambia Rejects U.S. Genetic Corn
Associated Press - (Aug 17, 2002)
Zambia turns down GM aid
BBC - (Aug 17, 2002)
Zambia to Refuse Modified Food Aid, Diplomat Says
Reuters - (Aug 16, 2002)
Genetically Modified Seed Found
Associated Press - (Aug 15, 2002)
Unauthorized genetically modified seed found in crop trials
Associated Press - (Aug 15, 2002)
Scientists shocked at GM gene transfer
The Guardian (UK). - (Aug 15, 2002)
Biotech firms didn't isolate GM crops properly: U.S. agency
CBC - (Aug 14, 2002)
EPA accuses two biotech companies of failing to properly isolate genetically modified crops
Associated Press - (Aug 14, 2002)
Ore. Measure Aims at Modified Foods
Associated Press - (Aug 12, 2002)
#
Credits : www.zamnet.zm, www.herald.co.zw,
http://community.webtv.net/nubianem
Compiled by: Trinicenter Staff``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xGenetically engineered seeds self-destruct after 1 crop``x1030227474,9540,Development``x``x
``xHarare - Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe on Sunday announced his new cabinet, replacing the finance minister.
Here is a list of ministers in Mugabe's new cabinet, according to state media.
Minister of Special Affairs in the President's Office: John Nkomo (moved, new portfolio)
Minister of Lands, Agriculture and Rural Resettlement: Dr Joseph Made (retained)
Minister of Defence: Dr Sydney Sekeramayi (retained)
Minister of Environment and Tourism; Francis Nhema (retained)
Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs: Patrick Chinamasa (retained)
Minister of Transport and Communications: Witness Mangwende (new appointment)
Minister of Local Government, Public Works and National Housing: Ignatius Chombo (retained)
Minister of Finance and Economic Development: Herbert Murerwa (moved)
Minister of Health and Child Welfare: David Parirenyatwa (promoted)
Minister of Home Affairs: Kembo Mohadi (promoted from another ministry)
Minister of Foreign Affairs: Stan Mudenge (retained)
Minister of Public Service, Labour and Social Welfare: July Moyo (retained)
Minister of Higher and Tertiary Education: Swithun Mombeshoro (moved)
Minister of Education, Sports and Culture: Aeneas Chigwedere (retained)
Minister of Energy and Power Development: Amos Midzi (new appointment, new ministry)
Minister of Mines and Mining Development: Edward Chindori-Chininga (retained)
Minister of Rural Resources and Water Development: Joyce Mujuru (retained)
Minister of Youth Development, Gender and Employment Creation: Elliot Manyika (retained)
Ministry of Industry and International Trade: Samuel Mumbengegwi (moved)
Minister of State for State Enterprises and Parastatals: Paul Mangwana (promoted from another ministry)
Minister of State for Information and Publicity: Jonathan Moyo (retained)
Minister of Small and Medium Enterprise Development: Sithembiso Nyoni (promoted, new ministry)
Minister of State for Science and Technology Development: Olivia Muchena (moved)
Minister of State for the Land Reform Programme: Flora Bhuka (moved)
Minister of State for National Security: Nicholas Goche (retained)``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe's cabinet after the shuffle``x1030284058,52744,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xHerald
A DEMONSTRATION planned by the MDC to continue its vilification of Zimbabwe at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in South Africa flopped yesterday.
According to delegates attending the summit which began yesterday, the MDC demonstration failed to materialise after only a handful of people turned up for the protest in Johannesburg.
The flop was mainly attributed to a warning given by the South African government that it would deal with those bent on disrupting the Earth Summit. Denials by South Africa, Botswana and Mozambique indicating that they were not part of the United States plot to oust President Mugabe and the Government had also dampened the spirits of MDC supporters in South Africa, the delegates said.
"It is also a fact that a big number of Zimbabwe-ans working here are illegal immigrants and they would not dare risk to be arrested in demonstrations and face deportation," the delegates said.
The MDC has been on a campaign to demonise the Government at major summits calling for the imposition of sanctions against the country. MORE``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xMDC demo flops in SA ``x1030505888,18684,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xHerald
PRESIDENT Mugabe yesterday described his new Cabinet as an economic and political war Cabinet to tackle the current economic problems and the British-led Western vilification campaign against Zimbabwe.
"We have just sworn in our new Cabinet and Deputy Ministers who . . . are really an economic war Cabinet on one side and taking into account the actions by Britain and its allies, they are on the other hand a political war Cabinet.
"If you look at them, they are men and women full of fight and punch," Cde Mugabe said.
The President was speaking to journalists after swearing in the new Cabinet at State House.
He said from now on the Government must be practical and be in touch with events on the ground as much as possible.
"What we need now is a Cabinet of ministers who will always be on their feet ensuring the programmes that we have agreed on are taking place and those already taking place are moving. MORE``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xMugabe's new economic and political war Cabinet``x1030505948,14201,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xwww.herald.co.zw
ZIMBABWE’S land issue will be kept off the agenda of the Earth Summit amid reports that Namibian President Sam Nujoma was preparing to get tough with what he called "arrogant white farmers" who were resisting his country’s land reforms.
South Africa’s Deputy Foreign Affairs Minister Mr Aziz Pahad said his country, which is chairing the summit, was determined to keep the agenda focused on such issues as sustainable development, ending poverty and environmental degradation.
"We hope that no particular issue, whether it is Zimbabwe or the situation in the Middle East, should detract us from the fundamental issues which people have come here to discuss," Mr Pahad said.
Zimbabwe’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Dr Tichaona Jokonya, who is attending the summit, said the country was not on the agenda of the gathering.
"Zimbabwe is not on the agenda. We resisted that move despite efforts by some countries for it to be placed on the agenda," Mr Jokonya told The Herald in Johannesburg.
Mr Pahad said South African President Mr Thabo Mbeki would only hold discussions on Zimbabwe with Australian Prime Minister Mr John Howard and Nigerian President General Olusegun Obasanjo at the "earliest opportunity" after the summit.
The three leaders constitute a troika mandated by the Commonwealth to deal with the Zimbabwean issue.
Mr Pahad’s statement comes in the wake of efforts by Britain, Australia, Canada and New Zealand to put Zimbabwe on the agenda of the World Summit on Sustainable Development. MORE``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe not on agenda of Earth Summit``x1030525935,18785,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xFrom Wisdom Mdzungairi in JOHANESSBURG
ZIMBABWE will not accept food aid containing genetically modified organisms, Lands, Agriculture and Rural Resettlement Minister Cde Joseph Made said here yesterday.
However, United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation director-general Dr Jacques Diouf urged countries in Southern Africa to carefully consider current scientific knowledge before rejecting the food aid containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
Asked if he was prepared to discuss the food aid issue with the United States officials at the World Summit on Sustainable Development, Cde Made told reporters that there was nothing to discuss between the two countries concerning the issue of GM food aid.
"Zimbabwe will not accept genetically modified food aid.
"There is nothing to discuss (with US officials) . . . You cannot use the Zimbabwean population as guinea pigs," the minister said.
Although the WSSD Summit is an opportunity for poor countries to voice their thoughts about the impact of Genetic Engineering and cloning of farm animals, many countries facing starvation, in particular Zimbabwe and its regional partners, are experiencing a difficult ethical dilemma as a result of the widespread use of Genetically Modified crops.
Zimbabwe has a longstanding policy against GM food on the grounds of human safety and the potential threat that GM crop contamination could pose for the local environment.
"You cannot talk of the morality of the American position. They always carry double standards when it comes to the developing world . . . There is no way we can bring that material into Zimbabwe which is a very clean environment," said Cde Made.
Other African countries were also finding themselves ill-equipped to deal with the GM issue.
Zambia’s permanent secretary for Information Mr David Kashweka said: "Our position on genetically modified foods is that they should not be allowed to be consumed in the country without knowing fully the implications and consequences thereof. Unfortunately when your people are starving there is little choice."
Mr Kashweka added that his government has yet to finalise the policy on GM organisms in Zambia "vis-à-vis imports or growing of such materials".
A senior Government official said regional scientists would meet in Zimbabwe next week to debate the GM foods issue.
Southern African countries were more concerned about the GMO as the agenda was driven by the biotechnological multilateral industries whose main objective was to make huge profits under the pretext of ending famine and poverty in Africa.
The local small-scale farmers who have reproduced their seeds using indigenous knowledge systems treat this debate with suspicion.
Director of Kenya’s Indigenous Information Network Ms Lucy Mulenkei said genetically modified seeds would kill traditional agriculture.
She added that the large amounts used to genetically modify plants would be better spent on helping women maximise their traditional knowledge in sustaining families.
Dr Ellie Osir who works with the International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology (ICIPE) in Nairobi, Kenya said there were risks that poor countries could expose themselves to when they accept GM foods.
ICIPE is currently testing a GM crop called BT maize, produced by Monsanto.
The maize has been genetically altered to produce the bacillus thuringiensis (BT) bacteria, a toxin which kills insects.
Traditionally BT was sprayed on crops, like a pesticide.
But when the BT gene is put inside the plant, it continues to produce the toxin itself.
BT maize has long been used in the US and recently in South Africa but this does not mean that it is safe for Africa.
The FAO director-general, however, said at a Press conference that there were currently no international agreements covering trade and aid involving food containing GMOs.
He said an ad hoc committee of Codex Alimentarius, the joint FAO-WHO food safety body, was working to develop appropriate standards.
"In the meantime, the important thing is that all donated food meets the safety standards of both the donor and recipient countries. FAO together with WHO and the World Food Programme takes the view based on information from a variety of sources and current scientific knowledge that the food being offered to Southern African countries is not likely to present a human health risk and may be eaten.
"The UN therefore believes that in the current crisis, governments in Southern Africa must consider carefully the severe and immediate consequences of limiting food aid available for millions of people so desperately in need.
Their plight must weight heavily in government decision-making," Dr Diouf said.
He said he recognised that there were concerns about potential risks to biological diversity and sustainable agriculture, however, these potential risks should be judged and managed by individual countries on a case by case basis.
In sub-Saharan Africa 70 percent of the population live in the rural areas and depend on subsistence agriculture for livelihoods. Almost 40 percent of them live in abject poverty because of failing yields, poor commodities markets, high cost of crop inputs and erratic weather conditions as the technology for irrigation is still miles away from most rural farmers.
The main challenge is that the GMOs are also protected under Article 27 Section (3b) of Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) of the Multilateral Trading agency – the World Trade Organisation (WTO).
The world body advocates for market liberalisation so that products from the North rich countries find their market in the poor South countries, in particular Africa but not vice-versa due to high tariffs and non-tariff barriers.
In South Africa GMO maize was introduced in 1998 and thousands of hectares were put under the crop. Although they have claimed that it was mainly meant for animal feed one cannot rule out the possibility of human consumption.
Meanwhile the Minister of State for Information and Publicity in the Office of the President Professor Jonathan Moyo rejected accusations that the land resettlement exercise was responsible for the food shortages in the country.
"We uphold certain political values such as sovereignty, independence and pan-African solidarity. These are the things we have to pursue here. The fast-track land resettlement is over.
"There are no people who need to move in, there are no people who need to move out. We are now praying that God gives us the next thing, the rains.
"God is not something in the control of the British. It’s in God’s hands and you cannot define the success of the land reform programme by the drought.
"While we are having drought they (Europeans) are having floods. Are they able to do anything with those floods? Are they able to grow anything? No. So you cannot judge us on such issues as the drought," Prof Moyo said.
Reproduced from:
http://www.herald.co.zw/index.php?id=13721&pubdate=2002-09-02
• More views on GM food aid``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe says No to GM food aid ``x1030988162,81394,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xAbstract: Guardian UK
The Zimbabwean president, Robert Mugabe, hijacked today's proceedings at the Johannesburg earth summit to denounce Tony Blair, telling the British leader: "Let me keep my Zimbabwe."
Mr Mugabe defended the seizures of white-owned farms.
To a round of applause from the conference hall, the Zimbabwean leader declared: "So Blair, keep your England and let me keep my Zimbabwe."
Mr Blair had already left the summit complex after delivering a short speech this morning, in which he called Africa a "scar on the conscience of the world", and urged leaders to find the political will to implement solutions to the continent's poverty and ill-health.
But speaking on the same platform this afternoon, Mr Mugabe told delegates: "We have fought for our land, we have fought for our sovereignty, small as we are we have won our independence."
Zimbabweans were "prepared to shed our blood" to protect the nation, he said.
Mr Mugabe has vowed to press ahead with the eviction of 2,900 of the 4,500 remaining white commercial farmers despite legal challenges at home and criticism in the west, particularly from the country's former colonial ruler, Britain.
Mr Mugabe said that white commercial farmers often owned several farms and would be allowed to keep at least one. "No farmer is being left without land," he said.
"We are threatening none."
Earlier, Mr Blair was also criticised by Namibia's president, Sam Nujoma, for contributing to southern Africa's problems.
In his address to the summit, Mr Nujoma said: "We here in southern Africa have one big problem, created by the British. The honourable Tony Blair is here, and he created the situation in Zimbabwe.
"The EU, who have imposed the sanctions against Zimbabwe, must raise them immediately otherwise it is useless to come here.
"The British colonial settlers in Zimbabwe today, they own 78% of the land in Zimbabwe, and Zimbabwe is a tiny country.
"It has 14 million indigenous [people] who have no land." MORE``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xHands off Zimbabwe, Mugabe tells Blair ``x1030997449,63072,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xTANGENI AMUPADHI
PRESIDENT Sam Nujoma returned from the UN Earth Summit yesterday evening boasting "I told them off" and that Africa no longer needs aid from Western nations.
Nujoma was speaking to Prime Minister Theo-Ben Gurirab and Foreign Affairs Minister Hidipo Hamutenya, in the presence of journalists, at Windhoek's Eros airport after flying in from the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg South Africa.
The strident tone was set at the Summit earlier in the day, when he launched a stinging attack on British Prime Minister Tony Blair, charging that he was the cause of Zimbabwe's ills.
As the motorcade waited to whisk the President off to State House, Nujoma briefed his newly chosen Prime Minister and Foreign Affairs chief.
"I told them off," he said to his two Cabinet colleagues as they laughed hesitantly.
"We are tired of insults [from] these people. I told them they can keep their money. I told them that these political good governance, human rights, lesbians ... that they want to impose on our culture ... they must keep those things in Europe."
Said Nujoma: "I had about 40 minutes with BBC ... I told them off."
The statements are the strongest Nujoma has so far made against the industrial world on an international stage.
NBC national radio, whose journalists Nujoma reminded "you are under my control", reported last night that the President told Britain to change its attitude towards Africa because Africans were no longer slaves.
In his interview with the BBC, Nujoma demanded that the European Union immediately lift sanctions against Zimbabwe or else Africans will also "mobilise the African Union to impose sanctions on Europe", NBC radio said.
While an anti-Mugabe march was in progress outside the hall in the plush Sandton suburb of Johannesburg, Nujoma told 1 500 heads of state and government officials that Africa's problems should be laid at the doors of the colonisers and slave masters.
However, Zimbabwe, he told delegates, had an immediate enemy who was in their midst. Then he began to wag his finger in Blair's direction.
"We here in southern Africa have one big problem, created by the British. The honourable Tony Blair is here, and he created the situation in Zimbabwe," Nujoma said.
Blair spoke for 10 minutes after Nujoma. He did not immediately respond to the Namibian President's attack.
The British Prime Minister stressed the main theme of the summit - the need to fight poverty - saying the industrialised world had to open up its markets to developing countries.
Outside the conference later, Blair told the BBC that President Nujoma was defending the "utterly indefensible behind the cloak of colonialism".
A spokesman said the British PM remained unruffled by Nujoma's attack.
"(Blair's) focus is exclusively on the outcome of the summit," the spokesman said, adding that Nujoma's words were not a surprise. "He has been saying it for years."
During his summit speech, Nujoma demanded that: "The EU, who have imposed the sanctions against Zimbabwe, must raise them immediately, otherwise it is useless to come here."
The EU imposed sanctions on Zimbabwe following what many foreign and some African observers said were fraudulent elections and in response to the seizure of white-owned farms.
Nujoma said he wondered why Europeans wanted land in Africa, especially Namibia and Zimbabwe, while Africans didn't have land in Europe.
Speaking largely off the cuff at the summit, Nujoma said: "The British colonial settlers in Zimbabwe today, they own 78 per cent of the land in Zimbabwe, and Zimbabwe is a tiny country. It has 14 million indigenous [people] who don't have land."
Nujoma blamed most of the problems of Africans and black people in general on slave trade and colonialism.
"The Africans who were taken there are being discriminated [against] in America and South America ... They are underdogs, they are the poorest of the world."
Nujoma also demanded that developed nations find a cure for AIDS, alluding to previous statements he has made in which he said the origin of HIV should be blamed on Western countries.
Nujoma's speech drew applause, especially from some African delegates.
"He had the most dramatic speech." said a delegate. "Others were ordinary. He showed no diplomacy as he waved the finger."
On his arrival in Windhoek, having cut his trip short, Nujoma told Gurirab that he did not stay longer because he had work to do.
He told the media at the airport that Namibians had to work "24 hours" because Africa was rich and could uplift itself.
"Even in Namibia we have enough wealth," he said. "We have already enough meat, we are exporting meat. We have enough fish, we are exporting fish to other countries. Now, why should we cry to these imperialists.
"I told them today that we don't need your money. We can develop ourselves."
Speaking at the Summit, Mugabe criticised those condemning him saying "let no one interfere with our processes".
"Mr Blair keep your England, and let me keep my Zimbabwe," an eloquent Mugabe said.
Reproduced from:
http://www.namibian.com.na/2002/september/news/02805D4E9F.html``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xYou can keep your aid, Nujoma tells West``x1031055310,5573,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xFrom Innocent Gore in JOHANNESBURG
NAMIBIAN President Sam Nujoma yesterday attacked British Prime Minister Mr Tony Blair for creating problems in Zimbabwe to protect the interests of white settlers.
Departing from a prepared speech in the plenary session of the Heads of State and Government attending the Earth Summit here, Cde Nujoma also attacked developed countries for the slave trade and discriminating against Africans.
But Mr Blair refused to respond to the attacks by Cde Nujoma saying he would do so at another forum.
"Here in Southern we have a problem created by the British government of Tony Blair who is here. They created the situation in Zimbabwe and campaigned successfully to the Europeans Union to impose sanctions against Zimbabwe.
"British colonialists today own 70 percent of land in Zimbabwe and Zimbabwe is a tiny country and has 14 million indigenous people who have no land. The whole land is occupied by British settlers," charged President Nujoma.
President Nujoma said the World Summit on Sustainable Development should make money available for land reform in Zimbabwe and asked the EU to immediately lift the so-called smart sanctions against the country, "otherwise it is useless to come here and talk lies".
The Namibian leader, whose speech was interrupted by applause from mainly heads of State from developing countries, said it was pointless to talk of equality of all human beings when Africans were enslaved and were still being discriminated upon in North America and Europe.
"We the African people suffered more than any other nation in the world through the slave trade. They are talking about equality of human beings but what’s equality of humanity when the Africans who were taken as slaves are the underdogs of this world?" he said.
Cde Nujoma said there was need for developed countries to make available funds for research to find a cure for Aids, reduce the debts for poor countries and end poverty.
He said there should be political will to reduce the gap between the rich and poor countries.
Mr Blair, who was the second speaker after Cde Nujoma, did not respond to the attacks, but instead spoke of his "passion for Africa" and the need for the developed world to open up their markets to products from the poor countries.
He challenged the summit to set a clear direction for the future. MORE``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xNujoma attacks British premier over Zim ``x1031067567,592,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Corey Gilkes
In [The Egyptian Great year and Christianity and Easter: origins in a Pagan Christ] the allegorical aspect of the death and resurrection of Jesus was explored to demystify an age-old symbolic myth. As I have shown in the previous essays, there is no question that the events described in the Gospels are not historical. In this essay we will do the same thing by looking at the story of the crucifixion from an historical perspective in order to show that what was written in the canonical texts could not have happened in that fashion if indeed they were historical. As always, the intention is not necessarily to denigrate or make a mockery of Xianity. The intention is to go behind the complex web of events that led to a religion being created and used as a powerful tool by which the political aspirations of certain groups were realised.
To most devout Xians, there is no questioning the death of Jesus or the way in which he was put to death - one does not question or worse still challenge articles of faith. To those who have studied Roman and Jewish history, however, the biblical narratives about the crucifixion and the sequence of events that led up to it aroused much suspicion.
It is important that one examines closely extra-biblical sources regarding Palestine and Rome of biblical times in order to make sense of what took place and ultimately understand what really led to the development of Xianity as we have come to know it. It cannot be said too often that the Gospels are not reliable as historical documents. They are riddled with inconsistencies, forgeries and historical inaccuracies and are not even eyewitness accounts. The events are not completely mythical, however - in fact they are loosely constructed around historical events. Nevertheless, considerable suspicion should be raised because of the virtual absence of references to the political turmoil and intense revolutionary activities that were taking place around the time Christ Jesus allegedly existed as well as during the period in which the Gospels were composed [between 70-200 CE]. The Palestine of this period was a hotbed of revolutionary activity as Hebrews, labouring under Roman domination attempted to throw off the yoke of Roman colonisation. To counter the threats the Romans resorted to cruel repressive measures, murder, and public executions including crucifixion. Indeed, historical accounts show that rather than just one significant event, there were hundreds of crucifixions every week. This of course is noticeably absent from the New Testament which has a very noticeable accomodationist, pro-Roman tone.
The reader must always keep in mind that when the Gospels were being written - much of which was during and after the Jewish revolt of 68-74 CE - the Hebrews had effectively ceased to exist as an organised social, political and military entity. The four canonical Gospels [as opposed to the other Jewish and Essene texts that were hidden or suppressed] were written and edited with the intention of shifting attention and blame from the colonising Romans to the Hebrews. All references to Roman atrocities had to be played down, glossed over and their weekly crucifixions of hundreds of revolutionaries had to be presented as sympathetically as possible.
According to the gospels, Jesus is initially condemned by the Sanhedrin who then bring him before Pilate and request that he pronounce against Jesus. Historically this makes no sense at all. In the three Synoptic Gospels [Mark, Matthew and Luke] Jesus is arrested and condemned on the night of the Passover, but by Judaic law the Sanhedrin was forbidden to meet over the Passover. Neither were they permitted to convene at night, in private houses or anywhere outside the precincts of the Temple. The Gospels give the impression that by hauling Jesus before Pilate, they were not authorised to pass death sentences. In fact, they were so empowered - by stoning, not crucifixion, in the case of blasphemy - with no need to go before Pilate at all.
The very accounts of Jesus' arrest and execution gives some indications about the revolutionary - rather than the benign, spiritual character blissfully aloof from the events around him - person to whom the Jewish people pegged their hopes for deliverance from Roman domination. One of the first clues are the number of soldiers sent to arrest him; most bibles give no clear indication as to the exact number of soldiers sent to arrest Jesus in the garden. The popular image conjured up in the minds of most people are between ten and thirty soldiers along with a couple representatives of the High Priest. However, in older Catholic bibles, such as the Vulgate, the word cohort is used. In the Roman army a cohort was one tenth of a legion - six hundred regular soldiers. If, however, they were auxiliaries, as in the case of Palestine, the number could be as many as five hundred to two thousand troops.
So
Why would so many soldiers be employed to arrest one spiritual person with a party of twelve? Perhaps the answer lies in the company this "gentle" prophet kept. Simon Peter, for one was obviously named because of his strength and burly size. In fact the names "Simon" and "Peter" both mean "rocklike", which suggested that this was a rather tough character. He certainly displayed his violent streak by cutting off the ear of one of the High Priest representatives. Then at least two individuals in his immediate entourage belonged to a group of Jews who were fanatical even by today's standards - the Zealots. This group of fanatical assassins enforced discipline and rigid adherence to the Law - in fact their name stems from Josephus who wrote about these people who had a fanatical "zeal" for the Law. Now this then means that Jesus' admonition to "render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's" was yet another fiction because the Zealots were the ones who ruthlessly dealt with anyone who was suspected of betraying Jews to the Romans. By their names alone Simon Zelotes and Judas Iscariot [Sicarii - "dagger"] were unwittingly exposed by the Gospel writers as having belonged to this fanatical group of fundamentalists.
The Roman "custom" of freeing a condemned prisoner on the Passover is another biblical fable; no such custom existed. Additionally, the image of a weak Pilate reluctantly bowing to the pressure of a Jewish mob makes no sense either. The historical Pilate was a ruthless Procurator and in any event it would have been unthinkable for a Roman Procurator to show weakness to the conquered Jews. In the face of a Jewish mob on the verge of rioting, the real Pilate would have summoned the army to ruthlessly put down the disturbance at once. Also, the fact that the Jesus character was crucified shows that a Roman court tried him, for a Roman crime, and executed by an instrument reserved for the enemies of Rome - crucifixion was reserved for political crimes, such as treason. So someone who preached spiritual messages or claimed to be the messiah would hardly have been a candidate for crucifixion. Unless that messiah was planning revolutionary activities couched in religious terms.
Jesus is called the Messiah. Most Xians are unaware that this was just a temporal title given to every priestly king of the line of David. Additionally, as a legitimate claimant to the throne, Jesus would also be a very wealthy person; the tradition in Xianity that Jesus was of poor humble parentage stems largely from a misunderstanding of Mark's account and the view that Joseph, Jesus' earthly father was a simple 'carpenter'. In actuality a carpenter in that period would have been the equivalent of today's high priced architect. This skill was often passed on from one generation to another and was a very prestigious title. Thus Jesus would have had to have been a very wealthy person, with wealthy, influential friends: the kind of friends one needs when planning to overthrow or undermine the colonial Roman government.
Now the crucifixion itself as it is related in the gospels, is quite suspect and is wide open for very intense scrutiny. Given the historical fact that hundreds of crucifixions occurred on a weekly basis during the Roman occupation, they would obviously have had it down to a fine art. Therefore, had the one in the bible actually taken place, there was no reason why it should have been fatal.
The Roman practice of crucifixion adhered to very precise procedures. Upon being condemned the victim would be severely flogged until he bled. Then his outstretched arms would be fastened - often by thongs but sometimes with nails - to a heavy wooden beam placed horizontally across his neck and shoulders. Bearing this beam he would be led to the place of execution where he raised by the beam upon a vertical post. This put intense pressure upon the victim's chest and made it impossible for him to breathe unless his feet were fastened to the stake. Then he would be able to press down on them and gain some temporary respite. In this way a fit person - despite the agony - would be able to stave off death for at least a day or two. Victims have been known to survive for up to a week before succumbing to exhaustion or thirst, or if nails were used, blood poisoning. The breaking of the legs, such as what occurred in the biblical accounts, was actually a form of mercy - a way to avoid prolonging the person's agony for with nothing to support his weight, the person would quickly die by asphyxiation. Now according to the narrative, Jesus' legs were not broken, therefore - albeit in theory - he should have survived for at least two more days. Yet he dies on the cross after only a few hours. Even Pilate is surprised upon learning of his death [Mark 15:44].
So what caused his death? One may say that it was a combination of exhaustion, the trauma of scourging and general debilitation. But - barring the odd case when someone dies from a single relatively harmless blow - it is almost impossible to die so soon and very strange that he did. In fact, his death comes almost too conveniently, at just about the right time. It occurs just as soldiers are about to break his legs. And by so doing, it allows him to allegedly fulfill some Old Testament prophecy. Many religious scholars agree that Jesus modeled his life and movements to deliberately coincide with ancient Jewish writings that spoke about the coming of a Messiah and the tribulations he would undergo. Dr Hugh Schonfield, in particular, argues that virtually every aspect of Jesus life and "death" was staged-managed to conform to Old Testament writings. It was for this reason that a mule and an ass had to be acquired from Bethany on which he could mount and ride into Jerusalem. Likewise, the details of the Crucifixion seem to have carefully engineered to conform to the details of Old Testament "prophecy". Now note that he was not the only one who maintains that the crucifixion was a fraud: Basilides claimed that as well, that Simon of Cyrene and not Jesus was executed upon the cross. Another early Xian bishop, Papias, insisted, on the authority of what "the disciples of the Lord used to say in the old days", that Jesus lived to a ripe old age. Yet another, Irenaeus, who questioned "how is it possible that the Lord preached for one year only?", goes on to tell us in Against Heresies:
"..from the fortieth and fiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher...and he remained among them up to the time of Trajan [Roman Emperor 98-117 CE].
Then in one of the Nag Hammadi texts, the Second Treatise of Great Seth, relates Jesus saying:
"I did not succumb to them as they had planned….And I did not die but in reality but in appearance, lest I be put shame by them….For my death which they think happened [happened] to them in their error and blindness, since they nailed their man unto their death…it was another…..who drank the gall and the vinegar; it was not I. They struck me with reed; it was another, Simon, who bore the cross on his shoulder. It was another upon whom they placed the crown of thorns. But I was rejoicing in the height over…..their error….And I was laughing at their ignorance".
Further, as late as the 7th century we have the Qu'ran maintaining the same assertion.
Make of that what you will
Within the canonical texts certain clues may be found that shows that the biblical crucifixion was a less then transparent affair. In the Fourth Gospel Jesus, hanging on the cross, says that he thirsts and is given a sponge allegedly soaked in vinegar. Tradition has it that this act was an act of derision, but in actuality vinegar - or soured wine - was a temporary stimulant with effects similar to smelling salts. It was often used to resuscitate exhausted galley slaves. For an exhausted man, a sniff or taste of vinegar would induce a restorative, rejuvenating effect. Surprisingly, in Jesus' case the effect is exactly the opposite. As soon as he tastes or inhales the sponge he expires. This is physiologically inexplicable, if indeed it was vinegar. On the other hand if it were a sponge soaked in a soporific drug - a mixture of opium and/or belladonna, for instance, commonly used in Palestine at that time - unconsciousness would occur, giving the impression of sudden death. But why should this be done at all? If this conjecture is correct, it appears that we are witnessing a very complex and elaborate charade designed to produce a semblance of death when in fact the "victim" was still alive. Such a hoax would not only save Jesus' life but would have also realised the Old Testament prophecies of a coming Messiah.
It of course leads to follow that this could not have been accomplished without some collusion on the part of the Roman authorities in the area, particularly Pilate. Now by all accounts the historical Pilate was a cruel, bloodthirsty tyrant. He was also corrupt and would not have let slip a chance to make a tidy sum of money - and perhaps a guarantee of no further political agitation - in exchange for sparing Jesus' life. In the canonical texts he acknowledges that Jesus is the king of the Jews, he expresses, or pretends to express, surprise that Jesus' death occurs as quickly as it apparently does. Most significantly, he has Jesus' body handed over to Joseph of Arimathea. This runs counter to Roman law at the time, which denied a crucified man all burial. Guards were often posted to keep relatives or friends from removing the bodies. The victim would be left on the cross to decompose and be at the mercy of the elements and carrion birds. This strongly indicates complicity on the part of Pilate. It may also indicate something else as well. In the Greek version when Joseph asks for Jesus' body, he uses the word soma - a word that only applies to a living body, whereas Pilate, assenting to the request, uses the word ptoma - corpse.
There is little historical information about this Joseph of Arimathea. The Gospels have him as a secret disciple of Jesus, was very wealthy and belonged to the Jewish Council of Elders, the Sanhedrin. It would thus seem apparent that this Joseph was a very influential man: this may be confirmed by his dealings with Pilate as well as yet another of the many anomalies found in the New Testament.
According to the canonical Gospels Jesus is crucified at a place called Golgotha, 'the place of the skull'. Later tradition paints a picture of Golgotha as a barren, skull-shaped hill to the north-west of Jerusalem. Yet the Gospels themselves state that the site of the crucifixion is not atop the 'place of the skull'. In fact, John 19:41 explicitly states "Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden; and in the garden a new sepulchre, wherein was never man yet laid". Now popular tradition has it that he is executed in a public place with a very large crowd gathered around the cross. But the Gospels state that they saw the crucifixion from "afar off" [Luke 23:49], according to the Gospels then he is put to death, not in a public place, but on private property. Many religious scholars argue that the actual site was the Garden of Gethesemane. If indeed this garden belonged to one of Jesus' secret disciples, it would explain why Jesus, prior to the crucifixion had free access to the place. Needless to say an execution on private property leaves considerable room for a hoax. There would be only a few people immediately present and so to the general public standing at a distance, the trick would not be apparent, they would not know who was being crucified or if he was actually dead.
It is this writer's opinion that what we have is a story about a messiah, or several messiahs, since there were priest-king before and after the time Jesus was supposed to have existed, - at least one of them a legitimate claimant to the throne - living in a particularly turbulent hotbed of revolutionary activities, embarking on an attempt to regain his throne. He, being a devout Jew, adhered to the Law and the many rituals and mystery-rites practised by the priestly caste. Indeed going so far as to carefully his daily life along the lines of ancient, poetic Jewish prophecy. He attracts a large following of disciples from both the rich and poor. Indeed, some of his most devoted following belong to the affluent part of the Jewish community, one of whom is a member of the Sanhedrin. He is also part of a fraternity, a brotherhood and uses these connections to gather support for his claim to the throne. His enormous influence is viewed with suspicion and hostility by other influential Jews and the Roman authorities, who fear that he may be growing too powerful. One or both of these groups contrive to sabotage his bid for the throne but their attempt on his life is unsuccessful as he, utilising his influential friends, manage to bribe a corrupt Roman Procurator. A mock crucifixion is staged along a quasi-symbolic ritual that has the deceased rising from the dead. Again, in keeping with the mystery-rites, has the actual king changing places with a pretender. A form of role reversal that is still practised in related Carnival/Mardi Gras traditions today in Africa, Trinidad, Cuba, New Orleans and Brazil. At dusk, the "body" was moved to an opportunely adjacent tomb, from which the "body" was taken out, "miraculously" disappearing only to symbolically reappear in much the same way as the ancient dramas of the death and resurrection of avatars were enacted in the priestly rituals of Egypt and Persia.
Later this was taken, "historicised" and embellished by the early Fathers of the Church who were trying to gain acceptance by the Roman authorities while simultaneously advance their secular political aspirations. This, in turn led to a chain of events and historical accidents that has shaped the course of world history to this day. Later we will focus on some of the more glaring forgeries and pious frauds in and out of the bible that aided the Church Fathers and colonists to achieve their goals.
REFERENCES:
• Colliers Encyclopedia
• The Catholic Encyclopedia
• The Encyclopedia Biblica
• Tertullianus Against Marcion - Tertullian
• History of Christianity
• World's Crucified Saviors - Rev C H Vail
• Afrikan Origins of the Major World Religions - Prof. Yosef ben-Jochannan
• Irenaeus Against Heresies - Irenaeus
• African Origins of the Major "Western" Religions - Prof. Yosef ben-Jochannan
• Holy Blood Holy Grail - Henry Lincoln, Michael Baigent
• Messianic Legacy - Henry Lincoln, Michael Baigent
• Echoes of the Old Darkland - Charles S. Finch MD
• History of the First Council of Nice
• Introduction to African Civilisations - John Jackson
• Pagan Origins of the Christ Myth - John Jackson
• Man, God and Civilisations - John Jackson
• African Presence in Early Europe - edited by Dr. Ivan Van Sertima
• Black Athena Vol. I - Martin Bernal
• Ancient Egypt the Light of the World [2Vols.] - Gerald Massey
• Gerald Massey's Lectures - Gerald Massey
• Dead Sea Scrolls Deception - Henry Lincoln
• Who Is This King of Glory? A Critical Study of the • • Christus/Messiah Tradition -- Alvin Boyd Kuhn
• The Dictionary of Bible and Religion - editor William Gentz
• Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire Vol. I - Edward Gibbon
• Forgery in Christianity - Joseph Wheless
• The Women's Encyclopedia of Myth and Secrets - Barbara G. Walker
• The Dark Side of Christian History - Helen Ellerbie
• Women, Food and Sex in History -Soledad de Montalvo [4 vols.]
• The Passover Plot - Hugh Schonfield
• The Confessions of Augustine s- St Augustine
• The Holy City of God - St Augustine
• James; the Brother of Jesus - Robert Eisenman
• Crimes of the Popes - G W Foote & J Wheeler
• The World Christopher Columbus did not Discover - videotaped lecture by Dr John Henrik Clarke
• The Gnostic Gospels - Elaine Pagels
• Personal interviews with the late elder Clemey George
• The Columbus Conspiracy
• Capitalism and Slavery - Eric Williams
• Documents of West Indian history - Eric Williams
• The Secret Relationship between Blacks and Jews - edited by the Nation of Islam
• The Grandees - Stephen Birmingham
• African presence in Early Asia - Runoku Rashidi
• Critical Lessons in Slavery and the Slave Trade - John Henrik Clarke [ed.]
• The Log of Christopher Columbus - translated by Robert Fuson
• The Destruction of Black Civilisation : Great Issues of a • Race from 4500 BC to 2000 AD - Chancellor Williams
• Women, Food and Sex in History - Soledad de Montalvo``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xThe Crucifixion Demystified``x1031095820,12804,Development``x``x
``xwww.BlackCommentator.com
Dear Reader,
George Bush is out to make Robert Mugabe into the Saddam Hussein of Africa, a life-threatening condition. When top State Department officials declare that "the political status quo is unacceptable," that Zimbabwe's government is "illegitimate," they are announcing U.S. intentions to remove Mugabe by force, if necessary.
Although there is plenty of old-style, reflexive racism in the current White House, the Bush regime is also a near-pure expression of corporate-globalism. It would be parochial on our part to believe that white farmers are uppermost in the minds of Bush's strategic thinkers.
Yes, Zimbabwe is relatively rich, but the threat to eliminate Mugabe is based on much more than some crude urge to reserve the country's bountiful agricultural resources for the further enrichment of the tiny white minority. Global corporations, which control the international markets that determine the fate of nations, can get along just fine without a few thousand white agribusinessmen. Fundamental regional corporate interests compel the Bush-men to place the cross-hairs on Mugabe's skull.
South Africa is the ultimate prize, as it has always been. Bush and the British are preparing to show South Africa who is boss in the region, even if it takes a bullet in Mugabe's brain to the make the point.
Unfinished Black business
Programmed as we are to see the world in Black and white, many African Americans and progressives slipped easily into the assumption that the struggle for control of the continent's industrial giant, was settled. The smooth transition from Nelson Mandela to Thabo Mbeki, under the African National Congress, served to obscure from international - or, at least, American - public discourse the ongoing debate over South Africa's future. The burning questions remain open: what is the meaning of Black rule in a powerful industrial state? What role will multi-national corporations play? What are South Africa's economic, political and military obligations to its sister nations on the continent?
Although we may not have been paying close attention to the internal struggles within the ANC and South Africa at large, the multi-nationals fully understand their stake in the matter. They know that "socialism" is still a popular word among the people; that Mbeki represents the conservative wing of the ANC, while the ranks are led by the Left; and that the poor majority believe that the revolution is not over.
U.S. and European corporations follow South African political affairs microscopically, as do the West's intelligence agencies and strategic thinkers. The fluidity of South African power relationships scares them. Business interests across the continent can be affected by the political coloration of the ANC, which remains more of a coalition than a political party, yet sits atop Black Africa's strongest state and economy. South Africa's military is formidable, albeit racially unreliable.
Both the South African government and the corporations exert great efforts to present a face of stability and harmony to the world. Yet both must consider the fact that two generations of thoroughly politicized, urban youth grew to maturity and middle age in a struggle to control skyscrapers and all the power these structures represent. Most South Africans are not peasants, or people who strive to be small landowners. They are city folk, and remember the blood shed by so many thousands who believed that the urban centers, mines, and factories belonged to them.
The ANC's 1955 Freedom Charter is still venerated, including the words, "The mineral wealth beneath the soil, the banks and monopoly industry shall be transferred to the ownership of the people as a whole... the land re-divided amongst those who work it."
U.S. television and newspapers ignore these political realities when they visit formerly whites-only golf courses to interview Black executives in stylish gear. Yet the future disposition of the spoils of liberation is always at the center of South African political discussion.
Comrades in arms, not long ago
Mugabe and his military began as freedom fighters in need of help from independent Black "frontline states" in the struggle to throw off white rule. In turn, Zimbabwe became a frontline state for South Africa's liberation forces. Feelings of solidarity linger between the ANC and Mugabe's Zimbabwe African National Union - Patriotic Front, and among many average South Africans. Yet South Africa's Black leadership - grouped one way or the other around the ANC - is determinedly democratic, and has been critical of Mugabe's treatment of trade unions and non-ZANU-PF civil society in general.
Under white and Black rule, the same corporations have dominated the heights of both countries' economies. These historical and contemporary commonalities carry weight.
Following the "fraudulent" elections, in March, South Africa attempted to convince Mugabe to share some measure of power with the opposition. He refused, and South Africa continued to pronounce Mugabe's government "legitimate." U.S. and British diplomats could barely contain their anger. They seemed to have expected greater compliance from Mbeki. Now it appears that Bush is prepared to force the issue, first with massive infusions of money to Mugabe's opposition (principally to the Right, especially those already on the take from the white landowners and CIA fronts), to be followed by proxy or direct military action. At least, that is the bald threat.
A U.S. hit on Mugabe, performed with the vulgar arrogance that is George Bush's trademark, will register as a direct assault on the national personality and character of "free" South Africa, the former regional superpower. It will resonate as a South African domestic crisis, with results that no one can predict.
The Bush crowd, wielding blunt weapons, appears to believe that Mbeki will become more malleable once the real superpower sets up shop in the neighborhood - and they may be right. They may also set in motion events that undermine the current, precarious balance between the old South Africa, and the one the people fought for.
Sincerely,
Glen Ford
www.BlackCommentator.com, Co-Publisher``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xMugabe in the cross-hairs``x1031227506,18794,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xFrom Munyaradzi Huni in JOHANNESBURG
UNITED States Secretary of State Mr Colin Powell's bid to blame Zimbabwe for the prevailing food crisis yesterday backfired when he was booed and jeered by delegates to the Earth Summit.
All hell broke loose when Mr Powell charged that Zimbabwe's alleged lack of respect for human rights and democracy was causing the food crisis in the country and pushing "millions of people to the brink of starvation".
Mr Powell, who was addressing the summit, was scolded by delegates who saw the attack on Zimbabwe as an attempt to exonerate British Prime Minister Tony Blair from the humiliating dressing down by President Mugabe over Britain's interference in Zimbabwe on Monday.
The delegates jeered Mr Powell so loudly that South African Foreign Mini-ster, Dr Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma who was chairing the session, had to intervene to enable the American Secretary of State to continue with his address.
Mr Powell was at one point forced to shout back at his hecklers saying: "I have now heard you".
Some delegates described his speech as "shameless and inadequate". MORE``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xColin Powell booed``x1031280822,49075,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Masimba Karikoga, www.herald.co.zw
The federation has indicated that it would import 74,5 tonnes of fortified white maize, 51,4 litres of edible refined vegetable oil, 31 tonnes of edible beans, 13,77 corn soya blend and 5,61 tonnes of brown sugar.
The food, which is worth several millions of dollars, will be distributed through the Zimbabwe Red Cross Society.
An official at the federation said the purchase of the commodities, which had been temporarily put on hold because of the Government's earlier rejection of GMO food aid, was expected to commence soon.
"The reason for this is that Zimbabwe's regulations for importing food items varied from the federation's regulations and standard international practice. The federation's regional logistics delegate was working to arrive at a means of importing the items that abides with the federation's regulations while at the same time respecting the local regulations,’’ said the official.
The federation's country manager and its regional logistic delegate were negotiating a Memorandum of Understanding with the World Food Programme which is set to increase the amount of food available to Zimbabwe Red Cross Society for distribution.
The WFP also announced last week that it would increase its monthly food imports into Zimbabwe from 10 000 tonnes to 55 000 tonnes.
The United States Secretary for Agriculture, Ms Ann Veneman, told reporters in Johannesburg last week during the World Social Summit on Sustainable Development that her country had committed more than 500 000 tonnes of food aid to Southern Africa.
She was unhappy that the distribution of the food aid was being hindered by some individuals and organisations opposed to bio-technology.
Several other international organisations are said to have stepped up efforts to bring in more food relief into Zimbabwe.
Zimbabwe and Zambia had previously rejected GMO food aid on the grounds that it was a threat to human safety and could contaminate local crops and the environment.
However, the Government reversed the decision after receiving more information and said that it would accept the food aid on condition that it will be quarantined to allow Zimbabwe’s agricultural scientists to closely monitor its shipment, milling and distribution in the country. MORE``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe accepts GM Food Aid with conditions``x1031530122,17891,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xHerald Reporter
THOUSANDS of tonnes of wheat, flour and cooking oil have been impounded by the Grain Marketing Board at various milling companies, wholesalers and bakeries as the shortage of bread and other controlled products continues to grip Zimbabwe.
Bakers are pressing for a bread price increase, hence the hoarding of flour.
Almost 6 000 tonnes of various quantities of controlled products and 17 000 litres of cooking oil and sterilised milk were impounded over the weekend at various enterprises in Harare and Concession by police and the GMB.
The products that were seized in the joint operation, code-named Chizunza, include 4 570 tonnes of wheat, 884 tonnes of flour, 51 tonnes of maize meal and 230 tonnes of maize.
During the operation, 40,5 tonnes of sugar, 6 040 litres of cooking oil and 10 488 litres of sterilised milk were impounded.
A GMB spokesman said that most of the impounded products were discovered at various milling companies, wholesalers, retail outlets and bakeries in Harare.
At least 60 tonnes of maize were found hidden in an underground trench at a commercial farm in Concession.
Of the impounded flour, the greater percentage was of cake flour rather than ordinary baker’s flour. Millers are producing more cake flour because the price of cakes is not controlled.
Police said they believed that the situation was widespread.
"We believe that there are several companies which are hoarding basic commodities. We would like to warn them that those caught flouting the rules will be dealt with. We will continue with our operation until all the culprits are brought to book,’’ said a police spokesman.
The GMB officials said that they were concerned about the prevalence of hoarding in the country.
"Hoarding of controlled goods has damaging repercussions to the Government and the GMB since most of the blame for poor supply of wheat and maize is directed at us,’’ said the official.
The board appealed to millers, bakers, wholesalers and retailers to put the interests of the consumers first. It said consumers were finding it difficult to buy basic goods and that hoarding was causing untold human suffering to most people.
However, a managing director at one of the companies that was raided defended hoarding saying that it was a way of protesting against price controls imposed by the Government on basic commodities.
A baker said the price of a loaf of bread needed to be increased because it did not match production costs such as electricity and wages.
The Concession commercial farmer who allegedly ordered his workers to hide more than 60 tonnes of maize at his farm which was listed by the Government in April has been arrested.
Police spokesman Chief Superinten-dent Bothwell Mugariri said that the farmer, Aaron Smith of Kwayedza Farm, was arrested on Sunday.
He said police acting on a tip-off raided the farm on Sunday and found the maize concealed in a trench.
Chief Supt Mugariri said Smith was expected to appear on initial remand before a Bindura magistrates’ court soon to answer allegations of contravening the Grain Marketing Board Act.
Some farmers have in the last few months been arrested for allegedly burning and poisoning maize, the country’s staple food, apparently to thwart Govern-ment’s efforts to alleviate hunger in the country.
Reproduced from: www.herald.co.zw``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xWheat, flour seized``x1031712864,63837,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy David Samuriwo, www.glob.co.zw
Recent statements emanating from Washington and attributed to Assistant Secretary of State (for African Affairs), Walter Kansteiner should not be taken for granted.
A brief look at this man's curriculum vitae and his statement calling for the removal of a legitimately elected government in Zimbabwe underscores morbid racism inherent in American and European politicians.
It is on record that Walter Kansteiner, six years ago wrote a paper for the Forum for International Policy on the then Eastern Zaire, now the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) calling for the division of the territory in the Great lakes region.
Kansteiner believes the future of the DRC lies in the "balkanisation"of that state. In the same vein the future of Zimbabwe lies in the removal of President Mugabe from power in order to protect white minority interests especially commercial farmers who own over 70% of Zimbabwe's prime agricultural land.
Kansteiner"s obsession with removing President Mugabe from power partly stems from his previous stint at the Defence Department where he served on a Task Force on Strategic Minerals. After all 80% of the world's known reserves of coltan, also called tantalite, a primary component of computer microchips and printed circuit boards is in abundance in the DRC. Zimbambwe's involvement in the DRC war was therefore a slap in the face for the USA.
President Mugabe's continued stewardship of the Zimbabwean boat will not only affect American interests in Zimbabwe. American interests will be affected in the DRC, elsewhere in Africa and the world at large as communities, nations and regions realise that the often much talked about global village is nothing but a pipe dream designed to benefit the rich and powerful nations.
Kansteiner's remarks should be taken seriously in view of the violence mayhem and murder being perpetrated by MDC supporters at the behest of their party. Only last week, a ZANU(PF) activist and Harare provincial member, Ali Khan Manjengwa was gunned down in a corridor at a flat in Mbare.
The bigger picture in America's gunboat diplomacy, which was mentioned in Kansteiner's utterings is that his government was working with "other groups" in the international community to remove President Mugabe from power.
Such other groups include the Zimbabwe Project based in Uganda. The aim of the project is to recruit teachers, journalists and unemployed youth for military training and various other activities aimed at destabilising Zimbabwe. Senior members of the Ugandan Army are in charge of this project and they report directly to President Yoweri Museveni.
Also of concern are the activities of the Military Professional Resources, Inc (MPRI), a USA private military company based in Alexandria Virginia. Its Vice President for Operations is a former Director of the Defence Intelligence Agency.
MPRI provided covert training assistance to Paul Kagame's troops in Rwanda in preparation for combat in the DRC then known as Zaire in 1996. MPRI is owned and controlled by retired American army generals. Unsuspecting Zimbabweans may find themselves clutched in the jaws of these men who not only survive on the misery they inflict on powerless nations but take pride in planning, and coordinating senseless killing of innocent people worldwide.
While the British Embassy has already admitted that it is recruiting young Zimbabweans for military training, intelligence sources say investigations have established that over 50 young Zimbabweans have completed full military training in the UK.
Current top military men in Zimbabwe are products of the liberation war. Enemies of Zimbabwe, the US and Britain included have completely failed to make inroads in the chain of command. As a long term project Britain is currently on a drive to establish a nucleus of well -trained military men from Zimbabwe for future use.
The above scenerio fits well in Kansteiner's remarks in that the Americans are working with "others" to remove the government of President Mugabe from power.
Reproduced from:
http://www.glob.co.zw/political/kansteiner.htm``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xKansteiner's Remarks Should Put Nation On Guard``x1031849947,20513,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xHerald Reporter
THE Government yesterday gazetted the Land Acquisition Amendment (No.2) Bill of 2002, which seeks to remove remaining obstacles in acquiring land required for agricultural purposes.
According to the extraordinary gazette published yesterday, the Bill proposes to increase the fine for non-compliance with an order made under Section 8 from $20 000 to $100 000 among other issues.
Section 7 of the principal Act obliges an acquiring authority to apply to the Administrative Court for an order confirming an acquisition of land, if the land is objected to.
The new subsection (4a) which clause 2 of this Bill seeks to insert in the section, will relieve an acquiring authority of the need to prove that rural land is suitable for agricultural resettlement if it is acquiring the land for that purpose.
An amendment on Section 9(b) provides for the re-issue of Section 8 orders, which are invalid for any reason, such as where the acquiring authority was unable to file applications for confirmation of the acquisition with Administra-tive Court within 30 days of service of the order as required by the principal Act.
The period of notice to vacate land in the case of an order that is re-issued within 90 days of the date of issue of the invalid order shall be the unexpired portion of that 90-day period.
The period of notice to vacate land in the case of an order that is re- issued after 90 days from the date of issue of the invalid order shall be seven days from the date of service of the re-issued order.
If a farmer fails to comply with the order, he shall be guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding $100 000 or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding two years or both.
Another amendment directs the court, which has convicted a person for failing to comply with the order, to issue an order to evict that person from the land to which the offence relates.
The Land Acquisition Amendment Bill No2 was being proposed at a time when the High Court had rejected the validity of certain acquisition orders on technical grounds.
Reproduced from:
http://www.herald.co.zw/index.php?id=14176&pubdate=2002-09-14``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xGovernment gazettes Land Acquisition Amendment Bill``x1032035628,89578,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xIn the past few weeks Nelson Mandela has called America a 'threat to world peace' and lambasted Dick Cheney as a 'dinosaur'. That's not the sort of language you'd expect from the kindly old statesman who forgave his jailers. But he has always been misunderstood in the west. And now he's got something to be really angry about
by Gary Younge, The Guardian UK
Say what you like about Nelson Mandela, but he is not a man known to bear a grudge or lose his temper easily. Having waited 27 years for his freedom, he emerged from jail to preach peace and reconciliation to a nation scarred by racism. When he finally made the transition from the world's most famous prisoner to the world's most respected statesman, he invited his former jailer to the inauguration.
So when he criticises US foreign policy in terms every bit as harsh as those he used to condemn apartheid, you know something is up. In the past few weeks, he has issued a "strong condemnation" of the US's attitude towards Iraq, lambasted vice-president Dick Cheney for being a "dinosaur" and accused the US of being "a threat to world peace".
Coming from other quarters, such criticisms would have been dismissed by both the White House and Downing Street as the words of appeasement, anti-Americanism or leftwing extremism. But Mandela is not just anyone. Towering like a moral colossus over the late 20th century, his voice carries an ethical weight like no other. He rode to power on a global wave of goodwill, left office when his five years were up and settled down to a life of elder statesmanship. So the belligerent tone he has adopted of late suggests one of two things; either that some thing is very wrong with the world, or that something is very wrong with Mandela.
What Mandela believes is wrong with the world is not difficult to fathom. He is annoyed at how the US is exploiting its overwhelming military might. Earlier this month, after President Bush would not take his calls, he spoke to secretary of state Colin Powell and then the president's father, asking the latter to discourage his son from attacking Iraq.
"What right has Bush to say that Iraq's offer is not genuine?" he asked on Monday. "We must condemn that very strongly. No country, however strong, is entitled to comment adversely in the way the US has done. They think they're the only power in the world. They're not and they're following a dangerous policy. One country wants to bully the world."
Having supported the bombing of Afghanistan, he cannot be dismissed as a peacenik. But his assessment of the current phase of Bush's war on terror is as damning as anything coming out of the Arab world. "If you look at these matters, you will come to the conclusion that the attitude of the United States of America is a threat to world peace."
And then there is the dreaded "r" word. Accusations of discrimination do not fall often or easily from Mandela's lips, but when they do, the world is forced to sit up and listen. So far, he has fallen short of accusing the west of racism in its dealings with the developing world, but he has implied sympathy with those who do. "When there were white secretary generals, you didn't find this question of the US and Britain going out of the UN. But now that you've had black secretary generals, such as Boutros Boutros Ghali and Kofi Annan, they do not respect the UN. This is not my view, but that is what is being said by many people."
Most surprising in these broadsides has been his determination to point out particular individuals for blame. As a seasoned political hand, Mandela has previously eschewed personal invective but has clearly made an exception when it comes to Cheney. In 1986, Cheney voted against a resolution calling for his release because of his alleged support for "terrorism". Mandela insists that he is not motivated by pique. "Quite clearly we are dealing with an arch-conservative in Dick Cheney... my impression of the president is that this is a man with whom you can do business. But it is the men around him who are dinosaurs, who do not want him to belong to the modern age."
In fact, behind the scenes, the White House is attempting to portray Mandela, now 84, as something of a dinosaur himself - the former leader of an African country, embittered by the impotence that comes with retirement and old age. It is a charge they have found difficult to make stick. Mandela has never been particularly encumbered by delusions of grandeur. When asked whether he would be prepared to mediate in the current dispute, he replied. "If I am asked by credible organisations to mediate, I will consider that very seriously. But a situation of this nature does not need an individual, it needs an organisation like the UN to mediate. A man who has lost power and influence can never be a suitable mediator."
In truth, since leaving office he has shown consummate diplomatic skill. In 1999, he persuaded Libyan leader Colonel Gadafy to hand over the two alleged intelligence agents indicted in the 1988 Lockerbie bombing. He was touted as a possible mediator in the Middle East - a suggestion quashed by the Israeli government, which was apartheid's chief arms supplier.
Last year he was personally involved in the arrangement - sanctioned by the UN - to send South African troops to Burundi as a confidence-building measure in a bid to forestall a Rwandan-style genocide. That does not mean he always gets it right. He advocated a softly-softly diplomatic approach towards the Nigerian regime when Ken Saro-Wiwa was on death row. Saro-Wiwa was murdered and Abacha's regime remained intact. Nor does it mean that he is above criticism. Arguably, he could have done more to redistribute wealth during his term in office in South Africa, and he maintained strong diplomatic relations with some oppressive regimes, such as Indonesia. In July, a representative of those killed in the Lockerbie disaster described Mandela's call for the bomber to be transferred to a muslim country as "outrageous". But it does mean that he is above the disparagement and disdain usually shown to leaders of the developing world that the west find awkward.
But if there is something wrong with Mandela it is chiefly that for the past decade he has been thoroughly and wilfully misunderstood. He has been portrayed as a kindly old gent who only wanted black and white people to get on, rather than a determined political activist who wished to redress the power imbalance between the races under democratic rule. In the years following his release, the west wilfully mistook his push for peace and reconciliation not as the vital first steps to building a consensus that could in turn build a battered nation but as a desire to both forgive and forget.
When he displayed a lack of personal malice, they saw an abundance of political meekness. There is an implicit racism in this that goes beyond Mandela to the way in which the west would like black leaders to behave. After slavery and colonialism, comes the desire to draw a line under the past and a veil over its legacy. So long as they are preaching non-violence in the face of aggression, or racial unity where there has been division, then everyone is happy. But as soon as they step out of that comfort zone, the descent from saint to sinner is a rapid one. The price for a black leader's entry to the international statesman's hall of fame is not just the sum of their good works but either death or half of their adult life behind bars.
In order to be deserving of accolades, history must first be rewritten to deprive them of their militancy. Take Martin Luther King, canonised after his death by the liberal establishment but vilified in his last years for making a stand against America's role in Vietnam. One of his aides, Andrew Young, recalled: "This man who had been respected worldwide as a Nobel Prize winner suddenly applied his non-violence ethic and practice to the realm of foreign policy. And no, people said, it's all right for black people to be non-violent when they're dealing with white people, but white people don't need to be non-violent when they're dealing with brown people."
So it was for Mandela when he came to Britain in 1990, after telling reporters in Dublin that the British government should talk to the IRA, presaging developments that took place a few years later. The then leader of the Labour party, Neil Kinnock, called the remarks "extremely ill-advised"; Tory MP Teddy Taylor said the comments made it "difficult for anyone with sympathy for the ANC and Mandela to take him seriously."
He made similar waves in the US when he refused to condemn Yasser Arafat, Colonel Gadafy and Fidel Castro. Setting great stock by the loyalty shown to both him and his organisation during the dog days of apartheid, he has consistently maintained that he would stick by those who stuck by black South Africa. It was wrong, he told Americans, to suggest that "our enemies are your enemies... We are a liberation movement and they support our struggle to the hilt."
This, more than anything, provides the US and Britain with their biggest problem. They point to pictures of him embracing Gaddafi or transcripts of his support for Castro as evidence that his judgment has become flawed over the years. But what they regard as his weakness is in fact his strength. He may have forgiven, but he has not forgotten. His recent criticisms of America stretch back over 20 years to its "unqualified support of the Shah of Iran [which] lead directly to the Islamic revolution of 1979".
The trouble is not that, when it comes to his public pronouncements, Mandela is acting out of character. But that, when it comes to global opinion, the US and Britian are increasingly out of touch.
Additional reporting by Shirley Brooks.
Reproduced from:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,794757,00.html``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xMandela Slams Bush The World Bully``x1032415733,31744,Development``x``x
``xPublished: Sept 2 2001
By Sean Gonsalves
If St. Paul was right, that the wages of sin is death, is it a stretch to say that the wages of white supremacy is colorblindness?
To suggest such a thing, I'm sure, makes a good number of white brothers and sisters uneasy, thinking perhaps Black Americans have deserted Dr. King's dream where people are judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
Forget that King, just before his death, called for affirmative action in his last book, "Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos or Community?" His dream wasn't that everyone would not recognize color, but that skin pigmentation would not be used as the key measure of human potential.
King wasn't so naive to think a society steeped in centuries of white supremacy would be magically transformed into a colorblind utopia. I'm not suggesting that affirmative action is our salvation, but neither is it the reverse racism that some opponents claim.
A hard-working white person is sure to raise the question: Why should I be made to pay for America's past racial sins? Evidently, voluntary cooperation is not an option.
In a nation where the majority of its citizens are at least nominally-affiliated Christians, it seems such questions are more knee-jerk deflection than thoughtful reflection.
Eating of the fruit produced by sinful forbears is to partake in the original sin, according to one of the central tenets of the Christian faith.
Deuteronomy 5:9 says: "I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children of the third and fourth generation of them that hate me."
The point here isn't to promulgate evangelical Christianity. That's Cal Thomas' job. I just find it hard to believe that people in a Christian-saturated society are perplexed by the idea of paying for sins committed by previous generations.
I haven't come across any studies that document how much wealth black slaves were robbed of by two centuries of unpaid servitude, particularly in the cotton industry -- an industry central to America's early economic success.
But, several years ago, a University of California at Berkeley study found that the value of lost income to black Americans because of discrimination between 1929 and 1969 alone comes to about $1.6 trillion.
So, contrary to Thomas Sowell's distortions, the idea of reparations is not about convincing people whose ancestors arrived in America after the Civil War that they owe anybody anything for what happened in the ante- bellum South. Clearly, black economic deprivation goes far beyond the Civil War and the ante-bellum South.
It was AFTER slavery that America allowed the Black Codes, a set of laws designed to restrict the labor mobility of the newly freed slaves, guaranteeing cheap labor for white planters. One code stipulated that any freed slave without "lawful employment" would be subject to arrest and then be leased to a white employer.
So there is a qualitative and quantitative difference between the economic hardships faced by black America and those confronted by every other immigrant group in this nation's history.
Check the history of the U.S. housing market, for starters. Ford Foundation member Dr. Melvin Oliver observes how many of his white colleagues were able to buy a house because of a transfer of assets before the death of their parents. This down payment on their homes was a benefit available to few blacks because of bank red-lining and other such policies.
Oliver also notes the central role Uncle Sam played in creating a strong white middle class with the GI Bill and federal subsidies of mortgages, to name just a few privileges inaccessible to most blacks at the time.
As you read these words, state universities across America are looking to replicate a new admissions approach used by the University of California at San Diego, which hires high school guidance counselors to review the overwhelming number of applications they receive.
One of these counselors who is moonlighting as an admissions officer is from Eastlake High School in San Diego -- not exactly a bastion of the underprivileged.
The counselor, Nancy Nieto, gets inside information that students crave: the outline for the perfect essay and the right combination of high school classes, the Boston Globe reported last week.
"It's really interesting to see what other applicants write in their essays, and how they write," Nieto told the Globe. "My kids can compete better. I know what to tell them to put down."
As that story illustrates, all across America there is an informal social network that gives whites preferential treatment in gaining access to a limited range of economic opportunities. Can colorblindness really be the answer, when, in a race-obsessed society, it renders white-skin privilege invisible?
Sean Gonsalves is a Cape Cod Times staff writer and a syndicated columnist. His column runs on Tuesdays.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xThe Opposite of Racism Isn't Colorblindness``x1032463998,49220,Development``x``x
``xFrom Elton Dzikiti in VICTORIA FALLS
PRESIDENT Mugabe yesterday war-ned Southern Africa to be wary of efforts by Western imperialist forces bent on dividing people and governments in their quest to continue exploiting the rich resources of the region.
Cde Mugabe said although changes in the sub-region’s political landscape were welcome, it would be fallacious to assume that former colonisers had disappeared with the coming of political independence.
"Those who tormented and dispossessed us yesterday have assumed new, subtle and deceptive forms of imperialism and subjugation that are not clearly understood by some of our people in the sub-region and beyond," he told delegates attending a conference for the Southern Africa Development Community police chiefs and ministers in charge of policing.
Cde Mugabe said while Africa was the richest continent in terms of resources, Africans were yet to enjoy the full value of their resources owing to conflicts and other machinations fuelled by the West.
"The new millennium should therefore, be viewed as an epoch in which Africa must redefine its relations with the West, with our people emerging more liberated, politically, economically and socially." MORE``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xBeware of West, region warned ``x1032512360,90102,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xFrom Isdore Guvamombe in Masvingo, www.herald.co.zw
IN a bizarre fit of racial bigotry, a white woman in Chiredzi allegedly wrapped her faeces in an attractive paper foil and gave them to a security guard as a delicious food present.
After accepting the "gift" in good faith, the guard, Mr Peter Malava, took his present home and gave it to his wife to open.
But the couple received the shock of their lives when the wife opened the parcel in front of her three kids only to discover the nicely wrapped human faeces.
The accused, Sonnette Rohm (28) of Hartbeesnerk Farm in Chipinge was not asked to plead when she appeared before Chiredzi magistrate Mrs Memory Maphosa on one count of crimen injuria.
She was remanded to September 27 on $2 000 bail.
The State, led by prosecutor Mr Gilbert Mutyamaenza, alleges that on August 31 this year, Rohm, entered Muwonde Lodge in Triangle, Chiredzi where Malava was guarding the entrance.
Late that afternoon, when driving out in her Toyota Land Cruiser, Rohm gave Malava the neatly wrapped "present" and told him to "go and have a nice meal".
After work, Malava went to his home and gave his wife the present only to be shocked to find human excreta.
Malava then reported the matter to the police, who instituted investigations and arrested Rohm in Chipinge on Monday.
The incident comes hardly two years after a Chiredzi white farm manager, Mr Cornerious Johhanes Krueger, was arraigned before the courts for allegedly urinating into the mouth of a junior employee.
He is out of custody on $5 000 bail.
Reproduced from:
www.herald.co.zw``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xWhite woman in bizzare case of racism ``x1032576311,36979,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xZimbabwe's President, Robert Mugabe, has decided to boycott talks about his country's suspension from the Commonwealth, apparently because he objected to the tone of his invitation.
Mr Mugabe had, until the last minute, been expected to attend Monday's meeting in the Nigerian capital, Abuja, to review Zimbabwe's response to its exclusion from the organisation.
But in a phone call to the Nigerian President, Olusegun Obasanjo, Mr Mugabe said he objected to the invitation letter from Australian Prime Minister John Howard.
"Mugabe said the invitation gave the impression that he was going to be court-martialled in Abuja," a Nigerian official told Reuters news agency.
The BBC's Dan Issacs in Abuja says the boycott is a major blow to the Commonwealth. More from BBC
Diplomatic gaffe
Herald Reporter
PRESIDENT Mugabe was not invited to today's Commonwealth troika meeting in Abuja to discuss the issue of Zimbabwe, it emerged yesterday.
Officials at the Commonwealth London headquarters confirmed yesterday that there was a "major diplomatic foul-up" in the manner the President was invited.
"President Mugabe is not attending the meeting because the bottom line is that he was not invited," the officials said.
The officials said the idea of having a meeting in Abuja was initially mooted when Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo and President Mugabe met on the sidelines of the United Nations World Summit on Sustainable Development in South Africa early this month.
The two leaders held a one on one meeting on the morning of September 2, the day Cde Mugabe addressed the summit. MORE``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xMugabe absent from Commonwealth talks``x1032759976,73149,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xPress Release--September 20, 2002
Prepared by Yi Nee Ling, Publicist.
On Sept. 15th 2002...Hisham Noor, a Diplomat of the Sudanese Government, published an article featuring and attacking Sudan's top woman writer, Kola Boof, in the Arabic daily newspaper "AlSharq Al-awsat" (which is London's largest Arab newspaper). In this article, Sudan's diplomat blasted Ms. Boof and openly painted her as...a traitor to Sudan...a "fake" who doesn't really exist, because no Sudanese woman would carry herself as trashy as Boof does..."a prostitute working to create propoganda against Arabic Islam on behalf of the United States government"...a mentally unstable habitual liar...he spoke quite heatedly on behalf of...the government and the citizens of Sudan.
This morning, from California, Kola Boof responds for public record.
Official Statement of Kola Boof:
First let me say for the record...that I am a traitor to the Arab Muslim government of Sudan...because as God knows...the practice of ethnic cleansing, socially accepted racism and colorism, and of course, timeless sexism by the Arab ruling class in Sudan is like a gasoline-tainted veil that is burning away the layers of our true mother's African face. And if there is anyone who believes in God...then they know that Sudan is currently governed not by Allah, but by Satan.
Many of the world's most intelligent leaders have claimed that the holocaust that happened in Nazi Germany could not possibly happen again, but they were wrong about that. I assure you, as a witness...that there is a new holocaust of ethnic cleansing taking place in the hands of God...and it's taking place, this time, in Sudan. It's been going on for more than twenty years now. I'm a witness to that, too. And with my heart on fire with rage...I am sad to report, via very reliable sources, that just last week there were more bombings in Sudan's royal southern region, there were more fathers killed, more mothers and children abducted, raped and some mutilated with savage beatings--the kind of savage beatings that only the Arabs Muslims know how to administer, trust me. There were even little boys 10 and 12 years old sodomized by their Arab masters. For those wishing to see for themselves...here is the news report....
http://www.persecution.com/news/index.cfm?action=fullstory&newsID=167
The problem, however, is that the victims of the world's new holocaust are mainly charcoal colored Africans...and therefore, no one with any real power on this planet cares. God knows that Kola Boof doesn't have any power. But that is why I have no choice but to be a traitor to my country. As Allah is my witness, I have no choice.
It hurts me to be so hated, disowned and lied on by the Arab Muslim community of my birthplace. But I am not mentally unstable...I am not a prostitute...and I am not Islam's loyal fool. I am not America's puppet...I am...as I stated before, my own Queen. That is the example that I wish to set for little African girls. I am the one who represents the Black African mothers, daughters and wives of Sudan...I am the Black man's mother....and I do not believe that any peace agreements in Machakos will improve the real lives of Sudan's oppressed and enslaved southern tribesmen. In fact, as much as I have honored the heroic efforts of our great African lord, Dr. John Garang...I do not believe that any peace agreements will even be carried out if they are so reached. That is the way of Africa and paper agreements. You might as well use it for toilet paper!
I believe that the racist Arab Muslims of the North can never peacefully coexist as equal brothers and sisters with the authentic Black Africans of the South. And what has become of Sudan's Nubians..it's a disgrace. Mother Africa and Isis cry over it every day...that there is no one, not the Nubian, the Nuer or the Dinka who can stand up to the blatantly unchecked evils of the lightskinned North. I believe that Sudan will never know any peace or justice as long as Arab Muslims are the sole rulers and architect of the thinking man's Sudan. That is what Kola Boof believes and has to say, and yes....America is my husband now. I am a traitor to Sudan. I am my own Queen, my own unique creation. Hopefully, someday, so too shall Sudan be. tima usrah...may God save Sudan, my mother, for she is the Sun!
Kola Boof:
KOLA BOOF, SOME LADY
Kola Boof is the author of "Every Little Bit Hurts" (Poems), "Long Train to the Redeeming Sin: Stories About African Women" and coming in 2003.."DIARY of a Lost Girl". Kola Boof survived an attempt on her life when three Arab Muslim gunmen opened fire on her in Indian Hills, California. Ms. Boof, to their surprise, returned gunfire and escaped unharmed. Ms. Boof is an official supporter of the Sudanese People's Liberation Army. Her late father, Egyptian archeologist Atmu Bahri Kolbookek was a member.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xKola Boof Responds to Traitor Charges``x1033267529,62550,Development``x``x
``xBy Tim Wise
It happened again, for what seems like the millionth time. Once again, in response to something I said about ongoing racism in the United States, someone (a white male, naturally) pulled out the all-too-common conservative race card (oh yes, they have one), which they believe disproves the existence of racial injustice. It sounds a bit like this:
"If racism is such a big deal in America, then why have Asians done so well? Why is Asian income higher than white income? Doesn't this prove that the problem with blacks is simply a lack of effort?"
Offered this challenge most recently by a disgruntled county employee in Minneapolis who resented having to sit through a speech I had given, I rolled my eyes, took a deep breath and considered the irony of the query (ironic because it always comes from whites who insist on their "color-blindness") before issuing my reply.
As I pondered my response, I thought about the Asian women working twelve hours a day in garment sweatshops both abroad and in places like Los Angeles to make clothes for people like this guy's kids; and I wondered, in what sense were they "doing so well?"
I thought about the Vietnamese youth in California who are profiled as potential gang members by police, for wearing the wrong clothes or driving in the "wrong" neighborhoods; and I wondered, in what sense were they "doing so well?"
I thought about the Asian families whose members have to put in 80 hours a week just to keep their heads above water; and I wondered, in what sense were they "doing so well?"
I thought about the Indian, Pakistani or Bangladeshi taxi drivers who endure crappy working conditions, customers who get pissy about their accents or "attitudes," and cops who are responsible for nearly eighty percent of all anti-South Asian attacks-often against hack drivers in places like New York; and I wondered, in what sense were they "doing so well?"
I thought about the demonization of Wen Ho Lee, and of Chinese American political contributors during the Clinton Administration; and the beating death of Vincent Chin; and the persistent refrain that the Japanese are "buying up America;" and I wondered, in what sense were they "doing so well?"
But instead of getting into all of those things, which likely wouldn't have been seen as responsive by my detractor, I offered the following.
First, I noted that the Asian "model minority" myth has long been a staple of white conservative race commentary, though rarely have members of the various Asian communities in the U.S. pushed the notion themselves. The genesis of this argumentation goes back to the 1950's and '60's, when prominent magazines ran articles lauding the "hard-working" Chinese or Japanese, and explicitly contrasting their "success" with the "failure" of African Americans.
Of course, none of these ever editorialized in favor of lifting the immigration restrictions that had kept Asian populations small in the U.S. from the 1880's until 1965, despite their respect for their favored persons of color. Neither they nor any adherent to the model minority image spoke out against internment of "hard-working" Japanese Americans during World War Two, or the killing of hard-working Southeast Asians during the Vietnam War.
Secondly, I explained that comparisons between blacks and Asian Americans overlook a number of differences between them. Whereas the African American population represents a cross-section of background and experience, the APA community is highly self-selected. Voluntary migrants from nations that are not contiguous to their country of destination tend to be those with the skills and money needed to leave their home country in the first place. As many scholars have found, Asian immigrants are largely drawn from an occupational and educational elite in their countries of origin.
Indeed, Asian "success" in the U.S. relative to others is largely due to immigration policies that have favored immigrants with pre-existing skills and education. As the Glass Ceiling Commission discovered in 1995, between two-thirds and three-quarters of the highly-educated APA community in the U.S. already had college degrees or were in college upon their arrival.
Thanks to preferences for educated immigrants, Asian Americans are two-thirds more likely than whites and three times more likely than blacks to have a college degree. More than eight in ten Indian immigrants from 1966-1977 had advanced degrees and training in such areas as science, medicine or as engineers.
Pre-existing educational advantages are implicated in Asian success once here; but they hardly indicate genetic or cultural superiority. After all, to claim superior Asian genes or culture as the reasons for achievement in the U.S. requires one to ignore the rampant poverty and lack of success for persons from the same genetic or cultural backgrounds in their countries of origin. There is no shortage, after all, of desperately poor Asians in the slums of Manila, Calcutta and Hong Kong: testament to the absurdity of cultural superiority claims for Asians as a group.
Indeed, ethnic Koreans in Japan, as well as the Burakumin there-a minority treated similarly to the Dalits in India-consistently underperform economically and educationally, compared to dominant Japanese. They are both the targets of discrimination, and although they are culturally and genetically indistinguishable from other Koreans or Japanese, they are consistently found at the bottom of Japanese society, and do worse than others in Japan, or than Koreans in Korea.
Not only does this debunk the notion of pan-Asian superiority in genes or culture, but it also suggests that a group's caste status influences group outcomes: much as with blacks in the U.S., whose position has been similar to the Burakumin and ethnic Koreans in Japan.
The primary argument put forth by those who push the model minority myth is that APA income in the U.S. is higher than the average for other people of color and even whites. As such, it is suggested, racial discrimination cannot be a significant problem any longer.
But the data that shows Asians doing better in terms of income than whites, is family and/or household data, not per capita income data. This is important because APA households and families tend to have more family members (thus, slightly higher incomes are made to stretch over more persons), and more earners per family (thus, it takes more family members in the workforce in order to earn only slightly more than whites, with fewer income earners).
The average Asian household size, for example, is 3.3 persons, compared to only 2.5 per household for whites. Likewise, Asian American families are more likely than white families to have two income earners, and nearly twice as likely to have three earners. So while Asian household and family income is higher than that for whites, the median income per person is lower for Asians: as much as $2000 less annually.
An additional reason why the average income of Asian families is higher than that of whites is because Asians are concentrated in parts of the country that have higher average incomes and costs of living. The three states with the largest Asian populations and a disproportionate share of the overall Asian population (California, New York and Hawaii), rank 13th, 4th, and 16th in terms of average income: all within the top third of states. Whereas 76% of all Asian Americans live in the higher-income regions of the West and Northeast, only 41% of whites and 28% of blacks are in these regions.
Over half of all APA's in the U.S. live in just five major U.S. cities (Honolulu, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago and New York City): all of which have higher than average household incomes, and much higher costs of living than most of the U.S.
According to the Census Bureau, in 1996, median household income was about $35,500. But in states with disproportionate shares of Asians (NY and Hawaii, for example), median household income was $39,000 and $42,000 respectively. This means that APA median income will be skewed upward, relative to the rest of the country, but given cost of living differences, actual disposable income and living standards will be no better and often worse.
More importantly, claims of Asian success obscure the fact that the Asian American child poverty rate is nearly double the white rate, and according to a New York Times report in May of 1996, Southeast Asians as a whole have the highest rates of welfare dependence of any racial or ethnic group in the United States.
Nearly half of all Southeast Asian immigrants and refugees in the U.S. live in poverty, with annual incomes in 1990 of less than $10,000 per year. Amazingly, even those Southeast Asians with college degrees face obstacles. Two-thirds of Lao and Hmong-American college grads live below the poverty level, as do nearly half of Cambodian Americans and over a third of Vietnamese Americans with degrees.
Indeed, Asian "success" rhetoric ignores the persistent barriers to advancement faced by Asians relative to whites. On average, Asian Americans with a college degree earn 11% less than comparable whites; and APA's with only a high school diploma earn, on average, 26% less than their white counterparts.
When Asian American men have qualifications that are comparable to those of white men, they still receive fewer high-ranking positions than those same white men. Asian American male engineers and scientists are twenty percent less likely than white men to move into management positions in their respective companies, despite no differences in ambition or desire for such positions.
Of course, beyond the statistics, there are obvious points to be made. First, if whites truly believe that Asians are culturally superior and add to the quality of schools and workplaces, then why aren't these folks clamoring for a massive increase in immigration from Asian nations? Why not flood the borders, since we could all benefit from a little more Asian genius? Why not have white CEO's step down from their positions and let Japanese managers take their place?
Secondly, the whites who trumpet the model minority concept would be the first to object if Asian Americans began to bump their own white children from college slots, even if they did so by way of higher test scores and "merit" indicators. Just ask yourself what would happen if next year the top 3500 applicants to U.C.-Berkeley, in terms of SAT score and grades, happened to be Asian Americans, especially since there are only 3500 slots in the freshman class.
Would the regents allow the freshman class at the state's flagship school to become 100% Asian? Or for that matter even 80% or 70%? How would white Californians react to such a development, including those who praise hard-working Asian kids for their educational excellence and scholarly achievements?
How would white alums react if their favorite "model minorities" were suddenly seen as taking slots not from black and Latino youth, but from their own white children? To ask the question is to answer it.
And finally, to argue-as supporters of the model minority myth do-that Asians "have made it, so why can't blacks," is to misunderstand the issue of moral and ethical responsibility to correct the harm of wrongful actions.
Even if we accept the notion that groups victimized by racism can "make it" without assistance, affirmative action, or reparations, that would not deny (or indeed speak to in any way) the fact that society has an obligation to compensate the victims of injustice. After all, if my leg is blown off in an industrial accident, it hardly matters that many people with only one leg go on to succeed. The issue of compensatory justice remains, irrespective of what gains one can make without compensation.
I have little reason to believe that any of this made much difference to the individual who chose that day to trumpet Asian success as a way to denigrate African Americans. Given some of his other comments-that African sexual promiscuity was to blame for AIDS on the continent, and that he resented the "fact" that his black son (presumably adopted) has more opportunity in life than his white son (despite the fact that the former is unemployed and the latter in college)-his ability to rationally decipher much of anything seems doubtful.
Nonetheless, challenging the model minority myth is a worthwhile enterprise, especially when one considers how many decent, well-meaning individuals often fall for it.
Those who trumpet "Asian values and culture" (based on stereotypical understandings of both, not unlike the white guys who covet mail-order Asian brides for their anticipated "docility"), do Asians no favors. If anything, they set them up in a way that not only harms the groups against which they are contrasted, but in a way that harms Asians as well.
To be considered a group filled with math and science geniuses and passive, sensual, and willing female companions, not only objectifies Asian Pacific Americans, but results in a special stigma for those in the various Asian groups who aren't good in school, don't know how to fix your computer nor care to do so, or who don't fit the sexist stereotypes that are so comforting to Western male tastes.
The model minority myth, in other words, is a setup: a carrot offered to certain groups so long as they don't get out of line, assert their rights, strike for better wages, or try to determine their own sexuality. And as with all carrots, there is an even bigger stick, ready to throttle those who don't go along with the game.
Ultimately, justice and equity will remain elusive so long as whites feel no compunction about using one group of color against another group of color, in an attempt to make fools of both.
Tim Wise is an antiracist essayist, activist and lecturer. He can be reached at (and footnotes procured from) timjwise@msn.com``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xHow Whites Use Asians to Further Anti-Black Racism``x1033693147,52881,Development``x``x
``xHerald Reporter
A BRITISH national, Mr David Jones, has undertaken to correct the negative publicity Zimbabwe is receiving in the West saying the country is a paradise.
Mr Jones described Zimbabwe as "a real paradise, a jewel in the crown for Africa and heaven on earth" because of the real feeling of unspoilt nature the country possessed.
He was speaking at a function on Saturday night where the Minister of Environment and Tourism, Cde Francis Nhema, presented him with the Tourist of the Decade Award.
"For us, Zimbabwe in particular, and southern Africa in general is the eighth wonder of the world," said the 50-year old Mr Jones.
Whenever I have had the opportunity, I have done my personal best to sing Zimbabwe’s praises and sell your country’s benefits to the uneducated and we all know how many of those people there are in the world. MORE``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xBritish tourist to correct negative publicity``x1034002200,6626,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xPresidential Reporter
THE international campaign to isolate Zimbabwe and not to recognise the reelection of President Mugabe in March this year, continues to crumble with several European and North American countries accrediting new envoys to Zimbabwe.
New envoys from Norway, Austria and Canada — whose countries had earlier said they did not recognise the outcome of the March presidential election — yesterday presented their credentials to President Mugabe at State House.
The new High Commissioner for Canada, Mr John Schram and incoming Austrian ambassador, Mr Mag Michael Brunner, pledged to work towards improving ties between Zimbabwe and their countries.
"Your Excellency, may I present to you the letters of recall of my predecessor and present letters by which my President . . . accredits me as ambassador to the Republic of Zimbabwe," said Mr Brunner when he presented his credentials to Cde Mugabe.
Mr Schram also read a similar citation.
Also presenting their credentials yesterday, were the new Pakistani High Commissioner to Zimbabwe, Mr Khalid Aziz Baba, incoming Iranian ambassador Mr Hamid Moayyer and Mr Kjell Storlokken of Norway.
Mr Brunner told reporters soon after meeting Cde Mugabe that as a member of the EU, the position of the Union and that of Austria towards Zimbabwe "are well known".
Asked to comment on the fact that the EU had said it did not recognise Cde Mugabe’s re-election and yet as a member of that organisation, his country had sent him to Harare where he had just presented his credentials to the President, Mr Brunner said: "I will do my best to improve the relations. The Greek ambassador was here (at State House where he also presented his credentials recently), and now me.
"Here you are member of the European Union, here you are an autonomous State. So as long as we have an embassy here, we will continue to have bilateral relations."
Diplomatic sources, however, said bilateral relations between Austria and Zimbabwe were cordial as evidenced by the participation of firms from that country at the Zimbabwe International Trade Fair in April this year.
A cultural and musical group from Austria also took part in the jazz festival held at the Borrowdale Race Course in Harare recently.
The sources said the EU stance on Zimbabwe had largely been influenced by the British government of Prime Minister Tony Blair.
Bilateral relations between Harare and London have been frosty ever since Mr Blair reneged on a promise by his predecessors to fund land reforms in Zimbabwe.
The incoming Canadian High Commissioner said he hoped that relations between his country and Zimbabwe would strengthen during the four years that he would be in Harare.
He said his country had set aside $11 million for food aid to Zimbabwe and was ready to offer assistance in agriculture, food and training.
Mr Schram, however, denied that his country had taken a stance similar to that of the EU against Zimbabwe.
"What we are doing is to continue to work with Sadc and the Commonwealth in a way that can be helpful to the people of Zimbabwe.
"Canada has been working with the Commonwealth and our African partners in the Commonwealth and we believe land reform is central and can be done in a way that will ensure food production," he said.
Canada, together with Australia and New Zealand have largely been seen as siding with Britain in a campaign to demonise Zimbabwe.
However, their efforts to isolate Zimbabwe failed at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Coolum early this year when African members voiced their support for Harare.
Sources who attended the meeting between Mr Schram and Cde Mugabe yesterday said the President had urged the Canadians not to continue siding with Britain in a bilateral issue between Harare and London over land reforms.
"We are dismayed Canada had to go the way of Britain. We would expect you to read us well and project us as best as you can and where we have gone wrong, point it out (but) not in the Blair way.
"Engage us in the normal Canadian way. The politics of deception that have no essence of honesty we don’t accept," the sources quoted Cde Mugabe as saying.
They said Mr Schram and the President discussed the good relations that existed between the two countries in the 1980s and early 1990s when Canada used to provide training scholarships to Zimbabweans.
Cde Mugabe hoped that this would be revived.
Mr Storlokken of Norway told reporters after meeting the President that there had been strong links between his country and Zimbabwe since independence.
He said Norway was currently engaged in drought relief operations in the region and was moving food from South African ports into Zimbabwe.
Responding to allegations that some Non-Governmental Organisations from Norway were engaging in the internal politics of Zimbabwe, Mr Storlokken said he believed that while civic organisations played a crucial role in societies, they should abide "by the laws of the land".
Pakistani’s incoming envoy, Mr Baba, and the President discussed the excellent bilateral relations between Pakistan and Zimbabwe dating back to the days of the liberation struggle and through the early years of independence when Islamabad helped in the training of Zimbabwean pilots and provided equipment for the airforce.
The Asian nation also provided scholarships to Zimbabwean students in foreign services, international banking and finance, mining, telecommunications and defence.
Mr Moayyer pledged to follow up various agreements signed between Zimbabwe and Iran to "assist brothers and sisters who are very friendly people".
"In Iran, we admire the resistance of brothers and sisters here in Zimbabwe and hope that you will succeed and have more development in this country. In this field (of land reform) we are ready to assist them," he said.
Iran has expressed its readiness to help Zimbabwe in agricultural research, livestock breeding, fisheries and irrigation.
A Zimbabwe/Iran joint economic commission convened in Tehran in August and was attended by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Cde Stan Mudenge, the Minister of State for Information and Publicity, Professor Jonathan Moyo, and the Minister of Lands, Agriculture and Rural Resettlement, Cde Joseph Made.
Reproduced from:
http://www.herald.co.zw/index.php?id=15124&pubdate=2002-10-11``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xCampaign to isolate Zimbabwe dealt blow``x1034325119,7787,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xSOUTH AFRICA will not dictate policy to Zimbabwean President Mugabe, nor will it be "dragooned" into overthrowing his Government, South African President Thabo Mbeki said in an interview published yesterday.
"When people say: 'Do something', we say to them: 'Do what?', and nobody gives an answer because they know when they say 'do something' what they mean is march across the Limpopo and overthrow the Government of President Mugabe, which we are not going to do," President Mbeki told South Africa's Sunday Times newspaper.
The South African government has been criticised for its refusal to criticise President Mugabe's land reforms and perceived lawlessness in Zimbabwe.
In September, Australian Prime Minister John Howard called for Zimbabwe to be fully suspended from the Commonwealth because of alleged human rights and democratic abuses.
However, he was overruled by President Mbeki and Nigeria's President Olusegun Obasanjo, who said Cde Mugabe should be given a further six months before reviewing the situation in Zimbabwe.
"You can see that there is a particular agenda that drives that particular perception about Zimbabwe. The notion that South Africa can dictate policy to Zimbabwe . . . people must abandon that."
"What (US) President (George) Bush calls regime change is not going to happen," President Mbeki said. "The particular focus on Zimbabwe . . . suggests that particular agendas are being pursued here. And we are being dragooned to play: to come and fulfil and implement other people's agendas."
The South African President said the mainly white Zimbabwe Commercial Farmers' Union (CFU) had sent him a message opposing sanctions, sought by the West over President Mugabe's land reforms and the March presidential election victory.
President Mbeki spoke out against singling Zimbabwe out for punishment for perceived political wrongdoing, when global powers were doing little to resolve the "terrible situation" in the Middle East.
He also said no one had suggested punitive sanctions against President Pervez Musharraf, who took power in Pakistan via a military coup.
"It is Zimbabwe, Zimbabwe, Zimba-bwe everyday. Is a military coup less of an offence? Or is a military coup in Pakistan okay?" he said.
The SA leader said the Zimbabwe question was often raised at forums discussing the continent's economic rescue plan — the New Partnership for Africa's Development (Nepad) — but had not obstructed the programme in any way.
Nepad pledges improved political and economic governance by African leaders in return for increased financial assistance by Western governments.
President Mbeki is one of Nepad's key promoters.
The South African leader said the only solution to Zimbabwe's problems was continued engagement with all parties concerned.
Sadc decided last week, at President Mugabe's invitation, to send its Ministerial Task Force on Zimbabwe back to the country to review developments, particularly the land redistribution programme.
South Africa's Foreign Affairs Minister Dr Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma who was on a three-day visit to Zimbabwe last week said there were clearly no signs of a looming bloodbath in Zimbabwe as suggested by the SA media.
"We are not seeing any signs of that bloodbath and maybe we are too blind to see this looming war, but we are saying we are not blind and there is not any looming bloodbath," she told journalists after meeting President Mugabe on Friday.
"The media in SA wants to paint a picture of gloom and doom, but we think the public wants to be informed about what exactly is going on."
Dr Dlamini-Zuma said the major problem with the SA media was that it always thought people wanted to read and listen to bad news.
The South African minister held closed door meetings with her Zimbabwean counterpart Dr Stan Mudenge where they exchanged views on regional and international issues, and other developmental issues between the two countries. — AFP-Reuters-Herald Reporter.
Reproduced from:
http://www.herald.co.zw/index.php?id=15214&pubdate=2002-10-14
Australia announces sanctions against State officials
Australia announced yesterday unilateral sanctions against Zimbabwe, including travel bans and a freeze on assets of Government officials following its failure to persuade the Commonwealth to impose sanctions on Zimbabwe.
In a statement, Australian Foreign Affairs Minister Alexander Downer claimed the sanctions were designed to influence the Zimbabwean Government to return "good governance and rule of law". MORE``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xSouth Africa won't dictate to Zimbabwe: Mbeki``x1034588666,4129,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Chinondidyachii Mararike
Glass-housed Caucasian Australia should think twice before throwing stones at Great Zimbabwe's stone-built palace of agrarian reforms.
It ought to know that the main battle in imperialism is over land. And when it comes to who in Zimbabwe owned the land, who had the right to settle and work on it, who kept it going, who won it back, and who should now plan its future, all African organisations in Europe, America and the Caribbean clearly recognise that President Mugabe is a grand narrative of emancipation and enlightenment that has mobilised people in the former colonial world to rise up and throw off neo-imperial subjugation and domination.
The Australian Prime Minister John Howard should know, if he doesn’t by now, that Zimbabwe’s land reform programme has the support of all African progressives the world over. MORE``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xHoward's latest act of madness``x1034687025,68776,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xwww.herald.co.zw
THE Commercial Farmers' Union director, Mr David Hasluck, yesterday attacked Britain for causing a diplomatic stand-off with Zimbabwe that resulted in farmers failing to get full compensation for land acquired for resettlement.
In a rare attack on the former colonial power, Mr Hasluck said Mr Tony Blair's government had failed to acknowledge the historical background to the land reform programme that required it (Britain) to help pay the compensation.
He was speaking to a delegation from the United States' New York City Council that is on a fact-finding mission in Zimbabwe.
"There was no acceptance of history by the new British Prime Minister, Mr Tony Blair," said Mr Hasluck.
"The British government has absolutely rejected that there will be compensation for land based on our history."
"Since my President (Cde Mugabe) and Tony Blair fell out diplomatically, things have been worse for us, especially the white farmers."
He said the British government had refused to take the responsibility of financing the land reform programme because it did not acknowledge what happened in the past, especially at the Lancaster House Conference.
There was almost a total breakdown of negotiations at Lancaster House in 1979 over the issue of land reform in Zimbabwe.
The negotiations, which led to the drafting of a compromise constitution for Zimbabwe, only resumed after Britain and the United States sent envoys indicating they would finance the land issue.
The Government recently amended the constitution to include a section obliging Britain to pay compensation to the farmers for the farms, while it would only pay for improvements.
"The most difficult thing for us is the failure of diplomacy," said Mr Hasluck.
"The promises for compensation have been taken away and we are being called the children of the British. This is an insult to us because we are Zimbabweans."
Mr Hasluck got angry at one point when some members of the delegation continued to refer to him as a white farmer.
"I am sorry to get angry and emotional, but please identify with me as an African too," said a visibly angry Mr Hasluck.
"I do not see myself as a white commercial farmer, but as a Zimbabwean. I am a Manyika who comes from Manicaland Province."
The leader of the delegation, Mr Charles Barron, said the delegation was in Zimbabwe to find out facts and not to arouse anger.
"We are also angry because we identify with black Africans," said Barron.
"When you see the degree of this anger on our side you have a right to be angry too. We appreciate your anger, but we are here to find the facts."
Mr Hasluck said the farmers did not want to involve themselves in politics.
He claimed the farmers had made a number of proposals on how the land reform programme could proceed, but had been ignored by the Government.
The farmers, he said, had no power to talk with the British government on the land reform programme because it was the responsibility of the Government.
The delegation later met with the opposition MDC in a closed meeting.
The MDC officials barred The Herald from attending the meeting despite the fact that all the other meetings held by the group so far with different organisations had been open to the Press.
"Who the hell are you and what do you want here?" one of the MDC officials told a Herald reporter.
"You cannot just come without our invitation because we are the ones who arranged this meeting."
The delegation arrived on Sunday and met with President Mugabe, the Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs, Cde Patrick Chinamasa; Lands, Agriculture and Rural Resettlement Minister, Cde Joseph Made and the Minister of State for Science and Technology, Cde Olivia Muchena.
The delegation would meet several other stakeholders and visit the farming communities before departing for the US next week.
Reproduced from:
http://www.herald.co.zw/index.php?id=15276&pubdate=2002-10-16``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xCommercial Farmers Union director attacks UK``x1034766570,4822,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xThe Progeny of Neo-Colonialism and White Racism (Part One)
Re recent conference in Barbados on racism
by Ras Jahaziel
members.aol.com/jahpaint
The historical white racism that created The White World Order of this day has become a self-regenerating ideological and economic system that makes it no longer necessary for whites to be racist on an individual level. This self-regenerating ideology of white racism has been established for so long on both sides of the railway track that it has acquired an aura of credibility, respectability and normality. As a result, the inferior behavior that Blacks were forced to adopt in an effort to escape their own outlawed and scorned identity has now become fashionable and normal. The victims of such scorn have been convinced of their own inferiority and have firmly resolved to convert to the image of their Caucasian master and mistress. Because their basic view of themselves and the world has been learned from the centuries-old manual of white racism, the victims have actually been enlisted in the oppression of their own image as well as their own kind. Though their skin is black, they have become chauffeurs on the carriage of white racism.
Oppression of THE BLACK IMAGE was the first code of the plantation, and it was instituted in order to make real the lie of African inferiority.
Oppression of one's own image is the same as oppression of one's own kind. Whenever a Black woman perms her hair in the Caucasian image of the slave-mistress she is automatically collaborating, even if unknowingly, in the centuries-old oppression of her own kind and also cooperating in the original racist scheme to clone A NEGRO. The cloned Negro was supposed to be AN INFERIOR COPY of the Caucasian slave-master and slave-mistress. By their futile attempt to attain straight hair, straight nose, white skin, and blue eyes, an image which they were not biologically equipped to attain, they thereby made real the lie of Black inferiority, and gave their owners great pleasure at seeing ludicrous yellow-headed and straightened hair caricatures of themselves. When slave behavior becomes fashionable and normal, CLONING is complete.
Racist slave-masters well understood that if the mother of Black civilization could be coopted in oppressing her own image, the rest of Black civilization would be raised from the cradle nursing on the complexes of inferiority. Because of the great success of this mission, there is no longer any need for a white slave-master or a white slave-mistress to be around, because the mother of Black civilization has been tricked into pinning the white beauty standard and the badge of inferiority on her progeny. Therefore even when no white folks are around, WHITE RACISM still enforces itself in the Black community. In that manner the ideological system of white racism has become self-regenerating. Once the germs have been sown, the victim becomes a carrier.
In addition to the psychological operation of cloning THE NEGRO, the robbery and enslavement of Blacks fostered an economic system that operates on a basic law which says you must have money to get money. Of course, if you had been already robbed of your land and your natural resources, you would not have started off the race with money, so the only money you would ever get would be determined and measured by those who started off with the money that was gained from having slaves and stolen property.
Emancipation therefore became a smokescreen that actually legitimized and perpetuated A PERMANENT GAP between the inheritors of the slave-master legacy and the inheritors of the slave-legacy. From the very beginning of the race for economic development, the basic laws of the race left no possibility for there to ever be a catch up. That is why the nations that benefitted from robbery and slavery are so far ahead and Africa is so far behind. This head-start that came from having slaves, now makes it possible for the recipients of the said legacy to not have slaves but get increasing benefits from the time when they did have slaves, because money begets more money and so there is no longer any need to be personally racist.
Because of this ongoing historical reality of white racism which has been systematized and impersonalized, life for the victims is a constant battle with invisible racist forces which predetermine the quality of their human existence, and this battle takes place even when the races are not in contact. Meaningful debate about racism is therefore not about the need for blacks and whites to become color blind and intermarry, because even if they do become friends and lovers, the dynamics of white racism will still be inflicting pain. Its impersonal, systematic, and robotic nature makes it totally indifferent to what form of human relationship exists between the races. The educational system, the information system, the political system, the legal system, the religious system and the economic system have long been geared to perpetuate the status quo of the plantation, so without radical change to all of these systems, being COLOR BLIND will not change anything. None of these systems are color blind, and even the most well-meaning of whites are forced by the economic chains which also grip them too, to cooperate in the maintenance of The White World Order. The same also goes for the Black victims. They too cooperate in the maintenance of The White World Order because of the controlling force of economic chains and psychological chains.
The robot has become bigger than its maker and independent of its maker. In fact, when the emphasis is placed on becoming color blind, Acute Negro Psychosis always tends to increase. That is why racial integration without restoration of the black psyche which has been damaged by the teachings of black inferiority and white superiority can only serve to perpetuate the hypnotic trance that is now the legacy of black slavery.
INTRUSION is the first crime of white racism.
Even the most sacred of Black spiritual spaces have been invaded and contaminated by violence and destruction, to the extent that there are no longer any black sacred spaces left haloed and uncontaminated from intrusion. The mummies of Black ancestors, the great Black Kings, Black Queens and Pharaohs are right now being dissected in white laboratories as white scientists peep up in their insides, and all of their sacred possessions are now in white museums exposed to the same peeping intrusive eyes. The temples of the black man and black woman which are their living human bodies have also been penetrated and polluted ruthlessly by rape and sexual abuse throughout their long history of enslavement. Every day from the cradle their minds are being invaded with thoughts that emanate from the U-rocentrick soul. On a continual basis their psyche is being penetrated by THE WHITE IMAGE which is always dressed in robes of false superiority, whether it be in the form of blue-eyed Jeezus in church, or Hollywood "stars" on tv. Black sacred culture has been so profaned and commercialized that it is only valued now as a tourist attraction, a thing to be peered at by the same intrusive eyes. How then is it possible to decry and condemn the victims of such TOTAL INTRUSION for wanting to have family reunions without intrusion?
Who can blame a gathering of African peoples for wanting to discuss their strange and unique predicament amongst themselves? Who can blame them for wanting the opportunity to look around at each other and say "WE, the same we who were bound together at the bottom of the slave ship, the same we who have toiled and never got any pay, the same we who were raped and abused by the rapist's sperm, the same we who felt the lash of the slave-master's whip, the same we with whom no one wanted to mix, the same we who have been cast aside as non-humans, the same we who have always been scorned and kept down, the same we who were torn apart from the love of each other, the same we who never had a chance to be WE." ? Is it not A HOLY THING that those who never had a chance to come together in unity as "WE" should at last want to say "WE" without having to qualify that "we" ?
This desire and this sacred right is the first right that the scattered family of African peoples around the world must establish in order to regroup and rebuild that oneness which has long been prevented. It is a healthy sign that those who were taught to despise their own image are now wanting to savor the beauty of their own image without distraction from THE WHITE IMAGE that they have been so long forced to worship. It can be said of such a gathering, "This is a gathering of those who suffered the destruction of their natural image at the hands of white racism, and have come together to behold the mirror of their own painful experience in the faces of their family who were brutally ripped from their embrace almost forever."
There was a time when the cruelty and wretchedness of plantation slavery did not allow such ones to even cross over to the next plantation a few hundred yards away to see their loved ones. Even now economic chains still bind the vast majority of African peoples to the plantation that was chosen for them by their slave-master. And now at this late stage in history, that which ought to have been a common and regular occurence must now be hailed as a great historical achievement.
Condemnation of the attempt to reclaim the "WE' that was deliberately hindered by white racism is clear proof that white racism can even spring from liberal white mouths and black mouths too. But this is a logical outcome of the historical intruder's long years of arrogance, contempt, and insensitivity to the human dignity of African peoples. Long years of such INTRUSION accompanied by attitudes of contempt for the African sacred space have actually bred a sense of ENTITLEMENT which now causes indignation at the thought of putting an end to intrusion. Because the U-rocentrick thought process has now become a norm in black heads, it is not even surprising to hear the U-rocentrick echo proceeding from black mouths.
So because the evil of white racism has long been internalized by Blacks who now unconsciously echo the sentiments of their masters, it is quite obvious that a great part of the work of dismantling white racism has to be done amongst blacks themselves. Equally important is the internal work that has to be done amongst whites, for the simple reason that white racism is a cultural norm that is internalized from the cradle, and it permeates the fundamental myths of white society, conferring honor and sainthood on the architects of genocide and robbery. Fed from cradle on such myths which totally disembowel non-white peoples of their humanity, racism becomes such a normal world view that it is easy to be nice, liberal, and racist at the same time without even being aware of it.
Too often in addressing the evil of racism, failure to identify the root makes the problem look like a mankind problem, but the evidence of history shows that it is a white disease that eats black blood vessels. When one considers the fact that David Livingston never ended up on a plate, it is quite obvious where the real cannibals and savages have always had their nesting place. The truth must be faced that the ideological root of racism lies in the soil of U-rocentrick thought, and that which is often described as black racism is very often A REACTION to white racism when Blacks fail to act in the way that is expected of Negroes. As A GOOD NEGRO you are supposed to always act like you have "gotten over it and moved on." You are supposed to be totally non-racial and eager to be MIXED in order to demonstrate your voluntary amnesia. In former times when a slave failed to comply with the etiquette of Negro-hood it would be said that he was getting "uppity." Today this "uppity-ness" is now being used against the slave by describing it as racism, and thereby diverting attention from the real root of racism.
When the root is not properly identified there is naturally a tendency to generalize the problem, and the prescriptions for healing the infectious disease therefore consist of. integration medicines with the vain hope that intermarriage, color blindness and having at least one or two friends from the other race will effect a cure.
Such simplistic analysis of the disease of white racism will therefore never place emphasis on the system itself which has become master of the individual participants. The fundamentally racist economic and psychological structures which underpin racial domination and racial submission are indifferent to smiles and shake hands. Even with a Black government, a black judiciary, a black police force and a black army, one can yet suffer excruciatingly from white racism on a daily basis, because the black faces are just the deputies. They are not THE SHERIFF.
White racism is an international world order created on the profits from black slavery. It is the mother ship upon whose deck little black nations march. Dollar bill rule is assisted by mental slavery, and if the mind has not been thoroughly purged of the plantation blue-print, black political power is powerless in understanding and addressing the results of white racism.
If your mind is a product of the same white racist ideological and cultural system, it is most likely that you have grown to understand the master's point of view. You have been rehearsed by the education system of the plantation to see the reasonableness in what the slave-master is saying, and you have grown to understand why it is his land and not your land. That is what the plantation education system does for the Negroes of the plantation, it makes them forsake their own thoughts and prefer those of the master. The U-rocentrick education system endows the white mind and the white idea with a stamp of authority and God-hood, because after all, such education says that whites discovered everything including Black folks and brought them to civilization.
With such God-like authority conferred upon it, the white idea or the white mind can say "that plant is evil" and it can be expected that all the Negro minds will say "amen." Even though you are supposed to be an independent "black" government, if the white mind says "Your chief judge must wear a white head, and your speaker in the parliament must also wear a white head," it can be expected that the "black" government will say amen. The overshadowing power of long indoctrination will not allow the black mind to see the symbolism of "the white wig." Under the influence of long indoctrination, it will not be understood that such symbolism establishes the right and authority of the white mind to rule the black head and the black mouth. This explains why even under black governments the movement for African liberation has always been met with stout resistance. The black mind has been so conditioned to wait for authorization from the white mind that if the Pope, the Queen or the White House say "Rasta is the right way, stop persecuting them for practicing their culture," the black mind that now thinks of persecuting the Rastas could be expected to adopt a different point of view.
We should not forget that many times in history, plantations have been run by appointed slaves when the master was away, and to their credit, those plantations were run very efficiently, never wavering once from the master's point of view. Many times the slaves would be glad for the master to come back, because the need to prove their faithfulness caused the temporary masters to be real severe. If the real slave-master would give you twenty lashes for being black, the temporary masters would give you twenty for being black and twenty more for being a reminder of their own blackness which they despised.
The economic and psychological legacy of white racism has therefore become a robot that no longer needs whites to make a personal input. The program has already been laid down, and the many human parts of its machinery do their appointed tasks in order to remain on the vital payroll. The inherent evil in the system itself is actually endorsed, since CRIMES AGAINST BLACK HUMANITY are legitimized in the psyche of the victims and the victimizers by yearly observation of such festivals as Columbus day, Thanksgiving day, Settlers day, Hole Town Festival, Crop Over etc. Black humanity and Black self worth have therefore been ideologically relegated to the realms of unimportance and insignificance to such an extent that walking in another man's image now comes natural to the children of Africa. This is inevitable when all the annual rituals of the colonial plantation have succeeded in placing CRIMES AGAINST BLACK HUMANITY more firmly beneath the radar of human conscience.
These invisible economic and psychological forces which have been unleashed by historical white racism place the present-day victims in a predicament of wide-spread psychic pain which is shared only by those of similar fate wherever they are scattered. The evidence of this UNITY IN PSYCHIC PAIN is to be found in the music which emanates from their souls, be it Blues, Jazz, Soul, Gospel, or Reggae etc. They all draw from A UNITY OF PSYCHIC PAIN, and the music, the art and poetry that come from the soul often contradict the lie of having "gotten over it."
Despite this predicament, the precarious condition of economic insecurity, total dependency, and critical vulnerability that historic white racism has placed upon the inheritors of the slave legacy, now forces them to present an appearance of "the non-racial Negroes who have gotten over it." This situation is somewhat similar to one where a bully is standing on your toes but you have to smile and pretend he isn't doing it. Such forces if not resisted unceasingly can actually infect the victims with that wide-spread disease of ACUTE NEGRO PSYCHOSIS which is so prevalent today on the plantation.
But in accordance with the Willie Lynch Plan, the psychology that now operates in Middle Class Heaven is such that Negroes can actually "get over it" by immersing themselves in the hamburger and plastic bag delights which are commonly mistaken for progress. These ANESTHETICS of Hamburger Heaven help the Negro to desensitize his perception of pain to the extent that he becomes distanced from the pain of the majority of his race. It is not uncommon to hear such Negroes say "we Negroes over here in The Big House are different, we don't hurt so much like those out there who are always getting on so bitter." And they will say it very loudly, because it is very important that their master hears and makes note of their unflinching fidelity.
True to the spirit of Negro-hood, the Negro's brain will not be busy studying how to correct the vulnerable and insecure predicament which has been bequeathed to him by historical white racism. Instead, the Negro will be more concerned and agitated about the spoiling of the "good Negro" name, thinking that preservation of the good name will forestall the inevitable.
Negro-hood is so binding on the consciousness, that Negroes will try to preserve their servile hold on the plank until whenever the slave master pushes them off. Their lack of historical memory will not remind them that the Arawaks also had a good name and it never helped them to escape genocide. Despite the oncoming rush of the economic precipice which has no regard for Negro fidelity, misplaced concerns will naturally cause agitation over "those other ones who are giving us a bad name"
And so, the ANAESTHETICS of Middle Class Heaven continue to create a wide division between those that "haven't gotten over it and moved on" and those that have "moved on" to A LOANED PROGRESS, where month to month leases on borrowed houses, borrowed cars and borrowed gadgets is more important than your soul. It is therefore important to maintain the etiquette of the plantation and suppress the visions that come from your own natural origins, because such visions do not pay when neo-colonialism is the order of the day.
Ras Jahaziel http://members.aol.com/jahpaint/index1.html``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xSpiritual Prostitutes: Recent conference on racism``x1034784174,78135,Development``x``x
``xBy Dr David Nyekorach-Matsanga
Ever since Henry Morton Stanley hacked his way through the Ituri forest in 1874, the Congo has been the "Boiling pot" of Africa.
Stanley's sponsor was Leopold II, King of the Belgians, who turned Congo into his personal fiefdom. Using slave labour, his agents extracted vast quantities of rubber and ivory for their new master. The profits built palaces for Leopold in Brussels, while recalcitrant Congolese were beaten.
The period of ruthless exploitation lasted until King Leopold was stripped of the Congo in 1908 and it became a Belgian colony. Today the UN has named those whom they claim have been looting the Congo minerals, which adds to the fact that the same boiling pot has eaten the Hutus who fled to Congo. Don't you think that the same men like Lt Gen Salim Saleh, Lt Col Mayombo and his boss Major General Kazini with the help of the Rwanda Chief of Staff Major-General James Kabarebe have cannibalised the Hutus in the DRC? Where is the human democracy that the UN stands for?
The UN under pressure from the British government have included the name of the Speaker of Parliament of Zimbabwe who is innocent.
A reliable Source at the UN told Africa Strategy that "a plot was hatched by the British UN representative" who received instructions from Hon. Jack Straw who was in New York last week between 14th-18th October 2002 to lobby the rest of the Council Members to include Zimbabwe on UN matters.
The true picture is that many malcontents in the British government and Zimbabwe opposition have tried to tarnish the good name of Hon. Emmerson Mnangagwa. They know he has given hope and faith and added more credence to the government of Zimbabwe.
Another factor that the source at the UN told us is that Zimbabwe's troops behaved well while in Congo as compared to Ugandan and Rwandan troops and this has embarrassed the governments of Britain and USA — hence the inclusion of at least someone from Zimbabwe.
This goes to show how far the British system has gone to demonise innocent people in Zimbabwe.
Yet the repression continued when independence finally came in 1960. Congo was already in chaos. Patrice Lumumba, its first elected leader, was murdered. Mobutu Sese Seko, the army chief, seized power in 1965. But he soon turned chaos into a method of government.
He emulated Leopold and plundered his newly named Zaire, until the jungle reclaimed the few roads, and the telephone and rail networks all but ceased to exist. By the time Mobutu was overthrown in 1997, the renamed Democratic Republic of Congo had effectively ceased to function as a state in all but name.
For a few years, Mr Kabila's takeover led to hopes that a milestone had been reached but it soon became clear that the long suffering Congolese was to continue for years to come.
The Democratic Republic of Congo's vast mineral resources of gold, diamonds, copper and cobalt, much of which has yet to be exploited, is likely to ensure that peace is a long way off for the war weary people of Africa's third-largest country. The British and American companies have made it clear that Congo will never have peace.
Rebel groups, which have fought to depose President Joseph Kabila, have now taken advantage of the blind eye on Congo by the so-called world order and the logistical support given by Uganda and Rwanda are now re- organising a final push for the capital, sources close to the rebels told us.
Despite international calls to salvage the 1998 Lusaka Peace Accords — a hard-won agreement that was never more than a paper truce — both sides have little incentive to end the fighting.
The legitimate Kinshasa government, backed by Zimbabwe, Angola and Namibia, and the rebel groups, backed by Rwanda and Uganda, are now likely to attempt to strengthen their hand in a new and bitter upsurge of fighting for territory and power.
The renewed fighting that is being reported in Congo is the same thing that we have told those friends who support President Joseph Kabila to watch out.
We have in all our past articles said the two Presidents of Uganda and that of Rwanda can never be trusted when it comes to honouring agreements.
It is now on record that they were "given orders from Britain to go and get Kabila out as soon as possible" a source close to the meeting has told Africa Strategy.
There were no new peace initiatives but only a meeting of "lovers" in London, which ended with "a golden hand shake" to both Presidents.
Many international analysts believe that the rebels will probably take advantage of the weakening of the Kinshasa regime by the pulling out of Zimbabwe troops and press ahead with their new offensive which has been blessed by the British and USA governments in a meeting held in London on 17th October 2002.
Rwandan officials insist that their forces are in Congo solely to eliminate the Interahamwe, the ethnic Hutu militia that orchestrated the 1994 massacre of Tutsis in Rwanda. Many thousands of the Hutu took refuge in Congo.
Kagame told the BBC programme Hard Talk by Tim Sebastian on 21st October 2002 that he was not worried about the state department report of genocide and other terrorist acts against the people of Congo. In fact "we shall go in and kill them if Kabila does not control the situation".
He further said that "it is the British and American companies that are plundering the wealth of the DRC" not Rwanda. "There are many European countries that are also dealing in minerals which has made it impossible to find peace" stated Kagame.
But sources close the UN headquarters we spoke to told us that Rwanda also has a keen interest in the mineral wealth in eastern Congo, largely diamonds and gold. These have helped to keep the economy of this country, which had totally collapsed after the genocide.
Uganda is also eager to ensure its continued access to the region's mineral riches. Both are suspicious of the other's ambitions, despite being ostensible allies in the conflict against Kinshasa. This sums up why they were called to meet in London.
They have borne the brunt of the fighting in the diamond-rich Kisangani where many Rwandans and Ugandans have benefited. Insiders close to these rebel groups have said the past pattern of conspiratorial tradition of post-independence opposition politics in the Congo, and their increased hatred for the government was matched only by their loathing for each other. It is this which could ensure that President Joseph Kabila's regime will stay in power.
The latest upheaval gives no opportunity for both sides to talk as the hidden agenda of Uganda and Rwanda is about to be seen. Those who think that the Pretoria and the Luanda agreements are going to produce miracles should have watched and heard what Kagame said on BBC.
Guerrilla
The most overt threat to President Kabila's power comes from the clique of the guerrilla movements backed by both Uganda and Rwanda that have taken control of more than half the vast country. They have slogged it out in Africa's largest war, which is driven more by greed to control the Congo's fabulous mineral wealth than politics.
Congolese politicians, who have abandoned Kinshasa's salons for the bush, nominally lead the three movements. But they would be nothing without the backing of Rwanda and Uganda. This is the worry of most diplomats whom we have spoken to in London and Brussels.
For Rwanda's minority Tutsi-led government it was a chance to break, once and for all, the Interahamwe militia that organised and carried out the genocide in Rwanda. But asked by the BBC Hard Talk why there is no single Tutsi accused of genocide, Kagame denied vehemently that not a single Tutsi took part in the genocide.
There is growing worry about the plight of over two million Hutu refugees who fled to Congo who appear to have been completely "wiped out".
The UN has been asked to tell the world whether these are not crimes against humanity, which the government of Rwanda and Uganda should be accused of. After being ousted by Kagame's forces, most Hutus fled to Congo. For the scheming President Museveni, whose regional tag is the Bismarck of Africa, Kabila's rebellion represented an opportunity to extend his power and influence.
But within a year of putting the late Kabila in power they turned against him and would have toppled him in 1998 had Zimbabwe, Namibia and Angola not come to his aid.
Since then tens of thousands of soldiers have been rampaging across a battlefield almost the size of western Europe in a war that has paralysed the heart of Africa, driven out two million people from their homes and yet gone almost unreported — so impenetrable is the rainforest that covers the interior.
For Mobutu's former generals and aides, the rebellion has been godsend. They fled into exile in the last chaotic days of his rule, in many cases with fortunes in their suitcases.
Now from their homes in Brussels, Paris and Cape Town they are re-inventing themselves as "committed democrats". The Uganda government has been busy taking money from these people and promising them a lot in return, just as they did to Savimbi until his final days.
One such figure is Kin-Kiely Mulumba, the Brussels-based spokesman for the Rwanda-backed Congolese Rally for Democracy (RCD) whom I met in Brussels during one of my lobby trips on Zimbabwe at the headquarters of European Union. This is the most powerful ruthless of the three rebel movements in Congo. He hailed current events as a break-through.
Ceasefires
The rebels have had the upper hand in recent fighting. Jean-Pierre Bemba, the leader of the Ugandan-backed Congolese Liberation Movement has signed an agreement with the government but knowing the history of his backers, this is only a ploy to buy time while they prepare a final onslaught on Kabila. But the rebels' feuds have scuppered all previous attempts at ceasefires and peace deals, leaving a proposed UN peacekeeping plan in disarray.
Only last year, Ugandan and Rwandan forces fought a bloody battle in Kisangani, the former Stanleyville, one of the Congo's main diamond centres. The UN has dragged their feet on DRC and this has caused untold suffering to the people of Congo and the whole of the Great Lakes Region. The revelations by President Kagame on the "HARD talk" programme has now confirmed what Africa Strategy has always said about the two nations that partitioned Congo. One thing that remains unanswered is where are the two million Hutu refugees who fled to Congo? If they are still alive, how many are left and what has the UN done to help these refugees who live in the same occupied territories with their hunters?
The world now needs answers to these questions because the plight of the Hutus as a tribe in Africa has been forgotten. Many people have ignored our reasoning that those who invaded Rwanda from Uganda in 1994 also organised genocide.
The world has failed to trace the root causes of genocide and have only dealt with the effects, which will not prevent any future occurrences. Had President Museveni not armed his Tutsi cousins to invade the peaceful country in Central Africa, there would have been no genocide in Rwanda?
Nobody has tried and admitted to the terrorist acts of shooting down of a plane carrying the two Presidents of Rwanda and Burundi which sparked the full-scale war in Rwanda.
These are some hidden and missing links to the whole Great Lakes Region crisis that has engulfed over 10 countries in the region.
The last time in 1999, Africa Strategy tried to investigate, in a meeting with the widow of the late Rwandan President in Vienna Austria, Ugandan government newspapers printed crude and imagined stories of "an assassination" plot on President Museveni in such a meeting which was done deliberately to distract our investigations. Africa Strategy still thinks and believes that somewhere in the secret box that surrounds the mystery of the killing of the two former heads of State, Museveni and Kagame were involved. This is what we are researching on in a bid to find out who played what part so as to form a basis for the late Habyarimana's family to take the matter further.
President Kagame of Rwanda himself has confessed in plain English on British television on Monday (October 21, 2002) on "HARD talk" that he was supported by Uganda to topple the Habyarimana government.
Misery
It is very clear that since the RPF (Rwanda Patriotic Front) was operating in the outskirts of the capital Kigali with the logistics of the plane provided by Ugandan authorities, then they must give answers to the terrorist act, which caused the misery that we see in the region. As much as we struggle to bring those who committed war crimes as far as the Second World War, we should also charge President Kagame and Museveni with crimes against humanity. They are not different from the former leaders of Yugoslavia who are standing trial for having stood against Islamic fanatics in Kosovo. The world order should not be different for the "Blue-eyed Presidents" while many others who have tried to defend their people and re-empower their people like President Mugabe have been demonised by the international community.
British
Whether those involved in the war and peace negotiations in the Congo make victory roads on either fronts, the fact remains that Congo will not return to normality as long as British and American companies want the wealth of this African boiling pot.
The endorsement of Uganda and Rwanda's policies on Congo by the British double-standard government last week, casts doubts on the whole process in the Congo. Those who have helped the Congo like Zimbabwe should not rush to pull out troops — SOME HIDDEN AGENDA LIES IN BRITAIN.
We can be contacted on africastrategy.@hotmail.com``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xBoiling pot of Africa``x1035384782,80495,Development``x``x
``xBy William Blum, www.uscrusade.com
William Blum, author of three books covering U.S. foreign policy, gave the following speech at the University of Colorado in Boulder on October 16, 2002.
Good evening, it's very nice to be here, especially since the bombs have not yet begun to fall; I mean in Iraq, not Boulder; Boulder comes after Iraq and Iran if you folks don't shape up and stop inviting people like me to speak.
The first time I spoke in public after September 11 of last year, I spoke at a teach-in at the University of North Carolina. As a result of that, I and some of the other speakers were put on a list put out by an organization founded by Lynne Cheney, the wife of you know who. The organization's agenda can be neatly surmised by a report it issued, entitled "Defending Our Civilization: How Our Universities are Failing America and What Can Be Done About It." In the report and on their website they listed a large number of comments made mainly by faculty and students from many schools which indicated that these people were not warmly embracing America's newest bombing frenzy. These people were guilty of suggesting that some foreigners might actually have good reason for hating the United States, or what I call hating U.S. foreign policy.
Because of that listing, as well as things I wrote subsequently, I've gotten a lot of hate mail in the past year, hate e-mail to be exact. I'm waiting to receive my first e-mail with anthrax in it. Well, there are viruses in e-mail, why not bacteria?
The hate mail almost never challenges any fact or idea I express. They attack me mainly on the grounds of being unpatriotic. They're speaking of some kind of blind patriotism, but even if they had a more balanced view of it, they would still be right about me. I'm not patriotic. I don't want to be patriotic. I'd go so far as to say that I'm patriotically challenged.
Many people on the left, now as in the 1960s, do not want to concede the issue of patriotism to the conservatives. The left insists that they are the real patriots because of demanding that the United States lives up to its professed principles. That's all well and good, but I'm not one of those leftists. I don't think that patriotism is one of the more noble sides of mankind. George Bernard Shaw wrote that patriotism is the conviction that your country is superior to all others because you were born in it. And remember that the German people who supported the Nazi government can be seen as being patriotic, and the German government called them just that.
The past year has not been easy for people like me, surrounded as we've been by an orgy of patriotism. How does one escape "United We Stand," and "God Bless America"? And the flag - it's just all over - I buy a banana and there it is, an American flag stuck on it.
We're making heroes out of everyone - the mayor of New York, Rudy Giuliani, became a hero. On Sept. 10 he was an arrogant, uncompassionate reactionary - suddenly he was a hero, even a statesman, speaking before the U.N. George Bush also became a hero. People who called him a moron on September 10 welcomed him as hero and dictator after the eleventh.
In the play, Galileo, by Bertolt Brecht, one character says to another: "Unhappy the land that has no heroes." The other character replies: "No. Unhappy the land that needs heroes."
Although I'm not loyal to any country or government, like most of you I am loyal to certain principles, like political and social justice, economic democracy, human rights.
The moral of my message to you is this: If your heart and mind tell you clearly that the bombing of impoverished, hungry, innocent peasants is a terrible thing to do and will not make the American people any more secure, you should protest it in any way you can and don't be worried about being called unpatriotic.
There was, sadly, very little protest against the bombing of Afghanistan. I think it was a measure of how the events intimidated people, events, along with their expanding police powers, led by Ayatollah John Ashcroft. I think it was also due to the fact that people felt that whatever horrors the bombing caused, it did get rid of some really nasty anti-American terrorists.
But of the thousands in Afghanistan who died from American bombs, how many do you think had any part in the events of 9-11? I'll make a rough guess and say "none." How many do you think ever took part in any other terrorist act against the United States? We'll never know for sure, but my guess would be a number in the very low one digits, if that. Terrorist acts don't happen very often after all, and usually are carried out by a handful of men. So, of all those killed by the American actions, were any of them amongst any of those few handfuls of terrorists, many of whom were already in prison?
Keep in mind that the great majority of those who were at a training camp of al Qaeda in Afghanistan were there to help the Taliban in their civil war, nothing to do with terrorism or the United States. It was a religious mission for them, none of our business. But we killed them or have held them under terrible conditions at the Guantanamo base in Cuba for a very long time now, with no end in sight, with many attempts at suicide there amongst the prisoners.
It is remarkable indeed that what we call our government is still going around dropping huge amounts of exceedingly powerful explosives upon the heads of defenseless people. It wasn't supposed to be this way. Beginning in the late 1980s, Mikhail Gorbachev put an end to the Soviet police state, then the Berlin Wall came down. People all over Eastern Europe were joyfully celebrating a NEW DAY, and South Africa freed Nelson Mandela and apartheid began to crumble, and Haiti held its first free election ever and chose a genuine progressive as president ... it seemed like anything was possible; optimism was as widespread as pessimism is today.
The United States joined this celebration by invading and bombing Panama, only weeks after the Berlin Wall fell.
At the same time, the U.S. was shamelessly intervening in the election in Nicaragua to defeat the Sandinistas.
Then, when Albania and Bulgaria, "newly freed from the grip of communism," as our media would put it, dared to elect governments not acceptable to Washington, Washington just stepped in and overthrew those governments.
Soon came the bombing of the people of Iraq for 40 horrible days without mercy, for no good or honest reason, and that was that for our hopes of a different and better world.
But our leaders were not through. They were soon off attacking Somalia, more bombing and killing.
Meanwhile they continued bombing Iraq for years.
They intervened to put down dissident movements in Peru, Mexico, Ecuador and Colombia, just as if it were the cold war in the 1950s in Latin America, and the 1960s, the 1970s, the 1980s, and still doing it in the 1990s.
Then they bombed the people of Yugoslavia for 78 days and nights.
And once again, last year, they grossly and openly intervened in an election in Nicaragua to prevent the left from winning.
Meanwhile, of course, they were bombing Afghanistan and, in all likelihood, have now killed more innocent civilians in that sad country than were killed here on Sept. 11, with more to come as people will continue to die from bombing wounds, cluster-bomb landmines, and depleted-uranium toxicity.
All these years, they're still keeping their choke hold on Cuba. And that's just a partial list.
There was none of the peace dividend we had been promised, not for Americans nor for the rest of the world.
What the heck is going on here? We had been taught since childhood that the cold war, including the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the huge military budgets, all the foreign invasions and overthrows of governments - the ones we knew about - was all to fight the same menace: The International Communist Conspiracy, headquarters in Moscow.
So what happened? The Soviet Union was dissolved. The Warsaw Pact was dissolved. The East European satellites became independent. The former communists even became capitalists....yet nothing changed in American foreign policy. Even NATO remained, NATO which had been created - so we were told - to protect Western Europe against a Soviet invasion, even NATO remains, bigger than ever, getting bigger and more powerful all the time, a NATO with a global mission. The NATO charter was even invoked to give a justification for its members to join the U.S. in the Afghanistan invasion.
The whole thing had been a con game. The Soviet Union and something called communism per se had not been the object of our global attacks. There had never been an International Communist Conspiracy. The enemy was, and remains, any government or movement, or even individual, that stands in the way of the expansion of the American Empire; by whatever name we give to the enemy - communist, rogue state, drug trafficker, terrorist.
You think the American Empire is against terrorists? What do you call a man who blows up an airplane killing 73 people, who attempts assassinations against several diplomats, who fires cannons at ships docked in American ports? What do you call a man who places bombs in numerous commercial and diplomatic buildings in the U.S. and abroad? Dozens of such acts. His name is Orlando Bosch, he's Cuban and he lives in Miami, unmolested by the authorities. The city of Miami once declared a day in his honor - Orlando Bosch Day. He was freed from prison in Venezuela, where he had been held for the airplane bombing, partly because of pressure from the American ambassador, Otto Reich, who earlier this year was appointed to the State Dept. by George W.
After Bosch returned to the U.S. in 1988, the Justice Dept condemned him as a totally violent terrorist and was all set to deport him, but that was blocked by President Bush, the first, with the help of son Jeb Bush in Florida. So is George W. and his family against terrorism? Well, yes, they're against those terrorists who are not allies of the empire.
The plane that Bosch bombed, by the way, was a Cuban plane. He's wanted in Cuba for that and a host of other serious crimes, and the Cubans have asked Washington to turn him over to them; to Cuba he's like Osama Bin Laden is to the United States. But the U.S. has refused. Can you imagine the reaction in Washington if bin Laden showed up in Havana and the Cubans refused to turn him over? Can you imagine the reaction in the United States if Havana proclaimed Osama Bin Laden Day?
Washington's support of genuine terrorist organizations has been very extensive. To give just a couple of examples of the past few years - The ethnic Albanians in Kosovo have carried out numerous terrorist attacks for years in various parts of the Balkans, but they've been our allies because they've attacked people out of favor with Washington.
The paramilitaries in Colombia, as vicious as they come, could not begin to carry out their dirty work without the support of the Colombian military, who are the recipients of virtually unlimited American support. This, all by itself, disqualifies Washington from leading a war against terrorism.
Bush also speaks out often and angrily against harboring terrorists. Does he really mean that? Well, what country harbors more terrorists than the United States? Orlando Bosch is only one of the numerous anti-Castro Cubans in Miami who have carried out hundreds, if not thousands of terrorist acts, in the U.S., in Cuba, and elsewhere; all kinds of arson attacks, assassinations and bombings. They have been harbored here in safety for decades. As have numerous other friendly terrorists, torturers and human rights violators from Guatemala, El Salvador, Haiti, Indonesia and elsewhere, all allies of the Empire.
The CIA is looking for terrorists in caves in the mountains of Afghanistan at the same time as the Agency sits in bars in Miami having beers with terrorists.
What are we to make of all this? How are we to understand our government's foreign policy? Well, if I were to write a book called The American Empire for Dummies, page one would say: Don't ever look for the moral factor. U.S. foreign policy has no moral factor built into its DNA. Clear your mind of that baggage which only gets in the way of seeing beyond the clichés and the platitudes.
I know it's not easy for most Americans to take what I say at face value. It's not easy to swallow my message. They see our leaders on TV and their photos in the press, they see them smiling or laughing, telling jokes; see them with their families, hear them speak of God and love, of peace and law, of democracy and freedom, of human rights and justice and even baseball ... How can such people be moral monsters, how can they be called immoral?
They have names like George and Dick and Donald, not a single Mohammed or Abdullah in the bunch. And they even speak English. Well, George almost does. People named Mohammed or Abdullah cut off arms or legs as punishment for theft. We know that that's horrible. We're too civilized for that. But people named George and Dick and Donald drop cluster bombs on cities and villages, and the many unexploded ones become land mines, and before very long a child picks one up or steps on one of them and loses an arm or leg, or both arms or both legs, and sometimes their eyesight. And the cluster bombs which actually explode do their own kind of horror.
But our leaders are perhaps not so much immoral as they are amoral. It's not that they take pleasure in causing so much death and suffering. It's that they just don't care ... if that's a distinction worth making. As long as the death and suffering advance the agenda of the Empire, as long as the right people and the right corporations gain wealth and power and privilege and prestige, as long as the death and suffering aren't happening to them or people close to them ... then they just don't care about it happening to other people, including the American soldiers whom they throw into wars and who come home - the ones who make it back - with Agent Orange or Gulf War Syndrome eating away at their bodies. Our leaders would not be in the positions they hold if they were bothered by such things.
It must be great fun to be one of the leaders of an empire, glorious in fact ... intoxicating ... the feeling that you can do whatever you want to whomever you want for as long as you want for any reason you care to give ... because you have the power ... for theirs is the power and the glory.
When I was writing my book Rogue State a few years ago I used the term "American Empire," which I don't think I had seen in print before. I used the term cautiously because I wasn't sure the American public was quite ready for it. But I needn't have been so cautious. It's now being used proudly by supporters of the empire.
There's Dinesh D'Souza, the conservative intellectual at the Hoover Institution, who became well-known with his theories on the "natural" inferiority of Afro-Americans. Earlier this year, he wrote an article entitled "In praise of American empire," in which he argued that Americans must finally recognize that the U.S. "has become an empire, the most magnanimous imperial power ever."
Robert Kagan of the Carnegie Endowment writes: "And the truth is that the benevolent hegemony exercised by the U.S. is good for a vast portion of the world's population. It is certainly a better international arrangement than all realistic alternatives."
And syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer speaks of America's "uniquely benign imperium."
So that's how people who are wedded to American foreign policy are able to live with it - they conclude, and proclaim, and may even believe, that our foreign policy is a benevolent force, an enlightened empire, bringing order, prosperity and civilized behavior to all parts of the globe, and if we're forced to go to war we conduct a humanitarian war.
Well, inasmuch as I've devoted much of my adult life to documenting in minute detail the exact opposite, to showing the remarkable cruelty and horrific effects of U.S. interventions on people in every corner of the world, you can understand, I think, that my reaction to such claims is ... Huh? These conservative intellectuals ... Is that an oxymoron? They are as amoral as the folks in the White House and the Pentagon. After all, the particles of depleted uranium are not lodging inside their lungs to keep radiating for the rest of their lives; the International Monetary Fund is not bankrupting their economy and slashing their basic services; it's not their families wandering in the desert as refugees.
The leaders of the empire, the imperial mafia - Bush and Rumsfeld and Cheney and Powell and Rice and Wolfowitz and Perle - and their scribes as well, are as fanatic and as fundamentalist as Osama Bin Laden. And the regime change they accomplished in Afghanistan has really gone to their heads. Today Kabul, tomorrow the world.
So get used to it, world. The American Empire. Soon to be a major motion picture, coming to a theatre near you.
A while ago, I heard a union person on the radio proposing what he called "a radical solution to poverty - pay people enough to live on." Well, I'd like to propose a radical solution to anti-American terrorism - stop giving terrorists the motivation to attack America.
Now our leaders and often our media would have us believe that we're targeted because of our freedom, our democracy, our wealth, our modernity, our secular government, our simple goodness, and other stories suitable for schoolbooks. George W. is still repeating these clichés a year after 9-11. Well, he may believe it but other officials have known better for some time. A Department of Defense study in 1997 concluded: "Historical data show a strong correlation between U.S. involvement in international situations and an increase in terrorist attacks against the United States."
Jimmy Carter, some years after he left the White House, was unambiguous in his agreement with such a conclusion. He said:
We sent Marines into Lebanon and you only have to go to Lebanon, to Syria or to Jordan to witness first-hand the intense hatred among many people for the United States because we bombed and shelled and unmercifully killed totally innocent villagers - women and children and farmers and housewives -- in those villages around Beirut. ... As a result of that ... we became kind of a Satan in the minds of those who are deeply resentful. That is what precipitated the taking of our hostages and that is what has precipitated some of the terrorist attacks.
The terrorists responsible for the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993 sent a letter to the New York Times which stated, in part: "We declare our responsibility for the explosion on the mentioned building. This action was done in response for the American political, economical, and military support to Israel the state of terrorism and to the rest of the dictator countries in the region." And finally, several members of al Qaeda have repeatedly made it quite plain in the past year that it's things like U.S. support of Israeli massacres and the bombing of Iraq that makes them hate the United States.
I present more evidence of the same sort in one of my books along with a long list of U.S. actions in the Middle East that has created hatred of American foreign policy.
I don't think, by the way, that poverty plays much of a role in creating terrorists. We shouldn't confuse terrorism with revolution.
And the attacks are not going to end until we stop bombing innocent people and devastating villages and grand old cities and poisoning the air and the gene pool with depleted uranium. The attacks are not going to end until we stop supporting gross violators of human rights who oppress their people, until we stop doing a whole host of terrible things. We'll keep on adding to the security operations that's turning our society into a police state, and it won't make us much safer.
It's not just people in the Middle East who have good reason for hating what our government does; we've created huge numbers of potential terrorists all over Latin America during a half century of American actions far worse than what we've done in the Middle East. I think that if Latin Americans shared the belief of many Muslims that they will go directly to heaven for giving up their life and acting as a martyr against the great enemy, by now we would have had decades of repeated terrorist horror coming from south of the border. As it is, there have been many non-suicidal terrorist attacks against Americans and their buildings in Latin America over the years.
There's also the people of Asia and Africa. The same story.
The State Department recently held a conference on how to improve America's image abroad in order to reduce the level of hatred; image is what they're working on, not change of policies.
But the policies scorecard reads as follows: From 1945 to the end of the century, the United States attempted to overthrow more than 40 foreign governments, and to crush more than 30 populist movements fighting against insufferable regimes. In the process, the U.S. bombed about 25 countries, caused the end of life for several million people, and condemned many millions more to a life of agony and despair.
If I were the president, I could stop terrorist attacks against the United States in a few days. Permanently. I would first apologize - very publicly and very sincerely - to all the widows and orphans, the tortured and impoverished, and all the many millions of other victims of American imperialism. Then I would announce that America's global interventions have come to an end and inform Israel that it is no longer the 51st state of the union but - believe it or not - a foreign country. I would then reduce the military budget by at least 90 percent and use the savings to pay reparations to our victims and repair the damage from our bombings. There would be enough money. Do you know what one year's military budget is equal to? One year. It's equal to more than $20,000 per hour for every hour since Jesus Christ was born.
That's what I'd do on my first three days in the White House. On the fourth day, I'd be assassinated.
On page two of The American Empire for Dummies, I'd put this in a box outlined in bright red: Following its bombing of Iraq, the United States wound up with military bases in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman and the United Arab Emirates.
Following its bombing of Yugoslavia, the United States wound up with military bases in Kosovo, Albania, Macedonia, Hungary, Bosnia and Croatia.
Following its bombing of Afghanistan, the United States is now winding up with military bases in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Georgia and perhaps elsewhere in the region.
That's not very subtle, is it? Not really covert. The men who run the empire are not easily embarrassed. And that's the way the empire grows, a base on every corner, ready to be mobilized to put down any threat to imperial rule, real or imagined. Fifty-seven years after World War II ended, the U.S. still has major bases in Germany and Japan; and 49 years after the Korean War ended, the U.S. military is still in Korea.
A Pentagon report of a few years ago said: Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere ... we must maintain the mechanisms for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role.
The bombing, invasion and occupation of Afghanistan have served the purpose of setting up a new government that will be sufficiently amenable to Washington's international objectives, including the installation of military bases and communications listening stations and, perhaps most important of all, the running of secure oil and gas pipelines through Afghanistan from the Caspian Sea region, which I'm sure many of you have heard about.
For years, the American oil barons have had their eyes on the vast oil and gas reserves of the Caspian Sea area, ideally with an Afghanistan-Pakistan route to the Indian Ocean, thus keeping Russia and Iran out of the picture. The oilmen have been quite open about this, giving very frank testimony before Congress for example.
Now they have their eyes on the even greater oil reserves of Iraq. If the U.S. overthrows Saddam Hussein and installs a puppet government, as they did in Afghanistan, the American oil companies will move into Iraq and have a feast and the American empire will add another country and a few more bases.
Or as General William Looney, the head of the U.S.-U.K. operation that flies over Iraq and bombs them every few days, said several years ago: If they turn on their radars we're going to blow up their goddamn missiles. They know we own their country. We own their airspace. ... We dictate the way they live and talk. And that's what's great about America right now. It's a good thing, especially when there's a lot of oil out there we need.
We've gone through a few months now of a song and dance show that passes for debate, a debate about whether to attack a sovereign nation that has not attacked us, that has not threatened to attack us, that knows it would mean instant mass suicide for them if they attacked us. This debate is absurd not simply because Iraq is not a threat - by now, even the Martians must know that - but because our imperial mafia know that Iraq is not a threat, at all. They've been telling us one story after another about why Iraq is a threat, an imminent threat, a nuclear threat, a threat increasing in danger with each passing day, that Iraq is a terrorist state, that Iraq is tied to al Qaeda, only to have each story amount to nothing; they told us for a long time that Iraq must agree to having the weapons inspectors back in, and when Iraq agreed to this they said "No, no, that isn't good enough." How soon before they blame the horror in Bali on Iraq?
Does any of this make sense? This sudden urgency of fighting a war in the absence of a fight? It does, I suggest, only if you understand that this is not about Saddam Hussein and his evilness, or his weapons, or terrorism. What it's about is that the empire is still hungry and wants to eat Iraq and its oil and needs to present excuses to satisfy gullible people. And then they want to eat Iran. And then? ... I understand when George W. was asked: "Who next?" he said "Whatever."
The empire, in case you missed it, is not content with merely the earth; the empire has been officially extended to outer space. The Pentagon proudly admits this and they have a nice name for it. They call it "full-spectrum dominance," and for years now they've been planning to fight wars in space, from space, and into space. And that's a quote.
And if you're wondering "Why now?" about Iraq. I think - as many have said - that the coming election plays a role. It's going to decide which party will control congress and there's nothing like a lot of talk about war and defending America to sway voters, and make them forget about the economy and health care at the same time.
In addition to all the absurdities and lies they've been throwing at us, what I've found most remarkable and disturbing about this period has been the great absence in the mass media of the simple reminder that a U.S. attack upon Iraq means bombs falling on people, putting an end to homes, schools, hospitals, jobs, futures. The discussion has focused almost entirely on whether or not to go after the evil Saddam and his supposed evil weapons. What it all means in terms of human suffering is scarcely considered worthy of attention. Is that not odd?
Also absent from the discussion is that over the course of several years in the 1990s, the U.N. inspectors found and destroyed huge amounts of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons in Iraq. I'm sure that most Americans are convinced that Saddam got away with hiding virtually all his weapons and that he'll get away with it again if there's a resumption of the inspections. But that's not what happened. Scott Ritter, chief U.N. weapons inspector in Iraq, recently stated that "since 1998 Iraq has been fundamentally disarmed; 90-95 percent of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction have been verifiably eliminated. This includes all of the factories used to produce chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, and long-range ballistic missiles; the associated equipment of these factories; and the vast majority of the products coming out of these factories."
And we have similar testimony from others who were involved in the inspections.
Each of the big American bombing campaigns carries its own myths with it, but none so big as the one before last. I must remind you of that.
We were told that the U.S./NATO bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999 was to save the people of Kosovo from ethnic cleansing by the Serbs. And since the ethnic cleansing finally came to an end, the bombing seems to have worked. Right? First there was the ethnic cleansing, then came the bombing, then came the end of the ethnic cleansing. What could be simpler? I'm sure that about 90 percent of those Americans who think about such things firmly believe that, including many of you, I imagine.
But it was all a lie. The bombing didn't end the ethnic cleansing. The bombing caused the ethnic cleansing! The systematic forced deportations of large numbers of Kosovars - what we call ethnic cleansing - did not begin until about two days after the bombing began, and was clearly a reaction to it by the Serb forces, born of great anger and feelings of powerlessness due to the heavy bombardment. This is easily verified by looking at a daily newspaper for the few days before the bombing began the night of March 23/24, and the few days after. Or simply look at the New York Times of March 26, page 1, which reads:
... with the NATO bombing already begun, a deepening sense of fear took hold in Pristina [the main city of Kosovo] that the Serbs would NOW vent their rage against ethnic Albanian civilians in retaliation. The next day, March 27, we find the first reference to a "forced march" or anything of that sort.
How is it possible that such a powerful lie could be told to the American people and that the people would swallow it without gagging? One reason is that the media don't explicitly point out the lies; at best you have to read between the lines.
There's the story from the Cold War about a group of Russian writers touring the United States. They were astonished to find, after reading the newspapers and watching television, that almost all the opinions on all the vital issues were the same. "In our country," said one of them, "to get that result we have a dictatorship. We imprison people. We torture them. Here you have none of that. How do you do it? What's the secret?"
Can any of you name a single American daily newspaper that unequivocally opposed the U.S.-NATO bombing of Yugoslavia three years ago?
Can any of you name a single American daily newspaper that unequivocally opposed the U.S. bombing of Iraq eleven years ago?
Can any of you name a single American daily newspaper that unequivocally opposed the U.S. bombing of Afghanistan?
Isn't that remarkable? In a supposedly free society, with a supposedly free press, with about 1500 daily newspapers, the odds should be way against that being the case. But that's the way it is.
I suppose that now some of you would like me to tell you how to put an end to all these terrible and absurd things I've talked about. Well, good luck to all of us.
I could say that personally I proceed from the assumption that if enough people understand what their government is doing and the harm that it causes, at some point the number of such people will reach critical mass and some changes can be effectuated. But that may well be a long way off. I hope I live to see it.
I'm sure that if all Americans could see their government's bomb victims up close, see the body fragments, smell the burning flesh, see the devastated homes and lives and communities, there would be a demand to end such horror so powerful that even the imperial mafia madmen couldn't ignore it. But how to get Americans to see the victims? I and many of you don't need to see those terrible sights to be opposed to the madmen's policies, but most Americans do. If we could figure out why we have this deep empathy for the victims, this imagination, it might be a very good organizing tool.
Gandhi once said that "Almost anything you do will be insignificant, but you must do it." And the reason I must do it is captured by yet another adage, cited by various religious leaders: "We do these things not to change the world, but so that the world will not change us."
Sam Smith, a journalist in Washington, whom some of you are familiar with, in his new book makes the point that "Those who think history has left us helpless should recall the abolitionist of 1830, the feminist of 1870, the labor organizer of 1890, and the gay or lesbian writer of 1910. They, like us, did not get to choose their time in history but they, like us, did get to choose what they did with it."
He then asks: Knowing what we know now about how certain things turned out, but also knowing how long it took, would we have been abolitionists in 1830, or feminists in 1870, and so on?
We don't know what surprises history has in store for us when we give history a little shove, just as history can give each of us a little shove personally. In the 1960s, I was working at the State Department, my heart set on becoming a Foreign Service Officer. Little did I know that I would soon become a ranting and raving commie-pinko-subversive-enemy of all that is decent and holy because a thing called Vietnam came along. So there is that kind of hope as well.
Let me close with two of the laws of politics which came out of the Watergate scandal of the 1970s, which I like to cite:
The First Watergate Law of American Politics states: "No matter how paranoid you are, what the government is actually doing is worse than you imagine."
The Second Watergate Law states: "Don't believe anything until it's been officially denied."
Both laws are still on the books.
¤ The World's Only Superpower
[William Blum left the U.S. State Department in 1967, abandoning his aspiration of becoming a Foreign Service Officer, because of his opposition to what the United States was doing in Vietnam. He is the author of Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II, Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower, and West-Bloc Dissident: A Cold War Political Memoir.]``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xAgainst terrorism or expansion of the American Empire?``x1035385149,17086,Development``x``x
``xBy Lovemore Mataire, www.herald.co.zw
ANALYSTS yesterday described as rabid Rhodesian propaganda, an opinion piece in the Saturday edition of The Daily News asserting that blacks were not yet ready to run the affairs of Zimbabwe.
Headlined "Black bourgeoisie a disgrace to their race" and under the pseudonym "M Anoti", a name synonymous with a Rhodesian programme called "Padare", the writer openly glorified former Rhodesian leader Ian Smith for saying that blacks were incapable of governing themselves.
"The argument by the Rhodesian Front that black people were not ready to run the affairs of state may well have been vindicated," read a paragraph from the article.
Chairman of the English and Communication Department at the University of Zimbabwe, Dr Rino Zhuwarara said in simple terms the writer was trying to say that blacks are incapable of constructing their own civilisation.
"It is synonymous with Rhodesian propaganda which used to come out on a programme called Padare which described anything that would have been done by blacks as primitive," said Dr Zhuwarara.
He said it was frightening that a paper managed by an African would actually publish an article that undermines and ridicules blacks as nothing but primitive beings.
The most dangerous assertion advanced by the author of the article was that different races and tribes in the country should compete separately in their various fields.
"To this end, whites, Karangas, Zezurus, Manyikas, Indians and Coloureds should each have their own social and sporting clubs competing to be the best," said the writer.
A social and political commentator Mr Olley Maruma said there was no better way to describe the author of the article other than being a "downright racist."
"We can’t keep on saying the same things again and again. Africa is the cradle of mankind and civilisation but these racists would never want to accept that," said Mr Maruma.
He said the so-called captains of industry who are whites, were actually Rhodesian rejects who took over the companies after independence in 1980.
Mr Maruma said that the essence of racial prejudice was that it was based on primitive irrational emotions, which cannot be influenced by reasoning.
"The stock on trade of racism are stereotypes which sometimes do not bear any resemblance to reality," said Mr Maruma.
He said the wealth in the hands of whites that the columnist boasts about was actually built out of slavery and colonialism and the theft of black intellectual property.
"The evidence that the black man has made major contributions to world civilisation is overwhelming. But for the last 500 years, Western racists who are still with us today, have been churning out racist myths and stereotypes, in order to foster the impression that Western civilisation is responsible for all human progress. We know that is a lie," said Mr Maruma.
Chairman of the Media and Information Commission Dr Tafataona Mahoso said that although The Daily News claims to be a proponent of globalisation, it fails to realise that what is happening to the Zimbabwean economy is similar to what is happening globally.
Dr Mahoso said the report was synonymous with reports in the white-owned media in South Africa.
"The same things that are being demonstrated against in South Africa that the media is not reflecting African views are the same things that The Daily News is publishing," said Dr Mahoso.
He said no Zimbabwean would believe the columnist’s assertions that blacks are "good for nothing".
"Even the author himself or herself does not believe a single thing that he or she wrote," said Dr Mahoso.
http://www.herald.co.zw/index.php?id=15429&pubdate=2002-10-23``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xDaily News article rapped``x1035427910,53811,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xFor many years to come, the UN Earth Summit in Johannesburg will be remembered for three things.
First, President Sam Nujoma of Namibia pointing his index finger in the direction of the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, and telling him: "The Honourable Tony Blair is here, and he created the situation in Zimbabwe."
Second, the prolonged applause and the standing ovation that President Mugabe received from the 1 500 heads of state, government officials and NGO representatives for his "land-redistribution" speech, the only leader among the 100 who spoke at the Summit to be so accorded a standing ovation.
Third, is the booing and jeering of the US Secretary of State, Collin Powell, the highest-ranking black person in the Bush Administration, when he took a swipe at Zimbabwe a day after Mugabe’s landmark speech.
No matter on which side you are on, these were truly landmark incidents that will make the powers that be sit up and look at the way they are currently running the world.
For three years (since 1999) Western governments and their media (with Britain leading the charge) had created the impression that Cde Mugabe was existing in splendid isolation and that the whole world was against him. The world spoke loud and clear, when they gave Mugabe the standing ovation.
And it was not even President Mugabe who started it all. It was President Sam Nujoma from Namibia.
Before coming to the Summit, the Namibian president had warned white farmers in his country who own "80 percent of the farmland" there, to look at Zimbabwe and read the writings on the wall.
"If those arrogant white farm owners and absentee landlords do not embrace the government’s policy of willing-buyer willing-seller now, it will be too late tomorrow," Nujoma said, showing that his and his nation’s patience was running out. MORE``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xAfrican leaders etch lasting imprint on Earth Summit``x1035593213,30238,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Features Editor, herald.co.zw
WHITE commercial farmers who have embraced Zimbabwe’s land reform, make up at least half of the tobacco growers registered to plant the crop this season.
According to the Tobacco Industry and Marketing Board, at least 840 large-scale farmers are so far registered growers for the 2002/2003 season about half of them being existing large-scale growers.
About 1 200 commercial farmers were registered growers last season.
The revelation puts to rest claims that most white farmers have been stopped from farming as a result of the agrarian reform.
In some commercial farming areas throughout the country, including the Mazowe district, there is co-existence between white farmers and new farmers.
Farming activities are taking place in those areas with white farmers continuing with their planting operations.
At Sachel Farm in Glendale, a white farmer, who was left with 105 hectares including the farmhouse, is into export of oranges.
The farmer, who previously had 565 hectares, is still carrying on unhindered with his activities.
The balance of the land was allocated to 14 new farmers who have also begun preparing for the coming season. MORE``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xWhite farmers co-exist with resettled people``x1035593518,37064,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xMonday, 28 October, 2002, Summary: BBC
Zimbabwe's ruling party has won a key by-election in the south-west of the country.
President Robert Mugabe's Zanu-PF took the seat of Insiza from the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC).
The Insiza seat, near Bulawayo, was won by more than 7,000 votes, with Zanu-PF getting more than 12,000 to the MDC's 5,000.
The by-election reversed an MDC victory in parliamentary elections in June 2000.
Bulawayo is the second largest city in Zimbabwe, and it is also a stronghold of the MDC. From BBC
Opposition youths attack ZDECO
www.herald.co.zw
A GANG of suspected MDC youths yesterday attacked the Zimbabwe Distance Education College (ZDECO) and destroyed property worth thousands of dollars in apparent anger after their party lost the Insiza by-election.
It is understood that this prompted Zanu-PF youths to retaliate by attacking the MDC offices in Bulawayo.
The undisclosed number of youths descended on the college and smashed flowerpots, windows and doors before attacking some of the workers.
The college belongs to Dr Sikhanyiso Ndlovu, the Zanu-PF deputy political commissar. MORE``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xMugabe wins key by-election``x1035819131,51035,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xby Corey Gilkes
October 14th marked the birth of one of the most vociferous Africentric activists in the history of Trinidad & Tobago and the Caribbean. She is Elma Constance Francois. In the study of the struggle of African people on the Continent and in the Diaspora to free themselves of European and Arab domination and redefine their existence the women who were the standard bearers of those struggles are often given less attention than their male counterparts. Even when they are acknowledged, the names of Sojourner Truth, Harriet Tubman, Angela Davis are the names spoken. Elma and her contemporaries gave the lie to the myths about meek acceptance of colonialism by the colonised and to the lack of political and social consciousness among women.
Elma Francois was born in Overland, St Vincent. In her youth she received primary education up to 5th Standard and she worked alongside her mother picking cotton. From an early age she struggles for the betterment of her people since life in St Vincent was very hard for labourers, especially women. Some could work picking up cotton chaff and separate the seeds for which they would receive 12-14 cents a day. Others worked as domestic servants while others worked at the Mt. Bentick sugar factory producing syrup or 'sweetening'. The outspoken Elma quickly set about trying to organise the labourers of Mt Bentick sugar factory where she worked - of course, she was fired.
In 1917 her son Conrad was born; in 1919 however, she was forced to leave him in the care of his grandmother for she was migrating to Trinidad where there were better opportunities. There she first found work as a domestic servant. Not surprisingly she joined the Trinidad Workingman's Association under Captain A. A. Cipriani. Cipriani, a former West India Regiment soldier, served in WWI and in spite of his ancestry was aware of the racism and squalid conditions of the working class of Trinidad. He sympathised with their plight and came to call himself the 'champion of the "barefoot" man'. He continued this after the war and in 1923 was asked to assume leadership of the TWA, which functioned as a trade union. Cipriani reorganised the TWA into a political party, a wise move since two rights conferred upon trade unions in Britain by the Act of 1906 - the right of peaceful picketing and protection against actions in tort - were not extended to unions in the Caribbean and Africa.
Unlike other women members, Francois did not restrict herself to political activity as defined by the TWA. The outspoken and confrontational Elma certainly did not fit the mould of the Western or "Afro-Saxon" woman and her personality inevitably clashed with that of Cipriani. Cipriani, though a supporter of worker's rights, favoured non-confrontational action. His outlook was also coloured by the fact that his class position as a landowner from the propertied Catholic French Creole class often presented a serious conflict of interest. Also he almost completely accepted the British labour party's brand of 'Labour and Socialism' and his adherence to their policies and priorities as a yardstick by which he measured progress in Trinidad and Tobago. On the other hand Francois preferred direct action through the workers, not employers. She clashed wit him on the question of May Day which she felt should be declared a public holiday.
She was an avid reader, very conscious about her African heritage and loved nothing better than to engage people in debates. She was also one of the few people with the courage to challenge the Church and the authority of the bible. Elma spoke in Woodford Square (an open-air park in Port-of-Spain where to this day people gather to argue social, religious and political views), on street corners, in various towns. This is how she met Jim Headley who, together with Francois, became a founding member of the Negro Welfare Cultural and Social Association [NWCSA].
The Marxist oriented NWCSA, though it was committed to the empowerment of people of African descent, also had Indian and Chinese members. Also, from its inception it set out to attract women, hence the inclusion of the words 'cultural and 'social' as these were the areas of work in which, it was felt, women could initially be most easily incorporated. The organisation took the position that women and men should cooperate in the development of their collective political consciousness. There was no separation of women into 'women's arms/auxiliaries' and within the organisation executive positions changed regularly so that these responsibilities were shared equally. Elma usually, however, retained the position of Organising Secretary.
The NWCSA organised the unemployed, celebrated Emancipation Day, lobbied for small traders. Their "hunger marches" provided the impetus for the sugar workers' Hunger March of 1934 and the 1935 Hunger March of another radical thinking leader, TUB Butler. The NWCSA was responsible for galvanising national response against the Italian invasion of Ethiopia in 1935 - the outcry was so great that many dockworkers refused to unload Italian ships. The NWCSA was responsible for the formation of the Seamen and Waterfront Workers Trade Union and the Federated Workers Trade Union.
During the famous "Butler Riots" of 1937, the NWCSA mobilised support for the striking oil workers, held meetings in the north and the turbulent south Trinidad, partly under the auspices of Butler's party the British Empire Workers and Citizens Home Rule Party. All this was done in spite of harassment by the police and their attempts to infiltrate the party's meetings. The NWCSA also circulated false reports regarding Butler's whereabouts when he was in hiding. Elma was eventually arrested. She became the first woman in Trinidad's history to be tried for sedition. She defended herself and was found not guilty.
In 1944 Elma Francois died; the result, some say of a broken heart after her son Conrad joined the army to fight in a war in which she bitterly opposed the black involvement. She, along with fellow party members Jim Barrette, Clement Payne had publicly disagreed with the showing of solidarity to the British Crown on the grounds that the Western allies had allowed the rise of Hitler as a counter to Stalin in the Soviet Union. It was only when Hitler turned on them that they mobilised militarily to defend themselves and in the process drew in colonials, whom they otherwise discriminated against racially, to fight and die with them in their war. There certainly was a strong thread of anti-British sentiment at first; several leading calypsonians [folk singers] sang against the war and in his autobiography Through a maze of Colour Albert Gomes noted that cinema crowds cheered when film clips showed the British being defeated by Nazi forces. However, by 1940, colonial propaganda, plus the withholding of the Report of the Moyne Commission, which investigated the causes of labour riots in the Caribbean, had intensified to the point where loyalty to the Crown became the dominant outlook on the war. Francois was understandably crushed when she learned about Conrad's decision to enlist. She regarded his decision to enlist as a personal failure on her part.
On September 25 1987, Elma Francois was declared a national heroine of Trinidad and Tobago.
For additional reading of Elma Francois and the labour struggles in Trinidad read:
¤ Elma Francois: the NWCSA and the workers struggle for change in the Caribbean in the 1930's - Rhoda Reddock
¤ Trinidad labour Riots of 1937 - Roy Thomas [ed]
¤ Smiles and Blood - Susan Craig-James
¤ Caribbean Freedom: Economy and Society from Emancipation to the Present - Hilary Beckles and Verene Shepherd [ed]
¤ Calypso and Society in pre-Indepedence Trinidad - Gordon Rohler
¤ Atilla kaiso: a shorthistory of Trinidad Calypso - Raymond Quevedo [Atilla the Hun]
http://www.trinicenter.com/Gilkes/``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xElma Francois 1897-1944``x1036352845,67538,Development``x``x
``xThursday November 7, 2002
Herald Reporters
THE United States yesterday distanced itself from threats to invade Zimbabwe amid revelations that three MDC activists from Matabeleland presented falsehoods on the situation in this country at a meeting set up by the British in Washington last Saturday.
The US embassy in Harare said that no US government official had made such a threat.
"We believe that only the people of Zimbabwe can solve their nation's problems," said the embassy in a statement last night.
The assistant secretary of state for African affairs, Mr Mark Bellamy, had been quoted in the Washington Times as saying the US was considering intrusive and interventionist measures that could challenge Zimbabwe's sovereignty.
"The dilemmas in the next six months may bring us face to face with Zimbabwe's sovereignty," he said in the Washington Times.
Mr Bellamy made his remarks at a meeting on "Famine and Political Violence in Matebeleland" organised by the Londoned-based Zimbabwe Democracy Trust (ZDT) and sponsored by the Centre for International and Strategic Studies.
Three MDC activists on the ZDT panel were: a former magistrate Johnson Mnkandla; Bulawayo Residents Association president Edward Simela and Ernest Mtunzi who now lives in Britain.
A former secretary at the British High Commission in Harare, David Troup chaired the meeting.
ZDT is funded by the British just like the Amani Trust, a non-governmental organisation, which has been on the forefront of campaigning against the Government of Zimbabwe.
The three said they had come to Washington to raise awareness on an impending human rights catastrophe and famine in their tribal homeland.
They charged the Government and Zanu-PF with stifling the rule of law through the arrest and harassment of magistrates and using food relief as a political weapon.
In their presentations, the three distributed a document they claimed revealed a Zanu-PF strategy to destroy the Ndebele people.
They also claimed that three children had died in Binga as a result of the unfair distribution of food.
Other issues raised by the three include the Gukurahundi disturbances in Matabeleland in the early 1980s and unemployment which they said was caused by the firms that were relocating from Bulawayo to Harare.
The three also claimed that some women at Mpilo Hospital were being sterilised without their consent and that this was a strategy to reduce the Ndebele population.
It was after the three had presented their reports that Mr Bellamy said the US would find ways of intervening in Zimbabwe even if it means violating Zimbabwe's sovereignty.
A Government spokesman however, said: "You cannot find a more sinister manipulation of food than this one. We have had people threatening to invade other countries on terrorism charges but to threaten to invade our country in order to come and feed us is idiotic."
He linked the threat by the US to recent utterances by the MDC that "something was to happen in December".
Commenting on Mr Bellamy's utterances, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Cde Stan Mudenge said the issue had not been communicated to him officially by the US ambassador in Harare.
"The reports by three people from Matabeleland were just a pack of falsehoods," said Cde Mudenge.
Meanwhile, Cde Mudenge yesterday left for Maputo, Mozambique to attend the Sadc/EU ministerial dialogue.
He said the meeting's venue was switched from Copenhagen, Denmark to Maputo, Mozambique following a threat by Sadc to boycott the meeting if Zimbabwe was not allowed to attend.
As a member of the EU, which slapped sanctions against the Government, Denmark had barred Zimbabwe's Foreign Affairs Minister and other top officials from attending the meeting.
He said the Maputo meeting would focus on various issues of co-operation.
Reproduced from:
http://www.herald.co.zw/index.php?id=15894&pubdate=2002-11-07
Guardian UK Report: US may intervene to save Zimbabweans
Top official says administration is considering defying Mugabe and delivering food to starving opposition areas
Andrew Meldrum in Harare
Thursday November 7, 2002
The Guardian
The US government warned yesterday that it might take "intrusive, interventionist measures" to deliver food aid directly to millions of famine-hit Zimbabweans if President Robert Mugabe continues to starve his political opponents.
Washington is considering measures that would challenge Zimbabwe's sovereignty, the Guardian was told by Mark Bellamy, the principal deputy assistant secretary of state for Africa. Such drastic measures are being studied because the Mugabe regime is aggravating the effects of a region-wide famine by blocking food from areas which support the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), he added.
"We may have to be prepared to take some very intrusive, interventionist measures to ensure aid delivery to Zimbabwe," Mr Bellamy said by telephone from Washington.
The plan was disclosed in the Zimbabwean state-owned Herald newspaper under the headline "US plans to invade Harare".
A spokesman for Mr Mugabe said other African countries should take heed of "the mad talk of intrusive and interventionist challenges to Zimbabwe's sovereignty. Today it is about Zimbabwe. Heaven knows who is next", he said.
Mr Bellamy, who develops US policy on Africa, said: "We have disturbing reports of food being used as a political weapon by the Mugabe government, of food aid being diverted and food being denied to millions of opposition supporters.
"For the sake of those hungry people it may be necessary for us to undertake intrusive delivery and monitoring of food. The dilemmas in the next six months may bring us face to face with Zimbabwe's sovereignty."
He said Mr Mugabe was "holding his people hostage the way Saddam Hussein is holding his people hostage".
Mr Mugabe and other Zimbabwean officials deny using aid as a political weapon. They maintain that food relief is distributed freely and fairly.
Continue...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/zimbabwe/article/0,2763,834914,00.html
Harare accuses U.S. in food flap
By David R. Sands November 7, 2002
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Zimbabwe yesterday accused the Bush administration of using the famine threatening southern Africa as a pretext to invade or undermine the government of President Robert Mugabe.
"The United States is planning to invade Zimbabwe within the next six months on the pretext of bringing relief aid to people who were allegedly being denied food on political grounds," the state-owned Zimbabwe Herald, considered an accurate mirror of government opinion, said in a front-page story yesterday.
The U.S. Embassy in Harare issued a statement denying the accusations, but Zimbabwe army Chief of Staff Gen. Vitalis Zvinavashe told the newspaper the U.S. government was trying to control private relief groups distributing food and aid in the country "and disregard the laws of Zimbabwe."
Continue...
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20021107-9502912.htm``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xUK behind plot to invade Zimbabwe``x1036689335,53250,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xFrom: AmonHotep: Dialogue
ABSTRACT: BBC Zimbabwe 'diverts food aid'
"Mr Mugabe denies that the food crisis is a result of his land reform programme and blames it on a drought, which has affected much of the region.
But white farmers who are prevented from working their land say that their dams are full of water.
Just a few hundred white farmers remain on their land, out of some 4,000 two years ago.
Our correspondent says that the land has gone to Zanu-PF officials, who often have no farming background, instead of the landless black people who were supposed to benefit.
In Maputo, Zimbabwean Foreign Minister Stan Mudenge repeated his government's argument that former colonial power Britain should compensate the white farmers who have lost their land.
As a result of British colonial rule, whites owned much of Zimbabwe's best farmland.
Britain has refused to pay unless there is transparency in the redistribution of land."
___________________________________________
The BBC is currently funded through the UK Licence Fee payment to the tune of £2.4bn. The Licence fee from which BBC is paid is an annual fee that allows people to own and use a television in the UK. If you have any equipment capable of receiving a television signal and receive any programmes, including satellite, you must have a licence. [More from BBC]
Abstract: 'BBC gets anything it wants,' claims Murdoch
by Dan Milmo, guardian.co.uk
Friday November 8, 2002
Rupert Murdoch today launched a scathing attack on the government, accusing it of being too cosy with the BBC and of fostering anti-competitive behaviour on the part of the corporation.
He said the BBC, funded by an annual licence fee payment of £2.4bn, had been protected by successive Conservative and Labour governments. [full article]
__________________________________________
ABSTRACT: Carrington backs Zimbabwe farmers
By Andrew Unsworth: London. Sunday Oct 20 2002
www.sundaytimes.co.za
"Lord Carrington, who chaired the Lancaster House conference that led to the end of white minority rule in Zimbabwe, has joined in the growing controversy over Prime Minister Tony Blair's government's reluctance to support white farmers who have been evicted from land in Zimbabwe.
In a question tabled in the House of Lords this week, Carrington asked whether the British government was prepared to use money earmarked for land reform more than 20 years ago to help farmers now left destitute.
Speaking to the Sunday Times, he said that funds were available for land redistribution in 1979.
"What we intended to do at the Lancaster House negotiations and subsequently was to help Zimbabwean farmers on a willing buyer-willing seller basis, and to help the Zimbabwean government . . . to make more farms available to black farmers," he said this week. "It all fell down because the Zimbabwean government gave farms to their own cronies and the British government of the day decided the money could not be used on that basis."
He said the government's response to this had been to "waffle" . No specific sum was pledged originally, but £44-million (about R750-million) had been given to Zimbabwe up to 2000. [full article]
___________________________________________
South Africa fears terror threat of white extremists
Tuesday, 12 November 2002
From Michael Dynes in Johannesburg
More than 80 extreme right-wing groups are thought to be operating in South Africa. They represent a mixture of military underground cells, such as Boeremag, and an assortment of religious doomsday cults, such as Israel Vision and Daughter of Zion. Farmers, blue-collar workers, professionals, academics and retired military and police officers fill their ranks and they have cultivated the conviction that they are being "oppressed" by South Africa's black majority rule. [full article here or here]
Ayinde's comment
Western Media houses (BBC) are rather slow to highlight the terrorist threats from White extremist groups in South Africa. These Groups represent the general thinking of most Whites who still suffer from superiority complexes and feel they have a divine right to rule all people.
This attitude is at the root of all other forms of Terrorism.
__________________________________________
Aisha's comment
Britain wanted to continue their dictatorship. They wanted to dictate to the Zimbabwe Government who should own the land so that they (Britain) could still maintain control.
The colour of the farmers would have changed but the 'ownership' would have remained the same. White farmers would have been replaced with Black farmers who were willing to be puppets of the British government.
___________________________________________
Ayinde's comments...
BBC is not impartial in this whole affair.
Other US and UK media houses are being guided by some legitimate concerns muddled with their own prejudices. Their coverage generally lacks the historical perspective coupled with the agreements signed when Zimbabwe won its independence. There are many things wrong with the Resettlement Programme but I would only focus on aspects that pertain to the dishonest media reports.
No one can be against the Zimbabwe government's agents for this headline in their newspapers, "BBC gets more money to step up anti-Zim crusade".
During BBC's latest propaganda report on Television they were referring to the Resettlement Programme as "THE WHITE MAN'S LAND BEING RESETTLED".
Two questions!
1) After how many years does stolen property become the property of the thief?
2) Do inheritors of stolen property become the legitimate owners of the property by virtue of the inheritance?
Land was at the core of Zimbabwe's liberation struggle
British and American negotiators granted independence with the imposition of certain conditions destined to keep the colonial masters in control. One provision stipulated that for a period of 10 years, land ownership in Zimbabwe could only be transferred on a "willing seller, willing buyer" basis. This amounted to further rewarding people who had already profited from ill-gotten gains.
This also retarded the transformation process by ten years during which the British and American negotiators hoped they would have been able to 'install' a government favorable to their indirect control.
In 1992 the Land Acquisition Act was passed notwithstanding the pressures from Britain and the US.
Zimbabwe's government felt it could no longer continue haggling over land reform, and nearing the end of the 1990's, they started moving away from the Economic Structural Adjustment Program (ESAP), which was not adequately addressing the issues of land reform. In October 2001 Mugabe abandoned the ESAP.
The claim that Mugabe did nothing for 20 years is usually made without reference to the Independence agreement that placed restraints on what Mugabe and his government could have done for the first 10 years. It also neglects the years of trying to get the European powers to honor their agreement.
Meanwhile the Western media kept harping about the harm the economy of Zimbabwe would endure because of the land reform. They continually mention that the Zimbabweans who are getting the confiscated agricultural lands do not know about commercial farming. BBC reported that these African farmers do not have seeds and fertilizers.
If these Africans cannot acquire fertilizers and seeds it is only because of trade restrictions or sellers being discouraged from supplying them.
If in their opinion these Africans cannot grow their own food, then they should explain how humans survived in Africa for thousands of years before Europeans. This fraudulent racist position also highlights the fact that for all the years they occupied the land they were not interested in teaching those Africans whom they profited from. They were quite contented to keep them as cheap farm labour.
European superiority complexes are responsible for these statements and conscious people should treat with them accordingly. Apparently they have no problem delivering food aid which keeps the population enslaved, but allowing people to help themselves is a problem.
The unspoken suggestion is that only Whites can successfully run businesses.
MUGABE IS RIGHT!!!
Transparency for Britain means handing the land over to 'mentally enslaved Africans' who would easily 'give' the land to colonial Whites.
The land MUST go to those Africans who support his Land Reform Programme to ensure the land is not given or resold cheaply to the former White occupiers.
BRITAIN IS RUDE!!!
Britain has to pay and must do so through the legitimate government in Zimbabwe. Britain must stop trying to undermine the democratic process in that country for the benefit of a few Whites.
Where on earth could people guilty of a crime retain the right to determine when and to whom they must pay compensation?
BRITAIN wants to remain in control of African lands and her former colonies through remote control. (Through supporting 'mentally enslaved Africans' who pursue British interest first.)
Who gets land or reclaimed farms is a matter for the internal politics of Zimbabwe and is not up to the dictates of Britain. They had already decided to pay and should have continued through the legitimate government in Zimbabwe.
The Christianized, colonized Blacks they keep featuring on BBC (e.g. Zimbabwe Catholic bishop) is destined to give the impression that most Africans are against the return of their lands. In small print below his picture they put, "Archbishop Ncube is a long-time Mugabe critic". Of course he is; he is 'Christianized', colonized and walks around with his White 'Virgin' Mary and White Jesus as was seen in the background when he was leveling his criticisms of Mugabe on BBC's 24hr News Television feature.
Food Aid is being used as a tool to interfere in the political process in Zimbabwe. Many of these agencies get their funding from Europe and America and they are carrying out the dirty works of those who fund them.
Food Aid is also being used to introduce genetically modified seeds into Africa thus corrupting their own food supply. This will make these people dependant on US corporations for seeds. This is one of the ways the West intends to control all people through controlling seeds and by extension food supplies.
___________________________________________
Zimbabwe, Mugabe and White farmers
Dr. Chika A. Onyeani, Aug. 22, 02, The African Sun Times
"It seems the height of hypocrisy that the world should be focused on the plight and non-payment of compensation to white farmers, without as much as a mention of the savagery with which the Black African owners were massacred and their lands seized without compensation. The word Bulawayo, the second largest city in Zimbabwe, is an Ndebele word for "slaughter," and it refers to the savagery of the British settlers, including the infamous Cecil Rhodes who had crushed the attempt by the indigenes to fight back, leading King Lobengula to swallow poison rather than be captured. Or should we forget the savagery of the bestial Sir Frederick Carrington, who had publicly advocated that the entire Ndebele race should be forcefully removed or be exterminated.
Or that of profligate Ian Smith, who seized the government in 1965 and unilaterally declared the then Southern Rhodesia independent, when he refused to apologize for the atrocities he committed while he held office. In fact, he even boasted that he had no regrets about the estimated 30,000 Zimbabweans killed during his rule. Said Smith, "the more we killed, the happier we were." [full article]
¤ British Terrorist Assualt on Zimbabwe
¤ Land Issue - Fact Sheet
¤ Zimbabwe Under Siege
¤ 2000 Parliamentary elections: Electorate want change
¤ Mugabe: Zimbabwe will not be a colony again
¤ Stop imperialist intervention in Zimbabwe
___________________________________________
Message Board Comments
From: THANDO S
19 October 2002, at 12:18 p.m.
I am writing in relation to your article on Zimbabwe coverage by the British media. As a black Zimbabwean I have found your article to be incorrect to say the least.
Unfair economic practises have indeed contributed to Africa's woes as has the drought. However in Zimbabwe the violence and intimidation which has been used to seize the farms has greatly increased the enormity of the disaster. People who do not support Mugabe whether they belong to the opposition or not have been victimised and the law disregarded in a so called 'democratic and free' country.
'Returning the land to its rightful owners',as the Zimbabwean government puts it is just a way of getting people like you to support them.As a matter of fact seized farms are being given to Mugabe's friends on a permanent bases. The farm labourers are being driven off the land and whether they originated from Mozambique or Malawi they are Zimbabwean and their treatment is unconstitutional. At least the white farmers not only paid them, but provided healthcare, education and housing which by Zimbabwean standards is a 'luxury'. The point of colonial policy is laughable because Zimbabweans fought and died for a free and equal society not just for blacks but for whites as well and whites such as Sir Garfield Todd the former Rhodesian Prime Minister who was imprisoned by the Smith regime in the '70's for supporting the black cause, were also involved in the struggle for independence.
After independence Zimbabwe has been destroyed by its leadership which does not want to step down but would rather kill its own people to preserve its power.
Inasmuch as the British media is biased to an extent in its coverage of Zimbabwe, you should research your facts before supporting Mugabe's draconian tactics.
####
Ayinde's Response...
20 October 2002, at 1:19 a.m.
Anyone can claim to be White or Black on the Internet. Claiming to be Black does not validate your comments. One would think if you had a view that was legitimate then it would not have been necessary to state if you were White or Black as the truth can stand without the colour weight.
Let us hope Mugabe remains smart enough to continue returning the lands to those people who support and lobbied for its return.
Giving farms to his opponents is equal to handing it back to the White farmers. (Mental enslavement)
Yes, it took 20 years and there is much that is wrong with Mugabe and the process, but the UK also took 20 years too long while offering tokenism. The White farmers should have acted without it reaching this stage.
Seeing that you do not support the process then you would have much to condemn and the condemnations are in all other media sources. Repeating them here is to continue the imbalance in the general news coverage.
Although you condemn the coverage you did not present one quote that was inaccurate but instead you choose to repeat the popular ignorant diatribe.
I wonder how many people would take the time to register or write a letter with much of the self-hating comments I see on the Internet.
Victims against a global corporate structure
By Ghifari al Mukhtar
Terms rather than words
I have always encountered problems with my slave tongue which is the English language, the simplistic yet perplex mode of communication latter on as I matured in the world that surrounded me more so became extremely unfathomable throughout the ever declining American revolution or the English evolution, that gave rise to the United States of America Australia to a lesser extent New Zealand and the more Cosmo politic Euro-American Israeli State somewhere in the middle East.
Terms rather than words they are; can only be determined base on the person time and circumstances of use, which is the American-way.
For example we hear of Israeli incursions but Iraqi invasion; targeted (retaliatory) killings against Palestinian children and their parents in response to Palestinian "terrorist" fighting off an invader uniform sometimes not (Settlers); Constructive engagement towards western satellite states as in the case of Apartheid but cluster bombs coupled with a can of GM expired food disguised as it were from Santa Clause 'who the hell is he is any fools 'GUEST' of non-Aryan humanities, collateral damage instead of innocent defenseless people, again-collateral damage as oppose to deliberate and calculated disregard.
Why continue on this ever expanding yet continual deceptive creative language as though the communicative extracts is what I am after rather than its users.
We see and we hear-that politics are bad even though rotten men find the use of politics meaningless and naive do-gooders endeavor to make the instrument useful.
Like politics English have always been used to perfection when coming to telling lies, its omissions as well as its pronouncements as suggestions equals advice for the purposes of deception.
Englishmen (Americans they are) are the masters of it all even the crude Israelis depend on the Americans for this lauded cultural asset.
Native Americans warned humanity; that the white man spoke with four (folk) tongue; ‘no racism intended’.
Today we hear of the other meaning for the word invasion/colonization (INTRUSIVE INTERVENTION).
As if the underlying factor for invasions were usually preceded by way of sanctions then who must invade the United States and the allies of sanctions that resulted in mass murder on the peoples of Iraq and Palestine to name the current victims to say the least, a policy nurtured and engineered by a group of unmatched criminals who's deeds against every form of human decency against their fellow man on any scale globally or infinite throughout human existence will always be remembered even as "Zimbabwe" Africans world over flirt with branded names like Pepsi & Coco cola, GM foods, Addidas, Roebuck and Nike assisted amnesia.
They'd like us not to remember yet be fearful of, so they can keep their charge is just a tacit reminder how twisted are the meanings and use of the criminally "skilled" English usage.
The limitations prove exhausting though on the issue of the International Court of Justice only because the ICJ is a EU child and when the language (immunity) is converted to the varied EU member states languages it just didn't compute then came the evolutionary Word processor i.e. compromise, by way of coercions, arm twisting, economic whitemail and the "santa" Clauses called diplomacy.
History have proved that the last 80 years the deliberate protracted wars imposed on Africa, the subverted economic AID packages the willful spreading of the HIV virus via inoculation the orchestrated droughts throughout many states on the continent the subsequent christianisation, the blackened mainstream "media" bias the WTO WHO the IMF WB HRW are all but policies and entities that out-served the colonialist adventure hence the intrusive intervention threat from the last generation of the final Aryan empire comes at this time.
One needs not look further as the economy is rapidly slipping from the grip of their monopoly.
But invading Africa is surely the groundless pivot where the resurrection of Rhodes will find no ground secure, beneath or above them. Perception though not shared is that while all things must return to its point and place of origin Africa shall be the place where Europe and all her descendants shall be retributed. African soil as such may only occur during their disastrous return to re-colonize the continent, as it's not in her "US" nature to genuinely seek forgiveness while at strength.
Share your views on the Message Board``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xFighting To Maintain illegitimate White Control``x1036694991,15690,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xHerald Reporters
ZIMBABWE yesterday imposed retaliatory sanctions against Britain while London introduced visas for Zimbabweans travelling to the United Kingdom in response to the growing number of people entering the country on unfounded claims of political asylum.
In a statement, the Government said the decision to impose the sanctions was taken to safeguard the country’s sovereignty, secure its national interests, peace and stability.
The sanctions are with immediate effect.
The Government will also freeze with immediate effect, all local assets associated with or traceable to the listed persons.
In addition, the Government downgraded the United Kingdom from category "A" to category "B" of its visa regime with effect from today.
"This means all persons travelling to Zimbabwe on British passports will require visas either in advance through Zimbabwe’s diplomatic missions or at the port of entry," the Government said in the statement. MORE``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe hits back on sanctions``x1036764909,78603,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Kwaku Person-Lynn, Ph.D.
Facing the truth about the past is not always a pleasant adventure. In fact, it is extremely painful dealing with why Black people are in the United States, after the 16th century. In no way is this an attempt to belittle the great and amazing history of Afrika, but simply to look at a portion of the past that does not merit a positive spot light, but is part of the Afrikan story nonetheless.
An authentic way to attack this problem is to look at a passage from Adu Boahen, a noted Afrikan historian, author and former chair of the History Department at the University of Ghana. He approaches this issue with a pure honesty: "How were all these numerous unfortunate Africans enslaved and purchased? African scholars and politicians today must be honest and admit that the enslavement and sale of Africans from the seventeenth century onwards was done by the Africans themselves, especially the coastal kings and their elders, and that very few Europeans actually ever marched inland and captured slaves themselves. Africans became enslaved mainly through four ways: first, criminals sold by the chiefs as punishment; secondly, free Africans obtained from raids by African and a few European gangs, thirdly, domestic slaves resold, and fourthly, prisoners of war," (Adu Boahen, Topics In West African History p. 110).
There is adequate evidence citing case after case of Afrikan control of segments of the trade. Several Afrikan nations such as the Ashanti of Ghana and the Yoruba of Nigeria had economies depended solely on the trade. Afrikan peoples such as the Imbangala of Angola and the Nyamwezi of Tanzania would serve as middlemen or roving bands warring with other Afrikan nations to capture Afrikans for Europeans.
Extenuating circumstances demanding exploration are the tremendous efforts European officials in Afrika used to install rulers agreeable to their interests. They would actively favor one Afrikan group against another to deliberately ignite chaos and continue their slaving activities.
I.A. Akinjogbin, noted Afrikan historian, in his article, 'The Expansion of Oyo And The Rise Of Dahomey 1600-1800," gives an example in the Aja Kingdom of Dahomey (now Benin): "The principal European traders took active part in installing kings who they judged would favor their activities, irrespective of whether such kings were acceptable to their subjects, or were the right candidates according to Aja traditions," (History of West Africa, J.F.A. Ajayi and Michael Crowder, eds., p. 389). This is the exact same system used today, whereby certain American Afrikans are put in positions to divide people of Afrikan descent through radio programs, editorials, books, chairs of academic departments, so-called fabricated leaders, executive directors of white supremacists organizations, and so forth.
A couple of additional points to be addressed are the Arab slave trade in Afrika, occuring almost 1000 years prior to the European slave trade, and continues even today, and continental Afrikan slavery, which was part of the culture, but more humane and unlike the chattel slavery of the United States. In Afrika, slaves were still human beings. In the United States, slaves were property. The cold reality, Afrikans controlled the capture of other Afrikans, initiated several wars and raiding parties to secure captives, set prices for buyers and even extended credit to Europeans for the purchase of Afrikans.
One prevailing and probably wishful sentiment on the part of many is that Afrikan rulers did not know what type of slavery they were selling Afrikans into. A view dispelled by the fact many rulers knowingly went to war with their neighbors, killing millions and destroying entire communities in order to capture fellow Afrikans for sale. Maintaining power, expanding the economy, greed and expansionist ambitions were the prime motivating factors.
There is no way anyone can defend or justify Afrikan involvement in the slave trade, other than acknowledge that it is one of many historical facts that must be faced.
It is mandatory to look at the mistakes of the past so as not to duplicate them again. There are several people of Afrikan descent psychologically and culturally involved in the negative, anti-Black philosophy of western culture. They would turn against other Blacks at the drop of a dime, especially if they felt it would curry favor with their European companions, and often add to their pockets. It is essential to examine the slave trade, in order to understand the same behavior operative today.
Though this effort concentrated on the Afrikan involvement in the slave trade, by no means does it dismiss the European role in the most traumatic, brutal, oppressive event in human history. Europeans, through the church in Rome, and lessons learned from Arabs, launched the Atlantic slave trade, financing the European and American industrial revolution. Thus, the birth of an economic system we practice today, capitalism. Europeans developed it from a pirating operation into a business, partly the European Jewish contribution to the trade, and supplied favored groups with arms and ammunition, contributing to the deaths of millions. Without the Europeans, there would have never been an Atlantic slave trade.
Kwaku Person-Lynn is the author of On My Journey Now - The Narrative And Works Of Dr. John Henrik Clarke, The Knowledge Revolutionary.
Reproduced by consent of Dr. Kwaku Person-Lynn
Share your views here``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xAfrikan Involvement In Atlantic Slave Trade``x1036801807,7402,Development``x``x
``xPublished: June 7, 1999
By Kwaku Person-Lynn, Ph.D.
The most difficult subject to write about is when you are dealing with someone's spiritual belief system. Something someone grew up with since the day of reasoning. On the other hand, being a historian, I am obligated to bring forth the whole truth, no matter how devastating it may be. In the 1960s, it was almost sacrilege to talk about certain things Black people did. Two things come to mind, though not always honored: the woman of Afrikan descent, and the Afrikan involvement in the slave trade.
Back when I was a graduate student at UCLA, studying Afrikan world history and music, I wrote an article for the Afrikan student newspaper, NOMMO. It was entitled, "Can Afrikans Be Forgiven?" meaning ourselves. It focused on the Afrikan complicity in assisting Europeans in the Afrikan Holocaust, which today we commonly label as the Atlantic Slave Trade. Many people of Afrikan descent stopped talking to me and looked at me funny out of the corner of their eyes. That's when my greatest scholastic influence at that time, the late Dr. Boniface I. Obichere, stepped in and told me, "Kwaku, you don't worry about what others are saying. You keep writing about the truth. That's what history is supposed to do."
There was slavery in Afrika prior to the Arab and European incursions. In Afrika, one could become a slave in virtually one of three ways: prisoner of war; to pay off a debt; as a criminal. But a slave in Afrika rarely ever lost his/her humanity and could rise very high in particular societies. When Arabs invaded Northeastern Afrika in the 7th century A.D., in the name of Islam, this brought about a whole new relationship to the institution of slavery. Afrikans were captured, treated brutally and inhumanely, then shipped off to other Arab countries in Asia, or other parts of Afrika that they controlled. This happened approximately 600 years before the European Christians got involved.
The saddest and most painful reality of this situation is, that same slave trading is occurring today, still in the name of Islam. It is primarily happening in the countries of Mauritania, located in northwest Afrika, and Sudan, in northeast Afrika. There is a lot of denial about this from various corners, but as a scientist, the body of available evidence can only determine proof. In my case, I will sight three sources. For the past fifteen years, every Arab I have asked about this subject has openly admitted that it exists. Not some mind you, but each and every one.
I have read various articles of eyewitness accounts that seemed believable. But the most prevailing evidence that I have seen comes to us by a scholar named Samuel Cotton, a documentary filmmaker, an investigative journalist, and a brother. He presents us with his book, SILENT TERROR – A Journey Into Contemporary African Slavery. This book was published in 1998, which records his undercover journey into Mauritania, at extreme danger to his life, and actually witnessed, and interviewed present and former Afrikan slaves there, gives the best analyses of the present situation, and shows how it is all cloaked under the auspices of Islam. For a Muslim, this is horrifying, but then again, if those Arab Muslims were truly Muslims, practicing the religion of peace, they would not continue to be in the business of the slave trade, contributing to the Afrikan Holocaust.
If we assess what we have before us, this only leaves us to conclude that this is a horrendous misuse of Islam. Brother Cotton states in his vitally important book, "It is especially important for me to see that those who worship Islam, whether they are white or black, say or do something about the abuse and enslavement of their black spiritual brothers and sisters."
Of course, this could be continued, but I don't want to leave out the Christians. The reason people of Afrikan descent are in the Americas today can be attributed to the massive slave trading business of the European Christians. The reason Afrika is in the state that it is in today can basically be attributed to the European Christians. The reason most people of Afrikan descent do not know who they are and may frown when someone accidentally calls them an Afrikan, can also be attributed to the European Christians. This whole process began with Pope Julius II who signed a document entitled the "Papal Bull," dividing the world amongst his two most powerful Christian countries, Portugal and Spain. Prior to the 16th century, Spain signed a contract with the Portuguese called "Asiento," allowing them a monopoly in the carrying and selling of Afrikans across the Atlantic, until the English, who were the most aggressive, along with the French, Dutch, and later the rest of Europe joined in.
Slavery in the United States, by the European Christians, in the name of Christianity, was the development of the worst form of slavery in world history; "chattel slavery." In other words, Afrikans were not considered human but property or animals, with absolutely no type of human rights at all. This was justified through the misinterpretation of Bible stories, particularly about Afrikan people being cursed and turned black. I say in my classes all the time, I will give any student $100 if they can prove that Afrikan people were cursed and turned black in the Bible. After a number of years, I still have the $100.
Lastly, let me briefly mention those Europeans who converted to the ancient Hebrew Afrikan religion called Judaism. Though they were not involved to the extent of the Christians, their basic contribution to the Afrikan Holocaust was turning the slave trade into a business, and running it very effectively in Europe and Central and South America.
I approach this subject with much trepidation. When one believes in a particular spiritual belief system, generally referred to as organized religions, it can be very hurtful to hear what has happened in the past in the name of their religion. But as I have attempted to show, if a person is a true Christian, Muslim or Jew, there is no way that this tragic event in world history, and presently, could possibly occur. That being the case, looking at all that is happening in the world today, under the guise of a particular religion, one has to wonder, is God heading these religions, or is Satan?
Dr. Kwaku Person-Lynn is on the faculty at California State University, Dominguez Hills, Africana Studies, and author of FIRST WORD Black Scholars Thinkers Warriors.
Reproduced by consent of Dr. Kwaku Person-Lynn
Share your views here``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xChristianity, Islam and Slavery``x1036801859,73682,Development``x``x
``xby Richard Heinberg *
The corporation was invented early in the colonial era as a grant of privilege extended by the Crown to a group of investors, usually to finance a trade expedition. The corporation limited the liability of investors to the amount of their investment--a right not held by ordinary citizens. Corporate charters set out the specific rights and obligations of the individual corporation, including the amount to be paid to the Crown in return for the privilege granted.
Thus were born the East India Company, which led the British colonisation of India, and Hudson's Bay Company, which accomplished the same purpose in Canada. Almost from the beginning, Britain deployed state military power to further corporate interests--a practice that has continued to the present. Also from the outset, corporations began pressuring government to expand corporate rights and to limit corporate responsibilities.
The corporation was a legal invention--a socio-economic mechanism for concentrating and deploying human and economic power. The purpose of the corporation was and is to generate profits for its investors. As an entity, it has no other purpose; it acknowledges no higher value.
Many people understood early on that since corporations do not serve society as a whole, but only their investors, there is therefore always a danger that the interests of corporations and those of the general populace will come into conflict. Indeed, the United States was born of a revolution not just against the British monarchy but against the power of corporations. Many of the American colonies had been chartered as corporations (the Virginia Company, the Carolina Company, the Maryland Company, etc.) and were granted monopoly power over lands and industries considered crucial to the interests of the Crown.
Much of the literature of the revolutionaries was filled with denunciations of the "long train of abuses" of the Crown and its instruments of dominance, the corporations. As the yoke of the Crown corporations was being thrown off, Thomas Jefferson railed against "the general prey of the rich on the poor". Later, he warned the new nation against the creation of "immortal persons" in the form of corporations. The American revolutionaries resolved that the authority to charter corporations should lie not with governors, judges or generals, but only with elected legislatures.
At first, such charters as were granted were for a fixed time, and legislatures spelled out the rules each business should follow. Profit-making corporations were chartered to build turnpikes, canals and bridges, to operate banks and to engage in industrial manufacture. Some citizens argued against even these few, limited charters, on the grounds that no business should be granted special privileges and that owners should not be allowed to hide behind legal shields. Thus the requests for many charters were denied, and existing charters were often revoked. Banks were kept on a short leash, and (in most states) investors were held liable for the debts and harms caused by their corporations.
All of this began to change in the mid-19th century. According to Richard Grossman and Frank Adams in Taking Care of Business: "Corporations were abusing their charters to become conglomerates and trusts. They were converting the nation's treasures into private fortunes, creating factory systems and company towns. Political power began flowing to absentee owners intent upon dominating people and nature."1
Grossman and Adams note that: "In factory towns, corporations set wages, hours, production processes and machine speeds. They kept blacklists of labor organizers and workers who spoke up for their rights. Corporate officials forced employees to accept humiliating conditions, while the corporations agreed to nothing."
The authors quote Julianna, a Lowell, Massachusetts, factory worker, who wrote: "Incarcerated within the walls of a factory, while as yet mere children, drilled there from five till seven o'clock, year after year what, we would ask, are we to expect, the same system of labor prevailing, will be the mental and intellectual character of future generations -a race fit only for corporation tools and time-serving slaves?... Shall we not hear the response from every hill and vale: 'Equal rights, or death to the corporations'?"
Industrialists and bankers hired private armies to keep workers in line, bought newspapers and (quoting Grossman and Adams again): "painted politicians as villains and businessmen as heroes. Bribing state legislators, they then announced legislators were corrupt, that they used too much of the public's resources and time to scrutinise every charter application and corporate operation. Corporate advocates campaigned to replace existing chartering laws with general incorporation laws that set up simple administrative procedures, claiming this would be more efficient. What they really wanted was the end of legislative authority over charters."
During the Civil War, government spending brought corporations unprecedented wealth. "Corporate managers developed the techniques and the ability to organise production on an ever grander scale," according to Grossman and Adams. "Many corporations used their wealth to take advantage of war and Reconstruction years to get the tariff, banking, railroad, labor, and public lands legislation they wanted."
In 1886, the US Supreme Court declared that corporations were henceforth to be considered "persons" under the law, with all of the constitutional rights that designation implies.
The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, passed to give former slaves equal rights, has been invoked approximately ten times more frequently on behalf of corporations than on behalf of African Americans. Likewise the First Amendment, guaranteeing free speech, has been invoked to guarantee corporations the "right" to influence the political process through campaign contributions, which the courts have equated with "speech".
If corporations are "persons", they are persons with qualities and powers that no flesh-and-blood human could ever possess--immortality, the ability to be in many places at once, and (increasingly) the ability to avoid liability. They are also "persons" with no sense of moral responsibility, since their only legal mandate is to produce profits for their investors.
Throughout the late 19th and early 20th centuries, corporations reshaped every aspect of life in America and much of the rest of the world. The factory system turned self-sufficient small farmers into wage-earners and transformed the family from an interdependent economic production unit to a consumption-oriented collection of individuals with separate jobs. Advertising turned productive citizens into "consumers". Business leaders campaigned to create public schools to train children in factory-system obedience to schedules and in the performance of isolated, meaningless tasks. Meanwhile, corporations came to own and dominate sources of information and entertainment, and to control politicians and judges.
During two periods, corporations faced a challenge: the 1890s (a depression period when Populists demanded regulation of railroad rates, heavy taxation of land held only for speculation, and an increase in the money supply), and the 1930s (when a profound crisis of capitalism led hundreds of thousands of workers and armies of the unemployed to demand government regulation of the economy and to win a 40-hour week, a minimum-wage law, the right to organise, and the outlawing of child labour). But in both cases, corporate capitalism emerged intact.
In the words of historian Howard Zinn: "The rich still controlled the nation's wealth, as well as its laws, courts, police, newspapers, churches, colleges. Enough help had been given to enough people to make Roosevelt a hero to millions, but the same system that had brought depression and crisis remained."2
World War II, like previous wars, brought huge profits to corporations via government contracts. But following this war, military spending was institutionalised, ostensibly to fight the "Cold War". Despite occasional regulatory setbacks, corporations seized ever more power, and increasingly transcended national boundaries, loyalties and sovereignties altogether.
GLOBAL PILLAGE
In the 1970s, capitalism faced yet another challenge as postwar growth subsided and profits fell. The US was losing its dominant position in world markets; the production of oil from its domestic wells was peaking and beginning to fall, thus making America increasingly dependent upon oil imports from Arab countries; the Vietnam War had weakened the American economy; and Third World countries were demanding a "North - South dialogue" leading towards greater self-reliance for poorer countries. President Nixon responded by doing away with fixed currency exchange rates and devaluing the dollar, largely erasing US war debts to other countries. Later, newly elected President Reagan, at the 1981 Cancún, Mexico, meeting of 22 heads of state, refused to discuss new financial arrangements with the Third World, thus effectively endorsing their further exploitation by corporations.
Meanwhile, the corporations themselves also responded with a new strategy. Increased capital mobility (made possible by floating exchange rates and new transportation, communication and production technologies) allowed US corporations to move production offshore to "export processing zones" in poorer countries. Corporations also undertook a restructuring process, moving toward "networked production"--in which big firms, while retaining and consolidating power, hired smaller firms to take over aspects of supply, manufacture, accounting and transport. (Economist Bennett Harrison defined networked production as "concentration of control combined with decentralization of production".) This restructuring process is also known as "downsizing", because it results in the shedding of higher-paid employees by large corporations and the hiring of low-wage contingent workers by smaller subcontractors.
Jeremy Brecher and Tim Costello write in Global Village or Global
Pillage that: "As the economic crisis deepened, there gradually evolved a 'supra-national policy arena' which included new organizations like the Group of Seven (G7) industrial nations and NAFTA and new roles for established international organisations like EU, IMF, World Bank, and GATT. The policies adopted by these international institutions allowed corporations to lower their costs in several ways. They reduced consumer, environmental, health, labor, and other standards. They reduced business taxes. They facilitated the move to lower wage areas and threat of such movement. And they encouraged the expansion of markets and the 'economies of scale' provided by larger-scale production."3
All of this has led to a globalised economy in which (again quoting Brecher and Costello): "All over the world, people are being pitted against each other to see who will offer global corporations the lowest labor, social, and environmental costs. Their jobs are being moved to places with inferior wages, lower business taxes, and more freedom to pollute. Their employers are using the threat of 'foreign competition' to hold down wages, salaries, taxes, and environmental protections and to replace high-quality jobs with temporary, part-time, insecure, and low-quality jobs. Their government officials are justifying cuts in education, health, and other services as necessary to reduce business taxes in order to keep or attract jobs."
Corporations, no longer bound by national laws, prowl the world looking for the best deals on labour and raw materials. Of the world's top 120 economies, nearly half are corporations, not countries. Thus the power of citizens in any nation to control corporations through whatever democratic processes are available to them is receding quickly.
In November 1999, tens of thousands of students, union members and indigenous peoples gathered in Seattle to protest a meeting of the World Trade Organization (WTO). This mass demonstration seemed to signal the birth of a new global populist uprising against corporate globalisation. In the three years since then, more mass demonstrations--some larger, many smaller--have occurred in Genoa, Melbourne, Milan, Montreal, Philadelphia, Washington and other cities.
In January 2001, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney took office, following a deeply flawed US election. With strong ties to the oil industry and to the huge energy-trading corporation Enron, the new administration quickly proposed a national energy policy that focused on opening federally protected lands for oil exploration and on further subsidising the oil industry.
Enron, George W. Bush's largest campaign contributor, was the seventh largest corporation in the US and the 16th largest in the world. Despite its reported massive profits, it had paid no taxes in four out of the previous five years. The company had thousands of offshore partnerships, through which it had hidden over a billion dollars in debt. When this hidden debt was disclosed in October 2001, the company imploded. Its share price collapsed and its credit rating was slashed. Its executives resigned in disgrace, taking with them multimillion-dollar bonuses, while employees and stockholders shouldered the immense financial loss. Enron's bankruptcy was the largest in corporate history up to that time, but its creative accounting practices appear to be far from unique, with dozens of other corporations poised for a similar collapse.
Following the outrageous and tragic attacks of September 11, Bush launched a "War on Terror", raising the listed number of potential target countries from three to nearly 50, most having exportable energy resources. With Iraq (holder of the world's second-largest proven petroleum reserves) high on the list of enemy regimes to be violently overthrown, the Bush administration's Terror War appeared to be geared toward making the world safe for the expanded reach of US oil corporations. Meanwhile, new laws and executive orders curtailed constitutional rights and erected screens of secrecy around government actions and decision-making processes.
It remains to be seen how the American populace will react to these new developments. Here again, a little history may help us understand the options available.
HURDLES IN THE PATH
The Populism of the 1890s failed for two main reasons: divisiveness within, and co-optation from without. While many Populist leaders saw the need for unity among people of different racial and ethnic backgrounds in attacking corporate power, racism was strong among many whites. Most of the Alliance leaders were white farm owners who failed in many instances to support the organising efforts of poor rural blacks, and poor whites as well, thus dividing the movement.
"On top of the serious failures to unite blacks and whites, city workers and country farmers," writes Howard Zinn, "there was the lure of electoral politics." Once allied with the Democratic party in supporting William Jennings Bryan for President in 1896 the pressure for electoral victory led Populism to make deals with the major parties in city after city. If the Democrats won, it would be absorbed. If the Democrats lost, it would disintegrate. Electoral politics brought into the top leadership the political brokers instead of the agrarian radicals... In the election of 1896, with the Populist movement enticed into the Democratic party, Bryan, the Democratic candidate, was defeated by William McKinley, for whom the corporations and the press mobilised, in the first massive use of money in an election campaign."4
Today, a new populist movement could easily fall prey to the same internal divisions and tactical errors that destroyed its counterpart a century ago. In the recent American presidential election, populists faced the choice of supporting their own candidate (Ralph Nader) and thereby contributing to the election of the far-right, pro-corporate Republican candidate (Bush), or supporting the centrist Gore and seeing their movement co-opted by pro-corporate Democrats.
Meanwhile, though African Americans, Asian Americans, Hispanic Americans, European Americans and Native Americans have all been victimised by corporations, class divisions and historical resentments often prevent them from organising to further their common interests. In recent elections, ultra-right candidate Pat Buchanan appealed simultaneously to "populist" anti-corporate and anti-government sentiments among the working class, as well as to xenophobic white racism. Buchanan's critique of corporate power was shallow, but it was often the only such critique permitted in the corporate-controlled media. One cannot help but wonder: were the corporations looking for a lightning rod to rechannel the anger building against them?
While Buchanan had no chance of winning the presidency, his candidacy did raise the spectre of another kind of solution to the emerging crisis of popular resentment against the system--a solution that again has roots in the history of the past century.
A FALSE REVOLUTION
In the early 1900s, workers in Italy and Germany built strong unions and won substantial concessions in wages and work conditions; still, after World War I they suffered under a disastrous postwar economy, which fanned unrest. During the early 1920s, heavy industry and big finance were in a state of near-total collapse. Bankers and agribusiness associations offered financial support to Mussolini--who had been a socialist before the war--to seize state power, which he effectively did in 1922 following his march on Rome. Within two years, the Fascist Party (from the Latin fasces, meaning a bundle of rods and an axe, symbolising Roman state power) had shut down all opposition newspapers, crushed the socialist, liberal, Catholic, democratic and republican parties (which had together commanded about 80 per cent of the vote), abolished unions, outlawed strikes and privatised farm cooperatives.
In Germany, Hitler led the Nazi Party to power, then cut wages and subsidised industries.
In both countries, corporate profits ballooned. Understandably, given their friendliness to big business, Fascism and Nazism were popular among some prominent American industrialists such as Henry Ford) and opinion shapers (like William Randolph Hearst).
Fascism and Nazism relied on centrally controlled propaganda campaigns that cleverly co-opted the language of the Left (the Nazis called themselves the National Socialist German Workers Party--while persecuting socialists and curtailing workers' rights). Both movements also made calculated use of emotionally charged symbolism: scapegoating minorities, appealing to mythic images of a glorious national past, building a leader cult, glorifying war and conquest, and preaching that the only proper role of women is as wives and mothers.
As political theorist Michael Parenti points out, historians often overlook Fascism's economic agenda--the partnership between Big Capital and Big Government--in their analysis of its authoritarian social program. Indeed, according to Bertram Gross in his startlingly prescient Friendly Fascism (1980), it is possible to achieve fascist goals within an ostensibly democratic society.5 Corporations themselves, after all, are internally authoritarian (courts have ruled that citizens give up their constitutional rights to free speech, freedom of assembly, etc., when they are at work on corporate-owned property); and as corporations increasingly dominate politics, media and economy, they can mould an entire society to serve the interests of a powerful elite without ever resorting to stormtroopers and concentration camps. No deliberate conspiracy is necessary, either: each corporation merely acts to further its own economic interests. If the populace shows signs of restlessness, politicians can be hired to appeal to racial resentments and memories of national glory, dividing popular opposition and inspiring loyalty.
In the current situation, "friendly fascism" works somewhat as follows. Corporations drive down wages and pay a dwindling share of taxes (through mechanisms outlined above), gradually impoverishing the middle class and creating unrest. As corporate taxes are cut, politicians (whose election was funded by corporate donors) argue that it is necessary to reduce government services in order to balance the budget. Meanwhile, the same politicians argue for an increase in the repressive functions of government (more prisons, harsher laws, more executions, more military spending). Politicians channel the middle class's rising resentment away from corporations and toward the government (which, after all, is now less helpful and more repressive than it used to be) and against social groups easy to scapegoat (criminals, minorities, teenagers, women, gays, immigrants).
Meanwhile, debate in the media is kept superficial (elections are treated as sporting contests), and right-wing commentators are subsidised while left-of-centre ones are marginalised. People who feel cheated by the system turn to the Right for solace, and vote for politicians who further subsidise corporations, cut government services, expand the repressive power of the state and offer irrelevant scapegoats for social problems with economic roots. The process feeds on itself.
Within this scenario, George W. Bush (and similar ultra-right figures in other countries) are not anomalies but, rather, predictable products of a strategy adopted by economic elites--harbingers of a less-than-friendly future--as the more "moderate" tactics for the maintenance and consolidation of power founder under the weight of corporate greed and resource exhaustion.
CAUSE FOR HOPE?
These circumstances are, in their details, unprecedented; but in broad outline we are seeing the re-enactment of a story that goes back at least to the beginning of civilisation. Those with power are always looking for ways to protect and extend it, and to make their power seem legitimate, necessary or invisible so that popular protest seems unnecessary or futile. If protest comes, the powerful always try to deflect anger away from themselves. The leaders of the new populist movement appear to have a good grasp of both the current circumstances and the historical ground from which these circumstances emerge. They seem to have realised that, in order to succeed, the new populism will have to:
¥ avoid being co-opted by existing political parties;
¥ heal race, class and gender divisions and actively resist any campaign to scapegoat disempowered social groups;
¥ avoid being identified with an ideological category-- "communist", "socialist" or "anarchist"--against which most of the public is already well inoculated by corporate propaganda;
¥ direct public discussion toward the most vulnerable link in the corporate chain of power: the legal basis of the corporation;
¥ internationalise the movement so that corporations cannot undermine it merely by shifting their base of operations from one country to another.
As Lawrence Goodwyn noted in his definitive work, The Populist Moment, the original Populists were "attempting to construct, within the framework of American capitalism, some variety of cooperative commonwealth". This was "the last substantial effort at structural alteration of hierarchical economic forms in modern America".6
In announcing the formation of the Alliance for Democracy, in an article in the August 14, 1996 issue of The Nation, activist Ronnie Dugger compiled a list of policy suggestions which comprise some of the core demands of the new populist movement. These include: a prohibition of contributions or any other political activity by corporations; single-payer national health insurance with automatic universal coverage; a doubling of the minimum wage, indexed to inflation; a generic low-interest-rate national policy, entailing the abolition of the Federal Reserve System; statutory reversal of the court-made law that corporations are "persons"; establishment of a national public oil company; limitations on ownership of newspapers, magazines, radio and TV stations to one of any kind per person or owning entity; and the halving of military spending. The new populists are, in Ronnie Dugger's words, "ready to resume the cool eyeing of the corporations with a collective will to take back the powers they have seized from us".7
The new populism draws some of its inspiration from the work of the Program on Corporations, Law and Democracy (POCLAD), a populist "think-tank" that explores the legal basis of corporate power. POCLAD believes that it is possible to control--and, if necessary, dismantle--corporations by amending or revoking their charters.8
Since the largest corporations are now transnational in scope, the new populism must confront their abuses globally. The International Forum on Globalization (IFG) was founded for this purpose in 1994, as an alliance of 60 activists, scholars, economists and writers (including Jerry Mander, Vandana Shiva, Richard Grossman, Ralph Nader, Helena Norberg-Hodge, Jeremy Rifkin and Kirkpatrick Sale), to stimulate new thinking and joint action along these lines.
In a position statement drafted in 1995, the International Forum on Globalization said that it: "views international trade and investment agreements, including the GATT, the WTO, Maastricht and NAFTA, combined with the structural adjustment policies of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, to be direct stimulants to the processes that weaken democracy, create a world order in the control of transnational corporations and devastate the natural world. The IFG will study, publish and actively advocate in opposition to the current rush toward economic globalization, and will seek to reverse its direction. Simultaneously, we will advocate on behalf of a far more diversified, locally controlled, community-based economics We believe that the creation of a more equitable economic order--based on principles of diversity, democracy, community and ecological sustainability--will require new international agreements that place the needs of people, local economies and the natural world ahead of the interests of corporations"9
Leaders of the new populism appear to realise that anti-corporatism is not a complete solution to the world's problems; that the necessary initial focus on corporate power must eventually be supplemented by a more general critique of centralising and unsustainable technologies, money-based economics and current nation-state governmental structures, by efforts to protect traditional cultures and ecosystems, and by a renewal of culture and spirituality.
It would be foolish to underestimate the immense challenges to the new populism from the current US administration and from the jingoistic, bellicose post-September 11 public sentiment fostered by the corporate media. Nevertheless, POCLAD, the Alliance for Democracy and the IFG (along with dozens of human rights, environmental and anti-war organisations around the world) provide important rallying points for citizens' self-defence against tyranny in its most modern, invisible, effective and even seductive forms.
Endnotes:
1. Grossman, Richard and Frank Adams, Taking Care of Business: Citizenship and the Charter of Incorporation, pamphlet, 1993, available at http://www.poclad.org/resources.html.
2. Zinn, Howard, A People's History of the United States: 1492 to Present, Harper Perennial, 2001.
3. Brecher, Jeremy and Tim Costello, Global Village or Global Pillage: Economic Reconstruction from the Bottom Up, South End Press, 1998.
4. Zinn, op. cit.
5. Gross, Bertram, Friendly Fascism: The New Face of Power in America, South End Press, 1998.
6. Goodwyn, Lawrence, The Populist Moment: A Short History of the Agrarian Revolt in America, Oxford University Press, 1978.
7. The Alliance for Democracy website, http://www.thealliancefordemocracy.org/.
8. POCLAD website, http://www.poclad.org.
9. IFG pamphlet, 1995; revised position statement at IFG website, http://www.ifg.org.
About the Author:
Richard Heinberg is a journalist, educator, editor, lecturer and musician. He has lectured widely and appeared on national radio and TV in five countries. He is a core faculty member of New College of California, where he teaches courses on Culture, Ecology and Sustainable Community.
He is the author of: "Memories and Visions of Paradise"; "Celebrate the Solstice"; "A New Covenant with Nature"; and "Cloning the Buddha: the Moral Impact of Biotechnology". His next book, "The Party's Over: Oil, War and the Fate of Industrial Societies", is to be published by New Society in March 2003. His essays have been featured in The Futurist, Intuition, Brain/Mind Bulletin, Magical Blend, New Dawn and elsewhere.
Richard is also author/editor/publisher of MuseLetter, a monthly, subscription-only, alternative newsletter which is now in its tenth year of publication. MuseLetter's purpose is "to offer a continuing critique of corporate-capitalist industrial civilization and a re-visioning of humanity's prospects for the next millennium". His article, "A History of Corporate Rule and Popular Protest", was originally published in MuseLetter in 1996 as "The New Populism", and was revised in August 2002. Visit the MuseLetter website at http://www.museletter.com.
Reproduced by consent of Richard Heinberg & www.nexusmagazine.com``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xA History of Corporate Rule and Popular Protest``x1036869493,49230,Development``x``x
``xHerald Reporter
THE British government has allocated more money to the BBC to continue its demonisation of Zimbabwe.
British Secretary for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Mr Jack Straw said his government recently increased funding for the BBC’s World Service by £48 million ($4 billion) over the period from 2003 to 2006 on top of an annual baseline of £211m ($17bn).
He was responding to a report of the British parliamentary foreign affairs committee, which recommended London to increase funding for the BBC to continue its propaganda against Harare.
The committee said the British government should ensure that the BBC World Service continues to have enough funds to maintain the quality and extent of its coverage in Zimbabwe and extend it further.
"The annual grant-in-aid to BBCWS’s currently stands at £200m ($16bn). Operational decisions on resource allocation, given BBCWS’s independence of government on editorial and programming matters, are for BBCWS on the basis of its spending bid and working within the framework of overall objectives agreed with the FCO.
"The FCO and BBCWS maintain constant contact over each other’s respective objectives and priorities," said Mr Straw.
He admitted that the British media was often inaccurate in covering Zimbabwe as it was biased in favour of white commercial farmers.
"The Government has gone to great lengths to explain its policy on Zimbabwe to the British media and Parliament. It will continue to do so. Regrettably, media reporting has often been inaccurate or focused unduly on the situation facing Zimbabwe’s commercial farmers."
Contacted for comment yesterday, a BBC spokesperson could only say: "The BBC strives to be impartial and balanced in all its reporting."
The Government has banned the BBC from entering the country to cover events here, saying it was biased and broadcasts falsehoods about Zimbabwe.
The British parliamentary committee also recommended London to pursue all appropriate means of supporting the work of independent journalists in Zimbabwe. Britain already funds the opposition Daily News.
In August the United States revealed that it was working with certain local journalists and some Sadc countries to topple President Mugabe and the Government.
Mr Straw also said British diplomatic missions were actively countering Zimbabwean propaganda about UK policy, confirming the meddling by the British High Commission in the internal affairs of Zimbabwe.
He ruled out the possibility of the United Nations imposing sanctions on Zimbabwe.
"UN sanctions against Zimbabwe are not currently a realistic option," said Mr Straw.
He was responding to the committee’s recommendation that London should seek support in the United Nations, G8 and elsewhere to persuade countries outside of the European Union to impose similar sanctions imposed by the EU.
Mr Straw admitted that the UK as a former colonial power had an obligation on the land issue in Zimbabwe. "The United Kingdom is under a particular obligation to assist, not primarily because white farmers with British forebears are under threat — although that is a matter of great and proper concern — but because as a former colonial power it still has a residual responsibility."
http://www.herald.co.zw/index.php?id=15957&pubdate=2002-11-09``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xBBC gets more money to step up Zimbabwe``x1036893774,13960,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy David Pallister and Tania Branigan
THE British government has launched a formal investigation into the allegation that a white Zimbabwean businessman — one of the richest men in Britain — has broken UK and European sanctions by supplying aircraft parts to the Zimbabwean airforce.
The allegations against the international financier John Bredenkamp were made in a United Nations report on the "illegal exploitation of natural resources" in the Democratic Republic of Congo, published last month.
In the past few days, both the foreign secretary, Jack Straw and the defence secretary, Geoff Hoon, have confirmed in parliamentary answers that an investigation has begun.
In the first answer to the Tory MP Michael Acram, Mr Straw said: "We are aware of allegations of past arms dealing activities by Mr John Bredenkamp.
On Monday Mr Hoon told the Labour MP Paul Farrelly, who accused Mr Bredenkamp of sanctions-busting in the Commons in March: "The government certainly takes seriously all credible reports of misuse or diversion of UK-exported equipment." The UN report says Mr Bredenkamp, founder of the Ascot sporting agency Masters International, "has a history of clandestine military procurement."
While Mr Bredenkamp admits he broke sanctions for the Rhodesian regime of Ian Smith, he denies any sanctions violations since then.
He said in a statement to the Guardian that he took "great exception to any allegation of wrong-doing" and described the report as "hopelessly misleading and inaccurate." MORE``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xUK persecutes businessman over 'sanctions-busting'``x1037036829,10661,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xFrom: AmonHotep: Dialogue
ABSTRACT: BBC Zimbabwe 'diverts food aid'
"Mr Mugabe denies that the food crisis is a result of his land reform programme and blames it on a drought, which has affected much of the region.
But white farmers who are prevented from working their land say that their dams are full of water.
Just a few hundred white farmers remain on their land, out of some 4,000 two years ago.
Our correspondent says that the land has gone to Zanu-PF officials, who often have no farming background, instead of the landless black people who were supposed to benefit.
In Maputo, Zimbabwean Foreign Minister Stan Mudenge repeated his government's argument that former colonial power Britain should compensate the white farmers who have lost their land.
As a result of British colonial rule, whites owned much of Zimbabwe's best farmland.
Britain has refused to pay unless there is transparency in the redistribution of land."
___________________________________________
The BBC is currently funded through the UK Licence Fee payment to the tune of £2.4bn. The Licence fee from which BBC is paid is an annual fee that allows people to own and use a television in the UK. If you have any equipment capable of receiving a television signal and receive any programmes, including satellite, you must have a licence. [More from BBC]
Abstract: 'BBC gets anything it wants,' claims Murdoch
by Dan Milmo, guardian.co.uk
Friday November 8, 2002
Rupert Murdoch today launched a scathing attack on the government, accusing it of being too cosy with the BBC and of fostering anti-competitive behaviour on the part of the corporation.
He said the BBC, funded by an annual licence fee payment of £2.4bn, had been protected by successive Conservative and Labour governments. [full article]
__________________________________________
ABSTRACT: Carrington backs Zimbabwe farmers
By Andrew Unsworth: London. Sunday Oct 20 2002
www.sundaytimes.co.za
"Lord Carrington, who chaired the Lancaster House conference that led to the end of white minority rule in Zimbabwe, has joined in the growing controversy over Prime Minister Tony Blair's government's reluctance to support white farmers who have been evicted from land in Zimbabwe.
In a question tabled in the House of Lords this week, Carrington asked whether the British government was prepared to use money earmarked for land reform more than 20 years ago to help farmers now left destitute.
Speaking to the Sunday Times, he said that funds were available for land redistribution in 1979.
"What we intended to do at the Lancaster House negotiations and subsequently was to help Zimbabwean farmers on a willing buyer-willing seller basis, and to help the Zimbabwean government . . . to make more farms available to black farmers," he said this week. "It all fell down because the Zimbabwean government gave farms to their own cronies and the British government of the day decided the money could not be used on that basis."
He said the government's response to this had been to "waffle" . No specific sum was pledged originally, but £44-million (about R750-million) had been given to Zimbabwe up to 2000. [full article]
___________________________________________
South Africa fears terror threat of white extremists
Tuesday, 12 November 2002
From Michael Dynes in Johannesburg
More than 80 extreme right-wing groups are thought to be operating in South Africa. They represent a mixture of military underground cells, such as Boeremag, and an assortment of religious doomsday cults, such as Israel Vision and Daughter of Zion. Farmers, blue-collar workers, professionals, academics and retired military and police officers fill their ranks and they have cultivated the conviction that they are being "oppressed" by South Africa's black majority rule. [full article here or here]
Ayinde's comment
Western Media houses (BBC) are rather slow to highlight the terrorist threats from White extremist groups in South Africa. These Groups represent the general thinking of most Whites who still suffer from superiority complexes and feel they have a divine right to rule all people.
This attitude is at the root of all other forms of Terrorism.
__________________________________________
Aisha's comment
Britain wanted to continue their dictatorship. They wanted to dictate to the Zimbabwe Government who should own the land so that they (Britain) could still maintain control.
The colour of the farmers would have changed but the 'ownership' would have remained the same. White farmers would have been replaced with Black farmers who were willing to be puppets of the British government.
___________________________________________
Ayinde's comments...
BBC is not impartial in this whole affair.
Other US and UK media houses are being guided by some legitimate concerns muddled with their own prejudices. Their coverage generally lacks the historical perspective coupled with the agreements signed when Zimbabwe won its independence. There are many things wrong with the Resettlement Programme but I would only focus on aspects that pertain to the dishonest media reports.
No one can be against the Zimbabwe government's agents for this headline in their newspapers, "BBC gets more money to step up anti-Zim crusade".
During BBC's latest propaganda report on Television they were referring to the Resettlement Programme as "THE WHITE MAN'S LAND BEING RESETTLED".
Two questions!
1) After how many years does stolen property become the property of the thief?
2) Do inheritors of stolen property become the legitimate owners of the property by virtue of the inheritance?
Land was at the core of Zimbabwe's liberation struggle
British and American negotiators granted independence with the imposition of certain conditions destined to keep the colonial masters in control. One provision stipulated that for a period of 10 years, land ownership in Zimbabwe could only be transferred on a "willing seller, willing buyer" basis. This amounted to further rewarding people who had already profited from ill-gotten gains.
This also retarded the transformation process by ten years during which the British and American negotiators hoped they would have been able to 'install' a government favorable to their indirect control.
In 1992 the Land Acquisition Act was passed notwithstanding the pressures from Britain and the US.
Zimbabwe's government felt it could no longer continue haggling over land reform, and nearing the end of the 1990's, they started moving away from the Economic Structural Adjustment Program (ESAP), which was not adequately addressing the issues of land reform. In October 2001 Mugabe abandoned the ESAP.
The claim that Mugabe did nothing for 20 years is usually made without reference to the Independence agreement that placed restraints on what Mugabe and his government could have done for the first 10 years. It also neglects the years of trying to get the European powers to honor their agreement.
Meanwhile the Western media kept harping about the harm the economy of Zimbabwe would endure because of the land reform. They continually mention that the Zimbabweans who are getting the confiscated agricultural lands do not know about commercial farming. BBC reported that these African farmers do not have seeds and fertilizers.
If these Africans cannot acquire fertilizers and seeds it is only because of trade restrictions or sellers being discouraged from supplying them.
If in their opinion these Africans cannot grow their own food, then they should explain how humans survived in Africa for thousands of years before Europeans. This fraudulent racist position also highlights the fact that for all the years they occupied the land they were not interested in teaching those Africans whom they profited from. They were quite contented to keep them as cheap farm labour.
European superiority complexes are responsible for these statements and conscious people should treat with them accordingly. Apparently they have no problem delivering food aid which keeps the population enslaved, but allowing people to help themselves is a problem.
The unspoken suggestion is that only Whites can successfully run businesses.
MUGABE IS RIGHT!!!
Transparency for Britain means handing the land over to 'mentally enslaved Africans' who would easily 'give' the land to colonial Whites.
The land MUST go to those Africans who support his Land Reform Programme to ensure the land is not given or resold cheaply to the former White occupiers.
BRITAIN IS RUDE!!!
Britain has to pay and must do so through the legitimate government in Zimbabwe. Britain must stop trying to undermine the democratic process in that country for the benefit of a few Whites.
Where on earth could people guilty of a crime retain the right to determine when and to whom they must pay compensation?
BRITAIN wants to remain in control of African lands and her former colonies through remote control. (Through supporting 'mentally enslaved Africans' who pursue British interest first.)
Who gets land or reclaimed farms is a matter for the internal politics of Zimbabwe and is not up to the dictates of Britain. They had already decided to pay and should have continued through the legitimate government in Zimbabwe.
The Christianized, colonized Blacks they keep featuring on BBC (e.g. Zimbabwe Catholic bishop) is destined to give the impression that most Africans are against the return of their lands. In small print below his picture they put, "Archbishop Ncube is a long-time Mugabe critic". Of course he is; he is 'Christianized', colonized and walks around with his White 'Virgin' Mary and White Jesus as was seen in the background when he was leveling his criticisms of Mugabe on BBC's 24hr News Television feature.
Food Aid is being used as a tool to interfere in the political process in Zimbabwe. Many of these agencies get their funding from Europe and America and they are carrying out the dirty works of those who fund them.
Food Aid is also being used to introduce genetically modified seeds into Africa thus corrupting their own food supply. This will make these people dependant on US corporations for seeds. This is one of the ways the West intends to control all people through controlling seeds and by extension food supplies.
___________________________________________
Zimbabwe, Mugabe and White farmers
Dr. Chika A. Onyeani, Aug. 22, 02, The African Sun Times
"It seems the height of hypocrisy that the world should be focused on the plight and non-payment of compensation to white farmers, without as much as a mention of the savagery with which the Black African owners were massacred and their lands seized without compensation. The word Bulawayo, the second largest city in Zimbabwe, is an Ndebele word for "slaughter," and it refers to the savagery of the British settlers, including the infamous Cecil Rhodes who had crushed the attempt by the indigenes to fight back, leading King Lobengula to swallow poison rather than be captured. Or should we forget the savagery of the bestial Sir Frederick Carrington, who had publicly advocated that the entire Ndebele race should be forcefully removed or be exterminated.
Or that of profligate Ian Smith, who seized the government in 1965 and unilaterally declared the then Southern Rhodesia independent, when he refused to apologize for the atrocities he committed while he held office. In fact, he even boasted that he had no regrets about the estimated 30,000 Zimbabweans killed during his rule. Said Smith, "the more we killed, the happier we were." [full article]
¤ British Terrorist Assualt on Zimbabwe
¤ Land Issue - Fact Sheet
¤ Zimbabwe Under Siege
¤ 2000 Parliamentary elections: Electorate want change
¤ Mugabe: Zimbabwe will not be a colony again
¤ Stop imperialist intervention in Zimbabwe
___________________________________________
Message Board Comments
From: THANDO S
19 October 2002, at 12:18 p.m.
I am writing in relation to your article on Zimbabwe coverage by the British media. As a black Zimbabwean I have found your article to be incorrect to say the least.
Unfair economic practises have indeed contributed to Africa's woes as has the drought. However in Zimbabwe the violence and intimidation which has been used to seize the farms has greatly increased the enormity of the disaster. People who do not support Mugabe whether they belong to the opposition or not have been victimised and the law disregarded in a so called 'democratic and free' country.
'Returning the land to its rightful owners',as the Zimbabwean government puts it is just a way of getting people like you to support them.As a matter of fact seized farms are being given to Mugabe's friends on a permanent bases. The farm labourers are being driven off the land and whether they originated from Mozambique or Malawi they are Zimbabwean and their treatment is unconstitutional. At least the white farmers not only paid them, but provided healthcare, education and housing which by Zimbabwean standards is a 'luxury'. The point of colonial policy is laughable because Zimbabweans fought and died for a free and equal society not just for blacks but for whites as well and whites such as Sir Garfield Todd the former Rhodesian Prime Minister who was imprisoned by the Smith regime in the '70's for supporting the black cause, were also involved in the struggle for independence.
After independence Zimbabwe has been destroyed by its leadership which does not want to step down but would rather kill its own people to preserve its power.
Inasmuch as the British media is biased to an extent in its coverage of Zimbabwe, you should research your facts before supporting Mugabe's draconian tactics.
####
Ayinde's Response...
20 October 2002, at 1:19 a.m.
Anyone can claim to be White or Black on the Internet. Claiming to be Black does not validate your comments. One would think if you had a view that was legitimate then it would not have been necessary to state if you were White or Black as the truth can stand without the colour weight.
Let us hope Mugabe remains smart enough to continue returning the lands to those people who support and lobbied for its return.
Giving farms to his opponents is equal to handing it back to the White farmers. (Mental enslavement)
Yes, it took 20 years and there is much that is wrong with Mugabe and the process, but the UK also took 20 years too long while offering tokenism. The White farmers should have acted without it reaching this stage.
Seeing that you do not support the process then you would have much to condemn and the condemnations are in all other media sources. Repeating them here is to continue the imbalance in the general news coverage.
Although you condemn the coverage you did not present one quote that was inaccurate but instead you choose to repeat the popular ignorant diatribe.
I wonder how many people would take the time to register or write a letter with much of the self-hating comments I see on the Internet.
Victims against a global corporate structure
By Ghifari al Mukhtar
Terms rather than words
I have always encountered problems with my slave tongue which is the English language, the simplistic yet perplex mode of communication latter on as I matured in the world that surrounded me more so became extremely unfathomable throughout the ever declining American revolution or the English evolution, that gave rise to the United States of America Australia to a lesser extent New Zealand and the more Cosmo politic Euro-American Israeli State somewhere in the middle East.
Terms rather than words they are; can only be determined base on the person time and circumstances of use, which is the American-way.
For example we hear of Israeli incursions but Iraqi invasion; targeted (retaliatory) killings against Palestinian children and their parents in response to Palestinian "terrorist" fighting off an invader uniform sometimes not (Settlers); Constructive engagement towards western satellite states as in the case of Apartheid but cluster bombs coupled with a can of GM expired food disguised as it were from Santa Clause 'who the hell is he is any fools 'GUEST' of non-Aryan humanities, collateral damage instead of innocent defenseless people, again-collateral damage as oppose to deliberate and calculated disregard.
Why continue on this ever expanding yet continual deceptive creative language as though the communicative extracts is what I am after rather than its users.
We see and we hear-that politics are bad even though rotten men find the use of politics meaningless and naive do-gooders endeavor to make the instrument useful.
Like politics English have always been used to perfection when coming to telling lies, its omissions as well as its pronouncements as suggestions equals advice for the purposes of deception.
Englishmen (Americans they are) are the masters of it all even the crude Israelis depend on the Americans for this lauded cultural asset.
Native Americans warned humanity; that the white man spoke with four (folk) tongue; ‘no racism intended’.
Today we hear of the other meaning for the word invasion/colonization (INTRUSIVE INTERVENTION).
As if the underlying factor for invasions were usually preceded by way of sanctions then who must invade the United States and the allies of sanctions that resulted in mass murder on the peoples of Iraq and Palestine to name the current victims to say the least, a policy nurtured and engineered by a group of unmatched criminals who's deeds against every form of human decency against their fellow man on any scale globally or infinite throughout human existence will always be remembered even as "Zimbabwe" Africans world over flirt with branded names like Pepsi & Coco cola, GM foods, Addidas, Roebuck and Nike assisted amnesia.
They'd like us not to remember yet be fearful of, so they can keep their charge is just a tacit reminder how twisted are the meanings and use of the criminally "skilled" English usage.
The limitations prove exhausting though on the issue of the International Court of Justice only because the ICJ is a EU child and when the language (immunity) is converted to the varied EU member states languages it just didn't compute then came the evolutionary Word processor i.e. compromise, by way of coercions, arm twisting, economic whitemail and the "santa" Clauses called diplomacy.
History have proved that the last 80 years the deliberate protracted wars imposed on Africa, the subverted economic AID packages the willful spreading of the HIV virus via inoculation the orchestrated droughts throughout many states on the continent the subsequent christianisation, the blackened mainstream "media" bias the WTO WHO the IMF WB HRW are all but policies and entities that out-served the colonialist adventure hence the intrusive intervention threat from the last generation of the final Aryan empire comes at this time.
One needs not look further as the economy is rapidly slipping from the grip of their monopoly.
But invading Africa is surely the groundless pivot where the resurrection of Rhodes will find no ground secure, beneath or above them. Perception though not shared is that while all things must return to its point and place of origin Africa shall be the place where Europe and all her descendants shall be retributed. African soil as such may only occur during their disastrous return to re-colonize the continent, as it's not in her "US" nature to genuinely seek forgiveness while at strength.
Share your views``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe, BBC and illegitimate White Control``x1037129715,79162,Development``x``x
``xby Aaron Michael Love
In 1945 Jan Smuts, then prime minister of South Africa appealed to the UN for an article on human rights to be included in the United Nations Charter. This incident, cited in W.E.B Du Bois's remarkable book The World and Africa, is a powerful reminder of the contradiction in the European conception of freedom. Freedom only applies absolutely to the white man, temporarily excluding the complications of class and of course, gender. Du Bois argued that the Atlantic slave trade produced this schism materially and culturally, although its origins no doubt go much farther back in European history. He concludes, "nothing so vividly illustrates the twisted contradiction of thought in the minds of white men."
Much ink has been spilled bemoaning the Zionist lobby in the United States. The success of this lobby in the Washington and media establishment, in terms of its limited objectives, is no doubt spectacular. However, it is a strange success, which has made strange bedfellows when considering the history of anti-Jewish racism in the U.S. After all, how could such a lobby hold sway over the Christian Right, Waspish conservative think tanks and a Congress filled with southern gentlemen?
The answer is the Zionist organizations do not hold sway over anyone and to imply otherwise, as some do, has the unintended consequence of flirting on the margins of a major Fascist conceit. Instead, the answer can be found in the history of white supremacy and imperialism within the United States and Europe themselves. In other words, Zionist Apartheid is seen as an old fashioned war on people of color and, as such is perfectly attune to the historical psyche of white America. Rather than trying to "liberate" American foreign policy from Zionist influence, I think it would be much more fruitful to ask why Americans, particularly the political, business class, and certain sectors of the white middle class, love Israel so much.
In an indispensable article, "Antisemitism: Real and Imagined", Tim Wise writes, "Zionism is a form of white supremacy". There are few places where Zionism is placed firmly within the operation of whiteness, though it has been indirectly touched on many times before, most notably in discussions of the relationship between Ashkenazi and Sephardim and Mizrahim Jews in Israel. Indeed, as one Israeli Black Panther put it in 1972, "We must reach a situation in which we shall fight together with the Arabs against the establishment. We are the only ones who can constitute a bridge of peace with the Arabs in the context of a struggle against the establishment." Zionism, like white supremacy, albeit in different keys, is a war against savage Arabs and only a less savage Arab and African Jew.
My experience as a divestment and solidarity organizer over the last couple of years has brought me first hand knowledge of the Zionist paradox in the Jewish community. More than once, young Jews approached us, confessing they struggle to maintain a Jewish identity outside of whiteness, revealing young minds trying to grasp with the irony of an alliance between Jews and White Supremacy. Micah Bazant has spoken of "the Jewish establishment" giving "tremendous lip-service to the concern of Jewish assimilation" but instead contributes "to assimilation of the worst kind." He explains, "they claim to value real Jewish traditions of social justice and tikkun olam, but in fact they have sold out and assimilated to U.S. values of capitalism, racism and imperialism."
Zionism developed in a time of reinvigorated white supremacy in the latter part of the nineteenth century when European states were busily dividing up the land of Africa and Asia. In the confrontation with the indigenous people of Palestine, its ideology belongs within the history of European racial theories and, like the Afrikaner ideology of Jan Smuts, has little problem with seeing itself in the forefront of democracy and civilization in the Middle East while at the same time implementing and justifying the complete and utter subjugation of one its most prominent people.
However, to understand Israel/Palestine as defined systematically by racial oppression has yet to be elaborated on its own. This is odd, given that the racial oppression of the Palestinian people is at the heart of the matter; all other things--land laws, religion, pass laws, racially designated roads and neighborhoods, etc.--are symptoms. This should not come as any surprise: the racial definition of the Zionist project existed from the very beginning. Theodor Herzel in his 1896 pamphlet "The Jewish State" wrote it would "form a part of a wall of defense for Europe in Asia, an outpost of civilization against barbarism." This is the same Herzel who stated that Zionist colonization would be "representatives of Western civilization," bringing "cleanliness, order and the well-established customs of the Occident to this plague-ridden, blighted corner of the Orient." Recall Chomsky memorably quoting Chaim Weizmann, first president of Israel, as saying of Palestine, "there are several hundred thousand negroes there but that this matter has no significance."
How little has changed. With the African liberation movements abroad and the civil rights struggle at home, the white supremacist war on African people has entered a new stage, but the war on the Arab has found its triumphant moment. In that story we hear about the Arab resistance to modernity in the infamous "Arab street", mitigated, of course, by friendly but nervous ruling classes. In the stirring street, like in the Intifada, we are told you find the irrational and the superstitious, not a working toward self-determination and freedom. And who holds the key to holding back this self-evident preternatural violence of the Palestinian and the Arab? Whether it is Bernard Lewis, the New York Times, the Heritage Foundation, Al Gore, the ADL or American Jewish Council Ads on Fox News, the answer is the Zionist State. Counterpoised to the Arab and the Palestinian in particular there is democracy, technology, Judeo-Christian values, the opera and shopping malls. Apartheid Palestine/Israel is necessary exactly because the Palestinian rejects all of these things. They hate "us". Unfortunately, the more honest imperialists say, this is a world of civilization and barbarism: Israel the white European nation in a sea of dark savagery.
That Israel should be in the vanguard of whiteness is actually a credit to the more than five decade old Palestinian struggle. The Palestinian struggle is on the fault-line of freedom and oppression and, as such, is in the forefront of the struggle against white supremacy and imperialism in the world today. Is it any wonder that the white supremacist imperialists holler the most when Palestine/Israel is brought up? It is exactly here that their "twisted contradiction" is most likely to be exposed. Apartheid Israel/Palestine is just another solution to the "problem of the color line." It is a solution that did not begin in 1948 but some 400 years ago and is still with us very much today.
Indeed, we have the rulers of the "western" world as proof. The idea of a Zionist lobby duping State Department officials, ignorant Congress people, the EU or UN bureaucrats, ignores the role of white supremacy. This complicates the popular Leftist view that America and Europe's largely unconditional support of the Zionist state is like a functional balance sheet: tallying the price between keeping a bully on the Middle East block, "a strategic asset", and bad relations with the wider Arab public. We should recall what Du Bois was trying to tell the Left in his day: race and class are not separable categories in modern world history.
But the implications go beyond the exigencies of Leftist anti-imperialism to the heart of the Palestinian struggle and solidarity itself. Typically, Palestine/Israel is argued in terms of an abstract discourse of "human rights", "UN resolutions", and "international law". This is problematic on several grounds. First, on a psychological level, the basic effrontery of Apartheid to human dignity is lost. On a more practical level, most Americans do not connect immediately to the Palestinian struggle because the direct connections to their historical experience are not revealed or emphasized. Further, rights, laws and resolutions bring a kind of equivalence to the Palestinian and Jewish experience in Israel/Palestine. The Zionist state can cite almost as many rights, laws and resolutions as their opponents. Even worse the application of these things, like the UN itself, is dominated by the United States. What is missing is a sense of right and wrong, of abnormality, and a lack of understanding the deep connections of the Palestinian struggle with the operation of the American historical psyche.
The importance of understanding white supremacy could also be important for the Palestinian struggle in Palestine/Israel. Israel Shahak wrote in his brilliant article:
"Analysis of Israeli policies: the priority of the ideological factor," that eventually, "the Palestinians are bound to perceive themselves first and foremost as victims of Israeli legal discrimination, applied against them by virtue of their being non-Jews. When this occurs, Israel's domestic and international position can be expected to become highly unstable."
Oppression-political, economic, legal, cultural-on the basis of race is what most intimately connects all Palestinians, at a most basic level, living throughout Palestine/Israel. If Shahak's observation is politically formulated and used in a struggle to trump the Zionist, white supremacist vision and enforcement of separation and expropriation, meanwhile coupled with an effective solidarity campaign to politically and economically isolate Israel, the Zionist state will eventually "become highly unstable" indeed.
I do not think this can be overstated at this time. Like the U.S. commitment to Israel, the Zionist commitment to the West Bank and Gaza exists over and above balance sheet considerations. Returning to Shahak's article, a particular passage is worth quoting in full:
"In other words, empirical evidence (valid as anything in politics can be valid) shows that Israeli policies are primarily ideologically motivated and that the ideology by which they are motivated is totalitarian in nature. This ideology can be easily known since it is enshrined in the writings of the founders of Labor Zionism, and it can be easily inferred from Israeli laws, regulations and pursued policies. Those who, like Arafat, his henchmen and most Palestinian intellectuals, have through all these years failed to make an intellectual effort to seriously study this ideology, have only themselves to blame for being stunned by all the developments of the 20 months after Oslo."
As I have tried to briefly lay out, the Zionist Apartheid project finds its force and appeal through its own conception of whiteness, not because Zionist organizations find better ways to get the ear of the white man. It is fully assimilated into this framework and all of its self-justification refers back to the matrix of white supremacy and empire. One cannot battle Zionism without battling white supremacy and the U.S. establishment--they are intimately linked. Seeking the ear of the establishment without speaking the truth about their racism underestimates their psychological and historical relationship with Apartheid. This means a solidarity built on an alliance with those who have been in the forefront of fighting white supremacy.
The brilliance of Du Bois's book is to show exactly how the "West" can be for human rights and for an unrelenting war on Arabs and, in particular, Palestinians. It explains how Jan Smuts in Du Bois's day or Shimon Peres in ours can lecture us on "human rights" and get away with it. Perhaps, most importantly, white supremacy reframes the Palestinian struggle in a historical continuum that better explains the reflexive support among a broad swathe of the American and European public for the Zionist adventure. It equally reframes it within a tradition that has deep reserves for overcoming the contradictions of race, freedom and oppression in European and American history with universal ideas of equality, democracy and fraternity, previously only thought available to the white man.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xIsrael and White Supremacy``x1037324713,24836,Development``x``x
``xHerald Reporter
IF Britain had accepted much earlier its responsibility in creating Zimbabwe’s land problem, the situation would not have deteriorated to what it is now, says the Minister of State for Information and Publicity, Professor Jonathan Moyo.
British foreign minister, Mr Jack Straw last week publicly acknowledged the role of his country’s imperialist expansionist policies in the problems besetting Zimbabwe, after pummelling the country for embarking on land reforms to correct historical injustices for over two years.
Prof Moyo said yesterday more people were going to admit that the country was justified in acquiring land for the landless majority in its quest to correct historical imbalances.
"Chickens are coming home to roost," he said during a lecture at the Zimbabwe Staff College. "Jack Straw now agrees. If he had agreed much earlier we should not have had this problem."
Mr Straw is reported to have ruffled feathers in British politics by blaming the current crises in Iraq and Zimbabwe on the legacy of British imperialism.
"A lot of problems that we are having to deal with now — I have to deal with now — are a consequence of our colonial past," he was quoted as saying in an interview published in the New Statesman magazine last Friday.
The British government has reneged on its colonial obligation to fund Zimbabwe’s land reform despite having agreed to do so at the 1979 Lancaster House talks.
"We are going to have more people admitting that we are right," Prof Moyo said. "Land is now in the hands of Zimbabweans. We are not going to give back an inch of that land."
"We don’t want to have this problem in future. In Zimbabwe there can be no better way of turning things around than to till the land," he said during a lecture attended by 100 army Junior Staff Course and Joint Command Staff Course students.
In his lecture, Prof Moyo outlined the role of his ministry, recent media development trends and challenges facing the information sector in the wake of fierce global capitalism and an onslaught on Zimbabwe’s sovereignty.
"It is important to know what the Government policy is. It is our duty to articulate Government policy, to explain Government policy and to appreciate what it is doing," he said.
He said the electorate expects the Government to implement what Zanu-PF as a party promised in its election manifesto.
"Government policy and its decisions are rooted in the vision and the thinking of our party," he said.
Prof Moyo narrated how the Zimbabwe Mass Media Trust was formed to rid the country’s national media from foreign domination.
With Nigerian funding, he said, the Trust was able to buy out shares of the South African Argus Press, which used to own titles under the Zimpapers Group.
"There was no way we could allow our national media to be controlled by apartheid media institution," he said.
He said he was surprised that critics called titles under Zimpapers "Government-owned or Government-controlled."
"They make their own editorial decisions," he said. If they are going to criticise the Government, they should criticise what they know. We see them not as Government media but as national media."
Prof Moyo criticised privately owned media for being used by Western countries to ridicule the Government and everything that was Zimbabwean.
"They are opposed to the history of the nation, they are opposed to the values of the nation … they are anti-nation.
"It is our desire to work with everyone. We have a media that is principally anti-nation, anti-nationalist, anti-pan-Africanist and against the land reform programme," he said.
The media, he said, had become an area of major contest, with some powerful countries using the privately owned media to demonise and topple the democratically elected Government.
He said the Daily News was being used by Western countries to attack the Government, the country’s values and traditions and the standing of the country’s national heroes who suffered to liberate Zimbabwe.
"This has put us in conflict with certain interests. It survives on sponsored criticism. It is a paper, which became the voice of farmers. It distorted the whole land issue saying the land issue was disorderly and that it was not done according to the rule of law.
"The rule of law is a product of the people in that country … law made by Zimbabweans and for Zimbabweans. This has become an issue in national politics."
He said the Daily News was obsessed with criticising the Government but turned a blind eye to any wrongdoing or shortcomings of the British government and the white world.
"They never ever, ever, find any wrong with the British, never find any wrong with the white world who criticise the Zimbabwean leadership," Prof Moyo said.
"We don’t think this is a reasonable thing."
The paper, he said, showed no regard of the colonial injustices perpetrated by white settlers when they dispossessed black Zimbabweans from their land a century ago, that lives were lost for the country to be independent and the fact that Britain has reneged on its colonial obligation to fund agrarian reforms.
"This is the point we have been making," he said. "Jack Straw now agrees."
Unlike in other countries, he said, his department defended national interest and articulated Government policy at the same time given the on-slaught on the country.
"We defend national interest, defend the Zimbabwean-ness through the promotion of Zimbabwean values, identity and our right to the nation. It’s none but ourselves."
Zimbabwe, he said, valued its participation and association with the Africa Union, Non-Aligned Movement, United Nations and Sadc.
"The Commonwealth is a club that has not rid itself from the colonial hangover," he said.
He said Zimbabwe had become a target of the British who were using BBC to set up a pirate radio station to churn out hate which sought to bring regime change.
SW Africa Radio, he said, was formed by the British and got funding from the US Transition Initiative, which got its money from USAID.
"We are the first country to be the victim. When you seek regime change, you are not seeking the change of the leader … you are seeking for a change of the process … regime change seeks to move us away from the foundation of the revolutionary struggle."
This, he said, was a threat to democracy as defined by the US and its allies.
He said the US government had openly accepted that it is working with some local journalists and media houses to effect "regime change".
"They use that phrase where they want to put a puppet. They will be interested in replacing values of the country. Regime change is a code word for a coup," he said.
Zimbabwe, he said, had proudly been able to hold elections when they were due and had one of the most vibrant democracies in the world.
"They are saying we will use information. It has become a most powerful tool since the collapse of the Cold War. You cannot defend your country without control of the information. AIPPA has brought some discipline in this country.
"It has comparable pieces of legislation, which are there in US."
Prof Moyo said there were some unpatriotic Zimbabweans who went to Britain and the US to urge these countries to invade or blockade the country.
"The Zimbabwe Democracy Act as drafted by Zimbabweans and perfected by the baas … the Uncle Toms ," he said.
He hailed the December 1987 Unity Accord signed by Zanu-PF and PF-Zapu describing it as firmly rooted in the revolutionary struggle.
"False pressures of a government of national unity has been created. We have a strong unity. There can be no unity between a nationalist and a reactionary, no unity between a nationalist and a puppet.
"They want to replace this through the back door. When it comes to national affairs, we deal with them ourselves," he said.
Global capitalism, he said, had led to the collapse of some economies of countries like Argentina and Brazil.
"Why should we all implement Tony Blair’s policy, George Bush’s policy? They should accept that within the international community there are differences.
"We don’t aspire to be like them...an American dream is not a Zimbabwean dream. The Zimbabwean dream is to own land unlike the American dream, which may be to own a hamburger," Prof Moyo said.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xMore people will admit land reform is justified``x1037717656,4658,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xWednesday November 20, 2002
Herald Reporters
TWO Americans and two Zimbabweans were last Friday briefly detained by war veterans at Inversnaid Farm in Melfort after they allegedly threw food from a moving vehicle to farm workers whom they then filmed as they jostled for the food.
The four - Mr Andrew John Simpson, Mr Audu Besmer, Mr Costain Chibanda and Mr Elias Shamu - are alleged to have done this on three separate occasions.
A loaded camera and two computer discs were reportedly confiscated from the group.
They are said to have visited Benridge Farm in Matepatepa and Bineer Farm in Glendale on November 14 to arrange for interviews and for the filming of what they described as "displaced farm workers", eye witnesses said.
More at www.herald.co.zw
Check the US-UK version of this story below and see if it gives any reason for the incident or if their reports are destined to give the impression that an attack was carried out by a bunch of mindless pro-Mugabe savages. The people were right to stop them from stage-managing a food scramble to use in their propaganda campaign.
US embassy worker beaten in Zimbabwe
Andrew Meldrum in Harare
Wednesday November 20, 2002
The Guardian UK
The diplomatic dispute between the United States and Zimbabwe has deepened after an employee of the American embassy in Harare was beaten by war veterans loyal to President Robert Mugabe.
The Zimbabwean employee was on an aid mission with a group which included another embassy employee who was an American citizen, and a United Nations official.
The team was studying how to help the former farm workers displaced by Mr Mugabe's land seizures who were "subsisting on a diet of berries and termites", according to a statement from the US government.
The embassy said that the UN official, the American, the Zimbabwean employee and another Zimbabwean citizen travelling with them were forcibly held and interrogated. The Zimbabweans were also beaten, it added.
More at www.guardian.co.uk``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xStage-managing food scramble``x1037769687,70278,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xAbstract from: www.alertnet.org
HARARE, Nov 19 (Reuters) - Two Americans detained by pro-government militants in Zimbabwe last week were part of a group that stage-managed and filmed a scramble for food among farm workers, the official Herald newspaper reported on Tuesday.
The incident stemmed from "intrusive and interventionist behaviour by some U.S. embassy personnel," Information and Publicity Minister Jonathan Moyo told the newspaper.
Moyo said: "There are no displaced farm workers in Zimbabwe and the embassy knows that. As to claims that there is lawlessness, purely on the basis of this incident, that is over the top and quite preposterous."
The Herald said the embassy group was detained after allegedly throwing food from a moving vehicle to farm workers, who were then filmed as they jostled for the handouts.
A loaded camera and two computer discs were reportedly confiscated from the group, the newspaper added.
Earlier this month, Zimbabwe accused the United States of trying to use widespread food shortages as a pretext to interfere in its internal affairs.
More at www.alertnet.org``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xU.S. staff stage-managed food scramble-Zimbabwe``x1037891480,9266,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xCompiled by Zoltan Grossman
(revised October 8, 2001)
From Wounded Knee to Afghanistan a century of US military interventions
U.S. military spending ($343 billion in the year 2000) is 69 percent greater than that of the next five highest nations combined. Russia, which has the second largest military budget, spends less than one-sixth what the United States does. Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Cuba, Sudan, Iran, and Syria spend $14.4 billion combined; Iran accounts for 52 percent of this total.
The following is a partial list of U.S. military interventions from 1890 to 2000. This guide does NOT include demonstration duty by military police, mobilizations of the National Guard, offshore shows of naval strength, reinforcements of embassy personnel, the use of non-Defense Department personnel (such as the Drug Enforcement Agency), military exercises, non-combat mobilizations (such as replacing postal strikers), the permanent stationing of armed forces, covert actions where the U.S. did not play a command and control role, the use of small hostage rescue units, most uses of proxy troops, U.S. piloting of foreign warplanes, foreign disaster assistance, military training and advisory programs not involving direct combat, civic action programs, and many other military activities.
Among sources used, besides news reports, are the Congressional Record (23 June 1969), 180 Landings by the U.S. Marine Corps History Division, Ege & Makhijani in Counterspy (July-Aug. 1982), and Daniel Ellsberg in Protest & Survive. "Instances of Use of United States Forces Abroad, 1798-1993" by Ellen C. Collier of the Library of Congress Congressional Research Service.
SOUTH DAKOTA
1890 (-?)
Troops
300 Lakota Indians massacred at Wounded Knee.
ARGENTINA
1890
Troops
Buenos Aires interests protected.
CHILE
1891
Troops
Marines clash with nationalist rebels.
HAITI
1891
Troops
Black workers revolt on U.S.-claimed Navassa Island defeated.
IDAHO
1892
Troops
Army suppresses silver miners' strike.
HAWAII
1893 (-?)
Naval, troops
Independent kingdom overthrown, annexed.
CHICAGO
1894
Troops
Breaking of rail strike, 34 killed
NICARAGUA
1894
Troops
Month-long occupation of Bluefields.
CHINA
1894-95
Naval, troops
Marines land in Sino-Jap War.
KOREA
1894-96
Troops
Marines kept in Seoul during war.
PANAMA
1895
Troops, naval
Marines land in Colombian province.
NICARAGUA
1896
Troops
Marines land in port of Corinto.
CHINA
1898-1900
Troops / Boxer Rebellion fought by foreign armies.
PHILIPPINES
1898-1910(-?)
Naval, troops
Seized from Spain, killed 600,000 Filipinos.
CUBA
1898-1902(-?)
Naval, troops
Seized from Spain, still hold Navy base.
PUERTO RICO
1898(-?)
Naval, troops
Seized from Spain, occupation continues.
GUAM
1898(-?)
Naval, troops / Seized from Spain, still used as base.
MINNESOTA
1898(-?)
Troops
Army battles Chippewa at Leech Lake.
NICARAGUA
1898
Troops
Marines land at port of San Juan del Sur.
SAMOA
1899(-?)
Troops
Battle over succession to throne.
NICARAGUA
1899
Troops / Marines land at port of Bluefields.
IDAHO
1899-1901
Troops / Army occupies Coeur d'Alene mining region.
OKLAHOMA
1901
Troops
Army battles Creek Indian revolt.
PANAMA
1901-14
Naval, troops
Broke off from Colombia 1903, annexed Canal Zone 1914-99.
HONDURAS
1903
Troops
Marines intervene in revolution.
DOMINICAN REP.
1903-04
Troops
U.S. interests protected in Revolution.
KOREA
1904-05
Troops
Marines land in Russo-Japanese War.
CUBA
1906-09
Troops / Marines land in democratic election.
NICARAGUA
1907
Troops
"Dollar Diplomacy" protectorate set up.
HONDURAS
1907
Troops
Marines land during war with Nicaragua.
PANAMA
1908
Troops / Marines intervene in election contest.
NICARAGUA
1910
Troops
Marines land in Bluefields and Corinto.
HONDURAS
1911
Troops / U.S. interests protected in civil war.
CHINA
1911-41
Naval, troops
Continuous occupation with flare-ups.
CUBA
1912
Troops / U.S. interests protected in Havana.
PANAMA
19l2
Troops / Marines land during heated election.
HONDURAS
19l2
Troops / Marines protect U.S. economic interests.
NICARAGUA
1912-33
Troops, bombing
20-year occupation, fought guerrillas.
MEXICO
19l3
Naval / Americans evacuated during revolution.
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC
1914
Naval / Fight with rebels over Santo Domingo.
COLORADO
1914
Troops / Breaking of miners' strike by Army.
MEXICO
1914-18
Naval, troops
Series of interventions against nationalists.
HAITI
1914-34
Troops, bombing
19-year occupation after revolts.
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC
1916-24
Troops
8-year Marine occupation.
CUBA
1917-33
Troops / Military occupation, economic protectorate.
WORLD WAR I
19l7-18
Naval, troops
Ships sunk, fought Germany
RUSSIA
1918-22
Naval, troops
Five landings to fight Bolsheviks.
PANAMA
1918-20
Troops
"Police duty" during unrest after elections.
YUGOSLAVIA
1919
Troops
Marines intervene for Italy against Serbs in Dalmatia.
HONDURAS
1919
Troops
Marines land during election campaign.
GUATEMALA
1920
Troops
2-week intervention against unionists.
WEST VIRGINIA
1920-21
Troops, bombing
Army intervenes against mineworkers.
TURKEY
1922
Troops
Fought nationalists in Smyrna (Izmir).
CHINA
1922-27
Naval, troops
Deployment during nationalist revolt.
HONDURAS
1924-25
Troops
Landed twice during election strife.
PANAMA
1925
Troops / Marines suppress general strike.
CHINA
1927-34
Troops / Marines stationed throughout the country.
EL SALVADOR
1932
Naval / Warships sent during Farabundo Marti revolt.
WASHINGTON DC
1932
Troops / Army stops WWI vet bonus protest.
WORLD WAR II
1941-45
Naval,troops, bombing, nuclear
Fought Axis for 3 years; 1st nuclear war.
DETROIT
1943
Troops
Army puts down Black rebellion.
IRAN
1946
Nuclear threat
Soviet troops told to leave north (Iranian Azerbaijan).
YUGOSLAVIA
1946
Naval / Response to shooting-down of U.S. plane.
URUGUAY
1947
Nuclear threat
Bombers deployed as show of strength.
GREECE
1947-49
Command operation
U.S. directs extreme-right in civil war.
CHINA
1948-49
Troops
Marines evacuate Americans before Communist victory.
GERMANY
1948
Nuclear threat
Atomic-capable bombers guard Berlin Airlift.
PHILIPPINES
1948-54
Command operation
CIA directs war against Huk
Rebellion.
PUERTO RICO
1950
Command operation
Independence rebellion crushed in Ponce.
KOREA
1950-53
Troops, naval, bombing, nuclear threats
U.S.& South Korea fight China & North Korea to stalemate; A-bomb threat in 1950, & vs. China in 1953. Still have bases.
IRAN
1953
Command operation
CIA overthrows democracy, installs Shah.
VIETNAM
1954
Nuclear threat
Bombs offered to French to use against siege.
GUATEMALA
1954
Command operation, bombing, nuclear threat CIA directs exile invasion after new govt nationalizes U.S. company lands; bombers based in Nicaragua.
EGYPT
1956
Nuclear threat, troops
Soviets told to keep out of Suez crisis; MArines evacuate foreigners
LEBANON
1958
Troops, naval / Marine occupation against rebels.
IRAQ
1958
Nuclear threat
Iraq warned against invading Kuwait.
CHINA
1958
Nuclear threat
China told not to move on Taiwan isles.
PANAMA
1958
Troops / Flag protests erupt into confrontation.
VIETNAM
1960-75
Troops, naval, bombing, nuclear threats Fought South Vietnam revolt & North Vietnam; 1-2 million killed in longest U.S. war; atomic bomb threats in 1968 and 1969.
CUBA
1961
Command operation CIA-directed exile invasion fails.
GERMANY
1961
Nuclear threat Alert during Berlin Wall crisis.
CUBA
1962
Nuclear threat, Naval
Blockade during missile crisis; near-war with USSR.
LAOS
1962
Command operation
Military buildup during guerrilla war.
PANAMA
1964
Troops / Panamanians shot for urging canal's return.
INDONESIA
1965
Command operation Million killed in CIA-assisted army coup.
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC
1965-66
Troops, bombing Marines land during election campaign.
GUATEMALA
1966-67
Command operation Green Berets intervene against rebels.
DETROIT
1967
Troops / Army battles Blacks, 43 killed.
UNITED STATES
1968
Troops / After King is shot; over 21,000 soldiers in cities.
CAMBODIA
1969-75
Bombing, troops, naval Up to 2 million killed in decade of bombing, starvation, and political chaos.
OMAN
1970
Command operation U.S. directs Iranian marine invasion.
LAOS
1971-73
Command operation, bombing U.S. directs South Vietnamese invasion; "carpet-bombs" countryside.
SOUTH DAKOTA
1973
Command operation Army directs Wounded Knee siege of Lakotas.
MIDEAST
1973
Nuclear threat World-wide alert during Mideast War.
CHILE
1973
Command operation CIA-backed coup ousts elected marxist president.
CAMBODIA
1975
Troops, bombing Gas captured ship, 28 die in copter crash.
ANGOLA
1976-92
Command operation CIA assists South African-backed rebels.
IRAN
1980
Troops, nuclear threat, aborted bombing Raid to rescue Emba-ssy hostages; 8 troops die in copter-plane crash. Soviets war-ned not to get involved in revolution.
LIBYA
1981
Naval jets Two Libyan jets shot down in maneuvers.
EL SALVADOR
1981-92
Command operation, troops Advisors, overflights aid anti-rebel war, soldiers briefly involved in hostage clash.
NICARAGUA
1981-90
Command operation, naval CIA directs exile (Contra) invasions, plants harbor mines against revolution.
LEBANON
1982-84
Naval, bombing, troops Marines expel PLO and back Phalangists, Navy bombs and shells Muslim and Syrian positions.
HONDURAS
1983-89
Troops / Maneuvers help build bases near borders.
GRENADA
1983-84
Troops, bombing Invasion four years after revolution.
IRAN
1984
Jets / Two Iranian jets shot down over Persian Gulf.
LIBYA
1986
Bombing, naval Air strikes to topple nationalist gov't.
BOLIVIA
1986
Troops Army assists raids on cocaine region.
IRAN
1987-88
Naval, bombing US intervenes on side of Iraq in war.
LIBYA
1989
Naval jets Two Libyan jets shot down.
VIRGIN ISLANDS
1989
Troops
St. Croix Black unrest after storm.
PHILIPPINES
1989
Jets / Air cover provided for government against coup.
PANAMA
1989-90
Troops, bombing
Nationalist government ousted by 27,000 soldiers, leaders arrested, 2000+ killed.
LIBERIA
1990
Troops
Foreigners evacuated during civil war.
SAUDI ARABIA
1990-91
Troops, jets Iraq countered after invading Kuwait; 540,000 troops also stationed in Oman, Qatar, Bahrain, UAE, Israel.
IRAQ
1990-?
Bombing, troops, naval Blockade of Iraqi and Jordanian ports, air strikes; 200,000+ killed in invasion of Iraq and Kuwait; no-fly zone over Kurdish north, Shiite south, large-scale destruction of Iraqi military.
KUWAIT
1991
Naval, bombing, troops Kuwait royal family returned to throne.
LOS ANGELES
1992
Troops
Army, Marines deployed against anti-police uprising.
SOMALIA
1992-94
Troops, naval, bombing U.S.-led United Nations occupation during civil war; raids against one Mogadishu faction.
YUGOSLAVIA
1992-94
Naval Nato blockade of Serbia and Montenegro.
BOSNIA
1993-95
Jets, bombing No-fly zone patrolled in civil war; downed jets, bombed Serbs.
HAITI
1994-96
Troops, naval
Blockade against military government; troops restore President Aristide to office three years after coup.
CROATIA
1995
Bombing
Krajina Serb airfields attacked before Croatian offensive.
ZAIRE (CONGO)
1996-97
Troops
Marines at Rwandan Hutu refuge camps, in area where Congo revolution begins.
LIBERIA
1997
Troops
Soldiers under fire during evacuation of foreigners.
ALBANIA
1997
Troops
Soldiers under fire during evacuation of foreigners.
SUDAN
1998
Missiles
Attack on pharmaceutical plant alleged to be "terrorist" nerve gas plant.
AFGHANISTAN
1998
Missiles
Attack on former CIA training camps used by Islamic fundamentalist groups alleged to have attacked embassies.
IRAQ
1998-?
Bombing, Missiles
Four days of intensive air strikes after weapons inspectors allege Iraqi obstructions.
YUGOSLAVIA
1999-?
Bombing, Missiles
Heavy NATO air strikes after Serbia declines to withdraw from Kosovo.
YEMEN
2000
Naval
Suicide bomb attack on USS Cole.
MACEDONIA
2001
Troops
NATO troops shift and partially disarm Albanian rebels.
UNITED STATES
2001
Jets, naval
Response to hijacking attacks.
AFGHANISTAN
2001
Massive U.S. mobilization to attack Taliban, Bin Laden. War could expand to Iraq, Sudan, and beyond.
(The first bombing began on October 7, 2001. Several Afghan cities come under aerial attack. The story continues).``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xA century of US military interventions``x1038075184,75979,Development``x``x
``xBy Richard Sanders,
Coordinator, Coalition to Oppose the Arms Trade.
January 24, 2002
Who is behind the recent spate of Anthrax attacks? Who would intentionally expose Americans to such deadly germs? To answer these questions, it is useful to know that there have been previous cases bioterrorism in the U.S. Previous incidents of bioterrorism in America since WWII, although more widespread than this year's anthrax-related incidents, received very little media attention.
The identitities of those who planned and perpetrated decades ofbioterror attacks on Americans is known. Although they have admitted their guilt - in written confessions to Congress - they remain immune from prosecution. They are above the law.
In a 1977 special report to Congress, the U.S. Army admitted conducting hundreds of chemical and biological warfare tests, including at least 25 that deliberately targeted the unsuspecting public. The military disclosed evidence that it had released disease-causing germs in at least 48 open-air tests. (U.S. Army Activity in the U.S. Biological Warfare Programs, 1942-1977. Vols 1 and 2, February 24, 1977)
In 1994, Senator John D.Rocke-feller's report (Examining Biological Experimentation on U.S. Military) further revealed that over the previous 50 years, the U.S. military intentionally exposed hundreds of thousands of their own soldiers to dangerous microbes, mustard and nerve gas, radiation, hallucinogens and psychochemicals.
Recent bioterror attacks have prolonged the national crisis sparked on September 11. Widespread concerns about anthrax have served those who wish to promote the draconian laws that are descending upon the U.S. Curiously, the strain of anthrax bacteria being used most likely originates from the U.S. military (Debora MacKenzie, New Scientist, October 24)
The following quotations, compiled from various sources, summarize the shameful but little-known history of the U.S. military's responsibility for exposing Americans to the terror of biological weapons.
-------------------
1943 Fort Detrick:
The U.S. began research on biological weapons at Fort Detrick, MD.1 They studied anthrax, brucellosis, Botulinus toxin, plague, Sclerotium rolfoil, late blight, late blast, brownspot of rice, rinderpest, tularemia, mussel poisoning, coccidioidomycosis, rickettsia, psittacosis, neurotropic encephalitis, Newcastle disease and fowl plague.2
1945 Recruiting Nazis:
The U.S. State Department, Army intelligence and the CIA initiated Project Paperclip to recruit Nazi scientists and offer them immunity and secret identities in exchange for work on top secret, U.S. government projects [including bio-warfare experiments on unwilling human subjects].1
1946 Japanese war criminals:
The U.S. began negotiations with Japan to acquire their germ warfare data. In exchange, Japanese scientists received immunity from prosecution for their war crimes. Dr. Shiro Ishii, a physician and army officer who began experiments in germ warfare in 1932 when Japan invaded Manchuria, formed a biological-warfare unit (Unit 731) that used Chinese soldiers and civilians as test subjects. About 9,000 died of bubonic plague, cholera, anthrax and other diseases. U.S. soldiers captured in the Philippines were sent to Unit 731 so the Japanese could test biological weapons on them.2
1948 Cttee. on Biological Warfare:
The Secretary of Defense's Research and Development Board, requested an evaluation of biological agents as weapons of sabotage. The Committee on Biological Warfare recommended that methods be assessed for disseminating biological agents, with emphasis on special operations. It recommended research to test "innocuous organisms" in ventilation systems, subways and public water supplies. This influenced administrations for 20 years and the U.S. conducted highly-classified scientific tests on unknowing populations throughout the country.
The biological warfare research program in the early 1940s and 1950s involved antipersonnel, anticrop and antianimal studies. Field trials included open-air vulnerability testing, and contamination of public water systems with live organisms such as Serratia marcescens. Covert programs were conducted by the CIA. Pathogenic organisms were tested in Florida and the Bahamas in the 1940s. Chemical anticrop studies evaluated defoliation and crop destruction.3
1949 Germ bombs:
Explosive munitions tests with pathogens were begun.3
1950 The First "open air tests":
The first open-air tests with biological agents were conducted in various locales, including off the coast of Norfolk, Virginia.3
1950 Spraying San Francisco:
The first large-scale, aerosol test was conducted in San Francisco Bay in September 1950, using two species of bacteria (Bacillus globigii and Serratia marcescens). Many experiments used various Bacillus species because of their similarities to B. anthracis.3
On September 26 and 27, 1950, the U.S. Army sprayed S. marcescens from a boat off the coast. On September 29, patients at San Francisco's Stanford University Hospital began appearing with S. marcescens infections.4 Many residents came down with pneumonia-like symptoms and one died. A military, follow-up study showed that nearly every single exposed person became infected with the test organism.5
The death of Edward J. Nevin was associated with this release of S. marcescens.4 (The first lawsuit against the U.S. government was filed by his family [in 1981]. The court decided that the U.S. government could not be sued, under the Federal Tort Claims Act, since the decision to spray S. marcescens was a part of national defense planning.)3
1951 Racist Germs:
Army researchers deliberately exposed a disproportionate number of black citizens to the fungus Aspergillus fumigatus, to see if African Americans were more susceptible to such infection, like they were already known to be to coccidioidomycosis (Coccidioides immitis). Similarly, in 1951, unsuspecting [black] workers at the Norfolk Supply Center, Norfolk, VA, were exposed to crates contaminated with A. fumigatus spores.3
1955 Whooping Cough:
Tampa Bay, FA, experienced a sharp rise in Whooping Cough cases, including 12 deaths, following a CIA bio-war test in which bacteria from the Army's Chemical and Biological Warfare arsenal was released to the environment.5
1951-1969 Dugway Proving Ground:
Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of open-air tests using bacteria and viruses that cause disease in human, animals and plants were conducted at Dugway Proving Ground, a military testing facility about 80 miles from Salt Lake City, Utah. These tests were to determine how the agents spread, survive and effect people and the environment.
It is unknown how many people in the vicinity were exposed to potentially harmful agents during these open-air tests. In 1969, concerns were expressed at a congressional hearing about the possible public health implications of the VEE virus tested there.
University of Utah scientists and doctors are greatly concerned about the potential health consequences not only for military personnel who work and train at Dugway, but also for civilians who live in a nearby small town and Indian reservation. Utah Medical Society physicians complained about the lack of information provided to the medical community.
According to Rutgers University political science professor Dr. Leonard Cole, the use of potentially harmful chemical and biological agents continues at Dugway. He testified that the U.S. Army uses Bacillus subtilis "which is is recognized as a potential source of infection and can cause serious illness in some people when they are exposed to it in large numbers and they inhale large numbers of those microorganisms."4
Mid1950s-early 1970s Project Shad:
The Dugway Proving Ground and Fort Douglas had a secret navy, called Project Shad. Their ships sailed through clouds of germ and chemical agents. Some sailors blame these tests for the cancer and other diseases that they suffer from.6
1956 Operation Transit III:
One of Project Shad's first tests occurred in San Francisco Bay as part of Operation Transit III. In September 1956, plans called for a 40-foot munitions boat to create clouds of Bacillus globigii germs that the Eastman would travel through. Plans called for enough germs to ensure that "a minimum respiratory dose of 10,000 organisms is received on deck." Planners considered B. globigii a safe "simulant" of more dangerous germs. (The U.S. Army still uses it for field testing.)
The tests included dropping "20,000 gallons of BG (B. globigii) slurry" from helicopters.6
1956 to 1958 Testing on Blacks:
The U.S. Army did field tests in the poor black communities of Savannah, Georgia, and Avon Park, Florida, in which mosquitoes were released into residential neighbourhoods from ground level and from planes and helicopters. Many were swarmed by mosquitoes and developed unknown fevers; some even died. After each test, Army personnel posing as public health officials photographed and tested the victims and then disappeared from town. It is theorized that the mosquitoes were infected with a strain of Yellow Fever. Details of the tests remain classified.5
1950s to 1970s Operation Whitecoat:
Many experiments that tested various biological agents on human subjects, referred to as Operation Whitecoat, were carried out at Fort Detrick, MD. The human subjects originally consisted of volunteer enlisted men. However, after the enlisted men staged a sitdown strike to obtain more information about the dangers of the biological tests, Seventh-Day Adventists who were conscientious objectors were recruited for the studies. Because they did not believe in engaging in actual combat, they became human subjects in military research projects that tested various infectious agents. At least 2,200 Seventh-Day Adventists were used in biological testing during the 1950s through the 1970s.4
1962 More on Project Shad:
Training outlines show that Project Shad sailors were briefed on work with germs causing some of the deadliest diseases known, including tularemia, anthrax, parrot fever, Q fever, African swine fever, the plague and botulism.6
1963-1965 Project Shad ships "participated in 111 tests" using nerve agents GB and VX, and biological agents Bacillus globigii, Serratia marcescens and Escherichia coli. (Letter from Maj.Gen. L.J.Del Rosso, Army director of space and special weapons, to Senator Steve Symms, R-Idaho, 1992)6
1966 New York Subway:
From June 7-10, the U.S. Army's Special Operations Division dispensed [Bacillus subtilis var niger3] throughout the New York City subway system. The Army's justification for the experiment was the fact that there are many subways in the USSR, Europe and South America. Details of the experiment are still classified.5 More than a million were exposed when army scientists dropped lightbulbs filled with the bacteria onto ventilation grates.1
1987 Continued Research:
The Department of Defense admitted that, despite a treaty banning research and development of biological agents, it continues to do research at 127 facilities and universities in the U.S.1
Sources:
1. "A History of Secret Human Experimentation," Health News Network, http://www.healthnewsnet.com/humanexperiments.html
2. "Beyond AIDS: The West's Covert Chemical-Biological Warfare Programs" http://www.wakeupmag.co.uk/articles/biochem.htm
3. David R. Franz, D.V.M., PH.D., Cheryl D. Parrott and Ernest T. Takafuji, M.D., M.P.H., "The U.S. Biological Warfare and Biological Defense Programs" (Ch.19) http://ccc.apgea.army.mil/Documents/
4. Examining Biological Experimentation on U.S. Military, The Rockefeller Report (1994) http://www.trufax.org/trans/roc23.html
5. "Beyond AIDS: The West's Covert Chemical-Biological Warfare Programs" http://www.wakeupmag.co.uk/articles/biochem.htm
6. Lee Davidson, "Secrets at Sea: Cloud of Secrecy Lifting on Dugway Navy's Tests of Germ and Chemical Agents in the Pacific during Vietnam War" (October 22, 1995) Registry of Atomic Testing Survivors http://people.ne.mediaone.net/kknowlto/navy.htm``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xThe History of Bioterrorism in America``x1038118811,57464,Development``x``x
``xBy Zoltan Grossman, Jan 24, 2002
History of bio-chemical warfare from 800 BC to 2001 AD
400s BC.: Spartan Greeks use sulfur fumes against enemy soldiers.
1346: Crimean Tatars catapult plague-infected corpses into Italian trade settlement.
1500s: Spanish conquistadors use biological warfare used against Native peoples.
1763: British Gen. Jeffrey Amherst orders use of smallpox blankets against Native peoples during Pontiac's Rebellion.
1800s: Smallpox and other diseases ravage Native American communities; U.S. officials use quarantine techniques to isolate diseases in white communities, but not in Native villages.
1907: Hague Convention outlaws chemical weapons; U.S. does not participate.
1914: World War I begins; poison gas produces 100,000 deaths, 900,000 injuries.
1920s: Britain proposes use of chemical weapons in Iraq "as an experiment" against Kurdish rebels seeking independence; Winston Churchill "strongly" backs "the use of poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes."
1928: Geneva Protocol prohibits gas and bacteriological warfare; most countries that ratify it prohibit only the first use of such weapons.
1935: Italy begins conquest of Abyssinia (Ethiopia), using mustard gas.
1936: Japan invades China, uses chemical weapons in war.
1939: World War II begins; neither side uses bio-chemical arms, due to fears of retaliation in kind.
1941: U.S. enters World War II; President Roosevelt pledges U.S. will not be first to use bio-chemical weapons.
1943: U.S. ship damaged by German bombing raid on Bari, Italy, leaks mustard gas, killing 1000.
1945: Germans use Zyklon-B in extermination of civilians.
Japanese military discovered to have conducted biological warfare experiments on POWs, killing 3000. U.S. shields officers in charge from war crimes trials, in return for data. Soviets take over German nerve gas facility in Potsdam. The Nazis had stockpiles of nerve gas against which the Allies had no defenses, and had also been working on blood agents.
1947: U.S. possesses germ warfare weapons; President Truman withdraws Geneva Protocol from Senate consideration.
1949: U.S. dismisses Soviet trials of Japanese for germ warfare as "propaganda." Army begins secret tests of biological agents in U.S. cities.
1950: Korean War begins; North Korea and China accuse U.S. of germ warfare--charges still not proven. San Francisco disease outbreak matching Army bacteria used on city.
1951: African-Americans exposed to potentially fatal simulant in Virginia test of race-specific fungal weapons.
1952: German chemical weapons researcher Walter Schreiber, working in Texas, exposed as a perpetrator of concentration camp experiments, and flees to Argentina.
1956: Army manual explicitly states that bio-chemical warfare is not banned. Rep. Gerald Ford wins policy change to give U.S. military "first strike" authority on chemical arms.
1959: House resolution against first use of bio-chemical weapons is defeated.
1961: Kennedy Administration begins hike of chemical weapons spending from $75 million to more than $330 million.
1962: Chemical weapons loaded on U.S. planes during Cuban missile crisis.
1966: Army germ warfare experiment in New York subway system.
1968: Pentagon asks for the chance to use some of its arsenal against protesters to demonstrate the "efficacy" of the chemicals. Maj. Gen. J.B. Medaris says, "By using gas in civil situations, we accomplish two purposes: controlling crowds and also educating people on gas. Now, everybody is being called savage if he just talks about it. But nerve gas is the only way I know of to sort out the guys in white hats from the ones in black hats without killing any of them."
1969: Utah chemical weapons accident kills thousands of sheep; President Nixon declares U.S. moratorium on chemical weapons production and biological weapons possession. U.N. General Assembly bans use of herbicides (plant killers) and tear gasses in warfare; U.S. one of three opposing votes. U.S. has caused tear gas fatalities in Vietnamese guerrilla tunnels.
1971: U.S. ends direct use of herbicides such as Agent Orange; had spread over Indochinese forests, and destroyed at least six percent of South Vietnamese cropland, enough to feed 600,000 people for a year. U.S. intelligence sources gives swine-flu virus to anti-Castro Cuban paramilitary group, which lands it on Cuba's southern coast (according to 1977 newspaper reports).
1972: Biological and Toxic Weapons Convention. Cuba accuses CIA of instilling swine fever virus that leads to death of 500,000 hogs.
1974: U.S. finally ratifies 1928 Geneva Protocol.
1975: Indonesia annexes East Timor; planes spread herbicides on croplands.
1979: Anthrax leak from Soviet biological weapons lab kills 60 near Sverdlovsk. Washington Post reports on U.S. program against Cuban agriculture since 1962, including CIA biological warfare component. Anthrax outbreak among Africans in white-ruled Rhodesia (in the last stages of the Zimbabwe independence war) results in 10,000 cases,
182 of them fatal (according to Covert Action Quarterly #43)
1980: U.S. intelligence officials allege Soviet chemical use in
Afghanistan, while admitting "no confirmation." Congress approves nerve gas facility in Pine Bluff, Arkansas. Iraq begins eight-year war with U.S. arch-enemy Iran.
1981: U.S. accuses Vietnam and allies of using mycotoxins (fungal poisons) in Laos and Cambodia. Some refugees report casualties; one analysis reveals "yellow rain" as bee feces. Israel bombs Iraqi nuclear reactor, leading to Iraqi decision to build chemical weapons.
1984: U.N. confirms Iraq using mustard and nerve gasses against Iranian "human wave" attacks in border war; State Department issues mild condemnation, yet restores diplomatic relations with Iraq,
and opposes U.N. action against Iraq. Bhopal fertilizer plant accident in India kills 2000; shows risks of chemical plants being damaged in warfare. President Reagan orders over a half-million M55 rockets retooled so they contain high-yield explosives as well as VX gas. (The Army later claimed that many of these rockets were "unstable" and leaking nerve gas.)
1985: U.S. resumes open-air testing of biological agents. U.S. firms begin supplying Iraq with numerous biological agents for a four-year period (according to a 1994 Senate report).
1986: U.S. resumes open-air testing of biological agents.
1987: Senate ties in three votes on resuming production of chemical weapons; Vice President Bush breaks all three ties in favor of resumption.
1988: Iraq uses chemical weapons against Kurdish minority in Halabjah; U.S. continues to maintain agricultural credits with Iraq; President Reagan blocks congressional sanctions against Iraq.
1989: Paris conference of 149 nations condemns chemical weapons, urges quick ban to emerge from Geneva treaty negotiations; U.S. revealed to plan poison gas production even after treaty signed.
1990: U.S., Soviets pledge to reduce chemical weapons stockpiles to 20 percent of current U.S. supply by 2002, and to eliminate poison gas weapons when all nations have signed future Geneva treaty. Israel admits possession of chemical weapons; Iraq threatens to use chemical weapons on Israel if it is attacked.
1991: U.S. and Coalition forces bomb at least 28 alleged bio- chemical production or storage sites in Iraq during Gulf War, including fertilizer and other civilian plants. CNN reports "green flames" from one chemical plant, and the deaths of 50 Iraqi troops from anthrax after air strike on another site. New York Times quotes Soviet chemical weapons commander that air strikes on Iraqi chemical weapons would have "little effect beyond neighboring villages," but that strikes on biological weapons could spread disease "to adjoining countries." Czechoslovak chemical warfare unit detects Sarin nerve gas during air war. Egyptian doctor reports outbreak of "strange disease" inside Iraq. U.S. troops use explosives to destroy Iraqi chemical weapons storage bunkers after the war.
1992: Reports intensify of U.S. and Coalition veterans of Gulf War developing health problems, involving a variety of symptoms, collectively called Gulf War Syndrome. U.N. sanctions intensify civilian health crisis inside Iraq, making identification of similar symptoms potentially difficult. Two members of anti-government Minnesota Patriots' Council arrested for plan to use ricin chemical against law enforcement officer.
1993: President Clinton continues intermittent bombing and missile raids against Iraqi facilities; U.N. inspectors step up program to dismantle Iraqi weapons. U.S. signs U.N. Chemical Weapons Convention, but approval later blocked in Senate.
1995: Japanese cult launches deadly Sarin nerve gas attack on Tokyo subway system.
1996: Congressional hearings on Gulf War Syndrome focuses on Iraqi storage bunker destruction, rather than other possible causes, and does not call for international investigation of symptoms among Iraqis.
1997: Cuba accuses U.S. of spraying crops with biological agents. Iraq expels U.S. citizens in U.N. inspection teams, which are allowed to continue work without Americans, but choose to evacuate all inspectors. U.S. mobilizes for military action. Senate act implements Chemical Weapons Convention, with a provision that "the President may deny a request to inspect any facility" on national security grounds.
1998: U.S. again bombs alleged Iraqi bio-chemical weapons sites, after Iraq questions role of American U.N. inspector, and restricts inspector access to presidential properties and security. U.S. launches missile attack on pharmaceutical plant in Sudan that it alleges produces nerve gas agents--a claim disputed by most of the international community.
1998-99: Series of anthrax hoaxes against U.S. targets, such as NBC, Washington Post, State Department, White House complex, post offices. Former Aryan Nations member Larry Wayne Harris carries out anthrax hoax to dramatize warning of alleged "Iraqi threat." Three members of Republic of Texas militia group arrested for intention to use anthrax and other biological agents against public officials. Upsurge in anthrax hoaxes against abortion clinics.
2000: "Topoff Exercise" involving federal and state authorities fails to cope with simulated chemical, biological and nuclear attacks in three widely separated metropolitan areas.
2001: U.S. withdraws from July's first round of Biological and Toxic Weapons Convention (BTWC), crippling international efforts to establish global measures against bioogical weapons. In wake of September 11 attacks, anthrax spores sent by mail to multiple political and media targets around the U.S., resulting in anthrax exposures, infections, and deaths. Law enforcement authorities debate whether source of anthrax threat is foreign or domestic. Real anthrax attacks accompanied by enormous increase in anthrax hoaxes by "Army of God" and other groups and individuals.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Compiled from articles in "Z" magazine by Stephen Shalom and Noam Chomsky (February 1991) and Zoltan Grossman (March 1991), from the Council for a Livable World, William Blum's "Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II," ADL Militia Watchdog by Mark Pitcavage (Feb. 1999) and from recent news reports.
Zoltan Grossman is a cartographer/geographer and writer on ethnic relations and geopolitics, based in Madison, Wisconsin.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xA History Of Bio-Chemical Weapons``x1038118965,15529,Development``x``x
``xby Professor Zoltan Grossman
Assistant Professor of Geography
University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire, USA, 2001
KILLING CIVILIANS TO SHOW THAT KILLING CIVILIANS IS WRONG
Since the September 11 attacks on the United States, most people in the world agree that the perpetrators need to be brought to justice, without killing many thousands of civilians in the process. But unfortunately, the U.S. military has always accepted massive civilian deaths as part of the cost of war. The military is now poised to kill thousands of foreign civilians, in order to prove that killing U.S. civilians is wrong.
The media has told us repeatedly that some Middle Easterners hate the U.S. only because of our "freedom" and "prosperity." Missing from this explanation is the historical context of the U.S. role in the Middle East, and for that matter in the rest of the world. This basic primer is an attempt to brief readers who have not closely followed the history of U.S. foreign or military affairs, and are perhaps unaware of the background of U.S. military interventions abroad, but are concerned about the direction of our country toward a new war in the name of "freedom" and "protecting civilians."
The United States military has been intervening in other countries for a long time. In 1898, it seized the Philippines, Cuba, and Puerto Rico from Spain, and in 1917-18 became embroiled in World War I in Europe. In the first half of the 20th century it repeatedly sent Marines to "protectorates" such as Nicaragua, Honduras, Panama, Haiti, and the Dominican Republic. All these interventions directly served corporate interests, and many resulted in massive losses of civilians, rebels, and soldiers. Many of the uses of U.S. combat forces are documented in "A History of U.S. Military Interventions Since 1890".
U.S. involvement in World War II (1941-45) was sparked by the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, and fear of an Axis invasion of North America. Allied bombers attacked fascist military targets, but also fire-bombed German and Japanese cities such as Dresden and Tokyo, party under the assumption that destroying civilian neighborhoods would weaken the resolve of the survivors and turn them against their regimes. Many historians agree that fire- bombing's effect was precisely the opposite--increasing Axis civilian support for homeland defense, and discouraging potential coup attempts. The atomic bombing of Japan at the end of the war was carried out without any kind of advance demonstration or warning that may have prevented the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians.
The war in Korea (1950-53) was marked by widespread atrocities, both by North Korean/Chinese forces, and South Korean/U.S. forces. U.S. troops fired on civilian refugees headed into South Korea, apparently fearing they were northern infiltrators. Bombers attacked North Korean cities, and the U.S. twice threatened to use nuclear weapons. North Korea is under the same Communist government today as when the war began.
During the Middle East crisis of 1958, Marines were deployed to quell a rebellion in Lebanon, and Iraq was threatened with nuclear attack if it invaded Kuwait. This little-known crisis helped set U.S. foreign policy on a collision course with Arab nationalists, often in support of the region's monarchies.
In the early 1960s, the U.S. returned to its pre-World War II interventionary role in the Caribbean, directing the failed 1961 Bay of Pigs exile invasion of Cuba, and the 1965 bombing and Marine invasion of the Dominican Republic during an election campaign. The CIA trained and harbored Cuban exile groups in Miami, which launched terrorist attacks on Cuba, including the 1976 downing of a Cuban civilian jetliner near Barbados. During the Cold War, the CIA would also help to support or install pro-U.S. dictatorships in Iran, Chile, Guatemala, Indonesia, and many other countries around the world.
The U.S. war in Indochina (1960-75) pit U.S. forces against North Vietnam, and Communist rebels fighting to overthrow pro-U.S. dictatorships in South Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. U.S. war planners made little or no distinction between attacking civilians and guerrillas in rebel-held zones, and U.S. "carpet-bombing" of the countryside and cities swelled the ranks of the ultimately victorious revolutionaries. Over two million people were killed in the war, including 55,000 U.S. troops. Less than a dozen U.S. citizens were killed on U.S. soil, in National Guard shootings or antiwar bombings. In Cambodia, the bombings drove the Khmer Rouge rebels toward fanatical leaders, who launched a murderous rampage when they took power in 1975.
Echoes of Vietnam reverberated in Central America during the 1980s, when the Reagan administration strongly backed the pro-U.S. regime in El Salvador, and right-wing exile forces fighting the new leftist Sandinista government in Nicaragua. Rightist death squads slaughtered Salvadoran civilians who questioned the concentration of power and wealth in a few hands. CIA-trained Nicaraguan Contra rebels launched terrorist attacks against civilian clinics and schools run by the Sandinista government, and mined Nicaraguan harbors. U.S. troops also invaded the island nation of Grenada in 1983, to oust a new military regime, attacking Cuban civilian workers (even though Cuba had backed the leftist government deposed in the coup), and accidentally bombing a hospital.
The U.S. returned in force to the Middle East in 1980, after the Shi'ite Muslim revolution in Iran against Shah Pahlevi's pro-U.S. dictatorship. A troop and bombing raid to free U.S. Embassy hostages held in downtown Tehran had to be aborted in the Iranian desert. After the 1982 Israeli occupation of Lebanon, U.S. Marines were deployed in a neutral "peacekeeping" operation. They instead took the side of Lebanon's pro-Israel Christian government against Muslim rebels, and U.S. Navy ships rained enormous shells on Muslim civilian villages. Embittered Shi'ite Muslim rebels responded with a suicide bomb attack on Marine barracks, and for years seized U.S. hostages in the country. In retaliation, the CIA set off car bombs to assassinate Shi'ite Muslim leaders. Syria and the Muslim rebels emerged victorious in Lebanon.
Elsewhere in the Middle East, the U.S. launched a 1986 bombing raid on Libya, which it accused of sponsoring a terrorist bombing later tied to Syria. The bombing raid killed civilians, and may have led to the later revenge bombing of a U.S. jet over Scotland. Libya's Arab nationalist leader Muammar Qaddafi remained in power. The U.S. Navy also intervened against Iran during its war against Iraq in 1987-88, sinking Iranian ships and "accidentally" shooting down an Iranian civilian jetliner.
U.S. forces invaded Panama in 1989 to oust the nationalist regime of Manuel Noriega. The U.S. accused its former ally of allowing drug-running in the country, though the drug trade actually increased after his capture. U.S. bombing raids on Panama City ignited a conflagration in a civilian neighborhood, fed by stove gas tanks. Over 2,000 Panamanians were killed in the invasion to capture one leader.
The following year, the U.S. deployed forces in the Persian Gulf after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, which turned Washington against its former Iraqi ally Saddam Hussein. U.S. supported the Kuwaiti monarchy and the Muslim fundamentalist monarchy in neighboring Saudi Arabia against the secular nationalist Iraqi regime. In January 1991, the U.S..and its allies unleashed a massive bombing assault against Iraqi government and military targets, in an intensity beyond the raids of World War II and Vietnam. Over 200,000 Iraqis were killed, including many civilians who died in their villages, neighborhoods, and bomb shelters. The U.S. continued economic sanctions that denied health and energy to Iraqi civilians, who died by the hundreds of thousands, according to United Nations agencies. The U.S. also instituted "no-fly zones" and virtually continuous bombing raids, yet Saddam was politically bolstered as he was militarily weakened.
In the 1990s, the U.S. military led a series of what it termed "humanitarian interventions" it claimed would safeguard civilians. Foremost among them was the 1992 deployment in the African nation of Somalia, torn by famine and a civil war between clan warlords. Instead of remaining neutral, U.S. forces took the side of one faction against another faction, and bombed a Mogadishu neighborhood. Enraged crowds, backed by foreign Arab mercenaries, killed 18 U.S. soldiers, forcing a withdrawal from the country.
Other so-called "humanitarian interventions" were centered in the Balkan region of Europe, after the 1992 breakup of the multiethnic federation of Yugoslavia. The U.S. watched for three years as Serb forces killed Muslim civilians in Bosnia, before its launched decisive bombing raids in 1995. Even then, it never intervened to stop atrocities by Croatian forces against Muslim and Serb civilians, because those forces were aided by the U.S. In 1999, the U.S. bombed Serbia to force President Slobodan Milosevic to withdraw forces from the ethnic Albanian province of Kosovo, which was torn a brutal ethnic war. The bombing intensified Serbian expulsions and killings of Albanian civilians from Kosovo, and caused the deaths of thousands of Serbian civilians, even in cities that had voted strongly against Milosevic. When a NATO occupation force enabled Albanians to move back, U.S. forces did little or nothing to prevent similar atrocities against Serb and other non-Albanian civilians. The U.S. was viewed as a biased player, even by the Serbian democratic opposition that overthrew Milosevic the following year.
Even when the U.S. military had apparently defensive motives, it ended up attacking the wrong targets. After the 1998 bombings of two U.S. embassies in East Africa, the U.S. "retaliated" not only against Osama Bin Laden's training camps in Afghanistan, but a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan that was mistakenly said to be a chemical warfare installation. Bin Laden retaliated by attacking a U.S. Navy ship in Yemen in 2000. After the 2001 terror attacks on the United States, the U.S. military is poised to again bomb Afghanistan, and possibly move against other states it accuses of promoting anti-U.S. "terrorism," such as Iraq and Sudan. Such a campaign will certainly ratchet up the cycle of violence, in an escalating series of retaliations that is the hallmark of Middle East conflicts. Afghanistan, like Yugoslavia, is a multiethnic state that could easily break apart in a new catastrophic regional war. Almost certainly many more civilians would lose their lives in this tit-for-tat war on "terrorism" than the 5,000 civilians who died on September 11.
Common Themes
Some common themes can be seen in many of these U.S. military interventions.
First, they were explained to the U.S. public as defending the lives and rights of civilian populations. Yet the military tactics employed often left behind massive civilian "collateral damage." War planners made little distinction between rebels and the civilians who lived in rebel zones of control, or between military assets and civilian infrastructure, such as train lines, water plants, agricultural factories, medicine supplies, etc. The U.S. public always believe that in the next war, new military technologies will avoid civilian casualties on the other side. Yet when the inevitable civilian deaths occur, they are always explained away as "accidental" or "unavoidable."
Second, although nearly all the post-World War II interventions were carried out in the name of "freedom" and "democracy," nearly all of them in fact defended dictatorships controlled by pro-U.S. elites. Whether in Vietnam, Central America, or the Persian Gulf, the U.S. was not defending "freedom" but an ideological agenda (such as defending capitalism) or an economic agenda (such as protecting oil company investments). In the few cases when U.S. military forces toppled a dictatorship--such as in Grenada or Panama--they did so in a way that prevented the country's people from overthrowing their own dictator first, and installing a new democratic government more to their liking.
Third, the U.S. always attacked violence by its opponents as "terrorism," "atrocities against civilians," or "ethnic cleansing," but minimized or defended the same actions by the U.S. or its allies. If a country has the right to "end" a state that trains or harbors terrorists, would Cuba or Nicaragua have had the right to launch defensive bombing raids on U.S. targets to take out exile terrorists? Washington's double standard maintains that an U.S. ally's action by definition "defensive," but that an enemy's retaliation is by definition "offensive."
Fourth, the U.S. often portrays itself as a neutral peacekeeper, with nothing but the purest humanitarian motives. After deploying forces in a country, however, it quickly divides the country or region into "friends" and "foes," and takes one side against another. This strategy tends to enflame rather than dampen a war or civil conflict, as shown in the cases of Somalia and Bosnia, and deepens resentment of the U.S. role.
Fifth, U.S. military intervention is often counterproductive even if one accepts U.S. goals and rationales. Rather than solving the root political or economic roots of the conflict, it tends to polarize factions and further destabilize the country. The same countries tend to reappear again and again on the list of 20th century interventions.
Sixth, U.S. demonization of an enemy leader, or military action against him, tends to strengthen rather than weaken his hold on power. Take the list of current regimes most singled out for U.S. attack, and put it alongside of the list of regimes that have had the longest hold on power, and you will find they have the same names. Qaddafi, Castro, Saddam, Kim, and others may have faced greater internal criticism if they could not portray themselves as Davids standing up to the American Goliath, and (accurately) blaming many of their countries' internal problems on U.S. economic sanctions.
One of the most dangerous ideas of the 20th century was that "people like us" could not commit atrocities against civilians.
German and Japanese citizens believed it, but their militaries slaughtered millions of people. *British and French citizens believed it, but their militaries fought brutal colonial wars in Africa and Asia.
Russian citizens believed it, but their armies murdered civilians in Afghanistan, Chechnya, and elsewhere.
Israeli citizens believed it, but their army mowed down Palestinians and Lebanese.
Arabs believed it, but suicide bombers and hijackers targeted U.S. and Israeli civilians.
U.S. citizens believed it, but their military killed millions in Vietnam, Iraq, and elsewhere.
Every country, every ethnicity, every religion, contains within it the capability for extreme violence. Every group contains a faction that is intolerant of other groups, and actively seeks to exclude or even kill them. War fever tends to encourage the intolerant faction, but the faction only succeeds in its goals if the rest of the group acquiesces or remains silent. The attacks of September 11 were not only a test for U.S. citizens attitudes' toward minority ethnic/racial groups in their own country, but a test for our relationship with the rest of the world. We must begin not by lashing out at civilians in Muslim countries, but by taking responsibility for our own history and our own actions, and how they have fed the cycle of violence.
A century of US military interventions``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xA Briefing On The History Of U.S. Military Interventions``x1038161514,3882,Development``x``x
``xHerald Reporter
PRESIDENT Mugabe has urged newly-resettled farmers to use their ploughs to till the land in preparation for the coming agricultural season, instead of waiting for tractors from the Government.
He said it was imperative for people to be fully geared for the season since time was running out.
"It is encouraging to note that in some areas, crops have already started to grow.
"There are some areas which have not been ploughed, particularly in resettlement areas.
"In the rural areas, some have already started to plough. Do not wait for tractors. Those with cattle must start to plough maybe one or two hectares in the areas, in which they have been resettled."
The President said this when he officially opened a science and administration block at Chikaka Secondary School in Zvimba.
He urged those with tractors to assist those who were struggling to till the land owing to lack of equipment.
He said Zimbabweans should remain united to overcome challenges facing the country. MORE``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xPresident: Be fully geared for farming``x1038542941,51325,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xHerald Reporter
NEW York City councillors have attacked the United States government for its position on Zimbabwe's land issue which they say is heavily influenced by a biased former colonial power, Britain.
"We cannot expect Britain to have a neutral position on the land issue," the councillors said in a report compiled after a two-week fact-finding tour in Zimbabwe.
The report urges US to immediately lift travel restrictions against Government officials and help kick-start dialogue between Zimbabwe and Britain.
"It would be difficult for the Zimbabwean officials to state their case to the world if they are restricted from travelling to other countries.
"How can the US have dialogue with North Korea and Iraq, in the interest of peace, while preventing Zimbabwean officials from travelling to articulate their position?"
The US, they said, was supposed to be neutral and help resolve the dispute between Zimbabwe and Britain instead of taking sides.
"Without an independent US position, it will be difficult to act as an honest broker," they said.
"Some of the people in Zimbabwe are eager for independent facilitators to be involved."
Britain, the country most hostile to the land reform pogramme, has also been asked to assess its strategy of dealing with Zimbabwe.
"We urge the British government to reconsider its position and agree to compensate white farmers for their land," the councillors said.
"In the process, it should also discuss compensation for the expropriation of the land from the original African population."
The councillors said they had found that there were double standards when Western countries, especially Britain and the US, talked about democracy and human rights in Africa.
Zimbabwe, they said, had fallen victim to such double standards and was being called undemocratic, but democracy was thriving in the country.
They called for increased commercial contacts and visits by ordinary Americans to Zimbabwe, including the media, to observe the changes occurring in the Southern African country.
They said their investigations had established that the land issue was irreversible while media accounts on the programme were mostly exaggerated.
"We found a country where all sides agree that land reform is an idea whose time has come," said the councillors.
New farmers, they said, were grateful to the Government for having been provided with land while there was still a role being played by white farmers who had accepted the new dispensation and were willing to accept the policy of one farmer, one farm.
"In our meetings with various stakeholders affected by the land reform programme, we found that allegations by the media against it are largely unsubstantiated and are actually exaggerations or distortions of what is actually happening there.
"We also found that despite a steady flow of Western media reports of lawlessness, free-for-all land grab of commercial farms, this is not the case at all."
The city fathers said they were convinced that increased agricultural production, with the newly acquired lands by new farmers, would lead to economic growth in Zimbabwe.
The projected famine that threatened not only Zimbabwe but all of southern Africa, could not be substantially attributed to the land reform as had been charged in some quarters.
The real cause of the famine was drought that affected food production in the last season.
"The role of commercial farmers in staple food production has also been exaggerated by Western media reports.
"White commercial farmers had long since abandoned crop farming and turned to other more lucrative industries such as horticulture, tobacco, paprika, citrus, game ranching and safari services," they said.
It was also stated in the report that allegations that President Mugabe was giving land to his friends were surprising considering the number of people resettled.
At least 300 000 families have benefited under the Model A1 scheme, while 40 000 others were allocated plots under the A2 Model.
"In light of that fact, we find the charge that President Mugabe only gives land to his 'cronies' not credible.
"We are hard pressed not to believe that anyone could have that many 'cronies.'"
The councillors said they found a reasonably vibrant free Press in Zimbabwe, contrary to international reports that the media was routinely suppressed.
The delegation was led by New York City Council Member Charles Barron and consisted of other councillors and journalists.
It held meetings with President Mugabe, several Government ministers, members of opposition parties, farmers and Non-Governmental Organisations.
Reproduced from:
http://www.herald.co.zw/index.php?id=16468&pubdate=2002-12-02``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xUS rapped for stance on Zimbabwe's land``x1038801639,4141,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Selwyn Cudjoe, July 4, 1999
WHEN I arrived in the United States in the 1960s-ages ago, it seems-one of the first books I encountered was JA Rogers's World's Great Men of Color. In the 1950s Rogers, a Jamaican, went from house to house selling his books in Harlem, trying to get his people to realise that Africa and Africans had made enormous contributions to the world. In that book I learned that writers such as Alexander Pushkin, Alexandre Dumas, Samuel Coleridge and Robert Browning were of black ancestry, an astonishing fact to someone cradled in a colonial education. It was the 1960s, an age of Black Power; a time when most of us came into a better awareness of our people and ourselves.
On June 6, Russia was ablaze in festivity as it celebrated the 200th anniversary of Pushkin's birth. As a London Times headline puts it, "Pushkin Mania rages: Russians cash in on bicentenary of their poet's birth". Reporting from Moscow, Anna Blundy noted: "Russia has been swept by Puskhinmania in preparation for tomorrow's bicentenary of the poet's birth...Russians all know long tracts of Pushkin's work by heart, and Sunday's festival is the dominant theme of most television, and radio broadcasts, newspaper articles and advertising campaigns."
Pushkin remains Russia's playful and elusive genius, a combination of Shakespeare and Mozart rolled into one. He holds the same status in Russian literature as Shakespeare has in the English language. Eugene Onegin, Pushkin's classic verse novel of 1833, has become a work to which Russian writers pay obeisance. Each school child knows it by heart and recites it at the drop of a hat.
During the weeks that led up to Pushkin's second centenary, a member of the public read out one line of Eugene Onegin and told viewers how many days there were to go before Pushkin's birthday. I only wish that we could do a similar thing for Maxwell Philip, CLR James or VS Naipaul.
But greatness or not, at the beginning of the 19th century, Pushkin's Africanness was an issue.
Throughout his life, his pronounced African features-thick lips, dark skin and kinky hair-remained an issue and Pushkin was acutely aware of them. Yet, he always took pride in his African ancestry.
In her new book on Pushkin, Elaine Feinstein tells us that Abram Petrovich Gannibal, Pushkin's great-grandfather, born in Northern Abyssinia (Ethiopia) in the 1690s, was of royal stock. Pushkin claimed that his great grandfather was a prince who lived a luxurious life. He was abducted from Ethiopia when he was eight years old by a "Frenchman collecting animals and other curiosities for Louis XIV" of France. Shipped to Istanbul, he was placed in the Sultan's seraglio where the Russian ambassador found him and sent him back to Russia as a present to Peter the Great (Pushkin, pp 17-18).
In the Russian court, Abram became a great favourite of Peter the Great. The Tsar became so attached to this precocious and intelligent child that he had him baptised into the Orthodox Church at Vilno where the Tsar himself became his godfather and the queen of Poland his godmother.
Feinstein reports that when Abram's brother, a person of standing in the African world, arrived to claim Abram, the Tsar refused to part with him. Sending him to study military strategy in France, Abram returned to Russia in 1725 and was given a commission in the Tsar's own regiment. When Elizabeth, the Tsar's daughter, came to the throne, Abram was made a Major General and granted an estate in Mikhaylovskoe in a province of Russia.
As he grew up, Pushkin took great pride in his great-grandfather and his Africanness which he openly embraced and celebrated in Eugene Onegin. Even so, Pushkin suffered from a sense of his own "ugliness" and the taunts of his classmates. At the lycee where he studied when he was 12, he was nicknamed "monkey". However some of his school friends called him "the Frenchman" because they thought he was a "mixture of a monkey and a tiger".
This "stain" of his blackness remained with him. In 1827, he returned to his family mansion in Mikhaylovskoe where he began his unfinished novel, The Negro of Peter the Great, based on the life of his great grandfather. In this highly fictionalised account of his ancestor Grannibal, Pushkin centred his story on "a Negro's wife, who is unfaithful to her husband, gives birth to a white child and is punished by being shut up in a convent". Even as he tells this gripping story, the sexual prowess of the black man in a white world assumes much importance.
Perhaps, it is wise that Pushkin did not finish telling this story. It would have had to come up against the scurrilous attacks of those who preferred to believe that he came from a slave background. In fact, he was forced to defend Abram's honour against the calumny of Fruddy Bulgarin, a crusading journalist. Putting the question in verse, Pushkin said: "Filyarin says he understands/That my black granddad, Gannibal/ Bought for a bottle of rum, once fell/Into a drunk sea captain's hands." To this, he responded: "My grandfather, so cheaply bought,/ The Tsar himself treated with trust/And gave him welcome at his court./ Black, but never again a slave."
Pushkin, it was rumoured, was a renowned womaniser. Yet when, in 1837, it was reported that a French officer, D'Anthes, was messing with his wife, Pushkin challenged him to a duel and was killed at the age of 38. Yet, he remains the people's poet, Russia's answer to Shakespeare and someone about whom we in T&T ought to know a lot more.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xAlexander Pushkin: Russian-African genius``x1038936871,18279,Development``x``x
``xDiplomatic Reporter, www.herald.co.zw
INCOMING Dutch ambassador to Zimbabwe Dr Johannes Heinsbroek yesterday said Harare has genuine concerns over its differences with the European Union.
Dr Heinsbroek was speaking in a meeting with President Mugabe at State House after presenting his credentials.
Sources who attended the meeting said the ambassador was responding to Cde Mugabe who had wondered how Netherlands could be dragged into the fight between Zimbabwe and her former colonial master Britain.
Netherlands and the rest of the European Union have ganged up against Zimbabwe and imposed sanctions at the instigation of Britain.
Britain has been campaigning for Harare's isolation because of the Government's resolve to correct colonial imbalances by redistributing land, which was forcibly grabbed from locals by white settlers, mostly British descendants.
According to the sources, President Mugabe noted that relations between Netherlands and Zimbabwe were chequered saying it was difficult to explain the strain in ties between the two countries.
"I don't know how the Netherlands would want us to relate? But not through the medium of Britain.
"Where have we gone wrong? Our problem with the United Kingdom is clear, they are our former colonial master.
"We do not understand how the Netherlands could be dragged into a fight that is British, pretending there are issues of human rights and good governance. I don't know . . . ," the sources quoted President Mugabe as having told Dr Heinsbroek.
In response, the sources said, Dr Heinsbroek said it was important that Zimbabwe and Netherlands engaged in talks to restore good relations.
He pledged to work towards improving relations between the two countries.
"Zimbabwe has genuine concerns and Europe also has her own concerns and we just have to talk. It is important that we have to talk.
"We must prevent an exchange of monologues. We can start with preparatory talks so we can restore our relations," the sources quoted Dr Heinsbroek saying.
Speaking to journalists after the meeting, Dr Heinsbroek said it was important for Zimbabwe and Europe to talk noting that both sides had concerns, which should be addressed.
Cde Mugabe also said relations between the two countries could improve.
"Things cannot be worsened for all time. Bilateral relations have to improve at some time."
The sources added that Cde Mugabe told the Dutch ambassador that there was no perfect democracy in the world.
He said the Dutch had a monarch while Zimbabwe had its own system of governance and wondered why Netherlands wanted to change Harare's system.
Cde Mugabe said even the Lancaster House constitution that the British helped craft at Zimbabwe's independence was not perfect.
He told Dr Heinsbroek that British Prime Minister Mr Tony Blair thinks he can rule Zimbabwe but Harare would resist any attempts to undermine its sovereignty.
"Even if Mugabe goes there will be people who will take over and resist any attempt to put authority on our sovereignty," the President reportedly said.
He said Zimbabwe respected the sovereignty of Europe and it expected the same of Europe.
"The days of Machiavellian are gone and countries wanted to be sovereign and democratic. I am supposed to be under sanctions… whatever that means in the eyes of Europe. But we are in year 2002. Are we that backward?"
Three other new ambassadors - Mr Tsaneshiye Iyama of Japan, Archbishop Joseph Edward Adams of the Vatican and Mauritian High Commissioner Mr John Dacruz - also presented their credentials to Cde Mugabe.
United Nations Secretary General Mr Kofi Annan's special envoy for HIV/Aids, Mr Stephen Lewis, also met Cde Mugabe to discuss the effects of the pandemic in Zimbabwe and how the country was fighting the scourge.
Mr Lewis is on a six-nation tour of Southern Africa to assess the HIV/Aids situation in relation to the drought gripping the region.
He said their talks also touched on how the UN could help the countries procure anti-retroviral drugs.
Mr Lewis said he was gratified that the Government was reconsidering plans, announced in the 2003 national budget, to gradually scrap the Aids levy.
Reproduced from:
http://www.herald.co.zw/index.php?id=16580&pubdate=2002-12-06``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xHarare's concerns genuine, says envoy``x1039144030,64205,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xFrom Final Call.Com
WEB POSTED 03-12-2002
NAIROBI (PANA)—Like hundreds of thousands of his compatriots, Michael Karanja, who lives on the fringes of one of the large scale White-owned agricultural farms in Kenya’s Thika District, some 30 miles east of Nairobi—has been following with keen interest the ensuing feud in Zimbabwe between Pres. Robert Mugabe and White land holders. Mr. Karanja is especially interested in the European Union’s sanctions against Pres. Mugabe.
He says Mr. Mugabe is right to want to re-allocate stolen and unused land now owned by Whites to Black war veterans. Mr. Karanja also says that other African leaders are doing a disservice to the continent by not coming out openly to support an embattled freedom fighter.
"Mugabe is being vilified for standing up for the rights of his people. This land, the so-called farmers in Zimbabwe are now claiming to be theirs, was taken from Africans in a way of robbery, because they do not have the supporting documents to show that they rightfully bought it from Africans," charged Mr. Karanja, a 59-year-old father of six. And he is not alone.
Pres. Mugabe might be unpopular to the West and White Zimbabwean community, but he appears to be gaining support in Kenya where the issue is quite emotive because of the similarities in the two countries’ cases.
The Lancaster House (London) served as the venue for independence talks for the two countries—Kenya’s in 1960s and 1970s for Zimbabwe.
So, to the ordinary man on the street, scholars, politicians and even journalists in Kenya, Pres. Mugabe is right and Western powers are applying double standards to protect their cousins.
The rallying cry for the independence fathers in both countries was land, which they felt was wrongly wrenched from Africans.
Like in Zimbabwe, the White Kenyan settler community owns the choice agricultural land leaving the majority Black population on less productive areas.
Dennis Akumu, a former Pan-African Trade Unionist and ex-MP, is a key member of the Pan-African Reparations Movement (PARM), a group that has been vocal in support of Pres. Mugabe’s cause.
"People the World over are talking of equity, transparency and democracy. But these three virtues cannot exist in a country where the majority have been marginalized and their leaders ostracized (for pointing out the injustice)," he says.
John Kamau, editor of the Nairobi-based Rights Features Service, an NGO on human rights issues, agrees with Mr. Akumu.
According to Mr. Kamau, "there is no way any sane government in the world would allow 98 percent of its population to live in near penury while less than two percent own parcels of land they do not even need."
He argues that at the Lancaster House Conference, it was made clear that the White farmers had up to 1990 to either develop their land or give it up to the Zimbabwean government.
The same document gave the government the right to nationalize all land not developed or nationalized, he said.
Mr. Kamau dismisses the argument that the EU sanctions were imposed because of Pres. Mugabe’s "dictatorial" rule, saying the West has never cared about who is elected president in Africa so long as he played by their rules.
"Haven’t we had Idi Amin Dada (Uganda), Marcius Nguema (Equatorial Guinea), Mobutu Sese Seko (ex-Zaire) and Siad Barre (Somalia)? An elementary student of history would tell you that these (people) were maintained by Western support," he added.
Veteran journalist Phillip Ochieng, in a Sunday Nation article titled, "Fleet Street’s Jungle Justice in Zimbabwe," accuses the Western press of conspiracy against Pres. Mugabe.
Rejecting the forceful taking over of farms by Black Zimbabweans, Mr. Ochieng, however, feels the reporting is biased.
"But from what moral (ground) can you preach law and fair elections to them (Zimbabweans)? Fair elections? Why haven’t you applied sanctions on George W. Bush for rigging himself to the most powerful office in the free world?" he asked.
Whether Pres. Mugabe succeeds in his mission or not, he appears to be enjoying large support from Kenyans, who may not influence developments in his troubled country.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xHow Kenyans see the land crisis in Zimbabwe``x1039152694,48205,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Devinder Sharma
At a time when the World Trade Organization (WTO) is forcing developing countries to implement the trade-related intellectual property rights regime, the United States patent on "a method for producing atta flour -- typically used to produce Asian breads such as chapatti and roti " -- exposes the absurdity of the entire patenting regime.
A broad-based US patent (# 6,098,905, dated Aug 8, 2000) was granted to a Nebraska-based private company, ConAgra Inc. Interestingly, the so-called inventers - Ali Salem, Sarath K. Katta and Sambasiva R. Chigurupati - have Asian ancestry. Their 'invention', if at all it can be called an invention, relates to a method for producing wheat flour or atta. The novel method that they have created for making wheat flour and subsequently patented 'covers changes, variations, modifications, and other uses and applications which do not depart from the spirit and scope of the invention'.
And what have they invented - a method to produce atta that includes "passing an amount of wheat through a device designed to crack the wheat so as to produce an amount of cracked wheat, followed by passing the cracked wheat through at least two smooth rolls designed to grind the cracked wheat into flour, with the smooth roll importantly grinding the wheat to a smaller particle size and shearing the wheat to cause starch damage in the finished atta flour." Isn't that a great 'invention' that merits a US patent? Isn't this similar to the manufacturing process being used by thousands of roller flourmills (many of them modernized) that exists throughout South Asia?
Since the 'inventors' have drawn a patent that covers the 'spirit and scope' of the invention, any modification and variation to this 'invention' too is patented. In other words, ConAgra has in one broad sweep ensured that the wheat flourmills throughout Asia (and in several other parts of the world) come under its monopoly control over the technology they have been using. With many big and even multinational food companies (including giants like Cargill) moving into the atta segment, ConAgra can literally make hay while we continue to consume chapattis and rotis. The patent application accepts that the requirement for wheat flour in countries like India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia will grow in the years to come, and so therefore the company sees a huge market.
The patent application uses all the scientific jargons that are normally used in establishing novelty and its industrial application. Preliminary tests were conducted at the Kansas State University (US) and subsequent tests were carried out by the United Milling Systems of Denmark and of course at the ConAgra Milling Research facility in Omaha, Nebraska. One wonders why the company didn't think it proper to conduct these trials in India and by involving the best judge of the atta technology - the housewives. Their preference for a particular brand of atta is based on the kind and quality of chapattis that it makes. Fundamentally, a housewife will tell you that the best atta is the one, which is not 'hot' when it comes out from the flourmill.
In India, a majority of the big atta mills use the roller processing. Some like Golden Seal, Annapurna and Captain Cook use the stone milling technology. Interestingly, the starch damage percentage in the stone milling technology is much higher than the roller mills - 15 per cent against 5 to 9 per cent in rolling mills. This makes it suitable for the dough making, and at the same time the protein percentage hovers between 10-11 percent, almost equal or higher than the roller mills. Many of the roller mills in India use three rollers to crack wheat grains and grind the atta and therefore find nothing novel in the patent.
This is not the first time that the US or for that matter many other developed countries have granted patents that makes a mockery of the entire IPR regime. And that too at times when the patent system claims to look into three specific criteria - novelty, utility and its non-obviousness - before granting a monopoly control over a technological invention or method. Multinational Nestle has already been granted a European patent on vegetable pulao and parboiled rice. When asked what was novel about the patent, all that the multinational replied was that it has developed a 'unique' method of cooking vegetable pulao. In a country where hundreds of different recipes for making vegetable pulao already exists, one wonders what is the 'uniqueness' that Nestle claims to have developed. Patent examiners should have thrown out such a process patent application at first sight.
More recently, George Williamson Ltd., of England had filed for a patent on the entire manufacturing process of tea, from the plucking of leaves to its final packaging in chests, prompting the Tea Board of India to launch an offensive to counter the monopoly control over a process that has been in vogue throughout the country. So much so that a drug multinational, Burrough Welcome, has drawn a patent on the commonly used Oral Rehydration Therapy (ORT) by health workers. Irrespective of the fact that the therapy has been in vogue for ages in the developing countries but was first reported in an academic research paper in Bangladesh in 1971-72, and since then even the UNDP gives recognition to the Bangladesh researchers for the 'invention'. With a minor tinkering, the drug multinational subsequently got the patent.
Many IPR experts believe that one way to counter such unfair patents is to document the traditional knowledge that already exists and to make that available to the patent offices throughout the globe. What is not being understood is that it is perfectly right to 'educate' the patent lawyers who want to learn of the 'prior art' that exists elsewhere but what about those who refuse to see beyond a patent application. After all, it is difficult to imagine that the patent examiners in the US Patent & Trade Mark Office had never known what wheat flour is and so wasn't even aware of the process of producing it. There is something called 'common sense', and that cannot be built by producing digital libraries on traditional knowledge and commonly used production processes.
(Devinder Sharma is a New Delhi-based food and trade policy analyst)``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xPatently absurd: It is now the turn of ATTA``x1039289821,68853,Development``x``x
``xP. Barton
California, U.S.A.
The conflict is Sudan is an example of what can happen to Western Nations and others when religious imperialism joined with a racist and envious and chauvinist mentality and agenda is applied. Sudan also known as the ancient civilization of Nubia-Kush was the world's first civilization and according to present evidence, Sudan's civilization is about 3000 years older than the first Egyptian Dynasties. In fact, Egypt's Dynasties came from Sudan (known as "Ethiopia" by the ancient Greeks). Ancient Greek writers such as Herodotus and Diodorus mention this fact in their writings.
The very first example of the relentless application of war, terror and slave raiding to destabilize a great kingdom happened in Sudan (Nubia Kush) after the invasion of Egypt by the Semites during the 600's A.D. Yet, the Africans of Sudan from Emperor Kalydosos (600's A.D.) to the Funj (1500's A.D.) fought to keep their lands free of Semitic influence and defeated numerous Arab armies for 800 years.
Today's Nuba, Nubians, Dinka and a few groups in West and Central Africa are related to these ancient Cushites who migrated after the Arabs began slave raiding into Sudan during the 700's A.D. and to this very date, December 7, 2002 (see the book, "Destruction of Black Civilization," by Chancellor Williams, Third World Press, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.)
MANY AMERICAN PEOPLE INFURIATED BY ATTACKS ON KENYANS, WEST AFRICANS AND SUDANESE CHRISTIAN AFRICANS
Attacks on Africans in Sudan, Mauritania and West Africa, Kenya and elsewhere is causing a festering of anger in the U.S. as well as the rest of the Americas and the African Diaspora. One African commentator pointed out that the Semitic "welcome," in Africa is wearing thin. To many Africans, Sudan and Ethiopia have been Christian nations since before the 300's A.D. and the continued attacks on Africans of the Nubian Churches or modern Christianity in Sudan is an insult to Africans whether they are Christians or not.
In the opinion of many African Spiritualists (Animists) and Christians around the world, it is a matter of African religious, cultural and traditional rights and heritage. This lack of respect for Africans' culture, religion and heritage is one of the reasons for the rapid rise of Semitic slavery into Africa during the 700's A.D. In fact, one of the bloodiest and most devastating slave rebellions on the Semitic slave lands, took place in Baghdad during the 800's A.D., according to Runoko Rashidi's writings.
There are about 300 million people of African origins in the Americas. Among these millions are people of prehistoric African-American origins belonging to tribes such as the Washitaw, Gwale, Black Californians, Jamassee, Califunami, Guanini, Black Caribs, Chuarras, Afro-Darienite and many others. These groups particularly the ancient Olmec (Mende-Shi) and the descendants of the present-day Washitaw Nation who owned one million square miles of the Louisiana Territories before it was illegally sold, are the original inhabitants of the Americas along with the Mongoloid American Indians.
Today, particularly in parts of Latin America, the plight of Blacks/Africans of both slavery era as well as prehistoric era origins is similar to that of the original African people of Sudan. Ancient evidence also shows some of these prehistoric African-Americas people to be directly connected to civilizations in West Africa and Sudan.
CAN PEOPLE OF THE SAME RACE APPLY A RACIST POLICY FROM A FORMER DOMINANT GROUP AGAINST THIER OWN PEOPLE?
To begin this issue, both Arabs and Jews are Semites. Yet, over the past 40 years, those who follow the Arab/Isreali situation know very well that the terms "racist policies" is used in referring to the conditions there. The same reality applies to Sudan as well, where the only factor of division is an imposed Semitic religious imperialist and "colonial" culture on people who are both Black African Negroid by race and cultural heritage, (the term "negroid" applies to the Western Branch of the Black race, the other being the Negroid-Australoid of India and Australia)
There are many who continue to say that the situation of RACIST RELIGIOIUS IMPERIALISM in Sudan is a "local" problem. They don't seem to understand or fail to see that the people who began the genocide in Sudan, the rape of African women to create a "multiracial" "colored" population in the North, who are mislabeled "Arab" against the African law and tradition of tracing lineage on the Mother's side as well as the African father's side, race and group, were 'white" Semitic people from North Africa and the Middle East. These foreign races and peoples violated African women and the result was (and still is mixed children raised and trained to hate their African selves). These invaders have absolutely no claim to any children or child born of African women. That is the African law and it has been in effect long before Egyptian times.
"SEMITIC" AS AN ETHNIC, CULTURAL AND RELIGIOUS ADVERSARY TO AFRICAN RACIAL, CULTURAL AND RELIGIOUS IDENTITY
In using the term "Semitic" the idea is to describe a cultural and ideological system more than a specific ethnic type. Hence it does not refer to any specific group but to their culture, religions and agenda. White Arabs are the first to point out that Sudanese are Black Africans, no matter how "mixed" a few from the North of Sudan may be. As far as the African concept of racial identification is concerned, one traces on both the mother and father's line, but an invader group of a different race who has children with an African woman has no rights to any children by that woman, nor does his child becomes part of his "race" or group. That child is African.
The Western Media and the religious imperialists continue to label Sudan "Arab" North and "Christian/Animist" South. Pan-Africans see Sudan as Nubia-Cush, under present foreign religious and cultural colonialism, no different from that of the British who were the last European colonial power in Sudan.
Sudanese in Northern Sudan who are of "Arab" fathers and African mothers are African and Negroid. They are not "Arabs," and that fact is known through the "white" Semitic, Arab world, where Black Sudanese are treated like "Abed," or "slaves," are seen as Black Africans and called as such in a racist manner. WHERE IS THE PRIDE OF THESE BLACKS? In Syria, where there are Black Sudanese, their treatment should convince them that as far as "white" Arabs are concerned, Sudanese are Black African, no matter how much Arab blood a few may have.
RETURN AND REBUILDING AFRICAN CUSHITE CULTURE AND IDENTITY
Sudanese are the original Cushites, descendants of a powerful Black African people who had civilizations and cultures from Sudan to Kenya and from Sudan in the center to South Arabia, India, Indo-China, South China in the East, around the Pacific to Olmec-Shi Mexico, to West Africa. In fact, many West Africans such as the Yoruba, Walof, Nago-Mina, Mandinka, Serer, Ashanti, Tiv, Songhai and others continue to have related tribes in parts of South Egypt, Sudan, Ethiopia, South Arabia and that region.
These related tribes continue to exist to this very day. In fact not only did the ancient Cushites migrate to West Africa in prehistoric and ancient times, they also migrated to the Americas and their languages, culture, plastic arts, alphabets and even sculpture with everything from cornrows and tribal scarification to the languages have been found in Mexico and other parts of the Americas (see the world-famous, "A History of the African-Olmecs," pub. by 1stBooks Library, 2595 Vernal Pike, Bloomington, Indiana 47404 U.S.A. also the writings of Cheikh Anta Diop, "The African Origins of Civilization, Myth or Reality," pub. by Lawrence Hill Press, Brooklyn, NY: See Also "A History of Racism and Terrorism, Rebellion and Overcoming")
The other groups of Blacks in the Americas came from the Yoruba, Ashanti, Mandinka, Tiv and other groups from West Africa. A large number came from the Congo-Angola region. The third group came from Eastern Congo, Sudan and Ethiopia. Hence, we here in the Americas can trace our ancestors to places like Juba in Sudan and Gondar in Ethiopia.
AFRICAN-AMERICANS ANGER IS BREWING
The anger and disgust by Africans in the Americas, whose great-grandparents were captured in places like Sudan and West Africa and who know about the situation in Sudan are angered to the maximum extent. In places like Brazil, with about 100 million people of African origins with at least 25 million being of Sudanese/Congo, Ethiopian/East African origins, the situation in Sudan is very close to the hearts. As for African-Americans and Blacks in parts of the Caribbean and Latin America the anger is even hotter.
People of African descent or Americas-Africans in the Americas and elsewhere see the situation in Sudan as one of Semitic religious and cultural racism and imperialism against the descendants of the very Africans who built ancient Egypt, Nubia-Kush and Mesopotamia, long before the Semites arrived on the scene about 2000 B.C. This knowledge of self among Blacks in the Americas is as strong as the Chinese and Black Dravidian knowledge of self and history. That knowledge must be paramount in the minds of all the INDIGENOUS AFRICAN PEOPLE OF SUDAN.
THEY ARE THE PEOPLE WHO OWNED AND DEVELOPED WORLD CIVILIZATION AND THE SEMITES (WHITE SEMITES) ARE INVADERS WHO BEGAN ARRIVING DURING THE 700'S AD, WITH THE INVASION OF EGYPT (please get this great book, "The Destruction of Black Civilization," by Chancellor Williams, published by Third World Press, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.
The time has come for Africans in Sudan to return African traditional culture and religion to the region. One of the first aspects of culture that must be changed is the idea that a white Semite or any other Semitic invader from the Semitic lands can take an African woman, force children on her and call the children by some other race or group other than African Negroid.
The attempt by African leaders in Sudan, Ethiopia, Kenya, Uganda, Black Egyptians and Nubians in Egypt, Eritheria, Somalia to REORGANIZE THE ANCIENT CUSHITE CULTURAL REGION MUST COMMENCE. As long as Black Africans accept the imposition of a foreign religion and culture and reject their names, cultures, religions, history and legacy, then Africans will always be seen as "Abed," or slaves by the racist Semites. The fact that Black Sudanese refugees in places like Syria are treated with such disgust, or that the white Semites think Africans should be their slaves and continue to hold the racist mentality while going around preaching "brotherhood," is ENOUGH TO CONVINCE AFRICANS THAT AFRICAN UNITY AND AFRICAN CULTURE MUST REPLACE ANY FOREIGN CULTURE AND RELIGION THAT IS APPLYING A NEW FORM OF IMPERIALISM ON THE CONTINENT.
Religions of alien invader peoples in Africa should never be allowed to dominate and change the mentality and indigenous culture of Africans. If people in the Cushite region (Sudan, Ethiopia, Kenya, Uganda, Somalia, Eritheria, and others) have forgotten their history, all they have to do is re-introduce the history of Nubia, Egypt, Kush and Punt back into the school programs. TEACH AFRICAN CHILDREN AND PEOPLE WHO THEY ARE AND THAT THEY ARE NOT "SLAVES" OR SEMITES OR EVEN OF "WHITE" SEMITE CULTURAL OR RACIAL ORIGINS. The fact is the Semites came from the Black root (see the works of John Wilson (Kenya East African Standard article), where he discovered that some "white" nations from the Middle East to the Scottish Highlands were originally Blacks who lived in the Karamojong region. The program "Eve" (about ancient human origins clearly discusses this). So Semites did not create Africans.
The oldest living example of the Semitic languages is Iraqwu, a language of East Africa. Some historians have pointed out that both Hebrew and Arabic, Aramaic and others are dialects of languages like ancient Egyptian. On the other hand, languages like those of West Africa, East Africa and Southern Africa are offshoots and exactly like ancient Egyptian spoken before the invasions of foreign people into Egypt. Nuer, Nuba, Galla, Wallof and many others are examples.
In retrospect, to those who don't understand why there has been a TERROR WAR against Africans for about 1400 years, it is essential that they study African history and how slavery by Semites in East Africa and Sudan began.
When groups of people or nations are threatened with absorption, genocide or religious and cultural overwhelming, as is the case of Blacks in Sudan today who are now victims and part of the Semitic imperialistic agenda, and are being used by the Semites to continue the further enslavement of Africans and taking of African lands and resources, IT IS THE DUTY OF THESE AFRICANS TO UNITE WITH THEIR BROTHERS AND SISTERS WHO WANT TO MAINTAIN THEIR ORIGINAL RACIAL, CULTURAL AND RELIGIOUS HERITAGE AND IDENTITY.
As far as Blacks in the Americas, Africa, Europe, India, West Papua, Melanesia and world over are concerned, that is what Pan-Africanism is all about. It is the duty of Africans and others realize that when the 'isms of others are forcibly imposed on them, it is their duty to reply with a more effective 'ism that helps to counter the imperialist and religious imperialistic agenda of other people.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xThe Roots Of The Sudan Problem ``x1039435838,54278,Development``x``x
``xAnalysis By Dr. David Nyekorach-Matsanga in London
The Persistence of Vulnerabilities in Zimbabwe
During the past 9 months, the CNN, BBC and other western media outlets have been focusing the attention of its viewers on the imminence of another cataclysm in Zimbabwe: the collapse of the state of Zimbabwe. This expected to lead, before the end of this year or early in the new one, to devastating economic consequences in the Southern Africa state of ZIMBABWE. We are accordingly being reminded, should we ever pretend to have forgotten, of the extent the neo-colonial masters have predicted the vulnerability of the Zimbabwe economy then GOD will hate us.
This plus the current drums of war in Europe against President Mugabe has forced me to write this analysis for that doubting Thomas that never heard Dr. Herbert Murewa's quote from the Bible at the end of the Budget of 2003 in November. I had decided not make my feelings known but as humble Christian and Director of Africa Strategy whose voluntary duty is to defend and correct the wrong impression the British government and the opposition MDC are spreading in Europe about Mugabe I have to the dirty toxins on Zimbabwe now being spread by the followers of the Mad and Disoriented Creatures (MDC) in this country.
The negative notion on Zimbabwe has not changed a bit since 1997.The blame has been put on President Mugabe's policies yet the whole pattern of our economies in Africa remains the same. At the root of this lie structural imbalances and rigidities. These manifest themselves in the form of (i) demographic explosion; (ii) rapid desertification; (iii) frequent periodic drought in economies whose agriculture is virtually completely rain-dependent; (vi) dependencies; (v) economic and social disequilibria; (vi) lack of public accountability; (vii) destabilisation caused by conflict created by British and American systems, civil war, internal strife and coup d'etat; and, (viii) the debt overhang.
Unless and until these imbalances and inequalities are addressed at the root, the African economies will continue, at best, to achieve growth without development and at worse neither growth nor development. This requires a fundamental restructuring of the African and therefore Zimbabwean political economy is not an exception.
In my analysis I will try to show to those enemies in the Western World who hate President Mugabe that it is not his fault but it is a general trend on the continent. It requires an integrated approach to development that takes into account the effective inter dependence and linkage of economic sector activities, recognising the special role played by the food and agriculture sector as the leading production sector in an economy going through a period of demographic explosion like the one in Zimbabwe. Any government faced with this outside pressure needs measures for raising the general level of productivity to reverse the declining production trends. It will require giving very high priority to combating desertification including stopping all activities that bring about deforestation. This will increase production and stop future drought. Indeed, the protection of the environment and the cycle of reproduction of species require an optimum balance between population and nature and consequently the avoidance of a development profile that involves the depletion of or irreparable damage to environmental resources.
As political scientist I believe that most countries in the west have ignored the rules that govern environmental issues as far as Africa economies are concerned. The demand for timber in Europe has forced people in Africa to cut down forests that has caused the change of weather patterns. The colonial economy did not emphasis the need for human beings as the owners of the process, which has led to break down in relationship in most African nations like Zimbabwe. Above all, it requires a sustainable human-centred development process to be able to get out of economic hardships.
At present, in most SSA countries, less than one-third of the population have no access to potable water and electricity. Education for all still remains an unattained objective as a result Africa's illiterate population is increasing. The goals of competitiveness and efficiency will remain unattainable in a society burdened by deficient and inefficient economic and social infrastructure. So also will it be unattainable in a polity where the British and their stooges have demonised democracy, distorted governance and confused public accountability and where the fragile socio-political systems are often undermined by internal strife created by British and USA intelligence networks, coup d'etat, conflicts and civil war. Like Zimbabwe.
These often paralyse the state and turn them into a failure. States collapse when fragmented by internal strife like what the MDC and the British are advocating Zimbabwe in which none of the factions is capable of re-establishing central authority or when they lose their legitimacy in the eyes of the majority of their population and are therefore unable to exercise authority without excessive coercion or when they are rent by the unbridled greed and avarice, incompetence, negligence. The British and USA want to create such chaos in Zimbabwe by trying to overthrow the government of Mugabe. These signs are at advanced state in Zimbabwe.
A sound management of the economy is also a condition sine qua non of an effective viable and dynamic state. Macro-economic policy that alienates the government from the people, impoverishes the population and throws them out of jobs may achieve higher rates of economic growth for a while but certainly not sustainable human development. That is why I agreed with President Mugabe when he said no to devaluation and he has totally refused the instruments of neo-colonialism called IMF and World Bank.
No one now disputes that "demand management" which is a requirement of structural adjustment programmes of the 'World Bank and the IMF is largely politically motivated and shortsighted. Nor that these programmes have had little success in reviving economic growth on a sustainable basis in SSA. Impartial observers, particularly among Western experts, have now come round to my long-held view points that SAPs are too un-focused, typified by the proliferation of conditions, where more than hundred conditions per programme have not been unusual. As a person who has read some economics to a level of distinguishing between good and bad I will concur with the Zimbabwean approach that looks at the future of the nation not the interests of the current MDC demands and of the British hegemony.
How does Zimbabwe resume the struggle to forge the future?
Then the time is now and the delivery has been done by the land distribution programme, which has been completed.
The Economist in one of its leader articles - Emerging Africa - on the June 14, 1997 issue, inter-alia, urged Africa to forge its own future. This is no doubt a very opportune and appropriate counsel to give. This indeed is in conformity with the acknowledgement made from time to time by the Western world that the primary responsibility for the development of Africa is that of the people of Africa and their leaders. Indeed, at their Denver Summit in June 1997, the so-called Seven (now turned Eight) most industrialised democracies of the world echoed the same sentiments when they stated that developing countries have a fundamental responsibility for promoting their own development, and that developed countries must support these efforts. But when Zimbabwe brought out its land reform program most of these so called countries tried their level best to distort and reject these reforms. Hence the start of the economic hardships that this country is facing.
However, as all Zimbabweans know, the reality has been quite different. Every attempt that has been made by the Zimbabweans to forge their future, to craft their own development strategies and policies has been rebuffed by the so-called international financial institutions (IFIs) with the support or at least the connivance of the donor community. While the Zimbabwean leader can be faulted in some ways as alleged by the imperial monster powers, at least in this regard, fairness demands a full acknowledgement of the series of heroic efforts which he has made since the 1980s to craft his own indigenous development paradigms in the light of the perceptions of his people.
Mugabe has been the only African leader who has followed and understood all the declarations of the African meetings. The Lagos Plan of Action in 1980 (LPA); Africa's Priority Programme for Economic Recovery 1986 to 1990 (APPER) which was later turned into the United Nations Programme of Action for Africa's Economic Recovery and Development UN-PAAERD) by its adoption by the General Assembly of the United Nations at its Special Session of May/June 1986; the African Alternative Framework to Structural Adjustment Programmes for Socio-Economic Recovery and Transformation (AAF-SAP) in 1989 and, the African Charter for Popular Participation for Development in 1990. The UN General Assembly also adopted both AAF-SAP and the African Charter. I can mention a long list of all these important declarations whose ink has only dried on paper but not implemented by the same neo-colonial masters.
Unfortunately, all of these were opposed, pooh-poohed, undermined and jettisoned by the Bretton Woods institutions. This has been a matter of concern and bitter frustration to Africans who see these negative reactions as the blatant exercise of power by the rich over the poor and, more importantly, as a negation of the democratic principles and the denial of the rights of a people to make decisions about their future - regardless whether such decisions prove to be right or wrong.
The undermining of the ability of African governments to determine their development strategy and choose the package of public policies without fearing being turned into international pariahs has made a farce of the pro-democracy movement. It is indeed inconsistent to champion the cause of democracy all over Africa and deny the governments and people the elementary right to forge their own future. Thus, the failure to change course and direction of public policies discussed in Section III above has been due largely to both external pressure and resistance. Not the reasons advanced by those opposed to the land redistribution program in Zimbabwe. I am trying to pump sense into those who think that the problems in Zimbabwe were created by Mugabe's land redistribution process.
Debt overhangs as barrier to good economics
At present, it is clear that the only way Zimbabwe can avoid losing the right to be in charge of its own national economic management is by not being burdened by unserviceable debt. But as far as the land redistribution is concerned Mugabe has won the war. It is the only way Zimbabwe can avoid being obliged to pursue programmes that are adjudged to be unfocused. The Economist with its tremendous influence should see to it that the regrettable economic (including debt) situation of Zimbabwe is not l used to deny them the right to craft their own development strategies and policies. This will encourage the resumption of initiatives by the government to the road to recovery, which the new Minister of Finance announced on 15th November 2002.
Needless to add that the African governments and leaders have themselves to blame for their failure to put their money where their mouth is. To adopt, after great deal of effort, discussions, consultations and negotiations, common strategies, policies and programmes only to ignore them in deference to those crafted by donors and international financial institutions in order to have access to loans and credit shows how deep seated African leaders' dependency, lack of self-confidence and commitment have been I thank the leadership in Zimbabwe for the tenacity and steadfastness they have shown when standing firm against the whirl wind of poison from the British decayed foreign policy.
Zimbabwe will only be able to invent for itself a future that will bring rising prospects of prosperity through total commitment to its own programmes and through their vigorous implementation. The policies of economic policy consist not only in their conceptualisation, articulation, adoption and popularisation but also in total and unrelenting commitment to implementation. It is only by so doing that Zimbabwe, particularly as one of the countries in SSA, can rediscover its self-respect and remould its image. We need not to urgently shed the image that we are incapable, as a people, to run a modern society and sustain the independence of our political economies through the process of internally generated development. That is what I saw in the budget of November 2002. I had wanted to see what the British budget would look like before I make my analysis and contribution to the stability of Zimbabwe.
Framework of Zimbabwe's Indigenous Development Paradigm
It is clear from the foregoing that for Zimbabwe's economy to stop going to doldrums it has to fundamentally be reshaped through a human-centre holistic development strategy postulated in the Lagos Plan of Action and the with the Africa Charter on Popular Participation providing the political underpinning. In specific and operational terms, this means
(i) The pursuit of an increasing measure of self-reliance at the national level through (a) the internationalisation of the forces of demand, which determine the direction of development and economic growth reality. In any case, the strategy of export-oriented industrialisation is to enable Zimbabwe to rejoin the global economy more forcefully and more vigorously and take the fullest advantage of the new world order.
(ii) The promotion of private investment in Zimbabwe. While all this is welcome, I believe that Zimbabwe's experience under the Lome Convention however shows that duty-free access is useful if there is the capacity to produce and supply the market in the near future. It is this capacity that the pursuit of this strategy will create.
Zimbabwe's Achilles Heel: Debt Overhang and demonised democracy
To enable Zimbabwe to pursue vigorously and determinedly the pursuit of the goals of its human-centred holistic development paradigm, which the Hon. Minister of Finance put forward to the nation, and the priority goals, its major albatrosses must be successfully and speedily removed. They are the debt overhangs and the perennial attacks on Zimbabwe's democracy. This has led to a halt in development and smooth planning in all sectors of government.
Unfortunately, these cannot be adequately treated in this already long analysis for each of them, given that its importance and complexity, requires to be so treated separately. But this analysis will be considered rather empty if it does not deal, however briefly, with these all-important problems that currently overwhelm the Zimbabwean political economy and threaten to force it to collapse. Let us begin with the debt overhang.
Today, 32 developing countries are classified as Severely Indebted Low Income Countries (SILICs). 25 of these are in Africa. They are Burundi, Cote d'Ivoire, Ethiopia, Guinea, Kenya, Madagascar, Mauritania, Niger, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Sudan, Uganda, Zambia, Central African Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Ghana, Zimbabwe, Liberia, Mali, Mozambique, Nigeria, Sao Tome & Principle Somalia, Tanzania and the Democratic Republic of Congo (formerly Zaire).
These are countries whose 1993 GNP per capita was no more that US $695 per annum and for which either one of the following two key ratios for 1991 to 1993 is above a critical level: present value of debt service to GNP is 80 percent or more, and present debt service to export goods and services is 200 percent or more. In 1994, the total debt of these countries alone was $209.3 billion. 24 percent of this was owed to multilateral institutions, while the balance was made up of bilateral government-to-government and commercial loans. But the real burden of the debt lies in the growing weight of debt service obligations. Because multilateral institutions cannot, under existing rules be rescheduled or reduced, the burden of servicing the debt has risen to unsustainable levels. For the SILICs, the debt burden is like a millstone around their neck. This is what those who blame Mugabe should look at before jumping at conclusions.
Unfortunately, the several moves towards solving the debt crisis through debt relief, reduction and cancellation have been both too late and too little. And until September 1996 when the Highly Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Debt Initiative was launched by the World Bank and the IMF, multilateral debt was excluded from all solutions. The cumulative result of this exclusion was that whereas only 24 percent of total debt was owed to multilateral institutions in 1994, the SILICs debt service obligations to these institutions in the same year was 43 percent of their total debt service burden. In 1980, the percentages were 8.9 and 13 respectively.
Debt has thus become the major obstacle to Zimbabwe's development. Its most devastating impact is felt through the economic effects of debt overhang due to an unsustainable debt stock. Debt overhang discourages domestic and foreign investment by creating uncertainty about inflation, currency stability and future taxation. It also raises the risks of commercial transaction, by increasing the cost of access to trade credits. Consequently, the levels of investment are invariably very low in countries facing debt overhang like Zimbabwe. And needless to add that the rate of growth is low and little development takes place. The debt crisis has also exacerbated Zimbabwe's dependency.
Regrettable as it may sound, there is little evidence that an effective and permanent solution is in sight. The HIPC Debt Initiative, which is the first debt reduction mechanism, which promises to deal with the ongoing debt crisis in a comprehensive and concerted way, has had a very poor start. It is now more than five years since the initiative was heralded as a breakthrough and, in the words of the World Bank President James Wolfensohn, as "very good news for the poor of the world" this optimism remains to be justified. Instead the world institutions have turned heat on Zimbabwe by demonising and isolating the country.
Uganda was so far the only country to benefit from the HIPC Initiative. The debt relief package agreed for the country on April 23, 1997 by bilateral and multilateral creditors amounted to only 19 percent of Uganda's debt burden (i.e. US$338 million). The magnitude of the relief has come as a disappointment and, what was worse, is that it did not become effective until April 2000. As the country's former Minister of Finance, J.S. Mayanja stated, "any delay (in debt relief) was not merely an issue of timing.
But Uganda is still very lucky compared with other SILIC/HIPC countries. Of the other countries - Benin, Burkina Faso, Cote d'Ivoire, Ethiopia, Mali, Mozambique, Zimbabwe and Senegal - whose expected decision point is 1997 little progress has been reported. 6, 5 and 5 countries are slated for 1998, 1999 and 2000 respectively. The 1998 list consists of Chad, Ethiopia, Guinea Bissau, Mauritania, Sierra Leone and Togo; on the 1999 list are Congo, Madagascar, Niger, Tanzania and Zambia while the 2000 list is composed of Cameroon, Central Africa Republic, Rwanda, Sao Tome & Principe and The Democratic Republic of the Congo. Those who blame Mugabe for the mess of the economy of Zimbabwe should read and look at all the national budgets of these countries.
Judged by the slow progress made during the first year of the HIPC Initiative, considerable delay is inevitable in achieving the various completion points. Finally, the point must be that of the 32 SILICs, only 24 have been earmarked to benefit from the HIPC Initiative. The 8 countries - Burundi, Kenya, Sudan, Equatorial Guinea, Ghana, Liberia, Nigeria and Somalia - which have been excluded have no doubt been deemed to be unqualified for one reason or the other which has nothing to do with the objective data based on the ratios of debt service to export goods and services and of present value of debt service to GNP. Consequently, I have no alternative but to conclude rather grimly that it is a long way to the time when Zimbabwe like other African countries can hope to exit from the debt crisis and achieve debt sustainability.
The demonised democracy by the British and USA hegemony
If the persistence of the debt crisis gives cause for concern, the pervasiveness of internal strife caused by the British system has added chaos to the situation in Zimbabwe, continue to give credence to the basket case hypothesis and the sense of hopelessness that it generates. The Economist last year described Africa as a violent continent. Since 1990 it has had about 80 violent changes of government with more than two dozen heads of state and government having lost their lives through political violence changes of government. Six - Sudan, Uganda, Ghana, Burundi, DRC and Benin - have each gone through violence and brutalisation several times.
Nigeria tops the list with its six changes of government. Five other countries - Ethiopia, Sierra Leone, Congo, Comoros and Central African have had three battings each, while two - Burkina Faso and Chad - have experienced violent changes four times. Eight other countries - Mauritania, Mali, Niger, Somalia, Rwanda, Lesotho, Togo and Liberia - have had it two times with the remaining seven having one bout of violence each during the past four decades. Today, as many as ten SSA countries are engaged in severe political crisis. These conflicts are caused by the British and USA intelligence networks that benefit by looting the resources in Africa, as is the case of the DRC.
Zimbabwe faces of devils of western imperialism
There is no gainsaying the fact that wherever there are conflicts, civil strife and war, there are ipso facto brutalisation, poverty, hunger and starvation and, of course, also debt. They do indeed go hand in hand. There is also invariably democratic deficit. Despotism and kleptocracy engineered by the British intelligence are now rampant in Zimbabwe. Indeed, at the root of Zimbabwe's persistent economic crisis the British and USA perennial bouts of political strife might cause violence in the near future. As I have said again and again, we will never comprehend Zimbabwe's crisis so long as we continue to take a purely the economist viewpoint. What we confront in Zimbabwe is primarily a political crisis created by the British hegemony, albeit with devastating economic consequences.
To achieve lasting peace and sustainable democracy and development In Zimbabwe, it is imperative to fully comprehend and master the many complex factors and forces that have brought about these this current economic stand-off, and political instability. It is too simplistic to regard them as merely a post-independence teething problem and to resort to stereotypes by lumping them together under the banner of ethnicity or bad leadership. The truth of the matter is that we really do not know. We are yet to fully comprehend the many underlying causes and histories of conflicts that have, over the centuries, plagued the continent as a whole. And, thereafter, we need to master them by devising strategies and policy options for transcending the existing conflicts and averting potential ones. THIS IS ALL THE LEGACYOF COLONIALISM.
This requires serious, empirical and dispassionate research; not expressions of partisan commitment of MDC nor mouthing of "peace making" platitudes and devaluation of currency. By the very nature of these internal strife, there is an urgent need of applied, proactive research which involves looking back in order to look forward, taking two or three steps back from current or immediate past conflicts in order to understand their causes and dynamics more fully so that we can look one or two steps forward to master and transcend them.
It is only by so doing that we can lay a firm foundation for sustainable economic development and political peace in SSA. It is unforgivable to continue with the pretence that cessation of hostilities and change of government in Zimbabwe is tantamount to peace and economic miracle. It is imperative that we must, through proactive research seek ways and means of achieving lasting economic freedom and peace, which are much needed in Zimbabwe. To us this will be achieved by the tough line we have taken against the British government and the much lobby work that has shut down the rumour factory of the MDC in London.
Fortunately, the African Strategy (AS) which was established some 4 years ago as an independent, non-governmental, non-profit continental organisation for research and to fill the void of strategic thinking has embarked upon mobilising Africa's research and intellectual capacity to undertake such a projects. I have chosen eight countries for case studies. They are Rwanda and DRC in Central Africa; Liberia and Sierra Leone in West Africa; Angola and Mozambique in Southern Africa; Sudan in North Africa; and, Somalia in the Horn of Africa. While virtually every African country is potentially a conflict, country, it is believed that a comprehensive study of these eight countries, which are still engaged in conflict or have recently emerged from it, will enable us to realise the goals of comprehending and mastering African conflicts. (AS) enjoys the full support as of the United Nations in this endeavour. Hence I have applied to the UN for the project to be incorporated and registered into the United Nations System-wide Special Initiative on Africa, which will show our documents and analysis to the international community. Those countries like Zimbabwe will be able to benefit because most us who like Mugabe on the continent will fight tooth and nail to see his programs through.
The Way Forward for Zimbabwe: Facing the Daunting Challenge
To say that the task ahead of Zimbabwe is daunting is no exaggeration. There is also a time factor. I usually disagree with T.S Eliot in all his theories but one thing, which struck me as an African, is the quote "Time past is time future. Are both contained in the time present. And time present in time future" The rest of the world is moving so fast that the gap between it and Zimbabwe has become too wide. I have always been asking my self which way my beloved people of the great Southern African state will go? The Zimbabwean people themselves are yearning for the move forward. Their leaders have risen to the challenge and mobilised the entire people and thereby unleashing their energies for achievement of the Zimbabwean miracle. When I sat in the Zimbabwe Parliament in the Speakers Gallery on 15TH November 2002 and listened to the learned friend Hon. Dr. Herbert Murewa read word by word his plans for the future of Zimbabwe one thing that I was worried of was for him to mention the word "devaluation" which the MDC members were whispering in the Parliament Chambers. But his Bible sermon, which brought in tougher rules on monetary issues pleased and I have to tell you that compared to my dear friend Gordon Brown in the Labour government Hon. Dr. H.Murewa parable were fantastic. He never borrowed and borrowed like the Tony Blair's cash boss.
I want to thank him for having thought like some of who hate IMF and World Bank policies that would bring the downfall of the President Mugabe. There is no room in Zimbabwe politics to contend and simply to persist in continuing to elevate a collection of wrong signals unto national policy. That is why I support the abolition of the Bureau-de-change nightmare in Zimbabwe. They work well in an economy with IMF and World Bank policies not where the offices of IMF have dust on the shelves. That is the message I got as political analyst whose knowledge on economics and on political economy on Africa favours the Murewa approach. Simplification over the acknowledgement of complexity, quick fixes over patience, sustainability and the nominal over the real is not the route of "an economic war cabinet" of President Mugabe.
In other words, those opposed to Mugabe want to persist in the concerns for their "things" rather than for people which as the experience of the 1980s has showed and has created a divided society where the less fortunate are hurt, damaged and discounted by public policies which have jettisoned social justice and sacrificed the common good.
Is Zimbabwe capable of drawing inspiration from East Asia and turn its current basket case country into wonder country during the next two to three decades? Will the people develop the ability to accelerate the rate of accumulating physical and human capital, focus exclusively on productive investment agriculture, make human development the priorities and promote the mastering of technology? Will Zimbabwe strive to join humanity in the acquisition of the new and emerging technologies, which will dominate global economic activities in this twenty-first century? Finally, can I state that action during the next two to three decades should establish the African values, which are truly humanistic, pro-people enforcing social disciple, competitiveness and a high moral code.
If the answers to these questions are positive and affirmative as seen in Zimbabwe and Kenya as countries that have survived without IMF and World Bank then the African elite and policy makers will accept that economic development and transformation does not require mimicking the life-style of the West and that imitative development will not spark off the process of self-sustained development. I believe that we would have begun to develop the self-confidence essential for self-reliance. We need to keep reminding ourselves that development is not a matter of change; it is one of choice.
If Zimbabwe can put its act together, if it can wean itself of its colonial past, its unenviable heritage and its neo-colonial status, the sky is virtually the limit, given its potentials. No doubt leadership - in terms of quality, integrity and commitment - is a crucial factor in the pursuit of the development ethic that alone can bring about the second liberation of this country. Those leadership qualities are in ZANU-PF. The heroes of the first liberation - political independence - were well-known household names in their own times and are still useful to the current situation in Zimbabwe. Because they know all corners of the nation and they can seep with African broom of nationalism. The second liberation needs its own heroes modelled and guided by the fathers of the revolution on all matters and given the knowledge and experience of the first freedom fighters. These must not be the type of MDC sell-outs and turncoats bought by the British but people- both men and women imbued with vision and with fire in their belly who are totally and irrevocably committed to redeem Zimbabwe in the socio-economic fields and continue with the work of Mugabe t of the past two decades; men and women who will uncompromisingly pursue the goals of transforming the Zimbabwean polity, society and economy.
It is my earnest hope that Zimbabwe will succeed in producing such leaders, who can motivate and mobilise their people and galvanize and unleash their energies. In addition, an enabling international environment is, as has been made abundantly clear again and again in my analysis, essential. It is therefore important that the New Global Partnership for Development that the G.7 (now G.8) and the concepts of NEPAD be looked at seriously without destroying the national Independence of Zimbabwe. The major so-called industrialised democracies initiated at their Lyon Summit in 1996 the amorphous agency called NGPD that deal with African problems like they did in 2002 in Canada with NEPAD which I have always called "LEOPARD" because of the colours of the skin in the Canada meeting. But what must be known is that all these are simple "fixes" not solutions the problems of Africa or Zimbabwe.
The real solution is for the people of Zimbabwe to look at their Banking Laws that makes political weaklings in MDC to think that the whole economy is gone. The Kenyan case study and the Ugandan case of1979 after Idi Amin can be used as a comparison and there are lots of things that can be borrowed and learnt from these cases. Africa strategy is ready to avail the documentation of recovery for use as we did help to restore the foreign exchange saga in the Kenyan economy by standing firm against the IMF WARLORDS.
The continued support for democratic institutions of pluralism in Zimbabwe, the rule of law, which is in plenty in Zimbabwe and sustainable human development based on the land redistribution program as, agreed to by the Denver Summit is a welcome follow up development to Africa. However, it is imperative that these words must be matched by deeds. Not by demonising the government of President Mugabe. I have written this analysis for those who have not allowed the government of Zimbabwe to solve its own problems and for those MDC turncoats who are telling their masters in LONDON THAT ZIMBABWE IS FINISHED ECONOMICALLY.
Dr David Nyekorach-Matsanga can be contacted at africastrategy@hotmail.com``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xShaping Zimbabwe's Economy Using African Model``x1039450866,16898,Development``x``x
``xAnalysis By Dr. David Nyekorach-Matsanga in London
The Persistence of Vulnerabilities in Zimbabwe
During the past 9 months, the CNN, BBC and other western media outlets have been focusing the attention of its viewers on the imminence of another cataclysm in Zimbabwe: the collapse of the state of Zimbabwe. This expected to lead, before the end of this year or early in the new one, to devastating economic consequences in the Southern Africa state of ZIMBABWE. We are accordingly being reminded, should we ever pretend to have forgotten, of the extent the neo-colonial masters have predicted the vulnerability of the Zimbabwe economy then GOD will hate us.
This plus the current drums of war in Europe against President Mugabe has forced me to write this analysis for that doubting Thomas that never heard Dr. Herbert Murewa's quote from the Bible at the end of the Budget of 2003 in November. I had decided not make my feelings known but as humble Christian and Director of Africa Strategy whose voluntary duty is to defend and correct the wrong impression the British government and the opposition MDC are spreading in Europe about Mugabe I have to the dirty toxins on Zimbabwe now being spread by the followers of the Mad and Disoriented Creatures (MDC) in this country.
The negative notion on Zimbabwe has not changed a bit since 1997.The blame has been put on President Mugabe's policies yet the whole pattern of our economies in Africa remains the same. At the root of this lie structural imbalances and rigidities. These manifest themselves in the form of (i) demographic explosion; (ii) rapid desertification; (iii) frequent periodic drought in economies whose agriculture is virtually completely rain-dependent; (vi) dependencies; (v) economic and social disequilibria; (vi) lack of public accountability; (vii) destabilisation caused by conflict created by British and American systems, civil war, internal strife and coup d'etat; and, (viii) the debt overhang.
Unless and until these imbalances and inequalities are addressed at the root, the African economies will continue, at best, to achieve growth without development and at worse neither growth nor development. This requires a fundamental restructuring of the African and therefore Zimbabwean political economy is not an exception.
In my analysis I will try to show to those enemies in the Western World who hate President Mugabe that it is not his fault but it is a general trend on the continent. It requires an integrated approach to development that takes into account the effective inter dependence and linkage of economic sector activities, recognising the special role played by the food and agriculture sector as the leading production sector in an economy going through a period of demographic explosion like the one in Zimbabwe. Any government faced with this outside pressure needs measures for raising the general level of productivity to reverse the declining production trends. It will require giving very high priority to combating desertification including stopping all activities that bring about deforestation. This will increase production and stop future drought. Indeed, the protection of the environment and the cycle of reproduction of species require an optimum balance between population and nature and consequently the avoidance of a development profile that involves the depletion of or irreparable damage to environmental resources.
As political scientist I believe that most countries in the west have ignored the rules that govern environmental issues as far as Africa economies are concerned. The demand for timber in Europe has forced people in Africa to cut down forests that has caused the change of weather patterns. The colonial economy did not emphasis the need for human beings as the owners of the process, which has led to break down in relationship in most African nations like Zimbabwe. Above all, it requires a sustainable human-centred development process to be able to get out of economic hardships.
At present, in most SSA countries, less than one-third of the population have no access to potable water and electricity. Education for all still remains an unattained objective as a result Africa's illiterate population is increasing. The goals of competitiveness and efficiency will remain unattainable in a society burdened by deficient and inefficient economic and social infrastructure. So also will it be unattainable in a polity where the British and their stooges have demonised democracy, distorted governance and confused public accountability and where the fragile socio-political systems are often undermined by internal strife created by British and USA intelligence networks, coup d'etat, conflicts and civil war. Like Zimbabwe.
These often paralyse the state and turn them into a failure. States collapse when fragmented by internal strife like what the MDC and the British are advocating Zimbabwe in which none of the factions is capable of re-establishing central authority or when they lose their legitimacy in the eyes of the majority of their population and are therefore unable to exercise authority without excessive coercion or when they are rent by the unbridled greed and avarice, incompetence, negligence. The British and USA want to create such chaos in Zimbabwe by trying to overthrow the government of Mugabe. These signs are at advanced state in Zimbabwe.
A sound management of the economy is also a condition sine qua non of an effective viable and dynamic state. Macro-economic policy that alienates the government from the people, impoverishes the population and throws them out of jobs may achieve higher rates of economic growth for a while but certainly not sustainable human development. That is why I agreed with President Mugabe when he said no to devaluation and he has totally refused the instruments of neo-colonialism called IMF and World Bank.
No one now disputes that "demand management" which is a requirement of structural adjustment programmes of the 'World Bank and the IMF is largely politically motivated and shortsighted. Nor that these programmes have had little success in reviving economic growth on a sustainable basis in SSA. Impartial observers, particularly among Western experts, have now come round to my long-held view points that SAPs are too un-focused, typified by the proliferation of conditions, where more than hundred conditions per programme have not been unusual. As a person who has read some economics to a level of distinguishing between good and bad I will concur with the Zimbabwean approach that looks at the future of the nation not the interests of the current MDC demands and of the British hegemony.
How does Zimbabwe resume the struggle to forge the future?
Then the time is now and the delivery has been done by the land distribution programme, which has been completed.
The Economist in one of its leader articles - Emerging Africa - on the June 14, 1997 issue, inter-alia, urged Africa to forge its own future. This is no doubt a very opportune and appropriate counsel to give. This indeed is in conformity with the acknowledgement made from time to time by the Western world that the primary responsibility for the development of Africa is that of the people of Africa and their leaders. Indeed, at their Denver Summit in June 1997, the so-called Seven (now turned Eight) most industrialised democracies of the world echoed the same sentiments when they stated that developing countries have a fundamental responsibility for promoting their own development, and that developed countries must support these efforts. But when Zimbabwe brought out its land reform program most of these so called countries tried their level best to distort and reject these reforms. Hence the start of the economic hardships that this country is facing.
However, as all Zimbabweans know, the reality has been quite different. Every attempt that has been made by the Zimbabweans to forge their future, to craft their own development strategies and policies has been rebuffed by the so-called international financial institutions (IFIs) with the support or at least the connivance of the donor community. While the Zimbabwean leader can be faulted in some ways as alleged by the imperial monster powers, at least in this regard, fairness demands a full acknowledgement of the series of heroic efforts which he has made since the 1980s to craft his own indigenous development paradigms in the light of the perceptions of his people.
Mugabe has been the only African leader who has followed and understood all the declarations of the African meetings. The Lagos Plan of Action in 1980 (LPA); Africa's Priority Programme for Economic Recovery 1986 to 1990 (APPER) which was later turned into the United Nations Programme of Action for Africa's Economic Recovery and Development UN-PAAERD) by its adoption by the General Assembly of the United Nations at its Special Session of May/June 1986; the African Alternative Framework to Structural Adjustment Programmes for Socio-Economic Recovery and Transformation (AAF-SAP) in 1989 and, the African Charter for Popular Participation for Development in 1990. The UN General Assembly also adopted both AAF-SAP and the African Charter. I can mention a long list of all these important declarations whose ink has only dried on paper but not implemented by the same neo-colonial masters.
Unfortunately, all of these were opposed, pooh-poohed, undermined and jettisoned by the Bretton Woods institutions. This has been a matter of concern and bitter frustration to Africans who see these negative reactions as the blatant exercise of power by the rich over the poor and, more importantly, as a negation of the democratic principles and the denial of the rights of a people to make decisions about their future - regardless whether such decisions prove to be right or wrong.
The undermining of the ability of African governments to determine their development strategy and choose the package of public policies without fearing being turned into international pariahs has made a farce of the pro-democracy movement. It is indeed inconsistent to champion the cause of democracy all over Africa and deny the governments and people the elementary right to forge their own future. Thus, the failure to change course and direction of public policies discussed in Section III above has been due largely to both external pressure and resistance. Not the reasons advanced by those opposed to the land redistribution program in Zimbabwe. I am trying to pump sense into those who think that the problems in Zimbabwe were created by Mugabe's land redistribution process.
Debt overhangs as barrier to good economics
At present, it is clear that the only way Zimbabwe can avoid losing the right to be in charge of its own national economic management is by not being burdened by unserviceable debt. But as far as the land redistribution is concerned Mugabe has won the war. It is the only way Zimbabwe can avoid being obliged to pursue programmes that are adjudged to be unfocused. The Economist with its tremendous influence should see to it that the regrettable economic (including debt) situation of Zimbabwe is not l used to deny them the right to craft their own development strategies and policies. This will encourage the resumption of initiatives by the government to the road to recovery, which the new Minister of Finance announced on 15th November 2002.
Needless to add that the African governments and leaders have themselves to blame for their failure to put their money where their mouth is. To adopt, after great deal of effort, discussions, consultations and negotiations, common strategies, policies and programmes only to ignore them in deference to those crafted by donors and international financial institutions in order to have access to loans and credit shows how deep seated African leaders' dependency, lack of self-confidence and commitment have been I thank the leadership in Zimbabwe for the tenacity and steadfastness they have shown when standing firm against the whirl wind of poison from the British decayed foreign policy.
Zimbabwe will only be able to invent for itself a future that will bring rising prospects of prosperity through total commitment to its own programmes and through their vigorous implementation. The policies of economic policy consist not only in their conceptualisation, articulation, adoption and popularisation but also in total and unrelenting commitment to implementation. It is only by so doing that Zimbabwe, particularly as one of the countries in SSA, can rediscover its self-respect and remould its image. We need not to urgently shed the image that we are incapable, as a people, to run a modern society and sustain the independence of our political economies through the process of internally generated development. That is what I saw in the budget of November 2002. I had wanted to see what the British budget would look like before I make my analysis and contribution to the stability of Zimbabwe.
Framework of Zimbabwe's Indigenous Development Paradigm
It is clear from the foregoing that for Zimbabwe's economy to stop going to doldrums it has to fundamentally be reshaped through a human-centre holistic development strategy postulated in the Lagos Plan of Action and the with the Africa Charter on Popular Participation providing the political underpinning. In specific and operational terms, this means
(i) The pursuit of an increasing measure of self-reliance at the national level through (a) the internationalisation of the forces of demand, which determine the direction of development and economic growth reality. In any case, the strategy of export-oriented industrialisation is to enable Zimbabwe to rejoin the global economy more forcefully and more vigorously and take the fullest advantage of the new world order.
(ii) The promotion of private investment in Zimbabwe. While all this is welcome, I believe that Zimbabwe's experience under the Lome Convention however shows that duty-free access is useful if there is the capacity to produce and supply the market in the near future. It is this capacity that the pursuit of this strategy will create.
Zimbabwe's Achilles Heel: Debt Overhang and demonised democracy
To enable Zimbabwe to pursue vigorously and determinedly the pursuit of the goals of its human-centred holistic development paradigm, which the Hon. Minister of Finance put forward to the nation, and the priority goals, its major albatrosses must be successfully and speedily removed. They are the debt overhangs and the perennial attacks on Zimbabwe's democracy. This has led to a halt in development and smooth planning in all sectors of government.
Unfortunately, these cannot be adequately treated in this already long analysis for each of them, given that its importance and complexity, requires to be so treated separately. But this analysis will be considered rather empty if it does not deal, however briefly, with these all-important problems that currently overwhelm the Zimbabwean political economy and threaten to force it to collapse. Let us begin with the debt overhang.
Today, 32 developing countries are classified as Severely Indebted Low Income Countries (SILICs). 25 of these are in Africa. They are Burundi, Cote d'Ivoire, Ethiopia, Guinea, Kenya, Madagascar, Mauritania, Niger, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Sudan, Uganda, Zambia, Central African Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Ghana, Zimbabwe, Liberia, Mali, Mozambique, Nigeria, Sao Tome & Principle Somalia, Tanzania and the Democratic Republic of Congo (formerly Zaire).
These are countries whose 1993 GNP per capita was no more that US $695 per annum and for which either one of the following two key ratios for 1991 to 1993 is above a critical level: present value of debt service to GNP is 80 percent or more, and present debt service to export goods and services is 200 percent or more. In 1994, the total debt of these countries alone was $209.3 billion. 24 percent of this was owed to multilateral institutions, while the balance was made up of bilateral government-to-government and commercial loans. But the real burden of the debt lies in the growing weight of debt service obligations. Because multilateral institutions cannot, under existing rules be rescheduled or reduced, the burden of servicing the debt has risen to unsustainable levels. For the SILICs, the debt burden is like a millstone around their neck. This is what those who blame Mugabe should look at before jumping at conclusions.
Unfortunately, the several moves towards solving the debt crisis through debt relief, reduction and cancellation have been both too late and too little. And until September 1996 when the Highly Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Debt Initiative was launched by the World Bank and the IMF, multilateral debt was excluded from all solutions. The cumulative result of this exclusion was that whereas only 24 percent of total debt was owed to multilateral institutions in 1994, the SILICs debt service obligations to these institutions in the same year was 43 percent of their total debt service burden. In 1980, the percentages were 8.9 and 13 respectively.
Debt has thus become the major obstacle to Zimbabwe's development. Its most devastating impact is felt through the economic effects of debt overhang due to an unsustainable debt stock. Debt overhang discourages domestic and foreign investment by creating uncertainty about inflation, currency stability and future taxation. It also raises the risks of commercial transaction, by increasing the cost of access to trade credits. Consequently, the levels of investment are invariably very low in countries facing debt overhang like Zimbabwe. And needless to add that the rate of growth is low and little development takes place. The debt crisis has also exacerbated Zimbabwe's dependency.
Regrettable as it may sound, there is little evidence that an effective and permanent solution is in sight. The HIPC Debt Initiative, which is the first debt reduction mechanism, which promises to deal with the ongoing debt crisis in a comprehensive and concerted way, has had a very poor start. It is now more than five years since the initiative was heralded as a breakthrough and, in the words of the World Bank President James Wolfensohn, as "very good news for the poor of the world" this optimism remains to be justified. Instead the world institutions have turned heat on Zimbabwe by demonising and isolating the country.
Uganda was so far the only country to benefit from the HIPC Initiative. The debt relief package agreed for the country on April 23, 1997 by bilateral and multilateral creditors amounted to only 19 percent of Uganda's debt burden (i.e. US$338 million). The magnitude of the relief has come as a disappointment and, what was worse, is that it did not become effective until April 2000. As the country's former Minister of Finance, J.S. Mayanja stated, "any delay (in debt relief) was not merely an issue of timing.
But Uganda is still very lucky compared with other SILIC/HIPC countries. Of the other countries - Benin, Burkina Faso, Cote d'Ivoire, Ethiopia, Mali, Mozambique, Zimbabwe and Senegal - whose expected decision point is 1997 little progress has been reported. 6, 5 and 5 countries are slated for 1998, 1999 and 2000 respectively. The 1998 list consists of Chad, Ethiopia, Guinea Bissau, Mauritania, Sierra Leone and Togo; on the 1999 list are Congo, Madagascar, Niger, Tanzania and Zambia while the 2000 list is composed of Cameroon, Central Africa Republic, Rwanda, Sao Tome & Principe and The Democratic Republic of the Congo. Those who blame Mugabe for the mess of the economy of Zimbabwe should read and look at all the national budgets of these countries.
Judged by the slow progress made during the first year of the HIPC Initiative, considerable delay is inevitable in achieving the various completion points. Finally, the point must be that of the 32 SILICs, only 24 have been earmarked to benefit from the HIPC Initiative. The 8 countries - Burundi, Kenya, Sudan, Equatorial Guinea, Ghana, Liberia, Nigeria and Somalia - which have been excluded have no doubt been deemed to be unqualified for one reason or the other which has nothing to do with the objective data based on the ratios of debt service to export goods and services and of present value of debt service to GNP. Consequently, I have no alternative but to conclude rather grimly that it is a long way to the time when Zimbabwe like other African countries can hope to exit from the debt crisis and achieve debt sustainability.
The demonised democracy by the British and USA hegemony
If the persistence of the debt crisis gives cause for concern, the pervasiveness of internal strife caused by the British system has added chaos to the situation in Zimbabwe, continue to give credence to the basket case hypothesis and the sense of hopelessness that it generates. The Economist last year described Africa as a violent continent. Since 1990 it has had about 80 violent changes of government with more than two dozen heads of state and government having lost their lives through political violence changes of government. Six - Sudan, Uganda, Ghana, Burundi, DRC and Benin - have each gone through violence and brutalisation several times.
Nigeria tops the list with its six changes of government. Five other countries - Ethiopia, Sierra Leone, Congo, Comoros and Central African have had three battings each, while two - Burkina Faso and Chad - have experienced violent changes four times. Eight other countries - Mauritania, Mali, Niger, Somalia, Rwanda, Lesotho, Togo and Liberia - have had it two times with the remaining seven having one bout of violence each during the past four decades. Today, as many as ten SSA countries are engaged in severe political crisis. These conflicts are caused by the British and USA intelligence networks that benefit by looting the resources in Africa, as is the case of the DRC.
Zimbabwe faces of devils of western imperialism
There is no gainsaying the fact that wherever there are conflicts, civil strife and war, there are ipso facto brutalisation, poverty, hunger and starvation and, of course, also debt. They do indeed go hand in hand. There is also invariably democratic deficit. Despotism and kleptocracy engineered by the British intelligence are now rampant in Zimbabwe. Indeed, at the root of Zimbabwe's persistent economic crisis the British and USA perennial bouts of political strife might cause violence in the near future. As I have said again and again, we will never comprehend Zimbabwe's crisis so long as we continue to take a purely the economist viewpoint. What we confront in Zimbabwe is primarily a political crisis created by the British hegemony, albeit with devastating economic consequences.
To achieve lasting peace and sustainable democracy and development In Zimbabwe, it is imperative to fully comprehend and master the many complex factors and forces that have brought about these this current economic stand-off, and political instability. It is too simplistic to regard them as merely a post-independence teething problem and to resort to stereotypes by lumping them together under the banner of ethnicity or bad leadership. The truth of the matter is that we really do not know. We are yet to fully comprehend the many underlying causes and histories of conflicts that have, over the centuries, plagued the continent as a whole. And, thereafter, we need to master them by devising strategies and policy options for transcending the existing conflicts and averting potential ones. THIS IS ALL THE LEGACYOF COLONIALISM.
This requires serious, empirical and dispassionate research; not expressions of partisan commitment of MDC nor mouthing of "peace making" platitudes and devaluation of currency. By the very nature of these internal strife, there is an urgent need of applied, proactive research which involves looking back in order to look forward, taking two or three steps back from current or immediate past conflicts in order to understand their causes and dynamics more fully so that we can look one or two steps forward to master and transcend them.
It is only by so doing that we can lay a firm foundation for sustainable economic development and political peace in SSA. It is unforgivable to continue with the pretence that cessation of hostilities and change of government in Zimbabwe is tantamount to peace and economic miracle. It is imperative that we must, through proactive research seek ways and means of achieving lasting economic freedom and peace, which are much needed in Zimbabwe. To us this will be achieved by the tough line we have taken against the British government and the much lobby work that has shut down the rumour factory of the MDC in London.
Fortunately, the African Strategy (AS) which was established some 4 years ago as an independent, non-governmental, non-profit continental organisation for research and to fill the void of strategic thinking has embarked upon mobilising Africa's research and intellectual capacity to undertake such a projects. I have chosen eight countries for case studies. They are Rwanda and DRC in Central Africa; Liberia and Sierra Leone in West Africa; Angola and Mozambique in Southern Africa; Sudan in North Africa; and, Somalia in the Horn of Africa. While virtually every African country is potentially a conflict, country, it is believed that a comprehensive study of these eight countries, which are still engaged in conflict or have recently emerged from it, will enable us to realise the goals of comprehending and mastering African conflicts. (AS) enjoys the full support as of the United Nations in this endeavour. Hence I have applied to the UN for the project to be incorporated and registered into the United Nations System-wide Special Initiative on Africa, which will show our documents and analysis to the international community. Those countries like Zimbabwe will be able to benefit because most us who like Mugabe on the continent will fight tooth and nail to see his programs through.
The Way Forward for Zimbabwe: Facing the Daunting Challenge
To say that the task ahead of Zimbabwe is daunting is no exaggeration. There is also a time factor. I usually disagree with T.S Eliot in all his theories but one thing, which struck me as an African, is the quote "Time past is time future. Are both contained in the time present. And time present in time future" The rest of the world is moving so fast that the gap between it and Zimbabwe has become too wide. I have always been asking my self which way my beloved people of the great Southern African state will go? The Zimbabwean people themselves are yearning for the move forward. Their leaders have risen to the challenge and mobilised the entire people and thereby unleashing their energies for achievement of the Zimbabwean miracle. When I sat in the Zimbabwe Parliament in the Speakers Gallery on 15TH November 2002 and listened to the learned friend Hon. Dr. Herbert Murewa read word by word his plans for the future of Zimbabwe one thing that I was worried of was for him to mention the word "devaluation" which the MDC members were whispering in the Parliament Chambers. But his Bible sermon, which brought in tougher rules on monetary issues pleased and I have to tell you that compared to my dear friend Gordon Brown in the Labour government Hon. Dr. H.Murewa parable were fantastic. He never borrowed and borrowed like the Tony Blair's cash boss.
I want to thank him for having thought like some of who hate IMF and World Bank policies that would bring the downfall of the President Mugabe. There is no room in Zimbabwe politics to contend and simply to persist in continuing to elevate a collection of wrong signals unto national policy. That is why I support the abolition of the Bureau-de-change nightmare in Zimbabwe. They work well in an economy with IMF and World Bank policies not where the offices of IMF have dust on the shelves. That is the message I got as political analyst whose knowledge on economics and on political economy on Africa favours the Murewa approach. Simplification over the acknowledgement of complexity, quick fixes over patience, sustainability and the nominal over the real is not the route of "an economic war cabinet" of President Mugabe.
In other words, those opposed to Mugabe want to persist in the concerns for their "things" rather than for people which as the experience of the 1980s has showed and has created a divided society where the less fortunate are hurt, damaged and discounted by public policies which have jettisoned social justice and sacrificed the common good.
Is Zimbabwe capable of drawing inspiration from East Asia and turn its current basket case country into wonder country during the next two to three decades? Will the people develop the ability to accelerate the rate of accumulating physical and human capital, focus exclusively on productive investment agriculture, make human development the priorities and promote the mastering of technology? Will Zimbabwe strive to join humanity in the acquisition of the new and emerging technologies, which will dominate global economic activities in this twenty-first century? Finally, can I state that action during the next two to three decades should establish the African values, which are truly humanistic, pro-people enforcing social disciple, competitiveness and a high moral code.
If the answers to these questions are positive and affirmative as seen in Zimbabwe and Kenya as countries that have survived without IMF and World Bank then the African elite and policy makers will accept that economic development and transformation does not require mimicking the life-style of the West and that imitative development will not spark off the process of self-sustained development. I believe that we would have begun to develop the self-confidence essential for self-reliance. We need to keep reminding ourselves that development is not a matter of change; it is one of choice.
If Zimbabwe can put its act together, if it can wean itself of its colonial past, its unenviable heritage and its neo-colonial status, the sky is virtually the limit, given its potentials. No doubt leadership - in terms of quality, integrity and commitment - is a crucial factor in the pursuit of the development ethic that alone can bring about the second liberation of this country. Those leadership qualities are in ZANU-PF. The heroes of the first liberation - political independence - were well-known household names in their own times and are still useful to the current situation in Zimbabwe. Because they know all corners of the nation and they can seep with African broom of nationalism. The second liberation needs its own heroes modelled and guided by the fathers of the revolution on all matters and given the knowledge and experience of the first freedom fighters. These must not be the type of MDC sell-outs and turncoats bought by the British but people- both men and women imbued with vision and with fire in their belly who are totally and irrevocably committed to redeem Zimbabwe in the socio-economic fields and continue with the work of Mugabe t of the past two decades; men and women who will uncompromisingly pursue the goals of transforming the Zimbabwean polity, society and economy.
It is my earnest hope that Zimbabwe will succeed in producing such leaders, who can motivate and mobilise their people and galvanize and unleash their energies. In addition, an enabling international environment is, as has been made abundantly clear again and again in my analysis, essential. It is therefore important that the New Global Partnership for Development that the G.7 (now G.8) and the concepts of NEPAD be looked at seriously without destroying the national Independence of Zimbabwe. The major so-called industrialised democracies initiated at their Lyon Summit in 1996 the amorphous agency called NGPD that deal with African problems like they did in 2002 in Canada with NEPAD which I have always called "LEOPARD" because of the colours of the skin in the Canada meeting. But what must be known is that all these are simple "fixes" not solutions the problems of Africa or Zimbabwe.
The real solution is for the people of Zimbabwe to look at their Banking Laws that makes political weaklings in MDC to think that the whole economy is gone. The Kenyan case study and the Ugandan case of1979 after Idi Amin can be used as a comparison and there are lots of things that can be borrowed and learnt from these cases. Africa strategy is ready to avail the documentation of recovery for use as we did help to restore the foreign exchange saga in the Kenyan economy by standing firm against the IMF WARLORDS.
The continued support for democratic institutions of pluralism in Zimbabwe, the rule of law, which is in plenty in Zimbabwe and sustainable human development based on the land redistribution program as, agreed to by the Denver Summit is a welcome follow up development to Africa. However, it is imperative that these words must be matched by deeds. Not by demonising the government of President Mugabe. I have written this analysis for those who have not allowed the government of Zimbabwe to solve its own problems and for those MDC turncoats who are telling their masters in LONDON THAT ZIMBABWE IS FINISHED ECONOMICALLY.
Dr David Nyekorach-Matsanga can be contacted at africastrategy@hotmail.com``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xShaping Zimbabwe's Economy Using African Model``x1039451119,75981,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Darlington Muzeza
As was the case in the 1890s when the British used dubious tactics of dividing the Shona and the Ndebele, the same people, in cahoots with some local enemies to the State and President Robert Mugabe, are again in a desperate bid to fabricate ethnic differences to divide us.
As I went through a document purporting that the Shona would want to subdue the Ndebele through President Mugabe, I could only conclude that this is another example of the ongoing barbaric attempts to cause tribal and regional animosity between us, perpetrated by our enemies, whose objective is to denigrate the President and undermine the 1987 Unity Accord.
Are these political cowards claiming to be democratic so despondent that they have failed in their thinking, that they are prepared to continuously demonise their country and people’s hard- won independence, unity and solidarity?
It does not show vision on the part of these people who aspire to be leaders of this country. By trying to undermine unity, peace, tranquillity and co-existence that the two tribes have shown, they are betraying the country.
This tribal propaganda being peddled by the British intelligence and some local enemies of the State is merely a scapegoat to oppose the land reform in Zimbabwe.
The land that Zimbabweans have taken is not a Cde Mugabe issue, but a historical concern that should have been corrected long back, and the idea of taking it back now is not bad.
The economic plight of the blacks is, to a large extent, a function of colonialism as well as our domestic enemies in which some political upstarts interested in assuming power for personal aggrandisement have sabotaged our economy by calling for sanctions. They have also peddled hostile publicity to create an impression that Zimbabwe is not a safe destination for investment.
This has been done in opposition to the land issue that our detractors have personalised to mean a Cde Mugabe issue.
President Mugabe and his Government are right in correcting these colonial imbalances and had the President not done so, history was not going to spare him judgment over the matter.
The revolution would have been incomplete if the land question was not addressed and the purpose for having gone to war would have been rendered illusory.
Therefore, it is frivolous for some MDC members in cahoots with the British intelligence to use this trivial tribal issue, which, since 1987, has been buried.
To cause confusion, suspicion and insecurity among us as a tactic to derail the land reform shall never succeed.
May I remind our enemies that the land reform has proved to be unstoppable and it is not a political gimmick.
Those preaching the gospel of tribal chauvinism are not only detractors and enemies of the State but are obsessed with political parochialism.
Zimbabweans are an enlightened people. They discern illusions from reality and this cheap politicking is a sheer waste of time and resources. We are aware of and understand who our enemies are.
It should be borne in mind that both the Ndebele and the Shona suffered the same enslavement, oppression and suppression by the same people who want to see us divided.
Atrocities were committed in Mboroma, Nyadzonya and Chimoio.
Both the Ndebele and the Shona people perished in these brutalities committed by humanity against humanity with impunity. Surprisingly, these people have the audacity to tell the world that we are divided.
They divided us when they colonised our country and they want to repeat it.
Hatikanganwe zvazuro nehope sezvinoita vamwe vedu. Our relationship as one people is inexorable and is second to none.
Those propaganda statements are a direct insult intended to undermine our cherished 1987 Unity Accord forged by the late Father Zimbabwe, Dr Joshua Nkomo, and President Robert Mugabe, to facilitate the reconstruction of our country.
The lies being spread are a shame in the face of solidarity, unity and co-existence that we enjoy.
I urge all Zimbabweans to remain united against all odds of self-opinionated people who want us to be disunited.
Those championing such propaganda shall die as political nonentities because their objectives are not to build, but to destroy our country.
Their support is fast fizzling out because of lack of policies to rehabilitate our ailing economy.
Their utterances speak volumes about their confusion and lack of political wisdom to know that land is the economy. Their fabrication of facts is a desperate move by people who have run short of ideas.
Our detractors should appreciate that the Ndebele and the Shona are one people.
We achieved unity that our enemies never wanted or desired to see born. That unity should be guarded against those who threaten it.
Reproduced from:
http://www.herald.co.zw/index.php?id=16656&pubdate=2002-12-09``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xThe British in bid to divide Zimbabweans``x1039471714,70245,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xFrom Innocent Gore in CHIRUNDU, www.herald.co.zw
FOREIGN aid should be given to strengthen economic co-operation and not to further political objectives, President Mugabe said yesterday.
The President said this at a ceremony to commission the new Chirundu Bridge on the Zambian side of the border.
The ceremony was also attended by Zambian President Mr Levy Mwana-wasa, Cabinet Ministers and senior Government officials from the two countries.
Cde Mugabe lauded the Japanese government for providing the US$25 million grant for the construction of the new bridge, which is expected to ease congestion and smoothen the flow of traffic at Chirundu Border Post.
He said since independence, Zimba-bwe had enjoyed cordial relations with Japan, which availed grant aid packages to various sectors of the Zimbabwean economy, such as transport and communication, health and local government.
Zimbabwe also received assistance in the form of technology transfer and the training of artisans in various technical fields.
"I wish we could say that of many other countries which we are associated with in history.
"They should learn that when aid is given with the purpose of strengthening co-operation, it would be better appreciated than aid, given in order to perpetuate political objectives.
"And when we have such aid given for political objectives, we shall never want nor entertain it," Cde Mugabe said.
The new bridge is going to ease the flow of traffic and is expected to increase the volume of trade between Zimbabwe and Zambia. MORE``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xForeign aid should not further political objectives``x1039800035,40807,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Tim Chigodo, www.herald.co.zw
ZIMBABWEAN workers are tired of stay-aways and demonstrations called by organisations attempting to justify the receipt of funds they get from donors.
Their refusal to participate in work stoppages backed by the National Constitutional Assembly and the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions, all appendages of the Movement for Democratic Change, has created sharp divisions between the opposition groups themselves and their supporters.
It is no longer a secret that opposition groups in the country are sponsoring violence and thuggery to cause mayhem in the country and in the process, further damage to the economy.
After failing in its attempts to remove President Mugabe and his Government from power, the West is now disenchanted with the work of the opposition groups.
Coffers of the MDC, NCA, ZCTU and other European-sponsored groups are drying up. This has broken the affinity among the organisations.
Now they are blaming each other for not doing a good job for their masters. They are seeing the demise of the MDC.
The failed stay-away and a protest march by the so called human rights lawyers is also a big disappointment to the organisers and the imperialist forces which finance them to create problems in their country in an effort to perpetuate colonialism.
Dr Lovemore Madhuku, the chairman of NCA has not hidden his anger at the deteriorating support his organisation is now getting from the West. He has accused his sponsors of making false promises.
With the venom of a cobra, the NCA boss this week castigated the international community for letting him and his colleagues down. Dr Madhuku said they had celebrated when the United States passed the Zimbabwe Democracy Bill which sought to punish Zimbabwe for acquiring land from the white commercial farmers for redistribution to landless peasants.
"Civil organisations have received nothing since that piece of paper became law," he said angrily when he addressed a meeting attended by less than 200 people.
The meeting had been organised by the Mass Opinion Public Institute (Mopi), another opposition group led by a critic of the Government and University of Zimbabwe lecturer, Professor Masipula Sithole.
The NCA leader said his organisation had not received any money since the enactment of the Zimbabwe Democracy Bill. He advised his followers not to expect anything from the Americans and Europeans.
Other critics of the Government, Mr Brian Kagoro of Crisis in Zimbabwe and Mr Charles Mangongera of Mopi, addressed the meeting. There was total confusion when most speakers attacked the opposition groups of being irrelevant.
They blamed the MDC had failed to achieve its intended purpose of removing President Mugabe from power and that the movement was collapsing.
Dr Madhuku said it was no longer necessary to talk about President Mugabe’s legitimacy or illegitimacy. Cde Mugabe beat the MDC leader, Mr Morgan Tsvangirai by more than 400 000 votes during the Presidential election in March this year.
Observers say the opposition faces total disintegration that may force it into oblivion.
The recent expulsion of Highfield Member of Parliament, Mr Munyaradzi Gwisai, has added more confusion to the opposition. The intolerance of a diversity of views by the party’s leadership has without doubt, spelt out its demise.
Analysts say the dismissal of Mr Gwisai has ruffled feathers within the rank and file of the party and sent a clear message to all the people that the MDC and Mr Tsvangirai, do not accommodate views different from theirs. The democracy that they have talked about so much is non-existent in the party.
Zanu-PF secretary for information and publicity, Cde Nathan Shamuyarira, said the latest events in the MDC were interesting and pertinent.
"We are intrigued and happy that the MDC has now publicly shown that it is not a party for the workers and peasants," he said.
Cde Shamuyarira said the observation made by Mr Gwisai that the MDC has neglected the workers and students who supported the party by virtue of being members of the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions was very pertinent.
"The MDC has no ideological direction," Cde Shamuyarira said.
Although the expelled legislator has supported the land reform programme, his party failed to come up with a policy on land.
"MDC leaders could not open their mouths because they were hamstrung by Britain and white commercial farmers who supported the party financially," the ruling party’s information and publicity chief said.
Any party that ignores the workers and peasants will not last long.
"They are important voices and not that of the Europeans and white commercial farmers," Cde Shamuyarira said.
Political commentator and publisher, Dr Ibbo Mandaza, said the events taking place in the MDC were symptoms of the collapse of the party. He said Mr Gwisai’s expulsion was inevitable considering the long standing rift between the legislator and his party leadership over ideology and policies.
"Unlike Zanu-PF, which has everyone in one camp, the MDC has elements in different camps. There are many young turks in the MDC who do not agree with the party’s policies," Dr Mandaza said.
The legislator and his superiors have, for a long time been at variance over ideology.
Mr Gwisai is a member of the International Socialist Organisation and pursues socialist ideology while the MDC, which sponsored him during elections, promotes capitalist policies.
Observers say the worst sin that the MP committed was to come out in full support of the Government’s land reform programme. He also slated his party for ignoring the workers who formed the core of the ZCTU which was later turned into a political party by Mr Tsvangirai without consulting them.
The party’s reliance on foreign support and continued articulation of imperialist policies has hastened the MDC’s downfall. The party destroyed itself by pursuing an anti-people programme, observers say.
Mr Tsvangirai, has never supported the land reform programme that seeks to empower Zimbabweans economically through equitable land redistribution. He has called Zimbabweans who have overwhelmingly endorsed the fast track land resettlement exercise "scavengers."
Most people took exception to Mr Tsvangirai’s utterances which they viewed as those of his white masters and not from a Zimbabwean.
Analysts derided the MDC leader for insulting the electorate.
The MDC is facing serious trouble that not even its foreign supporters who have in the past tried to clandestinely patch up differences within the movement can do anything about it now. It will be a tall order to put together the disintegrating British-sponsored party.
As things stand at the moment, the cracks in the MDC have widened and threaten its future as an opposition party in this country.
The failure of the MDC to attract local support was long foreseen when the party continued embracing foreign policies. The opposition made a mistake of thinking that because of the economic hardships in the country, people would abandon the ruling party and support it.
Mr Tsvangirai has been blaming the Government for the current problems some of which are the result of drought which has affected the entire Southern African region. He has, however, offered no solution to redress the economic hardships faced by the people.
Reproduced from:
http://www.herald.co.zw/index.php?id=16760&pubdate=2002-12-13``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xWorkers tired of stay-aways achieving nothing``x1039800097,72779,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Tandayi Motsi, www.herald.co.zw
ZIMBABWE's tourism can do with a little bit of great news, what with the critical fuel shortage which is causing headaches to hotels and tour operators ahead of the festive season.
Most hotels and resorts in Zimbabwe are almost fully booked for the festive season. The majority of the bookings have been made by Zimbabweans who want to unwind with their families after a trying year.
But the fuel crisis, the worst to have hit the country, could put paid to their travel plans. With air fares out of the reach of many people, road travel is but the only option for those going to holiday. Without fuel, people cannot travel and hotels and tour operators lose out.
At present there are no signs that the fuel shortage is going away anytime sooner. Noczim officials are trying hard to line their pockets by attempting to dump Tamoil of Libya in favour of other international oil suppliers who demand cash upfront. With cash deals, Noczim officials can have opportunities to line their pockets. In the meantime fuel shortages worsen.
While the fuel shortages are depressing, the recent launch in Mozambique of the Great Limpopo Transfrontier Park is great news for the local tourism industry.
The 95 000-square-kilometre park links Gonarezhou National Park in Zimbabwe, Limpopo National Park in Mozambique and Kruger National Park in South Africa.
Presidents Mugabe, Thabo Mbeki of South Africa and Joaquim Chissano of Mozambique recently signed the Mega Park treaty in Xai Xai, a town situated along the Limpopo River in Mozambique.
There are high expectations that the Mega Park will unlock great tourism revival and investment in Zimbabwe and the region. MORE``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xMega park great news for regional tourism``x1040044352,21121,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xHerald Reporter
CHINA has extended a US$5million (Z$280 million) grant to Zimbabwe for the importation of maize and agricultural equipment to boost the land reform programme.
Chinese ambassador to Zimbabwe Mr Hou Qingru handed over the money to the Minister of Finance and Economic Development, Dr Herbert Murerwa, yesterday.
He said his country — a close ally of Zimbabwe — was concerned with the current shortage of basic commodities in the country and hoped that the grant would help the Government import the much-needed maize.
"There is a very long traditional relationship between Zimbabwe and China and we have been supporting Zimbabwe before independence. We are happy that the funds have been fully utilised," Mr Qingru said.
He said his Government had bought about 4 500 tonnes of yellow maize from South Africa, which is expected in the country soon.
Speaking at the hand over ceremony, Dr Murerwa said the money would help ease food shortages and boost agricultural activities. MORE``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xChina extends US$5m grant ``x1040139047,82637,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xDecember 12, 2002
by Professor Alejandro Correa & Professor Emeritus Willie Thompson
This month, for the first time in history, Venezuelan people of African descent have total control of their historic Black university, the Instituto Universitario Barlovento. They are already planning a university administered hotel and a restaurant for students, faculty and the community. This is an achievement of a lifetime, and the people of Barlovento gather around their seat of higher learning to reflect on their success.
Another topic on their minds and hearts is the fate of President Hugo Chavez. He is Venezuela's first multiracial president and is called "Negro" (nigger) by his detractors because of his African-Indigenous features. Behind the enemies of Venezuela and Hugo Chavez are very large sums of money being spent to destroy the dreams of the people who historically have been discriminated against because of race, economic ideas, etc.
These dreams of the African Venezuelan people may be deferred if the United States replaces Chavez with a rightwing businessman as president. Currently, three Blacks are state governors elected by the people; the secretary of education is black; two Indigenous Venezuelans are congresspersons elected directly by the people; Indigenous Venezuelans have the complete right to claim their historic lands; land is protected and available to Black and Indigenous Venezuelan farmers so that they can now engage in farming for the first time in generations; and Venezuelans of African descent are participating in conferences against racism around the world and establishing strategic relationships with international organizations. They have attended Congressional Black Caucus conferences in 2000, 2001 and 2002; the pre-conference against racism in Chile in 2000; and the United Nations World Conference Against Racism in Durban, South Africa, in 2001. The African Venezuelan community in Barlovento also hosted the Second International Reunion of the African Latin Family in 1999.
Sixty percent of the population of Venezuela are people of African descent. The others are Mestizos of Indigenous and European descent and Indigenous. The support of the people of African descent in the United States is one of the most strategic factors in helping the people of African descent survive and prosper in Venezuela.
President Hugo Chavez was elected in a democratic election with more than 70 percent of the 11 million votes cast. One of his first actions was to call for an election of a National Constituency Assembly whose mission was to reform the 1969 national Constitution. During 40 years of democracy this Constitution was used to avoid empowering the people. The election of the National Constituency Assembly allowed the participation of students, business related organizations, community representatives and parties opposed to the president in the Assembly. The entire society had its opportunity in the Assembly.
The National Constituency Assembly designed a new national constitution, which was widely discussed all around the country. Then a national election was called to consider the acceptance of the new constitution. The Venezuelan people, in direct election, said, "We do accept the new constitution" in 1999. New national elections were called at all levels of government to test the acceptance of the new constitution and renegotiate the public powers. President Hugo Chavez, again, won the election with over one million votes more than his closest opponent. The party supporting Chavez also won, as did several state governors who belonged to the party.
During his three years in power – the complete term is six years – President Chavez has been an advocate for the education of the poor. After 50 years of being eliminated, schools were created with full schedules from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., allowing children to stay longer in recreational programs and special classes.
Never before have small businesses flourished with the full support of the government at the local and national levels. Chavez has opened the doors for the participation of those who have long been excluded.
When President Chavez came to power, 80 percent of the population lived below poverty. Overcoming this difficult obstacle requires a joint effort at all levels of society. Unfortunately, the support has not echoed in the upper economic brackets of Venezuelan society. What have they done? Organizing a coup is not the way to support the government.
Venezuela is the fourth largest oil producer in the world and the second largest oil exporter to the United States. President Chavez has never threatened the export of oil to the U.S. He has visited the U.S. about five times, holding meetings with businesspersons, seeking to stimulate foreign investment in Venezuela in order to raise the level of employment and mitigate the conditions of the poor.
Unfortunately, the sectors of society wanting to reverse these important advances decided to violate Venezuelan democracy. A group of renegade military generals formed a coalition with "businessmen" – land owners whose ancestors stole it from Indigenous Venezuelans and used enslaved African labor to build the Venezuelan economy and society.
Some members of the press also belong to the business establishment. Three main private TV stations led a campaign against the evolution of democratic change in the same style Hitler used against the Jews: "Say a lie a thousand times and everybody will believe it as a truth."
These forces formed a coup to destroy freedom in Venezuela. For three days they controlled the government and instituted practices not seen in Venezuela since the ‘50s, during the days of the military rulers. Venezuelans in their 60s were astonished to see such violations of civil rights.
Leaders of the coup imprisoned President Chavez, isolating him from any public contact, lying about a presidential resignation, dissolving all legitimate national powers at all levels. Then they started hunting down the legitimate member of Congress and of the president's cabinet. Even the Supreme Court was forced to resign. They did all that in a period of three days. Further, they derogated the 1999 constitution.
In response, however, people of all races and backgrounds took to the streets, the military bases and public buildings to liberate President Chavez. He is in control again.
Venezuelans watched with deep concern how Ari Fleisher, Bush's press secretary, and Condoleezza Rice, Bush's defense advisor – a black woman – avoided calling the coup against President Chavez what it really was: a vulgar, right wing coup against a democratic government. Both have used vague rhetoric to criticize Chavez' administration rather than condemn the coup. The Bush administration in general looked with sympathy at the coup and issued no declaration condemning it.
The New York Times also has presented the facts in a less than objective way. Rather than going into the countryside to talk with the people, Times reporters appear to have visited only the Caracas suburbs to assess public opinion. Furthermore, the local media consider only the opinions of wealthy people. All other opinions are considered unworthy. So, if you are poor or if you are not in agreement with the media, then you are not considered a part of the public opinion.
U.S. Senator Christopher Dodd has expressed dismay over the Bush administration's behavior regarding the situation in Venezuela. His position is an example of goodwill and is appreciated by Venezuelans.
There's an international effort to destroy the public image of President Chavez. Let us briefly analyze it.
1) Hugo Chavez has visited Iraq, Iran and Libya. Because he is a friend of those nations, he is branded an enemy of the United States. Venezuela and the countries visited by President Chavez are members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). Together with these countries, Venezuela regulates oil prices and must agree with them on strategies for maintaining profitability while at the same time making prices affordable to the oil importing countries such as the U.S. With 60 percent of its national budget based on oil income, clearly Venezuela must talk with members of OPEC. This doesn't make Venezuela a partner in terrorism as has been insinuated by the U.S. and the media.
2) Hugo Chavez is a friend of Cuban Prime Minister Fidel Castro. It is insinuated that he is therefore an enemy of the U.S. Venezuela is a free and self-determining nation in its business relations with Cuba. It has a right to have business relations with China or any other country.
3) It is said that Hugo Chavez didn't condemn the attacks on the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001, and is therefore an enemy of the U.S. But President Chavez most certainly did condemn the Sept. 11 attacks and said, just as France and Russia and the Pope did, that he doesn't support a heavy and indiscriminate attack against Afghanistan which might cause civilian casualties. The Bush administration considers neither the presidents of France and Russia nor the Pope as enemies of the U.S. and is not willing to plan and finance a coup against those leaders because they express humanitarian points of view.
4) President Chavez is said to be a supporter of the Colombian guerrillas and is therefore involved in terrorism. The truth is that President Chavez has condemned terrorism in Colombia. Furthermore, the Venezuelan government under his administration has been a mediator in peace talks between the guerrillas and the Colombian government.
5) The people of the U.S. should think deeply about U.S. support of the failed coup and its leaders and its plans to change the regime in Venezuela. The result of President Chavez' trip to oil exporting countries was agreement on a solid oil price. In Venezuela, the price of oil is extremely important for education, health care and public services generally. The first declaration of the leaders of the failed coup was the abandonment of the quota system, which caused oil prices to drop.
Writer's note: Africans and people of African descent are beginning to tell our own story. Most other people have no vested interest in telling the truth about us. Professor Correa of Barloyento University is an African Venezuelan, and he tells the story of the achievements of African Venezuelans, the United States' participation in the failed attempt to overthrow President Chavez, and the certain reversal of the social, economic, cultural and psychological gains to African Venezuelans if President Chavez is overthrown. He pleads with us to 1) discuss in open forums, churches and community organizations the U.S. attacks on Venezuela and the conditions there, and 2) write letters to the U.S. Congress asking that the U.S. respect the Venezuelan government and follow the rule of law and international treaties in dealing with Venezuela. You can trust his advice and act on it.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xAfrican Venezuelans fear new U.S. coup against President Chavez``x1040226796,13772,Development``x``x
``xwww.herald.co.zw
President Mugabe yesterday delivered the State of the Nation address in Parliament. The following is the full text of his address.
Mr Speaker,
Honourable Members of Parliament,
I address you at a time when our country is experiencing considerable difficulties related to the devastating drought that has ravaged our region. Indeed, I address you amidst warnings and fears of yet another drought. This challenging situation has been compounded by preceding seasons of devastating floods and, in sum, dramatises our increasing vulnerability to natural disasters and the need for national preparedness. The Nation remains anxious about the immediate season and the prospects it bears for all of us.
A direct outcome of these repeated adversities has been a generalised food shortage both in the country and our region as a whole. Most of our southern African countries do not have enough food and have resorted to food imports for survival. A huge food import effort is underway in the region and clearly our port, rail and road systems are stretched to the limit in order to meet the logistical demands imposed by this adverse situation. It is a regional problem; one which has imposed tremendous hardships on our peoples and a stupendous strain on our economies and infrastructure.
Here at home, household stocks have practically run out in most areas and Government has had to meet total food requirements from imports. Even parts of our country which managed some harvests in the last season or which normally enjoy good harvests in good years have exhausted their stocks and Government is having to include them on its ever growing list of areas of need. Government is stepping up grain purchases and the overall movement of food so we can sustain our people until the next harvest which we hope might mitigate the drought.
To date, Government has provided $8,67 billion in food aid. As at the 6th of this month, a total of 1 005 862 metric tonnes of grain had been contracted, with 648 231 metric tonnes having been delivered. These received quantities have gone to all our people, strictly on the basis of their numbers and survival needs across the country.
I cannot over-emphasise the importance of tackling this situation of extreme need with a common vision and unity of purpose, and of course, with the usual creative fortitude, which has seen us through similar droughts in the past.
I appeal especially to our corporate citizens to play a visible, responsible and meaningful role to complement the Government effort. The man and woman standing in need of food cannot apply himself or herself fully when he or she is concerned about where to get the next family meal. Without food, there cannot be any production, just as there will not be any food if we do not produce. The challenge should thus be that clear to all of us.
Owing to the drought, the question of the pricing of basic commodities has become an important aspect of our policy aimed at buttressing the social security of our people. It has thus become a national issue and not a prerogative of the entrepreneur. Similarly, the issue of incomes and wages would have to be looked at from the same perspective so that our collective response is broad and comprehensive enough to restore the survival threshold of our people. I, therefore, urge Government to continue consulting with business and labour for outcomes that bring sustainable relief to our people. These tripartite consultations should concretely focus on those commodities that are basic to our people and which thus should be made available and remain within the reach of the common man.
Because our economy is agriculture-led, resolving the question of drought constitutes the unavoidable basis of getting our economy to make the required turn-around.
Hence, under the Land Reform and Resettlement Programme, Government has increased the amount to be expended on inputs from an initial $1,4 billion in 2000 to $7,6 billion in 2001, $8,5 billion in 2002 and now to $12,5 billion in 2003. In addition, a total of $1,4 billion was this year allocated for the purchase of irrigation equipment and rehabilitation of schemes covering an area of 7 749 hectares throughout the country.
Major rehabilitation works carried out at schemes such as Dewure, Chibuwe and Mutema in Manicaland; Mankonkoni in Matabeleland South; Shashi and Lukosi in Matabeleland North; and Chilonga in Masvingo, should result in enhancing our food production capacity. The successful winter crop piloted in Masvingo this year should now be extended to other areas with water masses so the yields of maize and wheat are significantly increased.
Several dam projects which would meet the Nation’s growing water demands, especially for irrigation purposes, are now at different stages of implementation and four of them, namely Mundi Mataga in Mberengwa, Matezva in Bikita, Chikombedzi in Chiredzi and Sadza in Chikomba will be completed this year.
The District Development Fund is providing tillage to farmers and the exercise has thus so far covered over 63 000 hectares benefiting more than 13 000 families from the $800 million made available during the 2002 winter cropping season. In the current 2002/2003 summer cropping season, over 60 000 hectares have been tilled out of a target of 100 000.
Mr Speaker, I have had occasion to update this august House on our Land Reform Programme which is meant to address the inequitable historical land apportionment as between the majority of our people and the minority white settler community. I have also had occasion to announce the near conclusion of the A1 phase of the Land Reform Programme, while announcing progress registered to date in respect of the A2 programme which focuses on commercial agriculture. A lot still remains to be done in fulfilling the basic requirements of the A2 programme, although the land acquisition process has gone a substantial distance.
Mr Speaker, our Nation has paid dearly for embarking upon the urgent and unavoidable land reforms. We have been criticised for doing the right thing, namely, accomplishing the sovereign mission of acquiring our heritage. Now that the land has come, let this Nation be repaid by its new breed of farmers who should work the land diligently and produce abundantly for it and its neighbours.
Mr Speaker, although we are confronted as a Nation by several economic challenges, Government continues to introduce a number of measures whose aim is to restore macro-economic stability. Most of these measures were announced in the 2003 Budget, while others were announced later. Our agrarian reforms should accordingly be supported by other measures that seek to stimulate our small and medium-scale enterprises, while regenerating activity in the traditional sectors of mining, manufacturing, commerce and tourism, all with a bias towards stimulating our export sector for greater foreign exchange earnings.
Our Employment Creation Fund has reached out to rural communities and a total of $290 million was disbursed towards 2 000 projects throughout the country, 61 percent of which are rural-based while 51 per cent are female-owned. Cumulatively, over 80 per cent of these projects are in the agricultural and manufacturing sectors.
Mining has, in the past year, been affected by low international prices and rising costs of production. The new fiscal incentives for mining and approved new incentives to increase the production of gold by the small-scale and alluvial gold sectors, medium-scale and large-scale producers, have gone some way towards causing some recovery.
A notable development in mining is the increase in applications for exploration licences by local small companies. While more resources should be channelled towards these players, as the future of the industry lies in their hands, the setting up of the Gold Mining and Minerals Development Trust (GMMDT) will facilitate the growth of the small-scale sector, by assisting the mining and benefication processes.
Mr Speaker, tourism is certainly recovering. Tour operators and travel writers from the United States of America, United Kingdom, Russia and Malaysia who visited Zimbabwe on fact-finding missions testify to this fact. More initiatives should be embarked upon in order to achieve the overall turn-around of this lead sector.
Mr Speaker, the passage of the Rural Electrification Fund Act this year has given a fillip to our rural electrification programme. To date, two bonds, totalling Z$7 billion have been successfully issued to finance the rural electrification programme. As at 21st October 2002, 1 507 projects had been completed countrywide under the Expanded Rural Electrification Programme. The Programme also provides beneficiaries with end-use infrastructure such as equipment used in irrigation, welding, milling and various other small businesses, which will, in turn, enable them to use electricity for economic gain.
Infrastructure development remains the cornerstone for the growth of the economy. The Road Fund established to finance maintenance of roads and bridges has, to date, accumulated about $2,6 billion, of which about $2,3 billion has been disbursed to the respective road authorities namely, the Department of Roads, Urban Councils, Rural District Councils and the District Development Fund.
The new Chirundu Bridge built at a cost of US$22 million through a Japanese government grant has been completed and is now commissioned. The bridge should improve the increased flow of traffic between Zimbabwe and Zambia.
Major civil aviation projects are being implemented, such as the rehabilitation of the Harare International Airport runway, and the upgrading of Joshua Mqabuko Nkomo, Victoria Falls and Buffalo Range airports at a cost of $2,5 billion, $14 billion and $3,5 billion respectively.
Housing remains a major priority for Government. Consequently, $198 million was allocated to local authorities to up-grade old housing estates in various parts of the country, with a further $150 million being allocated for servicing about 1 350 stands at growth points and rural service centres countrywide. Other activities included construction of the Harare Composite Office Block and Chirundu Border Post facilities. Projects in progress include the Interpol Sub-Regional Headquarters, Central Registry and Immigration Headquarters, Rural Health Centres and 13 District Hospitals.
In the area of education, Government continues to expand tertiary education in response to demand. All technical colleges have been up-graded to polytechnic status to facilitate the diversification of programmes while the curricula of vocational and technical institutions have been reviewed to respond to emerging needs such as those occasioned by the agrarian reforms. In this regard, the rural industrial attachment programme for students in technical and commercial disciplines has been introduced to stimulate the rural economy. As the students gain practical knowledge and skills, they simultaneously assist local communities in development projects.
A total of 61 A-Level classes have also been established and 29 of these are rural district schools to allow easy access to rural students who would otherwise find it expensive to enroll at boarding schools. The preservation of Zimbabwean social norms and values is at the core of our education through teaching topics on our Constitution, National Anthem, National Flag and Human Rights. In order for children in resettlement areas to continue with their education, 346 primary and 93 secondary satellite schools have been established.
To reduce the number of vulnerable children dropping out of school, about 700 000 children in primary, secondary and special schools have been assisted with levies, tuition and examination fees under the Basic Education Assistance Model (Beam) since January this year. In fulfilment of our commitment to the Declaration of the Fifty-fifth Session of the United Nations General Assembly, Government has set in motion the process for monitoring and reporting on the Millennium Development Goals to reduce poverty by the year 2015. The Children in Difficult Circumstances (CDC) programme is another response by Government to revitalise the traditional child-care approaches by empowering communities so they can assess, analyse and take appropriate action for vulnerable children in their areas. A total of $50 million was allocated this year for the purpose. The National Youth Service Training Programme opened more centres at Guyu in Gwanda, Mushagashe in Masvingo and Dadaya in the Midlands. Another centre at Kamativi will open in April 2003.
Given the significant role of this programme in moulding and developing our youth, Government will ensure that it has adequate resources to meet the expansion plans for the year 2003 and beyond.
The HIV/Aids pandemic continues to ravage the country. As part of Government measures to combat the spread of the disease, the number of Voluntary Counselling and Testing Centres has been increased from 10 in 2001 to 15 in 2002; free nevirapine for the prevention of mother-to-child infection has been secured to cover the period 2002 to 2007 while district and village Aids committees are now functional throughout the country, thereby strengthening the process of district planning and organisation to fight HIV/Aids. By the end of August this year, the National Aids Council had raised $4,5 billion of which $2,1 billion had been disbursed.
The biggest challenge of dealing with HIV/Aids remains the need for the population to adopt healthy lifestyles. It is in this context that in addition to implementing water and sanitation programmes, the Government has allocated $2,5 billion for child supplementary feeding to cover an estimated 1,4 million children under the age of five until the end of the year.
The brain drain fuelled by aggressive recruitment by overseas agents has resulted in the loss of several health sector personnel, the most affected group being nursing which has lost about 2 000 nurses. As a short to medium term measure, the Government has re-introduced the training of state certified nurses and other paramedical personnel such as pharmacy technicians, clinical officers or assistants to physicians. This is in addition to the recruitment of various health personnel from friendly countries, for example, Cuba, whose 110 medical personnel have already been deployed to various parts of the country.
Mr Speaker, Britain’s relentless diplomatic campaign of vilifying and isolating our country has hit a frenzy only matched by its futility. There is a growing recognition even within the European Union that this Blair-led anti-Zimbabwe drive is as unjustified as it is spiteful. A number of countries are questioning the British motives, while global solidarity with Zimbabwe continues to grow. Equally, the search for new partnerships with non-traditional regions of our economic pursuits is beginning to yield positive results. We remain guided by principles of mutual respect and unbending regard for the sovereign will of independent nations. The regard we give to all nations of the world is the respect we expect from the same world.
Much against malicious claims, we have completed our mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo and all our soldiers deployed there have come back triumphant at the conclusion of a hallowed pan-African duty. What the international community could not achieve with so much tragedy in the 1960s, has been accomplished by three small southern African nations with meagre resources and abundant will. As always, the prophets of doom have been shamed and we have written yet another chapter in peace-making and peace-keeping, a glorious chapter in African solidarity. Today, the DRC can march towards peace, with her boundaries clearly etched and drawn, her right to self-determination fully asserted.
In our relations with our partners in Sadc and the African Union, Zimbabwe has always sought to play a constructive role in addressing issues that affect the region. The centrality of our policy has been and will continue to be based on peace and stability as pre-requisites for social and economic development.
Mr Speaker Sir, I wish to urge all Zimbabweans to actively participate in partnership institutions like the National Economic Consultative Forum and the Tripartite Negotiating Forum and proffer collective and home-grown solutions to the economic and other challenges that our country is facing. The National Economic Consultative Forum has now set up its own permanent secretariat dedicated to following up on the implementation of recommendations arising from the Forum.
As we bid farewell to yet another year, let us all look to the New Year with hope, remaining steadfast in our endeavour to seek economic justice and prosperity for our people and country. Yet before the year ends, we have the Christmas period which, as a joyous and charitable occasion, should inspire us to espouse the virtues of love, unity and oneness both as individuals and as communities.
Let us be better people in 2003. Merry Christmas and a Happy and Prosperous New Year!
I thank you.
Reproduced from:
http://www.herald.co.zw/index.php?id=16993&pubdate=2002-12-20``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xPresident Mugabe's State of the Nation address``x1040399874,93788,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xScribes spy for BBC
Sunday Mail Reporter
THE British Foreign Office has allegedly hired some Zimbabwean journalists to work for the BBC as underground staff whose duty is to shoot television images and send them to the station's head offices in London, where voice-overs are done. Full Article
UK's military plot exposed
Political Editor
BRITAIN is recruiting Zimbabweans into its army, a move seen by the Zimbabwe Government as part of a plan to oust President Mugabe from power violently.
Security sources say the locals could be used in a military offensive against Zimbabwe should Britain execute its plan to topple the Government.
The recruitment also includes some Zimbabwean soldiers.
In a letter dated December 2 2002 to a top Zimbabwean official who had been put as a referee by one Ashley Chibaya in his application to join the British army, Mrs L. Bradbury from the Commander Recruiting Group wrote:
"Ashley Chibaya has applied for a Commission in the British Army and has given us your name as a referee.
"At this stage of Ashley’s application, the UK Ministry of Defence (MOD) needs to establish his identity and be assured as to his background, character and integrity.
"Whereas we are able to establish identity by other means, it would be very much appreciated if you would kindly provide a reference in respect of the latter aspects.
"Your reference need not be extensive, but should include a note as to how long you have known him and in what capacity," reads the letter by Mrs Bradbury.
Since the victory by President Mugabe in the March presidential poll in which he defeated the MDC leader, Mr Morgan Tsvangirai, by over 400 000 votes, Britain has been working with the MDC, some non-governmental organisations and the private media in destabilising the country.
Commenting on the letter by Mrs Bradbury, the Minister of State for Information and Publicity, Professor Jonathan Moyo, said the Government is aware that Britain is recruiting Zimbabweans into its army. Full Article``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xNew moves by Britain and BBC?``x1040571850,44106,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xby KEVIN ALEXANDER GRAY
On July 2, 1776, the "anti-slavery clause" was removed from the Declaration of Independence at the insistence of Edward Rutledge, delegate from South Carolina. Rutledge threatened that South Carolina would fight for King George against her sister colonies. He asserted that he had "the ardent support of proslavery elements in North Carolina and Georgia as well as of certain northern merchants reluctant to condemn a shipping trade largely in their own bloodstained hands." Fearful of postponing the American Revolution, opponents of slavery, who were in the clear majority, made a "compromise." Thus, July 4, 1776, marks for African Americans not Independence Day but the moment when their ancestors' enslavement became fixed by law as well as custom in the new nation.
If only anti-slavery foes had said "no compromise!" to South Carolina and rejected slavery and white privilege, the United States would have begun as a principled nation instead of a hypocritical one. Maybe then, today's South Carolinians would not be at the point of violence about a flag and what to do with it.
Throughout American history, South Carolinians have led the fight to preserve and defend slavery, white supremacy, racial segregation, and race fear. South Carolina is the soul of the Confederacy. It is safe to say that South Carolina gave birth to Dixie, so much so that it is a matter of pride to many South Carolinians that their state was the first to secede from the Union and that Citadel cadets fired the first shot of the Civil War.
South Carolina's singular role in United States history is as a conduit for the growth of slavery. Between 1700 and 1775, forty percent of all enslaved blacks came to America through the state. As Ellis Island in New York was the first stop for many Europeans willingly entering the New World, Sullivan's Island near Charleston, was the first stop for many Africans who were brought here against their will. South Carolina had the highest percentage of slaveholders in the nation. In 1860 almost half (45.8 percent) of all white families in South Carolina held enslaved Africans.
The Confederate flag represents the glorification of that history. The flag represents slavery, racial oppression and a deep-seated belief in the very existence and rightness of the Confederacy. The flag symbolizes a privileged, landed class, white supremacy and patriarchy. Those who fought and died under the Confederate flag were willing to die for the expansion of slavery. This, not some vision of mint juleps and ladies in ringlets and lace, is the "heritage" that modern Confederates defend when they champion this flag. For most Americans, let alone most African Americans, the men who died under the Confederate battle flag were not heroes; they were traitors to the fundamental notion of human freedom.
For the past 32 years, the Confederate flag has flown atop South Carolina's Statehouse dome. Now there is finally a movement to move the flag to the grounds around the Statehouse. Many in the white community believe this is a compromise blacks ought to jump on. Some have even offered that the flag be cast in bronze as possible compromise. A few white state legislators promise violence if the flag is not honored "appropriately" and as part of the "compromise," black legislators must agree to leave all Confederate monuments, building, school, street names and the like in place.
In spite of such threats, the local, national and international community must repudiate this compromise. It is unacceptable to have the Confederate flag flying on public property. The flag is a racist, ignoble symbol and location does not change its meaning. The flag as government-imposed speech or symbolism is a slap in the face to all Americans who believe in equality. The NAACP's demand is that the flag be removed from the dome and relegated to a museum. So, if the South Carolina legislature decides to cast the flag in bronze, the group will have accomplished its mission. That does not mean that the remaining monuments to racism ought to be left alone. All monuments that glorify slavery ought to crumble, and it is outrageous and not just symbolic that the most reactionary legislators are insisting that all other symbols of white supremacy and enslavement must stand if they give up this one.
The National Association for the Advancement for Colored People remains the spearhead of the economic boycott against South Carolina. Although the boycott sometimes lacks coherence, the group loses credibility amongst its core supporters by accepting any deal that leaves the flag flying. The boycott generally centers on tourism but, at present, it is difficult to measure the effect on white-owned businesses or activities such as concerts or sports events. Some in the movie industry such as Will Smith and Mel Gibson ignored the call to avoid the state while tennis pros Serena and Venus Williams refused to play at the all-but-segregated Hilton Head. The Neville Brothers appeared in the state while singer Gerald Levert says he won't perform until the flag comes down.
A few months ago, the New York Knicks moved their training camp from Charleston. Players said they "didn't feel welcome" with the flag flying. If the NAACP expands the boycott, it should include discouraging athletes, black and white, from playing major college sports in the state. The NCAA has indicated that it is willing to go along.
The boycott has had an immediately adverse affect on blacks. Many black families come into the state for reunions. Hotel owners whose client base is predominately black feel the immediate pain of the tourist boycott. If the boycott dramatically affects convention business, that hurts black workers disproportionately. In spite of this economic reality, moving the flag to the front door of the Statehouse ends nothing--would the civil war have ended if slavery had been moved to some more obscure corner of the nation?--and most black people in South Carolina are willing to sacrifice a bit longer. They see the flag as symbolic of the economic disparities and regressive racial attitudes that have persist in the state to this day.
The South Carolina business community, black and white, wants the flag down because the boycott and accompanying negative publicity is costing them money. Yet, many white businessmen express an inbred sympathy for flag supporters. Many in the chamber of commerce crowd think that moving the flag to the state's Main Street will change the image of the state. They are counting on the rest of the world seeing it their way. They are just as out of touch with how South Carolina appears to the rest of the world as their predecessors who put the flag up as a symbol of resistance to civil rights for African Americans in 1968.
Many white legislators have openly expressed their longing for, denial of or amnesia about South Carolina's racist history. Some have mused out loud about how good it was when all black football teams played the all-white teams. Almost all ignore past and present Ku Klux Klan activism and violence in the state. One calls the NAACP, the 'national association of retarded people.'' Others unashamedly proclaim that black slavery "is good." Confederacy defenders and those nostalgic for state-sponsored segregation, present to the world the same troubling mindset as Austria's Nazi SS defenders. The international community should respond to South Carolina as it did to Joerg Haider's Freedom Movement and his Freedom Party-led government.
The South Carolina statehouse is surrounded by Confederate monuments. Not only that. There are Confederate monuments at every county courthouse and town square in the state. The names of white, male southern patriarchs are everywhere. Towering high in Charleston is a statute of John Caldwell Calhoun who promoted the ideology of white supremacy and states' rights. General Wade Hampton who promoted and defended secession and the Confederacy sits on a horse on the capital grounds. Benjamin Ryan Tillman, a virulent white supremacist, constitutionally (and otherwise) who reinstituted white rule after Reconstruction, faces the Confederate soldier statue that guards the statehouse.
"Pitchfork" Ben drove blacks out of the state at gunpoint. He and his Sweetwater Sabre Club members wore white shirts stained in red to represent the blood of black men. Tillman's heir, Senator James Strom Thurmond, rose to prominence in 1948 with the States Rights Democratic Party, better known as the Dixiecrats. Thurmond ran as that party's presidential candidate; his party stood for segregation and against race mixing. Throughout his congressional, career Thurmond has opposed every major civil rights initiative. On the statehouse grounds, Thurmond's statute faces the Confederate Women's monument.
And long before Nazi Germany's Josef Mengele, the "Angel of Death," conducted human experiments on Jews at Birkenau and Auschwitz; long before the Tuskeegee experiment that left 399 black men untreated for syphilis from 1932 to 1972, South Carolina had James Marion Sims. Sims, the "father of gynecology," established America's first women's hospital -- the Women's Hospital of the State of New York. He is also credited with founding the Cancer Hospital now known as the Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. Yet before Sims treated the white and wealthy, he experimented on enslaved black women. Sims performed more than forty experimental operations on an enslaved woman named Anarcha for a prolapsed uterus without anesthesia or antiseptic. Sims' memorial is tucked in a corner of the statehouse grounds next to the Robert E. Lee Memorial Highway plaque.
All these men hold a place of honor in the hearts and minds of many white South Carolinians. If they need to prove that they have not abandoned their racist heritage, there will remain plenty of evidence after the Confederate flag comes down. And ensuring that those relics of racism and white supremacy will remain in place for another generation is far too high a price to pay in order to achieve the minor feat of allowing the flag to further defile the statehouse grounds.
While the Statehouse lawn is crowded with statutes of white men the memory of the rebellious black haunts modern Confederates. The Citadel, the state-run military academy in Charleston that was recently forced to accept women, was built in 1825 after the Denmark Vesey insurrection of 1822. Construction of the Citadel arsenal was begun in order to protect whites from "an enemy in the bosom of the state."
In 1999, a majority-white committee was given the task of coming up with a memorial for the Statehouse grounds that would recognize the legacy of slavery. Vesey's name was suggested to the committee. The Vesey conspiracy was one of the most elaborate black uprisings on record. It involved thousands of blacks in and around Charleston. In the end Vesey, his five aides and thirty-seven blacks were hanged for trying to set themselves and their brethren free. Vesey didn't just shout "give me liberty or give me death," he acted on that idea, so fundamental to American concepts of liberty and values. Nevertheless, the committee refused to recommend a statute of Vesey because "he advocated killing whites." But the committee did not suggest taking down the statues of Tillman and Hampton, who advocated killing blacks.
Many white southerners refuse to believe or accept the fact that his or her ancestors fought the wrong fight. You hear the same nonsense over and over: They "fought bravely," "defended the land," their cause was "noble"-even that they fought because they were called and "it was their duty to fight" Illusions aside, the war was about "keeping the niggers in place!" Poor whites fought and died in a "rich man's war" because they wanted to remain "better than the niggers." And today, if the flag remains on the dome or even if it is placed on the grounds, the underlying sentiment that welcomes its continued presence will be "keeping the niggers from getting what they want!"
For those with an unbiased and honest view of history, that flag will always represent racial oppression, first and foremost. Flag opponents are not asking anyone to forget history or to give up their flag. Just the opposite: We must never forget! Those who put one of the many Confederate flags on their cars or fly them in their yards at least do us the favor of letting us know what they stand for. Still, at some point, there must be a repudiation of the symbols and icons that glorify the immorality of the past.
People have to get beyond that point if we expect them to recognize the debt owed African Americans for the stolen lives and labor of their ancestors. And that is the least we ought to expect.
Kevin Gray is a civil rights organizer who resides in Columbia, South Carolina.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xSame as It Ever Was: South Carolina and It's Flag``x1040668482,24055,Development``x``x
``xAnti-War Hardcore v. Anti-War Lite
by The Black Commentator
http://www.blackcommentator.com/
As Blacks take leadership roles in the growing anti-war movement, the more comfortable corners of the Left are busy generating schisms, for no reason other than to assure the War Party of their patriotism. Privileged people are like that. They insist on having their way and deciding who is and who is not good company, even when the stakes are life and death --possibly for the whole planet.
We could take the safe, diplomatic course and pronounce that the emergence of rival umbrellas among those who claim to lead the opposition to Bush's war agenda is actually a positive development, signaling maturity and the prospect of a healthy division of labor. But that's nonsense. The truth is, there is Anti-war Hardcore and Anti-War Lite. African Americans are involved in both camps.
We are glad that there is resistance of any serious variety, since it is clear to the clear-headed that George Bush and his pirates are preparing to jail the opposition, or worse, as soon as a domestic emergency can be justified as part of the War on Terror. When and if that time comes, safety will be found only in huge numbers. Hardcore and Lite alike, all on the same roundup list. What a country!
Having made the proper, nonsectarian noises, we will come clean to express the most extreme irritation at the nasty little people who, not content to simply do something useful by organizing as many folks as they can against Bush, feel it necessary to badmouth the organizers of October 26's demonstrations. At minimum, 100,000 and 50,000 people protested in Washington and San Francisco, respectively, against the wishes of the corporate media, which virtually boycotted the events. By proving that the opposition was capable of mounting an effective popular response to the Bush administration's war hysteria, the organizers may well have changed the course of history and saved countless lives.
At the center of the October mobilization and the follow-up demonstrations set for January 18 is A.N.S.W.E.R., Act Now to Stop War & End Racism. Had it not been for the A.N.S.W.E.R. coalition's efforts, Bush and his media would have announced to the world that the American people were solidly behind his war plans. A.N.S.W.E.R. achieved what no one on the "comfortable" Left would or could: they made Bush think about the domestic consequences of his military actions, by mounting demonstrations before the onset of war on a scale that the Sixties movement did not equal until at least 30,000 Americans and several million Vietnamese were already dead.
A.N.S.W.E.R. brings the crowd
True to its acronym, A.N.S.W.E.R. has had some success in darkening their coalition. One thousand people turned out at Rev. Herbert Daughtry's Brooklyn church for a November 21 rally. Daughtry's partner in the National Action Network, Rev. Al Sharpton, spoke at the October demonstration in Washington, as did Rev. Jesse Jackson. The movement is still disproportionately white, drawn largely from already existing anti-corporate globalism groups, but A.N.S.W.E.R.'s tireless efforts have been anything but "narrow" or "sectarian." Heroic is a better word.
Now comes the nattering from places such as The Nation magazine --people like columnist David Corn who wouldn't lift a finger to stop the entire world from going up in smoke if it meant associating with the Workers World Party, the grouplet at the heart of A.N.S.W.E.R. For a tiny outfit, the WWP has accomplished a great deal, apparently having learned well the lesson that you can't mobilize hundreds of thousands of people simply by waving the Little Red Book of Chairman Mao's quotations. Corn and other sideliners complain that the WWP uses control of the microphones to make "outrageous" demands (like freedom for the man formerly known as H. Rap Brown).
Corn and his crowd are the "sectarian" brats. We at judge activists by their abilities to set people in motion. We are most concerned that a bunch of middle-aged white children are injecting their petty disputes, which originate in political turf too small for anybody else to care about, into a struggle to save what's left of American democracy --a commodity that is worth more to us because we have less of it. Human existence, itself, is in jeopardy. Yet the destructive little brats want to throw out the people who set the resistance in motion.
Blacks have enough sectarian problems of our own, which we somehow manage to keep in check, if barely. If the white Left finds that its ranks remain racially anemic, they will have only themselves to blame. African Americans will not be part of any tantrum-throwing spectacles among the privileged.
"Assurances of "patriotism"
There are real differences between what we will call Anti-War Hardcore and Anti-War Lite, although not necessarily irreconcilable ones. The upstart, Lite camp is gathered under the banner of the Win Without War coalition. The core of the coalition employed the slogan, "Keep America Safe: Win Without War." Essentially, these groups are concerned that everyone know how much they, like Bush, hate Saddam Hussein, but feel that war is not the best way to deal with him. Members include the National Council of Churches, Business Leaders for Sensible Priorities, the Conference of Major Superiors of Men, the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, Move On, the National Organization for Women, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Rainbow Push Coalition, Sojourners, Women's Action for New Directions, Working Assets, the NAACP, and Artists Against War.
In order to disassociate themselves from A.N.S.W.E.R., the Win Without War umbrella feels it is necessary to declare, "We are patriotic Americans who share the belief that Saddam Hussein cannot be allowed to possess weapons of mass destruction." The implication is that some people in the other camp are not sufficiently patriotic. "We support rigorous UN weapons inspections to assure Iraq's effective disarmament," said the Anti-War Lite statement. It continued, less defensively:
"We believe that a preemptive military invasion of Iraq will harm American national interests. Unprovoked war will increase human suffering, arouse animosity toward our country, increase the likelihood of terrorist attacks, damage the economy and undermine our moral standing in the world. It will make us less, not more, secure."
If that will get them to the protests on time and in large numbers, fine. The problem is, Win Without War has not endorsed the January 18 A.N.S.W.E.R. demonstrations, although some affiliated groups and individuals will doubtless take part. Since most of the coalition didn't have anything to do with the October protests, their absence in January shouldn't be of much concern. If they would be satisfied with staging actions on their own schedules, such as the small, scattered demonstrations that took place on December 10, that too would be useful. But the brats and dilettantes in their ranks are certain to grab corporate media microphones to smear A.N.S.W.E.R., rather than tend to their own business.
believes that, in the end, it's going to require that serious Black activists smack the spoilers upside the head, so to speak, and teach them how to be adult. Bush is deadly serious. The resistance must be even more disciplined.
Peace, justice and good wages
Organized labor, at their best moments, understands the value of solidarity, and dare anyone to challenge their patriotism. The following resolution by the San Francisco Labor Council is definitely not Anti-War Lite:
Whereas, since the tragic events of September 11, 2001, we have seen the beginning of a relentless new assault on labor --from the employers, and from the government acting on their behalf; and
Whereas, using the so-called "war on terrorism" and "national security" as a pretext, the Bush Administration has spearheaded a renewed assault on organized labor, starting with the use of Taft-Hartley (and threats to militarize the ports) against West Coast dockworkers...wholesale threats to the job security and union rights of 170,000 federal workers...the racist firings of experienced airport screeners...threats to curtail the right to strike and organize; and the impending contracting out of hundreds of thousands of federal jobs. On more than one occasion, government spokespersons have referred to union actions defending our jobs, working conditions and living standards as akin to terrorism, or as "aiding and abetting terrorists", or as a "threat to national security"; and
Whereas, Bush's war (on Afghanistan, Iraq, Colombia, the Philippines, where next?) has become the main engine for the repression of labor. "National security", in the hands of a thoroughly anti-labor Bush Administration, is being used as a bludgeon against labor, with the intent of rolling back all the gains workers have won since the 1930s, including collective bargaining itself, and including social programs championed by the labor movement like welfare, social security, unemployment insurance; and
Whereas, a strong fight-back requires that labor make it a priority to stake out a clear, forthright and fighting stance against Bush's war, and see the anti-war and anti-globalization movements as our strategic allies, needed if we are to defeat the assault on labor and move to the offensive. We got a glimpse of the potential power of this combination during the 1999 showdown in Seattle; and
Whereas, the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. embodied the coming together of the labor, anti-war and civil rights movements during the tremendous upsurge of the mass movement in the 1960s, and we need to revive this powerful combination of the people's forces to defeat Bush's war and the racism that underlies it and that it promotes; and
Whereas, our opposition to the Bush Administration's war on the Iraqi people, and to their attacks or threats against other smaller, sovereign countries around the globe, fits hand in glove with labor's fighting defense of the interests of the working people of all races and nationalities here at home; therefore be it
RESOLVED: That the San Francisco Labor Council, AFL-CIO, endorse the Martin Luther King weekend anti-war activities --the January 18, 2003 marches in San Francisco and Washington, DC in opposition to the war on Iraq, and the Grassroots Peace Congress being held in Washington, as well as the People's Anti-War Referendum ["VoteNoWar"] by which millions of Americans are casting their "votes" against this war; and be it further
RESOLVED: That this council work to ensure that organized labor and the national AFL-CIO take a clear and early stand against Bush's war.
The resolution was approved unanimously. These men and women have seen the enemy, and it is Bush. They don't waste time and resources in anguish over the presence of people carrying Little Red Books. And there is no more fitting activity during the week of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr's birthday than to march in the interest of peace.
Glover and Belafonte in Cuba
Among the Black signers of the Artists Against War petition are Diahann Carroll, Charles S. Dutton, Laurence Fishburne, Robert Guillaume, LaTanya Richardson Jackson, Samuel L. Jackson, Blair Underwood, Alfre Woodard, and Danny Glover. Glover joined Harry Belafonte, who is as hard core a veteran for peace as they come, for a press conference at Havana's Hotel Nacional, where they generally agreed on professional and political matters. It was Glover's fourth attendance at the Havana Film Festival; Belafonte has only "missed four out of 24 festivals."
Belafonte deplored the state of Hollywood cinema, saying he found the "highest movie-making standards at festivals in Havana, Cartagena [Spain] and Brazil, where cinema is an art showing more sensitivity than just aiming at the market." Glover repeated to the international press his stand against Bush's war plans: "My position on the war is very clear, above all for the impact that it will have on women and children in Iraq who are already suffering the consequences of sanctions."
Belafonte had a ready answer for those who question the propriety of criticizing the U.S. in a Cuban forum. "Many of my friends are journalists," said the singer-actor-activist, "and they tell me that there has never been as much censorship as now, and if they rebel then they will just lose their jobs."
Anti-War Lite Glover and Hard Core Harry were quite compatible. If only the white folks of the movement could just get along....
No cost, no excuse
Baltimore City Councilman Kwame Abayome got unanimous support for his anti-war resolution, part of a growing urban peace offensive. urges our influential readership to consider the language approved by Baltimore's local legislators:
FOR the purpose of reaffirming the articles of the United Nations Charter and the principles of international law on the peaceful resolution of disputes, opposing the United States' continued and threatened violation of the United Nations Charter and of international law by the unilateral, preemptive military action against the nation of Iraq, opposing the continued nonmilitary sanctions and proposed escalated military action, and urging the Bush Administration and our federal representatives to work with and through the United Nations to obtain compliance by Iraq with the United Nations Security Council resolutions concerning the development by Iraq of weapons of mass destruction and to support fully the return of international weapons inspectors to Iraq for that purpose and to actively support the United Nations' diplomatic efforts to support and encourage democracy and respect for human rights in Iraq and all nations.
The $200 billion cost of the war --for starters --will wreak immediate disaster in every city of the nation. The least that city councils can do is go on the record with their non-binding opinions.
In industrial and mostly Black and Hispanic Elizabeth, New Jersey, Councilwoman Pat Perkins Aguste convinced her colleagues to pass a "Culture of Peace" resolution that, she said, "we take to mean no aggressive war with Iraq."
"There is a role for us to play," said the Black lawmaker. "If we are asked to play a role we should step up."
The $2 trillion war
If the United States conquers Iraq and sticks around for ten years, the total cost to the economy could rise to $2 trillion dollars. That's one-fifth of the value of the nation's yearly goods and services, 40 times the annual value of all U.S. agricultural exports to the world, the whole federal budget for one year... it is unfathomable to all but the war profiteers who are even now dividing contracts.
As when confronted with an earlier, $200 billion estimated cost of several years' involvement in Iraq, the White House called the discussion "premature," since "we're hoping for a peaceful solution."
Occupation and peacekeeping could cost $500 billion, according to the report of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Most of the rest of the damage would result from economic recession, caused by disruption in oil markets.
In a best-case scenario, the benefits to the U.S. economy of Iraq's oil resources would amount to only about $40 billion.
The figures tell the tale. The pirates are in charge. Only they stand to profit.
The Anti-War Lite crowd doesn't understand who they're up against.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xBlacks and the Anti-War Movement``x1040669193,79010,Development``x``x
``xby Willie Thompson
On the "Afro-Cuban Connections" tour, nine African North Americans who traveled to Havana, Regla and Santiago de Cuba with the Carlton Goodlett Institute and Marcus Books Oct. 25 to Nov. 1, reluctantly understood and accepted the reality that the alienation and compromised patriotism felt by many African North Americans are not shared by African Cubans, who, except for a few scary traitors who would welcome a U.S. invasion, are super patriots. Understanding, accepting and acting on these realities is a challenge, though not insurmountable, for connecting with the people of African descent in Cuba and elsewhere in the Americas, ending the United States travel ban and blockade against Cuba, ending racism and improving the social and economic conditions of people of African descent in the United States, Cuba and all the Americas.
How is it that these two westernized people, African North Americans and Cubans, differ so strongly on the national component of their identity? C.L.R. James, the Trinidadian intellectual and author of the best book on the Haitian revolution, "The Black Jacobins," said in an interview in the Black World that "it has to be realized that we in the United States, and in the Caribbean, are people who are to a substantial degree westernized."
Cubans agree strongly with their intellectual founding father, Jose Marti, who said, "More than Black, more than White, we are Cubans." The Cubans further believe that they have destroyed the pre-Castro governments that were dominated by the United States and are now free to reclaim what they want from Africa in the "new" Cuba.
On the other hand, Africans in the United States are deeply alienated and conflicted in a racist, materialistic, supra-rational, hegemonic white supremacist nation that was built, during its agricultural era, by our enslaved African ancestors and their descendants - work for which we have never been paid. This African North American alienation and compromised nationalism and patriotism can be partly understood by a brief review of the racist legacy of some of the icons of the U.S. indelibly instilled in its scientific, religious, symbolic, economic and political institutions.
Thomas Jefferson, the very personification of the United States, wrote: "I advance it … that the blacks, whether originally a distinct race, or made distinct by time and circumstances, are inferior to the whites in the endowment both of body and mind" (quoted by Elaine Brown in "The Condemnation of Little B," page 128, from "The Life and Selected Writings of Thomas Jefferson," edited by Adrienne Koch and William Peden, p. 243).
This sentiment is expressed by another "great American," Abraham Lincoln, who said, "There is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality … and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race" (Howard Zinn, "A People's History of the United States," page 184).
The fact that Jefferson and Lincoln are not repudiated by North Americans has prompted many Black leaders to lead their Black audiences in the chant, "We are an African people," and to the spelling of Amerika with a K as in the Ku Klux Klan. The latter is the notorious vigilante group organized with state and federal sanctions following emancipation. The KKK numbered 2 million strong in the 1920s and carried out 100 years of lynchings of African North Americans.
African North Americans still confront a formidable European secular, scientific, economic and military dominance in the United States. Much of this dominance was made possible by an agricultural economy built with the unpaid labor of enslaved Africans and descendants of Africans for which we are now demanding reparations. Although we have always resisted this dominance, destruction and subjugation and participated at high levels in all U.S. institutions and served with valor and honor in its just and unjust wars, many African North Americans feel a profound alienation and compromised or debilitated patriotism. Our Cuban contacts boast of a strong identification with mestizo Cuba and feel assured that the African presence in the mestizo Cuban economic, political, religious, educational and scientific life is strong and will naturally grow stronger.
The members of the Afro-Cuban Connections tour often went our separate ways. Four of us spent our second evening and early morning with James Early, director of cultural heritage at the Smithsonian Institution. Early is highly regarded by the Cubans, but we learned from him that both the Cuban Communist Party and the Union of Writers and Artists of Cuba have failed to heed his appeal to them to deal with the volatile issue of race in Cuba. These groups maintain this stupidity even though President Fidel Castro, son of a mulatta servant, openly admitted in 1985 that racial discrimination still exists in his country and that measures need to be taken against it, according to Eugene Godfried in an article on AfroCubaWeb.
In September 2000, Dr. Castro told the Pedagogia 99 Congress in Havana: "It was some time before we discovered that marginality and social discrimination with it are not something that one gets rid of with a law or even with 10 laws, and we have not managed to eliminate them completely in 40 years."
Most of us met the anthropological research team called Project Orunmila in Regla, Cuba, 10 minutes from Havana. I spent the last day alone with this family-run document recovery, transcription and dissemination project that also operates a farm to provide financial support. I had earlier misunderstood the extremely important work of this group and unjustly accused them of insufficient rage at the historical and contemporary color prejudice still extant in Cuba, as though rage and alienation are the only appropriate responses. I clearly undervalued the depth and significance of their work and the African originated materials they are diffusing in Cuba and beyond.
I quote from an annotation on one of their volumes, called "Awo Orunla Dice Ifa":
"This book is the widest and most complete compilation of the complex panorama of legends that once belonged to the Yoruba people of Nigeria and that are still standing in Cuba and in different areas of the Caribbean (Puerto Rico, Dominican Republic, etc.), the USA and several Latin American countries (Venezuela, Mexico and Brazil). The work is organized according to the Oduns of Ifa. All writings are therefore placed in corresponding order. This leads the user to a better comprehension and understanding of the panoramic vision of the mythological world of Ifa. It relates an organized knowledge about the men's event as individuals, the way of thinking of those men, and about the society in which they live."
Sponsorship is needed for Project Orunmila to continue publication. The project may be reached by email at proyecto@orunmila.net or adeyeri@orunmila.net; by phone at 97-0677 (the home of Elsa, a neighbor) or by writing to Camilo Cienfuegos #109 e/c Oscar Lunar Y Nico Lopez, Regla 12 C.P. 11200, Ciuidad de la Habana Cuba.
The members of our group who visited the Agricultural Cooperative in Santiago rated it the best for its achievements, its holistic focus, the presence of Black Cubans in leadership positions and its warmth and receptivity. Some of our members said that they could have spent the entire day there. However, then we would not have been able to visit the Cuban Women's Federation or spend time with Eugene Godfried of the Radio Habana Caribbean Desk, who traveled by taxi from Guantanamo, Cuba, with the minister of culture for a frank and open discussion of African Cuban and African North American connections. We would also have missed Dr. Manuel Fernandez Carcasses, director of the Ateneo Cultural Center, who is an important link to the Oakland-Santiago de Cuba Sister City Committee.
The Casa de Africa at Humboldt's House in Havana was a superlative religious lecture-tour, music and dance experience by Los Ibeyis, directed by Daniel Rodriguez Morales (phone 99-2022). This foot-stomping, hand-clapping audience participation experience was superior to our visit to the Cuban International Ballet, which was enjoyable and included an orchestra directed by an African Cuban with several African Cuban musicians.
Afro-Cuban Connections may be the beginning of a more intense African North American tour that deepens fun, analysis, learning and action around the different realities of race, nationalism and patriotism and the alienation and resistance to violations by the United States of the constitutional rights of its own citizens and the sovereign rights of other countries who disagree with it.
We are deeply indebted to Dr. Raye Richardson, owner of Marcus Books in San Francisco and Oakland, for making this trip possible, with the cooperation of the Carlton Goodlett Institute and Global Exchange and a great deal of individual ingenuity and flexibility.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xPutting Afro In Cuba Tours``x1040719185,99602,Development``x``x
``xAuthor: Nicholas Wade
Filed: 12/11/2002
Source: The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/10/science/10ISLA.html
Inhabitants of the Andaman Islands, a remote archipelago east of India, are direct descendants of the first modern humans to have inhabited Asia, geneticists conclude in a new study.
But the islanders lack a distinctive genetic feature found among Australian aborigines, another early group to leave Africa, suggesting they were part of a separate exodus.
The Andaman Islanders are "arguably the most enigmatic people on our planet," a team of geneticists led by Dr. Erika Hagelberg of the University of Oslo write in the journal Current Biology.
Their physical features — short stature, dark skin, peppercorn hair and large buttocks — are characteristic of African Pygmies. "They look like they belong in Africa, but here they are sitting in this island chain in the middle of the Indian Ocean," said Dr. Peter Underhill of Stanford University, a co-author of the new report.
Adding to the puzzle is that their language, according to Joseph Greenberg, who, before his death in 2001, classified the world's languages, belongs to a family that includes those of Tasmania, Papua New Guinea and Melanesia.
Dr. Hagelberg has undertaken the first genetic analysis of the Andamanese with the help of two Indian colleagues who took blood samples — the islands belong to India — and by analyzing hair gathered almost a century ago by a British anthropologist, Alfred Radcliffe-Brown. The islands were isolated from the outside world until the British set up a penal colony there after the Indian mutiny of 1857.
Only four of the dozen tribes that once inhabited the island survive, with a total population of about 500 people. These include the Jarawa, who still live in the forest, and the Onge, who have been settled by the Indian government.
Genetic analysis of mitochondrial DNA, a genetic element passed down only through women, shows that the Onge and Jarawa people belong to a lineage, known as M, that is common throughout Asia, the geneticists say. This establishes them as Asians, not Africans, among whom a different mitochondrial lineage, called L, is dominant.
The geneticists then looked at the Y chromosome, which is passed down only through men and often gives a more detailed picture of genetic history than the mitochondrial DNA. The Onge and Jarawa men turned out to carry a special change or mutation in the DNA of their Y chromosome that is thought to be indicative of the Paleolithic population of Asia, the hunters and gatherers who preceded the first human settlements.
The mutation, known as Marker 174, occurs among ethnic groups at the periphery of Asia who avoided being swamped by the populations that spread after the agricultural revolution that occurred about 8,000 years ago. It is found in many Japanese, in the Tibetans of the Himalayas and among isolated people of Southeast Asia, like the Hmong.
The discovery of Marker 174 among the Andamanese suggests that they too are part of this relict Paleolithic population, descended from the first modern humans to leave Africa.
Dr. Underhill, an expert on the genetic history of the Y chromosome, said the Paleolithic population of Asia might well have looked as African as the Onge and Jarawa do now, and that people with the appearance of present-day Asians might have emerged only later. It is also possible, he said, that their resemblance to African Pygmies is a human adaptation to living in forests that the two populations developed independently.
A finding of particular interest is that the Andamanese do not carry another Y chromosome signature, known as Marker RPS4Y, that is common among Australian aborigines.
This suggests that there were at least two separate emigrations of modern humans from Africa, Dr. Underhill said. Both probably left northeast Africa by boat 40,000 or 50,000 years ago and pushed slowly along the coastlines of the Arabian Peninsula and India. No archaeological record of these epic journeys has been found, perhaps because the world's oceans were 120 meters lower during the last ice age and the evidence of early human passage is under water.
One group of emigrants that acquired the Marker 174 mutation reached Southeast Asia, including the Andaman islands, and then moved inland and north to Japan, in Dr. Underhill's reconstruction. A second group, carrying the Marker RPS4Y, took a different fork in Southeast Asia, continuing south toward Australia.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xAn Ancient Link to Africa Lives on in Bay of Bengal``x1040765903,42320,Development``x``x
``xBy Tim Wise
Education and the Myth of Black Anti-Intellectualism
Cherished myths die hard, especially when those myths serve the interests of the more powerful members of a society at the expense of the less powerful. For generations, slaveowners ignored their chattels' humanity, to say nothing of their desire for freedom, even coming up with a name for the presumed mental illness that "explained" the urge on the part of their property to run away. Drapetomania, it was called: a powerful disorder that afflicted the brains of slaves, rendering them incapable of recognizing how good they had it.
The subordination of persons of color has regularly been rationalized with absurd racist stereotypes, even when evidence flatly contradicted the illogic of those assumptions. So, for example, segregation was needed to allow blacks to develop to the "limit of their capacities," and to hear some tell it, blacks actually preferred separate schools, housing, water fountains, and lunch counters. Japanese Americans had to be interned for "national security" purposes because they were disloyal to America. Filipinos were incapable of self-government; Hawaiians were heathens in need of Christian discipline, and so on and so forth.
It mattered little, of course, that persons of color were actually quite loyal to the U.S. (indeed, more so than probably justified); or that non-white nations had long exercised self-government before being "discovered" by Europeans. And the myths would linger even after social movements forced changes in the society that had nurtured them. Although the more extreme versions of these beliefs are less often heard than in years past, newer variations are common: so instead of claims that blacks are a separate species or genetically inferior (which of course are still articulated, as with best-selling books like The Bell Curve), new and more palatable claims of cultural inferiority have come to predominate.
According to those pushing this type of analysis, it is not that blacks and other people of color have defective DNA, but rather, that their families are dysfunctional, their values counterproductive and their behaviors pathological.
Starting with Daniel Patrick Moynihan's 1965 treatise on the "crisis" of the black family—which he characterized as a metastasizing matriarchal mass of antisocial tendencies—and extending through Dinesh D'Souza's argument that blacks suffer a "civilizational deficit" relative to whites and Asians, dissing black culture and families has become a favorite political pastime. And as with genetic theories of racial superiority, the cultural theories hang on, impervious to logic or hard data.
Take, for instance, the oft-repeated claim by conservatives that lower black achievement in schools reflects the lower value placed on education by the black community, compared to whites or Asians.
Denying that racial discrimination might be implicated in different educational outcomes between African Americans and others, such commentators insist that different cultural attachments to education explain why whites and Asians score higher on achievement tests, tend to get higher grades, and are more likely to go on to college than their black counterparts. Some claim that blacks have adopted the attitude that doing well in school is "acting white," and have sabotaged their own futures by way of downgrading intellectual pursuits.
Black families come in for special condemnation under such an analysis, criticized for not reinforcing the educational work done in the classroom, and thereby undercutting whatever success teachers might otherwise have in educating their children.
But although the right would have us believe that black underperformance in school is due to cultural value differences, the evidence suggests that such an excuse is flimsy at best. While D'Souza insists that black students do worse in school because they do less homework on average than whites and Asians, existing data points to a different conclusion.
According to the National Center for Education Statistics, 43% of black fourth-graders do one hour or more of homework per night, as do 45% of whites and 47% of Hispanics. Although Asian fourth-graders are more likely than any other group to study one or more hours per night (56% do so), the differences between whites, blacks and Hispanics are too small to explain performance differences, and certainly contradict the notion that blacks or Latinos devalue education relative to whites.
In fact, black and Hispanic fourth-graders are both more likely than whites that age to do more than one hour of homework, with 18% of Hispanics, 17% of blacks, but only 15% of whites putting in this amount of study time daily. Although Asians demonstrate more study time at this level, the differences between them and other students of color are not substantial: about 21% of Asian students in fourth grade study more than one hour.
There is also no evidence that black parents take less interest in their children's education, or fail to reinforce the learning that takes place in the classroom once their children are home. Once again, NCES statistics indicate that black children are more likely than whites to often spend time with their parents on homework.
Black students are twice as likely as white students to get help from their parents on homework every day of the school week (twenty percent compared to ten percent), and while roughly half of black students get help from parents on homework at least three times each week, approximately two-thirds of whites get such help two times or less, with whites a third more likely than blacks to work with parents rarely if ever on their homework.
Likewise, and counteringcommonly held class biases, the poorest students (those from families with less than $5,000 in annual income) are actually the most likely to get substantial homework help from their parents, while those from families with incomes of $75,000 or more annually are the least likely to do so. Half of the poorest students work with their parents on lessons three or more times weekly, while only a third of the wealthiest students do.
Likewise, evidence indicates there is no substantial difference between white and black students in terms of whether their parents attend parent-teacher conferences or school meetings. Black parents and their children are also equally likely as their white counterparts to visit a library, art gallery, zoo, aquarium, museum or historic site, as well as a community or religious event—further countering the notion that black parents take less interest in providing educational opportunities for their kids.
Furthermore, and contrary to popular belief, three of four black children are read to by their parents when they are young, and black youth are equally or more likely than whites to be taught letters, numbers and words by their parents between the ages of three and five.
Of all the evidence rebutting the notion that blacks place less value on education than whites, nothing makes the point more clearly than attendance information. Black twelfth graders are more than twice as likely as whites to have perfect attendance (16% versus 7.4%), and are even more likely than Asians to have perfect attendance.
Whites are more likely than blacks to have missed seven or more days during the last semester, while blacks are less likely than members of any racial group to have missed that many days of school. There is also no significant difference between whites, Asians and blacks in terms of their likelihood to skip classes.
Of course, it shouldn't be necessary to recite any of these statistics to make the point that blacks value education as much as anyone else. The entire history of African Americans has been one of constant struggle to obtain scholarly credentials: from learning to read English even when it was illegal to do so, to establishing their own colleges and universities when white schools blocked their access, to setting up freedom schools in places like Mississippi, with the intention of providing the comprehensive learning opportunities that the state routinely denied to blacks.
Since that time, there have been any number of studies on black youth attitudes towards education, and while there are surely some such youth who sadly de-emphasize scholarly pursuits, there is little or no evidence that this phenomenon is unique to the black community. A recent opinion poll of black youth, ages 11-17, found that the biggest hope for these youth was to go to college, and additional studies have found that black youth value academic success every bit as much as white students and often place an even higher priority on educational achievement than whites.
Despite claims by many on the right that blacks—especially youth—lack a connection to "mainstream values," evidence contradicts this notion. One mid-1990's questionnaire of black high school seniors found that black seniors were just as likely as white seniors to say that a good marriage and family life were "extremely important" life goals; 32% more likely than whites to say that professional success and accomplishment were "extremely important" life goals; 26% more likely than whites to say "making a contribution to society" was extremely important; and 75% more likely than whites to say "being a leader in their community" was an extremely important life goal.
Black seniors were also 21% more likely than whites to attend weekly religious services and almost twice as likely as whites to say that religion played a "very important role in their lives." Considering the right's call for more religiosity in American life, such figures seem to indicate that blacks are well ahead of others in this regard, and by the standards of conservative moralists, should be considered paragons of virtue.
But in spite of having a comparable base of values, blacks continue to lag behind whites in terms of income, educational accomplishment, and professional success. Even black students from families with $70,000 or more in annual income score lower, on average, on the SAT, than whites from families earning less than $20,000 annually; and blacks from families with $50,000 or more in annual income score lower than whites from families with $6,000 or less in annual earnings.
Since the families from which these black students come are successful under the typical standards of evaluation, they cannot be scoring lower than whites for either genetic or cultural reasons: after all, their parents are "making it," and are not likely to be the kind of folks claimed to exhibit "pathological underclass" values.
So what is left? Unfortunately for those who would prefer not to admit the salience of institutionalized racism in the U.S., the answer is clear: substantially unequal outcomes are the result of substantially unequal opportunities.
Black students are only half as likely as whites to be placed in high-tracked English or math classes, and 2.4 times more likely than whites to be placed in remedial classes. Even when blacks demonstrate equal ability with their white counterparts, they are less likely to be placed in accelerated classes.
When kids from lower-income families—who are disproportionately of color—correctly answer all math questions on a standardized test, they are no more likely to be placed in advanced or college tracks than children from upper-income families who missed a fourth of the questions, and they are 26% less likely to be placed in advanced tracks than upper-income persons with comparably perfect scores. Even the President of the College Board has acknowledged that black 8th graders with test scores comparable to whites are disproportionately placed in remedial high school classes.
The impact of being tracked low in school has been shown to be profound. One of the nation's leading experts on tracking, Jeannie Oakes, reports that according to her own studies and those of others, being tracked low fosters reductions in student feelings of their own abilities and helps depress aspirations for the future among low-tracked students.
It is this context that must be considered when evaluating the tendency for some blacks to claim that getting good grades is "acting white." If one's schools have repeatedly given the impression that indeed education is a white thing; that the white kids are the bright kids; that everything worth knowing about sprang out of the forehead of white Europe, and that one's own aspirations are unrealistic, it ought not be surprising that some children exposed to such racist mentalities—and teachers who assume from the outset that not all groups are equally capable of learning—might develop a bad attitude about school. But as with most things, blaming the victims of this process will neither improve their opportunities nor alter the mechanisms by which their disempowerment is perpetuated.
It will, however, continue to offer a pseudo-intellectual lifeline to right-wing pundits whose careers have been built on bashing society's have-nots.
Tim Wise is an antiracist essayist, activist and lecturer. He can be reached at (and footnotes procured from) timjwise@msn.com``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xNot-So-Little White Lies``x1040950156,64587,Development``x``x
``xwww.transnational.org
By Jorgen Johansen, TFF Associate, Director of the Centre for Peace Studies at Tromsø, University, Norway, and Jan Oberg, TFF director
A UN mandate does not turn war into peace
Governments, editors, commentators and even supporters of the United Nations currently express the view that a war against Iraq is, or will be, acceptable if the United States and others "go back" to the Security Council and obtain a "UN mandate" before they attack.
But, this is false logic and could spell the end of the UN as a peace organisation. If you think that the planned war is or entails a violation of international law, such a mandate does not make it more legal. If you think that the war is morally wrong or unfair, such a mandate won't make it right or just. If you think that war has nothing to do with conflict-resolution but must be categorised as aggression, a resolution - inevitably the result of horse-trading among the Five Permanent (and nuclear) Security Council members and the other ten under the leadership of Columbia - does not turn war into wise politics.
The Security Council has no magic formula and no magic wand to wave in order to turn war into peace and human folly into wisdom.
A Security Council resolution that endorses war is not the same as a "UN" mandate, as is often stated. It's hard to believe that something like a referendum among all members in the General Assembly would result in a go-ahead. There is still little enthusiasm for this war among "we, the peoples" around the world. If the Security Council self-importantly decided that it is the High Judge and that Judgement Day has come, all talk of an "international community" standing behind a war with Iraq would be grossly misleading.
A mandate is no comfort; no UN mandate is the better option
It is as if a "UN mandate" serves to make some people feel better about this war. The Swedish government, as an example of a country whose solidarity with the UN has never been questioned, seems to hope that it will not be forced to criticise the United States. Because, if there is such a UN mandate, it would be possible for Sweden to say, "well, we don't like wars, but this one has a UN mandate, and therefore it is acceptable to us." The Danish government, still the head of the EU for a few more days, has declared that it is willing to participate directly in the war if there is such a mandate.
There are two important arguments against a UN "mandate". Firstly, if there is no such mandate, it will be considerably more difficult for many member states to accept it or go along with it. That is, the United States would rather stand alone and carry the major burden of a political, legal and moral disaster. Secondly, it would save the UN from being dragged down into the quagmire called bombing, invasion, occupation and control of Iraq - not to mention the humanitarian consequences and the resources needed to rebuild the country physically, as well as psychologically. With no UN mandate, the UN could say "not in our name" and remain a genuine peace organisation true to the words and the spirit of its charter.
To put it simply, if George W. Bush and the people around him want to destroy Iraq, they should go it alone. The UN must never be misused to legitimate bellicose policies of any member state. The UN can hardly survive with repeated humiliation as has been the case in Croatia, Bosnia-Hercegovina, Kosovo, Macedonia, Somalia and Afghanistan.
The planned war violates the Charter's words and spirit
Let us hope that the war against Iraq will never receive approval from the United Nations. The Charter of the UN is clear; the organisation's highest purpose is "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war." And "Armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest". There exists no common interest to do what is being planned against Iraq.
The war against Iraq has been going on for eleven years now. Since September 11 last year, the Security Council has lost colossal legitimacy due to a number of resolutions that have been passed. The tragic new interpretation of International Law itself and the implementation of it has seriously undermined the foundation of a system constructed to handle international conflicts. The principles and conventions developed in the post-Westphalian era have been damaged due to paranoid policies of revenge after the attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Centre.
Since September 11, the UN has suffered even more blows
This loss of legitimacy is naturally more obvious among the 1,300 million Muslims in the world. They are about to loose confidence in an organisation in which 80 per cent of the permanent members of the supreme body are Christian countries. Seen from their vantage point, the Four Permanent members possess, if you will, Christian bombs and share the basic Old Testament image of the world that "the others" are either with us or they are against us and must be exterminated.
When the UN accepted to use International Law and not Criminal Law for the reaction to September 11, it opened doors that will be (mis)used by many actors in the future. Up until then, political and violent crimes had been handled by the police and not by the military. This shift is very dangerous. Then the U.S. decided, and the UN accepted, to use the principle of "self defence", but with a delay of almost a month (September 11 to October 7). In the field of Criminal Law, this would resemble that the attacked escapes from the attacker, locate him a month later and (with a bunch of friends) exercise his "self-defence" out of proportion to the first crime committed.
The Bush regime moves from MAD to NUTS
The UN Security Council resolutions on Iraq represent an even more dodgy new interpretation. This time the act of self-defence will be carried out years before the attacked assesses that he could, perhaps, be hit, i.e. pre-emptively. Unfortunately for the UN, international law holds no provisions for such pre-emptive policies or wars. They are found only in recent strategic documents from the Bush regime. Even worse, they contain a philosophical demolition of the principles of deterrence that enables the United States to use weapons of mass-destruction against countries that are not known to possess such weapons but are judged to be able to possess them some time into the future.
In short, instead of moving towards general and complete disarmament world-wide, or the abolition of all WMD (Weapons of Mass-Destruction) we are moving from MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) to the fundamentally immoral and destabilising NUTs (Nuclear Use Theories).
Kidnapping Iraq's report and keeping U.S. involvement in Iraq's military secret
In spite of its real importance, the weapons inspection process is exploited as a game by the United States. Its representatives have done their best to provoke and find Iraqi violations of resolutions by the Security Council, including SC Resolution 1441. The recent U.S. kidnapping of the 12,000-page report produced by Iraq is one of the most serious in a long line of aggressive acts.
The U.S. claims that it wants to know everything about Iraqi military programs, but obviously not which U.S. and other Western companies have made them possible. Money doesn't smell of course until it comes out into the open. Instead of causing an outrage forcing the Bush regime to back down, most members accept this gross violation of decency and of the integrity of the United Nations.
Colin Powel returned from a short visit to Bogota on December 4 where he had announced major increases in American military aid to Colombia. Colombia presently serves as the chair of the Security Council. In exchange for the military support, Colombia presumably promised to let the U.S. steal Iraq's report to "edit" it, i.e. to practise censorship.
Kofi Annan should remember Article 99 and 100 and use them to save the UN
Despite the serious injury done to the UN, there is no other organisation that can assume global responsibility in the situation we are facing today. The Iraqis will suffer no less because "there was a UN mandate." A UN mandate only means that the UN will suffer too, most likely beyond repair. Western countries that bomb Muslim countries only amplify the hate against West. The number of potential suicide-bombers and terror attacks must be expected to grow with every military attack on innocent Muslims. They cannot possibly see the UN as a trustworthy world organisation.
Let the UN get back its status as a legitimate actor working for "peace by peaceful means." Let the U.S. establishment stand alone as the naked aggressor. The United Nations has already administered a genocide of up to 1 million Iraqis due to a sanctions regime only the U.S. insists on maintaining.
We prefer our world to be running according to the norms of the UN, not those of the U.S.! Article 99 of the UN Charter states that the Secretary-General may bring to the attention of the Security Council any matter which in his opinion may threaten the maintenance of international peace and security. Thus, he stands over and above the member governments. If he thinks that a U.S.-led war on Iraq is a threat to world peace, he has the power to act. Article 100 states that the Secretary-General and his staff shall not seek or receive instructions from any government or from any other authority external to the Organisation.
If the Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, makes use of Article 99 and 100 of the Charter, war on Iraq will not happen. Will he do so?
The U.S. tail must not wag the UN dog...
Letting the tail (the U.S.) wag the dog (the UN) is morally unacceptable and a violation of the Charter. The U.S. has tried and will try to do it again. Now is the time for the UN to stand up for itself, for the genuine international community.
Or will 2003 be remembered by future generations as the year in which a few members, against the will of the greater majority, decided to destroy the UN as a peace organisation? And got away with it only because the Secretary-General and member states who didn't want the war, failed to show civil courage in time and hid behind a self-condemning "UN mandate"?
© TFF 2002``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xA UN mandate does not make war on Iraq right!``x1041119595,61907,Development``x``x
``xBy Darryl Fears - The Washington Post
December 28, 2002
At her small apartment in Washington, D.C., Maria Martins quietly watched as an African American friend studied a picture of her mother. "Oh," the friend said, surprise in her voice. "Your mother is white."
She turned to Martins. "But you are black."
That came as news to Martins, a Brazilian who, for 30 years before immigrating to the United States, looked in the mirror and saw a morena--a woman with caramel-colored skin that is nearly equated with whiteness in Brazil and some other Latin American countries. "I didn't realize I was black until I came here," she said.
That realization has come to hundreds of thousands of dark-complexioned immigrants to the United States from Brazil, Colombia, Panama and other Latin nations with sizable populations of African descent. Although most do not identify themselves as black, they are seen that way as soon as they set foot in North America.
Their reluctance to embrace this definition has left them feeling particularly isolated--shunned by African Americans who believe they are denying their blackness; by white Americans who profile them in stores or on highways; and by lighter-skinned Latinos whose images dominate Spanish-language television all over the world, even though a majority of Latin people have some African or Indian ancestry.
The pressure to accept not only a new language and culture, but also a new racial identity, is a burden some darker-skinned Latinos say they face every day.
"It's overwhelming," said Yvette Modestin, a dark-skinned native of Panama who works as an outreach coordinator in Boston. "There's not a day that I don't have to explain myself."
E. Francisco Lopez, a Venezuelan-born attorney in Washington, said he had not heard the term "minority" before coming to America.
"I didn't know what it meant. I didn't accept it because I thought it meant 'less than,"' said Martins, whose father is black. "'Where are you from?' they ask me. I say I'm from Brazil. They say, 'No, you are from Africa.' They make me feel like I am denying who I am."
Exactly who these immigrants are is almost impossible to divine from the 2000 Census. Latinos of African, mestizo and European descent --or any mixture of the three--found it hard to answer the question "What is your racial origin?"
Some of the nation's 35 million Latinos scribbled in the margins that they were Aztec or Mayan. A fraction said they were Indian. Nearly forty-eight percent described themselves as white, and only 2 percent as black. Fully 42 percent said they were "some other race."
Race matters in Latin America, but it matters differently.
Most South American nations barely have a black presence. In Argentina, Chile, Peru and Bolivia, there are racial tensions, but mostly between indigenous Indians and white descendants of Europeans.
The black presence is stronger along the coasts of two nations that border the Caribbean Sea, Venezuela and Colombia--which included Panama in the 19th century--along with Brazil, which snakes along the Atlantic coast. In many ways, those nations have more in common racially with Puerto Rico, Cuba and the Dominican Republic than they do with the rest of South America.
This black presence is a legacy of slavery, just as it is in the United States. But the experience of race in the United States and in these Latin countries is separated by how slaves and their descendants were treated after slavery was abolished.
In the United States, custom drew a hard line between black and white, and Jim Crow rules kept the races separate. The color line hardened to the point that it was sanctioned in 1896 by the Supreme Court in its decision in Plessy v. Ferguson, which held that Homer Plessy, a white-complexioned Louisiana shoemaker, could not ride in the white section of a train because a single ancestor of his was black.
Thus Americans with any discernible African ancestry--whether they identified themselves as black or not--were thrust into one category. One consequence is that dark-complexioned and light-complexioned black people combined to campaign for equal rights, leading to the civil rights movement of the 1960s.
By contrast, the Latin countries with a sizable black presence had more various, and more fluid, experiences of race after slavery.
Jose Neinstein, a native white Brazilian and executive director of the Brazilian-American Cultural Institute in Washington, boiled down to the simplest terms how his people are viewed. "In this country," he said, "if you are not quite white, then you are black." But in Brazil, he said, "If you are not quite black, then you are white."
The elite in Brazil, as in most Latin American nations, are educated and white. But many brown and black people also belong in that class. Generally, brown Brazilians, such as Martins, enjoy many privileges of the elite, but are disproportionately represented in Brazilian slums.
Someone with Sidney Poitier's deep chocolate complexion would be considered white if his hair were straight and he made a living in a profession. That might not seem so odd, Brazilians say, when you consider that the fair-complexioned actresses Rashida Jones of the television show "Boston Public" and Lena Horne are identified as black in the United States.
Neinstein remembered talking with a man of Poitier's complexion during a visit to Brazil. "We were discussing ethnicity," Neinstein said, "and I asked him, 'What do you think about this from your perspective as a black man?' He turned his head to me and said, 'I'm not black,"' Neinstein recalled. " ... It simply paralyzed me. I couldn't ask another question."
By the same token, Neinstein said, he never perceived brown-complexioned people such as Maria Martins, who works at the cultural institute, as black. One day, when an African American custodian in his building referred to one of his brown-skinned secretaries as "the black lady," Neinstein was confused. "I never looked at that woman as black," he said. "It was quite a revelation to me."
Those perceptions come to the United States with the light- and dark-complexioned Latinos who carry them. But here, they collide with two contradictory forces: North American prejudice and African American pride.
Vilson DaSilva, a native of Brazil, is a moreno. Like his wife, Maria Martins, he was born to a black father and a white mother. But their views on race seem to differ.
During an interview when Martins said she had no idea how they had identified themselves on the 2000 Census form, DaSilva rolled his eyes. "I said we were black," he said.
He is one of a growing number of Latin immigrants of African descent who identify themselves as Afro-Latino, along the same color spectrum as African Americans.
"I've learned to be proud of my color," he said. For that, he thanked African American friends who stand up for equal rights.
DaSilva agreed that nuances separate African Americans and Afro-Latinos, but he also believes that seeing Latin America through African American eyes gave him a better perspective. Unfortunately, he said, it also made him angrier and more stressed.
When DaSilva returned to Brazil for a visit, he asked questions he had never asked, and got answers that shocked him.
His mother told him why her father didn't speak to her for 18 years: "It was because she married a black man," he said. One day, DaSilva's own father pulled him aside to provide his son some advice. "`You can play around with whoever you want,"' DaSilva recalled his father saying, "`but marry your own kind."' So DaSilva married Martins, the morena of his dreams.
She is dreaming of a world with fewer racial barriers, a world she believes she left in Brazil to be with her husband in Washington.
As Martins talked about the nation's various racial blends in her living room, her 18-month-old son sat in front of the television, watching a Disney cartoon called "The Proud Family," about a merged black American and black Latino family. The characters are intelligent, whimsical, thoughtful, funny, with skin tones that range from light to dark brown.
The DaSilvas said they would never see such a show on Latin American TV.
Martins said her perspective on race was slowly conforming to the American view, but it saddened her. She doesn't understand why she can't call a pretty black girl a negrita, the way Latin Americans always say it, with affection. She doesn't understand why she has to say she's black, seeming to deny the existence of her mother.
"Sometimes I say she is black on the outside and white on the inside," DaSilva said of his wife, who threw her head back and laughed.
© 2002 The Washington Post Company``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xRacial Label Surprises Many Latino Immigrants``x1041125920,38891,Development``x``x
``xCricket World Cup: Misgivings mount as England's participation is given Short shrift
By Hugh Bateson, Independent/UK
The prospect of England refusing to play in the World Cup in Zimbabwe in February came much closer yesterday when the captain, Nasser Hussain, appealed for the Government to make a decision and said the team would boycott the country if told to do so, and a spokesman at 10 Downing Street said: "We have no power to order a team not to go. It is up to them, but our advice is that they should not go."
At the same time, the chairman of selectors, David Graveney, was reported to have said he would not visit the country, the Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, let it be known he was against the trip and another Cabinet minister, Clare Short, called the idea of England playing there "deplorable and shocking" and said she would raise the issue with Tessa Jowell, the Minister for Culture, Media and Sport.
Hussain, writing in his column in a Sunday newspaper, said the decision to go or not should not be made by cricketers, but by a "government body". "Even if it means that England will forfeit points by not playing in Zimbabwe that would be willingly done if the Government believes it right that England should not play. Cricket comes a long way down the list of what is important, especially compared with people starving," he said. MORE``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xEngland refusing to play in the World Cup?``x1041218886,48130,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Paul Waugh, Independent/UK
The Government made a desperate attempt to distance itself from the England cricket team's decision to travel to Zimbabwe yesterday when it said it had "asked" players not to go.
Mike O'Brien, a Foreign Office Minister, said: "We cannot order the ECB [England and Wales Cricket Board] not to go to Zimbabwe, but we have asked them not to go. The final decision must rest with them. Our opinion is clear – given the abuse of human rights and the dire circumstances of the people of Zimbabwe, it would be wrong to play a game of cricket there."
The Foreign Office also said that Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, had told the ECB just before Christmas that he did not want the team to compete in the World Cup in Harare.
Mr O'Brien's remarks, made as Downing Street finally came out against the tour, represent a significant hardening of the Government's line. On 17 December, Mr O'Brien said: "My personal view is that it would be better if they did not go."
In a last-ditch attempt to find a solution before the tournament starts on 13 February, David Graveney, chairman of the selectors, yesterday urged ministers to hold an emergency meeting with the players. MORE``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xUK Cricketers 'urged to boycott Zimbabwe'``x1041293798,44346,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Dr David Nyekorach-Matsanga, www.herald.co.zw
Africa is in a praetorian trap where coups, counter- coups, plotting insurgency and military rule have become a common feature in the continent's political life.
Behind this veil are agents or puppets of the CIA and MI6 on the continent.
The failure of the British hegemony to destroy Zimbabwe through many civil outlets such as Nepad and the Commonwealth troika, the European Union sanctions, among other ploys, has forced our mighty kingdom to revert to old tactics of divide and rule and overt and covert operations.
Some African countries, knowingly or unknowingly, are now being used as conduits of neo-colonialism on the continent. Their new assignment is to remove President Mugabe.
The London-based Ditcheley Foundation, which authorises and sponsors war and other underground activities in Africa, has now hired some fellow African brothers to deliver Zimbabwe to the altar of the "House of Windsor". Sources close to the International Institute of Strategic Studies (IISS) have confirmed to Africa Strategy that secret contacts have been made for such a strategy to be implemented.
Already millions of pounds have been allocated to organisations such as the Zimbabwe Democracy Trust (ZDT) of Annabelle Hughes in London to recruit and sponsor those who want to train in all forms of warfare against the son of the soil, Cde Robert Mugabe.
There are frantic movements between London and Harare, which have seen an increase in the number of those opposed to President Mugabe being given visas to enter Britain on the grounds that President Mugabe's law courts and instruments of Government are persecuting them.
In fact, half of the plane that left Harare on Friday November 22 2002, on flight UM 762, was full of relatives and associates of members of the opposition who claimed to be fleeing persecution.
Sources at Gatwick Airport told Africa Strategy that the British High Commission in Harare has a parallel way of issuing visas for Zimba-bweans travelling to the UK.
Those for President Mugabe are excluded from this warm reception on this side of the divide. You only need to shout loud at Gatwick airport against President Mugabe to receive the best reception and a cup of coffee from several immigration officials.
There is now an exodus of young Zimbabweans claiming asylum in Britain.
My biggest worry now is where the young men are being taken? Is there a form of military training they are attending in the UK? Or they are only in transit to some countries that are pretending to be friendly to President Mugabe?
Who pays for these expensive tickets if they are not being paid by an organised ring of those opposed to President Mugabe in London and elsewhere?
One can easily get a visa at the British High Commission in Zimbabwe if one is very close to a member of the MDC or somebody who hates President Mugabe.
One of the passengers who confided in me said his visa was given by telephone and he never filled any forms because he was hiding in an office, fearing to be arrested by the police as compared to the cases of other applicants.
This brings me to the crux of the matter behind all these manoeuvres that have made the opposition in Zimbabwe speculate of chaos in December.
As far as last week, highly placed sources in this great city of conspiracy, London, have indicated that all being in place, the nation of Zimbabwe might have the second wave of random killings and genocide.
The purpose is to cause instability so as to force the UN Security Council to intervene to restore peace. This will occur in an organised manner where President Mugabe will be overthrown and a new leader is installed in Zimbabwe.
Defence analysts close to Africa Strategy have told us that an operation code-named "Open Shield" has been secretly launched by those who hate President Mugabe in London and Washington. Sources have told us that advanced plans are underway to infiltrate Zimbabwe and cause chaos so as to spark off an internal strife.
They have managed to persuade some people in two African countries I shall not name to infiltrate and stop President Mugabe and his Government from completing the land reform programme.
It is now crystal clear that chaos will start in Zimbabwe soon when the leadership of the trade union movement has been given to an intellectual "horse" that would drink the "hurry fixes" of the British toxins of war and under-cover terrorism, said a defence analyst in London.
Arms from an African country are the source of genocide in the whole of the Great Lakes region. A research conducted by Africa Strategy and backed by several humanitarian agencies found out that most of the weapons killing people in DRC are supplied by companies from this African country.
There are serious concerns expressed by those who have followed the crisis in the DRC about the influence of some African countries on the matters of peace in the DRC.
Zimbabwe, which has defended the DRC since 1998, has been sidelined by a section of people in the DRC and reduced to a level of onlookers and "dormant spectators" while those who have supplied arms that have killed the people of the DRC have the biggest say and cult in deciding the fate of this country.
Now that peace has come as a result of the sacrifice of the people of Zimbabwe, the usual tactics of the Pharisees in the Western world has started.
The British and Americans are fooling the government of the DRC with baits of reconstruction and rehabilitation packages so as to distance it from its only friend at the hour of need - Zimbabwe. There are indications that the DRC has started taking a rather unsavoury stance towards Zimbabwe by recalling their ambassador from Harare.
Britain has decided to hand over Zimbabwe to other African countries because it is easier to accelerate the political changes it wants from Africa than from 10 Downing Street.
The Prime Minister is facing a crisis at home, which is growing every day. All departments of life in Britain in the near future will see more and more strikes that are about to bring the UK to a halt. This has put the entire cabinet of Tony Blair in total disarray.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xUK in bid to oust President``x1041299256,50652,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Kim Johnson
Prospect Press' newest book, a small collection of essays by CLR James, Letters from London, is a delight for his fans.
These seven short essays were written in 1932, mere weeks after the 31-year-old James arrived in England.
Originally published in the Port of Spain Gazette, they comprise his observations of London and, in the last pages of the final essay, of Nelson, where he went to live with Learie Constantine.
The topics are: the Science and Art Museums; the Bloomsbury atmosphere; the houses; Englishmen; Englishwomen; the nucleus of a great civilisation.
Long before he left Trinidad James was already a vastly-read, self-educated intellectual. So he is not dazzled by the bright lights of London.
On the contrary, James is disappointed; the reality of London does not live up to the idealised images he had mentally constructed in Trinidad.
Crowds and traffic do not impress him. The large buildings, once their novelty have worn off, are ugly. Politicians whose speeches were marvellous in print, well, "To read them is one thing. To hear them is another."
As for the newspapers, they contain mostly lurid accounts of sex and murder: the domestic life of a murderess; the diary of her murdered husband; accounts by the wife and daughter of a perverted priest; the marriage and honeymoon of Lord Inverclyde.
Yet James's worldliness is thin. Through it you can see a country boy testing what he learnt on his small tropical island, but absorbing new knowledge like a sponge.
He attends a talk by a famous lecturer. She mentions but refuses to name a brilliant new American writer.
"Of course, that was easy," recounts James. "I told her at once that it was William Faulkner and she rather blinked."
In the question period James easily corners her in an argument about poetry.
So the CLR of later years is recognisable.
For instance, his revolutionary populism is formed.
His concluding celebration of the English spirit is contained in a story about when Nelson cinema owners attempted to reduce the operators' salaries.
"The Nelson people got wind of the matter. There were meetings and discussions. They decided that the salaries of the cinema operators should not be lowered," enthuses James.
"It was magnificent and it was war. I was thrilled to the bone when I heard it. I could forgive England all the vulgarity and all the depressing disappointment of London for the magnificent spirit of these north country working people."
He hasn't yet acquired the grand theory that unifies his understanding of culture, civilisation and class struggle, and which endears him to West Indians.
So Letters from London has little for those who read James to be edified.
But the James who is read for its own pleasure is there.
There's the James voice, now coming into its own. You can hear it: unselfconscious, confident, honest, playful.
It is the conversation of a teacher, not in a classroom, but amongst his friends.
The voice blends personal anecdote, opinion, observation and logic with an ease and frankness. It reminds me of Bertrand Russell's more than anyone else.
You feel that all of this man's opinions are completely integrated with his morals, his experience and his vast knowledge.
This is fully developed in his mature works, from The Black Jacobins and, especially, in Beyond A Boundary.
But in Letters are found aspects of James which he lost later on. There is James the diarist, who describes his crowded daily routine minute by minute, like an intellectual Samuel Pepys.
There's none of the gory sexual detail Pepys recounted, but you can see James delight in the fairer sex, and his irresistible charms.
Although he spends hours talking with women who are clearly attracted to his intelligence, good looks and blackness, yet he's no philanderer, and he flees from a woman who sidles up to him in the cinema.
"Now take a boy of 18, a coloured boy living in the colonies, where the social question is what we know it is," he moralises.
"Drop him in London, to live on his own… he is at a critical age, the age when he is apt to believe that sex and a woman are one and the same thing — an age which many may never outgrow. Round him flutter red and white faces with blond hair, red caps and red and white scarves… it is not surprising that some of the boys get spoilt."
James had completed Minty Alley in Trinidad, and in England he has the eye of a novelist. He observes things and people, and describes them memorably.
"The plane is the most beautiful thing in the (Science) Museum and one of the most beautiful things I have seen in London," he says. And then the image:
"It is like one of the graceful women you catch glimpses of on a morning stepping from the pavement to the Rolls-Royce or the Daimler, nothing superfluous, all cut and line."
You'd imagine her to be mature, at least in her thirties. Well, think of when she was a gauche teenager and you'll get a sense of pleasures Letters from London has to offer.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xCLR James sends us his 'Letters from London'``x1041311232,89201,Development``x``x
``xJOHANNESBURG.
THE South African government has rallied behind Zimbabwe and will not support any move to switch some of this year’s World Cup cricket matches from either Zimbabwe or Kenya.
South Africa, the main hosts of the tournament, also said it was concerned that English and Australian cricketers were being placed under "undue pressure" not to play their matches in Zimbabwe.
"We will not support any move to shift matches from either Zimbabwe or Kenya and believe that the ICC should be supported by all 14 participating countries in its decision to go ahead with its World Cup programme," South African Sports Minister, Ngconde Balfour, said in a statement on Monday.
His statement came in the wake of a recent campaign being waged by the British and Australian governments who are urging their cricket teams not to play their World Cup matches in Zimbabwe.
Balfour said the decision taken by the ICC (International Cricket Council) was based on a first-hand assessment of the conditions in Zimbabwe.
"As the continent is hosting this prestigious event for the first time in the history of the game, we remain steadfast in our support of the ICC, believing that the decision, of the controlling body is in the best interests of all stakeholders in the sport, including the four participating African countries." MORE``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xWorld Cup cricket: SA rallies behind Harare``x1041438438,56334,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xRituals Of Purification And Racism Denial
by Paul Street, www.cul-chicago.org
The most disturbing aspect of the recent national melodrama over Senate Majority Leaders Trent Lott's offensive declaration of retrospective support for the race-segregationist 1948 Presidential campaign of Strom Thurmond is not the content of Lott's remarks. The really depressing thing is what the entire episode says about the superficial level at which racism is discussed in the United States. A related downer is how it is working to stick America's head yet further in the sand on the question of race.
The Deeper Racism
The main problem here is a failure to distinguish between two different levels of racism – overt and covert. The first variety has a long and sordid history in the US. It includes the burning of black homes and churches, the open public use of racial slurs and epithets, occupational bans, lynching, disenfranchisement, denial of prominent public roles to black individuals, restrictive real estate covenants, rock-throwing and "nigger"- screaming mobs, and open legal segregation of public facilities. Concentrated especially though but not exclusively in the South, level-one's racism's archived images and sound bites serve as background for ritual mainstream expressions of support for the ideals of the civil rights movement like the national holiday honoring Martin Luther King. Consistent with his long record of racist comments and affiliations, Lott's popularity among southern whites and his latest segregationist slip are certainly proof that there is still some life in this old racist dog, especially down in Dixie.
Still, this type or level of racism is largely defeated in the US. In post-Civil Rights America, the Republican Party makes sure to pack their convention stage with an abundance of black speakers and nearly every corporate and college brochure is loaded with images of racial "diversity." No aspirant to public office dares question the nation's official commitment to racial equality and equal opportunity. Prominent public media business and political figures play with fire when they are perceived as embracing the explicit racial bigotry and legal segregation of the past. Witness the case of Lott, held up for massive public ridicule because he indirectly embraced segregation in terms that are mild compared to the public rhetoric common among southern white politicians twenty years after Thurmond's Dixiecrat campaign. Nowadays even David Duke has to claim that he is not anti-black and George W. Bush's White House contains two blacks in prominent foreign policymaking positions – something that would never have occurred in pre-Civil Rights America.
The second level of racism is deeper and more intractable – as King and the Civil Rights Movement learned when they came north in 1966. It involves societal, structural and institutional forces and processes in ways that "just happen" to produce and perpetuate deep black disadvantage in multiple related areas of American life. It includes widespread persistent de facto residential and school segregation by race, rampant racial discrimination in hiring and promotion, the systematic under-funding and under-equipping of black schools, disproportionate surveillance, arrest and incarceration of blacks and much more. It is enabled, encouraged and even conducted by institutional and political actors, including some African-Americans, who would never publicly utter racially prejudiced comments and who not uncommonly declare allegiance to the ideals of the civil rights movement.
This second variety of racism has more than simply survived or outlasted the explicit, public racism of the past. It is ironically and perversely deepened by civil rights victories and the discrediting of open bigotry insofar as these elementary triumphs encourage the illusion of racism's disappearance and the related notion that the only barriers left to African-American success and equality are internal to the black community.
New Age Racism: "We Made the Corrections, Now Get On With It"
Why are African-Americans twice as likely to be unemployed as whites? Why is the poverty rate for blacks more than twice the rate for whites? Why do nearly one out of every two blacks earn less than $25,000 while only one in three whites makes that little? Why is median black household income ($27,000) less than two thirds of median white household income ($42,000)? Why is Black families' median household net worth is less than 10 percent that of white? Why are blacks much less likely to own their own homes than whites? Why do African-Americans make up roughly half of the United States' massive population of prisoners (2 million) and why are one in three young black male adults in prison or on parole or otherwise under the supervision of the American criminal justice system? Why do African-Americans continue in severe geographic separation from mainstream society, still largely cordoned off into the nation's most disadvantaged communities thirty years after the passage of civil rights fair housing legislation? Why do blacks suffer disproportionately from irregularities in the American electoral process, from problems with voter registration to the functioning of voting machinery? Why does black America effectively constitute a Third World enclave of sub-citizens within the world's richest and most powerful state?
Convinced that racism is no longer a significant barrier for blacks because there are African-Americans in high policy positions and serving as anchors on the Six O-Clock News, most whites find answers to these questions inside the African-American community itself. If serious racial disparities persist, if black continue to live both separately and unequally, white America and even some privileged blacks (e.g. John McWhorter of the Manhattan Institute) think, its because of their own choices and because too many blacks engage in "self-sabotaging" and related "separatist" behaviors. "As white America sees it, " note Leonard Steinhorn and Barbara Diggs-Brown in their excellent study By The Color of Their Skin: the Illusion of Integration and the Reality of Race, (2000), "every effort has been to welcome blacks into the American mainstream and now they're on their own."
Predominant white attitudes at the turn of the millennium are well summarized by the comments of a white respondent to a survey conducted by Essence magazine. "No place that I'm aware of," wrote the respondent, "makes [black] people ride on the back of the bus or use a different restroom in this day and age. We got the message; we made the corrections – get on with it."
Tell it to Lakisha Washington America has made the necessary racial "corrections" and now its time for blacks "to get on with it?" Tell it to the black job applicants of Boston and Chicago.
In a field experiment whose results were released last week, researchers Marianne Bertrand of the University of Chicago and Sendhill Mullainathan of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology sent out 5,000 resumes in response to help-wanted ads in Boston and Chicago newspapers. Each resume was randomly assigned either a very black-sounding name (such as "Lakisha Washington" or "Jamal Jones") or a very white-sounding name (such as "Emily Walsh" or "Brendan Baker"). This racial "manipulation," the researchers found, "produced a significant gap in the rate of callbacks for interviews." White names received roughly 50 percent more callbacks than black names. For white applicants, moreover, sending higher quality resumes increased the number of callbacks by 30 percent. For black names, higher-quality resumes elicited no significant callback premium.
Just "get on with it?" Tell it to black families trying to buy a home or rent an apartment in the Denver area. According to a report released last month by the U.S. Department of Housing, nearly 1 in 5 blacks trying to buy a home or rent an apartment there faces some kind of technically illegal discrimination, being diverted from white majority areas to communities predominantly populated by minorities. This was actually below with the national average (21.6 percent for blacks), determined through hundreds of matched-pair testing exercises conducted across the country.
Tell it to the roughly astounding one in three black men in the US now carry the lifelong mark of a felony criminal record thanks to the nation's 30 -year binge of incredibly racially disparate surveillance, arrest and mass imprisonment ("corrections" indeed!) conducted under the auspices of the drug war. They generally experience no real wage increases in their twenties and thirties, when American men without felony records typically experience rapid earnings growth. In a recent academic study conducted by Northwestern University sociologist Devah Pager in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, the possession of a prison record reduced the likelihood of white testers being called back by a prospective employer by a ratio of 2 to 1. Among black testers, the mark of a prison record reduced that likelihood by nearly 3 to 1.
"We've made the corrections?" Tell it to the very disproportionately black students of the nation's highly and increasingly segregated urban public schools. They receive educational resources vastly inferior to those enjoyed by children in affluent white suburbs, thanks to the nation's racist and regressive reliance on local property taxes to fund "public schools" whose operation and outcomes resonate with the long reach of private privilege and related racial inequality.
The products of these inferior schools become all-too easy fodder – human raw material for the nation's prison industrial complex and racist mass incarceration lobby, which works to divert public dollars from education to pay for the construction and maintenance of yet more not-so "correctional" facilities. Those prisons create jobs and economic development for predominantly white rural prison towns even while the experience of incarceration pushes most black-ex-offenders yet further into the margins of the disastrous inner-city market for poorly educated workers.
The list of these sorts of disparate and not-so "color blind" policies is long and depressing. The problems experienced by the people and communities on their receiving end have little to do with explicit racial bigotry (public or private). It has much to do with what sociologist Joe Feagin calls "a system of racialized structural and institutional subordination that excludes blacks from full participation in the rights, privileges, and benefits of society." What he refers to as "state–of–mind racism" and open racial bigotry has declined appreciably in the last four decades. But "state-of-being," that is institutional, structural and systemic racism have not declined and may actually have become more deeply entrenched, despite and perhaps even, ironically enough, in part because of civil rights victories.
Pardoning Presidential Racism The deeper level racism's army of practitioners and apologists is large and bipartisan, far bigger than the likes of Trent Lott. Leading soldiers include people not normally associated with racism under the terms of the dominant public discourse in the US, which focuses on the level one variety. Take, for example, former President Bill Clinton, sometimes referred to as "America's First Black President." Clinton, who spoke with reverence about King, counted former National Urban League President Vernon Jordan as a close friend and placed five African-Americans in his cabinet, was no bigot. Not surprisingly, he Clinton called for Lott to step down because of his insensitive remarks.
As President, however, America's most racially sensitive President never worked seriously to address the dismantling of affirmative action in the United States. He betrayed his election promise to address the health care needs of impoverished African-Americans, failing to seriously push for a national health care program that would have provided crucial support the nation's most truly disadvantaged. He led the charge for "free trade" legislation that furthered the replacement of black workers by cheaper overseas labor. He gave lip service to black education but did nothing to improve funding for disproportionately poor black schools or to advance school desegregation so that black kids could attend more privileged schools. He signed a vicious, victim-blaming welfare "reform" bill that played on the racist myth of inner-city Black women as morally bankrupt Welfare Queens to force hundreds of thousands of African-American single mothers into the super-exploited margins of the American labor market. This bill removed millions of black children from medical coverage, making them pay for their mothers' alleged insufficient appreciation of the capitalist work ethic. Clinton passed repressive crime legislation that significantly expanded the remarkable over-surveillance, arrest and incarceration of African-Americans for nonviolent crimes in the name of a War on Drugs that is really a war on young black males.
During all this, in a classic expression of what the brilliant author and activist Elaine Brown calls "New Age Racism," Clinton lectured blacks on the need to heal themselves and take personal and collective responsibility for overcoming the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow. It was and is a sentiment shared among many whites across the partisan board.
Or take George W. Bush, who boasts a number of black cabinet members, leads all Presidents except Clinton in naming women and minorities to political appointments, counts African-Americans among his intimate associates and has denounced Lott's comments as "contrary to the spirit of this country." Like Clinton, Bush rejects the notion that the US government owes black Americans even an apology for the crimes and legacy of slavery. He appointed as US Attorney General John Ashcroft, who opposes affirmative action and shares Bush's enthusiasm for the racially disparate death penalty and racist mass incarceration fueled by the War on Drugs. He pushed through an education "reform" that punished minority schools that fail to raise student test scores but does nothing to reform the nation's regressive, racist school funding system or address the savage re-segregation of American schools documented by the Harvard Civil Rights Project. At the same time, Bush embraces private school voucher plans that will only worsen the under-funding and segregation of the nation's schools – problems that particularly affect black kids.
He is strictly opposed to national health care, of course. His version is of welfare "reform" is harsher than Clinton's, expanding work requirements but denying significant job assistance in a time of recession and insidiously suggesting that moral laxity in the form of single-parenthood are the real cause of black poverty. Bush has spearheaded monumentally regressive tax cuts and launched an historic expansion of imperial "defense" expenditures that combined to limit desperately needed (especially by poor blacks) social programs while making the disproportionately white rich richer and the disproportionately black poor poorer. He as refused to extend unemployment benefits for the nations' disproportionately black jobless; 800,000 Americans without work are scheduled to lose their benefits on December 28th (Happy Holidays). He spearheaded a "faith-based" initiative that gives federal funding to religious groups that provide social services without requiring compliance with anti-discrimination laws. He shares Clinton's tendency to lecture blacks on the need to take responsibility for their own plight while embracing "free trade" and prison-filling "get-tough on crime" policies that make it yet more difficult for disadvantaged blacks to make it in America. Owing his Presidency in part to racist felony disenfranchisement laws and other race-based voting rights problems in Florida, Bush used 9-11 as a pretext to assault civil liberties (always a special concern for the black community) at home and to divide Americans yet further along lines of class and race.
"Changing One Horse for Another"
Or look at the records of those who were considered most likely to replace Lott as Majority Leader – Bill Frist (T-Tenn), a close Bush ally, Don Nickles (R-Oklahoma), Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) and Rick Santorum (R-Pennsylvania). Each of these Senators receive an ‘F' from the NAACP for their recent voting history. In the last Congress, they voted for school vouchers, against raising school spending, for Bush's $1.3 trillion tax cut, against strengthening the federal response to hate crimes, against managed care health reform, for the nomination of Ashcroft and against funding for bilingual education and (surprise) restoring ex-felons' voting rights. No wonder that civil rights movement veteran and US Representative John Lewis (D-Georgia) remarked that the Senate Republican Party would respond to the Lott fiasco by "just … changing one [racist] horse for another [racist] horse."
Lott's successor, Frist, has voted against community technology centers for minority neighborhoods, sanctions for predatory lending, the expansion of minority higher education credits, increasing global funding to address the AIDS crisis in Africa, alternative voting verification methods and strong community investment requirements for banks. He has voted for decreasing voter registration through the purging of voting rolls and harsher juvenile criminal justice measures. A former surgeon with $25 million of stock in his family's for-profit hospital chain and a recipient of massive campaign largesse from the pharmaceutical industry, Frist has led the effort to deny serious health care reform to the nation's poorest citizens. He sponsored pharmaceutical giant Eli-Lily's campaign to win federal protection (strangely included in the recent Homeland Security bill) from lawsuits by parents of children who developed autism as a result of faulty child vaccines.
How offensive, then, it was to see the Chicago Tribune's editorial writers recently laud Frist as a "southerner who has no unsavory history on racial issues" and has "distinguished himself for his work on health care issues" (CT, 21 December, 2002). The Tribune applauded Frist's "longstanding practice of traveling to Africa every year to work as a medical missionary" – ministering perhaps to some of the millions of Africans who are effectively denied access to life-prolonging AIDS drugs by American drug companies protecting their patent monopolies in the name of "free trade." Such are the perverse racial sensibilities of New Age Racism, whereby the defeat of level-one racism obscures and provides cover for the disease's deeper variant, which is most efficiently spread by policymakers who know enough to sell their policies and values as "color-blind" and consistent with the principles of King.
Another Dangerous Opportunity for White Racial Self Congratulation
For those who like to think that racism has been swept into the dustbin of American history, it is comforting to see the heavily white-led and white-supported Republican Party drum their own Senate Majority Leader out of office because of his "intemperate remarks." The harsh reality missing from "mainstream" (really corporate) media accounts is that the party's post-Lott downfall agenda is the same and as fundamentally racist as the one before his "gaffe." Lott was removed from Republican leadership because his breach of good taste threatened to take the color-blind veneer off the deep racism at the heart of the party's assault on affirmative action, civil rights legislation, and social democratic public policy in general. As an article recently posted on The Black Commentator (www.blackcommentator.com) noted, "Lott had to go in order to maintain the momentum of the GOP's assault on affirmative action and civil rights leadership."
In this regard, it is interesting to note how much more forceful top Republicans were than leading national Democrats in calling for Lott's demotion. The latter undoubtedly hoped to run against a party stuck with a publicly exposed racist in a leadership position. Such a target promised to help them continue to garner the lion's share of the black vote. It also promised to divert attention from their own heavy involvement in the deeper covert and systemic racism that envelopes this nation from top to bottom. Such is the persistent and tragic reality of race in an age when white America loves to congratulate itself for dropping racial slurs from acceptable public discourse, outlawing lynch-mobs, letting blacks sit in the front of the bus, and claiming to honor the legacy of King.
The most depressing and distressing thing about the Lott fiasco is the way it is providing white America yet another dangerous opportunity to pat itself on the back for advancing beyond the primitive state of level-one racism while digging the hole of the deeper racism yet deeper.
Paul Street is Vice President for Research and Planning at the Chicago Urban League. His articles and essays have appeared in Z Magazine, Monthly Review, the Journal of American Ethnic History and Dissent. He is the author of The Vicious Circle: Race, Prison, Jobs, and Community in Chicago, Illinois, and the Nation (Chicago, IL: Chicago Urban League, 2002), which can be viewed at www.cul-chicago.org.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xA Whole Lott Missing``x1041528833,27894,Development``x``x
``xOPEN LETTER ON ZIMBABWE
6th January 2003
Baroness Amos
Minister for African and Commonwealth Affairs
Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
King Charles Street
London SWIA 2AH
Telephone: 0207-270-2893.
Facsimile:0207-270-2946.
Dear Baroness Amos,
REF: THE CRICKET SAGA AND A COLONIAL LEGACY
THAT HAUNTSBRITAIN AFTER 22 YEARS INDEPENDENCE.
Will the British Labour government compensate most of the British nationals and other people worldwide who have already bought air tickets and booked their accommodation using their credit cards for the Zimbabwe trip if the cancellation and change of venue of the cricket in March 2003 is effected by your pressure on ECB and ICC? If so can you give the nation the guidelines on how one can start a claim since the legal system in Britain takes five years for such a dispute to be resolved and payment is got?
Africa Strategy has read your contribution of 206 pages in the House of Lords on Zimbabwe starting from 2001 -2002 and as Lobby group on African affairs in UK we felt it was high time we replied you on behalf of the people of Zimbabwe whom you have demonised for the last two years. More so the recent comments on the cricket saga has forced us to stand up and be counted on behalf of the masses of Zimbabwe and Africa at large. The double standard strategy in your foreign policy on Uganda with a one party state and the hate campaign you have waged on President Mugabe of Zimbabwe has left us with no option but to pump some sense in your political career and neutralise your dirty toxins that you issue against Zimbabwe. We have therefore delivered this letter by hand to your office today 7th January 2003.
My fellow party member of the Labour Party we have just come back from Zimbabwe on 25th December 2002 having led a private delegation of business investors and cricket lovers to that country. We have seen for our selves the democracy that has been demonised by the BBC, CNN, and some section of Prime Minister Tony Blair's besieged government. The facts that we saw for ourselves on ground, the prevailing peace and the tranquillity witnessed during our three weeks in Zimbabwe made us conclude that your government has a hidden agenda on this nation. We have come to a conclusion that compared to the type of media reports about Zimbabwe there is a big difference between the BBC, your government's version and our experience on Zimbabwe. The equivalent in terms of distance to the truth is like the journey between Mars and the Earth.
This has prompted Africa Strategy as lobby group that privately and voluntarily led this delegation to write to you and to the whole world about the dangers of relying on reports of an immature opposition that collaborates with racists who worked with Ian Smith to murder many millions of whites and blacks in the 1960s and 1970s. The same struggle some of you in the present Labour government helped to succeed. The prolonged agony and anguish the people of Zimbabwe have gone through as a result of the short sighted and myopic policies of the Labour Government has brought a calamity to once a peaceful country united under the good leadership of President Mugabe. Despite the brutality of Ian Smith on the local blacks in 1960s and 1970s, President Mugabe has shown the spirit of forgiveness and reconciliation in Zimbabwe compared to other countries like Uganda where the war has been the order of the day due to the lack of good leadership and the word "reconciliation".
Allow us therefore, to write to you at this hour of need before your meeting with ECB to warn you on the dangers of fabricating lies and trumping up charges about President Mugabe and Zimbabwe so us to stop the cricket being played in that nation. Africa Strategy will also take this opportunity to alert the whole international community about the political malaise the Labour government has caused to the people of Zimbabwe in the last two years. Africa Strategy Independently observed and monitored the elections of Zimbabwe of March 2002.Our report, which was published worldwide, speaks volumes. We have also been following all your political manoeuvres of trying to destroy Zimbabwe. The world and the African people have watched with keen interest the way you have handled the situation in Zimbabwe. But before we go further, we would like through you to thank the Honourable Prime Minister for the reply on Zimbabwe and Uganda dated 4th April 2002, which speaks volumes.
Despite the bad reception given to most of us Independent Organizations that have spoken the truth about Zimbabwe and exposed the Uganda political saga, we shall not be shy to point out the shortcomings of your " double standard" and warped foreign policy that has caused political hardships in Zimbabwe and encouraged a one party state else where in Uganda under President Museveni. We are drawing examples of these two African Commonwealth countries as a test case of bad politics and decayed foreign policy that only breeds violence and anarchy in many parts of the world. When I read the poet laureate works of John Donne who wrote and extolled us " not to ask for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee." I did discover and I now know what it means. I see Zimbabwe demonised and Uganda given the red carpet treatment even when it has a one party state status.
This is not the occasion to address you on the problems of Uganda but to let you know that soon the wind of change will blow over Uganda like what has happened in Kenya and some of us will be in power in that nation then it will be difficult for the brain washed conduits of imperialism like you to use your double standards on any African nation. One factor in Zimbabwean politics, which you Ministers of Tony Blair's cabinet should note is that the opposition in Zimbabwe, is immature, immoral, prudish, comic, melodramatic and ignorant on many historical issues that unite the people of Zimbabwe That is why most Zimbabweans have refused to be used by MDC to cause political chaos on their soil.
The same racists who used nerve gas to maim millions of the people of Zimbabwe during the struggle for political independence are the same ones using school drop outs in Zimbabwe to try to disrupt the peace and harmony President Mugabe has brought to this nation. Our research in Zimbabwe has revealed that most of the opposition MDC members in Parliament have never had experience of running a government leave alone debating in Parliament. They actually act like lost sheep without a Shepard. This is a nation with the highest number of intelligent and educated people than else where in Africa. This has made the opposition in Zimbabwe bankrupt and not able to survive on its own. Without the "hidden hands" of the likes of you Baroness Amos and the likes of Hon. Peter Haines, Zimbabwe's MDC would have been history like other opposition parties in Africa. This explains why the MDC as party is now moribund with no new ideas, no new policies and lacks political direction.
EMBARGOS AND SANCTIONS ON ZIMBABWE.
It is deplorable and shocking to hear that the same members of the cabinet of Tony Blair including yourself are asking the cricketers to reflect on the same basis of moral, humanitarian and political crisis that the Labour government has caused on Zimbabwe not go to play cricket in this nation that still has over 1000, 000 British linked nationals. The break down in moral behaviour in the Labour government has culminated into a political nightmare. Most of the whites and blacks in Zimbabwe we interviewed told us that "the cricket series will bring a hub of economic activities to Zimbabwe and will boost the economy" It would also help to expose the nation to more balanced world opinion than your "kitchen opinion" in the House of Lords.
It will help to show to the world that despite the bad publicity on Zimbabwe and Mugabe there are still over 100.000 British linked families living there peacefully. "May be this is the worry of the Labour government and that is why you want to stop the truth from being known"? Said one white farmer we met in Mazowe some 40 miles away from the capital Harare. The worst case of humanity is ignorance and being less informed or being fed on concocted lies by a childish and impulsive opposition like the MDC of Zimbabwe. The government of Britain allowed Zimbabwe Commonwealth team to come to UK. The officials and the team members were and are still under the same President and Ministers the British government has targeted with smart sanctions. Why didn't the British Government bar the team from coming to the Commonwealth Games in Manchester? Is this not a case of double standard?
There are over British 400 Companies that have business dealings with the British government and notably the British Airways whose staff we interviewed in Sheraton Hotel in Harare and whose response we have recorded for the government of Britain to listen to when it comes to exposure of the Tony Blair's double standards. Why doesn't the British Government stop flights to Harare if it feels that there is insecurity and lawlessness in Zimbabwe? We were able to collect all the data in the Hotels in Zimbabwe's main cities of Harare, Bulawayo and Victoria Falls, which indicate that 70% of the occupants in the last 4 weeks of December 2002 were British nationals. This number was confirmed with empirical data from the Visa section at the Zimbabwe High Commission near 10 Downing Street in London. This is not fiction. Ministers of Tony Blair are able to check these facts. Why do we want to change the venue of the cricket to South Africa yet on some of the streets of the South African cities it is impossible to use a Nokia 7650 and come back with all your limbs?
Baroness Amos, our survey indicates that almost 80% of the Fresh Produce that we buy in the big Super Markets is from Zimbabwe. We have interviewed the owners of the companies that export the vegetables who are white Zimbabwean businessmen and they told us "despite all the bad talk about Zimbabwe our business of fresh produce has not been affected". It therefore shows that if Zimbabwe government diversified their markets to the East Asia, as the case might be in the near future the Tesco, Sainsbury's and other stores will run dry. That is why we have always stated that sanctions and embargos work or affect a nation, which is divided and has no general consensus on political matters. The land in Zimbabwe acts as cushion to all your sanctions and both the government and opposition accept that it had to be redistributed.
DEMOCRACY AND SECURITY IN ZIMBABWE.
Most of your colleagues like Clare Short who have been misled on Zimbabwe and on the other hand have allowed Uganda to grow a British sponsored one party state have no shame to openly come out and condemn the democracy in Zimbabwe. In one of the letters that we obtained from the government of Zimbabwe written by Clare Short in 2001 when the land crisis was looming states "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 the colonisers" (emphasis added) Such strange ultra-nationalistic views have caused a mockery on the phrase of good governance in Zimbabwe and else where in the world. Out bursts like this one only add to a state of despondence in Zimbabwe and shows the naivety of the Labour government that is supposed to deal with the Zimbabwe issue in an impartial manner.
This letter is to let the world know how the British system has brought a catastrophe and political tragedy on Zimbabwe. The imaginary insecurity which the British Labour government is mentioning on BBC and in their so-called dossier on Zimbabwe is completely fake and if you visit Zimbabwe on a monthly basis like some of us have done you are left with no alternative but to call the actions of some of the Labour Party Ministers as racially biased and shameful to intellectual world.
During our last three weeks stay in Zimbabwe in December 2002 we managed to research on the so- called insecurity and we did not find any trace of the British version even when there were temporary shortages of fuel in the city of Harare. Zimbabweans could queue peacefully for fuel without any fight or any violence. Where do you ministers get your facts? We went out with the British Airways Crew to sample the so-called insecurity in several social places like nightclubs, sports clubs, shopping centres, markets, Bus stations around Harare and several other towns and we were very surprised that people danced with patriotism, drank and ate with joy in all their hearts and there was no cause for alarm or insecurity. Is there any other way of testing the peace of Zimbabwe apart from three black men walking back at 2.am to Hotel Sheraton with a group of nine British nationals? The South African scenario is even more complicated because even the police there tell you not to use a mobile phone on the streets, as it is dangerous.
What then is democracy to you people? Is it to allow every body to walk naked in the streets of London or is democracy not the freedom of press, media courts, and the freedom to allow people to associate, assemble and organise, which President Mugabe has done? President Mugabe of Zimbabwe has guaranteed all these tenets of freedom and they do appear in the polity of Zimbabwe. Why cant you Baroness Amos as black person ask the government of President Museveni to do the same way President Mugabe has done in Zimbabwe by allowing parties to compete? Why do you as a black person whose African roots are very strong in your blood fail to see the truth about African values in politics and advise the British government to "constructively engage" the Zimbabwean government to resolve matters that are very minor and considered by mature school of politics as family matters not of international material.
Democracy in Zimbabwe is in plenty BUT there is no constructive and intelligent opposition. There is an opposition full of violent men who stab their wives eight times in the hearts and kill them, an opposition which is full of sleaze and infighting, an opposition in Zimbabwe which is bordered on criminality and impulsive in nature. Whether you take it or leave it the story of Idi Amin in Uganda will repeat itself in Zimbabwe once Mugabe is forcefully removed as you are advocating for such a forceful change. We believe that the malcontents of the MDC will be worse than Amin's rule, which the British supported in 1970s. So watch out for your actions as they might backfire on Zimbabwe.
CRICKET SAGA.
The cricket saga that has again exposed your ignorance on what you call good governance is a straightforward issue that does not need to waste taxpayer's money in Britain to compensate to the ECB or to the ICC in case the British team does not go to Zimbabwe. This open letter will be published widely in the world and you will see how many people in Africa will support Zimbabwe. You can only confuse those in Europe who have not travelled to Zimbabwe but those who have spoken with your British Airways crew will want you or Clare Short to resign for misleading the whole nation on Zimbabwe. The comments of the Welsh Secretary Peter Haines on BBC Breakfast with David Frost on 5th January 2003 are an insult to those who have tried to moderate the actions against Zimbabwe. These are comments of a Minister with a dangerous "political hangover" which, if not treated quickly could degenerate into a terrible disaster for the Labour government. This same friend of yours was the same minister who caused the standoff between Zimbabwe and HM government and I think he will continue to cause political mayhem in the Labour Party until we lose majority in Parliament. Every department Hon. Peter Haines has worked in has been left in political doldrums. How long shall we as Labour Party voters in this country wait to see those entrusted with power erode the principles of humanity?
The findings of the security committee set up by the ICC are very clear and well written on the walls of 10 Downing Street. One does not an extra pair of glasses to read them. The security in Zimbabwe is the best compared to those other African countries where the other matches are going to be played. The worst shooting incident in Birmingham last week has reminded most of us who live in Britain that it better to live in Zimbabwe or Uganda than this part of the world where trans-Atlantic crime is being imported here by terrible off-springs of crime that have led to cold blooded murderous acts in UK cities. Would you compare that with a Zimbabwe where all guns are in the hands of those with a licence? No shooting like this can happen in the City of Harare and go uncontrolled as it is happening to most cities of UK. Is this not insecurity in the so-called older democracy? Who has told tourists not to come to UK because of the gang wars similar to those in Jamaica? Who is calling for sanctions or boycott of Britain as result of the two murdered black teenagers in Birmingham? I think all answers to these questions will deliver a good verdict on Zimbabwe when you meet the ECB and ICC this week to discuss this issue.
Many of your fellow cabinet Ministers have hidden themselves in a veil of the word "moral" which is being used to persuade the cricket team not go to Zimbabwe. One wonders where morality was when 80% of arable land was in the hands of only 2500 white commercial farmers? And where was morality when Ian Smith used nerve gas to kill Zimbabweans during the struggle for Independence in Zimbabwe? The ECB has asked one cardinal question which must be answered by you Baroness Amos. Why target the soft cricket sport when there are many companies still doing business with Zimbabwe? This is the question that you people must answer in clear terms to avoid the whole of Africa from boycotting the cricket.
We believe that with this independent facts which we have also sent copies to ECB and ICC whose report on the security of Zimbabwe was received by your office three weeks ago will form a basis of proper judgment. We have also sent a copy to the Sports and Heritage Secretary who will be in this meeting. There are more British nationals and other cricket lovers who have volunteered to go to Zimbabwe in the next few weeks to find out the truth. The cost of such a cancellation will be enormous to us taxpayers and to those cricket lovers who have bought their air tickets to Zimbabwe.
Hoping that this letter will give an insight and alert you that in this country there are people who see President Mugabe's approach on land redistribution as the only right solution that he was left with. By the way even if your so called MDC forcefully gained power in Zimbabwe they will not reverse the land programme which is now concluded without the help of the British government. In short the Labour government lost chance to engage peacefully the Zimbabwe authorities and there are no slim chances that you will ever win that diplomatic front. The Labour government lost the moral ground and failed to assist in the process.
Thanks
Dr. David Nyekarach-Matsanga.
africastrategy@hotmail.com.
00-44-7930-901-252
For and on behalf of Africa Strategy.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xThe Cricket Saga and A Colonial Legacy``x1041957750,89585,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy WAYNE MADSEN, January 8, 2003
In the midst of America's international campaign against terrorism, the Bush administration is permitting Big Oil to legitimize the illegal occupation of an invaded country--Western Sahara. Formerly known as Spanish Sahara and invaded by Morocco in 1975 (the same year Henry Kissinger acquiesced to Indonesia's invasion and annexation of East Timor and India's annexation of the Himalayan Kigdom of Sikkim)), Western Sahara's occupation by Morocco has neither been recognized by the United Nations nor the Organization of African Unity. The latter actually recognizes the independence of Western Sahara's exiled Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, which is headquartered in remote and squalid desert refugee camps on the Algerian side of the Western Sahara-Algeria border.
In the New World Order of the Bush family, the Western Saharans have little future. That is because the lifeblood of what it means to be a Bush--oil--has been discovered off the coast of Western Sahara. Although Morocco is the illegal occupier of Western Sahara, that did not stop the Oklahoma City-based Kerr McGee Corporation (the company infamously portrayed in the movie "Silkwood") from signing an off-shore exploration deal with Morocco on September 25, 2001, just days after the terrorist attacks on the United States. The timing for Kerr McGee could not have been better.
The group fighting for Western Sahara independence, POLISARIO, once waged a bitter guerrilla war against Morocco. In 1991, POLISARIO signed a cease fire with Morocco but Moroccan troops remained in the disputed territory.
Meanwhile, Morocco continued to pour thousands of native Moroccans into the territory. The 1991 cease fire agreement with Morocco was to have resulted in a referendum on the territory's future. However, Morocco kept delaying the vote until it could salt the territory with enough of its own emigres until they constituted a majority, thus ensuring a final vote would result in voter approval for merger with Morocco.
In 1997, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, who, ironically, was awarded the 2001 Nobel Peace Prize, named former Secretary of State James Baker as his personal envoy to settle the Western Sahara problem. Baker, who would later serve as George W. Bush's fix-it man in Florida's disputed presidential election, began considering rather novel ideas to settle the Western Sahara problem.
Unfortunately, for the Sahrawis, Baker's ideas were all stamped with the imprimatur of Morocco.
Baker, who is as connected to the Houston oil big wigs as J.R. Ewing was to the oil czars in the TV show "Dallas," has his own close ties to Kerr McGee.
His James Baker Institute at Rice University funded a study Called "Strategic Energy Policy: Challenges for the 21st Century." The author of that report is Matt Simmons, President of Simmons and Company Investment Bankers and member of the Board of Directors of Kerr McGee.
It also helps the cause of Kerr McGee that Baker's former spokesperson at the Departments of State and Treasury and close personal friend, Margaret Tutwiler, serves as the U.S. ambassador to Morocco. One former associate of Tutwiler confided that it was no coincidence that landed Tutwiler in Morocco, "She was obviously placed there by Baker and his oil buddies to help cut oil deals." Tutwiler is not only in a commanding position to influence U.S. policy on Western Sahara but she can count upon one of her best friends, former White House Communications Director and close Bush confidant Karen Hughes, to ensure that Morocco's case receives the personal attention of President Bush.
The plan that Baker drew up for Western Sahara (while he was ensconced with his friends at his Jackson Hole, Wyoming ranch) will undoubtedly result in the territory's eventual merger with Morocco. Approved by the UN Security Council, with the strong support of France, whose TotalFinaElf conglomerate also just signed an offshore oil exploration, the plan calls for a five-year delay for a final referendum. In the meantime, Western Sahara will have a weak territorial assembly that will be packed with loyalists of Morocco's King Mohammed, a close U.S. ally. When the referendum is finally held, sometime around 2006 or 2007, all the Moroccan squatters and occupying troops will be allowed to vote.
On January 7, 2003, the UN announced that Baker would be visiting Morocco, Algeria, Mauritania, and Western Sahara to revive his peace plan. But it now seems that with impending war with Iraq and the paralyzing Venezuelan oil strike, Baker is under pressure from his friends in the Bush administration to bring about the commencement of oil drilling off of Western Sahara. Thus the sudden new interest by Baker in a Western Sahara "peace" deal.
U.S. oil companies are chomping at the bit. In its Securities and Exchange Commission filings, Kerr McGee continues to list Western Sahara's Boujdour block (where it has been given permission to drill by Morocco) as being within Moroccan territory, a claim neither supported by the United Nations nor officially recognized by the United States.
Although Baker was to have been an honest broker, even he had to admit to the U.N. Security Council in 2001 that the plan had been heavily influenced by Morocco. Since Bush has enlisted the support of Algeria's President Abdelaziz Boutefllika in the worldwide war against terrorism, it is clear that he was pressured to limit Algeria's historic support for POLISARIO and the Sahrawis. Bouteflika even endorsed Baker's plan. French President Jacques Chirac has referred to Western Sahara as Morocco's "southern provinces," a clear indication of where the West sees the future of the territory.
For its part, the Western Saharans are claiming the deals between Morocco and TotalFinaElf and Kerr McGee are in violation of international law and previous UN resolutions. The Sahrawi President, Mohammed Abdelaziz, condemned the oil deals as an illegal "provocation." The Sahrawi cause is supported by a number of NGOs, former French First Lady Danielle Mitterand, and East Timor's leadership, which knows all too well about being held hostage by oil interests and brutal occupying dictatorships allied with the West. But the oil companies and the Baker-Bush team still holds the trump card. If the Sahrawis, out of desperation, break the cease fire and go to war with Morocco, the anti-terrorism measures undertaken by the United States may seal their fate.
All the State Department has to do is simply declare POLISARIO and the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic terrorist organizations. Their international assets would be frozen, their leaders would be arrested and could be tried by secret U.S. military tribunals and executed, and Big Oil and Morocco would rule the day in Western Sahara. Even groups that support their cause could be targeted and their assets seized. Furthermore, the American public, conditioned to be suspicious of all things Arab, would have little sympathy for nomadic Arabs fighting against a U.S. "ally." It is a scenario that could be replayed in every part of the world where local secessionist groups are pitted against brutal regimes and greedy multinational corporations--the Aceh region of northern Sumatra, West Papua, and Nigeria's Delta Region, to name but a few.
Wayne Madsen is a Washington, DC-based investigative journalist and columnist. He wrote the introduction to Forbidden Truth.
Reproduced from counterpunch with permission from Wayne Madsen``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xBig Oil and James Baker Target the Western Sahara``x1042124108,56907,Development``x``x
``xby Robert Jensen
Here's what white privilege sounds like:
I am sitting in my University of Texas office, talking to a very bright and very conservative white student about affirmative action in college admissions, which he opposes and I support.
The student says he wants a level playing field with no unearned advantages for anyone. I ask him whether he thinks that in the United States being white has advantages. Have either of us, I ask, ever benefited from being white in a world run mostly by white people? Yes, he concedes, there is something real and tangible we could call white privilege.
So, if we live in a world of white privilege--unearned white privilege--how does that affect your notion of a level playing field? I ask.
He paused for a moment and said, "That really doesn't matter."
That statement, I suggested to him, reveals the ultimate white privilege: the privilege to acknowledge you have unearned privilege but ignore what it means.
That exchange led me to rethink the way I talk about race and racism with students. It drove home to me the importance of confronting the dirty secret that we white people carry around with us everyday: In a world of white privilege, some of what we have is unearned. I think much of both the fear and anger that comes up around discussions of affirmative action has its roots in that secret. So these days, my goal is to talk openly and honestly about white supremacy and white privilege.
White privilege, like any social phenomenon, is complex. In a white supremacist culture, all white people have privilege, whether or not they are overtly racist themselves. There are general patterns, but such privilege plays out differently depending on context and other aspects of one's identity (in my case, being male gives me other kinds of privilege). Rather than try to tell others how white privilege has played out in their lives, I talk about how it has affected me.
I am as white as white gets in this country. I am of northern European heritage and I was raised in North Dakota, one of the whitest states in the country. I grew up in a virtually all-white world surrounded by racism, both personal and institutional. Because I didn't live near a reservation, I didn't even have exposure to the state's only numerically significant non-white population, American Indians.
I have struggled to resist that racist training and the ongoing racism of my culture. I like to think I have changed, even though I routinely trip over the lingering effects of that internalized racism and the institutional racism around me. But no matter how much I "fix" myself, one thing never changes--I walk through the world with white privilege.
What does that mean? Perhaps most importantly, when I seek admission to a university, apply for a job, or hunt for an apartment, I don't look threatening. Almost all of the people evaluating me for those things look like me--they are white. They see in me a reflection of themselves, and in a racist world that is an advantage. I smile. I am white. I am one of them. I am not dangerous. Even when I voice critical opinions, I am cut some slack. After all, I'm white.
My flaws also are more easily forgiven because I am white. Some complain that affirmative action has meant the university is saddled with mediocre minority professors. I have no doubt there are minority faculty who are mediocre, though I don't know very many. As Henry Louis Gates Jr. once pointed out, if affirmative action policies were in place for the next hundred years, it's possible that at the end of that time the university could have as many mediocre minority professors as it has mediocre white professors. That isn't meant as an insult to anyone, but is a simple observation that white privilege has meant that scores of second-rate white professors have slid through the system because their flaws were overlooked out of solidarity based on race, as well as on gender, class and ideology.
Some people resist the assertions that the United States is still a bitterly racist society and that the racism has real effects on real people. But white folks have long cut other white folks a break. I know, because I am one of them.
I am not a genius--as I like to say, I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer. I have been teaching full-time for six years, and I've published a reasonable amount of scholarship. Some of it is the unexceptional stuff one churns out to get tenure, and some of it, I would argue, actually is worth reading. I work hard, and I like to think that I'm a fairly decent teacher. Every once in awhile, I leave my office at the end of the day feeling like I really accomplished something. When I cash my paycheck, I don't feel guilty.
But, all that said, I know I did not get where I am by merit alone. I benefited from, among other things, white privilege. That doesn't mean that I don't deserve my job, or that if I weren't white I would never have gotten the job. It means simply that all through my life, I have soaked up benefits for being white. I grew up in fertile farm country taken by force from non-white indigenous people. I was educated in a well-funded, virtually all-white public school system in which I learned that white people like me made this country great. There I also was taught a variety of skills, including how to take standardized tests written by and for white people.
All my life I have been hired for jobs by white people. I was accepted for graduate school by white people. And I was hired for a teaching position at the predominantly white University of Texas, which had a white president, in a college headed by a white dean and in a department with a white chairman that at the time had one non-white tenured professor.
There certainly is individual variation in experience. Some white people have had it easier than me, probably because they came from wealthy families that gave them even more privilege. Some white people have had it tougher than me because they came from poorer families. White women face discrimination I will never know. But, in the end, white people all have drawn on white privilege somewhere in their lives.
Like anyone, I have overcome certain hardships in my life. I have worked hard to get where I am, and I work hard to stay there. But to feel good about myself and my work, I do not have to believe that "merit," as defined by white people in a white country, alone got me here. I can acknowledge that in addition to all that hard work, I got a significant boost from white privilege, which continues to protect me every day of my life from certain hardships.
At one time in my life, I would not have been able to say that, because I needed to believe that my success in life was due solely to my individual talent and effort. I saw myself as the heroic American, the rugged individualist. I was so deeply seduced by the culture's mythology that I couldn't see the fear that was binding me to those myths. Like all white Americans, I was living with the fear that maybe I didn't really deserve my success, that maybe luck and privilege had more to do with it than brains and hard work. I was afraid I wasn't heroic or rugged, that I wasn't special.
I let go of some of that fear when I realized that, indeed, I wasn't special, but that I was still me. What I do well, I still can take pride in, even when I know that the rules under which I work in are stacked in my benefit. I believe that until we let go of the fiction that people have complete control over their fate--that we can will ourselves to be anything we choose--then we will live with that fear. Yes, we should all dream big and pursue our dreams and not let anyone or anything stop us. But we all are the product both of what we will ourselves to be and what the society in which we live lets us be.
White privilege is not something I get to decide whether or not I want to keep. Every time I walk into a store at the same time as a black man and the security guard follows him and leaves me alone to shop, I am benefiting from white privilege. There is not space here to list all the ways in which white privilege plays out in our daily lives, but it is clear that I will carry this privilege with me until the day white supremacy is erased from this society.
Frankly, I don't think I will live to see that day; I am realistic about the scope of the task. However, I continue to have hope, to believe in the creative power of human beings to engage the world honestly and act morally. A first step for white people, I think, is to not be afraid to admit that we have benefited from white privilege. It doesn't mean we are frauds who have no claim to our success. It means we face a choice about what we do with our success.
Jensen is a professor in the Department of Journalism in the University of Texas at Austin. He can be reached at rjensen@uts.cc.utexas.edu
copyright Robert William Jensen 1998
first appeared in the Baltimore Sun, July 19, 1998 ``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xWhite Privilege Shapes The U.S.``x1042154927,81497,Development``x``x
``xBy Dr. David Nyekorach - Matsanga in London
What a travesty of journalism! And what has become of this world of the Queen? Is the end of the world nearing? Where will it begin? Are there any more intelligent journalists left in Britain? Democracy, good governance, public accountability, redounds positively on good journalism. But when all papers turn yellow like the editors who allow these stories to appear in Britain then we know these are the signs of a desperate nation and their devilish shoe polisher son called Satan Tsvangirai. Whatever the merits and demerits of the faked story there is a looming danger in the MDC who have been begging and pleading for more money from Britain to oust Mugabe.
A senior official in the British foreign office told us that the MDC has been told to step up the propaganda in order to receive more funding from British organisations like WFD and ZDT. Last month saw many opposition MDC MPS coming to Britain in search for money for disruption and other activities in Zimbabwe. A very reliable source at the foreign office in London was quoted as saying that "yes Baroness Amos has had a series of meetings with those MDC members of Parliament who visited London in December 2002 and January 2003". Then this explains the plethora of information that the British system has waged on Zimbabwe of late. The British divide and rule tactic is now at the centre of the so-called foreign policy. The doctored story that appeared on BBC and in several British newspapers about President Mugabe being removed by Hon. E D Mnangagwa and the Army chief General Vitalis Zvinanashe of his own party is clear example of politics of zygotes and half dead journalism whose spirit has been rejected by God and wondering free in the Queens territory. I am beginning to see the bad side of politics since embarked on this voluntary job of defending Zimbabwe abroad.
There are those surrogates of imperialism in Zimbabwe and Britain, who is too anxious to find sermons in stones, books in the running books and has unleashed terror-using journalism as weapon to kill President Mugabe and Zimbabwe. The whole UK woke up on Monday 13th January 2003 to find headlines about President Mugabe leaving power. WHAT A HOAX OF THE NEW YEAR! These reports have not only caused a mockery of the so-called British liberal press underpinned with the so called good governance but only shines with ignorance that is embedded in the minds of most British journalists. It is not only Zimbabwe that has suffered the torrent of silly accusations and silly praises.
While they are killing pluralism in Zimbabwe they are busy praising Uganda as model of Africa by the same Newspapers like The Times. Uganda has not even given the people parties like President Mugabe has done in Zimbabwe but the same GAY journalists like Robert Thomson who travel to Uganda to infect our people with HIV/AIDS are busy praising the country. What a shame to such smelly and polluted journalism coming from the brains of men who have defied the Bible creed of WOMAN marrying MAN. They go to Africa to buy sex from men who have no principles like those well-known GAYS in MDC. I have been humble in my articles in defence of Mugabe but to my readers please spare me this time I have changed my approach towards a Labour government, which has a bunch of gays whose scandals will cause mayhem to the world. How can men who defy the Bible be able to make correct judgment?
I have never witnessed such a goofed hoax and propaganda being peddled by journalists who call themselves white yet they don't know the colour of their skins. Britain has become a milling station of rumours and confusion. Indeed the poison of yellow journalism in Britain is worse than the Ricin powder that the Algerians had started manufacturing in the North of the City of London. Most of the men writing stories in British newspapers have narrow and shallow brains intellectually and these were former office messengers who were promoted to become editors of the current yellow newspapers. This explains the current onslaught on the people of Zimbabwe with stories that lack substance and are unbalanced.
The exposure of the "double standards" of Britain last week by the Herald Newspaper of Zimbabwe has forced the opposition MDC and the British MI6 to change their tactics on Zimbabwe. The source at the (I I S S) International Institute of Strategic Studies has told us that the comments on BBC by Prof. George Shire on 7th January 2003 and Africa Strategy's letter dated 6th January 2003 to the so called African affairs Minister Baroness Amos have sparked a series of a co-ordinated propaganda similar to that which was used in Yugoslavia before the fall of Melosvic from power. The enemies of Zimbabwe are attacking from two fronts. There is the official attack using the acrobatic style of British High Commission officials in Harare and organizations like ZDT and WFD, which have poured millions of British pounds to the opposition. This front is loaded with lethal weapons of propaganda machinery and a cocktail of doses of smelly substance called white man's arms twisting and creation of imaginary fever of panic in Zimbabwe. "THIS COCKTAIL IS CALLED "DIVIDE AND RULE" of the black ignorant masses.
The second flank is manned by the so-called "night dancers" who sneak into Zimbabwe under the pretext of playing golf and supported by the dirty malcontents of MDC. This so called visitors who fake their way into Zimbabwe visit the homes of the opposition supporters and interview those they claim are dying of hunger. Then these stories are beamed worldwide for the ignorant masses in Britain who believe everything their BBC or Channel 4 telecasts. The most worrying factor is that most of these so called undercover journalists are gays who hate President Mugabe. We have received evidence and information that those who appear on these so called documentary are paid huge amounts of money to appear on programmes like the ones that appeared on Channel 4 on Sunday night. It has also been revealed that most of the Opposition members are being sexually abused by these high flying undercover journalists like John Osborne who are paying up to £ 500 per night for sexual therapy that they cant have in Britain. Africa Strategy would like to join a long queue of those who will condemn the most recent reports on Zimbabwe.
These are some of the so-called distorted and imagined stories that have appeared Between December 26th 2002 and January 2003:
On Thursday 26th December 2002 a gay journalist by name Peta Thornycroft filed a story in The Daily Telegraph " Mugabe's wife selects her farm and orders the owners to leave" which was untrue.
On the same day another lesbian journalist called Alice Thomson filed a story entitled " Murderous Mugabe should be treated like bin Laden" also published by The Daily Telegraph.
On Thursday January 9th January 2003 another yellow gay journalist by name Peter Oborne files a story in the Daily Mirror the so called paper of the year 2002 "Africa's Nazis" it formed a basis of the documentary on Sunday.
Then comes the documentary that defied all intellectual rules on mass media and mass communication on Sunday 12th January 2003 by Channel 4 news that bought it for £100.000and beamed it across the European Continent. The Zimbabwean people who take part in this media sexual bonanza should know that their lives are being used as monetary conduits by the so called gay and lesbian journalists who flock Zimbabwe under Golf rituals in the best fields in the world.
On Monday 13th January 2003 the BBC reported as Breaking News "Mugabe's Party wants him to go" and this story was flashed on the front pages of the British newspapers. Those who like Zimbabwe condemn the faked story by the gay gangsters about the most loyal men in ZANU-PF and founders of the struggle against imperialism allegedly being against the founder father of the nation of Zimbabwe.
Many people who have telephoned Africa Strategy in London have wondered why only the known British gay journalists and lesbians have launched a campaign on Zimbabwe. There are concerns that President Mugabe's Public Relations PR machinery abroad has not done enough especially in Britain to change and reshape the image of the President and it appears that there is a "wait and see scenario" and a dirty syndrome of avoiding head on target with the foreign press that has not been hit so hard by the government abroad. The President's name has been damaged in Britain and yet his High Commission in London, which is near the media houses, like the BBC CNN, SKY NEWS, keeps a low profile and does not even issue or answer any of the accusations labelled on the same hand that feeds it. There is also the question of those turncoats who are feeding the yellow journalists in the Independent press of Zimbabwe to write stories about those who defend Mugabe in Europe and fill the gap. These are the most dangerous political toxins the President should get rid of quickly. There are worse than the MDC sellouts and could destroy the government of the SON of Africa.
Those whose culture is to use the media to kill the same plate that feeds them are conducting the political strangulation of the government of Zimbabwe in a coherent manner. A source very close to Africa Strategy's research team in London has revealed that the High Commission in London does not deny some of the stories appearing in the press. This goes to show how besieged the High Commission in London is or how confused the staff are or worse still one wonders whose side these sons and daughters of soil belong? One independent white PR officer in London who helped to return Libyan leader Gadaffi to the world order told Africa Strategy that it seems the staff are MDC followers because "he has never seen such an act of treachery and betrayal" he said. There are illegal demonstrators around the High Commission's premises near a British police Station and no charges or protest note has been sent out to the government of Britain about the behaviour of these narrow-minded zygotes of ZDT and MDC who want to sell their country to gay and lesbians. Our researchers went to the police near the premises to ask why they have allowed the illegal protests to take place every day near the building and to see whether those members of ZDT and MDC who gather near Zimbabwe House every evening in London have a permit to do so. Guess the answer: NO COMPLAINT LODGED by the time we went to press.
We discovered that not a single permit had been issued and the police told us that there was no complaint from the High Commission as regards that issue. How will President Mugabe defend himself when he can't travel to London to do so? Even those given the responsibility have no idea on what to do in UK? Many Observers on the Zimbabwe politics have expressed their surprise on the silence of the officials in London who are supposed to defend their President in this country of the Queen. The whole year has ended without Zimbabwe's officials in London openly defending their President in Britain like what other officials from African countries do in Britain.
Africa Strategy has decided to bring this matter to public because it seems we are entering a crucial stage of our defence of President Mugabe as such we shall be very intellectually brutal and factual in our attack on those who want to fail the President of Zimbabwe who has spearheaded an African dream. Let those who have hidden ambitions come out openly and fight some of us supporters of Mugabe in London morally or intellectually instead of strangulating the government of Zimbabwe and President Mugabe. Many people have feared to say this to the world and to the government but let Africa Strategy go on record for alerting the President and ZANU-PF that there is dubious silence in London. Africa Strategy is prepared for such a war to defend President Mugabe with the contribution of people like Mr.Mararaike, Prof George Shire and others who have filled the gap of the game of the "lost sheep". Africa Strategy has refused calls by Baroness Amos for a meeting and we are no interested in any future meetings until Zimbabwe is left alone. This the bottom line in politics and those who are armatures must quit. But in defence of President Mugabe against the bunch of gay gangsters in Britain we shall not surrender.
This brings us to the next phase of our struggle for the nation of Zimbabwe. The lesbian and Gay journalists have opened a Pandora box of death and skeletons, which we shall from now onwards, attack on the question of MORALITY and we have decided that until they stop meddling in the internal affairs of Zimbabwe we shall not rest. The whole strategy is to scare monger the cricket team from going to Zimbabwe next month as was used in Yugoslavia in the overthrow of President Melosvic. The so-called imaginary house coup in Zimbabwe is a design of the British MI6 that ZANU-PF should not listen to. BUT the party must find out those who are spreading these false reports to the Zimbabwe's so called yellow journalism? This reminds me of one Kenyan politician who kept on switching sides while President Moi was being strangled. This hand of death in Zimbabwe politics that goes on peddling malice and hatred against Hon. E D Mnangagwa and General Vitalis Zvinavashe has to be exposed soon to avoid costly remedies in future and for us who love our African Martin Luther King we are not going to hesitate to do so if the hand does not stop the Strangulation of the President of Zimbabwe. The direction of the onslaught on President Mugabe's enemies abroad must be decided now. We stand to lose an African statesman who has stopped madness in Congo, has given his people the pride by giving them back their land which the same criminals stole 200 years ago Where will you find a Castro of Africa like the one we have in Zimbabwe? The story of accusing the most honest and loyal men in ZANU-PF for plotting to remove their leader is not absurd but very idiotic in terms of those who imagine and produce such gutter journalism. Soon the people of Zimbabwe will see the true colours of the agents of British imperialism in Zimbabwe. The recent donation of £46.000 by Annabelle Hughes to the MDC boss and the payment made by Mr. Peter Oborne to the MDC officials for the fake story must be investigated by the government of Zimbabwe. Highly placed Sources have told us that ZDT official Annabele Hughes through an undercover journalist called Peter Oborne sent money to disrupt the cricket matches of next month from Account 42182002 0f Lloyds Bank of London. This is a clear testimony to the world that ZDT wants to fight the people of Zimbabwe and cause political infighting in ZANU-PF and create an imaginary power struggle.
President Mugabe and the Zimbabwean nation we thank you for your tenacity and steadfastness and assure you that the road to Jerusalem is full of temptations and trials but this is the time of UNITY of purpose for those who cherish peace. Africa Strategy will continue with its fight and we shall deal with these gangs of gays and lesbian idiots who have defied GOD'S Commandments and have brought the subject of JOURNALISM to disrepute.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xThere Is No Sanity Left In British Journalism``x1042563499,31447,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Innocent Gore who was in Lusaka, Zambia
President Mugabe yesterday said it would be foolhardy, counter-revolutionary and disrespectful of the people who re-elected him last March if he were to step down before the expiry of his term.
He said this in the wake of British media reports that some Zanu-PF and MDC officials were working out a plan for him to step down before the expiry of his term, to pave the way for a government of national unity.
Cde Mugabe told reporters on arrival at Lusaka International Airport in Zambia that he would never surrender to British Prime Minister Mr Tony Blair.
"Well, I am not used to answering questions about nightmares that are dreamt in Britain at Number 10 Downing Street and I only heard about that in the papers. There is no truth in it at all," he said in response to a question by a Zambian journalist who had asked him to comment on the issue.
"Only a few months ago, the people elected me to serve them and it will be foolhardy and absolutely counter-revolutionary. In fact, it is disrespectful of the support that the people gave, the loyalty the people reposed in me if today I am seen to be surrendering to Mr Blair. Never ever, never!"
The President was in Zambia to witness the conferment of the Honour of the Eagle of Zambia to that country’s founding president Dr Kenneth Kaunda in recognition of his service to Zambia and the liberation of Southern Africa, including Zimbabwe. MORE...``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xMugabe: 'I am not retiring yet'``x1042647376,18167,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xHerald Reporter
THE British Broadcasting Corporation is allegedly buying air tickets for opposition MDC activists in Zimbabwe to fly to the United Kingdom where they are later used on its programmes to demonise President Mugabe’s Government.
The BBC has taken these same people to other European countries and the United States where they have been given platforms to attack their country while at the same time garnering for British support to overthrow President Mugabe and the Zanu-PF Government.
The Herald has established that Adellah Chiminya nee Mutero, divorcee of the late MDC campaign manager-cum-driver for Mr Morgan Tsvangirai, was flown out of the country by the BBC.
She appeared on the BBC programme Hard Talk last Thursday where she insulted African Heads of State for what she called "sympathising" with Preside-nt Mugabe.
Adellah said the BBC had also bought tickets for her two children Faith and Blessing who are now resident in the UK.
The BBC Press Office yesterday said it was highly unlikely that the BBC paid Adellah’s airfares for its programmes and to take part in a court case in the US.
"We do however, pay for certain people to come to our studios for interviews on our programmes,’’ said a spokesperson for the BBC who identified herself as Helen Martin.
Earlier, another official of the BBC who identified himself as Douglas Spitz said his organisation could fly, from any part of the world, guests coming to any of its shows.
Asked if it was the norm for the station to fly sources and their dependants into the United Kingdom where they are eventually granted asylum, Spitz said: "I wouldn’t know really, maybe the Foreign Office would know."
However, Adellah said: "As we speak, (Mr) Elliot Pfebve and his family arrived here last week and I am sure they got their tickets from the BBC."
Mr Pfebve (MDC) lost the Bindura by-election held after the death of the former Minister of Gender, Youth and Employment Creation, Cde Border Gezi.
Adellah, it was learnt, parted ways with Mr Chiminya long before he died and she took advantage of his death to thrust herself into the limelight as a grieved widow of an MDC activist.
She told the BBC that she last saw her husband in September, which was in 1999 and the husband died eight months later in April 2000.
Investigations by The Herald established that at the time of his death, Mr Chiminya lived-in with someone in Highfield while Adellah lived by herself in Hatfield.
Adellah, who repeatedly asked the Herald reporter not to write what the two were discussing, also opened up her heart saying she was in the UK for her survival although she believed some people were using her for their political goals.
"If you write this, I will sue you. Are you aware that I am taping the whole conversation we are having . . . siyana nazvo iwe (leave it alone) that’s my wish," she said.
She said ever since she went to the US with Ms Maria Stevens, Ms Evelyn Masaiti and Mr Pfebve, to sue the President, she had not benefited anything.
But on the BBC TV programme Hard Talk, Adellah, who repeatedly called South African President Thabo Mbeki a liar, said she was living in a house that Amani Trust, a folded Zimbabwean Non-Governmental Organisation that is heavily involved in politics, had bought her.
"But of course we have travelled to many European countries and we have been to Switzerland, you can name any country," she said.
It is understood that in those European countries, Adellah and her Zimbabwean "exiled" colleagues were used to address people on television as the British tried to garner for international support to overthrow President Mugabe.
Adellah said after the BBC TV Hard Talk programme, scores of whites from the US, Europe and South Africa had phoned her to congratulate her.
"I received calls from all over the world. They said I had done well. Many whites phoned me," she said without saying how they got her number.
Asked whether she was not ashamed to capitalise on the death of a man, with whom her marriage had broken down, Adellah who comes from Nerupiri, Gutu, said she had to survive.
She also agreed that she had become a fully-fledged member of the opposition MDC but would not shed light on the alleged affair she was reported to have had with a top official before she left the country.
She was known to have told some of her close relations that a top MDC official was dating her and she was getting fed up of his insensitivity.
According to some well-placed sources and relatives of the late Mr Chiminya, Adellah fled their matrimonial home to settle alone following endless problems which dogged their marriage.
And when the former husband died, she immediately saw and seized her opportunity to get sympathy and deceived the world that everything had been going on well and she was still married to him.
"Those two were not living together as husband and wife, Mr Chiminya lived with another woman and his children Blessing and Faith in Highfield. Adellah had left," said a relative.
Adellah was employed as a secretary at a school in Harare and was seeing a banker then before flying to the UK.
She had all intentions of returning but did not when she learnt her salary had been frozen while she was in the UK.
"She left in October 2001 and when she heard that her salary had been frozen because she was away without leave, she resigned and sought political asylum," said the relative.
After that she advised the BBC to facilitate her children’s flight.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xBBC scam exposed``x1042927547,10799,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Tim Wise
Rarely am I considered insufficiently cynical. As someone who does anti-racism work for a living, and thus hears all manner of excuse-making by those who wish desperately to avoid being considered racist, not much surprises me. I expect people to lie about race; to tell me how many black friends they have; to swear they haven't a racist bone in their bodies. And every January, with the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday just around the corner, I have come to expect someone to misuse the good doctor's words so as to push an agenda he would not likely have supported. As such, I long ago resigned myself to the annual gaggle of fools who deign to use King's "content of their character" line from the 1963 March on Washington so as to attack affirmative action, ostensibly because King preferred simple "color-blindness." That King actually supported the efforts that we now call affirmative action--and even billions in reparations for slavery and segregation--as I've documented in a previous column, matters not to these folks. They've never read King's work, and they've only paid attention to one news clip from one speech, so what more can we expect from such precious simpletons as these? And yet, even with my cynic's credentials established, the one thing I never expected anyone to do would be to just make up a quote from King; a quote that he simply never said, and claim that it came from a letter that he never wrote, and was published in a collection of his essays that never existed. Frankly, this level of deception is something special. The hoax of which I speak is one currently making the rounds on the Internet, which claims to prove King's steadfast support for Zionism. Indeed, it does more than that.
In the item, entitled "Letter to an Anti-Zionist Friend," King proclaims that criticism of Zionism is tantamount to anti-Semitism, and likens those who criticize Jewish nationalism as manifested in Israel, to those who would seek to trample the rights of blacks. Heady stuff indeed, and 100% bullshit, as any amateur fact checker could ascertain were they so inclined. But of course, the kinds of folks who push an ideology that required the expulsion of three-quarters-of-a-million Palestinians from their lands, and then lied about it, claiming there had been no such persons to begin with (as with Golda Meir's infamous quip), can't be expected to place a very high premium on truth. I learned this the hard way recently, when the Des Moines Jewish Federation succeeded in getting me yanked from the city's MLK day events: two speeches I had been scheduled to give on behalf of the National Conference of Community and Justice (NCCJ).
Because of my criticisms of Israel--and because I as a Jew am on record opposing Zionism philosophically--the Des Moines shtetl decided I was unfit to speak at an MLK event. After sending the supposed King quote around, and threatening to pull out all monies from the Jewish community for future NCCJ events, I was dropped. The attack of course was based on a distortion of my own beliefs as well. Federation principal Mark Finkelstein claimed I had shown a disregard for the well-being of Jews, despite the fact that my argument has long been that Zionism in practice has made world Jewry less safe than ever. But it was his duplicity on King's views that was most disturbing. Though Finkelstein only recited one line from King's supposed "letter" on Zionism, he lifted it from the larger letter, which appears to have originated with Rabbi Marc Schneier, who quotes from it in his 1999 book, "Shared Dreams: Martin Luther King Jr. and the Jewish Community." Therein, one finds such over-the-top rhetoric as this:
"I say, let the truth ring forth from the high mountain tops, let it echo through the valleys of God's green earth: When people criticize Zionism, they mean Jews--this is God's own truth." The letter also was filled with grammatical errors that any halfway literate reader of King's work should have known disqualified him from being its author, to wit: "Anti-Zionist is inherently anti Semitic, and ever will be so." The treatise, it is claimed, was published on page 76 of the August, 1967 edition of Saturday Review, and supposedly can also be read in the collection of King's work entitled, This I Believe: Selections from the Writings of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. That the claimants never mention the publisher of this collection should have been a clear tip-off that it might not be genuine, and indeed it isn't. The book doesn't exist. As for Saturday Review, there were four issues in August of 1967. Two of the four editions contained a page 76. One of the pages 76 contains classified ads and the other contained a review of the Beatles' Sgt. Pepper's album. No King letter anywhere.
Yet its lack of authenticity hasn't prevented it from having a long shelf-life. Not only does it pop up in the Schneier book, but sections of it were read by the Anti-Defamation League's Michael Salberg in testimony before a House Subcommittee in July of 2001, and all manner of pro-Israel groups (from traditional Zionists to right-wing Likudites, to Christians who support ingathering Jews to Israel so as to prompt Jesus' return), have used the piece on their websites.
In truth, King appears never to have made any public comment about Zionism per se; and the only known statement he ever made on the topic, made privately to a handful of people, is a far cry from what he is purported to have said in the so-called "Letter to an Anti-Zionist friend." In 1968, according to Seymour Martin Lipset, King was in Boston and attended a dinner in Cambridge along with Lipset himself and a number of black students. After the dinner, a young man apparently made a fairly harsh remark attacking Zionists as people, to which King responded: "Don't talk like that. When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews. You're talking Anti-Semitism." Assuming this quote to be genuine, it is still far from the ideological endorsement of Zionism as theory or practice that was evidenced in the phony letter.
After all, to respond to a harsh statement about individuals who are Zionists with the warning that such language is usually a cover for anti-Jewish bias is understandable. More than that, the comment was no doubt true for most, especially in 1968. It is a statement of opinion as to what people are thinking when they say a certain thing. It is not a statement as to the inherent validity or perfidy of a worldview or its effects.
Likewise, consider the following analogous dualism: first, that "opposition to welfare programs is forever racism," and secondly, that "when people criticize welfare recipients, they mean blacks. This is racism."
Whereas the latter statement may be true--and studies would tend to suggest that it is--the former is a matter of ideological conviction, largely untestable, and thus more tendentious than its counterpart. In any event, as with the King quotes--both fabricated and genuine--the truth of the latter says nothing about the truth or falsity of the former.
So yes, King was quick to admonish one person who expressed hostility to Zionists as people. But he did not claim that opposition to Zionism was inherently anti-Semitic. And for those who criticize Zionism today and who like me are Jewish, to believe that we mean to attack Jews, as Jews, when we speak out against Israel and Zionism is absurd.
As for King's public position on Israel, it was quite limited and hardly formed a cornerstone of his worldview. In a meeting with Jewish leaders a few weeks before his death, King noted that peace for Israelis and Arabs were both important concerns. According to King, "peace for Israel means security, and we must stand with all our might to protect its right to exist, its territorial integrity."
But such a statement says nothing about how Israel should be constituted, nor addresses the Palestinians at all, whose lives and challenges were hardly on the world's radar screen in 1968.
At the time, Israel's concern was hostility from Egypt; and of course all would agree that any nation has the right not to be attacked by a neighbor. The U.S. had a right not to be attacked by the Soviet Union too--as King would have no doubt agreed, thereby affirming the United States' right to exist. But would anyone claim that such a sentiment would have implied the right of the U.S. to exist as it did, say in 1957 or 1961, under segregation? Of course not.
So too Israel. Its right to exist in the sense of not being violently destroyed by hostile forces does not mean the right to exist as a Jewish state per se, as opposed to the state of all its citizens. It does not mean the right to laws granting special privileges to Jews from around the world, over indigenous Arabs.
It should also be noted that in the same paragraph where King reiterated his support for Israel's right to exist, he also proclaimed the importance of massive public assistance to Middle Eastern Arabs, in the form of a Marshall Plan, so as to counter the poverty and desperation that often leads to hostility and violence towards Israeli Jews.
This part of King's position is typically ignored by the organized Jewish community, of course, even though it was just as important to King as Israel's territorial integrity.
As for what King would say today about Israel, Zionism, and the Palestinian struggle, one can only speculate.
After all, he died before the full tragedy of the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza would be able to unfold.
He died before the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel; before the invasion of Lebanon and the massacres at Sabra and Shatilla; before the 1980's intifada; before Israel decided to serve as a proxy for U.S. foreign policy--funneling weapons to fascist governments in South Africa, Argentina and Guatemala, or helping to arm terrorist thugs in Mozambique and the contras in Nicaragua.
He died before the proliferation of illegal settlements throughout the territories; before the rash of suicide/homicide bombings; before the polls showing that nearly half of Israeli Jews support removing Palestinians via "transfer" to neighboring countries.
But one thing is for sure. While King would no doubt roundly condemn Palestinian violence against innocent civilians, he would also condemn the state violence of Israel.
He would condemn launching missile attacks against entire neighborhoods in order to flush out a handful of wanted terrorists.
He would oppose the handing out of machine guns to religious fanatics from Brooklyn who move to the territories and proclaim their God-given right to the land, and the right to run Arabs out of their neighborhoods, or fence them off, or discriminate against them in a multitude of ways.
He would oppose the unequal rationing of water resources between Jews and Arabs that is Israeli policy.
He would oppose the degrading checkpoints through which Palestinian workers must pass to get to their jobs, or back to their homes after a long day of work.
He would oppose the policy which allows IDF officers to shoot children throwing rocks, as young as age twelve.
In other words, he would likely criticize the working out of Zionism on the ground, as it has actually developed in the real world, as opposed to the world of theory and speculation.
These things seem imminently clear from any honest reading of his work or examination of his life. He would be a broker for peace. And it is a tragedy that instead of King himself, we are burdened with charlatans like those at the ADL, or the Des Moines Jewish Federation, or Rabbis like Marc Schneier who think nothing of speaking for the genuine article, in a voice not his own.
Tim Wise is an antiracist essayist, activist and lecturer. He can be reached at (and footnotes procured from) timjwise@msn.com``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xIsrael, Zionism, and the Misuse of M.L.K.``x1043109752,71830,Development``x``x
``xPublished 2003-01-21 Middle East Online
http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=4068
Artefacts represent kings Taharqa, Tanutamon, last of black pharaohs as well as two monarchs who all lived about 600 years BC.
KHARTOUM - Granite statues and stelas of pharaohs who ruled from northern Sudan some 2,600 years ago, including the last "black pharaohs," have been found by a team of French and Swiss archeologists, a statement said Sunday.
The artefacts represented kings Taharqa and Tanutamon, the last of the "black pharaohs," as well as monarchs Senkamanisken and Aspelta, who all lived about 600 years BC, the French embassy here said in the statement.
These discoveries "represent a significant contribution to the history of ancient Sudan and without a doubt count among the masterpieces of sculpture worldwide," the team said in the statement.
The artefacts were found in a grave in Kerma, south of the Third Cataract of the Nile, by a team from the University of Geneva headed by Charles Bonnet, and including French archeologist Dominique Valbelle.
Like the Egyptian kings, the kings of Kush were also buried in pyramids.
Taharqa (690-664 BC) inherited a dynasty that ruled Egypt until the Assyrian conquest began and his reign was pushed back to between the third and fourth cataracts.
Lies From The Western Media re: African Ourstory``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xPharaonic statues found in north Sudan``x1043128009,24760,Development``x``x
``xTuesday, 21 January, 2003, By Dr David Whitehouse
BBC News Online science editor
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2679675.stm
The oldest image of a star pattern, that of the famous constellation of Orion, has been recognised on an ivory tablet some 32,500 years old.
The tiny sliver of mammoth tusk contains a carving of a man-like figure with arms and legs outstretched in the same pose as the stars of Orion.
The claim is made by Dr Michael Rappenglueck, formerly of the University of Munich, who is already renowned for his pioneering work locating star charts painted on the walls of prehistoric caves.
The tablet also contains mysterious notches, carved on its sides and on its back. These could be a primitive "pregnancy calendar", designed to estimate when a pregnant woman will give birth.
Man-like figure
It was found in 1979 in a cave in the Ach Valley in the Alb-Danube region of Germany. Carbon dating of bone ash deposits found next to the tablet suggest it is between 32,500 and 38,000 years old, making it one of the oldest representations of a man ever found.
It was left behind by the mysterious Aurignacian people about whom we know next to nothing save that they moved into Europe from the east supplanting the indigenous Neanderthals.
The ivory tablet is small, measuring only 38 x 14 x 4 millimetres, but from the notches carved into its edges archaeologists believe that it was made that size and is not a fragment of something bigger.
On one side of the tablet is the man-like being with his legs apart and arms raised. Between his legs hangs what could be a sword and his waist is narrow. His left leg is shorter than his right one.
From what is speculated about the myths of these ancient peoples before the dawn of history, archaeologists have suggested that the man-like figure could be praying or dancing, or be a half-man, half-cat, or a divine being.
But Michael Rappenglueck thinks it is a drawing of the constellation of Orion that is nowadays, and was perhaps also 32,000 years ago, called the hunter.
The proportions of the man correspond to the pattern of stars that comprise Orion, especially its slim waist - which corresponds to its famous belt of three stars and the left "leg" of the constellation being shorter.
The "sword" on the ivory tablet also corresponds to a famous and well-know feature that can be seen in Orion.
There are also other indications that Dr Rappenglueck may be correct.
The stars were in slightly different positions 32,000 years ago because they are moving across the sky at different speeds and in different directions, a phenomenon called "proper motion".
Dr Rappenglueck allowed for this effect by using a computer program to wind back the sky and found evidence for a particular star in Orion that was in a different place all those years ago.
Human gestation period
The tablet may also be a pregnancy calendar.
There are 86 notches on the tablet, a number that has two special meanings.
First, it is the number of days that must be subtracted from a year to equal the average number of days of a human gestation. This is no coincidence, says Dr Rappenglueck.
It is also the number of days that one of Orion's two prominent stars, Betelguese, is visible. To ancient man, this might have linked human fertility with the gods in the sky.
Orion is one of the most striking constellations. The Ancient Egyptians identified it with their god Osiris and it has a special significance for many cultures throughout history throughout the world.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``x'Oldest star chart' found``x1043128692,34064,Development``x``x
``xBy Chris Talbot, 22 January 2003
An article in a Zimbabwe newspaper reveals a move amongst top leaders to remove President Robert Mugabe in exchange for obtaining economic support from the West.
According to the Zimbabwe Sunday Mirror, a paper that supports the ruling Zanu-PF party, a plan is under discussion in which Mugabe is made to retire and replaced by the current Speaker of Parliament Emmerson Mnangagwa, who would hold power for a two-year "transition" period, after which elections would be held. During the two-years, an interim government would be installed with constitutional changes "that would allow Mugabe a dignified exit and would not force elections during the transitional period," the Mirror reports.
The newspaper also states that Morgan Tsvangirai, leader of the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), has accepted the proposal. The British government is also said to be backing the plan, with South Africa acting as intermediary. Britain would pay out £500 million to help "jump start" the collapsed economy, and financial support from the West would be restored.
Both Zanu-PF and South Africa have denied the plan exists, but in an interview with the BBC Tsvangirai admitted that he had been approached in December by a representative of Mnangagwa and the commander of the Zimbabwe armed forces, General Vitalis Zvinavashe. Tsvangirai says he was willing to consider immunity from prosecution for Mugabe in exchange for a return to "normal political activity" that would later lead to "free and fair" elections. According to the Mirror however, Tsvangirai only initially agreed to the plan but later backtracked after "a tiny, aggressive white minority" in the MDC objected to immunity for Mugabe. Factions within Zanu-PF are also said to be opposed to the plan partly because Mnangagwa, a ruthless functionary who is said to be Mugabe's chosen successor, is widely disliked.
Reports in Africa Confidential, a magazine close to British intelligence and African business interests, verify the Mirror's accounts. Even before the latter had published its account, which was then taken up by the British press, Africa Confidential had already commented on a new South African initiative on Zimbabwe. Explaining that Mnangagwa and his business allies attended the recent conference of the ruling African National Congress (ANC) in South Africa and were warmly greeted by President Mbeki, it commented "the bargain would be that President Mugabe agrees to retire within the year, in exchange for Britain lifting sanctions, compensating displaced white farmers and financing agricultural development."
Whether the plan fails or—more likely—goes ahead in some modified form, the Mirror's revelations expose something of the machinations of the British government in relation to Zimbabwe. Ever since Britain and the West's preferred option of Tsvangirai winning the presidential elections failed last March, Britain has been attempting to get Mugabe removed. One approach has been through South Africa and other African countries, with US pressure.
At first South Africa and Nigeria arranged for talks between the Zanu-PF regime and the MDC to discuss some form of power sharing, but the government's intensified persecution of MDC members led to Tsvangirai pulling out. Later last year, according to the Mirror, South Africa's President Mbeki had discussions with Simba Makoni on forming a Zanu-PF alternative to Mugabe. Makoni, a pro-free market economist, was removed from his post as Finance Minister by Mugabe last summer.
The possibility of a more direct intervention, possibly using "covert operations," cannot be ruled out, although Zimbabwe has a British-trained army and a small airforce that so far have remained loyal to Mugabe. Last November, Mark Bellamy, deputy assistant of state for African affairs, was reported as saying, "We may have to be prepared to take some very intrusive, interventionist measures to ensure aid delivery to Zimbabwe."
Now it seems that the intense economic pressure on Zimbabwe, led by Britain, and allowing much of the population to face famine and starvation, has paid off, forcing the top Zanu-PF old guard to consider another South African-brokered deal.
The choice of Mnangagwa in the latest plot to remove Mugabe is not accidental. For all the sermonising about Mugabe's suppression of the MDC opposition, Britain is clearly prepared to accept transitional rule by a man who as a former Minister of Security is particularly associated with massacres carried out by the notorious Fifth Brigade in Matebeland in the 1980s. There is no doubt that he would be even more brutal than Mugabe in suppressing opposition amongst workers and peasants. The Mirror quotes a source close to the Zanu-PF tops defending Mnangagwa as a replacement for Mugabe as "a strong ruthless person who is not easily manipulated," who is "going to be unpopular because he has to put right a lot of wrong things."
Both Mnangagwa and Zvinavashe have extensive business interests and have been at the centre of the looting of timber, diamonds and other minerals from the neighbouring Democratic Republic of Congo. In exchange for their military support of the Kinshasa government in the Congo war, Zimbabwe made arrangements for their military top brass to set up a range of lucrative operations.
A transitional regime under Mnangagwa will have to clamp down on the Zanu-PF members and supporters who thought they could benefit from Mugabe's land seizure programme. It is now widely known that far from representing a new agricultural revival heralded by Mugabe, as much as 90 percent of the land taken from the wealthy white farmers is lying fallow. Because of the drastic decline in Zimbabwe's economy the inputs and infrastructure needed by the new small farmers has not been forthcoming. The Commercial Farmers' Union (CFU) representing the small farmers predicts a yield this season that will only be 30 percent of the previous season, itself depressed by the effects of drought and the farm invasions.
Repressive measures will also have to be stepped up to police the urban population. To begin implementing the kind of economic policies necessary for Zimbabwe to mend its relations with the International Monetary Fund and secure Western finance and aid, tens of thousands of public sector jobs will have to be slashed. With unemployment already very high, this would produce widespread opposition. Britain is clearly prepared for Mnangagwa to continue strong arm measures as long as it is behind a veneer of democracy and the MDC leaders are incorporated into the transitional regime.
Zimbabwe's economy, once relatively affluent compared to the rest of sub-Saharan Africa, is falling apart, with GDP contracting by 25 percent over the last three years, inflation at 175 percent, and fuel supplies running out. Even General Zvinavashe, whilst denying the reports that Mugabe was to be retired, was forced to accept in a recent interview that "we must admit there is a crisis." Such a statement by a Zanu-PF leader would previously have been regarded as impermissible.
At present half the population, 6.7 million people, are facing food shortages due to famine. Zanu-PF officials have no doubt attempted to divert food aid to their own members, but the food shortages and the effects of inflation are widespread and are causing discontent among ZANU-PF supporters.
The Mirror article admits that the crisis in Zanu-PF ranks and the willingness to mend fences with Britain and the West arise from a fear of mass opposition: "the economic hardships ravaging the weary population threaten to spill over to the political level, thus spelling grim consequences for the government and the country as a whole." On top of this, "Zimbabwe's political elite, who fly to Europe literally on a daily basis in pursuance of their vast business interests, have been terribly hurt by the travel sanctions imposed by Britain."
Beyond brief reports that a deal to remove Mugabe has been discussed, the British government has managed to keep out of the media the details of the bribe it is prepared to pay out for Mugabe to go quietly, as well as the track record of his possible replacement.
All attention for the last month has been focused on the Blair government's pressure on the England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) to pull out of the Cricket World Cup that is to be held in Zimbabwe.
It has been known for four years that World Cup fixtures were to be played in Zimbabwe and the English cricket team played a full tour in Zimbabwe in 2001. The British government raised no objections. Last July the ECB asked for a meeting with the British Foreign Office over playing cricket in Zimbabwe and were told there was no problem.
Within the last weeks, however, the Blair government suddenly began actively intervening in cricket affairs. It whipped up a campaign to demand the England team do not play in Zimbabwe, with ministers vying with one another to attack the ECB for its "immorality" in choosing to go ahead with the game. A clearly nervous ECB has argued that it has no choice but to play because pulling out at such a late stage would cost it millions of pounds. Labour's new-found concern for cricketing morals can only be explained as a cynical diversion from its own rapprochement with the Zanu-PF elite.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xBritain and South Africa in Mugabe retirement plot``x1043263739,88655,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xHerald Reporter
STUNG by the failure of Wednesday’s stayaway, visits by Nigerian and South African foreign ministers as well as the softening of attitudes by some European countries towards the Zimbabwean Government, MDC leader Mr Morgan Tsvangirai has threatened a bloodbath in the country.
Addressing diplomats, mostly from European countries at a hastily arranged meeting in Harare yesterday, Mr Tsvangirai said: "I want to say once again, that we have reached a stage whereby we can no longer counsel patience on such a dangerously restive population.
"There is clearly a red light flashing for the Mugabe regime to stop. There is a gathering storm of the people’s anger. We have no power to stop it and we refuse to take responsibility for whatever transpires," he said.
Mr Tsvangirai’s comments were also prompted by a scathing attack by some white members of his party who reportedly felt that he was not doing enough to bring about a change of government. MORE``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xTsvangirai addresses diplomats, threatens bloodbath``x1043383364,90106,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy John Battersby, www.iol.co.za
President Thabo Mbeki has called on all South Africans to join the world campaign against a United States-led war against Iraq.
His call on Friday came as the transatlantic rift widened over whether to disarm Iraq by force.
Mbeki also sent a clear message to US President George Bush: there are no grounds for war.
"Nothing credible has been said that any such breach has occurred to justify a resort to war," Mbeki said, articulating a view which has a groundswell of support among the industrialised nations and the backing of the entire developing world.
And in a broadside against Washington, Mbeki lambasted those who threatened Iraq with war but did nothing about Israel's nuclear weapons.
"They say nothing whatsoever against Israel's weapons of mass destruction.
"Of course, from their point of view, the matter has nothing to do with principle.
"It turns solely on the question of power... We disagree."
Mbeki's intervention comes on the eve of a critical session of the United Nations security council which will hear the first report of the UN weapons inspectors on their findings after several weeks of inspection in Iraq.
Bush's insistence that the US has sufficient grounds to wage war without a security council vote has pitted Russia, Germany, France, China and Canada against his country and Britain.
British Prime Minister Tony Blair - looking increasingly isolated in supporting the United States-led rhetoric for military action to disarm Saddam Hussein - is expected to face probing questions from Mbeki on his attitude to the UN and the consequences of a war with Iraq when they meet for a one-on-one summit next Saturday.
Mbeki, joining the growing international outrage at the prospect of war said in his weekly letter on the African National Congress's Today website:
"The situation demands that once more the masses of our people must act together as a powerful force for peace in the world.
"They have an obligation to stand up and join the struggle for peace," he said.
It is understood that mass action was discussed at the ANC's three-day workshop last weekend and that peace marches, led by the ruling party and supported by trade unions and civil society, are in the planning stage.
In his strongest call yet for Bush to heed the mounting global anti-war protest, Mbeki said that a war against Iraq would threaten international peace and security.
It would also spark a deep economic crisis in Africa as the price of oil soared and poverty deepened, and further delay a resolution of the Middle East conflict.
Mbeki said that Iraq had agreed to comply with the UN security council resolution and had allowed the weapons inspectors to return to pursue their mandate unhindered.
"We have committed ourselves to do everything in our power, limited as this power might be, to persuade Iraq to give herself and the United Nations the necessary space to resolve the matter at issue, peacefully and expeditiously."
He said the effort to disarm Iraq should not be used to justify a declaration of war.
"We are not aware of any information that would suggest that Iraq has been in serious material breach of the security council resolution."
Mbeki said South Africa was committed to the resolution of all disputes by peaceful means and was the "first and only" country in the world to voluntarily implement a comprehensive programme of disarmament and the destruction of its weapons of mass destruction.
And, in a statement after a three-day cabinet workshop, chief government spokesperson Joel Netshitenzhe said the cabinet had reiterated South Africa's request to the UN that the arms inspectors' report should be considered in an open session in the presence of United Nations members who were not on the security council.
"South Africa supports the efforts of the international community to deal with this matter strictly in accordance with the resolutions of the UN security council," the cabinet statement said.
"It also welcomes the growing peace movement, in particular its objective of ensuring that actions pursued in the Gulf region are determined the interest of humanity as a whole."
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?click_id=13&art_id=ct20030124214059225P430688&set_id=1``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xMbeki broadsides Bush with tough anti-war vow``x1043442790,77996,Development``x``x
``xby Bukka Rennie, January 25, 2003
Important issues have been raised by two very keen readers of this column. Both good friends of mine. One male and at present living and working in T&T, the other female, at present living and studying in Ottawa.
In response to my contention that generally in relation to the Graeco-Roman, Western, white-controlled, global military-industrial complex, the black male has a "natural stance" of subversion and revolution, this is what he said, inter alia:
"...I was particularly struck by what you said about the 'natural stance' of the black male. I am not sure what you mean by 'natural' in that sense. If natural is normative, then most males are in fact either unnatural or some might claim to be supernatural. The stance you describe demands engagement and few black males are really 'engaged' with our reality, in my opinion..."
The point is that black or African people were the only human element that found themselves forced into a relationship with the Western world and its military-industrial complex in which they were made to be "property" and "socialised labour" on a hemispheric scale.
It stands to reason therefore that every form of their resistance, passive or active, conscious or subconscious, was meant to transform that relationship and in the process attack and destroy this white-controlled global superstructure.
All the historians that have examined the Caribbean experience, for example, will tell you that the struggles of the Afro-Caribbean people have always been geared to destroy the property and property relations engendered by the system of plantation slavery and to make themselves the "new masters of the islands".
Non-white colonised people around the world have the same experience to one degree or another and in all their struggles of decolonisation, we see similar responses from below.
Embodied in the very being of their "blackness", this, their "natural stance", became over time the very antithesis of the global white status-quo and establishment. With the objective being unconditional "freedom", they could only be about subversion, ie on an individual level, and revolution which is on a collectivised or social level.
There are of course various levels of engagement by black people, both male and female, in this regard. These levels are determined by the levels of self-consciousness and social consciousness that may become generalised from time to time. I chose to describe them as levels of combativity that have their moments of highs and lows.
In modern times it is the black male who in all ways, in demeanour, and almost out of habit, who bears the brunt of this "natural stance" to the hilt.
To the white social leaderships the "black dude" is always a "trouble-maker" or a potential trouble-maker. It is why prison in this Western Hemisphere is comprised consistently of a 75 per cent black male population. To the white leaderships that is where black males are supposed to be and black males do not disappoint them.
The statistics on a hemispheric basis have not been compiled but it is obvious from mere observation. Black males, both politically and culturally, hold pride of place on the front lines as all males per se are nurtured to be.
So today when you have a human complex that is both black or non-white and Muslim, given the 1,000 years of battle between Muslims and the Western Christian world, you in fact have a "double-whammy" as was said before.
That's why we agreed with the contention of WEB Dubois that the problem of the 20th century, and beyond, we may add, is the problem of the colour line. If the Western world does not come to terms with this by reformation, it will eventually be destroyed by implosive force.
My female reader friend from Ottawa took issue with my criticism of what women have brought to the Carnival agenda as a social force. This is what in part she said:
"I have to pick a little bone with you on this article... I agree in principle with your points, but really – feminine = narcissistic? Apart from the etymological twist (narcissus being that exceptionally vain man) I really can't agree with that concept. Of course, it may be that my female role models, friends and relatives are exceptional, but that's for another time...
"The banality of commercialism dictates to the lowest common denominator — this is pretty obvious. But I think that the role of exhibitionism is more to do with economics than otherwise. Having convinced generations of people that looks matter most, then rewarding exhibitionism by having the least-clad females 'selected' over the others, the inevitable progression then becomes the need to exhibit more in order to maintain the status quo.
"You had pointed out in an earlier column that the violence done in society was in part due to competition for sex...
"This is also why (to my way of thinking, anyhow) the proliferation of the 'party tune' has escalated. It's not that it's superior, but it gets the attention quickly, and is rewarded... money talks, ent? So the grousing about the banal, offensive, boring exhibitionism will continue as long as there is money flowing towards it..."
I agree but there is still to be addressed that element of females themselves being overwhelmed by the tremendous power of their own sexuality and the need to utilise this very power to make a positive statement in and through Carnival since women are now the greatest social force in Carnival outside of capital (ie accumulated wealth still controlled by male investors).
The extracts from the poem "Red Hawk" were meant to indicate what black males at the bottom of society did with Carnival when they were the greatest social force in Carnival... they transformed themselves into "Geronimoes". Again, the natural stance, ent?``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xMale stance/Female narcissism``x1043634644,56390,Development``x``x
``xBy Zarina Geloo
January 27, 2003 www.ipsnews.net
Being white means not being black right? Not in Brazil. Here you can be white if you are rich, like soccer icon Pele. You can be black if you are white and poor. To be more precise, you can also call yourself a"little bit black or a little bit white", depending on how deep your skin is hued.
The situation has anthropologists frustrated. How can racism in its most virulent form be dealt with if it is hidden behind the semantics of colour, asks anthropologist Valeria Aydos from Sao Paulo.
"We do not talk about racism, but it is a big problem. Officially, we call ourselves of mixed race because historically we have integrated with the indigenous Indian the immigrant white and the black slaves," she told a meeting on racism chaired by the North American Congress on Latin America (NACLA).
As a result, Aydos says, there is no policy to tackle the racism that exists in the country.
Afro Brazilians"suffer in silence because we have not admitted that we have a racial problem. It is easier for America or other countries to adress racial tensions because they admit it is there. We have not even began to tackle the issue."
She says Afro Brazilian society itself has only recently began to talk about racism, but it is hard going. There is documented evidence that black people are excluded and discriminated against, have less access to top education and medical facilities and are more likely to be charged with crimes. Racism, she added, is engrained in the psyche of people who have been socialised to think that lighter skin colour is superior.
"The only way black people are going to be respected ... is when they become superstars or have a lot of money."
Gary Leech for NACLA said while the Colombian government had approved one of the most progressive constitutions every written in Latin America which recognises the rights of all its citizens and places premuim on the cultural heritage of those of African descent, the reality is different. He said Afro Colombians suffered economic, political and social marginalisation and victimisation under a political system in which they are excluded. Their life expectancy had dropped to 54 years (the national average is 74). As if that were not enough, Afro Colombians were being forcibly displaced with no compensation, (in the La Guajira area) by US energy giant ExxonMobil, which has bought El Cerrejon the world's largest open-pit coal mine.
"The Colombian government and the multinational mining companies need to be exposed to force them to live up to the contents of the constitution and treat people with dignity and respect."
Reproduced from:
http://www.ipsnews.net/fsm2003/27.01.2003/nota8.shtml``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xWhose Black? Brazil's Amazing Skin-Shedding Trick``x1043779577,18131,Development``x``x
``xwww.herald.co.zw
This is the last part of Chinondidyachii Mararike's article which focuses on how the imperialist West is fighting an economic and propaganda war against the innocent people of Zimbabwe, their Government, their President and their ruling party.
The same courage, determination and unity of purpose that won us Phase 1 will win us Phases II and III, because President Mugabe’s revolution is a Zanu-PF revolution.
A Zanu-PF revolution is a Zimbabwe-led revolution for the total liberation of Southern Africa and the rest of sub-Saharan Africa.
Zimbabwe should export this revolution to its neighbours, where the remnants of the racist white farmers went to settle.
Once successfully exported, the revolution’s momen- tum will deny the beleaguered imperialists any room to manoeuvre, and will force them to either retreat or engage us on our terms - ostensibly because the resources they are stealing from our neighbours will not be available to them.
And with our hero, President Mugabe (the one who brought down ‘whites’) continually assaulting imperialism and vowing to fight on, Africans will not turn the other cheek in compromise.
Africa has the highest number of imperialist victims divested from their land. They dwell in deplorable shanties and refugee camps, and remain insulated from their history and decent existence.
The imperialist, bereft of any ounce of conscience, inflicts untold suffering to their victims. It is these victims that Tony Blair and George W. Bush think they can root out with Nepad. It is these that in the so-called Third World the West thinks it can root out with IMF and World Bank structural schemes.
For the imperialist victims, the effects are disastrous. This is what Europe desires - to have Africans overlook the fact that it is they, the Europeans, that are plundering the continent’s abundant natural and human resources. Consequently the new post-colonial state in Africa is contenting with rampant capitalism and relentless exploitation.
"In the Southern African context in particular," writes the Sunday Mirror’s Scrutator, "the socio-political and economic dynamics attendant to the liberatory and transformative process" continue to be "threatened by the combined forces of globalisation" and an increasingly Western-induced hostile environment in which reactionary MDC-style opposition parties "are forging closer ties with former colonisers and agents of globalisation".
Zimbabwe’s task is, therefore clear: to export the revolution to countries in Africa whose current institutional arrangements and societal perceptions are still based on or stem from imperial structures dominated by foreign private sector interests and therefore, perpetuating inequitable entitlements and access to African resources.
When Zimbabwe’s liberationist volcano explodes, its lava will scorch and smoother the resisting settlers on the continent. Mugabe’s Revolution has to move forward and through phases - Phase II makes Africans the primary beneficiaries of Africa’s abundant mineral and other natural resources. Phase III sees the complete Africanisation of our commercial and industrial sectors.
In tandem with both phases should be the development of Afro-centric epistemologies, representations, discourses, and narratives in which the central tenets of African culture and religion as in Mwari-via-Vadzimu neMasvikiro, languages, architecture, dressing, food, music, jokes and general way of life, occupy the middle ground of the values that inform our activities.
Sure we can not afford to throw a protective blanket over this revolution, for to do so would be to throw away what we have achieved for Zimbabwe and Africa and in the process squander this most rare opportunity when we can successfully export this revolution to others whose land remains in the talons of imperialists.
The fact that Mugabe’s Revolution is already spread- ing fast into Namibia and South Africa, and has found resonance throughout the world makes our task less cheerless indeed.
That, indeed, is why we hear all these people chanting: Pamberi neZanu-PF, Swapo neANC! - (Pamberi!)
Chinondidyachii Mararike is a Zimbabwean lawyer, writer, political analyst, and secretary-general of Davira Mhere.
RaceandHistory Zimbabwe Watch``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xAfrica should unite to eliminate imperialism``x1043807365,41594,Development``x``x
``xHerald Reporter
AFRICAN ambassadors and High Commissioners accredited to Zimba-bwe have lambasted the United States government's call for its citizens not to visit Zimbabwe saying the move was a deliberate ploy to derail the hosting of World Cup Cricket matches to be played in the country this month.
The diplomats said the travel warning by the US government was misleading because the current situation in the country did not pose any security threat to anyone who wished to visit Zimbabwe.
In a statement, the African Group of Ambassadors and High Commission-ers said they were deeply concerned about the US warning, as it did not give a true picture of the real situation prevailing in the country.
"In fact, Zimbabwe as a destination is far safer than the security situation obtained in some capitals of those countries that are on the forefront of isolating Zimbabwe," read part of the statement issued by the Dean of the African Heads of Missions, Mr Ndali-Che Kamatai.
Mr Kamatai is Namibia's High Commissioner to Zimbabwe.
The US government recently issued a directive to its nationals not to travel to Zimbabwe and advised those in the country to leave, citing security concerns.
It alleged that there was total breakdown of rule of law in the country and that the US government would not be held accountable for the safety of those ignoring the call to leave the country.
However, the African diplomats said the US warning was political and directly connected to the deliberate efforts geared towards derailing the hosting of the Cricket World Cup matches, which are scheduled to take place in Zimbabwe this month.
They said they were satisfied with the level of preparations and security arrangements undertaken by the Government of Zimbabwe in hosting the cricket matches.
"In this connection, we concur with the recent International Cricket Council delegation's conclusion that Zimbabwe has put in place requisite measures.
"We believe that this is not the time to isolate Zimbabwe, but rather engage the Zimbabwe Government with the view to finding solutions to the challenges currently facing the country."
The ambassadors called upon all the people intending to visit the country to proceed with their arrangements as their security was assured.
They urged the English and Australian cricket teams not to be influenced by political considerations of their governments.
http://www.herald.co.zw/index.php?id=18028&pubdate=2003-02-01``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xAfrican diplomats lambast US``x1044117661,37115,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Robert Craddock, Fox News
FORMER South Africa president Nelson Mandela has weighed into the World Cup cricket crisis by declaring Australia must play its match in Zimbabwe.
As the Zimbabwe Cricket Union announced it would refuse to play any of its matches if they were switched to South Africa, Mandela urged Australia and England to go ahead with their games in crisis-torn Zimbabwe.
"They (Australia and England) must respect the International Cricket Council," Mandela said.
"If we refuse to follow the ICC we will introduce chaos to cricket. They have examined the matter and concluded it is safe. They know what is dangerous for cricketers. If they say cricketers should go to Zimbabwe, that is what they must do."
Though Mandela has no official role in the decision-making process, his iconic word as the first president of united South Africa still shapes the thinking of South African society.
The ICC has consistently maintained its security reports have provided no reason for the teams to cancel their matches in Zimbabwe. MORE``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xObey ICC: Mandela``x1044558474,51204,Zimbabwe``x``x
``x(BBC) Australia, Nigeria and South Africa are the three countries in the "troika" named by the Commonwealth to oversee its response to the situation in Zimbabwe, and which pressed for its suspension from the organisation last year.
They were due to meet next month to review Zimbabwe's suspension from the Commonwealth committees.
But the decision by Nigeria and South Africa to cancel the meeting would effectively see Zimbabwe readmitted to the 54-nation grouping of mainly former British colonies, Mr Howard admitted.
More from BBC's Tainted Coverage``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xCommonwealth 'to re-admit' Zimbabwe``x1044904035,83360,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Tim Wise
Examining White Lies About Black Americans
"You wanna know what the real problem with black people is?"
So read the opening line of the first e-mail message of my day. Not a good start.
Whenever these words or their functional equivalent greet you before you've had the chance to rub the sleep from your eyes, let alone consume that first sip of coffee, you know you're in for a long and troubling morning.
Sure enough, I wasn't to be disappointed or proved wrong.
"The problem,' explained my Monday morning instigator ‘is that they can't stop having illegitimate children (especially the teenagers), and they'd rather lay around on welfare all day than work for a living."
Jesus. And to think, I could have opted to sit down with my daughter and watch Sesame Street like a responsible father; but no, I had to check my e-mail first.
Now it wasn't as if this shit was new. I've been hearing this from white folks ever since I was a child. And although I was getting it this time from someone who was well aware of my views on race, I often am regaled with such splendid intellectual mediocrity by total strangers who I meet during the course of my travels: in airplanes, restaurants, hotel bars, taxicabs, or wherever else people interact.
"White bonding," I began calling it some twelve years ago: a phenomenon that causes many if not most whites to apparently believe that every white person they meet must be just as racist as they are and will find their joke funny, their comment acceptable, and their slur pithy. The things white folks say about people of color when they aren't around give the lie to all the nonsense we pump about color-blindness, not having a racist bone in our bodies, never noticing race, having all those black friends, and so on and so forth.
But the things we say when people of color aren't in the room actually do more than expose the festering sickness of white racism; they expose the profundity of our ignorance and demonstrate just how divorced from reality so many of us are. For not only are the racist beliefs expressed above (and according to opinion polls, accepted by half or better of the white population) exaggerated stereotypes, they are in fact flatly contradicted by hard evidence.
Take the popular image of black women, particularly teens, popping out babies as fast as they can make them. This rendering of black females as the oversexed, irresponsible incubators of demographic decay has been at the heart of attacks on social welfare programs and is as commonly heard as the daily weather report: shame it's even less accurate.
In truth, the fertility rate for black women is hardly different than for white women. For every 1000 white women 15-44 there are 66.5 live births, while for every 1000 black women that age there are 71.7.
Indeed, the fertility rate for black women has fallen by more than half in the last forty years, such that the gap between black and white fertility has been slashed by nearly 80%, according to the Centers for Disease Control. The birthrate for unmarried black women--especially vilified by racist rhetoric--is at a forty-year low and the rate of babies born to black teens hasn't gone up one iota since 1920.
And speaking of teens, only six-tenths of one percent of black babies are born to women under the age of fifteen, and the birthrate for black teens 15-19 has dropped by a third since 1991. Overall, more than eight in ten black babies are born to mothers in their twenties or older, and the teen birthrate has fallen faster among black youth than any other racial group over the last decade.
The parallel belief that black women have too many children--at whatever age--and therefore can't properly care for them is equally mythical. The average number of minor children in white households and black households is identical, and for female-headed black and white households the difference is statistically insignificant. Contrary to the widespread notion that black women typically have four or five children (if not more), only one in twenty black female headed families have four or more kids.
Even for families receiving public assistance--and even before welfare "reform" bumped tens of thousands off the rolls and restricted eligibility for benefits--the typical "welfare family" of whatever race included only a mother and two children and was actually slightly smaller than the typical non-welfare family.
Of course I can hear the voices of racial apoplexy now. "What about the skyrocketing rate of out-of-wedlock births in the black community?" Doesn't that indicate the sexual irresponsibility of black females and their male compradors, one might ask?
Well no. In fact, not even close.
The reason for the increase in the share of black children born out-of-wedlock in recent decades is that two-parent black couples are having fewer children than ever, meaning that a growing share of the children who are born in the black community will be out-of-wedlock, even though sexual behavior hasn't changed, and fertility rates among single black women have been falling.
Indeed, eighty percent of the increase in out-of-wedlock childbirths in the black community is because of the falloff in children born to intact black families: a falloff that has been even steeper than the decline among single moms.
Additionally, the apparent "increase" in out-of-wedlock children in single mother homes within the black community, and generally, is the result of the Census Bureau changing the methods used for counting such families in the first place.
Whereas single moms with kids who lived in extended family settings (such as living with their own parents) were historically not counted as separate family units, since the early 1980's they have been. So even though such families may have existed for many years prior to the accounting switch, they would not have appeared in statistical data until more recently.
Putting aside the issue of just how "harmful" single-parent homes are (and evidence indicates that with the exception of the smaller income base there isn't much difference between such homes and "intact" families, and indeed children in intact families are often less confident and well-adjusted), clearly the problems for black folks in this country are not the result of childbirth patterns.
A 1997 report found that the median income of young two-parent black families had fallen by nearly half since 1973. What's more, even black women who "played by the rules," and had no kids out-of-wedlock, saw their incomes fall 32% from 1972-1989, and have been unable to regain the lost ground since.
Which brings us then to the issue of work; or rather the claim that blacks are allergic to the concept, preferring instead the "generous" benefits of the welfare state for their sustenance.
That anyone could possibly believe such a thing has always struck me as humorous to say the least. After all, African Americans have been doing work that white folks thought "beneath" us for roughly four hundred years. Were it not for their labor, in fact, the American Revolution could never have been won, since its financing came from the tobacco and cotton industries--both of which were built by the work of slaves.
Yet despite the historical record the belief persists, often put forth by people whose own forefathers tried desperately never to break a sweat doing actual work themselves.
And as with the arguments about black women as baby factories, the ruse about blacks as lazy welfare-sapping parasites is patently absurd, not to mention ironic. After all, welfare programs in this country were originally created so as to allow white widows and abandoned mothers to care for their children without having to enter the paid workforce.
Creating "dependence" was not seen as problematic, at least for white women whose "womanhood" had long been viewed as dependent on the presence of a white male husband. It was only when women of color gained access to such programs in the late 1950's and afterward that suddenly "dependence" became the great scourge to be avoided.
Yet the truth is that welfare dependence is hardly the norm--for black women or anyone else receiving public assistance. Even before the passage of punitive welfare reform, six in ten welfare families were leaving the rolls within two years, debunking the notion of long-term dependency as the norm for welfare recipients.
Indeed, two-thirds of women who receive welfare as children will never receive aid as adults and 81% whose mothers received AFDC for long periods never receive aid as adults. In other words, the notion of intergenerational welfare dependence so commonly accepted is a false one.
Instead of welfare, the poor prefer work, yet often there are not enough jobs to go around that pay wages at or above the poverty line. In Central Harlem, one study found that there were fourteen applicants for every job opening in the area.
Nationally, in times of recession, there may be as many as seven to ten people out of work for every job opening above the poverty line. And since the Federal Reserve's policy is to raise interest rates whenever unemployment drops below four percent--thereby freezing new hires--millions will be jobless, poor, and need welfare no matter their work ethic, solely because of this one monetary policy intended to keep wages and prices low.
Indeed, experience from around the country demonstrates that low-income people of color have work ethics that are no different from whites and those above the poverty line. In the early 1990's, when a handful of longshore jobs opened up in Los Angeles, 50,000 blacks and Latinos--mostly low income--showed up to apply.
In Cleveland, 15,000 unemployed welfare mothers and teenagers of color stood in the rain for four hours to get one of the minimum-wage temporary jobs cleaning up public parks.
In Chicago, 15,000 mostly low-income applicants of color applied for less than 4,000 temporary jobs.
In Baltimore, 75 openings at the Social Security Administration were met with 26,000 applications, mostly from blacks, and heavily from low-income citizens.
Far from relying on taxpayers for their livelihood, only one in ten blacks receive any form of cash welfare, and only about one in six receives food stamps. In fact, blacks who are eligible for the Food Stamp program are actually less likely than similar whites to apply for and receive such assistance.
As for black single moms, although they are twice as likely as white single moms to be in poverty, they are no more likely than white single moms to receive public assistance. What's more, three out of four single black moms have jobs, further dispelling the notion that single mothers in the black community mostly choose to "live off welfare."
Yet despite all of these simple truths, I didn't send any of them to the individual who had chosen to start off my week with such a mindless stream of e-nonsense. I knew it wouldn't matter much to him, and if anything would only detract from the time I could spend on Sesame Street, which as it turns out is a much friendlier place to be.
But I did write him back. First to thank him for serving as my muse for what would become this article; and secondly to remark upon the last paragraph of his message to me: the part that blamed black folks for "taking all the jobs" from white guys like himself.
My statement on this score was really fairly simple. In the interest of consistency, I suggested that he choose which racist drivel he would prefer to promote: either the kind that says blacks are lazy or the kind that says they are taking all the jobs. After all, both cannot be true at the same time. If one is taking all the jobs, then by definition one hardly qualifies as lazy, and if one is indeed lazy, one is not likely to take any job, let alone all of them.
And if there's anything worse than a racist, it has to be a racist who can't make up his mind.
Tim Wise is an antiracist essayist, activist and lecturer. He can be reached at (and footnotes procured from) timjwise@msn.com``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xRace, Sex and Work ``x1045096742,83491,Development``x``x
``xby Forrest Hylton
The Weight Of Forgetting
Though they are usually the first to speak in the name of tradition, Conservatives tend to ignore history when evaluating the present, and if anything has been missing in current debates about violence, democracy, human rights, and authoritarianism in Bolivia, it is historical perspective. The hysterical reaction of the media-coupled the near-silence of progressive intellectuals-makes change on this front unlikely, although occasionally cracks in the crumbling edifice show through. In an interview on January 23, the day he joined the Joint Chiefs of the People, Felipe Quispe, leader of the Aymara peasant trade union confederation, CSUTCB, and political party, MIP, said that he represents the people to whom the territory known as Bolivia or Qollasuyu belongs, the people who make it produce, whereas President Sánchez de Lozada represents the people who loot it, sell it, mortgage it, run it and ruin it. The simplicity of this truth does not blunt the force its impact.
The notion that the community Indians are rightful owners of the land, who, as such, should make all political decisions that concern them, points to the Tupak Katari insurgency in 1781, the rebellion of Zárate Willka, Lorenzo Ramírez, and Juan Lero in 1899, and the Chayanta uprising of 1927, led by Manuel Michel. If tropes of "savagery" and "barbarism" are evoked by the names of the abovementioned Indian caciques, it is because official history has buried the record of long, arduous legal struggles that preceded each and every Indian insurrection.
Evo Morales, head of the coca growers' trade union federations and political party, MAS, and Felipe Quispe, the two principal leaders of the Joint chiefs of Staff of the People, inherit a tradition that counterinsurgent discourse has described as "race" (nineteenth) or "caste" war (eighteenth century), but which in fact has consistently explored available legal options while demanding self-government in a more inclusive and democratic polity. Democratic not in the liberal sense of delegated representation, but in the directly participatory sense in which it is being discussed at the World Social Forum in Porto Alegre. In this respect, Bolivian coca growers and community Indians are politically ahead of their time, not behind it.
The insurgent tradition of direct democracy on the land, which is structured by politico-military-religious hierarchies and enacted in community assemblies, was rendered invisible in both the national and international revolutionary traditions that dominated Bolivian politics after the 1930s. It only reappeared publicly again in the late-1970s. During the forty-year period of eclipse, new forms of struggle, based upon the political party-trade union dyad, emerged with varying class compositions and a common commitment to mestizaje-race mixture of the whitening, "civilizing" variety; a process at once desirable and inevitable. Recent historical scholarship has demonstrated that in Cochabamba, heartland of the ruling MNR (National Revolutionary Movement), mestizaje was a strategy that smallholding Indian peasants created from below, seeking to escape exploitation and the marks of racial inferiority. But there can be little doubt that after 1953, the national revolutionary state made use of it from above. So did the revolutionary internationalists who challenged the MNR from the left via the miners' movement.
To grasp the scope of the influence of mestizaje as a political horizon, one only has to look at the composition and proposals of the National Assembly (1969-71) under radical nationalist General Juan José Torres, who personified upward mobility for middling sectors with popular origins. The proletarian parties and especially the miners' union set the agenda for the National Assembly with the idea of making a transition to socialism. But in those years, as reaction noisily gathered, a new generation of Aymara peasant leaders emerged within the MNR machine and began to bore away at its foundations. The project to break with the racist, teleological paternalism that lay at the core of official rural trade unionism counted on the support of the first generation of semi-urban Aymara intellectuals, plus progressive segments of the Catholic Church. This support was crucial in achieving national projection.
As the Banzer dictatorship took shape in the years after 1971, the figure of Tupac Katari re-emerged in the discourse of radical opposition, and by the time of Banzer's overthrow in 1978 the tradition of Aymara insurgency had, in modified form, begun to take its place alongside proletarian-led, Left party-driven trade unionism. Indians, as their leaders and spokespeople began to call them, even fielded parties once the political arena was opened to electoral competition, but none of them were anything less than total failures, except MRTK, which briefly became part of the panopoly of neoliberal parties in the 1990s.
During Banzer's reign, even as the Aymara movement of the altiplano regenerated, Santa Cruz and the tropical part of Cochabamba became the economic heart of Bolivia, because Bánzer subsidized agro-industry with profits from mining exports. After the crisis in the price of primary products hit the eastern tropics in the mid-1970s, the cocaine business soon became a convenient way out for an important part of the agro-exporting bourgeoisie. Further, under Banzer the state encouraged colonization of the tropics because of it could not manage the crisis its policies had created in the western highlands and southern valleys. If we are serious about dealing with the problem of coca production and commercialization, we must recognize the role the Bolivian state and reactionary fractions of capital played in fomenting the transformation of coca into cocaine.
Here we need only look at García Meza's "cocaine coup" of 1980, which made explicit the connection between extreme right-wing politics and narcotics trafficking that Miami Cubans forged in the 1960s and shared with the Brazilian, Argentine, Chilean, and Venezuelan military and police with whom they worked in the 1970s. Though the Reagan administration repudiated García Meza, it supported the Brazilian generals who backed García Meza, not to mention the Argentine colonels who were soon to train Nicaraguan mercenaries in the arts of narcotics-financed counter-insurgency in Honduras. To anyone familiar with the history of U.S. covert operations in Burma in the 1950s, Laos in the 1960s and 70s, Afghanistan and Nicaragua in the 1980s, this should come as no surprise. More recently, here in Bolivia the entrepreneurial sector from Santa Cruz and Beni-organically linked to cocaine exports-has cried for a state of siege, which, when coupled with their vigilante actions, demonstrates that its traditions are alive and well. It is worth asking what role this sector will play in newly arrived Ambassador Greenlee's strategy to pacify the Bolvian tropics.
To place the blame for cocaine exports on coca growers and the Left is the cruelest of historical ironies: cocaleros choose to grow and sell coca because it provides them with a monetary income 3-5 times greater than what they could earn on the altiplano or the valleys, where more than 9 out of 10 people live in poverty. With their proposal to export the leaf to Argentina, the cocaleros are, at least in this respect, true believers in free trade and market rationality. Nearly alone after the destruction of the miners' union (FSTMB) in 1986, they formed a social movement that challenged the destruction of the working class and "drug war" imperialism. Many criticisms of neoliberalism that have become common currency in Bolivia since 2000 were, as recently as 1998, almost exclusively the property of cocaleros and their sympathizers.
To insist that Evo Morales should stick to coca and forget about the FTAA, privatization, or the export of Bolivian gas to the U.S. via Chile is to forget that when the failed national revolution plunged into the neoliberal abyss, the coca growers, more than any other movement, spoke to the interests of the nation composed of the excluded, working majority. Hopes that they could speak effectively to majority interests through Congress, raised in the elections of 2002, have been dashed, and not because of the eloquence or competence of the governing coalition.
How are we to situate the cocaleros against the background of a long history of Aymara insurgency and a short history of Quechua-mestizo industrial and agrarian trade unionism? Clearly the cocaleros are a hybrid of both traditions, and arose as a group of petty producers because of the dual crisis in highland industry and agriculture into which Banzer plunged all Bolivian workers-women and children as well as men, waged and unwaged, rural and urban. The role of the miners in the formation of the coca growers' federations is legendary, but we should not overlook the contribution of the traditions of collective labor and struggle that the highland Aymara and, above all, Quechuas from the valleys brought with them when they migrated to the tropics. As Robert Smale's forthcoming research on the formation of the miners' movement reveals, earlier generations of Quechua petty producers from the valleys and Aymara communities from the highlands decisively shaped political culture in the trade unions between 1900-30.
In terms of identity, the cocaleros are mestizo in the sense that they are not highland community members and own property individually rather than collectively, but not in the national or international revolutionary sense that dominated through the 1980s. Cocaleros do not repudiate Indian cultural traditions or collectivism; in Evo Morales' recent article in Pulso as well as his election campaign, key aspects of the discourse of Indian liberation featured prominently. While they may own property as individuals, coca growers' daily lives and their mode of struggle are collective and communal. Following the re-emergence of the long Aymara tradition of insurgency to the center of the historical stage in 2000-2, the tendency to affirm Indian identity has been reinforced to the point where, at least within the political opposition, parliamentary as well as extra-parliamentary, the whitening, homogenizing discourses on which Bolivian national identity was based for fifty years have died-and good riddance. The question of what Bolvia is, what it has been, and what it might become can now be more freely debated.
Historically, it is beyond question that insurgent Indian movements from below in Bolivia have always championed legalism and worked within the formal political system, and one could argue that they have prioritized legalist tactics even when their rulers relied on violence and disobeyed the law. But they have never been willing to confine their horizons of thought and action to a political system designed to exclude them, either. Insofar as Bolivia has become a more inclusive polity in the past 177 years, it is because pressure from below, applied with various tactics, has forced the hand of power, and not because the dominated have obeyed the changing rules of a political game the dominant have made in order to continue dominating with a minimum of resistance.
Forrest Hylton is conducting doctoral research in history in Bolivia``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xBolivia In Historical Context ``x1045185620,36225,Development``x``x
``xby Tim Wise
Ask a fish what water is and you'll get no answer. Even if fish were capable of speech, they would likely have no explanation for the element they swim in every minute of every day of their lives. Water simply is.
Fish take it for granted.
So too with this thing we hear so much about, "racial preference."
While many whites seem to think the notion originated with affirmative action programs, intended to expand opportunities for historically marginalized people of color, racial preference has actually had a long and very white history.
Affirmative action for whites was embodied in the abolition of European indentured servitude, which left black (and occasionally indigenous) slaves as the only unfree labor in the colonies that would become the U.S.
Affirmative action for whites was the essence of the 1790 Naturalization Act, which allowed virtually any European immigrant to become a full citizen, even while blacks, Asians and American Indians could not.
Affirmative action for whites was the guiding principle of segregation, Asian exclusion laws, and the theft of half of Mexico for the fulfillment of Manifest Destiny.
In recent history, affirmative action for whites motivated racially restrictive housing policies that helped 15 million white families procure homes with FHA loans from the 1930s to the '60s, while people of color were mostly excluded from the same programs.
In other words, it is hardly an exaggeration to say that white America is the biggest collective recipient of racial preference in the history of the cosmos. It has skewed our laws, shaped our public policy and helped create the glaring inequalities with which we still live.
White families, on average, have a net worth that is 11 times the net worth of black families, according to a recent study; and this gap remains substantial even when only comparing families of like size, composition, education and income status.
A full-time black male worker in 2003 makes less in real dollar terms than similar white men were earning in 1967. Such realities are not merely indicative of the disadvantages faced by blacks, but indeed are evidence of the preferences afforded whites - a demarcation of privilege that is the necessary flipside of discrimination.
Indeed, the value of preferences to whites over the years is so enormous that the current baby-boomer generation of whites is currently in the process of inheriting between $7-10 trillion in assets from their parents and grandparents - property handed down by those who were able to accumulate assets at a time when people of color by and large could not.
To place this in the proper perspective, we should note that this amount of money is more than all the outstanding mortgage debt, all the credit card debt, all the savings account assets, all the money in IRAs and 401k retirement plans, all the annual profits for U.S. manufacturers, and our entire merchandise trade deficit combined.
Yet few whites have ever thought of our position as resulting from racial preferences. Indeed, we pride ourselves on our hard work and ambition, as if somehow we invented the concepts.
As if we have worked harder than the folks who were forced to pick cotton and build levies for free; harder than the Latino immigrants who spend 10 hours a day in fields picking strawberries or tomatoes; harder than the (mostly) women of color who clean hotel rooms or change bedpans in hospitals, or the (mostly) men of color who collect our garbage.
We strike the pose of self-sufficiency while ignoring the advantages we have been afforded in every realm of activity: housing, education, employment, criminal justice, politics, banking and business. We ignore the fact that at almost every turn, our hard work has been met with access to an opportunity structure denied to millions of others. Privilege, to us, is like water to the fish: invisible precisely because we cannot imagine life without it.
It is that context that best explains the duplicity of the President's recent criticisms of affirmative action at the University of Michigan.
President Bush, himself a lifelong recipient of affirmative action - the kind set aside for the mediocre rich - recently proclaimed that the school's policies were examples of unfair racial preference. Yet in doing so he not only showed a profound ignorance of the Michigan policy, but made clear the inability of yet another white person to grasp the magnitude of white privilege still in operation.
The President attacked Michigan's policy of awarding 20 points (on a 150-point evaluation scale) to undergraduate applicants who are members of underrepresented minorities (which at U of M means blacks, Latinos and American Indians). To many whites such a "preference" is blatantly discriminatory.
Bush failed to mention that greater numbers of points are awarded for other things that amount to preferences for whites to the exclusion of people of color.
For example, Michigan awards 20 points to any student from a low-income background, regardless of race. Since these points cannot be combined with those for minority status (in other words poor blacks don't get 40 points), in effect this is a preference for poor whites.
Then Michigan awards 16 points to students who hail from the Upper Peninsula of the state: a rural, largely isolated, and almost completely white area.
Of course both preferences are fair, based as they are on the recognition that economic status and even geography (as with race) can have a profound effect on the quality of K-12 schooling that one receives, and that no one should be punished for things that are beyond their control. But note that such preferences - though disproportionately awarded to whites - remain uncriticized, while preferences for people of color become the target for reactionary anger. Once again, white preference remains hidden because it is more subtle, more ingrained, and isn't called white preference, even if that's the effect.
But that's not all. Ten points are awarded to students who attended top-notch high schools, and another eight points are given to students who took an especially demanding AP and honors curriculum.
As with points for those from the Upper Peninsula, these preferences may be race-neutral in theory, but in practice they are anything but. Because of intense racial isolation (and Michigan's schools are the most segregated in America for blacks, according to research by the Harvard Civil Rights Project), students of color will rarely attend the "best" schools, and on average, schools serving mostly black and Latino students offer only a third as many AP and honors courses as schools serving mostly whites.
So even truly talented students of color will be unable to access those extra points simply because of where they live, their economic status and ultimately their race, which is intertwined with both.
Four more points are awarded to students who have a parent who attended the U of M: a kind of affirmative action with which the President is intimately familiar, and which almost exclusively goes to whites.
Ironically, while alumni preference could work toward the interest of diversity if combined with aggressive race-based affirmative action (by creating a larger number of black and brown alums), the rollback of the latter, combined with the almost guaranteed retention of the former, will only further perpetuate white preference.
So the U of M offers 20 "extra" points to the typical black, Latino or indigenous applicant, while offering various combinations worth up to 58 extra points for students who will almost all be white. But while the first of these are seen as examples of racial preferences, the second are not, hidden as they are behind the structure of social inequities that limit where people live, where they go to school, and the kinds of opportunities they have been afforded. White preferences, the result of the normal workings of a racist society, can remain out of sight and out of mind, while the power of the state is turned against the paltry preferences meant to offset them.
Very telling is the oft-heard comment by whites, "If I had only been black I would have gotten into my first-choice college."
Such a statement not only ignores the fact that whites are more likely than members of any other group - even with affirmative action in place - to get into their first-choice school, but it also presumes, as anti-racist activist Paul Marcus explains, "that if these whites were black, everything else about their life would have remained the same."
In other words, that it would have made no negative difference as to where they went to school, what their family income was, or anything else.
The ability to believe that being black would have made no difference (other than a beneficial one when it came time for college), and that being white has made no positive difference, is rooted in privilege itself: the privilege that allows one to not have to think about race on a daily basis; to not have one's intelligence questioned by best- selling books; to not have to worry about being viewed as a "out of place" when driving, shopping, buying a home, or for that matter, attending the University of Michigan.
So long as those privileges remain firmly in place and the preferential treatment that flows from those privileges continues to work to the benefit of whites, all talk of ending affirmative action is not only premature but a slap in the face to those who have fought, and died, for equal opportunity.
[Tim Wise is an antiracist activist, essayist and lecturer. Send email to timjwise@m.]``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xWhites Swim In Racial Preference``x1046242589,43158,Development``x``x
``xFrom: Ayinde and Trinicenter Staff
As the United States of America embarks on another unjust invasion, let us all remember that civilians will loose their lives in the name of greed. It is the underlying racism in most people that allows them to tolerate these wars. It is always about killing people whom they believe are less human than them.
This war is about demonstrating 'White Power', which started a long time ago with its scourge on indigenous Indians and Africans. Today many know that 'White Power' is based on greed fueled by the belief that White Males are superior to all other people. These ideas were ingrained in both whites and non-whites alike through reinforcing fear together with Judeo-Christian symbolisms. Although many Whites are rejecting this today as they realize it never really benefited them, like most other people, they are still locked into the capitalist system that is governed by these false values. This drive is usually about a few already materially wealthy white males and their desire for more money and 'power'/influence. These excesses can only be sustained through lies and brute force.
No one is safe from these lying, brutal colonial misleaders.
It is sobering to know that many around the world do not support this invasion not because they support Saddam but because they know that the U.S.' motives are disingenuous. They are now witnessing what many Africans have been speaking about for generations.
Lies are the beginning of all wars and because of Bush's 'war and terror' more people today are aware of the manipulations of the U.S. government and the weakness of governments in their own countries. Many are also aware of the dangers of mass media concentrated in the hands of a few who are tied to the politics of the dominant.
Many people will have to take responsibility for this dangerous situation for placing weak, immoral people in leadership roles. They will have to re-evaluate the criterion used for selecting representatives. This lack of responsible leadership allows some 'mis-leaders' to align themselves with Bush and his war party although the majority of people in their countries do not support this war. This certainly is not what democracy is supposed to be about. As a matter of fact, we never had government by the people and for the people during Western 'development'. There is no real democracy anywhere.
The build-up to this war should remind all about the fragility of laws developed during conquest and colonial domination. They were developed to suppress the masses while protecting the affluent (or should I say effluent). The laws that they imposed on the majority were not for they themselves to abide by.
When they loose while playing their own game they rush to change the game and the rules. Conquest and domination are all they understand. This is the reason so much taxed resources go towards producing weapons. Their ever-consuming greed cannot be sustained through legitimate means. Lies and Wars sustain the economic imbalances.
The attempted overthrow of the democratically elected president of Venezuela Hugo Chavez, clearly demonstrated this again.
People have to become conscious of their spending power and continually find ways to stop racist, corrupt misleaders from getting access to more money. These misleaders would like us to believe that Slavery is freedom, their wars bring peace, and democracy exists.
They carry on this charade through their control of the mainstream media.
More people are becoming aware of the need for ordinary people to develop and control media outlets that allows them to put their own agendas on the table. It is important that ordinary people control the mediums for their expressions and continually work to ensure that it has global reaches. It is through this exercise views that are usually neglected get considered. It is through developing these alternative avenues we may one day have democracy.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xWe totally oppose this war``x1047982434,62924,Development``x``x
``xby Tim Wise
Iraqis must think the American definition of liberation a strange one.
First, we destroy all of the key government buildings that we can find in a search for Saddam Hussein.
Then we relentlessly attack the Iraqi military, which of course counts among its troops, members of tens of thousands of Iraqi families.
Then we launch a cruise missile that destroys an urban market in Baghdad, claiming that it was intended to hit a battery of rocket launchers placed in the area by the Hussein regime.
In all, coalition forces have most likely killed a few hundred civilians, and injured hundreds more.
And all of this, after twelve years of painful sanctions that have reduced the nation's life expectancy dramatically, helped boost malnutrition, and contributed to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens. Although some would seek to blame those conditions on Saddam himself, the fact remains that before sanctions were imposed, Iraq was a vibrant nation economically, and the citizens of the country--though certainly subject to repression of a vicious nature--were not by and large starving, or unable to attain medical care. Saddam didn't change after 1991; what changed were the external forces affecting the well-being of the Iraqi people.
Yet Bush, Powell, Rumsfeld and the bunch expect not only Americans, but more importantly the Arab world (and Iraqis themselves) to accept the assurances of our benign intent; to believe that this has nothing to do with oil (as if we would wage war to oust a dictator in a nation whose main economic export were pomegranates); to believe that we care only for the freedom of Iraq, despite having long financed, armed and stood by the very same dictator we now hope to destroy.
They expect the Iraqi people to welcome U.S. and British troops as liberators, and cheer the war effort, despite the fact that it was the U.S. and Great Britain who sold this "monster" the very materials that we now insist he must no longer possess, and stood by while he gassed Kurds and Iranians, even lying about the latter to make it seem as if the Iranians had been the ones doing the gassing.
Only a profound disrespect for the intelligence of the Iraqi people and the Arab and Muslim worlds could possibly lead one to believe such a scenario is likely. To believe that they can forgive and forget the history of which they are acutely aware. A history that includes U.S. support for the cruel Baath party, dating back even to before the ascent of Hussein to power; a support we offered because they were so efficient at slaughtering the progressive and democratic forces in that nation--forces that were also nominally socialist and thus a danger to be crushed.
Only a belief that the rest of the world sees us the way we see ourselves--a view so out of touch with reality that it simply boggles the mind--could lead one to believe that Iraqis will welcome U.S. domination of the Gulf region, or the U.S. administering a provisional government there until truly free elections can be held. They can, after all, look at what we have done in Afghanistan, which is destroy a tyrannical regime, devastate a nation with bombs, install a leader who was not the choice of the people, and then abandon the country as usual, so that areas outside of the capitol are now being run by fanatical warlords, rapists, murderers and Taliban-throw backs. Quite the liberation that, they must be thinking.
Oh sure, most Iraqis will welcome the demise of Saddam Hussein. But there is a difference between welcoming regime change and cheering the forces that imposed that change by force. Even now, according to a report in USA Today, Iraqis in neighboring Arab states are returning home to fight Americans. Though they insist they despise Hussein, they are also clear about the desire to fight the invaders and fight for their country, which they see as being destroyed, not saved. A few days ago, news reports noted that Iraqis in Basra were smiling and cheering as American troops came marching in, but that as soon as the troops got out of sight, they would just as quickly turn to the reporters on the scene and curse the Americans, and praise Saddam.
Even worse, Middle East experts are almost uniformly expressing the opinion that this war is proving to be the best recruiting tool al-Qaeda has had in years, meaning that even if the Iraqi people viewed the bombing as a form of liberation--albeit a loud, destructive and painful one--to the extent this view is rejected by most of the Arab and Muslim world, our actions may yet provoke one, two, many 9/11's.
It's all really very simple. People generally don't like to see their homelands invaded or bombed. We certainly wouldn't, after all. As much as Americans badmouth our government and its politicians, there is a tendency to put aside that anger and criticism when faced with war. In the U.S. this is happening even though we are not the ones being attacked. Imagine then what facing bombings would tend to do for American public opinion. Surely it would tend to rally most of us behind the leaders of the country, even those not particularly popular with many folks. So too in Iraq or anywhere else on Earth.
But the arrogance of the powerful makes it impossible to see all that. It is the same arrogance that prompted whites to view the genocide of Indian peoples as progress, and a civilizing mission (for those we didn't kill), and a mission for which the savages should have been grateful.
The same arrogance that allowed the belief that we were doing Africans a favor by enslaving them, and "bringing them to Christ."
The same arrogance that inspired the notion of "destroying the village in order to save it," in Vietnam.
The same arrogance, and fundamentally the same racist and supremacist mindset that forever and always inspires the masters of the universe to believe their own hype and expect everyone else to be so gullible, unintelligent and child-like as to accept it too.
The same arrogance that allows us to believe that we and we alone have the right to dictate who will and will not have weapons of mass destruction; who will and will not have to follow United Nations resolutions; who will and will not be able to launch "preventative war."
The same arrogance that allows Donald Rumsfeld to shriek hysterically at the violations of the Geneva Conventions by the Iraqis for merely showing American POW's on film and thereby "humiliating them," but which allows him and others to think nothing of the far more serious violations of the same Geneva Conventions evidenced by intentional U.S. bombing of Iraqi water and power stations during the first Gulf War: a certifiable war crime according to Article 54 of those Conventions.
The same arrogance that ultimately explains the widespread hatred of the U.S. throughout much of the Arab and Muslim world.
The same arrogance that puts not only Iraqi lives at risk, but ultimately our own.
Liberation indeed.
Tim Wise is a writer, anti-racism activist and father.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xOf Lies, Liberation and American Self-Delusion``x1048806526,59747,Development``x``x
``xThe Black Commentator, 2003-04-06
"They are not really capitalists in the 'normal' sense, at all. They 'invest' in elections to seize control of state mechanisms to facilitate domestic crimes with impunity and terrorize the world militarily."
"The initial data available so far reveals the dirtiness of U.S.-British warmongers, the fakeness of their claims about a clean war, as well as their indifference to the lives of innocent, unarmed Iraqi civilians." The indictment comes, not from Baghdad or Kuala Lumpur, but from the Foreign Minister of Switzerland. Micheline Calmy Rey, of the ruling Socialist Democratic Party, explained that her country has an obligation to document war crimes as "a founder and a sponsor of the Geneva Convention."
The entire globe is recoiling from the United States, a planetary phenomenon that will characterize the historical period we have now entered - if humanity survives it. In declaring war against international order, the Pirates at the helm of the Hyper-Power have profoundly frightened every economic and social sector of every nation on the globe. In self-defense, the world will be forced to reorganize itself, to create new mechanisms of trade and security in place of the institutions that the Bush men are deliberately savaging. The Americans will be left out of these arrangements.
The realization dawns on the assaulted consciousness of humanity that the would-be rulers and their society are worse than monstrously destructive - they are delusional, a danger to civilized endeavor, untrustworthy in any agreement, contemptuous of law and reason. A nation and people to be avoided, circumvented, conspired against for safety and survival's sake.
These are the first days of the inevitable and soon to become dramatic decline of the United States. In what will be viewed as a supreme irony of history, the dream of a glorious and bloody leap to global omnipotence will collapse in incompetence and self-mutilation - not this year or the next, and not in time to save millions from death, disease, impoverishment and national humiliation. But it will happen, because the nations and peoples of the world will see no choice available to themselves but to make it happen.
It need not have been so. With the role of protector against an extinct Soviet Union long redundant, the United States' favored position in the world is based on the size of its economy and the unique role of the dollar as the sole denominator of oil prices - an artificial support. Over time, the growing strength of the European euro currency would have provided alternatives to banks and national treasuries that sought to diversify their holdings. The dollar's value would have shrunken, gradually, but without great drama. America's share of fossil fuel consumption could have been brought under control in collaboration with developed and developing nations, to guard against undue harm to the economies of all while alternative energy sources were brought on line - to the profit of innovative capital in the most developed nations such as the United States.
But this was not to be. The Pirate class personified by Bush, Dick Cheney and Richard Perle has no stake in the domestic economy of the United States or the stabilizing institutions of the world. They war against order, to transform the American military machine into a pirate armada to amass wealth through plunder. They are not really capitalists in the "normal" sense, at all. They "invest" in elections to seize control of state mechanisms to facilitate domestic crimes with impunity and terrorize the world militarily. And they award themselves contracts for that, too.
The Pirates operate within and are the products of a society made delusional through centuries of racist plunder. The most afflicted products of this society cannot recognize facts at variance with the racist imperatives of Manifest Destiny. They cannot negotiate because they are effectively blind to the humanity of others. Objectively incompetent at analysis of non-whites and only imagining the characteristics of foreign whites, they launch wars against "enemies" whom they cannot properly assess, with a cavalier cruelty that the civilized world reserves for animals. They have no sense of guilt because in their worldview they are the embodiment of good. Their wealth and power appear to confirm their self-assessment.
When frustrated by actual facts and peoples they escalate with fury and bewilderment, like an armed sleepwalker awakening in a crowd. They do great damage and feel harmed by their victims. But they cannot win in any protracted struggle, because they truly do not understand their surroundings or the people they have made antagonists - or even the Swiss, who are said to love order and prosperity most of all.
A wired world is taking note of every pathological tick in the twisted American face. Even now, a myriad of plans are evolving to sidestep the dangerous, delusional United States as mankind goes about its collective business. A kind of international redlining will increasingly make itself felt, but not seen. The Bush men believe they are willing into existence a New American Century, while in reality they are creating an America-phobic planet in which the U.S. has earned an invisible but powerfully consequential non-favored nation status. Having invented the concept of globalism, the United States will be consigned to pariah status - and shrink, until it learns to live by human norms and scales.
The Black Commentator``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xRacist War & Pirate Plunder``x1049739238,20138,Development``x``x
``xBACKGROUND REPORT (NFTF.org) -- The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) is the current incarnation of a state that has been known to history as Congo Free State, Belgian Congo, Congo/Leopoldville, Congo/Kinshasa, and Zaire. It is still known in some circles as Congo-Kinshasa to distinguish it from its neighbor, Republic of Congo, or Congo-Brazzaville. Much of its western border is comprised of the Congo River which it shares with Republic of Congo in an undefined way; no specific agreements have been reached on the division of the river, its islands, or its resources.
This nation of approximately 55 million is in Central Africa surrounded by Republic of Congo, Central African Republic, Sudan, Uganda, Rwanda and Burundi, Tanzania, Zambia, and Angola. There are over 200 African ethnic groups but about 45% of the population is made of three groups who are Bantu and a fourth group that is Hamitic.
DRC is a state endowed with vast potential wealth (gold, diamonds, rubber, copper, cobalt, oil, timber) but its economy has declined significantly since the mid-1980's due a variety of unsuccessful government measures, the residue of colonial rule, and the financial imperialism of new masters.
Its recent history has been one of internal conflict. Much of this arose as the state absorbed large numbers of refugees from the fighting in Rwanda and Burundi in 1994. But the conflicts in the whole region of Central Africa date back as far as the fifteenth century and are today, as they always have been, conflicts of imperialism.
Many of the countries in this area achieved independence from colonial masters in the 1950's and 1960's and quickly degenerated into fighting within and without their borders, much of it spurred by the "financial colonialists" who stepped into the gap left by the old monarchies. The history of these states since the fifteenth century has been one of European colonialism, resistance, independence, followed by neo-colonialism, and prolonged resistance yet again. The primary beneficiary of the new order in this region was the United States who allegedly maneuvered the assassination of Congo's first president, Patrice Lamumba, in 1960. The country's history has been troubled ever since.
President Joseph Mobutu ruled for over 30 years after coming to power in a CIA-aided coup. He is said to have turned over and again to policies and practices that would favor the United States government and business interests over the needs and interests of his people. But rebel groups arose to challenge Mobutu's rule and in 1997 power was seized by Laurent Kabila, a former Marxist who led the Alliance of Democratic Forces. During most of Mobutu's rule the country had been known as Zaire but in May 1997 Kabila formally changed its name to Democratic Republic of the Congo.
On assumption of power, Kabila inherited a country already involved in massive tribal infighting, partly arising because of the influx of refugees in 1994. His rule was quickly challenged by a Rwanda and Uganda backed rebellion in August 1998. Finally, troops from Zimbabwe, Chad, Angola, Namibia, and Sudan intervened to support Kabila's government. Even though a cease-fire was reached in July 1999 between DRC, Zimbabwe, Angola, Uganda, Namibia, Rwanda and the Congolese rebels, sporadic fighting continued unabated. Kabila was assassinated January 16, 2001 and rule of the country fell to his son, Joseph.
Joseph Kabila was successful in negotiating a withdrawal of the Rwandan forces from Congo in October 2002 and early in 2003, all combatant parties finally came to the table and agreed to cease the fighting. They agree to set up a government of national unity as a caretaker until democratic elections can be held in 2005. These will be the first democratic votes cast in this country in over forty years. Remaining Ugandan forces have promised to depart the country by the end of April 2003.
Intertribal conflicts are continuing to erupt periodically, threatening the stability of this fragile peace. As recent as last week, a group of Ituri villagers near the border with Uganda was massacred; early casualty estimates were as high as 1,000 people although this has now been downgraded to between 150-300, according to United Nations observers. Although promises are made to bring the perpetrators to justice, this may be just one more incident in a long history of inter-tribal conflict that will require some careful diplomacy to resolve.
As of April 11, 2003 the peace agreement is holding and the government is beginning its drive toward restoring the infrastructure and social systems of DRC. The nation lost as many as 3.3 million people as a result of the past five years of fighting. At this point, they are anxious to get back on their feet, without the shackles of colonialism.
YellowTimes.org correspondent Paul Harris drafted this report.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xThe Democratic Republic of Congo``x1050104430,87185,Development``x``x
``xPosted By: Pianke Nubiyang
The racists and their tricknology continue to amaze and gall those of us who are staunch Black nationalists and who believe in self-preservation and development of mind and self.
People who claim they are "color blind" are nothing but apathetic racists. They shut their eyes to racism and pretend it does not exist; yet, they are quick to call Blacks who respond to WHITE SPUREMACY AS "RACIST"
Listen, in Germany there were also "color blind" Germans who shut their eyes. During slavery and lynching in the U.S., many whites were also "color blind" and shut their eyes to the racist genocide, raping of Black women, lynching, burnings alive and all types of horrible, demonic racist atrocities that were committed against Blacks in their own lands.
The scum and dregs of Europe, starving for lack of potatoes and oppressed from British oppression had the edacity and nerve to come to the U.S. (New York during the Civil War...WATCH THE MOVIE "GANGS OF NEW YORK," and massacre over 10000 African-Americans because these starving Europeans did not want to fight in the Civil War.
If you think the Iraqis are rioting and looting today, during the latter part of the 1800's to the 1930's, looting, burning, lynching and destroying Black folk was a game to the racists. In fact, they used to have "Pic-nics" (pick a negro) where Black men and women were grabbed and lynched or burned alive.
As for today, the same "colorblind" racists who pretend that we are all "equal" continue to support cultural and racial genocide against Black people simply by the way they vote for racist nazi-like laws and schemes to destroy the Black family and pack Black males and females like animals in zoos.
Yes, we are Afro=centrists and we are proud. We are Black nationalists and there are Blacks in the South whose ancestors have been there for over ten thousand years (Waschitaw Nation, Jamassee, Gullah-Geechee, others) and they want and will have their independence so they don't have to see racists and deal with them.
Blacks are so fed up with these racist "colorblind" people that a poll held by a well-known publication asked "If racism continues in America, would you choose independence or living under more racism?? 98 percent of those polled out of thousands choose independence. Even when the question went to statehood and an all-Black nation free of the racist element, OVER 90 PERCENT WATED TOTAL BLACK NATIONHOOD.
Why is that? Well the reason is clear. The vast majority of Blacks see three types of whites of which two types are a threat to Black survival.
1. The hard-core racists including those who smile in your face and vote for Black destruction.
About 20 percent of settlers (people from Europe who settle the U.S.)
2. The outright in-your-face racists
About 10 percent
3. The "colorblind" racists who are about 65 percent.
4. The totally non-racists, about 5 percent
The largest group of racists is the color-blind whose racism is "blind" to Black people's oppression. They deny there is brutality, profiling, racism, economic degradation, ghettoization and all the racist, lucifite tricknology that is use to maintain racist societies.
AS BLACK PEOPLE, WE HAVE ALWAYS SEEN THE APATHETIC "COLORBLIND" RACIST AS THE BIGGEST THREAT TO OUR SURVIVAL.
IT WAS THESE APATHETIC RACISTS WHO SAT BACK WHILE TENS OF MILLIONS OF PEOPLE WERE ELIMINATED IN EUROPE, CHINA, RUSSIA, RWANDA AND EVEN THE AMERICAS. Today, while genocide occurs in Sudan and West Papua these "colorblind" and apathetic folks are also blind to the situation. Yet, let Africans create an African Union and militarize, stop selling their strategic metals to the "colorblind" or let Africans organize all their scientists in Europe and elsewhere to create a formidable power block and ALL THE "COLOR BLINDNESS" AND APATHETIC MENTALITY WILL BE OVER.
Africa would suddenly be the new threat and everyone will be in their business.
Blacks have the right to be nationalistic, Afro-centrists, pro-Black, and those who don't like it, well too bad.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xColorblindness Is Racist``x1050276144,72998,Development``x``x
``xTORONTO (NFTF.org) -- A peace accord involving the warring parties in Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) (Background Report) was struck earlier this month and was almost immediately threatened by tribal violence in the Ituri region between Lendu and Hema communities. These two groups have had a longstanding dispute that is independent of, but complicated by, the larger war that has engulfed DRC since 1998.
On April 13, 177 delegates in the Ituri region met and adopted a series of measures to end local hostilities. This has given a boost to the wider peace accord affecting the whole nation.
But complicating this whole situation is a dispute between Rwanda and Uganda, both of whom had troops fighting on opposing sides in the DRC war. The DRC government negotiated the withdrawal of Rwanda's troops in the fall of 2002 although it is now clear that not all have actually departed. It appears there are still about 5,000 Rwandan troops in DRC and on April 13, they were ordered to get out. As well, Uganda has indicated it will withdraw all of its troops by April 24.
On April 14, President Paul Kagame of Rwanda pledged that his country will try everything possible to avoid a war with Uganda but if that pledge does not succeed, there is the very real likelihood that DRC would be drawn into any war between Rwanda and Uganda.
As it is, there are several groups of DRC refugees living in Rwanda and there have been accusations that Uganda has been training Rwandan rebels to fight against the government of Rwanda. Uganda denies the accusations. There are also accusations of a group of Ugandan rebels known as the People's Redemption Army (PRA) who are said to be making incursions into Uganda from within DRC.
So while the omnibus peace agreement in DRC has held (for two weeks now), problems arising in neighboring countries, or within DRC but caused by neighbors, makes its success anything but certain. In the three countries mentioned in this report, there have been several million deaths over the past five years or so.
YellowTimes.org correspondent Paul Harris drafted this report.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xSituation In Congo Increasingly Complex``x1050450155,38288,Development``x``x
``xBy a Correspondent, www.herald.co.zw
Never before, at any point in the history of this country, has the subject of elections haunted people’s minds as did the 2002 presidential elections.
The final week preceeding these elections was taken up by national debate during which the electorate was concerned over who would win.
What each one of the five candidates stood for had become universal knowledge.
However, victory by Zanu-PF over the MDC was certain. The ruling party had the strong advantage that it was a revolutionary Africanist party which fought the war of liberation.
Predictions about the Zanu-PF victory were not based on moral issues only, but also on the political experiences in Mozambique and Angola as well as other countries of the Sadc region.
The imperialist countries, however, only conceived their defeat as a temporary setback. Forces of imperialism soon sought re-entry into the liberated countries through the more insidious strategy of creating and establishing constellations of power in the form of client political parties. The experiences in Mozambique and Angola were, however, that the puppet parties were rejected at elections. The people of the sub-region have an awareness of the West’s strategy of perpetuating imperialist hegemony by using blacks as fronts.
The strategy is the revival of colonial domination by replacing white actors with black actors, making it easier to enter and control the geopolitics of the region. White liberals and black victims of imperialist nostalgia were recruited into the revival project for imperialism.
Taking advantage of the national decline in radical nationalism, following the leftist ideological thaw, the MDC party was formed to revive the ideals of conquest and domination.
In its formative stages, the MDC activists hid behind labour, as members of the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions ZCTU harassed the Government through the organisation of mass strikes. They also hid behind the constitutional reform movement. Mr Morgan Tsvangirai was the National Constitutional Assembly chairman during its inauguration. Mr Tendai Biti, Mr Munyaradzi Gwisai, and Professor Welshman Ncube were among the key figures of the NCA who subsequently became key figures in the MDC.
Apart from Mr Gwisai’s socialist rhetoric, the prevailing discourses emerging during and after the formation of the opposition party were leaning towards friendship with capitalism. The MDC was easily integrated into the imperialist system under the broad strategy of the West in which comprador parties are seeded in the local political systems.
Like the Renamo and Unita movements in Mozambique and Angola respectively, which were controlled by imperialists, the MDC set to use the electorate to implement in Zimbabwe, anti-African policies that resumed the dispossession and alienation of blacks. The party symbolised the tenacity and the relentless aspirations of the British in their quest for reviving white privileges in Zimbabwe.
The imperialist tactics used in Mozambique and Angola in the form of Renamo and Unita were being renovated for redeployment as democracy in Zimbabwe. Mr Tsvangirai completed the ill-conceived tripartite in the sub- region comprising himself, Alfonso Dhlakama and the late Jonas Savimbi. These represent the offals of our three nations.
As happened in Angola, Mozambique and later in Namibia, Zimbabweans emerged from racial oppression through a fierce blood-letting struggle. In return for the struggle, the blacks set to restore all that was lost. The return of stolen land, for instance, began in earnest. Zimbabwe, Namibia and South Africa completed the historical military struggle of their people through elections, making the institution of elections important as a political conflict resolution instrument.
The concept of elections and democracy are intrinsically associated. Holding elections, and participating in elections usually evokes notions of democracy. Democracy evokes notions about the rule of law. It is generally accepted that governments that ascend to power through popular elections are legitimate institutions that rule by the permission of the people. These governments have the mandate of the people. Mandate may include, among other things, agrarian reforms which may be popular at home and unacceptable elsewhere.
By its very character and origin, imperialism is not a local persuasion and, on the whole, inherently contradictory to local views on the accumulation of wealth. For Zimbabwe, cultural, economic and political development policies of the Government have a national character and inexorably anti-imperialist. Elections as vehicles to State power and its legitimation have become the sine qua non of reactionary interests in the geopolitical system of Zimbabwe.
Through the MDC as a comprador party, the British government of Tony Blair hoped to institute imperialist policies using the local electoral system. Another dimension of elections and also by association of democracy, is revealed in the institution’s susceptibility to political and ideological intrigues of foreign elements. The 2002 presidential elections were for imperialism the finest opportunity for retrograde voting by the Zimbabwean electorate. It was to be in the history of Zimbabwe a period of the "legitimate return" to the ideas of colonialism.
The Zimbabwean electorate as a reasoning public rejected the MDC in the same way their counterparts in Mozambique and Angola rejected Renamo and Unita. Renamo could not be rewarded for waging the most barbarous war on the African continent, destroying lives, property and infrastructure on which the Mozambicans socially and economically depended for their livelihood.
The Angolans did not vote for Savimbi to reward him for destroying the country. The sophisticated British propaganda machine at the MDC service attempted in vain both within Zimbabwe and on the international scene to poach the true meaning of the liberation struggle and reconstruct the old ideologies of the white man. Mr Tsvangirai could not be rewarded for betraying the nation.
Despite the presence of the Western narcissus in the local political arena, the MDC lost the elections.
The 2002 elections were important as a means of bringing about political communication between vested interests. The electorate has selected its leadership and more so participated in the resolution of the land problem by mandating Cde Robert Mugabe to pursue the programme as shown in the Zanu-PF election programme.
The Zanu-PF campaign theme during the elections was agrarian reform, with land reallocation as the strategy for achieving the theme. The MDC’s campaign theme was the reverse, and the reverse in all respects, as it sought to entrench in the electorate the false notion that whites in Zimbabwe and the West were indispensable for the economic empowerment of black Zimbabweans. The MDC strategy for achieving its ideas included segmentation of the electorate into ethnical entities and appeal to tribal sentiments and differences in language as the issue for an MDC vote.
The Matabeleland provinces and Chipinge constituency were believed to be MDC bantustans. The urban centres were viewed as semi- liberated zones during these divisive campaigns. This is again a critical aspect of the election process.Under the guise of democracy, elections can be one strategy to kill national unity which is pivotal in peace and development. Through ethnic divisions, the state of Somalia fell under.
Frenchman Jean Bodinas as early as 1576 described democracy as always the refuge of all disorderly spirits, rebels, traitors and outcasts who encourage and help the lower orders to ruin the great. Under the guise of democracy, imperialism is fighting to control the State of Zimbabwe by festering internal conflicts.
The peddling of false ethnical consciousness did not work in Matabeleland as the return of the seats to Zimbabwean nationalists has begun with the return of the Insiza constituency. The return of urban seats has also begun with the Chinhoyi mayoral victory. The electorate has recently debunked the MDC’s false segments.
For Zimbabwe, elections as a socio-political institution have lost their significance. It’s no longer the readily acceptable medium of communication between political parties and the electorate. It’s no longer the barometer of public views and interests. More so as it has remained a means of public participation in their own affairs, this participation is being entirely rejected as the courts are being obligated by the losers to subvert the electorate by nullifying their vote. The results of Zimbabwe’s elections are not moments of wide jubilation by the victorious majority and their candidates. They have become significant only for always being mass media stories about the loser’s resolve to take the issue to the High Court. Losers resent introspections of their parties and their relationship with the electorate and their own credibility as individuals.
Unable to win the elections fairly, the losers have constructed phantom claims about the electoral system in the country. As it is, these claims are only sets of misinformation intended to discredit the entire manner in which political power is gained. The defeated usually find solace in the false belief that elections were rigged. When will it be indisputable knowledge that elections can be won without any party rigging at all?
Voting is by adults who are conscious about the consequences of their electoral choices. Several factors influence voting choices. While campaign messages are influential, contesting candidates, their individual histories and those of their sponsors usually make the difference. The MDC has struggled to raise credible candidates in each election it participates in resulting in its adversaries winning seats ahead of the actual elections. Some candidates romp to victory easily because of their positions in the national memory with unpatriotic ideas hastening the defeat of others.
By simply ignoring the importance of context with the society in which they live, puppet parties have sought to evaluate local election processes using a clearly inappropriate medium of standard. A reactionary mindset that is Eurocentric has been instrumental in the evaluation notwithstanding that elections are physically in Zimbabwe and for mainly the black majority. Ignorance of context has led to weird claims about rigging. The levels of technological infrastructural, educational development and their limitations on public projects have been appropriated as vices for rigging.
Yet these limitations together with limitations in funding affects election processes such as the number and physical location of polling stations, the manpower logistics and the other important resources that can be made available for conducting elections. These limitations explain widely the problems faced during the actual voting such as long queues, low turn out, delays in counting and even delays in the arrival of ballot papers.
In Zimbabwe, Western imperialists have played an interventionist role to save their puppet party from electoral defeat. They directly finance the MDC. Unashamed of the copious bloody gift the recipient has squandered it the way boozers and revelers dispose of their earnings. The major expenditure was financing violence. Speaking at a campaign rally in Bikita, Morgan Tsvangirai in praise of violence boasted that he could bring in 20 000 youths to replace those arrested for violence a clear indication that imperialism is financing political violence in Zimbabwe as it did in Mozambique and Angola. Recently there has been more direct interference in Zimbabwe politics by the British when they sent High Commissioner Brian Donnely to buy MDC votes with maize in the Insiza Constituency.
Imperialist' funds have also been used against the country's electoral system through the financing of legal appeals against election results. The rural electorate have been the target for disenfranchisement. The Zimbabwean courts have been petitioned by the MDC to nullify almost every election won by Zanu PF. Although it is a legal right for individuals and groups to seek recourse from the law for wrongs done, using the courts to dispossess the rural electorate of its vote for selfish reasons is unfair. The battle lost in the rural constituency must not be revived in the metropolitan city where nothing resembles the rural constituency. If voters are adults, their choices have to be respected.
Ends``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xOpposition MDC was formed to revive colonial domination``x1050465406,96526,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xby Ras Tyehimba
America, the so called epitome of democracy, freedom, and capitalism fought their battle against the colonial might of great Britain in 1775 and with the help of black slaves who fought as well, freed themselves and their country from the colonial tentacles of Great Britain. They won the right to self-determinism/ to chart the course of their own destiny. They drafted their Declaration of Independence that stated "We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness". Yet it took America until 1865 to free their slaves from the bondage of chattel slavery.
This act of sheer hypocrisy has tainted the nation that once dreamed of being a beacon of freedom, democracy, equal rights and justice for the world. This single act of momentous hypocrisy has now proliferated into a culture of corruption, individualism, world imperialism and wanton carnal gratification. Just imagine, Thomas Jefferson, former President of USA, who helped draft the Declaration of Independence, at the time, traded slaves from his plantation for kegs of molasses.
Also, the European Americans facilitated the grand massacre of the indigenous people (misnomered Red Indians), justifying the annihilation by branding them as evil savages. These indigenous people who once roamed the wide expanse of their land (know today as America) were herded into small reservations: what was left of them that is, and forced to live a life contrary to their own traditions.
Having gained Independence from the colonial might of Britain and severing all forms of British colonial control, America embarked on a series of expansionary policies that would ensure they achieve the status of a Colonial superpower. The misleaders of that time, and even now, firmly believe in freedom for Americans (white Americans that is) but not freedom for anybody else. This white supremacist/patriarchal/ 'might is right' stance that is the foundation of the American legacy has manifested itself not only in America's policy to other mostly non white nations but also most strongly in America's internal policy to the black (non-white) people that also make up the nation of USA. It has been a legacy of blatant racism, discrimination, oppression and violent suppression of any group, organization or idea that is not congruent with the popular culture that is manipulated by the upper echelons of American society.
Black people who are termed as the minority has felt the full brunt of these oppressive policies that has sought to suppress the very essence of themselves. Blacks are the minority in society but the majority in the prisons. Blacks are targeted by the police, tortured, sodomized, killed and falsely imprisoned. How much more sickening, heart- wrenching stories of brutal torture , intimidation and slaughter by the security forces of America will we hear. The immigration policy of the USA is very deliberately structured to increase proportionately the number of white people versus the number of black people. The Educational curriculum by its very nature reinforces the degradation of the Black people in America. Blacks have less access to quality education and are forced to assimilate Euro centric standards and culture to survive.
Very integral to the success of the colonial imperialistic designs of America on the world is the whirring propaganda machines that spew American popular culture, values, products and other assorted junk. Fast food outlets pop up on every busy corner with bright signs declaring MacDonalds, KFC and Burger king. These fast food outlets sell billions of steroid laced carcinogenic products to long lines of people who are seeking a taste of the American dream. Genetically modified foods usually without any labels are consumed in great quantity. Humanitarian aid being given to Afrikan countries by the US is genetically modified. Not content with poisoning themselves.
Our youths are walking advertising boards, advertising the wide range of American products. Nike the sign says: just do it. While Nike one of the greatest symbols of American capitalism still has Asians working in terrible slavery-like sweatshop condition. The cost of producing one pair of shoes costs about $1US, while the price of a pair often crosses the $100 US mark.
Very central to America's imperialistic thrust for total global domination is the success of its media that spew a conglomeration of arrogant 'God bless America' garbage. When I was little boy I enjoyed watching Westerns with the 'brave' and 'heroic' cowboys taking on and beating the 'savage' and 'evil' native Americans (misnomered Red Indians). Years later I understood how dangerous and false this image is and how important it is in upholding the well doctored American image of being fair, righteous and just. The American materialistic value system bombards the world's consciousness along with complementary images of the all conquering American hero fighting the evil forces of the world. This arrogant pattern has permeated the offering of Hollywood (who is controlled principally by Jews), which is beamed all over the world via the high tech American satellite network. One consequence of this is that people all over the world have the perception that Hitler was the worst thing that ever happened to the human race. The atrocities committed by people like Rhodes, Ian Smith, Mussolini, King Leopold and others (who makes Hitler look like a goody-to-shoes) are whitewashed and overlooked by those who should know better. King Leopold slaughtered more than 12 million Afrikans approx twice that of the Jews killed by Hitler. To add insult to injury there is a scholarship given mostly to Afrikan people that is named the Rhode Island Scholarship*. This is equivalent to giving a prize to Jews and calling it the Adolph Hitler Scholarship.
We need to look no further than the Israel/Palestine conflict, the Venezuelan/Chavez situation, the Zimbabwe land issue or more recently the Iraq invasion to see the viciousness of American Media and understand the importance of having alternative sources of media. CNN, NBS etc serves America and American interests just like BBC serves English interests, often overlooking truth and justice. History has shown this fact so often that it has become painfully predictable.
In this era, to be overtly racist has become politically incorrect, so the nature of racism and white supremacy has ascended to new heights of subtleness. Despite of the many black people who are in positions of power within the current American system, this is just an illusion that will fool the many who are sleeping. The slave elevated to the position of slavedriver is not a statement of black power but rather just a perpetuation of white supremacy. This tokenism is done to garner the support of the respective group for activities that are often detrimental to the wellbeing of the said group.
It is expected that some people will get uncomfortable when the word white supremacy is uttered. But if the reality of the world order is not clearly and openly articulated, how are we going to progress past the illusions, patronizing attitudes, empty platitudes and self contempt that is so pervasive throughout the global landscape. As it is now, black people in and outside America will get no justice, no reparations, and no real equality under the capitalist, patriarchal, white supremacist order that has produced the likes of Jefferson, Reagan and Bush(times 2). It is a system that has no regard for humanity and the sacredness and dignity of human life. It is a system that is rooted in a popular culture of death, extolling the 'virtues' of might, materialism, greed, individualism, violence, money and power to all who will listen. God bless America indeed.
* This scholarship is given by a European institution not an American one, but I included it because it is relevant within the overall framework.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xAmerica: Bastion of White Supremacy``x1051691900,84768,Development``x``x
``xBy THE BLACK COMMENTATOR
The New York Times should be ashamed of itself for abrogating "the trust between the newspaper and its readers," as chairman Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr. put it. But the Jayson Blair affair is the least of the newspaper's transgressions against truth. Racism, not affirmative action, is what ails the Times.
By rights, the Times' embarrassment should be of no collective concern to Black people. Whites control every important aspect of the publication's decision making. White management devised their own version of what they chose to call affirmative action, hiring those Blacks that appealed to their corporate tastes. Black people in general bear no responsibility for white people's hiring decisions. Yet, in the wake of 27-year-old Blair's alleged plagiarisms and fictions, media racists immediately sought to somehow blame the very concept of affirmative action for what is, at root, just another instance of white management incompetence. "Affirmative action" didn't hire Blair, and Blair didn't hire and assign himself--white management did.
There is a deeper current underlying this story, one that allows the Times to escape its own responsibilities by hiding behind supposed good intentions. The paper poses as a social do-gooder, when in reality it is an unreconstructed bigot. The Times needs an affirmative action program because it does a terrible job of hiring competent Black reporters, many hundreds of whom are willing and able to perform the corporate mission. The same racism that has historically prevented the Times from sufficiently staffing itself with minorities also causes it to hire the wrong candidates. White people have been screwing up affirmative action since before the term was coined, sometimes on purpose, more often through an inability to objectively assess non-whites--one of the definitions of racism.
Assault on The Gray Lady
The Blair denouement was bigger news than a thousand dead Iraqis. Basically, the story was framed as an affirmative action-induced erosion of standards at the highest levels of journalism--an assault on American media integrity as represented by The New York Times. Blacks were having their corrupt way with the Gray Lady--a symbol of white intelligence and competence as potent in some respects as Lady Liberty, a few miles south of Times Square.
The starting point of American racism is the assumption that white people and their institutions represent the proper, normative standards against which all other people and institutions are judged. Once the white normative assumption is internalized, a racist worldview flows from it as surely as water to the sea, polluting every social space in its path.
The logic of this seminal assumption dictates that people hired by the New York Times are either gifted human beings, or people who have been bestowed a gift. It is a circular kind of logic, since the Times has the power to set standards based on--itself.
The New York Times functions as a corporate arbiter of white American discourse. We gain vital clues to the workings of white corporate minds by noting the content and treatment of "All the News That's Fit to Print." We do not learn what is actually important, but only what the Times deems important enough to publish. And that's critical to know, if only to understand how the mighty think, and what they think about.
Those who are shackled by racist assumptions are led to conclude that a Black person fortunate enough to measure up to the standards of The New York Times--one who is privileged to breathe that rarified white air--carries a double obligation. He must prove that the brilliant whites who hired him picked the right Black person for the job, and he must insure by his comportment in the position that other white institutions will hire more Blacks to assist them in their corporate mission.
Should the Black candidate--a person picked by whites--fail, it is the aspirations of Black people as a whole for upward mobility that are made to seem unreasonable, ridiculous, even criminal. This is white mischief at its most automatic and insidious.
Jayson Blair failed his white folks, giving the New York Times a "huge black eye," as Sulzberger said with a straight face. The Times compiled a 7,500-word account of the Blair affair, essentially concluding that the newspaper had allowed its good intentions to be "betrayed" by a bad Black.
Lunatics control the asylum
Nowhere has the newspaper acknowledged that Blair was an affirmative action hire--this is simply assumed to be the case. In one sense, however, all Black recruitment at historically white work environments is affirmative action, in that it is reluctant hiring--white people doing what does not come naturally, and is against their distorted judgment. Persons who are reluctantly hired are often reluctantly supervised and not mentored at all. It is crystal clear that Jayson Blair was not part of any formal or informal "team" at the New York Times. Had he been connected with the life of the paper, half his stories would not have later been found to be bogus in some respect, including "frequent acts of journalistic fraud." Blair acted utterly alone.
Yes, there is something inherently wrong with affirmative action as practiced in the United States and at The New York Times: white people still make all the decisions. The perpetrators of the historical crime, the people whose delusional worldviews created the societal distortions that plague Black America in the first place--the same people that make the New York Times an unfit interpreter of reality--remain the arbiters of societal standards, values, and hiring. They decide what is "Fit to Print," and who is fit to engage in the process. Let them live with their choice of Jayson Blair--that's white folks' business.
African Americans did not craft the New York Times affirmative action program, nor are there enough Blacks in the organization to decisively influence the paper's editorial or workplace policies. Blair's alleged transgressions are proof only that the New York Times is a bad judge of Black people--as is normal among racists.
African Americans should not be drawn into a conversation based on the assumption that The New York Times sets a high standard for journalism, or that the paper's white managers are capable of recognizing any aspect of reality whatsoever, in hiring decisions or news judgments. Black people bear no onus for white incompetence in selecting Black people to carry out white corporate missions.
Petty frauds and mega-lies
The New York Times violates truth, every day, with no assistance from African Americans. Jayson Blair is accused of writing stories about people he had not spoken to, and places he had not been. For this, he is crucified, and made a symbol of Black pretensions. The Great White Liar William Safire wonders, "How could this happen at the most rigorously edited newspaper in the world?" Yet Blair's misdeeds, so innocuous that he could commit 36 of them before being caught, pale when compared to the Stalinist crime against reality perpetrated by valued Timesman Adam Nagourney, May 5, in full view of the paper's editors.
Nagourney was entrusted to divine the larger truths that emerged from the televised Democratic primary debate, in South Carolina. Instead, as BC noted in last week's issue, he disappeared three of the candidates:
"Nagourney then proceeded to delineate the opposing Democratic camps, comprising six of the nine candidates: Lieberman, Kerry, Edwards, Gephardt, Dean and Graham. In over 1,000 words, Nagourney not only failed to once mention the names Al Sharpton, Carole Moseley-Braun or Dennis Kucinich, he did not indicate in any manner that the three candidates existed on the planet Earth! The two Blacks and one lefty white did not rate even a throwaway line about the "others" vying for primary votes. The fact that they lived and breathed was not deemed fit to print--an amazing but honest exposition of the world as it should be in the judgment of the New York Times and corporate media, in general."
The New York Times erased three important politicians from a nationally televised event in which they were full participants, leaving not a trace of their presence in the Newspaper of Record. Presumably, the editors were pleased. Stalin's scissors men would have been proud.
One of the disappeared, Sharpton, is likely to come in first or second in South Carolina, next February. Will Times readers wonder how and why that happened? "It's an abrogation of the trust between the newspaper and its readers," said Times chairman Sulzberger. But he was talking about Jayson Blair's little tricks and inventions, not Adam Nagourney's racial and political mutilation of a nationally significant event. Jason Blair invented quotes of transient interest from rather unimportant people. Adam Nagourney whited out a national debate.
The Times vastly underestimated the October 26 anti-war march in Washington, reporting that turnout was only in the "thousands," far "below expectations." Actually, between 100,000 (police estimate) and 200,000 (Pacifica's count) people gathered that Saturday on the Mall for a protest of global, historic impact. It took a monsoon of emailed complaints to prompt the Times to issue a corrective story on the following Wednesday, confirming that the huge turnout had served to "Invigorate the Antiwar Movement."
Times Executive Editor Howell Raines neglected to assemble a task force to investigate "how such fraud could have been sustained within the ranks of The New York Times" by reporter Lynette Clemetson, an assassin of history, itself. Such language is reserved for petty revisionists, like Blair.
The Times prints only the news that fits its version of reality, and discards the rest. It now pillories Jayson Blair for doing the same thing, piecemeal.
We think he is a Timesman, after all.
The Black Commentator``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xFraud at the New York Times: Blaming Blacks``x1052926225,86009,Development``x``x
``xReflections On White Privilege And Hypocrisy
by Tim Wise; ZNet
If Jayson Blair did not exist, white America would have to create him. The confirmed New York Times plagiarist and all-around journalistic con man, after all, is the perfect foil for those whites who have always needed to find a dark face capable of confirming pre-existing biases towards, suspicions of, and fears about black people.
Indeed we have long invented proofs to fit our prejudices.
Racist beliefs about blacks and their propensity for savagery were confirmed (for racists at least) by slave rebellions.
Racist beliefs about black intelligence are confirmed (for racists at least) by any black student who drops out of an elite college, no matter the reasons.
And now there is Blair, who confirms (for racists at least) that blacks are a little less honest, a little less truly talented, and taking jobs from more capable whites because of misguided racial preferences; preferences that allow them to get away with fraud or shoddy work in a way that whites presumably never would be allowed to do.
But really now, who are these folks trying to kid?
Whites have been doing our fair share of lying and cheating since long before this nation even became a nation. Indeed, without a healthy dose of both it would have been rather difficult to have become a nation at all.
And when whites lie we are rarely pilloried the way Blair has been as of late, or as Janet Cooke--another black journalist who fabricated stories in the early 1980's--was. Indeed, in just the last several years, over a half-dozen white journalists have been busted for plagiarism or fabricating stories, some every bit as serious in scope as Jayson Blair, and even at the Times; yet none provoked this kind of outrage.
In fact, one of the guilty parties even has a new book from a major publisher, which provides a somewhat fictionalized but overall lighthearted account of the author's deceptive exploits.
Of course, there's nothing particularly unique about light-skinned liars managing to get by without too much damage to their reputations or the shelf lives of the tales they've told.
The stock narrative of American history, created by whites to be sure, is nothing but a string of fabrications, after all.
Christopher Columbus discovered America and was the first to prove that the world was round. Wrong.
George Washington chopped down a cherry tree and then 'fessed up to his father because he could not tell a lie, though apparently historians had no such compunction.
The nation was founded by people who, despite their persecution of those with religious beliefs different from their own, were seeking religious freedom. Strike three.
One nation, with liberty and justice for all: by now you probably get the picture.
Truth be told, Jayson Blair is really quite the amateur trickster compared to the chroniclers of American propaganda and triumphalist pseudo-history. But this should come as no surprise, as the powerful by necessity must be more talented at bullshit than anyone else, if for no other reason than to maintain said power.
Ronald Reagan lied about a welfare cheat with dozens of names and Social Security numbers who collected over $100,000 fraudulently and drove around in a Cadillac. It was completely fabricated, an intentional con, but it certainly didn't hurt--indeed one might even say it helped--his career.
When he was a reporter in St. Louis, Pat Buchanan took internal FBI memos blasting Martin Luther King Jr. and passed them off as his own work: a form of plagiarism to be sure, but his career was hardly damaged by his lack of ethics.
George Will brags about procuring--one might say pilfering--Jimmy Carter's 1980 Presidential Debate handbook and passing it on to Reagan so as to prepare him for his televised tête-à-tête with the incumbent. But in Will's case, an action called theft by those who are intellectually honest hasn't prevented him from being a respected columnist and commentator whose smug mug we can see each Sunday morning on "This Week."
George W. Bush lied about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction--what with his claims of 300 gallons of this, and 500 gallons of that, and such and such tons of this other thing--and most people don't seem to care. When white folks lie, even if those lies result in a war that kills (so far) at least 4000 Iraqi civilians according to news reports available in Europe but not here, the apostles of integrity and virtue have nothing to say. But let a black man perpetrate a fraud, especially if that fraud besmirches the good reputations of white men, like the bosses at the New York Times, and all hell breaks loose.
And then that black man becomes a poster boy in the eyes of white reactionaries for why affirmative action and "diversity" efforts are misguided. That such insipid buffoonery passes for wisdom in the eyes of so many, rather than being seen as the epitome of a racist double-standard is stunning beyond belief; or rather it would be were it not so numbingly common, so cliché, so pedestrian.
After all, when white men ripped off the Savings and Loan industry, costing taxpayers a few hundred billion in bailout funds, no one suggested that we should be wary of hiring white men to run banks: even white men like Silverado's Neil Bush, brother of W., who had no prior experience in the field.
When white men commit major corporate fraud (think Enron) no one suggests that we should eradicate the workings of the old boy's networks that are so instrumental in getting white guys top executive jobs in the first place.
When a half-dozen white pilots in six months get pulled off planes because they're either drunk or hungover, or when a couple of others strip down to their underwear in the cockpit just for shits and giggles, no one recommends that white pilots might be too unstable to serve the nation's commercial fleet, or that whatever channels white men have exploited to receive the lion's share of jobs as pilots should be shut down so as to preserve the integrity of the profession.
When a white man runs a business into the ground, after having deserted his military assignment during war time, not only do whites as a group not bear the stigma of that one white man's incompetence and duplicity, but the white man in question gets another shot as a chief executive: this time as President of the United States. The same job his daddy had; a man who lied about taxes and reading his lips.
Recent revelations of widespread cheating by affluent white suburbanites on the SAT, using any number of ingenious scams to con the college entrance exam, haven't prompted calls for extra security at testing sites in Pleasantville, or greater scrutiny of white college applicant's scores.
Ultimately, if blacks screw up or do something objectionable they become exhibit A in the racist fantasies of the weak-minded, but if whites screw up, we get to remain individuals. This is the essence of white privilege: the privilege to rise or fall without implicating your group in the process or calling into question the mechanisms that brought you to your current station.
People of color, on the other hand, constantly have to answer for the whole. So when Jesse Jackson was running for President, everyone wanted to know his views on black crime, out-of-wedlock childbirths in the black community, and whether or not he would distance himself from Louis Farrakhan. Yet I can't recall a single white politician being asked his views on white serial killing, disproportionate child sexual molestation among whites, or being asked to distance himself from David Duke.
Even when blacks succeed there is no escaping the backhanded compliment that they are a "credit to their race," itself a racist comment since it implies that the group as a whole is rather lacking in the shining star department. Needless to say, such a thing is never said to a successful white person, since we already have a rather unlimited credit line, so to speak.
The most pathetic thing about the Blair incident is this: to an awful lot of whites--and certainly the zombified denizens of talk radio--this scandal proves that blacks are somehow getting opportunities they don't deserve; that racial preference has turned the notion of merit selection upside down. Yet they fail to acknowledge the reality that whites continue to get far more jobs, irrespective of actual ability, than people of color do.
According to the National Center for Career Strategies, more than 85 percent of all jobs are filled by word-of-mouth as opposed to merit-based competition through open advertising. What's more, nine in ten executives got their jobs through networking. So just who do we think are the folks in these networks, and who are those persons disproportionately left out? To ask the question is to answer it.
Studies for years have found that employers tend to prefer hiring people who remind them of themselves, and that too often they make judgments about merit and ability that are less about talent than their comfort level with the potential hire: a comfort level heavily influenced by race. Once again, just who do we think benefits from this form of subtle racism, and who is harmed? And once again, to ask the question is to answer it.
And finally, a recent study found that when resumes of equally-qualified job applicants are sent to employers, those with white sounding names are fifty percent more likely to get called in for an interview than those with black-sounding names. So who's getting preference?
At the end of the day, white America may delude itself into believing that Jayson Blair is the epitome of racial preference run amok, but until we clean out our own stables, filled as they are with liars, cheats, and a plethora of incompetents, we might want to avoid any and all mirrors for a while.
Tim Wise is an antiracist essayist, activist and father. He can be reached at timjwise@msn.com``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xInventing Jayson Blair``x1053279040,85628,Development``x``x
``xby Kim Johnson, Trinidad Guardian
Listening to the radio only while driving means that you catch little more than snippets in-between navigating the potholes, dodging the maxis, answering the cell, and keeping an eye on what the children are bickering about now in the back seat.
Accordingly, I can only tell you something African is coming up, African Liberation Day or African History Month or some such.
Well, both prompt the same question: what is happening to Africa?
If it's African Liberation Day, then: when and how will Africa be liberated?
And from whom?
If it was African History Month, the issue is the same because Africa seems to be far along the road to a withdrawal from history, or at least from the 21st century.
Either way, the reality is the same: African nations are rapidly becoming irrelevant to the rest of the world, except perhaps as a market for guns.
Barring nuclear extinction, there can hardly be a more tragic scenario than that of a tyrannised people sliding into starvation, to the indifference of everybody else.
It means becoming the world's vagrant, like the ones who sleep on the pavement, dirty, hungry, sick, while passersby go about their business, stepping over without noticing the humanity sprawled there like so much rubbish.
People want to liberate Iraq from Saddam Hussein, they trying Slobovan Milosovec for war crimes in former Yugoslavia, they worried about what North Korea going to do with its nuclear weapons, they glad India and Pakistan back on speaking terms.
But Zimbabwe is only a problem when the white farmers are attacked.
Here we have people who could talk all day about how great Egypt was. And as if we didn't produce enough on our own, we import a few every year to give a lecture or two.
Yet I am yet to hear anyone weep for an Africa racked by war, genocide, corruption, disease, famine, child slavery, environmental destruction and repressive dictatorship.
Of Africa's 700 million people, half live on less than US$1 a day. About 40 million face famine.
In Ethiopia and Eritrea, while eight to 12 million are starving, their leaders use aid money to fight a war that has already claimed 70,000 lives. That scenario can be found all over. The Sudanese have been fighting a civil war for 20 years. There are wars in Angola, Sierra Leone, Congo, Congo-Brazzaville, Somalia. In Burundi, 300,000 were killed in theirs. The Ivory Coast, after decades of peaceful child slavery, has now joined the club.
In some places, the State has been destroyed by corruption and warfare, in that it cannot provide any amenities whatsoever – not water, infrastructure, policing, laws. Think of Mogadishu in Black Hawk Down.
In other countries, almost a quarter of their people are HIV-positive. Of the world's 36 million infected with Aids, 23 million live in Africa. Those countries will be depopulated of productive adults.
Africa's poverty, sickness, and social disruption are not like the Ethiopian famine of 1974. This is something new. It is the catastrophe of people who will never recover economically and will permanently need aid.
And no one bats an eyelid.
Apartheid has been destroyed so it's no longer news that there are on average 59 murders a day in South Africa, 145 rapes and 752 serious assaults. Babies are sometimes raped. Twelve per cent of the population is HIV-positive.
What's to be done?
Traditional explanations offer no solution. Colonialism, Western exploitation, racism, globalisation, foreign aid, debt crisis are all contributory. But they're external causes, and the solutions must be found internally.
If colonialism drew boundaries between States that exacerbated tribal antagonisms, only Africans can re-draw them.
Yet, among the first resolutions of the Organisation of African Unity was to keep the old boundaries, and in the 40 years of independence, they haven't budged an inch.
If things are to be changed, the responsibility lies with Africans to change them. Nelson Mandela, great as he is, cannot do it by himself.
If leaders are corrupt, then Africans must remove them. When King Mswati III of Swaziland buys a private jet for £28 million, while 22 per cent of the population have HIV and the Government's health budget is £12.6 million, remove him.
Excuses can no longer be made for South Africa's Thabo Mbeki, who thinks HIV does not cause AIDS; or for Robert Mugabe, who has destroyed the once-prosperous Zimbabwe; or Namibia's Sam Nujoma who, like Mswati, has a private jet while ruling over one of the poorest countries in the world; and on and on.
This isn't a case of blaming the victim, because the victims are ordinary African people, whereas the perpetrators are the tiny political and educated elites.
South Korea lagged behind Kenya 50 years ago, but is now a developed country, while you can't drive from Nairobi to Mombasa. Why? It's not race but political culture. Everywhere has corruption but, in most other places, it still allows development.
There's a cynical joke about two young men who become friends at university in Europe, an Asian and an African. Afterwards they return to their homes and careers.
Years later, the African visits his friend, who proudly shows off his ten-bedroom house, swimming pool, Lexus. The African congratulates his success and the Asian smiles and points at a highway in the distance.
"See that?" says the Asian with a wink: "Ten per cent."
Next year, the Asian visits his friend and is taken to his house. It is much grander than the Asian's: 36 bedrooms, two pools, a fleet of Mercedes.
"Gosh, you've done well!" exclaims the Asian.
The African smiles, points outside to the dense jungle, and says with a wink: "One hundred per cent."``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xWhither Mother Africa?``x1053526824,53470,Development``x``x
``xby Ravi Grover
ravilution@hotmail.com
"Far more whites have entered the gates of the 10 most elite institutions through 'alumni preference' than the combined numbers of all the Blacks and Chicanos entering through affirmative action." - S.F. Examiner, April 1995
"We must understand the cynicism that exists in the Black community. The kind of cynicism that is created when, for example, some in our party miss no opportunity to roundly and loudly condemn affirmative action that helped few thousand Black kids get an education, but you hardly heard a whimper from them over affirmative action for lobbyists who load our federal tax codes with preferences for special interests." - Colin Powell at the 2000 Republican National Convention
One of many stops during Bush's 2000 campaign for the Presidency was Bob Jones University, an ill-famed school which refused to allow the entry of Black students up until 1971. Soon after admitting Blacks measures were taken in 1975 to make sure that such people didn't intermingle with whites. The school set a ban on interracial dating, citing a Biblical story which talks of God creating barriers between different peoples. During his campaign Bush didn't blink an eye or lodge any sort of moral protest against Bob Jones University. But he sure did speak passionately a few weeks after Senator Trent Lott's resignation over Affirmative Action at the University of Michigan.
To me, George Bush is symbolic of America and business as usual. Here we have a completely unintelligent and unqualified white guy who made bad grades both in high school and in college yet is somehow in a high leadership position with the support of a significant number people white and non-white. For whatever reason these people deliberately overlook his stupidity and lack of competency. His career title 'leader of the free world' requires knowledge of the international community and global affairs; yet he makes blatantly ignorant statements like "Africa is a nation that suffers from great disease" and "unrest in the Middle East causes unrest through out the region." He got into Yale not because of his intelligence (because he's obviously lacking that), but because 30% of admissions in Ivy League schools are reserved specifically for children of alumni, regardless of academic achievement. Why is it opponents of Affirmative Action never seem to criticize the discriminatory policy of legacy admissions? And no surprise that historically alumni at these schools have been majority white males, so it would then make sense that the incoming 30% will also be majority white. Bush also experimented with cocaine in his past yet avoided going to jail (and moral judgment from white America). Yet another fine example of Affirmative Action for whites: even though the majority of drug users in America are white and Blacks make up a mere 13% of drug users, somehow Blacks are 74% of the people imprisoned for possession of drugs.
Bush is also a staunch supporter of the War on Drugs as are many white parents - so long as white kids who are caught are filling up rehab clinics and not jail cells. And here is the most important aspect of Bush that resembles the structure of America: the guy goes on vacation every other week and does very little work.
Who's doing his work for him? An administration full of both men and women of color who have had to prove their intelligence (Condoleeza Rice went to Stanford and Colin Powell went to West Point) by working twice as hard as their fellow whites, who have had to struggle to get to the top instead of having power handed over to them on a silver platter, and who are in that cabinet specifically because of Affirmative Action. Yet even though it's people of color who are doing all the work behind the scenes, the under-worked, unqualified, and unintelligent white guy is praised by his supporters as exhibiting great leadership. Not to mention many people deliberately overlook the fact that maybe the idiot shouldn't be in charge.
You can see this pattern reflected in American businesses. In the agriculture industry the majority of labor is done by Latino workers who are sweating 10 hours a day in 100 degree southwest weather. Yet almost all of these companies are owned and managed by white guys. In the Information Technology, medical, and science industries a large number of the employees are Asians with Ph.D?s and Master Degrees. Again, most hospitals and computer companies are run and managed by less educated and less experienced white guys. In the sports industry where the majority of the athletes are Black virtually all teams and merchandising companies are run and owned by white guys. You look at the garment business, most of the workers are immigrant women of color, and again who runs and manages these companies? White people.
Don't get me wrong. There are plenty of qualified and hard working whites deserving of their jobs and college admissions. But if America's businesses and its education system show us anything it's that time and time again, unqualified white males are being promoted and accepted over qualified, educated, hard working people of color and white women.
Which brings me to these two questions: does Bush, a man who's received hand-outs his whole life and is on vacation half the year while getting paid a high salary, have the right to talk about discrimination? Do whites like to 'play the race card' to ensure access to opportunities? Here are some facts showing that they do:
- The Glass Ceiling Commission, headed by Republican Elizabeth Dole, reported in 1995 that even though many minority (particularly Asian) workers had higher levels of education and better work credentials than their white counterparts, lesser qualified white males were still being promoted over them. 97% of the sr. managers of the Fortune 1000 Industrial and Fortune 500 companies are white, and 95%+ are male while 57% of the work force are people of color, women, or both. Of the 5% of managers that are women, 5% of that are women of color! When polled at the workplace the majority of white workers stated that they'd rather answer to a white male boss (even if he's got the vocabulary of a 4 year old like George Bush??) over a person of color.
- In the state of Washington Blacks only make up a little over 3.8% of the college student population. This means that for every 100 students (who are majority white in Washington) only 4 students are Black. White residents felt so threatened by this ridiculously tiny FOUR PERCENT that they passed a state ballot initiative to get rid of Affirmative Action from state universities and colleges. I wonder who white parents scapegoat now when their kids don't get into college?
- Even though Canadians make up the 4th largest illegal immigrant population in the US, Irish are the 1st largest illegal population in New England, and Italians are the 2nd largest illegal population in NYC, over 95% of people stopped and/or imprisoned by the INS are people of color. The majority of Border Patrol activity occurring at the US-Mexico border. According to www.ins.gov, Mexicans only make up 30% of undocumented aliens in the US, yet are targeted the most by law enforcement. The New York Times reported that of 37 work raids conducted by the INS use of Spanish by workers was criteria for investigating people believed to be illegal.
- According to a 1997 USDA report several southeastern states took 3 times as long to grant loans to Black farmers as it did to white farmers. In 1992 94% of the committees that granted loans had no minority or females employed.
- A study by the Leadership Council on Civil Rights reported that Black youth who've committed a violent crime are 9 times more likely to be sent to prison than white youth who've committed the exact same crime.
- The Department of Justice reports that white college students are the overwhelming majority of drug users and underage drinkers in the USA. Yet Black motorists in NJ are 9 times more likely to be pulled over by cops and have their cars searched for drugs. A Boston Globe investigation found that in Massachusetts Blacks are twice as likely as whites to have their cars searched when stopped by the police. In St. Louis, IL Latinos are 1% of the population yet 40% more likely to be pulled over by cops than whites.
- Even though suburban whites consume the most resources and produce the majority of waste in America (and in the world) a United Church of Christ report found that 3 out of 5 of the largest commercial landfills garbage dumps are in Black and Latino neighborhoods. 60% of Black & Latino and 50% of Asian American & Native American neighborhoods have uncontrolled toxic sites.
- The University of Chicago and MIT studies showed that resumes with Black-sounding names were 50% more likely to be passed up then resumes with white sounding names (ironically I saw this same news story reported the same day Bush came out against Affirmative Action)
- The Fair Employment Council of Greater Washington reported that Blacks are twice as likely to be denied mortgages as whites who are making the same income and have the same qualifications
- According to an Equal Pay Day study, women earn 89 cents for every $1 earned by a man, even when women are working the same job and have the same experience
- Blacks earn 80% of whites with the same education level The President of the University of Michigan (who's a white male) has come out in support of Affirmative Action. You would think that he would be against such a policy if his school is being overrun by stupid, unintelligent minorities, right? But this isn't the case. What's also not mentioned about the white woman who is suing U of M is that white students who had lower GPA's and aptitude test scores were admitted into the school over her. So where's the lawsuit for that? Sometimes it seems like some whites have no problem looking the other way when it comes to the stupidity of other whites but get easily infuriated over the presence of imaginary 'unqualified' people of color.
It's worth noting that when I (or anyone else) write about the existence of institutional bigotry we have to present as many facts as possible just to prove our damn point to all the skeptical whites. But when whites talk about being denied jobs or not getting admitted into a school because of 'reverse' discrimination we're just supposed to automatically take their word for it even thought they have no facts to back up their claims. Why is it we never see Labor studies conducted on how large numbers of whites are unemployed because immigrants have 'stolen' their jobs? Why is it rich whites aren't funding research to publish statistics on the large number of whites across America denied education because of Affirmative Action? Why is it through the media we don't ever hear of the wide spread impact that institutional 'reverse' discrimination has on white America? Why aren't American businesses and corporations coming out against Affirmative Action by showing that all these incompetent minorities and women are bringing them down and making them lose profits? Why isn't the US military, one of the largest proponents of Affirmative Action in America speaking out against such a policy? Where is the proof that universities are admitting brainless people of color into their schools who are dumbing down the quality of education at such institutions?
If there was proof of such discrimination going on we'd see studies conducted and analytical reports issued by both government and private organizations trying to expose the suffering of whites. Instead we listen to a lot of empty rhetoric on 'reverse' discrimination (which is really insulting because it implies that it's natural to discriminate against women and people of color) . There are clearly more whites in this country with most of America's wealth concentrated in this population. Surely they can finance and produce such a study to back up their claims of this supposed rampant unfairness they are encountering. But they don't and they can't.
Why? Because there simply is no proof.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xAffirmative Action for Whites``x1054163061,63019,Development``x``x
``xCommencement Speech At Grinnell College
by Tim Wise, May 20, 2003, Znet
Thank you very much, to the administration, faculty, assembled guests and parents but mostly to the graduating seniors, who for some totally inexplicable reason have chosen me to give today's commencement address.
I am still convinced that there must have been some terrible, terrible mistake, perhaps some kind of vote fraud, as it is not everyday that radical activists are asked to speak at these kinds of things. Indeed, I barely made it to my own graduation, so you can imagine my surprise when I was asked to attend yours.
My first thought was, honestly, what kind of example can I possibly set for these students? I mean, I graduated thirteen years ago and have just finished paying off my student loans, like, last Wednesday or something, so I can't imagine that makes me much of a role model.
But anyway, having said all that, I will dispense with the self-deprecation, for the clock is ticking, and although you did not come here today to listen to me, I was apparently chosen to give this speech for a reason, and so I figure I'd best say something worthy of the occasion.
I mostly want to avoid saying something trite, something terribly cliché, something ordinary and pedestrian--like the kind of thing most folks say when asked to give a commencement speech. I want desperately not to say something like, "you are the future of this country," although indeed you are. And I want even more desperately not to say something about how you should, after leaving this place, "continue to learn and to search for truth," though indeed you should do both.
Because you see, trite and cliché are already far too prevalent in this culture. Meaningless platitudes are the order of the day it seems, from politicians, corporate leaders, media talking heads, you name it; and I want desperately not to be like that.
And even though meaningless platitudes often come wrapped in the best of intentions, they are rendered no less meaningless by the heartfelt decency of their authors: a truism that has become painfully obvious to me, especially in the past two years.
Ever since 9/11 in fact, trite and cliché have almost become virtues it seems, as millions of good and decent people have rushed to slap bumper stickers on their cars, which say things like "United We Stand."
United, really? Well excuse me if I'm not convinced.
You see, unity is not a state of being that can be secured by a simple act of proclamation; it does not flow like water just because one wishes it to be so. Unity is something to be created; the culmination of dedicated effort, and a condition that requires as a prerequisite something else, and that something else is justice. And not just for some, or most, but for all.
And justice in turn requires equity: true equity of opportunity and access, neither of which condition existed on 9/10 or 9/9, or 9/8 or at any time before 9/11, and neither of which condition miraculously emerged phoenix-like from the ashes on that day.
Let me suggest to you that so long as the poverty rates for people of color in this country are two to three times the rates for whites, that we are anything but united.
So long as 42 million people go without health care, and millions live just a layoff or major illness away from destitution, and even homelessness, we are anything but united.
So long as there are a million black children living in families with less than $7000 in annual income--a 50% increase in the number of such kids in extreme poverty in just the past three years--we are anything but united.
So long as there are, according to federal data, roughly 3 million cases of housing discrimination against people of color each year in this country, we are anything but united.
So long as my Arab and Muslim brothers and sisters are being profiled as likely terrorists, in ways that no white men were in the wake of Oklahoma City, we are anything but united.
So long as hundreds of thousands of women continue to face glass ceilings, and worse--sexual assault--in their homes, and even at the Air Force Academy, we are anything but united.
So long as my gay and lesbian brothers and sisters can be fired just because they are gay or lesbian, or arrested in their homes for consensual sexual activity, we are anything but united, and I should add, anything but free.
As we search in vain for those weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and fail to find them (even the $1.5 billion dollars worth of chemical and biological weapons that American corporations sold Saddam for all those years), let us remember that we have our own weapons of mass destruction, and I'm not talking about our bulging stockpiles of war material. Rather I refer to other kinds of weapons, weapons which kill and maim more Americans than Osama bin Laden ever has: they are weapons known as indifference, apathy, fatalism, and a sense of resignation to the way things are.
Because the fact is, none of the progress about which we as a nation like to boast came about as a result of folks being passive, or conforming, or because people accepted the system into which they were born.
And change certainly never comes about if people are too afraid to issue harsh critiques of their nation's flaws for fear that small-minded, scared little men with radio or TV talk shows or cabinet-level positions might call them unpatriotic.
Patriotism, if it is to have any value whatsoever, must mean the desire to set right the wrongs present within one's own nation; to demand justice and equity and to oppose anything and anyone that stands in the way of either.
Patriotism does not mean waving a flag, saying a pledge, chanting "USA, USA," at some jingoistic pep rally, and then ignoring everything the Constitution says your nation was supposed to be about. It does not mean nation-worship, and if it does, then God help us, patriotism has become little more than modern idolatry, and is a concept with which we can do without.
For those people of color, seeking to navigate the waters of a society still not fully committed to treating you as the equals you are, please know that you are the generation your ancestors prayed for, and you are capable of transforming this land. What's more, you are entitled to do so, seeing as how your parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents have no doubt paid for it many times over.
And for whites, wondering where we fit in this struggle for racial equity and justice, I say to you that we must learn to listen, to follow, to be allies in the truest sense of the word; to challenge this society even when, and especially when, it provides to us unearned privileges because of our skin color, our history, and the inertia propelled into the present-day by that history.
And not because of some misplaced liberal guilt, but because racism diminishes us as well, and steals a part of our humanity by separating us from our brothers and sisters of color.
Now I know this can be hard to hear. It is easier, I suspect, to content oneself with the clichéd notion of personal innocence--as in, "I didn't do it, I never owned slaves, I never killed an Indian, I never discriminated against anyone"--but truly, it is a little late in the proverbial day for that.
Because you see, we inherit the legacy of what has come before. History does not start, and stop, and then start again. There is no reset button that allows us to go back to a state of innocence long after that innocence has been delivered stillborn.
So although we may not be responsible for the creation of a system of racism, among other forms of injustice, we are responsible nonetheless for doing something about that system from this point forward. To do less is to collaborate with the original sin, to make us no better than those who set things up this way.
Perhaps a story can make the point here by way of analogy.
Shortly after I graduated from college, I made the decision to move into a large house with nine other roommates. Please note, and let me spare you the experience, this is never a good idea. But we thought at the time that it would be great. It would be really cheap and we would even share grocery expenses, and take turns cooking so as to share responsibility for the group.
And one night, about two weeks into our little experiment in collective living, one of my roommates made a big pot of Gumbo, because that's what you do in New Orleans.
And when I returned from work that night, he asked if I wanted some. I said no, having already eaten; but I asked him to please save some for me and to put it in the fridge for the next day, as I might take it to work with me; and then I went upstairs to my room, watched TV and went to bed.
The next morning, I come down for my coffee before heading out the door, and what do I see but that pot of Gumbo, half-full, still sitting on the front left burner of the stove. No portion of it had been saved for me, but more to the point, a great quantity of food had gone to waste. And I was upset. Having a little time on my hands, I thought to myself, perhaps I should clean up this mess.
But then I caught myself, and I thought, "Wait a minute; I didn't make this mess; this isn't my fault, and so I'm not cleaning it up." And I took my self-righteousness out the door and went to work.
About 6 o' clock, I returned home and noticed another roommate cooking the evening's dinner on the front right burner of the stove, but on the front left burner, there was still that pot of Gumbo, getting nastier, and crustier and funkier by the minute.
And I asked roommate number two what he was doing; why was he cooking around last night's dinner; why hadn't he cleaned up first?
To which he responded that he hadn't made that mess; that it wasn't his fault; and so he shouldn't have to clean it up--logic with which I could hardly argue, as indeed I had said the same thing just a few hours earlier. So I grabbed a plate of the night's meal, went to my room, did some work and went to bed.
7 a.m. came, and I had forgotten to set my alarm, but I really didn't need one; for I assure you that when Gumbo has been sitting on a stove for thirty-six hours, the smell will extend beyond the kitchen, will travel up the stairs, down the hall, under your door and through your keyhole, and assault--in a way I cannot describe--your nostrils; and indeed that is what happened.
And now I was mad. I bolted down the stairs, glared at the pot of Gumbo, as if somehow I expected it to return the stare. I saw it sitting there, now even nastier, and funkier, and there was not a roommate in sight.
And it was at that point that I said to myself, "I might not have made this mess, this may not be my fault, but I'm going to clean it up, simply because I'm tired of living in the funk."
And you see, it is the same with human societies. When we finally become tired of living in the funk, in the residue of injustice passed down to us from previous generations we will seek to clean it up, issues of blame and guilt aside.
Not to say that it will be easy of course. Cleaning up a pot of two-day Gumbo after all is a lot easier than transforming a culture.
People will tell you that you can't change the way things are; others will ridicule you for even trying, and often times your efforts will fail. They will, in fact, likely fail more often than they succeed. But that doesn't matter, because--and please never forget it--there is redemption in struggle.
Win or lose--and don't get me wrong, we indeed fight in the hopes of winning true justice--there is something to be said for confronting the inevitable choice one must make in this life, between collaborating with or resisting injustice, and choosing the latter.
There is something to be said for knowing you did all you could to stop a war, eliminate racism, or improve your community for the good of all. There is something to be said for a good night's sleep, and the ability to wake in the morning, look in the mirror, and never doubt that if today were your last, that you would have lived a life of integrity.
For although we never know when our efforts will succeed, or even if they will at all, we do know one thing as surely as we know that the sun will rise and set each day; we know what will happen if we DON'T do the work: nothing.
And given that choice, between the certainty of defeat and the promise of justice, in which territory lies the measure of our resolve and humanity, I will gladly and without reservation opt for hope. And I'm hoping you will too.
So as James Baldwin put it: "The world is before you, and you need not take it or leave it as it was when you came in."
Thank you.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xCleaning Up The Funk``x1054965247,62232,Development``x``x
``xSource: University Of California - Berkeley
160,000-year-old Fossilized Skulls From Ethiopia Are Oldest Modern Humans
Berkeley -- The fossilized skulls of two adults and one child discovered in the Afar region of eastern Ethiopia have been dated at 160,000 years, making them the oldest known fossils of modern humans, or Homo sapiens.
The skulls, dug up near a village called Herto, fill a major gap in the human fossil record, an era at the dawn of modern humans when the facial features and brain cases we recognize today as human first appeared.
The fossils date precisely from the time when biologists using genes to chart human evolution predicted that a genetic "Eve" lived somewhere in Africa and gave rise to all modern humans.
"We've lacked intermediate fossils between pre-humans and modern humans, between 100,000 and 300,000 years ago, and that's where the Herto fossils fit," said paleoanthropologist Tim White, professor of integrative biology at the University of California, Berkeley, and a co-leader of the team that excavated and analyzed the discovery site. "Now, the fossil record meshes with the molecular evidence."
"With these new crania," he added, "we can now see what our direct ancestors looked like."
"This set of fossils is stupendous," said team member F. Clark Howell, UC Berkeley professor emeritus of integrative biology and co-director with White of UC Berkeley's Laboratory for Human Evolutionary Studies. "This is a truly revolutionary scientific discovery."
Howell added that these anatomically modern humans pre-date most neanderthals, and therefore could not have descended from them, as some scientists have proposed.
The international team is led by White and his Ethiopian colleagues, Berhane Asfaw of the Rift Valley Research Service in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, and Giday WoldeGabriel of Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. The results of the find will be reported in two papers in the June 12 issue of the journal Nature.
The research team also unearthed skull pieces and teeth from seven other hominid individuals, hippopotamus bones bearing cut marks from stone tools, and more than 600 stone tools, including hand axes. All are from the same sediments and, thus, the same era.
"These were people using a sophisticated stone technology," White said. "Using chipped hand axes and other stone tools, they were butchering carcasses of large mammals like hippos and buffalo and undoubtedly knew how to exploit plants."
They lived long before most examples of another early hominid, the neanderthal, or Homo neanderthalensis, proving beyond a reasonable doubt, White said, that Homo sapiens did not descend from these short, stocky creatures. More like cousins, neanderthals split off from the human tree more than 300,000 years ago and died out about 30,000 years ago, perhaps driven to extinction by modern humans.
"These well-dated and anatomically diagnostic Herto fossils are unmistakably non-neanderthal," said Howell, a co-author of the Nature paper that details the hominids and an expert on early modern humans. "These fossils show that near-humans had evolved in Africa long before the European neanderthals disappeared. They thereby demonstrate conclusively that there was never a neanderthal stage in human evolution."
Because the Herto fossils represent a transition between more primitive hominids from Africa and modern humans, they provide strong support for the hypothesis that modern humans evolved in Africa and subsequently spread into Eurasia. This hypothesis goes against the theory that modern humans arose in many areas of Europe, Asia and Africa from other hominids who had migrated out of Africa at a much earlier time.
The fossil evidence, said Asfaw, "clearly shows what molecular anthropologists have been saying for a long time - that modern Homo sapiens evolved out of Africa. These fossilized skulls from Herto show that modern humans were living at around 160,000 years ago with full-fledged Homo sapiens features. The 'Out of Africa' hypothesis is now tested, ... (and) we can conclusively say that neanderthals had nothing to do with modern humans. They went extinct."
The fossil skulls
The three fossil skulls remain in Ethiopia, but replicas made from them were compared by the research team with many examples of neanderthal and earlier hominid skulls, as well as those of modern humans. Many of the modern human comparison skulls came from a worldwide sample of skeletal remains in the collection of UC Berkeley's Hearst Museum of Anthropology.
The most complete of the three new fossil skulls, probably that of a male, is slightly larger than the extremes seen in modern Homo sapiens, yet it bears other characteristics within the range of modern humans - in particular, less prominent brow ridges than pre-Homo sapiens and a higher cranial vault. Because of these similarities, the researchers placed the fossils in the same genus and species as modern humans but appended a subspecies name - Homo sapiens idaltu -to differentiate them from contemporary humans, Homo sapiens sapiens.
Idàltu, which means "elder" in the Afar language, refers to the adult male's antiquity and individual age. The man, though probably in his late 20s to mid-30s, had heavily worn upper teeth and a brain size slightly larger than average for living people.
Scientists tracking evolution through changes in mitochondrial DNA, which is passed from mother to daughter, have estimated that humans derive their mitochrondrial genes from an ancestral mother nicknamed "Eve" who lived in Africa about 150,000 years ago. Other scientists studying the male Y chromosome have reached similar conclusions. The new Herto fossils are from a population living at exactly this time.
"In a sense, these genetic findings were impossible to seriously test without a good fossil record from Africa," said White. "Back in 1982, when Becky Cann and Allan Wilson of UC Berkeley were using molecules to study evolution, they concluded that the common ancestors of all modern humans lived in Africa 100,000 to 200,000 years ago. For the last 20 years we've been looking for good, well-dated fossil evidence of that antiquity."
Previously found fossils were younger, from sites scattered around Africa, often poorly dated and incomplete. These include fossil skull fragments from Klasies River Mouth in South Africa, dating from about 100,000 years ago, and Middle Eastern fossils from Qafzeh and Skhul dating from 90,000 to 130,000 years ago. Ethiopia has yielded some modern human fossils, including those from Omo, which are approximately 100,000 years old, and the Aduma fossil finds of the Middle Awash, which date from about 80,000 years.
While these previous discoveries appear also to be Homo sapiens, the new finds from Herto are older, well-dated and more complete without sharing characteristics of more primitive human ancestors such as Homo erectus or the neanderthals.
Discovery
The fossil-rich site was discovered on Nov. 16, 1997, in a dry and dusty valley bordering the Middle Awash River near Herto, a seasonally occupied village. During a reconnaissance, White first spotted stone tools and the fossil skull of a butchered hippo emerging from the ground. When the team returned to intensively survey the area 11 days later, they discovered the most complete of the adult skulls protruding from the ancient sediment. It had been exposed by heavy rains and partially trampled by herds of cows.
A portion of the large adult's left front cranium (the braincase) had been crushed and scattered, but the team was able to excavate the rest of the skull, minus the lower jaw, and reconstruct it.
The child's skull, found nearby, was fragmented and scattered from having been exposed for many years. The team recovered most pieces of the cranium, more than 200 in all, from a 400 square-foot area, and Asfaw painstakingly pieced them together over a period of three years.
Based on the presence of unerupted teeth, the skull is that of a child of six or seven. Interestingly, this skull and a second adult's, too fragmentary to reconstruct, showed cut marks pointing to ancient mortuary practices, White said. The child's skull bore marks indicating that, after death, the muscles had been cut from the base of the skull. The rear of the cranial base was broken away and the edges polished, and the entire cranium was worn smooth as if by repeated handling. The second adult skull showed parallel scratches around the perimeter of the skull apparently made by a stone tool repeatedly drawn across the skull's surface in a pattern different from that created during defleshing, as for food. Even the nearly complete adult skull had a few cut marks.
The mortuary rituals of the Herto people differ from those of earlier hominids, some of whom cut flesh from skulls but apparently did not polish or decorate them with scratch marks. Modifications like those seen in the Herto skulls have been recorded by anthropologists from societies, including some in New Guinea, in which the skulls of ancestors are preserved and worshipped.
The Herto skulls were not found with other bones from the rest of the bodies, which is unusual, White said, leading the researchers to infer that the people "were moving the heads around on the landscape. They probably cut the muscles and broke the skull bases of some skulls to extract the brain, but why, whether as part of a cannibalistic ritual, we have no way of knowing."
The team also recovered more than 640 stone artifacts, though they estimate that the entire Herto area contains millions of such artifacts: hand axes, flake tools, cores, flakes and rare blades. Renowned African prehistorian J. Desmond Clark of UC Berkeley analyzed many of them before his death in February of last year. Clark and colleagues Dr. Yonas Beyene of Ethiopia's Authority for Research and Conservation of the Cultural Heritages and Dr. Alban Defleur of Marseilles, France, concluded that the stone tools were transitional between the Acheulean period, characterized by a predominance of hand axes, and the later flake-dominated Middle Stone Age.
"The associated fossil bones show clearly that the Herto people had a taste for hippos, but we can't tell whether they were killing them or scavenging them," said Beyene. "These artifacts are clues about the ancestors who made them."
Ancient lake shore
The early humans at Herto lived along the shores of a shallow lake created when the Awash River temporarily dammed about 260,000 years ago. The lake contained abundant hippos, crocodiles and catfish, while buffalo roamed the land.
The sediments and volcanic rock in which the fossils were found were dated at between 160,000 and 154,000 years by a combination of two methods. The argon/argon method was used by colleagues in the Berkeley Geochronology Center, led by Paul R. Renne, a UC Berkeley adjunct associate professor of geology. WoldeGabriel of Los Alamos National Laboratory and Bill Hart of Miami University in Ohio used the chemistry of the volcanic layers to correlate the dated layers.
The Middle Awash team consists of more than 45 scientists from 14 different countries who specialize in geology, archaeology and paleontology. In this single study area, the team has found fossils dating from the present to more than 6 million years ago, painting a clear picture of human evolution from ape-like ancestors to present-day humans.
"The human fossils from Herto are near the top of a well-calibrated succession of African fossils," White said. "This is clear fossil evidence that our species arose through evolution."
The work was funded by the National Science Foundation and the Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics at Los Alamos National Laboratory, in combination with the Hampton Fund for International Initiatives of Miami University and the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science.
The original news release can be found here.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xOldest 'modern' human skulls found in Africa``x1055348965,50049,Development``x``x
``xby Habeeb Salloum,
habeeb.salloum@sympatico.ca
I was content as we made our way from the Dominican Republic's Boca Chica Beach to Santo Domingo. The air-conditioned bus was comfortable and the conversation with a descendant of the Incas sitting next to me was pleasant. Just before we entered the country's capital, I asked my newly found friend, "They say a new monument is being built to house Columbus's remains. Do you know where it is located?"
I was somewhat taken aback when my Peruvian bus companion blurted out, "What do you want with his tomb? Columbus was a murderer who set the stage for enslaving the Americas!" His eyes blazed. "The world has made a hero out of a gold-seeking monster. I hope that he is burning in the hottest furnace of hell."
Yet, I should not have been too surprised by his outburst. A number of writers who, instead of painting him a saintly figure, vehemently dispute the greatness of this hero, who many consider, the most famous sailor the world has ever known.
Loved or hated, there is no denying that this discoverer of the Americas changed forever the history of mankind. His life, thoughts, works and movements, even in death - Cuba, the Dominican Republic and Spain all claim his tomb - have been studied and volumes have been written, mostly glorifying his deeds.
Only in the last few decades have a number of historians disputed the actions of this adventurer who sailed half way around an unknown world, seeking to enrich both himself and the treasury of Spain and, in the process, convert the infidels.
When Columbus arrived in the Monastery of La Rabída, edging Huelva on Spain's Atlantic coast, was he thinking of finding a new route to Asia for trade or did he have other plans in his mind? His apologists are firmly convinced that he was a visionary and man of courage who wanted to find a new route to the East for the enrichment of mankind.
However, the portrayal of this soldier of fortune as a humanist does not stand up to historic facts. It is more accurate to describe him as a mercenary-merchant and a fanatical crusader whose main aim was the gathering of wealth, the propagation of the Christian faith and setting the stage for Spain to take control of the legendary wealth of Asia.
Columbus had a burning twofold passion: the winning of gold and the winning of souls. When he set about trying to sell his idea of a western route to Asia, the long Christian Muslim wars in the Iberian Peninsula were coming to an end with the triumph of Christianity. Religious fervour in that country was at its peak and a great number of the victorious men of Christ were looking for new worlds to conquer.
Like many other Christians in that age, his intention was to begin a new crusade against Islam across the seas and to conquer infidel nations for Christ. J.P. de Oliveira Martins in his book A History of Iberian Civilization points out that to Columbus, discovery was only a means to an end. The conquest of Jerusalem was his true goal. His ambition was to obtain enough money to equip an army of ten thousand horse and a hundred thousand infantry for the conquest of that holy city.
At the same time, the lust for the possession of gold held a central place in his thinking. In spite of the fact that he could, at times, persuade himself that wealth was the means by which hearts could be won for Christ, as it turned out, the acquisition of gold triumphed over the winning of souls.
After his plans to sail west to Asia in search of silks and spices had been rejected by King John II of Portugal - the leading seafaring nation of that era - Columbus arrived penniless at La Rabída in 1485. Here his fortune began to change. The Franciscan friars recognized the feasibility of his vision and became advocates for his cause.
Fray Antonio de Marchena, an astronomer with a lively interest in navigation, and Fray Juan Pérez, who had been Queen Isabella's confessor, became the greatest source of encouragement in the difficult years to come. Believing in his theory that the world was round - an idea that had been circulating for centuries - they interceded with the Catholic Kings, Fredinand and Isabella, and their nobles on his behalf.
Columbus spent six years making trips to see Isabella and studying in La Rabída, all the time, improving on plans for his great dream. During this period he conferred with the monks and the local ship-building Pinzón brothers - two were later to command ships in the Voyage of Discovery.
At first, his ideas were rejected by the Catholic Kings and their advisors, but the friars worked on to further his quest. Eventually, after six years of badgering and bargaining, their efforts bore fruit and the Queen gave the go-ahead for the expedition.
Ferdinand and Isabella's main purpose in outfitting his ships was to extend Christian salvation to pagans and savages beyond the seas - a part of their plans for carrying on the holy war against Islam. The spirit which had driven them and their viceroys to support the expedition was the same as that which maintained the crusades against the Moors in Spain - war against the infidel.
They also believed that the project would bring riches to their treasury which had been emptied after their long wars with the Muslims in the Iberian Peninsula. Controlling the wealth of the East had, perhaps, as much appeal as conquering heathen lands.
Columbus set sail on the 3rd day of August 1492 from the small town of Palos de la Frontera, 5 km (3 MI) from La Rabída. The wealthy Pinzón brothers, Martín and Vincente, who were born there, helped him find the needed sailors. They were mostly from the town itself and the neighbouring villages. Many were jail inmates who were promised freedom if they joined the expedition.
What were that adventurer's thoughts when his three caravels, Pinta, Niña and Santa María set sail into the unknown? No one can say for sure. Perhaps, at this time, his pretext for saving souls vanished, to be replaced by the gold fever which seems to have inflicted him after his landing in the New World.
This changeover can be seen even before the Spaniards set foot in the Americas. The Catholic Kings had promised the first man to glimpse land a pension for life. The first sailor to sight shore was Rodrigo Bermanjo.
However, when the expedition returned to Spain, Columbus ignored Rodrigo's claim and had the crown pay the money to his mistress, Beatriz de Havana. Rodrigo was so bitter that he emigrated to North Africa and became a Muslim.
After landing in the New World, Columbus found that most of the people were of gentle and peaceful disposition. They welcomed the strangers with an open heart and showered them with gifts. But this did not win over the crusading Spaniards. They believed that God had destined the infidels, even if they accepted Christianity, as slaves for the Europeans. It seems that slavery went naturally with conversion.
In 1495, Columbus shipped some 500 of these unfortunate natives back to Spain as gifts to the Catholic Kings. Their pitiful state softened the monarchs' hearts and in a rare show of magnanimity they set them free.
In the ensuing years, the discovery of the New World unleashed a host of gold hungry navigators and explorers. The Indians were given to these Conquistadors by the Spanish crown as human cattle. They were forced to work the land and the mines, dying in the thousands from the heavy labour and white man diseases. In this historical tragedy, the cruelty of the so-called civilized men put that of barbarians to shame.
Columbus made four voyages of discovery to the Western Hemisphere, but he did not find the treasures and rewards he sought. In the West Indies of today, and the coasts of Nicaragua and Honduras, which he briefly touched on during his final journey between 1502-4, he searched in vain for the wealth of the East.
However, his voyages launched Spain into an era of conquest and the country was able to create an empire in the Western Hemisphere beyond that adventurer's wildest hopes. His discovery opened the path for the Conquistadors (soldiers of fortune) who within 50 years conquered most of the land from the mid U.S.A. to the southern tip of Argentina.
Spain was rapidly able to subdue, Christianize, Europeanize and administer the New World because of its past history. In the previous eight centuries the country's society had been formed for the purpose of Christianizing and Europeanizing the Muslims in the Iberian Peninsula. There is no doubt that the achievement of the Conquistadors was only the continuation of the peninsula crusades.
The people who suffered most from these conquests, which for a hundred years made Spain the leading nation in the world, were the Indians of the Americas. A brief history of what happened to the natives of Hispaniola (today's Dominican Republic and Haiti) and Cuba will give one an idea of the cruelty and savagery on which the Spanish empire in the New World was built.
When Columbus landed on the Island of Hispaniola, he found a peaceful people, who fought only when attacked, usually by the Caribs - a fierce cannibalistic tribe inhabiting the neighbouring islands. The friendly Taníos, also known as Arawaks, who had a fairly advanced culture, welcomed him and his men, offering them food and gifts.
However, their hospitality was in vain. The Conquistadors, eager to find gold and silver, slaughtered thousands of them in imposed wars and enslaved the remainder. They put the slaves to work in mines and dealt with them in a ruthless fashion. Due to this cruel treatment the whole population died off rapidly from exhaustion, disease and starvation.
By 1548 the Indians, estimated from 300 thousand to one million when Columbus arrived in 1492, had been virtually wiped out. The Spanish lust for gold and silver had erased the gentle olive-skinned Taníos of Hispaniola from the face of the earth. The race which had witnessed Columbus's first landing in the New World has not left a single descendent.
In Cuba, it was a replay of the same story. When in 1492 Columbus landed on the north eastern shore of Cuba, the amicable Taínos hosted the Spaniards with a feast of the best meat and tropical fruit found on the island. However, Columbus who is reported to have said when he stepped ashore, ‘this is the most beautiful land ever seen’ was not coming in search of scenery or hospitality. His goal was conquest and gold. The Indians who had greeted him and his crew with food, drink and something new - tobacco - were soon to learn that the Spaniards were without scruples.
In the ensuing decades, the savagery of the Conquistadors in Hispaniola was repeated again and again. Hatuey, an Indian chieftain, who, with few of his men, had escaped after fighting the Spaniards in Hispaniola, warned the Taínos of the evil Europeans who worshipped a very cruel and jealous God. He told them that these invaders would reduce them to a miserable state of slavery or else put them to death. He wanted them to join him in fighting the aggressors.
However, his call fell on deaf ears. With a handful of men he fought for several months a guerrilla war around a place called Baracoa. After being captured, he was burned at the stake and his followers rounded up and killed.
The Conquistadors then proceeded westward slaughtering the Indians who offered any opposition. The remainder were forced into slavery and made to work in the mines where most perished. A number of tribes, rather than be enslaved, committed mass suicide. Others rebelled again and again.
The last leader of these suicidal rebels was a chief named Guamá. He fought the Spaniards in the mountains of eastern Cuba from 1522 to 1533. His defeat ended the last major Indian resistance. In less than 40 years, disease, war and the mines had virtually exterminated Cuba’s indigenous population of some 300,000. This eradication of a whole people was repeated again and again on almost every Caribbean isle.
Columbus himself, by the time he died in 1506, was a disappointed man. His enemies in court had turned the Catholic Kings against him and total disillusion enveloped his closing years. It is said that his death in poverty was a measure of his failure to give Spain the promised riches of the East.
In the years to come, the Spanish soldiers of fortune would rob the Aztecs of Mexico and Incas of Peru of their massive treasures, but Columbus died without knowing of this unheard of wealth. His renowned enterprise of discovery gave these riches to others and his dreams were to be fulfilled by brutal men.
His ruthless conversion and exploitation of the natives did not bring him the gold and silver he had promised the Monarchs of Spain. Today, he is only remembered by most aboriginals of the world for the inhumane way with which he treated the Indians of the Western Hemisphere.
In Columbus's handling of the original inhabitants of the Americas, a few years ago, Russell Means of the American Indian Movement, is reputed to have said, "Columbus makes Hitler look like a juvenile delinquent." In the same vein, Manuel Gomes da Silva, one of the leaders of the Brazilian Indians when discussing the Columbus celebrations held in the 1990s is quoted as saying, "How can they celebrate 500 years of death and violence?"
Yet, even though Columbus's treatment of the Indians was barbaric and he failed to deliver the fabled wealth to his benefactors one cannot deny his imprint on mankind. He alone in the medieval world had the vision and will which changed history forever. Many believe that his initiating of the evils, perpetrated on Americas's original inhabitants during the past half-millennium, are only slight pains in the evolution of the world. Of course, no one has asked the aboriginals of the Americas their opinion.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xThe Other Columbus``x1056293660,3549,Development``x``x
``xby Salim Muwakkil, In These Times
I'm not sure if many Americans have noticed, but the concept of race has taken some devastating hits in recent years. Everywhere one looks in academia these days-from the abstract precincts of critical theory to the hard laboratories of molecular genetics-once-mighty notions of racial taxonomy have fallen hard.
The latest assault on race was a three-part PBS series, Race: The Power of an Illusion. Produced by California Newsreel, the series covers a wide range of race-related issues. But the program's title is its major point: Racial differences are illusory.
For many Americans, this is pretty radical stuff. Well before the republic was founded, the belief in racial hierarchy was deeply embedded in our national culture, and there it endures. A person's economic and social well-being remains closely correlated to racial identity.
Notwithstanding those socio-economic distinctions, the idea of racial difference seems obvious; people with a certain skin color and hair texture also tend to have common behavioral traits. However, science is revealing that those observable, "natural" differences are social constructions rather than biological facts.
"The Difference Between Us," the first episode of Race, explains that humanity emerged in Africa about 150,000 to 200,000 years ago and began migrating out about 70,000 years ago. As humans spread across the planet, populations intermingled, creating a variety of genetic interrelationships. These are not always what one might expect: Some Europeans have more genes in common with Nigerians than do Nigerians with Ethiopians, and so on. Most variation is within, not between, "races."
The first segment also notes that many of our "phenotypic" characteristics, like skin color, evolved recently, after we left Africa. But traits like intelligence, musical ability, and physical aptitude are of a more ancient genetic vintage and thus are common to all populations.
As if on cue, a recent archeological find provided corroborating fossil evidence for this genetic view of human history. The June 12 issue of Nature revealed that scientists working in northeast Ethiopia found the 160,000-year-old remains of two adults and a child that are said to be the earliest human remains ever discovered. According to Tim White, the University of California paleoanthropologist who led the team, "this discovery means our roots are African."
According to the New York Times, the theory of an African genesis of humanity had gained wide support in the last two decades thanks to the research findings of the growing science of molecular genetics. These genetic studies, based on evolutionary changes in mitochondrial DNA, which is passed from mother to daughter, have concluded that humanity had a common ancestor in Africa-the so-called "African Eve."
Before the advent of high-tech genetics, the reigning doctrines of white supremacy discouraged any consideration of an African genesis of humanity. And despite increasing archaeological evidence, many anthropologists resisted tracing humanity's origins to the so-called Dark Continent.
The more radical white supremacists postulated that there was a "multiregional evolution," in which Europeans evolved from another branch of hominids altogether-the hearty Neanderthals. However, genetic studies have revealed no Neanderthal DNA in modern humans.
A preponderance of genetic evidence reveals the ironic fact that the same Europeans who created the idea of race and white supremacy are genetic progeny of the Africans they devalued. With this view of history, it's clear that the concept of race is an insidious fiction created primarily to justify exploitation, slavery, and imperial conquest.
Race's second episode, "The Story We Tell," explores this sordid history, tracing the origins of the racial idea to the European conquest of the New World and to the American slave system. We see how the logic of racial hierarchy, which placed Africans on the lowest rung of humanity, allowed self-professed Christians to justify the institution of racial slavery.
New York University historian Robin D.G. Kelley points out that the Enlightenment idea of freedom led to the ideology of white supremacy: "The problem that they had to figure out is how can we promote liberty, freedom, democracy on the one hand, and a system of slavery and exploitation of people who are non-white on the other?" They did it by dehumanizing enslaved Africans.
The episode notes that by the mid-19th century, the idea of racial hierarchy and its corollary, white supremacy, had become conventional wisdom. "The idea found fruition in racial science, Manifest Destiny, and our imperial adventures abroad," reads the PBS Web site for the episode.
The final episode, "The House We Live In," focuses on the ways U.S. institutions and policies advantage some groups at the expense of others. It outlines the historical trajectory of racial disadvantage and shows how it remains easily discernable in the wealth gap and disparities in other social indices. The segment also examines the "unmarked" race of white people. Here the documentary slides in some of the insights developed by the nascent "Whiteness" movement, which defines the very idea of white identity as an ideology of racial domination.
Race: The Power of an Illusion concludes that racial inequality will remain a feature of this nation's social structures until we seriously address the legacy of past discrimination and confront the historical meaning of race.
The producers hope their series will blow some fresh air through a stagnant social debate and stir some new interest. I hope they're right, but I doubt it.
Salim Muwakkil is a senior editor of In These Times, where he has worked since 1983, and a weekly op-ed columnist for the Chicago Tribune. He is currently a Crime and Communities Media Fellow of the Open Society Institute, examining the impact of ex-inmates and gang leaders in leadership positions in the black community.
Reproduced from:
http://inthesetimes.com/comments.php?id=251_0_3_0_C``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xThe End of Race?``x1056395913,30062,Development``x``x
``xby George Alleyne, Newsday/TT
The Emancipation Support Committee and other like groups should urge on the University of the West Indies the need for it to conduct research into the history of Africa, its level of industrial growth, including manufacturing industries such as cotton manufacture, garment manufacture, food processing, its mining industries including the smelting of iron ore, and its trading before the colonisers came.
The young people in the Caribbean of African descent must be rescued from the bondage of mind conditioning, induced by the deliberate falsifying of African history by Europeans, who because of their superior military power, including the possession and use of gunpowder, were able to seize large parts of Africa and control the continent's raw materials and trade.
The Emancipation Support Committee should insist that African History should be taught, not simply at the level of Form Four or thereabouts in secondary school, but from the Forms One, as well as, initially, at the primary school level.
The Europeans - Portuguese, Spaniards, British, French, Dutch, Germans and what have you - would enslave large areas and millions of people of Africa. Having done this they sought to justify slavery with utterly absurd conclusions of racial superiority. C. A. Bayley would state in a review published in the Times Literary Supplement of August 8, 1997 "What Language Hath Joined", that a French anthropologist, Paul Topinard, had in the 1880s, categorised human noses "from the heroically straight European Aryan nose, through the weak and stunted East Indian nose, to the scarcely human 'Negro' snub nose".
Bayley went further and told the story of an English Census official in India, H. H. Risley, working with the Indian Civil Service, who had sent out census enumerators through every part of India, measuring Brahmin noses, Rajput skulls, along with the length of arms of tribal folk, to create what he [Risley]believed was a racialist ladder of human evolution.
James Anthony Froude, an exceptional 19th century British Imperialist, offered clearly laughable 'craniological' measurements as 'proof' that blacks were inferior to whites. "The history of this aberration - racism justified by the empirical objectivity of occidental science - is well known", Richard Waswo would state in his "The Founding Legend of Western Civilisation", published in 1997 [Page 229].
It is instructive that the African, who is dismissed by the European as unproductive in an effort to justify his continuing exploitation, produced substantial surpluses for trade, including maize, beans, sesame seeds and rice. So great were the exports of rice from Tanganyika to Zanzibar that the Rufigi river valley was referred to as Calcutta Mdogo or "Little Calcutta".[Helge Kjekshus: Ecology Control and Economic Development in East African History: The Case of Tanganyika 1850-1950 - Page 32].
The Mahenge tribe, further down the Rufiji, and members of the same tribe, this time along the Ulanga/Kilombero river, in 1900 produced surpluses, Kjekshus pointed out, amounting to almost 4,000,000 kilograms. Again, the same writer would stress that thousands of tons of foodstuffs, iron, salt, tobacco and grain were routed through the [indigenous] trading networks of East Africa.
Cotton weaving is estimated to have been around East Africa from between the 10th and the 14th centuries, brought by the Persians, and stone spindles, which were excavated at Kilwa, have been dated to the age between the 10th and 16th centuries, and demonstrated "great development in the manufacture of cloth, probably cotton". [N. Chittick. "Kilwa: A Preliminary Report"]. Cotton weaving had been of tremendous importance to the indigenous economies in many parts of East Africa. Indeed, in the 1850s, it was said to be the only important handicraft in Zanzibar, Kjekshus wrote in Page 10 of his book, from which I quoted earlier.
About the same time as the initial European contacts with West Africa, Africans, even by the standards of the late 1990s, were relatively advanced in agricultural productivity,
But it was much more than that. Jack P. Greene, in a feature article, "The Englishing of America", in the Times Literary Supplement of December 12, 1997 [Page 12], would cite John Thornton: "Africans had well developed mining and metal-working, sufficient trade and waterborne transport to sustain a class of professional merchants and to permit considerable agricultural specialisation, and a significant manufacturing sector that supplied tools and clothing needs...."
The producers and/or traders of West Africa, much as those in East Africa, had a tendency toward long distance, as well as specialised trade. A. G. Hopkins in his benchmark "An Economic History of West Africa" [Pages 58-59], quoted by the late Trinidad and Tobago Economist, Max B. Ifill, in his 1986 "The African Diaspora" [Page 71], would have a great deal to say on this: "....the pastoralists of the Sahara-savanna border traded livestock, dairy produce and salt with the cultivators of the savanna in return for millet and cloth. In turn the savanna region traded livestock, salt, dried fish, potato and cloth with the peoples of the forest, from whom they received....kola nuts, ivory, ironware and cloth. Finally, producers in the forest sold various foodstuffs and manufactures to coastal settlements in exchange for fish and sea salt."
In the early days of their trade with West Africa, Europeans were content to purchase cloth throughout the coastal areas for resale. John Thornton, in his book "Africa and Africans in the Making of the Atlantic World: 1400-1800", published in 1992, pointed out that Mauretania, Senegambia, Ivory Coast, Benin, Yorubaland and what have you exported cloth to other areas of Africa through European middlemen, and that Congo [formerly Zaire] has been described as "among the major textile-producing centres of the world".
European greed would surface. The Portuguese intervened, militarily, in West African trade along the Upper Guinea coast, as early as the 15th century, and as the late Guyanese Socialist, Walter Rodney, wrote in his classic, "How Europe Underdeveloped Africa" [Page 121], the Portuguese interfered in the transfers of indigo dye from one African community to another. They commandeered the trade in salt throughout the coast of Angola, in cowries in the Congo, and that of high quality palm oil between northern and southern Angola.
The Portuguese forcibly interrupted the flourishing canoe trade in textiles between the Ivory Coast [then Cape Lahou] and Ghana [the Gold Coast], by constructing a fort at Axim. [Rodney: How Europe Underdeveloped Africa]. When the Dutch seized Axim in 1637, they found the coastal trade still thriving. They attempted, without success, to end the canoe trade, but were well enough armed to force the traders to carry Dutch goods, and for the people of the Ivory Coast to purchase a determined amount of Dutch goods. Rodney would state: "Partly by establishing a stranglehold on the distribution of cloth around the shores of Africa, and partly by swamping African products by importing in bulk, European traders succeeded in putting an end to the expansion of cloth manufacture."
I ask the reader to forgive me for quoting Walter Rodney once again, when he stressed that by the time Africa entered the age of colonisation [by the Europeans], West Africa had been 'persuaded' to shift to the export of raw cotton cloth and the import of manufactured cotton cloth. It has been established through radiocarbon readings [see J. H. H. Speke's "What led to the Discovery of the Source of the Nile"] that East Africa had been producing iron since 500 B.C. The iron produced in Usangi, in Central Tanganyika, for example, was said to have been "as famed as Swedish steel", and there was a thriving trade. Kjekshus cites a German officer as stating that 150,000 market hoes were sold annually in a market town in East Africa.
But by early in the last century foreign imports, imposed on East African nations by their colonial masters, began to hobble the iron-smelting industry there, and several blacksmiths, with the drop in business, abandoned their craft to become porters etc. [G. Lechaptois in Aux Rives du Tanganyika].
Alvin Toffler, quoted in his book "The Third Wave", published in 1981 by Bantam, New York, the following: "The commercial policy applied by all the colonising countries was to open as much as possible the markets of their colonies to metropolitan products....even in the case of independent countries commercial treaties were concluded by agreements or by force."
Having subjugated large parts of Africa, crippled African industries by denying the colonies concerned the right to impose protective tariff barriers against cheaply produced European goods; enslaved the people because of superior fire power and the cynical application of a divide and rule policy, Europeans would parrot obscene phrases about so-called African inferiority.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xAFRICA: THE TRUTH!``x1056550527,73033,Development``x``x
``xby Koigi Wamwere, www.bbjonline.com/
Today, Europeans own almost all the land in the Americas, almost all the good land in Australia, New Zealand, and Tasmania, and most of the best land in many African countries like South Africa, Zimbabwe, and Kenya. To acquire this land outside Europe, Europeans did not use law, justice or money.
They took it with the gun.
But the West does not want Africans to mention either this fact, or the fact that white people are wrong in wanting to own all the land and everything else in Africa.
And the West is the champion of free speech in the world!
When Africans in Kenya, South Africa, Zimbabwe and elsewhere fought for their independence, it meant two things to them - land and freedom. But when Europe conceded independence to African countries it was self-rule without land and freedom.
And so most Africans continue to be landless while Europeans continue to own millions and millions of hectares of the best land in Africa.
In Kenya, 10 percent of the population, both black and white farmers, owns 73 percent of all arable land. In South Africa, 16 percent of the population, made up of whites, owns 87 percent of all arable land. And in Zimbabwe, 4,500 white farmers - or a mere .03 percent of a population of 13 million Africans - own 12 million hectares or 73 percent of all arable land.
The African majority in South Africa, Zimbabwe and Kenya live under this situation not because they like it or because it is right, moral, fair or just, but only because they are powerless to change it.
There can be no greater proof of lack of independence for, say, Zimbabwe, than this situation where a mere .03 percent is allowed to own 73 percent of all arable land, totally control the nation's agriculture, and own half the country's economy.
Mugabe is a great freedom fighter who fought for the independence of his country but at the behest of the West turned his back on socialism and stayed too long in power. At last, Mugabe has realised that he too is a victim of neo-colonialism and has decided not just to say "no" to the West but to redistribute land in his own country.
Whatever Mugabe's past mistakes, we must agree that on this one question of finally redistributing African land to African people, he is 100 percent right. Mugabe's only fault is that he took too long to do it.
But now that he is finally doing it, all people who believe in fairness and justice must support him.
From what one hears from CNN, BBC and other Western news media, the West stands as one against Mugabe. They accuse him of violating the spirit of reconciliation, and perpetrating racism against white people in Zimbabwe.
Rather than prove anything against Mugabe, the West's accusations only prove how little it thinks of Africans' right to own anything or have meaningful independence.
Could one even imagine a situation in which 4,500 Zimbabwean Africans were allowed to own 12 million hectares of land in Britain, France or any other country in Europe?
The West also accuses Mugabe of violating the spirit of reconciliation between white colonisers and black colonised that was agreed upon at the time of independence. But did this reconciliation mean that colonisers would continue to own everything they had grabbed before independence, and that the Africans who had been robbed of everything would continue to own nothing?
Finally, the very West that is restoring all the money, properties and works of art that it stole from the Jewish people and paying reparations for all the slave labour Jewish people did during the Second World War, is asking that colonial white farmers be paid compensation by Africans.
The British government admits that at the time of independence it made a promise which it never kept, to provide the money necessary to buy out the white farmers. Now it claims that the reason for its failure to keep its own promise is Mugabe's mismanagement of Zimbabwean economy. But the real reason is the British desire that the Zimbabwean and African economies be controlled by British companies and British citizens. What then must Africans do? Starve to death until the British agree to keep their promises?
I am truly surprised at the clamour that I hear for British farmers to be compensated for any loss of land in Zimbabwe. Between Africans who have been working for starvation wages on white farms and white farmers who have made millions of pounds out of their colonial ownership of land in Zimbabwe, it is the white farmers who should compensate Africans.
Africans are entitled to recover their stolen lands from white farmers. And the West has a moral duty to pay not just compensation to white farmers who will lose land, but to pay reparations to Africans now for all the millions of people they killed and kidnapped from Africa during the slave trade. What is good for the Jewish goose is good for the African gander.
Rule of law must mean rule of just law. Sooner or later, colonial wrongs must be corrected all over Africa. And they will not be corrected by substituting white robbers with black robbers. Colonial injustice will be corrected by giving land and freedom not only to Africans in power and government, but to all the people to whom God gave land.
Whether leaders like Moi like it or not, today it is Zimbabwe, tomorrow it will be Kenya, the day after it will be South Africa, and after that it will be the entire continent. The river of freedom and justice is unstoppable.
If white and black people of Africa are to live peacefully in future, the West must stop imposing white people as saviours of black people using arguments that in effect paint white citizens of Africa as either more able technically or less corrupt morally.
Going by the opposition from the West, Mugabe may not survive this war against neo-colonialism. But he is right, and he is bearing the standard for all Africans. Should he fall, other Africans must take up the mantle and fight on to victory.
Wamwere, a Kenyan political activist and former presidential candidate, now lives in Norway. He wrote this essay in April 2000 and it first appeared in The East African newspaper.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xMugabe is Right, Whites Must Give Up the Land! ``x1056604155,15988,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xRace and Destruction in Black and White
By TIM WISE
I don't know why these things amaze me, but for some reason they always do.
Before the ashes were even cool from the recent riots in Benton Harbor, Michigan, much of white America had decided that it knew what was behind all the mayhem; at least if the white folks who call into talk radio are at all representative.
It wasn't the reason stated by the residents who had engaged in the destruction, of course: namely, a history of police racism, brutality and misconduct, which they saw symbolized most recently by a high-speed police chase from a neighboring township ending in the death of a black motorcyclist.
Of course not. That explanation, though not necessarily justifying mass violence, would still constitute a reason; and having a reason would mean that the rioters were something other than merely insane; and insane is how much of white America prefers to see our black and brown brothers and sisters.
To whites who were calling talk radio in the days following the riots, the violent actions by certain members of the Benton Harbor black community were indicative of cultural depravity, even a biological predisposition to violence: arguments that are never made when whites on college campuses riot, as they have done some three dozen times in the past several years.
In truth, the idea that blacks are more prone to violence and destruction than those of us who are white is so utterly incomprehensible as to boggle the imagination. After all, the people who incessantly wonder why blacks occasionally riot and wreak havoc in their own communities never ask why whites are so quick to wreak havoc in the communities of others.
Indeed, the history of white violence done to non-whites, to say nothing of white violence done to each other--think 1066, think the Holocaust, think Stalin's purges--makes one wonder how anyone could believe persons of European descent were especially peaceful.
It wasn't black people who destroyed one Indian village after another throughout this continent and wiped nearly 100 million people off the face of the planet in the process.
Black folks didn't lynch themselves, or cut off their own ears for souvenirs after burning their own bodies, or hanging themselves from tree limbs.
It wasn't black people who launched a war with Mexico in the name of Manifest Destiny, or conquered Hawaii, or laid siege to the Philippines at the turn of the last century, or planned, authorized, and carried out the terror bombings of Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, knowing full well that the victims in each case would invariably be innocent civilians. It wasn't black people who created napalm, and then decided to drop it on Southeast Asians.
It wasn't black people who drew up the war plans to bomb Baghdad's electrical grid in the first Gulf War, thereby rendering water treatment facilities inoperable, even though it was acknowledged that doing so would result in widespread disease and death.
And with the exceptions of Colin Powell and Condi Rice--two black people who have long felt more at home in the presence of white elites than anyone who might actually look like them--it wasn't black folks who lied about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction so as to launch another war on that nation, killing several thousand civilians and destroying what economic infrastructure remained after a decade of sanctions.
For that matter, even violence in American cities has been the work of whites far more than blacks. Oh sure, we may not think of it as violence, but the effects of white elite actions vis-A -vis our cities has been every bit as destructive as anything thought up by the residents of Watts, Miami, Cincinnati or Detroit, to say nothing of smaller towns like Benton Harbor.
When white political and corporate elites launched "urban renewa" in the 1960's, the destruction wrought upon black peoples was immense. Hundreds of thousands of homes, representing one-fifth of all black housing in the U.S., were destroyed to make way for office buildings, shopping centers and parking lots. Afterward, only one-tenth of the property destroyed was replaced, so displaced families had to rely on crowded apartments, living with relatives, or run-down public housing projects. Interstates were built through the heart of black communities in city after city, impacting not only housing but economic vitality as well, and leaving a congested, loud, disorganized space in their wake.
It is doubtful that the combined amount of property destroyed by blacks in urban riots comes anywhere near the amount of property destroyed by urban renewal, for the benefit of whites.
When white-run banks redlined black communities, refusing to loan money to any businesses or individuals within the borders of those communities, no matter their individual credit worthiness, the effect was as destructive to neighborhood well-being as any riot.
When banks continue to refuse loans in such places, only to turn around and grant the very same loans through their subsidiaries known as sub-prime lenders, and in the process charge 3-5 times higher interest than would be allowed through the bank itself, the effect on black people is economic violence.
When two-thirds of black children in extreme poverty test positive for elevated levels of lead in their blood, thanks to exposure from lead paint in old, dilapidated buildings built by white folks, this is an act of violence.
In fact, white institutions have intentionally exposed black children to lead paint, as with recent revelations that Baltimore's Kennedy Krieger Institute, with the approval of officials from Johns Hopkins University, essentially used black families as guinea pigs for a study on lead abatement in the 1990's. The study, condemned by a Maryland Appeals Court judge, placed poor families of color in housing with varying levels of lead, without telling them the dangers of such exposure. Researchers used incentives like T-shirts, food stamps and payments of $5 each to encourage families to move into contaminated housing, and then after periodic testing of lead levels in the children's blood, withheld information on the extent of their poisoning until it was too late to prevent serious health effects.
Indeed, if riots result in the burning of lead-infested buildings, or the places where such truly evil studies are concocted, we might more properly view such actions as the ultimate act of intra-racial charity, truth be told.
And it's not only in the inner-city where white violence destroys the lives of people of color. When the government in concert with white-owned businesses strip mines uranium on Native American soil, thereby helping to inflate the cancer rate among Navajo exposed to radiation by 1600 percent above the national average, the result is death and destruction as severe as any low-level retail violence by the oppressed themselves.
When white doctors routinely underdiagnose patients of color with serious illnesses; or fail to recommend the same medical interventions as they do for white patients, even when they present the same symptoms, have the same kind of insurance, and come from the same economic background, black lives are lost in numbers that dwarf those lost in riots.
When companies that pollute in white communities receive fines from the EPA that are 500 percent higher than the fines received for polluting in black communities, the result is violence of an especially pernicious form.
In fact, studies have estimated that because African Americans--particularly those of low-income--have less access to wealth and high quality health care, and are more likely to be exposed to environmental pollutants, as many as 75,000 blacks die each year above the amount that would be expected to die if wealth, health care and pollutant exposure were equal to that of their white counterparts.
That most whites can't conceive of these things as violence is testimony not to the veracity of the charge, but rather our unwillingness to understand systemic racism and the harm it does to people every day.
So in the white imagination, burning down a building out of anger at police brutality is violence, while destroying a building to make way for a mall is progress, as is chopping down old-growth forest, dumping toxic waste in streams and rivers, or burying it in communities of color.
That's the difference between the violence of the powerful and that of the powerless. Those with power have the capacity to work out our existential crises on the bodies and property of others; those without have to make do torching their own stuff, because they know that the moment they turn their frustrations on those who have remained privileged and sheltered, the power of the state will be turned against them full-force.
And if that day ever came, most white folks wouldn't bat an eye, because we have nothing against violence. We love it, in fact; we glorify it; so long as it's being done by John Wayne, Rambo, Clint Eastwood, Tony Soprano, Andrew Jackson, Teddy Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, George Bush or his kid.
Body counts never bother us, and neither does destroying property, so long as the bodies and the properties are not ours.
Tim Wise is an antiracist essayist, activist and father. He can be reached at timjwise@msn.com ``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xPreferring Our Violence Wholesale``x1056954677,63434,Development``x``x
``xBy Willmore Kanyongo, US www.herald.co.zw
It is clear the US Secretary of State - Colin Powell - is totally ignorant of the Zimbabwean situation.
The article he wrote and which was published in The New York Times on June 24 has further shown him as a shameless liar, who has habitually sought to build his foreign policy on utter fabrication.
His country invaded Iraq on the pretext that there was evidence of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) which falsehood he presented to the United Nations.
He and his government - several months after the invasion - are yet to go back to the world body with evidence of piles of WMD from Iraq.
His administration has now changed the tone and has resorted to talking about Iraq's WMD programme.
Wait a minute - did the US invade Iraq on the basis of a WMD programme or piles and piles of WMDs?
The Americans certainly fooled the world and they intend to continue fooling it!
Again in his article in The New York Times, Powell asserts that "... the country's once thriving agricultural sector collapsed last year after President Robert Mugabe confiscated commercial farms..."
He goes on to charge that "... his cynical 'land reform' program has chiefly benefited idle party hacks and stalwarts".
First of all, Powell makes a false claim in asserting the collapse of agricultural activity in Zimbabwe and much as he travels, he remains ignorant of his own black history in the United States.
He wishes to conveniently ignore the historically skewed land ownership system in Zimbabwe which the British are responsible for and have not remedied.
He is also unaware that senior MDC leaders like Welshman Ncube have benefited from the land reform program.
It seems to me that a Zimbabwean A-level student could analyse these issues better than Powell showed in his flimsy article.
As he himself has chosen money and conservative political thinking over his black history, he imagines that Zimbabweans should also choose money over their national history as he pins his Zimbabwean foreign policy on blackmail in stating that "With the president (Mugabe) gone,... the United States would be quick to pledge generous assistance..."
Maybe Colin Powell is unaware that this is not the first time the United States has either promised money or actually given money. Muzorewa is a case in point. He was persuaded to dissociate himself from the process of liberation, of which President Mugabe was the vanguard.
In the case of Muzorewa, American money did not work and in the case of the monetary promises at Lancaster House, we are now wiser that they were a hoax meant to allow Rhodesians to consolidate their illegal land ownership rights.
The hallmark of US foreign policy is money and deception as the Iraq and Zimbabwean cases show.
In his article, Powell also states: "The United States - and the European Union - has... frozen their (Zimbabwean leaders) overseas assets." That is just mere propaganda!
What assets have you frozen and why haven't you made them public.
President Mugabe openly declared that if they were to find even kobiri chairo - if you know it Mr Secretary - you should donate it to charity or maybe to some of your brothers and sisters who litter American streets jobless, without shelter and food.
Oh, by the way, can't you solve this problem first before Mr George W. Bush sends you to a land you know nothing about?
The secretary of state also seems to question the mandate bestowed upon President Mugabe by the people of Zimbabwe when he insisted on "... constitutional changes to allow for a transition."
The entire world knows that there were no constitutional changes that were effected when the government which he now serves was selected and not elected into office by Republican Justices in the US Supreme Court.
I think he should be questioning the legitimacy of his master and remove the log in his own eye, before he questions that of our beloved President Mugabe.
How about the leader of Pakistan, Pervez Musharraf, who Mr Bush recently wined and dinned with at Camp David? When was he elected into power?
I was not aware that Americans can associate with non-elected heads of state, especially coup leaders like Musharraf.
Powell also proffered a favourite American line when they have to deal with a government they do not like.
He said: "We will persist in speaking out strongly in defence of human rights and the rule of law."
What happened in Uganda when an opposition leader was harassed and imprisoned after elections there?
Isn't Yoweri Museveni an American darling? What happened when a court in Malawi recently blocked the deportation of five suspected Al Queda members?
Is there no suspicion that your government is having these whisked to Quatanamo Bay?
By the way, what rule of law applies in Quatanamo Bay and what human rights?
American foreign policy has always been underpinned by double talk, double standards, deception and false promises of money if certain leaders are removed.
By the way, is American money still flowing into Zambia and what has happened to the American-funded trade unionist there?
Zimbabweans should be wary and not succumb to these American machinations.
http://www.herald.co.zw/index.php?id=22497&pubdate=2003-07-02``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xPowell ignorant of Zimbabwean situation``x1057194177,95923,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xand Colin Powell's Letter in New York Times 23-6-2003.
by Patricia-Gwen-Afwoni
Personal Assistant -Southern African Region
Africa Strategy notes with sadness and shame the degree of hypocrisy in which the current Right wing Republican Administration of George Bush has conducted its foreign policy on Africa. The forth coming African tour of Bush between 7-12 July 2003 is designed to threaten the peace and widen the gaps between moderate states and war mongers in Africa. We also note with utter contempt the letter that appeared in the New York Times of 23rd June 2003 by a second class citizen of America by the name of Colin Powell. It has shown how slavery has ruined the simple logic of a soldier who fought against the racial tide in America. "The biggest problem is not our black colour but the Stomachs that direct us to eat instead of the Brains". That sums up what the Ms. C.Rice and Colin Powell have done in the USA.
It is regrettable that most blacks who gain power in the so-called Western democracy turn a blind eye on their brothers on the African continent and demonise the same roots of Pan African spirit. Africa Strategy has documented all evidence of foul play by Colin Powell and Ms Condelesa Rice on Africa. The Letter written by Colin Powel shows the mind of a slave who is still chained to slavery even after its abolition almost 150 years ago.
The spirit of Abraham Lincoln will roll in the grave when they hear that President Bush has visited a pseudo democracy in Uganda and spent over six hours dining and dancing with the military dictatorship that has refused people to associate and assemble freely. The same right wing group that will hover over our great continent in next few days will go down in history for praising President Museveni for crimes against humanity in the Great Lakes Region. It is not surprising that the low calibre intellectualism and ignorance on world politics of Colin Powell has added agony and anguish on the people of Africa who yearn for freedom.
The so-called second citizen of the USA hegemony has denounced President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe who has given democracy of pluralism a chance and hails the efforts of Ugandan President Museven in "restoring peace". Is there peace in Uganda really? Colin Powell must be day dreaming with Saddam Hussein's face counting the fate of the innocent Americans in Iraq. In Africa we call this ghost bursting. Africa Strategy is completely baffled with the statements that have allowed Museveni to operate with impunity in the region.
There are two characteristics of the USA administration that have come out in the clear. The lust for oil in the world. And the second one is the power of militarism and adventurism for glory. The government of the USA likes Museveni because of the discovery of oil fields around Lake Albert near the Uganda DRC border. They will make money. The second factor which the World should know is that the USA wants to use Museveni to attack Sudan in the north to protect the rich oil fields and pipeline that runs from Southern Sudan to the Red Sea. Logistics are written on the wall. To be able to control these activities the USA Administration has to use stooges like Museveni for Military adventurism which has caused genocide and death in the region.
Africa Strategy notes that Baroness Lynda Chalker as a roving spinster of empty slogans has been brought in to pay No 11 on the wing. In her quest for power in the region she has now sponsored and paid former mercenaries in the region to topple the government of President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe. These evidence is slowly emerging as the minutes of many meetings are being studied by our sources in Kampala and South Africa.
We note with great concern the way millions and millions of US Dollars are being channelled through Uganda to train and pay mercenary armies to overthrow the government of President Mugabe. We are also worried about the Millions of USD that has been pumped into the hands of opposition in Zimbabwe for ECONOMIC SABOTAGE. One of the paragraphs in the Minutes obtained from the meetings OF the Lynda Chalker- Museveni crusade indicate that there is a desire to overthrow the government of President Mugabe by using mercenaries in the region. This comes as a result of all countries around the region have refused to destabilise Zimbabwe
Africa Strategy further notes that the company that was registered in Canada Toronto to drill oil in Uganda under the name of Heritage Oil is closely connected to Africa Matters which in the last three months has held a series of meetings with opposition leaders of Zimbabwe in the region to map out strategies of toppling President Mugabe. Lynda Chalker and Colin Powell met in Washington DC between 14th-21st of June 2003 to facilitate regime change in Zimbabwe. This was the time when Museveni was in the USA to be rewarded for the slaughter of many people in Congo and Uganda. Africa Matters has poured millions of USA Dollars to train enemies of countries like Zimbabwe and Kenya where the British and Americans are not happy about the leadership. All these activities are a great worry for peace and tranquillity in the region.
Africa Strategy wishes to use this opportunity to warn all those who are bent on paying the government of Uganda to commit violence in the region like Baroness Lynda Chalker and the black surrogate Colin Powell that all the peaceful people of the region are documenting all your encounters. We have now obtained clear evidence from sources about all your financial transactions which point at USA and Britain as the main countries fuelling violence in Zimbabwe and other countries in the region.
Africa Strategy is disturbed that the so-called world order that has wrecked Iraq and left the country in tatters is turning to Africa to fuel a crisis in the Great Lakes Region. W e now know and the world knows that Colin Powell "forged" and "doctored" intelligence reports to justify the invasion of Iraq. We are aware of the impending fabrication and malice that Colin Powell and Bush want to link the people of Zimbabwe and the Great Lakes Region so as to justify regime change. There are serious diplomatic encounters behind closed door that intend to list a country like Kenya as a terrorist state. We condemn such moves that will create divisions and cripple the economy of Kenya that relies on Tourism as the main source of Foreign exchange. This is the most deplorable act of political vandalism that President Bush and his black messenger of doom Colin Powell want to create on African soil.
We call upon the people of Africa to raise up in great numbers in the cities of Kampala and other African cities where the "doomed cult leaders" are visiting to denounce such militarism . This can be done by peacefully protesting to their Visit to Africa. We support those in Uganda who have arranged for such protests. We want the 6 hour meeting with the blood thirst President of Uganda to be in total quagmire.
Those African countries that are sending their Presidents to Uganda to meet the Texas cult leaders should be questioned in terms of African morality and values. The proxies of imperialism on the continent who have helped to ooze blood from the African veins under the pretext of NEPAD, and globalisation should be exposed. Africa needs peace not political scramble that we witness coming up in guise of a black Bismarck of Africa called Museveni. Let the current onslaught on neo-colonialism in African be our vanguard of the future African Union.
The Africa we want and yearn for is the Africa that leads by example. The case of President Mugabe of Zimbabwe. He removed land from I% whites and gave it back to his 99% of his black people. All those leaders in Africa should shun parrots like President of Uganda who sings the song and praises of the USA and Britain under a ONE party State model of democracy. These leaders who pick Millions of Dollars from Bush and Colin Powell at the expense of the people of Congo in Ituri region Then he is used as a conduit of dirty toxins that ferment wars in the region. Such leaders on the continent should be put on red card status by the rest of Africa.
Africa Strategy will alert the continent of all those agents of doom who have sinned beyond repair in the Middle East and they want to create another set of everlasting killing fields in Africa.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xPresident Bush's Visit To Africa ``x1057199152,61428,Development``x``x
``xFrederick Douglass Independence Day Speech at Rochester, 1841
Frederick Douglas, a former slave himself, became a leader in the 19th Century Abolitionist Movement
Fellow citizens, pardon me, allow me to ask, why am I called upon to speak here today? What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us? and am I, therefore, called upon to bring our humble offering to the national altar, and to confess the benefits and express devout gratitude for the blessings resulting from your independence to us?
Would to God, both for your sakes and ours, that an affirmative answer could be truthfully returned to these questions! Then would my task be light, and my burden easy and delightful. For who is there so cold that a nation's sympathy could not warm him? Who so obdurate and dead to the claims of gratitude that would not thankfully acknowledge such priceless benefits? Who so stolid and selfish that would not give his voice to swell the hallelujahs of a nation's jubilee, when the chains of servitude had been torn from his limbs? I am not that man. In a case like that the dumb might eloquently speak and the "lame man leap as an hart."
But such is not the state of the case. I say it with a sad sense of the disparity between us. am not included within the pale of this glorious anniversary! Your high independence only reveals the immeasurable distance between us. The blessings in which you, this day, rejoice are not enjoyed in common. The rich inheritance of justice, liberty, prosperity, and independence bequeathed by your fathers is shared by you, not by me. The sunlight that brought light and healing to you has brought stripes and death to me. This Fourth of July is yours, not mine. You may rejoice, I must mourn. To drag a man in fetters into the grand illuminated temple of liberty, and call upon him to join you in joyous anthems, were inhuman mockery and sacrilegious irony. Do you mean, citizens, to mock me by asking me to speak today? If so, there is a parallel to your conduct. And let me warn that it is dangerous to copy the example of nation whose crimes, towering up to heaven, were thrown down by the breath of the Almighty, burying that nation in irrevocable ruin! I can today take up the plaintive lament of a peeled and woe-smitten people.
"By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down. Yea! We wept when we remembered Zion. We hanged our harps upon the willows in the midst thereof. For there, they that carried us away captive, required of us a song; and they who wasted us required of us mirth, saying, Sing us one of the songs of Zion. How can we sing the Lord's song in a strange land? If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning. If do not remember thee, let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth."
Fellow citizens, above your national, tumultuous joy, I hear the mournful wail of millions! Whose chains, heavy and grievous yesterday, are, today, rendered more intolerable by the jubilee shouts that reach them. If I do forget, if I do not faithfully remember those bleeding children of sorry this day, "may my right hand cleave to the roof of my mouth"! To forget them, to pass lightly over their wrongs, and to chime in with the popular theme would be treason most scandalous and shocking, and would make me a reproach before God and the world. My subject, then, fellow citizens, is American slavery. I shall see this day and its popular characteristics from the slave's point of view. Standing there identified with the American bondman, making his wrongs mine. I do not hesitate to declare with all my soul that the character and conduct of this nation never looked blacker to me than on this Fourth of July! Whether we turn to the declarations of the past or to the professions of the present, the conduct of the nation seems equally hideous and revolting. America is false to the past, false to the present, and solemnly binds herself to be false to the future. Standing with God and the crushed and bleeding slave on this occasion, I will, in the name of humanity which is outraged, in the name of liberty which is fettered, in the name of the Constitution and the Bible which are disregarded and trampled upon, dare to call in question and to denounce, with all the emphasis I can command, everything that serves to perpetuate slavery-the great sin and shame of America! "I will not equivocate, I will not excuse"; I will use the severest language I can command; and yet not one word shall escape me that any man, whose judgment is not blinded by prejudice, shall not confess to be right and just....
For the present, it is enough to affirm the equal manhood of the Negro race. Is it not as astonishing that, while we are plowing, planting, and reaping, using all kinds of mechanical tools, erecting houses, constructing bridges, building ships, working in metals of brass, iron, copper, and secretaries, having among us lawyers doctors, ministers, poets, authors, editors, orators, and teachers; and that, while we are engaged in all manner of enterprises common to other men, digging gold in California, capturing the whale in the Pacific, feeding sheep and cattle on the hillside, living, moving, acting, thinking, planning, living in families as husbands, wives, and children, and above all, confessing and worshiping the Christian's God, and looking hopefully for life and immortality beyond the grave, we are called upon to prove that we are men!...
What, am I to argue that it is wrong to make men brutes, to rob them of their liberty, to work them without wages, to keep them ignorant of their relations to their fellow men, to beat them with sticks, to flay their flesh with the lash, to load their limbs with irons, to hunt them with dogs, to sell them at auction, to sunder their families, to knock out their teeth, to burn their flesh, to starve them into obedience and submission to their masters? Must I argue that a system thus marked with blood, and stained with pollution, is wrong? No! I will not. I have better employment for my time and strength than such arguments would imply....
What, to the American slave, is your Fourth of July? I answer: a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim. To him, your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your denunciation of tyrants, brass-fronted impudence; your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mockery; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanksgivings, with all your religious parade and solemnity, are, to Him, mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy-a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages. There is not a nation of savages. There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices more shocking and bloody than are the people of the United States at this very hour.
Go where you may, search where you will, roam through all the monarchies and despotisms- of the Old World, travel through South America, search out every abuse, and when you have found the last, lay your facts by the side of the everyday practices of this nation, and you will say with me that, for revolting barbarity and shameless hypocrisy, America reigns without a rival.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xWhat To The Slave Is The 4th Of July?``x1057341737,17030,Development``x``x
``xby Ras Benjamine
In September 2003 the World Trade Organisation looks set to ratify yet more laws, and fishing rights in favour of the West. Sub-Saharan Africa, so rich in human and natural resources, remains the economically poorest region of the world. Half of our people live in poverty, and in many African countries economic conditions have been getting worse for the last 20 years or more.
We all know that a free market is not a fair market particularly when Africa is involved. America and Europe policy on trade and investment needs to be ratify by Africans. Africans leaders need to understand that the third world is sustaining the economy of the West! Around the world, tariff controls, subsidies and export taxes are overwhelming our farmers in Africa making international competition impossible. In Mali, small-scale cotton growers are undercut by American behemoths; in Kenya, flower farmers have been deadheaded by Dutch import charges; in Senegal (West Africa), it is cheaper for a farmer to buy rice from South-East Asia than Senegalese rich from 10km down the road. In countries like Senegal, we have onions farmers who are working twice as hard for half the reward because Dutch onions are cheaper and forced upon the local natives. Up to 80 per cent of the Senegalese nation lives off their produce and now our people are struggling now because the international community will rather dump cheap imports on us than see Africans trade themselves out of poverty and debt! Much of the debt accumulated by African countries was built up during the 1970s, a time of reckless lending by banks and international agencies, and was agreed to by undemocratic governments. In many cases, the population of the borrowing country realized little benefit from the loans as the money disappeared in failed infrastructure projects, corrupt schemes, or unwise investments. The debt has continued to grow since then as governments take out new loans to pay off old ones.
The general consensus amongst many African economists is that external debt of African countries is clearly odious, illegitimate and immoral. It is a tool that the West are not prepared to relinquish. It is a tool used as an instrument to perpetuate their control and domination of the economies of Africa and reduce international competition and gain world domination. Debt has a racist dimension because of its impact on the people of Africa. It is estimated that about 19,000 children per annum in most African countries die of preventable diseases. This is a direct consequence of the deterioration of the health systems for lack of public investments crowded out by debt service. This would never be tolerated in Europe or America, but the lives of people in Africa are clearly considered to be less important than those in the North.
Some Solutions:
-Raise mass consciousness that debt is a fraud
-Build a grassroots global movement against paying so called debt
-Develop an alternative to Structural Adjustment as a precondition for any mandate to run a government in Africa and the developing world
-Given that women produce 80% of Africa's food, head 60% of Africa's households and do similar work in the rest of the developing world, the Campaign will advance the aims of Global Women's Strike and fight for its realisation.
Africa and the rest of the former colonies don't owe western banks and governments anything. Why should the hardest working people in the world beg for debt 'relief' while the IMF and World Bank are organising the robbery of their every resource, forcing us to work even harder?``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xDebt and its racist dimension in Africa``x1057432688,61366,Development``x``x
``xReport by YellowTimes.org
Background: Democratic Republic of Congo
BACKGROUND REPORT (NFTF.org) -- Updated July 14, 2003 -- The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) is the current incarnation of a nation that has been known to history by various names although most of us will have known it as Belgian Congo or Zaire. It is still known in some circles as Congo-Kinshasa to distinguish it from its neighbor, Republic of Congo, or Congo-Brazzaville. Much of its western border is comprised of the Congo River which it shares with Republic of Congo in an undefined way; no specific agreements have been reached on the division of the river, its islands, or its resources.
This nation of approximately 55 million is in Central Africa surrounded by Republic of Congo, Central African Republic, Sudan, Uganda, Rwanda and Burundi, Tanzania, Zambia, and Angola. There are over 200 ethnic groups in DRC but about 45% of its population consists of three groups who are Bantu, and a fourth that is Hamitic. Author Joseph Conrad referred to this area as the "Heart of Darkness" and it is this area that is known to many as "darkest Africa."
DRC is a nation endowed with vast potential wealth (gold, diamonds, rubber, copper, cobalt, oil, timber, and coltan along with a wide variety of agricultural produce) but its economy has declined significantly since the mid-1980's due a variety of unsuccessful government measures, the residue of colonial rule, and the financial imperialism of new masters. It has been estimated that DRC may comprise the most mineral-rich chunk of land on the globe but its recent history has been one of internal conflict. Much of this arose as the nation absorbed large numbers of refugees from the fighting in Rwanda and Burundi in 1994. But the conflicts in the whole region of central Africa really date back as far as the fifteenth century and are today, as they always have been, conflicts of imperialism.
Many of the countries in this area achieved independence from colonial masters in the 1950's and 1960's and quickly degenerated into fighting within and without their borders, much of it spurred by the "financial colonialists" who stepped into the gap left by the old monarchies. The history of these nations since the fifteenth century has been one of European colonialism, resistance, independence, followed by neocolonialism, and prolonged resistance yet again. The primary beneficiary of the new order in this region was the United States who allegedly maneuvered the assassination of Congo's first president, Patrice Lamumba, in 1960. The country's history has been troubled ever since.
President Joseph Mobutu ruled for over 30 years after coming to power in a CIA-aided coup. He is said to have turned over and again to policies and practices that would favor United States government and business interests over the needs and interests of his people. But rebel groups arose to challenge Mobutu's rule and in 1997, power was seized by Laurent Kabila, a former Marxist who led the Alliance of Democratic Forces. During most of Mobutu's rule the country had been known as Zaire but in May 1997 Kabila formally changed its name to Democratic Republic of the Congo.
On assumption of power, Kabila inherited a country already involved in massive tribal infighting, partly arising because of the influx of refugees in 1994. His rule was quickly challenged by a Rwanda and Uganda backed rebellion in August 1998. Finally, troops from Zimbabwe, Chad, Angola, Namibia, and Sudan intervened to support Kabila's government. Even though a cease-fire was reached in July 1999 between DRC, Zimbabwe, Angola, Uganda, Namibia, Rwanda and the Congolese rebels, sporadic fighting continued unabated. Kabila was assassinated January 16, 2001, again with alleged CIA intervention, and rule of the country fell to his son, Joseph.
Joseph Kabila was successful in negotiating a withdrawal of the Rwandan forces from Congo in October 2002, and early in 2003 all combatant parties finally came to the table and agreed to cease the fighting. They agreed to set up a government of national unity as a caretaker until democratic elections can be held in 2005. These will be the first democratic votes cast in this country in over forty years.
Since the departure of the last of the foreign forces from DRC at the end of April 2003, there has been a steady increase in ethnic violence in areas where it is alleged Rwanda and Uganda deliberately incited longstanding ethnic hatred. The violence became so acute that the United Nations finally decided to intervene and has sanctioned a small international peacekeeping force under the direction of France. Local people and area governments appear united in their complaints that the force is too small, that its mandate is too limited and of too short a duration; much criticism has been leveled at the U.N. for its shortsightedness and many people point to this region as having the potential for any genocidal nightmare like that in Rwanda in 1994.
As of this writing, the peace agreement reached in April is generally holding and the government is beginning its drive toward restoring the infrastructure and social systems of DRC. The nation lost between 3.3 and 4.7 million people (apparently a difficult number to quantify in these remote conditions) as a result of the past five years of fighting. At this point, they are anxious to get back on their feet, without the shackles of colonialism.
More history:
The People and Their History``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xThe Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC)``x1058160235,35742,Development``x``x
``xBy Christelle Terreblanche, www.iol.co.za
The presidency has refused to be drawn into the latest round of speculation about a political exit plan for the Zimbabwean head of state, Robert Mugabe.
Rapport newspaper reported on Sunday that President Thabo Mbeki gave American President George Bush assurances during his visit to South Africa last week that Mugabe would be out of office by December.
The report was based on an article in the Zimbabwean newspaper, the Independent, and supported by "diplomatic sources" and the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC).
"All we can say is that Zimbabweans are searching for solutions and that we will do whatever we can to assist", said presidential spokesperson Bheki Khumalo. More on iol.co.za``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xSA will do everything to assist Zimbabwe``x1058220900,72717,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xby Bantu Kelani
My reaction to this speech is shocked and awed!
Imagine a President who could speak these words and his actions and his policy does not contradict these words.
This speech contradicts Bush stance against AA and many other things. He did not invite any members of the Black Caucus on this trip with him. The speech was obviously written by someone with a whole different mindset from Bush.
Not only was and is Amerikkka a prison for Black men and women but now Prisons have been built inside the Prison that house more men and women than any nation on the earth.
I'm certain Bush did not listen to the likes of Malcolm but the writer of this speech sure did!
Kelani-
-----------------------------------------------------------
THE PRESIDENT'S REMARKS FOR YOUR REFERENCE
President Bush Speaks at Goree Island in Senegal
Remarks by the President on Goree Island
Goree Island, Senegal
11:47 A.M. (Local)
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. President and Madam First Lady, distinguished guests and residents of Goree Island, citizens of Senegal, I'm honored to begin my visit to Africa in your beautiful country.
For hundreds of years on this island peoples of different continents met in fear and cruelty. Today we gather in respect and friendship, mindful of past wrongs and dedicated to the advance of human liberty.
At this place, liberty and life were stolen and sold. Human beings were delivered and sorted, and weighed, and branded with the marks of commercial enterprises, and loaded as cargo on a voyage without return. One of the largest migrations of history was also one of the greatest crimes of history.
Below the decks, the middle passage was a hot, narrow, sunless nightmare; weeks and months of confinement and abuse and confusion on a strange and lonely sea. Some refused to eat, preferring death to any future their captors might prepare for them. Some who were sick were thrown over the side. Some rose up in violent rebellion, delivering the closest thing to justice on a slave ship. Many acts of defiance and bravery are recorded. Countless others, we will never know.
Those who lived to see land again were displayed, examined, and sold at auctions across nations in the Western Hemisphere. They entered societies indifferent to their anguish and made prosperous by their unpaid labor. There was a time in my country's history when one in every seven human beings was the property of another. In law, they were regarded only as articles of commerce, having no right to travel, or to marry, or to own possessions. Because families were often separated, many denied even the comfort of suffering together.
For 250 years the captives endured an assault on their culture and their dignity. The spirit of Africans in America did not break. Yet the spirit of their captors was corrupted. Small men took on the powers and airs of tyrants and masters. Years of unpunished brutality and bullying and rape produced a dullness and hardness of conscience. Christian men and women became blind to the clearest commands of their faith and added hypocrisy to injustice. A republic founded on equality for all became a prison for millions. And yet in the words of the African proverb, "no fist is big enough to hide the sky." All the generations of oppression under the laws of man could not crush the hope of freedom and defeat the purposes of God.
In America, enslaved Africans learned the story of the exodus from Egypt and set their own hearts on a promised land of freedom. Enslaved Africans discovered a suffering Savior and found he was more like themselves than their masters. Enslaved Africans heard the ringing promises of the Declaration of Independence and asked the self-evident question, then why not me?
In the year of America's founding, a man named Olaudah Equiano was taken in bondage to the New World. He witnessed all of slavery's cruelties, the ruthless and the petty. He also saw beyond the slave-holding piety of the time to a higher standard of humanity. "God tells us," wrote Equiano, "that the oppressor and the oppressed are both in His hands. And if these are not the poor, the broken-hearted, the blind, the captive, the bruised which our Savior speaks of, who are they?"
Down through the years, African Americans have upheld the ideals of America by exposing laws and habits contradicting those ideals. The rights of African Americans were not the gift of those in authority. Those rights were granted by the Author of Life, and regained by the persistence and courage of African Americans, themselves.
Among those Americans was Phyllis Wheatley, who was dragged from her home here in West Africa in 1761, at the age of seven. In my country, she became a poet, and the first noted black author in our nation's history. Phyllis Wheatley said, "In every human breast, God has implanted a principle which we call love of freedom. It is impatient of oppression and pants for deliverance."
That deliverance was demanded by escaped slaves named Frederick Douglas and Sojourner Truth, educators named Booker T. Washington and W.E.B. DuBois, and ministers of the Gospel named Leon Sullivan and Martin Luther King, Jr. At every turn, the struggle for equality was resisted by many of the powerful. And some have said we should not judge their failures by the standards of a later time. Yet, in every time, there were men and women who clearly saw this sin and called it by name.
We can fairly judge the past by the standards of President John Adams, who called slavery "an evil of callosal magnitude." We can discern eternal standards in the deeds of William Wilberforce and John Quincy Adams, and Harriet Beecher Stowe, and Abraham Lincoln. These men and women, black and white, burned with a zeal for freedom, and they left behind a different and better nation. Their moral vision caused Americans to examine our hearts, to correct our Constitution, and to teach our children the dignity and equality of every person of every race. By a plan known only to Providence, the stolen sons and daughters of Africa helped to awaken the conscience of America. The very people traded into slavery helped to set America free.
My nation's journey toward justice has not been easy and it is not over. The racial bigotry fed by slavery did not end with slavery or with segregation. And many of the issues that still trouble America have roots in the bitter experience of other times. But however long the journey, our destination is set: liberty and justice for all.
In the struggle of the centuries, America learned that freedom is not the possession of one race. We know with equal certainty that freedom is not the possession of one nation. This belief in the natural rights of man, this conviction that justice should reach wherever the sun passes leads America into the world.
With the power and resources given to us, the United States seeks to bring peace where there is conflict, hope where there is suffering, and liberty where there is tyranny. And these commitments bring me and other distinguished leaders of my government across the Atlantic to Africa.
African peoples are now writing your own story of liberty. Africans have overcome the arrogance of colonial powers, overturned the cruelties of apartheid, and made it clear that dictatorship is not the future of any nation on this continent. In the process, Africa has produced heroes of liberation -- leaders like Mandela, Senghor, Nkrumah, Kenyatta, Selassie and Sadat. And many visionary African leaders, such as my friend, have grasped the power of economic and political freedom to lift whole nations and put forth bold plans for Africa's development.
Because Africans and Americans share a belief in the values of liberty and dignity, we must share in the labor of advancing those values. In a time of growing commerce across the globe, we will ensure that the nations of Africa are full partners in the trade and prosperity of the world. Against the waste and violence of civil war, we will stand together for peace. Against the merciless terrorists who threaten every nation, we will wage an unrelenting campaign of justice. Confronted with desperate hunger, we will answer with human compassion and the tools of human technology. In the face of spreading disease, we will join with you in turning the tide against AIDS in Africa.
We know that these challenges can be overcome, because history moves in the direction of justice. The evils of slavery were accepted and unchanged for centuries. Yet, eventually, the human heart would not abide them. There is a voice of conscience and hope in every man and woman that will not be silenced -- what Martin Luther King called a certain kind of fire that no water could put out. That flame could not be extinguished at the Birmingham jail. It could not be stamped out at Robben Island Prison. It was seen in the darkness here at Goree Island, where no chain could bind the soul. This untamed fire of justice continues to burn in the affairs of man, and it lights the way before us.
May God bless you all. (Applause.)
END 11:55 A.M. (Local)``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xBush Speech in Africa``x1058231668,80389,Development``x``x
``xBy Monica Moorehead
The Bush administration has sent a military team of 32 Marines and specialists to Liberia to assess whether the U.S. should send more troops to this impoverished West African country. The reason given is that they may be necessary to end the civil war that has plagued this country for more than a decade. The real reason is oil.
President George W. Bush has repeatedly said that he will accept nothing less than the departure of the elected president of Liberia, Charles Taylor.
On July 6 Taylor met with the president of Nigeria, Olusegun Obasanjo, at the airport outside the Liberian capital of Monrovia, where an agreement was made to provide Taylor temporary asylum in Nigeria if he leaves.
Taylor helped to lead a rebellion against the previous Liberian president, Samuel Doe. The rebellion lasted from the late 1980s until the mid 1990s, even though Doe was assassinated in 1990. Taylor was elected president in 1997 and has faced armed opposition to his presidency since 1999.
The real prospect that U.S. troops will be sent to Liberia comes at a time when Bush is on his first trip to Africa. He plans to visit five countries within five days: Senegal, South Africa, Botswana, Uganda and Nigeria. South Africa and Botswana are among the countries in the world with the highest percentages of people living with the HIV virus and AIDS.
Bush is using the carrot and stick maneuver, offering billions of dollars in aid to pressure each country to open its markets to U.S. imports and its military and police to collaboration with the U.S. in the so-called war against terrorism. Washington heavily subsidizes U.S. agribusinesses. If African countries were to change their agricultural policies and allow in unlimited quantities of cheap U.S. agricultural products, local farmers would be destroyed.
The U.S. military presence in Africa is more ominous than ever. Rapid deployment troops and semi-permanent forces from the Army, Air Force and Marines are now stationed or will be stationed in the Horn of Africa as well as countries in North and West Africa. A command base with 2,000 troops was established in Djibouti in May.
Lisa Hoffman of Scripps Howard News Service wrote on June 13: "Little noticed among the Pentagon's plans to radically reshape the U.S. military presence overseas is the groundbreaking possibility of basing thousands of American troops in or around West Africa.
"Under discussion: everything from positioning a U.S. aircraft carrier battle group off Africa's vast west coast to establishing one or more forward operating bases in Ghana, Senegal, Mali, Equatorial Guinea or the tiny island nation of Sao Tome and Principe.
"The spurs for what may prove an unprecedented U.S. military beachhead in sub-Saharan Africa are the region's instability, potential attractiveness to terrorists and, most pivotal, its rich oil resources, Pentagon officials and Africa experts say.
"As much as 15 percent of America's oil now comes from West Africa--about the amount imported from Saudi Arabia. By next year, the West African portion is expected to jump to 20 percent."
The U.S. seeks to overtake its European imperialist rivals as the dominant power in areas of Africa where oil is plentiful, like Nigeria.
Nigeria is home to one-fourth of the people living in sub-Saharan Africa. It also has one of the world's largest oil reserves.
The Nigerian people do not control the oil wealth of their country. Big oil conglomerates such as Chevron-Texaco and Shell make tremendous profits exporting millions of barrels of oil from Nigeria to other parts of the world while the Nigerian masses remain extremely poor. The average annual per capita income of Nigeria is only $290.
The Nigerian Labor Congress just organized a powerful general strike against the skyrocketing price of gasoline, which lasted several days before the government offered a compromise.
U.S. and Liberian relations
Liberia's population is less than 4 million people. According to UNICEF August 2002 statistics, the poverty rate is 85 percent and the extreme poverty rate is 55 percent. Per capita income is less than $100 per person.
News accounts say a sector of the Liberian masses look to foreign intervention, including U.S. troops, to help bring an end to the bloodshed and bring economic relief to their country. Some of this hope may be rooted in what some perceive as long-time close relations between Liberia and the U.S.
The U.S. history books and the big business press claim that Liberia was founded in 1822 by freed slaves who migrated from the U.S. But that theory is disputed. There is evidence to show that the American Colonization Society, a group of whites including slaveowners, bought land in Liberia in 1817 for next to nothing.
One of the most prominent of these slave owners was Francis Scott Key, credited with writing the words of the Star Spangled Banner, the U.S. national anthem. Another slaveowning member of the ACS was William Thornton, an amateur architect who designed the U.S. Capitol. It was mainly slaves who built that historic building and others in Washington, D.C., and Philadelphia.
Former slaves were encouraged to emigrate to Liberia by the ACS, not to escape the horrors of slavery but to keep them from fighting for the right to jobs, education and political representation that whites on the whole had won. In other words, the ACS, seeing that the days of their slavocracy were numbered, mapped out this strategy in order to undermine the potential that former slaves might win democratic rights, including receiving 40 acres and a mule from the federal government.
In the 1920s the Firestone Tire and Rubber Co. got a 99-year lease for 1 million acres of Liberian land at 6 cents per acre per year. Its Liberian rubber plantation became the company's main source of profit while Liberia sunk deeper into poverty.
Untapped oil reserves in Gulf of Guinea
Bush and the Pentagon claim that the only motive for sending U.S. troops into Liberia would be to help bring about "stability and democracy" for the war-weary Liberian people. Nothing could be further from the truth. The real truth lies in the U.S. wanting to control the most important world resource--oil.
Liberia could be a jumping-off place for U.S. troops to control the nearby Gulf of Guinea. Vast untapped oil reserves were recently discovered there. Whatever imperialist power controls this strategically oil-rich region will be in the position to dramatically increase its oil markets. For the U.S., this could mean a 25-percent increase in oil imports from Africa.
Nigeria and the former Portuguese col ony of Sao Tome and Principe are located on the Gulf of Guinea. So is Ivory Coast, which is in the midst of a civil war instigated by its former French oppressors.
Kayode Fayemi, the leader of the Center for Democracy and Development based in Lagos, Nigeria, stated, "The focus on oil in the Gulf of Guinea would probably ensure that the United States looks the other way when it comes to human rights, account ability and transparency. In Nigeria, the example of that would be how does the United States respond to campaigns from local communities for equitable and local management of resources." (NY Times, July 6)
The U.S. government certainly did not offer any support over a year ago for the justifiable takeovers of oil facilities in the Niger Delta organized by defiant Nigerian women, who demanded that the oil conglomerates fund jobs and educational opportunities for their sons. A Nigerian paper, This Day, reported that the U.S. may be deploying troops to the Niger Delta to "protect" oil facilities there.
Bush's quest for endless war cannot be separated from what is going on in Liberia, Nigeria, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and elsewhere. Bush is accusing Taylor of instigating war crimes in neighboring Sierra Leone, but it is Bush who is the biggest war criminal of all.
Bush envisions himself as a modern-day emperor, similar to the rulers of the vicious Roman empire, and the majority of the world as an appendage of U.S. corporations.
Reprinted from the July 17, issue of Workers World newspaper
(Copyright Workers World Service: Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this document, but changing it is not allowed. For more information contact Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011; via email: ww@wwpublish.com.)``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xWhy Bush wants troops in Liberia``x1058305186,70145,Development``x``x
``xwww.blackcommentator.com
"Our policy with respect to the continent of Africa at best has been a policy that is inconsistent and incoherent," said NAACP Executive Director Kweisi Mfume, in Miami Beach last weekend for the organization's annual convention. "We've looked away in many instances because Africa was not politically correct or politically cute."
Mr. Mfume is wrong. United States policy towards sub-Saharan Africa has been consistent since August of 1960, when President Eisenhower ordered his national security team to arrange the assassination of Congolese leader Patrice Lumumba. Congo had been nominally independent from Belgium for only two months, yet Eisenhower, far from looking away from Africa during his last months in office, was already embarked on a relentless policy of continental destabilization, one that has been fundamentally adhered to by every U.S. President that followed.
U.S. policy in Africa is anything but "incoherent." Rather, too many of us have "looked away" from the clear pattern of U.S. behavior and intent – a ferocious, bipartisan determination to arrest African development at every opportunity and by all possible means – including the death of millions.
War on African civil society
Belgians murdered Prime Minister Lumumba on January 17, 1961, no doubt with the collaboration of Eisenhower's men. Lumumba presented a danger to European and American domination of post-colonial Africa precisely because he was not a tribal figure, but a thoroughly Congolese politician, a man who sought to harness power through popular structures. As such, Lumumba personified the threat of an awakened African civil society – the prerequisite for true independence and social development.
A popular and long held belief among Africans and African Americans is that the prospect of continental (or even global) African "unity" is what terrifies Washington, London and Paris. We wish that were true. However, the neocolonial powers know they have nothing to worry about on that score, having begun the era of "independence" with a clear understanding among themselves that conditions for meaningful unity would not be allowed to develop. African civil society itself would be stunted, hounded, impoverished – rendered so fundamentally insecure that, even should "leaders" of African countries band together under banners of "unity," few could speak with the voice of the people. Only leaders of intact civil societies can unite with one another to any meaningful effect – all else is bombast, and frightens no one.
Tribalism is, indeed, a problem in Africa. For Americans and Europeans, it is an obsession – the game they have played since the Portuguese planted their first outposts at the mouths of African rivers in the 1400s. However, there are limits to the effectiveness of tribal manipulation. Many "tribes" are very large – nations, actually. Setting one tribal group against the other, while suppressing the social development of each, is a tricky business. The colonizer must not to allow the "favored" group to accrue, through privilege, sufficient social space to aspire to nationhood. In that event, the formerly favored group must be crushed by the colonizer's own military force – a brutish and costly business.
These are generalities, and Africa is a big place. Numerous colonial powers at different times employed the full mix of coercion, manipulation, favoritism, and raw (including genocidal) force.
After World War Two, and for a host of reasons, the colonial arrangement had become untenable. Europeans would continue to engage in tribal manipulation in the new political environment, while the U.S. preferred bullets and bribes as it assumed overlord status among the imperialists. However, it was clear to the old masters – and especially to Washington – that the formal structures of independence would inevitably lead to the growth of dynamic civil societies that could impede the operations of multinational extraction corporations and agribusiness. Civil societies can become quite raucous and demanding, even in countries in which there are tribal divisions. Therefore, the process of African civil development had to be interrupted, not only in those new states that were economically valuable to Europe and the U.S., but in all of Africa, so that no healthy civil model might emerge. If this could be achieved, there would be no need to fear the actions of assembled heads of African states – an irrelevant gaggle of uniforms and suits, standing in for nations, but representing no coherent social force.
Assignment: crush the people
To thwart the growth of civil society in newly independent Africa, the imperialists turned to the Strong Men. It is probably more accurate to say that the imperialists invented the African Strong Man. Although both the neocolonial masters and the Strong Men themselves make a great fuss about indigenousness – albeit for somewhat different reasons – these characters arise from the twisted structures of colonialism. Their function is to smother civil society, to render the people helpless.
Joseph Desire Mobutu is the model of the African Strong Man. He was an American invention whose career is the purest expression of U.S. policy in Africa. With all due respect to the NAACP's Kweisi Mfume, there was nothing "inconsistent and incoherent" about Mobutu's nearly four decades of service to the United States. From the day in August, 1960 when Eisenhower ordered the death of Lumumba (Mobutu, Lumumba's treasonous chief of the army, deposed his Prime Minister the next month and collaborated directly in the murder) to his death from cancer in 1997, U.S. African policy was inextricably bound to the billionaire thief. It can be reasonably said that Mobutuism is U.S. African policy.
Mobutu and nine U.S. Presidents (Eisenhower through Clinton) utterly and mercilessly poisoned Africa, sending crippling convulsions through the continent, from which Africa may never recover. With borders on Angola, Zambia, Tanzania, Burundi, Rwanda, Uganda, Sudan, the Central African Republic, and Congo (Brazzaville), and a land mass as large as the U.S. east of the Mississippi, Mobutu's Zaire was an incubator of never ending war, subversion, disease, corruption and, ultimately, social disruption so horrific as to challenge the Arab and European slave trade in destructive intensity.
Mobutu's reign began in the heyday of European soldiers of fortune, allies of his like "Mad Mike" Hoare. By the time of his death, more than 100 mercenary outfits operated in sub-Saharan Africa, safeguarding multinational corporations from the chaos that Mobutu and his American handlers labored so mightily to foment. So integral have mercenaries become to Africa, a number of Black governments depend on them for their own security, forsaking any real claim to national sovereignty. This, too, is the legacy of U.S. African policy. (American mercenary corporations garner an ever-increasing share of the business.)
Millions died in Zaire-Congo and neighboring states as a direct or indirect result of policies hatched in Washington and executed by Mobutu – and this, before the genocidal explosion in Rwanda in 1994, leading to an "African World War" fought on Congolese soil that has so far claimed at least 3 million more lives, belated victims of the policies dutifully carried out by America's African Strong Man.
Bush cultivates more Mobutus
For 43 years U.S. governments have empowered Strong Men to do their bidding in Africa. The geography and riches of Congo-Zaire allowed Mobutu to wreak continent-wide havoc on Washington's behalf, while growing fabulously rich. However, many lesser clients have been nurtured by successive U.S. governments, their names and crimes too numerous for this essay. They and Mobutu's outrages are the logical product of the neocolonialist program. The actors come and go, but the underlying design remains the same: to prevent the emergence of strong civil societies in Black Africa.
The Strong Man's job is to create weak civil societies. Weak and demoralized societies, supporting fragile states hitched to the fortunes of the Strong Man and his circle of pecking persons, pose little threat to foreign capital.
The African Strong Man model suits the purposes of European imperialists and the United States, perfectly. Their overarching concern– especially since the collapse of the Soviet Union – is for the multinational mineral and petroleum-extracting corporations – what Europeans and Americans are actually referring to when they speak of their "national interests" on the continent. Representing himself and a small base of supporters/dependents, the Strong Man can be counted on to bully civil society into steadily narrowing spaces, snuffing out all independent social formations, while at the same time stripping the society of the means to protect itself outside of his own, capricious machinery. The nation itself atrophies, or is stillborn, as in Congo. Where nations have not had the chance to take full root or have been deliberately stunted, the Strong Man wraps the thin reeds of sovereignty around himself, denying the people their means of connectedness to one another, except through him. The state is a private apparatus and – from the standpoint of civil society – there appears to be no nation, at all. The people act, accordingly – that is, they do not act as citizens of a nation.
Thus, the Strong Man's most valuable service to the foreign master is to retard and negate nationhood through constant assaults on civil society.
What is commonly described as American "neglect" of Africa is nothing of the kind. Over the course of the decades since the end of formal colonialism, the governments of the corporate headquarters countries have arrived at a consensus that a chaotic Africa, barely governed at all, in which civil societies are perpetually insecure, incapable of defending themselves much less the nation, is the least troublesome environment for Western purposes. The extraction corporations in Africa feel most secure when the people of Africa are insecure.
In Congo and Liberia-Sierra Leone, this unspoken but operative policy has plunged whole populations into Hell on Earth. African Americans typically criticize the U.S. for failing to treat Black lives as valuable – in other words, Washington is accused of neglecting the carnage in Central and West Africa because of racism. The reality is far worse than that. American policy is designed to place Africans at the extremes of insecurity, in order to foreclose the possibility of civil societies taking root. This policy has always resulted in mass death. Moreover, the U.S. did not simply sit idly by while genocide swept Rwanda and "World War" wracked Congo. Instead, the American government initially thwarted a world response to the Rwandan holocaust, and has prolonged the carnage in Congo through its two client states, Uganda and Rwanda, which have methodically looted the wealth of the northeastern Congo while claiming – falsely, according to a report to the UN Security Council – to be protecting their own borders. Uganda's list of "proxy" Congolese ethnic armies reaches into every corner of Ituri province, where "combatants…have slaughtered some five thousand civilians in the last year because of their ethnic affiliation," according to a Human Rights Watch report. "But the combatants are armed and often directed by the governments of the DRC [Democratic Republic of Congo], Rwanda and Uganda." ("Ituri: Bloodiest Corner of the Congo," July 8.)
Zimbabwean officers have also plundered the country, but have been involved in far less killing in their role as protectors of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) government. Angola and Namibia also went to the Kinshasa regime's aid. The United Nations and African countries labored for five years to untangle the mix of belligerents – with only the most pro forma cooperation of the United States.
Prolonging "Africa's World War"
Had the U.S. wanted to end or at least scale down "Africa's World War," there is no doubt that Washington could have reined in Rwanda and Uganda, who received a steady stream of American military and economic assistance during the conflict. The Congolese (DRC) government, on the other hand, has suffered under severe sanctions from both the U.S. and the European Union.
It would have cost Washington far less than a billion dollars in bribes to quarantine "Africa's World War" – slush money for a super-power, and a fraction of the bribes Washington was willing to pay for favorable votes on Iraq at the UN. Instead, the U.S. provided aid to key combatants. That's not a lack of policy, nor is it indifference. In the larger scheme of things, Washington believed that prolonging a war that weakened and debased Africa was in its "national interest."
Uganda and Rwanda have reciprocated, shamelessly. "Recently Uganda publicly backed the U.S.-led attack on Iraq, defying the African position to endorse a UN-sanctioned war," reads the current message of the official State House website of President Yoweri Kaguta Museveni's government, in Kampala.
Rwanda's Ambassador to the U.S., Zac Nsenga, was even more obsequious when presenting his credentials at the U.S. State Department, May 8:
"The Rwandan Government reaffirms its commitment to join forces with the United States and the free world to combat acts of terrorism wherever it rears its ugly head. The events of the 1994 Genocide and September 11th has taught us that we have to stand together as Nations to defeat these evil acts against humanity. For this very reason President Kagame stood firmly in support of the U.S. led attack on Iraq, not only to root out a terrorist dictator but also to free the people of Iraq."
Three million dead in Congo mean nothing when compared to two eager clients in the heart of Africa, who are more than willing to both defy "the African position" on Iraq and help keep Central Africa chaotic – Mobutu's old job.
As for Charles Taylor, the Liberian Strong Man responsible for the death, dismemberment and displacement of hundreds of thousands in his own country and neighboring Sierra Leone – at the time of this writing, Bush was still playing games over whether Taylor should leave for Nigerian exile before or after an African peace keeping force arrives to secure the capital, Monrovia.
Concerned American progressives debate what their positions should be if Bush sends significant U.S. forces to help pacify the country. He will not. If history is any judge, U.S. involvement on the ground in Liberia will be token, if any, and brief – just enough to show the flag. Had Washington desired stability for Liberia and its neighbors Sierra Leone, Guinea and the Ivory Coast, it would have eliminated Taylor years ago. He was allowed to live because he served U.S. policy, whether he knew that or not. Eternal warfare is the most effective way to smother civil society.
Americans may also one day learn this horrible lesson.
Reproduced from:
http://www.blackcommentator.com/50/50_cover_africa_pf.html``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xThe Real U.S. Policy for Africa``x1058638087,4218,Development``x``x
``xby Susan Edwards
Trinidad and Tobago
It is said that a mind is a terrible thing to waste.
But what of the minds that are not awake!
Another season of Emancipation lectures and radio programs began and the selection of topics to empower Africans is once again lucid, logical and legitimate. However, one cannot help but question the veracity of "Some" of those Vessels who conveyed messages of freedom.
Messages that says to us "There is no race", we should "Forget History" because we cannot change it. "Black people are their own worst enemies.". Invitation to "Eat a meal for about $300. while exchanging sentences and sentiments that never filters down to the grassroots. Hypocritical mockers who never merge, communicate or listen to the views of the ordinary citizens.
It was dreadfully disturbing to see watered down human elements of oppression decorated in sacred African garments shadowing our tribal vibrations when their hearts were not singing the same song. Ordinary people should develop their minds to a level of "Uncompromising Consciousness." Too often we feel honoured by what was programmed to appear dignified in our eyes. It is this counterfeit dignity that drains the true essence of our connection. Deliberate tools dressed to defeat the truth of our focus.
Spiritual rebirth must first begin with the mind. This would be evident by the conscious choices we make and the quality of respect we exchange with each other. Black people after struggling so hard for so long should leave no space in their brain for foolishness. The celebration of emancipation should be complimented with an understanding of the evolution of the human mind. Our people would do well to remember that the genius within cannot be motivated by foolishness.
We should be firm in our pursuits never contributing to ignorance or systems of oppression. Like a rock, you should be aware of those things that are put in place to manipulate your consciousness.
It is decidedly insulting to the blood of our ancestors when we take respect, honour and appreciation away from those who were... and those who are still the live wires of our struggle... and give it to certain vampires in section VIP. I long to see the day when we truly honour our common people in section VIP. What about the Drummers, Singers, and dancers from Laventille, Morvant, Belmont and Tobago. Some of the people honoured as VIP in our various celebrations and those we often patronize financially would not invite an ordinary African to eat with their dog. Why do we constantly honour those who never extend to us invitations to their functions? Ordinary Africans are never significantly important enough to be given a back seat.
African people must learn the importance of respecting each other with the same quality of respect we show to others. Less emphasis should be placed on paying tribute to the unconscious speeches of dead minds and more wisdom should be applied in showing appreciation to the many living sacrifices still among us.
As African people it is imperative that we pay close attention to who or what influences our decisions. In celebrating our liberation more honour should be given to the common people who kept the vision alive, without their participation our villages would be like graveyards. Dare us to discern the difference between illusion and reality in consecrating thanks to those who gave us their best.
The Emancipation Support Committee should solicit assistance to establish "African Gardens of Remembrance" in every County in Trinidad and Tobago. Where each Month every District would have the responsibility of honouring its citizens living and deceased in a style and setting similar to that at "The Lidj Yasu Omowala Village". Where, our VIP sections would be filled with the ordinary people who we know kept the culture active and sacrificed to build our communities. In so doing we would be keeping the vibration alive all through the year commemorating our struggle, constantly learning of our history and untying ourselves from the many pettiness that so often beset us, at the same time proving the sincerity of those who pretend their affiliation to African Culture once a year. With the Grand annual gathering at the Lidj Yasu Omowala Village, Queens Park Savannah. Positively mastering our journey towards excellence.
To the youths who must carry the cords of consciousness forward I say... it is your mind that would take you where you want to be. Develop your mental focus... be strong. Always honour the 'Truth'.
It is not only important to positively define your own destiny. You should develop your mind and refine your character, that your life will influence the destiny of the world.
http://www.trinidadandtobagonews.com/Susan.html``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xEmancipation: Dead Men Talking``x1060061206,81065,Development``x``x
``xby Rootsie, www.rootsie.com
What happens when you approach life itself with a sense of entitlement, rather than a sense of awe?
You get all the relationships wrong.
With the natural world: its forces, its cycles, its creatures.
With other people, places, and things.
With your own self.
Since you feel you are entitled to all good things you can imagine,
you are constantly functioning with lesser or greater levels of disappointment. You do not treasure what you have, but always crave more.
Since you are probably aware of the comparative deprivation of many,
even if you make no conscious connection between their situation and yours, the natural injustice does affect you. You can make many choices here, from engaging in 'charity', to indulging hedonistically in things that stimulate your pleasure centers so you don't have to think. Diversions and distractions keep you from focusing on the truth of our situation.
In terms of natural law, ignorance is not an excuse. Just because you exist in the condition of privilege does not mean you exist outside of natural laws. Causes have effects, whether you are aware of them or not.
You may engage in rationalizations or justifications which all boil down to this: you are privileged, we are, because we deserve it, while others do not. Whether you bring forth religious justifications, nationalistic ones, historical ones that paint your people in a positive light as opposed to 'them', this engagement with illusion contaminates any efforts you may make to develop yourself, spiritually or otherwise.
In the realms of love and romance, your fantasy probably swirls around some variation of 'happily ever after', since this is what your sense of entitlement leads you to expect. If difficulties arise, you are unwilling to engage them. In fact, all efforts requiring time and patience are equally elusive: most often you want what you want and you want it now. This is the message being constantly beamed at you by the various media. All you desire is available to you. Now.
You are tied to matter, and this leaves you ignorant of the subtle treasures of heart and soul that lie beyond the realms of matter. Your things become idols. You covet them more and love them more than the truth. You comfort and console yourself with them, for the state of misery you are in is real, and unbearable otherwise.
You expect to be welcomed with open arms wherever you go, and you react with surprise and anger when this is not so. You believe that if you just say something, that makes it true. 'I am not a racist.' 'I am black on the inside, where it counts.' 'Race does not matter.' 'I have many black friends, so I know what it means to be black.'
You may believe that racial inequality is a thing of the past, and that the evils whites committed in the past have nothing to do with you now, or you may cite your own personal ancestry, and point out that your people had nothing to do with the past 500 years of slavery and oppression.
But injustice for many is injustice for all: it cuts both ways. You did not choose to be white and to live in the West. You do not want this privilege, and yet it is yours. You are aware that in the present equation, pleasures for you mean pain for others. Well, no matter how you feel about it, until you move to do something about it, real happiness will elude you. It doesn't matter if this seems fair to you; this is simply how it is.
Further, it is impossible for you to be truly happy living with excess while others try to live without enough. You have to give it back. And not in the form of pity or mercy or charity, which are evil things as long as vast systems persist which maintain inequality. Charity is simply another one of those diversions that makes you feel good for a second but does nothing to address the disease in the long-run.
The way to give it back is not to run screaming away from the land of plenty and play poor in 'the third world' either. Another illusion, and simply dishonest.
The only thing to do is to devote your excess beyond what you need to live to activities which will dismantle this system of privilege. It is unnatural for people to work against their own interests, but white privilege is not in anybody's interest. If the purpose of life were to accumulate material possessions in such excess that others literally die so that you may possess them, that would be one thing. But no one really thinks that is our purpose here.
Our prevailing religion entreats us to 'love another.' It does not teach that we should love some more and others less. There is a profound personal price to be paid for hypocrisy. And thus agrees that same religion.
To benefit, willingly or not, from an immoral system of privilege taints everything in your life with immorality. This is monstrous, but it is true.
This is a society of addiction, of violence, of abuse, of grotesque consumption. It maims and mangles everyone in it. Appearance becomes reality, because reality is unbearable for most.
www.rootsie.com``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xThe Moral Degradation of White Privilege``x1060205703,97399,Development``x``x
``xHow to transcend the spatial-temporal Chains of Illusion, the Global Positioning System
By Franz J. T. Lee
"The winning weapon of the American assault on Iraq, like that of World War II, depended on a technology first imagined by Einstein, with some help from Poincare. Not nuclear weapons of mass destruction, but the Global Positioning System, by which the four dimensions of space-time can be so precisely measured as to direct a bomb or a soldier to within 50 feet of any spot on earth."
(WILLIAM R. EVERDELL, New York Times, 17/08/03)
Friends, definitely, if here in Mérida, Venezuela, we could discover Juyá, a planet, rotating beyond Pluto, then surely we could easily develop a Real, Original Science and a True, Authentic Philosophy of the Bolivarian Revolution, directed against the global horror and terror, against the "awestruck" of the White House, the Pentagon, NASA and NATO, against any global positioning system or weaponry.
As "starting point", it is worthwhile to note that long before Einstein, Poincare and Tesla, Immanuel Kant has made us aware of something very significant, within the universal fatherland, something really fit for celestial, transgalactic emancipation.
As we know, Adolf Hitler made it very clear what precisely is necessary for exploitative body and dominating mind control: If you want to control a people, control its education! Thus, after having accomplished this mental holocaust, of course, the Metropolis won't even need "awestruck", or painstakingly directed mortal uranium depleted cluster-bombs. However, this is not a brilliant historic discovery of Corporate America -- already Plato in his "Republic" made the philosopher-kings aware of this cock-sure weapon; furthermore, already billions have been "formed" and "informed" across the millennia precisely via ruling class "education"; the intellectual result, as we can see globally in the context of contemporary infowarfare, especially here in Venezuela, across the mass media of the "opposition", is fatal for the species man, especially for the physically labouring, obsolete billions of "non-human beings". Nobody seems to notice the real mental holocaust, the destruction of the human mind. Nobody speaks about mental massacres, intellectual genocide. To be able to do this, it would be necessary to see how across fatherly space and time we were permanently bamboozled from the cradle to the grave, from morning till night, perfectly indoctrinated and manipulated.
But, talking about the Intellect, Verstand, Kant, but also Hegel, the German philosophers of the Enlightenment, threw light on something that is imperative. Precisely Space and Time are not real, they do not exist independent of the human mind, of society, in the "objective world"; they are just philosophic categories, inventions and creations of the ruling intellect, of ruling class mind, of Reason alias Capital, for production purposes, for exploitation, domination, discrimination, militarization and alienation. They are parameters for death; the only way to die on Earth is within Space and Time, within these universal limitations.
A uranium depleted cluster-bomb falls on your head, and it kills you in Space and Time. There is no other way to die -- the latter are the real, true, universal assassins. However, on the other hand, because they are the talk of the town, it seems that Orwell, like Big Brother, is still very much alive, not even to mention Plato and Jesus Christ. Because of our wonderful "education", of our exclusive "information", no matter how hard we try to understand the above, its quintessence is well-nigh impossible to grasp.
However, Hegel and Kant were not crazy, they were not yet stark "mad cows". The problem is that most of us, thanks to religion and ideology, are already well-conditioned productive, reproductive, docile slaves of Space and Time, innocent victims of all sorts of universal master-servant non-relations; unknowingly, because of cruel dissocialization processes, across our youth, most of us have already totally swallowed all genres of spatial-temporal models of culture, norms, traditions and rituals -- especially of production, distribution, consumption, accumulation, profit-mongering and ruthless destruction of nature and society -- all, hook, sinker, bait and poisoned shark.
The majority of us knows no other reality than a virtual spatial-temporal world. We cannot imagine anything different, or even trifferent. For millions anything else is madness -- for the adherents to the "opposition" in Venezuela, the historical fact, that the Bolivarian Revolution is democratic, just, peaceful and humane, is simply a fairy tale, they know much better, it is "dictatorial and tyrannical" -- this is the logical result of a mental holocaust of more than 40 years in Venezuela, not even to mention the centuries of feudalist Roman Catholic indoctrination, of the venom of the private mass media, of the toppled oligarchic classes and of the United States' "war of ideas", as disseminated by CNN.
In conclusion, whether you agree with me or not -- and this surely is not and cannot be the sincere objective of this openminded commentary -- it is high "time", is already the eleventh hour, for true revolutionaries to leave some emancipatory, free "space" in their totally occupied lives, to permit serious intellectual reflection about the above mentioned thoughts; and, consequently, of, by and for themselves, as Authentic Exodus, to try to act, think and transcend this earthly fascist vale of nazi woe by means of expatrian, exformative excellence, in which Past, Present and Future are just relative, related, transhistoric fleeting moments of human flowing truth, reality and aspirations. With Renaissance, Reformation, Enlightenment and "The Reign of Terror" the emerging bourgeoisie (and proletariat, although betrayed later) forever toppled the decaying nobility and moribund clergy; to be really successful, we have no alternative but to develop something fresh, filled with aurora, with the "alba", something far more omniscient, omnipotent: an extra-original Práxis, an authentic-innovative Theory and excellent, realizable Emancipation, to wipe away Global Fascism from the face of our Milky Way. ``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xThe Planet is called "Juyá" and not "Wayú"``x1061184363,30103,Development``x``x
``xPSEUDO-CONS GLEE IN TAKING OPPORTUNITY FROM THE EXPERIENCE OF BABIES
The attempt to "privtize' Headstart is yet another attempt by the false "conservatives" to continue the process of destroying the Black, Hispanic and poor White communities in this nation. The idea that headstart should be curtailed, elimimated or 'privatized," when these attempts would destroy that program needs to be reexamined.
All research done has shown that Headstart has helped millions of people and has contributed to the saving of millions of dollars. In fact, headstart has done more than given a head-up to millions of Black, Hispanic, White, American Indian and a large percentage of the people of the US. It has helped contribute to a better America.
PSEUDO-CON AGENDA WHETHER IN CALIFORNIA OR THE ENTIRE NATION IS DESTROYING THE US
The false "conservatives" (former 'flower power,' liberals and one-issue armageddonists) seem to be on a roller coaster track in their conspiracy to destroy America and make it suitable for their own corporate friends and interests.
Why then would the false 'conservatives' wnat to destroy headstart and promote the type of atmosphere where the training and upbringing of young children will be left to a system that expects the destroyed children of America to be criminals and without the proper training to succeed in the job market.
If the false conservatives want all of America's billions to be funnelled into the Middle East to support their parents 'homeland' rather than using America's money for America's children, then these false conservatives need to reexamine their priorities.
If the false conservatives are really about creating a stable economic environment, as they have tried to do with devastation in California, they would not contribute to more of the 'high tech' slavery that has brought about the waste of trillions of dollars around the nation with absolutely no positive return.
FALSE CONSERVATIVES ARE DESTROYING THE AMERICAN ECONOMY
The false conservatives are being systematic in their destruction of the American economy. First, anyone with any intelligence will see that the deficit has increased over the past two years and the economy is going into collasp in states like California, where conservative policies have contributed to the destriction of people and the taking of jobs to overseas locations where labor is cheap.
False conservatives have also pushed the "law and order," and "war against drugs" issues. Both of these 'wars" have also caused billions and have led to the elimination of a strong class of people between 18 to 30 who have been criminilized rather than trained for jobs and employment. At the same time, these same victims of this neo-facist economic agenda who could have been contributors to the economy are now 'slaves' of the drug war while the jobs are all going overseas.
It may shock some to realize that in 1670's just before slavery was officially established and Blacks in the English colonies were at an equal economic level to whites, the conservative Calvinists and others were having the same type of discussions that are common today. They introduced chattel slavery out of sheer envy of the Black colonists. Thus, the bible was interpreted to support slavery and both American Indians, Blacks native to North and South America and Africans all fell victim to slavery. The text, "A History of Racism and Terrorism, Rebellion and Overcoming," published by 1stBooks Library, 1stbooks.com and Barnesandnoble.com ), discusses this aspect of history in a thorough manner and traces the history of racism from the time of the nomadic infiltration into India in 1700 B.C. and introduced the racist caste system which continues to this day in India (see the June issue of National Geographic Magazine).
Nubianem
Black Nubian empire
nubianem2@webtv.net
http://community.webtv.net/nubianem``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xPseudo-Cons Glee In Taking Opportunities``x1062741768,53926,Development``x``x
``xPresident Thabo Mbeki
Of South Africa,
Pretoria.
President Olesugun Obasanjo
Of Nigeria, Abuja.
Prime Minister Howard,
Of Australia Canberra.
8TH- SEPTEMBER - 2003
Your Excellencies, and Rt. Hon. Prime Minister,
LIFTING OF SACTIONS AGAINST ZIMBABWE
1. Africa Strategy wants to commend the work of the two Commonwealth Heads of State namely Nigeria and South Africa for their concerted efforts of resolving the British sponsored violence in Zimbabwe. The pursuit for an African solution to the Zimbabwe political conflict adds weight to the integrity and dignity of the AU. This is a welcome gesture and a sign of political maturity. This goes a long way to solidify the principles of natural democracy and heals the wounds that the British and Australian systems opened in Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe's democracy is the only vibrant one on the continent. A multiparty system that has endured a barrage of criticisms of the Western so called older democracy.
Our experience in Zimbabwe Politics has shown that this is a nation that can be reunited in thoughts. Zimbabwe has been peaceful since it gained independence from the murderous regime of Ian Smith, which was supported by the same stooges of capitalism like Australia and Britain. Africa Strategy notes with great sadness the way Prime Minister Howard has degraded himself to a level of a hooligan by openly denouncing a system that has reconciled with the past heinous crimes against humanity. His election on the troika therefore stands questionable by all African Commonwealth countries.
2. Disintegration of Commonwealth:
Africa Strategy has observed that the prototype violence in the commonwealth and the degree of political vigilante violence is about to disrupt the club of nations that HM the Queen helped to mould. The form of illegal violence, which leaders of Britain and Australia exhibit in the organisation, has caused disaster for Zimbabwe. The political vigilante clique headed by Howard an offspring of criminality and Blair a master of lies has driven the organisation to increasing disorder and political anarchy. The state of Mafia vigilantism in the Commonwealth has given rise to pilgrims of war and hatred among the great nations of the Queen. The actions of Australia and Britain have created suffering to the peaceful people of Zimbabwe and to a certain extent the whole of Southern Africa. We are now witnessing a right wing Anglo-Saxon Protestantism, which opposes perceived political, cultural, economic, social and moral liberation of the people of the Commonwealth and the world at large. The hatred of the land redistribution in Zimbabwe is a typical example of how the British and Australians have exposed their hypocrisy to the world. Africa Strategy therefore warns that the Common wealth will be divided on black and white lines if the current smear campaign on Zimbabwe does not end. The organisation stands to loose credibility and will disintegrate after the Abuja conference if the matter of Zimbabwe is not resolved.
3. Long route to dialogue in Zimbabwe
Africa Strategy has watched and followed with keen interest the long road to political settlement and reconciliation in Zimbabwe. There is a window of hope and good faith towards the strand of dialogue in Zimbabwe. But this can only be achieved if Australia as a member of the troika behaves professionally and does not behave like a lunatic in their political pronouncements. The road map for dialogue does exist in Zimbabwe and the people of Zimbabwe have realised that Howard and Blair have been feeding them on lies since the year 2000. They are now united and they intend to throw out imperialism to Victoria Falls. Zimbabweans themselves should be left to decide the direction of this long route to dialogue with the help of African peace brokers of Nigeria and South Africa. There is nothing Prime Minister Howard of Australia or Prime Minister Blair can offer because they are liars to the eyes of most African people.
4. Political harassment of the government of Zimbabwe.
The constant harassment of President Mugabe who has UNITED this country for 23 years under the principles of good governance should stop and a durable and viable way found to resolve the stalemate of Zimbabwe. Africa Strategy prays that targeted sanctions against Zimbabwe will be lifted soon so as to allow diplomacy to take shape and root. You cannot put a nation, which is under a humanitarian crisis to negotiate without giving concessions to encourage good will. Africa Strategy has maintained that Britain and Australia were politically naïve to cut of political channels with Zimbabwe too early. They have created the negative political debacle we see in Zimbabwe.They have to show good gestures to enable fruitful dialogue. Dialogue can be achieved by respect for the current leadership of Zimbabwe. It is therefore deplorable that Australia and Britain who are member states in the Commonwealth to on harassing and intimidating Zimbabwe and the rest of the organisation.
5. Lifting sanctions will enhance political negotiations in Zimbabwe.
The lifting of sanctions will show a good sign of diplomacy. Targeted sanctions, which have caused economic hardships, should be removed to allow the spirit of conflict resolution to prevail.
The government of President Mugabe has many friends in Australia and Britain who can help to remould the political landscape of Zimbabwe and advise on the way forward. There is need to seek international and regional advise on the way forward by engaging the wise wisdom of those who have been on the side of President Mugabe for 23years. It was morally wrong and politically shallow for Britain and Australia to have closed the doors of open diplomacy when they're continued presence and contacts with Zimbabwe would have blossomed into a powerful pact of political magic for Zimbabwe. It is a shame to hear that the British government have now secretly admitted that Clare Short as the Minister in charge of Africa misled them on Zimbabwe.
6. Forced regime change will create power vacuum
Negotiations cannot be meaningful when a rope is tied around the neck of President Mugabe of Zimbabwe. His nation is facing economic hardships inflicted on it by the British and Australian sanctions. The same nations are calling on him to leave power when they know that a power vacuum could create chaos in Zimbabwe like what we see in Iraq. This strategy of divide and rule that has been embedded in the political history of these so-called old democracies must be exposed and we are delighted that Presidents Thabo Mbeki and his counter part Olesegun Obasanjo have taken a tough line to ensure that Australia and Britain do not bulldoze their way in the Commonwealth without checks and balances.
7. Wrong impression painted on Zimbabwe by Britain and Australia:
To date Africa Strategy has visited Zimbabwe 32 times to see itself the movement towards unity and reconciliation. Africa Strategy is pleased to state that contrary to the fantasy what the BBC and other imperialistic media houses have beamed around the world there is plenty of peace in this nation. This credit goes to President Mugabe's good policies that have not allowed Zimbabwe to go the Liberia Street.
There is peace and security in Zimbabwe than the streets of London or the shores of Australia. It is safer to walk in Harare at night than London because one does not know when the Real IRA will strike. The notion of insecurity in Zimbabwe is a design to divert attention on the high figures of gun crime in Britain and Australia. Considering the number tourists on British Airways route from London - Harare we find no reason of insecurity in Zimbabwe. Hospitality in Zimbabwe tourist resorts is better than in London or Australian Hotels. Zimbabwe needs encouragement not isolation.
8. Targeted sanctions in third world hurt masses not regime
We have stated and we have continued to state that sanctions in any African country hurt the masses not the governments. Sanctions in politics can only work when there is no consensus on national matters. In the case of Zimbabwe land is a common bond and no human being can tear that bond. This has given the government of Zimbabwe popularity amongst its people. That is why all attempts by the opposition to stifle people have failed because they have also acquired land in President Mugabe's land empowerment programme to the people. There is no need of hurting the same people with sanctions under the pretext of democracy. Do we want changes to come in Zimbabwe for the dead people? Is democracy a tool to kill Zimbabweans one by one under sanctions? Australia and Britain have pretended to be fighting for Zimbabwe's freedom by imposing the harsh economic sanctions to starve the masses. Is this the new form of tools of imperialistic liberation by torture and hunger?
9. Looming humanitarian crisis widens the gap of dialogue
If we want the parties in Zimbabwe to move closer to dialogue then the world should pay more attention to the humanitarian crisis that Britain and Australia imposed on the government of Zimbabwe.
The current humanitarian crisis was created and reinforced by the same big brothers of the Commonwealth. Is this the democracy of doom or double standards for Africans? Does democracy mean you kill people by strangulating them through economic embargoes and travel bans then you send food packages when they are on their deathbeds? If this is what Australia and Britain want in Zimbabwe then they are bound to upset the racial harmony in the whole Southern Africa. Australia and Britain should have learnt from Ugandan history where they created the late Idi Amin and he later turned Uganda into a jungle of cannibalism.
10. Is Commonwealth history repeating itself?
The world must be reminded that when Rhodesia was under Ian Smith the former British Prime Minister Edward Heath told the Common wealth leaders meeting in Singapore in 1971 that the British government would not force a solution for Rhodesia.
The same double standards tactic which older democracy used during the struggle for independence in Zimbabwe is the same applied by Prime Minister Howard on Zimbabwe today. Prime Minister Howard and his counter part in Britain encouraged violence through the MDC. That violence has destroyed the moral and political fabric of a vibrant democracy in Africa. The so-called sanctions have killed the economy of Zimbabwe. Yet today they are the same countries at the forefront of calling and forcing a solution on Zimbabwe. This is a double tragedy for the Commonwealth.
On the part of Ugandans who endured the brutality of the British double standard strategy under Amin will never mourn the death of former Prime Minister Edward Heath if it occurred. The British plotted a coup on Uganda on 25th January 1971, which led to the death of our fathers. This is why I warn many of my brothers and sisters in Zimbabwe not fall victims of international conspiracy. Those in MDC who have attacked me for defending President Mugabe against the British fangs should know that Uganda lost its shape because of former Rhodesia.
The then leadership of former President Dr. Milton Obote had wanted Britain to impose tough sanctions on the MURDEROUS IAN SMITH at Singapore Commonwealth Conference. But Britain instead plotted a coup with Amin. The political journey of Uganda in 1971changed for the sake of new Zimbabwe. The suffering and misery brought to Ugandans through the British sponsored coup and by advocates of regime change in 1971 has left lots of scars on the nation. Today history is repeating itself by the same countries at their usual game of changing leadership forcefully. Those who can remember history will not want it to happen in Zimbabwe as it happened in Uganda.
11. A reminiscent of political blunders by white Commonwealth
Africa Strategy knows that many British companies gained out of the Apartheid regime and UDI. We are also aware that many British and Australian companies burst the commonwealth and UN sanctions on the former Rhodesia. The African people would not like to see a reminiscent of the same blunders on the African soil. The leaders of the older Commonwealth should look at such historical reflections of the organisation to see the litany of lies and sorrow that their countries sowed on Africa before they talk of regime change.
It is now evident that Britain and Australia benefited from the former Rhodesian government of Ian Smith and the former Apartheid regime of South Africa. No African scholar of political science would like to witness such political brutality on Zimbabwe again. Imperialist intervention and call for regime change in Zimbabwe will harm inter -racial balance and will be a reminiscent of the disaster and cause disunity not only to Zimbabwe but also to the whole of Southern Africa. If the Zimbabwe issue is not handled with care it will explode into a time bomb that is in that region. There is a political accident in waiting in this region on the question of land and we must take a clear line not to upset the balance of forces and type of nationalism in the Southern African region.
12. Land redistribution programme is a foregone conclusion
Africa strategy knows that aspirations, passion, hope, volition and choice, belong inalienably to the life of the mind and the spirit of Zimbabweans. Without these tenets the people of Zimbabwe would languish and perish. As Africans we must not allow our selves to be paralysed by thought, rather as Africans we must use the Zimbabwe method to stand together and fight for freedom based on African values. Africa Strategy warns that we dare not stand and wait for foreigners from Europe and else where to set pace for us. President Mugabe has set pace for Africa to rethink. No political independence can be meaningful without the fruits of freedom, which are economic in nature. LAND is the final asset that Africans have and it must be shared equally without any obstacles from the former colonial masters.
The land re-distribution programme, which many countries like Australia and Britain used as ploy against President Mugabe, has been completed. President Mugabe has empowered and cared for his people. Most black and white people in Zimbabwe are in agreement of the removal of imbalances and inequalities, which were an accident in waiting and a time bomb similar to ultra nationalism of the Balkans The Commonwealth politically needs to move forward and look at a wider context of the African politics that has kept the people of Zimbabwe alive. Despite the threats from the former colonisers the country have survived and it is soldiering on with its Unity. This is a great political asset that most African countries lack. There is Unity of purpose in Zimbabwe unlike in countries like Uganda where the government only governs the Southern part of the country and the rest is under different rebel groups.
13. Awkward world order
The so-called world order that is bent on war and fails to learn to resolve crisis is an incompetent institution of political squalor. This is a reality given that there is peace in Zimbabwe up to this date although Prime Minister John Howard and Ton Blair in 2002 predicted war in Zimbabwe. It must be understood that in Zimbabwe there is a population that is resilient and determined to keep Zimbabwe as one nation. No political party today or in the near future will return the land to 1% of the white commercial farmers who owned 80% of arable land in Zimbabwe. We must recognise this as a fundamental change that we have to live with for generations to come. History always repeats itself. White colonisers never asked for land peacefully in Zimbabwe. They also grabbed this land forcefully from the black majority 120 years ago. The truth is that what President Mugabe has done in Zimbabwe is more orderly than what Cecil Rhodes did long time ago.
14. What Cecil Rhodes did 120 years ago has been annulled
The land is in the hands of the owners both black and white that are Zimbabweans. This is political dynamism and no mankind can stop the flow of freedom to the people. The skewed land policies that were created by the barbaric colonial laws have been destined to the dustbin of political history and those in the Common wealth who value sanity must accept this and focus on the economic hardships that Zimbabwe faces today.
The truth is that no political party in Zimbabwe can undo what Mugabe has done for his people. Let Britain and Australia learn this hard fact. The land is the given back to its owners both black and white on equal basis. Not even the foreign traitor clique in the MDC can derail the land programme. Politics is not therefore static it is dynamic and to cry over history is to create room for disaster. Africa and Zimbabweans in particular are not prepared to see what is in Iraq happen on their farms. Africans are usually very modest people who have no desire to let out blood. But the drums of war by Prime Minister Howard and Tony Blair of Britain can cause political mayhem to the continent.
15. Zimbabwe is a victim of rotten political spin from Britain and Australia.
Africa as a continent is faced with many forces of political immaturity, which destroy the young democracy that has not, evolved for over 1000 years like that of Australia or of Britain. The so-called older democracies are the key allies behind the Zimbabwe saga and isolation. The Zimbabwe case study is a classic example where dark imperial forces of political immaturity have prevailed. It must be remembered that most those used by the British and Australia today in MDC are either deserters from the main ZANU-PF or are re-positioning themselves for political office after the so-called advocated changes in Zimbabwe. Most of them are young people and University leavers who have no knowledge of running a government. If these groups are allowed to take the whims of power Zimbabwe will be Liberia.
The opposition in Zimbabwe is not home grown opposition but a foreign agitated opposition to protect a minority syndrome in Zimbabwe. Britain and Australia have a track record of grooming and using leaders in Africa whose thinking and reasoning capacity is equivalent to that of the late Amin Dada of Uganda. The politics of Unionism has failed in Zambia and has created chaos in Britain where the British are trapped in a shadow of spin doctoring. It is now crystal clear that Britain and Australia wanted to alter the political landscape of Zimbabwe in favour of the anointed leader of the MDC but failed.
They wanted to use the election exit strategy to destroy President Mugabe and that too has failed. They have tried to create insurgency in Zimbabwe through Baroness Lynda Chalker that too has failed. They have tried to use the Secretary General of the Common wealth destroy Zimbabwe that too failed. The only route left for political face saving for these nations is to talk directly to the government of Zimbabwe. That can be achieved by lifting sanctions that will allow free movement of all parties concerned.
16. The efficacy of the Commonwealth is dead by using the tainted middle class in MDC that values money more than patriotism.
To make democratic changes in Africa needs patriotism and a strong middle class that is not tainted by colonial handouts, which can only help to expose the ignorance of the opposition. The above cases of politics of unionism and spin doctoring are closely related to the presence of a small middle class that has no bearing to the current situation on ground in Zimbabwe. This small middle class is supported by the older democracies in the Common wealth to unleash violence against the state in Zimbabwe. Africa Strategy has documented these acts of violence by the MDC, which shows how the two older democracies have been responsible for acts of political vandalism in Zimbabwe.
The support given to the opposition MDC in Zimbabwe since the year 2000 has killed the efficacy of the Commonwealth. In fact there must be an investigation or commission of inquiry into the conduct of the Commonwealth Secretariat in London as regards Zimbabwe. Millions and millions of USD dollars have been poured to the opposition in Zimbabwe to instigate and orchestrate chaos. The books of Accounts at the Westminster Foundation for Democracy (WFD) reveal that money was paid to opposition papers in Zimbabwe like the Daily News to maintain sanctions and distortion of Zimbabwe's image abroad. The resources channelled to MDC as late as September 2002 have killed and stalled peaceful solutions for Zimbabwe. The older democracies have tainted the small middle class in Zimbabwe politics with blood money that has now haunted the Commonwealth.
17. Election exit strategy
Older democracies now use election exit strategy against third world countries that have no means of answering back. Electoral politics in Africa constitutes a worrying phenomenon on the transition to stable democracy. Elections in almost all postcolonial commonwealth were regarded as free and fair in the 1960s and 1970s. Both contenders and electorate generally accepted them as credible, free and fair. The Australian Prime Minister should note that these elections of postcolonial Commonwealth were held without the so-called outfit of imperialism called OBSERVERS. Zimbabwe's case was sad because the Commonwealth Secretary General sent a team "for a summer holidays and social spree". The report which the team produced on Zimbabwe elections was "doctored" and "sexed up " to the pleasure of the older democracies of Australia and Britain in the Commonwealth. "W e now have ample evidence that shows that all words the two Prime Ministers Blair and Howard speak are lies. Africa Strategy wants the Commonwealth to revisit the Zimbabwe election story and we shall find many areas where the two countries have lied on ZIMBABWE." Then Britain using its other proxies in the European Union also sexed the report further to force sanctions to the great basket of Africa Zimbabwe
18. Culture of political corruption in the Commonwealth
There is a serious political syndrome called a culture of political corruption in Africa. There is corrupt tendency that no election in Africa is credible unless the so-called bunch of elite foreign observers like General Abubakar and his mercenaries of doom in Zimbabwe certify it. "The Common wealth team that was sent to Zimbabwe elections became voters instead of observers" The Common wealth failed and ignored its role as an organisation founded for those with a common cause of humanity and one that has closer links with Britain and HM the Queen of United Kingdom. It has turned itself into an international surveillance camera that is always superficial or comes late to spoil the electoral process of several nations in the world. The Australian and British governments have both legitimised opposition parties in many countries where they have gone to observe elections. This is a very worrying strategy on the side of the older democracies. The blood bath that we see in most parts of the world is as a result of doctored and faked evidence by the so-called observers on all political issues in the Commonwealth. The question of Uganda is an example where a political opponent of Museveni was exiled in the eyes of the Commonwealth. Zimbabwe does not need that fallacy. Zimbabwe has made strides towards good governance and political maturity where the elections are won on merit.
19.Losers of election in Africa never defeat
Africa Strategy notes that there is a very disturbing development where the losers even those who take part in elections that are widely seen as free and fair never accept defeat. The case of Nigeria where the opposition rejected the verdict of the ballot box. Some countries in the European Union wanted to side with the opposition to derail the democratic process. This is an area where Africa needs ample research. The Common wealth must ascertain whether the claims of such dubious opposition are true. The trend that creates warlords and separatists whose desire for blood and violence is overwhelming must be discouraged. These dirty opposition parties like the MDC in Zimbabwe have brought humanitarian crisis in most countries where Australia and Britain send their troops and food packages for dead Africans. Why was Zimbabwe able to survive for 22years with prosperity and then the 2002 elections brought misery? This is the question for those who blame President Mugabe to answer.
20. Imperialism has overridden logic
The Zimbabwe case is the political benchmark where imperialism has overridden logic. Most of the countries that have hated President Mugabe do so for glory and adventurism. The Mercantile capitalism system has roots in the hate campaign against Zimbabwe. The government in Zimbabwe has allowed opposition freedom to publish in the media, it has allowed the opposition to sort differences through courts and above all Zimbabwe has no political prisoners like in Uganda and other countries that Britain and Australia praise. These are all signs of good governance. The colonial hangover policy has destroyed the development initiated by the Commonwealth. Australia and Britain should learn from the Iraq scandal that has blown up into political chaos both in their countries and in Iraq itself. We should not create unnecessary wars that will drain the resources that would have been used to cure HIV/ AIDS. Imperialism must not thrive and kill the spirit of democratisation in the emerging democracies that have balanced a political base like that of Zimbabwe.
21. Polarised Commonwealth has not mandate:
Africa Strategy has watched the Secretary General of the Common wealth grow from political ignorance to stalemate since the Zimbabwe March 2002 Elections. We recognise and welcome the recent statements made during his visit to Abuja for the preparations of Commonwealth conference. But they are not sufficient to remove the burden that is on the shoulders of Zimbabweans. The Secretary General has on a number of occasions issued statements that add agony and anguish to the people of Zimbabwe. He has shown bias and negativity as an administrator of policy in the Commonwealth. This has led to the current status quo in Zimbabwe. He has no coherent programme for dialogue in Zimbabwe. He has been listed as conduit of misinformation and has opened a Pandora box of complex issues that create more chaos than solutions on the crisis Zimbabwe. This is regrettable episode for an administrator who is mandated to find ways and means of resolving the political debacle that was supported by some member states of the Commonwealth on Zimbabwe. He has in summary caused rifts in the Commonwealth and opened more wounds than any of his predecessors.
22. Tactics used in the Ottoman Empire
The question of Zimbabwe reminds us of the tricks that the old British imperialism used to reshape the Ottoman Empire in 1924 by leaving behind the current Iraq as it is and giving green light to the creation of the State of Israel in 1948. The use of the Common wealth to cause a pre-emptive war of regime change on Zimbabwe is the aim of having an indirect rule through pseudo-democracy spearheaded by the MDC under the supervision of the Secretary Generals office in London. Africa Strategy finds most of these acts treasonable in the Commonwealth and that is why we are appealing to you leaders to raise these issues to your fellow Heads of state in the Common wealth in Abuja.
23. Australian lobby for extension of sanctions on Zimbabwe
Reports and documents we have obtained from most Australian High Commissions abroad indicate that the government of Prime Minister Howard has directed its staff to lobby for support in order to expel or extend the harsh conditions that Zimbabweans are living in today for another term. The huge amounts of donations to some poor Common wealth countries in return for their support on Zimbabwe is not only appalling but an act of political immaturity on the part of the member of the troika which the Commonwealth should condemn.
Africa Strategy does not take it lightly as this has created corruption and political arms twisting which the Harare Declaration of 1997 on Accountability and good governance does not subscribe to. Many small countries and some in East Africa have been paid or are about to be paid to support Zimbabwe's expulsion from the Common Wealth. These actions renders the Prime Minister of Australia not fit to sit on the TROIKA.
24. Covert and overt operation against Zimbabwe.
It is now very clear that the weaker nations have become vulnerable or open to overt or covert manipulations that have included the financing of the wars. The case of Liberia where the British oligarchy and Australia financed the LURD rebels in return for the diamonds from the rebels. Going by norms of international standards of governance the two should be censored by the majority in the Common wealth. We should not allow Zimbabwe to become another Anglo-American elite network of "silent diplomacy" that has created trouble and hidden under global terrorism to dismember nations.
25. Conclusion and way forward
Africa Strategy wants to alert the two leaders of the Commonwealth on the troika of the dangers of the Australian agenda that has already decided the fate of Zimbabwe. We want to ask the Common wealth through you to revamp the dialogue based on the conditions that don't create chaos like the one we have in Liberia where we had to stop the democratically President for the sake of British and American hegemony. This has set wrong signals to all other developing democracies on the continent. We must as Africans and for Africans whatever the colour of skin must have the cause for our continent. We must only support programmes of recovery that will not tie us and remind us of slavery and Apartheid era. Dialogue based on African values and accepted by the people of Zimbabwe will stop the madness of vagaries of imperialism and neo-colonialism.
26. Fangs of colonial hangover
The poisonous fangs of colonial legacy of the older democracies can be stopped by the firm determination and courage that the leadership on the continent can exhibit in terms of political maturity. Not by decisions made from Australia or Britain. Africa needs an African solution bases on African values not an imposed solution that will apex to chaos as soon as the ink dries on paper. The political crisis in Zimbabwe sponsored by Westminster Foundation for Democracy WFD to destroy nation is a deliberate attempt to re-colonise Africa through third door democracy of globalisation. The Common wealth has failed to invest in the mature civil society on the continent. They always look for weak political opposition like the one in Zimbabwe to create anarchy. If Australia had invested in a patriotic civil society in the Commonwealth there would have been no need for the so-called Foreign Observers misguiding the Common wealth on elections.
27. Time to lift sanctions on Zimbabwe
Every time we travel to this country we witness the scars of imperialism opening up slowly. We have seen in the last 2 years a Zimbabwe that was prosperous heading for a total collapse in economic infrastructure. President Mugabe has been tremendous in upholding the instruments of power and we should award him the respect he deserves. No leader on the continent can keep his former enemy after power takeover like what President Mugabe has done in ZIMBABWE. President Mugabe is a true statesman of the continent who is committed to principles of reconciliation that have failed in Uganda, Congo, Liberia, and many nations that are on war footing. The World Bank and IMF should be encouraged to return to assist in rebuilding the economy that the Australia and Britain have helped to destroy.
Africa Strategy wants be on record and to be known that we are calling for an immediate lifting of sanctions on Zimbabwe. We also call for a complete halt to all hostile actions on Zimbabwe by the Commonwealth "big brother syndrome" that has yielded a humanitarian crisis against Zimbabwe. W e call upon Nigeria and South Africa as strong African economic and political models to resist all temptations of being ordered around on the issue of Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe has a bright future under President Mugabe and there has been a smooth transition to democracy. Our goals as Africans are to value humanity not the mad principles of mercantile capitalism, which have led to bloodbath in Iraq.
28. The Way forward
If Tony Blair was not sure of history of Iraq then it has now judged him harshly and he is regretting. Zimbabwe cannot be an experimental case of freedom on the continent. Zimbabwe should not fall the way Liberia went due to political ignorance of the leaders of Australia and Britain who have put more emphasis on material gains than the life of the black Africans.
History has repeated itself in Iraq. The Liberian case shows that Britain and Australia have always left a trail of carnage. We have documents in our possession, which indicate that Britain supported the rebels of LURD in Liberia for the lucrative diamond trade. Britain supplied arms to these rebels as shown by end-user certificates. This is we what we want to avoid in Zimbabwe.
29. Political weakness of Blair and Howard at home.
Both Prime Ministers of Britain and Australia are politically weak at home now. They face daunting tasks to salvage their political life span. The Iraq fiasco where they lied to voters about Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) is now haunting them. The world knows for sure that Blair and Howard are habitual liars. It is common knowledge that very few people can trust these sons of soil on Zimbabwe or any other issue in the world politics. This is where the integrity of Presidents of South Africa And Nigeria is at stake in African politics if you don't deliver Zimbabwe back to the world harmony peacefully. Africa Strategy will always be with you all the way to Abuja and until we return Zimbabwe to its former glory.
This letter will be copied to the Secretary General for information to Member states of the Commonwealth. The research we have conducted on Zimbabwe indicates that 85% Common wealth States prefer lifting sanctions and having direct talks with the Government of Zimbabwe on the issues that were more of bilateral nature.
God bless you all,
Thanking all of you advance
Yours sincerely
David Nyekorach- Matsanga (Dr)
Africa strategy.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xLift Sanctions Against Zimbabwe``x1063380643,43608,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xby Paul Street
I'll always remember the day I tried to engage in that silly exercise called "speaking truth to power." It was early December of 2001. My topic was American policymakers' decision to place nearly a million black people behind bars and to mark more than one in three black males with a felony record. As a member of a Chicago-based council of advisers working to help ex-offenders "reintegrate" into the "free world," I was invited to a pleasant conference room to give my thoughts on these matters to Matt Bettenhausen, Illinois' "Deputy Governor for Criminal Justice and Public Safety." Along with eight other council members, I presented facts and reflections on the vicious circle of racially disparate mass incarceration. Among other things, I noted that there were nearly 20,000 more black males in the Illinois state prison system than the number of black males enrolled in the state's public universities. There were more black males in the state's correctional facilities just on drug charges, I added, than the total number of black males enrolled as undergraduates in Illinois state universities.
Bettenhausen, who hails from a local family of accomplished racecar drivers, arrived in time only for the last talk. He apologized for his lateness, explaining that he had been meeting with the state's Attorney General to discuss the "War On Terrorism." His eyes beamed with pride as he told us how much busier he had become since his appointment as the state's "first-ever Homeland Security Coordinator." With an American flag pin prominently displayed on his lapel, he regaled us with the latest reports on the United States military campaign in Afghanistan. He was clearly relishing his new supposed importance in the battle between planetary good and evil. "Wow," a fellow presenter muttered, "he watches CNN."
After thus communicating the relative insignificance of our issue at this moment of sweeping global consequence, Bettenshausen told us that then Illinois governor George Ryan would not be reversing his recent decision to eliminate higher education and vocational training for prisoners from the state's budget. These cuts, he claimed, were compelled by the "post-September economic downturn" – a dubious dating of an overdue correction in the capitalist business cycle.
Tires squealing, he apologized for racing off to another meeting related to "the war on terror." I was instantly reminded of James Madison's comment that "the fetters imposed on liberty at home have ever been forged out of the weapons provided for defense against real, pretended, or imaginary dangers from abroad." Another phrase also came to mind: plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose (the more things change, the more they stay the same).
"Everything Changed"
According to a great national myth propagated by the in-power right wing War Party and its allies and enablers in the dominant state-corporate media, "everything changed" on September 11, 2001. Before 9/11, this authoritarian narrative runs, Americans lived in peaceful division, pleasantly but naively stuck in their own little prosperous domestic spheres. We were cheerfully but innocently blind to the dangers of a still-precarious world and to the related greatness and vulnerability of our nation. We were too preoccupied with our busy little lives to grasp our creeping moral decline, epitomized by the sexual transgressions and lies of Bill Clinton.
Thanks to 9/11, we have lost our innocence and awakened to our national magnificence and the related threats we face from bad people who hate and envy our freedom and prosperity. United We Stand: we have transcended old divisions in shared allegiance to the "war on terrorism" – a new crusade against a new semi-permanent Evil Other that is the true replacement for Cold War predecessors in Moscow and Beijing. We have been morally, politically, and spiritually toughened, unified, and regenerated by violence: our own and that of our "freedom"-hating enemies.
Racially Disparate Residential Neo-liberalism
How curious, then, to pick up the "Metro" section of a recent (August 6th) issue of my leading local newspaper – The Chicago Tribune. The front page contains a photograph of 15 well-dressed white people relaxing in a plush and very predominantly Caucasian North Side neighborhood (Lincoln Park). They are positioned to permit a photographer to re-create George Seurat's late 19th century painting, titled "Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte."
It's a perfect image of bourgeois calm and oblivious, self-satisfied, imperial repose. The photograph, the Tribune reports, will be used for a "recruitment poster" by the School of the Art Institute of Chicago, which does not seem terribly interested in attracting student's from the city and metropolitan area's large African-American population.
Things are a bit more stressful in another, blacker part of town. Further down on the same page of the same section, we can read the results of a recent research report on 1,587 African-Americans living in the decrepit Ida B. Wells housing project on the city's South Side. More than half of the households there have incomes less than $5,000. Less than a fourth of the heads of those households are employed. According to the Urban Institute, 1,000 people living at Wells may end up homeless as a result of the city's imminent demolition of the project. There's an endemic shortage, the Institute notes, of affordable housing for the project's residents and indeed for poor people throughout the city. Only a small number of the displaced will qualify to live in the "mixed income" dwellings the city will build where the facility used to sit.
This is terrible, but it's an old story. Since the early- and mid-90s, public authorities have been demolishing public housing projects with only minimal attention to the needs and limited resources of predominantly black public housing residents. The Chicago version is called the "Chicago Housing Authority Transformation Plan," a local monument to the market worshipping, privilege-friendly philosophy of global corporate neo-liberalism. Pushing disadvantaged inner-city residents and the idea of social justice to the remote margins of public concern, that philosophy holds that markets make the best decisions, that social action to improve your situation is self-defeating and silly, and that the best and only way to succeed in life is as a sovereign individual consumer and investor in a "free market society." Its triumph was proclaimed "inevitable" ("there is no alternative") by leading architects of American policy and opinion long before lunatics from a distant US-protected oil sheikdom turned flying gasoline-filled symbols (and agents) of petroleum-addicted corporate globalization into weapons of mass destruction.
As researchers and activists pointed out long before the jetliner attacks "changed everything," the available stock of such housing in Chicago is insufficient to absorb the displaced public housing population. That population is "free" to be homeless, thanks to the working of economic forces that carry social costs of secondary concern to local policymakers. Those policymakers, including the Mayor, are beholden to commercial and real estate property developers seeking to remove poor black inner city residents from choice urban investment locations. Those locations are slated for predominantly white professionals, who want to live and shop in proximity to their offices in downtown Chicago, a leading headquarters for heavily state-subsidized and global corporations like the Boeing Corporation, which equips such marvelous adventures in democratic free-market progress as the terrorist occupation of Palestine (1948 to the present) and the bombings of Baghdad (both pre- and post-9/11) and (pre-9/11) Belgrade.
Correctional Continuities
Another story on the exact same Tribune page also indicates that some situations remain "normal" in the post-September 11 era. It notes that seven inmates, mostly black, were recently beaten with pool cues by guards at the city's giant Cook County Jail. How pre-9/11: this is the third such high-profile incident reported in the last four years at Cook County. The latest revelations come just days after Cook County States' Attorney Richard Devine – notorious in the black community for his habit of putting innocent African-Americans on death row – announced that he would not file charges in connection with the beating of five shackled Cook County inmates in July 2000. Meanwhile, federal investigators are conducting a civil-rights violation investigation into an alleged mass beating involving 40 guards at the same jail in 1999.
Last July, the Chicago public was momentarily shocked – these things pass, as the media moves on – to learn of a terrible accident on Interstate 57, south of Chicago. Several blacks and Hispanics were critically injured and two died when a van rolled over while carrying 18 Chicagoans to visit loved ones warehoused in racially disparate mass penitentiaries located in the southern part of Illinois. Terrible, but not new: on January 26th of 2001, almost 9 months before "everything changed," a Salvation Army van carrying eleven people on Interstate 55 south of Chicago collided with a tractor-trailer, killing all ten of the van's passengers and its driver. Ten of the dead were Black and one was Hispanic. The van was part of a regular service that took people from Chicago's predominantly black West Side to visit relatives and mates doing time in state prison.
After both crashes, nobody in the local media or politics had much to say about the relationship between the victims' race and the nature of the van's destination. There were no connections made between the tragedy and the state's policy decision to dramatically increase the number of prisoners in Illinois – mostly black and from the Chicago area – from 27,000 in 1990 to nearly 47,000 in 2000 (even as crime fell) and its related building of 11 new mass correctional facilities in Illinois during the same period; massive job-programs for de-industrialized downstate whites that are placed at increasingly vast distances from the "offenders'" home communities (See Paul Street, The Vicious Circle: Race, Prison, Jobs and Community in Chicago, Illinois, and the Nation, Chicago: Chicago Urban League, October 2002).
Last Hired, First Fired
Speaking of jobs, an excellent recent front-page article in the Tribune notes that mass lay-offs enacted during the curiously "jobless" Bush "recovery" have hit Chicago's black population especially hard. Blacks "feel frozen out of the work world," as local activist Eddie Read told the Tribune. The feeling among black workers and job applicants, the paper explains, is very different from the late 1990s, when increased labor demand significantly cut black unemployment, even among lesser-skilled inner city workers. It is worth noting, however, that the black unemployment rate (18.2 percent) was more than four times higher than the white unemployment rate (less than 5 percent) even at the peak of the "Clinton boom" – which "lifted more yachts than rowboats" as the Tribune noted last year. Also meriting mention is the fact that Chicago area job growth in the booming 90s was dramatically higher in white communities than in black communities (see The Color of Job Growth, a 2002 report of the Chicago Urban League). Here we are dealing with continuities that go back much further than 9/11. They reach back further than the Great Depression, when blacks were the "last hired and first hired" for neither the first nor the last time in American history.
Ghetto Lives
To more directly sense the rich continuities of racial homeland inequality in Chicago before and after "everything changed," you don't need to read newspapers or studies. You can drive west out of the city's downtown on Madison Avenue, past the stadium that Michael Jordan built (the United Center) and into the heart of desperately impoverished West Side neighborhoods like North Lawndale and West and East Garfield. A large number of teen and younger adult males gather on street corners. Most of them are part of the city's large and very disproportionately black concentration – estimated at 97,000 strong in 2001 by the Center for Labor Market Studies (Northeastern University) – of "disconnected youth," 16- to 24-years olds who are both out of school and out of work. Many of them are clearly enrolled in gang organizations and engaged in the narcotics trade. Many of them have already served or will soon serve as raw material for the aforementioned "downstate" prison industry. Older unemployed males, many unrecorded in the nation's official unemployment statistics (their "discouraged" status means they are no longer actively participating in the labor force), congregate around liquor stores and missions. The endemic stress, disappointment, and danger of inner-city life is etched on their faces.
Equally evident is the relative absence of retail facilities, services, and institutions that are standard in richer, whiter neighborhoods: full-service modern grocery stores, drugstores, bookstores, restaurants, doctors, dentists, lawyers, dry-cleaners, banks, personal investment and family insurance stores, boutiques, coffee shops, and much more. Businesses and homes are visibly dilapidated, with many of the former relying on hand-painted signs to advertise their wares. Local business owners, many of whom are Arab, protect their enterprises from burglary with bars and gated shutters. Pawnshops and barebones storefront churches are widely visible, as are liquor stores and currency exchanges advertising super-exploitive Payday loans. Taxicabs are scarce and those that do serve the neighborhoods are generally low-budget, fly-by-night "jitney" firms.
The small number of whites seen in these neighborhoods and their South Side counterparts are males working in traditional working-class "jobs that pay" – street and sewer repair, construction trades, firemen, and the like – that appear to be unavailable to black males.
Police cars cruise warily, their occupants donning bullet-proof vests deemed necessary in waging the war on drugs in neighborhoods where people with felony records outnumber legitimate jobs.
This is pretty much how these neighborhoods looked and felt before 9/11. Truth be told, they look a lot like they did in the 1960s, even before the riots that are supposed to have taken away their vitality, actually stolen by a process of disinvestment that was already well underway.
Accelerated Continuity
How have things changed since 9/11 in these neighborhoods? Simply put, the core continuities of human suffering and hopelessness have been accelerated. Things have gotten worse at a quickened pace, thanks in large part to the racially disparate joblessness of the current recovery. Also part of the unpleasant equation is 9/11 itself, or more accurately the official, right-led public and media response to the terror attacks. September 11th gave the radical-right Bush junta – falsely labeled conservative – a precious opportunity to divert public attention away from the causes and consequences of urban inequality, to starve, cripple, and pre-empt programs that might alleviate the suffering caused by racism and related socioeconomic inequality, and to conflate dissent with treason. These masters of war at home and abroad have seized on the opportunity with all deliberate speed, consistent with the timeworn conduct of concentrated power, before and since "everything changed." Empire abroad has always been and remains both reflection and agent of inequality and repression at home.
Paul Street is an urban social policy researcher in Chicago, Illinois. His book Empire Abroad, Inequality at Home: Essays on America and the World Since 9/11 (Paradigm Publishers) will be available next year.
Originally published on:
http://www.blackcommentator.com/55/55_think_street.html``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xInequality Before and After 9/11``x1063428785,97417,Development``x``x
``xby Paul Street; September 10, 2003
"Close to Perfect:" A Different, Bloodier Nine-Eleven
The events of September 11th were horrific, tragic, and criminal on a monumental scale. Planes flew low over an American nation's leading city. Buildings erupted in flames. There was an official death toll of more than 3,000. Thousands of innocent people were ruthlessly slaughtered. Their loved ones were placed in horrible suspense, waiting to learn the fate of missing husbands, wives, sisters, cousins, and children. An American country was left in shock, with an uncertain future, as the perpetrators evaded capture and punishment. September 11th was a dark, bloody day of historic proportions. It was a prelude to regression, repression and heightened bloodshed.
Yes, the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Chile's president Salvadore Allende on September 11th, 1973 was a terrible watershed. The low-flying planes belonged to the Chilean Air Force. They came on the orders of Chilean General Augusto Pinochet to bomb La Moneda Presidential Palace, where Allende, a self-declared Marxist, killed himself before he could be assassinated. Hundreds of real and suspected Allende supporters were gunned down in Santiago's soccer stadium, fashioned into a torture center and concentration camp. Across the nation, in the streets and military detention centers, Pinochet's forces murdered 20,000 and tortured 60,000 in the first few months after 9/11/1973. One million Chileans were forced into exile. According to leading international relations analyst William I. Robinson, it was "the bloodiest coup in Latin-American history" (Robinson, Promoting Polyarchy: Globalization, US Intervention, and Hegemony [Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 1996], p. 46).
According to a report from Patrick Ryan, the US Naval Attaché stationed with the United States Military Group in Chile that black September, the coup was "close to perfect." It was, Ryan told his superiors, a great victory for "free men aspiring to goals which are to the benefit of Chile and not self-serving world Marxism." (Situation Report, Navy Section, United States Military Group, Valparaiso, Chile, October 1, 1973, available online at http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/ch21-01.htm)
This state-terrorist rampage targeted the left and the mass popular social movements ("Marxist" and otherwise) that brought Allende to power in September 1970. Chilean trade unions and other popular organizations were dismantled. Clinics serving the poor were closed down. Twenty-six newspapers and magazines were shuttered. Chilean state and society, exceptional among Latin American states in the degree or its respect for civic freedoms and bourgeois-democratic political institutions, was militarized at every level.
Next came the restructuring of Chile's political economy along "free market" lines, meaning state protection for the wealthy and savage market discipline for the poor. Land, factories, mines, and mills that had been put under public direction for public service were returned to their "rightful" owners, "rescued" for the noble pursuit of egoistic, capitalist profit. This was consistent with the counsel of University of Chicago economic "experts," who arrived to spread Milton Friedman's delusional notion that capitalism and democracy are identical phenomena.
The socioeconomic consequences of the new "freedom" and "democracy" were striking. As the Chilean rich got richer during the first ten years of Pinochet's rule, the number of Chileans living below the official poverty line rose from 17 to 40 percent. The related slashing of health expenditures and programs led to an explosion of poverty-related diseases at the bottom of Chile's increasingly steep pyramid. Those who questioned the policies leading to these aristocratic outcomes did so at the risk of torture and murder by the fascist "free market" state.
"In Our Own Best Interests": Saving Chile from the "Irresponsibility" of Its Own People
It was all carried out to the applause and with the assistance and political cover of the US power elite. When the American ambassador to Chile expressed misgivings about Pinochet's use of torture, he received a sharp rebuke from US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, who oversaw US covert actions and made sure that the ambassador was kept out of the "black-ops" loop during the early 1970s. For Kissinger and President Richard Nixon, humanitarian concerns were irrelevant. The higher Cold War goal was to protect global capitalism and American multinational corporate interests from the virus of "Marxism." Stated more accurately, the purpose was to crush the contagious notion that national social and economic policy should and could be conducted with collective and egalitarian purposes and national self-determination in mind. Kissinger seems to have been most concerned with the demonstration effect successful Chilean left-democratic governance might have on Italy, where left parties were in a position to make gains within the existing parliamentary political system.
Upon learning of Allende's election in 1970, Nixon informed Kissinger and CIA Director Richard Helms that the newly elected government of Chile was "unacceptable." He instructed his dark foreign policy stars to devise a scheme for keeping Allende out of office. "Not concerned risks involved," read Helms' notes on Nixon's instruction. "No involvement of the embassy. $10,000,000 available, more if necessary. Full-time job - best men we have...Make the economy scream. 48 hours for plan of action."
Kissinger saw "no reason," he once remarked, that the US should stand by and let a nation "go Marxist" because "its people are irresponsible." Consistent with that judgment, Kissinger and the CIA were centrally involved in efforts to de-stabilize and overthrow the Allende regime through various means, including military force. This pivotal, illegal US intervention in Chile's internal affairs is now a matter of voluminous documentary and scholarly record, much of which can be perused in a number of sources listed in an Appendix at the end of this article.
One year after the US-instigated coup, President Gerald Ford - in the oval office thanks to some domestic White House "black ops" that garnered unfavorable attention in the imperial homeland (Watergate) - claimed that US actions in installing Pinochet were "in the best interests of the people of Chile and certainly in our own best interests."
Historical Connections
Twenty-eight years to the day after Chile's 9/11, the world witnessed a different, more spectacular form of unimaginable violence, broadcast live on national TV, with different ideological and geo-political parameters. The culprits were almost certainly based in the extremist Islamic terror networks of the Middle East.
There are some interesting, dark connections, however, between these two Nine-Elevens. The US policy of deterring democracy and social justice in the perceived interest of US multinational corporations and world capitalism was hardly restricted to Chile and the official Cold War era (1945-1991). In pursuit of the same basic goals that informed the US/Pinochet coup, the US has supported and in some cases conducted anti-democratic coups against excessively (from a US perspective) "left" governments (any state that proposed to encourage development of its sovereign territory in significant autonomy from the US-dominated world capitalist economic system) in Syria (1949), Iran (1953), Iraq (1963), Indonesia (1965), and Greece (1967). It provided massive economic and military assistance to authoritarian Middle Eastern regimes that suppressed democratic and left opposition and kept their domestic economies open to foreign and especially US corporate penetration and domination. It armed Israel, waged war and enforced a deadly, decade-long sanctions campaign against Iraq, stationed troops indefinitely in the Islamic Holy Land, and provided cover for Israel's prolonged, racist annexation of Palestinian territory. The US funded the Arab far-right, supporting arch-reactionary Islamic extremists like Osama bin Laden, valued as weapons in the same Cold War that provided cover for the US campaign to crush national self-determination, democracy, and social justice in places like Iran, Vietnam, Nicaragua, and Chile.
By largely eliminating the left, undercutting democracy, and generally subjecting regional developments to imperial fiat both during and after the official Cold War, the US shrunk the available space for "normal" (Western-style/parliamentary) airing of social, political and related international grievances in the Middle East. This, in turn, brought "blowback" (an internal CIA term for the unintended consequences of secret US foreign policies) from America's imperial periphery to the skies and streets of New York City and Washington DC, where Pinochet's henchmen (part of a CIA-sponsored team of international assassins code-named "Operation Condor") killed a former Allende supporter and his American driver (Olando Letelier and Randy Moffit) in 1976. How darkly appropriate, then, that George W. Bush attempted to put Kissinger, a leading perpetrator in the state-terrorist events of 9/11/73, at the head of a federal commission to investigate US security lapses prior to 9/11/2001, which opened the door for new levels of US and US-sponsored state terrorism.
Worthy and Unworthy 9/11s
Of course, only a tiny percentage of the US population knows about Chile's 9/11, for reasons that go beyond obvious gaps of time, geography, and language. A relevant explanatory text here is the second chapter, titled "Worthy and Unworthy Victims," of Noam Chomsky and Ed Herman's Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of The Mass Media (New York, NY: Pantheon, 1988), published as the Cold War was nearing its partial conclusion with the collapse of the Soviet deterrent (itself part of the context for 9/11/2001) to American global ambitions. "A propaganda system," the authors noted, "will consistently portray people abused in enemy states as worthy victims, whereas those treated with equal or greater severity by its own government or clients will be unworthy." Identified with the official US Cold War "enemy" force of socialism or Marxism - really social egalitarianism and national self-determination (still the basic adversaries of US policy in the "post-Cold-War era") - Pinochet's victims have only recently attained a small measure of historical worthiness in dominant US corporate-state media. This slight retrospective legitimacy comes far too long after the terrible facts. It is no match for the worthiness bestowed on the most officially precious victims in US History: the Americans who died on the only 9/11 that matters in a nation that drifts through history in a dangerous fog of selective, top-down remembrance.
Paul Street (pstreet@cul-chicago.org) will speak on "State-Run Media" on Friday, September 26, 2003 at a conference titled "Is Our Media Serving Us?" at Columbia College, Hokin Annex, 623 S. Wabash, Chicago, IL, 12:45 PM.
Appendix: Selected Sources on US Involvement in 9/11/73 and Related Developments in Chile
US Senate, Select Committee to Study Government Operations With Respect to Intelligence Activities, Covert Action in Chile, 1963-1973 (Washington DC: Government Printing Office, 1975); United States Congress, Select Committee to Study Government Operations With Respect to Intelligence Activities, Interim Report: Alleged Assassination Plots Involving Foreign Leaders, 94th Congress, 1st Session, November 10, 1975 (Washington DC: Government Printing Office, 1975); William Blum, The CIA: A Forgotten History (London: Zed, 1986), pp. 232-243; Seymour M. Hersh, "The Price of Power: Kissinger, Nixon, and Chile," Atlantic Monthly, 250 (1982), no. 6, 21-58; Poul Jensen, The Garotte: The United States and Chile, 1970-73 (Aarhus, Denmark: Aarhus University Press, 1988); Christopher Hitchens, The Trial of Henry Kissinger (New York, NY: Verso, 2001), pp. 55-76; "Why Is the U.S. Mum About Pinochet?," CNN.com (November 25, 1998), available online at http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/europe/9811/25/pinochet.us/; National Security Archives, The Chile Documentation Project (2000-2001), available online at http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/latin_america/chile.htm.
Reproduced with permission from Paul Street
http://www.zmag.org/``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xRemembering Chile's 9/11``x1063431010,55440,Development``x``x
``xThe Hidden History of Western Civilization
by David Livingstone, www.thedyinggod.com
Essentially, the modern version of history, as one begun in Greece, and secluded to Europe, is one wrought by certain prejudices that can be traced back to the eighteenth century. In Europe, the Bible commanded had largely commanded the perspective of history. But, during the Renaissance, "Humanists" emphasized their regard for philosophy, and thus the importance of the pagan Greeks. Still though, the Greek heritage they thought was to be traced back to Hermes, an Egyptian, and Zoroaster, a Persian.
In the eighteenth century, with the discovery of the purported linguistic relationship between Sanskrit and European languages, as well as through the influence of occult legends, scholars created the notion of an original "Indo-European" race. And so, focused on India as a cradle of civilization, attributing its inception to Aryan invaders.
However, while Enlightenment scholars had initially turned to India, the German Romantics of the early nineteenth century, perceiving an affinity between the Greek and German languages, came increasingly to regard Greece as the lost Golden Age of Aryan civilization they had been longing for.
The reconstruction of history according to a Euro-centric perspective was further aided though the prestige of "Reason" established by the Enlightenment. Reacting to the insistence on "Faith" as the basis of belief in Christianity, Enlightenment philosophers stressed instead the use of "Reason", which, through science, came to be perceived as incompatible with the mounting inconsistencies made apparent in the Bible.
Thus, with the increasing acceptance of Darwinism, all history came to be seen as progress, specifically, the progress of "rationalism" or "Humanism", supposed to have been incepted by the Greeks, and crowned by the success of the French Revolution and its implementation of secular rule.
The first error in this equation was to have regarded the Greeks as the first "free-thinkers". Scholars' emphasis on the achievement of the Greeks has inhibited them from recognizing the cultural and scientific revolution that took place in Babylon in the sixth century BC, which had profound ramifications. Essentially, there, the ancient worship of a dying god was assimilated to astrology and magic, a cult known to the ancient world as that of the Chaldean Magi.
With the advance of the Persians, this cult was carried to those parts of the world that had come with the bounds of their immense empire, most notably, the Greek city-states of Ionia, on the western coast of Turkey. The adoption of Magian beliefs among the Greeks led there to the emergence of the cult of Orphism, and the philosophy of its greatest exponent, Pythagoras, and through him, Plato.
After the conquests of Alexander, these traditions, under Greek guise, were disseminated through the Roman Empire, flourishing particularly at Alexandria, where they fostered the creation of new mystical cults, namely, Hermeticism, Neoplatonism, and Gnosticism, all founded on the doctrines as taught in the "Ancient Mysteries".
In turn, and throughout the so-called Dark Ages, these were picked up by the Arabs, where they led to the formation of the Sufis and the heretical branch of Shia Islam known as the Ismailis. In effect, it was contact with these traditions, introduced to them by the Arabs during the crusades, which rescued the Europeans from centuries of obscurity, leading to the emergence of the Age of Scholasticism and the legends of the Holy Grail.
The continuing influence of these traditions led to the Renaissance. That period though, was not a rejection of Christianity and the progress of "rationalism", as offered by the Humanistic interpretation of history, but the revival of mysticism through the rediscovery of Neoplatonism and Hermeticism. The same tendencies were then perpetuated by the Rosicrucians, the Freemasons, and during the Enlightenment influenced the formation of Aryan race theory.
In effect, not only has history followed a course very different from that which has commonly been considered, but this ancient cult of a dying god, with its attendant beliefs in astrology, magic and alchemy, has shaped an alternate history, or, a hidden history, which has formed the basis of the Western occult tradition, and by that, much of Western culture, though in a manner that has yet to be fully discerned, due to its continuing suppression by the same emphasis on "rationalism".
For more information, I invite you to visit my website:
www.thedyinggod.com``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xThe Dying God``x1063574259,75607,Development``x``x
``xAs the only racial group that never suffers systemic racism, whites are in denial about its impact
Martin Jacques
Saturday September 20, 2003
The Guardian UK
I always found race difficult to understand. It was never intuitive. And the reason was simple. Like every other white person, I had never experienced it myself: the meaning of colour was something I had to learn. The turning point was falling in love with my wife, an Indian-Malaysian, and her coming to live in England. Then, over time, I came to see my own country in a completely different way, through her eyes, her background. Colour is something white people never have to think about because for them it is never a handicap, never a source of prejudice or discrimination, but rather the opposite, a source of privilege. However liberal and enlightened I tried to be, I still had a white outlook on the world. My wife was the beginning of my education.
But it was not until we went to live in Hong Kong that my view of the world, and the place that race occupies within it, was to be utterly transformed. Rather than seeing race through the prism of my own society, I learned to see it globally. When we left these shores, it felt as if we were moving closer to my wife's world: this was east Asia and she was Malaysian. And she, unlike me, had the benefit of speaking Cantonese. So my expectation was that she would feel more comfortable in this environment than I would. I was wrong. As a white, I found myself treated with respect and deference; my wife, notwithstanding her knowledge of the language and her intimacy with Chinese culture, was the object of an in-your-face racism.
In our 14 months in Hong Kong, I learned some brutal lessons about racism. First, it is not the preserve of whites. Every race displays racial prejudice, is capable of racism, carries assumptions about its own virtue and superiority. Each racism, furthermore, is subtly different, reflecting the specificity of its own culture and history.
Second, there is a global racial hierarchy that helps to shape the power and the prejudices of each race. At the top of this hierarchy are whites. The reasons are deep-rooted and profound. White societies have been the global top dogs for half a millennium, ever since Chinese civilisation went into decline. With global hegemony, first with Europe and then the US, whites have long commanded respect, as well as arousing fear and resentment, among other races. Being white confers a privilege, a special kind of deference, throughout the world, be it Kingston, Hong Kong, Delhi, Lagos - or even, despite the way it is portrayed in Britain, Harare. Whites are the only race that never suffers any kind of systemic racism anywhere in the world. And the impact of white racism has been far more profound and baneful than any other: it remains the only racism with global reach.
Being top of the pile means that whites are peculiarly and uniquely insensitive to race and racism, and the power relations this involves. We are invariably the beneficiaries, never the victims. Even when well-meaning, we remain strangely ignorant. The clout enjoyed by whites does not reside simply in an abstraction - western societies - but in the skin of each and every one of us. Whether we like it or not, in every corner of the planet we enjoy an extraordinary personal power bestowed by our colour. It is something we are largely oblivious of, and consequently take for granted, irrespective of whether we are liberal or reactionary, backpackers, tourists or expatriate businessmen.
The existence of a de facto global racial hierarchy helps to shape the nature of racial prejudice exhibited by other races. Whites are universally respected, even when that respect is combined with strong resentment. A race generally defers to those above it in the hierarchy and is contemptuous of those below it. The Chinese - like the Japanese - widely consider themselves to be number two in the pecking order and look down upon all other races as inferior. Their respect for whites is also grudging - many Chinese believe that western hegemony is, in effect, held on no more than prolonged leasehold. Those below the Chinese and the Japanese in the hierarchy are invariably people of colour (both Chinese and Japanese often like to see themselves as white, or nearly white). At the bottom of the pile, virtually everywhere it would seem, are those of African descent, the only exception in certain cases being the indigenous peoples.
This highlights the centrality of colour to the global hierarchy. Other factors serve to define and reinforce a race's position in the hierarchy - levels of development, civilisational values, history, religion, physical characteristics and dress - but the most insistent and widespread is colour. The reason is that colour is instantly recognisable, it defines difference at the glance of an eye. It also happens to have another effect. It makes the global hierarchy seem like the natural order of things: you are born with your colour, it is something nobody can do anything about, it is neither cultural nor social but physical in origin. In the era of globalisation, with mass migration and globalised cultural industries, colour has become the universal calling card of difference. In interwar Europe, the dominant forms of racism were anti-semitism and racialised nationalisms, today it is colour: at a football match, it is blacks not Jews that get jeered, even in eastern Europe.
Liberals like to think that racism is a product of ignorance, of a lack of contact, and that as human mobility increases, so racism will decline. This might be described as the Benetton view of the world. And it does contain a modicum of truth. Intermixing can foster greater understanding, but not necessarily, as Burnley, Sri Lanka and Israel, in their very different ways, all testify.
Hong Kong, compared with China, is an open society, and has long been so, yet it has had little or no effect in mollifying Chinese prejudice towards people of darker skin. It is not that racism is immovable and intractable, but that its roots are deep, its prejudices as old as humanity itself. The origins of Chinese racism lie in the Middle Kingdom: the belief that the Chinese are superior to other races - with the exception of whites - is centuries, if not thousands of years, old. The disparaging attitude among American whites towards blacks has its roots in slavery. Wishing it wasn't true, denying it is true, will never change the reality. We can only understand - and tackle racism - if we are honest about it. And when it comes to race - more than any other issue - honesty is in desperately short supply.
Race remains the great taboo. Take the case of Hong Kong. A conspiracy of silence surrounded race. As the British departed in 1997, amid much self-congratulation, they breathed not a word about racism. Yet the latter was integral to colonial rule, its leitmotif: colonialism, after all, is institutionalised racism at its crudest and most base. The majority of Chinese, the object of it, meanwhile, harboured an equally racist mentality towards people of darker skin. Masters of their own home, they too are in denial of their own racism. But that, in varying degrees, is true of racism not only in Hong Kong but in every country in the world. You may remember that, after the riots in Burnley in the summer of 2001, Tony Blair declared that they were not a true reflection of the state of race relations in Britain: of course, they were, even if the picture is less discouraging in other aspects.
Racism everywhere remains largely invisible and hugely under-estimated, the issue that barely speaks its name. How can the Economist produce a 15,000-word survey on migration, as it did last year, and hardly mention the word racism? Why does virtually no one talk about the racism suffered by the Williams sisters on the tennis circuit even though the evidence is legion? Why are the deeply racist western attitudes towards Arabs barely mentioned in the context of the occupation of Iraq, carefully hidden behind talk of religion and civilisational values?
The dominant race in a society, whether white or otherwise, rarely admits to its own racism. Denial is near universal. The reasons are manifold. It has a huge vested interest in its own privilege. It will often be oblivious to its own prejudices. It will regard its racist attitudes as nothing more than common sense, having the force and justification of nature. Only when challenged by those on the receiving end is racism outed, and attitudes begin to change. The reason why British society is less nakedly racist than it used to be is that whites have been forced by people of colour to question age-old racist assumptions. Nations are never honest about themselves: they are all in varying degrees of denial.
This is clearly fundamental to understanding the way in which racism is underplayed as a national and global issue. But there is another reason, which is a specifically white problem. Because whites remain the overwhelmingly dominant global race, perched in splendid isolation on top of the pile even though they only represent 17% of the world's population, they are overwhelmingly responsible for setting the global agenda, for determining what is discussed and what is not. And the fact that whites have no experience of racism, except as perpetrators, means that racism is constantly underplayed by western institutions - by governments, by the media, by corporations. Moreover, because whites have reigned globally supreme for half a millennium, they, more than any other race, have left their mark on the rest of humanity: they have a vested interest in denying the extent and baneful effects of racism.
It was only two years ago, you may remember, that the first-ever United Nations conference on racism was held - against the fierce resistance of the US (and that in the Clinton era). Nothing more eloquently testifies to the unwillingness of western governments to engage in a global dialogue about the problem of racism.
If racism is now more widely recognised than it used to be, the situation is likely to be transformed over the next few decades. As migration increases, as the regime of denial is challenged, as subordinate races find the will and confidence to challenge the dominant race, as understanding of racism develops, as we become more aware of other racisms like that of the Han Chinese, then the global prominence of racism is surely set to increase dramatically.
It is rare to hear a political leader speaking the discourse of colour. Robert Mugabe is one, but he is tainted and discredited. The Malaysian prime minister, Mahathir Mohamed, is articulate on the subject of white privilege and the global hierarchy. The most striking example by a huge margin, though, is Nelson Mandela. When it comes to colour, his sacrifice is beyond compare and his authority unimpeachable. And his message is always universal - not confined to the interests of one race. It is he who has suggested that western support for Israel has something to do with race. It is he who has hinted that it is no accident that the authority of the UN is under threat at a time when its secretary general is black. And yet his voice is almost alone in a world where race oozes from every pore of humanity. In a world where racism is becoming increasingly important, we will need more such leaders. And invariably they will be people of colour: on this subject whites lack moral authority. I could only understand the racism suffered by my wife through her words and experience. I never felt it myself. The difference is utterly fundamental.
· Martin Jacques is a visiting fellow at the London School of Economics. The death of his wife, Harinder Veriah, in 2000 in a Hong Kong hospital triggered an outcry which culminated in this summer's announcement by the Hong Kong government that it would introduce anti-racist legislation for the first time.
Reproduced for fair use only from:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/race/story/0,11374,1046113,00.html``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xThe Global Hierarchy Of Race``x1064113444,53321,Development``x``x
``xBy Asmerom Kidane, www.biddho.com
Visiting Professor of Econometrics
University of Dar es Salaam
Posted: October 05, 2003
1. Introduction
Every country, nation or nationality is expected to have a history of its own. We have been repetitively told that we can all learn from history-emulate or replicate the positive aspects and making sure that the negative components are either rectified or not repeated. We learn from our or other's history provided that the sequences of historical events are correctly recorded and objectively analyzed. I happen to be an applied statistician by profession; in this field we have a sub discipline which we call Time Series Analysis. This discipline is nothing but an empirical analysis of historical data. For example one may wish to study past growth of GDP or aggregate income; the historical data are plotted on a graph in order to detect past patterns of growth or decline. Next the investigator tries to objectively identify the reasons or causes for the past growth or decline. This approach presupposes that to the best of the statistician's ability, the historical data is recorded with minimum errors or biases. Otherwise what ever conclusion the statistician makes could not only be misleading but he may be offering wrong income policy prescriptions. The same analogy should apply when scholars study and interpret a country's or peoples or event history. It goes without saying that historians bear a burden of heavy responsibility when documenting events of historical significance and it is incumbent upon them to interpret their findings as objectively as possible.
When one reads or cruises over the various books and narratives written on Ethiopia's past by Ethiopian scholars, one may conclude that there is a lot to be desired. Not only are Ethiopian scholars subjective and selective but also their interpretation of historical events and personalities seems to be highly flawed. They fail to foresee the undesirable consequences of their flawed narratives on the future unity and sovereignty of their country. They may have to take joint responsibility for the sad state of affairs that Ethiopia is in.
In this exercise an attempt will be made to show how Ethiopian scholar/historians viewed their leaders over the past century and half (1855-2003). During this extended period, Ethiopia was ruled by four emperors, one colonel and the ones currently in power-the Weyanes. There were also three other leaders, Teklegiorgis, Eyasu and Zewditu but these were of little consequence - either their reign was brief or they were simply sidelined-. Ethiopian historians have made heroes out of the four so called emperors and Colonel Mengistu. Their verdict on the status of the Weyane leadership is not out yet. We will summarize the deeds/misdeeds of the four emperors along with the other two and check whether they deserve to be declared as heroes.
2. The Reign of Theodros (1855-1868)
Theodros ascended to power in 1855 at the age 33. He is believed to be from humble background and Ethiopian scholars credit him for uniting Ethiopia from the era of principalities (Mesafintis) without ever mentioning the means he followed to reach to the top. European travellers who were in and around Gondar during his reign have documented that Theodros was selfish and quick tempered.. Alan Morehead, in his book 'The Blue Nile' describes Theodros as '... a mad dog set loose...' in reaction of his treatment of both Ethiopians and foreigners.
Few months after he took power and after claiming that he had liquidated potential pretenders to the throne, the country begins to disintegrate again and moves towards anarchy. It is believed that Theodros spent most of his 13 years reign moving from one place to the other, killing most of his enemies and many of his friends. The way he was committing crimes against humanity is simply horrendous.- putting hundreds of would be conspirators in thatched huts, locking and then setting them on fire, throwing hundreds of prisoners and opponents into the deep precipice of Magdela, burning towns such as Gonder, imprisoning his brothers, relatives, foreign travellers and emissaries, looting and vandalizing villages. In the end he ended up being so unpopular and paranoid; he feared for his life and with his few remaining followers fortified and confined himself to the mountain top of Magdala. Finally he ended his life while resisting capture by Napier's British expedition. Theodros was succeeded by Teklegiorghis whose reign did not even last three years.
This is the personality of Theodros. One finds it difficult to comprehend why Ethiopian scholars admire, adore, glorify and make a hero out of such character. This is nothing but a flawed interpretation of history.
3. The reign of Yohannes (1871-1889)
Yohannes defeats Tekleghiorghis his brother in law (husband of his sister) captures him and literally blinds him by inserting a hot iron bar into his eyes! (What a moronic character!). This is not an allegation; it is simply the truth as it appears in a standard Ethiopian historical text authored by non other than Tekletsadik Mekuria, the so called Ethiopian historian. (In a later edition of the book the author withdraws the above allegation probably after protests and intimidations by the Yohannes royal house.) It should be noted that Yohannes victory over Tekleghiorgis was due to the fact that his army was equipped with modern weaponry; he was rewarded with armaments by the British Napier expedition for his anti Ethiopian services and for his treasonous activities against Theodros.
Once Yohannes ascends to power in 1871 he gives Ethiopian Moslems an ultimatum-either convert to Christianity or else. Many brave Ethiopian Moslems defied the edict; as a result thousands were massacred, disfigured and were forced to out-migrate to safe heavens such as Eritrea and Sudan. During the emperor's regime there was a rebellion in Gojjam region-Yohannes and his army march to the province, plunder and ravage the country side and leave the place completely ransacked. In the end Yohannes was defeated and beheaded in the battle of Metema while fighting the Mahdists of Sudan (1889). It is widely believed that the Ethiopian Moslems who were forced to leave their homeland because they did not wish to succumb to the Emperor's wild edict were responsible for his humiliating defeat. It is the Yohannes type misfits that the present day Ethiopian scholars admire and revere. They have named streets, airports and schools after them. This should not have been the case and that is why one can safely conclude that the Ethiopian history books are highly flawed.
4. The reign of Menelik
When Yohannes passes Menelik comes into the picture (1889-1913). Like Yohannes, Menelik came to power through treacherous and treasonable activities. He 'stabbed Yohanees in the back' by aligning himself with the Italians; at that time the latter were arch enemies of Yohannes; Menelik also failed to support Yohannes's bid to 'defend' Ethiopia from the Mahdists. He was probably praying that Yohannes would die in the battle field so that he will take over... and that is exactly what happened. Treason number one for Menelik. Current Ethiopian scholars and politicians regard Menelik as the architect of modern Ethiopia. This is not true; the stark reality is that, Menelik was a typical colonizer and an active participant in the scramble for Africa. He forcibly subdued the Oromos, the Welaitas, Kembatas, Afars, Somalis, Aderes and many other nations and nationalities in the South, Southwest and East of present day Ethiopia. He imposed an archaic Menz type culture on these otherwise proud people. He forced them to change their religion, values cultures and in some instances their truly democratic traditions (such as the Gada system). He treated the vanquished as slaves ready to be sold in an auction like market.
It should be noted that Menelik's conquest of the South was not a 'walk in'; he did encounter stiff resistance especially from the Welaitas, Arssi Oromos and the Aderes of Harar. He was able to defeat them using the relatively modern weapons he acquired from the Italians via Asseb. After defeating the southern nations and nationalities, he appointed his own native Amharas to be the warlords. Any historian with a slight semblance of objectivity cannot label Menelik as a hero. He is not – pure and simple. On the contrary many Ethiopian scholars admire this so called hero to the extent of almost worshiping him. This is nothing but a deliberate distortion of historical facts. Given this attitude, there is no way for the present day Ethiopian scholars to gain respect and credibility from the Oromos, Kambatas, and other oppressed nationalities.
5. The Reign of Haile Selassie
The next 'major' emperor of the Ethiopian empire is Teferi Mekonnen alias Haile Selassie (his imperial name is almost one km. long!). The real heir apparent to Menelik's throne was his grand son Eyasu. He was 17 years old when he became a national leader (what a shame) and only stayed in power for three years (1913-1916). As expected he was ousted by Teferi in the usual Abyssinian approach - through treason. This time Teferi's pretext for overthrowing Eyasu was his Islamic lineage and tendency as well as the fact that he was not a Shoan Menz par excellence! Once in power (1916-1930 as a regent 1931-1974 as an emperor) Teferi made a dummy out of Zewditu - the new empress - by sidelining her on the archaic pretext that she is a woman; he put his children and relatives in high places and placed behind the bars any would be opponent. Four years after he was crowned as emperor, Ethiopia was invaded by Fascist Italy. Instead of undertaking a protracted warfare, Haile selassie briefly appeared in Maichew battlefield not to fight but for a photo show; he abandoned his rug tag army and immediately returned to Addis; few days later he fled to Britain by a royal cruiser liner that was waiting him in Djiboutti. With him he took his family, relatives and what ever was available in the treasury.
Haile Selassie was residing in Bath, Britain waiting and praying for a miracle to happen... and... BINGO!!... miracle did happen. Italy along with Germany declared war on Britain. With the assistance of the British, Haile selassie was on his way to Ethiopia via Sudan after five years of seclusion.
Ethiopian scholars/historians declared Haile selassie as the liberator. Again this is far from the truth. The plain fact is that Italians in Ethiopia were defeated by the British not by Haile selassie and his forces. By the time he arrived in Khartoum in 1941 he did not have a credible army; he just assembled few hundred recruits from among the Ethiopian refugees in the Sudan and hired a military adviser in the name of Colonel Wingate (a weird character).
Before Haile Selassie crossed the Ethio Sudan border via Gojjam (he was scared to use Gonder as an entry point because there were many patriots waiting to capture him... remember Blata Takkele!!!... ) the British had already occupied most of Ethiopia by attacking Italian lines from the North that is from Sudan, via Eritrea... to Ethiopia and from the South, via Kenya and British Somali land to Ethiopia. In other words by the time Haile Selassie crossed into Ethiopia, he did not face any resistance. Every thing was 'ready made' for him. When Haile Selassie arrived in Debre Marcos, General Cunningham's British army had already occupied the capital Addis Abeba. The British officers instructed and warned Haile Selassie to stay in Debre Marcos and not move south to Addis. The British military were about to declare Ethiopia as a conquered enemy territory thereby establishing a colonial administration. Haile Selassie was believed to be in a state of depression. It was only through Churchill's instruction and the sympathy the British had for the Ethiopians that Haile Selassie was finally allowed to proceed to Addis Abeba and hoist the Ethiopian flag. Even then Ethiopia was still under British domination until 1944.
Contrary to what Ethiopian scholars lead us to believe Haile selassie cannot be a hero... this is another one of a series of making a hero out of a villains. As of late Ethiopian scholars also seem to be divided on whether Haile Selassie was a hero or not. Those who were active during hid reign label him as a hero; Mengistu and his intellectual followers call him a villain; Weyane and their sympasizers don't even know how to label him.
6. Mengistu and the Weyanes
We have two more 'villains' to go before we reach the twenty first century. This time I will try to be brief as many people know who Mengistu is and who the Weyanes are. One of the most vicious tyrants of the twentieth century is Mengistu (1974-1991). It will be time and energy consuming to narrate the atrocities and misdeeds of this psychopath. As usual he climbed to power through treason and deception by demystifying the invincibility of Ethiopian emperors; he simply murdered Haile selassie, massacred his grand children and relatives, his ministers and generals - one by one. He assassinated thousands of Ethiopians including many of the products of Ethiopia's flawed history. He launched the so called 'red terror' whereby thousands of children, adults and elders were massacred in broad day light; he charged a fee for parents who wish to take their dead relatives. In the end his half a million Ethiopian army was decimated by the gallant freedom fighters of Eritrea. Without showing any resistance he fled to Zimbabwe with his children and relatives. Mengistu is probably the most coward among Ethiopia's so called heroes.
Last and least we have the current leaders of Ethiopia-the Weyanes-. Fortunately they are not yet declared as heroes by the Ethiopian scholars. The ethnic group where the Weyane hail from constitute only 5% of the Ethiopian population making them unfit to lead a country of 65 million. Setting this aside for the moment, the Weyanes are the worst pathological liars of their kind. Because of this built - in habit, whatever they utter today is forgotten or denied the next day (witness Seyoum Mesfin's statements following the border ruling and afterwards). The Weyanes claim to have given Ethiopian ethnic groups their right to self rule and yet they arrest, torture and kill their best leaders; they claim that they are for free press and yet they are very brutal against journalists, they claim that the Ethiopian economy has shown magnificent progress and yet they have 14 million people on the verge of starvation and death, they claim that they have introduced a free market and yet they have depleted the Ethiopian treasury through capital flight to Tigrai and abroad. They claim that they stand for peace in the region and yet they opened war on a neighbor (Eritrea) whereby more than 100 000 mostly non Tigrean Ethiopians are believed to have been perished. They claim that they will abide by the decision of the boundary commission and yet they refuse to go along in the demarcation process. More can be said, has been said and will be said about the current misfits running the country. As usual they came to power through treason and deception. Chances are that they may not stay there much longer. It is every body's hope that, this may be the right time for Ethiopians to change leadership through democratic and peaceful means. Unfortunately this is doubtful.
7. Conclusion
We have gone over the true activities of six so called leaders that led Ethiopia down the drain over the past 148 years (1855-2003). They include four self styled emperors, one military dictator and the Weyanes. From their actions and reactions they cannot be declared as heroes. If at all there is anything to learn from them it is not to be or act like them and if possible not to remember them. One wishes that this tendency of 'wrong hero worship' should be put to a close. To the contrary this is not what the so called Ethiopian scholars and historians are propagating. It appears that there is little one can do because these same scholars are the product of Ethiopian flawed history. Because of this 'wrong hero worship' Ethiopian scholars, historians and their followers claim to be proud that they are Ethiopians. Surely they can be proud of Ethiopia's good climate, the hospitality of the people, its ethnic mosaic and her other positive attributes. To be proud of their villain leaders is simply an act of irresponsibility with symptoms of Fascism and Nazism.
Unless this 'wrong hero worship' is checked, unless the products of Ethiopia's flawed history come to their senses, unless they have a South African type truce and reconciliation, unless Ethiopian chauvinists atone, recant and publicly apologize for their ancestors' misdeeds Ethiopia will be there for more trouble. If the Ethiopians scholars - both within the country and in the Diaspora - do not return to their senses they will continue to be a problem, not only for Ethiopia but also for its neighbours. Their recent postings and utterances suggest that they are unlikely to return back to sanity. In my next posting I will try to summarize current activities of the so called Ethiopian scholars cum historians. God Bless.
Reproduced with permission from:
Asmerom Kidane, www.biddho.com``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xEthiopian Scholars: Products of Flawed History``x1065356087,78145,Development``x``x
``xBy Nsaka Sesepkekiu
Student of African and Asian Studies
Faculty of Humanities
University of the West Indies
Trinidad and Tobago
Whenever we hear the term "Chinese" we often associate the word with short slanted eyed people who can fight kung fu. With the recent celebration of establishment of the People's Republic of China, I wish not only to congratulate them but also to add some insight into their history.
The original, first, native, primitive inhabitants of China were black Africans who arrived there about 100,000 years ago and dominated the region until a few thousand years ago when the Mongol advance into that region began. These Africans who fled the Mongol onslaught can still be found in South East Asia and the Pacific Islands misnomered Nigritos or "small black men." The Agta of the Philippines is one such example. Indeed archeology, forensic and otherwise confirm that China's first two dynasties, the Xia and the Ch'ang/Sh'ang, were largely Black African with an Australoid, called "Madras Indian" or "Chamar" in Trinidad, present in small percentages. These Africans would carry an art of fighting developed in the Horn of Africa into China which today we call martial arts: Tai Chi, Kung fu and Tae Kwon Do. Even the oracle of the I-Ching came with a later African group, the Akkadians of Babylon.
Around 500 BCE an African living in India called Gautama would establish a religion called Buddhism which would come to dominate Chinese thought. Any one who is in doubt should consult Geoffrey Higgins's Anacalypsis, Albert Churchward's Origin and development of Religions, Gerald Massey's Egypt the Light of the World, Riunoko Rashidi's African Presence in Early Asia and J A Roger's Sex and Race Vol 1. Many Africans survived the Mongol invasion into the twentieth century only to be exterminated by Chairman Mao's programme of Cultural cleansing. Under this programme millions of Africans and Afro-Asians were killed from 1951-1956. Contribute we still did, giving the People's Republic of China its first Chief Minister in the name of Eugene Chen, a Trinidadian of George Street, Port-of-Spain, who was of an African mother and a Chinese father.
For further reading on this individual one should consult J A Rogers' World's Great Men of Colour Vol I. So next time the word China or Chinese is mentioned remember that Africans played a pivotal role in launching what is called Chinese civilisation, if such a thing exists.
Also Visit:
THE FIRST CHINESE WERE BLACK``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xAfricans launched Chinese civilisation``x1065551310,24384,Development``x``x
``xRush Limbaugh and the Politics of White Resentment
By TIM WISE
So now we know how Rush Limbaugh lost all that weight. It wasn't will power, it wasn't exercise, and it wasn't the Atkins Diet. Instead, it appears to have been a legal opiate called OxyContin: legal, at least, for those persons who have a prescription for it, which Rush doesn't. Limbaugh, according to the former housekeeper who scored drugs for him since 1998, is addicted to painkillers.
Rush's dope habit, however, is not the subject of this column, except insofar as it might explain in part his tendency to say some really stupid shit. People who are high, after all, are known to have clouded judgment, which is probably why Limbaugh hasn't denied the allegations of pill-popping, since pill-popping might end up being the last best defense he has against the charge that he's an ignorant, pompous blowfish.
Limbaugh's most recent outrage--claiming that NFL quarterback Donovan McNabb is overrated but avoids serious criticism because he's black and thus the media goes easy on him--is frankly mild compared to many things he's said over the years. Even in the realm of comments considered racist, as this one has been by many, the quip ranks pretty low on the bigot-meter.
After all, early on in Rush's radio career he told a black caller to "take that bone out of your nose and call me back," and since then has said that all composite sketches of criminals look like Jesse Jackson. Additionally, he once dismissed the notion that black opinions matter by ranting that "they're only 12 percent of the population. Who the hell cares?"
The comment about McNabb--a three-time Pro Bowler--which Rush made in his capacity as a recently-added ESPN Sunday football commentator is, to hear Rush tell it, no big deal. And the reaction to his remarks, again to hear him tell it, only indicates how far "political correctness" has gone. In fact, in Rush's mind, not only was the remark not racist, but he is now the victim of a liberal-left cabal intent on stifling any conservative commentary in the public arena: a strange claim to make when you're a multimillionaire who has gotten rich off of very un-stifled conservative commentary.
To be fair, Rush is right about one thing. His comment was not, in and of itself racist. He did not, after all, allege that McNabb's talent (or presumed lack thereof) was due to his being black, and therefore somehow incapable of commanding an NFL offense.
But at the same time, this is not where a proper analysis of his remarks (or racism for that matter) should end. For the simple fact is that racially-charged comments, which this surely was, take place against a backdrop of larger social commentary.
Statements of this nature exist not in a vacuum, as if mere isolated flotsam and jetsam on the national airwaves, but rather within a broader context, where their interpretation and symbolic value become greater than the sum of their linguistic parts.
In the case of a comment such as Limbaugh's, one must consider the effect, not simply the intent behind the words. It is this consideration that can legitimately cause Limbaugh's remarks to be viewed as racist or at least an example of white racial resentment, which in turn can feed the problem of racism, whether or not this was the goal of the speaker.
That Rush would likely never understand this is not surprising. Indeed, his understanding of racism, like that of most white Americans it seems, is so limited that it only allows the label to be used to describe the most vicious and deliberately bigoted of statements or actions. In other words, Rush, like most whites, views racism as requiring the evil intent of an individual racist, and thereby considers the event through the eyes of the perpetrator rather than the victim. If he didn't mean any harm, then there was no foul.
But just as football players can be penalized for holding whether or not they meant to do it, so too can someone be guilty of fomenting racism, with or without the conscious desire to contribute to such a thing.
Fact is, what Rush did on ESPN was to play the conservative and white version of the so-called race card. The one that goes like this: "Black people get treated with kid gloves, get coddled, get preferential treatment, get held to a lower standard, get away with sub-par performance in ways that no white person could."
It's a card that Rush and others like him have played for years in their diatribes against affirmative action. It's a card that Rush himself played a few months ago when he and other prominent conservatives insisted that New York Times plagiarist Jayson Blair got away with his dishonesty for so long merely because he was black, and because the Times had an overzealous commitment to "diversity" at the expense of quality. In fact, there is virtually no difference between Rush's treatment of Blair and McNabb: both black, both supposedly getting by on their skin color alone and being coddled by the typically-liberal media, desperate to find ability among black folks who aren't really that good.
Putting aside whether or not Rush is right about McNabb's abilities--and this is something about which honest football fans can disagree, I suppose--the remark can only be viewed as a continuation of the "undeserving black guy gets ahead" theme so common among an increasingly resentful white public.
And keep in mind this is a public that has already been fed lies about affirmative action for so long that today many seem to think that whenever they fail to get a job, it must have been because of some preference given to a person of color; or that if their kid didn't get into the college of their choice, it had to be because of quotas.
Ignore the evidence of course, since it gives the lie to such silliness. Ignore the fact that the very same blacks who presumably take white jobs are two to three times more likely to be unemployed, even when their credentials are equal to their white counterparts.
Ignore the fact that whites are more likely than members of any other racial group to get into their first-choice college, while blacks are the least likely to do so.
Ignore the study published in the Journal of Economic Literature--actually an analysis of over 200 other studies--which found that persons who have benefited from affirmative action perform equal to or better than their white contemporaries, indicating that not only are they not being held to a lower standard, but are meeting whatever standard exists for everyone else.
Even within the ranks of football, ignore the recent study indicating that black coaches are fired more quickly than their white counterparts, even when their records are just as good or better.
Ignore the fact that another black quarterback, Tennessee's Steve McNair, has long been under-appreciated by the national media, stretching back to his days in college at Alcorn State, where he was a Heisman Trophy candidate.
Why, one might ask, would the same media that falls all over itself to kiss the ass of Donovan McNabb just because he's black, constantly minimize McNair's talents on the field, rarely praising him beyond noting that he's "gutsy and plays with pain?"
Only this year, after four straight seasons of high passer ratings and 60 percent-plus completion rates is McNair starting to get some credit for the Titans strong play. But given Rush's worldview, this hardly makes sense. After all, if the media is itching to praise a black quarterback, why would they seemingly have been allergic to such praise in the case of McNair?
Speaking of McNair, imagine what white conservatives would say if he, or any other black football player or commentator were to suggest that the reason the media hasn't given him much credit for his QB skills was because he was black? In other words, what if McNair were to claim that racism against blacks was the reason he failed to get the credit he deserved? Odds are good that Rush and his loyal listeners would hit the roof, blow a gasket, and then have to pop twenty or thirty pills to ease the pain.
Such a claim by McNair would be viewed as stoking racial resentment on the part of blacks. It would be viewed as playing the race card in an arena where it didn't belong. It would be viewed, in short, as racist by many on the right, or at least an example of poisoning the well of race relations.
Well the same logic applies here. When the national dialogue on race includes an unhealthy dose of diversity-bashing from the right, replete with claims of blacks receiving unearned preferences, to then claim that this kind of favoritism explains McNabb's treatment by the press can only further that narrative. In doing so, it can only poison the well of race relations and engender white backlash against the mildest of civil rights efforts. And it can do all of this, irrespective of the self-proclaimed benign intentions of the speaker in question.
Of course the impact of Rush's remarks on McNabb will likely be negligible. After all, an athlete like Donovan McNabb isn't likely to care too much about an analysis of his skills coming from someone whose main form of exercise is washing down the equivalent of synthetic heroin with water. But the impact it can have on the black community generally--especially young black kids--is anything but insignificant.
For blacks to once again hear a white person insist they really aren't that good and that anything they achieve is only because of race, is for them to have planted in their minds the seeds of self-doubt that can cripple achievement. It is also to subject them to yet more proof that no matter what they do, many whites will never think they are truly competent.
Rush of course offers up one last defense, but if anything it actually makes the point of his critics. On his radio show, Rush recently noted that he has also criticized white quarterbacks Vinnie Testaverde and Kurt Warner as being overrated by a doting media, and thus, his criticism of McNabb cannot be seen as either unique, or racist.
Yet when casting doubts upon the skills of these white players, and when questioning the media's generally fawning attitude towards them, Rush naturally never suggested that their treatment might be due to the media's desire to have a "great white hope," at quarterback; or because, being white, Warner or Testaverde fit some racialized notion of "all-American boys."
Such comments could be made, one supposes, though with not any greater legitimacy than the ones Rush actually offered. That his criticism of white quarterbacks came without the racial angle attached leads one to wonder: if not race, then what else could possibly explain the media's love affair with Warner and Testaverde? And if there is an answer other than race available in these cases, then why wouldn't this also be true for Donovan McNabb?
Of course there are other answers, but for a flamethrower who has made his living pushing buttons, those answers don't matter. Rush's job, as it were, for fifteen years has been to serve as the voice of pissed off white men and the white women who love them: pissed off at blacks for everything under the sun; pissed off at immigrants for not learning English fast enough; pissed off at liberals for taxes; pissed off at Bill Clinton for blow jobs. Just plain pissed off.
Now we learn that if someone had simply asked this pissed off superstar to piss in a cup, his star would have darkened long ago. But like I said, this article isn't about the fact that Rush is a drug addict. Did I mention that, by the way?
Tim Wise is an antiracist educator, essayist and activist. He can be reached at timjwise@msn.com
Reproduced from:
http://www.counterpunch.org/wise10032003.html``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xThe Other Race Card``x1065913251,12144,Development``x``x
``xby Kimberle Williams Crenshaw, CommonDreams.org
The mind numbing pathology around race in America was on display again as the reaction to Rush Limbaugh's completely predictable disintegration last week kicked into overdrive. The initial non-reaction to Limbaugh's inflammatory remarks, followed by shallow discussion and ambivalent criticism, bears a close resemblance to the cycle of reaction following the Trent Lott debacle. Indeed, there appears to be a pattern of reaction to such blatant racial performances; one that indicates a much deeper problem than the tendency of "blowhards" or "social neanderthals" to make "insensitive remarks."
The cycle reveals that there is a deep dissonance between conventions built on the fantasy that racism is a thing of the past or the preserve of the crazies, and the reality that racist influences are as enduring as Old Glory and as potentially hip and marketable as ESPN's wunderkind, Mark Shapiro, gambled it could be. The otherworldy alchemy of the official rhetoric of colorblindness, alongside the unapologic pandering to a racist subculture in the American social and political electorate, seems to create an invisible force that initially stills the tongue, and then causes mindless, contradictory and senseless babbling in its wake. What else can explain the odd fumbles, miscues, and offsides reactions following Limbaugh's snap. Let's cut to the tape.
The tape begins not with Limbaugh's prime time remarks, but with the muted reactions of commentators, owners, and the entire football industry to Shapiro's decision to hire him. Limbaugh's string of bigoted diatribes about African Americans leave no doubt about his fundamental hostility towards this group. In fact, Limbaugh had explicitly encouraged his fans to write African Americans out of any meaningful role in political or cultural discourse: "who cares about them, they're only 12% of the population." This was not simply an "unfortunate comment" or being "caught up in the moment." His racism was a credo, an article of faith, an essential element of who Rush Limbaugh was.
Although this attitude alone might make a reasonable person assume that Limbaugh was patently unqualified to assume the mantle of commentator on an all-American pastime, Shapiro anointed him to be the voice of the fan. Obviously, the fan Shapiro coveted was not the Black fan, who, with a few exceptions, would not be fooled into thinking that they were being channeled into the studio by Rush Limbaugh. Shapiro's marketing decision to hire Limbaugh despite his alienating racial histrionics betrays a Limbaugh-esque posture towards Blacks: "who cares about them, they're only 12% of the population."
Some say Shapiro can only be blamed for taking a losing gamble, one based on marketability rather than hostility toward African Americans. This claim fails to capture the extent to which Shapiro's willingness to lie down with a racist to make a dollar reflected his utter disregard for the interests and sensibilities of an entire population. Hiring Limbaugh was, in this sense, a profoundly racist act.
Despite the significance of Shapiro's decision, however, the reactions were surprisingly muted. At most, eyebrows were raised about the hiring of a "conservative" or "controversial" commentator to appear in a role designated as apolitical. The elementary "see no evil, speak no evil" version of racial etiquette that has been assumed in mainstream media nowadays effectively whitewashed Limbaugh. This process of normalizing racism as mere conservatism probably does as much to advance the cause of white supremacy as hooded marches, cross burnings, and other patently racist activities.
Lacking a socially sanctioned way of objecting to Limbaugh's "everyman" status within sports culture, perhaps it is not surprising that Rush's recent comments elicited a "deer in headlights" response from his co-commentators. Limbaugh co-hosts have taken a lot of heat for their silence, but, in fairness, it is difficult sometimes to know where the "pretend is supposed to end." Even as the frozen-in-time reaction to Limbaugh's comments began to thaw, Shapiro himself clearly didn't know when to stop pretending. He persisted in the utter denial that Limbaugh had said anything "racial" or even "political."
But in a caught-on-tape world, that level of denial-like the denial surrounding Trent Lott's faux pas----- could not last long. More troubling than the tendency of media commentators to use the "finger in the wind" test do determine if Limbaugh had crossed any lines is the way in which the same commentators are now describing the boundaries that, according to the wind, Limbaugh did cross.
Here is where the true blind spots on the racial playing field are revealed. Our referees are now declaring that Limbaugh's foul was not intentional, but incidental. He did say something racial, we are told, but it wasn't racially motivated. This peculiar explanation marks our entrance into the Twighlight Zone of colorblind racial discourse. A strange force field seems to suck up all common sense when the conversation moves to race in America. What in the world would one have to think "racially motivated" meant in order to assume that an assertion that a quarterback is overrated because he is Black is not racially motivated? It certainly is motivated by a belief, a zeal, indeed an agenda to put the Black quarterback in his place, a place obviously of lesser value and respect than he currently enjoys. Moreover, this "blacks are getting more than they deserve" mentality is not only shared by Limbaugh in the context of sports and other social goods. It is ubiqitous throughout American history. Indeed, African Americans have spent generations trying to address it.
There are others who suggest that Limbaugh's error was to bring up "the color of a person's skin" in a context where race is (supposed to be) irrelevant. This corollary to the "it wasn't racially motivated" rationale also misjudges the infraction. There are enormous complexities involved in the functioning of race and sports that ought to be considered and discussed. The entire process of becoming a quarterback, just like the process of becoming a head coach, an owner, or assuming any other leadership position, is influenced to varying degrees by race. The issue is not merely that Limbaugh failed to be colorblind, it is that his particular brand of color consciousness flies in the face of what we know about the history of sports and about the real racial obstacles faced by African Americans in their efforts to ascend to leadership positions in just about any institution.
Of course, this is all too much to say in a soundbite, which is why a lot of people who know better are so willing to make a bad call: personal foul-failure to be colorblind. But the fact that there's no easy language to capture the complexities of race in America -- particularly the complexities of "institutional racism," which Eagles owner Jeffery Lurie aptly invoked to contextualize the Limbaugh phenomenon -- does not excuse a lack of real thinking about the matter. Indeed, a lack of real thinking is part of what led to the failure to challenge Limbaugh's hiring in the first place.
Kimberle Williams Crenshaw (crenshaw@law.columbia.edu) is Professor of Law at UCLA and Columbia Law Schools. She is the Founder and Executive Director of the African American Policy Forum (www.aapf.org), and a leading scholar in the Critical Race Theory movement.
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1011-08.htm``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xBad Calls on the Racial Playing Field``x1065913352,75224,Development``x``x
``xBy Kurt Nimmo
In order to please crucial "swing" voters in his brother's state, Junior has ratcheted up the anti-Castro rhetoric.
Bush has not threatened Castro outright -- not yet anyway -- but instead has said he will increase "restrictions" on Cuba. "The transition to freedom will present many challenges to the Cuban people and to America, and we will be prepared," declared Bush. He told Secretary of State Colin Powell and Housing Secretary Mel Martinez to "plan for the happy day when Castro's regime is no more and democracy comes to the island."
It wasn't all that long ago Bush said the same about Iraq.
In response to Bush's latest saber-rattling, Dagoberto Rodriguez, head of Cuba's diplomatic mission, said Bush should "stop acting like a lawless cowboy" and "start listening to the voices of the nations of the world."
Not likely. Bush doesn't know anything but the "lawless cowboy" routine. Like the run-of-the-mill playground bully, it's how he and the neocons deal with the world.
Of course, considering how strapped the Pentagon is with the whole Iraq imbroglio, chances they will invade Cuba anytime soon are slim to none. Instead, they will continue to make life miserable for a few million Cubans.
But then, thanks to over four decades of economic warfare, misery is common fare for the vast majority of Cubans.
Paying for the egregious sin of deposing the brutal military dictator Fulgencio Batista Zaldívar -- friend of both US business interests and gangster Meyer Lansky -- is a never-ending and ever-increasing debt for the Cuban people.
It seems the lawless cowboy in Washington wants them to hanker for the good old days when Havana served as an international drug port and as the "Latin Las Vegas" for the likes of Frank Costello, Vito Genovese, Santo Trafficante Jr., Moe Dalitz and other notable mobsters.
Neoconservatives, who like to call themselves "Conservative Internationalists," have always had it out for Castro and the communists of Cuba. But then so have any number of US presidents, from Kennedy to Clinton.
It's just that the Bushites are more operatic about it.
Last year Josh Bolton, US Under Secretary of State, gave a speech before the rabid rightwing Heritage Foundation entitled "Beyond the Axis of Evil." In the speech, Bolton designated Cuba, Libya and Syria as "rogue states," in other words states facing possible military action. Bolton went so far as to say "Cuba's threat to our security has often been underplayed," stopping an inch short of claiming Castro plans to attack Florida with biological weapons.
It was the other way around, though.
Back in 1961 and 1962, the CIA used biological weapons on Cuba's agricultural workers. A decade later, the CIA introduced swine fever into the island, precipitating an epidemic which culminated in the death of 500,000 pigs.
The Washington Post further detailed the US covert war against Cuba in 1979 when it published an article claiming the Pentagon had produced biological agents to use against Cuba's sugar cane and tobacco production. Other suspicious disease outbreaks include haemorraghic conjunctivitis, dengue fever, dysentery, ulcerative mammillitis, black sigatoka, and citric sapper blight, to name but a few. In 1977, CIA documents disclosed that the Agency "maintained a clandestine anti-crop warfare research program targeted during the 1960s at a number of countries throughout the world," according to the Washington Post.
"In 1984, Eduardo Arocena, leader of the terrorist group OMEGA-7, admitted to an American jury that he had taken part in operations to introduce deadly viruses into Cuba as part of a secret biological warfare programme against Havana," writes Marcia Miranda. Arocena was trained in the use of explosives by Cuban exiles who were trained by the CIA.
And then there was Operation Northwoods.
As James Bamford writes in his book, Body of Secrets, "Operation Northwoods called for a war in which many patriotic Americans and innocent Cubans would die senseless deaths -- all to satisfy the egos of twisted generals back in Washington, safe in their taxpayer-financed homes and limousines."
So fanatically anti-Castro was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Lemnitzer that he not only proposed killing scores of innocent Cubans, but also John Glenn, the first American to orbit the Earth. "Thus, as NASA prepared to send the first American into space, the Joint Chiefs of Staff were preparing to use John Glenn's possible death as a pretext to launch a war," Bamford writes.
As the Senate Foreign Relations Committee reported in 1961, right-wing extremism was prevalent in the Pentagon. "Among the key targets of the extremists, the Committee said, was the Kennedy administration's domestic social program, which many ultraconservatives accused of being communistic... much of the administration's domestic legislative program... would be characterized as steps toward communism." Not long after the Senate issued its report, Kennedy was assassinated.
Now we call "ultraconservatives" neocons.
No doubt this current crop of fascistic rightwingers would love to engineer the same sort of social chaos in Havana they engineered in Baghdad. Imagine Raul and Ramon Castro, the younger brothers of Fidel, suffering the same fate as Uday and Qusay Hussein. Imagine yet another deck of playing cards distributed by the Pentagon with pictures of Carlos Rafael Rodríguez, Ramiro Valdés Menéndez, Lázaro Peña, and other members of the Communist Party of Cuba.
Naturally, the Bushites will not be invading Cuba soon, especially considering how over stretched and bogged down they are in Iraq. No, there are more practical matters at hand, such as the United Nations vote on easing the embargo on Cuba next month. Junior has also warned that he will veto any measure approved by the Congress that gives relief to the Cuban people.
"Cuba sera pronto libre [Cuba will soon be free],'' said Bush from the Rose Garden the other day. In the meantime, however, he will settle for a spate of new visas and investigations by the Ministry of Homel
As to the former -- well, of course, the election is a little over a year away and closing in fast.
Let's not forget how instrumental Florida was in the last Bush coup d'etat. Recall the role played by Republican Party operatives and Cuban fascists in Broward County four years ago. Likewise tactics may serve well again, especially considering how bad the Bush economy is and how terrible the Bush occupation of Iraq is going. No doubt the political trickster and former Donald Segretti understudy Karl Rove understands all this very well. As the Valerie Plame affair demonstrates, there is no shortage of "necessary viciousness" (as John Dean terms it) on the part of the Bushites.
Junior's going to need all the extra votes he can get come November, 2004.
Kurt Nimmo is a photographer and multimedia developer in Las Cruces, New Mexico. Visit his excellent blog at www.kurtnimmo.com/blogger.html.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xCuba and the Viciousness of the Bushites``x1066077200,66752,Development``x``x
``xGandhi branded racist as Johannesburg honours freedom fighter
Rory Carroll in Johannesburg
Friday October 17, 2003
The Guardian
It was supposed to honour his resistance to racism in South Africa, but a new statue of Mahatma Gandhi in Johannesburg has triggered a row over his alleged contempt for black people.
The 2.5 metre high (8ft) bronze statue depicting Gandhi as a dashing young human rights lawyer has been welcomed by Nelson Mandela, among others, for recognising the Indian who launched the fight against white minority rule at the turn of the last century.
But critics have attacked the gesture for overlooking racist statements attributed to Gandhi, which suggest he viewed black people as lazy savages who were barely human.
Newspapers continue to publish letters from indignant readers: "Gandhi had no love for Africans. To [him], Africans were no better than the 'Untouchables' of India," said a correspondent to The Citizen.
Others are harsher, claiming the civil rights icon "hated" black people and ignored their suffering at the hands of colonial masters while championing the cause of Indians.
Unveiled this month, the statue stands in Gandhi Square in central Johannesburg, not far from the office from which he worked during some of his 21 years in South Africa.
The British-trained barrister was supposed to have been on a brief visit in 1893 to represent an Indian company in a legal action, but he stayed to fight racist laws after a conductor kicked him off a train for sitting in a first-class compartment reserved for whites.
Outraged, he started defending Indians charged with failing to register for passes and other political offences, founded a newspaper, and formed South Africa's first organised political resistance movement. His tactics of mobilising people for passive resistance and mass protest inspired black people to organise and some historians credit Gandhi as the progenitor of the African National Congress, which formed in 1912, two years before he returned to India to fight British colonial rule.
However, the new statue has prompted bitter recollections about some of Gandhi's writings.
Forced to share a cell with black people, he wrote: "Many of the native prisoners are only one degree removed from the animal and often created rows and fought among themselves."
He was quoted at a meeting in Bombay in 1896 saying that Europeans sought to degrade Indians to the level of the "raw kaffir, whose occupation is hunting and whose sole ambition is to collect a certain number of cattle to buy a wife with, and then pass his life in indolence and nakedness".
The Johannesburg daily This Day said GB Singh, the author of a critical book about Gandhi, had sifted through photos of Gandhi in South Africa and found not one black person in his vicinity.
The Indian embassy in Pretoria declined to comment, as it prepared for President Thabo Mbeki's visit to India.
Khulekani Ntshangase, a spokesman for the ANC Youth League, defended Gandhi, saying the critics missed the bigger picture of his immense contribution to the liberation struggle.
Gandhi's offending comments were made early in his life when he was influenced by Indians working on the sugar plantations and did not get on with the black people of modern-day KwaZulu-Natal province, said Mr Ntshangase.
"Later he got more enlightened."
© Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003
More on Ghandi:
Gandhi and African Blacks
The Myth of Mahatma Ghandi``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xGandhi branded racist in Johannesburg``x1066446536,90977,Development``x``x
``xO.J. REVISITED
Kobe Bryant, Marv Albert, & Latrell Sprewell
Race, Athletes and Public Perception
by Ellen Rosner, www.blackcommentator.com
Kobe Bryant, like OJ did, stands at the crossroads of two American myths:
Kobe is a Black man accused of raping a White woman
and
a beloved sports-figure.
What happens when America's dream meets America's nightmare?
When God Bless America meets Birth of a Nation?
What does race have to do with it?
The media would have us believe - nothing.
When Latrell Sprewell, an African-American professional basketball player, put his hands around the throat of his coach P.J. Carlesimo, he was given the harshest sentence in the history of the NBA. Although an arbitrator reduced his suspension from one year to seven months, Sprewell's fine of 6.4 million dollars was the largest in the history of professional sports. The public and media reaction was swift and almost uniformly condemnatory. As Peter H. King wrote in the Los Angeles Times, "One might think he had stabbed his wife to death."
He was called pathological, a sociopath, America's worst nightmare. When he sued the NBA for lost income, he was compared to Charles Manson!
Sprewell became a symbol first for the perceived "thug" mentality of the NBA (which term was somehow only applied to Black players), then for "violent Black male athletes" and by extension for all Black violence. Lurid headlines read: "Open Season: Patients Now Running the NBA Asylum", "Sprewell Story an Analogy for World Gone Mad", "Gang Chic as a Marketing Tool".
Consider the short, kinky saga of Marv Albert. The Knicks' broadcaster (originator of the ubiquitous "Yess!"), was accused of biting the back of his ex-lover and forcing her to perform oral sex. He was charged with forcible sodomy and assault and battery, and faced, if convicted, life in prison.
Albert denied all accusations. On the second day of the trial a second woman testified, describing two encounters in which Albert bit her and tried to force her to perform oral sex. In one of the encounters Marv was wearing a woman's panties and garter belt. Two days later he pleaded guilty to misdemeanor assault and battery. The felony charge of forcible sodomy was dropped. The judge deferred sentencing for a year and on October 9, 1998 his record was cleared of all charges.
From the time of his charge until the plea bargain, Albert continued to call NBA games for NBC. By December 1999 Marv is broadcasting Knicks games, MSG Sportsdesk nightly, Turner Sports, some basketball games for NBC, the Olympic Games in Australia for NBC, and the Goodwill Games.
A story of fall and redemption to warm the heart.
After Marv Albert, we did not read articles about the predatory nature of the broadcasting industry and its thug mentality.
But Spree, because of the intersection of race and sport, became a symbol for all that is "wrong" with the NBA:
too Black
too violent
too out of control
If a well-known African-American sports-figure had been accused of biting a woman while wearing panties and a garter belt, we'd still be reading about it five years later.
Mike Tyson bites off a piece of an opponent's ear in the ring.
Strange?
Yes. But stranger than Marv Albert's behavior?
This is not to denigrate what is purely a personal choice - one's manner of dress.
But Tyson is forever branded as an ear-biter. Latrell is still talked about as the man who choked his coach.
When did you ever hear Marv Albert referred to as the ‘cross-dressing, back-biting sportscaster'?
Mickey Mantle drank himself to death and remains a hero. Babe Ruth, throughout his career was a big drinker, a womanizer, irresponsible, and violated team rules. Yet his image is not tarnished, he is known - affectionately - as a "good ol' boy".
What Black athlete could have got away with The Babe's behavior, then or now, and not be pilloried?
Spree makes one mistake, and in spite of five and a half years of sin-free living his reputation is not rehabilitated.
The story of Kobe Bryant - whether he is found guilty or not - is guaranteed to churn out books about Athletes - their sense of entitlement, their violent behavior, their immoral lives. And what will be unspoken, but intended, is African-American athletes.
But the story of Marv Albert did not lead to studies of the pathology of broadcasters who assault women while wearing a garter belt.
All of which is to say that race is always present, whether stated or not. Race is why Sprewell became a symbol of black violence against white authority and why Marv Albert's "Yess" is again heard across the land.
Race is why White Legends - like Mantle, Ruth, Pete Rose - can have their transgressions forgiven, or at least overlooked.
After the Fall
The Black Athlete is never just an athlete - he is a "credit to his race" - like the early Jessie Owens, Jackie Robinson, or OJ.
(Simpson, before he was accused of a horrific crime, was the darling of the public and the media. He did what America demands of a star Black athlete - embraced racial neutrality and sold himself to the highest bidder. He was the first Black athlete to win major corporate endorsements. Before there was Michael Jordan, there was OJ.)
or
he is an affront to White people and the American way:
Jack Johnson, Muhammad Ali in his prime, Dennis Rodman, Latrell Sprewell
Why is forgiveness not available to the Black sports figure who falls from Grace?
The Black Athlete is not allowed to be multi-dimensional; he is demonized or deified.
(The two most popular Kobe web sites are FREEKOBE.com "Because we're running out of heroes" and FRYKOBE.com.)
And if the Black athlete falls from grace, he can expect no mercy. No redemption. This is what America does to its Star Athletes who are Black, or should we say to its Blacks who are Star Athletes.
It remains to be seen where Kobe Bean Bryant will fall in this mix.
But when a Black man stands accused of raping a White woman, know that race is not absent.
Kobe might well heed the words of Tupac Shakur in his Anthem to the Black Male Athlete: "Don't get caught up in the mix because the Media is Full of Dirty Tricks."
Ellen Rosner is a free-lance writer living in New Jesey.
Reproduced from:
www.blackcommentator.com/60/60_guest_kobe.html``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xRace, Athletes and Public Perception``x1066747613,55686,Development``x``x
``xBy Rootsie, www.rootsie.com
"Let us look at ourselves, if we can bear to, and see what is becoming of us. First we must face that unexpected revelation, the strip-tease of our humanism. There you can see it, quite naked, and it's not a pretty sight. It was nothing but an ideology of lies, a perfect justification for pillage; its honeyed words, its affectation of sensibility were only alibis for our aggressions. A fine sight they are too, the believers in nonviolence, saying that they are neither executioners nor victims. Very well then; if you're not victims when the government which you've voted for, when the army in which your younger brothers are serving without hesitation or remorse, have undertaken race murder, you are, without a shadow of doubt, executioners. And if you choose to be victims and to risk being put in prison for a day or two, you are simply choosing to pull your irons out of the fire. But you will not be able to pull them out; they'll have to stay there till the end."
Sartre wrote this in 1961, when France was in the midst of its disaster in Algeria, but he describes well the moral predicament of the Western world after 500 years of African slavery and colonialism. Advocates for reparations for chattel slavery and genocidal African colonialism have presented a number of legal arguments to the United Nations and individual governments in the West, citing international law. My purpose here is to highlight not the legal arguments, but the moral and spiritual ones, to suggest to my fellow whites that reparations are in our own best interest.
Few but the richest among us would argue that these are great days. Much concern is voiced in Western societies about violence, particularly among our youth. Drug abuse and alcoholism and their attendant lawlessness and violence are plaguing families and communities. There is a radical fall-off in Church attendance; God just doesn't seem relevant anymore. Others of us worry about our rampant materialism, the degradation of our environment, the corruption of our governments, the stresses of our daily lives. Still others are disgusted by the proliferation of pornography, the sensational fear-mongering of the media, the flashy stupidity of 'popular culture.' Those whose eyes are turned towards the larger world are alarmed by what looks like a global corporate takeover. They are appalled by Western arrogance and aggression against the rest of the world. Still others are afraid of 'the terrorists', the dark foreign hordes of 'them' who for reasons unknown want to kill 'us.' Not great days. Indeed.
All at once it sounds hollow to hear ourselves say, "This is still the greatest country in the world." Back in 1976, we laughed at Jimmy Carter's speech about 'spiritual malaise', but if we are not in the United States a country literally ill-at-ease, I don't know what could better describe us. Shame, Karl Marx said, is a 'revolutionary sentiment,' a catalyst for change. What do we privileged ones in the West have to be ashamed of? The very sources of our privilege.
It seems that our historical chickens have come home to roost. We are ill-equipped to deal with this development, since history has never been one of our strong subjects. History is something we most often tell people to forget about. 'Forget about the past. Let bygones be bygones. That was then. This is now.' Unfortunately this is not how history works. I like to think of history as a flowing river in which we all swim. The past informs the present informs the future in an unending process. We are inevitably shaped by what has been, so much of our present identities determined by our ancestry, our personal and collective history. Marcus Garvey said that a people without the knowledge of their history is like a tree without roots. Well a tree without roots is one dead tree. Because we have forgotten or denied or distorted or chosen not to know our history, we are tossed about by forces we cannot even name, and this increases our anxiety and our attraction to diversions and distractions from our true purpose here.
But we are faced with even starker truths. White supremacy is not a thing of the past, but still mangles and maims both victim and aggressor to this very day. It is all very well for us to say, "I am not the bad guy. I am not a racist,' but if we, willingly or not, benefit from a global system of white domination, we are indeed Sartre's 'executioners,' and every move that's made by our governments and corporations to assert that domination over other human beings strips us of our humanity more surely than it does the victims. For what the slavemasters discovered was that to completely dehumanize a slave was to make him useless for work, and so the dehumanization was never complete. And because of this, because of the simmering rage of the enslaved ones, the only solution was brute force. This made our ancestors into murderers and torturers, and though we have laws against such things, they murdered and tortured with impunity. They got around basic moral law by putting dark-skinned people into another species, a sort of super-ape. Though I must say that even a man who beats a dog is looked upon with disgust. This is the white man's heritage. This is our history.
And it does us no good to say "well that's not me." Malcolm X's and Elijah Mohamed's "White Devil" is a description of a condition, and we only had to be born white to fit the bill. This is not 'fair'. But this is reality. And I do not hesitate to say that the moral disintegration of Western culture is directly attributable to our failure to honestly engage the consequences of our history of chattel slavery and colonialism.
In the United States, it is patently clear that American Blacks were never given a level playing field. The '40 acres and a mule' idea died in 1866, and Senator Charles Sumner wept and said that that day would be remembered in history as the day of destruction for America. The few Blacks who have 'made it' are the exception, and not the rule. They are a testimony to the resilience and tenacity of African people, and should not be cited in arguments about basic justice. The poorest people in the United States, the most-incarcerated, the least college-educated, the most unemployed, are Black and Native American. It was the slave-labor of Blacks and the colonial exploitation of Africa and Latin America that put the 'capital' in capitalism. Those who call for reparations are sending us a bill for services rendered, for resources consumed. We're the first ones to say in other contexts, 'there's no such thing as a free lunch.'
But my concern here is what it has cost us and continues to cost us to fail to act on a matter of basic justice. I have worked with teenagers for 15 years. I have watched them awaken with a shock to the world as it is. What they need from their elders in that moment is truth, and what they get is silence and attempts at diversion. We have abandoned our children to fend for themselves among themselves. They think us hypocrites and they are right. What's all this talk about freedom and liberty and justice for all? They are initiated by strangers into the 'adult world' of consumerism and moral chaos. And then we wonder why they are so oppositional, so 'delinquent', and so violent. They are our children. That is the answer. We, the world's war-mongers and weapons merchants and drug merchants are alarmed by and uncomprehending of the anger of our children. Our school systems, racist as are all of our institutions in the West, skirt the issues that are so crucial to the healthy development of children because truth is required, and in order to tell the children the truth we would have to admit it to ourselves. Toni Morrison's novel Beloved is a story about the angry little ghost of a murdered child, enraged because the circumstances of her death have been repressed by the mother who slit that child's throat rather than have her delivered into slavery. I have seen that little ghost again and again haunting the faces of my Black students, furious and not knowing why, victims of a denied history. This is not some romantic notion on my part. It was my experience as a teacher that taught me the power of history denied to destroy, and the power of history reclaimed to heal. The situation is no less serious for white children. In a system of injustice, oppressed and oppressor are both mangled.
Reparations for slavery and colonialism are in our self-interest for the same reasons that moral conduct is in our self-interest. For 500 years we have been trumpeting our moral superiority across the planet, a Bible in one hand, a sword in the other. I remember asking my 17 year-old-daughter why she refused to step into a church, even to hear her mother sing. Her eyes filled with angry tears. Moral conduct is not in our self-interest because it guarantees us a place in the heavenly choir. Moral conduct improves our lives, brings sense to stupidity, and order to chaos. Dealing honestly and honorably with the consequences of our history restores integrity, gives substance to our democratic ideals, and steadies us. Compensating the victims of a history of plunder from which we have benefited is the only way to close the book on that history. If we seriously believe that we can continue traveling through history with impunity for our actions, we'd best remember those planes smashing into those towers. That is just a foretaste of what is in store for us if we remain unwilling to engage history as an equal partner with everyone else on the planet.
So yes. The party's over. We have to get a whole lot more serious, and quick. There is not a little purple pill for this. It used to be that our ancestors would willingly give their lives before they would give offense to God. They knew that a life lived out of alignment with Divine Law was not a life worth living. These days in humanist circles it's more shocking and controversial to talk about God than it is to talk about the porn movie you jacked off to last night. Let's say Natural Law then, or karma, the law of cause and effect. And by the way, the guests at Deepak Chopra's new-age healing spa in La Jolla can meditate and stretch and actualize themselves till the cows come home, and as long as they are privileged whites living in America who do not use that privilege to end their privilege, it's dry bones in a dry land for them. It's La Jolla without the irrigation. Nothing they do will prosper. No happiness they think to achieve will last.
Reproduced from:
http://www.rootsie.com/articles/26102003.html``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xWhy Reparations for Blacks is in Every White's Self-Interest``x1067222919,51283,Development``x``x
``xBy Terry Joseph
October 29, 2003
Outrage among Britons of African descent, ignited by London Mayor Ken Livingstone's "dis-invitation" of Professor Tony Martin to speak at last Saturday's First-Voice – Dialogue with the Diaspora, has exploded into an international furore.
A highly acclaimed Marcus Garvey scholar who has delivered many lectures here, Prof Martin was invited since May to speak at the October 25 forum, London's contribution to annual British observance of Black History Month, arranged and funded by the mayor's office. On October 15, Lee Jasper, Livingstone's advisor on race relations, wrote Martin "dis-inviting him to the conference.
Even as he acknowledged Martin's intellectual integrity, Jasper wrote:
"Having confirmed with you that you attended and spoke at David Irving's 'Real History Conference' in 2001 and the Institute for Historical Review's annual conference in 2002 and that both of these conferences included speakers known for their anti-Semitic and racist activities including Holocaust denial, the Mayor's Office had decided to withdraw its invitation to you to address the First Voice conference on Saturday 25 October."
In a front-page article of its October 17 issue, under the headline "Livingstone bars 'anti-Jewish' historian from conference", The Jewish Chronicle quoted correspondence between Louise Ellman (Labour MP for Liverpool Riverside and vice-chair of the Inter-Parliamentary Council against Anti-Semitism) and Jasper, saying the exchange constituted the basis for the Mayor's "prompt and appropriate action" and noted Ellman's "delight at the mayor's quick move."
Blacks in London immediately set up an e-mail petition aimed at persuading other invitees to decline in solidarity, a protest that enjoyed massive support on home turf and quickly spread to the international community; attracting a flood of responses.
Trinidad and Tobago's Emancipation Support Committee (ESC), who have hosted Prof. Martin at conferences here, had added its voice. In a scathing letter signed by chairman Khafra Kambon, the organization waded into Jasper, expressing "abhorrence" at the last minute withdrawal of Prof. Martin's invitation to speak at the forum.
"The reasons presented by you for the withdrawal are irrational, offensive and worst of all, self-demeaning," the ESC letter said. "If your primary motivation is an acute sensitivity to anti-Semitism, how does that eliminate Dr. Martin?
"Intellectually he is a known quantity. There is profuse, publicly available material by which his views can be judged. We suggest you take another look at the dangerous principle which you are seeking to enshrine by your actions. Your letter did not suggest that Dr. Martin took part in meetings or rallies which were designed to incite hatred against Jews.
"The implication of your letter is that our intellectuals and academics should exercise a brutal self-censorship and ensure that they do not unknowingly or by design appear on platforms with persons who are targeted by Jews as an anti-semitic, a designation readily bestowed by hypersensitive Jews.
"What irony, in Black Heritage Month," the letter betimes an apology to Prof. Martin, the African community in London and the entire Pan African world and suggesting Jasper relinquish his position as (Policy Director, Equalities and Policing) at the Mayor's Office.
In his response to Jasper, dated October 15, Prof. Martin said (inter alia):
"I thought that you were just another overwrought Jew who sees "antisemites" everywhere, and annoying though partly explicable phenomenon. Now, however, I discover that you are that most singular of that phenomenon, to wit a black talking head for Jewish ventriloquism.
"I addressed the first abovementioned conference on the Jewish role in the African slave trade, a topic that overwrought Jews consider ipso facto anti-Semitic. I addressed the other on the tactics of organized Jewry against persons like myself who they disagree with," he wrote.
Prof. Martin added that if he was seen as anti-semitic for addressing conferences so perceive, then "this kind of reasoning would also make me a talking head for overwrought Jews for my willingness to speak at your conference," saying too, "I hope that someday you will become as diligent in the knowledge of your own history as you now appear to be in mindlessly parroting the misconceptions of others."
Other speakers invited were Ms Shabazz (eldest daughter of Malcolm X); Dr. Gamal Nkrumah (son of Kwame Nkrumah), Dr. Julius Garvey (son of Marcus Garvey), Paul Robeson Jnr. (son of Paul Robeson). All earlier references to Councillor Stephen Padmore, first described as the son of George Padmore, were later removed after authoritative sources questioned his bona fides. It is not the first time London has banned a black speaker, Louis Farrakhan having suffered the same fate in 1986.
Prof. Tony Martin Dis-Invited to UK!``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xLondon mayor bans Martin from black history talks``x1067542488,69180,Development``x``x
``xBy Forrest Hylton, www.counterpunch.org
Slave driver
the table has turned
Catch a fire
you're gonna get burned.
--Bob Marley, Slave Driver
On October 17, the Day of National Dignity-which commemorates the greatest achievement of socialist martyr Marcelo Quiroga Santa Cruz: the nationalization of Gulf Oil in 1969-former Bolivian President Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada, his family and inner circle (Minister of Defense Carlos Sánchez Berzaín, Minister of Government Yerko Kukoc, and Minister of the Interior Jose Luis Harb) fled to Miami, though not before looting $85 million from the Bolivian Central Bank of course. The party that had designed and implemented neoliberalism in Bolivia, the National Revolutionary Movement (MNR), had finally been broken by overwhelming, non-violent popular opposition, though at great human cost. In less than a month, troops under the command of the MNR killed more than 84 civilians and 15 conscripts who refused to fire on unarmed protestors. The MNR disappeared some 40 people, injured more than 500 and detained an untold number in a desperate effort to maintain power and preserve the neoliberal status quo. The "gringo," as Sánchez de Lozada was called, had gone home. What had, until recently, been a clever piece of graffiti became a reality, and the Bolivian majority-not multinationals and their tiny minority of compradors-had decided to determine the fate of the second-largest gas reserves in Latin America. Since the Spanish "discovery" of Cerro Rico in Potosí in 1545, laboring Bolivians have suffered from the looting and export of their natural resources for the benefit of others. Their memory is long, their patience has run out, and their resilience is unspeakable.
As darkness descended on the Plaza San Francisco, the symbolic heart of the nation's capital, truckloads of miners and Quechua-Aymara peasants from Oruro and Potosí arrived to march and celebrate their triumph. They chanted, "Yes we could!"-a parody of "Sí se puede!", Sánchez de Lozada's campaign slogan-and, "Goni! You bastard! The people have defeated you!" Earlier in the afternoon, in the Plaza San Francisco Alteños (people from the Aymara city of El Alto, located on the upper rim of La Paz); neighborhood groups from the steep hillsides of La Paz; along with miners, teachers, students, market women, butchers and bakers, truckers and taxi drivers; staged the largest rally in Bolivian history. Estimates run as high as 500,000. The Wiphala-considered the flag of the oppressed, indigenous Bolivian nations-flew side by side with the Bolivian flag, as insurgents re-appropriated national symbols from the dominant race/class, effectively laying claim to the nation that has never been willing to make a place for them as political equals and stewards of an economy based on collective labor, land use, and rational use of natural resources.
On October 18, when truckloads of miners and Aymara-Quechua community peasants ascended from La Paz and passed El Alto on their way home, thousands of Alteños lined the streets to cheer them on, provide them with food and water for punishing trip, and express gratitude for the solidarity they had received. Architects of the eleven-day general strike that brought the capital to a standstill-especially after a general strike was called in solidarity with the twenty-six Alteños massacred on October 12, the 511th anniversary of the genocide initiated by Columbus-Alteños knew that they, the proletarianized peasantry, along with brother and sister Aymara community peasants in the Lake Titicaca region, could not have overthrown the government without practical support from rest of the country's social movements. These are listed in descending order of impact: 1) coca growers from the eastern Chapare lowlands, 2) Quechua-Aymara community peasants from the southern highlands and valleys of Potosí and Sucre, 3) the miners from Huanuni, Oruro, 4) the multi-ethnic, cross-class civic movements that shut down Cochabamba, Sucre, Potosí and Oruro on the 14th and 15th 5) prominent middle-class intellectuals, human rights activists, professionals, students and citizens who launched a hunger strike on the afternoon of October 15.
Many analysts see recent events as part of a clear pattern established in Ecuador in 1999 and repeated in Argentina and Peru in the new millennium, whereby loose coalitions of popular movements, mobilized against the neoliberal model and the political parties and/or politicians associated with it, overthrow governments without being able to impose an alternative economic model and a new set of political arrangements. While superficially plausible, such comparisons overlook the depth and sources of the insurrectionary tradition in Bolivia, elide the question of the distinctive characteristics of the armed forces in each country, and miss the potential significance of the "October Days" for the Bolivia's future. A tradition of Aymara-Quechua community peasant insurgency stretches back to the late eighteenth century and was transformed through successive struggles over collective land rights and self-government in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries; as historian Adolfo Gilly has pointed out recently in La Jornada, it forms the bedrock of a tradition of popular insurrection without parallel in the hemisphere.
Bolivians are now living through the most radical moment of republican history since the National Revolution of 1952, in which Trotskyist-led tin miners militias triggered and urban insurrection that defeated the Bolivian army-which decomposed rapidly-as peasant militias in the western highlands and especially in the valleys of Cochabamba staged land takeovers and smashed landlord rule in the countryside, handing power to the MNR. President Victor Paz Estenssoro-like many MNR leaders, a middle-class intellectual from Cochabamba-ratified the land takeovers, which would provide the MNR with deep reservoirs of support in the countryside for decades, and nationalized the country's major tin mines, like Siglo XX and Cataviri. Opposed to imperialism and the oligarchy composed of merchant-miner-landlords, the MNR seized control of the insurrectionary movement for its own benefit, but also imposed significant structural reforms. They aimed to modernize the economy, create an internal market and "civilize" the Aymara-Quechua peasant communities through compulsory schooling and military service. They helped bury the memory of the traditions upon which the revolution was ultimately built.
Trapped between mounting US imperial pressure and a tin miners' trade union movement led by Trotskyist and Stalinist parties-which formed the center of gravity of the Bolivian Workers' Central (COB) that aglutinated of civil society-splintered into warring factions above and, through clientelist control of peasant trade unions, below. The MNR grew progressively weaker vis-à-vis both the US government and the COB, and with the backing of the US government, René Barrientos became the first military leader to highjack the revolution. Since he spoke fluent Quechua and employed classic forms of populist demagoguery to great effect, he solidified a clientelist following in the countryside loyal only to him, mobilizing peasant militias to crush miners' strikes in what was known as the "military-peasant" pact. Though under Juan Jose Torres and the Popular Assembly (1969-71), proletarian-led radicalism enjoyed a brief upsurge, the military-peasant pact lasted through the neo-fascist dictatorship of Hugo Banzer Suárez (1971-78), and the question of self-determination for Aymara and Quechua peasant communities had just begun to be raised.
The emergence of a radical Aymara peasant trade union federation (CSUTCB) out of clandestinity in 1979 rejuvenated the COB, which, together with Left political parties, overthrew two violent-albeit short-lived-dictatorships, electing a center-left coalition (the UDP) in 1982 that was to go beyond "the incomplete revolution" toward some version of state-led welfare capitalism (known in those days as "socialismo"), but with a new demand: self-determination for Aymara-Quechua peasant communities.
Instead, with the MNR and the MIR (Revolutionary Leftist Movement) engaging in Parliamentary warfare against Left opposition parties, and the miners' movement increasing in militancy and radicalism, the UDP proved unable to govern, and popular hopes of national sovereignty-rekindled throughout the 1970s by Marcelo Quiroga Santa Cruz among others-were buried. With inflation running at 24,000% annually, in 1985, Victor Paz Estenssoro took his last turn in office and dismantled dependent state capitalism, calling on a young, American-educated technocrat-Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada-to redesign the relationship between the State, society and the economy, which resulted in a neoliberal blueprint: DS 21060. The tin mines were privatized in one swift motion, the miners' movement crushed with state terror, and 20,000 miners were "relocalized" (a euphemism for firing and displacement). Lacking strong allies in the proletarian movement, and rent by internal divisions and sectarianism, the CSUTCB fell into decline. Meanwhile, the coca growers' movement of peasant colonizers in the eastern lowlands of the Chapare-led chiefly by ex-miners-turned into the most militant and confrontational of Bolivia's social movements just as George H.W. Bush had begun to ratchet up the intensity of the "drug war" in the Andes. Current US Ambassador David Greenlee, then a CIA agent working as an attaché, designed the counterinsurgent strategy of forced coca eradication.
Because of the thoroughness of his privatization programs, during Sánchez de Lozada's first term as president (1993-97), the IMF and the World Bank held Bolivia up as a model for "LDCs" around the world, and until 2000, the neoliberal political parties-MNR, MIR, CONDEPA, UCS, NFR-enjoyed a monopoly of legitimate political representation. However, with the fight against privatization in the Cochabamba "water wars," the popular movements scored their first victory in almost two decades. This was reinforced by an Aymara resurgence in the highlands under the direction of Felipe Quispe and more combative CSUTCB. As the neoliberal façade began to crack under President Hugo Banzer Suarez, the former dictator, state terror increased and the political parties began to watch their legitimacy erode. This is the context in which the coca growers, Aymara highland peasants, proletarianized peasants from El Alto and La Paz, along with disaffected middle class professionals and intellectuals, voted for two new opposition parties, Movement Toward Socialism (MAS) and the Indian Revolutionary Movement (MIP), which between them picked up forty-two seats in Parliament-a historic first. Evo Morales, leader of the coca growers' trade union federations and their political vehicle, MAS, lost the presidential elections by less than 1.5%.
In October, led by the proletarianized Aymara peasantry of El Alto, Aymara peasant communities of the western highlands; and reinforced by the Quechua-Aymara peasant communities of the southern highlands and valleys, as well as the Quechua-speaking mestizo coca growers' and colonizers of the eastern lowlands; plus the urban middle classes of La Paz, Cochabamba, Santa Cruz, Tarija and Oruro who took to the streets and the airwaves, long and distinguished traditions of insurrection have enjoyed a renaissance, and there can be no doubt which sector was the driving force.
What began as the most important highland Aymara uprising in Bolivia since the Federal War of 1899 became, in a matter of days, become a nationwide, non-violent insurrection-a national revolution in march. Unlike the national revolution of 1952, which brought Sánchez de Lozada's MNR to power on the back of insurgent miners' and peasants' militias, were it to materialize, the new revolution would hold out the possibility that the colonial contradiction that has structured the Bolivian republic since its inception-the economic exploitation, political domination and racist oppression of the Indian peasant and proletarianized majority-will finally be resolved. It is important to emphasize that the new nationalism in anything but an atavistic, separatist and racially exclusive backlash against neoliberal imperialism. If, at the macro-level of the state and public policy, the new revolution recognizes the demands for popular sovereignty and self-government, and the forms of trade union and Indian community organization from which those demands arise, it will be a world-historical first that with repercussions throughout Latin America, Africa, India and Southeast Asia. In spite of the colonialist terror that has descended on the new millennium in the Middle East and Central Asia, the poorest, most indigenous and most geographically isolated country of the South American continent may well provide a beacon of light to the rest of the world.
The new revolutionary process, whose outcome is of course uncertain rather than guaranteed, demands an end to multinational and US imperial domination, rejects the FTAA, insists on the right to grow and commercialize the coca leaf as well as control and regulate the use of natural resources for the benefit of the majorities that produce Bolivia's wealth. It also includes the demand for political autonomy, representation and self-government for highland and lowland native groups whose forms of social reproduction and political struggle are non-liberal and even non-capitalist.
One thing is certain: the era of the MNR-led coalitions is over, and with it, the neoliberal political-economic system implemented in 1985-86. The relation of the State to the economy and society will change, but it is much too early to say how or when. Though neither Evo Morales nor Felipe Quispe led the struggles of the "October Days," the rank-and-file, especially in El Alto, have shown what they can accomplish on their own initiative. This means that there will be two Constituent Assemblies and a form of dual power: one will take place in Parliament among delegated political representatives, and another in the streets, neighborhoods, trade unions, Indian peasant communities; among miners, coca growers, students and, perhaps, even middle-class intellectuals and personalities. There is a country, if not yet a world, to win.
Forrest Hylton is conducting doctoral research in history in Bolivia. This article originally appeared in the South African paper This Day. He can be reached at forresthylton@hotmail.com.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xBolivia in Historical and Regional Context``x1067556860,7530,Development``x``x
``xby Terry Joseph
TRINI Professor Tony Martin, banned last month from addressing a Black History Month conference in London by Mayor Ken Livingstone will, in two weeks' time, address the very community denied an opportunity to hear him on October 25.
Professor of Africana Studies, Wellesley College, USA and internationally acclaimed scholar and authority on the life of Marcus Garvey, Dr. Martin was invited to speak at the London conference but later "dis-invited", Mayor Livingstone's advisor on race relations, Lee Jasper, citing Dr. Martin's presence on platforms described as habouring anti-semitic sentiments.
Jasper wrote: "Having confirmed with you that you attended and spoke at David Irving's "Real History Conference" in 2001 and the Institute for Historical Review's annual conference in 2002 and that both of these conferences included speakers known for their anti-Semitic and racist activities including Holocaust denial, the Mayor's Office had decided to withdraw its invitation to you to address the First Voice conference on Saturday 25 October."
The distance between the Mayor's office and London's black community widened after a front-page article in a Jewish newspaper headlined the October 17 issue with: "Livingstone bars 'anti-Jewish' historian from conference."
The Jewish Chronicle quoted correspondence between Louise Ellman (Labour MP for Liverpool Riverside and vice-chair of the Inter-Parliamentary Council against Anti Semitism) and Jasper, saying the exchange constituted the basis both for his "prompt and appropriate action" and noted Ellman's "delight at the mayor's quick move."
A furore quickly erupted worldwide.
Trinidad and Tobago's Emancipation Support Committee joined the protest, sending a scorcher of letter to Jasper, signed by chairman Khafra Kambon, expressing abhorrence at the withdrawal of the invitation to Dr. Martin, calling it an irony in Black History Month and demanding Jasper's resignation.
Hitting back at the ban, a consortium of black-oriented organizations has invited Dr. Martin to London to speak on November 30 and December 1.
Dr. Martin advised The Express that he has accepted and will, in the first assignment, talk on the Jewish Onslaught: Exposing the Jewish role in the Black Holocaust - the very topic at which Jasper and Livingstone took offence. The talk takes place at Trini's on Rye Lane in Peckham. Also on the agenda that day is a performance of the play Anansi & King Bling.
http://www.trinicenter.com/Terryj/``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xBlack groups defy ban on Tony Martin``x1068840740,47855,Development``x``x
``xwww.blacksandjews.com/TMartin.London.html
NO LONGER SHALL THEY KILL OUR PROPHETS WHILE WE STAND ASIDE AND LOOK
On behalf of Bro. Ldr. Mbandaka and the ALKEBU-LAN REVIVALIST MOVEMENT.
TENDAI MWARI
Gone are the days when Afrikans will tolerate the persecution of our truth tellers, or the paternalism of those who have a vested interest in the perpetual oppression and exploitation of our people. The massive international outrage of Afrikan people, sparked by the dis-invitation of Baba Tony Martin, from the Mayor of London's 'First Voice' conference - 25th October 2003 - is a case in point.
Leading Pan-Afrikan organisations in Britain have responded by inviting Baba Tony Martin to address the Afrikan community - live in London - on Sunday 30th November and Monday 1st December. The Afrikan United Action Front (AUAF - a Pan-Afrikan coalition), Alkebu-Lan Revivalist Movement, New Black Panther Party and Afrikan-Caribbean Leadership Council pooled their resources in organising and promoting an action packed weekend involving radio appearances, a press conference and a reception dinner in honour of our master teacher - Baba Tony Martin.
The organisers have the firm, active and or moral support of the Black United Front Parliament, Nation of Islam, Ethiopian World Federation, Global Afrikan Congress, Pan-Afrikan Youth Organisation, Ethiopian Afrikan Black International Congress/Bobo Shanti, Hackney Black People's Association, Galaxy Radio and Power Jam - Nubian Forum. The event has also been sponsored by the following community businesses: Yemanja - A Window To Afrika, Cyber Kitchen Internet Café, Yum Yum Restaurant and Takeaway, Hylton Estates Consultancy Services, Meroe Jewellery, Audio Visual Media Services, Maarifa Books, Cummin' Up Caribbean Caterers & Take Away, Kwazen Books and Nubian Minds. Other sponsors wish to remain anonymous, whilst individuals have volunteered contributions to ensure the success of the events.
The overwhelming, widespread response is not only an act of defiance but self-determination - emphasising that we are our own masters and that we have taken back the power of life and death we once gave others over us. It also explodes the myth propagated by the 1990 Trust that supporters of Tony Martin were "a small number". In fact, we are confident that the Afrikan community will turn out in a tremendous force to affirm our love and appreciation of Baba Tony Martin, as well as to send a clear message to the powers that be.
Predictably, the Jewish lobby has been quick into action, bellowing threats and demands down our telephone. The "London Jewish News", on seeing our promotional leaflet, wanted confirmation as to whether the events were 'actually' going ahead. When we did not reply, at 11:24 am on Wed 12th November, they issued us a deadline for "12:00 noon or 1:00pm" - by when they would expect a response.
This smacked of intimidation and harassment which should come as no surprise to any of us who is aware of the Jewish onslaught against Baba Tony Martin, Nana Kwaku Duah, (Dr. Leonard Jeffries), Minister Louis Farrakhan, Al Sharpton (even Jesse Jackson and Cornel West), etc. it was as though they presumed to give us a chance to repent of our sins before they pronounced our eternal damnation.
This exposes disingenuous attempts to underplay the dominant role of the Jewish lobby in instigating the infamous dis-invitation and highlights the sheer gallantry of Bro. Lee in taking the 'flak'. Furthermore, although Bro. Lee and co. denied that Baba Martin was being accused of anti-Semitism, the Jewish Chronicle of 17th October 2003, boasted on its front page: "Livingstone ban anti-Jewish historian from conference.
Is a woman anti-male, because she reports her rapist? Of course not! Why then are Afrikans "anti-Semitic" for reporting the facts about Jewish involvement in the Maafa (Afrikan enslavement and oppression). In context, Jewish hostility towards Baba Martin or any outspoken Afrikan is no less sinister than a psychopathic racist who stalks, defames, incarcerates or eliminates his victims to prevent them from exposing him.
Paradoxically, the conference was entitled "First Voice" -- a seemingly apt title for a conference concerning the history of the 'first people'. Yet the voice of the foremost scholar on the legacy of our most outstanding historical figure - Marcus Garvey - was silenced.
Such contradictions reflect the very insidious nature of the Maafa. Afrikans enslaved: whipped, raped, maimed, murdered, massacred, worked from sun up to sun down without pay - all in the name of God, humanity and civilisation. Afrikans bound and shackled in ships named Integrity, Brotherhood, Humanity, Mission of Mercy and of course; "The Good Ship Jesus" - captained by the Rev. Sir John Hawkins. Afrikan women called wench, bitch, belly warmer, etc. yet made to breast-feed little white babies.
Thus, in the name of all things good and pious, was the total dehumanisation of Afrikan people institutionalised, denying us, inter alia, the right to speak the unspeakable, to stand tall with our heads up, our backs straight, and the look "the man" in the eye -- called reckless eyeballing. Violators of such codes were called "uppity niggers" and had their tongues and eyes gorged out, or their back mutilated by the enslavers whip or torch. In more recent times, they have been murdered, incarcerated, vilified, deported or banned - Omowale Malcolm X, Marcus Garvey, Martin Luther King Jr., Fred Hampton, Mumia Abu Jamal, Kwame Ture, Louis Farrakhan, Tony Martin, etc., etc., etc.
But, "How long shall they kill our prophets, while we stand aside and look?" The voice of the Afrikan community says: "No longer!" We will stand firm, with our heads high and our backs straight. We will look "the man" straight in the eye and defend the right of our teachers to teach, our leaders to lead and our people to know and speak our truth and 'yet' stay alive.
We are our own liberators! We have the power to transform oppression into opportunity and this malady into a miracle. The miracle of Afrikan people coming together in the true spirit of Umoja - unity; Kujichagulia -- self-determination; Ujima - collective work and responsibility; Ujamaa -- co-operative economics; Nia -- purpose; Kuumba - creativity; Imani -- faith; toward fulfilling our Pan-Afrikan object - the total liberation and unification of Afrika and all African people, under a just Afrikan World system.
Come one! Come all! The drums of Afrika call!
Lee Jasper Now Wants To Share A Platform With Professor Tony Martin
A month after banning the internationally renowned scholar - Professor Tony Martin - the world's leading authority on the life and work of Marcus Mosiah Garvey - from the First Voice Conference on 25 October 2003, on the basis that Professor Martin had "shared platforms" with those holding "anti-Semitic" views, it now appears that Lee Jasper wishes to share the same platform with Professor Martin.
The remarkable about turn - which coincided with the announcement by
leading UK based Pan Africanists of Professor Martin's impending lecture tour visit to London - was revealed in an announcement made on a radio programme hosted by Henry Bonsu and broadcast by BBC Radio London on Sunday 23 November 2003.
In what has been viewed by some as an attempt to divert the community's attention from Professor Martin's lecture tour, it was announced that Mr Bonsu's backers were attempting to organise a studio "debate" between Professor Martin and Jasper, who at the time of the announcement was already participating in the broadcast by telephone. Bonsu, who had previously made no reference to the widespread storm of controversy sparked by the ban on Professor Martin in his weekly broadcasts (see: www.blacksandjews.com), suggested to Jasper that he might like to debate the issues surrounding the ban with Professor Martin. Jasper, whose lengthy CV boasts memberships of many organisations virtually unknown to the community, including The Black Jewish Forum, responded by saying that arrangements for any such debate should be made "through his office".
Already some in the community have expressed fears that any such broadcast studio "debate" will take the form of some sort of attempted high tech lynching of Professor Martin at the hands of carefully selected and organised lobbyists from outside the African community with the many thousands of Africans who were outraged by the ban imposed on Professor Martin being excluded from participation in the phone-in. A number of people have already drawn attention to the fact that Jasper has refused a number of requests to publicly debate the reasons for Professor Martin's ban on London community radio station, Galaxy Radio.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xDr. TONY MARTIN TO SPEAK TO AFRIKANS IN LONDON``x1069959945,84440,Development``x``x
``xFirst Genocide, Then Lie About It
By MITCHEL COHEN
With much material contributed by Peter Linebaugh and others whose names have over the years been lost.--MC
The year was 1492. The Taino-Arawak people of the Bahamas discovered Christopher Columbus on their beach.
Historian Howard Zinn tells us how Arawak men and women, naked, tawny, and full of wonder, emerged from their villages onto the island's beaches and swam out to get a closer look at the strange big boat. When Columbus and his sailors came ashore, carrying swords, speaking oddly, the Arawaks ran to greet them, brought them food, water, gifts. Columbus later wrote of this in his log. Here is what he wrote:
"They brought us parrots and balls of cotton and spears and many other things, which they exchanged for the glass beads and hawks' bells. They willingly traded everything they owned. They were well-built, with good bodies and handsome features. They do not bear arms, and do not know them, for I showed them a sword, they took it by the edge and cut themselves out of ignorance. They have no iron. Their spears are made of sugar cane. They would make fine servants. With 50 men we could subjugate them all and make them do whatever we want."
And so the conquest began, and the Thanotocracy -- the regime of death -- was inaugurated on the continent the Indians called "Turtle Island."
You probably already know a good piece of the story: How Columbus's Army took Arawak and Taino people prisoners and insisted that they take him to the source of their gold, which they used in tiny ornaments in their ears. And how, with utter contempt and cruelty, Columbus took many more Indians prisoners and put them aboard the Nina and the Pinta -- the Santa Maria having run aground on the island of Hispañola (today, the Dominican Republic and Haiti). When some refused to be taken prisoner, they were run through with swords and bled to death. Then the Nina and the Pinta set sail for the Azores and Spain. During the long voyage, many of the Indian prisoners died. Here's part of Columbus's report to Queen Isabella and King Ferdinand of Spain:
"The Indians are so naive and so free with their possessions that no one who has not witnessed them would believe it. When you ask for something they have, they never say no. To the contrary, they offer to share with anyone." Columbus concluded his report by asking for a little help from the King and Queen, and in return he would bring them "as much gold as they need, and as many slaves as they ask."
Columbus returned to the New World -- "new" for Europeans, that is -- with 17 ships and more than 1,200 men. Their aim was clear: Slaves, and gold. They went from island to island in the Caribbean, taking Indians as captives. But word spread ahead of them. By the time they got to Fort Navidad on Haiti, the Taino had risen up and killed all the sailors left behind on the last voyage, after they had roamed the island in gangs raping women and taking children and women as slaves. Columbus later wrote: "Let us in the name of the Holy Trinity go on sending all the slaves that can be sold." The Indians began fighting back, but were no match for the Spaniard conquerors, even though they greatly outnumbered them. In eight years, Columbus's men murdered more than 100,000 Indians on Haiti alone. Overall, dying as slaves in the mines, or directly murdered, or from diseases brought to the Caribbean by the Spaniards, over 3 million Indian people were murdered between 1494 and 1508.
What Columbus did to the Arawaks of the Bahamas and the Taino of the Caribbean, Cortez did to the Aztecs of Mexico, Pizarro to the Incas of Peru, and the English settlers of Virginia and Massachusetts to the Powhatans and the Pequots. Literally millions of native peoples were slaughtered. And the gold, slaves and other resources were used, in Europe, to spur the growth of the new money economy rising out of feudalism. Karl Marx would later call this "the primitive accumulation of capital." These were the violent beginnings of an intricate system of technology, business, politics and culture that would dominate the world for the next five centuries.
All of this were the preconditions for the first Thanksgiving. In the North American English colonies, the pattern was set early, as Columbus had set it in the islands of the Bahamas. In 1585, before there was any permanent English settlement in Virginia, Richard Grenville landed there with seven ships. The Indians he met were hospitable, but when one of them stole a small silver cup, Grenville sacked and burned the whole Indian village.
The Jamestown colony was established in Virginia in 1607, inside the territory of an Indian confederacy, led by the chief, Powhatan. Powhatan watched the English settle on his people's land, but did not attack. And the English began starving. Some of them ran away and joined the Indians, where they would at least be fed. Indeed, throughout colonial times tens of thousands of indentured servants, prisoners and slaves -- from Wales and Scotland as well as from Africa -- ran away to live in Indian communities, intermarry, and raise their children there.
In the summer of 1610 the governor of Jamestown colony asked Powhatan to return the runaways, who were living fully among the Indians. Powhatan left the choice to those who ran away, and none wanted to go back. The governor of Jamestown then sent soldiers to take revenge. They descended on an Indian community, killed 15 or 16 Indians, burned the houses, cut down the corn growing around the village, took the female leader of the tribe and her children into boats, then ended up throwing the children overboard and shooting out their brains in the water. The female leader was later taken off the boat and stabbed to death.
By 1621, the atrocities committed by the English had grown, and word spread throughout the Indian villages. The Indians fought back, and killed 347 colonists. From then on it was total war. Not able to enslave the Indians the English aristocracy decided to exterminate them.
And then the Pilgrims arrived.
When the Pilgrims came to New England they too were coming not to vacant land but to territory inhabited by tribes of Indians. The story goes that the Pilgrims, who were Christians of the Puritan sect, were fleeing religious persecution in Europe. They had fled England and went to Holland, and from there sailed aboard the Mayflower, where they landed at Plymouth Rock in what is now Massachusetts.
Religious persecution or not, they immediately turned to their religion to rationalize their persecution of others. They appealed to the Bible, Psalms 2:8: "Ask of me, and I shall give thee, the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession." To justify their use of force to take the land, they cited Romans 13:2: "Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation."
The Puritans lived in uneasy truce with the Pequot Indians, who occupied what is now southern Connecticut and Rhode Island. But they wanted them out of the way; they wanted their land. And they seemed to want to establish their rule firmly over Connecticut settlers in that area.
In 1636 an armed expedition left Boston to attack the Narragansett Indians on Block Island. The English landed and killed some Indians, but the rest hid in the thick forests of the island and the English went from one deserted village to the next, destroying crops. Then they sailed back to the mainland and raided Pequot villages along the coast, destroying crops again.
The English went on setting fire to wigwams of the village. They burned village after village to the ground. As one of the leading theologians of his day, Dr. Cotton Mather put it: "It was supposed that no less than 600 Pequot souls were brought down to hell that day." And Cotton Mather, clutching his bible, spurred the English to slaughter more Indians in the name of Christianity.
Three hundred thousand Indians were murdered in New England over the next few years. It is important to note: The ordinary Englishmen did not want this war and often, very often, refused to fight. Some European intellectuals like Roger Williams spoke out against it. And some erstwhile colonists joined the Indians and even took up arms against the invaders from England. It was the Puritan elite who wanted the war, a war for land, for gold, for power. And, in the end, the Indian population of 10 million that was in North America when Columbus came was reduced to less than one million.
The way the different Indian peoples lived -- communally, consensually, making decisions through tribal councils, each tribe having different sexual/marriage relationships, where many different sexualities were practiced as the norm -- contrasted dramatically with the Puritan's Christian fundamentalist values. For the Puritans, men decided everything, whereas in the Iroquois federation of what is now New York state women chose the men who represented the clans at village and tribal councils; it was the women who were responsible for deciding on whether or not to go to war. The Christian idea of male dominance and female subordination was conspicuously absent in Iroquois society.
There were many other cultural differences: The Iroquois did not use harsh punishment on children. They did not insist on early weaning or early toilet training, but gradually allowed the child to learn to care for themselves. And, they did not believe in ownership of land; they utilized the land, lived on it. The idea of ownership was ridiculous, absurd. The European Christians, on the other hand, in the spirit of the emerging capitalism, wanted to own and control everything -- even children and other human beings. The pastor of the Pilgrim colony, John Robinson, thus advised his parishioners: "And surely there is in all children a stubbornness, and stoutness of mind arising from natural pride, which must, in the first place, be broken and beaten down; that so the foundation of their education being laid in humility and tractableness, other virtues may, in their time, be built thereon." That idea sunk in.
One colonist said that the plague that had destroyed the Patuxet people -- a combination of slavery, murder by the colonists and disease -- was "the Wonderful Preparation of the Lord Jesus Christ by His Providence for His People's Abode in the Western World." The Pilgrims robbed Wampanoag graves for the food that had been buried with the dead for religious reasons. Whenever the Pilgrims realized they were being watched, they shot at the Wampanoags, and scalped them. Scalping had been unknown among Native Americans in New England prior to its introduction by the English, who began the practice by offering the heads of their enemies and later accepted scalps.
"What do you think of Western Civilization?" Mahatma Gandhi was asked in the 1940s. To which Gandhi replied: "Western Civilization? I think it would be a good idea." And so enters "Civilization," the civilization of Christian Europe, a "civilizing force" that couldn't have been more threatened by the beautiful anarchy of the Indians they encountered, and so slaughtered them.
These are the Puritans that the Indians "saved", and whom we celebrate in the holiday, Thanksgiving. Tisquantum, also known as Squanto, a member of the Patuxet Indian nation. Samoset, of the Wabonake Indian nation, which lived in Maine. They went to Puritan villages and, having learned to speak English, brought deer meat and beaver skins for the hungry, cold Pilgrims. Tisquantum stayed with them and helped them survive their first years in their New World. He taught them how to navigate the waters, fish and cultivate corn and other vegetables. He pointed out poisonous plants and showed how other plants could be used as medicines. He also negotiated a peace treaty between the Pilgrims and Massasoit, head chief of the Wampanoags, a treaty that gave the Pilgrims everything and the Indians nothing. And even that treaty was soon broken. All this is celebrated as the First Thanksgiving.
My own feeling? The Indians should have let the Pilgrims die. But they couldn't do that. Their humanity made them assist other human beings in need. And for that beautiful, human, loving connection they -- and those of us who are not Indian as well -- paid a terrible price: The genocide of the original inhabitants of Turtle Island, what is now America.
Let's look at one example of the Puritan values -- which were not, I repeat, the values of the English working class values that we "give thanks for" on this holiday. The example of the Maypole, and Mayday.
In 1517, 25 years after Columbus first landed in the Bahamas, the English working class staged a huge revolt. This was done through the guilds. King Henry VIII brought Lombard bankers from Italy and merchants from France in order to undercut wages, lengthen hours, and break the guilds. This alliance between international finance, national capital and military aristocracy was in the process of merging into the imperialist nation-state.
The young workers of London took their revenge upon the merchants. A secret rumor said the commonality -- the vision of communal society that would counter the rich, the merchants, the industrialists, the nobility and the landowners -- would arise on May Day. The King and Lords got frightened -- householders were armed, a curfew was declared. Two guys didn't hear about the curfew (they missed Dan Rather on t.v.). They were arrested. The shout went out to mobilize, and 700 workers stormed the jails, throwing bricks, hot water, stones. The prisoners were freed. A French capitalist's house was trashed.
Then came the repression: Cannons were fired into the city. Three hundred were imprisoned, soldiers patrolled the streets, and a proclamation was made that no women were allowed to meet together, and that all men should "keep their wives in their houses." The prisoners were brought through the streets tied in ropes. Some were children. Eleven sets of gallows were set up throughout the city. Many were hanged. The authorities showed no mercy, but exhibited extreme cruelty.
Thus the dreaded Thanatocracy, the regime of death, was inaugurated in answer to proletarian riot at the beginning of capitalism. The May Day riots were caused by expropriation (people having been uprooted from their lands they had used for centuries in common), and by exploitation (people had no jobs, as the monarchy imported capital). Working class women organizers and healers who posed an alternative to patriarchal capitalism -- were burned at the stake as witches. Enclosure, conquest, famine, war and plague ravaged the people who, in losing their commons, also lost a place to put their Maypole.
Suddenly, the Maypole became a symbol of rebellion. In 1550 Parliament ordered the destruction of Maypoles (just as, during the Vietnam war, the U.S.-backed junta in Saigon banned the making of all red cloth, as it was being sewn into the blue, yellow and red flags of the National Liberation Front).
In 1664, near the end of the Puritans' war against the Pequot Indians, the Puritans in England abolished May Day altogether. They had defeated the Indians, and they were attempting to defeat the growing proletarian insurgency at home as well.
Although translators of the Bible were burned, its last book, Revelation, became an anti-authoritarian manual useful to those who would turn the Puritan world upside down, such as the Family of Love, the Anabaptists, the Diggers, Levellers, Ranters, and Thomas Morton, the man who in 1626 went to Merry Mount in Quincy Mass, and with his Indian friends put up the first Maypole in America, in contempt of Puritan rule.
The Puritans destroyed it, exiled him, plagued the Indians, and hanged gay people and Quakers. Morton had come over on his own, a boat person, an immigrant. So was Anna Lee, who came over a few years later, the Manchester proletarian who founded the communal living, gender separated Shakers, who praised God in ecstatic dance, and who drove the Puritans up the wall.
The story of the Maypole as a symbol of revolt continued. It crossed cultures and continued through the ages. In the late 1800s, the Sioux began the Ghost Dance in a circle, "with a large pine tree in the center, which was covered with strips of cloth of various colors, eagle feathers, stuffed birds, claws, and horns, all offerings to the Great Spirit." They didn't call it a Maypole and they danced for the unity of all Indians, the return of the dead, and the expulsion of the invaders on a particular day, the 4th of July, but otherwise it might as well have been a Mayday!
Wovoka, a Nevada Paiute, started it. Expropriated, he cut his hair. To buy watermelon he rode boxcars to work in the Oregon hop fields for small wages, exploited. The Puget Sound Indians had a new religion -- they stopped drinking alcohol, became entranced, and danced for five days, jerking twitching, calling for their land back, just like the Shakers! Wovoka took this back to Nevada: "All Indians must dance, everywhere, keep on dancing." Soon they were. Porcupine took the dance across the Rockies to the Sioux. Red Cloud and Sitting Bull advanced the left foot following with the right, hardly lifting the feet from the ground. The Federal Agents banned the Ghost Dance! They claimed it was a cause of the last Sioux outbreak, just as the Puritans had claimed the Maypole had caused the May Day proletarian riots, just as the Shakers were dancing people into communality and out of Puritanism.
On December 29 1890 the Government (with Hotchkiss guns throwing 2 pound explosive shells at 50 a minute -- always developing new weapons!) massacred more than 300 men, women and children at Wounded Knee. As in the Waco holocaust, or the bombing of MOVE in Philadelphia, the State disclaimed responsibility. The Bureau of Ethnology sent out James Mooney to investigate. Amid Janet Reno-like tears, he wrote: "The Indians were responsible for the engagement."
In 1970, the town of Plymouth Rock, Massachusetts held, as it does each year, a Thanksgiving Ceremony given by the townspeople. There are many speeches for the crowds who attend. That year -- the year of Nixon's secret invasion of Cambodia; the year 4 students were massacred at Kent State and 13 wounded for opposing the war; the year they tried to electrocute Black Panthers Bobby Seale and Erica Huggins -- the Massachusetts Department of Commerce asked the Wampanoag Indians to select a speaker to mark the 350th anniversary of the Pilgrims' arrival, and the first Thanksgiving.
Frank James, who is a Wampanoag, was selected. But before he was allowed to speak he was told to show a copy of his speech to the white people in charge of the ceremony. When they saw what he had written, they would not allow him to read it.
First, the genocide. Then, the suppression of all discussion about it.
What do Indian people find to be Thankful for in this America? What does anyone have to be Thankful for in the genocide of the Indians, that this "holyday" commemorates? As we sit with our families on Thanksgiving, taking any opportunity we can to get out of work or off the streets and be in a warm place with people we love, we realize that all the things we have to be thankful for have nothing at all to do with the Pilgrims, nothing at all to do with Amerikan history, and everything to do with the alternative, anarcho-communist lives the Indian peoples led, before they were massacred by the colonists, in the name of privatization of property and the lust for gold and labor.
Yes, I am an American. But I am an American in revolt. I am revolted by the holiday known as Thanksgiving. I have been accused of wanting to go backwards in time, of being against progress. To those charges, I plead guilty. I want to go back in time to when people lived communally, before the colonists' Christian god was brought to these shores to sanctify their terrorism, their slavery, their hatred of children, their oppression of women, their holocausts. But that is impossible. So all I look forward to the utter destruction of the apparatus of death known as Amerika -- not the people, not the beautiful land, but the machinery, the State, the capitalism, the Christianity and all that it stands for. I look forward to a future where I will have children with Amerika, and they will be the new Indians.
Mitchel Cohen is co-editor of "Green Politix", the national newspaper of the Greens/Green Party USA,, and organizes with the NoSpray Coalition and the Brooklyn Greens.
In memorium. Lest we forget. The First Thanksgiving
From the Community Endeavor News, November, 1995, as reprinted in Healing Global Wounds, Fall, 1996
The first official Thanksgiving wasn't a festive gathering of Indians and Pilgrims, but rather a celebration of the massacre of 700 Pequot men, women and children, an anthropologist says. Due to age and illness his voice cracks as he talks about the holiday, but William B. Newell, 84, talks with force as he discusses Thanksgiving. Newell, a Penobscot, has degrees from two universities, and was the former chairman of the anthropology department at the University of Connecticut.
"Thanksgiving Day was first officially proclaimed by the Governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1637 to commemorate the massacre of 700 men, women and children who were celebrating their annual green corn dance-Thanksgiving Day to them-in their own house," Newell said.
"Gathered in this place of meeting they were attacked by mercenaries and Dutch and English. The Indians were ordered from the building and as they came forth they were shot down. The rest were burned alive in the building," he said.
Newell based his research on studies of Holland Documents and the 13 volume Colonial Documentary History, both thick sets of letters and reports from colonial officials to their superiors and the king in England, and the private papers of Sir William Johnson, British Indian agent for the New York colony for 30 years in the mid-1600s.
"My research is authentic because it is documentary," Newell said. "You can't get anything more accurate than that because it is first hand. It is not hearsay."
Newell said the next 100 Thanksgivings commemorated the killing of the Indians at what is now Groton, Ct. [home of a nuclear submarine base] rather than a celebration with them. He said the image of Indians and Pilgrims sitting around a large table to celebrate Thanksgiving Day was "fictitious" although Indians did share food with the first settlers.
Originally published in counterpunch.org
Reproduced with permission from the author.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xWhy I Hate Thanksgiving``x1070098584,36734,Development``x``x
``xby Davy de Verteuil
When Zimbabwe withdraws form the commonwealth then I wish to surrender my commonwealth citizenship and become a Zimbabwean citizen. (I am for real)
The Commonwealth will always be for commoners while the elites go off to Iraq and Afghanistan and murder tens of thousands over their resources and strategic locations.
Not a single resolution calling for these barbarians expulsion for the unwarranted illegal unlawful destruction of another country mass murder and genocide.
The Commonwealth in my view is a band of arse lickers that revered even the vilest criminal white establishment as nearer to God than the Prophets of God.
I wish I had the power to renounce my status as a commonwealth citizen as I abhor the gutless hypocrisy of independent Nation leaders that continue to kowtow before Britain, New Zealand, Australia and Canada.
Not for any moment in history these known unrepentant criminal nations have materialistically, constitutionally and monetarily apologize, and or reverse their gains from the brutal oppression and occupation of member commonwealth countries, and the countries they continue to occupy.
Why can't Canada return to the Native Indian nation their ancestral homeland now called Canada? New Zealand and Australia should do the same. What is the moral meter- threatening, and cajoling a bunch of dirty bloodied corrupt Africans leaders with the exception of South Africa and the Southern neighbors?
India is no more a democracy than Israel. India occupies Kashmir, and has killed a thousand times more of the inhabitants there than Zimbabwe has in the latter struggle for National integrity. India sees herself as Japan did 45 years ago, and is steadfastly heading in the direction of those that once colonized and slaved them.
President Oba Sanjo thinks he is the new African statesman, and will play the role of an obedient house nigger while western multinational corporations run amok as though Africa was never really won.
Malaysia though not African in nature has shown greater principle and understanding in keeping the vultures at bay. Although Malaysia may have it's short comings, it has not kowtowed but formed an alliance with Zimbabwe, even rivaling South Africa in brotherliness against what it sees as western victimization from the common thuggery against Zimbabwe.
The Commonwealth is a department of Windsor where the Queen is King, and it's none white members aren't really members but subjects with a false sense of independence.
Call to restore Mugabe
By Tom Allard, Abuja, Nigeria
December 7, 2003
The Sun-Herald, via www.smh.com.au
Australia's hopes for a quick resolution of the debate over Zimbabwe at the Commonwealth leaders' summit have been dashed, with mounting calls from African countries for the regime of Robert Mugabe to be re-admitted to the forum, forcing the hasty creation of a six-nation committee to hammer out a compromise solution.
Prime Minister John Howard is one member of the committee of "wise men", which also includes the leaders of Canada, South Africa, India, Jamaica and Mozambique.
Among the proposals being considered is for Zimbabwe to have the opportunity to rejoin the 54-member body before the next Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in two years.
The committee's deliberations reflect the fact that the consensus on Zimbabwe's future that Mr Howard had been so optimistic about on his arrival in the Nigerian capital for the summit has evaporated. Continue...
Copyright © 2003. The Sydney Morning Herald
This extract was reproduced for fair use only.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xStand firm Robert Mugabe!``x1070817425,94810,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xFrom the Official Howard Dean Weblog, December 7, 2003
"Restoring the American Community", delivered by Governor Howard Dean in Columbia, South Carolina.
Response by Rootsie, www.rootsie.com
December 11, 2003
Well Governor Dean, as that 'different Republican president' also said 150 years ago, "You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time. But you can't fool all the people all the time."
You talk about Nixon/Reagan/Bush era politics, saying they "fracture the very soul of who we are as a country." And just what might that be, that 'soul'? The sickness in the very soul of the United States is what the Nixons, Reagans, and Bushes express. They are the mainline of U.S. History, not deviations from the norm. When was there ever racial justice here? The American Revolution itself was fought for the benefit of slave merchants. There was a hideous civil war back then fought on the frontier by poor settlers who knew this Revolution would not be of benefit to them.
When in the history of this country has the wealth NOT been 'concentrated at the very top'? You talk as if the Republicans are the sole architects and sole beneficiaries of this system. Well it takes two to tango. The gap between rich and poor opened up to unprecedented levels during the Clinton years.
But you can say anything you want really, and spin your rhetoric, because we have a broken educational system that graduates illiterates, let alone producing citizens who have some sort of grasp on their history. History. That's the thing. No one in this country wants to talk about history.
"There are no black concerns or white concerns or Hispanic concerns in America. There are only human concerns." What country do you live in? And the hundreds of millions who live 'south of the border', who also consider themselves 'Americans,' might be surprised to hear that their concerns are not Hispanic ones.
This is the way the liberals think to get around the issue of race. They talk about 'celebrating diversity' and our 'multicultural heritage', as if these pretty phrases can obscure the truth of United States history. And really, how long has corporate media North America been 'celebrating diversity' anyway? I suppose the fiends who dragged Richard Byrd along the highway a few years ago until his head was torn off don't matter in the equation of 'American progress' any more than the black children in Mississippi who are being tortured in 'training schools' as I write this. 40 years ago these stories went untold, that's true. So I suppose one could say that there has been some improvement. But to say that there is no such thing as black issues, as Native American issues, as Hispanic issues, is the worst kind of political demagoguery.
"We're going to talk about justice again in this country." Again?? When was the first time we talked about a level playing field for blacks? When was the first time we talked about restoring an iota of what was stolen from Native Americans? Whatever progress those groups have made certainly did not originate from the top. It was empowered individuals from those groups who fought and shed blood for what little justice they have received. If we find it hard to go on our merry way these days without a thought for the Richard Byrds of this world, the Leonard Peltiers, it is because of them, and not because of any reform or cry for basic justice that issued from our 'leaders.' Abraham Lincoln was a racist all his life, and anything he did for blacks was not out of love for them. The sharecropping system that replaced slavery and still exists in some places in the South today worsened the condition of blacks. At least if you own a horse, you will see to it that it stays relatively healthy.
You accuse your opponents of 'turning America into a battle of us versus them.' But Governor Dean, you are 'them'. By virtue of your skin color alone. You speak of the poor white children. I work with some of them. But I very well know there would be no political will at all to address poverty if poor whites did not exist. This you seem not to understand. You do not understand that you benefit directly from this system, that you are a true product of it. There can be no 'talk' of 'building' this and 'building' that without straight talk about race. We have to address the rot in the foundation before we can think to build a thing. I would like to hear a politician just once say 'I benefit directly from the system of white supremacy. I want to devote my excess resources to dismantling this system.' That is the only solution. Whites have to be willing to surrender their privilege. Period.
These empty calls for unity rouse much emotion in ignorant people. But to achieve true unity there has to be a reconciliation with history. Some great truth-telling must take place.
"United together, you can take back your country." When did this country ever belong to all of its people? Never yet.
"Because it is only a movement of citizens of every color, every income level, and every background that can change this country and once again make it live up to the promise of America." I remember the words of chief Red Cloud of the Lakota: "They made many promises. More than I can remember. But one they kept. They promised to take our land and they took it." You can't eat promises. We think a little patriotic rhetoric and flag-waving will suffice to bring this country into line with its many promises. What golden age of America are you referring to anyway?
40,000,000 Americans voted for George Bush. This time it will be more. There is no New Englander who can win in the South or the Midwest. There is no Democrat who can defeat George Bush. Hilary Clinton knows this. Otherwise she would be running. The Democrats cannot defeat George Bush because they do not legitimately wish to dismantle the system of global corporate colonialism for which he is the figurehead. It's a two-party gravy train. And those millions without the education and the civic engagement to see the fraud being perpetrated on them-what can be said of them? What can be said of the millions who are rich and want to stay that way, and damn everybody else?
What did you say about NAFTA and GATT? Did you say you want to dismantle them? If basic justice were your concern this is what you would say. You made some vague comments about paying foreign workers more.
I can't believe I'm saying this, but I prefer George Bush right where he is. At least we citizens have to look at the worst face of what we have done to the world every single day.
I am saddened that blacks in the United States are falling for this typical Democratic bill of goods. I wish they would remember Clinton and the million jail cells. Because Democrats are the masters at putting a 'kinder gentler' face on capitalist piracy, they tend to put dissent to sleep. Like any disease, this needs to come to a crisis in order to be cured. A doctor should know this.
There is such a thing as race. There is such a thing as issues that are specific to specific groups. Rhetorical cries for unity ring pathetic at this point. There is no unity without truth.
It is so typical for a white to run on a platform of 'race doesn't matter.' But the fact that there are some blacks falling for this is ominous.
It is not possible to 'restore' what has never been.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xResponse to Howard Dean's Speech``x1071258478,76285,Development``x``x
``xBy Raffique Shah
Trinidad and Tobago, www.trinicenter.com/Raffique
DEPUTY US Ambassador to this country, Albert Nahas, and his boss Roy Austin, must really believe that we Trinis are a bunch of "chupidees" that we are an uneducated, uninformed people. I should add here that they probably rank us alongside their own (Americans), most of whom are dumb when it comes to geography, they know little of their own history, and far less about the world beyond their continental boundaries. But I won't be nasty, so I shall not elaborate on that.
Last week Wednesday, at a seminar on the International Criminal Court (ICC), Nahas, speaking for his government (that has chosen to stay out of the jurisdiction of the court), said: "The US believes the ICC is built on a flawed foundation. Those flaws leave it open for exploitation and politically motivated prosecution. The US believes its citizens are at special risk for prosecution by the ICC because of the unique US role in global politics and US participation in military operation and peace-keeping process."
At the same seminar ex-President Arthur NR Robinson, an architect of the ICC, hitting the flawed US nail on the head, told the audience: "Having regard to the growing importance, development of destructive power, the only answer to that development of destructive power is the resurgence of our humanity all over the world without distinction of race, class and economic power." Robinson did not need to read and spell for the benefit of his audience. Clearly he was referring to the US using its economic and military might to subjugate any nation it chooses to, and to those who use terrorism as the only response to the New Empire.
The ICC, whatever its weaknesses--and I'm sure there will be many during its teething stages-is intended to regulate the behaviour of governments or individuals towards their own people, and the way they treat with others, especially during hostilities. Any deviation from the norms of civilisation, like the presumption of innocence until one is found guilty of a crime, or the treatment of prisoners of war in keeping with the Geneva Convention, could lead to prosecution before the ICC. When one looks at the atrocities that have been committed in the name of governance or war, institutions like the International Criminal Tribunal based in the Hague and the ICC seem like a godsend to the families of tens of thousands who were slaughtered in Bosnia or Burundi by men so powerful, they thought they were beyond the reach of justice.
It's much too late to have these institutions bring to justice murderous despots like Pol Pot (Cambodia) or Idi Amin or the many Latin American graduates of Fort Benning who committed unspeakable atrocities during the era of US-installed dictators on the continent. Benning, unlike Sandhurst (where we were taught to abide by the Geneva Convention), unleashed terrorists-disguised-as-officers who raped and murdered nuns and killed an Archbishop in Honduras and El Salvador to the North, to as far South as Chile and Argentina where men like Pinochet liquidated thousands of ordinary Chileans. Many of these criminal elements were granted safe haven in the US after the bloody regimes they were part of were removed from office by "people power".
The US has good reason to steer clear of the ICC, but these have nothing to do with the ICC being "flawed". As someone wrote recently, if the yardstick used at Nuremburg to try (though not necessarily bring to justice) scores of Adolf Hitler's generals and lackeys for war crimes, then George Bush, Tony Blair and hundreds of their aides and allies would be hauled before the ICC or the Hague-based Tribunal. As war criminals, that is. Indeed, several other presidents of the New Empire, including Eisenhower who unleashed the only nuclear weapons ever in the history of mankind, just to "try it out" on a Japan that was on its knees, or Reagan who invaded a defenceless Panama and killed thousands of innocent people, would have been deemed war criminals.
But the sanctimonious set in the White House have taken their arrogance the distance by refusing to subject their own people to what they expect everyone else to be subjected to, the rule on international law. What international court, staffed by jurists of almost impeccable integrity, would convict people based on race or class or religion? So Nahas knew he was spewing raw sewage when he proffered that feeble excuse at the seminar. He and Austin also know that the US has also refused to sign or ratify a host of other international agreements that other countries have done. For example, ex-President Bill Clinton signed the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty in 1996, but it was rejected by the Senate in 1999. In 2001 the US withdrew from the Antiballistic Missile Treaty. In that same year its delegation walked out of a London meeting where a protocol to strengthen the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention was on the table. Later it would accuse Libya, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Sudan and Syria of violating the Convention.
I can go on about its withdrawal in 2002 from the 1969 Vienna Convention, its refusal to sign the Land Mine Treaty of 1997, or Bush declaring the Kyoto Protocol for controlling greenhouse gases dead in 2001. But then the US has always flouted any international treaty or convention that stood in its bullying ways towards weaker nations, the ICC being only the most recent. Under what law, one might ask, is that concentration camp (oh yes, that's what it is-maybe gas chamber et al!) at Guantanamo in Cuba, set up? British law lord Steyn recently described as "a monstrous failure of justice" the decisions of the US courts not to consider credible evidence of torture in cases coming from Guantanamo. "Trials of the type contemplated by the US government would be a stain on US justice. The only thing that could be worse is simply to leave the prisoners in their black hole indefinitely," Steyn said, as quoted by Observer writer David Aaronovitch.
Another writer in the Guardian, James Meek, who spent a month talking with ex-inmates of that camp, described it this way: "In the two years since it opened it has (become) a full grown mongrel of international law, where all the harshness of the punitive US prison system is visited on foreigners, unmitigated by any of the legal rights US prisoners enjoy." Guantanamo, which lies not far away from us in Caricom, offers us a glimpse into Bush's New Empire in which there is one law for Americans and another for everyone else in the world.
Continue : Controlling the 'Fourth Front'``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xAmerica's arrogance knows no bounds``x1071420601,26967,Development``x``x
``xPublished, December 20, 2003 by CommonDreams.org
by Kimberle Williams Crenshaw
The blank-faced reaction to revelations that arch segregationist Strom Thurmond fathered a daughter with his family's 16-year old African American maid marks the third time in recent months that progressives have been stymied by the yawning hypocrisy on the Right on matters of race, justice, and basic integrity. Strom Thurmond now joins Rush Limbaugh and Bill Bennett in providing perfect examples of the breathtaking contradictions within the Right wing agenda that have been inadequately challenged by the progressive community.
Perhaps many potential critics are left speechless in the face of this outrage in part because Essie Mae Washington-Williams herself seems so forgiving of her father. Many have taken this to mean that Strom Thurmond wasn't as committed to the cause of segregation as he might have appeared. Yet the belief that segregationists should be viewed sympathetically simply because they sustained family ties with Blacks obscures the true meaning of white supremacy. Neither slavery nor formal segregation was ever grounded in the principled separation of the races or on unyielding racial hatred. Segregation and the rhetoric that supported it were simply a means toward the larger enterprise of insulating and brutally protecting the supremacy of white male power in dictating the terms of political, economic, social and, of course, sexual intercourse. Once this logic is comprehended, nothing about Strom Thurmond's behavior in impregnating Carrie Butler, nor his subsequent relationship to Essie Mae Washington-Williams, seems out of the ordinary.
Washington-Williams' decision not to derail Thurmond when he was most vulnerable was, of course, hers to make. Yet judgment about the historical consequences of that decision remains squarely within the realm of public debate. To comprehend the full implication of that personal decision, it is important to recognize that Strom Thurmond was far more than a fellow traveler on the road to massive resistance to racial equality. Thurmond was a chief architect, principle leader, and key symbol of Southern intransigence in the service of white supremacy.
Despite a stint as a progressive politician, Thurmond's early political influences made it no surprise that he developed into the political hero of the most virulently racist political forces in the South. Thurmond's earliest political role model was "Pitchfork" Ben Tillman, a virulently racist leader of the bloody redshirt campaign that punished Blacks and their supporters and obliterated their political power in South Carolina. Scores of Blacks were viciously killed in the campaign. Tillman once bragged about the murder of a Black state senator while he knelt in prayer. Thurmond's father was Tillman's political operative in Edgefield County, a place with a particularly violent reputation. Indeed, Thurmond's father killed a drunken political opponent in the town square in broad daylight. In this political culture, Thurmond was exposed to, and later sought to emulate, those politicians who could stir up a frenzied crowd, often through the racial demonization of their Black neighbors. The conflict among white politicians then was not over "whether" to promote white supremacy, but rather, as one commentator has put it, "who can yell nigger the loudest."
Having drafted the Southern Manifesto declaring unyielding opposition to the Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education, Thurmond galvanized, courted and threatened Southern politicians to stand behind the declaration. In that manifesto are the key components of the defense of segregation that continue to frame resistance to equality agendas to this day. Indeed it was Thurmond's leadership, first in becoming the presidential candidate for the segregationist Dixiecrats, and then his later delivery of this influential cohort to the Republican Party, that polarized the parties on civil rights issues and set the stage for a massive political realignment that still centers race as its major fault line. If Washington-Williams' recollection serves her, Thurmond's defense was that he merely inherited a way of life that as a politician he was expected to defend. But this benign epitaph ignores the fact that Strom Thurmond raised the heat on the racial cauldron well beyond its boiling point.
As Washington-Williams' mildly suggested to her father, Thurmond could have led America down a remarkably different path, one that might have found peace in squarely confronting the democratic illegitimacy of white supremacy. He might have used his considerable political gifts to demonstrate to the masses an acceptance of the inherent equality of American citizens based not on outside coercion but on internalized principles. One can only imagine what the nation might have been spared had Thurmond chosen to get ahead of the game by sowing racial justice in the fertile soil of the South's progressive tradition rather than becoming a dangerously divisive reactionary in the face of modest federal steps to alleviate the suffering of African Americans. Had Thurmond so much as attempted to exercise this courage, he would truly deserve the iconic status he now enjoys. That Thurmond chose not do so, even in the face of a familial relationship with a woman who was susceptible to the torrent of hate that these politics unleashed, discredits all efforts to portray him as a sympathetic character in America's racial drama.
Kimberle Williams Crenshaw (aapf@law.columbia.edu) is Professor of Law at Columbia University and UCLA and is the Co-Founder and and Co-Director of the African American Policy Forum (www.aapf.org).``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xPrimer on White Supremacy``x1072098554,7784,Development``x``x
``xThe following statement has been issued by Hackney Black Peoples Association, London:
Black History Month (BHM) in Britain is becoming like Kwanzaa in he USA. Kwanzaa was drawn up by a committee and was said to be a holiday for North American Africans (African Americans). The US government paid a large sum of money to the alleged founder of Kwanzaa and thus it became a holiday for all Americans. So it does not matter whether a person is of European or Asian descent, they can claim Kwanzaa as their holiday too.
Local authorities seeking to ride on the tide of popularity engendered started BHM in Britain by public Black History lectures organised by Black Community Organisations. Its popularity led to some local authorities making budgetary arrangements for BHM while some others went through the motions of supporting BHM. For Example, Hackney Council appointed a white woman to organise BHM.
Then we saw the Home Office, through its arm the Commission for Racial Equality, publishing glossy BHM booklets targeted at recruiting young Blacks into the ranks of the army and the police.
Next came the National Lottery Commission, which put up £0.5million for BHM in 2002, with most of the money going to the British Museum and the National History Museum.
This year, we had the spectacle of London Mayor Ken Livingstone and his flunkey Lee jasper trying to bask in the glory of the history of the African peoples of the world with their First Voices Conference. They were forced by Jews and Zionists to withdraw an invitation Professor Tony Martin, the world's foremost scholar on the Honourable Marcus Garvey, thus causing outrage and anger within the Black Community.
What is also now creeping in is the discredited idea of multi-culturalism, so that Asians and mother none-Africans can be funded to organise BHM events. The demand of Black children that they be taught their history in English schools has been completely ignored.
Given that Carter G. Woodson established BHM in the USA for the education of Blacks about their own history; not as seen by whites as the story of the conqueror for the conquered, then Black organisations in the UK have a duty and a responsibility to maintain and defend that position. We should not let those with vast financial resources take control of BHM and then use it against us.
To this end, the Hackney Black Peoples Association proposes the following:
1. That a committee representing the widest spectrum of organisations be established to maintain the continuity of BHM for its original purpose.
2. That letters be written to the Mayor, the CRE and the national Lottery Commission telling them to butt out of BHM.
3. That every year, the Committee organises an African Peoples as a BHM event where we discuss a particular aspect of our history to determine what lessons can be learned for present times.
4. Given the furore over the dis-invitation of Tony Martin, that for BHM 2004, he be recalled to speak at a BHM African Peoples Assembly on the History and Legacy of Marcus Garvey and the UNIA, then lessons to be learned for implementation, and the APA decides to establish one project that everyone will work to establish.
5. That in the meantime, demonstrations/pickets be held outside the offices of the Jewish Chronicle and the Board of Deputies of British Jews to protest the ant-African racism of Jews and demand Reparations for slavery.
Proposed by: Hackney Black Peoples Association ``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xTaking back BLACK HISTORY MONTH``x1072237535,51745,Development``x``x
``xSource: University Of Chicago
A new species of pterosaur with a 16-foot wingspan has been discovered in the southern Sahara by a team led by University of Chicago paleontologist Paul Sereno. "This find puts African pterosaurs on the map," said Sereno, who is also an explorer-in-residence at the National Geographic Society. Previous finds of these winged reptiles in Africa had been limited to individual bones or teeth.
The 110-million-year-old fossils include most of one wing and several slender teeth from its over-sized jaws. "To find a wing composed of a string of paper-thin bones in a river deposit next to the sturdy bones of dinosaurs is a remarkable feat of preservation," Sereno said. The bones and teeth were found in Cretaceous-age rocks in Niger that were deposited by ancient rivers. Near the pterosaur site, Sereno's team also found bones of the 35-foot-long, sail-backed fish-eater Suchomimus and the enormous crocodile Sarcosuchus, dubbed "SuperCroc."
"Definitely a fish-eater," remarked Sereno, who will describe and name the new species with David Blackburn, an expedition member from the University of Chicago and now a graduate student at Harvard University. Like its contemporaries Suchomimus and Sarcosuchus, it dined on the abundant fish in the rivers, as evidenced by its long and slender teeth. As the jaws closed, the teeth interlocked to snare fish, leaving signs of wear on their sides.
"Somehow this huge species was able to fish on the wing. We imagine a pterosaur soaring over the water and somehow stalling to snag a fish," Sereno said. "It was a tremendous animal." Based on numerous trackways, paleontologists now believe that pterosaurs were relatively clumsy on land or in shallow water, walking slowly on all fours. The African species preserves sharp hand claws on the front edge of the wing, which probably helped it climb when on land.
The African pterosaur resembles another species discovered previously in the highlands of Brazil. When the Niger species lived, 110 million years ago, South America and Africa were just beginning to separate. "Pterosaurs wouldn't have had much trouble getting across at that point, so it's not surprising to find a close relative over there," Sereno said.
A life-size skeleton and flesh reconstruction of the new pterosaur, the first for a species from Africa, will go on display in Chicago's Garfield Park Conservatory, 300 N. Central Park Ave., as part of the "GIANTS" exhibit. The exhibit, created by Sereno's educational organization Project Exploration, opens Dec. 20 and will run through Sept. 6, 2004.
The flesh model incorporates the latest information on pterosaurs. "Pterosaurs are close cousins of the dinosaurs but had a very different look and lifestyle. Their bodies were covered by hair-like structures that arose independently from the hair we know today on mammals," Sereno said. The flesh model also has translucent wings, as scientists now believe from detailed impressions that the skin forming the wing would have allowed light to pass through.
For more information about the "GIANTS" exhibit, see www.dinogiants.org.
The original news release can be found here.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xPaleontologists Discover Pterosaur Fossils In Sahara``x1072281304,18961,Development``x``x
``xBy Ras Tyehimba, Africa Speaks
All across the world, from Latin America, to the US, to Europe, to the Caribbean, to Africa and Asia, the roll call of Globalisation echoes, heralding the growing wealth of developed countries and the increasing economic strain and exploitation faced by developing and underdeveloped countries. The overwhelming debt faced by a lot of developing places them deeper in servitude to the IMF, the World Bank, and imperialistic 'developed countries'. Big Multi-national Corporations are the order of the day, siphoning resources including raw materials and cheap labour from the cash-strapped developing countries. It has been a little more than 500 years since the first slave ship sailed from Afrika, and now Afrikans all across the globe are becoming more explicit and proactive in their struggle to obtain reparations for the past injustices that have been meted out to Afrikan people.
Reactionary elements even within the black community often jeer and scathingly ask: why should reparations be paid. To those that choose to overlook and ignore the Afrikan Holocaust, I have this to say: the enslavement of Afrikans was a crime against humanity and international law recognizes the moral and legal obligations of those who commit crimes against humanity to pay reparations. Slavery and colonialism has wreaked havoc across the globe especially in Afrika which is the richest continent in the world. This twin force has been responsible for the mass material wealth of Europe and America. Their wealth and Industrialization has been gotten from the inhumane exploitation of Afrika's resources, both natural and human;it has been gotten from the blood, sweat and tears of millions and millions of Afrikans. Colonialism has wreaked havoc on the social structure of continental Afrika, stealing and killing skilled craftsmen, leaders, farmers, healers, making Afrikan villages unable to cope with the challenges of day to day life. Precious Minerals, mines, fabulous treasures, breathtaking artifacts, rich land has all been dispossessed from the indigenous Afrikans who have been existing in their high cultures for thousands and thousands of years before the coming of the Europeans.
The process of colonialism which included chattel slavery and the slave trade, uprooted indigenous Afrikans from their homes and transplanted them in the new world, forcing them to undergo deliberate and brutal processes of dehumanisation and brainwashing. As a result, Afrikans both on the Continent and in the Diaspora have become disconnected from their true self, forced to function in systems rampant with racism, gender discrimination, poverty, self-hate, drugs, crime, mis-education and white supremacy. Bombarded by a conglomeration of the aforementioned forces, many have grabbed (or in many cases forced to grab) onto a very Eurocentric form of Christianity, and indeed a very Eurocentric way of life that has transformed many many individuals into ignorant house-slaves, burying their heads in the dregs of Western civilization. It is a fact that Afrikan enslavement was sanctioned in the name of 'converting the heathens to Christ' and the very first slave ship was even named the S.S. Jesus Christ.
Reparation is not solely about money, not at all, it's about transferring technological resources and expertise to those that have been downtrodden by the technologically minded countries that have sought to rule the world with their superior armaments. Reparation is about putting mechanisms in place to provide equal opportunities to those that have laboured long and hard (without just reward) to build up what is known today as Western Civilization. In recent times, the Maori people, survivors of the Jewish Holocaust Native Americans, Aboriginal peoples, Japanese Americans, Korean sex-slaves, have all received some sort of Reparation for grave injustices that have been meted out to them. The Afrikan Holocaust on the other hand, despite being far more damaging, brutal and long lasting has yet to receive any favorable redress from the countries that are responsible for these atrocities against humanity. In fact most countries haven't even recognized the Afrikan Holocaust as being a crime against humanity. Is it because Afrikan people are not seen as being part of humanity?
No amount of money could ever quantify the damage that was done, and no amount of compensation will be able to fully repair the trauma that has resulted. However, Reparations will help to provide new opportunities for growth and help bridge the disparate gap between rich developed countries and poor Afrikan countries that have suffered immensely because of the underdevelopment forced upon them by European power. If for example the digital divide is left to increase at the present alarming rate, then the force of globalisation will have an even worse disastrous impact on the Afrikan economies.
A proper understanding of history will reveal that Western countries will not pay Reparations to Afrikans unless their survival utterly depends upon it. In fact a lot of whites claim that since it was their ancestors that perpetuated the crimes against humanity, they (the present White population) cannot be held accountable for compensating those disadvantaged... In making this outrageous claim they ignore one fundamental fact; that Western countries and their white populations has and is still benefiting from the ill gotten gains of slavery and colonialism. Reparations is a moral issue related intimately with a wider movement for equal rights and justice, and Western countries have shown time and time again that they are not motivated by morality, truth and justice, but rather by money and power.
The US, one of the most racist countries in the world walked out of the World Conference against Racism because they were not prepared to deal expeditiously with the issues at hand. With this in mind, the Reparations movement must not take place within a vacuum; it must not be the main thrust of the Pan Afrikan Movement. Allocation of scarce resources has to be a major concern of both Afrikans on the continent and those in the Diaspora. The main thrust of the movement and where the most resources should be allocated is in terms of the re-education of ourselves in the interest of reclaiming our divine identity. In reclaiming our identity and becoming more aware of ourselves, we will be in a better position to do what needs to be done in the interest of equal rights and justice. Where are the Afrikan schools teaching Afrikan history and the diverse range of culture that has been practiced on the continent for thousands of years? Re-educating ourselves will put us in a better position to utilize the vast resources that we have already at our disposal and also the face the global challenge of surviving as an Afrikan people in these perilous times. Reparations must not become an excuse to forget our spirituality that has kept us alive throughtout challenging situations. We mus remind the world that no peace will ever be possible unless the injustices that have been perpetuated have been addressed in a meaningful manner.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xReparations In Repairing The Damage``x1072385669,62903,Development``x``x
``xwww.blackcommentator.com
The Bush men decorate our holidays in Homeland Security yellow, orange and red, while demonizing Islamic green as the color of the most implacable foes of Western "civilization." Yet official silence conspires to hide genocidal maniacs in our midst who have sworn to erase the Black presence from the landscape of the United States: White Terror.
Tens of thousands of members of a racist legion operate openly in every corner of the nation – men, women, juveniles, extended families, cells, gangs, churches, clans, militias, border armies, all engaged in what they consider to be a war to the death against non-white America.
George Bush and John Ashcroft don't want you to hear about White Terror, understandably fearing that the lyrics of white supremacy strike the same racial chords as the Pirates' own War on Terror theme, itself a rearrangement of the many martial tunes written throughout American history in praise Manifest Destiny. Less than a decade ago Timothy McVeigh's band of terrorists got carried away with the logic of America as a White Man's Country, and may have cost the Republicans the White House in 1996. That's why the homeland security colors didn't change in May of this year, when federal agents arrested a white racist couple dealing in weapons of mass destruction in a small town near Tyler, Texas. The feds seized a cyanide bomb capable of unleashing a deadly, poison cloud, chemicals and components for additional WMDs, gas masks, 100 conventional bombs, an arsenal of automatic weapons, silencers and half a million rounds of ammunition.
The bust went unreported last Spring, although George Bush was said to have been regularly briefed about the "ongoing" investigation. Finally, the Dallas-Fort Worth CBS affiliate broke the story on November 26, when longtime militiaman and traveling gun merchant William J. Krar and his common-law wife pled guilty to possession of a chemical bomb and lesser charges. Local Channel 11 news producer Todd Bensman thought he had a huge national story on his hands, but CBS network refused to pick up his report. "I guess they didn't think it was important enough," Bensman told David Neiwert, a Seattle-based journalist who has covered right-wing terrorism since 1978. In fact, the national news blackout was near-total, as reported online by The Memory Hole.
The only media that saw fit to report about this terrorist plot within the US were a few newspapers and TV stations in Texas. The Web-based news outlet WorldNetDaily ran a story about it, but Google News shows that there hasn't been a word in the New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, or any other big media outlet. Why have the media decided that this is a non-story? It's hard to say, but we can say with certainty that if Muslims had been caught with these weapons of mass destruction, fake I.D., gas masks, and books on making explosives, it would've been front-page news for days.
A huge array of weapons, ammunition, bomb-making equipment, and racist literature were discovered in the Tyler arrest.
The New York Times got around to the story on December 13, not on the news pages, but through a back door Op-Ed article titled "Enemies at Home." Daniel Levitas' piece passed the Times' blandness test. "Americans should question whether the Justice Department is making America's far-right fanatics a serious priority," Levitas wrote. "And with the F.B.I. still struggling to get up to speed on the threat posed by Islamic extremists abroad, it is questionable whether the agency has the manpower to keep tabs on our distinctly American terror cells. There is no accurate way of analyzing the budgets of the F.B.I., Justice Department and Department of Homeland Security to discern how much attention is being devoted to right-wing extremists. But in light of the F.B.I.'s poor record in keeping tabs on the militia movement before the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, one wonders whether the agency has the will to do so now."
What apologetic nonsense. The federal police are acting just like their predecessors under J. Edgar Hoover, who for decades denied there was such a thing as the Mafia. Hoover knew full well that the Italian-American syndicate existed, since the Bureau had used gangsters countless times as lethal instruments against leftists in the union movement. The FBI was a friend to the Mafia until deep into the Sixties and – the movie, Mississippi Burning notwithstanding – sheltered and immunized far more Klansman than it ever arrested. The Bureau does as it is told, and it has been instructed to hide White Terror from view.
Indeed, there are striking similarities between the FBI's modus operandi with the Ku Klux Klan in the Sixties and the Bureau's behavior towards today's white terrorists; the feds watch, but don't do much of anything to stop them. There is no question that the Aryan Nations, National Alliance, Christian Identity, various reconstituted Klans, skinheads and hundreds of other homegrown Nazi organizations have been heavily infiltrated by various law enforcement agencies. After all, they are full of criminals of the kind that routinely trade evidence for extended sojourns outside of prison. In addition, the American domestic arms trade is a roadmap to the violent Right, a national grid full of above ground gun markets and fairs. All it takes is some cash to join the circuit and meet the folks.
Terrorists With Impunity
The feds met William Krar around the time of the Oklahoma City bombing. According to the November 26 television report from Dallas-Fort Worth: "In 1995, the ATF investigated Krar and another man on weapons charges. The other suspect told authorities at the time that he and Krar shared an abiding hatred of the federal government and had been planning to bomb government facilities, court records show. But the suspect later recanted the story about plotting terror attacks with Krar. Krar denied the allegation and was not arrested, according to records.
There is little to indicate that the feds wanted to make anything stick to Krar. On the day after 9/11, an employee at a New Hampshire storage site where the weapons dealer kept his regional customers' stock reported Krar's "wicked anti-American" remarks to the FBI, which filed a report but did – nothing! When the feds finally moved on Krar and his companion in Noonday, Texas a year and a half later, the arrest warrant said he was "actively involved in the militia movement…a good source of covert weaponry for white supremacist and anti-government militia groups in New Hampshire," his native state. How long had this been known to the FBI? It's a moot question, since such activities were clearly not of great interest to the Bureau.
Geoge Bush was not reported as saying that groups like these, and their right-wing political allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the USA.
Four months after 9/11, in January 2002 the feds stumbled on Krar's network through no smarts of their own when a package meant for New Jersey militiaman Edward Feltus was mistakenly delivered to a Staten Island, New York address. "The package contained more than five false identification documents, including a North Dakota birth certificate, a Social Security card, a Vermont birth certificate, a Defense Intelligence Agency Identification card, and a United Nations Multinational Force Identification card," said the East Texas U.S. Attorney's office. But no attempt was made to halt Krar's activities, which continued until May of this year.
The U.S. Attorney's statement claims that after the New Jersey package turned up, a "subsequent investigation" discovered that Krar "had accumulated dangerous chemical weapons," an apparent reference to a Tennessee Highway Patrol stop of Krar's car a full year later, in January 2003. State Police – not federal agents – found dangerous chemicals and a note that "appears to represent instructions for carrying out some kind of covert operation," Channel 11 reported. "It lists code words for cities where meetings can take place at motels."
The cities where the conspirators would presumably meet were called "zones" and included: Chattanooga, Bristol, and Knoxville, Tennessee; Scranton and Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; Winchester and Roanoke, Virginia; Jackson, Mississippi; and Shreveport, Louisiana.
The TV story continued: "Other codes appear to be warnings about how close police might be to catching the plotters. 'Lots of light storms are predicted,' for instance, means 'Move fast before they look any harder. We have a limited window remaining.'"
The FBI and other federal agencies had left the "window" open for mad white bombers Krar and Bruey for two whole years, but you'd never know it from the U.S. Attorney's press release. "Through the cooperative effort of the FBI, ATF, the Army CID and the Criminal Investigative Service, these defendants were identified and their activities pinpointed and neutralized. We live in a safer world because of the efforts of these agencies."
Honest lawmen see things differently. Channel 11 warned that "authorities familiar with the case say more potentially deadly cyanide bombs may be in circulation."
The Right Rampages, Again
The Oklahoma City bombing killed 168 people in 1995, most of them white and many of them children. For a time, the white public recoiled from the harshest rhetoric of their race-crazed kin, and it appears that many rank and file supremacists shrank away in shame, becoming inactive. Bill Clinton's political fortunes rose dramatically on the sea change of public revulsion at the Right, and he defeated Bob Dole decisively in the 1996 election. Thomas Sowell, Republican Uncle Tom Emeritus, still complains about that period. "The Oklahoma City bombing was immediately blamed on conservative talk show hosts, even before the perpetrators were known," Sowell wrote in a November, 2002 column, exaggerating as usual.
However, as the William Krar saga indicates, at no time have federal authorities treated white hate groups as clear and present dangers to national security. The lethal threat to Black America failed to spur Bill Clinton to any serious action against these very visible networks. Krar kept selling his wares, and apparently grew more sophisticated and deadly.
The Bush election 'victory', and the appointment of John Ashcroft as Attorney General, was like manna from white heaven for racist groups in the USA.
Then came September 11. Racism was back with volcanic vengeance, unbound by any notions of shame – the Great Mobilizer of White Americans. The horror of Oklahoma City had provided only a respite, after all. This time, the Republicans are determined to ride the tidal wave of white fear and hate to its ultimate, ordained destination: world conquest. And there will be no reminders of the despised Tim McVeigh to break the triumphalist spell – not if Attorney General Ashcroft can help it.
On the December 5 edition of Democracy Now! University of Texas journalism professor Robert Jensen attempted to explain the silence over racists armed with WMDs. "Cases like this – of domestic terrorism, especially when they involve white supremacist and conservative Christian groups, don't have any political value for an administration, especially this particular administration," said the professor. " Therefore, why – if one were going to be crass and cynical, why would they highlight this?
"On the other hand, foreign terrorism and things connected to Arab, South Asian and Muslim groups, well those have value because they can be used to whip up support for military interventions, which this administration is very keen on."
Jensen understates the case. The Noonday, Texas WMD story was squashed by the Bush Administration with the active collaboration of editors throughout corporate media. The December 10 issue of Intelligence Squad got it just about right: "Suddenly it becomes clear why John Ashcroft isn't going to make a big deal out of nailing these guys: they are essentially a more extreme version of Ashcroft himself." The Bush men conceal the existence terrorists, as if embarrassed by their own kind.
Reporters at Channel 11 in Dallas-Fort Worth were told, "federal agents have served hundreds of subpoenas across the country in a domestic terror investigation" since May. Yet there have been no subsequent news reports of such events and only three people are in custody: Krar, Bruey and the New Jersey militiaman, Edward Feltus. If the hundreds of persons suspected of terrorist activities were Arabs or South Asians, we might assume they were locked away incommunicado in the twilight Gulag created since September 11. But these are white Americans with special dispensation to engage in an ancient yet familiar rampage. They can hide in plain sight, because nobody's really looking.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xRacist Terrorist Groups in the Heart of the USA``x1072565535,29375,Development``x``x
``xBy Caesar Zvayi, www.herald.co.zw
UNCLE SAM'S forces captured Saddam Hussein on December 13, and the Texas gunslinger, that son of a bush, was beside himself with thirst for blood.
He immediately pronounced the death sentence on Saddam, inspite of the fact that Saddam's "crimes" are yet to be documented, whilst his crimes have been televised for all to see by his very own embedded journalists!
Bush has broken international law by launching pre-emptive strikes on two nations whose populations are 50 percent children. He has also violated the 1949 Geneva Convention on the protection of civilians during hostilities and treatment of prisoners of war (POWs). Most importantly he has trashed the United Nations and launched unprecedented genocide using banned weapons particularly cluster bombs which are still maiming innocent Iraqi children today. If anyone deserves the hangman's noose, it is George Bush himself.
Unfortunately, no one dares bell the cat.
Like the Texas villager he is, he thought he had at last found justification for his war and a major boost for his first election, as he bears the unenviable tag of being the first un-elected US president.
Political opponents, however, quickly brought him down to earth by reminding him that Saddam's capture was not the reason for going to war, moreso no weapons of mass destruction (WMD) have been found, and the war is proving costly in financial and human terms as the US has spent a staggering US$177 billion on the war to date, whilst back home the economy is on the decline.
Meanwhile, more bodies continue hitting US shores as more than 200 soldiers have been killed since Bush declared the end of the war on May 1.
Saddam's blood thus, cannot wash the egg off Bush's face.
US administrator Paul Bremer waxed lyrical that Saddam's capture spelled the end of the "terror" attacks on US troops.
Really?
So it is only terror if it is US troops or citizens at the wrong end of the gun?
Anyway, we all know of their double standards. Ironically, before the cameras stopped rolling at the Press conference, Bremer choked on his words as more US troops were gunned down across Iraq.
Bush and Blair celebrated on July 22 2003 when hundreds of troops, dozens of aircraft and vehicles cut down, in cold blood, Saddam's sons Uday and Qusay, including Qusay's 14-year-old son Mustapha. Suffice to say the Hussein brothers were only armed with AK47 rifles.
When asked why they had not simply captured them, top US military Commander Ricardo Sanchez sanguinely bragged that, "Our mission is to find, kill or capture." (Note the order of the priorities)
With this bloodthirstiness, they thought they had dealt a coup de grace to the Iraq resistance, but the attacks actually intensified, as they are still intensifying after Saddam's capture.
The whole world saw how the so-called watchdogs of human rights subjected Saddam to cattle inspection in camera, ostensibly to warn all other defiant leaders not to cross Bush's path.
How naïve?
As one analyst put it, "US troops 'defeated' Saddam Hussein, but not the Iraqi people." Iraqis continue to eliminate the infidels whose death toll is reported to be much higher than the official figures of one US soldier a day, as an average of 17 attacks are directed at US troops daily.
The US and its media would want the world to believe that all these attacks, which are mostly suicidal, manage to claim just one soldier a day!
Anyway we know that the first casualty of any war is the truth.
Uncle Sam is in deep trouble but like a typical bully he will not tip his hand since no one will brook bullying once it is known that the owl has no horns but just tufts of feathers!
Apart from showing the world that the Anglo-Saxons are strangers to the truth, human rights, democracy, international law among other values, the Iraq war has clearly shown that defence of sovereignty cannot be condensed to one individual or a country's leadership, but is national in nature.
Saddam and his Baath party had just won a new mandate from the Iraqi people before Bush decided he knew better who should govern Iraq.
This is indicative of the sickening prejudice of the Westerners who regard all other races as child races who do not know what is good for them as such they have to be dictated to.
This chauvinism led the West and their local proxies to believe that they have the right to decide who should rule our country inspite of the resounding affirmation the electorate gave Zanu-PF and President Mugabe in the June 2000 legislative and March 2002 Presidential elections, and subsequent by-elections.
Indeed the Defence and Security Chief's Joint Statement on January 9 2002 spoke for the people where they said:
"We will not accept, let alone salute, anyone with a different agenda that threatens the very existence of our sovereignty, our country and our people . . . we wish to make it very clear to all Zimbabwean citizens that the security organisations will only stand in support of those political leaders that will pursue Zimbabwean values, traditions and beliefs for which thousands of lives were lost in pursuit of Zimbabwe's hard won independence."
Even though no names were mentioned in the statement, those who wished to advance alien interests immediately cried foul, and cried even harder when the people rejected them at the polls. The tears even dug potholes on some of their faces!
The West and their mongrels believe that if they do away with President Mugabe, they have won the Zimbabwean war.
What myopia?
They need only look at what is happening in Iraq for insight, or better still what happened during our Second Chimurenga war when the nationalist leadership was jailed for decades but the war was not abandoned.
As one analyst put it after Tsvangirai's treason tapes were aired, "If they assassinate Mugabe, there will be 13 999 999 Zimbabweans willing to carry the revolution to its logical conclusion." Give or take a few sellouts.
Inspite of their spirited demonisation of the President, he continues to enjoy massive domestic and international support. This has baffled the detractors who then began pinning their hopes on his health; once again they were in for a big disappointment as the man is as vivacious as ever.
The president continues to prevail over the country's enemies because he is smarter than all of them put together, more so he is fighting on the side of justice, thus no matter how mighty or formidable the enemy might seem, good always prevails over evil since the days of David and Goliath.
It took us 90 years to gain political independence, economic independence may not take that long but it will take some time, and it won't come on a silver platter.
The imperialists survive on our resources and they won't give up without a fight, but as long as we make the necessary sacrifices and rally behind our leaders we will prevail.
We did it before; we can do it again.
Reproduced from:
www.herald.co.zw/index.php?id=27813&pubdate=2003-12-31``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xSovereignty bigger than individual leaders``x1072892215,72574,Development``x``x
``xby Tim Wise
This is the story of a real American tragedy. The kind they make movies about.
The victim - and let there be no mistake that is the only word that fits here - is Marcus Dixon: a young man who was an 'A' student in high school, a member of the National Honor Society, one of the best defensive football players in the United States, who scored above a 1200 on his SAT, and had signed a letter of intent to attend Vanderbilt University as a student-athlete in the most complete sense of the word. And yet today, Marcus Dixon sits in a prison cell in Georgia, staring at a 10-year sentence, because - and let there be no mistake about this either - Marcus Dixon is black, and that makes all the difference.
Barring a reversal of his sentence by the state Supreme Court, Dixon, who lived in Rome, Georgia, about an hour northwest of Atlanta (but farther away than that, one suspects, in cultural terms), is going to spend the next decade of his life in prison for having consensual sex with a white girl. That is not a misprint and it is not a matter of opinion. That is ultimately why he was expelled from school, why his scholarship was rescinded, and why he may not see freedom until the age of 28.
Though Dixon was accused of raping the young woman in question, a jury of nine whites and three blacks took all of 20 minutes to dispense with the charge, as absurd as it obviously was. The Rome District Attorney had brought the case to trial based on the claim of the supposed victim, but was soundly undone by witnesses who said the girl had admitted the sex between she and Dixon had been consensual. Apparently she feared that her father, a virulent racist, would kill both Dixon and herself if he learned that she had willingly slept with a black guy. So she changed her story, but not before undercutting her own credibility, and not before re-enacting one of the longest-standing Southern traditions on record: that of a white female falsely claiming to have been raped by a black man in order to save face with daddy.
It's a tradition that speaks to the way sexism and racism have long interacted: white men in this case, maintaining their own domination of white women by rigidly circumscribing the sexual freedom of the latter in explicitly racial terms, thereby hoping to keep blacks in line as well as their own daughters, wives and sisters.
Like I said, it took 20 minutes to throw out the rape charge; so at least that much has changed about the South. Needless to say it would have taken fewer than that to lynch Marcus Dixon 100 years ago - so good for us; we have become a little more civilized it appears.
Or maybe not.
Because civilization, after all, is a relative concept.
And when expectations rise about how civilized people are supposed to treat others, the fact that they proceed to be dashed in a manner slightly less bloody than might once have been the case is little comfort to the injured.
And at the end of the day, the jury was still forced to convict Dixon on the lesser-included charge of aggravated child molestation - yes, child molestation - because at the time of the consensual sex he had just turned 18 and the female in question was 2 years and 7 months his junior, making him eligible for prosecution under Georgia's Child Protection Act, which makes any sex between such persons a felony.
The Act's author is adamant that his legislation was not intended to punish willing sex between teenagers, but to the Rome D.A. it matters little. Neither does he seem to find it worthy of comment that no other teens in Georgia have ever been prosecuted under this law, despite the almost certain likelihood that somewhere, as I write this, the law is being broken by several couples up and down the length of the Peach State, including somewhere in his jurisdiction.
That such a charge would never have been brought against a white boy who had engaged in consensual sex with the same girl is so obvious as to be totally unworthy of further discussion or debate. Likewise, had Marcus Dixon had sex with a black girl instead of one who is white, he would be sitting in a dorm room a few minutes drive from my house right now, and not in a prison cell.
But Marcus Dixon violated one of the oldest taboos in the book, which contrary to popular belief has not yet been expunged from the heart of Dixie, or the larger national consciousness in many ways. Marcus Dixon, not unlike, say, Strom Thurmond, crossed the sexual color line. But very much unlike Ol' Strom, has the misfortune of being on the darker side of that line, thereby lacking the power to keep his activities secret.
By acquiring carnal knowledge of a representative of so-called southern virtue, however willing said flower may have been, Dixon crossed the line in a way almost guaranteed to bring about his doom.
The saddest fact of all being that he likely had no clue as to the risk he was taking, no idea of the racial minefield onto which he had stepped.
Which sadly brings us to an important if under- appreciated aspect of this case; one that in part explains why Marcus Dixon was likely not to fully understand, despite his genuine intelligence, the danger of his tryst. Namely, Marcus was being raised by white parents, or at least white guardians, who all but legally adopted him at the age of eleven, thereby we are told "saving" him from a dysfunctional home environment.
But Ken and Peri Jones, for all their love, and for all their "stability" were profoundly unprepared to raise a black male child in this country. Many black parents aren't prepared either - after all, how can one ever be fully ready for all the traps and snares that remain in the path of African Americans even at this late date - but at least they know the drill.
They're less likely to be blindsided by the racism of white people, having learned to expect it long ago.
At least they aren't silly enough to think that love is all it takes to raise a child into a healthy adult.
At least they would have warned Marcus; warned him that to be black, and male, and 6'5" and 265 pounds, is to be the walking, talking embodiment of white anxiety; it is to trigger every known stereotype in the book: stereotypes that trump the straight-A grades and render utterly moot the SAT score, because they are the kinds of lies that are more powerful than truth, merely because they are believed by people for whom truth means little and power everything.
Don't misunderstand. I'm not suggesting the Joneses were wrong to take Marcus in. Nor am I saying that white parents should never adopt or become guardians for black children or other children of color. I am only saying that before white parents decide to "rescue" black and brown children from homes they consider dysfunctional (and which may well be), perhaps they could take a moment to consider their own dysfunction: the kind that doesn't manifest itself in terms of poverty or daily neighborhood violence perhaps, but which manifests as ignorance, as a Pollyanna-like optimism about the power of love alone, and an uncritical trust in America - the kind most people of color long ago learned to temper with caution.
For while Marcus Dixon is first and foremost a victim of an overzealous prosecutor playing to white fears, and a racist father of the girl with whom he had sex, he is also the victim of white naiveté and good intentions.
Yes, the Joneses are good people, who on balance did a good thing by taking Dixon in at a time when his mom seemed unprepared to raise him, and his father wanted nothing to do with him. They may well have saved his life; they surely improved it. But by virtue of their own innocence, and I use that term in only its most ironic sense here, they put this child at risk in a way that his black family likely would not have.
They seemed to honestly believe that people were more decent and the society in which they lived more decent than they, or it, really were and are. That kind of preciousness is bad enough when parents allow it to blind them to the problems of their white children, but at least then it isn't likely to end in those children's destruction. However, for a black child to be raised amidst that kind of cheery naiveté is to play fast and loose with his or her life. At the very least it teeters on the brink of neglect.
It would be comical were it not so insidious. Consider how truly amazed the Joneses seem to have been when Kenneth's own mother moved out of their home in disgust at their decision to take Marcus in, and when his brother virtually disowned him because of his dislike for any form of "racial mixing."
Or how Peri couldn't believe it when a longtime family friend said, after the charges were made against Marcus, that raping white girls was "just what niggers do," and suggested that the Joneses shouldn't be surprised. "I didn't know she felt that way," Peri lamented in a recent television interview.
Now this is stunning, even in a society whose majority is fairly characterized as infantile in their understanding of race and its meaning. I mean, let us really reflect for just a second on the subtext of such wide-eyed amazement, indicating as it does that at no point in their longstanding friendship with this person had they apparently ever discussed matters of race - a remarkable if unintentional admission of the magnitude of white privilege, which privilege renders the issue of race and racism utterly off the radar screens of members of the dominant group.
The Joneses and their white friends have been able to go through their whole lives never thinking about race, in a way that no black person could possibly do, and in a way that Marcus, for his own protection needed desperately not to mimic. Yet their assumption that race wasn't an issue - for their friends, for their community, for their own family - was completely without foundation, as they now realize perhaps a bit too late.
Or maybe they still don't fully realize it. Ken, for his part, doesn't appear ready to say that racism has anything to do with Marcus's predicament. When asked the question directly he merely says "I have no idea of what is going on." Truer words have never been spoken.
Nor, given the circumstances, will we often hear words more heartbreaking.
Yet behind that truth and heartbreak lay a lesson, if only we are prepared to grasp it. A lesson for Ken and Peri Jones, for white America more broadly, and specifically for all the nice, open-minded, loving white parents out there who are adopting or thinking of adopting children of color. Parents who are rushing off to China, or Korea, or South America, or the 'hood closest to their own hometown, trying to fulfill their own desires for a child, and also give a kid a good home who otherwise might not have one.
It is a lesson about how much they have to learn, and how little they know at present.
Perhaps they will now understand that to raise their black or brown child the same way they raise their white children, if they have them, or as they would raise a white child if they did, is to set in motion a process that may well end in tragedy. It is to ill- prepare those children of color for the real world; a world in which they will too often not be treated like their white siblings; a world in which they will too often not be as warmly accepted by some family members or neighbors, or teachers, or cops. And all because of race, which thing is not a card dear friends, (oh, if only it were that simple and insignificant) but rather the whole deck. Don't get it twisted.
No, not every black child raised by whites will fall victim to the kind of institutional evil that has descended upon the life of Marcus Dixon like fog on a cool Georgia morning. Not every black child raised by white parents will face the kind of viciousness to which he has been subjected. Many, indeed, will thrive.
But that is not the point.
What most assuredly is the point is that so long as whites continue to wallow in our ignorance, continue to believe in the principle of color-blindness (which almost always means being blind to the consequences of color even when those are profound), continue to believe that our neighbors, our families, our colleagues and our countrymen place higher priority on justice than on the color of their skin, we and any persons of color whose lives we touch will be at risk.
So long as we are allowed to exercise the privilege of cross-racial adoption without proving that we know anything about racism and how that poison might now destroy our newly-interracial home, we will be setting the brown-skinned objects of our affection up for a fall.
And please note that here I am not speaking of the importance of something we famously call "cultural competence." It is most certainly not sufficient to show that one has read a book about Kwanzaa, or bought some Miles Davis CDs, or learned how to cook Hoppin' John, or purchased some African artifacts, the meaning of which one doesn't even comprehend, or filled one's closet with Kente.
For the culture white folks so desperately need to understand, if we are going to have any constructive interactions with black people, let alone raise them in our homes, is our own; not the ways of black folks but the ways of white folks, for it is the latter and not the former that will pose the danger to our black and brown friends, colleagues, or in this case, children.
Had the Joneses understood the ways of the white folks in charge of the justice system, even on a local level, there is no way Peri would have advised Marcus to be cooperative with police and "tell them anything they wanted to know," even without an attorney in the room.
Few black parents would have told their black male child, suspected of raping a white girl, to do such a thing, and precisely because they would understand the intrinsic danger of the lamb trying to make nice with the wolves who have encircled it.
Indeed, it was in those early discussions that Dixon, fully aware of the racism of his sex partner's father, initially denied even knowing the girl, let alone having sex with her. When he later told the truth he was, in effect, snaring himself in a lie, thereby making his story seem less credible to a DA already likely predisposed to thinking the worst. It's a mistake he wouldn't have had the chance to make had he been taught a bit of self-defensive cynicism - the kind rarely practiced by those who can afford the luxury of thinking the system is fair and just, but which comes as second nature to those who can't.
Had the Joneses truly appreciated the ways of white folks, and especially the ways in which sexual predator stereotypes push so many buttons for so many whites still today, then they could have given Marcus the kind of lessons at home that he was not likely to receive in school.
After all, for Marcus to receive that 'A' he got in history class, he no doubt had to memorize a lot of dates: like 1776, and 1787, and 1863. The one he needed to know, however, was 1955.
For in truth, Marcus Dixon's life and those of other black men like him have never hinged on whether they knew the correct year of the American Revolution, the passage of the Constitution, or even the Emancipation Proclamation. But his life (and little did he know it) most definitely did hinge on whether he knew the year when Emmett Till was murdered. And more than the year, the reason for which his body was thrown off a bridge, into the Tallahatchie River, weighted down by a 75- pound cotton gin fan tied tightly around Till's neck.
One suspects that the Joneses never told Marcus Dixon about Emmett Till, about how he was murdered because he said "bye baby" to a white woman behind the counter of a store in the heart of the Mississippi Reich. Perhaps they don't know the story themselves. Many white folks don't.
And needless to say Till's story wasn't likely to have been prominently featured in any American history class that Dixon might have taken. Not in Rome, Georgia, where probably more than most places American history is a collection of triumphalist narratives about the greatness of the country in which its students live.
Dixon's 'A' in the class signifies that he must have learned well the glories of the nation into which he was born, and he must have regurgitated those glories upon demand for his teachers. But like most American high school students, Dixon was taught a lie. That he is now paying for that lie with his freedom, if not his life, is merely the latest obscenity in a state, in a region, in an empire that views the lives of black people as expendable.
Unless the lies and phony innocence stop, however, it is unlikely to be the last.
Tim Wise is an antiracist essayist, activist and father. This article was originally published in the Black Commentator``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xSex across the Color Line``x1073433462,71991,Development``x``x
``xby Bukka Rennie
It makes you tired. Haiti, the first black republic in the Western Hemisphere, the only society of African slaves to have completely freed itself with blood, iron and guts, is now 200 years old.
She, Haiti, since then became the pariah society of the West, to be isolated, boycotted, blockaded trade-wise and even forced to pay compensation in gold to masters from whom they freed themselves.
Haiti freed itself but the world was not yet ready for such a Haiti and that has been to date Haiti's great tragedy. No society can develop in isolation. Isolation enhances stagnation.
Much like a family that is incestuous, blocking out or resisting in every which way the influx or injection or intrusion of new strains, such a family's tree of life is severely weakened and is thereby placed in jeopardy.
The analogy is not tight because whereas the incestuous family's isolation is voluntary and self-inflicted, Haiti's isolation was quite the opposite. And whereas the resulting weakness of the incestuous family is biological and genetic, the weakness of Haiti is structural and socio-economic.
What depths of reality do we have to plumb before we can come to understand that we owe it to Haiti, the flag-bearer of Caribbean freedom and self-determination, to have stood in solidarity with her since the very initial days of political Independence?
Did we have to wait until Bush told us, just as we seem to be waiting on Giuliani for a strategy to deal with crime? What manner of people are we?
I refuse to accept any suggestion that we are impotent because of some peculiar accident of history or because of some flaw in our cultural matrix from which we are yet to escape. Or because of our legacy of dependence and "unresponsibility" that emanates from our rites of passage that took us on a journey from being slaves to proletarians to clerks. And in the process instilled in us some uncanny, extremely unique, weird and peculiar inability and incapacity to fathom how this place works.
We living here, existing here, managing and negotiating the complexities of numerous daily relationships, creating all kinds of things out of nothing, making space where there is no space, yet we are told in the same breath that we are incapable of comprehending Caribbean reality. How can we be located at such extreme poles at the same time? What a contradiction!
True to say if such were indeed the case then we would have to be the dumbest sons of bitches to have ever walked this planet, Earth. I cannot be party to any such postulations. I have great difficulty with this and I must say so. Probably those who engage in such histrionics and captious sophistry, do so because of some driven obsession with the desire to be eternally "original".
In fact there is nothing wrong with such an obsession. Seeking to be original and to think divergently are diamond assets that are not very common and should be complimented wherever they appear. Such thinking is exactly what our schools and campuses require urgently.
Yet one must acknowledge that there is much to this world that is universal precisely given the fact that, in the last 500 years, capital and capitalist relations comprise the dominant objective socio-economic force that have structurally pulled the globe into a tight whole.
Still the original question has to be answered. Why are we yet to embrace Haiti as a responsibility?
During the years of Caribbean slavery, no revolt was isolated, and the action always spread to other islands in the chain. That exhibited the height of consciousness and the level of preparedness of slaves for combat, notwithstanding the cases of sell-outs on the part of house-slaves.
And when, at the turn of the century, the agenda of the "proletarians" was on the front burner, no one had to tell Caribbean workers about the necessity for regional solidarity. In fact the demand for a Caribbean nation is in fact a proletarian demand.
Ask the female traders and hagglers of the Caribbean who do business from one end of the chain to the other for the survival of their children. It is though a systemic problem for the "clerks" who inherited power after Independence, programmed no social transformation and became the new "governors" with a morbid fear of an empowered people.
What reality is there to be plumbed? The system has to be rooted out lock, stock and barrel. Only the "clerks" do not know or do not wish to know that. The people from below will have to push up for their voices to be heard. It is the only way to get Caricom on the road and for Haiti and Cuba et al to be embraced fully.
According to CLR James, the reality is that our people were mis-educated and our political consciousness twisted and broken, our sense of self-confidence and political dynamism poisoned and corrupted by imperial schooling in the immediate 50 years before Independence.
The "Kingdom of Clerkdom" has been the result. The settling for zones of comfort, basic cowardice and the lack of will to get up and do what is necessary, the fear of engaging and challenging the people, the constipated fear of fear itself, are all hallmarks of "clerkdom".``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xHaiti: Do it now!``x1073496106,26348,Development``x``x
``xFrom: Prof. Tony Martin
Professor Jacob Carruthers' Biography
Dr. Jacob H. Carruthers made his transition this morning, January 4, 2004 at 9:38 a.m. Chicago Time into the realm of the ancestors. His spirit soars as I write these words. These tears are mixed with joy and sadness that I must tell you of his passing. Please do not be distressed, for his love and joy will live on forever.
His magnificent works will lead us into the future and assured liberation for our people. The Creator knew what was best for my teacher, my friend, my mentor, my brother and all the other things he has meant to me and so many others around the world. He is truly loved. There is a hole in my heart and I feel so sad yet, I rejoice in knowing one of the most brilliant men I have ever met in my lifetime.
Jake is a genius and will serve us well among the ranks of Dr. Clarke, Dr. Williams, Dr. Diop, Dr. McIntyre, et al. and for that I am grateful.
The Association for the Study of Classical African Civilizations (ASCAC) asks for prayers and libations of all Africans for safe passage of the Ka of our youngest ancestor as he begins his initiation into eternity.
Know that you are loved by me and the ASCAC family as we all continue to build for eternity.
neb ankh, udjah, seneb, mi Ra djet (May you have all life, prosperity and health like the sun forever !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Queen Nzinga Ratibisha Heru, International President
Maa Kheru 'True of Voice'
Dr. Jacob Hudson Carruthers ~ Jedi Shemsu Jehewty
Cage Memorial Chapel
7651 S. Jeffery Blvd
Chicago, Illinois 60649
(773) 721-8900
Visitation: Thursday January 8, 2004
12 noon until 8:00 PM
Services well be held Friday January 9, 2004
at St. James United Methodist Church
4611 South Ellis Ave.
Chicago, Illinois 60653
(773) 285-4244
Visitation: 10-11 AM
Services: 11 AM
Works By Dr. Jacob Hudson Carruthers``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xDr. Jacob Hudson Carruthers, passed over``x1073505878,38451,Development``x``x
``xBy Armstrong Williams
January 24, 2002
armstrongwilliams.echurchonline.com
Three prominent black Americans stud the cover of the current edition of Newsweek. Each is accoutered in a dark, well-tailored suit and bears a look of calm dignity. The caption reads, "The New Black Power: Ability, Opportunity and the Rise of Three of the Most Important CEOs in America."
It is nice that black Americans have pushed so far into the mainstream. Plainly these three men - Franklin Raines, Barry Rand, and Lloyd Ward-have seared through the competition to take possession of wealth and prominence.
So why am I hung up on the fact that each one is fair enough in complexion to pass for white?
Perhaps because there still resides in this culture a perception that the European aesthetic is ideal. Perhaps because we have been conditioned to believe that lighter skin equals success. Perhaps because-even in this modern, multicultural, multiethnic society-some black Americans continue to hate their dark skin, their hair, their lips. And perhaps because people of color continue to savage one another with pernicious little distinctions between dark and fair skin-a strain of prejudice dubbed "colorism."
Deborah Mathis, a syndicated columnist with Tribune Media, recalls an early taste of colorism. Upon graduation from high school in 1971, she applied for a sales position at a posh jewelry store. "You have such a light complexion," the employer effused with obvious delight.
"I was disgusted," recalls Mathis. "I remember thinking, what do you want to phase in integration a little drop at a time?"
Time and again Mathis has seen witnessed colorism snaking its way through the workplace. "I just think that there is an unspoken cultural attitude among white and blacks alike," observes Mathis, "that if you have a fair-skinned black in there, they are probably more like white people than are darker skinned blacks. ... I think white people feel more comfortable around fairer skinned black people..."
Felipe Luciano, a reporter for the New York affiliate of Fox 5, has smacked directly into that sort of cultural conditioning. "I' appear on black forums all the time, but I've never been invited on a Latino forum," says the mocha-skinned Latino. "On radio, but not on TV. I've even had ad executives say that I was too dark and that wouldn't sell."
This brand of racism is particularly insidious because it is subtle. Unlike the time when racists donned pointed hats and stomped down the streets, the colorist is subtle, their contempt concealed beneath the still waters of social etiquette.
To some degree this fair-skinned fetish is hangover from slavery, when light skinned blacks and, in particular, mulatto children were granted more privileges than the other slaves. Over time, a hierarchy of sorts developed around the idea that fair skin was more socially palatable.
This yearning by black to seem like their oppressors was perfectly embodied by the narrator in Maya Angelou's, I Know Why The Caged Bird Sings: "Wouldn't they be surprised when one day I woke out of my black ugly dream, and my real hair, which was long and blond, would take the place of the kinky mass Momma wouldn't let me straighten? My light-blue eyes would hypnotize them ..."
For decades, the notion that lighter skin equals success continued to be reinforced through our popular culture. "If you look at the first people who were on the air in television, you didn't have the dark-skinned black anchor on there," snorts Mathis. "Even today, every time they want to portray a big, black menace, he is really big and he is really black."
"Are there any Latino pop stars, movie stars, or TV stars that are black?" wonders Luciano. He pauses for a moment, then answers his own question: "Other than subsidiary roles of maids or crooks, there are essentially none. All the soaps on Spanish TV have protagonists with straight hair, light skin and European features."
To some degree, the 70's birthed a countermovement amongst people of color that eschewed the European aesthetic in favor of a more self-consciously African model. Groups like The Black Panthers, SNIC, and Nation of Islam demanded that one's blackness was a source of pride, not to be repressed or twisted inward. Sadly, says Luciano, the movement also birthed a certain resentment toward the European aesthetic that manifested itself in a form of reverse racism directed at fair skinned people of color.
So how precisely does a minority succeed in this world and still manage to keep one's unique identity in tact? Does one assimilate and consciously try to go about things as Caucasians do? Or does one shake one's fist at the ruling class, utterly embrace his unique heritage, and all but guarantee that he remains marginalized and the social hierarchy remains unaltered?
These are tough questions. The answer is twofold: It begins with a certain pride in one's own unique heritage. It is sustained with intelligence. The combination of the two can largely murder colorism. There must also be a dedication on the grass roots level to pressure advertisers into reflecting the full spectrum of the community.
With pride, academics, and some not-so-subtle shifts in our popular cultural myths, we may finally move beyond such destructive and arbitrary judgments as whether one is too light or too dark.
http://armstrongwilliams.echurchonline.com/``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xColorism``x1073708913,94432,Development``x``x
``xwww.news24.com
Berlin - A high-ranking representative of the Herero tribe in Namibia said there could be a Zimbabwe-style backlash against ethnic German whites if Berlin refuses to pay reparations.
"Don't forget, our young generation does not have the angelic patience of the elders," Mburumba Kernina, an advisor to Herero Paramount Chief Kuaima Riruako, told Berlin daily, Der Tagesspiegel.
"If there is not agreement (on reparations), they will probably take matters into their own hands. What happened in Zimbabwe can easily repeat itself here," referring to the eviction of white farmers - sometimes violently - orchestrated by President Robert Mugabe in the name of land reform.
Germany's ambassador to Namibia, Wolfgang Massing, at a ceremony on Sunday expressed "regret" over the ruthless quelling of a Herero tribe uprising 100 years ago in which tens of thousands were killed by German troops.
His statement is the closest a German government representative has come to an apology - a demand repeatedly made by the Herero - for what historians have described as a genocide. But he stopped short of offering reparations.
The Herero have filed a lawsuit in the United States demanding payment from the German government and companies which allegedly benefited from German rule.
"The future of this country - reconciliation, development and security - depends on the outcome of the suit against Germany," Kerina said.
Namibia has a population of 1.82 million people, of whom about 25 000 people are German-speaking whites, most of them descendants of colonists.
Since 1990, Germany, Namibia's largest donor, has pumped $644m into the southern African country.
Source: www.news24.com``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xNamibia: Whites could be killed``x1073908656,44643,Development``x``x
``xBy Rootsie, www.rootsie.com
Every school in the United States has its obligatory Martin Luther King Day 'celebration.' It is interesting to ask students what they know about Dr. King:
"He got freedom for black people."
"He believed the races should get together."
"He believed in love."
"He got assassinated by a racist guy."
"He had a dream."
Once the little ones are finished decorating their papers with butterflies, rainbows, and flowers, perhaps it's time to ask, as I did:
"Did you know he was beaten and arrested many times?"
"No."
"Did you know his house was firebombed?"
"No."
"Did you know he knew he was going to be killed for the work he did?"
"No."
"Did you know he spoke out against the Vietnam war, and was assassinated shortly after?"
"No."
"Well what kind of man do these things say he was?"
"Brave."
"And who did all these things to him?"
"White people."
"From where?"
"The United States."
"Are those people gone now?"
"Well they don't do those things anymore."
"Well they killed him, didn't they? Don't you think they would feel pretty good about that?"
"Well yes."
"So are they gone now? Where did they go?"
At this point there would be many places to take such a conversation, from atrocities like Richard Byrd or the MOVE massacre, to government complicity in his harassment and assassination, to the lived reality of racism today in the United States.
But Dr. King has been colonized, co-opted as some sort of poster child for America's illusion of racial harmony. I remember how white people in the North feared Malcolm X and loved Dr. King; they ignored his militancy and embraced him as a 'good black.' He knew he would be silenced, and by whom. He knew that the moment Malcolm X spoke out on the international stage, he was quickly murdered. And yet Dr. King persisted.
But we don't want to talk about revolutionary spirit. We want our children indoctrinated into the idea that 'democratic processes' work, that if someone has a problem they must simply speak out and the government will write a new law to help them out. The assassination of Dr. King is viewed as anomalous to his work, and not as the inevitable result of it. In the North especially, people could shake their heads and cluck sadly about those 'Southern crackers.'
'Freedom fighter."
"Revolutionary."
"Radical."
None of these are used to describe Dr. King, and they would not be appropriate to describe the whitewashed version of him that has been constructed over the past 35 years. On this day, Americans are not encouraged to take a cool look at their history, and they are certainly not invited to reflect on what has become of Dr. King's 'dream.' Their president appointed a racist judge to a Federal bench while a filibustering Congress was out of town, and last year to celebrate he announced a lawsuit against the University of Michigan's affirmative action policies.
They are encouraged to dreamily dream a self-satisfied and self-serving dream. Howard Dean a few weeks ago insinuated in a speech that there are no racial issues in America, and that suits us just fine. We can listen to the 'I Have a Dream' speech and get teary-eyed. We can celebrate Dr. King's dream, but in no way are we willing to face his reality.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xMartin Luther King in the American Psyche``x1074547397,3618,Development``x``x
``xBy Tim Wise, Zmag
For those who speak out against racism, learning to deal with people who disagree with you is a time-consuming process, and a talent that must be cultivated. This was made painfully clear this past week when I received an email claiming that people like me should give up the battle against racism, not because racism was good, but simply because it's a part of that oft-conjured thing we like to call "human nature."
To my e-communicant, racism should be accepted since people instinctively choose to associate with those most like themselves. Anti-racists are, to this way of thinking, tilting at windmills, wasting our time, even battling against hard-wired biological impulses that tend towards racial separatism.
Worse in some ways than overt bigots whose hatred can be ascribed to emotional problems beyond the scope of my expertise, the calm reassurances of the "racism is natural" folks always get to me, probably because such arguments tend to be mere rationalizations for the biases already held by the persons making the claim. See, they seem to be saying, "I may be racist, but that's a natural human instinct, so you can't judge me harshly for it."
As white nationalist Jared Taylor put it during our debate at Vanderbilt University last year, "Preferring members of one's own race is no different than having a preference for one's own children as opposed to those of one's neighbor."
Oddly, I've even had ostensible progressives and leftists assure me that racism is to some extent natural, usually as a way to shift discussion to topics with which they are more comfortable and to which they think our activist attentions should be shifted.
But while it's true that internalizing racist views in a racist culture is to be expected, given how such views are inculcated through media, schools, and other institutions, it is not the case that personal racism, separatism, or fear of racial others are normal. Instead, such things stem from the history of racial domination and subordination to which people have been subjected.
That racial separation and enmity are unnatural and learned conditions is proven most clearly not by sociologists but rather by children.
Put two-year olds of different "races" in a room with an assortment of toys and you'll see what I mean. Although certain kids will get along better with some of the rest of the group than others, their emerging affiliations will rarely if ever break down along racial lines, even if the children have never been around "other" race kids before.
Although children that age can discern differences in skin color, they are too young to have typically ascribed value to such a thing; as such they don't naturally fear those who look different, or cleave to those who look similar.
Children encountering other children (at least if they do so before being exposed to too much media imagery or other negative conditioning) naturally gravitate to a common and recognizable humanity. They realize instinctively what grown-ups too readily forget, or have been taught to ignore: namely, that in biological and genetic terms, there is no meaningful difference between so-called racial groups.
That racism and racial bonding are socially conditioned responses should be obvious from history. Had it been natural for people to "stick with their own kind," in the racial sense, there would have been no need for segregation laws to compel separation or ban so-called "race-mixing." It was precisely because separation was not natural enough for quite a few (beginning with slave masters), that states felt the need to limit contact between whites and people of color.
Furthermore, throughout American history there have been many examples where people of different "races" overlooked those differences to make common cause.
In the 1600s, it was fairly common for black slaves and poor Europeans (especially indentured servants) to join forces in rebellion against the colonial elite. Recognizing their common economic interest, they fomented insurgencies that prompted the gentry to develop more intense forms of racial division so as to foster separation where it had not existed before.
For example, only in the wake of cross-racial uprisings like Bacon's Rebellion did elites begin to develop the concept of "the white race." Previously, lower-class Europeans had hardly been seen as part of a common family with the aristocracy. But in order to unite the masses behind the economic engine of slavery and solidify their position at the top of the nation's hierarchy, elites began to speak of "white people" united by a common culture, all of whom should be granted certain rights and privileges above all non-whites.
By granting the right to participate in white supremacy to persons at the bottom of the caste structure (via such mechanisms as slave patrols), the ruling class offered a stake in the system to those without a pot to piss in. It wasn't much, but it was enough to divide and conquer those who previously had worked together for common interests.
And it wasn't only for rebellion that blacks and whites commingled. Indeed, the residential proximity of Italians to blacks, and the comity that prevailed between the two groups in places like New Orleans, often led white elites to viciously repress the Italian community, so as to punish them for their transgressions against white bonding.
Likewise, though Irish immigrants were implored by their leaders at home to join the anti-slavery cause and ally themselves with blacks, political circumstance and the desire to enter the circle of privilege caused most to abandon solidarity and cast their lot with the white establishment.
Simple logic also compels a rejection of the "racism is natural" school of thought. Though people may feel more comfortable with those who are like themselves, this fact fails to establish that racial separation, let alone racism, is a natural condition. After all, there are many categories that the human mind could choose to prioritize as it goes about the business of deciding who is "like" and who is "unlike" oneself.
One could make weight, height, or some other attribute the primary dividing line of who is "in" and who is "out" when it comes to the circle of the accepted. Skin color (the attribute traditionally used to mark "race") is not any more natural as a dividing line than any of these other points of demarcation. As such, the two related decisions--first to place race above all other things, and then to delineate races by such outward appearance differences as skin color--are indeed decisions, not instinctual responses.
And when it comes to feeling more comfortable with those like oneself, how can any white American suggest they have more in common with a refugee from Central Europe (perhaps a Serb or Croat) than with those African Americans whose families have been in this country for generations and who share many elements of a common culture?
Far from natural, racial bias stems from propaganda. If people are told repeatedly that certain folks make bad neighbors, drive down property values, or bring crime to a neighborhood, they will likely come to believe these things, with or without first-hand evidence for such beliefs.
Even those who think their experiences justify their prejudice can only say such a thing because of selective memory: the decision to discount experiences that run counter to stereotype, and recall only those that confirm what they have been encouraged to believe. This is why whites can continue to fear blacks even though most of us have been victimized far more often by other whites, whether it is as violent attackers, shifty landlords, or pushy bosses.
Interestingly, those who claim racism and racial separation are natural often say other things that undercut their position. For example, I'm often told by these types that the reason they dislike or fear people of color is because of bad experiences with such persons in the past.
Putting aside the obvious irrationality of judging a group based on the actions of an unrepresentative sample of its members, there is a more important issue as regards the question of racism's "naturalness." Namely, if experience led us to feel the way we do about certain groups, then our feelings are not natural at all; they did not exist prior to the experiences we claim animate our current fear, dislike, or discomfort; and the fact that they exist now only attests to the experiential and environmental influences that engender feelings of racial amity or enmity.
Furthermore, if racial bonding were as natural as some claim, one would expect the process to play out roughly the same in all "racial" groups, though it doesn't. Blacks, for example, express significantly greater desire than whites to live in racially mixed neighborhoods, with the most commonly desired mix being about 50-50 black and non-black.
Most whites, on the other hand, say they prefer no more than 10 percent people of color in their neighborhoods. Likewise, when asked by pollsters, whites are 45 percent more likely than blacks to say that it's best for people to "stick with their own kind" in the racial sense.
Asian Pacific Islanders and Latinos too have high rates of intermarriage with whites, and rarely seek to avoid whites the way whites seek to avoid being around "too many" people of color.
On college campuses, where students of color are often criticized for "sticking together" and ostensibly self-segregating, the fact is that it is whites who are most likely to racially separate themselves. Black students are 2.5 times more likely than white students to dine or study with persons of a different race; Asians are three times more likely to do so; and Latinos are nearly four times more likely than whites to dine or study across racial lines.
Indeed, it was in part the openness of African and indigenous American cultures, and their relative lack of racial "consciousness" that rendered them vulnerable to conquest, enslavement and colonization. In other words, some folks appear more likely to engage in racial "othering," and those most susceptible (at least in the U.S.) are white.
Even the notion that preferring members of one's own racial group is no different than preferring one's own children to the children of others is absurd. After all, since when have "whites" thought of ourselves as one family? We certainly didn't think that way in Europe, when the English were slaughtering the Irish; or when the Normans set out to vanquish the Saxons.
The notion of a white family is a concept with a very short pedigree, concocted for the purpose of defending the oppression of non-Europeans, and for no other reason.
That some choose to exclude others from their circle of family or friends on the basis of race, or prefer to live amongst only those of their own race, is not, in other words, a benign and natural process. It is not akin to looking over a menu at your favorite restaurant, and then choosing the pasta dish over the filet mignon; and those who proclaim it is are guilty of the crassest rationalization for prejudice ever devised: the notion that they just can't help it.
To whatever extent we experience our racially-exclusionary "choices" as natural, we must yet come to realize the ways in which our choices have been circumscribed by material forces set in place long before we were born. Those forces are not our fault, but learning to confront and overcome them is our responsibility.
If there are some who prefer to maintain the divisions established long ago by others, so be it, but they should at least have the decency not to insult the rest of us by calling their own pathology normal.
Tim Wise is an antiracist essayist, activist and father. He can be reached at timjwise@msn.com. Hate mail, though not appreciated, will nonetheless be graded for originality, form and grammar. Extra credit will be awarded for the most creative death threat, most colorful use of the phrase "race traitor" and/or "Dirty Jew," and most inventive suggestion as to what the author can do to himself.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xUnnatural Selection``x1074733944,50035,Development``x``x
``xby Ayanna www.rootswomen.com/ayanna
February 10, 2004
Islam, Colourism and the Myth of Black African Slave Traders
Africans in the Diaspora have the challenge of rewriting a history that has been stained by years of distortions, omission and downright lies. One of the biggest challenges of rewriting this history has been the Atlantic Slave Trade, and one of the biggest sore points has been the idea that "Black Africans sold their own into slavery". A lack of information, a paucity of expansive scholarship and an unwillingness to have a serious discourse on Colourism as it existed in Africa even before European intervention, has contributed to this. Diaspora Africans are often quite naïve and will do anything to hold fast to the illusion that " we are all Africans" and ignore the racism that has existed among a group that is far from uniform.
In looking at the issue of Colourism I could not help seeing the links between the role of Islam in Africa and the role of Africans in the slave trade. The book, Islam and the Ideology of Slavery by John Ralph Willis is very helpful in looking at the almost imperceptible link between the enslavement of 'kufir' non-Muslims or infidels, and the belief that Black Africans were not only heathens but inherently inferior. This is not a new thought and certainly not one that originated with the Muslims coming into Africa. Several Jewish exegetical texts have their own version of the mythical Curse of Ham being blackness. Given the common origins of these two major religions, it is thus not surprising that both Jews and Muslims played some of the most important roles in the enslavement of Black Africans next to the Europeans.
In an article by Oscar L. Beard, Consultant in African Studies called, Did We Sell Each Other Into Slavery? he says "Even the case of Tippu Tip may well fall into a category that we might call the consequences of forced cultural assimilation via White (or Red) Arab Conquest over Africa. Tippu Tip's father was a White (or Red) Arab slave raider, his mother an unmixed African slave. Tip was born out of violence, the rape of an African woman. It is said that Tip, a "mulatto", was merciless to Africans."
The story of Tippu Tip who is one of the most widely known slave traders has always posed a problem for historians, especially Afrocentric historians in the Diaspora trying to find some way to reconcile themselves to the idea of an 'African slave trader'. The fact that Tippu Tip was not only Muslim, but 'mulatto' is vital. The common ideology of Judaism and Islam where Black Africans are concerned is certainly no secret. While in some Islamic writings we see an almost mystical reverence for Africans, especially an over sexualized concept of Ethiopian women who were the preferred concubines of many wealthy Arab traders and Kings, in others there is distinct racism. Add to this the religious fervor of the Muslim invaders, their non-acceptance or regard for traditional African religions, and the obvious economic and political desires for which religion was used as a tool, and we get an excellent but little spoken of picture of Islam in Africa.
Historians did not often record or think of the ethnicity of these 'Africans' who sold their brothers and sisters into slavery. As part of our distorted historical legacy, we too in the Diaspora buy the idea that all Africans were uniform and 'brothers', but the true picture, especially at this time was not so. Centuries of contact with Europe, Asia, North Africa produced several colour / class gradients in the continent, divisions fostered by the foreigners. This may have been especially prominent in urban and economic centres. When we combine the converting, military force of Islam sweeping across western and eastern Africa placing a virtual economic stranglehold on villages and trading centers that were Kufir, with the intermixing of lighter-skinned Muslim traders from the North and East Africa creating an unprecedented population of mixed, lighter skinned Africans who began to form the elites of the trading classes we can see how a society begins to change.
Some historians have tended to downplay, or completely ignore the potential for change in scenario. It has even been suggested that one cannot transplant a modern day problem outside of its historical context. However, we see this creeping problem of colourism occurring all over the continent. In the Portuguese colonies of Angola and Mozambique where European traders and administrators were encouraged to intermarry, the elitist, trader class was largely Mulatto and Catholic. If we look at the situation in Ethiopia with the age-old oppression of the original Ethiopians, the Oromo of indigenous Cushitic stock, by the more Arabized Amhara this too has its roots in colour prejudice. There were hints of this occurring in many other instances at crucial points of contact between indigenous black Africans and lighter-skinned foreigners or mixed Africans and the most significant of these were in the areas of severe Islamic incursion.
Many towns and villages converted to Islam because of the protection that the military banner of Islam could offer them in a changing economic, political and social landscape. But the more damaging result was the many light skinned, converted Africans, children of mixed encounters that now felt a sense of superiority over their dark skinned, black African counterparts. Colourism is indeed of ancient vintage. The truth of the matter is that fair skinned Arabs' racist attitude towards Blacks existed even before they invaded Africa. The evidence for this can be found in how they dealt with the Black inhabitants of Southern Arabia before they entered Africa as Muslims. Discerning readers and thinkers can look at this and many other accounts of this time and get a clearer picture of the inherent racism of this situation. When we combine this with the desire for African slave labour by Europeans it was no large feat for these often lighter skinned, Islamized Africans to enslave the black kufir, whom they barely endowed with a shred of humanity. And of course jumping on their bandwagon would have been those black Africans with deep inferiority complexes, who would have been only too eager to do the duty of the 'superior' Muslims in an effort to advance themselves. These facts are certainly not hidden and the patterns are everywhere, even today but it is we who do not like to see. For centuries we certainly have not been conditioned for Sight.
This leads us to another direct way colourism played itself out in the slave trade and this is in the 'type' of Africans who were enslaved. The biggest victims of slavery were undoubtedly the darkest Africans of what was called the "Negroid" type. If you look at old maps and documents by early European explorers you can note that the parts of the continent that they explored was divided by their crude definitions of what they saw as different African ethnicities. The regions of West and Central Africa were seen as the place of the "Negroes" which was distinct from Ethiopian Africans and even more so the lighter, more Arabized North Africans. We cannot say that NO Africans we taken from the north, but by and large most slaves that came to the West Indies, Americas etc were of the type mentioned above.
Beard continues, "In reality, slavery is an human institution. Every ethnic group has sold members of the same ethnic group into slavery. It becomes a kind of racism; that, while all ethnic groups have sold its own ethnic group into slavery, Blacks can't do it. When Eastern Europeans fight each other it is not called tribalism. Ethnic cleansing is intended to make what is happening to sound more sanitary. What it really is, is White Tribalism pure and simple." But the thing is that this thing we call 'slavery' never was a uniform institution. When people speak of slavery they immediately think of chattel slavery as practiced as a result of the Atlantic Slave Trade and apply this definition to indigenous African servitude systems, which bore little or no resemblance to chattel slavery. It is misleading to say, "Every ethnic group has sold members of the same ethnic group into slavery. It becomes a kind of racism; that, while all ethnic groups have sold its own ethnic group into slavery, Blacks can't do it" as it denies the complexities of that particular colonial, chattel slavery situation that existed between Africans and Europeans.
Servitude systems that existed in Africa, and in other indigenous communities cannot be compared to racist slave systems in the Western world and to this day we attempt to try to see this slavery in the same context. People bring up accounts of Biblical slavery, of serfdom in Europe and yes, of servitude in Africa and attempt to paint all these systems with the same brush. However NO OTHER SLAVE SYSTEM has created the never-ending damaging cycle as the Atlantic Slave Trade. West Indian poet Derek Walcott has stated his feeling that our penchant for forgetting is a defense mechanism against pain, that if we were to take a good hard look at our history, at centuries of victimization, it would be too much for us to handle and we would explode. Well I say we are exploding anyway and in many cases from bombs that are not even our own. We have begun the long hard road of rewriting our ancient history, of recovering our old and noble legacy. Let us not stop and get cold feet now when the enemy now appears to take on a slightly darker hue. We must look at the slave trade in its OWN context, complete with all the historic and psychological peculiarities that have made it the single most damaging and enduring system of exploitation and hatred ever perpetrated in the recent memory of mankind. Until we do we will not escape its legacy.
From: www.rootswomen.com/ayanna/articles/10022004.html
Continue to: Slave? What Slave? :
A Study of the Traditional Systems of African Servitude``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xThe Myth of Black African Slave Traders``x1076859043,27424,Development``x``x
``xBy Stephen Gowans
February 18, 2004
When Sam Smith led the mob of angry white men that strung up a black man accused of a heinous crime, he faced a torrent of criticism.
When it turned out the victim was innocent, he faced more.
Smith didn't care. The victim was a ne'er-do-well. And he had taken over the victim's farm, and was running it at a profit for the first time ever.
The way Smith figured it, the world was better off without the victim, innocent or not.
Besides, what's a mob to do -- wait until it's absolutely clear a potential assailant is blameless? The victim surely had to bear some of the responsibility for not doing more to prove his innocence.
Few people found Smith's reasoning compelling.
When criticism persisted, Smith exploded. "I know in my heart and brain that white people ain't what's wrong in the world."
***
Defending his government's decision to invade Iraq on entirely spurious grounds, US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld declared, "I know in my heart and brain that America ain't what's wrong in the world."
If by America, Rumsfeld means Blair Doan, who works at the hardware store on Main Street, or Cynthia Firsby, a cubicle worker with Hewlett-Packard, he's right.
Doan and Firsby and hundreds of millions of other Americans ain't what's wrong in the world.
Rumsfeld is.
Or more precisely, what's wrong is the recurrent theme in US foreign policy of seeking to dominate foreign territory, a theme that has roots in capitalism itself, and spans Republican and Democratic administrations.
Rumsfeld, his cabinet colleagues, and British toadies, are mere agents, no more so, and no less so, than Bill Clinton, Lyndon Johnson and Harry Truman were agents of the same theme.
No more than the next Democrat president will be.
War isn't an aberration, the policy of hawks and neo-conservatives in power. It's an ongoing motif in US external relations.
And the reason why is war is good for business.
The destruction of Iraq by the US military has been a boon to weapons manufacturers like Lockheed-Martin, Raytheon, and Boeing, who depend on the Pentagon -- and a robust military budget -- to provide an unceasing flow of revenue.
These firms have an interest in a continually expanding war budget, and will see to it that there's no shortage of potential enemies whose demise must be presided over by the combined forces of the US Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines -- profitably equipped by the combined forces of Lockheed-Martin, Raytheon and so on.
Downstream, firms like Becthel (one of whose directors, George Shultz, led a committee that lobbied for the invasion of Iraq), Fluor, (Dick Cheney's old firm) Halliburton, and dozens of others, pocket billions of dollars in Iraq reconstruction contracts.
This is the charmed circle of US capitalism. Corporate America builds the bombs and missiles to destroy the infrastructure of other countries, and then moves in to rebuild what it has destroyed.
At a profit.
And spending on the military serves to combat the incessant danger of aggregate demand falling, and the economy slipping into recession, or worse.
Meanwhile, an endless round of tax cuts have relieved corporate America and its wealthy functionaries of their fair share of the tax load, so it's ordinary Americans who pay the bulk of the taxes to fund the merry-go-round of capital accumulation, not the corporations who profit from the "destroy it-rebuild it" cycle and not the wealthy investors who pocket the interest on bonds sold to finance the national debt that grows ever larger as military spending spirals ever upward.
It's no accident that things work out this way.
After all, who's running Washington?
You don't have to go far to run up against millionaires, former corporate directors and CEOs on sabbatical on Capitol Hill.
And it doesn't matter who's in power -- Republicans or Democrats. It's always the same.
In fact, all branches of government -- executive, legislative and bureaucratic -- to say nothing of the key positions in both major parties, are teeming with personnel drawn from corporate America. Just the kind of people who know a thing or two about the importance of new markets and new outlets for investment and how inimical taxes are to the expansion of capital.
What also makes war good for business is the practice of "smash it, reconstruct it" being applied to target countries that impose limits on American exports and investments, providing the benefit of expanding corporate America's vistas, once the target country's government is ousted, and a pro-US (trade and investment) regime is left in its place.
Iraq's economy was largely state-owned, hardly the kind of arrangement that corporate America's leaders, continually scouring the world for outlets for the profitable investment of their capital, looked upon kindly.
So, it's no accident that the US administrator in Iraq, Paul Bremer (himself plucked from the heights of corporate America), has set about making over Iraq into a Middle Eastern model of free trade, free enterprise and free markets (read: an economy open to US exports and investments.)
Similarly, US hostility to the government of Slobodan Milosevic had much to do with Serbia's refusal to jettison a socialist orientation, which limited US investment opportunities.
As the former communist countries of Eastern Europe embraced the free market, and breakaway republics of Yugoslavia elected neo-liberal reformers, Milosevic replied with a defiant rejection of privatization, free markets, and integration into Western capitalism.
Sanctions, subversion, bombardment from the air, the buying of the opposition, and finally a coup, put an end to Milosevic keeping part of the Yugoslav economy closed to corporate America.
So, Rumsfeld's right. America ain't what's wrong in the world.
It's the expansionist theme of US foreign policy, fueled by capitalism's drive to accumulate, that's wrong.
****
While Rumsfeld seeks to make ordinary Americans complicit in the Iraq war by using the inclusive "we" to draw them into the crime, Blair Doan and Cynthia Firsby should think twice about taking the bait.
Their inclusion is selective. They weren't consulted about the war; they didn't gather phony intelligence to contrive a sham casus belli; they didn't decide to defy the UN.
And yet Rumsfeld wants to make them accountable, because they're Americans. What's that got to do with it? They may be Americans, but they're hardly beneficiaries. On the contrary.
Billions of dollars in taxes are hoovered out of their pockets and injected directly into corporate America's collective bottom line.
And they're paying the opportunity cost of squandering America's enormous productive assets on the fevered pursuit of capital expansion, when they could be used to the benefit of the majority, to provide basic material needs, high quality education and universal health care, the kinds of benefits the USSR, Eastern European countries, and yes, Yugoslavia, used to provide all its citizens, despite having more modest productive assets; the kinds of benefits even Cuba -- poor, harassed and systematically disturbed for the last four decades -- provides universally.
Some 55,000 Iraqis have been killed so far, 13,000 herded into concentration camps (John Pilger, "Mass Deception," The Mirror, February 3, 2004).
The toll is monstrously high. We should be clear who -- and what -- is responsible.
It ain't ordinary Americans.
Reproduced from:
www3.sympatico.ca/sr.gowans``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xWho, and what, is behind US's recurrent drive to war?``x1077743380,88653,WarandTerror``x``x
``xHaiti's Lawyer: US is Arming Anti-Aristide Paramilitaries
By Amy Goodman and Jeremy Scahill
The US lawyer representing the government of Haiti charged today that the US government is directly involved in a military coup attempt against the country's democratically elected President, Jean-Bertrand Aristide. Ira Kurzban, the Miami-based attorney who has served as General Counsel to the Haitian government since 1991, said that the paramilitaries fighting to overthrow Aristide are being backed by Washington.
"I believe that this is a group that is armed by, trained by, and employed by the intelligence services of the United States," Kurzban told the national radio and TV program Democracy Now!. "This is clearly a military operation, and it's a military coup."
"There's enough indications from our point of view, at least from my point of view, that the United States certainly knew what was coming about two weeks before this military operation started," Kurzban said. " The United States made contingency plans for Guantanamo."
If a direct US connection is proven, it will mark the second time in just over a decade that Washington has been involved in a coup in Haiti.
Several of the paramilitary leaders now rampaging Haiti are men who were at the forefront of the US-backed campaign of terror during the 1991-94 coup against Aristide. Among the paramilitary figures now leading the current insurrection is Louis Jodel Chamblain, the former number 2 man in the FRAPH paramilitary death squad.
Chamblain was convicted and sentenced in absentia to hard-labor for life in trials for the April 23, 1994 massacre in the pro-democracy region of Raboteau and the September 11, 1993 assassination of democracy-activist Antoine Izmery. Chamblain recently arrived in Gonaives with about 25 other commandos based in the Dominican Republic, where Chamblain has been living since 1994. They were well equipped with rifles, camouflage uniforms, and all-terrain vehicles.
Among the victims of FRAPH under Chamblain's leadership was Haitian Justice Minister Guy Malary. He was ambushed and machine-gunned to death with his bodyguard and a driver on Oct. 14, 1993. According to an October 28, 1993 CIA Intelligence Memorandum obtained by the Center for Constitutional Rights "FRAPH members Jodel Chamblain, Emmanuel Constant, and Gabriel Douzable met with an unidentified military officer on the morning of 14 October to discuss plans to kill Malary." Emmanuel "Toto" Constant, was the founder of FRAPH.
An October 1994 article by journalist Allan Nairn in The Nation magazine quoted Constant as saying that he was contacted by a US Military officer named Col. Patrick Collins, who served as defense attache at the United States Embassy in Port-au-Prince. Constant says Collins pressed him to set up a group to "balance the Aristide movement" and do "intelligence" work against it. Constant admitted that, at the time, he was working with CIA operatives in Haiti. Constant is now residing freely in the US. He is reportedly living in Queens, NY. At the time, James Woolsey was head of the CIA.
Another figure to recently reemerge is Guy Philippe, a former Haitian police chief who fled Haiti in October 2000 after authorities discovered him plotting a coup with a group of other police chiefs. All of the men were trained in Ecuador by US Special Forces during the 1991-1994 coup. Since that time, the Haitian government has accused Philippe of master-minding deadly attacks on the Police Academy and the National Palace in July and December 2001, as well as hit-and-run raids against police stations on Haiti's Central Plateau over the following two years.
Kurzban also points to the presence of another FRAPH veteran, Jean Tatun. Along with Chamblain, Tatun was convicted of gross violations of human rights and murder in the Raboteau massacre.
"These people came through the Dominican border after the United States had provided 20,000 M-16's to the Dominican army," says Kurzban. "I believe that the United States clearly knew about it before, and that given the fact of the history of these people, [Washington is] probably very, very deeply involved, and I think Congress needs to seriously look at what the involvement of the Defense Intelligence Agency and the Central Intelligence Agency has been in this operation. Because it is a military operation. It's not a rag-tag group of liberators, as has often been put in the press in the last week or two."
Kurzban says he has hired military analysts to review photos of the weapons being used by the paramilitary groups. He says that contrary to reports in the media that the armed groups are using weapons originally distributed by Aristide, the gangs are using highly sophisticated and powerful weapons; weapons that far out-gun Aristide's 3,000 member National Police force.
"I don't think that there's any question about the fact that the weapons that they have did not come from Haiti," says Kurzban. "They're organized as a military commando strike force that's going from city to city."
Kurzban says that among the weapons being used by the paramilitaries are: M-16's, M-60's, armor piercing weapons and rocket-propelled grenade launchers. "They have weapons to shoot down the one helicopter that the government has," he said. "They have acted as a pretty tight-knit commando unit."
Chamblain and other paramilitary leaders have said they will march on the capital, Port-au-Prince within two weeks. The US has put forth a proposal, being referred to as a peace plan, that many viewed as favorable to Aristide's opponents. Aristide accepted the plan, but the opposition rejected it. Washington's point man on the crisis is Roger Noriega, Undersecretary of State for Western Hemispheric Affairs.
"I think Noriega has been an Aristide hater for over a decade," says Kurzban, adding that he believes Noriega allowed the opposition to delay their response to the plan to allow the paramilitaries to capture more territory. "My reaction was they're just giving them more time so they can take over more, that the military wing of the opposition can take over more ground in Haiti and create a fate accompli," Kurzban said. "Indeed, as soon as they said, 'we need an extra day,' I predicted, unfortunately, and correctly, that they would go into Cap Haitian (Haiti's 2nd largest city) and indeed the next morning they did."
The leader of the "opposition" is an American citizen named Andy Apaid. He was born in New York. Haitian law does not allow dual-nationality and he has not renounced his US citizenship. In a recent statement, Congressmember Maxine Waters blasted Apaid and his opposition front, saying she believes "Apaid is attempting to instigate a bloodbath in Haiti and then blame the government for the resulting disaster in the belief that the United States will aid the so-called protestors against President Aristide and his government."
"We have the leader of the opposition, who Mr. Noriega is negotiating with, who Secretary Powell calls and who tells Secretary Powell, you know, 'we need a couple more days' and Secretary Powell says 'that's fine,'" says Kurzban. "I mean, there's some kind of theater of the absurd going on with this opposition where it's led by an American citizen, where they're just clearly stalling for time until they can get more ground covered in Haiti through their military wing, and the United States and Noriega, with a wink and nod, is kind of letting them do that."
Kurzban says that because Aristide's opponents rejected Washington's plan, "the next step clearly is to send in some kind of UN peacekeeping force immediately."
"The question is," says Kurzban. "Will the international community stand by and allow a democracy in this hemisphere to be terminated by a brutal military coup of persons who have a very, very sordid history of gross violations of human rights?"
Democracy Now! is a nationally-syndicated radio and TV program broadcast on Pacifica Radio, NPR, community TV stations and Free Speech TV Channel 9415 of the DishNetwork. Mike Burke and Sharif Abdel Kouddous contributed to this report. They can be reached at: mail@democracynow.org. Reproduced from: www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/02/25/1613200
More Articles:
ESC: Act on Haiti now! 02.26.04
Haiti's Descent into Gang Warfare 02.24.04
Haiti still enslaved for all its rebellion 02.24.04
Beloved Haiti: A (Counter) Revolutionary Bicentennial 02.18.04
US Double Game in Hait 02.16.04
Haiti-A Call For Global Action 01.07.04
Haiti-A Call For Global Action - Part II 01.07.04
Media vs. Reality in Haiti 02.13.04
Hands off Haiti 02.17.04``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xIs the US Arming Haitian Paramilitaries?``x1077835510,24773,Development``x``x
``xby Raffique Shah
Few people bother to probe beneath the facade of what is both a popular uprising against a permanent state of poverty and at the same time yet another grab for power by some of the most despicable excuses-for-human-beings that have haunted the Caribbean. From all appearances, Aristide has failed his people, more so as he was all but revered by them, seen as a saviour-in-cassock at a time when the country was just emerging from almost a century of barbaric rule. In fact, his three terms in office have yielded little more comfort to poverty-stricken masses there than they enjoyed under the string of dictators who preceded him.
There were valid reasons for his failure to deliver. But one cannot assuage the pangs of hunger, the sub-human conditions the mass of Haitians are forced to survive under, on promises. Indeed, Aristide compounded his sins of omission by all but stealing an election in 2000, according to international observers who witnessed the poll. And to top off his failures, having disbanded the organised gang of thugs that was deemed Haiti's army, he resorted to creating his own brand of thugs who acted as his "enforcers", mercenaries little different to the uniformed ones that were banished in 1994.
But in examining Aristide's failure to rid Haiti of poverty and repression, one cannot help but examine the main reasons behind this descent into Hell. I shall try to trace this in reverse chronology. Bear in mind that following his massive victory in Haiti's first democratic elections in 1991, he was deposed by the remnants of Francois "Papa Doc" Duvalier's brutal army within seven months. He fled to the USA as General Raoul Cedras assumed control of the country and re-imposed the savagery that characterised the dictatorships of the past. It took four years of international sanctions and the threat of a US invasion for Cedras and his fellow-butchers to succumb. Aristide was reinstated with the help of a US-led coalition that included Caricom forces (among them members of the T&T Regiment).
His return to power came with a high price tag, though, that would eventually lead to him resorting to human rights abuses, and ultimately to this sorry pass. Because the US insisted that he institute strict IMF measures that were bound to wreak economic havoc the way they have elsewhere in the world. In 1994 Haiti still had some form of agriculture in quality coffee, cocoa and sugar cane (for export), as well as corn, rice and sorghum for domestic consumption. Forced into globalisation by his "sponsors", Aristide lowered import tariffs, opening the way for subsidised US-produced rice and killing the local industry. The US was so intent on exploiting this basket-case market, it withheld some US$30 million in aid because the Haitian authorities dared to impose fines on American rice dealers who were found evading customs duties.
With such draconian measures adopted by the world's richest nation against the poorest, what could one expect to happen to Haiti? Hungry bellies neither know nor care about the IMF. Poor people want only deliverance from their misery, and if they can no longer produce the few crops that brought them relief from hunger, they do not see as far as Washington or Paris. They see Aristide. He becomes the problem. And he realises he is trapped in a vice from which he cannot escape, so he resorts to repression. Even so, we must be fair to him. He knew that the alternative to his kind of democracy lay with men far more dangerous to the country than he.
And just who are these "rebels"? Start with Louis Chamblain, a former sergeant who was accused of atrocities during the years of military rule. He fled to the neighbouring Dominican Republic when Aristide was reinstated in 1994. His sidekick Emmanuel "Toto" Constant, a CIA operative who belonged to a group known as FRAPH. Its members tortured and murdered opponents of the 1991-94 military regime. Add to this vile brew Guy Phillippe, a hand-picked officer who was trained by US Special Forces: he was specially trained in methods of torture and murder and among his victims was the then Justice Minister, Guy Malary. Also, remember this name: Andre Apaid. He is one so-called leader of the "democratic front" who happens to be a US citizen and the owner of sweatshops in Haiti.
The masses in Haiti who have genuine reasons for opposing Aristide are caught in this web among deadly spiders of an era we all thought had died with "Papa" and "Baby" Doc. Caricom leaders probably understand this vicious undercurrent that lies beneath the surface of the "popular" uprising, hence their bid to get an agreement for him to remain in power and give in to some demands of the opposition. The US and France are saying Aristide must resign pronto. They will shed no tears if he is tortured and killed. Because they know the end result will be a country in chaos, but one that does not have the capability to harm them-except for illegal immigrants attempting to reach America. For them, it's another case of "Black people biting the dust". Or maybe eating dirt and dying of Aids like flies. No bother.
But for those who understand the significance of what Haiti came to mean in the 18th century, when Toussaint and Dessalines and Christophe defeated Napoleon's best forces, we cry for that country, for its people. She paid a high price for that bold battle for independence in 1791. The US and France refused to recognise her until she agreed to pay reparations (to former slave owners!) of 150 million francs. Today, they are still extracting revenge and blood from a barren land that has been sucked dry by a despotic ruling class and its natural allies in Washington and Paris.
Reproduced From:
www.trinicenter.com/Raffique/2004/Feb/292004.htm
More Reports here...``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xHaiti: return to savagery``x1078069395,6765,Development``x``x
``xUpdated: March 02, 2004
U.S. Rep M. Waters: Aristide Says 'I Was Kidnapped'
Another blow to democracy in homeland, local Haitians lament "Aristide was kidnapped!" they screamed, draped in Haitian flags. "Election yes, coup no," said the placards they raised in defiance.
Haiti's Aristide says he was abducted
Aristide: 'White American Military' Kidnapped Me
Aristide: 'U.S. Forced Me to Leave Haiti'
Aristide accuses U.S. of forcing his ouster
BBC: Embattled Aristide leaves Haiti
Other news reports have stated that Aristide has not left Haiti
Haiti: return to savagery
¤ Haiti 2004: Another US-Backed Coup
¤ Aristide Bows to Pressure, Leaves Haiti
¤ Bush Increases Push for Haitian to Leave Office
¤ While U.S. Tries to Mask it's Role - Haitians resist coup attempt
¤ The Haiti Boomerang
¤ Bush accused of supporting Haitian rebels
¤ U.S. can end the killing it started in Haiti
¤ US is Arming Anti-Aristide Paramilitaries
¤ ESC: Act on Haiti now!
¤ Haiti's Descent into Gang Warfare
¤ Haiti still enslaved for all its rebellion
¤ Beloved Haiti: A (Counter) Revolutionary Bicentennial
¤ US Double Game in Hait
¤ Haiti-A Call For Global Action
¤ Media vs. Reality in Haiti
Crisis In Haiti
IMC Coverage
In the past week paramilitary groups in Haiti have continued to burn buildings and attack police stations, while the "opposition" continues to refuse negotiations and call for President Jean-Bertrand's Aristide's resignation, with the support of the US and Canadia n governments.
Meanwhile, the corporate media (and some "alternative media") have continues to ignore numerous aspects of the situation: US financial support of the opposition, previous US involvement in the region (including support of military dictators, the freezing of over $500 million in international aid and loans, and efforts to prevent the raising of the minimum wage). Haiti is the poorest country in the western hemisphere, and has been used as a source of cheap labour by companies like Disney, Wal-Mart and KMart. Workers are paid as little as 11 cents per hour.
US and Canadian diplomats have placed the blame on Aristide, who has publically declared himself to be willing to negotiate with the opposition. The opposition consists of a collection of political parties supported by US funds, the Haitian media and the Haitian economic elite, whose popular support is estimated at between 8 and 12%.
Haiti has a long history of resistance:
The year 2004 marks 200 years of Haitian independence. In 1791, 400,000 Africans enslaved in Haiti rose up against French colonial rule. Jean-Jacques Dessalines declared Haiti a free nation in 1804, culminating the world's only successful revolution of enslaved people. From the beginning, Haiti found itself isolated and besieged. The United States led a worldwide boycott against Haiti and refused to recognize the new nation until 1864, fearing that its freedom would pose a danger to the U.S. system of slavery. In 1825, the Haitian people were forced to assume a debt to France of 90 million gold francs (equivalent to $21.7 billion today) as "reparations" to their former "owners", in return for diplomatic recognition and trade. To make the first payment, Haiti closed all its public schools in what has been called the hemisphere's first case of structural adjustment.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xUpdate: Aristide 'U.S. Forced Me to Leave Haiti'``x1078079255,11544,Development``x``x
``xUpdated: March 02, 2004
U.S. Rep M. Waters: Aristide Says 'I Was Kidnapped'
Another blow to democracy in homeland, local Haitians lament "Aristide was kidnapped!" they screamed, draped in Haitian flags. "Election yes, coup no," said the placards they raised in defiance.
Haiti's Aristide says he was abducted
Aristide: 'White American Military' Kidnapped Me
Aristide: 'U.S. Forced Me to Leave Haiti'
Aristide accuses U.S. of forcing his ouster
BBC: Embattled Aristide leaves Haiti
Other news reports have stated that Aristide has not left Haiti
Haiti: return to savagery
¤ Haiti 2004: Another US-Backed Coup
¤ Aristide Bows to Pressure, Leaves Haiti
¤ Bush Increases Push for Haitian to Leave Office
¤ While U.S. Tries to Mask it's Role - Haitians resist coup attempt
¤ The Haiti Boomerang
¤ Bush accused of supporting Haitian rebels
¤ U.S. can end the killing it started in Haiti
¤ US is Arming Anti-Aristide Paramilitaries
¤ ESC: Act on Haiti now!
¤ Haiti's Descent into Gang Warfare
¤ Haiti still enslaved for all its rebellion
¤ Beloved Haiti: A (Counter) Revolutionary Bicentennial
¤ US Double Game in Hait
¤ Haiti-A Call For Global Action
¤ Media vs. Reality in Haiti
Crisis In Haiti
IMC Coverage
In the past week paramilitary groups in Haiti have continued to burn buildings and attack police stations, while the "opposition" continues to refuse negotiations and call for President Jean-Bertrand's Aristide's resignation, with the support of the US and Canadia n governments.
Meanwhile, the corporate media (and some "alternative media") have continues to ignore numerous aspects of the situation: US financial support of the opposition, previous US involvement in the region (including support of military dictators, the freezing of over $500 million in international aid and loans, and efforts to prevent the raising of the minimum wage). Haiti is the poorest country in the western hemisphere, and has been used as a source of cheap labour by companies like Disney, Wal-Mart and KMart. Workers are paid as little as 11 cents per hour.
US and Canadian diplomats have placed the blame on Aristide, who has publically declared himself to be willing to negotiate with the opposition. The opposition consists of a collection of political parties supported by US funds, the Haitian media and the Haitian economic elite, whose popular support is estimated at between 8 and 12%.
Haiti has a long history of resistance:
The year 2004 marks 200 years of Haitian independence. In 1791, 400,000 Africans enslaved in Haiti rose up against French colonial rule. Jean-Jacques Dessalines declared Haiti a free nation in 1804, culminating the world's only successful revolution of enslaved people. From the beginning, Haiti found itself isolated and besieged. The United States led a worldwide boycott against Haiti and refused to recognize the new nation until 1864, fearing that its freedom would pose a danger to the U.S. system of slavery. In 1825, the Haitian people were forced to assume a debt to France of 90 million gold francs (equivalent to $21.7 billion today) as "reparations" to their former "owners", in return for diplomatic recognition and trade. To make the first payment, Haiti closed all its public schools in what has been called the hemisphere's first case of structural adjustment.
www.indymedia.org/en/2004/02/110468.shtml``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xUpdate: Aristide 'U.S. Forced Me to Leave Haiti'``x1078079325,84700,WarandTerror``x``x
``xMarch 1st, 2004
www.democracynow.org
Congressmember Maxine Waters said she received a call from Aristide at 9am EST. "He's surrounded by military. It's like he is in jail, he said. He says he was kidnapped," said Waters. Click on this link to read a full transcript of the Democracy Now! interview with Rep. Maxine Waters.
RUSH TRANSCRIPT
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now! I'm Amy Goodman. Congressmember Waters, can you tell us about the conversation you just had with Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide?
MAXINE WATERS: I most certainly can and he's anxious for me to get the message out so people will understand. He is in the Central Republic of Africa at a place called the Palace of the Renaissance, and he's not sure if that's a house or a hotel or what it is and he is surrounded by military. It's like in jail, he said. He said that he was kidnapped; he said that he was forced to leave Haiti. He said that the American embassy sent the diplomats; he referred to them as, to his home where they was lead by Mr. Moreno. And I believe that Mr. Moreno is a deputy chief of staff at the embassy in Haiti and other diplomats, and they ordered him to leave. They said you must go NOW. He said that they said that Guy Phillipe and U.S. Marines were coming to Port Au Prince; he will be killed, many Haitians will be killed, that they would not stop until they did what they wanted to do. He was there with his wife Mildred and his brother-in-law and two of his security people, and somebody from the Steel Foundation, and they're all, there's five of them that are there. They took them where-- they did stop in Antigua then they stopped at a military base, then they were in the air for hours and then they arrived at this place and they were met by five ministers of government. It's a Francophone country, they speak French. And they were then taken to this place called the Palace of the Renaissance where they are being held and they are surrounded by military people.
They are not free to do whatever they want to do. Then the phone clicked off after we had talked for about five--we talked maybe fifteen minutes and then the phone clicked off. But he, some of it was muffled in the beginning, at times it was clear. But one thing that was very clear and he said it over and over again, that he was kidnapped, that the coup was completed by the Americans that they forced him out. They had also disabled his American security force that he had around him for months now; they did not allow them to extend their numbers. To begin with they wanted them to bring in more people to provide security they prevented them from doing that and then they finally forced them out of the country.
So that's where his is and I said to him that I would do everything I could to get the word out. ...that I heard it directly from him I heard it directly from his wife that they were kidnapped, they were forced to leave, they did not want to leave, their lives were threatened and the lives of many Haitians were threatened. And I said that we would be in touch with the State Department, with the President today and if at all possible we would try to get to him. We don't know whether or not he is going to be moved. We will try and find that information out today.
AMY GOODMAN: Did President Aristide say whether or not he resigned?
MAXINE WATERS: He did not resign. He said he was forced out, that the coup was completed.
AMY GOODMAN: So again to summarize, Congressmember Maxine Waters, you have just gotten off the phone with President Jean Bertrand Aristide, who said he believes he is in the Central African Republic.
MAXINE WATERS: That's right, with French speaking officers, he's surrounded by them and he's in this place called the Palace of the Renaissance and he was forced to go there. They took him there.
AMY GOODMAN: What are you going to do right now?
MAXINE WATERS: I'm going to get to the State Dept to find out what do they plan on doing with him. Do they plan on leaving him there or are they planning on taking him to another country? We are going to tell them we would like to see him. We are prepared to go where he is NOW and that we are demanding that we are able to see him and go where he is. And to negotiate what will be done with him.
AMY GOODMAN: Did he describe how he was taken out? We had heard reports in Haiti that he was taken out in handcuffs. Did he...
MAXINE WATERS: No he did not say he was taken out in handcuffs. He simply said that they came led by Mr. Moreno followed by the marines and they said simply “you have to go!” You have no choice, you must go and if you don't you will be killed and many Haitians will be killed. We are planning with Mr. De filliped to come into Puerto Rico. He will not be alone he will come with American military and you will not survive, you will be killed. You've got to go now!
AMY GOODMAN: How did President Aristide sound? What was the quality of his voice?
MAXINE WATERS: The quality of his voice was anxious, angry, disturbed, wanting people to know the truth.
AMY GOODMAN: Did he say why he had not made any calls since early on Sunday morning; that people had not been in touch with him for more than 36 hours. Certainly this plane was equipped with a telephone?
MAXINE WATERS: OH, I don't think they were able to make any calls from the plane. They were only allowed to make calls once they landed. And I think the only call that they had made was to her mother who is in Florida and her brother. But they were not allowed...they had no access to telephone calls... to a telephone on the plane.
AMY GOODMAN: What is the next step...what are you going to do? What do you think the people in this country should being doing about this situation in Haiti?
MAXINE WATERS: First of all I think the people in this country should be outraged that our government led a coup de'tat against a democratically elected President. They should call, write. Fax with their outrage, not only to the State Dept. but to all of their elected officials and to the press. We have to keep the information flying in the air so people will get it and understand what is taking place. And for those of us who are elected officials we must not only get to the President, we must demand that he is returned to claim his presidency if that is what he wants. If you can recall what happened in Venezuela when Mr. Chavez was...they tried to force him out and they had someone step into the presidency and he had not resigned his presidency and he got it back. I did not have that conversation with President Aristide but we must meet with him and we must talk with him and be prepared to protect him.
AMY GOODMAN: Congressmember Maxine Waters I want to thank you for being with us again. Congress member Waters has just spoken with President Aristide who she says said he was kidnapped and is now with his wife and surrounded by security in the Central African Republic.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xAristide Says 'I Was Kidnapped'``x1078185458,21672,Development``x``x
``xMarch 1st, 2004
www.democracynow.org
Congressmember Maxine Waters said she received a call from Aristide at 9am EST. "He's surrounded by military. It's like he is in jail, he said. He says he was kidnapped," said Waters. Click on this link to read a full transcript of the Democracy Now! interview with Rep. Maxine Waters.
RUSH TRANSCRIPT
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now! I'm Amy Goodman. Congressmember Waters, can you tell us about the conversation you just had with Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide?
MAXINE WATERS: I most certainly can and he's anxious for me to get the message out so people will understand. He is in the Central Republic of Africa at a place called the Palace of the Renaissance, and he's not sure if that's a house or a hotel or what it is and he is surrounded by military. It's like in jail, he said. He said that he was kidnapped; he said that he was forced to leave Haiti. He said that the American embassy sent the diplomats; he referred to them as, to his home where they was lead by Mr. Moreno. And I believe that Mr. Moreno is a deputy chief of staff at the embassy in Haiti and other diplomats, and they ordered him to leave. They said you must go NOW. He said that they said that Guy Phillipe and U.S. Marines were coming to Port Au Prince; he will be killed, many Haitians will be killed, that they would not stop until they did what they wanted to do. He was there with his wife Mildred and his brother-in-law and two of his security people, and somebody from the Steel Foundation, and they're all, there's five of them that are there. They took them where-- they did stop in Antigua then they stopped at a military base, then they were in the air for hours and then they arrived at this place and they were met by five ministers of government. It's a Francophone country, they speak French. And they were then taken to this place called the Palace of the Renaissance where they are being held and they are surrounded by military people.
They are not free to do whatever they want to do. Then the phone clicked off after we had talked for about five--we talked maybe fifteen minutes and then the phone clicked off. But he, some of it was muffled in the beginning, at times it was clear. But one thing that was very clear and he said it over and over again, that he was kidnapped, that the coup was completed by the Americans that they forced him out. They had also disabled his American security force that he had around him for months now; they did not allow them to extend their numbers. To begin with they wanted them to bring in more people to provide security they prevented them from doing that and then they finally forced them out of the country.
So that's where his is and I said to him that I would do everything I could to get the word out. ...that I heard it directly from him I heard it directly from his wife that they were kidnapped, they were forced to leave, they did not want to leave, their lives were threatened and the lives of many Haitians were threatened. And I said that we would be in touch with the State Department, with the President today and if at all possible we would try to get to him. We don't know whether or not he is going to be moved. We will try and find that information out today.
AMY GOODMAN: Did President Aristide say whether or not he resigned?
MAXINE WATERS: He did not resign. He said he was forced out, that the coup was completed.
AMY GOODMAN: So again to summarize, Congressmember Maxine Waters, you have just gotten off the phone with President Jean Bertrand Aristide, who said he believes he is in the Central African Republic.
MAXINE WATERS: That's right, with French speaking officers, he's surrounded by them and he's in this place called the Palace of the Renaissance and he was forced to go there. They took him there.
AMY GOODMAN: What are you going to do right now?
MAXINE WATERS: I'm going to get to the State Dept to find out what do they plan on doing with him. Do they plan on leaving him there or are they planning on taking him to another country? We are going to tell them we would like to see him. We are prepared to go where he is NOW and that we are demanding that we are able to see him and go where he is. And to negotiate what will be done with him.
AMY GOODMAN: Did he describe how he was taken out? We had heard reports in Haiti that he was taken out in handcuffs. Did he...
MAXINE WATERS: No he did not say he was taken out in handcuffs. He simply said that they came led by Mr. Moreno followed by the marines and they said simply “you have to go!” You have no choice, you must go and if you don't you will be killed and many Haitians will be killed. We are planning with Mr. De filliped to come into Puerto Rico. He will not be alone he will come with American military and you will not survive, you will be killed. You've got to go now!
AMY GOODMAN: How did President Aristide sound? What was the quality of his voice?
MAXINE WATERS: The quality of his voice was anxious, angry, disturbed, wanting people to know the truth.
AMY GOODMAN: Did he say why he had not made any calls since early on Sunday morning; that people had not been in touch with him for more than 36 hours. Certainly this plane was equipped with a telephone?
MAXINE WATERS: OH, I don't think they were able to make any calls from the plane. They were only allowed to make calls once they landed. And I think the only call that they had made was to her mother who is in Florida and her brother. But they were not allowed...they had no access to telephone calls... to a telephone on the plane.
AMY GOODMAN: What is the next step...what are you going to do? What do you think the people in this country should being doing about this situation in Haiti?
MAXINE WATERS: First of all I think the people in this country should be outraged that our government led a coup de'tat against a democratically elected President. They should call, write. Fax with their outrage, not only to the State Dept. but to all of their elected officials and to the press. We have to keep the information flying in the air so people will get it and understand what is taking place. And for those of us who are elected officials we must not only get to the President, we must demand that he is returned to claim his presidency if that is what he wants. If you can recall what happened in Venezuela when Mr. Chavez was...they tried to force him out and they had someone step into the presidency and he had not resigned his presidency and he got it back. I did not have that conversation with President Aristide but we must meet with him and we must talk with him and be prepared to protect him.
AMY GOODMAN: Congressmember Maxine Waters I want to thank you for being with us again. Congress member Waters has just spoken with President Aristide who she says said he was kidnapped and is now with his wife and surrounded by security in the Central African Republic.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xAristide Says 'I Was Kidnapped'``x1078185534,42028,WarandTerror``x``x
``xBy George Alleyne
Trinidad and Tobago Newsday
The reported kidnapping by the United States of America military of Haitian President, Jean-Bertrand Aristide and his family and their being spirited out ot Haiti, is an uncanny and shameful repeat of history. It followed by a little more than 200 years the kidnapping of Toussaint L'Ouverture who had led the world's only successful slave revolution. Then Haiti was known as Saint Dominique or San Domingo. It was Toussaint L'Ouverture who would change the name to that which had been given it by its indigenous people — Haiti! And as in the case of Aristide, L'Ouverture's wife and family had also been abducted and removed from Haiti. Perhaps CARICOM countries will issue travel advisories against the United States with appropriate warnings.
Aristide, in telephone conversations with highly respected United States political figures Charles Rangel, Randall Robinson and Maxine Waters, made from the Central African Republic (Chad) to where he was flown on Sunday, insisted that he was forced to resign the Haitian Presidency by the United States and taken to Chad against his will, and is under guard by French and African soldiers. Of interest was the choice of words by the US authorities in releasing information on Aristide. They said that he had "fled" Haiti, fully realising the implication that the word "fled" would convey. Aristide was Haiti's first constitutionally elected President and as such should only have been removed from office by constitutional means. Instead, for the past several weeks his Administration had been under threat by armed uprising by Haitians led by several and among them a man who had been notorious for having had thousands of Aristide's supporters murdered and maimed during the period 1991-1994, when Aristide had been ousted from office.
Some people tend to say, somewhat glibly, that it was the United States that had brought Aristide back in 1994, citing this as evidence of US concern, even today. They fail to point out that it was the Bill Clinton Administration which had actively supported his return, an Administration whose policies were clearly far removed from those of the present Republican Government. When Aristide returned to office he made the grave error of disbanding the Haitian Army, leaving thousands of men who had been trained to fight, not only out of jobs and disaffected, but leaderless and open to blandishments. In turn, it would have been unreasonable to have expected them to have been loyal to Jean-Bertrand Aristide, the man they would have considered responsible for whatever uncomfortable social situation in which they may have found themselves.
For the most part they were a gaggle of loose cannons whose loyalty, to use a cliche, was up for grabs. Haiti has been a poor country for most of its history. Its poverty was not self induced, clearly not the result of people not wishing to work and improve their lot. But Haiti, following on its slave revolt and the defeat of the French troops which had sought to reimpose French Imperial rule, had been the victim of economic blockades which prevented it from selling its sugar and other produce, and from purchasing goods and services, including equipment and spares, to keep its factories and plants going. In addition, France had demanded of and forced reparations payments on Haiti, claiming that former French land and slave owners in Haiti were entitled to reparations for the property (include in this slaves) which they had lost. Either the reparations or the economic blockade would have been crippling. The British Government, when it abolished slavery in its colonial possessions had been more "charitable." It had given the former slave owners 20 million pounds sterling as payment for the slave property they had lost, while allowing them to keep the lands which they owned.
When the Aristide Administration lost Gonaives, Haiti's second largest city, its days were literally over and all that remained if the Government was to live out its term would have been United Nations intervention in the form of peace keeping forces. The rebels were clearly being supplied from overseas with arms and ammunition, and Haiti's Police Service, trained to maintain law and order, had been no match for them. Interestingly, L'Ouverture had been at Gonaives when he was requested to attend a meeting with a French General, which would lead to his seizure and exile to France. In much the same manner that Toussaint L'Ouverture had agreed to meet at his house with Ferrari, Aide-de-Camp to General Leclerc, then Commander in Chief of the French troops in Haiti, Aristide had met with US soldiers at the Presidential Palace. The US soldiers, perhaps, like the French 201 years plus earlier, were there simply to "secure his person."
The world may never know the details for some time to come of what transpired at the Presidential Palace on Sunday, but it does know what happened when Toussaint L'Ouverture was kidnapped. Aristide was taken out of Haiti by plane, and Toussaint by ship. As he boarded the French vessel, which was to take him to France, exile and prison, he said to the ship's captain: "In overthrowing me you have cut down in San Domingo only the trunk of the tree of liberty. It will spring up again by the roots for they are numerous and deep." CARICOM must seek to persuade the United Nations to draw up and implement a plan for the social, educational, industrial and agricultural reconstruction of Haiti, and be prepared to be part of the rebuilding process of a CARICOM Member State.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xAristide's Kidnapping: A Repeat Of History``x1078320098,65649,Development``x``x
``xHerald Reporter
THE BBC has revived its propaganda blitz against the Government ahead of next year's parliamentary elections, claiming the Government has set up secret camps across the country in which thousands of youths are taught how to rape, torture and kill.
The camps being referred to by the BBC are national youth service training centres and it claims that those who have escaped from the camps "say they are part of a brutal plan to keep (President) Mugabe in power".
In its story the BBC claimed that it spoke to some recruits on its Panorama programme "about a horrific training programme that breaks young teenagers down before encouraging them to commit atrocities".
It claimed that Panorama also learnt that some of the recruits are taught to torture Government opponents.
During covert filming inside Zimbabwe, Panorama claimed it spoke to a camp commander who told the programme that youths in his camp had been sent to kill opponents of President Mugabe.
He said: "In the area I am covering I heard of two. My superiors instructed that the people must be eliminated."
The BBC also falsely claimed President Mugabe now wants every Zimbabwean youth to undergo training.
"We have been told they will be used to intimidate political opponents in next year*s elections. These guys are going to be used by the ruling party to keep the opposition out of power," the said commander was quoted saying.
In the past the BBC has heightened its propaganda against the Government each time elections draw near.
There have been false reports in the Western media in the past of youths claiming to have escaped from the training centres and confessing to committing rape, torture and murder in the country.
Some opposition elements including church leaders notably Archbishop Pius Ncube, who dabbles in opposition politics and is a staunch Government critic, have appeared at Press conferences where the Western and South African media are invited, flanked by youths supposedly confessing to raping, torturing and murdering opponents of the Government.
Last year in September, Archbishop Ncube appeared at a Press conference in Johannesburg, South Africa with youths confessing to such acts.
The press conference was held to release a report alleging human rights abuses under the National Youth Service.
The Government has since barred the BBC from covering events in the country because of its biased reporting and propaganda.
In July 2001, the Government suspended the accreditation of all BBC correspondents in the country.
¤ US widens its sanctions against Zimbabwe``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xBBC revives propaganda blitz against Zimbabwe``x1078334825,84237,Zimbabwe``x``x
``x04/03/2004 13:41 - (SA) www.news24.com
Harare - Zimbabwe's information minister has dismissed new US sanctions which target him and other members of President Robert Mugabe's ruling party, saying "imperialist" Washington could go to hell, a newspaper said on Thursday.
"These Americans who are pontificating about human rights and democracy would not recognise these things even if they hit them on their faces. So go and tell the imperialist to go to hell," Information Minister Jonathan Moyo was quoted as saying in Thursday's edition of the state-run Herald daily. Full Article``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xMoyo tells US to 'go to hell'``x1078404346,19072,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xZimbabwe 'alert' over seized jet CNN - Mar 09, 04
HARARE, Zimbabwe -- Zimbabwe's government says it has put its army on full alert after seizing a U.S.-registered cargo plane that officials say was carrying 64 suspected mercenaries and a cargo of military gear. In Washington, a U.S. State Department spokesman said the aircraft had no connection to the U.S. government, and the company listed as the plane's owner said the aircraft was sold recently. Full Article
Mystery plane flew from S Africa BBC- Mar 9, 04
A plane carrying 64 alleged mercenaries impounded by Zimbabwe came from South Africa, say air authorities there. The intended destination of the men on board - described as burly and white, and militarily equipped - is unknown. The US authorities have denied that there is any connection between the plane and the government, while acknowledging that it may be US-registered. US aviation records show the plane - with a tail number N4610 - registered to an Dodson Aviation in Ottawa, Kansas, but a company official said it was sold to Logo Aviation, a South-Africa-based firm, a week ago. Although a BBC correspondent in Johannesburg says this company appears not to exist. Full Article
Zimbabwe seizes US plane with 'mercenaries'
sabcnews.com
Zimbabwe has seized a US-registered cargo plane carrying 64 suspected mercenaries of various nationalities and a cargo of military gear, officials said today. The Boeing 727-100 aircraft was impounded yesterday evening at Harare International Airport "after its owners had made a false declaration of its cargo and crew," said Kembo Mohadi, the home affairs minister, in a statement. "The plane was actually carrying 64 suspected mercenaries of various nationalities," Mohadi said, adding an investigation had also found military material. Full Article
Zimbabwe Seizes U.S.-Registered Plane
guardian.co.uk
The Boeing 727-100 was detained at Harare's main airport late Sunday after its owners allegedly made "a false declaration of its cargo and crew," Home Affairs Minister Kembo Mahadi said at a briefing. "The plane was actually carrying 64 suspected mercenaries of various nationalities," he said. "Further investigations also revealed that on board was military material." Full Article
Zimbabwe 'seizes US cargo plane' BBC
A US-registered cargo plane with 64 suspected mercenaries on board has been impounded in Harare, Zimbabwe's Home Affairs Minister Kembo Mohadi has said. The Boeing 727-100 was held on Sunday after it had "made a false declaration of its cargo and crew," Mr Mohadi said. He said the plane was carrying mercenaries of differing nationalities and "military material". Full Article``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe seizes US plane with 'mercenaries'``x1078768766,58801,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xThe Herald (Harare)
March 10, 2004
Harare
GOVERNMENT yesterday revealed the nationalities of the 64 suspected mercenaries who were detained at the Harare International Airport on Sunday night after the owners of their plane had made false declaration of the cargo and crew.
They are 20 South Africans, 18 Namibians, 23 Angolans, two Congolese (DRC) and one Zimbabwean with a South African passport.
The Minister of Home Affairs Cde Kembo Mohadi said Zimbabwean security authorities became suspicious after the pilot had only kept the cockpit lights on with the rest of the plane in darkness.
"This was deliberate and it was clearly intended to hide the presence of the additional 64 passengers. On the discovery of the undeclared passengers, the plane was immediately grounded and the crew and passengers arrested," he said.
Cde Mohadi said the captain of the plane had advised the Harare tower that the plane was empty except for the crew of three and four loaders.
An advance team met the plane at the Harare International Airport and it consisted of one Simon Mann and two other men who had entered the country on March 5 this year.
The minister said initial investigations revealed that the plane was a former US Airforce aircraft which was sold to Dodson Aviation of the United States, a company he said had links to the US government.
"The plane recently flew to South Africa with an American crew which then swapped with a South African crew in Pretoria. It was at Wonderboom Airport that the mercenaries embarked and loaded their cargo," he said.
The plane is believed to have stopped at Petersburg airport before proceeding to Harare.
Cde Mohadi said Mann had initially visited the country in February this year together with one Nicholas du Toit.
The two referred to themselves as international technical consultants based in the British Virgin Islands.
"Simon Mann claimed to run a company called Logo Logistics while du Toit ran a company called Military Technical Services Incorporated. Both operated from the same address," he said.
The two made inquiries about the purchase of arms and ammunition and indicated they worked with a country in the Great Lakes to train Katangese rebels.
They later changed their story and claimed that they wanted weapons to protect a mining property in the DRC.
"Questions were raised as to why the two South Africans would want to buy weapons from Zimbabwe if the end use was legal. South Africa is a much bigger arms manufacturer," he said.
Cde Mohadi said a sinister motive was suspected and measures to monitor their plans until the arrest were instituted.
He said only the white component of the group seemed knowledgeable of the final destination and the purpose of the expedition.
It is believed a briefing on the mission was to be given to the rest of the members once the plane was airborne.
Cde Mohadi said investigations had also revealed that Mann was a former member of the British Special Airforce Service (SAS).
He said when the other members were arrested, du Toit was not there and had started arranging for the legal representation of the accused.
He said a Simon Witherspoon, a known South African mercenary who has operated in various countries in Africa, including Cote d*Ivoire, appeared to be the spokesman of the group.
He left the South African Defence Forces in 1989 to join the mercenary company, Executive Outcomes.
The minister said preliminary investigations indicated that Harare was not the final destination of the group as Bujumbura in Burundi and Mbuji Mayi in the DRC had been mentioned as the other destinations.
"Further investigations are underway and more information will be released to the public as it becomes available," Cde Mohadi said.
Government was working closely with other Sadc members on the issue.
Civil Aviation Authority of Zimbabwe chief executive officer Mr Karikoga Kaseke said the flight plan of the impounded plane had a lot of inconsistencies and was very misleading and at times conflicting.
He said the owners of the plane said the plane had only three crew members and four loaders and carried cargo.
"This is the reason why we parked it in the cargo section. They did not tell us they had people inside," he said.
Mr Kaseke said the crew asked for a technical stopover for refuelling but it later emerged they had other plans.
He said the crew indicated they were flying to Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Checks with flying records had also shown that the plane was flying very low which is a security risk, Mr Kaseke said.
South African Deputy Foreign Affairs Minister Mr Aziz Pahad said in a statement his ministry would remain in close contact with its ambassador in Zimbabwe Mr Jeremiah Ndou to seek clarity on the circumstances surrounding the incident.
"Should the allegations that those South Africans on board are involved in mercenary activities prove true, this would amount to a serious breach of the Foreign Military Assistance Act which expressly prohibits the involvement of South Africans in military Conventional Arms Control Committee," he said.
Zimbabwe security authorities detained the United States-registered plane on Sunday night after its owners had made false declaration of its cargo and crew.
The capture of 64 suspected mercenaries in Harare on Sunday took a new dimension yesterday in South Africa, the United States, Britain, Democratic Republic of Congo and Equatorial Guinea.
This comes amid contradictory reports over the suspects* mission with Reuters news agency reporting that Equatorial Guinea had arrested a 15-strong "advance party" from the same group while the South African Press Association claimed that the suspected mercenaries were mining contractors travelling to the Democratic Republic of Congo.
SAPA news agency reported that a British company, Logo Logistics Ltd, was operating the impounded plane.
The South African news agency said the company sent it a statement in which it said: "We can make it clear that we have no current or intended business in Zimbabwe and certainly no illegal intentions against its government and people."
Logo told SAPA that what Zimbabwean authorities described as "military" items on board was in fact working equipment such as boots, pipe-bending and wire-cutting tools.
Logo said the aircraft, seized at Harare International Airport on Sunday, was recently purchased and still registered in the United States.
"There is no other link with the US," the company said.
However, authorities in Equatorial Guinea, a country in West Africa, said they had arrested a 15-strong "advance party" from the same group.
"Some 15 mercenaries have been arrested here in Equatorial Guinea and it was connected with that plane in Zimbabwe. They were the advance party of that group," Equatorial Guinea Information Minister Agustin Nse Nfumu told Reuters.
According to Reuters, the arrests come amid speculation among exiled opposition politicians in Equatorial Guinea that a coup was in the offing.
Charles Burrows, a senior executive of Logo Logistics, said most of the people on board were South African and had military experience, but were on contract to four mining companies in Congo.
"They were going to eastern DRC. They stopped in Zimbabwe to pick up mining equipment, Zimbabwe being a vastly cheaper place for such," he said.
Burrows, whose company is registered in Britain*s Channel Islands, denied any connection between the group detained in Harare and those arrested in Equatorial Guinea.
"I haven*t the foggiest idea of what they*re talking about," he said by telephone from London.
South African air traffic control said the plane had left Johannesburg on Sunday and made a stop at Wonderboom airport near Pretoria. From there it flew to the northern South African town of Polokwane, where it took on some 63 passengers and completed departure formalities.
Craig Partridge, a spokesman for South Africa*s Air Traffic and Navigation Services, said the plane had filed full flight plans showing it would travel to Harare and from there to Bujumbura in Burundi on Congo*s eastern border.
In Washington, the State Department said it had no indication that the plane was connected to the US government.
US Federal Aviation Administration records show the plane registered to Dodson Aviation Inc. based in Ottawa, Kansas. Dodson said it had sold the plane about a week ago to an African firm called Logo Ltd.
The white plane with a blue stripe across its body contained an assortment of military hardware that included a rubber boat (dingy), sleeping bags, loud hailers, hammers, sophisticated radio communication equipment, water proof boots and bolt cutters.
According to media reports from South Africa the plane was sold to a South African firm last week.
Jim Pippin the acting general manager for Dodson International, a subsidiary of Dodson Aviation Inc, which is headquartered in Ottawa, Kansas, said the Boeing 727-100 was sold to Logo Logistics.
"The plane was sold by Dodson out of the United States. The company took delivery of the plane over the weekend after it most likely flew out from Florida," Pippin told AFP from Wonderboom airport, just north of Pretoria.
Asked why an internet search showed the plane was still with a US registration in the name of Dodson, Pippin said: "They have not yet had time to do a re-registration."
AFP reports said the owner of a flying school at Wonderboom airport, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the Boeing 727-100 landed there about 8.00am on Sunday.
"They asked me to move some of my aircraft because the jetstream from such a large aircraft could have damaged them," he said.
Peet van Rensburg, a spokesman for Wonderboom airport, confirmed that the plane was at the airport on Sunday, but also said he believed it proceeded to Polokwane.
Moses Seate spokesman for the South African Civil Aviation Authorities said the organisation would release a statement as soon as investigations are complete.
Reproduced From: www.herald.co.zw/
Zimbabwe: Mercenary Suspects May Face Death Penalty
'Namibians among mercenaries' detained in Zimbabwe
Zimbabwe accuses foreign media of being 'mercenaries'``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xSeized U.S. Plane: Zimbabwe's Probe Continues``x1078970069,47718,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xThe Herald (Harare)
March 10, 2004
Harare
The footage of the BBC documentary, which falsely claimed that the Zimbabwean Government has set up secret camps across the country to train youths to rape, torture and kill, was done by political activists with strong links to the MDC working with well known media personalities, it has emerged.
Sources yesterday said the footage of the documentary was not done by the producer of the documentary, Hilary Andersson, who has since admitted that the stories were inconsistent and could not be substantiated, or the BBC itself but by political activists and media personalities.
According to the sources, among the media personalities co-ordinating the footage was Silas Nhara, a cameraman.
The sources said Nhara is said to have played a key role in the assembling of the hotly disputed footage and links which have been described by some observers as amateurish.
They said Nhara was assisted by Reuters photographer Howard Burditt, who was using his accreditation to do undercover work, and Tsvangirai Mukwazhi, a former photographer of the Daily News.
"This is the core team which has been assembling the fictitious footage. This is a reinforcement particularly in the wake of the demise of the Daily News," the sources said, adding that the British intelligence and the British Embassy in Harare were also involved in co-ordinating the operation.
They said following growing criticism of the BBC documentary, which is now widely seen in diplomatic circles as crude propaganda, the team has been beefed up.
Those brought in to beef up the team include Andrew Chadwick who, together with Charlene Smith, ran the failed MDC media support centre in the run-up to the 2000 parliamentary elections, Edwina Spicer, the Reuters head for Southern Africa and other foreign correspondents based in Zimbabwe.
Spicer had fled the country with her son to Britain who is a well known MDC activist who is wanted by police in connection with a murder case.
The Herald understands that Spicer and Chadwick have since their return been under close surveillance by security authorities because the activities they have been involved in have raised eyebrows.
The back-up team is also linked to the United Nations news agency IRIN in Johannesburg, which is headed by a Nigerian who is known to be anti-Zimbabwe.
According to the sources, the head of IRIN was trying to recruit Zimbabweans in the local media but the recruitment has not been successful following the crackdown on journalists moonlighting for hostile foreign media.
The IRIN head and the Reuters head for southern Africa were also understood to be linking up on the operation.
The Reuters head was recently in Zimbabwe to meet the team running the operation.
The sources added that Tom Kirkhood, who heads Reuters Television, "and is a strong Rhodesian with family land in Zimbabwe and is said to be very bitter about losing land" had been assigned to take over the work of Mighty Movies, which had been doing footage for the same group.
"He has come in because Mighty Movies 'had the luxury of telling a balanced story'," the sources said.
Some of the people accused of co-ordinating the programme denied involvement in the exercise when reached for comment yesterday.
Nhara said he had no dealings with the BBC and that he worked for Independent Television Channel 3, UK.
"Where did you get that? I don't understand how I fit in this and I have no dealings with the BBC at all. I have been a freelance for 10 years now and worked for IT (Independent Television) which competes with the BBC," Nhara said.
Howard also said he had no connections with the BBC and said he was a still photographer.
"I have got nothing to do with the BBC. I'm a still photographer and BBC is a television," Howard said.
The others could not be reached for comment yesterday.
Asked for a comment, a Government spokesman confirmed these developments saying they were fully aware of the whole plot.
"Soon or later they (the co-ordinating team) will find themselves in the quandary of a spider web trapped by its own web," the spokesman said.
The BBC's onslaught to discredit Zimbabwe's human rights record has suffered a major hitch after Andersson backtracked on claims of alleged torture camps in the country.
As part of efforts to place Zimbabwe on the agenda of the March 15 United Nations Human Rights Commission meeting to be held in Geneva Switzerland, the BBC last week recycled discredited claims that the Zimbabwean Government has set up secret camps across the country to train thousands of youths to rape, torture and kill opponents of the Government and Zanu-PF.
Reproduced From:
www.herald.co.zw/index.php?id=29839&pubdate=2004-03-10``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xFootage of BBC documentary linked to MDC``x1078970318,82445,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Michael Padera, www.herald.co.zw
THE 67 suspected mercenaries arrested in Harare on Sunday were on their way to Malabo, Equatorial Guinea, to remove the government of President Teodoro Obiang Nguema, the Minister of Home Affairs, Cde Kembo Mohadi revealed yesterday.
The leader of the group, Simon Mann, had allegedly been promised cash payment of one million British pounds and oil mining rights in the Malabo Islands. Equatorial Guinea is rich in oil.
The country's exiled rebel leader Severo Moto who is currently resident in Spain, Madrid, hired them to do the job.
Cde Mohadi said this during a media briefing yesterday evening.
He said the group, which landed in Harare on Sunday, wanted to collect arms and ammunition from the Zimbabwe Defence Industries.
"From Zimbabwe the plane was expected to fly straight to Malabo, the capital of Equatorial Guinea, landing in Malabo in the early hours of Monday the 8th of March. On landing the group was expected to be joined by co-conspirators already in Malabo to stage a coup to remove President Obiang from power," he said.
After the mission, the mercenaries were to fly to the DRC where the arms and ammunition bought from Zimbabwe were to be handed over to Katangese rebels.
Mann and Nicholas du Toit were assisted by another man only identified as Bonds in planning the coup.
"As part of his assignment Bonds spent December 2003 and January 2004 in Malabo carrying out reconnaissance. It was Bonds who was expected to give the signal for the planned coup," said Cde Mohadi.
He said in the event of stiff resistance from forces loyal to President Obiang, the mercenaries were to fly to a safe haven in Sao Tome and Principe.
Cde Mohadi said Mann had revealed that the British Secret Intelligence Service (MI6), America's Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Spanish Secret Service aided the group.
The secret services persuaded the Equatorial Guinea service chiefs, that is the head of police and commander of the army, not to put up any resistance.
They were promised cabinet posts in Moto's government.
The agencies were responsible for the hiring of the Boeing 727-100 from Dodson Aviation and they also provided satellite communication system to link up Moto in Spain, Mann and du Toit in South Africa and Bonds in Malabo.
United States forces are reportedly carrying out military exercises around Equatorial Guinea.
Cde Mohadi said investigations showed that the plane flew from Sao Tome and Principe on March 7, 2004 through South Africa where it was handed over to the crew.
"Investigations are continuing and more information will be released as it comes to hand," he said.
In Malabo, national radio quoted President Obiang as confirming that the 15 suspected mercenaries arrested in Equatorial Guinea were linked to the plane load of alleged soldiers of fortune detained in Zimbabwe.
"A group of mercenaries entered the country and was studying plans to carry out a coup d'etat in Equatorial Guinea," said Obiang.
They were found to be in possession of maps of the capital, Malabo, and satellite telephones, Obiang said, adding they were linked to the plane load of suspected mercenaries who have been detained since the weekend in Zimbabwe.
Although Harare maintains that those on board the impounded plane were mercenaries and threw them in prison, a British company which said it was operating the flight claimed those on board were on their way to work in the mines in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
"We spoke with the South African president who warned us that a group of mercenaries was heading towards Equatorial Guinea ... Angola also sent messages to tell us to be vigilant. That's what I expect of friendly countries," said Obiang.
Obiang said the suspected putschists "were funded by enemy powers, by multi-national companies and also by countries that do not like us," but did not name names.
Equatorial Guninea official radio said Wednesday that the 15 were led by a 48-year-old South African national, Nick du Toit, who was a "trafficker of arms and diamonds".
It added that the others were from Armenia, Angola, Sao Tome and South Africa, and that there was also one German national in the group.
All of them were wanted in their countries, the radio said, adding du Toit had been in Malabo since July 2003 while the others had arrived in waves posing as businessmen.
The radio did not give any more names, but Obiang pointed the finger at opposition activist Severo Moto, who is in exile in Spain, and who tried to mount a coup against Obiang in 1997 from Angola.
Moto, who recently set up a government in exile for the tiny, oil-rich Gulf of Guinea country, was sentenced in absentia by a court in Malabo to 100 years in jail for his role in the 1997 coup bid, and his Party for Progress in Equatorial Guinea was banned.
Moto yesterday denied that he had anything to do with the alleged coup bid, saying in a statement that he "has at no time left Spain." – additional reporting by Reuters and AFP.
Other News:
'Mercenaries' are from SADF sundaytimes.co.za
Equatorial Guinea, Zimbabwe Say Coup Nixed yahoo.com
Alleged mercenaries were to abduct E Guinea president channelnewsasia.com
Mercenary plot thickens iht.com
Aristide to press charges against French, US diplomats jang.com.pk
Aristide plans to sue France and the US independent.co.uk
Venezuela to File Complaint Against U.S. yahoo.com``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xMercenaries captured in Equatorial Guinea coup bid``x1079008915,47630,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Michael Padera, www.herald.co.zw
An eight-man team from Equatorial Guinea arrived in Zimbabwe yesterday to exchange notes on the 67 suspected mercenaries who were arrested in Harare on Sunday while police and the Attorney General's Office continued with investigations and the framing of charges.
The suspected mercenaries are believed to have been on their way to Malabo, the capital of oil-rich West African country, to topple the government of President Teodoro Obiang Nguema.
"Yes, I can confirm we have received a special envoy from Equatorial Guinea. It is an eight-member delegation led by the country's Deputy Foreign Minister," said Foreign Affairs spokesperson Mrs Pavelyn Musaka.
The delegation led by Mr Jose Esono Micha visited South Africa where they held talks with Foreign Minister Cde Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma.
Acting Attorney General Mr Bharat Patel yesterday said his office is finalising charges against the suspected mercenaries. In an interview with The Herald, Mr Patel said his office had instructed police to record statements from all 67 suspects.
He said the suspects' appearance in court would depend on how fast the police completed recording statements from individual members of the group. The group leaders -- Simon Mann, Nicholas du Toit and Simon Witherspoon -- could be charged separately from the rest of the group.
Mr Patel said in a separate interview with Newsnet that they were likely to appear in court today but it could be tomorrow or very soon thereafter. He could not say whether the suspects would go to court as one group, saying that would depend on the charges preferred against them.
Mr Patel said charges against the suspects were likely to include contravening the Civil Aviation Act but there "may also be other charges relating to the Firearms Act, possibly also in relation to our immigration laws".
In Pretoria, the South African government said its nationals arrested in Zimbabwe and Equitorial Guinea will have to stand trial and serve any prison sentences in these countries.
"We have no prisoner transfer agreement with any country," said foreign ministry spokesman Ronnie Mamoepa. "As with all South Africans arrested in foreign countries, they will have to face the laws of those countries should it turn out that they were mercenaries," he told AFP.
"We do however, offer consular services. But bringing them back would be out of the question."
South Africa passed a law in 1998, which specifically forbids any mercenary activity and which carries heavy penalties.
In Malabo, in Equatorial Guinea, the leader of a group of 15 suspected mercenaries appeared on national television admitting the group planned to kidnap Obiang and force him into exile in Spain, the former colonial power.
In South Africa, the Afrikaans daily Beeld quoted Foreign Minister Cde Dlamini-Zuma as saying that Pretoria was investigating the matter, but adding it was "clear however, that any South African nationals should not expect too much assistance from the government.
"One of the South Africans apparently told the diplomatic corps in Equatorial Guinea what nonsense he committed there. He will have to explain that himself," the paper quoted her as saying.
That man, identified as 48-year-old Nick du Toit, a South African, said the group was supposed to meet other mercenaries due to arrive from South Africa, but that they were told at the last minute the group had been arrested.
In Harare on Wednesday, the Minister of Foreign Affairs Cde Stan Mudenge told diplomats accredited to Zimbabwe that the Government would work with authorities in Equatorial Guinea, South Africa and DRC in the investigations.
The suspects were arrested on Sunday night in Harare allegedly on their way to Malabo, Equatorial Guinea, to remove the government of President Obiang.
President Obiang came into power in 1979.
The leader of the suspected mercenaries Simon Mann had allegedly been promised cash payment of one million British pounds and oil mining rights in the Malabo Islands.
The country's rebel leader Severo Moto, who is currently resident in Spain allegedly hired them to do the job. However, news agency reports from Madrid said Moto denied involvement in the planned coup but said President Obiang should go, by force if needed.
In 1997 Moto was arrested in Angola and expelled to Spain on suspicion of plotting a coup. He said links to the foiled coup were a fabrication designed to discredit him ahead of legislative and municipal elections due in April.
In Washington, United States Secretary of State Colin Powell denied US government involvement in the issue, but said the plane, a Boeing 727-100, was headed to another country and not Zimbabwe.
"We know nothing about the plane," the US chief diplomat said during an appearance before Congress.
"What we've learned from the information available to us is there are a group of individuals on the plane who were heading somewhere, not to Zimbabwe, they ended there, but that's not their intended destination as near as we can tell," Mr Powell said.
Mr Powell strenously denied the men had been dispatched by the US to overthrow President Mugabe. "We have no intention in going and displacing President Mugabe," Mr Powell said.
"But are we disappointed in his leadership? Do we speak critically of his leadership? Yes, we do," Powell said.
The suspects comprise 20 South Africans, 18 Namibians, 23 Angolans, two Congolese (DRC) and one Zimbabwean with a South African passport and three others believed to be the leaders.
Equatorial Guinea is Africa's third largest oil producer behind Nigeria and Angola. The discovery of massive oil reserves has boosted Equatorial Guinea's economy by as much as 70 percent a year, but critics say the newfound wealth has not been evenly distributed.
Cde Mudenge said investigations pointed to the availability of oil as the reason behind the ill-fated mission.
US giant Exxon Mobil Corp is the biggest oil producer in Equatorial Guinea. Other companies operating there include independent oil company Amerada Hess Corp, US Chevron Texaco Corp, Noble Energy Inc, Devon Energy Corp, Houston-based Marathon Oil Corp, South Africa's Engen Africa, Sasol and Nigeria's atlas Petroleum. -- Additional reporting by Reuters and AFP.
Reproduced from:
www.herald.co.zw/index.php?id=29915&pubdate=2004-03-12``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xMercenary suspects: Investigations widen``x1079094575,62869,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy David Usborne in New York
13 March 2004, Independent UK
An embarrassed United Nations was struggling to defend itself yesterday following the discovery that a data recorder, that may have come from an aircraft shot down in 1994 while carrying the presidents of Rwanda and Burundi, had been hidden in a locked drawer in New York for 10 years.
Called a "first class foul-up" by UN secretary general Kofi Annan, the affair surfaced after questions were put to UN officials earlier last week by reporters from Le Monde newspaper of France. The world body initially responded by ridiculing the suggestion it had the recorder. But, by Thursday, it found itself performing a humiliating about-face.
The chief UN spokesman, Fred Eckhard, confirmed a recorder that could have come from the aircraft had been found in a drawer in the Air Safety Unit of the UN, in a building across the road from its New York headquarters. He further admitted it had apparently never been opened, nor its tapes analysed. Full Article
Assassination of former Rwandan President Habyarimana? By Robin Philpot
Rwandan Genocide: Crisis in Central Africa raceandhistory.com``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xRwanda 'black box' turns up in UN drawer``x1079197240,63836,Development``x``x
``xwww.herald.co.zw
PRESIDENT Mugabe has said land reforms undertaken in the last four years had anchored the economy for sustained growth, and underpinned the country's sovereignty.
In an interview with a group of local and visiting Cuban journalists, the president said land was any nation's main resource, which had to be equitably owned and shared mainly by the indigenous people.
The Government has brushed off strong Western opposition, led by Britain and the United States, and re-distributed to peasants the bulk of the country's prime farmland previously controlled by a handful of white farmers.
President Mugabe said the programme had laid a strong foundation for sustained economic growth in Zimbabwe, and consolidated the country's independence and sovereignty.
He said political independence which the country gained from Britain in 1980 was hollow if not accompanied by economic empowerment of the majority black Zimbabweans in vital sectors such as agriculture.
"There is no nation that can feel sovereign if its resources, whether it's lands or minerals or any other resources, are in the hands of enemies or foreigners.
"Much as we respect the principles of international capital and investment, that cannot be the excuse that our land was being owned by the British," he said.
"We feel that our land has now been liberated. It is now the land of our people for our people. It (land) gives the people a sense of belonging and ownership," he added.
President Mugabe said the other main aim of the land reforms, in addition to consolidating Zimbabwe's nationhood, was to turn around the economy, and ensure its sustained growth by expanding production in the agricultural sector -- the economy's mainstay.
"Agriculture is an extremely vital sector of our economy -- it yields exports, our food and is the main source of raw materials for our industrial sector," he said.
The bulk of the country's exports are agricultural products such as tobacco, which is Zimbabwe's biggest single export, and cotton.
The president said the next focus, after resettlement, of the Government in the agricultural sector was to provide financing and technical support services to farmers to ensure efficiency and optimal use of the land.
"Now we want to organise the people (resettled farmers) properly, and give them all the assistance they want to be confident and productive, and use the land optimally," said President Mugabe.
"It is necessary that we put inputs at the disposal of the people, things like fertilisers, small tractors and ploughs. We want the people to be efficient and to be mechanised," he said.
He said the land reforms were easy to implement in the country, in part, because Zimbabweans were natural farmers, and deeply attached to their land, giving himself as an example.
"I am also farming in my village. I've 1 000 chickens, but I want to increase that to 2 000, and I keep some pigs also. I produce and sell eggs, and the income from this helps pay for the maintenance of my (village) home," he said.
"The people love their soil," said President Mugabe.
He vowed no amount of pressure -- political, economic or military -- would sway him and the Government to relent on land reforms, which were now spreading to other countries in the region with similar land ownership disparities between white farmers and the indigenous blacks.
He said sanctions, which Western countries had imposed in protest against the reforms, had boomeranged in that they had opened the eyes of blacks in Zimbabwe and elsewhere to the injustice of land ownership in the country.
"Our people are getting stronger in their will and resistance; they no longer listen to them (Western countries) and their puppets," said President Mugabe.
"Yes, sanctions do harm, but we have ourselves realised that we cannot sacrifice our independence (for aid)," he said. -- New Ziana.
Reproduced from:
www.herald.co.zw/index.php?id=29935&pubdate=2004-03-15``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xLand reforms anchor economy: President``x1079363077,61128,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xCourt Reporter www.herald.co.zw
THE State and defence were still debating yesterday where to hold the remand hearing for 70 suspected terrorists linked to an alleged coup plot in the Equatorial Guinea.
The Attorney General's Office wants a secure and convenient venue and suggestions have been made to have the hearings in a prison complex, which is allowed by Zimbabwean law.
The defence is holding out for a hearing in a public court.
The suspected terrorists, who were arrested last week in Harare on their way to the West African country to oust the government of President Teodoro Obiang Nguema, are still in detention at Chikurubi Maximum Security Prison.
The director of public prosecutions, Mr Joseph Musakwa, said the suspects would appear in court as soon as the issue of venue was settled.
"We are resolving the issue of venue for their remand hearing. We want a suitable venue in respect of the number of the suspects and security concerns," said Mr Musakwa.
Mr Musakwa could not comment on whether the proceedings in the case might take place at Chikurubi Maximum Security Prison, as suggested in some media reports.
The suspects, comprising men from South Africa, Angola, Namibia, the Democratic Republic of Congo and one Zimbabwean, were arrested after their United States-registered Boeing 727 plane landed at Harare International Airport on March 7 before it was impounded by security authorities.
The State has already indicated that the 70 Equatorial Guinea-bound suspected terrorists would be charged for breaching the Immigration, Firearms and Public Order and Security Acts.
Charges under these laws carry a maximum penalty of 10 years in jail.
Mr Jonathan Samkange of Byron Venturas and Partners, who is representing the suspects, said all his clients had been charged for subversive activities.
He, however, said everything had been finalised except the venue for the remand hearing.
"We are still debating the issue. The State wants the remand hearing to be done in Chikurubi Maximum Security Prison citing security reasons. The defence is totally against the idea," said Mr Samkange.
He said the security fears expressed by the State were unfounded because Zimbabwe had one of the best armies in the world in terms of defence.
"Even the US and Britain cannot do what they are doing to other countries. In Zimbabwe it is very impossible," he said.
Mr Samkange said if his clients were not taken to court by noon today he would seek an order to have them brought to court.
www.herald.co.zw/index.php?id=30133&pubdate=2004-03-19``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xState, defence row over terrorism remand hearing ``x1079706860,41516,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xiafrica.com/news/sa/312208.htm
The victory of African slaves over French rule in Haiti in the 1800s should be used by Africans to inspire them to successfully address the challenges facing them across the world, South African president Thabo Mbeki said on Friday.
He told delegates attending the sixth African Renaissance Conference in Durban: "Today I am absolutely sure that the people of the Bahamas are inspired as we should be here to make sure that (this) great African victory be used as an inspiration... to address the challenges of the African Renaissance."
Many Africans ignorant of Haiti's history
Mbeki, a proponent of the African Renaissance concept, gave his audience a history lesson on Haiti, saying that many Africans were not taught about the struggle of the impoverished Caribbean country. Due to this many Africans did not know an important part of their history.
He said when a person read about the history of that country, he became angry because it was kept away from Africans because the powers that be knew it would inspire pride amongst all Africans and make them realise what they could accomplish.
Mbeki said he did not want to offend the people who had fought for South Africa's liberation, but it would be very difficult to find a struggle as inspiring as the one by the slaves in Haiti.
Haiti became an independent country and abolished slavery on January 1, 1804. This was after the slaves defeated French emperor Napoleon Bonaparte's army.
Mbeki said the French government of that time told Haiti it would not recognise its independence if it did not pay reparations for the loss French slave owners would suffer. This would have led to the French government blocking the exports of Haiti.
"They had no choice but to pay," he said.
The French set up a central bank through which the payments would be made, and because the Haitians could not make the first instalment, money was borrowed from a French bank, and that debt was serviced with interest.
The world's first black republic
In later years the United States took over the debt and only in 1945 did Haiti pay its last reparation.
This was a main reason why Haiti, the world's first back republic, was so impoverished.
Mbeki said there were no centenary celebrations for Haiti's independence because the French government was opposed to this because they would celebrate the defeat of Napoleon. The French government decided that this matter would be reviewed in a 100 years. The same decision was taken for this year's bicentenary celebrations.
Mbeki, who attended this year's celebrations in January, said he had been questioned by Haitian opposition parties and civil society groups about his attendance because it could have been interpreted as showing support for then president Jean-Bertrand Aristide, who was ousted after a military coup earlier this year.
Mbeki said he explained to them that the independence of Haiti was an important part of the history of Africans, and he was there to participate in the celebrations.
He said it was agreed by all parties that Haiti's problems should be discussed under the auspices of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM). During discussions the armed uprising, by gangsters and spread by former Haitian soldiers, started.
Haiti's police service did not have any equipment
Mbeki said CARICOM and the Haitian government requested South Africa's help in the matter because its police service did not have any equipment, such as teargas, ammunition and weapons.
Mbeki agreed to help, and after a list was sent to South Africa, the equipment was sent to Jamaica.
However, before the material arrived in Haiti, Aristide was ousted and sent to the Central African Republic.
"He did not ask to leave... but others said he should leave," Mbeki said.
He told the audience that in the midst of all this turmoil, a marvellous thing had happened because the injustice concerning Haiti and Aristide's forced departure, had brought greater unity amongst Africans across the globe.
"I think we have never seen as much unity amongst Africans on a matter," Mbeki said. "All of us are saying a great injustice has happened and all of us are saying we must... help the Haitians."
Africans should address common problems together
Mbeki said Africans would have a bright future if they addressed common problems together.
"Our African people in the United States are still African and are less equal than other Americans," he said to applause.
The small Caribbean countries could only succeed if they were part of the greater African home.
Mbeki said whether Africans were living in Johannesburg or New York, they faced the same difficulties.
He called on those attending the conference to find ways of taking the African Renaissance forward, saying its success would have a positive affect on all Africans.
"What do we need to do to build a global, united movement of Africans?" Mbeki asked.
"Don't lose this opportunity to reinforce the cohesion... so that together we can fight the common problems of Africans."
DA wants answers
Democratic Alliance leader Tony Leon said this week he had written another letter to Mbeki regarding a consignment of arms sent to Haiti in the dying hours of Aristide's rule.
Leon said he had to date received no answer to his previous query regarding the dispatch in late February of an SA Air Force Boeing 707 to the Caribbean island state loaded with 150 R1 assault rifles, ammunition and assorted equipment.
"This is a most extraordinary thing in a constitutional democracy. If it wasn't for a journalist and a newspaper in Jamaica, we would never have known about this deployment," Leon told a press conference in Johannesburg.
The DA leader said he had taken legal advice on the matter from an advocate in Cape Town who advised him that the flight to Haiti amounted to the employment of the Defence Force as contemplated in the constitution as well as in the new Defence Act and that government, by not reporting this deployment to parliament within the stipulated 14 days, was in breach of the law.
Sapa``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xHaiti inspires Africans - Mbeki``x1080351051,28672,Development``x``x
``xBy Stephen Gowans, www3.sympatico.ca/sr.gowans
September 22, 2003
Amir Attaran and Craig Jones say Canada's Attorney-General Martin Cauchon should indict Zimbabwe's President Robert Mugabe for crimes against humanity.
Attaran is a lawyer and associate fellow at the Royal Institute of International Affairs in London. Jones is a lawyer in private practice in Vancouver.
The two lawyers are emblematic of a large group of NGO's, human rights organizations and progressives in Canada, the US and the UK, who want something done about foreign leaders accused of committing crimes against humanity.
But the high dudgeon of these groups seems to fall heavily on leaders of small and weak countries that resist integration into the US dominated capitalist system, and to fall less heavily on human rights abusers who preside over privately owned economies. And their attention almost never falls on deserving figures closer to home.
For example, while citing what they call Mugabe's "racially motivated sponsorship of armed thugs to confiscate white-owned farms," Attaran and Jones have no words of condemnation for US President George W. Bush, his key advisors, and his principal backer British Prime Minister Tony Blair.
On top of operating a concentration camp at Gauntanamo Bay and carrying out extrajudicial assassinations, the Bush administration has pursued two wars of aggression, crimes for which leading Nazis were condemned to death at the Nuremberg trials. Surely, crimes of this magnitude should put Mr. Bush and his key advisors at the top of Mr. Attaran's and Mr. Jones' list.
And the list needn't stop there. It could also include former General Wesely Clark, who's making a bid for the Democratic presidential nomination.
Clark led NATO's 78-day air war on Yugoslavia, an illegal affair from start to finish that saw the retired General order his bombers to attack bridges, roads, homes, factories, schools, hospitals, petrochemical plants, electrical power stations, an embassy and a radio-TV building, none of which had anything to do with the Yugoslav military, or its presence in Kosovo, and all of which were civilian targets, presumably safe from attack
Clark, for whom the obloquy "Butcher of Belgrade" fits like a glove, is an obvious war criminal. So why are Attaran and Jones going after Mugabe. Surely, whatever Mugabe is accused of is small potatoes next to Clark's crimes.
Indeed, Jones, a Canadian, should have an especial interest in his own Prime Minister, Jean Chretein, who approved Canada's participation in the Kosovo campaign. Ottawa once boasted that Canadian warplanes flew the third highest number of sorties in the weeks-long war, accounting for 10 percent of all the bombs dropped.
But Canada's participation in the destruction of a country is hardly something to boast about. Chretien is ultimately responsible for 10 percent of the bridges, roads, factories, and other civilian targets that were destroyed. That makes the Canadian Prime Minister party to war crimes, and certainly deserving of prosecution. Yet he doesn't make the list.
Instead, human rights groups, NGO's and lawyers like Attaran and Jones almost invariably condemn leaders of countries called hostile to the West, that is, leaders who have closed important parts of their economies to Western trade and investment, and pursue independent foreign policies. Dictators, and human rights abusers who preside over privately owned economies, escape almost unscathed.
Take Saudi Arabia, for example. It is equally, if not more so, as much a human rights nightmare as pre-war Iraq was. Yet it is rarely mentioned by the those who call for the heads of Milosevic, Hussein and Mugabe. And given the hue and cry about Hussein being a dictator, and North Korea developing nuclear weapons, you'd never know Pakistan is ruled by a military dictator and is equipped with nuclear arms. Pervez Musharraf is rarely ever mentioned, except in friendly tones.
But then there's little to be gained by Western powers targeting Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. They're already firmly ensconced in the Western orbit.
There was, however, once something to be gained by ousting Slobodan Milosevic, the Serb president of the Yugoslav federation. Yugoslavia once had a largely socially and state-owned economy. And it pursued an independent foreign policy.
Western powers encouraged the federation's republics to secede, and backed their most right-wing elements. The Serbs, led by Milosevic, resisted.
Soon enough, Milosevic was transformed into a human rights monster. A program of destabilization, economic warfare, bombing, a proxy guerilla war, and interference in elections, eventually toppled Milosevic, to the cheers of human rights liberals, convinced the Yugoslav president was Hitler-reborn.
Today, the economy has almost been wholly transformed from a socially-owned one, to one owned by Western investors.
It's no accident that the so-called "democratic opposition" in target countries, seen as champions of democracy and human rights, are, first and foremost, champions of neoliberal economics and of their country's integration into the US dominated global capitalist order.
The Democratic Opposition of Serbia, much beloved by US progressives, is firmly neoliberal.
The Movement for Democratic Change, Zimbabwe's main opposition group, is a fervent proponent of free market economics.
And the Iraqi National Congress, pre-war Iraq's main exile opposition group, also favors penetration by US capital.
Yesterday, the puppet regime Washington installed in Iraq announced that 192 state-owned and state-controlled companies would be put on the auction bloc, up for sale to foreign investors.
Hailed as a measure that will kick-start the economy, the sell-off is hardly stimulative. It simply transfers ownership of Iraq's non-oil assets from the rightful owners -- Iraqis -- to Western firms and investors.
This is theft, pure and simple. Iraqis -- other than those handpicked by Washington -- haven't consented to it. And its Washington's masters – Wall Street – that will benefit.
So what of Zimbabwe -- what does it have to do with Iraq and Yugoslavia?
First, its land redistribution program challenges the idea of the inviolability of private property, one US administrations hold as a moral principal.
Second, it has been less than biddable where the IMF is concerned, balking at the organization's dictates. This, Yugoslavia, under Milosevic, did, as well.
And third, it has interfered with the West's proxy wars in Africa.
In short, Zimbabwe isn't playing by Washington's economic rules.
Nor, significantly, is Iran or North Korea, two countries in Washington's cross-hairs, about which human rights concerns have also been raised.
To be sure, no country is free from human rights abuses, corruption, or abuse of power, and there's much about Zimbabwe and Mugabe that can be criticized.
But before jumping aboard campaigns to take foreign leaders to task for transgressions, we should ask:
Do the charges have substance, or are they part of a propaganda program intended to build public support for intervention later on? It's easy to believe the worst of foreign leaders, especially when the mass media seem to agree unanimously on the leaders' crimes, but the Left, which prides itself on media analysis, should be wary. Often, it's not.
Does the West have an economic interest in ousting the foreign leader in question? Is he or she presiding over a largely socially or state-owned economy, resisting IMF demands to privatize state-controlled assets, or threatening Western investments?
Are there other leaders who are abusing human rights about whom little is said? If so, why not? What's the nature of their economy?
To what extent are the acts we condemn foreign leaders for – Mugabe's repression of the Western-backed press, Korea's pursuit of a nuclear weapons program, Cuba's jailing of dissidents working on behalf of Washington to restore the island to capitalism – defensive manoeuvres against pressure and interference by the West?
What about our own leaders? Are their crimes more notorious than those foreign leaders are accused of. Mugabe is accused of inspiring the racially-motivated take-over of white-owned farms, and of stealing an election. If these charges are true, they hardly compare to the crimes of pursuing wars of aggression or ordering attacks on civilian infrastructure. Where should our attention be directed? What does it say when we focus on foreign leaders that resist integration into the US-dominated capitalist system, while ignoring, or minimizing, the huge -- and imperialist -- crimes of our own leaders?
There's no question the West is pressuring Mugabe to step down, in favor of Morgan Tsvangirai, the opposition leader, who would prove far more congenial to Western economic interests. Tsvangirai has no serious plan for land redistribution, and wouldn't challenge Western interests that stand in the way. Rather than calling for Mugabe to be prosecuted, anyone genuinely interested in justice in Zimbabwe should be demanding the West support the country's land reform program, and free Harare from the IMF's neoliberal dictates.
Unfortunately, it will be said -- by the same people who cheered on the Western-backed Democratic Opposition of Serbia, backed Saddam's ouster, and are lining up behind Wesley Clark -- that not condemning Mugabe is bad politics and is no way to carry out a progressive anti-imperialism.
On the contrary, calling for Mugabe's prosecution, rather than demanding Zimbabweans be given space to deal effectively with past colonialism and current imperialism, is hardly anti-imperialist, progressive or otherwise.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xRobert Mugabe and the Human Rights Imperialists``x1081349953,20486,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xReflections on the Brain-Rotting Properties of Privilege
By Tim Wise
April 20, 2004, www.zmag.org
To truly understand a nation, a culture, or its people, it helps to know what they take for granted.
After all, sometimes the things that go unspoken are more powerful than the spoken word, if for no other reason than the tendency of unspoken assumptions to reinforce core ways of thinking, feeling and acting, without ever having to be verbalized (and thus subjected to challenge) at all.
What's more, when people take certain things for granted, anything that goes against the grain of what they perceive as "normal" will tend to stand out like a sore thumb, and invite a hostility that seems reasonable, at least to those dispensing it, precisely because their unspoken assumptions have gone uninterrogated for so long.
Thus, every February I encounter people who are apoplectic at the thought of Black History Month, and who insist with no sense of irony or misgiving that there should be no such thing, since, after all, there is no White History Month--a position to which they can only adhere because they have taken for granted that "American history" as told to them previously was comprehensive and accurate, as opposed to being largely the particular history of the dominant group.
In other words, the normalcy of the white narrative, which has rendered every month since they popped out of their momma's wombs White History Month, escapes them, and makes the efforts of multiculturalists seem to be the unique break with an otherwise neutral color-blindness.
Sorta' like those who e-mail me on a semi-regular basis to insist, as if they have just stumbled upon a truth of unparalleled profundity, that there should be an Ivory Magazine to balance out Ebony, or that we need a White Entertainment Television network to balance out BET, or a NAAWP to balance out the NAACP.
Again, these dear souls ignore what is obvious to virtually all persons of color but which remains unseen by those whose reality gets to be viewed as the norm: namely, that there are already two Ivory Magazines--Vogue and Cosmopolitan; that there are several WETs, which just so happen to go by the names of CBS, NBC and ABC; and that the Fortune 500, U.S. Congress and Fraternal Orders of Police are all doing a pretty good job holding it down for us white folks on the organizational front. Just because the norm is not racially-named, doesn't mean it isn't racialized.
Likewise the ongoing backlash against affirmative action, by those who seem to believe that opportunity would truly be equal in the absence of these presumably unjust efforts to ensure access to jobs and higher education for persons of color.
We are to believe that before affirmative action things were fine, and that were such efforts abolished now, things would return to this utopic state of affairs: to hell with the persistent evidence that people of color continue to face discrimination in employment, housing, education and all other institutional settings in the U.S.
So if the University of Michigan gives applicants of color twenty points on a 150-point admission scale, so as to promote racial diversity and balance out the disadvantages to which such students are often subjected in their K-12 schooling experience, that is seen as unfair racial preference.
But when the same school gives out 16 points to kids from the lily-white Upper Peninsula, or four points for children of overwhelmingly white alumni, or ten points for students who went to the state's "top" schools (who will be disproportionately white), or 8 points for those who took a full slate of Advanced Placement classes in high schools (which classes are far less available in schools serving students of color), this is seen as perfectly fair, and not at all racially preferential.
What's more, the whites who received all those bonus points due to their racial and class position will not be thought of by anyone as having received unearned advantages, in spite of the almost entirely ascriptive nature of the categories into which they fell that qualified them for such bonuses. No matter their "qualifications," it will be taken for granted that any white student at a college or University belongs there.
This is why Jennifer Gratz, the lead plaintiff in the successful "reverse discrimination" suit against Michigan's undergraduate affirmative action policy, found it a supreme injustice that a few dozen black, Latino and American Indian students were admitted ahead of her, despite having lower SATs and grades; but she thought nothing of the fact that more than 1400 other white students also were admitted ahead of her and her co-plaintiffs, despite having lower scores and grades.
"Lesser qualified" whites are acceptable, you see, while "lesser qualified" people of color must be eliminated from their unearned perches of opportunity. This is the kind of racist logic that people like Gratz, who now heads up the state's anti-affirmative action initiative with the financial backing of Ward Connerly, find acceptable.
This kind of logic also explains the effort of whites at Roger Williams University to start a "white scholarship fund," on the pretense that scholarships for students of color are unfair and place whites at a disadvantage.
This, despite the unmentioned fact that about 93 percent of all college scholarship money goes to whites; despite the fact that students of color at elite and expensive colleges come from families with about half the average income of whites; despite the fact that there are scholarships for pretty much every kind of student under the sun, including children of Tupperware dealers, kids whose parents raise horses, kids who are left-handed, kids whose families descend from the founding fathers: you name it, and there's money available for it.
While there are plenty of whites unable to afford college, the fault for this unhappy reality lies not with minority scholarships, but rather with the decisions of almost exclusively white University elites to raise the price of higher education into the stratosphere, to the detriment of most everyone.
But to place blame where it really belongs, on rich white people, would be illogical. After all, we take it for granted that one day we too might be wealthy, and we wouldn't want others to question our decisions and prerogatives come that day either.
Better to blame the dark-skinned for our hardship, since we can take it for granted that they're powerless to do anything about it.
Whites, as it turns out, take most everything for granted in this country; which makes perfect sense, because dominant groups usually have that privilege.
We take for granted that we won't be racially profiled even when members of our group engage in criminality at a disproportionate rate, whether the crime is corporate fraud, serial killing, child molestation, abortion clinic bombings or drunk driving. And indeed we won't be.
We take it for granted that our terrorism won't result in whites as a group being viewed with generalized suspicion. So Tim McVeigh represents only Tim McVeigh, while Mohammed Atta gets to serve as a proxy for every other person who either has his name or follows a prophet of that name.
We take it for granted that our dishonesty will be viewed in purely individualistic terms, while the dishonesty of others will result in aspersions being cast upon the entire group from which they come.
Thus, Jayson Blair's deceptions at the New York Times provoke howls of indignation at any effort to provide opportunity to journalists of color--because after all, diversity and quality are proven by this one man's exploits to be incompatible--but Jack Kelley's equally egregious fabrications and fraud at USA Today fails to prompt calls for an end to hiring white guys as reporters, or for scrutinizing them more carefully, or for closing down whatever avenues of opportunity have helped keep the profession so white for so long.
We take it for granted that we will never be viewed as one of those dreaded "special interest" groups, precisely because whatever serves our interests is presumed universal.
So, for example, while politicians who pursue the support of black, Latino, gay or other "minority" voters are said to be pandering to special interests, those who bend over backwards to secure the backing of NASCAR dads and soccer moms, whose racial composition is as self-evident as it is unmentioned, are said to be politically savvy and merely trying to connect with "normal folks."
We take it for granted that "classical music" is a perfectly legitimate term for what really amounts to one particular classical form (mostly European orchestral and piano concerto music), ignoring that there are, indeed, classical forms of all musical styles, as well as their more contemporary versions.
We take it for granted that the only controversy regarding Jesus is whether or not he was killed by Jews or Romans; or whether the depiction of his execution by Mel Gibson is too violent for children, all the while ignoring a much larger issue, which is why does Gibson (and for that matter every other white filmmaker or artist in the history of the faith) feel the need to make Jesus white: something he surely could not have been and was not, with all due apology to Michelangelo, Constantine, Pat Robertson, and the producers of "Jesus Christ Superstar."
That the only physical descriptions of Jesus in the Bible indicate that he had feet the color of burnt brass, and hair like wool, poses a slight problem for Gibson and other followers of the white Jesus hanging in their churches, adorning their crucifixes (if Catholic), and gracing the Christmas cards they send each December.
It is the same problem posed by the anthropological evidence concerning the physical appearance of first century Jews from that part of Northern Africa we prefer to call the "Middle East" (and why is that I wonder?). Namely, Jesus did not look like a long-haired version of my Ashkenazi Jewish, Eastern European great-grandfather in his prime.
But to even bring this up is to send most white Christians (and sadly, even many of color) into fits, replete with assurances that "it doesn't matter what Jesus looked like, it only matters what he did."
Which is all fine and good, until you realize that indeed it must matter to them what Jesus looked like; otherwise, they wouldn't be so averse to presenting him as the man of color he most assuredly was: a man dark enough to guarantee that were he to come back tomorrow, and find himself on the wrong side of New York City at the wrong time of night, reaching for his keys or his wallet in the presence of the Street Crimes Unit, he'd be dispatched far more expeditiously than was done at Golgotha 2000 years ago.
But never fear: we needn't grapple with that because we can merely take it for granted that Jesus had to look like us, as did Adam and Eve, and as does God himself. And indeed, most whites believe this to be true, as proven by every single picture Bible for kids made by a white person, all of which present these figures in such a way.
Consider the classic and widely distributed Robert Maxwell Bible Series for children, popularly known as the "blue books," which are found in virtually every pediatrician and OBGYN's office in the U.S. In Volume I, readers learn (at least visually speaking) that the Garden of Eden was in Oslo: a little-known fact that will stun Biblical scholars to be sure.
It would all be quite funny were it not so incontestably insane, so pathological in terms of the scope of our nuttiness. What else, after all, can explain the fact that when a New Jersey theatre company put on a passion play a few years ago with a black actor in the lead role, they received hundreds of hateful phone calls and even death threats for daring to portray Jesus as anyone darker than, say, Shaun Cassidy?
What else but a tenuous (at best) grip on reality can explain the quickness with which many white Americans ran around after 9/11 saying truly stupid shit like "now we know what it means to be attacked for who we are?"
Now we know? Hell, some folks always knew what that was like, though their pain and suffering never counted for much in the eyes of the majority.
What else but delusion on a scale necessitating medication could lead one to say--as two whites did on CNN in the wake of the first O.J. Simpson verdict--that they now realized everything they had been told about the American justice system being fair was a lie? Now they realized it! See the theme here?
That's what privilege is, for all those who constantly ask me what I mean when I speak of white privilege. It's the ability to presume that your reality is the reality; that your experiences, if white, are universal, and not particular to your racial identity.
It's the ability to assume that you belong and that others will presume that too; the ability to define reality for others, and expect that definition to stick (because you have the power to ensure that it becomes the dominant narrative).
And it's the ability to ignore all evidence to the contrary, claim that you yourself are the victim, and get everyone from the President to the Supreme Court to the average white guy on the street to believe it.
It is Times New Roman font, one inch margins, left hand justified. In other words, it is the default position on the computer of American life. And it has rendered vast numbers of its recipients utterly incapable of critical thought.
Only by rebelling against it, and insisting on our own freedom from the mental straightjacket into which we have been placed as whites by this system, can we hope to regain our full humanity, and be of any use as allies to people of color in their struggle against racism.
~~~~~~~
Tim Wise is an antiracist activist, essayist and father. He can be reached at timjwise@msn.com. Death threats, while neither appreciated nor desired, will be graded for form, content and originality.
www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2004-04/20wise.cfm``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xWhite Whine``x1082746669,35027,Development``x``x
``xREIGN OF TERROR: The Arab-led Sudanese government is being accused of joining Arab militias in attacks on black Africans, clearing villages and executing 'enemies'
THE GUARDIAN, DAKAR, SENEGAL
Sunday, Apr 25, 2004,Page 7
www.taipeitimes.com
Human Rights Watch on Friday issued a stinging report accusing the Arab-led Sudanese government of joining Arab militias in attacks on black Africans in the Darfur region of western Sudan, clearing villages, destroying their food supplies and executing men deemed enemies. It came on a day that the UN's top human rights body passed a resolution on human rights abuses in Darfur that the US rejected as too soft on Sudan.
In an unusually strong report, based on interviews with Sudanese refugees across the border in Chad, a four-member team of investigators described the raids by the Arab militias, or janjaweed, as "a reign of terror." The report, released to the press earlier this week, documents rapes and killings of civilians, forced displacement of black Africans from their villages and aerial bombings by Sudanese military planes.
"Attacks carried out by the armed forces of Sudan and the janjaweed reflect a disturbing pattern of disregard for basic principles of human rights and humanitarian law," the report read. It went on to say that the human rights violations reported in Darfur "may constitute war crimes and/or crimes against humanity."
In some places, government planes bombed villages ahead of the militias' attacks and circled overhead afterward to see if the area had been cleared, according to Human Rights Watch. Elsewhere, the military and the militias set up a joint presence, "often in the local police station," before launching an attack on a village, the group said in a statement accompanying the report.
One of the researchers, Julie Flint, who spent 25 days this month inside Darfur, said in a telephone interview from London on Friday that in a roughly 66km2 area she saw 11 of 13 villages burned, with the other two deserted. Homes and food storage areas were burned, she said. All that was left were bits of peanuts and shards of glass -- remnants of tea glasses.
One villager, she said, brought her a list of 62 mosques that had been burned. She said she collected reports of massacres during prayer time at mosques. In two sweeps in March, she reported, Sudanese soldiers detained 136 African men whom the militias massacred hours later. "They are no longer working alone," Flint said of the militias.
According to UN estimates, the attacks have displaced 900,000 people inside Darfur and roughly another 100,000 refugees who have fled across the frontier, to Chad. Low-level clashes over land between Arabs, who are herders, and black Africans, who are farmers, broke out in a full-scale war in February last year, when a rebel movement emerged.
Meanwhile, aid workers, so far restricted in their movements inside Darfur, are scrambling to ferry food, tarpaulins and other relief supplies to displaced peasants camped out across the vast, largely arid territory. Seasonal rains are likely to come in less than two months, making roads impassable. The government in Khartoum said earlier this week that it would allow a UN humanitarian assessment team to travel through the area.
Meanwhile, in Geneva, the UN's top human rights body stopped short of condemning the Khartoum government for "ethnic cleansing," choosing instead milder language to express its concern about "the scale of reported human rights abuses and the humanitarian situation in Darfur" and appointing a monitor to investigate the charges.
Fifty members of the UN Human Rights Commission backed the resolution, drafted by EU countries. Washington rejected it, calling for stronger language, and there were two abstentions. The African Union also on Friday said it would dispatch ceasefire monitors to Darfur, and peace talks between the Sudanese government and two guerrilla groups resumed in Chad.
After the vote in Geneva, Richard Williamson, head of the US delegation, called for an emergency session to review their decision after UN investigators return from a trip to Darfur. The team is in Sudan now.
Sudan's allies on the UN team this week lashed out at UN officials, calling for an investigation into the leaks. Sudan has consistently denied responsibility for the actions of the janjaweed.
The UN, which has so far received pledges of US$30 million, is calling on donor countries to provide another US$130 million in emergency aid. UN officials have lately stepped up their criticism of the government in Darfur, as have those within the Bush administration.
In a report prepared for the UN commission meeting in Geneva, the Bush administration lashed out at Khartoum for barring aid groups and human rights investigators from the hardest-hit areas of Darfur. "The government of Sudan is denying assistance from reaching its own people," the report declared. "It is time that the international community stand united and denounce the violence and ethnic cleansing taking place in Sudan."
Reproduced for Fair Use Only from:
www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2004/04/25/2003138028``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xArabs attack Africans in Sudan: report``x1082976577,51581,Development``x``x
``xby Linda Edwards
Once again, the painful images of bone-thin African children and their mothers on the move fill our TV screens. The headlines shout that ethnic cleansing is going on in the Southern Sudan, and that the government of the Arab north is practising a scorched earth policy to get rid of the dark skinned people of Southern Sudan. And for a moment, we are shocked. There are pious mouthings, of course, from all the right poeple, all of whom are overweight. (Aid agencies, UN rights people and so on).
So this is news? This was documented by World News Television, Channel 366 on Direct TV, three years ago. Maybe the world's policy makers do not watch that version of reality TV.
The people, it was reported on channel 366, are having their houses burned because a Canadian oil company wants them moved from its drilling area. The company, it was reported, is financing the Sudanese government's purchase of weapons for the brown Arab soldiers of the north to kill and drive off the dark skinned Africans of the Nubian area.The Canadian company official denied it, but there was film footage to back up the TV report.
At one time, the government said it wanted to build a dam there. Professor Gates of Harvard University documented that also, that they would be flooding the pyramids of the Kushite people, and their heritage would be lost under the rising water. They were being driven off, and their civilization destroyed, in the interests of modernity. I do not know what happened to the dam proposal.
Documents unearthed from Pharonic tombs show that this sort of conflict has gone on for three thousand years. Now, however the stakes are higher. There is oil in that soil, and western greed demands that Africans be sacrificed for gas guzzling modern lifestyles. Africans are quite expendable, actually. People have been trying to wipe them out for a long time, and they always come back. The Atlantic slave trade, which cleared the coast of western Africa up to a hundrd miles inland is the most horrific example. More recently there have been civil wars in Angla, Congo, Rwanda, South Africa which wipe out, and displace, millions. These have all been attempts at ethnic cleansing, and in every case it was what was under the soil that was important. In most cases the weapons-guns- were supplied by the west, and hired mercenaries trained the population in the use of them. Child soldiers are equipped for these purposes with guns that cost more than a family's annual wages.
You see, Africa is a very important continent for modern industrialists. The mother lodes of all the world's significant minerals are there. The problem is that Africans, dark skinned people who are still not recognized as fully human by others, live on top of those minerals, and they have to be moved, these stubborn people, so that we could move ahead with the business of amassing wealth. In such a case, it is easy to finance the government of Muslim Northern Sudan to eradicate the Christian south. The two peoples do not look alike. They are distinctly different. We call the conflict by many names. It is good for the business of that Canadian oil company.
Next week, I am going to hear the UN Commissioner For Human Rights, and former President of Ireland, Mary Robinson talk. Will she be concerned about this issue of three African women in the southern Sudan sharing one dress? And the stillborn children who will be expelled from their wombs due to inadequate nutrition? Maybe not. African women are so fertile, they will
recover.
Will the world pay attention to the fact that Ghanain boys, as young as six years old, living in the area of the Ashanti Gold Fields are urinating blood? Yes, pissing blood, because their vital organs are failing due to chemical pollution. This too was documented years ago by World News Television. The Ashanti Gold Fields are named for the Royal House of Ghana, but is foreign owned. Media houses should check the ownership.
Wherever African children are being forced from their homes, and dying of malnutrition and chemical poisoning, one must ask what lies under the land that they are being moved from. The answers are three: oil, gold, diamonds.
Think of this mothers of the world, as you hang that new gold chain on your neck this Mother's Day. Think of this fathers, as you drive mother to dinner at a fancy restaurant. Think of this as you give her a new ring with diamondas that are forever.
I do not say not to give the gifts. All I ask is that you think of the cost in human lives, of children, of mothers, of the unborn, of those aborted not for fashion; but because the body expels the child that is so deformed it will not live, and the child which takes too much of a toll on the nutrients it's mothers weakened body cannot provide.
This is my Mother's Day wish for all of you, in 2004. I do not mean to be kind, but to be truthful. Kindness can cloak many realities. Later, we say, "if I had known..."``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xEthnic Cleansing In Africa``x1084146363,9609,Development``x``x
``xThat Halo Over Romeo Dalliare's Head Has More Than One Hole in It!
By ROBIN PHILPOT
When International Criminal Tribunal prosecutor Carla Del Ponte learned from a Canadian newspaper in 2000 that the Rwandan Patriotic Front and its leader Paul Kagame were prime suspects in the April 6, 1994, assassination of the presidents of Rwanda and Burundi, she reportedly said: "If it is the RPF that shot down the plane, the history of genocide must be rewritten".
Hopefully others will be as candid as Ms Del Ponte as more and more information surfaces on events in Rwanda in the early 90s. First on that list should be retired Canadian general and former UN peacekeeper in Rwanda Romeo Dallaire. However, Dallaire may find it hard to swallow his pride after enjoying such a massive PR campaign organized for him ever since his 600-page book appeared in October 2003 (Shake Hands with the Devil, The failure of Humanity in Rwanda, Random House Canada).
Dallaire toured Canada, parts of the US, Belgium, France, Tanzania, where he witnessed for the prosecution at the ICTR, and Rwanda, where he joined Paul Kagame for commemorations in Kigali. He appeared on all the right programs, with the right people, and his verge-of-tears attitude protected him from the tough questions that reporters should have been asking him. One of his Canadian government handlers justified the enormous security for Dallaire in Tanzania by describing him as Canada's "national treasure". He is now being touted as the future Governor General of Canada.
The saintly halo carefully placed over his head has also prompted Michael Ignatieff to invite him to be a fellow of Harvard's Carr Center for Human Rights Policy, where paradoxically he will specialize in "conflict resolution". Ignatieff probably sees the appointment as a way to cover his own conflict-inflicting support of the US invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Romeo Dallaire supposedly told all in his book. However, since so many people in influential positions have been bluntly contradicting Dallaire, it's time he and his ghostwriters sat down and rewrote the book. These include former the Chief of the 1994 United Nations Mission in Rwanda the Cameroonian diplomat Jacques-Roger Booh-Booh--Dallaire was only in charge of the military component , UN Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali, the French anti-terrorist judge Jean-Louis Bruguière, Colonel Luc Marchal, the Belgian commander of UN troops in Kigali who worked under Dallaire and many more. If we accept as true half what these people have said, either most of the information in Dallaire's book can no longer be taken seriously or the book as whole should be rejected as base propaganda.
Jacques-Roger Booh-Booh was the UN Secretary General's Special Representative in Rwanda, and therefore in charge of the mission in Rwanda.
An experienced diplomat having served as Cameroon's Ambassador to France and to the former USSR, Booh-Booh was also very familiar with African politics, unlike Dallaire who admits not knowing that Rwanda was in Africa when he was appointed in 1993. Since the Rwandan tragedy, Booh-Booh has remained silent and respected the neutrality that comes with his position. (Dallaire of course never respected the obligation of neutrality). Booh-Booh broke that silence in April in an interview with the French-language monthly Africa International.
When asked to react to criticisms leveled by Dallaire, Booh-Booh replied that General Dallaire never accepted the fact that he was only a military officer reporting to the civilian authority appointed by the UN Secretary General, and that he has been inconsolable ever since because he never obtained Booh-Booh's job though he tried very hard. In the field, according to Booh-Booh, Dallaire abandoned his military responsibilities to do politics, though that was not his job, and he violated the principle of neutrality by becoming the objective ally of the RPF. Moreover, Dallaire's "duplicity" was widely known in UN mission circles. Booh-Booh adds that "from a strictly military standpoint, UNAMIR controlled absolutely nothing under Dallaire's command", citing as an example his total failure to rid Kigali of arms and militias.
Booh-Booh's comments about Dallaire's political involvement in Rwanda raise important questions, especially in light of Boutros-Ghali's statements during the 10th anniversary commemorations.
Boutros-Ghali, who told me in a 2002 interview that the Rwandan genocide was 100 percent American responsibility, also told the French daily Libération that one of the UN's problems in Rwanda was that "the Department of Peacekeeping Operations [headed by Kofi Annan at the time] was very much infiltrated by the American authorities. Since the we [the UN] lacked money, we recruited officers who were on their own government's payroll."
This statement should be considered together with Dallaire's candid boasts in his book that he violated fundamental rules of a peacekeeping mission by going over the head of the mission chief, Booh-Booh, and communicating directly to the DPKO leaders Kofi Annan and Maurice Baril at UN headquarters.
Can Dallaire's intense--and unsuccessful--involvement in Rwandan politics and his pro-RPF stance be explained by the fact that he was receiving instructions directly from US or pro-US people in the UN's peacekeeping operations department? This is very plausible since we know that from the early 1990s the United States, along with Great Britain, was openly challenging France in French-speaking Africa, and particularly in Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of Congo). The English-speaking Rwandan Patriotic Front, based as it was in Uganda, was perceived as a means to accomplish that end.
On the other hand, Boutros-Ghali, whom Madeleine Albright nicknamed "Frenchie", was perceived as an obstacle, as undoubtedly was the head of the UN mission in Rwanda, Jacques-Roger Booh-Booh. Soon after the Rwandan tragedy, the US unceremoniously dumped Boutros-Ghali--Albright vetoed renewal of his mandate--and installed Kofi Annan, thereby further advancing their strategy in French-speaking Africa.
Add to this the fact that Dallaire was chosen for the position in 1993 mainly because the United States demanded a French-speaking military commander, and ideally anti-French. Obviously that excluded a French national. Anybody who follows Canadian politics knows that that type of military person can be found in Ottawa, where distrust and dislike of France are at the heart of all foreign policy.
These links help explain both Kofi Annan's and Romeo Dallaire's silence regarding the shooting down of the plane carrying the presidents of Rwanda and Burundi--both have persisted in calling that SAM missile attack an "accident" or a "crash", and Kofi Annan's reaction regarding the plane's Black Box following the Bruguière revelations was frankly insulting. All information, all research and all investigations, and especially Judge Bruguière's, now point to Paul Kagame and the Rwandan Patriotic Front. If and when France issues international arrest warrants for the perpetrators of that crime, Kofi Annan and Romeo Dallaire will have a lot of questions to answer.
Another example of Romeo Dallaire naysayers is Colonel Luc Marchal who led the UN troops in Kigali. Unlike Dallaire who tours the world to defend Paul Kagame and the RPF, Marchal is very critical of both. "I am personally very convinced in the RPF's implication in the Rwandan tragedy", writes Marchal in a 1998 letter, "because I too had been fooled by their smart propaganda during the Arusha negotiations [in 1993]. Once I was in Kigali, the gulf that separated what was said and what was really happening became obvious. In fact the RPF movement is totalitarian and it crushes absolutely everything in its way." He also pointed out in a 2003 interview that the shooting down of President Habyarimana's plane would have required months to plan and carry out, and that the rapid deployment of RPF troops in Kigali and in the North on April 7, 1994 would also have required months to prepare. Marchal leaves no doubt that he suspects the RPF of committing that crime and considers it to be crucial to understanding what happened after.
In a much more honest book about the Rwandan events published in 2001, Marchal also clearly implicates the United States in the 10-year cover-up of the April 6, 1994, terrorist attack that triggered the terrible massacres. "Who is powerful enough to have prevented a real international inquiry from casting light upon the events that occurred when President Habyarimana was flying home from a regional summit in Dar Es-Salaam?"
Robin Philpot is a Montreal writer. His book Ça ne s'est pas passé comme ça à Kigali (That's not what happened in Rwanda) will soon appear in English. Robin Philpot can be reached at rphilpot@sympatico.ca This article was originally published at counterpunch.org``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xRe-writing the History of the Rwandan Genocide``x1084838134,91027,Development``x``x
``xDelegates at a conference of southern African liberation movements have given their backing to Robert Mugabe, the Zimbabwean president's, stand on land reforms.
The conference in Harare has drawn representatives from South Africa, Botswana, Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia and Tanzania.
Black empowerment groups such as the US-based December 12 Movement and the Britain-based Black United Front also attended the meeting, hosted by the ruling Zanu(PF) party.
Mugabe says his land programme has been a success but the main opposition party and aid agencies say it has severely disrupted Zimbabwe's once-prosperous agricultural sector and contributed to famine. The conference, which is also discussing international relations, democracy and good governance, has been highly critical of Western dominance and globalisation.
Reprinted for Fair Use Only from:
www.sabcnews.com/africa/southern_africa/0,2172,78497,00.html
Copyright © 2000 - 2003 SABC``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xMugabe's land reforms get thumbs up``x1085346519,50186,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xby Amy Goodman and David Goodman
www.democracynow.org
In our new book, The Exception To the Rulers: Exposing Oily Politicians, War Profiteers and the Media That Love Them, we titled one chapter "The Lies of Our Times" to examine how The New York Times coverage on Iraq and its alleged stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction helped lead the country to war. Yesterday, The New York Times, for the first time, raised questions about its own coverage in an 1,100-word editor's note. Here is an excerpt from our section of the book on the New York Times and Iraq.
"From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August." -- Andrew H. Card, White House Chief of Staff speaking about the Iraq war P.R. campaign, September 6, 2002
In the midst of the buildup to war, a major scandal was unfolding at The New York Times-the paper that sets the news agenda for other media. The Times admitted that for several years a 27-year-old reporter named Jayson Blair had been conning his editors and falsifying stories. He had pretended to be places he hadn't been, fabricated quotes, and just plain lied in order to tell a sensational tale. For this, Blair was fired. But The Times went further: It ran a 7,000-word, five-page expose on the young reporter, laying bare his personal and professional escapades.
The Times said it had reached a low point in its 152-year history. I agreed. But not because of the Jayson Blair affair. It was The Times coverage of the Bush-Blair affair.
When George W. Bush and Tony Blair made their fraudulent case to attack Iraq, The Times, along with most corporate media outlets in the United States, became cheerleaders for the war. And while Jayson Blair was being crucified for his journalistic sins, veteran Times national security correspondent and best-selling author Judith Miller was filling The Times' front pages with unchallenged government propaganda. Unlike Blair's deceptions, Miller's lies provided the pretext for war. Her lies cost lives.
If only The New York Times had done the same kind of investigation of Miller's reports as it had with Jayson Blair.
The White House propaganda blitz was launched on September 7, 2002, at a Camp David press conference. British Prime Minister Tony Blair stood side by side with his co-conspirator, President George W. Bush. Together, they declared that evidence from a report published by the UN International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) showed that Iraq was "six months away" from building nuclear weapons.
"I don't know what more evidence we need," crowed Bush.
Actually, any evidence would help-there was no such IAEA report. But at the time, few mainstream American journalists questioned the leaders' outright lies. Instead, the following day, "evidence" popped up in the Sunday New York Times under the twin byline of Michael Gordon and Judith Miller. "More than a decade after Saddam Hussein agreed to give up weapons of mass destruction," they stated with authority, "Iraq has stepped up its quest for nuclear weapons and has embarked on a worldwide hunt for materials to make an atomic bomb, Bush administration officials said today."
In a revealing example of how the story amplified administration spin, the authors included the phrase soon to be repeated by President Bush and all his top officials: "The first sign of a 'smoking gun,' [administration officials] argue, may be a mushroom cloud."
Harper's publisher John R. MacArthur, author of Second Front: Censorship and Propaganda in the Gulf War, knew what to make of this front-page bombshell. "In a disgraceful piece of stenography," he wrote, Gordon and Miller "inflated an administration leak into something resembling imminent Armageddon."
The Bush administration knew just what to do with the story they had fed to Gordon and Miller. The day The Times story ran, Vice President Dick Cheney made the rounds on the Sunday talk shows to advance the administration's bogus claims. On NBC's Meet the Press, Cheney declared that Iraq had purchased aluminum tubes to make enriched uranium. It didn't matter that the IAEA refuted the charge both before and after it was made. But Cheney didn't want viewers just to take his word for it. "There's a story in The New York Times this morning," he said smugly. "And I want to attribute The Times."
This was the classic disinformation two-step: the White House leaks a lie to The Times, the newspaper publishes it as a startling expose, and then the White House conveniently masquerades behind the credibility of The Times.
"What mattered," wrote MacArthur, "was the unencumbered rollout of a commercial for war."4
Judith Miller was just getting warmed up. Reporting for America's most influential newspaper, Miller continued to trumpet administration leaks and other bogus sources as the basis for eye-popping stories that backed the administration's false premises for war. "If reporters who live by their sources were obliged to die by their sources," Jack Shafer wrote later in Slate, "Miller would be stinking up her family tomb right now."
After the war, Shafer pointed out, "None of the sensational allegations about chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons given to Miller have panned out, despite the furious crisscrossing of Iraq by U.S. weapons hunters."
Did The New York Times publish corrections? Clarifications? Did heads roll? Not a chance: Judith Miller's "scoops" continued to be proudly run on the front pages.
Here are just some of the corrections The Times should have run after the year-long campaign of front-page false claims by one of its premier reporters, Judith Miller.
FROM THE NEW YORK TIMES DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Scoop: "U.S. Says Hussein Intensifies Quest for A-Bomb Parts," by Judith Miller and Michael R. Gordon, September 8, 2002. The authors quote Ahmed al-Shemri (a pseudonym), who contends that he worked in Iraq's chemical weapons program before defecting in 2000. " 'All of Iraq is one large storage facility,' said Mr. Shemri, who claimed to have worked for many years at the Muthanna State Enterprise, once Iraq's chemical weapons plant." The authors quote Shemri as stating that Iraq is stockpiling "12,500 gallons of anthrax, 2,500 gallons of gas gangrene, 1,250 gallons of aflatoxin, and 2,000 gallons of botulinum throughout the country."
Oops: As UN weapons inspectors had earlier stated-and U.S. weapons inspectors confirmed in September 2003-none of these claims were true. The unnamed source is one of many Iraqi defectors who made sensational false claims that were championed by Miller and The Times.
Scoop: "White House Lists Iraq Steps to Build Banned Weapons," by Judith Miller and Michael Gordon, September 13, 2002. The article quotes the White House contention that Iraq was trying to purchase aluminum pipes to assist its nuclear weapons program.
Oops: Rather than run a major story on how the United States had falsely cited the UN to back its claim that Iraq was expanding its nuclear weapons program, Miller and Gordon repeated and embellished the lie.
Contrast this with the lead paragraph of a story that ran in the British daily The Guardian on September 9: "The International Atomic Energy Agency has no evidence that Iraq is developing nuclear weapons at a former site previously destroyed by UN inspectors, despite claims made over the weekend by Tony Blair, western diplomatic sources told The Guardian yesterday." The story goes on to say that the IAEA "issued a statement insisting it had 'no new information' on Iraq's nuclear program since December 1998 when its inspectors left Iraq."
Miller's trumped-up story contributed to the climate of the time and The Times. A month later, numerous congressional representatives cited the nuclear threat as a reason for voting to authorize war.
Scoop: "U.S. Faulted Over Its Efforts to Unite Iraqi Dissidents," by Judith Miller, October 2, 2002. Quoting Ahmed Chalabi and Defense Department adviser Richard Perle, this story stated: "The INC [Iraqi National Congress] has been without question the single most important source of intelligence about Saddam Hussein."
Miller airs the INC's chief complaint: "Iraqi dissidents and administration officials complain that [the State Department and CIA] have also tried to cast doubt on information provided by defectors Mr. Chalabi's organization has brought out of Iraq."
Oops: Miller championed the cause of Chalabi, the Iraqi exile leader who had been lobbying Washington for over a decade to support the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime. As The Washington Post revealed, Miller wrote to Times veteran foreign correspondent John Burns, who was working in Baghdad at the time, that Chalabi "has provided most of the front page exclusives on WMD [weapons of mass destruction] to our paper."
Times readers might be interested to learn the details of how Ahmed Chalabi was bought and paid for by the CIA. Chalabi heads the INC, an organization of Iraqi exiles created by the CIA in 1992 with the help of the Rendon Group, a powerful public relations firm that has worked extensively for the two Bush administrations. Between 1992 and 1996, the CIA covertly funneled $12 million to Chalabi's INC. In 1998, the Clinton administration gave Chalabi control of another $98 million of U.S. taxpayer money. Chalabi's credibility has always been questionable: He was convicted in absentia in Jordan of stealing some $500 million from a bank he established, leaving shareholders high and dry. He has been accused by Iraqi exiles of pocketing at least $4 million of CIA funds.
In the lead-up to war, the CIA dismissed Chalabi as unreliable. But he was the darling of Pentagon hawks, putting an Iraqi face on their warmongering. So the Pentagon established a new entity, the Office of Special Plans, to champion the views of discredited INC defectors who helped make its case for war.
As Howard Kurtz later asked in The Washington Post: "Could Chalabi have been using The Times to build a drumbeat that Iraq was hiding weapons of mass destruction?"
Scoop: "C.I.A. Hunts Iraq Tie to Soviet Smallpox," by Judith Miller, December 3, 2002. The story claims that "Iraq obtained a particularly virulent strain of smallpox from a Russian scientist." The story adds later: "The information came to the American government from an informant whose identity has not been disclosed."
Smallpox was cited by President Bush as one of the "weapons of mass destruction" possessed by Iraq that justified a dangerous national inoculation program-and an invasion.
Oops: After a three-month search of Iraq, " 'Team Pox' turned up only signs to the contrary: disabled equipment that had been rendered harmless by UN inspectors, Iraqi scientists deemed credible who gave no indication they had worked with smallpox, and a laboratory thought to be back in use that was covered in cobwebs," reported the Associated Press in September 2003.
Scoop: "Illicit Arms Kept Till Eve of War, an Iraqi Scientist Is Said to Assert," by Judith Miller, April 21, 2003. In this front-page article, Miller quotes an American military officer who passes on the assertions of "a man who said he was an Iraqi scientist" in U.S. custody. The "scientist" claims that Iraq destroyed its WMD stockpile days before the war began, that the regime had transferred banned weapons to Syria, and that Saddam Hussein was working closely with Al Qaeda.
Who is the messenger for this bombshell? Miller tells us only that she "was permitted to see him from a distance at the sites where he said that material from the arms program was buried. Clad in nondescript clothes and a baseball cap, he pointed to several spots in the sand where he said chemical precursors and other weapons material were buried."
And then there were the terms of this disclosure: "This reporter was not permitted to interview the scientist or visit his home. Nor was she permitted to write about the discovery of the scientist for three days, and the copy was then submitted for a check by military officials. Those officials asked that details of what chemicals were uncovered be deleted." No proof. No names. No chemicals. Only a baseball cap-and the credibility of Miller and The Times-to vouch for a "scientist" who conveniently backs up key claims of the Bush administration. Miller, who was embedded with MET Alpha, a military unit searching for WMDs, pumped up her sensational assertions the next day on PBS's NewsHour with Jim Lehrer: Q: Has the unit you've been traveling with found any proof of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?
JUDITH MILLER: Well, I think they found something more than a smoking gun. What they've found...is a silver bullet in the form of a person, an Iraqi individual, a scientist, as we've called him, who really worked on the programs, who knows them firsthand.
Q: Does this confirm in a way the insistence coming from the U.S. government that after the war, various Iraqi tongues would loosen, and there might be people who would be willing to help?
JUDITH MILLER: Yes, it clearly does.... That's what the Bush administration has finally done. They have changed the political environment, and they've enabled people like the scientists that MET Alpha has found to come forth.
Oops: The silver bullet got more tarnished as it was examined. Three months later, Miller acknowledged that the scientist was merely "a senior Iraqi military intelligence official." His explosive claims vaporized.
A final note from the Department of Corrections: The Times deeply regrets any wars or loss of life that these errors may have contributed to.
UP IN SMOKE
Tom Wolfe once wrote about a war-happy Times correspondent in Vietnam (same idea, different war): The administration was "playing [the reporter] of The New York Times like an ocarina, as if they were blowing smoke up his pipe and the finger work was just right and the song was coming forth better than they could have played it themselves." But who was playing whom? The Washington Post reported that while Miller was embedded with MET Alpha, her role in the unit's operations became so central that it became known as the "Judith Miller team." In one instance, she disagreed with a decision to relocate the unit to another area and threatened to file a critical report in The Times about the action. When she took her protest to a two-star general, the decision was reversed. One Army officer told the Post, "Judith was always issuing threats of either going to The New York Times or to the secretary of defense. There was nothing veiled about that threat."
Later, she played a starring role in a ceremony in which MET Alpha's leader was promoted. Other officers were surprised to watch as Miller pinned a new rank on the uniform of Chief Warrant Officer Richard Gonzales. He thanked her for her "contributions" to the unit. In April 2003, MET Alpha traveled to the compound of Iraqi National Congress leader Ahmed Chalabi "at Judy's direction," where they interrogated and took custody of an Iraqi man who was on the Pentagon's wanted list-despite the fact that MET Alpha's only role was to search for WMDs. As one officer told the Post, "It's impossible to exaggerate the impact she had on the mission of this unit, and not for the better."
After a year of bogus scoops from Miller, the paper gave itself a bit of cover. Not corrections-just cover. On September 28, 2003, Times reporter Douglas Jehl surprisingly kicked the legs out from under Miller's sources. In his story headlined AGENCY BELITTLES INFORMATION GIVEN BY IRAQ DEFECTORS, Jehl revealed: An internal assessment by the Defense Intelligence Agency has concluded that most of the information provided by Iraqi defectors who were made available by the Iraqi National Congress was of little or no value, according to federal officials briefed on the arrangement. In addition, several Iraqi defectors introduced to American intelligence agents by the exile organization and its leader, Ahmed Chalabi, invented or exaggerated their credentials as people with direct knowledge of the Iraqi government and its suspected unconventional weapons program, the officials said.
The Iraqi National Congress had made some of these defectors available to...The New York Times, which reported their allegations about prisoners and the country's weapons program. Poof. Up in smoke went thousands of words of what can only be called rank propaganda.
This Times confession was too little, too late. After an unnecessary war, during a brutal occupation, and several thousand lives later, The Times obliquely acknowledged that it had been recycling disinformation. Miller's reports played an invaluable role in the administration's propaganda war. They gave public legitimacy to outright lies, providing what appeared to be independent confirmation of wild speculation and false accusations. "What Miller has done over time seriously violates several Times' policies under their code of conduct for news and editorial departments," wrote William E. Jackson in Editor & Publisher. "Jayson Blair was only a fluke deviation.... Miller strikes right at the core of the regular functioning news machine."
More than that, Miller's false reporting was key to justifying a war. And The Times' unabashed servitude to the administration's war agenda did not end with Iraq.
On September 16, 2003, The Times ran a story headlined SENIOR U.S. OFFICIAL TO LEVEL WEAPONS CHARGES AGAINST SYRIA. The stunningly uncritical article was virtually an excerpt of the testimony about to be given that day by outspoken hawk John R. Bolton, undersecretary of state for arms control. The article included this curious caveat: The testimony "was provided to The New York Times by individuals who feel that the accusations against Syria have received insufficient attention." The article certainly solved that problem.
The author? Judith Miller-preparing for the next battlefront.
Reproduced from:
www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/05/26/1610213``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xFatal Error: The Lies of Our Times``x1085799108,34096,Development``x``x
``xEbonics! Weird Names! $500 Shoes!
by Ta-Nehisi Coates
May 26 - June 1, 2004
I never got Fat Albert. Dumb Donald wore a lampshade for a hat, Russell dressed like a bag lady, and Bucky appeared to be the victim of a back-alley orthodontist. Bill Cosby's distorted, funny-looking kids couldn't shoot fire from their hands, and they wouldn't know a weather dominator from a flux capacitor. Instead, they were a dumb and dumpy bunch who conquered the travails of life (deodorant? candy overload?) with one simple weapon—Fat Albert's formidable moral center.
I thought about that moral center last week, when Cosby ventured down to Washington and ripped into the have-nots among us. The occasion was the 50th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Ed, and the Coz had been invited to Chocolate City by the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, the NAACP proper, and Howard University. The triumvirate had decided to honor Cosby for having "advanced the promise of Brown." Cosby decided to do some advancing of his own.
Full Article : villagevoice.com``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xShrill Bill Cosby and the speech that shocked black America``x1086139034,25589,Development``x``x
``xBy Fidelis Munyoro, www.herald.co.zw
THE High Court yesterday dismissed an application by MDC leader Mr Morgan Tsvangirai for the nullification of the 2002 presidential poll results.
Mr Tsvangirai had, in November last year, petitioned the High Court to nullify the election after the hearing of legal arguments without getting to factual arguments of the case.
Justice Ben Hlatshwayo dismissed the application with costs because none of the arguments brought to court by Mr Tsvangirai warranted the invalidation of the election results.
"I hereby . . . dismiss with costs the preliminary points raised by the petitioner (Tsvangirai) in that none of them on its own nor all of them collectively suffice at this stage to invalidate the election . . . dismiss with costs the relief sought by the petitioner as to the constitutional validity of section 158 of the Electoral Act (Chapter 2:01) and the Electoral Act (Modification) Notice 2002, Statutory Instrument 41D of 2002 and the declaration sought that all orders made and directions given and acts done in terms of the Electoral Act (Modification) Notice 2002, SI41D are void," ruled Justice Hlatshwayo.
He also threw out with costs the objection by the Electoral Supervisory Commission that it was improperly cited as a respondent in the case.
The ruling means a date to hear the main election petition should be set within 30 days.
Now that the legal and technical objections by Mr Tsvangirai to the conduct of the election have been dis-missed, the opposition leader would be confined to leading evidence as to the extent of the alleged violence that purportedly prevailed during the poll.
President Mugabe and the ESC were cited as respondents in the case.
Mr Tsvangirai, who was represented by a team of lawyers including Advocate Jeremy Gauntlet of South Africa - Advocate Adrian de Bourbon (now based in South Africa) and Advocate Happias Zhou with Mr Bryant Elliot as attorney - had argued that the ESC was improperly constituted.
He blamed the ESC for scuttling the electoral process and challenged the constitutionality of certain sections of the Electoral Act.
Based on that assertion, Mr Tsvangirai wanted the court to invalidate the election after hearing the legal arguments at the initial stage of the proceedings.
At the hearing of the case last year, Mr Terrence Hussein of Hussein and Ranchhod, who represented President Mugabe, described the MDC petition as the weakest he had ever seen.
He said the court would make a blunder if it decided to nullify the election.
Asked about his chances of winning the case following the preliminary ruling, Mr Hussein said he could not comment as the matter was sub judice.
After noting that the issue was still under judicial consideration and, therefore, prohibited from public discussion outside the courts, he was still confident of the final outcome, saying: "I believe that my client's presidency is secure."
Mr Tsvangirai's lawyer, Mr Elliot, said he was not in a position to comment at this stage and referred all questions to the MDC leader's spokesman, Mr William Bango, who could not be reached for comment.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xTsvangirai loses election petition``x1087090012,91251,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xwww.herald.co.zw
BRITAIN which - together with the United States - claims to be the champion of democracy, has been hit by allegations of ballot fraud and vote-stealing.
The two Western countries condemned Zimbabwe's 2002 Presidential election and imposed sanctions against the country yet their own elections are not perfect.
In the US, President George W. Bush's victory had to be confirmed by the Supreme Court made up mainly of judges who support his Republican Party.
Police in Britain are now investigating the claims, the latest in a series of problems to hit the controversial trial of postal voting in local, London and European elections.
All-postal ballots are being tested in the North East, North West, East Midlands and Yorkshire and Humberside.
An investigation by the Times newspaper suggested a large number of voters had been intimidated into handing over blank ballot papers or forced to support a certain party.
Greater Manchester police are looking into allegations of malpractice after numerous reports of fraud, and Lancashire police are preparing to question 60 people over suspicions about 170 proxy vote applications, while officers in Tameside are also making inquiries into postal vote fraud.
In one case, an employer reportedly told his staff he would sack them all if they refused to vote Labour, the party Mr Blair heads.
Police are understood to be investigating allegations that supporters of mainstream political parties collected ballot papers door-to-door and in some instances even filled in blank papers.
Other troubles have hit the elections.
At least one local authority has said it has had to reprint nearly 250 000 ballot papers.
Another was reported to be delivering ballot packs by hand after production delays.
And in Bolton, the council is having to set up two emergency polling stations after thousands of ballot papers went undelivered.
Furthermore, two men have now been arrested in connection with an incident in Oldham two weeks ago.
A 49-year-old man was detained yesterday on suspicion of conspiracy to defraud and theft of ballot papers.
The move came after a Liberal Democrat candidate was held last week after two men called at a house in Oldham and offered to look after the ballot papers for everyone at the address.
The family handed over five ballot papers.
Chief Inspector Stuart Harman of Oldham police said: "Over the last week we have received a number of allegations of election fraud, all of which are being thoroughly examined to establish if those involved have breached election protocol or broken the law.
"I hope that our response to these allegations will encourage any voters who do have any concerns to report irregularities to the police as we all work to ensure the integrity of the voting process."
A poll yesterday indicated one in seven voters in the all-postal ballot trial areas had not received ballot papers by last weekend.
However, Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott defended his decision to press ahead with all-postal ballots in four English regions amid opposition Conservative Party claims of "chaos" in the voting process.
The deputy prime minister, standing in for Premier Tony Blair, who is at the Group of Eight leading industrial nations summit, said Members of Parliament should "celebrate" the fact that one million additional votes had already been cast in areas trialling all-postal ballots.
He said the scheme may have increased turnout by as much as two million by the end of tomorrow - the so-called "Super Thursday" of local, London and European elections.
But the Conservative Party deputy leader, Mr Michael Ancram, accused Mr Prescott of "breathtaking complacency".
Citing reports of electoral fraud, late delivery of ballot papers and voters who have yet to receive their voting packs, he said the government should stop "playing fast and loose" with democracy and return to the ballot box.
- Herald Reporter-The Guardian. ``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xUK accused of ballot fraud, vote-stealing``x1087090437,85970,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xChaos Upon Chaos
By LUCSON PIERRE-CHARLES
The recent disastrous floods that killed more than 2,000 people, left some 1,800 missing and 10,000 more homeless have been a tragedy of enormous proportion and unless some drastic measures are taken, this disaster could be seen as a preview of the things to strike Haiti. Such a tragedy is the consequence of years of bad policies and mismanagement inherited by the current administration. The Prime Minister's reaction to the disaster demonstrated undoubtedly that his administration is reluctant to deal with one of the most important crisis facing this impoverished nation today. He blamed deforestation for what happened and promised, among other things, to create a forest protection unit made of former soldiers of the demobilized Haitian army. Blaming deforestation as the only cause is easy but the environmental degradation is much greater than that. It is a chain-linked dilemma and until Haitians pull up their forces together, the prospect will remain grim.
The situation on the ground is dreadful. The country is in desperate need but meaningful assistance fails to materialize. Following Aristide's ouster, the United Nations called for $35 million in emergency funds from foreign donors but so far has only managed to raise about $9 million. The country is descending into chaos and to have a better understanding of what lies ahead, one needs to look no further than to the latest travel warning for Haiti issued by the Bureau of consular affairs at the State Department.
According to that statement, the "situation in Haiti remains unpredictable and potentially dangerous despite the presence of foreign security forces." This warning followed a report issued in early May by the United Nations reaching a similar conclusion.
On June 1, the U.N. troops headed by Brazil, deployed to the island in order to replace the current contingent of American, French and Canadian soldiers. According to Augusto Heleno Ribeiro Pereira, the Brazilian general who will head the U.N. contingent, this mission will be Haiti's last chance to end decades of violence. The Prime Minister, Mr. Gérard Latortue, will certainly count on these troops to disarm all rebels and gangs. Knowing that the survival of his administration depends largely upon the presence of the foreign troops, he is appealing to the Americans – even 100 troops – to extend their mission but mindful that the last American soldier will leave at the end of June, he is shifting reliance upon the new U.N. troops by inviting them to stay until February 7, 2006 when the new President will take office. The job of this latest U.N. mission is manifold but disarmament of all factions will not be part of it. This latest transfer of command is nothing more than a window dressed opportunity designed to give this puppet administration some imaginary stability in order to run a farcical election where the winner will be drawn from the same party affiliation.
The whole mission's contingent will be around 8,000 troops but so far only Brazil has provided 1,400 troops, with Chile to send 600 and Argentina, 500. Following the return of President Jean-Bertrand Aristide in 1994, a contingent of 20,000 Marines failed to disarm the newly disbanded army. Hence, one must wonder where this small U.N. contingent will find the necessary means to carry out such a colossal task? In order to get a glimpse of how disarmament will take place, one needs to look at a recent incident where 8 ex-soldiers decided to parade in the capital with their heavy-loaded weapons. These so-called rebels were arrested by the American-led troops. But following protest by other ex-soldiers, they were released but refused to leave the facility without their weapons. After two days of intense negotiations, the administration and the police remarkably bowed to their request and granted them three of the weapons.
This interim administration boasts itself about being technocratic and bringing tangible change to the population. But, as it is becoming clear, these technocrats have not only embarked on a regressive trend, they have set the stage for a complete turnaround toward chaos. The security apparatus is in the verge of collapsing due to the proliferation of small arms, the mere presence of the heavily armed rebels and Aristide loyalists, the increasing gang activities, the rampant rise in kidnappings and the release of 3,000 prisoners by Guy Philippe and his squads following the ouster of Mr. Aristide. Some of the rebels will be integrated into the police force despite the fact that they killed a great number of policemen and burned down police headquarters in the lead up to the coup.
In most parts of the country, they appointed themselves as mayors, police chiefs and judges. Under Mr. Aristide's leadership, the police force was often criticized for being too heavily politicized. Under this technocratic administration, the police force will consist of convicted human rights abusers, murderers, rapists, thugs and death squads who have committed some of the worst atrocities during the first coup in 1991.
Military strategists and commanders often argue that victory – or success for that matter – is measured not only by the defeat of the enemy but most importantly by what is left behind. In 1994, 20,000 Marines were sent to return a democratically elected President to his office. They left behind a disbanded army but not disarmed, which will later be used to undermine the same democracy that the Marines went to uphold in the first place. Ten years later, the U.S.-led troops will leave behind these same ex-soldiers heavily armed once again but this time in control and set to prolong the reign of abuse and impunity. They even have plans to run the country and make laws – they recently established their own political party.
In such a context, providing security and stability – put forward as a pretext for military intervention – was never a priority for the American-led coalition. It was to get rid of a democratically elected President, establish a puppet administration – disregard the constitution for instance – and lay the groundwork for the upcoming capture of the presidency by the oligarchy. Such an intervention was to ultimately show the rest of the world that this endangered island is incapable of self-governance and to highlight such dismal legacy, disarmament must take a back seat. But if history is to repeat itself, the people will somehow find ways to overcome this challenge and portray a different story.
Lucson Pierre-Charles, a native of Haiti, now lives in Maryland. Reproduced from counterpunch.com with permission from the author.
More on Us/Haiti Coup:
www.africaspeaks.com/haiti2004/``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xHaiti After the Press Went Home``x1087939551,92621,Development``x``x
``xBy www.rootsie.com
We take the idea of sovereign nation states for granted. Nationalism is the religion of nationhood, and its 'uplifting' emotional rhetoric can lead us to assume that the 'sense of nation' is as integral a part of the human make-up as city-building and trade, and has been around forever and forever shall be… But consider: before World War I, there were only a handful of nations in Europe; after, there were over two dozen. The first 'nation' in Europe was England, and it likes to date its nationhood from the Glorious Revolution of 1686. France became a nation in 1789 with its own revolution, and the United States in 1791. The nation state is a very recent phenomenon, and a uniquely European construct. Its devlopment goes hand in hand with the rise of capitalism.The countries of Central and Eastern Europe were constituted a mere 40 or so years before the nations of Africa. And in case we didn't notice, Davidson reminds us that much of Europe, particularly the Balkans, is in many respects in as much of a mess as Africa. The difference lies in the magnitude of the pillage to which Africa was and still is subjected.
Full Article``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xThe Black Man's Burden``x1088923680,48398,Development``x``x
``xHerald Reporters
THE Administrative Court has confirmed the acquisition by the Government of seven farms in Hwange district to resettle landless people in the area.
In a judgment made available yesterday, Mutare-based Administrative Court president Mr Francis Bere granted an application by the Government to acquire Railway Farm, formerly owned by Mr John Arnold Farr, and six other farms previously owned by Matetsi Farming Company (Private) Limited.
The application had been brought to court by the then Minister of Lands, Agriculture and Rural Resettlement, Cde Joseph Made, in terms of section 7 of the Land Acquisition Act to determine whether the acquisition of the farms was necessary.
Matetsi Farming Company also owns 10 other farms in Masvingo.
The company had opposed the acquisition, arguing that the acquiring authority had not complied with the requirements laid down in the Act.
But in his ruling, Mr Bere said the important issue to consider was whether the acquisition of the farms was necessary.
"In my considered view, the answer must be in the affirmative. I am more than satisfied that the applicant (Cde Made) has, by and large on a balance of probabilities, established his case and accordingly judgment is granted in favour of the applicant," he said.
In terms of section 7 (4) of the Act, the Administrative Court can grant an order for land acquisition where the acquisition relates to rural land that the acquisition is necessary for utilisation; or any other land, for settlement, for agricultural or other purposes.
Mr Bere, in his judgment, accepted the evidence on the country’s land imbalances by the district administrator for Hwange Ms Sibongani Siwela.
Ms Siwela, who is also the chairperson of the district’s land identification committee, highlighted the disparity in land allocation between the black indigenous people and white commercial farmers in that area.
She told the court that there was extreme congestion in her district where 18 people occupied one hectare compared to roughly one person per hectare for white commercial farmers.
Ms Siwela also highlighted the Government’s commitment to fully supporting the land reform programme by putting in place financial and technical assistance for the farmers.
Government had also targeted the Matetsi farms for acquisition after the discovery of the additional 10 farms owned by the company in Masvingo.
In opposing the acquisition, Matetsi Farming had said the targeted farms were of bad soils contrary to the evidence of the acquiring authority that the land was suitable for farming and cattle ranching.
Although the company acknowledged that Ms Siwela’s evidence was reasonable and fair, it argued that she did not get full facts from the Department of Agricultural Technical and Extension Services (Arex) and the company’s objections to acquire the farms.
On Mr Farr’s farm, the court found there was no clear evidence led specifically to deal with it.
Mr Tatenda Mawere of Ziumbe and Mutambanengwe represented Cde Made, while lawyers Honey and Blanckenberg represented Mr Farr and Matetsi Farming Company.
In a related matter, at least 15 law officers have been identified to represent the State during the next six months in the Administrative Court as the Government steps up efforts to clear the backlog caused by land matters.
Acting Attorney General Mr Bharat Patel told The Herald yesterday that 11 of the lawyers have been taken from various Government departments who had been working as legal advisors while four are coming from the Civil Division, a department from his office.
"These lawyers will be representing the State in the Administrative Court and they will be dispatched to Harare, Bulawayo and Mutare to help clear the matters," said Mr Patel. "Four presidents of the Administrative Court will also be stationed in those cities, although two will be in Harare, to preside over the cases and it is hoped that significant progress will be achieved.
"We will be assessing the progress and should the need arise, appoint more law officers or presidents. We will be acting accordingly and again we will also be assessing if there is need to set up the Administrative Court in more centres," he said.
The Administrative Court is supposed to either confirm or decline the acquisition of a farm as provided for by the Land Acquisition Act.
Of note, Mr Patel said, is the amendment of the Administrative Court Rule with regard to the land cases where an amendment to enable the speeding of the cases has been effected.
"The land cases will now be heard not by way of trial, but by way of an application where a case will be determined after lawyers for both sides have prepared affidavits and heads of arguments instead of oral evidence being heard in court," he said. "The affidavits will form the basis of the court hearing and this is a new procedure. The Civil Division will have to reorganise itself to cater for these changes. The amendment will apply only to land cases and not other cases. So one only hopes that there will be significant progress in the disposal of all the cases."
The Acting Attorney General also admitted that although significant inroads might be achieved through the mechanisms put in place, another bottleneck was a pending case in the Supreme Court where a white commercial farmer has challenged the constitutionality of various and pertinent sections of the Land Acquisition Act.
The case, brought by George Quinell, has a bearing on some other cases as the Supreme Court has not delivered judgment. If delivered, the ruling might chart the way forward with regard to the agrarian reform.
The farmer has raised constitutional issues where he has argued in the Supreme Court that the sections which the State was relying upon in acquiring the farm were unconstitutional.
He had also argued that the ministers who had signed letters of intent to acquire the respective farms were not duly appointed as ministers because they had not been sworn in after President Mugabe was re-elected into office in March 2002.
"The Quinell case will obviously have a bearing on some cases, but that will not stop us from dealing with the cases as we are determined to see them through by December this year," Mr Patel said.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xAcquisition of farms confirmed``x1089784419,69322,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xby Ayinde
Updated: July 17, 2004
Why is the U.S./Europe suddenly concerned about the racist Arab drive to kill off dark-skinned Africans in Sudan? This should be the question at the forefront of the minds of thinking people. The UN and the U.S. (both partners in crime) are aware that the entire White World policies today were built on the foundation of racism. It is the same racism that allows the U.S. and UK to lie to the world and invade Iraq without the fear that they will be charged as war criminals. Who will charge the U.S. and UK criminals? Certainly not their other European counterparts.
Look how easily France, which 'opposed' the war on Iraq, was able to join the U.S., and supported (to put it mildly) the overthrow of the democratically elected president of Haiti, Jean-Bertrand Aristide. They did this just because he raised minimum wage, and was calling on France to pay reparations. They intend to keep Haiti as a sweatshop under the financial control of a few Whites. It matters not that they installed a Black puppet leader there. The first elected president of Haiti, Jean-Bertrand Aristide, was considered unfit by a group of thugs with support from the U.S. and France. They did not care how many ordinary poor Blacks in Haiti elected their president. These racist European misleaders felt it was their decision to make.
We Black Africans, even in the West, know quite well that they get away with these abuses because other people generally do not care about Black kinky-hair Africans. They were conditioned to feel that we are incapable of organizing ourselves and managing our own economic wellbeing. When Whites want to demonstrate their paternalism over Africans, they organize these massive media charities to show they are saving the suffering helpless Blacks -- the same Blacks that both Arabs and Whites exploit, and keep in a desperate situation so they can steal or cheaply acquire labour and resources.
This takes me to my main concern. It should be made clear that the U.S. and other Europeans interest in so-called peace in Sudan, and the sudden mainstream media coverage of the racist, murderous conduct of the 'Arabs' in Sudan, is not driven by their concern for the well-being of Black Africans. As usual, it is to get control of the resources, which in this case is the oil deposits in Darfur and southern Sudan. Once again Africans are being crucified between two murdering thieves, the U.S./Europeans and the Arabs.
"Khartoum's genocidal policy in Darfur and the south is also a grab for resources. The Arab north is arid and barren, but the south is arable with vast oil deposits Khartoum covets and badly needs. In the west, in Darfur, Arabs seeking to escape the spreading desert kill and displace Africans for more productive land." - Makau Mutua
The African Union has stated that they are organizing troops to send to Sudan. This is obviously a tough issue for them to navigate. America is already running the propaganda campaign in an attempt to get to the resources first. Claiming that the AU is doing nothing is to not understand that this is a longstanding issue that the West was never interested in until this present U.S. administration's extreme drive to control all oil supplying regions. The AU will now have to quickly organize funding and troops, while they are being pressured to serve the U.S. interest in and out of Africa. We simply can look at the U.S. conduct in fueling the overthrow of the democratically elected president Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, as another example of how they are operating.
It is important that the African Union does not allow the U.S. and UK to use the racism in Sudan as a pretext to gain Black votes and sympathies, to distract from their Invasion of Iraq, and also to get control of the resources in Sudan.
Here is an important point made by Obi Nwakanma:
"Many Africans have focused singularly on the effects of the European conquest and colonisation of Africa. And Africans have often forgotten that the history of Africa is the history of double penetration: one from the East, and the other from the West."
Obi Nwakanma further explains:
"The Arabs have come to dominate the Sudan, and have consigned the indigenous Negroid population to the lowliest status, treating them as slaves, from a tradition which began as the Arabs moved into this stretch of Africa, which was once the site of Nubia, the great African civilization. Sudan has been mired in civil conflict, with the Christians rallying behind the John Garang led Sudan Peoples Liberation Army, SPLA, fighting for control of the South from the Arabs of the North.
Generally, Sudan has remained in a flux for most of its modern era. It was conquered by Egypt in 1821, which unified the northern part until the rise of the Mahdi, Muhammadu Ibn Abdalla who led a campaign of colonial resistance against the Anglo-Egyptian alliance with his party of the Ansas. This group remains the basis of the Umma party in Sudan to date led by descendants of the Mahdi."
So why the sudden U.S./European concern?
It is important to remember that greed is the root of racism.
In case there are serious Africans reading these comments, please remember that in recognizing that European countries, including the U.S., owe Africans reparations, and not charity, the Arabs should also be called upon to pay reparations.
Also read:
DAFUR: the open sore of a continent
www.vanguardngr.com/articles/2002/columns/c311072004.html
African Troops In Darfur By End Of July: AU
www.islam-online.net/English/News/2004-07/09/article01.shtml
Racism at root of Sudan's Darfur crisis
www.csmonitor.com/2004/0714/p09s02-coop.html
History Of Colonialist Intrigue In Sudan Remains Unabated
www.jihadunspun.com/intheatre_internal.php?article=9537&list=/home.php
The Crisis in Sudan:
When Ethnic Cleansing Becomes Respectable
www.counterpunch.org/smith06202004.html``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xSudan's Darfur crisis and US/European concern``x1089835574,22117,Development``x``x
``xBy Tim Wise
I think I've figured out what it is I hate about those "racial dialogue" groups that seem to be springing up across the country nowadays.
No, it's not the standard radical critique that they tend to amount to all talk and little action: after all, our ability to act forcefully to eradicate racial inequity requires that we understand the issues at hand, and dialogue--even divorced from direct action at first--can be a helpful starting point for that kind of thing.
And no, it's not the fact that oftentimes such dialogues become watered down "diversity-fests," where participants are encouraged to more or less hold hands, sing kumbaya and feel each other's existential pain. After all, as problematic as that kind of dialogue can be, there is always the possibility that dedicated activists can push the discussion in a more thought-provoking and uncomfortable (but necessary) direction, if and when we participate in these dialogue groups; so even that isn't too big a deal.
Rather, I think the problem, for me at least--and it's one shared by a lot of people of color with whom I've discussed the subject--is something that is typically said at the outset of these dialogue sessions, even before people are introduced, and which sets a tone for the rest of the process; a tone that is antithetical to tackling the important subject matter at hand.
It's something that many readers will be instantly familiar with, provided they have participated in one of these things before: namely, it's the part where the dialogue facilitator says something to the effect of: "We want this to be a safe space, where everyone feels free to express their views without fear of being shouted down or ridiculed for their beliefs."
Although it isn't usually made explicit, this admonition about the importance of safety is almost always really about making white people feel safe. After all, people of color rarely feel safe discussing race amongst members of the dominant group, and it's pretty unlikely that a simple sentence calling for civility would change that.
Black and brown folks know that race is a touchy subject, and yet they engage in race dialogue (whether formal or informal) as a matter of survival: they have to do it, safe or not, because the alternative is to continue neglecting an issue that is far too important to their everyday lives.
The whites in these dialogue groups, on the other hand, are often tentative to a point that is almost farcical. Nervous, afraid of saying the wrong thing, and convinced that people of color will yell at them for a slip of the tongue, whites often remain in a shell when racial dialogues begin.
This is one of the reasons that facilitators often go out of their way to create "safety." They are hoping that whites will participate more honestly if only they can be guaranteed that black people won't attack them for their ignorance.
Such a concern is, of course, preposterous, coming as it does from members of the most powerful group on the planet. I mean really now, do we, as whites believe there is any group on Earth that is safer than we are? Do we honestly think that people of color are in a position to jump our asses in a controlled workshop setting? What do we think they're going to do? Knife us for God's sakes?
If you want to see this kind of white paranoia in action, sit in a room full of white folks watching the anti-bias documentary, The Color of Fear, and you'll see what I mean.
As they watch one scene in particular, where one of the black participants in a dialogue group goes off on one of the white participants (after putting up with copious amounts of conservative, "anyone can make it if they try" silliness on the part of the latter), whites recoil from the clearly agitated black man, Victor Lewis, as if they honestly expect him to jump out of the screen and strangle them where they sit.
The funny thing being that throughout the scene, the only person really at risk was Victor Lewis himself, who knew that his indignation would mark him as the "angry Negro" in the minds of most viewers.
And that's the point: even in these racial dialogue settings, whites are always the safest persons in the room. It is black and brown folks who run the risk of being seen as "too sensitive," "too emotional," or some such thing, while whites can almost always content ourselves with the belief that we are calm, level-headed and rational, no matter how absurd the things we say may be.
In other words, the white obsession with safety is the ultimate irony given the way that our racial position and privilege tends to shelter us from the harsh judgments regularly meted out against people of color. Yet we cling to it in ways that are both silly and more than a little unbecoming; indeed our search for safety, before we are even willing to discuss racism, let alone challenge it, is the ultimate expression of white privilege in many ways.
A few months ago, while attending the fifth annual White Privilege Conference, in Pella, Iowa (the perfect place for such a conference, and a wonderful event each year), this lesson was driven home with disturbing clarity.
On the final day of the conference, attendees were to be treated, depending upon one's perspective, to a luncheon keynote by Morris Dees, co-founder of (and still lead counsel for) the Southern Poverty Law Center, in Montgomery, Alabama.
The SPLC, as those at the conference knew, and as most readers will be aware, is the organization that has, for several years, engaged in pitched legal battles with assorted neo-Nazis and Klansmen, often succeeding in shutting down their operations altogether or otherwise financially crippling them. So far, so good.
And yet, for many at the conference, Dees's appearance seemed problematic.
On the one hand, there is the issue of whether or not such a person should speak at a conference on white privilege, since addressing that issue has almost nothing to do with his work or the work of his group. After all, fighting overt racists, while worthwhile, is not the same as confronting the institutional racism and structural forms of white supremacy that make a mockery of equity and justice every day, with or without burning crosses or skinheads in the picture.
Then of course there is the issue of the SPLC's own occasional duplicity: like how they send out fundraising letters to their mailing list, implying that their operations will suffer without continued financial support, even while they sit atop an endowment of over $100 million: more than enough to finance their operations forever, without another dime being raised from often cash-strapped families.
Then there's that business about "tolerance," which appears to be the Center's favorite word, as in their "teaching tolerance" materials for primary and secondary school teachers and classrooms. As many critics have noted, tolerance is a pretty weak formulation, seeing as how it means little more than putting up with someone else, allowing them to perhaps live another day, or refraining from burning down their house or church, but not much else.
But as real as these concerns were, and are, none of them were what nagged at many conference attendees this time out.
Instead, what concerned many of us was the rumor that had begun to circulate on the first day of the four day event, to the effect that Dees had required heavy security as a precondition of his appearance, including armed police officers. What's more, there would be searches of bags and backpacks coming into the venue.
Actually, I knew this was no mere rumor. Having spoken at fifty or more colleges where Dees has also made presentations, I have been told repeatedly that every time he speaks, bags are searched and he makes the same demand: No cops, no show, end of story. It is a requirement that appears as a rider of sorts in every lecture contract written for Dees, inserted either at his own insistence or that of the SPLC.
And while it is true that Dees (like many who fight racism) has had his life threatened, it is also true that people of color struggle against racism every day, having no expectation of security and feeling anything but entitled to bodyguards.
As such, many of us at the conference felt as though Dees should be confronted on his apparent sense of entitlement; his feeling that he somehow has a right to be safe as he does the work that others have to do as a matter of survival.
This challenge was not made necessary because Morris is uniquely flawed, or especially craven in his manifestations of white privilege. Indeed every white person who came to Pella for the conference had been able to take for granted that we would blend in, be accepted and welcomed, and ultimately safe, unlike people of color.
Rather, the challenge was necessary because it was, after all, a white privilege conference, and one of the principles of antiracism is to hold white allies accountable, especially when we inadvertently screw up, or fall back into old patterns that can reinforce racial hierarchy and power inequities.
Not to mention, there was something especially problematic about the fact that Dees would turn to the kinds of forces for security that often present the greatest threat to people of color: namely, cops with guns. Though most whites might feel comfortable with such folks around, it should be obvious that to people of color, the presence of police is a mixed bag, at best.
And so I asked the question.
Yet because he had been tipped off ahead of time to the question that was coming, Dees immediately became defensive upon my standing in front of the microphone, and refused to allow the proper setup for the query: the part where I was going to place his sense of entitlement within the orbit of what I and other white activists also take for granted.
Due to his pre-emption, and clear agitation, I was forced to cut to the chase. Unfortunately, this made the exchange seem more like a pissing contest between two white guys trying to "out-ally" each other, than a legitimate challenge to someone who is viewed by many as some kind of hero.
The point had been to challenge not Dees, but whites in the audience, to ask themselves what it meant that a white man doing this work would a) be able to demand protection and receive it; b) feel entitled to have that level of protection as a precondition for his doing the work, and c) think nothing of using forces which, to many people of color, are the problem, and not the solution to danger.
The point being, that this country is never safe for people of color. Its schools are not safe; its streets are not safe; its places of employment are not safe; its health care system is not safe. So why in the hell should white people feel that we have a right to something--in this case, safety--that people of color have never had?
And what does it say about us that we feel so obsessed about security that we honestly seem incapable of doing the work unless we are assured of our safety? Whether it's Morris Dees, or white folks in a workshop seeking safety to bare our souls, or cry, or some such shit.
How Dees answered the challenge, though not the point was instructive. It was as if he had never been asked the question before at all; which is frightening not for what it says about him but what it suggests about his audiences and the people with whom he has surrounded himself.
After all, how can one not see the contradictions inherent in a white man doing antiracism work being more protected than any persons of color doing the same?
Although other high profile civil rights folks, like Jesse Jackson or Julian Bond, might have occasional security around them, it is never as tight as that for Dees. Never are there eights armed officers, a personal bodyguard, and bag searches at the door. Even Louis Farrakhan surrounds himself with his own members from the Fruit of Islam, not hired guns and off-duty cops.
What white liberals must come to understand is that fighting for justice is never fully safe. Nor can it be made so; nor should safety be particularly sought.
At the same time, as whites, we are more protected in this work than any other persons on the planet. We are far less at risk, from police, from employers, from teachers, and even from crazies like the kind Dees fears, than people of color are. We should neither cower in fear that fighting racism will automatically place our lives in danger (which is another horrible message Dees's security squad implicitly sends), nor attempt to be especially protected in doing the work that needs to be done.
Checking ourselves, avoiding the replication of privilege when possible, and remaining accountable to the persons who are the targets of racism are key tenets of white antiracist ally behavior; and those of us involved in this struggle too often overlook them. Morris Dees is merely one high-profile example of the problem, though he is hardly alone.
So long as we respond defensively when challenged on this point, as long as we refuse to admit our mistakes, or to acknowledge that our actions mean more than our words, we will not deserve to be thought of as allies, we will not deserve to be keynote speakers at conferences on racism, and we most assuredly won't deserve to continue having money showered upon us and our organizations.
Tim Wise is an antiracist essayist, educator and father. He can be reached at timjwise@msn.com. His blog can be found at http://blog.zmag.org/wordwise. Hate mail, while neither appreciated nor desired, will be graded on the basis of form, content, grammar and originality.
www.zmag.org/bios/homepage.cfm?authorID=96``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xNo Such Place as Safe``x1090920240,29971,Development``x``x
``xby Manning Marable
August 13, 2004
In 1900, the great African-American scholar W.E.B. Du Bois, predicted that the "problem of the twentieth century" would be the "problem of the color line," the unequal relationship between the lighter vs. darker races of humankind. Although Du Bois was primarily focused on the racial contradiction of the United States, he was fully aware that the processes of what we call "racialization" today – the construction of racially unequal social hierarchies characterized by dominant and subordinate social relations between groups – was an international and global problem. Du Bois's color line included not just the racially segregated, Jim Crow South and the racial oppression of South Africa; but also included British, French, Belgian, and Portuguese colonial domination in Asia, the Middle East, Africa, Latin America, and the Caribbean among indigenous populations.
Building on Du Bois's insights, we can therefore say that the problem of the twenty-first century is the problem of global apartheid: the racialized division and stratification of resources, wealth, and power that separates Europe, North America, and Japan from the billions of mostly black, brown, indigenous, undocumented immigrant and poor people across the planet. The term apartheid, as most of you know, comes from the former white minority regime of South Africa. It is an Afrikaans word meaning "apartness" or "separation." Apartheid was based on the concept of "herrenvolk," a "master race," who was destined to rule non-Europeans. Under global apartheid today, the racist logic of herrenvolk, the master race, still exists, embedded in the patterns of unequal economic exchange that penalizes African, south Asian, Caribbean, and poor nations by predatory policies of structural adjustment and loan payments to multinational banks.
Inside the United States, the processes of global apartheid are best represented by what I call the New Racial Domain or the NRD. This New Racial Domain is different from other earlier forms of racial domination, such as slavery, Jim Crow segregation, and ghettoization, or strict residential segregation, in several critical respects. These earlier racial formations or domains were grounded or based primarily, if not exclusively, in the political economy of U.S. capitalism. Anti-racist or oppositional movements that blacks, other people of color and white anti-racists built were largely predicated upon the confines or realities of domestic markets and the policies of the U.S. nation-state. Meaningful social reforms such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 were debated almost entirely within the context of America's expanding, domestic economy, and a background of Keynesian, welfare state public policies.
The political economy of the "New Racial Domain," by contrast, is driven and largely determined by the forces of transnational capitalism, and the public policies of state neoliberalism. From the vantagepoint of the most oppressed U.S. populations, the New Racial Domain rests on an unholy trinity, or deadly triad, of structural barriers to a decent life. These oppressive structures are mass unemployment, mass incarceration, and mass disfranchisement. Each factor directly feeds and accelerates the others, creating an ever-widening circle of social disadvantage, poverty, and civil death, touching the lives of tens of millions of U.S. people.
The process begins at the point of production. For decades, U.S. corporations have been outsourcing millions of better-paying jobs outside the country. The class warfare against unions has led to a steep decline in the percentage of U.S. workers.
Within whole U.S. urban neighborhoods losing virtually their entire economic manufacturing and industrial employment, and with neoliberal social policies in place cutting job training programs, welfare, and public housing, millions of Americans now exist in conditions that exceed the devastation of the Great Depression of the 1930s. In 2004, in New York's Central Harlem community, 50 percent of all black male adults were currently unemployed. When one considers that this figure does not count those black males who are in the military, or inside prisons, its truly amazing and depressing.
This July, labor researchers at Harvard University found that one-quarter (25 percent) of the nation's entire population of black male adults were jobless for the entire year during 2002. What these nightmarish statistics mean, is that for most low- to middle-income African Americans, joblessness and underemployment (e.g., working part-time, or sporadically) is now the norm; having a real job with benefits is now the exception. Who belongs to unions, dropping from 30 percent in the 1960s down to barely 13 percent today. With the onset of global capitalism, the new jobs being generated for the most part lack the health benefits, pensions, and wages that manufacturing and industrial employment once offered.
Neoliberal social policies, adopted and implemented by Democrats and Republicans alike, have compounded the problem. After the 1996 welfare act, the social safety net was largely pulled apart. As the Bush administration took power in 2001, chronic joblessness spread to African-American workers, especially in the manufacturing sector. By early 2004, in cities such as New York, fully one-half of all black male adults were outside of the paid labor force. As of January 2004, the number of families on public assistance had fallen to 2 million, down from five million families on welfare in 1995. New regulations and restrictions intimidate thousands of poor people from requesting public assistance.
Mass unemployment inevitably feeds mass incarceration. About one-third of all prisoners were unemployed at the time of their arrests, and others averaged less than $20,000 annual incomes in the year prior to their incarceration. When the Attica prison insurrection occurred in upstate New York in 1971, there were only 12,500 prisoners in New York State's correctional facilities, and about 300,000 prisoners nationwide. By 2001, New York State held over 71,000 women and men in its prisons; nationally, 2.1 million were imprisoned. Today about five to six million Americans are arrested annually, and roughly one in five Americans possess a criminal record.
Mandatory-minimum sentencing laws adopted in the 1980s and 1990s in many states stripped judges of their discretionary powers in sentencing, imposing draconian terms on first-time and non-violent offenders. Parole has been made more restrictive as well, and in 1995 Pell grant subsidies supporting educational programs for prisoners were ended. For those fortunate enough to successfully navigate the criminal justice bureaucracy and emerge from incarceration, they discover that both the federal law and state governments explicitly prohibit the employment of convicted ex-felons in hundreds of vocations. The cycle of unemployment frequently starts again.
The greatest victims of these racialized processes of unequal justice, of course, are African-American and Latino young people. In April 2000, utilizing national and state data compiled by the FBI, the Justice Department and six leading foundations issued a comprehensive study that documented vast racial disparities at every level of the juvenile justice process. African Americans under age eighteen constitute 15 percent of their national age group, yet they currently represent 26 percent of all those who are arrested. After entering the criminal-justice system, white and black juveniles with the same records are treated in radically different ways. According to the Justice Department's study, among white youth offenders, 66 percent are referred to juvenile courts, while only 31 percent of the African-American youth are taken there. Blacks make up 44 percent of those detained in juvenile jails, 46 percent of all those tried in adult criminal courts, as well as 58 percent of all juveniles who are warehoused in prisons.
Mass incarceration, of course, breeds mass political disfranchisement. Nearly 5 million Americans cannot vote. In seven states, former prisoners convicted of a felony lose their voting rights for life. In the majority of states, individuals on parole and probation cannot vote. About 15 percent of all African-American males nationally are either permanently or currently disfranchised. In Mississippi, one-third of all black men are unable to vote for the remainder of their lives. In Florida, 818,000 residents cannot vote for life.
Even temporary disfranchisement fosters a disruption of civic engagement and involvement in public affairs. This can lead to "civil death," the destruction of the capacity for collective agency and resistance. This process of depolitization undermines even grassroots, non-electoral-oriented organizing. The deadly triangle of the New Racial Domain constantly and continuously grows unchecked.
Not too far in the distance lies the social consequence of these policies: an unequal, two-tiered, uncivil society, characterized by a governing hierarchy of middle- to upper-class "citizens" who own nearly all private property and financial assets, and a vast subaltern of quasi- or subcitizens encumbered beneath the cruel weight of permanent unemployment, discriminatory courts and sentencing procedures, dehumanized prisons, voting disfranchisement, residential segregation, and the elimination of most public services for the poor. The later group is virtually excluded from any influence in a national public policy. Institutions that once provided space for upward mobility and resistance for working people such as unions have been largely dismantled. Integral to all of this is racism, sometimes openly vicious and unambiguous, but much more frequently presented in race neutral, color-blind language. This is the NRD of globalization.
The anti-globalization struggle must confront this New Racial Domain with something more substantial than tired ruminations about "black and white, unite and fight." The seismic shifts have created new continents of social inequality, transcending nation-states and the traditional boundaries of race and ethnicity. What is necessary is an original and creative approach that breaks with comfortable dogmas of all types, while advancing openly a politics of civic advocacy and democratic empowerment for those most brutally oppressed and exploited. I am not suggesting here that the anti-globalization movement play a "vanguard" role for global social change. In the tradition of C.L.R. James, I am convinced that the oppressed, on their own terms, ultimately will create new approaches and organizations to fight for justice that we now can scarcely imagine. Rather, it is our political and moral obligation to provide the critical support necessary for social struggles and resistance that is already being waged on the ground today. Examples of that resistance are in every city and most communities across the country.
The New Racial Domain's reliance on extreme force and the continued expansion of the prison system reshapes how law enforcement is being carried out even in small- to medium-sized towns and cities all over America. The terrible dynamic unleashed against prisoners of social control has expanded into the normal apparatuses and uses of policing itself. There are now, for example, approximately 600,000 police officers and 1.5 million private security guards in the United States. Increasingly, however, black and poor communities are being "policed" by special paramilitary units, often called SWAT (Special Weapons and Tactics) teams. The U.S. has more than 30,000 such heavily armed, military trained police units. SWAT-team mobilizations, or "call outs," increased 400 percent between 1980 and 1995. These trends reveal the makings of what may constitute a "National Security State" — the exercising of state power without democratic controls, checks and balances, a state where policing is employed to carry out the disfranchisement of its own citizens.
The trend toward a National Security State has been pushed actively by the Bush regime, which is aggressively pressuring universities to suppress dissent and to curtail traditional academic freedoms. In early March 2004, the U.S. Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control stopped 70 American scientists and physicians from traveling to Cuba to attend an international symposium on "coma and death." Some of the scholars received warning letters from the Treasury Department, promising severe criminal or civil penalties if they violated the embargo against Cuba. In late 2003, the Treasury Department issued a warning to U.S. publishers that they would have to obtain "special licenses to edit papers" written by scholars and scientific researchers currently living in Cuba, Libya, Iran, or Sudan. All violators, even including the editors and officers of professional associations sponsoring scholarly journals, potentially may be subjected to fines up to $500,000 and prison sentences up to ten years. After widespread criticism, the Treasury Department was forced to moderate its policy.
In February 2004, U.S. army officials visited the University of Texas at Austin, demanding the names of "Middle Eastern-looking" individuals attending an academic conference on the treatment of women under traditional Islamic law. Subsequently it was learned that two U.S. army attorneys working with the army's Intelligence and Security Commission had actually attended the conference without identifying themselves.
How do we build resistance to the New Racial Domain, in the age of globalized capitialism? It should surprise no one that the resistance is already occurring, on the ground, in thousands of venues. In local neighborhoods, people fighting against police brutality, mandatory-minimum sentencing laws, and for prisoners' rights; in the fight for a living wage, to expand unionization and workers' rights; in the struggles of working women for day care for their children, health care, public transportation, and decent housing. These practical struggles of daily life are really the care of what constitutes day-to-day resistance. Building capacities of hope and resistance on the ground develops our ability to challenge the system in more fundamental, direct ways.
The recently successful "Immigrant Worker Freedom Ride," highlighting the plight of undocumented workers who enter the U.S., represents an excellent model that links the oppressive situation of new immigrants with the historic struggles of the Civil Rights Movement forty-five years ago to overthrow Jim Crow. Many sincere, white anti-globalization activists need to learn more about the historic Black Freedom Movement, and the successful models of resistance – from selective buying campaigns or economic boycotts, to rent strikes, to civil disobedience – which that movement established. You are not inventing models of social justice activism and resistance: others have come before you. The task is to learn from the strengths and weaknesses of those models, incorporating their anti-racist vision into the heart of what we do to resist global capitalism and the nation-security state.
The anti-globalization movement must be, first and foremost, a worldwide, pluralistic anti-racist movement, with its absolutely central goal of destroying global apartheid and the reactionary residue of white supremacy and ethnic chauvinism. But to build such a dynamic movement, the social composition of the anti-globalization forces must change, especially here in the United States. The anti-globalization forces are still overwhelmingly upper, middle-class, college-educated elites, who may politically sympathize with the plight of the poor and oppressed, but who do not share their lives or experiences. In the Third World, the anti-globalization movement has been more successful in achieving a broader, more balanced social class composition, with millions of workers getting actively involved.
There are, however, two broad ideological tendencies within this largely non-European, anti-globalization movement: a liberal, democratic, and populist tendency, and a radical, egalitarian tendency. Both tendencies were present throughout the 2001 Durban Conference Against Racism, and made their presence felt in the deliberations of the non-governmental organization panels and in the final conference report. They reflect two very different political strategies and tactical approaches in the global struggle against the institutional processes of racialization.
The liberal democratic tendency focuses on a discourse of rights, calling for greater civic participation, political enfranchisement, capacity building of community-based institutions, for the purposes of civic empowerment and multicultural diversity. The liberal democratic impulse seeks the reduction of societal conflict through the sponsoring of public conversations, reconciliation and multicultural civic dialogues. It seeks not a complete rejection of neoliberal economic globalization, but its constructive reform and engagement, with the goal of building democratic political cultures of human rights within market-based societies.
The radical egalitarian tendency of global anti-racists speaks a discourse about inequality and power. It seeks the abolition of poverty, the realization of universal housing, health care and educational guarantees across the non-Western world. It is less concerned about abstract rights, and more concerned about concrete results. It seeks not political assimilation in an old world order, but the construction of a new world from the bottom up. It has spoken a political language moreso in the tradition of national liberation than of the nation-state.
Both of these tendencies exist in the United States, as well as throughout the world, in varying degrees, now define the ideological spectrum within the global anti-apartheid struggle. Scholars and activists alike must contribute to the construction of a broad front bringing together both the multicultural liberal democratic and radical egalitarian currents representing globalization from below. New innovations in social protest movements will also require the development of new social theory and new ways of thinking about the relationship between structural racism and state power. Global apartheid is the great political and moral challenge of our time. It can be destroyed, but only through a collective, transnational struggle.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xGlobalization and Racialization``x1092680316,71842,Development``x``x
``xLondon - Zimbabwe's controversial President Robert Mugabe was voted the third-greatest African of all time, topped only by South Africa's Nelson Mandela and former Ghanaian president Kwame Nkrumah, in a survey for New African magazine announced Wednesday.
Mugabe, widely criticised outside Zimbabwe for stifling dissent and crippling the economy of his once prosperous southern African nation, was an "interesting" choice because "a high-profile campaign in the media has painted him in bad light", the New African wrote.
The London-based magazine said responses flooded in after the survey was launched last December to nominate the top 100 most influential Africans or people of African descent.
Heroes of independence movements in Africa and African-American figures in the United States figure prominently on the list.
Patrice Lumumba, Congo's first post-colonial prime minister, ranks sixth, followed by US civil rights leader Martin Luther King.
Pele, the legendary Brazilian soccer star, comes in 17th, followed by Jamaican reggae singer Bob Marley, numbering among those called "Diasporans" by New African.
Full Article : iol.co.za``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xMugabe voted history's third-greatest African``x1093455638,26007,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Basildon Peta
From The Independent, UK
August 25, 2004
THE United States has called for the building of a "coalition of the willing" to push for regime change to end the crisis in Zimbabwe.
The new American ambassador to South Africa, Jendayi Frazer, said quiet diplomacy pursued by South Africa and other African countries in its dealings with the Zimbabwe president needed a review because there was no evidence it was working. She said her country would be willing to be part of a coalition if invited.
The US could not act on its own, "put the boot on the ground" and give President Robert Mugabe 48 hours to go as requested by beleaguered Zimbaweans but the US would be willing to work in a coalition with other countries to return Zimbabwe to democracy.
Ms Frazer, in a meeting with journalists in Johannesburg yesterday, said: "There is clearly a crisis in Zimbabwe and everyone needs to state that fact. The economy is in a free fall. There is a continuing repressive environment. There needs to be a return to democracy."
She said the US believed that South Africa could play a positive role in returning Zimbabwe to democracy and that it had the means to do so. "It [South Africa] has the most leverage probably of any other country in the sub-region and should therefore take a leadership role," said Ms Frazer, a protege of President George Bush's national security adviser Condoleezza Rice.
Ms Frazer's expression of a more aggressive US line towards the Mugabe regime came the day before the British Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, arrives in South Africa for series of bilateral meetings with the Mbeki government during which he intends to raise the question of Zimbabwe.
The International Parliamentary Union (IPU) released a report yesterday accusing the regime of doing nothing to stop its violent youth militias from persecuting and torturing parliamentarians of the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC).
The report was released after the IPU's three-month mission to Zimbabwe. Mr Mugabe has approved new legislation that will ban foreign non-governmental organisations working in the human rights field in Zimbabwe and the banning of foreign funding to Zimbabwean NGOs. Churches have warned the proposed law would hinder their efforts to feed hungry Zimbabweans.
Ms Frazer said it was particularly important to have Zimbabwe returned to democracy because the New Partnership for Africa Development talked about Africa's responsibility for democratic governance across the continent. "The African Union (AU) and South Africa had already accepted the responsibility to promote democracy and they should do so specifically in the case of Zimbabwe," she said.
She noted that repression in Zimbabwe had worsened and was making it impossible for the opposition to operate ahead of elections next year.
"So we have got to re-look at the approach, that South Africa is taking in terms of quiet diplomacy ... It's not evident that it's working at this point
"We have always talked about building coalitions of the willing and I, for one, believe that the coalitions of the willing are going to be the new force in global affairs ..."
Instead of quiet diplomacy, Ms Frazer suggested an open admission by regional countries that there is a crisis in Zimbabwe. That was an important first step followed by pressure to force Mr Mugabe to return the country to democracy.
The anti-Western bashing that was carried out by SADC leaders at their summit in Mauritius last week would not help change President Mugabe, she said. The Tanzanian President, Benjamin Mkapa, had lashed out at the West saying it cannot lecture democracy to African countries which it oppressed through a policy of colonialism in the first place.
Reprinted for fair use only from:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/africa/story.jsp?story=554794``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xUS seeks 'coalition' to force Zim regime change``x1093456539,56076,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Raymond Whitaker and Paul Lashmar
From The Independent (UK)
August 29th, 2004
The days when white mercenaries could walk into small African countries and take them over appear to be gone. The coup plot against Equatorial Guinea, with its cast of old Etonians, adventurers and shady money men, failed because of its leaders' incompetence - and because of a new spirit of co-operation among Africans.
"Things have changed in Africa over the past few years," said a friend of Simon Mann, the old Etonian now awaiting sentence in Zimbabwe for attempting to buy arms illegally. "The days are gone when you could recruit a bunch of moustaches, load up some ammunition and take over a country - especially if you are a white man."
Mr Mann says the weapons were for a mine security operation in the Democratic Republic of Congo; the Zimbabweans and others say they were for a coup in the oil-rich state of Equatorial Guinea. But the truth of his friend's words are evident as the 51-year-old former SAS officer sits in Chikurubi prison near Harare, facing a heavy sentence at his next hearing on 10 September.
In Malabo, the capital of Equatorial Guinea, Nick du Toit, Mr Mann's associate, is on trial for his life. And under house arrest behind heavy iron gates in Constantia, one of Cape Town's smartest suburbs, Sir Mark Thatcher is contemplating his future.
The indulged son of Baroness Thatcher got out of several scrapes when his mother was Prime Minister, but there is nothing she can do to extricate him from his most serious trouble yet. The businessman, also 51, has been charged under South Africa's Foreign Military Assistance Act with involvement in financing the coup plot, and faces up to 15 years in jail if convicted. Although he is unlikely to be extradited to Equatorial Guinea - no extradition treaty exists between the two countries, and South Africa, like Britain, refuses to send suspects to states that retain the death penalty - legal officers from there may be allowed to question him in Cape Town.
According to legal statements by Mr Mann and Mr du Toit, a force of mercenaries recruited in South Africa were to fly to Zimbabwe, pick up arms and ammunition and fly on to Equatorial Guinea. In return for $1.8m (£1m) and lucrative contracts, they would help to depose President Teodoro Obiang Nguema and replace him with Severo Moto, an exiled opposition politician based in Madrid. If he was not killed in the operation, President Obiang was to have been flown to Spain.
But how could the politics of a small, sweaty African microstate have entangled such a varied cast of characters? These include not only Lady Thatcher's son but some of her closest former aides, such as Lord Archer, whose friend, the Lebanese-born, British-based oil trader Ely Calil, is named by Mr Mann as the chief sponsor of the coup. (Both Lord Archer and Mr Calil have denied any prior knowledge or involvement.) Add in ex-special forces operatives from Britain and South Africa, not to mention two African dictators - President Obiang and Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe - and the story begins to resemble a Frederick Forsyth thriller, a post-modernist Dogs of War in which the "natives" actually win.
And that, an Independent on Sunday investigation shows, is the point. Not only does the affair resurrect the era when white mercenaries attempted to overturn regimes across Africa, it brings back half-forgotten figures from the 1980s in Britain, when a class of deal-makers and influence-peddlers operated in the shadow of the seemingly unconquerable Iron Lady, seeking to turn her grip on the British electorate to profit.
When his mother took power Mark Thatcher was 26, with an undistinguished career at school and in business. There was little reason to expect that 25 years later he would be worth an estimated £60m, with mansions in Cape Town and Texas and a network of business contacts around the world.
Like others, Sir Mark (who inherited a baronetcy when his father, Sir Denis, died last year) did well out of his connection to one of the most internationally admired British Prime Ministers of recent times. But the questions and controversies arising from his use of the Thatcher name drove him first to the United States and then to South Africa. There he made friends with Simon Mann - who owns a luxury homestead in Hout Bay, another up-market Cape Town enclave - Nick du Toit and other former military men using their expertise to make money out of Africa's chronic instability.
Mr Mann appears to be the only person who really knows where all the pieces of this jigsaw fit, who was really behind the coup plot and who is on the mythical "wonga list" of investors. But the whole affair would never have acquired such international notoriety if it were not for the letter he smuggled out of prison.
"Please!" read the intercepted note to his advisers. "It is essential that we get properly organised." It urges them to make maximum efforts to contact "Smelly" - taken to refer to Mr Calil - and "Scratcher", a nickname for Sir Mark. It also names David Hart, presumed to be the same businessman who helped Lady Thatcher break the 1984-85 miners' strike. Mann writes: "What will get us out is MAJOR CLOUT ... once we get into a real trial scenario we are f****d."
On a page torn from a magazine, Mr Mann tells his team to chase up expected "project funds" from investors including "Scratcher" who has the figure "200" in brackets. This has been interpreted as meaning that Sir Mark had promised a sum of $200,000, but gives no indication that it was intended for any illegal activity, and indeed implies that no money was ever actually handed over.
Among the four people to whom the note was addressed are Nigel Morgan, like Mr Mann a former Guards officer, and James Kershaw, a 24-year-old who has worked for both men. Mr Kershaw, who is said to have handled money transfers for Mr Mann's company, Logo, is expected to testify against Sir Mark, according to the Scorpions, the elite anti-corruption unit that arrested him on Wednesday. His evidence may be crucial: despite voluminous paperwork connected with the coup attempt, there have been no reports of any document that carries Sir Mark's name.
But whatever their past friendship, "Scratcher" must be ruing the day he ever met Simon Mann. The former secret soldier is a throwback to the days of empire, a British public schoolboy adventurer prepared to interfere in the Byzantine politics of third world countries. "He is very English, a romantic, tremendously good company," said the film director Paul Greengrass. In his first and only role as a professional actor, Mr Mann played the part of Colonel Derek Wilford, commander of the paratroopers in Londonderry in Greengrass's gritty television reconstruction of Bloody Sunday.
After Eton and Sandhurst, the 19-year-old Mr Mann joined the Scots Guards in 1972, but his daredevil instincts soon drew him to the SAS. A troop commander in 22 SAS, specialising in intelligence and counter-terrorism, he served in Cyprus, Germany, Norway, Canada, central America and Northern Ireland before leaving the Army in 1985.
Although he began by selling supposedly hack-proof computer software, like many SAS veterans he also operated in the security business, reportedly providing bodyguards to wealthy Arabs to protect their Scottish estates from poachers. He remained part of 23 SAS, the Territorial Army section, and briefly returned to the colours on the staff of General Sir Peter de la Billiere during the first Gulf War in 1991.
Security consulting in the Gulf area followed, but his connection with Africa predominated. He was hired by Eben Barlow, a South African, to help run Executive Outcomes, the first of the many private military companies now operating around the globe. Both men rapidly became rich, most notably from a series of security deals in Angola, where Executive Outcomes not only protected oil and diamond fields, but trained Angolan troops and fought Unita rebels. The company also helped the Sierra Leone government fight off rebels in the mid-1990s.
All this gained Mr Mann not only a mansion in Cape Town but Inchmery, a 20-acre riverside estate in Hampshire that once belonged to the Rothschilds. Until recently it was rented out to Dame Marjorie Scardino, chief executive of the Pearson group, owners of the Financial Times. Mr Mann, now a dual citizen of Britain and South Africa, bought the estate through a company registered in the offshore tax haven of Guernsey.
But why should a man past 50, who had earned enough to live in style without ever working again, have become involved in such a hair-raising caper as the Equatorial Guinea plot appears to have been? According to his friends, it was the drug of adventure. One said he had been warned by the British as well as the South African authorities that he should "hang up his boots", but the ex-SAS man seems to have ignored the advice.
What is perhaps most surprising about the attempted coup is its incompetence. A planeload of obvious mercenaries leaves South Africa, no longer a country which encourages such activity, then lands in Zimbabwe. If the receiving officials were supposed to have been bribed, it had not been done effectively, but in any case the Zimbabweans appeared to have been warned in advance. It took little time after that to arrest the alleged advance guard in Equatorial Guinea, where Mr du Toit is on trial with seven other South Africans, six Armenians and four local citizens. But the greatest folly was the lack of security. Mr Mann's 66 fellow defendants in Zimbabwe, including the 64 men who were travelling on South African passports when their plane was seized, were acquitted on the arms charge, with the magistrate accepting their plea that they did not know where they were going. It would seem, however, that half of South Africa did. Rumours of the impending coup attempt were circulating in Cape Town, Johannesburg and London well in advance.
The paper trail linked to the plot was so extensive that some observers at first believed that they had been faked to make a case. But Mr Mann, it seems, wanted contracts signed for every part of this dubious scheme. Mr du Toit was even required to sign a company-to-company contract to perform his part of the coup. Why the former SAS officer might have wanted such a document is a mystery: it could hardly have been produced in court in the event of a dispute.
That the plot fell apart so damagingly is hardly surprising, given how wide knowledge of it went in Britain as well as South Africa. "What Simon Mann appears not to have realised is that there is much greater co-ordination among African countries, including intelligence co-operation, to put a stop to coups," said one source. "Nigeria, the regional power, stepped in recently to reverse a coup in Sao Tomé, and was ready to do the same in Equatorial Guinea. The fact that the operation was penetrated by South African intelligence prevented a lot of bloodshed."
Britain, as well as South Africa, has changed, but Mr Mann and his friends seemed equally oblivious to that. Gone are the days when operators such as Sir James Goldsmith and John Aspinall, both now dead, sought to convince a Conservative government that Britain's interests as well as their own would be served by backing such Africans as Angola's Jonas Savimbi, also deceased, and South Africa's Mangosuthu Buthelezi.
The two African leaders were promoted as the Christian, anti-Communist alternative to the likes of Nelson Mandela, whom Lady Thatcher once described as a terrorist. But the Conservatives are no longer in power, and Mr Mandela has been welcomed here on a state visit as president of a free, democratic South Africa - facts which appear to have been overlooked by the heedless coup plotters.
The hapless Nick du Toit, a former South African special officer and member of Executive Outcomes, stands to come off worst. He confessed to his role within a day of arrest in Malabo, and has continued to help identify other plotters since. Despite President Obiang's claim that he is not seeking the death penalty, the prosecutor in the Malabo court has called for the execution of those found guilty. The verdicts are expected by the end of this week.
Unless Zimbabwe goes back on its decision not to extradite him to Equatorial Guinea, Mr Mann will fare better, even if he receives the maximum sentence of 10 years. He could well be extradited back to South Africa to face further charges, but some believe that with his rich and influential friends, he could receive a discreet pardon in a year or two, once the dust has settled. He could even be in line for a healthy cheque from Hollywood.
As for Mark Thatcher, he is fighting back. His circle is claiming that much disinformation has been spread to implicate him and distract attention from the real culprits. But his past is troubled, and the proceedings against him are likely to be protracted and messy. Clearing his name could require every ounce of his much-touted influence.
The making of Mark
Sir Mark Thatcher never seemed to have anything going for him but his name and his mother's uncritical love.
He is famously charmless and not noted for his academic prowess. He left Harrow School with three O-levels, and left his first job, at the City firm Touche Ross, after failing his accountancy exams three times. But when it comes to exploiting the opportunities afforded by the Thatcher surname, he has graduated cum laude.
Mark and his twin sister, Carol, with whom relations are frosty, were 26 when Margaret Thatcher became Prime Minister in 1979. Various failed ventures lay behind him, including an attempt to break into motor racing, but it was not until he went missing on a rally in the Sahara in 1982, causing his mother much public anguish, that his activities came to public attention.
Two years later, it was reported that he had gained a commission on a £300m deal won by the Cementation construction company after Lady Thatcher had recommended it to the Sultan of Oman. It was a factor in his departure for the US, and he has not lived in Britain since.
In Dallas, Mark met his wife Diane, from a super-rich Texas family, but controversy continued to dog him. He was accused of exploiting his mother's name to gain a £12m commission on the giant al-Yamamah arms deal with Saudi Arabia, and hit legal troubles in the US, including a charge, later dropped, of alleged underpayment of taxes.
In 1995, Sir Mark moved to Cape Town with his family, although Diane and the two children are reported to spend lengthy periods in Texas, where they are now to attend school. Apart from a money-lending scheme to local policemen which collapsed amid rancour, his business activities in South Africa have attracted little attention - until now. But he will always have the Thatcher name, with its lustre enhanced on the death of his father last year by an inherited title. Once again, the family has helped.
© 2004 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd
Reprinted for fair use only from:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/africa/story.jsp?story=556261``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xHow new Africa made fools of the white mischief-makers``x1093767446,50016,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xThe Herald (Harare)
DOCUMENT
September 24, 2004
Address by President Mugabe on the occasion of the 59th Session of the United Nations General Assembly, New York, on Wednesday.
MR PRESIDENT, I am delighted to congratulate you (Mr Jean Ping), a distinguished son of Africa, upon your election as President of the 59th Session of the General Assembly. Indeed, at a time when the community of nations has committed itself to paying due attention to issues that relate to development in Africa, through support for Nepad and other mechanisms, your Presidency gives us the hope and confidence that our concerns and aspirations and those of others will remain high on the agenda of this august body.
Let me also express our sincere appreciation to your predecessor, Mr Julian Hunte, for the efficient and exemplary manner in which he conducted the business of the 58th Session.
Mr President, at the 58th Session, alongside others, I spoke about the need to reform the United Nations and its related bodies so as to make them more democratic. I stressed the perils inherent in the status quo, particularly, with regard to the dominance of global politics by one superpower and its closest allies.
While we welcome the current debate on enhancing the authority and role of the United Nations, we wish to stress the need to address the core issue of democratisation of international governance. Debate on the reform of the Security Council has been too long-drawn because of attempts calculated to protect those whose interests are best served by the status quo.
Ironically, it is some of the same forces that, since last year, have been raining bombs and hellfire on innocent Iraqis purportedly in the name of democracy.
Iraq today has become a vast inferno created by blatant and completely illegal and defiant acts of aggression by the United States, Britain and their allies, in the full trail of which the world has witnessed mass destruction of both human lives and property, and with them our human rights, values, morality and the norms of international law as enshrined in our Charter.
We are now being coerced to accept and believe that a new political-cum-religious doctrine has arisen, namely that "There is but one political god, George W. Bush, and Tony Blair is his prophet". Mr President, the UN Charter remains the only most sacred document and proponent of the relations of our nations. Anything else is political heresy!
Mr President, we note that the Secretary-General has placed before the General Assembly, the Report of the Panel of Eminent Persons of the United Nations Civil Society Relations. While civil society makes a significant contribution to the work of the United Nations, we hope any arrangements that will eventually be agreed upon will recognise that the United Nations remains an inter-state and inter-governmental body. It is also our expectation that the conclusions of the debate will recognise the different levels of development of civil society in different parts of the world.
Mr President, as we prepare for the mid-term review of the implementation of the Millennium Declaration in September 2005, it is apparent that many developing countries, including my own country, Zimbabwe, may be unable to meet goals and targets set, as our sub-region of Southern Africa has over recent years experienced extended and successive periods of inclement weather, principally droughts, that wreaked havoc upon our economies and, accordingly, diminished our capacity to achieve the Millennium Declaration targets.
The situation, particularly with regards to the health and education sectors, has also been worsened by the brain drain and the devastating effects of the HIV and Aids pandemic.
Mr President, in this regard, Zimbabwe welcomes the continuing efforts by this community of nations to find solutions to the scourge of HIV and Aids that has ravaged our people and economies. At the national level, we have taken measures, within our limited means, to combat the pandemic. We are also co-ordinating our efforts at the Southern African Development Community (Sadc) level.
Regrettably, we continue to see the unfortunate and futile tendency to use assistance in this area as reward for political compliance and malleability, making it unavailable to countries whose governments are deemed "inconvenient". Let it be realised that the pandemic does not respect boundaries, and these self-serving, selective approaches will have little or no meaningful results.
Zimbabwe has also had to withstand unprovoked, declared and undeclared sanctions, imposed by Britain and its allies who are bent on bringing down our legitimately elected Government.
Mr Tony Blair, the British Prime Minister, has arrogantly and unashamedly announced in his Parliament that his government was working with Zimbabwe's opposition party to bring about regime change. Once again, the lawless nature of this man who, along his Washington master, believes he is God-ordained to rule our world, has shown itself.
Regime change is an inalienable right of our Zimbabwean people who, through their sovereign vote, can make and unmake our governments. In any case, we reject completely the pretended assertions of democracy by our former colonial masters, whose undemocratic regimes we taught the lesson of one man or one woman one vote through our armed liberation struggles.
Here in the United States, as we look at the situation from Africa, we remain aware of the plight of the Black, that is Afro-American of both yesterday and today and of the semi-slave and half-citizen status that has been his burden. Have the Black in the USA got equal political, social and economic rights and status as their white counterparts? When shall we ever have a Black, Afro-American President of the United States? Never, ever, why?
I wish to take this opportunity to express the appreciation of my Government and that of the people of Zimbabwe for the humanitarian assistance we received from the international community during our period of need. Without such support, we would not have been able to avert a major catastrophe.
I am pleased to inform you Mr President that we have, in spite of the sanctions and evil wishes of Britain and its allies, now emerged from that difficult phase.
We had a relatively good agricultural season this year and our Land Reform Programme has begun to make a significant contribution towards the turnaround of our economy.
Despite the partial drought at the beginning of the season, we have managed this year to realise a good harvest, certainly, one good enough to ensure that we meet our food requirements until the next season.
We plead with the IMF to stop its strange political mouthings, lies and fabrications about our situation. Our own regional organisations know the truth about Zimbabwe and can the IMF listen to them, please and be for once clean.
Mr President, my Government is determined to eliminate corruption and its corrosive effects on national development efforts. After signing the International Convention against Corruption in November last year, we have put in place legal and administrative measures that have already arrested a growing and deliberate tendency to circumvent normal business practices, particularly in the financial services sector.
Our efforts have, however, experienced some setbacks as some countries, particularly in the developed West, provide safe havens for fugitive economic saboteurs from our country.
Mr President, in March next year, Zimbabwe will be holding its sixth democratic parliamentary elections since Independence in 1980. These elections, like others before them, will be conducted in accordance with our national laws, and the Sadc Principles and Guidelines Governing Democratic Elections recently adopted by our sub-region.
We do not need any lessons from the Netherlands and its imperial allies in the European Union. Zimbabwe will, indeed, welcome to these elections those observers whose sole and undivided purpose will be to observe the process and not to meddle in the politics of the country.
Mr President, the fight against international terrorism has exposed the duplicity and insincerity of erstwhile leading democracies and human rights monitors with regard to the question of the observance of human rights. We have seen established international conventions being thrown to the dogs, and resolutions of the General Assembly and other UN bodies on this issue come to naught.
We are seriously concerned that the United Nations, the pre-eminent instrument for the maintenance of international peace and security, watched helplessly while Iraq was being unlawfully attacked and plundered by the US and UK-led so-called coalition of the willing. Such belligerent gun-slinging diplomacy and illegitimate territorial occupation of the State of Iraq are blemishes on the fair play image of the UN.
While the sadistic scenes from Abu Ghraib remain vivid in our minds, other places in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay have provided useful samples of the Western concept of respect for human rights. Let me say once again that the West should spare us their lessons on human rights. They do not have the moral authority to speak about anyway, let alone, parade themselves, as torchbearers of human rights.
Mr President, Zimbabwe remains deeply concerned about the situation in the Middle East. We continue to be revulsed by a situation where the collective decisions and authority of the United Nations are disregarded with impunity on account of big brother support.
We demand an immediate lifting of all restrictions illegally imposed on the Palestinian people, which have seen President Yasser Arafat remain a virtual prisoner of foreign occupation.
We welcome the recent opinion given by the International Court of Justice that found the construction of the Israeli wall to be in contravention of international law, and the subsequent General Assembly Resolution that demanded the immediate halt to that monstrosity.
Mr President, as you are aware, the African Union earlier this year established its own Peace and Security Council to seek and promote African solutions to African problems.
Already, the Council is seized with the matter of the crisis in western Sudan. These efforts need the support of the international community.
Let me conclude, Mr President, by assuring you of my country's support during the period you will preside over the work of this Session of the General Assembly.
I also wish to reiterate my country's commitment to positively contribute to the fulfilment of the aims and purpose of the United Nations.
I thank you.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xAddress by President Mugabe to the U.N.``x1096081129,89510,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xCharles Boylan of Vancouver Co-op Radio interviews Kevin Pina
by Kevin Pina and Charles Boylan; September 21, 2004
Charles Boylan: I saw an e-mail yesterday and it said that the Haitian Army is re-establishing itself. I want you to tell us what you know about these facts, and to tell us a little bit about what this army is and its history.
Pina: Well it's the Forces, d'army Haiti Fad'h, which was the army created by the US back during the first occupation of Haiti, which lasted nineteen years, from 1915 to 1934. The army, traditionally, was a tool of the ruling class of Haiti. It could be bought; it was responsible for more than thirty-three coup d'etats in Haiti's history. During the 1990's, after the coup d'etat against the first government of President Aristide, the army became very deeply involved in drug trafficking. Certainly it's an army that has never had to be used to defend Haiti's sovereignty against any outside force. It's traditionally been a tool of repression for Haitians inside Haiti.
As far as its resurgence [goes], what we know is that members of the former military, as well as members of the former CIA trained paramilitary death squad FRAPH, as well as officers such as Guy Philippe [formerly] of the Haitian police, were given safe harbour by certain segments of the Dominican government and certain segments of the Dominican military. After the year 2000 we know that they began several series' of incursions into Haiti, which led to the assassination of several members of Aristide's Lavalas Party . They would make armed incursions into Haiti and they would then return to their "safe haven" in the Dominican Republic. There have been charges that there's no way that this could have been done without U.S. complicity and the U.S. knowing exactly what was going on.
Certainly, I was reporting about [this]…about two, two and a half years ago. So, certainly if I had that information, it had to be available to the United States government, certainly the U.S. embassy in the Dominican Republic. And, the former military along with these other forces I described, used Dominican territory to launch an attack into Haiti; a larger attack into Haiti in early February [2004], which led to the coup d'etat of the constitutionally elected President, Jean Bertrand Aristide, who was forced out of the country on February 29th of this year.
Boylan: Now, the United Nations forces are there. They're there under [the auspices of] some sort of U.N. Resolution I assume. What is their role in all of this?
Pina: Well, it's been very sketchy. The government claims today that they've re-taken the town of St. Marc. The former military has been regrouping and has been calling for its reinstitution, its recognition and reinstitution to its former role, which is basically, de facto rulers of Haiti, as I said, open to bidding to highest bidder within the traditional ruling bourgeoisie of Haiti. They've taken over much a large segment, a swath of the Northern country, which includes the town of Hinche, the Plateau Central including an area called Morn Kabrit, and the town of St. Marc. The UN and the PNH had announced that they had re-taken St. Marc yesterday, however we have not confirmed that.
What's interesting to note is that the UN 'says' that it is assisting the Haitian police force, and [on] August the 14th, the Lavalas organization, which was Aristide's political party - which has of course has seen tremendous repression since the President's forced ouster on February 29th - on August the 14th, Lavalas held demonstrations in the second-largest city, Cap-Haitien, and in the capital, Port au Prince. In both those demonstrations, the UN and Haitian police had demonstrators tuck their t-shirts into their pants, so they could be sure there were no guns at the demonstration. The very next day, on August 15th, the same UN and Haitian police allowed 150 Haitian military to march openly in the capital of Port au Prince, brandishing M-16s, M-14s, a few M-60s, and they were not challenged at all. So, if indeed the UN are beginning to challenge the former military, it's a brand new phenomenon.
Many people who are in Lavalas who, as I said, have been victims of this campaign of repression since Aristide's forced ouster of February 29th, really see themselves as now being caught in a pincer movement between two forces. One is the Haitian National Police - backed up by the United Nations forces - and on the other side is the former military who are trying to come back into power. Now, it's really interesting to note that the United States has worked with the current so-called "interim government"; Lavalas refers to it as 'de facto' government, the U.S. installed government of Gerard Latortue, to now talk about integrating a 1000 of these former military soldiers into the Haitian National Police. Well, they'd already started this process beginning back in March; it really doesn't make sense for them to that they say they're not going to allow the former military to be restored to its former role while at the same time they're virtually transforming the Haitian National Police into an entity that contains a large percentage of those same former military.
Boylan: When you speak this way about this pincer movement my mind flashes back to the tragedy of Lumumba in the Congo 'way back in 1960's,' you had the same sort of intervention by the U.N. on the one side and you had the Chambe [Mobutu's] reactionaries on the other. It's hard to make these parallels of course but it seems to me you have the U.N. sort of playing a duplicitous role here. The original invasion of course was by the United States, Canada, and France. Have all of their forces left the island now?
Pina: I still see smatterings of Canadian troops; there are some French forces here that are laying low; there is still a small contingent of U.S. Marines. But mostly it's the Brazilians, the Chileans and the Argentineans, who are taking the lead. Certainly, I believe that the role of the French and the U.S., and the Canadian is at this point a leadership role within the command structure of the U.N. forces. It's also interesting to note that there's a new level, a new wave of repression that began this last Sunday. Now remember that the U.N. forces claims that they are assisting the Haitian police. This includes even if the Haitian National Police are performing an action at the behest of the Latortue government, which may be based upon a lie, as in the case of So Anne, who is a popular folk singer, who's home was violently invaded by U.S. Marines on May 10th and she herself was arrested by the U.S. Marines, based upon an accusation of the Latortue government, that she was planning to attack U.S. forces.
So, the UN will back up the Haitian police even if the Haitian police from the Latortue government are performing an action that is based upon false information, false information that they know is false. This last Sunday, the Haitian National Police began to indiscriminately round up all adult males in several popular neighbourhoods where Lavalas support is known to be great. On Sunday they arrested more than sixty males in a neighbourhood just North of the capital, and yesterday they arrested another thirty in a neighbourhood called St. Martin. Sunday, the police would come in, and they would create this net around the neighbourhood and then they would indiscriminately round up all adult males who were caught in the net without any cause or justification. Always lingering in the background are large APV vehicles with heavily armed United Nations troops. I guess they are [there] to ensure that no one will resist the Haitian police while they are performing this broad procedure of indiscriminate detainment and arrest in popular neighbourhoods where Lavalas support is known to be greatest.
Boylan: Can you go into a little more detail about the current level of political prisoners in Haiti's penitentiaries, and also put into context this issue acquittal of known murderer Louis Jodel Chamblain, who is one of the "rebels" we read about in early February?
Pina: The Inter-American Human Rights Commission was just in Haiti; they represent the OAS, and of course Amnesty has had several of its researchers on the ground, on and off, as well as Human Rights Watch. Pretty much everyone is in agreement that besides the 'high-profile' Lavalas political prisoners, such as Prime Minister Yvon Neptune, and interior minister Jocelyn Privert, and, as I said earlier, So Anne – Annette - Auguste, this famous Haitian folk singer, there are a lot of lesser known people affiliated with the Lavalas party who are currently filling the jails, not only just in the capital of Port au Prince, but also in places like Cap Haitien. I still receive daily calls from people who ask me - because I'm known as a journalist on the ground - if I can put them in touch with human rights organizations; some of them have been wasting in jail since early March without any trial.
The Haitian Constitution says that people should be brought before a judge and charges should be brought before them after forty-eight hours, but there are people who have been in jail for months and months without any charges never seeing a magistrate or a judge. The jails right now are said to be chalk full of people who are affiliated with Lavalas, who consider themselves to be political prisoners. It is interesting that Jodel Chamblain, who was the second in command of the FRAPH [the Front for Advancement and Progress in Haiti], which was the CIA-trained paramilitary death squad responsible for thousand and thousands of deaths following the 1991 coup against Jean Bertrand Aristide, and who was seen by eyewitnesses to be the trigger man who assassinated a leading businessman and Aristide supporter Antoine Izmery on September 11th, 1993…
The trial was obviously a sham, human rights organizations have rightfully condemned it; it's interesting to note that while Jodel Chamblian was given his 'day in court' as was Jackson Joanis who was the former head of anti-gang, who was also implicated in the murder of Antoine Izmery. Annette Auguste, Prime Minister Neptune and Interior Minister Jocelyn Privert, have had just these cursory visits to the court, and then nothing has been done, they've just been left without word of when their next hearing will be, whereas with someone like Jodel Chamblain is given an immediate trial where eight witnesses are called, seven of the witnesses are frightened out of their minds and will not come to the hearing. Only one shows up and he says nothing about the incident, and the jury deliberates in the middle of the night in secret for fourteen hours and the man is acquitted of this horrendous crime; clearly there is an inequity, there is not an equal application of Haitian law and the Haitian Constitution. But again I think that's to be expected when you have a government that is more beholden to Washington, and to Ottawa, and to Paris, then it is to its own people, and its own constituency. Remember, this government that's in power now has never withstood the test of democratic elections; it's in power by virtue of the role that those three nations played in overseeing the forced ouster, if you will, of the Constitutionally elected President Jean Bertrand Aristide on February 29th of this year.
Boylan: Well, this puts the question on the whole constitutionality of the validity of the invasion in the beginning, and I'd like you to speak, if you will, to a Canadian audience, of what you know about Canada in this whole affair.
Pina: It is clear that Canada played a very pivotal role in terms of backing and going along with U.S. foreign policy. Certainly the Canadian government, I would say in, a lot of ways, lacked backbone, at best, and, at worst, were openly complicit with this ouster of Constitutionally, democratically-elected president [Aristide]. But to go to the particulars of what happened on February 29th, you've got to remember that Canada has towed the line of the U.S. government that there these armed rebels threatening the capital. Well, this is just complete nonsense. It was very clear how this theatre went down.
Foreign embassy after foreign embassy, beginning with the Italian embassy, who were then followed second by the Canadian embassy and other European embassies demanded that all their citizens flee Haiti and that hit the headlines big: "Foreign Nationals Flee Haiti" And the n finally the United States demanded that its citizens flee Haiti and that hit the headlines big: "U.S. Citizens Flee Haiti." You know, President Aristide and Lavalas had been condemning these armed incursions I had spoke about earlier, by the former military, by the former paramilitary death squad, FRAPH, from the Dominican Republic into Haiti, in which they were killing Lavalas officials and then returning to the Dominican Republic. They'd been condemning this for years, and their condemnations had been falling upon deaf ears in the [corporate] press.
Suddenly, Guy Philippe and these guys show up in the country, and all of these [corporate news] editors fall over themselves to find budgets, including sending your dear Paul Knox from the Globe and Mail out here. Suddenly they've got these budgets, per diems, and transportation expenses to send these reporters out to fall all over themselves to cover this 'huge story' of the rebels. When, as I said, Lavalas had been condemning and talking about these people being in the Dominican Republic for years, and it was falling upon deaf ears and the press never had any attention span for it or interest in it, whatsoever. Suddenly, they discover them 'by miracle' and its this huge headline, and as I said this is compounded by this theatre of foreign embassies demanding that their nationals leave, ultimately leading to the U.S. embassy demanding its nationals leave.
The very next day 50 armed U.S. Marines arrive into Haiti, into the capital, flown in a big flurry on a big transport plane, purportedly to check on the security preparations at the U.S. embassy, and then the next bead in this story, this theatre if you will, is that, suddenly, the Toussaint L'Ouverture airport is closed to all airport traffic. Now, you've got to remember that not a single foreign national in this entire time ever had a scratch or a hair touched on his head. Nor was there ever a single shot fired at the airport, and that's what leads myself and many others who were here, who experienced this, to believe that this was just a superb theatrical performance that was being led by France, Canada, and the United States to give the perception of these "dire" circumstances, to give the perception of this 'embattled dictator' Aristide, who had to 'cling to power' by virtue of these violent forces, his 'minions' of his party of Lavalas.
And, by the way, they [Aristide's supporters] were in the streets, and they were trying to protect the capital, and that's why I say that this threat that the U.S. government said forced Aristide out of office, that the rebels were going to enter the capital, was a non-threat, because there was no way that 200, or even 300 heavily armed men could have entered this capital at any time without heavy house to house fighting and heavy resistance. It's just a lie and a non-threat.
What you also have to remember that at the exact moment that those 50 U.S. Marines who entered Haiti under the auspices of checking the security preparations at the U.S. embassy; at the same moment that they were entering Aristide's residence, to take him out of office, to force him onto that airplane to Bangui, in the Central African Republic; at this very same moment there was a large transport plane on the tarmac in Jamaica, refuelling, that was carrying re-supplies of arms and ammunitions for the Haitian police force. This was not, as the U.S. and Canada, and the French presented, a President who was "resigned to his fate." This was a President, who because that transport plane was being sent in a unilateral assistance agreement with the government of South Africa, with the re-supply of arms and ammunition for the Haitian police force, and as I said at the same moment the President was being taken out by the U.S. Marines, that same plane was refuelling on a tarmac in Jamaica; that was why they had to take him out, because, quite the contrary to the image they portrayed of this man who was resigned to his fate, who had lost the support of his people; this was a man who was willing to fight for the sovereignty, was willing to fight to continue his democratic mandate.
Boylan: This is a very telling story; I don't think that's been broadcast here, that's for certain. That aspect of the story; we were all left wondering, 'Why did Aristide leave? What the hell was going on? And of course we were all left in the dark by the mass media manipulation of the airwaves. This is an extremely important chapter. Tell us a little bit more about this story, tell us a little bit about the circumstances facing you and all those who are trying to bring light to what is actually happening in Haiti, and what oppositional forces, internationally, locally, are putting some weight behind the Haitian people in this dark moment of their history?
Pina: Well, you've got to realize is that it was a huge campaign of disinformation that demonized Lavalas and demonized Aristide, and this is still going on today. They use buzzwords like 'chimere,' which is a term that they call Lavalas who defended themselves, or who defended the government. They've painted Aristide as a 'dictator' who 'lost the support of his people,' who was relying upon his Lavalas 'shock troops.' They've really presented this dark image of what was essentially, what is essentially, a movement of the majority of the poor in this country, they continue [to demonize] to this day.
There has been so much misinformation, and so many lies; the Haitian press participated in it: they fed stories to the international press, and the international press fed it back to them, and suddenly what was innuendo and rumour gets 'transformed' into reality and suddenly reality gets turned on its head, and a lot of what I read [in the press] about Haiti is the exactly the reverse of what I myself and many others who live this reality day to day; what we experience and how we see the situation. Today the Haitian press still plays an horrendous role; the standard of journalism and what passes for the truth, and what passes for professionalism is just abhorrent.
The major news outlets here are owned by large families who are aligned with the elite, or are members of the small economic elite themselves, it's clear that they've had a large role in this movement to overthrow Aristide; it's clear that they'd spent a tremendous amount of money in public relations, whether that be over the internet, in the U.S. press, the French press, the Canadian press. And the U.S. corporate media in general, as I said, presenting this image of the movement of the poor in a very ugly and, I would say, false light. It's not to say that, certainly, there weren't errors made by Aristide; it's not to say that there weren't people amongst the masses of the poor who weren't angry, and who ultimately felt cornered and that they had no resort except to violence. But you've got to remember, and not to apologize for it or excuse it, we have to understand that this really a response to people who knew that this was going to happen, that their greatest enemy who was this corrupt, dangerous, murderous institution, the Haitian military, was being poised to return to this country. They knew that a year ago, and of course how can you expect people who's mothers were raped, whose brothers and fathers were brutally murdered, whose sisters were murdered, not to react very emotionally and in some instances violently, knowing that this was going to happen, that the Haitian military was being poised for an eventual position of return to Haiti?
A lot of what was twisted and said to represent the evil 'shock troops,' the chimeres of the dictator Lavalas, was the righteous indignation and anger of a very, very frightened mass of poor people in this country who for the first time had a government that they felt represented their interests. All you have to do today, with what is going on with this U.S. backed government, this U.S. installed government, by virtue of this action that the U.S., France, and Canada pulled in Haiti, you see that there was a Ministry of Literacy under the Aristide administration, that was one of the first ministries abolished. Literacy, and the majority of the poor learning to read and write is not a priority for this [de facto] administration.
There was public housing that was built where poor families could rent an apartment but their rent would be applied for equity to allow them for the first time to own an apartment or a condominium, that was a decent home with running water and electricity, that was something modern. Now, that housing is being taken over by this government to give to U.N. officials for their own personal housing. Imagine, housing that was built for the poor is now being taken over by this U.S. installed government, to turn over to United Nations workers, and the peacekeeping force, their commanders, so that they can live in them while they are displacing and evicting the poor, who, for the first time, had housing. These are just a few examples to show you what the priorities are now versus what the priorities were. It seems that you only really get to really understand what was really going on before by seeing it being dismantled today.
Another point is the agrarian reform. Everybody always said that there was never any effort to help the majority of the poor who are peasants in the countryside; seventy per cent of Haiti's population are poor peasants living in the countryside. Well, it's only today when we are seeing the agrarian reform being dismantled, under this U.S. installed government, the former landowners are returning and taking back the land that was distributed to the peasants under the Agrarian Reform Act, that we understand that there really was was an agrarian reform project. That huge propaganda campaign, the people who control the press said that agrarian reform program never existed, and the only reason we can see today that it clearly existed is that now the peasants are fighting back and there's open violence now, and rebellion by peasants in the countryside against these large landowners returning to re-claim the land that was distributed to them under the agrarian reform that was started first under the Preval administration, and then continued under the Aristide administration.. These are examples of projects that clearly benefited the majority of the poor, that people said never existed, that the corporate media completely ignored and only focussed on stories that were fed to it buy the elite-controlled media that focussed on these negative acts of violence…[disconnects…]
Boylan: Listeners must be very angry as they listen to the things you are enumerating, listing off these facts that are brand-new to most people. What can we do about it, how can we empower ourselves to affect change, and [to help] restore democracy to Haiti?
Pina: I think that it's got to start with our own governments. I was very proud of Congresswoman Maxine Waters, who [recently] called out Washington, Paris, and Ottawa by name today. She said, 'they're the ones who created this mess, they're the ones who are responsible to clean it up.' I think she's absolutely right, that we have to hold our governments accountable, that we need to [exert] pressure, even though the media, which has played such a terrible role in all of this, particularly the corporate media: These are large businesses, these are people who get called up buy the prime minister's and the presidents and the secretaries of this and that, and have the news influenced and shaped for them. These are the people who would rather call the Embassy first to get their reaction, then to risk their necks out on the street to try to get the reaction of the average poor person.
So, they've played a terrible role; right now they are conspicuously silent, they've done their damage, so what means is that we have to rely upon our own education networks, that means that we have to create our own sources of reliable information, that we need to cherish those sources, we need to support those sources, and we need to use that information that we get from those sources that we trust, to then leverage it against our elected officials, in order to get them to stand up, to put this issue back on the burner again, where it belongs. To get them to take responsibility for what they have done in this country, and what they have done to this country. Certainly what has gone down in Haiti falls right at the doorstep of Mr. George Bush, the Junior. I'm certain that right now this is not an issue in the election, but there are people who are trying to make it an issue in the election, particularly when we see, in a lot of ways, the U.S. you know played the leadership; I don't mean to cut Canada down, but they've really sort of been the lackeys, and the lapdogs, if you will, of U.S. foreign policy in this. I'm not trying to say that they weren't smart enough to do their own damage, but you know it's pretty much the U.S. that's called the shots on the ground here and Canada has pretty much saluted and said 'yes sir, whatever you need?'
The French played a more of a public leadership role on the ground; but Canada certainly had a definite role, and certainly the Canadian people should take responsibility to pressure their elected representatives, to put this issue back on the burner and to force them to restore democracy to Haiti, first of all. This is not a government that has been tested by the polls and it doesn't look as if the next elections in Haiti are going to allow the majority political party, who, as we discussed earlier, has been violently repressed, has been subject to mass arrests and mass detentions, is caught in this pincer movement between the violence of the Haitian police committed against them backed up by the United Nations, and the violence of the dreaded former military; they're not going to be able to participate in a free way in the next elections. So those elections are not really going to represent the will of the majority of the Haitian people either.
What I can say is that people should watch closely, because I think that this popular movement is not going to go gentle into that good night. We see it beginning to reassert itself again; we see that people, despite this tremendous atmosphere of a witch-hunt, despite this tremendous atmosphere of political persecution and intimidation, are still continuing to fight for their rights, still continuing to fight for their right for themselves to be part of a Party that represent the voice of the majority of the poor of this country. That's what we need to be watching for, keeping our pulse for, to know who to support on the ground. The NGOs, by and large, play a very evil role in this country. Certainly they played part and parcel right into this campaign to overthrow the democratic government of Haiti. Remember that Haiti saw its first peaceful transitions from one President to another under the Lavalas Party…
Boylan: I'm sorry to tell you this but times up. Kevin, this has been very enlightening and very, very helpful for our audience to listen to this information; and we will definitely be back in touch; thank you very much for joining us. This has been very helpful, and I want to thank-you for joining us.
Pina: It's been my pleasure.
*This interview was conducted on September 8, 2004. For more information, please go to Wake Up With Co-op. Boylan also hosts "Discussion," Wednesday evenings at 7:00 PST. Kevin Pina is an independent journalist, filmmaker, is Associate Editor of the Black Commentator, and currently resides in Haiti.
Reproduced from:
http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=6276%20§ionID=55``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xRolling Haiti Back to Colonialism``x1096093047,43444,Development``x``x
``xOur deportation of the people of Diego Garcia is a crime that cannot stand
By John Pilger, The Guardian UK
There are times when one tragedy, one crime tells us how a whole system works behind its democratic facade and helps us to understand how much of the world is run for the benefit of the powerful and how governments lie. To understand the catastrophe of Iraq, and all the other Iraqs along imperial history's trail of blood and tears, one need look no further than Diego Garcia.
The story of Diego Garcia is shocking, almost incredible. A British colony lying midway between Africa and Asia in the Indian Ocean, the island is one of 64 unique coral islands that form the Chagos Archipelago, a phenomenon of natural beauty, and once of peace. Newsreaders refer to it in passing: "American B-52 and Stealth bombers last night took off from the uninhabited British island of Diego Garcia to bomb Iraq (or Afghanistan)." It is the word "uninhabited" that turns the key on the horror of what was done there. In the 1970s, the Ministry of Defence in London produced this epic lie: "There is nothing in our files about a population and an evacuation."
Diego Garcia was first settled in the late 18th century. At least 2,000 people lived there: a gentle creole nation with thriving villages, a school, a hospital, a church, a prison, a railway, docks, a copra plantation. Watching a film shot by missionaries in the 1960s, I can understand why every Chagos islander I have met calls it paradise; there is a grainy sequence where the islanders' beloved dogs are swimming in the sheltered, palm-fringed lagoon, catching fish.
All this began to end when an American rear-admiral stepped ashore in 1961 and Diego Garcia was marked as the site of what is today one of the biggest American bases in the world. There are now more than 2,000 troops, anchorage for 30 warships, a nuclear dump, a satellite spy station, shopping malls, bars and a golf course. "Camp Justice" the Americans call it.
During the 1960s, in high secrecy, the Labour government of Harold Wilson conspired with two American administrations to "sweep" and "sanitise" the islands: the words used in American documents. Files found in the National Archives in Washington and the Public Record Office in London provide an astonishing narrative of official lying all too familiar to those who have chronicled the lies over Iraq.
To get rid of the population, the Foreign Office invented the fiction that the islanders were merely transient contract workers who could be "returned" to Mauritius, 1,000 miles away. In fact, many islanders traced their ancestry back five generations, as their cemeteries bore witness. The aim, wrote a Foreign Office official in January 1966, "is to convert all the existing residents ... into short-term, temporary residents."
What the files also reveal is an imperious attitude of brutality. In August 1966, Sir Paul Gore-Booth, permanent under-secretary at the Foreign Office, wrote: "We must surely be very tough about this. The object of the exercise was to get some rocks that will remain ours. There will be no indigenous population except seagulls." At the end of this is a handwritten note by DH Greenhill, later Baron Greenhill: "Along with the Birds go some Tarzans or Men Fridays ..." Under the heading, "Maintaining the fiction", another official urges his colleagues to reclassify the islanders as "a floating population" and to "make up the rules as we go along".
There is not a word of concern for their victims. Only one official appeared to worry about being caught, writing that it was "fairly unsatisfactory" that "we propose to certify the people, more or less fraudulently, as belonging somewhere else". The documents leave no doubt that the cover-up was approved by the prime minister and at least three cabinet ministers.
At first, the islanders were tricked and intimidated into leaving; those who had gone to Mauritius for urgent medical treatment were prevented from returning. As the Americans began to arrive and build the base, Sir Bruce Greatbatch, the governor of the Seychelles, who had been put in charge of the "sanitising", ordered all the pet dogs on Diego Garcia to be killed. Almost 1,000 pets were rounded up and gassed, using the exhaust fumes from American military vehicles. "They put the dogs in a furnace where the people worked," says Lizette Tallatte, now in her 60s," ... and when their dogs were taken away in front of them, our children screamed and cried."
The islanders took this as a warning; and the remaining population were loaded on to ships, allowed to take only one suitcase. They left behind their homes and furniture, and their lives. On one journey in rough seas, the copra company's horses occupied the deck, while women and children were forced to sleep on a cargo of bird fertiliser. Arriving in the Seychelles, they were marched up the hill to a prison where they were held until they were transported to Mauritius. There, they were dumped on the docks.
In the first months of their exile, as they fought to survive, suicides and child deaths were common. Lizette lost two children. "The doctor said he cannot treat sadness," she recalls. Rita Bancoult, now 79, lost two daughters and a son; she told me that when her husband was told the family could never return home, he suffered a stroke and died. Unemployment, drugs and prostitution, all of which had been alien to their society, ravaged them. Only after more than a decade did they receive any compensation from the British government: less than £3,000 each, which did not cover their debts.
The behaviour of the Blair government is, in many respects, the worst. In 2000, the islanders won a historic victory in the high court, which ruled their expulsion illegal. Within hours of the judgment, the Foreign Office announced that it would not be possible for them to return to Diego Garcia because of a "treaty" with Washington - in truth, a deal concealed from parliament and the US Congress. As for the other islands in the group, a "feasibility study" would determine whether these could be resettled. This has been described by Professor David Stoddart, a world authority on the Chagos, as "worthless" and "an elaborate charade". The "study" consulted not a single islander; it found that the islands were "sinking", which was news to the Americans who are building more and more base facilities; the US navy describes the living conditions as so outstanding that they are "unbelievable".
In 2003, in a now notorious follow-up high court case, the islanders were denied compensation, with government counsel allowed by the judge to attack and humiliate them in the witness box, and with Justice Ousley referring to "we" as if the court and the Foreign Office were on the same side. Last June, the government invoked the archaic royal prerogative in order to crush the 2000 judgment. A decree was issued that the islanders were banned forever from returning home. These were the same totalitarian powers used to expel them in secret 40 years ago; Blair used them to authorise his illegal attack on Iraq.
Led by a remarkable man, Olivier Bancoult, an electrician, and supported by a tenacious and valiant London lawyer, Richard Gifford, the islanders are going to the European court of human rights, and perhaps beyond. Article 7 of the statute of the international criminal court describes the "deportation or forcible transfer of population ... by expulsion or other coercive acts" as a crime against humanity. As Bush's bombers take off from their paradise, the Chagos islanders, says Bancoult, "will not let this great crime stand. The world is changing; we will win."
· Stealing a Nation, John Pilger's documentary investigating the expulsion of the Chagos islanders will be shown on ITV on Wednesday at 11 pm; his new book, Tell Me No Lies: Investigative journalism and its triumphs, is published by Jonathan Cape
www.johnpilger.com
More...
No Place Called Home: Diego Garcia
by Mark Curtis
The Chagos-Diego Garcia scandal on British TV
by Noor Adam Essack
'They stole our homes, then turned us away'
socialistworker.co.uk
Also visit:
diegogarciaisland.mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xStealing Diego Garcia``x1096742501,82759,Development``x``x
``xBy Lucson Pierre-Charles
The ouster of Jean-Bertrand Aristide was orchestrated by and for the ruling minority. For two hundred years, they have ruled the country by proxy and have undoubtedly some responsibility to bear for the current state of affairs in the country. However, following Aristide's forced departure, they have decided to change course. They have established a puppet regime of technocrats with the aim of smoothing the progress of a total minority rule and according to latest indications, they are right on target. The technocrats have turned the country upside down. They have transformed the nation into an open theater with farcical promises, farcical disarmament, farcical trials and upcoming farcical elections.
In an attempt to boost its technocratic profile, the U.S.-backed administration--assuming it survives the present chaos--plans to hold digitized elections next year in order to seal a victory for a few. According to a Reuters report released in early August, "Haiti's plans to hold high-tech and costly elections in 2005 are at risk unless international donors rapidly provide promised funds, a senior election official said. Five months after president Jean-Bertrand Aristide was ousted in an armed revolt, Haiti's electoral council needs $100 million to organize what will be the most expensive ballot in Haiti's 200 years of independence, council member Rosemond Pradel said."
The nine-member electoral council (CEP) was created without the participation of the Lavalas party, which decided to boycott it following waves of arrests and persecutions of Aristide loyalists. As the report further indicated, such situation "has undermined confidence in the panel, and especially in the government's plans for a computerized voting system that some analysts fear could be manipulated to prevent Aristide's supporters among the poor majority from determining the outcome. Preparations for the election have been torn by infighting, and the electoral council faces the further challenge of trying to organize high-tech voting with digitized identity cards and electronic voting machines in a country that barely has electricity."
In an effort to appease critics of the plan, council chairwoman Roselaure Julien made a public statement last week in which she announced that an agreement was reached between the CEP and the political parties to forgo the electronic voting machines and retain the digitized ID cards instead. It is only in this status quo that one can envision digital ID cards without digital machines. Her statement, which failed to address the prospect of influencing the outcomes of the election, comes months after a power struggle to control the electoral body was made public. The infighting was so heated that both Boniface and Latortue had to intervene in order to keep the actual makeup of the institution. The clash was intended to bring down Julien and replace her with the actual representative of the private sector, which in turn wanted to have complete control over the high-tech aspect of the upcoming elections. Julien "accused her colleagues of a plot to hijack the electoral process and denounced a fierce power struggle among those who helped oust Aristide and said she had come under pressure to resign because she had resisted attempts to influence her. I won't kneel down, said Julien, I say there should be a free and fair election, not selection, nomination or plebiscite." In such a context, one must assume that the fight to control the CEP will not go away given that the private sector has no way of capturing the presidency except through electronic ballot.
A report released by the Associated Press in late August revealed that "Haiti has signed an agreement with the United Nations and the Organization of American States to organize elections next year and already has US$9 million in U.S. aid available to help cover the costs. The U.S. aid will be spent on training elections personnel, creating a new voter registration system and setting up an electronic voting system." This is why, despite Julien's statement on the rejection of computerized voting machines, American and Venezuelan experts are on the ground conducting demonstrations on the significance and benefits of electronic voting.
Last July, international donors pledged over $1 billion to help rebuild Haiti. The technocrats hope to use part of that money to organize a computerized election where the winners will be pre-selected. Upon receiving the donors' pledge, Latortue promised to double electricity service to 12 hours in Port-au-Prince. So where will his administration find enough energy resources to run a high-tech voting system across the country? Through some technocratic means perhaps. Besides the electricity dilemma, other challenges must also be addressed. In a country where close to 80% of the population are illiterate and basic infrastructures are nearly nonexistent, the idea to run a computerized election is beyond human comprehension. Despite all the uncertainties associated with electronic voting machines--a system terribly unreliable and not accountable--Haiti would be the last place in this region to hold high-tech elections.
In a further attempt to secure the elections, the private sector has launched a new political party, Parti Libéral Haitien (Haitian Liberal Party). The party will run on a conservative platform with the aim of boosting the private sector and promoting a liberal economy, they claimed. To the surprise of the Haitian political class, the announcement was made in Norway during a forum organized and hosted by the Norwegian government for various segments of the Haitian civil society in late August. In the lead-up to the coup against Aristide, the leader of the Group 184, Andy Apaid Jr., promised his allies that he would never transform his movement into a political party. But things have changed lately and the machine has been set in motion. They have the party and the means; the only missing factor is the ballot. They are in no way capable of collecting the necessary votes except through electronic voting, which is also one tangible way to deter people from voting and suppress the majority. Even f voters were to show up to the polling stations, the technocrats are well aware of the challenges that people will face in trying to use the computerized machines. They will probably rely on high-tech poll workers to "assist" the voters. They are not concerned about huge voter turnout; they only need the elections to be held as planned.
Since Aristide's forced departure, the vast majority of Haitians have been marginalized and left with no credible figures to represent their interests. The technocrats have used all tactics in their effort to repress all dissent, to persecute former Lavalas officials and incarcerate them in order to silence the poor majority. In the name of the majority, they are working actively to facilitate a transition that will plunge the endangered nation further into despair. Their ultimate fate lies in their disregard of the country's 200 years history.
Lucson Pierre-Charles, a native of Haiti, now lives in Maryland. He can be reached at: lpierrecharles@yahoo.com. This article was reproduced from counterpunch.org by consent of the author.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xHaiti's Elections: A High-Tech Sham``x1096816315,4964,Development``x``x
``xNew UNCTAD Study Makes Case For African Debt Write-Off
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (Geneva)
PRESS RELEASE
September 30, 2004
Geneva
Debt servicing at any level is incompatible with attaining the UN Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in many African countries, according to Debt Sustainability: Oasis or Mirage?, released today by UNCTAD. The report concludes that any lasting solution to the debt overhang hinges as much on political will as on financial rectitude.
Squeezing the poor?
Between 1970 and 2002, Africa received some $540 billion in loans; but despite paying back close to $550 billion in principal and interest, it still had a debt stock of $295 billion as at the end of 2002. And the figures are even more disconcerting for sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), which received $294 billion in disbursements, paid out $268 billion in debt service and yet remained straddled with a debt stock of some $210 billion. The Report concludes that this amounts to a reverse transfer of resources from the world's poorest continent.
The Report also contests the popular impression that Africa's debt overhang is simply the legacy of irresponsible and corrupt African governments. While certainly part of the story, particularly under the cloak of cold war politics, exogenous shocks, commodity dependence, poorly designed reform programmes and the actions of creditors have all played a decisive part in the debt crisis.
And a more nuanced picture shows that the debt profile moved from "sustainability" in the 1970s to "crisis" in the first half of the 1980s, with much of the debt being contracted between 1985 and 1995 under the guidance of structural adjustment programmes and close scrutiny by the Bretton Woods institutions (BWIs).
Make or break time
The Report argues a robust economic case for a total cancellation of Africa's debt:
· Low levels of savings and investment leading to high poverty and adverse social conditions are among the biggest constraints on growth in low-income African countries;
· Continuing debt servicing by African countries would nominally constitute a reverse transfer of resources to creditors by a group of countries that by all indications could least afford this; and
· In order to ensure that Africa will be able to reduce poverty by half by 2015, in line with the MDGs, at the very least growth levels will have to double to some 7%-to-8% per annum for the next decade, the financial requirements of which are incompatible with present and projected levels of debt servicing.
And this economic case is reinforced by a moral imperative for a shared responsibility, particularly considering that the BWIs have had the greatest influence on the development policies on the continent through structural adjustment programmes and related lending, which have not had the expected outcomes in ensuring growth and development. Moreover, official lending was in large part also predicated on the implementation of such programmes, and much of the debt of countries with profligate regimes that were of geopolitical/strategic interest is considered "odious".
Over the past two decades, examples have abounded of major bailout operations both domestically and internationally where financial markets were seen to be at risk. While Africa's external debt represents a huge burden to the indebted countries, it has not yet galvanized the political will required by its creditors to undertake similar action.
In the absence of such political will, the Report calls for placing a moratorium on debt servicing (without additional interest being accrued) pending the institution of an independent panel of experts to assess the sustainability of debt based on a realistic and comprehensive set of criteria, including those of meeting the MDGs. The Report recommends that such an assessment should include all public debt. This is particularly so because the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative fails to take account of domestic debt, which in recent years has become an important factor in the total indebtedness of African countries.
However, even a full debt write-off would be only a first step towards restoring growth and meeting the MDGs. UNCTAD estimates that such a write-off would represent less than half those countires' resource requirements, with the gap filled by increased official development assistance (ODA) grants as a prelude to Africa increasing the level of domestic savings and investment required for robust and sustainable growth.
Meeting the MDGs
It is in this context that the Report concludes that under present conditions, the MDGs will remain elusive for the African continent. As UK Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown insisted earlier this year, "On current progress, we will fail to meet each Millennium Development Goal in Africa not just for 10 years but for 100 years". That failure can in part be traced to the "unaffordable" debt burden that has strangled the continent's growth prospects for the past two decades, according to Jeffrey Sachs, Special Economic Advisor to UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan. And African leaders, including Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zanawi, have begun to ask whether the HIPC Initiative has the capacity to provide adequate debt relief to its beneficiaries.
The HIPC Initiative was launched in 1996 by the BWIs with the aim of reducing the external public debt of the 42 poorest countries (of which 34 are in Africa) to sustainable levels. Calls for "deeper, broader and faster" debt relief led to the introduction of an enhanced version in 1999, which was to make it easier for poor countries to find a permanent exit solution to their debt crisis.
But eight years on, the Report argues, despite some initial progress following the adoption of the enhanced Initiative, heavily indebted poor African countries are still far from achieving sustainable debt levels.
In a forward-looking evaluation, the Report findings include:
· Post-HIPC debt service payments are projected to increase from about $2.4 billion in 2003 to $2.6 billion in 2005.
· Based on historical growth rates, the 23 African HIPCs that reached their decision points by the end of 2003 have only a 40% chance of attaining debt sustainability by 2020.
· While some completion point countries have debt ratios exceeding sustainable levels as defined by the Initiative, a number of equally poor debt-distressed African countries find themselves left out of the Initiative altogether.
· Interim relief (between decision and completion points) is inadequate and falls short of the proportion of the total debt relief that creditors had promised to deliver during this critical period.
· Bias in the debt sustainability analysis - and in particular, persistently over-optimistic assumptions about economic and export growth -- means that calculations of debt sustainability thresholds based on debt-to-export and debt-to-revenue ratios are inadequate indicators of the poverty-indebtedness nexus.
· There is uncertainty surrounding the funding of debt relief, particularly for conflict and post-conflict HIPCs;
· The jury is still out on whether HIPC debt relief is additional to ODA flows. New initiatives are needed to attain a clear and significant level of additionality and to prevent an unfair reallocation of future aid to HIPC debt relief.
In a nutshell, "it is becoming increasingly doubtful whether HIPC beneficiaries can attain sustainable debt levels, based on export and revenue criteria, after completion point, and maintain these in the long term", observes the UNCTAD Report.
Policy space critical
For any debt relief framework to deliver tangible results, Africa needs actively to pursue policies for prudent debt management, economic diversification and sustained economic growth. But doing so calls for better access to markets, much increased investment in human and physical infrastructure and a considerable widening of the policy space narrowed by adjustment programmes, including in the context of poverty reduction strategies.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xCase For African Debt Write-Off``x1096831449,30279,Development``x``x
``xHerald Reporters
Africa has got the resources and what is needed is for the continent to identify the stimulus to transform its economies, Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni, who arrived in Harare yesterday for a three-day State visit, said.
Speaking at a banquet hosted for him by President Mugabe at State House last night, Mr Museveni said the continent could initiate this transformation without being continuously lectured on cliches such as development, sustainable development and Millennium Development Goals.
He said Zimbabwe and Uganda enjoy good relations despite being on opposite sides in the Democratic Republic of Congo conflict.
"In spite of this little misunderstanding, we have always worked together. I come here to show to you that we are brothers. Historically speaking, we are on the same side; we must work together," he said.
President Museveni noted that Zimbabwe was among some of the Southern African Development Community member states that have understood and supported Uganda’s concern at Sudan’s policies in the southern part of that vast country.
He said Africa would be powerful if it negotiates as a bloc rather than as individual countries on global, economic and trade issues.
"You cannot get what you want in the world if you cannot negotiate. You have to issue mutual threats and say: ‘Do this for me so that I can do this for you’.
"But Uganda is Uganda. It cannot negotiate with the United States. I cannot go to the United States and say do this for Uganda. I can only say: ‘Could you please do this for me?’ and that is not negotiating — that is petitioning.
"But Africa can negotiate if it gets together and say: ‘This is our stance’," he said.
President Museveni also spoke about the US and Britain’s arrogance in international issues.
He gave the example of the Lockerbie bombing, saying for a long time Africa was telling the West that it was better for the suspects to be tried in a neutral country. The West’s arrogance, he said, was so much that they would not listen to opinions by African leaders.
"We used to be told by the West that: ‘How can you talk about international affairs that concentrate on asking for what to eat and do not talk about international affairs? It’s not your area’."
President Museveni said the African view on the matter finally prevailed after the West accepted that the Lockerbie bombing suspects be tried in the Netherlands.
He told guests at the dinner that he used to support the US on the Iraq issue believing that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction until recently when it was proved otherwise.
Speaking at the same occasion, President Mugabe said Uganda and Zimbabwe enjoy good relations and as members of the African Union and the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (Comesa), the rapport continued despite the conflict in the DRC where the two countries were on opposing sides.
He said with the DRC conflict now behind, the challenge was now to have a stronger bond in the region to promote economic integration and co-operation.
"We should remain vigilant as we wage our struggle for economic independence," Cde Mugabe said, calling on Africa to resist new forms of imperialism which were emerging in the form of unipolarism under which the US and Britain sought to dominate the world.
Cde Mugabe said although at present there was little trade between Uganda and Zimbabwe, there was huge potential for economic co-operation between the two countries. He said co-operation could also be extended to the health sector, including the fight against HIV/Aids.
He said Uganda used to buy rail wagons from Zimbabwe and that this could be resumed.
President Mugabe said Zimbabwe had made many enemies in the West for embarking on land reforms, but would not be deterred because the programme had positioned indigenous Zimbabweans at the centre of economic activity in the country.
Uganda and Zimbabwe shared many same views on economic, political and security issues, the President said. He hailed Uganda’s peace efforts in the Sudan through the Inter-governmental Authority on Development.
Cde Mugabe said Zimbabwe noted with concern the humanitarian crisis in the Darfur region in Sudan and hoped peace would be achieved soon through the African Union and other regional initiatives.
He also hailed Uganda for its contributions to the peace process in Burundi and commended it for the prominent role it was playing in East Africa and the Great Lakes region, where it has called for an international conference to discuss problems there. The conference is expected to be held next month.
President Mugabe also paid tribute to Uganda for fighting for peace in its own country where its security forces have been scoring successes against the rebel Lord’s Resistance Army.
Cde Mugabe expressed concern about the continued resistance by some powerful Western countries for reform of the United Nations Security Council. He said the Security Council must be expanded by including African and other developing countries so that it is more representative.
He said the growing unilateralism in global affairs was unfortunate. The recent statement by UN Secretary-General Mr Kofi Annan that the invasion of Iraq was illegal had vindicated "those of us who have always spoken against unilateralism".
Earlier in the day, the two leaders held talks at State House focusing on trade and bilateral issues.
Mr Museveni told journalists after the talks that Zimbabwe and Uganda should develop their economies through different areas of co-operation.
"We had a very useful discussion and we want to develop our economies," the Ugandan leader said.
Mr Museveni said his country was rich in iron ore so it was looking for coking coal and pharmaceutical products from Zimbabwe.
President Mugabe said they discussed how the two countries could add value to their products.
He said co-operation with Uganda was not about trade only, but also about looking at how the two countries could have joint ventures in different fields.
"We have been deliberating in areas of co-operation and there are lots of them," he said.
Four ministers from Uganda flew into Harare on Sunday night ahead of President Museveni’s arrival.
They are Professor Edward Rugumayo, the Minister of Tourism, Trade and Industry; the Minister of State for Finance in Charge of Investments, Mr Sam Karesu; the Minister of State Agriculture and Fisheries, Mr Kibirige Sebonyo; and Mr Augustine Nshimye, the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Regional Co-operation).
Hundreds of people, who included Zanu-PF supporters, diplomats and Ugandans resident in Zimbabwe, thronged Harare International Airport to welcome the Ugandan leader.
His jet touched down at 10.45am and he was received by President Mugabe, the Minister of Foreign Affairs Cde Stan Mudenge, several Cabinet ministers and other high-ranking Government officials.
The Ugandan leader stepped down the plane clutching his trademark hat in his hand.
Soon after his welcome by Cde Mugabe, the two leaders took to the podium and there was a 21-gun salute by the Presidential Guard amid cheers and ululation from the crowd that was waving Zimbabwean and Ugandan flags.
Moments later, President Museveni inspected the Presidential Guard accompanied by the Zimbabwe Defence Forces Commander General Constantine Chiwenga.
Cde Mugabe introduced him to several Cabinet ministers and other officials.
From the airport, the Ugandan leader and the President headed for the Presidential Guest House at Zimbabwe House from where they proceeded to State House for their meeting.
The Ugandan delegation is particularly interested to learn from Zimbabwe’s agricultural and pharmaceutical industries.
The Ugandan leader is the current chairman of Comesa, a 19-member regional grouping promoting trade and investment in East and Southern Africa.
Uganda hosted the ninth Comesa summit in Kampala in June where leaders called on the regional bloc to strive to export finished goods and demand equal access to world markets.
Zimbabwe and Uganda have, over the years, maintained good relations as they are both members of Comesa.
Comesa is Africa’s largest regional economic community, encompassing 19 nations and 380 million consumers. The market’s combined Gross Domestic product (GDP) is more than US$70 billion.
Comesa initiatives include harmonising rules of origin, expediting cross-border transportation, creating a common investment area, streamlining public procurement methods. There are plans to launch a customs union by next year.
President Museveni later in the day toured Varichem, a medicinal drug manufacturing company in the Willowvale industrial area, and Dairibord Zimbabwe’s milk and milk products factory in Workington.
The Minister of Industry and International Trade, Cde Samuel Mumbengegwi, said the visits to the two companies were aimed at according Mr Museveni an opportunity to observe and appreciate what indigenous-owned companies can do.
Mr Museveni is today expected to tour the National Heroes Acre and then visit some farming areas.
Cde Mumbengegwi said Mr Museveni would, after the various tours, discuss with his Zimbabwean counterpart possible areas of co-operation.
The minister said the Government wanted Mr Museveni to understand the country’s victories under the land reform programme and the country’s black empowerment drive.
Several Cabinet ministers, including the Minister of Health and Child Welfare Cde David Parirenyatwa; the Minister of Foreign Affairs Cde Stan Mudenge; and the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development Cde Joseph Made, accompanied Mr Museveni on the tour.
Reproduced from:
www.herald.co.zw/index.php?id=36492&pubdate=2004-10-05``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xAfrica must negotiate as one bloc: Museveni``x1097090910,48437,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xThe Transition from Columbus Day to Indian Resistance Day
By Franz J. T. Lee
The oligarchic "opposition" and its national mass media have no respect for anything: currently, Radio Caracas TV (RCTV) is preparing commercials for its mind-controlled adherents to celebrate "Día de la Raza" (Colombus Day) next Tuesday -- October 12, 2004.
This big lie, this hoax ... about the 'discovery' of America by Christopher Columbus, still infects the minds of millions in Latin America.
Although the name of this public holiday has officially been changed to the 'Dia de la Resistencia Indigena' by the Bolivarian Government, the mass media continues their mind control, indoctrination and manipulation -- with a trans-historic European Mental Holocaust launched against the peoples of the Americas and elsewhere.
Columbus was not among the first to know that the earth was round ... the ancient Mediterranean peoples already had this knowledge. He did not 'discover' America ... already centuries before, the Africans had fleets that crossed the Atlantic and they had a vivid, healthy, trans-cultural intercourse with the American indigenous peoples. Their artefacts and traces of their ancient cultures can be found all over Central America.
* Based on their maritime knowledge and astronomic maps, Columbus organized his own infamous travels ... and he knew exactly where he was sailing. In fact, in his own diary he confirmed the African presence in America.
What the oligarchic Latin American ruling classes are still celebrating these days is the beginning of the Conquest ... of the pillage and genocide, that their forefathers had disseminated in the 'New World.'
Columbus himself confirmed the capitalist aims of his voyages: "to sum up the great profits of this voyage, I am able to promise, for a trifling assistance from your Majesties, any quantity of gold, drugs, cotton, mastic, aloe, and as many slaves for maritime service as your Majesties may stand in need of."
In this way, he launched the "Bermuda Triangle" of the World Market, the international division of labor, that would eventually blood-suck the whole continent ... especially Central and South America.
In reality, Governor Columbus had discovered nothing ... on the contrary, he was the first to introduce a European, feudalist, absolutist 'government' in the Western Hemisphere, accompanied by brutal institutions of slavery.
Fray Bartolome de las Casas documented the horrors perpetrated by him ... for example, gambling to see who had the remarkable quality of perfectly cutting a slave in half with one stroke of the sword. This is the kind of atrocity, that the Venezuelan opposition is still celebrating till this day. In this way, Columbus' government was the first to institute an active onslaught of brutality against the native peoples.
Now, what are the masters of this world really celebrating on Columbus Day ... in fact, on the first Labor Day of the Americas?
* On a world scale, have over 5 billion obsolete manual labor slaves really something to be joyful about?
* Are we celebrating our discovery by Europeans to be massacred thereafter?
* To be told that we are inferior races?
* Are we celebrating the victories of alienated labor and capital in the Americas?
At least, here in Venezuela, the Bolivarians will be celebrating their victories over golpism, sabotage, racism and fascism, generated by Big Brother and his local lackeys on a global scale.
However, what are slave labor, wage slavery and exploited labor forces all about? Are they really things to celebrate?
Precisely these are the things that Columbus brought to America.
For those who have studied capitalism and imperialism in the Americas, it is no secret at all that the source of metropolitan wealth, of power and of so-called progress is simply exploited physical and/or intellectual human labor-force. It is also amply known that it is labor-force, and not labor in itself, which is the generator of capital, wealth, power and giga-Profits ... but at the same time, also of the production of arms of mass destruction, of most horrible and abominable misery and poverty.
Like elsewhere, ever since the days of the 'Discovery' here in the Americas, all social problems revolve around the phenomenon of labor ... exploited labor force.
Not to take this universal fact into account in Venezuela, Latin America, Africa and the Caribbean is equivalent to not to understand that precisely by means of ruthless economic exploitation of fundamentally physical labor forces, millions of pauperized and dehumanized peoples ... also in the diaspora ... have already for centuries been heinously plundered, murdered by ruthless, oligarchic elites.
And they will still be pillaged mercilessly for many decades to come; that is, if we do not urgently change this current world order. Many of our indigenous peoples are already rooted out; in Africa, only a handful of BaThwa or San ... the so-called 'Bushmen' ... survived colonial and apartheid conquest.
In Europe, ever since the XII century until today, the process of labor, production, transformed itself progressively into industrial labor and eventually into corporate capital that dominates and determines all current global events, including Bush' Economic World War.
Today, as a result of the profound crisis of corporate capitalism, the matter is even more grave, grave-like. Consequently, the only way to annihilate the quintessence of current labor production is to transcend its economic exploitation, political domination, social discrimination (racism), fascist militarization and terrorist dehumanization (alienation). This can only be accomplished by global resistance, by world revolution, that transcends toward global emancipation, not of slaves, but of humanity itself.
What happened on the first "Day of the Race" in America ... what occurs on earth, in the universe, in the Clouds of Magellan ... have nothing whatsoever to do with bourgeois ethics, with religious norms, metaphysical formal-logic, fake human rights, racist absolute evil, fascist infinite justice etc.
Excluding all our authentic, sacred, indigenous beliefs and values, all of them are fantastic inventions of ruling class, megalomaniac, kleptocratic man, that were forcefully implanted into the very soil and soul of the Americas, to serve European colonial and imperialist interests.
We have to nurture our own Science, to cultivate our own Philosophy, and to make our own History.
* However, if we just look around, we'll notice historic, emancipatory relations all around us. Seek and ye shall find!
Concerning the current transition, the transmutation towards the galactic unseen, beyond the Milky Way ... at this very moment, knowingly or unknowingly, the Bolivarian Revolution, objectively, subjectively and transjectively, finds itself in the ALBA, in the Aurora of revolutionary emancipation.
Next Tuesday ... October 12 ... thanks to Chavez' revolutionary government, indigenous emancipatory efforts are really something worthwhile to wholeheartedly celebrate!
Franz John Tennyson Lee, Ph. D (University of Frankfurt), Author, Professor Titular & Chairholder of Philosophy and Political Science, University of The Andes, Merida (Venezuela) -- http://www.franzjutta.com ; http://www.franz-lee.org ; http://www.geocities.com/juttafranz/publications00001.html
More VHeadline.com commentaries
by Preofessor Franz J.T. Lee
http://www.vheadline.com/readnews.asp?id=23045``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xFrom Columbus Day to Indian Resistance Day``x1097333527,20602,Development``x``x
``xFrom Innocent Gore in Maputo, Mozambique
www.zimbabweherald.com
PRESIDENT Mugabe has said Zimbabwe is encouraged that other African countries have seen through the shameless hypocrisy, blatant double standards and the desperate game of lies which seek the country's isolation from the family of nations.
Cde Mugabe, who arrived here on Saturday for an official visit and is accompanied by Defence Minister Cde Sydney Sekeramayi and other top Government officials, was speaking at a banquet hosted for him by his Mozambican counterpart, Mr Joaquim Chissano.
He said the excellent relations enjoyed by Zimbabwe and Mozambique at various levels, particularly on the bilateral and regional levels, had been a source of consternation for those who had desired to divide the two countries because of those detractors' opposition to Zimbabwe's land reform programme.
"The leadership of my country has been demonised by their rabidly anti-Zimbabwe media while issues of democracy, human rights and good governance have been used as a façade to hide their intentions of breaking the solidarity in our ranks.
"We are delighted and grateful that your own country, with which we share a common history of struggle against imperialist oppression, has understood the real objective of those clamouring and actually plotting for regime change in Zimbabwe.
"Britain and her allies seek not just the removal of my Government from power, but also the recolonisation of Zimbabwe," he said.
"Their futile aim is to, once more, deprive the Zimbabwean people of their inalienable right to determine their own destiny by undermining our national sovereignty and independence, a prize for which many lives were lost.
"As is known, a good number of our gallant sons and daughters fell in this great country struggling for freedom and independence. The only justice we can do to these silent heroes is to remain unwavering in our defence of the cause for which they died, that of freedom and independence of our countries."
President Mugabe said since the convening of the Ninth Session of the Joint Commission of Co-operation between Zimbabwe and Mozambique in October 2002, bilateral ties had been strengthened and enhanced.
Concrete action to implement the agreements reached at the session had included more regular and intense contacts between customs, immigration and security services and had contributed to a significant reduction to some of the problems that had been experienced along the two countries' common border.
He said the two countries' shared determination to facilitate and promote improved commercial exchanges was manifested in the signing of the bilateral trade agreement in January.
All the legal processes required to operationalise the agreement had been concluded and the challenge was now to encourage the countries' business communities to take up the opportunities arising from the agreement.
The integrated and holistic development of the Beira Transport Corridor continued to receive the constant attention of the officials and ministers concerned and their efforts had brightened the prospects for the signing of a memorandum of understanding (MOU) on the Beira Development Corridor before the end of the year, the President said.
Together with other countries in the region, Cde Mugabe said, Zimbabwe stood to benefit from the investment and other development activities likely to arise from the signing of the MOU.
Citing the Zimbabwe-Mozambique Solidarity Gala held in Chimoio at the weekend, President Mugabe said such people-to-people contacts were a powerful reflection of the historical and political ties between Zimbabwe and Mozambique.
"By a happy coincidence, on this same night, multitudes of our people have converged at Chimoio for a night-long music festival involving artists from both Zimbabwe and Mozambique. Officials from our two Governments have played pivotal roles in the realisation of this event, clearly demonstrating our mutual encouragement and support for such forms of interaction among our citizens.
"It is my hope that other demonstrations of the friendship and solidarity between our countries and people will continue to take place with a deserving regularity and frequency," said President Mugabe.
In response, President Chissano expressed solidarity with the Zimbabwe Government for its actions aimed at correcting the colonial historical legacy through the land reform programme which, he said, was aimed at promoting social justice.
"We are pleased with the results that Zimbabwe has been attaining in recovering food security which was weakened by drought that affected the sub-region and by the sanctions imposed on the country.
"Our historical and cultural links and our policies of good neighbourliness constitute strong bases for our co-operation in several fields. To be short, in this regard, I would like to mention the progress made towards the demarcation of the common border. The co-operation between our two countries has also been witnessing positive developments in the area of shared international courses, an extremely delicate subject and the object of attention not only for us, but also at the level of the sub-region."
President Chissano said he was pleased with the reform of electoral laws in Zimbabwe in the spirit of the Southern Africa Development Community guidelines and principles on elections.
"We hope that these reforms will encourage the internal political actors to take a patriotic attitude in favour of the interests of the Zimbabwean people," he said.
President Chissano said Zimbabweans and Mozambicans fought bloody wars to defend one another in different phases of their histories.
"Mozambican fighters fought side-by-side with Zimbabwean fighters in the struggle against the minority and illegal regime of Ian Smith, a struggle that led to the proclamation of the independence of Zimbabwe on April 18, 1980. The independence of Zimbabwe was intensively celebrated in Mozambique for it also meant the liberation of the Mozambican people.
"Zimbabwean fighters fought side-by-side with their Mozambican comrades against external aggression which was imposed against our country from abroad."
Today, the two peoples feel that it was worthwhile to have sacrificed because, above all, they conquered and attained what is noble and precious for mankind: dignity and peace, said President Chissano.
The lifetime valorisation of these achievements, he said, required the erection of monuments and other physical, historical and cultural references in the two countries, which can serve as a permanent source of inspiration for the coming generations.
President Mugabe yesterday morning laid a wreath at the Praca dos Herois Mozambicanos (Place of Mozambican Heroes) where the remains of the country's independence heroes, such as Samora Machel and Eduardo Mondlane, lie.
After that he left for Tete province in the northern part of Mozambique where he was expected to tour Cabora Bassa Dam, accompanied by President Chissano. Zimbabwe imports part of its power needs from Cabora Bassa.
President Mugabe told journalists before his departure that he was going to see the progress made in the expansion of the hydro-electricity generation capacity at the dam.
From Tete, President Mugabe is today expected to tour Inhambane province in central Mozambique.
Answering questions from Mozambican journalists who wanted to be apprised of the situation in the country, the President said Zimbabwe was politically stable and was going through an economic turnaround.
The country was looking forward to a good rainy season, having reaped a good harvest in the past season, he said.
He also told the Mozambican journalists that the ruling Zanu-PF party was going to hold its congress in December and that there would be parliamentary elections in March next year.
The President, however, expressed concern at the HIV/Aids scourge, saying it was wiping out the young and economically active age-groups. He said the Government was doing its best to assist those affected through the provision of anti-retroviral drugs.
http://www.zimbabweherald.com/index.php?id=36693&pubdate=2004-10-11``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe-Mozambique ties hailed``x1097506372,94578,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Tim Wise
"A lie can travel half-way around the world while the truth is still pulling on its boots."
Although this truism was penned long before the Internet, there is little doubt but that in the modern era, it has become more prescient than its author could ever have imagined.
When it comes to fast-moving lies, few can top one that has been distributed by white supremacists for the past several years. It is probably the most popular piece of racist propaganda in existence today, and because it relies on official government data, it comes across as sober, intelligent social science, rather than as the compendium of nonsense it happens to be.
The screed to which I refer is "The Color of Crime: Race, Crime and Violence in America," by white nationalist, Jared Taylor. Taylor is the publisher of the racist magazine, American Renaissance, and host of an annual conference, which attracts open neo-Nazis as well as a gaggle of academicians who proclaim black genetic inferiority.
According to Taylor, there are several "facts" about crime that have been hidden from view by the civil rights community. Among them:
--Blacks are much more dangerous than whites as evidenced by higher crime rates;
--Black criminals usually choose white victims and are far more likely to victimize whites than whites are to victimize blacks (both for regular violent crimes and hate crimes);
--Black crime rates justify racial profiling, since it only makes sense to focus law enforcement attention on those who commit a disproportionate share of crime; and finally,
--The interracial crime data makes white fear of African Americans perfectly rational.
But a close examination of these arguments proves that Taylor and his followers are either statistically illiterate, or knowingly deceive for political effect.
First, as for the disproportionate rate of violent crime committed by blacks, economic conditions explain the difference with white crime rates.
According to several studies, when community and personal economic status is comparable between whites and blacks, there are no significant racial crime differences (1). In other words, the implicit message of Taylor's report--that blacks are dangerous because they are black--is insupportable.
Secondly, to claim that blacks are more dangerous than whites because of official crime rates, is to ignore that when it comes to everyday threats to personal well-being, whites far and away lead the pack in all kinds of destructive behaviors: corporate pollution, consumer fraud, violations of health and safety standards on the job, and launching wars on the basis of deceptive evidence, to name a few. Each year, far more people die because of corporate malfeasance, occupational health violations and pollution than all the street crime combined, let alone street crime committed by African Americans (2).
[Stoking Fears About Interracial Crime - A Look at How Nazis Do Math]
Next, Taylor claims that most victims of black violent crime are white, and thus, that blacks are violently targeting whites. Furthermore, since only a small share of the victims of white criminals are black (only 4.4 percent in 2002, for example), this means that blacks are far more of a threat to whites than vice-versa.
But there are several problems with these claims.
To begin with, the white victim totals in the Justice Department's victimization data include those termed Hispanic by the Census, since nine in ten Latino/as are considered racially white by government record-keepers. Since Latino/as tend to live closer to blacks than non-Hispanic whites, this means that many "white" victims of "black crime" are Latino/a, and that in any given year, the majority of black crime victims would be people of color, not whites.
But even if we compute the white totals as Taylor does, without breaking out Hispanic victims of "black crime," his position is without merit.
In 2002, whites, including Latinos, were about 81.5 percent of the population (3). That same year, whites (including Latinos) were 51 percent of the victims of violent crimes committed by blacks, meaning that whites were victimized by blacks less often than would have been expected by random chance, given the extent to which whites were available to be victimized (4).
As for the claim that blacks victimize whites at rates that are far higher than the reverse, though true, this statistic is meaningless, for a few obvious but overlooked reasons, first among them the simple truth that if whites are more available as potential victims, we would naturally expect black criminals to victimize whites more often than white criminals would victimize blacks.
Examining data from 2002, there were indeed 4.5 times more black-on-white violent crimes than the reverse (5). While this may seem to support Taylor's position, it actually destroys it, because the interracial crime gap, though seemingly large, is smaller than random chance would have predicted.
The critical factor ignored by Taylor is the extent to which whites and blacks encounter each other in the first place. Because of ongoing racial isolation and de facto segregation, the two group's members do not encounter one another at rates commensurate with their shares of the population: a fact that literally torpedoes the claims in The Color of Crime.
As sociologist Robert O'Brian has noted (using Census data), the odds of a given white person (or white criminal) encountering a black person are only about three percent. On the other hand, the odds of a given black person (or black criminal) encountering a white person are nineteen times greater, or fifty-seven percent (6), meaning the actual interracial victimization gap between black-on-white and white-on-black crime is smaller than one would expect.
In 2002, blacks committed a little more than 1.2 million violent crimes, while whites committed a little more than three million violent crimes (7). If each black criminal had a 57 percent chance of encountering (and thus potentially victimizing) a white person, this means that over the course of 2002, blacks should have been expected to victimize roughly 690,000 whites. But in truth, blacks victimized whites only 614,176 times that year (8).
Conversely, if each white criminal had only a three percent chance of encountering and thus victimizing a black person, this means that over the course of 2002, whites would have been expected to victimize roughly 93,000 blacks. But in truth, whites victimized blacks 135,931 times: almost 50 percent more often than would be expected by random chance (9).
Indeed, given relative crime rates as well as rates of interracial encounter, random chance would have predicted the ratio of black-on-white to white-on-black victimization at roughly 7.4 to one. Yet, as the data makes clear, there were only 4.5 times more black-on-white crimes than white-on-black crimes in 2002. In other words, given encounter ratios, black criminals victimize whites less often than could be expected, while white criminals victimize blacks more often than could be expected.
[Lies About Hate Crimes - More Fun With Nazi Math]
Taylor's claims regarding hate crimes are even more ridiculous.
The Color of Crime asserts that blacks commit a disproportionate share of racial and ethnic hate crimes against whites, while white-on-black hate crimes are far less frequent. But the data simply doesn't support such a claim.
From 1995-2000, blacks were 65 percent of racial and ethnic hate-crime victims, while whites were 21 percent of such victims (10). Adjusted for population, any given black person was nearly twenty times more likely to be the victim of a racially motivated hate crime than any given white. In 2001, there were approximately 4.6 times more white-on-black than black-on-white hate crimes (11), despite the fact that whites were between six and seven times more available in the population to become victims.
Considering that blacks are much more likely to encounter whites than vice-versa, this last statistic is especially alarming. After all, if blacks are nineteen times more likely to encounter whites than whites are to encounter blacks, any given black person would have nineteen times more opportunities to commit an anti-white hate crime than a white person would have to commit an anti-black hate crime.
Since blacks are roughly one-sixth the size of the non-Hispanic white population, in order to determine the expected ratio of black-on-white hate crimes relative to white-on-black hate crimes given random chance, one must multiply the 19:1 black-on-white encounter ratio by one-sixth.
Once this computation is made, we find that differential rates of encounter and population availability would predict that if levels of racial hatred were equal between whites and blacks, and the willingness to commit a hate crime were equal between the two groups, in any given year there should be 3.15 times more black-on-white hate crimes than white-on-black hate crimes.
That in truth there are nearly five times more white-on-black hate crimes than the reverse suggests that blacks are much less likely to commit an anti-white hate crime than would be expected and whites are far more likely to commit an anti-black hate crime than would be expected.
[White Fear of Blacks - The Height of Irrationality]
Of course, above and beyond the mere statistical chicanery at the heart of Taylor's report, the larger point is that for Taylor and other racists to claim that black-on-white crime data justifies white fear of African Americans, or racial profiling by police is sheer ignorance.
Criminologists estimate that seventy percent of all crimes are committed by just seven percent of the offenders (12): a small bunch of repeat offenders who commit the vast majority of crimes. Since blacks committed roughly 1.2 million violent crimes in 2002, if seventy percent of these were committed by seven percent of the black offenders, this would mean that at most there were perhaps 390,000 individual black offenders that year (13). In a population of 29.3 million over the age of twelve, this would represent no more than 1.3 percent of the black population that committed a violent crime in 2002.
Since fewer than half of these would have chosen a non-Hispanic white victim (as noted previously), this means that less no more than seven-tenths of one percent of the black population would have victimized a white person in 2002: hardly the kind of fact that would warrant white fear of blacks as a group.
Furthermore, since whites were victimized 2.9 million times by other whites in 2002 (compared to roughly 614,000 times by blacks), this means that whites are 4.7 times more likely to be victimized by another white person than by a black person (14).
Thus, if crime data can justify white fear of blacks, it would also require whites to be terrified of white neighbors, co-workers, family and white strangers, for these are the folks most likely to victimize us.
[The Absurdity of Profiling]
As for profiling, Taylor insists that because of higher black crime rates, it only makes good sense to focus police efforts on the black community. But this is demonstrably ludicrous. If, as the Justice Department data suggests, blacks commit somewhere between 25-30 percent of violent crime in most years (23 percent in 2002), to profile blacks for crime will result in police being wrong, between 70-75 percent of the time (15).
And of course, profiling is not the typical method for uncovering serious already-committed crimes anyway, since solving such crimes logically involves using incident-specific information. Profiling is, instead, too often done as a way to uncover crimes, such as drug possession, that have yet to come to police attention.
As for drugs, there can be no doubt that profiling is irrational. According to federal data, blacks are only 13.5 percent of drug users, while non-Hispanic whites are over 70 percent of users (16). So to profile blacks for drugs is to guarantee little success in actually uncovering drug crimes.
[Conclusion - Why Bother Responding to Nazis?]
Some may wonder whether it makes sense to spend so much time and energy responding to the claims of someone who openly consorts with neo-Nazis, and whose agenda is so blatantly racist in nature. Though it would be nice not to have to respond to such silliness, the fact is, Taylor and his report have been cited approvingly by conservative columnists and talking heads, from Walter Williams, to David Horowitz, to the folks at the National Review, to Vanderbilt Law professor, Carol Swain.
What's more, with studies suggesting that white perceptions of black criminality play a prominent role in furthering racism, both attitudinally and institutionally (in terms of support for racially disparate and draconian crime policies), refuting this kind of foolishness carries with it important personal and policy implications as well.
However unappealing it may be to have to answer the racist claims of bigots and fascists, the fact remains that given the appeal of racist logic to so many, and given the strength of institutional racism as a defining force in American life, we can hardly afford the luxury of ignoring such positions, so as to "not give them legitimacy."
The sad fact is that racism already enjoys plenty of legitimacy, with or without a rebuttal. Ignoring this reality isn't likely to diminish its strength, but responding to it forcefully might, at the very least, dissuade impressionable minds from accepting the twisted logic offered by the racist right.
----------------
Tim Wise is an antiracist essayist, activist and father. His upcoming books, White Like Me: Reflections on Race from a Privileged Son (Soft Skull, 2005) and Affirmative Action: Racial Preference in Black and White (Routledge Falmer, 2005) are available for pre-ordering at Amazon.com, and will be published in January.
NOTES:
1. L.J. Krivo and R.D. Peterson, "Extremely Disadvantaged Neighborhoods and Urban Crime," Social Forces 75(2) (December 1996); Barbara Chasin. Inequality and Violence in the United States. (NJ: Humanities Press International, 1997).
2. Jeffrey Reiman. ...And the Poor Get Prison: Economic Bias in American Criminal Justice. (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1996); Lisa Cullen. A Job to Die For: Why So Many Americans are Killed, Injured or Made Ill at Work, and What to Do About It. (Monroe, ME: Common Courage Press, 2002).
3. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstracts of the United States, 2003. Table No. 14: 16.
4. United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Criminal Victimization in the United States, 2002, Statistical Tables, (U.S. Department of Justice, 2004), tables 40, 42, 46 and 48, and calculations by the author.
5. Ibid.
6. Robert O'Brian. "The Interracial Nature of Violent Crimes: A Reexamination." American Journal of Sociology 92(6) (1987).
7. United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Criminal Victimization in the United States, 2002, Statistical Tables, (U.S. Department of Justice, 2004), tables 40, 42, 46 and 48, and calculations by the author.
8. Ibid.
9. Ibid.
10. United States Department of Justice, FBI Uniform Crime Reports, "Hate Crime Statistics," (various years, 1995-2000), and calculations by the author.
11. United States Department of Justice, FBI Uniform Crime Reports, 2002, "Hate Crime Statistics, 2001."
12. Peter Greenwood and Alan Abrahamse. Selective Incapacitation (Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation, 1982); Todd Clear, "Backfire: When Incarceration Increases Crime," Oklahoma Criminal Justice Research Center, at: www.doc.state.ok.us/DOCS/OCJRC/Ocjrc96/Ocjrc7.htm. (1996).
13. If blacks committed 1.2 million violent crimes in 2002, and 70 percent of these were committed by 7 percent of the offenders, then 30 percent were committed by the remaining 93 percent of offenders. 30 percent of 1.2 million offenses is 360,000 offenses. 360,000 represents 93 percent of 387,000. If the remaining 70 percent of offenses (840,000) were committed by 7 percent of the population, this means that these crimes were committed by 27,000 hardcore offenders (7 percent of 387,000).
14. U.S. Department of Justice, 2004.
15. U.S Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Criminal Victimization in the United States, various years, 1993-2004.
16. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. 2003. Results from the 2002 National Survey on Drug Use and Health. Office of Applied Studies, Department of Health and Human Services, Rockville, MD.
Reproduced from:
http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2004-10/19wise.cfm``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xThe Color of Deception``x1098116973,52261,Development``x``x
``xWealth of a White Nation: Blacks Sink Deeper in Hole
by Black Commentator, blackcommentator.com
Forget the hoopla and ballyhoo celebrating Black faces in high places. The median net worth of an African American household is about $6,000, while white households wield 14 times as much wealth: more than $88,000. The disastrous details are contained in a report on wealth disparities by the Pew Hispanic Center, "The Wealth of Hispanic Households: 1996 to 2002," but the worst news is for Blacks, one-third of whom have no assets or a negative net worth.
The bottom fell out of Black wealth accumulation in the deep recession of 2000 - 2001, a downturn that hurt all ethnic groups, but from which whites and Hispanics rapidly rebounded. Whites recouped their losses from the recession and fattened their holdings by 17 percent between 1996 and 2002. Hispanics boosted their meager household wealth to about $7,900 during that period - still only one eleventh of white households, but almost fully recovering the 27 percent loss they suffered at the turn of the 21st century. Blacks also lost 27 percent of their net worth in 2000 - 2001, but got back only 5 percent in 2002. These African American losses appear near-permanent, the result of the deindustrialization of the United States - the destruction of the Black blue-collar workforce.
Hispanics, clustered in the low wage service sector, suffered less lasting effects. However, for African Americans, the worst news just keeps on coming, the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow discrimination. As Roderick Harrison, a researcher at the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, told the Associated Press: "Wealth is a measure of cumulative advantage or disadvantage. The fact that black and Hispanic wealth is a fraction of white wealth also reflects a history of discrimination."
It is a 'reflection' in the American mirror that whites don't want to see, believing in the vast majority that their privilege and wealth has been earned - and at no one else's expense. In truth, as Harvard social demographer Dr. Michael A. Dawson puts it, "The racial structures in the United States continue to this day to produce wealth disparities." Today, these structures are working feverishly to dislodge Blacks from their precarious perches in the middle class. Yet whites remain implacably opposed to engaging in even a discussion of reparations, while continuing to profit from 'the inherited gift that keeps on giving' (see , May 8, 2002). Surfing through the recession with their assets largely intact, white America pretends that some malady of 'culture' - rather than the crimes of a nation - is what holds African Americans back. And some Black fools believe them.
Tomfoolery in high places
"There were several members of the Congressional Black Caucus who took the position that the racial wealth disparity was due to the misbehavior of Black folks," says Dr. William 'Sandy' Darity, recalling events at the 2003 Black Caucus Week, in Washington. Several silly Black lawmakers theorized that wealth disparities could be eliminated if only African Americans would engage in less impulse buying and save more money, said Darity, a Professor of Public Policy Studies, African and African American Studies and Economics at Duke University. He continued: "In fact, if you control for income, the Black savings rate is at least as high as the white savings rate. There is some evidence to suggest that it might be higher."
By Darity's calculations, African Americans would have to go without food, shelter, clothing and all other expenses en masse "for well over a decade" to save enough to achieve wealth parity with whites. "So I would say, there is no way that you can catch up by systemic and careful savings. If African Americans saved all of their income - that is, if we didn't eat, pay any bills, but saved every cent of income - we could not close the wealth gap," said the professor, who also teaches economics at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
In economics, the past is present; it is the cushion on which some folks arrive in this world. In the United States, those white cushions were likely embroidered by no- and low-wage Black folks whose descendants are today being slammed to the pavement with no buffer of any kind.
African American households earn less than 60 percent of median white income. At the pace of catch-up since 1968, according to a report issued earlier this year by United for a Fair Economy (UFE), "it would take 581 years' to achieve income parity with whites. But wages are not wealth. For most Americans, home ownership is the major asset. Seventy-five percent of whites own their homes, while more than half of Blacks rent. At the rate of 'progress' recorded since 1970, UFE estimates 'it would take 1,664 years to close the ownership gap - 55 generations."
The roots of this unbridgeable gap - unbridgeable, that is, by the conventional mechanisms of capitalism - are much nearer. Duke University's Dr. Darity follows the path the mule never took to examine the value of the 40 acres most ex-slaves never got. "We were supposed to get 40 million acres, we managed to accumulate 15 million by dint of our own efforts, and now we're down to about one million acres," said the professor. "I think people tend to deemphasize the importance of land as wealth. The areas designated by Union General William Sherman's [1865] field order are now some of the most valuable land in American." He is referring to the coastal regions of South Carolina and Georgia, now home and playground of the rich.
Of the 15 million acres of land accumulated by Blacks throughout the South in the aftermath of the Civil War, most "was fairly systematically taken away through terror, taxes and fraud. There were instances of the wholesale destruction of Black deeds by arson," said Darity. The African American real estate patrimony was all but wiped out through white private and public lawlessness - crimes that led directly to today's racial wealth disparities.
Had the post-Civil War federal government honored and expanded upon Gen. Sherman's 1865 promise, or passed Congressman Thaddeus Stevens' 1867 Reparations Bill for the African Slaves in the United States, which would have allotted 40 acres "to each [formerly enslaved] male person who is the head of a family," African Americans might actually have gotten an economic leg up on the waves of European immigrants that poured into the country during the latter decades of the 1800s.
Trillions lost
What would an 1865 plot of 40 acres be worth to Black America today? According to economist Darity's numbers, about $1.6 million dollars to every African American - not counting the mule. "That should be the anchor for reparations," he said.
And what of free and devalued Black labor? In a 2000 paper, Professor Joe R. Feagin, of the University of Florida, at Gainesville, reviewed a number of labor reparations calculations. He concluded:
"Clearly, the sum total of the worth of all the black labor stolen by whites through the means of slavery, segregation, and contemporary discrimination is staggering - many trillions of dollars. The worth of all that labor, taking into account lost interest over time and putting it in today's dollars, is perhaps in the range of $5 to $24 trillion."
Feagin also tackled the land issue, to demonstrate that historical federal largess to whites dwarfs current Black reparations claims:
"Passed under the Abraham Lincoln administration, the Homestead Act provided access to productive land and wealth, mostly for white families, from the 1860s to the 1930s. Some 246 million acres were provided by the federal government, at minimal cost, for some 1.5 homesteads. Research by Trina Williams estimates that - depending on calculations of multiple ownership, mortality, marriage, and childbearing patterns - somewhere between 20 and 93 million Americans are now the beneficiaries of this large wealth-generating program over several generations. Williams (2000) suggests that the most likely figure is in the middle range, perhaps 46 million, a figure equal to about one quarter of the current population. Almost all of these beneficiaries have been white, as only 4,000 African Americans made entries under the Homestead Act."
Thus, white folks, many of them immigrants, received multiples of the acreage promised to Blacks - 246 million vs. 40 million - yet their descendants laugh out loud when African Americans bring up "40 acres and a mule."
Not one cash dollar
Reparations supporters may tally the bill by any number of formulas, but white America isn't hearing any of it. Data from a study of racial divisions under the George W. Bush administration, conducted over the past four years by Harvard University Professors Michael C. Dawson and Lawrence Bobo, reveal no support among whites for cash payments to compensate Blacks for slavery and Jim Crow. "None, no support, not any," Dawson emphasized. "It's a different world, in terms of how different groups see reality. There's also a different moral universe."
Within that morally challenged universe, only 4 percent of whites favored reparations for Black slavery in surveys conducted in 2000 and 2003. Two-thirds of Black respondents favored reparations for slavery.
This year, Dawson and Bobo, both professors of African and African American Studies, sought to clarify Black and white attitudes toward three reparations proposals: cash payments to African Americans as individuals; scholarship funds for disadvantaged African American youth; or the establishment of a Community Trust, to be used to rebuild Black schools and community infrastructure and foster small business.
Whites unanimously rejected the idea of cash payments to Blacks. When asked to assume that reparations were necessary, and to choose some form of compensation, whites favored a Community Trust over scholarships. African Americans favor both cash payments and the Community Trust idea, but are more likely to support the Community Trust framework. All three proposals enjoy some degree of support among African Americans.
A question from the Dawson-Bobo 2003 survey may provide the best measure of general white moral obtuseness on issues of race. When asked if reparations should be paid to the survivors of the white destruction of the Black communities of Tulsa, Oklahoma (1921) and Rosewood, Florida (1923), 84 percent of Blacks said "yes." Only 11 percent of whites agreed, an indication that widespread white feelings of guilt over racial oppression is a myth.
Professor Dawson noted that "even when presented with a demonstrable survivor of a contemporary event, whites oppose any reparations to the Black victims."
That's because most whites consider themselves to be, somehow, victims of African Americans, just as they feel set upon and victimized for no good reason by dark Islamic forces in the world, and for the same reasons that they constructed a national mythology of victimization at the hands of 'savage' Indians. The Dawson-Bobo statistics tell a tale of racism in the raw.
So deep is the collective psychosis, that the current and historical reality of enforced Black economic instability, as detailed in the Pew wealth disparity study, seems to affirm many whites in their delusions of superiority. Against all facts and reason, white America rejects redress of Black grievances, because it refuses to recognize its own bloody legacy, as described by University of Florida Professor Joe Feagin:
"White privilege is ubiquitous and imbedded even where most whites cannot see it; it is the foundation of this society. It began in early white gains from slavery and has persisted under legal segregation and contemporary racism. Acceptance of this system of white privileges and black disadvantages as 'normal' has conferred advantages for whites now across some fifteen generations."
There will be a reckoning.
Reprinted from:
www.blackcommentator.com/110/110_cover_white_wealth.html``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xWealth of a White Nation``x1098496868,42305,Development``x``x
``xThe following is a keynote speech delivered by famed computer scientist Philip Emeagwali on September 18, 2004, at the Pan-African Conference on Globalization, Washington DC.
Globalization – or the ability of many people, ideas and technology to move from country to country – is not new. In Africa, it was initiated by the slave trade and given impetus by colonialism and Christian missionaries.
The early missionaries saw African culture and religion as a deadly adversary and as an evil that had to be eliminated. In 1876, a 27-year-old missionary named Mary Slessor emigrated from Scotland to spend the rest of her life in Nigeria. For her efforts in trying to convert the people of Nigeria, Mary Slessor's photograph appears on Scotland's ten pound note, and her name can be found on schools, hospitals and roads in Nigeria.
The introduction to Mary Slessor's biography, titled: "White Queen of the Cannibals" is revealing:
"On the west coast of Africa is the country of Nigeria. The chief city is Calabar," said Mother Slessor. "It is a dark country because the light of the Gospel is not shining brightly there. Black people live there. Many of these are cannibals who eat other people."
"They're bad people, aren't they, Mother?" asked little Susan.
"Yes, they are bad, because no one has told them about Jesus, the Saviour from sin, or showed them what is right and what is wrong."
These opening words clearly show that Mary Slessor came to Africa on a mission to indoctrinate us with Christian theology. She told us we worshipped an inferior god and that we belonged to an inferior race. She worked to expel what she described as "savagism" from our culture and heritage and to encourage European "civilization" to take root in Africa.
We accepted the mission schools which were established to enlighten us, without questioning the unforeseen costs of our so-called education. These mission schools plundered our children's self-esteem by teaching them that, as Africans they were inherently "bad people." Our children grew up not wanting to be citizens of Africa. Instead, their education fostered the colonial ideal that they would be better off becoming citizens of the colonizing nations.
I speak of the price Africans have paid for their education and "enlightenment" from personal experience. I was born "Chukwurah," but my missionary schoolteachers insisted I drop my "heathen" name. The prefix "Chukwu" in my name is the Igbo word for "God." Yet, somehow, the missionaries insisted that "Chukwurah" was a name befitting a godless pagan. The Catholic Church renamed me "Philip," and Saint Philip became my patron and protector, replacing God, after whom I was named.
I have to argue that something more than a name has been lost. Something central to my heritage has been stripped away.
This denial of our past is the very antithesis of a good education. Our names represent not only our heritage, but connect us to our parents and past. As parents, the names we choose for our children reflect our dreams for their future and our perceptions of the treasures they represent to us.
My indoctrination went far deeper than just a name. The missionary school tried to teach me that saints make better role models than scientists. I was taught to write in a new language. As a result, I became literate in English but remain illiterate in Igbo – my native tongue. I learned Latin – a dead language I would never use in the modern world – because it was the official language of the Catholic Church, which owned the schools I attended.
Today, there are more French speakers in Africa than there are in France. There are more English speakers in Nigeria than there are in the United Kingdom. There are more Portuguese speakers in Mozambique than there are in Portugal.
The Organization of African Unity never approved an African language as one of its official languages. We won the battle of decolonizing our continent, but we lost the war on decolonizing our minds.
Many acknowledge that globalization shapes the future, but few acknowledge that it shaped history, or at least the world's perception of it. Fewer acknowledge that globalization is a two-way street.
Africa was a colony, but it is also a key contributor to many other cultures, and the cornerstone of today's society. The world's views tend to overshadow and dismiss the value and aspirations of colonized people. Again, I must impart my own experiences to illustrate this point.
I grew up serving as an altar boy to an Irish priest. I wanted to become a priest, but ended up becoming a scientist. Religion is based on faith, while science is based on fact and reason – and science is neutral to race. Unfortunately, scientists are not neutral to race.
Take, for example, the origin of AIDS, an international disease. According to scientific records, the first person to die from AIDS was a 25-year-old sailor named David Carr, of Manchester, England. Carr died on August 31, 1959, and because the disease that killed him was then unknown, his tissue samples were saved for future analysis.
The "unknown disease" that killed David Carr was reported in The Lancet on October 29, 1960. On July 7, 1990, The Lancet retested those old tissue samples taken from David Carr and reconfirmed that he had died of AIDS. Based upon scientific reason, researchers should have deduced that AIDS originated in England, and that David Carr sailed to Africa where he spread the AIDS virus. Instead, the white scientific community condemned the British authors of those revealing articles for daring to propose that an Englishman was the first known AIDS patient.
If these scientists were neutral to race, their data should have led them to the conclusion that Patient Zero lived in England. If these scientists were neutral to race, they should have concluded that AIDS had spread from England to Africa, to Asia, and to America. Instead, they proposed the theory that AIDS originated in Africa.
Even history has degraded our African roots. We come to the United States and learn a history filtered through the eyes of white historians. And we learn history filtered through the eyes of Hollywood movie producers.
Some of us complained that Hollywood is sending its distorted message around this globalized world. Some of us complained that Hollywood is a cultural propaganda machine used to advance white supremacy.
George Bush understood Hollywood was a propaganda machine that could be used in his war against terrorism. Shortly after the 9/11 bombing of New York City, Bush invited Hollywood moguls to the White House and solicited their support in his war against terrorism.
Some will even argue that schools play a significant role as federal indoctrination centers used to convince children during their formative years that whites are superior to other races. Fela Kuti, who detested indoctrination, titled one of his musical albums: "Teacher Don't Teach Me Nonsense."
It scares me that an entire generation of African children is growing up brainwashed by Hollywood's interpretation and promotion of American heroes. Our children are growing up idolizing American heroes with whom they cannot personally identify.
We need to tell our children our own stories from our own perspective. We need to decolonize our thinking and examine the underlying truths in more than just movies. We need to apply the same principles to history and science, as depicted in textbooks.
Look at African science stories that were retold by European historians; they were re-centered around Europe. The earliest pioneers of science lived in Africa, but European historians relocated them to Greece.
Science and technology are gifts ancient Africa gave to our modern world. Yet, our history and science textbooks, for example, have ignored the contributions of Imhotep, the father of medicine and designer of one of the ancient pyramids.
The word "science" is derived from the Latin word "scientia" or "possession of knowledge." We know, however, that knowledge is not the exclusive preserve of one race, but of all races. By definition, knowledge is the totality of what is known to humanity. Knowledge is a body of information and truth, and the set of principles acquired by mankind over the ages.
Knowledge is akin to a quilt, the latter consisting of several layers held together by stitched designs and comprising patches of many colors. The oldest patch on the quilt of science belongs to the African named Imhotep. He was the world's first recorded scientist, according to the prolific American science writer Isaac Asimov.
The oldest patch on the quilt of mathematics belongs to another African named Ahmes. Isaac Asimov also credited Ahmes as being the world's first author of a mathematics textbook. Therefore, a study of history of science is an effort to stitch together a quilt that has life, texture and color. African historians must insert the patches of information omitted from books written by European historians.
There are many examples of the mark Africans have made on world history. Americans are surprised when I tell them Africans built both Washington's White House and Capitol. According to the US Treasury Department, 450 of the 650 workers who built the White House and the Capitol were African slaves. Because the White House and Capitol are the two most visible symbols of American democracy, it is important to inform all schoolchildren in our globalized world that these institutions are the results of the sweat and toil of mostly African workers. This must also be an acknowledgement of the debt America owes Africa.
Similarly, discussions of globalization should credit those Africans who left the continent and helped build other nations throughout the world – most nations on Earth. Africans who have made contributions in Australia, in Russia, and in Europe must be acknowledged so our children can have heroes with African roots - so they can know their own roots and be proud of them.
The enormous contributions of Africans to the development and progress of other nations has gone unacknowledged. We have yet to acknowledge, for example, that St. Augustine, who wrote the greatest spiritual autobiography of all time, called "Confessions of St. Augustine," was an African; that three Africans became pope; that Africans have lived in Europe since the time of the Roman Empire; that Septimus Severus, an Emperor of Rome, was an African; and that the reason Beethoven was called "The Black Spaniard" was because he was a mulatto of African descent.
Why are we reluctant to acknowledge the contributions and legacies of our African ancestors? We cannot inspire our children to look toward the future without first reminding them of their ancestors' contributions.
Look at the long struggle of African Australians, who recently became citizens with rights on their native continent. Africans have been living in Australia for 50,000 years. Yet, African Australians were granted Australian citizenship just 37 years ago, in 1967. According to CNN, African Australians were not recognized as human beings prior to 1967. They "were governed under flora and fauna laws." African Australians were, in essence, governed by plant and animal laws. For many years, African Australians were described as the "invisible people." In fact, the first whites to settle in Australia named it the "land empty of people."
The contributions of Africans to Russia must be reclaimed. Russia's most celebrated author, A.S.(Aleksandr Sergeyevich) Pushkin, told us he was of African descent. Pushkin's great-grandfather was brought to Russia as a slave.
Russians proclaim Pushkin as their "national poet," the "patriarch of Russian literature" and the "Father of the Russian language." In essence, Pushkin is to Russia what Shakespeare is to Britain. Yet Africans who have read the complete works of Shakespeare are not likely to have read a single book by Pushkin.
I was asked to share today the story behind my supercomputer discovery. It would require several books to tell the whole story, but I will share a short one that I have never told anyone.
The journey of discovery to my supercomputer was a titanic, one-man struggle. It was like climbing Mount Everest. On many occasions I felt like giving up. Because I was traumatized by the racism I had encountered in science, I maintained a self-imposed silence on the supercomputer discovery that is my claim to fame.
I will share with you a supercomputing insight that even the experts in my field did not know then and do not know now. In the 1980s, supercomputers could perform only millions of calculations per second and, therefore, their timers were designed to measure only millions of calculations per second. But I was performing billions of calculations per second and unknowingly attempting to time it with a supercomputer timer, which was designed to measure millions of calculations per second.
I assumed my timer could measure one-billionth of a second. It took me two years to realize my timer was off a thousandfold. I was operating beyond a supercomputer's limitations, but I did not know it. The supercomputer designers did not expect their timers to be used to measure calculations at that rate. I almost gave up because I could not time and reproduce my calculations which, in turn, meant I could not share them, two years earlier, with the world.
After years of research, my supercomputer's timer was the only thing stopping me from getting the recognition I deserved. I realized the timer was wrong, but I could not explain why. I spent two years mulling over why the timer was wrong.
It took two long and lonely years to discover why I could not time my calculations. My 3.1 billion calculations per second, which were then the world's fastest, were simply too fast for the supercomputer's timer. What I learned from that experience was not to quit when faced with an insurmountable obstacle – and that believing in yourself makes all the difference.
I learned to take a step backward and evaluate the options: Should I go through, above, under, or around the obstacle? Quitting, I decided, was not an option. Indeed, the old saying is true: When the going gets tough, the tough get going. Looking back, I learned that most limitations in life are self-imposed. You have to make things happen, not just watch things happen.
To succeed, you must constantly reject complacency. I learned I could set high objectives and goals and achieve them. The secret to my success is that I am constantly striving for continuous improvements in my life and that I am never satisfied with my achievements.
The myth that a genius must have above-average intelligence is just that, a myth. Geniuses are people who learn to create their own positive reinforcements when their experiments yield negative results. Perseverance is the key. My goal was to go beyond the known, to a territory no one had ever reached.
I learned that if you want success badly enough and believe in yourself, then you can attain your goals and become anything you want in life. The greatest challenge in your life is to look deep within yourself to see the greatness that is inside you, and those around you.
The history books may deprive African children of the heroes with whom they can identify, but in striving for your own goals, you can become that hero for them – and your own hero, too.
I once believed my supercomputer discovery was more important than the journey that got me there. I now understand the journey to discovery is more important than the discovery itself; that the journey also requires a belief in your own abilities.
I learned that no matter how often you fall down, or how hard you fall down, what is most important is that you rise up and continue until you reach your goal.
It's true, some heroes are never recognized, but what's important is that they recognize themselves. It is that belief in yourself, that focus, and that inner conviction that you are on the right path, that will get you through life's obstacles.
If we can give our children pride in their past, then we can show them what they can be and give them the self-respect that will make them succeed.
Emeagwali helped give birth to the supercomputer – the technology that spawned the Internet. He won the 1989 Gordon Bell Prize, which has been dubbed the "Nobel Prize of Supercomputing."
Reprinted from:
www.blackcommentator.com/110/110_globalization.html``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xGlobalization Not New: look at the Slave Trade``x1098550990,40312,Development``x``x
``xHerald Reporter
AT least 6 000 ex-political prisoners, detainees and restrictees will be rewarded for their contribution to the liberation struggle following the passage of a Bill in Parliament paving way for the Government to render them assistance.
The Bill sailed through Parliament last Thursday and will become law once President Mugabe assents to it.
In a rare meeting of minds, both ruling Zanu-PF and opposition MDC legislators backed the proposed law, saying it was long overdue.
Debating the Bill on Tuesday last week, Rushinga Member of Parliament Cde Lazarus Dokora (Zanu-PF) said the Bill was noble.
He urged the Government to commit adequate resources for the welfare of the ex-political prisoners, detainees and restrictees.
Bulawayo South MP Mr David Coltart (MDC) said the white population in Zimbabwe was responsible for the injustices, including torture of incarcerated political activists, that occurred during the liberation struggle.
"As a white Zimbabwean, I find it shameful that it was whites who were responsible for this. It is a shameful chapter in this nation’s history," Mr Coltart said while making his contribution to the debate.
"Successive white minority governments subjected blacks to torture. We are responsible for this situation that has led to this Bill," he said.
But the Minister of Public Service, Labour and Social Welfare, Cde Paul Mangwana, said the confession by Mr Coltart was not enough as it should have included the part which he played personally in the torture of former freedom fighters.
Cde Mangwana was steering the Bill.
The assistance by the State to the beneficiaries will be in the form of one-off payment gratuities, educational and health benefits.
The Minister of Public Service, Labour and Social Welfare will determine the amount of gratuities to be paid to the ex-political prisoners, detainees and restrictees.
Under Clause 2 of the Bill, an ex-political prisoner, detainee or restrictee is a person who, after January 1, 1959, was imprisoned, detained or restricted in Zimbabwe for at least six months for political activity in connection with bringing about the country’s independence.
The Government will provide destitute former political prisoners, detainees and restrictees with some means of subsistence to cater for their basic needs.
Assistance may also take the form of grants or loans for income-generating projects or grants for physical, mental or social rehabilitation or for acquiring vocational or technical training.
Schemes established in terms of the Bill permit differential treatment between ex-political prisoners, detainees and restrictees.
Although every person who qualifies for registration will be registered, only those in need of assistance will benefit from the proposed schemes.
Thus, the schemes will carry out means-testing for evaluating the ex-political prisoners, detainees or restrictees before they are considered for assistance.
There shall be a committee of the board responsible for vetting the ex-political prisoners, detainees and restrictees.
It will be composed of members from various ministries responsible for social welfare that include Home Affairs, Defence, Justice and the Office of the President and Cabinet.
Dishonest conduct in relation to the receipt of assistance under the proposed law will constitute an offence.
A person will be liable to refund any form of assistance received by him or her if he or she was not entitled to such assistance.
Reprinted from:
www.zimbabweherald.com/index.php?id=37315&pubdate=2004-11-01``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xBill to reward ex-political prisoners, detainees sails through``x1099296223,94383,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xA Bomb is a Bomb!
By Niyi Shomade
As arguably the richest continent in terms of culture, land, and resources, Africa has made America the richest country in the world. Yet Africa's population remains the world's poorest. If we agree that land and people are the greatest resource and that health is the greatest wealth, this paradox will be understood when analyzed within a historical context. Slavery, colonization and post colonial realities have saddled the continent with health deficiencies, environmental degradation, adverse trade agreements, odious debts, wars and widespread political instability that fuel Africa's economic and political dependency on America and Europe. Without economic independence, Africa has no political independence and therefore, no independence. Africa has never been asked if she prefers a Democrat or Republican in the White House. If this question was posed, it would be answered with a glare: A bomb is a bomb!
AIDS AND HEALTH
Bombs can take many forms. Most casualties of war result not from ammunitions but poverty, disease, and starvation. Home to 11% of the world's population, sub-Saharan Africa has approximately 70% of the world's HIV/AIDS population (80% of AIDS deaths). Approximately 7,000 people die in Africa every day from AIDS related diseases. While there is no cure for AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria kills 3 million people yearly even though treatment is effective in 95% of the cases. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), 3,000 children die daily from malaria alone—equivalent to six Boeing 747's packed with children crashing daily. The underlying root of the disease devastation isn't treatment or cure but otherwise, the pervasiveness of poverty, prevention, access to treatment and rate of infection – all linked.
The Bush administration has committed $15 billion over 5 years to fight AIDS in Africa and the Caribbean. While this is the single greatest pledge to this cause by any administration, Republican or Democrat, actual commitments have fallen short and are tied to conditionalities that in fact impede the goal of eliminating the pandemic. A coalition of NGO's has called the Bush AIDS plan "A gift tightly bound in red tape". The administration has recently announced that the funding will not just go to Africa and the Caribbean as previously mentioned, but the whole world. This will reduce the amount of funding available to Africa.
The Bush AIDS plan will likely deny Africa access to generic (inexpensive) HIV/AIDS medicine. Former president Clinton was the first President to deny South Africa of generic AIDS medicine and the ability to make its own drugs through the TRIPS (Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) agreement of the World Trade Organization (WTO). Clinton threatened President Nelson Mandela with trade sanctions if South Africa attempted to make its own HIV/AIDS medicine. With over 12% of its population (5 million) suffering from HIV/AIDS, South Africa now has the highest HIV/AIDS population of any country in the world. Clinton is now attempting to redeem himself by providing more access to HIV/AIDS medicine with the so-called Clinton Foundation (philanthropic opportunism). Ironically, the Foundation is facing resistance in providing cheaper HIV/AIDS medicine because of TRIPS, his own trade agreement. Even if the Clinton Foundation was able to overcome these obstacles, medicines would still be cheaper if African countries were allowed to make their own or purchase generics directly from India or Brazil. The same U.S. pharmaceutical corporations blocking universal healthcare for all Americans are blocking humane treatment to Africans. In early 2004, Randall Tobias, former CEO of Eli Lilly, a multinational pharmaceutical corporation, was appointed Global AIDS Coordinator by the Bush administration.
The Bush AIDS initiative will compete with the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria, as opposed to funding it. The Global Fund, a grant-funded non-profit, was created to dramatically increase resources to fight AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria in the 130 countries that are most devastated. The Bush AIDS initiative, belatedly getting under way 17 months after announcement, is only in 15 countries and does not focus on tuberculosis or malaria, the number one killer of African children. By the end of 2004 budget year, the Bush plan will have committed, but not yet spent, $865 million. $86 million of this appropriation will be earmarked for Christian faith-based organizations promoting abstinence. While the Bush plan focuses on abstinence and treatment, the Global Fund focuses on prevention through education and protection. Lastly, the Global Fund, as opposed to the Bush plan, saves significantly on administrative costs by only serving as a financial instrument and relying on local talents for implementation.
Emphasizing that the AIDS crisis is still in its infancy, the United Nations (UN) estimates that over 100 million people will be living with HIV/AIDS by 2010. The WHO has come up with a "3 by 5" plan to provide 3 million people with antiretroviral AIDS medicine by 2005. The UN reported that there were 3 million deaths and 5 million new HIV/AIDS infections in 2003. Unfortunately, the WHO's "3 by 5" will put a small dent in the estimated 45 million people living with HIV/AIDS worldwide, to say nothing of new yearly infections. Currently, less than 1% of the HIV/AIDS population in Africa has access to treatment. Additionally, there has been very little research done in testing the effectiveness of antiretroviral drugs in combating HIV1 and HIV2 and in determining which version of HIV the drugs are responsive to. If 7,000 Europeans were dying daily from HIV/AIDS related diseases, would cost and access to drugs be an issue? AIDS has lowered life expectancy in most of Southern Africa to just 38 years of age. Billions of dollars are exhausted daily in fighting the potential threat of terrorism while immediate threats to global stability like the HIV/AIDS pandemic are ignored.
TRADE AND ENVIRONMENT
Multi-national corporations are at the forefront of the most horrific environmental degradation and human rights abuses occurring in Africa today. A significant portion of the raw materials in America still come from Africa today. Of course, U.S. corporations would never be able to rape Africa without the funding of dictatorships and provision of military arms by the US government. American economist talk about the invisible hand of the market and Africans feel the impact of the invisible fist. Trade between the U.S. and Africa has always stood at direct contradiction with social services and human needs. From agriculture to industry, the impact of U.S. corporations has worsened since colonization, as trade agreements are signed by puppet leaders that are put in power to represent corporate interest. Sound familiar?
The African Growth Opportunity Act (AGOA), which has been referred to as the NAFTA (North-Atlantic Free Trade Agreement) of Africa, was created to grant duty (tax) free imports to products shipped between the U.S. and Africa. Initially passed by former President Clinton in 2000 to extend "benefits" until 2007, AGOA has most recently been extended by President Bush until 2015. AGOA is the only U.S. trade agreement, multi-lateral or bi-lateral, requiring countries to meet an extensive list of unilateral conditions (conditionalities) before being granted the "benefits" of the agreement. These conditionalities include but are not limited to:
* removal of price controls and subsidies while the US continues to subsidize its products for hundreds of billions of dollars yearly,
* insistence on trade liberalization and elimination of barriers to US trade and investment,
* privatization of social services such as water, even in places that experience frequent droughts,
* reduction in government ownership of economic assets and protection of intellectual property rights (TRIPS) and
* refrain from activities that undermine US foreign policy objectives.
One of AGOA's main selling points was that it would help African countries develop its textile industry. Yet, under the AGOA bill as framed by the Clinton administration, yarn and fabric used to make textiles and apparels had to be made either in the U.S. or an eligible African country. As a consequence, African countries were forced to pay high prices for thread and yarn from US factories, have it shipped to Africa to be sewn, and then re-shipped to the US for sale. The Bush administration has made some improvements in this area, granting access to imported apparels made with U.S. fabric or yarn and any apparel wholly assembled in Africa. Even with all the hype, textiles and apparels account for less than 5% of total AGOA sales. Oil sales from just two west African countries--Nigeria and Gabon--accounted for over 90% of total AGOA sales in the first nine months of 2001. African Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO's) have organized campaigns in response to AGOA, calling the agreement colonial, anti-democratic, and economically disastrous for Africa. AGOA's main purpose is to give U.S. corporations access to slave labor and tax-free energy-related imports to US markets. Africans are worse off and less revenue is generated from US imports. AGOA should be renamed the American Growth Opportunity Act.
Another agreement that is similar and colonial in nature is the New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD). NEPAD is also centered on trade liberalization, privatization, and deregulation. Unlike AGOA which primarily focuses on trade between US and Africa, NEPAD is an economic "development" plan that opens African markets to the U.S. and to Africa's former colonial masters in Europe. Funded by the G8 countries (the seven largest economies and Russia), NEPAD's dictates naturally come from the G8. Agreements between the G8 countries and Africa have increased income inequality globally and within Africa to the highest levels in the world. South Africa, for example, recently surpassed Brazil as having the highest inequality of distribution of wealth of any country in the world.
Another characteristic that is similar about all of the trade agreements regardless of who's in the White House is the environmental degradation and injustices in Africa. In 1995, Ken Saro Wiwa, an environmentalist and human rights activist, was hung with 8 other leaders ("The Ogoni Nine") by the dictatorship of Sani Abacha for peaceful protest against Shell Oil in the Ogoni region of Nigeria. Gas flares—the burning of natural gas and waste into the atmosphere in the process of extracting crude oil—has produced a severe pollution crisis in the Niger Delta. Nigeria, with flaring rates of 75% (the highest in the world) while other oil producing nations flare at 3%, is particularly vulnerable to the effects of global warming and sea level rising. Environmental abuse and oil spills in Ogoni have resulted in:
* the destruction of trees, seasonal fishing, and farming
* flooding, acid rain, and contamination of water supplies
* an increase in prostitution traffic with high paid male oil workers
* respiratory illnesses
* hearing loss
* childbirth defects
* skin problems
* an increase in violence due to bribes to the military by oil companies to suppress dissent.
Even though $300 billion worth of oil has been pumped from the Niger delta in the last four decades, the Ogoni people are among the poorest on the continent. Once self-sufficient, the Ogoni now have to rely on multinational oil companies for their survival. Since the Nigerian government receives over 90% of its revenue from oil, gas flaring will likely continue until it becomes profitable for multinational oil corporations to mitigate flares. For all the trade agreements and environmental and human sacrifice, Africa's share of world trade is currently 1%—less than half what it was in 1980. Trade agreements from the West and Europe prevent the development of intra-African trade, which could create additional markets for African products. Africa's heavy dependence on exports of primary commodities and imports of finished goods expose the continent to environmental abuse, price volatilities, and huge trade deficits, resulting in increased debt obligations.
DEBT
Odious debts have plagued Africa since it gained "independence" from Europe. Most of Africa's debts are owed to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank (WB), celebrating its 60th birthday this year since conception at the Bretton Woods conference in 1944. Africa will not be partaking in this celebration. In reality the conditions of the IMF and WB debts have existed long before 1944. In 1804, after Haiti had fought for and won independence from its French colonizers, it was soon burdened with debt of 90 million gold francs in 1825, supposedly representing lost revenues by France in the absence of colonization. Today, Africa's debt to the IMF and WB stands at over $300 billion. It is likely that this number represents lost revenues for Europe and America since the monies have not benefited Africa but resulted in increased poverty. $15 billion is transferred yearly from the poorest countries in Africa and the world to the richest countries in the form of interest payments. African countries have seen interest rates balloon to the upper 40% in hard economic times while the U.S. Federal Reserve lowers interest rates to 1% during recessions. African countries are unjustly required to develop economically under conditions opposite to those under which Europe and America developed.
In order to qualify for IMF and WB loans, African countries have to abide by structural adjustment programs (SAP's) which have five main characteristics:
* Reduction of government spending on health, education, and social programs
* Privatization and deregulation of state owned enterprises
* Devaluation of currency to increase earnings for exports
* Liberalization of imports to open markets to foreign goods and removal of restrictions on foreign investments
* Lowering of wages and elimination of mechanisms protecting labor.
These initiatives, intended to help African countries develop, instead undermined African economies and social programs, increasing poverty while opening up markets to multi-national corporations. SAP's are designed to transform economies from local-market producers to globalized models of production and export for hard currency used to pay interest on debt. The IMF and WB loans are set up to only make interest payments so that the ever-increasing principal is never paid off. Most of the loans have been paid off two, three, or four times over but the payments have gone to interest alone.
Even though SAP's were instituted under the Reagan administration, it was not until the 1990's that, under the Clinton administration (with the help of the WTO and increased military funding) that the IMF and WB became most devastating to Africa. According to the Jubilee debt campaign, the 1990's saw escalating trade liberalization policies which resulted in record lost jobs and a destruction of livelihoods. In 1997, in response to the public outcry for debt relief to alleviate the devastating policies of the SAP's, the IMF and WB instituted the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative (HIPC). In its aim to reduce debt levels in Africa to sustainable measures, HIPC has been an utter failure, as countries are still required to follow SAP's to qualify for HIPC. Some countries have seen their debt level rise under HIPC. Since Uganda's HIPC "debt reduction," its debt has ballooned 279%, 80% of which was borrowed for IMF and WB SAP's. Although Uganda's finance minister, Gerald Ssendaula, warned that debt levels should be limited to $200 million/year to be sustainable, Uganda has another $1.2 billion of loans in the pipeline. Debt is one of the ways that Africa's former colonial masters keep a stronghold on the continent, even if it means forced lending for projects that don't exist. Iraq is receiving debt cancellation, supposedly because its debts were incurred under a dictatorship. Most of Africa's debts were incurred under dictatorships that were put in power by the same countries collecting interest on that debt. This vicious cycle has led to an economic destabilization that furthers political instability and warfare.
WARS AND POLITICAL INSTABILITY
The mainstream media's characterization of African wars as rooted in tribal conflicts is not only careless but racist. BBC News has reported that there are enough weapons in Africa for one out of every 20 persons to have small arms. Most of the military assistance and small arms in Africa comes from America today. The National Rifle Association has systematically refused efforts to curb small arms trade in Africa and throughout the world. The U.S. International Military and Training Program provides training to African military officers from more than 44 countries, at U.S. bases. The U.S. has increased funding for the program from $8.8 million in 2001 to $11.1 million in 2003. Since September 2001, the U.S. has maintained a military base in Djibouti, East Africa. The U.S. is also considering another military base in Sao Tome in West Africa—to safeguard access to oil fields. Most of Africa's dictators that fuel civil wars have received support from both parties in the U.S. government. The U.S. bears great historical responsibility for conflicts that have destabilized such African countries as Angola, Liberia, Congo, Somalia and many more. The billions of dollars worth in military aid (arms) given to African dictatorships during the Cold War have resulted in continuing violence and political instability.
The 30-year war in southern Sudan is said to be driven by the discovery of crude oil reserves and gold. Darfur, in western Sudan, is currently experiencing destabilization fueled by the Khartoum government's response to the uprising by rebel movements in early 2003. The US has had sanctions on the Sudan government since 1997 but could be looking at opportunities of oil extractions in a destabilization of the largest country on the continent. While much attention is focused on Sudan, civil war in neighboring Congo has cost 2 to 3 million lives since 1998, said to be the highest death toll of any war since WWII. One of the richest countries in the world in terms of mineral wealth, the Congo is one of many examples of how conflicts are misrepresented in Africa. As the third largest country in Africa, the Congo sits on some of the richest gold and diamond deposits in the world and possesses newly discovered oil reserves. The Congo is also rich in rubber and ivory. It has the world's second richest rainforest, where logging is set to take place on advice of the WB without the consultation of people residing in the area. The Congolese depend on the rainforest for natural medicines, small scale farms, fruits, oils, and gaming. The deforestation of the Congo could very well result in the first environmental catastrophe of the 21st century. Despite the Congo's wealth of natural resources, the WB estimates that the per capita income in the Congo is presently the lowest in the world, at $90 per year. Its communities will likely be further impoverished by the logging. Bechtel and Barrick Gold are two of the many multi-national corporations fueling the wars for control of the Congo's mineral wealth.
Warfare in the Congo has less to do with tribal or regional politics than with control of its resources by multinational corporations. Dating back to Belgian colonial rule, Congolese conflicts have been fed by the Cold War and U.S. imperialism. In trying to control the Congo's mineral wealth, the Belgians murdered more than 15 million Congolese in the first 30 years of rule. After Congolese "independence" was achieved in 1960, the Belgian government, with support from both the Eisenhower and Kennedy administrations, conspired to shape the post-independence climate in the country.
The first and only democratically elected Prime Minister of the Congo, Patrice Lumumba was murdered a few months after taking office—by the Belgian government with the support of the CIA and UN "peacekeepers"—for advocating economic independence from the U.S. and Europe. After Lumumba's assassination, the CIA installed the dictatorship of Mobutu Seko, who ruled for over 31 years, killing thousands and looting billions. Ronald Reagan referred to Mobutu as the best friend of the U.S. in Africa. Mobutu's brutal dictatorship was overthrown by Laurent Kabila in 1997. During ongoing civil wars, Kabila was assassinated in 2001 and succeeded by his son Joseph Kabila, the youngest President/dictator in the world, at 32 years of age. Instead of describing the Congo as a breeding ground for mindless tribal killings, the country would be more accurately described as caught in the middle of competition between the U.S. and Europe for strategic control of one of the richest areas of mineral and land wealth in the world.
The U.S. continues to depend on raw materials from Africa: manganese for steel; cobalt and chrome for alloys; gold, fluorspar, and germanium for industrial diamonds. Zimbabwe and South Africa control 98% of the world's chrome reserves. Congo and Zambia possess 50% of the world's cobalt reserves. South Africa alone accounts for 90% of world reserves of metals in the platinum group. The U.S. currently receives 12% of its oil from Africa; this number is projected to reach 25% by 2015. Unless there is a shift in focus from fossil fuel to renewable energy, more warfare and catastrophe are sure to occur.
In 1994, Rwanda witnessed 3 months of genocide and the murder of 900,000 people, without President Clinton lifting a finger. Ten years later, President Bush is standing idly by as Sudan is experiencing its own bloodshed. Liberia, Sierra Leone, Angola, the Congo, and Ivory Coast are all destabilized from civil wars. Liberia for example became a U.S. colony in 1847 when it was established by wealthy Americans with "freed" slaves. U.S. corporations like Firestone established the world's largest rubber plantation there in 1926, while the indigenous people remained impoverished. Liberia has lost one twelfth of its 3 million people in civil warfare. 50% of the country's population is below 15 years of age. Most are child soldiers.
CONCLUSION
Hope for Africa doesn't lie with the US Democratic or Republican platforms, nor with the UN. Hope for Africa lies in self-determination and self-reliance. This will only happen when Africans take control of their own resources, economics, politics, and societies. Hope finds expression in South Africans' ongoing challenge to the new apartheid of corporate neoliberalism and a white minority that still controls 85% of the land. Hope is reflected in the Ogoni people's struggle against western oil companies and their government backers. Hope endures amid communities in the Congo organizing to prevent illegal logging in their rainforest. Africa will become self-sufficient through these struggles to control its own wealth.
The Nader/Camejo Campaign is aware that African countries face urgent crises in many parts of the continent. Africa is at the mercy of Europe and America for its imposed dependency on them for its defense and basic survival. African countries import weapons to defend itself, finished goods to feed itself and clothes and medicine to heal itself. Meanwhile, everything it needs is denied or shipped abroad. Africa's population continues to be exaggerated by Europe and the west. Even though Africa is the most under-populated continent per square mile, Washington (through USAID) continues to spend hundreds of millions of dollars yearly on population control programs. More research is needed into both the origin of HIV/AIDS and the many ways in which the disease is spreading. The "African green monkey" theory is insufficient, as the African monkeys have somehow infected the men and women behind the bars of the prison-industrial complex, where we have one of the highest HIV/AIDS rates in America. The plan of the Millennium Development Goal to halve worldwide poverty by 2015 is behind schedule and ill-conceived. Africa has enough wealth to feed the world; therefore, poverty can be eliminated.
The Nader/Camejo ticket supports the self-determination of Africans to control their own resources. We understand that multi-national corporations are preventing this realization. We oppose and condemn every corporation fueling environmental and human rights abuses in Africa. We support immediate funding for generic AIDS medicine and adequate provision of cures and treatments for tuberculosis, malaria and other diseases—without inhumane conditionalities encouraging Africans to rely on their own traditional methods of healing. We support fair trade (as opposed to free trade) and therefore call for a repeal of the AGOA bill and all other trade agreements currently ravaging Africa's environment and undermining such basic human needs such as food, water, and shelter. The Nader/Camejo Campaign supports the Jubilee Act (HR 4511), calling for 100% cancellation of all illegitimate and odious debts owed to the IMF and WB by countries in the global south, most of which are in Africa. Furthermore, the Nader/Camejo Campaign believes that the IMF, WB, and multi-national corporations owe restitution to Africa for centuries of plunder, exploitation, and human rights abuses. To that end, we call for an audit of all debts owed to the IMF and WB in order to assess the unfair conditions imposed on Africa and determine the amount of reparations owed by the IMF, WB, and their corporate masters. We also reject the use of Africa's extractive resources for funding dictatorships and despotic regimes that fuel civil warfare with U.S. military support. We support true democracies in which African people make decisions about their political and economic cooperation, without interference or imposition by the U.S. government. We would only support humanitarian intervention through the funding of African military peacekeepers in crisis and genocidal circumstances.
Washington, DC, home to the House, Senate, and US President is the only district in America where there is a majority population of people of African descent for whom voting is denied at both the House and Senate levels. The Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) has failed to sign up millions of eligible non-registered African Americans in other districts and is complacent on many issues that concern the African American, Palestine and the African continent. The District of Columbia (DC) has the highest level of organized resistance, peace, and justice groups working for change of any district in America. Yet DC also has the highest rates for HIV/AIDS, teenage pregnancy, child poverty, homelessness and homicide, among others. How does one remedy this irony? Meet the Peace and Justice (non-profit) industrial complex in the Africa of America. Real solutions must incorporate our breaking away from the chains (funding) of our oppressors to assert self-sufficiency. Through collaboration, our resistance will impact at the local, national, and global levels to create an alternative lifestyle. Of all donor countries, the US ranks last, with only 0.1% of its GNP (about $10 billion) going to foreign aid worldwide. Sub-Saharan Africa receives 1/100th of 1% ($1 billion) of US GNP in aid.
Africa does not need "aid." Africa needs the multi-national corporations exploiting its natural resources to leave. One day Africa will reclaim its indigenous names all over the continent, in addition to Egypt and Ethiopia. One day Africa will know the legacy of her civilization prior to the Arab and European invasion. One day, Africa will be free.
Niyi Shomade is the finance officer for the Ralph Nader Presidential campaign. He was born and raised in Lagos Nigeria and has lived in the United States for 14 years. She sits on the local DC Board of The American Friends Service Committee and Black Voices for Peace working on a number of issues from debt relief in Africa, the AIDS crisis and fighting for peace and justice in the US and abroad. This article was originally published at: www.dissidentvoice.org``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xUS Foreign Policy on Africa``x1099416256,96702,Development``x``x
``xBy Cameron Duodu
FOR hundreds of years, Africa has been seen by many Westerners not as the place of abode of sacred creatures like themselves, but as the supine depository of rich minerals. Plus, of course, in much earlier times, the source of human beings as a saleable commodity.
"Africa Equals Easy Money", then has served as the simple equation behind the countless forays that cut-throat buccaneers and pirates (call them what you like) -- made to Africa, to rampage over our people's lands, killing, raping and enslaving as they went along.
But this history is usually brushed under the carpet of modern international politics. For instance, you won't read about the real cause of the Zimbabwe land seizures from many Western newspapers that criticise President Mugabe.
It is as if President Mugabe suddenly got an inspiration from the devil and decided to seize lands that white farmers had "legally" owned for centuries.
The Western media seem to think that it is only of "academic" interest to enquire into how white farmers got at least 75 percent of the best land in Zimbabwe. They fool themselves and those gullible enough to listen to them, into believing that the Zimbabwe land question is simply one of legal title: the whites own the titles to the land they farm; the Government wants it; but being the authoritarian, the Government doesn't want to pay compensation for it.
How were the titles acquired by Cecil Rhodes and his men from King Lobengula of the Matabele people? How could an "illiterate" king "sign" away Zimbabwe's land, when he could not read the documents upon which he was persuaded to put his thumbprint?
Who, today, would accept as valid, a contract between one person and another, that was interpreted for the "illiterate" one by someone of the same race as the other party? And who might have been corrupted by that? (You can read about how a British interpreter whom Lobengula had the misfortune of trusting, sold him out over such documents as "The Rudd Concession" at the following website: http://www.greatepicbooks.com/epics/june99.html.
The amorality with which Cecil Rhodes and his mercenary army dispatched the black rulers of Southern Africa into semi-landless penury, and how they utilised the backing provided by British imperial power in South Africa as a springboard to seize not only Lobengula's lands, but also those far to the north -- in what are today Zambia (which, like its neighbour to the south, "Southern Rhodesia", was named after Rhodes as (Northern Rhodesia) and Malawi (formerly Nyasaland).
Some of the stories about the shameless exploits of these early mercenaries are unbelievable: for instance, after Rhodes and his army had used their superior weapons to subdue a kingdom, they would ask each would-be settler to ride his horse for a whole day, and to stake out at his own, as much land as he could ride over in that period of a day.
No matter that after Rhodes and his mercenaries had redistributed the lands they purloined, the disposed Zimbabweans were herded into "labour reserves" where they were recruited to work for farmers, at very low rates, on the very land from which they had been evicted; little did it bother the white farmers that the blacks were forced to work for them because without the low wages they received, they would not be able to pay the hut tax that the colonial governments had imposed on the blacks and they would be carted off to jail.
Any wonder that the whites prospered, just as their forebears became filthily rich out of the triangular trade whereby they shipped slaves out of Africa to the Americas, and used them to produce cotton, tobacco or sugar, whose proceeds were used to buy manufactured goods that were sold to the world and profits from which built those magnificent mansions in Belgravia in London, Liverpool or Bristol. Africa Equals Easy Money.
In every instance where this robbery took place in Africa, buccaneering politics was employed as the machinery that was to provide legal backing to the rapacity.
In Central Africa, for instance, the administration of the pillaged lands was entrusted by the British Crown to a manifestly racist bunch of people (led by a Sir Godfrey Huggins) who created a "Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland" under which the settlers continued to rob the three countries.
Huggins and his men fought for, and nearly obtained, dominion status for this monstrosity. Had their strategy worked, they would have attained the same rank -- within the British Empire and late, the Commonwealth -- as Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
And it would all have been "legal"! For Queen Victoria of England, "By the Grace of God, Empress of India", had granted a "royal charter" to Rhodes and his British South African Company that had gradually developed into the "constitutional instruments" that provided the veneer of legality through which straightforward pillage was transformed into a nebulous "quasi-colonial" status under which the settlers were more or less allowed to do what they liked, though technically, Britain was their "ruler".
Under the benign protection of Imperial Britain, the ambition of Cecil Rhodes and his successors was to make as much money as possible, and impose their will on Africa -- "from the Cape to Cairo", as they modestly put it.
Intoxicated by the exuberance of their own success, the pirates were under no doubt that they would be able to leave the lands, on which they had spilled so much African blood, to their descendants for a thousand years, if not forever.
But then President Mugabe, his party Zanu, and the Zimbabwean army came along. Allied with Frelimo in Mozambique, Zanu ensured that the party was over for the newest edition of Rhodes & Co -- Ian Smith and his men -- despite their boast that they would not be ruled by an African "in a thousand years".
The demise of Smith & Co was the direct result of the decolonisation movement that had taken hold over Africa in the 1960s and which has liberated over 50 countries in the past 40 years. Africans have begun to take control of their own lands and are in political control though they are still to achieve economic independence.
The path to self-rule in Africa has not always been easy, for in most cases, Africans had not been allowed into government early enough to prepare them for running the modern administrations which were bequeathed to them at independence. But precipitately thrust into the running of government or not, they have begun to lay out the political landscape over which to fight their own battles.
However, many Western adventurers still believe that they can re-conquer Africa and press its resources to their own use again, if only they can find black stooges to front for them. "Our own black man" is the name of the game.
In the 1960s, white pirates formed themselves into gangs of mercenaries and offered themselves as hired guns to an assortment of kleptocratic blacks, the most notorious of whom were Moise Tshombe (whose nest of treachery against the Congolese people was in the then Katanga province of DRCongo, now Shaba) whose source of finance was the profit-bloated company that satiated itself with Congo's copper -- Union Miniere.
One British mercenary who operated in the Congo was so brutal in his blood-thirstiness that even the British media -- which largely extolled the virtues of the mercenaries vis-à-vis the African they fought against -- re-christened him "Mad" Mike Hoare.
No African country was safe from the mercenaries -- even little places like the Comoros and the Seychelles, whose economics were so fragile that it was a crime to oblige them to waste money running an army, received murderous visitations from the mercenaries.
In the Comoros, the French equivalent of "Mad" Mike Hoare, Col Bob Denard, invaded the country four times in a bid to install a government there that was to his liking.
More recently, combat helicopter pilots from Ukraine, South Africa and France have been used in the three-way border war that involved Guinea, Sierra Leone and Liberia and only died down less than two years ago.
Some of the activities by mercenaries have received unsavoury media coverage, and to counter this, the mercenary organisations have mounted an aggressive public relations campaign to try and "rebrand" themselves by metamorphosing into what are called "Private Military Companies" (PMCs).
These companies now represent themselves as being capable of providing private "security" services to governments, agencies and private companies. With the deft assistance of smart public relations outfits in the West, the image of some of these companies has been undergoing serious laundering.
They have even formed an "International Peace Operators Association" (IPOA). They obtained an unusual ally when the British foreign secretary, Jack Straw, no less, proposed that their activities should be legitimised.
According to The Economist, Straw claimed that in the post-Cold War world of what he called "small wars and weak states", there was "now a legitimate role for PMCs". For the state under threat from "armed insurgents" or from "criminal gangs, the swift intervention" of a PMC might be the only "realistic option".
But The Economist was having none of this. Straw's idea was for the benefit of the British government, not foreign governments, said the magazine.
The British government would like to regulate the activities of the PMCs. But how was this to be done? Would it set up a regulatory body -- in the manner of Oftel, Ofgas, etc -- and if so, would it be called Ofkill?
With such powerful backing from Whitehall, the PMCs did some aggressive PR of their own. After one of them, Sandline, came under attack in the British House of Commons, The Times (of London) wrote an editorial comment repeating the Straw line that PMCs had become "a fixture of the post-Cold War world" and that their relationship should be properly defined.
National armies were being "cut back" and the "public would not stand for casualties". The answer, said The Times, was not "to criminalise operators who have skills the world needs, (my emphasis) but to develop a coherent framework to make them more transparent and improve accountability".
"Skills the world needs?" Had the writer of that leader ever heard of the massacres carried out in Africa by the "dogs of war" led by "Mad" Mike Hoare or Bob Denard?
Taking up the theme advanced by its sister paper, the Sunday Times also opened its columns to William Shawcross, a commentator whose past access to the UN secretary-general might have led one to suppose that he was better informed -- in which he too supported the Jack Straw idea that international peace-keeping could be contracted to PMCs.
If Shawcross had discussed his views with his UN contacts, they could have told him that the UN Special Rapporteur On Human Rights, Enrique Bernales Ballesteros, had condemned mercenary activity in his report to the UN Human Rights Commission as long ago as 1994.
On the basis of his report, the Commission adopted a resolution which reaffirmed that the recruitment, use, financing and training of mercenaries should be considered as offences of grave concern to all states.
The Commission urged UN member states to prevent mercenaries from using any part of their territories to destabilise or to threaten the territorial integrity of any sovereign state. It also called on member states to rectify the International Convention Against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries.
No doubt emboldened by the respectability given in London to the pro-PMC propaganda, Simon Mann of Sandline and other named PMCs recently embarked on a mercenary caper in Africa that was as audacious in conception as it was stupid in execution.
The cast, the plot, and the mechanics for overthrowing a government in the "backwoods of Africa" -- in this case, Equatorial Guinea, made extremely desirable by the discovery of oil there -- could not have been surpassed in absurdity if cobbled together to form the fabric of a novel written to satirise Graham Greene, John le Carre or Ian Fleming. Here is the cast of characters:
Mark Thatcher: (a.k.a. "Scratcher" beloved son of Margaret Thatcher or "The Iron Lady", the former British prime minister whose support of apartheid in South Africa nearly tore the Commonwealth apart in the 1980s.
Educated at Harrow, Mark Thatcher has dabbled in motor racing among other professions. He is reputed to have amassed a huge fortune by mainly trading on his mother's name, when she was in power, to sell arms and other projects to Arabs that brought him lucrative commissions. Rather than bring him to heel when he ran the risk of soiling her name, The Iron Lady is reported to have boasted that "Mark could sell snow to the Eskimos, and sand to the Arabs".
Mark has been living in Cape Town, South Africa, since 1995, after earlier attempts to settle in Texas and Switzerland proved abortive.
Now, South Africa is a country currently ruled by a government whose leaders had been described by his mother -- when she was in power -- as "terrorists". Yet Mark, having been graciously accorded residence in that country is accused of plotting from his South African base, to finance a mercenary takeover of Equatorial Guinea. He denies it, of course.
But never mind. Africans have short memories, don't they? Or they are more Christian than the Europeans who brought them Christianity. I mean, look at Nelson Mandela and Archbishop Desmond Tutu: does anyone know better 21st century saints than these two? Margaret Thatcher's appeals to them on behalf of her "Scratcher" son, would never fall on deaf ears, would they?
Jeffrey Archer: "Oxford-educated" (sic!) writer and one-time British MP and deputy chairman of the Conservative Party. He was jailed for four years for perjury, after lying in court that he didn't know a prostitute to whom he paid a considerable amount of money. Released from his jail term, he is alleged to have been approached to help finance the mercenary adventure in Equatorial Guinea and had allegedly put up a considerable sum of money to make the adventure possible.
Simon Mann: (Aged 51, the same age as Mark Thatcher, his neighbour in Cape Town). "Eton-educated", he is held in better esteem in England than Mark Thatcher who could only bag Harrow! Former captain in the famous British SAS regiment. Son of a former England cricket captain who made a fortune from the Watney's brewing empire.
According to The Guardian [London], "Simon Mann has spent all his adult life in the murky worlds of Special Forces and mercenaries." From Eton, he went to Sandhurst and then joined the SAS. He left the British army in the early 1980s, and moved into the security business.
In 1993, he jointly set up the PMC, Executive Outcomes, with an entrepreneur called Tony Buckingham. It made millions protecting oil installations in Angola from Unita rebels, and operated against the RUF for the Sierra Leone government. Mann set up with Col Tim Spicer, a subsidiary of Executive Outcomes called Sandlines International.
Sandline was used to ferry arms to Sierra Leone in contravention of a UN embargo. Mann went to Zimbabwe in March this year and tried to buy a load of weapons which, he claimed, were to be used in "guarding" a mining company in DRCongo.
Later, an aircraft he had purchased, arrived in Harare to collect the arms. On board were 69 mercenaries. Mann was arrested with them and charged with attempting to take the arms and the men to Equatorial Guinea to overthrow the government of President Teodoro Obiang Nguema.
On 10 September, Mann was sentenced to seven years in prison by a Zimbabwe court for attempting to buy arms to overthrow Nguema's government. According to a list of his collaborators seen by The Guardian, Mann paid US$500 000 towards the coup, while Ely Calil, a London-based Lebanese oil millionaire (see below), is alleged to have raised another US$750 000. Calil's lawyer has denied it all.
Ely Calil: A former oil dealer with connection to the Nigerian oil industry. The Equatorial Guinea government believes that he helped to organise the abortive coup from his home in west London. According to The Guardian, he has "developed discreet links with senior Tory and Labour politicians".
At one time he was financial adviser to Lord [Jeffrey] Archer. In June 2002, Calil was arrested by French police in connection with the payments of millions of pounds in illegal commissions in 1995 by a subsidiary of the French oil grant, Elf Aquitaine, to the late Nigerian dictator, Sani Abacha. He was released on appeal without charge, although the payments are still under investigations.
David Hart: An Old Etonian business man with links to the Thatcher family. He was Margaret Thatcher's "chief enforcer" during the British miners' strike in 1985, handing out money to strike breakers. He served as a special advisor to two former Tory ministers, Malcom Rifkind and Michael Portilio.
According to The Guardian: "Hart is known to have excellent access to the US administration and worked closely with the former CIA director, William Casey." He currently operates with so-called "defence contractors".
Nick du Toit: A former member of South African Special Forces who is believed to have worked with Mann at Executive Outcomes. Du Toit has also carried out undercover mercenary activities in Sierra Leone and Angola.
He led 14 other men to Equatorial Guinea on the pretext of embarking on a fishing and tourism enterprise. They were in fact to form the advance guard of the coup group that Mann was trying to bring over from Harare. Du Toit's group was picked up by the Equatorial Guinea government, presumably on a tip-off from the Zimbabwe authorities.
He has confessed to being part of the plot and is Equatorial Guinea's star witness. He has spilled the beans on the contribution that Mark Thatcher and his friends played in the financing of the plot hatched by Simon Mann.
And finally, Severo Moto Nsa: Equatorial Guinea politician in exile, who had close contacts with the former rightwing government of Spain. He was being flown to Mali to wait there under the pretext of doing business, until the coup in Equatorial Guinea has succeeded. He would then have flown there to make the usual "Fellow countrymen coup broadcast".
The plot came to nothing because the South African authorities, on learning of it informed their Zimbabwe counterparts, who also tipped off the Equatorial Guinea government. Trials have been taking place in Harare and Malabo (capital of Equatorial Guinea) and we must allow justice to take its course in both capitals.
There will also be trials in South Africa, especially of Mark Thatcher. Some of the plotters will go to jail, of course.
But the more important issue is this: Having been provided the opportunity, are the governments of South Africa, Zimbabwe and Equatorial Guinea going to use it to send out a loud and clear message that the Africa of today will not tolerate interference in its affairs by any latter-day incarnations of Cecil Rhodes who think Africa was created for them to reap profits from it?
Cameron Duodu is an associate editor with New African magazine. This article was extracted from the magazine's October edition.
Reprinted for fair use only from:
http://www.zimbabweherald.com/index.php?id=37510&pubdate=2004-11-08``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xAfrica must stop mercenaries``x1099937024,84107,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Ayanna www.rootswomen.com
Why were there so many African-descended people the Indian subcontinent by the early 17th century and in what way did Malik Ambar reflect their significance to the region?
In Godfrey Higgins' seminal work Anaclypsis, he relates a story of Herodotus giving an account of his travels to the lands of the Blacks: "And upon his return to Greece they gathered around and asked, "Tell us about this great Land of the blacks called Ethiopia." And Herodotus said, "There are two great Ethiopian nations, one in Sind (India) and the other in Egypt". Herodotus' account of the great African civilizations that spanned both the African continent and much of South East Asia, was not the first nor would it be the last observation by travelers and historians alike, of the black civilizations in South East Asia. Arriving in several waves during the 16th century, many European adventurers wrote and marveled at the civilizations they had encountered. However, in light of European ethnocentrism, it would be the presence of a large number of Africans in the region that may have proved most startling. Europeans would later attempt to catalog and trace the origins of these Africans. In the aforementioned work, Higgins not only attempts to trace the paths of incursion of these Africans into Asia but additionally he classifies them into several groups based on variations in phenotype.
The rise of Pan-Africanism in the 20th century along with the increasing scope of revisionist scholars of African history and the history of African descended peoples, has given impetus to critical examinations of their achievements and contributions to civilizations the world over. The reign of the Ethiopian ruler Malik Ambar in the Deccan stands out as a dramatic assertion of African leadership in a hostile anti-black environment replete with incursions by hostile invading forces. However, we must note that Ambar's rule, though significant was not an exception, but part of a long history of African power in the region from as early as over 100,000 years ago. It is these achievements by Africans and African descended peoples in India that have been long overlooked in European and Indo- European scholarship and have more recently been catapulted into the public eye by rising Pan-African and civil rights movements.
The African presence in South Asia by the time of major European contact in the 1500's was a product of several waves of incursions into the region by African and Africoid-phenotype peoples. The first wave, starting some 100,000 years ago, were what is commonly termed as the "Negritos" or "Negrillos" who are spread over the region from parts of southern Pakistan to Polynesia and Melanesia. These include the Khyeng of Pakistan, the Jawawa and other Adamese in the Bay of Bengal and the Agta of the Phillipines. It is with the arrival of this group that the dawn of Indian history begins, "We have to begin with the Negroid or Negrito people of prehistoric India who were its first human inhabitants." The Second Wave of African incursion was that of the Proto Australoid, described as having broad nose and widely separated nostrils. The combination of these two groups was responsible for the creation of the great Indus Valley civilizations of Mohenjo-Daro and Harrapa. Other historians disagree with this view, and putting a later date to the Indus Valley cities, state that it was the taller, racially mixed Dravidian population that were the creators of these civilizations.
Another incoming wave saw the incursion of a taller African who may have entered about 25,000 years ago just after the last ice age, occupying an area from the modern Middle-East to parts of Korea and Japan. They would eventually mix with other indigenous and some incoming groups and today comprise what has been termed the Indo-Dravidian race, which includes Tamils, Orissas and Cholas. This group of taller Africans continued to enter the region, crisscrossing and settling the Indian Subcontinent and Indian Ocean region as traders, adventurers and conquerors; a movement that continued well into the 19th century. The most noticeable Africans to European adventurers were the Habshis and Siddis; Habshis referring to Africans coming from the Read Sea region and Siddis referring Africans from further south along the East Coast of Africa . The Europeans observers often used the term Abyssinian or Negro for this group whose phenotype tended to resemble those of continental Africans than any other visible African descended group in the period.
While many African descended people in South Asia have a more definitive African origin that can be traced through either invasion or slavery, it is often difficult to trace that of the earliest group, the so-called diminutive blacks. While these people have been commonly referred to as the "pygmies" and "negritos/negrillos", historians Yoseph ben Jochannan and Basil Davidson both identify them as the "Twa", the earliest humans whose birthplace along with their counterparts the San and Khoi Khoi are in Central and South Africa respectively. Many of the groups that have survived in India in isolated areas still retain their Africoid features and are hardly distinguishable from continental Africans in phenotype and genotype. Following Gladwin's trail, we can trace the movement of these Twa or Twa-descended people from continental Africa across Asia and the Indian Ocean. Some of the early records of the Chinese speak of little black men who inhabited the land south of the Yangtze River . The records of the invading Aryans also attest to their early presence as one verse, which discusses the Nissada with whom the Aryans were warring as "having black skin, flat nose and blood-shot eyes" . The Dasyus or Dasas are also similarly described in the RgVeda as "having black skin, snubbed-nose and speaking a foreign language".
The eastward invasion path of the Aryans partly explains why these Africans are found in such great numbers in parts of eastern South Asia such as East Bengal and South East Asia including modern day Cambodia, Vietnam and Thailand. Many, along with some Australoids, would also flee into the forested areas of Central India. Another important movement was the Munghal southward push c.700 A.D that pushed these Africans who were occupying parts of southern China farther south into northern India. American historian Runoko Rashidi also contends that they were able to reestablish themselves in south East Asia and eventually build other civilizations including Champa . Trade and interaction would continue with south Asia, where many of these blacks had fled. In 1999, Partha P. Majumder of The Indian Statistical Institute after conducting DNA tests on blood taken from thirty different ethnic groups in India concluded that the first populations had indeed arrived from Africa, having broken off from the larger genetic group just over 100,000 years ago .
The incursion of the taller Africans about 25,000 years ago, also added to the eventual number of Africans recorded by 17th century European visitors, explorers and traders. Indeed this must have been the most numerous group, a factor which caused a later observer to surmise that "there is clearly a Negro strain in the Indian population" . It is also this group, which is most often encountered in the religious and historical texts of the Hindus by the misnomer Adi Dravida, which the European would later term Dravidian, or Indo-Dravidian. The Dravidian phenotype most often reflects a history of race mixing. According to one group of Indian scholars the complexes at Majendro-Daro and Harappa contain skulls of Africoids, Mongoloids, Australoids and some Mediterranean races. One can assume Mediterranean to mean an African-European mixed group as proposed by Chandler . The Aryan invasion c. 2000 B.C.E. also pushed this group further east and south. The eventual triumph of the Aryans and the subsequent rise of Vedic Dharma were important elements in the survival of the race, including its phenotype and traceable aspects of culture, on the sub-continent. Ironically the rules of caste endogamy, which restricted cross caste marriage, especially to Africans left many to marry only within their group or to other tribal outcasts which were largely dark skinned Australoids. This factor coupled with the need for lower-caste labour ensured the survival of this group in such large numbers by the time of major European contact leaving revisionist scholars with proof of an undiluted African presence.
The large numbers of these Dravidians were also a result of a European classification based on phenotypic similarity. Many incoming Africans being racially mixed may have resembled the standard Dravidian phenotype to Europeans, however many were in fact not Dravidians at all, having arrived in many later incursions. In some instances, African descended persons were the product of the continuous contact taking place across the Indian Ocean from as early as 2000 B.C.E. which continued right up through the period of European expansion. The Cholas of southern India for example were traders who traded with and often took wives from the African populations in the Indian Ocean and mainland Africa. Chittick also informs us that many Africans, from both Africa and Southern Arabia, as traders and otherwise, also settled parts of South Asia including parts of what are today modern Pakistan and the Deccan . There was thus a constant mixing of populations from both areas, many of whom took up residence in South Asia.
Many Africans in 16th century South Asia were also descendents of African soldiers of invading armies. It was the customary that after conquest, the soldiers were allowed to take females from among the conquered, some of whom were raped while others were taken as wives and concubines by the invaders. The armies of "Alexander the Great" which invaded south Asia sweeping across what is today Afghanistan and Pakistan and stopping in central northern India, were made up of a considerable number of Africans. The same was true of the Roman armies that invaded some centuries later. One Indian historian has reported the development of the practice of Sati as a means of preventing this raping by armies . Incidentally, the practice was traditionally restricted to Brahmin women, although those of other castes eventually practiced it. This could have resulted in an increased rate of survival among groups including African women.
The most significant invasion would be that of Islam which arrived over both land and sea. The initial Islamic conquest was led by the African leader "Omar the Great" in the 8th Century A.D. sweeping across Bactria and into Hindustan. He used thousands of African soldiers, many of whom settled in the region and most probably took wives from among the local population. This group, who had conquered most of northwestern South Asia, would later be taken over by Muslim arrivals who established the Delhi Sultanate. As in the case of previous invasions, African communities fled east into areas such as east Bengal and the Deccan. Others remained to form substantial communities in what is today Pakistan. Other invasions had also taken place by the 13th century with the spread of Islam across south Asia as far east as Indonesia. This was however largely trade oriented and required one's membership in Islam as a prerequisite to trade safely in the Indian Ocean. Islam would eventually come to dominate northern South Asia. Eventually the Dehli Sultante would be challenged and collapse under the pressure of the expanding Mogul empire which sought to conquer its predecessors old empire. The Portuguese would arrive by 1599 with the British and French following closely in the early 1600's, all vying to control the riches of Muslim northern India.
The most noticeable Africans described by 16th century Europeans who visited India, the Deccan and Bengal in particular, were those who they described as Abyssinians and Negroes. Called Habshis or Siddis, some were descendents of soldiers of invading Muslim armies. The vast majority were descendents of Africans sold into slavery in the region. This trade was part of a broader Trans-Indian Ocean slave trade, which drew Africans primarily, but not exclusively from the East African coast who were sold to buyers in many parts of the region including Arabia, Indonesia and the Deccan. It is estimated that some 2-3 million Africans were sold into slavery across the Indian Ocean between 800 A.D. and 1900 A.D. . African women were particularly prized in Islamic controlled regions to fill the Harems of the political and economically powerful. African males served another, more traditional purpose, that of soldier. Slavery in many Islamic lands seemed to have been based on function, necessity and race. Africans were chosen as slave soldiers in part because of the belief that they were loyal, great fighters and most importantly, despised by the local population. It was this final element coupled with their foreign status which made Africans desired as slaves. The rationale held that they could hold a position of power, without being able to mount a coup d'etat as he would have no support from the general citizenry. Others were imported to provide sexual services to the women of the harems, as there was a common belief that Africans had insatiable sexual appetites. This reasoning in part explains why so many African men were imported into South Asia as slaves and why they often held such seemingly powerful positions.
While it can be argued that the rise of Islam in India had an unprecedented effect on the ability of Africans to rise to power, given the slightly more egalitarian attitudes of Muslims to race when compared to Brahmin Hinduism , one must note the presence of powerful African dynasties that reigned in the South Asia many centuries before. Many of Hindu India's great ruling dynasties came from the lower castes, who in many cases were predominantly African-descended peoples such as the Nanda dynasty who were Shudras; the Mauryans of a mixed caste and the Kalingas of Orissa. Bengal had also history of Habshi rulers- Malik Andil from 1487- 1490; Nasiruddin Mahmud II, from 1490-1491 and Sidi Badr from 1491- 1493. Regional historians tell of the presence of Habshis in powerful positions in the Deccan states .The Golconda history tells of the power of the "Abbyssinia party" of the late 1580's in Bijapur who brooked no opposition even from the rulers. Despite this, it is undeniable that although an African with considerable political power was not unprecedented in the region, the reign of Malik Ambar does indeed stand out as an excellent example of the many different contributions of African descended peoples in the region- their large numbers as well as the role they played in the formation of Indian civilization.
Little is known of the life of Malik Ambar before his sale into bondage in India. He was born around 1550 in Harar, Ethiopia and was sold several times around the Arab world in the Hejaz, Mocha and Baghdad where his intelligence, administrative potential and loyalty was observed and rewarded. He was educated in finance and administration, was renowned as a great warrior and was given charge over several Habshi warriors and servicemen whose loyalty he commanded. Ambar was sold to the King of Bijapur whom he impressed greatly with his skill and it was then he was given the title of Malik, "Like a King" because of the military prowess. His control over many of the Kings troops allowed him to take many of them with him under his own command when he eventually defected over a dispute. Ambar and his band of over 1500 Habshi and Arab mercenaries fought for the Ahmadnagar King in 1595 where he became a champion of the Deccans against the Munghal incursions. His astute political machinations, cunning diplomacy and cutthroat guerilla tactics in warfare, allowed for the inevitable; by 1602 he has seized full power in Ahmadnagar through his control of the military.
We must note the political and military situation in the Deccan at this time. Relations between Muslim and Hindu factions were hostile; Mughal incursions from the north by the 1580's were in full effect, especially on Ahmadnagar, and noble houses were vying for power during the instability. Ambar's seizure of power at this time was to have important ramifications in the era and provide a relatively stabilizing influence up until his death. One of the fist remarkable qualities of his reign was that he was able to seize power and amass such popular support at all. His reign defied the thought that slaves were safe holders of power as their alien status as well as their blackness would not allow them to attain popular support. Both Islamic and Hindu societies were hostile to Africans, both having a clear-cut preference for lighter shades. While in Islamic tradition persons were deemed more acceptable through "ascending miscegenation" where lighter skin accorded one further privileges , Ambar from all accounts was black skinned. The Mughal Emperor frequently referred to him as "that Ambar, the black fated one ( he was an Abissinian"), "the black faced" and "Ambar of the dark fate" Interesting to note is the fact that all public buildings erected during his reign and his tomb at his death were built of black stone. This seemed to be a deliberate action on his part and we can surmise from this that Ambar was indeed aware of the colour prejudice that existed around him and he used the back stone to reinforce the dignity in his Africanness and his black skin. When one examines the iniquity of the caste system in traditional Hindu India, the severe colourism that existed in both Muslim and Christian areas and the depressed state that many Africans in India suffered under these systems, Ambar's rule becomes even more significant. In fact, it is certain that his Africanness was what would have won him much support from lower caste Muslims, some of them untouchables and Sudras.
Ambar was also credited with establishing an air of religious tolerance in the Deccan. He built Christian churches, patronized Hindu festivals and still kept his Muslim faith. His egalitarian land reform system also won him much support. Canals and irrigation schemes were developed to improve trade and agriculture and lower rates of taxation were applied to the poorer areas. In the eyes of the common people, he was elevated to hero status. Of critical significance in Malik Ambar's reign is the fact that his 20-year stronghold on the Deccan checked the dreaded Munghal advance. His continued resistance, the strength of his armies and diplomatic skills and shifting alliances allowed him to check both the Mungal advance southward as well as the European advance westward checking the ascendancy of the British Raj across the whole of India. It was said that once Malik Ambar lived, the Munghals could not conquer the Deccan His death in 1626, however saw the collapse of this stability and African power in the Deccan.
Malik Ambar's rule, did not only display the role of one African leader who distinguished himself in a severely hostile anti-black environment. We must note that his power base was African and many of his top soldiers and advisers were African. He was able to rally the low caste groups in the heterogeneous region of the Deccan and maintain Indian civilization in the face of the threats of both Munghal and Europeans. His reign is significant however, only when seen along a continuum of Africans as initiators, contributors and powerbrokers of South Asian civilization from its inception over 100,000 years ago. Like the role and achievements of Malik Ambar, the role of the African initiators of Indian civilization has only recently been receiving due attention by the academic community, with European and Indo-European apologists still endevouring to conceal the truth of Indian's African origins. The reality is, that not only were there significant numbers of Africans in the Indian sub continent up to the 17th century and continuing into the present day, but it is these Africans that largely form the ranks of the Sudra/Untouchables and are outcasts in Hindu society, that are the builders and keepers of traditional Indian civilization.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xAfrican Presence in Asia``x1101952209,16732,Development``x``x
``xFeatures Writers, zimbabweherald.com
IT comes as no surprise that the United States, with its hard and punishing stance on Zimbabwe, has condemned the Non-Governmental Organisations Bill passed recently by Parliament.
This is despite the fact that the US has got the same piece of legislation known as the Patriot Act, a more severe and draconian statute that can not in any way be compared to the NGO Bill.
The Patriot Act, among other things, allows the US government to intercept information on any form of funding going in or out of the US either from individuals or non-governmental organisations.
Under this act, it is also a crime for an NGO to bring into the country more than US$10 000 without the knowledge of the state, something that non-governmental organisations in Zimbabwe have been doing for years.
It is therefore surprising that the US is agitating to block the regulation of NGOs by the Government, something it has been doing for years, without bating an eyelid.
If anything, the outburst of the US on the NGO Bill confirms the assertion that the imperialist nation has been working with the non-governmental organisations masquerading as civil society to effect regime change in Zimbabwe.
The US, through the so called civic society, has been peddling falsehoods by producing damning reports on the alleged "deterioration of human rights and political strife" in the country to drum up support and arouse condemnation of Zimbabwe, with the sole aim of isolating the Southern African country.
Predictably, US State Department spokesman Adam Ereli was last week quoted by AFP as having said the Bill approved by Zimbabwe’s Parliament would stifle political debate.
"This Bill is an assault on civil society and an attempt to curtail political discussion in Zimbabwe," Mr Ereli is quoted as having said.
It is important to realise what is meant by "stifling political debate" as it seems to be embedded in the US standards which are, however, one sided and meant to advance their egocentric political ambitions.
Without bothering to look at the Bill’s merits, the US has been quick to condemn it simply because it fears that the channel through which to fund regime change in Zimbabwe would be effectively plugged.
The tight monitoring of NGO activities would also mean that funding to the opposition Movement for Democratic Change would dry up if the Bill becomes law.
Those who have closely followed events surrounding the strained relations between the US and Zimbabwe will not be surprised by this latest vitriolic attack on this piece of legislation by the US as this is just another ploy to tarnish the country’s image.
Its condemnation of the NGO Bill is strategically positioned to incite a popular uprising and create unnecessary tension, if not violence just a few months before the country’s general elections.
Once that is achieved, the US and its allies would then dismiss the elections as not free and fair, one of its many ploys to invade a sovereign state like they did in Iraq.
The US and its allies have been agitating for regime change in Zimbabwe since the country embarked on a land reform programme in 2000.
The US’s stance on events in Zimbabwe does not only seek to undermine the country’s sovereignty and its capability to shape its destiny and govern its people, but it is also meant to bully the country into submission under the cover of democracy, human rights and the rule of law.
"Let’s not be fooled. There is no iota of sincerity from the Americans.
"The agenda is clear. It’s regime change they are clamouring for," said a lecturer in the department of Sociology at the University of Zimbabwe.
The US has not made it a secret that it’s working flat out for a regime change in Zimbabwe.
The US recently reiterated it would not stop working with other nations, such as those in the European Union to seek the isolation of Zimbabwe.
"We are committed to working with other like-minded states towards this end," said US State Department spokesman, Mr Richard Boucher when the United Nations General Assembly threw out a proposed resolution lambasting Harare.
Attempts by the US, Britain and some European Union member states to coerce the UN General Assembly to adopt a resolution condemning Zimbabwe, Sudan and Belarus over alleged human rights abuses were fruitless.
For years, the US has been on an onslaught of Zimbabwe and has left no stone unturned in a bid to push for this regime change.
Political analyst, Dr Tafataona Mahoso yesterday slammed the US for crying foul over the passing of the Bill saying the Americans should be the last ones to complain because they have also passed the same laws in their country.
"In America there is a law called the Patriot Act which is there to monitor all non-governmental organisations.
In the US it’s a crime for an NGO to fail to report an amount that it has brought into the country exceeding US $10 000.
"The Americans should be the last ones to complain because in their country they monitor everything NGOs do, if we do it the way they do it we would be monitoring everything from e-mails," he said.
Dr Mahoso added that if the American government has to blame anyone they should blame themselves.
"It was the American State Department on 22 August 2003, which clearly stated that they were working with opposition parties and some non-governmental organisations to remove a democratically elected government in Zimbabwe," he said. A lecturer at the Midlands State University in Gweru, Mr Nhamo Mhiripiri, said the American government could never see anything positive about Zimbabwe even if American laws were to be passed in Zimbabwe.
"The Americans have already demonised us as a country, even if we formulate laws just the same as theirs, be they on human rights or something else, trying to emulate them as long as they do not have a puppet government in Zimbabwe that they can use to pursue their selfish interests, they will never accept our laws or whatever we do here.
"We have to stop paying attention to what the Americans say. Our friends like China or South Africa rather should be the ones saying something on what is going on in Zimbabwe not the American government," he said.
Parliament passed the Non-Governmental Organisations Bill in Parliament last week.
Before the passing of the Bill, some NGOs were being used by Western countries to destabilise or interfere in Zimbabwe’s political affairs.
Determined to further put Zimbabwe in a corner, the US’s major victory came a few years ago in the form of the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act which effectively placed the country under sanctions.
Since then it has gone on a relentless campaign to demonise the country.
Reprinted from:
www.zimbabweherald.com/index.php?id=38754&pubdate=2004-12-14``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xU.S. hypocrisy laid bare``x1102999666,1525,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Rangarirai Shoko, www.zimbabweherald.com
At a glance, reports that Britain intends to deport thousands of Zimbabweans it had lured in the last five years as proof of political repression in Zimbabwe, do not invite instant suspicion.
After all, British authorities justified the move — perfectly within the country's sovereign rights — by saying most of those targeted had been found unqualified for asylum which they had sought, claiming political persecution at home.
And Zimbabweans back home, anyway, have no collective sympathies beyond family bonds for the "failed refugees" to be suspicious of the British move.
The asylum seekers, instead, are generally viewed as accomplices in London's campaign of destabilisation against the country over its land policies.
The "would-be refugees" were lured to Britain with money and other rewards in schemes that involved some local opposition parties and groups, to "flesh" the former colonial power's "heart-rending" lies of persecution by the Zimbabwe Government against its political opponents.
This was meant to help London build vital international consensus in fora such as the United Nations to deal with "a rogue regime" in Zimbabwe that had stepped out of line of accepted global norms of state behaviour.
While some of the Zimbabwean "would-be refugees" in Britain were unwitting recruits in the plots against the motherland, the majority were willing tools of the former colonial power's destabilisation schemes, which have had a devastating economic and political impact on the country.
Hence, the little sympathy the majority of their compatriots who stayed behind, and endured the poisonous fruits of their political treachery in Britain, feel for them in their deportation predicament.
But, if analysed critically, there appears to be new, less obvious sinister political motives behind the deportations.
Deeper under the surface, the deportations appear more linked to parliamentary elections next March, than the unsuitability for "political asylum" of the targeted Zimbabweans which Britain claims to have suddenly discovered.
Theory number one is that London, eager to prop up the waning political fortunes of its proxy parties and groups in Zimbabwe ahead of the poll, is deporting the country's citizens en masse to beef up votes for the opposition, assuming — erroneously — that all the returnees were anti-Government.
That the announcement of the mass deportations comes hard on the heels of a prolonged "consultative" visit to London by opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) leader Morgan Tsvangirai raises credible suspicions.
This is particularly so because Britain knew, from five years ago when it began to encourage Zimbabweans to "flee persecution" at home that these were not real asylum seekers in the mould of members of Iraq's Baath party fleeing American and British thuggery in their country.
Instead, they were simply the "flesh" to the monstrous lie, peddled with such puzzling expansiveness and intensity around the world, of political persecutions in Zimbabwe on a holocaust scale.
The other theory, on the deportations, is that among the returnees would be some planted and paid by Britain to carry out subversive activities, including possible killings, in the run-up to the March elections to discredit the polls.
With its proxy local political groups, including the MDC, in tatters politically ahead of the elections, London's options in Zimbabwe's power game appear to have narrowed to just disrupting the poll — even preventing it taking place — to buy time for its surrogates to regroup.
This is where some of the "deportees" would come in handy, and explains why Tsvangirai is calling, unusual to most Zimbabweans, for the March elections to be postponed to a later date.
All along the MDC, confident of winning elections, has wanted the polls to be brought forward instead.
The upcoming elections in Zimbabwe are critical for Britain in many ways, but mainly that a poor showing by the MDC — which is almost certain — will sever its remaining colonial leverage on the country.
The party is London's only remaining lever of influence in Zimbabwe, and its severance — through a drubbing in the upcoming parliamentary elections — is a daunting political prospect for Britain, which it fears could open up similar challenges to its colonial authority and prestige elsewhere.
All Britain's so-far-failed attempts to deal with what it regards as a "rogue" ex-colony have revolved around effecting regime change via elections by deploying a plethora of proxy opposition parties and groups.
The main one among these is the MDC, which British Prime Minister Tony Blair earlier this year openly admitted to working with to further his country's, not Zimbabweans', interests.
But the plot, despite being well financed, and loudly projected internally and around the world, has failed because its agenda lacked real substance; just a philosophical promise of post-regime change prosperity in Zimbabwe anchored on imagined donor financial and investment generosity.
This proved no match for the tangible and empowering attraction of land reforms proffered by the Government, on the other hand.
Reprinted from:
www.zimbabweherald.com/index.php?id=38941&pubdate=2004-12-20``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xUK deportation of Zimbabweans, a ploy``x1103559876,10253,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Habib Siddiqui
January 04, 2005
"This chauvinism about western superiority is not limited to their history and social etiquette and ethics, but also to their philosophical, ethnological, anthropological, neurological and psychological assumptions and theories."
Webster defines racism as a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial difference produce an inherent superiority of a particular race. While racism has existed in some form or another, probably its worst manifestation has had been seen in the history of Europe and the Americas.
Truly, the history of Western civilization is littered with the corpses of the 'other' peoples. The blueprints for justifications of murder, genocide, annexation, plunder and colonization - all can be found in the Bible [1] and in the statements of its interpreters, Church fathers and leaders, and those who came later as philosophers – believing Christians and non-believing atheists, let alone the slave-traders and –masters, colonizers and warmongers.[2] Strictly speaking if there ever were just one factor around which all of them agreed to it was in their basic belief about the superiority of their white European race.
Thus we are not surprised to find that the West presented our world with the Crusades,[3] the Inquisitions,[4] the near-extinction of the Native Americans and the Australian Aborigines,[5] the Pogroms,[6] Witch-burning and gypsy-hunting,[7] the Ghettos[8] and the Embargos,[9] the two World Wars,[10] Ethnic cleansing,[11] the Jewish Holocaust[12] and the Genocides,[13] and not to forget the African slavery (or Holocaust).[14] Let us also not overlook the western contribution to such ideologies as Nazism, Fascism, Zionism and Marxism/Socialism/Communism. (The list above is by no means a comprehensive one.) Nor are we astonished with the monstrosity of the crimes that were committed against prisoners and detainees in Afghanistan, Iraq, Guantanamo Bay, Diego Garcia and other places around the world (including the United States). She was the first to try out her latest WMDs on the 'other' people (actually the only one to ever drop atom bombs – and there too, the bombs were dropped on Japan and not Germany).[15] She is also responsible for total extermination of some human races from the face of our globe.[16] Over and above all these acts of mass-murder, demonic savagery and violence she has also systematically destroyed the culture, religion, identity and way of life of the peoples that she conquered. But none of these really troubles her. Like a megalomaniac and one gravely afflicted with cognitive dissonance, she is convinced of her 'civilizing' mission and has chosen to be amnesic about her troubling past.[17]
The chauvinistic attitude of European superiority has given rise to western egocentrism – something that has always existed since the time of ancient Greece. For a European (and American), civilized world always meant the West; history thus begins from Greece, and ends in England, France, Germany and America. Forgotten are the contributions of Islamic civilization to make that dotted connection possible from Ancient Greece to new Europe (and America). Forgotten also are the Sumerian, Egyptian, Persian, Chinese, Indian, Arab and other civilizations in making our world history. It was all too natural therefore to rediscover Jesus, born in Bethlehem in Palestine, as a European with blond straight hair and greenish eyes. As the (so-called) Son of God,[18] he had to appear European for the collective spirit of the West! His birthday had to be transplanted to December 25 to match the pagan festivity around Sol Invicticus, popularly observed across the Roman Empire.[19] Even his mother Mary had to appear European looking. So complete is this transformation that all his disciples also, minus Judas Iscariot, had to appear European!
The western egocentrism was reinforced by the period of colonial domination, when much of the non-Western (including the Muslim) world fell under European domination. This is what late Prof. Edward Said called "Orientalism."[20] Belief in their own cultural (religious and racial) superiority helped Europeans to justify colonialism; Europeans were fulfilling a God-given (or evolutionary) duty by educating and enlightening the ignorant non-Westerners.
Racism is so much entrenched within the western psyche that many westerners are unaware of its very existence until put the test. The Clinton Administration won't send troops to stop the genocide in Rwanda. The treatment of the other people, e.g., the Afghans or Iraqis or other Muslims in the prisons and detention camps, is directly linked to that racist mentality. The highly offensive remarks of Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, General Boykin, Pat Robertson, Bush and Blair all are part of that contemptuous mindset. So is the contemptible U.S. donation for the five million victims of the Tsunami earthquake that hit 11 Asian countries on the Boxing Day!
Many Westerners genuinely believe in their supremacy! Their scholars and teachers have cemented this mentality. As a matter of fact all western philosophers (with very few exceptions) from David Hume (1711-76),[21] Georg W. F. Hegel (1770-1831),[22] Theodor Noldeke (1836-1930) and Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) [23] to Sigmund Freud and André Siegfried (1875-1959) [24] have shown a very prejudiced attitude towards their white race. Even Ernest Renan (1823-92), a great anthropologist and philologist, suggested that the western or northern race was superior to all others and that the blacks of Africa, the aboriginals of Australia and the native Indians of America as members of the "inferior race". According to Count Joseph-Arthur Gobineau (1816-82), mankind is divided into three basic races. The most inferior is the black race, closely followed by the yellow race; the white race is the most superior.
Hegel was arguably the greatest intellectual mind of the West. His philosophy gave rise to almost all the western intellectual movements of the 19th and the 20th century. Marxism, Existentialism, Psychoanalysis, and historiology - all have their roots in Hegel. Speaking about him, Dr. Ali Shariati (d. 1977), one of the great intellectual minds of the East, remarked some 30 years ago: "Hegel who purported to be a great genius said that the Spirit was 'unconscious' before it entered into the world of nature and animal. There it reached a stage of self-consciousness and then in the form of a spirit it entered into man. Then it started its first evolutionary stage when it entered into the Eastern man. Having completed its Eastern evolution it entered into the Western man. Then it entered into the Germans to achieve further perfection, and then it entered into the German government. And finally it entered the kingdom which rules us now." Wow! Look how far Hegel's whole reasoning and arguments have gone!"[25]
To a westerner, the ancient war between the Persians and the Greeks was a war with the barbarians. This, in spite of the fact that the Medo-Persian Empire under Dhul Qarnain (King Cyrus) had a superior culture and that he defeated the Greeks very badly (see the Qur'an: Surah al-Kahf for details).[26] So is the war between the Persians and the Byzantines during the time of the Prophet of Islam.
This chauvinism about western superiority is not limited to their history and social etiquette and ethics, but also to their philosophical, ethnological, anthropological, neurological and psychological assumptions and theories. To elaborate on this thread, Dr. Shariati remarked, "Professor Siegfried states that, "God or Nature has created two kinds of races in nature: the boss who must direct, and the laborer who must obey. Which one is needed more? Obviously the laborer. Every thousand laborers calls for two to three bosses. So, God has created a European race - who is the boss, and an Eastern race - who is the laborer. This is why the birth rate of the East is 3%-5% annually, while for West is 1%." … He [Siegfried] further says, "What you see and tend to ignore on the sidewalk is a French gentleman, an average worker with blond hair and blue eyes, who can easily direct huge organizations and offices of the East. While, if you go to the East, you will find great thinkers and personalities who are incapable of directing a six-man organization. Why? Because the Western brain creates civilization and organization while the Eastern brain is sentimental, poetical, and theosophical. [Reference: L'Ame des peuples (Spirit of Nations), tr. into Persian by Ahmad Aram, Tehran]"[27]
There were times when many in the once-colonized Eastern countries believed in such baloney about supremacy of the Western mind.[28] But those days are numbered, thanks to genuine and progressive native intellectuals who were able to sort out symptoms from root causes behind the apparent lagging of their newly independent countries. The best minds in many prestigious western universities today are those of non-westerners. [Already every other faculty member in Engineering in many top-rated American universities is a foreign-born Easterner. And their proportion is steadily rising.] Many non-westerners now run some of the biggest corporations on both sides of the Atlantic. [This, in spite of the not-so-subtle prejudice or discrimination that is so common in the corporate world.] The advancement in areas of science and technology in the western world owes heavily to these non-western experts. So much claptrap about western superior race!
Now the question is: why does the West propagate such falsehoods? I infer it is because of two main reasons: 1) repeating the mantra of White supremacy helps psychologically to inflate the Western ego and renew the faith among her own rank and file (necessary for further exploitation of the East), and 2) (something that sociologists, since the days of Ibn Khaldun have known) she knows very well that cultural slavery is the worst form of slavery. In order to achieve this purpose, the exploiter searches for ways to deprive a nation of its personality, which is defined as the unique aspects of a culture that differentiates it from another.[29] The exploitive sociology of Europe and America, therefore, has realized that in order to rob and exploit the East, it has to strip her of her personality; she has to be defeated and denuded completely. She has to be proven that she is inferior to the European race; everything she produces is also inferior. Once this is accomplished she will proudly follow the West, and become a happy consumer of western goods that are produced by the Capitalist West.[30] [Yes, it is all about exploitation and greed.] She will have European/American advisers to even choose and decide for herself. He who has a past but cannot recognize it is an easy prey in this vicious game of exploitation.
This task of cultural imperialism is, therefore, shouldered by two forces – one imperial/occupational, carried out by its 'imperialist' intellectuals, think tanks and 'experts' - and the other native, comprising of culturally alienated 'house niggers' or (whom I call) 'cultural coolies.' These 'house niggers,' acting like vultures and hyenas that wait to devour the corpse, are often more zealous than their masters. To defeat racism, it is, therefore, necessary to identify these two forces and confront their untenable messages.
Racism and West-mania have worked in the past and will continue to work for a foreseeable future until the East can reclaim and redevelop her personality.
Notes:
[1]. See the Book of Genesis 9:21-26 for justification of racism against the children of Ham, identified with the African race. The concept of e Chosen People is also limited to the Children of Judah, or the Jewish people, something that has become a rallying cry to justify the Zionist annexation of Palestine, at the exclusion of its indigenous people – the Palestinians.
[2]. Contrast the Christian attitude on racism with Islam. The Qur'an says: "O mankind! Lo! We have created male and female, and have made you nations and tribes that you may know one another. Lo! The noblest of you, in the sight of Allah, is the best in conduct. Lo! Allah is Knower, Aware." (39:13) Also, reflect on the verse 30:22 (And of His signs is the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the difference of your language and colors. Lo! Herein indeed are portents for men of knowledge.) In his Farewell hajj speech, the prophet of Islam said, "All mankind is from Adam and Eve; an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over black nor a black has any superiority over white except by piety and good action."
[3]. To understand the Crusades, it is imperative to analyze Pope Urban II's statement, "Oh, race of Franks, race from across the mountains, race chosen and beloved by God, as shines forth in very many of your works, set apart from all nations by the situation of your country, as well as by your Catholic faith and the honor of the Holy Church! … From the confines of Jerusalem and the city of Constantinople a horrible tale has gone forth and very frequently has been brought to our ears: namely, that a race from the kingdom of the Persians, an accused race, a race utterly alienated from God, a gene ration, forsooth, which has neither directed its heart nor entrusted its spirit to God, has invaded the lands of those Christians …" According to western historians, anywhere from 1 to 5 million Muslims were killed during the Crusades. (See Anthony Nuttings' book on The Arabs for an account of Christian brutality and savagery.) As far as Jewish victims are concerned, in Jerusalem the Jews fled from the Crusaders, locking themselves in the main synagogue, where all 969 were burnt to death. Outside, the Crusaders, who believed they were avenging the death of Christ, sang, Christ, We Adore Thee, holding their Crusader crosses aloft. Earlier that day, as the Crusaders ran over the mutilated bodies of those slaughtered, one leader, Raymond of Aguilers, quoted Psalm 118:24: 'This is the day which the Lord has made; let us rejoice and be glad in it.' Approximately a quarter to one-third of the entire Jewish population in Germany and northern France was murdered during the First Crusade. In Germany, in return for royal protection they were made 'serfs of the Imperial Chamber'. Required to pay vast sums for this privilege, the Jews eventually became a very real source of royal revenue. As the king's property, they could be -- and were -- bought, loaned and sold, to pay off creditors. The custom spread to other countries. Church leaders justified this status theologically on the basis of earlier Church teaching that the Jews were doomed to perpetual servitude for having crucified Christ. At the time of the Third Crusade one of the most tragic anti-Jewish riots in England occurred in York where nearly a thousand Jews were casualties.
[4]. In 1480 King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella of Spain established a tribunal to purge the Church of those who clandestinely clung to their Muslim and Jewish faith. Wholesale arrests followed. In 1481 the first victims were burnt at the stake. Over the years an estimated 30,000 marranos were consigned to the flames. The Spanish Inquisition had a long history (from the fifteenth century until the threshold of the nineteenth century, and a wide geographical reach, spreading with all its well-documented atrocities to Latin America.
[5]. Estimates of death tolls amongst the Native Americans as a result of annexation of their land by Europeans vary between 20 to 145 million. In 1788, during the early phase of British colonization of Australia, there were probably a million Aborigines. In the 1920s, by the time they completed colonization of their land, there was only 30,000 of them left alive. In the nearby New Zealand, the Maori population declined from 240,000 to just around 40,000 in 1896. (Mark Cocker, Rivers of Blood, Rivers of Gold (1998))
[6]. During the reign of Czar Alexander III, Russia's first major pogrom began at Easter 1881 and spread to a hundred Jewish communities. The czar's adviser intended to solve the Jewish problem by causing a third to emigrate, a third to die, and a third to disappear (i.e. to be converted). Pogroms and accompanying mass emigrations continued under Czar Nicholas II (1894-1917), who regarded the Jews as Christ-killers … Even after World War II, pogroms occurred in Poland, despite the horrors of the Holocaust and the greatly decimated Jewish population.
[7]. The Reformation did not convert the people of Europe to orthodox Christianity through preaching and catechisms alone. It was the 300 year period of witch-hunting from the fifteenth to the eighteenth century, what R.H. Robbins called "the shocking nightmare, the foulest crime and deepest shame of western civilization,"...that ensured the European abandonment of the belief in magic. The Church created the elaborate concept of devil worship and then, used the persecution of it to wipe out dissent, subordinate the individual to authoritarian control, and openly denigrate women." (The Dark Side of Christianity, ch. 8) In The Killings of Witches, Bethancourt lists 628 named and 268,331 unnamed witches killed as of Dec. 2000, and estimates that between 20,000 and 500,000 people were killed as witches. [www.illusions.com/burning/burnwitc.htm]
[8]. In the second half of the sixteenth century ghettos were introduced, firstly in Italy and then in the Austrian Empire. The ghetto was considered an additional demonstration of the error of Judaism: 'A Jewish ghetto is a better proof of the truth of the religion of Jesus Christ than a whole school of theologians' (G. B. Roberti, eighteenth century).
[9]. Just the latest embargo on Iraq in the 1990s resulted in the death of 1.5 million Iraqis, of which nearly half a million were infants under the age of five.
[10]. Fifteen million died during the First World War. Fifty five million people got killed during the Second World War (of which 30 million were civilians).
[11]. In the last decade alone (1990s) a quarter million of Muslims in the former Yugoslavia were ethnically cleansed by the Orthodox Serbs.
[12]. Much of the crimes against the Jewish people were sanctioned by the Church since the days of Paul of Tarsus. Speaking about Jews, Justin (c. 100-165 C.E.), an early Christian father, said, the 'tribulations were justly imposed upon you, for you have murdered the Just One.' The third-century Christian theologians, including Hippolytus and Origen, elaborated on this theory. In the fourth century it was to dominate Christian thinking. Under Emperor Justinian I (483-565) many laws protecting Jewish religious and civil rights were abolished and restrictions were imposed. Later, in the seventh century, the Byzantine Emperor Heraclius imposed forced baptism upon the Jews in order to ensure unity within his realm. France's Bernard of Clairvaux (1090-1153) declared that they were 'a race who had not God for their father, but were of the devil'. Following the custom of theologians of his day, he had taken a scripture (John 8:44) and applied it to the whole Jewish people for all time. Centuries later Nazi leader Julius Streicher carried this further, recommending 'the extermination of that people whose father is the devil.' Hitler claimed, as he chronicled his sixteen steps to Nazi policy, 'I am only doing the work of the Catholic Church. The Protestant leader Martin Luther was also the one who said, 'Verily a hopeless, wicked, venomous and devilish thing is the existence of these Jews, who for fourteen hundred years have been, and still are, our pest, torment and misfortune. They are just devils and nothing more.' In the tract Concerning the Jews and Their Lies (published 1542) Luther wrote: "Firstly, their synagogues should be set on fire … Secondly, their homes should likewise be broken down and destroyed … Thirdly, they should be deprived of their prayer-books and Talmuds … Fourthly, their rabbis must be forbidden under threat of death to teach any more … Fifthly, passport and travelling privileges should be absolutely forbidden to the Jews … Sixthly, they ought to be stopped from usury … Seventhly, let the young and strong Jews and Jewesses be given the flail, the axe, the hoe, the spade, the distaff, and spindle, and let them earn their bread by the sweat of their noses … We ought to drive the rascally lazy bones out of our system … Therefore away with them … 'To sum up, dear princes and nobles who have Jews in your domains, if this advice of mine does not suit you, then find a better one so that you and we may all be free of this insufferable devilish burden -- the Jews." Luther's anti-Jewish teachings were to be applied literally in the Third Reich.
[13]. In the post-Soviet era alone, more than a hundred thousand Muslims were killed in Chechnya by the Russian Orthodox Christians. Let us also not forget the genocide of Muslims in the Caucasus during Czar and Stalin's rule in Russia.
[14]. No definitive estimate is possible. According to some historians, eighteen million Africans are estimated to have died during the trade. In American Holocaust (1992), David Stannard estimates that some 30 to 60 million Africans died being enslaved.
[15]. Here let's also not forget the use of Agent Orange, depleted uranium, and Tuskegee experiment on the Vietnamese, Iraqis/Afghans and Black Americans, respectively.
[16]. In Tasmania, the native population declined from 5,000 in 1800 to 200 in 1830 to 3 in 1869 to zero in 1877. (Jared Diamond, The Third Chimpanzee (1993))
[17]. See this author's article "The White Man's Burden: the never-ending saga" or "The burning itch to civilize others."
[18]. Islam rejects Trinity. Jesus is accepted as a prophet and messenger of God, who foretold the coming of the last messenger – Muhammad (S).
[19]. According to the Gospel accounts (Luke 2:8), Jesus was born when the shepherds used to graze their cattle in the fields. An objective analysis leads us to the conclusion that he probably was born between April and September (spring-summer), and surely not during the winter season in December.
[20]. Edward Said, Orientalism, New York: Vintage, 1979.
[21]. In a 1748 essay, "Of National Characters," Hume said: "I am apt to suspect the Negroes to be naturally inferior to the Whites. There scarcely ever was a civilized nation of that complexion, nor even any individual, eminent either in action or speculation. No ingenious manufactures amongst them, no arts, no sciences. On the other hand, the most rude and barbarous of the Whites, such as the ancient Germans, the present Tartars, have still something eminent about them, in their valour, form of government, or some other particular. Such a uniform and constant difference could not happen, in so many countries and ages, if nature had not made an original distinction between these breeds of men. Not to mention our colonies, there are Negro slaves dispersed all over Europe, of whom none ever discovered any symptoms of ingenuity; though low people, without education, will start up amongst us, and distinguish themselves in every profession." (Philosophical Works, Vol. III, pp. 228-9.)
[22]. Hegel says: "In Negro life the characteristic point is the fact that consciousness has not yet attained to the realization of any substantial objective existence-as for example, God, or Law-in which the interest of man's volition is involved and in which he realizes his own being. This distinction between himself as an individual and the universality of his essential being, the African in the uniform, undeveloped oneness of his existence has not yet attained; so that the Knowledge of an absolute Being, an Other and a Higher than his individual self, is entirely wanting. The Negro, as already observed, exhibits the natural man in his completely wild and untamed state. We must lay aside all thought of reverence and morality-all that we call feeling-if we would rightly comprehend him; there is nothing harmonious with humanity to be found in this type of character." "What we properly understand by Africa, is the Unhistorical, Undeveloped Spirit, still involved in the conditions of mere nature, and which had to be presented here only as on the threshold of the World's History." [GWF Hegel, The Philosophy of History, New York: Dover (1956), pp. 93-99]
[23]. See the book: The Birth of Tragedy and The Genealogy of Morals, Doubleday Anchor Books, 1956.
[24]. The French political scientist and educator André Siegfried (1875–1959) was regarded as one of the most perceptive political commentators of his time.
[25]. Man and Islam – Lectures by Ali Shariati, tr. Ghulam M. Fayez, Univ. of Mashad Press, Mashad, Iran (1982), pp. 160-161.
[26]. According to Mowlana Abul Kalam Azad (Tarjumanal Qur'an), Dhul Qarnain was the title for Emperor Cyrus of Persia who ruled around 536 B.C. He is also recognized as the Messiah (the anointed one) in the Bible (Isaiah 45:1).
[27]. Op. cit., p. 162.
[28]. However, there still remain some culturally alienated individuals, promoted and pampered by the West as "intellectuals," who see no evil with the West or its atrocities against the East. They are the Fuad Ajamis, Amir Taheris and Khaled Durans of our time.
[29]. The development of the personality of a generation results from the collective flow of the spiritual, mystical, intellectual, humanistic, aesthetic, artistic, and scientific currents of the past generations.
[30]. It is thus no wonder that western 'experts' like Pipes call for total defeat of Palestinians and Muslims.
Reprinted from:
http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/12338/``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xAnatomy of Racism``x1105049071,38540,Development``x``x
``xOpposition Accuses Mugabe of Rigging the Vote
Yesterday, parliamentary elections took place in Zimbabwe. Reports from the country say that the elections went off relatively peacefully. And for the first time- the opposition party, Movement for Democratic Change, was able to campaign openly. The party is the first to seriously challenge President Mugabe's government since Zimbabwe won independence in 1980.
But even before the election, the leader of the Movement for Democratic Change, Morgan Tsvangiari charged that the election was rigged. He said "we are not happy with the way the electoral playing field has been organized...This is not going to be a free and fair election."
Opposition leaders and human rights groups claim that the voter roles were inaccurate and that many who tried to vote were turned away. They also point to widespread fear and intimidation before the voting began. President Mugabe dismissed these complaints calling the elections completely free- and the Movement for Democratic Change a pawn of British Prime Minister Tony Blair and other Western governments. Mugabe stated that he was "entirely, completely, totally optimistic" of victory for his Zimbabwe African National Union -Patriotic Front party. He called the election the "anti-Blair election."
Full Article : raceandhistory.com``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xDemocracy Now: The Zimbabwe Elections``x1112388286,32306,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xHerald Reporter
Zanu-PF is not gunning for a two-thirds majority in Parliament in order to amend the Constitution in preparation for President Mugabe's retirement.
Speaking to journalists after he and the First Lady Cde Grace Mugabe had cast their votes at Cyril Jennings Hall in Highfield constituency yesterday, President Mugabe said his retirement had nothing to do with the two-thirds majority the ruling party is aiming for in the parliamentary elections.
"My retirement comes at its own pace; it will come for certain," Cde Mugabe said in response to a question on whether Zanu-PF was eyeing a two-thirds majority in Parliament to amend the Constitution in preparation for his retirement.
There had been wide unsubstantiated speculation that the ruling party was gunning for a two-thirds majority to amend the Constitution and prepare for President Mugabe's retirement.
Cde Mugabe said a major reason for constitutional amendment would be to re-introduce the Senate so that Parliament reverts to a two-chamber system, the Upper House and Lower House. Zimbabwe had such a system soon after independence but later abolished it.
But now people, including the opposition MDC, were of the view that the Senate should be re-introduced, President Mugabe said.
He said the MDC was also agreeable to the re-introduction of the Senate, which was suggested during earlier talks between the opposition party and Zanu-PF.
Cde Mugabe said this was despite the fact that the MDC had opposed the draft constitution sponsored by Government in 2000 which proposed the re-introduction of a Senate.
Asked how the senators would be chosen, he said that would be decided between the parties that would have made it into Parliament after the election.
"Those are some of the things to be debated. In fact, it (the reintroduction of Senate) is an outcome of discussions between the two parties (Zanu-PF and MDC)," Cde Mugabe said.
He hinted that the Senate would be made up of traditional chiefs, retired politicians and eminent Zimbabweans. The President said his eventual successor would be chosen by the Zanu-PF congress.
"The successor will be chosen by our congress," he said in response to suggestions he was grooming Vice President Joice Mujuru to succeed him.
Cde Mugabe said the two-thirds majority would also enable Zanu-PF to make other important constitutional amendments.
Commenting on the election, the President reiterated that Zanu-PF was poised for victory in the election and expressed confidence it would amass the two-thirds majority.
"I have just voted in order to increase the number of votes for Zanu-PF and we know that we are going to win. So there it is, it is going to be victory for us, by how much that is what we will want to see. Zanu-PF is never a loser," Cde Mugabe said.
He dismissed claims of intimidation by the MDC and reports that Government was using food as a political weapon, saying: "My response is that they are talking nonsense."
"There can never be anywhere else where elections can be as free as they are here."
President Mugabe repeated that Zanu-PF would not form a government of national unity with the MDC but would continue to work with the opposition in Parliament and could also hold discussions with it outside the legislature. He, however, stressed that the MDC should be a loyal opposition party.
The President hailed the peaceful election campaign and voting process, saying the violence that marred previous elections was instigated by the MDC through its endless misguided mass actions and demonstrations.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xVoting ends smoothly``x1112415592,70811,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xThe Southern African Developing Community (SADC) election observer mission says Zimbabwe's parliamentary elections were conducted in an open, transparent and professional manner. The mission has issued its report on yesterday's poll, the first by a major observer mission.
Full Article : sabcnews.com``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xSADC observers happy with Zimbabwe elections``x1112423625,49319,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xIn spite of knowing itself in possesion of over 20 seats in urban zones against two of the ruling party ZANU-PF, Zimbabwe opposition seems today on the verge of lowering their flag after Thursday´s elections. As Prensa Latina got to know, the general headquarters of the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) informed that the main opposition force estimates it won´t obtain even 50 of the 120 benches in discussion. If that is so, the Zimbabwe African National Union Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF) is about to obtain the two-thirds of the seats it expected according to the Constitution in order to deepen the program of transformations begun after achieving independence in 1980.
Full Article : plenglish.com``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe Opposition Seems to Crumble after Parliament Elections``x1112423745,57409,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xUnder international pressure to produce a credible result, Mugabe's government and party stanched the bloodletting that has marred previous elections in this southern African country. For the first time in years, Tsvangirai's party, Movement for Democratic Change, was able to campaign openly.
Mugabe was confident the gamble would pay off, saying he was "entirely, completely, totally optimistic" of victory for his Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front. He said he voted only to increase the margin of the win.
However, encouraged by the drop in violence, Tsvangirai held out hope his party could muster enough support to claim Parliament.
Full Article : baltimoresun.com``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xOpposition, monitors call Zimbabwe vote flawed``x1112424409,43504,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xThe election observer team of the Southern African Development Community (SADC) today gave a generally positive assessment of yesterday's general elections in Zimbabwe, saying they were "peaceful, credible and dignified." The opposition however protests, and is supported by the British government, saying the polls were "seriously flawed."
South Africa's Minister of Minerals and Energy, Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka, who leads the SADC election observer mission, today issued a statement generally positive on yesterday's polls in Zimbabwe. Ms Ngcuka in the statement extended SADC's "congratulations to the people of Zimbabwe following the holding of a peaceful, credible and dignified election."
SADC's 55 election observers had been deployed throughout the length and breadth of Zimbabwe in both rural and urban areas during the last two weeks. With regard to the polling process, it was SADC's overall view that "the elections were conducted in an open, transparent and professional manner," Minister Ngcuka said this afternoon.
The polling stations had opened and closed at the appointed times and SADC observers were "impressed by the orderliness and patience of voters, who we believe, were able to express their franchise peacefully, freely and unhindered." The picture that emerged at the close of poll was "an election day, which was peaceful." As counting continues in various polling stations, SADC was "convinced" that the process would be transparent.
The Southern African observers only had registered some minor irregularities. The SADC mission was "concerned with the number of people who were turned away from polling stations." Further, although there had been efforts to ensure equitable access to the public media, "there is still considerable room to improve in this area to allow the access to the state media by the opposition," Ms Ngcuka noted.
Full Article : afrol.com``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xContradicting views on Zimbabwe elections``x1112469800,33798,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Ayinde
We must first keep in mind that the ongoing U.S./European attempt to demonize President Robert Mugabe is not just about Zimbabwe or President Robert Mugabe, but it is also a campaign that attempts to ensure all efforts to correct colonial wrongs in the interest of blacks will not succeed. They fear that if the campaign to return lands to indigenous Africans in Zimbabwe is allowed to succeed, then other African nations will follow suit. They are waging the same type of demonizing campaign on President Aristide of Haiti, President Chavez of Venezuela and other African countries. Intense 'white' media and political campaigns always tie back to the command or acquisition of the resources of non-white people.
Most of the U.S./European critics of President Robert Mugabe are not able to see what is taking place on the ground, and they are of the racist view that African nations cannot monitor other African nations. In their view, African nations need the U.S. and/or European powers to validate their political process, although the U.S. and Europe's election processes have proven to be corrupt.
They are using the structural deficiencies that most politicians usually exploit in all so-called democratic countries, as an excuse to demonize President Robert Mugabe. The same 'democratic deficient structure' exists in the U.S. The state media is usually dominated by the party in power, while they all seek the interest of their investors. Members from their party are appointed to the best government jobs. Bush and Blair are leaders in these type of party politics. The ruling party and opposition use scare tactics compounded by inflammatory statements.
(See: Judge quashes 'fraudulent' council elections -UK)
U.S. Presidents have used 'popular wars' sold to an unwitting public to increase their electibility. The United States of America holds the record when it comes to political scare tactics to further their agendas.
(See: US Crusade, U.S. Vote Fraud 2000 and U.S. Vote Fraud 2004)
The U.S. and U.K. are the world's leaders in manipulating 'democracies', so it is extremely hypocritical for them to criticise President Robert Mugabe for working the system in his favour. The western dominant idea of democracy, often being emulated or forced on nations, does not serve the best interest of the majority of people. What takes place in Zimbabwe cannot be viewed as either unique or exclusive to Zimbabwe.
In an Interview on Democracy Now, Margaret Lee made some good points, but her criticism of the politics in Zimbabwe, under the leadership of President Robert Mugabe, can apply to any number of countries and leaders who have embraced the capitalistic idea of Democracy. They are ALL shams. Margaret Lee gave the impression that these problems are exclusive to Zimbabwe, by her not clearly stating these same flaws exist in most, if not all, 'democratic' countries.
Full Article : raceandhistory.com``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xSloppy Criticisms of Zimbabwe Elections``x1112568802,41026,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xA Judge has delivered a devastating indictment of the postal voting system championed by ministers as he found six Labour councillors guilty of electoral fraud. He said checks against corruption were "hopelessly insecure" and accused the Government of being in denial about the risks to democracy.
Richard Mawrey QC, sitting as an electoral commissioner in Birmingham, found "overwhelming" evidence of fraud in last year's city council elections that would "disgrace a banana republic". The elections, where several Labour candidates bucked the trend to win, were dogged by claims of intimidation, bribery, "vote-buying', impersonation and even the creation of a "vote-forging factory". The judge's comments yesterday, a day before the expected announcement by Tony Blair of a 5 May general election...
Full Article : news.independent.co.uk``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xBritish Councillors guilty of postal votes fraud``x1112685782,44682,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Christopher Thompson in Harare
Independent (UK)
05 April 2005
Zimbabwe's main opposition party is in crisis as the fallout from a heavy, if disputed, election defeat at the hands of President Robert Mugabe's Zanu-PF turned to criticism of its campaign and tactics. Morgan Tsvangirai, the leader of the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), is expected to face calls to stand down in favour of its spokesman, Welshman Ncube.
Mr Tsvangirai has attacked the "rigged result" and called for a rerun but has so far been unwilling or unable to mount mass popular protests in the wake of a poll called "phoney" by the European Union and dismissed as flawed by the United States.
Eric Bloch, a regional political analyst, said there was growing resentment and "tremendous disillusionment" with the party among MDC supporters over his handling of the election. It will now need a period of "extensive restructuring" to survive, he told The Independent. The ruling Zanu-PF took 78 seats from a possible 120, with the MDC taking 41. That was 17 seats less than in 2000 and the result gives Mr Mugabe the power to change the constitution and install a successor without first having to call elections, as presently necessary. It is feared that Mr Mugabe will use his majority to bring in a senate system of government, which was rejected in a 2000 referendum.
Mr Tsvangirai has come under fire for failing to sufficiently capitalise on spiralling inflation, widespread unemployment and food shortages. His policy of threatening to boycott the elections back in September 2004, only to do an about turn in February this year, led to far fewer MDC voters registering than anticipated. This was reflected in the low turn-out of MDC support, especially in rural areas, where Zanu-PF dominated. Analysts said the MDC had, in part, been a victim of its own early success.
Since 2000 Zimbabwe went from bad to worse, principally because of Mr Mugabe's controversial land-reform programme, which saw the economy contract by 30 per cent.
Instead of harnessing popular support by presenting alternative policies, the MDC campaigned on an anti-Zanu-PF ticket. Consequently the opposition was perceived as a party of protest rather than a credible alternative. Its open-door approach to international financial institutions, such as the IMF and World Bank, did not play well with an electorate that has painful memories of the "structural adjustment" of the 1990s.
Reprinted from:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/africa/story.jsp?story=626477``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xCall for Tsvangirai to resign after poll``x1112685846,31500,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xTHE head of the Electoral Commission Forum of Southern African Development Countries' observer mission to Zimbabwe, Victor Tonchi, has given his blessing to that country's elections, declaring them free and fair.
Tonchi led an 11-country observer mission to Zimbabwe and said the mission was encouraged by the "peaceful environment" in which the election took place.
"The mission hereby records its satisfaction with the high level of compliance with regulations and election rules which was displayed by the electoral staff at all stations visited," said Tonchi, who is also Chairman of the Electoral Commission of Namibia.
Tonchi's teams observed the opening procedures and voting and counting at 65 polling stations in 28 constituencies.
Full Article : namibian.com.na``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe Elections Free And Fair, Says Tonchi``x1112843321,97300,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xThe government of President Robert Mugabe announced new price controls of basic food commodities in Zimbabwe to combat hyper-inflation.
In a related action, the women's league of his ruling Zanu-PF party threatened to seize food manufacturing companies.
All companies producing and selling maize meal, which forms Zimbabweans staple diet, cooking oil, soft drinks, milk and sugar have to reverse recent price increases to their previous levels, the state-controlled daily Herald quoted Samuel Mumbengegwi as saying.
Full Article : news24.com``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe slaps price control on food``x1112843833,67591,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xenglish.aljazeera.net
South African President Thabo Mbeki has rebuked Zimbabwe's critics for focusing on that country while ignoring bigger African crises such as the war in Congo.
Speaking at a meeting of the South African Communist Party, an ally of his ruling African National Congress, Mbeki contrasted Zimbabwe's situation with the instability that kills 1000 people daily in the Democratic Republic of Congo, mostly from hunger and disease, on top of the 3.8 million people who have died since the war began in 1998.
"You get reports that something like three million people have died in the Congo over the last few years because of the wars that are going on," he said.
"But the amount of noise that you will hear about Zimbabwe, and no noise about the Congo, must surely raise questions as to why," he said at the meeting in Durban on Saturday.
"Why is it so easy to ignore the death of 3 million people and make extraordinary volumes of noise about another country where only a few people have died? There is something not right about it," he said.
Mbeki also questioned why the killing of 300,000 people in Burundi's civil war was "also not spoken about".
Reprinted from:
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/49596521-829B-4A44-A369-DA094A6B0268.htm``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xMbeki says Zimbabwe criticism unfair``x1113272832,33831,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Ayinde
The US and British, as well as the mainstream media's concern are over one issue: Mugabe took back lands from whites and returned them to blacks. Black Zimbabweans will have other internal issues that are more about their day-to-day survival, but the Western interest is about controlling Zimbabwe's Land. They also want to destroy the Zimbabwean land reclamation example, before it takes hold throughout the continent.
There are Black Zimbabweans taking fair positions that can appear to be against Mugabe based on how things impact on them locally, but there are also those who are just regurgitating the White U.S. /Europe's demonizing propaganda in the hope of getting some economic rewards. If these elitist Whites cannot directly control something, they then settle for remote control, so some blacks position themselves to be willing puppets.
In Africa and the wider African Diaspora, the position many Blacks have taken, supporting the move to return lands to Blacks, is in the best interest of all Africans. This support is not limited to Mugabe and/or Zimbabwe but is about what many desire for all of Africa. So even if many Diasporan Africans do not understand the nuances of the local political issues in Zimbabwe, they do understand the West. They know the Western concern about Zimbabwe is over maintaining white control (remote control) of African resources. A few whites getting killed is their excuse to interfere. Their remote control program is simple. They fund misleaders who put elitist White interest over that of the indigenous population. Then they deny resources to countries as well as demonize the leaders who put the interest of the majority of their citizens first. Venezuela and Haiti are recent examples of this.
There are detractors who want us to believe that the anti-Mugabe sentiment is widespread among Blacks in Zimbabwe. They distort what is taking place there to project a dissenting image. Some Zimbabweans are also making bogus anti-Mugabe claims to get to stay in foreign countries (at least one poster explained how this is being done in Britain).
Here is a quote from Margaret Lee, who is definitely no friend of Mugabe:
"Now one of the problems right now, I think, in the country with respect to the opposition, the Movement for Democratic Change is that just like many other opposition movements, it has compromised itself. So one of the things that was very clear when I was in Zimbabwe in January was that there was not the same level of fear about the MDC that existed at the end of 1999 going into the elections of 2000. When I say compromised itself, specifically it aligned itself with the white farmers, many of the white farmers who had a vested interest in making sure that the land was not returned to the indigenous African population. It aligned itself with many individuals in South Africa that were not deemed to be pro-post-apartheid South Africa. It even aligned itself with RENAMO in Mozambique and that was the so-called liberation movement that was involved in incredible atrocities against the indigenous population in Mozambique. So there exist a lot of problems within the MDC."
(Source: The Zimbabwe Elections)
The anti-Mugabe demonizing campaign was also about promoting the MDC as the alternative - a party that has shown its willingness to return to IMF policies. Most Black Zimbabweans feared this, and it directly contributed to past elections violence in Zimbabwe. It is not simply about Mugabe attacking the opposition; poor blacks in Zimbabwe did not trust the MDC because of their alliances. Many Blacks experienced the hardship under the IMF policies in the 90's before Mugabe abandoned the program, and they do not want to repeat the destructive past. This recent election was more peaceful because ordinary blacks did not feel the MDC was a threat; they did not feel the MDC could win because their pro western allegiances were exposed.
Truly free and fair elections do not exist anywhere as yet, and the US and Europe are not elections or democracy role models. The US and Europe do not promote democracies. They manipulate/further corrupt the politics in vulnerable countries to get misleaders who will serve their interest first. That is not democracy. It will be a good idea for these 'leaders' to develop democratic principles in the U.S .and Europe.
There can be no democracy when the volume of information and critical issues we cover on these Websites are not given fair media space that would allow people to vote after considering the effects of their choices on ALL of us.
As I said earlier,
"We must first keep in mind that the ongoing U.S./European attempt to demonize President Robert Mugabe is not just about Zimbabwe or President Robert Mugabe, but it is also a campaign that attempts to ensure all efforts to correct colonial wrongs in the interest of blacks will not succeed. They fear that if the campaign to return lands to indigenous Africans in Zimbabwe is allowed to succeed, then other African nations will follow suit."
(Source: Sloppy Criticisms of Zimbabwe Elections)
The West has no problem manipulating to create brutal African misleaders, who they supply with weapons in abundance to protect and serve elitist White interest. Supplying weapons to poor nations is not about protecting their sovereignty from foreign threats. These arms are supplied specifically to allow the misleader to subdue ordinary citizens as protection for Western interest. That is their unspoken policy the world over. Africans who are taking a position on what is in the best interest of Africa as a whole have every right to be concerned about who wants to profit from Africa's misery; who is creating the misery; who wants to choose our heroes; who wants to demonize another African in order to promote their interest.
Most of these anti-Mugabe critics are not simply local Zimbabweans playing for the hearts and minds of Zimbabweans over their local politics. They are not local Zimbabweans who are sharing with the international community while welcoming views and ideas from Diasporan Africans. They have one mission and they come over like this: 'I am from Zimbabwe, and this is how it is. You should believe me because I said I am from Zimbabwe.' Their 'worldview' dictatorial tendencies are so evident, which turns their criticisms of Mugabe into massive displays of hypocrisy.
Rarely do White misleaders demonize each other over their massive brutality and genocides of non-white peoples. Bush and his cronies are the obvious mass murderers today. We are not seeing European misleaders telling it like it is. France played the game of being opposed to the invasion of Iraq, but not on principle. The U.S. knew that. France had no problem instigating more violence in Africa. They were key players in removing the first democratically elected leader of Haiti. Conflicts in Africa are proxy wars; they will disagree over sharing the spoils, but at the end of the day their White elitist solidarity remains intact.
No country has an open door policy, particularly to hostile countries. It is common knowledge that in every country there will be those who put their narrow material interest ahead of the well-being of the majority. These are the weak links that White interest exploit, arm and then promote as good Black leaders. For most of Zimbabwe's young 'independence' it has been held in the trenches of a hostile White controlled environment, first from attacks during the Apartheid Era, then the IMF. Even when they claimed Zimbabwe was doing so well, it was mostly for the economic prosperity of Whites in and out of Zimbabwe. Cuba and North Korea are not open to much western influences, media etc. because of the ongoing threat to their sovereignty. There is action and reaction, and we cannot come down on the effect, and ignore or play down the cause.
Many Whites pay lip-service from the comfort of knowing that they are not first in line to be slaughtered. Many are too weak and do not even try to do better. So they can protest one day and then go back to their jobs. They can try to tell blacks how to think, but they are not first in line to be killed. They want to preach patience to blacks, and try to tell those who are most affected and/or sensitive how to speak, and what measure of urgency to place on issues that directly impact on Africans in general, and dark-skinned-kinky-hair Blacks the most.
What gives anyone the right to determine the language, and urgency to be placed on addressing issues that are not negatively affecting them the most? The answer is arrogance. There are serious issues in Africa that demand more attention than trying to make all of Africa seem to be about Robert Mugabe and Zimbabwe.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xOf course Zimbabwe criticism unfair``x1113403481,89086,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xAn Interview with Greg Elich
By Mickey Z
Is it me or is there a suspicious number of democratic (sic) revolutions (sic) going on these days? And they come in more colors than the Department of Homeland Security terror code. With Zimbabwe being one the nations suddenly on America's democratic (sic) hit list, my go-to guy is Greg Elich, author of the forthcoming book, "Strange Liberators: Militarism, Mayhem and the Pursuit of Profit." I asked him (and Jack Straw) for a little context on the recent elections.
Q. Indulge, if you will, in a little roleplay. You're British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw and you've condemned the Zimbabwe elections as "seriously flawed." How were they flawed?
A. As Jack Straw, I'd feel that the clearest indication that the recent elections in Zimbabwe were flawed is the fact that the party I backed, the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) fared quite badly. The MDC won a mere 41 seats in parliament, as compared to the ruling ZANU-PF's 78. Worse yet, this outcome was a marked drop off from the 57 seats the MDC won in the previous parliamentary election in 2000. The signs of decline were there all along, with the MDC losing a majority of by elections in recent years, and polls taken just before the recent election all showed a significant drop in support for the party. Over the past few years, the British and American governments have pumped millions of dollars into the coffers of the MDC and various NGOs operating on behalf of the MDC and Western governments to bring about "regime change." As Jack Straw, I expect a return on my investment, and the MDC failed to deliver. It couldn't even pull off a post-election coup against the government.
Q. What does Jack Straw do now that his team has lost?
A. Now, as Foreign Minister, I can't be too obvious about what it is that I find so disturbing about the election. So I announce that the election did not reflect the will of the people of Zimbabwe when in fact what I really worry about is that the election did not reflect my will. Any election that the party I back loses is by definition flawed. Yet, as Jack Straw, I still harbor hopes that British, U.S. and European Union sanctions and destabilization campaigns will ultimately bring down the government and I warn that the government of Zimbabwe is "fragile" and "will collapse sooner rather than later." That's the British government's stance, and indeed, that of the Bush Administration's as well. Western media have spared no efforts in imparting that viewpoint to their populations, and it is rather remarkable how completely their assertions have gone unexamined. They have their interests. The real question for the rest of us should be how believable and accurate is the information we're being fed? There's plenty of room for skepticism.
Q. Speaking as Greg, what's *your* take on the recent elections?
A. The March 31 Parliamentary election was the first in Zimbabwe since implementation of the Southern African Development Community (SADC) election guidelines, which were designed to ensure a fair and transparent election process. Zimbabwe, in fact, is the first nation in the region to modify its legal structure to accommodate the guidelines. Among the provisions adopted was creation of an electoral commission responsible for management of the process, with five members appointed by both parties in Parliament, and its head appointed by the President. All votes were to be counted at polling stations in the presence of agents from both parties and translucent ballot boxes would be utilized. Air time on state television and radio would be given to the opposition party during the election campaign, and the government of Zimbabwe allocated funds to both parties based on the percentage of seats won in the previous parliamentary election. In line with that policy, the government provided $559,000 to the ruling ZANU-PF and $516,00 to the opposition MDC to fund election publicity campaigns. During parliamentary debate on the new electoral laws, several amendments proposed by the MDC were adopted, including the use of indelible ink and extension of voting hours. The government of Zimbabwe had in fact successfully implemented regional election standards well before the election.
Q. Did the Western powers follow a familiar formula in their response to the election results?
A. It is not by chance that the U.S. and British governments started crying "fraud" weeks before the election even took place. All polls showed the MDC would lose the popular vote. The strongly implied message from Anglo-American leaders was that the only fair outcome would be a win by the opposition, planting the seed of doubt in the minds of the public and in effect, preparing the ground for rejection of the election results. The election went as expected, with the ruling party winning 59 percent of the vote, matching very closely what the polls had indicated. Predictably, after the election, accusations of fraud by the MDC and the Bush and Blair Administrations' grew louder and more persistent. International observers on the ground came to a different conclusion. The SADC mission said that in its view "the elections were conducted in an open, transparent and professional manner," and voters "were able to express their franchise peacefully, freely and unhindered." The mission noted that the MDC had approached them with a series of complaints. "In a number of situations, they did not bring evidence to back their complaints. In general we have come to the conclusion that that the election does reflect the will of the people of Zimbabwe. We operate on facts." In regard to claims of fraud, the mission noted, "Up to now it has not been backed up."
Q. What about non-Western nations? What about the rest of Africa?
A. Both the South African and the African Union missions concluded that the election reflected the will of the people. The MDC had complained to the South Africans that food distribution was being used as a political tool. The South African mission investigated specific complaints by the MDC but in the end said it "was unable to verify the truthfulness of the same, where follow-ups were made." The Zimbabwe Council of Churches, which deployed 856 observers, felt that "the elections are an expression of the people's wishes and our conclusion is that they were free and fair." This wasn't the story we were being told by Western media, which instead focused on the MDC's persistent allegations. Changing vote totals proved fraud, the party asserted. In almost all polling stations, the MDC claimed, final totals had gone up, surely the result of tampering with the vote. The main problem, however, appeared to be the fact that the number of voters given as the election was in process reflected the situation at the moment, and therefore, the final totals would be inevitably be higher. In two constituencies the MDC maintained that totals went down, but offered no evidence to back the claim.
In the U.S. and Great Britain, the claims were accepted without examination, and it was widely assumed that the mere assertion of fraud had proven the case. However, the MDC had four monitors assigned to each polling station who were fully involved in the vote-counting process. Due to the implementation of SADC guidelines, each step of the process was audited and a paper trail recorded, and all votes were counted in the presence of observers from both parties. At the end of the process at each polling station, party agents endorsed the final count. Only then could the final result be sent to the registrar. According to the anti-government New Zimbabwe, "a senior MDC official told this website that the party's polling agents had checked their figures against the results announced by the ZEC, and the numbers tallied." The MDC official persisted in believing there must have been some sort of fraud, despite a lack of evidence. "We are clutching at straws, to be honest," he admitted. Under the circumstances, though, fraud seemed impossible. According to SADC observer mission head Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka, "The vote-counting process was conducted meticulously and lawfully. It is worth noting that all stakeholders from party agents, monitors, presiding officers and local observers performed their duty as expected and no one could leave the room before the counting was finished."
Q. Let me ask for a clarification: Are you saying the election was problem-free?
A. No. It was evident that insufficient attention was paid to voter education, leading to a high number of voters being turned away either due to lack of proper identification or for reporting to the wrong voting station. Presumably, some voters were able to rectify their mistakes in time to vote. But even here, the scale of the problem was greatly exaggerated in the Western press where figures like 10 percent or even 25 percent were being bandied about. In fact, the number of voters involved was 4.9 percent. International observers pointed out that the problem affected supporters of both parties equally, and did not influence the outcome. Overall, the election was a success in terms of implementation of SADC election guidelines, ensuring a smooth and transparent process. U.S. and British leaders could only regard the election as a complete failure, however, except in terms of a successful propaganda campaign to discredit the results.
Reprinted from counterpunch.org with permission from Mickey Z.
Also Read:
Zimbabwe election officials reject poll fraud
www.newzimbabwe.com/pages/electoral108.12491.html
Greg Elich responds to an article in the Saturday,
April 09, 2005, Press Action, 'Zimbabwe's Very American Election',
by Gene C. Gerard cirqueminime.blogcollective.com/blog/
Zimbabwe criticism unfair
www.africaspeaks.com/articles/2005/1304.html``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xOne Zimbabwe or Another``x1113605035,44490,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Staff Reporters, newzimbabwe.com
Last updated: 04/07/2005 13:36:11
EXTRACT:
"In the first announcement made after polling had ended, Justice Chiweshe read out voting figures from the 120 constituencies. However, when the results started coming in, it emerged that more people appeared to have voted per constituency more than had earlier been announced.
But facing the world media for the first time after the controversy, Justice Chiweshe poured scorn on the rigging claims. In fact, according to Chiweshe, the initial announcement of voters per constituency was for the voting patterns up to 2pm on the voting day.
He said: "(I indicated at the time that) figures quoted in any update that the commission may give are not necessarily a reflection of facts on the ground. The figures were given without prejudice and only for the purposes of giving indications as to the turnout trends in various provinces and constituencies.
"I further indicated that correct and official statistics would be known after the constituency results. Notwithstanding that explanation, certain quarters have taken it upon themselves to misinform and mislead the public that there is a discrepancy between figures given in the update and the final figures as reflected in constituency results, and that because of such discrepancies irregularities had occured.
"The correct position is that there is only one set of figures to be considered, and only one process to be examined -- these are the figures counted at each polling station and authenticated by presiding officers and party agents under the watchful eyes of monitors and observers.
"These figures (which are the official figures) were transmitted to constituency centres where they were collated by constituency election officers, again in the presence of party agents, monitors and observers.
"Once that process was completed and authenticated, the figures would then be transmitted to the national results centre for announcement by the chief election officer, constituency by constituency.
"These are the official figures by which the results of the election were determined. There are no other figures that come to play. Therefore, the question of inconsistencies does not arise. That, in a nutshell, is the position of the commission. This position is vindicated by the constituency results that we made public at the time," said Justice Chiweshe.
Meanwhile, a week after the election ended, Chiweshe said his commission had not yet received a single complaint from any contesting candidate. In a jibe aimed at the MDC, Chiweshe said his commission would not act on "complaints raised through the media".
Chiweshe's announcement came hours after an MDC official told New Zimbabwe.com: "We are clutching at straws."
The Movement for Democratic Change (MDC)'s spokesman Paul Themba Nyathi had released widely-publicised details of discrepancies between the number of people said to have voted in each constituency by election officials, and the final voting figures for each candidate.
In over 30 constituencies, the MDC said deficits between the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission’s official pronouncement on the number of votes cast and the final total directly accounted for the Zanu PF 'victories'.
But a senior MDC official told this website that the party's polling agents had checked their figures, against the results announced by the ZEC, and the numbers TALLIED."
Full Article....
www.newzimbabwe.com/pages/electoral108.12491.html
Also Read:
http://cirqueminime.blogcollective.com
"It is not true that the Mugabe government "essentially runs all media outlets in Zimbabwe." True, the sole television station is state-owned, although private stations from neighboring South Africa can be seen. There are privately-owned radio stations, and privately-owned newspapers outnumber state-owned. With the exception of the Daily Mirror, all of these newspapers are rabidly anti-government and the level of vituperation heaped upon the government in these papers rivals that of privately-owned media in Venezuela.
Election officers were not appointed by the Mugabe government. The five members of the commission were appointed by Parliament, with input from both ZANU-PF and the MDC. President Mugabe was responsible for choosing only the president of the commission.
Zimbabwe fully implemented the SADC electoral standards, and was among the first nations of the region to put these into effect. The new electoral laws were worked out in Parliament, including the adoption of several amendments submitted by the opposition MDC, such as the use of indelible ink.
Ten percent of voters were turned away because they either had failed to bring proper identification or they had reported to the wrong district (presumably many of them later in the day ended up at the proper voting place). Observer teams noted that this problem was due to insufficient efforts at voter education and that it affected both parties equally.
It is not true that Mugabe’s supporters killed hundreds of opponents in the 2002 election. In all, a total of 58 people were killed, and this included both ZANU-PF supporters killing MDC and MDC-supporters killing ZANU-PF. Too many, to be sure, but considerable progress was made at subduing the hotheads on both sides, and by all accounts the election went off peacefully."
Full article...
and,
One Zimbabwe or Another: An Interview with Greg Elich
www.raceandhistory.com/historicalviews/2005/1504.html``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe election officials reject poll fraud``x1113607003,93924,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xwww.zimbabweherald.com
THE following is the full text of the speech delivered by President Mugabe on the occasion of the Independence Silver Jubilee celebrations yesterday.
Twenty-five years have gone by since that eventful midnight of 18th April, when our country was born, proudly taking up her place among members of the community of nations as a full, independent and sovereign State. This birth followed bitter struggles and wars of resistance waged by our people for nearly a century, struggles meant to dislodge British settler colonialism which, in 1890, had planted itself on our soil through force of arms.
When this day finally arrived, we had paid the price of British bondage for ninety long and arduous years of systematic assault and injury to our body and soul as a Nation under occupation. To this day, we bear the lasting scars of that dark encounter with colonialism, often described as civilising.
Important as it is, this magic day of 18th April did not mark our destination or herald the end of our struggles. April 18 announced the beginning of new and even more demanding struggles ahead. We had to secure peace; we had to integrate three previously warring armies; we had to resettle thousands of displaced persons and refugees from the war; and we had to rehabilitate a war-ravaged countryside. The challenge was daunting, a real matter of faith.
Twenty-five years later, we have an opportunity to look at how we have lived as a Nation since then. But we do so having achieved the landmark of 25 years which this day, the 18th of April represents, for it was the day on which, in 1980, we proclaimed our birth and presence to the world with a collective voice. The emotion-laden visual of that proclamation was the lowering of the Union Jack - the British flag - and its subsequent replacement by our own.
The lowering of the Union Jack was a ceremony performed by a British royal person - His Royal Highness, Prince Charles, now being maligned for recently shaking my hand in Rome, at the funeral of our Pontiff, Pope John Paul II. But I had met him several times before. Was it not one revered Briton who said a century or so ago that "small minds and great empires go ill together?" Comrades and Friends, when we ascended to full sovereignty and freedom, we clearly communicated our resolve never again to be in bondage.
The new flag represented the wealth we carry as a Nation, although, sadly, it was wealth we were not able to control or take over quickly. That, of course, included our land, all that which grows on it, and all that which is embedded deep within its bowels.
The new flag also expressed our deep compassion, our wish and offer of peace to the world. As a war-weary people, we badly needed it, both at home and abroad. And the circumstances were most delicate, for the embittered Rhodesians were plotting the reversal of the people’s revolution.
The same flag, yes, carried our dreams, our hopes, our lofty and boundless ambitions. It represented our colour and our past, both combining to give identity to a young and achieving African Nation steeped in proud history. We hoisted all these things on 18th April, the day we joyously mark today. We thus struck a covenant with ourselves and those to come after us. We are the living, the independent and an African people firmly rooted.
In celebrating our coming into being, we acknowledge the founding struggles waged by our forbears. Their brave resistance started from the last decade of the 19th Century and went into the first decade of the 20th Century. From that historical experience, we have gleaned life-long lessons for building this Nation which has turned twenty-five today.
Our Chimurenga or liberation struggle was "a people’s war" and thus demonstrates the imperative need for national unity not only in winning and defending our sovereignty but also in pursuing the post-war struggles against poverty, hunger, disease and ignorance. A united people can never be really defeated. This reckoning thus impels us to be on a tireless search for unity even as we uphold the Unity Accord of 1987. Our people are, indeed, united and we therefore dare not undermine the Accord.
Above all, our struggles have taught us that sacrifices are an integral part and signify the element of bravery and courage. For Africa, freedom has never come cheap and easy. Colonisers do not freely let go of nations they occupy. Their hold has to be broken through bitter and bloody struggles by the oppressed. Such struggles have always demanded sacrifices.
Today, we tell our children that the joys of 18th April emanate from the hapless villager slaughtered in cold blood only yesterday, for supporting the struggle. We tell them that today’s joy is the product of the strangled shriek of a guerrilla bravely facing execution, it comes from his corpse as his body dangled from the noose of an inhuman white settler hangman. We tell them real stories of battle-hardened cadres who fell in battle singing "Ropa rangu muchazoriona pamureza weZimbabwe." (My blood shall colour the flag of a free Zimbabwe") all such sacrifices colour our joy today.
We shall never forget that we shared the sacrifices with our brothers and sisters in all the neighbouring countries we used as rear bases for our struggle: Tanzania, Zambia, Mozambique, Angola and Botswana. Their blood too, emblazons our flag, making them deserving shareholders in our freedom and pride. The honour we extended to their leaders last night, most of them posthumously, recognises and celebrates this hushamwari hweropa - friendship born of blood. Their sacrifices towards our cause are infinite and priceless, bonding our peoples forever. Again, let the children know this sacred story of their freedom, namely, that it was secured through collaborative African efforts and sacrifices, which have provided a firm foundation for our pan-African spirit and character.
But we also recall and take pride in the fact that we opened our Independence with a demonstration of compassion, forgiveness and reconciliation, unexampled in European history. Confounding all expectations and fears of retributive justice against Rhodesian war criminals, we, in March 1980, proclaimed a Policy of National Reconciliation by which we forgave their heinous sins and atrocities against our people. By this policy, their war crimes stood forgiven, expiated not by restitution or even a show of contrition on their part, but simply by our own forgiving consciences. Against that bitter history, we still gave our hand, gave our hearts and our love to the erstwhile oppressor, in clear demonstration of African humanity. Today, Ian Smith, himself racist Rhodesian incarnate, still lives a free man. Out of this policy, we built peace, healed weeping wounds, pacified restless souls of all those disconsolately bitter and deeply injured. Yes, we freed the oppressor. Who, in the Anglo-Saxon West would have done what we did?
Democracy has come during the same 25 years, not as a hand-down from Europe, but as a natural offshoot of our struggle. We made our democracy and owe it to no one, least of all Europeans. Until we beat them on the battlefield, Britain and her kith and kin here would not concede voting rights to Africans. The one-person-one-vote we have enjoyed since 1980 is a gain from our liberation struggle. Let it be forever remembered it was the bullet that brought the ballot.
The twenty-five years we celebrate today have been years of regular elections in 1980, 1985, 1990, 1995, 2000, 2002, and, just slightly over two weeks ago, in March 2005. Our polls have not needed Anglo-American validation. They are validated by fellow Africans and friendly countries from the Third World. That is our humane universe, not Europe, not America. We never agitate to observe their elections, and, therefore, let them keep away from our affairs.
We thank Africa for her support as we prepared for our polls. We thank all the political players and their supporters for heeding the call for peace. We thank our people for ensuring peace throughout the entire election period. Indeed, this is as it should always be.
The twenty-five years that have gone by have taught us that democracy cannot grow well on the soil of racial poverty and inequality. Genuine democracy cannot co-exist with structural deprivation and racial inequality. It cannot be an escape from addressing the national question. Such a model of democracy we reject for it is meant to give the oppressed an illusion of power and control.
The historical fact of land, at the heart of our liberation struggle, necessarily forges this vital connection in our political circumstances. In Zimbabwe, land governs the ballot. It is a symbol of sovereignty; it is the economy, indeed, the source of our welfare as Africans. It remains the core social question of our time, as, indeed, it was the main grievance on which our liberation struggle was based.
Today, 25 years later, we rejoice that this fundamental goal of our struggle has been achieved. We have resolved the long outstanding national land question, and the land has now come to its rightful owners, and with it, our sovereignty. Our people are happy and fulfiled, and this is all that matters to us. Let the grief and bitterness that has visited Europe following the repossession of our land heal on its own, in its time. Zimbabwe is in Africa, not Europe!
We have done much more in the 25 years which have gone by. We have built schools, colleges, polytechnics and universities. We have trained teachers and expanded education at the primary, secondary and tertiary levels. We have educated our children and with a literacy rate of well over 86 percent, Zimbabwe far surpasses most nations of the world in education, which is why our skilled people are much sought after in most parts of the world. The coming years will see resolute steps taken to review and overhaul certain aspects of the current education system, placing emphasis on development-related education, Information Technology, vocationalisation and entrepreneurship for self-job creation.
We have also built health institutions throughout the country and have stepped up the training of health personnel, albeit against the challenges of induced skills flight. Today, every community has a clinic or health centre on the basis of which our national primary health care programme has been an example to, and the envy of the developing world. However, the biggest challenge we face as a nation is the HIV/Aids pandemic, which has really strained our health delivery system. Definitive steps are being undertaken to address the challenge, including greater local manufacturing of anti-retrovirals, as well as significant subsidies for HIV-related drugs and treatments. But the achievements in the health sector have been enormous and we can only improve in the years ahead.
Dramatic gains have been registered in opening up rural areas through greater infrastructural development. From a road and rail network designed to serve white interests, we have expanded the road network to bring hitherto neglected rural areas within the national developmental grid. We have built an effective system of feeder roads, overcoming natural barriers through a network of bridges. However, a lot more still needs to be done.
We have expanded rural electrification, covering the far reaches of our country. We have lit up rural service centres, rural schools, offices and homesteads of traditional and community leaders. With electric power in place, it is now possible to attract meaningful small to medium scale investments into rural areas, in the process, tackling rural unemployment.
Complementary to the rural electrification programme has been the provision of rural telecommunication services.
Our water sector has also enjoyed huge investments during the same period. We have built many dams of all sizes in all provinces, especially the drought prone provinces of Matabeleland, Midlands and Masvingo.
But not all has been rosy in these 25 years that we are taking stock of today. The spectre of drought has repeatedly visited us, seemingly increasing in frequency in the new millennium. And although we have invested heavily in harvesting water, not much has been done to harness that water for irrigation purposes. We, thus, suffer repeated "wet" droughts. Increasing irrigable land is the surest insurance and no effort will be spared from this very year.
While our detractors claim that our economy has not done that well, we are happy that it has delivered spectacularly on our social goals, thereby laying a firm foundation for our future growth policies. It has delivered on education, health, infrastructure, water, energy and communication. These happen to be prerequisites for an economic take-off. And we now have them in place. True, business has not expanded as fast as we would have wished, and much remains to be done for that to happen.
Until recently, the economy had suffered a general rise in inflation and price instability. Businesses either closed or contracted. Wages were eroded, while unemployment rose quite markedly. Punishing interest rates have also dissuaded investments or business expansions. Our experiments with the ruinous economic structural adjustment programme appear to have unleashed mayhem in the economy. We are a lot wiser now.
We are clear and definite on the way forward in the years ahead. We need to protect our people from the ravages of drought that have afflicted us for years. We shall continue to organise ourselves in order to resist droughts and when they occur to be in a position to prevent hunger. The responsibility of sustaining our people during challenging periods is primarily that of our Government. We shall always live up to this responsibility.
All these efforts naturally must unfold within the framework of our Economic Turnaround Programme which has already registered dramatic gains in restoring macroeconomic balance. While these gains have been generated by reforms championed by our Reserve Bank, they need an emphatic supply response to remain sustainable. Agriculture must grow and expand. Industry and mining must respond positively to the turnaround, as indeed should commerce and the service sector.
The hostility we have faced from western countries in response to our Land Reform has taught us to diversify our source and export markets. We have turned East; we have turned to our region and other sub-regions on our continent. With this support, we have started building mutually beneficial partnerships that will help us build a strong national economy, our ultimate goal.
Let me conclude by thanking leaders from our neighbouring countries who have agreed to grace our Silver Jubilee Celebrations. Some of them lead countries that produced heroes we honoured just yesterday. We hold them in great affection and cherish this deep relationship forged through shared struggles and sacrifices.
I also thank friends and supporters of Zimbabwe, friends and supporters who have stood by us through thick and thin. They are friends indeed and we shall not fail them. Gone are the days when Africa produced tragic revolutions. We have to defend our own space by any means necessary. We have to defend our policies and pursue them unhindered. Africa for Africans! Long live the African Union!
Long Live Zimbabwe!
Long Live the People of Zimbabwe!
Long Live our Independence!
Long Live Africa!
www.zimbabweherald.com``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xIndependence marked new era``x1113891036,16375,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy John Trimble
All-African People's Revolutionary Party
I would like to start by thanking the Embassy of Zimbabwe and Ambassador Mubako for this opportunity to share my experiences from visiting and living in Zimbabwe over the past 3 years. I hope this will help provide clarity on what actually is happening in Zimbabwe.
Since July 2002, I have made five visits to Zimbabwe, the longest being from August 2003 to August 2004 when I lived in Bulawayo and served as a Fulbright professor to the National University of Science and Technology. The most recent visits have been 3 weeks in December 2004 and a week in March 2005, just 2 weeks prior to the elections.
While living in Bulawayo, I was able to observe and follow the municipal elections and several by-elections (elections to fill the seats of deceased MPs and in one case the seat of an MDC MP who had abandoned his seat and moved to Britain). In all cases the process appeared fair and peaceful.
Full Article : mathaba.net
CALL FOR AN END TO SANCTIONS ON ZIMBABWE
American citizens and the rest of the world have been urged to call for an end to the racist immoral sanctions imposed on Zimbabwe by western imperialist powers. The call was made by a representative of the All-African People's Revolutionary Party, Professor John Trimble, at a press conference in Washington DC, United States, on Wednesday.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xCall for an end to the imperialist economic sanctions``x1114040875,23259,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xThe Post (Lusaka)
Posted to the web April 22, 2005
by Brighton Phiri
BRITISH Prime Minister Tony Blair is more of a devil over Zimbabwe's land crisis than President Mugabe, Dr Kenneth Kaunda has said.
Commenting on Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe's revelation that Prince Charles was being despised for shaking his hand during the pope's funeral, Dr Kaunda said it was wrong for President Mugabe to be demonised for the British government's betrayal over its promises to facilitate Zimbabwe's land reforms.
"Before we can call comrade Mugabe all sorts of names, we must look at the history of this country (Zimbabwe). In this country's history, you will find colonialism, which meant land grabbing...then came federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland with the same land grabbing," Dr Kaunda said.
He wondered why Blair had been silent over the atrocities that Ian Smith's regime had committed against black Zimbabweans during the era of land grabbing, and the British government's failures to meet its promise to facilitate the land reforms in Zimbabwe, 10 years after independence.
Dr Kaunda said he was a living witness of the land reform agreement between President Mugabe, then Zimbabwe African National Union leader, Zimbabwe African People's Union leader, the late Joshua Nkomo, and former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher in 1979.
"When Zambia was getting close to its independence, Rhodesia rebel leader Ian Smith declared that no black government would exist in his lifetime and none in a thousand years," Dr Kaunda recollected. "Soon after we got independence, Smith locked up all black political leaders, including Mugabe and Nkomo."
Dr Kaunda recalled that in 1974 he had organised a meeting with then South African president John Vorster to discuss the release of President Mugabe, the late Nkomo and others who had served 10 years in jail.
"I targeted Vorster because I knew that the British were not influential to Smith at the time. So I met Vorster in his train at Victoria Falls Bridge and I demanded among other things, the release of all the political detainees and withdrawing of South African military choppers which were killing the black combatants," he said.
Dr Kaunda said it was from his meeting with Vorster that President Mugabe and the late Nkomo had been released from jail and the deadly military choppers had been withdrawn.
Dr Kaunda said he had taken advantage of Thatcher's presence during the Commonwealth meeting held in Lusaka in 1979 to solicit for a meeting between the British government and Zimbabwean liberation leaders.
"I demanded for a meeting from my dancing partner Thatcher and fortunately she accepted that the meeting be held in London the same year," Dr Kaunda said. "But when I informed comrades Mugabe and Nkomo while we were attending a non-align countries' meeting in Cuba, both comrades refused, saying that they were not going to attend the meeting because they could not trust the British government. I sought the support of my late friend Julius Nyerere and late comrade Samora Machel to convince our colleagues to attend the meeting."
Dr Kaunda said while in London, the British government through Thatcher had pleaded with the Zimbabwean delegation to avoid discussing the land issue until after 10 years to enable her government to source for funds to facilitate the land reforms in Zimbabwe.
"So Mugabe and his colleagues did not talk about land in respect to the British government's promise. But 10 years down the line, the British did nothing. Come 1990, people were tired of lies and false promises," Dr Kaunda said. "This led to the problem of land in Zimbabwe. So how can you blame Mugabe? Demonise those who cheated and not Mugabe, who respected their promise."
Reprinted for fair use only from:
http://allafrica.com/stories/200504220587.html``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xBlair is More of a Devil Than Mugabe``x1114760425,57961,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBINDURA, Mar. 31 - Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe has charged opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) president Morgan Tvsangirai's "big head carries no sanity".
And President Mugabe said his government could have killed the colonial master Ian Smith because he deserved to die after the country got independence.
Addressing thousands of people in Bindura district, about 120 kilometres away from Harare on Tuesday, Mugabe said Tsvangirai had won 57 seats in the last elections simply because he told lies about Zimbabwe to Europeans who were the greater liars.
"Europeans are never honest. They think that lies play a great part in politics. Tsvangirai has a big head and you would think that big head carries sanity...none at all!" President Mugabe said. "He runs to the British like a dog with a wagging tail to say 'my country is not free, there is dictatorship, there are irregularities and people are dying of hunger'. Lies, lies and more lies... goodness me. We do not pursue that kind of politics, it is foreign to us. Tsvangirai lies to greater liars than himself and the British are happy because they have someone to use.
"What country, really, would allow a man like Tsvangirai to sit at the helm? This Tsvangirai, what is he? A man with little education, little sense and no background? Ok, we created the trade unions and he had a chance of serving as secretary general but he messed up. He has no mind of his own, he just interprets other people's thoughts both in words and actions. Anyway, fools can also run as politicians. It's only in politics where fools can also run."
And President Mugabe said Smith was still alive and criticising his government because they had spared him.
President Mugabe said Smith had done a lot of harm to Zimbabweans and for that reason he did not deserve to live.
"Ian Smith is still alive and farming because we spared him. He did a lot of bad things to us but we still spared him. He had two farms, we only got one and they say we are tyrannical. If we had wanted, just one bullet could have taken care of things that side but he is still alive and criticising us," President Mugabe said. "He is still writing things against us, he is free to do so. He would have been dead but he is still hanging his head. Tell me, in which part of the world could a man like Ian Smith be alive today? He had kidnapped and assassinated a lot of people in the bush. Others were thrown in mine pits and we do not know where many others were buried. Over 50,000 people died during the struggle and Ian Smith destroyed a lot of lives. But we are survivors and Tony Blair must know that. Our sovereignty will not be interfered with by anyone, be it Blair or Bush."
And President Mugabe charged that Europeans were the worst liars despite their strong Christian foundation.
He cited America's attack on Iraqi as an incursion based on lies. However, President Mugabe said that African leaders believed in telling their people the truth.
President Mugabe said Zimbabweans had a right to determine their own political destiny adding that self-rule was their birthright. He wondered why British Prime Minister Tony Blair could not leave Zimbabwe alone in that it was not the only country in Africa.
President Mugabe said Zimbabwe single-handedly introduced multiparty elections and had managed to stand on its own without help from the Europeans. He said his cabinet was among the few in the world with very learned brains.
"We have had democracy since 1980. We introduced one man, one vote and when we went to Lancaster, if Smith had never accepted the democratic principle we could never have sat with him. We went to the polls in 1980, we won. In 1985 we won, in 1990 we won and in 2000 we won. In 2002 when we introduced the presidential system, I won that election," President Mugabe said. "Blair, leave us alone. We don't have to be directed by you. What do we have to learn from you? Nothing at all. Why do you want to extend your rule to poor Zimbabwe and even to wage a stupid war against people of Iraqi? Blair's sanctions are unjustified. And who is he to us? Have the British people asked him why he is so concerned only with Zimbabwe in Africa?"
President Mugabe said he was confident that the ruling Zimbanwe African National Union Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF) would carry the day in today's parliamentary elections.
"There is no bar in running for elections, even fools can contest. In 2002 the MDC managed to get 57 seats and we accepted because they won after lying to the people. We have a free run again and of course they are losing because people have seen through them. They are now wearing see-throughs," he said.
President Mugabe also said there would be no rigging as people who rigged were MDC supporters.
And referring to his former information minister Jonathan Moyo, President Mugabe said some people were over-ambitious, wanting to get to the top earlier than their time.
"Others are ambitious like Jonathan Moyo and they want to jump forward. A frog will never give birth to a cow. A frog is a frog and it can never be a cow," he said.
President Mugabe urged the people of Bindura, the home of the first female war veteran Mbuya Nehanda and the country's Vice-President Joyce Mujuru, to maintain their patriotism saying the liberation struggle started from their province.
He said thousands of people died during the struggle and that people should not forget how people sacrificed lives for Zimbabwe.
President Mugabe said Zimbabwe had reached a third revolution - the land reforms.
"Today is the final day I am talking to you. I have been around the country with only one word. Where are we and where did we come from? We travelled long distances in 1980 and tried to pursue ways of uplifting our people. We built schools even in outlying areas where there were mosquitoes and tsetse flies. Women empowerment is very important and it has to start with agriculture and mining. In mining, people in surrounding areas should benefit by getting royalties. In agriculture there is need for women to be given small loans to enable them to run viable businesses. We need to help our women in the province. Right now we have the support of the chiefs and only two chiefs are on the opposition's side. Liberation is precisely a reflection of our performance as we try to uplift our country," he said.
President Mugabe commended Vice-President Mujuru's commitment to Zimbabwe's liberation, which she started as a very young girl.
He said even when her husband (Mujuru) fell in love with her whilst in the bush, he first approached him but he (Mugabe) asked him to hold on until they got into town.
"Joyce Mujuru was just a little girl in the camps, she looked after herself and she was never ambitious. When the husband fell in love with her, he came to me and by then we were in the bush. So I said man, we are in the bush. Can you write on a piece of paper which will be a reminder when we get to town? So that is that about Joyce and since she is from this province you need to keep that spirit," said President Mugabe.
Amos Malupenga, Chansa Kabwela Brighton Phiri
Source: www.post.co.zm/zim3087th.html``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xTsvangirai's Big Head Has No Sanity - Mugabe``x1114822837,28043,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Stephen Gowans, gowans.blogspot.com
June 02, 2005
It's dangerous to comment on events that are distant in space or close in time. And Zimbabwe's food crisis is both these things – distant and recent and therefore ambiguous.
But there are some things that are less ambiguous than others.
Take the claim that agricultural production in this southern African country has shrunk. That's beyond dispute.
So too is the claim that, without outside assistance, many Zimbabweans will go hungry.
What is, however, a matter of disagreement – or should be -- is why.
To the Western press, Zimbabwe's food crisis is the inevitable outcome of Harare's challenge to decades of imperialist exploitation.
Of course, it's not put that way. Harare hasn't challenged imperialism. It has seized white-owned farms. Robert Mugabe, the country's president and leader of its national liberation struggle, is a power-hungry, anti-democratic, thug. He wants to reward his lackeys with stolen farmland, using a progressive land reform program as cover. Only a fool would fall for this.
Anti-imperialist struggles, seen through the lens of the Western press, are always dark, sordid and corrupt affairs, Zimbabwe's no less than any other. And those who challenge these campaigns of vilification, are no less vilified, than the main targets.
A recent Washington Post (June 2, 2005) account is emblematic of the Western media's dark, tendentious take on Zimbabwe's troubles.
"Once known as the breadbasket of southern Africa for it bounteous exports of corn and other staples, Zimbabwe has failed to produce enough food for its own population since the often violent land seizures began in 2000."
Lay aside the reality that the arable land of the former colonies of Western imperialist countries have, as a legacy of their previous colonial status, been largely given over to the production of a few cash crops for export, on land often owned by absentee landlords, not production of food by indigenous owners for internal consumption.
This, the Washington Post notes (Zimbabwe, "once known ... for it bounteous exports...") but assumes that an export-based cash crop economy can, in a pinch, be converted to "production of food for internal consumption."
Ignoring that point, and reading the analysis in the strictest literal way, there's nothing to dispute.
Harare did abandon the unworkable willing seller, willing buyer policy favored by its former colonial master, to pursue a land redistribution program to reverse the effects of imperialist exploitation. A food crisis did follow.
The cock crows; the sun rises. But does the cock cause the sun to rise?
Read the analysis again, but not in a strict, literalist, way, and the insinuation is that the roots of Zimbabwe's depressed agricultural production can be found in Harare's land redistribution campaign, and not surrounding – and vastly more significant -- events.
"Drought," the Post article acknowledges -- though at a point sufficiently removed from the critical pairing of the food shortage with farm seizures to make the calamity appear to be an interesting side note, but nothing more -- "has cut food production in several (neighboring) nations."
Indeed, drought, sufficient to lower food production in neighboring countries, should go a long way toward explaining why Zimbabwe can't produce enough.
But if drought isn't enough, add punitive sanctions imposed by Western countries in reaction to Zimbabwe's anti-imperialist challenge (a point the Washington Post either misses or ignores.)
Surely, both these things are significant.
The sanctions, as intended, have been crippling. Fuel – vital to the operation of farm machinery – is in short supply. The economy is in a shambles.
And it's not only Zimbabwe whose agricultural production is drought-ravaged and depressed. That of surrounding countries, whose governments haven't launched meaningful land reform programs, is too.
Only a miracle worker could produce a bounteous crop under drought conditions, in the midst of an economic war, whose objective is to force the government to cry uncle, and leave the legacy of past imperialist exploitation in place.
Accordingly, an honest account of the direct causes of Zimbabwe's agricultural troubles would dwell less on land redistribution, and more on drought and Western punishment for Harare's land reform programs.
The Washington Post, were it other than a mouthpiece for advancing the interests of US investors, financiers and shareholders, may have put it this way:
Once known as the breadbasket of southern Africa for it bounteous exports of corn and other staples, Zimbabwe has failed to produce enough since drought began to ravage southern Africa and Western countries undertook a campaign of economic warfare to cripple the impoverished country's economy, including its agriculture sector.
Don't expect letters to the editor, complaints to the newspaper's ombudsman, or the pressure of liberal media watchdogs to change this. (Indeed, expect no pressure at all; Zimbabwe has few friends in the West, including among nominally anti-imperialist groups.) The Washington Post, its sister publications, and the West's mass media, are not neutral. They never can be, anymore than a lion can live on grass.
The hunger of the poor of Zimbabwe is, as it has been for over a century, not the consequence of the backwardness of Zimbabweans, or the corruption of its national liberation leaders, but the consequence of Western exploitation.
And the iron heel brought down on any who challenge it.
Reprinted from:
http://gowans.blogspot.com/2005/06/real-cause-of-zimbabwes-food-crisis.html``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xThe real cause of Zimbabwe's food crisis``x1117908112,43270,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xMalawi accused over tear gas for Mugabe
AN African government whose people are receiving financial aid from Scotland has been accused of flouting sanctions in supplying the Zimbabwean police force with tear gas.
~~~~~
Comment by Ayinde
This is how European 'Aid' works. European leaders intend to create more divisions among African leaders and nations. Today, European/ American 'Aid' is tied to getting African leaders to alienate President Mugabe and Zimbabwe. Among other methods, such as sanctions, this is often accomplished by adding restrictive control measures before aid is released.
Of course, European and American leaders want to determine what good governance in Africa is. The African countries that they would claim are practicing good governance will be those that cheaply sell their assets to European/American investors and countries that maintain colonial inequities. They also want African countries to continue allowing a minority of whites to occupy and profit from the best agriculture lands in Africa.
Bob Geldof and Bono may not be aware of Blair's motives, but Blair's entire 'Aid for Africa' drive is intended to get African nations distracted from examining and attempting to correct colonial injustices as part of resolving poverty and wars. They fear the infectious Land Reclamation exercise in Zimbabwe can spread to other parts of Africa. So 'Aid' today is to work just as AIDS; it is to ensure that Africans do not develop immunity from European/ American trinkets and control.
Also Read:
'A truckload of nonsense' by George Monbiot
World Bank "Conditionalities" by Greg Palast
Re: A truckload of nonsense by Linda Edwards
International Aid by Evans Munyemesha
New Millennium, Same Old Foreign Aid by Rep. Ron Paul
Africa - debt, aid and race by Gwynne Dyer
How Western Aid Helped Destroy Somalia by George Ayittey``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xAid in exchange for alienating Mugabe``x1119100212,79404,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xMonster of the moment
Zimbabwe is being hypocritically vilified by the west for forced slum clearances that are routine throughout the developing world
By John Vidal, guardian.co.uk
For a month now, the BBC, CNN, ITV and others have been reporting what has been portrayed as one of the greatest humanitarian and human rights disasters in years. At least 200,000 people - sometimes this figure grows to 250,000 or even 300,000 - are said to have been forcibly evicted from slum areas of Harare in Zimbabwe. The figure peaked last week at 1.5 million, but yesterday the BBC reckoned that bulldozers were now "crashing through the homes of 500,000 people".
In fact, only about 1.2 million people live in Harare and no one is suggesting that half the population has fled in terror or that most of the city has been wrecked. So where are all these allegedly terrorised people? A few thousand have been filmed in makeshift camps but not many more. Who is trying to count the numbers? They are almost always attributed to an unnamed person in an unnamed UN agency. But read the only UN statement on the evictions and it says nothing of 200,000 people.
The evictions - which are clearly happening on a wide scale - have been seized on by the west, and the former colonial power Britain in particular, as another reason to demonise President Mugabe and further humiliate long-suffering Zimbabwe. It's open season on the Harare regime and it appears that anyone can say anything they like without recourse to accuracy or reality. Whipped into a frenzy of hypocritical outrage, the EU, Britain and the US, as well as the World Bank - all of which have been responsible for millions of evictions in Africa and elsewhere as conditions of infrastructure projects - have rushed to condemn the "atrocities".
The vilification of Mugabe is now out of control. The UN security council and the G8 have been asked to debate the evictions, and Mugabe is being compared to Pol Pot in Cambodia. Meanwhile, the evictions are mentioned in the same breath as the genocide in Rwanda and ethnic cleansing in the Balkans - although perhaps only three people have so far accidentally died. Only at the very end of some reports is it said that the Harare city authority's stated reason for the evictions is to build better, legal houses for 150,000 people.
Perspective is needed. The summary removal of people at gunpoint from their homes is indefensible, almost certainly unnecessary, and probably economically counter-productive, but it is not unusual in the developing world. Every year millions of poor people are evicted to make way for tourism, dams, roads and airports, for events like the Olympics, and for the gentrification and beautification of cities, national parks and urban redevelopments.
Nor is it new. Forced evictions, brutal land grabs and slum clearances were all used by Britain's own rulers in the past to enlarge their estates, build bigger, more modern cities, construct reservoirs, make way for railways and lay out fine parks and fashionable areas for the newly rich to live. Rapidly developing countries are now doing the same as the rich world did during its own industrial and urban development.
The difference is mostly in numbers. According to UN-Habitat, the Nairobi-based agency that concerns itself with the urban environment, hundreds of millions of the world's poor are technically illegal squatters living in slum communities like those in Harare, liable to be moved on by private landowners or by governments. In the past five years, slum clearance programmes have forced more than 150,000 people out of their homes in Delhi; 300,000 people were evicted to make way for Olympic sites in Beijing; 100,000 were moved on in Jakarta; 250,000 were forced out of dam sites in India; and as many as a million in Lagos and Port Harcourt in Nigeria. There are many more.
Yet those who like to call themselves "the international community" say nothing about these mass evictions and the world's press has been mostly silent. For the World Bank to condemn the Zimbabwean evictions was particularly rich. According to its own calculations, the bank has funded projects that have required the eviction of at least 10 million people.
So why are the Harare slum clearances so different? As international monster of the moment, Mugabe is unacceptable to Britain and the west mainly because he has chosen to evict whites and redistribute land grabbed in colonial times. The fact that the African Union and other African leaders are not prepared to condemn him for the Harare evictions reflects the fact that they, too, recognise the injustice of the colonial land ownership inheritance and do not want to see Africa bullied again by the west.
But there may be another reason why African leaders have not condemned the evictions. Urbanisation is overwhelming most African cities, which have been flooded by impoverished people forced off the land. According to the UN's 2003 study of urbanisation and slums, the driving force behind the slums of Africa and Asia is not bad governance or tyrants, but laissez-faire globalisation, the tearing down of trade barriers, the privatisation of national economies, structural adjustment programmes imposed on indebted countries by the IMF, and the lowering of tariffs promoted by the World Trade Organisation.
Like every city in the world that has tried to clear its slums, Harare will find that history repeats itself. This year, Zimbabwe faces massive food shortages that will force more of the urban poor into destitution and drive yet more people off the land into the cities to look for work. The poor, punished for their poverty rather than for voting one way or another, will become poorer and the shacks and shelters so brutally pulled down in the past month will just go up somewhere else.
However, an alternative to forced evictions is emerging right under Mugabe's nose. Last year, 250 homeless Zimbabweans, members of the Federation of Slum and Shackdwellers, negotiated the provision of land from the city authority. They have now planned the layout of their community, worked out the costs of the homes and are ready to build. Where are they? Harare.
·John Vidal is the Guardian's environment editor
Reprinted for Fair Use Only from:
www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1518747,00.html``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe is being hypocritically vilified``x1120213870,25294,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xThe US and Britain are putting the multinational corporations that created poverty in charge of its relief
by George Monbiot, The Guardian UK
Reproduced for Fair Use Only
I began to realise how much trouble we were in when Hilary Benn, the secretary of state for international development, announced that he would be joining the Make Poverty History march on Saturday. What would he be chanting, I wondered? "Down with me and all I stand for"?
Benn is the man in charge of using British aid to persuade African countries to privatise public services; wasn't the march supposed to be a protest against policies like his? But its aims were either expressed or interpreted so loosely that anyone could join. This was its strength and its weakness. The Daily Mail ran pictures of Gordon Brown and Bob Geldof on its front page, with the headline "Let's Roll", showing that nothing either Live 8 or Make Poverty History has done so far represents a threat to power.
The G8 leaders and the business interests their summit promotes can absorb our demands for aid, debt, even slightly fairer terms of trade, and lose nothing. They can wear our colours, speak our language, claim to support our aims, and discover in our agitation not new constraints but new opportunities for manufacturing consent. Justice, this consensus says, can be achieved without confronting power.
They invite our representatives to share their stage, we invite theirs to share ours. The economist Noreena Hertz offers, according to the commercial speakers' agency that hires her, "real solutions for businesses and individuals. Hertz teaches companies how to be smart and avoid the frictions that surface when corporate interests conflict with private life ... the political right is not necessarily wrong." Then she stands on the Make Poverty History stage and calls for poverty to be put at the top of the agenda. There is, as far as some of the MPH organisers are concerned, no contradiction: the new consensus denies that there's a conflict between ending poverty and business as usual.
The G8 leaders have seized this opportunity with both hands. Multinational corporations, they argue, are not the cause of Africa's problems but the solution. From now on they will be responsible for the relief of poverty.
They have already been given control of the primary instrument of US policy towards Africa, the African Growth and Opportunity Act. The act is a fascinating compound of professed philanthropy and raw self-interest. To become eligible for help, African countries must bring about "a market-based economy that protects private property rights", "the elimination of barriers to United States trade and investment" and a conducive environment for US "foreign policy interests". In return they will be allowed "preferential treatment" for some of their products in US markets.
The important word is "some". Clothing factories in Africa will be allowed to sell their products to the US as long as they use "fabrics wholly formed and cut in the United States" or if they avoid direct competition with US products. The act, treading carefully around the toes of US manufacturing interests, is comically specific. Garments containing elastic strips, for example, are eligible only if the elastic is "less than 1 inch in width and used in the production of brassieres". Even so, African countries' preferential treatment will be terminated if it results in "a surge in imports".
It goes without saying that all this is classified as foreign aid. The act instructs the US Agency for International Development to develop "a receptive environment for trade and investment". What is more interesting is that its implementation has been outsourced to the Corporate Council on Africa.
The CCA is the lobby group representing the big US corporations with interests in Africa: Halliburton, Exxon Mobil, Coca-Cola, General Motors, Starbucks, Raytheon, Microsoft, Boeing, Cargill, Citigroup and others. For the CCA, what is good for General Motors is good for Africa. "Until African countries are able to earn greater income," it says, "their ability to buy US products will be limited." The US state department has put it in charge of training African governments and businesses. The CCA runs the US government's annual forum for African business, and hosts the Growth and Opportunity Act's steering committee.
Now something very similar is being set up in the UK. Tomorrow the Business Action for Africa summit will open in London with a message from Tony Blair. Chaired by Sir Mark Moody-Stuart, the head of Anglo American, its speakers include executives from Shell, British American Tobacco, Standard Chartered Bank, De Beers and the Corporate Council on Africa. One of its purposes is to inaugurate the Investment Climate Facility, a $550m fund financed by the UK's foreign-aid budget, the World Bank and the other G8 nations, but "driven and controlled by the private sector". The fund will be launched by Niall FitzGerald, now head of Reuters, but formerly chief executive of Unilever, and before that Unilever's representative in apartheid South Africa. He wants the facility, he says, to help create a "healthy investment climate" that will offer companies "attractive financial returns compared to competing destinations". Anglo American and Barclays have already volunteered to help.
Few would deny that one of the things Africa needs is investment. But investment by many of our multinationals has not enriched its people but impoverished them. The history of corporate involvement in Africa is one of forced labour, evictions, murder, wars, the under-costing of resources, tax evasion and collusion with dictators. Nothing in either the Investment Climate Facility or the Growth and Opportunity Act imposes mandatory constraints on corporations. While their power and profits in Africa will be enhanced with the help of our foreign-aid budgets, they will be bound only by voluntary commitments: of the kind that have been in place since 1973 and have proved useless.
Just as Gordon Brown's "moral crusade" encourages us to forget the armed crusade he financed, the state-sponsored rebranding of the companies working in Africa prompts us to forget what Shell has been doing in Nigeria, what Barclays and Anglo American and De Beers have done in South Africa, and what British American Tobacco has done just about everywhere. From now on, the G8 would like us to believe, these companies will be Africa's best friends. In the name of making poverty history, the G8 has given a new, multi-headed East India Company a mandate to govern the continent.
Without a critique of power, our campaign, so marvellously and so disastrously inclusive, will merely enhance this effort. Debt, unfair terms of trade and poverty are not causes of Africa's problems but symptoms. The cause is power: the ability of the G8 nations and their corporations to run other people's lives. Where, on the Live 8 stages and in Edinburgh, was the campaign against the G8's control of the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the UN? Where was the demand for binding global laws for multinational companies?
At the Make Poverty History march, the speakers insisted that we are dragging the G8 leaders kicking and screaming towards our demands. It seems to me that the G8 leaders are dragging us dancing and cheering towards theirs.
Reproduced for Fair Use Only from:
www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1521387,00.html``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xAfrica's new best friends. Yeah Right!``x1120579980,32966,Development``x``x
``xZimbabwe Currency Stabilizes as Informal Market Dwindles
The Zimbabwe dollar has regained some ground against the U.S. dollar since the start of Harare's offensive against the black market in foreign exchange. At one point the U.S. dollar fetched 30,000 Zimbabwe dollars, but has slipped to Z$20,000 per U.S. dollar.
The Zimbabwe dollar's recovery won't last, though, according to Lucy Sibanda, who has worked in the parallel currency market for six years. Before Operation Restore Order she operated from a stall in the Bulawayo forex mart known as the World Bank. But she has adapted to the new circumstances for informal traders.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Reply by franksta
About two or so years ago a US senator or congress man said that it was the intention of his government(Bush II) to make the economy of Zimbabwe " scream" as a result of Mugabe's land policy. So it comes as no surprise to me when my good friend Masimba states that Mugabes has run the economy into the ground , he is oblivious to the shenanigans of europeans who make it their bussiness to meddle in Africa's and black nations affairs . Due to the fact that I am unable to find or remember the individuals name or the occassion where the speech was delivered , i have not used it in my reasoning with our lost and confused brother .
As head of the government of Zimbabwe , the responsibility lies with Mugabe , that is undeniable . It is my opinion , in this regard naive and simplistic , to not take into consideration the manipulation be done be european powers against the elected government and the people of Zimbabwe .
Thanks for that encouraging bit of news
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Reply by Ayinde
"The Zimbabwe dollar's recovery won't last"
I share that view for the very reasons you gave. What is happening with Zimbabwe is quite deliberate and any move Mugabe makes will, in many ways, anger some people in Zimbabwe. The opposition, in cahoots with the U.S. and other European powers, intend to exaggerate and exploit that anger to force regime change. That is part of their entire plan.
Imagine they want us to believe that white people in Zimbabwe liked having poor blacks with their shacks and slums hustling around their businesses. The white business interest is the main player in the opposition party. These whites are pretending to be on the side of the vendors. We know whites are exploiting the situation and really want the black vendors removed.
The government's motive may be to try to stamp out the black market that is driving the Zimbabwe dollar down. The claim that President Mugabe is clearing the slums to persecute the opposition is just foolishness. The government's reason for their actions makes the most sense.
Most countries in the world would not be able to maintain the illusion of successful economies without trading with European nations, and them having access to European financial institutions. European financial institutions remote control other countries and success is largely measured and reported from their point of view. If they deem the success too much to the benefit of the country/indigenous people, they manipulate using sanctions and threats of military intervention. If the governments do not agree to their unfair policies, they are targeted for removal.
That is the nature of modern so-called democracies that developed out of slavery and colonialism. Elite whites in these African countries and foreign white business interests, are the ones who profit the most from the land and Black labour. White power intends to keep it that way.
Along the way, African leaders and a few other Black businessmen, just funnel the 'riches' to elite whites, and for that they got more material wealth than the average person. Of course, they never got enough to set up viable challenges to elite European hegemony. They got just enough to want to protect the status quo, and they were armed by European powers to do so.
So when we speak about Zimbabwe's prosperous times, we are talking about a time when more of the basics were available to Blacks, just enough to get by. We are talking about when whites felt secure to continue reaping most of the profits from stolen resources. A country is branded a success when whites are prospering and the local government can at least take care of the basics. Elite Whites do not see Blacks as anything other that subsistence labourers and consumers.
The nostalgia that some are displaying on this board for what existed before in Zimbabwe is very Eurocentric. They are fighting for white control... never seeing Blacks as being able to claim their own space and economic direction.
Most post colonial societies moved along similar lines and that is how we have neocolonialism today. I feel none of these leaders really thought out the entire system enough to realize a better way forward. Some experimented with change, but as history showed, they were either killed or removed from power by European orchestrated coups.
Real change is not possible, unless the majority of people in Zimbabwe are educated about themselves throughout history and the evil in the European systems they inherited. Only an educated majority can withstand the aggression of European powers.
The White leaders loudly proclaim that they want to protect their way of life. Their way of life is exactly the problem. They will pay poor people to fight and kill as many people as possible who oppose them to protect their greed.
Reprinted from:
www.rastafarispeaks.com/cgi-bin/forum/config.pl?read=57398``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe and Eurocentric Nostalgia``x1120929605,20754,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xnews24.com
Johannesburg - The Zimbabwe government delayed its land-reform programme so that negotiations for South Africa's liberation succeeded, said President Thabo Mbeki on Thursday.
"They slowed down to get the negotiations in this country to succeed," said Mbeki as he arrived at the land summit without prior notification.
He said that when South Africa was negotiating its transition to democracy, around the time which Zimbabwe had started its land reform programme, the Organisation of African Unity had asked Zimbabwe to stop the programme as it would "frighten the apartheid government in South Africa".
To suggest that Zimbabwe's land-reform programme was marred by corruption was actually wrong, Mbeki said to loud applause from delegates.
Mbeki surprised delegates when he arrived at the land summit at Johannesburg's Nasrec Expo Centre without a hint that he would attend.
"Welcome comrade president," said Blade Nzimande, the general secretary of the South African Communist Party, who was chairing a session when Mbeki arrived.
"You are really welcome to join the summit. It's a very pleasant surprise," Nzimande said as photographers jostled to take Mbeki's picture.
As Mbeki entered the conference hall just after 17:00 delegates burst into song.
Reprinted from:
www.news24.com/News24/South_Africa/Politics/0,,2-7-12_1745450,00.html
Flashback: Good African Leaders
www.africaspeaks.com/reasoning/index.php?topic=1306.0``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe land reform 'waited for SA'``x1122581979,42443,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xThe Herald (Harare)
INTERVIEW
July 30, 2005, allafrica.com
Conversation with Caesar Zvayi
ONE of the biggest problems Zimbabwe faced over the past five years is the problem of media terrorism that manifested itself in sensational reports in the privately owned Press and Western media, pirate radio stations that broadcast hate speech and a proliferation of on line publications pursuing the illegal regime change agenda. Today, Media and Information Commission Chairman, Dr Tafataona Mahoso talks about media practice and regulation in Zimbabwe.
Q: Dr Mahoso, you have been branded number one enemy of the media by some of the titles whose licences were cancelled. How would you describe your relationship with the media?
A: My relationship with the media depends on which media it is. There are so many media in Zimbabwe, as you know the word includes even those Internet sites that are proliferating. I would not mind being called an enemy of the media by some of those channels because they have become part of the global conveyor belt of lies. We live in a very dangerous world where the media have become an integral part of invasion. The examples of Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan and even Haiti and Granada and the Falkland Islands - all these are graphic examples of the abuse of the media and if the media which corroborate with such forces of inhumanity call me the number one enemy, it does not surprise me or cause me any regrets. However, there are other media in Zimbabwe who are trying to do an honest job and who are working under difficult conditions. I know that for instance, the programme of the foreigners in Zimbabwe since the 1990s has been to try to make the white minority voice the mainstream voice in Zimbabwe, and at the helm of this we have the Swedish International Development Agency (Sida) and Norwegian Development Agency (Norad). So we are aware of that programme and I know that the people who say I am an enemy of the media are people who are aware that I am aware of that strategy.
Q: The internet and on-line newspapers are presenting major challenges to the regulatory regimes of developing countries, how can Zimbabwe deal with the scourge of on-line newspapers some of which are peddling hate speech?
A: There are a number of fronts on which we should fight. The first one is that we must have some of our own sites which are reviewed regularly, the MIC is in the process of trying to do that, we have just interviewed the candidates for our Information Communication Technology section. We intend to have two things;
One is round-the-clock media monitoring, and each morning we review which stories were on radio, TV or even on the Internet in order to advise our stakeholders about what will be happening in the media.
The other front has to do with regulation, and at the moment I am not clear whether Government has actually decided which agency will be responsible for the electronic media beyond broadcasting. There has to be some legislation to regulate those channels that are not catered for under the Broadcasting Services Act (BSA) or the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act (AIPPA).
The third front is by training and by training we do not mean training of journalists, training journalists is also important but we have to find ways of training the audience.
The Media Ethics Committee Report was an attempt to do that. We found out that the consultations that we held when we went out were effective ways of empowering people because, first of all we invited them to say what their experience of media had been and then we shared with them some insights which they might not have had. In the process they also told us what they wanted to be done with the media. So media users need to be trained but as in every country, they are scattered they have no centre of their own. We want media critics who are not journalists but who are citizens who can also advise citizen groups about the role of the media in a national setting.
Q: MIC has monitored the papers published in Zimbabwe, but you have done nothing about a paper called The Zimbabwean, which is always on our streets just like all other weekly papers and pirate radio stations. Are these media exempt from laws affecting titles published in Zimbabwe?
A: That is a concern of ours but as you know the Commission is not a law maker but is bound by the Act that it uses, it is empowered to make proposals to Government, and there is a proposal with Government on how The Zimbabwean problem can be solved. But while we wait for a response from Government we have of course not been idle, I think you will remember the responses that the MIC gave when the paper was first introduced. We believe that the moral critique of the Zimbabwean succeeded in weakening the paper and subsequently we are told that its finances are very weak and we do know definitely that its impact in the country is negligible. So if the Government eventually responds to the proposals that we put before it, it will not be because the paper has a huge impact, but because in future there may be six or seven similar papers being dropped into Zimbabwe from outside. But the weaknesses of the paper are very clear both morally, ethically and even technically because you can not write effective stories from a desk in London, and our people know what London stands for in Zimbabwe. So the paper more or less has discredited itself before the Government has actually legislated to control similar developments in the future. We are glad in fact that the people in Zimbabwe, because of their understanding of ethics and morality, their understanding of communication they have been able to resist this paper, so that it is simply tolerated as a nuisance among many other nuisances that we have to put up with.
Q: You chaired a Media Ethics Committee between 2001 and 2002 that looked into professionalism or lack thereof in the media, what were your findings and what became of the report you submitted?
A: The report was of course done for the Department of Information at that time, it was really meant as a policy guideline but it was also intended as a resource for media studies programmes. We have seen quite a number of these recommendations being implemented, the creation and strengthening of the BSA and the Broadcasting Authority of Zimbabwe; the creation of MIC was actually echoed in the recommendations. What we discovered was that all the people we consulted recommended that we could not rely on voluntary regulation, there should be statutory regulation. The experience of the previous 21 years - for this was in 2001, had shown that journalists in Zimbabwe would not self regulate and that the manoeuvres that were being made by donors were making it even more unlikely. But we also dealt with training. We have seen a lot of the report being implemented, even the idea of local content, we can see the idea there.
Q: In one of your articles, you accused journalists of reporting events instead of relationships between events, and a few months ago your office said it was going to look into the curriculum and qualifications of the staff offering journalism training, how far have you gone with this initiative?
A: It is a huge project and we have already designed questionnaires, there are three of them, one for editors, one for media trainers and one for the students themselves. Rather than mail them, we decided that we should actually present them in person. What we have noticed is that the students are very eager to tell us what they are experiencing and the quality of their experience. The administrators are reluctant but so far we have said that we do not want to resort to section 50 of AIPPA, where we can actually subpoena information, we want a corroborative system, where they voluntarily give us information but the information has to be correct.
The questionnaires are very thorough, what they require is thorough documentation. How many students do you have per computer? How many students are there for every full time lecturer? How many part time lecturers do you have? What is the minimum qualification of the lecturers and so forth? There are also questions like what is the aptitude of the student you produce at the end of the programme, are you achieving that, what kind of examinations are you giving at the end of the programme? Who is able to double-check your examinations, is it a self-contained system where if you cheat on your own exam, nobody finds out? We believe that when the results come out it will be a big report. We already know a number of things that are quite disturbing, that the numbers of students who are in so-called journalism courses are too many. There are just too many students for the market. It appears that in one year, the training institutions produce enough students to replace all the full time journalists, which is unsustainable. Apart from the problem of quality the overcrowding is not good. It is important to mention that we do not have a statutory mandate to discipline the media training institutions, that mandate belongs to the Ministry of Higher and Tertiary Education. However, we do have power to influence and redirect and what we have done in recognition of that power is that we know for instance that we can give prizes, and there are a number of subject areas where of students excel we can give prizes of up to a million dollars. We want to give prizes in areas that we think are not being adequately addressed at the moment. Gradually, we want to tighten the qualifications, we will reach a stage where we say these certificates are not acceptable, and in fact we are already beginning to do that. There is one certificate going round, which has a good transcript but that can not be justified, this is a certificate obtained by correspondence school, than one we have already said we won’t use. The holders are using five published articles in lieu of the certificate.
Q: Critics say the MIC is being vindictive by waiting to pounce on Journalists who violate ethics, instead of monitoring the training to ensure that all who lay claim to journalism have been thoroughly trained. What you have outlined are long term measures, what will you do in the short term?
A: Our view is that it is not really the journalists, much of what we see as unethical conduct is the responsibility of the employers and editors, therefore everyone who approaches MIC wanting to register, a publisher or a mass media service, has to produce a proposed code of ethics. We are busy collating all the submissions from publishers; we will publish a volume of all the codes of ethics, which have been proposed by mass media service providers in Zimbabwe. There will be a section for newspaper publishers, magazine publishers, advertisers and publication houses. With a volume like that, we can then go to the stakeholders to say this is what you have suggested. We think that all of them are weak in certain areas, and those are the ones we want to discuss before we actually synthesise a national code. We believe that is the way to go. A journalist may have good intentions, and may have in his possession a good code of ethics, we have among the ones that we collected during the media Ethics Committee, a code ethics proposed by Geoffrey Nyarota, yet his practice had nothing to do with that code of ethics. It was just a paper, so we do not want to fool ourselves. When we come up with the code, it will be based on submissions and it will be discussed, our strategy is that once the volume is produced we will give it to media users.
Q: Some critics say the MIC has been visible only where a newspaper is about to be closed, apart from the closure of unregistered titles, what other changes has the MIC brought to the media?
A: The first change is simply that in 2002, around June or thereafter, because we were actually appointed afterwards, there was nothing except a piece of paper called AIPPA. So the problem with some journalists is that they see the coming of the MIC as an event, it is a very detailed process. From the Act we had to envision an organogram, an office structure, committee structures, even personnel — how to define people who work in the organisation. What is in the Act is just the board, the Commissioners. The Secretariat is not there, so we had to spell out the kind of posts essential to fulfil the requirements of the Act, all that has been done. We now have a Media Trust Fund in terms of the Act; the fund will be used for media development. The only hurdle is that the amount of money is not enough for the problems that we have to deal with. I believe in two and a half years, we have done a lot.
There was a workshop that was held in Nyanga after AIPPA became law, it was co-ordinated by Media Institute for Southern Africa (MISA), but other so-called human rights organisations were there.
They gave themselves duties, the Law Society of Zimbabwe, Zimbabwe Union of Journalists, (ZUJ) Independent Journalists’ Association of Zimbabwe (IJAZ), and ZIMRIGHTS - to scrap the legislation. Obviously the Associated Newspapers of Zimbabwe (ANZ) is best known for that, but there were various efforts all over the place. The first responsibility of the MIC is to defend the Act, and we have done that successfully, and it is only after the legislation is secured that we could implement the development side of the Act.
Much of that can not be visible, in the sense that you have to start by creating a Commission where there was just an Act, the fact that they can actually see a Commission becoming visible means that we have achieved something.
Q: And your relationship with ZUJ?
A: I understand that they have approached the Minister of Information with a proposal for self-regulation, and a code of ethics. There was an attempt to say that we (the MIC) are afraid of their ethics and we want to stop it no. In fact the problem is that it was ZUJ, IJAZ and MISA who have misled people and misled even the rest of the world that AIPPA makes self-regulation illegal and impossible. AIPPA does not actually forbid self-regulation, in fact, the Commission would be very happy if the journalists were able to discipline themselves because it would mean that our resources would then be directed towards the development side of the Act which is quite enough to absorb our energies and resources.
So we would welcome self-regulation, though we are saying that in terms of weight the employers have more weight in determining the direction of a newspaper than the journalists.
The original challenge to stop MIC did not come from ANZ, it came from ZUJ, which filed an urgent application before Justice Makoni saying the whole thing should stop, and they gave reasons. The first reason was that the form the MIC was using was demanding information that was too sensitive and too private to be given to a government agency. The second reason they gave was that the MIC had not notified the journalists and had not published the forms. All we did was to take forms which the journalists routinely fill at workshops, when they apply for loans or when they join an NGO, and the information was almost identical. It had everything, e-mail, home address, business address, telephone, the same information that MIC was asking for except for the fact that these NGOs and other organisations do not give legal guarantees that this information will be used for the purposes for which it is collected. We have two Sections in the Act, Section 50 and Section 33, which actually say this information will be used only for the purpose for which it is collected. We then produced articles which the journalists had published in the Sunday Mail, in the Daily News and other newspapers, to show that in fact the journalists were aware of the regulations and the procedures, so Justice Makoni actually threw out the case.
Q: The media is a critical institution in society, which is why some have called it the fourth estate. Do you feel the Zimbabwe media can be described as the fourth estate?
A: No! Because of the origins of journalism in the first place. Media operators say that they are there to promote accountability, democracy, transparency, human rights and so forth, so we asked the question during the Media Ethics Committee: Where did journalism come from as an aspect of communication? Journalism started as part and parcel of the machinery of foreign intervention, and I always refer to the example of Henry Morton Stanley, who came to Africa assigned by the New York Herald Tribune in 1869, what was he looking for? He was looking for the North Atlantic agenda in Africa, he was not looking for Africans and he is not known for writing a story about what Africans were doing or saying, he is known for recognising a white man in Africa – "Dr David Livingstone, I presume?"
We are saying therefore, when did journalism drop this agenda and start becoming a fourth estate, and we say that the part of the media which represents the majority interests in Zimbabwe came from exile during the Rhodesian days, it came from Mozambique, from Zambia, to the extent that the Director General of the Rhodesian Broadcasting Corporation in 1976 told an American Editor, "the reason why Africans are not allowed anywhere near a microphone is that they when an African gets a microphone he stirs up violence against the whiteman". So when we saw Sida and Norad, coming back in the 1990s wanting to reinvent that minority media to make it mainstream again, we found we did not have a fourth estate. We have a struggle between the external foreign voice embedded among us, and the African voice which has come from exile and is establishing itself and has not yet fully overcome the obstacles created by the minority media, and one reason is that Zimbabwe is a neighbour to a country where the minority voice is still mainstream - South Africa. That is why a hangman judge, Hillary Squires of the UDI and Apartheid era is being celebrated in the South African media as a man who is fighting corruption, when in actual fact the fact that Squires is a judge is in itself a manifestation of white racism as a form of corruption. If we were living in an uncorrupted world, Squires would be on trial at a war tribunal for the crimes against humanity in Rhodesia. So it is not yet a fourth estate, it is struggling to be.
Q: The MIC has again refused to register the ANZ, and some critics have reduced the issue to a Mahoso - ANZ affair, what exactly is the problem?
A: The first part to my answer is that the matter is still subjudice. But there are a few points that can be discussed, the first piece of information the public should know is that this was not a fresh application, it was an old application which the Supreme Court remitted to the MIC, and remittal means that the Supreme Court was saying to the ANZ go back to the MIC to have your case heard again, because you are alleging that when the decision to deny registration was made you were not given an opportunity to answer to each of the contraventions had submitted made in the determination. So the purpose off coming back was to have the ANZ answer the contraventions, and then the Commission decides whether those answers exonerated them or convicted them. That is the first part. The second part is that the determination is available, and there is no need to speculate what the reason for the basis of the decision were.
Lastly, the matter is in court, and we will submit to the courts.
Reprinted from:
http://allafrica.com/stories/200508010348.html``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xWe welcome self-regulation: Mahoso ``x1122762178,86777,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Tim Wise, www.timwise.org
Although I have long supported the vast majority of the goals set forth by the animal rights movement, I have to admit that, on a personal level, the animal rights activists I've encountered almost never fail to come off as insufferable jerks. The smug moral certitude with which so many carry their agenda forth, has, for me at least, often overshadowed the righteousness of that agenda on face value. I wish it weren't so, but it is.
First, there was the campus animal rights crusader at my college, who, in the midst of our struggle to gain divestment from companies that were bolstering apartheid in South Africa, made several remarks to the effect that "every day was apartheid day" for chickens, and that what the school should really do was stop selling meat.
Then there was the young woman who came to Tulane Law School, and upon learning that she would have to complete a pro bono legal assistance requirement in order to graduate, said that was fine, but--and this is a direct quote as told to me by a friend who was present at the time she said it--"I don't want to work for people. I want to work for animals."
The misanthropy that seems to inform and motivate such comments, and literally hundreds more I could mention, guarantees that the otherwise valid principles upon which animal rights positions are often grounded will remain unexamined, and unrecognized in policy.
It is for reasons such as this that I have long wondered what is more important to the animal rights movement: actually ending animal experimentation, and other blatant cruelties, or being able to preen about as moral superiors who gain self-esteem by looking down their noses at others: be they meat-eaters or wearers of leather shoes? After all, it's pretty hard to build a movement for animal liberation--which has to be led by people, seeing as how animals can't do it themselves--if you're castigating most of the potential foot-soldiers as willing participants in genocide.
I mean, what other than a deep-seated hatred for humanity (or a strategic incompetence so profound as to boggle the mind) would lead someone to say, as Ingrid Newkirk, Director of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals has, that she opposes having children, because "having a purebred human baby is like having a purebred dog; it's nothing but vanity, human vanity."
Nice going Ingrid: why don't you deliberately alienate pretty much every parent in the world, and for that matter, anyone who is someone's child (hint: that means everyone), since I've yet to meet too many people who appreciate being told they were bred for vanity like some Bichon Frise at the Westminster Kennel Club.
Oh, and while we're not caring about how many people we offend--since, after all, "human beings are cruel," in the words of Newkirk (a true but rather typically one-dimensional characterization)--let's really go off the deep end and launch a photo exhibit entitled "Are Animals the New Slaves?" which compares factory farming to the lynching of black people. This, quick on the heels of PETA's prior publicity effort: the notorious "Holocaust on your plate" campaign, which just a few months ago compared cruelty to farm animals with the extermination of millions of Jews, Romany and others at the hands of the Nazis.
This kind of absurdity would make for a really good segment on the Daily Show, if it weren't so tragically serious. The very legitimate goal of stopping the immense horror of factory farming--which horror should be able to stand on its own as an unacceptable cruelty, in need of immediate action--gets conflated with the extermination of millions of people in two separate Holocausts (that of the Middle Passage and that in Europe), thereby ensuring that damn near everyone who hears the analogy will conclude that PETA is either completely insensitive, at best, or bull-goose-loony, at worst: no offense meant to geese, by the way.
The "New Slaves" exhibition, currently making its way around 42 cities over a 10-week period has drawn outrage, understandably, from African Americans. And, typically, representatives of the blindingly white, middle class and affluent animal rights establishment, show no signs of understanding whence the anger emanates.
To wit, Dawn Carr, PETA's Director of Special Projects, who has admitted that lots of folks are upset about her group "comparing black people to animals," but who, in PETA's defense, doesn't deny that that is what PETA is doing, but rather insists it's OK, because the exhibit also compares factory farming to other injustices, "like denying women the vote or using child labor." In other words, don't worry black people: you're not the only ones we're comparing to animals!
Whereas Newkirk was reluctantly forced to apologize for the "Holocaust on your plate" campaign (but even then only did so "for the pain caused," not for the venality of the comparison made therein), PETA appears unwilling to apologize for the slavery and lynching exhibit. And even the apology for the pain caused by the Holocaust comparison seems disingenuous when you consider that elsewhere, Newkirk has essentially said that anyone who isn't a vegan is worse than Nazis, as with her quip that "Even the Nazis didn't eat the objects of their derision."
Now I'm sure there will be some animal liberationists who read this and who think that since animals are sentient beings too, and since they have the right not to be exploited for human benefit (positions with which I don't disagree), that comparisons with the Holocaust, or lynching are perfectly fair. To think otherwise, they might argue, is to engage in an anthropocentric favoring of Homo sapiens over other species.
But of course, whether they admit it or not, most all believers in animal rights do recognize a moral and practical difference between people and animals: after all, virtually none would suggest that if you run over a squirrel when driving drunk, that you should be prosecuted for vehicular homicide, the way you would be if you ran over a small child. The only basis for a distinction in these cases is, at root, recognition of a fundamental difference between a child and a squirrel.
And whereas most all sane persons see the problem with, say, French kissing one's three-year old, Ingrid Newkirk recently suggested that there would be nothing wrong with tonguing your dog, so long as the dog seemed to be liking it, so, draw your own conclusions.
Oh, and not to put too fine a point on it, but if the folks at PETA really think that factory farming and eating the products of factory farming are literally the equivalent to human genocide, then, to be consistent, they would have to argue for the criminal prosecution of all meat-eaters, and War Crimes Tribunals for anyone even remotely connected to the process. After all, if you consume a factory-farmed chicken, you are, by this logic, implicated in mass murder, the same way many whites were in the lynching of blacks, by purchasing the amputated body parts of the latest victims of white rage.
To draw any distinction at all--and to not support criminal incarceration of meat-eaters the way one would for a cannibal the likes of Jeffrey Dahmer, indeed, draws that distinction--is to admit, whether openly or not, that there is a difference between a cow and a person. That difference may be quite a bit smaller than we realize, and that difference certainly doesn't justify cruelty to the cow--and it may indeed be so small that we really should opt for vegetarianism--but it is a difference nonetheless.
That PETA can't understand what it means for a black person to be compared to an animal, given a history of having been thought of in exactly those terms, isn't the least bit shocking. After all, the movement is perhaps the whitest of all progressive or radical movements on the planet, for reasons owing to the privilege one must possess in order to focus on animal rights as opposed to, say, surviving oneself from institutional oppression.
Perhaps if animal liberationists weren't so thoroughly white and middle-class, and so removed from the harsh realities of both the class system and white supremacy, they would be able to find more sympathy from the folks of color who rightly castigate them for their most recent outrage.
Perhaps if PETA activists had ever demonstrated a commitment to fighting racism and the ongoing cruelty that humans face every day, they would find more sympathy from those who, for reasons that are understandable given their own lives, view animal rights activism as the equivalent of fiddling while Rome burns, rather than as a struggle for greater compassion for all.
But then again, if the animal rights movement wasn't so white and so rich, it would never have thought to make such specious and obviously offensive analogies in the first place.
Tim Wise is the author of two new books: White Like Me: Reflections on Race from a Privileged Son(Soft Skull Press, 2005), and Affirmative Action: Racial Preference in Black and White (Routledge: 2005). He can be reached at: timjwise@msn.com Hate mail, while neither appreciated nor desired, will be graded for form, content and grammar.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xAnimal Whites``x1124040240,57094,Development``x``x
``xAfrica: The Other Side of the Coin
Like EU, Africa Should Close Ranks
Neither academic analysts, nor well-resourced international lobbies and their think-tank programmes will be able to stave off Africa's "war-for-own-land"!
By Udo W. Froese
JOHANNESBURG
THE 'war-for-own-land' in Africa is a reality. No imported industry of "neo-liberal, US approved democracy", "free market economy" and no "willing seller, willing buyer concept" will be able to reverse it.
Africans are aware of their historical rights and are angry.
Obviously, Africa's land is an emotive and sensitive issue for both sides: the current landowner, whose history on this continent is known and the original, first African, who had to go to war to eventually receive democracy, but still sits with no real access to land and therefore, remains in abject poverty. This is also known.
Zimbabwe's fast-track land reform made Africans on the continent and the Diaspora more aware of their failure to get land back that once belonged to their ancestors and was taken by colonial conquerors from Europe. After Zimbabwe's fast-track land reform, African governments had to re-introduce land reform in their national agendas.
In their efforts to remain pro-active, white landowners and multinational companies introduced the concept of "willing buyer, willing seller", being aware that it would be contrary to development, as they decided what land to sell, the timing of the sale and the price - thereby making quite sure it was not working. This observation is on record particularly in Kenya, Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe.
In addition, the usual open threats of "damage done to (white, international western) business confidence and (international western, neo-imperial) investor perceptions of South Africa and the SADC region, as well as damage done to the stability of South Africa and SADC's commercial farming sector" are repeated on as many public platforms.
On those public platforms it is regularly insisted that the price for land, according to the concept of "willing buyer, willing seller", should be "market-related".
Whose market and what market? And, who determines that market? Is it not those landowners and their multinational industries, which have all to lose?
A spokesman for the "Transvaal Agricultural Union, South Africa" asked whether "these guys (black Africans) are commercial farmers"? He further expressed a "concern", which most landowners and their agricultural industry have - that is food security.
"Almost every other country in Africa needs food aid," he explained. The spokesman of the "Transvaal Agricultural Union SA" referred to Africans, who had lost their land in the process of colonialism and its surreal outflow of apartheid, UDI and current neo-imperialism.
Is it not a direct threat of economic destabilization and even war, if things do not go the way the landowners strongly "recommend" the "willing buyer, willing seller" way?
It is a known fact that 'Africa needs what it does not produce and produces what it does not need'. This is a colonial hangover with perpetual dependencies for those on the receiving end of the neo-imperial stick.
Zimbabwe's Prof. Sam Moyo of the 'African Institute for Agrarian Studies' summarized the continent's land reform by sounding a clear warning to governments concerned, particularly on the failed "willing buyer, willing seller" programme: "If the state does not move when it is challenged, it will be challenged. The social process leads and the state must then try to contain, and conduct and reform in the correct way."
At the land summit with over a thousand participants in Johannesburg, it was observed that the South African government is facing serious criticism over the pace of land reform, with many groups warning of "Zimbabwe-style land grabs" if the reform is not speeded up.
Zimbabwe's Prof. Moyo suggested that South Africa's government should adopt a "radical approach to land reform, instead of a structured, conservative one".
Prof. Moyo further explained, "People often thought the Zimbabwean land invasions were government-orchestrated because it wanted to win the elections. In fact, the invasions had social origins." He compared the legal and policy framework and the market concept in Zimbabwe before the land grabs with those of Namibia and South Africa today.
In fact, Namibia's Permanent Secretary for Land and Resettlement, Frans Tsheehama, had to agree at the same summit that the concept of "willing buyer, willing seller" has failed in Namibia too. Tsheehama pointed out "the Namibian constitution, as in South Africa, allows land to be expropriated, if necessary". "Land of foreign and absentee landlords would be targeted first for expropriation," he announced.
All parties concerned agreed that the "willing buyer, willing seller" concept has failed. And foreign landownership was bluntly defined as "just another form of colonisation via the cheque book".
In Kenya, the assistant director for settlement at the Ministry of Lands highlighted that "the situation in Zimbabwe has made their work more difficult, as landless Kenyans who have learnt from the events in other countries are putting pressure on government to settle them. Landless Kenyans are now talking of getting back their ancestral land that is in the hands of multinationals (international, white owned companies)".
As recorded by the monthly magazine "New African" in London, in their June 2005 edition under the title "Kenya – The Growing Land Issue", The Kenya Bankers' Association voiced concern that titles held by banks as security for loans comprise 54% of their asset portfolio. And the banks' exposure amounts to US$3.4billion in loans tied up in title deeds.
No wonder then that Kenya's government recently abandoned their "controversial" policy of issuing "new generation title deeds", as it had caused panic in the financial sector.
This columnist suggests, as one of the ways forward, that a new tax law should be created, which would commit all landowners to be taxed according to the registered value of their land. In order to do so, all landowners would have to register their land in their regions. The value of the land would be established together with a government evaluator. The final value of the land would then be registered with the 'national revenue services' and taxed, similar to property owners in the urban areas. It could stop inflated land prices.
South Africa's president Thabo Mbeki paid a surprise visit to the Land Summit in Johannesburg and explained, "When the Lancaster House Agreement on land reform with Zimbabwe, which was market-based, expired in 1990, the then deputy secretary-general of the (British Colonial) Commonwealth, Emeka Onyeouku, asked Zimbabwe to delay taking another approach."
Onyeouku's reasoning was then that any other approach to land reform would "scare the colonial-apartheid regime and set back the liberation of South Africa".
Above explains Zimbabwe's president Robert Mugabe's predicament. In addition, his land reform is not supposed to work, according to the neo-imperialists of the international West. If it would succeed, other African countries, particularly South Africa would follow suit. South Africa's commercial agricultural sector employs over 7 million farm laborers.
Above further highlights the policy of 'national reconciliation' works only on terms of the owners of the economy and the land and their powerful international lobbies, as they are resourced with easy access to expensive law and judiciary. However, it is they who have all to lose on a continent they so persistently seem to disrespect and destabilize.
In the words of respected Pan-Africanist from Kenya and director of the Institute of Global Cultural Studies at Binghamton University, New York, Dr Ali A. Mazrui, "The imperative for African Renaissance demands the cooperation of countries (on the African continent and the Diaspora) at the same level of development.
Towards this end, the first logical stage for Africa is Pan-Africanism, a quest for solidarity with other African countries and with people of African descent around the world."
In other words, Africa should close ranks, consolidate, pool its resources and then re-negotiate all its deals with the international community.
After all, this is the way the European Union works.
Reprinted for Fair Use Only from:
http://www.newera.com.na/page.php?id=17``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xThe 'war-for-own-land' in Africa is a reality``x1124140522,57025,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Ayinde
Re: A New Muldergate Scandal in Africa this in Zimbabwe
by Scott Morgan: Wednesday, August 17, 2005
Most of the attacks and defensive moves being played out about Zimbabwe are as a result of Land. Some land was reclaimed from whites and returned to Blacks and a few whites got killed. Most whites, in and out of Zimbabwe, together with immature pro-white Blacks (who felt that they were having upward social mobility under white domination), are opposed to the challenges to white hegemony.
European and American powers know that the idea of reclaiming the land from whites and returning it to Blacks is very popular among the poor Blacks in Africa. Just as they have done with Haiti, they would not allow Zimbabwe or any other Black nation to challenge their dominance and succeed; they would not allow Zimbabwe to reclaim the land and prosper and become an inspiration to other nations. Like they did with President Aristide of Haiti, they are bent on 'regime change' in Zimbabwe. Like Haiti, they will align themselves with any and all manners of people to accomplish this task.
A lot of European and American funds are going into the anti-Mugabe campaigns and the opposition in Zimbabwe is a recipient of these funds.
One would have to be against President Mugabe for reclaiming lands from Whites and returning them to Blacks to not see how worthless Morgan's article is. One would have to be of the view that these Black peasant farmers in Zimbabwe are backward for not following the Western-oriented 'sound business practices'. One would have to hold the view that the peasants who do not operate with these Western-oriented 'sound business practices' should not have a voice. And one would have to be of the view that the Zimbabwe government should not be supported in regards to reclaiming the land from whites. It would seem, therefore, that the holders of these views believe that the thief is entitled to remain with the loot while the victims suffer.
Now bar all the propaganda.
The majority of newspapers and websites that cover Zimbabwe are white-owned and anti-Mugabe. They do not publish arguments in favour of Black Africans wanting to reclaim land. Their extreme criticisms and attempts to demonize President Mugabe started after whites were forced from the land that they occupied and a few of them got killed. Given the overwhelming anti-Mugabe media out there, it is silly to fault the Zimbabwe government for trying to get its side of the story out.
Here is a comment about those allegations from Nathaniel Manheru:
"Trevor's 'Independent' newspaper generated a story last week that claimed the Central Intelligence Organisation (CIO) had a substantial stake in the Financial Gazette, the Daily Mirror and the Sunday Mirror.
"This was said to be a covert operation to muzzle the voice of the 'private media' so we were led to believe, until the story lost direction when it also claimed that the CIO was also going after the Zanu-PF weekly mouthpiece, the Voice.
"It does make perfect sense to Trevor. Well, for argument's sake, supposing that were true (and it isn't), what is more sinister than George Soros buying into the Independent Newspapers Group and the Third Way? And why even go that far when the Rhodesians are very actively working with Trevor.
"What is the issue here? This is a clear effort to try and cripple these newspapers which are seen as an impediment to the establishment of the so-called Third Force or the Third Way. Icho!"
www.zimbabweherald.com/index.php?id=46152&pubdate=2005-08-20
We already know that the majority of the media, both in and out of Zimbabwe, is hostile to the Zimbabwe Government and President Mugabe. Their racist, white stories are dominant in the mainstream press.
If the allegations in Morgan's article about the Zimbabwe government investing in media are true, then the writer is also trying to conceal the fact that the majority of the media is white-owned and opposed to the Zimbabwe government. The article is attempting to fault the Zimbabwe government for trying to ensure that their side of the story gets out. It is in the best interest of those who support the Land Reclamation Exercise and President Mugabe for the Zimbabwe government, to invest in media to ensure that their views get out. White interest groups made the same accusations about President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela (Uneasy Standoff in Venezuela's Media Wars). Like Venezuela, the majority of the mainstream media reporting about Zimbabwe is owned by whites who are against returning the lands that they occupy to Black Africans.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xThe real scandal in Zimbabwe is white control``x1124675857,60683,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xSaturday, 27 August 2005; www.zimbabweherald.com
Conversation with Caesar Zvayi
AT a time some misguided Zimbabweans in the Diaspora and some journalists at home are demonising the country for personal gain, there are non-Zimbabwean voices that choose to tell the truth simply because it is the truth.
One such voice belongs to South African business consultant, media columnist and independent political and socio-economic analyst, Udo W. Froese, who always tells the Zimbabwean story from a perspective some people either decide to reject or ignore for fear of recriminations from right wing forces. Today Udo speaks about his experiences, South Africa and Zimbabwe-South Africa relations among other issues.
Q: You are a white South African, who writes so passionately about African independence and black emancipation, what motivates you?
A: Having been born in the third generation of German colonial settler background into Africa, more precisely into Namibia, I was brought up knowing the difference between right and wrong, good manners and bad manners, kind and unkind.
My mother is very religious and brought us up according to her beliefs. Being of German background, we never had house helpers. I always believed that we Caucasians, who actually had conquered Africa and became wealthy from the new "continent-of-storage" for the international West's manufacturing industries, should be respectful, as we are mere guests! Biting the hand that supplies you (feeds you), is not only amoral, but un-Christian and uncivilised. Honestly, I feel very embarrassed and even ashamed, coming from such an alien people, who would do anything for their own greed, using the Judeo-Christian civilisation, calling all black Africans "pagans" and other more racist names, therefore, people of a lesser race. I cannot identify with that mindset. I also have no interest in "group escapism" of British sports — cricket and rugby — just to please and justify my personal and exclusive greed. May I take this opportunity to apologise sincerely for all the vicious racism and collective evil we, as white, Caucasian colonial imperialists have meted out to you, your land and your continent.
Q: You also do not make your admiration of President Robert Mugabe a secret, don't you face any problems in your business dealings because of your Pan-African stance?
A: In fact, I firmly believe in Afro-centricity and Pan-Africanism. My columns hopefully reflect my convictions. Africa has delivered great leaders, who had to continuously adapt to alien imperialism, based on a racist, petty-cash mentality with a huge negative and amoral mindset. Africa's revered leaders include His Excellency, Comrade President Robert Gabriel Mugabe; His Excellency, Comrade President Sam S. Nujoma; His Excellency, Comrade President Kwame Nkrumah; H.E. Cde President Agostinho Neto; H.E. Cde. President Samora Machel; H.E. Cde. Pri! me Minister Patrice Lumumba; H.E. Cde. President Jomo Kenyatta; Her Excellency, Comrade Winnie Mandela; Comrade Chris Hani, the list goes on. And it is not only political leaders from Africa, I also admire. Africa's warmth, never-ending forgiveness and endless and humane wisdom. You know, why I embrace Africanism, Pan-Africanism and Afro-centrity? It is humane. It is based on love and respect for your fellow human beings, it is fair! Many of those traits were ridiculed by the conquerors' brutalities such as slavery, colonialism, its natural predecessor of apartheid and UDI (Unilateral Declaration Of Independence) and today's international Western imperialism.
Can you imagine a reversed role in Europe and the USA, transferring laws, judiciaries, "civil society" (whatever that new post-modern creation means), "democracy and a free market economy" (merely a new coat for the old imperialist exploitation), freedom of media, freedom of expression etc. to their communities and doing it exclusively? I am sure we would have war.
So what, if it takes business away from me? I couldn't care less. In fact, I am proud to say that I have more often than not been marginalised. I am not a rich man, but I am not a mercenary either. My conscience is clean! My hands are clean! My children were not only born on this good continent; they are from an African mother! I am very proud of them.
Imagine we would all be eating in the same kitchen as the mercenary-media in South Africa and its hooligan armchair academics, church leaders and egotistical leaders of dubious "civil society" organisations. Where would this continent be?
Q: South Africa has adopted a policy of quiet diplomacy towards Harare, and has been attacked by the right wing media for that. What do you feel about the policy?
A: South Africa's President Mbeki and his government have very little else, they could do. It is therefore, realistic, pragmatic and hopefully, it will work out. Not only the right wing foreign-owned and foreign-controlled media based in South Africa, (has attacked it); but also the South African Council of Churches (SACC) and a host of opportunistic mercenaries, among them dubious academics and analysts. These have increased their public, fascist noise against not only President Mugabe and his Zanu-PF led Government, but against any Africa-focused leader critical of international Western neo-imperialism. Democracy is a mere figment of their imagination, cunningly used and abused, when it suits them. Add the HIV/Aids and NGO industries, and you have a new, alternative well resourced economy-of-propaganda. But they are only a front for those with vested interests on this continent.
Q: Is it true that there are two South Africas, one white and rich; and the other black and poor? How do you evaluate race relations in South Africa?
A: President Mbeki actually defined South Africa as a country with two people and two economies. Yes it is true! Did you know that Johannesburg's northern suburb, Sandton, is considered Africa's wealthiest living area? The occupants are mostly white, among them foreigners from Europe and the USA. Next door is one of the poorest suburbs, the blacks' only living area of Alexandra. There, children below the age of five are exposed to diseases like kwashiorkor and marasmus; both based on abject poverty and starvation.
Let us not be fooled --- getting rid of colonial-apartheid has actually set us whites free from international sanctions and isolation. Never has business been as good. However, very few, if any black South Africans have any form of access to the foreign, white owned and controlled economy. This economy is a very powerful constituency. The ANC-led government has in fact, been able to incorporate some blacks into the economy. There is also the programme of "affirmative action". Both are working. But, the economy remains exclusive, despite spreading its wings into Africa at a rate that would make the arch-conqueror, Cecil John Rhodes pink with envy. I am afraid that black South Africans are merely used as a tool to get what the real owners want — opening the doors to governments and government institutions in South Africa and the rest of Africa. It seems, the record of South Africa's industries expanding into Africa is not a fine one.
Q: The South African media has been touted as a model for the whole continent, how do you see it and do you feel it is the media the rest of the continent should have?
A: A model for whom and for what? Is it, because it is so well resourced? Is it, because it regularly insults this continent? Are we forgetting the advertising industry and its role? No! As I mentioned earlier in this interview, the South Africa-based media is foreign-owned and foreign-controlled with so-called experts in their field being used daily to aggressively and propagandistically campaign against Africa. Everything north of the Limpopo seems bad, riddled with hunger, starvation, HIV and Aids, ethnic and civil wars — an uncivilised continent. Everything south of the Limpopo smells of roses — African settlements happen in Sun City and five star luxury hotels in Tshwane (Pretoria), Johannesburg/Sandton, Cape Town and Durban. There is international golf, international summits etc. According to that alien media, South Africa now works. No wonder that some South Africans feel uncomfortable about being part of Africa.
We should not forget that SA's media was used during the colonial-apartheid era to condemn Africans as "communist terrorists".
In the early nineties, up to the first democratic elections, when the apartheid military machine, the Civil Cooperation Bureau (CCB), launched one of its most vicious programmes of urban terrorism into the townships and over 40 000 black South Africans were mass slaughtered, the same media defined that brutality as "black-on-black violence," questioning, if blacks were ready for democracy.
This same media with the same ownership and its "house boys and girls" has now again turned its manufactured war on Africa, against President Mugabe, against former President Nujoma, against Winnie Mandela, Allan Boesak and Africa's so-called short-comings. Living in South Africa, it seems that Africa should be renamed to Zimbabwe. We read, hear and see in all our local newspapers and current affairs programmes nothing else, but what a "dictator and tyrant" President Mugabe is.
No, South Africa's print and electronic media is an abused instrument for propaganda, a weapon-of-mass-destruction. It is self-righteous, arrogant, self-censored, propagandistic and vicious, but not informative and definitely not African. The ownership has to change and ownership certainly means real financial ownership by black African South Africans. But, blacks in SA also have no money and no access to it.
Q: You read South African papers daily, yet you write for other papers outside South Africa, did you try to put your articles in the SA media as well?
A: I was published in a national Sunday newspaper, "City Press", which belongs to "Media 24" or "Na sionale Pers". But they sacked me overnight. Then I tried to have my columns published in the "Sunday World" and had some printed. This was short-lived too.
I was headhunted to co-host a current affairs programme on SABC-Africa. But, after three months, the contract was just not renewed. They have their own reasons. Ever since, I could not have anything published again. Friends in the print and electronic media tell me that I am defined as a "terrorist journalist", a "Mugabe apologist" and a "Winnie Mandela thug". Whatever that all means ... the racist colonial-apartheid mindset becomes vicious, when confronted with the truth, particularly, when one doesn't tow their line of international Western civilised propaganda.
Q: How does the "Zimbabwe" in the South African and Western media compare with the Zimbabwe you encounter during your visits?
A: There must be two Zimbabwes, as there are two South Africas. The real Zimbabwe is to my observation, peaceful, where not much happens every five hours. Of course, people struggle. And, it is working. The current economic hardships have been inflicted upon them by international financial, economic sanctions and certain local economic sabotage. The black majority suffers in South Africa too.
Q: South Africa is planning to advance a US$1 billion to Zimbabwe, amid so much opposition in the right wing media, yet this is not the first time Africans have bailed each other out, the ANC launched its offensive against apartheid from Zambia and Zimbabwe. Why do you think there is so much opposition to the loan?
A: Who opposes that loan? Is it not Tony Leon and his colonial-apartheid rooted "Democratic Alliance" (DA) and their cronies, their paymasters? Who owns the SA-based media? Who pays the NGO and church industries? Where do all those funds come from?
The media based in SA has to date actually failed to inform its clientele that the US$1billion is a loan, motivated by Washington and guaranteed by the IMF. According to your media reports and to my reliable information, President Mbeki was approached by a representative from the IMF, much to his surprise.
No, Zimbabweans should not be discouraged! H.E. President Mugabe and his Zanu-PF-led Government are very much respected on the ground in South Africa as real Africans! Don't be fooled by the vicious propaganda from this minuscule, xenophobic press.
Did you know that hardly 5 percent of South Africa's population actually read all daily, weekly and monthly printed matter? So why should you be bothered by white, racist and fascist apartheid hangovers? Focus on repairing your economy and know your friends. You have more than you think!
Q: As you said earlier, initially the loan was viewed as a South African initiative but it has since emerged that the US government approached South Africa to help Zimbabwe. How do you read the US move?
A: The international Western community and its fronts in this region are hell-bent to divide and rule, to split South Africa from the rest of the continent and use South Africa to discipline the rest. They also know, that it will be difficult to do that. But, as I mentioned earlier, the foreign owned and controlled economy in SA is a powerful constituency.
Q: The Jacob Zuma saga generated so much interest, and one can say the media lynched him, why was the South African media against him?
A: Why was the South Africa-based media against Winnie Mandela, against Chris Hani, against Allan Boesak, Peter Mokaba and Tony Yengeni? Why is that media against President Mugabe and President Nujoma? Does this media have any respect? What is its agenda?
Q: Is Zuma likely to affect the ANC and what are his chances in 2009?
A: The ANC deputy president's sacking and "investigation" has and still is affecting the ANC almost at all levels, but more so at leadership level. Personally, I don't think that Cde Jacob Zuma will stand a chance in 2009. All odds are against him.
Q: It is said South Africa is sitting on a worse time bomb than Zimbabwe, in terms of addressing colonial inequalities. What is your view of the South African situation?
A: Now you understand the brutal activities of the international Western community and its henchmen and women in this part of the world. Destabilisations to control ill-gotten gains (strategic raw materials) are important for the manufacturing industries of the G8. There is just no way out of the land question. It is becoming very urgent. People on the ground, the voters are indeed aware of their role, their rights and their situation. They are pushing for a change in ownership of land, the economy and judiciary. It could become very difficult to handle. The government would have to speed up its land resettlement programme with urgency. The extremely wealthy and the starving poor can never live together in peace.
Q: Finally Udo, the UN Security Council reforms, do you think the seats should be occupied permanently by individual countries or should it be on a rotational basis? If permanently who, between South Africa and Nigeria, do you think deserves the seat?
A: There is no question — the two UN Security seats envisaged for Africa have to be accepted on a rotational basis only. Are other African countries lesser countries than South Africa and Nigeria? If so on what basis? What about the "democratic order"?
Reprinted from:
www.zimbabweherald.com/index.php?id=46342&pubdate=2005-08-27``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xI can not identify with racist: Udo Froese``x1125180685,12422,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xWhites fear land grab as black heirs win claim to family farm
WHITE South African farmers are watching with mounting unease as the Government finalises plans to take over a white-owned farm and hand the land to descendants of its original black owners.
The seizure, which follows the failure of talks lasting more than two years between the authorities and an Afrikaner family, will signal the end of the willing seller/willing buyer policy. Other white farmers fear that it could mark the start of a far more aggressive land redistribution programme.
Full Article : timesonline.co.uk``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xS. A. Whites fear land grab as black heirs win``x1127958800,97818,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Caesar Zvayi, zimbabweherald.com
THE plague that afflicted our beloved country Zimbabwe over the past five years can be summed up by the biblical tale of the Tower of Babel.
It is said after the great flood, about three centuries before the call of Abraham, the descendants of Noah had one language and a common speech and were united in purpose when they decided to build a beautiful city with a tower that stretches to the heavens.
Genesis 11:1-9 says that the people decided to make bricks, which they baked thoroughly and used to build the tower instead of stone.
They fortified the tower using tar for mortar in the hope that the tower would make a name for them and retain them from scattering over all the face of the earth.
But when the Lord, being a jealous God, came down to see the city and the tower, he said:
"If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. (He said to his angels) Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.
"So the Lord scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city."
This is why the tower was called Babel (from the Hebrew baw-bel, which means confusion) because the Lord confused their language which spawned conflicts that dispersed them all over the globe.
The site of the tower of Babel is at Borsippa, just south of Babylon, (in present-day Iraq).
Transpose Borsippa for Zimbabwe and Noah's flood for our independence, the beautiful city for Zimbabwe, the tower for agrarian reforms (the precursor of genuine black economic empowerment) and the Lord for the misguided Western cousins, US President George Bush and British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, and the tale would read.
After vanquishing the white settler regime, the children of Chaminuka and Mzilikazi had one speech and one common language, which enabled them to transform their post-independent society into an African success story.
They thus decided to make their independence more meaningful through economic empowerment by building an economic power-base whose ramifications would be felt even in the London bourse (the equivalent of heaven to Zimbabwean economic refugees).
When "god Bush" saw this, he said that "if as one people they have begun to do this then nothing they want to do will be impossible for them" and they would also inspire other African countries to follow suit at Albion's expense. So he said to his prophet Blair and his angels of destabilisation (such as the West Minister Foundation for Democracy and various Non Governmental Organisations), let's descend on Harare to sow the seed of confusion.
The seed of baw-bel was duly sowed on September 11 1999, with the formation of the MDC.
From then on the Zimbabwean social contract was torn to shreds, as government, industry and labour became diametrically opposed foes.
And as the proponent of the social contract, French political philosopher, Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712 - 1778) pointed out,
"As soon as any man says of the affairs of the State ‘What does it matter to me?' the State may be given up for lost."
This is what almost became of Zimbabwe over the past five years, as the social partners pulled in different directions, a development that severely stunted national socio-economic and political development.
Some misguided politicians, individuals and industrialists began working to bring about Zimbabwe's socio-economic collapse for political expediency, a development that saw the nation failing to meet some of its obligations to its international partners.
One of the partners is the multilateral lending institution, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which is also among ‘god Bush and prophet Blair's angels of confusion.
MDC Secretary for Legal Affairs David Coltart helped the US government to draft the sanctions law called, "Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act."
In spite of its romantic name, the sanctions law is a misnomer for it sought to destroy Zimbabwe's economy, in addition to subverting popular democracy - which is the empowerment of people through ownership of the means of production.
The US sanctions that were buttressed by the European Union denied Zimbabwe assistance from major multilateral lending institutions.
Anglo-American transnational corporations moved their funds from Zimbabwe, and some even closed shop and relocated to neighbouring countries, what all this meant was that Zimbabwe's industry was severely depressed and the economy's capacity to generate foreign currency was retarded.
Thus Zimbabwe, which received IMF loans to drive the IMF-imposed neo-liberal economic policies - the Economic Structural Adjustment Programme (Esap) and its surrogate, Zimbabwe Programme for Economic and Social Transformation (Zimprest) between 1991 and the turn of the millennium, failed to repay the loans and was in arrears from February 2001.
Harare did not pay anything to the IMF, a development that saw compulsory withdrawal procedures being mulled in December 2003 - these are steps taken to expel members from the institution.
An expulsion makes a state a credit risk, which means that it would be difficult for it to borrow funds.
Zimbabwe made a token payment in March 2004, following the initiation of compulsory withdrawal steps a month earlier, on February 6, after the IMF managing director issued a formal complaint over the country's persistent failure to pay its debts.
Suffice to say, the IMF was also to blame for this failure after it stopped giving Zimbabwe balance of payments support following disagreements over Zimbabwe's intervention in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) war.
The DRC impasse was instigated by the US government that was backing rebels forces through Rwanda and Uganda, the US took its subversion a step further by passing the sanctions law that forbade the IMF from supporting Zimbabwe.
However, since early last year, Zimbabwe has been making quarterly payments to the Bretton Woods institution that started off at US$1,5 million, which rose to US$5 million by the end of the year, before shooting to US$9 million in April this year.
The payment of US$131 million that was made at the end of August is thus the biggest and most momentous as it effectively cut the IMF debt to US$175 million.
The significance is that the payment was made at a time the western world was scheming to entrap Zimbabwe at a time we are in the grip of a crippling fuel crisis that could have been partly solved by these funds. The pith does not end there for the American government, was planning a coup de grace as Zimbabwe's expulsion was due for discussion on September 9.
A month before the IMF board meeting in Washington, the US government impressed on IMF deputy managing director, Anne O Krueger to approach South African President, Thabo Mbeki to ask him to extend a US$1 billion loan to Zimbabwe to enable the country to repay its loan to avoid expulsion.
Whilst the reason Krueger gave was that Zimbabwe's expulsion would severely affect the South African economy, since Harare is Tshwane's biggest trading partner, it later emerged that the US government wanted to influence President Mbeki to drop his hands-off approach on Zimbabwe.
They hoped that once he advanced that loan, just like any investor, he would want to ensure that the socio-political environment in Harare is conducive for the security of his investment, which would have made him move from a policy of quiet diplomacy to active involvement in Zimbabwe's internal affairs.
This is why when news of the loan began filtering through, there was a lot of excitement in western capitals, in Zimbabwe's opposition circles and the South African right wing media.
It was not long before political instead of economic conditions began to be attached to the loan by various forces.
It was also at that time that MDC leader Morgan Tsvangirai clamoured for dialogue with President Mugabe, echoing the major condition being attached to the loan by various forces in and outside President Mbeki's government.
Interestingly, the condition was not coming from President Mbeki.
To his credit, President Mugabe remained steadfast in his resolve that he did not ask for the loan and would not accept any political conditions.
Meanwhile, Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe Governor, Dr Gideon Gono mobilised local resources to come up with funds to pay part of the debt to the IMF ahead of the board meeting that detractors hoped would result in Zimbabwe's expulsion from the institution.
When the payment was made against all odds, the detractors were devastated as they had hoped that desperation would force the Government to compromise the nation's sovereignty by letting outsiders not only pay our debts but also dictate the direction of our national politics.
In fact had the payment been made from borrowed funds, the same forces would have had a field day alleging that Zimbabwe had proved nothing by paying using borrowed funds.
This is why the mobilisation of local resources was critical as it sent a clear message that, even though some westerners keep pushing the country under the water, it has the capacity to rise to meet its obligations.
The funds; that were sourced from export proceeds, free funds and foreign currency liquidations; could not have been raised if stakeholders had not put their heads together to stave off the vultures who were ready to pounce.
The events that followed the IMF payment showed that nothing Zimbabwe does will satisfy the detractors as they began peddling lies over the source of the funds, prompting Dr Gono to divulge confidential banking information.
The behaviour of the detractors and the payment shows the importance of resuscitating the social contract, through the Tripartite Negotiating Forum (TNF), that collapsed after the withdrawal of the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions (ZCTU) on April 23 2003 following disagreements over fuel price increases. It is only through the TNF that a sustainable social contract, which would help to remove the artificial investment "risk" tag foisted on Zimbabwe, can be revived and developed.
The challenges to be overcome require such collective efforts. All stakeholders should, thus, adhere to the spirit of the Kadoma Declaration that says all stakeholders should move "towards a shared national economic and social vision".
As long as Zimbabwe is challenging the false colonial "gods", the real God will be on the country's side and its people can build their tower of prosperity for posterity.
Reprinted from:
www.zimbabweherald.com/index.php?id=47473&pubdate=2005-10-03``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xIMF payment shames West``x1128363969,20253,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xThe Herald (Harare)
October 14, 2005
By Caesar Zvayi
OFTEN a myth is peddled that the western world has resolved democracy in all its manifestations, be it popular democracy entailing the resolution of the national question and the concomitant bread and butter issues; or elite democracy that evokes smooth electoral processes.
This is why US President George W. Bush arrogantly dismissed the prospect of observers from the developing world for his country's presidential election last year saying the US does not need foreign observers as it is not a developing country.
Over the past five years, events in the north have shown that Bush's statement is a misplaced attempt to buttress the concept of western supremacy.
The month of September was not kind to Germany and the United States, two of the world's biggest economies.
In the US in particular, the world came to realise that democracy is a pipe dream especially among dark skinned African-Americans and Hispanic people.
This class of people was left at the mercy of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans because they either lacked the resources to finance their own escape or were ignored by State rescue teams that targeted white Americans.
After the September 18 elections in Germany, there was a three-week power vacuum as both the winner and the loser, were separated by one percentage point.
The then opposition leader Angela Merkel's Christian Democratic Union (CDU) party won 35,2 percent of the vote translating to 225 seats in the German parliament, a point ahead of former Chancellor, Gerard Schroeder's Social Democratic Party (SDP) which managed 34,4 percent translating to 222 seats.
Schroeder, who had clearly lost, claimed the Chancellorship arguing that he was more capable of forming a stable ruling majority than Merkel, because his SDP had made a strong showing on election day in spite of having trailed the CDU in opinion polls.
Schroeder accused Merkel of squandering a 20 percent lead to finish just one percent ahead of him.
A defiant Schroeder appeared on BBC refusing to accept defeat, raising his hands like a champion amid joyful scenes among his supporters.
"I feel myself confirmed in ensuring on behalf of our country that there is in the next four years a stable government under my leadership. I do not understand how the (Christian Democratic) Union, which started off so confidently and arrogantly, takes a claim to political leadership from a disastrous election result."
Schroeder told cheering supporters at his Social Democrat party headquarters, adding that he would only accept a grand coalition if he were the leader.
Merkel on the other hand rightly claimed victory saying the results showed that she had a mandate from the people,
"What is important now is to form a stable government for the people in Germany, and we quite clearly have the mandate to do that," Merkel told CNN.
However, Schroeder continued to refuse to concede defeat precipitating the so-called "Chancellor war" the western media has been feasting on without castigating Schroeder's lack of respect for the democratic process.
It had to take three weeks of endless meetings and Merkel's own magnanimity for "mighty" Schroeder to stand down on Monday, after seven years in power and 21 days of trying to subvert the democratic process.
Merkel had to agree to a grand coalition in which the defeated SDP will have the lion's share of cabinet posts taking the key ministries of foreign affairs, finance, labour and justice, as well as health, aid and co-operation, transport and environment.
Merkel's CDU settled for the economy, interior, defence, agriculture, education and family ministries.
The SDP and CDU are expected to hold party conventions to endorse the agreement next month, but the new parliament begins office on October 18, but is unlikely to vote on a Chancellor until the party meetings are concluded.
In the intervening period, the power hungry Schroeder will continue holding reins till a new Chancellor, most likely Merkel, is nominated by the legislature.
It is important to note that it is the winning party that had to make concessions, while Schroeder the vanquished made the demands.
Had this happened in Africa, let alone Zimbabwe, we would never hear the end of it, as it would be likened to hanging on to power, but we never got to read, hear or see such language in the way the western media described the Germany plebiscite.
The debacle was couched in euphemistic language that described it either as an "impasse, stalemate, deadlock or policy difference."
What has been riveting is the silence from the European Union and the United States, two power blocs that always make so much noise about elections in Zimbabwe or the developing world.
The EU did not even release a statement, though several European leaders commented individually but only to the extent of expressing a wish for a speedy resolution of the "impasse".
The problem can be traced to the German electoral system that elects, on a federal level, a legislature with two chambers; the 598 member Federal Diet (Bundestag) and the 69-member Federal Council (Bundesrat) that represents the governments of the states.
Two different systems are used to elect the Bundestag.
Of the 598 members, 299 are elected in single-seat constituencies according to a first-past-the-post system, while a further 299 members are allocated from state-wide party lists to achieve a proportional distribution in the legislature, conducted according to a system of proportional representation (the additional member system).
On election day, voters vote once for a constituency representative and a second time for a party, and the lists are used to make the party balances match the distribution of second votes.
This is the system that produced the stalemate after separating the two main parties by one percentage point.
But this is not the first time weird western electoral systems have produced embarrassing stalemates that have also exposed western double standards.
It also happened on November 7 2000, when two winners emerged from the US presidential election.
Democratic Party candidate, Al Gore beat Republican candidate and incumbent president George W. Bush by 500 000, Bush on the other hand won more Electoral College votes than Gore.
Neither candidate conceded defeat. It took a whole month of recounts and court challenges before the US Supreme Court, dominated by Republican Judges, ruled that Bush was the winner based on his 527 vote margin over Gore in Florida, that gave him 25 electoral college votes.
The US system thus chose to ignore the national decision of 101 million voters in favour of 538 electors who vote in the Electoral College system.
Bush's re-election last year was also marred by over 40 000 allegations of massive fraud, including forging vote totals, vote stealing, widespread voter intimidation, irregularities with the distribution of voting machines, mishandled absentee and provisional ballots, malfunctioning or inaccurate machines and/or apparent hacking and vote tampering.
But again on December 13 the US Electoral College vote gave Bush a 286-251 victory over Kerry, and the US Congress duly certified him on January 6 this year, effectively killing all pending court challenges.
British Prime Minister, Tony Blair's re-election last year was also characterised by irregularities that the right wing western media ignored.
The media instead chose to celebrate the fact that Blair had won a third term which they hailed as historic, when elsewhere in the world they would consider that holding on to power.
These are the allegations they pass regarding President Robert Mugabe's re-election in 2002, in spite of the fact that Zimbabwe uses one system of electing the head of state, the first-past-the-post system which saw the President beating the western favourite, Morgan Tsvangirai by over 400 000 votes.
Zimbabwe's elections have never produced a stalemate, as the ruling party has always emerged with a clear majority.
In election 2000 Zanu-PF had 48,83 percent of the vote whilst the main challenger the MDC had 46,03 percent.
In the 2002 presidential elections President Mugabe had 56,20 percent to Tsvangirai's 41.96 percent and in the March 31 poll, Zanu-PF walloped the MDC by 59.08 percent to 40,04 percent of the ballots cast.
It therefore comes as a surprise that western countries, including Germany and the United States, allege that Zimbabwean elections are flawed and have produced a crisis of legitimacy.
We hope they soon realise the wisdom of the adage that says, "those in glass houses should not throw stones."
Reprinted from:
www.zimbabweherald.com/index.php?id=47840&pubdate=2005-10-14``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xFallacy of Western Democracy Exposed``x1129316646,88679,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xFarrakhan said African leaders understand what’s at stake and support Mugabe and have even borrowed from his lessons. “There is a movement in South Africa to take back the tremendous hectares of land that white land owners have, and return it to the people. Well if Thabo Mbeki takes that route, will he now be another pariah? Now the question every Black leader has to answer is ‘Do I want the friendship of white people, or do I want the liberation of my people? Do I want friendship with the former slave masters, the former colonial masters and be rubbed on the head and patted on the behind, or do I want to see my people free?’”
Full Article : blackstarnews.com``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xFarrakhan: Africa Must Unite!``x1129402602,26876,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xFrom Innocent Gore in ROME, Italy
IN a stirring speech which laid bare the open and underhand destabilisation manoeuvres of the United States and Britain, President Mugabe yesterday strongly denounced the two countries for continuously meddling in the internal affairs of developing countries.
This came in the wake of a statement by the US Ambassador to the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), Mr Tony Hall, who had criticised the United Nations food agency for inviting the President to the organisation’s 60th anniversary commemorations.
Mr Hall was quoted in a number of newspapers here and on the Internet as saying the US was amazed that Cde Mugabe had been invited to speak at the FAO anniversary and that the President had "done so much to hurt the hungry" and had "absolutely turned his back on the poor".
Departing from his prepared speech, President Mugabe said Zimbabwe is a UN member and the world body’s agencies such as FAO and is not an extension of the US.
"Again we have a situation where some countries like the US and Britain have taken it upon themselves to decide and even interfere in our domestic affairs and want to bring about what they call regime change. Where is their morality? Where are their principles? Democracy bids that any political change in any country is the right of the people of that particular country and not the right of a foreign country.
"My people have the right under our Constitution, which is a democratic constitution, to decide who shall govern and who shall not and which party they prefer. We have a multi-party system, but if the US is going to say ‘I am big and stand for all humanity’ and the voice of Mr Bush and Mr Blair can decide who shall rule in Zimbabwe, who shall rule in Venezuela, who shall rule in Iraq, who shall rule in Iran, what world are we living in?"
To applause from the audience, Cde Mugabe asked whether the world should allow Mr Bush and Mr Blair to do the same as what fascist rulers Adolf Hitler of German and Benito Mussolini of Italy — who provoked the 1939-45 Second World War by initially attacking small states in defiance of the League of Nations, the predecessor of the UN — had done and attack an innocent country like Iraq after lying that it possessed weapons of mass destruction.
"Look at the scene in Iraq now — everyday violence, women and children suffering. Who is responsible for that? And that was done in open defiance of the United Nations Charter, defiance of the Security Council, and defiance of us all. Yes, voices were raised in Europe, we heard them, some said no, that’s wrong. But they went on these two on the unholy campaign and what we have now is that inferno in Iraq. Is this what we want to see?
"They continue to threaten us the small countries. Venezuela because of the oil, Iran being threatened and they say you North Korea dare not conduct any nuclear experiments. Neither must you in Iran. Neither must anyone else. But only we are entitled to possess weapons of mass destruction and now they are destroying their own, they have atomic nuclear bombs. They won’t destroy them but they want everyone else not to make them. Who are they? Must we allow them that possession?
"It is that arrogance that we see expressed by this agent of imperialism, Tony Hall.
"I thank you for defying him. I thank you (FAO director general Dr Jacques) Diouf for inviting me. I thank you (Venezuelan President Mr Hugo) Chavez for having mentioned Zimbabwe (in his address to the conference earlier on) and praised it."
President Mugabe said he was aware of the dangers and threats to Mr Chavez coming from the US. He said he was also aware how Mr Chavez was humiliated during his recent visit to the US when some of his security men and his doctor were denied entry into the country.
"Is this the world we desire? The world of giants and international terrorists who will use their muscle, state muscle in order to intimidate us? We become midgets.
"I say small as I am with only 14 million people, I have a soul, I have a heart, I have a conscience and I dare not allow anything that is untoward to happen to my people."
Cde Mugabe said he had been imprisoned for 11 years by the Smith regime for fighting for freedom and independence and together with the late Vice President Joshua Nkomo, they had dislodged British colonial rule and brought democracy to Zimbabwe.
"And we will not see Zimbabwe becoming a colony again," he said, again to much applause.
"I thank those who have supported us; I thank those in Europe who continue to work with us; I thank all who are driven, whose conscience is driven by morality, by honesty, by good neighbourliness, by doing to others what you would want others to do unto you.
"We stand by principle, by honesty, by virtue.
"That’s my teaching, the Jesuits taught me to die for principle and I stand by that. I am Catholic like Chavez and I am a Catholic to the end with my principles which I hold as sacred. I serve my people and I served them when I went to prison. I shall serve them again, but serve them in a context in which we co-operate. We have Sadc, the development community of Southern African."
Sadc countries work together and if there is drought in the region and one country has surplus food, others buy from that country. Zimbabwe had enough funds to buy food for drought relief but if charity comes its way, it will receive it, Cde Mugabe said.
"But we are able to buy food from South Africa this year to save our people. That is how we are organised in Sadc. We have a community which also takes care of the political situation and security in our region.
"Overall, we have the AU (African Union) now and we don’t need America, we don’t need Britain, except in the global context, but not as our mentors," said the President.
In his prepared speech, Cde Mugabe said there was need for the depoliticisation of international humanitarian assistance.
While commending the response of the international community to natural disasters such as droughts and floods caused by climate change and which had affected production systems and wreaked havoc on the transport and communication infrastructure, the President noted that there had been unfortunate instances where the provision of humanitarian assistance had been politicised often on the basis of ideology, race and religion.
Saying there was urgent need for a multilateral response to address the challenges of climate change, he called upon developed countries to accede to the relevant multilateral environment agreements and to meet their obligations and fully implement the action plan of the World Summit on Sustainable Development.
Another challenge to sustainable agriculture and food security, particularly in Africa, was the HIV/Aids pandemic, which had affected mostly the productive age groups, thereby depriving the sector of vital skills, expertise and labour.
The President said there was still need for a comprehensive and robust global response to HIV/Aids so as to promote greater access to affordable anti-retroviral drugs and balanced nutrition.
"The world should respond to the HIV/Aids menace with the same zeal, resolve and resources as we have deployed on the war against terror," said Cde Mugabe.
He also called upon countries to increase their budgetary support to FAO, saying a well-resourced FAO can play a critical role towards the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals.
In Africa, he said, investment in sustainable agricultural production is of core essence for providing food and employment, both critical components in the fight against hunger and poverty.
It was for this reason that in 2004, the AU Assembly agreed to implement the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (Nepad)’s Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme, which commits African governments to allocate at least 10 percent of their national budgets to agriculture.
President Mugabe said the land reform programme was not only an economic empowerment undertaking and a redress of the past gross imbalances in land ownership which were institutionalised by British colonial rule, but was also the provision of a wealth-creating resource.
He said the constitutional amendment had brought finality to the previously long-protracted legal process of land acquisition and provided greater clarity to land tenure.
Venezuelan President Chavez said global hunger was a political problem, which needed the intervention of political leaders. He said FAO’s budget of US$1 billion was inadequate for its operations in poor countries of Africa, Latin America and Asia. In glaring contrast, US companies were given more than that in subsidies a day and the American defence budget was US$500 billion a year, which was enough to finance FAO operations for 500 years, Mr Chavez said.
He said it was impossible to halve the number of hungry people in the world by 2015 as long as there was no political solution.
Reprinted from:
www.zimbabweherald.com/index.php?id=47965&pubdate=2005-10-18``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xPresident Mugabe blasts US, Britain``x1129617421,67815,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Tim Wise
During the flooding of New Orleans in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, many a voice praised the media for its supposedly aggressive coverage. The fact that Anderson Cooper cried on camera, or that Geraldo evinced outrage (imagine that), or that even Fox's Shepard Smith waxed indignant at the suffering in the streets, was taken as evidence of some newfound courage on the part of the press.
Standing up to FEMA's Mike Brown, and making him appear every bit as incompetent as he was -- a task about as difficult as making Paris Hilton look underfed -- inspired plaudits for any number of network anchors and reporters in the field. So too, Cooper's upbraiding of an utterly hapless Mary Landrieu, she of the U.S. Senate, just to show that both parties were fair game in this brave new world of independent media, no longer willing to be led around by the neck on a leash, as it had been with, say, Iraq, for starters.
But just as surely as the media went after those in positions of power, and sought to expose them as witless in all respects, it was even more adept at framing (pun very much intended) low-income black folks in the streets of New Orleans as a collection of deviant criminals. In other words, the more things changed, the more they ultimately stayed the same, with the press presenting images of the desperate and left behind that reinforce negative and racist stereotypes, to the utter exclusion of accuracy and fair-mindedness.
Case in point, the constant repetition of the same five or six video loops of so-called looters. The fact that most of these were taking water, food and medicine didn't seem to matter to camerapersons or, ultimately, a viewing public quick to condemn what they saw. That the relative paucity of such video suggests theft wasn't particularly representative of the crowds on Canal Street -- after all, if looting had been that common, there would have been more than the same half-dozen clips to present -- also mattered not it appears.
An even better case in point, the repetition of unfounded rumors -- later proven false -- to the effect that Children's Hospital had been raided by drug addicts looking for a fix; or that gang rapes were occurring in the Superdome or Convention Center, or that babies were being molested and then having their throats slit, only to be stuffed like trash in abandoned freezers and garbage cans. False, false and false; and for none of these stories had there ever been a first hand witness who had actually seen any of the supposed carnage taking place.
Or consider the reports of thugs shooting on first aid helicopters: fact is, there are no first hand witnesses who claim they saw anyone shoot at the helicopters, as if hoping to bring them down or harm relief workers. Rather, those who were actually there, and saw the gunfire in question, report that it was intended to get the attention of the helicopters, which seemed to be repeatedly passing people by, looking at the catastrophic conditions, but refusing to land and save people in most instances. Perhaps those in the air didn't see those on the ground? Or perhaps they didn't understand the magnitude of the suffering below them? Either way, the gunfire was a desperate attempt to get people to take things seriously and do their jobs: perhaps not the best way to get attention, but hardly the act of mindless, violent thugs aiming indiscriminately at everyone in sight, as reports made it seem.
Yet the media, feeling no need to find witnesses or to verify claims of black deviance (because, after all, what's not to believe?) simply went along. The result? Rescue efforts were delayed because rescue workers had been scared for their lives by a press that led them to think New Orleans was a war zone; the Governor and Mayor actually told law enforcement to stop saving lives and start arresting and shooting lawbreakers on sight; and the public, which rarely needs reasons to think the worst of poor black people, found its stereotypes confirmed. Not only whites, it should be pointed out, but black folks too, like Mayor Nagin and his crony police chief Eddie Compass, both of whom apparently think so little of their own people that they too assumed the stories were true, in spite of no evidence, and repeated the charges on national TV.
Within just a few days, urban legends began zipping around the Internet, in the form of e-mails recounting utterly fabricated events, but all of them -- however false -- fit perfectly within the narrative developed by the media during the catastrophe.
First there was the one about the crack dealer who refused to be evacuated to a hospital because he wouldn't be able to sell his wares there; then there was the one about the thugs (black and poor of course) who destroyed a rest area on the Louisiana/Texas border, during a stop on the way to Houston, even urinating on the walls to show their disregard for civilized norms of behavior; then there was the one from the guy claiming to have volunteered at the Astrodome to feed and help evacuees, all to be shocked by how ungrateful they were--supposedly demanding beer, liquor, cigarettes and four-star restaurant meals. That hundreds of others refuted these nonsensical claims, and noted how unbelievably gracious the evacuees had been did nothing to damper the enthusiasm with which the lies were circulated.
And in each case, the authors of these fantasies made sure to throw in something about how racist the blacks were (calling white aid workers "crackers" and "honkies" of course), and ending with the admonition that those displaced by Katrina deserved no respect or assistance, seeing as how they were a bunch of spoiled brats who should be left to their own devices. In other words, no need to be compassionate, no need to contribute to relief funds, and certainly no need to challenge one's already negative views towards the kinds of people left behind in the flood. They had, ultimately, gotten what they deserved.
Though the mainstream media hadn't created these phony and vicious stories (and indeed, one has to wonder what kind of evil mind and heart would have done so), it is certainly true that they created the conditions that made such tripe believable to a lot of people. Had the media focused less on looters and supposed gang raping murderers, and more on the efforts by thousands to help one another in the midst of hellish conditions -- stories that are only trickling out in the corporate press, but which those who lived through them have been trying to get told via their own accounts from the flood zone -- it would have been impossible for such vile trash as this to have gained traction. But once the climate had been created and the frame set -- one that said, these are bad people, who do bad things -- it took no effort at all for racists to concoct lies and peddle those to a willing and gullible public that never seems to challenge stories of black perfidy, so easily do they fit within their pre-existing racist biases in the first place.
Which brings us to the other big lie told about the poor in New Orleans: one that has yet to be addressed in the media, despite how easily it can be disproved by a mere five minutes worth of research. It is one repeated daily for the past eight weeks by conservative talk show hosts and columnists, and one to which I am exposed many times a day in my email inbox, thanks to the efforts of right wing louts without the seeming desire to do their homework. Namely, it is the argument that the reason 130,000 poor black folks were unable to escape the flooding was because they had grown dependent on the government to save them, thanks to the "welfare state," and that was why they lacked the money and cars to get out before disaster struck.
In other words, liberal social policy had rendered the black poor unable or unwilling to work, content to collect a government check, and thus, had made them incapable of saving themselves. This lie -- and it is just that, not an exaggeration or simplification or overstatement, but a flat-out falsehood -- has been parroted by the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Shawn Hannity, Bill O'Reilly and Charles Murray (of "Bell Curve" fame), not to mention such viciously self-loathing black conservatives as Star Parker, John McWhorter and the Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson, all despite the lack of evidence to sustain it, and the amazing amount of evidence, both contemporary and historical, to refute it.
But of course the media, having long ago decided not to challenge the mainstream public's view of folks on welfare -- and indeed to collaborate with the framing of such persons by politicians of both major parties -- has done nothing to set the record straight, suggesting either that they are incredibly inept at research, or just as incredibly craven in their attitudes towards the poorest of this nation's citizens.
But the facts, however unsettling they may be for conservative mythmakers, are clear.
To begin with, as of 2004, according to the Census Bureau, there were only 4600 households in all of New Orleans receiving cash welfare from the nation's principal aid program, TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, formerly Aid to Families With Dependent Children, or AFDC). That is not a misprint: 4600 out of a total of 130,000 households in the black community alone. Which means that even if every welfare receiving household in Orleans Parish had been black (which was not in fact the case), this would have represented only a little more than four percent of black households in the city.
According to the same Census data, the average household size in a welfare receiving family in New Orleans is the same as the citywide average for non-recipients: roughly 3.5 persons. So the number of individuals receiving welfare in New Orleans, by the time of Katrina would have been about 16,000.
Thus, even if we assume that all of the 130,000 persons left behind were poor, and that no persons receiving welfare managed to escape before the flooding with friends or family, this would mean that at most, perhaps twelve percent of the persons left behind (and whose faces we may have been seeing on national TV) would have been welfare recipients at all, let alone persons who had been rendered dependent on such benefits for long periods of time.
And speaking of dependence, or the notion that the city's welfare recipients had grown content to sit back and collect government checks instead of doing for self, this hardly seems likely when you consider that the average annual income received from TANF, for those small numbers actually getting any such benefits at all, was only a little more than $2,800 per year, in New Orleans prior to the catastrophe.
Indeed, such paltry amounts explain why most of the poor in New Orleans, far from being happy to receive so-called handouts, work whenever they can find steady employment, which admittedly, is not often the case.
For example, in the ninety-eight percent black and forty percent poor Lower Ninth Ward, one of the hardest hit communities (and one about which many negative things were said in terms of so-called welfare dependence), seventy-one percent of families prior to the flooding reported income from paid employment, while only eight percent received income from cash welfare. In other words, folks in this community were almost nine times more likely to earn their pay than to receive government benefits. Forty percent of workers from the community worked full-time, and the average commute time for Ninth Ward workers was over 45 minutes each day, suggesting that the work ethic was quite common to the folks who lived there, irrespective of commonly held and utterly false stereotypes.
Even food stamps -- a program with much more lenient terms and where even the near poor can often qualify for minimal benefits -- were only received by eleven percent of New Orleans households as of last year: hardly indicative of a general mindset of welfare entitlement. As for public housing, far from being the location of residence for most poor blacks in New Orleans -- let alone those in the streets in the wake of Katrina -- fewer than 20,000 people lived in such units at the time of the flooding: this representing no more than five percent of black New Orleanians. In the Lower Ninth Ward, for example, few lived in public housing and nearly six in ten families owned their own homes.
Even in the city's poorest communities, like the Iberville or Lafitte housing developments, or parts of Central City, at least a third, and often a majority of households report income from paid employment. What's more, tenants in the B.W. Cooper development have been managing their own housing for years, teaching job and leadership skills to the persons who live there.
Likewise, in the mid-90s, several public housing developments participated in a national Jobs Program, funded by the Annie B. Casey Foundation: a successful effort that matched low-income black residents with businesses looking for employees. In the former St. Thomas development -- the first public housing "project" funded by the federal government under the Roosevelt Administration -- residents had started their own coffee shop and bookstore, and had created innovative teen pregnancy prevention and safe sex initiatives.
When St. Thomas was torn down a few years ago, residents were told there would be mixed-use economic development in its place, and although they mourned for the loss of their neighborhood, many looked forward to participating actively in the economic lifeblood of the community. Then the city reneged on its promises and offered the land to Wal-Mart, which then placed a superstore on the property--the very store whose gun supply was looted during the flooding (an ironic turn of events if ever there was one). Poor folks wanted economic opportunity and jobs; the city's elite (black and white alike) gave them a gun supply shop.
Bottom line: the stereotype of poor blacks in New Orleans (and elsewhere) as lazy and dependent on government is false. In Louisiana, it should be noted that only a very small share of those receiving TANF benefits, and AFDC before that, are able-bodied adults. Indeed, even prior to welfare reform, only eleven percent of those receiving AFDC in the state were able-bodied adults who did no work: the rest were vulnerable children, the elderly, the disabled, or adults who were already working (mostly part-time), but earned too little to come off assistance.
It should also be noted that even when persons do receive so-called welfare, there is still a predicate to doing so: one that is rarely explored, but is simply assumed to be personal incompetence, bad choice-making, laziness or other personal pathologies. So, for example, we are to believe that for those who live in public housing, it was their own lack of initiative or willingness to take personal responsibility for their lives that rendered them so vulnerable to the likes of Hurricane Katrina and the collapse of the city's levees.
Yet what this commonly-repeated claim ignores is what came before folks ended up in public housing, in overcrowded communities, with concentrated levels of extreme poverty; and what came before had nothing to do with the welfare state, or liberal social policy more generally. Rather, what happened was the deliberate and calculated destruction of the inner-city in the name of economic "development" (which benefited only the elite) and to meet the needs of middle-class and above whites.
So, for example, consider the Treme (pronounced truh-may): the oldest free black neighborhood in the United States, home to Congo Square and Louis Armstrong Park. Located on the outer edge of the French Quarter and Central Business District, the Treme is more than ninety percent black and over half of its residents are poor, when you include those in the Iberville and Lafitte housing developments. Though it had long been a lower-income community, with the attendant issues that often emerge in such spaces, the Treme had also been, for the most part, functional. It was the site of dozens of successful black-owned businesses, and hundreds of stable middle-class families, where few lived in the so-called projects. The same was true for the 7th Ward: the base of the city's old-line Creole community.
But beginning in the early 1960s, the city of New Orleans, as with every major city in the United States, began taking federal funds to extend interstate highways through their urban centers, which meant the heart of those places black communities. In New Orleans, plans to extend the interstate through the French Quarter met with stiff opposition from affluent (and mostly white) historic preservationists and business owners. Once their political clout was deployed so as to block construction through the main tourist artery, planners opted to take the I-10 through the Treme and 7th Ward, whose lower income and black residents lacked the power to stop their property from being destroyed in the name of progress.
It was a story repeated throughout the U.S. during this time: by the mid-1960s, interstate construction in urban areas was destroying roughly 37,000 residences annually; this, in addition to the 40,000 more that were being torn down each year in the name of "urban renewal," which translated into the building of shopping malls, office parks and parking lots. By 1969, nearly 70,000 homes, mostly occupied by blacks and Latinos, were being destroyed for the interstate program alone, in virtually every medium and large city in the country.
Although some had argued for financial assistance to help relocate the low-income families displaced by this process, rarely did such help materialize. Indeed, less than ten percent of those displaced by urban renewal had new single-resident occupancy housing to go to afterward: instead, they had to double up with relatives in small, crowded apartments, or move into public housing projects, which became something akin to concentration camps for the poorest and most vulnerable citizens of the nation.
These policies, known euphemistically as "slum clearance" by those who implemented and supported them, actually created slums, in places where previously had been low-income, but largely working class and stable communities. In New Orleans, this also extended to the Central Business District, including the very land where the now infamous Superdome sits.
Beginning in 1971, construction began on the facility, on which ground had previously existed yet another mostly black and largely low-income and working class neighborhood. But in a contest between the needs and lives of those New Orleanians on the one hand, and the mere wants of wealthy developers, concert promoters, the New Orleans Saints and Tulane University boosters on the other (the latter of which wanted to move their pathetic team's games there, away from the old and decrepit Sugar Bowl), which side can we guess, ultimately prevailed? And so the Dome was completed, in 1975, at a public cost of tens of millions of dollars, and the loss of yet another patch of homesteads for the city's black majority.
All of this "slum clearance," it should be noted, was done for the benefit of whites, and not only the rich developers. Indeed, the primary reason for the interstate highway program was to help facilitate daily movement from the cities where most people still worked, to the suburbs, where large numbers were beginning to live. But of course, it was only whites who could live there in most cases. Blacks were still subject to regular discrimination in housing (indeed, most types of housing bias weren't even illegal until 1968), and had been largely unable to take advantage of the government's FHA and VA home loans for the first 30 years of their existence, thanks to racially discriminatory lending criteria built into this government program.
So while nearly 40 percent of white mortgages were being written on the extremely favorable FHA and VA terms by the early 1960s, (making home ownership possible for some 15-20 million white families who wouldn't have otherwise been able to own their own place), virtually no blacks had access to this form of economic opportunity. To then tear down black neighborhoods so as to build highways that would help whites get to their new and growing communities (like Bill O'Reilly's boyhood Levittown), was an especially pernicious and racist combination of anti-black neglect and white racial preference.
Beyond housing issues, even regular "welfare" receipt is something predicated on history: specifically the history of low-wage employment and inadequate job opportunities, particularly in urban centers. One study from Harlem in the 1990s, found that for every job opening in the area, there were as many as fourteen people looking for work. Nationally, data has long suggested that there are between 7-10 people out of work at any given time, for every above-poverty wage job opening. In other words, there is not enough opportunity in the modern American economy, irrespective of the claims made by conservatives and believed by millions.
In fact, it has long been the official monetary policy of the United States, under the leadership of the Federal Reserve, to raise interest rates whenever unemployment drops "too low," and suddenly the nation is faced with having too many people working. The fear is that too many people working will tighten the labor market, thereby pushing up wages, and then causing a spike in prices, to the detriment of economic well being. By raising the cost of borrowing money, the Fed hopes to cool off business expansion (and thus any attendant and related hiring sprees), and thereby, hold inflation in check.
Putting aside the validity (or lack thereof) of this particular theory, the result of such thinking should be obvious, especially when it is regularly employed to maintain unemployment at around four percent by raising interest rates whenever joblessness drops below that level: namely, it means that millions of people will be out of work at any given time, not because they are lazy, and certainly not because government handouts appear so luxurious to them; but rather, because it is desired by the government and the nation's economic policymakers that they be out of work.
Indeed, since the official unemployment rate fails to count all who are jobless, such as those who have grown so discouraged by their prospects that they've simply stopped looking (or those who are near jobless, able to pull down only a few hours of work each week, but who are still considered fully employed for the sake of the data), administering monetary policy this way results in as many as 10-12 million people being out of work or seriously underemployed at any given time. They and their dependents will then be (surprise, surprise) poor, and require some type of assistance so as to survive. None of this is a reflection on the values of the poor themselves, though it speaks volumes about the values of the rich who have supported this kind of policy for decades.
But of course, in a media culture incapable of looking deeper than the next 30-second, 100-word soundbite, none of this matters. Indeed, most reporters, news anchors, or journalists of any stripe would be unlikely to even know any of this in the first place. All that matters is the here and now: no need for context, background, or history. And so they give us poor people, stealing from stores, carless, penniless and homeless: how they became poor and why they stayed that way doesn't matter, apparently. And by remaining silent on that issue, the mainstream press leaves venal ideologues to fill in the blanks, for an eager public all too willing to believe the worst about people who, for the most part, none of them have ever met.
Thus do we repeatedly plant the seeds for each new round of victim blaming, poor-folks bashing and racism, all the while thinking that just because Anderson Cooper cried on camera and Fox momentarily turned on Bush (but only for a nanosecond), the Earth's center of gravity moved.
In fact, just as with the aftermath of 9/11, and quite contrary to conventional wisdom, nothing at all has changed.
Tim Wise is the author of two new books: White Like Me: Reflections on Race from a Privileged Son (Soft Skull Press, 2005), and Affirmative Action: Racial Preference in Black and White (Routledge: 2005). He can be reached at: timjwise@msn.com
Reprinted with permission from:
http://counterpunch.org/wise10292005.html``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xKatrina, Conservative Myth-Making and the Media``x1130670742,28595,Development``x``x
``xThe Herald Online
IT is not surprising today that the forces that were violently opposed to the liberation struggle and called the liberation movement "terrorism" are the same that today are calling equitable distribution of land, "a land grab". The same hostility towards the majority still manifests itself.
Some Western countries still believe that Zimbabwe's land redistribution programme to the majority is meant to drive the white commercial farmers out of the country.
We all know that the Government is just fairly distributing the land to the landless Zimbabweans who did not have enough land to fend for themselves.
There is a lot of land in Zimbabwe, whites still have a place to live. The resettlement programme was not meant to drive them out but to create an atmosphere which was conducive to the majority.
If it is accepted that the primary cause for taking up the armed struggle stemmed from imbalances in land distribution, how can there ever be peace if those historical injustices remain unrectified?
Threats are made on a daily basis by some Western countries that unless the will of the former oppressors reigns supreme, this country will not benefit from investment.
What, in effect, this means is that perpetration of oppression of the majority in this country, will attract investment.
It is in this context, therefore, that we agree with Vice President Joseph Msika that the land reform programme is based on the principle of the one-man one-farm principle, and that it is not Government's policy to drive all whites out of their farms.
The call by the Vice President to the Zimbabwe Farmers Union Congress that new farmers and white commercial farmers should work together to achieve food security in the country comes at the right time.
"The whites used us during the colonial era. We should also use them this time around. One obviously cannot just wake up a good farmer, you need to learn, you need to acquire experience."
We are happy that there are some genuine white farmers in the country, though in the minority, who have demonstrated a willingness to reciprocate the hand of reconciliation.
They do this by working hand in hand with the new farmers in their neighbourhood. This is how it should be.
The passing of Constitution Amendment Number 17 has put the question of land reform to its final end.
Focus should now be on the productive use of the allocated land.
This is a challenge to the Zimbabwe Farmers' Union to impress upon their members to fully utilise the land they were given under the land redistribution programme.
Failure to use the land, promotes the wishes of our detractors. The rains are just around the corner. Let us put all our detractors to shame by using the land to produce food for our own consumption and export.
Reprinted from:
www.zimbabweherald.com/index.php?id=48301&pubdate=2005-10-31``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xFarmers need to co-exist``x1130756997,18187,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xNamibian President Hifikepunye Pohamba on Monday defended his country's controversial land-expropriation policy at the start of a five-day visit to Germany.
Following a meeting with Chancellor Angela Merkel in Berlin, Pohamba said that 15 years after shaking off South African rule, land reform to redistribute land from white farmers to black landless people is essential.
The previous willing-buyer, willing-seller policy was proceeding too slowly, the Namibian president said.
The government has issued expropriation orders to 18 white commercial farmers and says the land will be given to almost 250 000 landless people.
Both sides said they aim to enhance mutual relations, according to a statement released in Berlin after Pohamba held talks with President Horst Koehler.
Full Article : mg.co.za``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xNamibian leader defends land grab on German visit``x1133231237,38239,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Bivan Saluseki, postzambia.com
Mwaanga – "TSVANGIRAI'S VISIT WAS INCONSISTENT WITH HIS STATUS"
(ZAMBIA'S) INFORMATION minister Vernon Mwaanga yesterday said Zambia did not want to get involved even remotely in MDC leader Morgan Tsvangirai's meetings which he held in Livingstone.
Commenting on reports that Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) leader Tsvangirai met former FBI and CIA agents in Zambia last week, Mwaanga said government knew that Tsvangirai had discussions which were inconsistent with the reasons he had given for coming into the country.
Mwaanga said Tsvangirai went to Sun Hotel in Livingstone and registered under different names.
He said after evaluation, it was found that Tsvangirai's visit was inconsistent with his status hence the decision by the Immigration Department to remove him from Zambia.
"We felt that some of the discussions he had would be better discussed in Zimbabwe rather than in Zambia," he said.
Mwaanga said Zambia enjoyed cordial relations with Zimbabwe and did not want to get involved in the kind of meetings Tsvangirai had while in Zambia.
"We did not want those meetings to be held in our territory," said Mwaanga.
Zimbabwe's Minister of State for National Security, Didymus Mutasa told The Herald that government was seeking to establish the motive behind a secret meeting held between the MDC leadership and a United States of America-funded organisation —Freedom House—in Zambia last week.
According to The Herald, Freedom House is headed by former CIA and FBI agents and claims to be "a voice for democracy and freedom around the world".
"We are very interested in the meeting and we are making a follow-up. We want to know what is going on," said Mutasa.
"Unfortunately, we can't divulge much at this stage because it will work against our interests but this is a matter of national security and we can't ignore it."
Mutasa said Zimbabwe was grateful to the Zambian government for its swift action AGAINST the MDC leadership.
"We are grateful to Zambia and we hope other countries in the Southern African Development Community (SADC) will act like that in future. We must not allow foreign powers to have their way in our region," he said.
Mutasa said the meeting had also exposed the MDC and the Americans.
"THEY (MDC) CANNOT DO ANYTHING ON THEIR OWN; IT SEEMS EVERYTHING THEY DO IS ORGANISED BY MABHUNU (whites), and if what happened in Zambia is what the Americans call democracy, then their democracy is a sham. Is democracy interference in the affairs of another country?" he asked.
Reprinted from:
www.postzambia.com/post-read_article.php?articleId=6272
Fair Use Statement
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 of US Copyright Law, this attributed work is provided via Trinicenter.com on a non-profit basis to facilitate understanding, research, education, and the advancement of human rights and social justice.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xWe don't want to deal with Tsvangirai's meetings``x1139443914,90896,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xby John Maxwell
This article originally appeared
in the Jamaica Observer.
If you really want to know what's wrong with Haiti consider this: Last Thursday night, when it was clear that Rene Preval was getting something over 60% of the votes in the UN organized Haitian election, one of his opponents, the man coming second with about 12% of the votes was a former stand-in president, Leslie Manigat.
Manigat, recognizing reality, said that the trend suggested that Preval had swept the board and that there might be no need for a runoff.
The candidate running third, a millionaire sweatshop owner named Charles Henri Baker, had a different opinion. Mr. Baker, with about 6% of the vote, one-tenth of Preval's and half as many as Manigat's, was promising to launch an election petition, charging fraud, hoping to overturn the results.
I cannot imagine anything which more clearly illustrates the mind-set of Haiti's so-called ruling class, the Elite, whose rapacious greed, racist intransigence and bone-headed stupidity have provided the main roadblock in Haiti's 200-year-long struggle to establish a free and civilized society.
I don't think it is possible for anyone, anywhere else in the world, to believe that Mr. Baker's initiative makes any sense whatever. I don't believe that even in the US Embassy in Port au Prince or in the State Department itself that there is anyone who could believe that there is any way, short of assassination, to deny the people of Haiti their basic human rights after this week's demonstration of resolution and will.
For the last ten years, Charles Henri Baker and an assortment of freebooters like himself, notably fellow sweatshop owners Reginald Boulos and Andy Apaid, have been able to convince the United States that "populists" like Preval and Jean Bertrand Aristide do not represent the Haitian people. The Elite's stiff-necked refusal to cooperate, negotiate or participate in the democratic process recruited support from the most backward and primitive forces in US politics and effectively brought the operations of Haitian government to a standstill.
"Enhancing democracy"
They also managed to recruit the US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, whose Jamaican heritage should have informed him that he and the rest of the world, were being samfied (conned) by the Haitian elite and their co-conspirators against democracy – the International Republican Institute, the National Endowment for Democracy and the Haiti Democracy Project, among others. Under the guise of "enhancing democracy" these apparatchiks sabotaged the hopes of the Haitian people for a new birth of freedom after generations of savage dictatorship initiated by the American invasion of 1915.
The American 1915 intervention was explicitly and essentially racist and was perhaps best exemplified by the notorious remark of the American Secretary of State at the time, William Jennings Bryan. Upon discovering the ethnic character of Haiti he was appalled: "Imagine!" he expostulated, "Niggers speaking French!" encapsulating for a century white American incomprehension of the humanity of people who don't look like them.
This incomprehension extended to the first black American secretary of State, Colin Powell, and even more strongly to his successor, another "brilliant African-American," Dr. Condoleezza Rice.
Powell bought the Elite nonsense so thoroughly that he was able to say, with a perfectly straight face, that President Aristide's "...failure to adhere to democratic principles has contributed to the deep polarization and violent unrest that we are witnessing in Haiti today... His own actions have called into question his fitness to continue to govern Haiti. We urge him to examine his position carefully, to accept responsibility, and to act in the best interests of the people of Haiti." And he suggested that President Aristide was corrupt and that the US with its high tech and pervasive reach, would very soon charge Aristide with high crimes and misdemeanors.
That was two years ago.
According to the North American pundits, the best interests of Haiti meant selling off the few national productive assets and accepting the wise guidance of people like Apaid, Boulos and Baker, all of them suspect as collaborators with the dictatorships under which they had amassed immeasurable wealth and power. Aristide was also supposed to accept the dictates of the International Financial institutions (IFIs), the World bank, the IMF et al, to mortgage his poverty-stricken country to foreign usurers to build super-highways and other hard infrastructure when what Haiti wanted was the development of its people first so they could handle the work of re-inventing and rebuilding their country.
One of the Poorest countries in the World
It wasn't that the US the World Bank and the IFIs didn't know what was needed.
"Haiti is the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere and one of the poorest countries in the developing world. Its per capita income – $ 250 – is considerably less than one-tenth the Latin American average. About 80 percent of the rural Haitian population live in poverty. Moreover, far from improving, the poverty situation in Haiti has been deteriorating over the past decade, concomitant with a rate of decline in per capita GNP of 5.2 percent a year over the 1985-95 period.
"The staggering level of poverty in Haiti is associated with a profile of social indicators that is also shocking. Life expectancy is only 57 years compared to the Latin American average of 69. Less than half of the population is literate. Only about one child in five of secondary-school age actually attends secondary school. Health conditions are similarly poor; vaccination coverage for children, for example, is only about 25 percent. Only about one-fourth of the population has access to safe water. In short, the overwhelming majority of the Haitian population are living in deplorable conditions of extreme poverty." – The World Bank: Challenges of Poverty Reduction.
And they all pledged to support Haiti get her back on her feet. But the Elite, citing Aristide's supposedly divisive populism and dictatorial tendencies, convinced anyone who could help to put their investments somewhere else. The Elite despised "the ghetto priest" – as poor and black as his parishioners. Aristide nevertheless went ahead. Haiti wanted doctors; with the help of the Cubans he established a medical school for the children of the poor. Haiti wanted teachers; Aristide built more schools in his short time than had been built in Haiti in 200 years. Yet, to the foreign NGOs busy building "civil society" the man was a menace. They could not and would not work with him. They "knew" that in a fair fight they would not defeat him, so they refused to contest elections, because they would be stolen.
This time round the ground was better-prepared. Dozens of convicted rapists, torturers and murderers were let loose when the Marines took over. The Marines drove out the students and took the medical school for their barracks; their accomplices in "civil society" burned the new Museum of Haitian Folkloric history. They shut down the children's television station. It was clearly subversive of good government and capitalism.
Press freedom became a memory with journalists tortured and murdered. Leaders of the Lavalas popular movement were sometimes murdered, sometime simply imprisoned without charge. The Prime Minister was jailed, as was the country's leading folklorist, a 69 year old woman named Anne August who was arrested at midnight on Mothers Day 2004 by Marines using stun grenades to shatter her front door. They shot her dog and carried away her young grandchildren in handcuffs. She is still in prison.
Convicted terrorists were freed by a compromised judicial system and one of the most notorious and dangerous even ran for the presidency. The work of years in bringing the torturers and murders to Justice was undone overnight. The US installed "President" acclaimed the murderers as "Freedom Fighters". He was in good company; the Canadian representative of the OAS was on his bandwagon as he hailed the criminal resurgence. And Condoleezza Rice, with more doctorates than common sense, was ecstatic about the prospects of an election. After all, Lavalas had been silenced, the chimeres (Lavalas "terrorists") had been murdered, the people were leaderless. When a leader stepped forward in the person of Father Gerard Jean Juste, a Roman Catholic priest like Aristide, he too was thrown into jail, prevented from becoming a candidate for President and only released two weeks before the election because he had been examined in prison by the internationally known Professor Paul Farmer and found to be suffering from leukemia. Not even the State Department could challenge that diagnosis.
Spreading "democracy"
All was set fair for democracy to sprout. In a country of 8 million people with 4 million voters spread over 28,000 sq. km ( about the size of the US state of Maryland and nearly three times the size of Jamaica) there were 800 designated polling stations, about as many as would serve in the city of Kingston, Jamaica. There were three polling stations outside of the main slum cities adjacent to Port au Prince – to serve nearly 300,000 voters. There were none inside.
Condoleezza Rice had a message for the Haitian people. In an interview last September, before the election was postponed three times, her "message for the Haitian people is don't miss this chance to go out and vote and to decide your own future. There is nothing more important to a human being than to control his own future and the vote is the way to begin to control your own future."
"Nou lèd, Men Nou La!"
The election was expected to be a shambles in which anything could happen to frustrate the popular will: widespread violence, too few polling stations, too many voters convinced that the rich would get many chances to vote while they waited, shoeless and voteless, in mile-long lines under the hot Haitian sun.
Yet, suspecting the worst, the Haitians were disciplined and resolute. There was one violent incident in the whole country.
People fainted as they waited for hours to vote, were revived, waited again and no doubt fainted again. All were hungry, I am sure. But they were hungrier for their rights than for food. Despite all the odds, they made the election work. Despite the intimidation, the confusion, the bad faith and the UN peacekeeping forces, they made the election work. If ever there were a people deserving autonomy, it is the Haitians. They proved it 200 years ago, when the Enlightenment made a soft landing in Haiti, when in advance of France and the United States and the world, the Haitians abolished slavery and promulgated the inalienable Rights of Man.
They proved it again on Tuesday when they cocked a snook at their "benefactors" "Nou lèd, Men Nou La!" as they say in Haiti – "We may be ugly, but we are here!" or as we say in Jamaica "You a-go tired fi see mi face"!!
Preval won even in upscale Petionville.
And of course, we need to remember that despite this "election", there is no vacancy in the office of President of Haiti. The President of Haiti is alive and well. He has been prevented from discharging his duties by the illegal machinations of the United States, Canada and France, aided and abetted by Kofi Annan. Those characters are simply attempting to legitimize the illegitimate.
The Haitian people know this and have used the election to explain to the world, as best they can under the circumstances, that they want their democracy and their President back. Of course, the American viceroy in Haiti, Timothy Carney, doesn't buy that. Carney said he was not concerned about Préval's former alliance with Aristide and dismissed speculation that Préval would bring Aristide back to Haiti.
"Aristide is as much a man of the past as Jean-Claude 'Baby Doc' Duvalier is," Carney said in an interview. "I believe the electorate has absolutely understood that."
And of course, Mr. Carney, like Dr. Rice and Mr. Bush, know what the Haitians want – much better than the Haitians themselves.
Colin Powell was fond of speaking about what he said were "the Pottery Barn rules":
"You break it; you've bought it."
The United States, Canada and France broke Haiti on behalf of a thoroughly toxic Elite. The French already owed Haiti $25 billion in blood money extracted by blackmail in the nineteenth century and the Americans, who financed that extortion at usurious rates, owe them even more, having destroyed Haitian governance, killed and exiled their leaders and depraved their landscape as well as their politics.
Will they do the honorable thing and pay for their depredations?
Stay tuned.
Poetic Justice
They say revenge is a dish that men of taste prefer cold.
In his position as Foreign Minister of Canada Mr. Pierre Pettigrew was one of the leading conspirators and mobilizers against President Aristide and Haitian democracy. So, it is with some satisfaction that I record that Mr. Pettigrew, a rising star in the Liberal party, lost his seat in the Canadian Parliament in the recent elections. Pettigrew was defending a seat which had been safe for the Liberals for nearly 80 years – since 1917. He was defeated handsomely by – WAIT FOR IT... (DRUMROLL and FANFARE!!!)
... A Haitian woman.
I am sure that you, too, will feel that somehow, somewhere, there is, occasionally, some Justice.
John Maxwell of the University of the West Indies (UWI) is the veteran Jamaican journalist who in 1999 single-handedly thwarted the Jamaican government's efforts to build houses at Hope, the nation's oldest and best-known botanical gardens. His campaigning earned him first prize in the 2000 Sandals Resort's annual Environmental Journalism Competition, the region's richest journalism prize. He is also the author of How to Make Our Own News: A Primer for Environmentalists and Journalists (Jamaica, 2000). Mr. Maxwell can be reached at jonmax@mac.com.
Copyright ©2006 John Maxwell ``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xHaiti Election Sends World a Message``x1140742380,57873,Development``x``x
``xMarch 18, 2006, socialistworker.co.uk
Imperialism is to blame for the Democratic Republic of Congo's torment, writes Jules-Cesar Malula
Unhappy the nation whose death rates are featured only in the Lancet! This British medical journal has become famous recently for suggesting that 100,000 civilians died after the US/British invasion of Iraq, and then that four million people have died in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) since 1998.
Normal countries have large scale deaths reported in their press, or they are debated in parliament. In Iraq and the DRC nobody counts.
I want to understand why DRC has undergone such torment. Other studies suggest that four million is an under-estimate and that ten million have died in the DRC since civil war began in 1996.
The DRC is a central African country two thirds the size of Western Europe, with a population of 50 million. It has been torn apart by six invading African armies and dozens of local militias. All of these forces have at various times been backed by rapacious multinationals.
But the real actors are the great powers. The US, Belgium, Britain and France in particular have manipulated the conflicts, supplied millions of dollars of arms, aided particular governments and either held back or pushed on the United Nations (UN) forces to suit a particular agenda.
This is clear to anyone who seriously examines the situation. At the end of last year the International Court of Justice ruled that Uganda must pay up to $10 billion compensation to the DRC for looting during 1998-2003.
The court also found Uganda responsible for human rights abuses.
Yoweri Museveni's regime in Uganda is undoubtedly culpable, but the West backed Museveni as one of a "new breed" of African leaders.
Both Rwanda and Uganda are heavily dependent on Western aid – around half of Uganda's national budget comes from European Union (EU) countries. Uganda is useful for US imperialism in this region. The US has a permanent military base in northern Uganda, from which it chases "Al Qaida terrorists".
The illegal invasion of the DRC by Uganda and Rwanda in 1998 had the backing and support of the US and Britain. Large quantities of arms were transferred to Rwanda via Eastern Europe from Israel, Britain and the US.
These arms ended up in the hands of "rebels" in eastern DRC. Britain's official arms sales to Africa neared £1 billion in 2004.
There are many similar examples of the reality of "intervention" in the DRC. I want to analyse what imperialism is, and what it means for the country's people.
Some say that groups of very rich men, seeking further wealth, influence governments to adopt expansionary military policies. So, for example, oil men take over the White House and push for invasion of Iraq.
There is much evidence to support such ideas. You can read Michael Moore and others on the Bush regime's oil links. Though less well known, the same is true of the DRC.
A very useful article by Keith Harmon Snow and David Barouski (www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=2&ItemID=9832) spells out in great detail the links between the DRC's wealth, the firms that steal it and prominent politicians.
They point out that although some Western companies have been implicated in fuelling the slaughter, others have largely escaped attention.
One is Barrick Gold, an important mining multinational operating in the DRC, which has had some very interesting figures lobbying for or advising it.
They include George Bush senior, who was associated with the firm while he was US vice president in Ronald Reagan's administrations from 1981-9, and as US president from 1989-93.
He then became the company's chief lobbyist and honorary senior adviser to Barrick's international advisory board. Adnan Khashoggi, a Bush-allied Saudi billionaire and arms trafficker – and friend of Princess Diana – was involved.
Then there was Peter Munk, a protege of the British royal family, and Khashoggi's partner, who became chairman of Barrick Gold. Brian Mulroney, Canada's prime minister between 1984-93, moved on to the Barrick international advisory board.
Importance
All very compelling, but I don't think we can understand the scale of the forces deployed in the DRC, or the web of interests involved, just by reference to a few individuals.
Clearly much bigger sections of the ruling classes in the West – and in African countries – have been involved.Here we move to a second explanation – the minerals of the Congo and their importance to the world.
As Snow and Barouski report, "Coltan ore is widely used in the aerospace and electronics industries for capacitors, superconductors and transistors after it is refined to tantalum.
"The US is entirely dependant on foreign sources for tantalum, an enabling technology for capacitors essential to aerospace weaponry and every pager, cellphone, computer, VCR, CD player, PDA and TV. US import records show a dramatic jump of purchases from Rwanda and Uganda during the time they were smuggling tantalum and cobalt out of the Congo."
Congo's immense natural wealth has undoubtedly been attractive to imperialist powers for over a century.
These include King Leopold II of Belgium, who in the 19th century grabbed the Congo to make it a vast rubber plantation, and the US, which wanted strategic minerals during the Cold War.
But this is not enough to explain the DRC's pain. The DRC is a fairly limited supplier of coltan.
Australia produces about 12 times the amount mined from the DRC. A single mine in Australia produces more than the whole of the DRC.
So coltan does explain why the small warlords in eastern DRC and those from Uganda, Rwanda, Zimbabwe and elsewhere marshalled thousands of men to tear up the country in a search for profit. But it does not tell us why the much bigger warlords in New York, Paris or London are so involved.
A genuine explanation of the DRC's agony must include prominent individuals, the web or connections between government and private industry, the importance of Congo's minerals.And it must also include the way that imperialism – the competition between great powers for control of the world – brings all of these together.
During the Cold War the DRC (or Zaire as it was) remained firmly in the Western camp under the dictator Joseph Mobutu. The end of the Cold War, the collapse of the Soviet Union and then the fall of Mobutu in 1997 opened up new possibilities for all sorts of petty national regimes, their Western backers and the multinationals.
The US was determined to control the world supply of strategic minerals – not so much to assure its own supply, but to monitor the supply to China, Japan, the EU.
The DRC was a very unstable place.The US therefore backed the DRC government with loans and funding, while also assisting regimes in Rwanda and Uganda which were ripping the country apart. It also maintained links with a whole range of mercenary firms.
From 1999 it brought in the UN. The UN mission in DRC is led by US career diplomat William Swing. The UN's 19,000-strong force is led by Lieutenant General Babacar Gaye of Senegal, a good friend of the Western powers.
Mercenaries
The result is a complicated interpenetration of interests. Kellogg, Brown and Root (KBR), a subsidiary of US company Halliburton, helped build a military base near Cyangugu, Rwanda, just next to the DRC-Rwanda border.
Officially, the company was there to clear land mines. Instead it housed mercenaries from Military Professional Resources Inc (MPRI) who trained the Rwandan Patriotic Front forces and Laurent Kabila's forces for the invasion of the Congo in 1996. It helped the Rwandan army's reinvasion in 1998, after Laurent Kabila threw out the Rwandans, Ugandans, the Bechtel corporation and the IMF.
Snow and Barouski write, "The French intelligence service reported that US special forces and mercenaries from MPRI participated in the murder of Rwandan Hutu refugees on the Oso River near Goma in 1996 and even claim to have found the bodies of two US soldiers killed in combat near Goma.
"MPRI is based in Arlington, Virginia and is staffed and run by 36 retired US generals.
"It is contracted by the Pentagon to fulfil the African Crisis Response Initiative (ACRI). This programme includes the Ugandan military, and it supplied military training in guerrilla warfare to Ugandan officers at Fort Bragg, North Carolina in July 1996.
"During the invasion of the Congo in 1998, Ugandan soldiers were found with ACRI equipment while Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have implicated Ugandan battalions trained by ACRI in rapes, murders, extortion and beatings of Ugandan civilians."
Another mercenary firm, Executive Outcomes, has established other private military companies that operate around Africa. Cofounder Tony Buckingham's Heritage Oil and Gas company works closely with PMC Sandline International to manipulate the petroleum options around Lake Albert.
It is believed to have signed concession deals with warring armies and governments on both sides of the Uganda-DRC border.
So at the centre of the DRC's pain are the great powers, their competition and their desire to dominate as much as possible of the world.
For France the present crisis in the DRC is a chance to regain the influence it lost when Mobutu went under.
For the US it is an opportunity to control minerals and ration the access of China and other countries to them. Meanwhile ordinary people die as the great powers fight proxy wars.
People sometimes say that the world should spend less time worrying about Iraq and more about DRC because our suffering is so much greater.
But in truth the power of imperialism to distort and to break the development of DRC will be decided on the streets of Iraq, not so much on the streets of DRC – although we will try.
Greetings to those demonstrating around the world on 18 March. We are with you.
Jules-Cesar Malula is a university lecturer living in Kinshasa, the capital of DRC
© Copyright Socialist Worker (unless otherwise stated). You may republish if you include an active link to the original and leave this notice in place.
Reprinted from:
www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=8463``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xDR Congo: victims of the power``x1142828381,73814,Development``x``x
``xSleeping in Your Car in Front of Your Trailer in Front of Your Devastated Home, Tales of Lunacy and Hope from New Orleans
by Bill Quigley, dissidentvoice.org
In New Orleans, seven months after Katrina, senior citizens are living in their cars. WWL-TV introduced us to Korean War veteran Paul Morris, 74, and his wife Yvonne, 66. They have been sleeping in their two-door sedan since January. They have been waiting that long for FEMA contractors to unlock the 240 square foot trailer in their yard and connect the power so they can sleep inside it in front of their devastated home.
This tale of lunacy does not begin to stop there.
Their 240 square foot trailer may well cost more than their house. While FEMA flat out refuses to say how much the government is paying for trailers, reliable estimates by the New York Times and others place the cost at over $60,000 each.
How could these tiny FEMA trailers cost so much?
Follow the money.
Circle B Enterprises of Georgia was awarded $287 million in contracts by FEMA for temporary housing. At the time, that was the seventh highest award of Katrina money in the country. According to the Washington Post, Circle B was not even being licensed to build homes in its own state of Georgia and filed for bankruptcy in 2003. The company does not even have a website.
Here is how it works. The original contractor takes their cut and subcontracts out the work of constructing the trailer to other companies. Once it is built, they subcontract out the transporting the trailers to yet other companies which pay drivers, gas, insurance and mileage. They then subcontract out the hookups of the trailers to other companies and keep taking cuts for their services. Usually none of the people who make the money are local workers.
With $60,000 many people could adequately repair their homes.
Why not just give the $60,000 directly to the elderly couple and let them fix up their home? Ask Congress. FEMA is not allowed to give grants of that much. Money for fixing up homes comes from somewhere else and people are still waiting for that to arrive.
While many corporations are making big money off of Katrina, Mr. and Mrs. Morris wait in their car.
Craziness continues in the area of the right to vote.
You would think that the nation that put on elections with satellite voting boxes for Iraqis and Afghanis and Haitians and many others would do the same for Katrina evacuees. Wrong. There is no satellite voting for the 230,000 citizens of New Orleans who are out of state. The NAACP Legal Defense Fund, the Advancement Project, ACORN and the Peoples Hurricane Relief Fund have all fought for satellite voting but Louisiana and the courts and the U.S. Justice Department have said no.
The rule of thumb around here is that the poorer you are, the further you have been displaced. African Americans are also much more likely to be poor and renters -- the people who cannot yet come back to a city where rents have doubled. They are the ones bearing the burdens of no satellite voting.
The people already back are much more affluent than the pre-Katrina New Orleans. The city is also much whiter. Many of those already back in New Orleans are not so sure that all of New Orleans should be rebuilt. The consequence of that is not everyone will be allowed to return. Planners and politicians openly suggest turning poor neighborhoods into green spaces. No one yet has said they want to turn their own neighborhood into green space -- only other people's neighborhoods -- usually poor people's neighborhoods. Those who disagree are by and large not here.
New Orleans has not been majority white for decades, but it is quite possible that a majority of those who are able to vote in the upcoming election will be white. Thus the decisions about the future of New Orleans are poised to be made by those who have been able to get back and will exclude many of those still evacuated. Guess what type of plans they will have for New Orleans?
There are many, many more tales of lunacy all over town as all systems have melted down: criminal justice, healthcare, public education, churches, electricity, water, garbage, our environment -- you name it, it melted down and is not yet fully back up.
But, there are also clear signs of hope.
Across New Orleans neighborhood groups are meeting every weekend planning their own comebacks. People catch rides back into town and visit ruined neighborhoods and greet neighbors and together make plans to recover. Because governmental action and contractors are so slow, groups are looking to their own resources and partnering with churches and community groups and universities and businesses to fill in the gaps where the politicos have not yet been able to respond. The citizens themselves are our greatest hope.
We also have allies that give us hope.
We have been amazed and refreshed by the thousands of college students who took their spring break in New Orleans helping our elderly and uninsured families gut houses, clean up streets and advocate for justice with Common Ground Relief, the Peoples Hurricane Relief Fund, Catholic Charities, ACORN and many other church and civic groups. Even law students! Over 1,000 law students helped provide legal aid and are providing the first comprehensive documentation of abuses of local and out of town workers by businesses.
Over 100 clergy from across the US visited New Orleans with the PICO Network, as did hundreds of other people of faith with the Jeremiah community. The Protestant Women are here now and the Interfaith Worker Justice group meets here soon. Together, these groups raise the voices of their faith communities and call for justice in the rebuilding of our communities.
On the national level, we see rising support from numerous social justice groups. Several created the Katrina Information Network, an internet advocacy group that enables people across the country to take action with us to influence all levels of government in the rebuilding effort. We are inspired by the veterans and allies who marched from Florida to New Orleans to highlight the diversion of money from our cities to war efforts.
Yes, we have lunacy in New Orleans. But there are also signs of hope.
Whether lunacy or hope will triumph in New Orleans is yet to be determined. But we appreciate those of you who are working in solidarity with us to try to keep our hope alive.
Bill Quigley is a law professor at Loyola University New Orleans. He can be reached at: Quigley@loyno.edu.
Reprinted from:
www.dissidentvoice.org/Mar06/Quigley29.htm``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xSeven Months After Katrina``x1143692185,8331,Development``x``x
``xAbout 200 white commercial farmers have asked Zimbabwean authorities to restore their seized land, a senior member of a farmers' union said on Friday.
"I submitted close to 200 applications. Some farmers submitted their applications individually," said Roy Gifford, vice-president of the white-dominated Commercial Farmers' Union (CFU).
Gifford said some CFU members submitted their applications as long back as 2001, but the applications "were never taken seriously by the government".
Zimbabwe's relations with the West became strained after President Robert Mugabe's government launched controversial land reforms six years ago, seizing farms from about 4 000 white farmers for redistribution to landless blacks.
Critics blame the land grabs for the country's downward spiral into poverty and hunger.
Full Article : mg.co.za``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xWhite Zimbabwean farmers apply for seized land``x1145735845,88242,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xIn a country the size of Western Europe, a war rages that has lasted eight years and cost four million lives. Rival militias inflict appalling suffering on the civilian population, and what passes for political leadership is powerless to stop it. This is Congo, and the reason for the conflict - control of minerals essential to the electronic gadgetry on which the developed world depends - is what makes our blindness to the horror doubly shaming. Johann Hari reports from the killing fields of central Africa
Published: 05 May 2006
This is the story of the deadliest war since Adolf Hitler's armies marched across Europe - a war that has not ended. But is also the story of a trail of blood that leads directly to you: to your remote control, to your mobile phone, to your laptop and to your diamond necklace. In the TV series Lost, a group of plane crash survivors believe they are stranded alone on a desert island, until one day they discover a dense metal cable leading out into the ocean and the world beyond. The Democratic Republic of Congo is full of those cables, mysterious connections that show how a seemingly isolated tribal war is in reality something very different.
This war has been dismissed as an internal African implosion. In reality it is a battle for coltan, diamonds, cassiterite and gold, destined for sale in London, New York and Paris. It is a battle for the metals that make our technological society vibrate and ring and bling, and it has already claimed four million lives in five years and broken a population the size of Britain's. No, this is not only a story about them. This - the tale of a short journey into the long Congolese war we in the West have fostered, fuelled and funded - is a story about you.
Full Article : independent.co.uk``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xCongo's tragedy: the war the world forgot``x1146992265,25480,Development``x``x
``xIndian Arrival Day will be observed as a national holiday in Trinidad and Tobago on Tuesday May 30, 2006.
By Dr. Kumar Mahabir
Trinidad and Tobago
Twenty-eight years after the screening of the first Hindi movie, Bala Joban [Sweet Youth] in Trinidad in the Caribbean, an immigrant law student in London made his debut in a British-made cinematic movie. Basdeo Panday became the first Caribbean Indian to be an actor on the big screen in Nine Hours to Rama (1963). Panday's part as the laundryman in Nine Hours to Rama was brief, but it was a speaking role that earned him notable credit among stars like Horst Buchholz, José Ferrer and Valerie Gearon. The movie about the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi was nominated for the BAFTA Film Award in the Best British Cinematography Category in 1964.
Panday also acted in two other British cinematic movies: Man in the Middle (1964) and The Brigand of Kandahar (1965). The first two films were distributed worldwide by 20th Century Fox, and the third by Warner Brothers. All three films were set, in whole or in part, in India, with Panday being one of the few non-white actors to play a speaking role in these movies.
About five years after Panday appeared on film, another Trinidad Indian stage actor-turned-politician, made his debut on the cinema screen. Ralph Maraj appeared as the leading actor with Angela Seukaran in two movies released in the same year: The Right and the Wrong (1970) and The Caribbean Fox (1970). Both movies were the first-feature films to be produced in Trinidad and scored commercial successes at box offices at home and in other Caribbean islands. The Right and the Wrong won a Gold Medal at the Atlanta Film Festival for its excellent cinematography.
But it was really in Bim (1974) that Maraj excelled as a film actor in the title role of Bim/Bheem Singh. The story was based on the composite life of the notorious assassin, Boysie Singh, and aggressive trade unionist and Hindu leader, Bhadase Sagan Maraj. Film producer and critic, Dr. Bruce Paddington, states, " ... it was certainly one of the most important films to be produced in Trinidad and Tobago, and has become one of the classics of Caribbean cinema." At the United States Virgin Islands Film Festival in St Thomas in 1975, Bim won a gold medal special jury award as "a film of unusual merit."
The Caribbean Indian actor who has earned the honour of starring in the most Hollywood films is Errol Sitahal. He portrayed a business executive in the comedy Tommy Boy (1995) starring Chris Farley. Sitahal was also the mysterious Indian servant with a pet monkey in the movie A Little Princess (1995). The engaging family drama is ranked as one of the finest children's films in the 1990s. Sitahal appeared in another Hollywood blockbuster, Harold & Kumar Go To White Castle (2004). In this adult comedy, distributed by New Line Cinema, Sitahal was Kumar's stern father who is an Indian medical doctor.
Also making her extraordinary appearance as an actress on stage and cinema was Grace Maharaj. She starred in scores of stage performances, numerous television commercials, four television serials, and four full length movies: Bim (1974), Man from Africa/Girl from India (1982), Men of Gray 11: Flight of the Ibis (1996) and The Mystic Masseur (2001). In 1994, Maharaj received the prestigious Cacique Award in Trinidad for her long service in drama.
Other notable Trinidad Indian actors who have been featured in speaking roles in cinematic movies include Kenneth Boodhu in The Caribbean Fox, and Simon Bedasie in Bim, Operation Makonaima (1972), and Men of Gray 11 (1996). Hansley Ajodha and Devindra Dookie also acted in Men of Gray 11. Other performers like David Sammy, Patti-Anne Ali, Dinesh Maharaj, Keith Hazare Imambaksh and Anthony Harrypaulsingh have all appeared in minor roles in The Mystic Masseur (2001). Directed by Ismail Merchant and filmed on location in Trinidad, the movie is an adaptation of a novel by Caribbean Indian Nobel Prize laureate, V.S. Naipaul. The Guyanese comedian Habeeb Khan played a leading role in If Wishes Were Horses (1976), the only English-speaking musical film in the Caribbean.
The Caribbean has a fledging film industry and, consequently, prospects for acting in cinema are extremely limited. But opportunities abound in stage dramas, television movies, short documentaries and advertising commercials. It is important that Indians appear in the spotlight in numbers commensurate with their size in the population. It is also important to celebrate their achievements because they have struggled as ethnic minorities to achieve visibility and stardom on the silver screen. They exhibit certain collective cultural codes and social behaviour which their audiences can often recognize and identify (with). And it is heartening for a people to see themselves as stars on screen – even if is in fantasy.
Dr Kumar Mahabir, Ph.D. Anthropology, University of Florida
Chairman, Indo-Caribbean Cultural Council (ICC)
10 Swami Avenue, Don Miguel Road
San Juan, Trinidad and Tobago
West Indies``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xCaribbean Indian actors in cinematic movies``x1147970511,22808,Development``x``x
``xHarare - The speed with which Zimbabweans took back their land from white farmers is "commendable" and Namibia wants to do the same, Namibia's deputy land minister was quoted as saying on Tuesday.
"We feel that the speed they took the land is commendable and we would like to see how they did it," said Isak Katali, who is on a visit to Zimbabwe, according to the state-owned Herald newspaper.
Zimbabwe launched its controversial land-reform programme in 2000, and now most of the country's 4 000 formerly white-owned farms are in the hands of black farmers.
The programme has sparked Western criticism but won Zimbabwe the praise and admiration of other countries in southern Africa.
Full Article : iol.co.za``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xNamibia must take land as Mugabe did``x1148506901,45997,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Bugalo A. Chilume, Mmegi/The Reporter
The intention of the West to effect regime change in Zimbabwe was given further impetus by its desire to hold on to ill-gotten gains from the colonial era. During this period, not only did the evil forces inflict the most barbaric form of cruelty and brutality against us, they also stole from us, most notably our land. And not just any land, but the most fertile, from which Afrikans were forcibly removed to be crowded in lands with marginal soils. Depriving people who depend solely on subsistence farming of their land demonstrated the level of depravity of these evil forces, a depravity that still exists today.
Apart from using the land for agricultural production, land grabs were a strategy to break the Afrikan man's spirit in order to force him to slave for the evil forces for his very survival. It was in fear of this that Dikgosi Bathoen, Khama and Sebele travelled tens of thousands of miles to Britain in 1895 to seek the Crown's protection against the enchroachment of the British South African Company into their land. They had this to say: "You can really see now that what they really want is...to take our land and sell it (so) that they might see gain...the Company have conquered the Matebele, and taken the land of the people they conquered. We know the custom: but we have not heard that it is the custom of any people to take the best lands of their friends...where will our cattle stay if the waters are taken from us? They will die. The Company wants to impoverish us so that hunger may drive us to become the white man's servants who dig in his mines and gather his wealth." (Jeff Ramsay, 2006)
In all Afrikan colonies, the best land was grabbed. Zimbabwe was no exception. Up until the recent land reforms, the descendants of white colonists constituting only 1 percent of Zimbabwe's population owned a whopping 70 percent of the country's farmland. So when Afrikan nationalists (Mugabe & co.) took to the bush to wage a war of liberation against the white minority regime of Rhodesia, the restoration of land to its original Afrikan owners was the primary objective. The war paved the way for the Lancaster House Agreement which ushered in the first African majority government in 1980 led by Robert Mugabe.
During the Lancaster House talks in 1979, the Afrikan nationalists made it clear that the war was all about land and that if it wasn't restored to the landless Afrikans, they were prepared to go back to the bush to continue the armed struggle. However, under pressure from the Frontline states, which were eager for cessation of hostilities in the sub-region, the nationalists accepted a settlement that was not entirely to their liking.
In terms of the agreement, the British government made an undertaking to provide funding to compensate white farmers whose land would be expropriated for redistribution. But this was on condition that the expropriation would be done on a 'willing seller/willing buyer' basis. In other words, white farmers had to want to sell and if they didn't, landless Afrikans would continue to be landless. However, Britain never had any intention to let go of the farmland that was in the hands of its citizens and former citizens who naturally still owed allegiance to motherland. The reason for Britain's reluctance to part with the land was not hard to find. The farms' contribution to Britain's economy and development was not something to be scoffed at: the commercial farms were a reliable source of raw material for British factories; profits from commercial farming were repatriated to motherland; and so were the profits from white-owned industries set up by proceeds from commercial farming.
Not surprisingly, in the years following Independence, Britain released the money to the Zimbabwean government in dribs and drabs. As a result, not much land redistribution was done; and the situation was not helped by white farmers who were setting ridiculously high prices for their farms, and invariably offered barren, infertile and disused farms.
When the land redistribution programme benefited some ruling party and government big-wigs, the British government was presented with an excuse to withhold funding for the programme. The British latched on to this and alleged that the programme did not benefit its intended landless Afrikans - as if they cared about them! However, they soon got tired of the pretence and decided to remove the mask of false compassion...
Copyright © 2006 Mmegi/The Reporter
Reprinted from:
http://allafrica.com/stories/200607191010.html``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe: Holding On to Ill-Gotten Gains``x1153286993,78963,Zimbabwe``x``x
``x... getting to the nub
The Other Side Nathaniel Manheru
www.herald.co.zw
If Zimbabwe was under an expedient leadership, most probably the land question, like the proverbial sleeping dogs, would have been left to lie.
That it was the source of conflict from the very onset of colonialism need not necessarily have compelled the leadership to tackle it. For a very long time, the Rhodesians were able to buy off the land question through a variety of measures, including laws, relocations and of course the creation of a buffer African landed gentry. And when all this did not quite work, they went to war and were able to hold back the "black peril" for quite a while.
Often, conditions of deprivation can be naturalized by time and awe, which is why Marx's prognosis of class struggle seems too distant to a point of looking idle. If Zimbabwe was under a leadership worried more about its own preservation and the expediency which goes with such instincts, the land question would not have been an issue when and the way it became one.
Short's poverty
The infamous Clare Short's letter emphasizing "poverty alleviation" as opposed to radical land reforms could have been a veritable escape to a leadership founded on expediency.
There was money, big money to back up such a pre-empting land policy. There was also fame and glory fulsomely heaped on African leaders who promote and advance imperial interests. Today Mugabe would have been a world idol, a veritable foil to all "misgoverning" African leaders. Awards would have continued to come if President Mugabe had expediently lurched onto Clare Short's "poverty alleviation" model. And on the political horizon then, there was no immediate threat, no danger of a fluke party radical enough to mobilize around the land question in ways that would have threatened Zanu-PF. None. And going by the parties later to emerge, arguably there was not going to be any.
Yet principle still took precedence over expediency, with the three men at the helm: Mugabe, Nkomo and Muzenda pushing the matter to the fore, creating a train of events which took matters to where we are now. It is key to understanding the Zimbabwean question to remember the land matter was driven by conscience and conviction, never by expediency.
Angry messengers, no message
Since Gambia, there has been much debate regarding Zimbabwe's future. And especially these past two weeks, the Zimbabwean scene has been busier than a kicked-over anthill. So many myths have been created and demolished, and it takes a bit of ardour to cut through the fictional, to get to the factual. Let me quickly dismiss non-issues, non-actors. The so-called private press has played up angry or frustrated comments from envoys accredited to this country, most notably the British and the American ambassadors, and lately the terribly misread French ambassador.
The conclusion culled from such commentary is to say the Mkapa initiative got crippled in its infancy, a point often made with unhidden delight.
Clearly, there is no grasp of protocols governing intergovernmental communication; rather, there is a wish and hunger for more bad news to help uphold a preferred psychosis. Ambassadors are just that: messengers of their governments and much we have got or listened to, amounts to anger and frustration of the messenger, rather than the considered position of those who sent him. Governments know where and how to place messages, know where and what to read from them.
If Zimbabwe was to open talks with Britain or America, Dell and Pocock could very well be puny players — real, whispering ornaments in corridors — not partners on the table. I fail to understand why this is an elusive point to the Independent and its editorial sibling, the Financial Gazette.
So much about them and their statements which at best might – and "might" is the word – at best offer small clues. Dell may tell you Angola had to keep him away, to recover its peace. Here in Zimbabwe, Dell spends much of his Zimbabwean time cutting toe nails, shunned by his hosts. He is an angry ambassador who must, from time to time, be allowed to vent his anger.
Re-centering land.
Secondly, the myth about external/internal dynamic should be exploded and dismissed. Government says it is all about land and the angry British. MDCs and their surrogates say its nothing to do with Blair.
Rather, it is about "failed" governance and thus a local political question. Ironically, the MDC is repeatedly off guard, often forgetting they must live up to that argument. They have never told us why an internal political matter needs external parentage and canvassing. But it is also a thesis hard to sustain even for their media constituency.
The Independent, long in denial over the land issue, now admits through Craig Richardson and their various editorials that the issue is the "fast track land reform programme" through which Mugabe "seized thousands of white-owned commercial farms".
Richardson says the land reform programme was analogous to destroying "the concrete foundation of a building", in the process re-centering the land question in the whole so-called "Zimbabwe crisis". He makes no novel point, but only makes plain what Dell and Pocock equivocally call "wrong policies" they say must be reversed.
And of course Richardson is not pitying blacks impoverished by these "wrong policies". He is angry at the expropriation of "white-owned commercial farms" he says were of "world standard". Needless to say the issue of "white land rights" cannot be an internal question, anymore than the issue of the rights of Zimbabwe's landless could have ever hoped to be international.
When inside is outside
The larger point to make is that with land as the foundational question, the evidently aggrieved West has used an age-old tactic of smoke-screening the real issue by creating local dynamics.
I do not need to refer to the British parentage of MDC. Or how that parentage is panning out to embrace fringe players whose fabulous means are clearly over-tower their support. Lately, we have seen the resumption of direct financial sponsorship of the MDC (Tsvangirai) — especially its meetings and networking efforts — by a whole host of players including the Germans, as indeed of its other surrogates which include a well known media union which has just received a million dollars United States from two local western embassies including the British, ostensibly to start community newspapers. There is also an attempt to reorganize MDC-affiliated civic society in the wake of deft moves by the President though the bishops.
The so-called civil society is in turmoil, which is why big monies are pouring for another "unity accord" which is hoped to emerge from a big indaba set for end of this month. In all cases, the conduit has been phoney private structures owned and ran by individuals associated with the MDC.
Worst of all is the intra-party violence in the MDC which Europe and America is using to re-issue travel warnings against Zimbabwe, and to bash Zanu-PF. And Dell's brazenly mislaid emphasis on the matter in order to blame Zanu-PF shows how determined the British and Americans are, to convict Zanu-PF and its government.
The NCA-led demonstrations are being bankrolled by known embassies here, with monies saved from the Trevor Ncube-controlled Institute of War and Peace Studies (I don't know what wrong the boy has committed) being re-directed there and elsewhere. With such brazen and mounting meddling by hostile foreigners, what amounts to an "internal question"; what amounts to an "external question"?
Creating smokescreen
But we also have lessons from history. An age-old strategy of imperialism is fomenting and sponsoring local conflict. We saw this at the very onset of colonialism when the bogey of Ndebele tribal raids and atrocities was created to justify the demolition of the Ndebele dynasty.
We had lots of that during the liberation struggle and in post-independence when apartheid South Africa sought to deepen the rift between Zapu and Zanu. Presently, there is the Mthwakazi dimension, itself a feeble attempt at those old divisive strategies. Angola's post-independence conflict generously offers the same experience; Mozambique the same and, above all, South Africa itself. I will come to that point later, but a conclusion must be drawn here. Local players or local conflicts do not necessarily mean local cause or causes.
Opposition planted in Botswana
The latest myth has formed around Tsvangirai's meeting with President Mogae of Botswana. It is touted as a diplomatic breakthrough for MDC, touted as enough proof that Zimbabwe's "crisis" is "internal". There is also an assumption that President Mogae was representing Sadc. A bit of background.
The intervening weeks saw two major developments initiated from outside Botswana but playing out on Ba-tswana territory. There has been the launch in Botswana of a makeshift coalition opposed to Zanu-PF, wholly sponsored by known western countries, and affiliated to the MDC and some freelancing Tswana opposition figures wishing notice.
There has been the launch of a newspaper with phantom editors. The paper has been coming erratically. My readers will recall a close parallel to a similar initiative mounted in both South Africa and Nigeria in the run-up to the Abuja CHOGM a few years back. Add to this the gratuitous profiling of Zimbabweans living in Botswana. This provides context to Tsvangirai's mission: careful preparations under-laid by the same foreign interests.
Neither Zimbabwe nor Sadc
Which takes me to the real point. It is a visit which counts for nothing from the viewpoint of Sadc, the very forum it was originally meant to influence. True, Tsvangirai went to see a President who happens to hold the chair of Sadc. More accurately, he was invited to a meeting with him after the Botswana government "assessed" and came to the conclusion that the MDC (Tsvangirai) faction was the "stronger" of the two factions, whatever that means.
Plainly, there is nothing Sadc about this. What we see is a position and attitude of the Botswana government, regarding the splintered opposition in a neighbouring country. Nothing more.
It is not the Sadc position. It can't be, and a clear distinction must be made between a national stance of a Sadc member state on the one hand, and a regional stance of Sadc. As chairman of Sadc, President Mogae is enjoined to consult widely on Zimbabwe, for a comprehensive briefing to Summit, assuming Summit has tasked him to.
There is also a way of constituting such a mission. It cannot be a one President affair, a one government affair, a one country affair. And the chair cannot proceed with consultations on the basis of what it perceives to be a "stronger" political player.
That would undermine the chair, apart from dictating that his mission begins and ends with Zanu-PF, the strongest political party on the land. Sadc has no reason to understand Zimbabwe from the narrow angle of a member country, let alone from the narrower angle of a single opposition political player, however mighty or pretty he may be perceived to be by any one of its governments.
What compounds the matter is that the visit came against a bloody backdrop of a violent attack on opposition members by MDC-Tsvangirai. Was the matter raised, and why was the accused privileged while the victim was shunned? Then there is the whole question of timing. Why after Banjul? Why during the dying hours of Botswana's chairmanship? The imputation is odious, much more odious to Sadc whose founding premises was anti-imperialism. So it would appear this really was a national initiative with no status or place in Maseru. Not even in the bilateral amity between the two countries which is predicated on respectful non-interference.
Leader, not leaper
Which means what? It should not be forgotten that the British strategy is to use Africans and African voices, as well as multilateral platforms such as the UN, IMF, World Bank, to condemn Zimbabwe. Britain ran to the AU and UN too soon, with the present thrust being to get back to the beginnings, African beginnings, so as to generate a hard-to-fault build-up. This is why Maseru is so important, and why the Botswana initiative is so desperate. And since the matter is narrowing to its correct proportions of Zimbabwe-Britain bilateral, the stance of Sadc becomes straightforward.
Where the matter is between a foreign power and a member state, Sadc cannot afford to be an arbiter. Still less can it be neutral. Where hostile sanctions are imposed on a member economy, Sadc's posture cannot be that of pretending these sanctions do not exist. Britain's meddlesome foreign policy in the region is well known. Its direct link to the exodus of Zimbabwean professionals is known.
This is part of the assault on a Sadc member state. The numbers of Zimbabweans found in neighbouring countries (and let us face it, Zimbabweans are not the biggest numerically, although they may be the most visible, thanks to their skills) have not emerged from a conflict situation. Zimbabwe enjoys more peace than all Sadc states. This is a fact.
The numbers have been created by the assault on the Zimbabwean economy, an assault mounted by Europe and America, and aided by local whites and their African acolytes. In the main, Zimbabweans in the region and abroad are skilled migrant labourers who return home now and then, indeed who are busy investing home, with a vision of a great future.
Good education, good skills have made Zimbabweans footloose professionals, the same way that a craving for both has motivated many Tswanas and South Africans to accept a migrant studentship, much of it in Zimbabwe.
Matters must be put in perspective and may be we Zimbabweans have taken too much abuse and vilification without challenging mortifying myths which abound in the media. We are a skills hub for Sadc, and that is a far cry from the myth of Zimbabwe as a destabilizing factor. And of course every Sadc government knows two matters likely to create real instability in Zimbabwe and in the region: reversal of land reforms and an undemocratic ouster of Zanu-PF. The way opposition politics have panned out in Zimbabwe has tended to make the two intertwined, in fact causally connected.
Rekindling Frontline spirit
I made reference to inventing local dynamics to create a smokescreen for empire builders. I gave examples in the region where this strategy was used. In all our discussions on the Mozambican peace process, as Sadc, we resisted attempts to see Renamo outside its apartheid creators.
We rallied behind Frelimo. In Angola, we resisted attempts to view Savimbi outside his creators, whites in South Africa and of course America and its republican extremists. Revealingly, once America decided it needed oil more that nursing its miasmic fear of communism, Savimbi gave way. Nearer home and time, we were stubborn in rejecting the myth of Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP) as a political stand-alone. Once that essential dynamic between the people of South Africa and their apartheid mis-rulers was settled, IFP fizzled out to what it is today: a mere bad political memory. Sadc was not neutral. Sadc did not see itself as an arbiter. It was in the trenches, in the spirit truly befitting front-liners. This must be the spirit of Maseru. In the very unlikely event Sadc acquiesces to the imperial whims of Britain and America, the consequences will be incalculable for the region. Zanu-PF, either as its Government or as a liberation movement, will take the necessary steps to defend the gains of national liberation, itself hardly a new assignment to it. It is clear what that means to the region and of course to the British and American interests which Pocock and Dell have been sent to safeguard here. Icho!
nathaniel.manheru@zimpapers.co.zw
www.herald.co.zw/inside.aspx?sectid=6473&cat=10``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe: cutting through myths``x1153578485,45693,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xRe : "Revealing the true characters of African"
By Dominic Woja Maku
Saturday 15 April 2006
I would beg to contribute by expressing my personal views on the topic "Colonialism and the Africans".
First of all, I would like to highlight the fact that colonialism is a "Eurocentric Political Thought" or for the case of the Sudanese Africans, you can term it "an Arabcentric Political Thought".
Colonialism involves "cognitive imperialism (the colonization of the minds of a group or groups of people)", cultural imperialism (diminishing or demeaning other people’s cultural values or traits so that their voices and visions are devalued and not respected), exploitation of natural or human resources of a given group or groups of people, marginalization of a group or groups of people, violence against a group or groups of people, poor bashing (you are labeled poor so that you remain in poverty permanently for the rest of your life, your children’s lives and generations of children to come, and so forth.
There are numerous definitions of colonialism and its attributes and there is no right definition of colonialism or imperialism only these two words can be defined in accordance with and only applicable to particular situations such as the African Sudanese situation, Afro-American situation, First Nations Peoples of Canada, the Maori of New Zealand, the Aborigines of Australia, the Eastern European, the Arabs of the Middle East/South East Asia. Colonialism began long time ago (Europeans colonized themselves, Arabs colonized their own people, Africans too colonized and enslaved their own people). Thus, claiming that the characteristics of the African is being shaped by the exploration and the teachings of the European or the Arabs can be misleading if I am not mistaken.
I think that some Africans knew their cultures and traditions very well before the colonizers came to Africa. For example, the Baganda (of Uganda) called Lake Victoria "Nalubale", Africans had names for their children, lands mountains, animals, rivers and so forth. When the Europeans and other colonizers came to Africa they replaced those African names by their own, for instance, Lake Nalubale is now Lake Victoria and so on.
Now, the current African’s life is directly influenced and shaped by colonial forces and its features and principles such as racism. To say that the African relies on the European or Arab knowledge too is misleading. The traditional African or indigenous African had traditional natural knowledge about the spirit (nature, soul, art, culture, so you name them).
It could be an overgeneralization if we think that the African knowledge is just a distance from the mouth to the nose (which is a colonial school of thought). Many Africans and other indigenous peoples live disconnected and fragile lives because of colonialism and racism and they have to negotiate with the colonialists for their own survival.
To date, some Sudanese Africans in the Diaspora obtain their educational credentials in six weeks (online courses) because the colonialists want to see that the Sudanese African does not have an in depth knowledge to govern himself so that he can turn to the colonizers for the answers to his problems (unconsciously, the master cannot destroy his own house).
Colonialism therefore is a term used to illuminate the socio-political, economic, cultural, and traditional subjugation of the oppressed and the colonized. Colonialism is fresh today and it is very much alive and it does not only affect the Africans but every facet of human live including the Arabs and the Euro-Asians.
* Dominic Woja Maku is a Sudanese graduate student at the University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada. He can be reached at dwm598@mail.usask.ca
Reprinted with permission from the author from:
www.sudantribune.com/article.php3?id_article=15016``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xPainting the Black Ivory White``x1154273453,67572,Development``x``x
``xBy Rosemary Ekosso, ekosso.com
I remember in my boarding school Fatima House sang a song during the school feast celebrations. It was called Zimbabwe is Free. It was a rousing tune with a resonating bass element. I loved it. My father had told me all about Rhodesia changing hands when I was not yet ten years old, and we were happy that one more "racist bastion" as Radio Cameroon used to call them at the time, had crumbled into dust.
And all was well. Then in 2002, the Zimbabwean Land Issue became news.
But what really happened in Zimbabwe? It is a story like that of the rape of Lebanon we see today, told by the Western media for their willingly brainwashed audiences. Mugabe is a fairly corrupt leader who is clinging to power. That cannot be denied. But when did his tyranny come to light? In 2002? And what choices did he actually have in the land business?
Let us go back in time. Under British colonial rule, the black owners of the land were restricted to tribal reserves. You can find a very good paper on on this and violence in Zimbabwe here.
In 1930, the Land Apportionment Act restricted access of black people to land. In the years that followed, there was increased pressure on the land, and of course the Africans were blamed for what was inaccurately and condescendingly referred to as "slash and burn" cultivation. That this method of farming was entirely appropriate in situations where there was enough land for shifting cultivation must have escaped the notice of colonial observers.
The settlers kept coming in, rising to 140.000 in 1945. But there were 4 million Africans. The Europeans decided that Africans kept livestock for the wrong reasons: "status and prestige". So they decided to de-stock the land and herd the "natives" into more reserves to create more space for themselves. From 1946 to 1979, more than a million head of cattle were disposed of. By disposed of, I mean killed or stolen by white farmers.
Zimbabwe gained independence in 1980. Part of the talks/negotiations leading up to independence included the Lancaster House Agreement, which provided that from 1980 to 1990, a fund provided by Britain would be used to buy land from those white settlers who could not, in effect, stand being ruled by black Zimbabweans. Before that, less than 1% of the population, being the whites, owned 70% of the land. What the agreement actually did was protect white farm owners from redistribution of their land and put off possible nationalization for ten years. It was one of the conditions of Zimbabwe being granted (that's the right term) independence.
In 1981, the Brits pledged more that 630 million pounds in aid for the land reforms. London now claims to have contributed £44m, but Timothy Stamp, Zimbabwe's finance minister, says it was only £17m.
In 1985, the Land Acquisition Act was enacted, against staunch white opposition. The act was gave the Zimbabwean government first refusal, as it were, over land to be ceded by whites, which it would then purchase for the landless. But the white farmers did not want to sell their land and the Zimbabwean government did not have the money to buy. So what happened to the promised British aid, eh?
According to Human Rights Watch and others, 4.500 large-scale commercial farmers still held 28 percent of the total land at the time the fast track program was instituted after 2000; meanwhile, more than one million black families eked out an existence in overcrowded, arid "communal areas". Native reserves, they mean.
Then the veterans of the war of liberation said they wanted land. Then Messrs. IMF and World Bank came in with a Structural Adjustment package. Then there was a drought from 1990 to 1993. Mugabe was in trouble. The grassroots needed land, and the white people were not willing to share. He took the land from the white people and gave it to the black ones.
But which black ones? That is the purported source of all the noise you hear today.
Despite their pious claims, Britain and the others are not angry because Mugabe is a corrupt dictator. They sponsor corrupt dictators when it suits them. They are not angry because ordinary Zimbabweans are suffering under Mugabe. They don't care about ordinary Zimbabweans. They were quite happy to herd them into reserves when it suited them.
No, what they care about is the expropriation of white farmers. They express indignation at Mugabe's cronies acquiring the land. That is a bad thing, of course. I myself come from an area where government or government-affiliated bigwigs are buying up all the prime sea-front locations because they can afford them. But in the case of Zimbabwe only 0.3% of people settled on land have acquired it through undue influence or corruption. So 99.7% of Zimbabweans got their land fair and square. With Enron and cash-for-peerages scandals, who are these people to talk about corruption? Besides, the government has investigated and found that some four hundred people got their hands on land by dishonest means. It has investigated.
So we agree that Mugabe is doing a BAD THING. The bad thing is not, however, the fact that he has taken land that should go to poor landless Zimbabweans and given it to his friends. The bad thing is that he has taken the land from white people.
Now, don't get me wrong. For some of those white farmers, Zimbabwe is their country. It is their motherland. There have been great personal tragedies as a result of the land expropriation. People have lost what they worked for over decades.
But.
Let them taste the pain of loss too. What did they think they were doing when they took the land of Africans in the first place? When the land was seized from the Africans and given to their parents and grandparents, why did they not say: "Oh no, don't do that, it's not cricket"? What did they think? That Africans do not have strong feelings of attachment to land, being only a kind of speaking ape? What did they think when they had armies of black servants to cater to their every whim in addition to farming the land that had been stolen from them, and being forced to sow fields they would never reap? Did they ever feel pain for the Africans? Did they acknowledge the fundamental injustice of the system? When Mugabe began to centralize power and silence political enemies, did they stand up and tell him to stop?
No. They had their beasts of burden. That is all they needed. Now they tell you that they inherited the land, and they were not the ones who stole it. But they knew it was stolen. And when you see the child of a man from whom your father stole wallowing in mud, what should be the nice human reaction?
Hm?
Why is it that the white man's pain is always greater than that of the black man?
They have trotted out the spectre of Africans who do not know how to run the huge farms: "You know, er, just leave the farms with us, because we're better at running them and you guys are hopeless, everyone knows". The farms have lost some revenue. But is it because the Africans have no talent for farming? No. Here's a quote I like:
"Temporary economic dislocation is an unavoidable byproduct of land reform, but the only path to genuine and lasting progress is through land redistribution. There can be nothing efficient about a gross concentration of wealth in the hands of the few, while millions are condemned to lives of hopeless despair and poverty. No mainstream journalist has ever described the grotesque inequality of the situation inherited from colonialism and what this meant for those on the bottom."
You can read the whole article here. I have also just found out that after the reforms, cereal planted actually rose by at least 9%, according to the World Food Programme. So what are those racist lies about how Africans cannot work the farms?
But why were the white people living in a dream world where they thought they'd always own the farms and Africans would only work for them? The Africans will learn one day, as they have often learnt. The hard way.
Another aspect of this disinformation concerns what has actually happened to bring the Zimbabwean economy to its knees. It is true that a there is degree of corruption in Zimbabwe. It is true that the farms do not contribute as much as they did in terms of employment and revenue. Actually, that's not even true. Smaller, less mechanised farms mean more labour-intensive methods and increased employment.
But it is no less true that there has been a severe drought in Zimbabwe and all of Southern Africa. That is what has brought down grain production. Plus the IMF, plus the World Bank. Plus the media telling lies about Zimbabwe.
The veterans of the war of liberation were pressing for compensation. Mugabe paid up. He had no choice. It precipitated a financial crisis in 1997, but Mugabe at least had neutralized a looming threat to his power. Do George Bush and Tony Blair not neutralize looming threats to their power?
Mugabe has in fact, settled quite a few people on land. I am not saying his cronies have not got their fat, be-ringed fingers on some prime land. But so have at least 134.000 other people, who were settled between 2000 and 2002. So let's not exaggerate here. And no, they were not all from ZANU-PF, Mugabe's party. People from MDC, the opposition party, also got land.
Nor is it less true that the white world has decided to punish Mugabe for daring to take land from white farmers. But this is a long and different story. I will deal with it one day in an article on puppet masters.
This article is too long already, so I'll stop here. But I have said this before, and I'll say it again: we should not believe all the lies we read.
Reprinted with permission from:
www.ekosso.com/2006/08/i_remember_in_m.html``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe: White Lies, Black Victims``x1154613885,93795,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Tim Wise, zmag.org
July 07, 2006
It seems as though whenever black folks do something wrong, everyone hears about it. If gang violence heats up in America's inner cities, for example, you can bet it'll be front-page news. Unacceptably high dropout rates? Yep, you can read all about it, and even hear Bill Cosby weigh in on how the African American community presumably doesn't value education anymore. Drugs, crime, out-of-wedlock childbirth? Yes, yes, and more yes, as the press never seems to tire of bringing us a steady drumbeat of negativity when it comes to people of color. Local television news is notoriously bad about this: blanketing the first 5-10 minutes of each newscast with crime stories, which, according to several national studies over-represent blacks as perpetrators, relative to the share of crime actually committed by African Americans.
Yet, in the wake of a recent report that flatly contradicts many of the most pernicious stereotypes about black irresponsibility--especially among youth--what do we see from the national media? Almost nothing. A report that, if anything, suggests it is white youth who are more likely to engage in a whole host of irresponsible behaviors, and whose character we might wish to call into question? To such a revelation, there are no TV specials, no editorials, and no prominent white person doing the equivalent of a Bill Cosby--asking, in effect, what the hell is wrong with white people, and when are we going to start taking personal responsibility for our deviant ways?
But like the line from The X-Files, the truth is out there, for those interested and willing to see it--a pathetic few, to be sure. It comes in the form of a report released in early June from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and which examines the rates at which students between grades 9-12 drink, take drugs, carry weapons, and engage in all forms of potentially destructive behavior. First, it should be noted--as sociologist Mike Males has long pointed out--that youth in general are far less engaged in destructive activity than commonly believed. Rates of drug and alcohol use and abuse, for example, as well as violence and other forms of pathology tend to be much higher among adults, even as the young are disproportionately tagged as the problem. But beyond that, the CDC notes that contrary to popular belief, it is not black youth, but rather whites who tend to lead the pack in these categories of deviance, and that among all youth who are either black, white or Latino, blacks almost invariably are the least likely to do drugs, drink, or carry weapons either on school grounds, or generally.
If all this sounds incredible, consider that the findings have been more or less consistent for over a decade, in each and every report of its kind. Yet in virtually no year has the media seen fit to make an issue of disproportionate white pathology, or the relative good behavior of black youth. If black youth kill someone, it's a headline; if they do something right, you'll be lucky to hear about it at all.
So here are some of the facts, compiled by CDC in 2005, and which would make news, in a media culture concerned about truth, and committed to challenging public misperceptions--which is to say, in a media very much unlike the one we have now:
-- White youth are 2.3 times more likely than black youth to drive drunk*
-- White males are a third more likely than black males to have carried a weapon in the past month (31.4 percent vs. 23.7) and fifty percent more likely to have taken a weapon to school (10.1 vs. 6.8);
-- Although black and white youth are equally likely to have tried cigarettes, whites are twice as likely to smoke currently (26 vs. 13 percent), and 3.3 times more likely to smoke at least a half-pack a day (11.7 vs. 3.5 percent);
-- Although white and black youth are roughly equally likely to have tried alcohol, white youth are fifty percent more likely to drink currently (46 percent vs. 31 percent), and nearly three times as likely to engage in episodic binge drinking (defined as having five or more drinks at a time, more than once a month). Indeed thirty percent of white youth have engaged in such heavy drinking, while only eleven percent of black youth have, meaning that white youth are nearly as likely to have binged more than once in the past month, as black youth are to have taken a drink at all;
-- Although there is no statistically significant difference between white and black youth when it comes to marijuana use, whites between grades 9-12 are almost 3.5 times more likely to have tried cocaine, twice as likely to be current coke users, twice as likely to have used inhalants, twice as likely to have used illegal steroids, 3.3 times as likely to have used hallucinogenic drugs, nearly four times as likely to have used methamphetamine, and slightly more likely to have used heroin or ecstasy. While it should be noted that only very small percentages of youth of any color have tried these harder drugs--obviously good news, and important to recognize, given the tendency to stereotype young people generally as irresponsible--the fact remains that blacks are typically the least likely to have done so.**
Of course, not all the news is good. Black youth are more likely to have gotten in a fight at school, they get less exercise on average, and are more likely to be at a weight considered unhealthy for their age. On the flipside, however, white females are more likely to have engaged in unhealthy behavior to lose weight, such as fasting for twenty-four hours at a time, taking weight loss pills, laxatives or supplements, or making themselves vomit so as to keep off unwanted pounds.
With so much bad news constantly being circulated about black kids today, is it asking too much for the media to take note of the reassuring and positive news coming out of most African American families and communities? Is it too much to ask that in a society where surveys suggest whites in particular (and even some black folks) are quick to believe the worst about young African Americans, perhaps the media might see it as worthwhile to debunk inaccurate and prejudicial thinking?
Given the way in which negative stereotypes can contribute to discriminatory treatment, the value of countering them with facts should be apparent. If we allow any group of persons to be tagged with the label of deviants--the way we have done with youth generally, and black youth in particular--we can't then be surprised when those same persons face discrimination in the job market, in schools, housing and on the part of law enforcement. So long as false and racist thinking is allowed to go unchallenged--and it will remain unchallenged the longer it takes for media to present a more balanced and accurate picture--the scourge of racial discrimination will continue unabated, rationalized all the way by folks who swear they aren't racist, but rather, simply playing the odds when it comes to who will make a better student, employee, or neighbor.
So long as police officers routinely admit--and they have done this to me many times before--that the first thing they think when they see a young black man driving a nice car is, "drug dealer," while the first thought they have at the sight of a similar young white man is, "spoiled little rich kid," racism will continue to poison the nation, and affect the lives of its people. Surely, with so much on the line, we ought to demand that good news about communities of color be as readily covered as the bad. ________
Tim Wise is the author of White Like Me: Reflections on Race from a Privileged Son (Soft Skull, 2005). He can be reached at timjwise@msn.com.
Source:
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2006. Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance--United States, 2005. Surveillance Summaries, June 9. (Tables 4, 6, 12, 20, 22, 28, 30, 32, 34, 36, 66, pages 38, 40, 46, 54, 56, 62, 64, 66, 68, 70, 90).
* Note that when I say whites are "x times more likely" than blacks to do something, this does not mean merely that there are x times more whites doing that thing than there are blacks. After all, since there are more whites in the country than blacks, we should expect there to be more whites in any given population cohort (drug users, poor people, criminals, etc). Rather, this is a much more significant claim: namely, that the rate at which whites do x,y or z thing is higher than the rate at which blacks do. So, for example, in the case of drunk driving, for every 100 white youth in grades 9-12, there are slightly more than eleven who have driven while drinking in the past month, while for every 100 black youth in those grades, there were fewer than five who did so.
** While other data suggests that drug use is slightly higher among black adults who are 26 and older than white adults that age--the flipside of the picture for teens and young adults, 18-25--there is an important fact that is often overlooked when discussing adult drug use and/or abuse. Namely, data indicates that black adults, 26 and over, are considerably more likely (2.75 times more likely in fact) than white adults that age to be approached by someone who was offering them drugs, or to have drugs made available to them. Yet, despite the greater availability, and thus, peer pressure for black adults, they were only about twenty percent more likely than white adults to use drugs. What this suggests is that, relative to availability, whites are still using more frequently than blacks, and that blacks are exercising a disproportionate amount of will power to resist narcotics. It means that per capita, whites would be more likely to choose to use drugs, per incident where drugs were available to be used, and blacks would be more likely to resist using them, per incident where they were made available. The only reason for a slightly higher black usage rate overall, would be the much higher rate of incidents where drugs were made available in the first place. (see, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, [SAMHSA], 2000. 1999 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse. Office of Applied Studies, Department of Health and Human Services, Rockville, MD.)
Reprinted from:
www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2006-07/07wise.cfm
``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xSins of Omission``x1155388069,38960,Development``x``x
``xMr. Matthew Harrison, a PhD student at the University of Georgia in the field of Industrial Organizational Psychology, along with his faculty supervisor, Kecia Thomas, a professor of Applied Psychology and acting director of UGA's Institute for African American Studies, has zeroed in on the issue of colourism in the workplace. Mr. Harrison has determined in his research that colour discrimination caused people with lighter skin tones to get preferential treatment over those with darker skin tones in the areas of hiring and promotion in the work system. Such research, in this regard, is very useful in understanding the prospects of job applicants in the United States and indeed all over the world in getting employment and promotion based on the colour of their skins.
More detail of the information provided in the interview was presented at the 66th annual meeting of the Academy of Management in Atlanta and can also be seen in the release from the University of Georgia, "Skin tone more important than educational background for African Americans seeking jobs".
In the interview, Mr. Harrison provides critical views showing that the issue of colourism is a serious one and should be considered before the selection of workers in a work environment. He notes the fact that employers tend to select those of lighter tones before those of darker tones, even with equivalent or higher qualifications, which affects the darkest skin people the most and questions the principle of meritocracy in the workplace.
Mr. Harrison describes this and more in detail below.
Full Article : africaspeaks.com``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xMatthew Harrison Speaks on Colorism``x1156461270,65231,Development``x``x
``xA Step Towards the African Revolution
by Leslie
October 05, 2006
The session at the last Moonlight Gathering in September was highly profound and without a doubt, edifying and interesting. Usually, after a period of song, poetry, drumming and other chosen activities, the group at the Moonlight Gathering would engage an issue; any issue that we feel worth discussing and for whatever reasons. However, the last gathering was the first time that the discussion was so heated; so much so, that some chose to 'stay out of the kitchen'.
The issue discussed was the controversial topic, colourism. This subject had never been talked about so openly at the gathering before and some were stunned that it would have ever been brought up. Members of the gathering were knocked out of their positions of comfort and were forced to come to terms with this issue; at least those who were courageous enough to stay within the circle to discuss it. Seeing that many were largely unfamiliar with the term and issues surrounding colourism, I attempted to briefly explain it as I would do now. The word colourism is a recent term that has entered into our vocabulary which has arisen in an attempt to address the deeper complex of race discrimination which is a critical and largely unaddressed aspect of racism.
Full Article : africaspeaks.com``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xDealing with Colourism``x1160176310,7675,Development``x``x
``xCIA with Ethiopia vs Somalia
...The New York Times in it's daily stream of propaganda confirms the support of the US junta's CIA for this new war against Somalia, another inhuman atrocity by the US managers using the usual and stupid and worn out pretext of their own* al Qaeda: "American intelligence officials theorize that the Islamists, who wrested control of Mogadishu in June from a coalition of warlords supported by the Central Intelligence Agency, have ties to a Qaeda cell based in East Africa that is responsible for the bombings of the American Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998."
Full Article : melbourne.indymedia.org
Blundering Into Somalia Yet Again
Ethiopia's invasion of Somalia under cover of the Christmas holiday was a blatant aggression that is likely to widen the arc of conflict across the dangerously turbulent Horn of Africa. It also marks the opening of a new front in Washington’s war against Islamic militants and reformers.
Full Article : lewrockwell.com
US Fomenting War in Somalia
The US-backed, UN-recognized government of Somalia is now limited to the inland town of Baidoa. Mogadishu, the capital, fell to Islamic militias, which now make up the de facto government, in June.
Full Article : africaspeaks.com
The Other War in Ethiopia
The world is watching Ethiopia's war with the totalitarian Islamist regime in Somalia. The world should also start paying attention to the campaign of genocide which the Ethiopian government has been waging against its own people, in southwestern Ethiopia, in the state of Gambella.
Full Article : tcsdaily.com
Ethiopia's War with Somali Islamists a gimmick
Ethiopia's War with Somali Islamists: a gimmick to divert attention from Ethiopia's internal political tension and human rights abuses.
Full Article : nazret.com
Reflections on the Anuak Genocide
Dec 13, 2006 -- Early in this century, at a university in the U.S, a professor asked all students to introduce themselves to the class. Among students, there were an Anuak seated in one of the first few rows and a Highlander Ethiopian seated in the last row. When introduction reached the Anuak, he introduced himself as an Ethiopian and Ethiopian Highlander introduced herself as an Ethiopian. Instead of letting other students behind her introduce themselves, she added that the Anuak was from Gambella and she was from Ethiopia despite the fact Gambella is a part of Ethiopia in international map.
In disputing the Anuak citizenship status as not Ethiopian, she repeated the usually claims Anuak people and other Gambellans face when travel in other parts of Ethiopia. When Gambella people traveled in other parts of Ethiopia, many ruling Highlander Ethiopian elite label Gambellans as others, foreigners and potentially obstacle to the economic development and this perception played a largest role in the December 13, 2003 massacre against Anuak people.
Full Article : sudantribune.com
Ethiopia's Genocide of the Anuak Tribe Broadens After December 13 Massacre
ADDIS ABABA, Ethiopia -- A genocide in western Ethiopia that began last December with a massacre of some 400 Anuak tribe members has broadened into widespread attacks by Ethiopian military troops against more than a dozen Anuak villages in the western Ethiopian province of Gambella, according to Anuak refugees and humanitarian aid groups.
Full Article : genocidewatch.org
State Terror Against Indigenous Peoples in Ethiopia
Another Secret War for Oil?
Published first April 6, 2004
By Keith Harmon Snow
The East African nation of Ethiopia is the latest U.S. terror war ally to turn its guns on indigenous peoples in a zone coveted by corporate interests for its natural resources. Four months after armed forces of the ruling Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Defense Front (EPRDF) and settlers from the Ethiopian highlands initiated a campaign of massacres, repression, and mass rape deliberately targeting the Anuak minority of Ethiopia's southwest, atrocities and killings continue—and the situation remains in whiteout by the Western media.
Based on field investigations conducted in January 2004, two U.S.-based organizations— Genocide Watch and Survivor's Rights International—jointly released a report on February 22, providing substantial evidence that EPRDF soldiers and "Highlander" militias in southwestern Ethiopia targeted Anuak civilians. The Highlanders are not of either the agriculturalist Anuak or cattle-herding Nuer, the two indigenous peoples of the region, but are predominantly Tigray and Amhara people resettled into Anuak territory since 1974.
The current conflict was sparked by the killing of eight UN and Ethiopian government officials whose van was ambushed on December 13, 2003, in the Gambella district of southwestern Ethiopia. While there is no evidence attesting to the ethnicity of the unidentified assailants, the incident provided the pretext for the ongoing pogrom against the Anuak.
Full Article : zmagsite.zmag.org``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xUS Fomenting War in Somalia``x1167394228,65530,Development``x``x
``xReturn of the Warlords
By Amina Mire, counterpunch.org
January 03, 2007
Somaliyaay toosoo
Toosoo isku tiirsada ee
Hadba kiina taag daranee
Taageera waligiinee.
(Somalia wake up,
wake up and join hands together
and we must help the weakest of our people
all of the time.)
--Somali national anthem.
For the average western person, the current Ethiopian invasion of Somalia is just another military operation taking place in a distance land in the war against Islam terror. For Somalis, this invasion is nothing short of humiliating catastrophe. Somalis are deeply nationalistic; yet their nationalistic passion to towards their country did not prevent them from committing self-inflected genocidal civil wars which weakened their cultural fabric, political institutions and central authority so that after 16 years without functioning state, Somalia is today under the occupation of their most hated historical enemy, Ethiopia.
The latest Ethiopian invasion of Somalia is a conflict between the Islamic Courts Uni0n (ICU) and US-sponsored Alliance for the Restoration of Peace and Counter-Terrorism (ARPCT), a group of Somali warlords backed by Ethiopia and the US. After the 1991 collapse of central authority in Somalia and ensuing civil war, the ICU emerged as a grassroots organization in response to the lawlessness, violence in the country. In the absence of central political authority and using ,primarily, Sharia law and other traditional Somali values (xeer and dhaqan), the ICU were able to bring law and order throughout the country. They were also able to provide essential services such as healthcare and education. In this way, ICU courts were the only source of stability for civil society while warlords continue to terrorize ordinary Somalis. Whilst the ICU were able clean drugs and guns from the streets in their communities, many attempts to forge transitional government failed because squabbles over power sharing. The current Transitional Federal Government is the latest of many such fruitless efforts.
In June 2006, the Islamic Uni0n Courts assumed centralized control over many parts in the South, including the capital city capital, Mogadishu. This move came about partly after it was revealed that the CIA was secretly working with Somali warlords and Ethiopia to occupy Somalia. In the context, of post September 11, 2001 political stigmatization the Bush Administration had identified the IUC as a terrorist group. Many Somalis saw such rhetoric as a thinly disguised pretext for the US's desire to avenge the 1993 defeat of US Forces in Somalia. Despite U.S. cash payments to various warlords none was able to assert their authority over the population and bring law and order and security to the Somali people.
On the other hand, the ICU was able to clear big urban centers such as Mogadishu, of guns and drugs off the street and also clean up the city. Seaports and airports opened for commercial business again after 1995. The Bush administration continued to treat the ICU as a terrorist organization and started courting its overthrow by using Ethiopia as a proxy state to do its dirty work in exchange for cash incentives for the warlords and for Ethiopia's leader, Meles Zenawi.
Somalis have suffered so much already. Their country has been without central authority since 1991. There is not a shred of evidence that Somalia pose a security threat to the US nor there is any evidence that Islamists are providing safe heaven for Al Qaida or other terrorist groups. In the context of utter humiliation in the hands of their historical enemy, Ethiopia, the current US support of the Ethiopian invasion of Somalia will, most certainly, fan hatred toward the US.
Meles Zenawi faces fierce opposition from various opposition groups inside Ethiopia who accuse him of illegal usurpation of political power, rigging election results, arresting his critics, in some cases, killing hundred of people taking part in peaceful protests against his political misrule. Thus, the sudden invasion of Somalia is a perfect strategy, for him to buttress his legitimacy as a national leader who can defend Ethiopia against Islamic terrorism. Internationally, he is able to position himself and his nation as a friend of the U.S .and Bush's strong man in the Horn of Africa in the US global war against Islamic terror. It is in this context, that Bush administration was able to quickly push through the Security Council the rather dubious resolution which gave Zenawi the green card to invade Somalia.
Resolution 1725 on Somalia authorizes a regional force from the Inter-Governmental Authority on Development (IGAD) and the African Uni0n (AU) to protect the weak Transitional National Government in Baidoa and provide training for its forces. It also authorizes partial lifting of the Somalia Arms Embargo of 1992.
Many Somalis, who are not religious, saw their own safety and security improved under the rule of IUC. In addition, many Somalis in the worldwide Somali Diaspora support IUC for the same pragmatic reasons. Most Somalis were willing to give the IUC sufficient time to clean the streets of guns and violence. After restoring law and order back into the streets, it would have been possible, albeit slowly, to modernize some of their interpretations and the applications of Islamic Sharia. Besides, Sharia laws are already part of the Somali cultural value system.
A large number of Diaspora Somalis were willing to return to Somalia, and rebuild the country, once peace and security were ensured. But now, we are back into the old, ugly days where teenage boys toting AK47s in the back of pick up trucks, used to terrorize the local population. It is hard to predict what future hold for Somalia; I can easily predict the following scenario. Meles Zenawi is a Christian, who draws most of his political power and military support from his Tigre tribe. As a result, his invading soldiers in Somalia are largely from his Tigre Christian tribe. These soldiers do not speak the Somali language; once deep inside Somalia, they will be exposed to attacks by the locals.
Ironically, Zenawi's invasion of Somalia has killed any chance the weak transitional federal government might have had to rule Somalia. The warlords were hated before by all Somalis for their corruption. Now they will be despised as traitors and stooges for the number one enemy of the Somali people, Ethiopia. The history of the animosity between Somalia and Ethiopia is long. In this humiliating condition, Somalis will turn on each other; there will be endless recrimination, revenges and counter-revenges. The clan-based cloak and dagger power struggles will continue.
Amina Mire's last article here was "A Somali Woman Discusses the Sharia Court and Her Cousin Who Leads It". She lives in Ottawa, Canada and can be reached at filsanidilhooyo@yahoo.ca
Reprinted by consent of the author from:
www.counterpunch.org/mire01022007.html``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xDeath and Destruction for Somalis``x1167851490,75026,Development``x``x
``xby Charlie Kimber, socialistworker.co.uk
January 04, 2007
The recent Ethiopian invasion of Somalia is a direct product of the US-British "war on terror". It threatens to further destabilise a region which has repeatedly been torn apart by war and famine.
Ethiopia's rulers ordered the war on behalf of George Bush in order to prosecute their own regional interests, to deflect Western criticism of their own repressive regime, and to collect the pay off from being a top US ally in a strategically crucial area. Somalia is just across the Gulf of Aden from Yemen and Saudi Arabia.
But the rejoicing in Ethiopia and the US at the defeat of the Islamic militias in Somalia may prove short-lived.
Certainly Bush does not feel secure. He has already prepared for the next phase of fighting by phoning Uganda's president Yoweri Museveni, urging him to send his troops to Somalia. Kenya's forces are also on stand-by.
The background to the invasion is the takeover of almost all of Somalia by the militias of the United Islamic Courts (UIC) last year. The militias drove out the warlords who had dominated Somali politics for the last 15 years.
The militias' victory was based on genuine popular support. Many people were weary of the violence and brutality of the warlords' rule. In addition several key leaders of Somalia's clans were prepared to back the UIC in order to stabilise the country.
The UIC's success was a blow to US plans for the region. The Bush regime had been growing ever closer to those warlords who were prepared to act as agents in the "war on terror".
The bloody record of these warlords, and the fact they had bitterly divided Somalia, were forgotten – so long as they would boost the US presence in the region.
Takeover
The UIC's takeover was also a defeat for Somalia's "transitional government", formed in 2004 in Kenya after long peace negotiations. This was a government in name rather than fact.
As even the BBC says, "President Abdullahi Yusuf's administration, made up of former warlords, often struggled to control its own members, let alone the country. Its first 18 months in office were spent squabbling about where to set up its base, eventually settling on the town of Baidoa as the capital, Mogadishu, was considered too dangerous."
The US and the transitional government vowed to destroy the UIC, and the Ethiopian government of Meles Zenawi was the chosen instrument.
Meles has long been a favourite of the West. He was part of Tony Blair's Commission for Africa in 2005 and supports the march of neoliberalism across the continent.
Ethiopia was one of only two African countries named as part of the US's "coalition of the willing" supporting the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.
For all the West's denunciations of repressive African governments, Meles's crimes have been strangely overlooked. Attacks on students' and workers' demonstrations during the 2005 elections, removal of basic democratic rights and much else received only the mildest rebukes from Britain and the US.
In July, when the US and Britain backed the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, Meles felt able to send his troops across the border into Somalia. And since then Ethiopian troops have been testing the ground for a complete offensive.
Last week Meles ordered a full scale invasion backed by thousands of troops, heavy artillery, tanks and aerial bombing. On 26 December US officials proclaimed the Bush regime's support for the invasion, claiming that Ethiopia had "genuine security concerns".
Ethiopian forces did meet some resistance, taking heavy casualties in clashes with young Somalis at Mood Moode, Daynuuna, Idale, and Bandiiradley.
But the vast superiority of Ethiopian arms – supplied over the decades by the US, Russia and Israel – meant that they easily won in set piece battles. Now they have taken the capital Mogadishu and the UIC's stronghold in Kismayo.
However, the war may be far from over. The UIC fighters cannot openly confront tanks and planes but, as the US discovered in Iraq, irregular resistance can be very effective against unpopular occupiers.
The new government will rely heavily on Ethiopian support. The warlords who will now return to power have little popular base and can survive only with external backing.
And the US's green light to Ethiopian expansion could tempt Meles to renew pressure on Eritrea – the two countries came close to war last year.
Regime
If the Somali people turn strongly against the new regime it will be left battling its own people – a battle it may well lose.
One of the first areas of Mogadishu seized by the invading Ethiopians was the site of the former US embassy compound. The US was driven out of Somalia in 1993. US troops, backed by the United Nations (UN), had carried out a "humanitarian intervention" which was claimed to be about ending famine and violence.
Many of Somalia's people initially welcomed the US, but they were soon disillusioned. The US and its UN allies shot down demonstrators in the streets and were repeatedly shown to have carried out torture and murder. The population rose against the US and drove them out.
Ordinary people's interests have been submerged beneath the US's desire to ramp up its control of the Horn of Africa. US military planners have underlined how its base in Djibouti, presently home to 1,800 US troops, is hoped to be the centre of one of the "lily pads" from which mobile US forces can intervene in "hot spots".
Instead of dealing with Somalia's terrible poverty and the present flood emergency, resources have been poured into arms and war.
The Stop the War demonstration on 24 February will not just be about Trident and Iraq – but also against the way imperialism devastates areas such as East Africa.
© Copyright Socialist Worker (unless otherwise stated). You may republish if you include an active link to the original and leave this notice in place.
Reprinted from:
www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=10416``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xEthiopia joins Bush's imperialist crusade``x1167938002,80117,Development``x``x
``xBy Kurt Nimmo, kurtnimmo.com
January 09, 2007
It is simply amazing how many times the transparently bogus "al-Qaeda" has been used as an excuse to unleash violence against largely innocent Muslims and yet so few people here in America catch on, preferring to believe the corporate media fed illusion, now hammered firmly into place and accepted as political reality.
Earlier today, we learned a "U.S. Air Force gunship has conducted a strike against suspected members of al Qaeda in Somalia," CBS reports straight from a Pentagon script. "The targets included the senior al Qaeda leader in East Africa and an al Qaeda operative wanted for his involvement in the 1998 bombings of two American embassies in Africa," apparently reason enough to kill around 200 people. "The gunship flew from its base in Dijibouti down to the southern tip of Somalia... where the al Qaeda operatives had fled after being chased out of the capital of Mogadishu by Ethiopian troops backed by the United States."
In other words, it was a turkey shoot, and the targets were not necessarily "al-Qaeda" but rather members of the Islamic Courts Union (ICU), Muslims who not long ago ruled Somalia under the Sharia, or Islamic law. CBS does not bother to mention the fact ICU was popular in Somalia, a Muslim nation.
Here in America, they are called the Somali Islamists--granted, a simplistic term, but then we here in America like our simplistic terms--and thus the Somali version of a Muslim is lumped in with all the other Islamists, including those we are told are fascist, never mind European fascist movements of the early 20th century have nothing to do with Islam, and the word "Islamofascists" is little more than a meaningless and rather crude political epithet.
Of course, the word and nonsensical idea is strictly for domestic consumption, as evil Nazis are part of the firmly entrenched cultural landscape and it is apparently easy to associate Hitler and Nazism with people--indeed, entire cultures and religions--one does not like or understand (remember, "al-Qaeda" is a magnet for Hitler types like Osama bin Laden and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, or so the corporate media, with their neocon reading scripts in hand, tell us).
Last December, the popular ICU lost control after Ethiopia, with U.S. backing and encouragement, invaded and sent them packing to the southern-most tip of the country. According to CBS, the fleeing ICU are "al-Qaeda" to the man and, as such, fair game for an AC-130 gunship, sent from a U.S. airbase (at Camp Lemonier) in Dijibouti.
Of course, this is little more than a facile and threadbare excuse to kill Muslims, as Bush's "minds" from the American Enterprise Institute are big on slaughtering large numbers of them on ice-thin pretext.
For instance, take the neocon Vance Serchuk, a scribbler at the Weekly Standard, who specializes in making excuses for the Ethiopia invasion, an affair wholly rigged by the United States. According to Serchuk and the neocons, the "Somalia problem came to metastasize over the past six months," and Somalia is not simply "a failed state that could be occasionally exploited by terrorists," but "an active and steadfast ally of the global jihadist movement," thus the "Combined Joint Task Force-Horn of Africa... at Camp Lemonier in Djibouti.... constitutes the U.S. military's first post-9/11 outpost in sub-Saharan Africa."
As Serchuk readily admits, this task force fits "squarely with what last year's Quadrennial Defense Review" proposed, that is a "shifting emphasis" toward the use of "surrogates" in the war on terror, that is to say proxies will do the bidding of the neocons in the hundred or more year "war" planned for us and our children, and our children's children.
Thus the attack against "al-Qaeda" may be considered yet another in a series of attacks against "Islamofascists" in Africa, as effete and bilious chicken hawks, hiding out in their comfy academic and think-tank lairs, are keen to chase Muslims hither and thither--or have National Guard kids from Nebraska chase them--as the neocon "clash of civilizations" plan dictates.
Oh, coincidentally, the American oil giants Conoco, Amoco, Chevron and Phillips hold concession rights in Somalia. According to the Los Angeles Times, "corporate and scientific documents disclosed that the American companies are well positioned to pursue Somalia's most promising potential oil reserves the moment the nation is pacified," that is to say after a suitable number of Muslims are killed and a requisite dictatorship takes hold, as the rule of Mohammed Siad Barre didn't exactly work out as planned back in the 90s.
"Somalia is of geostrategic interest to the Bush administration, and the focus of operations and policy since 2001," writes Larry Chin. "This focus is a continuation of long-term policies of both the Clinton administration and the George H.W. Bush administrations. Somalia's resources have been eyed by Western powers since the days of the British Empire."
"A new US cleansing of Somalian 'tyranny' would open the door for these US oil companies to map and develop the possibly huge oil potential in Somalia," notes F. William Engdahl. "Yemen and Somalia are two flanks of the same geological configuration, which holds large potential petroleum deposits, as well as being the flanks of the oil chokepoint from the Red Sea."
No doubt, as kissing cousins to the neolibs, who are primarily interested in "free trade" fire sales, the neocons have taken note of the potential for a Somalian oil and gas bonanza, especially with China eager to get in on the game with its insatiable thirst for petroleum. However, neocons are known primarily for their sociopathic hatred and fear of Muslims, be they Arab or African, and that is the immediate impetus behind their current fascination with the impoverish "failed state" (failed because it was ruled by Muslims) of Somalia.
"And even when the media are looking the other way, our enemies are not," rants Vance Serchuk, AEI research fellow. "Ayman al-Zawahiri, al Qaeda's number two, has already issued a recording calling Somalia 'one of the crusader battlefields that are being launched by America ... against Islam,' a message that will no doubt resonate in the Muslim world."
But of course, as the neocons believe, or rather expect us to believe, such messages, issued by documented intelligence assets, "resonate" in Islamic "failed states," that is to say states inching up the neocon target list, as should be expected so long as these career criminals remain on the loose and are not forced to do the perp walk in orange jumpsuits.
Reprinted from: http://kurtnimmo.com/?p=713``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xNeocons Attack 'al-Qaeda' in Somalia``x1168363603,42506,Development``x``x
``xBy Reason Wafawarova
The Herald (Harare)
March 6, 2007
IT is very interesting to follow the trend of U.S. hegemony as it rose from 1945, the time its cousin authority, the British Empire was collapsing.
U.S. hegemony has grown to what it is at the expense of weaker nations and driven by the strategy of exploiting stand-for-nothing governments and non-state actors.
As Antonio Gramsci says, a crisis arises when something starts being born in a place occupied by something that has not finished dying.
As the British colonial empires began to collapse in the 1950s and the U.S. capitalist global hegemony was being born there was a crisis emerging as the former British, French and Portuguese colonies embraced the socialist and communist ideology ahead of the U.S-led capitalist agenda.
The crisis of the dying British Empire and the emerging U.S. Empire became what we now commonly know as the Cold War.
This was a crisis characterised by the Mutually Agreed Destruction; absolute dirty games in the intelligence world, the rising of U.S./British sponsored dictators in Latin America, Asia, the Middle East and Africa as well as the notorious proxy wars. The club of sponsored dictators included Zaire's Mobutu Sese Seko, Uganda's Idi Amin, Chile's Augustino Pinochet, Iraq's Saddam Hussein and Juan Vicente Gomez of Venezuela.
The club of proxy warlords would include Angola's Jonasi Savimbi, Mozambique's Alphonso Dhlakama and Osama bin Laden in the Afghan-based war against the Soviet Union.
From the onset of its launching, the U.S. empire has sought to support and prop up ideological blank pages by packaging sets of highly attractive but often irrelevant ideas into the minds of any identifiable ideological tabula rasas.
Zimbabwe's own main opposition political party, the MDC, is a classical example of a political party whose leader is a top class ideological blank page. The U.S. often addresses such people as moderates or simply as democratic.
The founding president of the now-fractured MDC has been described as such by the western media on many occasions and this is why it is important that we uncover the U.S. project with unprincipled people or what we would call ideological tabula rasas.
As already mentioned one of the first strategies to thwart the spread of communism and socialism was the use of force.
This was the era of military coups and U.S.-sponsored civil wars in Latin America, Africa and Asia. U.S.-backed rebels became a common phenomenon in the second half of the 20th century.
The justification for these wars was a recklessly packaged propaganda parcel that said communism was so evil that one was meant to share his wife with all other man, to leave your ignition keys on when you park "your" car so that anyone who needed the car could have access to it and where a poor man could just walk into your mansion with a legion of mucus-covered kids and occupy part of your mansion.
It was a war of ideologies which had gone so bad that the Americans had resorted to using force and media power to counter their rivals, the Soviet Union who were basically enjoying admiration from the new states which were breaking the yoke of colonialism.
Needless to say, there is no success story with any of the sponsored rebels including those who managed to take over power.
There is always no success story with associating with the Americans as Saddam, Mobutu, General Noriega, Idi Amin, Abel Muzorewa, Jonas Savimbi and Alfonso Dhlakama would easily testify.
As a follow-up to the proxy wars and military coups of the Cold War the U.S. came up with a post-Cold War neo-liberal package which it successfully imposed on many indebted countries, Zimbabwe included.
This was the 1989 Washington Consensus codified by John Williamson.
This was a neo-liberal programme to spread the ruthlessness of crude capitalism on former socialist and communist countries through a ten-point plan which latter became widely known as ESAP or Economic Structural Adjustment Programmes.
This is the programme one can easily get killed for praising in Singapore, Malaysia, Venezuela, Peru and many other countries which were ravaged to rock bottom poverty by the IMF-driven Washington Consensus.
Zimbabwe embraced the poison in exchange for promised loans and debt relief from the IMF and that is how the country bade farewell to its expanding mass education programme.
That is how Zimbabwe first met the reality of inflation, this was when people on social welfare were told to tighten their belts.
That was when the country privatised accommodation and catering services at state universities, that was when the young workforce was retrenched amid promises of endless job opportunities after a bit of belt-tightening.
Yes, that was when the Government of the people first had problems with its own urban population as the belt-tightening game ceased to be fun.
Indeed, that was the perfect opportunity for the U.S. and its Western allies to quickly identify "moderate democrats", the euphemism for puppets and that is how Zimbabwe ended up with this clownish outfit trading as Morgan Tsvangirai and his MDC.
The MDC united or split is basically a group that knows no principles, ideology or policies. The factions are united on a protest resolve to allow western forces to operate freely in Zimbabwe's economic space while the puppets occupy the political space.
Their feeble attempt at talking policy would always hide the phrase "western forces" under the rhetoric of "market forces".
It can not be denied that we have a Government that was once partly fooled and coerced into enforcing policies that created the very disaster which gives the MDC the platform to hijack urban protests to mobilise an ideologically confused protest movement.
The error of the 1990s does not make another U.S. project admirable.
ESAP was a Washington economic project in as much as the MDC is a Washington political project and supporting the MDC is therefore akin to having a defensive soccer player allowing a repeat of a humiliating dribbling stunt from the same striker.
That is a terrible experience for all that have played or followed soccer and it is normally a sign of coming defeat.
The U.S. has closed the era of the SAPs as they call ESAPs and has embarked on a new campaign to perpetuate its hegemony.
This is the campaign of neo-liberal democracy, that other shiny package of "limitless freedoms" and liberties which the MDC preaches so much about but has no clue on its implementation even within its own organisational structures.
This is a campaign on absolute freedoms based on speech, expression, association, property rights and the right to make the country ungovernable.
Neo-liberal democracy is the pretext upon which the Americans invaded Iraq and now they have a crisis on how they should be handling their defeat there.
It is the pretext they used to be in Afghanistan and the same pretext they used to come up with the so-called Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act.
It is the pretext they use to call their perceived enemies "axes of evil, dictators, despots, tyrants, extremists and rogue or failed states."
Democracy as a model of governance will always be excellent but America's version of democracy is a sham.
It is not designed for governance but for fomenting conflict between the middle class and the lower class of the developing countries.
The major problem Zimbabwe faces today are the converts of neo-liberalism, the western-trained or western convinced economists, lawyers, politicians and even hangers on.
These are the people who do not see beyond the riches neo-liberal capitalism has bestowed on them through ESAP while sidelining the rest of the people to untold suffering.
They squeak and cry foul when the poor are given land, they shout in bitterness when multinational companies are made to pay the right amount of tax, they urge the Government to do everything possible to keep their masters happy in the economy because that way they continue to benefit.
Part of Zimbabwe's middle class, together with the MDC; have agreed to be part of the hand that continues to oppress citizens.
All well-meaning Zimbabweans should swear before each other and by God that they will not rest before breaking this yoke of oppression that changes form and format at the nation's expense.
Reprinted from:
http://allafrica.com/stories/200703060076.html``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe: America's Version of Democracy a Sham``x1173219724,4349,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xInjured Tsvangirai taken to hospital
guardian.co.uk
Zimbabwean opposition leader sent for hospital tests after appearing in court with deep head wound from what activists say was attempt by police to kill him.
Zimbabwe: State Warns MDC Against Lawlessness
The Herald (Harare)
March 13, 2007
THE Government has warned the MDC against engaging in violent activities, saying it will not fold its arms and watch the opposition unleash lawlessness.
Minister of Home Affairs Cde Kembo Mohadi said it was the duty of the regulating authority (police) in a given area to impose a ban on all politically-related demonstrations and rallies if they had reasonable grounds to suspect the gatherings might disturb peace.
The minister said this at a Press conference last night flanked by his deputy Cde Obert Matshalaga and Police Commissioner Augustine Chihuri.
The regulatory authorities -- who are Officers Commanding Districts -- have the power to issue the ban without consulting the police commissioner or even the minister.
The powers are given to them under Section 27 of the Public Order and Security Act.
But if those whose activities are banned have a grievance, they can appeal to the minister who could vary, uphold or set aside such an order.
Cde Mohadi said following the ban on rallies in Harare and Chitungwiza by police last month, the MDC appealed to him on March 8, 2007 through their lawyers.
He said he responded to them and set March 17 as the date on which he would consider their appeal.
But POSA clearly stated that noting an appeal did not suspend the order of a regulatory authority, the minister said.
"This order was still standing and they decided to go ahead and convene the meeting disregarding the standing order given," said Cde Mohadi.
Cde Mohadi said last weekend's planned gathering was not a prayer meeting as the opposition had claimed under the so-called Save Zimbabwe Campaign co-ordinated by the MDC's purported Democratic Resistance Committees (DRC) and other anti-Government civic organisations.
"It was not a prayer meeting because there are flyers which said it was an MDC defiance campaign and they were coercing people to attend the rally," said Cde Mohadi.
"As police, we could not just stand by and see the country go on fire. So we deployed and managed to quell the disturbances. The leaders of the opposition (Morgan) Tsvangirai and (Arthur) Mutambara were actually commanding (hooligans) using children as shields.
The flyers read: "Save Zimbabwe Rally. MDC Defiance Campaign. MDC joins other democratic forces under the auspices of the Save Zimbabwe Campaign for the rally to be held on 11 March 2007 at Zimbabwe Grounds in Highfield, starting at 10am. 'It is defiance or death'."
Spokesperson of the Save Zimbabwe Campaign Jacob Mafume told reporters at a Press conference yesterday that they would continue to defy the law.
"We are not going to stop," he said.
But Cde Mohadi said they were just provoking a situation whose consequences they would regret.
"We are not going to be found wanting. We will enforce the law to its fullest. We expect people to adhere to the law."
He dismissed claims that police were in defiance of any court order, saying no member of the police force was served with the High Court order giving the green-light for the MDC to hold a rally at Zimbabwe Grounds in Highfield two weeks ago.
He said the arrested persons were in custody pending finalisation of investigations.
The minister took a swipe at Commonwealth Secretary General Mr Don McKinnon, saying he had no right to comment about Zimbabwe as it had long ceased to be a member of the grouping of mostly former British colonies.
"What has he got to do with Zimbabwe? We are not a member of the Commonwealth. We long moved out of the Commonwealth. We are not interfering with the Commonwealth."
Mr McKinnon was quoted on the BBC saying they had tried everything on Zimbabwe and did not know whether they should send a batallion.
The Herald is reliably informed that late yesterday afternoon the ambassadors of Germany, Britain and Sweden came unannounced to see Cde Chihuri at Police General Headquarters. They were turned away because they did not notify the police of their visit and were not even accompanied by an officer from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs as per diplomatic procedures.
It is believed they panicked over the unearthing of the plans they had mooted with the MDC. Cde Mohadi said the agenda of the MDC was regime change and they were paying youths to engage in violence.
"Although I have not got confirmation from the Police Commissioner, it would appear the report is credible. Government expects ambassadors to be procedural in their interface with Government and all diplomatic routes must be channelled through the Foreign Ministry," said Secretary for Information and Publicity Cde George Charamba.
MDC faction leaders Tsvangirai and Mutambara were arrested together with faction secretary general Tendai Biti, secretary for information and publicity Nelson Chamisa, his deputy Grace Kwinjeh, secretary for policy and research Sekai Holland and Job Sikhala, who is aligned to the Mutambara faction.
National Constitutional Assembly chairman Lovemore Madhuku was also arrested together with several other suspects, who are also in police custody.
The opposition and civic leaders were arrested in Highfield for allegedly going around inciting the people to engage in violent acts.
Police chief spokesperson Assistant Commissioner Wayne Bvudzijena said the eight were still in custody and were expected to appear in court soon.
"We are still detaining them with a view to preferring charges of public violence and instigating public violence," Asst Comm Bvudzijena said.
He said no arrests were made as of yesterday but investigations were continuing.
"We are still investigating the case and we will leave no stone unturned in our efforts to protect the public and to maintain law and order," Asst Comm Bvudzijena said.
He indicated that the police would screen and release those exonerated.
The opposition supporters, under the so-called Save Zimbabwe Campaign, had running battles with the police on Sunday which left one person dead and property worth millions of dollars destroyed.
Yesterday afternoon, diplomats from European Union countries accredited to Zimbabwe thronged at Harvest House, the Tsvangirai MDC faction's headquarters, to show their solidarity with the arrested opposition leaders.
Sources within the opposition said the faction's deputy president, Ms Thokozani Khupe, who is the acting party leader, addressed ambassadors from Western countries.
More than 20 vehicles with diplomatic registration numbers were parked along Nelson Mandela Avenue, almost causing a traffic jam as the diplomats came to get a briefing from the opposition officials.
In Highfield, business resumed and traders were operating normally at Machipisa and Gazaland shopping centres which were virtual war zones at the weekend as MDC supporters clashed with the police.
Police still maintained some presence in the suburb keeping vigil of the situation.
At Machipisa Police Station, Tsvangirai's Mercedes Benz, Chamisa's Nissan twin cab and Madhuku's Peugeot 306 could be seen parked within the grounds.
A police officer armed with a rifle was manning the gate at the police station.
http://www.herald.co.zw/inside.aspx?sectid=16285&cat=1``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe: Morgan Tsvangirai sent to hospital``x1173799825,80485,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xMugabe opponent in intensive care after arrest
The Zimbabwean opposition leader, Morgan Tsvangirai, was being treated in intensive care today for wounds apparently sustained while in police custody, his spokesman said.
The leader of the Movement for Democratic Change was taken to hospital yesterday after spending two days in custody following his arrest at an anti-government demonstration at the weekend.
His appearance in court yesterday with a deep head wound, swollen face and a limp prompted international condemnation amid accusations that he had been tortured by police.
Full Article : guardian.co.uk``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xMugabe opponent in intensive care after arrest``x1173875430,67879,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xThe latest negative media blitz on Zimbabwe manipulates what appear to be injuries sustained by Morgan Tsvangirai following a clash he had with the police after taking part in an MDC organized protest.
Morgan Tsvangirai, in alliance with Britain and the White settlers, regularly calls on the international community to impose comprehensive sanctions against the Zimbabwe government and President Robert Mugabe.
Morgan Tsvangirai is the leader of the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) - one of the opposition parties in Zimbabwe that lost in Zimbabwe's 2005 Parliamentary Elections.
Full Article : africaspeaks.com``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xU.S. and Britain are Fueling Violence in Zimbabwe``x1173974740,66462,Development``x``x
``xPRESIDENT Mugabe yesterday told Western countries criticising the Government for dealing with violent opposition MDC members to "go hang".
He said the West was condemning the Government for punishing perpetrators of violence but ignoring the violent acts of the opposition, which have left a trail of destruction and seriously injured policewomen and men.
"When they criticise Government when it tries to prevent violence and punish perpetrators of that violence, we take the position that they can go hang," said President Mugabe.
He was responding to questions from journalists at State House after holding talks with Tanzanian President Jakaya Kikwete.
"This is the West, which has always supported the opposition here and elsewhere. We do not accept their criticism at all.
"Here are groups of persons who went out of their way to effect a campaign of violence.
"We hear no criticism of this campaign from Western governments. None of these (Western) missions here have said a word against that campaign of violence," said Cde Mugabe.
Full Article : herald.co.zw
Here is a link to the Guardian UK's article 'Zimbabwe president defiant but violence may be turning African leaders against him' that shows the divide and rule game the West in playing with African nations is working. The Guardian UK like other Western media has always been hostile to the efforts to reclaim lands from White settlers in Zimbabwe. - Ayinde``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe: Go hang, President tells West``x1174057782,12555,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy David Samuriwo, www.herald.co.zw
March 16, 2007
ON Monday, I attended a Press conference at Harvest House addressed by Thokozani Khupe, the vice president of the MDC Tsvangirai faction.
A few Zimbabwean journalists, Western diplomats and mostly foreign stringers disguised as diplomats attended the Press conference.
According to Khupe, the "chilling reality was that the police were now using live ammunition on innocent unarmed people, as a result, a well-known MDC activist -- Gift Tandare -- became a victim of police heavy handedness" when he was gunned down near Mhizha Primary School in Highfield.
According to sources, Tandare, who was the MDC Tsvangirai Glen View district youth chairman and a member of the security committee, was the ringleader of the assailants. A few years ago, he was also implicated in the burning of a Zupco bus in Glen View.
Khupe's version of events was totally different from what really transpired on that fateful Sunday afternoon, when a group of police officers, making their way towards Kutsanana Bar in Highfield, came under heavy attack from MDC youths.
The youths were pelting the officers with stones and also firing round metal bolts from catapults. Above all, they were armed with an assortment of teargas canisters which they threw at the police officers.
They were being ordered to advance and disarm the police officers. With my own ears, I heard the officers fire at least nineteen rounds of live ammunition, but this did not deter the youths who kept advancing towards the cornered policemen.
Left with no other choice, I saw one officer take aim and fire, Tandare fell down. The rest of the group immediately retreated and fled the scene.
Sensing danger, I drove home to Kuwadzana only to be confronted by another group of rowdy MDC youths who demanded that I ferry them to Kuwadzana Police Station in my Mazda B16 pick-up truck.
A neighbour who recognised me pleaded with the youth to let me go. They eventually did, but after breaking my front windscreen for no apparent reason.
I also saw a senior member of the MDC Tsvangirai faction, who is the former president of an income generating project that masqueraded as a political grouping, dolling out money to a group of about 100 MDC youths, part of the group that had damaged my car.
This group then made its way towards Kuwadzana Police Station where they threw teargas canisters. The police reacted by firing warning shots in the air and the attackers immediately dispersed.
This same group proceeded to the Kuwadzana/Bulawayo Roundabout where they stopped and overturned a commuter omnibus.
A few minutes later, another Kombi presumably from Botswana, judging from the luggage, was stopped and the occupants forced out. Their luggage was searched and anything of value looted.
The youths then doused the Kombi with petrol, and torched it, reducing it to a shell.
Six other private vehicles were stoned, while a Peugeot 404 was overturned.
It boggles the mind to fathom how a "small prayer" meeting ostensibly organised under the banner of non-violence, freedom of association and democracy could suddenly turn out to be an orgy of violence, looting and arson. The benefit of doubt could have been given if the violence took place in Highfield alone where the prayer meeting was supposed to be held.
That the violence simultaneously took place in different locations does not only suggest a well co-ordinated plan of civil disobedience, but points to well-planned acts of violence calculated to make the country ungovernable.
Sun Tzu, a Chinese military strategist who lived about 2500 years ago, saying that "all warfare is based on deception" is still plausible to this day. His critics were also right. They said deception could only be successful if the enemy is unaware of that deception.
Khupe cannot fool everyone by stating that a prayer meeting does not require police clearance under the Public Order and Security Act.
Sunday's orgy of violence and looting was definitely not a prayer meeting. The deception theory dismally failed here.
Khupe's assertion that the MDC remains unwavering in its commitment to bring peaceful change flies in the face of events that occurred on that Sunday and subsequently.
According to Khupe, Morgan Tsvangirai and fellow faction leader Arthur Mutambara were arrested while on their way to attend a Save Zimbabwe prayer meeting organised by the Christian Alliance of Zimbabwe.
Perhaps it is prudent for Khupe and her sidekicks to re-strategise.
Except for fly-by-night journalists, local journalists are aware that the Christian Alliance, Save Zimbabwe Campaign, both factions of the MDC, Lovemore Madhuku's NCA, Zinasu and a host of other such organisations are being fed from the same trough.
The American Embassy, through its Ambassador, Christopher Dell recently released funds to support the violent campaign.
Security forces have a duty to guard against any usurpation of the country's Constitution. Paid demonstrators will remain just that. They can never be genuine because they lack conviction in whatever they demonstrate against.
In essence, they will remain hired hands. If at all, the MDC has the support it claims to have why does it resort to paying its supporters to take to the streets?
Last Sunday's orgy of violence is a typical revelation how a country's constitution can be manipulated by paid hooligans.
The dolling out of cash at Kuwadzana by a senior official of the MDC said it all.
The much publicised report by the International Crisis Group made very interesting revelations.
It calls for increased funding for training and other capacity building assistance to all democratic forces in Zimbabwe.
This has been going on for quite some time even before this announcement. Capacity building funds have seen the MDC establish a core group of violent youth militias they call Democratic Resistance Committees.
On Wednesday, a cell of the democratic resistance committees attacked a house, in military precision, at Marimba Police station seriously injuring three police officers.
American secretary of state Condoleezza Rice, gleefully views all this violence as Government orchestrated yet it is precisely her government that is funding the MDC to foment anarchy in this country.
Constables Pretty Mushonga, Busani Moyo and Brenda Makamba are now at Parirenyatwa Hospital disfigured by the attack that can at best be described as a military style operation carried out by paid MDC thugs.
Also, in a military style attack, Nehanda Police post in Mkoba 16, Gweru was attacked with petrol bombs and teargas canisters almost at the same time as the attack at Marimba.
Zimbabwe's neighbours must be told loud and clear that the violence Zimbabwe is currently experiencing is a direct result of enormous funding, especially from the American Embassy, to the so-called MDC DRCs.
As such, the Government will not fold its arms while these elements, akin to the then rebel Renamo, and Unita movements of Mozambique, and Angola terrorise the nation.
It is obvious that the consequences of such action are too ghastly to contemplate.
Already Gift Tandare has lost his life; Constables Moyo, and Mushonga, and to a certain extent Makamba seriously injured, and probably disfigured.
How many more innocent Zimbabwean lives are still to be lost through actions of foreign governments bent on imposing their will on Zimbabwe?
I had a belief a long time ago and do still believe that without outside interference Zimbabwe could have solved its problems many seasons ago. It is only concerted interference by the US government and its allies in the European Union that has worsened things.
The bottom line is, law enforcement agencies should respond to this national security threat in an appropriate and deterrent manner.
Any threats, intimidation or noise from powerful, guilty Western nations should be dismissed and ignored with the contempt they deserve.
Reprinted from:
www.herald.co.zw/inside.aspx?sectid=16410&cat=10``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe: Deal decisively with security threat``x1174063608,12477,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xZimbabwe has declined an invitation to the 24th France-Africa Summit that starts in Cannes, France, today because of certain conditions tied to it. In a statement yesterday, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs said Zimbabwe had initially not been invited and had rejected attempts to extend a conditional invitation. "The Ministry wishes to state that Zimbabwe was not invited to the Summit. However, enquiries were made as to whether the Government of Zimbabwe would accept an invitation with certain conditions attached to it. The Government of Zimbabwe indicated that it would not accept such an invitation," Foreign Affairs spokesperson Ms Charity Nzenza said. The Herald understands that the French government dispatched former Mozambican President Mr Joaquim Chissano to Harare towards the end of to last year with Zimbabwe’s invitation and to inform President Mugabe of the conditions attached to the invitation. Diplomatic sources said the invitation was pleading with President Mugabe to decline to attend and delegate either one of the Vice Presidents or the Foreign Minister.
Full Article : actsa.org``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZim rejects conditional invitation to summit``x1174108232,25144,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xHARARE, March 16 (Bernama) -- Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe on Thursday hit out at Europe for continuing to meddle in the politics of the country, saying government does not accept the West's criticism of its reaction to the spate of violence being unleashed by opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) supporters.
Speaking to reporters just before meeting his Tanzanian counterpart, Jakaya Mrisho Kikwete, at State House to discuss various issues, including the volatile political situation prevailing in the country, the President accused the West of practicing double standards when dealing with political issues in Zimbabwe.
"Here groups of people were let out of the way to effect a campaign of violence and there was no criticism at all. None of these Missions have said a word in regard to that campaign and now when they criticise the government that is trying to prevent violence and punish the perpetrators of that violence, then we take the position that they can go hang," Zimbabwe's New Ziana news agency quoted Mugabe as saying, in reference to unconditional statements of support to the MDC by a number of western governments, including those of Britain, America and New Zealand.
Mugabe said his government does not brook any foreign interference in the politics of the country.
Full Article : bernama.com.my``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xPresident Mugabe Accuses EU Of Meddling ...``x1174144288,23200,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Ayinde
rastafaritimes@yahoo.com
March 17, 2007
It appears that Desmond Tutu, among others, have bought the stories of what transpired in Zimbabwe from Morgan Tsvangirai and the Western media, all of whom are against President Mugabe's land reclamation exercise. How else can one explain Tutu's strong condemnation of Zimbabwe's government?
There is evidence that the clash between Morgan Tsvangirai, together with his small band of supporters and the police was orchestrated by Tsvangirai. Tsvangirai has been trying to position himself centre stage, despite his defeat at the 2005 polls. He and his cohorts provoked a violent confrontation with the police, then cried abuse. This incident was staged. Little is being said about the police officers that were beaten by this small band of protesters. BBC's Eyewitness account of what transpired shows how youths are being coerced to wreak havoc on the country.
President Mugabe's government delayed Zimbabwe's land reform program so that Zimbabwe's liberation struggle would not overshadow negotiations for South Africa's liberation. In the article 'Zimbabwe land reform waited for SA' (28/07/2005) President Thabo Mbeki stated:
"The Zimbabwe government delayed its land-reform programme so that negotiations for South Africa's liberation succeeded, said President Thabo Mbeki on Thursday.
"They slowed down to get the negotiations in this country to succeed," said Mbeki as he arrived at the land summit without prior notification.
He said that when South Africa was negotiating its transition to democracy, around the time which Zimbabwe had started its land reform programme, the Organisation of African Unity had asked Zimbabwe to stop the programme as it would 'frighten the apartheid government in South Africa.'"
Zimbabwe under President Mugabe sacrificed much to assist the struggle in South Africa. It is only fitting that South Africa assist Zimbabwe in dealing with outside interferences from the U.S. and Europe in their attempts to prevent the ongoing effort to reclaim lands from the White settlers.
Land is one of the main issues in Zimbabwe's liberation struggle. A return of the land that was stolen should be the primary concern for all African nations in the liberation struggle.
Shame on any African nation that calls itself free when the best agricultural lands remain in the hands of White settlers. Is it not a shame that a rich continent feels dependant on these former colonial countries? It is a colonial mindset that maintains the fallacy that Africans cannot take care of their own affairs and must have White overlords in order to progress.
One of the legacies of colonialism is the dependency syndrome that developed. The worst of it comes from those who hold on to these colonial institutions and their pompous titles.
Where is Desmond Tutu's condemnation of the illegal U.S./Ethiopian invasion of Somalia? It seems he has no problem with 'truth and reconciliation' for letting Whites off the hook - the same Whites in and out of South Africa who are responsible for the deaths of countless Africans. His vilest comments should be reserved for George Bush, Tony Blair and others who are responsible for countless genocidal murders along with a multitude of crimes against humanity.
It should be obvious to all that the U.S., Britain and their lacquey Morgan Tsvangirai have no respect for the rule of law and democracy in Zimbabwe. Having failed at the ballot, they are trying to force the democratically elected government in Zimbabwe out of office.
Zimbabweans and their government should never cave into the U.S., British and White settlers' plan to destabilize the country. The Zimbabwe government should not allow the minority opposition forces in the country or abroad to chaotically run rampant in order to make the country ungovernable.
Africans the world over should be firm in demanding that lands in Africa be returned to the Africans they were taken from and that proper monetary compensation be paid. Africans should never allow the U.S. and Europe to choose our friends and enemies for us. We should not allow the enticement of economic aid and trade to be used as a weapon against other Africans.
Shame on all who have allowed the U.S. and Europe to get away with genocide. Shame on those not willing to stand for the completion of the Liberation struggle.
Reconciliation is a farce! The truth is there can be no reconciliation without justice.
Also Read:
U.S. and Britain are Fueling Violence in Zimbabwe
By Ayinde
Zimbabwe: White Lies, Black Victims
By Rosemary Ekosso
Zimbabwe Under Siege
By Gregory Elich
Visit Zimbabwe Watch:
www.raceandhistory.com/Zimbabwe
Email: zimbabwecrisis@yahoo.com``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xLack of Support for Zimbabwe's Land Reform is Africa's Shame``x1174144325,87077,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xRobert Mugabe: A Servant Not Knowing His Place
By K. Elford
Posted: March 17, 2007
How do we know that the U.S. and Europe are behind the efforts to overthrow President Robert Mugabe?
According to William Blum: "Same way we know that the sun will rise tomorrow morning. That's what it's always done and there's no reason to think that tomorrow morning will be any different."
What is going on in Zimbabwe that has brought the western media out in full force? The stories being bandied about and manipulated by the media seem to be focusing on some claims of abuse to Morgan Tsvangirai. According to articles in the media, the opposition party MDC led by Morgan Tsvangirai has been operating to take down the current government of Zimbabwe for some time. As far back as 2000, Tsvangirai was threatening violence against Zimbabwe's President Robert Mugabe. These are calculated activities taking place in Zimbabwe on an ongoing basis.
It is reported in the media that Tsvangirai's MDC faction had already made a pledge to organize mass civil disobedience for some time. Other opposition groups, who have ties to the Christian Alliance that spearheads the Save Zimbabwe Campaign with the same agenda - to stop the land seizures being implemented and to remove President Robert Mugabe's government - have been staging protests relentlessly (Save Zimbabwe Campaign's Effectiveness and Viability In Question 30 November 2006).
Why all the attention on this particular protest? It can be argued that the excessive media attention is focusing on the opposition leader being injured in what appears to be a violent confrontation with the police. But this is not what we are getting via the media reports that have already declared human rights abuses at the hands of the government. Protests staged in any country often invite violence to later claim suppression and brutalization. Rarely do these worldwide protests receive the amount of media attention glaring on this recent protest in Zimbabwe except when there is a U.S./European backed attempt at 'regime change' in a country.
The bottom line on this sudden intensification of interest in the internal affairs of Zimbabwe by western governments and media is in opposition to the White settlers losing the stolen land they once occupied. They intend to punish Mugabe for daring to redress this grave injustice. The United States, Britain, White settlers and organizations formed for the purpose of giving the impression of widespread organized opposition to Robert Mugabe are willing to do whatever it takes to maintain White settler (European) domination in Zimbabwe.
The media frenzy involving Zimbabwe goes back to the land seizures from White settlers.
The United States and Britain try to cover all their bases as they try to destabilize more targets sighted in their longstanding agenda of world dominance. They do manage to find some unusual bedfellows as accomplices. These deceptions are too common these days to be believable. It would be nice if those making the loudest condemnations against the Zimbabwe government could see these events for what they are. I rather suspect many are simply being paid to make noise. Most of the reports in the western media are saying the same things with the same tone which demonstrates a U.S./European concentrated effort to force the Zimbabwe government from office.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xAll the Signs of US/European Govt Interference in Zimbabwe``x1174176994,53686,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xMugabe accuses MDC of terror
news24.com
Johannesburg - Zimbabwe's President Robert Mugabe has accused the opposition party of perpetrating terrorist attacks on innocent civilians in a bid to oust his government, a newspaper reported Sunday.
Mugabe, 83, has defiantly rejected a torrent of international condemnation following the beating of opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai and a number of his colleagues last week.
He says the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) is a violent party sponsored by former colonial power Britain and other Western allies.
Speaking at a ceremony to mark International Women's Day in the capital Harare on Saturday, Mugabe said the authorities would brook no more lawless behaviour from the MDC.
"We have given too much room to mischief-makers and shameless stooges of the West," Mugabe was quoted as saying in the Sunday Mail.
"Scores of innocent people going about their legitimate business have fallen prey to terrorist attacks that are part of the desperate and illegal plot to unconstitutionally change the government of the country," he added.
He was addressing government ministers, MPs, religious groups and NGOs at a belated ceremony to mark International Women's Day under the theme: Ending Impunity for Violence Against Women.
www.news24.com/News24/Africa/Zimbabwe/0,9294,2-11-1662_2085397,00.html
Email: zimbabwecrisis@yahoo.com``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe's opposition perpetrating terrorist attacks``x1174225618,61064,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xThere are Economic Sanctions on Zimbabwe by the West, the MDC is complicit and MUST renounce them
By Tadios Chisango
March 18, 2007
I have a bold claim to make: that nothing but the economic sanctions imposed on our country by the "Western world", with the complicity of the MDC, accounts for the economic decline that we have witnessed. As such, the MDC's connivance with the West to ferment the economic collapse takes away their legitimacy as a Zimbabwean political party. The MDC may legitimately and credibly be against Zanu (PF), but when they deliberately, or unwittingly courted Western sanctions that now render the living conditions of an ordinary Zimbabwe at Machipisa shopping centre insufferable, they downgraded to a much lower and sinister plane where they can never claim any legal, political or moral right: being anti-Zimbabwe.
The plan could have been quite astute on the MDC's part, and probably beneficial to the majority of Zimbabweans, if it had worked. Sub-plan 1: engage Western powers, South Africa, Zimbabwe's biggest partner in trade on the continent, SADC, other African countries etc to precipitate the fall of the economy. Sub-plan 2: incite people to revolt against the incumbent Government, either through the ballot, popular uprisings, or through the bullet, oust them, and get into power. Sub-plan 3: Mend diplomatic relations with the West, ask for revocation of sanctions, court their investment, re-establish rule of law etc and you have the ingredients of a bling-bling economy once again. Who would have the last laugh? Morgan. What a good plotter! As it stands right now, sub-plan 1 has worked rather successfully: the West has imposed some sanctions on Zimbabwe, but not South Africa nor other SADC nations nor other African countries. The West stands out as the only bloc of the world that has imposed sanctions on Zimbabwe, and we beg for an answer! Sub-plan 2 has worked to some extent, but has had a quite crucial paradoxical effect: entrenching Mugabe further into power; Sub-plan 3 lies in a perpetual limbo, perhaps never to happen.
The MDC have thus put our people in a never-ending crossfire, because they never had a back-up plan in case the sanctions did not work. Did they ever sign an agreement with the Western powers that if the sanctions did not work for a certain period, they would call them off? No, they did not! In fact, what they did not realise was that although they were fighting a common war with the "West" against Mugabe and his Government, the motives only correlated, but did not necessarily originate from the same source. The West won't relent until their ends have been met, and all this while it's our people who suffer. They obviously have nothing to lose if Zimbabweans starve. They will be able to sustain and retain their more dominant motives until they the MDC are able to get into power and satisfy the West's motives. Albeit I am not sure of the MDC's capacity to convince the West to take off the sanctions on Zimbabwe, what I am completely sure of is that they are readily being used as a pawn to justify the sanctions. The sanctions, through a myriad of processes, make it ever more financially difficult for my mother to be cured of her high blood pressure at High Glen hospital! While in the short or long run, the MDC may not be able to use this pawnship to get to power, it is surely destroying our economy. In a nutshell, I believe the benefit-cost ratio of the sanctions to our people and to our economy has since reached a highly negative value whose effects may never be undone.
Western Sanctions, the MDC's complicity and the Economy:
Enumerating the economic sanctions and documenting their direct effects in total on Zimbabwe is not an easy task, practically. The difficulty of this task should not necessarily mean that there are no sanctions on Zimbabwe, however. What is possible, and that other writers before me have tried to do is to demonstrate that there are definitely some economic sanctions by the West targeted upon the entirety of Zimbabwe, not only Zanu PF officials, which the MDC and its sympathizers deny. Inferences can then be made about the full extent of the sanctions. Far from dismissing the so-called targeted sanctions, I will argue how they have adversarial effects on our economy. I will also argue that the MDC has been complicit in all the sanctions that have been imposed, or maintained, after its inception. The love-hate relationship between the IMF and the World Bank predates the formation of the MDC, for example, but its maintenance and the imposition of further sanctions (such as the Zimbabwe Democracy Bill) that entrenched it and have done further damage, have received the blessing of the MDC. If the MDC supported the sanctions unwittingly, believing they would only damage the interests of Zanu PF, its high time they acknowledged their naivety, and start repairing their damage. As long as they continue playing to the West's gallery, without openly renouncing the sanctions, they are responsible for the suffering the sanctions are meting out on our country. Once they renounce the sanctions, the West will look lame, and not have the excuse for the anti-Zimbabwe din they are currently playing to the world. At least, I hope the evidence and arguments I will present in this article graphically demonstrate the existence of the West's sanctions on Zimbabwe, as I have witnessed much denial on the part of those who support the West and the MDC.
The IMF and World Bank's Sanctions
Both the IMF and the World Bank suspended balance of payments to Zimbabwe in 1997 after the Government gave gratuities to ex-combatants. This is despite the fact that they had been assured that money would not come from investment funds, but from a package of tax increases and spending cuts. The suspension of the balance-of-payment loans invoked fears of a ballooning budget deficit that resulted in the first ever crash of the Zimbabwean dollar, and has partly facilitated the incessant fall of the Zimbabwean currency up to the present time. It must be emphasized that it is not the payments to ex-combatants that caused the decline of our currency, but the reaction of the IMF and the World Bank. Had they let it pass, as it was a one-off event anyway, I doubt it could have created an impact as huge as the unexpected cutting of crucial balance-of-payment loans. When the IMF finally agreed to provide a loan in 1999, Zimbabwe was, for the first time since independence, $20 million a month behind in its foreign debt repayment, resulting in a $190 million deficit for 1999. The sanctions were re-introduced in 2001, and still stand today.
The "Zimbabwe Democracy Bill" (2001)
The introduction of the "Zimbabwe Democracy Bill" by the US in 2001 set to entrench the financial starvation of Zimbabwe, which the IMF had been sporadically engaging in, as shown above. On December 21, 2001, US President George W. Bush signed into law S. 494, the "Zimbabwe democracy bill." The law, among other things, instructed American officials in the IMF and multilateral development banks - including the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the International Development Association, the International Finance Corporation, the Inter-American Development Bank, the Asian Development Bank, the Inter-American Investment Corporation, the African Development Bank, the African Development Fund, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and the Multilateral Investment Guaranty Agency -to "oppose and vote against any extension by the respective institution of any loan, credit, or guarantee to the government of Zimbabwe," and to vote against any reduction or cancellation of "indebtedness owed by the government of Zimbabwe."
The above are virtually all the banks IN THE WORLD which could potentially lend money to Zimbabwe. Disturbingly, Zimbabwe cannot even borrow from Africa's own banks. Prior to the bill, at least Zimbabwe could obtain credit from other international financial institutions when the IMF and the World Bank cut its credit lines. This effectively means that Zimbabwe is one of the very few countries in the world that currently exists without any balance of payments support and external lines of credit. The only external alternative Zimbabwe is left with is borrowing from other governments, which is not very easy. Only recently, Zimbabwe failed to get a loan from both South Africa and China. We should note that in the developing world in general, it is the rule rather than the exception to experience persistent trade deficits that often necessitate government from some of the above institutions. Without such external funding, no economy in the developing world survives, and Zimbabwe is no exception. From the Zimbabwean perspective, this law can only be described as "cruel". On its own, I guess it has been significant enough to plunge the economy in its present down spiral, with any other sanctions/measures only having additive effects. The support the MDC gave to the enunciation of this law renders them an enemy of our people.
In addition, the so-called Zimbabwe Democracy Bill vetoes debt relief to Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe needs debt relief now more than ever, in order to invest in capital and social development, rather than spend its already depleted foreign reserves on servicing debt. Huge debt is not necessarily a sign of mismanagement, as some people will say, so Zimbabwe should not be punished for it, unless the motive is ulterior. For everyone's information, the most indebted countries have the biggest economies in Africa and India, quite a model economy for us, is easily the most indebted developing country in the world. The US and its allies are throttling Zimbabwe's throat!
European Union Sanctions:
On February 18, 2002, the European Union's foreign to imposed sanctions against Zimbabwe. Under terms of the sanctions, The European Union suspended budgetary support to Zimbabwe and terminated "financial support for all projects" except "those in direct support of the population." All financial aid would be "reoriented in support of the population, in particular in the social sectors, democratization, respect for human rights and the rule of law." With Zimbabwe banned from obtaining credit from the IMF and the World Bank, prohibited from borrowing money from any other of the World's major financial institutions by the USA, and with Europe terminating its support, the vicious stamp on Zimbabwe comes full-cycle. It is only paradoxical that the EU has "reoriented" its support to the "population" which will inevitably be hurt by its "suspension of budgetary support and termination of financial support for all projects".
The European Union denies that it has imposed trade sanctions on Zimbabwe (pdf). At the same time, some evidence at least points to the fact that the EU has withdrawn its sugar export quota it had for Zimbabwe. If these are not trade sanctions, then what the hell are they? This actually reminds me of an interview Jonathan Moyo gave to Zimnetradio.com, in which he appeared to claim that farms seized during the land reform program had been black-listed by the European Union. Having conveniently maintained the EU and the USA as traditional markets inherited from the colonial period, any trade sanctions they impose/have imposed on Zimbabwe, whether de jure or de facto certainly can be expected to have biting effects as building new ones cannot be done overnight.
Other De Facto Sanctions:
The above example on the trade sanctions suggests that not all sanctions targeted on Zimbabwe are in Black somewhere. The view I have expressed above is buttressed by the following example:
"Zimbabwe receives an average of just $4 per HIV-infected person compared with $74 elsewhere, Ms Bellamy told reporters in Johannesburg on her last tour of Africa as head of Unicef...The world must differentiate between the politics and people of Zimbabwe," she said, as reported by the BBC.
Can somebody tell me please: what justifies the condemnation of children to death? The fact that they hate Mugabe predicts their desire to actively partake in the demise of these kids!? This is but a tip of the iceberg! They at least feel that they do not really have an obligation, and it's just an act of charity that they are helping these kids, so they have at least the guts to publish their hate. There is much behind the scenes!
Another example demonstrates the extent to which the US and British Governments are ready to go, even against individual Zimbabweans. Long after Simba Makoni resigned from the Government, the US Government successfully blocked his campaign for the post of president of the African Development Bank. Surely, it is not at all sensible that they maintain sanctions against Simba Makoni because he is a FORMER Minister of finance. And to suggest, even at the most implicit level, that Simba Makoni is, or was involved in, or supported, or facilitated, or perpetuated, any of human rights abuses in Zimbabwe is sheer nonsense!
Simba Makoni is not a full-fledged politician at all, having been incorporated into government as the Minister of finance solely on his business, not political CV and had to be fast-tracked into the politburo to make his position as the Minister get in line with Zanu PF protocols. If the West [The US and EU] say the sanctions are targeted at Zimbabwe's ruling elite, which they accuse of stifling democracy as well as violating human rights, how is Simba Makoni part of the game? How is he stifling democracy? Is he violating/has he violated any human rights? I can only guess there are other de facto sanctions the EU, the US and their satellite states have imposed on us that we haven't yet been able to understand.
Depleting our national "goodwill" through Media Demonization
I make another bold claim that the demonization the West does of Zimbabwe is tantamount to sanctions. The Herald is a Zimbabwean government owned Newspaper and the BBC is a British owned government owned broadcaster. The Herald is a government owned newspaper in Zimbabwe, and the BBC is a British government owned broadcaster. The Herald is obviously pro Zimbabwe Government and anti-British Government, while the BBC is basically anti-Zimbabwe. One major difference between the 2 is that the BBC is able to harness its resources to inform and bias world opinion on Zimbabwe. The Herald cannot inform World opinion in any concrete way that is comparable to the BBC. They are able to paint the Zimbabwean Government and society as essentially anti-White, for example, such that any "White" person may be hacked to death upon alighting a plane at the Harare airport.
They don't tell the world that the majority of the major companies, mines, and conservancies are in fact owned by Whites in Zimbabwe, and that they live quite peacefully in Zimbabwe's picturesque suburbs like Glen Lorne. They paint a grotesque picture of Mugabe willfully starving his people, but don't tell us how much the sanctions they have imposed on Zimbabwe harm ordinary people. They make millions of the world's population believe that Zimbabwe is the hell on earth full of animal-like beings perpetually scrounging for food in the rubbish dumps. To my mind, this produces a profound effect that can be captured in $ terms.
The so-called targeted sanctions
While we celebrate that Zanu PF "fat cats" are reeling under the effects of the so-called targeted sanctions, they in fact have a broad side-effect on the economy. Who wants to do business with a people whose Government is treated like dare-devils by both the USA and the EU? Again, it's a matter of depleting our national goodwill. While the EU and the USA claim there are no trade sanctions on Zimbabwe (which I have disputed above anyway) is it not necessary for the trade minister of Zimbabwe to meet his British counterpart once in a while, or any other business people in Britain and the rest of the EU, the USA, or in Australia, New Zealand and Canada? Does this have a null effect on Zimbabwe's business capacity and on its business relations with the above countries and in fact the rest of the world? We would only be very naïve to believe the opposite. In addition, some of the Zanu PF officials, no matter that we may not like them, own businesses that contribute to the GDP of the country.
Did we not become a bit perturbed the other day when the father of Prince Charles of Britain's son's girlfriend, who runs conservancies in Zimbabwe, had to defend himself on the charges by the West that his businesses dealings help sustain the "Mugabe Regime?" The man lives in Zimbabwe and is not supposed to have business links which are deemed by the West to prop the Mugabe regime? My foot! This gives us a "privileged view" into the devilish intents of the West on Zimbabwe in general, and the Zimbabweans whose livelihoods depend upon Charles Davey's operations. More recently, the Western sponsored International Crisis Group, advocated for the addition of the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe's Governor to the targeted sanctions list. I am not naïve enough to believe that this would affect Gono as an individual, with zero effect on the Reserve Bank's activities. And somebody would have me believe that the Reserve Bank is part of Mugabe's regime, and not part of the Zimbabwean economy.
Pressure on Sadc and other African countries
Within the present context, I wish to highlight the fact that the West has also tried to coerce African countries into imposing economic sanctions on Zimbabwe. They were going for a kill! For example, the Extraordinary Summit of the South African Development Community (SADC) opened in Blantyre, Malawi on January 14, 2002, Britain threatened to withhold $18 million in budgetary support from Malawi, the chair of the SADC, unless it agreed to direct the SADC towards the imposition of sanctions against Zimbabwe. This was a significant portion of Malawi's budget. Britain also held the threat of withholding aid for Malawi's food crisis. Similar threats to withdraw budgetary support were wielded against Mozambique. At the summit, President Benjamin Mkapa of Tanzania announced that British Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Baroness Amos telephoned him directly and urged him not to support Zimbabwe at the SADC and at the upcoming meeting of the Commonwealth. When that call failed, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw then telephoned and attempted to bully him. Despite intense pressure from Britain, African leaders at the March 2002 Commonwealth meeting rejected the demand for sanctions against Zimbabwe. President Mkapa of Tanzania revealed that members of the Commonwealth had endured a "bombardment of an alliance against Mugabe"
Accepting that economic sanctions exist
All in all, thus, I hope I have shown clearly that there indeed are economic sanctions against Zimbabwe by the West. I have seen a lot of MDC supporters who are either ignorant of, or deny the fact that Zimbabwe as a country is under economic sanctions by the West. The denial or ignorance is in line with the ubiquitous belief that Mugabe has single-handedly "killed the economy". This belief cannot sit comfortably with the fact that the West has knowingly introduced insufferable conditions on ordinary Zimbabweans. It's high time we accommodated the fact that there is a Western plot on our economy and acknowledge that we do not have anything to gain as a country from the sanctions. The difficulty in defining them does not mean they are not there, only to reiterate. It is very easy for powerful bully countries to fire economic "missiles" to states they are in loggerheads with. Unlike military ones, these economic missiles are invisible. We may gladly blame Mugabe the monster for attracting the sanctions, but I cannot see how and why we should justify their existence, knowing fully well that they are hurting the very people we love.
What does the West want from Zimbabwe?
I have the gumption to say that the West hates the Zimbabwe Government precisely because they are not happy that it seized the land from the "White" farmers. The rule of law, human rights, democracy, method of land reform arguments they use are mere smokescreens to conceal their real aim: they did not want the land to be seized from the White farmers, and the White farmers themselves did not want to give back the land they inherited, even if the inheritance was stolen. They did not however, have the audacity to say so, because their unjust stand would be transparently untenable. So their desire to keep the land manifests via indirect avenues that impress most...they don't fool me. I say so because the timing of the USA and EU sanctions closely corresponded with the first land takeovers. Second, the Zimbabwe Democracy Bill was partly sponsored by Senator Jesse Helms, who has long supported the Rhodesians' cause and opposed the independence of Zimbabwe. Third, the Lancaster House Constitution barred the Zimbabwean Government from re-claiming privately owned land for the first 10 years after independence perhaps to buy time. Fourth, it is important to understand that all the White countries in the World have always made a united stand against Zimbabwe since the land takeovers - USA, EU, Canada, New Zealand, and Britain. It is perfectly sensible to believe that it is only the above countries that care about the democracy and human rights of Zimbabweans.
It is amazing that they have not imposed targeted sanctions on Rwanda, as evidence continues to accumulate that the incumbent Rwandan president Kagame is the one who ordered the shooting of the former president's plane, which sparked genocide of about 800,000 people. And it is a historical fact that there was no democracy and human rights for the Blacks in Zimbabwe until they fought in the liberation struggle. Ironically, the same people who never accorded Blacks their human rights all over Africa, in the USA and elsewhere are the ones who are now the ONLY people in the world who care about Blacks' human rights! The same people who racially abuse Black Zimbabweans in Britain presently care about the human rights of Black Zimbabweans in Zimbabwe they have never seen?! Interesting indeed! We can understand the Western perspective, but it is certainly of no benefit to us to justify it, for it is detrimental to our economy. Mugabe has mismanaged the economy, we know. If he is so good at mismanaging the economy, then why aid him with the sanctions? Why introduce the error to the mismanagement through the sanctions, and why deny their existence?
Why does it surprise the MDC and the West that Zimbabwe's inflation is the highest in the World when they know that the West has sanctions on Zimbabwe? Or are they in denial, as usual? Why doesn't the West say to Zanu PF, "Ok we know your economy is suffering because of our sanctions, and you know what you must do to avert them: give the MDC power, our favoured choice?" Similarly, why doesn't the MDC say, "You Zanu PF idiots must give us power to avert Western sanctions we called for that are now hurting the people, or else we will remove you violently, with the aid of the people's hunger and frustration and of course with the West on our side"?
It's high time they stopped pussyfooting about, thinking that marching in the streets will remove Zanu PF from power. That's merely playing to the Western media, who hatchet up the propaganda. Whether it is Zanu PF or the MDC that is ruling, what we don't want is the suffering of our people. Mugabe is going soon or later. As a human, he will either have to retire or will die. But whether the sanctions destroy the country or not, I do not visualize Zanu PF going away soon (not that I don't want them to go...). What we need now are visionaries that are able to abate the suffering of our people. The MDC can play their part here. Maintenance of economic sanctions to meet political ends - ends that may never be met - is definitely the last thing we need. With Zanu PF cognizant of the fact that the MDC is dining with the people who are making people suffer, then say "ah,look how Zanu PF is making people suffer", what they can only invoke from them is anger. Events like the ones we recently witnessed are set to continue. Let those with ears hear. Let those with eyes see.
Email: zimbabwecrisis@yahoo.com``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe: The MDC Must Renounce the Sanctions``x1174238748,95238,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Ayinde
rastafaritimes@yahoo.com
March 18, 2007
There are some opposition forces in and out of Zimbabwe whose only response to any alternative view is to send racially denigrating attacks via email. Some also have the false assumption that because my email address is rastafaritimes@yahoo.com, it somehow means I must be as delusional as many Whites... some marijuana smoking hippie.
In response to the article, 'Lack of Support for Zimbabwe's Land Reform is Africa's Shame', not one email so far has substantively addressed any of the points I raised. Several have pointed out that the Africans in Zimbabwe cannot utilize the land (of course, not worded so nicely).
One responder's reaction was even to foolishly ask, "Why have Africans not been able to grow sufficient food for themselves although colonialism ended many years ago?" while implying that the reason is some characteristic that is lacking in Africans that makes them unable to be productive. He (the respondent) cannot see that the efforts for land reform in Zimbabwe, which he thoroughly opposes, is about addressing this very issue. The reason many Africans cannot grow sufficient food for themselves is because WHITE SETTLERS OCCUPY THE BEST LAND.
All of this is part of the racist, dishonest propaganda that clouds the minds of the gullible and ignorant about the real issue of reclaiming lands that were stolen from Africans in Zimbabwe. What is taking place with Zimbabwe is similar to what the Western powers have done with Haiti. They have continually punished Haiti for being the first Black republic after a successful slave revolt. The European powers would never allow Haiti to be a success story because Haiti could become a model and a motivation to Africans to resist White domination.
In a similar manner, these White, Western powers know fully well that if Zimbabwe is allowed to succeed with its land reform, then other African nations would follow suit resulting in Western powers having less of a remote control on Africans who may suddenly choose to utilize the land in ways that first serves their own interest.
The White dominance agenda depends on the fictional image that Africans in Zimbabwe are unable to utilize their own land productively. Even if that image were true, that is still absolutely no reason for Whites to continually hold on to land that was unjustly handed down to them. If these White farmers feel they should be compensated then they should look to their colonial powers for any compensation. But the argument of unproductive Africans is absolutely false, "as black small farm owners account for the majority of maize grown in Zimbabwe" (See: Zimbabwe Under Siege). This White superiority complex reigns in the minds of many and it is clearly evident in the majority of news reports and email responses from those trying to give the impression that they are concerned with the plight of Africans in Zimbabwe.
The West is not concerned with human rights in Africa: they support brutal dictators around the world as long as these dictators do their bidding.
How come this same westernized media did not put forth a concentrated campaign to restore Africans to the more productive agricultural lands that they were driven from during colonial rule? How come they were contented with 70% of the best agricultural lands in Zimbabwe being held by Whites and used for growing tobacco and other crops for Europe? Why were they not concerned about all the racist imbalances that remain in Africa as the legacy of slavery and colonialism?
The mainstream media, which is mostly White-owned, have defended the status quo of White domination to such an extent that many today actually believe that the Africans, who they see in poverty, are in such a state because of some inherent flaw in their Blackness.
Many of these commentators are either ignorant, dishonest or both.
Email: zimbabwecrisis@yahoo.com
Visit: Zimbabwe Watch``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe: Racist anti-Mugabe Assault``x1174245065,32978,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Ayinde
rastafaritimes@yahoo.com
March 19, 2007
Face it: the West is not concerned about the human rights and the well-being of Africans. Their biggest concern is to protect the status quo of White land control in Africa. All this commotion from the western media over Zimbabwe is an orchestrated effort to remove President Robert Mugabe from office. Again. For those who might not recall, here is a refresher on the U.S. position in 2002:
"The United States government has said it wants to see President Robert Mugabe removed from power and that it is working with the Zimbabwean opposition to bring about a change of administration." (US admits plan to bring down Mugabe August 2002)
These are Morgan Tsvangirai words as reported by BBC (2000):
"What we would like to tell Mugabe is please go peacefully. If you don't want to go peacefully, we will remove you violently" (Opposition warning to Mugabe)
Without a doubt, there are Zimbabweans with legitimate complaints about their government as is the case with all countries, but there is a functioning democracy in Zimbabwe by which the opposition can attempt to gain office. The opposition cannot be unsuccessful at the polls, resort to violence and then want our sympathies. Morgan Tsvangirai threatened violence and was not condemned by Western governments and the media. That proves they have no problem with violence in Zimbabwe as long as it is to advance their own agenda.
It is not like Africans the world over are stupid and do not know what is at stake in Zimbabwe. In a 2004 survey for New African magazine, President Robert Mugabe was voted history's third-greatest African and this should have informed the world how Africans feel about the entire issue of land ownership and the efforts to redress this historical injustice in Zimbabwe. (Mugabe voted history's third-greatest African)
Although some African leaders may feel to kowtow to the "West" for aid, all African leaders know that land is central to the liberation struggle in Africa. Most African leaders know the West relentlessly goes about demonizing President Robert Mugabe for daring to reclaim land from White settlers. They have done all in their power to punish the Zimbabwe people through sanctions for supporting President Robert Mugabe's land reclamation campaign.
We should not support the White settlers, the U.S. and Europe in their campaign to force African nations to ostracize President Mugabe. The West must not be allowed to choose our friends and enemies for us.
If the minority opposition groups are embarking on a violent campaign of resistance in Zimbabwe, then it is expected that the police will defend themselves and the state.
Email: zimbabwecrisis@yahoo.com
Visit: Zimbabwe Watch``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe: Africans Know Whose Agenda the West Serves``x1174339858,73796,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Reason Wafawarova
March 20, 2007
ZIMBABWE
THE launch of the long-promised "defiance campaign" by the fractious MDC and its allies has, understandably, ignited debate on the political processes in Zimbabwe.
Whatever the merits or demerits of one's argument, it has to start from the realisation that the opposition launched a defiance campaign aimed at toppling the Government.
What then ensues is debate centering on the wisdom and acceptability of the strategy adopted and favoured by the opposition as well as the tactics adopted and effected by the Government as represented by its police force.
There are few pertinent questions to be pursued in this debate and these questions are centred on law and politics. If one were to pursue questions related to law and maybe to establish the relevant chronology of such questions then there might be need to start with the idea of a "defiance" campaign. A defiance campaign is different from protest and this is very important if one wants to contextualise what is happening within the confines of legality both at municipal or international law.
Defiance by definition is "daring or antagonistic resistance to authority . . ." according to The Macquarie Dictionary and protest is defined as "an expression or declaration of objection or disapproval".
It is common knowledge that both Arthur Mutambara and Morgan Tsvangirai, as leaders of the two factions of the MDC, have openly declared an official position to preside over a "defiance campaign" and they have not ignored the illegality of such a campaign.
Mutambara was quoted as saying following the law would be akin to allowing the Government to tell the opposition how to conduct its struggle while Tsvangirai is on record saying the Public Order and Security Act was there "to be broken." In the context of defiance, the statements from these opposition leaders are in line but there is the question of the legal legitimacy of taking up such a position.
Needless to say, at municipal law, that is Zimbabwean domestic law, such a resolve is outlawed as plain rebellion if not treason. At international law, there is the problem of how to balance the doctrine of sovereignty and non-interference with individual human rights such as association, expression, affiliation and conscience. While the Bill of Rights provides for a protection of all these rights, domestic law tends to determine such things as the legality and acceptability of what one associates with, of what one expresses themselves about, of what one affiliates themselves with and what one subscribes their conscience to.
To this end these human rights tend to lose their absolute status and to assume a regulated form with what respective governments and people view as acceptable limitations.
Before taking any position on the legality and acceptability of what the opposition has done or has resolved to do, let us take a look at the State's response.
Firstly, we are told there was a rally that turned violent when the opposition's "Democratic Resistance Commit-tees" clashed with police and there are reports of casualties on the police side. The police responded by evoking a temporary ban on political rallies in specific areas of the capital. They used the powers bestowed on them by the supreme law of Zimbabwe, the national Constitution. The ban was ignored as the opposition vowed to defy it and proceed with its plans, with or without the permission or blessing of the police.
The opposition went ahead with the planned rallies, this time using some church leaders as a front.
The police moved in and deployed details to seal off the rally venue and some of the invited people turned up for the rally. An argument ensued between the police and the leaders of the opposition and the crowd got excited if not incited. The police rounded up the leadership and ferried it to a police station while leaving a smaller and weaker deployment behind. The crowd and the remaining police officers clashed and one person was shot dead while opposition supporters assaulted several police officers.
The crowd was in a confrontational mood and the police were perhaps in a retaliatory mood following the assaults. There were reports that the arrested were beaten in police custody while police maintain they only used the force necessary to effect arrest on those resisting arrest. Again we will not take a position on the legality and acceptability of the police action for now, but we will do that later.
Now, the assaults and the shooting were all taken within the context of a defiance campaign until news filtered that the alleged beatings of those arrested included one of the faction leaders, Morgan Tsvangirai. The US, Britain and New Zealand quickly issued statements condemning the alleged beatings; threats and ultimatums were also issued against the Government in general and President Mugabe in particular.
British premier, Tony Blair described the situation as "truly tragic" and the Government concurred only for the reasons that it was Tony Blair's tragedy of losing the plot to topple a democratically elected government.
President Mugabe responded saying if the West was going to look the other way when the victims of political violence are perceived to be pro-Government and only cry foul for those from the opposition, then they (the West) could "go hang".
Now the political questions to be raised here would include the question of the West's political interests in the affairs of Zimbabwe. Who is best placed to serve those interests?
The other question is the Government's desire to safeguard its mandate and to protect the national interest. Interest accruing from the gains of the Second Chimurenga, which was a 14-year war of attrition against a conventional force powered by Ian Smith and the apartheid South Africa regime.
Zanu-PF sees in the West, an attempt by the erstwhile oppressor to return by proxy through the MDC which is distrusted by the larger rural populace that bore the brunt of the struggle. On the other hand, the West has resolved to topple President Mugabe for alleged bad governance.
Part of this includes the Government's decision to compulsorily acquire farms from white commercial farmers for redistribution to landless black peasants.
The land reform programme saw the EU, US, Australia, Canada and New Zealand slapping ruinous sanctions on Zimbabwe.
The Western interest in the MDC has not received the support of African governments. In fact, the MDC and its Western backers have openly expressed frustration with the African Union in general and South Africa in particular for what they perceive as their open support for the Government.
The same Western alliance was in Vietnam in the 1960s and 70s pursuing its ideological interests. It had a lot of bad things to say about the Vietnamese regime.
The alliance is in Iraq where it again talked itself "right" saying bad things about the Baath regime.
It also talked "right" about itself, vilifying the USSR, and got it all wrong when it declared the "end of history" after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1989.
It again said trash about China's human rights record but again got it wrong, as it now needs China more than China needs it.
The point here is the Zimbabwean situation falls in the context of Western battles for imperial authority and supreme control of the world system.
The legitimacy of the opposition's call for a defiance campaign is just as debatable as the Government's use of force to thwart such defiance or rebellion. If the opposition at least pretended to be protesting, then it would have been easier to argue its case. Instead it vowed to defy the Government and try to unseat it through violence.
Whether the force used to quell the attempted insurrection was proportionate or not is debatable but as it stands the West's biased support for the opposition, and the MDC's vow to continue street violence will only legitimise any action the police might take against those involved in the campaign.
The Government says the opposition has no right to disobey the law and the opposition's handlers from the West have no right to interfere in the domestic affairs of a sovereign state, while the opposition claims the laws it is meant to obey are repressive.
The question is; is it democratic for a group of people in a country that holds regular and periodic elections to adopt a strategy of using force in attempts to assume power unless there is consensus that the electoral system is undemocratic?
Is there such consensus among Zimbabweans, is there any in Sadc, is there any in the African Union and is there any in the United Nations?
Without taking any positions on what has just happened in recent days in Zimbabwe, one might just see the difference between talking it right on human rights and actually getting it right on internal contexts of conflicts, based on domestic politics, values, culture and historical factors.
This is where the West misses. It seems the West is driven by its own capitalist interests as evidenced by its silence on Pakistan were not less than six demonstrators, not sworn rebels, were shot down by police about the same time one Gift Tandare was gunned down in Highfield.
Such double standards make the implementation of law at international level very problematic.
Email: zimbabwecrisis@yahoo.com
Visit: Zimbabwe Watch``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe: West can't preach human rights``x1174364097,19984,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Stephen Gowans
Stephen Gowans's Blog
March 20, 2007
One thing opponents and supporters of Mugabe's government agree on is that the opposition is trying to oust the president (illegally and unconstitutionally if you acknowledge the plan isn't limited to victory at the polls.)
So which came first?
Attempts to overthrow Zimbabwe's ZANU-PF government, or the government's harsh crackdown on opposition?
According to the Western media spin, the answer is the government's harsh crackdown on opposition. Mugabe's government is inherently authoritarian, greedy for power for power's sake, and willing do anything – from stealing elections to cracking skulls — to hang on to its privileged position.
This is the typical slander leveled at the heads of governments the US and UK have trouble with, from Milosevic in his day, to Kim Jong Il, to Castro.
Another view is that the government's authoritarianism is an inevitable reaction to circumstances that are unfavorable to the attainment of its political (not its leaders' personal) goals. Mugabe's government came to power at the head of a movement that not only sought political independence, but aspired to reverse the historical theft of land by White settlers. That the opposition would be fierce and merciless – has been so – was inevitable.
Reaction to the opposition, if the government and its anti-colonial agenda were to survive, would need to be equally fierce and merciless.
At the core of the conflict is a clash of right against right: the right of White settlers to enjoy whatever benefits stolen land yields in profits and rent against the right of the original owners to reclaim their land.
Allied to this is a broader struggle for economic independence, which sets the rights of investors and corporations abroad to profit from untrammeled access to Zimbabwe's labor, land and resources and the right of Zimbabweans to restrict access on their own terms to facilitate their own economic development.
The dichotomy of personal versus political motivation as the basis for the actions of maligned governments recurs in debates over whether this or that leader or movement ought to be supported or reviled. The personal view says that all leaders are corrupt, chase after personal glory, power and wealth, and dishonestly manipulate the people they profess to champion. The political view doesn't deny the personal view as a possibility, but holds that the behavior of leaders is constrained by political goals.
"Even George Bush who rigs elections and manipulates news in order to stay in office and who clearly enjoys being 'the War President,' wants the presidency in order to carry out a particular program with messianic fervor," points out Richard Levins. "He would never protect the environment, provide healthcare, guarantee universal free education, or separate church and state, just to stay in office." ("Progressive Cuba Bashing," Socialism and Democracy, Vol. 19, No. 1, March 2005.)
Mugabe is sometimes criticized for being pushed into accelerating land reform by a restive population impatient with the glacial pace of redistribution allowed under the Lancaster House agreement. His detractors allege, implausibly, that he has no real commitment to land reforms. He only does what's necessary to stay in power.
If we accept this as true, then we're saying that the behavior of the government is constrained by one of the original goals of the liberation movement (land reform) and that the personal view is irrelevant. No matter what the motivations of the government's leaders, the course the government follows is conditioned by the goals of the larger movement of national liberation.
There's no question Mugabe reacted harshly to recent provocations by factions of the MDC, or that his government was deliberately provoked. But the germane question isn't whether beating Morgan Tsvangirai over the head was too much, but whether the ban on political rallies in Harare, which the opposition deliberately violated, is justified. That depends on whose side you're on, and whether you think Tsvangirai and his associates are simply earnest citizens trying to freely express their views or are proxies for imperialist governments bent on establishing (restoring in Britain's case) hegemony over Zimbabwe.
There's no question either that Mugabe's government is in a precarious position. The economy is in a shambles, due in part to drought, to the disruptions caused by land reform, and to sanctions.
White farmers want Mugabe gone (to slow land redistribution, or to stop it altogether), London and Washington want him gone (to ensure neo-liberal "reforms" are implemented), and it's likely that some members of his own party also want him to step down.
On top of acting to sabotage Zimbabwe economically through sanctions, London and Washington have been funneling financial, diplomatic and organizational assistance to groups and individuals who are committed to bringing about a color revolution (i.e., extra-constitutional regime change) in Zimbabwe. That includes Tsvangirai and the MDC factions, among others.
The timing of the MDC rally was suspicious (it coincided with the opening of the latest session of the UN Human Rights Council.) Its depiction as a prayer meeting is flagrantly disingenuous. Those of an unprejudiced mind will recognize it for what it was: a political rally, held in already volatile conditions, whose outcome would either be insurrection or a crackdown that could be used to call for tougher sanctions, even intervention.
For the Mugabe government, the options are two-fold: Capitulate (and surrender any chance of maintaining what independence Zimbabwe has managed to secure at considerable cost) or fight back.
Some people might deplore the methods used, but considering the actions and objectives of the opposition – and what's at stake – the crackdown has been both measured and necessary.
Email: zimbabwecrisis@yahoo.com
Visit: Zimbabwe Watch``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe: ZANU-PF Fights Back``x1174433620,16192,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Obi Egbuna
March 21, 2007
ZIMBABWE
While the latest demonstrations in Zimbabwe led by MDC faction leader Morgan Tsvangirai have achieved absolutely nothing, on the other hand they exposed a lot.
The obvious thing is that the MDC was responding to pressure from Britain and the United States to destabilise Zimbabwe because their masters have invested a lot of time and money in the opposition over the past eight years only to realise that they have failed to unseat the Government.
British Prime Minister Tony Blair's legacy in relation to the African continent will mainly be defined by whether or not he was able to force an illegal racist regime change in Zimbabwe, and his sidekick, United States President George W. Bush, is looking for any victory on foreign policy to shift focus away from the Iraq debacle.
President Mugabe's two-word response – "Go hang" – to Western critics of his Government demonstrates to Africans worldwide that we at least have one head of state in Africa that does not toss and turn in bed all night worrying about validation by the imperialist powers.
US Ambassador to Zimbabwe Christopher Dell has three main issues on his plate before Bush makes his exit from office.
Firstly, he must do everything to make sure Tsvangirai and Arthur Mutambara reunite the MDC at all costs. Secondly, he will be corresponding with Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch to exaggerate political violence in Zimbabwe and blame it all on Zanu-PF.
Lastly, he will be working with the International Crisis Group to articulate why the Bush administration is justified in increasing sanctions on Zimbabwe. But Zimbabweans will not be fooled by Tsvangirai and MDC's so-called Save Zimbabwe Campaign and are too busy with their bread and butter issues.
Thanks to his willingness to be the scapegoat Bush and Blair need to have on the ground in order to convince the entire world that by imposing sanctions they are responding to the wishes of the people.
Tsvangirai and the MDC are too brainwashed to understand that using civil disobedience tactics when you are financed by the two most violent warmongers on the planet is at best a cheap publicity stunt.
How dare a neocolonialist operation like the MDC try to use positive action as a strategy only a few days after the 50th anniversary celebration of Ghana's independence! This is an attempt by Tsvangirai to politically reinvent himself before Bush and Blair leave office.
If he and the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions' Wellington Chibebe fail at provoking confrontations with the police, even the Voice of America and BBC might ignore them. Besides, Trudy Stevenson, an MDC Member of Parliament, was severely beaten up by her own membership last year and also another MDC MP David Coltart publicly exposed that youth members in the MDC were planning to kill their director of security Peter Guhu a couple of years ago.
This led to the spokesmen of both factions – Nelson Chamisa (for Tsvangirai) and Gabriel Chaibva (for Mutambara) – openly debating which faction was more violent. This means African organisations in the Diaspora should really do their homework and resist the temptation of grabbing a few headlines which they are guaranteed to receive if they blame President Mugabe and Zanu-PF for all political violence in Zimbabwe.
Before his resignation from the National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People as their president and CEO a few weeks ago, Bruce Gordon sent President Mugabe a letter expressing their concern over alleged police brutality against demonstrators, and, more recently, the executive director of Trans Africa Forum Nicole Lee emphasised the responsibility that Zimbabwe's Government had to protect the basic human rights of its citizens.
These remarks have serious political implications.
For starters, if they only issue public statements when the MDC and other opposition groups in their opinion are on the receiving end of violence in Zimbabwe, it means they are aligned with them politically or are strongly considering moving in that direction; and, most importantly, they have learned nothing from those who callously validated Mangosuthu Buthelezi in South Africa and Jonas Savimbi in Angola many years ago.
The propaganda war being waged by the US and its European Union cohorts against Zimbabwe has forced Africans to arrive at one conclusion: Any organisation in our community which hasn't spoken out about the sanctions against Zimbabwe can keep their opinions to themselves. The concept of criticism is a dialectical exercise and some of us have become so intoxicated by our own critiques that we abandon the responsibility to defend a government and people who expect and deserve our solidarity as opposed to excuses to justify abandonment.
The MDC is not a balloon but is definitely full of hot air and Tsvangirai has taken false promises to new unprecedented heights. Last year he promised his British and US sponsors a cold winter of discontent.
When that failed, he then went to the United Kingdom and held a Press conference with Labour MP Kate Hoey urging United Nations intervention in Zimbabwe, only to see former Secretary-General Kofi Annan endorse President Mugabe's recommendation for former Tanzanian President Benjamin Mkapa to mediate between Britain and Zimbabwe.
The opposition paper called the Zimbabwean leaked a story last year that Tsvangirai was scheduled to be meeting with Botswana's President Festus Mogae which was to give the appearance he represented legitimate opposition in Zimbabwe, only to see Mogae open the Harare Agricultural Show last August and sign a new agreement of co-operation between the two governments reaffirm his support for the land reclamation programme in Zimbabwe and praise Zimbabwe for being its second biggest trade partner next to South Africa.
At the beginning of the year, the Financial Gazette had an article entitled "Tsvangirai talks tough" in a rare occasion an opposition paper indirectly suggested he had more bark than bite.
Tsvangirai and the MDC also seek to exploit the religious and spiritual tradition of his people to revive his dying support. Why else would these demonstrations attempt to incorporate a prayer?
Why has Tsvangirai never rescheduled the meeting with the church leaders in Zimbabwe that were cancelled due to his father's death, where the topic of discussion was supposed to be an appeal for him to stop calling for the West to intensify the sanctions against his own people?
Even though Tsvangirai's speeches and political thoughts lack substance and any real vision, his strength is in disguising himself.
During his time in the ZCTU, he tried to convince forces outside Zimbabwe like the AFL-CIO, Congress of Black Trade Unionists and the US Deputy Assistant of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labour Jeffrey Krila that President Mugabe and Zanu-PF were out of touch with the working class and only he was in touch with their aspirations.
With the help of imperialist Press he is presently doing his absolute best to reappear as the Dalai Lama in Tibet, which is almost as amusing as when Savimbi wore fatigues to give the public appearance Unita was a guerilla movement and not a CIA-trained and financed group of mercenaries and assassins. The African community in the Diaspora has to make a distinction between examples of military repression and violence and vigilant efforts to defend sovereignty.
The coups and assassinations that imperialist forces have orchestrated in every corner of the planet speak volumes because actions do speak louder than words. Last year marked the 40th anniversary of the overthrow of Kwame Nkrumah's government in Ghana and 2008 will mark the 25th anniversary of the assassination of Maurice Bishop in Grenada.
The premature statements some of our organisations have been writing about Zimbabwe make you wonder: After all of these years, what have we truly learned? Under the guise of civil disobedience, Tsvangirai is seeking total anarchy and confusion. After the outcome of parliamentary elections in 2005, the MDC called for power outages countrywide as a way to show dissatisfaction with the results.
The publicity that Tsvangirai and the MDC receive is contingent on how much chaos their demonstrations can stir up. This is what the Blair and Bush administrations expect and demand of them.
The MDC will learn the hard way that in Zimbabwe, the people don't accept civilian neocolonialism and an alternative to military neocolonialism. While he is not shooting people in cold blood like his political twin Savimbi, the blood of every Zimbabwean who dies or starves courtesy of sanctions is on their hands.
President Mugabe is known and respected worldwide for his defiance and strategic brilliance, therefore if he and Zanu-PF arrive at the conclusion that the MDC is threatening the national security of Zimbabwe, anything short of giving them unconditional support is compromising the future of the nation.
Email: zimbabwecrisis@yahoo.com
Visit: Zimbabwe Watch``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xMDC's civil disobedience tactics cheap publicity stunt``x1174487323,51942,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Ayinde
rastafaritimes@yahoo.com
March 21, 2007
African nations have been silent too long while Zimbabwe slides into economic ruin.
In this hour of contrived turmoil in Zimbabwe it is time for decisive words and actions.
African nations need to tell Tony Blair, the rest of Europe and the U.S. that they would not be dictated to. Tony Blair is leaving office soon and would like to force the democratically elected President of Zimbabwe out of office before he himself leaves office.
African nations need to send an unambiguous message to the 'West' that they are not buying the European and White settlers propaganda and that they want all sanctions lifted on Zimbabwe. These sanctions have mostly affected the ordinary people in Zimbabwe (See: The MDC Must Renounce the Sanctions by Tadios Chisango).
They should boldly declare that African nations are not colonies of the U.S. and Britain, and would not be pressured to stand against the democratically elected President of Zimbabwe who commands the majority support in Zimbabwe.
African nations should also call on the opposition in Zimbabwe to renounce violence and to desist from using violence in Zimbabwe. If they are resorting to breaking the laws and using violence then the government and the police are right to use brute force to stop such activities.
Let us see how many African leaders have the courage to stand for freedom instead of making backdoor deals with Tony Blair and the U.S. for aid in exchange for their conscience.
Africans globally are watching... It is your move now.
Email: zimbabwecrisis@yahoo.com
Visit: Zimbabwe Watch``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xAfrican Nations Need New Approach to Zimbabwe``x1174496687,78572,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xWhen Others Seek to Overthrow the State, What Must Be the State Response?
Analysis by Ghifari al Mukhtar
March 21, 2007
Funny the way the recent case of supposed human rights abuses in Zimbabwe attracts great interest in the Western media, while other similar cases hardly or do not get noticed in this same media. Relations between the UK/US soured when Zimbabwe sent troops, together with Namibia and Angola, to defend the Democratic Republique of Congo against a second invasion by Rwanda and Uganda, friends of the US and the UK. (Zimbabwe Under Siege by Dr. Simbi Mubako)
When the Mugabe government intercepted arms and a plane load of terrorists (How New Africa Made Fools of the White Mischief-makers, August 2004) sponsored by Britain and the US (Pentagon link to Guinea Coup Plot, September 2004) on their way to violently kill Africans in an attempt to overthrow another oil rich African government, where was the media's reporting in favor of Mugabe's intervention of what would have been more UK/US human rights abuses? Now the US & UK are strangling Zimbabwe and its people. Who, therefore, is cruel?
Hold strong and firm; for if Mugabe and Zimbabwe were to give room then we are finished as a continent, as a people and as all those seeking to repulse recolonization throughout the world.
There are paradoxes that seem divine rather than a willful strategy on the one hand. How they, the resisters, are surrounded with stooges, "NGO's", coward states, church and evangelical groups and if suppressed populations, if not deliberate in their opposition, they are enormously ignorant, and in the Black and Brown case, hating themselves for the color they are.
If Africa lets Mugabe slip, then shall we say: good bye Africa! Like him or not, the scene in Zimbabwe is either it's Africa or it's Europe, yet we must also watch out for their marauding cousins', the "US & Israel", with their chisel and hammer diplomacy.
It is the stereotype media performance we fail to wise up to. Mugabe is as ironic as Venezuela's Chavez, as Iran's Ahmadinejad, as Kim of Korea, Hizbollah in Lebanon and the Hamas of Palestine. Just pull out your maps and look at the geography, their resources (fullness), their original colors.
Indeed, they are so strategic it's as if God placed this resistance (leadership) per region, as the check and balance from the violent dominance of an "outsider". A marauder bearing disguised gifts, often resulting in misery, slavery and racist evangelical democracy as the only medicine for our perceived ills. Ills, if at all there are, were created and perpetuated by the marauders' themselves in their laboratories within Wall Street, the Vatican, Chatham House and NATO.
The debase, vicious, glutinous White West, that exchanges weapons for war, disunity, chaos and poverty, offer in their hollow speeches peace, development, democracy and aid that bind us to nowhere but to perpetual troubles.
We need no more of your expired consultants, no more of the devil's advice, no Bono aid and to hell with the media.
This hypocrisy stinks. Mugabe was never commended for his sole prevention of what would have been mass-murder, hatched and orchestrated solely in the West. Instead he is falsely accused of killing -- allegations typical of the White West toward noncompliant state leaders.
On the question of public disorder and violence with a virtual attempt to overthrow legitimate governments - this was okayed in Georgia, in Tiananmen Square and Tibet in China; Caracas, Venezuela and Zimbabwe.
The facts are there, the West has a track record of human rights abuses that is undisputable, particularly the critics of Robert Mugabe. Not forgetting history, just look at Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, Haiti and the U.S. prison and justice system. Lets not compare, lest Mugabe will come out looking immaculately pious. In fact he isn't, he is a warrior that wrestled his nation from the jaws of colonialism's most barbaric and manipulative empires.
Mugabe must be firm and should treat those seeking western-type regime changes as no less than criminals, charged with terrorism, anarchy and sedition.
In Britain and the US, peaceful demonstrators are being arrested, charged, manhandled, and intimidated through government spying for staging demonstrations against a corrupt president and his lying poodle to stop WAR.
Is Mugabe waginig war? Certainly not. He is defending his country, leading Africa's defence.
Email: zimbabwecrisis@yahoo.com
Visit: Zimbabwe Watch``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe: When Others Seek to Overthrow the State``x1174503254,6040,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Stephen Gowans
March 23, 2007
Arthur Mutambara, the leader of one faction of Zimbabwe's main opposition party, the MDC, and one of the principals in the Save Zimbabwe Campaign that's at the centre of a storm of controversy over the Mugabe government's crackdown on opposition, boasted a year ago that he was "going to remove Robert Mugabe, I promise you, with every tool at my disposal." (1)
Educated at Oxford, the former management consultant with McKinsey & Co. was asked in early 2006 whether "his plans might include a Ukrainian-style mass mobilization of opponents of Mugabe's regime." (2)
"We're going to use every tool we can get to dislodge this regime," he replied. "We're not going to rule out or in anything – the sky's the limit." (3)
Last year Morgan Tsvangirai, leader of an opposing MDC faction, and eight of his colleagues, were thrown out of Zambia after attending a meeting arranged by the US ambassador to Zimbabwe, Christopher Dell, with representatives of Freedom House, a US ruling class organization that promotes regime change in countries that aren't sufficiently committed to free markets, free trade and free enterprise. (4)
Funded by the billionaire speculator George Soros, USAID, the US State Department and the US Congress's National Endowment for Democracy (whose mission has been summed up as doing overtly what the CIA used to do covertly), Freedom House champions the rights of journalists, union leaders and democracy activists to organize openly to bring down governments whose economic policies are against the profit-making interests of US bankers, investors and corporations.
Headed by Wall St. investment banker Peter Ackerman, who produced a 2002 documentary, Bringing Down a Dictator, a follow-up to A Force More Powerful, which celebrates the ouster of Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic, Freedom House features a rogues' gallery of US ruling class activists on its board of directors: Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Otto Reich, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Zbigniew Brzezinski and Steve Forbes, among others.
The campaign to replace Mugabe with the neo-liberal standard bearers of the MDC is rotten with connections to the overthrow of Milosevic. Dell, the US ambassador, prides himself on being one of the architects of Milosevic's ouster. (5) He held a senior diplomatic post in Kosovo when Milosevic was driven out of office in a US-UK engineered uprising.
Dell's mission, it would seem, is to be as provocative as possible, sparing no effort to tarnish the image of the Mugabe government. In early November 2005, Dell declared that "neither drought nor sanctions are at the root of Zimbabwe's decline," an implausible conclusion given that drought has impaired economic performance in neighboring countries, and that sanctions bar Zimbabwe from access to economic and humanitarian aid, while disrupting trade and investment. "The Zimbabwe government's own gross mismanagement of the economy and its corrupt rule has brought on the crisis," Dell charged. (6)
When not disparaging Mugabe's government, Dell can be counted on to be doling out largesse to the opposition (US$1 million, according to one source, to get the Save Zimbabwe Campaign off the ground earlier this year.) (7)
Responding to Dell's call for the opposition to unite, Mutambara has declared his new unity of purpose with MDC opponent, Tsvangirai. "Our core business," he announced, after violent clashes with the police earlier this month, "is to drive Mugabe out of town. There is no going back. We are working together against Robert Mugabe and his surrogates." (8)
While Mutambara is certainly working with Tsvangirai to drive Mugabe out of town, what he doesn't explain is what he wants to replace Mugabe with. The opposition, and the powerful Western governments that back it, make it seem as if they're offended by Mugabe's qualities as a leader, not his policies, and that their aim is to restore good governance, not to impose their own program on Zimbabwe.
We should be clear about what the MDC is and what its policies are. While the word "democratic" in the opposition's Movement for Democratic Change moniker evokes pleasant feelings, the party's policies are rooted in the neo-liberal ideology of the Western ruling class. That is, the party's policies are hardly democratic.
The MDC favors economic "liberalization", privatization and a return to the glacial-paced willing buyer/willing seller land-redistribution regimen – a status quo ante-friendly policy that would limit the state's ability to redistribute land to only tracts purchased from white farmers who are willing to sell.
Compare that to the Zanu-PF government's direction. Mugabe's government is hardly socialist, but it has implemented social democratic policies that elevate the public interest at least a few notches above the basement level position it occupies under the neo-liberal tyranny favored by the MDC. A Mutambara or Tsvangirai government would jettison policies that demand something from foreign investors in return for doing business in Zimbabwe. Foreign banks, for example, are required to invest 40 percent of their profits in Zimbabwe government bonds. (9) What's more, the MDC leaders would almost certainly end the Mugabe government's policy of favoring foreign investors who partner with local investors to promote indigenous economic development. And Zimbabwe's state-owned enterprises would be sold off to the highest bidder.
Moreover, the land redistribution program would be effectively shelved, delaying indefinitely the achievement of one of the principal goals of Zimbabwe's national liberation struggle – reversing the plunder of the indigenous population's land by white settlers. Mugabe, it is sometimes grudgingly admitted in the Western press, is a hero in rural parts of southern Africa for his role in spearheading land reform, something other south African governments have lacked the courage to pursue vigorously. South African president Thabo Mbeki's reluctance to join in the collective excoriation of Mugabe is often attributed to "respect for Mr. Mugabe as a revolutionary hero (he led the fight that ended white rule in Zimbabwe in 1980, and was a key opponent of apartheid) and because the issue of white ownership of land in South African is also sensitive." (10)
Contrast respect for Mugabe with the thin layer of support the US-backed Save Zimbabwe Campaign has been able to muster. It "does not yet have widespread grassroots support," (11) but it does have the overwhelming backing of the US, the UK, the Western media and US ruling class regime change organizations, like Freedom House. Is it any surprise that Zanu-PF regards the controversy swirling around its crackdown on the opposition's latest provocation as an attempt by an oppressor to return to power by proxy through the MDC?
1. Times Online March 5, 2006.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. The Sunday Mail, February 5, 2006.
5. The Herald, October 21, 2005.
6. The Herald, November 7, 2005.
7. The Herald, March 14, 2007.
8. The Observer, March 18, 2007.
9. The Observer, January 28, 2007.
10. The Globe and Mail, March 22, 2007.
11. Ibid.
Stephen Gowans's Blog
Email: zimbabwecrisis@yahoo.com
Visit: Zimbabwe Watch``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe: Mugabe Gets the Milosevic Treatment ``x1174630375,2632,Development``x``x
``xBy Ayinde
rastafaritimes@yahoo.com
March 23, 2007
MOST White liberals and their media (including websites) are useless when it comes to evaluating issues from a Black point of view. They are not only useless when African nations and leaders have to be defended against the aggression of the US and Europe, but some go a step further and are more dangerous by how they spread the racist lies of the West. I guess they only view racism as when someone stands in a crowded place and shouts the "N" word.
I did not expect them to be able to evaluate issues from an African point of view, especially as most of them could not even get it right on Venezuela during the coup attempt in 2002.
For all the distrust they have of their governments, they are more than ready to believe those same governments when they attack African leaders and nations.
A prime example, Haiti. Most of the antiwar and anti-Bush media were quiet on that issue. They did not see the US, France and Canada having a major role in illegally forcing the first democratically elected President of Haiti, Jean-Bertrand Aristide out of office and into exile. (Read: The Ouster of Democracy by Gary Younge, March 2004)
White liberals who just did not get it can read articles on the Haitian Coup at africaspeaks.com. Some Whites understood the issues in part, but they were not so moved as to sustain a campaign for the return of Jean-Bertrand Aristide as the legitimate, democratically elected president of Haiti, who commands the support of the majority of Haitians along with wide support from Black Africans abroad.
Next on the list is Zimbabwe.
The US and Britain have been involved in an effort to oust the democratically elected leader of Zimbabwe, President Robert Mugabe, ever since he turned away from the intangible and unjust IMF and World Bank policies and started reclaiming illegally obtained land from White settlers for redistribution to Black Zimbaweans. They were not against Mugabe for reports of human rights abuses, as in the past, when such reports surfaced, they were still praising Zimbabwe under President Robert Mugabe as a model country in Africa. For more information, although long, this article is worth reading: Zimbabwe Under Siege by Gregory Elich. There is a comprehensive list of additional articles for further reading on raceandhistory.com.
Next on the list is Somalia.
The US and Ethiopia illegally invaded Somalia and ousted the Islamic Courts Union (ICU) which had popular support. The ICU brought a measure of stability to Somalia for the first time in sixteen years.
In the article "A New War in Africa" Gwynne Dyer explains:
"This is a war founded on a misconception and driven by paranoid fantasies.
The misconception was the US government's belief that the Islamic Courts, local religious authorities backed by merchants in Mogadishu who wanted someone to curb the warlords, punish thieves, and enforce contracts, were just a cover for al-Qaeda.
So the US instead backed the warlords who were making Somalis' lives a misery.
American support is the kiss of death in Somalia, so the warlords were finally dislodged in Mogadishu last June by an uprising led by the UIC and supported by most of the population."
Visit africaspeaks.com for more on the crisis in Somalia.
Although some Whites do take the time to examine issues from an African point of view, they are too few and far between. If you doubt me, simply check your favorite antiwar, anti-Bush, anti-imperialism websites and you will see the absence of pro-African commentaries on any or all of these issues. (Even the considerably rated Comedy Central's "Today Show" hosted by John Stewart lacks substance in dealing with African issues.)
To informed Africans, most of these so-called liberal Whites are not liberal at all. White Supremacy still comes first to them and has to be first addressed before they can see the truth from a Black perspective.
We understand the circumstances that keep many from researching issues properly and not easily breaking away from colonial institutions and neocolonial policies. Many are struggling with bread and butter issues on a daily basis and do not yet appreciate why they MUST make time for informing themselves.
Understanding the issues is also about addressing poverty. Those with the means and especially those involved in the media have no excuse for misleading many.
Martin Luther King saw the problem with White liberals and in his letter from the Birmingham jail he wrote:
"...First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection."
Email: zimbabwecrisis@yahoo.com
Visit: Zimbabwe Watch``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xWhite Liberals Cannot See Truth in Africa``x1174635399,74749,Zimbabwe``x``x
``x
FORMER Zambian president Frederick Chiluba yesterday backed President Robert Mugabe over the situation in Zimbabwe.
Addressing journalists before departure for South Africa for medical review and treatment, Mr Chiluba said independence was about land.
"Why are these disturbances in Zimbabwe? I am not an expert. When I was in London, I was trapped by a lady called Clare Short. She asked me to comment on Zimbabwe.
She wanted me to condemn. "But independence is about land. If all of you were squatters, independence will be meaningless."
He said there was an agreement over the Zimbabwean land issue. "President Mugabe has been patiently waiting and they have refused. So he has to take the bull by its horns," Mr Chiluba said.
"Among us we have stooges, they are using the land issue to ostracise (President) Mugabe.
"He has made Zimbabweans to see the meaning of independence," he said. He condemned any opposition party in Zimbabwe that might be supporting the interests of the West.
"Cursed be the day their leader and the party were born," Mr Chiluba said.
Asked about the recent reports of brutality in Zimbabwe, Mr Chiluba responded: "CNN have a tendency to distort."
"They said I was dead because they wanted me dead so how can I believe them?" He added that he was much better.
"I am getting much better by the day and thank God for that. I am looking very much better as you can see yourself," he said.
Mr Chiluba left for South Africa aboard a South African Airways plane. His wife Regina, spokesperson Emmanuel Mwamba, his personal physician Dr Justin Kangwa and three security personnel accompanied him.
— The Post.
Reprinted from:
www.herald.co.zw/inside.aspx?sectid=16698&cat=1``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xChiluba backs President Mugabe``x1174645801,35386,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Donwald Pressly
www.news24.com
Cape Town - The serious conflict in Zimbabwe has arisen because of the perception by the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) that recent elections in Zimbabwe were not free and fair, said a South African government spokesperson, Themba Maseko, on Tuesday.
"I think it is now public record that there were elections in Zimbabwe... at the end of those elections, the MDC were of the view that those elections were not free and fair.
"Based on the view of the MDC, we then had a situation in Zimbabwe where there was serious conflict arising out of the premise taken by the MDC that the elections were not free and fair."
It, however, was the position of the South African government that the recent elections had been free and fair, he noted.
The answer was in reply to a question from a journalist - at a media briefing after Tuesday's cabinet meeting in Cape Town - as to what the government's analysis of the key problem was in neighbouring Zimbabwe.
Full Article : news24.com
S. African official defends policy towards Zimbabwe
South Africa's Deputy Foreign Minister Aziz Pahad on Tuesday said his country adopts constructive diplomacy, not quiet diplomacy as described by critics, towards the Zimbabwean situation.
During a media briefing at Parliament in Cape Town, he also rejected suggestions that economic sanctions should be imposed as a means to resolve the crisis in Zimbabwe, the South African Press Association (SAPA) reported.
Full Article : english.people.com.cn
Email: zimbabwecrisis@yahoo.com
Visit: Zimbabwe Watch``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xSouth Africa lays Zimbabwe crisis at MDC door``x1175057967,12188,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xZimbabwe's Canadian Ambassador Takes Issue with Embassy's Arrogant Editorial
Your editorial is unfortunate since it borders on inaccuracies and arrogance (Re: "Failure on the Horizon" March 21). The mere fact that the article was written as an editorial was a trick to avoid writing a comprehensive story that could have brought out compelling facts about the abundantly proven violent nature of the opposition Movement for Democratic Change. In an editorial you can offer your opinion as you wish, which still does not make it fair journalism because, as your editorial shows, you only heard and considered one side of the story.
Embassy does not seem to have considered that even by video footage from the British Broadcasting Corporation, the gathering in Zimbabwe had some participants waving banners reading "Vote MDC" and placards with conspicuous MDC symbols underneath church messages. What had a church meeting to do with voting MDC? Embassy is quiet on the fact that these MDC supporters masquerading as church-goers were breaking a section of a law passed by the Zimbabwean parliament, the Public Order and Safety Act, that had been invoked to temporarily ban political gatherings after the MDC thugs had caused violence the previous week resulting in the serious injury of four police officers.
The editorial suggests that the government beats people for no apparent reason. You seem to have an urge to relate our situation and behaviour to some confirmed aggressionists known to the whole world and some of whom you point to in the editorial, who are experts in unilaterally invading and "reconstructing" weak and small nations. Zimbabwe respects the human rights and dignity of its people, hence our sacrifice to fight for decades and defeat the colonisers who did not have any respect for a black person.
You also suggest that our legitimately elected government rigs elections, yet the African Union and the South African Development Community observers have consistently certified our elections as free and fair. Your contempt of the findings of these African bodies serves as further evidence of your general contempt of anything undertaken by a black person. Also, the MDC chairman of Morgan Tsvangirai's faction, Isaac Matongo, recently told his party supporters that the MDC was beaten in the elections not because of rigging, but because it did not go into the rural areas to campaign where the majority of the voters are.
Embassy displays shocking arrogance when it suggests that being confined to maize fields and villages is a curse. Obviously, this is a thinly veiled attack on the poor, toiling and uneducated Zimbabweans who happen to support the current government, and are victims of colonialism and the Western countries-driven and neo-liberal based structural adjustment programme.
Rightly said, the fact that many Zimbabweans and the government understand democratic principles is the very reason intervention by confirmed aggressionists is failing. Zimbabweans will continue rejecting undue meddling in their internal matters and rejecting a foreign-sponsored MDC. You correctly outline the intentions that your paper and many other rogue elements in the West wish to pursue: The illegal regime change policy. It is not theory that you are outlining about the regime change policy, but a persistently failing designed policy intended to mobilize people against its own government. As you know quite well, the attempt to cause massive suffering that turns people against their government is the philosophy driving the illegal economic sanctions that were imposed on Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe is a product of our blood, sweat and tears and we shall not sell-out or allow any foreign interests or rogue elements in Zimbabwe to dissuade us from establishing a democratic Zimbabwe for Zimbabweans. Contrary to your headline, we say, "Zimbabwe will never be a colony again."
FLORENCE ZANO CHIDEYA
Ambassador of Zimbabwe to Canada
Reprinted from:
www.embassymag.ca/html/index.php?
display=letters&letters_date=1175054400
Email: zimbabwecrisis@yahoo.com
Visit: Zimbabwe Watch``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe's Ambassador Takes Issue with Arrogant Editorial``x1175119041,9034,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xHerald Reporter
March 29, 2007
POLICE yesterday arrested 35 MDC activists and seized explosives and arms after the recent spate of terror bombings, hours after the ninth bombing, this time of two petrol tankers in Mutare yesterday morning.
The top two suspects were Ian Makone, the special advisor to faction leader Mr Morgan Tsvangirai, and last year's failed MDC candidate for Chikomba constituency, Piniel Denga, who was arrested after large quantities of explosives and detonators were reportedly found at his city flat.
Others were rounded up on Tuesday night in connection with the Monday night bombing of the Zanu-PF Mbare district office while a further group was picked up in a major raid on the faction's Harvest House headquarters in central Harare yesterday.
Among those arrested are some suspected operatives of the faction's self-named Democratic Resistance Committees, underground cells believed to be behind violence and bombing campaigns to create panic and render Zimbabwe ungovernable.
Suspects were still being screened last night.
In their raids on the homes of Makone and Denga, police reported that they recovered explosives, detonators, tins of paint, two revolvers, ammunition, loud hailers and communication radios and T-shirts inscribed with the opposition party's slogans.
Addressing a Press conference at Harare Central Police Station last night, police chief spokesperson Assistant Commissioner Wayne Bvudzijena said Denga, who was the MDC candidate in the Chikomba by-election last year, was picked up at his flat in Harare's Avenues area.
Police recovered 53 explosives, 24 detonators, 88 tins of paint and T-shirts inscribed with MDC slogans at the flat, he reported.
The explosives were identical to those recovered at the scene of the bombing of a train in Mufakose last weekend and were similar to those used by the Zimbabwe National Army in demining operations and which had been supplied by Americans.
Makone – held on suspicion of being the mastermind of the violence that the opposition has been unleashing since March 12 – was picked up together with his wife Theresa.
Police recovered an Astra revolver and two rounds of ammunition at his home in Domboshava.
The revolver, Asst Comm Bvudzijena said, does not have a current licence.
Police also recovered a box of red whistles, 20 small loud hailers and 36 large hailers, five batteries for communication radios as well as documents linking the MDC to the so-called Democratic Resistance Committees, he said.
Police also raided the MDC faction headquarters at Harvest House along Nelson Mandela Avenue following a tip-off from intelligence and arrested 10 suspects suspected of being linked to the opposition's underground cell groups – the DRCs.
"One of the suspects has an injury on his stomach consistent with a burn and we suspect this was caused during the process of throwing a petrol bomb.
"We believe – and intelligence has it – that most of the so-called DRCs who were throwing petrol bombs were being housed at Harvest House and hence the raid this morning," Asst Comm Vudzijena said.
Several other activists rounded up when police raided the opposition's offices were being screened.
Police briefly closed a two-block section along Nelson Mandela Avenue between Angwa Street and Sam Nujoma Street to search the opposition offices in the area. Police dismissed claims that they had arrested Mr Tsvangirai during the Harvest House raid.
"We are not witch-hunting and the rumour that Mr Morgan Tsvangirai was arrested during the Harvest House raid is misplaced and mischievous," Asst Comm Bvudzijena said.
Western media and online news agencies were yesterday awash with reports that Mr Tsvangirai had been picked up.
In the latest terror bombing, two petrol tankers were bombed along Sanhanga Road in Mutare.
However, police quickly responded and put out the fire before it spread.
There have been five terror bombings in Harare, two in Mutare and one each in Gweru and Bulawayo, which security authorities believe are meant to induce fear and insecurity in the Zimbabwean population.
Since March 12, this terror campaign – believed to be mounted by the MDC through its so-called DRCs – has mainly targeted Government officials, security forces and Zanu-PF officials.
But with bombings of a train and now the petrol tankers, they are now showing determination to spread the terror to the general public.
Asst Comm Bvudzijena said police would continue to arrest those who have committed these terror crimes irrespective of their political or social stature.
He also said the terror activities the country has witnessed are how civil wars are started.
"We do not want Zimbabwe to descend into anarchy. We appeal to anyone with information to come forth and assist us," he said.
Reprinted from:
www.herald.co.zw/inside.aspx?sectid=17001&cat=1``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xPolice nab 35 MDC activists, confiscate arms, explosives``x1175174526,57587,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xThe hypocrisy of these Western leaders, all of whom have the blood of hundreds of thousands on their hands, makes hollow their outrage over Zimbabwe. Having already demonstrated the disregard they have for the lives of ordinary people, they cannot now be the moral authority for anyone.
Even if African nations wanted to make statements opposing President Mugabe's governing, the US, UK and Australia are making it difficult for them to do so with their constant demands and interferences. The leaders in these Western countries are demanding that leaders of African nations react harshly to President Robert Mugabe, as if the African leaders cannot see the tactics they are using in their attempts to remotely control them. Which African leader really wants to appear as US and Europe's lacquey?
Continue to: 'Zimbabwe: US and Europe's Disinformation Campaign'``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe: US and Europe's Disinformation Campaign``x1175174583,97353,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xZimbabwe Watch
March 29, 2007
African leaders agreed that President Thabo Mbeki should facilitate dialogue between the government and opposition political parties in Zimbabwe amid calls from Western leaders for strong actions to be taken against President Mugabe and the government of Zimbabwe.
The Southern African Development Community (SADC) also called for western sanctions on Zimbabwe to be lifted and appealed to Britain to honour its commitments to assist with financing land reforms in Zimbabwe.
This may seem to be a slap in the face of Western leaders' calls for tough words and actions from African leaders against Robert Mugabe.
It is quite obvious that African leaders are not dependant on western sources for news and reports on what is taking place in Zimbabwe.
"Of course the appeal to parties is to be cooperative and give this initiative a chance, also for the parties to exercise restraint and avoid anything that's going to inflame the situation," Tanzanian President Jakaya Kikwete told reporters at a news conference.
"The extraordinary summit mandated his Excellency President Thabo Mbeki to continue to facilitate dialogue between opposition and government and report back ... on progress," a statement at the end of the two-day summit said.
"The extraordinary summit reiterated its appeal to Britain to honour its compensation obligations with regard to land reforms," the summit statement said.
Also Read:
Africa summit calls for Zimbabwe dialogue
Email: zimbabwecrisis@yahoo.com
Visit: Zimbabwe Watch``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe: Africa Summit Calls for End to Sanctions``x1175193906,21559,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xFrom Innocent Gore in DAR ES SALAAM, Tanzania
In a communiqué released at the end of a one-day extraordinary summit attended by 10 heads of state and government here, Sadc also appealed to the British government to honour its obligations and release funds to compensate former commercial farmers whose land was acquired for resettlement.
The summit "noted and appreciated the briefing by President Robert Mugabe on the current political developments in Zimbabwe".
"The Extraordinary Summit recalled that free, fair and democratic presidential elections were held in 2002 in Zimbabwe. The Extraordinary Summit reaffirmed its solidarity with the Government and people of Zimbabwe.
"The Extraordinary Summit reiterated the appeal to Britain to honour its compensation obligations with regard to land reform made at Lancaster House.
"The Extraordinary Summit appealed for the lifting of all forms of sanctions against Zimbabwe," read the communiqué.
The Sadc heads mandated Sadc executive secretary Mr Tomaz Salamao to undertake a study on the economic situation in Zimbabwe and propose measures on how the regional bloc can assist the country to recover economically.
This is the first time that Sadc has collectively called for the lifting of sanctions on Zimbabwe and come up with a proposal on how the effects of those sanctions on the country can be countered.
The sanctions against Zimbabwe by Britain and her allies follow a bilateral dispute between Harare and London after the country embarked on land reforms in 2000.
The British government of Mrs Margaret Thatcher promised to release funds for land reforms at the Lancaster House constitutional conference that culminated in Zimbabwe's independence in 1980 after a protracted armed struggle.
However, the Labour government of Mr Tony Blair has refused to honour that obligation and has instead mobilised its allies -- the United States and some countries in the European Union -- to impose sanctions on Zimbabwe.
Sadc has previously made it clear that the problems in Zimbabwe are a result of a bilateral dispute with Britain, mainly arising from the land reform programme, but had not pronounced itself explicitly on the need to have the sanctions lifted.
The Government has said it will not compensate the former commercial farmers for the land because it does not have the money to do so, but that it will pay for the improvements on the land such as dams and other infrastructure.
On the political situation in the country, the summit mandated President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa to continue to facilitate dialogue between the MDC and the Government and report back to the troika on Defence, Politics and Security on progress.
"The Extraordinary Summit also encouraged enhanced diplomatic contacts which will assist the resolution of the situation in Zimbabwe," read the communique.
The summit was held in the wake of a protracted media onslaught on Zimbabwe by the West, with the international media, particularly the BBC and CNN, speculating that President Mugabe had been "summoned" by Sadc leaders to be "dressed down" or "shown the exit".
But sources who attended the meeting's closed-door session said President Mugabe briefed the leaders on the political situation in the country and the MDC terror campaign that has seen the opposition party petrol-bombing police stations in Harare, Chitungwiza, Gweru and Mutare.
Suspected MDC supporters also petrol-bombed a Bulawayo-bound passenger train and a supermarket in Warren Park.
Speaking to reporters on arrival at Harare International Airport, the President said the summit had also urged the MDC to desist from violence and to recognise him and his Government as he was legitimately re-elected by the people of Zimbabwe in 2002.
He said President Mbeki would talk to the opposition and see whether there is need for dialogue with them, but warned them against engaging in violence.
The summit also got briefings on the political situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Lesotho by the leaders of those countries, President Joseph Kabila and Prime Minister Pakalitha Mosisili respectively.
The leaders resolved to render unconditional support to Mr Kabila's government in its quest to restore law and order, maintaining peace and stability and spearheading national reconstruction.
It reaffirmed the sovereign right of the DRC to have a single national army and urged former Vice President Jean Pierre Bemba to integrate his remaining armed elements into the national army or to be demobilised. They also appealed to other armed groups in the DRC to do the same.
The summit reiterated that the rule of law in the DRC must be observed and respected by all parties in conformity with accepted international conventions. It expressed concern on the loss of lives and urged all parties to respect the sanctity of human life and the principles of human rights.
The summit also expressed support to the ongoing efforts for the economic reconstruction of the DRC.
On Lesotho, the summit agreed to send a Sadc delegation at ministerial level to assess the situation as requested by the opposition political parties who want the regional bloc to help in dealing with post-election tensions.
The other leaders who attended the summit were host President Jakaya Kikwete, President Bingu wa Mutharika of Malawi, President Armando Guebuza of Mozambique, President Hifikepunye Pohamba of Namibia, Prime Minister Themba Dlamini of Swaziland and President Levy Mwanawasa of Zambia. Botswana was represented by its Vice President, Mr Ian Khama, while Angola was represented by its Minister of External Affairs, Mr Joao Bernardo Miranda. Madagascar and Mauritius were represented by their ambassadors.
President Mugabe returned home last night and was met at Harare International Airport by Vice President Joice Mujuru, the Minister of State Security, Land Reform and Resettlement, Cde Didymus Mutasa, the Minister of Information and Publicity, Dr Sikhanyiso Ndlovu, service chiefs and senior Government officials.
Reprinted from:
www.herald.co.zw/inside.aspx?sectid=17068&cat=1``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xLift sanctions on Zimbabwe -SADC``x1175229857,38972,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Peter Mavunga
The Herald (Harare)
March 30, 2007
IN his article in the Mail on Sunday last week, a member of the British Government, Mr Peter Hain, was unequivocal: "Mugabe must go and go now."
Mr Hain, Northern Ireland secretary, was in fulsome praise of his friend, Mrs Sekai Holland of the MDC. Without saying it in as many words, it was clear he prefers the MDC to govern Zimbabwe.
What cheek!
What gives him the right to choose the leaders of Zimbabwe? Does he not know Zimbabwe is a sovereign State with people capable of choosing their own leaders?
A few years ago, President Mugabe was driven to offer Tony Blair some advice. He suggested that the British Prime Minister should look after Britain while he looked after Zimbabwe.
Wise words, I thought, but words that fell on deaf ears, no doubt. The British government and media alike have in the last two weeks orchestrated a cruel and vicious campaign against the Government of Zimbabwe. Britons have been subjected to a barrage of bitter tirades in newspaper columns, shameful hysteria too.
If you think I exaggerate, then please put Mr Hain's outburst to one side and consider the comments of another member of Her Majesty's government, Mr Ian McCartney, in his capacity as foreign office minister, who told the House of Commons on Monday that President Mugabe's, daughter, Bona, was studying at my old school, the London School of Economics and Political Science.
I reported to you last week that when it comes to Zimbabwe, the Brits enjoy telling lies these days, they will stop at nothing to demonise the President. This was of course another lie, one of many being peddled here.
And when the LSE issued a denial, Foreign Office officials admitted Mr McCartney "had become a bit confused."
Not in my book, these were just lies, lies, damn lies. It was part of the hysteria whipped up not just by the media but by the British Government -- grown men and women so intent on bringing down the properly elected leader of Zimbabwe in their quest for their so-called regime change.
They want President Mugabe out of office and Mr Morgan Tsvangirai in.
Why?
Because they say so. The MDC may have split into two factions but the British are pretending the split never occurred neither do they think it worth finding out the cause of the split. All they want is for President Mugabe to go and as Mr Hain put it, to go now. This meddling in the internal affairs of an independent sovereign state is consistent with the role the British and the Americans have assigned to themselves -- the world policeman.
For instance, they both invaded Iraq illegally. As my friend and author, David Gazi, has argued, Hitler probably had much more tangible reasons for marching into Austria in 1938 than they ever had for invading Iraq.
This illegal act has cost over 600 000 Iraqi lives, a few thousand American, over hundred British and two Zimbabwean lives. The occupation is now a fait accompli and has more or less gained "legality". The world is less critical and American and British interference in Iraqi affairs is now taken for granted.
Enter Condoleezza Rice. When the US secretary of state "warned" President Mugabe that America would hold him responsible for Tsvangirai's safety, this passed almost without comment.
But wait a minute. On what basis did she make this statement? What right has she got? What is the legal basis of making a statement as intrusive into Zimbabwean affairs as this?
When American soldiers committed illegal acts against Iraqi citizens, it was not Bush who was held to account but the soldiers themselves. Indeed Bush would probably argue that he did not order the soldiers to commit these illegal acts. So would President Mugabe who has already denied any involvement in the beating of Tsvangirai.
If Bush can claim such an alibi, so can President Mugabe.
Again Gazi, that erudite son of Zimbabwe, dismisses Rice as a woman who has not shown any desire for meaningful dialogue with Africa. Gazi asks: "What then does she mean when she warns President Mugabe that America will hold him responsible for Tsvangirai's well-being?"
Gazi in a paper intended for British MPs ahead of the Commons debate on Zimbabwe on Monday said conspiracy theories might regard the statement as "sinister indeed".
"What would happen if Mr Tsvangirai was harmed by persons unknown?" he asked. "Would that not be a pretext for foreign intervention in Zimbabwe? In other words, Mr Tsvangirai is in danger now from forces that wish to further destabilise Zimbabwe for their own ends," he argued.
It is difficult to see how else the West wishes to use Tsvangirai except as some form of martyr. A significant number of top MDC officials, including Professor Welshman Ncube, Gibson Sibanda and more significantly Trudy Stevenson, have left the Tsvangirai camp.
The Western media may have glossed over the reasons for the split but what is known, said Gazi, is that there were complaints that Tsvangirai was dictatorial (this before he even assumed office!). It was also claimed that he had trained a private security force that was harassing senior members of his own party. Trudy Stevenson was allegedly assaulted by young MDC supporters which made the split inevitable, he said.
He went on to say that the MDC is awash with funds, pointing out that the British and American governments had donated generously to a "fighting fund" for opposition groups. If this is not interference, then I do not know what is.
He goes on to say Tsvangirai owns a presidential Mercedes Benz car and lives in relative affluence as do all the top officials of the party. The West does not appear to be overly concerned about the ethical issues involved even though they claim to be keen on transparency and in their fight against corruption, argued Gazi.
But for all their hysteria and their "vast knowledge" of what is best for Zimbabwe, the British have historically been poor at reading the African mind. It is therefore worth asking who they think will win the 2008 elections?
The meddling British by instinct still think the MDC will win as long as the elections are "free and fair". Their unproven contention is that the last election was rigged and that the next one will be rigged as well.
But lets look at the facts more closely. When in February 2000 the draft constitution was rejected to the delight of the MDC and its supporters the British did not think any rigging had taken place. They saw this as a sign that President Mugabe's rule was at an end. Also, the MDC won 57 of the freely contested 120 seats in the election that was held in June of the same year.
There were claims that had the June elections been really free and fair, then Zanu-PF would have lost as it had lost the referendum. But it seems this was all wishful thinking. Why would the rejection of the referendum in February won by the MDC be considered free and fair while the June election won by Zanu-PF be considered to have been the result of vote rigging?
Prof Jonathan Moyo, Zimbabwe's former Minister of Information and Publicity left the party and Government and fought a by-election as an independent. He won against MDC and Zanu-PF candidates. The result showed the complexity of Zimbabwe's politics that has not been grasped by the British.
British failure to understand the African mind generally and in particular the Zimbabwe question dates back to their endorsement of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland in 1952. They did this in the vain hope that this would consolidate British influence in Southern Africa. The Federation project failed.
Again almost 20 years later the British put together the Pearce Commission to test the acceptability of the proposals that, had they been accepted in 1971, would have legitimised through the back door white minority rule underpinned by the 1961 Constitution.
Zimbabweans rejected the proposals.
The Pearce Commission gave birth to the ANC under Bishop Abel Muzorewa. For the British, the Bishop was the preferred future Prime Minister of independent Zimbabwe.
They genuinely believed he would win the 1980 elections. Lord Carrington was quoted as having advised the Bishop not to remove his slippers from State House as he was definitely going to be returned there by popular vote.
They were, no doubt, dreaming then just as they continue to dream on today in their clamor for President Mugabe to go. Blair does not stop telling us that he and his government are working with the MDC to effect change. He thinks, quite erroneously, that he is doing the MDC a favour.
It does not always work like that in post colonial Africa as Tsvangirai appears to be slowly beginning to realise. He begged the British in an interview this week not to act alone in their support for the MDC.
"The British should play a part within the EU and UN framework," he said.
Clearly Tsvangirai is embarrassed about the impact his close association with the British has on his party. But I think he should worry about something else -- the fickle nature of British support.
The British have been using the word "coup" in relation to Zimbabwe as if it were the first principle of democracy. Also their Foreign Office officials have been talking about their readiness to work with Zanu-PF as if democracy and corruption are no longer of concern to them.
Herein lies some food for thought for the MDC. I do not think the British will have any compunction about dropping the MDC, if it suits them, in favour of Zanu-PF members who are on their banned list, regardless of whether they are corrupt or not.
For me, the moral of the story seems to have three stands. Solutions to problems facing Zimbabwe should be found among Zimbabweans and those who forget this do so at their peril.
Zimbabwean politicians who traipse to Western capitals campaign for more hardship to be meted out on the already impoverished Zimbabweans are focusing their campaigns on the wrong constituencies.
There are no votes here.
It is the people of Zimbabwe, not Hain, who can remove their politicians from office. The task of Zimbabwe's politicians is to persuade the majority as to the merits of their case, not British MPs however nice they may be as "friends".
Reprinted from:
www.herald.co.zw/inside.aspx?sectid=17005&cat=10``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe: There are No Votes in London``x1175262325,69875,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Stephen Gowans
March 31, 2007
Ever since veterans of the guerrilla war against apartheid Rhodesia violently seized white-owned farms in Zimbabwe, the country's president, Robert Mugabe, has been demonized by politicians, human rights organizations and the media in the West. His crimes, according to right-wing sources, are numerous: human rights abuses, election rigging, repression of political opponents, corruption, and mismanagement of the economy. Leftist detractors say Mugabe talks left and walks right, and that his anti-imperialist rhetoric is pure demagogy.
I'm going to argue that the basis for Mugabe's demonization is the desire of Western powers to change the economic and land redistribution policies Mugabe's government has pursued; that his lapses from liberal democratic rectitude are, in themselves, of little moment to decision makers in Washington and London; and that the ultimate aim of regime change is to replace Mugabe with someone who can be counted on to reliably look after Western interests, and particularly British investments, in Zimbabwe.
I am also going to argue that the Zanu-PF government's abridgment of formal liberties (including freedom of assembly and freedom to travel outside the country) are warranted restraints, justified by the need to protect the political program of the elected government from hostile outside interference. In making this argument I am challenging a widely held, and often unexamined, view that civil and political liberties are senior to all other liberties, including rights related to economic sovereignty and freedom from oppression and exploitation.
Full Article : raceandhistory.com``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe's Lonely Fight for Justice``x1175351268,48019,Development``x``x
``xUnknown attackers in Zimbabwe threw petrol bombs at a store belonging to a businessman with links to the ruling ZANU-PF party, reports said Monday.
The attack on Gumbas Wholesalers in downtown Harare on Saturday night damaged office equipment worth 150 million Zimbabwe dollars (600,000 US dollars), state radio said.
"I am surprised by such action because Gumbas Wholesale offers reasonable prices and valuable service to people in spite of the political divide," former ZANU-PF MP Christopher Chigumba, the owner of the store, was quoted as telling the official Herald newspaper.
It was the tenth petrol bomb attack in three weeks of mounting political tensions.
Full Article : monstersandcritics.com``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xTenth petrol bomb attack in Zimbabwe``x1175507192,6957,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Reason Wafawarova
herald.co.zw
Aprol 02, 2007
THE resolutions, on Zimbabwe, at the just-ended Extraordinary Summit of Sadc Heads of State and Government did not only expose Western propaganda, but also sent a clear message to MDC and any would-be lapdog politicians that it's either the African way or the highway to foreign-backed oblivion.
The resolution calling for the scrapping of the ruinous sanctions behind economic decline in Zimbabwe is a test for MDC's sincerity in its claim to be standing for the interests of ordinary Zimbabweans.
MDC faction leader Morgan Tsvangirai publicly called for the same sanctions and the official MDC line is that the sanctions are "targeted", but the party's sponsors have since dropped the pretence with Washington recently pledging stiffer economic sanctions.
Now MDC has to choose between rallying behind Sadc's call to condemn the sanctions and endorsing the region's planned rescue package or continue the shameful support for the illegal sanctions along with its masters in London and Washington.
The former route will cost MDC as it comes with loss of both regional and domestic support while the latter will cost the opposition donor funds as well as their only known political weapon, foreign-sponsored campaigns to create anarchy and despondency in Zimbabwe.
The two MDCs are likely to register their disappointment with the Sadc position and dutifully front Western anger and frustrations.
While this may portray MDC as a resolute pliant party in the eyes of the West, it can only help further isolate it from the African cause and interest.
Sadc basically sees Tsvangirai the same way it sees Jean-Pierre Bemba, the way it saw Afonso Dhlakama and Jonas Savimbi, subversive individuals that needed to be tamed and reformed into acceptable Africans.
The clear message from Sadc is that MDC has to abandon its externally-induced political positions and start approaching its differences with Zanu-PF from the position of a loyal, homegrown political party.
The sanctions really put Tsvangirai and his cohorts between a rock and a hard place.
The resolution calling on Britain to honour its obligations to compensate white commercial farmers compounds MDC's woes.
The quisling party has to wait for London's response before pronouncing itself on the issue.
Open support for the British position can only further expose MDC as a sellout political party.
Tendai Biti's overused rhetoric in articulating Western-oriented policies will have to be at its tired best to come up with a face-saving position.
The proposal that Sadc should find ways of countering the effects of sanctions was probably the worst news Tsvangirai has ever received since 1999, family bereavements included.
On this he can either choose to fight Sadc and the people, or join Sadc and the Government in fighting his masters.
Panyanga dzaMushore chaipo (a real Catch-22 situation).
MDC factions will have to tell their masters that they need to be more African to remain relevant lest they go the way of Bishop Abel Muzorewa's UANC and Ndabaningi Sithole's Ndonga, the way to oblivion.
The decision to have South African President Thabo Mbeki mediate between MDC and Zanu-PF was not good news to Tsvangirai, his colleagues and their desperate masters in London and Washington.
This is the same Mbeki who ignored Tsvangirai's mad calls to cut off of power supplies to Zimbabwe.
This is the Mbeki who has repeatedly refused to condemn President Mugabe, much to the chagrin of Bush and Blair.
This is the Mbeki whose quiet diplomacy has irked the entire bloodthirsty Western political set up. This is the Mbeki whose government and ANC declared all elections in Zimbabwe free, fair and democratic.
For Tsvangirai, this is the Mbeki he called "a dishonest broker".'
Tsvangirai, Pius Ncube, Lovemore Madhuku and all other money-sniffing opposition supporters must really be extremely sad fellows today.
In one fell swoop; Sadc dealt a death blow to puppet politics in the region.
If it can't endorse Sadc's position, MDC may as well go and seek solidarity from Iraq's Nouri al Maliki, Israel's Ehud Olmert and Afghanistan's Hamid Karzai.
Africa is saying no to puppet politics and treachery and MDC has two options to deal with the situation, either to shape up or ship out.
What Sadc has done gives the world an opportunity to scrutinise the Western media and choose who to believe between Zimbabwe's neighbours or its distant detractors and enemies.
Of all five known styles of conflict management; that is dominating, obliging, compromising, integrating and avoiding; MDC seems to be having only one viable option and that is to oblige with the dictates of the African interest in general and Zimbabwe's national interest in particular.
They have no one to dominate, no room for compromises since they are a British outfit, nothing to integrate since their objective is unAfrican and they can no longer avoid engagement lest they be dismissed for what they are, puppet anarchists and counter-revolutionary Trojan horses.
For MDC, it is either the African way or the highway; there are no two ways about it.
Reason Wafawarova is a post-graduate student in International Relations at Macquarie University in Sydney, Australia.
Reprinted from:
www.herald.co.zw/inside.aspx?sectid=17075&cat=10``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe: Region shames MDC``x1175507542,26616,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy K. Elford
April 02, 2007
We White people hardly ever realize our offense when discounting information being presented to us from a Black point of view. There are informed alternatives to the White-owned mainstream media, outlets that provide alternative views for important consideration.
There is excessive attention from the Western media on the Zimbabwe land reclamation program. Many Whites, White journalists, politicians, White landowners and former White landowners are voicing opposition to this exercise. Unfortunately Whites have the loudest voice with the least to say. That voice comes from a biased, emotionally charged and uninformed point of view based on White mainstream media propaganda. Whites just don't want to see the land reclamation issue differently than how the West is presenting it.
Land illegally obtained by Whites and the efforts to reclaim it by the rightful owners is an ongoing, significant point of contention between the minority White occupiers and the landless indigenous Black majority in Africa.
The ownership of land in any nation is the lifeblood of the sovereign people. Whose hands the land is in and how it is managed controls the welfare of the community.
Whites were enticed to Zimbabwe in search of gold by the White established British South Africa Company (BSAC); a company granted to Cecil Rhodes by England's Queen Victoria. Unsuccessful in their search, instead of the riches of gold promised, they were "given" large tracts of land by the BSAC. One of the problems with this land handout is the British and BSAC had no real authority to give any land to anyone.
Before Whites showed up in Africa, culturally there was a different concept towards land "ownership". Whites will tell tales of treaties and agreements made with local Africans (people who had no authority to make agreements), but I find those tales hard to believe since Whites were "negotiating the treaties". Besides the language barriers, the concepts of owning land individually would be foreign to many indigenous Africans so there is no way these treaties were anything but a White concocted and enacted affair. Closer to the truth is that the landgrab initiated by Whites brought the White settlers into conflict with the indigenous African populations.
Africans rebelled and wars were fought in attempts to rectify the White settler infestation and the environmental disasters being brought on by their presence. In response to African rebellions the BSAC officially "sanctioned" the use of force to enact their "new" land policy concocting a "racial solution" to the land issue.
What was the solution White settlers initiated? The 1899 Order in Council, "the Council shall assign to the natives land sufficient for their occupation, whether as tribes or portions of tribes, and suitable for agriculture and pastoral requirement" (Palmer, 1977). In other words, Black Africans were "resettled" onto reserves, while Whites allowed themselves new land occupancy with prospective settlers continuing to get lands grants. Is any of this sounding familiar?
Within a few years nearly half of the indigenous population were living on reserves and had lost nearly 16 million hectares of land to the White settlers. Not long after their arrival Whites had 2500 farms occupying approximately 15 million hectares.
White landgrabs in Africa were the beginning of the colonization of indigenous Africans. Do Whites have the same imagery of colonialism as those who Whites forced their institution of colonialism on? Very unlikely. In the U.S. Whites think of a colony, the fairytale Thanksgiving stories of White settlers taking care of the Native Americans and for the British it would be tales of conquest of what they feel are a lesser-type of human being under the guise of advancing "civilization" while increasing their material wealth.
Colonization in Zimbabwe was a minority of Whites illegally occupying the land, imposing a British structured control of resources, labor and government displacing the indigenous Black population by subjugation. The British colonizers became dominant using brutal force against Black Africans during their efforts to replace the established indigenous cultural structure.
The result has been the minority White colonizers accumulating wealth while the majority indigenous Black population, no longer in control of their land and resources, has been left in extreme poverty.
The occupation of land by Whites has had a direct impact on Africa's economy preventing the ability of the local indigenous population from competing fairly. Unless Black Africans gain access to land ownership they remain poor, while the White minority continues to profit. This unfair advantage in favor of Whites is what perpetuates the cycle of poverty: a middle class from within the indigenous peoples is not allowed to expand; the nation has the minority Whites accumulating the most wealth; a few Blacks are being promoted, often by chance or circumstance; and the majority Black population remains in poverty. As long as these few Whites hold the most and the best land, there is no way to break this poverty cycle.
Does the average citizen in the West have any idea why their governments are so interested in the land reclamation program in Zimbabwe? Whites tend to believe the propagandized vision of a benevolent government that "gives" assistance to the downtrodden. What is missing from that vision is that Western governments give nothing and through colonization (also known as imperialism) is the reason many are downtrodden.
If Western governments were really interested in the well-being of developing countries, why do Western governments knowingly support opposition organizations that have stated they will use violence to meet their goals? In which Western country can someone threaten to use violence to bring down a government and be free? In the U.S. and UK? No. But when the U.S. and Britain are campaigning and plotting a foreign government takeover, they will condone and defend opposition parties using violence while castigating the local democratically elected government for reacting exactly as the U.S. and European governments would to quell any violence being used against them.
The current White instigated and maintained war in Iraq is about land and resources.
It has become common knowledge including admissions from the U.S. elite that the information used to rally the citizenry of the U.S. behind the U.S. led War against Iraq was "faulty". What is the cost of this faulty information? Besides the loss of 655,000 people and counting, the Iraq nation has lost its identity and its land is being destroyed while being occupied by the White invaders. Does anyone really think that when this war ends the U.S. has any intention of giving back the land and other resources they are taking? Would the U.S. remove all traces of its presence and restore an Iraqi identity? This has not happened as yet anywhere else that the U.S. has invaded, so it would be prudent to suggest that will not be the case.
As horrifying as the Iraq War is, there is sufficient documentation of at least 56 instances of major U.S. aggressions abroad since World War II.
The majority of Whites overwhelmingly and blindly consider any alternative media, along with different perspectives (any source of information other than the mainstream media) as "conspiracy theories" or unpatriotic America-bashing.
The hypocrisy of this type of thinking is that the average U.S. citizen debunks as a "conspiracy theory" any information when it points out that the U.S. government is corrupt, but will easily accept other governments as being guilty of "conspiracies", especially if they perceive them as threats against them in the U.S. Imperialist empires do depend on individual paranoia to keep the charade of legitimacy going.
And so the U.S. and European imperialist aggressions against foreign governments go on using brute force by the most inhumane displays of aggression unabated with the mainstream press aiding every step of the way. The antagonistic Western governments keep propping up puppet governments and funding oppositions to take down resistant governments the world over and hardly a word is spoken. White people refuse to believe that Western governments are directly responsible for any wrongdoings. Could Whites ever fathom that Western, White governments are behind every major conflict in the world?
Email: zimbabwecrisis@yahoo.com
Visit: Zimbabwe Watch``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe: The Resistance to Colonialism``x1175529685,26232,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Stephen Gowans
Stephen Gowans's Blog
April 03, 2007
Patrick Bond would probably never balk at being accused of contributing to the barrage of negative publicity against the Mugabe government. Bond appears to hate Mugabe with a passion.
Nor, I suspect, would he object to anyone pointing out that, where he can, he acts to alienate left support for Mugabe's government by portraying Mugabe as a reactionary who dishonestly exploits anti-imperialist rhetoric to cling to power at any cost.
Bond doesn't believe Mugabe is engaged in an anti-neo-colonial struggle. He sees Mugabe as nothing more than a corrupt demagogue who has become so addicted to the perks of power that he'll never give them up willingly.
Bond's argument resonates with some progressives because it gives them an easy way out of the dilemma of feeling obliged to support a beleaguered leader everyone says is a brutal dictator who steals elections and mismanages the economy. No one wants to be known as a thug-hugger. When Bond reinforces the crudest CNN and BBC propaganda, and tells progressives that Mugabe is a phony, he signals it's okay to join in the two minutes hate.
While there may be an emotional appeal to what Bond has to say, his argument, examined dispassionately, is weak. If Mugabe is the crypto reactionary, pro-imperialist Bond says he is, why are the openly reactionary, imperialists in London and Washington so agitated about Mugabe and his policies?
In an article posted at Counterpunch.org, and subsequently reposted at MRZine, Bond urges readers to look to the "independent" left to find out what's really going on in Zimbabwe.
Bond doesn't say what the "independent" left is independent of. What's clear, however, is that it isn't independent of the governments and foundations that want to replace Mugabe's economic and land reform policies with a neo-liberal tyranny and return to a glacial pace of land reform. Indeed, Bond's "independent" left appears to be as much a part of the US and British foreign policy apparatus as the Foreign Office, the Voice of America and the National Endowment for Democracy.
Consider, for example, Sokwanele, one of the groups Bond urges progressives to check out to find out what's really going on in Zimbabwe.
Sokwanele is an offspring of Otpor, the underground movement that was established, funded, trained and organized by the US State Department, USAID, and the US Congress-funded National Endowment for Democracy (which is said to do overtly what the CIA used to do covertly) to bring down the Milosevic government in 2000.
Here's how it worked: The West ordered the formal political opposition to unite under a single banner, and to select a name that emphasized the word "democracy," to invest the united party with moral gravitas. In Serbia, the anti-Milosevic opposition became known as the Democratic Opposition of Serbia. (In Zimbabwe, the opposition, following the same game plan, calls itself the Movement for Democratic Change.) The opposition's anointing itself as the champion of democracy serves the additional function of calling the government's commitment to democracy into question. If the opposition is "the democratic opposition" then what must the government be? The answer, of course, is undemocratic.
The plan called for the opposition to accuse the government of electoral fraud to justify a transition from electoral to insurrectionary politics. The accusations built and built as the day of the vote approached, until, by sheer repetition, they were accepted as a matter of indisputable truth. The failure of the opposition candidate, Kostunica, to win the election on the first ballot, provided the pretext for people to take to the streets to force the government to step down. Otpor was central to organizing the planned "spontaneous" demonstrations.
Wherever Washington is engaged in regime change operations, known now as color revolutions, the same plan is put into play. And where Washington is interfering in a country's internal politics to oust governments it doesn't like, you'll also find Sokwanele's sister organizations: Zubr in Belarus, Khmara in Georgia, Pora in the Ukraine. All translate into the same English phrase: enough is enough.
Zvakwana, "an underground movement that aims to .... undermine" the Mugabe government, is another Optor offspring. (Sokwanele, "specialize(s) in anonymous acts of civil disobedience.") (1) Both groups receive generous financing from Western sources. (2) While the original, Otpor, was largely a youth-oriented anarchist-leaning movement, at least one member of Sokwanele is "A conservative white businessman expressing a passion for freedom, tradition, polite manners and the British Royals." (3) That, in Bond's view, counts as the independent left.
Not surprisingly, the Bond-recommended Sokwanele Web site links to Zvakwana's Web site. Members of Zvakwana say their movement is homegrown and free of foreign control (4), but free from foreign control doesn't mean free from foreign funding. The US Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act, signed into law by US President George W. Bush in December 2001, empowers the president under the US Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to "support democratic institutions, the free press and independent media" in Zimbabwe – which is to say, groups like Sokwanele and Zvakwana.
Movements, political parties and media elsewhere have knowingly accepted funding from Western governments, their agencies and pro-imperialist foundations, while proclaiming their complete independence. (5) Members of these groups may genuinely believe they remain aloof from their backer's aims (and in the West it is often the very groups that claim not to take sides that are the favored recipients of this lucre), but self-deception is an insidious thing – and the promise of oodles of cash is hard to resist.
There's no doubt Sokwanele and Zvakwana are well-financed. Their Web sites alone betray a level of funding and organization that goes well beyond what the meager self-financing of truly independent grassroots movements – even in the far more affluent West – are able to scrape together.
If Zvakwana denies its links to the US, other elements of the Western-backed anti-Mugabe apparatus are less secretive. Studio 7, an anti-ZANU-PF radio program carries programming by the Voice of America, an agency whose existence can hardly be said to be left-oriented or independent. Studio 7 is carried on SW Radio Africa, a shortwave radio station operating from the UK, also endorsed by the Bond-recommended Sokwanele. The station is funded by "international pro-democracy groups" (6) (i.e., US ruling class foundations and Western governments.)
Groups like Sokwanele, Zvakwane and SW Radio Africa – and the arguments of individuals like Bond who promote them as the independent left – should be examined with a fair degree of skepticism. Are they really "independent"? If not, and they're bound up with the foreign policy apparatus of imperialist countries, are they really left, or do they simply talk left, to hide a fundamentally pro-imperialist orientation?
NOTES:
1. "Grass-Roots Effort Aims to Upend Mugabe in Zimbabwe," The New York Times, (March 28, 2005)
2. Los Angeles Times (July 8, 2005)
3. Ibid.
4. New York Times (March 27, 2005)
5. See Frances Stonor Saunders, "The Cultural Cold War: The CIA and the World of Arts and Letters," New Press, April 2000; and "The Economics and Politics or the World Social Forum," Aspects of India's Economy, No. 35, September 2003, http://www.rupe-india.org/35/contents.html
6. Globe and Mail (March 26, 2005)
Email: zimbabwecrisis@yahoo.com
Visit: Zimbabwe Watch ``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe: Grassroots Lieutenants of Imperialism?``x1175583746,95328,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy David Samuriwo
The Herald (Harare)
April 3, 2007
Harare
GILLIAN DARE, the purse holder and financier of the violence being perpetrated by the MDC, should be aware that by throwing all diplomatic etiquette into the dustbin and putting on her combat gear she has become a prime target for deportation.
Not only that, there is also a real possibility that the political officer, labelled in some sections of the media as a British spy, could one day be caught in cross fire as she plays night nurse to arrested MDC hooligans.
It will be a pity for her family to welcome her at Heathrow Airport in a body bag just like some of her colleagues from Iraq and Afghanistan.
To be honest, I must confess that I took this woman for granted. What with the numerous sponsored tours to British-funded projects that I attended together with her beloved Grace Mtandwa followed by the free lagers that I downed after her diplomatic pretensions.
Her latest blatant interference in the internal affairs of Zimbabwe has left me without any iota of respect for her.
According to a source in South Africa who is based at Rhodes University and is studying journalism, Dare has sent out word that a considerable number of Zimbabwean journalists could soon find themselves earning the much-sought-after British pound.
It does not matter whether one is based in Zimbabwe or in the Diaspora. All one has to do is to join an anti-Zimbabwe media campaign team that has been set up by the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO).
In pursuit of her country's unbridled ambition, Dare has received a huge amount of money from a section of the FCO known as ADS to pay Zimbabwean journalists, academics and opposition politicians to pen articles that paint President Mugabe and the Government in bad light after each arrest of MDC hooligans.
The articles will be forwarded to various media outlets worldwide and prompt payment will be made for each publication. Individuals responsible for Zimbabwe in the ADS are Ben Llewlyn Johns, Neil Hammond and Simon Atkinson.
Already listed as potential contributors to the demonisation campaign are Peter Robinson and Daniel Ndlela. The two were chosen on the basis of a project they worked on dubbed, "New Zimbabwe: Sustainable Growth and Transformation". The project was commissioned by the Zimbabwe Institute in South Africa, a so-called "think tank" of Zimbabweans-based in that country.
According to the sources, Dare insists the recruited journalists should also cover the dire need of the restoration of the rule of law, the need for a new constitution, regime change either through the ballot box or through street protests. Proper finalisation of the legal framework of the land resettlement programme with exceptional emphasis being placed on adequate compensation to those whites dispossessed of land.
In this respect, Dare argues, there is need for some of the white farmers who bought their land after obtaining a certificate of no interest from the Government to return to the farms.
Dare insists that the campaign should also sensitise the world that the "isolation Zimbabwe is facing" is self-imposed through disregard for property rights especially the forced eviction of "productive and highly skilled" white former farmers.
This she says will need a new government that has to take unpopular decisions like returning vast tracts of land to these white former commercial farmers.
Unfortunately, the anti-Zimbabwe media campaign as envisaged by Dare has taken off on a wrong footing. Last week, the British junior foreign minister, Ian McCartney lied to the House of Commons that President Mugabe's daughter was studying at the London School of Economics.
Authorities at the College were left with no choice but to put the record straight denying that they had no student by that name.
The generous payouts being made to these mercenaries to demonise the country are a blessing in disguise to the Government of Zimbabwe.
Dare's anti-Zimbabwe media campaign will never reach the envisaged earth-shattering crescendo, as she would wish, as evidenced by the false start it has made.
Instead, the lies will find resonance in the British Houses of Commons, and Lords, the US Congress and such other bodies who have steadfastly refused to understand Zimbabwe's political environment.
The Dare-led anti-Zimbabwe campaign is not without a precedent, despite acres of video footage depicting how Iraqis "welcomed" their "liberation," American forces are today still returning to their homeland in body bags. The US Democrats-led Congress has now put its foot down.
It is insisting that American soldiers must leave Iraq at the earliest possible opportunity.
As long as Dare's strategy is based on lies and deception like the ones US president George W. Bush used to invade Iraq, it is bound to fail.
It is against this background that the sudden change of strategy by the MDC to try to attain power through violence, not through the ballot box should be holistically looked at.
The British government, through its representatives in Zimbabwe, does not care about the country's economic decline as often stated by its Ambassador here, Andrew Pocock.
Dare's anti-Zimbabwe media campaign captures it all. The British are looking for a reversal of fortunes in favour of their national interests -- that is total control of any future Government of Zimbabwe that will enable a return to the pre-2000 skewed land distribution pattern.
The resources that are being copiously given to the MDC are no different to the vast arsenal of weaponry that was given to the Unita bandits at the height of the Angolan civil war.
However, of major concern to the MDC is the realisation that no neighbouring country is prepared to support its calls for civil war, hence its tactics of sporadic bombing of isolated police stations and instilling fear by bombing public transport utilities.
It is unfortunate that Dare and her allies in sponsoring the violence being perpetrated by MDC hooligans, the so-called democratic resistance committees, is not realising the futility of the exercise they have embarked on.
To start with, it is a foregone conclusion that Zimbabwe's security forces will definitely get an upper hand sooner rather than later.
Secondly, no sacred cows will be allowed to room in the wheat fields as the security organs of the state assert their authority.
It is an established fact that the formation and commissioning of these resistance committees has the blessing of almost all senior members of the Tsvangirai-led faction of the MDC. Dare and her co-conspirators are happily dolling out stipends to hooligans who are now well equipped with modern gadgets of destruction such as improvised explosive devices, hand grenades and teargas canisters.
As the net closes in Dare should not be surprised when charges of treason, sabotage and murder are eventually laid against some senior members of the opposition. This is the norm worldwide. Nobody is above the law. That the British and American governments, have, against all wisdom decided to sponsor a violent insurrection against a sitting government speaks volumes of the double standards in their favoured gospel of peace and democracy.
Already, police have picked up the special advisor to Morgan Tsvangirai, Ian Makone, for questioning following a spate of bombings that have rocked the nation.
Another MDC stalwart, Piniel Denga, is also under police custody while seven other activists have been picked up for petrol-bombing Zanu-PF offices in Mbare.
More MDC officials belonging to the Tsvangirai faction are likely to be arrested as police intensify their investigations.
Perhaps as a final footprint, Dare is strongly advised to incorporate into her anti-Zimbabwe media campaign team, one Basildon Peta, a famed chequebook journalist now based in South Africa. The gentleman will surely provide comic relief to the otherwise dull and stupid campaign.
Last week's reports in the western media that Vice President Joice Mujuru had resigned from Government were a typical example of how ambitious, ill-conceived and amateurish Dare's anti-Zimbabwe campaign project is turning out to be.
Reprinted from:
http://allafrica.com/stories/200704030196.html``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe: Dare's Anti-Zim Media Campaign Misguided``x1175586541,43461,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy David Masango, buanews.gov.za
The South African Government Communication and Information System
Pretoria - South Africa's Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs has reiterated the country's stance of constructive dialogue between the parties concerned, as the only solution to the crisis in Zimbabwe.
Speaking to reporters Wednesday, Mr Pahad acknowledged progress already being made to get the government, the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) and other relevant parties to engage in talks.
President Thabo Mbeki has been mandated by Southern African Development Community (SADC) leaders to facilitate dialogue between the government and opposition in Zimbabwe.
The decision was taken at a meeting of the SADC Double Troika and an Extraordinary SADC Summit in Dar-es-Salaam, Tanzania in late March.
A meeting was convened Wednesday, between a South African delegation and the two secretary-generals of the MDC who are in the country.
"The two secretary-generals will produce a discussion document on the MDC's position, on the basis President Mbeki will engage the Zimbabwean government on the recommendations from the MDC.
"President Mbeki will have to work out his own roadmap on how he wishes to fulfill his mandate to create the climate conducive for the two parties to meet to deal with the issues raised by the factions of the MDC," Deputy Minister Pahad said.
Mr Mbeki would also report back to the SADC Troika on the progress.
In addition to Mr Mbeki's efforts, the SADC leaders mandated the executive secretary to undertake a study of the situation in Zimbabwe and propose measures on how the region could assist the country with its economic recovery.
They also encouraged diplomatic contacts that would assist with the resolution of the conflict.
"The summit reiterated the appeal to Britain to honour its compensation obligations with regards to land reform made at the Lancaster House and called for the lifting of all forms of sanctions against Zimbabwe," said Mr Pahad.
The deputy minister noted the meeting of the ruling Zanu-PF Central Committee last week, which he said took important decisions.
These include that:
* President Robert Mugabe will be its presidential candidate for the 2008 presidential elections;
* Parliamentary elections will be held concurrently with the presidential election and that there is no need for a constitutional amendment as the current constitution allows the President is to bring parliamentary elections forward; and that
* The Presidential term will be reduced from six to five years and this will necessitate a constitutional amendment.
Mr Pahad explained that following decisions by the Zanu-PF Central Committee, the SADC and the international community had to intensify efforts to ensure that the necessary climate and conditions were created to ensure free and fair elections.
"To ensure that the necessary climate is created, all Zimbabweans must act with restraint and within the rule of law.
"Decisive action must be taken against those that are carrying out sabotage activities and Zimbabweans must continue to respect the independence and integrity of the justice system," he emphasised.
The deputy minister stressed that South Africa would not support any regime change in Zimbabwe as a means of resolving the political and economic crisis there. - BuaNews
Reprinted from:
www.buanews.gov.za/view.php?id="07040510451001&coll=buanew07
Email: zimbabwecrisis@yahoo.com
Visit: Zimbabwe Watch``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xDialogue is the only solution for Zimbabwe crisis``x1175809991,94784,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xThe U.S. acknowledges sponsorship of public events in Zimbabwe aimes to undermine the President
The U.S. State Department acknowledged that sponsorship of public events in Zimbabwe had an aim to undermine the government of President Robert Mugabe. In it annual report on supporting democracy worldwide, the department said its strategy for Zimbabwe also included steps to "support persons who criticized the government."
Supporting Human Rights and Democracy:
The U.S. Record 2005 - 2006
On-The-Record Briefing on the Release of the Annual Report, "Supporting Human Rights and Democracy: The U.S. Record - 2006"
Abstract:
QUESTION: Yeah, can I go to -- I just want to go to Zimbabwe for a second. In this it says that the United States sponsored public events in Zimbabwe that presented economic and social analyses, discrediting the government's excuses for its failed policies. It also says that the United States continued to support the efforts of political opposition, the media, civil society, to create and defend democratic space and to support -- the last bit -- to support persons who criticize the government.
Now, granted, I've just given a cursory reading to the Zimbabwe and other -- the reports on other countries with which the United States has full diplomatic relations. The ones I looked at were Belarus, Syria, Vietnam and Eritrea. There may be more. Cuba, obviously, without full diplomatic relations, doesn't count.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY LOWENKRON: Sure.
QUESTION: My question is this: It doesn't appear that this kind of -- that these kind of things, i.e., discrediting the government's excuses for failed policies and support -- overt support for people who are critical of the government, happened, at least is being reported for these other countries. And my question is this: President Mugabe has often talked about how he thinks the West, the United States and Britain in particular, are trying to -- are trying for regime change in Zimbabwe, and this is exactly what this appears to look like, what you've acknowledged doing through your programs in Zimbabwe. And I'm just wondering, is it the United States -- does the United States believe that it's its responsibility to discredit the government's excuses -- the government and to openly support people who criticize the government? And if it is, which is what you're saying, why is Mugabe wrong when he says that you're trying for regime change?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY LOWENKRON: Well, first of all, I would say that your analysis of the report is a bit cursory because the fact of the matter is, whether it's Eritrea -- we've spoken out about the problems in Eritrea and the deteriorating human rights situation in Eritrea -- we are very clear, very public in terms of what was happening in Belarus. So it is not a matter of the West or the United States or several countries deciding to single out Mugabe and what's happening in Zimbabwe.
What I would like for the Zimbabwean people is something very, very simple: Give them a level playing field -- let them compete openly, let them compete fairly, let them compete transparently, let them compete freely -- so President Mugabe could stand there and say these are my policies and let the people of Zimbabwe decide on whether or not those are the policies that they want.
When you have a country which is now at 1600 percent inflation and rising, when you have in which economic policy consists of, "I hereby declare inflation illegal," when you have a country where when two people want to get together and have a discussion that's called a civil -- that's called a meeting and they had to have prior approval for, when you have a country in which individuals are protesting peacefully and they're clubbed, one almost to death, then I think it's the responsibility not only of the United States, but all countries, including southern Africa, including the African Union and including those international organizations, to stand up and ask how much longer are we going to sit passively by and allow this to continue? This gets back to my previous point which is people in Zimbabwe need to know that there are people outside Zimbabwe that care about their future.
QUESTION: Right. But the other countries that you -- okay, let's talk about Eritrea and Belarus -- does not say that the United States sponsored events at which the government was -- that attempted to discredit the government and does not say that they supported people -- overtly supported people who criticize the government. That may be because there aren't any opposition figures around in Belarus that you can support or in Eritrea. And if that's the case, which I assume it is, doesn't the fact that there are people to support in Zimbabwe show that there is some kind of -- that the situation may be not as bad as what you're saying? And believe me, I'm not trying to defend Mugabe, I just find it very interesting that this report says that the U.S. is openly sponsoring events at which it tries to discredit the government.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY LOWENKRON: I'm a little puzzled by your question. I think the implication is that things are better in Zimbabwe than in Eritrea --
QUESTION: No --
ASSISTANT SECRETARY LOWENKRON: -- or in Belarus.
QUESTION: No, no, no. There's no implication. It's just that there appear to be people in Zimbabwe who you can support, who you -- people who criticize the government who can be supported. I would suggest -- I think that in Eritrea there isn't anyone out there that you can in Eritrea who can --
ASSISTANT SECRETARY LOWENKRON: Yeah. Many of their organizations have been thrown out and many of them have been repressed. It's the same thing in Belarus. But the fact of the matter is just like there's not one size that fits all in terms of how do you advance democracy, there's not one size fits all in terms of saying these are all bad.
QUESTION: Well, okay.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY LOWENKRON: The issue that the way that we treat these countries and my conversations with the Secretary is, "tell me where the trajectory is." The trajectory in Belarus has been bad for a while. And when I say we, we and our European allies have been trying our best to try to maintain that sliver of civil society and that sliver of openness within Belarus. I don't think anybody can debate that the situation in Zimbabwe is deteriorating significantly and rapidly.
QUESTION: Well, is it the -- are these things mentioned in here part of a U.S. policy to try and encourage or promote regime change in Zimbabwe?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY LOWENKRON: U.S. policy in Zimbabwe is to promote a level playing field and support fundamental human rights. Let the people decide the future of Zimbabwe. The future of Zimbabwe is not going to be decided in any program that I run or anybody else in the United States runs.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) Al Jazeera. Mr. Lowenkron, there's a wide consensus among the international community and human rights organization that Guantanamo Bay detention center exists in defiance of the international law and human rights standards. Even Defense Secretary Robert Gates raised some concerns. And as you may know, Al Jazeera cameraman Sami Haj has been detained there for over five years now with no charges. So my question is, first, do you think that the whole issue of Guantanamo Bay undermines your efforts highlighted in this report to support human rights abroad? And from your own perspective, do you think that the detention of Sami Haj for so long with no charges violates his human rights?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY LOWENKRON: Let me say in the context of Guantanamo because I do address this. And if you take a look at the preface to this year's annual human rights report which we rolled out last month, we acknowledged at the outset that there are questions around the globe about our own human rights record. When I have talked about the promotion of democracy and the protection of human rights, what I've said is when people have said you think that democracy is the perfect system for all of these and my answer has always been, the strength of democracy, it's not that it is infallible but that it is that it is accountable. And then I highlight the issue of the press, I highlight the issue of the Congress and legislation. I highlight the issue of the courts, the independence of the courts. These are the essential elements that make democracy what it is. These are called self-corrective mechanisms.
I can tell you that in all of my travels and all the people that I've talked to and the people that we've tried to help, the issue of Guantanamo, the issue of the American standing in the world does not come up. The issue always comes up in the context of what can you do to help us, in terms of this crisis, what can you do in the context of Darfur, for example. What can you do in the context of Burma.
On the other issues related to Guantanamo, I would ask you to refer your questions to our legal counselor, John Bellinger as well as to the Defense Department.
QUESTION: Yeah, but I have a follow-up on the question.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY LOWENKRON: Which is?
QUESTION: But do you think that your efforts to promote human rights will be better off if you closed Guantanamo or it doesn't matter actually?
Email: zimbabwecrisis@yahoo.com
Visit: Zimbabwe Watch``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xThe U.S. Admits Sponsoring Opposition in Zimbabwe``x1175815529,2517,Zimbabwe``x``x
``x· State department tells of regime change strategy
· Washington funded opposition activities
Ewen MacAskill in Washington
Friday April 6, 2007
The Guardian UK
The US admitted openly for the first time yesterday that it was actively working to undermine Robert Mugabe, the president of Zimbabwe.
Although officially Washington does not support regime change, a US state department report published yesterday acknowledged that it was supporting opposition politicians in the country and others critical of Mr Mugabe.
The state department also admitted sponsoring events aimed at "discrediting" statements made by Mr Mugabe's government.
The report will be seized on by Mr Mugabe, who has repeatedly claimed that the US and Britain are seeking regime change.
The comments are contained in the state department's fifth annual Supporting Human Rights and Democracy report. It sets out in detail actions the US government is taking worldwide to promote human rights.
The report has had a troubled history. Three years ago publication had to be hastily delayed when details emerged about US human rights abuses at Abu Ghraib prison outside Baghdad.
The US, compared with the UK, was initially slow to criticise Mr Mugabe, but has since adopted an increasingly critical stance, most recently at the Human Rights Council in Geneva last month.
In an unusual piece of candour, the state department report says: "To encourage greater public debate on restoring good governance in [Zimbabwe], the United States sponsored public events that presented economic and social analyses discrediting the government's excuses for its failed policies.
"To further strengthen pro-democracy elements, the US government continued to support the efforts of the political opposition, the media and civil society to create and defend democratic space and to support persons who criticised the government."
While the US and British governments still insist their aim in Zimbabwe is not regime change, they have been encouraging the main opposition leader, Morgan Tsvangarai, who was beaten up last month.
The report says that while Zimbabwe is nominally democratic, the government of Mr Mugabe is "now authoritarian".
At a press conference to launch the document, the assistant secretary of state, Barry Lowenkren, said the US goal was not necessarily regime change but to create a level playing field for all parties. He added that where there was a country with record levels of inflation, denial of basic human rights and other abuses, the US had a duty to speak out so that people in Zimbabwe knew they had support.
Asked whether US efforts to promote human rights worldwide were being undermined by the hundreds of of people being held at Guantánamo, Mr Lowenkren insisted the issue was not raised by non-governmental groups at conferences he attended and participants were more interested in what the US could do to help them in their own countries.
He also denied the report was softer on authoritarian governments allied to the US, such as Belarus, than to Zimbabwe.
Mr Lowenkren said $66m was being spent on promotion of democracy and human rights in Iran, about half of which was devoted to broadcasts from outside the country and the rest spent on support for non-governmental exchanges, cultural exchanges such as the visit by the US wrestling team and a Persian internet service.
The report is critical of Russia, noting the killing of the journalist Anna Politkovskaya.
It says: "Political pressure on the judiciary, corruption and selectivity in enforcement of the law, continuing media restrictions and self-censorship, and government pressure on opposition political parties eroded the public accountability of government leaders.
"Security forces were involved in additional significant human rights problems."
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
Reprinted from:
www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,2051629,00.html
Email: zimbabwecrisis@yahoo.com
Visit: Zimbabwe Watch``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xUS reveals its efforts to topple Mugabe regime``x1175816374,27293,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Sifelani Tsiko
herald.co.zw
April 05, 2007
EVENTS to mark the 200th anniversary of the day the British parliament passed a law banning the slave trade were held around the world with Africans at home and abroad bemoaning the absence of an explicit apology from the former slave-trading nations.
There was no commitment by British prime minister Tony Blair and churches, which profited from this inhuman and cruel trade to specific reparations aimed at compensating those who suffered from the trade.
A commemorative service was held at Westminster Abbey to mark the 200th anniversary of the abolition of the slave trade.
The Queen and Duke of Edinburgh, Blair and religious leaders were among 2 000 people who attended the service.
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, described slavery as an offence to human dignity and freedom and "the greatest cause of grief to God's spirit".
His church profited immensely from this cruel trade in humans.
"We, who are the heirs of the slave-owning and slave-trading nations of the past, have to face the fact that our historic prosperity was built in large part on this atrocity," he said.
"Those who are the heirs of the communities ravaged by the slave trade know very well that much of their present suffering and struggling is the result of centuries of abuse."
But the Queen, Blair or the Church of England made no apology.
Instead, the commemorative service was at best held to glorify William Wilberforce who was a prime mover of the abolition of slave trade motion which led to the enactment of an Act on March 25 1807.
The Slave Trade Act of March 1807 never stopped slavery but prohibited British ships from transporting slaves.
African scholars say Wilberforce was not the only person who helped end slavery.
It is worth noting that Britain did not abolish slavery in its territories until 1833.
Blacks like Olaudah Equiano, a former slave and thousands others who signed petitions, marched and lobbied against the Trans-Atlantic slave trade, were critical in the anti-slave trade movement.
It was sad that the role of these people was downplayed and restricted to the fringes of this movement at the commemorative service.
For the better part of the commemorations, Blair and the Queen only seized the event to glorify one of their own. They laid flowers on the memorial to William Wilberforce — who Europeans in their history text books say led the abolition movement — and then, of course to the Innocent Victims' Memorial, in honour of all those affected by slavery.
Lady (Kate) Davson, the great great great granddaughter of William Wilberforce was also used strengthen the belief that the British cared and saved black people from this evil human trade system.
She read a speech made by her ancestor to the House of Commons.
Africans at home and abroad wanted Blair and the Queen to go a step further — make an official apology.
Linda Ali, of the United Society for the Propagation of the Gospel said Blair who had expressed "deep sorrow and regret" at Britain's role in the slave trade must go a step further.
"I don't see what is so very difficult about apologising for what is such a great crime against humanity," said Ms Ali.
Even Lady Davson said she too thought Mr Blair should apologise.
"Slavery is one of the largest pieces of our wounded history, our worldwide wounded history, and ... [has] to be confronted in order to get peace in our world."
The British premier did not speak at the service.
"It is hard to believe that what would now be a crime against humanity was legal at the time," Blair said in an opinion piece on Britain's role in the Trans-Atlantic slave trade before the commemorations.
"Personally, I believe the bi-centenary offers us a chance not just to say how profoundly shameful the slave trade was — how we condemn its existence utterly and praise those who fought for its abolition — but also to express our deep sorrow that it ever happened, that it ever could have happened and to rejoice at the different and better times we live in today," Blair said.
Even though Blair admitted that Britain is richer in every way — in business, politics, sport, the arts and science because of the part played by the African and Caribbean communities — he remained adamant and never apologised.
Instead, he used the colourful language of racial equality and "the richness of our diversity" approach to tactically avoid the crucial apology which Africans at home and abroad so wanted.
But the African spirit remained unbowed despite the refusal by Blair to make an official apology.
According to media reports, people across the Caribbean bowed their heads for a moment of silence to mark the end of the Trans-Atlantic slave routes, which shaped the region's history.
In Jamaica, islanders held symbolic funeral rites in Kingston Harbour for African slaves who died during the perilous ocean crossing.
In the Dominica, the cries of African slaves being led to cell blocks pierced the air, as their lives were re-enacted.
Participants walked in chains to Roseau's Baraccoon building, where slaves were held before being auctioned off to plantation owners in the former French and British colony, and which now houses the City Council.
Media reports in Guyana say a tribute was held in the compound of parliament buildings where slaves were beaten and sometimes hanged.
"We unite as a region and as a people, in a collective moment of reflection, as we remember one of the greatest tragedies in the history of humanity, which denied over 25 million Africans, for over 400 years, the basic human right of freedom, the right to self-actualisation and for so many, denial of even their basic right to life," said Ralph Gonsalves, prime minister of St Vincent and the Grenadines and chairman of the Caribbean Community.
Dr John Sentamu, the second most senior cleric in the Church of England told the media that Britain was a country which once bought and sold slaves "as it did crops like onions or maize," and now had to make a formal apology.
"A nation of this quality should have the sense of saying we are very sorry and we have to put the record straight," he said.
At the anti-racism conference that was held three years ago in Durban, South Africa, participants agreed that the depredation of the systems of slavery and colonialism had a degrading and debilitating impact on those who are black.
The African delegations in Durban noted with concern the lack of an explicit apology from the former slave-trading nations or any commitment to specific reparations aimed at compensating those who suffered from the trade.
However, despite the criticism, the debates in Durban broke new ground in the decade-long campaign by African countries and representatives of the African Diaspora to gain international recognition for the injustices perpetrated against them in the era of the slave trade.
The issue was not just one of righting a historical wrong, they argued, but also of addressing the lasting legacy of poverty and discrimination suffered over centuries by Africa and its descendants.
In the early 1990s, the Organisation of African Unity, now the African Union officially embraced the idea of making claims for atonement, including specific reparations, for slavery and colonialism.
While there was general agreement on having the slave trade declared a crime against humanity, not everyone felt that an explicit apology or financial reparations were worth pursuing at the conference.
Others felt demanding money trivialised the impact of slavery.
Not "every apology must be followed by monetary compensation ... We must not forget that monetary compensation, as it is being proposed, may further hurt the dignity of Africa," Nigerian president Olusegun Obasanjo said in the build up to Durban conference.
In this renewed debate on slavery Africans must remain conscious of the historical injustices of the slave trade which critics say undeniably contributed to poverty, underdevelopment, marginalisation, social exclusion, economic disparities, instability and insecurity on the continent.
They must also begrudgingly accept that even though Britain and other countries that benefited from slavery have refused make official apologies, the most important thing is to ensure that this shameful and uncomfortable chapter of history is not forgotten.
Africans need a genuine apology not for monetary gain, but to help restore the dignity and humanity of those who suffered and still bear the scars of slavery.
Email: zimbabwecrisis@yahoo.com
Visit: Zimbabwe Watch``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xWest fails to apologise for Slavery``x1175829522,1472,Development``x``x
``xThe Herald
EDITOR - The MDC factions and their shameless sponsors were shocked by the outcome of the extraordinary summit of Sadc heads of state and government held in the Tanzanian capital, Dar es Salaam, at the end of last month.
While the West thought Sadc leaders were going to pressure President Mugabe to announce his retirement, the President told his colleagues the truth about the situation in the country and they expressed their unreserved solidarity with the Government and people of this great country.
When opposition leaders were arrested, security agents were merely reacting to provocation by MDC hooligans, what Morgan Tsvangirai called his supporters were thugs paid to cause mayhem in the country.
The MDC hoodlums, who continue bombing civilian and State infrastructure, are risking their lives for transient stipends not the so-called values Tsvangirai pontificates about.
The Sadc's support was, indeed, welcome.
Now the MDC knows our neighbours do not back terrorism or puppet politics. They will never support people who cannot think for themselves, but only wait to be agitated into barbaric acts by Westerners only for filthy lucre.
To MDC supporters, I say don't be like fish that is enticed to death by a very tiny worm on a fishing hook. Zimbabwe is your country, do not be tricked into destroying your motherland for the selfish interests of the British and Americans.
The Anglo-Saxons will not allow you to settle in their countries if you destroy your own. Wake up and smell the coffee.
Sixpence Manyengavana
Highlands
Email: zimbabwecrisis@yahoo.com
Visit: Zimbabwe Watch``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe: Sadc decision a slap in the face for MDC``x1175830245,84256,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xThe Herald
EDITOR — Let me take this opportunity to congratulate all the progressive workers of Zimbabwe for ignoring ill-conceived calls for a stayaway called this week by the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions.
The long-suffering workers have long realised that one can not solve anything by staying away from work.
They also now know that the labour body long deviated from its mandate of representing and articulating workers’ interests in pursuit of a political agenda.
Instead of concentrating all their energies towards deliberations in the Tripartite Negotiating Forum to come up with a social contract beneficial to workers, Government and business, ZCTU leaders have half-heartedly applied themselves to the initiative.
It is hard to comprehend why the labour body calls for a stayaway in protest over the same issues the TNF is trying to address.
What is now clear to everyone is that the opposition-inclined ZCTU does not want a successful social contract as it will scupper the MDC's hopes of getting into power on the back of public discontent over prevailing economic hardships.
Wellington Chibebe and Lovemore Matombo have not been of any value to the ordinary worker in Zimbabwe, though they may have been of value to the MDC.
The ZCTU leadership, like their colleagues in the MDC, has failed to read the mood of Zimbabweans and continue to call for mass actions, stayaways, and the like that no longer appeal to the public. If these opposition activists masquerading as trade unionists want to be remembered in history as having contributed something meaningful to the welfare of workers, they must go back to the TNF and vigorously pursue a social contract.
Having said that, Government on its part needs to act quickly to address the deteriorating economic conditions that have reduced workers to near destitute status. Urgent steps need to be taken to remove the economic distortions that the West and its opposition lackeys hope to exploit in their quest for illegal regime change.
Kennedy Chiwa
Harare``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xWorkers now aware of ZCTU's irrelevance``x1175841393,64192,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Peter Mavunga
The Herald
THE British government and Western media campaign against Zimbabwe is notable for its rabid bias; what is said or written has no concern for the truth or balance, that is getting the other side's point of view. It has a single-minded pre-occupation with demonising Zimbabwe and propping up the opposition, especially Morgan Tsvangirai, well above his station.
All this is at variance with the age-old notion of British fair play, if ever it existed. When I was studying journalism in London, my tutor was at pains to emphasise that there were always two sides to a story and the views of both sides ought to be reported.
From what has been written about Zimbabwe over the past four weeks, though, you might be excused to think that Tsvangirai, the "blameless" leader of one faction of the MDC, was the head of state while the President of the Republic has a monopoly of doing wrong.
The disturbances that occurred in Highfield at the beginning of last month caused injuries on both sides, yet the way the story was reported tells a different story. The newspapers here have a selective memory.
The pictures that accompany this week's London Letter depict the violence of the MDC. It is, therefore, not surprising that they never appeared anywhere in the British media. These real people, police officers serving the people of Zimbabwe, do not exist in the psyche of the British media.
British journalists saw only Tsvangirai as the victim of the "violence" of Zimbabwe's State apparatus.
In their newspapers they splashed Tsvangirai in a hospital bed with head injuries but giving long telephone interviews to journalists abroad. They did not see anything else. The violence by the opposition never features in the vocabulary of the media here neither is it given any consideration by those who serve in the government led by Tony Blair.
Presumably they will say I am being unfair to them because British journalists are banned from reporting from Zimbabwe and, therefore, cannot be expected to report what they do not see. The question is; why were they banned in the first place?
Was it something to do with their amnesia and selective memory when it came to reporting Zimbabwe? More to the point, how are they able to report so much about Tsvangirai then?
A few years ago there was media frenzy in the UK when The Guardian featured a front page story asserting that a female MDC supporter had been decapitated by a bunch of Zanu-PF youths in Magunje, Karoi. The story was a complete fabrication but as it fitted neatly into the agenda of the British Press, it received widespread coverage.
A serious political party aspiring to convince the electorate that it is fit to govern should think about its integrity and avoid using people's tragedies to achieve its political ends.
But it is an indictment of British journalism that such falsehoods, initiated by the old Daily News, should be replicated the world over without checking.
What is also interesting is that the papers here never bothered to correct their mistakes. When it became common knowledge that they had wrongly attributed the death of the Zimbabwean woman to Zanu-PF youths, they never retracted the rubbish they had been spreading.
It is done in other circumstances but when the lies are in respect of Zimbabwe no correction is necessary lest it weakens the campaign of discrediting the Government of Zimbabwe. Truth should never get in the way of running a good copy. Running the Government of Zimbabwe down, is the overarching objective.
The papers here also change their tune faster than a chameleon changes colour. In the build up to the flopped two-day stayaway this week, the papers were reporting confidently that this would be the largest demonstration Zimbabwe had ever seen
With "80 percent unemployment", so the story went, "the people of Zimbabwe, angry with the Mugabe regime were going to demonstrate because they have nothing to lose."
Their tune has changed now that the numbers, by the papers' own accounts, turned out to be lower than they had anticipated. They now say the people did not want to lose a day's wage and that many preferred to go to work where they get their only meal of the day!
I did not realise that companies in Zimbabwe are so generous that they now give their employees not just wages but lunch as well!
According to the British Press, everything bad happens in Zimbabwe.
Another feature of the media campaign here is that it is persistent and unrelenting. They have tried very hard to foster discord within the ranks of the ruling Zanu-PF party. It was said Vice President Amai Joice Mujuru had resigned not because she wanted the top job for herself but her husband is calling all the shots.
Yes, we were told he was behind all this. Then the news was that the former army commander had been arrested. Then it was said in the British papers that both the Politburo and Central Committee were divided. From this spin, they concluded that, for the President, the end was nigh.
They were, however, forced to report, albeit grudgingly, that the President had been endorsed as the sole candidate to fight the next presidential election, it was like an anti-climax for them though it never dampened their spirits. The Times, for instance, was this weekend regurgitating the same old story of disunity as if it was reporting it anew.
Clearly, President Mugabe had a good conference in Tanzania and one British journalist was forced to concede that he returned home "with a spring in his step."
The media hype had proved to be no more than the usual British froth and bubble. They had anticipated that the President would be told in no uncertain terms that his time was up. They expected the Sadc heads of state and government to tell him he should not seek re-election.
It was said President Mbeki of South Africa was going to use his muscle to bring President Mugabe down. But the meeting came and went, leaving Sadc even more united. Sadc rightly did not think it was its duty to dictate what should happen in Zimbabwe, which they have always said is a matter for Zimbabweans.
That was tangible proof of emerging African unity and the more progressive people I speak to in this country do accept that President Mugabe and his team's principled stance on the land question is to be admired.
The present British government hates that principled stance with a vengeance and that hatred dates back to 1998 just before the CHOGM held in Scotland. The economy of Zimbabwe has been in difficulties since then and the British use all the tricks in the book to put the blame on President Mugabe.
Are they right to blame the President? That is the subject of my next instalment.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xWhere truth should not get in the way of 'good copy'``x1175841423,70203,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xSouth Africa's Mbeki defends Zimbabwe's controversial land reform
Apr 6, 2007, 16:39 GMT
Johannesburg - South African President Thabo Mbeki on Friday defended the controversial land reform policies of neighbouring Zimbabwe as necessary measures to correct the effects of colonialism, reports said.
The government of Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe in following the 2001 reform removed thousands of white farmers from farmland in his country in an often chaotic fashion. The action is considered one of the triggers of the collapse of the economy of the once prosperous country.
Mbeki, who has been appointed the point man of the regional Southern African Development Community (SADC) on Zimbabwe, said further that it was urgent that new black African farmers in Zimbabwe be provided with agricultural supplies.
© 2007 dpa - Deutsche Presse-Agentur
Source: http://news.monstersandcritics.com``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xMbeki defends Zimbabwe's controversial land reform``x1175883786,89268,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy David Samuriwo, The Herald
April 11, 2007
THE American and British governments' penchant for fomenting diplomatic rows knows no bounds. To this end, Ricketts thought it wise to dwell on the alleged threat to Dare's life ignoring the revelations of covert financial support his government is channelling to its embassy to back the opposition's attempts at unconstitutional regime change.
REPORTS that the British government last week summoned Zimbabwe's Ambassador to the United Kingdom, Cde Gabriel Machinga, to protest against an article that appeared on the opinion page in The Herald were hardly surprising.
For the benefit of readers who missed my article titled "Dare's anti-Zimbabwe media campaign misguided" (The Herald, April 3, 2007), I merely stated that should Gillian Dare, a political officer at the British Embassy in Harare, continue with her undiplomatic activities, she is bound to land herself in serious trouble.
I also warned that should she continue with her nefarious activities that are taboo in diplomatic circles, such as hopping from one police station to another trying to locate and identify arrested MDC hooligans, she might be caught in the crossfire and end up in a body bag.
Personally, I will not shed any tears, and as I stated, it would be a sad day to her family if ever she were to arrive at Heathrow Airport safely stashed in the baggage compartment instead of her usual first-class reservation.
There is absolutely no reason for Dare to get excited and start playing night nurse to arrested suspects who are helping the police with investigations.
Let the law take its course for goodness sake Gillian!
The American and British governments' penchant for fomenting diplomatic rows knows no bounds. It is very possible they might want to pull this one on you and point accusing fingers on the Government of Zimbabwe. So, be warned if I may repeat the obvious.
If the above could be described as a threat to her life, then the Geneva Conventions on diplomatic behaviour are, indeed, outdated and in need of urgent redefinition, modification and adoption by the United Nations.
The complaint lodged to Zimbabwe, through its ambassador, Cde Machinga, by the Under Secretary and Head of the Diplomatic Service at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Sir Peter Ricketts, on Dare's life should not be taken seriously.
What really should be taken seriously is the deafening silence by Sir Ricketts on Dare's anti-Zimbabwe media campaign and her role in influencing politically motivated violence by the MDC.
Obviously, British taxpayers are not aware that their hard-earned money is being used to finance the manufacturing of improvised explosive devices, such as petrol bombs, and for the purchase of weapons of destruction in the form of hand grenades and small arms.
How different are these acts of terror perpetrated by MDC thugs from the London bus and train bombings as well as the bombing of a train in Madrid?
When such acts of terrorism are directed at Western targets they receive international condemnation, but when similar acts are directed at Zimbabwe the Ricketts of this world look the other way, why?
To this end, Ricketts thought it wise to dwell on the alleged threat to Dare's life, ignoring the revelations of covert financial support his government is channelling to its embassy to back the opposition's attempts at unconstitutional regime change.
It is a fact that in pursuit of her country's unbridled ambition for the regime change agenda in Zimbabwe, Dare has become the focal point.
In his lukewarm protest, Ricketts foolishly avoided responding to real issues of substance raised in my article.
He did not deny that a huge amount of money from the FCO has been disbursed to a unit called the ADS for the setting-up of an anti-Zimbabwe media campaign.
He also found it unpalatable to disclose to the British public that part of this money is also being used to pay legal fees for those arrested and the treatment of those injured in the opposition's campaign of violence.
No wonder the man also conveniently avoided mentioning the role being played by the new head of ADS Zimbabwe, one Ben Llewlyn Johns, and his two colleagues, Neil Hammond and Simon Atkinson.
This trio is acting as conveyor belts of blood money that plunged Zimbabwe into unprecedented political violence last month.
Dare cannot dare challenge this impeccable evidence in any forum, she is aware of this funding; neither can her boss Ricketts.
As stated in my article, the anti-Zimbabwe media campaign will only find resonance in the British Houses of Commons and Lords and such other bodies which have steadfastly refused to accept or understand Zimbabwe's political chessboard.
True to shame, the obscure Liberal Democratic foreign affairs spokesman Michael Moore seized the opportunity for some kind of publicity.
"The Mugabe regime is beyond the pale as this outrageous statement shows. It is now about time he stepped down. Callous threats against diplomats will do nothing to solve Zimbabwe's isolation," he charged.
Thank goodness! A mere opinion piece authored by an obscure journalist now being manipulated and fabricated to be a Government statement or position!
This is totally absurd.
To sum it up, Ricketts' concerns have nothing to do with Dare's life. Even the woman knows it herself.
"We expect Zimbabwe to offer protection to our diplomats," he waffled to Zimbabwe's ambassador.
Plainly put, this is a botched-up attempt to water down revelations of gross abuse of the British taxpayers' money in funding violent political activity in Zimbabwe in the inane hope of achieving unconstitutional regime change.
Even their creation, the MDC, is on record telling its supporters to soldier on as the financial coffers "will now never run dry". Where is the money coming from, Ricketts, if I may ask?
The sensationalisation of an otherwise informative and revealing article on the clandestine operations of a British diplomat has also galvanised the rented journalists into action.
For the benefit of readers who do not have access to the Internet, here are some of the interesting headlines that hit the cyberspace:
"You'll leave Harare in body bag, UK diplomat warned."
"UK diplomat receives death threat from Mugabe government."
This is sheer madness.
At least newzimbabwe.com was sceptical, putting the "death threats" in quotation marks.
Ricketts' gaffe in summoning Zimbabwe's ambassador is part of a web of intricacies aimed at arming Dare's anti-Zimbabwe media campaign team with deception material.
The unprecedented reaction to the article on Dare's subversive activities indicated how massively the media is being manipulated to propel the British government agenda of regime change in Zimbabwe.
The recent Extraordinary Summit of Sadc Heads of State and Government held in Tanzania should be an eye-opener to the British establishment.
Much as the Dare anti-Zimbabwe project might want to portray the summit as a victory to Morgan Tsvangirai and his band of hooligans, the bottom line is regional leaders categorically refused any notion of outside-induced regime change.
South African President Thabo Mbeki has always stood out as the choice mediator to Zanu-PF and the MDC although the latter has not always been on the affirmative.
At one time, they called the South African President a dishonest broker. There is nothing new in that.
What is new is the realisation by Sadc leaders that if they prevaricate on Zimbabwe, any one of them could be the next target for the regime change agenda.
South Africa has, in its own backyard, the unpredictable Congress of South African Trade Unions, a union of sheep in wolves' clothing clandestinely waiting for an opportune time to pounce. The two protagonists will never retire to bed together. It is just a question of time when the wolf shows its true colours. This bunch of pseudo-trade unionists, who always indicate left when they are turning right, have remained on the mute mode as they brazenly watch their counterparts in Zimbabwe who have been transformed by the British government into a political grouping in bed stark-naked with the capitalists.
Thank God, we will soon be seeing the back of Tony Blair out of No. 10 Downing Street. Not that it makes any difference to the British government policy on Zimbabwe, but, perhaps, a new order might realise the necessity of engagement with the Government of Zimbabwe as an equal.
More importantly, Ricketts, Dare and the arsenal of weapons of mass deception that have been assembled must realise that Zimbabwe is no pushover.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe: Dare wasn't threatened``x1176298977,59203,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Monica Moorehead
www.workers.org
Harlem, N.Y.
April 13, 2007
The Brooklyn-based December 12 International Secretariat held an emergency community forum in Harlem on April 5 on the current and ongoing crisis that the Robert Mugabe-led government in Zimbabwe faces from U.S.-British imperialist threats.
The majority Black, well-attended meeting included well-known activists such as Elombe Brath of the Patrice Lumumba Coalition and New York City Councilperson Charles Barron. Barron had publicly welcomed President Mugabe to New York's City Hall in 2005 when he came to the city for the opening of the United Nations General Assembly, but the majority of the City Council boycotted the event.
The April 5 meeting was held at Mount Olivet Church, the same venue where President Mugabe spoke to thousands of people in 2005.
Omowale Clay from D12, who chaired the forum, spoke about a March 11 prayer rally held in Zimbabwe and organized by the Movement for Democratic Change, an anti-Mugabe opposition group that has the full backing of British Prime Minister Tony Blair and U.S. President George W. Bush. A struggle ensued which reportedly resulted in one MDC member dying and 30 Zimbabwean police being injured.
Following this incident, a debate took place at a session in late March of the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva, Switzerland, between a representative of Britain and a representative from Zimbabwe. A portion of this debate was shown at the Harlem meeting. The British representative raised the March 11 incident and called for imposing more economic sanctions on Zimbabwe.
The Zimbabwean representative defended his country's right to sovereignty and stated that sanctions are being used to strangle the already fragile Zimbabwean economy and to isolate the country from the rest of the African continent.
Following this film clip, the rest of the Harlem meeting was devoted to opening up the floor to hear questions and comments from the audience. D12 leaders Viola Plummer, Coltrane Chimurenga and Roger Wareham, along with Clay, fielded the questions. All four of these leaders have traveled to Zimbabwe on a number of occasions, including before the last election when Mugabe won another term in office.
A number of important issues raised by these leaders point to the real reasons why the U.S. and British governments want a "regime change" in Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe is the only country in Africa where the land, stolen by white colonialists beginning in the late 1880s, has been returned to the Indigenous population in a systematic way.
During the height of anti-colonial struggle in Southern Africa decades ago, Zimbabwe was the first country to hold a caucus of the national liberation movements on the continent. Both China and North Korea have friendly relations with Zimbabwe in the areas of trade and economic development. President Hugo Chávez from Venezuela has pledged to President Mugabe to provide oil to Zimbabwe.
D12 explained that one consequence of the Western-imposed economic sanctions is that Zimbabwe is denied technologically advanced equipment to develop its land to grow enough food for the population, especially during long periods of drought that chronically plague regions in Africa. These sanctions have helped to deepen hunger in Zimbabwe.
As a follow-up to the meeting, D12 Movement and Patrice Lumumba Coalition called for a march and rally in Harlem beginning at 1 p.m. on April 14 to commemorate the 27th anniversary of the liberation of Zimbabwe. The main theme of this protest will be "Mugabe is right! Zimbabwe will never be a colony again!"
The march will begin at the Harlem State Office Building at 125th St. and Adam Clayton Powell Blvd. Endorsers of this activity include Africans Helping Africans, the All African Peoples' Socialist Party, Black Men's Movement, Nation of Islam, African Liberation Support Committee, CEMOTAP and International Action Center.
Articles copyright 1995-2007 Workers World. Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved.
Reprinted from:
www.workers.org/2007/world/zimbabwe-0419/
Email: zimbabwecrisis@yahoo.com
Visit: Zimbabwe Watch``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xBlack activists speak on Zimbabwe crisis``x1176458092,62723,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xThe government of Zimbabwe cancelled visas for a congressional staff delegation from the US, citing no reason for their abrupt decision.
The US five member delegation was to meet opposition and civic leaders to help sort out the political crisis in Zimbabwe.
The delegation was headed by Pearl-Alice Marsh, responsible for advising US House of Representatives International Relations Committee, and consisted of her staff members.
US embassy's public affairs officer, Paul Engelstad, stated: "We very much regret the government's self-defeating decision which only further isolates them internationally."
Full Article : presstv.ir``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe revokes US official's visas``x1176511000,76795,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Reason Wafawarova
www.herald.co.zw
April 14, 2007
THE US western alliance is currently at full throttle waging wars for imperial authority and supreme control of the international system while trying to fool the rest of the world into believing the false pretexts upon which those wars have been premised.
While the European (western) foreign policy favours the waging of wars on "threatening" or non-pliant weaker states through arm twisting diplomacy and economic sanctions, the US foreign policy has assumed a muscular approach with a highly infamous addition of military threats.
That a country like Zimbabwe finds itself surrounded by members of the notorious imperialist club called the European Union, all wielding the lethal weapon of economic sanctions in one hand and an equally dangerous media of mass deception on the other just goes to show how determined the west is in its quest to stamp imperial authority in every corner of the world.
The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are pretty much the same wars in Zimbabwe, Venezuela, North Korea, Palestine and Iran; the difference only being in the pretexts and strategies adopted for each of the countries.
The world is meant to believe that the western alliance is in Afghanistan for purposes of hunting down Osama bin Laden and his elusive Al-Quaeda network. That rhetoric is of course tired even in the eyes of the west who now want to posture as crusaders of some noble democratisation programme whose success is supposed to be based on the eradication of the Taliban. That is despite the fact the same western "democratic forces" created the Taliban in the late seventies as a proxy force to counter the Soviet Union's influence in Afghanistan.
The illegal war on Iraq has been premised on any lie the west can make up from time to time without the western ruling elite caring much about how ludicrous some of these lies have been to the rest of the world including in heartland America itself.
The lie that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction is incontestable as the lie of the 21st century. Tony Blair chipped in with his own piece of history when he skilfully put up a straight face and boldly told the world that Iraq was within 45 minutes of striking the world with the same non-existent weapons of mass destruction. When both lies exposed themselves, as lies always do, the world was told that actually the western alliance was in Iraq to fight terrorism.
They could not come up with a link between Saddam Hussein and Al-Quaeda and they said in fact they were in Iraq to build a democracy and to bring freedom to "oppressed" Iraqis, they even murdered Saddam in a show trial to give a face to this "democracy" project but the world has not been fooled and pressure and criticism keeps mounting on the heartless liars and murderers.
Now they claim that they are training the Iraqis to be able to look after themselves and some are coming clear that they can't pull out in defeat since that would be a blow to the western reputation, by which they mean western imperial hegemony.
It may be important to look at Zimbabwe and Iran as targets of the western alliance's imperial wars and to do that it is quite relevant to look at what Nick Burns, the under-secretary of state in the US State Department recently said about Iran.
Said Burns, "It is clear to us that concerted international pressure is helping to undercut the Iranian regime's sense of ascendancy, unnerve its overly confident leadership and clarify to it the cost of its behaviour."
That sums up the western agenda on Iran.
They want to contain Iran's influence in the Middle East, to stop its ascendancy from dependency on western hegemony, to instil a lack of confidence in its leadership and to punish it for its temerity to wean itself of dependency on the west.
This is also the context the economic and political war on Zimbabwe by the west should be viewed. By embarking on a programme to dispossess white commercial farmers of the inherited stolen land the Government of Zimbabwe was not only upsetting the set-up of western imperial authority, but also setting a dangerous precedent that colonial structures can be dismantled.
The "loverly confident" leadership of President Mugabe, like that of Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had to be unnerved and the behaviour of both the Zimbabwean and Iranian governments should have a big cost tagged onto it in order to get the economies of the two countries "screaming" as Nixon would put it.
For Iran, the US and its allies are putting the squeeze on Teheran through diplomatic pressure, economic pressure and gross provocation to create the pretext for military invasion. The US is hoping to create puppets in Iran by first of all depriving ordinary Iranians of basic welfare support through economic sanctions. They hope to capitalise on the disgruntlement of the suffering masses to create a puppet opposition that they can then fight to prop up into power for the benefit of their hegemony.
For Zimbabwe, the lapdogs in the puppet opposition MDC are well in place, so are the sanctions and the media frenzy about alleged bad governance.
What has been elusive to the opposition in Zimbabwe is victory as a result of the resoluteness and resilience of the popular Zanu-PF and the Government it leads whose liberation war legacy resonates with the majority of Zimbabweans.
It is the same resilience in Iraq where the US has been forced to announce a new policy to manage the ruinous effects of the humiliation the western coalition has been subjected to by the Iraqis. Bush's new policy on Iraq is quite similar to his new policy on Zimbabwe after his sponsored street troopers from the MDC were swiftly swept from the streets.
The similarity is in that the so-called new policy on Iraq is entirely based on what the Iraqis can do and not what the US can do in Iraq. In the same way the US says it will increase sanctions on Zimbabwe and will add funding to its puppet activists in the MDC and some civic organisations. By so doing the US hopes that the time will come when the pain from the sanctions will force everyone onto the streets, with all roads leading to State House for a dramatic removal of President Mugabe.
What naivete?
Zimbabwe enjoys regional support as was recently proved at the Extra-ordinary Summit of Sadc Heads of State and Government in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania where African leaders left the western community together with its puppet MDC in deep shock and shame.
The western alliance has underestimated the resolve of Iran, the same way they underestimate Zimbabwe. Hugo Chavez is quite right in championing the anti-US and anti-imperialist campaign in Latin America. More and more countries should stand up to these racist imperialists so that the world can challenge them with as many war fronts as possible to weaken their capacity.
If ever the world has stood a good chance of getting the west screaming the way they screamed with the collapse of colonial empires it is now. They have to contain China, India, Malaysia, Venezuela, Russia, Iran, Zimbabwe, Bolivia, North Korea, Indonesia, Iraq, Afghanistan and countries like Somalia and Sudan.
This is the best time to stretch the monster to its knees and the anti-imperialist war has to be upheld in the spirit of a revolution.
While it might be true that the economy of Zimbabwe has been weakened, it is also true that the Government recently soundly sent the west screaming through their powerful media houses as they resolutely thwarted a western sponsored attempt at illegal regime change.
Despite the ongoing genocide in Iraq, the western alliance is screaming in that country too. Iran recently sent them on a two-week screaming session when it captured trespassing British spies in Iranian waters.
Condoleezza Rice says she is deeply concerned with the activities of Chavez and that's the screaming some would want to hear from the empire.
The west should change its foreign policy so that it can peacefully share the world with everyone else otherwise we stand to see a very unstable world.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xWest's agenda there to instil lack of confidence``x1176538736,14291,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Oupa Segalwe
BuaNews (Tshwane), Pretoria
April 15, 2007
Zimbabwe will not be excluded from the Europe Union (EU) - Africa Summit to be held in Lisbon despite the EU's sanctions on the troubled state.
South African Foreign Affairs Minister Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma said Friday that Zimbabwe, as one of the 53 member states of the African Union (AU), will be part of the summit to be held in December.
She was responding to journalists following her meeting with Portuguese counterpart Luis Amado, in which they discussed bilateral political and economic issues.
"If Europe is meeting us (AU) at that level, it cannot dismember us. It's not about insisting that, one attends, that the other does not.
"We want to co-operate with the EU as it is known.
"We can't say we want to co-operate with the EU, but not quite with Portugal. That will not be the EU, it will be something else, Dr Dlamini-Zuma said.
In February, the EU renewed its sanctions against President Robert Mugabe's government for another year due to the economic and human rights situation in that country.
The sanctions, which were first implemented three years ago, include a ban on Mr Mugabe and other government officials from traveling to EU countries.
The summit, which was supposed to have taken place in 2003 was indefinitely postponed due to opposition from some EU nations who did not want Mr Mugabe to attend the event as a result of the situation in his country.
Dr Dlamini-Zuma said the significance of the summit should not be reduced by differences between the EU and one country.
Dr Amado said the issue of sanctions on Zimbabwe should be separated from the summit.
"The issue of sanctions is one issue; the summit is one other issue ... we need to structure for the future a strategic partnership with the African Union to promote the interest of both continents.
"We should not compound strategic partnerships... because there is a problem with different countries, this is not compatible with what we have at stake," Dr Amado said.
Dr Dlamini-Zuma said South Africa was looking forward to the summit, which will take place in a period when Portugal would have assumed duties as the President of the EU.
"Europe and Africa are two neighbouring continents that have historic obligation to continue to work together. So, the summit will assist in working out a road map for our future cooperation," she said.
Other than discussing conditions and important points of the agenda for the summit, the meeting also touched:
- The South Africa - European strategic partnership;
- United Nations Reform and South Africa's tenure as non-permanent member of the UN Security Council; and
- Conflict resolution and post-conflict reconstruction in Africa.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe Not Excluded From EU-Africa Summit``x1176863215,14799,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Caesar Zvayi
The Herald
April 19, 2007
THE European Union supports the position adopted by Sadc at the extraordinary summit held in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, last month, and wishes its success, EU head of delegation Mr Xavier Marchal has said.
Mr Marchal — speaking on the sidelines of Zimbabwe's 27th Independence celebrations at Rufaro Stadium yesterday — underscored the importance of independence and sovereignty for any nation and urged Zimbabweans to value their hard-won freedom.
"Our wish is that Zimbabwe solves its difficulties as soon as possible, and for that Zimbabweans need to work with Zimbabweans and that is the spirit of the Sadc initiative, and the Sadc initiative is at the frontline now. What we can only do is to wish its success, and to support it, and we do support it."
Mr Marchal could, however, not be drawn into saying what exactly the EU would do with regard to the sanctions it imposed after the 2002 presidential elections, saying unity and co-operation among Zimbabweans was vital for the success of the Sadc initiative.
His sentiments were echoed by Swedish Ambassador to Zimbabwe Mr Sten Rylander and the Deputy Head of Mission at the Royal Netherlands Embassy, Ms Leoni Cuelenaere, who also congratulated Zimbabweans on 27 years of independence.
Said Mr Rylander: "I want Zimbabwe to come together as a nation; national interest, national reconciliation is what I want more than anything else, and with the region and the decision by Dar es Salaam, I think there is time for that. That's my wish. Come together, don't fight."
Ms Cuelenaere said the Netherlands supported Sadc's decision to help Zimbabwe as it tallied with the wishes of her own country.
"We support, of course, that Sadc wishes the best for Zimbabwe like we do, and that they are standing ready to help because that's basically what is needed," she said.
She said contrary to perceptions, her country valued the independence and sovereignty of Zimbabweans.
In their communiqué released at the end of a one-day extraordinary summit in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, at the end of March, Sadc leaders reaffirmed their faith in the legitimacy of President Mugabe and Zimbabwe's electoral system, condemned the illegal Western sanctions, urged Britain to honour obligations to fund land reforms and pledged a rescue package to mitigate the effects of sanctions.
The summit also tasked South African President Thabo Mbeki to mediate between Zanu-PF and the opposition MDC.
The EU's support for Sadc's position on Zimbabwe flies in the face of US and British moves to fight the regional bloc by ratcheting up pressure on Zimbabwe through intensified sanctions.
MDC factions have since disagreed on the initiative with the Professor Arthur Mutambara clique endorsing it while the Morgan Tsvangirai-led camp cried foul and, as usual, unleashed a torrent of abuse on Sadc leaders in line with London and Washington's thinking.
And in an open show of their disdain for Zimbabwe's right to self-determination, the British and US ambassadors, along with their lackeys in both MDC factions, were conspicuous by their absence at the celebrations that were graced by 33 ambassadors and representatives from four continents.
Apart from the EU head of delegation and the Holy See, the ambassadors who attended yesterday's celebrations were from Algeria, Botswana, Brazil, China, Cuba, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Egypt, Ethiopia, France, Germany, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Iran, Italy, Kenya, Malawi, Malaysia, Mozambique, Namibia, the Netherlands, Nigeria, Pakistan, Palestine, Russia, South Africa, Sudan, Sweden, Tanzania, and Thailand.
Nine ambassadors — among them Palestinian, DRC, Tanzanian, Ethiopian, Kenyan, Algerian and Indian diplomats — who spoke to The Herald reaffirmed their countries' solidarity with Zimbabwe, and expressed hope that the country would overcome its challenges in the short-term.
Email: zimbabwecrisis@yahoo.com
Visit: Zimbabwe Watch``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xEU supports Sadc's position on Zimbabwe - envoy``x1176992269,57996,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xThe Herald
April 19, 2007
FULL text of the prepared speech by President Mugabe on the occasion of the 27th Independence Anniversary celebrations held at Rufaro Stadium in Harare, and various provincial centres.
TODAY, the 18th of April 2007 marks the 27th Anniversary of our hard-won Independence and freedom from the shackles of British colonialist and imperialist domination. We celebrate not only our 27th year of sovereignty and self-determination but also our success, our collective success, in repulsing the unending attempts by our erstwhile colonisers and other detractors to disturb our peace, stability and tranquillity. Congratulations Zimbabwe, Congratulations Comrades and Friends, on our refusal to be re-colonised! Let the sound of our Celebrations reach the ears of Britain and her allies, and let them know that we shall never, never, never be a colony again.
This 27th Anniversary demonstrates the victorious spirit of the unity of our people, the unity of a people who know how this country came into being, a people prepared to stand in defence of their country's achievements and future direction. It is this spirit of oneness, the unyielding singleness of purpose which, during the Liberation Struggle, cheered and lifted our gallant patriots to the heights of supreme sacrifice in the name of freedom and sovereignty. These heroes and heroines of the struggle would turn in their graves if today we were to bequeath anything less than full, uncompromised Independence and sovereignty to the future generations of the country. Thus today is a day when we also celebrate our continuing electoral successes and victories over British-sponsored negative forces, however organised.
I wish to applaud the resilience of our people, who have resisted the brazen attempts of our detractors, openly working in cahoots with their shameless local puppets, to reverse the gains of our Independence through their "regime change" agenda. We have observed how of late, this conspiracy has attempted to transform into a militant criminal strain, characterised by the puerile attempts of misguided opposition elements to create a state of anarchy through an orgy of violence. As Government, our message remains clear that we will not hesitate to deal firmly with those elements who are bent on fomenting anarchy.
On the broader socio-economic arena, the economy has continued to be buffeted by seemingly unending waves of price hikes largely prompted by both unbridled greed among some of our businesspersons and by the strategy of our saboteurs. These spates of increases in prices of basic commodities have largely been without justification. The price escalations have eroded the incomes of our people, thereby stirring disquiet across all sectors of the economy. Because price instability adversely affects ordinary consumers and business entities alike, it is imperative that all stakeholders should work together to stem the existing inflationary spiral. We cannot drift along while this vice continues to undermine our economy.
It is on this premise that Government, in conjunction with other social partners, is actively involved in negotiations for the eventual establishment of a Social Contract. Within this framework, Government, business, labour and other key stakeholders are expected to agree on establishing binding protocols that will form the basis of sustainable confidence building and help the planned turnaround of the economy. I would like to commend the unity of purpose so far exhibited by the social partners who are "putting Zimbabwe first".
On another front, Government is also expediting the setting up of the National Incomes and Pricing Commission, which will provide the framework for appropriate pricing of goods and services using well-tested scientific pricing models.
It is hoped that the Incomes and Pricing Commission will be fully operational during this second quarter of 2007. But above all these attempts, is the need for greater production of those commodities in scarce supply in order to more than satisfy demand for them. This is indeed the function of more investment capital, domestic and foreign, hence our Look East policy.
Government continues to accord high priority to poverty reduction and the attainment of the United Nations Millennium Development Goals. In light of this, funds have been allocated to the Rural Capital Development Fund for water and sanitation facilities in various rural districts of the country.
Regrettably, this thrust has once again suffered some setbacks following the drought that affected the Southern African region. However, Government is determined to ensure that none of our people in the affected areas will starve.
Faced by the various challenges that characterise our economy, Government has evolved decisive measures to deal with them through the National Economic Development Priority Programme. The Programme's major objectives are the reduction of inflation, stabilisation of the local currency, ensuring food security, increasing output and productivity, generation of foreign earnings, removal of price distortions and effective policy co-ordination and implementation.
Following the successful implementation of the Land Reform Programme, Government is now focused on raising productivity through the rehabilitation and development of irrigation facilities and provision of inputs such as seed, fertilizer, chemicals and tillage.
In addition to this, Government would like to see agricultural mechanisation assume a very pivotal role as a springboard to greater levels of production. Hence the creation of the new ministry of Agricultural Engineering and Mechanisation.
Measures are being taken in the context of the National Economic Development Priority Programme, to capacitate the local manufacturing industries through injection of foreign currency by the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe so they can produce some of the agricultural equipment we need.
It is my hope that the 2007/2008 agricultural season will see a much better state of our national preparedness.
In order to further boost agricultural production, the development of new crop varieties able to cope with the emerging climatic conditions will continue in earnest. Since Independence, 54 crop varieties have been developed and are now grown widely by our farmers. Furthermore, the Agricultural Extension Worker Programme has, since 2005, successfully trained over 200 graduands, thus significantly reducing the vacancy rate for field extension workers.
Following the launch of the 99-year lease agreements last year, a total of 475 farmers have so far qualified for the leases. The provision of leases as security of tenure, and as collateral in accessing financial borrowings, should in turn improve productivity on the farms.
The Nation's fight to reduce inflation has necessitated measures that address structural and supply constraints to economic production.
Government is currently working on a package of assistance to boost capacity utilisation for certain selected strategic companies critical in the overall economic turnaround programme's contribution to job creation and foreign currency generation.
In the mining sector, the country continues to lose much-needed foreign currency through rampant leakage and smuggling of some of our high value minerals, notably gold and diamonds.
The focus of Government this year will therefore be on ensuring that these nefarious activities are stamped out. In this sector, Government will soon introduce a Bill governing the ownership structures of mining organisations to enhance empowerment and national control.
In our continued general efforts to accelerate the involvement of indigenous Zimbabweans in the economy as a whole, my Government is finalising the National Indigenisation and Economic Empowerment Bill, which will provide legal underpinning to the Indigenisation and Empowerment Policy.
As part of the process of empowering our emerging entrepreneurs, Government has continued to provide concessionary funding facilities for the micro, small and medium enterprises sector.
A total of $39,5 billion has so far been availed through Sedco for on-lending to the enterprises this financial year. This included funds earmarked for projects by the youths. A total of $200 million was provided under the NEDPP for the funding of 51 projects at various Growth Points throughout the country.
The Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe's $16 billion SMEs facility introduced in 2006 has so far benefited 1 222 projects, while Sedco's Loan Booth Scheme has assisted in addressing the financial requirements of the informal sector, which is mainly operated by women and the youth without collateral security.
In order to empower our youths, the Zimbabwe Youth Employment Network was developed and approved by Cabinet in May 2006. This has given birth to the Youth Development Fund and Loan Guarantee Scheme as specific windows for providing financial support to youth driven enterprises.
The Infrastructure Development Bank, through the Youth Development Fund, has successfully provided funds to 32 youth enterprises, creating 522 jobs in the process.
The empowerment of women economically remains top priority for Government. To date, a significant number of women is now effectively involved in critical sectors of the economy.
Government is also soon to introduce gender budgeting as an essential instrument for guaranteeing mainstream of women within Government policies and programmes.
External business trips have been organised for women to visit countries like China, Mozambique, Equatorial Guinea, Botswana, South Africa, among others. Government has set aside $5 billion from the RBZ facility for women projects, from which a total of 511 women have already benefited.
Tourism remains one of the key growth nodes in our economic turnaround programme, and with that objective in mind Government has over the past year channelled funds towards the development of the Gonarezhou National Park, which is part of the Great Limpopo Transfrontier Park shared by South Africa, Mozambique and Zimbabwe.
2006 was however, a bad year for our environmental conservation, as veld fires destroyed vast tracts of plantations as well as natural forests and grasslands. Government, through the Ministry of Environment and Tourism responded with the launch last year, of the Fire Management and Protection Strategy, which should go a long way in minimising the outbreak and damage caused by uncontrolled fires. Political and civic leaders are also urged to educate our people on the need to preserve our flora and fauna for posterity.
To enhance national fuel requirements, Government continues to work on bio-diesel and ethanol projects, which, it is hoped, will reach a mature stage in the near future.
To alleviate the current power shortages in the country, Government has embarked on various initiatives, which include the renewal of existing Power Purchase Agreements with the Democratic Republic of the Congo, South Africa and Mozambique. Furthermore, Zesa and NamPower of Namibia negotiated and signed a Loan Financing Agreement and Power Purchase Agreement involving the refurbishment of Hwange Power Station. This should go a long way towards improving the performance of Hwange Power Station in supplying power to the national grid.
In the area of transport, Government continues to seek more finance for the development of our national road structure and the enhancement of our national airline (Air Zimbabwe) through the acquisition of more aircraft and the intensification of training programmes for more engineers, pilots and other technical experts.
The worrisome issue of the brain drain in technical skills to neighbouring countries and abroad is fast turning the country into a training ground for other countries with little or no benefit accruing to the nation.
It is for this reason that Government has now created a Skills Retention Fund to attract, retain and support personnel in critical skills shortage areas of the national economy. These recruits will have improved conditions of service.
Government has also embarked on a Cadetship Scheme with a view to recruiting a cadre exhibiting loyalty, patriotism and commitment to serving the public.
Furthermore, Government has taken a deliberate decision to enhance the provision of non-pecuniary incentives in the public service. To this end, a new Public Servants Housing Programme for Public Servants has been established and in the spirit of public and private sector partnership, a Public Servants Housing Development Company has been formed to raise funds for the construction of such houses. In addition, Government is also providing bus services at reasonable fares to transport civil servants to and from work.
Whilst the country is experiencing a downward trend in the prevalence of HIV and Aids from 23,4 percent in 2005 to 18 percent in 2007, the situation is still worrying. We should all steer clear of this dreaded scourge, especially through abstinence from premarital sex and faithfulness to one's spouse. The rollout of the anti-retroviral treatment programme is continuing despite the attendant challenge of scarce foreign currency.
In the realm of international relations, we continue to give priority to efforts to promote investment, trade and tourism for economic turnaround under the auspices of the NEDPP.
We have therefore redoubled our efforts to forge strong and mutually beneficial economic ties with both our traditional friendly and new co-operation partners. In that context, we held very successful Joint Commissions with Zambia, China, Iran and Namibia. The Joint Commissions with China and Iran gave fresh impetus to our "Look East Policy" while those with Zambia and Namibia further strengthened our co-operation with these two regional partners.
The advent of unilateral and military adventurism by the powerful few poses the greatest threat to international peace and security.
Accordingly, Zimbabwe will continue to push for the upholding of multi-lateralism and peaceful settlement of disputes as the best guarantee to international stability and security for all nations, big or small.
To improve the efficiency of the international system, Zimbabwe has remained steadfast in its support for calls for reform of the United Nations, especially its Security Council, to make it more democratic.
I wish to express Zimbabwe's gratitude to those countries in the international community and especially to Sadc for remaining unwavering and understanding in their support and solidarity with Zimbabwe.
Let me at this point thank our security forces for continuing to be the vanguard of our revolution and national integrity.
Indeed, they have continued to play a critical role in buttressing our economic turnaround efforts. The ZRP in particular, have greatly assisted in stamping out crime in the country and criminal and impudent behaviour in the mining sector though Operation Chikorokoza Chapera/Isitsheketsha Sesiphelile where anarchy had become the order of the day. In the face of extreme provocation they have curbed and inhibited the criminal tendencies of the opposition parties.
As part of their civic activities, members of the Security Forces continue to spearhead the implementation of operation Maguta/Inala, which seeks to boost the country's food security in joint efforts with A1, communal and resettled farmers to open up vast tracts of land for grain production.
The exercise has seen significant contributions by operation Maguta/Inala to the food security of the country. Finally, I would like to urge all of us to remain resolute in our commitment to the values that define and preserve our nationhood.
Let the spirit of unity and peace continue to prevail in us all, and to bring unison and symphony in our quest for a prosperous Zimbabwe. Let this be your day. Please enjoy the 27th anniversary of our Independence, for Zimbabwe will never be a colony again! Makorokoto, Amhlophe, Congratulations!
I thank you.
Email: zimbabwecrisis@yahoo.com
Visit: Zimbabwe Watch``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe: Celebrating victory over British forces``x1176992482,95516,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Ayinde
rastafaritimes@yahoo.com
April 19, 2007
Yesterday the people of Zimbabwe celebrated their nation's 27th year of independence and the US and other European powers are not pleased. They hoped that the White minority settlers in Zimbabwe could have continued controlling the vast amount of land that was taken during colonial rule.
Despite the increasing pressure from the US and other European powers, the majority in Zimbabwe remain strongly aligned to the ruling ZANU-PF party and their president, Robert Mugabe. It was hoped that economic hardship fueled by sanctions and the ongoing campaign by Western countries to demonize President Robert Mugabe could have been enough to turn the majority of people in rural areas against Mugabe. So far that has failed.
The life expectancy of an average Zimbabwean, as reported by the White House Deputy Press Secretary, Dana Perino, is 36 years old and the White Western powers are doing all they can to increase the pressure on the ordinary people through sanctions and rhetoric that is designed to scare away investors and financers from Zimbabwe. In other words, if the common folks in Zimbabwe do not force their government from power, allow Whites to control the most and best agricultural land, and accept western neocolonial polices, then they deserve to suffer and die.
Many in the African-American community join Africans in the international community in supporting those in Zimbabwe who bravely speak out against sanctions, for Britain to honour the agreement to finance the land redistribution exercise and for Zimbabwe to move further way from neocolonial policies.
Zimbabwe should also be calling for compensation from colonial powers for the theft of land, the hardship that Africans endured, and the wealth that the West derived from the unjust and illegal acquisition of land in Zimbabwe.
Many Zimbabweans understood that maintaining political freedom and reducing poverty required a new direction. They understood that the government was right to move away from the IMF and World Bank policies. They also understood that the government was right to fast track the process of reclaiming lands from White settlers and returning them to the indigenous African population.
We in the African community support Zimbabwe's efforts to develop true independence, free from the dictates of western powers and poverty.
Email: zimbabwecrisis@yahoo.com
Visit: Zimbabwe Watch``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe Independence Day - An African Statement``x1176997497,76329,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Caesar Zvayi
The Herald (Harare)
April 20, 2007
THE Anglican Church Province of Central Africa has added its voice to the growing condemnation of the illegal Western sanctions imposed on Zimbabwe and called for their scrapping, urging Britain to honour its obligations to fund land reforms in the country.
In their Pastoral letter issued at the end of their Episcopal Synod in Harare last week, the 14 bishops and one canon, among them the head of the Province of Central Africa, the Most Rev Bernard Amos Malango, acknowledged that the economic situation in Zimbabwe stemmed from illegal sanctions.
"We, the bishops, are concerned and pained at the distressing occurrences that have been taking place in Zimbabwe; the deteriorating economy has rendered the ordinary Zimba-bwean unable to make ends meet.
"This, we note, has been exacerbated by the economic sanctions imposed by the Western countries, these so-called targeted sanctions (presumably) aimed at the leadership of the country have affected the poor Zimbabweans who have borne the brunt of the sanctions ...
"We, therefore, call upon the Western countries to lift the economic sanctions imposed on Zimbabwe, we further call upon the British government to honour its obligation of paying compensation to the white farmers."
The Anglican Bishop's pastoral letter exposes the patently political nature of the Zimbabwe Catholic Bishop's Conference that released its own letter ahead of the Easter holidays, accusing President Mugabe and the Government of corrupt governance and human rights abuses.
The Catholic Bishops, led by the head of the Bulawayo Diocese -- Archbishop Pius Ncube -- and two of his colleagues from South Africa, Archbishop Buti Tlagale and Bishop Kevin Dowling, held an opposition rally on April 12 under the auspices of the Save Zimbabwe Convention and pledged to facilitate illegal regime change in the country.
Turning to the recent orgies of violence, the Anglican Bishops urged the Government to provide a framework for peace by creating an environment conducive for dialogue.
"As bishops, we denounce all forms of violence perpetrated by whatever source as a means of resolving conflict as this is a degradation of those created in the image of God."
Last month, MDC factions embarked on orgies of violence disguised as a "defiance campaign," through which they sought to depose the Government in the streets. When their attempts were thwarted, they launched terrorist activities that saw them assault police officers, burn private and public property and carry out 11 reported petrol bombings on police stations and private property.
The statement by the Anglican Bishops was in line with the theme of the 27th Independence Anniversary Celebrations, "Uniting Against Sanctions," and the resolution on Zimbabwe at the extra-ordinary summit of Sadc heads of state and government at the end of March in Tanzania.
At the summit, Sadc leaders reaffirmed their support and solidarity for the people and Government of Zimbabwe, called for the lifting of the illegal sanctions, recognised the legitimacy of the electoral system and urged Britain to honour its obligations to fund land reforms in Zimbabwe.
They also pledged a rescue package to mitigate the effects of the sanctions and tasked South African president Thabo Mbeki to facilitate dialogue between the Government and the opposition.
Apart from Archbishop Malango, other bishops who signed the Pastoral Letter dated April 12 2007 were Right Revs: Christopher J. Boyle (Northern Malawi), Albert Chama (Northern Zambia), Elson Jakazi (Manicaland), Derek Kamukwamba (Central Zambia), Nolbert Kunonga (Harare), William Muchombo (Eastern Zambia), Ishmael Mukuwanda (Central Zimbabwe), Robert Mumbi (Luapula) Trevor Mwamba (Botswana), David Njovu (Lusaka), Wilson Sitshebo (Matabeleland), Godfrey Tawonezvi (Masvingo), James Tengatenga (Southern Malawi), and Rev. Canon Michael Mkoko, Vicar General of the Diocese of Lake Malawi.
The Anglican Bishop's pastoral letter left egg on the face of the head of the church, the Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Willams who, last month, tried to pressure his bishops, among them Dr Kunonga, to join the bandwagon of condemning the Government for alleged human rights excesses.
Dr Williams went to the extent of holding a one-on-one meeting with Bishop Kunonga on the sidelines of the Anglican Conference on Tackling Poverty held in Johannesburg, South Africa, where he urged him to drop his "soft stance" towards the Government.
In the wake of the meeting, Dr Williams was criticised by church members who said Bishop Kunonga, who is well-known for his progressive sentiment, should not be pressured into telling falsehoods about his country.
``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe: Anglican Bishops Rap Sanctions``x1177152075,61319,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xangolapress-angop.ao
HARARE, 04/21 - Zimbabwe's embattled President Robert Mugabe won a show of support from neighbouring Zambia with its vice-president calling him one of the world's great leaders, state media in Harare reported Friday.
In comments carried by the Herald newspaper, Rupiah Banda said Mugabe had shown courage by embarking on his controversial land reform programme in the face of Western criticism and any problems in Zimbabwe should be resolved among Africans.
"We are proud to stand in front of the world and say this is our brother and that any problems here or in Zambia can be solved by ourselves within the context of our continent and our organisation," Banda said after meeting with Mugabe on Thursday.
"Zimbabwe is a sovereign state which should be respected by all and that within its sovereignty, its people decide who is their leader and as far as we are concerned, right here (pointing at Mugabe), we have one of the most outstanding leaders in the world and in Africa."
Banda's words of praise are in contrast to recent comments from Zambian President Levy Mwanawasa who has compared the situation in Zimbabwe to the sinking of the Titanic.
Banda is seen as close to Zambia's founding president Kenneth Kaunda who recently warned against the "demonisation" of his old ally Mugabe.
South African President Thabo Mbeki was recently tasked by regional heads of state to help resolve the divisions between Mugabe government and the opposition Movement for Democratic Change after recent attacks on MDC leaders.
Zimbabwe is currently in the throes of an economic meltdown which has seen inflation surge towards the 2,000 percent mark.
Western critics have traced the decline of the economy to the launch of the land reform programme in 2000 which saw thousands of white-owned farms seized by the state.
www.angolapress-angop.ao/noticia-e.asp?ID=526167``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe: Mugabe 'an outstanding leader', says Zambian vice-president ``x1177152351,53535,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xNews Editor
The Herald
BRITISH and American universities intending to withdraw honorary degrees conferred on President Mugabe are free to do so because he did not solicit for the honour in the first place, a Government official said yesterday.
Presidential spokesman and Information and Publicity Secretary Cde George Charamba said Cde Mugabe has seven degrees which he read for and the honorary ones were an unsolicited honour he can do without.
Cde Charamba's statement follows reports on anti-Government online news services claiming that two American and one British universities were considering petitions to strip President Mugabe of honorary degrees conferred on him.
The website &nquote; newzimbabwe.com &nquote; quoted officials as saying Edinburgh University in Scotland, the University of Massachusetts and the Michigan State University were carrying out the review because of alleged human rights violations in Zimbabwe.
But Cde Charamba said the President does not suffer from a crisis of academic achievement and will not lose sleep over the threat by the universities.
"President Mugabe has read for seven degrees. He has honorary degrees from Africa, Asia, former Eastern Europe, Europe and America.
"Honorary degrees are exactly that, an unsolicited honour from the giver.
"The President did not accost anyone to confer the honour.
"If anything, those Western universities improved their international profile by associating themselves with the President," Cde Charamba said.
He added: "It is not like the President suffers a crisis of achievement. He has seven solid degrees which are more than enough to earn him a living and recognition. He does not lose sleep over the threats."
The reports said Scottish MP Nigel Griffiths was to personally present Edinburgh University chiefs with a "dossier" spelling out why the Zimbabwean President should be stripped of his honorary degree.
Griffiths last week tabled a parliamentary motion calling for the award to be revoked, and has now asked for an early meeting with principal Tim O'Shea to discuss the subject.
Edinburgh conferred Cde Mugabe the honorary degree in 1984.
The reports said Michigan State University, which gave Cde Mugabe honorary degrees in 1984 and 1990, has also received similar petitions.
Terry Denbow, a Michigan State spokesman, said: "There have been discussions, but I know of no formal process for rescinding the degree."
Bill Wright, a spokesman for UMass president Jack Wilson, said university officials and trustees were "just in the discussion phase" about what to do with Cde Mugabe's degree.
If they decide they want to withdraw the honour, it is not likely to happen anytime soon.
While the university has a detailed procedure for awarding the degrees, there is no process for taking one back.
But Michael Thelwell, a professor in the UMass Afro-American studies department, and others cautioned against revoking the degree just to appease President Mugabe's critics.
"The task of intellectuals is to seek the truth, not to be swayed by pressures of the moment," said Bill Strickland, a UMass politics professor.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe: 'President can do without honorary degrees'``x1177515529,8519,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xThe Herald
PRESIDENTIAL and legislative elections in Nigeria have come and gone, but what they left is widespread disappointment and more questions than answers.
Central to the inquest is whether it is possible to speak of Zimbabwe and Nigeria's elections in the same breath?
While we were not on the ground in Nigeria, reports of the loss of over 200 lives in poll-related violence, last-minute ballot printing, theft of ballot boxes at gunpoint and the failure to deliver them to some stations leave us with no doubt that the poll lacked credibility.
Even the outgoing president Olusegun Obasanjo, whose party ostensibly "won" the election expressed disappointment with the process, though he was surprisingly amenable to the outcome. But what surprises us even more is that while all observer missions have condemned the Nigerian process as a disgrace, the response from Western groups and governments has been quite muted when compared to the disgust from Nigerian and other developing world observer missions.
We, however, must emphasise from the outset, that we do not believe that Western countries have any right to bless or condemn any election on the continent, particularly when they do not disguise their contempt for African observers whom they do not even invite to their own countries.
But we would have thought the West, that always masquerades as a custodian of democracy, would join progressive observers in agitating for a rerun.
The same goes for Obasanjo who was quick to join the Western bandwagon in condemning Zimbabwe's 2002 presidential poll which can never be compared, by any stretch of the imagination, to the sham that occurred across Nigeria last week.
This is not to say we do not know why US President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair seem to have lost their voices where Nigeria is concerned.
They have been benefiting a lot from Obasanjo's penchant to export crude oil, and import refined petroleum products.
Obasanjo also served them well in their fight with Harare when he went against African Caribbean and Pacific voices in the Commonwealth that had recommended the lifting of Zimbabwe's suspension from the councils of the Commonwealth.
The Commonwealth's gripes, we were made to believe, were over the way the 2002 elections had gone in Zimbabwe, which is also the EU's justification for its illegal sanctions.
Today, we ask the same observers to hold the Zimbabwean process and the Nigerian poll to scrutiny, and tell the world whether they have the right to question the legitimacy of our own process. We ask, as a wronged people, betrayed both by Obasanjo and his peers what the recompense will be on Nigeria where 200 lives were lost and a key opponent only allowed to contest just a few hours before the election?
Today, Obasanjo who had hoped to leave the scene under the halo of plaudits, exits amid a cloud of shame, hoist by his own petard.
Let the Nigerian experience be a lesson to all, it is not necessarily the credibility of a process that the West is interested in, but the malleability of the regime that determines the Western response.
This is why we agree with President Mugabe that the only voices that matter are those of our brothers from the developing world, we advise Abuja to listen to their concerns.
As for the Westerners, they can go hang.
Email: zimbabwecrisis@yahoo.com
Visit: Zimbabwe Watch``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe: Nigerian Poll Exposes West, Again``x1177515895,73810,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xNews Editor
The Herald
LIBYA yesterday condemned the economic sanctions imposed on Zimbabwe by the West as unreasonable and called for dialogue.
"Economic sanctions, political sanctions and other pressures will not realise the desired results," said Dr Saed Arabi Hifyanah, a special envoy of Libyan leader Colonel Muammar Gaddafi
He said Western powers should drop their policy of dominating the world because it has been a total failure.
Speaking to journalists after meeting President Mugabe at his Munhumutapa Office in Harare, Dr Hifyanah said the West's meddling in Iraq had been a disaster.
He said in Zimbabwe the West had also failed dismally in its agenda for regime change despite imposing crippling economic sanctions.
Dr Hifyanah said the West should pursue dialogue in place of its flagrant domination and manipulation of smaller countries.
He said Libya supports Zimbabwe's quest for economic independence through the land reform programme.
"We know that Zimbabwe is leading a struggle to achieve economic independence.
"There is no value to political independence without economic independence," said Dr Hifyanah.
Sadc leaders recently called on Britain, the European Union and the United States to lift the illegal sanctions which are hurting the ordinary people.
Presenting his interim monetary policy statement last week, Reserve Bank Governor Dr Gideon Gono urged the nation to unite in calling for the removal of the sanctions.
The Libyan official said Col Gaddafi sent him to exchange views with President Mugabe on various issues of mutual interest between Libya and Zimbabwe.
He said they discussed bilateral relations between Harare and Tripoli, and regional and international affairs, including the African Union summit to be held in Accra, Ghana, in July.
The AU summit presented the continent with an opportunity to discuss ways of further continental enhancing integration, he said.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe: Libya Condemns Sanctions Against Country``x1178017777,85370,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Caesar Zvayi
The Herald
THERE are a few stubborn facts the pretentious Bush administration has to know are common knowledge.
Firstly, the United States is not an independent country, but the largest settler colony that has systematically decimated the original inhabitants, the Amerindians, the same way Australia has deposed Aborigines and New Zealand, the Maoris. As such, Americans have no moral ground on which to claim to be spearheading the liberation of any other people when they have not granted independence to the rightful owners of the land they claim is theirs.
Zimbabweans know that at the height of the Second Chimurenga, when the progressive world closed ranks against Rhodesia and the UN, for the first time in its history, imposed mandatory legal economic sanctions on the rogue Smith on December 16 1966; which it broadened to a total embargo on May 29 1968; the US had no qualms engaging in illicit trade with the Rhodesian regime. Washington actually passed the so–called Byrd Amendment of 1971 that it used to circumvent UN sanctions in order to get chrome from Rhodesia to use on its monstrous automobiles.
So to Uncle Sam, chrome–plated car bumpers were more important than downtrodden black Zimbabweans.
Secondly, it is common knowledge that the US is the largest abuser of human rights dating back to the days of the Trans–Atlantic Slave abductions when millions of black people were yoked like animals to work in plantations and help build the so–called Free World.
To this day, the descendants of African slaves live like captives in the country their forebears broke their backs to build.
Thirdly, the US is the largest sponsor of terrorism across the world, a fact proved by the likes of Osama Bin Laden whom it created and used against the Russians in Afghanistan, but who it disowns today, simply because he has chosen to give Uncle Sam a taste of his own medicine.
Fourth, though it has a federal structure, the US is just another country, one of the 192 members of the United Nations whose charter espouses "equality between states, big and small," as such it was never ordained by anyone to masquerade as a global policemen.
Fifth, the US is guilty of more crimes against humanity, probably more than all other states combined. One needs only look at the use of atomic bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, banned weapons like cluster bombs in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuses, and the continued detention of people of primarily Arab descent at Guantanamo Bay simply because they look like Osama Bin Laden.
It is against this background that the US State Department report: "Supporting Human Rights and Democracy: The US record — 2006," should be dismissed with the contempt it deserves.
The first contradiction is in the title of the report itself, as the US did a lot to undermine human rights and democracy across the world in 2006 such that to have Washington make pretensions at safeguarding these values is akin to having the devil preach Godliness.
One needs only look at US actions in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the senseless war on Lebanon where innocent civilians were annihilated with the aid of banned weapons of mass destruction to understand the depth of Uncle Sam's depravity last year.
As such, the report is a clumsy attempt to disguise American destabilisation by deodorising it as a quest for democratisation.
As Russia pointed out, the report, covering all countries, portrays the human rights situation in countries that kow–tow to US foreign policy favourably while those that refuse to indulge Washington are portrayed as human rights abusers.
The most revealing aspect is that Israel, a state that committed so many atrocities against the Lebanese and Palestinians, has been omitted, probably because Uncle Sam could not find anything to disguise Israel's crimes.
Though the report has sections dealing with all other countries in the world, Zimbabwe was given extensive treatment as it has the largest section. More so, the entire report opens with a quotation from the self–exiled publisher of The Independent and The Standard, Trevor Ncube, who is reported to have said:
"If they think they can stop me from speaking against injustice, corruption and misgovernment . . . then they are mistaken. It will not stop me."
The use of this uninspiring quotation from Ncube, who is identified as "a Zimbabwean journalist harassed by the Government," was clearly meant to ensure that any reader would not miss the section on Zimbabwe, and by extension gave the impression that the entire report was on Zimbabwe.
What is even more scandalous is that though the report claims to be covering the period January to December 2006, it surprisingly opens with scatological remarks about the 2002 presidential elections and the March 2005 general election that it dismissed as having been unfair.
Yet these elections, when compared to the charade that brought George W. Bush to power in 2000 and again in 2004, were models not only for Africa but the entire world, one needs only look at what happened in Nigeria last week for emphasis.
The report then delves into alleged arbitrary arrests and torture of political opponents, though nothing of that sought happened at all. Through it all, the MDC factions which were battering each other all over the place before US ambassador, Christopher Dell struck an armistice, are presented as the great victims of State repression.
Nowhere in the report was Tsvangirai censured for his violent forays into the Mutambara camp though people like Trudy Stevenson, David Coltart, Gibson Sibanda and Welshman Ncube gave harrowing accounts of their torture at the hands of Tsvangirai's goons.
Operation Murambatsvina, which occurred in mid–2005, was also roped in and Anna Tibaijuka's lies that 700 000 people were displaced were given pride of place yet the disgraced UN–Habitat official admitted that her numbers were based on mathematical formulae and not actual findings. More so, official statistics released by the Zimbabwe Republic Police showed that by June 28 2005, the time the operation wound up, only 50 193 illegal structures had been demolished in all ten provinces, and 40 000 people were affected, which is realistic, for the reasons cited above.
Perhaps the most laughable attempt was the US' claim that the Government had restricted freedom of speech:
"The Government regularly used repressive laws to restrict freedom of assembly, speech, and press. In an attack on the independent media, the Government jammed broadcasts of the popular Voice of America Studio 7 programme, one of the few sources of uncensored news throughout the country, and seized radios belonging to listening groups in rural areas."
Is there no end to Uncle Sam's contempt for all people outside the US?
Who does not know that Studio 7 is not an independent station, but a special broadcast by the US propaganda station Voice of America that is funded by the same State Department that released the scandalous report?
So how independent is Studio 7, and independent from whom? At least we now know that everything labelled "independent" by Washington will be intrinsically linked to the US' policy of subversion.
Zimbabwe, if indeed it did, had every right to jam the pirate broadcast the same way the US itself blocked broadcasts from Radio Moscow at the height of the Cold War by removing the Short Wave band from all radio receivers produced in the US.
The same goes for the alleged confiscation of the receivers distributed by US running dogs in the rural areas. Zimbabweans do eat US propaganda, what they need is the immediate revoking of that illegal sanctions law, the so–called Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act.
That racist law, more than anything else is the reason the economy continued to decline, with skyrocketing prices, widespread shortages, and rapidly deteriorating social services," not the alleged "Government's command and control economic policies," which the US gloated about.
Another blatant lie was the claim that the US had managed to "expand international support of sanctions against Government and ruling party officials responsible for human rights violations."
US sanctions are not against the Government and ruling party officials as Uncle Sam and his henchman Christopher Dell would have people believe. The US sanctions law clearly says in Section 4 (c):
" . . . The Secretary of the Treasury shall instruct the United States executive director to each international financial institution to oppose and vote against; (1) any extension by the respective institution of any loan, credit, or guarantee to the Government of Zimbabwe; or (2) any cancellation or reduction of indebtedness owed by the Government of Zimbabwe to the United States or any international financial institution."
Thus, only a fool would read "Government of Zimbabwe" as referring to Zanu–PF, because the Government borrows on behalf of the country, as such what the MDC and other myopic people celebrate as "targeted" sanctions, are sanctions against the people of Zimbabwe.
And as many saw last year, US executive directors compelled the IMF to deny Zimbabwe voting rights and access to lines of credit in terms of this illegal Act.
Contrary to US claims that support for the sanctions expanded, it was actually the converse as we saw at the African Union Summit held in Banjul, The Gambia, where the then outgoing UN Secretary General Kofi Annan pledged to use his offices to have the sanctions scrapped. His efforts were, however, a little too late as Mr Ban Ki–moon of the Republic of Korea was already standing at the door.
Washington needs only look at the outcome of the extra–ordinary summit of Sadc heads of state and government held in Tanzania at the end of March to see the hollowness of that lie.
The only good thing about the US report is that it explains Dell's strange behaviour as it explicitly exposed US involvement in Zimbabwe's internal politics, Washington clearly acknowledged that it is bankrolling the opposition's attempts to unseat the Government.
"The US strategy for fostering democracy and human rights in the country is three–fold: to maintain pressure on the Mugabe regime; to strengthen democratic (read opposition) forces; and to provide humanitarian aid for those left vulnerable by poor governance . . . To encourage greater public debate on restoring good governance in the country, the United States–sponsored public events that presented economic and social analyses discrediting the Government's excuses for its failed policies."
What followed was a shocking detailed expose of the extent of US funding for opposition activities in Zimbabwe, and the so–called civil society comprising non–governmental organisations and "non–governmental individuals," so–called advocacy groups, newspapers, newsletters, some Church leaders and journalists.
In short, the report confirms that Uncle Sam has the entire opposition camp in his pocket, and the noises the so–called activists make are merely sponsored psalms for their supper.
Particularly interesting was the State Department's revelation that that it sponsors, and has editorial influence in certain weeklies that peddle anti–Government sentiment. Uncle Sam waxed lyrical about how his commentary is given acres of space, and alleged human rights abuses prominence in the newspapers.
The newspapers are identifiable by the way they almost go pornographic with lurid displays of inflamed buttocks of opposition activists they allege would have been tortured by the Government.
Far from serving its intended objective of mobilising opinion against Zimbabwe, the US report actually confirmed that the US, and its lackeys, is not on a democratising mission but a mission of subversion to serve American interests.
The report is, thus, a greater call for action on the part of Government to tighten the registration of NGOs and to re–table the NGO Bill as a matter of urgency.
Zimbabwe can not afford to continue suffering the excesses of sponsored groups, whose only agenda — apart from the selfish profit motive — is the realisation of the Anglo–Saxon neo–colonial agenda.
There it is then, with such a background, can anyone in his/her right mind expect an objective report from the Bush administration that openly confesses — in the same document it hopes trashes an opponent — that it is "seeking to discredit the Government" by "supporting people who criticise the Government?"``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xHuman Rights Report: US shoots own feet``x1178161323,26636,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Godwills Masimirembwa
The Herald
Yesterday was World Press Freedom Day. Every year, May 3 is dedicated to World Press Freedom. It is a day designated by the United Nations to raise awareness of the importance of freedom of the Press.
In the right hands, the Press plays a crucial role in disseminating news, opinions and ideas that educate members of the public on social, political and economic issues.
It assists in the shaping of attitudes and values. It serves to promote, safeguard, enrich and strengthen the cultural, political, social and economic fabric of a country.
In the wrong hands, the Press can be used as a purveyor of malicious falsehoods, distortions and misinformation.
It can incite lawlessness, anarchy, chaos and civil strife.
The importance of freedom of the Press is that one of its purposes is to discover or seek the truth and report it.
Seeking the truth is noble and any journalist or media house that seeks and reports the truth and nothing else but the truth serves humanity well.
We live in a world where the United States of America and Britain seek to dominate the social, political and economic aspects of every country.
They seek, by military force, illegal sanctions and other evil machinations to subvert democratically-elected governments whose policies they disagree with.
They seek to have unhindered access to the natural resources of other countries.
Neo-imperialism is the agenda.
The world is getting more and more violent and dangerous as America and Britain seek to assert their tyranny on other countries.
These two countries are the biggest threats to Press freedom. Their ranking on the index of the world’s worst violators of Press freedom demonstrates failure by journalists to report the truth regarding other countries they claim are among the worst violators.
Reporters without Borders must report the truth as it is.
The invasion of Iraq by the US and Britain remains illegal, the death and suffering of the people of Iraq is being caused by the US and Britain.
The death of journalists and media assistants in that country is a direct result of the illegal invasion.
The general mayhem in that country is as a result of American and British hegemonic tendencies.
With their continued occupation of Iraq, the US and Britain must remain firmly anchored at the bottom of world Press freedom rankings.
Apart from Iraq, the US and Britain are the trouble causers in Afghanistan.
In Africa their dirty hands are everywhere, fomenting and inciting revolt.
In Latin America they are against popular governments that resist neo-colonial domination.
Americans, in particular, are fingered in virtually every conflict situation in the world, they are always on the wrong side of the peaceful co-existence of nations, always seeking to dominate, always masquerading as champions of democracy, yet in truth they will be seeking self interest and exploitation of other nations’ riches and resources.
The bullish and warmongerish behaviour of America and Britain is the real threat to world press freedom.
As we commemorate World Press Freedom Day, let us remember Sandura JA’s words in the case of Biti and Another v Minister of Home Affairs and Another 2002 (1) Z’LR197 (S) at page 200F that freedom of expression assists in the discovery of truth.
Let the media and journalists seek the truth about current global and domestic conflicts identifying those who incite and encourage them and their agenda.
Let us remember the millions facing starvation and who are ravaged by disease while the warmongers invest in high-tech military hardware and stockpile arms of war all over the world, ready and more than willing to incite conflict so that they dominate the world and its resources and support military industries in their countries.
They now have an army for Africa and are searching for a base from a willing puppet nation.
Hitler lives in the hearts and minds of some of these Western leaders. They pose the greatest danger to world press freedom.
Let us now turn to Sandura JA’s statement and explore its meaning in greater detail.
Seeking the truth and nothing else but the truth is the cornerstone of the integrity of media practitioners and media houses.
The constitution of the Zimbabwe Union of Journalists states, as one of its objectives, the desire to "3(a) . . .uphold professional ethics in actively supporting the right to freedom of the press and realisation of fundamental human rights." Upholding professional ethics means, among other things, that journalists should seek the truth.
The Code of Conduct for Zimbabwean Media Practitioners says, " . . . media practitioners and media institutions must never publish information that they know to be false or maliciously make unfounded allegations about others that are intended to harm their reputations."
The hallmark of the various codes of conduct for media practitioners the world over share and are anchored on the same principles of truthfulness, accuracy, objectivity, impartiality, fairness and accountability in news gathering and reporting.
The search for truth is not an end in itself. It is for the purpose of serving the public interest. The preamble to the code of practice of the Society of Professional Journalists USA, aptly summarises the role and duty of journalists. It partly states ". . . public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialities strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honest, professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist’s credibility."
But it does not mean that the media and media practitioners have a right to report on everything so long as it is true. Every democratic country in the world has certain truths which are not for public consumption, for their reportage will be harmful to national security, law enforcement, formulation and implementation of government policy, personal and public safety and personal privacy.
Canada has a Security of Information Act that makes it a crime to be in unauthorised possession or to communicate secret government documents.
In the so-called bastions of Press freedom (United States of America and Europe), anti-terror laws have eroded the "truths" that the media and journalists are permitted to report on. Journalists and media houses are under surveillance. Harassment and monitoring of journalists is on the increase. Courts in America are forcing journalists to reveal their confidential sources of information or risk imprisonment for contempt of court.
First Amendment guarantees of freedom of expression are increasingly becoming a sham in the face of the relentless pressure from the Bush administration as it intensifies its war against self created terrorists.
Bush contravened the law by facilitating payments to columnists to enable them to write favourable stories on the US invasion of, and continued occupation of Iraq. It’s really messy for journalists out there. The prescriptions are said to be in furtherance of national security interests. Obviously, the bribes are in furtherance of Bush’s illegal agenda in Iraq.
In Zimbabwe journalists’ right to seek and discover the truth is protected by law, subject to limitations on grounds of national security, public and private interests.
Section 78 of the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act grants journalists the right, among other things, "to enquire, gather, receive and disseminate information."
It gives journalists the right to discover the truth and disseminate that truth.
It empowers journalists to visit public bodies, access documents and materials, make recordings and disseminate news pertaining to their findings.
It empowers the journalist to refuse to be party to reports or editorial preparations that distort his/her findings. This provision is consistent with journalistic standards.
By accepting that the discovery of truth and its dissemination is the core function and integrity barometer of the media, journalists and media houses must surely accept that falsifying or fabricating information and publishing falsehoods is anathema to their noble profession, with the offenders deserving censure and punishment.
Only the guilty are afraid of the provisions of section 64 and 80 of the AIPPA. These sections provide for the prosecution and punishment of mass media houses and journalists that, among other things, abuse freedom of expression, abuse journalistic privilege by committing criminal offences, contravening provisions of the Official Secrets Act, falsifying or fabricating information or publishing falsehoods.
There is no freedom without obligation.
There is no obligation without censure and punishment against transgression.
For the media, the freedom is to discover the truth.
The obligation is to report the truth. The censure for transgression is a claim for civil damages and/or criminal prosecution.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xUS, Britain violate Press freedom``x1178310147,33923,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xThe Herald (Harare)
May 7 2007
SADC will not abandon Zimbabwe while no amount of sanctions and isolation will make the West's regime change agenda work, Tanzanian President Jakaya Kikwete has said.
In an interview with the New African magazine, Mr Kikwete said Western countries were pushing for Zimbabwe's isolation, but Sadc would maintain solidarity with Harare.
"Sadc cannot abandon Zimbabwe. We cannot abandon the people of Zimbabwe. There are others who want to isolate Zimbabwe. That is tantamount to abandoning Zimbabwe. But we say we cannot abandon the people of Zimbabwe.
"We have solidarity with the people of Zimbabwe. We work together with the people of Zimbabwe. We will try to help them sort out their problems," said Mr Kikwete.
Asked if the illegal economic sanctions and other forms of isolation against Harare would achieve the intended goal of getting people to stage an uprising against the Zimbabwean Government, he said: "Of course, this is the assumption, but it is not a one-plus one equals two.
"Our societies are different. Subsistence peasants have very little interaction with the world outside their farms or homesteads. It is only when they go to hospital, and people don't fall sick everyday, that they may have something to do with government institutions.
"My aunt (the younger sister of my late father who is now 91), she has never been to hospital. I fall sick, but she doesn't fall sick. Of course, you may say this is a rare case, but that is the situation we have in Africa. Under normal circumstances, to think that this Masai roaming the plains with his cattle is going to go into the streets because you have isolated the government of Tanzania, he doesn't give a damn! All he needs from the government is to allow him to take his cattle to the market. He finds beauty in having a large herd of cattle; he doesn't want to have anything with street protests."
Mr Kikwete added: "Yes, isolation may work in urban areas, but the rural population anywhere in Africa far outnumbers the urban population. Isolation may work in urban areas but will never work in rural areas. And this is precisely what happens -- you go to elections tomorrow, the government loses in urban areas but the rural areas continue to vote for it, and the government remains in power. "
He said Western leaders want their African counterparts to condemn President Mugabe and have him removed from power.
"Oh yes, everywhere, everywhere! Zimbabwe is a big story of huge interest everywhere. There is a lot of dissatisfaction in Europe and beyond of what is going on in Zimbabwe, and they see President Mugabe as some kind of devil, somebody who shouldn't have been there, and they think that we in Africa should have done something to have him removed."
But President Kikwete said Sadc would engage Zimbabwe in dialogue and help it solve its problems.
"We have always had differences with the international community. They want us to join in the chorus of open condemnation of Zimbabwe but we have been saying: 'Fine, you can condemn when something is not going right, but our approach has been let's talk about the issues'."
The Tanzanian leader said certain people were mistaken to think that the recent Sadc extraordinary summit in Dar es Salaam was called to read the riot act to Zimbabwe.
"Of course, there are those who thought the summit should have discussed the removal of President Mugabe. Well, I told them, removing Mugabe was not on the agenda. The objective has always been how do we help Zimbabwe? Legally Mugabe is the President until the next elections."
Mr Kikwete said Sadc was confident its initiative to help Zimbabwe would work although it needed time and the lifting of the illegal sanctions.
"We know it will take time. But we need to send the message across. Isolation, which is the strategy that has been adopted by the Western countries and their allies, will work only, in fact its effectiveness depends on submission. You isolate countries to force them to submit. This is the idea. But how long will it take for Zimbabwe to submit? So I think the best way is to look at the issues, bring them to the negotiating table, and not wait until the Government submits to isolation. It may take many years and during these many years, so many people would have suffered. "
Mr Kikwete said there should be limits to freedom in response to a question on the limitless freedom demanded by the opposition MDC.
"We are putting across the same message, that we have freedom but we cannot give anybody the freedom to demolish the country and say it is my freedom to do so. So freedom cannot be limitless. There must be certain limits."
He said it was puzzling that there was so much interest on Zimbabwe in the West and its media but little concern about the Democratic Republic of Congo where 100 people were killed and 200 injured in three days of fighting recently.
"Of course, it is something interesting, something really interesting. But maybe there isn't much interest in Congo as it is in Zimbabwe. That surprises me too."``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xSADC Will Not Abandon Zim, Says Kikwete``x1178540685,30960,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xFrom Obi Egbuna in WASHINGTON DC
The Herald
May 08, 2007
WHILE all institutions of higher learning present themselves as marketplaces of ideas, a people's collective history and culture are far more influential in determining what values they embrace or reject, and this determines how young minds are influenced, both positively and negatively.
In the academic world, students are encouraged to be objective and honest. This is why the efforts by some at the University of Massachusetts and Michigan State University to rescind the honorary degrees presented to President Mugabe during the first decade of independence are not only suspicious but hypocritical.
Cde Mugabe was awarded the degree from UMass-Amherst in 1986, while Michigan State University honoured him in 1990. At the ceremony in Massachusetts, Cde Mugabe received his hood from Maki Mandela, the daughter of South Africa's founding president, Nelson Mandela.
The efforts at UMass-Amherst are being spearheaded by the Student Senate, which passed a resolution that they submitted to the board of trustees for review through Alexander Kulenvic who is a student representative on the board along with a campus-based organisation called the Non-Aligned Group.
Ironically, the Non-Aligned Group's goals on paper are to educate UMass-Boston's diverse community through music and an awareness of world politics devoid of political ideology.
The African community within US borders has a saying that goes, "if you live in a glass house don't throw no stones."
While the UMass-Amherst is recognised as the flagship campus of the University of Massachusetts system, it must never be forgotten that the school is named after the war criminal — Lord Jeffrey Amherst — a man guilty of injecting smallpox into the blankets of Native Americans.
If the students at U-Mass want to make a strong political statement in connection with human rights, they should petition their board of trustees to remove Lord Amherst's name from the building named after him and issue a public apology to all Native Americans.
If the students at Michigan State want to see their university play a role in correcting the wrongs of the past; they must question this prestigious institution's involvement in the Vietnam War.
In an article titled "University Of The Make" written by Stanley Sheinbaum, Warren Kinckel, Robert Scheer and Sol Stern in 1966 for Ramparts Magazine, the school developed a Vietnam Project spearheaded by an associate professor called Wesley Fishel.
Sheinbaum called this project a CIA front and Kinkel, Scheer and Stern revealed that through this project South Vietnam's government was assisted in the following areas fingerprinting techniques, bookkeeping, governmental budgeting and lastly the drafting of their constitution.
The article also reveals that Fishel had a bigger villa in South Vietnam than the US Ambassador and had more access to President Diem than the Washington Bureau Chief Leland Burrows. He also advised Diem on how to train his city police and the Surete, South Vietnam's version of the FBI.
The people of Zimbabwe and Africa as a whole should thank U-Mass and Michigan State for showing their true colours and commitment to the legacy of colonialism and imperialism.
While the effort at UMass was presented mainly as a student effort, an influential professor also made his feelings public.
Dr Ekuwele Michael Thelwell, the founder of the Afro-American Studies Department at UMass in 1970, had this scandalous remark; "Mugabe has become a scourge of his people and a scourge of Africa, he has degenerated as a political leader and human being."
Yet Thelwell was one of the professors who encouraged the school to present Cde Mugabe with the honorary degree in 1986. Thewell was also a field secretary of the Student Non Violent Co-ordinating Committee and the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party in the 1960's.
He gained international recognition for assisting the late Pan Africanist Revolutionary Kwame Ture (formerly Stokely Carmichael) to complete his autobiography "Ready for the Revolution" before he made his transition in 1998.
Based on his recent comments about Cde Mugabe, Thelwell's views on the Zimbabwe question, are compatible with those of another former member of SNCC Congressman John Lewis, a member of the Congressional Black Caucus that endorses the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act, the anti-Zimbabwe sanctions law passed by the Bush Administration in 2001.
The academic circles in the United States should realise that the tactic of using activists from the 1960's to demonise African revolutionaries like Cde Mugabe is an outdated strategy that has become predictable and laughable.
The late Dr Phillip Melanson who directed U-Massachusetts Public Policy programme was considered a first class expert on filing freedom of information act requests to governmental agencies and co-ordinated, since 1984, the Robert F. Kennedy assassination archives.
In his memory, U-Mass students concerned about Zimbabwe, should research how much money Tony Blair and George W. Bush have given Zimbabwe's opposition Movement for Democratic Change since its inception on September 11 1999.
The timing of the anti-Mugabe crusade also has to be critically analysed, UMass-Boston is awarding Senator and 2004 Presidential candidate John Kerry with an honorary degree, and last year also gave 2008 presidential hopeful Senator Barack Obama an honorary degree.
It is poignant to note that at the end of March, Obama submitted a resolution on behalf of the US Senate, complicit with the US Congress' anti-Mugabe stance, through Congressman Tom Lantos condemning Cde Mugabe and Zanu-PF for alleged state-sponsored violence and fundamental human rights violations.
Obama had his part of the resolution endorsed by Senator Kerry.
The students should take their administration to task over why Kerry has been selected as their commencement speaker.
This is the man who emerged as the Democratic party's frontrunner in the last presidential election by gloating about his silver star, bronze star with combat v and three purple hearts that he won in the Vietnam War as he slaughtered a proud people who had just liberated themselves from the yoke of French colonialism.
The students at UMass and Michigan State and the hidden hands driving them towards such repugnant efforts are smart enough to understand that President Mugabe's role in the struggle by African people for total liberation and human dignity is totally secure.
It is the height of deceit for academic institutions in the western world to give the impression that they speak for the whole planet by demonising our brother and comrade.
When the University of Edinburgh in Scotland went public with its plans to rescind Cde Mugabe's honorary degree, it was evident that they did not want to do this alone and wanted other schools to follow their lead.
As his spokesman, Cde George Charamba, pointed out, President Mugabe does not suffer from a crisis of academic achievement as he boasts of seven earned degrees from various universities.
More so, he does not suffer from want of honours as he is the only African head of state to receive the Jose Marti Award, Cuba's most prestigious honour and the Simon Bolivar Award, Venezuela's most prestigious honour.
If Commandante Fidel Castro and Cde Hugo Chavez were to rescind those honours, then Africa's daughters and sons would be concerned, this is an African head of state who courageously withdrew from the Commonwealth which shows Harriet Tubman's underground railroad lives on.
President Mugabe also received an honorary degree from the University of Peking in 2005 and had Malawi's biggest highway named after him by President Bingu wa Mutharika in 2006.
The Zimbabwe Solidarity and Support effort inside the US must intensify its work to encourage academic institutions inside our community i.e. historically black colleges and universities, African independent schools, public charter schools to develop and maintain educational projects with Zimbabwe.
In the final analysis, predominantly white institutions' assumptions that because of the integrationist tradition of the civil rights struggle, we will parrot their words and actions will be proven wrong.
The writer is a member of the Pan African Liberation Organisation, and Zimbabwe Cuba Friendship Association.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xRacism behind US varsities' campaign``x1178682924,62800,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xLift sanctions, create right context for dialogue, EU told
The Herald, News Editor
May 10, 2007
The European Union says it is still willing to have dialogue with Zimbabwe but the Government wants EU sanctions lifted before any talks.
Head of the European Commission in Zimbabwe Mr Xavier Marchal — in a speech to mark Europe Day in Harare yesterday — said the grouping remains willing to carry out dialogue with Zimbabwe "aimed at making progress towards a situation where the resumption of full co-operation becomes possible."
But in response, Secretary for Foreign Affairs Ambassador Joey Bimha said the EU should lift the sanctions and create the right context for dialogue.
"Zimbabwe has never refused to engage in dialogue.
"However, I should point out that dialogue takes place within a specific context where neither party sets benchmarks for the other, a context where neither party imposes punitive measures against the other and a context where objective criteria are applied as opposed to double standards and the shifting of goal posts.
"In that regard, the EU should help create the right context for dialogue by removing its sanctions against Zimbabwe," Mr Bimha said.
He said both Zimbabwe and the EU had much to gain from a normalisation of relations and Harare welcomed the bloc’s decision to embrace the stance taken by Sadc regarding the Zimbabwean issue.
Sadc leaders recently called for the lifting of the sanctions and urged Britain to pay compensation to farmers whose farms were acquired for resettlement.
They also undertook to assist Zimbabwe overcome the crippling economic sanctions.
"As you are aware, the (Sadc) communique offered a full package for helping Zimbabwe meet its current challenges.
"We therefore hope that by embracing this regional initiative, the EU has embraced the whole package as outlined in the Sadc communique."
Mr Marchal said he was supportive of internal dialogue in Zimbabwe.
"I feel very strongly that internal dialogue between all Zimbabweans can succeed, and further challenges addressed, only in a violence free environment, in which everyone is treated humanely, and which clearly does not exist today. I strongly encourage the urgent way forward towards such an environment," he said.
Ambassador Bimha said Government abhors violence and believed that in a democratic society people should pursue their political objectives by non-violent means.
"Violence should therefore be condemned by all whenever it rears its ugly head irrespective of who perpetrates it.
"However, serious questions are being raised when certain sections of the community remain sacrosanct from criticism when there is overwhelming evidence of violence on their part," he said.
Ambassador Bimha said the same yardstick should be used to ensure consistency and objectivity when judging.
"The absence of the objectivity is the missing link in the Zimbabwean equation."
MDC faction leaders Mr Morgan Tsvangirai and Professor Arthur Mutambara, National Constitutional Assembly chairperson Dr Lovemore Madhuku and several senior opposition leaders and MPs from both camps were in attendance.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe: EU Told to Lift Sanctions``x1178845052,43675,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xThe Herald
TANZANIA has been at the centre of efforts to mediate the dispute between Harare and London with President Mugabe choosing former Tanzanian president Mr Benjamin Mkapa as mediator. At the end of March Sadc heads of state and government met in Tanzania to discuss the peace and security situation in the region, and at the end of the extra-ordinary summit they came up with a historic resolution on Zimbabwe. In their communiqué, Sadc leaders reaffirmed their solidarity with the people of Zimbabwe and the legitimacy of President Mugabe, condemned the illegal Western sanctions and urged Britain to honour its colonial obligations, among other things. The Herald caught up with Tanzanian Ambassador to Zimbabwe, Mr Adadi Rajabu – whose country chairs the Organ on Politics, Defence and Security – to discuss this and other things.
QUESTION: Ambassador your country recently celebrated its 43rd Union Anniversary, 43 years since the union of Tanganyika and Zanzibar on April 26 1964, some of our readers may not know, can you briefly tell them what necessitated the union and what the situation was like before Tanzania came into being?
ANSWER: Tanganyika got its independence from Britain on December 9 1961 under the leadership of Mwalimu Julius Kambarage Nyerere while in Zanzibar, the people's revolution against sultanate took place on January 12 1964 under the leadership of Mzee Abeid Amani Karume. After the formation of the new Afro-Shirazi party government of the People's Republic of Zanzibar, the Tanganyika and Zanzibar leaders met to discuss Union between the two countries with a view to restore, both officially and constitutionally, the fraternity and unity which had existed between the peoples of the two counties before the colonial era. The countries then united on April 26, 1964.
Q: How different was Tanganyika from Zanzibar?
A: In fact there was no difference between Tanganyika and Zanzibar before the Union due to the fact that the two countries were under colonial rule before their respective independence dates and they share issues of common interest.
Q: We have seen so many African countries torn apart by divisions and conflicts, what is the secret behind Tanzania's success in this regard?
A: The union between Tanganyika and Zanzibar was a union of the people, created by the people, under the leadership of Mwalimu Julius K. Nyerere and Mzee Abeid A. Karume, for the people. We share a common culture, language, customs and political conviction. The Union Government came into begin after the two Presidents had signed the Union Treaty.
Q: Your country recently hosted an Extra-Ordinary Summit on the Peace and Security situation in the region, and came up with historic resolutions, how did you receive the resolution on Zimbabwe?
A: The resolutions by the Extra-ordinary Sadc summit on Peace and Security Situation in the region were a positive move by the region to handle its matters, issues of concern by the region should be addressed by the region itself.
Q: How much movement has there been since the Summit to address the problems in the three countries that were reported on, DRC, Lesotho and Zimbabwe?
A: As you are aware that for the case of Zimbabwe we have seen the visit of Sadc Executive Secretary who was tasked to deal with economic challenges. On political matters we know that President Thabo Mbeki will also be on the ground soon. I have not received any developments on the DRC and Lesotho.
Q: Harare and London are barely on talking terms, and the latter even ignored the initiative proposed by President Mugabe to have your former president Mr Benjamin Mkapa mediate in the dispute, will that be resuscitated in the context of Dar Es Salaam?
A: At the moment let's give time, and support the Sadc initiatives, however, this does not mean to put aside the proposal by President Mugabe to have our former President Benjamin Mkapa mediate in the dispute between Harare and London.
Q: Zimbabwe says there is a bilateral dispute, while the British government says the dispute lies between Zimbabwe and the world, how do you think Sadc should get around the problem?
A: It is a fact that there is a sour relationship between Harare and London that started during the Land Reform Programme, disputes are always resolved by bring the conflicting parties to the negotiating table.
Q: Sadc also pledged a rescue package to mitigate the effects of the sanctions, what do you think such a package should entail?
A: The Sadc Executive Secretary after visiting and having extensive consultations with relevant authorities in Zimbabwe will come up with advice on how Sadc can come in with assistance. However, the regional leaders appealed for the lifting of all forms of sanctions against Zimbabwe.
Q: How do you evaluate the socio-economic situation in the country, the prospects for improvement?
A: The current economic situation in Zimbabwe is very challenging. It is a matter of time; Zimbabweans will overcome these difficulties. Zimbabweans should regard it as a challenge to all of them.
Q: Integral to the problems in the three countries discussed in Dar Es Salaam is the problem of irresponsible opposition parties, how do you think that can be solved?
A: All opposition parties and Zimbabweans in general should follow the laws and regulations of the country, failure to that, the law will take its course.
Q: You chair the Organ on Politics, Defence and Security; how far has the proposed Mutual Defence Pact moved?
A: Most of Member States have not ratified the mutual Defence Pact.
Q: At the Summit in Lesotho, Sadc Heads of State and Government expressed concern over the region's reliance on external funding for developmental projects, in light of peace and security challenges what is your comment on that and what can be done to curb it?
A: Reliance on external funding for development projects will definitely compromise peace and security in the region. Member States should pull up their socks by increasing their contributions to the regional block which will enable it to fund its projects.
Q: The extent of bilateral relations?
A: Zimbabwe/Tanzania bilateral relations should put more emphasis on Trade and Economic Co-operation through holding permanent joint commission meetings, we have to improve our peoples' standards of living by promoting trade. We have had warm and cordial political relations for years, this must now reflect on business links between the two countries.
Feedback: caesar.zvayi@zimpapers.co.zw``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe will overcome: Ambassador``x1178977913,22480,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xNew Zimbabwe (London)
Posted to the web 11 May 2007
allafrica.com
By Dr. Sehlare Makgetlaneng
MORE and more people are facing the brutal reality that the effective national response to Zimbabwe's socio-political and economic problems is the key starting point in the resolution of these problems.
Central to this national task is the reality that Zimbabweans under the leadership of their political parties and civil society organisations must organise themselves to have dialogue among themselves to find means to resolve their country's problems. This is the case despite their different and antagonistic socio-political and economic interests.
Any political party which is in practice committed to the resolution of the national problems must struggle to bring together the people of its country to discuss strategies and tactics essential for the resolution of the national question. If the people of a particular country through their political parties have failed to execute this national task, they should not blame people of other countries. They should blame themselves and their individual and organisational leaders.
The political parties of Zimbabwe have failed to execute this task. The leading opposition political party, the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), has failed to execute this task. It has attributed this failure to the programme of action embarked upon by the ruling party, Zimbabwe African National Union - Patriotic Front to entrench itself in power. It has reduced this programme of action to President Robert Mugabe.
The key reason behind this failure is the lack of serious well-organised opposition to the present political governance in the country. As a result of this failure, the MDC and its internal and external supporters have blamed political leaders of Africa for what they regard as their failure to resolve Zimbabwe's problems as if it is not the task of the people of Zimbabwe under the leadership of the MDC to resolve the Zimbabwean problems.
This is their means to hide the profound and unique practical and theoretical weakness of the MDC. The task of African political leaders and the people of other African countries through their organisations is to support Zimbabweans in their efforts to resolve their national problems.
While the MDC has sustained the politics of opposition in Zimbabwe, few people are convinced that it is capable to take care of the political administration of the society or to govern. There is an emerging popular position that it has failed to oppose the ruling party. Its practical and theoretical weakness has been intensified by its division into two organised factions under the leadership of Morgan Tsvangirai and Arthur Mutambara. They are referred to as MDC Tsvangirai and MDC Mutambara.
The two MDCs' lack of leadership and ideas appropriate even to challenge the ruling party, not to mention to mobilise Zimbabweans into action and to articulate strategies and tactics to convince Zimbabweans that one of them is capable to govern the country and to lead its reconstruction and development programme, is unique and frightening. They are disorganised and divided to pose any serious, well-organised threat to the ruling party. Despite their unity which is their opposition to Mugabe, they have individually and collectively failed to formulate appropriate strategy and tactics to exert pressure upon the ruling party to see the structural and fundamental need to have a serious dialogue with them.
The failure of Zimbabweans to organise themselves, to have dialogue among themselves and to find means to resolve their country's problems has led the Southern African Development Community (SADC) to appoint President Thabo Mbeki to facilitate dialogue between Zimbabwe's ruling party and the opposition party.
Far from being the victory of the MDC, this development has further marginalised the MDC by demonstrating that it has been so far incapable of impelling the ruling party to see a need for a serious dialogue with it. The ruling party has not been weakened by this development. Far from regionalising the Zimbabwean conflict, it has re-affirmed that the Zimbabwean crisis is the national question to be resolved by Zimbabweans. It has re-affirmed the position of African leaders that Zimbabweans, not external actors, must solve their own national problem.
This development has led some of those who maintain that the task of resolving Zimbabwe's problems is primarily that of African leaders, not of the people of Zimbabwe, to abandon their position which is obviously incorrect. This incorrect position has its fundamentalist supporters in the former frontline state of the settler colonial rule in Southern Africa, the former settler colonial South Africa. It is articulated in the Southern African national newspapers.
The Weekender, published in Johannesburg, in its 21-22 April 2007 editorial maintains that it is the task of president Mbeki to solve Zimbabwe's problems. Questioning his intentions as the facilitator of dialogue between the ruling party and the opposition of Zimbabwe, The Weekender maintains that Mbeki "will not bring back 4-million escapees" or "4-million Zimbabweans" who represent "a third of the country's population" who have "fled their country of birth to set up home everywhere, from the obvious places such as" the United Kingdom and South Africa, to "the less likely locations of Taiwan, Eastern Europe and the Far East."
It continues, pointing out that Mbeki "cannot reverse Zimbabwe's brain drain and its inexorable economic slide, nor stem the rot of its institutions of governance. He can do nothing about the social ills that have resulted from Zimbabwe's meltdown, such as unemployment and worsening HIV/AIDS burden."
This position of The Weekender is as if Mbeki is the president of Zimbabwe or as if Zimbabwe is a province of South Africa. The point is that Zimbabweans' problems which we are told that Mbeki cannot solve are obviously problems to be solved by Zimbabweans, not by Mbeki.
President Mbeki has become a target of some European South Africans. Some of these European South Africans are against Africans of South Africa. They claim to be for Africans of Zimbabwe. This is interesting aspect of the position of a considerable number of European South Africans. They are against Africans of South Africa and claim to be for their brothers and sisters of other African countries.
David Bullard of Sunday Times, another national newspaper published in Johannesburg, had a published piece, 'Offer Zimbabweans dignity - and visas", on April 22, 2007. He maintains that various newspapers articles have "described how highly qualified Zimbabweans are having to eke out a living as security guards or waiters. Desperately as they are, they run the risk of being exploited because they are not legal citizens and there's no chance of them filing an official complaint."
This is the problem faced by Zimbabweans, not only in South Africa but also in other countries throughout the world. It is the problem faced by Africans of other African countries and by those who are not Africans throughout the world. David Bullard argues as if this is the problem faced only by Zimbabweans only in South Africa. Bullard's position is the same position of regarding South Africa as one block which is unjust and the rest of Africa as another block which is just. It is the same position which isolates South Africa from the rest of the continent in terms of contributing towards the solution to problems faced by the continent or some African countries such as Zimbabwe. This can best be understood if we take into account Bullard's position that the South African "government's stand on Zimbabwe is an international disgrace, particularly for a party that fought for racial equality and justice."
Which political party in Africa which is either now or was in the past the ruling party which fought for racial inequality and injustice? The ruling parties of the colonial Africa, not of post-colonial Africa, fought for racial inequality and injustice.
Bullard maintains the position that it is the responsibility of South Africa to solve Zimbabwe's problems. If South Africa does not make serious efforts to solve Zimbabwe's problems, these problems "are bound to get worse." He argues that it is because the South African government has refused to solve Zimbabwe's problems that these problems are going to increase. Maintaining that quiet diplomacy "loosely translated," means "we can't be bothered to do anything and, besides, we're hoping the problem just goes away," he concludes that the problem "hasn't and, thanks to the ANC government's spinelessness, things are bound to get worse."
Bullard concludes his article by appealing to President Mbeki to "offer Zimbabweans dignity - and visas." In his words: "So please Mr Mbeki, stop being a pipe-smoking intellectual for once and set up a fast-tracking system to legalise these unfortunate [Zimbabwean] people. Having betrayed them for so long it's the least we can do."
President Mbeki of South Africa has betrayed the masses of the people of Zimbabwe by not solving their national problems? Really?
This is the same problem of not critically viewing the Movement for Democratic Change. Mbeki has been used as a means to avoid the issue of confronting the internal dynamics of the MDC particularly its weaknesses and failure to constitute itself as a viable opposition political party practically threatening to assume state political power.
It is a tragedy of Zimbabwean politics of opposition that as the leading opposition party, the MDC continues regarding such individuals as its supporters - individuals who support the interests of their fellow Europeans in Zimbabwe and throughout the world. It should not oppose in theory what it supports in practice that the resolution to Zimbabwe's socio-political and economic problems is not within itself, the MDC Tsvangirai or the MDC Mutambara, but within the ruling party, the Zimbabwe African National Union - Patriotic Front.
Dr Sehlare Makgetlaneng is the Head of Southern Africa and SADC programme at the Africa Institute of South Africa in Pretoria, South Africa
Reprinted from:
http://allafrica.com/stories/200705110672.html``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xMbeki a Scapegoat for MDC Failures``x1179020010,67870,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xby Staff Writers
Manchester, UK (SPX) May 11, 2007
Source: University of Manchester
Scientists examining documents dating back 3,500 years say they have found proof that the origins of modern medicine lie in ancient Egypt and not with Hippocrates and the Greeks.
The research team from the KNH Centre for Biomedical Egyptology at The University of Manchester discovered the evidence in medical papyri written in 1,500BC – 1,000 years before Hippocrates was born.
"Classical scholars have always considered the ancient Greeks, particularly Hippocrates, as being the fathers of medicine but our findings suggest that the ancient Egyptians were practising a credible form of pharmacy and medicine much earlier," said Dr Jackie Campbell.
"When we compared the ancient remedies against modern pharmaceutical protocols and standards, we found the prescriptions in the ancient documents not only compared with pharmaceutical preparations of today but that many of the remedies had therapeutic merit."
The medical documents, which were first discovered in the mid-19th century, showed that ancient Egyptian physicians treated wounds with honey, resins and metals known to be antimicrobial.
The team also discovered prescriptions for laxatives of castor oil and colocynth and bulk laxatives of figs and bran. Other references show that colic was treated with hyoscyamus, which is still used today, and that cumin and coriander were used as intestinal carminatives.
Further evidence showed that musculo-skeletal disorders were treated with rubefacients to stimulate blood flow and poultices to warm and soothe. They used celery and saffron for rheumatism, which are currently topics of pharmaceutical research, and pomegranate was used to eradicate tapeworms, a remedy that remained in clinical use until 50 years ago.
"Many of the ancient remedies we discovered survived into the 20th century and, indeed, some remain in use today, albeit that the active component is now produced synthetically," said Dr Campbell.
"Other ingredients endure and acacia is still used in cough remedies while aloes forms a basis to soothe and heal skin conditions."
Fellow researcher Dr Ryan Metcalfe is now developing genetic techniques to investigate the medicinal plants of ancient Egypt. He has designed his research to determine which modern species the ancient botanical samples are most related to.
"This may allow us to determine a likely point of origin for the plant while providing additional evidence for the trade routes, purposeful cultivation, trade centres or places of treatment," said Dr Metcalfe.
"The work is inextricably linked to state-of-the-art chemical analyses used by my colleague Judith Seath, who specialises in the essential oils and resins used by the ancient Egyptians."
Professor Rosalie David, Director of the KNH Centre, said: "These results are very significant and show that the ancient Egyptians were practising a credible form of pharmacy long before the Greeks.
"Our research is continuing on a genetic, chemical and comparative basis to compare the medicinal plants of ancient Egypt with modern species and to investigate similarities between the traditional remedies of North Africa with the remedies used by their ancestors of 1,500 BC."
Reprinted from:
www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-05/uom-eng050907.php``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xEgyptians, not Greeks were true fathers of medicine``x1179131763,36940,Development``x``x
``xThe Herald
DISGUSTING is the only word we can find to describe the decision by Australian prime minister John Howard to bar his country's cricket team from touring Zimbabwe.
The reasons he gave to justify his actions – alleged human rights abuses and the deteriorating economic situation in Zimbabwe that he claims would endanger his team – do not fool anyone especially in light of Zimbabwe's successful hosting of the Zimbabwe International Trade Fair and the Harare International Festival of the Arts.
We all know how atrocious Australia's human rights record is to be fooled by Howard's pretensions that he is a stickler for these noble values.
One only has to look at what the Australian forces are doing in Iraq to know that the Howard administration is a stranger to human rights and democracy.
The real reason for Howard's strong-arm tactics is that he, along with his allies, has invested a lot in propaganda campaigns to cast Zimbabwe as a lawless country where visitors are mauled on arrival. Now those lies would have been exposed had the Australian XI toured and managed to play all their three matches without incident.
More so, being world champions, the team would have attracted a lot of international media attention with disastrous consequences for the propaganda campaign.
This is why Howard is prepared to fork out US$2million in fines to the International Cricket Council so that he can prevent the world from knowing the truth about Zimbabwe.
To him it's just another cheque to the propaganda campaign.
It is no coincidence that the US State Department also released a travel warning at almost the same time that Howard was making his scandalous allegations against Zimbabwe.
In the travel warning, the State Department warned American citizens of alleged security concerns in Zimbabwe; which travel warning it said, would be in place until the end of July this year.
What is more, the Australian foreign ministry also revealed that it was increasing its funding to opposition groups in Zimbabwe with the foreign minister, Alexander Downer, saying his government had released A$4 million over and above the A$6 million which was disbursed last month.
Another A$12 million would be made available in the 2007-2008 financial year.
Downer clearly admitted that the money would go towards sponsoring opposition activities, and we all saw what opposition groups did with the funding in February when they hired hoodlums to wreak havoc to justify allegations of anarchy in Zimbabwe.
The ban and the funding are closely related with the one used to justify the other.
This is why Howard's politicisation of cricket should be condemned by all progressive people the world over.
Apart from exposing the myth that Western sanctions are targeted at top Government officials, Howard's actions expose the desperation gripping the regime change circles, all the more reason why the Government should remain resolute.
Victory is certain.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe: Howard's decision disgusting``x1179235037,12455,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Mukanya Makwira
May 16, 2007
The Herald
OUTGOING Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo must be a very worried man as he ponders how to extricate himself from the mess he presided over.
The man who, like the proverbial cat, had managed to live nine lives due to his cunning ability to reinvent himself, must be cursing himself over the turn of events in the "democracy" under his stewardship.
The recent "elections" in Nigerian, apart from the shambolic way in which they were held, also exposed the West's naked hypocrisy in the extent to which they can lower the bar in order to suit their ends.
Let it be emphasised that Africa does not need outsiders to authenticate its elections. Even as he awakened from his slumber, the embattled Obasanjo acknowledged that elections cannot be judged using the European barometer.
This exposed his folly for playing to the Western gallery at the height of Zimbabwe's land reform programme. Those who tried to knock some sense into his head must have appeared like fools, but now as the sun sets on Obasanjo's tenure, he is undoubtedly seeing the light.
For how could the West dignify a process which Obasanjo himself grudgingly condemned?
Like the average African who has become accustomed to Nollyhood through exposure to Nigerian movies, the recent Nigerian elections could have passed for the Tom and Jerry rumblings, minus the violence, of course.
It was in Nigeria, albeit with the complicity of the West, that an election was openly rigged, disenfranchising millions of voters amid widespread violence.
One of the key contestants, former vice president Atiku Abubakar, was only given the green light to contest with only 72 hours left before the elections. Thus, he was literally given three days to sell his candidature to over 60 million voters, a feat that could easily have got him into the Guinness Book of Records had he won.
After facing an unexpected revolt from his inner circle in his bid to bend the rules to run for a third term, Obasanjo opted to settle scores with his deputy by sabotaging his bid to succeed him.
Obasanjo threw away all democratic etiquette to throw spanners into the opposition campaign, and ensuring in the process that his hand-picked successor, the little known Umaru Musa Yar'Adua, held sway.
With vast oil resources at his disposal and with his country being a major exporter of this much-needed resource to the Western world, who could raise a finger at the goings-on?
Talk is cheap, the bespectacled leader can today testify. Who can forget his globetrotting ostensibly on Commonwealth business (read British service) as Zimbabwe was facing increasing Western pressure in the wake of the land reform programme?
It was during Obasanjo's tenure as chair of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting that punitive sanctions were imposed on Zimbabwe amid allegations that our elections had not been free and fair.
What had not been clear to him was that to the West, as the Nigerian case exemplifies, free and fair elections can only be said to have taken place provided Western interests are secured.
The British sought a reversal of the land reform programme, hence their explosive anger when their puppet Morgan Tsvangirai lost.
To the West, the concept of free and fair elections is interpreted within the context of safeguarding their interests in former colonies. With the prevailing global political climate having moved away from colonialism, the West has sought to promote neo-colonial thinking across the world in order to maintain influence over developing world resources.
Thus, Nigerians had to vote with their blood, over 200 perishing, the elections still being applauded for reflecting the wishes of the people. Which people, the dead or European masters, one might ask?
The so-called policemen of the world will not shy away from validating any political outcome that would install their proteges in power. What concerns them is the smooth flow of British Petroleum, Shell and Exxon oilfields from the Niger Delta. They have sometimes in history gone on to support undemocratic means of unseating legitimately elected governments in order to satisfy their resource exploitation agenda.
Take, for example, the issue of Venezuela. In 2002, the United States of America and its allies shamelessly supported a botched-up coup against the sitting government of Hugo Chavez.
Credibility of an election to the West lies in its outcome, never mind the process. If their surrogate wins, by whatever means, there is no rigging. Has anybody ever wondered the silence of these "champions of democracy" whenever the opposition won some constituencies?
The opposition has participated in the elections which have seen them having a foothold in virtually all the urban centres under the very electoral regulations which have been said to be defective by our detractors.
So nauseating was the Nigerian process and outcome that even senior political figures within the ruling party could not stomach it. The Senate president, a ruling People's Democratic Party member, publicly disowned the process, a stance that got him a rebuke and threats of imprisonment from the government.
The Nigerian elections probably made modern history by becoming the first to be held under classroom regulations where pieces of paper, no serial numbers and all were used to elect class monitors. The only difference was that the monitor being chosen this time was for a class of about 120 million citizens.
In what could be seen as largely an afterthought, probably instigated by the refusal of the majority of world leaders to authenticate the poll, the European Union issued a thinly-veiled statement on the election process. The statement expressed disappointment with the conduct of the elections, but true to their intentions, went on to embrace the president-elect so that they could help the country to "overcome post-election difficulties".
To them, that millions were not given the chance to vote was immaterial. With oil prices on the surge following the bold move by Chavez to nationalise Venezuelan oilfields, I bet they would not have minded even if the Nigerians had voted for a donkey. What would happen to the petrodollars from the oil sales would be another issue all together.
The Nigerian embassies in Western capitals must be very busy indeed at the moment. Their various leaders are probably jostling for the limited tickets for the inauguration of the new president. They are very much interested in establishing themselves with the new leader so not as to escape the oil benefits.
They would want to witness the first civilian transfer of power in Nigeria on the day Obasanjo is going to hand over a blood-soaked baton stick to his successor.
The transition would be a "feat" achieved at the cost of 200 lives.
Who says the military were worse transgressors? Talk of double standards.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xNigerian charade exposes West's double standards``x1179317157,42613,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Caesar Zvayi
May 16, 2007
The Herald
THE African Union has flexed its muscles and told the European Union in no uncertain terms that it has no right to determine which Africans it will deal with at the forthcoming EU-Africa Summit scheduled for Lisbon, Portugal, in December.
Ghanaian Foreign Minister Mr Nana Akufo-Addo -- whose country holds the AU chairmanship -- told journalists after his meeting with EU officials in Belgium yesterday that if there was a summit, Zimbabwe would attend represented either by the President or any of his representatives.
"We can't have a situation where people pick and choose what Africans they will deal with if they try to deal with Africa on a continental basis. It is a summit and if it's a summit, Zimbabwe comes at the level of its leader or somebody in a representative capacity," Mr Akufo-Addo was quoted as saying by the Associated Press.
Mr Akufo-Addo said the AU stood by Sadc's position to have South African President Thabo Mbeki mediate any political problems in Zimbabwe, and his sentiments were echoed by EU foreign policy chief Mr Javier Solana, who said the EU was also supportive of Mr Mbeki's efforts.
At their extraordinary summit held in Tanzania at the end of March, Sadc heads of state and government came up with a historic resolution on Zimbabwe. They expressed solidarity with the Government and people of Zimbabwe, called for the lifting of the illegal Western sanctions, and urged Britain to honour its obligations to fund land reforms.
On the political front, Sadc mandated Mr Mbeki to facilitate dialogue between the Government and the opposition, while on the economic side, it pledged a rescue package to mitigate the effects of the embargo.
The AU position puts paid to claims in certain sections of the Western media that President Mugabe had divided the continent ahead of the EU-Africa summit that, ironically, has been postponed several times since 2003 as Africa refused to balk to Western pressure to hold the summit minus Zimbabwe.
The noise over the President's attendance comes in the wake of the raft of sanctions -- including a travel ban on top Government and ruling party officials -- the EU imposed on Zimbabwe after it was dragged into to the bilateral dispute between Harare and London by outgoing British Prime Minister Mr Tony Blair.
EU officials hope to use the inaugural summit to forge closer links with Africa as they feel China, which has strengthened its synergies with the continent through the China-Africa summit, is upstaging them.
Portugal, which assumes the EU presidency in July, reportedly made it clear that it wants the summit to succeed this year, and was not likely to bow to pressure from any quarter to bar Zimbabwe. Portuguese Foreign Minister Mr Luis Amado said closer economic and political co-operation with Africa was central to the success of his country's presidency.
Last week, Mr Blair -- who has been sobered after being pressured into an early retirement over his domestic and foreign policy mistakes -- was quoted in his country's Sunday Express newspaper as saying he would not oppose Cde Mugabe's attendance.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xNo Summit Without Zimbabwe, Says AU``x1179393827,94365,Zimbabwe``x``x
``x
Zimbabwe's rise at the UN
By William M. Reilly, africanpath.com
May 15, 2007
"...Zimbabwe has been elected to chairmanship of the U.N. Commission for Sustainable Development.
The question remains: why?
The way it works in most of these unwelcome situations is there are regional groupings in the world organization that put up candidates, and nations in those grouping tend to stick with them. Some are pre-committed to support.
In the latest instance, it was Africa's turn to put up a candidate for the post and the group put up Harare's Francis Nhema, minister of environment and tourism of Zimbabwe. He was the candidate endorsed by the African States Group to serve as the chairman of the commission's 16th session next year.
Africa follows a rotation system for submitting candidates and it was Zimbabwe's turn. In a secret ballot late Friday night, Nhema was elected 26-21, with 3 abstentions."
www.africanpath.com/printFriendly.cfm?blogEntryID=755
Chinese ambassador congratulates Zimbabwe on being chosen to lead UN commission
Chinese Ambassador to Zimbabwe Yuan Nansheng on Wednesday sent a letter to Zimbabwean Minister of Environment and Tourism Francis Nhema to congratulate that he was elected chairman of the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development.
"On behalf of the Chinese government and people, I wish to extend our sincere congratulations to you on the occasion of your election as chairman of UN's commission on Sustainable Development, " Yuan said in the letter to Nhema.
He also expressed his hope that the friendly relations and cooperation between the Chinese and Zimbabwean governments in international affairs develop steadily.
Nhema won an approval to head the UN body in charge of promoting economic progress and environmental protection at the closing of the body's 15th session in New York on Friday.
The voting result by secret ballots was 26 to 21 with three abstentions. Fifty of the 53 commission members voted.
The UN African caucus last month nominated the Zimbabwean minister for the post.
The chair traditionally rotates among regions of the world and it was Africa's turn this year. African countries chose Zimbabwe as its candidate for the one-year tenure and the government in turn nominated Nhema for the post.
The commission was established by the UN General Assembly in December 1992 to ensure effective followup of the Earth Summit held in Rio de Janeiro in June of that year and implementation of key environmental and development agreements.
Zimbabwe took over from Qatar and is expected to bring various critical environmental issues to the fore during its tenure.
Source: Xinhua
Reprinted from:
http://english.people.com.cn/200705/16/eng20070516_375207.html``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe to Head Important UN Commission``x1179394545,81914,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xFrom Itai Musengeyi in NAIROBI, Kenya
The Herald
May 23, 2007
ZIMBABWE was yesterday elected vice chairman of the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa at the start of the trading bloc's 12th summit of heads of state and government here, in another show of confidence in Harare's leadership in regional and international fora.
Zimbabwe will host the 13th summit next year while President Mugabe will deputise host President Mwai Kibaki, who assumed the chairmanship of the Comesa Authority yesterday until the 2008 meeting.
Mr Kibaki took over from President Omar Ismail Guelleh of Djibouti, who now becomes the rapporteur, succeeding Rwandan President Paul Kagame.
The election of Zimbabwe as vice chair of Comesa – Africa's largest trading bloc – comes on the back of its selection to lead the United Nations Commission for Sustainable Economic Development and the executive board of the African Development Bank.
Environment and Tourism Minister Cde Francis Nhema will chair the UN Commission for the next year while the Secretary for Economic Development, Mr Andrew Bvumbe, will be one of the 14 executive directors of the ADB for the next three years based in Tunis, Tunisia.
Speaking to Zimbabwean journalists, Foreign Affairs Minister Cde Simbarashe Mumbengegwi said Zimbabwe was elected into the bureau after offering itself for selection and was chosen as per the rules and procedures of Comesa.
He said Zimbabwe was chosen because it was a long-standing and important member of the trading bloc.
Cde Mumbengegwi said no amount of demonisation by Western countries – which are on a relentless campaign to isolate Zimbabwe – would influence decisions in bodies like Comesa.
"This is a decision of Comesa," he said.
The two-day summit is reviewing regional integration, implementation of ongoing projects and programmes and assessing progress on decisions made at the Djibouti meeting last year.
"The annual Comesa summit is a forum through which we express our solidarity to the regional cause as well as provide political guidance to the ongoing integration process," said President Kibaki in his welcoming remarks at the opening ceremony.
Mr Kibaki said the summit should build on past achievements to propel Comesa to greater heights of integration.
He urged the grouping to intensify dialogue with other regional groups to deepen integration.
"As we collectively position ourselves towards deepening our regional integration, it is imperative that we also intensify our dialogue with other regional economic communities, notably the Southern African Development Community and the East African Community.
"This is of critical importance to all of us by virtue of the prevailing need to harmonise projects and programmes under these regional organisations and also in recognition of the ongoing negotiations with the European Union and the World Trade Organisation," said the Kenyan leader.
Mr Guelleh said Comesa had replaced the EU as the largest market for goods from member states of the trading bloc.
He said this should be strengthened and proposed the establishment of a taskforce to spearhead joint projects among member states.
The summit will address consolidation of the free trade area, progress on Economic Partnership Agreement negotiations with the European Union and the peace and security situation in the bloc, as stability is crucial to trade and investment.
It will explore possibilities of putting in place the customs unions by 2008 and promote regional trade and investment.
Comesa is moving towards transforming the free trade area into a customs union by next year, characterised by deeper integration and the merger of customs territories into a single customs territory.
Under the arrangement, countries would eliminate tariffs and other restrictive regulations on trade to create a more conducive trade environment.
The bloc was founded in 1994 when it replaced the Preferential Trade Area that had been in existence since 1981.
President Mugabe is expected to address the summit today.
He arrived here on Monday night and was met at Jomo Kenyatta International Airport by Zimbabwe's Ambassador to Kenya Mr Kelebert Nkomani, Cde Mumbengegwi, Industry and International Trade Minister Cde Obert Mpofu and Transport and Communications Minister Cde Chris Mushohwe, who were already here to attend ministerial meetings.
Mr Kibaki was last night expected to host a state banquet for the seven leaders in attendance and other dignitaries.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe gets top Comesa post``x1179902509,83528,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Peter Mavunga
The Herald
May 25, 2007
I HAVE just been reading Rian Malan's article in the Spectator (May 19 2007) titled "Shame on the white liberals and black Africans who cheer on Mugabe."
It is another instalment of the anti-Mugabe brigade that deliberately chooses to misrepresent the facts about the problems in Zimbabwe.
To them, Zimbabwe's problems are a consequence of President Mugabe's "misrule" fullstop.
It is about "dictatorship and human rights abuses". Above all, it is about an African leader who has no support in his country but who is trying to hang on to power by crushing his opponents.
So says Malan, writing from Johannesburg.
What bugs him is that African diplomats at the UN in New York should support Zimbabwe. Malan is "appalled" that Zimbabwe is put in charge of Sustainable Development by the UN and says this is symptomatic of the way in which President Mugabe is indulged by foolish do-gooders from New York to South Africa.
He may accuse others of indulging the President but he seems to be guilty of the same thing himself.
Malan says he had gone to Johannesburg to participate in the inaugural Franschhoek Literary Festival but his thoughts were with Ian Pearson, UK Environment Minister (poor thing) who "was attempting to explain to African diplomats that one could not appoint a malignant regime like Zimbabwe to the chairmanship of anything, let alone a committee on development."
He seemed so sorry for the UK Minister to have the task of explaining this to these "unthinking" people. Malan concedes the African bloc did not like this at all. And when Cde Boniface Chidyausiku, Zimbabwe's UN ambassador, said he thought the Minister's lecture was: "an insult to our intelligence," he seemed surprised that others agreed, "with Pearson going down in flames", as he put it.
Malan gets too big for his boots very quickly. He says he stood shoulder to shoulder with the UK Minister in this "righteous" fight. Yes, his is a righteous fight against evil, the evil of a regime that dares to challenge its former colonial master.
Malan's "righteous fight" was at a posh dinner in Johannesburg attended, he says, by such "grandees as Bevil Rudd, grandson of Rhodes's right-hand man" and others. There, for standing shoulder to shoulder with the UK Minister in New York in this "righteous fight", he says he was shouted down as "pathetic" by an eminent white liberal.
Such white liberals and black Africans he says should be ashamed of themselves for cheering on President Mugabe. I don't know about white liberals but I write as a black African who knows the effect of white racism in Rhodesia where I grew up. It is a bit rich for Malan to be lecturing us on who to cheer and who not to cheer.
Malan says he first saw President Mugabe in the flesh in Johannesburg in 2002 at the UN Earth Summit. While both Colin Powell, US Defence Secretary and Tony Blair, UK Prime Minister were booed and jeered, Cde Mugabe was greeted with a tumultuous standing ovation.
"I wrote it off as a passing fad," says Malan and hoped that black power fantasies would soon wear off once the folly of Mugabe's 'ethnic cleansing of white farmers' began to take effect".
This is what righteous Malan thinks of an ovation acknowledging the man who led the war to restore dignity to an oppressed people. Passing fad, he calls it.
He was nevertheless surprised that although by 2004 the Zimbabwean economy was in "free-fall", the President was more popular than ever but then he qualifies this by saying this popularity was not in Zimbabwe but in many African capitals and at President Mbeki's swearing-in ceremony.
He says it was clear by then the fast-track land reform programme had not reversed President Mugabe's unpopularity at home and he had "already taken to bludgeoning black opponents and rigging elections in order to stay in power.
He goes on: "His black supporters didn't care. Mugabe was giving the whites hell. Mugabe was therefore a hero. 'Mugabe is speaking for black people worldwide,'" he quotes Harry Mashabela as saying.
Malan of course, does not even attempt to explore why President Mugabe, while giving whites hell, was receiving standing ovations.
Might it be true that self-respecting Africans, because of their experience at the hands of colonials have a different mindset that the likes of Malan cannot begin to understand even if they tried?
Malan does not understand why when Western members of the Commonwealth moved to expel Zimbabwe, South Africa helped to block them.
He says South Africa also thwarted attempts to place his "atrocities on the agenda at the UN Security Council and the UN Human Rights Committee," but he does not attempt to understand why. Neither does he want to know why President Mugabe's popularity appears to increase to rock star proportions world wide, as he puts it.
He makes a passing comment on "the wounds of history" though, but then goes on to brush it aside by expressing he hoped a time would soon come when "Mugabe's militant fans realised their behaviour was restoring the reputation of Ian Smith, "who prophesised that Rhodesia would be 'buggered' if the blacks took over."
Of course, there are different kinds of reputation and it depends on the point of view of who is speaking.
No doubt Malan has nostalgic fond memories of Rhodesia under Smith. What I have are memories of Smith the human rights abuser. Memories of a man whose Rhodesia project was about protecting the privileges of the few white settlers on the burning backs of black Africans.
For was it not only on November 24 1977 that Smith, faced with an increasingly bitter guerrilla war, for the very first time announced publicly that he was abandoning his opposition to universal suffrage?
Until then his stance, which he sincerely believed in, was that Africans were second class citizens. This is what the restoration of Smith's reputation means to a self-respecting African.
Rhodesia was a regime of violence and racial injustice as observed by David Caute in his fascinating book: "Under the Skin".
He reported the case of Wilfred and Darryl Collett, father and son, who had taken their black foreman, Mac Maduma from Mphoengs police station after the African had admitted stealing their money but had promised to pay it back.
"Arriving back at Ingwesi Ranch, Plumtree," wrote Coate, "the Colletts stripped him naked, secured him to a block and tackle by handcuffs, had him hoisted from the ground and given twelve strokes."
He goes on: "When the case came to court in February 1978, the magistrate told the two whites that they were guilty of a form of terrorism and fined the 70-year-old father R$500 with a three-month prison sentence conditionally suspended; the son got ten months in gaol, of which six months were conditionally suspended.
"But Chief Justice Hector Macdonald didn't like to see a white man gaoled for beating a black one; in April the Appeal Court set aside Darryl Collett's prison sentence and reduced the verdict from 'assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm' to 'common assault.'"
Caute also cites another case widely reported in the Press in March 1977. Basil Rowlands, was a white farmer, "who kicked a 65 year-old labourer to death, and later pleaded that the man was not correctly planting maize pips along a furrow."
According to Caute, an erudite historian and journalist, V. J. Kock, the Magistrate at Salisbury Regional Court commented that "although the consequences had been unfortunate he did not consider the assault a serious one". Rowlands was sentenced to a fine of R$300 or two months in jail. (This episode is reported by Denis Hills in his book, Rebel People.)"
This was Smith's Rhodesia and this was the kind of "justice" that he meted out to black people.
So when Malan says President Mugabe's militant supporters in New York and Africa had better realise that "their behaviour was restoring the reputation of Ian Smith" it is clear he is talking gibberish.
But Malan would probably say he was comparing Smith and Mugabe in their economic management. He says by January this year, Smith was utterly vindicated. "Eight out of 10 Zimbabweans were jobless and those who had work were screwed anyway, because inflation was 2 200 percent and they couldn't afford anything."
Malan would also say he was talking about President Mugabe's repression against his political opponents.
For he indeed expresses "righteous indignation at the violence in Zimbabwe".
These are issues David Gazi explores carefully in his book: Racism and the Land Question — A Colonial Legacy. He finds inter party violence in Zimbabwe between Zanu-PF and ZUM youths.
He observes that on March 24 1990, for instance, "there were running battles between Zanu and ZUM youths after a car belonging to Vice-President Muzenda had been set alight."
He goes on: "Kombayi's shops were ransacked and looted by Zanu youths and several ZUM youths were injured in the factional fighting. One of Kombayi's trucks was commandeered to take the injured ZUM youths to hospital," he says.
The violence was considerable and Kombayi's injuries "necessitated his removal to the specialist Royal Orthopaedic Hospital in Stanmore, North London, England where he was hospitalised for 200 days at a cost of nearly £100 000."
Gazi cites this incident that occurred back in 1990 to make the point that such violence did not elicit the kind of hysteria that has characterised the West's support for another opposition party in Zimbabwe, the MDC.
There were no calls from Western "democracies" for punitive measures to be taken against Zimbabwe despite the heavy-handed manner in Pwhich the state agency, the CIO, by its own admission, had dealt with the national Organising Secretary of ZUM who was due to stand in elections against the Zanu candidate, Vice-President Muzenda.
This and other attacks on opposition party members took place three years after the conclusion of the Fifth Brigade forays into Matabeleland — time enough, says Gazi, for all those whose consciences were pricked by these events to have made their displeasure known.
But no, it took another decade before the West and the new opposition party in Zimbabwe voiced their concerns about political violence in Zimbabwe.
So the question is: why did all the people, who now claim outrage at violence against the opposition, not protest on ZUM's behalf when it was under attack? Why did ZUM not receive Western support?
Gazi speculates that perhaps it is because the violence was being committed on both sides and the West felt it inappropriate to interfere in the internal affairs of a sovereign state! If so, what has changed now?
There are many instances where the MDC has carried out acts of violence against Government supporters and it has received much support from the West — why?
For an answer, Gazi suggests we look elsewhere as to why the West never actively supported ZUM while it did support the MDC.
He says: "From the outset Edgar Tekere, the ZUM leader, had shown himself willing to ignite the powder keg of Zimbabwe's politics — the land issue."
Tekere was sympathetic to the very first land reclamations that took place more than 20 years ago in Matabeleland and Manicaland (Headlands occupations of 1981). This was at a time when the new black government's policy on the land question was one of appeasement.
Also at the time of the attacks on ZUM, President Mugabe had agreed to the introduction of ESAP, one of the cornerstones of the New World Order and forerunner to the introduction of globalisation in Africa.
In the eyes of the West, Zanu-PF was pro-West and the West did not wish to interfere in the internal affairs of a friendly, sovereign state.
Gazi says these events demonstrated that Western democracies do not usually intervene in an African country over questions of democracy or the rule of law, they do so when they sense an opportunity for regime change in favour of a more accommodating candidate.
And they moved in with a vengeance – propaganda, sanctions and all - against Zimbabwe once President Mugabe took a stance on the land question a decade later. The poor showing of Zimbabwe's economy ought to be seen in this context rather than President Mugabe's alleged misrule.
Yet the West will always claim and use its powerful influence to create this impression in a fashion similar to what goes on between a bully and his victim. The bully attacks the victim telling him to shut up and say nothing about his injuries or else more will follow.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xWhen the bully cries foul...``x1180086543,88491,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xEDITOR — Cde George Charamba's response in The Herald (April 25 2007) to calls from some quarters that want American and British universities to revoke President Mugabe's honorary degrees was spot on — the President does not suffer from a crisis of academic achievement.
I would like to add my voice as well.
Africans in general and Zimbabweans in particular must know that the honours, degrees, medals, and so forth conferred on African leaders, past or present, by the West, were never sincere.
They are meant to flatter our leaders so that they can work to further Western interests at the expense of the majority of Africans.
Just look at how they praise past and present African leaders who have done virtually nothing to empower indigenous black people but whose "success" is rated by how well they maintain the status quo of minority white privileges.
I am glad that we Zimbabweans have opted to die on our feet than live on our knees. We must never fear sanctions!
We must stand firm in our fight for self-reliance. Just look at how the Chinese and Koreans have done it.
All that we need are sacrifices across the board.
Godwin Hatitye
Harare``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xWest's degrees conferred on leaders not sincere``x1180350069,84933,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Isdore Guvamombe
The Herald
May 29, 2007
RECENTLY, diamond producing countries, mainly in Sadc, met in Luanda, Angola, under the auspices of the newly-formed African Diamond Producers' Association (Adpa) to establish a policy that should see the countries become masters and shapers of their own economic destiny on the world diamond market.
The diamond is regarded as the world's strongest mineral used both for industrial and commercial purposes and it continues to fetch high prices on the world market.
According to De Beers, the world diamond industry is currently valued at US$10 billion, with Africa producing 60 percent of the world's diamonds.
This is why Africa must be the main factor in influencing the prices.
There is no doubt that, years after gaining political independence, Sadc countries are mindful of the need to end the foreign stranglehold on the precious stone by introducing effective strategies and policies that are aimed at devolving sovereignty and recovering lost revenue for each member state.
As many as 12 African diamond producing countries, mainly in Southern Africa, formed the association, that is headquartered in Luanda, Angola, to influence the world diamond market.
Angola, Botswana, Ghana, Guinea, Democratic Republic of Congo, Zimbabwe, Namibia, Sierra Leone, Tanzania, Togo, Central Africa Republic and South Africa have sent a clear message that the time has come for them to influence the marketing and pricing of their mineral product.
They now need the lion's share.
The countries have also sought knowledge and co-operation of the Kimberly process.
This is a clear sign that Africa is rising from the ashes of mineral exploitation to self-determination against monopolistic Eurocentric companies like De Beers, Anglo-American and Rio Tinto.
Since colonial times, the Anglo-Saxons, through De Beers and Rio Tinto have, like moles, dug an array of tunnels through African soils for diamonds, mostly for the benefit of their kith and kin in Europe.
Ironically Africa, which produces about 60 percent of the world's diamonds, has been receiving crumbs from the periphery of the market yet the mineral was being extracted from its soil using Africans as cheap labour.
The move to control diamond trade by African countries should be taken seriously by all governments on the continent as a major step towards fair deals and fair trade, that is mutually beneficial.
African countries must insist on benefiting through local cutting and polishing of diamonds and jewellery production to generate more employment for the people.
African countries are certainly moving fast to become masters of their own economic destiny and fair play companies from Russia, China and others from the Far East should also be given a chance to clinch deals with diamond producing companies in Africa in general and Sadc in particular. This will broaden the market.
Since the Zimbabwean diamond fields are expected to produce 15,5 million tonnes of diamonds, it is worthwhile trying new partnerships with the Chinese and Russians, who also have vast experience in diamond mining and processing.
This would effectively end the Anglo-Saxon monopoly on the mineral's exploitation, as other investors would have to buy a huge stake in order to get real value and fair price.
It is true that Africa has predominantly remained as a source of raw material while countries that add value to the precious stones have significantly benefited and this has been to our detriment.
This is why there is now serious need to understand that if the local industries are transformed from being mere primary producers into full-fledged industries, there are a lot of benefits that will accrue from that.
In terms of fighting colonialism and defending political sovereignty Africans have, since the 1960s stood the test of time, in most cases cuddling together against the predatory instincts of American and British political hawks.
Of course, sell-outs have been noticed here and there but Africa will never be a colony again, politically, yet economically the journey is still too long.
Signs are clear that the time has now come for Africa to end western countries' hegemony on its important resources, especially the land and diamonds.
The host country Angola's Minister of Mines Mr Victor Kasongo summed up the intentions of the African countries.
"It is an African initiative trying to ensure that there is value addition to our resources with the support from our members in Southern Africa.
"We have to amend our laws to enable the governments to realise this. Benefaction is the key priority," he said.
Andre' Action Diakite' Jackson of DRC chairs Adpa with a secretariat headed by Edgar Diogo de Cavalho Santos, the former secretary general from Angola.
Unless Adpa is taken seriously and its principles implemented, the negative trade balance that has existed since colonial times will persist through the systematic plunder of resources for the benefit of other countries.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xDiamonds: Africa must get lion's share``x1180417646,34056,Development``x``x
``xBy Itai Musengeyi and Fortious Nhambura
June 12, 2007
The Herald
LEADING MDC officials were yesterday among the first beneficiaries of the farm mechanisation programme as President Mugabe once again reached out to the opposition to work with Government on matters of national interest.
Acknowledging the presence of MDC Senators and Members of the House Assembly at the commissioning of the agricultural equipment, Cde Mugabe said such events should unite Government and the opposition despite their political differences.
"It's a national event ... that realisation is important that there must be occasions when we must be together. After all, we eat together. Nyaya yekudya inyaya yedu tese, hapana asingararame nekudya. Kana toita politics dzekutukana tinenge taguta," the President said to applause by guests.
Some of the MDC officials present at the ceremony were Pumula-Luveve Senator Mr Fanuel Bayayi, Lobengula-Magwegwe Senator Mr Thabiso Ndlovu, Bulawayo-Nkulumane Senator Ms Rittah Ndlovu and Umzingwane Member of the House of Assembly Ms Nomalanga Khumalo.
The four MDC MPs were all beneficiaries together with Government ministers, war veterans, youths, women, business executives, senior civil servants, service chiefs, white farmers and university farms.
Leading opposition figures who are beneficiaries are faction leader Professor Arthur Mutambara, who is farming in Chimanimani District, his deputy Mr Gibson Sibanda (Bulilima) and their secretary general Professor Welshman Ncube (Umguza), deputy leader of the Morgan Tsvangirai-led faction Ms Thokozani Khupe (Matobo), the opposition chief whip in Parliament Mr Innocent Gonese (Mutare District), Mr Giles Mutsekwa (Mutare), Mr Joel Gabbuza (Binga), Mr Blessing Chebundo (Kwekwe), Mr Job Sikhala (Seke), Mr Tapiwa Mashakada (Mazowe), Masvingo executive mayor Mr Alois Chaimiti (Masvingo) and Mr Rensen Gasela (Gweru District).
Other MDC legislators who benefited were Mr Tongai Matutu, Mr Njabuliso Mguni, Mr Jealous Sansole, Senator Sinampande H. Madolo, Senator Greenfield Nyoni, Ms Editor Matamisa and Mr Lovemore Moyo.
Also on the list of notable beneficiaries were Mr Edgar Tekere, Dr Ibbo Mandaza, former Confederation of Zimbabwe Industries president Mr Kumbirai Katsande, current CZI president Mr Callistus Jokonya, Delta chief executive Mr Joe Mutizwa, Zimbabwe National Chamber of Commerce president Mrs Marah Hativagone, former Commercial Farmers' Union president Mr Doug Taylor-Freeme (Makonde District), Dr Robbie Mupawose and Mr Timothy Chiganze.
Institutions of higher learning that benefited were Solusi University, National University of Science and Technology, Bindura University of Science Education and Midlands State University.
The following white farmers also benefited: Mr Paul Dollar (Mazowe), Mr Chris Hougood (Seke), Mr Jeremy Vaughan (Kwekwe), Mr Dawie Joubert (Chipinge), Mr Oliver Hendrick (Mwenezi), Mr A.S.J. Rosenfels (Umguza), Mr Bistol Kerwood (Beitbridge) and Mr Burger Naude, who is believed to be Indian.
Reserve Bank Governor Dr Gideon Gono said the programme cuts across the political and social divide.
"Feeding the country may not be left to one region, political party, gender or business community, but is a shared responsibility," said Dr Gono.
Cde Mugabe said prominent in Government's preferred way of allocating resources was the elimination of corruption, favouritism and discrimination of whatever nature.
President Mugabe has repeatedly urged the opposition to be nationalistic, homegrown and to join forces with Government to defend Zimbabwe's sovereignty and independence.
At the burial of the late Vice President Cde Simon Muzenda in 2003, Cde Mugabe hailed the MDC officials who joined thousands of Zimbabweans to bury the national hero at the National Heroes Acre in Harare.
"So kushamwari dzedu dzeMDC dziri pano tinovati aiwa you are also Zimbabweans. Sadza ratinodya rakafanana, tinodya matumbu embudzi akamonwa tinoada zvikuru," Cde Mugabe said then.
He told the mourners that Zanu-PF and MDC were "sons of the soil and they should behave like sons of the soil".
The President's remarks therefore came true yesterday when a coterie of MDC officials was among beneficiaries of the mechanisation programme, which is a phase of the land reform programme.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe: President reaches out to MDC``x1181646515,10100,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xOusmane Sembene who died this past weekend was a rare breed of African artist--of the emerging days of African independence that used creative restorative images and cinematic language rooted in African culture for the social and mental liberation of African people.
The grandmaster of African film died at the age of 84 in Dakar, Senegal, Saturday. He was one of the last few surviving giants of pioneers of African cinema who chronicled the lives of the dispossessed, exposed the inequalities of wealth and power in postcolonial Africa.
Full Article : blackstarnews.com
Critic of Africa's dependency on aid dies
Senegal's leading film maker and author Ousmane Sembène, who was a staunch critic of Africans taking aid from the West, is dead.
His films and books often touched on issues of colonialism and Western racism but his subject always focused on what Africans need to do for themselves.
"The one theme running through all his work was that Africans need to stand up and take responsibility for their actions," Gnilan Ndiaye an authority on Senegalese culture told IRIN on Monday.
Full Article : irinnews.org``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xMourning Peerless Film Giant Ousmane Sembene``x1181657763,81177,Development``x``x
``xThe Herald
SOUTH African President Thabo Mbeki yesterday said he had been encouraged by the attitude of Zimbabwe's Government and the opposition since being tasked by Sadc to mediate their differences, as Russia threw its weight behind the Sadc initiative to assist Zimbabwe revive its economy.
"We . . . are encouraged in this regard by the positive attitude evinced by the protagonists in that country," Mr Mbeki told Members of Parliament in Cape Town during debate on the presidency's annual budget.
The parties, Mr Mbeki said, "do recognise that the people of Zimbabwe expect of them nothing less than concrete action to extricate them from the difficulties they face currently".
Mr Mbeki was asked in March by fellow Sadc leaders at an extraordinary summit in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, to mediate between the Government and the MDC ahead of elections next year.
His team has been in touch with both sides but he has yet to meet directly with either President Mugabe or MDC leader Morgan Tsvangirai on the issue.
President Mbeki reiterated yesterday that "we intend to move with speed in executing this mandate".
On Monday President Mugabe once again reached out to the MDC to work with the Government on matters of national interest.
Acknowledging the presence of MDC Senators and Members of the House of Assembly at the commissioning of agricultural equipment in Harare, Cde Mugabe said such events should unite the Government and the opposition despite their political differences.
"It's a national event . . . that realisation is important that there must be occasions when we must be together. After all, we eat together. Nyaya yekudya inyaya yedu tese, hapana asingararame nekudya. Kana toita politics dzekutukana tinenge taguta," the President said to applause by guests.
Leading MDC officials were among the first beneficiaries of the farm mechanisation programme, who will get tractors, planters and combine harvesters, among other equipment, bought by the Reserve Bank.
Reserve Bank Governor Dr Gideon Gono said the programme cuts across the political and social divide.
"Feeding the country may not be left to one region, political party, gender or business community, but is a shared responsibility," said Dr Gono.
President Mugabe has repeatedly urged the opposition to be nationalistic, homegrown and to join forces with the Government to defend Zimbabwe's sovereignty and independence.
In Harare, outgoing Russian Ambassador Mr Oleg Scherbak yesterday said his country was confident the Sadc initiative would see Zimbabwe overcome its problems.
Mr Scherbak said Zimbabwe was going through a challenging time in its post-colonial history.
"We believe the country will surmount all its current difficulties and in the end things will mend. That is why we welcome the latest Sadc initiative on Zimbabwe as a comprehensive package," he said at a function to mark the Russian national day.
The ambassador said his country would continue to advance a constructive international agenda and was convinced that the best way to settle critical situations was about engagement in dialogue and not about isolation of any country.
Russia foreign policy priorities, he said, were to focus much on Africa.
"Today we see African countries vigorously joining the global process and by that vindicating once again that exclusive zones of influence which have become a thing of the past. A broad field of constructive action is opened here for Russia and its business community," he said.
Mr Scherbak said his country's stable economic growth had enabled it to contribute to concerted efforts at the international community and bilateral level to support sustainable development of Africa.
By the end of this year, he said, Russia would have cancelled some US$500 million of poor African countries' debts.
The total amount of Africa's debts written off by Russia in recent years would come to US$11,8 billion.
Mr Scherbak said he was confident that the time-tested co-operation between Russia and Africa would continue to grow since all necessary prerequisites for this were already in place.
"At present there is every reason to assess the relationship between Russia and Zimbabwe on the same lines. There is no doubt about their good future," he said.
Foreign Affairs Deputy Minister Cde Reuben Marumahoko commended the relations between the two countries. He said the ties were premised on a solid foundation in the spirit of true friendship and co-operation dating back from the days of the liberation struggle.
Cde Marumahoko said Zimbabwe attached great importance to the partnership with Russia, emphasising the need to broaden the bilateral co-operation in the economic, technical and cultural fields.
"Zimbabwe appreciates the efforts by the Russian government to enrich our human resources base through the award of annual scholarships for study in Russia. Many Zimbabweans from both the public and private sectors have benefited immensely from these scholarships," he said.
However, Cde Marumahoko noted that the strong political ties that bound the two countries had not fully translated into the economic sphere as demonstrated by the low volume of trade between them. — AFP/Herald Reporters. ``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe: Mbeki hails Govt, MDC attitude``x1181756376,19185,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xEthiopia is demanding the remains of an emperor's son who was captured and sent to Britain to be educated as a gentleman
By Cahal Milmo and Emily Duggan
independent.co.uk
Published: 18 June 2007
Amid the gothic splendour of St George's Chapel in Windsor Castle there is a little-noticed brass plaque. Erected in memory of Prince Alemayehu Tewodros, it reads: "I was a stranger and ye took me in."
The memorial plate and the skeletal remains that lie behind it are the only concrete traces of the tragic and extraordinary tale of a seven-year-old boy who became embroiled in what many believe was the greatest orgy of looting conducted in the name of the British Empire.
The child prince, the son of the Ethiopian emperor Tewodros II, who has a claimed bloodline stretching back to King Solomon and the Queen of Sheba, was captured in April 1868 by the British Army, which conquered the ancient citadel of Magdala.
Alemayehu, a royal orphan, was transported to England to be educated as a gentleman. Along with him came so many looted treasures, including religious artefacts and 350 manuscripts, that it reportedly took 15 elephants and 200 mules to carry them from Magdala to the nearest sea port. The prince died barely a decade later of pleurisy and a broken heart, some 4,000 miles from his homeland, in Leeds. Among his mourners was Queen Victoria herself.
While the life of Alemayehu ranks as little more than a colonial-era curiosity in Britain, the events of 139 years ago are still keenly felt as an injustice in Ethiopia. The country, where European visitors are proudly reminded that it was never occupied for more than two years by a colonial power, has conducted a decades-long campaign for the return of the treasures. It recently celebrated the return of a 70ft obelisk from Italy.
These sentiments were resurrected two weeks ago when the country's President, Wolde-Giorgis Girma, formally wrote to the Queen asking for the remains of Prince Alemayehu to be exhumed and returned to Ethiopia for burial in time for the country celebrating its millennium in September. Ethiopia operates according to the Ethiopic calendar, which runs seven years behind the Western Julian calendar and marks the new year in September. The year 2000 will therefore arrive on 12 September 2007.
The campaign was further underlined yesterday when a nine-year-old schoolboy of Ethiopian origin delivered a petition to Downing Street calling for the restitution of the Magdala artefacts, which are spread throughout institutions such as the British Library and British Museum and include six illuminated manuscripts held in the royal library at Windsor.
Gabriel Kassayie, who collected more than 100 signatures among his classmates at a primary school in Hampstead, north London, said: "I wanted to do something. I learned how the artefacts were stolen from my country and how attempts to get them back were prevented. I wanted to do this for my ancestors."
Campaigners in Ethiopia argue that the epitaph to the prince in St George's Chapel is laden with irony: Alemayehu was not so much taken in as spirited away. Although Queen Victoria took a personal interest in Alemayehu's upbringing (reputedly paying his fees for Rugby School), they argue he was just as much of a "war trophy" as the gold crowns and altar pieces seized by the army of Sir Robert Napier, sent by the monarch to crush Emperor Tewodros in 1868.
Mulugeta Aserate, a second cousin of Ethiopia's last emperor, Haile Selassie, and a senior figure on the organising committee of the millennium celebrations, said the return of the remains for burial in a monastery in the northern city of Gondar would remove a blight on relations with Britain. He told The Independent: "The prince was a prisoner of war. Our relations with Britain are good and warm but the episode of Prince Alemayehu represents a dark side of that relationship.
"His return would be a cause for celebration here and what better time for it than this very African millennium of ours? He died in a foreign land but Alemayehu's name has not been forgotten in Ethiopia." It is a further irony that the capture of the prince has its roots in an ill-fated attempt by his father to foster strong relations with Britain. In the late 1860s, the Christian emperor had sought the help of Britain in trying to protect Ethiopia from the Ottoman Empire and Egypt.
When his entreaties went ignored and he imprisoned the British diplomatic mission, Napier inflicted a crushing defeat against his army on 10 April 1868 at Magdala, a fortified mountaintop in central Ethiopia.
Tewodros freed the prisoners and sent the British general a gift of cattle to be slaughtered for Easter Sunday two days' later. When Napier replied with thanks, offering a safe conduct for Tewodros and his family, the emperor angrily rejected the overture and vowed never to be taken alive. After heavy bombardment, Tewodros committed suicide on Easter Monday, leaving the British to loot the palaces and churches and capture his young heir.
The American journalist Henry Morton Stanley who witnessed the aftermath of the battle, describe how the plunder covered "the whole surface of the rocky citadel, the slopes of the hill and the entire road to the [British] camp two miles off".
The British insisted it had been the dying wish of Emperor Tewodros that his son and his mother, Queen Terunesh, be looked after by the victorious power.
Whatever the truth of this, the leaders of the expedition recognised the usefulness of the prince as a potential pawn in its efforts to expand British dominion in east Africa to Abyssinia, as Ethiopia was then known.
When Queen Terunesh died a month later on the journey from Magdala to the Red Sea, a British officer, Captain Tristram Speedy, was appointed as the guardian of the young boy.
Speedy, who was 6ft 6in and sported a bushy red beard, was a veteran of British campaigns from India to New Zealand. Speedy, a speaker of Amharic, the Ethiopian language, dismissed the prince's tutor, Alaqa Zenneb, before beginning the sea voyage to Britain and it seems he rapidly formed a close bond with his new charge. In his journal, he described how a terrified Alemayehu refused to leave his side, day or night.
Speedy wrote: "The distressing alarm that then seized him rendered him so timid that for the following three months no persuasion could induce him to sleep out of my arms, so great was his terror that if he happened to wake and find me asleep, he would wake me and earnestly beg me to remain awake until he should fall asleep, and it was only by continued care and tenderness that he is gradually losing his timidity."
There is no evidence that such comforting by the "gentle giant" officer was anything other than paternal. But it is fitting proof of how the Victorian empire builders saw their obligations towards a young boy considered a near divinity in Ethiopia.
Once in England, the heir of the King Solomon, shown in early photographs with the braided hair and elaborate costume of Abyssinian royalty, began his conversion into an English gentleman. He left the care of Speedy and his wife in 1871 and was sent to live with Dr Thomas Jex-Blake, the headmaster of Cheltenham College, who later was appointed to the same post at Rugby School.
Later pictures of the teenage prince, who was patronisingly recorded on his voyage to Britain as not having "the faintest notion" what to do with a knife and fork and had to be shown how to put marmalade on his toast, show him dressed in a tweed suit reading a heavy tome. Evidence suggests the photos were showing Alemayehu as something which he was not. Speedy recorded "he had no interest in his books and had an utter dislike for anything in that line" while his tutors at Rugby stated baldly: "Progress in study he will never make." Instead, the prince was dispatched to Sandhurst Military Academy. He was no happier there. Despite frequently expressing a desire to return to Ethiopia, the government refused all his requests.
Dr Mandefro Belayneh, an Ethiopian academic researching the life of Alemayehu, said: "He didn't have any friends or family to call on. There were letters coming from Abyssinia from his grandmother ... and all the letters said, 'When are you coming back? Your people are expecting you'. But I suspect these letters were never shown to him."
The prince died in October 1879. His funeral was held in St George's Chapel.
Buckingham Palace yesterday declined to comment on the request from President Girma. Ethiopian sources suggested that although the request was being considered favourably, there were potential problems with identifying the remains.
But arguably, the official verdict on Britain's role in the life of Prince Alemayehu was delivered long ago. After his death, Queen Victoria wrote in her diary: "It is too sad. All alone in a strange country, without a single person or relative belonging to him. His was no happy life."
Reprinted from:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/africa/article2669850.ece``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xOut of Africa: The stolen prince``x1182181037,92553,Development``x``x
``xThe Herald
At least the world can now see for itself the extent of the cowardice, dishonesty and lies that characterise the West's engagement over Zimbabwe.
A few days back, the Germany Embassy in Harare denied visas to two key members of the Zimbabwean delegation that was supposed to attend the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly underway in Wiesbaden, Germany, scuttling Zimbabwe's participation in the process.
It is important to note that Zimbabwe was supposed to feature prominently on the agenda, yet the West did not want Zimbabwe to be present to defend itself against their malicious propaganda.
What is more, they were only too happy to grant a visa to MDC legislator, Nelson Chamisa, whom they expected to grandstand on their behalf.
Head of delegation Senator Forbes Magadu, who was supposed to table a resolution to expose the West's hand in the ongoing political and economic problems in the country, was conveniently denied a visa.
Secretary to the delegation Dr Godfrey Chipare, the principal director (external relations) with the Parliament of Zimbabwe, who was supposed to help Senator Magadu with the paperwork, was also denied a visa.
Of course, Senator Clarissa Vongai Muchengeti of Zanu-PF was granted a visa, but it was evident that the EU wanted to use her as a cover for Chamisa, as they considered her a soft-target since she did not have the responsibility of tabling the resolution.
There you have it; Zimbabwe was supposed to be present but not represented, giving Westerners the opportunity to trash the country at will.
Fortunately, their nefarious agenda was exposed and we hail the Parliament of Zimbabwe for withdrawing the credentials of the entire delegation.
What is shocking about the saga is not Germany's wanton violation of the Cotonou Agreement that guarantees immunities and privileges to state parties conducting ACP-EU business, but the manner in which the Germans shamelessly lie that no applications were lodged with them when they refused to issue the application forms for the two delegates in the first place.
They should tell the world why Chamisa and Cde Muchengeti had visas if no applications had been forwarded.
The scandal is, however, consistent with the West's treatment of Zimbabwe, their strategy is simple — create problems and blame it on the victim.
That is the whole story behind the land reform programme.
White settlers of Western origin created the skewed land ownership with their racist policies.
It was Britain that refused to honour its obligations to fund land reforms in Zimbabwe.
The countries that reneged on the promises they made at the Land Donor Conference of 1998 were from the West.
It was the West again that tried to internationalise a purely bilateral dispute between Harare and London.
It is the West that imposed sanctions on Zimbabwe, which sanctions are behind the economic problems bedevilling the country today.
It is the West that is sponsoring subversive political activities in Zimbabwe.
It is the West that blames Zimbabwe for everything.
This is why we hope those who are quick to judge, quick to be swayed by Western propaganda learn from this scandal.
The West does not want the real Zimbabwean story to be heard.
They would rather keep feeding the world with lies.
If, as they say, they are right, they should give Zimbabwe the chance to present its side of the story and let an informed world decide who is right and who is wrong.
We have no doubt Zimbabwe will be vindicated.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xGermany's plot against Zimbabwe exposed``x1182784983,19859,Development``x``x
``xBy Caesar Zvayi
The Herald
July 05, 2007
"ARE you attacking me?" "No, Mr Mangoma," the student calmly replied, "You are being attacked by facts."
This was part of an exchange between one Ghanaian University student and the deputy national treasurer general of the MDC Tsvangirai faction, one Elton Mangoma, at an anti-Zimbabwe gathering the MDC had convened on June 28 at Teacher's Hall in Accra, Ghana.
The meeting dubbed, Public Hearing on Zimbabwe, was attended by the following MDC activists and their "opposition" society hangers on:
* Elton Mangoma deputy treasurer general Tsvangirai faction;
* Paurina Mpariwa MDC MP for Mufakose;
* Blessing Chebundo MP for Kwekwe;
* Arnold Tsunga Law Society of Zimbabwe, and Executive Director Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights;
* Wilbert Mandinde Legal officer – MISA Zimbabwe;
* Gift Phiri Reporter with The Zimbabwean;
* Xholani Nsiza Opposition activist;
* Promise Mkwananzi ZINASU president;
* Joseph James Former LSZ president;
* Tinoziva Bere Partner in Mbidzo, Muchadehama & Makoni Legal Practitioners;
* Gabriel Shumba Zimbabwe Exiles Forum;
* Tabitha Khumalo Crisis in Zimbabwe Coalition/ ZCTU;
* Collen Chibango Youth activist;
* Hugh Masekela South African saxophonist.
The objective of the meeting, the audience was told, was to come up with a resolution condemning the Government of Zimbabwe for alleged human rights abuses. The resolution was to be presented to heads of state and government at the AU General Assembly three days later to try to pressure them to condemn Zimbabwe for alleged human rights abuses.
The presenters, among them Tsunga, Phiri and Chibango, took turns to narrate "harrowing" stories of their alleged torture and abuse at the hands of the Government, with some literally shedding tears in an attempt to move the crowd. All of them claimed that they were tortured for choosing to differ with the Government, with the lawyers saying they were targeted for representing opposition activists in court cases against the State.
They claimed the President was a dictator, whose excesses had brought untold suffering on the people, that he undermines democracy, and that Zimbabweans were now worse off than they were under colonialism, among other things.
Individual presenters recounted alleged torture, incarceration without trial, and rape while in police custody.
But the MDC underlings were in for a rude shock. They had apparently mistaken Ghana for one of the EU states where Government officials do not give their own side of the story because of travel restrictions designed to give their lies free reign. But in Ghana, the Government had been on the ground acquainting Ghanaians with facts, images and stories the Western media refused to carry.
So the audience the MDC encountered was one that was not only informed, but that knew how its forebears were hoodwinked into deposing one of the most progressive leaders, Africa has ever seen, Ghana's founding President Dr Osagyefo Kwame Nkrumah.
The opposition activists were hardly halfway through their rhapsody of imaginary stigmata, when one student asked the organisers of the gathering why the Government of Zimbabwe was not invited to give its side of the story when its embassy was only a few minutes drive away.
What followed, during the question and answer session, stunned the presenters and those who were officiating as they expected supportive questions from the audience. The pointed questions and incisive comments from the audience left the MDC activists flustered and stuttering.
A few examples will suffice here:
* "I have noted with interest, the passion with which you have highlighted the alleged gross human rights violations in Zimbabwe, but I have not seen equal passion on the issue of land, the right of black people to land, which we believe is right?"
* "I worked in Zimbabwe in the 1980s in the Ghanaian foreign service, I know for sure that the British and Americans were supposed to pay for the land to be acquired from the white commercial farmers and they have reneged on this. Unfortunately, we have not seen the NGOs coming into the streets with a passion and make a clarion statement that they think the West was wrong on that."
* "Forty years ago, Kwame Nkrumah was called a dictator and had to go at all costs, now he is a hero for Africa. Are we not witnessing the same thing with President Mugabe?"
* "What kind of a hearing is this where only the opposition is invited to tell their story? We have a Zimbabwean embassy here, why have they not been invited to give the Government side for the intellectual minds to benefit?"
* "I have heard all your stories about the brutality of President Mugabe's regime, but isn't he the man who was incarcerated for the liberation of Zimbabwe, who you say has abandoned all that to face the other way, why?"
Of course, the opposition stalwarts had a few sympathisers within the audience, but they were, however, jeered when they tried to echo the anti-Zimbabwe voices.
Tsunga and his gang were also heckled and asked where they were getting the money to globetrot to demonise their Government when they said Zimbabwe was full of suffering.
So vicious was the response from the floor that Tsunga and his musketeers beat a hasty retreat from the high table, and prematurely ended their meeting without drafting the resolution they had intended to come up with.
The same fate awaited Morgan Tsvangirai's deputy, Thokozani Khupe, Mangoma and others when they visited the University of Ghana, where the students unequivocally told them that Ghana had the benefit of hindsight where Zimbabwe is concerned.
Indeed some of the students were to speak authoritatively in solidarity with the Government of Zimbabwe at a rally held at Kwame Nkrumah Memorial Park in Central Accra, but more on that latter.
There was no respite for Khupe when she took her charade to Ghana television and radio. Unknown to her, Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Minister, Cde Patrick Chinamasa had been on the same channels before her giving the Government side of the story.
So Khupe mistakenly believed it was going to be smooth sailing, but it was not long before the presenter weighed her allegations against what Cde Chinamasa had said.
Khupe's programmed response was to dismiss Cde Chinamasa's statements as Government propaganda. The presenter then fished out New African's May issue that had harrowing testimonies from people like Welshman Ncube and Trudy Stevenson detailing how violence had become institutionalised in the MDC body politick.
Again Khupe preposterously claimed the Government had bought New African.
The ace up the presenter's sleeve, however, was a DVD that had the opposition confessing to its subversive politics. When the DVD was played, short of disowning Tsvangirai, Khupe had no choice but to pray for the end of the show as irate callers told her to take her quisling politics out of Ghana.
The DVD in question opened with Tsvangirai's infamous September 30 2000 statement in which he chillingly threatened to violently unseat President Mugabe.
That clip was followed by former British prime minister, Tony Blair's, "We work closely with the MDC on the measures we should take in respect of Zimbabwe, although I am afraid, these measures and sanctions, although we have them in place, are of limited effect on the Mugabe regime…"
Blair then gave way to the Nicolle brothers' farm in Banket, where white commercials farmers were captured on CNN falling over each other to sign cheques to the MDC. The clincher there was when one of the Nicolle brothers stood up to tell his colleagues that he was investing in the MDC.
After Banket came the MDC's secretary for education, Fidelis Mhashu boob on BBCs HARDTalk programme, where he told his interviewer that the MDC would return land to white commercial farmers if elected to power.
The rest, as they say is history as angry callers jammed the switchboard to hound Khupe off the set.
After that nasty reception, the opposition delegation disappeared from Ghana days before the heads of state and government arrived. Only poor Khupe was left behind to try and get to the AU Summit. But by time the Summit wound up on Tuesday, Khupe was nowhere in sight, and the MDC officials and their hired activists, who always picket AU Summits were conspicuous by their absence.
One MDC official was heard saying Ghana was full of "Zanoids," whatever that means.
Contrast the MDC's ordeal with the resounding welcome Ghanaians gave President Mugabe and you would tend to agree with Tanzanian President Jakaya Mrisho Kikwete, that indeed there is hope for Africa.
On arrival at Kotoka International Airport last Saturday, President Mugabe was welcomed by thousands of Ghanaians singing songs in his honour, wearing T-shirts emblazoned with his image and holding placards that urged him to soldier on for Africa, and to keep Nkrumah's dream alive. As his motorcade raced through the streets of Africa, Ghanaians saluted him with his trademark clenched fist salute.
The next day, the President was invited to address thousands of people who had gathered at Kwame Nkrumah Memorial grounds to mark the 15th anniversary of the opening of the mausoleum, built for the great African statesman.
Before the President's arrival, the vociferous gathering was treated to Dr Nkrumah's speeches from the public address system. The speeches were punctuated by Bob Marley's songs, particularly Africa Unite, and Zimbabwe.
Listening to Nkrumah's speeches, one could only tell it was not President Mugabe because of the accent; otherwise the oratorical prowess, message, passion and delivery was just the same.
When President Mugabe took the microphone to pay tribute to his mentor, Nkrumah, the adults gathered went back into time, to July 1 1960, when Nkrumah took the microphone at the same venerated grounds to proclaim Ghana a republic.
And as the crowd dispersed, the young man attending to the PA masterfully primed Bob Marley's voice to wail from the speakers, "how long shall they kill our prophets, while we stand aside and look?"
The irony was not lost on this writer, a bunch of Zimbabweans had breezed through Europe en route to Ghana to demonise their Government, when exactly the same composition of interest groups from Ghana was busy organising an unprecedented welcome for the President.
Maybe it is true that Morrison Nyathi, the man who sold Nyadzonia, sowed many wild oats around Zimbabwe.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xGhana no go area for the MDC``x1183636573,4423,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xThe Zimbabwean President, Robert Mugabe, won the admiration of Ghanaians when he maintained being the disciple of Ghana's founding father of independence, Kwame Nkrumah. Mr Mugabe said the legendary leader's teachings had bolstered his spirits to liberate Zimbabwe from the British colonial rule in 1980.
President Mugabe and the Libyan leader Colonel Muammar Ghaddafi were given tumultuous welcome by Ghanaians while they set foot in the country for the 9th African Union Summit.
Mr Mugabe delivered the speech at the tomb of Kwame Nkrumah - the scene of Dr Nkrumah's famous independence speech in 1960.
The Zimbabwean leader, who has been showered with criticisms home and abroad, especially in the west, took his audience down the memory lane when he flew to Ghana to borrow Dr Nkrumah's wisdom and sea of knowledge on freedom fighting.
Full Article : afrol.com
Ghana's ex President hits out at Foreign Office for 'disrespecting' Robert Mugabe
Colonial days are over, says Rawlings
Jerry Rawlings, the former president of Ghana, condemned the statement said to be written by a Foreign Office official, which said that President Robert Mugabe would suffer a similar fate to Charles Taylor of Liberia, who is currently standing trial in the International Criminal Court in The Hague.
Rawlings, who leads Ghana's main opposition party, the National Democratic Party (NDC), said it was "disrespectful" for Britain to make such a statement about President Mugabe. "No British official, be he a politician or Royalty has the right to say those words about a Pan-Africanist like Robert Mugabe" Rawlings said in an exclusive interview with The Lens, a local Ghanaian newspaper.
Whilst acknowledging that the Zimbabwean president might have made some mistakes in governance, Rawlings said Britain should recognise that the days of colonialism are over and as such must relate with former colonies in Africa in the light of what they are - sovereign and independent states.
"Do they think we are back to those primitive eras when the colonialists could arrest and exile leaders of Africa any time they felt like it?" he questioned.
Full Article : blackbritain.co.uk``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xGhanaians proud of Mugabe``x1183637233,97764,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Caesar Zvayi
The Herald
July 12, 2007
No one denies that it is only through a Union government and unity of purpose that Africa can claim its rightful stake in the world.
Barring unity, Africa would continue suffering the depredations of Western nations bent on exploiting its vast resources for self-enrichment.
But so vast are the challenges Africa has to overcome that a really radical approach is needed if the dream of a United States of Africa is to be realised, which means there is no room for placating the West in this revolutionary undertaking.
Radicalism, however, does not mean haste, which is where Libyan President, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, appears to have got it wrong. Col Gaddafi wanted a Union government elected at the African Union Summit in Accra, and did not make it a secret whom he believed should lead it.
A few examples of the hurdles to be overcome will suffice here; all of which are linked to the colonial legacy of divide-and-rule politics.
The biggest obstacle of all is, of course, crunching poverty. That and differential development are major stumbling blocks to the proposed Union government, which would demand, among other things, a vibrant unified economy with economic parity. This does not exist on a continent that largely plays host to economies dominated by multinational corporations and foreign investors.
Even where the impressive economic indicators exist, they do so on paper only as the profits are repatriated to the metropole. In fact, most African countries, with the notable exception of South Africa, rely on the World Bank and International Monetary Fund for alms, two organisations that are used by the United States and the European Union to entrench their interests in the developing world.
This dependence is also manifest in the AU institutions, some of which are African in name only; this is why it is vital that all institutions are truly African before they can be trusted with propping up the envisaged Union government.
It is also unforgivable that in this day and age, if one wants to go to the so-called Francophone West Africa, from, let's say, largely Anglophone Southern Africa, one is forced to pass through that region's former metropolis, France, unless the flight is charter. Likewise, if one wants to travel from Francophone West Africa to Anglophone East Africa, one has to go via London.
In short, there are no direct flights between most African countries, yet there are direct flights from nearly every African country to the capitals of the countries' former colonisers.
What this means is that the transport links existing in much of Africa today were not developed to promote intra-continental communication, but to make it easy for settlers to siphon the continent's resources to their home countries since most of them lead either to the coast or directly to Europe.
In fact, to this day, some poor countries route their international calls through former colonial capitals.
Similarly, if one wants to know about, say Malawi, one has to rely on Associated Press, CNN, BBC, AFP, and many other Western news agencies that never really mediate accurately, but always package their news in the service of Western interests.
While Africa saw the dangers of this and sought to address the problem through the Pan-African News Agency, perennial dependency saw Westerners compromise the agency with their ruinous conditional funds. To this day, PANA has failed to live up to expectations, which is why Africa continues relying on Western news agencies. Any wonder then, that at the just-ended AU Summit in Accra, Ghana, Western news agencies were given royal treatment where African media was treated like trash?
The organisers saw it fit to give Western media organisations unfettered access into the Accra International Conference Centre, while African journalists were barred, save for those from the host country, of course.
In fact, the officials in charge of media liaison read out the names of the agencies from a list they had, and did not even have time to hear the protests of the African media personnel present. African journalists had no choice but to picket the Conference Centre to present a strongly worded petition to the General Assembly.
What this simply showed was that the organisers were keen to ensure that the West was kept well-informed of deliberations, while Africans, whose lives were bound to be changed by the decisions reached in Accra, were kept largely in the dark.
Africa must really be wary of such signs that simply confirm that Western approval is still highly valued by some, meaning Western tentacles are still very much alive on the continent.
This brings in the question, for whose interests are some leaders pushing for hasty continental unity, even when it is apparent that as currently constituted, some of the AU institutions supposed to prop up the Union government are African in name only, with many others existing only on paper?
This writer will not mention names here, but neither will he draw punches. Some African leaders known to be darlings of the West even threatened to go it alone in a Union government if those counselling a bottom-up approach remained adamant.
Again, no names here, others questioned the similarity between the Africa itinerary of former British prime minister Tony Blair's last tour, and the countries that a certain African leader visited as part of his grand campaign for a Union government.
Again there is no finger pointing at anyone, but eyebrows were also raised as to why a certain African government appears to have bought all copies of New African's May edition that had a splash on Zimbabwe.
The jury is still out on whether the government in question bought the copies because of an unflattering article therein that questioned its cosy relationship with the West, or whether it had to do with an attempt to obliterate the truth about the situation in Zimbabwe?
Whichever reason one wants to believe, in Accra, the AU failed one major test that would have confirmed it was man enough to face the Western bullies on equal footing.
Granted, the Assembly made it unequivocally clear that Zimbabwe has every right to attend the EU-Africa Summit set for Lisbon, Portugal, in December; but that does not remove the fact that the AU failed where it matters most, that is in condemning the illegal Western siege on Zimbabwe.
What is more, it was actually Portugal, an EU state, that came closest to speaking like an African when it said the dispute between Harare and London was merely bilateral and should not be allowed to scupper engagement between Africa and Europe.
The irony was too deafening to ignore, here were 51 African heads of state and government, convening in Accra to deliberate on forming a Union government, yet those mandated to speak on the continent's behalf had nothing to say over the attempted siege on one of their own.
The satire did not end there. The AU Summit was in Ghana as part of that country's golden jubilee celebrations, and also in recognition of the legacy of Ghana's founding president, Dr Osagyefo Kwame Nkrumah, a man cut from the same cloth as Cde Robert Mugabe.
In fact, as far as Africa is concerned, the script the West is trying to direct in Zimbabwe was first tried in Ghana against Dr Nkrumah. The mediation the Western media is exercising over Zimbabwe was honed on Dr Nkrumah's Ghana.
The similarities between what is obtaining in Zimbabwe and what obtained in Ghana from 1960 are so striking.
Ordinary Ghanaians, civil society organisations and university students saw it fit to speak boldly in solidarity with Zimbabwe to the extent of organising a resounding welcome for President Mugabe at Kotoka International Airport on June 30, and a day later, July 1, a solidarity rally at Kwame Nkrumah Memorial Park where the great African statesman lies today.
In fact, due to his tight schedule, President Mugabe ended up failing to feature at another rally, dubbed "International Solidarity Forum on Zimbabwe", that had been organised by the Pan-African United Front at Osu Presby Hall on July 2. Part of the flyers for that rally boldly declared:
"Africa is under severe attack from the forces of our anti-colonial struggles. Zimbabwe is a symbol of our struggle for sovereignty and ownership of our land and all the resources therein. Zimbabwe's fight is Africa's fight! Touch one! Touch All! African Liberation, no compromise!"
The editor of New African magazine, Baffour Ankomah, in his piece, said, among other things:
"... Now please come with me to my own country Ghana. At least we have no hunches there, sorry, the people have no hunches but some officials in government have. And we shouldn't allow them any longer. I know if Nkrumah can read this where he lies at the Old Polo Ground in Accra, he will turn and turn and turn in his grave.
"To the shame of all discerning Ghanaians, our country, the land of Nkrumah, the torchbearer of African liberation, our beloved Ghana, is fast becoming the ‘weakest link' in the African liberation/solidarity chain. And it is time members of the current government in Accra sat up in front of huge mirrors and had a good look at themselves. We have had seven years of ambling along, seemingly oblivious of our high place in Africa ..."
In fact, one Ghanaian student could not have put it any better: "We should not delay the Union government in Africa much longer, for we already have the President, Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe."
This writer concurs. If Africa had the courage of its convictions, that is the only man with the stature to lead a Union government.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xAfrican Union failed the crucial test``x1184142003,32044,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Reason Wafawarova
July 12, 2007
IT is unbelievable, indeed shameful that at a time we should all be ganging up against imperialist forces bent on destroying our nationhood, there are some among us who are not only doing nothing but shamelessly availing themselves at the disposal of the brutal forces working against us.
It is mind boggling to imagine that those in the MDC have chosen to showcase their usual double-minded approach to everything by trying to undermine the Sadc initiative, being spearheaded by South Africa.
That feuding MDC leaders have teamed up with the self-anointed representative of the church, a self-styled activist running an organisation claiming to have the mandate to write a national constitution and an overzealous student under the illusion he is the custodian of all students, testifies to this.
That this is happening at a time talks meant to help Zimbabwe pull in the same direction only goes to show that the so-called democratic forces are nothing more than destructive forces that every well-meaning Zimbabwean should be wary of.
It is amazing that MDC leaders and their allies in the so-called civil society have the temerity to brag about their shameful trip meant during which they sought to outdo each in selling-out.
In reality, the European tour by the feuding opposition forces was a mere competition for recognition by the members of the delegation; a competition meant to get gullible westerners to loosen the purse strings.
The Save Zimbabwe Campaign team was made up of renegades who need to be educated on the basics of serving Zimbabwe before they can even think of saving it. The important question begging a speedy answer is how MDC leaders and their allies intend to save Zimbabwe by teaming up with the same people working to bring the country to its knees?
They may be pleasing themselves, their masters and their supporters but they should rest assured that they are not doing their 2008 campaign any good as their tour was viewed as the epitome of treachery by discerning Zimbabweans.
MDC leaders were also insulting Sadc as their Western campaign was a direct slap in the face of those working at finding common ground between the main political players in Zimbabwe.
The same goes for the African Union that recently reiterated its support for Zimbabwe in Accra.
MDC leaders are also slighting the United Nations by undermining the world body’s position that Zimbabwe is not an acceptable candidate for sanctions.
However, they are doing the hawks in the European Union a world of good by proving to be good, faithful stooges.
Those who have played similar roles in the Middle East, some parts of Africa, South America and even Asia have traditionally operated as exiled politicians, carrying out their treacherous missions from the bases of their masters. The situation is, however, quite different for the MDC in that it operates from the same Zimbabwe it is working to destroy, and in the process confirm the country’s democratic credentials.
Of course, none of the quislings will ever admit that Zimbabwe is a democracy that tolerates divergent views, which is why they can pursue their ruinous mischief at will.
Zimbabweans have the freedom to form political parties of their choice, even treacherous ones. MDC leaders are free to openly deride the living and fallen heroes of our liberation struggle at will, hiding their mischief under the cover of freedom of expression.
MDC leaders have no qualms vilifying the same system that makes it possible for them to exist as a political party, even though their activities would have invited a ban in less democracies.
Tsvangirai and Mutambara flying in and out of Zimbabwe, because they have freedom of movement and association, they back rabid online websites that tell the world everything but the truth, all in the name of Press freedom.
They associate with all sorts of subversive characters, because they enjoy freedom of association. They are blissfully unaware that their Western masters outlawed Communist Parties in their countries, simply because they were identified with the then Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
In fact, the MDC and its allies enjoy so much freedom and rights that they are now convinced that it is their "democratic" right to unconstitutionally unseat an elected government. They believe that to the extent of publicly declaring a "defiance campaign" and a war against the police. They are even more than convinced that a speech that threatens the violent removal of a sitting President is well within their "democratic" rights.
MDC leaders will tell their supporters that urban orgies of violence disguised as mass actions are a "democratic" attempts to unseat a Government in a country where the majority of people, over 70 percent, live in the rural areas.
They are convinced that putting screws on one’s own economy by way of campaigning for isolation is well within "democratic" rights.
It is high time the MDC and like-minded organisations and individuals are reminded that yes, they do have a lot of legitimate rights under the international human rights regime but those rights will only yield benefits if one takes up the responsibility that goes with the enjoyment of such rights.
Irresponsible people should not expect to benefit from the rights at their disposal. It is the simple rule of sowing; you can’t sow a mango seed and expect to see a guava tree germinating.
The MDC needs to be reminded that the right to gather or assemble comes with a lot of responsibility and most certainly, planning violent protests and inciting people to revolt against the Government is not responsibility. MDC leaders need to know that they have every right to hop in and out of Zimbabwe at will but that their forays also demand responsibility.
Again, flying out to campaign for sanctions and increased suffering for one's own people is being responsible, it is simply unacceptable and Zimbabwe has had enough of such shameless betrayal.
The right to free expression is at everyone’s disposal but it comes with responsibility. Certainly, lies, exaggerations, foul language and running "houses of lies" in the name of media houses is not part of the expected responsibility.
Fighting police officers in an attempt to effect illegal regime change cannot pass for the responsibility expected under freedom of expression, assembly or protest.
The current double standards being shown by MDC leaders that see them pretend to be willing participants in inter-party talks on one hand, while embarking on an anti-Zimbabwe campaigns in Europe on the other is just what we have all along seen of this quisling party.
MDC leaders hail election results that go in their favour as free and fair, and reject all outcomes that go against them as fraudulent. They purport to love the very people for whom they create massive suffering by grovelling for ruinous Western sanctions.
They take part in parliamentary elections and conveniently boycott elections where they see pending defeat and claim to be doing so out of commitment to democratic principles.
They say the land reform programme is failing because it is not well supported with machinery and inputs and loudly cry in protest when the inputs and machinery are delivered.
They cry that the economy is bad but stand up to protest every effort to turn around the same economy. To them, the only legitimate economic growth that Zimbabwe can ever have must be under an MDC government.
MDC leaders must assure Zimbabweans where they are going to get interest for Zimbabwe’s national interest if ever they are elected to power. Right now, they do not only lack appreciation for the national interest, they actually stand as prime enemies to the national interest in all its forms, that is the economic interest, the ideological interest and the cultural interest.
What drives their hearts, souls and spirits are western interests, all because of the motivation they derive from the power of treacherous silver in the form of foreign donations.
Agreed, this is a one-sided analysis of part of the political process in Zimbabwe and that is deliberate and for a purpose. That purpose is to tell the MDC that Zimbabwe is getting sick and tired of bei ng taken for a ride in circles of treacherous madness.
People may want change, indeed they do, but not the MDC kind of change geared at destroying the economy in the hope of rebuilding it under an opposition dispensation. Zimbabweans want economic development and ownership of their economy in all its forms.
If Zimbabwe is to have a change of government then the alternative government must be made up of well-meaning and loyal citizens who have the national interest at heart; not the hopeless donor mongers who are masquerading as opposition politicians today.
It is a tragedy to have an opposition party that takes part in elections as a civilised political party that then turns itself into a rebel movement seeking to topple the sitting government between elections. That is what we have seen of the MDC since 2000 and one wonders what would happen if Zanu-PF was organising counter-violent marches to overthrow local governments in places like Bulawayo, Masvingo and other urban areas under MDC control.
It is high time the MDC started acting in good faith and Zimbabwe hopes for a better opposition sooner than later.
Reason Wafawarova is a Zimbabwean writer living in Australia; he can be contacted on wafawarova@yahoo.co.uk.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe: MDC must be responsible``x1184235038,3372,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xThe Herald
Opinion & Analysis
Zimbabwe has been very reluctant since independence to use the death penalty, and the majority of those sentenced to death have had their sentences commuted to life in prison, with the apparent proviso that this does mean the rest of their lives behind bars.
There is a growing group who feel the time has come to formally abolish the death penalty, and this week the supporters of abolition received support from a very influential quarter — the Council of Chiefs.
The chiefs in favour of abolition used traditional arguments, as is their function, but these arguments are frequently reflected in the views of modern proponents of abolition.
Both traditional and modern proponents of the abolition of the death penalty argue that those who kill, even when this is permitted by law, are tainted by the same horror they are trying to deter, that of killing another human.
By hanging those who wilfully take the life of another in order to remove an obstacle, society accepts the argument that killing can indeed solve a problem.
We lower ourselves to the same level as those we hang.
Of course, there are crimes that are so terrible that the perpetrators have removed themselves totally, and forever, from the society of their fellows.
Wilful murder is one such crime and, in certain circumstances, so is treason.
Zimbabwean law acknowledges this by making these two crimes, along with mutiny, the only possible capital crimes. The Zanu-PF Government removed all other crimes from the old colonial list that attracted a death penalty.
The system of safeguards to ensure that murder was indeed the crime committed was also strengthened after independence.
Not only is it impossible to plead guilty to a capital crime, ensuring that the prosecution must prove its case, but appeal is automatic.
Where death sentences are passed and confirmed, judges have to submit detailed reports to the Cabinet and the final decision to execute the sentence or commute the sentence is one for the Cabinet as a whole, not just one person as is common in the rest of the world.
Zimbabwe has probably reached the stage now where the only argument in favour of retaining hanging is that of deterrence. There is a feeling that abolishing the death sentence might encourage those committing robbery or other serious crimes to kill possible witnesses.
But experience in other jurisdictions suggests that so long as non-murderers receive fixed sentences and killers get "life without parole" there is a sufficient gap to deter killing.
What is also important — and Zimbabwe follows this rule — is that the chance of arrest and conviction for a murderer must be high. There are very few unsolved murders in Zimbabwe.
The police pour vast amounts of man-hours by talented detectives into solving murder cases.
That near certainty of arrest, followed by a life sentence, is likely to retain the deterrent. After all, a killer will know he will die in jail.
Whether this is next year on the gallows or in decades to come after a miserable life behind bars is not that important.
What is critical is that we, as individuals and as a society, will relinquish the right to decide who lives and who dies.
We will preserve life and let God dispose. We will rise above the morality of those who believe that killing can solve anything.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe: Death penalty not the solution``x1184416072,69908,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Reason Wafawarova
July 26, 2007
ON September 3, 1986, a 36-year-old revolutionary by the name Thomas Sankara, representative and head of state for the West African state of Burkina Faso, spoke at the 8th Summit Conference of the then vibrant Non-Aligned Movement held in Harare, Zimbabwe. His speech was titled "Ours Is a Seething Anti-Apartheid, Anti-Zionist Dream."
This writer was a mere 19-year-old then, busy preparing for Cambridge O-Level examinations at Zimuto Secondary School in rural Masvingo.
Yes, O-Level at 19, thanks to Ian Douglas Smith who, because of pressure from the escalating war for independence, had ordered the closure of our rural schools in 1976, effectively dumping some of us out of school for a long two years.
The speech by Sankara did not escape the attention of this writer then and today it has reignited precious memories and influenced this article. Sankara's speech was so inspirational then that when Samora Machel was killed by imperialist forces on October 19, just over a month after Sankara delivered his great speech, this writer and 15 other students, abandoned a Cambridge Ordinary Level Shona paper due to be written at 8:30am on October 20, 1986, and embarked on an emotionally charged 20km walk from the mission school into the town centre of Masvingo.
No amount of persuasion from friends and school authorities could dissuade us from the march and we were in such an uncompromising mood that we stopped every motorist we came across and demanded that they unequivocally denounce Pieter Botha, apartheid, imperialism and racism.
The night of October 20, 1986, was to be the first time this writer ever appeared on television and I remember telling one Norman Tirivavi of ZBC that we cared nothing about the Shona paper and subsequent papers because all we wanted was to be given guns and allowed to walk to South Africa and teach Botha the lesson of his life.
We were actually gathered at Zimuto Camp, an army barracks complex and many adults who had come to see what was going on just wept like we were all doing with rage.
Of course, no one granted our teenage plight, choosing rather to persuade us to go back to school in a military truck and making sure that we sat for our paper in a special room at 8:00pm.
This writer got an "A" grade in that Shona paper after writing with tears of bitterness over the death of that gallant son of Africa — Samora Machel — and today he revisits the inspirational memories from Thomas Sankara's speech.
The context in which Sankara delivered his speech was the Cold War era scenario, a situation that made the Non-Aligned Movement so significant to the awakening that brought a refusal by the weaker developing states to be the grass that fighting elephants trample with impunity. Sankara was speaking about a force the imperialist forces were obliged to respect and to take into account, a force meant to recover the dignity of the oppressed.
It was a context reminiscent of what we just saw in Accra, Ghana at the beginning of this month. Two prominent speakers at the 1986, Harare NAM summit were there at the 2007 African Union summit in Accra, Ghana namely Colonel Muammar Gadaffi of Libya and Cde Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe.
In 1986, young Sankara cried out saying, "Tito, Nehru, Nasser, Kwame Nkrumah, wake up, the Non-Aligned Movement is dying. Help us.
"Namibia is still occupied, the Palestinian people are still searching for a home, and we are still being traumatised by foreign debt."
Today, Namibia is 17 years old and Palestinians are still looking for a home and the Non-Aligned Movement is all but dead. Fifty-three African countries gather in Accra, Ghana and alas, it's still a seething anti-imperialist dream. The Soviet Union is 18 years down under, the US is pushing forward with its selfish and brutal imperial agenda with unmitigated impunity.
If Sankara had not been killed in that brutal imperialist sponsored anti-revolutionary assassination on that fateful October 15, 1987, maybe he would have been part of the 2007 Accra AU Summit. If this had been the case, the firebrand Burkinabe would have no doubt lamented more the departed of our African heroes.
This writer can hear his voice crying out, "Tito, Nehru, Nasser, Kwame Nkrumah, Patrice Lumumba, Julius Nyerere, Samora Machel, Joshua Nkomo, wake up, the African Union, born out of your Organisation of African Unity is dying! Help us. Zimbabwe is under imperial siege.
The imperialistic forces isolate Mugabe! They want an Africa without him at their summit in Portugal. They have put his economy under brutal siege.
They are trying to force independent South Africa to join them as a pawn in their shameless attack on the people of Zimbabwe.
The seething dream against imperialism is to see a day when the forces of oppression, manipulation and imperial military supremacy all brought down.
The justice in the philosophy that right is might — replaces a day when the philosophy that might is right — is the driving force behind the suffering of Iraqis and Afghans.
This is the dream in the camp of the silent majority of this planet who have watched the vocal minority from the North plundering the God given resources of this planet with reckless greed.
This is the dream for which Hugo Chavez is termed "a reckless populist", it is the dream for which Fidel Castro is labelled "an intolerant authoritarian", the dream for which Mammoud Ahmadinejad is dubbed "an overly confident dissident Arab leader", it is the dream for which Robert Mugabe is labelled an "African dictator" and it is the dream for which Lumumba, Machel and Sankara himself were killed.
In Accra, someone is reported to have endlessly played Bob Marley's Redemption song, especially the lyrics "How long shall they kill our prophets; while we stand aside and look?" It's a good question given the attitude of some in the African Union as well as some in our African community.
Many regard Cde Mugabe as a hero just as much as onlookers who dine and wine with the enemy.
What is the point in expressing solidarity with a fellow comrade through the megaphone and from the galleries while one's hands are folded in the comfort of crumbs provided by the very enemy one cheers his brother to stand up to?
Sankara expressed similar concerns about the attitude of the same African leaders during the apartheid era in South Africa.
He questioned, "Will we continue to whip up our brothers in South Africa with our fiery speeches and deceive them as to our determination, thus rashly throwing up against the racist hordes, knowing very well that we have done nothing to create a relationship of forces favourable to blacks?"
He further questioned: "Is it not criminal to exacerbate struggles in which we do not participate?"
Africa adores the Zimbabwean struggle for land rights but hands are largely folded when it comes to participation.
They love every bit of Cde Mugabe's pan-Africanist principles but they would rather have the struggle for those noble principles exacerbated without the remotest of participation.
Just imagine if the Americans merely lauded the Israeli unjustifiable onslaughts on Lebanon and Palestine without active participation through arming the Israelites.
If they did that today, Palestine would be back to its rightful owners and Lebanon would not have been bombed last year.
Africa must take a pragmatic resolve to win its struggles; a resolve beyond conference rage; a resolve beyond merely shunning the imperialistic enemy by diplomatic means.
As Ngugi wa Thiongo would put it, men should talk and act like people "with something between their legs".
It is commendable that both Sadc and the AU have refused to be the pawns of Western imperialistic forces but that refusal should be backed by tangible action in fighting alongside Zimbabwe as opposed to cheering Cde Mugabe from the touchline.
During, the Apartheid era, many delivered fiery speeches against the racist regime in South Africa, but the onslaught and backlash was on the Frontline States, especially Zambia, Zimbabwe and Mozambique.
We prolonged the Swapo war for independence in Namibia by endlessly cheering Sam Njuoma from the sidelines while giving calculated and cautious support.
Zimbabwe came through 15 slow years of a war of attrition while we left most of the support work to come from Russia and China, although countries like Mozambique did put up a good fight.
When Zimbabwe went to help end the nonsense the US sponsored Jonasi Savimbi was wrecking in Angola, some western oriented intellectuals among us reminded us about the cost of war and the importance of maintaining "cordial relations".
Similar warnings were given when Zimbabwe went to put an end to the madness Alfonso Dhlakama was unleashing in Mozambique and today many are falling over each other writing articles that remind us that the economic problems of Zimbabwe are a direct result of the country's participation in stopping the US sponsored Jean Pierre Bemba of DRC from capturing Kinshasa in a regional war that pitted six African countries.
Zimbabwe, Angola and Namibia were the anti-imperialist forces repelling Bemba who enjoyed unfortunate support from Uganda and Rwanda.
These pieces of history do make bad reading. Africa should stop displaying individual docility through its member states.
We must stop this habit of negotiating with our exploiters by betraying our brothers, secretly hoping that in this way we will be awarded some bonuses. Such bonuses are the wages of indignity, of shame and of betrayal.
These are futile sacrifices offered at the altar of political expediency, greed and quick-fix solutions.
These are the futile sacrifices characterising the Zimbabwean opposition; an opposition made up of political upstarts who believe more in sympathy than victory.
They wine and dine with the very enemy of Africa; all for the fuzzy feeling derived from sweet media coverage from the bases of their imperial masters.
They even have the audacity, temerity and face to disown the AU and Sadc in line with the thinking of their masters who like master, like puppet, somehow believe that their imperialistic club makes up the international community.
The dream against imperialism is collective resistance.
The Empire fronting the imperialist agenda knows pretty well that there is no victory against collective resistance and that is why they keep attacking threatening power centres like Venezuela in Latin America, Cuba in the Caribbean, Zimbabwe in Africa, Iran and Syria in the Middle East and Russia in Eastern Europe.
They know as much as all of us do that, a successful socialist project in Venezuela will dismantle their capitalist hold in Latin America, a successful land reform programme in Zimbabwe will lead a revolution in Sub Saharan Africa, a prosperous Iran in the Middle East will tame the bandit-like Israelites, an uncontrolled North Korea will strengthen the Chinese influence and an undefeated Cuba is bad news to the myth of imperial authority.
Is it not a shame that today the developing world stands divided by aid, which in all cases is at most 10 percent of the total wealth looted by the imperialistic machinery?
We even stand divided by the sweet rhetoric of freedom and democracy, the American type of exported democracy, delivered as a shiny package of limitless liberties and individual self-rule.
We all aspire for this freedom to do as each pleases and we even plead for arms to fight each other in the name of this fictitious kind of freedom which does not exist even in heartland America.
This is the folly of deception and I am surprised that the vision of Sankara is dying; the vision of Machel is now ridiculed.
The treachery of Tshombe, Muzorewa and Mangusuthu Buthelezi is what some of us now believe in. The treachery rooted in the politics of silver.
Like Sankara and Machel; is it not more noble that we die fighting on our feet instead of dying with stomachs full of the crumbs from the ill-gotten fruit of the tree of repression and exploitation? This writer rests his case.
Reason Wafawarova is a Zimbabwean writer leaving in Sydney, Australia and can be contacted on wafawarova@yahoo.co.zw``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xAfrica must fight alongside Zimbabwe``x1185448335,47448,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Bulawayo Bureau
The Herald
August 08, 2007
PROFESSOR Arthur Mutambara, who heads a faction of the opposition MDC, yesterday poured scorn on the leadership qualities of Mr Morgan Tsvangirai, saying Zimbabwe does not deserve "another Chiluba".
Speaking in a television interview on the British Broadcasting Corporation’s Hardtalk programme, Prof Mutambara dismissed Mr Tsvangirai as a hopeless leader, remarking that even though he may be viewed by some as "brave", the truth is that he certainly lacks the "strategic vision" to transform Zimbabwe into a globally competitive economy.
Likening Mr Tsvangirai to Mr Frederick Chiluba – a former bus conductor and trade unionist who toppled President Kenneth Kaunda of Zambia in the 1991 elections but was later tainted by accusations of corruption and economic mismanagement – Prof Mutambara said "bravery is not enough ... you need an economic vision".
"You may be brave, have guts, but what is needed is to have a vision ... strategy and tactics," he said.
Prof Mutambara had been riled by insinuations by the BBC interviewer, Alan Little, that he was a coward compared to Mr Tsvangirai, who was charged with treason in 2002 and was on March 11 this year hurt in a clash with the police in Harare. Mr Tsvangirai had gone to the police station after learning of Prof Mutambara’s arrest.
Political analysts said at that time Mr Tsvangirai feared that Prof Mutambara would "steal the thunder from him" in the eyes of the Western forces supporting the opposition party in the regime-change agenda in Zimbabwe.
He allegedly confronted the police, resulting in an incident in which he was injured.
In yesterday’s interview, Prof Mutambara – who recently described his arch-rival Mr Tsvangirai as "an intellectual midget" and "a weak and indecisive leader" – fell short of saying that the Tsvangirai camp is full of hypocrites who accuse Zanu-PF of being undemocratic yet they themselves routinely flout the basic tenets of democracy.
He said opposition leaders must be truly democratic and desist from violence, or else Zimbabwe would end up with "a false revolution" like what he said happened in Zambia.
A fortnight ago, the robotics and mechatronics professor launched a scathing attack on Mr Tsvangirai, a former mine
worker and trade unionist, caricaturing him as a leader who lacks a vision and is "pursuing a perverted agenda".
This was after the Tsvangirai-led group had spurned a unity offer by refusing to adopt a so-called coalition agreement that would see the two groups fielding the perennial election loser, Mr Tsvangirai, as their sole candidate in next year’s presidential race.
Last week, Mr Tsvangirai did not take Prof Mutambara’s salvo lying down but returned fire by warning that he was "not the enemy".
During yesterday’s interview, Prof Mutambara unsuccessfully tried to duck questions on the attacks that have been levelled by his camp on Mr Tsvangirai.
When cornered, he was left with no choice but to lash out at Mr Tsvangirai.
Clearly at pains to convey his anguish to his British and United States audiences following the collapse of the so-called unity talks between the two MDC factions, Prof Mutambara repeatedly complained that although his camp was ready to adopt a "coalition agreement" on a "single-candidate principle" for the March 2008 joint presidential and parliamentary elections, the Tsvangirai camp had since refused to embrace the initiative.
The agreement, he explained, was scuttled by Mr Tsvangirai at the 11th hour.
He blasted the Tsvangirai camp for failing to appreciate the importance of mobilising a united opposition to Zanu-PF, but quickly added that his faction was ready to go it alone by fielding its own candidates at the forthcoming polls.
Prof Mutambara told his BBC interviewer that it was wrong for people to consider him a newcomer to opposition politics.
He was in opposition politics long before Mr Tsvangirai even considered venturing into politics, he said.
He argued that, in fact, when he was arrested by police as a student leader at the University of Zimbabwe in the late 1980s, his recollection of Mr Morgan Tsvangirai was his (Mr Tsvangirai’s) condemnation of the detention. This clearly showed that he has been in the "struggle against Zanu-PF" for a longer time than Mr Tsvangirai, he added.
The interviewer asked Prof Mutambara whether it was true that he was a Shona figurehead at the helm of what is essentially a Ndebele faction.
Hard-pressed to strike a chord with sections of the Matabeleland population, where a desperate scramble for votes between the MDC factions is anticipated in the countdown to March 2008, Prof Mutambara criticised Mr Tsvangirai for recently announcing during an overseas visit that his camp was willing to consider a blanket pardon for alleged human rights violations.
"No blanket amnesty. No. We want restorative justice. What about the victims?" said Prof Mutambara, in remarks apparently directed at Mr Tsvangirai, who has touted the "amnesty" line.
When asked about his election plan, Prof Mutambara said his faction has a twin-pronged strategy anchored on civil disobedience and the ongoing Sadc-brokered dialogue between Zanu-PF and the MDC factions.
"We want free and fair elections," he added.
This is the second time within two weeks that Prof Mutambara has attacked the leadership qualities of Mr Tsvangirai following the break-up of the unity talks between the two factions.
BBC: Arthur Mutambara
Allan Little talks to Arthur Mutambara, the leader of one faction of Zimbabwe's opposition Movement for Democratic Change. Why are the opposition fighting each other? ``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xTsvangirai a hopeless leader – Mutambara``x1186598311,83111,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xThe Herald
Exactly as one would have ever wished it! After the historic Dar Summit held towards the end of March this year, I made it clear Southern Africa had reached a turning point, and with it, the Zimbabwean situation. I made it clear the significance of the resultant communiqué was the fact of the 14-member grouping had for the first time taken a collective stance against illegal sanctions imposed by the West, led of course by Britain and America.
I made it clear that from that day on, the fight would achieve exactly what Britain had always wished, namely the internationalisation of its fight with Zimbabwe, but only in ways not so palatable to Britain and her bankrupt foreign policy. I argued that from that historic day, Britain, America and the pro-sanctions segment of the EU would have to confront Sadc as a block, itself quite an escalation in the situation.
The fight would become sub-regional, indeed would pit a sub-region against its historical adversary. I suppose many thought Manheru was politicking.
I know that those who mistakenly thought so are beginning to wake up to this hard-hitting fact. But grant it to the British. Correctly, they panicked, and used their man in Gaberone to express this panic. Much later, they also used their Ghanaian-turned Briton, one Boateng who is their man in South Africa, to express the same disquiet.
This shameful man from the womb of so respectable a people, did not mind being foolish on behalf of the Empire.
The Zim migrant peril
As already indicated in previous installments, from that month of March, the British were peddling frantically, hoping a big TB (Tony Blair) bang would visit and demolish Mugabe before a change of guard at No. 10, indeed before the next Sadc Summit.
They enlisted the support of the Americans, an assignment made easier by America’s man here – Dell – so gifted with a long mouth, so backed by a stub of intellect. The whole hype on illegal immigrants was meant to use the people-to-people magnitude as a subtle instrument for British foreign policy goals.
Repeated claims of a Zimbabwean migrant peril, edified by a Parliamentary Committee, the white opposition Democratic Alliance and much else, would have not only nudged Mbeki out of the "slumber" of "quiet diplomacy"; it would have generated violent xenophobia which would have forced the South African government to act. Or better still, create refugee camps, in which case the Sadc Summit would have had no choice but to deal with a supposedly ever snowballing Zimbabwe situation. The connection with the price madness which should have provided the trigger both at home and abroad, is too obvious to be missed.
Re-editing Dar
Meanwhile the West’s captive media, especially their beachhead in South Africa, kept harping on the dim prospects of the political dialogue the Dar Summit had assigned President Mbeki to mind. Regardless of the progress on the ground, everything had to read dim, very dim, to warrant a hard-ball which Sadc was supposed to play against Zimbabwe.
It is this hard-ball scenario which the daft Muleya writing on the eve of the Summit harped wild, to look very foolish a little later. Under such a scenario, Sadc did not have to do much: It only needed to acknowledge that there is a crisis in Zimbabwe, a crisis solely caused by its "mis-governors". That would have re-edited Dar. That would have also provided a pretext for intervention at a higher level, including the UN, itself the dignified plate Britain badly needs to legitimise an armed pursuit and enforcement of its interests in Zimbabwe. Needless to say all this crumbled and nothing dramatic happened, both inside and outside Zimbabwe.
Pawning aid pound for politics
Faced with a consuming implosion of the supposedly delivering scenario, the British and Americans grew even more desperate, and therefore more open and unguarded in their political subterfuges.
They have been lobbying some governments within Sadc, hoping to turn their aid pound into a pawn for foreign policy support. They won two or three states, and staked it all on these leaders’ readiness to tackle Zimbabwe and its President.
Beyond an embarrassing blip and blunder, nothing much happened. The British did much more. They generously mobilised their puppet NGOs here, all under the rubric of the so-called "social forum", to generate a din that would drown and hopefully move heads at the Summit.
There was an attempt to bus "demos" from Zimbabwe, and from two other neighbouring countries, so these would mount demonstrations in Lusaka. Imperialism had mobilised its askaris, many of them literate but not conscious enough to be anything nationally helpful.
These schooled lumpens, many affiliated to the NCA and external chapters of Crisis, never made it to the venue, leaving their hapless linkman already in Lusaka, quite angry and frustrated. Of course the limping MDC was deployed by both the British and Americans, led by Khupe, to perform so dismally that one within their ranks – Professor Eliphas Mukonoweshure, sorry, -weshuro - ended up breaking ranks. He traded his tattered MDC cap for a more dignified one as an academic on regional integration.
Simply put, Khupe was an unremitting disaster on Zambia’s FM stations, ungainly confirming that her party brought sanctions on Zimbabwe. It was not a helpful message to a politically mature society that Zambia is.
From carnival to the carnal
The NGO rubble which had flown ahead, was characteristically in sixes and sevens, redirecting its frustrated political ardour into open and unmitigated debauchery: A sure sign that the billed Lusaka opposition carnival had degenerated to bare carnality.
As always, their pockets are always sound for such base pursuits. They lived in mortal fear of a security crackdown that none in Lusaka had heart or reason for. Clear juvenile politics, much of it quixotic to win girlish hearts.
Changing tack
In the world of high politics, the British deployed their most hardened propagandists, including the usually suave Tony Hawkins. A "Zimbabwe-unmasked" media psyche had to be evoked. Not quite new; not quite news.
The real news was a piece in the British Guardian by one Simon Tisdall, titled "Mbeki’s backing for Mugabe may make west change tack". The article vicariously expressed British consternation at Mbeki’s liberation rhetoric on Zimbabwe, particularly his identifying Britain as "a principal protagonist in the Zimbabwean issue.
The writer then brings in the American angle by way of a right wing James Kirchick of the New Republican magazine who attacks Mbeki for playing "heir" to "anti-imperialist intellectual tradition heroically opposed to the western democracies".
The gist of the article is to warn that the just-ended Sadc Summit could deepen the West’s misgivings about a radical South Africa’s role in safeguarding "wider US and western interests", presumably in Southern Africa, forcing a disenchanted West to adopt a military strategy against Harare. "A detachment of US marines could do the job on its lunch break", adds Boston Globe columnist, Jeff Jacoby, seemingly well beyond any learning from the shock and awe America is getting from post-Saddam Iraq.
At another level, Michael Evans and Fred Bridgland (remember apartheid South Africa in Angola?) were busy recycling the British military evacuation plan story for 22 000 Britons who are said to be in Zimbabwe. It is a weary story, but one indexical to British propaganda designs.
Paradox of impoverishing growth
Lusaka has consolidated Dar es Salaam. Lusaka has thoroughly upset the British and Americans, forcing both into a Southern African foreign policy posture sure to upset and alienate Southern Africa, in the process reinforcing the already strong pro-Zimbabwe sentiment which is showing no sign of abating.
And if any had any doubts, the wild cheers that President Mugabe drew in Zambia, rammed the message home, much to their utter disbelief and disappointment. It is clear the Mugabe sentiment is strong as ever, making him intractable. And of course these envoys think Mugabe is a talisman. He does not need to be. The material circumstances for deep resonance to Mugabe’s politics are both abundant and ubiquitous in Southern Africa.
After all, is it not a fact that the principal paradox of Southern Africa lies in a regional economy which makes its people poorer and poorer each time it registers bigger and bigger growth?
What politics does the West expect in a mining economy which attracts well over US$3bn in new investments but rewarding its citizens a mere 0.006% by way of royalties? In such a despicable environment, would a Mugabe who preaches indigenisation in the mining sector, be a reviled loner, a leper? When back is futuristic And that is the essence of Mugabe-ism in regional politics: politics validated by deepening poverty. Increasingly, the West is waking up to the fact that the politics they blamed for dragging Zimbabwe back to the stone age, are in fact a compelling peep into the future politics of Southern Africa.
In the so-called Zimbabwe crisis is read the future politics of a new Southern Africa in which the West has no place. Which is what makes the Guardian reporter dead right; which is what makes British and American wiles here quite deadly.
Cheering Lisbon
But one more point. Sadc has re-stoked the African sentiment ahead of Portugal, itself the setting for the EU-Africa Summit. And it’s not accidental that the western envoys who expressed shock at Mugabe’s popularity are from Lisbon. They know what they will be up against should they ever buckle to British fears of the potential hazard of a Brown accidental hand-shake with the "coarse" Mugabe in a dimly lit Lisbon corner.
And Lusaka is the tonic which shall get Lisbon to get EU to come to terms with their illegal sanctions against Harare, in the process heading the call of Dar. Something in me tells me we are close - very close – to a resolution. Something gotta give in, and looking at the sinewy muscles that prop the Great Zimbabwe, I have not the slightest doubt what shall!
Gobbling Zanu (PF)’s reformersIs anyone getting what is reaching my ears? Strange reconfiguration of national politics is taking place, seemingly without a din. I hear Tsvangirai – which means the British – is extracting his pound of flesh. Apart from tackling Mutambara - which is not quite the same thing as tackling Welshman Ncube and his trenchantly loyal urban Ndebele vote – Tsvangirai has turned on the so-called Zanu (PF) reformers he has been courting for a broad and miscegenated anti-Mugabe front.
The so-called Zanu (PF) reformers were supposed to cause a rapture from within – relying both on political dissidence and a military putsch. The former would have enabled a palace coup; the later a real one. The former would have delivered Zanu (PF) structures to a re-made MDC; the latter would have pacified and cowed a post-Mugabe Zimbabwe. Neither happened and Tsvangirai, speaking the frustration of the British and the always skeptical Americans, is now accusing these reformers of having neither the nerve nor the mob to make change happen.
He is charging they wield no power enough to influence both the military and the structures of Zanu (PF). If anything, he further charges, they are actually struggling to retain influence in their little constituencies, let alone wielding the muscle to decisively project their influence at national level.
Then, the bombshell. Tsvangirai is telling them that if they want anything to do with his faction, they must join it as humble individuals who hold nothing for the table. This side of intrigue which Mukonoweshuro was leading, is set to founder, and with it, his own political career. Biti should be happy, very happy I tell you! Now, Tsvangirai is expecting big egos to swallow humble pie. Ane chokwadi? Great perturbations. Watch this column. Icho! ``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xMugabe: When a cheer jars the West, rings farthest``x1187435091,89545,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Peter Mavunga
www.herald.co.zw
September 07, 2007
NOW we have Australian Prime Minister John Howard appointing himself leader of the anti-Zimbabwe campaign. He funds the opposition while shouting loudest against Zimbabwe's democratically elected President – all in his bid to effect illegal regime change in Zimbabwe.
MDC faction leader Morgan Tsvangirai is the beneficiary of Howard's hospitality.
He recently traipsed to Australia where he addressed the Institute of International Affairs and was in fulsome praise of that country's foreign minister, Alexander Downer.
"Australia, I think has moved far ahead of other countries in ensuring that at least pressure is applied through multilateral interventions than any other country so far," Tsvangirai gushed in Melbourne.
"So in my communication to him," he continued, "I am going to congratulate Australia . . . there are many measures that have been taken by Australia that I admire and that I think are in the right path."
Tsvangirai went on to say – and this probably is the main reason for his visit – that he would like financial help in the form of a package for President Mugabe.
He wants help from Australia and the "international community" to build this fund for the President together with a guarantee that when their regime change task is accomplished, President Mugabe would not be prosecuted. Without this he claimed, President Mugabe would not go.
Tsvangirai also believes this is a reasonable request for him to put to his generous hosts. He does not seem to see how odd it is that he is virtually conspiring with a foreign government to effect illegal regime change in Zimbabwe.
True, Tsvangirai thinks, as he told his hosts, that President Mugabe had "rigged elections over the past six years to maintain power" but that is only his personal view.
There are many more people in Zimbabwe and throughout the region who know Zimbabwe does not rig elections.
Even if there was any truth in Tsvangirai's claim, only a political midget finds solutions in cavorting with foreigners in trying to achieve illegal political objectives.
Politicians of substance realise that changing a leader is a matter for Zimbabweans.
Politics is the art of persuading the people. Mr T, having failed to effect regime change by violent means, now wants to do so through bribery.
Mr T's naivety in trying to put together for the President a so-called package is mind-boggling for two reasons.
The first is the shallowness of the thinking.
The second is that Mr T either has a short memory or he does not read history. For this strategy of trying to bribe President Mugabe in the tortuous history of our country was tried before.
David Caute's book, "Under the Skin – the death of White Rhodesia" records the frustration of Andrew Young, former US Ambassador to the United Nations who was given by President Jimmy Carter the task of working with David Owen, British foreign secretary, to find a solution to the Rhodesia problem.
This is what David Caute says:
"Young described both Mugabe and Nkomo as gentle fellows, incapable of firing a gun, of killing. The trouble with Mugabe was that he was 'so damned incorruptible. He's inflexible.'
Mugabe rejected the compromises that Young and Owen regarded as necessary for a settlement; he wanted everything now.
'The problem is he was educated by Jesuits and when you get the combination of a Jesuit and a Marxist kind of ideology merging in one person, you've got a hell of a guy to deal with,' explained Young."
So if Mr T had asked Andrew Young his prospects of success in bribing the President with a "package" I think he would have been told not to be silly.
But I am sure Mr T would still have gone to Australia and I'll tell you why.
Mr T loves Australia so much. He and the country's leaders have a bond so strong that nothing, not even good; rational arguments will prise them apart.
In his speech to the Institute of International Affairs, Mr T said he would like to congratulate Australia for the many but unspecified measures that country had taken that he admired "and that I think are in the right path."
When Mr T does not specify these "measures", I can only speculate that he does not want to embarrass his hosts by thanking them publicly that they robbed his black brothers – the Aborigines – to fund his own regime change back home.
For what else would he thank them for and not say publicly if it was not for the fact that his hosts had treated him so well and given so generously at the expense of the indigenous Australians?
Such hypocrisy is exposed in John Pilger's book: "The New Rulers of the World" that makes compelling reading.
Pilger, one of the leading investigative journalists of our time, is a white Australian who is angry at the way his government abuses the human rights of the Aborigines.
As Professor Colin Tatz of the Genocide Studies Centre in Sydney put it: "If there was a race between democratic nations to see who could best address the violation of the human rights (of its own people) Australia would be coming stone motherless last."
That is because there seems to be no willingness on the part of the government and the majority in Australia to recognise the rights of the Aborigines.
After all, they are treated as though they were not human beings worth anything.
Pilger begins by looking at Australia's "showcase" in the 2000 Olympics when Australians, "the chosen ones" tried to portray their country as united and happy. He describes an incident in which the wife of an IOC delegate spotted a black man playing a game to entertain tourists.
"Who's that?" she enquired.
"An Aborigine," came the reply.
"Really? Where are the rest of them?"
"Er, in the outback."
The point is that there is a large Aboriginal presence unknown to the outside world. They live in ghettos like Redfern that Pilger says are "easily distinguished from the rest of the city by an oppressive police presence."
He describes how everyone came to cheer on the Olympic torch on its way to Sydney – "except the black people who could not see it, having been blinded by trachoma, a disease as old as the Bible."
He goes on: "Australia is the only developed country on a World Health Organisation 'shame list' of countries where children are still blinded by trachoma. Impoverished Sri Lanka has beaten the disease, but not rich Australia."
The Aborigines were once hunter-gatherers in their traditional society. They had exceptional vision. Yet, says Pilger, "now watch the old people stumble, many of them wearing cheap dark glasses and wiping streaming eyes."
He says according to Professor Hugh Taylor, the Director of Eye Research in Sydney; up to 80 percent of Aboriginal children have potentially blinding trachoma because of untreated cataracts. "This is inexcusable," he is quoted as saying.
Pilger accompanied an Aboriginal Medical Services team making a spot check of children in and around Kununurra. A third were found to have trachoma.
At Doon Doon school, says Pilger, half the 56 children were diagnosed with the disease. "And what if these were white children?" he asked Dr Alice Tippetts who replied with a hand over her mouth:
"Like Australian apartheid, it is the unspeakable."
The disease is of course entirely preventable. It infects the eyelids and spreads in conditions of poverty, such as overcrowding and lack of clean running water and sewerage.
Pilger says the death rate of Aborigines in the state of Western Australia is higher than that in Bangladesh. Bangladesh is a developing world country; Australia is rich.
He says Dr Kim Hames, the minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Water Resources, told him he had many Aboriginal friends and believed that the problem of trachoma would be "washed away if only Aboriginal children had swimming pools".
His government was planning to build twelve swimming pools but he did not know when this would happen. In fact, in trying to explain the reasons why this, along with the provision of proper clean water and better housing had still not been done, he appeared to apportion blame among victims themselves, apparently "for cultural habits that are millions of years old."
Pilger asked the minister why basic facilities like tarred roads, decent housing, recreational facilities --- things that were provided as standard in the white Australia --- were missing in Aboriginal areas.
He was told that it was because "white people feel that if you give a swimming pool to an Aboriginal community it is a luxury, and they are fine the way they are, living in the desert, like they've always done . . ."
Dr Richard Murray of the Kimberley Aboriginal Medical Services Council, whose patients are all Aboriginal, studied the cause of their suffering.
"By most measures of indigenous health," he said, "Australia is last in the world. The Aboriginal people suffer from diseases we saw the end of in the Edinburgh slums in the last century, like rheumatic fever. Here, it is the highest ever reported in the world. And Diabetes, which affects up to a quarter of the adult Aboriginal population, causing kidney failure and a diabetic blindness."
The cause, said the doctor, was "poverty and dispossession. Look at housing. Ninety percent of overcrowded households in Australia are Aboriginal, and this from two percent of the population. What it comes fundamentally down to is a lack of political will to allocate resources."
It turns out the Federal government spends about 25 percent less per capita on the health of Aboriginal people compared to the rest of the population. Aborigines have a very high suicide rate due to lack of opportunities and hope. In a community where there are, say 50 men up to the age of 25, one or two will kill themselves, the doctor said.
He complained that these were families who lived with constant grief. "They do not want to go to bed at night for fear of waking up in the morning to find someone hanging. It is a heart-wrenching truth that the world knows little about," he said.
Pilger also describes his experience in Queensland where he followed behind Paul Gribble, a church minister, who had the coffin of a two-month-old Aboriginal baby girl in the boot of his car. She was to be buried that afternoon at St Matthew's church.
Paul explained to Pilger: "The first funeral I conducted, I was irritated by the people wailing, and I screamed out for them to shut up. And they did, and all the funerals thereafter were dead quiet. Then one day I stood up and apologised to them. I told them I was wrong, just as it is wrong that people continue to die as they do. Look at this list: babies, young men. And its wrong the authorities harass them as they do. I am the chaplain at Rockhampton Prison, where a third of the prisoners are Aboriginal – from two percent of the population."
Pilger told a Federal Minister, Philip Ruddock, that his fellow Federal Cabinet colleague, Dr Michael Wooldridge, the health minister, had admitted that in his area of health he had no evidence to suggest any improvement whatsoever in the last decade. The gap between white and Aboriginal health was actually widening.
Ruddock agreed that the Aboriginal health statistics were truly appalling.
"I understand you have been a member of Amnesty International for 20 years?" enquired Pilger, to which the minister agreed.
"How do you feel receiving amnesty reports on human rights violations with 'Australia' written across the top, such as: 'Aborigines are still dying in prison and police custody at levels that may amount to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment'?
The minister smiled and replied: "Why do they use the word 'may'?"
Pilger says such supercilious response is quite common in political Australia and confirms that during their interview, Ruddock made no attempt to challenge the facts of Aboriginal suffering yet offered nothing that suggested a political commitment to make amends.
When John Howard came to office in 1996, his first act was to cut $A400 million from the Aboriginal affairs budget – which Pilger said he referred to contemptuously as the "Aboriginal industry political correctness gone too far."
This is Australia as seen in the eyes of another Australian. This is Australia under Howard, a country that is in the business of limiting the life chances of Aborigines and breaching their human rights. Yet the same Howard has the temerity to team up with Tsvangirai to "teach" Zimbabwe human rights!
This is John Howard, splashing big money on some Zimbabwean politicians in the name of human rights, money that he should be spending on the natives of his country.
Above all, this is probably what Mr T meant when he was congratulating his hosts for "the many measures" that had enabled his hosts to give him quite a tidy sum to add not only to his regime change fund but also to a package with which to bribe the "incorruptible Mugabe."
Trouble is this money does not benefit the people of Zimbabwe neither is it intended to benefit them.
www.herald.co.zw``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xFunding illegal regime change in Zimbabwe at expense of Aborigines``x1189166144,91022,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Isdore Guvamombe
The Herald
September 11, 2007
DISGRACED Roman Catholic Archbishop of Bulawayo Diocese, Pius Ncube (60), has been forced to resign by the Vatican, nearly two months after a Bulawayo man filed a $20 billion lawsuit against him for adultery.
Yesterday, Pope Benedict XVI appointed Father Martin Schupp to act until the Holy See makes a substantive appointment.
Roman Catholic Church priests are sworn to a vow of celibacy, meaning that they must never marry and must never engage in sexual intercourse.
Ncube is embroiled in a $20 billion lawsuit brought against him by Mr Onesimus Sibanda, who alleges in papers filed at the High Court in Bulawayo in July that the cleric had an adulterous relationship with his wife, Mrs Rosemary Sibanda, who is also a member of his parish.
Zimbabwe Catholic Bishops' Conference secretary general Father Fradreck Chiromba said Archbishop Ncube's resignation was accepted in terms of the church's Code of Canon Law.
"Pope Benedict XVI, on Tuesday, 11 September 2007, accepted the resignation of Archbishop Pius A. Ncube as Archbishop of the Archdiocese of Bulawayo.
"The resignation was tendered to the Holy Father by Archbishop Ncube in accordance with canon 401 & 2 of the Code of Canon Law.
"Canon 401 & 2 encourages a bishop to offer his resignation when, because of health or some other serious reason, he has become less able to fulfil his office,'' said Fr Chiromba.
Fr Chiromba said Fr Schupp, who is also the apostolic administrator of the Archdiocese of Bulawayo, would act "until the Holy See decides otherwise in terms of the Archdiocese that is now vacant".
Although no comment could be obtained from Ncube yesterday, the BBC quoted him as saying he had resigned as the Archbishop but remained a bishop in the church.
"I remain a Catholic bishop in Zimbabwe and will continue to speak out on the issues that sadly become more acute by the day.
"I am committed to promoting the social teachings of the church and working among the poorest and most needy in Zimbabwe," said the disgraced bishop in his face-saving statement to the BBC yesterday.
His forced resignation is a slap in the face of the Zimbabwe Catholic Bishops' Conference, which last week made an impish attempt to defend him in his alleged adulterous affair with Mrs Sibanda.
The media in July published photographs of Ncube in bed with Mrs Sibanda. It also showed him being intimate with another woman.
In March, Ncube – who had developed a tendency to stray from holy preachings to devilish and heinous political statements attacking President Mugabe and the Government – said he was prepared to stand in front of "blazing guns" in street protests to bring down the Government. He urged other Zimbabweans to do the same.
Four months later, he was at it again, saying Britain should invade Zimbabwe to remove Cde Mugabe, claiming this would be "the lesser of two evils".
He is also on record for declaring he was praying for President Mugabe's death.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwean Archbishop Pius Ncube Forced to Resign``x1189565815,36383,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Simon Khaya Moyo
September 21, 2007
AS we draw closer to the opening of the 62nd Regular Session of the United Nations General Assembly in New York next week, we are again observing intense media focus to draw international attention on Zimbabwe.
Coincidentally, anti-Government elements and their allies in the non-governmental and trade union movement with ties to certain opposition political formations are lining up activities at home and abroad to play their respectively assigned roles in a circus that repeats itself before and during international conferences.
In the run-up to a number of recent international conferences, desperate and misguided anti-Zimbabwean activists have predictably descended on the venues of these conferences in order to stir discord. These include the Sadc Heads of State and Government Summit held in Maseru in August 2006, the Sadc Extraordinary Summit held in March 2007 in Dar-es-Salaam, the Pan African Parliament Session held in Johannesburg in May 2007, the African Union Summit held in July 2007 in Accra, Ghana, and the 27th Sadc Summit held in Lusaka last month.
The same faces that showed up in Maseru showed up in Dar-es-Salaam, Accra and recently in Lusaka. This is done at the behest of governments in well-known capitals outside Africa. And soon after making the now familiar noises, the hype fizzles out only to re-emerge at a future conference: it is patently a pattern designed and deliberately contrived to cause maximum damage to the image of Zimbabwe and its leaders.
At the international conferences so far held this year, the heavy presence of officials from opposition political factions and a host of like-minded NGOs was an embarrassing and unwelcome detraction. The fact is that Sadc and the AU are one in their total rejection of unpatriotic sell-outs.
This is not to suggest that there is anything wrong with political opposition in Zimbabwe as elsewhere. What we find abhorrent and objectionable is when such opposition is firmly rooted in, directed by and funded from Western capitals to peddle external agendas. Indeed, it is not only normal, but welcome to have healthy contradictions and well-meaning opposition in society: a homogenous and monolithic society is neither feasible nor desirable.
This well-orchestrated campaign to demonise Zimbabwe and its leadership is inspired by the Western agenda of regime change; it is directly from the very top political echelons in London, Washington, Canberra etc, and it is funded by taxpayers in those countries.
This discernible pattern in which sections of the political opposition and the media seek to contrive non-existent scenarios is deplorable as it is utterly distasteful, and must be condemned by all pan-Africanists and those beyond our borders who share with us the common vision of a progressive and peaceful co-existence of sovereign nations, big and small.
While our detractors are busy plotting our long-predicted but ever-receding demise, the Government and people of Zimbabwe remain focused and are romping in the home stretch of our victorious march against Western imperialist machinations. As a responsible nation, our people, and not outsiders, will remain the active agents of change within their own political frontiers.
We are the authors and masters of our own destiny, and, therefore, need to secure our common future through a purposive alliance of patriots from all walks of life across the broad spectrum of our society. In this regard, we applaud and support the mediation efforts of His Excellency, President Thabo Mbeki. There is no turning back whatsoever.
What is abundantly clear is that a lasting solution to Zimbabwe's challenges does not lie in Canberra, or in the media for that matter, but is domiciled within our political frontiers and among our people. There has been remarkable progress in the talks being mediated by President Mbeki.
On September 18, 2007, the Parliament of Zimbabwe reached agreement by consensus on Constitutional Amendment Number 18 Bill which seeks, inter alia, to harmonise presidential and parliamentary elections with effect from next year.
Even in the face of this bipartisanship and consensus among the Zimbabwean people, mainstream South African and Western media (both print and electronic) are awash with misleading news bulletins that suggest that the Amendment seeks to give His Excellency President Robert Mugabe powers to appoint his successor.
The Amendment provides that in the event of the President being unable to continue in office for whatever reason and before his/her elective term comes to an end, Parliament will sit as an Electoral College and elect the successor.
The patronising and paternalistic stance of the Western media smacks of second guessing the people of Zimbabwe and casting aspersions on the dignity and integrity of our institutions and elected leadership.
Surely if the people of Zimbabwe, through their elected representatives, make a sovereign decision to amend their Constitution as they see fit, who can question their action? This is totally disgraceful.
The latest media hype is well timed and calculated to coincide with the opening of the 62nd regular session of the United Nations General Assembly next week. Some unsubstantiated reports now allege an "alarming" exodus of Zimbabweans to neighbouring countries.
Over recent months the media have elevated fiction, rumour and cheap gossip to the level of fact regarding the number of Zimbabwean citizens in neighbouring countries.
Earlier this month, a study conducted by the Forced Migration Studies Programme and Musina Legal Aid concluded that the media have grossly exaggerated the number of people migrating from Zimbabwe to South Africa.
Recent reports of another so-called "human tsunami" overwhelming Mozambique are calculated to raise tension with our neighbour, and draw unwarranted international attention and focus towards Zimbabwe just before the opening of the General Assembly.
Similar false reports about an influx of Zimbabweans into Zambia were orchestrated just before the Sadc Summit held in Lusaka last August, only to evaporate soon after the summit.
These have become familiar noises that we expect before every international conference. We expect these noises to get louder in the week ahead as the army of paid anti-Zimbabwe activists troop into New York at the bidding of their masters, comfortably ensconced in London. The mischievous report on Zimbabwe released this week in Brussels by the so-called International Crisis Group (ICG) is another case in point. We must remain vigilant.
Finally, I wish to appeal to our misguided sisters and brothers, and to their Western handlers, to rise from their deep slumber, and realise that Zimbabwe is not for sale. While we will never apologise to these Western handlers for the historic land reform we embarked on in the year 2000, we will not disown those of our people who have been hoodwinked to sell their birthright.
We have a responsibility to all our people irrespective of race, creed or political affiliation.
In unity we shall triumph.
Simon Khaya Moyo is Zimbabwe's High Commissioner to South Africa.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe: Latest media hype well timed, calculated``x1190364329,48111,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Bulawayo Bureau
September 22, 2007
The Herald
'Arm-twisting not way to solve Zim's challenges' CONDEMNATION of British Prime Minister Gordon Brown over his threat to boycott the Euro-Africa Summit if President Mugabe attends intensified yesterday.
Amid growing international consensus that the conference must go ahead even without Britain, the Pan-African Parliament said Mr Brown should desist from behaving like an overlord.
In remarks that received worldwide coverage yesterday, Dr Gertrude Mongella, the Tanzanian president of the Pan-African Parliament, said "arm-twisting" was not the way to solve Zimbabwe's challenges.
Her comments reflect the determination of the African Union to go ahead as planned and invite President Mugabe to the Euro-Africa summit in Lisbon, Portugal, in December.
Dr Mongella, attending a conference with Socialist Members of the European Parliament in Brussels, has made it clear that African solidarity might undermine Mr Brown's "him-or-me" challenge to the summit.
"We do know there are some problems (in Zimbabwe), but if somebody wants to arm-twist Zimbabwe, that's not the best way to solve the problems," she said.
"I think this is again another way of manipulating Africa. Zimbabwe is a nation which got independence. I think in the developed countries there are so many countries doing things which not all of us subscribe to – we have seen the Iraq war, not everyone accepts what is being done in Iraq."
Dr Mongella urged all African and European leaders to go to the summit – including Mr Brown – to join the talks to "meet, develop a very committed dialogue to solve problems, rather than threatening each other by going or not going".
She said dialogue must be pursued to resolve any disputes.
"I think if we want to move in the right direction, with the African way of doing things, you discuss things under a tree till you agree. So if somebody does not come under a tree to discuss, that is not the African way of doing things."
Mr Brown was also condemned by Zimbabwe's Ambassador to the United Nations, Mr Boniface Chidyausiku, who said the prime minister had no right to dictate who should be at the summit or not.
Mr Chidyausiku said President Mugabe had a sovereign right, like all other African heads of state, to attend the Lisbon summit, adding that bigger issues affecting Africa should be prioritised.
Mr Chidyausiku's remarks follow almost similar sentiments by Portuguese EU legislator Mr Paolo Casaca and the Southern African Development Community chairman, President Levy Mwanawasa of Zambia, on Thursday.
President Mwanawasa even countered Mr Brown with his own threat, saying if President Mugabe is barred from attending the summit, Zambia and probably other African leaders would not go to Lisbon.
Mr Louis Michel, the EU Commissioner for Aid and Development, signalled Mr Brown's growing isolation, saying that one person cannot scuttle a key summit between two continents.
"We think that a single individual case cannot take as hostage the relations between two continents," said Mr Michel.
He added that the European Commission would want the summit to go ahead regardless of Mr Brown's threat.
Writing in a British newspaper, The Independent, on Thursday, Mr Brown provoked sharp international criticism when he said he would boycott the Portugal summit – the first since 2000 – if President Mugabe attends.
Mr Brown, like his predecessor Mr Tony Blair, claimed that the Government had presided over the prevailing economic challenges, ignoring the impact of illegal EU and American sanctions.
He said the EU's five-year visa ban on President Mugabe must be enforced to ensure that he does not travel to Portugal.
But Mr Michel said the ban does not apply to international meetings.
"I expect it is possible to have a compromise, but if there is no compromise, what can you do? The only option I cannot accept is suppressing the summit," he said.
Mr Brown, who assumed office in June, is said to base his foreign policy on a series of anti-Zimbabwe reports aired by several British media outlets, including the BBC and ITV News.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe: Outrage Intensifies Over Brown's Threat``x1190508565,6103,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xHerald Reporter
October 06, 2007
President Thabo Mbeki yesterday staved off pressure from German Chancellor Angela Merkel to take a tougher stance against Zimbabwe.
The two leaders met in South Africa yesterday.
Prior to the meeting, the German leader had reportedly vowed to persuade the South African leader to take a tougher stance on Zimbabwe despite the notable achievements his mediation has already scored.
Media reports last night indicated that Ms Merkel came out of her meeting with President Mbeki singing from a different hymn sheet and even categorically stated that Zimbabwe should be present at the European Union-Africa Summit regardless of British attempts to bar Harare from the Lisbon summit.
Her pronouncement will put a damper on British Prime Minister Gordon Brown's apparent desire to have President Mugabe barred.
Last night she was quoted as having said: "During our presidency of the European Union (earlier this year), we worked very much to prepare the ground for the upcoming EU-AU Summit ... and we want this summit to, indeed, open a new chapter in the relationship between our continents.
"I have said right from the start that the President of the Republic of Germany wanted to invite all African countries to that summit and it's up to the countries themselves to decide how they are going to be represented at the table.
"I also said (to Mr Mbeki) that obviously we will make all our assessments heard. We will also raise all our criticisms. We would do so in the presence of each and everyone and obviously each and every one has the right to attend."
Germany is working with Portugal on the organisation of the summit.
The German leader went further and thanked President Mbeki for the role he is playing in facilitating dialogue between the ruling Zanu-PF and the opposition MDC.
Portugal has already indicated that it would like to have all African leaders in attendance while a number of African leaders have made it clear that there will be no summit if President Mugabe is not invited to Lisbon.
Sadc heads of state earlier this year mandated South Africa to mediate between Zimbabwe's main political parties, resulting in the co-sponsoring of Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (Number 18) Bill in Parliament last month.
It is understood that President Mbeki impressed upon the German leader that considerable progress had been achieved in the South African-facilitated talks between Zanu-PF and the two factions of the MDC.
After meeting his German counterpart, Mr Mbeki told the media he was confident that the two political parties would soon reach a composite agreement and next year's harmonised elections would be free and fair.
"There is a united voice emerging from the ruling party and opposition on what to do to address these political problems. There was a common determination to conclude them (the talks) as quickly as possible.
"We are confident they will reach an agreement on all of these matters. So, at least as far as the political challenges are concerned, there was a united voice. Both the ruling party and opposition are committed to making sure the elections are free and fair.
"Next year after the elections, it will be very important they take the same approach with regard to economic challenges that they together evolve a common approach," he said.
However, the Government in Harare yesterday criticised Ms Merkel for labelling the so-called Zimbabwe crisis a "disastrous" one.
Secretary for Information and Publicity Cde George Charamba said Germany had no moral standing to pass judgment on Zimbabwe.
"Zimbabwe would very much appreciate it if this good lady would do us a great favour by simply lifting those illegal sanctions which her predecessor imposed hoping to protect German (wildlife) conservancies here.
"It is ironical that Germany, with a history such as it has, has the temerity to see a speck in Zimbabwe's eye," Cde Charamba said.
http://www.herald.co.zw``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe should attend summit: Germany``x1191705846,13333,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Caesar Zvayi
October 10, 2007
The herald
The adage, lies run sprints but the truth runs marathons, has always been vindicated in Zimbabwe since the stand off with Britain began in November 1997.
In a developing country like Zimbabwe which did the "unthinkable" by challenging the world order of double standards, the lies churned by rightwing Western governments and their hired lackeys travel at supersonic speed claiming the gullible at regular intervals.
The situation is compounded by the fact that the Western powers control powerful international news agencies that churn out copious copy that reaches millions of people, and places the public media, tasked to tell the real Zimbabwean story, cannot reach at the moment.
Even cyberspace is dominated by these powerful nations that have made it their vocation to tar and feather Zimbabwe in a bid to preserve the myth of white supremacy.
As such anyone who relies on the Western media for news about Zimbabwe, ends up wondering whether there is any sanity in the country.
For starters such a person cannot reconcile how a Government which is "repressive" continues getting successive mandates, by huge margins at that, at election time, particularly when reports say Zimbabweans are being squeezed to the eyeballs by "increasing Government repression".
Such a person can never understand why the MDC, which such media claim has so much support, fails to rally people in the streets to effect the much-vaunted colour revolutions the West executed with prurience in Eastern Europe.
Such a reader can never understand why rightwing groups like the International Crisis Group, actually acknowledge that President Mugabe's popularity is increasing and that the opposition has hit its nadir.
How is that possible at a time Mugabe's tyranny is said to have reached fascist proportions?
Similar questions probably gripped all who read the recent report by UN Habitat, ‘Enhancing Urban Safety and Security – Global Report on Human Settlements 2007', released ahead of the World Habitat Day commemorations on October 1.
The report acknowledges the success Zimbabwe has scored in housing delivery, and that Operation Murambatsvina/Restore Order was a two-pronged clean up exercise aimed at decongesting cities and towns, and to rid them of crime.
Says UN Habitat in part: "The Government, local authorities and the private sector have all joined hands to build houses for the people.
"Over the past four years 277 038 housing stands have been planned and allocated for housing development in urban areas.
"Other services such as roads, water, sewer and electricity are having to follow after ensuring that each family has a roof over its head.
"The Government-initiated national housing delivery programme, Operation Garikai/Hlalani Kuhle, the numerous local authorities' housing programmes and those led by the private sector have helped shape a composite housing delivery programme that recognises the needs of the poor and the rich.
"Class-specific housing programmes have been put in place with the smallest housing stands on 200 square metres of land while the biggest residential stands can go up to 6 000 square metres."
UN Habitat further acknowledges the virtues of Operation Murambatsvian/Restore Order, saying: "The celebrations' theme ‘A Safe City is Just a Safe City' dovetails very well with Zimbabwe's thrust of affording a safe urban environment that is free of squatter settlements.
"It is important to note that the celebrations are taking place two years after Operation Murambatsvina/Restore Order which, among other things, sought to rid urban areas of crime and to decongest overcrowded settlements like Mbare."
Yes dear reader, this is the same UN Habitat led by one Anna Tibaijuka Kajumulo, who was condomised by former British prime minister, Tony Blair during her "fact-finding" mission to Zimbabwe at the height of Operation Murambatsvina/Restore Order in mid-2005.
Tibaijuka; now director-general of the UN Office in Nairobi; drafted a controversial report that claimed the clean-up operation was a State-sanctioned clampdown on political opponents.
Tibaijuka's report was littered with judgmental language from start to finish, and the very first paragraph of her executive summary had the phrase "clean-up" in quotation marks to show that she did not consider Operation Murambatsvina to have been about destroying illegal structures and crime as she regurgitated MDC propaganda that said the operation was targeted at opposition supporters.
Tibaijuka's report claimed 700 000 urban dwellers (21 percent of the total urban population) lost either their homes or source of livelihood or both, while a further 2,4 million (71 percent of the total urban population of 3,4 million) where affected.
Yet the Zimbabwe Republic Police which was carrying out the demolitions revealed that only 50 193 illegal structures had been demolished in all 10 provinces by June 28, when the operation was winding up.
These 50 000 structures covered all illegal structures, not just houses, which is why Tibaijuka's claims that over 700 000 people were affected failed to find purchase, except among those sold to the illegal regime change agenda.
In the end it turned out that Tibaijuka had not even authored the report but merely endorsed it as the writing had apparently been done long before she sat down to try to do so.
In fact, three-quarters of the report was dedicated to submissions from opposition groups and their embeds in the "civil" society, as well as demolition pictures to the exclusion of reconstruction pictures.
It latter emerged that Tibaijuka, who initially hailed Government housing programmes on her arrival in Zimbabwe, confessed to President Mugabe that her hands were tied as she was under pressure to produce a negative report.
What is more, the figure of 700 000 affected she bandied around had been arrived at using mathematical formula, and not hands-on findings, which was strange for a team that was on the ground.
During an interview with Ray Choto on the Studio 7 programme, "Personality of the Week", Tibaijuka also confessed that pressure had been brought to bear on her after Choto asked why the responses she was giving were at variance with the vitriol in her report.
Though Tibaijuka could not say who was pressuring her, it was not difficult to surmise given that on June 27, prior to her departure for Harare, Blair had openly said he was happy that someone he knew and who was also his Commissioner had been chosen to undertake the mission as he expected a "good" report from her.
And to anyone familiar with the stand-off between Harare and London, what is good for Blair where Zimbabwe is concerned is the equivalent of Christmas to turkeys.
The Tibaijuka scenario, however, was not new to Zimbabwe, as former Nigerian president General Abudulsalami Abubakar, who headed the Commonwealth Observer Mission to the 2002 presidential elections, had walked the same tightrope before her.
After freely touring Zimbabwe, talking to, and interacting with the electorate, General Abubakar made very positive comments just three days before the poll, when he paid a courtesy call on President Mugabe at Zimbabwe House. He said reports of violence in the campaign period had been grossly exaggerated by Western media; he was, however, to say the exact opposite in his report after the poll.
A few months later, Abubakar was quoted as saying he was equally surprised by the report, as he was not in agreement with the contents, implying he had not written it, though he had led the mission.
Many other envoys were to be dispatched to Zimbabwe after that, among them Tim Morris and Jan Egeland who were apparently compromised by the same interests that had pressured Tibaijuka.
Which is why the Government should be commended for outflanking recent attempts by the British government that sought to pressure the UN Secretary-General to dispatch a humanitarian envoy to Zimbabwe to vindicate claims that the country had become a humanitarian disaster.
On the flip side, the UN Habitat report should not be surprising as it simply contains what Tibaijuka ought to have written if she had not been compromised by forces inimical to Zimbabwe's national interest.
Zimbabwe's success in housing, achieved on the back of purely domestic resources, is a microcosm of successes registered in many other social sectors.
Zimbabwe notified the UN of its housing crisis way back in 1996 when it submitted a report on the implementation of the economic, social and cultural rights on September 25 1996 in line with articles 16 and 17 of the UN International Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, but nothing was forthcoming.
Despite that, statistics from UN Habitat speak for themselves as Zimbabwe has outdone even those countries that received such assistance.
Zimbabwe has a population of 13 million, 36 percent of whom live in urban areas, yet only 3 percent of them live in slum conditions.
Of the 3 percent in slum conditions, 100 percent have access to a water source, 96 percent have improved sanitation, 84 percent have sufficient living area, and 97 percent have durable housing.
This is against an African tragedy that has 72 percent of urban dwellers in slums. To put things into perspective, this writer will juxtapose Zimbabwe's statistics against those for South Africa, issued by the same UN office.
South Africa has a population of 44 million of which 58 percent are urbanites.
Of these 33 percent are in slums. Of the slum dwellers, 92 percent have access to a clean water source, 88 percent have access to sanitation, and 87 percent have sufficient living space while 93 percent have durable housing.
And this is a country considered an African success story. As such where housing delivery is concerned, Zimbabwe's success is unparalleled in sub-Saharan Africa.
Operation Garikai, that seeks to build at least 1,5 million housing units over the next four years, is not only in line with, but will also beat Millennium Development Goal 7 that has a deadline of 2015 by a good six years.
Many other successes have been well documented for instance Zimbabwe, using its own resources after the politicisation of the Global Aids Fund, is one of only three African countries – along with Kenya and Uganda – to have recorded a decline in the HIV and Aids prevalence rate over the past five years.
Zimbabwe also has the highest adult literacy rate in Africa due to the investments made in the education sector, again using mainly domestic resources.
These are, among the successes of self-reliance; the world is denied the right to know by the duplicitous Western media.
But mark this writer's words, with the distribution of land and recently farming implements to newly resettled farmers, very soon the rest of the world will be flocking to Zimbabwe to study how accelerated economic growth can be achieved on the back of indigenisation and strong investment in the agrarian sector.
Mark this writer's words.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe scores highly despite sanctions``x1192044604,33325,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xAFP-Herald Reporter
October 11, 2007
The Herald
PORTUGAL yesterday said it respects Africa's position that President Mugabe should attend the European Union-Africa Summit while the EU says Britain's stance on Zimbabwe was against European interests.
Portuguese Foreign Minister Mr Luis Amado said Cde Mugabe could attend the EU-Africa summit if that is what African nations want.
Despite Zimbabwe's problems, no country "can be pushed aside from dialogue and from the development of long-term strategic relations between the EU and the continent," Mr Amado, whose country is current EU president, said.
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has said he may boycott the planned summit if Cde Mugabe is present.
But Mr Amado said the summit — scheduled for December 8-9 in Lisbon — at the end of Portugal's six-month presidency, could not be run by special cases.
President Mugabe would be there "if such is the will of Africa," he added.
Mr Amado was speaking from Pretoria, South Africa, where he was part of an EU delegation.
On Tuesday, South Africa's ambassador to the European Union, Anil Sooklal, warned against setting preconditions for the summit.
"African leaders won't attend a watered-down summit," said Sooklal.
"It must be a summit of equals. No one should lay down preconditions. Let us meet and discuss everything of interest — even the difficult issues — with everyone present," said the ambassador.
On Monday, European Commission chief Mr Jose Manuel Barroso said the summit should not be derailed by the stand-off between Britain and Zimbabwe.
Mr Brown's position was "not fair, nor right" and was against European interests, he added.
Last week, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said all African leaders, including President Mugabe, should attend the summit.
Speaking during a visit to South Africa, the German Chancellor said the summit was an opportunity for dialogue where answers should be provided for concerns raised.
There has been no EU-Africa summit for seven years, partly due to divisions over whether President Mugabe should be allowed to attend.
The Mozambican Government has said it will not attend the summit if Cde Mugabe was not invited.
Mozambican Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Mr Eduardo Koloma said the participation of his country in the summit set for December in Portugal depends on the unconditional attendance of President Mugabe.
The assertion resembles the recent one from Sadc chairman, Zambian President Levy Mwanawasa, who reiterated that his country would not attend in the event of President Mugabe's exclusion.
Africa has maintained that the summit should involve leaders from the continent and invitations should not be selective.
The EU — at the instigation of Britain — has imposed illegal economic sanctions against Zimbabwe, which have hurt the economy and ordinary Zimbabweans. — AFP-Herald Reporter.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xUK stance over Zimbabwe rapped``x1192113764,18396,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Lois Hatton
A group of Americans who are not fully black or fully Indian are fighting for the survival of their identity, culture, history and economic future. Life for these black Indians can be difficult, no matter their tribal affiliation.
Lynn Hart, a black Yankton Sioux, says he regularly experiences racism. "When I go to the reservation, people see me as black. When I walk among blacks, they see me as Indian." But black Cherokees, commonly called Cherokee Freedmen, have recently been dealt a crueler blow.
In March, Cherokee tribal members voted to remove members who had African-American heritage — a total of 2,800 people. Why now? Money seems to be a motivating factor. Members receive health care, education and housing benefits. Each also has voting rights in tribal elections. But more important, each member has a stake in growing casino revenue.
Full Article : blogs.usatoday.com``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``x'Black' Cherokees fight for heritage``x1192193404,30664,Development``x``x
``xBy Nathaniel Manheru
October 13, 2007
The Herald
Three pieces — seemingly small and unimportant — came through the media this week. One relates to eleven white farmers who appeared before the magistrate in Chegutu, facing criminal charges for failing to vacate properties acquired by the State for purposes of resettling the landless.
The farmers lost the case with costs, with the magistrate, Tinashe Ndokera, agreeing with the prosecutor that the farmers merely sought to frustrate land reforms by abusing court processes.
It was a judgement which more than settling the matter, also carried a rebuke. Expectedly, the farmers are angry and traduce the ruling as "a farce". The farmers told both the BBC and Al Jazeera that they mean to fight on, including putting their lives on the line to keep the land.
A BBC/CNN in borrowed robes
Al Jazeera reporter, one Haru Mutasa, surprising still expected the minister responsible for lands to waste his breath addressing worn-out arguments from these farmers whose defence had been rejected by the courts anyway.
This absurd expectation, apart from betraying the location of the sympathies of the station she reports for, and possibly her own sympathies too, amounted to turning Al Jazeera into a superior court, an appellate court with powers of judicial review.
I have dismissed Al Jazeera as the BBC and CNN in borrowed Arab robes, to capture the rather disconcerting editorial discrepancy between the original, pro-Third World Arab Al Jazeera on the one hand, and this Caucasian medley which uses a branding subterfuge to push and defend white interests, on the other.
Mutasa tried to build emotion and empathy for the convicted white farmers by showing off their well-fed animals, contrasted by their faces made haggard by the dim prospects which land justice would soon bring and deliver. She did not find time to give her viewers a comparable and certainly compelling predicament of Zimbabwe's black landless who have had to endure the same predicament for generations.
And in their country too! Surely she was here enough (with Mighty Movies) in 2000 and beyond, to know that the debate on land reforms has evolved to stages where no one — I repeat no one in their right mind — is interested in revisiting arguments which justify the whole programme for the benefit of anyone, least of all that of white farmers who must know better. Until recently, they stood out as uninterrupted beneficiaries of African landlessness, most poignantly represented by the Tangwena people who survived just on the other side of Haru's birthplace.
The white squatters are the evil part of the colonial piece, and no amount of haggardness can ever lift them from their status as villains of this great injustice suffered by generations of Africans. Clearly, the girl seeks to come into the story too late, hoping she can breathe new life into cadaverous claims. In that futile effort, she looks quite hackneyed, strange and misplaced.
To SADC with cynicism
The second piece related to three equally defiant farmers who are in the courts in Rusape facing exactly the same charges. The third referred to a white farmer who has decided to take his case to the Sadc Tribunal, charging that Zimbabwe's land reforms are an exercise in racism and cronyism, and are pushing out people with the competence to work the land.
Interestingly, this particular white man has been on the land from time of birth, and certainly after 1980 when SADCC, precursor to the current Sadc, was formed.
At no point did he think of taking himself to a similar tribunal to raise the racism argument against the all-white colonial land reform programme which kept all Africans on the margins for so long. So much about human rights and racism.
Rhodesia's media A-Team
But something else happened. Rhodesia's indefatigable media A-Team is back in the country to mind this particular story of white struggle. Led by Peta Thornycroft, they have been running up and down, court to court, to ensure the world is roused once more to the "harrowing" plight of the vestigial white tribe left and lost in "Mugabiland".
It is a pleasure to watch their nimble footworks, and how they attempt to pull the entire media fraternity with them. Why a simple and straightforward case in the magistrates' court in small Chegutu proved to have a better appeal than a whole Vice-President opening an international Travel Expo, is something so hard to fathom. What is at stake which makes tourism and its fabulous receipts a drab in comparison? Why would Al Jazeera, itself an Arab channel, worry more about a handful of remnant, sunburnt, racist and law-breaking Rhodesian farmers, and not an Expo so overwhelmingly patronised by Arab buyers? But then again, what's in a name?
Against better sense, world sympathies
There is so much at stake, made worse by the fact that President Mugabe keeps moving on to new "outrages", from the point of view of white British interests here.
Between September and now, Brown has taken telling direct hits from the Zimbabwean leader. He faces a fractured EU he cannot look up to for salvation. If anything, the EU seems to be throwing more dust into Britain's already weeping eyes.
The latest admission by Brussels that the EU was narrow and vindictively British in its rush to impose sanctions against Zimbabwe before exhausting provisions and channels for dialogues can only spell further embarrassment for Brown.
Indeed it can only signal a regional bloc quite fed up with shoring up an unreasonable member's brittle policy of spite, against better sense and world sympathy. The hungry eastern dragon that continues to rumble in the background, eyeing all manner of resources, can only motivate greater rebellion within the European bloc.
Quite a brown headache
Much more happened. Germany will attend Portugal. France is seeking justification to attend through the dutiful Senegalese president Wade who thinks he can do better than Mbeki in bringing about a resolution of an impasse which has already been unclocked. In Shona we call it bravely slaying the dead and cold, muchekadzafa.
In the end France will attend, which means EU's two out of three most powerful economies will be in Lisbon. That isolates Brown, making his absence completely immaterial. Of course Sarkozy is under tremendous pressure from Britain to abscond so the EU, through its attendance register does not validate Mugabe's argument that this is a bilateral dispute. Quite a brown headache!
Stitching and stretching
But Mugabe continues to move on. His Indigenisation Bill is as good as done, only awaiting his assent. Judging by the most recent debate in the House of Lords, the British whose defence of white interests in respect of land was severely breached, are having to stitch and stretch the same tattered defence to cover another assault further up. It cannot be worse.
The Lords want to know what Her Majesty's Government is doing to protect British commercial interests threatened by "Mugabi". Malloch-Brown, himself a Rhodesian, was quite humble and modest: pretty precious little, beyond praying that Mugabe is restrained by Mbeki. Mugabe cannot be made to quack in his boots, he told the hoary lords.
Malloch-Brown gave a very sober response, itself quite a departure from the bellicosity of the supposedly suave House of Lords. Britain seems to be enjoying a blast of realism. Britain is worried about its mining interests; worried about its interests in the financial sector. That means we can now talk as equals, the colonial power having realised the futility of haughty condescension over a country it dismisses as a minor. Besides, the McKinnon charm has not delivered, with Mugabe turning away in contemptuous disgust from an enticement he was supposed to gobble hook, line and sinker.
Lost indeed
Increasingly, insistently, the argument is paring down to its bare essentials. More than anything else, it is about Britain's economic interests planted here by colonial history. More than anything else, it is about Zimbabwe's sovereign rights, won back through tears, blood and struggle. What gives in: a foreigner who seeks retention of colonial rights or an indigene who defends a birthright?
The futile fight by the farmers is an attempt to retain a smokescreen against blazing rays of a sun creeping towards midday. So is the coverage, led by Thornycroft. So are the noises from NGOs and elements within the Tsvangirai faction of the MDC.
Yes, so indeed is the case with strange studies and analysis on how Malawi conquered hunger, accompanied by an equally strange downgrading of Zimbabwe on the index of MDGs. It is to give Brown a face, indeed to impute decency to Britain's lost cause. Lost indeed! And as the challenges against the British stiffen, they are likely to come clean and bold, to tell the EU "it's land, stupid"!
Commotion in the anteroom
I painted a scenario for you, gentle reader. I am referring to the Mbeki mediation which by the way is going on very well, too well in fact. I indicated Biti would have difficulties in selling the outcome to his constituency. Thank God, Tsvangirai saw sense and decided against leading the axis against the agreement. He would have been finished much earlier. He still faces a certain death politically, albeit one punctuated by spurts of reprieve, here and there. Of course that position on the talks spawned its own problems, causing commotion in his faction's anteroom.
He is working hard to pacify his constituency. In the meantime, let us focus on revealing indiscretions. The Herald reports that Lucia Matibenga has been fired. The pirate American Studio 7 says she has not been dismissed. Kwinjeh confirms in a rather vulgar obituary that indeed Lucia is dead and forgotten, blaming it all on MDC's inability to break free "from Zanu (PF) culture" of using women, not rewarding them for their hardly sutured sacrifices. She bares her thighs to prove she still nurses weeping wounds that her male hierarchy cannot see.
Third Force
The article goes further. It celebrates women like Sekai Holland and Priscillah Misihairambwi who have been in the trenches for the rights of this important half of humanity which nature long decided to bear with a delightful breach. So far, all sounds okay. Until one realises Kwinjeh is threatening to resign, and is seeking new pedestals for Third Force unity, across factions. Watch this one. Yet another revealing indiscretion.
Tsvangirai is in the US, on a universities lecture circuit. In one interview he urges the world to help Zimbabwe with humanitarian assistance, and stops. No reference to sanctions in a country which pioneered illegal sanctions against Zimbabwe, and thus which deserves greater thanks than those criminals who lead Down Under whom he thanked so fulsomely.
Why? Equally, he is at pains to indicate he is not meeting State Department officials. That might be true; that might be false. But this is the new image he seeks to found and dress himself with.
Not quite the same as saying remove sanctions. But equally not quite the same as saying please cut electricity, fuel, etc, etc.
Telling England from within its belly
Fortuitously, some Michelle Gavin of the influential American Council on Foreign Relations warns the British and Western interests, including business interests, against the bigoted ABM — Anyone But Mugabe campaign. She makes the warning at Chatham, London, itself the hatchery for British policy against Zimbabwe in early 2000. Maybe this means nothing, but no harm in pointing out something. Yet, yet another goof.
Sekai Holland tells New Zealanders MDC will not hesitate to pull out of talks if Zanu (PF) does not stop harassing its members. She sees harassment from far-away New Zealand, the harassment we on the ground cannot see. Biti reacts with remarkable promptitude. He says MDC will not desert the talks, asserting instead his side will pursue talks to the logic end. Again unimportant? I don't know. Maybe insignificant farts from a distend belly.
Like-Minded Donor Group?
But maybe greater accent should be placed on the urbane stratum of the groomed high and might. I am referring to diplomatic circles. Again, recall my previous pieces. Even in that usually phlegmatic world, things have been suggesting a revealing hubbub. With the idea of a special envoy of the UN Secretary General for humanitarian affairs visiting Zimbabwe flatly rejected and thus abandoned; with the idea of an EU human rights envoy palsied and dead on conception and, with Mbeki having successfully fire-walled inter-party talks, this suave world of dignified, officially sanctioned espionage appear buttoned up, feeling smothered.
Led by the Swedish ambassador, the so-called donor nations, legitimised by the seemingly lost UNDP, have been seeking ways of boring to the nub of influence. It has not been easy, one attempt after another; one Trojan horse after another. From the old days of the seemingly all-country Rainbow initiative, through to Fishmongers, matters have mutated to what the tireless but misdirected Ray-lander terms Like-Minded Donor Group (LMDG)!
Amazing how grown-ups give us unsolicited humour in broad daylight. Happily the African, Asian and Arab groups have seen through this threadbare subterfuge, stoutly rebuffing any overtures.
That they are a group, no one contests. That these countries are like-minded, again no one doubts. That they are donors, we all surely know. But grouped against, or for what? But like-minded on what, or against what? Donors to whom, to what?
These are the questions to which we have abundant answers. It is just that they take us for infantile fools before whom carrots are dangled for obvious concessions. The Swedish guy writes complaining there is no information sharing on the ongoing talks. I am sure he wrote on behalf of the group. Why does he expect us to place them in that position of privilege? Merely in the hope of donations?
It is clear the guy is so far away from understanding this country. The grovelling for a farthing he sees in the opposition is quite far from the defining national psyche of this country. Let him get that. We all know that these so-called donor nations which we know as "sanction nations" have been hoping that Sadc would approach them for funding of Zimbabwe's recovery. Let them re-read the Dar communiqué to know what it enjoins Sadc to do.
Weeping Hussein
My learned classmate came to my office the other day for a chuckle. The Financial Gazette had just published a story which reminded both of us of the sitcom "Liar, Liar". Of course those who know it would recall "Liar Liar" is a prostitution of "Lawyer, Lawyer". Here was a lawyer incurably given to bald lies, including turning his villain clients into victims.
Back to the article. Its main focus was a concentrated attack on George Charamba, Secretary for Information and Publicity. We zeroed in on a supposed line of attack against Charamba, namely that he "sings hopelessly out of tune for his supper". We both wondered whose supper must he sing for in order not to be "hopelessly out of tune"? Surely he is an employee of a Zanu (PF) Government? Is he not employed to defend Government interests?
Who sings for his supper? An employee of a Zanu (PF) Government going about his lawful duties of defending that establishment on the one hand, or a lawyer who is not the Attorney General or an officer of the AG, volunteering his services to Zanu (PF) and its Government, on the other, as he claims? After all, surely the fact that he represented Zanu (PF) right up to the highest level is precisely why he faces the opposing action which he does.
Indeed precisely why his begging letter to the Party hierarchy only last week, suggests a personality acutely wishing to be held in good stead by the Party.
Indeed a personality so remarkably different from the bravado he projects through inane placements in once-a-week newspapers over a matter which shall be decided in the courts. Or does he fear Charamba's singing may turn out to be his weeping? Surely time will tell. Icho!
nathaniel.manheru@zimpapers.co.zw``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe: It's the land, stupid!``x1192365715,56492,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Allan S Mulenga
October 16, 2007
The Herald
In April 1980, Zambia's founding president Dr Kenneth Kaunda made a stunning proposal on strengthening the economic power of Zambia and Zimbabwe following the latter's attainment of political independence on April 18 of that year.
Dr Kaunda proposed a federation of Zambia and Zimbabwe. This was stunning because Dr Kaunda had, as a matter of fact, proposed to be the federal foreign minister with President Mugabe as president.
This was unprecedented in Africa and would by today have countered the west's attempted siege on Zimbabwe.
Zambia, Zimbabwe and Malawi were from 1953 to 1963 a federation with the capital at Salisbury, now Harare with Great Britain pulling the strings from Lancaster House. The Federation's resources were channelled to Salisbury and London to be enjoyed by the white minority. When Independent Zambia and Malawi broke the back of the federation, Ian Douglas Smith then Rhodesian prime minister made his Unilateral Declaration of Independence on November 11 1965, isolating his minority regime from Britain and to an extent the rest of the world, save for apartheid South Africa.
In revisiting Dr Kaunda's proposal during an interview with a foreign correspondent in Lusaka, one must look at the history and the current situation existing in the sub region vis-à-vis western powers, particularly the USA and Britain.
The cause of the current problems in Zimbabwe is that the Government of Zimbabwe under Zanu-PF and President Mugabe reclaimed, without compensation, land from the descendants of Rhodesian settlers who had, in the 18th century kicked out indigenous Zimbabweans from prime land and kept it for themselves and their descendants.
On the eve of Zimbabwe's independence, the stakeholders in the then Zimbabwe-Rhodesia including the liberation movements, Zanla and Zipra, held discussions mediated by Britain at Lancaster House agreeing, among other things, that Britain would compensate white commercial farmers once time came to empower indigenous Zimbabweans.
In November 1997, November 5 to be specific, Britain abrogated its promises and President Mugabe had to act to fulfil his pledge to give people the land so many had died for, and as soon as that happened the British government of Tony Blair joined by their American cousins ran amok accusing President Mugabe of human rights abuses and initiated sanctions that have been choking Zimbabwe.
Suffice to say the Zimbabwean opposition backed by some western governments and economic refugees in the Diaspora have created an untenable international situation for the survival of Zimbabwe.
There is need to revisit Dr Kaunda's foresight into today's political and economic situation.
When it comes to wisdom, even though I have an advanced western education, I am a Kaundaist at heart and will never apologise to anyone.
Dr Kaunda, at the inception of Zimbabwe's independence foresaw the loss of many qualified exiles that had become Zambian residents from journalists, nurses, security personnel to doctors and civil servants who left a big vacuum in Zambia as they trekked back to rebuild Zimbabwe. Had anyone then decided to take that challenging proposal, I doubt if at all the prevailing economic situation would have been as it is today. I might add too that a federated Zambia and Zimbabwe would have been a power block to reckon with because:
There would have been a continuity of a well-groomed civil service in both countries.
There would have been enough land to go between the native peoples and the descendants of white settlers. A lot of whites who lost their land in Zimbabwe have settled in the Zambian Mkushi farming block.
There would have been a very healthy and competitive political spirit in the federation, judging by the good parliamentary democracy existing in both countries today.
The points above would have negated the hostility exhibited by big brother Britain and United States. In numbers we have strength and that is what the federation would have brought and can still bring. Vast natural resources exist in Zambia and Zimbabwe that would satisfy all the citizens without recourse to big brothers.
The spirit of unity in Sadc and to a greater extent the African Union that has been shown by men like Presidents Levy Mwanawasa, and Thabo Mbeki to stand by Zimbabwe internationally should any international power try to divide us by refusing to invite President Mugabe to the forthcoming EU-Africa summit, goes a long way in showing how as one common people, Zambians and Zimbabweans can form a perfect union that takes them out of the prevailing economic malaise.
President Mugabe and Zanu-PF, now remain the more serious and mature party politically in an envisaged federal government and thus, the onus remains on them to spearhead the formation of the federation as proposed by Dr Kaunda years ago.
The benefits would be immense and would render big brother's tactics against Zimbabwe impotent. A new regional power in the mould of South Africa would emerge and there is no telling the growth of opportunity in all areas that would benefit the people and Africa in particular.
Let us take up the challenge and form the Federation of Zambia and Zimbabwe now, posterity will hold us in high esteem!
Dr Allan S. Mulenga, is a Zambian and holder of a PhD in theology and social counselling. He is a political commentator who works for a Zambian health journal as a business development manager.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZambia, Zimbabwe federation can defeat Western influence``x1192512663,59135,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xThe Herald
Dr John Sentamu The Archbishop of York England Re: Appeal to lift sanctions against Zimbabwe I am writing in my personal capacity, in response to your radio interview which came over the BBC last night (September 16 2007) in which you vehemently attacked, and condemned President Mugabe's rule and called him a racist and compared him with Idi Amin.
You heaped all the blame on President Mugabe, not so much on his Government, for inflation, for alleged mass starvation, for mass migration of people, for lack or scarcity of essential common commodities, for harassing the members of the opposition, for the abuse of human rights, and for lack of Press freedom, etc.
You went on to call upon the British and others to do something in order to restore democracy, the rule of law and prevent starvation, and suggested further sanctions as one of the ways to bring about change.
Your radio interview distressed me considerably because you jumped onto the bandwagon of groups of people and media who condemn President Mugabe for the appalling situation now obtaining in Zimbabwe without trying to understand what went wrong.
I, however, sympathise with you and I am equally concerned about the situation in Zimbabwe, but I cannot excuse you for siding with all and sundry who stage-managed the destruction of Zimbabwe.
Now here is the basic information:
Zimbabwe is a large country; it covers 390 757 square kilometres; it is about 1½ times the size of Uganda with a population of 12 million, or about half that of Uganda, 80 percent of whom are Shona, 14 percent are Ndebele, 1 percent are European and the rest are natives of different tribes (The World Almanac, 2006:850).
The current situation has its origin in the unequal ownership of land. At the time of independence in 1980, the Europeans, 1 percent of the population, owned 87 percent of the land, and the Africans, who made up 99 percent of the population, lived on 13 percent of the land.
In 1988, I was Uganda's High Commissioner to Zimbabwe, and while attending the annual agricultural show in Bulawayo, sitting next to the late Dr Herbert Ushewokunze and Dr Stan Mudenge, I asked them why there were no Africans taking part in the show. The two ministers relayed my question to Mr Robert Mugabe, who, by then, was Prime Minister.
I was seated about two or three places from Mr Mugabe. He went on to explain to me that the Africans could not participate in the exhibition because they had nothing to show, they owned no business, no farms and the majority survived by working as porters on the settlers' farms and on small land holdings on which they could not farm or practice animal husbandry.
Mr Mugabe told me that the land issue had been raised at Lancaster House when the independence terms were being discussed and it had been agreed that the question of land redistribution could be discussed after a period of 10 years after independence and Mr Mugabe assured me that he intended to raise the issue in 1990 and, sure and certain, that is what he did.
As soon as Mr Mugabe called for a serious discussion regarding the redistribution of land, the European settlers went wild! Mr Mugabe was rubbished, condemned and called a racist and despotic dictator who did not care for the welfare of his people. The more he called for something to be done so that the African people could get some piece of land which they could call their own, the louder the condemnation became.
It is regrettable that Archbishop Desmond Tutu, like you, would have preferred President Mugabe kept quiet!
The settlers owned large expanses of land, owned ranches and estates on which they grew maize, sugarcane, beans, rice, wheat. They raised cattle, pigs, sheep, and horses. They were the only ones who owned butcheries, banks, textiles, factories, bakeries, and beer factories. They owned petrol stations, beer bars, bookstores. They were the accountants, lawyers, doctors, and garage owners. They were the senior personnel in every government department as well as in every private business. The Africans were porters, gatekeepers, cooks, drivers, and worked in mines, and owned nothing.
Now, Sir, consider this: The more Robert Mugabe intensified his land acquisition efforts, the more bitter the settlers and their media became and began to dismantle their manufacturing plants, they stopped to grow any more food, remember Europeans grew maize and processed it, but did not eat it, it constituted the staple diet for nearly all Africans; and so by not growing this crop, shortage of maize meal was certain (Editor's note – actually the bulk of maize came from communal farmers as white farmers grew mainly cash and industrial crops).
Now, I would like to know from those who condemn Mr Mugabe, including Archbishop Tutu, to let us know what Mugabe could have done. Could he be advised to leave the land question; so that his 12 million Africans remained on 13 percent of their ancestral land in order to earn endless praises as a foresighted democratic, non-racial leader, an example for all African despots to emulate? Should he have resigned in order to make way for the MDC leadership and the Roman Catholic bishop for Bulawayo, Pius Ncube, to take over whom the settlers and the Press considered more efficient, capable and understanding than the Mugabe administration?
By calling for further sanctions, Dr Sentamu, you are demanding the intensification of the suffering of the African people and I would like to point out that for all I know, sanctions seem not to work and would like to know where, on the African continent or elsewhere, have they been able to bring about a more beneficial political system?
Finally, I would like to suggest that instead of calling for further sanctions (on Zimbabwe), you should:
♦ Advise the anti-Mugabe groups to understand the origin of problems in Zimbabwe.
♦ Advise the British and their friends to avoid blaming Mr Mugabe as the cause of the problem, but as an unfortunate leader who found himself in a situation to settle the problem he did not create.
♦ Instead of calling for sanctions, you should call upon the international community to come to the rescue of Zimbabwe by stepping in to arrange the redistribution of land by compensating the aggrieved settlers.
♦ You and Archbishop Tutu should lead a campaign for the international community to get essential supplies of maize meal, sugar and medicine and to send health works to assist in the rehabilitation effort. Mr Mugabe and his Government deserve our empathy and sympathy, but not condemnation.
♦ I seriously request you and Archbishop Tutu to appeal to the African Union leaders, it would be the most grotesque sin we all would be committing to approve, leave alone, or impose sanctions on Zimbabwe.
♦ The African Union should come to the rescue of Zimbabwe, sanctions must be avoided.
I feel a little bit unsettled that President Mugabe has had no outright support from his African colleagues with the exception of Mr Kenneth Kaunda and South African President Thabo Mbeki and a few others. These and others are being accused of being unable to remove Mr Mugabe from power, but the reason is that they understand a bit more of what led to the present situation, and that makes them less likely to condemn the Zimbabwe leadership.
I am, Sir,
Professor Mwene Mushanga
PO Box 46
Kabwohe, Bushenyi
Uganda.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xCondemn sanctions on Zimbabwe``x1193923852,61827,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Reason Wafawarova
November 06, 2007
SINCE the British government began attempting to strengthen the cause of its MDC political project in 1999, South Africa, more than any other country, has been saddled with the task of "doing something in Zimbabwe."
The Western coalition has repeatedly tried to draw South Africa into its corner for the fight against President Mugabe and the most frequently asked question in all Western propaganda talk shows has been: Why is President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa dragging his feet over Zimbabwe?
This writer has once again been challenged by a few readers to comment on the role of South Africa in solving the challenges facing Zimbabwe. The short answer to this task is that South Africa is just doing fine leading the ongoing dialogue between Zanu-PF and the MDC.
It is what South Africa has not done, is not doing and will not do about the situation in Zimbabwe that has made the West and their insidious lackeys in the MDC express the chagrin of a ditched spouse. South Africa has not condemned President Mugabe, has not placed an embargo on Zimbabwe, has not condemned the policies of Zanu-PF and its Government; and for Morgan Tsvangirai, has not cut off power and fuel lines to Zimbabwe. Doing all these things would make the western alliance's day, as it considers such decisive and swift, not "the feet dragging diplomacy" President Mbeki has been following.
What the ever-blundering Western politicians do not seem to realise is that by attempting to drag President Mbeki to their side, all they do is drag the South African masses into the debate. It is amazing that these western politicians are so short-sighted that they cannot foresee the dire consequences of a South African mass beginning, as they have already begun, to ask about their own place in the sun in post-apartheid South Africa.
President Mbeki is on record as saying, "There are those who would like to do certain things in Zimbabwe and they want us to do those things for them. That, we will not do. Zimbabwe is not a province of South Africa."
In the West, Tony Blair is the author and founder of the Western fight "for democracy" in Zimbabwe and he had to leave the ring with a bloodied nose in June this year and his chosen successor, Gordon Brown has already taken a humiliating battering in response to his uncalculated punches in the air. The most humiliating miss has of course been the attempt to bar President Mugabe from attending the EU-Africa Summit scheduled for Portugal in December, an attempt that has left Brown with the shame of a primary school kid.
The Sadc initiative on dialogue is far less than the least of what Blair would have wanted done on Zimbabwe and Brown is just as stranded as can be expected of an unelected Prime Minister, waking up with un-mandated power just thrust upon him; as William Shakespeare would put it.
In South Africa, the Western voice has been dutifully fronted by Tony Leon, the opposition Democratic Alliance face, that man who commands an amazing delusion that he can wedge "a fight for democracy" in Zimbabwe from within the walls of the South African parliament. Tony Leon's idea of democracy involve things like championing the ouster of Winnie Mandela from parliament and the demand for the harshest of sentences to deter crime in South Africa, while conspicuously being the tightest mouth zipper over racially motivated murders of black South Africans by post-apartheid whites.
In Zimbabwe, the Western voice has been dutifully represented by the white element in the MDC, the likes of David Coltart, Eddie Cross and Roy Bennet, while Morgan Tsvangirai has dutifully played the loud cry-baby in order to dupe outsiders that he is the unfortunate victim of a ruthless dictatorship. He has had willing allies from the likes of the disgraced bishop, Pius Ncube and Lovemore Madhuku.
President Mbeki – unlike the likes of Tony Leon, Tsvangirai and many of the Western charlatans, does appear to have a genuine concern and deep care for the welfare of the people of Zimbabwe. He has resolutely refused to subscribe to the ruthless philosophy that says making the people of Zimbabwe suffer should be construed as a way of helping them.
This is the philosophy that has made Tsvangirai look a stooge before the rest of Africa while his party now ranks among one of the saddest jokes in post independent Africa. The Zambians and the Ghanaians just showed the MDC exactly what they think about them and Thokozani Khupe would love to quickly forget her misadventures to these two countries this year.
What makes it easy for the United States to drag its allies into Iraq and to bomb the civilians of Iraq in the name of democracy is that the US in particular, and the` West in general, cares nothing about the welfare of people of colour such as Iraqis. On the other hand, President Mbeki cannot comprehend any form of democracy that requires the sanctioning and suffering of the people of Zimbabwe. The difference between President Mbeki and George W. Bush is that Mbeki would never ever bomb or deliberately starve the people of Zimbabwe for whatever cause while Bush will create whatever excuse he can in order to bomb any people whose resources his country's corporations covert.
President Mbeki can be showered with 10 BBC stories a night on alleged lack of democracy in Zimbabwe but that will never make him forget that there was no democracy in Zimbabwe before the coming of majority rule in 1980. He, like many of us do, knows that this democracy may be imperfect but it is the only democracy Zimbabwe has ever had and it came at a cost of tens of thousands of Zimbabwean lives as well as the lives of other Africans from Southern Africa.
This is the price the West wants to explain away as part of forgotten history but Africa will not easily let go of the prize of independence. Many of the MDC supporters will be the first to testify what it means to try to coerce Africa into giving away the liberation legacy. They have learnt that it is mission impossible as the current solidarity in smarting with Gordon Brown, whose empty threats over Lisbon have just made him a world-class clown; can easily reveal.
One can almost hear the loud comforting words from the MDC supporters, particularly those in the UK – "Oh don't worry Mr Brown, this dictator will one day die." Is this the last that a hopeless man can ever say?
President Mbeki and the generality of the ANC are quite clear that what is at stake in Zimbabwe is much more than democracy and the economic plight of the Zimbabweans. As for democracy, they are well aware that allegations of rigging elections levelled against Zanu-PF are not proven and for that they dismiss the subsequent sanctions by the EU, Commonwealth and the United States as illegal.
In fact the South African observer mission pronounced the 2002 presidential elections free and fair. On allegations of violence, the SA observer mission disagreed with the assertion that the MDC was a victim of one-sided, state-sponsored violence. The mission produced several reports that accused members of the opposition of intimidation of voters plus one damning report that implicated a youth gang from the opposition in attacks on a convoy of international observers in Kwekwe.
It is against this backdrop that the Western propaganda drive has had no takers among many in the ANC and certainly not with President Mbeki. He knows too well what kind of a party the MDC is and he knows just too well what the West mean when they claim to be after democracy in Zimbabwe. This clarity of mind has led President Mbeki to travel the road that has culminated in the current Sadc initiative – an initiative quite stunning to the West, but vitally essential and acceptable to the African community in general and to all progressive Zimbabweans in particular.
Tsvangirai has in the past expressed anger at President Mbeki, clearly on behalf of his disgruntled Western masters. Him and his MDC have variously labelled President Mbeki a dishonest broker, a liar, weak in leadership and failing "to restore democracy" in Zimbabwe.
Those who are accusing President Mbeki of relishing the status quo in Zimbabwe "for purposes of benefiting from the crisis" are clearly taking a mindless approach to his position.
It is naïve if not plain stupid to assume that a shrinking economy next door can be preferable to a thriving one, just because economic sense would tell that an economically strong neighbour is a better trading partner than a weaker one. South Africa is Zimbabwe's biggest trading partner in Africa and vice versa and it benefits neither country if one of the economies went on the decline.
If Zimbabwe is losing skilled manpower it is all because of the challenges brought about by the illegal sanctions imposed by the Western alliance and it has nothing to do with South Africa "dragging its feet on Zimbabwe" or enjoying poaching the skills of Zimbabweans. In fact if the truth were to be told, South Africa would have just worsened the situation if they had chosen to play the Western bidding on Zimbabwe.
One can imagine the consequences if South Africa had cut off fuel and power supplies as requested by Tsvangirai. The suffering of the ordinary person would worsen and so would be the brain drain. If indeed South Africa can be better off with such a scenario then one would wonder why they just did not join the West in sanctioning Zimbabwe – all for purposes of "benefiting more from the crisis".
The argument that President Mbeki enjoys the crisis in Zimbabwe is just ludicrous and the fact that it is raised from the MDC quarters is not at all surprising. This is the same MDC that says the only valid election results are those where its own candidates win. It is the same MDC that keeps telling the electorate that it will not participate in elections and then wonder why its supporters do not appear on the voters' role.
They do not register because their party keeps saying they wont be participating and the MDC cannot figure this out, opting to adopt the worn out claim that says it's all to do with Tobaiwa Mudede's supernatural rigging ways.
Well, it is the same MDC that thinks sanctions can cause an uprising and a change of government, isn't it?
Now that President Mbeki has taught pro-Tsvangirai MDC secretary general Tendayi Biti and pro-Arthur Mutambara faction secretary general Professor Welshman Ncube how to be Africans, one hopes the MDC will use the Mbeki-led initiative to mutate into an acceptable and responsible political party.
Those who are crying for a combative Western-driven South Africa must come home to themselves and understand that Africa is a continent for black people and the time for puppet politics long ended with the likes of Moise Tshombe, Idi Amin and Mobutu Sese Seko.
It is time we Zimbabweans together with our South African brothers, indeed with the rest of Africa, show these Westerners that Africa can run its own affairs without their supervision. After all they are only our former oppressors and colonisers and we really have nothing to admire from them. Africa was liberated from Western domination and the idea was never that we liberate ourselves from the West in order to allow ourselves to be ruled by the West.
Let the British tell Zimbabweans what we got for our forgiveness. What was our reward for not prosecuting Ian Smith for Chimoio and Nyadzonia? What did we get for allowing white farmers continuity on the lands stolen from our forefathers? What did we get for our policy of reconciliation at independence?
Equally, what was Nelson Mandela's reward for not prosecuting the butchers of Soweto? What did he get for allowing multinational corporations free reign in his country? What did the blacks of South Africa get for their forgiveness?
Surely suspicious Nobel Peace Prizes, knighthoods and statues among ruthless slave traders and colonisers cannot count for Africa's reward for all the goodwill we have shown in dealing with our former oppressors.
South Africa has the largest concentration of whites in Africa and the reconciliation experiment has not yielded any meaningful success for the ordinary black person and we do not want South Africa to turn out to be a lost opportunity for those currently enjoying its wealth at the expense of others. They should ask Claire Short and those who thought Zimbabwe's land issue could be explained away by simply refusing to wear the black armband of history.
This writer continues to wish well those involved in the Mbeki-led dialogue and we hope the long promised African solution has now dawned.
Together we will overcome.
Reason Wafawarova is a political writer and can be contacted on wafawarova@yahoo.co.uk``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xSouth Africa will not betray Zimbabwe``x1194348626,53208,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Navaya ole Ndaskoi
Arusha, Tanzania
November 4, 2007
DR. DAVID Livingstone, that icon of capitalism, Christianity and British Empire, pillaged his way to Africa without any visa. He contributed to the ordeal 'Scramble for Africa.' He had the stomach to name the falls at River Zambezi after the English Queen, Victoria. In his Missionary travels and researches in South Africa published in 1857 he wrote a weird story of 'savages [stupid!] capering around boiling pots of human flesh.'
Exactly 150 years down the time road, Philip Parham, British High Commissioner to Tanzania, writes as if to excel the 19th Century Bible caveman. "If we are to help the people of Zimbabwe, we must diagnose their country's problems accurately and honestly," he starts off in Business Times of September 21, 2007 page 11.
Surely, when I saw the putrid piece I did not believe my eyes. The very High Commissioner goes on, "The UK has provided more that [sic!] # [sic!] 500m in bilateral support for development in Zimbabwe since independence." What?
If he cannot type £ or even ask the PR Officer or a Secretary at the High Commission to help him type can this man really lecture us on Zimbabwe? And this is the best man the Browns of this world sent to represent Brits in Tanzania and, by extension, Zimbabwe!
"The UK itself contributed #3 million of this had been spent by 1988. The Zimbabwean government did not use the remaining #3 million," Philip press on. Dear reader, did you understand what he said? Well, I do not know about you just now, but I am doing my best to calm down! We are dealing with a confused High Commissioner here.
Since not even the Zimbabwean High Commission in Dar es Salaam responded, perhaps Philip must have been thinking Christmas has come his way two months earlier. Poor Philip Parham. He must blame his parents. If he had been born in 1813 and died in 1873 like David Livingstone, he would have received a knighthood. Arise Sir Philip.
This is 2007! Neither Philip nor the West can help Zimbabwe anything with this unbelievable display of arrogance and paternalism. He cannot even lecture on democracy.
There is no democracy in Britain, the very country Philip represents. Undemocratic Kings and Queens of the dark ages still head the British State in the twenty first century. And as if that is not undemocratic enough, unelected Prime Ministers heads the British Government! You simply need to be lucky as a leader of the majority party to become British Prime Minister. Brits have no right to directly vote for their Prime Minister.
Two, Zimbabweans can survive without help from the Parhams. Millions of years before the poverty driven Rhodesians shot their way into Zimbabwe, Africans were living. If the "wider donor community" would do Zimbabweans a favor and drop their percentage, Zimbabwe would be fine. Absolutely fine! This should not be hard to comprehend.
William Blum, author of Rogue State, will help me take you to the UN during the days when Margaret Thatcher, nicknamed 'Iron Lady' by the Soviet Defense Ministry's newspaper (the Red Star), became Prime Minister. We know that Africans in South Africa, Namibia, Zambia and Zimbabwe survive without Brits and the West generally.
Do you want evidence? Blum is your tour guide to the corridors of the United Nations. He recalls, "January 24 1979, Resolution 33/183M. To end all military and nuclear collaboration with apartheid South Africa. Voting: 114 to 3 (US, France and UK voted against). December 12, 1979: Resolution 34/93D. Strengthening arms embargo against apartheid South Africa. Voting: 132 to 3 (US, France and UK voted against)."
Blum will tell you also that on December 12, 1979 Resolution 34/931 was put on the table. Assistance to the oppressed people like Nelson Mandela and others of South Africa and their liberation movement. Voting 134 to 3 (US, France and UK voted against).
On December 11, 1980 Resolution 35/119. Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples [Zimbabwe got independence in 1980]. Voting: 134 to 3 (US, France and UK voted against).
The UN once again wanted to assist South Africans. Britain and its allies refused, according to Blum. On December 16, 1980 Resolution 25/206J. Assistance to the oppressed people of South Africa and their liberation movement. Voting 137 to 3 (US, France and UK voted against). December 5, 1984, Resolution 34/42. Condemns support of South Africa in its Namibian and other policies. Voting: 121 to 2 (US and UK voted against). As the voting went on at the UN, the 'pink' minority was killing Africans.
Honestly, when I read the piece, I got the impression that Philip was a picnic school boy before Zimbabwean independence in 1980, Namibian independence in 1990 and the defeat of apartheid in South Africa in 1994. Just imagine the UK and the West speaking for Zimbabweans now. It is like an axe-murderer who suddenly gets the compassion of St. Francis and the mercy of Mother Teresa and become an arrowhead of the firestorm set 'to help the people of Zimbabwe.' It simply shows the capacity for hypocrisy.
Zimbabweans can 'diagnose their country's problems accurately.' They fairly know their central problem, landlessness. That is why they had to fight to iron out the 'pink' minority Government headed by Dictator Ian Smith, supported and armed to the teeth by the UK, the US and the West. Zimbabweans refused to be tenants in their country.
They do not sit idle and wait for the Parhams, the Bushes, the Blairs and all the Browns of this world to preach human rights and democracy to them. When the predatory thieves from the United Kingdom invaded Zimbabwe in the 1890s and grabbed the best land, the Chauke, the Mahenye, the Chitsa, the Shona, the Ndebele, the Tsvovani and other Zimbabweans did not wait for Philip Parham to lecture them on land as a human right.
They fought manly against this criminal occupation. The British cannibals won only because of the superior gun. The unfortunate leaders of the Zimbabwean forces of 1890s were hanged from treetops, just like the unarmed old man, Saddam Hussein of Iraq in 2006. The settlers of British ancestry hanged Zimbabweans for resisting the seizure of their land. That was how the British took land and 'undermined the rule of law.'
In Roman-Dutch Law, from which English Law springs, if you inherit a stolen property you belong to the gallows! I mean you are also a thief. Rhodesians of the 1890s launched an armed robbery of land in Zimbabwe and passed it down to the current 'pink' settler generation. Zimbabweans know this. They do not need the Human Rights Watches, the Red Crosses, the BBCs, the VOAs, the CNNs, the all the Economists for this.
According to Philip Parham, 'The Lancaster House agreement contained no financial commitment on land reform.' It contained pal, even if that was not written down! Kelebert Nkomani, Zimbabwe High Commissioner to Kenya, agues: 'The UK's commitment to funding the transfer of land from the minority white commercial farmers to landless black majority was part and parcel of the Lancaster House agreement.'
Philip is not finished. He blames some commentators, who cite a letter written by Clair Short, then UK Secretary of State for International Development to the Zimbabwean Government on November 5, 2005. He argued, 'With selective quotes, they claim incorrectly that Clair Short was ruling out further UK assistance for land reform.'
For readers to see and judge that poisonous letter for themselves, I challenge the British High Commission to publish the letter in full. Is space a problem? Her Majesty Kingdom can at least afford a page after centuries of plundering. That is for sure.
In the meantime, New African, the best selling pan-African magazine, which I am proud to contribute articles to, has been publishing from time to time that rancid letter. Readers can trace it on page 52 of the February 2003 issue. The short sighted Ms Short wrote myopically, 'I should make it clear that we do not accept that Britain has 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.'
If that is not 'ruling out further UK assistance for land reform' in Zimbabwe, I am sorry Philip. I cannot help you! David Hasluck, a man who does not count Robert Mugabe among his friends, was director of Zimbabwe's 'pink' Commercial Farmers Union for 18 long years. He might help. He knows fairly that that letter ignited the current crisis.
In an interview with Baffour Ankomah, New African editor, who have immeasurably influenced my world view, Hasluck said that 'Clair Short knows that there was a land issue at Lancaster House, how can she write a letter like that and expect to go forward?'
Come on Philip Parham. Does Zimbabweans really need your crocodile tears?``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe: Dr Livingstone, I presume?``x1194467756,24847,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xNovember 29, 2007
The Herald
EDITOR — Reports that former British prime minister Tony Blair contemplated invading Zimbabwe and that the plan is still on the table were shocking.
Why would Britain, of all countries, want to attack Zimbabwe, its former colony?
Zimbabwe is ready to defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity.
What is wrong with the British? So by dispossessing a mere 4 000 white farmers, who owned and controlled vast swathes of our land and distributing it to our people is enough justification to invade Zimbabwe?
Do Blair and Gordon Brown know who owns Zimbabwe? Who are the indigenous people of Zimbabwe?
Are they of British blood?
Zimbabwe cannot be a present-day Australia where the indigenous Aborigines were dispossessed of their land by British criminals. Today, the Aborigines suffer under the yoke of oppression and racism by these British criminals. The same situation obtains in New Zealand where the Maoris were dispossessed of their motherland by the same criminals.
Today, not many speak about these injustices. No one today speaks about helping these oppressed people, to turn the tables to repossess their land. The United Nations is mum. The undemocratic Security Council, which should be in the forefront of speaking against these injustices, has the oppressors among its permanent members.
The Anglo-Saxons can veto any discussion of these injustices.
So Blair and Brown, invading Zimbabwe is a non-starter. If the British feel the interests of their kith and kin are under threat, why don't they airlift their nationals from our country? What are they doing in Zimbabwe if they can't stand the heat? I repeat: Zimbabwe is prepared for any invasion. Where would Britain launch that attack from? Which African country in Southern Africa or far afield would allow its territory to be used as a launch pad by imperialists to attack its brothers and sisters? What would be the reaction of the African Union? Would Africa stand aloof while one of its own is under attack from a white imperialist?
Attempting to attack Zimbabwe would be the biggest mistake the British can ever make? Would Britain be able to extinguish the conflagration when it ignites?
Britain should ask its ally, the United States, what happened in 1992 when they attempted to "restore hope" in Somalia.
Zimbabwe did not take or ask for an inch of Britain to deserve an invasion. We did not even dare attack the Malvinas Islands. We just took our land; we did not wrong anyone.
Zimbabwe cannot be bullied by threats of an invasion; it can never by cowed by owls pretending to have horns. The land reform programme is irreversible, and it will benefit generations to come. The sanctions the European Union imposed will not take our eyes off the ball. We are prevailing and victory is in sight. The British are fearful now that since the land issue has succeeded in Zimbabwe, then South Africa, Namibia and other African countries are going to follow suit and their interests would be in tatters. So the best way, they think, is to stop Zimbabwe in its tracks to dissuade any would-be followers.
Brown, get this: Zimbabwe will never be a colony again.
Campion Mereki.
Highfield``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xInvading Zimbabwe a non-starter``x1196323741,15049,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Itai Musengeyi
November 29, 2007
The Herald
SENEGALESE President Abdoulaye Wade yesterday proposed a committee of five African leaders to mediate over strained relations between Zimbabwe and Britain.
Speaking to journalists at State House in Harare after holding talks with President Mugabe, Mr Wade said one of the five leaders should be South African President Thabo Mbeki.
Mr Mbeki is already brokering talks between Government and the opposition MDC after being mandated by Sadc in March this year.
Significant progress has been made in the talks and President Mbeki was in Harare last week to brief President Mugabe and MDC faction leaders Professor Arthur Mutambara and Mr Morgan Tsvangirai on how the dialogue was progressing.
"I come to Zimbabwe to meet my brother (President) Mugabe because I think that in Africa we should help each other. You know that this country has some problems with the British and I think all African countries should help Zimbabwe.
"I think the problem should be an African problem and involve all African countries," said Mr Wade.
He, however, said President Mbeki had done a commendable job in trying to resolve the Zimbabwean issue but should not be left to shoulder the responsibility alone.
The Senegalese leader said he was glad Zanu-PF and the MDC were engaged in dialogue and had co-sponsored Constitutional Amendment Number 18 in Parliament in preparation for next year's elections.
"I am happy to know that they (Zanu-PF and MDC) are discussing. I am very happy, I can only encourage them," said Mr Wade, adding that he wished to meet the MDC.
Mr Wade stressed that the visit was his own initiative, but indicated that he had been in touch with the British ambassador to Senegal over the differences between London and Harare and that he would be phoning Whitehall authorities either "today or tomorrow" about his visit to Zimbabwe.
"Let me say that I was not sent by anybody (or) any country. I am just an African friend. We wish that the African Union sets up a committee of five among which (President) Mbeki should be involved in the mediation between Britain and Zimbabwe. We Africans must be the facilitators. My concern is to involve African states without negating the goodwill done so far."
Mr Wade said the visit gave him an opportunity to understand the situation in Zimbabwe.
He said some describe the state of affairs as catastrophic but he observed that the situation was just like in any other African country with similar problems such as power cuts, which Senegal also experiences.
Also responding to questions from journalists, President Mugabe said Mr Wade's initiative was welcome but that it was unfortunate the visit was short because Government would have facilitated for him to meet the different groups of Zimbabwean society and visit places to understand the country.
"He is an African brother. It's a family issue, he is very welcome. I would have rather received him over a longer stay so that we could show him a bit of the country," said Cde Mugabe.
He said Mr Wade wanted to be informed about Zimbabwe and he had done that during their talks, which lasted about two hours.
Cde Mugabe said he chronicled Zimbabwe's history, part of which Mr Wade already knew.
"Where we differ with the British, I told him. We don't fear talking to the British, but it is the other side that fears talking to us. We don't know how they want to resolve the problem if there is no dialogue. With (former British prime minister) Margaret Thatcher, ideologically we were never one, but we talked," said President Mugabe.
Mr Wade and his delegation flew in yesterday morning for a two-day official visit and were met at Harare International Airport by President Mugabe, ministers, diplomats, service chiefs and senior Government officials.
Last night President Mugabe hosted a dinner for Mr Wade at the Rainbow Towers.
Today the Senegalese leader is expected to visit the National Heroes Acre before he returns home.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe: President in talks with Wade``x1196324302,63204,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Caesar Zvayi
November 30, 2007
The Herald
ON Sunday January 27 1980, Cde Robert Gabriel Mugabe made a triumphant return to Zimbabwe, five years after he crossed into Mozambique on April 4 1975 having spent 11 years in the Rhodesian regime's prisons.
Cde Mugabe and other cadres were welcomed by a crowd estimated at 1,6 million by the Zanu-PF information and publicity department, 200 000 by the BBC, 150 000 by the Rhodesian police, and 1 million – with a safety margin of 25 percent – by people who said they arrived at the figure by enlarging aerial photographs and calculating crowd density.
Whatever the final figure, a crowd never before seen in the history of this country welcomed Cde Mugabe at Zimbabwe Grounds. It was by far the largest crowd to welcome any of the nationalist leaders who were to contest the general election set for March 1980. Even Abel Muzorewa's so-called Huruyadzo rally, where people were bribed with beer and food over three days to attend, paled in comparison to the multitudes that welcomed Gushungo on that day.
Zimbabwe Grounds was filled to capacity, and the man who had led the onslaught against the Smith regime, the man the people had come to see did not disappoint. His message was powerful; Zimbabwe had arrived and never again was it to go back into settler hands, directly or by proxy.
Cde Mugabe, whose address was predominantly in the vernacular, laid the framework for the policy of reconciliation he was to enunciate after the elections as he appealed to white Rhodesians, in their native English, to stay and help build a Zimbabwe grounded on national unity.
He spoke passionately about how hunger for land was the "deepest of all grievances among our people" saying the new Government would not seize land from anyone who had use for it but would certainly acquire land that was lying unused while indigenous black people remained landless.
"Farmers who are able to be productive and prove useful to society will find us co-operative," BBC quoted him as saying.
The central themes of his message on that day are the same motifs that have run through his speeches over the years. Themes we have heard time and again, themes immortalised in the historic policy of reconciliation, themes immortalised in his constant refrain, "Zimbabwe will never be a colony again", themes enshrined in his insistence that Zimbabweans have a right to all their resources down to the ants and reptiles, themes critical of western subversion.
On that day, Cde Mugabe blasted British duplicity as the government of Margaret Thatcher was amenable to the lackeys that had joined Smith in the Internal Settlement, and averse to the real nationalists who had slogged it out in bases in Mozambique and Zambia, and the Zimbabwean countryside to bring the Rhodesian regime to its false knees, ko vainyepaka kuti havana mabvi (they claimed they had no knees).
Cde Mugabe castigated Britain, accusing British governor Lord Soames of manipulating the political situation against Zanu-PF.
He warned: "Take note therefore that as we move into assembly points, we have not done so as cowards, it is not an act of surrender but mere compliance with an agreement. And equally take note that as we have moved into assembly points, we can move out of those assembly points."
The turnout at Zimbabwe Grounds, which even the British grudgingly acknowledged was the largest for any of the leaders who were to contest the election in March, gave the world a foretaste of what was to come at election time as Cde Mugabe and Zanu-PF swept to power on a landslide that left all other competitors deflated.
Despite the machinations of the British, people's power prevailed, and the people chose the leaders they wanted. The British proxy Muzorewa, despite the binges his handlers bankrolled at Zimbabwe Grounds, and the three helicopters they had availed for his campaign, managed a paltry three seats, one for each helicopter.
Today, 27 years after that historic gathering at Zimbabwe Grounds, the men and women Cde Mugabe led in and from Mozambique, the people who were at the frontline, have organised the mother of all marches; one million men and women are to convene at Zimbabwe Grounds today to express solidarity with their leader whom they anointed during the liberation struggle, and again before the whole world in March 1980, and every five years thereafter.
Even those who were not in the trenches but who supported the struggle in various ways will also be there along with those born-free because of the sacrifices of the living and fallen heroes of this great nation.
Patriotic Zimbabweans have flocked to Harare from all 10 provinces by bus, train, private transport and some on foot to be at Zimbabwe Grounds, the same way they gathered 27 years ago. Today's march is a culmination of the huge solidarity marches held in all 10 provinces.
Today's march and gathering is like a throwback to January 1980 because the setting and circumstances are the same. The British are at it again, funding a proxy opposition in an attempt to torpedo the people's revolution.
Zimbabwe is four months away from a historic harmonised election, again set for March, and the contestants are the same, the people versus the British proxies. And just like in 1980, the British are up to their usual games, trying to manipulate the political situation in Zimbabwe for self-aggrandisement.
Today's march is not just a procession; it is a powerful statement about the success of the peoples' revolution. Today is not just about expressing solidarity with President Mugabe; it is about reaffirming commitment to the ideals of the struggle, all of which he embodies in their entirety.
This march is not just about expressing confidence in President Mugabe's candidature for March 2008; it is about making a statement about those elections. Today is not about silencing errant voices within Zanu-PF, it is about defending the values of the revolution in which over 50 000 precious lives were lost at the hands of a racist settler regime, while tens of thousands of survivors were needlessly maimed by the uncouth Rhodesian army.
Today's march is not a partisan procession by the Zimbabwe National War Veterans' Association, it is a national statement, and is for everyone who believes in the Zimbabwean dream, that of a progressive, self-determining country.
Just like the historic welcome rally at Zimbabwe Grounds 27 years ago that provided a foretaste of what the country's first democratic election was to bring, today's gathering is an election before the election. It gives a foretaste of what is to come in March next year, when a united Zanu-PF takes on a splintered MDC torn by factions and fractions.
The timing of the march is providential, coming as it does just a week before the EU-Africa Summit convenes in Lisbon, Portugal; a gathering that British prime minister Gordon Brown will boycott claiming that President Mugabe and Zanu-PF are "repressing a popular opposition party", the MDC.
This march should send a clear message to all who have been swayed by British propaganda, it should send the message that the votes tallied during every election are not ghost votes but are cast by Zimbabweans determined to defend the gains of the revolution.
This is not to say the British and Americans do not know this, for they only make such claims to justify their subversive activities. Even established journalists like the Briton-turned-Zimbabwean, Peta Thorncroft now openly acknowledge that Zanu-PF has massive support.
In a recent interview with one Violet Gonda of the pirate radio station SW Radio Africa on November 13, Thorncroft had this to say about Zanu-PF in response to a question on whether the MDC was the party people thought it was:
"I wonder if we ever knew what it (the MDC) was. We just accepted it, didn't we? I wasn't there in 2000, I went to one of its rallies in 2000 and I came in July 2001 and I think I just accepted that the MDC had been cheated at the elections and that this was a party that had the majority support in the country and it was only long afterwards that I discovered that in fact of course Zanu-PF had enormous support in certain rural parts of the country.
"I first saw that demonstrated to me in the March elections of 2005, I was actually astonished by that and it is in my copy. I then saw it again demonstrated in the Budiriro by-election when 4 000 people continued to vote for Zanu-PF and it was quite a peaceful by election.
"They were just as short of fuel, water and electricity as all the other people in Budiriro. And I think that I realised that I hadn't taken into consideration that Zanu-PF was an old established party, which despite its appalling lack of democracy and its top-down style of doing business – because of the liberation struggle and the propaganda it's been able to feed everyone – it does genuinely have support.
"And that the MDC as the farm workers disappeared and as the farmers disappeared a great chunk of its support went with it. I think that was important and I think that we didn't see it and we didn't sort of realise it at the time, I didn't realise it at the time . . . "
Thorncroft then gave a precise analysis of why the MDC doesn't have the support Zanu-PF has, from its open linkage to the west, how its leaders campaign in western capitals and not among Zimbabweans, how its pro-west stance had alienated it from the ordinary Zimbabwean in particular, and African in general.
In short she accounted for why all the MDC's attempts at mass actions and mass stayaways have flopped over the years, and by extension why Zanu-PF has continued to rout the opposition at the polls.
Take this dear reader, coming straight from Thorncroft's British mouth: "When the MDC started in 2000, what a pity that they were addressing people in Sandton mostly white people in Sandton north of Johannesburg instead of being in Dar es Salaam or Ghana or Abuja. They failed to make contact with Africa for so long, they were in London, we've just seen it again, Morgan Tsvangirai's just been in America.
"Why isn't he in Cairo? Maybe he needs financial support and he can't get it outside of America or the UK and the same would go for Mutambara. They have not done enough in Africa . . . "
And this: "Where are they (MDC) in Mashonaland West, Central – the three Mashonaland provinces? And I go on and on about this and I was there just a few weeks ago, driving there with a very good cover and nobody knew I was a journalist and I was able to speak to people and they were very open and chatty with me. I mean the MDC just hasn't tried to go into most of those places. And will they ever or are they going to just remain an urban party you know an urban party in Harare, some in Manicaland . . . "
There you have it, dear reader, straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak. The MDC has no connection with Zimbabwe in particular or Africa in general, but is highly connected to the white west. Any wonder their attempted mass actions have always been flops? Any wonder they always lose elections? As for Zanu-PF, the opposite is true, this is a Zimbabwean and African revolutionary party, which is why today's march should reiterate that message for the whole world to see and hear.
The revolution is alive, very much alive.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe: More than just a million march``x1196452026,78304,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xFrom Itai Musengeyi in LISBON, Portuga
December 10, 2007
The Herald
President Mugabe yesterday castigated Germany, Sweden, the Netherlands and Denmark as the "gang of four" for speaking on behalf of Britain while Europe's division over Zimbabwe was once again exposed at the EU-Africa Summit.
African leaders stood by Zimbabwe saying Europe was uninformed on the situation in the country.
In his response to the four countries' criticism of Zimbabwe, Cde Mugabe described them as "the gang of four which did not speak their own minds, but the mind of (British Prime Minister Gordon) Brown".
German Chancellor Angela Merkel led the attack on Zimbabwe when the summit opened on Saturday.
Reliable sources said Ms Merkel was given the burden to speak on behalf of the absent Mr Brown, who stayed away in protest against Cde Mugabe's presence.
She even requested South African President Thabo Mbeki to inform President Mugabe that she "shall be attacking Zimbabwe because her constituency" demands that, sources said.
Ms Merkel was also said to have asked Mr Mbeki to request President Mugabe not to be "hard-hitting" in his response to her comments.
But President Mugabe told the summit that the four were bidding for Britain although they did not have any problem with Zimbabwe.
Zimbabwe also took the position that it also had a constituency which demands that it responds accordingly, sources said.
Europe's division over the Zimbabwe issue once again came to the fore at the summit as those countries in northern Europe attacked Zimbabwe while Italy, Spain, France, Greece, Belgium, Austria, Romania and Finland did not mention Zimbabwe.
Finland was the only Nordic country that refrained from attacking Zimbabwe.
This confirmed northern Europe as the hardliners while the southerners have a different approach on Zimbabwe.
Since the start of the bilateral dispute between Zimbabwe and Britain over the land issue, northern Europe has taken sides with Britain while southern Europe has kept an open mind.
President Mbeki, who is mediating in talks between Zanu-PF and the opposition MDC, requested to be given the floor when he finished his prepared speech to respond to Ms Merkel's utterances.
He told her that "I am the mediator on Zimbabwe" and as such was well informed on the situation that was being discussed.
Mr Mbeki said the death of the son of Cde Patrick Chinamasa, one of the Zanu-PF negotiators, had delayed the signing of an agreement between the two parties.
In his intervention on the debate on peace and security, President Mugabe said Africa had already taken necessary steps to put up the required infrastructure.
"We know what the challenges are, what the strategies should be, and what the solutions should involve. Help in marshalling resources is what we need. Meetings such as this should do less of telling Africa what it already knows, and more of addressing this question of resources," Cde Mugabe said.
He disagreed with suggestions that the second EU-Africa Summit could not be held because of Zimbabwe.
"Many have regretted the failure to host this meeting on time, and some from the EU side have said the issue was Zimbabwe. I beg to differ. The problem was arrogance from the EU side.
"There were no preconditions from Zimbabwe, or Africa, for the holding of this meeting. Yet those who today talk rhetorically of equality, partnership and mutual respect would impose their will on Africa so very blatantly. And all that was done on trumped-up charges against Zimbabwe. Unbiased observers have commented very favourably on the state of democracy, respect for human rights, and rule of law in Zimbabwe.
"Why then the demonisation from Europe? Because Zimbabwe dared to repossess its land, which had been stolen by the colonialists at the point of the gun. Our fight is therefore with the former colonial power in Zimbabwe, the United Kingdom. Zimbabwe certainly has no quarrel with the four European countries that made hostile interventions against Zimbabwe yesterday (Saturday).
"The fiction they parade is either the result of British propaganda or perhaps a misguided sense of racial solidarity with the white farmers in my country," said Cde Mugabe.
Senegalese President Abdoulaye Wade, who was in Zimbabwe two weeks ago, said Ms Merkel was speaking from an uninformed position.
He said Africa had spoken with one voice and got Zimbabwe to attend the summit but the Europeans had failed to convince Britain to come to the meeting.
African leaders refused to be lectured on human rights, governance, trade and peace issues by their European counterparts and flatly rejected being hurried into signing economic partnership agreements.
"I don't think we are here to receive lectures from you (European leaders). We are here as friends seeking to work together," said Libyan leader Colonel Muammar Gaddafi.
He added: "Colonialism is intrinsically negative and Africa still suffers from it."
President Wade criticised European leaders for trying to pressure African countries into signing new trade deals saying China's approach was winning more friends.
"Today it is very clear that Europe is close to losing the battle of competition in Africa," he said.
AU commission president Mr Alpha Konare warned Europe to "avoid playing certain African regions off against each other".
"It's important we avoid patterns of thinking that belong to a different era. No one will make us believe we don't have the right to protect our economic fabric," he said.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe: President raps 'gang of four'``x1197287075,93665,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xDaily Trust (Abuja)
COLUMN
December 16, 2007
FOR seven years now, the British government has sustained a campaign against President Mugabe of Zimbabwe.
It describes his country as corrupt and non-democratic. It considers him a brutal dictator who must be voted out of power. In its estimation, he is too old; Zimbabweans deserve a democratic government, human rights, regular meals and a stable currency.
This is also the mindset of the British media on the matter. You cannot surpass the BBC or the Economist in this propaganda.
These foot soldiers of neo-imperial Britain have trekked miles to sell their campaign of calumny against (Cde) Mugabe. For example, the Economist of March 15, 2007 raised this alarm for the umpteenth time: "Once the bread-basket of southern Africa and one of the continent's wealthiest countries, Zimbabwe is now a basket-case and suffers a severe shortage of food.
"It is also the world's fastest-shrinking peacetime economy, with unemployment now standing at 80 percent. Its inflation rate is the world's highest: currently 1 730 percent, although the IMF thinks that figure could rise to over 4 000 percent by year's end.
"From infant mortality to life below the poverty line, the country's unhappiest trendlines run remorselessly upwards. To stifle dissent and quash opposition, Zimbabwe has been turned into a police state where elections are routinely rigged."
Two weeks later, on the 29 March, the tireless Economist said: "Zimbabwe's despotic leader, a man of puzzlingly different identities, is a past master at holding on." Certainly, when it comes to their interest, even the "civilised" will abandon etiquettes and embrace insults.
In its war against (Cde) Mugabe, Britain has succeeded in conscripting other European states.
Jose Barroso, the European Commission President, was reported by the BBC as telling representatives of over 80 EU and African countries that "Africa and Europe should be able to discuss human rights and governance in a true spirit of partnership... Frankly, we hope that those who fought for independence and freedom in their countries now can also accept this freedom for their own citizens."
Birds of the same feather, you will say. The occasion was a joint meeting to reinvent African dependence on Europe, now that China is stealing the show.
Yes. Let us speak frankly, Mr Barroso. What good has Europe in its suitcase that it did not offer for over 200 years now? Africans know the answer very well: nothing, but further exploitation.
And this is the crux of the matter when it comes to Zimbabwe. It is not Zimbabwe. It is not (Cde) Mugabe either. It is a long standing phenomenon of exploitation. Simple.
(Cde) Mugabe has understood this long ago. With seven degrees, he is not unlettered even by British standards.
He has read the history of his country since when Cecil Rhodes stepped his foot on his land.
Even the BBC could not hide telling us the fraud and pittance at which the British miner acquired the land from its ruler, Lobengula.
In a recent report, it said Cecil "obtained exclusive mining rights from the Ndebele king, Lobengula, in return for £100 a month, 1 000 rifles, 10,000 rounds of ammunition, and a riverboat."
Rhodes later claimed, in a typical colonial manner, that the deal included land. More settlers poured in the 1890s.
The Crown could not be left behind. It joined the loot by appropriating the entire land of Southern Rhodesia in 1918.
So (Cde) Mugabe was right when he demanded that land compensation due to white farmers should be paid by the British government. It caused the problem in the first instance, he rightly insists. It granted the settlers self government in 1923.
This was followed by a wild grab following the Land Apportionment Act of 1930, with Africans forcefully ejected out of the land they lived on for centuries. It is this robbery that is the basis of the crisis in Zimbabwe, not democracy or human rights.
The result of that grab is described in Wikepedia: "Zimbabwean whites, although making up less than 1 percent of the population, owned more than 70 percent of the arable land, including most of the best land.
However, in many cases this land was more fertile because it was titled, resulting in incentives for commercial farmers to create reservoirs, irrigate, and otherwise tend the soil.
Communal lands, with no property rights, were characterised by slash and burn agriculture, resulting in a tragedy of the commons."
This is the epitome of greed that is characteristic of British colonial practice. Yet, in spite of the robbery, it has the temerity to call Zimbabwe corrupt. Robbery is the worst form of corruption.
Therefore, Zimbabwe is not the problem as Germany's Markel put it. It is Britain.
The sins it committed in Africa will continue to haunt it. The problem in Zimbabwe is not (Cde) Mugabe. It is the injustice in land distribution which the British government is fighting hard to perpetuate in the manner poverty is perpetuated among South African black majority.
(Cde) Mugabe has refused to allow Zimbabwe to be like today's South Africa.
The British government reneged on its promise under the Lancaster Agreement of 1979. Out of the pledge of £630 million, Britain actually paid only £17 million, using cronyism as an excuse.
Lancaster, hinged on "willing seller, willing buyer principle" was one of those cleverly contrived colonial agreements which were impregnated with failure in the interest of the masters. So what Britain gave with right hand, it took away with the left.
Knowing that Zimbabwe would not have the funds to settle white farmers, it abandoned the agreement in middle of the river. Twelve years after Lancaster, less than half of the 160 000 families were settled. "Mr. Robert," it told (Cde) Mugabe, "you are on your own." The line was drawn, said the old Mr. Robert.
And (Cde) Mugabe proved a true son of Africa. I am proud of him. Ten years after Lancaster, he passed a new legislation, the Land Acquisition Act of 1992, in which he removed the "willing seller willing buyer" clause of fraud and gave government the power to acquire land compulsorily. Mu je zuwa.
The white farmers cried foul.
Wait, you will cry tears, (Cde) Mugabe silently replied. Five years later he published 1,471 farmlands that were penciled down for compulsory "purchase." The following year, (Cde) Mugabe published "the Land Reform and Resettlement Programme Phase II, which envisaged the compulsory purchase over five years of 50 000 km' from the 112 000 km' owned by commercial farmers (both black and white), public corporations, churches, non-governmental organisations and multi-national companies."
As usual donors made pledges at a conference on the programme in Harare, which, as usual, they did not redeem.
Now (Cde) Mugabe went for his last option: compulsory acquisition of land without compensation. However, a gang, composed of academics, unionists, white farmers and the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), defeated a constitutional reform in the parliament that would have given him that mandate in 2000. I like the drama that followed.
The review in Wikipedia continued: "A few days later, the pro-Mugabe War Veterans Association organised like-minded people to march on white-owned farmlands, initially with drums, song and dance . . . A total of 110 000 km' of land was seized."
The British government should endure its own pill. As the white settlers gladly acquired the fertile land of Zimbabwe yesterday, the blacks have gladly retrieved it today. This is not a racial war, I must quickly add. It is simply balancing the equation of justice. (Cde) Mugabe cannot spend ten years in prison and fight another decade of guerilla war for nothing. He fought it to recapture the lands of Zimbabwe from the whites. He refused to be an indolent puppet.
Understandably, we should not blame Britain either for its support to white farmers. Blood, they say, is thicker than water. It is protecting the interest of its race and Crown – something it is good at.
The propaganda will therefore continue. In addition, some Africans, claiming to be the opposition, have been recruited as mercenaries. Britain is giving them all the support it can afford to defeat (Cde) Mugabe such that democracy will return and Zimbabwean economy will boom once more in the hands of its white farmers and multinationals. What a dream!
But Africa is never short of betrayers. They were there during the slave trade.
They are here today, as Abubakar Ladan said: "A cikinmu akwai wasu ‘yan iska/ Burinsu a karkasa Africa/ Su sayar da kasa eka-eka/ Su barmu a rabe cikin bukka/ Abadan ba a haka Afrika.(Among us there are rascals, whose interest is to divide Africa, to sell its land acre by acre, leaving us hiding in huts/ it will never be done (again) in Africa)."
(Cde) Mugabe will not budge either. He understands that there is an organic link between him and the African soil.
"Nothing frightens me," he told the Economist, "I make a stand and stand on principle here where I was born, here where I grew up, here where I fought and here where I shall die."
Africa understands the Zimbabwean game very well. That is why it sees (Cde) Mugabe as a hero. When the European Union barred (Cde) Mugabe from attending the "Lisbon café", other African leaders said to hell with the talks.
The Europeans acquiesced, though British Prime Minister failed to turn up. Oho dai.
At the 10th anniversary of South African independence in 2004, (Cde) Mugabe received "a deafening applause," according to the Economist. Britain and its allies could not hide their surprise that, despite the elaborate propaganda, the guy is the most popular leader in Africa.
The magazine reported Gareth Evans, former Australian foreign minister as saying: "I cannot figure out why he is being applauded when he has destroyed his country."
It is a matter of choice, Mr. Gareth. Possession is better than skill, as Abubakar Ladan said: Ai samu ya fi iyawa, shi/ Kwado bai mallaki do dukushi/ A ruwa aka sanshi makomarshi/ Nan ne zai samu abincin shi/ Yayi wasanni da nishadinshi.
It seems I have dwelled so much on the history and politics of modern Rhodesia. We are undoubtedly unhappy that fellow Africans are living in hardship there, as a result of British machinations.
Showing solidarity with (Cde) Mugabe is good, but Africa must do better. Zimbabweans deserve more. Our policy must not be restricted to politics. It must include economics too.
Africa can greatly help the situation by coming to the aid of Zimbabwe. (Cde) Mugabe has fought gallantly all his life. Despite the poor economy, he insists on educating his people. The literacy level in Zimbabwe is the highest in Africa: 85%! It is time we come to his aid and we have the resources to do so. If we must pay any compensation, it must not be more than the cost of the "1 000 rifles, 10 000 rounds of ammunition, and a riverboat" with which Mr. Rhodes bought the land of Zimbabwe in the 1880s. In fact, we must not pay any compensation. The lease has expired. Or we can argue that Lebengula agreed to the transaction under duress. Shi ke nan.
Instead, let us focus on equipping Zimbabweans with the resources they need to till its lands mechanically as Britain helped its white farmers. How much does it take? If we had resolved to do so since 1979, the problem would have been over by now.
A country like Nigeria was spending a million dollars in Liberia everyday for many years, just because it pleased the Americans.
It recently built a billion dollar stadium, squandered over $7 billion on roads, $8 billion on failed electricity, etc. A country that can afford these and has presently over $50billion in reserve can also be prompted by the African spirit of solidarity to spend a million dollars a day in Zimbabwe. Certainly. Certainly. Yar'adua, please listen. Just what sense does it make when Nigeria says Africa is the cornerstone of our Foreign policy when Zimbabweans are left to suffer in despair?
More so, Nigeria is not the only country that can do that without feeling the slightest pinch. Libya is there, wanting to become the leader of Africa.
To achieve his dream, Gaddafi must listen to al-Mutanabbi: the loyalty of free people is earned by generosity. Both Nigeria and Libya helped (Cde) Mugabe when he was a guerilla fighter. They should help him as a President. The war is not over. Let our leaders rise to the occasion. The wolf – Britain – that once lurch our backyard has eaten our ancestors and devoured our land. We cannot leave it to devour our Shona and Ndebele brothers.
It wants to install its puppet as it did in other parts of Africa. Giving the white farmers of Zimbabwe lands in Nigeria as their agent, Obasanjo, did is a slap on the face of Africa.
Nigerians should send them packing too. They cannot be bad for Zimbabwe and good for us.
The crown, if it has any sympathy for the white farmers, should recall them to England and distribute the royal property it usurped from peasants during the feudal past.
I am convinced that (Cde) Mugabe has fought gallantly. His defeat in the hands of imperialists, may God forbid, will be our defeat. We must come to his aid. Just as we successfully waded off British propaganda against (Cde) Mugabe, we must generously help Zimbabwe financially out of its present state of despair. – Daily Trust (Abuja).``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xAfrica must help Zimbabwe stave off neo-colonialists``x1198557901,69531,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Reason Wafawarova
December 29, 2007
NOW that the year 2007 is coming to an end and inflation is not at 1,5 million percent, Zanu-PF is still intact, Zimbabwean soldiers are still in the barracks and not at State House and Munhumutapa Building and the Government of Zimbabwe is still going strong it may be necessary to look at some of the political predictions and events of the year that may pass for the highlights of the year.
The year 2007 began with the suspicious "attack" on Lovemore Madhuku’s residence on January 1 that many neutral observers believe was a self-inflicted and convenient sympathy-hunting antic meant to hoodwink gullible Western donors as well as to attract international attention.
Two days later, Morgan Tsvangirai, the faction leader of one of the two fragments of the MDC capitalised on the Madhuku incident in his New Year address and claimed that the "attack" was a sign that President Mugabe and Zanu-PF were "on the verge of collapse". In the same address, Tsvangirai also claimed, authoritatively, that there was irreparable disenchantment within Zanu-PF and he even invited the so-called reformists to join his "democratic forces".
Arthur Mutambara weighed in with his own New Year message in which he bragged that he was going to lead a "defiance campaign" that would see laws being disregarded. Tsvangirai and members of the so-called Save Zimbabwe Coalition joined in the campaign for defiance.
This led to the terrible cruising for a bruising when some of those who chose to defy the law went on a collision course with the police in Highfield, Harare and as history now records the opposition activists ended up inviting the full wrath of the law on that fateful March 11. Before March 11 there were a number of interesting developments that showed that the opposition was either acting on faulty intelligence or plain naiveté. There was a belief that members of the police force would sympathise with the violent revolters, for example, and Tsvangirai even invited the police to join the "march".
The events of March 11 turned out to be the turning point where the MDC began to take African lessons down the throat, as events would show. While the West found good politics in displaying the bruises of those who front-lined the defiance campaign particularly the pictures of Tsvangirai, Africa through Sadc, decided to look at what had caused the bruises in the first place or put analytically, to look beyond the bruises and burns on both sides of the collision.
Sadc sought to tackle the issue at its ExtraOrdinary Summit held at the end of March and the prediction within the MDC and the Western circles was that President Mugabe was going to be condemned by fellow Heads of States at the Summit and that Africa through Sadc, was going to stand by the MDC.
The 14 Heads of State and Government held their closed-door session and came out to meet a legion of journalists ready to "scoop on Mugabe’s downfall". Jakaya Kikwete, the Tanzanian President and then Sadc chairman delivered a communiqué with resolutions that left a bitter taste in the mouths of MDC activists and Western journalists present.
He said Sadc noted that Zimbabwe had carried out free and fair elections in 2000 and 2002 and therefore fully believed that President Mugabe and his Government was the legitimate choice by the people of Zimbabwe – that Britain had an obligation to honour its Lancaster House commitments, that sanctions imposed on Zimbabwe by the Western alliance had to be lifted and that Zanu-PF and the MDC should mediate under the auspices of Sadc.
Britain immediately announced its disapproval of the stance taken by Sadc and Tendai Biti charged that Sadc was playing "ping pong with the people of Zimbabwe". Mutambara inferred that Sadc was a "club of dictators" and the US administration expressed dismay at the failure by Sadc to play to the Western bidding while the BBC marvelled at the sight of President Mugabe coming from the summit "with a spring in his step".
Then came Christopher Dell’s departure from Zimbabwe on a lower-level posting to Afghanistan in June, well coinciding with the departure of Tony Blair from No. 10 Downing Street.
These two men had a commission to see the demise of the Zimbabwean Government – a commission deriving its roots from the legacy of Western "supremacy" as well as from the mandates of imperialism as enforced by corporate democracy. Blair was going to leave his MDC political project at the mercy of these African natives who in his eyes were so mean and primitive that they seemed to okay images of terrible bruises and to be going along with a "ruthless dictator". Not least – Blair was going to suffer regime change ahead of President Mugabe and there was no sign or hope that the millions of pounds he had poured into the MDC project would yield any positive result.
As for Dell, it was a combination of shame, humiliation and self-cursing for a complete failure of a Milosovech replay on a turf he had thought to be an easy stroll in the park. He could not believe that the natives could not be stirred into an uprising and he had to make face saving predictions to the effect that inflation would be 1,5 million percent by year-end and that "the regime cannot survive."
Many will remember that Dell’s predictions were immediately followed by a sharp rise in commodity prices and that the price madness had to be arrested by a price blitz from the Government – that resulting in the current commodity shortages.
It was back to the African forum in July when all African leaders gathered for the 9th Ordinary Session of the AU in Accra, Ghana. The MDC still thought there was something fundamentally wrong with Sadc and they sent a delegation led by Thokozani Khupe to impress upon the African leaders that Zimbabwe was under a "ruthless dictatorship".
Not only were the African leaders clearly not interested in Khupe’s presence at the summit – but the Ghanaians as well as their Press also demanded to know from Khupe and her colleagues – why such a revolutionary as President Mugabe is, could suddenly just turn into the monster Khupe was preaching. They also demanded to know why her party was so much liked by the West and why they were receiving western funding and why they were opposed to the land reform programme.
Meanwhile, President Mugabe was addressing multitudes and was being honoured as a successor to the Kwame Nkrumah legacy of Pan-Africanism.
For the second time Africa was speaking to the MDC and telling them that it was the African way or the high way – and no midway measures.
In August, Sadc was once again meeting in Lusaka, Zambia for its 27th Summit, and again the MDC dispatched the battle-weary Khupe to try another demonisation campaign against the Government of Zimbabwe – this time with the support of hired protesters. Most of the hired thugs were deported at the Zimbabwe-Zambia border post while those who sneaked in had to make do with humiliating booing from the Zambian public as well as the Zambian political leaders from both sides of the divide.
The message was the same. Africa did not take kindly to the treacherous identity of the MDC.
This continued show of solidarity with Zimbabwe by African leaders was clearly not going down well in the Western circles and immediately after the Lusaka Summit something had to be done. In came Australia’s Alexander Downer with his enormous victory over eight Zimbabwean university students who were studying in Australia at the time. Downer, the then Foreign Minister reckoned that these youngsters had a case to answer in all that was happening since they happened to be born to Zimbabwean politicians and senior officials whose policies differed from the Australian government’s perspective.
During this time Downer, personally invited Tsvangirai to Australia and Tsvangirai enthusiastically thanked Downer and the Australian government for the isolation of Zimbabwe and pleaded for more isolation and more sanctions, only to be restrained by Downer who had to tell him that the measures in place then were adequate.
There was an announcement about funding of "democratic forces" in Zimbabwe to the tune of 18 million Australian dollars and while addressing invited guests at the Lowly Institute in Sydney Alexander Downer told Tsvangirai that "we definitely want to see the back of Mr Mugabe".
It is ironic that from Sydney, Tsvangirai went straight for a weaker target and showed the world the back of a poor woman by the name Lucia Matibenga, much to the surprise of Downer – whose own back was to be seen by President Mugabe as the Howard government was dismissed by the Australian electorate in an election in November.
Anyway, on September 18, 2007 Zimbabwe witnessed the first fruit of the talks between Zanu-PF and the MDC. The two parties co-sponsored Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 18) Act, which harmonised elections for Zimbabwe beginning 2008.
There was apparent disquiet from Western quarters with Tsvangirai rushing to Washington to explain issues but there was nowhere to rush in order to pacify marauding voices from Zinasu, NCA, Woza and other pro-MDC civic organisations. Madhuku literally went mad and accused the MDC of "treachery" and many political hangers-on of the MDC complained bitterly about being left out of the talks.
Britain could not understand the MDC move of moving in unison with Zanu-PF and Gordon Brown made the biggest mistake of his political life on the 21st of September when he chose to reinforce his resentment for what was happening by declaring that he would boycott the EU-Africa Summit in Portugal if President Mugabe was invited. It was game on about who would be watching the other’s empty chair.
President Levy Mwanawasa of Zambia, the Sadc chair, immediately declared that Sadc would boycott the Summit if President Mugabe was not invited, and when the Ghanaian foreign minister, whose country chaired the AU, announced that the AU position was that all African leaders were to be invited that made it minus 53 countries or NO summit.
Faced with this scenario, and a history of a Blair boycott in 2000 and a cancellation of the Summit in 2003, Europe was divided; with German, Portugal and other countries insisting that the Summit had to go ahead according to the wish of the African leaders. That left the unelected, Blair-appointed Gordon Brown with egg in the face.
Of course the Summit did materialise on December 8/9 and President Mugabe was right there watching a little lady of the African colour sitting in Brown’s chair and clearly overwhelmed by events. Attempts by the MDC to build up Brown’s case at the Summit through anti-Zimbabwe demonstrations backfired when pro-Zimbabwe protesters countered their hired protesters.
On October 30, Tsvangirai sent Khupe to preside over what is now known as the "restaurant congress" at which one Theresa Makone was "elected" to replace the ousted Lucia Matibenga. Civic groups, MDC senior officials and the private media went berserk after this and on November 7, Nelson Chamisa ranted against the media blitz claiming that there was no fall out in the MDC and accused everyone of being delusional.
On November 30, the Zimbabwe National Liberation War Veterans’ Association organised the Million Men and Women March in support of President Mugabe’s candidature in March 2008 and the crowd that turned up shocked the MDC the most. Zanu-PF’s Extraordinary Congress followed the March and and again the opposition was shocked by the unanimous endorsement of President Mugabe as the ruling party’s candidate in the harmonised elections in March 2008.
All the predictions of pandemonium and fireworks from perceived factions within Zanu-PF were just not there at the Congress and there was no sign of a political party coming out of Zanu-PF as had been predicted throughout the year.
On December 18, amendments Bills for the Broadcasting Services Act, the Public Order and Security Act and the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act were all fast-tracked through the House of Assembly – again co-sponsored by both the MDC and Zanu-PF and the same voices of descend are crying foul.
This writer has chronicled these events in light of the new orientation the events have given to the MDC. While some argue and say the MDC just did not do its work in creating synergies in Africa, this writer asserts that it is the MDC ideology, or is it lack of it, that actually alienated the MDC from the African polity.
No government can be comfortable with a foreign funded and foreign directed opposition party, even if the party was just next-door. If the MDC were standing for African values and not doing such treacherous things as calling for sanctions against their own country they barely needed to mobilise friends in Africa – they would just get them. Is it not surprising that even other opposition parties in other African countries like Zambia have a problem with the MDC?
Now that election 2008 is around the corner and the Government of Zimbabwe has not collapsed it is time for the MDC to evaluate itself and not to blame the Constitution, food distribution, chiefs and so on and so forth for its defeat.
A clearly disintegrating opposition cannot keep blaming outside factors for its lack of organisational skills and now that the African language has been spoken loud and clear it is time to go back to the drawing board for the MDC and an introduction of an ideology might be the starting point. Abandoning the imperial agenda might be second and selling alternative policies in place of vilification might be third. That way we can start talking of movement for democratic change.
Reason Wafawarova is a Zimbabwean political writer and can be contacted on wafawarova@yahoo.co.uk``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe 2007: Year MDC saw the African light``x1198917940,21359,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Stephen Gowans
February 13, 2008
http://gowans.blogspot.com
Hollywood director Steven Spielberg has withdrawn as artistic adviser to the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing because China has failed to pressure Sudan to end the war in Darfur.
China is developing oil fields in the embattled region of Sudan and Spielberg wants Beijing to use its clout to end the insurgency in the west of the country.
Arguing that "Sudan's government bears the bulk of the responsibility" for the humanitarian catastrophe in Darfur, Spielberg blames China for failing to do "more to end the continuing human suffering there." (1)
"China's economic, military and diplomatic ties to the government of Sudan continue to provide it with the opportunity and obligation to press for change," Spielberg says. (2)
But while Spielberg wants China to use its influence in Khartoum, he has released no statements, of which I'm aware, to press Washington to use its influence to end the larger humanitarian catastrophes in Somalia and Iraq, both of which are directly attributable to the actions of his own country, and therefore should be well within the grasp of the US government to end.
China's ability to end the Darfur conflict, however, is a far more uncertain matter.
Three of the five rebel groups fighting Sudanese forces in Darfur are unwilling to negotiate a peace, according to the UN's special envoy to Darfur, Jan Eliasson. (3) This makes it difficult for Khartoum, let alone China, to bring an end to the conflict, unless ending the conflict means Khartoum capitulating and handing Darfur and its oil assets to the rebels and their Western backers. This, of course, would suit strategists in the US State Department, to say nothing of the US oil industry.
By comparison, ending the much larger humanitarian catastrophes in Somalia (with 850,000 displaced, Somalia has been called Africa's largest and most ignored catastrophe) and Iraq (four million refugees and hundreds of thousands dead as a result of the US invasion) is directly within the capability of Washington. (4)
The US simply has to order Ethiopia, which it directed to illegally invade Somalia in December 2006, to withdraw. (5) If the Ethiopians balk, cutting off the rich flow of military aid Washington rewards the Meles regime with, will exert needed pressure. (6)
As regards the tragedy of Iraq, there can be no greater ameliorative act than immediate withdrawal of foreign troops. Withdrawal should occasion no fear of touching off a full-scale civil war. The Pentagon's own research shows that Iraqis attribute sectarian tensions to the US military presence and ardently wish to see the Americans leave. (7) If a civil war were to ensue, it could hardly be worse than the suffering the US continues to visit upon Iraq in lost lives, mangled bodies, rampant disease, hunger and homelessness - far in excess of the tragedy in Darfur.
If China's ties to the government of Sudan provide it with the opportunity and obligation to press for change, doesn't Spielberg's visibility, and his status as a US citizen, provide him with the opportunity and obligation to press for change where his own government has created far greater human suffering?
In the fall of 2002, Spielberg said he "could not not support" the Bush administration's policies on Iraq (8). Today, he seeks to embarrass China over Sudan, another oil-rich country Washington seeks regime change in. And as far a Spielberg is concerned, the US-authored humanitarian catastrophes in Somalia and Iraq are best ignored. Are these the actions of a humanitarian, or of a chauvinist whose concern for the suffering of others stops at the door of, and indeed caters to, US ruling class interests?
NOTES:
(1) New York Times, February 13, 2008.
(2) Ibid.
(3) New York Times, February 8, 2008.
(4) Displacement of Somalis, Washington Post, November 14, 2007; Iraqi refugees, The Independent (UK), July 30, 2007. There are a number of estimates of deaths in Iraq due to the US invasion: The Iraqi Body Count, 47,668; World Health Organization, 151,000; Johns Hopkins, 600,000; British polling firm ORB, 1.2 million (mid-range estimates.)
(5) US General John Abizaid visited the Ethiopian prime minister, Meles Zenawi, in November, 2006. Ethiopia invaded Somalia the next month. "The US provided key intelligence from spy satellites…CIA agents traveled with the Ethiopian troops, helping direct operations…US forces have carried out at least four attacks inside the country in the past 12 months." The Independent (UK), February 9, 2008.
(6) Stephen Gowans, "Looking for Evil in all the Wrong Places," www.gowans.wordpress.com, November 20, 2007, http://gowans.wordpress.com/2007/11/20/looking-for-evil-in-all-the-wrong-places/
(7) Washington Post, December 19, 2007.
(8) In September 2002, Spielberg pledged support for the gathering US war on Iraq. "Film director Spielberg lines up with Bush war drive," WSWS, October 3, 2002, http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/oct2002/spie-o03.shtml``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xSpielberg: Chauvinist in humanitarian drag``x1202935752,40753,Development``x``x
``xBy Reason Wafawarova
March 03, 2008
THE harmonised elections set for the 29th of this March offer, on the one hand, a massive challenge to Zimbabwe's agrarian revolution – as there are apparent danger signs on the path of the revolution – and, on the other hand, offer the Government an opportunity to carry out an honest revision, rectification and relaunching of the revolution for the ultimate victory that lies in the total economic emancipation of the poor masses of Zimbabwe.
The three Rs are a direct borrowing by this writer from the current strategy adopted by President Hugo Chavez Frias of Venezuela where "revision, rectification and relaunch" of the Bolivarian revolution has been his call – all in the wake of threats to the Venezuelan revolution – threats that have striking similarities with those faced by Zimbabwe's agrarian revolution.
Since December 2, when President Chavez's proposed constitutional reforms were thwarted by a referendum defeat, the US-backed Venezuelan opposition, together with the entire US imperialism machinery – have each seen the defeat as the green light to push forward their plans to destabilise Chavez's government.
This is reminiscent of the momentum gained by British imperialism and the Western-backed Zimbabwean opposition MDC in 2000 when a similar draft constitution proposal was defeated in a referendum. For Zimbabwe, the MDC leadership went to the extent of appointing some people for diplomatic postings as they prematurely wrote off the ruling party as dead and buried before the general election. Of course, the referendum defeat only awakened the revolutionary Zanu-PF into action as they embarked on massive restructuring of the party and also on that memorable land redistribution programme. The ruling party rose up like the giant of the pre-independence era and went on to win the parliamentary election that year, the presidential election in 2002 and another parliamentary election in 2005 – each time rendering apparent weakening effects on the disintegrating opposition.
The Bolivarian revolution – as the process of change led by socialist President Hugo Chavez is known – has got growing internal problems, largely coming from a strengthening of the rightwing of the Chavista movement calling itself the "endogenous right". These are the people within Chavez's own Chavista movement who are advocating reforms to the Bolivarian revolution – reforms that advocate a re-establishment of links with capitalism.
This rightwing group within the Chavista movement has become the most serious threat to the Bolivarian revolution – far more dangerous than the US-backed right wing opposition.
It is apparent that Zimbabwe's agrarian revolution is facing similar threats from a similar group of rightwing reformists whose loudest manifestation has been Simba Makoni of the independent presidential candidate fame, or is it infamy?
These reformists in Venezuela want a Chavista revolution without socialism, in other words without Chavez - they want an anti-capitalist revolution that does not break with capitalism. In Zimbabwe the internal rightwing within Zanu-PF want a land revolution that pleases capitalism – a land reform programme that does not break with imperialism. They want an agrarian reform programme without the masses – one without the pro-peasant Robert Mugabe – a revolution applauded by imperialism. This is what we hear Makoni preaching at his Press conferences. It is what Morgan Tsvangirai was struggling to put across at Sakubva Stadium when he launched his party's election manifesto.
While the 2000 draft constitution for Zimbabwe sought to redistribute white-occupied arable land, Chavez's constitutional reforms sought to institutionalise greater popular power and to increase restrictions on capitalists to the benefit of the working people of Venezuela.
Just like was the case with Zimbabwe in 2000, the capitalist-owned private media responded by launching a campaign based on lies and disinformation aimed at confusing the common man in Venezuela.
The damaging negative media campaign was, for both Zimbabwe and Venezuela – reinforced by economic sabotage – contributing if not leading to shortages of basic goods such as milk for Venezuela, fuel, foodstuffs, water, electricity and cash for Zimbabwe.
The Western-backed opposition in Venezuela was able to stoke the discontent that still exists among the
over such problems as corruption and bureaucratism. The discontent was whipped up to the extent that nearly three million people who voted for Chavez in the 2006 presidential election abstained in the referendum, handing the opposition its first electoral victory since Chavez came to power in 1998.
The Western-backed opposition in Zimbabwe is clearly trying to emulate their brothers in treachery in Venezuela by stoking the discontent that exists among the urban poor over problems such as corruption, inflation, food shortages, erratic power supplies and water problems. These are the problems upon which the MDC has based its campaign for the harmonised elections. Tsvangirai is of the opinion that whipping up the emotions of these poor urbanites is good politics that can earn him an election victory.
Imperialist offensive
The uninvited and unwelcome lecture on free and fair elections by US Ambassador to Zimbabwe James McGee – a lecture arrogantly delivered to Zimbabweans at the end of February – was just an attempt to build up on the hardships of the country for the benefit of imperial domination.
In Venezuela, there are similar efforts where a renewed US offensive has been unleashed with the aim of isolating Chavez internationally, and also to undermine the process of Latin American integration spearheaded by Venezuela. These are similar efforts being made by the US and Britain in the attempt to set up Sadc and other African countries against Zimbabwe.
A key part of this strategy has been to fuel tension between the targeted country and its neighbours – the way it has worked with Chad and Sudan in the Darfur crisis and also the way it's working with Colombia and Venezuela over the issue of the Colombian civil conflict involving the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) – Colombia's largest leftwing guerrilla group and the pro-America Colombian government.
The US keeps sending its officials like Admiral Michael Mullen, Pentagon's joint chief of staff; and John Walters, the US director of National Drug Control; to Colombia on missions to make baseless claims that Hugo Chavez materially supports FARC.
John Walters has gone further to accuse Chavez as "a major facilitator of the international drug trade" an accusation that serves as a sharp reminder to what the US did with Manuel Noriega of Panama in 1989.
South Africa could long have played Colombia on Zimbabwe had it not been for President Mbeki's pan-Africanist resilience. The major reason Tsvangirai and his Western backers are livid with South Africa's policy of quiet diplomacy is the failure of Western efforts to fan the flames of conflict between South Africa and Zimbabwe. Of course, they will always claim loudly that they are dead worried about the welfare of Zimbabweans – never mind how ludicrous it ever sounds.
For Zimbabwe, the most serious imperialist attack has been the illegal economic sanctions that were mobilised by Britain in retaliation to the reclamation of white-held land by the masses of Zimbabweans. These sanctions have come via ZIDERA for the US, the blocking of credit lines for the IMF and the World Bank and a general embargo against Zimbabwe for the Commonwealth and the EU.
For Venezuela, similar measures have been put in place as court orders have been obtained by ExxonMobil, backed by the US State Department, to freeze US$12 billion worth of assets of Venezuelan state oil company PDVSA, in both British and Dutch courts – a move Chavez has described as an "economic war".
ExxonMobil is retaliating after Chavez's government nationalised the Orinoco oil belt where the multinational company had invested heavily. PDVSA is the major financer to Venezuela's social projects and the broader aim is to cripple these projects and send a warning to other Latin American countries that might be considering resource nationalisation. The warning is simple - imperialism will fight back.
Destabilisation
The known extra-parliamentary destabilisation by the US-led Western alliance usually involves the stepping up of economic sabotage by the capitalists – a style reminiscent of the sabotage suffered by the leftwing Chilean government of Salvador Allende in 1973. The sabotage was a precursor to the US-backed military coup by General Augusto Pinochet later that year.
This campaign involves the hoarding, speculation and smuggling of food, contributing to shortages. Of course, this is always combined with a virulent media campaign aimed at fuelling discontent.
The opposition in Zimbabwe and Venezuela is capitalising on the discontent within the urban population and they are both focused on networking to spread perfidious rumours meant to mobilise the people against the respective incumbent governments.
Eva Golinger of Venezuela recently revealed that the networking for the spread of rumours is funded by Usaid, a US government-funded organisation.
In Zimbabwe, this rumour machine is funded through a whole spectrum of civic organisations and a growing number of online publications – some of them with a strict editorial policy of publishing anything but the truth.
In the wake of this challenge, Presidents Mugabe and Chavez have called for greater unity within their respective revolutions.
Divisions
It would appear both the Zanu-PF-led Zimbabwe agrarian revolution and the Venezuelan Bolivarian revolution are facing the challenge of divisions involving pro-capitalist economic blocs – for Venezuela there is an element of individuals with important military influence being part of the problem. For Zimbabwe, the face of this pro-capitalist bloc has been Makoni, a man who claims to have powerful backing within the ranks of the Zimbabwean revolution. He has, however, continuously failed to substantiate his claims - although the opposition rumour machine has so far significantly benefited from the speculation created by Makoni's claims.
For both Venezuela and Zimbabwe, there is the element of a more radical left, strong among the grassroots as well as among some major elements within the State – an element that wants to deepen the process of empowerment and to overcome corruption and bureaucratism – them being the two major impediments holding back the advance of the revolution.
The reclamation of land by the masses of Zimbabwe was a major victory for the empowerment of poor people just like the agrarian and nationalisation projects have been for Venezuela. However, problems such as sanctions-induced suffering, a divided workers' movement, a divided ideological focus as well as a growing gap between rhetoric and reality – all have meant that these problems have only been exacerbated to the advantage of the imperialists and their teams of lap-dog politicians in both Zimbabwe and Venezuela.
This has also meant that the rightwing element within each of the two countries' revolutions has somewhat gained momentum to the detriment of the revolution.
In Venezuela they called for a "Yes" vote during the day yet they spent each night discouraging voting for the radical constitutional reforms that threatened their material interests. In Zimbabwe, some of them openly castigate Makoni as a renegade sellout by day yet they are spending each night encouraging people to sympathise with the dissident former Politiburo member.
This is why the revolution is calling for a comprehensive revision, rectification and relaunching. There are danger signs ahead and this is the only way to pre-empt the imperialist assaults lying ahead.
Class Struggle
In Venezuela the endogenous right is attempting to take over the Chavista party, the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) just like Zimbabwe's Makoni and Kudzai Mbudzi were initially claiming that their project was about "changing the bus driver in order to ensure the safety of passengers".
Such divisions reflect the class struggles within the revolutionary process. There is an element of conflict between the left and the right within the revolution - not the traditional right as is found in the MDC and the opposition in Venezuela but a revolutionary "rightwing".
In each revolution there is always an attraction of those who certainly fight imperialism for standing in their way towards aspired riches yet they definitely do not fight for national liberation, that is, for the cause of poor people.
These are people who vainly believe that breaking imperialism or US domination can assist economic development within a capitalist framework. They would rather create state capitalism where they, by virtue of holding political office, become the new owners of capital and the new exploiters of the masses.
Needless to say, these people have to contend with the revolutionary element of radicals, for whom nothing short of a thoroughgoing social revolution will solve the needs of the oppressed majority.
The problem with this local class of capitalists is that they reinforce the imperialist cause – in the process pushing the revolution further left and thereby creating more challenges and widening the gap between rhetoric and reality – in the process giving momentum to imperialist forces.
This is the homework for the 4 000 delegates who received instructions on how to sell Zanu-PF's manifesto last Friday. The reason President Mugabe reiterated the importance of admitting to failures and not promising unachievable goals to the electorate is precisely to deal with this gap between rhetoric and reality. This is part of the revision, rectification and relaunching of the revolution that is needed.
In this relaunch there is need for integrity, honesty and commitment. There is need to decisively deal with corruption, also a big problem in Venezuela. There is need to get rid of all counter-revolutionaries and to rid the revolution of the capitalist element. There is need to transfer all power back to the people, not the Simba Makoni way which says "Simba kuvanhu" as in Simba his name but in the real sense of the term where people are organised to monitor social projects and create their own sense of accountability.
A people's revolution cannot be stolen or killed but it can be delayed and March 29 is the day for all the revolutionary people of the Republic of Zimbabwe to come forward in defence of the revolution. This is no time to listen to the baiting voices from the right. Zimbabwe cannot be given away for a paltry US$10 billion which Tsvangirai baselessly claims is adequate to solve all the country's problems.
It is homeland or death for Zimbabweans. Together we will overcome.
Reason Wafawarova is a political writer and can be contacted on wafawarova@yahoo.co.uk``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZanu-PF must rectify, relaunch revolution``x1204528583,50541,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Stephen Gowans
March 16, 2008
gowans.wordpress.com
Stephen Zunes, chair of the board of academic advisors to the US ruling class International Center for Nonviolent Conflict, and Patrick Bond, director of the Centre for Civil Society at Durban, are regular contributors to Z-Net, Counterpunch and other left media. There's nothing particularly new, interesting or exciting about their writing. When it comes to foreign governments that pursue a traditional leftist agenda of independent economic development outside the domination of imperialist powers they can be counted on to ape the New York Times and Washington Post, and by extension, the White House and Department of State.
Reading Zunes' write about Belarus, Zimbabwe, Myanmar and Iran, is like reading State Department press releases. "The best hope for advancing freedom and democracy in the world's remaining autocratic states," says Zunes, "comes from civil society" (1). In its reference to freedom and democracy in the abstract, Zunes' language is evocative of the propagandistic bilge that gushes in rivers from White House and State Department speechwriters trying to shape public opinion. Bond, who claims an expertise on Zimbabwe based on proximity to the country (he runs a civil society center on the other side of the Limpopo River) is hardly better. Both mimic State Department charges against the West's leftist and national liberation foreign policy betes noire, and, like the State Department, both celebrate civil society. Bond has gone so far as to naively dub activist groups in Zimbabwe that receive Western funding as "the main wellspring of hope for a Zimbabwean recovery" (2). It would be more apt to say civil society is the West's main wellspring of hope to return Zimbabwe to a colonial past.
Bond and Zunes are formulaic writers. They cleave to a basic set of rules to guide their analyses of governments that have disrupted property relations that once favored Western investors, banks and corporations. Once you know the rules, you can predict what either Zunes or Bond are going to write with astonishing accuracy.
Rule #1. All governments are bad, especially those that pursue traditional leftist agendas of placing control of a country's resources and productive property in the hands of its public, its government, or its domestic business class. The leaders of these governments deceptively employ socialist, anti-colonial and anti-imperialist rhetoric to win and then to hang on to power. They enjoy enormous privileges secured and defended by corruption and abuse of authority. Governments, by nature, are corrupt, authoritarian and thoroughly rotten, particularly those that call themselves leftist and anti-imperialist. There has never been a truly leftist, anti-colonial or anti-imperialist government, and can never be one. All revolutions are betrayals and no one should expect that anything good can ever come from left and anti-imperialist forces taking power. The only good revolution is the one that has never happened, or the ones that have been financed by wealthy individuals and the US government.
Rule #2. Civil society is the main wellspring of hope. Non-governmental organizations funded by the US Congress's National Endowment for Democracy, the US State Department's USAID, Britain's Westminster Foundation for Democracy, Germany's Friedrich Ebert Foundation, and other Western "democracy promotion" agencies, are independent organizations that are working to build a better world. Leftists should look to these groups to understand what's going on in countries led by nominally anti-colonial, anti-imperialist and socialist governments. Zimbabwe's Lawyers for Human Rights, for example, represents one of the main wellsprings of hope for Zimbabwe. Never mind that it is funded by the US National Endowment for Democracy (3) – an organization that does overtly what the CIA used to do covertly. Plenty of civil society organizations take money from wealthy individuals, corporations, capitalist foundations and imperialist governments. Does that mean they're not independent?
Rule #3. Decentralized, participatory democracy is good. It is the absolute good.
Rule #4. Process is more important than outcome. Zimbabweans becoming owners of their own land and natural resources is only half as important as the British parliamentary tradition in Zimbabwe being upheld; only a tenth as important as the freedom and democracy Zunes' celebrates in the abstract; only a hundredth as important as civil society having room to operate to peacefully change the government. It's not helpful to mention that peaceful regime change is often preceded by economic warfare and threats of military intervention and that non-violent activism and civil society are only part of a larger whole of regime change operations.
Rule #5. Governments that call themselves anti-imperialist or socialist or both are neither of these things and are as deplorable as imperialists and neo-liberals. Civil society, though drawing its funding from wealthy individuals, corporations, capitalist foundations and imperialist governments, is the main wellspring of hope.
Rule #6. When writing about governments that pursue traditional leftist agendas, it is important to follow State Department narratives. This is equivalent to doing what the New York Times, CNN and other major media did when they amplified Washington's lies about Iraq's non-existent weapons of mass destruction – an inconvenient reality, but skip over it. Charges made against leftist, anti-colonial and anti-imperialist governments of corruption, human rights abuses, and betrayal will resonate with a left population primed for cynicism. Accordingly, it takes little effort to make the charges stick. Don't bother to cite evidence. You don't need to. Tap into what everyone knows is true, because everyone says it's true, because the media say it's true, because the State Department and White House say it's true. Who will ask for evidence? Insist that the other side present evidence. If you don't like the evidence, say it's not from a credible source.
Rule #7. Never shy away from basing your argument on appeal to authority. If you live close to the country civil society is to promote democracy in, or have visited it, claim authority based on geography. "I've been (or live close) to Zimbabwe." This, however, might backfire. Opponents can reply: "If geography is so important, I'll accept as a higher authority the analysis of the leaders of the government you denounce, since they are long-time residents of their country, and not merely tourists and residents of a neighboring country."
Rule #8. Make definitive statements. For example, assert with certitude that Bob Helvey has never been to Venezuela to train civil society to bring down the Chavez government. When you're shown evidence that Bob Helvey has indeed been to Venezuela, say "I only found about it last week." Never let ignorance get in the way of self-appointed authority.
Rule #9. Defend civil society's receiving its funding from wealthy individuals, corporations, capitalist foundations and imperialist governments by saying, "A people's revolution cannot happen by generous funding alone." This sounds compelling. Of course, if this were true, we could also say, "Acceptance of a ruling class ideology cannot happen by the ruling class virtually monopolizing the media and schools" or "George Bush won his first run at the presidency through a groundswell of popular support that had little to do with his connections to wealthy supporters and the king's ransom spent on his campaign."
Rule #10. Some say civil society should not take money from wealthy individuals, corporations, capitalist foundations and imperialist governments. Others say the reality that wealthy individuals, corporations, capitalist foundations and imperialist governments shower many civil society groups with money tells you everything you need to know about these groups. These people are not helpful.
NOTES:
1. Stephen Zunes, "Nonviolent action and pro-democracy struggles," February 17, 2008, www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/16538
2. Patrick Bond and Grace Kwinjeh, "Zimbabwe's political roller-coaster hits another deep dip," March 11, 2008, www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2008-03/11bond-kwinjeh.cfm
3. Michael Barker, "Nonviolent Imperialism: A Major Revision," March 10, 2008, http://fanonite.org/2008/03/10/nonviolent-imperialism-major-revision/
Reprinted from:
http://gowans.wordpress.com/2008/03/16/10-rules-for-understanding-civil-society-imperialism/``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``x10 Rules for Understanding Civil Society Imperialism``x1205740768,37837,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Stephen Gowans
March 25, 2008
While Patrick Bond likes to create the impression he offers an independent left perspective on Zimbabwe, it's difficult to reconcile the impression with the reality. Bond has, in the past, recommended that progressives look to two of Zimbabwe's "pro-democracy" groups, Sokwanele and Zvakwana, to find out what's going on in Zimbabwe. (1) Both groups are modeled after Otpor, a Western-funded youth group that worked to oust Slobodan Milosevic in 2000. Like their Serb progenitor, the Zimbabwean groups are handsomely funded by Western governments (2), not to oppose the interests of wealthy individuals, corporations, banks, investors, and imperialist states, but to promote them.
"The United States government (is) working with the Zimbabwean opposition" "trade unions, pro-democracy groups and human rights organizations" "to bring about a change of administration." (3) It supports "the efforts of the political opposition, the media and civil society," including providing training and assistance to grassroots "pro-democracy" groups (4) - groups Bond celebrated in a Counterpunch article as "the independent left." (5)
The US also supports "workshops to develop youth leadership skills necessary to confront social injustice through nonviolent strategies," (6) a project enlisting the kinds of nonviolent imperialists Stephen Zunes has made a practice of vigorously defending. (7)
Bond's most recent attempt to bamboozle the West's progressive community is a Z-Net article co-authored with a woman who is part of US-sponsored regime change operations in Zimbabwe. (8)
Last April, Grace Kwinjeh traveled to Washington with Morgan Tsvangirai, the leader of one faction of the Zimbabwe opposition party, the Movement for Democratic Change, and representatives from NGOs funded by the US Congress's National Endowment for Democracy: Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights and the Crisis in Zimbabwe Coalition. (9)
The NED does overtly what the CIA once did covertly, namely, meddle in the affairs of foreign countries to bring down governments that refuse to do Washington's bidding.
Soon after it was established, the MDC became the party favored by white farmers in Zimbabwe for its opposition to the government's land reform policies. The party is backed by the US and EU. Tsvangirai, the party's original leader, and now leader of one its two factions, wrote an article in the Wall Street Journal over the weekend, pledging to restore property rights and to compensate white farmers for the loss of land their settler ancestors took by force. (10)
Last April's delegation to Washington was organized by the Open Society Initiative, a project of billionaire speculator George Soros, to "build and strengthen the values, practices and institutions of an open society throughout Southern Africa" (11) – roughly, to promote open markets and free enterprise where governments are pursuing programs of economic indigenization.
SW Radio Africa, which operates on funding provided by the US State Department's Office of Transition Initiatives, reported that the group was in Washington to "brief Western institutions like the Center for Strategic and International Studies and the Woodrow Wilson Center." (12)
The CSIS is a little known think-tank run by a bipartisan collection of upper class leaders, including Zbigniew Brzezinski, Frank Carlucci, Henry Kissinger and Brent Scowcroft. It recently prepared a report recommending that the West use preventive nuclear first strikes to stop other countries, like Iran, from acquiring nuclear weapons. (13)
The Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars is a US government established center that links "scholarship to issues of concern to officials in Washington." The Center's Africa program was launched with a grant from the Ford Foundation to promote dialogue between scholars and US policy-makers on Africa. The tenor of the dialogue is obvious in the latest edition of the Center's journal, The Wilson Quarterly. Articles extol competition (it's hard-wired into humans) and the US Department of Homeland Security (it doesn't get enough credit.)
Kwinjeh is a frequent guest on Studio 7, a radio station sponsored by the US-government's propaganda arm, the Voice of America. (14) She calls herself "a founder member of Zimbabwe's main opposition party the Movement for Democratic Change, (MDC)," and says she "spent some time in Belgium as the MDC Representative to the EU." (15)
At one point, she was the deputy secretary for international relations in the Morgan Tsvangirai-led faction of the MDC. She ran for the post of MDC secretary of information (the party's propaganda office) unsuccessfully.
When writing for Western audiences, Kwinjeh conceals her MDC connections and presents herself as a journalist - not a senior member of the US and EU-backed MDC, not a part of US-government regime change operations.
The key questions for Western progressives are: Does Patrick Bond know who Grace Kwinjeh is? If so, why is co-authoring articles with her? Is Bond's definition of "independent" the same as that of the US state and Western media, i.e., any individual or group that facilitates the US government in its efforts to bring down foreign governments that refuse to do the West's bidding? If Patrick Bond doesn't know who Grace Kwinjeh is, why is he passing himself off as a left expert on Zimbabwe? Surely, someone who professes to have a knowledge of Zimbabwe greater than that of Western progressives would know about Kwinjeh's role in US regime change operations. And what separation is there between the views of Bond and those of Kwinjeh, an MDC operative who has traveled to Washington on George Soros' account to brief a ruling class think-tank that promotes a nuclear first strike strategy?
NOTES
1. http://gowans.wordpress.com/2007/04/15/zimbabwe-and-the-politics-of-demons-and-angels/
2. Los Angeles Times (July 8, 2005)
3. The Guardian (August 22, 2002)
4. U.S. Department of State, April 5, 2007 report on human rights. http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/shrd/2006/
5. http://www.counterpunch.org/bond03272007.html
6. U.S. Department of State
7. http://gowans.wordpress.com/2008/02/18/stephen-zunes-and-the-struggle-for-overseas-profits/
8. http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2008-03/11bond-kwinjeh.cfm
9. http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2007-04/2007-04-27-voa54.cfm?CFID=213706089&CFTOKEN=96857847 and http://www.swradioafrica.com/news290407/un270407.htm .
Regarding NED funding of Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights and the Crisis in Zimbabwe Coalition see http://fanonite.org/2008/03/10/nonviolent-imperialism-major-revision/
10. The Herald (Zimbabwe) (March 23, 2008)
11. http://www.osisa.org/
12. http://www.swradioafrica.com/news290407/un270407.htm
13. http://gowans.wordpress.com/2008/01/27/whose-nuclear-first-strike-strategy-is-this-anyway/
14. http://www.voanews.com/english/africa/zimbabwe/
15. http://gracekwinjeh.blogspot.com/
Source: http://gowans.wordpress.com/2008/03/24/the-company-patrick-bond-keeps/``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xThe Company Patrick Bond Keeps``x1206478197,62052,Zimbabwe``x``x
``x
By Netfa Freeman
March 26, 2008
African people let's wake up! Just as they did three years ago detractors of Zimbabwe's governing party ZANU PF and President Robert Mugabe are already forecasting that the election in Zimbabwe is rigged, even though it has not happened yet. All of the propaganda machines are in motion to plant misgivings about any outcome that announces victory for Mugabe.
One Mary Ndlovu, a Zimbabwean "human rights" activist has been feverishly providing anti-Mugabe articles and analyses to set the stage for whatever happens. In one published by Pambazuka News she supports her prediction with a diatribe of misinformation and over simplifications asserting, "there is no minutest possibility of a 'free and fair' election. Those observers from SADC who boast that it can still be so are only destroying their own credibility."
Logic dictates that such thinking by an African places their faith in and aligns them more with the neo-colonizers, the United States and European Union, led by Britain than with Africa embodied in this case by entities like Southern Africa Development Community (SADC), and the African Union mission (AU).
As it is today, so it was in 2005 when Zimbabwe held elections for seats in parliament. The US, EU, the opposition party Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), a slew of Western beholden "civil society" or non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and Britain all cried foul prior to the election and grasped for anything that could remotely be called evidence of rigging. While painting their movement as something popular in Zimbabwe, these so-called social justice NGOs/ "civil society" advocates keep claiming their agenda and that of imperialism are not one and the same.
Never mind their rabid contempt for Mugabe mirrors in words and deeds that of officials from the US State Department or the British government. One will never hear them address the point of former Assistant Secretary of State on African Affairs, Chester Crocker when he said in a testimony to the US Senate "To separate the Zimbabwean people from ZANU-PF we are going to have to make their economy scream, and I hope you senators have the stomach for what you have to do." [Democracy Now!, April 1st, 2005]
This not only proved that the sinister intent of US imperialism has been to destabilize Zimbabwe, it also indicates that they believe the government of ZANU-PF is a popular one. Elections in spring 2005 had also reflected the will of the Zimbabwean people and those results were confirmed so by observers from the SADC, the AU, and others like the US based December 12th Movement who were not afraid to speak truth to power.
It should be pointed out that although the MDC had lodged unsubstantiated claims of fraud back then, their ballot counters signed off on the results from each polling station. They later admitted publicly that elections were not rigged. "In first signs of yet another possible split within the opposition party, (Isaac) Matongo (3rd highest ranking MDC leader) publicly acknowledged that the MDC had no grassroots support and that was the major reason the opposition party was losing elections." [Daily Mirror, February 5th, 2006]
So why are ZANU-PF and Mugabe detractors so insistent in repeating over and again the lie that Zimbabwe elections are fraudulent?
On Tuesday I was interviewed about Zimbabwe on The Breakfast Club, a Kingston Jamaica radio talk show, and the fellow guest, Prof. Richard Hull at NYU made the baseless claim that Zimbabwe's 2002 presidential election was fraudulent. I couldn't be surprised. Because it was barely disclosed, it would be hardly surprising if Hull were unaware that the renowned NAACP has a report bearing witness that those elections too were free and fair. Like the parliamentary elections of 2005, Zimbabwe's 2002 presidential elections were certified by SADC, the Union of African States, Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace in Zimbabwe, the Zimbabwe Council of Churches and more.
Prof. Hull also believes Zimbabwe should revert back to depending on its cash crops like tobacco and exotic flowers as a way to get much needed foreign currency. But people cannot eat tobacco, flowers or currency. A Pan-Africanist realizes that the cash crop set up is what keeps us away from using our land to produce for our needs. It is under that neo-colonial set up that unfair trade persists and why the masses of African people continue to suffer.
However, the arrogant and shameless measures of imperialism to affect the outcome in Zimbabwe this Saturday should not be underestimated. They've wanted Mugabe out at least for the last ten years. Those who think that the British and US governments confine their contempt for an independent country and its leaders to public denunciations and lip service are wallowing in the height of folly. If this were the case they would have simply needed only to talk negatively about Saddam Hussein and not invade Iraq, or orchestrate a coup against Kwame Nkrumah, or assassinate Patrice Lumumba, or bomb Libya.
Some Western media pundits have been dangerously forecasting for the last month or so that Zimbabwe elections hold in store the same intense and fatal violence we saw in Kenya. Even though Pan-African Parliament's observer mission, now on the ground in Zimbabwe, has said that the current environment in the country is conducive to free and fair elections. "After what Africa witnessed in Kenya, we are encouraged by the pre-poll situation in Zimbabwe… The mood is good and it brings hope to the continent that we are moving in the right direction" [BuaNews, March 25, 2008]
Those making such comparisons between Zimbabwe and Kenya are playing on the already tarnished image of democracy in Africa and want to prevent the public from asking the hard questions and doing thorough investigations when all is said and done. However, unlike Kenya, there is already motive and prior conviction for African people to more than suspect interference by the iron fist and velvet glove of imperialism in Zimbabwe. Some were surprised when, on April 5th 2007 the US State Department admitted to sponsoring opposition in Zimbabwe but allowances for this policy had already been written into the text of the US' hypocritical Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act of 2000, aka ZIDERA.
This is why when the imperialist beholden "civil society activists" speak or write about the leading figures opposing Mugabe these figures seem almost surreal. They speak of Morgan Tsvangirai and his faction of the MDC as if he is not the same person who plotted an assassination of Zimbabwe's president as a prelude to a coup; as if it is not unusual for Tsvangirai to be flanked by young thugs from urban areas who just over a year ago went on a terrorizing spree around the country fire bombing buses, kombis, police dormitories, and attacking citizens and police in the streets. All of that was part of imperialism's modus operandi to make Zimbabwe ungovernable. One won't hear the "civil society activist" mention these things. If they mention Archbishop Pius Ncube, a vocal critic of Mugabe, one can be excused for not realizing from them that Ncube is a discredited amoral who has shamelessly advocated for the British and their allies (imperialism) to invade Zimbabwe in order to "remove Mugabe by force".
Likewise when this imperialist beholden "civil society" speak or write about Robert Mugabe, one might never understand from them that he was against the Lancaster House Agreement that tied the hands of the ZANU PF government from reclaiming the land from white settlers; that the 1989 conditions and constraints that led to Zimbabwe's acceptance of loans and the Economic Structural Adjustment Program of the World Bank/International Monetary Fund were largely due to the collapse of the Soviet Bloc and felt by all countries trying to pursue an independent path. You will never hear from them that Mugabe spearheaded the abolishment of said Economic Structural Adjustment Program, something done nowhere else in Africa. One would think a land reform program like none seen since the days of Sekou Ture in Guinea or Thomas Sankara in Burkina Faso, was not under the leadership of Mugabe; or that there is nothing positive in the new law he signed that mandates majority ownership of all businesses to "indigenous" Zimbabweans.
Such a listing of facts by an African (person of African descent) is often belittled as a one-sided and romantic worship of an old liberation fighter, turned tyrant. However, when these things are completely omitted, then a bias befitting of a racist Western perspective is the result. No one thinks criticism should not be placed where criticism is due. However, the usual suspect detractors more often list the symptoms of economic sanctions imposed on Zimbabwe by the US, EU and Britain making no attribution to the sanctions. They keep peddling the lie that the sanctions are "smart" sanctions, targeting only certain Zimbabwe officials.
Could they be totally ignorant to what Brandon Stone has been able to assess in his well-documented paper, An Investigation of Zimbabwe's Different Path?
Stone reveals "the results of the sanctions were severe, as foreign trade plummeted towards near zero, and "foreign direct investment in Zimbabwe plunged by over 99 percent." Inflation soared, and the lack of foreign exchange devastated Zimbabwe's manufacturing sector, causing unemployment to rise to over 70 percent. These factors - the external campaign by great powers to cripple Zimbabwe's economy - are rarely discussed by Western academics or journalists, who instead portray the crisis in Zimbabwe solely as the result of the land reform, or Mugabe's mismanagement."
The intensely biased propaganda campaign has been no less damaging. One example can be seen when comparing Guinea and Zimbabwe which both have a head of state who has been in power since early-mid 80's; Lansana Conte in Guinea and Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe. Conte, however became leader through a military coup following the death of the democratically elected Pan-Africanist President Sekou Ture. Mugabe on the other hand was democratically elected after earning his place as a freedom fighter in the struggle against British settler colonialism. But only Mugabe receives a heavy degree of patented denunciations for being "in power too long".
Further, a year ago both Guinea and Zimbabwe experienced some internal unrest but again not equal consideration by the media or these "civil society activists". As part of the aforementioned terrorizing spree in Zimbabwe by opposition thugs, the MDC disguised a protest as a prayer vigil during a temporary ban on demonstrations.
When an out numbered group of police --who are rarely armed with guns-- were attacked by the mob they were provoked into killing one of them, the police still received a brutal beating and had to flee. The incident earned a flurry of attention from the international media that spun its coverage as a Mugabe crackdown on dissent completely omitting the actions of the mob. The imperialist governments and "civil society activists" all chimed in unison with condemnations of Mugabe and ZANU PF.
However, the brutal and unprovoked attack by Conte, which occurred roughly at the same time, went relatively unnoticed. Advancing on a crowd with tanks, Conte's forces sprayed a mass demonstration of thousands with rapid-fire automatic weapons killing just fewer than 200 people. The same benevolent Western governments and their NGO agents uttered hardly a critical murmur.
Now after 8 years of sanctions against Zimbabwe the election outcome is uncertain. The intended affect of "making the economy scream" as Crocker put it has transpired. Whether or not sisters and brothers in Zimbabwe react the way imperialism wants remains to be seen. As African people we should hope not.
At this juncture the question should not be whether or not Mugabe stays in office but whether or not an imperialist beholden opposition could ever bring resolution to Zimbabwe's problems. The answer should be obvious. And if the people do hold strong and see through the designs and machination of imperialism by once again voting in Mugabe, we must still be wary of how imperialism and its agents will react. And we must understand that as goes Zimbabwe, so goes Africa and her Diaspora.
Only fools sleep in a burning house and only bigger fools watch while arsonist burn.
Netfa Freeman is currently the director of the Social Action & Leadership School for Activists at the Institute for Policy Studies. Freeman is a longtime activist in the Pan-African and international human rights movements and is also a co-producer/co-host for Voices With Vision, WPFW 89.3 FM, Washington DC. He can be reached at netfa@hotsalsa.org.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe Election Deja Vous``x1206618350,80516,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xHopewell Radebe
11 March 2008
Business Day (Johannesburg)
ZIMBABWE yesterday released a list of international organisations and countries accredited to observe elections there this month.
The move is aimed at rebutting media reports that no international observer structures would be welcome during the March 29 poll.
"Zimbabwe has invited countries and organisation from all parts of the world . Our list excludes those countries with preconceived ideas who believe that the only free and fair election is where the opposition wins," Zimbabwean ambassador to SA Simon Moyo said.
The countries that have been excluded include the US, the UK, Australia and other European countries with the exception of Russia.
Moyo charged that some of these countries had already "written their reports", and that his government had no desire "to give such cooked reports the credence and credibility they lack and do not deserve".
"Foreign invitees were selected on the basis of reciprocity as well as their objectivity and impartiality in their relationship with Zimbabwe."
He said all member countries in the Southern African Development Community were invited.
South American and some Asian countries were coming to observe the elections in line with the country's electoral act and the SADC principles and guidelines that governed democratic elections.
He lambasted the South African media for peddling what he called "a virulent and vicious smear campaign by the west" against his country that was "certainly not out of ignorance of the facts, but out of sheer malice".
Among other African organisations and institutions, Zimbabwe has accredited organisations such as the Pan African Parliament, the African Union Commission and the continent's five regional economic structures.
The international institutions invited included the Non-Aligned Movement, the Africa, Caribbean and Pacific group of states, the Caribbean Community, the Association of South East Asian Nations, the Arab Maghreb Union, the Community of Portuguese Speaking (Lusophone) countries and the Inter-Governmental Authority on Development.
The Congress of South African Trade Unions said it welcomed the news that some international bodies would be invited.
Spokesman Patrick Craven said: "We remain sceptical about the conditions that have not been properly and sufficiently rendered conducive for all parties to campaign freely." Zimbabwe had not failed to render elections free and fair even in the presence of international observers who monitored earlier elections.
"But we hope that democracy and the will of the people will prevail this time," he said.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe: Harare Releases Observer List``x1207029290,18134,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xHerald Reporter
RESULTS from Saturday's 2008 harmonised elections started trickling in yesterday morning and by last night the main contestants – Zanu-PF and the MDC Tsvangirai faction – were in a neck-and-neck contest in the House of Assembly official results announced by the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission.
By 10pm last night, the ruling party had won 31 seats, the Morgan Tsvangirai-led MDC faction 30 seats and the Arthur Mutambara-led MDC faction six seats out of the 67 House of Assembly seats announced.
The results were mostly from Matabeleland South, parts of Masvingo, Bulawayo, Harare, Manicaland, Mashonaland East, West and Central.
There were no results yet from the Presidential and Senate elections.
ZEC deputy chief elections officer Mr Utoile Silaigwana said more results would continue to be released late last night and today, after the usual verification process.
He said results that had been pasted outside polling stations were official though the electoral body was still in the process of verifying them by late last night. He said results for the Presidential race would be announced later, as ZEC was in the process of collating them.
"Results of councillors, House of Assembly representatives and Senators were announced at respective wards and these are now known, but we are still in the process of collating the Presidential ballot," Mr Silaigwana said in a telephone interview.
He advised that voting results were pasted on polling stations for the benefit of the electorate.
Supporters of contesting political parties are eagerly awaiting the outcome of the polls but ZEC chairman Justice George Chiweshe warned earlier on that the results had to be authenticated by a strict verification process to avoid mistakes.
He said unlike the last election where voters were selecting House of Assembly candidates, this time the electorate would have to bear with the time that would be taken as the polls involved four categories, hence the term harmonised.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZanu-PF, MDC in tight contest``x1207078438,43308,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xHerald Reporter
THE contest for the House of Assembly went into a photo-finish with MDC-Tsvangirai ending with 99 seats, Zanu-PF with 97, MDC with 10 and one independent.
Neither major party has an absolute majority and even when the results of three by-elections caused by death of candidates are known, neither will have the 106 seats needed for an absolute majority
Besides the 206 seats contested on Saturday, Muzarabani South was won unopposed by Zanu-PF and three by-elections are pending following the death of MDC candidates. While the MDC-Tsvangirai is likely to win at least two of these, since one is Redcliff and the other is in Bulawayo, it cannot gain the 106 seats needed to hold a majority in the House of Assembly.
While the MDC-Tsvangirai had a small lead in seat numbers, Zanu-PF was ahead in the popular vote.
In the polls for the 206 contested seats, Zanu-PF had won 45,94 percent of the votes, MDC-Tsvangirai 42,88 percent, the MDC 8,39 percent and the minor parties and independent candidates 2,79 percent.
Zanu-PF won an absolute majority of the vote in five provinces: the three Mashonalands, Midlands and Masvingo; and last night came first in Matabeleland South with just under 43 percent of the vote, although that lead was not translated into seats.
MDC-Tsvangirai won the absolute majority of the vote in just two provinces: Harare and Manicaland. No party took an absolute majority of Bulawayo, although MDC-Tsvangirai won all the contested seats with just 47 percent of the vote in a vicious three-way contest, coming first in that province and coming first in Matabeleland North with just under 37 percent of the vote.
In the two rural Matabeleland provinces, three-way fights produced some curious results. In the 12 contested constituencies of Matabeleland South, Zanu-PF came an easy first in the total vote, but won just three seats. MDC came second in the vote, but translated that into seven seats, and MDC-Tsvangirai was third, and with just two seats.
Masvingo, like Matabeleland South, produced an anomalous distribution of seats when compared to the provincial vote. Zanu-PF was an easy winner of the popular vote, taking 52,01 percent of the votes, but only 12 of the 26 seats. The other 14 seats went to MDC- Tsvangirai, although the party only managed 41,61 percent of the popular vote. Many Masvingo seats were won with minute majorities.
Zanu-PF has lost its majority in the House of Assembly for the first time since independence, despite its lead in the popular vote. It tended to win with larger majorities where it was stronger than the opposition parties were winning in their strongholds.
Since the 2000 and 2005 elections, Zanu-PF has lost significant support in Manicaland and some support in Masvingo, although a drop of less than 10 percent in its share of the vote in that province saw the huge cut in seats.
The party held its support in rural Mashonaland and rural Midlands while MDC-Tsvangirai has maintained its support base in the cities and towns, and changed the face of the next Parliament with its large gains in Manicaland and modest advances in Masvingo.
Rural Matabeleland has always tended to concentrate most of the marginal constituencies in Zimbabwe, and the strong three-way fight in that area accentuated that trend. Many seats in the region were won with well under 50 percent of the valid vote.
The ZEC, with the national agents of the candidates monitoring its work, is still compiling the totals for the presidential vote.
But if the voting patterns follow the votes for the MPs fairly closely – with Zanu-PF supporters voting for President Mugabe, MDC-Tsvangirai voters opting for Mr Morgan Tsvangirai and MDC voters voting for Dr Simba Makoni – it is difficult to see how any candidate can reach the total of 50 percent plus one required to avoid a run-off.
Even if almost all those who voted for independent candidates and the minor parties gave their presidential vote to Mr Tsvangirai, he would still fall far short of the total unless a large number of Zanu-PF and MDC voters switched to him in the presidential poll.
A look at the turnout in the four constituencies that did not vote for MPs suggests that even with the bulk of these votes, neither of the two main candidates can avoid a run-off.
Without significant cross-voting, a run-off appears the most likely outcome.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZanu-PF, MDC-T in photo finish``x1207269094,38413,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Peter Mavunga
April 04, 2008
IT HAS been a momentous week. The harmonised presidential, parliamentary and local elections have concentrated the minds of many Zimbabweans wherever they are. But they have also attracted a level of interest from beyond our borders; a level of interest that left me intrigued.
In Britain, the interest has been keen. This has manifested itself in acres of newsprint devoted to the subject; journalists (like John Simpson) smuggling themselves into Zimbabwe despite the ban on the BBC; and a debate in the House of Commons in which David Miliband, the British foreign secretary, made a full statement.
Miliband said the level of interest is due to their concern for Zimbabweans whose will, he argued, had to be respected. He called for the results of the elections to be published as soon as possible as further delay was likely to heighten suspicion.
This of course sounds wonderfully balanced and diplomatic although it does not hide the fact that the statement is given from the point of view of a government minister who, like many before him, wants President Mugabe to go.
If anything, the whole media coverage has been about maximising the President's discomfort to facilitate his "departure". A good example of this pre-occupation was Jeremy Paxman's question for Cde Boniface Chidyausiku, Zimbabwe's USA envoy, on Newsnight on Wednesday night.
"Why doesn't he just go?" Paxman asked.
"To go where?" came the rhetorical question in reply. And quite right too!
For all their "good" intentions and ‘‘love'' for the people of Zimbabwe, the British interest in Zimbabwe's electoral process ought to be seen in the context of their perceived interests in the country. If we lose sight of this we do so at our own peril.
The purpose of this article is not in any way to argue that President Mugabe should not go if that is what the people of Zimbabwe desire. He himself will not deny this given that he is the man who brought democracy to a troubled people who had been denied the vote since colonial times by the white man.
The point I make here is that the responsibility to remove Cde Mugabe from office or any public servant for that matter, is, after due process, a matter for Zimbabweans. It is certainly no business of the British to inject haste and sense of urgency in the process.
Election results in Iraq after the removal of Sadam Hussein took months to come out without questions being asked of the British and the Americans.
There is a due process, though, that has to be gone through. Zimbabwe has a Constitution that sets out the rules of how the electoral business is conducted in circumstances similar to those that we saw during the course of this momentous week.
Even John Simpson the BBC's world correspondent conceded back on Wednesday that the Zimbabwe Constitution allowed the presidential election results to be published by today, Friday. Yet the sense of urgency in British political circles and media alike implies wrong doing on the part of the Zimbabwe authorities when, in actual fact, due process, which Morgan Tsvangirai, MDC faction leader said quite sensibly on Tuesday he was going to allow to take its course.
British intervention in matters like this, I am afraid, has tended to be partisan, condescending and unhelpful. It has implied that Africans, those ‘‘benighted heathens'', cannot manage their affairs, let alone resolve their own differences peacefully.
The coded messages inherent in what they were saying was that very soon Zimbabwe was about to descend into Kenya-type chaos of murder and destruction. Talk of "tensions rising" was designed to whip up feelings of grievance to trigger a violent reaction.
Once Zimbabwe was in smoke; images of dead bodies like we saw in Kenya, would become the subject of western cameras. It is all done in the interest of informing the world what is going on in the African country. Yet, if truth be told, bodies of dead British soldiers coming from Iraq are quite rightly never paraded in public. This would be an affront of public decency.
It is essential, that Africans should consider themselves capable of doing what they have to do for themselves. Sikhanyiso Ndlovu put it nicely when he told an interviewer earlier this week that: "We do not do things in order to please you."
Yet there is an unhealthy desire to report issues of national interest to the British.
The harmonised elections were held in an atmosphere of self-imposed peace and tranquillity. It should be a measure of what a people can do without outside interference despite their differences.
The only blot to this sense of maturity was the constant stream of unofficial "results" that kept coming out as if to undermine the official results from the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission. True, there was political posturing and manoeuvring, as there was something in it for the MDC Tsvangirai faction.
For instance when the faction's secretary general, Tendai Biti, repeatedly said on Sunday, the day after the elections, that "there was no room for doubt, in fact no shadow of doubt" that the MDC had won 67 percent of the vote or had won the election, it served two purposes.
First, it was a clever way of creating in the collective mind of the British public that the opposition had finally won the election. The clever bit was that given that the strategy of the opposition party was to portray Zanu-PF as a party that "rigs" and "lies" about the elections, any figures that came out officially afterwards would be dismissed by the British public as such.
But Biti's repeated claims served another purpose: of making black people look silly. I would have thought that one claims that there is "no room for doubt" about anything when one is in possession of the full facts, not when this is but an opinion. Or one should tell the world the basis on which the claim of total sureness is made.
Another contribution to the silly season was Basildon Peta's suggestion that Morgan Tsvangirai, whom he believed to have won, should go to State House accompanied by supporters to claim the presidency.
I notice, though, that the MDC faction leader did not choose that option. For a start it serves to undermine the very institutions that allow due process to take place in peace. It also begs the question as to whether Peta would be willing to travel from South Africa to lead the supporters?
And Bishop Desmond Tutu was also suggesting in the "London Paper" that foreign troops must be deployed to "watch Zimbabwe". He is concerned about human rights and that the country might "descend into chaos." I do not know how the cleric came to that view.
What is known is that ours is a professional army that has performed its duties excellently.
There will be no requirement of an outside force to keep it in check.
And so to depart! This has been a momentous week and one in which Zimbabweans ought to reflect coolly what happened and continues to happen. For, as I write on Wednesday night, the end results of the parliamentary and presidential elections remain unknown to me.
But whatever happens, the will of Zimbabweans must prevail not through the coercion of an external force that has an axe to grind, but through the efforts of our own people.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe: British interest in poll telling``x1207317941,34646,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xThe Herald (Harare)
8 April 2008
FIVE Zimbabwe Electoral Commission officials have been arrested on allegations of tampering with election results and prejudicing Zanu-PF presidential candidate President Mugabe of 4 993 votes cast in four constituencies in the just-ended harmonised elections.
Police chief spokesman Assistant Commissioner Wayne Bvudzijena confirmed the arrests yesterday.
One of the ZEC officials, Asst Comm Bvudzijena said, was arrested in Manicaland, two in Masvingo and another two in Mashonaland Central.
He could, however, not give details of the constituencies where the crimes were allegedly committed for fear of prejudicing ongoing investigations.
The five are being charged with either fraud or criminal abuse of duty as public officers.
"The suspects are currently being prosecuted through the courts in their respective areas.
"We are still carrying out investigations. The arrests arose from inconsistencies between figures recorded at polling centres, constituency centres and those which were forwarded to the National Command Centre," said Asst Comm Bvudzijena.
Asst Comm Bvudzijena said police were carrying out investigations in two other constituencies in Manicaland where the Zanu-PF presidential candidate was also allegedly prejudiced of 1 392 votes.
In Mashonaland Central, it is alleged, the same candidate was prejudiced of 773 votes while investigations also revealed that the same candidate lost 1 000 votes in two Matabeleland North constituencies and 1 828 votes in Masvingo.
Asst Comm Bvudzijena said police were also investigating similar cases in Zvimba North and other constituencies with a view to prosecuting officials who tampered with the figures.
The arrests come barely a week after the announcement by Zanu-PF that it would take its case to the Electoral Court contesting results in 16 House of Assembly constituencies alleging that some ZEC officials were bribed to doctor results during the counting process to prejudice the ruling party.
The anomalies were detected following a close scrutiny of V11 and V23 forms.
A V11 form is an original document carrying results at polling stations and is signed by all agents of contesting parties.
After the signing of the V11 form, information is then recorded on the V23 forms that collate polling station results within a ward.
These forms also show the results of the council elections.
The Sunday Mail reported at the weekend that at Rimbi Primary School in Manicaland Province, the V11 form showed that President Mugabe got 612 votes but the V23 form that was forwarded to the National Command Centre shows that the President received 187 votes.
This anomaly was detected in a number of constituencies.
Meanwhile, Zanu-PF legal committee member Cde Patrick Chinamasa yesterday said the party was still waiting for a response from ZEC on its request for a recount of the presidential results in some constituencies.
The ruling party's secretary for administration, Cde Didymus Mutasa, told journalists after the party's politburo meeting last Friday that some ZEC officials connived with the opposition to manipulate results in favour of the MDC.
In some case, he said, some voters were influenced to vote for the opposition.
Zanu-PF -- which garnered 97 House of Assembly seats -- lost its parliamentary majority to the Morgan Tsvangirai-led MDC faction, which amassed 99 seats with the Mutambara faction weighing in with 10 seats.
Source: http://allafrica.com/stories/200804080002.html``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe: ZEC Officials Arrested``x1207754368,40122,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Stephen T. Maimbodei
April 15, 2008
The Herald (Harare)
Harare
The blurb in Stuart Chase's 1938 book, "The tyranny of words" reads: "This eminently useful analysis of language continues to exert a forceful influence, directing our choice and employment of words toward accurate, complete, and readily understood communication."
This writer wondered over the implication of this statement after reading what could be considered one of the most bigoted statements made by British Prime Minister Gordon Brown on the BBC, regarding what he conveniently called "the Zimbabwe crisis".
For it is a statement that made the British leader forget about diplomatic etiquette as he used all the epithets in the English language to show his disregard not only of President Mugabe's leadership, but also the entire Zimbabwean population. It also displayed the arrogance we have witnessed from our former colonial master since 1890.
As usual, the British premier spoke from that high moral pedestal where they see, hear nor smell no evil about themselves, for they are always "right", especially when it comes to Zimbabwe.
The world watched and listened in amazement when Brown, on the eve of the so-called Sadc Extraordinary Summit (on Zimbabwe), was allegedly quoted by the BBC as having "warned the Zimbabwe leader Robert Mugabe that he was 'appalled' at the latest developments in Zimbabwe".
Brown is also alleged to have said, "the world was running out of patience in President Mugabe with results still not released almost two weeks after the election".
In a statement that showed total disregard for Zimbabwe's electoral laws as enshrined in the Constitution, Brown was not only "amazed", but he could not understand why (the Zimbabwean Government) was taking so long to announce the result of the presidential election.
And, speaking on behalf of "Zimbabweans", he said that they (the people) had "demonstrated their commitment to democracy", (while) we and the leaders of the region strongly shared their commitment".
Remarked Brown, "I am appalled by the signs that the regime is once again resorting to intimidation and violence".
He added: "We will be vigilant. The international community will remain careful to do nothing to undermine efforts to secure an outcome that reflects the democratic will of the people of Zimbabwe. But the international community's patience with the regime is wearing thin."
The following excerpts from Brown's statement are worthy paying special attention to, for in these words, the British prime minister employed words that do not only reveal his attitude towards Zimbabwe, but they were words meant to directly and indirectly influence the outcome of the summit.
"The world was running out of patience in President Mugabe
"We and the leaders of the region strongly shared their commitment
"I am appalled.
"We will be vigilant
"The international community will remain careful to do nothing to undermine efforts to secure an outcome that reflects the democratic will of the people of Zimbabwe.
"But the international community's patience with the regime is wearing thin."
These were very strong words from someone who knows fully well that he is abdicating his responsibility, and wants to hoodwink the world that when he speaks with the likes of South African and Ugandan presidents Thabo Mbeki and Yoweri Museveni, he is not only playing his part, but that he has the welfare of the Zimbabwean people at heart.
For didn't the media report last weekend that Brown actually held private talks with President Mbeki, spending more than two hours trying to persuade President Mbeki to use his influence to end the Zimbabwe "crisis".
The questions that beg an answer, who are the "we" being referred to by Brown? Is Brown not talking about the major British corporations in Zimbabwe that have put this country under a state of attempted siege?
Conveniently they have managed to make some sections of the Zimbabwean population believe that the food security situation the country has been facing for the past few years is due to mismanagement by Government of the land reform programme.
We have also been blinded to the fact that British big business interests that own the means of production in this country, have actually used food as a major political weapon in their quest to recolonise Zimbabwe through the illegal regime change agenda?
Why does the British government believe it can use the likes of presidents Mbeki and Museveni, to do their dirty work in Zimbabwe when we all know that the central issue in the equation is land?
Why does Brown also not come clean on what exactly he wishes African presidents to do on his behalf, since he has sworn that he will never sit in the same room with President Mugabe?
Is Brown also not aware that their facilitation role can only go up to a certain point, but after that whether Britain likes it or not, it has to talk to the Government of Zimbabwe?
Brown's statements should also not just be looked at as coming from a powerful member of the Western world which claims that they want to see due process of an electoral system prevail, but they are coming from the leader of a country that once colonised Zimbabwe.
They are also coming from the leader of a political party (New Labour), who upon assuming office in 1997 blatantly and unashamedly told the Government that they were not shackled to their history, and they were going to conduct their business with former colonies in a different manner.
They also told the Government that they would not be bound by agreements made by prior British governments, which would have seen a "smooth" resolution of the land issue (where all the property rights issues are tied therein).
The Blair government suddenly had selective amnesia and conveniently made Zimbabwe's liberation struggle and fight to reclaim its stolen land a non-issue and a non-event.
This writer thinks that it is high time that we earnestly revisit the contents and implications of the Claire Short letter of November 5 1997 to the Government of Zimbabwe, which the Government has made much reference to several times.
NewAfrican magazine in their May 2007 issue described the Claire Short letter as "one bad letter with long-lasting consequences".
They also wrote: "Britain's then secretary of state for international development, Claire Short, wrote what has become one of the most defining landmarks in Zimbabwe's recent history --- her letter to Zimbabwe's then Minister of Agriculture and Land, Kumbirai Kangai, repudiating Britain's colonial responsibility for land reform in Zimbabwe."
This letter is now one of the most crucial historical documents in post-independent Zimbabwe. For it was this letter, written by a New Labour government, which was sprucing up its image after several electoral defeats at the hands of the Conservatives which set the tone of where Zimbabwe is right now.
It was the implication of Claire Short's letter, which made the Zimbabwean Government declare in no uncertain terms that "Zimbabwe will never be a colony again".
It was also Claire Short's letter, which made the Government declare that the asset that is called land is a major economic resource and that Zimbabwe's economy is locked in a resource called land.
When the message did not seem to sink after several illegal regime change attempts were made through the stooges they have been propping up, it is clear that Claire Short's letter had a bearing when President Mugabe and Zanu-PF chose to fight the March 29 poll under the banner, "Defending our land and sovereignty".
It was also against the backdrop of this letter that the Government had to announce to the international community that as a way of consolidating its liberation struggle gains through land reform, it would embark on a policy of "building prosperity through (black) empowerment".
Brown's weekend utterances are therefore not surprising for he openly and obdurately told the world after getting into power last year that he was spoiling for a fight with President Mugabe, a fight that the Lancaster House Constitution had ended in 1979.
The world remembers Brown's utterances when he declared against all common sense that he would not sit in the same room with President Mugabe, a statement that set into additional motion a diplomatic hocus pocus of unprecedented proportions.
However, reading between the lines it was and is still very clear that these ploys employed by the British are a way of buying time, hoping against hope that they will wish away the land reform programme.
However, while Brown was busy worrying about Zimbabwean elections, he forgets that he is in a leadership position that was not decided by the will of the British populace through the ballot box.
For his was a premiership that was decided through a constitutional arrangement, and the so-called international community, Zimbabwe included never questioned this, for Britain's sovereignty is not Zimbabwe's business.
In addition when there was every indication that Brown's leadership should be tested through the ballot box, he chickened out, and postponed the elections.
It is therefore Claire Short's letter, initially represented by Blair, and now Brown which is revealing the deep-seated racist tendencies in former colonialist governments, systems which show their arrogance and patronising attitude towards former colonies, who are forever supposed to be told how to organise their affairs.
When Brown refused to listen to the voices of reason to attend the EU-Africa Summit in Lisbon last year, the so-called international community was silent.
However, they did not realise that by so doing, Britain was diverting world attention regarding its unfinished business, not only in Zimbabwe but in all former colonies.
The West has been so engrossed in its quest to see President Mugabe leave office at all costs, that they actually forget that unless London and Harare resolve the land issue, they can bring in one puppet government after another, but land will forever remain an issue that needs to be decisively resolved.
It is also common knowledge that land is still an issue in the United States between the settlers and the native Americans.
It is also an unfinished business in Australia between the British and the Aborigines.
It is an issue, whether talked about or not in places like South America, and the entire African region. It is also an issue between the English monarchy and the Scottish in the United Kingdom.
The Judaeo-Christian world taught us that land was the first major asset that the Lord gave to the people of Israel: "And the Lord said to Abraham after Lot had parted from him, 'Lift up your eyes from where you are and look north, south, east and west. All the land that you see I will give to you and your offspring forever ... Go, walk through the length and breadth of the land, for I am giving it to you'." (Genesis 13: 14-17).
This part of the international community would also like to know what has happened to Brown's request to President Museveni at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting held in Kampala last December?
Notwithstanding, how long does the British government think this mediation by second and third parties should take before they can take the bull by the horns and come to the negotiating table to talk to the Government of Zimbabwe in order to resolve this impasse?
How many emissaries will the British government send before they realise that all they need to do is to sit down with the Government of Zimbabwe to resolve the outstanding issue: Land?
We also wonder why this second and third party tactic is being used. By asking leaders of former colonies where the land issue also has to be resolved, one way or the other, isn't the British government not only playing a divide and rule game, but also trying to make these leaders negate a problem that they should be resolving right now?
An analysis of Brown's weekend comments shows very clearly who the instigators and masterminds of the Lusaka Summit and why.
The British government and their Western allies had expected a quick fix result after the March 29 poll, and they could not contain themselves as we see Brown using the most undiplomatic language to show their impatience.
The zeal and anger with which he descended on the Zimbabwean Government makes us wonder whether the West is only too happy to see people in Africa forever embroiled in conflicts, fighting and hacking each other to death, and being eventual recipients of humanitarian aid.
For how else does one explain Brown's headmaster-like attitude towards the Zimbabwean leader when he did not do the same in Kenya? Four months down the line, the Kenyan crisis is still to be resolved.
And, aren't skewed property rights created by the British as the former colonial master one of the major sources of the Kenyan conflict?
Does one need to have a super IQ to realise that Zimbabwe's detractors are eating humble pie because of the prevailing peace and tranquillity, before, during and after the March 29 poll?
And finally, Brown's reactions revealed one important element: how issues and agendas are framed, and who calls the shots.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe: Brown's Tyranny of Words on Zim``x1208307667,52969,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xPosted: Mon, 14 Apr 2008
newsnet.co.zw
The Zimbabwean government delegation to the SADC summit held at the weekend has hailed SADC’s ruling that there is neither a stalemate nor an impasse in the electoral process in Zimbabwe.
The Zimbabwean government delegation to the SADC summit held at the weekend has hailed SADC’s ruling that there is neither a stalemate nor an impasse in the electoral process in Zimbabwe.
Addressing journalists in Harare this afternoon, Cde Emmerson Mnangagwa said the Zimbabwean delegation briefed the summit on the recent harmonized elections and emphasized that the situation was calm and peaceful. In his reasons for calling the summit on Zimbabwe, Zambian leader and current SADC chairman, Mr. Levy Mwanawasa cited an alleged stalemate and impasse in the Zimbabwean harmonized elections.
The Zimbabwean team to the summit explained the various legal processes that are currently underway which had caused the delay in the announcement of the results of the presidential election and refuted suggestions that the government of Zimbabwe was in anyway responsible for the delay in the announcement of the results. Cde Mnangagwa also explained how the Zimbabwean delegation was ached by the fact that Zimbabwe which was the topic of the summit was only told of the planned summit on Thursday, well after western media houses that include CNN of the United States, BBC and Sky News, were told at a news conference of the impending summit.
They said other member states were also taken by surprise by since there were no prior consultations undertaken by the SADC chairperson Mr. Mwanawasa as is the tradition. The Zimbabwean government at the summit objected in the strongest terms to the inclusion of the addresses by Morgan Tsvangirayi and Simba Makoni saying the two individuals are neither heads of state and government nor representatives of heads of state and governments. The representatives of the government of Zimbabwe felt that the inclusion of this item on the summit agenda was tantamount to elevating the opposition politicians to the status of heads of state.
The summit through the SADC observer team’s report which was read by chairman of the organ President Eduardo dos Santos was full of praises for Zimbabwe’s harmonized elections and that they were held in a free and fair atmosphere and that the counting was meticulous.
In a related development an eyewitness at the summit Darlington Muzeza said he was surprised to see a strong presence of white former Zimbabwean farmers who clapped and cheered when MDC leader Tsvangirayi arrived at a news conference he addressed on the sidelines of the summit.
http://www.newsnet.co.zw/index.php?nID=12385``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xSADC rules no electoral impasse in Zimbabwe``x1208318641,60790,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Reason Wafawarova
April 17, 2008
The yet to be announced result for the presidential election held two weeks ago has presented to the opposition MDC-T and its Western backers, an opportunity to stage-manage a crisis -- a condition that they have failed to create for the past eight and a half years.
President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa rightly said there was no crisis in Zimbabwe and with the phrase: "No crisis," he instantly hit world headlines. President Mbeki did not employ supernatural or genius science to discover that there was no crisis in Zimbabwe and neither did he say something that everyone around him was not seeing. He stated the obvious, but the obvious was not supposed to be stated. For the British and the generality of the West, what must be stated about Zimbabwe is very clear. The country is an unmanageable crisis and that is that.
Until the client regime of lapdog politician Morgan Tsvangirai is put in place, all "democratic forces" must see a crisis in Zimbabwe. If they cannot see it they must either open their eyes wider or simply create the crisis. Across the Zambezi, President Levy Mwanawasa was made to see the non-existent crisis for the second time in about 13 months. Last year in March, Mwanawasa saw a "sinking Titanic" in the wake of the MDC's so-called "defiance campaign" that culminated in the March 11 disturbances in Highfield. It had to take a Sadc Extraordinary Summit in Dar es Salaam to remind him his eyes had deceived him.
President Mbeki has had to face the agony of eight and a half years of a crisis-waving Britain but the ever alert and revolutionary Mbeki has not been fooled, even once. He saw no crisis with the land reclamation, squarely blaming Britain for its past mistakes. He saw no crisis with the 2000, 2002 and 2005 elections, snubbing all imperialist pressure to declare the elections unfree and unfair. President Mbeki saw no crisis with the March 11 skirmishes that made Mwanawasa see a "sinking Titanic". The ever-discerning Pan-Africanist, Mbeki; saw beyond the bruises of the skirmishes and excellently held the mediation talks that resulted in the peaceful March 29 elections.
The Zambian leader would do well to emulate him.
At the peak of the mobilisation of the illegal sanctions by Britain and her allies, they did their best to drag President Mbeki into their corner and, of course, they got it all wrong. Tsvangirai was so livid that he did not even see the folly of making public attacks on Mbeki -- blaming him for not cutting off power and fuel supplies, yes cutting off Tsvangirai's own motherland, Zimbabwe -- just as stupid as that.
Obviously, President Mbeki is seen as a potential big political scoop by Western powers -- that emanating from his powerful position as the leader of the most powerful economy in Africa. With the now characteristic rebuffs from Mbeki, the West has been desperately looking for allies within Sadc and it would appear our brother across the Zambezi is playing ball.
But is this assertion correct?
The convening of an emergency summit on Zimbabwe was the kind of move that makes people like Gordon Brown feel like successful politicians.
The invitation of pro-West opposition leaders like Tsvangirai and Makoni to such a summit is the prototype behaviour expected by the West from any "democratic" chairperson leading such a regional grouping like Sadc. The fact that eight out of 14 heads of state and government attended is not exactly the scenario Bush would instruct Gordon Brown to have on a matter with so much Western interest at stake. The absence of the man for whom the summit was supposed to sit as a court of law did not really make matters look any better. The dock was empty and Mwanawasa had to start by acknowledging that President Mugabe was not in the dock but the talk shop would proceed nonetheless.
The three-point resolution -- clearly nothing to offend or to please anyone, does not really make much sense of the half night spend in discussions. Sadc wants the results of the poll announced "expeditiously" and expects all parties to accept the result. Is that not very obvious and given? If Sadc needs all-night-long summits to come up with this kind of resolution then they are not very different from the European Union that spent nights of empty debates on issues like poverty eradication and free trade, something they keep doing knowing very well that they have neither will, wish nor commitment to effect such change.
Anyway, a "crisis" summit ordered by the West cannot end up any worse than being declared a non-crisis by President Mbeki, snubbed by six regional leaders (maybe rightly so) and presenting an unassuming and clearly harmless piece of paper in the name of resolutions. This writer would normally see a snub of the MDC by Africa in all this but there is every need to worry when such a snub comes through what looks like outright confusion.
For the MDC and the West, the "victory" lies in calling for an emergency summit on Zimbabwe not in the outcome of the summit. For Britain, any meeting over President Mugabe is a crisis, and by definition a success story. This writer sees the outcome of this Lusaka summit as the beginning of another damage control enterprise by President Mwanawasa -- a man who appears to be struggling with his judgment when it comes to international relations. It would not be surprising if Mwanawasa will repeat what he did last year in a bid to disown and dissociate himself from the West.
Now we hear the much-exalted Zimbabwe High Court has just pulled the pin on the MDC. ZEC can keep the result to themselves for as long as it is not appropriate to release them. Again the High Court decision must have been an obvious judgment for anyone who sincerely believes in free and fair elections. When irregularities have been cited it is only natural that the process may not continue regardless.
What are the alternatives for Africa in all this? There is only one alternative for Sadc and the rest of Africa. It is unity and more unity. There is need for Africa, South America and Asia to create an alternative future from a legacy of empire dominated imperialist ruin and terror.
The US-led Western alliance has long dominated the world; Africa topping the list -- and that domination coming through two major methods: Violence and economic strangulation. In fact, frankly speaking, international affairs have increasingly grown a striking resemblance to the Mafia. The Godfather does not take it lightly when he is crossed, even by the smallest of storekeepers -- and the US has not taken it lightly with Zimbabwe's land redistribution programme -- indeed all Zimbabweans know this too well.
From 1945, the US has made it a point that true national independence or independent nationalism is not allowed to happen. The US success in achieving this sabre-rattling dream can only be credited to a lack of regional and continental co-operation in Latin America, Africa and other less developed parts of this world.
Without this co-operation, threats such as Zimbabwe's land redistribution programme can be handled one by one. The continued and resolute support for Zimbabwe by Sadc and the AU is the kind of co-operation the US and its Western allies would not want to see. This is why they keep hoping that they can play the regional leaders against each other.
In Latin America the US has had to shift policy just because of the regional co-operation that started at the beginning of this millennium. There are many governments in Latin America that would long have been overthrown by the US had it not been for the current prevailing regional unity and co-operation.
Michelle Bachelet of Chile is a socialist like Allende and during the days of Henry Kissinger she would have long been bombed to ashes in the Chilean palace -- of course, for the crime of being a "contagious virus". But now America cannot dare touch her because of the regional co-operation across Latin America.
The Americans cannot stand Eva Morales of Bolivia but they cannot handle him the way they did Maurice Bishop of Grenada in the past. The American ruling elite calls Hugo Chavez Frias of Venezuela all sorts of names but they cannot afford to tackle him the way they bullied Nicaragua, Haiti, Panama and Honduras in the past. Chavez has pushed for a gas joint venture with Bolivia and has a vision for Petroamerica, an integrated energy system of the kind China is initiating in Asia. The US looks like they can do absolutely nothing about this at this point in time.
It is only this kind of co-operation that can render the vampire useless. In the 1970s the US would long have occupied Venezuela and Bolivia, but this is the 21st century and the times are indeed changing.
In 2006 the Ecuadorian president, Rafael Correa, proposed a land and river trade link running from the Brazilian Amazon rainforest to Ecuador's Pacific Coast -- something like the Panama Canal. There are other promising developments like Telesur, an effort to break the Western media monopoly in Latin Americas and Lula da Silva of Brazil has been calling for an overcoming of historical distortions and all this has strengthened the Latin American resolve for true and genuine independence.
Even Daniel Ortega, the victim of the Sandinista onslaught by Washington, is now back in power in Nicaragua and has been co-operating very well with Venezuela.
Latin America offers incisive lessons for Africa and it is a prerequisite for genuine independence that all African states unite and make a genuine drive towards meaningful integration. All these years, imperialism has thrived on its ability not only to divide countries from one another but also on its sharp internal divisions within individual countries -- mainly between a wealthy small elite and a mass of impoverished masses. The rich are normally either white or indigenous people well connected and linked to the West, not necessarily to their own societies.
The current unity of purpose in Latin America has forced the US to foster new relations with governments they would normally just kick out of power without a second thought. Lula's government in Brazil is a replica of Joao Goulart's government -- a government that was ousted by a US-backed coup in 1964. However, the US has had to shift and make an ally out of Lula's government in a bid to isolate the so-called bad boys, Hugo Chavez and Eva Morales.
The US has been forced to focus on a means of control hidden in the abuse of the International Monetary Fund, which is virtually a branch of the US Treasury Department -- indeed for all intents and purposes.
Argentina was the poster child of the IMF until the 2001 crash. For recovery Argentina had to violate IMF rules, refusing to pay its debts and buying up what remained of the debt -- partly with the help of Hugo Chavez's Venezuela. It is this kind of co-operation that can cripple the imperial authority and Africa must learn here and now that there is no need to allow the West to play one leader against the other. Such a situation is not only stupid but extremely dangerous as Latin Americans now know too well.
Brazil has been moving to free itself from the IMF and that is the direction the rest of the developing world should be taking. After 25 years of obedient studentship to the IMF, Bolivia ended with an income per capita much lower than when it adopted the IMF policies in the first place.
Now Bolivia is getting rid of the IMF and that is coming through co-operation with Venezuela. Lula was re-elected in 2006 and immediately after being sworn in he rushed to support Chavez's electoral campaign. In the eighties such a move would invite the immediate wrath of the US, but with the current integration and unity the US just watched almost helplessly and still maintained Lula was their "ally".
Africa must look closely at the Latin American example and take it from 2007, when they stood with Zimbabwe over the Lisbon Summit. That unity is needed, if only to cripple the imperial interest over the resources of the continent. It is a unity that is direly needed, if only to ensure that true independent nationalism is achieved.
In this context Zimbabwe's land reform programme must be supported until it succeeds. In fact, the principle and policy has been supported well enough while the implementation has just been ignored by other African states. There is need for Sadc to offer material support for the land reform programme by loaning materials to the new farmers of Zimbabwe.
Such a gesture has a consolidating effect that can only motivate the new farmer to do their best and bring out the best they can out of the land they were given.
Such a vision is loathed to the marrow by the likes of Tendai Biti of the MDC, that perpetually ranting official who is convinced that Zimbabwe has never ever known any good in the past and their only chance to do so lies in an MDC government. He has the temerity, or is it stupidity; to deride the efforts of the liberation struggle and even call the whole effort an "unjust war".
The only way to deal with parties like MDC and the Bitis of this world is to expose them for what they are and to ensure that their assignments never get a pass mark. ``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe: The 'Crisis' That Never Was``x1208428798,96187,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xThe Herald (Harare)
April 18, 2008
Harare
MDC-T yesterday filed another application at the High Court seeking an interim order barring the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission or constituency election officers from declaring as duly-elected anyone who might emerge victorious in tomorrow's vote recounts.
Cited as respondents in the application are ZEC and constituency election officers in the concerned 23 constituencies. MDC-T wants the provisional order to remain operational notwithstanding any appeal by the respondents.
The High Court will hear the application and another one seeking to stop the recounts today. ZEC has ordered a recount of presidential and House of Assembly results in 23 constituencies on the basis that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the votes were miscounted and that the miscount would affect the result of the election.
Recounts will be done tomorrow and local and foreign observers have been invited to witness the process. The recounts come after Zanu-PF unearthed anomalies in the way V11 and V23 forms were completed by ZEC officers, some of whom have since appeared in court charged with electoral fraud. ZEC has already announced House of Assembly and Senate poll results. In the House of Assembly elections, MDC-T won 99 seats, Zanu-PF 97, MDC 10 while one seat went to an independent. In the Senate elections, Zanu-PF garnered 30 seats, MDC-T 24 with MDC winning the remaining six seats. ZEC yesterday said ballot boxes used in the just-ended harmonised elections were secure as they were under police guard pending completion of the electoral process. In an interview, the commission's deputy chief elections officer, Mr Utoile Silaigwana, said the ballot boxes were kept at constituency command centres in the districts countrywide under police guard. "So far we have not received any reports of ballot boxes that have been tampered with," Mr Silaigwana said. US State Department spokesman Sean McCormack has criticised Zimbabwe's electoral authorities for their plan to recount the March 29 presidential vote, alleging the State could have fiddled with the ballots.
Deputy Minister of Information and Publicity Cde Bright Matonga said the Bush administration's statements were hypocritical.
"It is a very unfortunate statement. He (US President George W. Bush) won the presidency through the recounting process and the courts. "It's hypocritical of him to try and advise Zimbabwe on the matter. We follow the Constitution and the electoral laws, unless he is saying that he doesn't respect the laws of this country," he said.
Cde Matonga said anyone who was against this idea should approach the courts.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe: MDC-T Seeks to Bar Declaration of Vote Recount Winners``x1208565134,11058,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xFull text of the address by His Excellency the President, Comrade R.G. Mugabe, on the occasion of the 28th Independence Anniversary held at Gwanzura Stadium yesterday.
Honourable Vice President Comrade Joseph Msika, Honourable Vice President Comrade Joice Mujuru and Baba Solomon Mujuru, Mai Muzenda, President of the Senate Mai Edna Madzongwe, Chief Justice Godfrey Chidyausiku and Mai Chidyausiku, Members of the Politburo and Central Committee of Zanu-PF;
Members of the Senate and House of Assembly, Service Chiefs, Chairperson of the Harare City Commission Engineer Michael Mahachi;
Families of Heroes of Zimbabwe’s Liberation Struggle, War Veterans, War Collaborators, Ex-Detainees and Restrictees;
Your Excellencies Members of the Diplomatic Corps, Esteemed Foreign Guests and Visitors;
Ladies and Gentlemen;
Comrades and Friends,
I am most delighted to welcome all of you to the main celebrations of our country’s 28th Anniversary of Independence; mainly, because various other gatherings with a similar theme are being held all over the country. Our political history is well known yet, with time, we feel more challenged to recall it, especially for those who appear ignorant of it or are deliberately engaged in reversing the gains of our liberation struggle. It was on the 18th of April in 1980 that, after a triumphant and unyielding struggle by our people, our great Nation finally shook off the chains of British racist settler colonialism and became free and independent assuming, thereby full sovereignty over the country and its resources.
We, not the British, established democracy based on one person one vote, democracy which rejected racial or gender discrimination and upheld human rights and religious freedom.
Literally overnight, Government began a process of transforming and expanding the range and nature of opportunities that had not been available to the majority of the people. In short, the advent of an independent Zimbabwe restored dignity to our people. That, Comrades and Friends, is the essence of our celebrations here, indeed, the very core of it. No challenge or hardship can ever overcome the sense of being independent. For that reason, let us take pride as we renew our independence joy in loudly proclaiming that Zimbabwe, this our Zimbabwe, shall never be a colony again.
An honest appreciation of where we came from is vitally important for us in order to understand the need, indeed the obligation, to jealously guard our sovereignty and freedom. This understanding bids us as Zimbabweans, across our different political party lines, to always uphold the supreme sacrifice paid by our heroes, both departed and living, in high esteem.
Today, we need to maintain utmost vigilance in the face of the vicious machinations by our detractors. Whereas yesterday they relied on brute force to subjugate our people and plunder our resources, today, they have perfected their tactics to more subtle forms, as they, through money as a weapon, literally buy some of our people to turn against their Government, and accept to be politically manipulated in abandoning their rights. This is what is called the advent of neo-colonialism.
We should all be clear that regime change does not only refer to the illegal removal of our present Government and those personalities seen as sympathetic to Government. Britain’s endgame is to erase the history of our Liberation Struggle and craftily devise ways of installing a puppet leadership that will restore white supremacy in our country. Let us be wary that their weapons of mass deception do not hoodwink us into reckless political adventurism that will only leave our land and its resources in the hands of our erstwhile colonisers. Every Zimbabwean should, therefore, count it joy, indeed, justifiable social justice, that the Land Reform Programme, which has given more of our people access to the means of production, is irreversible and a happy outcome of our democracy. Yes, our Independence should in every way be an opportunity and avenue to economically empower our people. With the passage of the Indigenisation and Empowerment Act, we will be able to now explore and utilise opportunities in the mining, manufacturing and tourism sectors.
We continue to face several challenges largely emanating from the unwarranted and illegal sanctions imposed on us by Britain and her cronies as punishment for our Land Reforn1 Programme. This is the more reason why our new farmers should aim for maximum productivity on their pieces of land. Barring the unpredictable cycles of the weather patterns, we need to profitably use the farms in order to address most of the challenges in the economy. We plan this winter season to apply this view as we maximise the growing of wheat. With better economic performance, we can improve our exports and hence foreign currency earnings; raise our capacity for social services delivery, especially in health, education and transport for the commuting public. The prevailing situation of planned shortages of basic commodities has given rise to corruption, further bleeding our economic performance.
In response to these challenges, Government has, in the last year, implemented several measures aimed at stabilising the economy and, therefore, containing some of the negative effects of the crippling sanctions. In order to work towards food security at the national and household levels, Government has vigorously pursued measures to augment the country’s food reserves by importing grain from neighbouring countries to boost domestic reserves. While the programme at times is slow, inflows of maize and wheat continue to be received.
Government has continued to strengthen agricultural production capacity by providing the necessary machinery and equipment to all categories of our farmers as demonstrated by the Agricultural Mechanisation Programme. The sector also continued to be prioritised in terms of resource allocation through the Agriculture Sector Productivity Enhancement Facility (ASPEF). Other measures such as the improvement of skills and farm management through compulsory farm training and the elimination of the abuse of inputs support are afoot.
Government feels concerned about the suffering of the people due to the contrived non-availability of some goods and also the extortionate prices of basic and essential commodities in the shops. To avert the collapse of industry, Government last year introduced a series of bold measures, such as the establishment of the National Incomes and Pricing Commission in order to ensure the realistic pricing of goods and services. Other interventions, led by the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe, have seen an improvement in capacity utilisation in industry, in some cases from as low as 10 percent to improved capacities of up to 65 percent.
Government has also intensified the implementation of the Look East Policy, which has resulted in the deepening of co-operation with countries such as China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Iran and India. The benefits of this policy initiative have already been seen in certain sectors of the economy.
A sustained increase in productivity and the promotion of exports in the various sectors of our economy remains the key lever in efforts to tame inflation. Accordingly, I would like to encourage local companies to exhibit at this year’s edition of the Zimbabwe International Trade Fair in order to enhance their chances of becoming global players. Local industry should also take a long-term global competitive perspective and undergo a shift from being commodity exporters to exporters of value-added secondary and tertiary goods instead.
Our Nation, like the rest of the sub-region, has witnessed unprecedented power cuts due to a high demand for electricity. This has had negative effects on households and industry. Government has taken measures to expand the Kariba Power Station, with two additional units of 150 megawatts each while elsewhere, work has been taking place on the Gokwe North Coal-Fired Power Station, with a capacity to produce 1 400MW. A bio-diesel manufacturing plant, commissioned at Mount Hampden late last year, has already yielded over 100 000 litres of the fuel. A massive nationwide jatropha-growing programme to provide feedstock for this and future provincial bio-diesel plants is already underway, while the blending of petrol with ethanol is set to commence towards the end of this month, following completion of the refurbishment of the ethanol plant at Triangle.
Government remains concerned with the plight of both our rural and urban commuters owing to unreliable and escalating costs of transport. Zupco continues to provide a valuable service to both rural and urban commuters and this is expected to be strengthened by Government’s acquisition of 184 minibuses under the National Transport Enhancement Programme. Charging half of Zupco fares, this programme is set to further improve the public transportation situation. Each of the rural provinces has received 23 of these buses and the allocation is expected to eventually rise to 35 buses per province as the remainder of the buses are now available.
Government is keenly aware of the difficulties endured by the people in urban areas, in regard to accessing reliable and clean water supplies. In response to the problem, and to avoid costly chemicals, plans are afoot for Zinwa to enter into mutually beneficial partnerships to boost the local production of water treatment chemicals.
The country continues to experience high levels of skills flight, especially to South Africa, owing to the opportunities available there, and the prevailing challenges in our economy. This naturally impacts negatively on the quality of public service delivery. This is being addressed in a number of ways, which include the constant review of salaries and wages of public servants, programmes designed to retain critical skills, and the provision of accommodation and affordable transport. Government is currently building houses for civil servants under the Civil Service Housing Fund. Several co-operative schemes for enhancing housing accommodation are already in existence and many more are being planned.
In the health sector, some institutional accommodation for doctors and nurses will be provided. Indeed, it is in this context that I recently launched the Medical Sector Skills Retention Programme in Harare, to revitalise the health sector through the provision of modern equipment, drugs and incentives to medical personnel countrywide. Under the first phase of the programme, Government bought 510 cars for distribution to senior and middle level doctors, 97 ambulances, 88 generators and 52 buses, all worth US$8,7 million.
Parastatals have also been called to assist with housing provision, with NSSA currently leading the way. In the past 12 months, NSSA has serviced 699 high-density stands and constructed 143 houses under the Marondera-Rusike Housing Project and a further 394 medium-density stands under the Glaudina Housing Project near Snake Park. A total of 16 multi-purpose community centres are also being constructed throughout the country to facilitate co-ordination of community development projects.
Government has not ignored other social ills such as child abuse and the incidence of corruption. Accordingly, Government has put in place measures to strengthen a Child Abuse Prevention Programme in schools and in the community, while the fight against corruption and other economic crimes has intensified, as witnessed by the number of cases before our courts. The HIV/Aids awareness programmes have also been strengthened with a bias towards encouraging behaviour change.
On the international arena, we have continued to enjoy strong relations with our partners in the region, on the continent as a whole and with progressive nations throughout the world. We continue to deepen such relationships in the region through Sadc, and on the continent through the African Union. Our imminent chairmanship of Comesa should bolster our efforts to forge stronger ties within that community and with other regional communities.
I wish to take this opportunity to thank our Sadc family for clearly articulating our case on the harmonised elections we held last month. The elections, which were premised on Sadc guidelines and run by the independent Zimbabwe Electoral Commission took place against the backdrop of the Sadc-brokered inter-party dialogue involving Zanu-PF and the two MDC political formations.
I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the various political parties, contestants and their supporters on displaying political maturity and tolerance in the period leading up to the elections. This peace and stability should be maintained as our law enforcement agencies will quickly restore law and order where these are threatened. In the same vein, I wish to register the country’s appreciation of the work done by the Zimbabwe Republic Police and other Security Forces on ensuring that peace prevailed during the entire elections period. You have defeated the designs of those who still continue to agitate for anarchy and violence amongst our people.
The challenges we face as a Nation should fortify the heroic spirit in us and inspire us to even greater heights of sacrifice for our country and the long-term prosperity of our people. Through it all, we should emerge stronger, and more united than ever before. Let us nurture and promote the spirit of dialogue and collaboration in all our endeavours.
In conclusion, I wish to thank all our people for their resilience in the face of the prevailing harsh economic conditions. Let us continue to exhibit such fortitude of mind and allow for the peaceful conclusion of whatever remains of our electoral process.
Let unity and more unity be our watchword.
May God bless our Nation.
Amhlophe! Makorokoto! Congratulations on our 28th Independence Anniversary.
I thank you!``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe: Let unity be our watchword -- President``x1208695662,70398,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xHerald Reporters
RECOUNTING of votes in 23 constituencies might take longer than the three days initially projected, the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission has said.
ZEC deputy chief elections officer responsible for operations Mr Utloile Silaigwana said the election body's preliminary assessment had indicated that the process might take longer than originally anticipated as there was a lot of work involved.
Reports from Mashonaland West, Matabeleland and Masvingo indicated that the recounting process started well with all political parties involved including the MDC-T, despite denials by the party's leadership.
"Recounting is going on well and all political parties are represented by their election agents. There are signs that the counting might take longer than the three days we had projected," Mr Silaigwana said.
"The agents are mostly influencing the delay because they are raising issues which they would want attended to and clarified.
"I am still to get a full report on what is happening from across all the 23 constituencies, but that is our preliminary assessment so far."
He said in Goromonzi West five wards out of eight had been completed and he had by last night not yet received any reports of a major hiccup arising from the recount.
At least one ward had been completed out of eight in Zvimba North when The Herald visited Murombedzi Government Complex yesterday afternoon.
The provincial election officer, Mr Michael Guzha, said counting was going on well and by late afternoon counting for the second ward had started.
The Herald saw chief election agents for both Zanu-PF and the MDC-T, both of whom declined to comment on progress.
In Masvingo, MDC-T polling agents became part of the process yesterday although one of the party's top officials said they were simply playing a monitoring role.
"We have disengaged from the process (recounting), but we are merely playing a monitoring role to see how the process proceeds," he said, preferring anonymity.
Reports from Bulawayo also indicated that MDC-T had polling agents on the ground despite denials by the party's spokesperson Nelson Chamisa.
The Matabeleland North provincial election officer, Mr Mark Ndlovu, confirmed that MDC-T was represented.
He described some MDC-T election agents' threat to boycott the recount as a "short walkout".
Chamisa denied that his party was participating in the recount despite being told that the party's vehicle bearing its logo was seen at Murombedzi Government Complex with officials from the party participating.
"The national executive committee of the party made a resolution that we will not participate in the recount or run-off. We have zero confidence in ZEC because we believe that it is an extension of Zanu-PF, so why should we participate in the recount?" said Chamisa.
When told that The Herald was on the ground and had seen officials from his party participating, Chamisa said: "You might have been on the ground, but on the wrong ground."
Mr Silaigwana said the MDC-T was represented in all the 23 constituencies and castigated Chamisa for "misleading people".
"In all the 23 constituencies that are being recounted, the MDC-T is represented and all the concerns they have raised have been attended to their satisfaction, including those concerns raised by Zanu-PF, paving way for the recount to begin."
He said one of the issues raised by both parties was the claim that the ballot boxes had been tampered with.
"We told the election agents that the election material they were referring to were cardboard boxes containing accessories like pairs of scissors and so forth, and not the translucent boxes and they understood our explanation and counting started," he said.
In Masvingo yesterday, recounting started at a snail's pace with preliminary estimates pointing to the completion of the process by end of this week.
On Saturday, the process started around 2pm in Masvingo West and Central constituencies because of the meticulous verification process, among other logistical requirements.
Sources said the process was likely to take about a week to complete as the painstaking verification process was consuming most of the time.
By 6:45am yesterday, only a few ballot boxes had been recounted in both Masvingo West and Central constituencies.
The situation was also reported to be the same in Chiredzi, Gutu, Zaka and Bikita.
In Lupane East constituency, the process began at about 9.30pm on Saturday at Kusile Rural District Council offices and resumed yesterday at 8.30am.
Mr Ndlovu said the delays being experienced were a result of the refusal to participate by the MDC-T when the recounting process started alleging that the ballot boxes had been tampered with.
"After the accreditation on Saturday, we proceeded to Zwangendaba where the ballot boxes were being kept. We carried out an external examination.
"It was at that juncture that the MDC-T agents started claiming that the ballot boxes had been tampered with and called for an investigation.
"I told them that it was not necessary to go that route as there was no tangible evidence and they walked out, but it was a short walkout. After telling them that it did not help to walk out but it was better for them to witness the recount, they reconsidered their decision," he said.
Lupane East constituency has 14 wards and by midday yesterday only ballot boxes for four wards had been brought to the recounting centre.
"Because of inadequate storage space here, we cannot bring all the ballot boxes at once. As soon as we are done with these, we will move in and collect the following batch," Mr Ndlovu said.
He was, however, confident that the process would be completed on time.
"It's possible. Yes, we lost a day, but let me assure everyone that with the pace at which we are moving, we will complete the work within the stipulated period," he said.
Mr Ndlovu said the other constraint they faced was poor communication which has since been rectified.
In Bulilima East constituency, recounting started well yesterday until late afternoon when MDC-T polling agents threatened to boycott the exercise, accusing ZEC and Zanu-PF officials of holding a private meeting.
The recount resumed after an hour's delay when the Matabeleland South provincial elections officer, Mr Jotham Nyathi, and other ZEC officials had held a meeting with all candidates, polling agents and observers who were present to clear the air.
The MDC-T agents had seen Zanu-PF Bulilima-Mangwe Senate candidate Cde Eunice Sandi and House of Assembly candidate Cde Mathias Ndlovu chatting with Mr Nyathi and other senior ZEC officials outside the Plumtree High School Hall where the counting was in progress.
The agents who were outside the hall informed the MDC-T candidate, Norman Mpofu, about the alleged meeting after the first count.
Mpofu and his party's Senate candidate Lutho Tapela immediately went outside and challenged the ZEC officials and Zanu-PF members on why they had held a meeting in their absence and in the absence of observers.
The MDC-T members then held a brief meeting on their own before walking out of the hall in protest, declaring that they would only take part in the proceedings after ZEC officials had told them what the meeting was about.
Although Mr Nyathi later apologised during a meeting where the MDC-T members outlined their grievances, he emphasised the fact that the meeting was not about undermining anyone.
Zanu-PF officials walked out of proceedings after ZEC officials refused to entertain their complaints that the MDC had bussed in voters into the constituency during the March 29 elections and wanted the voters' roll to be checked.
"We came here as people who lodged a complaint and we don't know how that would cause a problem. Checking people on the voters' roll is a normal electoral process and remember it's not only one party which can walk out," Cde Sandi said before walking out of the hall.
But she returned later and an agreement was reached that ZEC officials, candidates and their agents should be present when parties present their grievances to ZEC officials.
Mr Nyathi said apart from these delays, the recounting went well.
"We are finalising the local government elections and we will soon go into the House of Assembly ballots. Because of poor lighting, we have agreed with all parties that we will end the exercise at 6pm and start at 8am," he said.
Recounts were being carried out in Chimanimani West, Mutare West, Bikita West, Bikita South, Bulilima East, Zhombe, Zaka West, Zvimba North, Silobela, Chiredzi North, Mberengwa East, West, South and North, Gutu South, North, Central and Goromonzi West.
ZEC ordered a recount after it said it had discovered some miscounts which in its view might have affected the results.
The High Court has since dismissed an application by the MDC-T to have the recount halted.
http://www.herald.co.zw/inside.aspx?sectid=33446&cat=1``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe: 'Vote recount to take longer'``x1208757817,10025,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xby Sam Akaki
The Monitor (Kampala)
19 April 2008
Posted to the web 21 April 2008
Only with the Conservative Party in power in the UK can that country hope to salvage its rapidly deteriorating relationship with Zimbabwe and Africa.
Under the New Labour government, Zimbabwe has needlessly become to the British, what Cuba has been to the United States for the last 50 years.
Just as the US has maintained an economic blockade against, and repeatedly violated Cuba's territorial independence, the Labour government has misused its influence in the UN, European Union, G8, Commonwealth, World Bank and the International Monetary Fund to ensure Zimbabwe's economic collapse.
From making disparaging remarks in Parliament and the international fora to organising self-demeaning TV gestures by the Labour-voting Ugandan-born Archbishop of York John Sentamu; from boycotting two EU Africa summits to illegally ferrying BBC reporters and Labour MPs into Zimbabwe, and organising a "citizen's arrest" against President Robert Mugabe - since coming to power in 1977, the Labour government has single-mindedly pursued an aggressive Africa policy aimed at running down Mugabe, ignoring African views and the dire humanitarian consequences.
The deaths of thousands of Zimbabwean children due starvation and preventable diseases as a result of the blockade are blamed on Mugabe.
The BBC which is funded by the Foreign Office under a Royal Charter but now banned from Zimbabwe recently boasted, "The BBC's John Simpson confirmed the news while under cover in Zimbabwe". If this is not a deliberate violation of Zimbabwe's independence, the UN and AU Charters, what else can it be?
The Labour government is cynically using the current political dispute in Zimbabwe to create a crisis in South Africa by promoting the view that, unlike the state president Thambo Mbeki, the ANC president Jacob Zuma wants tough actions on Zimbabwe. Nonsense!
African leaders are infuriated. Last Wednesday, at the special session of United Nations Security Council, they pointedly rejected British to flag Zimbabwe as a threat to international security - a move which would have necessitated the deployment of foreign troops in country.
The Labour government's obsession with Mugabe goes back many years. Speaking at the 2001 Labour Party Conference, the then Prime Minister Mr Tony Blair said, "Partnership for Africa, between the developed and developing world based around the New African Initiative, is there to be done."
And he concluded, "But it's a deal: on the African side: true democracy, no more excuses for dictatorship, abuses of human rights; no tolerance of bad governance, from the endemic corruption of some states, to the activities of Mr Mugabe's henchmen in Zimbabwe".
But this so-called "deal" with Africa excludes Yoweri Museveni whose records on governance and human rights is just as bad, and in many ways worse. In November 2007, the Labour Government honoured him with a royal visit and gave him £750 million.
Except President Museveni who has publicly and repeatedly supported President Mugabe's controversial land policies, the Labour government demonises any other African leader who does not share their view on Zimbabwe, especially President Thambo Mbeki who has allegedly failed to bring President Mugabe down by cutting off essential supplies.
Mr Mbeki was so infuriated that he exploded during the 4th April Conference of Progressive Centre left parties in Watford, UK, and told reporters, "Zimbabwe is not a province or a former colony of South Africa". Any wonder that Africa is rebelling against its former colonial master, the UK, refusing to send troops to Somalia, saying they need no white faces in Darfur as peace keepers and turning to China, a country with nothing in common with Africa except trade.
In December 2007, African leaders spoke with one voice and said they would not attend the European Union-Africa summit, held in Lisbon, Portugal, if President Mugabe was not invited, as demanded by the Labour government.
And, speaking to reporters during the China-Africa summit, which took place in Beijing in November 2006, the then Botswana President Festus Mogae said, "I find that the Chinese treat us as equals. The West treats us as former subjects. Which is a reality. I prefer the attitude of the Chinese to that of the West".
Isn't it now plainly clear that the British relationship with Zimbabwe in particular and Africa in general will not improve until the Conservative Party takes over in the United Kingdom? After all, it was Conservative MP William Wilberforce who spear-headed the fight against slavery in the UK.
Reproduced from:
www.monitor.co.ug/artman/publish/sam_akaki/
Why_is_Britain_provoking_us_over_Mugabe.shtml``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe: Why is Britain Provoking us Over Mugabe?``x1208822060,70202,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Mabasa Sasa
April 22, 2008
The Herald
GOVERNMENT has challenged anyone with information demonstrating that acts of State-sponsored violence have characterised the post-election period to furnish the police with details to facilitate full investigations.
Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Minister Cde Patrick Chinamasa yesterday said at a Press conference it was possible that the opposition MDC-T was behind the cases of politically motivated violence as part of a propaganda campaign to justify international intervention in the country.
Police spokesperson Assistant Commissioner Wayne Bvudzijena also dismissed claims that 10 people had been killed in post-election political violence, saying three of the four names given to the police yielded no results while one case was being investigated.
"It is being said that 10 people have been killed. Four names were given. I have personally investigated these cases. Of those four, three have no basis whatsoever while the fourth is still under investigation and will be concluded soon.
"It is unfortunate that these reports of violence are only surfacing on the Internet with no formal reports being made. We respond to information supplied to us by the public and we have nothing to hide," Asst Comm Bvudzijena said.
Cde Chinamasa said they could not put anything beyond the MDC-T because its officials were gallivanting all over the world lying through their teeth that there is genocide in Zimbabwe and that the country was in a state of war.
He said they were at the forefront of accusing Zanu-PF of rigging the elections and yet it was clear that they were the ones who had rigged.
"Now they are saying that we are sponsoring acts of politically motivated violence and anyone will be forgiven for thinking that they are the ones who are fomenting genocide in Zimbabwe," he said.
Cde Chinamasa also said the police were arresting and would continue to arrest anyone suspected of committing crimes and solid cases would be taken to the courts.
"If anyone has information they should approach the police and furnish them with the details so that full investigations are instituted. Why go to the media and splash unsubstantiated pictures and stories. For your own information, some of those pictures being carried by the media date back to 2000. At present we are not aware of any such violence," he said.
The police, Cde Chinamasa said, arrest people regardless of their political affiliation.
"When a crime is committed the police do not ask what party the perpetrator belongs to. They just make an arrest. So if you believe that political violence has taken place go to the police."
Cde Chinamasa, who also chairs Zanu-PF's information sub-committee, said the MDC-T had a long history of claiming any dead people to be their supporters who had been murdered by the State.
"They have this macabre tendency to claim dead bodies. Even people who have died of natural causes are adopted by the MDC-T and the cause of death is subsequently attributed to State-sponsored violence. I refute completely that people are dying because of political violence," he said.
"People should ask the MDC to give the names, addresses and other details of those it says have been killed. This is a lie that has no basis whose only aim is to achieve international intervention. It is all part of a scheme to undermine the country, President Mugabe and our processes. But the rule of law is being observed and will continue to be observed," he said.
Cde Chinamasa said the MDC-T should desist from agitating for war because Zanu-PF does not want war but would use its resilience to weather any such outcome.
Last year Home Affairs Minister Cde Kembo Mohadi challenged the opposition and its civil society sympathisers to come forward with information on alleged State-sponsored political violence to facilitate investigations but they failed to do so.
On the issue of the vote recount in 23 constituencies, Cde Chinamasa said it was hypocritical for the MDC-T to oppose the process when they too had appealed against the results in two House of Assembly races.
He said Zanu-PF requested recounts in 21 constituencies while the MDC-T requested recounts in the other two constituencies. The electoral law, Cde Chinamasa said, made it clear that any stakeholder can ask for a recount within 48 hours of an election as was agreed by both Zanu-PF and the opposition during the Sadc-brokered dialogue.
"Now they are saying we should not exercise our legal rights and yet they can. Those are the surprises you find in politics. People aren't honest and they prefer to play to the gallery. They want to lie through their teeth, but lying isn't a crime so they do it with impunity."
Cde Chinamasa said they were happy with the manner in which recounts were being conducted and urged the nation to continue to be patient so that the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission could do its work professionally and independently as it had been doing all along.
Email: zimbabwecrisis@yahoo.com
Visit: Zimbabwe Watch``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe: Prove violence claims - Govt``x1208919839,69109,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Gabriel Mauto
April 22, 2008
The Herald
THERE is absolutely no way MDC-T leader Morgan Tsvangirai could have won the presidential election by 50.3 percent of the votes cast, because the figures his party unilaterally released do not even give him 50 percent of the vote.
Going by the information on the MDC-T website as contained in their Press statement of April 2 2008 proclaiming their "win", it's clear that no presidential candidate reached the 50 percent threshold.
In paragraph two of the statement, reproduced in full in subsequent paragraphs, MDC-T said Tsvangirai got 1 169 860 votes, to President Mugabe's 1 043 451 while Simba Makoni weighed in with 169 636. MDC-T further claims that Tsvangirai's votes translate to 50.3 percent.
Assuming these figures are correct, simple addition, division and multiplication would show that Tsvangirai would have 49.09 percent, President Mugabe 43.79 percent and Makoni 7.12 percent. This means no one attained the requisite 50 percent + 1 vote hence a run-off would help settle matters.
So where did Tendai Biti get the 50.3 percent from? What worries me are these banal lies peddled by the MDC-T leadership to the largely captive Western world.
Does this mean MDC-T has no one in its ranks who did basic mathematics at Grade 7 level? It is evident that the MDC-T leadership is hell-bent on whipping up emotions among the gullible to create mayhem in this country.
The question is: If the MDC-T leaders start lying to the electorate now, before they are even in office, what more when they are in office? What will happen to all the high-sounding promises supposing they win the run-off?
No doubt they will definitely return land to white former commercial farmers and fail to fulfil any of their promises such as free transport, education, health and so on.
Food for thought Zimbabweans. Consider the following statement issued by Biti on April 2 proclaiming "victory" for MDC-T and Tsvangirai.
President Tsvangirai wins Presidential race 2nd April 2008 - MDC Press room.
President Morgan Tsvangirai has won the presidential race in an election, which has seen the MDC winning in most rural constituencies.
President Tsvangirai garnered 1 169 860 votes, Robert Mugabe 1 043 451 and Simba Makoni 169 636. President Tsvangirai has 50.3 percent of the total presidential vote and he has won the election with no need for a run-off.
President Tsvangirai, who has addressed bread and butter issues in his campaign, has won the presidential race, setting the mood and the hope for a new Zimbabwe and a new beginning in a country ravaged by gross misgovernance, corruption and unprecedented economic decline.
The MDC president has won even in those few constituencies where MDC parliamentary candidates narrowly lost to Zanu-PF candidates in an election marred by serious irregularities.
The MDC has 99 seats. We won all 12 House of Assembly seats and four out of five senatorial seats in Bulawayo, 28 out of the 29 seats in Harare and the majority of the seats in Manicaland, Masvingo and the Midlands provinces.
Addressing a Press conference in Harare today, MDC secretary-general Tendai Biti told journalists, diplomats and observers in Harare that President Tsvangirai had won the presidential vote and there was no need for a re-run because he had more than 50 percent of the total vote.
"While the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission is delaying announcing the results, we avouch to you these results as confirmed by the figures pasted outside the polling stations in accordance with the law.
"President Morgan Richard Tsvangirai has won the election and we are waiting for the official announcement by ZEC," said Hon Biti.
"We see the state media is trying to psyche the nation towards a run off. Even though we have won the election, we are prepared to
contest the run-off even though Mugabe should avoid embarrassment by conceding defeat."
Zanu-PF had the misconception that the MDC was made up of urban supporters.
This election has debunked the myth that the MDC is an urban-based party. We have MPs in Murehwa, Hurungwe, Makoni, Buhera, Zhombe, Binga, Matobo, Bindura and Mutasa.
The nation, however, is worried about the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission's delay in announcing the presidential election results.
In the townships, the Government has deployed armed police and intelligence operatives in what many suspect is a move to intimidate the people while the regime tries to fiddle with the figures.
Email: zimbabwecrisis@yahoo.com
Visit: Zimbabwe Watch``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xNo way MDC-T could have 50.3% of presidential vote``x1208920563,25401,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xFrom Obi Egbuna in WASHINGTON DC
April 22, 2008
The Herald
BECAUSE Mother Africa's children, whether at home or abroad, are ancestral products of colonialism and slavery, we realise that fighting for democracy and human rights is an extension of our struggle for liberation and human dignity. The most intense phase of this process deals with barring our former colonial and slave masters from imposing their definitions of these concepts on us or to diminish our genuine efforts to achieve these noble objectives.
Those among us who choose this approach are almost guaranteed to be attacked viciously and mercilessly, since Africa's past and present exploiters feel it is not our place to plan our future without their approval or validation.
While the elections in Zimbabwe that took place on March 29, 2008 focused on four different levels of government; local government, senate, House of Assembly and presidential; Zimbabwe's President Cde Mugabe and the ruling party Zanu-PF approached the process with a two-fold responsibility: Firstly, to give Zimbabweans an electoral process with the level of fairness they had become accustomed to, and secondly preventing the imperialist duo of George W. Bush and Gordon Brown from exploiting the developments for their own benefit.
The American and British governments have campaigned tirelessly to convince the world that democracy cannot flourish in Zimbabwe without their watchful eye and direct involvement. This interpretation of politics in Zimbabwe is only embraced by those who are either ignorant of the country's history or for subjective reasons, have chosen to overlook it.
The first opposition party in Zimbabwe, after the Unity Accord was signed between Zanu-PF and PF-Zapu, was formed by Zanu-PF's former secretary general Edgar Tekere who accompanied Cde Mugabe to Mozambique to direct the final phase of the Second Chimurenga (the armed struggle).
Tekere formed the Zimbabwe Unity Movement and challenged Cde Mugabe for the Sate presidency in 1990. He claimed he was opposing the proposed one-party State and was committed to a socialist driven economy.
Ex-combatant, Margaret Dongo wanted to challenge President Mugabe in the 1996 presidential election but was found to be below the minimum age required for the presidency, 40 years. Dongo contested the Harare South constituency seat as an independent, won and latter formed the Zimbabwe Union of Democrats.
Former Minister of Information and Publicity Professor Jonathan Moyo, after being expelled from Zanu-PF, was also linked to a political party called the United People's Movement. He contested the Tsholotsho constituency as an independent and won.
This is why Western media claims that Simba Makoni's departure from Zanu-PF was something monumental and unprecedented, simply do not wash.
The unwarranted attacks by Western opposition in relation to President Mugabe and Zanu-PF's efforts to maintain democratic standards during elections, have taken on a predictable character since their tactics of choice are on display for the third time this decade.
The US State Department initially persuaded the oldest civil/human rights group the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People) not to publish their report of the Presidential elections in 2002, and for the 2005 parliamentary elections the reports of the (Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace in Zimbabwe, Zimbabwe Council of Churches, the Southern African Development Community, and the African Union) were ignored by Western media, NGOs, and the British-based Amnesty International and US-based Human Rights Watch who appear rather comfortable in echoing London and Washington's isolationist views of President Mugabe and Zanu-PF.
On April 2 2008, The Washington Post's express magazine published an excerpt from an interview conducted by the Associated Press with Mrs Imani Countess who is the senior policy advisor for Washington DC based TransAfrica Forum.
The article stated Mrs Countess was an observer to the elections in Zimbabwe and quoted her as saying she had a conversation with a high level Zanu-PF official, who shared with her that the ruling party would use all instruments at their disposal to remain in power.
This information raised several questions. Firstly, why would the Associated Press refer to Mrs Countess as an election observer when her organisation was not invited to observe the elections?
How does withholding the identity of the Zanu-PF senior official who made these remarks help the people of Zimbabwe? Why would any Zanu-PF official share such incriminating comments with an organisation that is its biggest critic in the African American community in the United States?
It appears the current propaganda slant President Mugabe and Zanu-PF's detractors both inside and outside Zimbabwe want to project is – corruption and intimidation are the only way Zanu-PF can hold on to power.
This explains why the convener of the Southern African Political Economy Series Dr Ibbo Mandaza and senior advisor to Makoni told The Mail and Guardian that intelligence agents representing the MOSSAD of Zionist Israel, were in Harare six months before the elections to plan vote rigging and sabotage exercises at the invitation of the ruling party.
The claim was supported further by MDC-T secretary general Tendai Biti who claimed an Israeli IT company called Cogniview provided President Mugabe with technical support to "rig" the elections.
The MDC-T and Mandaza want Zimbabweans and observers throughout the world to believe that the British and US governments would allow an alliance between Zimbabwe's CIO and Israel's MOSSAD, when we know that President Mugabe and Zanu-PF have maintained the strongest ties with the Palestinian people arguably more than any party or government in the Sadc region or Africa for that matter.
This attempt to link President Mugabe and Zanu-PF to the intelligence agency of Zionist Israel, is even more absurd than US Presidential hopeful Barack Obama's reference to MDC-T as a peaceful opposition party in his resolution submitted to the US Senate and Congress attacking President Mugabe and Zanu-PF in March of 2007.
President Mugabe and Zanu-PF are teaching Africa's daughters and sons that practicing democracy is directly connected to defending your sovereignty. We must commend President Mugabe and Zanu-PF for creating a political atmosphere and demonstrating a flexible approach, in the face of Britain and American attempts to force illegal and racist regime change in the name of democracy and human rights.
Zimbabwe's elections were observed by 14 regional and sub regional organisations, all 13 countries from southern Africa, 10 other African countries, five Asian countries, four countries from the Americas, one from Europe and a Liberation Movement from the US – the December 12 Movement.
It should be noted that Nigeria and Ghana were invited to observe the elections despite the fact that President John Kufour while chairing the African Union criticised President Mugabe and Zanu-PF for the way the altercation with Tsvangirai's goons and MDC was handled on March 11, and in December shortly before the EU-Africa summit in Portugal Nigerian President Yardua attacked President Mugabe for what he called "heavy handed tactics against his opposition."
The Zimbabwe Electoral Commission is performing the function that was assigned to various bodies in previous elections. The dynamics and procedure were explained by Zimbabwe's Foreign Minister Cde Simbarashe Mumbengegwi and Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Patrick Chinamasa to the Sadc Group of Ambassadors on April 10th 2008.
The main concerns raised by the collective groups was whether the election results of the Parliament reflect people's frustration with the sanctions and if Zimbabwe was in a position to finance run-offs in light of the current economic challenges.
The "Sadc" meeting in Lusaka chaired by Zambian President Levy Mwanawasa on April 13 2008 saw the collective body commend the Government of Zimbabwe for ensuring that elections were conducted in a peaceful environment.
The body also commended Sadc facilitator Thabo Mbeki and his facilitation team for the role they played in ensuring elections were successful, and commended the people of Zimbabwe for their peaceful demeanour they maintained before and after elections.
Because this conclusion was reached even after unofficial consultations with both opposition candidates – Tsvangirai and Makoni, President Mugabe and Zanu-PF can look forward to Washington and Britain accusing Sadc of quiet diplomacy, instead of realising their brand of diplomacy is without eyes or ears since they refuse to listen to those in the region who have the most to lose if Zimbabwe loses complete political and economic stability.
The task of reinventing Tsvangirai has truly taken its toll on London and Washington. In nine years, he has gone from a trade unionist fighting for workers, to a lobbyist who was to convince his own family sanctions against Zimbabwe were better than defending the land reclamation programme, to a civil disobedience maverick who encouraged throwing petrol bombs at police stations was an act of peaceful protest, to now becoming Zimbabwe's "new president" beginning the dawning of a new era in Southern Africa.
If Tsvangirai is given too much exposure he will become like the meteorologist that always gets the weather forecast wrong.
On February 17 2008 the Washington Post's Parade Magazine ranked President Mugabe the "sixth worst dictator" in the world, the sources for this annual ranking system comes from the US State Department, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and Reporters without Borders even though President Mugabe was ranked among the bottom half, he had the distinction of having an entire article dedicated to him entitled My Life Under a Dictator written by Jabulani Moyo who teaches at a small college in the US where he was placed by the Scholar Rescue Fund of the Institute of International Education.
If the Blair and Bush administrations believe true democracy is to let all voices be heard, when will the travel ban be lifted on President Mugabe and Zanu-PF in order for them to travel around the US and UK, with the same latitude that MDC continues to have.
This leaves us with one question who should have the last word on Democracy in Zimbabwe, those who once colonised the nation or those who liberated it?
Obi Egbuna is a member of the Pan African Liberation Organisation and Zimbabwe-Cuba Friendship Association.
Email: zimbabwecrisis@yahoo.com
Visit: Zimbabwe Watch``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xWho has last word on Zim's democracy?``x1208922074,6318,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Zvamaida Murwira and Sydney Kawadza
April 23, 2008
The Herald
ZANU-PF has retained Goromonzi West House of Assembly and Senate seats in the first batch of poll recount results released last night while the Sadc observer team says it is satisfied with the vote recounting process currently underway in 23 constituencies.
The ruling party gained one vote in the House of Assembly recount, pushing the result to 6 194 against MDC-T's 5 931 while the results for the Senate remained unchanged at 5 672.
The Goromonzi West recount was one of the two recounts requested by MDC-T while Zanu-PF requested 21 others.
In Zvimba North, Zimbabwe Electoral Commission officials are expecting to wrap up the recount today.
Mashonaland West provincial elections officer Mr Michael Guzha yesterday said the exercise was still going on with no hitches.
"We are currently clearing Ward 18 and then work on Ward 30 and Ward 31 that have a total of 14 polling stations," he said.
Sadc director of politics, defence and security at the regional bloc's secretariat Retired Lieutenant-Colonel Tanki Mothae said they had deployed almost 60 observers for the recounting process.
"Everything is going on smoothly. There are good relations between the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission, political parties' polling agents and observers. We have not received any problems so far.
"We are receiving reports from our teams on the ground, but so far we have not heard any reports of any irregularity, like tampering with ballot boxes for example. We are satisfied with the process," said Rtd Lt-Col Mothae.
Angolan Minister of Youth, Sport and Culture Mr Marcos Barrica, who headed the initial Sadc observer team which was in the country for the March 29 elections, is also heading the current team that arrived in the country last Wednesday and Friday.
He said the team was drawn from all the Sadc countries and would be in the country until the whole process was complete.
The Sadc observer team, along with many other foreign observers, endorsed the March poll as free and fair.
The foreign observers included the Pan African Parliament, the African Union, and Comesa, among others.
The Zimbabwe Election Support Network, which is also observing the recounting process, yesterday said it was not yet in a position to comment.
ZEC yesterday said the recounting process was expected to be completed in Goromonzi West today and that the exercise was at various stages in the other 22 constituencies.
The commission's deputy chief elections officer responsible for operations Mr Utloile Silaigwana said the process had taken longer than anticipated because of the meticulous verification process involved.
"Recounting is going on well but rather on a slow pace than had been anticipated because the agents want to verify one or two things.
"There is progress and maybe we should be through in Goromonzi West by tomorrow (today). In the other constituencies, the recounting is at varying stages," he said.
Mr Silaigwana said results from the recounting would be announced in the constituencies.
Recounts are being carried out in Chimanimani West, Mutare West, Bikita West, Bikita South, Bulilima East, Zhombe, Zaka West, Zvimba North, Silobela, Chiredzi North, Mberengwa East, West, South and North, and Gutu South, North and Central.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe: Zanu-PF retains Goromonzi West``x1208993232,52237,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xHerald Reporter
April 24, 2008
CHINA has poured cold water on opposition and Western claims that an arms shipment to Zimbabwe was to be used in a clampdown against MDC-T supporters, pointing out that Harare placed the order last year.
A spokesperson from the Chinese Foreign Ministry, Jiang Yu, has stated the arms contract was signed last year contrary to claims that it was related to the current election situation in Zimbabwe.
"This is normal trade in military products between the two countries," Jiang told a Press briefing in Beijing.
She added that the shipment was "irrelevant" to what was taking place in Zimbabwe at the moment.
Jiang also reiterated China's long-held foreign policy that its economic dealings with other countries, including the sale of arms, adhered to a strict policy of non-interference in their sovereign affairs – a stance that has boosted the emerging power's ties with Africa, much to the chagrin of the West.
This is contrary to claims in some quarters that the Government intends to use the arms in a clampdown on opposition MDC-T supporters.
On Monday, Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Minister Cde Patrick Chinamasa pointed out that Zimbabwe had a right to arm itself to defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity while dismissing suggestions that the military would want to use the arms against civilians.
The European Union, the United States and their allies slapped an arms ban on Zimbabwe in 2002 and observers have said in such a situation, it was only natural that the country would increase such trade with traditional partners such as China.
Zimbabwe and China's military co-operation dates back to the Second Chimurenga.
China's Xinhua news agency has also criticised the attention the West has given the transaction, citing data provided by Sweden's Stockholm International Peace Research Institute showing that Beijing contributes just 2 percent of the global arms trade compared to the United States' 30 percent.
Interestingly, in recent years Kenya, which experienced election-related violence that accounted for over a thousand deaths, has been the biggest official purchaser of US arms in Africa though there has never been a corresponding outcry there.
Email: zimbabwecrisis@yahoo.com
Visit: Zimbabwe Watch``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe: China clears air on arms shipment``x1209085788,65424,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Mabasa Sasa
April 24, 2008
The Herald
THE buzzword in opposition parlance, locally and internationally, these days is "government of national unity".
And perhaps it is no great coincidence that the prime drivers of the "government of national unity" discourse particularly in the context of Zimbabwe's recent elections are primarily opposition-aligned elements.
Western media have been titillated, maybe even physically aroused, by the idea of Zimbabwe going the Kenya way in both the violence and "national unity" phenomena and the MDC-T waltzing into Munhumutapa Building on the back of negotiations rather than votes.
The "government of national unity" debate should be approached from a critical perspective that seeks to denude the agendas behind those advocating it, its semantics and legalistic implications.
From the word go, one can be forgiven for thinking that the supporters of this option are in a way trying to side-step the electoral legal reality of a potential run-off between President Mugabe and Morgan Tsvangirai.
It appears March 29 failed to produce an outright winner in the presidential race and the requirement as agreed by both Zanu-PF and the opposition during the Sadc-brokered talks is that there should be a run-off.
Questions naturally arise: Why are some people willing to pervert the country's democratic electoral processes by calling for a "government of national unity" that has no constitutional basis? What are they afraid will happen in a run-off that ensures both candidates cannot hide from minute scrutiny?
Why should people ensconced in some foreign isles far from the practicalities of our politics tell Zimbabweans to form a "government of national unity"? Surely, that should be a discourse originated, developed and concluded by Zimbabweans.
Furthermore, why is it that the majority of those driving this discourse assert that "the establishment of a government of national unity should begin with a transitional government, maybe with President Mugabe at the helm, while a new constitution is drafted?"
The language of this whole discourse indicates an overwhelming desire by some politicians, academicians and media practitioners to fast-track the opposition into office without going through the democratic rigours of a fool-proof electoral process that fully gauges and reflects the will of the people of Zimbabwe.
The inescapable interpretation is that a government of national unity should ultimately push President Mugabe out and ease Tsvangirai into power on the back of a constitution that does not threaten the economic and political interests of the West in Zimbabwe.
But why should there be talk of transitional governments that will birth "national unity" as if the majority of Zimbabweans did not vote for Zanu-PF to lead them for the next five years?
It seems that those behind this discourse would like to place more weight on what opposition sympathisers want than on the wishes of Zanu-PF's supporters as if our system is not based on one-man/woman-one-vote.
And this is precisely where the whole discourse breaks down and any self-respecting Zimbabwean should feel outraged that anyone should seek to short-circuit a democratic electoral system and deny him/her the right to choose who should be President of Zimbabwe.
Apart from this, the people who are talking about a "government of national unity" should explain exactly what they mean by "national unity".
Is such a government one where an opposition party is allowed to become a part of the executive without satisfying the electoral requirements? Whose unity is being talked about – that of politicians or of Zimbabweans?
After all, at the ideological and practical level there certainly cannot be much unity between Zanu-PF and the MDC as led by Tsvangirai.
Zanu-PF's central ideology, more concisely, President Mugabe's philosophy is diametrically opposed to that of Tsvangirai.
The differences between the two are too vast to even start contemplating the establishment of a government – even a transitional one – that is headed by President Mugabe and Tsvangirai would draw chuckles were the matter not so serious.
Zanu-PF has over the decades been built on an ideology that has resonance with a vast majority of land-hungry Zimbabweans who realise that Land Reform Programme was a giant leap forward in the total liberation of this country.
This ideology has firm roots in President Mugabe's unwavering philosophy that the people own this land and as such they should be masters of their own destiny.
In the mother tongue, it can be said Cde Mugabe is about gutsaruzhinji. His principled stand on this matter, which is premised on an appreciation and respect of human rights, has set Zimbabwe firmly on the path of true independence.
On the other hand, what Tsvangirai offers is the obverse of what Cde Mugabe has put on the table.
MDC-T's central ideology has its roots in the first attempts to block Land Reform and economic empowerment.
MDC was created to frustrate land reforms and protect the interests of the minority landed classes and today this has not changed.
There can be no denying that Tsvangirai has considerable support among young Zimbabweans and the proponents of the "government of national unity" discourse argue that the democratic rights of these supporters must be respected through giving the MDC executive power.
But would it not be more sensible then to ask for a parliamentary system of proportional representation implemented through due constitutional procedure than to try and foist an executive on this country that is out to protect the interests of Western capital at the expense of ordinary Zimbabweans?
We cannot therefore begin to talk of a government of national unity when one party stands for genuine empowerment while the other is comfortably reposed at the opposite end of the nation-building spectrum.
There can be no talk of a government of national unity as long as the Beatties and Kays of this world threaten new farmers with eviction if MDC is granted executive power.
There can be no talk of a government of national unity as long as Tsvangirai supports sanctions against his fellow man while he sleeps restfully in Botswana or wherever it is he is spending his 30 pieces of silver.
There can be no talk of a government of national unity as long as the opposition continues to throw veiled threats of Iraq-like scenarios and Afghanistan-style invasions.
There can be no talk of a government of national unity for as long as MDC-T does not recognise that Zimbabweans and Zimbabweans alone have the final say on who should constitute the national leadership.
The world should leave Zimbabwe alone to complete its democratic electoral processes and elect a political leadership of its choice.
Email: zimbabwecrisis@yahoo.com
Visit: Zimbabwe Watch``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe: Unity govt not feasible``x1209086224,50037,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Caesar Zvayi
April 25, 2008
The Herald (Harare)
IN the strongest indication yet of the real motives behind the Western hullabaloo over the Chinese arms shipment to Zimbabwe, a leading American daily intrinsically linked to the United States' ruling elite has proposed that the Bush administration arm the MDC while simultaneously weakening the Government to abet illegal regime change.
The revelations were contained in an article headlined "Arm Zimbabwe's opposition", in yesterday's issue of the Wall Street Journal, a publication that reflects the thinking of the White House on financial and foreign policy issues.
The newspaper claimed the MDC-T leadership had already indicated there was a war in Zimbabwe and it was time for the US to intervene.
"The argument for arming the Zimbabwean opposition has gained new urgency in light of the news that three million rounds of ammunition, 3 500 mortars and 1 500 rocket-propelled grenades were on a Chinese ship, to be delivered to Harare, the capital of Zimbabwe ...
"Mr Mugabe's rule is a continuing crime against humanity. Lest that not serve as a wake-up call to the world, last week the MDC's secretary-general, Tendai Biti, bluntly announced: 'There is a war in Zimbabwe being waged by Mugabe's regime against the people.' America has chosen a side in this war. Perhaps it's time we help it fight back," wrote James Kirchick, an assistant editor.
Zimbabwe bought an assortment of arms from China last year and was set to take delivery last week but was prevented from doing so when South Africa's Cosatu trade union movement, working in cahoots with the MDC-T leadership, influenced South African dock workers to refuse to offload the shipment, claiming the arms would be used against MDC supporters.
MDC's Western allies jumped into the fray with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown calling on regional leaders to deny the ship permission to dock to offload its cargo.
On Monday, Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Minister Cde Patrick Chinamasa dismissed claims that the arms would be used against civilians, saying Zimbabwe had a right to arm itself to defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity while South Africa's ruling ANC president Mr Jacob Zuma has rejected calls for a weapons embargo on Zimbabwe in the wake of the election, saying: "I do not think we have reached the stage of an arms embargo."
China has since indicated that the contract to supply the arms was signed last year and had nothing to do with the elections.
Ms Jiang Yu, spokesperson in the Chinese Foreign Ministry, reiterated her country's long-held policy that economic dealings with other countries, including the sale of arms, adhered to strict non-interference in sovereign affairs.
The ship is being brought back to China, the Beijing government said yesterday.
"To my knowledge, the Chinese company has decided to bring back the boat," Ms Jiang told reporters.
She blasted Western countries - which were criticising China for selling arms to Zimbabwe - for politicising the issue.
"Some people in the US are always critical, positioning themselves as the world's policeman, but they are not popular in the world," Ms Jiang said about the US State Department's demand that China halt the shipment.
"It's pointless ... to politicise this issue," she said.
The European Union, the United States and their allies slapped an arms embargo on Zimbabwe in 2002 in addition to economic sanctions, prompting Harare to increase trade with traditional partners in the East.
China helped Zimbabwean guerillas with military andlogistical support during the Second Chimurenga as the West helped their kith and kin in the minority Smith regime.
Western media have since tried to use the arms shipment as an excuse to demonise the forthcoming Olympic Games to be hosted by China in Beijing. All along they have been berating China over standing firm against secessionists in Tibet.
Analysts have blasted Western hypocrisy over the shipment, saying China's contribution to global arms trade stood at only 2 percent and is channelled to nation-states whereas the US's 30 percent flowed mainly to sponsored wars of destabilisation throughout the developing world.
The Wall Street Journal argued that though announcing military support "for dissidents abroad ... could endanger the dissidents' cause and credibility, ... this critique might make sense in the Middle East, but it does not carry much water in Africa" where the US is considered a "most dependable ally", and where, at times, "it is faulted for not doing more".
Former British military chief Sir Charles Guthrie recently revealed that erstwhile British prime minister Tony Blair had contemplated a military invasion of Zimbabwe but was advised against it.
There have been reports, over the past few months, that the opposition has been training youths grouped into what it calls "democratic resistance committees" in various subversive tactics on isolated commercial farms.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe: Outcry Over Arms Exposes West's Hypocrisy``x1209124710,28221,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Bishop Trevor E. C. Manhanga
April 25, 2008
The Herald
THE statement released on April 21 2008 purportedly from Heads of Christian Denominations, i.e. church leaders of the Evangelical Fellowship of Zimbabwe, the Catholic Bishops Conference and the Zimbabwe Council of Churches claiming the current situation in Zimbabwe resembles that of genocide Rwanda, cannot go unchallenged.
Let me at the onset state that I do not believe that this "statement" reflects the views of the broad church community it claims to speak for, and I can emphatically state that the majority of church leaders were never consulted and did not sign this very unfortunate statement.
In my involvement with the church community both as head of a Christian denomination (and its current chair), and with the Evangelical Fellowship of Zimbabwe as a member and immediate past president, I can categorically state that the first I saw of this statement was when it appeared in the international Press.
I was not privy to seeing this statement prior to its release and know of many other heads of denominations who are in the same position, both in the Evangelical Fellowship of Zimbabwe and the Zimbabwe Council of Churches.
On principle, therefore, I personally distance myself from the contents of the statement, and would go further and challenge those who saw it fit to put this statement in the public domain to put the names of church leaders that supported the views contained in the statement, in the public domain.
This will help to prevent a situation where all church leaders are painted with the brush of the opinions of those who authored this statement.
For my part, I can bring to the table a host of reputable church leaders who are quite eager and prepared to state their clear disagreement with this statement, and are not afraid to publicly make their position known.
The statement correctly reports that prior to the harmonised national elections, there was a meeting convened at the Cresta Jameson Hotel in Harare where, among other matters, church leaders collectively agreed on and published a pre-election statement.
At this very meeting it was agreed that after the results of the election were announced, another meeting would be convened and the situation reviewed.
In the aftermath of the election when the result of the presidential election was delayed a representative group of church leaders met with the chairman of the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission, Justice George Chiweshe, seeking clarity on a number of issues, including the reason for the delay and expressing the concerns of the church.
A meeting was also convened with the Commissioner-General of the ZRP to discuss the security situation in the period after the election in light of reports of violence and destruction of property.
This was done in an effort to gather information so that when church leaders convened they could carry out their discussions in an informed environment.
The statement does not take into consideration the input gathered from the meeting with Justice Chiweshe and that with Comm-Gen Chihuri, and one has to wonder therefore if there is another agenda being pursued that is contrary to the consensus of the majority of the church leaders.
For those who would criticise me for coming out clearly against this statement (and I have no doubt they will do so now as they have done in the past), citing the fact that we need to maintain church unity, I categorically state that we cannot have unity at the expense of principle.
The principle is clear in this instance, in that a statement is being issued under the guise of having the broad support of church leaders when that is clearly not the case.
Even if church leaders agree with the sentiments expressed in the statement, principle dictates that they are consulted and their agreement or disagreement canvassed, before something is put out in the public domain linking them to it.
Furthermore, over the past couple of years there has been an open door extended by Government to the church to bring forward their concerns and indeed their disagreements with Government policy and actions, and within that environment vigorous debate has often ensued between the Church and Government.
To their credit Government, led by President Mugabe, have kept their doors open, albeit often times too much time has passed before meetings have been convened, but the Church has had an open door extended to it, and for the most part this has been used for the benefit of the nation.
This does not mean that there has been universal agreement on issues between the Church and Government, but Government officials have, for the most part, listened to the Church and in many instances taken into consideration the concerns of the Church.
That has been very positive, and indeed is as it should be, and there are many of us in the Church community who have appreciated this open-door policy. It is for this reason therefore that the statement flies in the face of the spirit in which relations between the Church and Government have been conducted to date.
I am not stating that the Church must not make its concerns known, and if the Church feels strongly about something they must in no uncertain terms make that known, but surely we must ask ourselves the rationale of publishing a statement in the Press before taking up those concerns and allegations with the powers that be.
No Church leader that I know supports the death or injury and destruction of property of any fellow Zimbabwean.
If indeed we took proven cases of deaths and injuries of our fellow Zimbabweans to the appropriate authorities and did not receive adequate answers, or if our concerns were received indifferently, then we have every reason to publicly take issue with those in authority. However, what I am protesting is the fact that not only have Church leaders (or the majority of them) not been consulted on the contents of this statement, but we have not taken any information we have to the relevant authorities and seek answers and thereafter arrive at positions, prior to making a definitive statement.
Those who authored this statement and saw it fit to publish it without consultation of the very Church community it purports to speak for, must understand the potential damage their actions have done to the standing of the Church.
There can be no doubt on the position of the Church on matters of national reconciliation, peace, political violence, human rights abuse and fair play. There has been a consistent and clear stance from the majority of Church leaders in this country on these issues and so let me not be accused of trying to paper over any of the pressing socio-political issues currently facing our country. However, one must ask from what vantage point people are coming from, who claim that the current situation in Zimbabwe resembles that of genocide Rwanda? Such statements are clearly outrageous and alarmist. The fact of the matter is that Zimbabweans must be commended for the restraint and peaceful manner in which they have conducted themselves and continue to conduct themselves.
For the most part both Zanu-PF, the MDC and other contestants in the recent harmonised elections, must be commended for the manner in which they conducted themselves in the period prior to, during and after the elections.
It is common knowledge that the delay in the publication of the presidential election results has caused tension, consternation and led to the deterioration in the peaceful climate that we had enjoyed. Where violence has broken out and if any lives have been lost, the causes must be investigated and the perpetrators of violence and those found to have caused the loss of life and or destruction of property, must be dealt with swiftly and in accordance with the law.
This is not the time to allow the country to lose the peaceful environment we have enjoyed, but rather to build on the peace we had and for the most part still enjoy.
So while it is clear that the current situation prevailing in the country is one that requires urgent attention, it does not require alarmist proclamations.
No one in his or her right mind will claim the situation in our country is normal. One does not need to be a rocket scientist to acknowledge that there is an impasse.
We have both political and economic challenges, and the result of this is that the people are enduring tremendous difficulty as they struggle to make ends meet. But this is a situation that calls for all of us as Zimbabweans to acknowledge honestly and tackle rationally.
It calls for cool heads with decisive, concerted action taken. It is not a time for international intervention (though we appreciate the support and concern of friends outside Zimbabwe) but for national consensus and action.
This is a situation that calls for all Zimbabweans, not just the political players, to put their collective efforts to addressing, and as I have consistently stated in the past, it is a problem or problems that we can address and resolve, in a manner that maintains our national integrity and dignity.
Nobody can, must, and should be expected to do for us, what we can and must do for ourselves. Our collective national future cannot be outsourced to anyone; we must tackle it and solve it ourselves.
This is therefore a call for a resolution of the political impasse currently existing in our nation. It is for this reason that we need not resort to alarmist statements that incite emotions, but rather appeal to and reach out to people of goodwill on both sides of the political equation (and they are there), to find acceptance of, and accommodation with each other.
This is very possible and my prayer is that, as Zimbabweans we will find each other, and without influence from non-Zimbabwean actors, who have their own agendas that they are pursuing, move our country forward, away from the politics of name calling, violence and destruction. It is in our collective interest that we put aside sectarian and other interests, and put the national interest first and foremost.
Once we do this, I have no doubt we can move forward, together, to peace and prosperity. In this regard the current calls for prayer by church leaders and churches throughout the country must continue and the Church and its membership must continue to offer prayers for our national leaders, those in positions of authority, national reconciliation, the peace and prosperity of the nation, and that the forces of darkness and destruction may be banished from the borders of our beloved nation.
We must never underestimate the power of prayer as we gather together to pray for our nation. Let the words of that powerful worship song of the church galvanise us as we come together in various places of worship, our offices, our schools, our colleges, in our cars and our homes to declare: "If you believe and I believe and we together pray, the Holy Spirit must come down and Zimbabwe shall be saved." We believe.
Bishop Trevor E. C. Manhanga is the Presiding Bishop of the Pentecostal Assemblies of Zimbabwe and Chairman of the Heads of Christian Denominations.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe: Who is speaking for the Church?``x1209178841,83635,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBulawayo Bureau
April 26, 2008
The Herald
THE land reform programme under which thousands of Zimbabweans were allocated land taken from the white minority is the final solution to the land question and will never be reversed, President Mugabe has said.
Addressing thousands of people at the official opening of the 49th edition of the Zimbabwe International Trade Fair here yesterday, Cde Mugabe said all land which was legally acquired and settled would never be returned to its white former owners.
"When the West – led by the British – shamelessly continue to denounce our country, what is our crime? We are simply claiming our birthright, defending our hard-won national sovereignty. ZITF grounds stand on that precious land. Most exhibits have a connection with the land. That's why we love our land.
"Better all those who shake and quiver at every word of our colonial masters please know Zimbabwe will never be for sale. Zimbabwe is not for sale and will never be a colony again."
Before amending the Constitution to compulsorily acquire land, the Government had tried to get land through the willing buyer-willing seller concept but failed.
"Land was subsequently acquired in the national interest following the amendment to the Constitution. Land acquired and legally resettled will never revert to the previous racist owner settlers. It is our land, our treasure. Inhaka yedu, lilifa lethu.
"Let the colonist know this is the final solution," he said.
The President paid tribute to local business for its resilience in the face of illegal sanctions imposed on the country by the West that have resulted in local industry grappling with hyperinflation, a shortage of foreign currency and failure to access foreign lines of credit.
All these challenges had affected capacity utilisation.
He said the road to success was never easy except for those who used crooked ways to acquire wealth. But he said those who break the law to get rich quickly would eventually be caught, leaving them with an unforgettable lesson.
The President said only through perseverance could success come.
The Government had come up with various intervention policies for national economic recovery.
The National Economic Recovery Programme had laid the foundation for economic recovery through prioritisation of agriculture, tourism and mining while the Government continued to rehabilitate infrastructure to buttress the productive sector.
"I would like to urge the local industry to be more aggressive and take advantage of measures such as toll manufacturing.
"It is pleasing to note more and more companies are embarking on toll manufacturing arrangements," he said.
Cde Mugabe said the Government would continue to support small and medium-scale enterprises because of their role in creating employment and exports.
Zimbabwe, the President said, would continue to welcome well-meaning support from regional and international partners and hailed the assistance given to the country by organisations such as the Southern Africa Development Community, the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa and the African Union.
President Mugabe said this year's trade fair was special in that it came just a few days after the country celebrated its 28th independence anniversary and before the country played host to the 13th Comesa summit to be held in Victoria Falls.
He paid tribute to exhibitors and visitors who continued to support ZITF.
This year all the exhibition space was taken up and Government treasured this gesture of support and solidarity.
"I am greatly encouraged by the resurgence of A'Sambeni, which continues to blossom since its return last year," he said.
Earlier, the President toured Cairns Holdings Limited, foreign exhibitors, the Ministry of Women's Affairs, Gender and Community Development, Ecoweb, South African Embassy, Zambian Embassy and Namibia Embassy stands.
He also visited the stands of CMED (Private) Limited, Letor Zimbabwe which makes agricultural equipment and the Produce and Home Industries Hall where farming produce was on display.
Cde Mugabe shook hands with some people, especially children, as he moved from the produce hall to the National Foods stand.
Most of the children whom the President greeted could not hide their joy and went about boasting to those around them.
At the National Foods stand, the President viewed stockfeeds made by the company before taking time to view the different breeds of cattle at the exhibition.
The President also visited the Seed Co, Cold Storage Company and CFI Holdings stands before going to the Malawi Embassy stand where he bumped into the First Lady who was also doing her tour.
From there, he visited Hall 3 where the A'Sambeni Exhibition was taking place before winding his one-and-a-half-hour tour with a visit to the Grain Marketing Board stand.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe - No going back on land: President``x1209192031,30579,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xApril 26, 2008
Herald Reporters
POLICE yesterday arrested 215 people after raiding MDC-T's Harvest House headquarters in central Harare on allegations of committing acts of political violence countrywide and going into hiding.
Police also searched offices of the Zimbabwe Election Support Network in the city seeking evidence showing Zimbabwe Electoral Commission officials were paid through ZESN to corruptly alter the outcome of the March 29 elections.
Chief police spokesperson Assistant Commissioner Wayne Bvudzijena said the information they had indicated that most of those who had participated in post-election violence had sought refuge at the MDC provincial and national headquarters.
"Police rounded up 215 people at Harvest House this afternoon and these will be screened against participation in politically motivated criminal activities around the country," he said.
Asst Comm Bvudzijena said just after the elections, police issued a statement that they had observed, with concern, the reactivation of the MDC-T's so-called democratic resistance committees to establish bases to operate countrywide.
Since then there had been isolated cases of violence around the country with the most recent being the burning of four homesteads, tobacco barns and fowl runs belonging to Zanu-PF supporters in the Mayo resettlement area in Manicaland on April 16.
"Those accused of burning the homesteads were said to have fled to Harare to seek refuge at the MDC headquarters. This is not the first time the MDC headquarters have been raided.
"Last year after the petrol bombings in Harare and around the country some suspects sought refuge at the MDC headquarters and a similar raid was conducted. The suspects were picked up during the raid," said Asst Comm Bvudzijena.
He said police would not tolerate any acts of violence by anyone and for any rea-
son. Those who commit crimes should expect the long arm of the law to catch up with them, whether they were Zanu-PF or MDC.
"The police will pursue such perpetrators until they are finally brought to book and hiding at party offices should not be seen as an escape route from prosecution," he said.
Asst Comm Bvudzijena appealed to victims of political violence to immediately report at any nearest police station so that the cases could be attended to quickly.
Heavily armed police were seen milling around Harvest House yesterday afternoon keeping a close eye at the premises.
MDC-T spokesperson Mr Nelson Chamisa confirmed the raid.
"They have raided our offices and they did not produce any search warrant. They took away victims of violence, those people who were beaten up in the rural areas including women and children who were being attended to by our social welfare desk," he said.
Mr Chamisa claimed that the police also took away the opposition party's members of staff based at Harvest House.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xPolice swoop on MDC-T HQ nets 215``x1209267346,4461,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Stephen Gowans
April 27, 2008
gowans.wordpress.com
Zimbabwe's Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Minister Patrick Chinamasa on Friday denounced the US and Britain for their interference in Zimbabwe's elections. At the same time, he decried the Morgan Tsvangirai faction of the main opposition party, the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC-T), and its civil society partner, the Zimbabwe Election Support Network (ZESN), as being part of a US and British program to reverse the gains of Zimbabwe's national liberation struggle.
"It is no secret that the US and the British have poured in large sums of money behind the MDC-T's sustained demonization campaign," Chinamasa said. (1)
"Sanctions against Zimbabwe (were intensified) just before the elections," while "large sums of money" were poured into Zimbabwe "by the British and Americans to bribe people to vote against President Mugabe." (2)
The goal, Chinamasa continued, is to "render the country ungovernable in order to justify external intervention to reverse the gains of the land reform program." (3)
The justice minister went on to describe opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai and his MDC "for what they are – an Anglo-American project designed to defeat and reverse the gains of Zimbabwe's liberation struggle, to undermine the will of the Zimbabwean electorate and to return the nation to the dark days of white domination." (4)
The minister also described the ZESN as "an American-sponsored civil society appendage of the MDC-T." (5)
Were they reported in the West, it would be fashionable to sneer at Chinamasa's accusations as lies told to justify a crackdown on the opposition. But, predictably, they haven't been. For anyone who's following closely, however, the minister's charges hardly ring false.
The ZESN is funded by the US Congress and US State Department though the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and United States Agency for International Development (USAID). Its board is comprised of a phalanx of US and British-backed fifth columnists. (6)
Board member Reginald Matchaba Hove won the NED democracy award in 2006. Described by its first director as doing overtly what the CIA used to do covertly, the NED - and by extension the NGOs it funds – are not politically neutral organizations. They have an agenda, and it is to promote US interests under the guise of promoting democratization. Hove is also director of the Southern Africa division of billionaire financier George Soros' Open Society Institute, which has been involved in funding overthrow movements in Yugoslavia, Georgia, Ukraine and elsewhere. Soros also has an agenda: to open societies to Western profit making. Indeed, the board members of the ZESN comprise an A-list of overthrow activists, with multiple interlocking connections to imperialist governments and corporate foundations.
It doesn't take long to connect Hove to left scholar Patrick Bond (of Her Majesty's NGOs) and his Center for Civil Society. The Center is a program partner with the Southern Africa Trust, one of whose trustees is ZESN board member Reginald Matchaba Hove. The Center for Policy Studies, whose mission is to prepare civil society in Zimbabwe for political change (that is, to prepare it to overthrow the Zanu-PF government), is funded by the Southern Africa Trust, a partner of Bond's Center for Civil Society. Other sponsors include the Soros, Ford, Mott, Heinrich Boll (German Green party), and Friedrich Ebert (German Social Democrats) foundations, the Rockefeller Brothers, the NED, South African Breweries and a fund established by the chairman of mining and natural resources company, Anglo-American. Significantly, Zimbabwe is rich in minerals. Zanu-PF's program is to put control of the country's mineral resources, as well as its land, in the hands of the black majority, depriving transnational mining companies, like Anglo-American, of control and profits. Everjoice Win, the former spokesperson for the ZESN, is on the advisory board of Bond's center. The Center supports the Freedom of Expression Institute (FEI), which is funded by George Soros and the British government's Westminster Foundation for Democracy (WFD). The FEI is a partner of the Media Institute of Southern Africa (also funded by the British government), whose director Rashweat Mukundu is a board member of the ZESN.
Bond co-authored a report with Tapera Kapuya, a fellow of ZESN sponsor, the NED. He also contributed to a report titled Zimbabwe's Turmoil, along with John Makumbe and Brian Kagoro. The report was sponsored by the Institute for Security Studies, which is financed by the governments of the United States, Britain, France and Canada, the Rockefeller Brothers, and of course, the ubiquitous George Soros and Ford foundations. Makumbe has published in the NED's Journal of Democracy, and is a former director of the Crisis in Zimbabwe Coalition (funded, not surprisingly, by the NED). The Coalition, like the Center for Policy Studies, is devoted to ousting the Mugabe government under the guise of promoting democracy, but in reality promotes the profits of firms like Anglo-American and the interests of US and British investors. Kagoro is a former coordinator of the Coalition. Significantly, the Coalition is a partner of the ZESN.
Add to this Bond's celebrating the Western-trained and financed underground movements Zvakwana and Sokwanele as an "independent left" (7) and his co-authoring a Z-Net article on Zimbabwe with MDC founding member Grace Kwinjeh [8] (MDC leader Tsvangirai admitted in a February 2002 SBS Dateline program that his party is financed by European governments and corporations (9)), and it's clear that Bond links up with the spider web of American and British-sponsored civil society appendages of the MDC-T.
Chinamasa's clarification of the connections between the US and Britain and Zimbabwe's civil society and opposition fifth columnists is a welcome relief from Western newspapers' attempts to cover them up. The ZESN, despite being generously funded by the US through Congress and the State Department, is described by the Western media as "independent" while ZESN partner, the National Democratic Institute (NDI), is called "an international pro-democracy organization" (10) and "a Washington-based group." (11) What it really is, is the foreign arm of the Democratic Party. The NDI receives funding from the US Congress (as well as from USAID and corporate foundations), which it then doles out to fifth columnists in US-designated "outposts of tyranny." Only in the service of propaganda would the Democratic Party be called "a Washington-based group." One wonders how Americans would have reacted to the British monarchy parading about post-revolutionary Washington as a "London-based" group - an "international good government" organization bankrolling an American NGO to monitor US elections? Would anyone be surprised if the leaders of the British-financed NGO were dragged off to jail, especially were its backers openly working to oust the government in Washington to restore the rule of the British monarchy? In Zimbabwe, the only surprise is that the Zanu-PF government hasn't reacted with as much force as the Americans would have done under the same circumstances. That Zimbabwe's government has tried to preserve space for the exercise of political and civil liberties in the face of massive hostile foreign interference is to be commended.
Washington is quite open in its intentions to overthrow the Mugabe government. Under the 2001 US Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act "the President is authorized to provide assistance" to "support an independent and free press and electronic media in Zimbabwe" and "provide for democracy and governance programs in Zimbabwe." (12) This translates into the president financing anti-Zanu-PF radio stations and newspapers and bankrolling groups opposed to Zimbabwe's national liberation movement to inveigle Zimbabweans to vote against Mugabe.
"The United States government has said it wants to see President Robert Mugabe removed from power and that it is working with the Zimbabwean opposition...trade unions, pro-democracy groups and human rights organizations...to bring about a change of administration." (13)
Last year, the US State Department acknowledged once again that it supports "the efforts of the political opposition, the media and civil society" in Zimbabwe through training, assistance and financing. (14) And the 2006 US National Security Strategy declares that "it is the policy of the US to seek and support democratic movements and institutions in every nation...with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in..." North Korea, Iran, Syria, Cuba, Belarus and Zimbabwe. (15)
The goal of the overthrow agenda is to reverse the land reform and economic indigenization policies of the Zanu-PF government – policies that are against the interests of the ruling class foundations that fund the fifth columnists' activities. The chairman of Anglo-American finances Zimbabwe's anti-Mugabe civil society because bringing Tsvangirai's MDC to power is good for Anglo-American's bottom line. Likewise, the numerous Southern African corporations that Lord Renwick of Clifton sits on the boards of stand to profit from the MDC unseating Zimbabwe's national liberation agenda. Lord Renwick is head of an outfit called the Zimbabwe Democracy Trust (ZDT), also part of the interlocked community of imperialist governments, wealthy individuals, corporate foundations, and NGOs working to reverse Zimbabwe's liberation struggle. The ZDT is a major backer of the MDC. (16)
Police raids on the offices of the ZESN and Harvest House, the headquarters of the MDC, seem deplorable to those in the West who are accustomed to elections in which the contestants all pretty much agree on major policies, with only trivial differences among them. But in Zimbabwe, the differences are acute - a choice between losing much of what the 14-year long national liberation war was fought for and settling for nominal independence (that is crying uncle, so the West will relieve the pressure of its economic warfare) or moving forward to bring the program of national liberation to its logical conclusion: ownership of the country's land, resources and enterprises, not just its flag, by the black majority. In this, there is an unavoidable conflict between "a government which is spearheaded by a revolutionary party, which spearheaded the armed struggle against British imperialism" and "a party that was the creation of the imperialists themselves (that) has been financed the imperialists themselves." (17)
It's impossible to achieve independence from foreign control and domination without turmoil, disruption and fighting - not when the opposition and civil society are directed from abroad to serve foreign interests. Can Zimbabwe's elections honestly be described as free and fair when the economy has been sabotaged by the West's denying Harare credit and debt relief [18] and where respite from the attendant miseries is promised in the election of the opposition? Are elections legitimate when media are controlled by outside forces (19), and civil society and the opposition have been controlled by foreign powers?
Chinamasa's complaints, far from being demagoguery, are real and justified. Zanu-PF's decision to fight, rather than capitulate, ought be applauded, not condemned. Imperialism cannot be opposed without opposing the MDC and its civil society partners, for they too are imperialism.
NOTES:
1. Herald (Zimbabwe) April 26, 2008.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid.
6. Michael Barker, "Zimbabwe and the Power of Propaganda: Ousting a President via Civil Society," Global Research.ca, April 16, 2006. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8675
See also http://www.ned.org/dbtw-wpd/textbase/projects-search.htm and http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Zimbabwe_Election_Support_Network
7. Stephen Gowans, "The Politics of Demons and Angels," April 15, 2007, http://gowans.wordpress.com/2007/04/15/zimbabwe-and-the-politics-of-demons-and-angels/
8. Stephen Gowans, "The Company Patrick Bond Keeps," March 24, 2008, http://gowans.wordpress.com/2008/03/24/the-company-patrick-bond-keeps/
9. Rob Gowland, "Zimbabwe: The struggle for land, the struggle for independence," Communist Party of Australia, http://www.cpa.org.au/booklets/zimbabwe.pdf . The MDC is also financed by the British government's Westminster Foundation for Democracy and the Zimbabwe Democracy Trust, whose patrons include former British foreign secretaries and is headed by Lord Renwick of Chilton, vice-chair of investment banking at JPMorgan (Europe.)
10. The Globe and Mail (Toronto), April 26, 2008.
11. The Washington Post, April 26, 2008.
12. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s107-494
13. The Guardian (UK), August 22, 2002.
14. US Department of State, April 5, 2007.
15. http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss/2006/
16. "Zimbabwe ambassador: Self-determination is at the root of the conflict," FinalCall.Com News, April 22, 2008. http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/article_4611.shtml
17. Ibid.
18. Under the US Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act of 2001, "the Secretary of the Treasury shall instruct the United States executive director to each international financial institution to oppose and vote against-
(1) any extension by the respective institution of any loan, credit, or guarantee to the Government of Zimbabwe; or
(2) any cancellation or reduction of indebtedness owed by the Government of Zimbabwe to the United States or any international financial institution."
See http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s107-494
19. The same question can be asked of elections in Western liberal democracies, where the media are controlled by an interlocked community of hereditary capitalist families and corporate board members who share common economic interests inimical to those of the majority.
Reproduced from:
http://gowans.wordpress.com/2008/04/27/
expressions-of-imperialism-within-zimbabwe/``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xExpressions of imperialism within Zimbabwe``x1209342771,38810,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xFrom Augustine Hwata in LUSAKA, Zambia
April 28, 2008
The Herald
BRITISH Prime Minister Gordon Brown is not qualified to comment on challenges facing Zimbabwe, let alone to call for more sanctions, founding Zambian president Dr Kenneth Kaunda has said.
Dr Kaunda told Zambia's Post newspaper at the weekend that Brown lacked proper background information regarding Zimbabwe's problems and was not helpful towards finding a lasting solution to the current situation.
"It is sad for Prime Minister Brown to say what he said about the Zimbabwe situation," Dr Kaunda said while delivering a speech as a special guest to recipients of recognition awards from Pope Benedict XVI at the Vatican Embassy here last week.
"Brown does not understand what he is talking about. It is a sad thing that he said that (calling for more sanctions against Zimbabwe)," said the former president.
Dr Kaunda said he had wanted to inform Brown on how the challenges facing Zimbabwe came about before the British premier had even replaced Tony Blair, but failed to get that opportunity.
Dr Kaunda was at one time determined to travel to Britain to meet Brown, but did not do so on the advice of his doctors.
The former Zambian president, who turns 84 today, said Brown and the West should leave Zimbabwe alone so that it solves its own challenges, especially the political tension between Zanu-PF and the opposition.
"I think people in Zimbabwe are trying to find a way out of their own problems by talking of a government of national unity."
He urged the West to discard the belief that they were the best to prescribe solutions for Africa's problems.
"As usual, they want to tell what they think is right for us."
Dr Kaunda said calls by Brown for an arms embargo on Zimbabwe were misplaced and do little to solve the problems.
"Embargoing the defence forces is not the solution at all," said Dr Kaunda, adding that he wondered why the shipment of arms from China was being blocked when the order was placed last year.
It was unfortunate that the consignment was now being linked to the post-election period and a stalemate over the result of the presidential election.
Meanwhile, Zambian farmer and boxing promoter Mr Gevan Mumba has thrown his weight behind President Mugabe and the land reform programme.
Mr Mumba said Africans had a right to work on their land.
"I own more than 80 hectares of prime land in the Mufulira area and have two streams that pass through my plot. I produce crops and feel empowered that I have something to call my own," he said.
Unlike Zimbabwe, Mumba said Zambia does not have much pressure on land because it had a bigger geographical area and vast open areas against fewer people who wanted to farm.
"We are lucky that there is land available to Zambians who need it, unlike in Zimbabwe where the whites had most of the good areas. Because land is important, Britain, which does not have as much land, was pained when President Mugabe took some farms from their white relatives to redistribute to his people.
"I know for sure that Britain and America want (Cde) Mugabe to go and replace him in office with someone they can control over Zimbabwe's land. The same thing happened in Iraq when Saddam (Hussein) was killed for his oil," Mr Mumba said.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xHands off Zimbabwe, Kaunda tells Brown``x1209374454,66886,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Stephen T. Mambodei
April 28, 2008
The Herald
IT was a well-planned and well-calculated psychological game plan whose execution was supposed to produce a certain desired result.
Its takers wanted nothing else, but that result.
Three weeks after the poll, while the nation awaits the announcement of the full result of the historic March 29 poll, one has the feeling that the decisiveness, sense of finality, and the matter of fact mission accomplished attitude with which MDC and their backers in the Western community talk with respect to President Mugabe's leadership, is a pointer to a well-planned and well-orchestrated campaign to ensure that, that objective of "Mugabe must be stopped" designed a long time ago looks set to be realised.
To them, the 2008 harmonised polls could not have presented a better opportunity as the Zimbabwean President was surrounded by a slew of problems, which they thought they would use to their best advantage as election issues. It was also a game plan meant to shock, paralyse, immobilse.
It had an instant killer instinct. It was believably tactfully planned, just like a laboratory experiment.
It was also executed with immense speed and in some cases with military-like "precision".
On hindsight, the planners, as they revisit their strategy or go on to Plan B, they must really be wondering what went wrong, for the experiment produced a fluke.
The groundwork had been well-prepared by none other than American ambassador, James McGee, when he wrote in the Financial Gazette on February 21: "The citizens of Zimbabwe will go to the polls on March 29 to choose their representatives for public office. Despite the concerns about whether the conditions for free and fair elections . . . a growing chorus of voices is expressing doubt about the coming poll.
"My government shares the concerns expressed in recent weeks by a wide variety of organisations about the pre-election environment including reports of voter confusion and inadequate preparation, evidence of irregularities associated with registration and inspection of the voters' rolls and concerns that the violence of the past year will inevitably affect the campaign and election.
"Despite all these ominous signs, however, we urge all Zimbabweans to vote."
Then what followed were outcries of an "uneven level playing field'' with some players claiming that the election would be rigged or stolen from them.
A well-oiled international media machinery was also working for nothing but an opposition win, come what may. For hadn't Tsvangirai himself proclaimed: "Gore rino! Hazvikoni!"
As expected, people cast their ballots peacefully on March 29, and the whole nation naturally started waiting for the election results after close of polling at 7pm.
It was with amazement therefore that barely 12 hours after polling stations had closed, urban dwellers woke up to an euphoric atmosphere.
Put simply, people were celebrating an MDC-T "win" and they were also celebrating that at long last "More Morgan" was going to State House.
Car hooters and music were blaring away and people were congratulating each other.
Thanks to satellite TV, mobile phones, the Internet and the many brothers and sisters in the Diaspora who had taken over the constitutional mandate of the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission, and had made it their responsibility to announce results of an election in which they had not even been directly involved.
Simply stated, ZEC's independence was usurped and it did not seem to worry some sections of our society that they were setting a very dangerous precedent, and tampering with the nation's sacrosanct document - the Constitution.
With the exception of a few who had crossed over from neighbouring countries, how many from the purported three million Zimbabweans in the Diaspora returned to Zimbabwe to cast their vote?
From then on, the rumour-mill ran riot.
Allegations, counter-allegations, conspiracy theories, claims and counter-claims abounded.
Everyone suddenly became an expert, and everyone suddenly had information from impeccable sources substantiating his or her claims about the results they were peddling around.
In less than 24 hours, Zimbabwe became a stage of number crunching "experts", with the players upstaging one another, each time there was another rumour in circulation,
Then it became clear that the battle for Zimbabwe has always been a psychological one fought primarily in the public domain, the media.
This is why personalities like Morgan Tsvangirai, Simba Makoni and Arthur Mutambara are branded media constructs, for without the image building done by some media sources they would have gone nowhere politically.
By midday on March 30, this writer cross-checked to see whether the dates and times were correct. Was it a Monday morning or what?
He wondered how ZEC officials had managed to meticulously finish counting ballots from the presidential contest; 210 House of Assembly, and 60 Senate constituencies as well as 2 000 wards; collate the information and send it to the National Command Centre and broadcast it all within a space of less than 12 hours?
Where had I been when the results were announced, for I was awake for a good part of the night, waiting for the results, and my neighbourhood had had uninterrupted power supply for quite some time?
Well, more was to come. This writer was to later learn that the high spirits were a common phenomenon in a number of urban centres. There were also allegations of an influx of text messages coming from people in the Diaspora.
Then the third phase of the psychological game was put in motion. That Sunday morning, by 10am apart from President Mugabe, names of some key personalities in Zanu-PF started doing the rounds that they had dismally lost the election.
The announcements were done also in stages. The first psychological shocker was the claim that key provinces in Zanu-PF's rural strongholds of Mashonaland East, West and Central had all gone to MDC-T.
But the best of them was that MDC-T had also won major constituencies in Zanu-PF's stronghold of Uzumba Maramba-Pfungwe. As they claimed: "Zanu-PF yaita kutsvairwa chaiko". (Zanu-PF has been whitewashed).
One middle-aged lady remarked in shock and awe: "Nhai veduwe, ko inga nyika yaipa. Toringepi?" (The picture does not look good. Whither Zimbabwe?)
One of the celebrants said: "Zvino kana atorerwa (President Mugabe) Mash East neMash West kunosara ndokupi iwo matowns ari mastrongholds eMDC?" (Now if he (President Mugabe) lost Mash East and Mash West, what will he be left with since urban centres are MDC strongholds?)
Another one remarked: "Tiri kunzungu, tiri kunyimo. Chiringazuva chiya chazotsvuka chikakwata. Takati isu musi wa29 March mumwe nemumwe ngaamire panzvimbo. Mugabe kumunda. Makoni kuFinance. Tsvangirai kuState House." (Let's us look at the issue from both perspectives. Time is up. We made it clear that come March 29, each one should stand in his appointed place. President Mugabe should go back to the land. Makoni, to Finance and Tsvangirai should go and occupy State House).
The blatant lies were deliberate, but also harmful.
Within those 12 hours, the Zimbabwean landscape was deemed to be so untenable for some Zanu-PF big guns, and it was alleged that this had forced some of them to flee the country fearing people power and vengeance.
One alleged Harare International Airport employee wrote to BBC claiming that one of the airport wings had been closed to allow certain people to escape.
The alleged "massive loss by Zanu-PF" had to be credible as names of well-known politicians started being floated around. These included Zanu-PF national commissar Cde Elliot Manyika and Deputy Secretary for Youth Cde Saviour Kasukuwere.
Apart from Tsvangirai, Edgar Tekere of the Simba Makoni camp was also alleged to have made a clean sweep in the Mutare Senate constituency he was contesting, and it was claimed that he was having the last laugh on Zanu-PF.
But with time and patience, the whole nation was to learn that the former Zanu-PF secretary-general had come a dismal fourth, garnering just over 2 000 votes.
The puzzle would not be complete without further damaging information, the allegation that Cde Manyika had shot and killed an MDC supporter after the announcement of the results.
To give the so-called results credence, they had to be authenticated by none other than Basildon Peta, who claimed in an interview with Julian Marshall on News Hour, at 14:15hrs that President Mugabe was politically finished, and that all he could do was to pack his bags and retire to his Zvimba rural home.
This threat that was later repeated on April 18, by none other than Arthur Mutambara on the pirate radio station, VOA's Studio 7.
Peta claimed there was no way Cde Mugabe could survive since the unofficial results they were receiving in South Africa showed that one of his vice presidents, Cde Joice Mujuru, had lost dismally in Mt Darwin.
One wonders how Peta could make such claims when he knows full well that exit poll or no exit poll, opinion poll or no opinion poll, it was practically impossible for ZEC to have had completed the counting exercise in so short a time.
If there was no sinister agenda, it would not have made sense for anyone working under the auspices of ZEC to release results to the outside world before fulfilling their national mandate of announcing them to Zimbabweans who were primary stakeholders in the whole exercise.
That the results were a subject of interest not only nationally, but also regionally and internationally was well known, for since 2000, Zimbabwe has become a battleground, and every activity is always put under microscopic scrutiny.
This is why ZEC invited a number of authoritative organisations and individuals to observe the process.
If people had wanted to use their common sense, they would have asked themselves how results from one or two wards in a constituency could be translated into a national result, even a representative sample and irrespective of who had won or lost in that particular ward?
This writer also realised that it was an exercise in futility to argue, let alone disagree with people who were celebrating a result that had not been officially announced.
Late Sunday, as the rumor mill went into overdrive, with the merrymaking going on and the onslaught continuing, some people started showing signs of exasperation and frustration as ZEC had not yet announced any result.
As usual, the term "rigging" started being floated around as some of these people thought that the delay was a tactic being used by ZEC and Zanu-PF to rig the election, and automatically, steal the victory from Tsvangirai.
But the psychological game was still being played.
The big one came on Sunday evening when Studio 7 hosted by the Voice of America made a special announcement from the American Embassy in Harare advising all American citizens resident in Zimbabwe to move to safe areas as they expected that violence would break out at any moment, due to delays by ZEC in announcing the results.
In the same bulletin, Cde Manyika was also interviewed about the alleged shooting incident, an allegation he vehemently denied.
By Monday, the euphoria started dying down, and what was on people's lips was when ZEC would start announcing the results.
When the results started coming in for the better part of the week, it was evident that people were doing nothing but making post-mortems of a partial result and making conclusions based on that.
But the damage from Sunday had already been done, and it is a damage that will take time to repair.
MDC-T also heightened the tempo, when they threatened that if ZEC did not announce the presidential result they would announce their own version of the presidential result, which they actually did on April 2.
And, it was a result that gave Tsvangirai a lead over other presidential candidates.
And this was followed by Tsvangirai's "victory" speech, all actions, which were meant to force ZEC to announce premature results, especially the presidential results.
This is why this writer maintains that the post-election posturing by MDC-T and their backers was nothing but a psychological game.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe: A game plan that went awry``x1209454643,40053,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Reason Wafawarova
April 28, 2008
The Herald
THE United States' ruling elite is gleefully keeping fingers crossed in an envisaged opportunity that presents a Zimbabwe they see as ready for the picking.
On the 15th of April, US ambassador to the UN, one Zalmay Khalilzad, described Zimbabwe as "the most important and urgent issue in Africa".
Said Khalilzad: "It would be very surprising that we will have a meeting on Africa in which quiet a number of African leaders will be there and not talk about the most important issue, the most urgent issue on that continent, being Zimbabwe."
Now, Jendayi Frazer, the Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, has been gallivanting across Southern Africa lobbying, or is it arm twisting the regional leaders one by one, in her assignment to ensure an ouster of President Robert Mugabe and the liberation nationalist party, Zanu-PF.
Zimbabwe's former colonial master and the US's trusted lapdog supporter and ally, Britain, has been running all over the show in a bid to restore her battered sense of supremacy over the affairs of her former colonies – states whose affairs Britain runs through the Commonwealth. David Milliband, the British Foreign Secretary has already told the world that his country cannot wait to have Zimbabwe back in the Commonwealth.
Milliband's most unassuming boss, Gordon Brown has already complained that his patience is "wearing thin" on Zimbabwe and he reckons that this personal feeling can safely be interpreted to be representative of the attitude of the "international community" a term now cynically monopolised by the West with arrogant disregard for the rest of this world.
South Africa, under Thabo Mbeki has refused to be the equivalent of the pre-1979 Iran, an Iran that was the hub of US interests in the Middle East, and the West is badly looking for an alternative to Mbeki. When the shah of Iran was ousted by a popular revolt in 1979, the US created Saddam Hussein, just across the border in Iraq. Hussein, immediately attacked Iran on behalf of the US and for eight years he was armed to the hilt by Washington – killing millions of Iran civilians and Iraq Kurds in the process.
The recent utterances by Jacob Zuma to the effect that the US and her Western allies wanted South Africa to attack Zimbabwe militarily are not only revealing but also very characteristic of US foreign policy.
The so-called quiet diplomacy approach by President Thabo Mbeki has not only irked George W Bush and his administration but it has also been seen as a failure to establish a client state in Southern Africa.
If South Africa could play an Israel in the region, then the US interests would be protected – interests vested in the region's natural resources and possibly the setting up of AFRICOM; that unwelcome idea of a US military base meant to control Africa.
It is this background that makes the US consider Zimbabwe the "most important and urgent issue on the continent" of Africa. Khalilzad was only speaking on behalf of George W Bush's administration. This is the official US State Department's position and it is the same view held by the UK and the rest of the West.
Tsvangirai becomes so relevant because Zimbabwe has a history of military supremacy in the region. They played major roles in stopping Angola's Jonasi Savimbi, defeating Mozambique's Renamo and also in stopping the overthrow of Laurent Kabila of the DRC in 1998.
Zimbabwe is rich in its agricultural potential and in natural resources, like platinum, gold, coal and other minerals. It has a relatively big population by the region's standards, a population estimated at 14 million.
Above all, Zimbabwe has Morgan Tsvangirai, a man who rides on the suffering of people – a suffering in which he has played a major role as the chief mobiliser of economic sanctions from the West. Zimbabwe has Morgan Tsvangirai, a man Washington can deeply trust as a tabula rasa in terms of policy. The man is ideologically illiterate and that is the perfect scenario for the US. He is motivated by power and money and not by popular policies and for Washington, there is no better candidate.
Morgan Tsvagirai, if ever allowed to rule, is most likely going to neutralise the militant war veterans of Zimbabwe's liberation war. He is most likely to restore the white dominated agrarian regime, as was the case before 2000. He is most likely going to carry out Washington's instructions on the sub-region – that without causing so many problems like Mbeki of South Africa is seen as doing.
A Morgan Tsvangirai-led Zimbabwe is likely to be armed to the hilt by Washington – all for purposes of whipping each country in the region into the imperial line.
It is hoped that South Africa will remain relatively controllable, as is the case right now and that it does not develop into another Iran in a region where Zimbabwe will be playing an Israel.
The West's reaction to Israeli offensive was revealingly fraudulent and unusually more apparent. Just a day before the capture of Corporal Shalit, on the 24th of June 2006, Israel had kidnapped two civilians in Gaza, the Muammar brothers. Obviously, this was a far more serious crime than the capturing of a soldier, especially when one considers that the Muammar brothers were abducted to Israel in violation of the Geneva Conventions.
They were swallowed into the Israeli prison system, where over 1000 people are currently held without charge, hence kidnapped. There was neither notice nor reaction in the West, in fact in the West nothing happened in Palestine on the 24th of June 2006.
There is general agreement to the two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestine conflict among the Arab states, including Iran, and Hezbollah has also said they would respect this kind of a
solution, although it is not exactly their preference. Hamas has also indicated that it is prepared to negotiate for a settlement in the two-state terms.
The United States and Israel continue to block this political settlement, as they have done for the past thirty years, never mind the brief and inconsequential exceptions often meant to hoodwink the Palestinians before each major onslaught. Denial of this attitude is preferable in the West, but the victims of US-Israeli brutality do not exactly enjoy this kind of luxury.
US-Israeli rejection of reality is not only in words, but also more importantly, in action. With precise and decisive US backing, Israel has been systematically pursuing its programme of annexation and dismemberment of shrinking Palestinian territories, and imprisonment of what remains by taking over the Jordan Valley. This is the so-called convergence programme, which Washington astonishingly calls "courageous withdrawal."
This is exactly why the Palestinians are facing national destruction. The only meaningful support for Palestine is from Hezbollah, which was formed in reaction to the 1982 invasion of Lebanon.
Hezbollah is basically a prestigiously supported group, mainly because of leading the effort to force Israel to stop its aggression on Lebanon in 2000, as well as for its popular social service provision programmes.
The US-Israeli planners would want Hezbollah and similar Islamic organizations like Hamas severely weakened or most preferably destroyed – just like the PLO had to be evicted from Lebanon in 1982.
In the same way, the US would want every liberation movement in Southern Africa severely weakened if not completely annihilated. Zimbabwe's Zanu-PF, Namibia's SWAPO, Angola's MPLA, Mozambique's Frelimo, Zambia's ousted UNIP and South Africa's ANC are all viewed in the same light with Hezbollah, Hamas and every other popular Islamic group.
The Western dream to weaken or annihilate these popular movements can only be enhanced when people like Morgan Tsvangirai, Alphonso Dhlakama and others like them, avail themselves as willing mercenaries to push forward the reactionary imperialist agenda.
The main reason Hezbollah has not been destroyed is that it is deeply embedded within Lebanese society that it cannot be eradicated without eradicating much of Lebanon just like its virtually impossible to destroy Hamas without eradicating much of Palestine.
It still remains very hard for the US to destroy Zanu-PF without having to eradicate much of Zimbabwe. The same goes for all the other liberation movements and even the ousted UNIP of Zambia just refused to die under the spirited efforts by Fredrick Chiluba.
Chiluba even tried to arrest everyone who mattered in UNIP and he even attempted to make legislation that would strip Kenneth Kaunda of his right to Zambian citizenship and identity.
No doubt, a Tsvangirai government, if ever there could be one, would be assigned to do similar efforts on Zanu-PF and what the West now calls Mugabeism.
This is the kind of Zimbabwe that Washington would want. They want a Zimbabwe that is totally divorced from its own liberation legacy, a Zimbabwe totally disenfranchised by their own history and a Zimbabwe totally depended on the Western doctrine of donor funding.
This is why the MDC derides war veterans, preaches the gospel of the "international community" more than they preach nationalism and above all believe in borrowing more than they believe in production.
When they say Zimbabwe is on the brink they mean the country is on the brink of being a client state to Washington.
We are on the brink of servitude to Western ideals and economic supremacy. Can this be allowed to happen? If yes, the question is why?
Some have written this writer saying if the people want imperialism and Western domination, let them have it. In other words, a country can be handed over to its oppressors if the oppressors are cunning enough to deceive a large chunk of the population.
This is the predicament that Zimbabwe finds itself in, a very sad and precarious predicament. The envisaged run off in the presidential election is just but the last option to choose between rule by Washington and self-determination.
That is the plain truth, despite the apparent temptation for people to try and stop the economic crisis via the ballot box.
People are being coerced to vote for the lifting of sanctions while handing their sovereignty right in the hands of the US-UK alliance.
Are we going to stand aside and look?
Is Sadc going to stand aside and watch?
Are Zimbabweans in their majority going to allow this travesty to occur?
It is homeland or death.
Together we will overcome.
Reason Wafawarova is a political writer and can be contacted on wafawarova@yahoo.co.uk``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xLet's unite, defend Zimbabwe``x1209454755,62869,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xHerald Reporters
April 30, 2008
THE United Nations yesterday snubbed attempts by Western backers of the MDC-T to put Zimbabwe on the agenda of the Security Council meeting as British moves to subvert Zimbabwe's democratic electoral process by mooting the formation of a contact and pressure group of three selected Sadc countries to put pressure on Harare were exposed.
MDC-T attempts to gatecrash into yesterday's Security Council meeting hit a wall after it was told that only governments could address the world body organ's meetings.
MDC-T secretary-general Tendai Biti and secretary for international affairs Eliphas Mukonoweshuro had travelled to New York in a bid to address the Security Council meeting on the situation in Zimbabwe following last month's elections.
But Zimbabwe's Ambassador to the UN, Mr Boniface Chidyausiku, said the opposition officials were told off and ended up meeting the world body's secretariat.
"They were told that they are not a government and cannot address the Security Council," said Mr Chidyausiku.
In the meeting with the UN secretariat, the two claimed that there was post-election violence in Zimbabwe and asked for a UN special envoy to probe the situation in the country.
After the opposition could not get into the Security Council meeting, its backers – led by the United Kingdom, Belgium, France and the United States – unsuccessfully tried to get the Security Council to discuss Zimbabwe.
Eight countries – namely South Africa, Russia, Vietnam, China, Burkina Faso, Costa Rica, Libya and Indonesia – blocked the move.
Recently South Africa – which was chairing the Security Council meetings in April – also refused to have Zimbabwe put on the agenda of a joint UN and African Union peace and security meeting.
AU chairman Mr Jakaya Kikwete – who is the president of Tanzania – said the Zimbabwe issue was being handled by Sadc.
Britain and the US were trying hard to get Zimbabwe on the agenda of the Security Council especially during April when South Africa was chairing the UN body.
But Mr Chidyausiku described the attempts as "mischievous" and pointed out that the MDC-T could not address the Security Council as it could only lobby its "friends" at the UN.
It has emerged that Britain's Labour and Conservative parties were seeking to divide Sadc over the Zimbabwean issue.
The British sought to entice Zambian, Botswana and Tanzanian high commissioners in London to form a group that would influence other regional countries to be hard on Zimbabwe and subsequently push President Mugabe out of office.
On April 24 2008, William Hague, the Conservative shadow secretary for foreign affairs, wrote a letter to Prime Minister Gordon Brown's Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, indicating they would soon be meeting with diplomats from the three Sadc countries to force them to condemn President Mugabe.
It could not be established last night if the meeting was eventually held.
The letter also reveals that the opposition MDC-T has been working closely with the British to circumvent the electoral process by finding a way of installing Morgan Tsvangirai as President despite the apparent reality that no presidential candidate managed to avoid a run-off in the March 29 harmonised elections.
"In the weeks since the elections, I have met with the London representatives of the Tsvangirai's MDC party (sic). Keith Simpson, (Conservative) shadow minister for Africa, has met Lord Malloch Brown (Minister for Africa) to urge more decisive action and will shortly meet with the high commissioners of Botswana, Tanzania and Zambia to discuss the contribution their countries can make.
"I have called on Zimbabwe's neighbours to send a united signal that (President) Mugabe should go, and be prepared to offer to mediate. We would like to see the African Union and the Commonwealth take a strong stance and back these efforts.
"Britain and its partners should make it clear that they will isolate the regime and impose tougher sanctions if it continues down this path.
"We will continue to press the government on these matters," Hague concluded, "to support all international efforts to intensify the pressure, and advocate clearer action to prepare for the eventual departure of the Mugabe regime."
It is believed that the proposed meeting with the three African high commissioners in London is part of efforts by the British establishment to form a "Contact Group" on Zimbabwe that would also seek to subvert the electoral process.
In an article in the April 6, 2008 edition of the UK newspaper The Sunday Telegraph, Hague said: "And we should set up a 'Contact Group', backed by the weight and resources of the United Nations.
"Such a body would be able to pool international efforts on Zimbabwe, manage the inflow of assistance and advance the political process."
He added that the UK should also lay the groundwork for establishing a military force "under the auspices of the African Union and backed by the major powers" to invade Zimbabwe.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe: UN snubs MDC-T``x1209559150,20043,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Caesar Zvayi
May 01, 2008
The Herald
THE MDC-T campaign to demonise the Government for alleged violence and human rights abuses came unstuck on Tuesday when the United Nations Secretariat also publicly fingered the opposition for violence against Zanu-PF supporters.
This came minutes before the world body snubbed attempts by the MDC-T's Western handlers to have Zimbabwe on the agenda of the Security Council as a prelude to intervention, saying it was only "the UK and the US who have been the most vocal on the issue" while Africa was for quiet diplomacy.
In his briefing to the Security Council meeting on Wednesday, UN Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs Mr B. Lynn Pascoe said though the MDC-T claimed Zanu-PF had launched a campaign of violence against its supporters, reports indicated that MDC-T supporters were also resorting to violence and intimidation.
"There are reports that Zanu-PF has incited a campaign of abuses against MDC officials and supporters . . . Reports also suggested 'an emerging pattern of political violence inflicted mainly, but not exclusively, on rural supporters of the opposition MDC party', some reports also indicated some MDC supporters were resorting to violence and intimidation."
He noted that though the MDC-T leadership claimed that 10 of its supporters had died as a result of politically-motivated violence, the police and Zanu-PF had denied the assertions.
"The MDC says at least 10 of its supporters have been killed. However, the police and Zanu-PF deny any deaths due to political violence," Mr Pascoe said.
Mr Pascoe's observations are vindicated by a document prepared by the MDC-T leadership chronicling alleged cases of politically-motivated violence from March 29 that does not report any deaths contrary to the claims made by the party leadership in the South African and Western media.
Police say they have handled over 75 cases of politically-motivated violence perpetrated by MDC-T supporters while the opposition alleges that Zanu-PF supporters were involved in 27 instances of violence against their supporters.
Official records from the CID Law and Order Section show that the department has dealt with 33 cases of violence, most of which stemmed from the abortive stayaway called by the MDC-T.
So far, 10 opposition supporters have appeared in court with two of the cases already finalised, 11 others have paid admission of guilt fines while 13 are still under investigation. A further 53 accused persons have paid fines for various offences of politically-motivated violence.
A letter from MDC-T MP-elect for the St Mary's constituency that we reproduce in full on the letters page also situates violence within opposition circles.
Sources at the UN Secretariat said the world body had counselled caution over claims by the MDC-T leadership, saying many of the claims made since the elections had been found to be false or were not substantiated by facts.
They cited the statement made by MDC-T secretary general Tendai Biti on April 2, claiming his party had won 80 percent of the House of Assembly seats which would have translated into 168 of the 210 seats when it had managed only 99 seats; and the claim that Morgan Tsvangirai had garnered 50,3 percent of the vote yet the figures the party quoted gave him 49,1 percent of the votes.
Last week, two suspected MDC-T supporters appeared in court, facing charges of arson after the opposition allegedly unleashed an organised campaign of violence at Mayo Resettlement Area in Headlands where they torched more than eight homesteads belonging to Zanu-PF supporters.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe: UN publicly fingers MDC-T for violence``x1209635416,4240,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Abayomi Azikiwe
May 01, 2008
The Herald
ONCE again, imperialist nations and their allied Press agencies along with other surrogate organisations have set out to destabilise the Government of President Mugabe and the ruling Zanu-PF.
Using circumstances surrounding the delay in the announcement of results of the March 29, 2008 poll for the Parliament and presidential elections, the chorus of calls for regime change have dominated the airwaves and print media.
US envoy Jendayi Frazer, who serves as Assistant Secretary State for African Affairs, was dispatched in late April to several countries on the continent to trumpet the idea of regime change in Zimbabwe.
UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown has openly announced in the British parliament that Cde Mugabe must resign and hand over power to the pro-Western MDC.
The British went as far as promising the MDC leadership £1 billion annually to purportedly rebuild the economy of Zimbabwe which has been wrecked by the machinations of the former colonial power in London in co-operation with the United States and the European Union. What moral right do these imperialist nations have to interfere in the internal affairs of Zimbabwe and consequently Africa as a whole?
With specific reference to the United States, the whole idea of criticising the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission for its job inside the country represents the height of hypocrisy. Was it not the current Bush regime that came into office in 2000 as a result of the disenfranchisement of hundreds of thousands of voters, many of whom were African-Americans, during the debacle in Florida that led to the ascendancy of the present administration?
Even in 2004, it was documented by the Congressional Black Caucus and other civil rights organisations that the decisive vote count in the state of Ohio gave the necessary margin to declare George W. Bush victor for a disastrous second term in Washington.
Nonetheless, when democratic elections do not suit the interests of imperialism, such as what happened in Palestine when Hamas won the majority of seats in the authority, the results were rejected not only by the State of Israel but also the United States.
Background to the situation in Zimbabwe
When Zimbabwe gained independence in 1980, it was considered a major accomplishment that would eventually lead to the triumph of the national liberation struggles in Southern Africa.
Since the late 19th century when Cecil John Rhodes, the imperialist agent of British colonialism, pressed for the seizure of the land of the Ndebele and Shona peoples which was rich in natural resources and agricultural potential, the country became a major source of cheap labour and profits for the white settler class and its international partners.
With the beginning of the Second Chimurenga (anti-colonial struggle) during the 1960s, the first taking place in 1896-1897, the masses took up arms to fight for the end of British rule and the return of their land and mineral wealth to the African peasants and workers. In order to avoid an outright military defeat by the armed forces of the Patriotic Front composed of the Zimbabwe African National Union and the Zimbabwe African People's Union, the British and the United States forced the white-settler regime of Ian Smith, which had ostensibly broken away from the UK in 1965, to negotiate a political settlement with the liberation movements. Under the Lancaster House accords of 1979-1980, the British settlers would maintain control of most of the land in Zimbabwe for a period of 10 years. The whites would be guaranteed a 20 percent bloc within the House of Parliament for a decade and the independent Government would not nationalise the mines and other business interests inside the country.
However, it was agreed that the UK and the United States would supply funding for a land reform programme within 10 years to subsidise the gradual removal of the British from the prime land in Zimbabwe and the re-emergence of self-sufficient African farmers and agricultural workers. After the conclusion of the 1980s, the debate within Zimbabwe intensified over the delayed land reform process. By the end of the 1990s, the Zanu-PF Government of President Mugabe, after patiently waiting for two decades for the unfulfilled promises of the former colonial power of Britain and their imperialist partners in the United States, the passage of constitutional amendments granted the right to seize the farms of approximately 50 percent of the white settlers for the resettlement of the African people.
With the assistance of the revolutionary war veterans from the national liberation struggle of the 1960s and 1970s, these farms were occupied and the settlers, who held both Zimbabwean and British citizenship, were forced to leave and concede ownership to the Government which developed plans for land redistribution.
Destabilisation and the neo-liberal agenda
Since 1998, when it became clear that the Zanu-PF Government would eventually embark upon a radical land reform programme, the Western imperialist countries set out to bring down the administration of President Mugabe.
In a referendum to give a electoral mandate to the constitutional reforms designed to escalate the land redistribution programme, the formation of an alliance of internal opposition forces that were backed by the settler-colonialists and their external allies in the UK and the US, were able to defeat the initiative.
Further evidence of the inroads made by the pro-Western political interests in Zimbabwe was demonstrated by the growth of the recently formed Movement for Democratic Change. In the parliamentary elections held during June of 2000, the ruling Zanu-PF party won a majority by small margin after months of a concerted and well-financed propaganda campaign targeting the land reform programme.
This was accompanied by the persistent efforts of the International Monetary Fund and other Western financial institutions to weaken the economy of Zimbabwe. The country, which is geographically landlocked, depends heavily on the transport of goods through the neighbouring Republic of South and Mozambique. By 2002, when presidential elections were held, the ruling Zanu-PF party had consolidated the land reform programme and were able to defeat the opposition MDC at the polls.
Yet the efforts of the imperialists and their collaborators inside the country among the white settlers, the oppostion MDC leadership as well as the local capitalist class, continued their efforts to destabilise the Zimbabwe Government under the leadership of Zanu-PF. When attempts to stage violent regime-change demonstrations failed, the economy came under siege.
The refusal of financial institutions to grant credit to the Government, the hoarding of consumer goods to drive up prices coupled with sanctions and the eventual suspension of the country from the British Commonwealth had a dramatic impact on the ability of the Zanu-PF Government to provide basic services to the people.
Eventually Zimbabwe would withdraw completely from the old colonially-imposed Commonwealth and develop a "Look East" policy which would emphasise greater co-operation and trade within Africa itself and between the country and Asian nations, particularly China. This policy helped provide breathing space for the Zanu-PF Government, since China also offered diplomatic support to the Mugabe administration by preventing efforts to bring the country before the United Nations Security Council to discuss supposed human rights violations.
The role of the People's Republic of China in Africa has been a cause for tremendous consternation in Western ruling circles. China has extended its economic co-operation within many countries on the African continent. In Sudan, they have provided an outlet for the distribution of petroleum resources from their growing oil industry which the United States has been prevented from participating in for over a decade.
During the month of April 2008, the United States and Britain attempted to impose an illegal arms embargo against Zimbabwe after it was discovered that a substantial shipment of weapons and military equipment was being sent to the country. First, a white-dominated dock workers union in South Africa went to court to prevent the arms shipment sent by China from being unloaded and transported to landlocked Zimbabwe.
It was recently announced that the Republic of Angola would allow the arms to be unloaded through their ports. US Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Jendayi Frazer was dispatched to the continent to pressure various governments to both support Western efforts to set an embargo outside the UN Security Council and to also advance the notion of a so-called "government of national unity" where the pro-Western MDC opposition party would be in the forefront.
The problems associated with the delay in election results in Zimbabwe were utilised as an excuse to make a major push towards regime change in this Southern African nation. According to the MDC, the ruling party lost the elections held on March 29. Yet the actual figures from the first tabulation and the recount only place the MDC slightly ahead of Zanu-PF in the Lower House of Parliament. Neither the opposition or the ruling party achieved an outright majority.
Zanu-PF has speculated that the results of the presidential elections would not give a majority to either the ruling party or the opposition MDC. The Zanu-PF Politburo in a recent meeting stated that they were prepared for a run-off election, while the MDC has rejected the idea of a second round in the elections which is mandated by the Constitution if no party wins more than 51 percent in the race for head of state. All of the major Western corporate and governmentally-controlled Press agencies have come out in support of the opposition MDC. The leaders of this party are given prime coverage through interviews and the publicising of their unsubstantiated accusations related to vote rigging, alleged violence committed by the Zanu-PF Government and its neo-colonial schemes purportedly designed to restructure the economy of Zimbabwe.
Amid massive criticism from Western Press agencies and governments, President Thabo Mbeki has refused to aid in the Western destabilisation efforts aimed at toppling the Zimbabwe state and the placing of the pro-Western MDC in power.
Mbeki has rejected the notion that there is a crisis in the country requiring international intervention.
In addition, the newly-elected president of the ruling African National Congress of South Africa, Jacob Zuma, who recently visited the UK and met with Prime Minister Gordon Brown, also refused to condemn the Zimbabwe Government.
Despite the convening of a special summit of the regional Southern African Development Community in early April to discuss the political situation in Zimbabwe, the grouping of 14 states in the sub-continent have not taken any action that would interfere in the internal affairs of Zimbabwe and its ruling Zanu-PF party.
The right to self-determination and sovereignty
Spokespersons for the Zimbabwe Government have rejected the statements and actions of the UK and the US as attempts to overturn their Government and impose a neo-colonial solution.
The only real programme of the opposition MDC is to carry out the political and economic designs of the Western imperialist nations and their class collaborators inside of Zimbabwe. The MDC has every intention of returning the farms seized by the Zanu-PF Government after 2000 to the white-settlers.
Also the "Look East" policy has been a specific target of the anti-Mugabe forces because a change in this foreign policy orientation would damage relations between Zimbabwe and China. China has been a staunch supporter of Zimbabwe extending back to the era of the armed struggle for national independence during the 1970s. Moreover, the United States and Britain have supplied arms and economic support to those regimes in Africa and other so-called Third World countries which carry out their policies.
In Africa, the United States supports the regime of Hosni Mubarak of Egypt which receives the second largest grant of American aid, only followed by the Israeli state in occupied Palestine. In Latin America, the US supplies massive amounts of military and economic assistance to Colombia, which is the third largest recipient of American aid behind Israel and Egypt.
This US assistance is provided to supposedly fight narco-terrorism, yet the major purveyors of violence in Colombia are those counter-revolutionary elements that have firm links to the drug trade and who serve as a surrogate military force to prevent the Revolutionary Armed Forces from coming to power inside the country.
The internal political and economic problems of the nation of Zimbabwe can best be resolved by the people themselves. It is obvious from the long history of American and UK involvement in Africa that these imperialist nations have always been the perpetuators or supporters of slavery, colonialism and neo-colonialism.
During the many years of brutal oppression and exploitation under colonialism, the United States never supported any genuine liberation movement in Africa. Since independence the US policies have only hampered these nations from gaining genuine liberation from the economic tentacles of international finance capital.
What has occurred in Zimbabwe over the last several years is the direct by-product of imperialist intervention and manipulation of the political economy of this Southern African country.
The Government of President Mugabe, like any other sovereign state, has the right to protect its own interests and to safeguard its people and institutions from outside forces seeking undemocratic forms of regime change.
The writer Abayomi Azikiwe is Editor of the Pan-African News Wire, and this article first appeared on the Pan-African News Wire website. The Pan-African News Wire is an international electronic Press service designed to foster intelligent discussion on the affairs of African people throughout the continent and the world.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe faces biggest threat since Independence``x1209635583,53918,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xHerald Reporter
May 02, 2008
The Herald
VERIFICATION of the presidential election results began in Harare yesterday with representatives of the candidates who contested the March 29 poll in attendance.
The Zimbabwe Electoral Commission presented to the representatives the results it came up with for comparison with figures compiled by the contesting parties on their own.
ZEC deputy chief elections officer (operations) Mr Utloile Silaigwana said after presenting the results, parties were given the chance to lodge objections.
"The verification process is basically to allow parties to compare our final figures with their own results before we announce them, according to an agreement reached by all parties before we called for the process to begin.
"We have presented our figures to the parties, but the process has since been adjourned to tomorrow (today) as the MDC-T and independent candidate Langton Towungana were not ready with their own figures to compare with ours," he said.
Mr Silaigwana said MDC-T representative Chris Mbanga and Towungana had indicated that their results do not tally with those presented by ZEC.
"We have adjourned to give them an opportunity to present their figures for comparison with our totals and if the figures do not tally, then they have to prove their source of results.
"We, as ZEC, are the authority with the results and if we do not reach an agreement we have to go back to the primary source of results which are the V11 forms from all polling stations.
"The V11 forms are the only source of results and they also have signatures of representatives from all parties," he said.
Zanu-PF secretary for legal affairs Cde Emmerson Mnangagwa represented President Mugabe at the verification process with Mbanga representing MDC-T candidate Morgan Tsvangirai.
Independent candidates Simba Makoni and Towungana were present at the process, which was delayed by about 20 minutes after the latter failed to make it to the venue at the starting time.
Observers from Sadc, the Zimbabwe Election Support Network, Zimbabwe Indigenous Economic Organisation and the Zimbabwe National Drivers' Union observed the process.
Mbanga said the process had started well, indicating that it would continue today.
"We have started the process of verifying the presidential results and the process has been going on well since we started," he said.
Zanu-PF media sub-committee chairperson Cde Patrick Chinamasa has said the results the ruling party, the MDC-T and independent monitors have show that no candidate garnered the mandatory 51 percent to be declared outright winner, requiring a run-off between the two candidates with the highest votes.
The verification is expected to pave the way for the announcement of the presidential poll results.
Results of the House of Assembly, Senate and council polls have since been announced.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe: Presidential results - Verification begins``x1209714781,47274,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Sydney Kawadza
May 03, 2008
The Herald
RESULTS of the March 29 presidential poll were announced yesterday with no winner of an absolute majority, automatically setting the stage for a second election between the two top candidates – Morgan Tsvangirai of MDC-T and President Mugabe of Zanu-PF – with the other two candidates eliminated.
Zimbabwe Electoral Commission constituency election officer for the presidential poll Mr Lovemore Sekeramayi said a second presidential election would be conducted between the two since no candidate had received the required majority of more than 50 percent of the valid votes cast.
"No candidate has received a majority of the total number of valid votes cast, the provisions of Section 110 (3) of the Electoral Act [Chapter 2:13] do apply and a second election shall be held on a date to be advised by the Commission.
"According to Section 110 (4) of the Electoral Act, the two candidates who received the highest and next highest numbers of valid votes cast shall be eligible to contest in the second election.
"Accordingly, Tsvangirai and (President) Mugabe are eligible to contest in the second election," he said.
Zanu-PF, through President Mugabe's chief elections agent, Cde Emmerson Mnangagwa, immediately said it accepted the results although the party did not believe they reflected the expression of the people.
Tsvangirai's national election agent, Chris Mbanga, said although his party did not accept the final result, he still had to report back to his national executive.
According to ZEC results, Tsvangirai received 1 195 562 votes, representing 47,9 percent of the valid votes, while President Mugabe of Zanu-PF polled 1 079 730 votes, which is 43,2 percent of the valid votes.
Independent candidate Simba Makoni won 207 470 votes, which is 8,3 percent of the valid votes, with Langton Towungana, another independent candidate, polling 14 503 votes, translating to 0,6 percent of the valid votes.
A total of 39 975 ballots were spoilt while the percentage poll was calculated to be 42,7 percent.
Addressing a Press conference after the announcement of the results, Cde Mnangagwa said President Mugabe accepted the ZEC result and would stand as Zanu-PF candidate in the run-off.
"Following the announcement by ZEC in the first stage of the presidential election, I have to advise that the Zanu-PF presidential candidate, Cde Mugabe, accepts the results as announced and is offering himself for election in the pending presidential run-off whose date is yet to be announced," he said.
He, however, said the results did not reflect the genuine expression of the will of the Zimbabwean people.
"Given the many anomalies, malpractices, deflation of figures of Zanu-PF candidates as information was transmitted upwards, inflation of figures relating to opposition candidates as information was transmitted to higher command levels, multiple voting and people who are not on the voters' roll being allowed to vote, persons on voters' roll being turned away and not allowed to vote and irregularities in the manner that handicapped persons were assisted to vote," he said.
He said the anomalies were exposed in the sample recounting exercise that was undertaken at Zanu-PF's request by the ZEC in 21 constituencies.
The anomalies revealed a pattern in the management of the electoral process, which was biased against Zanu-PF and in favour of MDC, he said.
"In short, Zanu-PF and all its candidates, especially its presidential candidate, feel aggrieved and were greatly prejudiced by attempts by the MDC and its sponsors to tamper with the electoral system."
He said the Zimbabwe Election Support Network undertook voter education without the authority of ZEC and outside the legal framework.
"Evidence that has come to light indicates that ZESN voter educators were not, in fact, neutral and in any sense real voter educators but MDC party activists who masqueraded as voter educators to decampaign Zanu-PF while extolling the virtues of MDC (Tsvangirai)," he said.
He said there was also evidence that ZESN observers abandoned their observer status, becoming "conduits through which monies used in bribing and compromising certain electoral officials were channelled", while there is evidence that these funds were provided by the British and American governments.
Cde Mnangagwa said NGOs involved in distributing food abused their humanitarian role and used food as a weapon to decampaign Zanu-PF.
"There is unchallenged evidence that these NGOs, in the last food distributions they made just prior to the election date, advised voters that they will not resume food distributions after elections in the event that the electorate voted for Zanu-PF."
He said recounting in the 23 constituencies also revealed that electoral officers allowed multiple voting and voting by people not on the voters' roll while there was massive voter buying of traditional leadership by the opposition party.
Cde Mnangagwa said the overall operating electoral environment was poisoned against Zanu-PF as the elections were held against a backdrop of illegal Western-imposed sanctions to oust the ruling party from power while the people voted in an environment subjected to Western blackmail.
He said there was also massive funding of the opposition MDC-T and Makoni by the British, Australian and American governments including foreign corporates to influence and determine the
outcome of the elections.
The Zanu-PF legal affairs secretary said pirate radio stations intensified broadcasting into the country's airspace during the election period and were critical players in the electoral process over which ZEC and our laws had no control.
He said some newspapers, such as The Zimbabwean, stepped up supply and frequency and even took MDC-T colours to consolidate opinion for the opposition.
Cde Mnangagwa said Zanu-PF withheld seeking a recount in all constituencies to avoid disrupting the electoral process.
"Nevertheless, the party's candidates have filed petitions in 52 constituencies seeking the setting aside of the announced results and these petitions have been filed with the Electoral Court," he said.
He called on ZEC to institute appropriate measures to eliminate some of the anomalies in the pending presidential run-off.
Cde Mnangagwa said ZEC should allow polling agents to verify whether people intending to vote were on the voters' roll, whether they have already voted or not and ensure that the voter's name has been cancelled from the voters' roll.
They should ensure that fingers are dipped in the indelible ink, among other measures.
He said police officers are equipped to ensure no fraudulent activities take place in the polling station while polling agents should be present during compilation of the V23 Form to ensure accurate information is transmitted from V11 returns.
Apart from posting V11 returns outside polling stations polling agents should be supplied with carbon copies of the V11 and V23 forms to ensure transparency, he said.
Cde Mnangagwa urged the MDC-T to disband the democratic resistance committees to ensure a peaceful campaign in the run-off period.
"Zanu-PF is committed to a total peaceful environment before, during and after the run-off," he said.
He said the MDC had failed, during the presidential verification exercise, to prove its claims that it won the presidential ballot by 50,3 percent, a figure peddled to the world through the Western media.
"They failed dismally, often making arguments which were extremely ridiculous mathematically as it turned out their figures had no relationship at all with what was on V11 forms, which themselves were the primary source of information on the polls."
Mbanga, speaking shortly before the announcement of the results, brazenly claimed that the opposition party had been denied the opportunity to verify the results.
"ZEC wanted to put the burden of proof on us but it's their duty to prove the results," he said.
Prior to the verification process, ZEC announced that it had agreed with all parties that it would present its final results while it was the duty of objecting parties to prove their contrasting results.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe: Presidential Poll Results - No Winner``x1209857334,70204,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xMay 03, 2008
The Herald
THE long-awaited results of the presidential election are out and no candidate managed an outright majority, that is 50 plus 1 percent of the votes cast.
However, Zimbabweans were the winners for the maturity they showed in patiently waiting for official results in the face of sustained pressure from the West to go the Kenyan way, which would have justified external intervention.
After a painstaking verification process, the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission yesterday announced that MDC-T leader Morgan Tsvangirai garnered 47.9 percent of the vote, President Mugabe 43.2 percent, Simba Makoni 8.3 percent, and Langton Towungana 0.6 percent.
Congratulations are in order to ZEC for standing its ground and all contestants who are duty-bound to abide by the verdict of the people, but more so to the two top candidates who must now gird their loins for a run-off on a date to be announced.
As expected London and Washington were red in the face, dismissing the result as if they were party to the process let alone observers.
It is, however, not lost to us why they were livid. To them the only acceptable outcome is one that favours the opposition as they would then get returns on the investments they made into the MDC since the party's launch on September 11 1999. An investment motivated by a desire to preside over Zimbabwe by proxy and to monopolise its resources in perpetuity.
The run-off is providential as it gives us all a chance to introspect and rectify our mistakes, particularly as Tsvangirai's true colours and friends exposed themselves when they thought they had Zimbabwe under wraps.
We all saw the excitement in London and Washington, the emergence of the white erstwhile commercial farmers eager to reclaim the farms, and the way Tsvangirai hung on every word from the White House and Whitehall. It is within our power to send a clear message to these reactionaries that Zimbabwe will not allow the revolution to be stolen.
Even some in Zanu-PF whose myopia saw them nearly compromise the revolution in the mistaken belief that Simba Makoni's Mavambo project was a beginning should now realise that it nearly became the end for them. Tsvangirai, is part of a much bigger project that even he has little scope off, a project that threatens their collective interests.
It is time to close ranks in the second round to deliver a telling blow to the neo-colonial project, after which we can work on fortifying the revolution so that it is never shaken again.
We all owe that much to our living and fallen heroes who gave so much to liberate this country and the progressive world that has stood by us and continues to look to us for inspiration.
We have a duty to ensure that Zimbabwe becomes imperialism's Waterloo, it is our generational responsibility.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xPoll results, Zimbabweans the winners``x1209857616,31308,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xHerald Reporter
May 03, 2008
The Herald
THE Sadc Election Observer Mission says the verification and recounting process carried out in 23 constituencies last month was done transparently and in line with Zimbabwe's electoral laws.
Addressing a Press conference in Harare yesterday, the Sadc observer mission head, Angolan Minister of Youth and Sports Mr Jose Marcos Barrica, said their observers witnessed the recounting and verification process in all the 23 constituencies.
"The verification and recounting process started on the 19th of April 2008 in all 23 constituencies, having noted some delays on the opening hour of the operation in some of them," he said.
"The delay was attributed to various logistical handicaps, such as late arrival of some political party agents, identifying and sorting of ballot boxes. However, this did not compromise the process."
Mr Barrica said procedures for opening and sealing of ballot boxes were followed.
"All observers, political party agents and candidates witnessed the process and noted that the ballot boxes were not tampered with, the seals were still intact and corresponded with the serial numbers."
He said slight problems were observed regarding the confirmation of signatures and the originality of the seals but the issues were solved amicably.
Mr Barrica noted the process took 10 days instead of three as had earlier been projected.
"In each electoral constituency, the stakeholders authenticated the procedure by signing the respective check lists at the end of the process of verification and recounting (V11 and V23 forms)," he said.
He said the Sadc team noted "a relatively tense environment" in the country during the verification and recounting process.
These included inflammatory statements by some political leaders from both the ruling party and the opposition.
Mr Barrica said the existence of violence showed political intolerance in the country, which the Sadc team blamed on political leaders who contested the election.
"However, the mission would like to emphasise that despite the post-electoral prevailing crises in Zimbabwe, the situation remains under control of the authorities."
The observer mission appealed for peace and reconciliation in the country.
"The Sadc Electoral Observer Mission takes this opportunity to: appeal to the parties and contesting candidates to abandon (sic) from being egocentric and work for the good of the Zimbabwean nation, respecting the will of the people expressed in the ballot boxes," he said.
The observer mission said reconciliation "is an imperative in Zimbabwe".
Mr Barrica said any queries and concerns regarding the elections should be resolved according to the laws of the country.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe: Sadc observer team hails vote recounts``x1209864012,74108,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xThe Herald
SINCE the release of the presidential election results last Friday showing that no contestant managed an outright majority and that a run-off was the only way to determine an outright winner, the opposition MDC-T and its allies have intensified claims that the electoral environment is not conducive for a free and fair run-off.
The MDC-T leadership claim Zimbabwe is a virtual war zone warranting external intervention, and to give succour to the opposition's claims, the American and British governments dutifully issued travel warnings advising their citizens against travelling to Zimbabwe.
To cap it all, they tried to get Zimbabwe on the agenda of the UN Security Council as a presumed threat to international peace and security.
Ironically, as this anti-Zimbabwe campaign was being waged, the country played host to two highly subscribed international events over the past two weeks, all of which exposed the opposition's claims for the sham that they are.
Bulawayo played host to the 49th edition of the Zimbabwe International Trade Fair, from April 24 to April 26 while Harare hosted the Harare International Festival of the Arts, from April 29 to May 4.
At both events, Western embassies and their staff came out in full force with Zimbabweans from all walks of life and political persuasions mixing and mingling without incident.
In fact the ZITF attracted hundreds of exhibitors from different parts of the world in addition to selling over 1000 more square meters of floor space than the previous years.
Three days later HIFA roared to life in Harare brimming with artistes drawn from countries as diverse as Brazil, Spain, France, Britain and Mali, to mention just a few.
Some of the Western ambassadors and their staff who are busy sending alarmist reports about an alleged crisis in Zimbabwe to their home countries were frequent visitors to HIFA, often not leaving till the last show ended in the early hours of the morning usually around 0100 or 0200 hours.
What is more? White Zimbabweans, whom the world is made to believe, are living in terror, were just as represented as their black counterparts at HIFA, showing that contrary to claims from London and Washington, they are not living in a fear society. Different art forms, some of which were commentaries on the political developments in Zimbabwe, were freely performed with no comebacks on the artistes or organisers.
All this confirmed that the "Zimbabwe" on the opposition's lips is far removed from the real Zimbabwe and that unlike the US, which is a virtual fear society where the colours of the rainbow are used to denote terror-alerts on a daily basis.
Zimbabwe is a free country with well-functioning institutions and systems.
If Morgan Tsvangirai is as popular as he claims to be, he should not develop cold feet over seeking a resounding mandate in the run-off?
Can't he see the irony that some of the countries in which he is gallivanting on a daily basis live in a perpetual state of fear either from terrorist attacks or crime, and that the Zimbabwe he trashes is actually much safer than all of them combined?
In case he needs reminding, only a few weeks back, he was held up at gunpoint in Johannesburg and was relieved of his personal effects. Something that has never happened to him here.
Zimbabwe is very safe, the Westerners to whom he is grandstanding on a daily basis are not stakeholders in Zimbabwe, and neither do they cast votes in the run-off.
To this end, we urge Tsvangirai to focus on the issues at hand. The run-off is real, is enshrined in our law and will not be wished away.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe: Tsvangirai, run-off can't be wished away``x1210052305,94111,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Stephen T. Maimbodei
May 06, 2008
The Herald
THERE is an old Chinese proverb that says, "Listen to the words and locate the deeds."
This has been said time and again: when we listen to the MDC-T and watch their conduct and actions do we see them as being in sync? Is the MDC-T walking their talk? Where are the MDC-T's words and actions taking the people of Zimbabwe, apart from the distressful situation they have already brought on Zimbabwe's doorstep?
After the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission announced the much-awaited presidential results, there were media reports that on May 3 the MDC-T party leadership held a lengthy meeting where one of the major issues discussed was whether Morgan Tsvangirai should participate in the unavoidable run-off election, since none of the four presidential candidates had garnered the 51 percent required by law to be declared the outright winner.
It was also reported that the meeting ended without the MDC-T leaders deciding whether they should take part in the re-run election.
The media also reported that the party would send a delegation to South Africa to consult with Tsvangirai, since he has been living in self-imposed exile in different parts of the Sadc region soon after the March 29 poll.
It is common knowledge that the MDC-T leadership that the people sees does not walk the talk, because it is not their game they are playing.
We also know that the delays in announcing whether Tsvangirai will battle it out with President Mugabe in a date yet to be announced by ZEC is just but a political gimmick.
No offence meant to our sisters, but the way they react to political issues that present themselves looks like they are in a courtship game. The girl, who usually knows that she is in love with the guy, will play the game: "Ha-a iwe mhani iwe. Ha-a iwe mhani iwe. Ha-a iwe John ndozvandisingade . . . "
But eventually she gives in without coercion.
This is exactly what Tsvangirai just did yesterday for the umpteenth time when the Times Online reported that Morgan Tsvangirai was undecided on run-off with President Robert Mugabe.
Wrote Catherine Philp: "Zimbabwe is to go ahead with a second-round presidential election run-off in the coming weeks, leaving the opposition scrambling to decide whether to take part or sacrifice the contest to Robert Mugabe."
Another headline said he would be coming back home, which means coming to fight, for if the dangers that he talks about are still there, why would he want to come?
Since coming onto the Zimbabwe political scene, the MDC have always played these hide-and-seek games.
The MDC-T leadership is so ensconced in its donor-funded make-believe world, and they have in the process not only fooled the people that they are a better option to Zanu-PF, but they have also forgotten the interests of the very people they claim to be representing.
In their "fight" with Zanu-PF, they have also forgotten the proverbial saying that when elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers, and that the people have had enough of their absurdity.
A general audit of their globe-trotting, both regionally and internationally, in the past few months will reveal the amounts (in hard currency) they are squandering.
In less than a decade, so short a period, they have become master jet-setters and five-star hotel connoisseurs.
Early after their formation, the late Petronella Samuriwo wrote an incisive opinion piece in the now defunct Daily News newspaper drawing the people's attention to the MDC-T leader's appetite for jet-setting, and admonishing him about his appetite for a lifestyle that did not augur well for someone who was so steeped in the development-speak language of democracy, human rights, transparency, good governance, government expenditure, rule of law, etc.
For Tsvangirai was always accusing Government for overspending and making trips that were not beneficial to the people.
The results that were announced by ZEC last Friday were well known to the MDC-T, for when Tendai Biti "announced" the MDC-T's first set of results on April 2, he remarked, upon being questioned that they would participate in a re-run election "under protest".
Well, the results are out, and the people of Zimbabwe would now want the electoral issues resolved as soon as possible so that they can go on with their lives, for people cannot be in an election fever forever.
As the MDC-T dilly-dallies with people's lives they probably are not aware that people need respite from the current challenges they are facing.
Their actions also go to show that over and above the challenges that people are faced with, the MDC-T is oblivious of current trends in the globalised world where the following headline-grabbing stories are major issues to anyone who really cares about human life do not faze the MDC-T a bit: global financial crisis; global food crisis; escalating food prices; the right to food; threats to food security; escalating fuel prices; global water crisis; global energy and power crisis; global health crisis; climate change, etc.
This is why this writer has always found the biblical book of Nehemiah fascinating, and relevant to Zimbabwe's situation. This is a book that was written when the people of Israel were in captivity.
In its first chapter, Nehemiah writes: "They said to me, 'Those who survived the exile and are back in the province are in great trouble and disgrace. The wall of Jerusalem is broken down, and its gates have been burned with fire'. When I heard these things, I sat down and wept."
However, when Nehemiah got the opportunity to return to Jerusalem to rebuild the city's walls and gates he was faced with stiff and deadly resistance from non-Jews who were benefiting from the chaos in the city.
He writes again: "But when Sanballat the Horonite, Tobiah the Ammonite official and Geshem the Arab heard about it, they mocked and ridiculed us.
"What is this you are doing?" they asked. "Are you rebelling against the king?"
This is exactly the case with the Zimbabwean situation.
The people of Zimbabwe are in "great trouble and disgrace", and "the walls and gates" of Zimbabwe have been broken down and need restoration, but because there are people benefiting from the current problems, they are playing games.
Those who are raking in trillions of dollars they are receiving from the "donor" community would want Zimbabwe to remain in this state because they are benefiting immensely.
For how do we explain this anomaly: shop shelves are empty, but you see fuel-guzzling motor vehicles on the streets, especially in the capital Harare?
How do we also balance the act where the majority of the people are going on empty stomachs, but the country boasts some of the latest models of motor vehicles, and some people can afford one shopping trip after another in all the neighbouring countries: South Africa, Botswana, Zambia and Mozambique, with some going as far afield as Dubai and China?
How do we also explain this misnomer when the rand, American dollar, euro, pula and pound sterling seem to be the most preferred currencies than the Zimbabwean dollar?
And when calls are made that we should as a people not put our individual interests first, but the interests of Zimbabwe, it means exactly that. This means President Mugabe, Morgan Tsvangirai, Zanu-PF, MDC, and everybody who has Zimbabwe's interests at heart.
Therefore, for once, can't the MDC-T leadership keep quiet and allow due process to speak for them? Can't they keep quiet so that they do not continue to confuse their supporters? Can they for once act in the national interest, and allow the rule of law, which they were very much part to in crafting do its work?
We know that politics is a game, and it is also a game of numbers. We also know that strategising is key to this game.
We also know the importance of posturing and how all these put you in a competitive advantage. But to what end?``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe: Noise in MDC-T camp, who cares``x1210052854,80942,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xCourt Reporter
The Herald
ZANU-PF and MDC-T have filed a total of 105 election petitions, prompting Chief Justice Godfrey Chidyausiku to appoint 17 more High Court judges to the Electoral Court to preside over the cases.
Zanu-PF is challenging results in 53 constituencies while MDC-T is contesting those in 52 constituencies.
The appointments, made in terms of Section 162 of the Electoral Act, bring to 20 the number of judges who will handle the election disputes.
Three judges – Justices Tendayi Uchena, Antonia Guvava and Nicholas Ndou – were appointed to the Electoral Court early this year.
In a letter dated April 29, 2008 and copied to Judge President Rita Makarau and Master of the High Court Mr Charles Nyatanga, the Chief Justice said the appointments were made in terms of the country's electoral laws.
The appointments were also made in consultation with the Judicial Service Commission and Justice Makarau in her capacity as the Judge President and would be effective from April 29, 2008 to April 29 2009.
Justice Makarau would also preside over some of the petitions.
Mr Nyatanga confirmed the latest development saying the Judge President had scheduled a meeting with lawyers handling the petitions for 10am this Friday at the High Court.
"All the lawyers who are dealing with election petitions (are invited) to attend the meeting where the procedure would be discussed with the Judge President chairing.
"The JP (Judge President) is going to issue a practice directive on the procedures to be followed in dealing with the petitions," he said.
Mr Nyatanga said his office had received 105 petitions, which have to be determined within six months in terms of the Electoral Act.
He said both parties filed more or less an equal number of petitions challenging results of the concerned constituencies countrywide.
In its petitions, Zanu-PF will, among other issues, contend that MDC-T bribed election officials while the opposition party will argue that Zanu-PF candidates and its supporters bought votes and interfered with the voting process.
In the synchronised presidential, parliamentary and council elections the opposition MDC-T won 99 seats against Zanu-PF's 97. The MDC got 10 seats.
Zanu-PF won the Senate while no absolute winner emerged in the presidential election, which now requires a run-off between President Mugabe and Morgan Tsvangirai.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe: Zanu-PF, MDC-T file 105 petitions``x1210252020,95950,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xEDITORIAL
May 14, 2008
The Herald (Harare)
THERE comes a time when the truth, no matter how unsavoury, just cannot be repressed.
The Sunday Times, a South African weekly with a rabid anti-Zimbabwe slant this week carried an article - "The West is conspiring to unseat that valiant warrior, President Mugabe" - by its regular columnist, MOHAU PHEKO, exposing the West's hand in the problems in Zimbabwe and how President Mugabe's refusal to kow-tow to London and Washington has driven them to pursue his ouster at all costs. Read on.
I SUSPECT there is more to the Zimbabwean election than meets the eye. It's hard to decipher where the truth lies, what with MDC-aligned activists masquerading as "independent analysts".
In the meantime, President Thabo Mbeki gives Western powers the finger at the United Nations Security Council, signalling that Africa will handle its own problems.
In the cacophony of Mbeki's critics, we missed the pronouncement he made in a briefing to religious leaders that his mediation process was dogged by the interference of the US and the UK governments.
Is this plausible? Can we unapologetically begin to find some truth in his statement without the debate deteriorating to how Africans always blame the West?
Jonathan Powell, Tony Blair's longtime chief of staff, argued that Britain should not be afraid to intervene in Zimbabwe to defend "our interests" and promote "our values" because "intervening in another country no longer risks tipping the two superpowers into global war, because there is only one superpower".
On the other hand, the US government passed the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act, which among other things decreed that President Robert Mugabe could restore relations with international financial institutions on condition that he restore Zimbabwe's rule of law, withdraw his troops from the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and change the conduct of internal elections.
Why does this only apply to Zimbabwe?
Uganda, a far less open and democratic country, also had troops in the DRC and has successfully annihilated all opposition parties and freedom of the Press -- but has not been subjected to the same conditions because it's happy to do the US' bidding.
The Act authorised US President George W. Bush to fund opposition media and "democracy" and "governance" programmes in Zimbabwe aimed at "discrediting" President Mugabe.
It's instructive to note that the MDC vigorously lobbied for sanctions against its own country, prompting this US law to have the power to instruct all US members of international financial institutions to oppose and vote against any extension of loans, credits or guarantees to Zimbabwe.
According to Gregory Elich, author of Strange Liberators: Militarism, Mayhem and the Pursuit of Profit, "Western financial restrictions made it nearly impossible for Zimbabwe to participate in international trade".
President Mugabe, we are made to believe, unilaterally brought Zimbabwe's economy to its knees, bringing about widespread poverty, a reign of terror and despotism.
On the other hand, Morgan Tsvangirai is spoken of as the author of a noble "revolution" against President Mugabe and Zanu-PF.
This hides the fact that the MDC is in collusion with the US administration and the British government, who both acknowledge that they are working with the MDC to bring down the President Mugabe Government.
Neither the US nor Britain would tolerate outside interference in their internal politics.
The fairy tale that presents a clash between the "evil king" President Mugabe and the "heroic prince" Tsvangirai fails to recognise the geopolitical interests surrounding Zimbabwe and the Sadc region.
Allowing into our backyard the same coalition of countries (Britain and the US ) that brought destruction to Iraq -- under the guise of a UN Security Council resolution on Zimbabwe -- would plunge the Sadc region into a human disaster of enormous proportions.
The anatomy of falling out of favour always follows the same pattern: Elected officials who defy the White House and 10 Downing Street are denounced as dictators despite winning free and fair elections.
The credibility and legitimacy of the elections is deemed suspicious.
Then it is said these leaders govern in an anti-democratic way.
The opposition calls for Western countries to apply economic sanctions detrimental to their own people.
The US and Britain fund civil society, media and the opposition to begin the regime-change agenda and bring down the "dictator".
Election campaigning is used to force the "dictator" to step down.
The fact that the "dictator" is holding elections at all is considered a sham.
There is a declaration of victory by the opposition party even before the election results are announced, supported by local media mimicking the Western media and promoting a narrative of rigged elections.
Western media repeat this mantra in all their broadcasts just in case you are too dense to comprehend the message.
Predictably, official results contradict the opposition's claim and the elections are deemed fraudulent.
Forecasts from the opposition that blood will spill begin to do the rounds in the capitals of the world, and of course end up at the UN Security Council -- where regime change can mean bombs falling on the heads of the very people to whom democracy and "change" is being brought.
President Mugabe no doubt has made gross mistakes in governing, but this is not why he has been singled out as a "tyrant" and an "African Hitler".
Western governments detest President Mugabe's impertinence -- in particular, his audacity in daring to seize white farms; in meddling in the DRC without consent from the US; and his criticism of Western colonialism, which has gained him the reputation of valiant warrior against Western superiority in Africa. ``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe: West Desperate to Unseat President``x1210793526,723,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xHerald Reporter
May 17, 2008
THE presidential run-off pitting President Mugabe of Zanu-PF and MDC-T leader Morgan Tsvangirai will be held on June 27, the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission announced yesterday.
The run-off will be held concurrently with House of Assembly elections in Gwanda South, Pelandaba-Mpopoma and Redcliff, where candidates who had been duly nominated to contest on March 29 died before polling.
ZEC announced the date for the run-off in a statutory instrument published in an Extraordinary Government Gazette released yesterday.
"A poll shall be taken on Friday the 27th June, 2008, for the purpose of electing a person to the Office of President," read the notice.
The regulations were promulgated in terms of Section 192 (1) as read with Section 192 (5) (a) of the Electoral Act with the approval of the Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs.
In a proclamation also published in the same gazette yesterday, President Mugabe set June 27 as the date on which the House of Assembly elections would be held in the Pelandaba-Mpopoma, Gwanda South and Redcliff constituencies.
Nomination courts will sit on May 30 for purposes of receiving names of prospective candidates intending to contest in the House of Assembly elections.
In Gwanda South, nominations will be received at the Magistrates' Court, Fifth Avenue, while in Pelandaba-Mpopoma the nomination court will sit at the Magistrates' Court, Tredgold Building, in Bulawayo.
Prospective candidates intending to contest in the Redcliff House of Assembly election will file their nominations at the Magistrates' Court, Main Street, in Gweru.
ZEC on Wednesday extended to 90 days from the date of the first election result the period within which the presidential run-off must be held mainly due to the need to put in place the necessary logistics to ensure the smooth running of the election.
The commission announced the presidential poll results on May 2 in which Tsvangirai received 1 195 562 votes, representing 47,9 percent of the valid votes, while President Mugabe polled 1 079 730, which is 43,2 percent of the valid votes.
Since neither candidate achieved an absolute majority, a run-off is required under the Constitution.
The run-off will be held in terms of Section 110 (4) of the Electoral Act, which stipulates that the two candidates who receive the highest and next highest votes shall be eligible to contest in the second round.
With only two candidates, the winner automatically obtains an absolute majority unless there is a tie, in which case Parliament sits as an electoral college to elect the President.
http://www.herald.co.zw/``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe Run-off set for June 27``x1211043025,55809,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Timothy Kalyegira
May 19, 2008
monitor.co.ug
As I focus these days on the dark deception at the international level, we turn today to the most extreme example: Zimbabwe. I have followed world media reports extensively but there is something I have not once heard asked or discussed: Why is Zimbabwe, once one of Africa's most promising countries, where it is today? Or more pointedly, why is Zimbabwe reported and portrayed to be where it is today?
Let us start off by readily agreeing that President Robert Mugabe is an authoritarian leader, a tendency for which he is, needless to say, not alone in Africa. Having said that, everything else simply does not add up. Let us look at various inflation rates. Iraq for 2007: 64,80 percent; Afghanistan for 2007: 16,30 percent, according to the CIA World Factbook. The DR Congo for 2006: 14,4 percent; another African country in chaos, Burundi for 2006: 11 percent.
Then, a Voice of America radio broadcast on April 1, 2008 said: "In Somalia, continuing insecurity, a surge in food and fuel prices, and uncontrolled printing of money have created runaway inflation that is threatening the lives of millions already suffering from 18 years of war and lawlessness." What, then, is Somalia's runaway rate of inflation after "18 years of war and lawlessness"? "Over 100 percent", according to the website indexmundi.com.
We have taken a look at a cross-section of some of the world's most unstable countries: Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan, Burundi, the DR Congo and the figures for inflation we see are 14, 11, 64, 100 percent and so forth. Let us turn now to the world record holder, Zimbabwe. As of March 2008, the country's inflation rate stood at 165 000 percent.
Zimbabwe has not had a single military coup since independence in 1980. No civil war, no war with any of its neighbours, no major drought or famine, no earthquake, no volcanic eruption and no floods caused by extreme rainfall, no locust invasion.
Furthermore, Zimbabwe has been ruled by a Zanu-PF Government from 1980-2008, by the same Prime Minister and later President Mugabe, pursuing the same economic policies, with the same management or mismanagement style.
Before the Mugabe Government started uprooting the white farmers in 2000, this Government kept inflation at 5 percent, 8 percent (or 11 percent in difficult years.) How, then, does a country with all the same factors and leaders from 1980 to 2000 suddenly (because the white commercial farmers have been uprooted) see inflation soar to world record levels in a space of just six years starting in 2000? And how is it that a stable Zimbabwe has an inflation rate 1 500 times higher than Somalia, a country without a government since 1991? Does any of this make sense?
Away from abstract figures, the evidence before our ordinary eyes is even more puzzling. If you have watched news video footage on BBC TV, CNN, and other Western TV networks, without exception, you will no doubt have noticed that the streets of the capital Harare are far cleaner and better maintained than those in Kampala, even during the week that Uganda hosted the Commonwealth summit last November.
Have you seen any beggars on Harare's streets? Have you taken the time to notice clean and well-painted Government buildings in Harare?
During the recent presidential campaign rallies, you might have noticed that both the supporters of President Mugabe and the opposition were generally well-dressed, looked and acted cheerful. Nobody wore rags or went about barefooted.
In 2003 and 2007, South Africa's subscription TV channel M-Net sponsored the Big Brother Africa reality television show. In both competitions, Zimbabwe had representatives resident in Harare, Tapuwa Mhere in 2003 and Bertha Zakeyo in 2007. You saw them confident, relaxed girls, not thin beggarly girls who had not had proper meals in years.
More importantly, for M-Net to still have an office in Zimbabwe where viewing is by paid-up subscription, presupposes that there are enough Zimbabweans with money to afford the luxury of pay TV, despite the 100 000+ inflation rate.
With that kind of inflation, you don't have the extra money for luxuries like DSTV.
So how come, for all this obvious evidence, nobody has asked the simple question: is this Zimbabwe story real or an orchestrated series of events by the British and American governments and media to punish Mugabe for humiliating the white settlers in Zimbabwe? It leads us to ask the auxillary question: might all these supposedly impressive economic growth, dropping HIV infection, and inflation rates in Uganda under President Yoweri Museveni have, after all, been falsified, as have all the election results of 1996, 2001 and 2006?
Why do we consistently read about impressive growth and achievement figures under Museveni's rule, and yet most of us feel and know that we are well worse off today than 22 years ago?
Timothy Kalyegira is a columnist with the Daily Monitor paper of Uganda. He can be contacted on timothy_kalyegira@yahoo.com. This article is reproduced courtesy of Timothy Kalyegira.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe 'crisis' and the Uganda 'success' story``x1211258346,7665,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xHerald Reporters
May 23, 2008
herald.co.zw
TWELVE suspected MDC-T thugs were arrested in Mutare yesterday after they were found in possession of axes, chain blades and sjamboks they were allegedly using to commit various acts of violence as they moved around in a pick-up truck belonging to the opposition party.
The arrests come just 24 hours before the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission today meets both Zanu-PF and MDC-T to examine how best the parties could peacefully resolve their differences ahead of the June 27 presidential election run-off.
ZEC chairperson Justice George Chiweshe and Acting Attorney-General Justice Bharat Patel yesterday condemned violence.
Justice Chiweshe said violence would not create a conducive atmosphere for a free and fair election while Justice Patel has urged the courts to deal with cases of political violence effectively and expeditiously.
The weapons allegedly used to commit acts of violence across the country were found hidden under the driver's seat and police have since impounded the vehicle — an Isuzu pick-up truck with an MDC logo — that was being used by the suspects.
The suspects, who hail from different parts of the country as far apart as Chipinge, Harare, Masvingo and Chinhoyi, were arrested after their intended victim escaped and alerted the police at Mutasa Central Police Station.
Police spokesperson Chief Superintendent Oliver Mandipaka said the police reacted swiftly to the tip-off and impounded the vehicle along Bonda Mission Road.
"We are reliably informed that these perpetrators are using marked or unmarked vehicles to terrorise people in the communities.
"They would go and perpetrate the acts of violence and retreat to their hidden bases, which we are still to establish," Chief Supt Mandipaka said.
Most of the suspects revealed that they were MDC-T polling agents in the Mutasa area during the March 29 harmonised elections.
Chief Supt Mandipaka said in most acts of violence reported, MDC-T thugs disguised themselves as Zanu-PF supporters by wearing the party's regalia and beating people to taint the party's name.
He said police have committed themselves to impounding all the vehicles that are being used in these activities.
"We are geared to thwart their hidden operating bases because we have noted that these perpetrators do not hail from one village and we strongly understand that they are carrying out these activities for payment."
The suspects were still detained at Mutasa Central Police Station by yesterday. The arrests come at a time when Zanu-PF and the MDC-T are expected to hold talks in Harare today under the multi-party liaison committee facilitated by the ZEC as part of preparations for the presidential election run-off set for June 27.
Today's talks — the first under the multi-party liaison committee after the March 29 joint presidential, parliamentary and council elections — will discuss problems encountered by the parties so far in their campaigns for the run-off.
ZEC deputy director of public relations Mr Tendayi Pamire in an interview yesterday confirmed the meeting would take place today.
"The multi-party liaison committee is meeting tomorrow (today). We have invited only Zanu-PF and MDC-T because these are the only parties taking part in the run-off.
"The parties are expected to discuss the problems they are facing so far in their campaigns for the presidential run-off," Mr Pamire said.
Commissioner Mrs Sarah Kachingwe will chair the meeting.
Mr Pamire said the multi-party liaison committee would carry out a post-mortem of the March 29 elections once the run-off is complete.
He said they could not do so soon after the March polls because the electoral process would only be complete after the run-off.
Mr Pamire said ZEC has already contacted both parties for today's meeting and they expressed their willingness to attend.
The meeting is also expected to look at how best the contesting parties should resolve their differences peacefully.
Justice Chiweshe urged Zanu-PF and MDC-T to campaign peacefully, saying violence would not create a conducive environment for a free and fair poll while Justice Patel agitated for co-ordinated efforts in order to dispose cases of violence as effectively and expeditiously as possible,
"The commission deplores politically motivated violence from any quarter as this does not assist the commission in creating an environment conducive for free and fair elections. So we are urging political parties to urge their supporters to desist from violence," said Justice Chiweshe.
In a statement yesterday, Justice Patel said the seriousness of offences of violence necessitated prompt and determined responses to ensure that the cases were speedily dealt with.
"In this regard, appropriate measures have been put in place to ensure that public prosecutors and the magistracy co-ordinate their efforts in order to dispose these cases as effectively and expeditiously as is possible," Justice Patel said.
He implored prosecutors and magistrates to deal with the cases firmly and fairly.
"The prosecutors handling these matters have been directed to deal firmly but fairly with each case, without regard to the political affiliation of the offenders."
Justice Patel noted that cases of political violence were declining throughout the country.
"From the feedback received by the Attorney General's Office, it would appear that the scale and occurrence of public violence has begun to abate throughout the country.
"In any event, the office intends to monitor the situation on a regular basis and to take decisive action as and when it becomes necessary."
Justice Patel said since May 18, 2008, 80 cases of violence were reported in six provinces excluding Matabeleland and Midlands.
"The alleged offences cover a wide range of acts of public violence, including abduction, assault, malicious damage to property, robbery and offensive utterances. There is also one case of murder and two cases of attempted murder."
He said according to the Zimbabwe Republic Police, the offences were being attributed to both MDC-T and Zanu-PF.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe: MDC-T terror gang nabbed``x1211590921,17712,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xHerald Reporter
May 23, 2008
herald.co.zw
THE presidential election run-off in Zimbabwe should not be viewed as a simple election but the last battle between Western imperialism and absolute African liberation.
President Mugabe has become the epicentre of resistance against the express exploitation of Africa's rich resources by the West.
It would be foolhardy for anyone to believe that the election is only between President Mugabe and MDC-T leader Morgan Tsvangirai because in essence the tried and tested ultimate warrior President Mugabe is the last bastion of African resistance against colonialism and neo-colonialism.
On the other hand, the West supports Tsvangirai because they see him as a man they can easily manipulate to gain access to Africa's life-saving resources. There are many Tsvangirais that have been created in Africa and have paved way for exploitation of their people and resources for the powerful dollar.
Battlelines have been drawn for June 27 and the West sees President Mugabe as the last obstacle in their attempts to overrun southern Africa that should fall and pave way for a more subtle form of colonialism which will give the West express rights over Africa's rich resources.
Everyone should know that the British and the Americans will not sleep as long as they see stumbling blocks in their endeavour to have maximum exploitation of Africa's natural resources.
The election in Zimbabwe can not be defined further than the fact that it is the true imperialist West versus true African resistance.
America and Britain are fighting Zimbabwe and indeed the whole of Africa to gain access to resources that gave their population better life while subjecting Africans to abject poverty on the pretext that their citizens are more superior than Africans.
The line of thought is that Africans have no right to those rich resources on their soil, as the resources should benefit the White West and advance their scandalous affluence at the expense of black Africans. Once a coloniser always a coloniser!
It is his defiance and resistance to white adventure that President Mugabe committed his "crime" against the Bush administration and Britain that has earned him all the terms such as dictator, despot and others. Once a liberator always a liberator!
Now Bush has set September as the deadline to establish the African command, a US military group permanently resident in Africa and is desperate to have it put in place before his term of office expires in November.
Africom will largely give the United States the much needed impetus to co-ordinate US resource exploitation in Africa, disguised as military co-operation.
Africa can only sleep at its own peril while the US creates bases that will eventually be used to deal with progressive governments and subsequently effective regime change that will give an express licence to resource exploitation.
To illustrate my point the Bush administration has solidified its militaristic engagement with Africa.
In February 2007, the Department of Defense announced the creation of a new US Africa Command infrastructure, code name AFRICOM, to "coordinate all US military and security interests throughout the continent."
"This new command will strengthen our security co-operation with Africa," President Bush said in a White House statement, "and create new opportunities to bolster the capabilities of our partners in Africa."
Ordering that AFRICOM be created by September 30, 2008, Bush said "Africa Command will enhance our efforts to bring peace and security to the people of Africa and promote our common goals of development, health, education, democracy, and economic growth in Africa."
The general assumption of this policy is that prioritising security through a unilateral framework will somehow bring health, education, and development to Africa.
In this way, the Department of Defense presents itself as the best architect and arbiter of US Africa policy.
According to Navy Rear Admiral Robert Moeller, director of the AFRICOM transition team, "By creating AFRICOM, the Defense Department will be able to
co-ordinate better its own activities in Africa as well as help coordinate the work of other U.S. government agencies, particularly the State Department and the US Agency for International Development."
This military-driven US engagement with Africa reflects the desperation of the Bush administration to control the increasingly strategic natural resources on the African continent, especially oil, gas, and uranium.
With increased competition from China, among other countries, for those resources, the United States wants above all else to strengthen its foothold in resource-rich regions of Africa.
While the Bush administration endlessly beats the drums for its "global war on terror," the rise of AFRICOM underscores that the real interests of neo-conservatives has less to do with al-Qaeda than with more access and control of extractive industries, particularly oil and land.
Responsibility for operations on the African continent is currently divided among three distinct Commands: US European Command, which has responsibility for nearly 43 African countries; US Central Command, which has responsibility for Egypt, Sudan, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Djibouti, Somalia, and Kenya; and US Pacific Command, which has responsibility for Madagascar, the Seychelles, and the countries off the coast of the Indian Ocean.
Until December 2006 when the United States began to assist Ethiopia in its invasion of Somalia, all three existing Commands have maintained a relatively low-key presence, often using elite special operations forces to train, equip, and work alongside national militaries.
A new Africa Command, based potentially in or near oil-rich West Africa would consolidate these existing operations while also bringing international engagement, from development to diplomacy, even more in line with US military objectives.
Africa and indeed Zimbabweans must therefore, rise to the occasion and stand by President Mugabe as he stands eyeball to eyeball with the West in a ring match that will decide Africa's destiny.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe: Battleground for true Uhuru``x1211597663,85305,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xMay 24, 2008
herald.co.zw
ZANU-PF and the MDC-T met in Harare yesterday to discuss conditions for the June 27 presidential election run-off and both expressed willingness to call for peaceful campaigns.
The Zimbabwe Electoral Commission facilitated the talks held at its offices under the multi-party liaison committee as it prepares for the June 27 presidential run-off and three House of Assembly by-elections.
The presidential run-off – pitting President Mugabe of Zanu-PF and Morgan Tsvangirai of MDC-T – will be held concurrently with by-elections in Gwanda South, Pelandaba-Mpopoma and Redcliff, where elections were deferred after a candidate in each constituency died after nomination.
In an interview last night, the multi-party liaison committee chairperson, Mrs Sarah Kachingwe, confirmed Zanu-PF and MDC-T representatives held "frank and constructive discussions".
"They discussed how they will campaign without causing violence and pledged to advise their supporters that it does not help to indulge in violence.
"The two political parties are saying they will come up with modalities on what they can do (on conflict resolution). These would be presented at our meeting next week," she said.
Mrs Kachingwe commended the two political parties for displaying maturity during the meeting.
"That is the spirit in which the multi-party liaison is supposed to do – talk frankly, friendly and constructively," she added.
The meeting was closed to the media when the discussions opened.
Zanu-PF election agent Cde Austin Chirisa represented the ruling party while Tsvangirai's chief election agent, Mr Christopher Mbanga, and the deputy organising secretary, Mr Morgan Komichi, represented the MDC-T.
Police spokesman Chief Superintendent Oliver Mandipaka represented the police with ZEC director for polling Mr Ignatius Mushangwe and deputy director for public relations Mr Tendayi Pamire representing the electoral body.
In a meeting held before the closed-door session, Mrs Kachingwe said parties contesting in the run-off were invited for the multi-party meeting. "The business of the day would be centred on issues that pertain to the run-off and any other pertinent matters.
"We will discuss modalities on how they (contesting parties) should conduct themselves before, during and after the elections. We want players to play from the same rules. We also want to iron out problematic areas," said Mrs Kachingwe.
Mr Mushangwe indicated that the presidential run-off would be held concurrently with the Gwanda South, Redcliff and Pelandaba-Mpopoma House of Assembly by-elections.
These were not contested during the March 29 harmonised polls following the death of candidates from the Arthur Mutambara camp of the MDC who had been nominated for the constituencies.
Nomination courts sit on June 10 from 10am to 4pm at the Gwanda Magistrates' Court (Gwanda South constituency), Bulawayo Magistrates' Courts (Pelandaba-Mpopoma) and Gweru Magistrates' Courts (Redcliff).
"We are also going to have postal ballots opened and sealed on June 20, 2008. Voting would be ward-based," announced Mr Mushangwe.
On whether ZEC would maintain the same number of polling stations for the presidential run-off, Mr Mushangwe said the commission would discuss the matter with the contesting parties.
"As ZEC, we realised that the turnout at some polling stations was very low (in the March 29 elections). Some recorded two or seven voters. It is an issue we want to discuss with the candidates," he said.
``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZanu-PF, MDC-T in 'frank' talks``x1211671534,33919,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Caesar Zvayi
May 29, 2008
herald.co.zw
READING the headlines in the Western Press and pronouncements by Western leaders and their envoys here when Morgan Tsvangirai and his MDC-T prematurely claimed victory in the March 29 elections, one got the feeling that Zimbabwe was just the stage for a contest far bigger than what the contestants, with the notable exception of those in Zanu-PF, knew.
Readers all over the world were intrigued by the headlines in British newspapers particularly, The Evening Standard, that had a front-page banner that screamed "We have beaten Mugabe".
A banner that left them wondering who had "beaten Mugabe"? Was it the Evening Standard, the British government or MDC-T?
Any doubts about who had squared off against President Mugabe and Zanu-PF on March 29 were soon dispelled when the British and American governments began demanding the release of the official results with the likes of the BBC and CNN devoting hourly reports to Zimbabwe quoting Brown and Bush speaking like contestants.
White former commercial farmers who had left Zimbabwe in a huff after the farms they held – not owned – were gazetted for resettlement, returned en masse and set up base in country clubs dotted around Zimbabwe's farming communities where they held "victory" celebrations complete with fireworks and flare guns before heading to the farms where they threatened resettled farmers with eviction once Tsvangirai was sworn in. The crude ones even racially abused the black bar tenders.
By their feverish excitement and unguarded pronouncements, the Westerners exposed themselves to be the real force behind Tsvangirai and the MDC faction that bears his surname. A sickening and frightening reality that was missed by those who voted for Tsvangirai and his personalised MDC on March 29.
The harmonised poll was a contest between President Mugabe and Zanu-PF fighting from the corner of the entire developing world and Tsvangirai and MDC-T fighting from the corner of the rightwing Western hemisphere with Bush and Brown as trainer and ringside doctor respectively.
The run-off is akin to a rematch of that contest.
One only has to go back to Kwame Nkrumah's Ghana to realise that the events that have unfolded in Zimbabwe over the past eight years were a throwback to Ghana 1957 to 1966.
Zimbabwe represents the last frontier in Africa for the struggle between black nationalist resistance and Western neo-colonial encroachment by proxy. It is the only country that is still headed by a distinguished liberation icon cut from the same cloth that gave Africa Kwame Nkrumah, Sekou Toure, Gamal Abdel Nasser and Samora Machel, to mention just a few.
Many of the countries in Southern Africa that are still under liberation governments are headed by leaders mentored by this class of the 1960s.
Yes, Tanzania is still under the able leadership of Chama Cha Mapinduzi, a revolutionary party, but it is a fact that CCM did not rock the Western boat as much as Zanu-PF has done.
Our brothers down south are still under the leadership of the African National Congress, the party that brought the apartheid behemoth – the National Party – to its knees, but again they have chosen to coast along, barely challenging the economic order in a country that has been dubbed a First and Third World country in one comprising of a scandalously affluent white populace and an impoverished black majority that basically owns nothing apart from the shirts on their backs, as indeed the myopic black-on-black violence amply demonstrates.
That is why the progressive world was collectively saddened by reports that Zanu-PF had lost to MDC-T, while the Western world was collectively elated. Africa was morose because of the realisation that the MDC-T is not Zimbabwean nor African, but the latest brick from the kiln that gave the continent Moise Tshombe's Conakat, Afonso Dhlakama's Renamo and Jonas Savimbi's Unita, to mention just a few.
It was thus fitting that Zanu-PF launched its campaign on May 25, Africa Day, the day the African Uni0n – formerly the Organisation of African Unity – was formed on May 25 1963 with the objective of completely exorcising the foreign ghost from the continent.
That is exactly what Zimbabwe is about; it is about the total eradication of all forms of colonialism, which is why the run-off theme is "100 Percent Empowerment, Total Independence". Zimbabwe, under President Mugabe, has taken up the fight that should have been spearheaded by the AU, that of taking the struggle for independence to its logical conclusion by getting beyond the façade of flag independence to full socio-economic empowerment of the historically disadvantaged Africans.
This is why the Westerners have declared war on Zimbabwe as they do not want Zimbabwe to set a "bad example" for the rest of the developing world, from which the resource-poor West continues to siphon its scandalous affluence.
If Zimbabwe succeeds, the neo-colonial exploitation of the developing world through the likes of the World Bank and IMF will no longer be possible.
The strategic role Zimbabwe is playing in the age-old fight between the North and South is why the Bush administration has openly admitted that "Zimbabwe poses an unusual and extraordinary threat to the foreign policy of the United States". And that foreign policy, as we all know, is about dominating other people and their resources.
The fact that Tsvangirai and his MDC-T are fronts for Western interests is the reason why the Western alliance ordered him to go on a six-week diplomatic offensive in Sadc to try to establish a connection with a continent his politics had shunned, and which also shunned his politics.
Since the MDC's launch in September 1999, Tsvangirai has spent more time in the US or European capitals, consorting with, and pandering to the whims of the Western leadership while simultaneously insulting African leaders for what he termed "blind support for Mugabe".
This failing was ably captured by British establishment (sub note: ESTABLISHMENT not ESTABLISHED) journalist Peta Thornycroft, who, in an interview on the pirate radio station Short Wave Africa on November 13 last year, said the following, among other things: "When the MDC started in 2000, what a pity that they were addressing people in Sandton, mostly white people in Sandton north of Johannesburg instead of being in Dar es Salaam or Ghana or Abuja. They failed to make contact with Africa for so long, they were in London, we've just seen it again, Morgan Tsvangirai's just been in America.
"Why isn't he in Cairo? Maybe he needs financial support and he can't get it outside of America or the UK and the same would go for Mutambara. They have not done enough in Africa . . ."
And that attempt to connect with an Africa he had shunned and insulted for so long was the reason Tsvangirai went into self-imposed exile not the wild claims that his life was in danger. It is important to note that if one were to look at Tsvangirai and President Mugabe's credentials; it is actually President Mugabe who has a right to claim, with justification, that his life is in danger.
Readers may remember that it is Tsvangirai who has appeared in court facing charges of treason related to either plotting to kill President Mugabe or to unconstitutionally unseating the Government.
It is Tsvangirai who was captured by secret cameras contracting a Canadian political consultancy firm Dickens & Madison to assassinate President Mugabe, which footage was aired under the banner "Killing Mugabe: The Tsvangirai Conspiracy" by an Australian TV station, Special Broadcast Services Dateline, on February 13 2002.
It is Tsvangirai who, at Rufaro Stadium on September 30 2000, shocked the world when he openly threatened President Mugabe with violence, saying in part: "What we would like to tell Mugabe today is, please go peacefully, if you do not want to go peacefully, we will remove you violently."
It is Tsvangirai who organised orgies of violence disguised as a "defiance campaign" that culminated in the March 11 2007 disturbances in Highfield and surrounding suburbs, disturbances that fed months of terrorist bombings on police stations and other Government institutions.
As such, as evidenced above, it is President Mugabe, not Tsvangirai, who can allege an assassination plot with justification.
Anyway, Tsvangirai's actions are consistent with the terrorist activities visited on progressive African countries by his forebears like Tshombe and Savimbi, who we all know were just fronts for Western subversion of the developing world.
As such, as Zimbabwe braces for the run-off on June 27 voters must remember this is not just a Zimbabwean election, they will vote on behalf of the developing world.
www.herald.co.zw ``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xRun-off: Not just a Zimbabwean poll``x1212094185,62546,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xStatement of the Presidency: Media reports on Mr. Morgan Tsvangirai's supposed letter to President Thabo Mbeki
June 04, 2008
FULL TEXT: Statement from South Africa's Presidency
The Presidency has noted ongoing media reports of a letter supposedly sent to President Thabo Mbeki by Zimbabwean Movement of Democratic Change (MDC) leader, Morgan Tsvangirai, on May 13 2008.
Regarding these reports, the Presidency reiterates that President Thabo Mbeki has not received any such letter from Mr Tsvangarai. Nor has any official in the Presidency or the South African government received any such letter from any member of the MDC.
Furthermore, the MDC has never discussed the letter with the Facilitation Team, the Presidency or any department of government and the MDC at any time.
It is worth noting that whereas some newspapers claim to have "assurances" of the letter's acknowledgement of receipt by the Presidency from the MDC, no newspaper has, as yet, attributed such "assurances" to any official of the MDC.
In light of the fact that the Presidency did not receive the letter and in the absence of any authentication by media entities which have reported about it, the logical conclusion is that there is no such a letter.
We note further that since the commencement of the facilitation process, the Presidency, and government have, on numerous occasions, made corrections to false media reports that have been industriously fed to an otherwise vigilant media.
On August 15, 2007, the Presidency issued a statement correcting media reports which claimed that President Mbeki would present a report at the SADC Heads of State and Government Summit held in Lusaka, Zambia on August 16 to 17, 2007, which would blame Britain for Zimbabwe's political and economic challenges.
The statement made it clear that the Presidency was not aware of any such report and that, if any such existed at all, certainly, "it was not authored by the Government of the Republic of South Africa."
Regrettably, the media did not take our statement seriously and, apparently without further qualms, persisted in attributing the report to President Mbeki. Our investigations later revealed that the news report originated from a news agency stringer, based in Lusaka, a stringer who had been handed a copy of "the" report and then deliberately, fallaciously, attributed it to President Mbeki instead of to its real author. The news agency later retracted its report, albeit in no more than three paragraphs. None of the other local and international media who reported on the matter retracted, nor offered any apology.
Again on September 14, 2007, the Presidency issued a statement in which we rebutted the falsehood which some media reported at length to the effect that "the South African Government … has been secretly working to remove [President Robert Mugabe] from power" through "lobbying for sustained international pressure to bear on the Mugabe regime."
This year, as in the previous year, it appears as though there exists a disinformation campaign whereby all manner of fabrications are fed to the media.
In April, there was a sustained attempt to present President Mbeki's answer to a specific question about whether at that point (April 12) the election process in Zimbabwe constituted a crisis. Both the context of the question and the detail of the reply were ignored; resulting in the impression that the President was oblivious to the challenges in Zimbabwe.
As recently as last month, the Presidency and the Ministry of Defence have had to rebut allegations (reported in the media) that President Mbeki ordered Deputy Defence Minister, Mluleki George, to refuel the An Yue Jiang; the Chinese parastatal-owned vessel which docked in Durban in April carrying arms to Zimbabwe, amongst other variously destined goods.
Though not all have been published, the Presidency has been the recipient of media inquiries of similar kind about Zimbabwe which some media seem to have pursued with precious little critical reflection. These include claims that either President Mbeki or Mrs [Zanele] Mbeki are supposed to be blood relatives of Mrs Grace Mugabe, the Zimbabwean President's wife.
Another such inquiry concerned the phantastical supposition that President Mbeki was arrested for arms and drug smuggling in Zimbabwe in 1982; "which is why," in the words of one journalist who recently sought comment, "he is so afraid of President Mugabe."
Yet another media inquiry appears to be somebody's perception of a State Secret that since the Zimbabwean elections, President Mugabe has been secretly residing at Mahlambandlopfu – the official residence of the South African President – for fear of reprisals in an impending military coup.
We cite these examples to illustrate the extent to which fabrications about the SADC mandated facilitation process are being given to the media. To what extent this is deliberate or coordinated, and what immediate or long-term local or international objectives might be served by it, is a matter for historians to unravel.
What is clear is that these fabrications are focusing on demonisation of the facilitation process with the intention to prevent the possibility for a solution to the challenges in Zimbabwe.
In this context, the media ought to remain vigilant by, amongst other ways, authenticating information as well as greater scrutiny of the motives of those who leak information.
For more information, please contact: Mukoni Ratshitanga on (012) 300 5436/ 082 300 3447
Issued by The Presidency
Tuynhuys
Cape Town
Source: www.thepresidency.gov.za``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xMbeki Responds to Media Misrepresentations``x1212696039,58717,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Stella Orakwue
June 10, 2008
The Herald
IT is a pity that the people who voted against President Robert Mugabe have no ability to remember the servitude they existed in prior to the last 28 years.
They did it for the money. What is the price of the loyalty? It is a heavy price to pay when "your" people are prepared to buy and sell you for Western money. Western money could not, and cannot, buy President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe. But clearly, as the number of people who voted against him in the presidential election show, people of Zimbabwe, in Zimbabwe, are prepared to sell him to the West in return for money.
Land, property, money, buying and selling. The ownership of land, the ownership of property. Property and the European. Robert Mugabe knew, and knows, about what property means.
Other people's land. Land belonging to people with black skin. He knows what that means.
Property and the European are interchangeable, indistinguishable, inseparable. The one goes with the other. One without the other is untenable. The two together provide an almost visible exhibition of an orgasmic sensation-taking place.
But together the European and other people's land, particularly land belonging to black people, and we have climax, multiple orgasmic sensation.
Are the people of Zimbabwe prepared to return to servicing the orgasmic needs of the European desire for property, money, ownership and control of the people's land?
Whether that control and ownership is direct or indirect? Are Zimbabweans prepared, willing, and ready to be servicing foreign nations, foreign international bodies, foreign leaders, and foreign "global community"?
And what is the price of service to your own nation and your own continent, Africa? Robert Mugabe, fighter, liberator, leader, man, has paid heavy price upon heavy price. But he will stand fast because men like "Mugabe" come back once a century. Men who bring true transformational change to the lives of their people. It is a pity that "the people" in whose lives this fundamental change has been wrought have such short memories. It is a pity but it is irrelevant that they have no ability to remember the servitude they existed in prior to the last 28 years.
It is irrelevant because of all Africans, living and not yet born, for millennia to come, the actions of Robert Mugabe in returning land, African land, to the rightful ownership of African people, will live on inside all Africans. He will be the psyche of all Africans for all time. And there is nothing that anybody, particularly any foreign body or power can do about that. For they are not God, and it is God who gave us "Mugabe" to lead his people and to show African people the way. Viva Mugabe, viva!
But watch the European cocks crowing! They think their hour is nigh. These Zimbabwean elections aren't "fixed" or "rigged" when they think that their man, the "democratic opposer", has won. Only election wins they don't like are unstomachable.
They did it for the money, for the "help" they think will come. The white "helpers" with their dome-shaped bags laden with helping money. Money that is not available to men that they do not like. Friendly white money that will take the burden of the land off their black backs and hand it back to the white man. For is it not the land the white man's rightful burden? So you Zimbabwean friends white help, lie back, relax, let the white help show you how to do it. That's what friendly white money is for – loosening your control of things. Sit, take the load of the land off your back. Other people want to run your country.
Those people of Zimbabwe who want the democratic opposer, let us see how long it will last. Zimbabweans who want to put their lives in other people's monied hands – let us see how long you remain pleased with the results that await you. Perhaps you do prefer to reap where you do not sow. After all, the Europeans bringing friendly White Money say that those nice, poor blacks that they want to help, well, they don't know how to sow and grow anything on land because they are black and blacks have never been farmers, and they are helpless and they need help. White help.
You can shout at me, "What do I know about poverty and going without food and having no money?" and I will laugh in your face. Do you think that I don't know about poverty, about being poor, because I "live in the West"? I know about poverty. Poverty has been my closest friend for many years. There have been times when I have asked myself whether it is worse to have no food in a place where there is no food – and therefore you all go hungry – or to have no food in a place where food is aplenty but you have no money to buy food – and therefore you go hungry. You see, you can go hungry in the West, too. I know what it is like to count every single penny in my buttered old purse – not to save up for a car or a television, but to buy a loaf of bread, because that is all I have to eat.
It teaches me yet another thing about myself that I didn't know that I was capable of: Money could never, ever buy me. I have seen, and I see, that I would rather starve than bow down to anything that I did not believe in. I would rather starve than sell my fundamental principles. Yes, you cannot eat principles, but without them you don't deserve to eat. Without them you are better off dead.
Look at the Westerners circling like sharks! They flocked from their watching hotels around the globe. They came to bury Robert Mugabe, but he won't go without a fight. What an alarm this poses – what, a black man fighting instead of fleeing or cowering before the white man and his henchmen and women! Let them dig a hole in the ground, fill it with money, and bury themselves in it.
Do you think that if "Mugabe" had got the money, the financial credits, the financial buttresses that Zimbabwe needed, that Zimbabwe's economic situation would not be utterly different, and that "the people" would not have given him the vast majority he deserved? "The people" of the "democratic opposer" know that it is the presence of "Mugabe" that is preventing the West from giving them friendly White money. Money meant for them that that they are not getting because he is there. Sad. Very sad. Sad to see what people will do for money and how flexible their principles can be!
Is it too hard without the white man? Without the Westerner in charge of your resources, in charge of your money, looking after you behind the scenes? Would "the people" rather have the Westerner in charge of their land? Do "the people" actually want "their own" land, if the white man and his Friendly Money are not going to be looking after them?
How much money was taken out of the country by Friendly White Employers with their vast land holdings? How beneficial was that for Zimbabweans? The Friendly White Employers slept in lavish houses and mansions with all unnecessary necessities, all the finest purchasable amenities that money from land could buy; while their "loved" farm workers enjoyed a mattress on an earth floor in their basic dwellings fit for basic lives, and all the rudimentary things that just a teeny-weeny bit of money could buy.
How much money will pour in, Zimbabweans, if you sell out the man who gave you back your land? Will you luxuriate in money like you would in a vast deep bath, water swirling all around you? How long will the taps stay on? The white man's Friendly Money is running on empty. But don't tell "the people" – let them find out the easy way.
What is the rate of return on betrayal? What is the rate of return on a lack of fortitude, a lack of desire for self-being? What is the rate of return on flexible principles? Do you think that the West will ever forgive that land that his kith and kin once held was returned to its rightful owners, back into the hands of black people? It is untenable for them. It is not something that they can deal with, because it has never happened to them before. Their urge is to get it back, buy it back, lease it back, rent it back – do anything but have it back in their hands one way or the other. They need to be back in charge. In control, holding the land and its money again, and the "democratic opposer" and his supporters will help them. Do you think that there is some kind of mysterious white magic to running an economy? That only white people with their white money can do it? How shameful that after only one generation "the people" of Zimbabwe are already going down this road. What was it for, President Mugabe, I ask you?
I say this to myself: God provides, then it is up to each of us to decide what to do with his provisions. God provides, we decide. The Lord has given us that ability. And we do not bow down to people who behave, who conduct themselves, as if they are gods walking upon this earth: Do as they say or else die. Away with them! Your life is in your own hands.
Friendly White Money is nothing but a short-term pay off, a lease on comfort. It is here today, gone tomorrow. But in a worse economic state.
And then you will be back to where you were before but without your dignity, without your strength, without your pride. Back to dependence instead of independence. Back to tilling the soil for others instead of for yourselves. Back to waiting for what the white man wants to do with you, instead of what you want to do for yourselves. Back to no land.
The time you should have spent "suffering" – how does it compare to the war year? But learning about yourselves, your skills, your capacities, you spent in what passed for a "comfortable" life of dependency on the white man and his Friendly post-Mugabe Money. – New African Magazine.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe: How soon we forget``x1213093590,12036,Zimbabwe``x``x
``x'China will not meddle in Zimbabwe's affairs'
CHINA has told a group of local and international journalists currently in Beijing that Zimbabweans are able to solve their own problems without outside interference and Zimbabwe can realize stability and prosperity on its own.
S.Africa and Russia block wider Security Council briefing on Zimbabwe
THE United Nations Security Council will meet Thursday to weigh the humanitarian situation in Zimbabwe, but a wider political briefing has been blocked by South Africa and Russia who are members of the 15-member group.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``x'China will not meddle in Zimbabwe's affairs'``x1213138720,55003,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Stephen Gowans
June 04, 2008
There is no evidence that the government of Zimbabwe is using food "as a political tool to intimidate voters ahead of an election" or that it is deliberately denying "hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Zimbabweans" food aid, as Human Rights Watch and The New York Times allege.
In fact, a careful reading of what both sources claim, points to a deliberate and knowing attempt to palter with the truth, reflecting and reinforcing a narrative that holds Africa, and particularly Zimbabwe, to be marked by suffering people, corrupt and monstrous governments, and endless chaos.
The New York Times began a June 4 article on Zimbabwe by announcing that "hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Zimbabweans – orphans and old people, the sick and the down and out - have lost access to food and other basic humanitarian assistance."
It's true that Zimbabweans have lost access to food delivered by Western NGOs, but not food aid altogether, and only for the duration of the presidential run-off election campaign. In the interim, the government has made arrangements to take on the job of distributing food aid to those in need. No government-engineered famine is imminent, notwithstanding what The New York Times says.
Harare has ordered NGOs to temporarily scale back or cease operations, accusing them of illegally channeling funding to the opposition MDC party and in March's elections of "going around threatening villagers in rural areas that the donations they were handing them would be the last if they voted for Zanu-PF and President Mugabe." [1] It is out of a desire to eclipse Western interference in the election that the Zimbabwe government has taken this step.
Are the government's accusations credible?
For the last seven years, the US and its allies have cut off all development assistance to Zimbabwe, disabled all lines of credit, stopped the World Bank and International Monetary Fund from providing financial assistance, and have pressured private companies from doing business with the country. The result has been "a form of collective punishment designed to destabilize the country and shake the population's faith" in the government. [2] Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Zimbabweans – orphans and old people, the sick and the down and out - have suffered. And to hide their hand in creating the misery, the US and Britain and their allies have blamed it all on Harare's land reform policies, an inversion of the causal chain. It was not Harare's land reform policies that created the disaster, but the West's meting out collective punishment in response to the land reform policies that undermined Zimbabwe's economy and created widespread suffering.
It is hardly outside the realm of high probability, then, that Western governments that continue to use sanctions "to weaken the economy of the country, to get the people of Zimbabwe so poor and hungry they can change their voting behavior," [3] would also use food aid directly as a political weapon to shape the outcome of the upcoming election through their influence over NGOs operating in the country. After all, creating hunger in Zimbabwe is exactly what Western governments have been doing for the last seven years, indirectly, through the use of sanctions.
But Human Rights Watch and The New York Times say nothing about Western sanctions and instead accuse the Mugabe government of making Zimbabweans miserable, and further, of deliberately inducing hunger. Human Rights Watch researcher for Africa, Tiseke Kasambala, accuses Harare of taking a decision "to let people go hungry," citing it as "yet another attempt to use food as a political tool to intimidate voters ahead of an election." [4] Kasambala conjures the impression that (a) the government is deliberately inducing hunger and (b) that this will somehow help Mugabe's chances of winning the presidential election run-off poll. But while the HRW researcher says the government is letting people go hungry, he also complains that it is picking up the slack, delivering food aid in place of the NGOs. The government, he says, should not be distributing food but should "let independent aid agencies feed people." [5]
Harare, then, stands accused of two opposing crimes: of letting people go hungry, and of delivering food aid (in place of NGOs) and thereby saving people from hunger. Kasambala's "you're guilty no matter what you do" approach reveals that what's really at issue isn't whether people will go hungry (and they won't, though Harare's accusers play politics by carefully couching their comments to make it seem a government-engineered famine is imminent); the real issue is who controls the food aid. The problem from Kasambala's and New York Times reporter Celia Dugger's point of view, is that it isn't Western-funded NGOs that will be doling out relief for the duration of the election campaign. Dugger acknowledges that the government has bought 600,000 tons of corn to distribute to the hungry, but warns Harare could (not will, but could) use food "as an inducement to win support." [6] Of course, she offers not a whit of evidence that it is doing so or will do so. On the other side, there is good reason to believe that if Western governments are consistent, they'll use their funding arrangements with NGOs to extend their policy of bribing the people to vote for their candidate - this time with threats of food aid deliveries stopping if the wrong candidate is elected.
Kasambala, representing a rights organization that is dominated by the US foreign policy establishment, and can therefore hardly be expected to be politically neutral where Zimbabwe is concerned, goes further by predicting Harare will withhold food aid as "a political tool to intimidate voters ahead of (the) election." [7] In a milieu in which the "media have long since largely abandoned any attempt at impartiality in its reporting of Zimbabwe, the common assumption being that Mugabe is a murderous dictator at the head of a uniquely wicked regime," [8] Kasambala's dark prediction has a ring of plausibility to it, but if you examine his accusation critically, it falls apart.
How, one might ask, could a government induce hunger and expect to win support, when a hungry electorate would be far more likely to vote against, not for, whoever caused the hunger? Indeed, the aim of sanctions is to create enough misery to force the voters to cry uncle by voting Mugabe out of office. It would surely be a government of fools that would add to the misery already created by sanctions by deliberately engineering more misery. This would serve the aims of the regime changers in the West, not Mugabe and his Zanu-PF party. According to Kasambala's logic, if John McCain wants to win support, he should announce that, if elected, he will restore the draft and hike taxes sharply across-the-board.
Western media and organizations allied with US and British imperial goals are trying to create the impression that the government of Robert Mugabe is deliberately inducing hunger and using food aid to shape the outcome of the presidential run-off election, that is, when they're not accusing him of planning to rig the election. One wonders why Mugabe would tamper with the election results if he is using food as a political weapon, and vice-a-versa. Apparently, the aim of the demonization campaign is to hurl as many accusations at Mugabe as possible, in hopes that some or all of them will stick, even if they're mutually contradictory.
It is Western countries that have created hunger through a program of sanctions that has sabotaged the Zimbabwean economy and led to widespread misery and need for food aid. Mugabe's government has temporarily suspended the operations of NGOs, not to seize control of the delivery of food aid for political gain, but to block Western governments from operating remotely through NGOs to channel funding to the campaign of opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai and to use food as a political weapon. If you read the Western press uncritically and absorb Human Rights Watch's analyses without a healthy dose of skepticism, it doesn't seem that way, but as Malcolm X once said, "If you're not careful the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing." [9]
NOTES:
1. Herald (Zimbabwe) May 29, 2008; June 4, 2008.
2. CPGB-ML Statement, "Hands off Zimbabwe," May 12, 2008.
3. Peter Mavunga, Herald (Zimbabwe) May 3, 2008.
4. Guardian (UK), June 4, 2008.
5. Ibid.
6. New York Times, June 4, 2008.
7. Guardian (UK), June 4, 2008.
8. Seamus Milne, Guardian (UK), April 17, 2008.
9. New African, June 2008.
Reproduced from:
http://gowans.wordpress.com/2008/06/04
/zimbabwe-politics-and-food-aid/``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe: Politics and Food Aid``x1213315573,16865,Zimbabwe``x``x
``x
By Philip Murombedzi
June 12, 2008
talkzimbabwe.com
A COLLEAGUE and columnist of The Zimbabwe Guardian, Lloyd Whitefield Butler Jr. wrote, on June 2, 2008, "U.S. Republican party and MDC-T are alike with media spin deception". He said that "it appears Morgan Tsvangirai … is imitating the George Herbert Walker Bush's 1988 campaign against Michael Dukakis."
I couldn't help drawing similarities when Morgan Tsvangirai unveiled his 'campaign bus' yesterday.
This is a true manifestation of the American-style campaigning and image sprucing by Western PR companies – nothing wrong, if it eventually delivers victory to him.
If it doesn't, then Morgan Tsvangirai will look dumb in the eyes of all Zimbabweans and all those PR companies that are helping repair his image.
Does anyone remember a video showing Bush grabbing voters' hands, jumping on and off a campaign bus during his 2004 presidential campaign?
The Bush campaign team drove around the country in the campaign bus they had equipped with sound and light systems, confetti cannons, and various props and costumes. They gave dozens of stump speeches, distributed campaign videos and "USA Patriot Pledges," and performed patriotic songs to audiences across the country.
This works only in America. Africa is not America. The socio-political terrain is different. Media and image spin works differently.
Again this is evidence that Tsvangirai has not yet grasped the true meaning of African society and politics and what African leaders' concerns are.
Tsvangirai does not need buses at the moment. He needs clear strategy and powerful negotiators. That will bring the much needed change, not a bus parked at Harvest House. It might present him as a magnanimous 'hero' or leader, but Zanu PF is still very much part of the daily fabric of Zimbabwean society, moreso than the MDC-T party. They are still in power and control all sectors of the economy and politics.
These tokens being used to spruce up Morgan's image work very well in the West, not in Africa. The 'Zimbabwe Idol' type campaigning works well for countries that understand the need for those tokens and have grown accustomed to those images.
The image of a new Tsvangirai could actually alienate him from his mainstream supporters who will see him distanced from their everyday struggles. What brought him the popularity was his 'commonness', not these symbols. He has to be careful, otherwise these desperate attempts by the West will spell his disaster and his downfall.
Tsvangirai should realise that these tactics are alien to Africa. They have never been tested. So they could well work for him, but I do not see how, or they will make him look like a fool after the heat is off.
The MDC-T leader is using what Whitefield Jr. called "distorted imagery". The public soon wises up to it. The "media spinmiesters" which he identified will not do much for his campaign which was traditionally rooted in the people.
When I saw the 'tour bus' and his 'victory tour' campaign I could not help making comparisons with Simba Makoni's campaign on Facebook. These images make you look cool, but do nothing for victory and power transition and power transfer.
This victory bus – in a few weeks' time – might actually help Tsvangirai launch a commuter business if he loses the election on June 27, 2008.
philipmurombedzi@yahoo.com
Reproduced by consent of the author from:
www.talkzimbabwe.com/news/139/ARTICLE/2664/2008-06-12.html``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xMDC-T borrows from Bush campaign``x1213681011,13326,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xTuesday, June 17, 2008
Herald Reporters
President Mugabe has warned MDC-T leader Morgan Tsvangirai and senior opposition officials that the Government will hold them responsible for the orgy of organised violence that has rocked some parts of the country and would soon invoke measures to curtail it.
Addressing thousands of Zanu-PF supporters at Siakobvu Business Centre in Kariba and Rimuka Stadium in Kadoma, President Mugabe said the Government had noted with grave concern the organised violence against people, especially Zanu-PF supporters, through the burning of houses and kidnappings, among other heinous crimes.
Government, he said, would soon invoke what is known in law as "vicarious responsibilities and liabilities" against MDC-T leaders and senior party officials saying the terror attacks were premeditated and organised, exposing them to liabilities.
"Zvino chitema chakaipisa cheMDC mweya wehuSatani wekupisa dzimba dzevanhu. Zvino zvikarega kumira watichanenera ndiTsvangirai nevamwe vake.
"These cases of arson, kidnappings and violence on people coming from the MDC have shown a definite pattern which we read across the country. There is a definite plan of violence, an organised system of violence aimed at disturbing law and order. Let them be warned that we will invoke what is known as vicarious responsibility and liability which means we will hold them responsible for the violence across the country," he explained.
This invocation, he said, was only applied in special circumstances that threaten to disturb peace.
President Mugabe explained that normally parents are not held responsible for the misdeeds of their children, but when their operations show an organised streak then people are left with no choice but suspect complicity by the parents.
"This wave of violence has to stop and Government would not allow people to suffer and for people to wantonly disturb law and order . . . we cannot allow it to continue."
Cde Mugabe made the remarks after he was briefed about the violence being perpetrated by MDC-T supporters in Mola communal lands where they have reportedly barricaded roads using logs and have gone on a spree of arson that has displaced people and left others injured.
Three people have since been arrested in connection with the disturbances while some MDC-T supporters have left the opposition party to rejoin Zanu-PF.
Mr Fanta Masaka said he rejoined the ruling party after realising that MDC-T had nothing to offer.
He said people should not vote with their stomachs and desire for such niceties as sugar because they did not match the heritage that President Mugabe and Zanu-PF has bequeathed to them through land redistribution and indigenisation programmes.
Turning to the forthcoming run-off, President Mugabe said he was chosen by the people at the 2004 Zanu-PF congress and he accepted to return the people's trust.
MDC-T, he said, dithered on whether to participate in the election while waiting for a signal from their masters in the West.
"VeMDC vakamboti hatidi, voti tinoda kunge musikana ari kunyengwa. Tsvangirai pazvakabuda kuti hapana ahwina akabva atizira kuBotswana uko akazongodzoka anzi naAmbassador wekuAmerica (James McGee) dzokera tikachiona chichidzoka chichimhanya. Akakumbira armoured car kubva kuBotswana namaguards asi vakati kwete kana uri murombo tinogona chete kukutengera ticket rendege rekuti udzoke kumusha ndokudzoka kwaakazoita," said the President amid laughter from the crowd.
President Mugabe said Zimbabwe was under threat from Western imperialist forces fronted by MDC-T and people need not look further than events after the March 29 elections when whites thought the opposition had won.
He said most farmers who lost their land and had gone to neighbouring countries such as Zambia, Malawi, South Africa, had returned to reclaim their land.
Cde Mugabe declared that the land would not be returned to the whites as long as war veterans and other progressive thinking Zimbabweans in the country were still alive.
He said Anglo-Saxon interests vested in MDC-T were also evidenced by US Assistant Secretary for African Affairs Jendayi Frazer, who parroted claims by MDC-T that they had won the presidential elections before the official announcement by the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission.
"Kamusikana kekuAmerica kakauya kachiti Tsvangirai ahwina vanofanira kutonga. Isu tikati ibva kuno. Kakanga kava kuzviramba kakadzokera kwavo."
He said Anglo-Saxons were working together to destabilise Zimbabwe by imposing sanctions in the vain hope that people would revolt against Government and vote for the puppet MDC-T to further the regime change agenda.
President Mugabe said Zimbabwe had minerals like platinum, chrome, nickel, which were complemented by the recent discovery of uranium that he said Government would soon look into ways of fostering co-operation and assistance from China and other countries in harnessing the resource for energy development.
He said there was wealth in the land as evidenced by the returns that resettled farmers have yielded saying the whites tried to hoodwink Zimbabweans into thinking that there was no wealth in farming by putting on shorts and dressing shabbily.
He said chiefs should identify people who need land and forward their names to Government.
Government, he said, had to put in place measures to empower people and ensure the availability of basic commodities and clothes at reasonable prices through the establishment of people's shops.
He urged people to vote for him, saying voting for him was voting for Zanu-PF which has a history of liberating the country and working to uplift and empower people.
President Mugabe said Government was committed to improving the lives of people in the Zambezi Valley, where people survive through hunting and fishing.
The First Lady, Amai Grace Mugabe, Politburo members Cde Nathan Shamuyarira, Cde Ignatius Chombo, Central Committee members from Mashonaland West, provincial chairman Cde John Mafa, Chief Mola and other traditional leaders attended the rally.
Addressing a capacity crowd at another rally at Rimuka Stadium in Kadoma later in the day, Cde Mugabe said people should understand that when they vote for MDC-T they would be voting against themselves and selling out the country's heritage.
"Tinozviziva kuti kune nzara nekushaikwa kwezvatinoshandisa asi mungatengesa nyika nekuti mashaya?
"Imi mukati nyika yarwadza mukati ngativhotere ichi chibato makatengesa nyika masikati machena.
"We are lucky midzimu yakaramba kuti nyika iende. The vote was not disastrous (after March 29) but we are saying don't vote against yourselves, vote for your country, your legacy and your heritage that you would bequeath to the future generations."
Cde Mugabe said celebrations by whites after the premature announce-
ment by the MDC-T should inspire people to be strong in defending the country's sovereignty.
"We need to be strong, to know that this is our country, Zimbabwe. We have nowhere else to go.
"The whites have a lot of places to go. The Anglo-Saxon world is very large and Zimbabwe is small but endowed with riches, underground, on its land we have to utilise, our forests with its birds, animals and everything that is found in it.
"The country also has the people, sons and daughters, which is our first resources for developing the country," he said.
He said people should know that the land in the country is sacred and should never be sold.
"Ivhu iri ratinaro rinoyera, haritengeswe, tinoripfumbudza richisara riripo, haritakurwe.
"Mabhunu havafaniri kukanganisa pakati pedu asi vakauya kuti vashande pamwe nesu for the good of our people then we would accept them."
He said the Government would continue to work with whites that want to see the country develop.
"We would work with those who want to help the development of the country but to imperialists we say down with them."
Cde Mugabe said as scholar of Kwame Nkurumah he learnt a lot of lessons about imperialists forces.
"I learnt from Nkurumah to be wary of imperialists, he taught me that only a dead imperialist is a good one.
"The second lesson was to follow my principles; this should not be bought.
"We should have the sense that the country is mine, I would die for, look after it and would never sell my country."
"We should also know that principle is sacred, can't be sold on the altar."
"Izvi zvinofanira kutibatsira kudzamisa hunhu hwako, tienderere mberi zvakanaka tiri vanhu vanozvitonga.
"If change comes in another way like what the MDC-T way, which is a sellout organisation, we will not accept that.
"Change should come out of the people, come out of the Zimbabwean people, people who stand for the rights of the people," he said.
Cde Mugabe said there were people who suffered for the country's independence and who understand the history of the struggle.
"We want leaders who stand strongly for the people, hatinzwisisane nezvimbwasungata, hatidi vatungamiriri vanoda kupfuma asi tinoda vanoshandira vanhu."
He castigated people who join the ruling party so that they could use it to be rich.
"People should come to work for the people. We want development for the people, to send children to school and develop ordinary Zimbabweans to have their own businesses. Leaders should be people-oriented," he said.
Cde Mugabe castigated MDC-T leader Morgan Tsvangirai for not respecting ancestors and fallen heroes who died for the country's liberation and being used by the British to reverse the gains of independence.
"Munoti hamuzive kwakabva MDC, the British formed this party when the three parties in the country agreed to start the Westminster Foundation.
"Vakati kuti tirwise bato guru rakasimba tinofanira kushanda nevanhu veZCTU. We take the secretary-general of ZCTU and make him the president while the organisation's president becomes his deputy.
"Kana usingazive hauzive history, kana vashandi varipano vanozviziva kana usingazive hausi wemuno vakafanana nevachena vasiri vemuno.
"Hamukwanise kuona musiyano pakati pangu naTsvangirai, that is why you voted for him."
Cde Mugabe said he was different from Tsvangirai because he fought for the independence of the country, including those in the opposition.
"Takarwa hondo kuti vana teaboy vave maprofessionals kwete kuswera uchihwetera varungu.
"After independence we are saying we have our natural resources, we got them from God but Mbuya Nehanda, vanaMashayamombe nevakuru vese vakadamburwa musoro nenyaya yezvatinazvo munyika muno."
He said the war waged by the ancestors inspired him and the other leaders to fight for independence.
"Taisabvumirwa kugara kumasubburb, tikavakirwa dzimba dziya dzamunoti misana yenzou asi takati bhabhai kumisana yenzou and built proper houses.
"Ndopamunosimuka moti pasi neni, pasi neZanu-PF a-ah!
"Munoda Tsvangirai momuvhotera. Does he have the knowledge to lead the country? We are an enlightened country, ndopatinotora munhu ane pfungwa dzekumashure-shure anoti 'Kana makasunungurwa akakusunungurai wacho ngakudzorerei pamanga makasungirirwa'."
He said there is no way Zanu-PF will let the country go back to the colonialists.
"ZvanaTsvangirai zvekuti varungu tichavadzorera nyika hazvife zvakaitika, kuzvinyepera. You can vote for him but if he brings back the whites toenda kuhondo.
"Tinoita Chimurenga chechina nokuti varungu hapana chimwe chavanoda asi regime change, asi hazviite. Takatambudzikira nyika ino saka vakomana vangavari kuhondo vakati nyika haingaende nepenzura.
"You decide for yourselves to vote for war or vote for people who work for the development of the country.
"Tirikuda kupa vanhu masimba ekuzvitira if there are any whites who want to work in Zimbabwe they should be minority partners while we are the majority shareholders."
Cde Mugabe urged people in Kadoma to be united and vote overwhelmingly for Zanu-PF on June 27.
"When you vote for me on June 27, you will be voting for Zanu-PF so that when we vote, we vote to protect the gains of independence, our heritage, for Zimbabwe, the future of our children in our minds.
"We hope to vote for Zanu-PF, for me so that I must deliver a knockout blow to the MDC-T and its Western financiers."
First Lady Amai Mugabe, who also addressed the gathering, urged people to safeguard the riches of the country.
Amai Mugabe received a donation of $5 trillion for various projects she is spearheading from Kadoma businessman, Cde Simba Chinembiri, of Savanna in the town.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe: President warns MDC-T``x1213683443,67003,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Bulawayo Bureau
June 19, 2008
The Herald
BRITAIN'S dispute with Zimbabwe stems from the land reform programme and talk about the rule of law and democracy are mere excuses to camouflage the former colonial power's neo-colonial machinations, President Mugabe said yesterday.
Cde Mugabe was addressing thousands of supporters at Manama Business Centre.
It was his second rally in Matabeleland South Province yesterday, after he addressed another at Malala Primary School in Beitbridge, where he said Government was moving fast to curb border jumping and illegal activities.
Cde Mugabe said the road to freedom was a long and arduous one with the Rhodesian leader Ian Smith vowing that there would never be majority rule in the country.
"At the (1976) Geneva conference, Smith did not stay; he said that was nonsense, he had better things to do back home. That is what he said. Tasvika zvino muna 1979 arohwa nemaliberation forces coming from Zambia and Mozambique, now he said majority rule can come. Aimboti never in a thousand years, never. At Lancaster House he agreed, this is where they pledged that Britain would fund the resettlement programme," said President Mugabe.
He said land issue was a thorny issue at the Lancaster House Conference and it was only after intervention by the Carter administration in the United States that Britain accepted its colonial obligation of funding Zimbabwe's resettlement programme.
Cde Mugabe said although the Conservative Party led by Mrs Margaret Thatcher and later Mr John Major agreed to fund the programme, the Labour government under Mr Tony Blair reneged on the pledge through a letter written by one of Mr Blair's ministers, Ms Claire Short.
"The Labour Party did not want to co-operate with us. They reneged on the agreement. 'We derive our own authority from our own principles, not the Conservative Party,' they (the Labour government) said," said the President.
He said the Government tried to reason with Mr Blair but to no avail. "Takatifungai patsva. Think again. No! Fungai patsva. Think again. No! Mawar vets amaona apa akati kana akadaro we now take the land and the responsibility for compensation lies with the British. That is the policy. We take the land. Kana vasingade ndezvavo izvo," said President Mugabe.
He said the willing buyer-willing seller approach had failed with the British refusing to pay compensation for the acquired land.
"Then we said, keep your money, we keep our land. Fair, fair, zvabharanza. So arikuchema ndiani? Why should they now cry foul?" asked President Mugabe amid applause.
"The British realised that they could not argue with us on the land issue and hatched a plan to rope in their allies into the dispute by fabricating excuses such as allegations that there was no democracy in Zimbabwe, no rule of law, no freedom. Hakuna democracy? Was there freedom when maBritish ruled this country? Did they give you democracy? We had no vote at all. We were denied the right to vote. The white man could vote for another white man," said President Mugabe.
"There was racial discrimination, so you would talk of native education and European education as well as native reserves ivo vatora pakatorwa nyika naRhodes, fertile lands."
He said the black majority were reduced to "mere squatters on our land". During Rhodesia, blacks were not allowed into shops such as Barbours and were not allowed to buy certain items regarded as a preserve of the whites even if they could afford them.
"When entering shops, you were told khipha longwani kawena. You were nothing. You are not a voter. There was no rule of law. You could be arrested for anything, anywhere. Ingave nyika yakadaro?"
He said they tried to protest against the racial discrimination but their protests fell on deaf ears.
"We thought if we spoke loudly they would listen. Kunyepa! They would never listen. We figured that the only way we can now win, the only language which the settlers and the British could understand is the language of the bullet. Bara, bara! Ndopatakavamba the struggle."
He said Zipra and Zanla fought the war as one family.
"We are only one family, we should not quarrel. People can't be made to suffer under us when they suffered under the Boer. Let's unite across the country from Plumtree to Chirundu. Even when he died VaNkomo, Silundika, JZ Moyo, Mangena and vakaenda. I thank God ndichiripo. Saka what is my role? Ndorega nyika ichiendeswa kumabhunu neMDC? When I am still alive that will never happen, never ever! Let the British hear this, it will never happen," said the President amid applause.
He said the way white former commercial farmers started trooping back into the country when they had heard the lies that Tsvangirai had won the presidency showed how the MDC was a British front in a neo-colonial plot on Zimbabwe.
"Britain are the creators of the MDC. They -- Labour, Liberals and Conservatives -- poured money into the MDC through the Westminster Foundation Fund. MDC was created as a party to fight the revolutionary party of Mugabe and Nkomo. They united to create a party here. They talk of democracy and non-interference in the affairs of others going against the United Nations Charter. There are viola-
tions of that charter. Democracy inoreva kuzvitonga. Kwete kutongwa nevarikunze."
Cde Mugabe said when the British thought about forming a party to challenge Zanu-PF they targeted the Zimbabwean Congress of Trade Unions led by Gibson Sibanda as president and Tsvangirai as the secretary-general.
"UGibson angithi uvela lapha (Matabeleland South) and Tsvangirai elsewhere. MDC is a British-sponsored party and to this day the British give it money. Mukanzwa vanotaura vachisupporter MDC it's Britain, Australia, United States and Canada, all these countries are English-speaking. In Australia, when Mr John Howard was still prime minister he gave a vote of 18 million Australian dollars to the MDC, (British Prime Minister Gordon) Brown gave MDC a vote of 3,3 million pounds, (United States President George W.) Bush US$7 million for MDC. Is that fair play? Kupa ivavo? Inopiwa manon-governmental organisations kuti vange vachiti tirikukupai kudya vhoterai MDC, mukavhotera Zanu-PF hatidzoki," he said.
"But here in Gwanda South, amhlophe, amhlophe! You have stood your ground, won all the council seats (during the harmonised elections), the senatorial seat. Even your vote for me was outstanding. Rambai makadaro. Stay where you are."
Turning to Tsvangirai, Cde Mugabe said he was a coward who abandoned the struggle and ran back home.
"Kuzouya ichi (Mr Tsvangirai) chakatiza hondo. 'Ndivhoterei neMDC for change.' Change yacho inotipei? 'You (President Mugabe) gave land to the people, wonai varikufa nenzara. Ini ndikawina ndodzosera mapurazi to the whites'," said Cde Mugabe.
"He says he will reverse everything that the Zanu-PF Government has done, that is agricultural programmes, educational policies. Uchiita reverse kuenda kupi? For whose benefit? So it's reversals. Even Heroes Acre, tinochera vaende kunovigwa kumusha kwavo. Ko chakurwadza chii? You are there today because of the independence that was brought by these national heroes."
President Mugabe said that re-colonisation of this country would not happen.
"That day will never dawn on this country," he said amid thunderous applause.
"That is what the silent voice of my dead colleague is asking me. Chii chirikuitika? Where are the people going? What are you doing? When you are right like you are doing here, I say we are standing firm. On the land, I respond, the land is the people's land. Umhlabathi ngowethu. It's still our land. We have not given it up. Freedom kuvanhu, tinayo unity, we are still united. Imperialism is our enemy. Neo-colonialism," he said.
"Handitengese vanaNkomo nanaMuzenda. I still stand. I will stand with you as long as this issue remains in question. I will be with you and stand firmly leading you. So don't doubt. Tiritose, I will never yield. Don't doubt. Andidududze panyaya iyoyo. This is not the time to surrender. You (people of Gwanda South) are the light and this place we can call Ekukhanyiseni. Let others see what you have done, learn from you. Let your determination inspire them. Vamwe vanga vatengwa vamwe vanga vaenda."
Cde Mugabe said although there were hardships brought by sanctions imposed on Zimbabwe this was not a reason to mortgage the nation.
He said to ease the hardships being faced by the people, Government had bought 50 000 tonnes of maize from South Africa and redoubled efforts to transport the grain by both rail and road.
Cde Mugabe, who received a rousing welcome when he arrived for the rally in the afternoon, appealed to the people of Gwanda South to vote resoundingly for both himself and the party's candidate in the constituency's House of Assembly by-election, Cde Orders Mlilo.
In Beitbridge, President Mugabe said Government has stepped up efforts to develop strategic areas such as border posts to curb border jumping and illegal activities.
Addressing thousands of people at Malala Primary School, 8km west of Beitbridge town, President Mugabe said the ongoing development projects at Beitbridge are meant to transform the border town into a world-class city.
"As the Government, we want to deal with key and strategic areas, particularly our border posts, so that we have businesses and factories operating in those areas. You will also note that currently several projects are going on in Beitbridge as we want to transform it into a world-class southern city," said President Mugabe.
He urged the youths to desist from the inclination of illegally crossing the borders into neighbouring countries.
"We want to continue developing Beitbridge and other key areas so that our children work here rather than continuously border jumping into South Africa yet our country is very rich in natural resources such as minerals. Let me remind youths to desist from border jumping as if it's a sport," said President Mugabe.
He said the Government was working tirelessly to develop Matabeleland South, as it was an important province which gave birth to patriots and nationalists such as the late Vice President Dr Joshua Nkomo and national hero Cde Jason Ziyaphapha Moyo.
President Mugabe said that Matabeleland South was largely a drought-prone, hence the need to encourage irrigation farming and animal husbandry.
"We have Limpopo River and Zhovhe Dam, and as the Government we want to construct irrigation schemes along the canals and we want to do that through the mechanisation programmes. We want to improve food security here in Beitbridge and other parts of the province," he said.
President Mugabe hailed Zimbabwe's education system, saying it was the second best on the continent after Tunisia.
"Education is our top priority and therefore as Government, we continue to educate our children and empower them with the necessary academic and technical skills. We don't want our schools to collapse and we are doing our best, as we want to see the country having more mechanical engineers, water engineers, agronomists and veterinary surgeons," he said.
"In terms of health we have built several hospitals across the country, but, however, we continue to face the challenges of drug shortages due to lack of foreign currency as a result of sanctions imposed on us by the West."
"In Matabeleland North, we are building a university in Lupane and a Government complex to house our departments since it is the provincial capital," said Cde Mugabe.
Cde Mugabe urged Zimbabweans to go in large numbers and vote for Zanu-PF, saying it was a tried and tested revolutionary party which brought about the liberation of the country from colonialism.
"Iyi iZimbabwe yakarwirwa neZapu neZanu-PF. Musangano wedu uyu wakaumbwa neZapu neZanu-PF, tisu chete misangano miviri (Zanu and Zapu) iyi yakarwira rusununguko,"
"Tisu takaunza zvakare ivhu iri, umhlabathi, then kwakuita vamwe vanoda kukanganisa independence yose. Kwaita vamwe vakatengwa navarungu nemaBritish," he said.
Cde Mugabe urged people to remain united and strengthen the Unity Accord signed in 1987.
"In the past election some of you voted for MDC because we were divided. If you vote for MDC on 27 June, you would have killed yourself, liyazibulala, because you will lose your land because we saw the white farmers coming back soon after the 29 March elections.
"We don't want a repeat of what happened in the previous election. We should strengthen the party and Government.
"Rega kuita hope dzemusi wa29 March takarara, kumele sivuke and conquer MDC," he said.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe: Land root of our row with UK - President``x1213930062,89959,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Reason Wafawarova
June 19, 2008
The Herald
THE current economic crisis and political instability bedevilling Zimbabwe continues to be portrayed as a direct sequel of the political shortcomings of one man, President Robert Mugabe, and we are all meant to solemnly believe that the mere removal of this one man will mean that Zimbabweans will live happily forever after.
The political complexity that has been created by Western interests in the affairs of Zimbabwe will continue to be relegated to obscurity by those who have chosen to bestow upon themselves the honour of apostleship to the now hysterical doctrine of regime change.
To many this political interest has been misconstrued as something emanating from the land reclamation era that started in 2000. In fact, the land reclamation programme only exacerbated the ruinous effect of the neo-colonialism resolve to maintain imperial supremacy over former colonies, in this case over Zimbabwe.
Las Casas, a 16th century Spanish writer, left in his will a telling statement about the long-term effect of colonial ruin – an effect that he reckoned would undoubtedly provoke divine powers to anger.
Said Casas: "I believe that because of these impious, criminal and ignominious deeds perpetrated so unjustly, tyrannically and barbarously, God will vent upon Spain His wrath and His fury, for nearly all of Spain has shared in the bloody wealth usurped at the cost of so much ruin and slaughter."
Casas was obviously condemning the very uncivilised conquest of Latin America by Spain – a conquest that was a result of six small but powerful European countries terrorising the rest of the world in the name of Western civilisation.
Britain decided to bloat its ego by calling themselves Great Britain despite their tiny geographical territorial space. They called themselves "great" because they had developed themselves into champions of expansionism.
Cecil John Rhodes was the British queen's foot soldier to Southern Africa and for his legacy he decided to name Zimbabwe after his own name, calling it Rhodesia. Rhodes and his British South African Company reduced Africans to a labour resource in their mining and farming enterprises that Britain saw as a legitimate expansion of its economy. Africa, just like Latin America and Asia, fought colonialism from a political front and this is what we have called the "fall of colonial empires". Colonial empires might have fallen politically but the reality facing the developing world today is that the West has not lost much of its usurped colonial wealth and they will do all in their power to make sure that this does not happen.
For Lancaster in 1979, it was not too much for Zimbabwean nationalists to ask to have our little region back as long as what they were asking for was limited to political power.
Now that the political power has been used to venture into the economic territory of imperial Britain, for better or for worse, we do see an ominous backlash where Britain is teaming up with her Western allies against Zimbabwe all in the in the name of an altruistic international community. The West and altruism have now become a contradiction in terms.
The weapon used to destroy the threatening political power in Zimbabwe has been the criminal sanctions against the masses of Zimbabwe, never mind the spurious argument that these sanctions are "targeted" at Government officials. This line of argument has just become a nauseating joke that annoys even the most avowed right-wingers.
It is obviously not enough for Britain and her allies to merely destroy the political power that has shaken the economic interest of the West in Zimbabwe. They inevitably need to fill up the gap. What is needed is to create a replacement political power centre that falls under the control of the imperial authority.
The legitimacy of this kind of political power centre cannot be seen to be founded in economic principles, just like liberation movements were largely pushed to be founded in ideologies that were free of economic influence.
Most of the liberation movements entered independence agreements that merely brokered an assurance that the new political leadership would not only co-exist with capitalist business owners but would actually ensure an employee-employer relationship between indigenous peoples and their former colonisers.
Many countries, Zimbabwe included; were applauded for "employment creation" initiatives that were in essence an abuse of cheap labour for maximised profiteering by Western multinational companies.
To make sure that the political leadership followed this route the West employed the tactic of foreign aid – ostensibly meant for "development enhancement" programmes. To this end, it was made to look perfectly normal for developing countries to rely on aid for rural development while they continued to top the global export indexes for their minerals and other raw resources.
Secondly, African politicians were tactically rewarded for compliance to this subtle campaign for economic supremacy. Such rewards would and still do come through such awards as Nobel Peace prize, honourary degrees, knighthood awards or foundation scholarships.
Those who have not lived up to the imperial expectations of the awarding authorities have in the past been demonised frantically and we have now seen a new trend of the "revoking" of these awards.
Those who have enjoyed the dishonour of being shining lights in looking after imperial wealth do not only continue to have more awards thrust upon them but also continue to receive wide-ranging media coverage as beacons of "democracy and human rights".
We have just seen a list of African personalities appearing on a list of signatures to a document that purports to be calling for "free and fair" electoral process ahead of the Zimbabwe June 27 election. Desmond Tutu of South Africa will never miss duty on such an assignment and at the rate John Sentamu of Uganda is going, he stands a fantastic chance of landing the Noble Peace prize right in the footsteps of the clearly obnoxious little bishop from down south.
The opposition MDC is meant to be a political replacement to Zanu-PF and not to be an alternative government for the people of Zimbabwe. An MDC-led government is meant to excel in proving to the world that African political power can only work in partnership with Western economic power.
The MDC wants to form the next government whose mandate would be to impress what they keep calling "the international community" – a euphemism for Western powers.
George W. Bush has just publicly said to Gordon Brown "We will help you get a free and fair election in Zimbabwe." Why does Brown need a free and fair election in Zimbabwe, or more precisely why does he need an election of whatever form in Zimbabwe? He is not even elected himself.
Britain, Australia and the US have all vowed to take Zimbabwe to the UN Security Council "should Mugabe emerge the winner" in the coming election. Effectively it now stands as a fact that a Morgan Tsvangirai loss is, by definition a result of an unfair and unfree election.
To the West this is a one-way election whose result is now cast in stone. Sadc and all observers are meant to descend on Zimbabwe and monitor a Morgan Tsvangirai win or they risk being labelled biased and less robust in the fight for democracy.
It is by design that the West staunchly supports the MDC's purported fight for democracy and human rights. That is the credo and platform upon which client regimes are founded these days. There is no client regime that preaches economic empowerment for indigenous people. They all preach freedom of speech, jobs, food and a whole spectrum of shiny packages of limitless freedoms and liberties.
To make the crusade for freedom legitimate Zimbabwe is unreservedly portrayed as a lawless country where the Government is killing its own people. MDC political activists can be as provocative as they wish because any arrest will, by assumption, be viewed as a violation of basic human rights. All that is happening in Zimbabwe right now is just a cycle of colonial ruin and what the MDC is seeking is not a "new Zimbabwe" but a restoration of Rhodesia.
Rhodesia was founded on Britain's impious, criminal and ignominious murders of 1890 and the MDC's "new Zimbabwe" is to be founded on the ruinous, profane and despicable sanctions that have been unleashed on the generality of Zimbabweans.
We were subjected to servitude by the power of gunpowder in 1890 and we are being forced into subordination by the ruthless power of economic sanctions in 2008.
Some among us collaborated with the enemy in 1890 and some among us are collaborating with the enemy today. The British interests over Zimbabwe have not changed. Zimbabwe must help make the small island of Britain stand as "Great Britain" by allowing British imperial authority to preside over the economic affairs of Zimbabwe.
What has changed is the warfare. Gone are the days of military conquest. Gone are the days of crude power politics. Now is the time for economic strangulation. Now is the time for stage-managed crusades for "democracy and human rights".
Britain wants its citizenry to continue to share the bloody wealth of Zimbabwe usurped at the cost of so much ruin and slaughter as we saw through the many lives that were massacred during the First and Second Chimurenga and the many more lives that have been claimed by the ruinous effect of the illegal sanctions currently imposed on Zimbabwe by Western allies. This cycle of colonial ruin cannot be allowed to continue. The economic war in Zimbabwe must be viewed for what it is. It is a blatantly ruthless war that cannot be wished away by the citing of a clique of corrupt officials and claiming that their moral shortcomings are the cause of the people's suffering.
They did it to Maurice Bishop of Grenada in 1979, they did it to the Sandinistas of Nicaragua again from 1979, they did it to Salvador Allende's Chile in 1973, they did it to Pathet Lao of Laos in 1958, they did it to the Vietnamese nationalist movement from 1961 to the mid-seventies and they are trying to do it to Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe in 2008.
Those who cannot see this second phase of colonisation, which is packaged in client regimes for what it is are either clearly ignorant of the history of Western powers or simply romanticised by the glitters of Western supremacy.
In the past we were mesmerised by the supremacy of Western firepower and romanticised by the glitters of Western civilisation and we helped them accumulate our wealth with our tacit approval. Now we are being made to fight each other over idealistic limitless freedoms and liberties, while the West lines up lapdog politicians to maintain and exercise power over us so as to ensure that they enjoy control of our economic system.
It is rather a shame that we lost limbs and lives to free ourselves from political domination, but we cannot afford a night on an empty stomach to free ourselves from economic domination.
It is no wonder that those of us who survived the liberation war have a resolve that simply says Zimbabwe is not going anywhere.
Colonial ruin has revisited us and we need to accept the reality of the economic war in which we all find ourselves today. It is a war that cannot be fought by votes.
Votes are a peaceful expression of opinion and yet our peace has been taken away by the economic onslaught brought upon the country by the imperial gangsters. We did not vote from 1965 to 1980 because this was no time for votes but for waging a victory-oriented war that would bring us a peaceful environment where the vote would be our voice.
Is a vote that surrenders to sanctions something we should call the voice of a sovereign people? Can voting in of lackeys be called the genuine voice of a sovereign people?
Is it sensible when some among us say let people vote in imperialism if that is what they want? And how democratic is it to say the MDC-T has a right to come for political competition in the company of former oppressors? It is incumbent upon each Zimbabwean to reflect on where we have come from and help build Zimbabwe in a manner that leaves imperialists where they belong, and that is as far away from our resources as possible.
Zimbabwe we are one in our heritage and together we will overcome.
wafawarova@yahoo.co.uk
or
reason@rwafawarova.com
``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe and the perception of ruin``x1213930363,18262,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Bulawayo Bureau
June 21, 2008
The Herald
PRESIDENT Mugabe yesterday chided MDC-T for compiling a list of alleged victims of political violence claiming they were its supporters so as to justify claims that the polls will not be free and fair.
Earlier, the President told captains of industry in Bulawayo that Zimbabwe was negotiating with Equatorial Guinea to secure more fuel at regular intervals from the oil-rich West African country.
He then addressed thousands of people at White City Stadium in Bulawayo as his campaign for the June 27 run-off reaches fever pitch.
President Mugabe's sentiments on MDC-T came as some wire reports suggested that the opposition party was developing jelly feet and contemplating pulling out of the race claiming the "electoral playing field is uneven", the usual cry that the opposition makes each time it stares defeat in the face or actually loses an electoral contest.
"The MDC people have been busy at their Harvest House compiling names of what they say are victims of political violence. They have been saying their supporters are being beaten up by our soldiers. They say this so that they can later say the elections were not free and fair. Which is a damn lie!
"Ndafamba maprovinces akawanda and where there have been incidents of violence, arson or destruction yemusha hapana yakaitwa nemaforces edu," Cde Mugabe said.
"I was in Matabeleland North yesterday, it's all very peaceful. I was in Matabeleland South, a day before yesterday and it's also peaceful except for a (recent) incident in the northern part of Gwanda where the MDC destroyed an office, a sub-office yedu. Here in Bulawayo. Khonapha ko Bulawayo, there is absolute peace. People are campaigning, yes but we are campaigning in peace. So on 27 June let us go in peace tinoita cast vote, a historic vote. We dare not make a mistake. Don't vote against yourself. Siyekele ukuzibulala," the President said.
At the business meeting held at a local hotel, President Mugabe said the Minister of Energy and Power Development, Retired Lieutenant-General Mike Nyambuya was in Equatorial Guinea, leading a team from Zimbabwe to negotiate the fuel deal.
Cde Mugabe was responding to a question from businesspersons who wanted to find out if the Government could provide more fuel for public transporters.
"Let us wait and see if we get more fuel," said President Mugabe.
"The Minister (of Energy and Power Development) is there (Equatorial Guinea) to negotiate for more fuel and also for us to get it more regularly. Then we could be able to do that."
A few days ago, the Government launched a fuel subsidy scheme in Bulawayo.
The facility has enabled passenger transporters to reduce their fares from $2 billion a trip to $500 million.
The President said the Government was committed to ensuring that the transport sector got more reliable fuel supplies.
However, he said public transport operators have disappointed the Government in the past after they failed to reduce fares despite accessing cheap fuel from Noczim.
"If fuel becomes available and all (passenger transporters) get cheaper fuel, can we rely on them to make fares cheaper? The commuter transporters have disappointed us," he said.
President Mugabe said once more fuel supplies were secured, the Government could find ways of ensuring that private importers, who were selling fuel in foreign currency were made to operate like Noczim was doing by charging affordable prices.
Turning to MDC-T leader Tsvangirai, President Mugabe said voting for Tsvangirai, who is a front for British neo-colonial interests, was tantamount to going back to colonialism so that another war could be fought to liberate the country from the shackles of colonisation for the second time.
He said lives were lost for the liberation of this country and therefore Zimbabwe's independence and sovereignty should be held dearly by all its inhabitants.
"Nezuro kuNkayi North, ndakaratidzwa nzvimbo pakamira Baba weZimbabwe, Umdala Wethu, achitambira magamba adzoka tapedza hondo kuZambia," said Cde Mugabe.
"Saka tavakuenda musi wa27 next week tinosungirwa kuenda tichifunga nhoroondo iyoyo. Kufunga vakafa, vakava zvirema kuhondo. Kufunga anaLobengula, hatizivi kwaakazofira, anaMashayamombe. Hondo yavakatanga ivavo yakatipa moyo wokubvisa mabhunu. Hatidi kuti tidzokorodze imwe hondo yokubvisa mabhunu zvakare nokuti matadza kuvhota. Mawar veterans arikuti kwete. Silabo lapha. Lo uchairman weprovince (Cde Macleod Tshawe) ngomunye wabo."
He reiterated that the war veterans had vowed to put up a fight against recolonisation embodied in the existence of MDC on Zimbabwe's political landscape.
"Mawar veterans arikuti vanhu ngavayeuke kuti isu takarwa nepfuti imi muri kupiwa ballpoint pen chete.
"The ballpoint pen must not defeat the gun. Zvanzi hatidi kuona ballpoint pen ichinzi yakunda," said the President drawing applause from the crowd.
"Vari kuti ivo ballpoint ngaitevere nzira yomubhobho. Ukada kuita nharo mubhobho versus ballpoint, hazvife zvakaitika."
He said Government had programmes such as people's shops where affordable basic commodities could be bought as well as people's buses among others, meant to mitigate the effects of the sanctions that were imposed on Zimbabwe over the land reform programme – which was the source of the standoff between Harare and London.
Cde Mugabe implored the people of Bulawayo to join the rest of the country in defending Zimbabwe's independence and emphasise the City of Kings's place as the second largest in the country by voting resoundingly for Zanu-PF.
"Tibude tose. Vote yomuno muBulawayo iri vote of the capital city."
He appealed for voters in the Mpopoma-Pelandaba House of Assembly constituency by-election to vote overwhelmingly for the ruling party candidate, Dr Sikhanyiso Ndlovu, whose works, he said, were there for all to see.
Dr Ndlovu, who is the Minister of Information and Publicity, said the constituency which he was contesting in had a pride of place as it had been once held by some of the nation's founding fathers – the late Vice President Dr Joshua Nkomo and Vice President Joseph Msika.
"Mhlaka 27 uPresident Mugabe ewofisini, uDr Ndlovu Ephalamende," said Dr Ndlovu to thunderous applause.
Also Read:
MDC-T party 'split' over poll
Commentary: Does the MDC-T 'transition document' exist or not?
MDC-T Democratic Resistance Committees behind violence
"I wish to put the record straight on the political violence in Zimbabwe. It is without doubt that between the two political parties, MDC-T and Zanu PF, MDC-T is the main culprit in the political violence that we are currently witnessing in the country," Comm-Gen Chihuri told journalists.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe: 'MDC-T lies to discredit polls'``x1214092511,88372,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xZIMBABWE opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai has sought overnight refuge at the Dutch embassy in Harare as unconfirmed news filtered in that he was backtracking on his earlier decision not to contest the run-off presidential election on Friday (June 27).
Tsvangirai is still believed to be at the embassy in a move viewed by senior government officials as unnecessary and intended to attract attention from international media and the West.
"The man's cry-baby tactics have now become ridiculous. Who is after Tsvangirai? Everyone is busy preparing for the run-off election and he is busy trying to convince his international backers that he is in some danger," said a Zanu PF official.
Full Article...
Also Read:
'Mwanawasa dividing SADC'
THE Southern African Development Community (Sadc) chairman and President of Zambia is unilaterally putting pressure on the Zimbabwe government to call off the run-off election scheduled for Friday saying the conditions on the ground are not yet conducive for a free and fair election.
Govt urges Tsvangirai to contest election
THE Zimbabwean government on Monday urged opposition Movement for Democratic Change leader Morgan Tsvangirai not to withdraw from the country's presidential run-off election saying it would be regrettable if he did so.
Worried over Robert Mugabe vs. the Western World's Press?
SHOULD you be worrying about 84 year old Robert Gabriel Mugabe, duly elected President of the Republic of Zimbabwe returning Zimbabwe land to Zimbabweans in national security mode? Should the world be worrying about a US, EU, Britain backed Movement for Democratic Change (MDC-T) run-off election to un-declare its government's Declaration of Independence and to abolish its Constitution and return illegally seized land to white farmers?``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xTsvangirai seeks refuge in Dutch embassy``x1214237941,51420,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xHerald Reporters
June 25, 2008
The Herald
THE United Nations yesterday blocked attempts by Britain, the United States and France to declare MDC-T leader Morgan Tsvangirai as the President of Zimbabwe on the basis of the results of the March 29 harmonised elections.
This came as South Africa's ruling ANC party rejected foreign intervention in Zimbabwe, especially from erstwhile colonisers.
Britain, the current president of the Security Council, tried to use Belgium to halt Friday's presidential run-off election and illegally install Tsvangirai as president, but South Africa's Ambassador to the UN, Mr Dumisani Khumalo, blocked these attempts.
Associated Press reported that the US and France also tried to include in the Security Council statement language asserting that Tsvangirai should be considered the legitimate president of Zimbabwe.
Zimbabwe's permanent representative to the UN Ambassador Boniface Chidyausiku said submissions by South Africa and Zimbabwe convinced the 15-member Security Council that it would be legally improper to halt the run-off and install Tsvangirai.
The original draft compiled by the British had claimed that the elections would not be free and fair, but the Security Council eventually issued a watered down non-binding statement condemning political violence.
"We would like to pay tribute to Ambassador Khumalo for the sterling work he did. It is a big victory for us.
"Britain, through Belgium, which is not a member of the Security Council, tried to get the UN to impose Tsvangirai as president in contravention of the country's Constitution and electoral laws.
"But South Africa made it clear that this would not be acceptable and we also made submissions indicating that it would be improper to subvert the law like that," Ambassador Chidyausiku said.
He said last week, Belgium -- apparently acting on orders from Britain -- had asked for a Security Council brief on what was going on in Zimbabwe.
The strategy was to use this as an excuse to criticise the electoral process, negate the need for a run-off and then recognise Tsvangirai as president on the basis of the March 29 poll results.
"The draft that we saw on Friday was mild. It was something that we could have lived with. But over the weekend Tsvangirai said he didn't want to participate in the run-off anymore and this gave Britain, through Belgium, ammunition to attack Zimbabwe," Ambassador Chidyausiku said.
On Monday morning, he said the draft was suddenly harder and bent on preventing a run-off as if they were aware Tsvangirai would lose the election.
"They were happy to go with the results of the March 29 poll when the law is clear that there should be a run-off.
"We, too, respect the results of the harmonised elections and that is why we agree that there should be a run-off. For anyone to prevent a run-off is to prevent the free expression of the will of the people as provided for by the law," he said.
Ambassador Chidyausiku said Britain and its allies tried to argue that a cancellation of the run-off would be necessitated by the prevalence of State-contrived violence.
However, Zimbabwe's mission to the UN presented the Security Council with statistics indicating that the opposition was mostly behind the political violence in the country.
"The figures we have show that 400 MDC-T supporters have been arrested for political violence compared to 160 Zanu-PF supporters.
"We also demonstrated that there have been numerous cases of MDC-T supporters going around dressed in Zanu-PF regalia and beating up people.
"This is an outdated strategy used by the Selous Scouts during the liberation struggle and with the predominance of Selous Scouts in the MDC-T it is obvious what is going on.
"We managed to get them to recognise these realities and they failed in their bid to install Tsvangirai."
He said the people of Zimbabwe would determine the future of Zimbabwe.
Ambassador Chidyausiku also said that it was imperative for Sadc to remain united under the Lusaka Summit resolution to respect South African President Thabo Mbeki's mediation role.
"Sadc gave President Mbeki the mandate to mediate in Zimbabwe and that should be respected. That is a mandate that came out of a summit and no pronunciations by any individual outside of a summit should nullify this reality.
"Lusaka stands," he said.
The ANC, South Africa's ruling party, rejected any outside diplomatic intervention in the Zimbabwean matter yesterday arguing that "any attempts by outside players to impose regime change will merely deepen" the problems in Zimbabwe.
Although it said it was concerned with the situation in Zimbabwe, the ANC evoked Zimbabwe's colonial history and insisted that outsiders had no role to play in ending its current problems.
"It has always been and continues to be the view of our movement that the challenges facing Zimbabwe can only be solved by the Zimbabweans themselves," the statement said. "Nothing that has happened in the recent months has persuaded us to revise that view."
In what seemed a clear rebuke to the efforts of Western nations to take an aggressive stance against the Zimbabwean Government, the ANC included a lengthy criticism of the "arbitrary, capricious power" exerted by Africa's former colonial masters and cited the subsequent struggle by African nations to grant new-found freedoms and rights.
"No colonial power in Africa, least of all Britain in its colony of 'Rhodesia' ever demonstrated any respect for these principles," the ANC said, referring to Zimbabwe before its independence.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xUN blocks British, US attempts to halt run-off``x1214377999,14616,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Tafataona P Mahoso
June 25, 2008
By begging to be allowed to sleep in the Dutch Embassy on the eve of a Zimbabwean election in which he is supposed to be elected President, Morgan Tsvangirai has finally and openly shown where his real constituency is: in the North Atlantic states of Europe and North America.
President Mugabe does not need to say more: Morgan is indeed much more than a Zimbabwean lost child.
His constituency is in Europe and he will be elected the best Euro-American puppet of the country while having tea and Dutch cheese in the Dutch Embassy in Harare.
Unfortunately, for MDC-T and Morgan Tsvangirai, British and US foreign policy toward Zimbabwe is being led by men and women who cannot even write an undergraduate paper on African affairs.
Their success in bringing the subject of Zimbabwe’s election for discussion at the Security Council will help inflame the popular and unmistakable anger of the people of Zimbabwe which David Milliband and Jendayi Fraser are incapable of reading.
The popular anger in Zimbabwe against MDC-T and Morgan Tsvangirai, against British, US and EU foreign policy, can best be illustrated by referring back to that popular song from 1980:
Yaramba, povo yaramba,
Munyika mayo, zvemadhisinyongoro.
Yaramba, povo yaramba munyika muno,
zvemadhisinyongoro.
There is no English equivalent to this expression of Shona outrage, but the following translation may come close:
The people, the majority, condemn, reject all the sickening external attempts to confuse, manipulate, disorganise and overwhelm them.
This was used in 1980 to express the contempt and anger of the people of Zimbabwe against the role of foreign powers in the Zimbabwe-Rhodesia project of Ian Smith and Bishop Abel Muzorewa.
Coming to the on-going efforts by the UK, the EU and the US to merge their foreign policies in support of MDC-T and against Zimbabwe, the following expressions of those policies on the ground in Zimbabwe have helped to incense popular opinion:
In the first category are the acts of racist scandalisation and contempt against the war veterans of the Second Chimurenga which acts have been undertaken by MDC-T since the formation of the MDC in 1999.
The people are aware the war against the veterans of the Second Chimurenga was started by the Rhodesian settler minority in Zimbabwe, the United Kingdom, the US and the EU back in 1997, when the Government of Zimbabwe decided to pay the same war veterans a small gratuity of 50 000 Zimbabwe Dollars.
The current leaders of MDC-T were still in the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions.
They, together with the Rhodesians, the World Bank and the IMF opposed and condemned payment of the small gratuity.
The IMF and the World Bank were representing British, US and EU imperialist interests.
The bitterness of the British, EU and US opposition to the gratuity at the time seemed surprising, but it was a harbinger of future attacks.
Now, the people of Zimbabwe know that the World Bank and the US Marshall Plan in fact paid and resettled white war veterans of the Hitler wars.
Some of those were paid to settle in Zimbabwe under the Rhodesian African Land Husbandry Act of 1951.
But, as Presidential Press Secretary Cde George Charamba pointed out on radio on 24 June 2008, what has outraged the people of Zimbabwe against the UK, the US, the EU and their stooges in the MDC-T is the combined and coordinated desecration, contempt and murder directed against war veterans.
As the people who vowed to die to liberate this country, these war veterans represent the bones of arch-heroine Mbuya Nehanda who vowed before she was executed in 1896 that "My bones shall rise."
The war veterans of the Second Chimurenga are the resurrected bones of Mbuya Nehanda. How dare the UK, the US and the EU finance MDC-T to attack, desecrate and destroy those resurrected bones, the war veteran, yet again?
In the second place are the despicable, diabolic, racist and illegal sanctions which the UK, the US, the EU and their allies have tried to hide under the fig-leaf of humanitarian relief which, in the hands of NGOs in Zimbabwe, has also been exposed.
The continual claims that there are no real economic sanctions; that there are only selective and smart sanctions targeted at President Robert Mugabe and his cronies; have outraged the people of Zimbabwe against the policies of these countries and against MDC-T.
The people have looked back and realised that the transformation of the entire Zimbabwean economy: from a credit and savings economy to a cash economy run by speculating middlemen, started at the very same time that the 500 or so foreign companies from the UK, the US and the EU joined hands with the ZCTU to organise "stayaways".
In fact the very first such "stay away" was organised by such companies against the 50 000 Zimbabwe Dollars paid to war veterans; but that stay away was disguised as a protest against high taxes.
The denials of the reality of sanctions made on television by Learnmore Jongwe (18 July 2001); Nelson Chamisa (21 May 2008); Douglas Mwonzora (1 June 2008); Obert Gutu (8 June 2008; and Tongai Mathuthu (15 June 2008) are identical to those issued by the EU Presidency in the second week of February 2002; or by the UK Embassy in Harare on numerous occasions through its magazine Britain and Zimbabwe; or by former US Ambassador to Zimbabwe Christopher Dell on 2 November 2005 at Africa University.
In other words, the African puppets of imperialism in MDC are such stooges that for the last nine years they have not dared to change even a single word of the imperialist rationalisation for the illegal and racist sanctions imposed on the people of Zimbabwe.
They routinely deny the people’s daily experience of sanctions in exactly the same language used by the imperialists themselves.
In the third place, the people of Zimbabwe are outraged by the fact that white racism and contempt for the African is shown most clearly when the white racists and imperialists think they are being most kind and most helpful to Africans.
A few instances can be used to illustrate this fact. George Bush, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown have frequently announced to the whole world how little the money is which they have spent to purchase the whole Movement for Democratic Change and to insure its cooperation; not only in efforts to destroy Zimbabwe, but also in redirecting the country’s economic policies for benefit of the US, the UK and the EU if the MDC were to win elections and take over this country.
The latest announced amounts of pieces of silver paid were £3,3 million from the UK, 18 million Australian Dollars from Australia, and US$7 million from the US government.
Moreover, the ways in which the leaders of Australia, New Zealand, Britain, the US and the EU follow the daily fortunes and misfortunes of MDC-T are no different from the ways the owners of a purchased donkey would follow that donkey throughout the stables and the race course.
All the so-called election results announced by MDC-T in violation of the laws of Zimbabwe were first broadcast on CNN, BBC, Euro-News and other imperialist channels long before the MDC-T’s own followers knew about them. In fact the leadership of MDC-T have taken decisions on the basis of instructions from Washington and London without consulting their members and even against the interests of those members.
Since the MDC was formed, it has organised media stunts or media events to help the EU renew sanctions against Zimbabwe every February.
Other media stunts have been organised to coincide with UN Security Council meetings; G8 meetings; Commonwealth meetings; Sadc meetings; and so on.
The media antics performed in May and June 2008 were meant to help the US bring Zimbabwe before the UN Security Council at a time when the US controls that body’s presidency.
In the fourth place, the people of Zimbabwe are outraged and sickened by the white racist assumption in Britain, the US and the EU, that whatever these countries do or associate with will be seen in good light around the world.
This is why these countries are not ashamed to treat MDC-T like a purchased race-horse which must be watched and fed every minute without any shame.
This racist stupidity is shown not only in assumptions that white support will win the MDC votes in Zimbabwe but also in a uniform frame of reporting which assumes that Zimbabweans are totally ignorant of world affairs except the God-given goodness of the white man.
Therefore any association between MDC and the Western powers is presumed to enhance the appeal of the former. Therefore no media report on CNN, BBC, Al Jazeera English, SABC Africa and Euro News is going to question a single move or policy made by the MDC, the Trojan-Horse of the good white saviour of humanity.
Unfortunately, the people of Zimbabwe know about the Berlin Conference and the Rudd Concession; they know about the collusion involving Washington, Brussels and London in the diabolic overthrow and murder of Patrice Lumumba; they know about Mohammad Mossadegh, Patrice Lumumba, Kwame Nkrumah, Salvador Allende, Jaimé Roldos, Omar Torrijos, Samora Moises Machel, Steve Biko, Malcolm X, and Martin Luther King; just as much as they know about Soweto (1976); Chimoio (1977); Nyadzonia (1976); and Kasinga (1978).
Just as the selective white conscience of imperialism has white-washed these mass murders and discounted them from the list of crimes against humanity — so have the ambassadors representing white racist powers in Harare also discounted all the atrocities committed by the MDC-T in the run-up to the June 2008 run-off election.
But the people know that MDC-T has committed atrocities and attempted a scorched-earth campaign on behalf of white settlers and against resettled African farmers. The people know that the police have arrested both Zanu-PF and MDC-T members suspected of having perpetrated political violence.
In other words, the crises which are not being reported on BBC, CNN, Sky News, Euro News, Al Jazeera and even SABC are the crisis in Euro-American policy toward Zimbabwe and the crisis within MDC-T.
Interestingly, a former US Ambassador saw the crisis in US policy as far back as 1979 and called it a "tragedy."
The Christian Science Monitor on 22 January 1979 published a story called "Rhodesian looks to US as ally". Ten days before that, on 12 January, the New York Times published an article called "Rhodesia’s whites look to US for aid." And there were hundreds of similar articles in the US Press at the time.
In January 1979, people truly interested in democracy and human rights would have been pre-occupied with the destiny of the African majority who were about to emerge as liberated nation of Zimbabwe after 100 years of brutal colonial rule. But, no, the European and US ruling classes and their Press were concerned about the destiny of the oppressor minority, the whites.
The 1979 articles on Zimbabwe were no different from the 1960 articles on Congo. One by Francis B. Stevens on 22 August 1960 in the magazine US News and World Report was called "The White Man’s Future in Africa," in reference to the impending independence of what is now the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Although it was Belgium and the US who were threatening the Africans’ future by plotting to assassinate Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba, the Press presented the conspiring killers as the ones who were threatened by the African leaders they planned to assassinate.
Among the 1979 articles on Zimbabwe there was one which stood out because it was written by a former US Ambassador to West Africa who was also a Professor teaching at one of America’s elite universities, Columbia University.
Elliot P Skinner was a good white liberal, so he wrote apologetically about the axis of white racism which we see now closing in on Zimbabwe.
The neoliberal racists now attacking Zimbabwe on behalf of a racist minority do not apologise for their racism.
This is what Skinner wrote in January 1979, a few weeks away from Zimbabwe’s independence.
"Our tragedy is that, whether we like it or not, the United States has inherited (from the British Empire) the role of metropole (that is the new mother country) of all whites in Southern Africa.
"This is not a role we welcomed, but it is one we cannot avoid . . . We are the ones who have led the discussions about the future of these countries (of Zimbabwe, Namibia and South Africa.)"
Even this liberal white professor and former ambassador was racist enough to believe that the US really has no choice but to always gang up against African interests and in defence of white settler interests.
This is what has outraged Zimbabweans against US, British and EU policies.
http://www.herald.co.zw/``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xMDC-T: An unmistakable stooge``x1214378508,73344,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Stephen Gowans
June 25, 2008
gowans.wordpress.com
This is a war between revolutionaries and counter-revolutionaries; between nationalists and quislings; between Zimbabwean patriots and the US and Britain.
Should an election be carried out when a country is under sanctions and it has been made clear to the electorate that the sanctions will be lifted only if the opposition party is elected? Should a political party which is the creation of, and is funded by, hostile foreign forces, and whose program is to unlatch the door from within to provide free entry to foreign powers to establish a neo-colonial rule, be allowed to freely operate? Should the leaders of an opposition movement that takes money from hostile foreign powers and who have made plain their intention to unseat the government by any means available, be charged with treason? These are the questions that now face (have long faced) the embattled government of Zimbabwe, and which it has answered in its own way, and which other governments, at other times, have answered in theirs.
The American revolutionaries, Thomas Jefferson among them, answered similar questions through harsh repression of the monarchists who threatened to reverse the gains of the American Revolution. There were 600,000 to 700,000 Tories, loyal to the king and hostile to the revolutionaries, who stood as a threat to the revolution. To neutralize the threat, the new government denied the Tories any platform from which to organize a counter-revolution. They were forbidden to own a press, to teach, to mount a pulpit. The professions were closed to them. They were denied the right to vote and hold political office. The property of wealthy Tories was confiscated. Many loyalists were beaten, others jailed without trial. Some were summarily executed. And 100,000 were driven into exile. Hundreds of thousands of people were denied advocacy rights, rights to property, and suffrage rights, in order to enlarge the liberties of a larger number of people who had been oppressed. [1]
Zimbabwe, too, is a revolutionary society. Through armed struggle, Zimbabweans, like Americans before them, had thrown off the yoke of British colonialism. Rhodesian apartheid was smashed. Patterns of land ownership were democratized. Over 300,000 previously landless families were given land once owned by a mere 4,000 farmers, mainly of British stock, mostly descendents of settlers who had taken the land by force. In other African countries, land reform has been promised, but little has been achieved. In Namibia, the government began expropriating a handful of white owned farms in 2004 under pressure from landless peasants, but progress has been glacially slow. In South Africa, blacks own just four percent of the farmland. The ANC government promised that almost one-third of arable land would be redistributed by 2000, but the target has been pushed back to 2015, and no one believes it will be reached. The problem is, African countries, impoverished by colonialism, and held down by neo-colonialism, haven't the money to buy the land needed for redistribution. And the European countries that once colonized Africa, are unwilling to help out, except on terms that will see democratization of land ownership pushed off into a misty future, and only on terms that will guarantee the continued domination of Africa by the West. Britain promised to fund Zimbabwe's land redistribution program, if liberation fighters laid down their arms and accepted a political settlement. Britain, under Tony Blair, reneged, finding excuses to wriggle out of commitments made by the Thatcher government. And so Zimbabwe's government acted to reverse the legacy of colonialism, expropriating land without compensation (but for improvements made by the former owner.) Compensation, Zimbabwe's government declared with unassailable justification, would have to be paid by Britain.
In recent years, the government has taken steps to democratize the country further. Legislation has been formulated to mandate that majority ownership of the country's mines and enterprises be placed in the hands of the indigenous black majority. The goal is to have Zimbabweans achieve real independence, not simply the independence of having their own flag, but of owning their land and resources. As a Canadian prime minister once said of his own country, once you lose control of the economic levers, you lose sovereignty. Zimbabwe isn't trying to hang onto control of its economic levers, but to gain control of them for the first time. Jabulani Sibanda, the leader of the association of former guerrillas who fought for the country's liberation, explains:
"Our country was taken away in 1890. We fought a protracted struggle to recover it and the process is still on. We gained political independence in 1980, got our land after 2000, but we have not yet reclaimed our minerals and natural resources. The fight for freedom is still on until everything is recovered for the people." [2]
The revolutionary government's program has met with fierce opposition - from the tiny elite of land owners who had monopolized the country's best land; from former colonial oppressor Britain, whose capitalists largely controlled the economy; from the United States, whose demand that it be granted an open door everywhere has been defied by Zimbabwe's tariff restrictions, investment performance requirements, government ownership of business enterprises and economic indigenization policies; and from countries that don't want Zimbabwe's land democratization serving as an inspiration to oppressed indigenous peoples under their control. The tiny former land-owning elite wants its former privileges restored; British capital wants its investments in Zimbabwe protected; US capital wants Zimbabwe's doors flung open to investment and exports; and Germany seeks to torpedo Zimbabwe's land reforms to guard against inspiring "other states in Southern Africa, including Namibia, where the heirs of German colonialists would be affected." [3]
The Mugabe government's rejecting the IMF's program of neo-liberal restructuring in the late 1990s, after complying initially and discovering the economy was being ruined; its dispatch of troops to the Democratic Republic of Congo to help the young government of Laurent Kabila defend itself against a US and British-backed invasion by Uganda and Rwanda; and its refusal to safeguard property rights in its pursuit of land democratization and economic independence, have made it anathema to the former Rhodesian agrarian elite, and in the West, to the corporate lawyers, investment bankers and hereditary capitalist families who dominate the foreign policies of the US, Britain and their allies. Mugabe's status as persona non grata in the West (and anti-imperialist hero in Africa) can be understood in an anecdote. When Mugabe became prime minister in 1980, former leader of the Rhodesian state, Ian Smith, offered to help the tyro leader. "Mugabe was delighted to accept his help and the two men worked happily together for some time, until one day Mugabe announced plans for sweeping nationalization." From that point forward, Smith never talked to Mugabe. [4]
Overthrowing the Revolution
The British, the US and the former Rhodesians have used two instruments to try to overthrow Zimbabwe's revolution: The opposition party Movement for Democratic Change, and civil society. The MDC was founded in September 1999 in response to Harare announcing it would expropriate Rhodesian farms for redistribution to landless black families. The party was initially bankrolled by the British government's Westminster Foundation for Democracy and other European governments, including Germany, through the Social Democratic Party's Friedrich Ebert Foundation (Ebert having been the party leader who conspired with German police officials to have Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht murdered, to smother an emerging socialist revolution in Germany in 1918.) Party leader Morgan Tsvangirai, who had been elevated from his position as secretary-general of the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions to champion the West's counter-revolutionary agenda within Zimbabwe, acknowledged in February 2002 that the MDC was financed by European governments and corporations, which funneled money through British political consultants, BSMG. [5] Today, the government of Zimbabwe charges NGOs with acting as conduits through which Western governments pass money to the opposition party.
The MDC's orientation is decidedly toward people and forces of European origin. British journalist Peta Thornycroft, hardly a Mugabe supporter, lamented in an interview on Western government-sponsored short wave radio SW Africa that:
'When the MDC started in 2000, what a pity that they were addressing people in Sandton, mostly white people in Sandton north of Johannesburg instead of being in Dar es Salaam or Ghana or Abuja. They failed to make contact with Africa for so long. They were in London, we've just seen it again, Morgan Tsvangirai's just been in America. Why isn't he in Cairo? Maybe he needs financial support and he can't get it outside of America or the UK and the same would go for (leader of an alternative MDC faction, Arthur) Mutambara. They have not done enough in Africa. [6]
A look at the MDC's program quickly reveals why the party's leaders spend most of their time traipsing to Western capitals calling for sanctions and gathering advice on how to overthrow the Mugabe government. First, the MDC is opposed to Zimbabwe's land democratization program. Defeating the government's plans to expropriate the land of the former Rhodesian elite was one of the main impetuses for the party's formation. Right through to the 2002 election campaign the party insisted on returning farms to the expropriated Rhodesian settlers. [7]
The MDC and Land Reform
These days Tsvangirai equivocates on land reform, recognizing that speaking too openly about reversing the land democratization program, or taxing black Zimbabweans to compensate expropriated Rhodesian settlers for land the Rhodesians and other British settlers took by force, is detrimental to his party's success. But there's no mistaking that the land redistribution program's life would be cut short by a MDC victory. "The government of Zimbabwe," wrote Tsvangirai, in a March 23, 2008 Wall Street Journal editorial, "must be committed to protecting persons and property rights." This means "compensation for those who lost their possessions in an unjust way," i.e., compensation for the expropriated Rhodesians. Zimbabwe's program of expropriating land without compensation, he concluded, is just not on: it "scares away investors, domestic and international." [8] This is the same reasoning the main backer of Tsvangirai's party, the British government, used to justify backing out of its commitment to fund land redistribution. The British government was reneging on its earlier promise, said then secretary of state for international development Claire Short in a letter to Zimbabwe's minister of agriculture and lands, Kumbirai Kangai, because of the damage Zimbabwe's fast-track land reform proposals would do to investor confidence. Lurking none too deftly behind Tsvangirai's and London's solicitude over impaired investor confidence are the interests of foreign investors themselves. The Mugabe government's program is to wrest control of the country's land, resources and economy from the hands of foreign investors and Rhodesian settlers; the program of the MDC and its backers is to put it back. That's no surprise, considering the MDC was founded by Europe, backed by the Rhodesians, and bankrolled by capitalist governments and enterprises that have an interest in protecting their existing investments in the country and opening up opportunities for new ones.
Civil Society
There is a countless number of Western NGOs that either operate in Zimbabwe or operate outside the country with a focus on Zimbabwe. While the Western media invariably refer to them as independent, they are anything but. Almost all are funded by Western governments, wealthy individuals, and corporations. Some NGOs say that while they take money from Western sources, they're not influenced by them. This is probably true, to a point. Funders don't dangle funding as a bribe, so much as select organizations that can be counted on to behave in useful ways of their own volition. Of course, it may be true that some organizations recognize that handsome grants are available for organizations with certain orientations, and adapt accordingly. But for the most part, civil society groups that advance the overseas agendas of Western governments and corporations, whether they know it or not, and not necessarily in a direct fashion, find that funding finds them.
Western governments fund dozens of NGOs to discredit the government in Harare, alienate it of popular support, and mobilize mass resistance under the guise of promoting democracy and human rights. Their real purpose is to bring down the government and its nationalist policies. The idea that Britain, which, as colonial oppressor, denied blacks suffrage and dispossessed them of their land, is promoting rights and democracy in Zimbabwe is laughable. The same can be said of Canada. The Canadian government doles out grants to NGOs through an organization called Rights and Democracy. Rights and Democracy is currently funding the anti-Zanu-PF Media Institute of Southern Africa, along with the US government and a CIA-linked right wing US think tank. While sanctimoniously parading about on the world stage as a champion of rights and democracy, Canada denied its own aboriginal people suffrage up to 1960. For a century, it enforced an assimilation policy that tore 150,000 aboriginal children from their homes and placed them in residential schools where their language and culture were banned. Canadian citizens like to think their own country is a model of moral rectitude, but are blind to the country's deplorable record in the treatment of its own aboriginal people; it's denial of the liberty and property rights of Canadian citizens of Japanese heritage during WWII; and in recent years, its complicity in overthrowing the Haitian government of Jean-Bertrand Aristide and participation in the occupation of Afghanistan. As for the United States, its violations of the rights of people throughout the world have become so frequent and far-reaching that only the deaf, dumb or insane would believe the US government has the slightest interest in promoting democracy and human rights anywhere.
Consider, then, the record of the West's self-proclaimed promoters of democracy and human rights against this: the reason there's universal suffrage in Zimbabwe and equality rights for blacks, is because the same forces (that are being routinely decried by Western governments and their NGO extensions) fought for, bled for, and died for the principle of universal suffrage. "We taught them the principle of one man, one vote which did not exist" under the British, Zimbabwe's president points out. "Democracy," he adds, "also means self-rule, not rule by outsiders." [9]
Regime Change Agenda
The charge that the West is supporting civil society groups in Zimbabwe to bring down the government isn't paranoid speculation or the demagogic raving of a government trying to cling to power by mobilizing anti-imperialist sentiment. It's a matter of public record. The US government has admitted that "it wants to see President Robert Mugabe removed from power and that it is working with the Zimbabwean opposition...trade unions, pro-democracy groups and human rights organizations...to bring about a change of administration." [10] Additionally, in an April 5, 2007 report, the US Department of State revealed that it had:
-- "Sponsored public events that presented economic and social analyses discrediting the government's excuse for its failed policies" (i.e, absolving US and EU sanctions for undermining the country's economy);
-- "Sponsored...and supported...several township newspapers" and worked to expand the listener base of Voice of America's Studio 7 radio station. (The State Department had been distributing short-wave radios to Zimbabweans to facilitate the project of Zimbabwean public opinion being shaped from abroad by Washington's propagandists).
Last year, the US State Department set aside US$30 million for these activities. [11] Earlier this year, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown announced that the UK had increased its funding for civil society organizations operating in Zimbabwe from US$5 million to US$6.5 million. [12] Dozens of other governments, corporations and capitalist foundations shower civil society groups with money, training and support to set up and run "independent" media to attack the government, "independent" election monitoring groups to discredit the outcome of elections Zanu-PF wins, and underground groups which seek to make the country ungovernable through civil disobedience campaigns. One such group is Zvakwana, "an underground movement that aims to resist - and eventually undermine" the Zanu-PF government. "With a second, closely related group called Sokwanele, Zvakwana's members specialize in anonymous acts of civil disobedience." [13] Both groups, along with Zubr in Belarus and Ukraine's Pora, whose names, in English, mean 'enough', "take their inspiration from Otpor, the movement that played a major role in ousting Slobodan Milosevic in Serbia." [14] One Sokwanele member is "a white conservative businessman expressing a passion for freedom, tradition, polite manners and the British royals," [15] hardly a black-clad anarchist motivated by a philosophical opposition to "authoritarian rule," but revealing of what lies beneath the thin veneer of radicalism that characterizes so many civil society opposition groups in Zimbabwe. In the aforementioned April 5, 2007 US State Department report, Washington revealed that it had "supported workshops to develop youth leadership skills necessary to confront social injustice through non-violent strategies," the kinds of skills members of Zvakwana and Sokwanele are equipped with to destabilize Zimbabwe.
In addition to funding received from the US and Britain, Zimbabwe's civil society groups also receive money from the German, Australian and Canadian governments, the Ford Foundation, Freedom House, the Albert Einstein Institution, the International Center for Nonviolent Conflict, Liberal International, the Mott Foundation, the Rockefeller Brothers, South African Breweries, and billionaire financier George Soros' Open Society Institute. All of these funding sources, including the governments, are dominated by Western capitalist ruling classes. It would be truly naïve to believe, for example, that the International Center for Nonviolent Conflict and Freedom House, both headed by Peter Ackerman, member of the US ruling class Council on Foreign Relations, a New York investment banker and former right hand man to Michael Milken of junk bond fame, is lavishing money and training on civil society groups in Zimbabwe out of humanitarian concern. According to Noam Chomksy and Edward Herman, Freedom House has ties to the CIA, "and has long served as a virtual propaganda arm of the (US) government and international right wing." [16]
Political lucre doesn't come from Western sources alone. The Mo Ibrahim Foundation awards a prize yearly for "achievement in African leadership" to a sub-Saharan African leader who has left office in the previous three years. The prize is worth $500,000 per year for the first 10 years and $200,000 per year thereafter - in other words, cash for life. Ibrahim, a Sudanese billionaire who founded Celtel International, a cellphone service that operates in 15 African countries, established the award to "encourage African leaders to govern well," something, apparently, Ibrahim believes African leaders don't do now and need to be encouraged to do. What Ibrahim means by govern well is clear in who was selected as the first (and so far only) winner: Mozambique's former president Joaquim Chissano. He received the prize for overseeing Mozambique's "transition from Marxism to a free market economy." [17] While there may seem to be nothing particularly amiss in this, imagine billionaire speculator George Soros establishing a foundation to bribe US and British politicians with cash for life to "govern well." It wouldn't elude many of us that Soros' definition of "govern well" would almost certainly align to a tee with his own interests, and that any politician eager to live a comfortable life after politics would be keen to keep Soros' interests in mind. Under these conditions there would be no question of democracy prevailing; we would be living in a plutocracy, in which those with great wealth could dangle the carrot of a cash award for life to get their way. As it happens, this kind of thing is happening now in Western democracies (that is, plutocracies.) Handsomely paid positions as corporate lobbyists, corporate executives and members of corporate boards await Western politicians who play their cards right. There are Mo Ibrahims all over, who go by the names Ford, GM, Exxon, General Electric, Lockheed-Martin, Microsoft, IBM and so on.
Threat to US Foreign policy
Why does the government of the US consider Zimbabwe to pose "an unusual and extraordinary threat to the foreign policy of the United States"? The answer says as much about the foreign policy of the United States as it does about Zimbabwe. The goal of US foreign policy is to provide profit-making opportunities to US investors and corporations. This is accomplished by pressuring, cajoling, bribing, blackmailing, threatening, subverting, destabilizing and where possible, using violence, to get foreign countries to lower or remove tariff barriers, lift restrictions on foreign investment, deny preferential treatment to domestic investors, allow repatriation of profits, and provide the US military access to the country. The right of the US military to operate on foreign soil is necessary to provide Washington with local muscle to protect US investments, ensure unimpeded access to strategic raw materials (oil, importantly), and to keep doors open to continued US economic penetration. It is also necessary to have forward operating bases from which to threaten countries whose governments aren't open to US exports and investments.
The Zanu-PF government's policies have run afoul of US foreign policy goals in a number of ways. In 1998, "Zimbabwe - along with Angola and Namibia - was mandated by the (Southern African Development Community, a regional grouping of countries) to intervene in Congo to save a fellow SADC member country from an invasion by Uganda and Rwanda," which were acting as proxies of the United States and Britain. [18] Both countries wanted to bring down the young government of Laurent Kabila, fearing Kabila was turning into another Patrice Lumumba, the nationalist Congolese leader whose assassination the CIA had arranged in the 1960s. Zimbabwe's intervention, as part of the SADC contingent, foiled the Anglo-American's plans, and earned Mugabe the enmity of ruling circles in the West.
The Zanu-PF government's record with the IMF also threatened US foreign policy goals. From 1991 to 1995, Mugabe's government implemented a program of structural adjustment prescribed by the IMF as a condition of receiving balance of payment support and the restructuring of its international loans. The program required the government to cut its spending deeply, fire tens of thousands of civil servants, and slash social programs. Zimbabwe's efforts to nurture infant industries were to be abandoned. Instead, the country's doors were to be opened to foreign investment. Harare would radically reduce taxes and forbear from any measure designed to give domestic investors a leg up on foreign competitors. The US, Germany, Japan and South Korea had become capitalist powerhouses by adopting the protectionist and import substitution policies the IMF was forbidding. The effect of the IMF program was devastating. Manufacturing employment tumbled nine percent between 1991 and 1996, while wages dropped 26 percent. Public sector employment plunged 23 percent and public sector wages plummeted 40 percent. [19] In contrast to the frequent news stories today on Zimbabwe's fragile economy, attributed disingenuously to "Mugabe's disastrous land policies", the Western press barely noticed the devastation the IMF's disastrous economic policies brought to Zimbabwe in the 1990s. By 1996, the Mugabe government was starting to back away from the IMF prescriptions. By 1998, it was in open revolt, imposing new tariffs to protect infant industries and providing incentives to black Zimbabwean investors as part of an affirmative action program to encourage African ownership of the economy. These policies were diametrically opposed, not only to the IMF's program of structural adjustment, but to the goals of US foreign policy. By 1999, the break was complete. The IMF refused to extend loans to Zimbabwe. By February, 2001, Zimbabwe was in arrears to the Bretton Woods institution. Ten months later, the US introduced the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery, a dagger through the heart of Zimbabwe's economy. "Zimbabwe," says Mugabe, "is not a friend of the IMF and is unlikely to be its friend in the future." [20]
Zanu-PF's willingness to ignore the hallowed status of private property by expropriating the land of the former Rhodesians to democratize the country's pattern of land ownership also ran afoul of US foreign policy goals. Because US foreign policy seeks to protect US ownership abroad, any program that promotes expropriation as a means of advancing democratic goals must be considered hostile. Kenyan author Mukoma Wa Nguyi invites us to think of Zimbabwe "as Africa's Cuba. Like Cuba, Zimbabwe is not a... military threat to the US and Britain. Like Cuba, in Latin America, Zimbabwe's crime is leading by example to show that land can be redistributed - an independence with content. If Zimbabwe succeeds, it becomes an example to African people that indeed freedom and independence can have the content of national liberation. Like Cuba, Zimbabwe is to be isolated, and if possible, a new government that is friendly to the agenda of the West is to be installed." [21]
The Comprador Party
If Zanu-PF is willing to offend Western corporate and Rhodesian settler interests to advance the welfare of the majority of Zimbabweans, the MDC is its perfect foil. Rather than offending Western interests, the MDC seeks to accommodate them, treating the interests of foreign investors and imperialist governments as synonymous with those of the Zimbabwean majority. A MDC government would never tolerate the pursuit in Zimbabwe of the protectionist and nationalist economic programs the US used to build its own industry. The MDC's goals, in the words of its leader, are to "encourage foreign investment" and "bring (Zimbabwe's) abundant farmland back into health." [22] "It is up to each of us," Tsvangirai told a gathering of newly elected MDC parliamentarians, "to say Zimbabwe is open for business." [23]
Encouraging foreign investment means going along with Western demands for neo-liberal restructuring. "The key to turning around Zimbabwe's economy...is the political will needed to implement the market reforms, the IMF and others, including the United States, have been recommending for the past few years," lectured the former US ambassador to Zimbabwe, Christopher Dell. This means "a free-market economy and security of property to investment and economic growth." [24]
Britain's Prime Minister Gordon Brown has developed an economic program for Zimbabwe to be rolled out if Western regime change efforts succeed. Brown says his recovery package will include measures to:
(1) help Zimbabwe restart and stabilize its economy;
(2) restructure and reduce its debt;
(3) support fair land reform. [25]
What Brown is really saying is that:
(1) Sanctions will be lifted, and the resultant economic recovery will be attributed to the MDC's neo-liberal policies.
(2) Zimbabwe will resume the structural adjustment program Mugabe's government rejected in the late 90s.
(3) Either land reform will be reversed or black Zimbabweans will be forced to compensate white farmers whose land was expropriated.
The reality that Brown has developed an economic program for Zimbabwe speaks volumes about who will be in charge if the MDC comes to power – not Zimbabweans, not the MDC, and not Tsvangirai, but London and Washington.
Not surprisingly, MDC economic policy is perfectly simpatico with the prescriptions of its masters. Eddie Cross, formerly vice-chairman of the Confederation of Zimbabwe Industries, who became a MDC spokesman, explained the party's economic plans for Zimbabwe, in advance of 2000 elections.
"We are going to fast track privatization. All 50 government parastatals will be privatized within a two-year time-frame, but we are going to go beyond that. We are going to privatize many of the functions of government. We are going to privatize the central statistical office. We are going to privatize virtually the entire school delivery system. And you know, we have looked at the numbers and we think we can get government employment down from about 300,000 at the present time to about 75,000 in five years." [26]
Of course, the intended beneficiaries of such a program aren't Zimbabweans, but foreign investors.
The MDC's role as agent of Western influence in Zimbabwe doesn't stop at promoting economic policies that cater to foreign investors. The MDC has also been active in turning the screws on Zimbabwe to undermine the economy and create disaffection and misery in order to alienate Zanu-PF of its popular support. Arguing that foreign firms are propping up the government, the MDC has actively discouraged investment. For example, Tsvangirai tried to discourage a deal between Chinese investors and the South African company Implats, that would see a US$100 million platinum refinery set up in Zimbabwe, warning that a MDC government might not honor the deal. [27] The MDC leader, true to form, was following in the footsteps of his political masters in Washington. The United States has pressed China and other countries to refrain from investing in Zimbabwe "at a time when the international community (is) trying to isolate the African state." [28] Washington complains that "China's growing political and commercial influence in resource-rich African nations" [29] is sabotaging its efforts to ruin Zimbabwe's economy. More damning is the MDC's participation in the drafting of the principal piece of US legislation aimed at torpedoing the Zimbabwean economy: The Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act. Passed in 2001, the act instructs "the United States executive director to each international financial institution to oppose and vote against-
(1) any extension by the respective institution of any loan, credit, or guarantee to the Government of Zimbabwe; or
(2) any cancellation or reduction of indebtedness owed by the Government of Zimbabwe to the United States or any international financial institution." [30]
The effect of the act is to cut off all development assistance to Zimbabwe, disable lines of credit, and prevent the World Bank and International Monetary Fund from providing development assistance and balance of payment support. [31] Any African country subjected to this punishment would very soon find itself in straitened circumstances. When the legislation was ratified, US president George W. Bush said, "I hope the provisions of this important legislation will support the people of Zimbabwe in their struggle to effect peaceful democratic change, achieve economic growth, and restore the rule of law." [32] Since effecting peaceful democratic change means, in Washington's parlance, ousting the Zanu-PF government, and since restoring the rule of law equates, in Washingtonian terms, to forbidding the expropriation of white farm land without compensation, what Bush was really saying was that he hoped the legislation would help overthrow the government and put an end to fast-track land reform. The legislation "was co-drafted by one of the opposition MDC's white parliamentarians in Zimbabwe, which was then introduced as a Bill in the US Congress on 8 March 2001 by the Republican senator, William Frist. The Bill was co-sponsored by the Republican rightwing senator, Jesse Helms, and the Democratic senators Hillary Clinton, Joseph Biden and Russell Feingold." Helms, a notorious racist, had a penchant for legislation aimed at undermining countries seeking to achieve substantive democracy. "He co-authored the Helms-Burton Act of 1996, which tightened the blockade on Cuba." [33]
The Distorting Lens of the Western Media
Western reporting on Zimbabwe occurs within a framework of implicit assumptions. The assumptions act as a lens through which facts are organized, understood and distorted. Columnist and associate editor for the British newspaper The Guardian, Seamus Milne, points out that British journalists see Zimbabwe through a lens that casts the president as a barbarous despot. "The British media," he writes, "have long since largely abandoned any attempt at impartiality in its reporting of Zimbabwe, the common assumption being that Mugabe is a murderous dictator at the head of a uniquely wicked regime." [34] If you began with these assumptions, ordinary events are interpreted within the framework the assumptions define. An egregious example is offered in how a perfectly legitimate exercise was construed and presented by Western reporters as a diabolical exercise. Zanu-PF held campaign workshops to explain what the government had achieved since independence and what it was doing to address the country's economic crisis. The intention, according to Zimbabwe's Information and Publicity Minister Sikhanyiso Ndlovu, was to "educate the people on the illegal sanctions as some of them were duped to vote for the MDC in the March elections." [35] But that's not how the British newspaper, The Independent, saw it. "The Zimbabwean army and police," its reporter wrote, "have been accused of setting up torture camps and organizing 're-education meetings' involving unspeakable cruelty where voters are beaten and mutilated in the hope of achieving victory for President Robert Mugabe in the second round of the presidential election." [36] Begin with the assumption that Mugabe is a murderous dictator at the head of a uniquely wicked regime and campaign workshops become re-education meetings and torture camps. Note that The Independent's reporter relied on an accusation, not on corroborated facts, and that the identity of the accuser was never revealed. The story has absolutely no evidentiary value, but considerable propaganda value. The chances of many people reading the story with a skeptical eye and picking out its weaknesses are slim. What's more likely to happen is that readers will regard the accusation as plausible because it fits with the preconceived model of Mugabe as a murderous dictator and his government as uniquely wicked. How do we know the accuser wasn't a fellow journalist repeating gossip overheard on the street, or at MDC headquarters? How do we know the accusation wasn't made by the US ambassador to Zimbabwe, James McGee, or any one of scores of representatives of Western-funded NGOs, whose role is to discredit the Zimbabwe government? McGee is a veritable treasure trove of half-truths, innuendo, and misinformation. And yet the Western media, particularly those based in the US, have a habit of treating McGee as an impeccable source, seemingly blind to the reality that the US government is hostile to Zimbabwe's land democratization and economic indigenization programs, that it has an interest in spinning news to discredit Harare, and that its officials have an extensive track record in lying to justify the plunder of other people's countries. To paraphrase Caesar Zvayi, if George Bush can lie hundreds of times about Iraq, what's to stop him (or McGee or the NGOs on the US payroll) from lying about Zimbabwe? That the Western media pass on accusations made by interested parties without so much as revealing the interest can either be regarded as shocking naiveté or a sign of the propaganda role Western media play on behalf of the corporate class that owns them. If the US and British governments and Western media are against the democratization and economic indigenization programs of Zanu-PF, it's because they're dominated by a capitalist ruling class whose interests are against those of the Zimbabwean majority.
It is typical of Western reporting to attribute the actions of the Zanu-PF government to the personal characteristics of its leader: his alleged hunger for power for power's-sake; demagogy; incompetence in matters related to economic management; and brutality. The government's actions, by contrast, are never attributed to the circumstances, the conditions in which the government is forced to maneuver, or to the demands of survival in the face of the West's predatory pressures. This isn't unique to Zimbabwe; every leader the West wants to overthrow is vilified as a "strongman," "dictator," "thug," "war criminal," "murderer," or "warlord" and sometimes all of these things. All of the leader's actions are to be understood as originating in the leader's deeply flawed character. If Iran is building a uranium enrichment capability, it's not because it seeks an independent source of fuel for a budding civilian nuclear energy program, but because the country's president is to be understood as a raving anti-Semite who seeks to acquire nuclear weapons to carry out Hitler's final solution by wiping Israel off the face of the map. The same reduction of international affairs to a moral struggle between the West and what always turns out to be a nationalist, socialist or communist country headed by a leader whose actions are invariably traced by Western reporters to the leader's evil psychology applies equally to Zimbabwe. If the Mugabe government has banned political rallies, it is not because the rallies have been used by the opposition as an occasion to firebomb police stations, but because the president has an unquenchable thirst for power and will brook no opposition. If opposition activists have been arrested, it's not because they've committed crimes, but because the leader is repressive and dictatorial. If Morgan Tsvangirai is beaten by police, it's not because he tried to break through police lines, but because the leader is a brutal dictator and ordered Tsvangirai's beating because that's what brutal dictators do. If an opposition leader is arrested and charged with treason, it's not because there is evidence of treason, but because the president is gagging the opposition to cling to power because it is in the nature of dictators to do so. If the economy falls into crisis, it's not because the West has cut off the country's access to credit, but because of the leader's incompetence. If agricultural production drops, it's not due to the drought, electricity shortages and rising fuel costs that have bedeviled other countries in the region, but because the leader is too stupid to recognize his land reform policies are disastrous.
A New York Times story published three days before the March 29 elections shows how Western governments and mass media cooperate with civil society agents on the ground to shape public opinion. The aim of the March 26, 2008 article, titled "Hope and Fear for Zimbabwe Vote," was to discredit the elections that Zanu-PF seemed at the time likely to win.
Harare had barred election monitors from the US and EU, but allowed observers from Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela, South Africa and the SADC to monitor the vote. The Western media pointed to the decision to bar Western observers as indirect evidence of vote rigging. After all, if Zimbabwe had nothing to hide, why wouldn't it admit observers from Europe and the US? At the same time, Western reporters suggested that Zimbabwe was only allowing observers from friendly countries because they could be counted on to bless the election results. By the same logic, one would have expected that a negative evaluation from observers representing unfriendly countries would be just as automatic and foreordained, especially considering the official policy of the US and EU is to replace the current government with one friendly to Western business interests. Indeed, it is this fear that had led Harare to ban Western monitors.
With Western observers unable to monitor the elections directly, governments in North America and Europe found themselves on the horns of a dilemma. How could they declare the vote fraudulent, if they hadn't observed it? To get around this difficulty, the US, Britain and other Western countries provided grants to Zimbabweans on the ground to monitor the vote. These Zimbabweans, part of civil society, declared themselves to be independent "non-governmental" observers, and prepared to render a foreordained verdict that the election was rigged. Cooperating in the deception, the Western media amplified their voices as "independent" experts on the ground. The US Congress's National Endowment for Democracy – an organization that does overtly what the CIA used to do covertly – provided grants to the Zimbabwe Election Support Network "to train and organize 240 long-term elections observers throughout Zimbabwe." The NED is also connected to the Media Monitoring Project through the Crisis in Zimbabwe Coalition, which it funds, and the Media Institute of Southern Africa, which is funded by Britain's NED equivalent, the Westminster Foundation for Democracy and Canada's Rights and Democracy. The Media Monitoring Project calls itself independent, but is connected to the US and British governments, and to billionaire speculator George Soros' Open Society Initiative for Southern Africa.
When the New York Times needed Zimbabweans to comment on the upcoming election, its reporters turned to representatives of these two NGOs. Noel Kututwa, the chairman of the Zimbabwe Election Support Network, told the newspaper that his group would be using "sampling techniques to assess the accuracy of the results announced nationally." Yet, Mr. Kututwa also told the newspaper that, "We will not have a free and fair election." If Kututwa had already decided the election would be unfair and coerced, why was he bothering to assess its accuracy? Andrew Moyse, a regular commentator on Studio 7, an anti-Mugabe radio station sponsored by the US government's propaganda arm, Voice of America, was quoted in the same article. "Even if Mugabe only gets one vote," Mr. Moyse opined, "the tabulated results are in the box and he has won."
Moyse, on top of acting as a US mouthpiece on Voice of America, heads up the Media Monitoring Project. While part of the NGO election observer team the US and EU were relying on to ostensibly assess the fairness of the vote, he had already decided the vote was rigged. Kutatwa and Moyse were the only experts the New York Times cited in its story on the upcoming elections. Yet both represented NGOs funded by hostile governments whose official policy is to replace Robert Mugabe and his government's land reform and economic indigenization policies. Both presented themselves as independent, though they could hardly be independent of their sources of foreign government and foundation funding. Both declared in advance of the election that the vote would be coerced and unfair and that the tabulated results were already in the box. Their foreordained conclusions - which turned out to be wildly inaccurate – happened to be the same conclusions their sponsors in the US and Britain were looking for, to obtain the consent of a confused public to intervene vigorously in Zimbabwe's affairs. This is emblematic of the symbiotic collaboration of media, Western governments, and NGOs on the ground. Western governments, corporations and wealthy individuals fund NGOs to discredit the Zanu-PF government, and the Western media present the same NGOs as independent actors, and provide them a platform to present their views. Meanwhile, the Western media marginalize the Zanu-PF government and its supporters on the ground, denying them a platform to present their side. To publics in the West, the only story heard is the story told by the MDC and its civil society allies, who reinforce, as a matter of strategy, the view that Mugabe is a murderous dictator at the head of a uniquely wicked regime. The MDC, civil society, the Western media, the British and US governments, and imperialist think tanks and foundations, are all interlocked. All of these sources, then, tell the same story.
Safeguarding the Revolution
After the revolutionary war, would the Americans who led and carried out the revolution have allowed loyalists to band together to seek public office in elections with a program of restoring the monarchy? We've already seen that the answer is no. When the Nazis were ousted in Germany, was the Nazi party allowed to reconstitute itself to seek the return of the Third Reich through electoral means? No. Countries that have gone through revolutionary change are careful, if the revolution is to survive, to deny those who have been overthrown an opportunity to recover their privileged positions. That often means denying former exploiters and their partisans opportunities to band together to contest elections, or constitutionally prescribing a desired form of government and prohibiting a return to the old. The US revolutionaries did both; they repressed the loyalists and declared a republic, which, as a corollary, forbade a return to monarchy. Even if every American voter decided that George Bush should become king, the US constitution forbids it, no matter what the majority wants. The gun (that is, the violence employed by the American revolutionaries to free themselves from the oppression of the British crown) is more powerful than the pen (Americans can't vote the monarchy back in.)
In Zimbabwe, the former colonial oppressor, Britain, has been working with its allies to restore its former privileges through civil society and the MDC. Britain doesn't seek a return to an overt colonialism, complete with a British viceroy and British troops garrisoned throughout the country, but to a neo-colonialism, in which the local government acts in the place of a viceroy, safeguarding and nurturing British investments and looking after Western interests under the rubric of managing the economy soundly. Britain, then, wants the MDC, for the MDC is British rule by proxy. Many Zimbabweans, however, are vehemently opposed to selling out their revolution to a party that was founded and is financed by a country to which they were once enslaved.
Western media propaganda presents Zimbabwe as a pyramidal society, in which an elite at the apex, comprising Mugabe, his ministers and the heads of the security services, brutally rule over the vast majority of Zimbabweans at the base who long for the MDC to deliver them from a dictatorship. A fairer description is that Zimbabwe is a society in which both sides command considerable popular support, but where Zanu-PF has an edge. This may sound incredible to anyone looking at Zimbabwe through the distorting lens of the Western media, but let Munyaradzi Gwisai, leader of the International Socialist Organization in Zimbabwe, a fierce opponent of the Mugabe government, set matters straight.
"There is no doubt about it - the regime is rooted among the population with a solid social base. Despite the catastrophic economic collapse, Zanu-PF still won more popular votes in parliament than the MDC in the March 29 parliamentary elections. Mugabe might have lost on the streets, but if you count the actual votes, his party won more than the MDC in elections to the House of Assembly and Senate. Zanu-PF won an absolute majority of votes in five of the country's 10 provinces, plus a simple majority in another province. By contrast, the MDC won two provinces with an absolute majority and two with a simple majority. But because we use first past the post, not proportional representation, Zanu-PF's votes were not translated into a majority in parliament. It was only Mugabe himself, in the presidential election, who did worse in terms of the popular vote." [37]
Those in the thrall of Western propaganda will dismiss strong support for Zanu-PF in the March 29 elections as a consequence of electoral fraud, not genuine popular backing. But it would be a very inept government that rigged the election and lost control of the assembly and had to face a run-off in the presidential race. No, Mugabe's support runs deep.
"According to a poll of 1,200 Zimbabweans published in August (2004) by South African and American researchers, the level of public trust in Mr. Mugabe's leadership" more than doubled from 1999, "to 46 percent - even as the economy" was severely weakened by Western sanctions. [38] Significantly, it was over this period that the government launched its fast track land reform program. Notwithstanding Western news reports that Mugabe's supporters are limited to his "cronies", Zimbabweans participated in a million man and woman march last December, where marchers "proclaimed that Washington, Downing Street and Wall Street (had) no right to remove Mugabe." [39]
Elsewhere in Africa, Zimbabwe's president is enormously popular. As recently as August 2004, Mugabe was voted at number three in the New Africa magazine's poll of 100 Greatest Africans, behind Nelson Mandela and Kwame Nkrumah. [40] The Los Angeles Times, no fan of the Zimbabwean president, acknowledges that "Mugabe is so popular on the continent...that he is feted and cheered wherever he goes." [41] That was evident last summer when, much to the chagrin of Western reporters, who had been assuring their readers that Mugabe was being called to a meeting of SADC to be dressed down, that "Mr. Mugabe arrived at the meeting to a fusillade of cheers and applause from attendees that...overwhelmed the polite welcomes of the other heads of states." [42] A European Union-African Union summit planned for 2003 was aborted after African leaders refused to show up in solidarity with a Mugabe who had been banned by the Europeans for promoting the interests of Zimbabweans, not Europeans. The summit went ahead in 2007, but only after African leaders threatened once again to boycott the meeting if Mugabe was barred. With China doing deals with African countries, the Europeans were reluctant to sacrifice trade and investment opportunities, and laid aside their misgivings about attending a meeting at which Mugabe would be present. That is, all except British Prime Minister Gordon Brown. He stayed home in protest. German leader Angela Merkel did attend, but thought it necessary to scold Mugabe to distance herself from him. Senegal's president Abdoulaye Wade sprang to Mugabe's defense, dismissing Merkel's vituperative comments as untrue and accusing the German leader of being misinformed. [43]
Opposition's Failed Attempts at Insurrection
Mugabe's popularity, and that of the movement for Zimbabwean empowerment he leads, explains Zanu-PF's strong showing in elections and why the opposition's numerous efforts at seizing power by general strike and insurrection have failed. Civil society organizations and MDC leaders have called for insurrectionary activity many times. In 2000, Morgan Tsvangirai called on Mugabe to step down peacefully or face violence. "If you don't want to go peacefully," the new opposition leader warned, "we will remove you violently." [44] Arthur Mutambara, a robotics professor and former consultant with McKinsey & Company and leader of an alternative wing of the MDC, declared in 2006 that he was "going to remove Robert Mugabe, I promise you, with every tool at my disposal." Asked to clarify what he meant, he replied, "We're not going to rule out or in anything - the sky's the limit." [45] Three days before the March 29 elections, Tendai Biti, secretary general of Tsvangirai's MDC faction, warned of Kenya-style post electoral violence if Mugabe won. [46] In the US, where United States Code, Section 2385, "prohibits anyone from advocating abetting, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States by force or violence," opposition leaders like Tsvangirai, Mutambara and Biti would be charged with treason (Biti has been.)
Leaders of civil society organizations which receive Western funding have been no less diffident about threatening to overthrow the government violently. Last summer, the then Archbishop of Bulawayo, Pius Ncube, said he thought it was "justified for Britain to raid Zimbabwe and remove Mugabe. We should do it ourselves but there's too much fear. I'm ready to lead the people, guns blazing, but the people are not ready." [47] Ncube complained bitterly that Zimbabweans were cowards, unwilling to take up arms against the government. This was a strange complaint to make against a people who waged a guerilla war for over a decade to achieve independence. Zimbabweans' unwillingness to follow Ncube, guns blazing, had nothing to do with cowardice, and everything to do with the absence of popular support for Ncube's position.
Recently, the International Socialist Organization, one of the founding members of the MDC along with the British government, argued in its newspaper that "the crisis was not going to be resolved through elections, but through mass action." ISO - Zimbabwe leader Munyaradzi Gwisai "said that the way forward for the Movement for Democratic Change and civil society was to create a united front and mobilize against the regime." [48] The ISO makes the curious argument that Zimbabweans should take to the streets to bring the MDC to power, recognizing the MDC to be a comprador party (one the ISO helped found). A comprador party, in the febrile reasoning of the ISO, is preferable to Zanu-PF. Gwisai's offices were visited by the police, touching off howls of outrage over Mugabe's "repressions" from the ISO's Trotskyite brethren around the world. Followers of Trotsky are forever siding with reactionaries against revolutionaries, the revolutionaries invariably failing to live up to a Trotskyite ideal. If they can't have their ideal, they'll settle for imperialism. While Gwisai wasn't arrested, Wellington Chibebe, general secretary of the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions, was. He too had urged Zimbabweans to take to the streets to bring down the government.
Some opponents of Mugabe's government go further. An organization called the Zimbabwe Resistance Movement promises to take up arms against the Zanu-PF government if "the poodles who run the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission," fail to declare Tsvangirai the victor of the presidential run-off election. [49] The Western media have been silent on this form of oppositional intimidation and threats of violence.
The opposition has also tried other means to clear the way for its rise to power. In April, 2007 it called a general strike, as part of the Save Zimbabwe Campaign. The strike fizzled, accomplishing nothing more than showing the opposition's program of seizing power extra-constitutionally had no popular support. The campaign "was a joint effort of the opposition, church groups and civil society... As a body...it (did) not...have widespread grassroots support," reported the Toronto newspaper, The Globe and Mail. [50] While depicted in the Western media as a peaceful campaign of prayer meetings, the campaign was predicated on violence. MDC activists carried out a series of fire bombings of buses and police stations, events the Western press was slow to acknowledge. A May 2 2007 Human Rights Watch report finally acknowledged that there had been a series of gasoline bombings, but questioned whether the MDC was really responsible. By this point, as far as Western publics knew, peaceful protests had been brutally suppressed by a uniquely wicked government. To keep matters under control, the government banned political gatherings. The opposition defied the ban, calling their rallies "prayer meetings." It was a result of this defiance that Arthur Mutambara was arrested, and Morgan Tsvangirai roughed up by police when he tried to force his way through police lines to demand Mutambara's release. The MDC took full advantage of the event to play up to the Western media, claiming Tsvangirai had been beaten up as part of a program of political repression, rather than as a response to his tussling with the police. As the Cuban ambassador to Zimbabwe explained, "What happened in Zimbabwe of course is similar to what groups based in Florida have done in Cuba. They put many bombs in some hotels in Cuba. They were trying to...generate political instability in Cuba, so I see the same pattern in Zimbabwe." [51]
Making the Economy Scream
While quislings work from within the country to make it ungovernable, pressure is applied from without. Western governments say they've imposed only targeted sanctions aimed at key members of the government, nothing to undermine the economy and hurt ordinary Zimbabweans, but as we've already seen, the US Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act has far-reaching economic implications. On top of this, other, informal, sanctions do their part to make the economy scream. As Robert Mugabe explains:
The British and their allies "influence other countries to cut their economic ties with us...the soft loans, grants and investments that were coming our way, started decreasing and in some cases practically petering out. Then the signals to the rest of the world that Zimbabwe is under sanctions, that rings bells and countries that would want to invest in Zimbabwe are being very cautious. And we are being dragged through the mud every day on CNN, BBC, Sky News, and they are saying to these potential investors 'your investments will not be safe in Zimbabwe, the British farmers have lost their land, and your investments will go the same way.'" [52]
In March 2002, Canada withdrew all direct funding to the government of Zimbabwe. [53] In 2005, the IT department at Zimbabwe's Africa University discovered that Microsoft had been instructed by the US Treasury Department to refrain from doing business with the university. [54] Western companies refuse to supply spare parts to Zimbabwe's national railway company, even though there are no official trade sanctions in place. [55] Britain and its allies are now planning to escalate the pressure. Plans have been made to press South Africa to cut off electricity to Zimbabwe if the MDC doesn't come to power. Pressure will also be applied on countries surrounding Zimbabwe to mount an economic blockade. [56] The point of sanctions is to starve the people of Zimbabwe into revolting against the government to clear the way for the rise of the MDC and control, by proxy, from London and Washington. Apply enough pressure and eventually the people will cry uncle (or so goes the theory.) You can't say Zanu-PF wasn't forewarned. Stanley Mudenge, the former foreign minister of Zimbabwe, said Robin Cook, then British foreign secretary, once pulled him aside at a meeting and said: "Stan, you must get rid of Bob (Mugabe)...If you don't get rid of Bob, what will hit you will make your people stone you in the streets." [57]
Harare's Options
Those who condemn the actions of the Zanu-PF government in defending their revolution have an obligation to say what they would do. Usually, they skirt the issue, saying there is no revolution, or that there was one once, but that it was long ago corrupted by cronyism. Their simple answer is to dump Mugabe, and start over again - a course of action that would inevitably see a return to the neo-liberal restructuring of the 1990s, a dismantling of land reforms, and a neo-colonial tyranny. Not surprisingly, people who make this argument find favor with imperialist governments and ruling class foundations and are often rewarded by them for appearing to be radical while actually serving imperialist goals.
Throughout history, reformers and revolutionaries have been accused of being self-aggrandizing demagogues manipulating their followers with populist rhetoric to cling to power to enjoy its many perks. [58] But as one writer in the British anti-imperialist journal Lalkar pointed out, "The government of Zimbabwe could very easily abandon its militant policies aimed at protecting Zimbabwe's independence and building its collective wealth - no doubt its ministers would be rewarded amply by the likes of the World Bank and the IMF." [59] If Mugabe is really using all means at his disposable to hang on to power simply to enjoy its perks, he has chosen the least certain and most difficult way of going about it. Lay this argument aside as the specious drivel of those who want to bury their heads in the sand to avoid confronting tough questions. What would you do in these circumstances?
In retaliation for democratizing patterns of land ownership, distributing land previously owned by 4,000 farmers, mainly of British stock, to 300,000 previously landless families, Britain has "mobilized her friends and allies in Europe, North America, Australia and New Zealand to impose illegal economic sanctions against Zimbabwe. They have cut off all development assistance, disabled lines of credit, prevented the Bretton Woods institutions from providing financial assistance, and ordered private companies in the United States not to do business with Zimbabwe." [60] They have done this to cripple Zimbabwe's economy to alienate the revolutionary government of its popular support. For years, they have done this. Soni Rajan, employed by the British government to investigate land reform in Zimbabwe, told author Heidi Holland:
"It was absolutely clear...that Labour's strategy was to accelerate Mugabe's unpopularity by failing to provide him with funding for land redistribution. They thought if they didn't give him the money for land reform, his people in the rural areas would start to turn against him. That was their position; they want him out and they were going to do whatever they could to hasten his demise." [61]
The main political opposition party, the MDC, is the creation of the Rhodesian Commercial Farmers' Union, the British government and the Zimbabwe Democracy Trust, whose patrons are former British foreign secretaries Douglas Hurd, Geoffrey Howe, Malcolm Rifkind and whose chair is Lord Renwick of Clifton, who has collected a string of board memberships in southern African corporations. The party's funding comes from European governments and corporations, and its raison d'etre is to reverse every measure the Zanu-PF government has taken to invest Zimbabwean independence with real meaning. Civil society organizations are funded by governments whose official policy is one of regime change in Zimbabwe. The US, Britain and the Netherlands finance pirate radio stations and newspapers, which the Western media disingenuously call "independent", to poison public opinion against the Mugabe government and its land democratization and economic indigenization programs. It's impossible to hold free and fair elections, because the interference by Western powers is massive, a point acknowledge by Mugabe opponent Munyaradzi Gwisai. [62]
Guns Trump "Xs"
Zimbabweans who fought for the country's independence and democratization of land ownership are not prepared to give up the gains of their revolution simply because a majority of Zimbabweans marked an "X" for a party of quislings. There are two reasons for their steadfastness in defense of their revolution: First, Americans can't vote the monarchy back in, or return, through the ballot box, to the status quo ante of British colonial domination. The US revolutionaries recognized that some gains are senior to others, freedom from foreign domination being one of them. Americans would never allow a majority vote to place the country once again under British rule. Nor will Zimbabwe's patriots allow the same to happen to their country. Second, no election in Zimbabwe can be free and fair, so long as the country is under sanctions and the main opposition party and civil society organizations are agents of hostile foreign governments. The Zimbabwe Lawyers for Justice has called on the government "to consider the possibility of declaring a state of emergency," pointing out correctly that "Zimbabwe is at war with foreign elements using local puppets." [63] Western governments would do - and have done - no less under similar circumstances. Patriots writing to the state-owned newspaper, The Herald, urge the government to take a stronger line. "The electoral environment is heavily tilted in favour of the (MDC) because of the economic sanctions," wrote one Herald reader. "If it was up to me there should be no elections until the sanctions are scrapped. If we don't defend our independence and sovereignty, then we are doomed to become hewers of wood and drawers of water. I stand ready to take up arms to defend my sovereignty if need be." [64] The heads of the police and army have let it be known that they won't "salute sell-outs and agents of the West" [65] - and nor should they. And veterans of the war for national liberation have told Mugabe that they can never accept that their country, won through the barrel of the gun, should be taken merely by an 'X' made by a ballpoint pen." [66] Mugabe recounted that the war veterans had told him "if this country goes back into white hands just because we have used a pen, we will return to the bush to fight." The former guerilla leader added, "I'm even prepared to join the fight. We can't allow the British to dominate us through their puppets." [67] Zimbabwe, as patriots have said many times, will never be a colony again. Even if it means returning to arms.
NOTES:
1. Herbert Aptheker, "The Nature of Democracy, Freedom and Revolution," International Publishers, New York, 2001.
2. Herald (Zimbabwe) April 2, 2008.
3. "No Better Opportunity," German Foreign Policy.Com, March 26, 2007. www.german-foreign-policy.com/en/fulltext/56059
4. Times (London), November 25, 2007.
5. Rob Gowland, "Zimbabwe: The struggle for land, the struggle for independence," Communist Party of Australia. www.cpa.org.au/booklets/zimbabwe.pdf
6. Herald (Zimbabwe) May 29, 2008.
7. Guardian (UK), March 3, 2008.
8. Wall Street Journal, quoted in Herald (Zimbabwe) March 23, 2008.
9. Talkzimbabwe.com, June 19, 2008.
10. Guardian (UK), August 22, 2002.
11. Herald (Zimbabwe) May 29, 2008.
12. Herald (Zimbabwe), February 22, 2008.
13. New York Times, March 27, 2005.
14. Ibid.
15. Los Angeles Times, July 8, 2005.
16. Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman, "Manufacturing Consent," Pantheon Books, 1988, p. 28.
17. The Independent (UK), October 22, 2007; New York Times, October 23, 3007.
18. New African, June 2008.
19. Antonia Juhasz, "The Tragic Tale of the IMF in Zimbabwe," Daily Mirror of Zimbabwe, March 7, 2004.
20. Herald (Zimbabwe) September 13, 2005.
21. Herald (Zimbabwe) August 12, 2005.
22. Morgan Tsvangirai, "Zimbabwe's Razor Edge," Guardian (UK) April 7, 2008.
23. Globe and Mail (Toronto), May 31, 2008.
24. Response to Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe Monetary Policy Statement," Ambassador Christopher Dell, February 7, 2007.
25. The Independent (UK), September 20, 2007.
26. John Wright, "Victims of the West," Morning Star (UK), December 18, 2007.
27. Herald (Zimbabwe), July 6, 2005.
28. AFP, July 29, 2005.
29 Ibid.
30. US Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act of 2001.
31. Herald (Zimbabwe) June 4, 2008.
32. "President Signs Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act, December 21, 2001. www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/12/200111221-15.html
33. www.pslweb.org, October 17, 2006.
34. Guardian (UK), April 17, 2008. Milne is also clear on who's responsible for the conflict in Zimbabwe. In an April 17, 2008 column in The Guardian, he wrote, "Britain refused to act against a white racist coup, triggering a bloody 15-year liberation war, and then imposed racial parliamentary quotas and a 10-year moratorium on land reform at independence. The subsequent failure by Britain and the US to finance land buyouts as expected, along with the impact of IMF programs, laid the ground for the current impasse."
35. Herald (Zimbabwe), June 11, 2008.
36. The Independent (UK), June 9, 2008.
37. Weekly Worker, 726, June 19, 2008 www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/726/forced.html.
38. New York Times, December 24, 2004.
39. Workers World (US), December 12, 2007.
40. Proletarian (UK) April-May 2007.
41. Los Angeles Times, December 15, 2007.
42. New York Times, August 17, 2007.
43. New York Times, December 9, 2007.
44. BBC, September 30, 2000.
45. Times Online, March 5, 2006.
46. Herald (Zimbabwe), March 27, 2008.
47. Sunday Times (UK), July 1, 2007.
48. Weekly Worker, 726, June 19, 2008 www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/726/forced.html
49. The Zimbabwe Times, May 31, 2008.
50. Globe and Mail (Toronto) March 22, 2007.
51. Herald (Zimbabwe) April 15, 2007.
52. New African, May 2008.
53. Herald (Zimbabwe), October 18, 2007.
54. Herald (Zimbabwe), January 28, 2008.
55. Herald (Zimbabwe), January 11, 2008.
56. Guardian (UK), June 16, 2008.
57. New African, May 2008.
58. See, for example, Michael Parenti, "The Assassination of Julius Caesar: A People's History Ancient Rome," The New Press, 2003.
59. Lalkar, May-June, 2008. www.lalkar.org/issues/contents/may2008/zim.php
60. Address of Robert Mugabe to the UN's Food and Agricultural Organization, June 3, 2008.
61. New African, May 2008.
62. Weekly Worker, 726, June 19, 2008 www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/726/forced.html
63. TalkZimbabwe.com, May 15, 2008.
64. Letter to the Herald (Zimbabwe), May 6, 2008.
65. Guardian (UK), March 15, 2008.
66. Herald (Zimbabwe), June 20, 2008.
67. The Independent (UK), June 14, 2008.
Reproduced from:
http://gowans.wordpress.com/2008/06/24/zimbabwe-at-war/``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe at War``x1214414676,36721,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xHerald Reporter
The Herald
THE Zimbabwe Electoral Commission yesterday unanimously agreed to proceed with the presidential run-off election tomorrow as scheduled because Morgan Tsvangirai's withdrawal has no legal force since it was filed out of time.
ZEC – which was appointed by Zanu-PF and MDC-T – and all other political parties that contested the March 29 harmonised elections, under the Sadc-brokered talks, said it has since advised Tsvangirai about the decision in writing.
ZEC chairman Justice George Chiweshe said the poll would go ahead as Tsvangirai, who claims his security is under threat, briefly left the Dutch embassy in Harare to address a Press conference at his Strathaven home in Harare.
Tsvangirai called for military intervention in Zimbabwe disguised as peacekeepers and the setting-up of a transitional government supervised by the African Union and Sadc.
Addressing journalists, Justice Chiweshe said the commission had deliberated on the content and effect of Tsvangirai's letter in which he cited various reasons and concluded that the withdrawal was a nullity.
"It was unanimously agreed that the withdrawal had, inter alia, been filed well out of time and that for that reason the withdrawal was of no legal force or effect.
"Accordingly, the commission does not recognise the purported withdrawal. We are, therefore, proceeding with the presidential run-off election this Friday as planned. The ballot papers have been printed and dispatched. We are advising Mr Tsvangirai accordingly," he said.
Justice Chiweshe said the electoral law stipulates the period during which a candidate must file a withdrawal letter.
"I do not want to go into that. We will be writing to Mr Tsvangirai on the issue," he said.
When asked whether the withdrawal by Tsvangirai would have an effect on the legitimacy of the poll, Justice Chiweshe said: "The pullout has no legal force. In fact, there has been no pullout."
Justice Chiweshe said the commission was ready for the elections and that the results of the presidential run-off would be announced as soon as they were ready.
Constitutional law experts have said Tsvangirai cannot pull out of the run-off now and even though he has written to ZEC, the decision was of no legal force.
"The strict legal position is that candidature for the run-off or second election is not a voluntary exercise; you give your consent when you contest the first election," lawyer Lovemore Madhuku said.
Political analysts have described Tsvangirai's withdrawal announcement, which was made just before the UN Security Council met to discuss Zimbabwe, as a ploy to create a bleak picture of the Zimbabwean situation.
The Dutch foreign ministry yesterday confirmed Tsvangirai returned to their embassy.
Zanu-Ndonga has joined the list of organisations that have castigated the opposition leader for his decision to withdraw from the poll.
"Boycotting without offering an alternative is not the solution. The decision to pull out does not make any political sense," said Zanu-Ndonga secretary-general Mr Reketayi Semwayo at a Press conference.
The party's national organising secretary, Mr Gondai Vutuza, said it is Zimbabweans who have the mandate to find a solution to the challenges facing the country and not outsiders as claimed by Tsvangirai.
"Zimbabweans should decide their future and not any other person. It is us who should decide.
"The two presidential candidates should engage each other for political dialogue with a view to coming up with a solution. The search for solutions should obviously include every stakeholder," said Mr Vutuza.
Late yesterday, the Sadc election observer mission said it would remain in Zimbabwe until after the June 27 run-off, and that it was not bound by the decision of the Troika on Politics, Defence and Security, which met in Mbabane, Swaziland, yesterday.
Head of the election observer mission Angolan Minister of Youth, Sport and Culture Mr Jose Marcos Barrica told journalists that the issue of whether or not there are elections in Zimbabwe is the responsibility of the Zimbabwean Government and ZEC.
"We will stay put until after June 27 be there elections or not. We may have our ideas, but that is the responsibility of the authorities," he said.
Mr Barrica said the mission was only bound by Sadc and not the troika.
He said the mission had made inroads in trying to bring the political players in Zimbabwe to the negotiating table.
"There are positive signals that can take the process forward. There is light at the end of the tunnel that can bring the two sides together. We think we have the way prepared for the leadership to go forward," he said.
Responding to questions on the mission's position following reports that members of the Sadc troika that met yesterday in Swaziland had recommended that tomorrow's run-off be postponed, Mr Barrica said the troika only deliberates on issues and does not make resolutions.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe's Run-off still on: ZEC``x1214459287,34938,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Lloyd Whitefield BUTLER, Jr.
June 26, 2008
talkzimbabwe.com
A US Virginia Governor told the legislature: "You may place the slave where you please–you may put him under any process, which, without destroying his value as a slave, will debase and crush him as a rational being–you may do all this, and the idea that he was born to be free will survive it all. It is allied to his hope of immortality–it is the ethereal part of his nature which oppression cannot reach–it is a torch lit up in his soul by the hand of the Deity, and never meant to be extinguished by the hand of man." Robert Mugabe recently told the British American Pharaohs "Only God will remove me!"
May millions of Zimbabweans come out dancing, singing, drumming, and cast their votes in the spirit of self-determination, independence, and pay homage to the greatest African leader and elder statesman in the world President Robert Gabriel Mugabe.
God will honor and bless the Elders and the Ancestors of Africa so that thy days in the land shall be long.
Praise the God that blessed Africa from the beginning of time. The Great God Who has placed the focus of the world on Zimbabwe to express in behalf of the suffering people of the world to blow your Trumpet as a vote for self-integrity, independence, and sovereignty.
Zimbabwe Voters: Remember that "God Hears The Cry Of The Oppressed" and while President Robert Gabriel Mugabe stand's before the biblical Pharaoh slave-making governments of America and Britain in the tradition of the Biblical Gabriel, he blows his trumpet for the freedom, justice, and equality of the African people.
Blow your Trumpet for Robert "Gabriel" Mugabe and cast your votes.
May God give the people of Zimbabwe and Africa the strength and wisdom to protect and strengthen the wisdom of the military generals, and preserve their God-given land and mineral resources.
Blow Your Trumpet, Gabriel
Blow your trumpet blow,
Come Gabriel blow your horn
Let the whole world know
It's time for judgment morn.
Run, run, they're goin' run
To find a hiding place
Run, but not a one
Can ever hide his face.
The important role of defending our country cannot be left to mediocre officers incapable of comprehending and analytically evaluating the operational environment to ensure that the sovereignty of our state is not only preserved, but enhanced...
With the current unjustified demonization of Zimbabwe by Western powers, the role of intelligence in shaping foreign, security and economic policies become even more critical...
Blow Your Trumpet, Gabriel (non italic excepts of United Nations Speech)
Blow your trumpet loud,
Blow your trumpet high
The whole world's goin' shake
From motion depths up to the sky
The day's not far away
The West still negates our sovereignties by way of control of our resources, in the process making us mere chattels in out own lands, mere minders of its trans-national interests. In my own country and other sister states in Southern Africa, the most visible form of this control has been over land despoiled from us at the onset of British colonialism.
That control largely persists, although it stands firmly challenged in Zimbabwe, thereby triggering the current stand-off between us and Britain, supported by her cousin states, most notably the United States and Australia. Mr. Bush, Mr. Blair and now Mr. Brown's sense of human rights precludes our people's right to their God-given resources, which in their view must be controlled by their kith and kin. I am termed dictator because I have rejected this supremacist view and frustrated the neo-colonialists.
Blow Your Trumpet, Gabriel
He's comin' soon I know
Stand upon the land
Take up your horn and blow
This ole' world's a-rockin'
Reeling and a-rockin'
How it a keeps on standin'
I don't know
I lost eleven precious years of my life in the jail of a white man whose freedom and well- being I have assured from the first day of Zimbabwe's Independence. I lost a further fifteen years fighting white injustice in my country.
Ian Smith is responsible for the death of well over 50,000 of my people. I bear scars of his tyranny which Britain and America condoned. I meet his victims everyday. Yet he walks free. He farms free. He talks freely, associates freely under a black Government. We taught him democracy. We gave him back his humanity.
Blow Your Trumpet, Gabriel
Lift up your voice, and shout, Gabriel
Take up your horn and blow, blow,
Come on and blow, your trumpet blow
Come Gabriel, blow your horn
Let the whole world know
It's time for judgment morn
He would have faced a different fate here and in Europe if the 50,000 he killed were Europeans. Africa has not called for a Nuremberg trial against the white world which committed heinous crimes against its own humanity. It has not hunted perpetrators of this genocide, many of whom live to this day, nor has it got reparations from those who offended against it. Instead it is Africa which is in the dock, facing trial from the same world that persecuted it for centuries.
Let Mr. Bush read history correctly. Let him realise that both personally and in his representative capacity as the current President of the United States, he stands for this "civilisation" which occupied, which colonised, which incarcerated, which killed. He has much to atone for and very little to lecture us on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. His hands drip with innocent blood of many nationalities.
Blow Your Trumpet, Gabriel
Run, run, they're goin' run
To find a hiding (to find a hiding place) place
Run, but not a one
Can ever hide his face
Mr. President, We are alarmed that under his leadership, basic rights of his own people and those of the rest of the world have summarily been rolled back. America is primarily responsible for rewriting core tenets of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We seem all guilty for 9/11. Mr. Bush thinks he stands above all structures of governance, whether national or international.
At home, he apparently does not need the Congress. Abroad, he does not need the UN, international law and opinion. This forum did not sanction Blair and Bush's misadventures in Iraq. The two rode roughshod over the UN and international opinion. Almighty Bush is now corning back to the UN for a rescue package because his nose is bloodied! Yet he dares lecture us on tyranny. Indeed, he wants us to pray him! We say No to him and encourage him to get out of Iraq. Indeed he should mend his ways before he clambers up the pulpit to deliver pieties of democracy.
Blow Your Trumpet, Gabriel
Blow your trumpet loud,
Blow your trumpet high
The whole world's goin' shake
From motion depths up to the sky
The British and the Americans have gone on a relentless campaign of destabilising and vilifying my country. They have sponsored surrogate forces to challenge lawful authority in my country. They seek regime change, placing themselves in the role of the Zimbabwean people in whose collective will democracy places the right to define and change regimes.
Let these sinister governments be told here and now that Zimbabwe will not allow a regime change authored by outsiders. We do not interfere with their own systems in America and Britain. Mr Bush and Mr Brown have no role to play in our national affairs. They are outsiders and mischievous outsiders and should therefore keep out! The colonial sun set a long time ago; in 1980in the case of Zimbabwe, and hence Zimbabwe will never be a colony again. Never!
We do not deserve sanctions. We are Zimbabweans and we know how to deal with our problems. We have done so in the past, well before Bush and Brown were known politically. We have our own regional and continental organizations and communities.
Blow Your Trumpet, Gabriel
The day's not far away
He's comin' soon I know
Stand upon the land
Take up your horn and blow,
Blow, Gabriel , blow
Blow, Gabriel, blow
In that vein, I wish to express my country's gratitude to President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa who, on behalf of SADC, successfully facilitated the dialogue between the Ruling Party and the Opposition Parties, which yielded the agreement that has now resulted in the constitutional provisions being finally adopted. Consequently, we will be holding multiple democratic elections in March 2008. Indeed we have always had timeous general and presidential elections since our independence.
Mr. President,
In conclusion, let me stress once more that the strength of the United Nations lies in its universality and impartiality as it implements its mandate to promote peace and security, economic and social development, human rights and international law as outlined in the Charter. Zimbabwe stands ready to play its part in all efforts and programmes aimed at achieving these noble goals.
I thank you.
My Lord's Goin' Move this Wicked Race
Wicked race, wicked race
My Lord's Goin' Move this Wicked Race
Wicked race, wicked race
He's goin to raise up a nation that will obey!... American Negro Gospel Spiritual``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xBlow your trumpet 'Gabriel' Mugabe``x1214485701,57080,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Dyke Sithole
Thu, 26 Jun 2008
INDEPENDENT House of Assembly Member of Parliament elect for Tsholotsho North constituency and former Minister of Information, Professor Jonathan Moyo said the decision by Movement for Democratic Change leader Morgan Tsvangirai to pull out of tomorrow's presidential run-off election is ill informed and untimely.
Addressing the Bulawayo Press Club, Moyo said the reasons Tsvangirai cited for the withdrawal was not justified.
"Tsvangirai said the reason for his withdrawal was that the violence in Zimbabwe today is the worst since 1980 which is not true.
"We all know that about 20 000 people died during the Gukurahundi era in 1985, but elections were still held in July 1985. Morgan is saying 86 people have been killed in the violence during the build-up to the presidential run-off," said Moyo.
Moyo said there is no legal basis for Tsvangirai to withdraw from the race and the election will go on as announced by the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (ZEC).
He said Tsvangirai had not consolidated his near-win of March 29, but instead wasted time globe-trotting appealing to world leaders instead of campaigning for the second round.
On the other hand, Zanu PF regrouped and agreed to bury its differences while they concentrated on campaigning for President Mugabe in the run-off elections.
Moyo said after winning the run-off tomorrow Mugabe would form a Government of National Unity which will include opposition members and was not likely to include Tsvangirai in his cabinet.
Full Article : talkzimbabwe.com``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xTsvangirai pull-out was ill-informed and untimely - Moyo``x1214497511,61887,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xThe Herald --Opinion
June 26, 2008
EVENTS since Sunday have exposed the Anglo-Saxon game plan, that is regime change in Zimbabwe at all costs even if it means trashing the Constitution to get their man, Morgan Tsvangirai, into power.
This should come as a sobering thought to all who have been swayed by Western claims that London and Washington's support for Tsvangirai is in pursuit of good governance, rule of law and democracy.
We all know the Westerners' record on these values, and we would have to be monumental fools to believe their rhetoric.
It all began with Tsvangirai's announcement on Sunday that he was withdrawing from the run-off, a position legal experts – even those close to him – have since dismissed as untenable and unconstitutional.
This move was meant to set the stage for the extra-judicial attempts to anoint Tsvangirai president of Zimbabwe.
We saw this manifest in attempts by Britain and the US to effect a coup through the Security Council which they wanted to declare Tsvangirai the "legitimate president of Zimbabwe" yet we have a binding Constitution detailing how the presidency is elected.
When that move was shot down by progressives, came Tsvangirai's call for a military invasion of Zimbabwe, which was immediately echoed by Washington, which threatened unspecified action, should the run-off proceed.
Tsvangirai, yesterday, wrote an opinion piece in the British newspaper, The Guardian, calling for the deployment of a foreign military force that he said should oversee "transition".
We could not help but remember reading similar language in a document titled, "The Transition Strategy", that exposed how Tsvangirai approached the British government grovelling for a military offensive.
Though MDC-T leaders disowned the document, which set conditions for a virtual return to Rhodesia, their utterances and actions have since confirmed our worst fears.
As we report elsewhere in this issue, the Anglo-Saxon alliance has emerged as the real power behind Tsvangirai and his MDC-T as they are threatening military action and further sanctions if the run-off is not cancelled.
We find it odd, though hardly surprising, that at every stage of this campaign and even the previous one, Tsvangirai's statements and positions have always dovetailed with those from London and Washington.
If anyone had any doubt as to the identity of the forces confronting us today, those doubts should be dispelled by the voices around Tsvangirai today.
As Zimbabweans we will never bow down to threats from, and accept to be lectured by the evil regimes in London and Washington.
We won our right to self-determination 28 years ago, after a bitter 14-year struggle against the Smith regime that had the tacit support of London and Washington.
What is more, over the past eight years we have withstood concerted attempts at economic strangulation, again largely on our own.
As such, we cannot begin now to take instructions from anyone, let alone our avowed enemies.
Our independence and sovereignty are not negotiable, never to be sacrificed for political expediency.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe: Our sovereignty not negotiable``x1214507370,69577,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xby Floyd Nkomo
June 27, 2008
VOTING has started in Zimbabwe in a presidential run-off election despite the withdrawal of the opposition Movement for Democratic Change party's leader Morgan Tsvangirai and calls to postpone the election which the ruling party defied.
Opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai, who officially withdrew from the run-off on Tuesday citing mounting violence and intimidation and called on MDC supporters not to vote.
Reports from Harare, the capital say voting began shortly after 0500 GMT and turnout was low at many polling stations. Polling is scheduled to end at 1700 GMT.
The Associated Press reported that in the capital's high-density Mbare suburb, lines built up at polling stations as voters arrived in groups.
The news agency quoted a voter, Livingstone Gwaze, who said he had voted for President Mugabe as saying: "Things will get better. There is darkness before light," he said.
Approximately 5.9 million Zimbabweans are entitled to cast their ballots, overseen by African but not Western monitors.
Full Article : talkzimbabwe.com``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xVoting begins in Zimbabwe``x1214564180,65026,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Stephen Gowans
June 29, 2008
gowans.wordpress.com
Timothy Garton Ash, a columnist for the British newspaper The Guardian, has called on "people outside Zimbabwe" to "help the majority inside Zimbabwe have its democratic will recognized" by doing seven things, the first of which is to press their governments for stronger sanctions on Zimbabwe. Ash's column is titled, "We don't need guns to help the people pitch Mugabe from his perch."
Ash's argument, a call for "liberal" or "humanitarian" imperialism, is based on a false premise. It is also morally repugnant.
False premise: The idea that a majority in Zimbabwe is awaiting the help of Westerners is at odds with reality. If you check, you'll discover that the governing Zanu-PF party won the popular vote in the March 29 elections, but owing to Zimbabwe's first past the post system, won fewer seats than the MDC did. It would be more accurate to say that somewhat less than 50 percent of Zimbabweans would welcome the MDC coming to power, and fewer than that, I suspect, would welcome further misery from a stepped up Western intervention.
Morally repugnant: Ash's argument amounts to this: Imperialism is fine, just so long as it isn't pursued by military means. Lay aside his eagerness to outrage the sovereignty of Zimbabwe, but not, say, Ethiopia, whose brutal Meles' regime steals elections, locks up the opposition, and has invaded and occupied Somalia, on behalf of London and Washington. People ought to ask themselves why they've heard so much about Zimbabwe, but not Ethiopia.
Non-military interventions can be just as harmful, if not more so, than military ones. The international sanctions regime imposed on Iraq led to the excess deaths of more than a million people, deaths caused by Western countries whose governments lied their only concern was freeing Iraqis from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, and then freed numberless Iraqis from life (and, if Washington and London get their way, from the benefits of their oil wealth.) Sanctions were denounced as sanctions of mass destruction, as devastating as campaigns of carpet bombing. No one should delude themselves into thinking that non-military interventions are free from grim humanitarian consequences.
Ash's appeal for intervention, then, is based on three myths: (1) that a majority of Zimbabweans are opposed to the Mugabe government and would welcome Western intervention; (2) imperialism without guns is better than imperialism with guns; (3) Western intervention in Zimbabwe (which has already happened on a massive scale through funding of the opposition by Western governments and corporate foundations, and though financial isolation of the country) is motivated by humanitarian, not, imperialist goals (otherwise, why no indignant calls for intervention in Ethiopia – or in Egypt, where the president has hung on to power for as long as Mugabe has, but acts to promote British and US foreign policy goals?)
While it's bad enough that the heirs of British colonialism press for neo-colonial interventions, it's even worse when they wrap up their arguments in a tissue of myths.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xMyths of 'humanitarian' imperialism``x1214773582,33734,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xHerald Reporter
June 30, 2008
The Herald
PRESIDENT Mugabe left Harare last night for Sharm El Sheikh Resort of Egypt to attend the African Union summit that begins today.
At his last campaign rally in Chitungwiza last Thursday, Cde Mugabe said he was prepared to face any of his AU counterparts disparaging Zimbabwe's electoral conduct because some of their countries had worse elections record.
Some AU foreign ministers, preparing for the summit, tried to discuss the Zimbabwe issue on Friday but AU Commission chairperson Mr Jean Ping said the matter was best left to the heads of state.
The theme of the summit is "Meeting the Millennium Development Goals on Water and Sanitation".
According to a draft agenda on the AU website, the summit will consider a report of the first meeting of the committee of 12 leaders on the proposed AU government.
The meeting will also discuss the status of implementation of regional and continental integration.
Adoption of the single legal instrument on the merger of the Court of Justice and the African Court on Human and People's Rights of the African Union will also come under discussion.
The summit will deliberate on the appointment of the Members of the African Committee of Experts on the Rights and Welfare of the Child and appointment of the judges of the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights.
Briefing journalists on the agenda of the summit, Mr Ping highlighted the issues of peace and security, human rights, governance and free, fair and democratic elections, which, he said, were imperative in enhancing the socio-economic and political integration of Africa.
Other issues include the integration of Nepad into the structures of the AU, Sino-African relations, Afro-Arab co-operation, consolidation and reinforcement of partnerships with the external world and shared values.
Mr Ping further emphasised the need to reinforce the AU Commission by improving on its financial and human resources to enable the institution to attain its goals.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe: President leaves for African Union summit``x1214826544,5256,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Stephen Mpofu
June 30, 2008
THERE are few men in this world, if any at all, divorced by their wives on account of cruelty who are to see their former spouses leading a happy and successful life by themselves.
Brave and courageous gentlemen who say prayers for the women to grow even more prosperous and render all possible assistance in that regard, as atonement for their own failures in the collapsed relationship.
However, history is replete with accounts of cruel divorcees who have stalked their ex-wives, abused them, even committed murder or driven by jealous especially on discovering that the former wife has stuck up a relationship, however, innocuous with other men of goodwill.
If they had their way, these men would even dictate the style and colour of the clothing their ex-spouses should wear.
They would also tell the kind of perfume they should wear – only the type that muffles body odour, not the sort that lives on aromatic trail causing other men to sniff the air after the woman had passed by.
Africa's former European colonial powers, supported by such former colonies in Australia and in the USA, behave like divorced men cited above towards independent African states. In a bizarre political manoeuvre, they even attempted recently to have a Zimbabwean leader of their choice installed as president of this country.
Zimbabwe's case has exposed these divorces monumental, satanic machinations. And, tragically enough, their evil designs against this country and other black states are abated, rather than abetted, by some African leaders who either seek to curry favour for money – with some of them already constipated with obscene foreign funding – or for protection in their tenuous leadership position.
These men with inverted political visions boast no freedom struggle track record of their own or had one but have now forgotten themselves. Instead, they tramp surreptitiously and cling tenaciously to the coattails of the dark shadows of their imperialist handlers. These African leaders, found in Southern Africa, East Africa and even West Africa are a potential threat to both regional and African unity.
The nefarious political conduct, if not checked, might reduce "African unity" to a merely theoretical concept forming a basis for study by university students.
In light of the presence of such men on the African political arena, this pen bemoans a glorious past populated on some African soil by political heavyweights who put their hearts and feet firmly on the ground for the independence and sovereignty of both their own peoples and those in sister states still under subjugation by imperial powers that now return to Africa slyly to their erstwhile "spouses".
But, regrettably the vacant space left behind by those illustrious sons of the soil is now trodden by political midgets – lightweights who dangle on strings held between two hands in the minds of their foreign masters who make the puppets swing or dance according to the master's voice. In African tradition, parents provide cooking and other utensils to young children playing house as a way of socialising them about running their own home when they grow up.
Then they keep a keen eye on these kids to make sure they do not mess themselves up or the place badly, and will withdraw the more important items if the kids appear about to damage them.
Similarly, the former imperial rulers of Africa seem to regard blacks governing their countries as "kids" merely playing house. And their paternalistic and racist attitudes towards independent African states – witness what is going on around Zimbabwe – strongly suggests that at independence colonial powers tied a long rope round the necks of black leaders with a view of pulling the leash once in their estimation the former rulers believe the "children" playing house are "messing" themselves and threatening the "utensils" – their countries.
When people decide to destroy a strong building structure, they either dynamite it and sink it into the ground in a heap of rubble, or knock it down brick by brick. Africa is a vast structure that is impossible to erase using the first method cited above, so the second option becomes a feasible alternative for contemporary western imperialism to use in order to destroy African unity.
Zimbabwe is a full brick of both the Southern African Development Community and the African Union. Those forces ganging up against Zimbabwe right now are threatening the solidarity of the Sadc edifices as a first step towards dividing and weakening the African continent with some of the enemies eager to turn Africa into a foreign military barrack. Should Zimbabwe be wrenched, huge fissures will appear on that important regional structure through which the enemy will step inside then tear down the shaky walls even with bare hands before leaping over the debris to hammer away at other regional economic and political bodies that together with Sadc form the pillars of the AU. When the supports of an institution are crippled it is anyone's guess what is likely to happen to the body.
Therefore, if Zimbabwe falls at the hands of those now baying for its political leaver, who have already savaged its other vital economic organ, a freeway will have been blazed open for the enemy to race after any other country in this region governed by a revolutionary party that, like Zimbabwe's, was, and is no doubt still quietly, condemned by Western countries as a terrorist organisation.
A false excuse will be created, as in the case of Zimbabwe and the enemy will again be added in its agenda by the same African political novices hoping to lick their fingers one by one for the blood.
The noises from Washington DC condemning Zimbabwe's presidential run-off election as being "illegal" are a simple demonstration of how inconsequential African governments are regarded by imperialist powers. Zimbabwe, like all other independent African states, is not governed by American laws.
And so it does not follow at that what George Bush thinks is "illegal" automatically becomes so in Zimbabwe, which is not America's province.
The same mentality is demonstrated by British Prime Minister Gordon Brown who still imagines that Zimbabwe is still Rhodesia, a subject country of the British Crown and a member of the Commonwealth club.
The angry rumblings from the White House and from Whitehall stand as litmus test of the unity and solidarity of African leaders under the umbrella of the AU which holds its summit in Cairo this week. Will the African heads of the state and governments preside at the disintegration of the continental body over the Zimbabwean case as this pen cannot see some store wards of independence and sovereignty kow-towing to imperialists who are determined to divide and weaken African leaders and their countries for an open sesame on the continent's massive, rich, natural resources?
The thesis of this article is that Africa's independence in no ways guarantees the continents unlimited security as the vindictive divorced "husbands" continue to hover overhead, like hungry and angry hawks poised to swoop down on their chosen chicken prey.
The leaders meeting in the Egyptian capital this week should disabuse themselves of complacency in policing their solidarity with one another for their own political protection and the survival of their states because a house divided against itself cannot withstand the wild political winds that constantly and violently lash the AU as they did its predecessor, the Organisation of African Unity.
Africa is for Africans and any problems on the continent – and they are many and diverse – should be solved by Africans themselves and not by any hiring their own individual imperialist "consultants" to do so. Thus, the AU should guard its gates to prevent these lost African Trojan horses entering the continent to offload the enemy.
This discourse does not suggest that the AU or any regional body, for that matter, should condone any activity by member countries that are deemed to be violating the rights and freedom of their peoples, far from it. In fact, such contradictions should be averted through close co-ordination of the activities of the regional as well as the continental bodies with appropriate sanctions, designed by Africans themselves, being meted out to delinquent member states.
Today Africa's economic development initiatives are hamstrung by political upheavals in several countries and these are mainly inspired or engineered by external forces that view Africa's unity and solidarity as threats to their political and commercial interests on the continent.
The saying that "united we stand, divided we fall", is instructive enough and should inform the final resolutions of the African leaders meeting in Cairo.
They should blow the whistle to signal the end of the game for those of their members who run with the hares and hunt with the hounds.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xHour of reckoning for AU``x1214841153,80140,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Dambudzo Mapuranga
July 01, 2008
The Herald
THE British Government appoints the BBC's entire top management. In fact, one can safely say BBC is a mouthpiece of the British Government. This being said, how then can BBC be expected to report objectively concerning the Government of Zimbabwe seeing that Zanu-PF has been labelled enemy number one by the residents of Number 10 Downing Street.
"We cannot independently verify the contents of this story as BBC is banned from reporting in Zimbabwe".
This is the disclaimer that you will find under many of the stories on Zimbabwe on the BBC's website, TV and radio broadcasts.
The disclaimer is posted solely for the purpose of protecting BBC from being sued by the Government of Zimbabwe over its blatant false news stories.
Several questions arise when one closely examines the disclaimer and chief among them is, if the BBC has failed to verify a story why then would they report it and also post it on its website as a news article?
The only answer that there is to the actions of the BBC is that as long as any story paints a heinous picture of Zanu-PF, President Mugabe and Zimbabwe it will find itself attaining high priority on the BBC website, TV and radio. I am confident that if I were to open a fictitious story chronicling how Zanu-PF supporters have done all sorts of evil deeds on my being and on my property and even include several pictures of road accident victims it will make it on to BBC.
The game of creating news stories is not anything new; in fact the Americans perfected it a long time ago.
A classic example is seen from the American movie "Wag the Dog" starring Robert de Niro and Dustin Hoffman. The concept of the movie being that after news broke out that on the run up to the first Gulf War the Kuwaiti Lobby in Washington, DC commissioned the production of false news stories that showed Iraqi army tanks and soldiers advancing towards a supposed Iraqi/Kuwaiti border. It turns out that the entire footage was shot in the Nevada Desert with the help of the Bush administration.
The deception did not end there. These unscrupulous people went on to produce false testimony before the US Congress (the equivalent of our parliament). The daughter of the then Kuwaiti Ambassador to the United States was coached into testifying and lie before the US Congress on how her entire village was razed and how she escaped being killed by pretending to be dead and covering herself with the intestines of her dead mother.
The partiality of western media houses is well known, as most of them are nothing more than public relations offices of their countries' foreign affairs ministries.
The negative reporting of the BBC and CNN on Zimbabwe is a mockery of the same institutions their governments claim to be propagating across the globe.
Rumours make juicy stories and are very difficult to take back. The type of irresponsible journalism being witnessed on the Internet has turned BBC and CNN into some of the biggest rumour mills.
Only myopic people and racists would find such rag tag stories to be of value.
Here are two stories that highlight gross irresponsibility on the part of the BBC and CNN. Some of them leave the reader wondering whether the editors of these media houses even bother showing up for work.
Zimbabwe campaign: Secret document
The article claims that undercover BBC news correspondent Ian Pannell obtained evidence of plans by Zimbabwe's ruling party to harass and drive out opposition supporters.
I for one would like to have whatever medication Zanu-PF legal affairs secretary Cde Emmerson Mnangagwa is drinking, because according to the secret document, Cde Mnangagwa is doing the work of ten very strong men.
One day he is reported to be in South Africa consulting with the ANC, the next day he is hailed as the man running the so called military junta that is now "ruling" Zimbabwe, and now he is heading the Zanu-PF presidential election campaign.
That being said an analysis of the secret document shows that it is a total take. Zanu-PF takes great pride in its work and anyone who is familiar with Zanu-PF's operations would know that any correspondence or party documents would have the Zanu-PF letterhead. The so called Zanu-PF secret document contains no logo or letterhead to show its origin.
Given that the cunning legal brains of Cde Mnangagwa are said to be heading the Action Plan documented in this disgraceful and shoddily down piece of work one wonders whether there is another Mnangagwa with half a brain who would come up with such a poor strategy.
One can only conclude that this secret document came from some opposition dim-wit with nothing better to do. The poor English used in the document leaves the mouth with a sour taste. The poor fellow then adds the names of several prominent Zanu-PF figures and accredits them to be from the Zanu-PF Midlands Province.
With the exception of Cde Mnangagwa, the rest of the party functionaries are not from the Zanu-PF Midlands Province. Senator Edna Madzongwe is from Mashonaland West Province.
Both Senator Joshua Malinga and Cde Jabulani Sibanda are from the Bulawayo Province, while Cde Joseph Chinotimba is from Manicaland Province.
The BBC failed to realise this and further more it is common knowledge that Politburo members such as Cdes Madzongwe and Mnangagwa head teams in their respective provinces and are not thrown all over the country in a haphazard manner.
Death of a Zimbabwe Activist
In an ironic twist of events Tonderai Ndira became a hero in death and yet he lived the life of a thug.
Despite all her hatred for Zanu-PF, Trudy Stevenson can attest that she did not moan the death of a former MDC-T activist who was responsible for her assault in Mabvuku in 2005, an assault that resulted in head injuries and a fractured arm.
The two police officers based at ZRP Marimba who were unfortunate to be at the station when it was petrol-bombed by Ndira and his accomplices surely did not shed a tear for the man responsible for their skin burns.
None of these heinous acts were featured in the glowing obituary that BBC News posted on Tonderai Ndira. Instead the news article glorified a violent man who died a violent death. The elderly are correct when they say those who live by the gun die by the gun.
"I knew him personally, he was a youth activist who went around the country holding workshops and teaching people their rights."
That is what one unnamed ZimRights official is quoted to have said. Too bad we cannot contact the so-called official and ask him for the names of the three towns where Ndira held human rights workshops.
Ndira's farewell should have been a true reflection of what he was. It should have said "the death of an MDC-T foot soldier".
The story then tells of how ten men came in a pick up truck to Ndira's house in Mabvuku armed with AK-47 rifles around seven in the morning and boldly asked Ndira's wife to inform him that they had come to collect him. The men then abducted Ndira in his underwear in front of his children.
Of all the incredible things you have ever heard this is right up there with "the dog ate my homework" story.
Anyone who has been to Mabvuku or any other high-density suburb knows that there is no way anyone can be abducted at seven in the morning.
Are we meant to believe that somehow there were no people going about their business to witness ten armed men in an open pick-up truck kidnapping Tonderai Ndira?
With the way the MDC-T loves to cry for attention should this not have been on BBC and CNN within thirty minutes of Ndira's abduction?
Observe how the BBC and CNN seem to be able to report of MDC-T leader Morgan Tsvangirai's arrests within minutes of them happening.
How then did Ndira's abduction go unreported for days only to have the news of his death reported to coincide with Tsvangirai's return from self-imposed exile?
As if that was not enough, Tsvangirai, Zimbabwe's self-proclaimed saviour "cried" at Ndira's funeral, to invoke emotions of the Holy Book's shortest, "Jesus wept" before raising Lazarus from the dead.
BBC now offers to answer readers' questions about Zimbabwe through their undercover correspondent Ian Pannell. One can only guess what lies this hack of a journalist will be peddling to those who intend to ask him about the political situation in Zimbabwe.
I sent Ian Pannell several questions which I believe to be very pertinent to the Zimbabwean situation, but he is yet to respond to. My questions were:
1) Why has the BBC and CNN not reported on MDC-T perpetrated violence against Zanu-PF supporters?
2) Why has the BBC failed to reveal where it got the copy of the alleged Secret Zanu-PF campaign document?
3) Why has the BBC never written about the effects of the illegal sanctions on ordinary Zimbabweans?
4) Why is there no reference to the US' Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act of 2001 on its website?
5) Why does the BBC only quote right wing Rhodesians and MDC-T as the people representing "Zimbabweans"?
In conclusion, the long and short answer is that the Zimbabwe situation has largely been played up by the Western media and it is clear that it is an extension of their foreign relations policy on Africa.
This stark reality puts our private media poles apart with the Western media that they mimic, since our private media believes that "following the flag" is retrogressive.
The Internet, where lies, half truths and misinformation are peddled as news has internationalised the issue with pseudo experts and arm chair critics who have an axe to grind against Zanu-PF, President Mugabe and his Government always being available with "opinions and analyses" of every news item reported by the BBC and CNN and a whole host of other foreign networks.
However, the shameful thing is that the lies always come through, and the embedded journalism shows itself.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xIllegal regime change takes Internet by storm``x1214924234,65474,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xHerald Reporter
July 02, 2008
The Herald
THE two MDC parties yesterday said they were ready to engage Zanu-PF in dialogue, as that was the only way the country could overcome its current challenges.
In separate interviews, the two formations said there was urgent need to engage all political stakeholders in the discussions that should bring a lasting political settlement to the country.
This follows President Mugabe's call for dialogue among all political players in the country.
Speaking after being sworn in as Head of State on Sunday, President Mugabe said: "Indeed, it is my hope that sooner rather than later, we shall, as diverse political parties, hold consultations towards such serious dialogue as will minimise our differences and enhance the area of unity and co-operation."
Secretary-general for the Arthur Mutambara-led MDC faction Welshman Ncube said there was need for an urgent meeting between political parties in the country.
"Obviously, the next step is to convene an urgent meeting among political players. It has to be as inclusive as possible.
"We have always been ready for dialogue. We have been calling for dialogue, for a political settlement," he said.
He said dialogue should not be done through the media to avoid distortions, unless the contents for publication are agreed to.
"There is need for parties to stop talking through the media and maybe start by agreeing on what needs to be talked about, to draw out an agenda."
Ncube said apart from political parties, all other stakeholders with a role to play should be included in the dialogue.
Nelson Chamisa, the spokesperson for MDC-T, concurred with Ncube on the need for an urgent negotiated settlement.
"Our hope is to pursue dialogue to ensure that we have a negotiated settlement and understanding," he said.
He said MDC-T was in favour of dialogue for national healing.
Chamisa said all peace-loving Zimbabweans wanted dialogue aimed at ending the current economic, political and social challenges besetting the country.
He said the talks should be open and genuine.
"We are warm to a negotiated settlement and we believe that talking should be about genuine dialogue, not swallowing of one another," Chamisa said.
On Monday, traditional leaders welcomed dialogue between Zanu-PF and the two MDC formations, saying this was the only way the current problems could be resolved.
Chief Fortune Charumbira, the president of the Chiefs' Council, said the traditional leaders were "very excited by President Mugabe's statement on dialogue" and challenged opposition parties to seriously consider talks.
"As traditional leaders, we support that and we hope the opposition would be forthcoming to the call made by the President to hold talks and work together as one family," Chief Charumbira said.
Zanu Ndonga also welcomed dialogue, saying it was in the best interests of the country but pointed out that it should not be confined only to Zanu-PF and the MDC formations.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe: MDC parties ready for talks``x1214993532,42041,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xby Pa Malick Faye
Thursday, July 03, 2008
Daily Observer Gambia
President Alhaji Dr Yahya Jammeh, has given the June 27 Presidential election run-off in Zimbabwe a clean bill of health, saying "Zimbabwe's election is valid". The president, in addition, branded the leader of the main opposition MDC, Morgan Tchangarai, as a "blue-eyed boy" and "puppet" of the West, emphasising that Zimbabwe will never be colonised again.
The plain speaking Gambian leader made these remarks in an interview with newsmen at the airport, upon his arrival from the 11th AU summit in the Egyptian Red Sea Resort of Sharm El-Sheikh, which lasted for two days.
According to Dr Jammeh, the summit was not diversion on the Zimbabwe issue but rather showed African leaders working for the continent's interest and those who are for West. He added: "The pronouncements of major Western media before the summit was what those representing Western interests came with, but they have regretted it".
The Gambian leader made comparison to an election recently held in an Eastern African country, which was described as not free and fair by all institutions involved in the process, yet the West decided to be mute about it. The aftermath of that election was marred by violence during which many were killed, thousands displaced and the end result was a unity government.
To him, Africans accept Mugabe's re-election, because it was lawful as the country's laws do not ban elections if a party decides to boycott.
Hypocrisy
Dr Jammeh again made reference to an event in a country in the Horn of Africa, where opposition protesters were shot and killed with impunity. He added that the government went to the extent of refusing to release the dead bodies unless the relatives paid for the bullets, but yet still the West made no noise, because that government was serving their interests.
"Why Zimbabwe?" he asked. "Because the whites are involved," he said, answering his rhetorical question. He observed that the suffering of the people of Zimbabwe was not Mugabe's making, but the West's just because they want to effect a change of government, which will be ruled by their puppet.
Dr Jammeh wondered why the West during the first round of the election decreed the process foul only to endorse it when the MDC emerged as the winner.
He agreed with President Museveni of Uganda that elections cannot be free and fair, when the opposition is backed by external forces to destabilize a country by launching attacks on ruling party supporters and use NGOs to induce the electorate.
Inclusive Government
To Dr Jammeh, President Mugabe can accommodate "nationalists" and "patriots" who have divergent views with him but have the country's interest at heart. But the decision for that mechanism to be in place lies with the government and people of Zimbabwe.
Prosecuting Mugabe
The Gambian leader called the Western ploy to prosecute President Mugabe on the pretext of misrule as "free, fair and fine". But questioned why they are not calling for the prosecution of the then white minority government in Zimbabwe and South Africa, where they carried out mass killings of Blacks, which was stopped by Mugabe and his fellow nationalists.
He added that today, the perpetrators of those crimes are living freely and no one is calling for their prosecution.
"We Africans should learn a lesson from this. They (the West) think they can dictate to us (Africans) and this is not acceptable. Africans should stand for Zimbabwe. After all what did the West did for Africa?" he rhetorically asked.
The Theme
Commenting on the theme of the summit, which was "Meeting the Millennium Development Goals in Water and Sanitation," Dr Jammeh said sanitation is the problem in Africa and not water. "Leaders have realised that collective approach at continental level will enable the continent to meet the MDGs in 2015," he added.
Reproduced from: The Daily Observer (Gambia)``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe election valid - Says President Jammeh``x1215121646,23799,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xHerald Reporter
July 04, 2008
The Herald
SIX British Conservative Party Members of Parliament and one Liberal Democrat, with investments worth over £1 million in Zimbabwe, have joined hands to oppose further sanctions on the country as suggested by British Prime Minister Gordon Brown.
Following President Mugabe's landslide victory last Friday, Brown said his government was working on a new sanctions regime to suffocate the Zanu-PF Government and give birth to an MDC-T government.
The seven have significant stakes in mining, manufacturing and retail companies either operating in Zimbabwe or trading directly or indirectly with local businesses.
Conservative shadow home secretary Dominic Grieve holds shares worth £240 000 in mining giants Anglo American and Rio Tinto, commercial bank Standard Chartered and oil company Shell.
Anglo American is presently being attacked by the British government for announcing its intention to invest US$400 million in Unki Platinum Mine in Shurugwi.
Grieve has reportedly refused to bow to pressure to take his investments out of Zimbabwe and is said to be opposed to Brown's plans to make it harder for British firms to operate in the country.
Another senior member of the party, Jonathan Djano-gly, is understood to have vast investments in Barclays, Shell, BP and Tesco.
Earlier this week, Tesco -- one of the world's largest retail chains -- announced that it would no longer buy farm produce, including peas and beans, from Zimbabwe after succumbing to pressure from Brown's office to sabotage the Land Reform Programme by not purchasing food from the country.
Djanogly, who is the shadow business secretary in the Conservative Party, has argued that it would not be right for the UK to ban British companies from operating in Zimbabwe and that shareholders should be given room to make representations to government on the issue.
Conservative Party shadow roads secretary Robert Goodwill is also a Barclays Bank shareholder while his colleague, Anthony Steen, has stakes in Unilever and Shell.
Goodwill said it was "better to bring pressure to bear as a shareholder but it was not a very good time to sell his shares" in Barclays.
Other British MPs with investments in Zimbabwe are Sir John Stanley, who has shares in Shell, and Tim Boswell, who is said to have stakes in Barclays Bank and Tesco.
The Liberal Democrat with investments in companies linked with or actively operating in Zimbabwe is Sir Robert Smith. His interests are in Rio Tinto and Shell.
Soon after the June 27 presidential election run-off, Smith said while he supported the UK's illegal regime change agenda through making ordinary Zimbabweans suffer, he was hesitant about implementing a blanket sanctions regime on the country.
"If we really believe that total economic isolation and suffering of the people of Zimbabwe will bring down the regime, then that is something we should consider, but it should be done in a proper politically debated way to make sure any consequences are fully thought through."
Conservative Party leader David Cameron has refused to commit himself on the sanctions issue and instead urged his followers to "examine their own responsibilities".``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe: British MPs defy Brown``x1215219022,87473,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Amengeo Amengeo
July 04, 2008
The African Executive
When sharks smell blood, they go into a feeding frenzy and attack relentlessly. There is feeding frenzy about Zimbabwe that preceded the June 27 run-off elections.
Thwarted in their bid to install their man Morgan Tsvangirai in power, the forces of Western neo-colonialism continue to ratchet up media pressure. Some African leaders seem to have bought into this propaganda campaign.
Stories in the Western Press about "Government-sanctioned violence" in Zimbabwe focus on lurid details quoting one-sided and opinionated anonymous sources without much verifiable data.
Remember the gory reports about Saddam's troops in Kuwait during the first Gulf War bayoneting babies in their incubators? Many of these stories later turned out to be fabrications. The same type of campaign is operating in Zimbabwe now.
Could the violence have been orchestrated by external forces attempting to force a crisis of chaos, thereby justifying intervention? Mugabe's suspension of aid agencies' involvement was a matter of national survival. The outspoken comments of the US ambassador went beyond his purview as a resident diplomat and entered the restricted area of direct interference in a sovereign country's internal affairs.
The struggle for control of Zimbabwe has never been about democracy. We need to be absolutely clear about that. The struggle for control of Zimbabwe is about, and has always been about whether Africans will rule themselves or be subordinated to the dictates and whims of Western powers.
When one considers there are at least half a dozen African leaders who actually brutalise their people and have ruled their respective countries without any pretensions about democracy for longer than Mugabe, the question must be asked: why, then Mugabe?
There is a trend across Africa among certain sectors, to dismiss and devalue the ideology and values of the liberation struggle, values which encompassed the quest for freedom from foreign rule (which was a thousand times worse than anything any African dictator could dream up today. King Leopold of Belgium, for example, butchered 10 million Congolese during the scramble for Africa at the turn of the last century), the search for an African identity and ultimately, continental unification.
The implication of that struggle has never been lost on Western strategic planners – for a unified Africa, in control of vast human and natural resources, land space three times the size of the United States of America, could evolve into a military and economic giant as has China in recent years.
The implications of this vision, with the psychological consequences for Africans the world over living on the margins of societies they inhabit on sufferance in Europe and America, are world-changing. Thus, buds that sprout must be torn up like weeds before their roots can anchor and spread. Zimbabwe is such a bud.
Whatever his shortcomings, Mugabe has consistently and unequivocally stood for African independence and has demonstrated his pan-African convictions by intervening on behalf of the government of the late Laurent Kabila in the Democratic Republic of Congo when it was attacked by forces backed by Western economic interests.
Mugabe's stance vis-à-vis the West has its justification based on sound historical reasons. When the European nations scrambled for Africa's resources at the turn of the last century, Cecil Rhodes, the quintessential British imperialist (who presumptuously stamped his name on an African country) sent in his mercenaries and freebooters, butchered the Ndebele and Shona, the original owners of the land.
The Africans resisted fiercely inspired by Nehanda, a divine woman (later hung by the whites for daring to inspire and resist) but were decimated by the maxim machine gun, a new weapon against which they had no defence. African lands were then apportioned to the invaders and Africans were dispossessed of and driven off their lands.
When Mugabe took back the lands from the whites in 2000, he was acting legitimately and righting a century-old wrong. Talk about the "rule of law" and that he should have followed legal protocol is absolute nonsense – for when Rhodes' thieves and mercenaries invaded, they exercised no legalities, but simply killed and stole the land just as their contemporaries had done with the indigenous people of America and Australia.
As the so-called Rhodesians, faced defeat by Mugabe's guerrilla armies, Britain, which had previously refused to intervene on behalf of the Africans against their "kith and kin", scrambled to arrange a peace deal before suffering a humiliating defeat. The warring parties were invited to Lancaster House in London where the British bugged the hotel rooms of the Africans and thus checkmated their best moves. The British promised to fund the land reform, which was the casus belli for the war, but typically had no intentions of so doing. In 2000, faced with a rising demand for land reform, Mugabe acted.
This was unforgiveable.
As Cuba remains unforgiveable for manifesting independence, so does Zimbabwe remain unforgivable for exercising her right to reclaim land that rightfully belongs to Africans. Behind all the high-flown talk about "property rights" and the "rule of law" lies white racism, a sense of white entitlement, and that Africans have no right to redress the wrongs perpetrated against them so brutally and for so long.
The West, especially Britain, the US, Australia and other Europeans have no right to lecture Africans about rights and the "rule of law" given the history of their depredations – slavery, theft of lands, extermination of the Tasmanians by the Australians and genocide by the Germans against the Herero.
As African heads of state and government resolved at the recently held African Union summit in Egypt, Zimbabwe's problems are African problems and must be solved by Africans. Tsvangirai's running to Western capitals like a petulant schoolchild complaining about Mugabe is giving the West an excuse to intervene in Zimbabwe's affairs or perhaps he is truly their puppet and has to report to his masters. It is very curious that the West announced his victory ahead of even exit polls.
Frustrated by the failure of their man to win an outright victory, the West has ratcheted up the pressure in the hopes of precipitating a crisis which would allow them to intervene more directly. Mugabe's pre-emptive move against the aid agencies [which have the perfect cover for espionage] has taken critical pieces off the board. Africans need to understand that is a test of their sovereignty and independence. If Mugabe's independent voice can be stilled by Western intervention, propaganda and the collusion of local puppets, then Africa's independence becomes meaningless.
Africa can solve its own problems and it needs to assertively tell the West this. Mbeki's quiet diplomacy is an attempt to find African solutions and avoid violence and chaos, for the people of Zimbabwe refused to ride off into the sunset and give the country to a man who cavorts about Western capitals calling for sanctions and intervention against his own country and seems to speak from a script that echoes the detractors of the Government.
Zimbabwe's problems are not intractable and they can be solved by Africans working together, but the region's leaders need to speak with one voice as they did at the just-ended AU Summit, and unequivocally told the West to leave Africa alone to resolve the Zimbabwean situation, whether by a unity government or some cession of power.
Unfortunately, Tsvangirai continues to compromise his credibility by appearing as the West's man. We need not to be befuddled by talk of "democracy" which the West insists on when it meets their interests.
Zimbabwe, we must never, never forget, is really about one defiant black man taking back what was stolen from his people as was his right to do. Africans have no reason to be ashamed of this.
Amengeo Amengeo is a specialist in Spanish, Latin American, Caribbean as well as African history. He has also been a journalist, civil servant and graphic artist.
Reproduced from: The African Executive``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xRobert Mugabe: Victim or Villain?``x1215219346,73834,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xCrime Reporter
Tuesday, July 08, 2008
The Herald
The MDC-T yesterday falsely claimed that its so called displaced supporters being housed at the Ruwa Rehabilitation Centre were attacked by soldiers in a desperate bid to portray an image of increasing political violence in the post presidential run-off period.
But Government has dismissed the allegations saying the move was calculated to put Zimbabwe on the spotlight at the G8 Summit underway in Japan.
The Minister of Public Service, Labour and Social Welfare Cde Nicholas Goche said the incident was stage-managed by the alleged eight victims. The BBC reported yesterday morning that some MDC-T activists who are being housed at the centre after they were displaced from their homes in violence leading to the presidential run-off election were allegedly assaulted by the uniformed forces.
"This incident was stage-managed and meant to coincide with the G8 Summit taking place in Japan to ensure that Zimbabwe is put on the agenda." It is also meant to say that political violence is increasing in Zimbabwe and people continue to be beaten so that they say there is continued violence in Zimbabwe but the situation is not consistent with what is on the ground," Cde Goche said.
He said it was also meant to push the British agenda to effect a regime change in Zimbabwe by putting the country on the centre stage at the United Nations Security Council. "It was also meant to create a situation where the UN says action has to be taken. This is just a stage-managed incident to put Zimbabwe in the spotlight," he said.
The international Press had already put on their diaries the alleged attacks on Sunday even before they happened. As part of the strategy, MDC-T leader Morgan Tsvangirai yesterday went to Chitungwiza to visit a factory belonging to MP Willas Madzimure which was said to have been petrol bombed with the international and local opposition Press in tow. But when he found no people at the factory Tsvangirai left in a huff and in the evening had the Western media rushing to his Strathaven house following claims that he was about to be assassinated. Again the media left Strathaven empty-handed. Cde Goche said the Ruwa incident was meant to tarnish the image of the country. He said from interviews with the alleged victims, it appeared that the stampede that occurred at the centre was started by some of the alleged victims.
"From interviews it would appear that they were not injured from this morning's event but were already injured. It would also appear that they are not necessarily displaced people but brought by the MDC-T to be polling agents and turned them into displaced people when they decided not to take part in the elections," he said.
Cde Goche, who visited the centre yesterday afternoon together with the Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs, Cde Patrick Chinamasa, said the matter would be fully investigated. The two are the Zanu-PF negotiators in the inter-party talks with the MDC factions. Cde Goche said they would discuss the matter with their MDC-T counterparts. He also said as soon as investigations were complete, the so-called displaced people would be taken back to their homes. Mashonaland East provincial medical director Dr Simukai Zizhou said the alleged victims confirmed there was a stampede but all had received medical attention. He said all of them did not sustain injuries from the stampede but had injuries already. Police Officer Commanding Harare Province Senior Assistant Commissioner Fortune Zengeni said preliminary investigations had revealed that the stampede was caused by the alleged victims.
Snr Asst Comm Zengeni said police had reacted swiftly and the allegations by the alleged victims had turned out to be a hoax. He, however, said police would get to the bottom of the matter. Meanwhile, the principal of the centre Mr Sneddon Soko said the incident was unfortunate but the centre had adequate security. He said the incident had affected students and the so-called people should be moved out as soon as possible.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe: MDC-T violence claims dismissed``x1215526321,27676,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xHerald Reporter
July 09, 2008
The Herald
The Group of Eight yesterday ignored African and Russian calls not to impose more sanctions on Zimbabwe and said they would put in place "financial measures" against the country in a move that has been described by Government as smacking of "international racism".
The G8 resolution made in Japan yesterday claimed Zimbabwe's Government was "illegitimate" despite the fact that President Mugabe polled over two million votes in the June 27 presidential run-off election against MDC-T leader Morgan Tsvangirai's less than 250 000 votes.
Though they avoided the word sanctions in their statement on Zimbabwe, they referred to "financial measures", and vowed to press the United Nations to take action against the country. "We will take further steps, inter alia introducing financial and other measures against those individuals responsible for the violence," they said. They added that they wanted Government to "work with the opposition", albeit on the basis of the March 29 harmonised elections that did not produce a winner in the presidential race.
The G8 resolution also seeks to subvert South African President Thabo Mbeki's mediation between Zimbabwe's main political parties by imposing another mediator – who they called a special UN envoy – in the inter-party talks. The Minister of Information and Publicity, Cde Sikhanyiso Ndlovu, yesterday slammed the decision as an attempt to override the will of the people who voted on June 27, as well as that of African heads of state who endorsed President Mbeki's mediation at last week's African Union Summit held in Egypt.
"The G8 has refused to listen to Africa. A number of African countries have tried to talk to them and make them understand the African Union's position on Zimbabwe but they have disregarded it all. "African leaders who were invited to the G8 Summit, such as President (Abdoulaye) Wade of Senegal and President (Jakaya) Kikwete of Tanzania, said they could not support sanctions but they (the G8) have gone ahead and passed a resolution calling for sanctions at the UN.
"For them to say that Zimbabwe's Government and President Mugabe's election are not legitimate is an attempt to impose a government on the people of Zimbabwe against their will. Our Constitution required that we hold a run-off and we did that accordingly. Morgan Tsvangirai probably did not understand what a run-off was and instead ran off to the Dutch Embassy. "But the people went out and voted, including for Tsvangirai, and President Mugabe won and has been sworn in as the Head of State," he said. "As such," Cde Ndlovu said, "the G8 resolution is ultimately of no consequence.
Nowhere in international law is there provision for a group of countries to sit down as a private club and decide the legitimacy of governments in sovereign states. This is international racism." On the matter of President Mbeki's mediation, Cde Ndlovu said Zimbabwe would proceed with the South African leader's facilitation as resolved by the AU and Sadc. "This issue is a non-starter.
Why do they want to impose another mediator? President Mbeki has proved his mettle as an African statesman par excellence and so we will follow the AU and Sadc position on this." At the AU Summit in Egypt, African heads of state resolved that President Mbeki should continue with his mediation efforts without unnecessary meddling from outsiders.
Seven leaders from the continent invited to the G8 Summit had earlier tried to impress on the United States, Britain and their allies that sanctions would not help Zimbabwe in any way. President Wade of Senegal yesterday held meetings with some G8 leaders in attempt to make them understand Africa's position. He told AFP yesterday that he had asked German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy in separate meetings for the G8 leaders at least to delay sanctions if they insist on imposing them to allow for dialogue among Zimbabwean political parties.
Earlier, Presidents Mbeki and Kikwete had also done the same thing but their calls were ignored. Russian Ambassador to the UN Vitaly Churkin said elements of the US draft were "quite excessive" and clearly "in conflict with the notion of sovereignty" of a UN member state. He was quoted by AFP questioning whether Zimbabwe's case amounted to a threat to international peace and security.
The other African countries represented at the G8 Summit were Algeria, Ethiopia, Ghana and Nigeria, who said sanctions "may lead to internal conflict in Zimbabwe". The US and its allies pushed through the resolution as a means of putting pressure on the UN Security Council to also slap sanctions on Zimbabwe.
The US introduced a draft resolution calling for sanctions before the Security Council that would then legitimise the economic embargo America already has in place against the country. The Security Council is expected to debate the draft this week. In South Africa, Britain's Foreign Secretary David Miliband received a cool response from his South African counterpart Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma to his calls for sanctions against Zimbabwe as the pair held talks yesterday.
Dlamini-Zuma said at a joint Press conference that Pretoria saw talks between Zimbabwe's ruling party and the opposition as the best way to resolve the country's problems. She expressed little enthusiasm for sanctions. "Our leaders are currently meeting in Japan at the G8 meeting and they have expressed reservations on sanctions and so we will take if from there," she said. "South Africa has always maintained that an inclusive government that will reflect the diversity and the will of the people" was the best way to tackle the country's problems, she added. The G8 is comprised of Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia and the US. ``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe: Govt raps G8 sanctions call``x1215613274,99748,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Nathaniel Manheru
July 12, 2008
May the good Lord please help us! We seem to be living through an evil hour. Take this white woman journalist called Christina Lamb. I happen to have met her once. Quite unattractive and rather indifferent to femininity, she comes across as quite feeble and charitable, totally foreign to any harm to anyone, least of all a country. Until you discover her deadly side beneath this misleading patina of fragility. To the Empire, she is John Simpson's female equivalent in print journalism. Or better still Chris McGreal's female equivalent. She is M-16 affiliated; she gets her cue from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Once the Empire defines the enemy, she builds formidable propaganda against those the British establishment seek to destroy. Alongside the other two, and joined by a youthful intern at the Telegraph, David Blair, she is part of Britain's propaganda frontline. This is a very useful brief to understanding what follows.
The story of one Blessing Mabhena
Writing for the British Sunday Times of June 29, a mere two days after the run-off, Lamb claimed one Blessing Mabhena – an 11-months old baby boy of "an opposition councillor" – was "seized from a bed and flung down with force" by Zanu-PF "thugs", breaking both his legs. "Blessing," continued Lamb, "who may never be able to walk properly, was one of the youngest victims of atrocities against the opposition party Movement for Democratic Change in the run-up to last Friday's sham presidential election." Veracity is given by a moving picture of the toddler crying, presumably from unrelieved pain, both legs heavily bandaged. Another authenticator was the voice of one Jon Stewart, "a director of the Zimbabwe Human Rights Forum" who testifies that this "is a deliberate nationwide strategy to reoccupy space so all space is occupied by the Zanu of Mugabe". A third one came by way of excerpts supposedly leaked from minutes of Joint Operations Command (JOC) revealing a bloody plot to "wipe out" over 2 million opposition supporters in the country! The story was widely circulated, widely read and widely picked by many publications from all corners of the globe. It drew 20 pages of reader reactions, all recording utter outrage at this Nazi-like atrocity. From this horror emerged – spontaneously – a fund set up by well-wishers for the treatment of young Mabhena, himself a deserving target of this telescopic philanthropy Dickens ridiculed in Bleak House.
Clubbing truth, fitting feet
A week later, on July 6, the Sunday Times, a small paragraph appeared in the same publication: hard to see, well hidden in deep pages inside well-paid, refulgent puffery, softly and cryptically confessing the story which had drawn such a wide reaction was in fact a false one. Doctors from both Zimbabwe and London had been on the boy's case and had concluded baby Mabhena had been born "with club feet". Conveniently the error was blamed on an unnamed "freelance journalist", presumably from Zimbabwe. Uneventfully, the matter was closed. Zimbabwe had been maligned, the repair and remedy raising no cost to anyone. Noteworthy, the baby-boy had been given a Ndebele surname, his parents an MDC identity for dual emotional triggers. What could have been better tailored for charges of extreme crime against humanity, ethnic cleansing and undemocratic behaviour?
The great hoax of Ruwa
Just this week, we had another spectacular one. The setting was Ruwa Rehabilitation Centre where individuals claiming to be MDC internally displaced claimed to have been viciously attacked by men "wearing army uniforms". In a case of very useful coincidence, the story was broken to the international Press at 0200hrs on Monday, the same day the G-8 was supposed to deliberate on the case of Zimbabwe. It ran on all the world networks, claiming a refuge centre housing MDC's internally displaced villagers, had been brutally attacked by men in "army uniform". One woman from the group claimed to have had her pant pulled down by one of the "uniformed thugs" whose intentions were anyone's guess. Fifteen of the attacked displaced activists, the reports added, could not be accounted for, and had to be presumed murdered by the same "Zanu-PF thugs".
Truth that never sell
Minister Goche in charge of Social Welfare and part of the negotiations with the MDC factions, rushed to Ruwa to establish the facts. Curiously the story had run without visuals, and curiously too, the usually avid international Press was phlegmatic on this one story. Any coverage would have killed it before its maximum damage. It had to run indefinitely as white copy. Meanwhile, Minister Goche listened to accounts from all the eight "victims", all of whom declared extreme trauma, To the person, they spoke calmly and in very clear Shona language, interlarded by words and phrases from the vocabulary of human rights discourse. None goofed; none stammered. Even a layman did not have to fumble for charges the combined narratives were driving at. Curiously these were supposed to be simple villagers recently displaced by vicious violence in the countryside. Yet they seemed so familiar with international statutes.
Spectacle of worldly villagers
Yet they knew how to relate to a whole Minister of Government who is also a Zanu-PF MP, unnerved and with remarkable calmness in the absence of any international official, in the presence of officials, war veterans and ZRP details. Yes, yet they knew the intricacies of negotiating with embassies to get succour and food, and of course to set terms for their relocation to any other venue other than embassy compound to which they had allegedly run for refuge. They were all armed with cell-phones which never ran out of airtime, which rang all the time, either to deliver voice messages or SMS, both from Harvest House. They knew how to reach the international office of the Red Cross; knew about IOM, Christian Care, etc, etc; knew how to field interviews with the international Press. Above all, they had internationally published manuals or organising political dissent and opposition, these very literate MDC victims from the villages.
Groping for truth
All were heavily bandaged, looking very ill. Until they started giving their stories, in the process getting remarkably animated, forgetting their condition obliged subdued presentations. Until the Minister brought in the Provincial Medical Director to probe what lay beneath the heavy bandages. Lo and behold, nothing serious, save light bruises from a calibrated stampede. Grains of grass deliberately planted to suggest a tussle. Still the minister insisted the lady who claimed violation be examined.
Seeing events were taking a turn for the worse, she quickly indicated she had not been touched, although she felt some pain somewhere on her back. Again the Minister insisted the doctor probes that back. Where exactly is the injury, asked the good doctor? Whereupon the lady's hand kept changing points of pain, leading the good doctor down to terrifying depths and zones. The man of the stethoscope balked, clearly reluctant to follow the lead that seemed to radiate the victim's face, that seemed calculated to gratify other ends.
Part time, mealtime refuges
And the missing persons? Well, all hailed from nearby Epworth. Their history? Well, to the name, these were part-time refugees who felt most insecure at breakfast, lunch and supper! Outside these meal-times, they would be home in Epworth, doing their odd jobs. Good calculation in these hard times. And because they are not tied to the place geographically, they could always be used for other purposes, including the all-important assignment of that fateful Monday. But a lot more emerged, once more reminding me of the hazards of propaganda. One young man who claimed he had escaped attacks in Marondera confessed the group had left Harvest House because of hunger and appalling conditions inside that building. There was no food; there were no ablution services; not even blankets. Need you wonder to hear that the MDC is closing its Century House haven, blaming it all on State raids? And if one gets to know about MDC plans to go the banditry route, would this be surprising? Chinamasa is right: in the intervening weeks we will get to know the Jonasi Savimbi in our midst.
Superfluous election agents
Another – a woman – indicated she had been deployed alongside many others to Hwedza as an election agent, but got left in limbo when Tsvangirai unexpectedly decided he was pulling out of the race. Fearful, they decided to leave for the mountains where they stayed until the MDC sent them $40bn through a contact in the village for transport back to base. Yet another one had a plaster. From where? Well not from Ruwa but from Madziwa where he had been hurt from a scuffle with Zanu-PF youths. Circumstances? Well, he had left his home in Kuwadzana suburb in Shamva for an undisclosed operation. The story ended there for the young man could not be pressed any further. Was this the same operation through which the MDC caused mayhem in Mashonaland Central?
More lies, more liars
I could go on and on recounting many such incidents, not forgetting of course a similar one from Violet Gonda of the British funded anti-Zimbabwe pirate radio, SW Africa, claiming Zanu-PF thugs' latest victim is a 70-year-old man. I could go back to the story of an MDC activist who died from Aids in South Africa, whom Chamisa claimed had died from wounds inflicted by "Zanu-PF thugs"; go back to the legendary story of beheading, ran by Basildon Peta who in South Africa doubles up as a journalist and an MDC public relations officer; indeed could go back to the race Kwinjeh – now a high-ranking MDC official – and her politically calculated claim that the army had buried a headless corpse of a soldier killed in the DRC, just ahead of the MDC launch in 1999. Not of course to forget another recent one published in the British Guardian a mere two days before the run-off. This was an opinion piece attributed to Tsvangirai calling for a multinational invasion of Zimbabwe. Knowing the consequences, Tsvangirai left the Dutch Embassy to reach Government in order to distance himself from the report. Or two other stunts lined up for this Monday involving self-created violence at a factory in Chitungwiza owned by MDC's Madzimure whose "extensive damages following at attack by Zanu-PF youths, Tsvangirai was supposed to tour. Or the false alarm to the international Press that Tsvangirai had just survived an armed attempt on his life, again slotted for Harare, which left many journalists stunned. It has been a very innovative campaign, calculated to move the world, risk the country through black propaganda.
Trojan Horse, hidden fighters
Poor MDC! It is not even in charge of the lies that are supposed to take it to State House! It is not even in charge of statements published in its name or those of its leaders. Some others are and hey, the bastards have overreached. Britain's SAS guys have been in the country, working closely with residual Rhodesian structures – both military and farming – re-launched ahead of the March 29 harmonised elections. Part of this contingent from the British army were stationed at the British Mission, with another section melting into the countryside under the cover of a UK-based, Foreign and Commonwealth Office-funded NGO I shall have occasion to reveal. The machinery woven around this element of the British military, working closely with Rhodesia's residual security and farming structures, carried the burden of the MDC campaign in the run-up to the March harmonised elections. The funding came in variously, including from George Soros, himself symbolising the American part to this Anglo-Saxony assault of Zimbabwe. This was a high-risk covert venture which could only be mounted but once, and in circumstances of a great political hurly-burly, which is what the environment of the harmonised elections provided. This is why the result had to come right in March, no other time, no other election. So much had been done, so little else could be done afterwards. Hence the desperate, concussive attempt by the whole of Europe and America to stampede a false electoral result which would have given victory to the MDC in March. Hence the present attempt to freeze the will of the "Zimbabwean people" on the March 29 result, as if that result was conclusive in the first place. Or as if March 29 amounted to a legal cul-de-sac about which Zimbabwe had to turn to superior bodies and will, outside of its own supreme law and popular vote for resolution. March 29 thus amounts to a disastrous, British-led external covert operation from which Brown is trying to recover by any means. I notice the radical Executive Intelligence Review of LaRouche has the basic outline of the plot.
Lieutenants from Rhodesia
I challenge the media to research into the political and military background of MDC personnel fronted in the March elections, to disprove my postulate on the role of Rhodesia's former uniformed services – direct and paramilitary – and its civil service arms, principally teachers in running MDC's machinery. A good starting point is Buhera, Gutu, Zaka and Chikomba. This is the one great story no one has sought to investigate, write and publish, simply because it goes against the grain. Just who are these MDC MPs which Zimbabweans, hoping to satisfy their stomachs, voted in on March 29? Why is there no curiosity in the media to build profiles of leading MDC personalities, including its MPs-elect? The revelations will be shocking, including the discovery that a prominent lawyer MDC MP-elect was in fact a lieutenant in the Rhodesian army who then got cashiered from the army at Independence to join the courts as an interpreter. Why does a political party that likes to build its legitimacy around alleged State-sponsored violence, recruit from the machinery of Rhodesian violence against blacks? Why from the white settler farmers who occupied our land? What is the intended outcome?
Season of Anglo-Saxony chaos
Which takes me to my next point. When it became apparent the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission could not be stampeded into endorsing the proposed electoral fraud; became apparent that Zanu-PF was raising uncomfortable queries regarding results and the whole voting process, the whole mission slid into utter chaos. And for days, both the Americans and the British would not agree on the best way forward against the sordid fact of a collapsed covert intervention and the bleak prospect of the most damaging revelation that in fact these so-called doyens of ballot democracy had sought to rig it for a preferred outcome. Could Tsvangirai go back for a run-off in a new environment of a more alert Zanu-PF and a simplified contest in which the personality factor would decide, predictably certain to go against leadership qualities-shorn Tsvangirai? Zanu-PF's relentless preparations for a run-off rendered the date academic, forcing the panicky Anglo-Americans to force Tsvangirai back into the ring, prayerfully hoping the momentum built in March would carry him past June 27. Again, the dilemma was a simple one: unable to reject results of an internationally supervised recount, these doyens of constitutionalism could not be seen to be sidestepping the constitutional dictates of Zimbabwe. Tsvangirai had to run, which is why the emissary was no other than McGee, US ambassador to Zimbabwe.
Enter the Selous Scouts
Once it became clear the MDC could not carry the day, the strategy changed to discrediting both the process and outcome. The instruments were obvious: Selous Scout tactics of highly photogenic brutality to move the world; sponsoring the election observation process for pre-ordained condemnatory verdicts; heightening attacks on the Mbeki mediation effort to put the matter beyond Sadc and Africa, to the UN Security Council where they read a greater preparedness to push through more drastic measures against the Zanu-PF Government, including military invasion. It is a fact that Sadc, the AU and PAP observer missions were funded by American and British money, among other Western sponsors. It is also a fact that country observer missions were wholly sponsored by American funds, including the vocal Botswana team which largely comprised personnel from hostile, American-sponsored NGOs. The few countries which, and few persons who did not receive America's dirty money, are the ones who stood against this choreographed negative judgment for which Britain and America had invested so heavily.
Photogenic violence
But these missions needed valid reasons to justify the negative verdict, which is where the calibrated, photogenic violence so covertly managed by British SAS elements working with Rhodesia's residual Selous Scout structures, came in. The spontaneous inter-party clashes which are inevitable in any election, provided a useful backdrop to this operation which continues to this day, albeit with reduced ardour. The pictures Gordon Brown used to sway G-8 leaders came from this operation whose communication side is being manned by British intelligence elements infiltrated into the country. Again the Executive Intelligence Review carries glimpses of this grim operation whose pattern will get clearer not too long hence. Presently, the British and the Americans are torn between a proxy war against Zimbabwe, drawn out insurgency by the MDC, or an outright British-led frontal assault on Zimbabwe. A client state through which to aggress Zimbabwe is proving harder to get, with public opinion in Zimbabwe's neighbourhood clearly ranged against such a bloody proposition. Insurgency is being driven by Rhodesians, led by Roy Bennett. The fear is a drawn out conflict, as well as the daunting fact of an uncertain rear. Reports from two think-tanks based in South Africa and Kenya are the very first attempts at making this dimension of MDC banditry known publicly. The last option is fraught, made worse by the propaganda reverses at the G-8 Summit where Africa was alienated. Made worst by the uphill battle at the Security Council. Un-helped by the resumption of talks in South Africa. Made decidedly unattractive by the British army's failing commitments elsewhere, commitments so poorly performed, leading to a plummeting of morale in its armed force. How do you go to war with a Force where half the strength is agitating to leave it, citing greater exposure, poor command, unholy wars? And of course Britain knows we have been preparing for this eventuality for quite a while, which is why it will be so suicidal. Except that is Brown's other name, is it not? He pins his vain hopes on lies or war. Neither will wash. Icho!
nathaniel.manheru@zimpapers.co.zw``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xUK/USA/MDC: Bandaging the Truth``x1215836243,92645,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xHerald Reporter
July 14, 2008
The Herald
GOVERNMENT yesterday thanked Zimbabwe's true and trusted friends for thwarting efforts by the West to impose more sanctions on the country through the United Nations Security Council last week.
In an interview yesterday, Deputy Minister of Information and Publicity Cde Bright Matonga hailed China and Russia for vetoing concerted efforts by Britain and the United States to victimise Zimbabwe.
He also thanked Libya, South Africa and Vietnam for their unreserved support for Zimbabwe.
"We are grateful to our all-weather friends, particularly China and Russia. We thank them wholeheartedly for their continued support and for the work they have done before, during and after independence. They continue to support us even during these difficult times," he said. "We are very grateful for their support.
"As Zimbabweans, we now need to work together as a united front. We have to put our house in order and be organised. This is the time for nation building."
Cde Matonga said it was important for Zimbabweans to put their differences aside and join hands for the development of the country.
"We have to work together as a nation. We must be united and disciplined. We do not need to take our friends for granted by always putting them in difficult circumstances as they might fail to defend us next time," he said.
Cde Matonga acknowledged the support the country was receiving from Sadc and the African Union but noted that some African countries were being compromised by the budgetary support they receive from
the West.
He said there were no divisions in Sadc and the AU over Zimbabwe although the West had tried to use divide-and-rule tactics.
"The enemy has not rested. The enemy is very bitter, vindictive and racist. We should not relax and say we have defeated them. It may look as victory, but it is not. We did not want to be on the agenda. We have to focus on nation building," Cde Matonga said.
Moves in the Security Council to impose sanctions on Zimbabwe at the UN level failed on Friday when Russia and China, two of the 15-member body's permanent members, vetoed the US draft resolution that could have widened the current illegal embargo against Zimbabwe to include an arms ban, among others.
The US, Britain, Italy, France, Panama, Croatia, Belgium, Costa Rica and Burkina Faso voted in favour of the sanctions while China, Russia, Libya, Vietnam and South Africa voted against. Indonesia abstained.
The negative vote of a single permanent member kills a resolution.
Russia condemned the move, saying it was an attempt to take the Security Council beyond its mandate of maintaining international peace and security.
It noted that such "illegitimate and dangerous attempts" could unbalance the whole UN system, adding that the problems in Zimbabwe could not be solved by the imposition of sanctions.
Stung by their failure, Britain and the US criticised Russia with America's UN envoy saying Moscow's veto cast doubt on its reliability as a G8 ally.
But Russia slammed the accusation as "unacceptable".
"Representatives of the United States and Britain have declared that our vote betrayed the G8 Tokyo summit accords on Zimbabwe and that this posed questions about Russia's reliability as a partner in the G8," government spokesman Andrei Nesterenko said in a statement.
"We consider such statements unacceptable," he added.
In a separate statement, the Russian foreign ministry condemned violence but warned the proposed UN resolution would have set a "dangerous precedent" for interference in countries' internal affairs.
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said they would shift to the European Union to see what further action to take against Zimbabwe.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe thanks China, Russia for UN veto``x1216015970,15767,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xHerald Reporter
July 15, 2008
The Herald
THE Minister of Lands, Land Reform and Resettlement, Cde Didymus Mutasa, is expected to give oral evidence before the Sadc Tribunal in Namibia during the hearing of a case in which 78 former commercial farmers are seeking to stop the compulsory acquisition of their farms for resettlement in Zimbabwe.
The hearing resumes tomorrow in Windhoek.
"The Minister of State for National Security, Lands, Land Reform and Resettlement, Cde Didymus Mutasa, is going to attend a hearing of land matters before a Sadc Tribunal as from July 16 to July 18 2008 in Windhoek, Namibia," an official in the ministry said in an interview yesterday.
"The Minister is expected to give oral evidence before the court which is sitting at the Supreme Court Building in Namibia to hear the matter."
According to the ministry, the matter was set down for the hearing of full and substantive arguments from both sides.
Apart from Cde Mutasa, the Zimbabwean delegation comprises Deputy Attorney-General (Civil Division) Advocate Prince Machaya, Deputy Attorney-General (Criminal Division) Mr Johaness Tomana, Advocate Martin Dinha and senior officials from the Ministry of Lands, Land Reform and Resettlement.
The hearing of the case was postponed to tomorrow by the tribunal on May 28 this year.
It also reserved judgment in an application in which more than 300 000 beneficiaries of the same land reform programme were seeking to be part of the hearing.
The tribunal deferred the case to July after granting the Zimbabwean Government’s legal team an extension to file their arguments.
The tribunal reserved judgment on an application by the Zimbabwe Lawyers for Justice, a progressive grouping of Zimbabwean lawyers representing resettled farmers, who want to be part of the case as it directly affected them.
Analysts argue that it would have been awkward for the tribunal to make a ruling on a case of 78 people that would have affected more than 300 000 people and thousands more awaiting resettlement without hearing the arguments of the resettled farmers.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xMinister to testify in land case``x1216098110,93511,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xAFP-Herald Reporter
July 15, 2008
The Herald
Britain is increasingly getting desperate to act against Zimbabwe and has announced plans to hunt down assets of senior Zanu-PF and Government officials.
President Mugabe has previously said he has no assets in foreign countries and told the British and the European Union to seize any if they find them.
Yesterday British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said he had asked the finance ministry to hunt down the assets of senior Zimbabwean officials and pledged to ramp up the illegal sanctions.
The British efforts are also aimed at helping MDC-T leader Morgan Tsvangirai, who is growing desperate to save his political career, analysts have said.
Tsvangirai's term as leader of the opposition expires next February as the party's constitution clearly states that "the president shall serve for a maximum of two terms".
"Tsvangirai wants to get in (to the highest office in the land) by hook and crook. He wants to get in at the expense of people's interests, the country's interests and his own party's interests," said one Harare-based analyst.
Britain has turned to the EU for more sanctions against Zimbabwe after a bid to pass fresh United Nations sanctions against Zimbabwe's leadership was vetoed by Russia and China.
Part of the resolution the British and Americans were pushing attempted to impose Tsvangirai as president of Zimbabwe on the basis of the March 29 results in which he led in the first round before losing to President Mugabe in the run-off last month.
"I have this morning asked the Treasury to work with the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) to track the wealth and the assets that are owned by members of the Mugabe regime ... so that we are in position to take tougher action at a later date," Brown said at a monthly news conference.
He claimed the assets are held in Asia, Africa and Europe.
The FATF is an inter-governmental body which tackles money laundering and terrorist financing.
Brown said Britain, the former colonial power in Zimbabwe, would return to the UN Security Council to act against Zimbabwe.
Countries that opposed the draft UN resolution did so on the grounds that talks between Government and the opposition were underway.
So desperate are the British, they are now punishing anyone with the name Mugabe.
A furious Sam Mugabe was left without money when her wages "vanished" in Britain's banking system – because of sanctions against President Mugabe and other senior Government officials.
Her bank HSBC mistook Sam (23) for a relative of President Mugabe and froze her £1 200 pay cheque, The Sun newspaper reported yesterday.
Her bosses at a media firm near her home in Camden, North London, feared a computer glitch and arranged for her to be paid again – only for the same thing to happen.
It was 10 days before British citizen Sam – born in Zimbabwe but no relation to President Mugabe – got her money.
She fumed: "Mugabe is quite a common name in Zimbabwe."
HSBC later apologised. – AFP-Herald Reporter.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xUK steps up regime change agenda, hunts for suspected assets``x1216098135,23000,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Dr Obediah Mazombwe
July 16, 2008
THE Western governments must stop being dismissive of African sentiment. It was most rude, undiplomatic, and even uncouth, for the French-led EU to announce, in the face of an AU-considered and published decision to conduct unity talks between rival Zimbabwean political parties, that the EU would only recognise a Mr Morgan Tsvangirai-led Zimbabwe government.
We fervently hope that Mr Tsvangirai, in his approach to the on-going talks, will not be unduly influenced by this irresponsible declaration by the French government and the EU. Neither the USA nor the EU has the moral or legal authority to declare who should rule a sovereign country like Zimbabwe.
This is a country that attained its independence and sovereignty through an armed struggle that the greater part of the US and EU establishments did not support, in fact, in some way undermined.
The unity talks under way in South Africa must proceed without any undue delay or hindrance, and without any preconditions. Both negotiating parties should realise that the Zimbabwean masses are suffering intensively under the current conditions. Indeed it is incumbent upon the negotiating parties to reach an agreement within the following week and establish a ruling authority in Zimbabwe to take immediate responsibility for the welfare of the suffering Zimbabweans.
The MDC leader in particular needs to start behaving like a true national leader and take full responsibility for his decisions rather than allow himself to be prompted by external forces, who do not have the interest of the Zimbabwean people at heart.
Zimbabwe and Africa are eagerly awaiting a positive outcome from these negotiations, and whilst Western governments can observe the process, they have no business interfering with and trying to direct the process.
In searching for future global peace and security, one does not want to endlessly refer to past ills, but Anglo-American policymakers need to be reminded that the cut inflicted by 500 years of slavery and colonialism was a most heinous crime. It was so deep and so close to the jugular that Africans are easily reminded of it. They will forgive but not forget.
Western, particularly American, policymakers need also to be reminded that African nationalism is well entrenched on the continent. It is very deep rooted in countries like Tanzania, Mozambique, Zimbabwe and South Africa.
It cannot be wiped away through a wild mixture of cajoling, persuasion, threats and bribery. This was demonstrated by the steadfast position adopted by the likes of President Abdoulaye Wade of Senegal, President Jakaya Kikwete of Tanzania, President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa, and its foreign minister, Mrs Nkosazana Dhlamini-Zuma, over the issue of Zimbabwe.
It is very clear that in spite of their own weaknesses, especially those pertaining to corruption and economic mismanagement, the majority of African leaders are very clear about their quest for a pan-Africanist destiny for Africa. America and Europe need to respect this.
More serious for the rich Western nations to note is the fact that African leaders are now very aware that the rich West are not yet serious about assisting Africa resolve her problems with abject poverty and the associated suffering of its people. They are also aware, thanks to the constant reminders by the West's behaviour, that most of Africa's problems are still attributable to the colonial legacy.
Worse still, African leaders know that current Western policies of unfair trade and economic relations, the instigation of conflict and sale of arms to the continent, are all major causal and sustaining factors of Africa's woes.
It is in this context that Africa will not abandon Zimbabwe and see President Mugabe as an African hero. It surely could not have escaped the notice of Western analysts that in spite of the massive media onslaught on President Mugabe, not a single African head of state has actually condemned the Zimbabwean Government and President Mugabe as such.
Only the rogue Prime Minister of Kenya, Raila Odinga, in clear contrast to the stance adopted by that country's deputy president and foreign minister, has directly attacked President Mugabe and called for his expulsion from Sadc and the AU. In his case it might only be a matter of time before the West drags him to The Hague for genocide related to the killing of thousands of Kenyans in the just ended Kenyan elections. The West has not hesitated to do so with Charles Taylor of Liberia, Pierre Bemba of the DRC, Saddam Hussein of Iraq, who they first supported when it was politically expedient but discarded when they were no longer useful for the West's own purposes.
The only other country that has formally condemned Zimbabwe is Botswana. That country has decided, in spite of its massive diamond wealth, to become America's client state in the region. This should perhaps be "understandable" given that its current head of state is the son of a British knight, Sir Seretse Khama. Unless it changes direction, that country could yet become an anomaly and anachronism on the African political landscape.
However, in differing with the rich countries over Zimbabwe, African nationalist leaders have not been confrontational. Both South Africa's Mbeki and Tanzania's Kikwete have literally said to the West: "We agree with you on a lot of issues, including the fact that there are critical problems in Zimbabwe, but we differ with you on the way forward. We think our way is better and we will, with respect, stick to that, irrespective of your stance, sirs".
The African nationalist leaders have maintained this composed mature African stance even in the face of provocative and insulting behaviour on the part of the West.
That way the African nationalists have won this round of their diplomatic war with the West and have enlisted world opinion to their side.
The re-emerging Russian power has on its part been firm but accommodating in its dealings with the leading global power that America has become. In the case of Zimbabwe, the Russians have clearly and politely explained their reasons for vetoing the draft US resolution on Zimbabwe.
The Russian foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, in addressing their approach to dealing with other countries, who he refers to as "partners", recently wrote:
"There is no reason to conceal or dramatise the existing contradictions with our partners. We have a great deal to do together in the future. This includes co-operation with the UN and the G8, Russia-EU partnership, and the Nato-Russia council, settlement of crises and bilateral agendas."
The Western establishments need to note the difference between their approach to global issues and that adopted by the African nationalists and Russia.
Iran last week went ahead and tested its war missiles even as America protested and its Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice warned that America would not hesitate to deploy its military might to subdue the world to its will and that of its allies.
The Americans should exercise their power more responsibly. Should other races and peoples of the world decide that a US-dominated globe is not fit for humanity, no one but no one, is going to be safe.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xAfrica will never abandon Zimbabwe``x1216175803,32307,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xHerald Reporter
July 16, 2008
The Herald
THE British government is building a £10 million complex for its Embassy in Harare despite its calls for foreign companies operating in Zimbabwe to pull out of the country.
Chief executive of leading construction group Murray & Roberts Mr Brian Bruce recently revealed that his company was contracted nearly 18 months ago to build the complex just outside Harare's central business district.
"It is a completely new facility from scratch, costing in the region of £10 million. Work began about 18 months ago and is pretty close to completion," Mr Bruce said.
Murray & Roberts Zimbabwe is 48 percent owned by Murray and Roberts, Johannesburg in South Africa and is listed separately on the local bourse.
The building is now close to completion and insiders said the UK's mission in Harare would relocate there "late this year or early next year".
Observers say the project exposes British hypocrisy following repeated claims by Prime Minister Gordon Brown and several of his ministers that Zimbabwe was not a safe country to do business in and that companies operating in the country should relocate as part of the illegal regime change agenda.
In essence, this means that the British government is investing in Zimbabwe while discouraging companies like Anglo-American and Barclays from doing so.
Keith Scott, the first secretary for political and public affairs at the British Embassy in Harare, yesterday admitted that the UK was indeed expanding its presence in the country despite official pronouncements calling for sanctions.
"It is right that the UK should plan an embassy commensurate with its interests in Zimbabwe," Scott said without explaining why they were expanding while at the same time coercing others to pull out.
He added that their position was that "individuals must look to their own consciences as regards investments" in Zimbabwe.
Presently, the local UK embassy rents space in the city centre.
Britain, together with the United States, has been at the forefront in urging companies to pull out of Zimbabwe and last week their bid to have United Nations sanctions imposed on the country was thwarted by several members of the UN Security Council.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe: UK hypocrisy exposed``x1216225778,54825,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xOpinion & Analysis
July 17, 2008
The Herald
LAST week, the world was treated to yet another display of the kind of supreme arrogance that has characterised the West's engagement of Zimbabwe since the start of the Land Reform Programme.
In this instance, the United States, Britain, France and their allies in the illegal regime change agenda tried to get the United Nations to impose sanctions on Zimbabwe.
These countries were trying to find a way to legitimise the unilateral economic embargo they already have on the country through the structures of the UN.
Thankfully, reason and sanity prevailed and South Africa, Libya, Vietnam, Russia and China effectively opposed this latest attempt to interfere in the internal political affairs of a sovereign nation.
While the West learnt its lesson that the world will not roll over and accept whatever insults are thrown their way by military powers, there was also a poignant lesson for the UN and Africa from all this.
Firstly, the UN must find ways of ensuring that its offices and structures are not abused by individuals such as George W. Bush and Gordon Brown, who have their own personal scores to settle with Zimbabwe.
The most democratic organ of the UN, the General Assembly, must seriously consider
coming up with punitive measures to deter warmongers from bringing forward frivolous draft resolutions that only serve to divide what should be an organisation that seeks to foster global unity.
It is in the best interests of all UN members to send a clear and strong message to countries like the US and Britain that the organisation exists to deal with real issues, not to appease the flippant political desires of power-drunk Western countries.
Secondly, the African Union must realise that the West does not care about what this continent's leaders and people say or want.
The AU passed a resolution in Egypt earlier this month in which they made it clear that South Africa's President Thabo Mbeki should be given the room and support he requires to complete his facilitation of dialogue between Zimbabwe's political parties.
The AU was also unambiguous about the fact that there should be no interference by any interest group whether inside or outside Africa unless President Mbeki has expressed a desire for assistance.
By taking a draft resolution to the Security Council calling for sanctions on Zimbabwe, the US, Britain and their motley band of supporters have demonstrated that they are not interested in what Africa thinks.
As such, the AU must realise that the West simply wants to criticise and control the rest of the world.
If Africa allows such a thing to continue, history will judge the present crop of continental leaders harshly for watching as our sovereignty is compromised in such a blatantly crude manner.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xStand firm against US, UK arrogance``x1216272474,64474,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xHerald Reporter
July 18, 2008
The Herald
LAWYERS representing the Government of Zimbabwe at the Sadc Tribunal Court in Namibia in the case in which white former commercial farmers are challenging the compulsory acquisition of land for resettlement yesterday walked out of court protesting against the manner in which the proceedings were being conducted.
What irked the lawyers was the reactivation of the contempt of court order against the Government of Zimbabwe that was thrown out on Wednesday by the tribunal.
The former farmers, claiming that the Government of Zimbabwe was not complying with an interim order to allow them to return to their farms granted last year, brought about the charge.
According to one of the lawyers, Advocate Martin Dinha, the tribunal reactivated the application of contempt of court that was heard after they had walked out.
"We sought to have more evidence heard from the security organs and Zanu-PF to prove that the Government of Zimbabwe was not in contempt of court, but the tribunal denied justice to the Government of Zimbabwe. They did not allow for evidence to be led from the relevant Government organs," he said.
Adv Dinha said they also wanted to prove that one Gift Moyo and other people in Mashonaland West were not assigned by the Government and that they had since been arrested for acts of violence, theft, vandalism and assault.
"We cannot legitimise the kangaroo process where rules of the court are not properly applied and manifest unfairness against our Government and its security organs by a Sadc tribunal funded by the European Union, the US and the British government," he said.
Adv Dinha said the Sadc Tribunal allowed itself to be an "instrument" of the so-called regime change agenda and to injure the sovereign interests of Zimbabwe.
He said the purpose of the contempt of court case was to have the matter referred to the Sadc summit and have the United Nations impose more sanctions on Harare.
"We will defend the interests of our country and we will not allow the Sadc Tribunal to be a football pitch where US and British interests become the soccer match," Adv Dinha.
On Wednesday, the tribunal was forced to throw out the application following a strenuous protest by the lawyers representing the 345 beneficiaries of the land reform programme.
The lawyers had insisted that the intervener application filed by the beneficiaries should be heard first before any inquiry into the alleged contempt of court by the Government of Zimbabwe.
The 345 resettled farmers who were affected by the interim order granted to
white former commercial farmers by the Sadc Tribunal filed a substantive intervener application with the regional tribunal last month.
This was after 77 other white farmers had filed intervener applications that have now been consolidated against the Government to lend weight to the case brought by Michael Campbell to the tribunal.
The case opened in October last year and Campbell, the former owner of Mount Camel Farm in Chegutu, successfully obtained an interdict order blocking Government from acquiring his farm.
The tribunal on Wednesday deferred the hearing of the intervener application to a date yet to be set in September, but it heard the main application in circumstances which legal experts have described as strange and unprocedural.
The setting down of the intervener application for hearing in September means the main case is supposed to be determined after the interlocutory application.
The tribunal cannot determine the main case unless it hears the arguments and reserve its ruling – until it hears arguments from the intervener before making a proper decision.
In their application, the beneficiaries are arguing that they have a right to be heard in accordance with principles of natural justice on a matter that affects their peaceful and lawful occupation of the farms allocated to them.
On the other hand, the farmers claim that Section 16B of the country's constitution constitutes a breach of the rule of law and human rights and violates provisions of the Sadc Treaty.
The section states that in the event that the Minister of Lands compulsorily acquires land, the decision to acquire that land cannot be challenged in court.
Advocate Adrian de Bourbon and Advocate Jeremy Guantlet are representing the white farmers while the Deputy Attorney-General (Civil Division) Adv Prince Machaya assisted by the Director (Civil Division) Mrs Fatima Maxwell and Adv Dinha is representing the Government of Zimbabwe.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xSadc land case: Zim lawyers walk out``x1216354359,57668,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Nomagugu M'simang
July 18, 2008
The Herald
I write as a Zimbabwean woman and mother of four who has lived in Zimbabwe all her life.
I also write as a woman and mother who has been a victim of the devastating effects of the illegal sanctions imposed on Zimbabwe by the United States, Britain and their European Union allies.
I also write as a Zimbabwean who wonders at the moral decency of why her country is being punished for repossessing its land and reasserting its national independence and sovereignty.
I am also writing as a Zimbabwean who is witnessing through leaps and bounds, the growth and development of our democratic systems since 1980 when Zimbabwe attained political independence.
And, I am also writing as an observer who has seen political spaces opened up by the Zanu-PF Government despite what may be said to the contrary.
I am also writing as someone who saw the present Government sitting down with their arch-rivals, the Rhodesian government, in 1979 at Lancaster House.
I also write as a woman and mother who also saw the hand of reconciliation being extended by President Mugabe to Ian Smith and Rhodesia.
I further write as someone who realised the importance of forgiveness and embracing one's foes regardless of how they might have hurt you.
I also write as someone who saw yet again the magnanimity in the Zimbabwean people and their leadership when in 1987, they buried the hatchet and chose peace and not war, through the Unity Accord. This is an accord that has now become the raison d'être (rupawo) of our nation. For as a nation we have since realised that unity breeds success and prosperity.
I am also writing as a Zimbabwean sick of outside interference in our internal affairs, aware that Zimbabweans can bridge their differences and come to a common understanding about their vision, and adequately plan for the realisation of that vision.
For, it is a fallacy that Western standards and value systems artificially imposed on Zimbabwe will work for the common good of our nation.
And now, I write as a woman, full of sadness as I see a fellow woman who holds a very powerful leadership position deciding to do the West's bidding against Zimbabwe.
Last week, on the eve of the United Nations Security Council vote on the US-sponsored draft resolution for sanctions against Zimbabwe, Liberian President Ellen Sirleaf-Johnson became one of the few lone voices outside of the UNSC membership to vocally support the imposition of sanctions against Zimbabwe.
President Johnson-Sirleaf as a woman, mother and grandmother, should know the serious consequences that sanctions have on the most vulnerable groups in society.
For through experience, she knows that the sanctions imposed on Liberia resulted in the suffering of the most vulnerable groups in that country.
The Liberian leader said she supported a Western push for sanctions as a way of illegally effecting regime change against President Mugabe's Government.
Sirleaf-Johnson said sanctions against Zimbabwe would be appropriate since they would send a "strong message" to the Zimbabwean Government. She has also denounced Zimbabwe's electoral system.
Sirleaf-Johnson also argued that her support for sanctions against Zimbabwe could be equated to the Liberian experience where she maintained that sanctions had assisted in bringing about "a satisfactory resolution" to Liberia's 14-year civil war that ended in 2003.
Since she made the comments while on South African soil, the Liberian leader should probably be reminded that another notable leader and a woman, former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher, opposed sanctions against the evil apartheid system as she argued that the most vulnerable groups – the black people – would suffer immensely.
The Liberian leader's comments also contrasted with those of other members of the African Union who opposed sanctions against Zimbabwe. South African Foreign Affairs Minister Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma had told the leaders at the G8 summit on July 8 that Africa would not back sanctions against Zimbabwe.
And, as such, the draft resolution did not pass, with the full support of South Africa, Libya and the vetoes of two of the UNSC's permanent members, China and Russia. And no one forgets Vitenam's sterling role in the whole matter.
So, are Liberia and Burkina Faso – which supported sanctions against Zimbabwe in the Security Council – not part of the African Union?
Or, they were simply doing the US's bidding? For it is now quite apparent that a few individuals in both the AU and Sadc are foot soldiers for the West in its quest to transform the geo-political sphere into a single entity governed by Western principles of democracy and governance.
The agenda that Sirleaf-Johnson appears to be pushing on behalf of the US could be one of the reasons why she occupies the highest office in Liberia at the expense of George Weah after the November 2005 presidential run-off election in that country.
Weah's heroism during the civil war was relegated to the dustbin of history as the "international community" preferred a Harvard-trained financier to the less "educated" football star and icon.
Many might wonder why Africa's first elected female head of state has been very vociferous about Zimbabwe. When Zimbabwe attained independence in 1980, Sirleaf-Johnson was a minister when William Tolbert's government sought exile in Kenya. How has the post-election Kenyan scenario to date, and the formation of the "grand coalition" influenced the Liberian leader?
Sirleaf-Johnson feels confident talking about Zimbabwe's presidential poll and its electoral system because she knows that there are a number of similarities in Zimbabwe and Liberia's electoral laws.
Her voice is also meant to add weight to the issue of the so-called transitional government, which was also in place in Liberia for three years before elections were eventually held in 2005.
However, it is a view that disregards the wishes of the Zimbabwean people, and a view that disregards that Liberia and Zimbabwe are shaped by different value systems.
Liberia's presidential and parliamentary elections of 2005 were only held after a two-year transitional period after the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement by representatives of the warring factions, political parties and civil society in 2003 in Ghana.
From October 2003 to 2005, the National Transitional Government of Liberia, a brainchild of the CPA, governed Liberia.
Liberia, like Zimbabwe, has the "50 percent plus one" clause in its electoral law, which means that unless a presidential candidate wins outrightly during the first round, then there would be a run-off poll between the top two candidates.
In the first round, Weah beat Sirleaf-Johnson by a wide margin despite the fact that there were 22 presidential hopefuls (28,3 and 19,8 percent of the votes, respectively).
Neither Sirleaf-Johnson nor Weah had garnered the absolute majority of "50 percent plus one" of valid votes required.
However, just like the Zimbabwe case, Weah initially refused to go for the second round maintaining that he had won convincingly.
The very tune that MDC-T leader Morgan Tsvangirai has been dancing to, failing to realise that "outrightly" and "convincingly" mean different things.
However, the Liberian case was "well managed" because there was an easy formula, and land was not the central issue in the former American slave colony.
The Liberian leader also makes it look like Liberia ran the best election after the brutal civil war. According to a report by the Carter Centre and the National Democratic Institute, "One of the most significant complaints was brought by the Liberty Party, on behalf of presidential aspirant Charles Brumskine, who came in third place in the presidential race.
"In a statement issued on October 18, 2005, the Liberty Party alleged that 'at least three aspects of the electoral process, namely ballot marking by illiterate voters, the counting of the votes, and the reporting of the votes counted, have been marred by serious irregularities, bordering on fraud'.
"The Liberty Party contended that many illiterate voters who requested help from poll workers were guided to mark areas on the ballot that did not reflect the voters' choice."
Today, the "international community" toasts the Liberian leader and berates Zimbabwe. But I would like to say to Zimbabweans: Keep on keeping on. After all, prescriptions are easier to make than clinical diagnoses.
Zimbabwe is not Liberia, just like it is not Kenya. And it is the will of Zimbabweans, not Sirleaf-Johnson's, that shall carry the day.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe is not Liberia``x1216354440,20858,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Reason Wafawarova
July 18, 2008
THE British ambassador to the UN, John Sawers, was so devastated by the Russia-China veto on the politically-motivated US-drafted sanctions resolution that he described this Western humiliation as having put the British foreign policy "in disarray".
His boss, David Miliband, the foreign secretary, bemoaned the development as "incomprehensible" and Sawers vaingloriously postured as a humanitarian by claiming: "The people of Zimbabwe need to be given hope that there is an end in sight to their suffering. The Security Council today has failed to offer them that hope."
What threw the British foreign policy into disarray is not the failure to give Zimbabweans hope over their suffering. Rather, Russia and China chose to think for themselves when the US is convinced that they alone should do the thinking for all mortals on the planet.
The US-led Western alliance is dismayed that the world order that calls on all other nations not to think for themselves has been violated – that in a manner BBC correspondent Andy Gallacher can only describe as a "big blow to the West".
The West expects all nations to kow-tow to their dictates and to feed on canned and prepared stuff. They are after a world system that ensures that humanity worships at the shrine of the strong-armed Emperor.
This is the shrine at which the world must converge in condemnation of all the dissidents that dare rebel against the mighty Americans and their surrogate allies Britain.
The names of such dissidents as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran, Hugo Chavez Frias of Venezuela, Fidel Castro of Cuba and Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe are supposed to be used somewhat as English parents used Napoleon Bonaparte's name in the first decades of the 19th century, to frighten and admonish children.
This is what happened to Emma Goldman in the 1890s – that Russian-born American advocate of women's rights and anti-elitism. For angering the US ruling elite, Goldman was made to enjoy national notoriety and she was virtually turned into a national bugaboo the same way President Mugabe has been turned into a Western monster.
This is the cost of rebelling against the Emperor. It is a price every revolutionary that will stand against imperialism will have to pay. For President Mugabe the price was first paid during the liberation struggle when his preferred title in the West was "terrorist". He became Mr Mugabe after he preached reconciliation and he was even honoured with an English knighthood in 1994. This was four years after the expiry of the willing buyer-willing seller land policy, in the hope that President Mugabe would dare not touch the farms.
When he revived questions about land redistribution in the mid-90s he was "beginning to lose his marbles". He did not know what he was doing, just like Martin Luther King Jnr was losing the plot when he joined the striking sanitation workers in Memphis.
When the Government wrote to Tony Blair over compensation for land that was to be acquired from some of the white commercial farmers, he was dismissed as insane.
The 1999 momentum on the land question agitated the British so much they decided to directly start interfering in our internal affairs.
The 2000 farm occupation by landless peasants were labelled lawlessness. Countries like Kenya, South Africa and Zambia were cited as good examples to follow.
But the landless villagers continued occupation of white-held farms, triumphantly declaring they were no longer less equal than others.
This kind of a declaration has a price and the Zimbabwe has been ruthlessly sanctioned as a result.
These are the sanctions whose perpetuation the Russia-China power vetoed at the UN Security Council on July 11. For their pains, the Russians have been threatened with ejection from the G8 and China has been labelled the protector of totalitarian regimes.
Emma Goldman was certainly on the mark when she contrasted the puny violence of individuals with the large-scale violence of the American state and she almost prophetically put US state power in its very sad context.
Said Goldman: "We Americans claim to be peace-loving people. We hate bloodshed; we are opposed to violence. Yet we go into spasms of joy over the possibility of projecting dynamite bombs from flying machines upon helpless citizens of other nationalities."
This was in 1916, but one would think she could see Iraq and Afghanistan today.
To the Empire, social justice over little countries like Zimbabwe strikes as dangerous nonsense.
As such, the "nonsense" has to be stopped by any means possible. This explains the obsession with regime change in Zimbabwe.
Revolution is not a trade, as some people may suppose. If it were, then nobody would follow a trade at which you may work with the industry of a slave and die with the reputation of a mendicant.
The motives of any revolutionary must be deeper than mere pride, stronger than mere interest and nobler than just ego.
In this Zimbabwean revolution, some of us have been relegated to professional outcasts blacklisted by the mainstream capitalist job market – all for a prize that could easily be no different from what happened to Emma Goldman, to Thomas Sankara, Samora Machel, Simon Bolivar and all other heroes that were painted in the blackest of colours for standing up to the Empire.
This writer will testify that partaking in the revolution is driven by a motive far deeper than any financial reward, deeper than any form of family attachment, deeper than any level of friendship and stronger than any form of personal interest.
This is the invincible patriotic drive founded in the proud history of our motherland – the ethos we call our nationhood and our national identity. It is a quest for independence and sovereignty – values far deeper than personal ambition and so fundamental to the foundation of a nation.
No amount of persecution, ridicule or slander can possibly kill this passion enshrined in the infallible motive that drives a revolution. It is a motive no amount of riches can ever conquer and this is why the revolutionary spirit will manifest in the East, in the West, in the South and in the North – in all corners of this planet regardless of where one resides.
This is why threatening Peter Mavhunga with the withdrawal of his salary cannot silence his voice.
The path of a revolutionary for social justice and for the defeat of imperialism is strewn with thorns.
The path of a revolutionary is often obstructed by envy, sometimes growing to hatred, vanity and jealousy, and all these fill his or her heart with sadness.
It requires an inflexible will and tremendous enthusiasm not to lose all the faith in the cause under such conditions.
Even Venezuela's Simon Bolivar ended his last days in misery and called the revolution a "thankless" cause.
The representative of a revolutionising idea stands between two fires: on the one hand, the persecution by the existing powers which hold him responsible for all acts resulting from social and political conditions around him; and on the other, the lack of understanding on the part of his colleagues and would-be followers who often judge all his activity from the narrowest of a standpoint.
Thus it may happen that the representative of a revolution stands quite alone in the midst of a marauding multitude. After all, even the Jews gave Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the very same experience.
It is the cost of a revolution, sometimes paid by the shedding of blood.
The inevitable truth is that the mist that envelops the glory of a revolutionary walk will always dissipate, many times after the death of the revolutionary.
This will explain the mystery of the irony of honouring Nelson Mandela while young Nelson Mandelas doing exactly what Mandela did when he was their age in South Africa are being ridiculed and persecuted.
It explains the irony of honouring Martin Luther King while the Kings of today are still being crucified.
It explains the vanity of honouring Zimbabwe's Mbuya Nehanda and Sekuru Kaguvi while the living Nehandas and Kaguvis are daily ridiculed and labelled the lowest level barbarians ever.
The most publicised picture to date is arguably that of Che Guevara and he is honoured as a revolutionary who trembled with indignation at any form of injustice.
But why are the living Guevaras crucified and persecuted at the same time their dead icon is being honoured in an outstanding manner?
Those in the revolutionary walk to empower the ordinary Zimbabwean must not tire and must draw courage from the fact that the prize that awaits every true revolutionary far outweighs the tribulations of today.
Zimbabwe we are one. It is time to unite and build our nation.
The Cubans say, "It is homeland or death", and together we will overcome.
Reason Wafawarova is a political writer and can be contacted on wafawarova@yahoo.com or info@rwafawarova.com or visit www.rwafawarova.com``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xThe Cost of Being a Revolutionary``x1216354492,21379,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xZimbabwe Watch Reporters
July 18, 2008
ZimbabweWatch.com
India is unwilling to censure its old ally, President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe.
President Mugabe earned another term in office last month in a run-off election that was boycotted by the MDC leader Morgan Tsvangirai.
Zimbabwe's Justice Minister Patrick Chinamasa called the MDC leader's announcement of withdrawal a 'nullity'. "Effectively, the official position, from a constitutional (legal) point of view is that the election should go ahead, regardless of the MDC leader's withdrawal. This is what the Electoral Law in Zimbabwe provides."
India's foreign secretary Shivshankar Menon told reporters last week that India was "...looking to the African Union on the Zimbabwe crisis and would follow its lead." "India does not interfere in the internal affairs of another country," he said at that time.
India's Minister of State for External Affairs Anand Sharma attended the African Union summit at Sharm el-Sheikh in Egypt in late June, where he met 23 African foreign ministers.
Prior to the summit, delivering a speech at the valedictory session of a seminar on Africa and Energy Security, organised by the Institute of Defence Studies Analyses and International Peace Research Institute, Sharma said India's engagement with the African continent is "distinct and different". He said, "India's approach has not been and never can be exploitative."
Contrary to US and European's hostile interference, especially with their relentless calls for more sanctions to be imposed on Zimbabwe, India's ongoing foreign policy is outlined as having close ties and cooperation to all African countries and intends to continue to consolidate those gains to intensify bilateral economic and commercial links for mutual benefit. As far back as 1996, India's Prime Minister, while in Harare, concluded a Memorandum of Understanding on the development of small-scale industries in Zimbabwe.
In June of this year, Indian Ambassador to Zimbabwe Venkatesan Vashok has said that Zimbabwe should fully exploit India's technological advancement to transform its economy and develop its infrastructure.
"I feel we have cutting edge technologies and human resources potential, both of which can be of great help to Zimbabwe particularly in key areas such as health, agriculture, infrastructure development and mining," Vashok said.
Some commodities exported by India to Zimbabwe include pharmaceuticals, fine chemicals, rubber products, fabrics and transport equipment while the Asian country imports metals, steel, tanning and coloring material from Zimbabwe.
It has been reported India's "deliberate go-slow" on Zimbabwe was also a reflection of the "double standards" on the part of many Western nations, according to an Indian diplomat who declined to be named given the sensitivity of the issue.
He, however, admitted that India's new-found zeal to get cracking on its strategic partnership with the US may also have something to do with the go-slow on Zimbabwe. "India is balancing the nay-sayers on its new pro-West policies with its silence on Zimbabwe."
"Will the US and Britain make the same comments about Kenya, or even Pakistan?" the diplomat asked, adding, "India is not China, and that cuts both ways."
Russia and China on Friday, July 11, 2008, vetoed a resolution backed by the US and Britain along with other Western nations to impose additional sanctions on Zimbabwe at the UN Security Council.
After years of praise and accolades from the West, President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe comes under severe criticism and sanctions from Western governments for expropriating stolen land from White settlers and their descendents for distribution to the Black majority in Zimbabwe. Since the accelerated land reclamation commenced, over 300.000 landless Black Africans have received land from this exercise.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xIndia Unwilling to Censure Mugabe``x1216364361,33996,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xAFP-Herald Reporter.
July 19, 2008
The Herald
South African President Thabo Mbeki yesterday invited the African Union and the United Nations to join a new "reference group" with Sadc that will liaise on his efforts to mediate a solution to Zimbabwe's problems, a top aide said.
President Mbeki, however, remains fully in charge of the mediation process as mandated by Sadc and the AU, but the group can monitor progress and give him its views.
Speaking after President Mbeki met AU Commission chief Mr Jean Ping and UN envoy Mr Haile Menkerios in Pretoria, South African Local Government Minister Mr Sydney Mufamadi said the new group would support the Mr Mbeki in his mission to mediate between the ruling Zanu-PF and MDC in Harare on behalf of the 14-nation Sadc regional bloc.
"The special representantive of Sadc (Angolan Deputy Foreign Minister George Chikoti), the AU and the UN were briefed by President Mbeki and he invited them to constitute a reference group with the mediator on an ongoing basis," said Mr Mufamadi, who is President Mbeki's right-hand man in the mediation effort.
"They will appoint people who will be based at the venue country. They will get briefings on a regular basis from the facilitator."
President Mbeki, who was appointed by Sadc a year ago to mediate in Zimbabwe, met Mr Ping and Mr Menkerios behind closed doors, a spokesman in the president's office said.
"I can confirm there is a meeting. It is in Pretoria at the presidential guesthouse," Thabang Chiloane told AFP.
South African Foreign Minister Dr Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma was to give an update on her leader's mediation efforts at yesterday's meeting of Sadc foreign ministers in Durban, with the South African government insistent that a resolution to the Zimbabwe issue remains the sole preserve of Sadc.
"Our view has always been, and I am stressing it, we are being diverted by a fake argument about the expansion of the Sadc facilitation," Deputy Foreign Minister Mr Aziz Pahad told reporters earlier this week.
Yesterday's meeting between President Mbeki and the AU and UN officials is expected to pave the way for the signing of the Memorandum of Understanding setting the agenda for dialogue between Zanu-PF and the two MDC factions.
MDC-T leader Morgan Tsvangirai on Wednesday made a last-minute decision to withhold his signature from the MoU.
Tsvangirai told The Star newspaper of South Africa on Thursday that he was awaiting the outcome of yesterday's meeting between President Mbeki and Mr Ping before he could sign the MoU. – AFP-Herald Reporter.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe: AU, UN set to monitor talks``x1216466718,28115,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xSouthern Times
July 19, 2008
THE Sadc Tribunal which is hearing a case filed by white farmers opposing Zimbabwe's land reform programme, cannot legislate for member states and has no legal mandate to nullify laws made in member states, the Zimbabwean Government has said.
In court submissions at the Sadc Tribunal in the land case which opened in the Namibian capital on Wednesday, Deputy Attorney General Advocate Prince Machaya, who is representing the Zimbabwean Government, argued that Sadc heads of state are the only ones who could "arrogate penalties" against member states should a member fail to conform to set rules and regulations.
He said the land reform, in which white commercial farmers' land was compulsorily acquired for resettlement of the landless, was inevitable given the skewed land ownership pattern inherited when the country attained independence in 1980.
About 77 white commercial farmers in Zimbabwe have lodged a complaint at the tribunal seeking to halt the land reform programme.
Adv Machaya told the tribunal the Sadc Treaty was a set of "guidelines" for member states.
The white commercial farmers, who are represented in the case by advocates Jeremy Gauntlett and Adrian de Bourbon, further accused the Zimbabwean Government of instituting a racially-based land reform programme and of refusing to compensate white farmers for the expropriated land.
Adv Gauntlett said that farmers took the case to the regional court after the Zimbabwean Government effected constitutional legislation, Amendment 17, which effectively shut out any legal challenges in Zimbabwean courts against land reform.
But Adv Machaya defended the country's land reform programme, saying it was unavoidable that only whites would be targeted by landless blacks since they were the only ones who occupied lush farming land and have been living in an "island of prosperity" while the majority blacks were wallowing in abject poverty.
But above all, Adv Machaya argued, the tribunal does not have jurisdiction to force the Zimbabwean Government to reverse its laws.
"(The) Sadc Treaty merely outlines and sets out frameworks within which binding obligations can then be created for purposes of their being enforced," Adv Machaya said.
"Ouster of right to approach the Zimbabwean courts effected by (Constitutional) Amendment 17 is not a contravention of the Sadc Treaty and orders of this nature are not competent for the Tribunal to make. (The) Tribunal should refer the matter to the (Sadc) summit. It cannot legislate on the government to nullify such legislation," Adv Machaya said.
He added: "Land reform was inevitable: the white farming community occupied just under 50 percent of all the fertile farming land while the rest of the land was occupied by the indigenous in areas of low rainfall and poor soils."
Adv Machaya also said that a section of Amendment 17 provides for challenges to land reform through judicial review if an aggrieved party felt that the land was being acquired for selfish reasons.
Adv Gauntlett argued that the Zimbabwean Government violated the Sadc Treaty, alleging that the land reform programme was unconstitutional and discriminatory.
"The treaty says that Sadc member states shall not discriminate against any person on grounds of gender, religion, political views, race, ethnic origin, culture, ill-health or disability."
He added that the complainants in the case were not against the land reform programme in Zimbabwe "if done according to the law".
Zimbabwe's legal team withdrew from the Sadc Tribunal hearing on Thursday morning after the plaintiffs in the watershed case filed an urgent application asking the tribunal to hold the Zimbabwean Government in contempt of court for non-compliance on orders issued last December.
White commercial farmers who are challenging compulsory acquisition of their farms by the Zimbabwean Government filed the application seeking the tribunal to hold Harare in contempt of court after three commercial farmers claimed they were beaten and harassed by what the Government says were thugs and common criminals.
Last December, the tribunal ordered the Zimbabwean Government not to acquire farms belonging to the applicants pending the outcome of the court case.
On the second day of the hearing at the Sadc Tribunal in Windhoek, the head of the five-panel bench, Judge Louis Mondhlane, ordered the applicants to proceed with their urgent application.
But the Zimbabwean legal team, headed by Adv Machaya, opposed the granting of the application and after consultations, told the court that if it was willing to proceed with the urgent application, they would not be part of it.
"After consultations with my advisors, I have received specific instructions to the effect that the Government of Zimbabwe takes this application very seriously in so far as the outcome may have an impact on the Government of Zimbabwe.
"There have been developments in Zimbabwe and Government feels it is necessary that the defence that we give be supplemented with additional material evidence," Adv Machaya told the court.
He said that there had been arrests of persons concerning the disturbances and pending prosecutions, adding that it would strengthen the respondent's case should the Zimbabwean police, army and Attornery-General's Office be called to the witness stand.
"The police, army and others should have an opportunity to place evidence with a view to answering the allegations raised . . . the Tribunal should get all the relevant evidence," Adv Machaya said.
He added that he would not make a submission on the basis of previous evidence.
After Judge Mondhlane said that the court would proceed with the urgent application since the respondent had been given ample time to make a response, Adv Machaya asked to be excused from the proceedings regarding the application.
"If the Tribunal decides to proceed, I would beg leave to be excused from the hearing of this application as I have received specific instructions from my Government," Adv Machaya said.
The five-judge panel, however, did not assent to Adv Machaya's request to be excused and Judge Mondhlane allowed the applicants to proceed, resulting in Adv Machaya and his team walking out of the courtroom.
Adv Gauntlett proceeded with the urgent application in which he claimed his clients were beaten up.
He asked the court to refer the matter of contempt of court to heads of state at the Sadc summit next month.
Judgment in the main case, in which about 79 white commercial farmers are challenging expropriation of their farms, will be delivered in due course, Judge Mondhlane said.
In a related matter, the Zimbabwean Embassy later denied that Zimbabwe's legal team had walked out, saying the team had sought to be excused after finding out that the tribunal was "disposed to proceed in an unusual manner".
Zimbabwean Ambassador to Namibia Cde Chipo Zindoga said the white commercial farmers were victims of criminal activities by a gang of about 30 people who have since been arrested.
"If the Zimbabwean Government did not respect the rule of law, the white commercial farmers who have dragged the Government to court, would not have been at the contested farms as we speak. The criminal elements who acted on their own accord, and assaulted the Campbells, have been apprehended," Cde Zindoga said.
"It appears there are no more common criminals in Zimbabwe . . . all criminals belong to either Government or Zanu-PF," she added.
Cde Zindoga also said the legal team did not walk but asked to be excused.
"We are members of the Tribunal, so we cannot walk out from our own organ," she said.
"Zimbabwe, as a member of Sadc, was instrumental in the formation of the Tribunal. Our legal team appeared at the Sadc Tribunal in good faith.
"We are aware that the white commercial farmers are working in cahoots with their kith and kin to politicise the Sadc Tribunal. They are using their case to injure the sovereign interests of Zimbabwe, to push the illegal regime change agenda on Zimbabwe, to the United Nations Security Council through the backdoor," Cde Zindoga said.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``x'Sadc Tribunal has no legal mandate to nullify member states laws'``x1216469603,9954,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xSouthern Times Writer in Windhoek
July 20, 2008
The Southern Times
The Zimbabwean government said Wednesday that land reform in that country, in which about 4 000 white commercial farmers were forcibly removed from prime farming land, was inevitable given the skewed land ownership pattern inherited when the country attained independence in 1980.
In court submissions at the SADC Tribunal landmark farm case which opened in the Namibian capital Wednesday, Zimbabwean lawyers also argued that the SADC Tribunal could not legislate for member states and had no legal mandate to nullify laws made in member states.
Advocate Prince Machaya, who is representing the Zimbabwean government, argued that SADC heads of state are the only ones who could "arrogate penalties" against member states should a member fail to conform to set rules and regulations.
About 77 white commercial farmers in Zimbabwe lodged a complaint at the regional court seeking to halt farm expropriations in Zimbabwe.
Machaya, who is Zimbabwe's deputy attorney-general, told the regional court that the SADC Treaty was a set of "guidelines" for member states.
The commercial farmers, who are represented in the case by Advocates Jeremy Gauntlett and Adrian de Bourbon, accused the Zimbabwean government of instituting a racially-based land reform programme and of refusing to compensate white farmers of the expropriated land.
Gauntlett said that farmers took the case to the regional court after the Zimbabwean government effected constitutional legislation, Amendment 17, which effectively shut out an legal challenges in Zimbabwean courts against land expropriation.
But Machaya defended the country's land reform programme saying it was unavoidable that only whites would be targeted by landless blacks since they are the only ones who occupied lush farming land and have been living in an "island of prosperity" while the majority blacks were wallowing in abject poverty.
But above all, Machaya argued, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to force the Zimbabwean government to reverse its laws.
"SADC Treaty merely outlines and sets out frameworks within which binding obligations can then be created for purposes of their being enforced," Machaya said.
"Ouster of right to approach the Zimbabwean courts effected by Amendment 17 is not a contravention of the SADC Treaty and orders of this nature are not competent for the Tribunal to make..Tribunal should refer the matter to the summit..it cannot legislate on the government to nullify such legislation," Machaya said.
He added: "Land reform was inevitable: white farming community occupied just under 50 percent of all the fertile farming land while the rest of the land was occupied by the indigenous in areas of low rainfall and poor soils."
Machaya also said that a section of Amendment 17, provides for challenges to land reform through judicial review if an aggrieved party felt that the land was being expropriated for selfish reasons.
Gauntlett argued that the Zimbabwean government violated the SADC Treaty, alleging that the land reform programme was unconstitutional and discriminatory.
"The treaty says that SADC member states shall not discriminate against any person on grounds of gender, religion, political views, race, ethnic origin, culture, ill-health or disability."
He added that the complainants in the case were not against the land reform programme in Zimbabwe "if done according to the law".
"But what the Zimbabwean government did was to simply publish lists of the names of farms and took the farms away the next day, giving them to government officials, not even deserving black farmers," Gauntlett said.
Meanwhile, Zimbabwe's legal team withdrew from the SADC Tribunal hearing Thursday morning after the applicants in the watershed case filed an urgent application asking the Tribunal to hold the Zimbabwean government in contempt of court for non-compliance on orders issued last December.
White commercial farmers who are challenging compulsory expropriation of their farms by the Zimbabwean government filed the application seeking the Tribunal to hold Harare in contempt of court after three commercial farmers were beaten and harassed by what the Zimbabwe government says are thugs and common criminals.
Last December, the Tribunal ordered the Zimbabwean government not to expropriate farms belonging to the applicants pending the outcome of the court case.
The three farmers were beaten in the aftermath of the June 27 run-off election in which president Robert Mugabe was re-elected .
On the second day of the hearing at the SADC Tribunal in Windhoek, head of the five-panel judge, Louis Mondhlane ordered the applicants to proceed with their urgent application.
But the Zimbabwean legal team, headed by Prince Machaya, opposed the urgent application and after consultations with his legal advisers, told the court that if it was willing to proceed with the urgent application, they would not be part of it.
"After consultations with my advisors I have received specific instructions to the effect that the government of Zimbabwe takes this application very seriously in so far as the outcome may have an impact on the government of Zimbabwe.
"There have been developments in Zimbabwe and government feels it is necessary that the defence that we give be supplemented with additional material evidence," Machaya told the court.
There had been arrests of persons concerning the disturbances and pending prosecutions, and it would strengthen the respondent's case should the Zimbabwean police, army and Attornery-General's Office be called to the witness stand.
"The police, army and others should have an opportunity to place evidence with a view to answering the allegations raised...the Tribunal should get all the relevant evidence," Machaya said.
He added that he would not make a submission on the basis of previous evidence.
After Mondhlane said that the court would proceed with the urgent application since the respondent had been given ample time to make a response, Machaya asked to be excused from the proceedings regarding the urgent application.
"If the Tribunal decides to proceed, I would beg leave to be excused from the hearing of this application as I have received specific instructions from my government," Machaya said.
The five-panel judge, however, did not accent to Machaya's request to be excused and Judge Mondhlane ordered the applicants to proceed, and Machaya and his legal team walked out of the court room.
Jeremy Gauntlett, who is representing the applicants in the case, proceeded with the urgent application in which he told the court how the farmers and their family members were attacked, alleging failure by the Zimbabwean police to respond to the case.
Gauntlett also asked the court to refer the matter of contempt of court to heads of state at the SADC Summit, which is on this coming August.
Judgement in the main case, in which about 79 white commercial farmers are challenging expropriation of their farms, will be delivered in due course, Mondhlane said.
In a related matter, the Zimbabwean Embassy later denied that Zimbabwe had walked out saying their legal team had sought to be excused after finding out that the Tribunal was "disposed to proceed in an unusual manner".
Zimbabwean ambassador to Namibia Chipo Zindoga said that the white commercial farmers were victims of criminal activities by a gang of about 30 people who have since been apprehended.
"If the Zimbabwean government did not respect the rule of law, the white commercial farmers who have dragged the government to court, would not have been at the contested farms as we speak. The criminal elements who acted on their own accord, and assaulted the Campbells, have been apprehended," Zindoga said.
"It appears there are no more common criminals in Zimbabwe...all criminals belong to either government or Zanu- PF," she added.
Zindoga also said that the legal team did not walk but asked to be excused. "We are members of the Tribunal, so we cannot walk out from our own organ," Zindoga said.
"Zimbabwe, as a member of SADC, was instrumental in the formation of the Tribunal. Our legal team appeared at the SADC Tribunal in good faith. We are aware that the white commercial farmers are working in cahoots with their kith and kin to politicise the SADC Tribunal. They are using their case to injure the sovereign interests of Zimbabwe, to push the illegal regime change agenda on Zimbabwe, to the United Nations Security Council through the backdoor," Zindoga said.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xTribunal lacks power to reverse land reforms: Zim lawyer``x1216470737,14737,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Itai Musengeyi and Takunda Maodza
July 22, 2008
The Herald
Let's be masters of our own destiny: President PRESIDENT Mugabe and leaders of the two MDC formations – Morgan Tsvangirai and Arthur Mutambara – yesterday signed a Memorandum of Understanding in Harare, setting the agenda for full-scale talks to resolve the country's political and economic problems.
All the parties expressed commitment to dialogue, saying it was the only way forward as President Mugabe and Tsvangirai met for the first time in a decade.
President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa, the Sadc-appointed and African Union-endorsed mediator – who flew into Harare yesterday afternoon for the signing ceremony–said the talks should be completed as quickly as possible.
Cde Mugabe and Tsvangirai were later to have lunch together while President Mbeki and Mutambara had theirs separately where they discussed for close to an hour.
The MoU states that the talks should be completed within two weeks from the date of signing.
Soon after the signing ceremony at the Rainbow Towers Hotel, the three parties' negotiators briefly consulted behind closed doors.
Speaking after the signing, President Mugabe said he and his party, Zanu-PF, were committed to the talks, but stressed that the three parties should engage as Zimbabweans without Western interference save for the assistance of South Africa and Africa.
"We sit here in order for us to chart a new way, a new way of political interaction and this out of the decision that we made, we of Southern Africa, some time ago, that we assist each other and in this particular case, we assist Zimbabwe to overcome the political and economic situation which requires support.
"Our having signed this MoU is a serious matter on my part and my party Zanu-PF; we take it seriously. The signatures we have appended there (on the MoU), I hope reflect the sincerity of all of us.
"As we begin the interaction, we shall be doing so as Zimbabweans, entirely as Zimba-bweans, with the help of South Africa and that we cut off whatever were influences on us from Europe or the United States.
"We must act as Zimbabweans, think as Zimbabweans, be masters of our own destiny.
"If we do that, there will be no need for us to suffer under sanctions, no need for us to call for Europe to impose sanctions. There will be no need for a European hand, we don't want it.
"That way we will find we are real, true, friendly, brotherly and sisterly Zimbabweans," said President Mugabe.
He said Africa could assist in the process, but not European and American masters.
"Let's move forward and start on what Professor Mutambara has been calling one vision for Zimbabwe, singing one national anthem, flying one flag,'' said Cde Mugabe.
But as President Mugabe warned against foreign meddling, Keith Scott, the first secretary at the British embassy, was trying to gatecrash into Jacaranda Room where the signing ceremony took place.
He and other officials from European embassies in Harare were milling outside the room and some could be seen jostling with journalists for a copy of the MoU, which was made available after the signing ceremony.
Tsvangirai said he was committed to dialogue and failure was not an option.
"My commitment to this process is unquestionable, it is not superficial, it is total because we want to achieve what Zimbabweans out there want to achieve.
"I sincerely acknowledge that if we put our heads together we can find a solution, not finding a solution is not an option.
"As we sign the MoU, we all commit ourselves to the first tentative step to solutions. I have been reluctant (to endorse the process), but I want to share a heavy commitment that the process of negotiation is successful. We want a better Zimbabwe," said Tsvangirai.
He described the occasion as historic as Zimbabwe's political leaders were sitting at the same table to discuss problems facing their country.
"This is a very historic occasion. I think the last time I had a tete-a-tete with Cde Mugabe was in 1998," he said.
Mutambara stressed that Zimbabweans needed a shared vision to resolve the political and economic problems.
He said the MoU was not about this or that political party, but about Zimbabweans.
"We must put national interest before personal interests. We must be driven by national interest as we negotiate in the next two weeks. The people's will must be supreme and sovereign.
"Let's have a shared national economic vision," said Mutambara.
He described the day as unique in the history of Zimbabwe as the country's political leaders had shown maturity to resolve the problems facing the country.
Mutambara described the MoU as a document of great significance that allowed for dialogue whose outcome should result in a political settlement and later a new Constitution.
"The signing of the MoU is very important, it allows us to begin negotiations. This political settlement we seek to achieve in two weeks is not the answer . . . we need national healing. Beyond the political settlement, we want gatherings like these where leaders speak to Zimbabweans," he said.
President Mbeki congratulated the three parties for "taking a very important step in this process of negotiations which must lead to our acting together to build Zimbabwe".
"It (the MoU) commits the negotiating parties to an intense programme of work to try and finalise the negotiations as quickly as possible," he said.
President Mbeki said he was confident the parties would reach an agreement because, as Tsvangirai had pointed out, failure was not an option and everybody agreed to that.
President Mbeki said no party had set conditions for the talks because all the three parties were ready and genuinely willing to engage.
He said he had never at any stage thought of abandoning the mediation process because
South Africa and Zimbabwe were neighbours and neighbours assist each other as problems in either of the two countries affected the other.
President Mbeki said an important decision was taken on April 18 1980 when Zimbabwe got its independence and took the responsibility to assist South Africa liberate itself from the shackles of apartheid.
President Mbeki said that decision by Zimbabwe made it important "for one not to walk away" while the spirit in Sadc was to assist each other in times of need.
President Mugabe thanked President Mbeki for his mediation efforts, which had yielded positive results despite the vilification he was subjected to from some quarters.
He said Constitutional Amendment Number 18, several changes to electoral laws which were implemented in the March harmonised elections and the amendments of the Public Order and Security Act and the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act were all a result of President Mbeki's mediation.
"I am mentioning this because out there, there is unfair criticism of President Mbeki on the front of his mediation, yet he has achieved all this. I thank him for his persistence and positive sensitivity to criticism. When criticism is ill-placed, ignorant and undeserving, it needs to be ignored because it is wrong," said President Mugabe.
President Mbeki arrived in Zimbabwe at noon and was welcomed at the Harare International Airport by President Mugabe, senior Government officials and service chiefs. He flew back to South Africa yesterday evening.
Officials from Zanu-PF, MDC-T and MDC – who included the negotiators Cde Patrick Chinamasa, Cde Nicholas Goche, Professor Welshman Ncube, Mrs Priscilla Misihairabwi-Mushonga, Mr Tendai Biti, Mr Elton Mangoma and Mr Lovemore Moyo – witnessed the signing.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe: Talks Pact Signed``x1216717276,94429,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Reason Wafawarova
July 24, 2008
The Memorandum of Understanding signed between Zanu-PF and the two MDC formations on the July 21 has been received as an act of assiduity on the part of the political leadership of Zimbabwe on the one hand and also as an exercise shrouded in dubiety on the other.
The MoU comes at a time when many of our people are beset by intolerance and the polarity that has become synonymous with the political landscape of Zimbabwe in the last nine years. It is an MoU between a ruling party that has become synonymous with liberation and the doctrine of sovereignty and an opposition that has become synonymous with neo-liberalism and the doctrine of liberties and human rights.
In the eyes of the mainstream African public opinion, it is an agreement between a revolutionary liberation movement and a somewhat insidiously pro-Western opposition movement. Yet in the mainstream Western public opinion this is an agreement between a perceived dictatorship and an assumed pro-democracy movement.
Some radicals in Zanu-PF will view this development as an unwary compromise with reactionaries bent on reversing the gains of the hard won independence of Zimbabwe while the radicals in the MDC will maintain that the memorandum is an inadvertent trap of their leadership by a seasoned political party capable of derailing the route and destiny of their party.
To the optimistic, moderate Zimbabwean this memorandum is a gesture of goodwill. It is a compendious act of maturity so meritorious that many are already convinced that the piece of paper is the beginning of the end of the economic and social instability in the country.
To the spiritual and the religious, the mere act of President Robert Mugabe and opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai holding hands is an undeniable sign of the beginning of a national healing process.
But what does this MoU mean to the politicians involved in its signing?
This is a trilateral treaty that obviously provides opportunities for these people who have opted to pursue the perplexing career called politics.
The politicians will be very busy in the next two weeks and it is very comforting to imagine that these men and women who should be the voice of the voiceless will be busy mapping the way out of Zimbabwe's economic problems.
This is the perception of the ordinary voter and it is one many politicians are very comfortable with for their own varying reasons.
It is not a secret that the negotiations are about power sharing. Basically, this means that the half-dozen negotiators are going to be talking about sharing what democracy would call the people's power on behalf of the generality of Zimbabweans.
This is not bad for as long as the negotiators will forever remember that they are negotiating to share the people's power, not their own. The guiding principle in such an exercise is neither the insatiable ambition to taste power nor the jingoistic quest to protect the same.
Rather, the guiding principle is to snatch Zimbabwe from the route of perdition – to sacrifice the self for the sake of the whole. This is why the signed MoU must, by popular demand, be a meritorious document carrying the hope of Zimbabweans and not an artifice carrying the fraudulent machinations of selfish political ambition.
This writer has been wrestling with the question of what the anti-imperialist position is on the talks between Zanu-PF and the opposition.
This question is surmised on the presumed position that the MDC represents or identifies with imperialism while Zanu-PF represents anti-imperialism, if one were to draw crude guidelines.
There is no doubt that the MDC is a beneficiary of financial and moral support from the most prominent imperialist countries on the planet and the West has openly bragged about this.
On the other hand, there is no doubt that Zanu-PF thrives on the legacy of sovereignty, self-rule and African emancipation.
This does not mean that Zanu-PF has a monopoly over sovereignty or that the party is the definition of emancipation and empowerment. Equally, the MDC has no monopoly over Western friendships and alliances, whether by calculated synergies or docile puppetry.
Zimbabwe can relate and partner with the West on anti-imperialist terms just like Zimbabwe can be sovereign and self-ruling on non-imperialist but Western friendly terms.
Simply, a self respecting MDC that enters talks on the basis of empowering Zimbabweans under the collective sense of the national interest is welcome just like is a Zanu-PF that defines sovereignty in the context of fair and sustainable international relations.
In these talks the gap between rhetoric and reality must be narrowed to zero. The repugnant and inimical approach that labels opponents as evil enemies must be rooted out of the political culture of Zimbabwe by both sides of the political divide.
The mediation process has so far been excellently executed by the able leadership of President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa and this is despite the baseless and politically motivated criticisms from Western countries.
The history and reputation of Western rationality continues to be written by the West, so not surprisingly, Western opinion is portrayed as based on right and justice – upholding the highest values and confronting evil and injustice with admirable courage and integrity. The record reveals a rather different picture and this is the picture by which Western opinion on President Mbeki and on Zimbabwe must be judged.
As former US President John Adams said two centuries ago, "Power always thinks it has a great soul and vast views beyond the comprehension of the weak."
That is the deep root of the combinations of savagery and self-righteousness that infects the imperial mentality – and in some measure, every structure of the imperial order as seen in the credo that drives the editorial policy of the Western media.
It can be added that reverence for that great soul is the normal stance of Western elites, who regularly insist that they should hold the levers of control, or at least be close by – whenever a process such as the current negotiations in Zimbabwe is in progress.
How does a peace loving Mbeki get to endure all this barbaric criticism from such countries as the US and the UK while Africans either stand aside and look or in some cases applaud such madness? Are we all oblivious to the atrocious aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Or is the English language so romanticising that we believe that the race that brought it to us cannot err? What morality can be preached by people who are obsessed with such cruel retribution as sanctions and military invasions?
A Mbeki who stretches a hand of peace is accused of ineffectiveness and advised to descend on his neighbours with a punitive hand that destroys what it will never be able to rebuild and some Zimbabweans and South Africans have the dishonour and indignity to chant "Amen".
The ongoing negotiations must, by definition be for the good of Zimbabweans and not for the good of their politicians or that of Zimbabwe's Western foes. Neither should they be for the good of President Mbeki's CV.
This is why Western interference must be fought like an intruding snake. There is simply no room for Western input into this process. It is not welcome, however noble or intended.
The context just does not allow for such interference. The tainted have no right to carry the sacrificial blood vessel of atonement just because they are not holy enough to do so.
The Western community might have heavily invested in the politics of Zimbabwe but there cannot be any hope that such an investment can make a justifiable locus standi on matters so sovereign and internal such as the current talks are. This the West must swallow without question and against such there is no law.
It is Zimbabwe's inalienable right to determine her own destiny and all children of Zimbabwe must stand as one on the protection of this right.
Zimbabwe we are one. It is homeland or death! Together we will overcome.
Reason Wafawarova can be contacted on wafawarova@yahoo.co.uk or info@rawafawarova.com or visit www.rwafawarova.com``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xMoU: Zim must shape own destiny``x1216882478,71869,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xHerald Reporters
July 24, 2008
Zanu-PF and MDC-T negotiators flew to South Africa yesterday evening to begin talks to resolve the country's political and economic problems as Angola called on the European Union to lift the illegal embargo against Harare.
The call came on the same day as the Zanu-PF Politburo held an extraordinary meeting in Harare where it endorsed dialogue.
Meanwhile, Russia said the signing of the Memorandum of Understanding vindicated its position at the United Nations Security Council to oppose more sanctions against Zimbabwe.
The ruling party negotiators, Cde Patrick Chinamasa and Cde Nicholas Goche, and their MDC-T counterparts Tendai Biti and Elton Mangoma were on the same South African Airways flight to Johannesburg.
Airport officials confirmed the four negotiators were travelling on the same plane that was scheduled to take off at 1810 hours.
MDC negotiators Welshman Ncube and Priscilla Misihairabwi-Mushonga were believed to have already flown to South Africa.
On Tuesday, Cde Chinamasa said the talks would begin today at an undisclosed venue.
The negotiating teams have two weeks from Monday – the date of the signing of the MoU – to complete the talks and reach agreement.
South African President Thabo Mbeki is brokering the talks.
An extraordinary Zanu-PF Politburo meeting yesterday gave the party negotiating team the green light to continue with the dialogue in line with the negotiating parameters as spelt out in the MoU.
In an interview soon after the meeting yesterday evening, party deputy secretary for information and publicity Cde Ephraim Masawi said the party's supreme decision-making body met and was briefed on the MoU.
He said the meeting expressed satisfaction with the MoU and gave the nod to the party's negotiators to continue with their work.
"We met as the Politburo to be briefed of the signing of the MoU and chart the way forward. The issues that came up were whether we accept that our people should continue in these negotiations.
"We gave Cde Chinamasa and Cde Goche the green light for them to go ahead with the negotiations within the parameters signed by the principals," said Cde Masawi.
"We were briefed about the role of the facilitator, South African President Thabo Mbeki, and the party felt that he was fighting hard to find solutions to an African problem."
Cde Masawi said the extraordinary Politburo meeting hailed the good work being done by President Mbeki.
Russia, which recently vetoed a United States draft sanctions resolution on Zimbabwe at the UN Security Council, on Tuesday said that its decision to block the economic embargo had been justified by the signing of the MoU by the country's three main political parties.
Speaking to the Press after a meeting with his Venezuelan counterpart, President Hugo Chavez, in Moscow, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev repeated that he had confidence that dialogue, and not sanctions, was the best way forward.
"Our position on this issue has been consistent from the outset, and these consultations (the ongoing dialogue) prove that this position is justified. I hope that during these consultations, all basic agreements will be reached to calm the situation," he said.
Russia's foreign ministry also issued a statement welcoming the start of talks in Zimbabwe.
"Russia welcomes this decision, which opens up the route to overcoming the internal political crisis in the country. We call on leading political forces in the country to continue to show a constructive approach in the name of national unity and accord," the ministry said in a statement on its website.
AFP reports that Angola yesterday called on the European Union to immediately lift sanctions against the
Zimbabwean leadership, warning they could derail the negotiations.
"The EU should lift all sanctions on the leaders of Zimbabwe as soon as possible," Foreign Minister Mr Joao Miranda told state-run RNA radio.
"There is no reason to justify the maintenance of these sanctions. All obstacles liable to endanger the progress of negotiations should be removed."
Mr Miranda's comments come a day after EU foreign ministers widened sanctions against Zimbabwe despite the signing of the MoU by President Mugabe, MDC-T leader Morgan Tsvangirai and the MDC's Arthur Mutambara to pave way for the talks.
Mr Miranda, whose government is one of Zimbabwe's staunchest allies in Sadc, said it made no sense to propose new sanctions at a time when Zimbabwe's ruling party and opposition were talking.
"This dialogue is for real," he added.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xLift sanctions, Angola tells EU``x1216882664,86845,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xCrime Reporter
July 26, 2008
The Herald
TRANSPARENCY International chairman and University of Zimbabwe lecturer John Makumbe has failed to substantiate his claims of post-June 27 presidential run-off election violence in some parts of Zimbabwe admitting that he was relying on reports from a foreign pirate radio station and a foreign newspaper.
Makumbe’s claims that some people had taken refuge in mountains because of acts of violence made on a live ZBC-TV programme "Zimbabwe Today" were condemned by the Centre for Peace Initiatives in Africa that called on Zimbabweans to refrain from provocative statements when political parties are engaged in dialogue to solve the country’s problems.
Following the claims police summoned Makumbe to furnish them with more information to back his allegations but he could not provide a shred of evidence.
Police spokesperson Chief Superintendent Oliver Mandipaka said they visited Makumbe at his University of Zimbabwe offices to verify the authenticity of his allegations.
"He only referred the officers who quizzed him to a hostile newspaper, The Zimbabwean, and said he had got some of his information from the pirate radio station run by Voice of America," he said.
Police have since dismissed Makumbe’s claims saying they were unfounded and meant to cause alarm and despondency.
Chief Supt Mandipaka said Makumbe had misled the nation into believing that violence was still prevalent yet there were no cases of violence since the elections ended.
"It is very unfortunate that a professor can go on national television to make such allegations without any shred of evidence. Such utterances are, in our view, calculated to cause despondency and are alarming to the country," Chief Supt Mandipaka said adding that every citizen must act responsibly by verifying the facts.
Makumbe confirmed yesterday that police visited him saying he had referred them to Studio 7 and The Zimbabwean.
The Centre for Peace Initiatives in Africa yesterday called on political parties, trade unions, the media and civil society to refrain from provocative actions and statements at a time when the country’s political parties are engaged in dialogue aimed at finding lasting solutions to the current challenges.
In a statement yesterday, CPIA executive director Dr Leonard Kapungu applauded President Mugabe, Morgan Tsvangirai and Arthur Mutambara for signing a Memorandum of Understanding that paved the way for talks.
"We hope that the substantive talks now underway will be conducted in a mature and rational manner in the spirit of compromise, with the interests of Zimbabweans at the centre of the discussions," he said.
"We sincerely hope that the hard bargaining and ‘horse trading’ inherent in negotiations will be tempered with selfless pragmatism so as to bring about a lasting solution to the political impasse, economic meltdown and social dislocation besetting the country."
The CPIA said there is need for negotiators to be single-minded and focus on the big national
picture at the expense of self-interests and narrow partisan considerations.
It appealed to the negotiators to ensure that Zimbabweans would buy into the new dispensation to emerge from the talks.
"To this end the document being crafted by the negotiators should have the seal of approval and legitimacy of all Zimbabweans, through a referendum, before it becomes the supreme law of the land."
The CPIA believes that the negotiations should go beyond the short- and long-term solutions in purely constitutional terms.
It said the talks presented a glorious opportunity for the negotiators to bring on board other issues like reconciliation.
"We hope and pray that the negotiators will be able to deliver at the earliest opportunity. At the same time we call upon all political parties, trade unions, civil society, individuals and the media to refrain from provocative actions and making careless statements," the statement said.
http://www.herald.co.zw``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe: Makumbe fails to substantiate violence claims``x1217062266,92497,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xHerald Reporter-AFP.
July 26, 2008
The Herald
BORDEAUX. THE ongoing talks between Zanu-PF and the two MDC formations have softened the European Union's stance on Zimbabwe and has now thrown its weight behind President Thabo Mbeki's mediation.
The EU solidly backed Pretoria's mediating role in Zimbabwe as the only way of ending the country's economic and political problems at the end of the landmark EU-South Africa summit yesterday.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy – whose country holds the rotating presidency of the EU – showered fulsome praise on President on his "bold and courageous" intervention.
"We wholeheartedly support the courageous mediation by President Mbeki and back the idea to give him more time," Sarkozy said at a joint news conference at the end of the first EU-South Africa summit, held in the picturesque French city of Bordeaux.
"Mbeki's mediation must be supported," he said, adding: "There is no other way possible now and everyone in Europe agrees on this."
The EU on Tuesday widened sanctions against Zimbabwe despite a deal brokered by Mbeki between President Mugabe and opposition leaders Morgan Tsvangirai and Arthur Mutambara on talks for a future government.
Brussels is hostile to President Mugabe while President Mbeki, on the other hand, is opposed to any attempt to arm-twist the Zimbabwean leader and to bow to any form of Western pressure.
Yesterday President Mbeki sought to emphasise that the positions on Zimbabwe were narrowing.
"All of us agreed that it is important that Zimbabwean political parties should move forward to reach agreement ... on the formation of an inclusive government and a common programme to take Zimbabwe forward.
"I think everybody in the world wants this to happen as a matter of urgency," he said. "I really sincerely appreciate the support expressed by President Sarkozy."
President Mbeki sidestepped a question on whether he was seeking a dignified exit for President Mugabe, whose status as an African liberation hero is still largely undimmed on the continent.
"They (the Zimbabweans) will have to take the decision about who retires when. It's not something that comes from the mediation," he said.
South Africa defended its approach on the Zimbabwean issue.
"Our view is that there has been a major step forward in the process of dialogue in Zimbabwe thanks to the tireless and behind-the-scenes efforts of President Mbeki," South African Foreign Ministry spokesman Ronnie Mamoepa told AFP.
"We want all those parties who have a genuine desire for a resolution of the crisis in Zimbabwe to give the current peace process a strong boost," Mamoepa added.
Mamoepa yesterday slammed Kenyan Prime Minister Raila Odinga for speaking out on the Zimbabwean situation and insisting that President Mugabe release all political prisoners.
"We are not aware of the accreditation of Prime Minister Odinga as a mediator on the Zimbabwean question," Mamoepa said.
"Odinga is demanding that President Mugabe release all political prisoners and to host teleconferences, but in what capacity?" he added.
As the talks progress analysts and ordinary Zimbabweans have been predicting how the all- inclusive government would look like and how everybody considered key will be accommodated.
Some are suggesting that President Mugabe should appoint more than five non-constituency senators to accommodate those who were defeated in the March 29 elections.
In Zimbabwe, for one to be Government minister they have to be either an MP or senator.
Ironically, it was the opposition which proposed that the number of non-constituency MPs appointed by the President be reduced from 12 to five.
The opposition is now believed to be pushing for the President to appoint more than five senators.
This requires a constitutional amendment and Parliament will have to be called to sit and pass the necessary amendments before the extra senators can be appointed.
Analysts say this should not be a problem if the negotiating parties agree to this route since the two largest parties between them can easily muster the necessary majority.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xMoU softens EU stance on Zimbabwe``x1217111114,74097,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xOpinion & Analysis
July 26, 2008
The Herald
LISTENING to the MDC officials talk, you cannot miss that party's wish to be viewed and accepted as a party of major thresholds.
It views itself as the herald to great good things about to visit our country.
It speaks of the suffering, the impoverished, the traumatised, speaks of "exit points" to the current "crisis", but seemingly without any hint at the taunting irony underpinning these convoluted self-claims.
Apart from being the cause of the present crisis facing Zimbabwe, the party does not seem to recognise its all-British company, its all-sanctions agenda. One can hardly visualise any sadder pretension to millenarian personality than this. Even more worrisome is the mental state of the voter MDC is angling to catch with such fulsome claims. The politics of the MDC imply a credulous voter, one readily willing to suspend painfully begging questions, indeed one ready to ignore outward fact.
On its part, I hope the MDC does not believe self-flattery is the way out of its existential dilemma, a dilemma whose consequences it may now find harder to defer, let alone escape, after what happened on Monday. Henceforth, it has no choice but to answer foundational questions from an insistent and extraordinarily wary interlocutor.
While everyone was focusing on the larger and often humour-packed drama of the Monday MoU signing ceremony, very few noticed very significant auguries in and around the venue. How many, for instance, noticed that Tsvangirai received swapped briefcases with one of his minions, just before the signing? The briefcase he got for the ceremony held a speech he attempted to own and read with such striking unfamiliarity. Whose speech was it; whose ideas did it contain? After all, he had shown real reluctance to address the audience.
Out, out brief Scott and Rabitsch
More frighteningly, did anyone see two white men who fought so hard to access the venue, and the MDC leader, until they were emphatically frustrated and stopped by security? One was Keith Scott, the British Embassy's intelligence officer whose official cover nomenclature is "first secretary". The other was Armin Rabitsch, again whose cover title is "Elections and Democracy Expert" of the European Union. He "works" from the EU House.
What was the mission of the two men and why was it so important as to summon their combined belligerence? Are they part of the MDC-T human paraphernalia, part of the MDC cosmopolitan colour mix? I leave Scott for a while, noting though that he is also in charge of the Embassy's communications, possibly in recognition of the highly mediased British assault on Zimbabwe.
They have signed the wrong document!
I focus on the so-called elections and democracy expert of the EU. A rather simple and depthless man attempting a game on a complex pitch of politics, Rabitsch (Rubbish for short and simple!) was duly baited by a copy of the signed MoU, whereupon receiving and scanning through it, he gave the game away by exclaiming: "They signed the wrong document! Representatives of negotiating parties should have been five, not two."
You could not miss the consternation on the face of this white child of the emperor. Haggard, hair tousled, he withdrew to a corner meant for Rainbow guests, all under the watchful gaze of you-know-who. He whipped out a shrivelled and heavily finger-printed (from repeated references) piece of paper from his jacket which he furiously began comparing with the copy of the just signed MoU, paragraph by paragraph, point by point, word by word, oblivious to the watching Zimbabwean world.
Clearly there were variances, glaring variances that seemed to spell doom for him and the complex web of interests he minds in this country. All had been lost, or so it seemed. He cut a very lonely and resigned figure, simply overwhelmed by his own impotence, against another whirlwind turn in Zimbabwe's shifty politics.
So many questions, no answers
You are assailed by many questions. Which draft should the principals of the negotiating parties have signed? From where; from whom? Why did this outsider boy seem to know what was correct and possibly right for us, we the bereaved? Why were the emerging variations between the two documents such a horror for Mr Rubbish and Mr Kitty Scotchy?
What is more, is it sheer coincidence that among the issues MDC-T sought to reopen for negotiation just before the signing, was item 3 to do with representatives of each party to the talks, the same item which triggered a Rubbish yell? Why would the British, the EU and the MDC seek an enlarged team of negotiators to the talks? And why would all the representative negotiators to the talks – including those from MDC-T – unanimously reject the proposed enlargement, once put before them by the facilitator? Surely Biti and Mangoma would have been familiar with such a request from their party and backers, and would have exercised their obligation to push for its acceptance in the hastily convened pre-signing talks?
Would this suggest contradictions within the MDC and between these officials and those driving the British, European and American agenda? When one recalls that the two officials had to turn to Welshman Ncube and Priscilla Misihairabwi (the other neglected barrel this time!) when they sought to persuade Tsvangirai to sign the MoU, the plot simply thickens.
What is worse, MDC-T had a meeting of its executive last Thursday, ahead of the Monday signing. Are we sure the media have reported all that happened in that meeting, including tracing fractures within MDC-T, worsened by the Thursday meeting focused on whether or not to sign the MoU with Zanu-PF? More important, how do all these dynamics enable or disable the inter-party dialogue? What are the threats? What are the prospects?
Returning to old wine, old bottle-skins
I notice the media have been fixated on the timetable of the talks, unanimously concluding the time frame is unrealistic. Frankly, time is a non-issue, and, sadly, one reminding us yet again that the media are an industry of misleading recency, a profession where there is mutual agreement to annihilate memory and history, all to the combined detriment of the unwary reader. Nothing – not an iota – of what is in the MoU is new or undiscovered among the negotiating parties. Nothing – not an iota – of what is in the MoU was not debated on, with agreed positions adopted in the marathon discussions that took the whole of last year, right up to the March polls.
Including a draft constitution – made, adopted and ready – which the two MDCs decided to abuse in order to avoid signing the more binding comprehensive political declaration which the British did not want signed at all. And also hoping to dodge or defer the March poll. The declaration would have got both MDCs to affirm the correctness and irrevocability of land reforms, as well as British obligations to the resolution of that vexed question; would have affirmed the sanctity of Zimbabwe's sovereignty; would have rejected sanctions and other forms of Western intrusions, including pirate radio stations.
Needless to say, such a declaration would have ousted the tenuous moral string on which British neo-colonial designs here hang. More immediately, and especially for MDC-T, the declaration would have amounted to a vote against themselves, a conclusive resolution of an existential dilemma through suicide. Needless to say, that would not have made sense ahead of the harmonised elections which both MDCs were not quite ready for, even without realising that Zanu-PF, for all its unjustified confidence, was in a far worse position of readiness.
A moment to fornicate
I would daresay a number of issues, particularly those to do with communication, were, in fact, moved forward from the draft constitution, into current law, and this on the eve of the campaign period. There is a draft constitution already, agreed to also, which got mothballed ahead of the elections. So there is nothing new or un-agreed in what is in the MoU.
What may be new and a clear nuisance is the propensity to reopen negotiations on old matters and agreements. Even then, that would not suggest too short a timeframe; merely too long a foreplay by those forgetful they are stealing a moment to fornicate! Which is why I think real focus should be on which limbs balance, intertwine or penetrate in this dance of macabre dalliance.
Kicking out the British
Apart from its photogenic and gastronomic value, the real significance of the meeting between President Mugabe and Morgan Tsvangirai is that the two men tucked out the British from between them. The meddlesome British. The failure of Scott and Rabitsch to access the venue, influence the content and obtain on their terms the final documentation of the Monday ceremony, may have been very symbolic of how well sequestered from disruptive intrusion the beginning of the accommodation process (which is what it is now that substantive issues were long thrashed) was.
Judging by the appetite for more (the two men shared lunch) meetings which Tsvangirai has developed, it is clear something of a transfiguration happened in that small suite on Floor 17 of the Rainbow.
Phased declaration of war against Independence
But the risks of recidivism in Tsvangirai abound, which takes me to the real threats to the process. The largest threat comes from red-hot anger in London and Washington, less so some European capitals which had joined in the fight in the hope of delivering a good turn to the British. Chapter 7 of the UN Charter under which Britain, through the US and smaller states which sponsored the resolution against Zimbabwe in the Security Council, is a war segment of the UN Charter.
Britain was and is ready to go to war over Zimbabwe, against Zimbabwe. The resolution was meant to be a phased declaration of war, adorned with a patina of international legitimacy. Had the resolution succeeded, Britain would have fought a second colonisation war here, in the full joy of a UN mandate. It, thus, would have been a righteous war to unrighteous ends. That means the UN would have been complicit in inaugurating Berlin Conference 2, with itself in the chair that Bismarck occupied at the turn of the 19th Century.
It would have started a new phase and wave of recolonisation, of which Zimbabwe would have been the opening salvo. Through that one resolution, the UN would have edited all its anti-colonial resolutions that gave focus and impetus to liberation forces in Africa, Asia and Latin America in the name of a cardinal value of the UN Charter: self-determination. Ironically, Russia and China, which in Western propaganda terms are bastions of autocracy, stepped in to save the UN Charter from its marauding Security Council, and a strangely ululating Secretary General.
Telegraphing British hostility
But the message had gone home. Britain was and is ready for a dire decision against Zimbabwe. And this filtered through its media for the greater part of the week. Illustratively, the British Telegraph, itself a breath away from those who really govern England, dismissed the Monday event as "a disgraceful solution" for Zimbabwe (for Britain?)". Claiming the agreement "legitimised Mugabe's shameful flouting of the democratic process", the paper added the only person gladdened by the breakthrough would have been "South Africa's unimpressive president, Thabo Mbeki".
You cannot miss the royal rage, made madder by a recognition that "the wider international community (read Britain and America) would have little option but to look impotently on". With Mugabe and Tsvangirai sharing lunch and thoughts, Britain and her overriding interests were temporarily impotent, which is why the Telegraph bemoans the fact that "any sanctions against Mugabe and his henchmen would have to be abandoned".
The question is whether the British are permanently shut out. The Telegraph had the temerity to offer advice to Tsvangirai: "Mr Tsvangirai should not accede to such a one-sided settlement. The starting point for any power-sharing agreement is that it should recognise the result of the first, contested, presidential, election. That would require Mugabe's removal from the presidency and his replacement by Mr Tsvangirai. Any deal that does not recognise the democratic wishes of the people of Zimbabwe will not be worth the paper it is written on."
Well, well, well! Exactly, which is why no serious person gave regard to the British deal here, so succinctly spelt out by the Telegraph. It is a deal which does not recognise the supreme law here, implying securing British interests must, in fact, be our law as a neo-colony of the British. March gave Tsvangirai an early lead. June gave President Mugabe the conclusive win which yielded the Presidency for him. This Tsvangirai appears to have finally understood and appreciated on Monday, with his suggestion (and it's a mere suggestion he put to the President) for a 19th Amendment to the Constitution indicating a shying away from his initial British-inspired obduracy and fixation with the penultimate March polls. This may mark the beginning of Tsvangirai's second liberation, brought about by the man who is his father's age mate, the man he delights in reviling on behalf of the West.
Temptations of government-in-exile
The British are all out to wreck the project towards settlement here, and much rests on how well they are kept out, both by the MDC and the facilitator. The demand for an expanded mediation team and an expanded negotiating team is a search for opportune fissures for massive disruptions. Now that Tsvangirai is about to get a new passport to enable him to participate in the forthcoming meeting of the Organ on Politics, Defence and Security in Angola, he will have to resist the tempting idea of leaving the country to launch a government-in–exile, which for the British is a precursor to insurgency here, and more forays into the Security Council.
It will be a ruinous route to follow, one which would bring personal grief to Tsvangirai. After Monday, his best chances are with President Mugabe, ironically enough. The Russians have a brilliant idea. Sanctions should be applied on whoever stalls talks, including MDC-T and those hostile thoughts obstructing the course of a peaceful settlement.
Flutter in both dove-coats
The other threat – no doubt minor – comes from all the parties. Both the British and Americans are mulling reconfiguring the opposition here, once the two MDCs join Zanu-PF. Expectedly not everyone will have a place in the sun, in the new agreement. Those inside Zanu-PF who would not dare do what foolhardy Dabengwa did, but are known to have been sympathetic to Makoni, would sulk if it turns out – for reasons of sheer practicality – that they are not absorbed. The British expect this to be the nucleus of a new opposition movement, alongside embittered elements from both MDC-T and MDC-M.
And MDC-T seems set to suffer serious fractures, which I will not go into this week. Noteworthy, too, is evident angst in the old Zapu fold, one well founded in the concern that a new agreement with the two MDCs, would topple or relegate the 1987 Unity Accord. Fortunately, this is needless worry, given that the ruling party has made the 1987 Unity Accord a non-negotiable principle which will continue to shape and influence the composition of the Presidency.
Restoring the charity clause
What to do with the Mutambara group, that is the embarrassing but easy question. Embarrassing to both MDCs, but triggering massive gloating within Zanu-PF. Soon after the end of the 20 racial seats provided for under the Lancaster House Constitution as given us by the British, Zanu-PF – no doubt with remarkable nation-building foresight – turned those seats into special seats appointable by the President. The idea was to ensure inclusive structures of governance, which is how minority groups have always had a place in our structures.
However, these powers were severely pared down at last year's talks, all on the insistence of both MDCs. Mugabe can no longer abridge the people's will, they howled triumphantly, one eye pitying the supposedly eunuch-ed president. They relished the moment. Still in that din of ill-fated joy, Goche and Chinamasa were humane enough to remind Welshman Ncube that Matabeleland was, in fact, the biggest beneficiary of this provision in the electoral law. No, the learned professor and his colleagues would have none of it. The powers had to go, and go they did! Hardly six months down the victory, those powers are badly needed, badly needed by especially (excuse my broken syntax for emphasis) Welshman and his group in leadership, all of them killed and wiped out by the same democracy in whose name they pared down the charitable provision with such reckless ho-la-la-la! That is the difference between experience and knowledge, between mid-eighties and early fifties.
The Brown man at it again
Mandaza is at it again. With the money for Mavambo finished, the man wants new benefactors. To get these, he has to improve his appeal. And the benefactors are Western donors who will pour billions for any jibe at Zanu-PF. Those who were with Mandaza in the now defunct publishing project will tell you how throughout the ownership fight, the man would politically and legally catwalk to gain the notice of Western benefactors. He had to prove he was deeply anti-Zanu-PF to win Western donor approbation. His latest target is Joyce Kazembe, vice chairperson of the constitutional Zimbabwe Electoral Commission, herself a long-standing employee of Sapes Trust. She has to leave Sapes, we are told, because the Sapes Trust which Ibbotson Joseph dominates if not personify, accuses her of bringing it into disrepute! A Kazemba on national assignment brings disrepute to some nondescript, donor-driven NGO whose accounts books gooseflesh at the mention of the word "audit"? And Kazembe who serves a constitutional body under which Mavambo competed for power, soils the Trust the way Mandaza himself as a player in that terminal political thing, does not? And how did Professor Sam Moyo, or other regional scholars who left Sapes in such ignominy, soil it? This guy has been allowed to go too far in abusing people. Each time he wants to improve his credentials as a mendicant angling for donor notice, some scapegoat has to be found, some head has to roll! So Joyce is the coin that settles the electoral trouncing of Mavambo? And, sisi, you allow the man to defame you so openly? Why? The same week the EU crucifies you? Doesn't that make him a Brown man? Icho!
-End- ``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xMoU: Dining Tsvangirai, Deigning the British``x1217111159,98996,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Obi Egbuna
July 29, 2008
Harare
ONE of the most tragic lessons that continues to be overlooked in the history of the United States is that the country is nothing, but a settler colony.
This means the so-called founding fathers, such as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and the rest of their gang, should be referred to as the first thieves.
When we as Africans at home or abroad begin looking at US history with the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights or the Articles of Confederation, we must realise we are slapping the indigenous inhabitants of this land in the face, which is not culturally or politically acceptable.
On October 13, 2007, the international fraternity of freedom fighters who believe in solidarity and world peace lost a brave and devoted comrade.
His colonial name was Vernon Bellecourt but his "warrior" name was WaBun-Inini, which means "Man of Dawn".
The Native American community compared this loss to when the Palestinians lost Yasser Arafat, when the African-American community lost Dr Martin Luther King Jnr and Malcolm X and when the Asian world lost Mao Tse Tung, Kim Il Sung and Ho Chi Minh.
What made WaBun-Inini special was his commitment to internationalism.
While he was very culturally grounded and was proud of his indigenous roots, he never hesitated using whatever platform to lend support to other oppressed people's struggles in every corner of the world.
Because WaBun-Inini was one of the founding members of the American Indian Movement/International Indian Treaty Council and served as the spokesperson of that branch that dealt with world affairs, he took that responsibility very seriously and it made him a brilliant and passionate ambassador of the rights of indigenous people throughout the Western hemisphere.
At the time of his death, he had just returned from Venezuela where he was discussing developing a long-term relationship with President Hugo Chavez.
WaBun-Inini, while in Venezuela, was informed that President Mugabe was one of the more recent recipients of the Simon Bolivar Award – Venezuela's highest political honour.
WaBun-Inini had already planned a trip to Zimbabwe to meet President Mugabe face-to-face.
One of his reasons for wanting to come was to let Cde Mugabe know that George W. Bush's sanctions policy did not have the support of indigenous Americans.
He also wanted to establish official ties with Zanu-PF.
WaBun-Inini was personally impressed with the courage President Mugabe and Zanu-PF demonstrated by pursuing the land reclamation programme in 2000.
More so, he felt Nelson Mandela should have been using his stature as an internationally acclaimed freedom fighter to both defend Zimbabwe and insist South Africa do the same thing for its people.
He also felt Cecil John Rhodes was the one man who he felt came closest to matching Christopher Columbus in terms of criminality and genocidal behaviour.
Cde WaBun-Inini felt that President Mugabe was one of the world's key voices on land reclamation and he not only spoke for Zimbabweans and Africans, but for all people ruined by colonialism.
He was greatly delighted when he heard President Mugabe tell former British prime minister Tony Blair in South Africa: "Blair, you keep your England and let me keep my Zimbabwe."
WaBun-Inini was very disturbed when he found out that David Livingstone had named Mosi-oa-Tunya after Queen Victoria and compared this to when Christopher Columbus claimed to have discovered America.
WaBun-Inini also was not pleased that the majority of the Congressional Black Caucus in the US were in support of the Bush-sponsored sanctions against Zimbabwe and felt this continued the disastrous legacy of the mercenary Buffalo Soldiers that killed his people.
In the 1980s, WaBun-Inini coined the phrase: "We are the Palestinians and the Palestinians are us."
He said on meeting President Mugabe he would also start saying: "We are the Zimbabweans and the Zimbabweans are us," as an expression of his solidarity and goodwill.
WaBun-Inini had also begun looking at the National Economic Development Priority Programme and wanted to begin a dialogue with President Mugabe on how trade agreements between Native Americans and Zimbabweans could get off the ground.
He felt solidarity in the political arena should translate into economic ties so Africans and Native Americans could weather the storm in a world still dominated by European imperialism.
WaBun-Inini wanted to tell President Mugabe that while he thought the Look East Policy was brilliant and revolutionary, also trading with the very same indigenous peoples that America exploited would be a real blow.
WaBun-Inini had held talks with the former Zimbabwe ambassador to the United States, Dr Simbi Mubako, and with the current Zimbabwean representative to the US, Dr Machivenyika Mapuranga, during which expressions of solidarity were exchanged.
WaBun-Inini wanted to invest time and energy in defending Zimbabwe in the same way he defended Libya and President Muammar Gaddafi in the mid-1980s following Reagan's bombing of that country in 1986.
WaBun-Inini and the late pan-African leader Kwame Toure of the All-African People's Revolutionary Party helped mobilise over 150 organisations to defy Reagan's travel ban on Libya.
WaBun-Inini called the failure by the British and US governments to honour commitments made to Zimbabwe at Lancaster House a continuation of the colonialist and imperialist tradition of lies and deceit.
When protesting atrocities in Guatemala against indigenous people by the CIA-backed government, he threw his own blood on their embassy in Washington and said he would do the same to the British Embassy because of their continued interference in Zimbabwe.
WaBun-Inini felt President Mugabe's pardoning of Ian Smith and his Rhodesian cohorts in 1980 was one of the greatest acts of compassion ever displayed by a freedom fighter towards the enemies and oppressors of his people the world had ever seen.
WaBun-Inini was also impressed with how Zimbabwe always paid tribute and homage to its iconic warriors like Mbuya Nehanda and Sekuru Kaguvi and felt is was similar to the way his people acknowledged their great warriors like Sitting Bull and Geronimo.
WaBun-Inini was inspired by how President Mugabe and Zanu-PF helped Mozambique fight against Renamo and also by Operation Sovereign Legitimacy in the Democratic Republic of Congo. He would often cite an old Native American saying that goes: "You fight for your brothers with the same courage you defend yourselves."
WaBun-Inini felt because of Zimbabwe's commitment to education, which he said was only matched by what he saw in Cuba, he would have wanted the two ministries that deal directly with education to incorporate the history of indigenous Americans in the national syllabi.
In 2001 when the US protested slavery reparations and to recognise the need for a Palestinian homeland, WaBun-Inini stated that all who were surprised by this position must have either forgotten or overlooked the barbaric manner in which Native Americans were colonised.
He said that the Zimbabwean and the Native American questions deserved equal emphasis.
WaBun-Inini also signed a resolution highlighting Zimbabwe's fight against HIV and Aids and the manner in which the Global Fund was treating the country was akin to Lord Jeffrey Amhurst injecting smallpox in the blankets of Native Americans.
WaBun-Inini compared the courage of the Zanla and Zipra fighters during the Second Chimurenga to what he saw when he visited the Zapatistas in Mexico with whom he subsequently established strong relations.
Were he alive today, he would have celebrated President Mugabe's position that the US and Britain should not be involved in the current talks between Zanu-PF and the opposition MDC.
After all, treaties between the US government and the indigenous American peoples were always violated.
It would be good to see the American Indian Movement/Internatio nal Indian Treaty Council continue the work WaBun-Inini started and realise the establishment of official ties with Zanu-PF.
Long live Cde WaBun-Inini! Long live AIM-IITC and the Native American Revolution!
Long live Cde Mugabe and long live Zanu-PF!``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xWaBun-Inini: A true American hero``x1217333821,20005,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Stephen T. Maimbodei
July 29, 2008
The Herald
I have said it before and I will say it again without any apologies. Even then, there are still some who are awestruck at the continued attempts by the West (read Britain and America) to make Zimbabwe Africa's protracted battleground for their imperialistic and hegemonic interests.
Last Monday was an unlikely possibility, which has left them exposed and embarrassed, and, at the very least, angry too. To the Americans, British and their European Union allies, last Monday was not supposed to be. It was an aberration, something that has to be erased not only from memory, but also from history.
As an insider to the historic signing of the Memorandum of Understanding revealed that there was then no option for them except to go back to the original template and salvage the little they could.
And that little is a very punitive but equally unimaginative strategy of more sanctions, more travel bans, more frozen assets, and expanded or extended sanctions against President Mugabe and what they insist are his cronies.
Thus sanctions and their physical and psychological effects have now become the Rock of Gibraltar that they are now standing on in their fight to reclaim Zimbabwe as their pet.
The reason is there for all to see. These sanctions that are imposed time and again, are meant to achieve one thing, and one thing only for the British, and that is to illegally remove President Mugabe from power at whatever cost and replace him with anyone who will deliver the country to them.
This goes beyond the opposition. It is simply about having in State House anyone but President Mugabe. French President Nicolas Sarkozy in his "accolades" towards President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa summed it up very well last week when he said that while they applauded the South African leader's role as mediator, as EU chairman he was not prepared to talk to President Mugabe . . . ever.
This could intrinsically be concluded to mean that whatever result comes out of the talks, the West do not expect President Mugabe to be a major player in the future Zimbabwe.
This was a reiteration of statements they had earlier made when they emphatically stated that the EU would not recognise any other election result except the inconclusive March 29 results.
Zimbabwe has also shown them that the carrot-and-stick policy that they use, and their policy of permanent interests and not permanent friends or enemies, will not work, for it was easy for Zimbabwe to adopt a "Look East" policy whereby new players in Zimbabwe's economy were brought on board.
Therefore, the current wave of sanctions imposed by both the United States and the EU are nothing but "expressions of anger and frustration" from imperialist forces that realise that the rug has been pulled off from under their feet.
Sanctions are also being used against the people of Zimbabwe as a means for them to regain lost and wounded pride.
One writer, Timothy Kalyegira, has said: "How come, for all this obvious evidence, nobody has asked the simple question: is this Zimbabwe story real or an orchestrated series of events by the British and American governments and media to punish Mugabe for humiliating the white settlers in Zimbabwe?"
How come also that the international community is not questioning why, for example, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown – who has been experiencing a string of increasingly embarrassing losses at the polls – has made Zimbabwe his main target?
While Zimbabweans have resolved that they are prepared to solve their own problems without outside interference, why then are Brown, Bush and the whole EU muscle being force-fed on Zimbabwe?
Why is the "international community" also not questioning the fact that by extending sanctions to Zimbabwean companies, they are also directly imposing sanctions against all the international markets that those companies deal with in China, Russia, India, South Africa, etc?
What of the hundreds of thousands of Zimbabweans who depend on their livelihoods from production at these companies? Have they not also been put on the sanctions list?
According to Cde Christopher Mutsvangwa, while the British want to maintain their hegemony on Zimbabwe, they have also realised that they are losing the fight and now they are feeling the pinch: losing control, losing access to resources and also losing markets to emerging powers such as Brazil, Russia, China and India.
He also argued that Britain especially is finding it difficult to extricate itself from Zimbabwe, because doing so would mean major losses for British businesses. As a former coloniser, Britain, with the help of the US, is also finding it very difficult to face up to these new challenges that are a result of its refusal to meet its obligations regarding the land reform programme.
Cde Mutsvangwa also argues that Britain and its Western allies have, however, unwittingly applied the law of unintended consequences.
By vilifying and demonising President Mugabe, they thought that it would be a done deal in their quest to recolonise Zimbabwe without realising that they were actually preparing the ground for Zimbabwe's own thrust to deal with its detractors and fully establish itself as a sovereign state. For it has become the best marketing tool in selling Zimbabwe, at no cost at all, though the downside is the immense suffering that the people are going through.
With the positive vibes coming from the South African-mediated talks, it is quite apparent that all the nations that have been bombarded with news about Zimbabwe will, at the end of it all, want to be part of this Zimbabwe in terms of foreign direct investment and tourism.
Meanwhile, despite this current aggression and onslaught, the people of Zimbabwe will continue to demand that there should be no outside interference in their internal affairs, and that they are masters of their destiny, and that they do not need the strings attached "assistance" from the West, especially Britain and America.
http://www.herald.co.zw/``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe sanctions: The truth``x1217379315,23452,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Obi Egbuna
July 31, 2008
WHEN the history of Zimbabwe is told, one point that everyone across the board from President Mugabe's closest comrades and friends to his most antagonistic detractors will have to admit is that the Zimbabwean leader is a grandmaster when it comes to articulating the nation's vision.
If the adage "experience is the best teacher" is true then it is no secret why articulating the country's politics comes as naturally to President Mugabe as walking or eating.
Many people throughout the world got their first real glimpse of President Mugabe during the 1979 Lancaster House talks, where both British prime minister Margaret Thatcher and US president Jimmy Carter openly admitted they were awe-struck by President Mugabe's brilliance and vision.
The world has really had a chance to see President Mugabe display his courage on the world stage numerous times since then; his stern and uncompromising message to former British prime minister Tony Blair is still used as a cellphone ring tone by many Zimbabweans almost six years on.
His presentation at the African Union Summit in Egypt last month and his brilliant paper at the EU-Africa Summit at the end of last year are among the more recent of his eloquent vision.
It is at these platforms, more than anywhere else, that the world has come to see that US and British imperialism have been hypocritical and reactionary in their handling of Zimbabwe.
While they tell anyone who still listens that all they want is for democracy to take its course in Zimbabwe, it is clear that they are ever ready to use undemocratic means to subvert Zimbabwe's internal political and economic processes.
Why does the US Ambassador to the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation keep trying to stop the President from speaking at these gatherings?
Why did Prime Minister Gordon Brown stay away from the EU-Africa Summit in Portugal?
The reality is that President Mugabe and Zanu-PF have so much leverage at this point in the struggle to defend Zimbabwe's sovereignty on the international arena through the support of the country's brothers and sisters in the Sadc region.
And the shining example of this support is none other than South Africa's leader President Thabo Mbeki.
It was no accident that President Mugabe went out of his way during his remarks at the signing of the Memorandum of Understanding to not only thank President Mbeki for his tireless efforts but to also highlight his contributions to positive political developments in Zimbabwe.
President Mugabe pointed to Constitution of Zimbabwe (Amendment) Act Number 18, the various amendments to the Public Order and Security Act and the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
While the common perception throughout the African world is that the reason why President Mbeki was collectively chosen by Sadc to facilitate the talks between Zanu-PF and both formations of the MDC was because during the time he headed both Nepad and the African Union, he dealt with conflicts in Burundi, Rwanda and Cote d'Ivoire.
In a nutshell, he has experienced far greater internal stand-offs than what obtained in Zimbabwe.
When assessing President Mbeki's suitability for the task assigned to him, we must also look at his family background.
It should not be overlooked that President Mbeki is the biological son of the freedom fighter and national hero Cde Govan Mbeki and his brother Jama was an ardent supporter of the Pan Africanist Congress of Azania.
His involvement in national politics started at the tender age of 14 and at that time Cde Thabo Mbeki was already exposed to the myriad opinions that exist within the national body politic.
The other crucial point in understanding President Mbeki for people across the globe is that he personally knows what serious internal conflict is, its manifestations and how it can be best dealt with.
He has steadfastly said the military route is not an option at all and this is attributable to the fact that he lived through such a history and has read a similar history from other countries.
One only has to look at what happened to Maurice Bishop in Grenada and Salvador Allende in Chile who were murdered in cold blood because of their refusal to listen to American dictates.
Our collective historical memory also tells us that comrades Patrice Lumumba and Amilcar Cabral were overthrown because of their defence of their countries' respective sovereignty.
We should thus never overlook the historical context when assessing President Mbeki and his facilitation of dialogue in Zimbabwe.
The US and British governments have openly expressed their anger over how the South African leader has engaged Zimbabwe, but as President Mugabe has eloquently stated, President Mbeki must be commended for his persistence and positive sensitivity to criticism.
One of the best examples of President Mbeki remaining unfazed in the face of criticism was when the leader of MDC-T Morgan Tsvangirai earlier this year said, "It is time to recognise Mbeki's efforts have proved fruitless", or something to that effect.
Tsvangirai has admitted that he was reluctant to go ahead with the talks under President Mbeki's facilitation and it says a lot that the South African leader has managed to overcome those fears.
These remarks came after George W. Bush was quoted by the BBC as saying he was "extremely frustrated" with the Zimbabwe but even more disappointed with President Mbeki's handling of the situation.
As early as 2002, Bush had declared President Mbeki as his "point man" on Zimbabwe, and with hindsight perhaps this was done to create doubt in the minds of Zimbabwe's governing leadership about the South African leader's trustworthiness.
After all, there are very few people in the world who would trust a mediator endorsed by Washington!
When participating in the 2003 UN General Assembly, President Mugabe told a private gathering of solidarity groups that because many of his contemporaries in the Sadc region were no longer in office (Nujoma in Namibia, Chissano in Mozambique, Kaunda in Zambia), the West would try to manipulate the new guard into isolating Zimbabwe.
The President went on to say Zimbabwe was Southern Africa's biggest challenge this century, but the West would be extremely disappointed with the results of their isolationist campaign.
We subsequently saw the European Union threaten to pull out of a road project in Malawi because President Bingu wa Mutharika said he was going to name it after the Zimbabwean leader.
Former Botswana president Festus Mogae and Zambian President Levy Mwanawasa then came to the Harare Agricultural Show and reaffirmed their support for Zimbabwe and President Mugabe soon afterwards.
The most telling development of 2006 was former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan saying that in Zimbabwe what we were witnessing was an unresolved dispute between a sovereign nation and its former racist colonial master.
Mr Annan then agreed to the recommendation that former Tanzanian president Benjamin Mkapa mediate between Blair and President Mugabe.
It is against such a background that President Mbeki has held firm from the time of Zimbabwe's suspension from the Commonwealth to the recent failed UN Security Council sanctions bid.
President Mbeki has ignored the anti-Zimbabwe propaganda not only on BBC, C-SPAN, CNN and, of course, the Voice of America, but also reactionary outlets in his own backyard.
The strategy of the Washington Post is to encourage its man in Johannesburg Craig Timberg to launch an all-out attack on President Mugabe and Zanu-PF from the other side of the Limpopo River regardless of truth or accuracy.
Earlier this month Timberg published a front page article claiming to have caught the Zanu-PF leadership on tape planning a campaign of intimidation and violence and that some of President Mugabe's aides spoke to him on condition of anonymity.
The South African branch of Amnesty International, which has unfortunately decided to be a mouthpiece of British intelligence, has done nothing but demonise President Mugabe and Zanu-PF since the land reclamation program began in 2000.
President Mbeki's resilience in dealing with this can be traced back to his days as the ANC's head of information.
This is why the decision to keep the talks between Zanu-PF and the opposition private was a visionary idea.
London and Washington are now more desperate than ever and that is why they coerced an unwilling Nelson Mandela into attacking Zimbabwe.
But the most outlandish displays of ventriloquism have come from Liberia, Raila Odinga in Kenya, Nigeria and Burkina Faso.
When Blaise Compare sees President Mugabe he thinks of Thomas Sankara.
Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf should remember that Amai Joice Mujuru's rise to Zimbabwe's presidium set the tone for continent-wide campaign for women such as herself to get into leadership positions. Among the most surprising attackers of Zimbabwe and President Mbeki is American civil rights leader Rev Jesse Jackson.
If he wants to help Zimbabwe, he should start by giving his Congressman son — who voted for sanctions against Zimbabwe — the correct and true lecture on history and why he was never able to occupy the White House himself.
When Osagyefo Kwame Nkrumah said, "We prefer self-government with danger to servitude in tranquillity," he probably had no idea that a young man whom he greatly influenced would go on to be President of the Republic of Zimbabwe and carry this torch for Africa.
And President Mugabe can continue to show Africa and Africans the path to true independence and empowerment because of brave and principled men like President Mbeki.
Long live President Mbeki, long live President Mugabe!``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xMbeki: A brave, principled man``x1217486050,76161,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Stephen T. Maimbodei
August 05, 2008
The Herald
Recently, Black Power Pan-Africanist and renowned author Chinweizu challenged Zanu-PF when he wrote: "It is our comradely duty to also ask Zanu-PF to thoroughly review its methods of fighting sanctions and its methods of telling its story to its people and to the world. For it seems not to have done an adequate job of that so far."
In view of that, this writer went on to interview Cde David Karimanzira, Governor and Resident Minister for Harare Metropolitan Province, to share some insights on how the Third Chimurenga, spearheaded by the Svosve community of Mashonaland East Province, started 10 years ago and how it has so far fared.
Cde Karimanzira was the Governor and Resident Minister for Mashonaland East Province when these land reclamations started in June 1998.
It is also befitting that the nation pays tribute to these heroes and heroines of the Third Chimurenga as it celebrates the 20th anniversary of the heroes' commemoration.
Cde Karimanzira narrated to The Herald the first footmarks set by the people of Svosve in June 1998, and how they impacted Zimbabwe's geo-political and economic landscape.
Soon after the first farm occupation, white former farmers went to see Cde Karimanzira and complained that the Svosve villagers had "invaded" their farms.
Cde Karimanzira said that he told the farmers that contrary to their allegations, the villagers were actually claiming that, "your farms are on their land".
This probably is one of the most critical statements on the Zimbabwe narrative and the land issue.
It is a statement pregnant with symbolic meaning, and it cannot be naively interpreted. It also puts the land question into its historical context, and also places the whole land issue and property rights into their proper perspective.
This is also a statement that the judges at the Sadc Tribunal in Namibia should understand and appreciate in its entirety as they decide on the case brought before them by the white former farmers.
President Mugabe has time and again said: "The land is ours. It's not European and we have taken it, we have given it to the rightful people."
This is also why the land issue has been designated a non-negotiable issue at the current Sadc-mediated inter-party talks between Zanu-PF and the two MDC formations, since Zanu-PF has made it clear that land reform is irreversible.
But how did the people of Svosve become the first heroes and heroines of the Third Chimurenga? Why was it a revolution that saw people of all ages including mothers with babies on the backs taking part?
Cde Karimanzira pointed out that the answer lies in where they were settled: mountains, and also in the fact that these were land-hungry people who genuinely wanted land to cultivate, and genuinely wanted to return to their roots – which were the farms occupied by white commercial farmers. They had also waited for resettlement, which had been promised by the Government soon after independence.
Notwithstanding, the Svosve people represented all land-hungry peasants who had been pushed off their fertile land by successive settler colonial governments since 1890.
To date, land remains a topical issue across the globe as it is the only source for total empowerment and indigenisation.
Cde Karimanzira also argued that the people of Svosve wanted to correct a misconception in the international community that President Mugabe was politicising the land issue, and trying to use it to justify the Government's "failed" policies.
Said Cde Karimanzira: "The people of Svosve occupied land because they wanted to show the international community that President Mugabe, as their leader, was speaking on their behalf, and that they were doing the only normal thing: reclaiming their stolen land."
"They also proved to a world that has become obsessed with notions like democracy, governance, human rights, rule of law that they were waging a justified war against the 'realities of colonial dehumanisation', and that theirs was "a morally and legally justified position".
Thus they made history the world over and their images brought to the fore that the land question remained the unfinished business in Zimbabwe's quest for total independence.
Theirs was also an image symbolic of skewed property rights and ownership structures in an independent Zimbabwe.
When they marched onto the first farm in June 1998, the villagers from Svosve were thus demonstrating the importance of addressing once and for all the land question for economic, political and cultural reasons.
But how best does one unpack the villagers' statements as recalled by Cde Karimanzira who said that it was on a Monday afternoon that a delegation of seven, comprising war veterans, farmers, ZPEDRA, business and the youths came to his office and told him matter of factly:
"Tauya kuti tikuudzei kuti tiri kudzokera kumusha musi weChitatu. Tatosiya vakomana vachigadzira mavhiri ezvikochikari . . . Tigere mumakomo. Takavimbiswa navaMahachi kuti tinokubvisayi. Hatichada kuti vaMugabe vangonzi ndivo bedzi vari kutaura nezveivhu. Tave kudzokera kwatakabva kune ivhu." (We have come to inform you that on Wednesday we will be going back 'home'. We left the young men already preparing the scotchcarts . . . We were settled in mountains, and Cde Mahachi promised that we'd be resettled on better land. We don't want the world out there to think that Cde Mugabe is the only one talking about the land issue. We are going back where we came from, where there is better soil.)
As he narrated the events of those first weeks he said he vividly remembered the seriousness on these people's intentions, and that the tone of their voices said that they meant every word.
Any attempt to stop them would be fruitless, and he also said that it was apparent that this was a well-thought out mission and there was no going back.
On the Tuesday, the Svosve people held two meetings where they agreed that they were going to occupy the nearby farms and on Wednesday they moved onto a farm.
Cde Karimanzira said they could not be convinced by the argument that Government had put in place an orderly land resettlement scheme, which was first launched at Mt Pleasant Farm in Murewa.
Footmarks and implications
Cde Karimanzira said that when Government officials arrived at the farm that Wednesday, they had a lengthy meeting with the villagers where they tried to persuade them to return home.
After the meeting there was an initial agreement that they would vacate awaiting the orderly allocation of land. However, they were surprised when they told the governor that they were already expecting inputs from the State for the next farming season.
He also said that despite the passage of time since the villagers had been moved off the land under the Land Apportionment Act of 1930, some of them had vivid recollections of some of the landmarks they had left on that farm.
There was no doubt that they knew exactly what they were doing and that they were not laying claim to property that was not theirs.
They showed Government officials "guyo nehuyo" (grinding stone) that they had left on the land when the racist Smith regime forced them out, which were now covered with dead leaves.
Another woman disappeared for a while and when she reappeared, she told them that she had gone to check on her grandmother's grave.
Later on, the white farm owner – the head of the sprawling Campbell Holdings – accompanied by other farmers complained to the governor that the people of Svosve had "invaded" his farm.
However, the governor told him that the people were instead saying that, "your farm is on their land".
Unpacking the metaphor
"They are saying that your farm is on their land!" Herein lies the crux of the whole land saga.
The two constructs (farm and land) juxtaposed reveal the complexity of the land issue, and also reveals the underlying perceptions from both the people of Zimbabwe, and the white former farmers, and their kith and kin in the West.
How then can one deconstruct this loaded statement in order to make the British and their allies understand the significance and meaning of land to the people of Zimbabwe?
For, the statement encapsulates the whole debate on land reform in Zimbabwe.
This writer will argue that the villagers did not deny that the white farmers owned farms.
However, what they were laying claim to was the land on which those farms were situated. They were, in short, arguing that the farms that all the white former farmers owned were, in actual fact, situated on their land, implying therefore that if the farmers "removed" their farms from their land, then they could reclaim their land in totality.
The implication is that the Svosve farmers regarded the farms as movable assets situated on "their land". Thus, a farm could be removed, while the land remained to be used for other purposes.
For all the people of Svosve cared, the white farmers could move their farms to any other land which was not "their land": they just had to move.
This argument became a reality when the white former farmers left behind the Zimbabwean land and its people and were still be able to farm in Zambia, Mozambique, Nigeria and other parts of Africa where they were offered opportunities to carry out their farming activities.
However, did the white farmers understand and did they even care considering the outcry from the whole Anglo-Saxon world?
Although the people have been vindicated, the price has been high. It is also evident that the West still wants to impose its will on Zimbabwe, showing that they have no respect for other people: what they are, what they think, what they say and what they do.
Zimbabwe has been reeling under illegal economic sanctions since then, and there have been several attempts to effect illegal regime change in order to reverse this radical, no looking back land reform programme.
Cde Karimarinzira also pointed out that the problem has always been that of racism whereby whites have always believed that black people cannot think, let alone take the initiative like the people of Svosve did.
They did not and still do not realise that President Mugabe is the leader of the people of Zimbabwe and their spokesperson, too.
They also did not understand that black people could tell them that they had stolen their land, and that they wanted it back. Thus their reaction to President Mugabe's leadership, especially on the land issue, has always been to isolate and try to illegally remove him from power.
The British government has reneged on its Lancaster House agreement obligations, and since the Tony Blair regime came to power, they have completely refused to have anything to do with Zimbabwe's land issue, and has ganged up against Zimbabwe with the United States and other Western allies.
It has also influenced some in both the Sadc region and the African Union to believe that the problem in Zimbabwe is one of governance, hence the need for Western intervention and regime change.
Cde Karimanzira also pointed out that the progressive world should, however, not lose sight of the fact that the British government under Blair, and now Gordon Brown, has repudiated the Lancaster House agreement, which in itself was an act of war.
The infamous letter to the Government of Zimbabwe by former secretary of state for international development Claire Short on November 5, 1997 was proof of that. She wrote in part: "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."
The United States also reinforced the act of war through the imposition of illegal sanctions when they enacted the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act of 2001.
Chinweizu also reminds all progressive people in the international community that they should also recall that "former US assistant secretary of state on African affairs Chester Crocker said in a 2005 testimony to the US Senate for the Zimbabwe Democracy Act (i.e. sanctions and regime change legislation): "To separate the Zimbabwean people from Zanu-PF we are going to have to make their economy scream, and I hope you senators have the stomach for what you have to do." (Democracy Now! April 1, 2005). And that is precisely what is happening. The economy is indeed screaming, by enemy design.
One writer says: "When propaganda is taken out of the Zimbabwean story, what emerges is the struggle of a very poor people against gross historical racism and neocolonial energies that continues to marginalise and threaten their human hood.
"The Svosve people as proponents of the Third Chimurenga are representative of such a people who are daily bludgeoned by a system that tells them that they care for their interests only if they act according to their dictates.
"It is a system that also has no qualms about piling more suffering on them when they are fighting to be their own persons."
United behind the land reform programme
According to Cde Karimanzira, the West and their allies have failed to appreciate, let alone understand that the land issue was correcting colonial imbalances, and the villagers from Svosve became the heroes and heroines who pioneered the Third Chimurenga, and put Zimbabwe on the international map both for the right and wrong reasons.
He also called on the people of Zimbabwe to rally behind the land reform programme arguing that it brings about unity because as long as some people welcome it as a solution, while others oppose it, then there is no unity. Once Zimbabweans unite behind the land reform programme, that unity becomes an everlasting solution that brings about peace.
Zimbabwe Image, an Internet blogger, has also argued why the world continues to acquiesce to Anglo-Saxon machinations against Zimbabwe by defending their primitive systems that flourish through stealing from the weak, disadvantaging the poor and abusing power – a system no moral being would willingly support, condone or work to preserve.
Thus the nation toasts these heroes and heroines of the Third Chimurenga who through their radical approach showed the world that the unfinished land issue had to be brought to its logical conclusion.
They also triggered what eventually became one of the most crucial and most controversial policies undertaken by the Government of Zimbabwe since 1980. For the land reform has defined the geo-political and landscape in our time. Thereafter, the Government embarked on a radical, no looking back land acquisition and redistribution programme.
Some of the villagers from the Svosve community lived under sanctions during the Smith regime. They saw apartheid-ruled South Africa assisting the Smith regime.
Surely, they must be wondering what brotherhood means if the whole of Africa folds its arms and accepts that governance and not property rights in the form of stolen land is central to the problems that are now bedevilling the country.
They were also around when Zimbabwe lent financial, material and moral support to brothers and sisters in the region. They again must be wondering why the African brothers and sisters are not assisting them in the same manner.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``x'Your farm is on our land'``x1217910989,65803,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xHerald Reporter
August 05, 2008
The Herald
PRESIDENT Mugabe yesterday officially launched the Indo-Zimbabwe Project and state-of-the-art equipment worth about US$4 million procured from India for use by small and medium enterprises.
Zimbabwe and India signed a Memorandum of Understanding in 2006 in which the latter pledged US$5 million for the development of the small and medium enterprises sector in the country.
Speaking before a gathering that included the Indian Ambassador to Zimbabwe, Mr Venkatesan Ashok, and senior Government officials at the Harare Institute of Technology, President Mugabe hailed the Indian government for its continued support and challenged SMEs to take advantage of the project.
President Mugabe expressed his sincere gratitude and that of the Government of Zimbabwe to the government of India for its continued support in the development of the SMEs sector in Zimbabwe.
The President said India and Zimbabwe enjoyed close and cordial relations dating back to the days of the liberation struggle.
"The machinery which we are launching today is worth more than US$3,8 million. Some of the machines have already been installed here at the Indo-Zim Technology Centre which has branches also housed at the Harare Institute of Technology, Bulawayo Polytechnic and Small Enterprises Development Corporation's Chitungwiza factory shells," he said.
The Indo-Zimbabwe Project seeks to promote technology transfer by introducing new technologies like computer-numerically-controlled machines and other modern equipment for carpentry and metal fabrication.
India has provided precision high technology machines and measuring instruments for the training and manufacture of tools and dyes including computer-numerically-controlled machines used to impart training skills.
President Mugabe said the machines would be utilised by SMEs as common facility centres.
Government plans to install such machines for rural facility centres.
President Mugabe said technological innovation has diversified in the global market and demanded SMEs to provide quality products and services.
He said the Indo-Zimbabwe Project would assist in building the country's industrial base as well as developing technically qualified entrepreneurs to set up businesses.
"I would like to urge SMEs to take advantage of this project and produce quality and competitive products. It is therefore necessary that SMEs move from traditional and general type of businesses to high-tech enterprises that will increase national wealth and earn the country foreign currency," President Mugabe said.
He challenged SMEs to venture into new territories and pledged Government's full support.
President Mugabe said the equipment and machinery would also benefit large enterprises.
"For example, the plastic industry will certainly benefit since tools and dyes are made locally whilst mining, railway and other heavy industries will also benefit as spare parts and components required are manufactured locally. Local electronics industries are also set to benefit through the manufacture of printed circuit boards and the training of personnel."
He said Zimbabwe was excited about the project as it was poised to mould a new techno brand of SMEs which would contribute significantly towards saving scarce foreign currency.
Mr Ashok said his country was aware of the importance Zimbabwe placed to the development of SMEs.
"This project has had a long gestation since 1996, when my government, under the aegis of G-15 co-operation, announced 'a grant-in-aid' of US$5 million for the development of SMEs in Zimbabwe. We wish to express appreciation to the Government of Zimbabwe and the Ministry of Small and Medium Enterprises Development for the co-operation extended to us," he said.
Mr Ashok said India and Zimbabwe had long ties as evidenced by the Asian country's involvement in a number of activities in the country.
He expressed India's wish to see companies from that country investing in power, railways, mining, energy, dairy and the agriculture sector and hoped the launch of the Indo-Zimbabwe Project would mark the beginning of sustained co-operation between the two countries.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe: Major boost for SMEs``x1217911127,31688,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Batho Montsho
August 06, 2008
This writer recently learned the meaning of the word hypocrite – it is someone who kills both his parents and then pleads orphanage as a mitigating factor when being sentenced. And this writer does not intend to use this word ever again . . . and not in this article.
The Government of Botswana recently pronounced that it does not recognise Robert Mugabe as the President of Zimbabwe as he was not elected in free and fair elections.
Even Members of Parliament (here in Botswana) are not elected in a free and fair election. Who forgets how Gomolemo Motswaledi and Botsalo Ntuane were forced to shift from where they wanted to contest, and identify constituencies elsewhere to pave way for the untouchables of the ruling party?
A case study is our own President, was he elected by the people of Botswana in a free and fair election? Who observed whether the process by which he ascended into power was free and fair?
And where does he get the moral high ground to think he can dictate to another President how he should ascend to the high office. Does anybody remember anything about transparent ballot boxes that are to be used by Sadc member states? Has Botswana complied? What about counting ballots at polling stations, is Botswana in compliance of the requirement?
Botswana thinks democracy in Zimbabwe tarnishes the word democracy! Now, the government, in its quest to instill discipline in Botswana, has decided to impose a 70 percent increment on the price of alcoholic drinks.
The question on everybody's mind is: how did the Government consult on this initiative? I mean, as it turns out not even the most important stakeholder, KBL, was consulted. And we say our Government is democratic! If any consultations were done, what advice did the Bank of Botswana give to the President regarding inflation that is ever on the rise? What role did the Central Statistics office play in this decision regarding (un)employment figures?
What role did the Minister of Youth, Sport and Culture play in this decision regarding the multitudes of youths employed in sectors directly or indirectly dealing with alcoholic beverages? Or the Government just does not care?
Some parents have been using proceeds from Chibuku to educate and feed their children yet without any consultation, the Government wants to kill all these businesses. In their minds, (the Cabinet or (President) want to punish liquor drinkers but they are so blinded by their prejudices that they forget to look at the consequences of the 70 percent decision.
Is the increase in petrol prices deterring motorists from driving around? People just adjust their budgets to accommodate these drastic changes with the resultant poverty to all concerned.
Is anybody not seeing the creeping in of dictatorship? After students who is next on the line. Workers? The Mmegi (newspaper) of (last) Thursday captured it correctly when they said it started with the mobile companies, next was the brewery, the media is very soon to follow suit, and which business is next? We can only guess.
But the pattern has been seen a while back by Rampholo Molefhe. He saw the Government usurping the role of the music union and alas the president launched government-sponsored cultural competitions.
We, the public, are being gullible to think this is a gesture that promotes culture; it is going to kill BOMU and our culture such that by the time we realise that artists are being turned into Government praise singers it will be too late. Then it was again a Government-sponsored constituency league. BFA now is going to administer a league based on political boundaries.
A sport with political leanings exists only in Botswana. The opposition, though voicing its concerns, is just talk and not actively countering (President) Khama's actions. Press conferences are just that, for the media to report on issues discussed therein, but how does the public get engaged? I think the opposition has a habit of sending the media to fight its wars.
The public should be engaged with vigour and not just empty talk at Press conferences.
The opposition should, by now, be proactively making their positions known. And they should be having shadow ministers, not rushing to form their own intelligence, like the BNF was reported to be pondering – to spy on its members! It is also reported in Mmegi that the Chief Justice used his position to influence his junior, a magistrate to change the sentence of his relative.
It is quite regrettable that this incident has passed and the law society is silent. What happened to the likes of activists like Duma Boko, who happen to be leaders of the law society?
Does anybody remember how the Chief Justice once boasted of being a personal friend of the then President Mogae?
Did this not ring any alarm bells? Now the chief justice tries to defend his actions and the question that needs his answer is: is it usual for him to act in that manner in all cases including those where his relatives are not concerned?
Can anybody call a magistrate or a Judge of the High Court in the same manner? A few weeks ago, this writer was taken aback by people, including Government officials, who accused the Sunday Standard of sensational reporting after it reported that Botswana was preparing for war.
In the Mmegi of Friday 25th July, a whole Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation made utterances to the effect that if the Zimbabwean negotiating parties fail to reach an agreement on a Government, there is going to be a civil war in Zimbabwe.
Is this statement not what we call sensational talk, if at all there is sensational reporting? This Minister is not just bluffing because whatever he says has to be scrutinised. Is it information that was passed to him by the intelligence agency?
Or he is just instilling fear in those that have vested interests in Zimbabwe or worse still, may be this is the war that Botswana is purported to be preparing for.
My point was that the government of Botswana has no moral authority to talk on presidential elections because it has a President who never went through the due process of law, as provided for in the constitution of Botswana.
The President of Botswana did not even go through the formalities required by the constitution of his party.
In his own party's constitution there is also, just like the constitution of Botswana, nothing about automatic succession.
As per the constitution of the ruling party, there is no President as of now. This is because (President) Khama was never elected by any structure of the party to become the leader of the BDP.
It was not automatic that when (Ketumile) Masire stepped down (Festus) Mogae became president of the BDP.
And it was not automatic for Khama to take over the presidency of the party when Mogae stepped down.
This writer has noticed that this has escaped the attention of legal experts and our self-styled political analysts.
The question to ask therefore is in what capacity does Khama sit on the central committee of the BDP? Ex-officio?
This is possible given a similar scenario in South Africa where the sitting State President is not a member of the National Executive Committee of the ruling party.
By becoming President of the Republic of Botswana, one does not automatically become the president of the BDP unless the constitution of the BDP was changed to create such a scenario without consulting the wider membership of the BDP.
Does this then not call for the Government to make the constitution of Botswana part of the educational curriculum that ever Motswana should go through? And now we have a situation where the President of the Republic goes around making pronouncements that may later become a nightmare for the ruling party.
BCP on the other hand is no threat to the BDP, and that's the reason why they are never going to say the BDP has planted people in it to destabilise it.
But the moment you hear those word. . . mosi ke molelo betsho!
This article first appeared in Botswana's Sunday Standard online edition.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xBotswana stance on Zimbabwe is hypocritical``x1218014073,76463,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Tsitsi Makwande
August 07, 2008
The Herald
Africa, is without doubt, the richest continent in the world in terms of both natural and human resources yet, ironically, it is also the poorest.
This may be a bit difficult to understand for someone who appreciates the vast wealth of minerals to be found across the length and breadth of the continent.
Countless valleys, innumerable mountain ranges, limitless flowing rivers, a variety of flora and fauna, the most beautiful natural tourist attractions and so many more features of wealth and interest abound in Africa.
This picture contrasts sharply with the levels of poverty on the ground.
Of course, all is not doom and gloom, but the fact is that pandemics like Aids have wreaked havoc, wars have played their part and food insecurity is real and present across the continent.
According to one Unicef report, about 30 000 children die daily due to the effects of poverty.
Water-borne diseases such as cholera caused by poor sanitation also claim their share of precious lives.
Life expectancy has been declining, while in other parts of the world, which do not have the kind of natural and human resources that we have, people are living longer and leading improved lives.
It has been estimated that the gross national product in the countries worst affected by HIV and Aids could contract by 18 percent by 2020, and the disease could kill 13 to 26 percent of the agricultural labour force in those countries during the same period.
The United Nations said its efforts to provide anti-retroviral treatment for one million infected people in 2007, was outpaced by the number of new infections, which numbered 2,5 million that year. (Thankfully, though, in Zimbabwe's case new infections are declining.)
Millions others have died or were displaced as a result of civil wars and natural disasters. The disturbing images of malnourished children in Sudan or Somalia with more bones than flesh, quickly come to mind.
But this is more than just an image; it is a stark reality that has to be dealt with immediately.
The question we have to ask ourselves is: why are our people living under such conditions when the continent is the richest in the world?
Mining giant De Beers details in one report that Africa produces about 76 percent of the world's supply of diamonds valued at US$10 billion.
Zimbabwe alone boasts of deposits of more than 40 minerals, including ferrochrome, gold, silver, platinum, diamonds, copper and asbestos, and about 19 million hectares of forest as of 2000.
With such amazing wealth, it is confusing to see our people so disadvantaged.
The reason is although we are rich, we continue to live in poverty because we still have not found ways to harness our resources for our own good and for that of our children. Instead, many African countries continue to be a source of raw materials, leaving foreign countries to benefit from the real business in the resultant finished product, a situation no different from what happened during the slave trade and colonialism.
As Zimbabweans, we need to come up with sustainable strategies that will allow our people, and not only foreigners, to benefit from the vast treasures of gold, diamonds and other minerals available in our land.
We should open our eyes and see how other countries have done it and follow suit. It may take a while and require strong financial backing, but if others have done it, so can we. Zimbabwe needs to take charge of its economy and alleviate poverty in our nation without having to depend on donors and aid relief organisations.
Despite the economic challenges we are facing, we can take a leaf from Cuba, which has been under economic sanctions since 1963 but still managed to revive its economy and boast of the best social services in the world.
This is not an event that will happen overnight, but a process requiring innovative and dedicated people and strategies.
We have such people in our country, people who can make things happen, people who can build realities out of dreams, intelligent and hard-working people.
It is pleasing, therefore, to see Government embarking on its empowerment drives with such gusto.
Land reform signified the first stage of the process of harnessing our resources for our own development and now we have an all-encompassing empowerment law.
Our goal should be to ensure that this piece of legislation is fully implemented to improve the livelihoods of the people of Zimbabwe, who are the rightful owners of the resources found across the country.
The entire African continent can learn from the manner in which Zimbabwe has striven to empower its people.
The imagination of people from all walks of life in Zimbabwe has been captured by the empowerment drive that started in 2000 with the Land Reform Programme.
Over the past eight years, about 300 000 families – which translates to over a million individuals if we assume the average family size is five – have been empowered by the changes in land tenure systems.
When the situation in the country stabilises and people can access agricultural inputs on time, one can only imagine the benefits these families and the entire nation shall reap.
Recently, President Mugabe signed into law the Indigenisation and Economic Empowerment Act.
This piece of legislation will see the manufacturing and mining sectors being indigenised in the same way that agriculture has been.
The requirement is that Zimbabweans should own at least 51 percent of any company in the country and already big firms such as Old Mutual have said they see no problem with such an arrangement.
After all, the resources are for Zimbabweans and it only makes sense that locals are enriched by them ahead of foreign companies.
South Africa has also embarked on its own Black Economic Empowerment policy and the challenge for the rest of the continent is to move towards the strengthening of the economic position of indigenous people. Various models can be employed to do this, but the ultimate aim should be the empowerment of Africans.
Indeed, the African Union should declare 2009/2010 as the year for 100 percent empowerment of Africans using African resources for Africa's development.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xAfrica's wealth for Africans``x1218103637,9383,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Political and Features Editor
August 14, 2008
The Herald
MDC-T leader Morgan Tsvangirai signed 13 agreements with Zanu-PF and the Arthur Mutambara-led MDC formation before abruptly pulling out of the South African-facilitated talks on Tuesday evening, it has emerged.
Documents seen by The Herald show that Tsvangirai's negotiators in the inter-party dialogue – Tendai Biti and Elton Mangoma – were authorised by their party leader to append their signatures to the 13 agreements as and when they were reached.
However, on Tuesday, Tsvangirai presented the other two principals – President Mugabe and Mutambara – with a fresh position paper titled "Notes on the Dialogue to Date", which appeared to repudiate all the agreements already signed and would have set back the status of the negotiations by weeks.
At the time that Tsvangirai said he could not sign the final agreement, which President Mugabe and Mutambara had already endorsed, only four issues remained on the agenda.
It is understood that President Mugabe and Mutambara subsequently agreed on these issues, paving the way for Cde Mugabe to form a new Government and for the Seventh Parliament to start sitting following elections held earlier in the year.
The parties were putting their signatures to agreements as and when they were reached, meaning that the final settlement is a compendium of documents that had been assented to by the three principals.
The main issue that Tsvangirai was not amenable to, insiders revealed, was the framework of a new Government, which is an issue that was laid on the table on July 28, 2008.
Other outstanding issues were legislative agenda priorities (tabled on July 25), and implementation mechanisms and electoral vacancies (both tabled on August 5).
Below are the agreements:
-- On the 25th of July, Tsvangirai agreed that sanctions were not targeted and the Western economic embargo was hurting the nation and should be lifted as a matter of urgency.
-- Part of that agreement, titled Restoration of Economic Stability and Growth, reads: "All forms of measures and sanctions against Zimbabwe (must) be lifted in order to facilitate a sustainable solution to the challenges that are currently facing Zimbabwe."
-- The three principals also agreed on the same date that there was undue external interference in the country's domestic affairs and they would not tolerate the subversion of the sovereign will of the people of Zimbabwe by outsiders with vested interests that ran contrary to national aspirations.
-- "The parties reaffirm the principle of the United Nations Charter on non-interference in the internal affairs of member countries.
"The parties hereby agree that the responsibility of effecting change of Government in Zimbabwe vests exclusively in and is the sole prerogative of the people of Zimbabwe through peaceful, democratic and constitutional means," they said.
-- They added that they would "reject any unlawful, violent, undemocratic and unconstitutional means of changing governments" and that "no outsiders have a right to call or campaign for regime change in Zimbabwe".
Despite this earlier agreement, it is understood that in his new position paper Tsvangirai unconstitutionally wanted the foundation of the next Government to be premised on the results of the inconclusive March 29 elections – a demand that has been the cornerstone of Western opposition to Zimbabwe's electoral processes.
Another interesting agreement that was reached was on the issue of land reform.
-- On the 25th of July, the three parties said Britain must honour its Lancaster House obligations to fund land tenure reforms in the country.
-- The parties called "upon the United Kingdom government to accept primary responsibility to pay compensation for land acquired from land owners for resettlement".
-- It was also agreed that the issue of multiple farm ownership and productivity on farms be dealt with as a matter of urgency by the Seventh Parliament through the institution of a holistic land audit.
-- On the issue of freedom of expression and communication, in an agreement that was also signed on July 25, the parties said: "(We) call upon governments that are hosting and/or funding external radio stations broadcasting into Zimbabwe to cease such hosting and funding."
-- Zanu-PF, MDC and MDC-T also urged those journalists working for these pirate radio stations to return to Zimbabwe, get proper accreditation and start working for the good of the country rather than for its enemies.
-- Other agreements signed were on State Organs and Institutions, Rule of Law, Respect for the Constitution and Other Laws, and Free Political Activity on July 25.
-- The next day the parties signed agreements on the Security of Persons and Prevention of Violence, the National Youth Training Programme, Freedom of Assembly and Association, Traditional Leaders and Humanitarian and Food Assistance.
-- On August 5, the parties signed an agreement titled Promotion of Equality, National Healing, Cohesion and Unity.
The insiders said everyone had been caught unawares when on Tuesday Tsvangirai brought to the table a document that made it appear as if no agreements had been reached.
It was at this point that the other two parties, in the presence of President Thabo Mbeki, decided they could not start the negotiations all over again and would proceed with the formation of an inclusive Government and the convening of Parliament.
Tsvangirai, the insiders said, would be accommodated in the new Government when he was ready to sign.
However, according to AFP news agency, Tsvangirai yesterday issued a statement in which he said: "We knew negotiations would be difficult, but a resolution that represents anything other than the will of the Zimbabwean people would be a disaster for our country.
"We are committed to a solution that recognises that the people spoke on the 29th of March, 2008," said Tsvangirai, in reference to the harmonised elections that failed to produce a winner in the presidential poll in which he was leading.
This result was overturned in the June presidential run-off election that President Mugabe won resoundingly and Tsvangirai has not challenged that result in the courts.
Insiders said Tsvangirai was parroting the same sentiments expressed by the United States, European Union and Britain.
He also repeated the same demand that Government should unban the NGOs that were being accused of sponsoring opposition activities in the country with Western sponsorship.
"Without further delay, we are demanding that NGOs be allowed to resume humanitarian assistance – distributing food, medicines and life-saving assistance. This destructive policy of banning humanitarian assistance can be reversed with one letter," said Tsvangirai.
On the eve of the talks on August 8, the governments of Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, the UK and US, and the European Commission issued a similar demand.
"The magnitude of the humanitarian crisis requires the immediate and unconditional lifting of the suspension on all NGO field operations. Harassment of NGOs must cease immediately, and protection for humanitarian workers must be guaranteed. Timing is critical. Steps must be taken now in order for food to be available to those in need in future months," said the statement.
The government has accused these NGOs of using food to campaign for the MDC-T in the rural areas, which are the traditional stronghold of the ruling Zanu-PF.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xTsvangirai's U-turn: The facts``x1218744972,88336,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xThe Herald
August 27, 2008
herald.co.zw
Full text of President Robert Mugabe's speech at the opening of the Seventh Parliament of Zimbabwe on Tuesday 26th August 2008
FULL TEXT
Madam President of the Senate, Mr Speaker Sir, Senators and Members of the House of Assembly, Ladies and Gentlemen, Comrades and Friends. I welcome you all to this First Session of the Seventh Parliament of Zimbabwe.
This First Session takes place in the aftermath, and is indeed the logical outcome, of the country's historic harmonised elections. The elections were premised on Constitutional Amendment No. 18 as well as amendments to AIPPA, POSA and the Broadcasting Services Act which were agreed to by all the parties and were unanimously passed by both Houses of Parliament. This occurrence is highly instructive in reminding us that through constructive mutual engagement and by putting the country first, we can, as Zimbabweans, address problems and challenges on our own. The new dispensation of collaboration across the political divide should now see us single-mindedly devoting our energies towards the recovery of our economy.
Let me pay particular and special tribute to President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa for his outstanding role as mediator of the Sadc-initiated inter-party dialogue. He has been at it with the patience and endurance of the biblical Job, often against all-round revilement from well-known quarters that have never wanted peace for this land. Through his mediatory efforts, landmark agreements have been concluded, with every expectation that everyone will sign up to the agreement paving way for an all-inclusive Government.
I wish to pay tribute to all Zimbabweans for having exercised their democratic right in our recent elections in a peaceful manner, notwithstanding the regrettable and isolated cases of political violence, which were witnessed in the run-up to the presidential election run-off. Happily, all political parties in the country have acknowledged culpability in this violence, itself an important step towards putting behind us the odious habit of election-related violence.
I also congratulate all the members of this new Parliament on having won the mandate to represent the various constituencies. In doing so, I acknowledge the inordinate delay in opening this session of Parliament, hoping you will all appreciate that the delays owed to a praiseworthy search for peace and greater amity for our nation.
Madam President, Mr Speaker, Sir,
The elections are now behind us. What currently is upon us is the challenge of a common vision and effort. The era of specialists who are heavy on critiques and empty on prescriptions is gone. Now is the time for us to put Zimbabwe first, and challenging the many things that stifle our potential and trammel our energies.
Foremost in this regard are the much-reviled illegal sanctions imposed by Britain and her allies, which seek to subvert the will of the Zimbabwean people. These must go. They cannot last a day longer if we, as true Zimbabweans speak against them in deafening unison. Surely, sanctions cannot be good for any Zimbabwean, and we have abundant evidence of their ravaging impact. We cannot need democracy and condone such blatant spiteful injury at the same time.
We are deeply indebted to Sadc, the African Union, members of the Non-Aligned Movement, our allies in the United Nations Security Council, and other progressive peoples of the world, for their invaluable support and solidarity with us, in the face of the vicious onslaught on Zimbabwe by Britain and the United States of America. We cherish their brotherly advice and support, and pledge that we will not let them down.
Madam President, Mr Speaker, Sir.
The current global food shortage and the consequent price escalations are a powerful reminder to us of the need for concerted efforts to enhance food security at both the household and national levels. This past season saw our agricultural yields sharply reduced owing to a combination of floods, drought and shortage of inputs.
As always, Government has done its best to ensure that no one starved. Already, a massive programme for the importation of maize from neighbouring countries, notably South Africa, is underway. So is the procurement of locally available maize.
Regrettably, we have noticed the destructive hand of our enemies seeking to undermine our grain importation programme, in the process, pushing up regional food prices. Indeed, food is the latest of their weapons in their regime change agenda.
It is, however, not prudent that we should continue to subsist on food imports. Our efforts are thus being focused on empowering our farmers for greater crop production. Facilities such as the Farm Mechanisation Programme, the Agricultural Support Productivity Enhancement Facility (ASPEF), and the introduction of the Input Pack Support Programme for rural farmers should go a long way in meeting this objective.
These efforts will be complemented by the introduction of an appropriate agricultural commodity-pricing regime, designed to stimulate production. Furthermore, the local fertilizer industry is being supported with foreign currency in order to boost production, while projected shortfalls will be met from imports.
Government will also spearhead implementation of the targeted production of strategic crops. This programme will involve the provision of tillage; seeds, fertilizer, chemicals and harvesting support to identified farmers, who will be required to produce to set targets.
Madam President, Mr Speaker, Sir,
On a broader level, our economy continues to face challenges associated with the hyperinflationary environment. These range from shortages of basic and essential commodities, foreign currency, fuel and power, as well as declining quality of infrastructure.
This negative state of affairs is further compounded by the prevalence of speculative and profiteering tendencies as well as in-built price misalignments in the economy. We have also detected an insidious foreign hand in the destabilisation of our currency.
Government, in conjunction with the other critical stakeholders, is embarking on a short- term bridging economic stabilisation programme. The programme seeks, among other things, to encourage price stability, introduce appropriate currency reforms, boost availability of basic and essential commodities, boost the availability of foreign currency, enhance food security, aggressively embark on infrastructure development as well as revamping service delivery by public utilities.
Targeted subsidies will be introduced to cushion vulnerable social groups from the anticipated adverse effects of the pricing reforms, while greater emphasis shall be on combating endemic corruption and wanton indiscipline that is so pervasive in the economy.
The initiatives I have referred to need to be complemented by enhanced fiscal prudence. Accordingly, the Public Finance Management Bill, which is designed to minimise misappropriation and mismanagement of public funds, shall be tabled before this august House. In addition, the Audit Bill, which should enhance accountability in the audit process and eliminate inherent limitations in the current Audit and Exchequer Act, will be introduced during this session.
Madam President, Mr Speaker, Sir,
In the energy and power sector, the shortage of foreign currency has contributed to minimal maintenance of power supply infrastructure, a situation which explains frequent breakdowns and unscheduled power cuts currently being experienced.
However, the agreement signed between Government and NamPower of Namibia for the refurbishment of the Hwange Power Station will go a long way in redressing this undesirable state of affairs.
Already, this has seen the completion of Unit 1 of the station, while work on the other three units is expected to be complete by October 2008. The Energy Laws Amendment Bill, which seeks to facilitate the harmonisation of the energy sector, shall be brought to Parliament during this session.
With regard to fuel, the supply of the product continues to be constrained by the shortage of funding, coupled with the unprecedented rise in oil prices on the world market. This situation demands that we reorient our mindset and reduce the ostensible careless consumption of fuel.
For this reason, innovative measures such as the fuel conservation programme, promotion of bio-fuels production, and the resuscitation of blending of petrol with ethanol, are being implemented, while the exploration of solar and coal-bed methane gas as alternative energy sources is being accelerated.
I am pleased to note that the production of fuel-grade ethanol at Triangle has already started, while the Crude Oil Agreement with Equatorial Guinea, which had expired, has been renewed.
Measures to curb the current upsurge in cases of vandalisation of public utilities infrastructure must be strengthened. Service delivery by TelOne, NetOne, Zesa and the National Railways of Zimbabwe has been compromised, in some cases severely.
Accordingly, Government is establishing co-ordinated security structures incorporating local communities and other relevant stakeholders for purposes of safeguarding public infrastructure. The levels of such unlawful activities require a reclassification of the crime. It now has to be viewed as economic sabotage.
Madam President, Mr Speaker, Sir,
The empowerment of the formerly deprived indigenous majority of our people is the centre- piece of our development efforts. Now that the National Indigenisation and Economic Empowerment Act, which provides for the acquisition of at least 51 percent shares in every public company and any other strategic businesses by indigenous persons is law, implementation of the empowerment policy shall be pursued with renewed vigour on a sector-by-sector basis.
However, to facilitate implementation, some amendments of the Act will have to be brought to this Parliament during this session. The amendments will, among other things, empower the relevant minister to prescribe what constitutes a strategic company or sector, the timeframe for compliance with the Act, and the approval format for indigenisation arrangements.
This development will also facilitate expeditious tabling of the Mines and Minerals Amendment Bill in Parliament, which seeks to broaden participation in the sector by indigenous players.
Madam President, Mr Speaker, Sir,
Government will also press ahead with the implementation of initiatives to promote the growth and development of the small and medium enterprises sector. One such initiative is the US$5 million grant availed under the Indo-Zimbabwe Project, in terms of which machinery and equipment have been availed to assist the designing and manufacturing processes in the sector.
Under the same project, SMEs Technology Centres have been established at the Harare Institute of Technology, in Bulawayo and Chitungwiza. Other such common service facilities will be established at growth points throughout the country.
However, to guarantee sustainable development of the sector, it is necessary to create a conducive regulatory and operating framework. To this end, the Small and Medium Enterprises Bill shall be brought to Parliament during this session.
Madam President, Mr Speaker, Sir,
Whereas as a country we have made tremendous strides in the education sector, there is still need to ensure that our education remains globally competitive as well as relevant to national needs. This is consistent with our goal to become a knowledge-driven and globally competitive economy.
Accordingly, the Zimbabwe Qualifications Authority Bill, which seeks to integrate and harmonise qualifications, and superintend the development and registration of national qualification standards, will be brought before this august House.
The Bill will also seek to align the Zimbabwe Qualifications Framework to the proposed Sadc Regional Framework of Qualifications and Quality Assurance Systems. The Education Act shall also be amended to provide a more sustainable basis for pegging school fees.
Madam President, Mr Speaker, Sir,
Health service delivery continues to be constrained by the shortage of essential drugs, equipment, food, transport and skilled personnel. It is, however, pleasing to note that steady progress is being registered in addressing these challenges. For instance, the introduction of a generic training programme has ensured that there is at least one trained nurse at every health facility. The training shall be scaled up to achieve a full complement of staff at the health centre level and in laboratory and X-ray services.
Staff retention in the sector is set to be enhanced through incentives such as the provision of affordable transport and housing under the recently launched Medical Skills Retention Scheme. Government is also pursuing arrangements for the local manufacture of affordable drugs, while the sector is being prioritised in terms of foreign currency allocation.
It is, however, noted with concern that efforts to promote sanitation, health and hygiene continue to be undermined by the persistent erratic water supply situation, especially in major urban areas. To address this challenge, steps are being taken to build the requisite capacity in Zinwa.
I am pleased to note that Government has already taken delivery of considerable quantities of the required equipment and machinery procured from China. Installation of the equipment is already in progress, as a result of which some improvement in water and sewer pumping is already evident in parts of Harare.
The District Development Fund, in conjunction with Zinwa, is carrying out a borehole sinking and rehabilitation programme in some parts of our urban areas, while work will continue in mobilising funding for the procurement of the much-needed water treatment chemicals.
Madam President, Mr Speaker, Sir,
The shortage of coal for tobacco curing has resulted in increased deforestation on farms. To reverse this negative trend, Government shall come up with regulations that compel tobacco farmers to grow woodlots for purposes of tobacco curing.
Furthermore, in the area of environmental management, Government will, during this session, bring for consideration by Parliament the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, the Basal Convention on Transboundary Hazardous Waste, the Rotterdam Convention on Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade and the Bonn Convention on Migratory Species.
The phenomenal growth witnessed in the construction industry has raised the need for enhanced regulation of activities in that sector. Accordingly, this Parliament will during this session consider the Zimbabwe Construction Industry Council Bill, which provides for the establishment of a council responsible for maintaining standards in the sector.
Madam President, Mr Speaker, Sir,
Workers across the board continue to face an acute shortage of accommodation, ever increasing transport costs and declining disposable incomes, owing to the prevailing hyperinflation. Government will continue to periodically review tax thresholds, thereby increasing workers’ disposable incomes.
To address the plight of the commuting public, increased support shall be availed towards the recapitalisation of Zupco as well as boosting the fleet of buses under the District Buses Programme.
Increased fuel allocations and waiver of duty on spares shall be extended to private transport operators. Moves by some companies to provide transport for their employees should be applauded, and indeed, encouraged.
The current harsh economic environment has also undermined the welfare of pensioners and other older persons, who now also have a huge dependants burden, owing to the unabating HIV/Aids pandemic.
Accordingly, the Older Persons Bill, which will cater for the entire welfare of older persons, shall be tabled during this session. On its part, Government has since indexed the pensions of retired civil servants to the salaries of serving members so as to improve their livelihood.
Madam President, Mr Speaker, Sir.
Corruption imposes a huge cost burden on the conduct of business. As such, efforts to revive the country’s economy could remain a pipedream unless they are supported by stern and decisive action to eradicate the scourge of corruption, which has now reached alarming levels. This will have to be done sooner rather than later. There will be no sacred cows seeking to hide behind the banner of social positions or party affiliation for their venal tendencies.
Madam President, Mr Speaker, Sir,
Zimbabwe, as Vice Chair of the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (Comesa) regional grouping, will be the next host of the regular Comesa Summit. Accordingly, the country has to position itself to reap from the expected benefits as well as the anticipated establishment of the Comesa Customs Union.
Following the signing of the Beira Development Corridor Agreement between Zimbabwe and Mozambique in December 2007, work is now underway to implement the identified projects. One such project is the Forbes/Machipanda One-Stop Border Post.
Concerted efforts are being made to expedite implementation of co-operation agreements with our "Look East" development partners. The agreements cover strategic sectors of the economy such as power and energy, mining, infrastructure development and agriculture.
The tractor project between the Iran Tractor Manufacturing Company (ITM Co) and the Industrial Development Corporation is set to yield tremendous benefits to Zimbabwe by way of technology and skills transfer; import cost savings and expert revenues.
On the diplomatic front, we continue to call for the reform of the United Nations, in order to render it truly representative of its broad constituency, thus providing checks against the abuse of power by those who are favoured by the current unipolar geopolitical system. The prevailing order where the stronger nations tread over the rights of smaller nations and manipulate the United Nations mechanisms with impunity constitutes a grave threat to international peace.
Zimbabwe has been a victim of this not only cynical but abusive manipulation of the UN Charter. Equally, we have seen attempts by bigger nations at destabilising world peace. Western countries must stop their unholy policy of global encroachment, which can only undermine the status quo or even re-ignite a new arms race.
In conclusion, I wish to urge all Zimbabweans to rekindle the spirit of national pride and self-belief as we strive to build a strong, united and prosperous Zimbabwe. Let us exert our full effort towards raising our country and its flag in the manner our Olympic team has done in Beijing.
I am sure you all join me in congratulating them, especially Kirsty Coventry, most heartily on that heroic performance.
I wish you fruitful deliberations and have pleasure in now declaring this First Session of the Seventh Parliament of Zimbabwe officially open.
I thank you.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xPresident Robert Mugabe's Speech at the Opening of the 7th Parliament of Zimbabwe``x1219826034,44340,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xThe Herald
August 27, 2008
herald.co.zw
PRESIDENT Mugabe is in the process of forming a new Government.
Addressing dignitaries attending a lunch hosted by the Minister of Local Government, Public Works and Urban Development, Cde Ignatius Chombo, to mark the official opening of the First Session of the Seventh Parliament, President Mugabe said:
"We shall soon be setting up a Government. The MDC does not want to come in apparently. This time they have been promised by the British that sanctions would be more devastating, that in six months’ time the Government will collapse," he said.
"I do not know when that day will come. I wish Tsvangirai well on that day," he said.
The President said he was going to appoint Cabinet ministers who can manage the business of the people.
"I need managers. I want workers — people who take people to work. I do not want people with own businesses. I want one business — the people’s business," he said to applause from the dignitaries who included traditional leaders, Government employees, business people and service chiefs.
He said Cabinet ministers who own businesses should employ other people to manage their business while they attend to the business of the people.
Cde Mugabe criticised some ministers in the outgoing Cabinet. "This Cabinet that I had was the worst in history. They look at themselves. They are unreliable, but not all of them," he said.
Cde Mugabe attacked the spirit of individualism and the tendency to undermine others saying some leaders were more interested in personal gain.
Cde Mugabe said Zanu-PF had lost some votes in the March 29 harmonised elections because some of its members worked against the party.
"Let’s be united. Let’s not be destroyers of our party. We have destroyed part of it. Now that we have survived, let us ensure the party is strengthened," he said.
Cde Mugabe attacked corrupt leaders saying he was receiving reports that some of them were diverting maize meant to feed the people to the black market and to Mozambique, giving as an example reports of a senior official who was caught diverting maize in Matabeleland North.
"The people are suffering and you want to exploit the poverty of the people. Let us police each other," he said.
Cde Mugabe said it was baffling that Zimbabwe had to import some products that were manufactured locally like sugar. Zimbabwe produced up to 400 000 tonnes of sugar and consumed about 150 000 tonnes a year but still had to import.
The President said the middle class was exploiting the lower class by illegally dealing in gold and other precious metals and stones.
Cde Mugabe said judging by the number of new cars on the roads, some of which included the latest models, it was surprising to note that Zimbabwe was regarded as poor.
He advised newly resettled farmers to reserve land for maize, sorghum and rapoko to ensure that the country did not starve.
Cde Mugabe also talked about relations with other countries within the region and beyond saying the manner in which Zimbabwe relates to its neighbours should be reciprocated noting that no country within Sadc should dictate what others should do.
He said it was imperative that the spirit of Sadc should be kept alive and that he had told South African President Thabo Mbeki that he would never at any time speak ill of an African country in public to please the Americans and British.
Cde Mugabe said he preferred face-to-face criticism.
He said the British and Americans had visited all Sadc Heads of State to influence them to speak ill about Zimbabwe ostensibly because of the land issue.
Malawian President Bingu wa Mutharika, Cde Mugabe said, was the only one who had come out in the open telling him of the British and US machinations to denounce Zimbabwe.
Cde Mugabe said Zimbabwe was not averse to doing business with the British, but was not amenable to being commandeered to do things against its wishes hence he had told former British prime minister Mr Tony Blair to keep his England while he concentrated on Zimbabwe.
He said the West had also approached some of Zimbabwe’s friends and influenced them not to trade with the country.
In some instances shipments of goods paid for by Zimbabwe had been seized while in some cases payments meant for procuring goods from Europe and America were frozen.
Cde Mugabe congratulated the Zimbabwe Olympic team for doing well in Beijing and urged the nation to give the team a resounding welcome.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xPresident Mugabe in process of forming new Govt``x1219891431,70522,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xHerald Reporters
September 13, 2008
The Herald
Ordinary Zimbabweans, political parties, analysts, church leaders, captains of industry, trade unions, the United Nations and the European Union have hailed the signing of a power-sharing deal by Zanu-PF and the two MDC formations.
They urged the political parties to implement what has been agreed upon so that ordinary Zimbabweans benefit from the deal.
The three principals to the inter-party talks sealed the deal on Thursday night under the facilitation of South African President Thabo Mbeki.
The principals are President Mugabe of Zanu-PF, MDC-T leader Morgan Tsvangirai and MDC president Arthur Mutambara.
Immediate-past leader of the Heads of Christian Denominations Bishop Trevor Manhanga said the signing of the deal was a positive development adding that was what the church has always been praying for.
"As church leaders we are very happy and we regard the signing of the deal as an answer to our prayers.
"We hope that the entire nation will support it," said Bishop Manhanga, who two years ago led a team of church leaders to meet President Mugabe at State House in their bid to find a lasting solution to the country's political and economic challenges.
He said the nation should not be deterred by some outside forces that might try to rubbish it, saying the country should remain focused.
"Other people might not be happy with the deal and we should be prepared for that, especially outsiders. This is a deal by Africans, for Africans, even if some outsiders are sceptical, we must give it our support," he said.
Former Zimbabwe National Chamber of Commerce leader Mrs Mara Hativagone said the business community was grateful over the signing of the power-sharing deal.
"We are very ecstatic. A huge milestone has been moved and we are hopeful that the economy will improve in a big way. We feel very relieved because industry was now on its knees. The signing of the deal is like a new lease of life breathed into industry," she said.
Zimbabwe Federation of Trade Unions president Mr Alfred Makwarimba said the signing of the power-sharing deal would naturally bring relief to workers.
"Naturally, we are happy if the deal has prospects of making workers begin to go about their work and realising value from their efforts. If the deal will address these issues, we will definitely support it," said Mr Makwarimba.
His counterpart at the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions, Mr Lovemore Matombo, said while the deal was a positive development, he would be in a better position to comment after his union has gone through the entire document.
"It is difficult to comment substantively when you do not know the contextualisation of the deal. What we need is a document that will result in the restoration of people's freedom and if that deal seeks to do that, then we are home and dry," said Mr Matombo.
University of Zimbabwe political science lecturer Mr Eldred Masunungure echoed Mr Matombo's sentiments, and applauded the deal as it sought to create a political settlement in the country.
"I am not privy to the details of the deal, but the news of reaching a political settlement is a welcome development if it will unlock the multi-layered crisis in the country," said Mr Masunungure.
"In light of the fact that we have not had sight of the actual document, we will treat it with cautious optimism. The real litmus test will be on the implementation. That is what is going to measure its credibility, integrity and its capacity to deal with the multi-faceted challenges the country is facing."
The Zimbabwe Organisation of Opposition Political Parties secretary-general, Mr Gondai Vutuza, said his organisation welcomed the development.
"The signing will definitely give many people new hope and we look forward to the signing ceremony," said Mr Vutuza, who is also Zanu (Ndonga) organising secretary.
The signing of the power-sharing deal is a culmination of intensive and protracted negotiations by representatives from the three political parties.
Zanu-PF was represented by the Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs, Cde Patrick Chinamasa; and the Minister of Public Service, Labour and Social Welfare, Cde Nicholas Goche.
MDC-T was represented by secretary-general Tendai Biti and deputy national treasurer Elton Mangoma while MDC was represented by the party's secretary-general Welshman Ncube and his deputy, Priscilla Misihairabwi-Mushonga.Ordinary Zimbabweans welcomed the signing of the deal between Zanu-PF and the two MDC formations to form an inclusive
Government urging the parties to bury their differences and work together for the betterment of the country.
In an interview yesterday, Mr Karamba Muchero of Harare said the deal was a welcome development and it was a major stride towards economic development.
"The signing of the deal is a welcome development. We hope everything will go on well. It also came at the right time when things were getting tougher.
"Our leaders should bury their differences and work together in harmony for the sake of the country. On Monday there will be great joy in Zimbabwe and we hope the police will be able to contain the situation," he said.
Mr George Mudzingwa echoed the same sentiments saying that Zimbabwe was ready to revive its economy.
"I think this is a very good development for the nation of Zimbabwe. It brings hope and sanity to the nation and generally a conducive environment for business. We salute all the parties who signed the agreement not forgetting the patient President Mbeki, we give him honour," he said.
Former Studio 263 actor Denzel Burutsa said the deal was a positive step that will heal the nation and usher peace and unity among Zimbabweans.
"I hope it's not all talk and no action because the deal has brought relief among the Zimbabwean population," he said.
Mr Mike Mandi said now that the deal has been signed Zimbabweans should stop fighting and work together to overcome the challenges the country is facing.
"I think the deal will let us overcome the challenges. We also hope it will benefit ordinary Zimbabweans. The signing itself showed that the party leaders have the nation at heart and should continue working for the country," he said.
Ms Etina Washaya also welcomed the deal adding that it showed political maturity among the party leaders.
The Zimbabwe National Liberation Supporters' Association has welcomed the deal reached between the country's three main political parties saying it was a sign that Zimbabweans had matured and were keen to start rebuilding their nation.
In an interview yesterday, the Zinalisa president Cde Collins Chipare said the association was delighted that the parties had finally struck an agreement that would pave way for economic recovery and help stop the suffering of the people.
Zanu-PF and the two MDC formations on Thursday night agreed to form an all-inclusive Government whose top priority would be to turn around the economy with emphasis on food security.
"As an association we are delighted that the three main political parties in the country have put their heads together and decided to work for the good of the nation. God has answered the nation's prayers because this is what everyone has been yearning for.
"It shows maturity among the political leaders who have decided to put people ahead of personal interests."
Cde Chipare said with the conclusion of the deal the world should now work with Zimbabwe on its economic recovery path.
"The political parties should carry forward the battle against poverty, tribalism, racism and ignorance. We urge the West to remove the sanctions and engage Zimbabwe for meaningful development. The West should now let us get on with the work of resuscitating the economy and the uplifting of the people's standards of living," Cde Chipare said.
He commended Sadc-appointed mediator President Thabo Mbeki for standing by Zimbabwe during the trying times and devoting his time to solving Zimbabwe political impasse.
He said the spirit shown by President Mbeki reflected the true concept of African brotherhood and was in line with his call for African renaissance.
"We are grateful to President Mbeki for devoting his precious time to resolving Zimbabwe's political dispute even when everyone else was against the country. Surely, with leaders like him, the African continent will not be found wanting on international forums," he said.
Details of the agreement struck by the political parties will be revealed on Monday after the signing ceremony.
United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon hailed the power-sharing deal.
"The Secretary-General welcomes the agreement reached today in Harare between the Government and the opposition on a government of national unity," his Press office said in a statement.
"He hopes that this agreement will pave the way for a durable peace and recovery in the country and contribute to rapid improvement in the welfare and human rights of the people of Zimbabwe, who have suffered for long," it added.
Mr Ban congratulated the parties for clinching the accord and praised President Mbeki for "his tireless efforts to help them reach it".
The UN has been bolstering the South African-led mediation process through Mr Ban's special envoy Mr Haile Menkerios.
The European Commission expressed cautious optimism yesterday about the deal saying it wants to see how the agreement plays out.
"The European Commission, of course, welcomes this significant step forward," said John Clancy, commission spokesman on humanitarian aid and development issues.
"However, we will have to wait to learn much more about this on Monday," he said. "At this stage we are cautiously optimistic.
"Our main concern is that any solution is a positive solution for the people of Zimbabwe, that offers them a better future than obviously they've been living through in recent times," he added.
EU foreign ministers had been expected to extend the bloc's sanctions against Zimbabwe at a meeting on Monday but officials were reconsidering those plans yesterday in light of the agreement.
"An agreement seems to have been reached for a government of national unity. The news is coming in, we will have to evaluate the situation during the day," said a senior presidency diplomat.
EU ambassadors, preparing a meeting of European foreign ministers in Brussels on Monday, drew up proposals on Thursday to extend the existing visa ban and asset freeze to 10 more individuals in Zimbabwe.
However, that decision came shortly before the announcement of the deal in Harare.
EU Development Commissioner Louis Michel yesterday said Tsvangirai is "satisfied" with the power-sharing deal hammered out with Zanu-PF and the two MDC factions.
Speaking during a visit to Burkina Faso, Mr Michel said Tsvangirai shared his feelings during a telephone conversation on Friday, a day after news of an agreement emerged in Harare.
"The one thing I can say is that I had a phone conversation with Tsvangirai this morning," Michel told reporters in Ouagadougou where he is attending a Euro-African forum on media and development.
"I asked him if he was satisfied with the agreement, and he told me: ‘Yes, I am satisfied with the content of the agreement'. I cannot tell you more than that."
Mr Michel said he would be getting details of the accord from Tsvangirai "in the coming hours", although President Mbeki has said the deal would be made public next Monday when the deal is signed.
Britain reacted cautiously yesterday to the agreement saying it was keen to see the details of the deal.
Foreign Secretary David Miliband said in a statement: "We look forward to seeing the full details of the agreement announced yesterday by President Mbeki."
Some Zimbabweans living in the Diaspora have indicated their willingness to return home and help rebuild the economy following the landmark power-sharing deal sealed by Zanu-PF and the two MDC formations.
Zimbabweans living in Africa and abroad immediately welcomed the deal with enthusiasm.
Most had been forced out by economic problems.
When President Mugabe and leaders of the two MDC formations put pen to paper on Monday, hopes for a return to normalcy in Zimbabwe gathered momentum.In a snap survey conducted by CAJ News in Zimbabwe, South Africa and the United Kingdom on Friday, thousands of Zimbabweans expressed gratification with the deal and said they would consider going back home once the new political dispensation starts to take effect.
"This is the time we have all been waiting for. I am so sure that even investors from around the globe are happy to hear the breaking news from Harare.
"Business opportunities are plenty," said Misheck Makumbe, a PhD student at the University of Oxford, in England.
In Johannesburg, refugees at the Central Methodist celebrated the deal with song and dance. "I am going back home once the real document has been signed by the three principals in the power-sharing deal. My fears at the moment are that probably one of them might change his mind at the last minute, denting our hopes of going back home.
"We are tired of being chased down and hunted by South African Police Service as if we were criminals. Zimbabweans have been badly treated in this country by police, with the majority of them taking our hard-earned cash simply because we did not have papers. Some of our sisters have been used as sex machines by the police," claimed Evans Moyo.
"We have been hunted as animals, abused, beaten for no apparent reason, taken advantage of and rebuked publicly without committing any crime, and this is the time to say goodbye South Africa.
"That has come to an end if the deal indeed materialises on Monday. I tell you, there is no place like home, and we are just going back home whether it looks homely or not," Moyo added. Even the blind begging for cash and food in the streets of Johannesburg could be heard talking in Shona and Ndebele with some already starting to make plans to return home after the official signing ceremony.
"Finally, God answered our prayers. Before crossing the bridge, I will kiss the ground and lift the Zimbabwean soil into the air while glorifying the Almighty. I am sure this is the time everybody has been waiting for, and we should start rebuilding our country," said Muchineripi Manjengwa, of Mbare, who is based in Diepsloot.
In public places of entertainment, commercial sex workers from Zimbabwe hinted that they would quit the oldest profession and head back home to try to lead a decent life.
"I have done bad things here in South Africa, sleeping with men of all kinds, not because I wanted to, but because I needed cash to sustain my family back home."
My husband believes that I am employed yet I am earning a living through prostitution, and this is the right time to call it quits and go back home. I am a qualified teacher, but I could not do the same work here because my immigration papers are not in order," said a woman who refused to be identified to protect her marriage.
But some Zimbabweans in the United Kingdom, South Africa and Australia said they were not so sure they could secure good jobs should they return home.
"Yes, I am happy but my worry is that I am not so sure if I can find a job again there and live comfortably. I had a top job there before leaving and it really worries me if I cannot reclaim it.
"I think I have to wait a bit while studying the situation. If business opportunities are promising then I'm flying back home in December for good," said Matthews Muchena, who is based in Manchester, Britain.
"Finally, God has answered Zimbabwe. Fellow Zimbabweans, are you from the east, west, north and south, it is time to celebrate once again.
"And more importantly, let us praise the Lord Almighty Jehovah for answering our prayers after years of socio-economic suffering in foreign lands.
"I am quite convinced that each and everyone of us, who is in the Diaspora is ready to go back home any moment. But let us not forget to contribute towards rebuilding of our beloved country. Ishe komborerai Zimbabwe zvakare. Meet me in Zimbabwe. Tired of being treated as second-class citizen in foreign lands," said a Zimbabwean journalist based in South Africa.
The African National Congress, South Africa's ruling party congratulated President Mbeki for a job well done despite some sharp criticisms from the Congress for South Africa of Trade Unions, saying the newly concluded deal would help improve people's lives.
ANC spokesperson Jessie Duarte said her party warmly welcomed news of the agreement of a landmark power-sharing deal by Zimbabwe's leading political parties.
"We congratulate President Thabo Mbeki for his sterling work during the mediation process that has led to this achievement. The ANC congratulates the leadership of Zanu-PF and MDC for having persisted in seeking a solution.
"The ANC is confident that all parties and leaders will now work together to advance the interests of the Zimbabwean people. Not only is the agreement important for Zimbabwe, but has far-reaching political and economic implications for Southern Africa and the entire African continent," said Duarte.
She added: "It will make a certain contribution to building peace and prosperity. The international community should now assist in reconstruction, reconciliation and nation building in Zimbabwe."
Elsewhere in Pretoria, diplomatic missions interviewed by CAJ News also expressed satisfaction with President Mbeki's perseverance even when the pressure was too much for him.
"Thumbs up to President Mbeki. This man is very strong, very courageous and focused. He was unnecessarily criticised and ridiculed by fellow African leaders --- mainly the shortsighted ones --- the West and the so-called human rights groups for unclear reasons.
"Today he has done the entire world proud by brokering the Zimbabwe deal. President Mbeki's quiet diplomacy, finally paid off," said Maunganidze Dzapasi, who is working in Australia. --- Additional reporting by CAJ News.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe: Power-sharing deal hailed``x1221297392,36862,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Caesar Zvayi
September 15, 2008
The Herald
SEPTEMBER 12 is a milestone in the history of Zimbabwe as it was on September 12, 1890 that the Pioneer Column, a military volunteer force of settlers organised by Cecil John Rhodes, arrived in the country to colonise Mashonaland on behalf of the British crown.
The settler brigands hoisted the Union Jack at a garrison they set up at the Kopje and named Fort Salisbury in honour of the Third Marquess of Salisbury, then Prime Minister of Great Britain.
Settlements later radiated from that fort, growing into the Harare of today.
And it was in Harare, a few metres from the Kopje, that a deal was struck between Zimbabwe's main political parties, on September 11, just hours shy of the 118th anniversary of the colonisation of Mashonaland. The symbolism of the deal does not lie only in its timing, which also coincided with the ninth anniversary of the launch of the MDC, as a revolutionary anti-thesis, but in the fact that the deal effectively dealt the death blow to neo-colonial attempts to effect regime change in Zimbabwe.
Future generations will read that on September 11, 2008, rather than prevail over Zimbabwe the way they did on September 12, 1890, the Westerners came unstuck, suffering the equivalent of a foreign policy bombshell on the scale of 9/11. Their regime change ship simply ran aground as they tasted defeat for the first time in the developing world when the country they had earmarked for destabilisation united against them.
The Western world, which had tried every trick to subvert the inter-party talks, was naturally stunned. Zimbabwe, which was supposed to give George W. Bush a legacy and Gordon Brown a much-needed foreign policy victory, delivered a defeat that stung far worse than the bombings on the Twin Towers seven years ago.
How could a template, tried and tested in Kwame Nkrumah's Ghana, Maurice Bishop's Grenada and Salvador Allende's Chile, come unstuck in Zimbabwe, particularly when regime change experts had given the country a six-month life span, and on September 11 of all days? Well, that is what happens when you base your knowledge of a people on stereotypes. Zimbabwe is a nation born out of a protracted revolutionary struggle, with a conscious populace that knows what is and what is not good for them.
Today, South African President Thabo Mbeki, the man they lampooned, stands in glory; Sadc, the region they hoped to use against Zimbabwe, stands in collective elation and congregates in Harare today. The Western media, whose flushed embeds had hitherto been feverishly covering the talks whenever there appeared to be a snag, suddenly lost their voices, the copy didn't look so good anymore.
All the spin-doctors at the White House and Whitehall could manage was a collective "we are cautious and studying the deal." A tepid response that betrayed inner hurt, a response at variance with the euphoria of the progressive world, as even our brothers in Gaborone instantly forgot their "Mugabe is pretending to be President" line to announce they would be in Harare for the signing ceremony.
No need to question their motives now except to extend a hand, welcoming them to the real world.
Far from the wreck Westerners had hoped for, Zimbabwe is standing. President Mugabe is in charge as Head of State and Government; the two factions of the MDC come into Government as partners, not victors; the real victors are the people of Zimbabwe, who have lived up to their legacy of setting aside sectarian interests for the national good.
It is time the Westerners respected us as a people entitled to sovereignty over our political space. Suffice to say they also need to respect our rights to participate in and benefit from the multilateral agencies we are members of.
In other words, we do not need their approval, we are not their subjects. What we simply want is the unconditional removal of the illegal sanctions they imposed when they claimed to be speaking and acting on behalf of a section of Zimbabweans who are now marching with the rest to a great future for our country. The West's reaction, however, is hardly surprising. It is a reaction to be expected from an investor who fails to get returns on years of painstaking investments. To them, the deal is the equivalent of a stock-market collapse. Will they or won't they get returns from the investments they made?
What of the ground already lost to the Chinese and Russians? Will they be given a foothold?
Well, the prospects are not that bright given that Zanu-PF is still in control. What could have been possible under a purely MDC government is not tenable in the new arrangement.
It is a matter of public record that Western nations, led by Britain and the United States, spent billions of dollars in attempts to unseat President Mugabe. This was the whole point of the economic warfare they launched at the turn of the millennium; the numerous pirate radio stations broadcasting hate speech to various parts of the country, the ubiquitous online publications, and the plethora of NGOs sworn to regime change.
To many of these NGOs, the power-sharing deal is the equivalent of a death certificate. I, however, do not doubt their capacity for reinvention.
But the biggest challenge lies with MDC-T.
Will it continue pursuing the politics of Western appeasement or will it become a bona fide Zimbabwean party, agitating a Zimbabwean and African agenda as its compatriots in MDC have been painstakingly working to become?
Unless they become the change they want to see in others, the MDC-T leadership risks becoming the snake in the house, the one you do not turn your back on lest you invite a sting on the heel.
There can be no going back now, as the deal they are party to is a triumph of African diplomacy as personified by President Mbeki.
The West stands put on notice.
http://www.herald.co.zw/``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``x9/11: Day West loves to hate``x1221520962,35394,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xSeptember 16, 2008
Harare
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ZIMBABWE AFRICAN NATIONAL UNION-PATRIOTIC FRONT (ZANU-PF) AND THE TWO MOVEMENT FOR DEMOCRATIC CHANGE (MDC) FORMATIONS, ON RESOLVING THE CHALLENGES FACING ZIMBABWE
PREAMBLE
We, the Parties to this Agreement;
CONCERNED about the recent challenges that we have faced as a country and the multiple threats to the well-being of our people and, therefore, determined to resolve these permanently.
CONSIDERING our shared determination to uphold, defend and sustain Zimbabwe's sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity and national unity, as a respected member of the international community, a nation where all citizens respect and, therefore, enjoy equal protection of the law and have equal opportunity to compete and prosper in all spheres of life.
ACKNOWLEDGING the sacrifices made by thousands of Zimbabwe's gallant sons and daughters in the fight against colonialism and racial discrimination and determined to accept, cherish and recognise the significance of the Liberation Struggle as the foundation of our sovereign independence, freedoms and human rights.
DEDICATING ourselves to putting an end to the polarisation, divisions, conflict and intolerance that has characterised Zimbabwean politics and society in recent times.
COMMITTING ourselves to putting our people and our country first by arresting the fall in living standards and reversing the decline of our economy.
EMPHASISING our shared commitment to re-orient our attitudes towards respect for the Constitution and all national laws, the rule of law, observance of Zimbabwe's national institutions, symbols and national events.
RESPECTING the rights of all Zimbabweans regardless of political affiliation to benefit from and participate in all national programmes and events freely without let or hindrance.
RECOGNISING, accepting and acknowledging that the values of justice, fairness, openness, tolerance, equality, non-discrimination and respect of all persons without regard to race, class, gender, ethnicity, language, religion, political opinion, place of origin or birth are the bedrock of our democracy and good governance.
DETERMINED to build a society free of violence, fear, intimidation, hatred, patronage, corruption and founded on justice, fairness, openness, transparency, dignity and equality.
RECOGNISING and accepting that the Land Question has been at the core of the contestation in Zimbabwe and acknowledging the centrality of issues relating to the rule of law, respect for human rights, democracy and governance.
COMMITTED to act in a manner that demonstrates loyalty to Zimbabwe, patriotism and commitment to Zimbabwe's national purpose, core values, interests and aspirations.
DETERMINED to act in a manner that demonstrates respect for the democratic values of justice, fairness, openness, tolerance, equality, respect of all persons and human rights.
SUBMITTING ourselves to the mandate of the Extraordinary Summit of the Southern African Development Community (SADC) held in Dar-es-Salaam, United Republic of Tanzania, on 29th March 2007 and endorsed in Lusaka on 12th April 2008 and in the AU Summit held in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt from 30th June to 1 July 2008.
RECOGNlSlNG the centrality and importance of African institutions in dealing with African problems, we agreed to seek solutions to our differences, challenges and problems through dialogue.
ACKNOWLEDGING that pursuant to the Dar-es-Salaam SADC resolution, the Parties negotiated and agreed on a draft Constitution, initialed by the Parties on 30 September 2007, and further agreed and co-sponsored the enactment of the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment Number 18 Act, amendments to the Electoral Act, the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission Act, Public Order and Security Act, Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act and Broadcasting Services Act.
APPRECIATING the historical obligation and need to reach a solution that will allow us to put Zimbabwe first and give the people a genuine chance of rebuilding and reconstructing their livelihoods.
PURSUANT to the common desire of working together, the Parties agreed to and executed a Memorandum of Understanding on 21 July 2008, attached hereto as Annexure "A".
NOW THEREFORE AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
ARTICLE I
DEFINITIONS
1. Definitions
The "Agreement" shall mean this written Agreement signed by the representatives of ZANU-PF and the MDC, in its two formations ("the Parties") in fulfillment of the material mandate handed down by the SADC Extraordinary Summit an 29th March 2007 and endorsed by SADC in Lusaka, Zambia and adopted by the African Union Summit in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt.
The "Parties" shall mean ZANU-PF, the two MDC formations led by Morgan Tsvangirai and Arthur Mutambara respectively.
The "Government" or "New Government" means the new Government to be set up in terms of this Agreement.
ARTICLE II
DECLARATION OF COMMITMENT
2. Declaration of Commitment
The Parties hereby declare and agree to work together to create a genuine, viable, permanent, sustainable and nationally acceptable solution to the Zimbabwe situation and in particular to implement the following agreement with the aims of resolving once and for all the current political and economic situations and charting a new political direction for the country.
ARTICLE III
RESTORATION OF ECONOMIC STABILITY AND GROWTH
3. Economic recovery
3.1 The Parties agree:
(a) to give priority to the restoration of economic stability and growth in Zimbabwe. The Government will lead the process of developing and implementing an economic recovery strategy and plan. To that end, the parties are committed to working together on a full and comprehensive economic programme to resuscitate Zimbabwe's economy, which will urgently address the issues of production, food security, poverty and unemployment and the challenges of high inflation, interest rates and the exchange rate.
(b) to create conditions that would ensure that the 2008/2009 agricultural season is productive.
(c) to establish a National Economic Council, composed of representatives of the Parties and of the following sectors:
(i) Manufacturing
(ii) Agriculture
(iii) Mining
(iv) Tourism
(v) Commerce
(vi) Financial
(vii) Labour
(viii) Academia; and
(ix) Other relevant sectors
(d) that the terms of reference of the Council shall include giving advice to Government, formulating economic plans and programmes for approval by government and such other functions as are assigned to the Council by the Government.
(e) to endorse the SADC resolution on the economy.
ARTICLE IV
SANCTIONS AND MEASURES
4. Sanctions and Measures
4.1 Recognising and acknowledging that some sections of the international community have since 2000 imposed various sanctions and measures against Zimbabwe, which have included targeted sanctions.
4.2 The Parties note the present economic and political isolation of Zimbabwe by the United Kingdom, European Union, United States of America and other sections of the International Community over and around issues of disputed elections, governance and differences over the land reform programme.
4.3 Noting and acknowledging the following sanctions and measures imposed on Zimbabwe:-
(a) enactment of the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act by the United States of America Congress which outlaws Zimbabwe's right to access credit from International Financial Institutions in which the United States Government is represented or has a stake;
(b) suspension of Zimbabwe's voting and related rights, suspension of balance of payment support, declaration of ineligibility to borrow Fund resources and suspension of technical assistance to Zimbabwe by the International Monetary Fund;
(c) suspension of grants and infrastructural development support to Zimbabwe by The World Bank; and
(d) imposition of targeted travel bans against current Government and some business leaders.
4.4 Noting that this international isolation has over the years created a negative
international perception of Zimbabwe and thereby resulting in the further isolation
of the country by the non-availing of lines of credit to Zimbabwe by some
sections of the international community.
4.5 Recognising the consequent contribution of this isolation to the further decline of the economy.
4.6 Desirous and committed to bringing to an end the fall in the standards of living of our people, the Parties hereby agree:-
(a) to endorse the SADC resolution on sanctions concerning Zimbabwe;
(b) that all forms of measures and sanctions against Zimbabwe be lifted in order to facilitate a sustainable solution to the challenges that are currently facing Zimbabwe; and
c) commit themselves to working together in re-engaging the international community with a view to bringing to an end the country's international isolation.
ARTICLE V
LAND QUESTION
5. Land Question
5.1 Recognising that colonial racist land ownership patterns established during the colonial conquest of Zimbabwe and largely maintained in the post independence period were not only unsustainable, but against the national interest, equity and justice.
5.2 Noting that in addition to the primary objective of the liberation struggle to win one man one vote democracy and justice, the land question, namely the need for the re-distribution of land to the majority indigenous people of Zimbabwe was at the core of the liberation struggle.
5.3 Accepting the inevitability and desirability of a comprehensive land reform programme in Zimbabwe that redresses the issues of historical imbalances and injustices in order to address the issues of equity, productivity, and justice.
5.4 While differing on the methodology of acquisition and redistribution the parties acknowledge that compulsory acquisition and redistribution of land has taken place under a land reform programme undertaken since 2000.
5.5 Accepting the irreversibility of the said land acquisitions and redistribution.
5.6 Noting that in the current Constitution of Zimbabwe and further in the Draft Constitution agreed to by the parties the primary obligation of compensating former land owners for land acquired rests on the former colonial power.
5.7 Further recognising the need to ensure that all land is used productively in the interests of all the people of Zimbabwe.
5.8 Recognising the need for women's access and control over land in their own right as equal citizens.
5.9 The Parties hereby agree to:
(a) conduct a comprehensive, transparent and non-partisan land audit, during the tenure of the Seventh Parliament of Zimbabwe, for the purpose of establishing accountability and eliminating multiple farm ownerships.
(b) ensure that all Zimbabweans who are eligible to be allocated land and who apply for it shall be considered for allocation of land irrespective of race, gender, religion, ethnicity or political affiliation;
(c) ensure security of tenure to all land holders.
(d) call upon the United Kingdom government to accept the primary responsibility to pay compensation for land acquired from former land owners for resettlement;
(e) work together to secure international support and finance for the land reform programme in terms of compensation for the former land owners and support for new farmers; and
(f) work together for the restoration of full productivity on all agricultural land.
ARTICLE VI
CONSTITUTION
6. Constitution
Acknowledging that it is the fundamental right and duty of the Zimbabwean people to make a constitution by themselves and for themselves;
Aware that the process of making this constitution must be owned and driven by the people and must be inclusive and democratic;
Recognising that the current Constitution of Zimbabwe made at the Lancaster House Conference, London (1979) was primarily to transfer power from the colonial authority to the people of Zimbabwe;
Acknowledging the draft Constitution that the Parties signed and agreed to in Kariba on the 30th of September 2007, annexed hereto as Annexure "B";
Determined to create conditions for our people to write a constitution for themselves; and
Mindful of the need to ensure that the new Constitution deepens our democratic values and principles and the protection of the equality of all citizens, particularly the enhancement of full citizenship and equality of women.
6.1 The Parties hereby agree:
(a) that they shall set up a Select Committee of Parliament composed of representatives of the Parties whose terms of reference shall be as follows:
(i) to set up such subcommittees chaired by a member of Parliament and composed of members of Parliament and representatives of Civil Society as may be necessary to assist the Select Committee in performing its mandate herein;
(ii) to hold such public hearings and such consultations as it may deem necessary in the process of public consultation over the making of a new constitution for Zimbabwe;
(iii) to convene an All Stakeholders Conference to consult stakeholders on their representation in the sub-committees referred to above and such related matters as may assist the committee in its work;
(iv) to table its draft Constitution to a 2nd All Stakeholders Conference; and
(v) to report to Parliament on its recommendations over the content of a New Constitution for Zimbabwe
(b) That the draft Constitution recommended by the Select Committee shall be submitted to a referendum;
(c) that, in implementing the above, the following time frames shall apply:
(i) the Select Committee shall be set up within two months of inception of a new government;
(ii) the convening of the first All Stakeholders Conference shall be within 3 months of the date of the appointment of the Select Committee;
(iii) the public consultation process shall be completed no later than 4 months of the date of the first All Stakeholders Conference;
(iv) the draft Constitution shall be tabled within 3 months of completion of the public consultation process to a second All Stakeholders Conference;
(v) the draft Constitution and the accompanying Report shall be tabled before Parliament within 1 month of the second All Stakeholders Conference;
(vi) the draft Constitution and the accompanying Report shall be debated in Parliament and the debate concluded within one month;
(vii) the draft Constitution emerging from Parliament shall be gazetted before the holding of a referendum;
(viii) a referendum on the new draft Constitution shall be held within 3 months of the conclusion of the debate;
(ix) in the event of the draft Constitution being approved in the referendum it shall be gazetted within 1 month of the date of the referendum; and
(x) the draft Constitution shall be introduced in Parliament no later than 1 month after the expiration of the period of 30 days from the date of its gazetting.
ARTICLE VII
PROMOTION OF EQUALITY, NATIONAL HEALING, COHESION AND UNITY
7. Equality, National Healing, Cohesion and Unity
7.1 The Parties hereby agree that the new Government:
a) will ensure equal treatment of all regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, place of origin and will work towards equal access to development for all;
b) will ensure equal and fair development of all regions of the country and in particular to correct historical imbalances in the development of regions;
c) shall give consideration to the setting up of a mechanism to properly advise on what measures might be necessary and practicable to achieve national healing, cohesion and unity in respect of victims of pre and post independence political conflicts; and
d) will strive to create an environment of tolerance and respect among Zimbabweans and that all citizens are treated with dignity and decency irrespective of age, gender, race, ethnicity, place of origin or political affiliation.
e) will formulate policies and put measures in place to attract the return and repatriation of all Zimbabweans in the Diaspora and in particular will work towards the return of all skilled personnel.
ARTICLE VIII
RESPECT FOR NATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND EVENTS
8. Respect for National Institutions and Events
8.1 In the interests of forging a common vision for our country, the Parties hereby agree:-
(a) on the necessity of all Zimbabweans regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, political affiliation and religion to respect and observe Zimbabwe's national institutions, symbols, national programmes and events; and
(b) that all Zimbabweans regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, political affiliation and religion have the right to benefit from and participate in all national programmes and events without let or hindrance.
ARTICLE IX
EXTERNAL INTERFERENCE
9. External Interference
9.1 The Parties reaffirm the principle of the United Nations Charter on non-interference in the internal affairs of member countries.
9.2 The Parties hereby agree:-
(a) that the responsibility of effecting change of government in Zimbabwe vests exclusively on and is the sole prerogative of the people of Zimbabwe through peaceful, democratic and constitutional means;
(b) to reject any unlawful, violent, undemocratic and unconstitutional means of changing governments; and
(c) that no outsiders have a right to call or campaign for regime change in Zimbabwe.
ARTICLE X
FREE POLITICAL ACTIVITY
10. Free political activity
Recognising that the right to canvass and freely mobilise for political support is the cornerstone of any multi-party democratic system, the Parties have agreed that there should be free political activity throughout Zimbabwe within the ambit of the law in which all political parties are able to propagate their views and canvass for support, free of harassment and intimidation.
ARTICLE XI
RULE OF LAW, RESPECT FOR THE CONSTITUTION AND OTHER LAWS
11. Rule of law, respect for the Constitution and other laws
11.1 The Parties hereby agree that it is the duty of all political parties and individuals to:
(a) respect and uphold the Constitution and other laws of the land;
(b) adhere to the principles of the Rule of Law.
ARTICLE XII
FREEDOM OF ASSEMBLY AND ASSOCIATION
12. Freedoms of Assembly and Association
12.1 Recognising the importance of the freedoms of assembly and association in a multi-party democracy and noting that public meetings have to be conducted in a free, peaceful and democratic manner in accordance with the law, the Parties have agreed:-
(a) to work together in a manner which guarantees the full implementation and realisation of the right to freedom of association and assembly; and
(b) that the Government shall undertake training programmes, workshops and meetings for the police and other enforcement agencies directed at the appreciation of the right of freedom of assembly and association and the proper interpretation, understanding and application of the provisions of security legislation.
ARTICLE XIII
STATE ORGANS AND INSTITUTIONS
13. State organs and institutions
13.1 State organs and institutions do not belong to any political party and should be impartial in the discharge of their duties.
13.2 For the purposes of ensuring that all state organs and institutions perform their duties ethically and professionally in conformity with the principles and requirements of a multi-party democratic system in which all parties are treated equally, the Parties have agreed that the following steps be taken:-
(a) that there be inclusion in the training curriculum of members of the uniformed forces of the subjects on human rights, international humanitarian law and statute law so that there is greater understanding and full appreciation of their roles and duties in a multi-party democratic system;
(b) ensuring that all state organs and institutions strictly observe the principles of the Rule of Law and remain non-partisan and impartial;
(c) laws and regulations governing state organs and institutions are strictly adhered to and those violating them be penalised without fear or favour; and
(d) recruitment policies and practices be conducted in a manner that ensures that no political or other form of favouritism is practised.
ARTICLE XIV
TRADITIONAL LEADERS
14. Traditional Leaders
14.1 Recognising and acknowledging that traditional leaders are community leaders with equal responsibilities and obligations to all members of their communities regardless of age, gender, ethnicity, race, religion and political affiliation, the Parties hereby agree to:-
(a) commit themselves to ensuring the political neutrality of traditional leaders; and
(b) call upon traditional leaders not to engage in partisan political activities at national level as well as in their communities.
ARTICLE XV
NATIONAL YOUTH TRAINING PROGRAMME
15. National Youth Training Programme
Recognising the desirability of a national youth training programme which inculcates the values of patriotism, discipline, tolerance, non-violence, openness, democracy, equality, justice and respect.
Determined to ensure that the National Youth Training Programme raises awareness of the HIV and AIDS pandemic, engenders a spirit of community service, skills development and a commitment to the development of Zimbabwe
15.1 The Parties hereby agree that:-
(a) all youths regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, religion and political affiliation are eligible to participate in national youth training programmes;
(b) the National Youth Training Programme must be run in a non-partisan manner and shall not include partisan political material advancing the cause of any political party; and
(c) while recognising that youths undergoing training at national youth training centres have a right to hold political opinions, they shall not, during the period of their training, collectively and as part of a scheme of the training centre be used or deployed for partisan political work.
ARTICLE XVI
HUMANITARIAN AND FOOD ASSISTANCE
16. Humanitarian and food assistance
16.1 In times of need, every Zimbabwean regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, political affiliation and religion is entitled to request and receive humanitarian and food assistance from the State.
16.2 It is the primary responsibility of the State to ensure that every Zimbabwean who needs humanitarian and food assistance receives it.
16.3 Non-Governmental Organisations involved in giving humanitarian and food assistance shall do so without discrimination on the grounds of race, ethnicity, gender, political affiliation and religion and in doing so, shall not promote or advance the interests of any political party or cause.
16.4 In this regard the Parties hereby agree:
(a) that in the fulfillment of its obligations above, the Government and all State Institutions and quasi State Institutions shall render humanitarian and food assistance without discrimination on the grounds of race, ethnicity, gender, political affiliation or religion;
(b) that humanitarian interventions rendered by Non-Governmental Organisations, shall be provided without discrimination on the grounds of race, ethnicity, gender, political affiliation and religion.
(c) that all displaced persons shall be entitled to humanitarian and food assistance to enable them to return and settle in their original homes and that social welfare organisations shall be allowed to render such assistance as might be required.
(d) that all NGO's rendering humanitarian and food assistance must operate within the confines of the laws of Zimbabwe.
ARTICLE XVII
LEGISLATIVE AGENDA PRIORITIES
17. Legislative agenda
17.1 The Parties hereby agree that:
(a) the legislative agenda will be prioritized in order to reflect the letter and spirit of this agreement;
(b) the Government will discuss and agree on further legislative measures which may become necessary to implement the Government's agreed policies and in particular, with a view to entrenching democratic values and practices.
ARTICLE XVIII
SECURITY OF PERSONS AND PREVENTION OF VIOLENCE
18. Security of persons and prevention of violence
18.1 Noting the easy resort to violence by political parties, State actors, Non-State actors and others in order to resolve political differences and achieve political ends.
18.2 Gravely concerned by the displacement of scores of people after the election of March 29, 2008 as a result of politically motivated violence.
18.3 Recognising that violence dehumanises and engenders feelings of hatred and polarisation within the country.
18.4 Further recognising that violence undermines our collective independence as a
people and our capacity to exercise our free will in making political choices.
18.5 The Parties hereby agree:
(a) to promote the values and practices of tolerance, respect, non-violence and dialogue as means of resolving political differences;
(b) to renounce and desist from the promotion and use of violence, under whatever name called, as a means of attaining political ends;
(c) that the Government shall apply the laws of the country fully and impartially in bringing all perpetrators of politically motivated violence to book;
(d) that all political parties, other organisations and their leaders shall commit themselves to do everything to stop and prevent all forms of political violence, including by non-State actors and shall consistently appeal to their members to desist from violence;
(e) to take all measures necessary to ensure that the structures and institutions they control are not engaged in the perpetration of violence.
(f) that all civil society organisations of whatever description whether affiliated to a political party or not shall not promote or advocate for or use violence or any other form of intimidation or coercion to canvass or mobilise for or oppose any political party or to achieve any political end;
(g) to work together to ensure the security of all persons and property;
(h) to work together to ensure the safety of any displaced persons, their safe return home and their enjoyment of the full protection of the law.
(i) to refrain from using abusive language that may incite hostility, political intolerance and ethnic hatred or unfairly undermine each other.
(j) that while having due regard to the Constitution of Zimbabwe and the principles of the rule of law, the prosecuting authorities will expedite the determination as to whether or not there is sufficient evidence to warrant the prosecution or keeping on remand of all persons accused of politically related offences arising out of or connected with the March and June 2008 elections.
ARTICLE XIX
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND COMMUNICATION
19. Freedom of Expression and Communication
Recognising the importance of the right to freedom of expression and the role of the media in a multi-party democracy.
Noting that while the provisions of the Broadcasting Services Act permit the issuance of licences, no licences other than to the public broadcaster have been issued.
Aware of the emergence of foreign based radio stations broadcasting into Zimbabwe, some of which are funded by foreign governments.
Concerned that the failure to issue licences under the Broadcasting Services Act to alternative broadcasters might have given rise to external radio stations broadcasting into Zimbabwe.
Further concerned that foreign government funded external radio stations broadcasting into Zimbabwe are not in Zimbabwe's national interest.
Desirous of ensuring the opening up of the air waves and ensuring the operation of as many media houses as possible.
19.1 The Parties hereby agree:-
(a) that the government shall ensure the immediate processing by the appropriate authorities of all applications for re-registration and registration in terms of both the Broadcasting Services Act as well as the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act;
(b) all Zimbabwean nationals including those currently working for or running external radio stations be encouraged to make applications for broadcasting licences, in Zimbabwe, in terms of the law;
(c) that in recognition of the open media environment anticipated by this Agreement, the Parties hereby:-
(i) call upon the governments that are hosting and/or funding external radio stations broadcasting into Zimbabwe to cease such hosting and funding; and
(ii) encourage the Zimbabweans running or working for external radio stations broadcasting into Zimbabwe to return to Zimbabwe; and
(d) that steps be taken to ensure that the public media provides balanced and fair coverage to all political parties for their legitimate political activities.
(e) that the public and private media shall refrain from using abusive language that may incite hostility, political intolerance and ethnic hatred or that unfairly undermines political parties and other organisations. To this end, the inclusive government shall ensure that appropriate measures are taken to achieve this objective.
ARTICLE XX
FRAMEWORK FOR A NEW GOVERNMENT
20. Framework for a new Government
Acknowledging that we have an obligation to establish a framework of working together in an inclusive government;
Accepting that the formation of such a government will have to be approached with great sensitivity, flexibility and willingness to compromise;
Recognising that the formation of such a Government would demonstrate the respect of the Parties for the deeply-felt and immediate hopes and aspirations of the millions of our people.
Determined to carry out sustained work to create the conditions for returning our country to stability and prosperity;
Acknowledging the need for gender parity, particularly the need to appoint women to strategic Cabinet posts;
20.1 The Parties hereby agree that:
20.1.1 Executive Powers and Authority
The Executive Authority of the Inclusive Government shall vest in, and be shared among the President, the Prime Minister and the Cabinet, as provided for in this Constitution and legislation.
The President of the Republic shall exercise executive authority subject to the Constitution and the law.
The Prime Minister of the Republic shall exercise executive authority subject to the Constitution and the law.
The Cabinet of the Republic shall exercise executive authority subject to the Constitution and the law.
In the exercise of executive authority, the President, Vice Presidents, the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Ministers, Ministers and Deputy Ministers must have regard to the principles and spirit underlying the formation of the Inclusive Government and accordingly act in a manner that seeks to promote cohesion both inside and outside government.
20.1.2 The Cabinet
(a) shall have the responsibility to evaluate and adopt all government policies and the consequential programmes;
(b) shall, subject to approval by Parliament, allocate the financial resources for the implementation of such policies and programmes;
(c) shall have the responsibility to prepare and present to Parliament, all such legislation and other instruments as may be necessary to implement the policies and programmes of the National Executive;
(d) shall, except where the Constitution requires ratification by Parliament, or action by the President, approve all international agreements;
(e) shall ensure that the state organs, including the Ministries and Departments, have sufficient financial and other resources and appropriate operational capacity to carry out their functions effectively; and
(f) shall take decisions by consensus, and take collective responsibility for all Cabinet decisions, including those originally initiated individually by any member of Cabinet.
(g) The President and the Prime Minister will agree on the allocation of Ministries between them for the purpose of day-to-day supervision.
20.1.3 The President
(a) chairs Cabinet;
(b) exercises executive authority;
(c) shall exercise his/her powers subject to the provisions of the Constitution;
(d) can, subject to the Constitution, declare war and make peace;
(e) can, subject to the Constitution, proclaim and terminate martial law;
(f) confers honours and precedence, on the advice of Cabinet;
(g) grants pardons, respites, substitutes less severe punishment and suspends or remits sentences, on the advice of Cabinet;
(h) chairs the National Security Council;
(i) formally appoints the Vice Presidents;
(j) shall, pursuant to this Agreement, appoint the Prime Minister pending the enactment of the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment no.19 as agreed by the Parties;
(k) formally appoints Deputy Prime Ministers, Ministers and Deputy Ministers in accordance with this agreement;
(l) after consultation with the Vice Presidents, the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Ministers, allocates Ministerial portfolios in accordance with this Agreement;
(m) accredits, receives and recognizes diplomatic agents and consular officers;
(n) appoints independent Constitutional Commissions in terms of the Constitution;
(o) appoints service/executive Commissions in terms of the Constitution and in consultation with the Prime Minister;
(p) in consultation with the Prime Minister, makes key appointments the President is required to make under and in terms of the Constitution or any Act of Parliament;
(q) may, acting in consultation with the Prime Minister, dissolve Parliament;
(r) must be kept fully informed by the Prime Minister on the general conduct of the government business and;
(s) shall be furnished with such information as he/she may request in respect of any particular matter relating to the government, and may advise the Prime Minister and Cabinet in this regard.
20.1.4 The Prime Minister
(a) chairs the Council of Ministers and is the Deputy Chairperson of Cabinet;
(b) exercises executive authority;
(c) shall oversee the formulation of government policies by the Cabinet;
(d) shall ensure that the policies so formulated are implemented by the entirety of government;
(e) shall ensure that the Ministers develop appropriate implementation plans to give effect to the policies decided by Cabinet: in this regard, the Ministers will report to the Prime Minister on all issues relating to the implementation of such policies and plans;
(f) shall ensure that the legislation necessary to enable the government to carry out its functions is in place: in this regard, he/she shall have the responsibility to discharge the functions of the Leader of Government Business in Parliament;
(g) shall be a member of the National Security Council;
(h) may be assigned such additional functions as are necessary further to enhance the work of the Inclusive Government;
(i) shall, to ensure the effective execution of these tasks, be assisted by Deputy Prime Ministers; and
(j) shall report regularly to the President and Parliament.
20.1.5 Council of Ministers
To ensure that the Prime Minister properly discharges his responsibility to oversee the implementation of the work of government, there shall be a Council of Ministers consisting of all the Cabinet Ministers, chaired by the Prime Minister, whose functions shall be:
(a) to assess the implementation of Cabinet decisions;
(b) to assist the Prime Minister to attend to matters of coordination in the government;
(c) to enable the Prime Minister to receive briefings from the Cabinet Committees;
(d) to make progress reports to Cabinet on matters of implementation of Cabinet decisions;
(e) to receive and consider reports from the Committee responsible for the periodic review mechanism; and
(f) to make progress reports to Cabinet on matters related to the periodic review mechanism.
20.1.6 Composition of the Executive
(1) There shall be a President, which Office shall continue to be occupied by President Robert Gabriel Mugabe.
(2) There shall be two (2) Vice Presidents, who will be nominated by the President and/or Zanu-PF.
(3) There shall be a Prime Minister, which Office shall be occupied by Mr Morgan Tsvangirai.
(4) There shall be two (2) Deputy Prime Ministers, one (1) from MDC-T and one (1) from the MDC-M.
(5) There shall be thirty-one (31) Ministers, with fifteen (15) nominated by ZANU PF, thirteen (13) by MDC-T and three (3) by MDC-M. Of the 31 Ministers, three (3) one each per Party, may be appointed from outside the members of Parliament. The three (3) Ministers so appointed shall become members of the House of Assembly and shall have the right to sit, speak and debate in Parliament, but shall not be entitled to vote.
(6) There shall be fifteen (15) Deputy Ministers, with (eight) 8 nominated by ZANU PF, six (6) by MDC-T and one (1) by MDC-M.
(7) Ministers and Deputy Ministers may be relieved of their duties only after consultation among the leaders of all the political parties participating in the Inclusive Government.
20.1.7 Senate
(a) The President shall, in his discretion, appoint five (5) persons to the existing positions of Presidential senatorial appointments.
(b) There shall be created an additional nine (9) appointed senatorial posts, which shall be filled by persons appointed by the President, of whom, 3 will be nominated by ZANU-PF, 3 by MDC-T and 3 by MDC-M.
20.1.8 Filling of vacancies
(a)In the event of any vacancy arising in respect of posts referred to in clauses 20.1.6 and 20.1.7
(b) above, such vacancy shall be filled by a nominee of the Party which held that position prior to the vacancy arising.
ARTICLE XXI
ELECTORAL VACANCIES
21. Electoral Vacancies
Aware of the divisive and often times confrontational nature of elections and by elections;
Noting the need to allow this agreement to take root amongst the parties and people of Zimbabwe; and Cognisant of the need to give our people some breathing space and a healing period;
21.1 The Parties hereby agree that for a period of 12 months from the date of signing of this agreement, should any electoral vacancy arise in respect of a local authority or parliamentary seat, for whatever reason, only the party holding that seat prior to the vacancy occurring shall be entitled to nominate and field a candidate to fill the seat subject to that party complying with the rules governing its internal democracy.
ARTICLE XXII
IMPLEMENTATION MECHANISMS
22. Implementation mechanisms
22.1 To ensure full and proper implementation of the letter and spirit of this Agreement, the Parties hereby constitute a Joint Monitoring and Implementation Committee ("JOMIC") to be composed of four senior members from ZANU-PF and four senior members from each of the two MDC Formations. Gender consideration must be taken into account in relation to the composition of JOMIC.
22.2 The committee shall be co-chaired by persons from the Parties.
22.3 The committee shall have the following functions:-
(a) to ensure the implementation in letter and spirit of this Agreement;
(b) to assess the implementation of this Agreement from time to time and consider steps which might need to be taken to ensure the speedy and full implementation of this Agreement in its entirety;
(c) to receive reports and complaints in respect of any issue related to the implementation, enforcement and execution of this Agreement;
(d) to serve as catalyst in creating and promoting an atmosphere of mutual trust and understanding between the parties; and
(e) to promote continuing dialogue between the Parties.
22.4 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 compliance with this Agreement through JOMIC and to refrain from any conduct which might undermine the spirit of co-operation necessary for the fulfillment of this Agreement.
22.5 The new Government shall ensure that steps are taken to make the security forces conversant with the Constitution of Zimbabwe and other laws of Zimbabwe including laws relating to public order and security.
22.6 The implementation of this agreement shall be guaranteed and underwritten by the Facilitator, SADC and the AU.
22.7 The Parties and the new Government shall seek the support and assistance of SADC and the AU in mobilizing the international community to support the new Government's economic recovery plans and programmes together with the lifting of sanctions taken against Zimbabwe and some of its leaders.
22.8 The Parties agree that they shall cause Parliament to amend any legislation to the extent necessary to bring this agreement into full force.
ARTICLE XXIII
PERIODIC REVIEW MECHANISM
23. Periodic review mechanism
23.1 Having regard to the Objectives and Priorities of the New Government as set out in this Agreement, the Parties hereby agree that:
(a) they shall constitute a committee composed of 2 representatives each to review on an annual basis progress on the implementation and achievement of the priorities and objectives set out in this Agreement, namely: Economic (restoration of economic stability and growth, sanctions, land question) Political (new constitution, promotion of equality, national healing and cohesion and unity, external interference, free political activity, rule of law, state organs and institutions, legislative agenda and priorities) Security (security of persons and prevention of violence) and Communication (media and external radio stations); and
(b) the committee shall make recommendations to the Parties and the new government on any matters relating to this Agreement, more particularly on measures and programmes that may be necessary to take and make to realise full implementation of this Agreement.
(c) this Agreement and the relationship agreed to hereunder will be reviewed at the conclusion of the constitution-making process.
23.2 The Parties will continually review the effectiveness and any other matter relating to the functioning of the Inclusive Government established by the Constitution in consultation with the Guarantors.
ARTICLE XXIV
INTERIM CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS
24. Interim Constitutional amendments
The Parties hereby agree:
24.1 that the constitutional amendments which are necessary for the implementation of this agreement shall be passed by parliament and assented to by the President as Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment Act No 19. The Parties undertake to unconditionally support the enactment of the said Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment No 19;
24.2 to include in Constitutional Amendment No19 the provisions contained in Chapters 4 and 13, and section 121 of the draft Constitution that the Parties executed at Kariba on 30 September 2007 (Kariba draft).
ARTICLE XXV
COMMENCEMENT
25. Commencement
This Agreement shall enter into force upon its signature by the Parties.
In WITNESS WHEREOF the Parties have signed this Agreement in the English language, in six identical copies, all texts being equally authentic:
DONE AT HARARE, ON THIS DAY OF 2008
ROBERT G MUGABE
PRESIDENT, ZANU-PF
MORGAN R TSVANGIRAI
PRESIDENT, MDC
ARTHUR G 0 MUTAMBARA
PRESIDENT, MDC
In WITNESS THEREOF the Facilitator:
THABO MBEKI
SADC FACILITATOR
``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe Unity Agreement - Full Text``x1221561166,43449,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xSeptember 16, 2008
The Herald
SOUTH AFRICAN President Thabo Mbeki yesterday urged African leaders to urgently assist Zimbabwe with sufficient farming inputs and inject life into the country's agricultural production ahead of the 2008/09 summer cropping season as Government announced the distribution of inputs for the season.
Agriculture is the backbone of Zimbabwe's economy.
Mr Mbeki said all African leaders should lead by example and demonstrate their solidarity with Zimbabwe and help the country out of its economic challenges.
He said African leaders were capable of dealing with problems besetting the continent.
President Mbeki said rains were around the corner and Zimbabwe was in dire need of farming implements.
"The rains are about to start, so the time to put the seeds in the soil is very close, but we must get the seeds, we must get the fertilizer, we must get the fuel, we must get the implements as a matter of urgency. I am quite certain as a region and a continent we can do that," said President Mbeki in his closing remarks after the signing of Zimbabwe's power-sharing deal.
"We have a responsibility to do that and demonstrate that we are capable as a continent to take care of our problems. This is one entry to make as a matter of urgency."
Announcing the conclusion of the inter-party dialogue last Thursday, President Mbeki said he had discussed the issue of food security with President Mugabe, Mr Morgan Tsvangirai and Professor Arthur Mutambara.
He said it was imperative for the leaders to work to ensure that production on the land was stepped up so that food shortages do not recur.
In a statement yesterday, Chief Secretary to the President and Cabinet, Dr Misheck Sibanda, who is also chairman of the Resource Mobilisation and Utilisation Committee for the 2008/9 Agricultural Summer Season, said Government had embarked on a programme to enhance food security at the household and national level for the coming summer cropping season.
"Full-scale mobilisation of A1, A2, communal, individual and institutional farmers as well as vulnerable groups for the programme, is in full swing.
"With indications from the Meteorological Department pointing to a good season in terms of the rainfall distribution pattern, efforts have to be focused on boosting the country's state of preparedness for the cropping season," he said.
He, however, said the support by Government was meant to complement and not to substitute the farmers' initiatives.
He said other programmes such as the Targeted Farmers Programme, Vulnerable Social Groups Programme and Individual Efforts by the Generality of Zimbabwean Farmers would run concurrently with the distribution exercise.
In the Targeted Farmers Programme, 500 000 hectares will be put under maize production, with a commitment to deliver all the produce to the Grain Marketing Board.
"Farmers for this programme are in the process of being identified, while contract forms will soon be availed to the farmers by the Ministry of Agriculture," he said.
Dr Sibanda encouraged farmers to urgently complete forms, to facilitate the provision of inputs support and monitoring by Agritex, District Development Fund and his committee with the expected yield under the programme expected to be five tonnes per hectare.
The Vulnerable Social Groups Programme, Dr Sibanda said, is targeting disadvantaged members of society in every province.
"Beneficiaries under this programme are being identified by the provincial and district structures of the Department of Social Welfare and will each get 10kg seed maize or small grains seed pack, 50kg of compound D and 50kg of ammonium nitrate (fertilizers).
"Distribution of the inputs will commence as soon as the list of the beneficiaries is in place. That target is for this group of farmers to produce a combined 200 000 tonnes at an average yield of 0.5 tonnes per hectare."
Dr Sibanda said inputs would be acquired from traditional distribution outlets using individual resources in the Individual Efforts by the Generality of Zimbabwean Farmers programme.
He said distribution of inputs has started, with trains and trucks already moving consignments to provincial GMB depots and to individual farming communities.
"Farmers under the targeted programme with their own transport or means should arrange to pick up the inputs from their local depots. Government will, as in previous seasons, provide farmers with fuel for the summer cropping season."
Dr Sibanda said the Resource Mobilisation and Utilisation Committee will monitor the uplifting of the fuel and its utilisation by the farmer.
"It should also be noted that fuel for targeted farmers will be distributed to identified areas within the farming clusters for easy of access, to reduce on transport costs or other logistical challenges," he said.
The fuel will be distributed directly to A1 and A2 farmers and farmers without tillage services, including communal farmers, can access the services from DDF and Arda as well as any other service providers, Dr Sibanda said.
He said other farmers not benefiting from the programmes would access the inputs and fuel through traditional outlets.
"Government, in liaison with relevant stakeholders, is working round the clock to ensure the timeous availability of adequate amounts of inputs in the market and that these are distributed to all farmers equitably," he said.
He requested banks to commence the processing of loan applications by individual farmers, adding the Reserve Bank would unveil more details on this issue.
Dr Sibanda said farmers with their own tillage facilities and fuel should proceed immediately with land preparedness and those with functional irrigation facilities should immediately start planting.
"Ideally, the entire planting programme should have been concluded by November 30 while farmers with seed and fertilizers left over from the previous season should use them as intended," he said.
Dr Sibanda urged farmers still holding their small grain stocks to grow them, expressing concern at the insufficient quantities available in the country.
"Accordingly, Government has put in place arrangements to import additional seed to bridge the deficit. Farmers in the relevant agro-ecological regions of the country will be notified on the distribution thereof once the consignment has been received," he said.
He said steps are being taken to adequately capacitate Agritex and DDF officers in accordance with the agreed conceptual framework, so as to enable them to effectively monitor the whole farming process in the districts, from inputs support distribution to harvesting and collection of produce.
"This will be complemented by measures to be taken to counter the abuse of inputs supplies, especially seed, fuel and fertilizers," he said.
Dr Sibanda said Government would deal firmly with corrupt persons who are in the habit of using their political and social influence to abuse agricultural inputs thereby prejudicing the agricultural production programme.
"Notwithstanding the challenges being confronted, with sufficient willpower and the unity of purpose by all stakeholders, the goal to ensure food security at the national and household level can be achieved."
In terms of the power-sharing deal signed yesterday by President Mugabe and the leaders of the two MDC formations, Mr Tsvangirai and Prof Mutambara, they agreed to stabilise the economy and ensure its growth.
"The parties agree to give priority to the restoration of economic stability and growth in Zimbabwe.
"The Government will lead the process of developing and implementing an economic recovery strategy plan," read article III of the agreement.
To that end, the parties expressed commitment to working together on a full and comprehensive economic programme to resuscitate the country's economy, which would urgently address the issues of production, food security, poverty and unemployment and the challenges of high inflation, interest rates and exchange rates, among other things.
The parties also unequivocally pledged that humanitarian and food assistance was paramount to the sanctity of human life.
The parties agreed that every Zimbabwean regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, political affiliation and religion is entitled to humanitarian and food assistance from Government.
"It is the primary responsibility of the State to ensure that every Zimbabwean who needs humanitarian and food assistance receives it."
To complement Government's efforts to feed the nation, non-governmental organisations involved in humanitarian and food assistance are allowed to provide food without discrimination.
However, in the exercise of their work the NGOs are not allowed to promote the interests of any political party.
In terms of the agreement, NGOs rendering humanitarian and food assistance should operate within the confines of the laws of Zimbabwe.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xMbeki urges African leaders to assist Zim with farming inputs``x1221561249,98585,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Talib Ray in PORT OF SPAIN, Trinidad and Tobago
The Herald
CONGRATULATIONS to Zimbabweans on the occasion of the signing of a power-sharing deal between your three main political parties. My sincere thanks go to President Mugabe for his dedication and gallant efforts in keeping the fires of the struggle for total liberation and justice burning. President Mugabe is an inspiration and a hero to all objective-minded, self-proclaimed Pan-Africanists like me.
I was born in a country where the very foundation of existence was built on slavery. It was a system of slavery unprecedented in the history of mankind for its brutal, uncivilised and barbaric nature.
Yet despite the barbarism, despite the travesty of justice and despite the historical reality of such a despicable existence of human character, the cries for justice and calls for a higher level of human consciousness are still primarily met with outrage and defined as militant and unacceptable behaviour by the very perpetrators of the injustice.
Such injustices committed against the people of African ancestry are global in their relationship. The atrocities committed during the epoch of the slave trade in the Americas have a direct relationship with the atrocities and crimes against humanity committed during the colonialisation of Africa.
It was a display of human behaviour that, with the exception of walking upright, has no similarities that would describe the kind of human behaviour we might expect and think befitting that of mankind. Yet given all of the historical evidence and the world's inability to deny that such human behaviour existed, we find that the same calls for justice from the recipient of such behaviour are met with the same response.
It is a deep-rooted inflexible response by the people of European stock that still ignores their wrongdoings. More importantly, it highlights their stubborn willingness to continually try to reverse the psychology of their own actions. Those who call and act to achieve justice are labelled as racist conspirators and militants with no regard for the rule of law. It is a rule of law which has been twisted into a law of convenience, primarily serving to uphold the rights and ambitions for continued "white privilege".
In the real world, a world of reality, a world whose universal laws can be basically defined by the simple law of "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you'", an injustice on the face of its existence is an injustice for all times. Injustice is not somehow corrected by the passage of time: 10, 100 or 1 000 years.
It does not go away by ignoring that it ever happened. It is corrected by transcending the level of human consciousness which caused it to happen. It is corrected not only by saying we are sorry, but also by a willingness to practically enact the character and actions that will at least make some effort towards compensation for the wrongs that were caused and committed.
While there have been many gains by those of African ancestry in the Americas, particularly in Europe and the United States, these historical injustices have a direct relationship with the causes of underdevelopment for the people of African ancestry. This is particularly so in the case of the underdevelopment that still exists on the continent of Africa.
Concerning the underdevelopment of Africa, the late Walter Rodney, an Afro-Guyanese, in his book "How Europe Underdeveloped Africa", wrote: "Mistaken interpretations of the causes of underdevelopment usually stem either from prejudiced thinking or from the error of believing that one can learn the answers by looking inside the underdeveloped economy. The true explanation lies in seeking out the relationship between Africa and certain developed countries and in recognising that it is a relationship of exploitation."
Yet today, despite the injustices inherent within the relationship between Africa and the West, there is still no attempt or apparent interest to right the wrongs that were committed. There are no concerns for the ethics of justice and its dispensation. There are only mobilisations for sanctions, political and economic alienation to frustrate any such calls or actions to obtain justice for the African people such as we witness today in Zimbabwe.
People of Zimbabwe, you should know that your struggles are a microcosm of the struggles of the African people and those of its Diaspora. I salute you for all the sacrifices you have made during these times of economic and political sanctions. I was happy to read that President Mugabe, Morgan Tsvangirai and Arthur Mutambara have signed a power-sharing agreement.
While I might have been somewhat happy about this agreement, I believe that in the long run, such an agreement will prove to be only of superficial benefit for the people of Zimbabwe if some Zimbabweans continue to be used by Western powers, whose sole objective is to stop the redistribution of land.
Citing another passage from the book of our late brother Rodney, he wrote: "During the colonial period, the reforms of political subordination in Africa were obvious. There were governors, colonial officials, and police. In politically independent Africa states, the metropolitan capitalists have to insure favourable political decisions by remote control.
So they set up their political puppets in many parts of Africa, who shamelessly agree to compromise with the vicious apartheid regime of South Africa when their masters tell them to do so. The revolutionary writer, Frantz Fanon, has dealt scorchingly and at length with the question of the minority in Africa which serves as the transmission line between the metropolitan capitalists and the dependencies in Africa. The importance of this group cannot be underestimated. The presence of a group of African sell-outs is part of the definition of underdevelopment."
To say that I am not happy to see the brothers, President Mugabe and the now Prime Minister Tsvangirai meet, would be against the innate African spirit of forgetting and forgiving those who have committed wrongs against us.
But the time has come for us to set aside this quality of human spirit that is so readily being taken advantage of by those who consider this behaviour a sign of weakness to be exploited.
It is disheartening to see African leaders being used against their own people. It is a practice of divide and conquer that has been used continually since the beginning of the African-European relationship and continues to be effective.
It is time that the people of African ancestry realised that the controlling entities of the Western world do not have the capacity to transcend the deformed levels of human consciousness that will lead us to a mutual plane of human relationship.
So I say to the people of Zimbabwe, look ahead and thoughtfully witness what will now happen to the land reform programme. Keep in mind that the social and political settlements that you have achieved are based on the idea that the land reform programme will be halted in its tracks.
Know that this land reform programme will not be tolerated by those of European stock not only in Zimbabwe, but throughout the Western world. Know that political stability, sharing of power will not be enough to stop the wrath of economic sanctions if you decide to continue your land reform and redistribution.
Oh, people of Zimbabwe, we must begin to reunite ourselves for the common good of our people. Not for the sake of being braggarts, thinking that we are somehow superior to all others, the kind of pseudo superiority complex we have historically witnessed from so many of those of European stock. We must unite ourselves for the sake of further human development and an elevation of the human spirit whose strength and foundation can be found within the communal character of the African culture.
I have often said that the second phase of the struggle for total liberation of the African people has begun in Zimbabwe. That the Zimbabwean people have taken up the role of leadership in showing all other African countries what must be done. It would be a pity to let puppet politics derail the African struggle. The African people should be familiar with the script by now.
Make no mistake concerning the motives of the Western powers. They have no concern for how political power is to be shared within the Government of Zimbabwe. They have no concern for how long any political figure has been in Government. They have no regard for human rights abuses or civil injustices. Their only objective is a blinding parasitic selfish interest. In an effort of appeasement, Zimbabwe will be granted some level of economic stability by the Western powers.
There should be no doubt that this economic and political stability will not be without cost. The cost of this stability will most certainly be to stop the redistribution of land. And with this achievement, the West will also gain solace in knowing they have once again stopped the momentum of the struggle. Zimbabweans must never lose sight of the struggle for the redistribution of land.
Land redistribution was of vital necessity if total liberation is to be achieved.
Africa's hopes and aspirations depend now more than ever on her ability to unite. She must now begin to earnestly evaluate the pseudo-independence which is the true state of affairs of each country. The mind-set of independence will only serve those who continue to take advantage of this division, to keep Africa in an environment of continued exploitation.
The realisation of total liberation of the African continent cannot and will not be realised without unification. It is the obvious course of action to take and yet given this clear and decisive road map, her leaders are still unable to take its path. Africa must begin to unite country by country with a preamble of government that will not tolerate outside interference.
Once unification has been achieved, then she will be able to engage in the fundamentals of international law giving her the rights to achieve total nationalisation of her resources, resources which can be leveraged for the transfer of technology that has been systematically denied her. The unification of Africa will enable her to achieve mutual respect among nations of the world, with mutual relationship for mutual development.
It is not only up to the leaders and people of Zimbabwe to shoulder this responsibility of the struggle towards total liberation. It is the responsibility of all African leaders and her people.
Total liberation will once again place the destiny of Africa back into the hands of the African people. I say to the people of Zimbabwe, be consciously aware of what is happening to you at this time in the liberation struggle.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe: Remain Resolute``x1221562197,79572,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Caesar Zvayi
September 19, 2008
IN our Shona culture, just as in any other culture, suspicion is always aroused whenever an outsider mourns more than the bereaved.
Then vanasorojena (the elders) tend to question the relationship between the mourner and the deceased and all his/her family.
Well, since the power-sharing agreement was signed by Zanu-PF, MDC-T and MDC on Monday, the Anglo-Saxon Alliance led by the EU and the US have been wailing like a newly-wed widow who has just been robbed of the joys of wedded bliss.
In fact, the Westerners just stopped short of rejecting the power-sharing agreement as if they are Zimbabwean citizens.
Their collective response, "we are studying the deal with caution and will monitor its implementation before we can lift the sanctions" is quite instructive.
They portray themselves as custodians of Zimbabweans, as do-gooders who know what is best for a nation boasting of the second highest literacy rate in Africa, second only to Tunisia.
The question is why are the Westerners pretending they are on a mission to discharge Rudyard Kipling's bastardised "white-man's burden", that onerous "responsibility" of saving the African from himself?
It is not difficult to unpack the West's icy response given the section of the agreement that has obsessed their media who have a sickening tendency of hunting in packs like wild dogs.
Much of the Western media have zeroed in on Article V, section 5.5 of the power-sharing agreement that upholds the irreversibility of the land reform programme.
The section, which reads: "accepting the irreversibility of the said land acquisitions and redistribution," should be read in conjunction with the full Article, which is reproduced in full elsewhere on this page.
In imposing their ruinous sanctions on Zimbabwe, the Anglo-Saxon Alliance claimed they were doing it for Zimbabweans against a section of Zimbabweans they accused of "undermining democracy," yet the sanctions were largely economic affecting all Zimbabweans.
Now that the Zimbabweans have closed ranks and have collectively endorsed the inclusive Government they are setting up, on whose behalf are the EU and US claiming to be speaking?
Why are they passing themselves off as custodians of Zimbabweans, who know what is best for a highly literate people, yet all Zimbabweans have said "hands off?"
The clue lies in that clause the Western media embeds would rather wish away, the land that was taken from their kith and kin and redistributed to hitherto disadvantaged black Zimbabweans.
The centrality of land to the prevailing socio-economic problems is upheld even in the US sanctions law, the so-called Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act that says the sanctions can only be lifted if land tenure is restored to pre-2000 levels. In other words when the land reform programme has been reversed.
The British, in the historic Abuja Agreement of September 2001, acknowledged the centrality of land to the problems in Zimbabwe, which is why the opposition's decision to rally behind land reforms should be commended.
It, however, appears the West hoped the MDC formations would go back to their earlier positions of promising to return all land to white former commercial farmers.
It is important to remember that MDC-T secretary for education, Fidelis Mhashu, is on record telling his interlocutor on BBC's HARDtalk programme that his party would return land to white former farmers upon assuming power.
Prime Minister-Designate, Morgan Tsvangirai and other high-ranking MDC-T officials have also blasted the land reform programme on a number of occasions, raising hopes in the self-exiled white former farming community which is why the agreement on land reforms came as a bitter pill to swallow for the expectant Westerners.
The time has come to challenge the Westerners to state the real reason they imposed the sanctions, and why they do not want to scrap them even though Zimbabweans have closed ranks.
What the Western stance tells us is that the fight is far from over, in fact, it may have just begun.
The forces ranged against us are not happy and obviously want to torpedo the agreement, because what they are after is regime change not inclusion.
There will be a lot of distortions, words will be put in the leadership's mouths.
In fact, there may be outright attempts to brew bad blood between the three parties.
This is why the ongoing "freeze" on the Government is not tenable, many expected Cabinet to be appointed soon after the signing ceremony since the country has been without a substantive Government since June 27.
We have to have a well-oiled information dissemination system.
There are many who were getting fat off "the Zimbabwe crisis."
One need only look at the hysteria in the anti-Zimbabwe media like the ubiquitous online sites, the private media, the pirate radio stations and the NGO community, many of whose membership, were subsisting on "regime change funds."
Many of them obviously feel the bread may be taken off their lips.
The US State Department Report "Supporting Human Rights and Democracy: The US record- 2006," released last year was quite explicit in the extent of US involvement in many supposedly "Zimbabwean" sectors.
The Report read in part, "The US strategy for fostering democracy and human rights in the country is three-fold: to maintain pressure on the Mugabe regime; to strengthen democratic (read opposition) forces; and to provide humanitarian aid for those left vulnerable by poor governance ... To encourage greater public debate on restoring good governance in the country, the United States sponsored public events that presented economic and social analyses discrediting the government's excuses for its failed policies."
What followed was a shocking expose of the extent of US funding of opposition and quasi-opposition
activities and the so-called civil society comprising non-governmental organisations and "on-governmental individuals," so-called advocacy groups, newspapers, newsletters, some Church leaders and journalists.
In short, the report confirmed that Uncle Sam had them in his pocket, and the noises they made were sponsored psalms for their supper.
Particularly interesting was the State Department's revelation that that it sponsored, and had editorial influence in certain weeklies that peddle anti-Government sentiment.
The report revealed how US sentiment was given acres of space, and alleged human rights abuses prominence in the newspapers.
Dare we fall asleep?
http://www.herald.co.zw``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xLand at core of Western anger``x1221822458,58766,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Campion Mereki
September 20, 2008
The Herald
THE Sadc-mediated talks in Zimbabwe that have resulted in the three main political parties reaching an agreement after months of tough negotiations should be applauded by all who desire to see the Zimbabwe of yesteryear coming back.
Kudos should go to South African President Thabo Mbeki for his patience in seeing that his northern neighbour and largest trading partner in Africa does not collapse under the weight of the political stand-off.
Sadc has always worked for the development of its members. The regional grouping mediated, through President Mugabe, in Mozambique when Renamo carried out a civil war against Frelimo.
Mozambique today enjoys peace and stability.
The skirmishes in Lesotho following the 1998 elections were effectively dealt with when Sadc, again through South Africa, intervened in the crisis.
Banditry and terrorism in Angola, perpetrated by the US-backed Unita of Jonas Savimbi came to an end when the rebel leader was killed.
This was perhaps the most classic case in contemporary Africa of those who live by the sword dying by the sword.
The vast expanse of land we know as the DRC nearly fell to rebels but for the timely intervention of President Mugabe who sent Zimbabwean troops to prop up their brothers under the leadership of the late Laurent Kabila.
Angola and Namibia also sent in their troops and all three countries committed a lot of resources to ensure that a fellow Sadc member did not go down the path of endless civil war.
Had they not done what they did, we would be looking at a different DRC today.
Sadc is the only region that has resisted imperialist machinations.
Like true brothers, we have fought alongside our neighbours in their times of need and in furtherance of a noble cause and a just war.
This has made Sadc a bloc to reckon with and it is this kind of unity that the West fears in its arrogant engagement with Southern Africa.
The imperialists are on the prowl in our region and are looking for weak and ideologically gullible states to get an entry point to exploit Southern Africa for their own benefit.
Sadc is strategically important in global economic issues.
The region has oil, platinum, gold, uranium, diamonds, huge tracts of virgin forest and other natural resources too numerable to recount here.
And by fomenting disunity and instability the West hopes to get access to these resources by hook and by crook.
It is for this reason that it is important now for the region to stand by the test case that is Zimbabwe come what may so that this region does not become another Middle East where the West has managed to create a never-ending war that allows them to exploit the oil in that part of the world.
Our sovereignty and territorial integrity are key to our development as individual countries as well as a regional grouping.
Sadc is the only regional body on the African continent, if not the whole world, that has managed to maintain peace and order, which are vital pre-requisites for the improvement in the lives of ordinary people.
It has consistently managed to deal with its political challenges in total defiance of America’s subversive interests and the West’s wider agenda for domination of our natural resources.
No other regional grouping, whether in West, North or East Africa has managed to do what Sadc has done in this regard and it is for this reason that the West cannot accept the deal that President Mbeki brokered.
The West cannot formally recognise the settlement because it does not see what it stands to benefit and this is what every Zimbabwean and indeed every African should be aware of: the West does not care about what is good for us
and so we too should not care what they say or think.
The West is finding it hard to swallow its pride and eat humble pie. It will be difficult for the United States to even start thinking about repealing the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act.
Similarly it is difficult for Britain and its allies in the European Union to begin contemplating lifting their sanctions regime without a similar reversal of the Land Reform Programme and the wider indigenisation drive in Zimbabwe.
We should therefore start watching out for possible next moves by our enemies to subvert the progress achieved over the past weeks.
They are obviously going to start trying to tell the world that the agreement is not being implemented properly because President Mugabe is frustrating Tsvangirai.
We should not rule out outright sabotage from the West as it seeks to throw spanners in the works.
Right now as the parties discuss the sharing of Cabinet posts, all stakeholders, and in fact all Zimbabweans, should be on the lookout for individuals, groups and countries that try and muscle their way into the negotiations through the back-door.
Do not be surprised if unsubstantiated press reports start surfacing claiming that so-and-so is negotiating in bad faith or is trying to engineer a raw deal.
These reports should be taken for what they are: an attempt to derail out progress and open the country to more the kind of baseless propaganda attacks and economic warfare that we have seen in the past decade.
I foresee a situation in the not too distant future where there will be serious agitation from the usual quarters for Tsvangirai and Mutambara to pull out of the all-inclusive Government.
The fervent hope of the nation is that Tsvangirai and Mutambara will not allow the West to manipulate the internal dynamics and processes of our sovereign political systems for the sake of progress.
Zimbabweans have already proved that with their own initiative and the assistance of well meaning friends within the region they can deal with their challenges in a holistic manner.
http://www.herald.co.zw/``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xBeware, imperialists still on the prowl``x1221923849,69761,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xFull 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 solving her challenges and problems which are often the remnants of colonialism. African leaders, working together, were able to find an African solution to an African problem. In that regard, I wish to pay special tribute to President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa, whose patience, fortitude, sensitivity, diplomatic skills and painstaking work made it possible for the Zimbabwean parties to overcome what had appeared to be insurmountable and intractable difficulties to reaching agreement.
I would like to extend my thanks to SADC, the African Union and individual African and other leaders, who lent their support to this initiative. My Party, Zanu (PF), will abide by the spirit and letter of the agreement to which we have appended our signature. As government, we are prepared to cooperate with all countries which also respect Zimbabwe's sovereignty. I would, therefore, like to appeal to those members of the international community who have imposed illegal sanctions against Zimbabwe to lift them so that my country can focus, undisturbed, on its economic turn-around programme.
In conclusion, Mr President, we hope that we will continue to shape an organisation which upholds universal values and interests, which attends to the urgent needs of those in need and which remains at the service of humanity.
I thank you.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xStatement to the UN General Assembly by President Mugabe``x1222427757,8637,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xFrom 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.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xRemove 'demonic' illegal sanctions, President Mugabe tells West``x1222428292,71728,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy 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``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe's undemocratic 'democrats'``x1223689158,59148,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy 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.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xWestern Media Bias in Coverage of Contested Elections``x1225914775,69346,Development``x``x
``xBy 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.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xDivisions rock MDC-T``x1226986557,30059,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xDecember 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. ``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xNo land changes: Zimbabwe Govt``x1228112846,70498,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy 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.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe: Cholera now national emergency``x1228494489,24692,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xen.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``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xNamibia slams Botswana for 'war' on Zimbabwe``x1228553169,48662,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xNew 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``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xBotswana's Macho Politics on Zimbabwe``x1228608022,39537,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy 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``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xCholera Outbreak Outcome of West's War on Zimbabwe``x1228820736,60877,Development``x``x
``xHerald 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.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe: UN, Sadc teams arrive``x1228820778,4176,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy 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``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xUsing Cholera for Regime Change in Zimbabwe``x1228822288,3628,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xHerald 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.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe: Africa says no to military intervention``x1228898046,10194,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xIkulu 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``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xTanzania rules out military intervention on Zimbabwe``x1228898427,3017,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy 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``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xWest must stop living in the past``x1228997459,80164,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xDecember 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.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe: WHO visits Mudzi``x1229027299,59984,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xHerald 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."``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xSouth Africa rallies behind President Mugabe``x1229047641,26535,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xHerald 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.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``x'US masterminded cholera outbreak'``x1229156757,36639,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xDecember 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.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xSanctions to blame for cholera``x1229156783,90222,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xNo. 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.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xFresh elections if inclusive Govt does not materialise``x1229156849,28340,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xAngola 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``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xThree questions to ask about Zimbabwe’s cholera outbreak``x1229435891,12503,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xHerald 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.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xSadc unveils aid package``x1229946605,29081,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xHerald 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.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZim Govt scoffs at US regime change calls``x1230053713,17927,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xHerald 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.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xMDC's Chaibva slams Tsvangirai``x1230053885,7179,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy 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.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``x Tsvangirai behaving like Savimbi``x1230054391,50061,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy 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.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xEngaging in the Illegal and the Illegitimate``x1231052782,88004,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy 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.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe: New Govt by February``x1231153322,2254,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy 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.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xWest controlling Tsvangirai: Mutambara``x1231153662,79263,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy 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.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xMDC-T in crisis talks``x1231499965,5208,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy 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.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xJoin Govt, SA tells MDC-T``x1231642641,57929,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xHerald 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/``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xMDC-T divided over inclusive Govt``x1231833257,1792,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xHerald 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.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe: D-Day for inclusive Govt``x1232330812,61570,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xJanuary 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.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xSadc position paper on Zimbabwe``x1232453506,1209,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy 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.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe: Talks inconclusive``x1232453558,76047,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy 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.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xIs Obama just playing good cop?``x1232917232,18176,Development``x``x
``xCAJ 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.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xMDC-T rioters shot``x1233069843,11905,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xFrom 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.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe President meets UN chief``x1233590846,77060,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xHerald 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.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe: Tsvangirai sworn-in``x1234444539,79455,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xby 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.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xFreedom of My Caribbean Soul``x1234938667,56337,Development``x``x
``xBy 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.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe: Tsvangirai in horror crash``x1236396409,50002,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy 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.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xObama, Bush: Two sides of the same coin``x1236506194,439,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xMarch 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.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe: Tsvangirai Crash a Genuine Accident - UK``x1236587754,73087,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy 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.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xTsvangirai's Accident with UK and US Aid``x1236610923,70219,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy 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.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xTsvangirai crash: More questions than answers``x1237019061,16285,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xHerald 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.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe's Land reform irreversible: Mutambara``x1239400214,24134,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xThe 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.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xU-turn in UK's Zimbabwe policy welcome``x1240811076,72280,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy 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.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xSwine flu exposes West's hypocrisy``x1243232725,17908,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy 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.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xMedia fabrications impede economic recovery efforts``x1243233117,32176,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xMonday, 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.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xMDC-T boycott: President Mugabe Speaks Out``x1246917975,86515,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xFollowing 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``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe, Africa and Neo-Colonialism``x1247511836,30372,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xCAJ 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.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xSouth Africa, Namibia stand by Zimbabwe``x1253656511,43492,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xSeptember 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. ``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xTranscript: Christiane Amanpour interviews Robert Mugabe``x1253969571,41821,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xThe 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.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``x176 000 Farmers to Benefit From Input Scheme``x1255230442,64466,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xThe 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``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe: Roy Bennett locked up``x1255589470,31961,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xEDITOR — 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.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xBennett: Let the law take its course``x1255703796,23082,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xEDITOR — 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``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xMDC-T does not respect rule of law``x1256019728,71337,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy 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".``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xTsvangirai still PM, says Govt``x1256019927,22298,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xThe 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.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xMDC-T trying to muscle Zanu-PF from power: Pres Mugabe``x1256432183,54378,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xThe 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.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xMDC-T "disengagement": Much ado about nothing``x1256433488,68526,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xThe 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.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xMinister Biti Breaks Ranks With MDC-T``x1256937658,61589,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xThe 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.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xAfghanistan exposes US double standards``x1257242840,98684,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xThe 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.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe: Kabila engages GPA principals``x1257242887,11143,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy 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.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe: President Raps West's Carbon``x1261054870,74417,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy 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``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xLancaster House revisited``x1261407452,12097,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy 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.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe: Lancaster House - the US Perspective``x1261512428,47933,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy 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``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xThe British Governor. Will he have plumes and a horse?``x1261599280,56183,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy 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``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xThe Struggle for Zimbabwe - Encircling the Cities?``x1261685953,73608,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy 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.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xLand - A cornerstone of Lancaster House settlement``x1262031647,50723,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy 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.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xThe Lancaster House Agreement: Tongogara's One Goal``x1262062617,25401,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy 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/ ``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xAfricom - Latest U.S. Bid to Recolonise Continent``x1263288375,61268,Development``x``x
``xAFRICAN 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``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xAfrican alibi: What we learn from Anglo-Saxon fear of Lumumba, President``x1268099662,22704,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy 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.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xBridging The Divide to Rebuild Zimbabwe``x1271968018,82022,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy 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``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xRacism, Reparations and the Politics of Blame: Pardon You``x1273266715,33938,Development``x``x
``xJuly 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``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xTracing History of Capitalist Deceit``x1279521773,29795,Development``x``x
``xBy Stephen Gowans
August 21, 2010 - gowans.wordpress.com
The received wisdom among Western governments, journalists and some concerned progressive scholars is that there have been no broad-based, economic sanctions imposed upon Zimbabwe. Instead, in their view, there are only targeted sanctions, with limited effects, aimed at punishing President Robert Mugabe and the top leadership of the Zanu-PF party. The sanctions issue, they say, is a red herring Mugabe and his supporters use to divert attention from the true cause of Zimbabwe's economic meltdown: redistribution of land from white commercial farmers to hundreds of thousands of indigenous families, a program denigrated as "economic mismanagement".
Yet, it has always been clear to anyone willing to do a little digging that there are indeed broad-based economic sanctions against Zimbabwe; that there have been since 2001, when US president George W. Bush signed them into law; that they were imposed in response to Zimbabwe's land reform program; and that Zimbabwe's economic meltdown happened after sanctions were imposed, not before.
US sanctions, implemented under the US Democracy and Economic Recovery Act, effectively block Zimbabwe's access to debt relief and balance of payment support from international financial institutions. In addition, the EU and other Western countries have imposed their own sanctions.
On occasion, Mugabe's detractors have been caught out in their deceptions about sanctions being targeted solely at a few highly placed members of Zanu-PF rather than the economy, and therefore Zimbabweans, as a whole. At those times, they have countered that while sanctions may exist, they have had little impact, and anyway, they play into Mugabe's hands. As progressive scholar Horace Campbell put it: "The Zimbabwe government is very aware of the anti-imperialist and anti-racist sentiments among oppressed peoples and thus has deployed a range of propagandists inside and outside the country in a bid to link every problem in Zimbabwe to international sanctions by the EU and USA."
Campbell turns reality on its head. The fact of the matter is that the US government has deployed a range of propagandists, both within and outside Zimbabwe, in a bid to link every problem in Zimbabwe to the alleged folly of redistributing land stolen by European settlers to the descendants of the original owners.
Campbell's argument echoes similar sophistry used to excuse the US blockade on Cuba. Economic sanctions on Cuba, the Castros' detractors argue, have had little impact on the island's economy, and are used by the Cuban government to falsely link its economic difficulties to US economic warfare. The Castros, they say, stay in power by diverting attention from their own mismanagement and laying blame for their country's economic problems at Washington's doorstep. That this argument holds no water is evidenced by the reality that Washington could easily deprive the Cuban communists of their alleged diversionary tactics by lifting the sanctions, but choose not to.
The idea that power-hungry leaders exploit mild sanctions as a dishonest manoeuvre to disguise their failings is insupportable. Far from having little impact, economic sanctions devastate economies; that's their purpose. Denying the role they play in ruining economies is tantamount to denying that dropping napalm on villages creates wastelands. John Mueller and Karl Mueller pointed out in a famous 1999 article titled "Sanctions of Mass Destruction" – it appeared in the May/June 1999 issue of the uber-establishment journal Foreign Affairs – that:
...the big countries have at their disposal a credible, inexpensive, and potent weapon for use against small and medium-sized foes. The dominant powers have shown that they can inflict enormous pain at remarkably little cost to themselves or the global economy. Indeed, in a matter of months or years whole economies can be devastated...
The improbable idea that sanctions have little impact invites the question: If they make little difference, why do Western governments deploy them so often? Supporters of the view that sanctions are minor inconveniences that punish a few powerful leaders, who then exploit them to draw attention away from their own economic management, expect us to believe that the leaders of major powers are simpletons who devise ineffective sanctions policies – and that they persist despite their sanctions playing into the hands of the sanctions' targets.
If the sanctions supporters' laughable logic and the reality that US sanction legislation is on the public record for all to see weren't enough, legislation brought forward by US Senator Jim Inhofe ought to lay to rest the deception that sanctions haven't torpedoed Zimbabwe's economy.
The title of Inhofe's bill, the Zimbabwe Sanctions Repeal Act of 2010, makes clear that sanctions have indeed been imposed on Zimbabwe and have had deleterious effects. According to the bill, now that the Western-backed Movement for Democratic Change holds senior positions in Zimbabwe's power-sharing government, US sanctions against Zimbabwe need to be repealed "in order to restore fully the economy of Zimbabwe." In other words, sanctions are preventing Zimbabwe's economy from flourishing – the same point Mugabe has been making for years, cynically say his critics.
Yet, while the implication of Inhofe's bill is that sanctions have undermined Zimbabwe's economy (otherwise, why would economic recovery require their repeal?) Inhofe tries to disguise the role US sanctions originally played in creating an economic catastrophe in Zimbabwe, arguing that the sanctions were imposed only after Mugabe allegedly turned Zimbabwe into a basket case by democratizing patterns of land ownership. But it makes more sense to say that sanctions ruined the economy. After all, the purpose of economic sanctions is to wreak economic havoc. And what would be the point of trying to devastate Zimbabwe's economy after Mugabe had allegedly already ruined it? Finally, in pressing for the repeal of sanctions to allow for economic recovery, Inhofe acknowledges that the sanctions do indeed have crippling consequences.
Inhofe may be able to argue (improbably) that the sanctions were imposed to punish Zimbabwe for Harare's economic mismanagement (which would mean that Washington expected Zimbabweans to suffer an additional blow on top of the one already meted out by Harare's alleged mismanagement – a pointless cruelty, if true); but he can't argue that the sanctions didn't undermine the country's economy: his bill acknowledges this very point
Finally, the fact that Inhofe's legislation seeks repeal of the sanctions because the MDC holds key positions in the Zimbabwean government, reveals that the MDC, as much as sanctions, is an instrument of US foreign policy. Sanctions were rolled out in response to land redistribution with the aim of crippling the economy so that the ensuing economic chaos could be attributed to land reform itself. With MDC members brought into a power-sharing government in key posts, it has become necessary in the view of Inhofe and others that sanctions be lifted to allow an economic recovery. If the bill is ratified and signed into law, the ensuing recovery will be attributed to the efforts of the MDC cabinet members, an attribution that that will be just as misleading as linking the destructive effects of sanctions to Zanu-PF's efforts to fulfill the land redistribution aspirations of the national liberation struggle. The major part of Zimbabwe's economic troubles – and a large part of the prospects for economic recovery – are sanctions-related.
Source: gowans.wordpress.com``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xUS Senator comes clean on Zimbabwe sanctions``x1284309941,5039,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Farirai Machivenyika
September 17, 2010 - The Herald
INCOMING European Commissioner to Zimbabwe Mr Aldo Dell'Ariccia yesterday acknowledged the existence of a free Press in Zimbabwe and pledged to normalise strained relations during his term here.
Speaking after presenting his credentials to President Mugabe at State House, Ambassador Dell'Ariccia exp-ressed confidence that Zimbabwe-EU dialogue would achieve the desired results.
"I have been in this country for the past eight days and what I can tell you is that there is a Press that is free.
"You can read newspapers in this country and have a feeling of independent information," he said.
On Zimbabwe-EU dialogue, Amba-ssador Dell'Ariccia said: "The aim is to achieve good relations and I think that we have to progress in a secure way.
"I am convinced that it is conceivable and achievable."
The European Commissioner des-cribed his discussions with President Mugabe as cordial.
"It was a friendly experience and we discussed the relationship be-tween the EU and Zimbabwe and the way forward.
"My mandate here is to re-establish the relationship that exists between the EU and Zimbabwe and I am optimistic it will happen," he said.
The EU imposed illegal economic sanctions on Zimbabwe citing, among other issues, the non-existence of free media and human rights abuses.
Dialogue between the two has stalled with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicating the EU is not interested in normalising ties.
The new Swedish Ambassador to Zimbabwe, Mr Anders Liden, said he wanted relations between the two countries to improve.
"We have had a very good discussion together and he (President Mugabe) reminded me of the old times when we supported Zimbabwe's liberation struggle.
"I am looking to the future to see if we can go back to the good old days," he said.
Sweden is an EU member.
Holland's new top envoy here, Ms Helena Joziasse, said she would work to open bilateral dialogue.
"The discussion (with President Mugabe) focused on ways to further dialogue with the people of Zimba-bwe.
"We discussed ways we can co-operate in various areas like agriculture, water management, transport and so many other fields," she said.
A further four new ambassadors from Kenya, Malawi, Serbia and the Slovak Republic also presented their credentials to the President.
Ambassadors Ladislav Straka (Slovakia) and Goran Vujic (Serbia) pledged to strengthen ties between Zimbabwe and their respective countries.
Nairobi's chief diplomat in Harare, Ms Josephine Awour, said she would work to resuscitate the Zimbabwe-Kenya Joint Commission.
"Kenya and Zimbabwe enjoy good relations and my job is to strengthen those cordial relations and increase trade and resuscitate the joint commission, which has been dormant for a while now," she said.
Malawi's Ambassador Richard Phoya said he would want Zimbabwe to assist his country in the education sector.
"The relationship between Malawi and Zimbabwe is extremely good and so I am here to make sure that relationship is maintained and uplifted.
"I want to see Zimbabwe companies operating in Malawi and Malawian companies operating in Zimbabwe.
"I also want to take advantage of your educated people and see how we can tap into their expertise," he said.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe's Press free: EU``x1284765792,35087,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xFull transcript of a speech delivered by President Mugabe at a high-level plenary meeting on Millennium Development Goals in New York - September 21, 2010.
Your Excellencies, the President of the 65th Session of the General Assembly, Mr Joseph Deiss, and the President of the 64th Session of the General Assembly, Dr Ali Treki, Your Majesties, Your Excellencies, Heads of State and Government, Your Excellency, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Mr Ban Ki-moon, Distinguished Delegates, Ladies and Gentlemen, Comrades and Friends.
I wish to thank you, Mr President and the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Mr Ban Ki-moon, for convening this very important meeting.
Co-Chairs, You will recall that we gathered in this august Assembly in the year 2000 and agreed on a set of social and humanitarian deliverables which we appropriately called the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).
We then set out separately and collectively as member-states to achieve our targets.
We now meet, five years before the target year 2015, to review the state of implementation of those goals, to share experiences, identify obstacles and, possibly, chart a course of accelerated action to achieve the Millennium Development Goals.
Co-Chairs, while there is reason to celebrate the progress attained in some areas, the challenges that remain are serious and many.
The recent economic and financial crises wreaked havoc on our previously confident march towards 2015.
Resources dwindled, priorities had to be re-arranged, and for many of us in the developing world, sources of support were reduced, or even lost completely.
Yet, we remain determined, even in these circumstances, to achieve the MDGs in particular, and other internationally agreed commitments in general.
Co-Chairs, from the onset, Zimbabwe has demonstrated unwavering commitment towards the implementation of the MDGs.
We set up an MDGs steering committee in 2000 to track and report progress on implementation.
We initially prioritised Goals 1 – Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger, 3 – Promote gender equality and empower women, and 6 – Combat HIV/Aids, malaria and other diseases, which we viewed as critical to the achievement of all the other goals.
Even as our economy suffered from illegal sanctions imposed on the country by our detractors, we continued to deploy and direct much of our own resources towards the achievement of the targets we set for ourselves.
Indeed, we find it very disturbing and regrettable that after we all agreed to work towards the improvement of the lives of our citizens, some countries should deliberately work to negate our efforts in that direction.
I believe that as we sit here today and re-dedicate ourselves to the achievement of the MDGs in the time frame we set ourselves, this noble effort on our part will only reach fruition if all of us walk our talk.
Our MDGs steering committee has produced three reports since its formation.
The reports show that we have registered mixed results.
Despite our best efforts, we fell short of our targets because of the illegal and debilitating sanctions imposed on the country, and, consequently, the incidence of poverty in Zimbabwe remains high.
As a result of these punitive measures and despite our turnaround economic plan, the Government of Zimbabwe has been prevented from making a positive difference in the lives of the poor, the hungry, the sick and the destitute among its citizens.
This, Co-Chairs, is regrettable because Zimbabwe has a stable economic and political environment.
We have the resources, and with the right kind of support from the international community, we have the potential to improve the lives of our people.
Co-Chairs, Zimbabwe’s commitment to the education of its people is well-known.
Since independence in 1980 there has been a massive expansion in primary, secondary and tertiary education.
A lot of investment has gone into human capital development.
Relevant policies, including the Early Childhood Development Policy, have ensured that net enrolments in schools remain high.
As you may be aware, Mr President, according to recent Unicef reports, Zimbabwe has the highest literacy rate in Africa.
Co-Chairs, I am also pleased to inform you that Zimbabwe is set to reach the gender parity target in both primary and secondary school enrolment.
The country has also made strides in attaining gender parity in enrolment and completion rates at tertiary education.
We have signed and ratified a number of international and regional gender instruments and promulgated national policies and laws on gender.
Nevertheless, we are lagging behind in regard to gender equal participation in decision-making in all sectors by 2015.
Women still lag behind.
While there has been a slight increase in the number of women Parliamentarians from 14 percent in 1990-95 to the current target of 30 percent, we are concerned that this is still below the 2005 target of 30 percent.
Co-Chairs, regarding Goal 6, my country has registered significant progress in lowering the HIV and Aids prevalence rate.
The estimated prevalence rate in adults aged 15-49 years was 23,7 percent in 2001.
This dropped to 18,1 percent in 2005 and declined further to 14,3 percent in 2009.
This decline was achieved despite lack of support from the international community, and at a time when even issues such as HIV and Aids were politicised and mixed with agendas of regime change.
My Government greatly appreciates the assistance it is now receiving from the Global Fund and other agencies.
We remain concerned about the incidence of HIV and Aids in our country and hope that it will continue to decline significantly as Government strengthens prevention efforts.
Co-Chairs, we are worried about the limited progress we have made in the area of environmental sustainability.
The impact of climate change, as evidenced by recurrent droughts, flooding, unreliable and unpredictable rainfall seasons, has wreaked havoc on the lives of our people, most of whom depend on agriculture for a living.
In addition, efforts by Government to provide clean water, decent sanitation and shelter for both urban and rural dwellers, have suffered as a result of the illegal sanctions imposed by some Western countries.
We applaud those in the international community who have responded to our appeal for assistance to address these urgent challenges.
Co-Chairs, my country remains convinced that the MDG targets are achievable.
What is needed is political commitment, particularly, on the part of developed count- ries.
There is need to ensure that commitments already made are not reduced even in the light of new demands.
Aid delivery and co-ordination mechanisms must not be hampered by political biases and preferences.
Let us keep the promise we made 10 years ago.
Let us all strive to make 2015 a watershed year, a year when poverty, hunger, disease and other ailments which are impediments in life can be completely prevented.
Let us henceforth forge a wide-ranging global partnership to make the world a better place for all its peoples, now and in the future.
I thank you.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xPresident Mugabe: Speech to UN on MDGs``x1285156989,87054,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Takunda Maodza
October 15, 2010 - The Herald
PRESIDENT Mugabe has said the constitution-making process should be concluded within the lifespan of the Global Political Agreement to facilitate elections mid-next year because he is not interested in extending the life of the inclusive Government.
The GPA – which gave birth to the inclusive Govern-ment that brought together Zanu-PF, MDC-T and MDC – has a lifespan of 24 months that is set to end in February next year.
President Mugabe said a referendum should be held in the first three months of the year, and elections mid-next year.
Addressing the Zanu-PF National Youth Assembly in Harare yesterday, President Mugabe expressed dismay at Mr Tsvangirai's propensity to invite foreigners, particularly Europeans, into Zimbabwe's domestic affairs.
He said that was not the basis on which the inclusive Government was formed.
The constitution-making process, President Mugabe said, was almost complete and a referendum has to be conducted to pave way for elections.
"The life of this creature called the GPA is only two years and it started in February last year. So, February this year it was one year down.
"February next year, which is about four months to go, then it will have lived its full life and I do not know what is going to happen if we are not ready with a constitution.
"Some will say let us negotiate and give it another life. I am reluctant because part of the things that are happening (in the inclusive Government) are absolutely foolish and stupid."
President Mugabe said the inclusive Government was formed to resolve domestic issues internally with the assistance of Sadc and the African Union; not Europeans.
The Head of State and Government and Commander-in-Chief of the Zimbabwe Defence Forces said MDC-T relied on the same Europe and America that imposed illegal sanctions on the country.
He said he had no objections to constitution-making being given more time to wind up, but was totally against giving the inclusive Government another lease of life.
"We have to work on the outreach programme quickly so that we do not offend the life of the inclusive Government.
"If it is a question of just a couple more months, then I will have no objections but to give it another life of six months or one year, no, no, no."
President Mugabe said he anticipated the referendum in the first quarter of 2011 and elections to take place mid next year.
"I do not see any reason why we cannot do that. So, are you prepared for elections?" he asked to thunderous yeses from delegates.
The President urged youths to desist from violence during elections.
"Discipline, discipline; no to violence. We want very peaceful elections.
"We are a dynamic party, a party with history, a party with a leadership that has principles," he said.
President Mugabe said unlike the "clueless" MDC formations, Zanu-PF has sound principles and policies.
"All they have is 'Mugabe must go', 'Zanu-PF must go'. All they have is regime change like their masters.
"A regime change they will never see," he added.
"Who are you to say 'he must go'? Tell us imi vanaTsvangirai. Tiudzei kuti maivepi Zanu-PF ichirwira nyika? Where were you?" he asked to enthusiastic applause.
President Mugabe warned the MDC formations against reversing gains brought through the barrel of the gun.
He said: "So there is this other lot which does not accept that we are a complete people without the Europeans coming to us and being by our side. That is the MDC.
"Iye zvino muGPA vanomhanya kuvarungu ndiko kwavanotaura kumaBritish, maGermans, maFrench.
"Vanokokwa uyai munzwe ndizvo zvirikuita VaMugabe varikuramba kutipa nzvimbo dzemagovernors, varikuramba kutipa ma ambassadors.
"We are not sellouts. Who are those people you go to, to explain differences?
"What are they to you? You are not complete without them ... your thinking can only be complete when the white men say this is right ..."
President Mugabe reminded MDC-T that the only good imperialist was a dead one.
His meeting with the youth leadership executive was the first since it was elected into office last year.
Speaking to journalists after his address, President Mugabe dismissed as "nonsensical" claims by MDC-T that he unilaterally appointed ambassadors and judges.
He said the party was aware of the developments a long time ago.
"It's politicking by the MDC, which is absolutely nonsensical."
President Mugabe said due processes were followed.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xNo GPA extension: President``x1287178391,666,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xThe Zimbabwe Herald
October 19, 2010 - The Herald
WHEN the plane of Mozambique's revolutionary leader, Samora Machel, crashed on the night of October 19, 1986 killing him and 34 others, Apartheid South Africa immediately blamed it on "pilot error".
"The Russian crew were high on Vodka," crowed Pik Botha, the then foreign minister.
Now a new investigation into the crash is proving too hot for South Africa's hitherto "untouchables".
It was with deep consternation that Apartheid South Africa saw the passing of the Portuguese in Mozambique.
The apartheid government dreaded the domino effect.
A revolutionary government led by Samora Machel had taken over power in Mozambique on June 25, 1975, and had started nationalising Portuguese plantations and property.
In addition, he was giving active support, and rear bases in Mozambique, to liberation groups fighting the white minority regimes in Rhodesia and South Africa.
In response, Apartheid South Africa and Rhodesia strangled the Mozambican economy, and created the Mozambican rebel group, Renamo, which set about killing peasants and destroying schools and hospitals built by Machel's Frelimo ruling party.
But the South African support for Renamo and Rhodesia could not stop Zimbabwe's independence in 1980, after which apartheid South Africa grew even more desperate as the inevitable drew closer.
Meanwhile, destabilisation of the young Mozambican state increased dramatically.
Renamo became more vicious.
And even though the Inkomati Accord, a non-aggression pact, agreeing to avoid war or armed conflict between them and resolve their disputes through peaceful negotiations, had been signed between Mozambique and South Africa, Machel's continued support for Nelson Mandela's ANC became a festering sore.
Thus, on October 14, 1986, Machel left his capital, Maputo, to attend a meeting of the Front Line States.
On the agenda was a co-ordinated effort to end apartheid in South Africa.
Before his departure, Machel had organised a meeting with journalists, Frelimo party leaders and the Mozambican military and had told them that he had information that the South African government wanted him dead.
He then left clear instructions on what to do in the event of his death.
On the night of October 19, Machel was returning from the meeting when his plane, travelling over Zimbabwe towards Maputo, crashed into a hillside of the Lebombo Mountains, inside South Africa at Mbuzini, near the junction where the borders of Mozambique, Swaziland and South Africa meet.
Interestingly, the crash site was also near a South African military air base in Komatipoort.
In all, 34 people died, including Machel himself; but 10 others survived, one of whom was a member of the Russian crew, Vladimir Novosselov.
In an interview with the Russian newspaper, Pravda, a month after the incident, Novosselov recounted:
"I am convinced that it was not an accident, but a case of foul play . . . When flying over Zambia, the altimeter, showed 11 400. When we crossed the Mozambican frontier, the Tupolev descended to 10 600. Yuri Novodron [the pilot] ordered contact to be made with Maputo Airport, requesting authorisation to land.
The airport services granted the request.
"Weather conditions were favourable for the flight. Maputo was ahead and to the left of the pilots. To the right and very close was the Mozambique-South African border. We were gradually descending. The altitude was 5 200 metres. Then we dropped to 3 000 metres. We were 113km from Maputo. Novodron switched off the auto-pilot and took over the manual controls. He was an excellent pilot . . . We descended to less than 1 000 metres. The last thing I remember was that the altimeter was reading 970 metres, after that nothing."
In the international controversy that followed the crash, one fact has never been in dispute among the South Africans, the Mozambicans and the Russians.
The Russian Tupolev 134 plane took its death plunge towards the South African border away from Maputo because it was following signals of a VOR navigational beacon, which was not that of Maputo.
They all agree that the plane was misdirected, making a 37-degree turn over Magude, about 100km northwest of Maputo. On approaching Maputo from the left, it rather flew to the right, away from Maputo.
The presidential plane, manufactured in 1980, carried electronic equipment of the current generation using integrated circuits. There is no suggestion that the plane malfunctioned.
Satellite photographs on that day showed that the weather over southern Mozambique was good.
Even though there was a slight increase in cloud cover, visibility remained good.
The Russian crew were found to be sober and physically capable of carrying out their duties. They were of proven competence. The pilot had been flying for 25 years.
The transcript of the cockpit voice recorder had the captain saying: "Making some turns, couldn't it be straight?" To which the navigator replied: "VOR indicates that way." Those words proved ominous. The South African "Margo Commission", set up and run by themselves, proclaimed the crash an accident. It blamed it on "pilot error" but confirmed that the plane had locked on to another VOR which had been mistaken for that of Maputo.
The question was: "Whose VOR caused this so-called pilot error? Where was it stationed? What subsequently happened to the phantom VOR?"
At the Margo hearing (which took place from January 20-28, 1987), the South African government tried very hard to extricate itself from complicity.
It argued that the plane had locked on to a VOR at Matsapa, an airport near Manzini in Swaziland.
They claimed it was the only legitimate VOR which could conceivably be mistaken for Maputo.
But the snag was, the Matsapa and Maputo VORs operated on distinct frequencies and could not be confused by the Russian crew which had flown in and out of Maputo dozens of times and had made 70 percent of their landings at night. Besides, the VOR dial among the instruments of the wrecked plane was locked in at 112,7 Mhz, the correct frequency for Maputo.
Secondly, a projection of the plane's flight into Swaziland's airspace passes 35km to the east of Matsapa. And when a plane follows a VOR, it should eventually pass directly over it.
The only other reasonable explanation was that the plane was lured from its route by a powerful decoy VOR transmitting on the same frequency as that of Maputo.
No such VOR was installed in the whole Southern African region unless it was transported to the vicinity for a purpose.
Such a mobile VOR would have had to be transported by a three-ton truck and would require considerable expertise. The only player with the motive, will and capacity to execute such an operation was the apartheid regime.
Two weeks before the crash, on October 7 1986, the South African defence minister, Magnus Malan, had personally accused President Machel of renewing support for ANC rebels.
On that fateful night (October 19 1986), there was a significant concentration of South African Special Forces in the area. And there was a full military alert. Witnesses have testified to unusual activity including a campsite 150 metres from where the plane first made contact with the ground. This campsite disappeared the following day. The crash area itself was a restricted military zone with a high-powered state-of-the-art radar which the South African government admitted tracked Machel's plane for hundreds of kilometres, even when it was over Zimbabwe. Yet no warning was issued to the plane when it veered off course.
The crash happened at around 9.30pm. There have been unconfirmed reports of some top South African officials arriving at the site within 30 minutes to inspect the damage. Survivors indicate that the South African police arrived at about 2pm, five hours after the crash, and instead of helping the victims, busied themselves with removing documents and money (US dollars).
Medical help arrived at 6am (the next morning). Bodies were tampered with by the South African medical personnel who arrived on the scene (seven-centimetre incisions were made on six bodies).
Pretoria waited until 6.50am before telling Maputo. Even then they were told that the crash had taken place in the Natal province, 200km from the actual site in the Transvaal. Then they seized the Black Box, the cockpit voice recorder for several weeks.
And there followed massive media offensive, led by the South African foreign minister Pik Botha. He suggested that the Russian crew were high on Vodka. But the alcohol concentration was found to be normal for a decomposing corpse. Pik Botha said the plane was obsolete, which was far from the truth.
Some days later, he held a Press conference at which he exhibited a document allegedly taken from the wreckage which he claimed referred to a Zimbabwe-Mozambique plot to murder the South African friend, President Kamuzu Banda of Malawi. How that related to the innocence of South Africa with respect to the crash was another mystery. Pik Botha later admitted that the offensive was an attempt to deflect accusations. Recently, a member of Apartheid South Africa's notorious Civil Cooperation Bureau, has confirmed what the ANC and the Mozambican government have all along believed.
Edwin Louw, the CCB man, now serving a 28-year sentence for crimes committed outside the regime's instructions, has decided to come clean.
He has nothing to lose.
According to a report by the Sowetan newspaper's Sunday World, which has done a sterling job uncovering the truth, Louw has confirmed that Machel's death was no accident but by design.
The conclusion that the plane was brought down by a false beacon purposefully installed by covert forces of the apartheid regime was true, according to Louw.
He was part of a Plan B, a standby team armed with missiles and tasked with the job of ensuring that President Machel's plane came down, if Plan A failed.
According to Louw, his B team was not called into operation because the original plan to lure the plane off course with a false beacon worked.
This was done by intercepting the communication system of the plane, reminiscent of the Hollywood movie, Die Hard 2.
Louw, a Namibian, is apparently an old hand. In a rerun of the Machel murder, he has confessed that he was also on a team that lured an Angolan military plane off course by using a false beacon, causing a crash that killed key figures in the Angolan military in 1989.
In another twist, Louw claims he was part of a squad that spied on the Namibian activist, Anton Lubowski, whose death has remained a mystery.
He has promised to reveal the name of Lubowski's killers.
Now more skeletons are emerging from the cupboard as the revelations come to light.
Edwin Mudingi, a former Rhodesian Selous Scout operative, has joined the chorus.
He has corroborated Louw's story by confirming that he [Mudingi] was part of the standby hit squad.
"I was with Louw, armed with a portable surface to air missile to shoot down the plane if the plan to lure it away failed," Mudingi is reported to have said.
Speaking to the Sunday World, another CCB operative who now operates a taxi business, has further alleged that the operation to assassinate President Machel was approved by apartheid's premier security organ, the State Security Council.
According to him, the final briefing for the assassination was held at "Spitscop", the Special Forces headquarters in Pretoria on October 17, 1986, two days before Machel's death plunge.
He asserts that South African military intelligence received a tip-off from their spy in Mozambique that President Machel would fly back to Maputo on October 19. "Our CCB cell was then put on standby at the Hoedspruit air force base," disclosed Mudingi. "I challenge both the police and Scorpions to demand the Special Forces generals hand over the minutes of the October 17, 1986 briefing.
The operation has its name and the public have a right to know what it was." But that will be a tall order. When the prospect of black majority rule dawned, the apartheid government embarked on a massive dean up operation to cover its tracks. Tons of government documents were shredded!
Edwin Louw says he decided to confess after meeting with what he calls "Prime Evil" Eugene De-Kock, a notorious apartheid operative. A former member of the CCB and commander of Vlakplaas, De-Kock is serving several life sentences for murders that were deemed to be outside the services of the State.
Louw is again in court (at the time of writing) accused of being a hitman in six murders and 70 attempted murder cases. The evil that men do lives after them indeed!
Louw's former comfortable bosses, ostensibly immune from prosecution, are now quivering.
There have been reports that President Machel was alive when the plane crashed but was poisoned to death by a lethal injection. A special investigation unit probing this allegation claims to have statements from military police officers and eyewitnesses who say Machel was alive, and that he was indeed given an injection.
Pik Botha, the apartheid foreign minister for 17 years, is said to be one of the top officials who arrived at the scene of the crash within 30 minutes, accompanied by a doctor from the "Seventh Medical Battalion" based in Pretoria.
The battalion specialised in poisoning apartheid opponents and was headed by none other than Dr Wouter Basson, head of the apartheid secretive chemical and biological weapons project Pik Botha has denied this, saying he arrived a day after the crash and saw Machel "very dead".
The pathologist who conducted Machel's post-mortem, Dr J. Nel, has refuted the poison claim, saying there was no chance that Machel could have survived the crash.
He is the same doctor who says the seven-centimetre incisions made on the six bodies from the plane were to collect blood samples.
So, what happened to the beacon of death? A former member of South Africa's infamous Koevoet, says the security police disposed of the beacon by throwing it into the sea, off the Kwazulu-Natal coast at night. He claims to have first seen the beacon at the Tonga police station in Mpumalanga province the day after the crash, and saw it being transported in a truck escorted by heavily armed security police.
He claims to know the security police members who transported and got rid of the beacon.
But as divine justice will have it, the curtain has not fallen yet. Not just yet. — www.goliath_ecnet.com``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xThe day Botha killed Machel``x1287774049,49468,Development``x``x
``xBy Ravi Grover
The start of my deeper journey into sanatana dharma wasn't influenced by a guru, a spiritual master, or people in the South Asian community. It started with my exploration of the Black Civil Rights movement of the 60's. Many of the leading figures and writers of this era referenced the glory of earliest and ancient Black civilizations going back into antiquity. From there I started to read the various chronicles written by Afrocentric scholars, historians, and archaeologists.
These historians wrote about the first humans out of Africa. They challenged widely held beliefs like that the Pyramids were built by whites, and detailed the grandeur of various African empires that later civilized the Greeks and Romans. When books on these subjects were first published they were dismissed as exaggerated fiction. We now see volumes of evidence being discovered by archaeologists that affirm the knowledge documented by leading Black academics. After learning how much rich history and heritage existed amongst the globe's Black peoples and the high self esteem they held, I started reading books on indigenous America and then transitioned to Asian archaeology. I found out about similar pyramids and advanced cities that existed in ancient South Asia. And just as archaeologists and geneticists disproved theories that ancient Egypt was built by northern white Africans distinct from southern Black Africans, they also disproved theories that South Asia was "civilized" by fictionalized invading white Aryans who brought Sanskrit and the Vedas to northern India. From there I decided to study Hinduism in depth.
The Autobiography of Malcolm X was one of the first books that I read (and re-read) when researching the Black liberation movement. In several chapters Malcolm gives high praises to Gandhi and the people of India for their resistance against the British empire. Is it contradictory that a man regarded as a polarizing figure would praise Gandhi – someone historically known for being a pacifist? It shouldn't be if one takes a closer look.
While Malcolm was passionately loyal to his sect he had no problem praising those of outside religions. Several times in his autobiography, Minister X praised the people of India not only for their revolutionary spirit but also for being deeply "religious brown people." This included Hindus and he supported liberation for all oppressed peoples and frequently connected the struggles of Asian, African, Latino, and indigenous peoples to a common cause.
In addition, while Malcolm was portrayed as an advocate for violence he was never charged with any acts of unlawful behavior during his time as a minister. When learning that a Black man had been victim to police brutality and then imprisoned, Malcolm didn't demand his followers to pick up rifles. Instead he ordered his men to peacefully assemble in front of the police station. Malcolm then negotiated with the police chief to get the injured man medical treatment. Tactics like these were not all that different from methods used by Gandhi or Martin Luther King, Jr.
Lastly, Malcolm X wasn't one of those people who merely advertised his religious identity. He made sure to observe his tradition's principles and ensure that this was reflected in his lifestyle. While remembered for his fiery oratorical skills Malcolm's unswerving devotion to personal conduct tends to be glossed over. Like Nat Turner, Geronimo, or Gandhi, Malcolm X saw the need for spiritual discipline to go hand in hand with transformation of the greater society. He abstained from alcohol, observed laws and tenets, and executed worship on a regular basis. He also promoted proper speech and once stated that people who curse do so because they're not intelligent enough to articulate their thoughts properly. More importantly, he knew that serving others required self sacrifice. Finally, Malcolm preached cleanliness, mimicking Gandhi's creed of being next to Godliness (incidentally daily bathing is a necessary and ritual practice for a person dedicated to the spiritual path).
Reading Malcolm X, learning how he conducted himself while learning more about Hinduism helped me refine myself in executing dharma. Malcolm knew that he represented something both great and misunderstood so he made sure to present himself clean-cut in appearance and eloquent in speech. Because he knew his beliefs came under intense scrutiny he made sure to study as many books as he could as to answer any criticism intelligently. As a practitioner, I know there are a lot of misconceptions about Hinduism and animosity directed at dharmic traditions. After reading multiple versions of Hindu books with different commentaries and implementing practices in daily life, I came to the conclusion that this path was best suited for me. Seeing how Black scholars knew so much about their history and traditions I decided I also needed to know my tradition and religious heritage inside and out. In essence, part of the reason why we started a Hindu-Muslim unity website Dharma Deen Alliance (www.dharmadeen.com) was to share knowledge and answer all the misconceptions.
Is personal conduct unimportant and unrelated to advancing a broader cause? A person steeped in material excess may think leading a disciplined lifestyle like Malcolm X led lacks joy. But I can say from personal experience that I've seen people immersed in consistent spiritual practice experience a greater calm and happiness than those attached to quick stimulation. Activities like shopping, eating junk food, watching TV, or getting drunk certainly provide temporary relief. But they can't permanently eliminate stress or anxiety. And if anyone made that realization it was Malcolm X. A former hustler who used drugs and frequently looked for ways to make and spend money, he then turned his life around and experienced much greater peace and stability through devotional practice. And if someone like Malcolm Little can emerge from a vile background and generate so much clarity then it shows us what a powerful impact the path to Higher truth can have.
"...my religion is my personal business. It governs my personal life, my personal morals. And my religious philosophy is personal between me and the God in whom I believe; just as the religious philosophy of these others is between them and the God in whom they believe. And this is best this way...put your religion at home – in the closet. Keep it between you and your God. Because if it hasn't done anything more for you than it has, you need to forget it anyway." — Malcolm X, the Ballot or the Bullet``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xMalcolm X: How a Muslim leader compelled a Hindu to sharpen his dharma``x1288018366,14520,Development``x``x
``xBloodless coup plotted by exiles involved president sharing power with a prime minister – as eventually happened
By David Smith in Johannesburg
December 08, 2010 - guardian.co.uk
A bloodless coup was planned to remove Robert Mugabe as Zimbabwe's president with the help of pressure from the UN secretary general, according to classified US documents.
A group of exiled Zimbabwean businessman proposed in 2007 that Mugabe could be persuaded to hand over executive power to a prime minister before leaving office completely three years later. American officials welcomed the idea, noting that it was "increasingly in circulation" in the capital, Harare, and "may not require outside intervention".
The plot came to nothing, although it does bear similarities to the power sharing deal that saw Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) leader Morgan Tsvangirai become prime minister after violent elections in 2008.
A confidential memo from the US embassy in South Africa is entitled "Secret power sharing plan" and dated 30 January 2007. At the time Zimbabwe was plunging into an unprecedented economic crisis. The cable names a group of prominent Zimbabwean businessmen living in South Africa who were pushing for change but says their leader's identity should be "strictly protected".
Executive power was to be shifted from Mugabe to a "technocratic" prime minister. "To get Mugabe to accept the deal, Mugabe would remain president until 2010 with some power over the security apparatus, but the prime minister would run the economy and get the country back on its feet," the dispatch says.
"All parties would work together to draft a new constitution. [The businessman] was open to ideas on who best to sell the plan, but suggested new UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon, working through an envoy like former Malaysian PM Mahathir, as possible mediators."
Mugabe would have retained the power to appoint the ministers of defence, home affairs and national security. The prime minister would have appointed other cabinet members, particularly in the economic arena. Deployment of troops would have required the approval of both the PM and president.
In return for various reforms the international community was to agree on a phased lifting of sanctions, the "acceptance" of the extension of Mugabe's term to 2010 and economic assistance to help rehabilitate the Zimbabwean economy.
The prime minister would have needed the backing of 85% of parliament and therefore the support of the opposition MDC.
The US embassy said it could not comment on the merits of the plan but found it "encouraging" that senior Zimbabwean businessmen abroad were discussing solutions to the country's political and economic malaise.
"The four businessmen agreed that there is a 'window of opportunity' to bring positive change to Zimbabwe, opened by the deteriorating economic situation and Mugabe's advancing age and declining health."
Little detail was given on how Mugabe, a hero of the liberation struggle who came to power in 1980, could be persuaded to stand aside.
Moeletsi Mbeki, a South African businessman and brother of its then president, Thabo Mbeki, recommended against South Africa playing the mediation role, arguing instead for a combination such as Ban and Mahathir.
An additional note from the US embassy in Harare suggests the MDC endorsed the concept. It says Tsvangirai told embassy officials that "this is Mugabe's Plan B as he runs into growing resistance" and that the prime minister would be Simba Makoni, a former Mugabe ally turned rival.
"Significant outside intervention, therefore, may not be necessary; however, gentle encouragement from Pretoria is unlikely to be amiss. UN SYG [secretary general] Ban may not wish to engage on this issue at the beginning of his tenure, especially in view of the way Mugabe treated former UN SYG [Kofi] Annan.
"He fears for his future if he steps down – citing the Charles Taylor example [the former Liberian president now on trial for war crimes] – and perhaps even more importantly fears for the future of his wife and young children."
Another memo from the US embassy in Harare – with subheadings that include "How to get Mugabe out" – shows that a decade ago the MDC considered a "mass action" intended to force the president from office.
It details a breakfast meeting on 16 November 2000 between Tsvangirai and Susan Rice, then-president Bill Clinton's assistant secretary for African affairs.
"Mass action would be intended to pressure president Mugabe to resign," it says. "The MDC understands the serious risks associated with mass action, Tsvangirai professed, and recognises that it is in the country's best interest to avoid bloodshed."
Mass action would most likely have taken the form of a general strike that December, it adds. But brutal government retaliation was a genuine fear: "Tsvangirai believed the army wouldn't hesitate to shoot a lot of people.
"Tsvangirai was frank, confident and relaxed. However he did not convince us that the MDC has a clear or well thought out plan for mass action or what it would accomplish.
"Everyone is focused on seeing Mugabe go but it will probably take a convergence of opposition from Zanu-PF, the military and regional leaders to force him out."
The MDC leader was seeking foreign assistance with little success. "Tsvangirai mentioned that on his last visit to South Africa he met with former president [Nelson] Mandela – who still exerts great influence in South Africa, he stated – and urged the leader to intervene in Zimbabwe. He did not receive a firm commitment from Mandela, however, and did not see [Thabo] Mbeki.
"Tsvangirai said that when he was in the UK recently he told the British to refrain from making public statements on land reform in Zimbabwe and to use their influence behind the scenes to resolve the problem."
Even in 2000 Tsvangirai said that ideally the MDC would like to see a "transitional arrangement" over two years where Mugabe's Zanu-PF remained in power but brought in MDC ministers to arrest economic decline. Another eight years, with much bloodshed and hardship, were to pass before this became reality.
Source: guardian.co.uk``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xWikiLeaks cables reveal secret plan to push Mugabe out in Zimbabwe``x1291857871,79521,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xWednesday 8 December 2010
Reprinted from: guardian.co.uk
Wednesday, 10 February 2010, 13:00
C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 HARARE 000093
SIPDIS
AF/S FOR BRIAN WALCH
NSC FOR SENIOR AFRICA DIRECTOR MICHELLE GAVIN
ADDIS FOR USAU
EO 12958 DECL: 2020/02/10
TAGS PREL, PGOV, ZI
SUBJECT: XXXXXXXXXXXX's observations on the political landscape and
U.S.-Zimbabwe relations
REF: HARARE 87; HARARE 36
CLASSIFIED BY: Charles A. Ray, Ambassador, STATE, EXEC; REASON: 1.4(B), (D)
1. (SBU) Pol/econ chief met February 9 with XXXXXXXXXXXX offered his observations on various topics including the state of ZANU-PF, indigenization, and elections.
2. (C) ZANU-PF. XXXXXXXXXXXX described the party as badly fractured. It was like a stick of TNT, susceptible to ignition and disintegration. ZANU-PF was holding together because of the threat of MDC-T and foreign pressure. He likened ZANU-PF to a troop of baboons incessantly fighting among themselves, but coming together to face an external threat. New leadership was essential and would emerge as some of the old timers, including Robert Mugabe, left the scene. XXXXXXXXXXXX opined that Vice President Joice Mujuru or S.K. Moyo (former ambassador to South African and now party chair) were possibilities, although Mujuru's fear of Mugabe was affecting her ability to lead.
3. (C) MDC-T. According to XXXXXXXXXXXX, MDC-T is alienating supporters because of corruption. He pointed to the Harare suburb of Chitungwiza where MDC-T is investigating its councilors for being on the take. Residents of Chitungwiza blame the party. XXXXXXXXXXXX commented that part of the problem was that many MDC-T local councilors and parliamentarians elected in 2008 had no independent income. Unable to survive on their US$200/month salaries, they were now turning to graft. He also noted that the national party was not enabling parliamentarians to demonstrate, e.g. by bringing home pork, that they were working for their constituents.
4. (C) Elections. XXXXXXXXXXXX believed elections would take place in 2012 or 2013. Parliamentarians from all parties, particularly those who had no income before coming into office, had no interest in running again before necessary. They would try to stall the constitutional process.
5. (C) Global Political Agreement (GPA). XXXXXXXXXXXX thought there would be slow progress. In his opinion, the most important achievement of the GPA was the sidelining of Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe Governor Gideon Gono.
6. (C) Indigenization. Taking an opposite view to Minister of Youth and Indigenization Saviour Kasukuwere (Ref A), XXXXXXXXXXXX said the government's indigenization program benefitted nobody accept those who were already wealthy. It did nothing for his constituents, who couldn't afford to buy into companies and were living hand-to-mouth.
7. (C) Economic Recovery. XXXXXXXXXXXX said a primary focus should be communal lands where 80 percent of Zimbabweans live. Before the economy collapsed, he said the communal areas produced 80 percent of farm output consumed in the country. (NOTE: These numbers are indicative but not accurate. More than 30 percent of Zimbabweans live in urban areas, so somewhat less than 80 percent live on communal lands. But communal lands have long been the main source of Zimbabwe's domestic food supply. END NOTE.) Production dramatically decreased with the collapse of the economy as small farmers were no longer able to access inputs. Another factor was the Grain Marketing Board's requirement that crops be sold to it. It then failed to pay farmers. XXXXXXXXXXXX stated that international assistance would be necessary to resuscitate the economy. But
HARARE 00000093 002 OF 002
lesser steps were important. He volunteered that the Ambassador's Self Help Program had once been present in communal areas. It was a powerful indication of U.S. interest in helping Zimbabweans, and was of tremendous assistance to those who benefitted from projects.
8. (C) Sanctions and ZDERA. XXXXXXXXXXXX said sanctions on individuals should remain if justified by the behavior of these individuals. Sanctions on parastatals that were contributing or could contribute to the economy should be lifted. With regard to ZDERA, XXXXXXXXXXXX acknowledged that the IMF and World Bank had ceased activities in Zimbabwe before ZDERA was enacted. The economy was already on a downhill trajectory because of misguided economic policies and the disastrous land reform policy. But the passage of ZDERA was like slashing an already deflating tire. Many Zimbabweans viewed ZDERA as an attempt to hurt them when they were already suffering. As such, said Mudarikwa, ZDERA has a large symbolic value and should be repealed.
9. (C) XXXXXXXXXXXX
-------------
COMMENT
-------------
10. (C) XXXXXXXXXXXX's comments on ZANU-PF are representative of a large part of the party. There is little doubt that if a secret party election were held, Mugabe and his inner circle would lose their positions. But Mugabe, aided by the securocrats and through fear, still has control. On sanctions and ZDERA, most ZANU-PF members, even moderates, tell us they believe sanctions, especially on parastatals, and ZDERA have hurt the economy (though they cannot cite evidence for this claim). XXXXXXXXXXXX's view is more nuanced than most. XXXXXXXXXXXX's view on ZDERA is what many in the MDC-T have been telling us: It is serving no real purpose other than to provide a convenient whipping boy for ZANU-PF. END COMMENT RAY``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xUS embassy cables: Zanu-PF like 'a troop of baboons incessantly fighting'``x1291858210,77994,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Lovemore Ranga Mataire
The Herald
BRITAIN'S Institute of Development Studies at Sussex University has said Zimbabwe's land reform programme is not an economic failure as widely portrayed by most Western media.
In a study recently released by the institute, the lead author of the research, Mr Ian Scoones, told BBC News that he was surprised with a lot of activities happening on farms visited over a 10-year period.
"What we have observed on the ground does not represent the political and media stereotypes of abject failure; but nor indeed are we observing universal success. People were getting on with things and doing remarkably well in difficult circumstances," says the study, titled Zimbabwe's Land Reform, Myths and Realities.
The report is likely to infuriate Western establishments, which have over the years denigrated the land reform programme as a vote-buying gimmick that led to the destruction of one of Africa's vibrant economies.
Although the study notes the existence of problems with the fast track land reform, particularly inadequate funding, it however highlights undue politicisation by the country's detractors.
The 10-year study of 400 households in Masvingo Province put to rest five myths associated with the land reform programme.
One of the myths is that the exercise was a total failure and that most of the land was given to political cronies.
The other myths that the report debunks include lack of investment on the land and that agriculture is in complete ruins – creating food insecurity and that the rural economy has all but collapsed.
The study found that two-thirds of people allocated land in Masvingo were ordinary low-income Zimbabweans and the remaining one-third includes civil servants, former farm workers, business people and members of the security services.
The research found that, on average, each household had invested more than "US$2 000 on their land since settling on it – clearing land, building houses and digging wells".
The investment has led to knock-on-activity in the surrounding areas, boosting the rural economy and proving further employment.
This assertion is in sharp contrast with the perception of most Western countries' particularly Britain and United States.
In a recent classified diplomatic report released by Wikileaks website, former United States ambassador Christopher Dell castigated President Mugabe for embarking on the land reform programme saying the exercise had "destroyed Zimbabwe's agriculture sector, once the bedrock of the economy".
However, one of those interviewed by the researchers, identified only as JM, said the land had transformed their lives as they used to rely on help from others but now owns five head of cattle and employs two workers.
Others said they are much better off farming than when they had jobs.
About half of those interviewed were doing well, reaping good harvests and re-investing the profits.
Maize is Zimbabwe's main food crop but its production remains reliant on good rains.
The report says Zimbabwe's food crisis of 2007/08 cannot be put down to the land seizures, as those people who went hungry produced a large surplus both the previous and subsequent years.
The research established that most of those struggling are the least well-off civil servants, such as teachers and nurses, who have been unable to get credit and do not have the resources, or political connections, to invest in their land.
As Zimbabwe' economy slowly recovers under a power-sharing government, a new programme can be worked out which would give these people the backing they need to succeed, the report says.
It is often argued that large-scale commercial farming – as many of the white Zimbabweans used to practise – is inherently more efficient than the smallholder system which replaced it, but Mr Scoones dismisses this argument and says he is backed by several studies from around the world.
The study says it is now impossible to return to the previous set-up and suggests that some of the evicted white farmers may one day work with the new farmers as consultants, marketing men, farm managers or elsewhere in the overall agricultural economy, such as transporting goods to the market or helping to transform and add value to their produce.
Zimbabwe land reform 'not a failure'
by Joseph Winter - November 18, 2010 - BBC News ``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe land reform critics eat humble pie``x1291898705,43780,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Tendai Mugabe and Tichaona Zindoga
The Herald
MDC-T leader Mr Morgan Tsvangirai contrived to publicly call for the lifting of the widely-discredited sanctions while privately urging the West to maintain them, according US classified cables released by the whistle-blowing WikiLeaks website.
A December 24, 2009 cable titled "Tsvangirai asks the West for help on changing the status quo" sent to Washington by US Ambassador to Zimbabwe Mr Charles Ray, reveals that Mr Tsvangirai indicated he would employ the double-speak tactic to gain concessions from Zanu-PF.
He also told the US government that he was considering giving something to President Mugabe to give to Zanu PF "hardliners," to soften them.
The cable shows that Mr Tsvangirai felt frustrated by Zanu PF hardliners in his attempt at regime change.
"It appears he (President Mugabe) is being managed by hardliners. Tsvangirai said his goal now is to find a way to manage Mugabe himself. One way, perhaps, would be to give him something to give his hardliners. Precisely what that something is, he said, is something he is still wrestling with," wrote Ambassador Ray.
The cable from Mr Ray clearly reveals Mr Tsvangirai's double standards regarding the removal of illegal sanctions imposed on the country by Western countries.
Ambassador Ray said Mr Tsvangirai called for flexibility on the part of Western Governments on the issue of sanctions since Zanu-PF was insisting on reciprocity in the inter-party negotiations.
"Tsvangirai said that it seems that Mugabe plans to use the governors as a trade-off against sanctions. He said he has repeatedly told Mugabe that MDC has no control over sanctions. But, he added lack of any flexibility on the issue of sanctions poses a problem for him and his party.
"In this, he assured us that Deputy Prime Minister Arthur Mutambara is in full agreement with him. He also acknowledged that his public statements calling for the easing of sanctions versus his private conversations saying they must be kept caused problems," reads part of the cable.
In this regard, Mr Tsvangirai is said to have called for the partial lifting of sanctions – "without giving the impression that we are rewarding lack of progress or bad behaviour."
"If necessary," Ambassador Ray reported Mr Tsvangirai as saying, "He (Tsvangirai) and Mutambara can quietly meet with Western leadership to develop a plan on the issue of sanctions."
The two had allegedly "decided to take the issue of sanctions out of the hands of negotiators and handle it personally" – taking the "diplomatic lead" on the issue.
This would entail a Western-approved roadmap for the easing of sanctions linked to "identifiable and quantifiable progress."
Mr Tsvangirai reportedly sought to present this to President Mugabe after the inter-party negotiators had delivered their final report on January 15, 2010.
On the other hand, the cable revealed, Mr Tsvangirai had said that his "goal now was to find a way to 'manage' (President) Mugabe himself."
In his comment, the diplomat said "it might be in the USG's (United States Government) interest to consider some form of incremental easing of non-personal sanctions, provided we see actual implementation of some of these reforms."
He requested guidance from his government on the conditions of easing sanctions and other "possible moves."
"We also request guidance on what to tell (PM) Tsvangirai at our next meeting, which is expected early in the New Year," wrote Ambassador Ray.
WikiLeaks also leaked a confidential memo from the US embassy in South Africa, entitled "Exiled Zimbabwean businessmen float Zimbabwe power-sharing idea".
In the dispatch, a group of unnamed businessmen in 2007 intimated that, with the help of former Malaysian Prime Minister Mohamad Mahathir or United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, President Mugabe could be persuaded to hand over executive power to a "technocratic Prime Minister" before leaving office in 2010.
Another one, from Ambassador Ray dated February 10 2010, featured an unnamed Zanu-PF member intimating that MDC-T was alienating its supporters because of corruption and that sanctions were hurting the economy.
The latest leaks of US cables on Zimbabwe are said to be part of around 3 000 secret communication that has been shuttled between the two countries as the US tries to effect illegal regime change in Zimbabwe.
Last week, WikiLeaks released cables that revealed Ame-rica's low opinion of the leaders of both MDC formations with Mr Tsvangirai being described as requiring "massive hand holding" should he ever come to power.
PM Tsvangirai was described as a "flawed figure", "indecisive" and of questionable judgment in selecting those around him and without executive ability.
Prof Mutambara was called a political "lightweight" attra-cted to anti-Western rhetoric, while Professor Welshman Ncube was said to be a "deeply divisive" person.
PM Tsvangirai has said he is not bothered by what is contained in the cables.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xWikiLeaks splashes out more on Zimbabwe``x1292008608,29563,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xHerald Reporters
December 11, 2010
The Herald
THE West tried various strategies, including a desperate attempt to ask China to influence the reform of Zimbabwe's security sector, in a futile attempt to effect regime change, according to the latest US classified cables released by WikiLeaks.
After most of their strategies dating back to the year 2000 such as civil unrest, the possibility of a coup and sanctions had failed, the United States and Germany resolved to work towards a reform of the security services.
US Ambassador to Zimbabwe Mr Charles Ray held a meeting with his German counterpart Dr Albrecht Conze late last year where they discussed the need to persuade China to help them with security reforms in Zimbabwe.
The meetings were held under the pretext of improving economic stability in Harare.
In his brief on December 2, 2010 titled "Ambassador Ray's Visit with German Ambassador," the two diplomats explored ways to engage China.
"China is likely to be agreeable to efforts to improve economic stability and just might be helpful in achieving success in security sector reform," said Ambassador Ray.
"I met Dr Albrecht Conze, German Ambassador to Zimbabwe, at his embassy on December 1, 2009. Unlike most of the EU ambassadors who waited for me to ask them questions, Conze immediately began probing for the US position on a number of issues, most notably how to engage with the Government in the medium-term, and our views on security sector reform.
"He stressed that the need for success in dealing with the security chiefs cannot be underestimated. Without reform in this sector, our efforts at political and economic reform risk failure."
The diplomat said in his discussion with Dr Conze they noted that while China might not want to participate in "pro-democracy programmes, economic stability is clearly in their interest".
He wrote: "The People's Republic of China plays a significant role in Zimbabwe and the Western nations need to involve them more in co-operative activities wherever possible.
"He considered an invitation to the PRC (People's Republic of China) ambassador here to periodically attend the Fishmongers Head of Mission meeting to explore potential areas of co-operation," Ambassador Ray wrote.
Fishmonger is a group of US-Canada-Australia-EU ambassadors who meet weekly.
The ambassador wrote:
"Conze believes that the PRC might even be useful in moving security sector reform as it has a potential impact on economic stability and he does not believe South Africa will be really useful in this regard."
Ambassador Ray described Dr Conze's views on China as "intriguing."
"Conze is the first to acknowledge that China too is part of the problem and could possibly be part of the solution. His idea of involving them in security sector reform, however, is likely to cause strong pushback from some of the more conservative EU members, and in fact, his idea of inviting the Chinese ambassador to the Fishmonger's meeting is also likely to meet some resistance. This promises to be an interesting food fight.
"Conze agreed with me that we need to do more to identify the next generation of leadership in Zimbabwe and start influencing them now.
"He is concerned about the obsessive focus on Mugabe who is admittedly part of the problem but is also essential to its solution," he said.
Zimbabwe and China enjoy good bilateral relations dating back to the liberation struggle and have continued to co-operate in political, economic and cultural programmes.
Another cable report released by WikiLeaks reveals that Mr Tsvangirai considered together with the United States removing President Mugabe from office through illegal means
including mass action and a coup.
A cable classified by Ambassador Tom McDonald on 29 November 2000 gives details of a meeting between the then US assistant secretary Susan Rice and Mr Tsvangirai.
They discussed ways of removing President Mugabe from office.
Britain and France were all aware of this as the two countries were kept informed by the Americans on the developments.
The cable reveals that Mr Tsvangirai saw four potential scenarios emerging from the political crisis in Zimbabwe.
The first was that the people would have to wait for 18 months to "vote Mugabe out" and notes that this is the "most constitutional, but least likely scenario".
The second option was what he called an "accelerated, but still constitutional process, whereby Mugabe resigns or is eased out at the December Zanu-PF congress". That option too was unlikely to succeed, he noted.
He then suggested as a third option that mass action be undertaken to remove President Mugabe from office but he was hesitant.
He is quoted saying: "Mass action is undertaken, forcing Mugabe to leave the scene early. Tsvangirai stated that this option must be carefully considered, and he asked rhetorically: Do we want to push out an elected president before his term is up?"
The fourth option they considered was "an army coup that removes Mugabe, possibly with a great deal of bloodshed, from which it would be very difficult for Zimbabwe to recover".
Ideally, Mr Tsvangirai told Ms Rice that the MDC "would like to see a transitional arrangement for the next two years where Zanu PF remained in control of the government but brought in MDC ministers, essentially a coalition government".
He said the MDC national council was to meet later and digest the matter.
"The MDC's national council, at least initially, will meet on November 24 2000 to consider mass action.
"If the executive decides to conduct a mass action, it will begin in mid December when children are at home from school and business begin to close anyway for the Christmas Holiday," Mr Tsvangirai was quoted saying.
But the MDC national council cancelled plans for a mass action at its November 24 2000 meeting.
"He (Tsvangirai) said the MDC understands the magnitude and seriousness of mass action and it tried to postpone it for as long as possible but the popular sentiment is to do it.
"A general stay-away is preferable to confrontation since it is not in the country's best interest to have violence or bloodshed."
Mr Tsvangirai told Ms Rice he feared the army would not hesitate to shoot the demonstrators especially in Harare, Mutare, Bulawayo, and Mutare.
Mr Tsvangirai is said to have claimed that the military was "one major influence" on President Mugabe and "the other two are Zanu-PF and regional leaders."
"If Mugabe is to be pressured to leave the scene, all three must turn against him," Tsvangirai told Ms Rice.
He also claimed that President Mugabe would only step down after "he has had his revenge against the whites".
Tsvangirai is said to have also tried to bring in former South African President Nelson Mandela but he was snubbed.
The website also released a document from the US-EU Charge d'Affaires Christopher Murray on Commissioner De Gucht's trip to Zimbabwe.
Commissioner De Gucht travelled to Zimbabwe with the Swedish International Development Co-operation Minister Gunilla Carlsson between September 12-13 last year.
The delegation included representatives of the council, commission, the future and current presidencies of the EU.
The cable acknowledged that the EU delegation got a taste of their own medicine after meeting Foreign Affairs Minister Simbarashe Mumbengegwi and Justice and Legal Affair Minister Patrick Chinamasa.
They described the ministers as playing "good cop and bad cop, respectively".
"The Foreign Minister was conciliatory describing the visit as a crucial step to normalisation.
"The Justice Minister was confrontational, asking, 'Who are you to tell us how to run our business?' and saying, 'listening to you and listening to Tsvangirai is the same thing.'
"The delegation had the impression it was hard for them not to have all the control and to have Europeans 'telling them what to do.'"
The delegation also took note of the resolute stance taken by President Mugabe and the ministers on the issue of sanctions.
"Sanctions were discussed in all meetings with Government officials. Mugabe portrayed the West as unfairly targeting people in the unity government for no reason.
"What do you expect but hostility when you expel the children of my collaborators from universities in your countries? This hurts us.'
"(John) Clancy (from Comm de Gucht's cabinet) noted, 'one would think that sanctions would be a gadfly to him – nothing more than annoying. But they bother him enormously because they do not apply to the MDC.'
"The officials with Mugabe stated that the targeted travel measures do not matter, but indicated the measures against parastatals do.
"Unsurprisingly, Tsvangirai does not want sanctions to be lifted. He says the process needs to be a two-way street, so there is no reason to lift them when there has been no progress."
The document quotes members noting that Professor Arthur Mutambara was more vocal on sanctions.
"Mutambara asserted that the West must follow the advice of African leaders. 'If (Jacob) Zuma (South African President) says so, then you should not bat an eye'.
"He seemed surprised to hear from the delegation that Tsvangirai did not agree. Mutambara said that any progress would require considerable engagement with Zuma. 'You must get African leaders to put pressure on Mugabe. He will not listen to you.'"
The cable reveals that Mr Tsvangirai was glad that his party heads ministries that promoted the population's well-being, such as education, health and housing among others.
"MDC was originally unhappy with the distribution, especially with Zanu-PF's control of all the 'hard' sectors, but then saw that the only resources coming from outside supporters were for service provision..."``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe: More WikiLeaks shocks``x1292174850,29486,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xHerald Reporters
December 20, 2010
The Herald
THE West's claim that its sanctions are targeted at the Zanu-PF leadership in Zimbabwe have been exposed for the sham they are by a WikiLeaks cable released yesterday that shows that the US government directed the IMF not to restore Zimbabwe's voting rights and lines of credit.
The IMF has over the years masqueraded as a multilateral institution that operates independently of the whims and caprices of its host, the US government.
One of the cables, dated September 2005, from New Zealand, titled "New Zealand: Response to demarche on Zimbabwe Vote in IMF," and directed to the New Zealand Agency for International Development, which handles issues related to the IMF, shows that the US controls the IMF and played a lead role in blocking the IMF from reinstating Zimbabwe's voting and borrowing rights.
"On September 2 (2005), a representative of New Zealand's Treasury noted Zimbabwe's decision to pay back US$120 million of the US $290 million it owes the Fund. The representative asked whether the US government would now consider Zimbabwe to be in compliance with its IMF obligations, or whether the United States still believes Zimbabwe should be expelled from the Fund.
"Post seeks Department guidance on how it should respond to these questions. Post also notes that the Treasury representative is due to deliver a recommendation on the issue to New Zealand's Finance Minister on September 5 (2005) and that a response by COB September 2 (Washington) would be very helpful," reads the cable signed by one Burnett
Analysts say the cable is disturbing given that Finance Minister Tendai Biti has received many "technical experts" from the IMF and only recently wanted Zimbabwe declared a "Highly Indebted Poor Country" at the behest of the IMF, a development that would have seen the IMF, and consequently the US by proxy, take over and direct not only the country's economic affairs but also the exploitation of its natural resources.
HIPC status would have served the US well in "smuggling" people into Government, disguised as technical experts, obser-vers say.
The US and its other Western allies inclu-ding Britain have been pursuing regime change in Zimbabwe.
The latest revelations also come at a time when Minister Biti's budget has raised a storm given its attempt to use Government processes to realign power centres to MDC-T ministers part of which was Minister Biti's attempt to transfer executive powers from the President to himself through amending the Exchange Control Act through the Finance Bill that was recently rejected by Senate and sent back to the Lower House for review.
Minister Biti, consequently, came under fire from the three principals to the GPA and inclusive Government; President Mu-gabe, Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai and Deputy Prime Minister Arthur Mutambara; as well as fellow Cabinet ministers over his bid to usurp executive powers.
The WikiLeaks report also said a respo-nse from Washington would be very helpful before treasury representatives delivered recommendations to New Zealand's Fina-nce Minister on September 5, 2005.
The report also said on September 2, 2005 representatives of New Zealand's trea-sury asked the US if Zimbabwe should remain expelled from the fund after noting Zimbabwe's decision to pay back US$120 million of the US$290 million it owed.
This came at a time when the Bretton Woods institution had instituted compulsory withdrawal procedures against Zimbabwe, again at the behest of the Anglo-Saxon alliance.
The representatives asked whether the US Government would "now consider Zimbabwe to be in compliance with its IMF obligations, or whether the US still believes Zimbabwe should be expelled from the fund.
The New Zealand Treasury also reportedly sought the US guidance on how it should respond to the questions raised.
Efforts to get comment from Minister Biti were fruitless at the time of going to press.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xWikiLeaks cable: US controls IMF``x1292867839,44248,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Gregory Elich
February 21, 2011 - Global Research
For years, Western journalists have castigated Zimbabwe's land reform program. From afar, they pronounced land reform a failure for having brought about the total collapse of agriculture and plunging the nation into chronic food insecurity. Redistributed land, we are continually told, went to cronies with political connections, while ordinary people were almost entirely excluded from the process. Farmland went to ruin because of the incompetence of the new owners. These were simple messages, drilled into the minds of the Western public through repetition. For Western reporters, certain that they owned the truth, emotion substituted for evidence. Those of a more curious frame of mind, however, were left to wonder what conditions were like in the field, where no reporter bothered to venture.
Now this gaping lacuna has been filled by two recent studies. In a report issued just over a year ago, the African Institute for Agrarian Studies (AIAS) details the results of its extensive field investigations conducted in six districts from 2005 to 2006.(1) The other field study was done in Masvingo Province beginning in 2006 by the Livelihoods after Land Reform project, with multinational assistance, including that of the Great Britain-based Institute of Development Studies (IDS). (2)
What both studies found was that the facts on the ground were at variance with popular Western perceptions. As the IDS study noted, "Those of us exposed regularly to the international, especially British, media found it hard to match what we heard on the TV and radio and read in the newspapers with what we were finding on the ground." There were a number of misperceptions, which in large part the team felt were due to "a simple lack of solid, field-level data." (3) Although it is true that there has been such a lack, this factor alone does not account for the inaccuracy of Western news reports. The ideological factor is paramount, as always. For that reason, even though concrete information is now available, the tone of Western reports is unlikely to change.
It can never be stressed enough that Zimbabwe inherited a highly unequal land ownership pattern from apartheid Rhodesia. By 2002, 70 percent of the richest farmland still remained in the hands of just 4,500 white commercial farmers, focused mainly on producing crops for export. Meanwhile, one million indigenous families eked out a bare existence, crowded into an arid region of limited suitability for agriculture, known as the 'communal' areas. Fast-track land reform redistributed much of the commercial farmland to some 170,000 families. Whatever its faults in execution, the process has undeniably created a significantly more equitable distribution of land than what prevailed before.
That is not the story the Western audience hears. Instead, we are told that fast track land reform was a "land grab" by "cronies," bringing about a more unequal distribution of land than what had preceded it. Yet the surveys conducted by the AIAS and the IDS found that most beneficiaries of land reform were ordinary people, whereas those who might be categorized as "elites" constituted a small minority. According to the IDS, this minority amounted to less than five percent.
But it does leave open the question of how one determines who an "elite" is and who is not. That one works for the government does not in itself mean that one is an "elite" or a "crony," nor that one has necessarily ignored the application process and simply bullied one's way into being granted land. Such cases did occur, but they hardly constitute the typical experience of resettled farmers. "That some of the beneficiaries are 'elites' is undisputed," notes the AIAS. "What is in dispute is their character and the extent of their benefit. The tendency to generalize the notion of an 'elite' leaves unexplained the social content of the concept, and assumes that it lacks differentiation in a dynamic process of class formation." Government job holders, war veterans and ZANU-PF members are lumped together with high ranking officials as "elites," or "cronies". It is assumed that all bypassed the land application process in order to seize land.
The AIAS points out that the empirical evidence shows "a more differentiated pattern." This finding is confirmed by the IDS team: "The composition of land reform beneficiaries is highly varied. The claim that the land reform was dominated by politically well-connected 'cronies' is simply untrue. Nor are war veterans a dominant group. Although many took leadership roles during the land invasions, the majority came from rural backgrounds where they had been farming in the communal areas. While some civil servants and business people are members of the elite, many are not. Teachers, extension workers and small-scale entrepreneurs have joined the land reform, adding new skills and capacities. And farm workers too have been important beneficiaries."
There were two resettlement schemes implemented during fast track land reform: the A1 model, in which small farms intended to benefit the landless or disadvantaged were allocated, and the A2 model, which were larger farms that were expected to be more immediately productive. The AIAS found that most of the beneficiaries of land reform came from the communal areas, about 62 percent. Other ordinary people accounted for the majority of the remaining percentage. Applicants for A2 farms "were required to submit a business development plan and a proof of capacity to finance farm operations." For this reason urban residents unsurprisingly accounted for a far higher percentage of applicants for A2 farms than they did for A1 farms. Still, even in the A2 farms they rank second to communal farmers. (4)
Despite a lack of infrastructure, beneficiaries were quick to take up farming operations. For instance, nearly 72 percent of those allocated land in 2002, the peak year of land resettlement, began operations that same year. This, despite resistance by evicted commercial landowners, and the refusal of many of them to vacate the land. By 2003, the percentage of these resettled farmers that had begun farming had risen to almost 96 percent, a far cry from the popular image of land going to waste. (5)
Agricultural productivity, we are so often told, has been dismal since the launch of fast track land reform. The not always unstated implication of Western reports is that the land would have been best left in the hands of the few wealthy commercial landowners, as only they were capable of producing bountiful outputs. That view is a manifestation of the free market philosophy that is so comforting to the entitled: that the greatest good should go to the privileged few. From that vantage point, the many who suffer the consequences of an extreme and narrow concentration of wealth are deemed unworthy of consideration.
There has indeed been a decline in agricultural production in recent years, although for varied and complex reasons. Certainly one of the key factors responsible for the decline is that Zimbabwe's entire economy has shrunk by around 40 percent since the year 2000. By abandoning the destructive Western-initiated structural adjustment program, and then by accelerating land reform efforts in order to achieve a more equitable distribution of land, Zimbabwe triggered Western hostility. Neoliberal sensitivities were offended, and punishment was not long in coming. By late 2001, President George W. Bush signed into law the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act, which instructed U.S. officials in international financial institutions to "oppose and vote against any extension by the respective institution of any loan, credit, or guarantee to the government of Zimbabwe." The U.S. wields enormous influence in the decisions of the IMF, World Bank and other international financial institutions. Great Britain and other Western countries were of like mind, and Zimbabwe found itself shut out of the kind of normal credit operations that are essential for any modern economy to operate.
Western meddling did not stop there, and the net effect was to cause the Zimbabwean economy to take a nosedive, a trend which unavoidably had an adverse impact on agricultural operations. Agriculture does not exist in isolation. In myriad ways it is interrelated to the general economy, and it cannot remain unperturbed by a deep economic downturn. For all of their expressed concern for Zimbabwe's agricultural productivity, Western leaders must bear a major portion of the responsibility for its decline. But then, that is what sanctions are intended to do: sow economic ruin in the target nation.
Another not insignificant factor in the decline of crop production is that much of the region in which Zimbabwe is situated is especially susceptible to the effects of climate change, and over the last decade there has been a sharp increase in the frequency of major drought conditions. According to the AIAS, "the period from 2001-2005 was characterized by poor rainfall distribution, the worst in the post-independence period." (6)
As this chart illustrates, rainfall and agricultural production in Zimbabwe track quite closely. Maize is measured in the chart, as this is the staple crop in Zimbabwe.
(Source: Sam Moyo presentation - "Zimbabwe's Agrarian Reform and Prospects for Recovery")
The drought in the 2007-8 agricultural season was particularly nasty, and national maize output plummeted to 470,000 metric tons. Yet in the following season, the nation enjoyed good rainfall and as a result more than two and a half times as much maize was produced. (7) It is impossible to consider the correlation between rainfall and agricultural output and then continue, as Western reports do, insist on its irrelevance.
In Masvingo Province, the area the IDS studied, the "production since settlement, for all farmers outside the irrigated plots, has been highly dependent on the pattern of rainfall, and the droughts in many of the seasons since 2000 had a huge impact on people's ability to establish themselves. By contrast, the good rainfall years resulted in substantial harvests and were vitally important in the pattern of accumulation, allowing for the purchase of new inputs, equipment and livestock." (8)
Western media have distorted the pre-land reform picture as well. Contrary to the rosy picture painted of the apartheid-era inherited land ownership pattern, most commercial farms focused on export crops such as tobacco, while the bulk of food for domestic use was grown by communal farmers. In more than half of the years in the two decades preceding fast track land reform, Zimbabwe needed to import food. (9) It is simply untrue that the import of food is a new development in Zimbabwe's history.
It is inaccurate to attribute a drop in agricultural production entirely to resettled farmers. The "pattern of low yields based on inputs' constraints," the AIAS reports, "also affected communal area farmers...Indeed, a large proportion of the marketed maize and cotton in recent years is found to have originated from the newly resettled areas." The evidence in the AIAS survey, as well as according to the views of farmers and extension workers, "is that yields have declined mainly because of the shortages of (and failure to access) inputs" by new farmers due to inadequate credit and personal savings. "Yields were also affected by frequent bouts of inclement weather." The shortage of draft power, too, "is a key constraint to timely and adequate plowing." (10)
Historically, the success of any land reform effort depends on the support new farmers are given. Adequate agricultural inputs are essential. Unfortunately, Zimbabwe has had to deal with some daunting challenges in that regard.
The AIAS found that less than half of the farmers it surveyed relied on inorganic fertilizer, production of which has sharply declined in the nation. "Fertilizer and agro-chemicals use have been most affected because they require some imported content yet foreign currency resources have been scarce." (11) And the supply of foreign currency is low due to Western sanctions. As the IDS study points out, other factors include "frequent plant and machinery breakdowns and power cuts, and the reduced capacity of the National Railways of Zimbabwe, leading to increased costs of moving raw materials from mines and ports by road."(12) Sanctions have reduced Zimbabwe's access to spare parts to keep machinery running, and the poor supply of foreign currency limits the amount of electrical power that can be imported from neighboring countries. "Furthermore," the AIAS notes, "the majority of the new farmers are resource-constrained and thus cannot afford to meet their input requirements from the market even when the inputs are available." (13)
Prior to the fast track land reform process, large commercial farms received strong credit line support from both state and private financial institutions, while nearly all smallholders lacked such support. After fast track land reform, most of the private financial companies withdrew altogether from offering credit to farmers. Only two percent of resettled farmers "benefitted from private sector crop input schemes and none were beneficiaries for livestock programs." (14) Financial support for the burgeoning number of farmers fell to the state, which was ill equipped to meet the need, with its financial resources stretched to the breaking point by economic sanctions. As a result, only a small percentage of resettled farmers were able to benefit from adequate credit support, compelling most of them to rely on their own savings to manage. (15)
International NGOs for the most part refused to provide any services to resettled farmers, and focused their efforts elsewhere. Relying for their funding on Western governments hostile to the land reform process, NGOs were loath to support the beneficiaries of a process they preferred to see fail. (16) Less than three percent of resettled farmers in the AIAS study sample received extension support from NGOs. "Input assistance from NGOs was even lower with 1.7 percent of the beneficiaries having received such support." (17) AIAS interviews with NGO officials revealed that the organizations were opposed to operating in resettled areas because they regarded land reform as illegitimate. (18) These humanitarian organizations, it seems, were much happier with the old system, in which the many suffered hunger and privation while the wealthy few thrived.
And yet, despite all obstacles, many resettled farmers have managed to prosper. According to the IDS study, "impressive investments have been made in clearing the land, in livestock, in equipment, in transport and in housing." Indeed, the IDS argues, "the scale of investment carried out by people themselves, and without significant support from government or aid agencies , is substantial, and provides firm foundations for the future." (19)
"Cattle holdings have a direct impact on crop production," notes the IDS study, and "the value of draft power, transport and manure is substantial." (20) In the IDS study sample, herd sizes in the resettled areas have grown, while households without cattle have declined. (21)
One of the primary goals of land reform in Zimbabwe was poverty alleviation, a deeply unpopular concept in the U.S. and Great Britain, but one that still means something in much of the rest of the world. While not every farmer is succeeding, the majority of resettled farmers have experienced real change in their lives. As one farmer explained, "We are happier here at the resettlement. There is more land, plots are larger and there is no overcrowding. Last season I got very good yields, and filled two granaries with sorghum. Following resettlement, there is now a future for my family, and my sons will have land." (22) Another man had "little land to farm" prior to resettlement, and relied for help from his relatives in order to survive. He and his wife have managed to clear four hectares on their new farm. "Before I had no cattle," he said, "but now I own five head, all purchased through farming. I have also managed to buy a plow." In a turnaround, no longer needing support from his family, it is he who helps family members back in the communal areas during periods of drought, and sends cash to pay for his young brothers' school fees. "The new land has transformed our lives," he remarks. (23) According to another farmer, "Life has changed remarkably for me because I have more land and can produce more than I used to." (24) These are typical comments from resettled farmers.
"While newspaper headlines around the world emphasized the collapse of agriculture and the growth in food insecurity in the country," the IDS study reports, "the new farmers were getting on with establishing their new farms and producing, sometimes in very substantial amounts. This disconnect between perception and reality became most apparent following the 2008-9 season which resulted in very substantial production. At the same time, the aid agencies and those interested in discounting any success in land reform, were proclaiming impending famine and need for massive food imports." (25)
This is not to say that there are no problems. For example, as the IDS study points out, "The failure of input supply and delivery has seriously hampered production." (26) Indeed, improving the supply of inputs is perhaps the single most important task need.
Wages paid to farm workers tend to be low, a pattern that has persisted even after fast track land reform took over most of the large scale commercial farms. (27) Still, more farm workers than not report an improvement in their working conditions since the implementation of fast track land reform. (28) Working conditions for farm workers constitute a key weakness, and even though the lives of farm workers were particularly harsh under the former large scale commercial farm owners, there is substantial room for improvement.
The discrepancy in size between A1 and A2 farms presents an inherently unstable situation when there are still so many people who need land. The class differentiation between A2 farm owners, A1 farmers, and those in communal areas, including landowners and the landless, is likely to grow over time.
In particular, in a region highly vulnerable to climate change, an expansion of irrigation schemes is critical. That, however, will be difficult for the cash-strapped government of Zimbabwe to achieve, except in the unlikely event that Western governments ease the sanctions regime.
Still, despite these problems, fast track land reform has created a vastly more equitable distribution of land compared to the previous lopsided ownership pattern. Poverty alleviation has been real, and many have for the first time in their lives been given hope. Resettled farmers are determined to succeed. As one put it, "Land is what we fought for. Our relatives died for this land... Now we must make use of it." (29) As a sovereign nation, Zimbabwe has the right to improve its citizens' lives, regardless of how offensive that ambition is to the imperialist nations. The land belongs to the people of Zimbabwe, and resettled farmers are succeeding in spite of the obstacles thrown in their way by Western sanctions and interference.
Gregory Elich is on the Board of Directors of the Jasenovac Research Institute and on the Advisory Board of the Korea Truth Commission. He is the author of the book Strange Liberators: Militarism, Mayhem, and the Pursuit of Profit.
Notes
(1) "Fast Track Land Reform Baseline Study in Zimbabwe: Trends and Tendencies, 2005/06," African Institute for Agrarian Studies, December 2009.
(2) Ian Scoones, et al, "Zimbabwe's Land Reform: Myths and Realities," James Currey, 2010.
(3) Ian Scoones, et al, p. 1-2
(4) African Institute for Agrarian Studies, p. 22
(5) African Institute for Agrarian Studies, p. 50-51
(6) African Institute for Agrarian Studies, p. 52
(7) Ian Scoones, et al, p. 103
(8) Ian Scoones, et al, p. 96
(9) Sam Moyo, "Agrarian Reform and Prospects for Recovery," African Institute for Agrarian Studies, July 28, 2009
(10) African Institute for Agrarian Studies, p. 175
(11) African Institute for Agrarian Studies, p. 69
(12) Ian Scoones, et al, p. 96
(13) African Institute for Agrarian Studies, p. 69
(14) African Institute for Agrarian Studies, p. 163
(15) African Institute for Agrarian Studies, p. 75
(16) African Institute for Agrarian Studies, p. 77 Ian Scoones, et al, p. 210-211
(17) African Institute for Agrarian Studies, p. 163
(18) African Institute for Agrarian Studies, note on p. 163
(19) Ian Scoones, et al, p. 77
(20) Ian Scoones, et al, p. 122
(21) Ian Scoones, et al, p. 117
(22) Ian Scoones, et al, p. 6
(23) Ian Scoones, et al, p. 66-67
(24) Ian Scoones, et al, p. 238
(25) Ian Scoones, et al, p. 124-125
(26) Ian Scoones, et al, p. 125
(27) African Institute for Agrarian Studies, note on p. 109
(28) African Institute for Agrarian Studies, note on p. 112-113
Source: Global Research``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xChallenging Western Distortions about Zimbabwe's Land Reform``x1298311074,46097,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Farirai Machivenyika and Takunda Maodza
April 15, 2011 - herald.co.zw
President Mugabe yesterday slammed Europeans for their continued meddling in the country's internal affairs saying Zimbabwe is a sovereign State with the right to determine its own destiny.
The President, who was speaking at the burial of Cde Menard Livingstone Muzariri at the National Heroes Acre, challenged Zimbabweans to be vigilant in the face of continued aggression by Western powers.
The President's remarks follow recent discussions by the EU parliament on Zimbabwe and revelations by Britain and the US that they have an interest in the country's pending elections.
"As we assemble here there are countries that assemble in Europe to discuss Zimbabwe.
"To them Zimbabwe is not free, it is not independent, to them in their imagination, Zimbabwe is still a colony.
"In their parliament they discuss the situation in Zimbabwe. We are peaceful and we do not debate what is happening in Britain, we do not debate what is happening in Europe," he said.
President Mugabe said Zimbabwe had never sought to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries.
"We do not sit as Zimbabweans, as Sadc to debate how the British coalition led by Cameron is faring. We do not debate how the Americans are running their own country and so we get alarmed when these countries have the audacity to take us as an item to discuss in their own parliament," he said.
Added President Mugabe: "Who are they, we ask? Does Britain still regard us as a colony in spite of the fact that on April 17, 1980 they sent Prince Charles to lower their flag and we hoisted our own?
"That to them is not a reality. It did not truly happen. We are still a colony, but we say we are determined as a country, a free member of the UN, a free member of NAM, a free member of AU and a free member of Sadc to debate our own issues as sovereign States."
The President told the Americans and Europeans to mind their own business.
"We do not worry about the goings on in Europe. We do not worry about the unnatural things happening there where they turn a man into a woman and woman into a man . . . If they want to call their country into a gaydom, a British gaydom, it is up to them. Chengetai tsvina dzenyu ikoko, zvikaitika kuno tinoti itsvina anozviita tinoti mupengo," President Mugabe said.
The Head of State and Government and Commander-in-Chief of the Zimbabwe Defence Forces castigated the recent debate on Zimbabwe by the EU parliament.
"We had the EU parliament passing a resolution on Zimbabwe, how the GPA should operate, how elections should be held and even how our diamonds should be sold.
"So you can see that the outside world wants again our country to lose its sovereign status.
"We should remain wary, vigilant and be determined to defend it and so let's remain united and take care that our country is not allowed to drift through our lack of vigilance into a situation of being controlled as a neo-colony," he said.
"We must be ready to defend our country, sacrifice our lives as many who fought the struggle did. Panyaya yekurwira nyika tose ipapo tinosungirwa kuva masoja.
"MaBritish, Europeans, at the moment onai zvavarikuita. We are Zimbabweans nationally, flying a national flag and singing a national anthem," he said.
President Mugabe reiterated that the control of Zimbabwe's resources was important in maintaining the country's sovereignty.
"If our economy is controlled by outsiders, our politics will similarly be controlled by outsiders . . . That is why we want our people to have economic power so that the political power we have secured through the barrel of the gun is economic based.
"If there is no economic base then that independence is weak, that is why we have the indigenisation policy so that our resources are controlled and owned by us so that they benefit the majority of our people," he said.
The President took a swipe on some Zanu-PF members who sell-out to the enemy and castigated some members in the inclusive Government for calling for the illegal economic sanctions and foreign interference.
On Zanu-PF members selling out, he said: "Pakati pedu tirivatsvene tese here? Tingangova vanhu vanopfunda chibhakera tichiti pamberi neZanu-PF, tinopfunda chibhakera pachokwadi here?
"Chinoitika munhu wava wega kuseri kwemusha, vamwe vanotengesa, vachimhanya kuvavengi vachiti nhasi mumusangano tanga tichiti.
"Zvino vamwe vanenge vana Menard vane maziso anoona nenzeve dzinonzwa ndovaitiudza kuti arikutengesa ndingana nangana," he said to applause.
Source: herald.co.zw``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe: Leave us alone - President tells West ``x1302881794,9605,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xApril 18, 2011
The Herald
IT IS with a great sense of joy and unfaltering national pride that I warmly welcome you as we celebrate the 31st anniversary of our sacred Independence.
We are a people today fully enjoying the right to self-determination and to chart our own course in life. This day, the 18th of April is written in indelible ink as the day on which freedom came to this country.
And, our hard-won freedom is celebrated and honoured by all of us in the full knowledge that it did not come easily. Lives were lost, limbs painfully bore the brunt of racist Rhodesia's anger as untold suffering was inflicted on our innocent people.
It was through our oppressed people's resilience, their immense sacrifices and the armed revolutionary struggle prosecuted by their sons and daughters that Zimbabwe was born.
It is a joy and source of pride for me to say to you all, Happy 31st Birthday and Happy Birthday to all fellow Zimbabweans, wherever they may be, across the length and breath of the land of our forefathers!
Makorokoto! Amphlope!
We also thank the Good Lord who has helped to defend and preserve our great nation. Ladies and gentlemen, comrades and friends, while the early rains gave us hopes of a good harvest, our farmers having done their best, many parts of the country unfortunately succumbed to a prolonged dry spell that has threatened our food security.
Government is, at the moment, assessing the situation in order to establish whether there will be need to import food, that is, maize.
The phenomenal increase in the production of tobacco, from 58,6 million kilogrammes in 2009 to 123 million kilogrammes last year, together with increased harvests of maize, sugar and cotton, demonstrated the potential that agriculture has, and its importance to the turnaround and development of our economy.
During the course of 2010, the Global Political Agreement, with missed targets here and there, and outright misunderstanding on others, continued to be implemented. In its various facets, it laid the firm foundations for the prevailing political and macroeconomic stability in the country.
I am happy to report that the GPA principals will continue to do their best to give this country, our country, the political and socio-economic direction it needs to take. We are also grateful for Sadc's continued support in our efforts at ensuring the unfolding implementation of the Global Political Agreement.
Following the successful completion of the constitution-making outreach programme, Government now awaits the finalisation of the outstanding processes, ahead of elections, as is stipulated in the Global Political Agreement.
The establishment of peace and political stability is a fundamental requirement we should all work hard to achieve. We are a peaceful people and so we should, both collectively and singularly, pledge ourselves to achieving both a political and economic peaceful environment.
Our Organ for National Healing, Reconciliation and Integration should continue to be not only the promoter of our peace and stability but also its watch-dog.
Better economic performance last year saw continued economic recovery, stability and growth, which was largely underpinned by increased output in the key productive sectors of agriculture and mining. These witnessed growth rates of 33,9 percent and 47 percent, respectively.
Mining also proved to be a fast-growing economic sector as reflected by increases in the production of gold, platinum, diamonds and coal, and few others. The firming up of international commodity prices also helped the upturn of mineral prices.
Furthermore, the manufacturing industry, which was operating at low capacity utilisation levels, averaging 32 percent peaked to levels of around 50 percent, thus improving the availability of locally produced goods, which are gradually replacing most imported basic commodities.
The improved supply of goods and services also contributed to the management of inflation, which was, on a month-on-month basis contained below one percent throughout the year, ending up within the targeted single digit annual inflation levels of 3,2 percent.
The country's tourism sector is also poised for full recovery following various initiatives implemented last year, when the tourism sector brought in 2,2 million tourists and earned the country US$880 million.
This year promises to bring more positive results for Zimbabwe's tourism industry in line with the anticipated growth of between four and five percent in international tourist arrivals.
Improving revenues, which rose from US$0,97 billion in 2009 to US$2,3 billion last year, gave us improved funding for some of the critical national projects and programmes, particularly, those related to infrastructure and social services.
As we move ahead with our recovery and development agenda, we also remain alive to the many constraints that we still face. These include limited fiscal capacity, lack of substantial investments in capital projects and infrastructural development, limited external support as a result of the prevailing debt overhang, low levels of income in both public and private sectors, and the lack of adequate employment levels for our youths.
The need for adequate and reliable infrastructure and social services has remained a challenge on our development agenda. This challenge is central to the Medium Term Development strategy currently being refined by the Ministry of Economic Planning and Investment Promotion.
To provide the guiding framework and modalities for the implementation of the Indigenisation and Economic Empowerment Act, (Chapter 14:33), Government gazetted the Indeginisation and Economic Empowerment General Regulations in Statutory Instrument 21 of 2010.
The statutory instrument introduced indigenous and economic empowerment sector specific committees as well as Community Share Ownership Schemes. This is intended to ensure the broad-based empowerment of our people whilst also ensuring that communities benefit from the resource endowment in their areas.
In a similar way, the small and medium enterprises (SMEs) sector continued to grow in importance over the past year, exhibiting vibrancy in terms of its contribution to employment creation and the empowerment of communities. Government will continue to accord priority to this sector.
The performance of our State enterprises and parastatals remains a major concern to Government. Government has accordingly introduced various measures and reforms, including their restructuring, to ensure their viability, efficiency and effectiveness.
Among these initiatives was the recent adoption of the Corporate Governance Framework for the State and Parastatals which serves as a common point of reference on corporate governance issues. The fundamental objective of the Corporate Governance Framework is to promote the efficient and effective use of public resources whilst enhancing accountability.
The recent acquisition of a major stake in Ziscosteel by Essar Group of India is a demonstration of direct foreign investor confidence in Zimbabwe, and bodes well not only for the iron and steel industry and the generality of the economy, but also for the communities of Redcliff and Kwekwe in the Midlands.
With respect to the Public Service, Government is committed to continually review civil service salaries and other conditions of service. As most of you will recall, I met their representatives about two weeks ago for what I believe was a useful meeting.
I will be engaging my two fellow principals on how we can take action on the obviously low packages, which the least paid Government workforce takes home.
Government has made significant strides in the provision of water to the nation through the construction of dams, construction and rehabilitation of water supply stations, and drilling and equipping of boreholes. The rural communities have seen the rehabilitation of irrigation schemes around the country in order to improve their agricultural activities. This is an on-going exercise.
In areas of housing delivery and social amenities provision, Government has made commendable progress despite limited financial resources.
Appreciable progress has been registered in the implementation of 11 housing delivery projects initiated last year, and financed through the National Housing Delopment Loan Facility.
In order to alleviates the housing situation for civil servants, Government has revived the Civil Service Housing Loan Facility aimed at helping civil servants to acquire houses and stands on a home ownership basis.
Government is strengthening the education sector through various initiatives such as the provision of teaching and learning materials, following the launch of the Education Transition Fund in 2009.
Inspite of the many challenges that we face, our education system continues to be regarded as one of the strongest in sub Saharan Africa. It is this system that has led the country to achieve the highest literacy rate on the African continent and we are immensely proud of this achievement.
The Constituency Development Fund which was established last year for the development of constituencies has begun to yield results. The fund was established to implement community-based projects to alleviate poverty and improve the people's standard of living.
Each constituency was allocated US$50 000. Some of the projects today include the purchase of generators for clinics, renovations to schools, clinics, and teachers' accommodation, construction of people's markets, provision of grinding mills, construction of boreholes and a range of community income-generating projects.
Government remains committed to the welfare of all its citizens and, as far as possible, to providing support to families in distress, the elderly, people with disabilities, and orphaned and vulnerable children.
Today, we celebrate our Independence anniversary against the background of major successes in the implementation of our Look East Policy and rather disappointing results in our efforts to re-engage the European Union, the United States and other Western countries over their imposition of illegal sanctions against the people of Zimbabwe.
In this regard, I am happy to note that our people are making their voices heard against the sanctions in the Anti-Sanctions Campaign.
As we engage the international community in promoting and protecting our national interest, Government's foreign policy continues to be anchored on our desire to protect Zimbabwe's hard-worn independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity.
In pursuit of these core values, we are guided by the principles of the sovereign equality of nations, non-interference in the domestic affairs of other states, peaceful settlement of disputes and the right of self-determination of all peoples as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations.
Within our region, the Southern African Development (Sadc) has continued to give us unwavering support in our quest to be fully in charge of economic resources.
Sadc has also reiterated its principled position in condemning the renewal of the illegal sanctions imposed on us by the United States, European Union and other Western countries at the instigation of Britain.
We are truly grateful for the guidance and support that Sadc and the African Union are giving to our country.
It is fitting on this occasion, to pay tribute to our defence and security forces for their commitment in maintaining the peace and security of our free Zimbabwe.
The professional manner in which our forces acquitted themselves in various local, regional and international peace-keeping United Nations and African Union assignments gives us much pride as a nation.
As we celebrate this cherished National Day, let us remember those who sacrificed their lives for our freedom and Independence. Let us today remember them for their steadfastness, tenacity and oneness of purpose.
I call upon all Zimbabweans to unite in pursuit of a shared national vision and to strive at all times for peace not violence, and to respect the unity and development of our nation.
Long live Zimbabwe! Long live our Independence! Happy 31st Independence Day Anniversary! Makorokoto! Amhlophe! Congratulations!
I thank you.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xPresident Mugabe's 31st Independence Speech in full``x1303263457,96392,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Reason Wafawarova
April 28, 2011 - rwafawarova.com
THERE is an unexplained wonder of political history where the people with a track record of going to war, who are ready to go to war, and have gone to war and destroyed millions of lives, are the most vocal in talking about peace, human rights and the protection of civilians from military attacks.
The United States, France and the UK have a terrible history of murderous slavery, cruel colonisation of other peoples, and despicable modern day imperialistic tendencies.
This history is indelible and cannot be denied or wished away.
But Amos Wilson noted: "If accepting the truth about the situation of African peoples and other people in the world today means exposing the European to himself, of course he is going to ignore that expose."
When writers expose the real motives of Westerners for the unjust war they are currently launching on Libya, what Western powers can only do is ignore that expose, while pushing a propaganda line that says the war is about protecting Libyans from their monstrous leadership.
It is people without love who talk about love most often. It is people without grassroots participation in the decision making process of their own countries who preach about democracy the most. It is people with atomic bombs and earth shattering nuclear weapons who preach loudest about international peace.
It is people with lethal bombs and sophisticated military aircraft who preach most about the protection of Libyan civilians while spraying Libyan cities with deadly bombs - of course in the name of benefitting the very civilians whose lives and infrastructure they are destroying.
What we must always recognise is that Africans do have a huge stake in ensuring the continuation of the failure of large segments of our own population, and Libya is no exception.
There are numerous contradictions in the African society and these are issues of great importance in determining the problems bedevilling the continent.
Many of our people have an amazing excuse that says the circumstances determining our lives today are beyond our control. So there is a belief that other people are totally responsible for the state of Africa today and therefore we have neither say nor control over these issues.
There is an extent to which this might be true when one looks at colonial history and what slavery did to the people of Africa. But when post-colonial influences end up creating psychological problems for the African individual it becomes time for self-reflection.
One has to see the apathy Africa is expressing over the military aggression in Libya today. The African leadership is apathetic if and when not complicit. They have given up and most have resigned from the African life, leaving the fate of their countries to the dictates of Western aid and to the will of Western political elites and their NGO arms.
When a whole president of a country becomes a victim of psychological problems to the extent of giving up effort and acknowledging that Africa is powerless and cannot do without handholding from Westerners, then we have to be alive to the reality that our hope as a continent is right in the abyss.
It is the apathy and resignation on the part of our African leadership that helps a great deal in maintaining the post-colonial imperial system that subjugates Africa today.
There is a fear of uniting and trusting each other, the inexplicable fear of coming together and solving our problems together. This explains a lot the great deal of political polarisation within our body politic.
Political parties in Africa are like armies going to war against each other, as opposed to mental bodies competing in the battle of ideas. We threaten our political rivals with sloganeering, violence, financial muscle, and the eventuality is often intolerance and armed confrontation.
It is probably only in Africa where singing, shouting, dancing, eating and drinking are integral components of structuring a successful political party.
Not only are we convinced that it is just not in us to unite and solve our problems together as a people, but many of us are so much awed by the might of white imperialism that there is this belief that the dominance of imperial powers is in itself indomitable.
In fact, imperialism maintains itself largely on the effect of the apathy and hopelessness of its victims. It is purely the apathy and ignorance of Africans that is maintaining the Western aggression in Libya today.
It is quite unthinkable that a coalition of the willing from Africa could decide to go and bomb a European country, banking on the apathy and ignorance of Europeans.
As Libya is burning, Africa is busy fearing who could be next and our own people are heard bragging that Zimbabwe could be next, Uganda is next, Ethiopia is next and so on.
Cheering the monster in the house is quite understandable when it is coming from individuals with psychological problems emanating from the effects of slavery and colonisation. It is a socially constructed mental disorder.
We are witnessing a period when a section of our people is drowned in the fear of the white man, resigned from life and hope, incapable of self-initiative, and absolutely mesmerised by the glitter of Western civilisation.
There are those among us who try to deal with the discrepancy between what the imperial system dictates Africa can achieve, and our failure to achieve even that.
One easy way out has always been the lowering of the African aspiration, fitting the African story into a lesser place that will not tamper with Western interests within our own continent.
So, South Africa battles to lower the aspiration of blacks in repossessing their colonially stolen lands; to lower the aspiration of the black person in having control over the mineral resources of that country, and to lower the aspiration of the African to become an employer and not an employee, as is defined by colonial tradition.
The moment Julius Malema talks land redistribution or nationalisation of mines, there are always those among us who are quick to remind the rest of Africa that such aspirations must be lowered so that white investors are not scared.
The irony of protecting one's own chains is exactly what perpetuated slavery and colonialism.
And, Africa is openly threatened that the West will do a Zimbabwe on anyone that dares threaten post-colonial imperial economic interests on the continent. Of course Zimbabwe embarked on an ambitious land redistribution programme that resulted in the strangulation of its economy through a murderous sanctions regime illegally imposed by the US, the EU and other Western outposts.
Then there are other African leaders who try to inflate their achievements, to inflate their personalities. They gloat and brag about economic growth that is based on over 70 percent Western donor aid. They gloat about rising to political power as puppets funded and directed by Western elites. They look around pompously as they show-case what they describe as "our friends from the international community".
We see the average African middle class citizen being very boastful, being so egocentric, bragging a great deal about personal achievements, pumping themselves up, and pumping even smallest of achievements up into gigantic exploits.
This is just a measure of the destruction that has occurred to the self-esteem of the African - the effect of colonial hegemony over the African life. A family car is to an average African middle class citizen what Virgin is to Richard Branson.
We have an entire country to build in Zimbabwe and the challenges in doing so are massive. Yet we have a nationalist community that buries itself in the great history of our liberation struggle. Yes I am speaking of the kind of historicism that has developed in this community as a means of avoiding reality.
I am talking of people who live their lives in history, and dig among the glory of fallen heroes, dig among the many lives so sadly lost for the cause of our liberty, and a people who build themselves a false pride, and pump themselves up about the achievements of our glorious history - of course without facing the perils of the current reality and preparing for the future.
We have some within the nationalist community whose definition of the future is limited to the future of their own political careers. These have no vision for posterity, no vision for a Zanu-PF after their own lives, no vision for a Zimbabwe inhabited by generations to follow in fifty years time.
President Robert Mugabe has been quite explicit with his vision for a Zimbabwe after him. He seeks the empowerment of the indigenous Zimbabwean so that control of the means of production is in local hands from now and forever more.
Some of our nationalists, for lack of a better term in most cases; pride themselves in making the youth feel good - pumping them up and making them gloat and glow about our great past. But they avoid dealing with the present, and they do not educate the youth in terms of coping with the future.
Who will adequately equip our youth to defeat imperial hegemony and to remove Eurocentric power from dominating African affairs? Who will help Africa to remove these insane people who are about to destroy Libya and its wonderful infrastructural developments? We have a leadership that function in the interest of the status quo.
Then we have those among us who holler about the devilishness of white imperialism, the evilness of the white elite, and they leave it at that.
Deriding Westerners and shouting against imperialism does not necessarily perform a full service for our people. There must be a lot of other things involved. For example there is really no point deriding the Westerner from the comfort of wealth acquired by corrupt means.
It is like the devil preaching against evil. We cannot have a leadership that fears to take risk and are only happy to be opportunistic and vulturistic. Africa cannot develop for as long as our political culture still accommodates such political boofheads.
In fact the biggest risk a country can ever take is never to take any risks. We see many of our African politicians blowing up their minor political achievements as a means of ignoring the real challenges facing the people they represent.
We have a system in Africa which, after teaching our youths the continent's political history, the only notable achievement we get is that the young people are left with a greater sense frustration and inferiority. In fact some of our elderly Africans have argued that teaching such history is not good for African youths - arguing that it is tantamount to brainwashing the young minds.
We did see a lot of political opposition to the Zimbabwe National Youth Service's national orientation programme a few years back. The argument was that teaching the youth about the country's liberation struggle was tantamount to brainwashing the same youths, that teaching them about the evils of pre-independence white domination was tantamount to hate speech.
Julius Malema is currently before the South African courts being charged with hate speech, simply for singing a liberation war song. Some black people actually believe that Malema has a case to answer - not because they fail to understand that there once was an armed struggle for independence in South Africa, but because they are awed by the colour supremacy of those who are sponsoring the prosecution of Julius Malema.
They believe these superior people never take anyone to court unless that person has done something wrong. We have Africans wailing against the exhumation of the bones at Chibondo in Mount Darwin because they argue that the site of the bones is traumatising and may upset some of our children.
It is like the white sponsored doctrine that says teaching slave history to black Americans will only make the taught a bunch of criminals. It is a very convenient way of running away from history - a history so full of evil that some would rather it were never mentioned.
Now we have European writers leading in creating opinion over what is happening in Ivory Coast and in Libya. Again this is like a white teacher teaching black history or slave history.
Teaching this history in its objective and correct form would be to condemn the very people who today are in control of the global society in which we live. While it has happened many times, and good on those whites that have done it in the past - what this means is that the white teacher will have to condemn his or her own people, in reality himself or herself.
So those who tell us about Libya cannot be expected to condemn themselves. But it really needs no explanation to figure out that the invasion of a sovereign state for the sake of removing its political leadership is illegal and unacceptable.
So what is discussed in the media today is the nature and conditions of the politics of Libya, not the nature and condition of the invading Western forces.
What is discussed in white written slave history is the nature and condition of slavery, not the nature and condition of the slave master.
The same goes for colonialism. White written colonialism discusses the nature and condition of colonialism itself, not the nature and condition of the colonial master.
And today we are made to discuss the nature and condition of democracy and human rights, not the nature and condition of the democratisation masters pushing all nationalities into compliance with the West's dictates.
The questions dealt with in the history that shapes our lives today are not questions about the mental stability and characteristics of those who enslaved and colonised us, those who continue to dominate us today, and we never get to ask if these same people should continue to be influential over our lives.
This is why some among us believe that the same people are fighting on behalf of civilian Libyans today - even by bombing the same civilians in whose name they fly their murderous planes over Libyan air space, of course with the full blessing of Ban Ki Moon's United Nations.
We have been made to see an imaginary genocide "averted" by real Western firepower and the world is being coerced to imagine that Gaddafi was about to commit genocide in Benghazi just before the messianic West came with the love and mercy of Arch-angel Michael.
Africa 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 wafawarova@yahoo.co.uk. Reproduced from: www.rwafawarova.com``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xAfrica and politics of contradictions``x1304105797,59974,Development``x``x
``xBy Farirai Chubvu
May 16, 2011 - The Herald
"IT'S like having someone break into your house, rape your wife and kill your dog while you remain glued to the TV set as if nothing is happening.
"Where the hell is the African Union when Nato openly announces plans to kill Muammar Gaddafi, arms the rebels, provide them with air power and siphon Libyan oil at will?"
This post, which I picked on the social networking site, Facebook; aptly captures the lethargy shown by the African Union as far as Nato's destabilisation of Libya is concerned.
Can the African Union chairman, Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo and the Commission chairman Jean Ping please resign forthwith?
Their silence is an afront to everything the founding fathers of the Organisation of African Unity aspired for when they set up the OAU in Addis Ababa on May 25 1963.
How do the AU leaders or member states sleep at night knowing that the Anglo-Saxons are busy hunting down Gaddafi like a wild animal, and violating UN resolution 1973 that was issued to enforce a no-fly zone?
How can the westerners receive the leaders of the so-called Transitional National Council as if they are a legitimate government?
Who elected them?
Who gave them the mandate to represent Libyans?
Where does the UN stand in all this?
Can we say we have a UN Security Council let alone an AU Peace and Security Council when warmongers bomb the weak at will?
Given the precedent the AU has set in Libya, what will stop Nato from extending its war games to other parts of the continent since it now realises the AU is nothing but a paper tiger whose budget is largely funded from the West?
Where is the International Criminal Court? Is it blind to the crimes being committed by Nato in Libya?
The use of banned weapons like depleted uranium and cluster bombs?
The killing of Gaddafi's innocent grandchildren as young as 18 months?
Instead we have the ICC prosecutor, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, campaigning for and getting an arrest warrant against Gaddafi and not those who are butchering his people.
How many other nameless, faceless innocent Libyans have perished at the hands of the Nato war machine?
What will it take for the AU leadership to get off their cowardly backsides and justify their existence? I used to be so proud of the AU, that was at a time I thought it had the same radicalism and focus as its predecessor the OAU that successfully led the charge for the decolonisation of the continent but I am not so sure anymore.
Cote d'Ivoire was the first mistake when the AU turned a blind eye to France's war games there.
Laurent Gbagbo was deposed by French troops who were backing Allassane Ouattara's rag-tag rebels.
And now in Libya, Nato becomes the airforce for the rebels, openly announces plans to kill Gaddafi, steals Libya's oil in broad daylight and the AU still sleeps soundly in Addis Ababa.
The AU must stand up top be counted.
In Libya westerners have shown utter contempt for the AU Panel as they continued to make pronouncements of what they want to see done in Libya as if South African president Jacob Zuma and the panel he was leading were dullards who did not know what they were doing in Libya.
From London, Washington to Rome, the clarion call was "Gaddafi must go!" and not surprisingly the Libyan rebels refused to accept the peace proposals that was tabled by the AU panel and echoed their master's calls that Gaddafi should have no role to play in Libya.
But again, the AU only has itself to blame because they let the westerners have a field day in Libya to the extent of grabbing oil wells, extracting oil which they sold to themselves.
What many expected from the AU was an urgent summit on Libya to see how Africans can defend their brothers and sisters who are under siege from the Western warmongers.
Many expected an AU standby force in Libya to help Libyans repel the western attack and massive lobbying at the UN to get the Security Council to issue a resolution halting the attacks, and if need be to assemble a multi-national force to come to Libya's defence.
That is what a continental bloc worth its salt would have done but all we have had from Addis Ababa so far is suspicious, deafening silence.
Does this AU serve any other purpose other than a biennial meeting platform for the continent's leaders?
fariraichubvu@gmail.com
Reproduced from: The Herald``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xLibya: Where is the AU?``x1305645886,65427,Development``x``x
``xThe Herald
August 26, 2011
MDC-T leader Mr Morgan Tsvangirai has acknowledged his party uses sanctions imposed by the West on Zimbabwe as leverage against Zanu-PF and praised the United States for funding his office as premier and secretly trying to influence Sadc's stance on Harare.
In a letter to US President Barrack Obama in 2009, one of 100 latest releases on Zimbabwe by the whistle-blowing website WikiLeaks, Mr Tsvangirai - Prime Minister in the inclusive Government - indicated that he was in constant touch with US ambassador to Zimbabwe Mr Charles Ray on the matter.
Part of the letter, dated December 21 2009 reads: "We have had discussions with Ambassador Charles Ray on restrictive measures (his euphemism for economic sanctions). I well understand that movement on the part of the international community will need to be in response to tangible progress on GPA implementation."
"We should, however, ensure that movement when it comes is seen to be acknowledged in a tangible way - striking a careful balance between retaining leverage and rewarding progress. This will involve difficult judgments but it will be important to sustain momentum when it comes," Mr Tsvangirai added.
He also briefed the US president on GPA negotiations.
"In light of the current negotiations of the three political parties, I have now taken personal interest in the normalisation of relations between my government and your government and my office will be following up on this very critical issue in the coming year," Mr Tsvangirai said.
He acknowledged the support the US government has offered to the MDC-T directly and indirectly.
"I write to convey my appreciation for the support we have received from you personally, the government and the people of your great nation . . . I was very pleased, Mr President, to note the support offered by your country and the various international non-governmental organisations that expanded beyond the life saving interventions which were so important," Mr Tsvangirai said.
He claimed support by the Obama administration brought direct benefits to millions of people in Zimbabwe and "demonstrated to the hard-pressed population that the reformists in Government are capable of delivering results".
"Your support to my office has also been invaluable and I look forward to this continuing," he said.
Mr Tsvangirai praised Mr Obama for his behind-the-scenes involvement in efforts by Sadc to iron out the so-called outstanding issues in the GPA.
"The role played by Sadc, in general, and the mediator President Jacob Zuma, in particular, is greatly appreciated. I know that you have personally played a crucial role in helping this to happen. I encourage you to continue your crucial dialogue with President Zuma," he said.
The letter has exposed the MDC-T's double standards as the party has in the past denied the existence of sanctions. The MDC-T leader, who committed himself to lobby for the removal of sanctions in the GPA, has surprisingly never used his correspondence with Western leaders to honour his GPA obligations.``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xZimbabwe: Tsvangirai praises US funding of PM's office``x1314464208,52359,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xHerald Reporter
October 21, 2011
MDC-T leader Mr Morgan Tsvangirai says he thought of taking up arms to force himself into power after failing to outrightly win the 2008 presidential election.
Mr Tsvangirai said this in his recently published book: "Morgan Tsvangirai: At The Deep End" that he was surprised to learn there was going to be a presidential election run-off.
"For a moment I did not know what to do," he said. "I had no arms of war. I lacked the necessary wherewithal to force myself into power to fulfil the people's wish."
Mr Tsvangirai got 47,9 percent of the vote in the first round when the Electoral Act required one to garner more than 50 percent to be declared a winner.
President Mugabe got 43,2 percent while Mr Simba Makoni was third with 8,3 percent.
Little-known Langton Towungana was a distant fourth on 0.6 percent.
The failure by any of the candidates to get the required majority vote meant there was going to be a run-off between President Mugabe and Mr Tsvangirai.
But Mr Tsvangirai said he was not aware of the provisions of the Electoral Act.
"What was this run-off business all about?" said Mr Tsvangirai, adding: "I was unaware that the law had been changed to deny a winner without 50 percent plus one vote to take over government.
"It must have slipped my mind at the time when it went through Parliament. I did not know that in such an event, a run-off would be needed between the two leading candidates."
Mr Tsvangirai said he had already formed a government.
The Electoral Act says: "(3) Where two or more candidates for President are nominated, and after a poll taken in terms of subsection (2) no candidate receives a majority of the total number of valid votes cast, a second election shall be held within 21 days after the previous election in accordance with this Act."
Analysts said it is surprising that Mr Tsvangirai was not aware of the run-off yet some senior members of his party like secretary-general Mr Tendai Biti were talking about it at the time.
In fact, Mr Tsvangirai says in his book that Mr Biti announced him a winner well before the election results were made public and said there was no need for a run-off.
University of Zimbabwe lecturer Professor John Makumbe blamed lawyers who are members of MDC-T for failing to advise Mr Tsvangirai appropriately.
He said the lawyers in MDC-T should be embarrassed by Mr Tsvangirai's revelations.
"It's not all people who read the Constitution and understand it," said Prof Makumbe.
"Tsvangirai is surrounded by lawyers. How could they not advise him that there is a possibility of a two-stage election?"
A political analyst, Mr Goodwine Mureriwa said: The ignorance that Tsvangirai displays is amazing. We are a very educated nation and cannot expect to be led by a person who does not mind to study the consequences of a major event like an election that he participates in."
Mr Mureriwa said Mr Tsvangirai was expected to have acquired experience from his time at the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions even if he "did not attain higher educational qualifications".
Another political analyst, Mr Alexander Kanengoni, said it was shocking that Mr Tsvangirai did not know of such a fundamental law governing presidential elections.
"It is surprising that he did not know about that," he said.
"People will not deny it if he is said to be of low intellect because he is admitting it by failing to study provisions of a law in which he is an interested party."
MDC-T spokesperson Mr Douglas Mwonzora said Mr Tsvangirai was being sincere that he did not know of the provisions of the Electoral Act.
"As you can see that his book is a memoir and people tell the truth about their lives in such books," he said.
"The idea is not to pretend what you are not. Perhaps he was not advised about the necessary clauses."
The provisions for a run-off were introduced into the Electoral Act in 2004, with the full participation of Members of Parliament from MDC.
With five days to go to voting day, Mr Tsvangirai announced that he was boycotting the presidential run-off held on June 27, 2008 after claiming that his supporters were being harassed.
His announcement was, however, declared a legal nullity since the election had started in earnest and the poll was held and won by President Mugabe.
Source: herald.co.zw``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xI wanted to take power by force: Tsvangirai``x1319180186,12066,Zimbabwe``x``x
``xBy Gregory Elich
November 21, 2017 - gregoryelich.org
Long-roiling factional conflict within Zimbabwe’s ruling ZANU-PF political party exploded last week in a military coup that quickly seized control of the government and state media. The coup was led by Commander of Zimbabwe Defense Forces Constantino Chiwenga, who is closely aligned with former vice president Emmerson Mnangagwa.
Emboldened by President Robert Mugabe’s declining mental sharpness and physical health in recent years, Mnangagwa actively maneuvered to ensure that he would succeed the president. Mnangagwa served as one of Zimbabwe’s two vice presidents. From that position, he and his supporters, known as Team Lacoste, became embroiled in a bitter struggle with younger party members who coalesced around Secretary of Women’s Affairs Grace Mugabe, wife of the president, and whose group was known as Generation 40, or G40.
As early as 2015, Mnangagwa began reaching out to opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai to discuss plans to implement a five-year transition government, in which both men would play a leading role. The unity government would compensate and “reintegrate” dispossessed former owners of large-scale farms. Reuters obtained hundreds of internal documents from Zimbabwe’s Central Intelligence Organization that revealed the plan. “Key aspects of the transition planning described in the documents were corroborated by interviews with political, diplomatic and intelligence sources in Zimbabwe and South Africa,” reports Reuters. The same sources left open “the possibility that the government could be unelected.” In one report, it was said that Mugabe feared that Mnangagwa would attempt to reverse land reform.
Full Article : raceandhistory.com``xmeri``xmeri@trinicenter.com``xWhat is Behind the Military Coup in Zimbabwe?``x1511285391,96832,Zimbabwe``x``x