The one thing that i have discovered as a person and writer is my own individuality and some uniqueness.
I say some uniqueness because as i know there are so many people around who would share my thoughts and feelings.
Yet others would not necessarily do so, which i do accept, for the very same reasons i wish they understood, shared, and lived my sentiments and sentimentalities; my reason and reasonability.
In an age that is marked by steep polarisation in the Zimbabwean society, one hardly affords the luxury of being neutral, or non-partisan.
Professor Jonathan Moyo has called neutrals an "endangered species".
One could not agree more.
As a matter of fact, i consciously commented on a Facebook post by one Vio Mak, whose "friend" request i accepted on the very curiosity of our differing views, that her saying that she was "non partisan" was a sick and dishonest joke.
I am consciously partisan, and do not attempt to be otherwise, lest i be dishonest or sick to myself.
Being a holder of views that i admittedly have not been shared by many collegues, especially those of my own age, i celebrate such a status as something of a rarity.
Suffice to say, i regard myself as a member of a lost generation.
Being a columnist, i felt this keenly when i realised that my wonted style of pun and word play could have been used against me when someone called me by the name Eagle Eye, which happens to be the name of the column that i sometimes write.
Call it paranoia, but i think i heard the fella calling me Eag-lie, which in my view could have been insipired by a sentiment that what i write might not be informed by truth.
Of course, i have never deliberately lied in my writing, and i do not wish to anytime in the future .
I strongly have reservations, if not contempt, for anybody who might think that anything that does not tally with their common, if not unispiring views, is a lie.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Monday, March 29, 2010
OF AMERICA'S N.E.D AND REGIME CHANGE
By Stephen Gowans/ What's Left
Vin Weber, a former chairman and current board member of the US National Endowment for Democracy, has written an article in The Washington Times defending the NED against calls to eliminate its funding.
The NED was established by the Reagan administration after the CIA’s role in covertly funding efforts to overthrow foreign governments was brought to light, leading to the discrediting of the parties, movements, journals, books, newspapers and individuals that received CIA funding. This undermined the efficacy of these agents as tools of US foreign policy.
As a bipartisan endowment, with participation from the two major parties, as well as the AFL-CIO and US Chamber of Commerce, the NED took over the financing of foreign overthrow movements, but overtly and under the rubric of “democracy promotion.”
As the NED’s president Carl Gershman explained,
“It would be terrible for democratic groups around the world to be seen as subsidized by the C.I.A. We saw that in the 60’s, and that’s why it has been discontinued. We have not had the capability of doing this, and that’s why the endowment was created.”
Thus, the NED was founded, as New York Times reporter John Broder explained in 1997, “to do in the open what the Central Intelligence Agency has done surreptitiously for decades.”
As part of the NED-program of regime change, governments the US foreign policy establishment targets for overthrow are demonized as anti-democratic while the recipients of NED largesse are angelized as pro-democratic.
What links targeted governments is not their electoral democratic practices – which can range from absent to present — but their economic policies, which tend to be restrictive of foreign investment, imports, and property rights. What links the recipients of NED grants is not their attitude to electoral democracy, but their embrace of US policy....
Jestina Mukoko
Meanwhile, the NED has celebrated Jestina Mukoko, a Zimbabwean who was arrested in December 2008 by Zimbabwe state security agents, who Mukuko claims tortured her.
Mukoko is variously connected in leadership roles with organizations funded by the NED and United State Agency for International Development (USAID.) She is, for example, “the executive director of the Zimbabwe Peace Project, a grantee of the” NED [10], as well as a member of the board of the Zimbabwe Election Support Network, an organization interlocked with a number of other Western-funded anti-Mugabe groups, and which receives its funding from the NED and USAID.
To understand why Mukoko was arrested, it helps to place her activities in the context of the Mugabe government’s efforts to carry through land reform, the West’s opposition to the expropriation of white settler farmland, and the efforts of the United States to enforce respect for private property rights through a campaign of regime change in which Mukoko plays a role.
The following points, therefore, are salient:
1. The United States is openly working to exclude Zimbabwe’s Zanu-PF party (which champions land reform and economic indigenization) from government, and to replace it with the Movement for Democratic Change (which advocates policies that would inevitably strengthen foreign domination of Zimbabwe’s land, labor and natural resources.)
2. The US-sponsored regime change campaign operates through the NED and USAID-financing of domestic activists, like Mukoko.
3. While the ostensible objective of NED and USAID-sponsored activities in Zimbabwe is the promotion of democracy and human rights, the real aim is the installation of a government committed to facilitating the pursuit of US and Western interests, including allowing the sale of agricultural land to foreign investors. That the United States and its foundations have the slightest concern for promoting democracy and human rights is belied by the US practices of detaining people without charge in secret prisons, the scandals of Abu Ghraib, Bagram and Guantanamo, the furnishing of aid and support to such notorious autocracies as Egypt and Saudi Arabia, and the backing of the Israeli blockade of Gaza to punish Gazans for exercising their democratic rights in electing Hamas. The NED does, however, care deeply about the interests of US corporations, banks and investors which, after all, play the dominant role in shaping US policy and whose representatives staff the key positions of the US state.
In other words, Mukoko is deeply connected to a US state which is openly hostile to Zimbabwe and its land reform and economic indigenization programs, and seeks to oust the Zanu-PF element of the current government. Is it any wonder she has drawn the attention of the Zimbabwe’s security services?
This mercenary on behalf of US interests recently travelled to Washington where she was feted by US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton and US First Lady Michelle Obama, an act not too much different from Petain traveling to Berlin to be showered with honors by Ribbentrop and Eva Braun. What would the US security state do to a US-based jihadist who took money from a foundation financed by the Iranian government to promote the rise of an Islamic Republic in the United States and who would later travel to Tehran to be personally presented with official honors by Mabouchehr Mottaki, the Iranian foreign minister?
At the ceremony honouring Mukoko’s services to the empire, Michelle Obama expressed shock that Mukoko “was interrogated (by Zimbabwe security agents) for hours while forced to kneel on gravel…”
This was precious, coming from the wife of a president whose country has spent the last decade kidnapping militants who oppose their southwest Asian countries being dominated by the United States and its corrupt puppet regimes and then subjecting them to stress positions, water-boarding and other “enhanced” interrogation techniques, when they’re not being shipped off to allied countries to face more unrestrained forms of torture, or are simply being assassinated. Belaboring the Eva Braun analogy, Obama’s shock was like Hitler’s partner complaining about the Soviets exchanging territory with Finland by force, long after the Nazis had gone on their rampage through Europe.
In his book Age of Empire, historian Eric Hobsbawm observed that,
“The age of democracy turned into an era of public political hypocrisy, or rather duplicity, where those who held power only said what they really meant in the obscurity of the corridors of power. Thus was born an enormous gap between public discourse and political reality”…a disparity all too evident in the NED’s public pronouncements.
Vin Weber, a former chairman and current board member of the US National Endowment for Democracy, has written an article in The Washington Times defending the NED against calls to eliminate its funding.
The NED was established by the Reagan administration after the CIA’s role in covertly funding efforts to overthrow foreign governments was brought to light, leading to the discrediting of the parties, movements, journals, books, newspapers and individuals that received CIA funding. This undermined the efficacy of these agents as tools of US foreign policy.
As a bipartisan endowment, with participation from the two major parties, as well as the AFL-CIO and US Chamber of Commerce, the NED took over the financing of foreign overthrow movements, but overtly and under the rubric of “democracy promotion.”
As the NED’s president Carl Gershman explained,
“It would be terrible for democratic groups around the world to be seen as subsidized by the C.I.A. We saw that in the 60’s, and that’s why it has been discontinued. We have not had the capability of doing this, and that’s why the endowment was created.”
Thus, the NED was founded, as New York Times reporter John Broder explained in 1997, “to do in the open what the Central Intelligence Agency has done surreptitiously for decades.”
As part of the NED-program of regime change, governments the US foreign policy establishment targets for overthrow are demonized as anti-democratic while the recipients of NED largesse are angelized as pro-democratic.
What links targeted governments is not their electoral democratic practices – which can range from absent to present — but their economic policies, which tend to be restrictive of foreign investment, imports, and property rights. What links the recipients of NED grants is not their attitude to electoral democracy, but their embrace of US policy....
Jestina Mukoko
Meanwhile, the NED has celebrated Jestina Mukoko, a Zimbabwean who was arrested in December 2008 by Zimbabwe state security agents, who Mukuko claims tortured her.
Mukoko is variously connected in leadership roles with organizations funded by the NED and United State Agency for International Development (USAID.) She is, for example, “the executive director of the Zimbabwe Peace Project, a grantee of the” NED [10], as well as a member of the board of the Zimbabwe Election Support Network, an organization interlocked with a number of other Western-funded anti-Mugabe groups, and which receives its funding from the NED and USAID.
To understand why Mukoko was arrested, it helps to place her activities in the context of the Mugabe government’s efforts to carry through land reform, the West’s opposition to the expropriation of white settler farmland, and the efforts of the United States to enforce respect for private property rights through a campaign of regime change in which Mukoko plays a role.
The following points, therefore, are salient:
1. The United States is openly working to exclude Zimbabwe’s Zanu-PF party (which champions land reform and economic indigenization) from government, and to replace it with the Movement for Democratic Change (which advocates policies that would inevitably strengthen foreign domination of Zimbabwe’s land, labor and natural resources.)
2. The US-sponsored regime change campaign operates through the NED and USAID-financing of domestic activists, like Mukoko.
3. While the ostensible objective of NED and USAID-sponsored activities in Zimbabwe is the promotion of democracy and human rights, the real aim is the installation of a government committed to facilitating the pursuit of US and Western interests, including allowing the sale of agricultural land to foreign investors. That the United States and its foundations have the slightest concern for promoting democracy and human rights is belied by the US practices of detaining people without charge in secret prisons, the scandals of Abu Ghraib, Bagram and Guantanamo, the furnishing of aid and support to such notorious autocracies as Egypt and Saudi Arabia, and the backing of the Israeli blockade of Gaza to punish Gazans for exercising their democratic rights in electing Hamas. The NED does, however, care deeply about the interests of US corporations, banks and investors which, after all, play the dominant role in shaping US policy and whose representatives staff the key positions of the US state.
In other words, Mukoko is deeply connected to a US state which is openly hostile to Zimbabwe and its land reform and economic indigenization programs, and seeks to oust the Zanu-PF element of the current government. Is it any wonder she has drawn the attention of the Zimbabwe’s security services?
This mercenary on behalf of US interests recently travelled to Washington where she was feted by US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton and US First Lady Michelle Obama, an act not too much different from Petain traveling to Berlin to be showered with honors by Ribbentrop and Eva Braun. What would the US security state do to a US-based jihadist who took money from a foundation financed by the Iranian government to promote the rise of an Islamic Republic in the United States and who would later travel to Tehran to be personally presented with official honors by Mabouchehr Mottaki, the Iranian foreign minister?
At the ceremony honouring Mukoko’s services to the empire, Michelle Obama expressed shock that Mukoko “was interrogated (by Zimbabwe security agents) for hours while forced to kneel on gravel…”
This was precious, coming from the wife of a president whose country has spent the last decade kidnapping militants who oppose their southwest Asian countries being dominated by the United States and its corrupt puppet regimes and then subjecting them to stress positions, water-boarding and other “enhanced” interrogation techniques, when they’re not being shipped off to allied countries to face more unrestrained forms of torture, or are simply being assassinated. Belaboring the Eva Braun analogy, Obama’s shock was like Hitler’s partner complaining about the Soviets exchanging territory with Finland by force, long after the Nazis had gone on their rampage through Europe.
In his book Age of Empire, historian Eric Hobsbawm observed that,
“The age of democracy turned into an era of public political hypocrisy, or rather duplicity, where those who held power only said what they really meant in the obscurity of the corridors of power. Thus was born an enormous gap between public discourse and political reality”…a disparity all too evident in the NED’s public pronouncements.
A STUDY IN HYPOCRISY
Perhaps the biggest story in the world this week has been that of heightening tensions, or so it appears, between Israel and the US.
One might say that it all began a couple of weeks ago when US Vice President Joe Biden visited Israel and authorities there, quite embarassingly so for the staunch pro-Israel Biden, announced expansion of settlement plans in Jerusalem. Although Israel tried to diffuse the situation, unconvincingly admitting that Jerusalem authorities had erred in giving that statement, the situation has not gotten any better.
Israeli premier Benjamin Netanyahu has been in Washington trying to deflect the criticism, but reportedly left an unhappy man after a 90-minute closed door meeting with Obama on Tuesday. It was of course the same Netanyahu who had earlier rebuffed Washington and anti-settlement sentiments saying bluntly before the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee that "Jerusalem is not a settlement. It's our capital".
Netanyahu was also in the news proclaiming that peace in the Middle East could not be imposed from outside.
Hilary Clinton warned Israel against any further Jewish settlements in Palestinian territory as it undermined prospects for Middle East peace negotiations. She also had what she hoped were strong words for Israel saying "As Israel’s friend, it is our responsibility to give credit when it is due and to tell the truth when it is needed."
The truth was that new construction in East Jerusalem or the West Bank undermined "mutual trust and endangers the proximity talks (between Israel and Palestine) that are the first step toward the full negotiations that both sides want and need."
Clinton also regretted that the settlements undermined "America's unique ability to play an essential role…in the peace process."
For those that have known the US and their Western relations for their "noble" intentions and their disinclination to spare the rod for erring nations of the world, the Clinton/Netanyahu subplot rather gives more than lessons enough in Western hypocrisy.
Forget for a moment that the US has protected the Apartheid State for over half a century since Israel was created on Palestinian soil and apparently won the right to become the regional bully.
The truth that is needed, which Clinton or any pretender of her kind was not saying is that in building settlements on occupied land Israel is behaving criminally, compounding its decades-old apartheid criminality.
Another home truth is the fact that America itself has no credible role, less so an essential one, as Clinton would have it, to play mediator between Israel and Palestine. It has been party to the criminal subjugation and bullying of not only the latter, but also the whole region especially countries like Lebanon, Syria and Iran. As a matter of fact, Clinton who has diabolically threatened to wipe Iran off the face of the earth, told Aipac that the US was working towards the imposition of sanctions that would bite, according to reports.
That does it: Clinton is not only a liar but also a hypocrite, and that grotesque evil is emblematic of Western unipolarism. l In a word, the Obama administration pseudo-anger at Netanyahu and his company of rightists is just a public relations makeover.
One could equate that to Britain’s so-called spat with Israel over the use of cloned British passports by Israeli intelligence to eliminate a Hamas leader in Dubai. In their view, there seems to be nothing wrong about the nefarious acts of building on occupied land or killing a Palestinian freedom fighter.
Only that in public light, which is critical for a modicum of decency, the two did not appear noble. Juxtapose Israel and Zimbabwe and the hypocrisy of America and her allies is quite evident.
While the US says it has the "responsibility for giving credit where it is due", which they think they have done in half a century of Israeli bullying and apartheid, the US and its allies have actually bullied Zimbabwe at a time when the rest of the world have supported it.
On the other hand, while the West continues with a punitive economic sanctions regime in Zimbabwe, saying that the GPA is yet to be fulfilled, it is a slap on the wrist for Israel when the latter undermines and endangers the peace initiative.
Just as it complements the oft criminal Israeli State by threatening to annihilate its opponents, the US supports overthrow politics in Zimbabwe and discourages its neighbours from helping it.
It is in light of this that the continued efforts of South Africa in particular and Africa at large, are critical in resolving the challenges Zimbabwe faces, which have largely been created and abetted by the West.
There is a compelling basis for this.
Just as Netanyahu would say the key to Middle East peace lies in the region and not from outside, African problems are best left to Africans.
The reason is simple: we share a lot in common to understand each other well. Some of these coefficients are our languages and culture and the struggle against Western imperialism.
Thus any Zimbabwean could understand the revolutionary Ayesaba amagwala (The cowards are afraid), and the "Shoot the Boer, shoot the killer…/Shoot the racist" lyrics chanted by young Malema. For whatever outcry, most of it unwarranted, this is statement enough that African people are averse to oppression, exploitation and racism. South African involvement in Zimbabwe stems from this background and it is up to Zimbabwe to complement this brotherly intervention and overcome problems at home and turn their attention to the outside enemy.
Here is hoping that, in the words of a particular politician this week, "the demon of darkness will not visit our negotiators" during the ongoing deliberations to find closure of GPA issues.
Zimbabwe has bigger issues to confront, and the dyspareunia in the threesome act called the inclusive Government is, though somewhat understandable, as unfortunate and better gone.
It is encouraging to note that our principals seem to share a lot in common by the day.
On Thursday it was PM Tsvangirai adding his voice to that of President Mugabe against the so-called "gay rights".
It had been the fear of course that his party could be used to smuggle this unpalatable issue of homosexuals/ngochani or istabane into the supreme law of the land.
Agreed, there is absolutely no reason why a man should dream of breathing in the ear of another man when there are a lot fairer beings around.
We also strongly note PM Tsvangirai’s stance on the illegal sanctions imposed on the country.
He told Norwegian State Secretary on Thursday: "The response from the international community is one which confirms the scepticism about Zimbabwe but its high time we move away from that scepticism by rewarding the progress made by the inclusive Government."
Well meaning but rather poorly said.
It appears PM has unfortunately internalised that the West, by which he meant by "international community", should police events in Zimbabwe and ‘‘reward’’ or punish our leaders.
The truth of the matter is that Zimbabwe does not need any paternalistic intervention from the West much less illegal sanctions designed to scuttle indigenous ownership of resources.
Western paternalism, which borders on racism, is the root of the ills that Africa currently faces and the sooner Africans, including PM Tsvangirai, learn to condemn it the better.
Meanwhile, we hear that PM has summoned Minister Chombo over MDC-T’s rogue councillors in Chitungwiza.
Interesting, is it not?
How could the premier for his avowed love for the rule of law want to subvert the same by bringing his party issues to Government?
Looks like we are missing something, but we surely did not see any inquiries before the "corrupt" officers were dismissed en masse last month?
Yet the newfound usefulness of Chombo by the premier does not seem to be informed by the best of intentions.
One can imagine the cries of blue murder if Chombo had taken the initiative.
There is no doubt about the hope that has been raised by the coming to life of ZMC.
We even notice that in anticipation of the return of the belligerent Daily News, Nyarota’s Zimbabwe Times Internet outfit has been re-christened "The Daily News."
And we had a feel of what freedom of speech is like in those who in the name of plurality and freedom of speech support the likes of Daily News.
Said someone in response to a story on the site: ‘‘My advice to you is, DON’T post anything to this site on Zimbabwe UNLESS you see things from MDC-T’s perspective, lest you be eaten alive.
Any analysis of Zimbabwean politics on this site MUST be concluded with praise for the MDC-T, AND bashing of ZANU-PF and Robert Mugabe if one is not going to be subjected to verbal abuse, like you’ve just received for this post…"
We were not surprised the British Parliament's so-called Africa All-party Group said in its latest report, "Land in Zimbabwe: Past Mistakes, Future Prospects", claimed that Britain never made nor betrayed any promises on land reform made at Lancaster House.
The group says "The narrative that Britain ‘betrayed’ its promises at Lancaster House plays not only an active role, but an actively destructive role in the present politics of Zimbabwe" We are told the group consulted widely and "some of the most interesting evidence of all" came from Zanu-PF and the Zimbabwean embassy in London to the effect that there was no deal that the UK would provide funds to pay for land reform.
"It is true that both Robert Mugabe and Joshua Nkomo sought commitments on land reform...but the UK had to broker a deal between Ian Smith and his regime’s military on the one hand and the liberation movements on the other hand, and there was no agreement on land," the "researchers" said in the report presented in Parliament by Hugh Bayley, Labour (Please Note) MP for City of York.
We are told that the All-Party Parliamentary Group had chosen to investigate this subject because the violence from farm invasions has destroyed the livelihoods of 200 000 farm workers and halved the commercial agricultural output of Zimbabwe, and because of concern that UK policy is misunderstood in Africa as the UK having reneged on its promise made during the Lancaster House talks.
The group concluded that Zimbabwe’s fast-track land reform is illegal and that Britain ‘‘therefore need to bring back legal stability and a proper legal process to land ownership in countries such as Zimbabwe, to enable investment for the future so that productive capacity can be restored."
Fine words, but underlain with dishonesty.
First and foremost, is the fact that Britain DID undertake to fund land reform in Zimbabwe, which they duly did until Claire Short’s letter renouncing that obligation, saying that for her part, her country was once a British colony.
Her New Labour Government, where Bayley hails from, distanced itself from the previous administration’s undertakings.
The Lancaster House talks only succeeded when Britain and USA promised explicitly to fund land reform in Zimbabwe — under the so-called willing buyer/willing seller — cognisant of the fact that land was the primary cause for war of liberation.
That is reflected in the offshoot constitution and the resultant bona fide actions of the governments, only to be reversed by Labour.
As a matter of fact, what APPG did was just another Claire Short hypocritically seasoned with lies about concerns for farm workers and productivity.
We are also not lost to the central characters in the attempt at rewriting of history, the Royal African Society.
We know specifically that this group has been instrumental in Britain’s imperialist designs in Zimbabwe, among other things holding consultations for the removal of President Mugabe and their part in the launch of the MDC in 1999 for that purpose.
first appeared in: The Herald
One might say that it all began a couple of weeks ago when US Vice President Joe Biden visited Israel and authorities there, quite embarassingly so for the staunch pro-Israel Biden, announced expansion of settlement plans in Jerusalem. Although Israel tried to diffuse the situation, unconvincingly admitting that Jerusalem authorities had erred in giving that statement, the situation has not gotten any better.
Israeli premier Benjamin Netanyahu has been in Washington trying to deflect the criticism, but reportedly left an unhappy man after a 90-minute closed door meeting with Obama on Tuesday. It was of course the same Netanyahu who had earlier rebuffed Washington and anti-settlement sentiments saying bluntly before the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee that "Jerusalem is not a settlement. It's our capital".
Netanyahu was also in the news proclaiming that peace in the Middle East could not be imposed from outside.
Hilary Clinton warned Israel against any further Jewish settlements in Palestinian territory as it undermined prospects for Middle East peace negotiations. She also had what she hoped were strong words for Israel saying "As Israel’s friend, it is our responsibility to give credit when it is due and to tell the truth when it is needed."
The truth was that new construction in East Jerusalem or the West Bank undermined "mutual trust and endangers the proximity talks (between Israel and Palestine) that are the first step toward the full negotiations that both sides want and need."
Clinton also regretted that the settlements undermined "America's unique ability to play an essential role…in the peace process."
For those that have known the US and their Western relations for their "noble" intentions and their disinclination to spare the rod for erring nations of the world, the Clinton/Netanyahu subplot rather gives more than lessons enough in Western hypocrisy.
Forget for a moment that the US has protected the Apartheid State for over half a century since Israel was created on Palestinian soil and apparently won the right to become the regional bully.
The truth that is needed, which Clinton or any pretender of her kind was not saying is that in building settlements on occupied land Israel is behaving criminally, compounding its decades-old apartheid criminality.
Another home truth is the fact that America itself has no credible role, less so an essential one, as Clinton would have it, to play mediator between Israel and Palestine. It has been party to the criminal subjugation and bullying of not only the latter, but also the whole region especially countries like Lebanon, Syria and Iran. As a matter of fact, Clinton who has diabolically threatened to wipe Iran off the face of the earth, told Aipac that the US was working towards the imposition of sanctions that would bite, according to reports.
That does it: Clinton is not only a liar but also a hypocrite, and that grotesque evil is emblematic of Western unipolarism. l In a word, the Obama administration pseudo-anger at Netanyahu and his company of rightists is just a public relations makeover.
One could equate that to Britain’s so-called spat with Israel over the use of cloned British passports by Israeli intelligence to eliminate a Hamas leader in Dubai. In their view, there seems to be nothing wrong about the nefarious acts of building on occupied land or killing a Palestinian freedom fighter.
Only that in public light, which is critical for a modicum of decency, the two did not appear noble. Juxtapose Israel and Zimbabwe and the hypocrisy of America and her allies is quite evident.
While the US says it has the "responsibility for giving credit where it is due", which they think they have done in half a century of Israeli bullying and apartheid, the US and its allies have actually bullied Zimbabwe at a time when the rest of the world have supported it.
On the other hand, while the West continues with a punitive economic sanctions regime in Zimbabwe, saying that the GPA is yet to be fulfilled, it is a slap on the wrist for Israel when the latter undermines and endangers the peace initiative.
Just as it complements the oft criminal Israeli State by threatening to annihilate its opponents, the US supports overthrow politics in Zimbabwe and discourages its neighbours from helping it.
It is in light of this that the continued efforts of South Africa in particular and Africa at large, are critical in resolving the challenges Zimbabwe faces, which have largely been created and abetted by the West.
There is a compelling basis for this.
Just as Netanyahu would say the key to Middle East peace lies in the region and not from outside, African problems are best left to Africans.
The reason is simple: we share a lot in common to understand each other well. Some of these coefficients are our languages and culture and the struggle against Western imperialism.
Thus any Zimbabwean could understand the revolutionary Ayesaba amagwala (The cowards are afraid), and the "Shoot the Boer, shoot the killer…/Shoot the racist" lyrics chanted by young Malema. For whatever outcry, most of it unwarranted, this is statement enough that African people are averse to oppression, exploitation and racism. South African involvement in Zimbabwe stems from this background and it is up to Zimbabwe to complement this brotherly intervention and overcome problems at home and turn their attention to the outside enemy.
Here is hoping that, in the words of a particular politician this week, "the demon of darkness will not visit our negotiators" during the ongoing deliberations to find closure of GPA issues.
Zimbabwe has bigger issues to confront, and the dyspareunia in the threesome act called the inclusive Government is, though somewhat understandable, as unfortunate and better gone.
It is encouraging to note that our principals seem to share a lot in common by the day.
On Thursday it was PM Tsvangirai adding his voice to that of President Mugabe against the so-called "gay rights".
It had been the fear of course that his party could be used to smuggle this unpalatable issue of homosexuals/ngochani or istabane into the supreme law of the land.
Agreed, there is absolutely no reason why a man should dream of breathing in the ear of another man when there are a lot fairer beings around.
We also strongly note PM Tsvangirai’s stance on the illegal sanctions imposed on the country.
He told Norwegian State Secretary on Thursday: "The response from the international community is one which confirms the scepticism about Zimbabwe but its high time we move away from that scepticism by rewarding the progress made by the inclusive Government."
Well meaning but rather poorly said.
It appears PM has unfortunately internalised that the West, by which he meant by "international community", should police events in Zimbabwe and ‘‘reward’’ or punish our leaders.
The truth of the matter is that Zimbabwe does not need any paternalistic intervention from the West much less illegal sanctions designed to scuttle indigenous ownership of resources.
Western paternalism, which borders on racism, is the root of the ills that Africa currently faces and the sooner Africans, including PM Tsvangirai, learn to condemn it the better.
Meanwhile, we hear that PM has summoned Minister Chombo over MDC-T’s rogue councillors in Chitungwiza.
Interesting, is it not?
How could the premier for his avowed love for the rule of law want to subvert the same by bringing his party issues to Government?
Looks like we are missing something, but we surely did not see any inquiries before the "corrupt" officers were dismissed en masse last month?
Yet the newfound usefulness of Chombo by the premier does not seem to be informed by the best of intentions.
One can imagine the cries of blue murder if Chombo had taken the initiative.
There is no doubt about the hope that has been raised by the coming to life of ZMC.
We even notice that in anticipation of the return of the belligerent Daily News, Nyarota’s Zimbabwe Times Internet outfit has been re-christened "The Daily News."
And we had a feel of what freedom of speech is like in those who in the name of plurality and freedom of speech support the likes of Daily News.
Said someone in response to a story on the site: ‘‘My advice to you is, DON’T post anything to this site on Zimbabwe UNLESS you see things from MDC-T’s perspective, lest you be eaten alive.
Any analysis of Zimbabwean politics on this site MUST be concluded with praise for the MDC-T, AND bashing of ZANU-PF and Robert Mugabe if one is not going to be subjected to verbal abuse, like you’ve just received for this post…"
We were not surprised the British Parliament's so-called Africa All-party Group said in its latest report, "Land in Zimbabwe: Past Mistakes, Future Prospects", claimed that Britain never made nor betrayed any promises on land reform made at Lancaster House.
The group says "The narrative that Britain ‘betrayed’ its promises at Lancaster House plays not only an active role, but an actively destructive role in the present politics of Zimbabwe" We are told the group consulted widely and "some of the most interesting evidence of all" came from Zanu-PF and the Zimbabwean embassy in London to the effect that there was no deal that the UK would provide funds to pay for land reform.
"It is true that both Robert Mugabe and Joshua Nkomo sought commitments on land reform...but the UK had to broker a deal between Ian Smith and his regime’s military on the one hand and the liberation movements on the other hand, and there was no agreement on land," the "researchers" said in the report presented in Parliament by Hugh Bayley, Labour (Please Note) MP for City of York.
We are told that the All-Party Parliamentary Group had chosen to investigate this subject because the violence from farm invasions has destroyed the livelihoods of 200 000 farm workers and halved the commercial agricultural output of Zimbabwe, and because of concern that UK policy is misunderstood in Africa as the UK having reneged on its promise made during the Lancaster House talks.
The group concluded that Zimbabwe’s fast-track land reform is illegal and that Britain ‘‘therefore need to bring back legal stability and a proper legal process to land ownership in countries such as Zimbabwe, to enable investment for the future so that productive capacity can be restored."
Fine words, but underlain with dishonesty.
First and foremost, is the fact that Britain DID undertake to fund land reform in Zimbabwe, which they duly did until Claire Short’s letter renouncing that obligation, saying that for her part, her country was once a British colony.
Her New Labour Government, where Bayley hails from, distanced itself from the previous administration’s undertakings.
The Lancaster House talks only succeeded when Britain and USA promised explicitly to fund land reform in Zimbabwe — under the so-called willing buyer/willing seller — cognisant of the fact that land was the primary cause for war of liberation.
That is reflected in the offshoot constitution and the resultant bona fide actions of the governments, only to be reversed by Labour.
As a matter of fact, what APPG did was just another Claire Short hypocritically seasoned with lies about concerns for farm workers and productivity.
We are also not lost to the central characters in the attempt at rewriting of history, the Royal African Society.
We know specifically that this group has been instrumental in Britain’s imperialist designs in Zimbabwe, among other things holding consultations for the removal of President Mugabe and their part in the launch of the MDC in 1999 for that purpose.
first appeared in: The Herald
Friday, March 19, 2010
COLTART BLASTS NEW ZEALAND
The Herald
Coltart blasts New Zealand
By Tichaona Zindoga
Education, Sport, Arts and Culture Minister David Coltart has blasted New Zealand authorities for postponing their scheduled June tour of Zimbabwe.He said he found the reason given for the cancellation ridiculous.On Monday New Zealand cricket authorities, with the support of their government, said they considered Zimbabwe an unsuitable place to send their cricket side, but could play at a neutral venue like South Africa.They cited the "collapse of Zimbabwe’s health system and the general unstable environment" as the "primary reasons" for the cricket tour’s postponement.The decision came at a time when India and Sri Lanka have said they will be coming to Zimbabwe in May and June for a triangular ODI series.Coltart lamented the Kiwi move saying the Pacific islanders had better come to assess the situation for themselves rather than rely on misleading reports."I find the reasons given for the cancellation very ridiculous."Zimbabwe is a safe destination with no threat like Al-Qaeda or violent crime like we see in other countries."On the other hand, while the state of our public health facilities has not been very good, we have very good private institutions and doctors," he said.In January Coltart wrote to the New Zealand ambassador about the June tour and the latter had promised to support the Zimbabwe visit."I regret that I have come only to know of the final decision through the Press," he said.Coltart said he would continue engaging the New Zealanders with the hope of bridging relations with the tiny nation.Analysts have regretted the latest action by New Zealand saying it rolls back progress Zimbabwe has been painstakingly recording after the country’s game plummeted from decency almost a decade ago.Zimbabwe is set to rejoin Test cricket after voluntarily pulling out to put its house in order.Zimbabwe has hosted a number of international sporting events without any problems.Last year, the Black Caps, as the New Zealand team is known, sought to push their government into banning them from touring meaning that they could escape ICC sanction.As Zimbabwe is a full ICC member, New Zealand is compelled to play the country on a reciprocal basis.Security and health concerns might be considered in postponing a tour, and New Zealand has found it a convenient cover, following political developments rendering alleged political concerns inadmissible.Meanwhile, reports suggest that New Zealand might tour in 2011, taking advantage of the fact that there is still time on the current world programme.
Coltart blasts New Zealand
By Tichaona Zindoga
Education, Sport, Arts and Culture Minister David Coltart has blasted New Zealand authorities for postponing their scheduled June tour of Zimbabwe.He said he found the reason given for the cancellation ridiculous.On Monday New Zealand cricket authorities, with the support of their government, said they considered Zimbabwe an unsuitable place to send their cricket side, but could play at a neutral venue like South Africa.They cited the "collapse of Zimbabwe’s health system and the general unstable environment" as the "primary reasons" for the cricket tour’s postponement.The decision came at a time when India and Sri Lanka have said they will be coming to Zimbabwe in May and June for a triangular ODI series.Coltart lamented the Kiwi move saying the Pacific islanders had better come to assess the situation for themselves rather than rely on misleading reports."I find the reasons given for the cancellation very ridiculous."Zimbabwe is a safe destination with no threat like Al-Qaeda or violent crime like we see in other countries."On the other hand, while the state of our public health facilities has not been very good, we have very good private institutions and doctors," he said.In January Coltart wrote to the New Zealand ambassador about the June tour and the latter had promised to support the Zimbabwe visit."I regret that I have come only to know of the final decision through the Press," he said.Coltart said he would continue engaging the New Zealanders with the hope of bridging relations with the tiny nation.Analysts have regretted the latest action by New Zealand saying it rolls back progress Zimbabwe has been painstakingly recording after the country’s game plummeted from decency almost a decade ago.Zimbabwe is set to rejoin Test cricket after voluntarily pulling out to put its house in order.Zimbabwe has hosted a number of international sporting events without any problems.Last year, the Black Caps, as the New Zealand team is known, sought to push their government into banning them from touring meaning that they could escape ICC sanction.As Zimbabwe is a full ICC member, New Zealand is compelled to play the country on a reciprocal basis.Security and health concerns might be considered in postponing a tour, and New Zealand has found it a convenient cover, following political developments rendering alleged political concerns inadmissible.Meanwhile, reports suggest that New Zealand might tour in 2011, taking advantage of the fact that there is still time on the current world programme.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
PASSING ON POLITICAL DEBAUCHERY
By Reason Wafawarova in SYDNEY, Australia
APART from the hazards of manipulation that come with external funding, the proposed constitution faces vitiation from political hawks, donor mongering charlatans, over-zealous novice activists, and many other swindlers that have wormed their way into the constitution-making process.
Libertines from the political fraternity are clearly more worried about creating a constitution that can give the immediate gain of quenching their political debauchery that is often driven by habitual lewdness for power and self-aggrandisement.
These are the hawks whose pre-occupation is to design a constitution tailor-made to advantage specific political allies and to disadvantage political rivals.
Some of these people openly say they want a constitution that will sideline certain political personalities while ensuring that others will win the next election.
The donor mongering charlatans are often experts in the doctrine of truisms and good intentions.
Their primary motivation is to impress donors, and the strategy is often to fulminate against the establishment, portraying it as an irremissible arrangement suffocating the rights of the masses.
The denunciations are often decorated in vociferous rhetoric on matters such as freedom(s) of speech, association, choice, and a lot of other political and civil rights.
Any sane person cannot have a problem with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, or any of the basic freedoms expected of citizens across the world.
The problem is when some people ride on the popularity of these freedoms to defame their political rivals as opponents to these freedoms; and to buttress their case they manufacture scenarios that are designed to convince donors into funding the facade that often carries the title "struggle for democracy".
Donors funding the constitutional process are often misled to believe that Zanu-PF is against the basic freedoms of speech, association, choice, expression, Press and so on and so forth.
This is despite the fact these freedoms are not only in the current Constitution that was drafted by the same party in 1979, but are also in the party’s position paper for the proposed new constitution.
The overzealous political and civic activists are usually the directionless noisy youths that are clearly smitten by the zeal of the novice.
Their position is usually defined by affiliation to political parties and all they do is wait to toe the line of whichever charlatan hired them, absolutely for the sake of it — and often in a rowdy and violent manner.
These are often motivated by such things as fanaticism, blind loyalty, ignorance, promises of privileges, or they are simply purchased by money or such goodies like liquor or even T-shirts and other regalia.
These youngsters are the sorry reality of African politics — a reality of the undesirable mix of democratic politics and poverty.
The common factor between political hawks, donor mongering charlatans and overzealous political activists is greed.
They are all unrepentant rakes devoted religiously to debauchery.
When elected to political office or when appointed to public office or any position of power, these people forget immediately the sweet and impressive rhetoric they preach so thunderously on their way up.
They begin to change friends and acquaintances and they establish their own elite networks designed to accumulate as much lucre and influence as can be accessed.
Elected with hardly a pair of shoes to their name, they cruise in six different cars after a few months, as Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai publicly lamented at a political rally recently.
This writer knows very well that only the collective action of the populace will make a constitution work.
Words coined nicely and eloquently can impress lawyers and academics but what turns the wheels is the action of the masses.
We must get the people’s commitment to the constitution making process and it is only that commitment that will make the constitution work.
Without it, the law can be flouted at will and it will just not matter that there is a constitution in place.
We want people ready to lose everything for the gain in the attainment of the defined goal of living to posterity a nation-serving constitution.
We really do not need mercenaries and monetary minded people in processes like this.
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 wafawarova@yahoo.co.uk or reason@ rwafawarova.com or visit www.rwafawarova.com
APART from the hazards of manipulation that come with external funding, the proposed constitution faces vitiation from political hawks, donor mongering charlatans, over-zealous novice activists, and many other swindlers that have wormed their way into the constitution-making process.
Libertines from the political fraternity are clearly more worried about creating a constitution that can give the immediate gain of quenching their political debauchery that is often driven by habitual lewdness for power and self-aggrandisement.
These are the hawks whose pre-occupation is to design a constitution tailor-made to advantage specific political allies and to disadvantage political rivals.
Some of these people openly say they want a constitution that will sideline certain political personalities while ensuring that others will win the next election.
The donor mongering charlatans are often experts in the doctrine of truisms and good intentions.
Their primary motivation is to impress donors, and the strategy is often to fulminate against the establishment, portraying it as an irremissible arrangement suffocating the rights of the masses.
The denunciations are often decorated in vociferous rhetoric on matters such as freedom(s) of speech, association, choice, and a lot of other political and civil rights.
Any sane person cannot have a problem with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, or any of the basic freedoms expected of citizens across the world.
The problem is when some people ride on the popularity of these freedoms to defame their political rivals as opponents to these freedoms; and to buttress their case they manufacture scenarios that are designed to convince donors into funding the facade that often carries the title "struggle for democracy".
Donors funding the constitutional process are often misled to believe that Zanu-PF is against the basic freedoms of speech, association, choice, expression, Press and so on and so forth.
This is despite the fact these freedoms are not only in the current Constitution that was drafted by the same party in 1979, but are also in the party’s position paper for the proposed new constitution.
The overzealous political and civic activists are usually the directionless noisy youths that are clearly smitten by the zeal of the novice.
Their position is usually defined by affiliation to political parties and all they do is wait to toe the line of whichever charlatan hired them, absolutely for the sake of it — and often in a rowdy and violent manner.
These are often motivated by such things as fanaticism, blind loyalty, ignorance, promises of privileges, or they are simply purchased by money or such goodies like liquor or even T-shirts and other regalia.
These youngsters are the sorry reality of African politics — a reality of the undesirable mix of democratic politics and poverty.
The common factor between political hawks, donor mongering charlatans and overzealous political activists is greed.
They are all unrepentant rakes devoted religiously to debauchery.
When elected to political office or when appointed to public office or any position of power, these people forget immediately the sweet and impressive rhetoric they preach so thunderously on their way up.
They begin to change friends and acquaintances and they establish their own elite networks designed to accumulate as much lucre and influence as can be accessed.
Elected with hardly a pair of shoes to their name, they cruise in six different cars after a few months, as Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai publicly lamented at a political rally recently.
This writer knows very well that only the collective action of the populace will make a constitution work.
Words coined nicely and eloquently can impress lawyers and academics but what turns the wheels is the action of the masses.
We must get the people’s commitment to the constitution making process and it is only that commitment that will make the constitution work.
Without it, the law can be flouted at will and it will just not matter that there is a constitution in place.
We want people ready to lose everything for the gain in the attainment of the defined goal of living to posterity a nation-serving constitution.
We really do not need mercenaries and monetary minded people in processes like this.
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 wafawarova@yahoo.co.uk or reason@ rwafawarova.com or visit www.rwafawarova.com
NEW ZEALAND TOUR CANCELLATION EVIL, ARROGANT
By GUTHRIE MUNYUKI
THE decision by the New Zealand Cricket (NZC) to pull stumps on the scheduled tour of Zimbabwe smacks of a hidden agenda that has sadly deprived ordinary cricket loving locals a chance to see one the world’s decent teams in action.
NZC announced Monday that they want to postpone their tour or reschedule it to June 2011.
Chief executive officer Justin Vaughan said they consider Zimbabwe an unsuitable place to send their cricket side, but was open to the tour being played at a neutral venue.
He said: "The collapse of the Zimbabwe’s health system and the general unstable environment are the primary reasons for the cricket tour’s postponement.
"It was a decision made with the government but we are looking at other options like playing the tour at a neutral venue, most likely South Africa."
The decision by the Kiwis comes at a time when the Zimbabwe cricket team is showing huge signs of coming out of the black hole that it slipped into six years ago.
A lot of resources and time have been invested into the revival of the game and the metamorphosis that the national side has been going through has not been lost on the harshest critics of the game whose rare approval of its improvement is not lost on Zimbabweans.
Zimbabwe Cricket (ZC) has worked its socks off to reconcile and unite with those it lost along the way.
Former captain Heath Streak, now the bowling coach, and other high profile former players, have returned to the game, helping restructure Zimbabwean cricket so that the country regains its lost lustre.
Grudges and suspicions have been swept aside by the strong foundation of oneness that the national side has shown lately.
Even the international press, while noting what they see as slow pace to long term recovery, has given plaudits to both the ZC and the players in their efforts to return the cricket side to Test Cricket.
This is why the tour of New Zealand was viewed as yet another chance to gauge our improvement and work on the existing frailties within the Zimbabwe cricket team.
It is the right of the Kiwis to cancel any tour they feel does not match their expectations.
However, it is not their right to tell us a lie that the situation in Zimbabwe is unstable, that the health system has crumbled and therefore they would rather have the tour in a neutral venue.
This borders on evil.
The decision shows a diabolical and total disregard for the people of Zimbabwe and the majority who love this sport.
What too does that say of the countries that have decided to tour Zimbabwe and have done so over the last five years? Are their safety assessments of a lesser standard than those used in New Zealand? The assumption smacks of arrogance.
Everyone else except the Kiwis knows that there have been significant changes to the social, economic and political environment in Zimbabwe since the formation of the inclusive government on February 13, 2009.
Health care has improved in major hospitals, food has returned to the supermarket shelves and there has been a cessation of violence in most areas that were hotbeds of political violence between 2000 and 2008.
On hospital concerns, the ordinary might not afford the high fees charged by the private hospitals whose facilities are still world class.
Violence has dissipated as most of it was associated with elections and politics.
There is belief that Zimbabwe can make a u-turn on the political precipice it was facing before the formation of the inclusive government.
While these developments are positive, as Zimbabweans, we demand more but surely we don’t expect the current environment to be labelled unstable and insecure!
Yes, strident critics of Zimbabwe have said there have been changes in Zimbabwe although they remain worried by President Robert Mugabe’s stay in office.
That Mugabe remains ensconced in office does not mean that Zimbabwe has remained mired in quagmire; neither does it show us as a people who have taken several steps backwards.
Mugabe’s issue is best left to the electorate which shall deal with that specific item at the appointed time.
Against this background, it is hard to fathom any other reason why Vaughan and the Kiwis see what no-one else has not seen with regards to their security and health.
The fact that their tour should have been undertaken last year but was moved to this year is a clear indictment on the Kiwis’ construction of the Zimbabwean picture.
The shifting of stumps by the Kiwis is quite like placing sanctions on the cricket fans.
It is not ZC that loses but the ordinary Zimbabweans who long to see their team mixing it with the world’s big boys once again.
Vaughan’s utterances dovetail into the long-held view by the foreign press which sees negative things coming out of Africa.
Recently, the foreign media has been awash with negative stories on South Africa’s suitability of hosting a peaceful World Cup over alleged security concerns.
While India, Australia, Bangladesh, the West Indies, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, South Africa, Namibia and Kenya have noted significant improvements in both the political situation and game structures, the Kiwis and England have remained intransigent.
Most of these cricket powerhouses have either mooted tours or are yet to finalise details of possible tour of Zimbabwe and/ or vice versa.
Even the Kiwis themselves have not found an excuse relating to the field and that’s heartening.
It is a fact that we are improving and cannot, therefore, be dismissed on that basis.
The ZC must use situations like this snub by the NZC to bolster their efforts and put a seal on their abilities.
The domestic structures appear to be in excellent state and even their consistent critics over the years are beginning to mellow as a result of the work that is being put into the game.
It is important that the ZC remain focussed on its target of pushing for a sensational return to test cricket within 18-24 months. That is achievable and one needs to look at the Twenty 20 tourney that the local sides participated in last month. Swelling crowds and corporate interest which was quite evident are almost certainly a harbinger of things to come! – newzimbabwe.com
THE decision by the New Zealand Cricket (NZC) to pull stumps on the scheduled tour of Zimbabwe smacks of a hidden agenda that has sadly deprived ordinary cricket loving locals a chance to see one the world’s decent teams in action.
NZC announced Monday that they want to postpone their tour or reschedule it to June 2011.
Chief executive officer Justin Vaughan said they consider Zimbabwe an unsuitable place to send their cricket side, but was open to the tour being played at a neutral venue.
He said: "The collapse of the Zimbabwe’s health system and the general unstable environment are the primary reasons for the cricket tour’s postponement.
"It was a decision made with the government but we are looking at other options like playing the tour at a neutral venue, most likely South Africa."
The decision by the Kiwis comes at a time when the Zimbabwe cricket team is showing huge signs of coming out of the black hole that it slipped into six years ago.
A lot of resources and time have been invested into the revival of the game and the metamorphosis that the national side has been going through has not been lost on the harshest critics of the game whose rare approval of its improvement is not lost on Zimbabweans.
Zimbabwe Cricket (ZC) has worked its socks off to reconcile and unite with those it lost along the way.
Former captain Heath Streak, now the bowling coach, and other high profile former players, have returned to the game, helping restructure Zimbabwean cricket so that the country regains its lost lustre.
Grudges and suspicions have been swept aside by the strong foundation of oneness that the national side has shown lately.
Even the international press, while noting what they see as slow pace to long term recovery, has given plaudits to both the ZC and the players in their efforts to return the cricket side to Test Cricket.
This is why the tour of New Zealand was viewed as yet another chance to gauge our improvement and work on the existing frailties within the Zimbabwe cricket team.
It is the right of the Kiwis to cancel any tour they feel does not match their expectations.
However, it is not their right to tell us a lie that the situation in Zimbabwe is unstable, that the health system has crumbled and therefore they would rather have the tour in a neutral venue.
This borders on evil.
The decision shows a diabolical and total disregard for the people of Zimbabwe and the majority who love this sport.
What too does that say of the countries that have decided to tour Zimbabwe and have done so over the last five years? Are their safety assessments of a lesser standard than those used in New Zealand? The assumption smacks of arrogance.
Everyone else except the Kiwis knows that there have been significant changes to the social, economic and political environment in Zimbabwe since the formation of the inclusive government on February 13, 2009.
Health care has improved in major hospitals, food has returned to the supermarket shelves and there has been a cessation of violence in most areas that were hotbeds of political violence between 2000 and 2008.
On hospital concerns, the ordinary might not afford the high fees charged by the private hospitals whose facilities are still world class.
Violence has dissipated as most of it was associated with elections and politics.
There is belief that Zimbabwe can make a u-turn on the political precipice it was facing before the formation of the inclusive government.
While these developments are positive, as Zimbabweans, we demand more but surely we don’t expect the current environment to be labelled unstable and insecure!
Yes, strident critics of Zimbabwe have said there have been changes in Zimbabwe although they remain worried by President Robert Mugabe’s stay in office.
That Mugabe remains ensconced in office does not mean that Zimbabwe has remained mired in quagmire; neither does it show us as a people who have taken several steps backwards.
Mugabe’s issue is best left to the electorate which shall deal with that specific item at the appointed time.
Against this background, it is hard to fathom any other reason why Vaughan and the Kiwis see what no-one else has not seen with regards to their security and health.
The fact that their tour should have been undertaken last year but was moved to this year is a clear indictment on the Kiwis’ construction of the Zimbabwean picture.
The shifting of stumps by the Kiwis is quite like placing sanctions on the cricket fans.
It is not ZC that loses but the ordinary Zimbabweans who long to see their team mixing it with the world’s big boys once again.
Vaughan’s utterances dovetail into the long-held view by the foreign press which sees negative things coming out of Africa.
Recently, the foreign media has been awash with negative stories on South Africa’s suitability of hosting a peaceful World Cup over alleged security concerns.
While India, Australia, Bangladesh, the West Indies, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, South Africa, Namibia and Kenya have noted significant improvements in both the political situation and game structures, the Kiwis and England have remained intransigent.
Most of these cricket powerhouses have either mooted tours or are yet to finalise details of possible tour of Zimbabwe and/ or vice versa.
Even the Kiwis themselves have not found an excuse relating to the field and that’s heartening.
It is a fact that we are improving and cannot, therefore, be dismissed on that basis.
The ZC must use situations like this snub by the NZC to bolster their efforts and put a seal on their abilities.
The domestic structures appear to be in excellent state and even their consistent critics over the years are beginning to mellow as a result of the work that is being put into the game.
It is important that the ZC remain focussed on its target of pushing for a sensational return to test cricket within 18-24 months. That is achievable and one needs to look at the Twenty 20 tourney that the local sides participated in last month. Swelling crowds and corporate interest which was quite evident are almost certainly a harbinger of things to come! – newzimbabwe.com
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
NUDISTS IN THE BODY POLITIC
The Herald
At one point or the other the world has been treated to a nudist show by some overzealous activists who want to draw attention to their cause which might well range from the noble to outrageous and sometimes outright disgust.
Animal rights activists have often found this device handy, and there you have men and women in a little more than their birth suits fighting for the dear cause of animals they feel are being ill-treated.
In 2003, American country music group, the Dixie Chicks posed nude on the cover of a top magazine in defiance of a section of American public who had been miffed by their anti-Iraq war sentiments.
One of the group members had openly expressed that she was "ashamed" that war mongering President George W Bush came from her home state of Texas.
It will be recalled that Bush had defied millions of dissenting voices at home and abroad as well as the UN Security Council to invade the oil-rich Gulf country, rather blasphemously claiming that "God" had instructed him and his chief lapdog ally called Tony Blair, to topple Saddam Hussein.
Essentially, the underlying principle of all the nudist protests, seem to lie in the perceived irresistibility of a naked body, and by extension, sex, and the symbolic sense of being exposed.
Stripping Nelson Chamisa
Following the gazetting by Government of ministerial administrative powers on Thursday last week, there has been a marked and oft unsavoury use of the nudist device, especially in relation to the Minister of ICT Development Nelson Chamisa whom all week we have been told has been "stripped", "undressed" and "dressed down" by President Mugabe.
Chamisa, like Priscilla Misihairabwi Mushonga, Heneri Dzinotyiwei, and Joel Gabbuza will not have any acts to administer.
It has been Chamisa who has been prominently singled out as having been "stripped of power", as he had openly expressed the wish to take control of telecommunications industry.
Nicholas Goche's Transport, Communication and Infrastructure Ministry will adminnister the posts and telecomms act.
Rabid critic of President Mugabe, John Makumbe, summed the verbal nudist charade by saying, "The MDC has been left naked...it's like MDC are a shadow cabinet."
Chamisa was even more dramatic, saying he had been dismembered of his manhood.
Saying there had been "a gazetting of robbery", he complained that it did not "make any sense" for him to be ICT Minister without the ICT's.
"It is not possible to be a man without the features of a man," he fumed to a local weekly.
Biti says MDC-T is going to fight the "unilateral" administrative assignments tipping his boss Prime Minister Tsvangirai to "deal with the issue" because "party President Tsvangirai appointed our ministers not President Mugabe."
Loose cannon stripped
The furore over Chamisa's "stripping" is understandable, and Makumbe is not way off the mark when he says that it is the MDC-T party that has been stripped naked.
Apart from being a close ally of Tsvangirai, youthful Chamisa is the loose cannon of the party.
His loudmouth opposition to Zanu-PF, with which he has a penchant for finding endless deadlocks and conflicts, deriving -- and not very different from -- student politics where he cut his teeth, is considered crucial.
That he wanted to assign to himself Cabinet functions through the ill-fated ICT Bill last year, in the process stepping into the mandate of the Information and Telecomms ministries as he wanted to shore power on himself is known.
It will be recalled that at one point Chamisa succinctly said he had taken his party's propaganda war to the internet, which he thought he would control, by saying that papers were free to "licence themselves on the internet" to escape the law governing media in the country.
"Without control" of the internet and ZBC which he wanted to wrestle from Shamu the other time, Chamisa has been exposed and for all sensational use of the Queen's language, which sometimes borders on something between baloney and insanity, he is nothing more than an empty cannon.
Playing by the book
For all the sensational talk about Chamisa being "usurped of his powers" we have acutely noted the absence of evidence to the effect that he indeed had powers that had to be stripped in the first place.
One can only be sure that he would be willing to flaunt the letter from Cabinet that assigned him particular duties, which the latest move by Government would have undermined.
For all that is known, and we stand to be corrected, the powers that Chamisa has allegedly been stripped of have but only long been on his wish list and nothing more.
We hope by now he has since made the requisite introspection befitting any serious member of Government as opposed to a student politician.
In the same vein, one cannot help how Biti, for his standing as a lawyer, could be drawn to making a partisan statement that his party was going to fight President Mugabe's "unilateralism" and that Tsvangirai would "deal with the issue", whatever that implied.
Maybe he should, along with anyone interested in procedure, revisit the Cabinet Handbook, which came into force in November 2008.
The handbook, Cabinet's own bible, says on the Assignment of the Administration of Acts of Parliament: "At the direction of His Excellency, the President, the Cabinet Office will reassign the administration of Acts of Parliament to ministers as and when it becomes due."
Any complaints in this regard should be addressed to the Cabinet Office.
How Biti or Chamisa could be lost to this clear-cut procedure is baffling and perhaps an indictment on either the sincerity or the calibre of the two ministers and their followers.
In a word, there is nothing "unilateral", in the evil sense of the word, about the reassignment procedure in the context of GPA.
The Cabinet Handbook recognises the GPA and Prime Minister Morgan Richard Tsvangirai, only reassignment of administrative powers is beyond his scope, neither can he unilaterally reverse them.
That is all about playing by the book.
Rules of engagement
We strongly note and commend America for coming clean on Mr Tsvangirai's statement that Zimbabwe would need an international peace-keeping force in coming elections.
The Prime Minister was wrong in suggesting the deployment of a peacekeeping force, a US diplomat told us, leaving room for a terminological slip up for Mr Tsvangirai.
Sadc would not agree, as there are rules of engagement, whose complexity Mr Tsvangirai had not considered, and it would be impractical for peacekeepers to be involved in an election.
Anyway, Sadc would not want such precedent.
Coming from the US, which Mr Tsvangirai must have wished to sell the idea to, it is warming that the US which has in the past bought every cock and bull story from the MDC, could have such a voice of reason.
Tsvangirai's Damascus moment
On the other hand, it would seem Mr Tsvangirai himself has finally listened to the voice of reason.
On Thursday, he came out in support of the country's indigenisation laws at a business symposium.
He assured investors that there was "no intention on the part of Government to undermine investment but to promote broad-based indigenisation and empowermment" and that the policy was in the best interests of Zimbabweans.
He said Government was negotiating and discussing ways the law could enhance local participation.
The apparent turnaround from Mr Tsvangirai, who had been hell bent on the law after the gazetting of the regulations, is pretty welcome and here is hoping that the PM will show real commitment towards the empowerment of the Zimbabwean populace.
And just as one would expect him to make a follow-up on his sanctions-must-go statement a couple of weeks ago, it will be interesting to see how the PM and his charges act after the statement.
It is an opportunity for becoming popular for a popular cause and it is would seem he has belatedly given himself a present for his 58th birthday.
West's African heroes are cretins
As the dust of South African President Zuma's UK visit settles, there could be not so many more illuminate analyses of the controversial tour than that which given by a perceptive local columnist this week.
Concluding that the underwarm reception by the British public and Press was not because of polygamy, which the gay-loving European country hates with a passion, the columnist gave a very useful insight.
He recalled that in 1998, the beloved Nelson Mandela, two years into his divorce with long-time wife Winnie, had brought his girlfriend Graca Machel, former wife of the assasinated Mozambican nationalist Samora, to Buckingham Palace.
He said Zuma, Mandela and Prince Charles all had a weakness for women, and there was no justifiable reason of deifying or loathing any over the other.
The nub of the Zuma case was that like former President Thabo Mbeki, he had been faithful to a 2002 protocol compelling Sadc and AU countries to "stick together in the face of imperialist onslaught or they would be picked apart one by one".
There can never be a keener observation.
And as far as the beloved Mandela is concerned, just ask Winnie and she will tell you the man who walked out of the whiteman's prison twenty years ago, is not what she, South Africa, and Africa in general expected.
As for another Western darling, Desmond Tutu, well, he is just a cretin who has won fame for a charade called Truth and Reconcilliation Commission.
At one point or the other the world has been treated to a nudist show by some overzealous activists who want to draw attention to their cause which might well range from the noble to outrageous and sometimes outright disgust.
Animal rights activists have often found this device handy, and there you have men and women in a little more than their birth suits fighting for the dear cause of animals they feel are being ill-treated.
In 2003, American country music group, the Dixie Chicks posed nude on the cover of a top magazine in defiance of a section of American public who had been miffed by their anti-Iraq war sentiments.
One of the group members had openly expressed that she was "ashamed" that war mongering President George W Bush came from her home state of Texas.
It will be recalled that Bush had defied millions of dissenting voices at home and abroad as well as the UN Security Council to invade the oil-rich Gulf country, rather blasphemously claiming that "God" had instructed him and his chief lapdog ally called Tony Blair, to topple Saddam Hussein.
Essentially, the underlying principle of all the nudist protests, seem to lie in the perceived irresistibility of a naked body, and by extension, sex, and the symbolic sense of being exposed.
Stripping Nelson Chamisa
Following the gazetting by Government of ministerial administrative powers on Thursday last week, there has been a marked and oft unsavoury use of the nudist device, especially in relation to the Minister of ICT Development Nelson Chamisa whom all week we have been told has been "stripped", "undressed" and "dressed down" by President Mugabe.
Chamisa, like Priscilla Misihairabwi Mushonga, Heneri Dzinotyiwei, and Joel Gabbuza will not have any acts to administer.
It has been Chamisa who has been prominently singled out as having been "stripped of power", as he had openly expressed the wish to take control of telecommunications industry.
Nicholas Goche's Transport, Communication and Infrastructure Ministry will adminnister the posts and telecomms act.
Rabid critic of President Mugabe, John Makumbe, summed the verbal nudist charade by saying, "The MDC has been left naked...it's like MDC are a shadow cabinet."
Chamisa was even more dramatic, saying he had been dismembered of his manhood.
Saying there had been "a gazetting of robbery", he complained that it did not "make any sense" for him to be ICT Minister without the ICT's.
"It is not possible to be a man without the features of a man," he fumed to a local weekly.
Biti says MDC-T is going to fight the "unilateral" administrative assignments tipping his boss Prime Minister Tsvangirai to "deal with the issue" because "party President Tsvangirai appointed our ministers not President Mugabe."
Loose cannon stripped
The furore over Chamisa's "stripping" is understandable, and Makumbe is not way off the mark when he says that it is the MDC-T party that has been stripped naked.
Apart from being a close ally of Tsvangirai, youthful Chamisa is the loose cannon of the party.
His loudmouth opposition to Zanu-PF, with which he has a penchant for finding endless deadlocks and conflicts, deriving -- and not very different from -- student politics where he cut his teeth, is considered crucial.
That he wanted to assign to himself Cabinet functions through the ill-fated ICT Bill last year, in the process stepping into the mandate of the Information and Telecomms ministries as he wanted to shore power on himself is known.
It will be recalled that at one point Chamisa succinctly said he had taken his party's propaganda war to the internet, which he thought he would control, by saying that papers were free to "licence themselves on the internet" to escape the law governing media in the country.
"Without control" of the internet and ZBC which he wanted to wrestle from Shamu the other time, Chamisa has been exposed and for all sensational use of the Queen's language, which sometimes borders on something between baloney and insanity, he is nothing more than an empty cannon.
Playing by the book
For all the sensational talk about Chamisa being "usurped of his powers" we have acutely noted the absence of evidence to the effect that he indeed had powers that had to be stripped in the first place.
One can only be sure that he would be willing to flaunt the letter from Cabinet that assigned him particular duties, which the latest move by Government would have undermined.
For all that is known, and we stand to be corrected, the powers that Chamisa has allegedly been stripped of have but only long been on his wish list and nothing more.
We hope by now he has since made the requisite introspection befitting any serious member of Government as opposed to a student politician.
In the same vein, one cannot help how Biti, for his standing as a lawyer, could be drawn to making a partisan statement that his party was going to fight President Mugabe's "unilateralism" and that Tsvangirai would "deal with the issue", whatever that implied.
Maybe he should, along with anyone interested in procedure, revisit the Cabinet Handbook, which came into force in November 2008.
The handbook, Cabinet's own bible, says on the Assignment of the Administration of Acts of Parliament: "At the direction of His Excellency, the President, the Cabinet Office will reassign the administration of Acts of Parliament to ministers as and when it becomes due."
Any complaints in this regard should be addressed to the Cabinet Office.
How Biti or Chamisa could be lost to this clear-cut procedure is baffling and perhaps an indictment on either the sincerity or the calibre of the two ministers and their followers.
In a word, there is nothing "unilateral", in the evil sense of the word, about the reassignment procedure in the context of GPA.
The Cabinet Handbook recognises the GPA and Prime Minister Morgan Richard Tsvangirai, only reassignment of administrative powers is beyond his scope, neither can he unilaterally reverse them.
That is all about playing by the book.
Rules of engagement
We strongly note and commend America for coming clean on Mr Tsvangirai's statement that Zimbabwe would need an international peace-keeping force in coming elections.
The Prime Minister was wrong in suggesting the deployment of a peacekeeping force, a US diplomat told us, leaving room for a terminological slip up for Mr Tsvangirai.
Sadc would not agree, as there are rules of engagement, whose complexity Mr Tsvangirai had not considered, and it would be impractical for peacekeepers to be involved in an election.
Anyway, Sadc would not want such precedent.
Coming from the US, which Mr Tsvangirai must have wished to sell the idea to, it is warming that the US which has in the past bought every cock and bull story from the MDC, could have such a voice of reason.
Tsvangirai's Damascus moment
On the other hand, it would seem Mr Tsvangirai himself has finally listened to the voice of reason.
On Thursday, he came out in support of the country's indigenisation laws at a business symposium.
He assured investors that there was "no intention on the part of Government to undermine investment but to promote broad-based indigenisation and empowermment" and that the policy was in the best interests of Zimbabweans.
He said Government was negotiating and discussing ways the law could enhance local participation.
The apparent turnaround from Mr Tsvangirai, who had been hell bent on the law after the gazetting of the regulations, is pretty welcome and here is hoping that the PM will show real commitment towards the empowerment of the Zimbabwean populace.
And just as one would expect him to make a follow-up on his sanctions-must-go statement a couple of weeks ago, it will be interesting to see how the PM and his charges act after the statement.
It is an opportunity for becoming popular for a popular cause and it is would seem he has belatedly given himself a present for his 58th birthday.
West's African heroes are cretins
As the dust of South African President Zuma's UK visit settles, there could be not so many more illuminate analyses of the controversial tour than that which given by a perceptive local columnist this week.
Concluding that the underwarm reception by the British public and Press was not because of polygamy, which the gay-loving European country hates with a passion, the columnist gave a very useful insight.
He recalled that in 1998, the beloved Nelson Mandela, two years into his divorce with long-time wife Winnie, had brought his girlfriend Graca Machel, former wife of the assasinated Mozambican nationalist Samora, to Buckingham Palace.
He said Zuma, Mandela and Prince Charles all had a weakness for women, and there was no justifiable reason of deifying or loathing any over the other.
The nub of the Zuma case was that like former President Thabo Mbeki, he had been faithful to a 2002 protocol compelling Sadc and AU countries to "stick together in the face of imperialist onslaught or they would be picked apart one by one".
There can never be a keener observation.
And as far as the beloved Mandela is concerned, just ask Winnie and she will tell you the man who walked out of the whiteman's prison twenty years ago, is not what she, South Africa, and Africa in general expected.
As for another Western darling, Desmond Tutu, well, he is just a cretin who has won fame for a charade called Truth and Reconcilliation Commission.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
US IN WAR AGAINST ZIM
It is a war.
Last week United States president Barack Obama announced he was extending US sanctions on Zimbabwe for another year as his country continued with the "national emergency" against Zimbabwe that, he repeated, posed a "continuing and extraordinary threat to US foreign policy."
US sanctions, enabled by the sanctions law, the so-called Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act passed by George W Bush in 2002, bars US public and private citizens from doing business with Zimbabwe.
It instructs top US officers at multilateral lending institutions like IMF and World Bank to deny Zimbabwe access to funds or cancellation of indebtedness.
Sanctions also bar certain Zimbabweans from entering the US or having investments there.
This also applies to some journalists who have been questioning US' unfair treatment of Zimbabwe.
On the other hand, US sponsors what it terms "pro-democracy" organisations and individuals, who loosely defined are overthrow activists and reactionaries against veteran President Mugabe and his nationalist liberation movement, Zanu-PF.
Obama's latest move is his second in a space of a year, having renewed the sanctions last March.
It also follows hard on the heels of the 27-member EU bloc's recent resolution to extend sanctions on Zimbabwe by a further year, nominally easing the restrictions by removing nine companies and certain persons -- who passed on -- from the list comprising of around 200 individuals and companies.
While there could be little surprise regarding the latest round of sanctions on Zimbabwe, there are a number of interesting points of Western involvement in Zimbabwe.
One of these is the contempt for, or perhaps impatience with, the inclusive Government of Zimbabwe, predicated on the Global Political Agreement.
The agreement, signed by Zanu-PF and the two MDC formations in September 2008, set the tone for political, economic and social reform in the country.
The country's main political parties, Zanu-PF and the two MDC formations, have been implementing the reforms, albeit painstakingly, and still continue to do so.
Ironically, the West, which has been publicly proclaiming support for Zimbabwe in this reform agenda, has been subverting the same.
Sanctions, which the GPA says should go in all their forms, are not only undermining the economic recovery efforts but have also been a divisive element in the Government which has been trying and, largely successfully so, to eliminate polarisation in both society and the body politic.
The circumstances under which the US has renewed sanctions lately have an edge of keenness.
US' recent extension of sanctions came at a time when Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai appeared to have finally found the voice to join President Mugabe and Deputy Prime Minister Professor Arthur Mutambara in calling for the immediate and unconditional lifting of sanctions on Zimbabwe.
Last week, Tsvangirai told visiting Danish Development Co-operation Minister Soren Pind that sanctions were affecting the full implementation of the GPA and should thus go.
Parliament has since unanimously agreed on an anti-sanctions motion.
It will be recalled that July 2008, after the parties had just signed the Memorandum of Understanding, which begot the GPA, the Bush regime in Washington extended the embargo on Zimbabwe.
When Obama extended the sanctions on March 4 last year, the inclusive Government was just a couple of weeks old, with the euphoria of that momentous achievement having barely died down among people of all walks of life.
Sadc, the African Union and many countries across the world support the inclusive Government.
But perhaps the most critical point in US relations with Zimbabwe lies in the statement peddled since March 6, 2003's Executive Order 13288, repeated by Obama on Monday that it was "necessary to continue this national emergency and to maintain in force the sanctions to respond" to Zimbabwe's "unusual and extraordinary threat" to the foreign policy of the United States.
The extension is pursuant to its International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 USC 1701-17-06).
The 1977 Act allows freezing of assets, limiting of trade, and confiscation of property during a declared emergency.
The US is thus virtually in a war situation with Zimbabwe.
Authorities define a "state of emergency" as a governmental declaration that to suspend certain normal functions of government, alert citizens to alter their normal behaviour, or order government agencies to implement emergency preparedness plans.
Such declarations, renewable by the Executive, are usually common during times of natural disasters, civil disorder, or following a declaration of war.
The US has issued emergency declarations with respect to issues in the Middle East, Iran, September 11, among others.
Violators of emergency declarations face punishment, and in the case of Zimbabwe, American individuals and companies stand to pay thousands of dollars in fines if they engage Zimbabwe.
Apart from the overarching imperialist goal and the country's characteristic importation of Britain's bilateral wars, US policy towards Zimbabwe seems to border on something between lies, deception, hypocrisy and intrigue.
One of the basic questions is how little Zimbabwe can pose a continuous and extraordinary threat to the foreign policy of America.
If the US -- just like the EU -- predicate their re-engagement with Zimbabwe on the fulfilment of the GPA, it is to be wondered how Zimbabwe's domestic situation, which the GPA largely is, stand to pose or not pose a threat to US foreign policy.
It is also to be wondered how the alleged "actions and policies of certain members of the Government of Zimbabwe and other persons to undermine Zimbabwe's democratic processes or institutions" can amount to a threat to the foreign policy of America.
The wording and tone of Obama's latest contribution to America's blitz on Zimbabwe shows that part of America's foreign policy has not changed, just as been seen elsewhere, from the regressive, aggressive and senseless Bush era.
This also shows Obama's hypocritical side.
When the Obama administration got into office, it promised a new era of relations with those aggrieved by George W Bush's style of government, but it has been largely Zimbabwe -- whose doors have always been open to negotiations -- that Obama has continuously shunned.
Despite the fact that the US has manifested itself to be a continuous and extraordinary threat to Zimbabwe through economic and political strangulation of the country, Washington has managed to lie to its people and the world that actions of certain Zimbabweans are a threat to America.
(This is of course besides the point that the actions of Zimbabwe in empowering its people that have suffered colonial injustice set the tone for empowerment initiatives by oppressed peoples of the globe.)
Propaganda is also very much a component of USwar on Zimbabwe.
Apart from the American administrations' misleading and oft hysterical language in justifying the war, they have created, funded and hosted individuals and organisations that while systematically sanitising US aggression towards Zimbabwe, they also say and do things that necessitate American self-serving interests.
The so-called independent media, analysts and pro-democracy groups have been part of the intricate propaganda machinery.
And in the cover of the big lie about wanting to see democratic institutions and processes, the US with the help of the aforementioned acolytes has maintained its stranglehold on Zimbabwe.
Yet if truth be told, the US has subverted and bastardised Zimbabwe's institutions and processes for the whole existence of sanctions.
This is because sanctions, which by the US' own admission were designed to "make the economy scream", are by their very nature anti-people yet somehow the US and its partners have transferred their culpability to the "certain individuals" in Zanu-PF.
By funding political and media activities in and outside Zimbabwe, the US has also manipulated and suffocated Zimbabwe's political space, institutions and processes.
The US just does not have the moral ground to play god or disciple in matters of democracy and democratic institutions.
Washington's actions in Zimbabwe and elsewhere confirm such, and its economic war on Zimbabwe, which is known to stem from the desire to reverse indigenous ownership of natural resources, is as evident as it is evil, unjustifiable, and undesirable in any democratic and peace-loving society.
Last week United States president Barack Obama announced he was extending US sanctions on Zimbabwe for another year as his country continued with the "national emergency" against Zimbabwe that, he repeated, posed a "continuing and extraordinary threat to US foreign policy."
US sanctions, enabled by the sanctions law, the so-called Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act passed by George W Bush in 2002, bars US public and private citizens from doing business with Zimbabwe.
It instructs top US officers at multilateral lending institutions like IMF and World Bank to deny Zimbabwe access to funds or cancellation of indebtedness.
Sanctions also bar certain Zimbabweans from entering the US or having investments there.
This also applies to some journalists who have been questioning US' unfair treatment of Zimbabwe.
On the other hand, US sponsors what it terms "pro-democracy" organisations and individuals, who loosely defined are overthrow activists and reactionaries against veteran President Mugabe and his nationalist liberation movement, Zanu-PF.
Obama's latest move is his second in a space of a year, having renewed the sanctions last March.
It also follows hard on the heels of the 27-member EU bloc's recent resolution to extend sanctions on Zimbabwe by a further year, nominally easing the restrictions by removing nine companies and certain persons -- who passed on -- from the list comprising of around 200 individuals and companies.
While there could be little surprise regarding the latest round of sanctions on Zimbabwe, there are a number of interesting points of Western involvement in Zimbabwe.
One of these is the contempt for, or perhaps impatience with, the inclusive Government of Zimbabwe, predicated on the Global Political Agreement.
The agreement, signed by Zanu-PF and the two MDC formations in September 2008, set the tone for political, economic and social reform in the country.
The country's main political parties, Zanu-PF and the two MDC formations, have been implementing the reforms, albeit painstakingly, and still continue to do so.
Ironically, the West, which has been publicly proclaiming support for Zimbabwe in this reform agenda, has been subverting the same.
Sanctions, which the GPA says should go in all their forms, are not only undermining the economic recovery efforts but have also been a divisive element in the Government which has been trying and, largely successfully so, to eliminate polarisation in both society and the body politic.
The circumstances under which the US has renewed sanctions lately have an edge of keenness.
US' recent extension of sanctions came at a time when Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai appeared to have finally found the voice to join President Mugabe and Deputy Prime Minister Professor Arthur Mutambara in calling for the immediate and unconditional lifting of sanctions on Zimbabwe.
Last week, Tsvangirai told visiting Danish Development Co-operation Minister Soren Pind that sanctions were affecting the full implementation of the GPA and should thus go.
Parliament has since unanimously agreed on an anti-sanctions motion.
It will be recalled that July 2008, after the parties had just signed the Memorandum of Understanding, which begot the GPA, the Bush regime in Washington extended the embargo on Zimbabwe.
When Obama extended the sanctions on March 4 last year, the inclusive Government was just a couple of weeks old, with the euphoria of that momentous achievement having barely died down among people of all walks of life.
Sadc, the African Union and many countries across the world support the inclusive Government.
But perhaps the most critical point in US relations with Zimbabwe lies in the statement peddled since March 6, 2003's Executive Order 13288, repeated by Obama on Monday that it was "necessary to continue this national emergency and to maintain in force the sanctions to respond" to Zimbabwe's "unusual and extraordinary threat" to the foreign policy of the United States.
The extension is pursuant to its International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 USC 1701-17-06).
The 1977 Act allows freezing of assets, limiting of trade, and confiscation of property during a declared emergency.
The US is thus virtually in a war situation with Zimbabwe.
Authorities define a "state of emergency" as a governmental declaration that to suspend certain normal functions of government, alert citizens to alter their normal behaviour, or order government agencies to implement emergency preparedness plans.
Such declarations, renewable by the Executive, are usually common during times of natural disasters, civil disorder, or following a declaration of war.
The US has issued emergency declarations with respect to issues in the Middle East, Iran, September 11, among others.
Violators of emergency declarations face punishment, and in the case of Zimbabwe, American individuals and companies stand to pay thousands of dollars in fines if they engage Zimbabwe.
Apart from the overarching imperialist goal and the country's characteristic importation of Britain's bilateral wars, US policy towards Zimbabwe seems to border on something between lies, deception, hypocrisy and intrigue.
One of the basic questions is how little Zimbabwe can pose a continuous and extraordinary threat to the foreign policy of America.
If the US -- just like the EU -- predicate their re-engagement with Zimbabwe on the fulfilment of the GPA, it is to be wondered how Zimbabwe's domestic situation, which the GPA largely is, stand to pose or not pose a threat to US foreign policy.
It is also to be wondered how the alleged "actions and policies of certain members of the Government of Zimbabwe and other persons to undermine Zimbabwe's democratic processes or institutions" can amount to a threat to the foreign policy of America.
The wording and tone of Obama's latest contribution to America's blitz on Zimbabwe shows that part of America's foreign policy has not changed, just as been seen elsewhere, from the regressive, aggressive and senseless Bush era.
This also shows Obama's hypocritical side.
When the Obama administration got into office, it promised a new era of relations with those aggrieved by George W Bush's style of government, but it has been largely Zimbabwe -- whose doors have always been open to negotiations -- that Obama has continuously shunned.
Despite the fact that the US has manifested itself to be a continuous and extraordinary threat to Zimbabwe through economic and political strangulation of the country, Washington has managed to lie to its people and the world that actions of certain Zimbabweans are a threat to America.
(This is of course besides the point that the actions of Zimbabwe in empowering its people that have suffered colonial injustice set the tone for empowerment initiatives by oppressed peoples of the globe.)
Propaganda is also very much a component of USwar on Zimbabwe.
Apart from the American administrations' misleading and oft hysterical language in justifying the war, they have created, funded and hosted individuals and organisations that while systematically sanitising US aggression towards Zimbabwe, they also say and do things that necessitate American self-serving interests.
The so-called independent media, analysts and pro-democracy groups have been part of the intricate propaganda machinery.
And in the cover of the big lie about wanting to see democratic institutions and processes, the US with the help of the aforementioned acolytes has maintained its stranglehold on Zimbabwe.
Yet if truth be told, the US has subverted and bastardised Zimbabwe's institutions and processes for the whole existence of sanctions.
This is because sanctions, which by the US' own admission were designed to "make the economy scream", are by their very nature anti-people yet somehow the US and its partners have transferred their culpability to the "certain individuals" in Zanu-PF.
By funding political and media activities in and outside Zimbabwe, the US has also manipulated and suffocated Zimbabwe's political space, institutions and processes.
The US just does not have the moral ground to play god or disciple in matters of democracy and democratic institutions.
Washington's actions in Zimbabwe and elsewhere confirm such, and its economic war on Zimbabwe, which is known to stem from the desire to reverse indigenous ownership of natural resources, is as evident as it is evil, unjustifiable, and undesirable in any democratic and peace-loving society.
NELSON MANDELA : PUBLIC FACE AND SECRET SHAME?
Look what they make him do.
The great Mandela.
He has no control or say any more…
Mandela is now a corporate foundation. He is wheeled out globally to collect the money and he is content doing that.
The ANC have effectively sidelined him but they keep him as a figurehead for the sake of appearance. – Winnie Madikizela Mandela, former South African First Lady on divorced husband Nelson.
Nelson Mandela the global icon.
Perhaps so because, coming out of racist jails, he showed great will to embrace his former tormentors.
And he has gone an extra mile: letting them keep centuries-old ill-gotten gains.
No land, no education, no economy for his race.
But COULD he have avoided it?
Thursday, March 4, 2010
POLITICS AND CULTURE'S SYMBIOTIC LINK
"When the British came to our country, they said everything we are doing was barbaric, was wrong, inferior in whatever way. Bear in mind that I'm a freedom fighter and I fought to free myself, also for my culture to be respected.
"And I don't know why they are continuing thinking that their culture is more superior than others, those who might have said so.
"I am very clear on these issues, I've not looked down upon any culture of anyone ... and no one has been given an authority to judge others.
"The British have done that before, as they colonised us, and they continue to do this, and it's an unfortunate thing. If people want an engagement, I'm sure we will engage on that issue," - South African President Jacob Zuma to the The Star (cited on iol.co.za)
Culural imperialism, political imperialism, slavery: All because someone has to enlighten the "Dark Continent".
Do Africa's "benefactors" really have the MORAL capacity or standing to do it?
"And I don't know why they are continuing thinking that their culture is more superior than others, those who might have said so.
"I am very clear on these issues, I've not looked down upon any culture of anyone ... and no one has been given an authority to judge others.
"The British have done that before, as they colonised us, and they continue to do this, and it's an unfortunate thing. If people want an engagement, I'm sure we will engage on that issue," - South African President Jacob Zuma to the The Star (cited on iol.co.za)
Culural imperialism, political imperialism, slavery: All because someone has to enlighten the "Dark Continent".
Do Africa's "benefactors" really have the MORAL capacity or standing to do it?
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
US SANCTIONS ON ZIMBABWE STAY
"The crisis constituted by the actions and policies of certain members of the government of Zimbabwe and other persons to undermine Zimbabwe's democratic processes or institutions has not been resolved...
"These actions and policies continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the foreign policy of the United States. For these reasons, I have determined that it is necessary to continue this national emergency and to maintain in force the sanctions to respond to this threat."
- President of the United States of America, Barack Obama
What is so "unusual" and "extraordinary" about the Zimbabwe crisis "threat" that logically compels mighty America to be in a STATE OF EMERGENCY?
"These actions and policies continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the foreign policy of the United States. For these reasons, I have determined that it is necessary to continue this national emergency and to maintain in force the sanctions to respond to this threat."
- President of the United States of America, Barack Obama
What is so "unusual" and "extraordinary" about the Zimbabwe crisis "threat" that logically compels mighty America to be in a STATE OF EMERGENCY?
THIS IS IT...
ME, YOU, US. My country, our neighbours, the world.
A lot of things going on in, and around us and perhaps just too little time and platforms to talk about it.
Thinking to myself, well this is another platform and opportunity to expereince and share such.
The door open to admit every PATRIOT OF THE WORLD.
A lot of things going on in, and around us and perhaps just too little time and platforms to talk about it.
Thinking to myself, well this is another platform and opportunity to expereince and share such.
The door open to admit every PATRIOT OF THE WORLD.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)