SOUTH AFRICA: NO LAND NO CELEBRATION NO FREEDOM

Pambazuka News

"Land is the trophy over which the national liberation struggle was fought. Land is the national asset without which there can be no economic liberation of the majority poor. In South Africa, Africans are 80 per cent of the population, but they have 13 per cent of the land. This is as result of the Native Land Act 1913 that colonially legalised the land dispossession of the African people"
By Motsoko Pheko
What are we celebrating this April 27? Some say we are celebrating democracy, the birth of a rainbow nation, the miracle of a negotiated settlement, the best constitution in the world which makes South Africa the only country in Africa that has legalised same-sex marriages, and the fifth in the whole world to do so.
Sixteen years of post-apartheid period, however, shows that the foundation upon which South Africa is built has dangerous cracks. The negotiated settlement was one-sided. The negotiations did not take into consideration the primary objectives for which the liberation struggle was fought. The fundamental interests of the majority 80 per cent were terribly compromised. The negotiators mistook the beginning of a long journey for arrival at the destination.
That is why the South African constitution has not been amended except when it was to move the people of Khutsong to North West and those of Matatiele to the Eastern Cape. It was amended also when the residents of Phiri, a poor community in Soweto opposed the installation of water metres that made water expensive and unaffordable for them. The South African constitution has never been amended on any fundamental issues that affect the majority poor.
The land policy of the ruling party is an unmitigated disaster. Land is the trophy over which the national liberation struggle was fought. Land is the national asset without which there can be no economic liberation of the majority poor. In South Africa, Africans are 80 per cent of the population, but they have 13 per cent of the land. This is as result of the Native Land Act 1913 that colonially legalised the land dispossession of the African people and created the 'Native Reserves' - the latter 'Bantustans' - as reservoir of cheap native labour for farms and mines. Section 25 of the South African constitution is now just another name for the Native Land Act 1913. It forbids any land claims by Africans before June 1913.
After the Native Land Act, the first secretary of the African National Congress, Solly Plaatje said, 'What took place when Ministers and members (of the colonial parliament) met in caucus in Cape Town, they alone know, but we have the result in the Native Land Act 1913. At the beginning of May (1913), no one knew that the year would see the last territorial freedom for Africans... On June 19 the same year, the law had been enacted and was operating in every part of South Africa.'
Africans were dispossessed of so much land that the secretary of the ANC, Solly Plaatje, the ANC President, John Langalibalele Dube and three others went to Britain. On 14 July they presented a petition to King George V, the coloniser of the African country. These petitioners on behalf of the kings and people of this country said that they loved their country with a most intense love; that land had been taken away from them.
The petitioners said they 'fully accepted the sovereignty of Great Britain and no other.' One of the demands to King George V was 'that the natives (Africans) should be put into possession of land in proportion to their numbers, and on the same conditions as the white race.'
This was nearly 100 years ago. But this has not happened. It was betrayed for the second time at the negotiations table in 1994 and swept under the carpet. This was despite the Africans Claims In South Africa and The Bill Of Rights that had been endorsed by ANC presidents such as Dr Alfred B Xuma, Dr James Moroka and Chief Albert Luthuli.
This freedom document adopted by the ANC in 1943 reads: 'We demand the right to an equal share in all material resources of the country and urge; That the present 13% of the surface area to 8 million Africans as against 87% to 2 million Europeans is unjust...and therefore demand a fair redistribution of LAND.'
The liberation struggle of the African people in South Africa has consistently been one of equitable redistribution of land and its resources according to population numbers. But the ANC government opted to buy back African land on the willing seller, willing buyer principle. This has not worked in spite of billions of Rand spent on this exercise. The ANC government has now run out of money to buy land. The minister of land reform and rural development, Gugile Kwinti has admitted that he needs R72 billion to buy some land.
An African proverb says, 'It is a fool who buys his own cattle.' Buying land that was taken from the Africans colonially is unjust, barbaric and flouts the principles of international law against colonialism and apartheid. This kind of land policy failed in Zimbabwe with dire consequences. If an economic giant such as Britain could not buy enough land in Zimbabwe, what hope is there that the ANC government can settle the land question by buying it?
This unjust land policy has obliged Dan Mokonyane, author of 'The Big Sell Out' to write, 'This is just as the crude spectacle of a rapist who comes to the scene of the devastation of his nefarious act to demand payment for loss of his semen and exertion.'
What are we celebrating in South Africa this April 27? The former freedom fighters such as members of the Azanian Peoples' Liberation Army (APLA) took up arms against apartheid. They are languishing in the prisons of 'New South Africa' for this. The United Nations declared apartheid a crime against humanity through the International Convention On The Suppression And Punishment Of The Crime Of Apartheid. Instead, it is former freedom fighters who been punished with imprisonment. The apartheid regime gave amnesty to over 3,500 of its own security forces and others in 1993. It shredded more than 44 metric tons of documents. In addition to this, the Truth And Reconciliation Commission granted amnesty to further perpetrators of apartheid.
April 27 this year gives this nation the opportunity to reflect on the journey to freedom that has been abandoned for a fairytale destination.
Burning of tyres and blocking of roads all over the country is a signal that something must be corrected before it is too late.
In South Africa most unemployed people are Africans. The poorest people are Africans. People who live in squalid inhuman settlements are Africans. These inhuman shelters often burn or flood destroying lives and property. The least equipped hospitals and clinics are those that serve Africans.
The worst or no roads are where Africans live. The least educated and skilled people in South Africa are Africans. People who have no money for education and are being educated in lowest numbers are Africans. People who have the shortest life expectancy are Africans. People with the highest child mortality are Africans. Yet billions of Rand are buying land and servicing the apartheid debt.
The majority of 45 million Africans possess little or nothing. Their democracy is dispossession without repossession. The constitution of South Africa must be amended. There must be a just democratic constitution to create a developmental state that will lift the standard of living of all people and banish poverty and underdevelopment.
Professor Sampie Terreblanche hits the nail on the head in his book, 'A History of Inequality in South Africa,1652-2002' when he writes, 'The ANC's core leaders effectively sold its sovereign freedom to implement an independent and appropriate socio-economic policy for a mess pottage when it entered into several compromises with the corporate sector and its global partners. These unfortunate "transactions" must be retracted or re-negotiated.'

ZIM, IRAN STURDY FRONTS AGAINST IMPERIALISM

The Herald
"It then follows that MDC-T's boycott of Iran is an act of evil, not far removed from inviting hurtful sanctions and hobnobbing with evil oppressors.The decision was not inspired by any form of logic other than loyalty to Western evil machinations on Iran. (Iran has not wronged the West, or funded genocide in America, Britain, France, Germany, etc, like the latter did during the Iran/Iraq war)To the ordinary being, the MDC-T boycott is not only an insult to common civility but also an expression of disturbing naivete."
By Tichaona Zindoga
FOLLOWING the arrival of the President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, in Zimbabwe on Thursday, a conservative American journal The Right Perspective was explicit in its opposition to the two leaders.
It said: "Call it a meeting of the evil minds: anti-white, Marxist, Zimbabwe dictator Robert Mugabe has welcomed anti-Israeli, socialist, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad into his country with open arms and a 21-gun salute."
It noted that President Ahmadinejad was the first non-African leader to open the event "since Rhodesia was taken over by Communists in 1980" adding that "many Western nations have steered clear of the trade fair since Mugabe began his racist eviction of white farmers from their homeland farms 10 years ago."
It was the standard Western assessment of the visit with one paper calling it a "meeting of tyrants", who are "long on anti-Western rhetoric" being "united by their politics".
President Ahmadinejad, in a historic visit to Zimbabwe officially opened the Zimbabwe International Trade Fair in Bulawayo on Friday after touring Zimbabwe/Iran joint ventures in Harare and Chitungwiza the previous day.
Western displeasure with Zimbabwe/Iran association is understandable in the following context:
Zimbabwe and Iran share common revolutionary backgrounds, which are headlined by their resistance to the Western imperialist onslaught.
Recent years have especially brought this similarity. Zimbabwe, which won Independence from Britain via a heroic armed struggle in 1980, is to the present day fighting the same, albeit under changed circumstances.
During the past decade the West, led by the US and Britain, has been hounding Zimbabwe for its decisive and hugely popular economic indigenisation efforts through a raft of sanctions and bullying and isolationism.
On the other hand, since defeating a Western puppet regime in the historic 1979 Revolution, Iran has been subject to undue interference from the West highlighted in the 1980-88 war with chemical weapons-using Iraq, to the current opposition to its peaceful nuclear programme.
In both resource-rich countries, the West has been trying to effect illegal regime change, through funding opposition movements.
Zimbabweans and Iranians have stood firm, though, albeit at a price.
The West has sought to isolate the two countries on the basis of alleged bad human rights records.
In a word, conservative Western opinion the coming of President Ahmadinejad not only simply reiterated its hate for the individual countries.
It also exposed indignation at the coming together of the two countries, which can only culminate in the emasculation of efforts to strangulate them through isolation and sanctions.
However, if this is to be expected as a historical continuum of the evil Western domineering, the reaction by some Zimbabweans parading as MDC-T party was at best arsinine and unfortunate and tragic and evil at worst.
On Thursday, MDC-T boycotted the Iranian leader's welcome, with two ministers only turning up at State House to sign some bilateral agreements.
They also avoided the official opening of ZITF by the visiting head. MDC-T said in a statement quoted in the media that "as a party we feel a country is defined by its friends".
"We want to place it on record that judging by his record, Ahmadinejad is not coming as a friend of Zimbabwe, but as an ally of those who unilaterally invited him," read the statement.
The party opined that "hobnobbing with dubious political characters confirms stereotypes that we are a banana republic".
The quintessence of the action of MDC-T lies in its blind loyalty to the West.
This is so as the US and Britain are self-professed friends, funders and allies of the party.
The tragedy lies in that MDC-T, which represents a sizeable number of people being in the inclusive Government, is pawning Zimbabwe's interests over the orientation of its allies.
In this case, President Ahmadinejad's "dubiousness", from which MDC-T sought to distance itself, stems from Western definition of him as such.
The statement that "(President) Ahmadinejad is not coming as a friend of Zimbabwe, but as an ally of those who unilaterally invited him," shows MDC-T's warped side.
At a time when the very friends of MDC-T, the US and the European Union have shunned and imposed sanctions on Zimbabwe which are designed to make the economy scream, Iran has come to Zimbabwe's side.
Although not endowed with American megabucks, Iran has been supporting Zimbabwe through the signing of various Memoranda of Understanding and bilateral agreements.
These are in the areas of tourism, air service, science and technology, finance, education, diplomatic issues and youth affairs.
Iranian banks and financial institutions are set to provide credit facilities and financing for Zimbabwe projects.
Iran also provided the largest number of foreign companies exhibiting at ZITF.
On the other hand, US/EU relations with Zimbabwe have been the very opposite of Iranian help, even with the makeover of the so-called humanitarian aid.
Sanctions imposed by the axis bar private and public investment in Zimbabwe.
The US's anti-Zimbabwe sanctions law, Zdera, specifically binds American top executives at multilateral institutions to veto any cancellation of Zimbabwe's debts and any extension of lines of credit. The US, which discourages tours to Zimbabwe, also punishes people and businesses that do business in Zimbabwe.
Western sanctions, which are subject to renewal and updates, blacklist some Zimbabwean companies and business people.
The idea of the measure is to deny business the opportunity to contribute significantly to the economy.
A vibrant Zimbabwean economy defeats the West's drive to ruin the economy and turn people against Zanu-PF, the brains behind indigenisation and land reform, which so upsets the West.
For the record, MDC-T unilaterally invited Western sanctions on Zimbabwe.
The West has refused to support the inclusive Government, even though it has the support of the majority of Zimbabweans.
In the light of the foregoing, President Ahmadinejad came as a friend of Zimbabwe. While the MDC-T hobnobs with enemies of the country, who are bent on reversing the just cause of Zimbabwean majority, Iran also provides moral support to this besieged people.
"We believe in common principles," President Ahmadinejad said in Bulawayo, "All nations are respected and beloved by their creator God the Merciful, the Compassionate," he said having noted that some oppressive and arrogant countries wanted to deprive people of their resources, rights, peace and prosperity.
He observed that the West, which he described as putting "Satanic pressures" on Zimbabwe, wanted to perpetuate injustice and impoverishment.
It then follows that MDC-T's boycott of Iran is an act of evil, not far removed from inviting hurtful sanctions and hobnobbing with evil oppressors.
The decision was not inspired by any form of logic other than loyalty to Western evil machinations on Iran. (Iran has not wronged the West, or funded genocide in America, Britain, France, Germany, etc, like the latter did during the Iran/Iraq war)
To the ordinary being, the MDC-T boycott is not only an insult to common civility but also an expression of disturbing naivete.

"MANDELA NOT AFRICAN HERO"

The Herald
JULIUS MALEMA'S POSION AND MANDELA'S LEGACY
By ALexander Kannengoni
IT WAS inevitable that Julius Malema’s visit to Zimbabwe two weeks ago would generate much interest.People on both sides of the Limpopo wanted to know the implications of such a visit to both Zimbabwe and South Africa. Knowing the sort of person that Malema is, the drama that happened at Luthuli House, where he ejected a BBC reporter from a Press conference, marked the highest point of the dramatic journey. It is certainly not the way things are done but it is easy to understand the young man.His outburst was reflex reaction to several centuries of humiliation and domination by the whiteman since the day Jan van Riebeeck landed at the Cape of Good Hope in 1652 that clearly seems to be continuing 15 years after they are free.Their courts will soon try to establish the motives behind Eugene Terre’Blanche’s murder whose party wants to perpetuate white domination. The courts may grapple to find the motives but whatever they will find, the motives cannot be completely removed from the bigger context of the AWB party fundamental policy to perpetually dominate the blacks. Malema’s anger is easy to understand if one is black.Already, the Western media are on full throttle to portray the unfortunate BBC reporter as a victim and ultimately a hero and Malema as the disdainful villain. Insinuations have already started that its part of what he learned on his visit to Zimbabwe. But the real focal point of Malema’s visit and utterances is (a) Jacob Zuma’s leadership and (b) Nelson Mandela’s legacy.There are suggestions that Malema is a liability to both the ANC and Jacob Zuma. I don’t think it’s entirely correct. If you take away his excesses and youthful flamboyance, Malema represents a genuine and legitimate voice in the ANC that anyone would try to stifle at their own risk.It is common knowledge that Zuma’s ascendancy to president of the ANC at Polokwane was facilitated, among other people, by the ANCYL that Malema leads. There are also suggestions that Zuma might not have approved Malema’s visit to Zimbabwe. Considering Malema came to Zimbabwe just two weeks after Zuma was here, it is highly likely Zuma knew or even requested for the visit.Julius Malema is Jacob Zuma’s problem child but there is no way he can throw him out through the window. In my opinion, the bigger problem with Malema’s position and utterances is what that does to Nelson Mandela’s legacy.There is no doubt that Nelson Mandela is a hero but he is a big African disappointment. Perhaps we expected too much of him. The man who was imprisoned at Robben Island in 1963 was a creation of people’s resistance to apartheid and white domination. The man who came out of Robben Island in 1991, wearing a broad smile and preaching reconciliation and forgiveness was a bit of a myth.Considering that he had been incarcerated for nearly 30 years, one would have expected some anger and bitterness, it’s only human. But because to us he was larger than life, we quickly understood. We were totally unprepared for the war with the West that followed, a war to appropriate him. We lost that war. Suddenly, he was more theirs than ours: he was more the West’s hero than ours.South Africans must be applauded for the dignity and maturity they displayed in accepting the loss. In other circumstances and with other people, they might have doubted and questioned his commitment.The first person to notice the problem was his wife then, Winnie. At the beginning we could not understand her and some even called her names. But when in 1999, Nelson Mandela flew over Tunisia where the OAU heads of state and government summit was underway on his way to Europe and America to bid the leaders there farewell because he was retiring from South African politics, it was the final nail on the coffin of a miscarried African dream.Africa was too pained to say anything. But we should keep our minds open for possible further surprises. When he eventually dies, someone might suggest to bury him alongside Winston Churchill, Abraham Lincoln or Charles de Gaulle. Of course all these men are heroes but they are not exactly ours.Last December, I had the occasion to visit the Walter Sisulu Memorial Square in Soweto. It is an awesome historical monument. Engraved on stone around the circular square are the 15 fundamental provisions of the Freedom Charter. At the height of the struggle against apartheid and white domination, the Freedom Charter was the bible of the ANC.I remember during the days we trained as freedom fighters in Tanzania in the 1970s, Umkonto weSizwe (MK) cadres recited it from back to back. Nelson Mandela read it from the dock before they whisked him away to Robben Island back in ’63. The Freedom Charter must be the basis of the current constitution of the ANC. It was here at the place later designated to Walter Sisulu that they say the document was drafted.Everything is there in the provisions inscribed on stone around the square: equal access to land, creation of equal opportunity in commerce and industry to all, access to education, access to health, access to housing, access to transport etc, etc.A guide, a former MK member we were told, took us through the provisions, his voice becoming agitated each time he got to those provisions he thought were not yet fulfilled 15 years after independence and there were many. In fact, most of them were still unfulfilled.It is the frustrations and disillusionment generated by these unfulfilled promises that are giving rise to the radicalism we are witnessing in young people like Julius Malema. Things are not going exactly according to the prescription of the Freedom Charter.There are many other things happening in South Africa that the young people find frustrating. For instance, the decision by the courts to ban a liberation war song on the grounds that it has the potential to incite people to commit violence has got frightening implications.It could be seen as an attempt to erase from people’s memories all images and stories about their heroic struggle against apartheid. If the South Africans abide by such court rulings, it must be certainly within their power to promulgate new laws that defend and promote the values and stories about their liberation struggle.They surely cannot allow such an important part of their history to be killed by laws from the apartheid era. Otherwise the only documentation that will remain is the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the new heroes it has created the credentials of whom the likes of Julius Malema are questioning. The story of the struggle must be told and re-told over and over again. We faced a similar predicament with our so-called ‘born-frees.’Although there were no laws to prohibit us from swamping them with the liberation story we just relaxed and assumed they knew and the next day they were challenging us to return the country to the whites and see if they can’t liberate it. We are still grappling with that crisis now. The liberation war was not a stroll in the park. There is a deliberate effort to re-write the history of South Africa.A colleague from Zambia once suggested that Africa should take the West to court for taking away Nelson Mandela from us in such a callous manner. In fact that whatever they did to him at Robben Island was unforgivable and criminal. It happened with our own nationalist, Ndabaningi Sithole during the struggle.They worked on him in prison to the point he signed documents renouncing the armed struggle as part of conditions for his release. Such futile thinking like taking anybody to court only helps to demonstrate how angry people are over the issue. The Freedom Charter contained ideals that people gave up their lives for. It is those ideals that people like Julius Malema are fighting to uphold.Julius Malema has obviously got a lot of enemies, some of whom wish him dead. For people like me, it’s not the man that is the issue; it’s the ideals that he stands for that are difficult to kill. Some people might regard Malema as an eccentric but most of the things that he goes around saying are contained in the Freedom Charter.Malema has come and gone. It is clear that his visit was intended to express solidarity with Zanu-PF. After all, MK forces fought and died alongside our own Zipra forces on the northwestern front around Hwange and Lupane during the struggle.Our relationship with the ANC is steeped in blood. It is also evident the visit was intended to revive memories of the liberation era, sending a strong message to the South Africans that the ANC had not abandoned the original agenda of the struggle as enshrined in the Freedom Charter. Malema was the perfect person to do that.If there are any people to learn anything from the Zimbabwean experience, it is certainly not Julius Malema but those with the economic power and the land. They must accept to share some of it with the previously dispossessed and disadvantaged people.That is the idea behind the willing-seller-willing-buyer provision.If they continue to succumb to greed and resist to share, one day, laws would be promulgated to share the land and wealth compulsorily and that can be quite messy.Malema’s visit to Zimbabwe has nothing to do with them accepting to share.Jacob Zuma has the enormous and unenviable task to assert the African identity of his country while keeping the aspirations of people like Malema on the leash as he skilfully manoeuvres his country out of Nelson Mandela’s white controlled legacy.In the one year that Zuma has been in power, he has managed to do it in an amazing and sometimes old-fashioned way.

WESTERN CLONE BABIES MDC-T SNUB IRAN...

The Herald
MDC-T members of the inclusive Government were conspicuous by their absence at the Harare International Airport yesterday, where their Zanu-PF counterparts and hundreds of jubilant Zimbabweans gathered to welcome Islamic Republic of Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who is here for a State visit.
The Herald has it on good authority that all senior officials in the inclusive Government were asked to be present, but only those from Zanu-PF and MDC showed up.
Similarly, none were present as President Ahmadinejad toured the Modzone Enterprises factory in Chitungwiza and at the commissioning of the tractor assembly plant in the Willowvale industrial area.
Modzone was formed after Iranian investors injected capital to revive the then Cone Textiles which had collapsed while the tractor project is another joint venture between Iran and Zimbabwe.
It is understood that the MDC-T leadership was considering not attending the Iranian leader's official opening of the Zimbabwe International Trade Fair in Bulawayo today in solidarity with Western nations opposed to Mr Ahmadinejad's leadership.
Later in the evening, ministers Giles Mutsekwa (co-Home Affairs) and Eliphas Mukonoweshuro turned up at State House to append their signatures to agreements between Zimbabwe and Iran.
Yesterday, only deputy national organising secretary Mr Morgan Komichi could be reached to explain their conspicuous absence and he expressed ignorance of President Ahmadinejad's visit.
"I'm not even aware that he is coming today (yesterday). There is a delegation going to the Trade Fair tomorrow (today) but I'm not sure if (party leader) Mr (Morgan) Tsvangirai is going," he said.
Asked to explain the absence of their partners in the inclusive Government, Foreign Affairs Minister Simbarashe Mumbengegwi said: "I hadn't noticed. Maybe they will be there at the Trade Fair."
However, it is understood the party had made a deliberate decision to snub President Ahmadinejad with Internet sites quoting the party's officials badmouthing the Iranian leader.
A senior Government official said: "Diplomats from other countries were there except those from Western embassies. People should not consider it a coincidence that Western diplomats were not there and MDC-T was also absent.
"What they (MDC-T) forget is that they are taking a Westerners' position. Those people are not Zimbabweans and they will leave the country.
"The MDC-T people will remain here and live here. They have no other home and to toe such lines is to their detriment."
Another official said it was strange the MDC-T-run council in Bindura had conferred on former Iranian ambassador to Zimbabwe Mr Rasoul Momeni with the Freedom of the City.
Last week, MDC-T's information department issued a statement in which they said hosting President Ahmadinejad was "like inviting a mosquito to cure malaria".
Observers last night said MDC-T was simply dancing to the tune of Western countries, which have tried to effect illegal regime change in Iran since the popular 1979 revolution that deposed the Western-backed puppet regime of Shah Reza Pahlavi.

...AS SATANIC RIGHTIST BIGOTS SEE THE SPECK IN THE EYE
Call it a meeting of the evil minds: anti-White, Marxist, Zimbabwe dictator Robert Mugabe has welcomed anti-Israeli, Socialist, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad into his country with open arms and a 21-gun salute.Ahmadinejad came to open the 51st edition of the Zimbabwe International Trade Fair in Bulowayo on Friday, where Iran is the largest player. He is the first leader from outside the African continent to open the event since Rhodesia was taken over by Communists in 1980.Many Western nations have steered clear of the trade fair since Mugabe began his racist eviction of White farmers from their homeland farms 10 years ago.A communique from the Zimbabwe Iran Joint Commission released before Ahmadinejad arrived said that the two nations were committed to "the promotion of peace and stability in their respective regions" and welcomed Iran's proposals to host an international nuclear disarmament conference.It also said that the two countries agreed to create a joint investment company to help develop industry, energy, mining, water management and social and financial servicesIran will also donate US$2 million to Zimbabwe for health services.Iran has already invested in Zimbabwe through a joint venture to build tractors there. One assembly plant has already been built with state-of-the-art equipment in Willowvale.In an editorial The Daily Herald, believed by many to be a mouthpiece for Mugabe's Zanu-PF, praised the Iranian leader and said "The West's neocolonial agenda should only make us stronger."The Herald also quoted Ahmadinejad as condemning "all Satanic pressures imposed on Zimbabwe and these powerful countries are doomed, they will not be successful." - The Right Perspective

RHODIES, BOERS ARE COLONIALS, STUPID!

I take a lot of interest in the following analysis of my story that appeared in the Herald which i duly published on this blog.
I am amazed that i really could be anyone else's, in this case part of "Mugabe's ranting propaganda" machine, implying that i do not have my own mind to see things from my own perspective, even similar or inseperable from that of veteran nationalist Mugabe.
Here is what one Jan from AfricanCrisis writes of the story "Malema: West's new bogeyman":

FROM Mugabe's Propaganda machine - The Herald - Zimbabwe: Malema - the West's New Bogey Man - Mugabe reads AfricanCrisis for sure - They HATE Jan Lamprecht's analysis - Did I save Julius Malema's life?

Here is a brilliant piece of Mugabe's ranting propaganda. Now enemy propaganda is always worth studying - with an analytical and skeptica mind. There are interesting things in it. They also disseminate as many lies as they can too by presenting fiction as fact. I'll give some examples below. There are very interesting references in it. I advise people to study it closely, but with a SKEPTICAL MIND. If you are a regular AfricanCrisis reader and you really follow things closely, you might see something extremely interesting in some of the comments in this article that indicate that Mugabe's people are reading AfricanCrisis. They even try to comment directly on something that was published here recently that annoys them intensely. I came up with an analysis that they don't like at all. I've found something and they just don't like what I've found. Now they want to claim its "malicious". Well, that's their stupid attempt to slander my analysis, because my analysis does not suit their propaganda. This is the only article they can possibly be referring to. Here's the piece they HATE: S.Africa: Who is going to kill Julius Malema? Can General Julius Malema defeat the ANC & President Zuma on his own? I made the sentence in THE HERALD article below bold so you can spot it. Read the way they tried to interpret it, and compare it with what is inside my analysis…This ranting piece attempts to shore up support for Malema from Zimbabwe. THE HERALD is Mugabe's personal propaganda machine these days, and it has vile articles in it attacking Rhodesia and so forth. The Rhodesians, mind you, were hardly COLONIALS, because WE BROKE WITH BRITAIN. We openly broke with Britain and Britain worked against us. Ian Smith and the Rhodesians who fought Mugabe were NOT COLONIALS - WE WERE WHITE AFRICANS WHO WANTED TO STAY JUST LIKE THE BOERS WERE. But Mugabe needs to flog that dead horse, Britain, whenever he can because it is the only thing that gives some meaning to his worthless rotten life for which I hope he spends an eternity in hell - which he richly deserves.Inside Mugabe's political propaganda, you see hints that might or might not be true. For example, Mugabe claims that MDC-T is supported by WHITES IN SOUTH AFRICA. They talk of "White capital". Mugabe's nightmare, and his deepest fear, is when white people back black political parties. Nothing scares him more than this, and this white/black partnership has nearly destroyed him - TWICE in the last 10 years. I won't mention the occasions. What Mugabe hates with a passion is when the whites don't support HIM. When they did, he was fine with that, but the moment the whites seemed to move elsewhere, he perceived them as a tremendous threat. Mugabe *HATES* whites in African politics because of the punch we can pack. White Africans are the most dangerous thing Mugabe has ever faced and he fears us more than he fears America or Britain or anyone else. Mugabe knows that if we can land a knock-out blow on him to remove him from the picture, decisively, for once and for all - we will. I don't mean we want to assassinate him - in fact, keeping him alive may be as logical as it was to the allies to keep Hitler alive (another story worth telling that I saw on THE HISTORY CHANNEL some time back). But Mugabe needs to be defeated decisively politically. It seems Mugabe worries about the whites in South Africa because some of us, do reach out to touch him from time to time, and we annoy him and put a spanner in his plans whenever we can. Among one of the many lies below I should especially point to the one that "Whites resettled blacks in inhospital regions". I'd like to know what inhospitable regions even exist in that beautiful country that this slimeball ruined. It has far better rainfall than South Africa... As I recall, the transformation of Zimbabwe into a semi-desert was the work of Mugabe. Prior to him, the country was beautiful with lush vegetation and enormous numbers of wildlife and farm animals. I doubt there were any "inhospitable regions" anywhere in the entire country. But Mugabe and his fiends need to constantly try to promote the lies about us whites. I don't think Mugabe and the ANC like my analyses at all, and yet, I think I have quite a splendid track record of beating many to the mark many times. Years before Jacob Zuma became President and Mbeki was deposed, I was writing my analysis which many people thought was the work of a nut. But the nut was closer to the mark than anyone else. And on this matter of race war, genocide, and the actions of Malema and Zuma, I'm too close for comfort to the mark.I hope that Western Intelligence digs deep and hard into President Zuma's actions. I say he's a liar and he's been murdering blacks from Zimbabwe and he was going to try to nail the White Farmers and the big mines in South Africa. These issues should not be taken lightly.Whites must press forward for self-defence. We'll be needing it. Jan

• Agreed i actually follow the Jan's site for the sole reson why he says "enemy propaganda is worth studying"
  

Of course i take, just as he would do, the same with a pinch of salt.

In this particular instance i also note that his "analysis" is fraught with emotion and lies (not everything though, which is perfectly human).

Jan tries to trash the idea that blacks were condemned to arid and inhospitable areas.

The Rhodie (which he admits he is), probably forgets about the 1930 Land Apportionment Act, which created white and black areas and reserves, etc.

This heinous piece of legislation led to the more formalisation of land segregation as blacks were bandied reserves such as Gwaii, Shangani, Tsholotsho, etc.

The law created land which blacks could purchase (which they couldn't afford, anyway).

Europeans would not have found this land quite appealing.

As for the claim that Zimbabwe does not have any arid area, it's either Jan did not do his geography or agriculture well.

Had he done, he could well be informed of what are called "the Natural Farming Regions", a 1-5 scale for agric suitability.

It is known that Regions 3-5 are generally the lower end of the scale with the latter being only fit for animal ranges.

This include Hwange and Gonarezhou, which are in fact huge vestiges of wildlife.

Then there is this sick joke that Smith and co are not colonials.

They are white Africans, Jan tells us.

We know when the whites set foot on African soil they they said they had found a home, just like other aliens in the mould of Australians and Americans, did in the aborigine and Indian lands.

The present generation of these people might not have partaken of colonialism, plunder, rape, murder...but they are the progeny of those ills.

In the same vein, Jan's Rhodies of the Smith era - and the Boers - were colonials because they inherited colonial property.

It makes them no less criminals and enemies and robbers.

God had given them and their kind the miserable areas, which they abandoned for other belessed parts of the world.

Their influence in our politics, in this era of Independence, is of course poisonous and any right thinking person would not want to give them enough elbow room.

The reason is simple: buoyed by paternalistic politics, they involve themselves, and eventually after posturing to be Africans, they will reverse the gains of our liberation and consign us back to slavery and colonialism - not in the more savage ways of the earlier era of course.

This is precisely the reason why Americans would not want black "Americans" to have influence: they will reclaim their humanity lost since slavery.

For the same reasons, Rhodies and Boers and other upshots of vice should not be given space in today's Africa.

It is only prudent to consolidate what Independence has brought by raking up what is still in the hands of the minority.

MALEMA: WEST'S NEW BOGEYMAN

The Herald
By Tichaona Zindoga
OVER a fortnight ago, the leader of South Africa's ruling African National Congress Youth League, Julius Malema, was in Zimbabwe for a solidarity visit to the sister revolutionary movement, Zanu-PF.
The visit by the firebrand leader, who has ruffled the feathers of right-wingers in South Africa and abroad, received mixed, if not obvious reactions.
One reaction was that of welcoming the strengthening of the traditional relations between the continent's oldest pan-African revolutionary movement with its Zanu-PF counterpart whose struggle against Western imperialism began about half a century ago.
Under the leadership of President Robert Mugabe, Zanu-PF has arguably become Africa's most ardent and exemplary anti-imperial force after it embarked on the historic land reform programme, which benefited about half a million families previously condemned to arid and inhospitable areas by Rhodesian settler regimes.
Zimbabwe played a significant role in South Africa in upstaging the racist colonial order by, among other things, housing South African liberation cadres.
The other reaction has been that of people who are not comfortable with not only Malema's radical stance against the continued marginalisation of black people in South Africa.
The fiery youth leader has been in the limelight for calling for the end of the marginalisation of black South Africa by singing the song "Kill the Boer" as a symbolism for the long overdue redress of imbalances which the 1994 "Independence" seemed to festoon.
Those who are not comfortable with Malema's South African stance have also not been lost to the significance of his Zimbabwe visit, which basically is but the axis that every capitalist and neo-colonial being would vehemently wish away.
The ANCYL leader's visit was aimed at exchanging notes and sharing experiences with Zimbabwe whose indigenisation and economic empowerment policies, including the just land reform programme, could prove crucial examples to a South African nation whose economy is saddled with apartheid inertia.
Estimates are that, for example, it could take 100 years for equitable land ownership making the situation decidedly anti-black, which successive administrations have failed to reverse since the official end of apartheid in 1994.
Opponents of popular historical justice in South Africa have been trying to silence Malema, including through the courts.
A High Court judge barred the singing of the inspirational anti-apartheid song, which move has been construed as trying to delete history and to muffle the movement for justice.
Another ploy to frustrate Malema's lead in the reclaiming of the humanity of people bogged by apartheid inertia has been trying to play Malema against President Zuma.
Some people have even maliciously touted Malema as the more powerful of the two, which trick of course is predicated on the hope that President Zuma reins in Malema and effectively kills the swelling movement for redress.
In Zimbabwe, some quarters are unhappy with the ANCYL's association with Zanu-PF.
Said one party: "Malema's pilgrimage and his chanting of Zanu-PF slogans represent gross interference in Zimbabwe's internal party politics to prop up the fortunes of the rejected Zanu-PF."
An official said Malema's visit was designed to "poison" the country's political climate and that the "people who invited him were not only malicious and mischievous."
The underlying basis for thinking that a revolutionary who comes to exchange notes and share experiences with others of a similar orientation is up to "poisoning" the country's climate comes in the very reason why a party that purports to have the people at heart could identify with the oppressor.
It is the desire of the said party to deny revolutionaries audience and company at the same time as oppressors have vast synergies that aim to flood out opponents.
In a word, Zanu-PF, in this case negatively labelled as "rejected", should not have friends, even among its traditional allies.
The "poison" is in its being befriended while one party and its external supporters resolutely pray that it becomes "rejected".
Malema stands accused of "gross interference in Zimbabwe's internal party politics to prop up the fortunes of the rejected Zanu-PF."
At face value, this appears a sound and impartial statement from puritans of fair, sovereign politics.
This view seems to be informed by the view that if the ANC under President Jacob Zuma is to be trusted, it must have no affiliations in Zimbabwe politics (this is despite the fact that the ties are undeniably deep, anyway).
The ANCYL is viewed as an extension of ANC, despite the fact that the later has no say in government policy. If one looks at the partners and friends of MDC-T and their activities in Zimbabwe, one realises the party cannot try and play the anti-interference puritan.
First, MDC-T's friends and partners in the West have worked round the clock to undermine, punish and isolate Zanu-PF via a raft of measures that criminalise and subvert the party and the people of Zimbabwe.
These friends and partners have continued to do the same in the inclusive Government era by maintaining their illegal economic sanctions.
Second, MDC-T's friends and partners provide financial and material support for the party and its acolytes in the media and civil society.
On the other hand, it is known that when the MDC-T calls for "international" supervision in local elections or even local dialogue, it is calling for its friends to interfere in Zimbabwe.
The same goes for the party's calls for the "opening of media space" in the country.
The party is simply calling for the regularisation of the flotilla of anti-Zanu-PF media, currently in the murky pirate domain, which are supported by the party's friends and partners in the West.
The party, of course, says this is democracy.
Knowing that democracy has been used as a cover for Western attempts to subvert Zanu-PF and its historic achievements on indigenisation, one understands that Western proffered "democracy" in Zimbabwe is but called interference.
MDC-T's discomfort with Malema is also understandable due to its links with South African white capital of Rhodesian stock.
First, the South African white capital is undeniably strong as the country is home to those many whites who could not embrace Independence in 1980, and the land reform in 2000, and have been supporting the MDC to have their unjust way round.
Second, the last vestige of colonialism, which MDC has been made to defend, is under threat from the dedication of none other than Malema, who as the leader of the powerful youth constituency could well become the country's leader one not-so-distant day.
Malema's axis with Zanu-PF can only expedite the coming of this day.
So MDC-T could cry "interference!" only as an effort to cut the axis and muffle revolutionaries.
On the other score of sovereign politics, nay, the party has thrived on it and cannot be trusted to oppose it.

Zimbabwe sanctions weaken democracy

The Guardian UK
For almost a decade, the US, EU, UK, Canada and Australia have imposed sanctions on Zimbabwe. On 21 April, the prime minister, Morgan Tsvangirai, will travel to Brussels to ask the EU to lift the sanctions it has imposed on his country. If the west is truly concerned with supporting democracy in Zimbabwe, it must heed Tsvangirai's request.
The EU sanctions date back to February 2002, when during the first election campaign to pit Tsvangirai against President Robert Mugabe, it argued that "serious violations of human rights" prevented the vote from being free and fair. The sanctions banned dozens of top-ranking members of Mugabe's Zanu-PF from entering the EU, froze their assets and forbade the export of arms to Zimbabwe. The US first targeted Zimbabwe in 2001, in the midst of the chaotic land reform that saw thousands of white-owned farms invaded and occupied. The Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act directed that the US government should oppose the granting of any loan or financial assistance to Zimbabwe. In 2003, President George Bush expanded the sanctions by declaring a national emergency to deal with the Zimbabwean threat.
Since 2008, Zimbabwe has been moving in a more democratic direction. The long struggle by Tsvangirai's Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), together with international pressure, meant that in the aftermath of a violent election campaign, an isolated Zanu-PF was forced to enter into negotiations for a government of national unity.
The power-sharing government took office in February 2009. Tsvangirai became prime minister, and cabinet posts were split among the MDC, Zanu-PF and a breakaway faction of the MDC led by Arthur Mutambara. Mugabe remained president. For the first time since independence in 1980, Mugabe and his party did not have a monopoly on state power. The unity government's greatest achievement has been to return Zimbabwe's economy to growth after economic collapse and disastrous hyperinflation. This success means that in spite of uneven progress implementing the terms of the agreement that brought the coalition about, polls show that a majority of Zimbabweans still support their new government.
Tsvangirai has earned the right to criticise the Mugabe government. In his political career he has been arrested, beaten, and seen his supporters killed. Yet ever since he became prime minister, he has called for an end to the west's restrictive measures. Mutambara, another former opposition politician, has also been very vocal in his belief that the sanctions have no value whatsoever. The west's restrictive measures are opposed in the wider region. President Jacob Zuma of South Africa has consistently argued that the sanctions must be lifted to allow the unity government to "function to its full capacity". The 15 states that make up the Southern African Development Community have also been unanimous in their opposition to continued sanctions on Zimbabwe.
The opposition and the old regime have joined together to move Zimbabwe forward. The government of national unity enjoys the support of Zimbabweans and the friendship of its neighbours. Why then does the west refuse to accept the legitimacy of the new government and treat it as an equal?
Is it because the 2008 elections were too bloody? Violence after Kenya's disputed election in 2007 claimed more than 1,000 lives, but a power-sharing deal very similar to Zimbabwe's restored peace and normality. This cannot be the reason.
Is it because the 2008 elections were rigged? Many western allies retain power through fraudulent elections. For example, the government of Egypt, Africa's single largest recipient of US aid.
Or is it simply because Mugabe's regime has violated human rights? This cannot be denied, but the west is happy to do business with many other exploitative regimes, such as Equatorial Guinea or Gabon. Why no sanctions on them?
The western fixation on Mugabe's removal is impractical. Mugabe's most important political asset is the credibility he gained as a dedicated fighter against colonialism in southern Africa. By unfairly singling Mugabe out, western governments play into his hands.
The essence of democracy is that political power comes from the people. If the goal of the EU and US is to build democracy in Zimbabwe, they must remove the sanctions that Zimbabweans do not want. The MDC-Zanu-PF government must be given a fair chance to chart a new way. If the west cannot accept that, by what right do they criticise Zimbabwe?

RIGHTIST: Zimbabweans Want Rhodesia Back

The Right Perspective

New York Times op-ed columnist Nicholas D. Kristoff writes that every Black African he has met in Zimbabwe says Rhodesia was better than the Marxists dictatorship of Robert Mugabe, and they want White colonial rule to return:
Here’s a measure of how President Robert Mugabe is destroying this once lush nation of Zimbabwe:
In a week of surreptitious reporting here (committing journalism can be a criminal offense in Zimbabwe), ordinary people said time and again that life had been better under the old, racist, white regime of what was then called Rhodesia.
"When the country changed from Rhodesia to Zimbabwe, we were very excited," one man, Kizita, told me in a village of mud-walled huts near this town in western Zimbabwe.
"But we didn’t realize the ones we chased away were better and the ones we put in power would oppress us."
"It would have been better if whites had continued to rule because the money would have continued to come," added a neighbor, a 58-year-old farmer named Isaac.
It was better under Rhodesia. Then we could get jobs. Things were cheaper in stores. Now we have no money, no food."
Over and over, I cringed as I heard Africans wax nostalgic about a nasty, oppressive regime run by a tiny white elite. Black Zimbabweans responded that at least that regime was more competent than today’s nasty, oppressive regime run by the tiny black elite that surrounds Mr. Mugabe.
A Times colleague, Barry Bearak, was jailed here in 2008 for reporting, so I used a fresh passport to enter the country as a tourist. Partly for my own safety, I avoided interviewing people with ties to the government, so I cant be sure that my glimpse of the public mood was representative.
People I talked to were terrified for their personal safety if quoted much more scared than in the past. That’s why Im being vague about locations and agreed to omit full names.
But what is clear is that Zimbabwe has come very far downhill over the last few decades (although it has risen a bit since its trough two years ago). An impressive health and education system is in tatters, and life expectancy has tumbled from about 60 years in 1990 to somewhere between 36 and 44, depending on which statistics you believe.
Western countries have made the mistake of focusing their denunciations on the seizures of white farms by Mr. Mugabe’s cronies.
That’s tribalism by whites; by far the greatest suffering has been endured by Zimbabwe’s blacks.
In Kizita’s village, for example, I met a 29-year-old woman, seven months pregnant, who had malaria. She and her husband had walked more than four miles to the nearest clinic, where she tested positive for malaria. But the clinic refused to give her some life-saving anti-malaria medicine unless she paid $2 and she had no money at all in her house. So, dizzy and feverish, she stumbled home for another four miles, empty-handed.
As it happened, the clinic that turned her down was one that I had already visited. Nurses there had complained that they were desperately short of bandages, antibiotics and beds. They said that to survive, they impose fees for seeing patients, for family planning, for safe childbirth and the upshot is that impoverished villagers die because they can’t pay.
I also spent time at an elementary school where the number of students had dropped sharply because so few parents today can afford $36 in annual school fees.
"We don’t have desks. We don’t have chairs. We don’t have books, explained the principal, who was terrified of being named. The school also lacks electricity and water, and the first grade doesn’t have a classroom and meets under a tree."
"This particular school had been founded by Rhodesians more than 70 years ago, and the principal mused that it must have served black pupils far better in Rhodesian days than today.
At another school 100 miles away, the deputy headmaster lamented that students can’t even afford pens.
"One child has to finish his work, and then he lends his pen to another child," he explained.
Zimbabwe is one of my favorite countries, blessed with friendly people, extraordinary wildlife and little crime. I took my family along with me on this trip (my kids accuse me of using them as camouflage), and they found the scenery, people and wild animals quite magical.
At a couple of villages we visited, farmers were driving away elephants that were trampling their crops and they were blaming Mr. Mugabe for the elephants. That struck even me as unfair.
The tragedy that has unfolded here can be reversed if Mr. Mugabe is obliged by international pressure, particularly from South Africa, to hold free elections. Worldwide pressure forced the oppressive Rhodesian regime to give up power three decades ago. Now we need similar pressure, from African countries as well as Western powers, to pry Mr. Mugabe’s fingers from his chokehold on a lovely country.

• That does it, Mr Kristoff, you want Mr Mugabe to go, via international pressure – your euphemism for the West.
  The West has been aggrieved by Mugabe’s land policies which sought to right the colonial injustice that saw a mere 4000 people owning over three quarters of land, inhabited by close to 13 million.
  Such populism naturally goes against your rightist sentimentalities and (in)sensibilities.
  The pressure of the Zimbabwean masses, and the non-aligned movement, plus Russia and China liberated the country from Smith’s tentacles.
  It will be recalled that Britain refused to impose biting sanctions against Smith, while the US, apartheid South Africa, Portuguese colony of Mozambique emasculated the UN sanctions.
  And in all this the people of Zimbabwe wallowed in oppression, apartheid, lack of education, and so on.
  Yours has been a very curious choice of Black African: those wishing the hellish Rhodesian days back.
  We would be interested to know just who you talked to (I AM NOT A STATE AGENT, for the record).
  My guess is that the characters in your fictional piece just serve to add a human aspect to your retrograde, anti-pop stance and to try and validate a decidely un-Zimbabwean perspective.
  

By your admission, your little curious group of interviewees is NOT representative.
Zimbabwe has been at the mercy of the some of the ills that you mention; health, education, etc.
These have been worsened by sanctions imposed by the West on Zimbabwe.
As a matter of fact, the sanctions were designed to foment a humanitarian disaster and cause an uprising to topple President Mugabe.
Former American Ambassador to Zim Christopher Dell once said that the sanctions were made to make the economy scream.
He boasted that the sanctions had pauperised Zimbabweans to 1950’s level.
This economic warfare, felt keenly by the (imagined) Kizita’s and pregnant women of Zimbabwe, among others, is a rightist war on Mugabe.
It is known that the West is only willing to ease its Zimbabwe stranglehold in the event of the country’s champion’s showing his back.
As long that does not happen, it’s game on, and you people-power fearing rightists continue to mislead.
You even have the temerity to pretend that you care for the oppressed.
As for your pity that Mugabe is being blamed for elephants, well both the pity and the alleged affair are just too trivial to discuss here.
REGRET: Loooks like your children are being poisoned by your archaic, anti-people ultra-conservative views; the curse we’re likely to see another species of Kristoff.

OBERT GUTU'S MALEMA HATE

The article below, in which Senator Obert Gutu calls for a "paradigm shift" from "the politics of hate, anger and intolerance", shows the writer guilty of the same. The writer is obviously guilty of demagoguery, buoyed of course by his academic achievements. There is every reason to believe that some not-so-lettered leaders amongst us would not find comfort in some of the descriptions Sen Gutu reserves for Malema.

With Friends like Malema, who needs enemies?

By Senator Obert Gutu
'' From the moment the results were out and it was apparent that the ANC was to form the government, I saw my mission as one of preaching reconciliation, of binding the wounds of the country, of engendering trust and confidence.'' I quote these wise words from the book , ' Long Walk to Freedom' (1994) written by none other than the iconic Nelson Mandela.
A internationally celebrated statesman now in the sunset of his life, Nelson Mandela must be deeply disappointed and annoyed by the buffoonery of one Julius Malema.
It is a fact that the ANC is arguably Africa' s oldest liberation movement that, in the past, has been very ably led by luminaries such as Chief Albert Luthuli, Oliver Reginald Tambo and the larger than life Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela.
Naturally, therefore, when the ranks of the ANC start producing such half-brained people like one Julius Malema; all progressive Africans, living on the continent and in the Diaspora, should start getting worried; very worried.One of Africa's biggest challenges is the scourge of demagogues, pretenders, looters and dictators.
This is an unfortunate breed of men and women who are solely driven by lust for absolute political power as well as the paranoid pursuit of self-enrichment and self-aggrandisement.
When challenged by democratic forces seeking the adoption of good governance and the rule of law, these rabid dictators and tyrants will huff and puff ; screaming that they are Africa's '' liberators and revolutionaries''.
Alas! These men and women are Africa's disgrace; a shameful grouping of looters who are corrupt to the core; ruthless and absolutely tyrannical.
A certain boy called Julius Malema recently visited Zimbabwe during the Easter holidays; as a guest of the terminally ill and moribund former ruling party; ZANU(PF).
Excitable and effervescent as ever; this boy wasted no time in showering praises on the disintegrating political party called ZANU(PF). Adorning the infamous ZANU(PF) regalia, this boy literally blew his top and ran short of adjectives to eulogise his guests and to simultaneously lambast the most popular and largest political party in Zimbabwe; the Movement for Democratic Change.
To students of political science and to all right-thinking people the world over, this did not come as a surprise at all.
Some of us have carefully followed the rise of Julius Malema within the ranks of the ANC Youth League.
We all know that he succeeded the very able and sober Fikile Mbalula who is now an ANC member of parliament as well as the Deputy Minister of Police.
We know that for some reason, Julius Malema now regards himself as the kingmaker in the ANC, riding on the wave of success of President Jacob Zuma's faction at the last ANC congress held in Polokwane, South Africa.
Post-Polokwane, Malema has grown to be very boisterous, stubborn and downright unruly.
He falsely thinks that he was personally responsible for the rise of Jacob Zuma to be President of the ANC as well as the Republic of South Africa.
Malema is wrong.
To begin with, there were bigger forces at play at the ANC congress at Polokwane.
Admittedly, Malema is very noisy and loud but he is certainly not a political strategist.
He needs someone to handle him; to think for him because he, himself, is severely challenged; intellectually.Remember, this boy only managed to pass woodwork at matriculation! He needs help; badly.Because Malema is intellectually challenged, we can forgive him for referring to the MDC as '' unpatriotic''.
I am convinced that Malema does not know the meaning of patriotism.
Yes; he is too dull to understand the ramifications and complexities of the MDC's decade long fight against ZANU(PF) tyranny and thuggery.
Being a thug himself, Malema justifiably felt cosy and comfortable in the company of ZANU(PF) functionaries.
I am one of the ANC's greatest admirers.
Some of my political role models are found within the ANC.
Born to a Zulu domestic worker, Jacob Zuma rose to become the President of Africa's strongest and biggest economy; South Africa.
Whilst Zuma was openly humiliated by Thabo Mbeki by being fired as the Deputy President of South Africa in 2005 in the wake of the Shabir Shaik corruption scandal, he has never publicly lambasted nor demonised Thabo Mbeki and all those ANC leaders who were fighting in Mbeki's corner; such as Terror Lekota, Mbazima Shilowa and Bulelani Nqcuka.
For all his other shortcomings, I admire Jacob Zuma for being a man who calmly and maturely weathered the storm of his obvious persecution by the Mbeki faction in the ANC.Zuma never publicly lost his cool and shouted at his political detractors; real and/or imagined.
To me that is the hallmark of a revolutionary and a true democrat.
Contrast Jacob Zuma's charm and coolness with Julius Malema's rabid and increasingly incoherent public outbursts, then you will realise why the ANC has to urgently reign in this loose and foul-mouthed political waif.Lest Africa be fooled; Malema is not and has never been an exponent of genuine broad-based black economic empowerment.
He is nothing but a shameless demagogue who is pretending to be an empowerment hero.
He claims to be representing the poor, marginalised and unemployed black youths of South Africa most of whom stay in empoverished townships.
He drives the latest Range Rover and owns properties in Sandton.
He wears a watch worth R250 000 and wines and dines in some of Johannesburg's most expensive joints.
Whilst the majority of black youths of South Africa are wallowing in abject poverty, Malema lives the high life; wins tenders worth millions of rands and has companies that perform shoddy work.
He is, indeed, a ''tenderpreneur'' and not an enterpreneur.
Malema is 100% fake.
Who is Malema to label the MDC a party of '' puppets''?
Does Malema look down upon the majority of Zimbabweans who justifiably see that real change can only be brought about by the MDC?
I have absolutely no problem in having Malema associate with whomsoever he wants in his tormented life.
However, all true democrats and fighters for good governance and the rule of law will have serious issues with a hare-brained demagogue coming over to Zimbabwe to spread heresy, hate and intolerance.Besides spreading hate and intolerance, can Julius Malema tell us what he has done to practically empower the poor and marginalised black youths of Kwamashu in Durban, Mamelodi in Pretoria and the Cape Flats in Cape Town? Africa has had enough of these thieving demagogues.
We need a serious paradigm shift in the manner in which African politics is run. The politics of hate, anger and intolerance can only bring more strife and poverty to the toiling masses of Africa.
To Julius Malema, I say '' Go back to school young man and ensure that at the very least, you pass five subjects at matriculation.
Never open your mouth again before you think.Amanhla!''

With friends like Malema, who needs enemies?

www.zimbabwesituation.com

THE RAINBOW FICTION

SOUTH AFRICA, that land dubbed the "Rainbow Nation", is a land of contradictions. The rainbow itself, which is notable for its vaunted but never tangible beauty, mirrors the same.It has been a land of mixed fortunes for its people and over the past 300 years it has become Africa’s virtual paradise for some, while others have progressively become marginalised and impoverished yet somehow we are made to believe everyone is an owner of the proverbial pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.This is the illusion that the likes of Tutu, that gay-loving man of the cloth — coiner of the Rainbow Nation phrase — would like us to believe.But everyone in their moments of honesty, if they are endowed with the gift, knows that there is everything wrong in this country, starting the very moment some European adventurer wandered onto the Cape some 300 years ago, through murder, rape, plunder and colonisation and the evil called apartheid.One and half decades into the supposed end of these evils by the coming of "independence" in 1994, South Africa, which holds the distinction of having more alien peoples than any in Africa wallows in inequality.The progeny, supporters and sympathisers of the ugly side of the rainbow still hold sway.But lo and behold!In comes young, fiery Julius Malema and the cowards, for such they are, are afraid.Ayesaba Amagwala!We have seen in the past weeks what has happened in that part of the world since the ANC youth leader sung the inspirational anti-exploitation song, Kill the Boer!We have also noted the cruise-controlled hate stories in the rabid white media there, and abroad, which peaked at the not so unfortunate death of the Neo-Nazi Eugene Terre’blanche last week at the hands of his irate farm workers, one of whom was a minor, aged only 15.

"TERREBLANCHE MURDER PERSONAL TRAGEDY"

By Tim Cohen
THE slaying of Eugene TerreBlanche is a call to arms, but precisely not the call to arms that either he or his mirror image, Julius Malema, would ever issue. His death is a call to arms for the rest of us, the people who are not seduced by their darkest suspicions, the people who still believe in a future that will be not defined first and foremost by race, the people who feel themselves to be the minority but who are actually the majority.
It's a typical South African irony that TerreBlanche, the quintessential Boer, should be killed at the precise time when Malema is trying to whip up Zanu (PF)-style hatred about people he describes as "Boers" - in Zimbabwe. Malema's endorsement of the "Ayesab' Amagwala" song will strike TerreBlanche's benighted supporters not as a historical artefact but as an explicit endorsement of farm killings. It's not, of course. It's just the normal, usual, run-of-the-mill Malema politics at its most typical - pressing into a grey zone with all the delicacy of an elephant intent on gaining notoriety.
The deeper irony is that TerreBlanche and Malema are flip sides of the same coin: their techniques, their style, their general ham-fistedness, their faux-populism, their carefully constructed "outrageousness", their bizarre media appeal, all come from the same political copybook.
The difference is that TerreBlanche's bubble had long ago been pricked, and Malema's appears to be inflating at extraordinary speed, with the bewildered and stunned assistance of the African National Congress's (ANC's) chronic do-nothing culture.
There was a time when TerreBlanche was as feared at Malema is today. He was recognised as "extreme", yet he was also given credence as a tip of the iceberg - a symbol of what Afrikaners would be if they gave in to their fears.
TerreBlanche always styled himself as a "boer", a farmer, but I once visited a real farmer whose farm in the Ventersdorp area neighboured that of TerreBlanche. He told me TerreBlanche was a terrible farmer, and that he generally farmed nothing.
He also noted with a grin that TerreBlanche did not even study agriculture. "Hy was a drama student," he revealed.
Far from representing Afrikaners, TerreBlanche was in fact the opposite of the "nation" he sought to represent; flamboyant, immodest, arrogant, and generally a klutz - all terrible sins among ever-capable, ever-modest, ever-resilient, God-fearing farmers. He even struggled to ride a horse.
It's interesting to recall how TerreBlanche collapsed under the weight of his own falsities. Perhaps this is Malema's ultimate fate. TerreBlanche was caught having an affair with an attractive, blonde journalist, Jani Allan. Within his own movement, the affair was a terrible betrayal; he was married, she was English. So he denied the affair, despite Allan's gushing admission in her Sunday Times column that, "Right now I've got to remind myself to breathe ... I'm impaled on the blue flames of his blowtorch eyes."
His denial rebounded on him, and TerreBlanche's extremism came to be recognised for what it was, a giant paper tiger. TerreBlanche was peddling hatred, and ordinary people may be intrigued, they may attend his meetings. The weak-minded might even be inspired. But it takes special circumstances for hatred to work as political ideology.
One of the things we may have to get used to over the next week or so is the repeated use of that old Marx quote, "history repeats itself first as tragedy and then as farce". The problem is that although Terre-Blanche's death is a personal tragedy, it is not a political tragedy. It's symbolic not of an attack on farmers, it's an attack on the vulnerable and the isolated everywhere.
Neither is Malema's repetition of the TerreBlanche methodology a farce. It's dangerous because the ANC is so scared of itself that it cannot represent ordinary South Africans who now generally joke about their racial differences. Racial problems and inequalities exist, but race hatred is an indulgence of the extremes that belongs to TerreBlanche's generation. He would do his country its greatest service if he took it with him to his grave.

• 
  

LETTER TO JULIUS MALEMA

The Sunday Mail

Exchanging notes with Cde Malema

By Munyaradzi Huni
REVOLUTIONARY greetings to Comrade Julius Malema! Welcome to Zimbabwe, the land of The Land and the land of The Struggle. Hope the comrades who have been with you since your arrival last Friday have been good hosts because hospitality is the pride of Zimbabwe.
Now, Cde Malema, I hear you have been causing quite some discomfort down in South Africa with some unrepentant whites now even calling for your head. I hear they are now calling you a “tyrant in the making”.
Recently, I read an article on BBC News by Andrew Harding that said you want to turn “this bountiful country into yet another Zimbabwe”. I can see that the white-controlled South African media is finding you too hot to handle. Well, Cde Malema, all this name-calling, all these threats and all the anti-Malema media campaigns may surprise many in South Africa, but here in Zimbabwe we have seen it all before and, as the fellow comrades may have told you already, we don’t lose sleep over the imperialists’ racial mind games.
I liked it when you told that Communist Party official, Jeremy Cronin, that “we do not need the permission of white political messiahs to think”. That’s the true spirit, dear Comrade. Don’t beat about the bush when dealing with unrepentant racists.
President Mugabe has been called all sorts of names, the imperialists have tried to demean the country’s liberation struggle, puppet movements have been planted in our politics, they have and are still trying to reverse the historic and irreversible land reform programme and if you listen to the imperialists, you will be forgiven for thinking that Zimbabwe collapsed a long time ago.
We have had our problems and challenges, but Zimbabwe still stands proud on the radar and soon shall be the envy of many on the African continent and beyond. Comrade Malema, as the leader of the ANC Youth League, I know there is nothing I can tell you about the living conditions of blacks and whites in South Africa.
I know that you know that the lives of the majority of blacks in South Africa have not improved much since your country attained multi-party democracy in 1994. I won’t lecture you about black empowerment because I know that when you talk about nationalisation, you want blacks in your country to have their deserved share of the cake.
And I know that during your meetings with the Minister of Youth Development, Indigenisation and Empowerment, Cde Saviour Kasukuwere, and other comrades in Zanu-PF you have been told quite a lot about the need to empower the black majority.
However, there are worrying developments that took place in your country recently that I think I need to bring to your attention. From the surface, the incidents appear unrelated when, in fact, they are very much related. First, the Pretoria High Court made a ruling last month upholding a Sadc Tribunal judgment ordering Zimbabwe to compensate white farmers for land acquired for resettlement. After that ruling by the High Court, we saw representatives of some group calling itself Afriforum trying to attach Zimbabwe Government property in South Africa. Of course, as Zimbabweans we knew that Afriforum was just grandstanding to secure a few dollars from their donors and, thank God, the South African government has now appealed against the High Court ruling.
The second development was another judgment by the SA courts that tried to stop you from singing that inspiring anti-apartheid song with the words “Ayesab’ amagwala/Dubul’ iBhunu” (The cowards are afraid/Kill the Boer”. Fortunately, the ANC, through its secretary-general, Cde Gwede Mantashe, was quick to set the record straight, saying: “These songs cannot be regarded as hate speech or unconstitutional. Any judgment that describes them as such is impractical and unimplementable.”
Cde Mantashe went on to say the song was only a means of ensuring that SA history was remembered and was not meant as an act to incite violence against whites. While these two rulings by the SA courts clearly show a naked attempt to destroy the struggle that brought independence to your country, they also tell a sad story about the judiciary in your country. It was not by coincidence that of all the countries in Sadc, Afriforum chose the SA courts to have the Sadc Tribunal ruling effected. Afriforum knew that it has sympathisers in the judicial system in your country and so they exploited that.
As for the “Kill the Boer” judgment, the court clearly showed that it still has burning issues with the struggle that brought your independence. Now, if the unrepentant former Rhodies that make up Afriforum still have sympathisers in your judiciary and if the bench in your country tries to downplay the struggle for your independence, then you have a big problem on your hands.
Let me take you back to Zimbabwe in 2000 when the country’s land reform programme was still in its infancy. As you know, the programme was spearheaded by peasants and war veterans and, during that time, the country’s Supreme Court looked like “an English court on Zimbabwean soil”. While presiding over a High Court circuit in Mutare in 2000, Justice Smith referred to war veterans as the “so-called war veterans”, and all hell broke loose.
The then Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs, Cde Patrick Chinamasa, hit back not only at Justice Smith but the entire judiciary at that time.
He said: “How can personnel so high up in the pecking order of a regime grounded in a racist grundnorm faithfully serve a democratic State?
“Reference is made to Mr Justice Blackie, who was a Member of Parliament for the Rhodesia Front from 1975, Mr Justice George Smith, who served as Cabinet secretary for the Ian Douglas Smith government, the present Chief Justice Gubbay, who was appointed to the bench by the Smith government in 1977, Mr Justice Adam, who, while unsoiled by the UDI years, somehow turned up at the Lancaster House Constitutional Conference as a member of the Smith legal team and delegation, and Mr Justice Ebrahim, who was state counsel in the Director of Public Prosecutions Department under the Smith regime at a time when Coloured people were not accepted into the public service . . .
“It was clear the judge could not hide his inner feelings of distaste against a class of our citizens who, but for their efforts and sacrifices, Zimbabwe as we know it today as a country of equal opportunity for all citizens, would not exist.” At that time it was taboo to criticise the country’s judiciary. The judiciary was untouchable and so when Cde Chinamasa attacked the system, the imperialists unleashed their media and the minister was torn to pieces.
He, however, was not deterred. Instead, in January 2001, as the tussle between the executive arm of Government and the judiciary continued, he received support from an unlikely source. The then Judge President Justice Chidyausiku attacked the then Chief Justice Gubbay for starting the standoff with the executive by assuring commercial white farmers that they would win if they sued the Government over the land issue.
As the fight continued, Cde Chinamasa became even more robust. In January 2001, he said: “The present composition of the judiciary reflects that the country is in a semi-colonial state, half-free, half-enslaved.
“A visitor to our country would be excused for observing, as they often do, that if one came to the country, chaperoned to a sitting of the Supreme Court and made to leave immediately, one would by that fact alone conclude that he has been to a European and not African country. It is like we have an English court on Zimbabwean soil.”
Eventually, there were reforms in the judiciary in Zimbabwe and the Rhodies who are thronging the South African courts know that here they don’t get any favours. We now have an independent judiciary that reflects and respects our history as a country, but the reforms were not a walk in the park.
I am glad that during your address at the rally yesterday, you mentioned that the judiciary in SA is still being controlled by whites. As you continue your fight for the total emancipation of the blacks in South Africa, as you continue the fight for the empowerment of the majority and as you will fight for blacks to have their share of the cake in the distribution of resources, you should be aware that the imperialists will use all tactics to derail the process.
First, they will try to tarnish your image (I hear they have made all sorts of accusations regarding your lifestyle). If that fails, they will try to tarnish the image of the ANC (I hear they are accusing the ANC of being too corrupt). If that fails they will sponsor all sorts of puppets, including NGOs and political parties, and, if that fails, they will use their friends in government institutions to fight the government.
In Zimbabwe’s case, they went to the extent of trying to use regional and international bodies like Sadc and the UN respectively. Of course, as you know all, their efforts have been in vain.
Comrade Malema, you have been tough in your talk like you did recently when you attacked the Democratic Alliance’s youth wing, saying: “I only debate with serious political youth formations, not a group of racist Helen Zille’s garden boys.”
This is the kind of talk that will earn you a lot of enemies, but let them not scare you. We also have the imperialists’ garden boys in our midst, but they know that Zimbabwe is FOREVER FREE.
Long live the revolution! Long live the camaraderie between Zimbabwe and South Africa!
Long live the empowerment of the black majority! Enjoy your stay in Zimbabwe, dear Comrade.

WEST: RELUCTANT TO PLAY FAIR BALL WITH ZIM

THE HERALD
By Tichaona Zindoga
Zimbabwe's frosty relationship with the West in the last decade has been characterised by continuous isolation or attempts to isolate Harare and frustrate the local people into submitting to the whims and wishes of the latter.
Whichever angle you look at the impasse, the truth remains that President Mugabe and his people are being punished for demanding control over natural resources of their country.
All the other stories are smokescreens and whoever tries to avoid this truth must be living in Mars or some other planet.
Zimbabwe's crime has been its drive to give the indigenous people their right place in the matrix of national development and ownership of resources.
In the view of the imperialist, Zimbabwe is setting a precedence and sending signals to other African countries that the resources that the West so mush desire, are in fact, not theirs but a birthright for Africans who should set trade terms not vice versa.
This is what Zimbabwe epitomises.
Western behaviour has been anything from bullying to childish avoidance of the Southern African country at international forums in their desperate attempt to punish Zimbabwe and effectively deter similar thinking African countries from attempting land reform and indigenisation of resources.
Last week, France and EU lived true to this billing by denying Justice, Legal Affairs Minister Patrick Chinamasa a Belgian visa. France is in charge of granting Belgian visas to Zimbabweans.
The French said Chinamasa was on a list of people barred from travelling to the EU.
Charge d'Affaires at the embassy, Mr Dietmar Peprausch said they had advised Minister Chinamasa to get his visa from South Africa.
"France represents Belgium for the granting of visas for Zimbabweans but as Mr Chinamasa is on the EU travel ban list, it is only Belgium itself which can decide whether it accepts the visa or not for the Minister.
"So we told him we could not deliver the visa -- and not that we did not want to -- and told him to apply directly to the Belgian Embassy in South Africa, which is competent.
"France is supporting the inclusive ministerial visit to Brussels to promote the EU-Zimbabwe political dialogue and will do all it can to facilitate this visit for the whole delegation," he said.
On the other hand, EU has deferred the meeting scheduled for this week to April 21 though no reasons were given.
The resumption of dialogue will be in the context of the Cotonou Partnership Agreement, which lays out the parameters for engagement between the EU and the African, Caribbean and Pacific bloc.
The EU prematurely invoked Article 96 of the Cotonou Agreement in 2002 to slap sanctions on Harare ahead of that year's presidential elections.
Foreign Affairs Minister Simbarashe Mumbengegwi heads an inter-ministerial committee representing Zimbabwe at the talks.
Other members of the committee are ministers Chinamasa, Tendai Biti (Finance), Elton Mangoma (Economic Planning), Priscilla Misihairabwi-Mushonga (International Co-operation), and Welshman Ncube (Industry).
The recent move by France is not without precedent.
In June last year, Deputy Prime Minister Arthur Mutambara had to intervene at the last minute -- at President Mugabe's instruction -- to get the British and French embassies to issues visas to members of the delegation.
After that, Chinamasa was delayed at Frankfurt International Airport for six hours by immigration authorities.
The current dialogue process started soon after the formation of the inclusive Government with a number of meetings being held between the inter-ministerial committee and EU ambassadors in Zimbabwe.
Little headway has been made mainly due to EU's failure to fully embrace the inclusive Government as they continuously seek to isolate Zanu-PF.
This explains double standards France and the EU have when it comes to Zimbabwe, making it hard to believe that France really supports the inclusive ministerial visit to Brussels.
Last year, French Foreign and European Affairs Minister Bernard Kouchner told Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai that his government supported Zimbabwe but wanted to see progress.
Since then, Zimbabwe has recorded considerable progress on political, economic and social fronts, yet the West, especially United States of America which sets the vibes for the rest of the Western world continue to dig in on isolationist policy on Zimbabwe.
Zimbabwe has instituted key commissions on media, elections and human rights but the West does not see this progress until, apparently, Zimbabweans cede their rights to ownership of their natural resources.
Considering that the isolation of Zanu-PF has been predicated on the so-called governance and human rights issues, the recent move betrays the dishonest side of France and company. It defines their blind loyalty to lies and imperialism.
Not only have they stalled re-engagement talks, but they have also tried to undermine the Zimbabwean team.
In February, Zimbabwe wrote a letter to the European bloc requesting resumption of the dialogue after it had stagnated for months.
However, the EU did not respond to the request and instead slapped more sanctions President Mugabe and his party Zanu-PF for another year. The dialogue is to explore the lifting of the widely discredited embargo.
The sanctions were imposed in February 2002 on the instigation of Britain that had been upset by the land reform programme in Zimbabwe.
Zanu-PF spearheaded the historic programme that benefited hundreds of families previously condemned by British settlers to inhospitable and arid areas.
The sanctions, designed to hurt the economy and foment a humanitarian catastrophe, deny Zimbabwe trade opportunities with Europe, which had been traditional Zimbabwe's biggest partner.
They are on individuals and companies perceived to be instrumental in keeping the country afloat.
The ploy to frustrate and intimidate Chinamasa, negotiator in the inter-party dialogue in Zimbabwe is a clear sign to emasculate the Zimbabwe delegation.
It is also surprising how the EU in its re-engagement talks with Zimbabwe would like to interface with "yes men" or those who would not give them a strong challenge.
Whether this is pure dishonesty or cowardice, it would seem this has been a draw card by the West.
One of the preconditions the West has given for mending relations with Zimbabwe is the removal of President Mugabe and his replacement with somebody less vocal or principled.
This "anybody but Mugabe" view seems to have inspired the moribund project called Mavambo Kusile Dawn led by former Finance Minister Simba Makoni who vied for the presidency in the last elections.
This has even applied to President Mugabe abroad.
The West has always attempted to black him out whenever he takes to the podium at international forums.
One of these incidents is the 2009 Food Summit in Rome where some EU countries tried to block the invitation of President Mugabe on the basis that he would take the opportunity and speak about the ill-treatment of Zimbabwe.
On other occasions, some European leaders have childishly boycotted sessions addressed by the veteran Zimbabwean leader.
The uncultured nature of EU diplomacy, including the recent bullying of Chinamasa does little to dispel the notion that they can be trusted.
EU and France are simply not interested in playing fair ball, even by their own rules.
A 2007 study on the implementation of the Cotonou Agreement by the EU itself admitted that the bloc had slapped sanctions on Zimbabwe as a political tool to manipulate the outcome of the 2002 presidential elections and to punish Harare for embarking on the revolutionary land reform programme before options available under Article 8 had been exhausted.
The study, commissioned to evaluate the coherence, co-ordination and complementarity of Article 96 of the Cotonou Agreement, acknowledges that the body precluded dialogue with the country in a rush to slap sanctions.
Article 96 outlines the procedures to be followed should a country be deemed to be in violation of certain governance, rule of law and human rights requirements as defined in Article 8.
EU did not engage Zimbabwe after which they could invoke article 96.
The Cotonou Agreement provides that ACP countries are engaged in dialogue for a maximum of 60 days over any contentious issues and are given a chance to respond to any allegations before a decision is made.
Appropriate measures could be taken if human rights, electoral policy and rule of law in the country did not improve.
"The explanation for the haste was the forthcoming elections. In other words, foreign policy goals were safeguarded and considered more important than the partnership principle in the Cotonou Agreement," says the study.
The EU thus deliberately fouled its own procedures so that the sanctions regime could be mobilised in time to influence the elections.
http://www.herald.co.zw