Raila Odinga: the Merchant of violence...at MDC-T congress

Merchant of Violence...Raila Odinga is likely to give practical tips on post-election violence

By Tichaona Zindoga
ANYBODY who has been disconcerted by the violent trends in the MDC led by Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai both internally as characterized by skirmishes to the run up to its forthcoming congress, and externally as lately exhibited by the violence against mourners at Warren Hills Cemetery in Harare, should be afraid.
And be much afraid.
The first and immediate reason for this is that the intraparty violence can only get worse with the congress, following this trajectory, having the capacity to give a bloodbath of some kind.
National organising secretary for the party, Elias Mudzuri seemed to have a premonition of this regrettable possibility when he told the world last week that his party could not guarantee a peaceful congress.
Even God, he invoked the name of the Almighty, cannot guarantee peace!
Many observers have resigned to the fact that violence is MDC-T’s second nature, although the man at the helm, Tsvangirai, who is infamously remembered for once calling for the violent removal of President Mugabe, sometimes seeks to portray his party as a host of angels while ZanuPF are “merchants of death”.
The second and chief reason why Zimbabweans and other peaceloving people of the world should be afraid is the expected presence of Kenyan Prime Minister Raila Odinga as “Guest of Honour” during the MDCT congress.
The presence of Odinga will have so much significance.
Odinga is the man who in December 2007 after alleging vote rigging by incumbent Mwai Kibaki incited violence by his supporters which led to the death of around 1 000 people and the displacement of thousands others.
There was eventually a powersharing agreement between the two rivals which yielded Odinga’s premiership.
“Doing a Kenya” in reference to postelectoral crises has thus become reference to an orgy of violence by those that might think or claim that they have been robbed of victory.
MDCT has not hidden admiration for this, and Odinga per se as Tsvangirai once visited his opposite number to “consult” during the drawnout post electoral negotiations that gave birth to the GPA in 2009.
So Odinga is likely to be giving practical tips on violence when he addresses delegates in Bulawayo during the congress.
That might also include just how to savage each the Kenyan way we saw on television.
There is a lot of symbolism to MDCT’s attachment to Odinga in whom Tsvangirai seeks mentorship, notwithstanding his vaunted admiration for pacifist and Nobel laureate former South African president Nelson Mandela and his portrayal of his party as a host of angels.
Tsvangirai and Odinga are birds of the same feather.
Zimbabwe is only lucky to have not met a Kenya much earlier than Odinga’s brew in December 2007, if only Zimbabweans whether out of the love for peace, being cowardly or by some divine will should have been plunged into senseless violence by Tsvangirai.
It could have happened when he called for the violent removal of President Mugabe in 2000 or through the socalled “pushes” or the “prayer meeting” in Highfield in March 2007.
Both politicians are a creation of the West in trying to effect the socalled “colour revolutions” that the West uses for regime change purposes worldwide.
The National Endowment for Democracy in the US, the Westminster Foundations in Britain are some of the central figures in the regime change projects of the colour revolutions type.
A definition and description of these, as given by French political analyst Thierry Meyssan will suffice.
He explains: “‘Colour revolutions’ are to revolutions what Canada Dry is to beer. They look like the real thing, but they lack the flavour. “They are regime changes which appear to be revolutions because they mobilize huge segments of the population but are more akin to takeovers, because they do not aim at changing social structures. “Instead they aspire to replace an elite with another, in order to carry out proAmerican economic and foreign policies.”
He notes that the main mechanism of the “color revolutions” consists in focusing popular anger on the desired target, an aspect of the psychology of the masses which destroys everything in its path and against which no reasonable argument can be opposed.
“The scapegoat is accused of all the evils plaguing the country for at least one generation. The more he resists, the angrier the mob gets. After he gives in or slips away, the normal division between his opponents and his supporters reappears,” says Meyssan.
He pinpoints that Raila Odinga’s party the Orange Democratic Movement was created by NED in 2006, as America reorganized the opposition to Kenyan President Mwai Kibaki.
“He (Odinga) received the support of Senator Barack Obama, who was accompanied by destabilization experts (Mark Lippert, current chief of staff for the national security adviser, and general Jonathan S. Gration, current [as of 2009] US special envoy to Sudan).
“During a meeting with Odinga, the Illinois Senator invented a vague family relationship with the proUS candidate. However Odinga was defeated during the 2007 legislative elections. Supported by Senator John McCain as president of the IRI (the NED’s Republican pseudopod), he disputed the validity of the vote and called for his supporters to take to the streets. This is when anonymous text messages were sent en masse to ethnic Luo voters.
“(The texts read:) ‘Dear Kenyans, the Kikuyu have stolen the future of our children…we must treat them in the only way that they understand… with violence’.”
The result was of course what the world saw on television as December 2007 washed blood into the following year, and the subsequent negotiations and powersharing.
The same was almost replicated in Zimbabwe after the March 29 2008 elections as MDCT a creation of the same AngloSaxon forces and coded red, rallied its supporters over false and premature election results to create conditions ripe for protests over “stolen elections”.
Giving such a casus belli is within the modus operandi of the socalled revolutions which but need a spark to take off.
With these dynamics in mind, it wouldn’t come as a surprise then that Odinga called for the stepping down of President Mugabe to pave way for Tsvangirai as solidarity with a comrade in the mutual service of the AngloSaxon empire.
But then Tsvangirai might have more to identify with Odinga.
They are the same blundering, megaphonic kind.
While Odinga might be noted for such undiplomatic and highhanded instances as the recent howler he put up when he was controversially made a “facilitator” in Ivory Coast which culminated in his unceremonious sacking, Tsvangirai will be remembered for his calling for Zimbabwe’s neighbours to cut essential supplies to the country, among other sanctions.
Was he not the same Tsvangirai whose party called Sadc a club of dictators and wrote to facilitator Thabo Mbeki calling Sadc resolutions a nullity?
(Mbeki had to admonish Tsvangirai and his party that “…it does not help Zimbabwe, nor will it help you as prime minister of Zimbabwe, that the MDC (T) contemptuously repudiates very serious decisions of our region, and therefore our continent, describing them as ‘a nullity’.”)
There could be more examples on both sides.
If the US were objective they would recall the criticism that former Ambassador Christopher Dell leveled against Tsvangirai that he has poor choice of his advisors and hangers on.
Only Tsvangirai and Odinga share a master in the West and they can’t be so bad around each other as viewed by the latter.
For those outside of the system, it is clear as day that Tsvangirai and Odinga make statesmen whom no selfrespecting African would really be proud of or feel honoured to be around.

April 18 deeper, richer…

On April 18, Zimbabwe celebrated 31 years of Independence from British colonial rule.

It is a day that reflects on not only the heroism of Zimbabweans against the brutality and savagery of the British settlers, Rhodesians, and their allies home and abroad but also the achievements that have been made in the 31 years of Independence. However, Independence is under threat from the erstwhile colonisers who use local puppets to try and defeat or pilfer it. Below is an assessment of one such attempt in the mould of Morgan Tsvangirai's "Independence message"

By Tichaona Zindoga

It is beyond equivocation that, as a country that had been under the colonial yoke for 110 years before that happy day on April 18, 1980, the day itself represents something sacred, rich and deep.
It might as well be the Easter of Zimbabwe where blood, tears and sweat were expended so that a new, liberating order prevailed.
One does not have to have participated in the liberation struggle, in its many phases, or for that matter having ran away from it, to appreciate its extent and sanctity.
The rich history of Zimbabwe’s liberation struggle against imperialism speaks for itself, with supreme sacrifices that resulted in the loss of life and limb being there to show for it.
Suffice to say, speaking of the day and the related struggles in terms that offend the ideals of Zimbabwe’s Independence is something that might as well equate to blasphemy and sacrilege.
At best this is part of counter-revolutionary mischief.
For example, one cannot speak, without offending sense, of a “struggle” that seeks to undo the gains of the liberation and pretend to champion the cause and the continuum of the struggle that brought April 18 1980.
This is the reason why the Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai’s “Independence message to the people of Zimbabwe” which he delivered through Western-sponsored media, including his own newsletter on the eve of April 18, stands out so revoltingly.
One can observe the following in Tsvangirai’s address:

·    An a-historical, dry and pedestrian mentioning of the attainment of Independence without putting the same into historical context, namely that Zimbabwe got independence from Britain whose settlers had misnamed the country Rhodesia. The same British killed thousands of people whose only crime was to demand to be free from exploitation; reject the theft and plunder of their God-given resources and labour; and demand their own humanity which the colonial system negated profusely.

·    An attempt to dismiss the reality  of Independence, which subsists to this day, by suggesting that it has been rubbished and defeated and, in Tsvangirai’s words, hijacked, by a certain group of people.

·    An attempt at appending Tsvangirai’s own Western regime change agenda to the historic and patriotic struggle for Independence. Tsvangirai does not even sense the irony that his western-regime change agenda, apart from affronting Independence, lets “this country slide back to the dark years of (Western) repression, violence and intimidation”. This has been seen in the scores of countries that have been as unfortunate as to see through the success of the struggles as such Tsvangirai champions here.

·    Tsvangirai’s attempt at selling his “struggle” as people driven and saying Zimbabweans are “ultimately responsible for our own destiny” while it is common knowledge that he daily gets his fodder from the West. Presumably, this speech, like many before it, was prepared for him by some Western forces, or if it didn’t takes much care reflect the same.

·    The typical, anti-majority disposition that seeks to challenge and trash people oriented programmes. Expectedly, the land reform programme and the indigenisation and economic empowerment drive are the objects of Tsvangirai’s discomfort. And you hear him giving puerile and base arguments that these programmes benefit a small clique, despite evidence to the contrary. He might as well go the auction floors to see very ordinary folk trying to outdo each other in selling their tobacco crop to see the fatuity of his argument. Agriculture as driven by the 300 000 families that benefited from the land reform programme is leading the economic recovery of Zimbabwe. His secretary General and Finance Minister Tendai. The ongoing exercize of indigenisation can only go in that direction.

In light of the foregoing, one can see that the man who only yesterday trashed and did not attend Independence celebrations is trying to have ownership of the day by trying to be relevant.
He even tries to be sophistic.
It is like the Devil himself has laid his filthy hand on the Gospel and tries to run away with it.
But he should not be allowed to.
Granted, Independence is for everyone, including traitors.
But they cannot be trusted to provide or show the way.
Says Tsvangirai: “The coming year will also hold many challenges, dangers and difficult choices. But we have already shown that we have the conviction, the courage and the belief in our own capacity to overcome any hurdles and to build the society that we want.
“As we enter our 32nd year of liberation, there will be many treacherous voices trying to convince you to shed away your determination for a new and democratic Zimbabwe. All I ask you is to trust in your heart and to embrace the democratic ideals of our fallen heroes and to remain steadfast in your dedication to building a truly free society. Twenty years after independence we were told that the land would set us free. The same land was later grabbed by avaricious politicians and the well-connected in our society.
“Now, thirty years after independence we are being told by multi-millionaires and multiple farm-owners that indigenisation will set us free. By this they are not referring to broad-based empowerment of the ordinary man and woman, but the looting and plunder of national resources by a small, parasitic elite.
“Let us not be diverted or distracted by empty rhetoric. Let us not grasp at seemingly easy, short-term gains while continuing to live under the yoke of repression, by individuals driven by partisan political motives and personal greed.”
This excerpt shows two aspects of Tsvangirai’s sophistry and fallacy.
He vainly tries to convince his readers that heroes of Zimbabwe sacrificed, and for others, fell to achieve certain “democratic ideals” which he needs not mention are those daily preached by the West which sponsors him.
 Tsvangirai does not have the insight or the courage to tell the world that the West denied Zimbabweans any democracy and only had to be taught by the gun to admit to people’s will.
It can only be the daft and the dishonest and delusional to think that the West is out to promote democracy in the world.
So Tsvangirai thinks that there can be greater “courage and the belief in our own capacity to overcome any hurdles and to build the society that we want” than that which was championed by liberation fighters.
He ought to explain how a party that is bent on undoing the gains of the anti-West liberation struggle by seeking to bring back Western domination amounts to well-meaning self-determination.
The second aspect relates to Tsvangirai, and by extension, the West’s fear of the majority power, in this case economically.
If one were to ask a farmer at the tobacco auction floors today if his getting the land that has seen him venture into a former preserve for the white minority would he say that amounts to treachery, or he would say that trying to reverse land reform does?
Owning industries and making employers of the previously marginalized black majority, the vision of the indigenisation drive, cannot amount to treachery.
Unless, of course, one is part of that minority or a beneficiary thereof, in the oft horse-rider relationship.
Thus Tsvangirai betrays himself for the political character he is today: one that increasingly feels the power of the continuum of the liberation story which he has so far tried deny and defeat.
And since he cannot defeat it, he tries to poach it and adopt it for his own treacherous cause.
He distorts and he distracts.
His is a strong case of someone who puts a fly into a bottle of perfume, as one Biblical passage notes, resulting in the perfume losing essence.
Then Tsvangirai says he makes a “commitment today that I will lead the collective national effort to complete the unfinished business of the liberation struggle by ensuring that true freedom returns to this great country of our birth”.
One wonders what this other “unfinished business of the liberation struggle” can be (and this reminds one of that equally dubious Tendai Biti statement when he talked of the late nationalist Joshua Nkomo).
Zimbabwe’s heroes, fallen or living, conceivably will not accept to be lectured on that which they fought for by someone who says the land and business ownership are a “distraction” and treachery.
These men and women that fought segregation cannot be told today that they sacrificed their lives to be condemned into the hands of the very same West that they fought only yesterday.

Libyan Rebels: Dependent Minions of US and Europe

The actual "club" that threatens black Africa and Arab Africa and all the world's people's, is the Euro-American club: France, Britain, Belgium, the United States and the other world-enslavers that are joined in the hyper-aggressive military "club" called NATO – the most dangerous club on the planet!
Trinicenter

By Glen Ford
The rebels in Benghazi have rejected an African Union delegation proposal for a ceasefire in Libya – a plan that was accepted by Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi over the weekend. The reaction in Benghazi was no surprise. The five heads of state from Mauritania, Mali, Congo-Brazzaville, Uganda and South Africa would have been chased down the streets and lynched by mobs had the western news media not been watching, so rabid is the anti-black hysteria whipped up by the rebel political leadership. If anyone needs protection in rebel-held Libya, it is people with dark skin, hundreds of whom have been murdered for no offense other than their color. Spokesmen for the rebel transitional council claim to be fighting phantom Black African armies, mirages that do not exist – a despicable use of race as a tool of war.

In reality, the rebels are not in a position to accept or reject anything. Whatever their political composition may have been when protests against the government in Tripoli began back in February, they are now totally dependent minions of the United States and Europe. They have chosen to become soldiers of an Arab counterrevolution in the service of imperialism. What kind of revolution – what kind of Arab nationalism – is it, that begs for intervention and close air support from the imperial super-power?

The African Union heads of state had to seek approval for their delegation from the European Union, according to the BBC. Western media dismissed the peace mission as suspect, many of them referring to the African Union as a "club" for the benefit of African rulers. If that is so, it is a circumstance for Africans to deal with. The actual "club" that threatens black Africa and Arab Africa and all the world's people's, is the Euro-American club: France, Britain, Belgium, the United States and the other world-enslavers that are joined in the hyper-aggressive military "club" called NATO – the most dangerous club on the planet!

"The Euro-Americans also bear responsibility for migrant workers' plight."

The African Union proposal called for an immediate ceasefire, suspension of NATO airstrikes, a dialogue between the Gaddafi government and the rebels, unhindered delivery of humanitarian aid, and protection of foreign nationals. The last item points to the obscene behavior of the rebels and their Euro-American overseers, especially. Three million foreign workers did the manual labor that kept Libya's economy going, so that six million Libyans could enjoy the highest standard of living, by far, on the African continent. Half of those foreign workers, 1.5 million, are black Africans, whose abuse in rebel-held areas since February will stain the national honor of Libya for a generation. The Euro-Americans also bear responsibility for migrant workers' plight, as self-appointed protectors of Libya's civilian population. Yet they have failed to maintain a safe corridor to Egypt for the hunted and despised black Africans, making a mockery of the United Nations resolution, and showing the NATO war for what it is: a neocolonial crusade.

The real heroes in any Twenty-first Century war are those who are willing to stand up to the "full-spectrum domination" of U.S. air power. Gaddafi's soldiers have earned the respect of all those that do not worship at the alter of imperial power. The Libyan rebel leaders have chosen to be pawns in someone else's Great Game.

Libya: behind the politics of humanitarian intervention

 As with every right, this free-for-all was only in theory; in practice, the right could only be exercised by those who possessed the means to do so. As the baton passed from the UN Security Council to the US and NATO, its politics became clearer.
 Pambazuka News


By Mahmood Mamdani
Iraq and Afghanistan teach us that humanitarian intervention does not end with the removal of the danger it purports to target. It only begins with it.

Having removed the target, the intervention grows and turns into the real problem. This is why to limit the discussion of the Libyan intervention to its stated rationale - saving civilian lives - is barely scratching the political surface.

The short life of the Libyan intervention suggests that we distinguish between justification and execution in writing its biography. Justification was a process internal to the United Nations Security Council, but execution is not.

In addition to authorising a ‘no-fly zone’ and tightening sanctions against ‘the Gaddafi regime and its supporters’, Resolution 1973 called for ‘all necessary measures to protect civilians under threat of attack in the country, including Benghazi’. At the same time, it expressly ‘excluded a foreign occupation force of any form’ or in ‘any part of Libyan territory’.

UN CONFLICTS
The UN process is notable for two reasons. First, the resolution was passed with a vote of 10 in favour and five abstaining. The abstaining governments - Russia, China, India, Brazil, Germany - represent the vast majority of humanity.

Even though the African Union had resolved against an external intervention and called for a political resolution to the conflict, the two African governments in the Security Council - South Africa and Nigeria - voted in favour of the resolution.

They have since echoed the sentiments of the governments that abstained that they did not have in mind the scale of the intervention that has actually occurred.

The second thing notable about the UN process is that though the Security Council is central to the process of justification, it is peripheral to the process of execution.

The Russian and Chinese representatives complained that the resolution left vague ‘how and by whom the measures would be enforced and what the limits of the engagement would be’.

Having authorised the intervention, the Security Council left its implementation to any and all. It ‘authorised Member States, acting nationally or through regional organisations or arrangements’.

As with every right, this free-for-all was only in theory; in practice, the right could only be exercised by those who possessed the means to do so. As the baton passed from the UN Security Council to the US and NATO, its politics became clearer.

MONEY TRAIL
When it came to the assets freeze and arms embargo, the Resolution called on the secretary-general to create an eight-member panel of experts to assist the Security Council committee in monitoring the sanctions.

Libyan assets are mainly in the US and Europe, and they amount to hundreds of billions of dollars: the US Treasury froze $30bn of liquid assets, and US banks $18bn. What is to happen to interest on these assets?

In the absence of any specific arrangement assets are turned into a booty, an interest-free loan, in this instance, to US Treasury and US banks. Like the military intervention, there is nothing international about implementing the sanctions regime. From its point of view, the international process is no more than a legitimating exercise.

If the legitimating is international, implementation is privatised, passing the initiative to the strongest of member states. The end result is a self-constituted coalition of the willing. War furthers many interests. Each war is a laboratory for testing the next generation of weapons. It is well known that the Iraq war led to more civilian than military victims.

The debate then was over whether or not these casualties were intended. In Libya, the debate is over facts. It points to the fact that the US and NATO are perfecting a new generation of weapons, weapons meant for urban warfare, weapons designed to minimise collateral damage.

The objective is to destroy physical assets with minimum cost in human lives. The cost to the people of Libya will be of another type. The more physical assets are destroyed, the less sovereign will be the next government in Libya.

LIBYA’S OPPOSITION
The full political cost will become clear in the period of transition. The anti-Gaddafi coalition comprises four different political trends: radical Islamists, royalists, tribalists, and secular middle class activists produced by a Western-oriented educational system.

Of these, only the radical Islamists, especially those linked organisationally to Al Qaeda, have battle experience. They - like NATO - have the most to gain in the short term from a process that is more military than political. This is why the most likely outcome of a military resolution in Libya will be an Afghanistan-type civil war.

One would think that this would be clear to the powers waging the current war on Libya, because they were the same powers waging war in Afghanistan. Yet, they have so far showed little interest in a political resolution. Several facts point to this.

The African Union delegation sent to Libya to begin discussions with Gaddafi in pursuit of a political resolution to the conflict was denied permission to fly over Libya - and thus land in Tripoli - by the NATO powers.

The New York Times reported that Libyan tanks on the road to Benghazi were bombed from the air Iraq war-style, when they were retreating and not when they were advancing.

The two pilots of the US fighter jet F15-E that crashed near Benghazi were rescued by US forces on the ground, now admitted to be CIA operatives in a clear violation of Resolution 1973 and that points to an early introduction of ground forces.

The logic of a political resolution was made clear by Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, in a different context: ‘We have made clear that security alone cannot resolve the challenges facing Bahrain. Violence is not the answer, a political process is.’

That Clinton has been deaf to this logic when it comes to Libya is testimony that so far, the pursuit of interest has defied learning the political lessons of past wars, most importantly Afghanistan.

Marx once wrote that important events in history occur, as it were, twice - the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce. He should have added, that for its victims, farce is a tragedy compounded.

West's gift of war and racism

A US "coalition" would "take out" the recalcitrant Gaddafi if the Saudis put down the popular uprising in Bahrain. The latter has been accomplished, and the bloodied King of Bahrain will be a guest at the Royal Wedding in London.
The Herald

By John Pilger
THE Euro-American attack on Libya has nothing to do with protecting anyone; only the terminally naive believe such nonsense. It is the West's response to popular uprisings in strategic, resource-rich regions of the world and the beginning of a war of attrition against the new imperial rival, China.
President Barack Obama's historical distinction is now guaranteed. He is America's first black president to invade Africa. His assault on Libya is run by the US Africa Command, which was set up in 2007 to secure the continent's lucrative natural resources from Africa's impoverished people and the rapidly spreading commercial influence of China. Libya, along with Angola and Nigeria, is China's principal source of oil.
As American, British and French planes currently incinerate both "bad" and "good" Libyans, the evacuation of 30 000 Chinese workers is under way, perhaps permanently. Statements by Western officials and media that a "deranged and criminal Colonel Gaddafi" is planning "genocide" against his own people still await evidence. This is reminiscent of fraudulent claims that required "humanitarian intervention" in Kosovo, the final dismemberment of Yugoslavia and the establishment of the biggest US military base in Europe.
The detail is also familiar. The Libyan "pro-democracy rebels" are reportedly commanded by Colonel Khalifa Haftar who, according to a study by the US Jamestown Foundation, set up the Libyan National Army in 1988 "with strong backing from the Central Intelligence Agency". For the past 20 years, Colonel Haftar has been living not far from Langley, Virginia, home of the CIA, which also provides him with a training camp. The Mujihadeen, which produced al-Qaeda, and the Iraqi National Congress, which scripted the Bush/Blair lies about Iraq, were sponsored in the same time-honoured way, in leafy Langley.
Libya's other "rebel" leaders include Mustafa Abdul Jalil, Gaddafi's justice minister until February, and General Abdel-Fattah Younes, who ran Gaddafi's interior ministry: both with formidable reputations for savagely putting down dissent. There is a civil and tribal war in Libya, which includes popular outrage against Gaddafi's human rights record. However, it is Libya's independence, not the nature of its regime, that is intolerable to the West in a region of vassals; and this hostility has barely changed in the 42 years since Gaddafi overthrew the feudal king Idris, one of the more odious tyrants backed by the west.
With his Bedouin hyperbole and bizarre ways, Gaddafi has long made an ideal "mad dog" (Daily Mirror), now requiring heroic US, French and British pilots to bomb urban areas in Tripoli, including a maternity hospital and a cardiac centre. The last US bombing in 1986 managed to kill his adopted daughter.
What the US, British and French hope to achieve is the opposite of a people's liberation. In undermining efforts Libya's genuine democrats and nationalists to free their country from both a dictator and those corrupted by foreign demands, the sound and fury from Washington, London and Paris has succeeded in dimming the memory of January's days of hope in Tunis and Cairo and distracted many, who had taken heart, from the task of ensuring that their gains are not stolen quietly. On March 23, the US-backed Egyptian military issued a decree barring all strikes and protests. This was barely reported in the West. With Gaddafi now the accredited demon, Israel, the real canker, can continue its wholesale land theft and expulsions. Facebook has come under Zionist pressure to remove a page calling for a full-scale Palestinian uprising - a "Third Intifada" - on May 15.
None of this should surprise. History suggests nothing less than the kind of machination revealed by two senior diplomats at the United Nations, who spoke to the Asia Times. Demanding to know why the UN never ordered a fact-finding mission to Libya instead of an attack, they were told that a deal had been done between the White House and Saudi Arabia. A US "coalition" would "take out" the recalcitrant Gaddafi if the Saudis put down the popular uprising in Bahrain. The latter has been accomplished, and the bloodied King of Bahrain will be a guest at the Royal Wedding in London.
The embodiment of this reaction is David Cameron, whose only real job has been as PR man to the television industry's asset stripper, Michael Green. Cameron was in the Gulf selling arms to the British-invented tyrannies when people rose up against Yemen's Abdullah Saleh; on March 18, Saleh's regime murdered 52 demonstrators. Cameron said nothing of value. Yemen is "one of ours", as the British Foreign Office likes to say. In February, Cameron revealed himself in an attack on what he called "state multi-culturalism" - the code for Muslims. He said: "We need a lot less of the past tolerance of recent years." He was applauded by Marine Le Pen, leader of France's fascist National Front. "It is exactly this kind of statement that has barred us from public life for 30 years," she told the Financial Times. "I can only congratulate him."
At its most rapacious, the British empire produced David Camerons in job lots. Unlike many of the Victorian "civilisers", today's sedentary Westminster warriors - throw in William Hague, Liam Fox and the treacherous Nick Clegg - have never been touched by the suffering and bloodshed which, at remove in culture and distance, are the consequences of their utterances and actions.
With their faintly trivial, always contemptuous air, they are cowards abroad, as they are at home. War and racism and the destruction of Britain's hard-won social democracy are their gift. Remember that when you next take to the streets in your hundreds of thousands, as you must. - www.johnpilger.com

Rebuilding Egypt the American way

Senator Kerry said the bill he is co-sponsoring with Lieberman and McCain is based on "the belief that the United States has an historic opportunity to help these two countries, to transform the Arab awakening. . . into a lasting rebirth that brings prosperity and democracy."
In Kerry's eyes, it is the mission of the US to guide events in the Arab world. Prosperity, as always, translates as increased profits for corporate interests, and democracy is little more than a euphemism for the free market.
The Herald

By Gregory Elich
IN EGYPT, a people's uprising has succeeded in removing Hosni Mubarak from power. The main battle, however, lies ahead. Will there be a substantive transformation of Egyptian society, or will the economic and political system remain essentially unchanged, with only a new face occupying the presidential office?
There are powerful forces that are determined to steer events in the latter direction.
While many in the Egyptian middle class, fed up with the corrupt rule of Mubarak, may be content to see the establishment of formal electoral democracy, the poor of Egypt hope for genuine economic and political change.
Their grievances are many.
Mubarak's adoption of the Economic Reform and Structural Adjustment Program in 1991, at the urging of the IMF and World Bank, had predictable consequences.
Off to a relatively slow start, privatisation of state enterprises began to accelerate ten years into the programme.
Social benefits were cut in accordance with neo-liberal principles. Passage of the Unified Labour Law in 2003 targetted unions and the rights of workers.
It permitted workers to be hired on temporary contracts that could be renewed at will by management.
The advantage for employers is that a worker on temporary contract is not allowed to join a union or vote in union elections. The law did away with the practice of granting permanent employment to workers once they passed a probationary period.
Limits were also placed on collective bargaining and the right to strike.
As has been the case elsewhere in the world, privatisation of state-owned enterprises resulted in mass layoffs.
For example, more than 65 percent of the workforce was eliminated at the six ESCO textile mills. And, at the Assiut Cement Company, about 77 percent of workers lost their jobs.
Special Economic Zones were established, offering tax and legal concessions to investors.
At many factories located in these zones, workers are required to sign undated resignation letters as a condition of employment, allowing companies to swiftly and easily dismiss workers involved in union activities.
The net effect of the Economic Reform and Structural Adjustment Program and the Unified Labour Law has been to concentrate ever more wealth in the hands of the few, while driving great numbers of people into poverty.
According to World Bank figures, 44 percent of Egypt's population survive on less than $320 a year.
US corporations have a strong interest in maintaining the status quo in Egypt. That nation ranks as the second largest market for foreign direct investment in Africa, and the United States is its primary foreign direct investor.
Egypt is an attractive destination for foreign investment, as its textile workers earn less than half the pay of their counterparts in Tunisia, and about a third of the pay of those in Morocco and Turkey.
For the last several years, workers have responded with strikes and protests, helping to build the momentum that eventually toppled Mubarak from power.
They aim to achieve some measure of economic justice. Can they succeed in that goal?
Not if US imperial interests have their way. In a revealing comment, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently said, "We have an enormous stake in ensuring that Egypt and Tunisia provide models for the kind of democracy that we want to see."
Note the language she used: the kind of democracy that US elites want to see, rather than what the Egyptian people want.
For the Obama administration, the model it hopes to see Egypt adopt is that of the Philippines, where a people's move drove Ferdinand Marcos from power in 1986, or Indonesia, where a similar mass movement removed Suharto from office in 1998.
Men like Marcos, Suharto and Mubarak were warmly embraced as close US allies, but Western support for them vanished once it became clear that their continued rule was no longer a viable option.
US allegiance shifted abruptly, with an eye on the continuation of fundamental economic interests, based on the concept that rulers are expendable. Profits are forever.
Although the people's movements in the Philippines and Indonesia successfully ousted brutally repressive rulers, daily lives for most people remained otherwise unchanged.
Wealth remained in the hands of the few; corruption persisted, and the majority of people continued to struggle in desperate poverty under neo-liberal policies. That is the model the US wants Egypt to follow.
And, US leaders are not shy about pushing that goal.
Even before the fall of Mubarak, the Centre for International Private Enterprise received money from the National Endowment for Democracy to strengthen the ability of civil society organisations in Egypt "to advocate for free market legislative reform, and to build consensus on needed changes to the Egyptian legal environment to remove impediments to competition in a free market."
Mubarak enthusiastically embraced the neo-liberal economic model, but US and western European elites sensed an opportunity to accelerate that process and remake Egypt in their own image.
Already, Senators John Kerry, Joe Lieberman and John McCain are preparing legislation to establish what they term the Egyptian-American Enterprise Fund and the Tunisian-American Enterprise Fund.
The Egyptian fund would be initially seeded with at least $50 million. The senators indicated that they hope these funds will attract private investment to Egypt, and said that their legislation is being modelled on the "hugely successful" efforts of a similar nature in Eastern Europe after the fall of socialism.
Those efforts were a huge success - for Western investors, with Eastern European economies retooled to become sources of cheap labour, and dominated by Western corporate penetration.
The process was less pleasing for workers in the region, with precipitous drops in GDP, growing unemployment, poverty, and slashing of pay, pensions, and social benefits.
Senator Kerry said the bill he is co-sponsoring with Lieberman and McCain is based on "the belief that the United States has an historic opportunity to help these two countries, to transform the Arab awakening. . . into a lasting rebirth that brings prosperity and democracy."
In Kerry's eyes, it is the mission of the US to guide events in the Arab world. Prosperity, as always, translates as increased profits for corporate interests, and democracy is little more than a euphemism for the free market.
"These new enterprise funds," Kerry continued, "will allow us to do what Egypt and Tunisia are calling for - provide investment in their entrepreneurs and private businesses so their economies can stabilise, prosper and create the crucial jobs."
Oh, really? Is that what the Egyptian and Tunisian people are calling for: support for private businesses, whose interests, as always, come at the expense of working people?
To remove all doubt about whose interests will be served, a statement by the bill's sponsors says, "The funds will be designed to improve the overall business environment in the two countries and strengthen local capital markets.
"By relying on US financial managers and other private-sector experts, the funds will concentrate on making profitable investments."
Not to be outdone, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited Egypt, bringing along Elizabeth Littlefield, CEO of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC), to discuss with the interim Egyptian government support for business.
"We want to see a very specific commitment by OPIC and by the US. Export-Import Bank to provide letters of credit, to encourage private sector investments, because the long-term economic growth of Egypt depends not on government jobs but on private sector jobs," Clinton announced.
"So, the more foreign direct investment that we can help to encourage and support, we think will be beneficial for Egyptian people."
And not so incidentally increase profits for Western investors.
Clinton took the occasion to announce a $2 billion aid package for North Africa, to be provided through OPIC, in order to "encourage foreign direct investment."
OPIC head, Elizabeth Littlefield talked of "partnership" between US and Arab businesses and said that OPIC "hopes to bolster the private sector's role in helping to transform the region."
In a business-friendly direction, it scarcely needs adding. According to an OPIC press release, the organisation "will identify and encourage private businesses, especially US businesses, to invest in the region by providing direct loans, guarantees and political risk insurance."
In other words, this so-called "aid" to Egypt is in reality designed to benefit US corporations.
The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, in which the US is the largest shareholder, plans to discuss "aid" to North Africa at its upcoming annual meeting in May.
"The EBRD was created in 1991 to promote democracy and market economy and the historic developments in Egypt strike a deep chord at this bank," stresses the bank's president, Thomas Mirow.
In a recent speech, Mirow noted that the bank stands ready to take up the task. "We have the ability to deliver the development of the private sector."
If called upon to do so, the bank stands "ready to act," Mirow chirps, "championing the values that we hold dear."
The American Chamber of Commerce in Egypt sees itself as having "a role to play." The organisation's president, M Gamal Moharam, notes that the nation is "at the dawn of a new era," and the "private sector should strive to smooth any disruptions to normal economic activity caused by labour actions."
Keep those pesky workers down. Furthermore, "it's also more important than ever to reassure both foreign investors and tourists that Egypt is an attractive destination."
The private sector, he feels, "should cooperate closely with the government to communicate these messages to the international community, highlighting that Egypt is one again open for business."
The US is working closely with the interim government led by the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces. According to the New York Times, "Pentagon officials remain in daily contact with the new military rulers."
That contact is already paying dividends, as Egypt has begun shipping arms to anti-government rebels in Libya.
According to Libyan businessman Hani Souflakis, who acts as liaison between Libyan rebel forces and the Egyptian government, "Americans have given the green light to the Egyptians to help."
In fact, US officials quite likely did more than merely give a green light. It is known that the US made a direct request to Saudi Arabia to ship arms to Libyan rebels, and surely the same request was made to Egyptian officials.
In a populous capitalist nation such as Egypt, it takes money - and lots of it - to run a political campaign.
New political parties will have had little time to form, let alone campaign, by the time a new election takes place in Egypt. And working-class parties will simply be incapable of mustering sufficient funds to run a national political campaign.
It remains to be seen whether entrenched interests in Egypt, backed by the West, prevail, or if the Egyptian people can grab the reins and determine their own destiny.
US government and non-governmental organisations are going to provide funding and training to political candidates supporting the neo-liberal agenda, giving them a clear advantage.
As political commentator Stephen Gowans points out, "Sure, Egyptians are free to elect anyone they want, but modern elections are major marketing campaigns.
Without strong financial backing, you haven't a chance."
US leaders are once again on a civilising mission, in which the "natives" are to have their fate chosen for them. If the US has its way, Egypt has only more of the same to look forward to: more privatisation, more poverty and economic dislocation, and more subservience to the West.
The Egyptian people have not asked for this Western "help", and fighting off Western meddling and diktat is likely to prove a far more difficult battle for the Egyptian people than the removal of Hosni Mubarak from power.

• Gregory Elich is on the Board of Directors of the Jasenovac Research Institute and on the Advisory Board of the Korea Truth Commission. He is the author of the book Strange Liberators: Militarism, Mayhem, and the Pursuit of Profit. This article is reproduced from www.trinicenter.com

Why a SADC electoral roadmap for Zim stinks

 Any roadmap that is crafted, or to put it politely, crafted with the help of the West, is a farce and a tool for securing Western interests.
Just like sanctions and their "democratic support" are inimical to not only fair electoral processes, the so-called roadmap seeks to tilt the playing field to the favour of certain players.
It is only logical that Zimbabwe rejects such mischievous moves, just as it rejects being a colony again.
The Herald

By Tichaona Zindoga
If to date there has been anything that makes the Sadc electoral roadmap for Zimbabwe as ostensibly drawn by South African President Jacob Zuma stink, it is the recent revelations that the British government is willing to fund it.
Last week, British Minister of State (Foreign and Commonwealth Office) Lord David Howell and Government Whip and Spokesperson for the Cabinet (international development and equalities and women's issues) Baroness Verna, told their Parliament that London stood ready to fund the roadmap.
The revelations come on the back of discomfiture with the recently held Sadc Troika Summit in Livingstone, Zambia one of whose resolutions entailed the regional body sending some oversight team to work on the implementation of the GPA with a view towards elections.
It will be recalled that while MDC-T reportedly agreed unconditionally to this, the Welshman Ncube-led MDC welcomed it, albeit with some reservations. Zanu-PF all but rejected the idea.
In fact, the whole Sadc Troika business torched a storm because of how it panned out procedurally and some of its resolutions, which were construed, and perhaps rightly so, as coming directly from a Western hymn book.
The revelations by the British, which are shared by much of the Western world and on paper meant to help achieve free and fair elections, seem more like the cat is out of the back.

Regime change agenda
There are several questions that are likely to issue from the benevolence of the Western world in funding elections in Zimbabwe.
The biggest one being, in Shona language, "Itsitsi dzeyi kugombera dhongwana rinozvinwira zvaro?"
Literally: "If a foal suckles from its mother, what's the point of milking the mother for it?"
In which case, there should be an ulterior motive behind such benevolence. There are a couple of sayings that seek to question such misplaced acts of goodwill as offered by Lord David Howell and Baroness Verna themselves representatives of the British Empire.
The same empire, slighted by 1980 and 2000, daily seeks to plot the downfall of Zimbabwe as led by Zanu-PF which fought the liberation struggle with other cadres to deliver Independence and the land reform which gave 300 000 families arable land which had been stolen from them.
Even more compelling, Zanu-PF is championing the economic empowerment of the majority blacks.
It will be noted that after 2000 Britain instigated her allies in the Anglo-Saxon world to punish Zimbabwe via a raft of sanctions that are defined as the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act in the United States of America and the not-so-defined but similar measures in the 27-member European Union bloc.
The intent, the reach, the letter and spirit of these measures are as well-known as they were recently vociferously rejected when the country launched the national anti-sanctions petition campaign.
The flip side of the punitive and coercive measures against Zimbabwe and in particular Zanu-PF has been inducements and support for the forces that oppose and can undo the revolutionary achievements of Zanu-PF-led Government since 1980.
In a country that is as peaceful as Zimbabwe, and where, like most of the Sadc region, there is no history and experience of coups to unseat Western-hated governments, and where military invasion by the West is not a viable option, elections have become one big way to undo the gains of the liberation struggle, land reform and indigenisation.
This is where the West has come in with an avalanche of funds to create and bankroll parties and organisations (and there are thousands of them since 2000) to see to it that Zanu-PF loses power.
To this day, albeit with some close shaves, Zanu-PF has won all major elections since 2000 against western-funded and founded MDC, first as a singular party and this day split into two.
Predictably, not any one outcome of those elections has had the endorsement of the West (not that any is necessary) for the simple reason that their preferred parties and candidates have not won the power needed to deliver to their masters what Zanu-PF and President Robert Mugabe have deprived them of.
This visceral interest in Zimbabwe sees the British in particular and the West in general wanting to see an electoral roadmap that guarantees the victory of their preferred candidates.
This is not a secret. And their candidates do not have to win a free and fair poll: even one in which there are gross anomalies like those held lately in Afghanistan and Nigeria will suffice as long as Western interests are upheld.
In another instance, as in the likes of Saudi Arabia, there is even no need for an election because Western interests are in safe hands.
In Western terms, at least outside of their own systems, electoral democracy is one which secures Western interests.
Any roadmap that is crafted, or to put it politely, crafted with the help of the West, is a farce and a tool for securing Western interests.
Just like sanctions and their "democratic support" are inimical to not only fair electoral processes, the so-called roadmap seeks to tilt the playing field to the favour of certain players.
It is only logical that Zimbabwe rejects such mischievous moves, just as it rejects being a colony again.

The GPA roadmap
There really should be something worrying when outside forces seem too keen to craft the so-called electoral roadmap, and recognising the efforts of President Zuma, to the extent of trumping the role of mediation and facilitation accorded him by the so-called Global Political Agreement.
The same GPA, signed by Zanu-PF and the two MDC formations is but a roadmap in and of itself about various social, economic and political issues that the three parties identified and discussed for close to half a year until that day in September 2008.
Among other provisions it sets timelines for all political activities, including the very formation and the swearing in of what has come to be known as the inclusive Government.
Elections do come in as a factor as well, being first restrained for fear of poisoning the politics among parties but ultimately providing for the holding of general elections at which time the GPA would have subsisted its last.
In short, the GPA says that after the completion of the crafting of a new constitution and a subsequent referendum, there shall be elections.
Zimbabwe is on the constitution-writing stage which logically precedes the referendum and elections in that order.
Surely that should be a clear and unambiguous roadmap that was agreed upon by all parties.
And it is complying with a document nobody signed at gunpoint.
It is to be wondered what any other new thing can be added to this broad-based and comprehensive roadmap.
It cannot be about prevention of violence, which parties committed to; free or fair elections, which the establishment of an electoral body covered; freedoms or such rights, for there are relevant commissions; nor about seeing an election take place because everybody in the GPA seeks to achieve total power and as such ready for elections - or should be, if not prepared now.
In which case Zimbabweans cannot be held at ransom by any party whatsoever that does not make hay while the GPA sun shines.
Ultimately, any roadmap that comes outside of the GPA should not pave way for interference from outside, in other words enemies of democracy that seek to influence the process in their favour.
If Britain were to come in today apparently this far before elections, it will be logical for them to see the exercise through.
There are no prizes for guessing how it would see to it that its protégés would win at all costs.
In essence, and notwithstanding such an outcome, the very idea that Britain tries to extend its paternalistic influence on Zimbabwe as if the country is a province of Britain is very insulting.
Zimbabwe taught Britain democracy and elections for Zimbabweans by waging a protracted liberation war against the imperial power that sought to condemn the African to perpetual servitude. And it had its Western buddies in tow.
For that reason it is not acceptable to allow the recidivism of being a client state of Britain, America or the EU.

Thabo Mbeki speaks on Libya

Because of our history as Africans, we could not but ask ourselves the question: is it possible for Africa to share the same interests with the West in terms of the outcomes of the popular uprisings?
When has the West ever been truly concerned about encouraging genuine democracy in Africa, without being driven by self-interest?
These considerations suggested to us that there was something suspect about the attempts of the West to identify itself as an ally of the popular uprisings in north Africa, to the extent that these represented real democratic revolutions.

By Thabo Mbeki (former South African President)
THE popular uprisings in north Africa affecting Tunisia, Egypt and Libya took Africa by surprise.
Stunned by the events we watched unfolding on TV, and unable to quickly decide how we should respond, we, as Africans, instinctively resolved that we had no choice but to stand back and wait.
We hoped that the events in this part of our continent would evolve in a manner that would give us the chance to publicly pronounce ourselves correctly.
The stark choice we faced was whether we should side with the demonstrators or with the governments that the protesters demanded resign.
Our challenge was not made any easier by the political interventions of various Western countries, which offered unsolicited opinions and made unilateral interventions to influence the outcome of the uprisings.
Because of our history as Africans, we could not but ask ourselves the question: is it possible for Africa to share the same interests with the West in terms of the outcomes of the popular uprisings?
When has the West ever been truly concerned about encouraging genuine democracy in Africa, without being driven by self-interest?
These considerations suggested to us that there was something suspect about the attempts of the West to identify itself as an ally of the popular uprisings in north Africa, to the extent that these represented real democratic revolutions.
These considerations reinforced our feeling that we should tread carefully instead of rushing to intervene.
This attitude did not cause Africa any significant embarrassment with regard to Tunisia and Egypt.
In the end, all we needed to do was merely endorse the outcomes determined by the people of these two African countries.
However, what has happened and is happening in Libya has exposed many fault lines in the African project to determine its destiny.
The Libyan uprising began in Benghazi on February 15.
Almost immediately, unlike in Tunisia and Egypt, this uprising also took the form of an armed insurrection, while the Gaddafi regime resorted to brute force to suppress the uprising and insurrection, claiming that it was inspired and led by al-Qaeda.
Eight days after the beginning of the uprising, on February 23, the intergovernmental African Union Peace and Security Council (AU PSC) spoke for all Africa when it condemned "the indiscriminate and excessive use of force and lethal weapons against peaceful protesters, in violation of human rights and international humanitarian law", and affirmed that "the aspirations of the people of Libya for democracy, political reform, justice and socio-economic development are legitimate".
It urged that they be respected.
At the same meeting, the AU PSC resolved to send "a mission of (the) council to Libya to assess the situation on the ground".
Unfortunately, the AU failed to make even this limited intervention.
Because of Africa's weak capacity to communicate even with itself, many of us in Africa did not even hear of the February 23 decisions of the AU PSC until many days later.
In reality, the international media practically ignored the AU PSC's decisions.
Rather, the world was exposed to the dramatic TV images of what was happening in Libya and the public communications of the actors in this drama, including those of Muammar Gaddafi and his son Saif al-Islam.
In other words, the AU and therefore African message withered on the vine, making no impact on African and world opinion of what might be done to resolve the conflict in Libya.
This is but one of the manifestations of the fault lines I have mentioned relating to Africa's determination to define its future.
Three weeks after its February 23 meeting, on March 10, the AU PSC decided to constitute a five-nation AU ad hoc highlevel committee on Libya, made up of African heads of state and government mandated to intervene to resolve the Libyan conflict.
The committee was directed to "facilitate an inclusive dialogue among the Libyan parties on the appropriate reforms" that would lead to the peaceful resolution of the Libyan crisis.
The AU PSC also expressed its "rejection of any foreign military intervention, whatever its form."
But a week later, the UN Security Council adopted its Resolution 1973, which prescribed exactly the "foreign military intervention" that Africa had rejected.
The historical fact is that as should have been the case, the AU moved ahead of the UN in terms of prescribing what should be done to address the Libyan, and therefore African, crisis.
The reality, however, is that the UN Security Council made absolutely certain that it ignored Africa's views on what needed to be done to resolve a crisis in a member state of the AU.
This was later emphasised by the refusal of the UN to allow the AU ad hoc committee to visit Tripoli and Benghazi on March 18 and 19, to promote a peaceful resolution of the Libyan crisis, precisely to reduce the loss of human lives while promoting democratic rule in Libya.
This meant that the African peacemakers flying to Libya to carry out their mission were in danger of having their planes shot down!
The African leaders sought to visit Libya because the Gaddafi regime had accepted that it should engage its opposition, under the auspices of the AU, to achieve the immediate cessation of all hostilities; delivery of humanitarian assistance to the affected populations; the protection of foreign nationals; and the adoption and implementation of the necessary political reforms to eliminate the causes of the crisis.
This was based on the legitimate aspirations of the Libyan people for democracy, political reform, justice, peace and security, and socio-economic development.
The marginalisation of Africa, in terms of helping to determine the future of Libya, paid no regard to the fact that failure to end the Libyan crisis correctly will have a long-term impact on the continent, and especially the countries of north Africa and the Sahel, such as Sudan, Chad, Niger and Mali, with little effect on the Western countries.
The Western countries have also underlined this marginalisation of Africa by insisting, to this day, that what is important for them is the support of the League of Arab States, with absolutely no mention of the AU.
Nobody knows how many Libyans will be killed and injured as a result of the ongoing civil war in that country and the evolving military intervention of the West, which has unquestionably evolved into support for the armed insurrection in Libya to achieve the objective of regime change.
The reality is that the Libyan conflict will claim many casualties.
Because the space has been closed for the Libyans to sit together to decide their future, it is almost guaranteed that for many years Libya will experience sustained and debilitating instability, whoever emerges ‘‘victorious'' from the armed conflict.
Tragically, one of the other casualties will be Africa's efforts, sustained since the 1990s, independently to determine its future as a continent of democracy, peace, stability and shared development and prosperity.
The countries of the West, acting through the UN Security Council, have used their preponderant power to communicate the message to Africa that they are as determined as ever to decide the future of Africa, regardless of the views of the Africans, much like what they did during the years of the colonial domination of our continent.
It should not come as a surprise if, over the years, the people of Africa lose confidence in the will of multilateral institutions, such as the UN, to help them change their condition for the better.
This will happen because we will have come to understand that powerful countries beyond the oceans reserve the right and have the capacity ultimately to decide the future of Africa, with no regard for our views and aspirations as Africans.
History will record that the moment of the reassertion of this deadly malaise was when the West, acting through the UN Security Council, dismissed the notion and practice of finding African solutions to African problems.
Denied the right to solve its own problems, Africa will inevitably fall victim to ever-continuing conflict and instability.
Will it be that, paradoxically, the occasion of the Libyan popular uprising, which portended welcome democratic transformation, will also mark the moment of the asphyxiation of the dream of an African renaissance?

Bitter Bennett’s voice in the wilderness

When Bennett made his call for disinvestment, it did not matter to him that thousands of Zimbabwe had gathered only days before to protest against investment-chasing sanctions which in letter and spirit are supposed to make Zimbabwe crash and burn.
The Herald

Roy Bennett...a white son of Anglo-Saxon imperialism calling on the metropolitan white community to rally behind the call to squeeze the life out of the un-people of Zimbabwe.

By Tichaona Zindoga
A couple of weeks ago self-exiled MDC-T treasurer Roy Bennett called for disinvestment in Zimbabwe and specifically vented vitriol on British company Old Mutual for continued investments in the country.

Bennet was speaking before a gathering of business people in Cape Town, South Africa.

He said any companies that continued to do business with Zimbabwe or complied with the Government programme of indeginisation faced backlash if his party accessed power.

For his part, promised he, he would not raise a finger to save them: quite the contrary.

In a fiery speech, which started off with Bennett trying to portray himself as a martyr and one of the ordinary folk of Chimanimani, even feigning that he did not have political ambitions, he made important and telling points.

He described indigenization programme as “destructive and counterproductive strategy (and) a blatant ploy to enrich a politically corrupt elite”.

He said: “It goes without saying that any process of enriching individuals or companies connected to this infamous criminal syndicate WILL be nullified once the MDC are in power.”

He promised that “brave” companies who might fall foul of the current indigenisation laws by refusing to comply or do so under duress “will be restored by an MDC government if they are violated in the interim.”

He dissuaded major mining houses from “unacceptable complicity in Mugabe’s blackmail” pointing out that, for example, “There is no excuse for Impala Platinum, in an effort to placate Zanu-PF and (President Robert) Mugabe, to again offer the state mining rights in Zimplats, a subsidiary it already owns and controls.”

On Old Mutual Bennett said: “To illustrate my criticism of the pursuit of ill-advised opportunism, we need to look no further than the sad and seedy role of Old Mutual in the illicit diamond mining that is occurring in the Marange diamond fields of Manicaland. These fields are controlled by the military junta and were attained over the dead bodies of hundreds of impoverished Zimbabweans. This unacceptable example of corporate greed and willful negligence cannot be swept under the carpet any longer.

“For a respected London-listed financial services company to continue its investment and shareholding in a joint venture with a disreputable scrap metal merchant and—wait for this—an infamous confidante of Robert and Grace Mugabe is simply unbelievable! It is brazen. It is reprehensible and obscene.”

He also blamed Old Mutual for maintaining stake in Zimpapers, publishers of the Herald and other titles.

The bitter Bennett said the paper was “a practitioner of hate-speech and an apostle of vice and violence”, describing it as “dirty little rag”.

He revealed that his party had “urged Old Mutual—quietly behind closed doors—to quit their blood-stained investment” but “the company has not listened.”

Therefore, Old Mutual must face the music, argued Bennett saying his party would use international celebrities from Hollywood and members of the media to mount a Zimbabwean blood diamonds campaign.

He challenged his influential audience to confront the parent company over Zimbabwe.

In all this, Old Mutual stands to lose out.

And he pointed out: “We warned Old Mutual of the danger of substantial contagion to their share price should this campaign get underway.”

He concluded on a sour, menacing and devilish note: “These are but a couple of examples of the companies that have, and continue, to walk the halls of shame in Zimbabwe.

“There is no shortage of them. When the day of judgement comes, I will not lift a finger to save them from the consequences of their actions. Quite the contrary. And I am unreservedly confident that I will have a powerful constituency behind me. If these companies choose to reap the whirlwind, then so be it.”

MDC-T spokesman Nelson Chamisa later tried to dismiss Bennett’s statements saying, according to some sections of the media, it was “Bennett’s view, not the position of the party."

However the statements will not be any easy to wish away, nor the revelations and the implications of the same.

This is largely because Bennett is one of the financiers and policymakers of the MDC-T, being also the representative of the greater goal of undoing the gains of the liberation struggle, the land included.

So there is inherent, however revolting, truth and sincerity in Bennett’s statements.

By calling for disinvestment in Zimbabwe and targeting Old Mutual for its continued interest in the country, Bennett demonstrated how it is his and his party’s philosophy to make the country fall so that his party can gather the pieces.

This is the same thinking that, at the sanitizing of the MDC, led the West to impose sanctions on the country so that an socio-economically terrorized people would revolt against their Government and the West build on that catastrophe.

Was it not Eddie Cross, another senior MDC-T member, who said that Zimbabwe should “crash and burn”?

This is the sadistic love that Bennett harbours for the people of Zimbabwe, including those in his envied Chimanimani.

When Bennett made his call for disinvestment, it did not matter to him that thousands of Zimbabwe had gathered only days before to protest against investment-chasing sanctions which in letter and spirit are supposed to make Zimbabwe crash and burn.

The sanctions-imposing West also wants to see to it that they frustrate Zimbabwe’s recovery and sanctions-busting initiatives.

This is why they have not been allowing Zimbabwe to trade in its “newly-found” diamonds which have the capacity to more than satisfy the country’s fiscal requirements.

Diamond money will make redundant financial constrictions that are spelt in sanctions measures against Zimbabwe which bar extension of credit or debt relief as well as investment in Zimbabwe.

So when Bennett calls for disinvestment in Zimbabwe he is imposing sanctions against the very same people he says he represents.

Bennett and his party have been doing that publicly and clandestinely.

Bennett reveals both dimensions in his revelation of how they blackmailed Old Mutual and then went on a worldwide campaign against the company.

MDC-T and Bennett are prepared to do all the tricks in the book to satisfy their narrow, parochial interests which basically revolve around giving to the erstwhile white colonialist what he lost during the liberation struggle and the subsequent land reform and the current indigenization programme.

That is also why Bennett will seek to dissuade companies from ceding majority stake to the majority blacks as required by the law and will make sure that such deals will be reversed on the day that his party wins power.

In Bennett’s racist and narrow view, Anglo-American companies must be the ones to bring business to Zimbabwe and not be accountable to the people; people who should be perpetually grateful for such “salvation” even if it means pillage and plunder of their God-given resources.

This is why Bennet would revel in a captive rural society in Chimanimani that is grateful for a white man come to their parts.

He tries to rubbish the programme of indigenisation as benefiting only a small clique of “Mugabe’s cronies”.

That is a well-worn racist and political slur.

It happened with the land reform where the 300 000 families that benefited were cast under the shadow of “cronies”.

As it has turned out, as the tobacco auctions would testify today, the same farmers are doing in a decade what the likes of Bennett did for over a century.

In fact, Zimbabwe’s modest recovery in the last couple of years has been hinging on the growth of the agro-industry dominated by the same people that the likes of Bennett pejoratively called “poor black farmers”.

MDC leader Morgan Tsvangirai described them as unwanted mushroom growing all over the place.

There is also an important, racial dimension Bennett’s statements in Cape Town.

Here was a white son of Anglo-Saxon imperialism calling on the metropolitan white community to rally behind the call to squeeze the life out of the un-people of Zimbabwe.

Specifically, Old Mutual and Impala Platinum, representing big interests, should heed this call.

Whatever the consequences for the people of Zimbabwe, there was a greater good for the empire.

Putting pressure on Western governments by employing various tricks including employing Hollywood celebrities thus becomes a means to effect consensus not only in western metropolis’ governments but also the ordinary people.

Why deny that illegal Western sanctions on Zim are biting?

The US Congress is not known to make as many useless decisions. When decisions are taken by Congress, serious consideration often goes into the matters deliberated upon.
The Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act (2001) (Zidera), is one such matter.
That Congress would have considered such a measure fully knowing well that it would be of no economic consequence on Zimbabwe, is both unthinkable and downright illogical...To deny that sanctions bite, is to underrate the potential of the US and EU to cause mayhem on the small nation's economy, and as is the intention, to effect regime-change, directly or by proxy.
The Herald

By Aguy C Georgias
I WOULD have confined my input in the on-going national debate over the debilitating effects of the economic sanctions imposed on Zimbabwe by the United States in 2001, and by the European Union the following year to the house of Senate.
It is on public record that I have moved a motion in the Senate calling on the inclusive Government to file a class action suit against those sanctions.
I have however, felt it necessary to respond to the opinion article written by Senator Obert Gutu (MDC-T), and published by NewsDay on March 30 2011.
I felt moved to make this contribution because I feel the stance taken by Senator Gutu, if left unchallenged, is highly misleading to the nation, if not deceptive.
In short, Senator Gutu avers that the US and EU sanctions on Zimbabwe are of no effect, and have thus not impacted the national economy negatively.
I say this is just simply not true.
I make this response because Senator Gutu is no ordinary citizen. He is, above all else, an eminent lawyer. His opinion counts.
I however would have thought that, as a lawyer of prominence, Senator Gutu is well grounded in argumentation and logic; that he knows more than a thing or two about contra-positive arguments, and, disjunctive syllogism; that he would know that correlation is not causation.
The fact of the matter is that, put simply, Senator Gutu's argument that. "the economic meltdown" was solely a result of Zanu-PF misgovernance is fallacious, deliberately deceptive and rings hollow.
That politics is also a game of deception cannot be denied. But it is inexcusable when men of such high intellect can use their wit to detract from reality.
To be sure, first and foremost, any form of sanctions against a country, "targetted or soft" inherently constitute a lack of good-will on a country, labelling that state a pariah and it's government "rogue".
Before you look anywhere else, which serious investor would want to do business with, and in such a country?
The US Congress is not known to make as many useless decisions. When decisions are taken by Congress, serious consideration often goes into the matters deliberated upon.
The Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act (2001) (Zidera), is one such matter.
That Congress would have considered such a measure fully knowing well that it would be of no economic consequence on Zimbabwe, is both unthinkable and downright illogical.
Zidera says in no uncertain terms that the US, where it has voting power in multilateral lending financial institutions, must veto all loans, concessions or debt cancellation to Zimbabwe. This extends beyond the World Bank and IMF to include even the African Development Bank.
Zidera is about more than the travel restrictions. US businesses are expressly banned or discouraged from doing business with Zimbabwe where funds for certain key Zimbabwean institutions are currently blocked in the US. Put together these have a far- reaching and more deleterious effect on Zimbabwe than the public is made aware.
That this is so is because the dominant message that resonates with the powerful US media led by the rightwing Fox News with CNN, CBS, NBC, The New York Times, The Washington Post and others on tow, is that Zidera is meant to punish individuals in the Zimbabwe Government, where the fall-out is all blamed on Zanu-PF "misgovernance", a classic case of blaming the victim.
This is not the first time Americans are being subjected to such deception.
It goes back in time: Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq to Haiti. The list goes on.
As for the EU sanctions, so-called restrictive measures, these are nothing short of hard measures by soft power.
It is not the other way round, Senator Gutu and others in the MDC.
To argue that EU measures are of no effect on the national economy is not a simple case of cognitive dissonance; it goes further.
We are now identifying with the aggressor. The EU measures restrict and limit our access to international credit lines. In case some do not know, London still is the financial hub of the world, not New York, Tokyo or Hong Kong.
What caused the US and EU to impose sanctions on Zimbabwe is not some benevolent concern for the poor people of Zimbabwe.
I am keenly aware of the entrenched MDC position, that this is so because Zanu-PF has not opened up political space in Zimbabwe.
Matters are seldom so clear-cut as to fall into one or two categories. In other words there is more at play than internal political dynamics.
We need to ask the simple but yet searching question, and that is: what is the interest of the US and EU in their foreign policy matrix as far as Zimbabwe is concerned?
Where is international capital in all this and who owns it? What about property rights in Zimbabwe? Why is that a concern for Americans and Europeans?
There are two critical national questions that ought to feature in any meaningful debate about Zimbabwe, and that are, the land question and vast resources, both human and natural.
In discussing critical national issues, such as political and other freedoms, all very necessary and relevant to all of us, we need not ignore the other; yet to me, more poignant and important in rank and significance, issues to do with opening up economic space for us Zimbabweans.
In other words, when I talk of property rights, is this to do with title deeds to my company, Trinity Engineering or my house?
The last time I checked, no Zimbabwean had their rights to ownership of such property under threat or imminent danger.
It is where you talk of national assets, the land, minerals etc, that concerns arise. In other words it is a gross generalisation and misleading for the MDC or anyone to say there is a clear and present danger to property rights in Zimbabwe.
If you talk about land ownership, then it becomes another matter.
To me, it is ownership of such national assets such as Ziscosteel that comes to mind. I started Trinity Engineering Company in 1975 with my first major contract being Number Four Blast Furnace at Zisco.
My heart bleeds to learn that ownership of such a strategic national asset will now fall into the hands of foreigners. It does not matter to me that they are Indians. It matters to me that they are not Zimbabweans.
I am not in Mutumwa Mawere's corner, in his case over Shabani/Mashaba Mines, as I do not pretend to know the facts. But, it is my conviction that what he attempted to do, to have ownership of such an important national asset fall into the hands of a Zimbabwean, ought to have been replicated across board.
We cannot have wholesale disposal of national assets without due caution and consideration. Future generations may wake up to find they own nothing in a country they call their own.
This is why Zimbabwe is only a late-comer to instituting indigenisation policies.
When others talk, it is like a Zimbabwean idea, not tried anywhere else and without internal precedent.
This is shockingly not true.
Go to Malaysia, India, Japan you name it. They have such laws governing ownership of national assets and resources.
The devil, as always, is in the details. It is that which we ought to interrogate when it comes to policy initiatives, not whether we should decide how land ought to be re-distributed, that this must be left to market forces to decide. Where has it ever happened that all land in a country is left to free-hold title? Not even the US or Britain!
To extricate itself from the Great Depression of the 1930s, the US embarked on what was called the Great Deal programme, to develop infrastructure and other services to resuscitate the economy championed by the likes of Tipper Gore, Al Gore's father.
When they needed to build a major highway, it did not matter that it would take part of the land you call your own personal farm to which you held title deeds. You had to make way for the more pressing national need for the land.
Way back in history, in Britain, one Oliver Cromwell repossessed all the land that belonged to the monasteries and placed it under the ownership of the crown. To this day, land in Britain belongs to the crown.
We would be grossly fooling ourselves to believe that the world now works differently, that the conditions that made it necessary for Europe to embark on the colonial project, have all but dissipated with the coming of Independence.
Entrenched interests remain in our economic resources. We need to wake up and smell the coffee, as they say.
Some of us need sanctions to get out of the way so we can do best for this country, growth of local entrepreneurship, local capital, so that our businesses, like those of the Asians, can grow international giants.
Given the opportunity, some of us can! Many in businesses, and I need access to international credit lines Senator Gutu, so we can grow companies to complete internationally and to generate local jobs.
The Mittal brothers of India, you may know Senator, now dominate the world steel markets, and industries. Before the sanctions rendered our products and prices uncompetitive, we at Trinity Engineering were now exporting trailers as far afield as Kenya.
We were almost there to become a Sadc and Comesa brand. This is why I want sanctions to go. They are real. They are biting. This is why, in the GPA, all parties agreed, that is MDC included, that sanctions are not desirable for the good of the country.
Only countries under sanctions, such as Yugoslavia, have experienced such unprecedented levels of inflation.
To deny that sanctions bite, is to underrate the potential of the US and EU to cause mayhem on the small nation's economy, and as is the intention, to effect regime-change, directly or by proxy.

Zimbabwe Government speaks on SADC Troika Summit

The accent on Zimbabwe's reaction to the Livingstone Summit has thus been on procedures and style of managing facilitation and engagement by the Troika. It has not been on substance. That is quite far off from making or breaking Sadc. Matters must be reported in proportion...I hope this article which reflects views and concerns of the Government of Zimbabwe puts this needless conflation to rest.
The Herald

By George Charamba
FROM its inception in 1980 as the Southern African Development Coordination Conference (Sadcc), Southern African Development Community (Sadc) was and has always operated as a consultative and consensual body.
Its structures, procedures and leadership style have and are all subordinated towards this one core mores.
No one knows this better than President Robert Mugabe, himself a founder President of this sub-regional body, and a major player in most of its anti-colonial and anti-apartheid struggles in the 1980s and 1990s, himself a major actor in most of its conflict prevention, management and resolution efforts during and after these defining struggles.
There is no compelling reason for Sadc to depart from this winning approach which has turned our sub-region into both a haven of peace and an organisational exemplar.
Since the late nineties and especially after 2000, in the context of the Third Chimurenga for the restoration of national land rights, Zimbabwe has fought for the recognition of its right full rights as an independent and sovereign African State. It has done so within the context of the larger family of Sadc.
Indeed, its victories on this crucial front against neo-colonial forces are, to a significant extent, explained by the principled stance which Sadc has consistently adopted, in keeping with the founding pan-African, libertarian ideals that animated its predecessor organisation, the Frontline States (FLS).
Zimbabwe stands to enjoy more victories in this continuing fight for national empowerment by working within the familial context of Sadc.
As a founder member of Sadc and a geo-economic part of Southern Africa, Zimbabwe finds neither the reason nor the wish to rescind its membership or to conduct its struggles and affairs in a manner that repudiates Sadc. Zimbabwe's membership to Sadc is existential.
Zimbabwe's political challenges - themselves an offshoot of its strong affirmative stance on all-round sovereignty - have been a concern of Sadc from their onset.
No year has passed without a Sadc initiative or pronouncement on Zimbabwe, with the decision to appoint South Africa under former President Thabo Mbeki as facilitator of the inter-party political dialogue, amounting to a culmination of this characteristic engagement.
The point to emphasise is that both the recommendation for dialogue on Zimbabwe, and definition of mechanisms for operationalising that dialogue, came from Sadc through a searching process of consultation and consensus building.
It is quite significant that Sadc chose to call its point-man on Zimbabwe, His Excellency President Thabo Mbeki, a facilitator and not something else more exhortative or even peremptory. Gingerly, engagement and persuasion, as opposed to high-handed, intrusive diplomacy, is the correct way, is the winning way, indeed is the Sadc way!
Read against this well-founded and established mores and etiquette, the Sadc Troika Summit held last Thursday in Livingstone, Zambia, was somewhat of an anomaly from this tried and tested Sadc tradition.
The meeting, which was slotted for early Thursday morning, started just after midday - a delay which was graciously and convincingly explained by host President and Chairman of the Troika, His Excellency President Rupiya Banda.
He knew that President Mugabe was coming to spend a night in Livingstone - itself literally a stone's throw away from Victoria Falls - both out of respect and to ensure he would not delay the meeting. President Mugabe's submission to Sadc and total respect for the sister Republic of Zambia - itself host to our liberation - can thus not be doubted.
After the opening and lunch, the real meeting actually began close to 1500hrs, initially bringing together Troika members of the Sadc Organ on Politics, Defence and Security Cooperation who are Zambia (Organ Troika Chairman), Mozambique (past Chairman of the Organ Troika) and Namibia (Chairman of Sadc).
South Africa wore two hats of deputy chairman of the Organ and facilitator of the Zimbabwe Inter-Party Political Dialogue.
The Summit itself focused on two situations, that in Madagascar and that in Zimbabwe, with former Mozambican President Joachim Chissano as facilitator for Madagascar.
The meeting of the Organ went on well into the evening, and it was not until after 2000hrs that the principals and leaders of Zimbabwe's three political parties were called in. I am referring to President Mugabe (Zanu-PF), Prime Minister Tsvangirai (MDC-T), and according to the wording of the communiqué, Professor Welshman Ncube as president of MDC-N, and Professor Mutambara as Deputy Prime Minister.
It is interesting that the communiqué recognised all these players by their official designation in the inclusive Government, and stayed clear of any controversies related to party representations. Except for Professor Mutambara, each of the principals had in tow his team of negotiators and officials.
Soon after, President Banda as chairman of the troika addressed the Zimbabwe leadership, apprising it on troika deliberations founded on a report which President Zuma as facilitator had tabled.
Basing its deliberations on both the facilitator's report and other decisions Sadc had taken on Zimbabwe in the past; the chairman then spelt out the decisions which the troika had taken on that day on Zimbabwe.
Thereafter, he opened the floor firstly to Zimbabweans and later to the rest of the group.
Since Zimbabwe is not a member of the troika, I am not at liberty to disclose what followed. Suffice it to say all parties to the GPA spoke to the meeting and its decisions.
Soon after and that evening, President Mugabe, in the company of Ministers Mnangagwa, Goche, Chinamasa, Mumbengegwi and Biti, left Zambia for home.
The following morning, on Friday, the President addressed the Central Committee meeting of his party, Zanu (PF), at which meeting he publicly rejected dictation to Zimbabwe by the troika, as opposed to facilitation. Expectedly, Saturday press carried screaming headlines of varying accuracy and emotions.
Arguably, the most dramatic headline came from NewsDay which read: "Sadc can go to hell - Mugabe". You looked in vain in the body of the NewsDay story for a quote on the President which captures the headline. It was a marketing headline, not a reflection of what the President actually had said in his address.
Besides, the President was addressing the troika of Sadc, not Sadc itself whose membership is more than the four countries which attended the Livingstone meeting. The troika itself reports to Sadc Summit. The two should never be conflated.
Clearly and unambiguously, the anvil of President Mugabe's address related to procedures and style. He was making a procedural point vis-à-vis a committee of Sadc, a point stirred by what he saw as a clear, unexplained and arguably inexplicable departure from Sadc norms and practices.
He never ever addressed the substance of the communiqué itself and, as will be clear shortly, Zimbabwe has very little difficulties with the communiqué itself. In fact, it has no difficulties at all, merely cautionary concerns with one or two of its proposals.
But something grossly untoward and uncharacteristic happened in Livingstone which Zimbabwe found quite objectionable. The facilitator's report on the strength of which Summit decisions were made, was not availed to parties to the GPA, at least in the meeting. What we have are decisions of Summit whose founding premise we do not officially know.
All we know from the communiqué is that the facilitator's report was "frank". How frank and over what, no one among parties to the GPA officially knows. How accurate and founded on what consultations, again no one officially knows beyond the communiqué intimation that the facilitator was "commended" for "the work he has been doing on behalf of Sadc", and that the troika "endorsed the report of the Sadc Facilitation on Zimbabwe."
And this procedural anomaly was raised in the short opportunity availed to the Zimbabwe political leadership by the way.
There were more worrisome procedural anomalies preceding that Summit. On the eve of the Summit, it emerged that two of the three parties to the GPA had been invited by the facilitating team to make individual submissions on a roadmap for Zimbabwe's possible political future.
Such a request was not only unfair and divisive, but actually departed from a set, consensual procedure where all parties produce a joint review and mapping document for submission to the facilitator.
Fortuitously, a meeting towards that end had been called early in the week of the Livingstone Summit. It was at that meeting that it emerged that two parties to the GPA had in fact made individual submissions to the facilitating team at its behest, a development which advertently or inadvertently amounted to implying divisions and irreconcilable differences between or among the political parties.
Far from that being the case, the negotiating teams of the parties were in communication and actually looking forward to joint work.
Noteworthy, negotiators of the three parties met this Monday, three days after Livingstone, to review progress in the implementation of the GPA, something they would have done had it not been for the dates of the Livingstone Summit which intervened.
Additionally, the parties are set to meet today, Wednesday, to now produce a roadmap which is closely aligned to timelines of the GPA to the extent that these are still feasible. All have resisted a self-invitation by the facilitating team to fly in today in order to be part of the review and drafting of a roadmap.
The consensus view is that the team will be invited once this internal process is complete, or if it falters. This is exactly the exercise which would have produced a report for the facilitating team ahead of Livingstone, but which was circumscribed by circumstances I have already described.
Facilitation proceeds on due care and consensus. It cannot be arbitrary, preclusive or a matter of dictation. That antagonises parties. Above all, it should assist interaction of differing parties, not substitute or abort it.
And in the case of Zimbabwe, facilitation has been by invitation, specifically in those instances where internal, inter-party dialogue and consensus will have failed.
That happened repeatedly under President Mbeki's tenure, which is how we have come this far.
As matters stand, all the parties had in fact addressed the same concerns a week or so before at a special cabinet meeting convened for the purpose.
The Prime Minister tabled a report which highlighted areas of concern, leading to a decision to have a series of special cabinet meetings dedicated to dealing with actual matters of the GPA and other environmentals.
The point to stress is national platforms are being used to resolve nagging issues, itself clear proof that we are well before and well away from a deadlock, indeed that we are within mutual trust and confidence.
One does not want to see that burgeoning internal conflict prevention, management and resolution mechanism delayed or even destroyed by incautious external facilitation.
Ultimately Zimbabweans must be the first line of resolving their own problems, including developing mechanisms for such resolution.
Livingstone should nurture and augment this national capacity building through careful facilitation.
In terms of substance, the Livingstone communiqué amounted to one huge step forward towards resolving problems in Zimbabwe. This precisely is what makes a compelling case for proper procedures and fitting respect to all involved.
There was no need to keep documents away from parties. There was absolutely no reason not to hear formal presentations from all parties prior to arriving at decisions.
Nations are sovereign; nations do have sensitivities and boundaries beyond which solicitous facilitation becomes irritating intrusive dictation.
We know this from protracted negotiations on Mozambique; we know this from the protracted negotiations on Angola; we know this from the DRC conflict; we know this from problems in Lesotho where a facilitator was actually rejected and dropped. More fundamentally, we know this from South Africa's own Convention for a Democratic South Africa, Codesa for short.
I said the Livingstone communiqué marks a quantum leap forward. It does.
SEE COMMUNIQUE HERE
 It abhors violence which it blames on all parties to the GPA. This is consistent with the facts on the ground and consistent with the findings of Jomic which blames all parties for spurts of violence we have witnessed in the country.
It calls on "all parties to the GPA" to implement "all the provisions of the GPA", itself quite in sync with calls inside the country, especially on sanctions, external interference and intrusive broadcasts, all of which have stood in the way of "a conducive environment for peace, security and free political activity" desired by Sadc on our behalf.
More fundamentally, the communiqué exhorts the inclusive Government to "complete all the steps necessary for the holding of the election including the finalisation of the constitutional amendment and the referendum."
The accent is on finalisation of the constitutional process, something Zanu (PF) and the President have been agitating for. The endgame is elections, again something all parties must accept as an unavoidable pang of the routines of democracy.
That means the Minister and Ministry of Finance can no longer delay or under-fund Copac without falling foul to the dictates of the Livingstone Troika communiqué. That means Zanu (PF)'s call for elections has now been endorsed by the Troika.
Penultimately, the Troika is urging Sadc to assist Zimbabwe towards peaceful, free and fair elections by ensuring polls that are held under Sadc Principles and Guidelines Governing Democratic Elections.
As a matter of fact, these guidelines are already domesticated and are now part of our electoral laws. This cannot be an onerous demand, surely? Zimbabwe cannot be opposed to, or pained by what it has voluntarily adopted and already incorporated into its national laws.
The final decision relates to a team of officials appointed by the Troika of the Organ to assist Facilitation Team and Jomic "to ensure monitoring, evaluation and implementation of the GPA."
Of the three parties to the GPA, only MDC-T endorsed this proposal unconditionally. MDC accepted the principle of it, but insisted it would be guided by its terms of reference. Zanu (PF) would neither accept nor reject the proposed team for the simple reason that it was not privy to the reasoning behind its founding. Nor were its parameters spelt out to it.
Accepting it meant embracing an unknown, something responsible and experienced leaders can never do. And going by the President's Friday reaction, the test lies in the tone of the proposed body, which should never be one of dictation.
The accent on Zimbabwe's reaction to the Livingstone Summit has thus been on procedures and style of managing facilitation and engagement by the Troika. It has not been on substance. That is quite far off from making or breaking Sadc. Matters must be reported in proportion.
Lastly, a lot of dire reading has been made out of this week's Sunday Mail editorial comment and an opinion piece it carried on the same matter.
The opinion of the Sunday Mail has been conflated with the opinion of the Government of Zimbabwe. I hope this article which reflects views and concerns of the Government of Zimbabwe puts this needless conflation to rest.
No one in Government is naïve enough to think that the views of SABC stations or The Citizen amount to the views of President Zuma and/or his Government. It is not very clever to wilfully expunge institutional distinctions we honour and uphold elsewhere simply because we are dealing with Zimbabwe.
The Zimbabwe Government has a voice that speaks when it is necessary. Like it has just done!

• The writer is the Presidential Spokesman and Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Media, Information and Publicity.

SEE ALSO:
Jacob Zuma: new pawn in Western regime change agenda in Zimbabwe? 
SADC: Zim must rethink its relations