Thursday, June 26, 2014

South Africa's ECONOMIC FREEDOM FIGHTERS party statement on the Freedom Charter

The many years of suffering endured by Activists of the liberation movement in exile, prisons, an underground was because the apartheid capitalist establishment was suppressing and repressing any possibility of implementing the Freedom Charter. The Liberation Movement ascended to negotiated political power in 1994, and abandoned all the principles, values and aspirations contained in the Freedom Charter.
EFF leader Julius Malema
 
26 June 2014 Today, the 26th of June 2014 marks exactly 59 Years since the Congress of the People adopted the Freedom Charter. It was on the 26th of June 1955 when delegates from all corners of South Africa gathered in Kliptown to adopt the Freedom Charter as a blueprint, definition and programme of what attainment of freedom will entail in South Africa.

Post adoption of the Freedom Charter, the apartheid machinery increased and heightened its repression against the liberation movements and all political activity which sought to challenge white political and economic domination. The liberation movement was banned, exiled, and its leaders incarcerated because they had a vision called the Freedom Charter.

20 years since the first inclusive elections, the EFF is the only political organization in South Africa that genuinely upholds the aims of the Freedom Charter and in pursuit of the radical programme. The rest are just giving lip-service to the Freedom Charter because they are drugged by “the tranquilising drug of gradualism”.

The many years of suffering endured by Activists of the liberation movement in exile, prisons, an underground was because the apartheid capitalist establishment was suppressing and repressing any possibility of implementing the Freedom Charter. The Liberation Movement ascended to negotiated political power in 1994, and abandoned all the principles, values and aspirations contained in the Freedom Charter.

In commemorating and acknowledging the superior logic contained in the Freedom Charter, the EFF says that the ANC led Liberation Movement has abandoned the Freedom Charter, and here are just some of the examples:

1) The Freedom Charter says, “South Africa belongs to all who live in it, black and white”
Judging by the property relations and the fact that white minorities continue to own South Africa, the statement that “South Africa belongs to all who live in it” is not a reflection of reality. South Africa belongs to those who colonially conquered the indigenous people of the African continent. This is reflected on the fact that the land, the Mines and all major property continue to be owned by those who owned before 1994.

2) The Freedom Charter says, “The mineral wealth beneath the soil, the Banks and monopoly industry shall be transferred to the ownership of the people as whole”
20 years after attainment of political power by the liberation movement, this noble and correct vision of the Freedom Charter has not been realised, and is not even on the agenda of the ANC Government, because their Vision 2030 says nothing about transferring mineral resources beneath the soil, Banks and monopoly industries to the ownership of the people as a whole.

3) The Freedom Charter says, “All other industry and trade shall be controlled for the wellbeing of the people”
20 years after attainment of political power by the liberation movement, this is not a reality. The post 1994 government has adopted free-market economic structure which has no control over the goods and services imported into South Africa and exported from South Africa, and as a result, industry and trade is not contributing to the wellbeing of the people.

4) The Freedom Charter says, “The land shall be shared amongst those who work it”
20 years since the attainment of political power, this is not a reality. The post 1994 government has dismally failed, even as per its own targets, to transfer land to those who work it. Land continues to be owned by few white people, the descendants of the colonial conquerors, who murdered and destroyed Africans to take possession of our land.

5) The Freedom Charter says, “The state shall recognise the right and duty of all to work, and to draw full unemployment benefits;
20 years into political freedom, this Freedom Charter vision is not a reality because more than 7 million South Africans looking for jobs do not have jobs, and a substantial component of those employed are employed through labour brokers, therefore not drawing full unemployment benefits.

6) The Freedom Charter says, “Education shall be free, compulsory, universal and equal for all children; Higher education and technical training shall be opened to all by means of state allowances and scholarships awarded on the basis of merit”.
This is not a reflection of reality today because education is not free for all children and the post 1994 government is dismally failing in guaranteeing universal access to a critical and vital component of any education system, which Early Childhood Development (ECD). The post 1994 government is failing to appreciate that post secondary training and education capacity should be expanded to accomoddate all those who want to gain knowledge, skills and expertise.

7) The Freedom Charter says, “Slums shall be demolished, and new suburbs built where all have transport, roads, lighting, playing fields, creches and social centres”
Post 1994, Slums are growing bigger and more intense because there is no cogent and clear rural development programme. The current government celebrates this as ‘rapid urbanisation’, while it is in fact ‘rural depopulation’. Our people are subjected to extreme levels of poverty, diseases and starvation in the slums and the when government demolishes slums; it does not provide people with alternate quality and sustainable accommodation.

Paragraphs 30 and 31 of the Economic Freedom Fighters’ Founding Manifesto clearly spells the EFF’s approach to the Freedom Charter and says:

The EFF draws inspiration from the radical, working class interpretation of the Freedom Charter, because, since its adoption in 1955, there have been various meanings given to the Freedom Charter. The EFF’s interpretation of the Freedom Charter is one which says South Africa indeed belongs to all who live in it, and ownership of South Africa’s economic resources and access to opportunities should reflect that indeed South Africa belongs to all who live in it. The EFF’s interpretation of the Freedom Charter is that which says the transfer of mineral wealth beneath the soil, monopoly industries and banks means nationalisation of mines, banks and monopoly industries.

The EFF’s interpretation of the Freedom Charter also accepts that while the state is in command and in control of the commanding heights of South Africa’s economy, “people shall have equal rights to trade where they choose, to manufacture and to enter all trades, crafts and professions”, meaning that there will never be wholesale nationalisation and state control of every sector of South Africa’s economy. Nationalisation of strategic sectors and assets will be blended with a strong industrial policy to support social and economic development.

This is the EFF’s position on the Freedom Charter and one which we will fight for until victory. It is clear that the EFF is the only political organization in South Africa, which upholds the Freedom Charter and pursuing a radical programme to achieve its aspirations and vision.



Tuesday, June 24, 2014

Zim NGOs: when the tail no longer wags the tail

To say that the tail no longer wags the dog in this instance where the civic society no longer controls western capitals as they previously did through false, concocted and manipulative reports on Zimbabwe, is more than a mere Dundrearism.

Tichaona Zindoga
statements this week by the EU Ambassador to Zimbabwe, Aldo Dell’Ariccia, regarding the moribund and increasingly irrelevant political actors parading as civil society organisations in Zimbabwe were bound to hurt.
And they hurt — hurt very much — given the grief that has befallen the various parsonages associated with civic society.
A brief historical context: hundreds of civic society organisations were formed circa 2000 ostensibly to fight for civil and human rights and democracy in the country.
They were sponsored by American and other Western governments directly or through proxies to not only act as appendages to the opposition MDC but also to provide a false “independent” voice of the populace.
Together with sanctions, the civic society and opposition were meant to achieve regime change of the revolutionary Zanu-PF and President Mugabe.
The politics and, ultimately fortunes, of the civic society organisations and opposition were intricately linked.
In light of the cruel fortunes that have afflicted the opposition, namely losing the elections last year and the implosion of the MDC-T, the West is rethinking, or at least appears to be disinterested in both the opposition and its civil society appendages.
This is for likely reasons.
One, the high noon of politics has just slipped past and secondly, it may not hurt the West, particularly the EU, to see Zimbabwe in a more receptive manner, especially when the latter is showing signs of relenting on key issues such as the indigenisation policy.
(Many may have observed how lately the hard-working Dell’Ariccia is prodding and prodding and prodding on the indigenisation and investment issue. The more imaginative may think of sharks that may have smelled blood.)
So, most probably out of pragmatism, the EU is changing tact and engaging Zimbabwe. It has also lifted most of its sanctions against the country. The EU is seeking no confrontations and thus will not worry about engagements and partners that do not serve its new purpose.
Hence, Dell’Ariccia told the NGOs that they were “living anchored in the past” and failed to “catch the flare of the moment”.
To drive home his new-found disdain for the NGOs, he accused them of behaving like “charity organisations”.
This was guaranteed to unsettle civic society activists, most of whom had enjoyed full-time employment as regime change agents and were always flush with cash, some of which they never accounted for.
The setting of his statements, at one organisation called Crisis Coalition in Zimbabwe, was even ironic for someone to declare that there was no leadership crisis in the country.
Here are some of the rumblings as reported in the media: Zimbabwe Social Democrats Secretary General Wilbert Mukori was quoted as saying Dell’Ariccia’s comments were “tragic”.
Charles Mangongera imperilled the envoy saying, “ . . . as ambassadors and as analysts we tend to speak from the comfort of air-conditioned hotels without understanding the situation.”
Mangongera was quoted as adding: “To castigate the civil society and say they shouldn’t do this or that I don’t think that is the responsibility of an ambassador . . . ”
Takura Zhangazha, one of the eminent civic society players, writing on his blog, accused the ambassador of “diplomatic opportunism”, being “conveniently pragmatic”.
The writer speculates that Dell’Ariccia intends to redefine Zimbabwean civic society.
And strongly: “To make such broad but shallow statements as Mr Dell’Ariccia did, together with the sectional applause he got from those that would have previously been most shrill in opposing his every word, is the stuff of diplomatic opportunism. It is unfortunate that in his case, it would appear to be patently dishonest.”
To say that the tail no longer wags the dog in this instance where the civic society no longer controls western capitals as they previously did through false, concocted and manipulative reports on Zimbabwe, is more than a mere Dundrearism.
The tables have surely turned and it is so tragic for the local activists.
Yet they should have seen it coming.
The political environment in the country has changed drastically from what it was 10 years ago where sanctions-inspired economic hardships of shortages were a new phenomenon.
After years of suffering the same, and given the clemency of the weather in sparing droughts, the mood of the country was different in 2013. Years of suffering and job losses had significantly hardened Zimbabwean people into resourcefulness and industriousness.
Besides, political awareness crept back to the people, especially after seeing through the poor performance and fallibility of the opposition MDC while it was in government. These dynamics lend the necessity of a paradigm shift in the civic society.
Ambassador Dell’Ariccia offers handy advice that the NGOs must “catch the flare” because “there is an opening” in the form of engagement.
Trevor Maisiri, one of the more prominent civic society actors locally and regionally, could be said to be way ahead of his ilk that are whining today.
After last year’s elections, outlining the role and opportunities of the civic society post-election, he called for depoliticisation of the civic society as well as engagement with “domestic institutions”.
“Engagement, in the civil society sense, and given Zimbabwe’s political context, establishes civil society to represent citizens in the community and broader national issues that have amply been dominated by the politics in the past. Engagement creates a voice for those majority citizens, who have otherwise been voiceless, outside of political party domains.
“In the past many civil society organisations have not prioritised engagement with key domestic institutions such as parliament, government ministries, local government authorities, government departments, independent commissions and others. Some of the disengagement or lack of upfront interest by civil society has been due to these institutions’ reluctance to engage with civil society. This can only be addressed if civil society emerges as intently refocused on occupying non-political party space and mandated from the citizenry base.”
Civil society activists in Zimbabwe will have to heed such counsel given the circumstances they are in.
Besides, the very essence of the civil society is to represent the voice of the citizenry and be independent of the politicians.
In which case, those who seek to be members of the political society must declare their interests and be seen in the arena where politicians play.

Barack Obama still has ‘worst points’ to prove

"The Obama administration is utilising the crisis in Iraq as an opportunity to escalate the US war drive throughout the Middle East, with Syria in the cross-hairs.."


Tichaona Zindoga
On May 28, US President Barack Obama gave a speech at the United States Military Academy commencement ceremony at West Point. Many people across the world appeared to interpret it as a climbdown by the US in its global militarism, as part of a wider foreign policy thrust. That may have been what Obama himself intended, promising the graduands that they would be “the first class to graduate since 9/11 who may not be sent into combat in Iraq or Afghanistan.”
The landscape has changed, said he, “We have removed our troops from Iraq. We are winding down our war in Afghanistan. Al Qaeda’s leadership on the border region between Pakistan and Afghanistan has been decimated, and Osama bin Laden is no more.”
He claimed America had “refocused our investments” in growing the economy.
How so ironic!
Less than a month later, the US is beating the war drum again and ready to return to Iraq. Reports in the past week indicate that the US is sending personnel to Iraq, a modest figure of less than 300 staff of non-combats. (The next logical step is anyone’s conjecture.)
But here is one thing that may yet tell us that Obama and the US have some worst points — forgive the pun — to prove: a CNN report on June 19 quoted Obama as saying he did not need new permission to intervene in Iraq.
There is something unsettling in the way the CNN reported the matter.
“I’ll let you know what’s going on, but I don’t need new congressional authority to act”, President Barack Obama told congressional leaders Wednesday about his upcoming decision on possible military intervention in Iraq,” was how the network reported.
If one could not perceive some emperor, with all the fine airs of a demi-god in this, then the next part of the CNN report should be enlightening.
“The White House meeting sounded more like a listening session for the top Republicans and Democrats in the House and Senate about options for helping Iraq’s embattled Shi’ite government halt the lightning advance of Sunni Islamist fighters toward Baghdad that Obama is considering,” adjoined CNN. The emperor was planning a war.
He did not say it.
Perhaps because he is not accountable to anyone, not even the US Congress.
The world knows that the US is planning a war. This is why Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei over the weekend expressed strong opposition to intervention in Iraq.
He said: “We are strongly opposed to US and other (countries’) intervention in Iraq. We don’t approve of it, as we believe the Iraqi government, nation and religious authorities are capable of ending the sedition. And God willing, they will do so.”
Elsewhere in the CNN article, it was revealed that “170 US military personnel have been sent to Baghdad to assist in securing embassy personnel inside Iraq, while another 100 moved into the region to “provide airfield management security and logistic support, if required”.
The report said: “A draft list of possible ISIS targets in Iraq is being constantly reviewed and revised with the latest intelligence, typical of any preliminary targeting operation, according to US military officials who spoke on the condition of not being identified. Compiling the draft list does not signal that Obama will authorise such strikes, and several administration officials said the President has yet to make a final decision.”
There is more.
There are already manned and unmanned reconnaissance flights over Iraq to collect up-to-the-minute intelligence on ISIS movements and positions, all to ready the use of precision-guided weapons. Drones are also on standby.
That sounds very scary and does not quite show the end of military adventurism — or misadventurism — on the part of the US. So it’s tough luck to the poor graduates at West Point who may have bought the fat lie that they would be “the first class to graduate since 9/11 who may not be sent into combat in Iraq or Afghanistan.”

Exceptionalism
One must admit that the megalomania of US leaders forces them to do things to prove their worth and power.
It is something they call American exceptionalism, couched in the belief that, “America must always lead on the world stage. If we don’t, no one else will.” It should be noted that even in the West Point speech, Obama appeared to be caught between a moralistic, anti-war person and a war-mongering, archetypal American emperor.
It takes you back to the Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech in 2009 where he laboured over just war, etc, when he had been awarded a “peace” prize.
Having told about the first group that would get into Iraq or Afghanistan, he stated, repeating “a principle I put forward at the outset of my presidency”:
“The United States will use military force, unilaterally if necessary, when our core interests demand it — when our people are threatened, when our livelihoods are at stake, when the security of our allies is in danger . . .
“International opinion matters, but America should never ask permission to protect our people, our homeland, or our way of life.”
The latter statement resonates with the CNN report of June 19 cited above.
In which case, the views of the likes of Khamenei and other anti-war people do not matter. It may take a few weeks for the world to see the war, with America in the thick of things, unravel.
This is because, in part, Iraq provides an entry into the Middle East and a go-get to Syria, and by extension, Russia.
“The Obama administration is utilising the crisis in Iraq as an opportunity to escalate the US war drive throughout the Middle East, with Syria in the cross-hairs,” wrote Patrick Martin and Joseph Kishore on June 20.
The two postulate: “The war drive against Syria is inextricably tied to the US and European-backed campaign against Russia, a major Syrian ally. Opposition from Russia was a significant factor in the decision by the Obama administration to temporarily pull back from war against Syria last year. This was followed by the operation in Ukraine to unseat a pro-Russian government and provoke a confrontation with Russia itself.”
Olivier Knox, reporting on the announcement to send troops to Iraq, said one reporter asked senior administration officials whether “American strikes against ISIS be confined to Iraq or could they reach into Syria”?
“The president is focused, again, on a number of potential contingencies that may demand US direct military action. One of those is the threat from ISIL and the threat that could pose, again, not simply to Iraqi stability but to US personnel and to US interests more broadly, certainly including our homeland,” one official reportedly said.
“In that respect, we don’t restrict potential US action to a specific geographic space,” the official continued.
“The president has made clear time and again that we will take action as necessary, including direct US military action if it’s necessary to defend the United States against an imminent threat . . . the group ISIL, again, operates broadly, and we would not restrict our ability to take action that is necessary to protect the United States.”
Here is Knox’s own conclusion: “In other words: The United States might take its war against ISIS into Syria.”

Terrorism
Fighting terrorism — whether real, imagined or contrived — by the US has almost given it the raison d’etre in the last 13 years.
At West Point, Obama gave an indication of scaling down on senseless bombardments on alleged terrorist targets and announced new strategy of engagement, creation and training of proxies, which to him seem less odious.
“For the foreseeable future, the most direct threat to America, at home and abroad, remains terrorism, but a strategy that involves invading every country that harbours terrorist networks is naive and unsustainable,” he said.
Explaining further, he said: “And the need for a new strategy reflects the fact that today’s principal threat no longer comes from a centralised al-Qaeda leadership. Instead, it comes from decentralised al-Qaeda affiliates and extremists, many with agendas focused in the countries where they operate.
“And this lessens the possibility of large-scale 9/11-style attacks against the homeland, but it heightens the danger of US personnel overseas being attacked, as we saw in Benghazi.
“It heightens the danger to less defensible targets, as we saw in a shopping mall in Nairobi. So we have to develop a strategy that matches this diffuse threat, one that expands our reach without sending forces that stretch our military too thin or stir up local resentments.”
The strategy is already underway, with Africa the special frontier, and it would seem Obama has a point to prove here too.
Share

Friday, March 14, 2014

Morgan Tsvangirai's Five Decision Points

It is hardly salutary for a leader that is known for indecisiveness to be caught in any uncomfortable situation that requires judgment.
 

Tichaona Zindoga
It must be worse for Morgan Richard Tsvangirai, leader of the opposition MDC-T, who now faces a five-way conundrum which will determine the fate of the outfit that currently is facing a second split under his watch.
How Tsvangirai will handle five critical decision points will define the course of politics in Zimbabwe and seal Tsvangirai’s place in the history of the country, for better or for worse.
Granted, since Independence in 1980, Tsvangirai has been the only politician that has managed to shake the political landscape that has been dominated by the liberation movement fronted by Zanu-PF and President Mugabe.
The formation of the MDC in 1999 provided excitement to a political culture that was beset by complacency and at some point even entertained the idea of a one-party state.
The MDC was supposed to be a worker’s party – and stayed true to the definition and ideology in the initial years, witness its support in urban areas, although there was a strong identification with the white farming community who provided the money, and Western ideologues.
In the intervening years, the MDC would shed off its worker base to become a melting pot of elements opposed to Zanu-PF, with Western interests becoming louder and louder while Tsvangirai fronted both Western and opposition interests.
The student movement, also under socio-economic stress, would look up to, and boost, the political muscle of Tsvangirai.
But the initial push failed in the period between 2000 and 2005.
Cracks began to emerge, resulting in the split of October 12, 2005.
Yet Tsvangirai retained the top seat and in 2008, aided by Western sanctions on Zimbabwe, the MDC leader had a taste of State power by securing a place in the inclusive Government.
It would prove a costly miss.
Five years later, in July 2013, his party dismally lost elections and the aftermath of the elections is set to test the character of both Tsvangirai and the opposition movement in Zimbabwe.
Infighting has again reared its head and Tsvangirai now stands at a crossroads: his next steps will shape the country’s politics forever depending on how he manoeuvres five questions.
Intra-party unity: The MDC-T house today resembles a Royal Rumble match more than it does a political party. For those unfamiliar with Royal Rumble, it is a wrestling TV show initially produced by the World Wrestling Federation, in which, according to one definition, a number of wrestlers aim at eliminating their competitors by tossing them over the top rope, with both feet touching the floor. The winner of the event is the last wrestler remaining in the ring after all others have been eliminated.
The wrestlers may form weak alliances but at the end of the day, all contrive to be the last man standing. MDC-T has all the ingredients of a Royal Rumble. Tsvangirai seeks by means fair and foul to be the last man standing. Will Tsvangirai pursue the Royal Rumble or will he call it to  halt?
Diplomacy: Tsvangirai is not his sexiest at the moment to his Western donors and diplomatic friends, from the British Embassy to George Soros. Lately, he has been castigating these forces for interfering in the affairs of his party. Will he cut the umbilical cord with the Western founders and funders? What kind of policies will he pursue afterwards? It is a make or break decision that he has to take.
Tsvangirai may choose to continue playing the puppet, under even more constraining conditions, or choose to break free and court a new politician that can brag about independence. Either way the stakes are high.
Funding: This is closely linked to the above. It would seem Tsvangirai, already suffering from dwindling resources, has been toying with the idea of finding alternatives to Western funding.
Tsvangirai's (hapless) panacea: his supporters could sell goats and chickens to fund MDC so it becomes more independent. The only problem with that is there will not be any legendary seas to be conquered. There won’t simply be enough.
Grassroots support: The idea that Tsvangirai has grassroots support has been such a comforting prospect for him. When factionalism began to shake the party, Tsvangirai resorted to seeking solace in captive crowds and party thugs in Harare to reassure him.
Such gangs have been denouncing Tsvangirai’s internal opponents like Mangoma, even mocking him for being disabled. Tsvangirai loves that. They will kill for him. However, far from the mad, rented crowds, Tsvangirai will need to ensure that he has the numbers.
Already, if the party splits, it means that Tsvangirai will have roughly a third of the party’s supporters. Such a trajectory, honed by Tsvangirai himself, does not seem to promise a fruitful future for him.
Strategy: Whatever the outcome of the present malaise, the future of opposition politics will depend on what strategies the main party will employ amid the ever diminishing returns. Biti tells us that MDC-T’s “change” message is tired. Perhaps so too are promises of some rich white friends coming to rescue us poor Zimbabwean folk. The Western friends, if they still are, are broke themselves. Whither opposition?

Tuesday, March 4, 2014

Morgan Tsvangirai is now desperate man

It is now very telling that he appeals to his opponents, with nothing but his ego and fame as bargaining chips.
Staring irrelevance...Morgan Tsvangirai
Tichaona Zindoga
Desperation; it’s like one can see the word written on the wall. It is a tough time for Morgan Tsvangirai, the leader of the opposition MDC-T. Having lost successive elections in the last 15 years, the last of which was on July 31, 2013, he now stares a split in his party as internal opposition to his leadership grows.
The reasons for this growth in opposition are largely because of his electoral failures and the manifestation of a repressive and undemocratic streak in his character.
Over the weekend, Tsvangirai made a curious call that betrayed his desperation as the captain of a sinking ship.
He called on ex-members who left the party and have gone on to form their political parties to come back to his “tent”.
He called on Job Sikhala, a one time legislator on an MDC ticket, who went to join a splinter party and later formed his own MDC-99, to come back into the fold.
He appealed to Welshman Ncube his bête noire in the acrimonious 2005 split; Professor Lovemore Madhuku, erstwhile comrade in the elusive “people-driven constitution”
(in Madhuku’s terms, of course) and now leader of a political party morphed from the National Constitutional Assembly.
The desperation is palpable.
It can be dissected in at least three ways: one, this is a call coming from a man defeated and hopeless.
Such a call could have sufficed — when made in good faith — before July 31.
Tsvangirai would not make such a call, or appeal with an acceptable degree of honesty, when he thought he was going to win the election.
It is now very telling that he appeals to his opponents, with nothing but his ego and fame as bargaining chips.
The second way in which Tsvangirai betrays desperation lies in the substance of the men he is calling on to join him.
They are all electoral losers and Lovemore Madhuku is even failing to set up the political party that he controversially conceived from the NCA.
The project already has been hit by desertions of (perceived) key personages like Takura Zhangazha and Blessing Vava.
Ncube may have been at the helm of an organisationally better MDC but he too proved to be an absolute failure ideologically.
And besides, Ncube has time and again refused, at least publicly, to go back to Tsvangirai owing to personal and ethical differences with the latter.
So, why would Tsvangirai make the appeal?
It may sound ironic that he seeks partnership with those outside when he is failing to hold on to members inside the party.
It can be noted, though, that Tsvangirai, in the unlikely event that these guys heed the call, requires some numbers around him to boost his ego, swell his party loyalty,
delay any precipitous congress or vote of (no) confidence and eventually push dissenters out.
Tsvangirai needs to buy time as he seeks to marshal his increasingly tenuous hold on the levers of power.
The third and probably most poignant indicator of Tsvangirai’s desperation is his invocation of God in his self-serving way, and seeking to project himself as a second pater.
He said at the rally: “God doesn’t destroy; God builds. If you do something wrong to your father and you are outside in the dark, he will call you inside the house. Don’t remain outside, come back to the others because you are a family member. If you stay outside you will die of hunger and be a destitute.”
Politics does not operate in such a godly manner; the skulduggery is rather too much.
Tsvangirai knows it.
When he invokes God and seeks to play the earthly father, he is being dishonest: in this case, he himself looks set to die of hunger and be a destitute.
He has to avoid it at all costs.
Still there is further evidence of desperation in Tsvangirai.
Money has become such a problem.
The donors have become sparse, scheming.
He now calls on ordinary people of Zimbabwe to finance the party, and his own livelihood.
That used to be the preserve of donors, who even financed his personal life.
How times change.
Two weeks ago he said: “Every member of the MDC must now contribute something for the struggle starting from March. We don’t want programmes to stop because we don’t have cash.”
And at the weekend he said: “It is high time that Zimbabweans underwrite their own struggle. You can’t continue to say to donors, ‘thank you’ all the time. If you are proud people you must be able to underwrite your struggle.”
Are these not the same donors and “rich friends” that he was once so proud of, that would bring in billions of dollars to resuscitate the economy and help the same poor people that Tsvangirai now asks to fund him?
And look who is now envying church pastors and competing for alms!
It is a desperate situation and while such times bring the best in some, they bring the worst in dear Morgan.
The latest turn of events brings to the fore the vacillating nature of Tsvangirai.
For those that care to remember, Tsvangirai, until recently, was angling for “national dialogue” which would pave way for another unity government.
During his “state of the nation” address on January 24, he said he had “sincere belief that the political dialogue will assist in developing national consensus on how to move the country forward,” beginning with a “meeting of stakeholders from different backgrounds”.
Or is the new coalition with Ncube, Madhuku and Sikhala what he had in mind?
For those watching him and events in the country with interest, they will realise that Tsvangirai, if on January 24, sought to project himself as changing the game and ready to alter the course of politics in the country, especially by forcing Zanu-PF to the negotiating table, it was just hot air.
That is why January 24 has quickly faded away from people’s minds.
In place of a national dialogue that would see him back to the apex of political play, Tsvangirai now realistically has to dally in the league of minnows like Job Sikhala, who for all is known, does not command any constituency beyond his circle of friends.
And hear how Sikhala shot back at Tsvangirai’s offer: “Tsvangirai knows my phone number. If he is serious, he should not grandstand at rallies; call me so that we can try to find common ground.”
Sikhala makes it clear he knows where Tsvangirai belongs.
He can afford to chide him for grandstanding at rallies, while making it clear that Tsvangirai has to climb down from his not so high horse and approach him.
And Sikhala will play hard to get, as they “try to find common ground”, too!

Friday, February 28, 2014

Uganda: the audacity of sovereignty

YOWERI MUSEVENI . . . “If the Americans think they can tell us what to do, they can go to hell.”
Audacious Museveni...he gave the West a rude finger over gay "rights"


Tichaona Zindoga
The stakes were high; perhaps unnecessarily so.
Yet this week Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni decided to literally spit in the faces of Western powers that have been trying to foist the “new norm” of engagement based on recognition of gay “rights”.
These powers – the US, UK and the Commonwealth countries – have made their position clear: the world, and particularly Africa, should accept gay rights or risk losing aid that the West has been so generous to give.

In October 2011, British Prime Minister David Cameron told the BBC that those receiving UK aid should “adhere to proper human rights”, chief of which these days seems to be gay rights.
Two months later, US President Barack Obama reportedly instructed officials across government to “ensure that US diplomacy and foreign assistance promote and protect the human rights of lesbian, gay, and transgender persons”.
The then Secretary of State Hilary Clinton later said in a speech marking International Human Rights Day that “one of the remaining human rights challenges of our time,… gay rights, are human rights, and human rights are gay rights”.
She added: “It is violation of human rights when people are beaten or killed because of their sexual orientation, or because they do not conform to cultural norms about how men and women should look or behave.”
“It is a violation of human rights when governments declare it illegal to be gay, or allow those who harm gay people to go unpunished.”
Malawi had foreign aid support reduced because of its stance on gay rights and has had to do a lot of climbing down to keep good books with outside benefactors.

Canada threatened to cut diplomatic ties with Uganda if the anti-homosexuality Bill was passed. There were even shrill ‘holy’ cries from South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who is on record as stating that he does “not worship a homophobic God”.
Museveni is not foolish or foolhardy; the only attributes that would ordinarily attend those who oppose big powers, if they have no reason to be brave.
His defiance can be put in the same bracket as the forthrightness of President Mugabe who has been vocal on the gay issue and Zimbabwe’s right to political and economic self-determination.

Museveni could be showing the world the audacity of sovereignty.
It should be borne in mind that his country has been pursuing a hardline stance on homosexuality. His senior advisor, Joseph Nagenda, has been lashing out at both at the UK and the US for trying to foist homosexuality on Africa.

He said in 2011: “If the Americans think they can tell us what to do, they can go to hell.” Nagenda was also quoted by the Christian Science Monitor as saying: “I don’t like her tone, at all … I’m amazed she’s not looking to her own country and lecturing them first, before she comes to say these things which she knows are very sensitive issues in so many parts of the world, not least Africa.
“Homosexuality here is taboo, it’s something anathema to Africans, and I can say that this idea of Clinton’s, of Obama’s, is something that will be seen as abhorrent in every country on the continent that I can think of.” Following Monday’s signing of the Anti-Homosexuality Act, Canada, the US and Britain made familiar noises.
Canada said: “This Act is a serious setback for human rights, dignity and fundamental freedoms and deserves to be widely condemned. Regrettably, this discriminatory law will serve as an impediment in our relationship with the Ugandan government.”

The UK said it was “deeply saddened and disappointed” while to the US, this was a “tragic day for Uganda and for all who care about the cause of human rights” which “complicates a valued relationship.”

Leverage
Here comes the real reason that gives Museveni all the aces and the sovereignty that he showed in an audacious manner: Uganda is a strategic country in East Africa and after this storm, nothing serious is likely to happen to the country.

Uganda is a US pivot to East and Central Africa.
Uganda is essential to the defeat of Joseph Kony and his Lord’s Resistance Army, to which the US is committed.
Obama undertook this in his first year in office and on October 14, 2011 committed troops to help find Kony.

Already in 2008, the US Treasury had put Kony on a list of global terrorists and in 2010 Congress unanimously passed the Lord’s Resistance Army Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act of 2009.
This Ugandan pivot is key in securing US interests in South Sudan, the Central African Republic and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Uganda has oil, too.

Commercially viable oil deposits were discovered in 2006.
Authorities say by the end of 2013, Uganda’s proven oil reserves were estimated by the Ugandan Petroleum Exploration and Production Department to be 3,5 billion barrels, expected to yield at least US$2 billion per year for 30 years once oil production commences.

Now this is interesting. Uganda has a considerable geostrategic value.
This may not – cannot – be lost over an issue like gay rights; and proponents of the same know it.

Uganda has not been the loveliest of fellows with its involvement in wars in Central and East Africa; not least its dalliance with the US Africa Command project, but it has shown that it has muscle particularly to fight cultural imperialism which this hullabaloo around gay rights is all about.
One lesson there is: African countries could leverage what advantages they have – Zimbabwe is rich and the gateway to Southern Africa – and start standing their ground.
Africa has to be audacious in light of political, economic and cultural imperialism from the West.

Wednesday, February 26, 2014

Western media keeping Cold War hot

That Presidents Mugabe and Putin end up in the same bracket, according to the West, confirms the continuance of the Cold War which the western media is fanning whether in courting confrontations and advancing preemptive purposes or by way of interpreting events. Sochi thus became a new Cold War metaphor in an overdrive of western media propaganda.
Bad Guy...Vladmir Putin is to the Western and its media
Tichaona Zindoga
It is hardly surprising — it is a norm rather — that western media follow the flag on foreign policy.
Sometimes it even leads it.
That is how this world has gotten along in the Cold War, and in recent times, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Zimbabwe, Uganda and even lately Ukraine and Sochi Winter Olympics in Russia.

There are other innumerable examples.
Lies about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, terrorists in Afghanistan, horror stories of government crackdown on “civilians” in Libya and Syria; among others, have been peddled the media.

Libya’s Muammar Gaddaffi, whom the western media liked to call “Mad Dog”, was toppled.
Syria’s Bashir still stands, hanging by the cliff rather, after the US nearly invaded Syria for having crossed some dubious “red line” last year.

Zimbabwe has been fodder for negative western media following the revolutionary land reform and indigenisation and pro-poor policies. President Mugabe became a villain. He is also so because of his stance against homosexuality.
Unsurprisingly, the western media sunk to new lows by appearing to begrudge the Zimbabwe’s leader’s 90th birthday last week.
The UK Independent, for example, had a piece entitled “Robert Mugabe’s 90th birthday, and why no-one on earth should have turned up to his party”.

Many Zimbabweans did with a lot of goodwill. But the Independent emblematically said President Mugabe’s has been a “catastrophic dictatorship that continues to claim lives. And for that reason, Mugabe, we’re afraid we can’t make it.”
One Vince Musewe, nowadays very useful in western commentary on Zimbabwe, thought celebrating the milestone was “just irresponsible”. There were other reasons, according to the Independent, for not celebrating President Mugabe.
One of them: “Because what he says about homosexuality makes (Russian President Vladmir) Putin look like a pussy cat . . .”
The juxtaposition of President Mugabe and Putin is significant. Coincidentally, President Putin sent a warm congratulatory message to President Mugabe saying, “You enjoy well-deserved respect as one of the leaders of the African national liberation movement,” and appreciating friendly Russia-Zimbabwean relations.

That Presidents Mugabe and Putin end up in the same bracket, according to the West, confirms the continuance of the Cold War which the western media is fanning whether in courting confrontations and advancing preemptive purposes or by way of interpreting events.
Sochi thus became a new Cold War metaphor. Many analysts and experts saw an overdrive of western media propaganda.

Stephen F Cohen, professor emeritus at New York University and Princeton University writes about the US media’s “shameful” treatment of the games.
“If the recent tsunami of shamefully unprofessional and politically inflammatory articles in leading newspapers and magazines — particularly about the Sochi Olympics, Ukraine and, unfailingly, President Vladimir Putin — is an indication, this media malpractice is now pervasive and the new norm,” he says in an article.

He says “Overall pre-Sochi coverage was even worse, exploiting the threat of terrorism so licentiously it seemed pornographic.”
On the opening day of the games the Times “found space for three anti-Putin articles and a lead editorial, a feat rivaled by the (Wahington) Post. Facts hardly mattered.” Cohen says, “US media on Russia today are less objective, less balanced, more conformist and scarcely less ideological than when they covered Soviet Russia during the Cold War.” The history of this degradation is also clear. It began in the early 1990s, following the end of the Soviet Union, when the US media adopted Washington’s narrative that almost everything President Boris Yeltsin did was a “transition from communism to democracy” and thus in the US’ best interests. This included his economic “shock therapy” and oligarchic looting of essential state assets, which destroyed tens of millions of Russian lives; armed destruction of a popularly elected parliament and imposition of a “presidential” constitution, which dealt a crippling blow to democratisation and now empowers Putin; brutal war in tiny Chechnya, which gave rise to terrorists in Russia’s North Caucasus; rigging of his own re-election in 1996; and leaving behind, in 1999, his approval ratings in single digits, a disintegrating country laden with weapons of mass destruction. Indeed, most US journalists still give the impression that Yeltsin was an ideal Russian leader.”

This explanation illustrates two vital points: one that everything that serves the interests of the US is best; and secondly, and in relation, that someone or a country may afford to be bad and still get western support as long as that serves western interests. Prof Cohen further debunks US media practice noting that since the early 2000s, “the media have followed a different leader-centric narrative, also consistent with US policy, that devalues multifaceted analysis for a relentless demonization of Putin, with little regard for facts.”
The Hollywood Reporter Hollywood also explains the anti-Russia media obsession. It notes that, Google, the giant US multimedia company, ran a doodle on its homepage expressing solidarity with gay athletes in Sochi, which a government figure dismissed as “provocation created out of fear to weaken a strong Russia.”
It cited Vladimir Yakunin a government official, saying, “There is an impression that what is hiding behind the democratic principle of ‘freedom of speech,’ is not the diversity of opinion, but a well-organised information war (against Russia).”  Finian Cunningham of the Strategic Culture Foundation wrote on NSNBC, noted that apart from the superlatives associated with the cost and preparation of the games, “Another superlative is that no other sporting event has attracted so much lurid and negative media coverage, emanating largely from the Western corporate news outlets…”
This coverage, especially on alleged problems, ranged from “grimly serious to the sublimely ridiculous.”
For example, Cunningham, cited the New York Times, a whole paper of record, carrying a story on “Racing to Save the Stray Dogs of Sochi” on the same top foreign stories along with Egypt and Ukraine.  By the way, Ukraine has become another Cold War front, with the media in tow. And Prof Cohen notes that US media has been “highly selective, partisan and inflammatory”. It is “Ukraine’s chance for democracy, prosperity” versus “escape from Russia, . . . (the) “bullying” Putin and his “cronies” in Kiev.” He explains: “But the most crucial media omission is Moscow’s reasonable conviction that the struggle for Ukraine is yet another chapter in the West’s on-going, US-led march toward post-Soviet Russia, which began in the 1990s with NATO’s eastward expansion and continued with US-funded NGO political activities inside Russia, a U.S.-NATO military outpost in Georgia and missile-defense installations near Russia.”

Cunningham concludes “The saying goes: don’t mix sport with politics. From Western media and their governments’ point of view, Sochi is evidently all about politics and very little about sport.”