In essence, in the pursuit of illegal regime change anchored on blatant economic attacks on Zimbabwe and deception and feigned love for Zimbabweans, the US is only confirming its insatiable appetite for imperialism.
The Herald
By Tichaona Zindoga
Nine years after the US imposed sanctions on Zimbabwe through the so-called Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act, last week saw the tabling of the Zimbabwe Transition to Democracy and Economic Recovery Bill before Congress.
ZDERA, enhanced by other emergency presidential powers, outlawed US state and private trade with Zimbabwe.
It also instructed top US officials at multilateral lending institutions to veto Zimbabwe’s access to funds from or cancellation of indebtness, among other things.
The proposed law has been touted as a "softer" and more "flexible" version of ZDERA with some analysts like Zimbabwe’s Professor John Makumbe calling it "pragmatic".
Senator Russ Feingold, who sponsored ZDERA along with Senator Bill Frist, and with the support of the likes of Hillary Clinton, bounced back with the "Transition" Bill.
Feingold, partnered this time by Senators Johnny Isakson and John Kerry, says the "transition law" is an expression of staying true to his country’s "commitment to the Zimbabwean people in their struggle for peaceful democratic change".
Last Tuesday, Feingold, who is chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on African Affairs, said: "This legislation gives the Obama administration the guidance and flexibility to press for badly needed reforms in Zimbabwe."
A Press release from the US Congress described it as "designed to help those parts of the transitional government and Parliament that demonstrate a firm commitment to democratic reform, while renewing and ramping up pressure on hardliners and the activities that sustain their abuses."
With Kerry, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, saying "This legislation seeks to give democratic reformers in Zimbabwe the chance to succeed," the fine print of the new legislation is not hard to decipher.
The new sanctions law will be "flexible", "pragmatic", and "softer" only to the extent of trying to facilitate the "transition" of MDC-T — referred to as "reformers" — from the inclusive Government to become the next singular government.
This is explained in the expression that the Transition Bill is in light of "evolving circumstances".
The inclusive Government formed last year between Zanu-PF and the two MDC formations via the September 2008 Global Political Agreement is one such "evolving circumstance" which ZDERA back in 2001 could not envision.
By implication, as the sanctions were meant to have a blanket influence on Government (then Zanu-PF), now that MDC is also in Government, it has also felt the heat of the sanctions.
That the party, and notably Finance Minister Tendai Biti, has complained of the negative effects of sanctions on Government business — which they denied all along — is on record.
This admission has since inspired the idea of a "partial" lifting of sanctions to allow for smooth operations in MDC-T-held ministries.
To this end, the proposed law is set to lift restrictions on assistance in the areas of health and education.
It will also "provide greater flexibility for the US to engage the international financial institutions, outlining new conditions for US support of any proposed assistance based on how it will be targeted and administered".
It will be noted that these areas of education, health and finance all fall directly under the two MDC formations.
Whether Feingold’s latest move is informed by his meeting with Minister Biti last year after the latter attended the Bretton Woods institutions’ spring meetings in Washington is an interesting possibility.
Apart from wanting to enhance MDC-T’s visibility and credibility to the public through underhand and illegal sponsorship (which ironically the US itself will outlaw), the US seeks to undermine Zimbabwe’s legislature and historic gains.
In undermining the country’s legislature, the US will "authorise technical assistance to reformist (read MDC-T) government ministries and to Parliament in its efforts to amend or repeal repressive legislation".
One could bet that some of the "repressive legislation" in the minds of the imperialist US points to compulsory land acquisition and the indigenisation and economic empowerment laws.
As a matter of fact, reversing land reform is one common goal of ZDERA and the Transition Bill as the latter seeks to "promote agricultural development as much as possible, while actively supporting steps to re-establish security of land tenure".
To the capitalist and imperialist, re-establishment of "security of land tenure" entails the reversal of a system that benefited about half a million households who were previously condemned to arid, inhospitable areas.
But Feingold seeks to go beyond such a deplorable and hideous motive.
By bloodying Zimbabwe’s diamonds — which have the potential to steer the economy from the malaise illegal Western sanctions brought it — the new law pushes for continued suffering of the people of Zimbabwe while the West in its feigned love act as a life support.
The "transition law" will "direct the (US) president to seek to address illegal diamond activities that are undermining democratic processes and institutions by pressing for Zimbabwe’s suspension from the Kimberley Process and exploring new targeted sanctions related to such activities".
According to the US, represented by Feingold, Zimbabwe’s exploitation of its natural resources is illegal because it is an activity that sustains the "hardliners".
As such, being denied an opportunity to benefit from the country’s God-given resources is the price Zimbabweans have to pay as the US is "renewing and ramping up pressure" on the "hardliners".
When a person like John Makumbe says he thinks that such an action "is the natural thing to do" and that "the Americans have realised they need to be pragmatic . . ." there is something entirely warped and offensively dishonest about it.
It is clear that while the latest move is according to Feingold a sign of America’s "commitment to the Zimbabwean people in their struggle for peaceful democratic change", there is nothing peaceful or democratic about it.
The US continues its unwarranted war with Zimbabwe on the economic front by shifting the focus onto the country’s diamonds and branding them blood diamonds deserving Kimberley Process suspension.
This is, of course, a change in tactic after targeting the country’s currency in the last decade.
Washinton’s "renewing and ramping of pressure" on Zamu-PF while supporting the MDCs is as aggressive as it is illegal and undemocratic.
In essence, in the pursuit of illegal regime change anchored on blatant economic attacks on Zimbabwe and deception and feigned love for Zimbabweans, the US is only confirming its insatiable appetite for imperialism.
Monday, May 10, 2010
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
EPAs a threat to Africa’s economies
The Herald
By Tichaona Zindoga
Although coming in a flattering package of billions of euros and participation in the so-called global economy, the Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) being dangled to African and Caribbean countries fail in many critical areas, effectively making them something the latter could take at their own peril.
The EU has already started approaching Sadc countries in their individual capacity in a latest move to divide the bloc and undermine its unity.
Among the countries already approached are Botswana, South Africa, Lesotho, Swaziland and Mozambique while Zimbabwe was deliberately left out.
The EPAs are Europe’s idea to merge development policy and trade policy into a comprehensive framework, although the former objective has increasingly been shown not to be the main thrust of the initiative.
It has been noted that the content of the agreements is determined solely by trade interests, with EPAs headlined by opening up of new markets and never serious on the development side.
Describing this as the "real deal" of EPAs, one journal notes that the actual reason why EPAs are being established is for the trade arrangements between the EU and the ACP to meet the WTO criteria for free trade.
The conspicuous absence of development chiefs in the negotiations for EPAs has hinted at the fundamental development-free agenda of the agreements.
Since the beginning of this decade, the EU has been offering these deals to African countries.
The EU has demanded reciprocity and liberalisation of the other’s markets.
This also includes the opening up of service sectors.
On the back of the fundamental truth that European markets are big and established and diversified, these demands are simply untenable for African economies.
European companies have a huge competitive advantage over their African counterparts and allowing them to have unrestrained access to resources and services will succeed in but marking African economies out of the game.
First, African markets need protection to cushion them from unfair and pervasive penetration such as the EU can only succeed in giving.
The EU itself has for long not been an exponent of equality and as such its demand for reciprocity can only be construed as a way to further inequality.
This is a view shared by Southern Africa People’s Solidarity Network, a civic group formed for economic, environmental, social and political justice.
Dakarayi Matanga, the group’s secretary-general, is on record as saying "reciprocity" in trade terms means "winner takes all" adding: "The countries that dominated global trade in the past will continue to do so."
Matanga notes that Africa deserves an opportunity to protect its markets as without protection no country can be able to develop.
Africa can liberalise abruptly, as EU demands, at its own peril.
One of the primary things countries could do is protection of domestic economies to ensure growth and strength in the face of outside engagement.
EPAs stand to sever government revenue through the loss of tariffs apart from undermining the countries’ right to pursue autonomous trade and economic policies, which is needed for the development of the economy.
The demand to lift subsidies on certain products and economic activities has also led to analysts frowning on EPAs.
Secondly, regional integration ensures not only fair competition among countries of a similar economic orientation but also ensure unity and development of a common position with trade negotiations with external trading partners.
Individual countries dealing with such parties as EU only stand to lose out in the end while regional groupings such as Comesa will systematically be weakened.
In fact, disintegration is what EPAs stand to bring to regional economies and countries.
One journal, Fair Politics, concludes as much.
Recalling that EPAs had envisioned regional integration, it notes that how exactly to go about reaching this regional integration was unclear from the start.
"Many of the countries conveniently shoved together in regional groups are hardly comparable in terms of economic development: some are relatively advanced, some belong to the world’s poorest, some produce rice, mangoes and bananas for export purposes, others depend on subsistence farming," it said.
"Only in a very late stage, in August 2008, a paper was published describing the EU’s vision on regional integration. In the meantime, the interim EPAs that had been concluded between the EU and several individual ACP countries, have achieved the opposite: regional disintegration. Only one regional area, the Caribbean bloc, has managed to conclude a full, regional EPA."
The countries that agreed to sign an individual interim EPA, it said, were usually the richest countries of their region.
For these countries, the EPAs are relatively attractive, because of their economic position and relatively advanced economies, they will be in a better position to adapt to the new situation once borders open up for European produce.
"The second main objective, after achieving regional integration, of EPAs is the smooth and gradual integration of the ACP states into the world economy," the journal states.
"This wider integration is also deemed necessary for the economic development of the countries. However, to what extent this integration into the world economy will stimulate or slow down the economic, social and human development of these countries remains unclear. Currently, only the Caribbean region, as a region, has signed a full EPA and not with great enthusiasm."
EPAs have been feared to perpetuate African economies as exporters of low-value unprocessed goods while remained a consumer of expensive finished imports.
Another turn-off of EPAs has been the unfair negotiating power of EU over its African counterparts.
It has been observed that although officially the negotiations are fair and equal, the EU has a much stronger position than the latter.
The poorer countries highly depend on trade relations with the EU, while European countries depend to a very limited extent on imports from developing countries.
EU has been bearing down on countries to sign by threatening to abandon preferential trade conditions, or even to cut development aid.
Some kind of blackmail has been also reported in which there was the implicit threat that, without reciprocity, ACP countries would find themselves trading with the EU on significantly less advantageous terms.
"This lack of a level playing field results in a very weak negotiation position for developing countries. The European Commission seems to believe that development will be achieved by trade in itself, and is pushing the ACP countries to agree on this," observed Fair Politics.
The Southern and Eastern African Trade Information and Negotiations Institute has also understood this concept and explains that the EU’s position is wrong and unacceptable.
"While the developed world sees trade as an end in itself, for us trade is a means to an end. This end is development," says Rangarirai Machemedze, the organisation’s deputy director.
He says that many African countries are saddled with poor infrastructure, limited production capacity and lack of investment in research and development.
With this, Africa cannot be able to effectively compete with EU on the basis of supposed equality.
By Tichaona Zindoga
Although coming in a flattering package of billions of euros and participation in the so-called global economy, the Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) being dangled to African and Caribbean countries fail in many critical areas, effectively making them something the latter could take at their own peril.
The EU has already started approaching Sadc countries in their individual capacity in a latest move to divide the bloc and undermine its unity.
Among the countries already approached are Botswana, South Africa, Lesotho, Swaziland and Mozambique while Zimbabwe was deliberately left out.
The EPAs are Europe’s idea to merge development policy and trade policy into a comprehensive framework, although the former objective has increasingly been shown not to be the main thrust of the initiative.
It has been noted that the content of the agreements is determined solely by trade interests, with EPAs headlined by opening up of new markets and never serious on the development side.
Describing this as the "real deal" of EPAs, one journal notes that the actual reason why EPAs are being established is for the trade arrangements between the EU and the ACP to meet the WTO criteria for free trade.
The conspicuous absence of development chiefs in the negotiations for EPAs has hinted at the fundamental development-free agenda of the agreements.
Since the beginning of this decade, the EU has been offering these deals to African countries.
The EU has demanded reciprocity and liberalisation of the other’s markets.
This also includes the opening up of service sectors.
On the back of the fundamental truth that European markets are big and established and diversified, these demands are simply untenable for African economies.
European companies have a huge competitive advantage over their African counterparts and allowing them to have unrestrained access to resources and services will succeed in but marking African economies out of the game.
First, African markets need protection to cushion them from unfair and pervasive penetration such as the EU can only succeed in giving.
The EU itself has for long not been an exponent of equality and as such its demand for reciprocity can only be construed as a way to further inequality.
This is a view shared by Southern Africa People’s Solidarity Network, a civic group formed for economic, environmental, social and political justice.
Dakarayi Matanga, the group’s secretary-general, is on record as saying "reciprocity" in trade terms means "winner takes all" adding: "The countries that dominated global trade in the past will continue to do so."
Matanga notes that Africa deserves an opportunity to protect its markets as without protection no country can be able to develop.
Africa can liberalise abruptly, as EU demands, at its own peril.
One of the primary things countries could do is protection of domestic economies to ensure growth and strength in the face of outside engagement.
EPAs stand to sever government revenue through the loss of tariffs apart from undermining the countries’ right to pursue autonomous trade and economic policies, which is needed for the development of the economy.
The demand to lift subsidies on certain products and economic activities has also led to analysts frowning on EPAs.
Secondly, regional integration ensures not only fair competition among countries of a similar economic orientation but also ensure unity and development of a common position with trade negotiations with external trading partners.
Individual countries dealing with such parties as EU only stand to lose out in the end while regional groupings such as Comesa will systematically be weakened.
In fact, disintegration is what EPAs stand to bring to regional economies and countries.
One journal, Fair Politics, concludes as much.
Recalling that EPAs had envisioned regional integration, it notes that how exactly to go about reaching this regional integration was unclear from the start.
"Many of the countries conveniently shoved together in regional groups are hardly comparable in terms of economic development: some are relatively advanced, some belong to the world’s poorest, some produce rice, mangoes and bananas for export purposes, others depend on subsistence farming," it said.
"Only in a very late stage, in August 2008, a paper was published describing the EU’s vision on regional integration. In the meantime, the interim EPAs that had been concluded between the EU and several individual ACP countries, have achieved the opposite: regional disintegration. Only one regional area, the Caribbean bloc, has managed to conclude a full, regional EPA."
The countries that agreed to sign an individual interim EPA, it said, were usually the richest countries of their region.
For these countries, the EPAs are relatively attractive, because of their economic position and relatively advanced economies, they will be in a better position to adapt to the new situation once borders open up for European produce.
"The second main objective, after achieving regional integration, of EPAs is the smooth and gradual integration of the ACP states into the world economy," the journal states.
"This wider integration is also deemed necessary for the economic development of the countries. However, to what extent this integration into the world economy will stimulate or slow down the economic, social and human development of these countries remains unclear. Currently, only the Caribbean region, as a region, has signed a full EPA and not with great enthusiasm."
EPAs have been feared to perpetuate African economies as exporters of low-value unprocessed goods while remained a consumer of expensive finished imports.
Another turn-off of EPAs has been the unfair negotiating power of EU over its African counterparts.
It has been observed that although officially the negotiations are fair and equal, the EU has a much stronger position than the latter.
The poorer countries highly depend on trade relations with the EU, while European countries depend to a very limited extent on imports from developing countries.
EU has been bearing down on countries to sign by threatening to abandon preferential trade conditions, or even to cut development aid.
Some kind of blackmail has been also reported in which there was the implicit threat that, without reciprocity, ACP countries would find themselves trading with the EU on significantly less advantageous terms.
"This lack of a level playing field results in a very weak negotiation position for developing countries. The European Commission seems to believe that development will be achieved by trade in itself, and is pushing the ACP countries to agree on this," observed Fair Politics.
The Southern and Eastern African Trade Information and Negotiations Institute has also understood this concept and explains that the EU’s position is wrong and unacceptable.
"While the developed world sees trade as an end in itself, for us trade is a means to an end. This end is development," says Rangarirai Machemedze, the organisation’s deputy director.
He says that many African countries are saddled with poor infrastructure, limited production capacity and lack of investment in research and development.
With this, Africa cannot be able to effectively compete with EU on the basis of supposed equality.
Monday, May 3, 2010
JUST ANOTHER PHONEY AWARD FOR TSVANGIRAI
(Not surprised with this. The NDI, NED, USAID have been bankrolling opposition to popular historical movement in Zim for emperialist ends. MR Tsvangirai has not shown himself to be quite averse to this satanic move. We know Western democracy and human rights in Africa and other resource rich countries else mean unlimited access for the West.
As for civic organisations they are just quislings and foot soldiers and mercenaries for a hostile cause. Tirelessness means evr-willingness to be used for evil.
When our local guys are named as heroes by America we know what they really are: none of our heroes.
Of course all the evil is not spelt quite as clearly and we know some of these guys are not intelligent enough to disccern the error of their ways!
one of the good things ever to happen to Zim is not for the country to be dragged into these phoney if not evil business)
ZimTelegragh
USA-Washington DC (United States) Two champions of democracy, Prime Minister
Morgan Tsvangirai of Zimbabwe and the Network of Chocó Women of Colombia,
will be honored at the 25th anniversary celebration of the National
Democratic Institute (NDI), which will be held in Washington DC on Monday,
May 10.
According to a press release issued by the NDI on Saturday, the evening will
also include the premiere of a film, "NDI's First Quarter Century : Working
for Democracy and Making Democracy Work," that highlights the Institute's
history of supporting the efforts of political parties, civic groups,
parliaments, elections and women's groups in more than 100 countries.
Tsvangirai will receive the W. Averell Harriman Democracy Award for his
tireless efforts to restore democracy, human rights and the rule of law to
Zimbabwe.
"His commitment to peaceful political change has been unwavering despite
assassination attempts, imprisonment and harassment. The award also
recognizes the democratic aspirations of the Zimbabwean people," the release
says.
The Harriman Award, created in 1986, is awarded to individuals and
organizations that have demonstrated a sustained commitment to democracy and
human rights.
The Network of Chocó Women is an umbrella group representing 52 civil
society organizations from 18 municipalities in the primarily Afro-Colombian
region in the western part of Colombia. The region has the nation's highest
levels of poverty and illiteracy. The organization will receive a $25,000
grant to continue its work providing leadership training and advocacy for
women's rights.
As for civic organisations they are just quislings and foot soldiers and mercenaries for a hostile cause. Tirelessness means evr-willingness to be used for evil.
When our local guys are named as heroes by America we know what they really are: none of our heroes.
Of course all the evil is not spelt quite as clearly and we know some of these guys are not intelligent enough to disccern the error of their ways!
one of the good things ever to happen to Zim is not for the country to be dragged into these phoney if not evil business)
ZimTelegragh
USA-Washington DC (United States) Two champions of democracy, Prime Minister
Morgan Tsvangirai of Zimbabwe and the Network of Chocó Women of Colombia,
will be honored at the 25th anniversary celebration of the National
Democratic Institute (NDI), which will be held in Washington DC on Monday,
May 10.
According to a press release issued by the NDI on Saturday, the evening will
also include the premiere of a film, "NDI's First Quarter Century : Working
for Democracy and Making Democracy Work," that highlights the Institute's
history of supporting the efforts of political parties, civic groups,
parliaments, elections and women's groups in more than 100 countries.
Tsvangirai will receive the W. Averell Harriman Democracy Award for his
tireless efforts to restore democracy, human rights and the rule of law to
Zimbabwe.
"His commitment to peaceful political change has been unwavering despite
assassination attempts, imprisonment and harassment. The award also
recognizes the democratic aspirations of the Zimbabwean people," the release
says.
The Harriman Award, created in 1986, is awarded to individuals and
organizations that have demonstrated a sustained commitment to democracy and
human rights.
The Network of Chocó Women is an umbrella group representing 52 civil
society organizations from 18 municipalities in the primarily Afro-Colombian
region in the western part of Colombia. The region has the nation's highest
levels of poverty and illiteracy. The organization will receive a $25,000
grant to continue its work providing leadership training and advocacy for
women's rights.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)