WHAT MUGABE DOESN'T WANT YOU TO SEE (PART 2)

Unreported World Part 2

 

 

Peace and Tranquility???

Peace and Tranquility???

 Cell in RSA: 0791463039

 

---

WHAT MUGABE DOESN'T WANT THE WORLD TO SEE (PART 1)

Unreported World Part 1

Unreported

 

 

Peace and Tranquility???

Peace and Tranquility???

 Cell in RSA: 0791463039

 

WHY ZIMBABWEANS DO NOT REBEL!!!

ELDRED MASUNGURE'S ARTICLE

MASUNGURE'S ARTICLE (PART2)

N BUSU'S CONTRIBUTION

REV M S HOVE'S ARTICLE AS POSTED ON "ZIMONLINE!"

WHY ZIMBABWEANS DO NOT REBEL- PART 3

WHY ZIMBABWEANS DO NOT REBEL - PART THREE

By Rev M S Hove.



It is only fair and proper that I start my submission by paying tribute to all the writers (some of whom are now late; for example Professor Masipula Sithole), who have fearlessly tackled (or tried to tackle) the Zimbabwean crisis since before the formation of the Movement of Democratic Change (the MDC).

Some of you may think that the Zimbabwean crisis began in 2000 and was precipitated by the formation of the MDC and therefore by Zanu- PF's reaction to its formation. The most unfortunate factor in the Zimbabwean crisis is the lack of information about the events that occurred in the present ruling party before and after independence in 1980.


This is very strategic because any genuine analysts need to know why Zanu – PF continues to appear integrated and why it continues to "surge" on in the face of the greatest of adversities where many other political formations would have folded up and surrendered power to the opposition formations. Any sincere analyst would agree with me that Zanu-PF has clearly and openly rigged elections especially since 2000 to date.

Why is the rigging machinery so efficient and determined? Why is it difficult to get "rebels" who shout to the world about these activities and hence cause an earlier disintegration of Zanu – PF and its supportive machinery?

My submission acknowledges the earlier attempts to cite "fear" and the various "risk – taking" postures as the possible reasons why Zimbwabweans do not rebel in the face of what is correctly described as a violent, repressive regime.

I, however, lament that the greatest missing factor in all these submissions is the failure to look at the issue of "CONVICTION".

Many political leaders in the various opposition parties and related civic groups continually allege that Zimbabweans appear to be more docile than the citizens of other countries. This would imply that a Zimbabwean man would be less likely to fight, maime or murder an intruder that he would find, say having a "romantic picnic" with his wife in his bedroom and on his own bed.

Would we then be saying that there is something genetically different about the Zimbwabwean people? We can not say that, though, because what we call Zimbwabweans today is made up of Karangas, Ndebeles, Korekores, Manyikas and even Xhosas, Sothos and other groups from outside the geographical boundaries of the country we call Zimbabwe.

The previous writers have correctly cited "fear" and the various levels of "risk –taking" in both the rulers and the governed.

I stand to be corrected, but I would like the dimension of "docility" to be removed completely from the equation.

Lets then look at the issue of "conviction".

Are the masses completely convinced that Mugabe and Zanu–PF are evil and therefore need to be removed at all costs?

When the MDC was formed the voters showed in a free and fair show of their will that they didn't want Zanu PF to continue governing them.

That was not much of a risk then because the issue was more of "Do you want the Zanu – PF driven Constitution or not?" and the majority of the voters answered "No, we don't want the Zanu – PF driven Constitution."

So by implication, they were rejecting Mugabe and Zanu- PF and registering that they wanted an alternative set of administrators (who incidentally were the MDC under Morgan Tsvangirai and guided by the NCA led by Dr Lovemore Madhuku).

But Zanu – PF, (correctly or incorrectly,) alleged that that the masses were being wooed by imperialist – funded political formations and that their Revolutionary Thrust, which was the acquiring of land from the 4500 "white" farmers to give the "masses"; would be reversed.

Zanu – PF then entered into a very vicious and cruel mode and how they have behaved since 2000 is not necessary to describe in this particular submission. The issue that "immobilizes" the masses more than the other factors mentioned by the previous learned scholars is the confusion in the minds of the "man – in the – street" about where morality and justice are at the present moment.

Is Zanu – PF completely evil hence justifying one to lose one's life in the struggle to remove it?
Is the MDC completely correct hence justifying one to lose ones life in the struggle to have them taking over the reigns of power?

Is the "man – in the – street" aware of what the MDC (or whoever else) will do about the emotional land issue once they get into power?

When I touch on "the land issue" a lot you may be tempted to tear me up my submission ignoring that the "land issue" (although wrongly addressed by Zanu – PF) has brought "livelihoods" to hundreds of thousands and many can testify to having entered lives of prosperity from the varios pieces of land that they got from Zanu – PF from the "wrongly – done Land Reform Exercise!"

So which are the masses that must erupt against Zanu – PF?

The senior soldiers and senior officers in the ZRP and the Intelligence Services
now reside on the land they got from the "wrongly – done land reform exercise"

Can you convince them to stand by while a mass of people are mobilized to "remove" Zanu – PF (illegitimate, though Zanu – PF may be)?

The conviction of the "man - -in the –street" is actually that one may be used by the political forces (whether Zanu – PF or the Opposition Parties) and die for a worthless cause ("Kufira Mahara").

Who will convince him to move away from that mind-set?

I believe that what is missing in the masses is the conviction that what is called "wrong" is in fact "wrong" and what is called right" is in fact " absolutely right" and worth dying for.

Another confusing scenario is the conflicting and inconsistent stands taken by the opposition formations!

At one time, they talked of "Mass Action" to remove Mugabe and Zanu – PF.

The original "war – cry" was, "What we want to tell Mugabe today (that was in 1999): Go peacefully or we will remove you violently."

I was one of the people who applauded then ZCTU Secretary – General when he issued that brave statement.

But perhaps things have completely changed and now the purpose of the "Mass Action"
is only to highlight to Mugabe and Zanu – PF that they are mismanaging the economy of the country.

So must Mugabe and Zanu – PF be removed or should they be told peacefully that there is discontent in the populace?

The famous "Zimpapers" columunist "Nathaniel Manheru "once remarked that there cannot be "Mass Action" in Zimbabwe because the masses are just not there to do the "action".

Why are the "masses" not there?

Those that fled from Zimbabwe are not being engaged to "rise up" against Zanu – PF. They are studying/ working and sending money home and buying big mansions and are too busy with their individual personal problems.

They periodically write in newspaper columns asking why the people back home are not "rising up" against Mugabe but they forget that their own lack of commitment to that supposed "uprising" is the same lack of commitment in the people back home.

Listen to, say ,the so called "SW RADIO AFRICA" which is beamimg its broadcasts from London!

Except for one or two guest speakers like Professor Stanford Mukasa and the other journalist, one would not recognise that the broadcasts were from serious patriots who have a passion to have an "uprising" back home.

I agree that it would be difficult for those poor few to take that stance but do you remember the Zanu broadcasts from Mozambique and China in the 70's??

Do you remember them?

The passion!

The clear message!

It was revolution and there was no time for jokes!

Where there is no conviction, they will similarly be no action of any sort!

The ZANU –PF Propaganda needs to be countered by more serious opponents and not the present brethren who spend precious time on radio laughing and playing music that appeals to our "nostalgia" and no more.

The purpose of my submission is not to offend anybody.

I only pray that those who have the conviction that Mugabe and Zanu – PF should be removed be given a chance to similarly convince the rest of the populace.

I have the conviction, do you?

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@


Reverend Mufaro Stig Hove is a Trade Unionist and Opposition Activist now based in South Africa.

He can be contacted on mufarostig@yahoo.co.uk./RSA Cell: 0791463039.

 

BRITISH HANDS ARE CLEAN ON THE ZIM LAND ISSUE!!!

LINK!!!!!

Zimbabwe broke land deal

 

By Paul Boateng,

 

 British High Commissioner in South Africa

Last updated: 06/18/2007 12:38:43

IN RECENT weeks there have been comments in the media and remarks made about the UK's government's role with regard to land reform in Zimbabwe, something which the country's leader, Robert Mugabe has consistently argued is at the heart of his country's internal crisis and the cause of his external dispute between Zimbabwe and the UK.

It has been said that there is an artificial amnesia about the issue and that there were broken promises made by colonial powers. I would contend that as it is nearly 28 years since that historical agreement was signed at Lancaster House, many have perhaps forgotten what was agreed there and the fact that the British government has since then remained committed to supporting effective and well-managed land reform in Zimbabwe.

In 1979, the Lancaster House Agreement ended the illegal Rhodesian regime. The Zimbabwe-Rhodesia regime, the Patriotic Front, led by Robert Mugabe and Joshua Nkomo, both liberation leaders to whom proper credit is due, and the British government were all represented at the talks and signed the final agreement. Land reform was discussed and the UK's position was set out by the conference chairman, Lord Carrington, a distinguished former Foreign Secretary of the UK.

The independence constitution, agreed at Lancaster House, entrenched protection for property rights for the first 10 years of independence. The Zimbabwean government's acquisition of land was limited to the willing buyer-willing seller principle. Thereafter, the Zimbabwean parliament would be able to alter the constitution in accordance with its own legislation.

No provision was made in the Lancaster House Agreement for a specific fund to support land reform. But a Zimbabwe Donors Conference in March 1981 raised £17-million (about R240-million) for development in Zimbabwe, including land reform. Between 1980 and 1985, the UK provided £47-million for land reform: £20-million as a specific Land Resettlement Grant and £27-million in the form of budgetary support to help the Zimbabwean government's own contribution to the programme.

By 1988, the Land Settlement Grant had been largely spent. The then UK Overseas Development Agency fully endorsed the resettlement, which had taken place and suggested measures for further improving the UK-funded programme. The Zimbabwean government did not respond to these proposals and the grant was closed in 1996 with £3-million unspent.

In 1998, the Zimbabwean government hosted a land conference in Harare, involving international donors and multilateral institutions. Both the UK and Zimbabwean governments endorsed the fundamental principles agreed at the conference: transparency, respect for the rule of law, poverty reduction, affordability and consistency with Zimbabwe's wider economic interests. Sadly, the two-year inception phase agreed at the conference was interrupted by farm occupations and violence in the run-up to the 2000 Parliamentary elections.

In late 2000, the UN Development Programme (UNDP) administrator proposed to the Zimbabwe government a slowing down of the programme to fit Zimbabwe's implementation capacity; the promotion of internal dialogue; and the possible resumption of UNDP technical assistance.

In 2001, a group of Commonwealth foreign ministers (including the UK and Zimbabwe) met in Abuja, Nigeria. They agreed that land reform had to be implemented in a fair, just and sustainable manner, in the interest of all the people of Zimbabwe. The Zimbabwean government agreed to prevent further occupation of farm lands, to restore the rule of law, to take firm action against violence intimidation and honour freedom of expression. At that meeting the UK re-affirmed its commitment to a significant financial contribution to such a land reform programme and gave an undertaking to encourage other international donors to do the same.

But in 2001, the Zimbabwean government amended the Land Acquisition Act to allow it to allocate land without giving the owners the right to contest the seizures. This was in direct contravention of the Abuja Agreement.

The UK remains a strong advocate of land reform and has since 1980 provided £44-million for land reform and £500-million in bilateral support for development in Zimbabwe, more than any other donor.

The UK has honoured its commitments, from Lancaster House onwards, and remains willing to contribute to an equitable land reform programme.

The fact of the matter is that the Zimbabwean government has not adhered to the principles of land reform, to which it has repeatedly agreed from 1980 onwards and its own laws have been arbitrarily overridden. The result has been that the process of redistribution was characterised by the tragic scenes we have seen played out on our television screens and the collapse of the agricultural economy.

Contemporary Britain is not blind to the injustices of the past and wishes to be part of a process that heals and binds people together, promoting the broad ownership and redistribution of land in a way which meets the needs of the poor and creates an efficient agricultural economy. Land reform in Zimbabwe is therefore central to a wider programme of reform, recovery and renewal of the institutions of that country. The decisions surrounding that and the form and nature of its government are not matters which can be decided in Britain. The principle of African solutions for African problems applies in Zimbabwe as it does elsewhere on the continent.

The SADC and the AU now own and have established the principles of good governance in this continent and it is enough that they are adhered to. The good news is that this is now happening all over Africa. Why should it not happen in Zimbabwe too? President Thabo Mbeki, as he carries out his SADC mandate, can count on Britain to work with its partners and all people of goodwill within every section of Zimbabwean society regardless of race, creed or party political affiliation to bring about the speedy recovery of that beautiful country in a way that honours the spirit and letter of the Lancaster House Agreement and respects the vision and foresight of its signatories.

Boateng is the British ambassador to South Africa. This article was originally published in the Star newspaper

• Mutambara: Clumsy Zanu PF propaganda on farms • Zimbabwe fast-tracks surveyor training • Gasela: Gumbo must tell the truth on food situation • Gugulethu Moyo: doing justice to farming • Zimbabwe beef shortages: a man-made crisis • Top civil servant fired over fertiliser scandal • Tsvangirai on Zim food crisis • Zim offers compensation to white farmers • Mugabe issues new farmers 99-year leases • Use it or lose it, Mugabe warns farmers on land • Renson Gasela: Zimbabwe must act now on food situation

Mbeki's quiet diplomacy is nothing but a hoax !!

LINK!!!!

By Rebecca Mwaimbotinyi

(June 18, 2007)DEFENDERS of South African President, Thabo Mbeki’s “quiet diplomacy” in tackling the Zimbabwean crisis argue that this is the only approach likely to work in dealings with President Robert Mugabe.

This is despite the fact that this approach has failed to yield any results over the four years up to 2004 when Mbeki first acted as Africa’s unofficial trouble-shooter on the Zimbabwe crisis. At the end of 2004, Mbeki himself announced that he had failed to make any headway and was throwing in the towel.

He declared then that no country, not even South Africa, could “import” a solution to Zimbabwe and it was up to Zimbabweans themselves to figure out how break the impasse. But following his appointment by the Southern Africa Development Community (SADC) at an extraordinary summit in Dar es Salaam in March, Mbeki has apparently convinced himself that he can now broker a dispensation to end political tensions in Zimbabwe which have been intensifying since 2000.

One would have expected that after his first stint as peace broker failed to bear any fruit, Mbeki would have learnt a few lessons. One of these should be that despite his misplaced faith in it, a softly-softly approach does not work when dealing with a stubborn old fox like Zimbabwe’s 83-year old authoritarian ruler, who has been in power for almost 30 years. Obviously, after such a long stint, Mugabe is now so set in his ways both personally and politically that he needs a shock to the system, which does not have to be convenient and comfortable, to make him see sense. And what that shock might be is debatable but this is where Mbeki’s skills as mediator should be demonstrated.

Diplomacy, after all, involves tact and skill in the management of relations and disputes, not timidity. In an opinion piece published in the latest issue of The Independent, Joram Nyathi argues against what he calls “shouting” diplomacy, saying this has made Mugabe more obstinate, exacerbated economic decline and precipitated “an exodus of people who should provide pro-democracy forces with the critical mass, the brains and direction they need to achieve change.” He adds : “I have never received a convincing response when I ask colleagues who criticize Mbeki’s quiet diplomacy what they would rather he did. Political rivals can shout at each other.

That is the name of the game. They can’t be ‘quiet’ about abductions, torture and other forms of violence.” How true. But just as opposition politicians cannot remain silent when flagrant human rights abuses and atrocities are perpetrated against innocent citizens, neither should Mbeki. The fact that he is the mediator in the crisis does not mean that he should be tongue-tied about and blind to the very horrors his intervention is supposed to help end to ease the suffering of all Zimbabweans. Nyathi should not forget that what is needed for evil to prevail is for good men to remain silent.

Mbeki’s diplomacy has not been just been quiet. It has been totally mute, implying tacit endorsement of Mugabe’s repressive governance. Mbeki does not necessarily have to shout, as Nyathi puts it, for him to speak out on the ruthless crushing of dissent, flagrant violations of human right, abridgement of basic freedoms, the introduction of draconian press and security laws and the waging of violence by the state against the population as retribution for rejecting Zanu-PF at the polls.

I beg to differ with Nyathi’s claim that “the language of politics and diplomacy should be different. Blair and his allies failed for the same reason that they followed the advice of those who believe shouting constitutes a solution to a problem. He had turned himself into a local political rival.” Quiet diplomacy does not have to mean being deaf and dumb with regard to the issues that surround the situation to be defused as has been the case with Mbeki. He has been the point man on Zimbabwe for years but has never even once spoken out on the Mugabe regime’s abuses and excesses.

As a result, no one knows for sure if Mbeki actually abhors Mugabe’s tyrannical governance and whether he says anything to the regime. Moreover while Nyathi rails against “shouting” as having made Mugabe more obstinate, Mbeki’s quiet diplomacy has not moved the octogenarian either. If the truth be told, Mugabe is a stubborn old man, full-stop. He has not been made that way by anybody as accounts of his character even in his youth have shown.

More recent revelations, especially in Edgar Tekere’s admittedly controversial memoirs, confirm the same character flaws in the conduct of his political career. The manner in which he has bludgeoned everyone in Zanu-PF into submission on the succession issue is further proof that the man simply does not listen to anyone. Ironically, Nyathi unconsciously acknowledges this point when he writes: “The simple truth that Zimbabweans didn’t admit from the start is that there was nothing lawful which Blair, Mbeki or Bush could do beyond either whispering or shouting to make Mugabe change his thinking.

His barely plausible rhetoric about puppets, imperialist machinations and giving land to the poor kept him ahead of the competition and made his position virtually impregnable.” I find it incredible for Nyathi to argue that a man he himself describes as a master “shouter” and incorrigible rhetorician should be treated with patience and appeasement when the omissions and commissions he is accused of are matters of life and death for the suffering masses of Zimbabwe. Quiet diplomacy may work in dealing with minor issues but can never be acceptable when dealing with a brutal regime.

It may be true that Mbeki is the only leader in the region who has access to Mugabe but this access does not help anyone if the South African president uses it to collude with the regime in Harare. Mugabe has got away with unspeakable horrors all these years precisely because of the deference accorded to him by Mbeki and other African leaders. The Zimbabwean leader has openly boasted on a number of occasions that his mis-governance enjoys the backing of SADC and the African Union.

Mugabe often rants that Western countries have no moral authority to tell Zimbabwe anything about human rights and democracy because of their colonial past. It is time for Mbeki, the AU and SADC to call his bluff by openly declaring that they too abhor his despotic governance and calling for the observance of human rights and the rule of law.

Last Updated ( Monday, 18 June 2007 )

"18th AMMENDMENT COULD MAKE OR BREAK ZIMBABWE!!" Prof J Moyo

EX WWW.NEWZIMBABWE.COM

18th amendment could make or break Zimbabwe crisis

By Prof Jonathan Moyo MP

 

 

PREVIOUS ARTICLES BY THE HON PROF!

 

• Perfecting or messing up the constitution?

• Moyo withdraws suit against Dabengwa

• The Mugabe way

• 2008 Elections: one candidate, one united front

• Mugabe pins survival hopes on CIO

• Zimbabwe doomed as long as Mugabe stays on

• Rejecect Mugabe's ploy to rule forever

• Nkomo takes witness stand in defamation case

• Moyo on the Wits and Mbeki allegations

• Moyo quizzed on BBC HARDtalk

• Mugabe too tired to pull Zimbabwe out of woods

• Will nation leave Gono alone?

• Nathaniel Manheru: Professorial folly

• The 'useful idiot' has gone too far this time

• Mugabe's mess doesn't require British solution

AFTER two months of groping in the shadows of the polarised and polarising Zanu PF and MDC politics, in what is arguably the last Sadc initiative to resolve the Zimbabwean crisis before the March 2008 general election, President Thabo Mbeki's Sadc-mandated mediation team led by Sydney Mufamadi must now specifically spotlight its effort on the proposed 18th constitutional amendment that is about to be gazetted by the beleaguered authorities in Harare.

 

If it does not do that without wasting any more time, then its effort will be doomed to embarrassing failure to the detriment of Mbeki's legacy and Sadc's reputation.

This shift in spotlight is necessary and urgent given the dogged if not suicidal determination by President Robert Mugabe to unilaterally use the proposed 18th constitutional amendment outside the Sadc mediation process to implement a self-serving Zanu PF plot to keep him in office for life in a manner that would prolong and worsen the current economic meltdown.

Up to now, Mbeki's Sadc mediation has lacked a tangible or specific focus that would not only establish the commitment of Zanu PF and the MDC to resolving the Zimbabwean crisis beyond partisan interests but which would also determine the success or failure of the mediation itself.

Public pronouncements by Mbeki that his mediation hopes to secure an electoral agreement between Zanu PF and the opposition to ensure that the 2008 general election would be conducted in such a way that its outcome would not lend itself to frivolous disputation on grounds of unfairness or unfreeness, have been useful for defining the key negotiation issues. But the pronouncements have not been enough in clarifying how the success or failure of the negotiation would be determined.

Most previous mediation efforts to resolve the Zimbabwean crisis by Mbeki have ended in failure — real or perceived — mainly because they were not driven by a transparent and well defined objective beyond talking for the sake of talking. The only notable exception that almost succeeded, and whose product might still see the light of day, is Mbeki's 2003/2004 quiet facilitation of dialogue between Patrick Chinamasa, then Zanu PF secretary for legal affairs, and Welshman Ncube, who was then secretary-general of the MDC before it split. That facilitation led to an agreement on a new draft constitution whose provisions included the best from the Constitutional Commission's 1999 draft that was rejected in a referendum in February 2000 and the National Constitutional Assembly's draft.

In terms of its content and relevance in addressing issues that remain contentious, the Chinamasa/Ncube draft constitution is still a product in good currency and it might very well find a new lease of life as the first prize in the ongoing Sadc mediation if all involved were to be serious and honest in the national interest. Adoption of that draft now would constitute 90% of the solution to the Zimbabwean crisis and the other 10% would depend on the outcome of the next general election.

But in the world of Zimbabwe's present treacherous politics of succession underwritten by unprecedented economic collapse with too many vested interests that are often not declared amid widespread national suffering, it would be too optimistic to expect Mbeki's Sadc mediation to produce the first prize by reviving the Chinamasa/Ncube draft constitution. That is why there is a need for an alternative but transparent and well-defined focus that would be a second prize in the form of the proposed 18th constitutional amendment.

"SA mediators should dissuade Zanu PF and the MDC from their polarising politics of asserting each other's alleged illegitimacy as either violent puppets masquerading as democrats or violent electoral thieves masquerading as nationalist revolutionaries"

PROF JONATHAN MOYO

Mbeki's Sadc mediation team should take it as fortunate that Mugabe has thus far been unable to steamroll to irreversibility his self-serving constitutional agenda that was unveiled at the controversial March 30 central committee meeting which endorsed his unpopular reelection bid. After that central committee meeting, which met only a day following the extraordinary Sadc summit in Dar es salaam had adopted the Mbeki mediation, the Zanu PF faction that is backing Mugabe's candidacy sought to rush through cabinet and parliament an 18th constitutional amendment bill containing the following patronage-inducing provisions in the main:

* An increase of the constituencies of the legislature in the lower house from 120 to 210;

* An increase of the number of senators in the upper house from 66 to 84;

* A requirement for the two houses of parliament to sit jointly as an electoral college to elect a president to serve for the remainder of the term of an incumbent who resigns, is impeached, dies or is otherwise incapacitated;

* Establishment of the long-awaited Human Rights Commission as a sweetener.

In seeking to rush this Bill in cabinet and parliament, Mugabe's henchmen wanted to preempt and sabotage Mbeki's Sadc mediation by turning it into a meaningless exercise in assured failure. After all Mugabe had already cynically interpreted the outcome of the March 29, Dar es Salaam Sadc summit as an endorsement of his brutality unleashed on defenceless opposition politicians in police custody on March 11.

Indeed, Mugabe has viewed the Sadc mediation right from its onset as a useful tool only in so far as it can help him contain international pressure on his government, expose opposition politicians as puppets and agents of imperialism, remove the international media spotlight on the March 11 state violence and get Sadc to support the Zanu PF position that the economic meltdown is due to alleged illegal sanctions imposed by Western countries and to provide an internationally backed economic rescue package against these sanctions ahead of the 2008 general election.

Outside these self-serving interests, Mugabe sees Mbeki's Sadc mediation as an utter nuisance which can easily become very dangerous if it is allowed to linger on for too long or if it is anchored on a concrete deliverable such as the proposed 18th constitutional amendment. That is why there have been frantic efforts since the central committee meeting of March 30 to rush and smuggle through this proposed amendment which is about to be gazetted with only Zanu PF electoral content.

This, together with the fact that it is now quite clear that Mugabe intends to use the proposed amendment to entrench his self-serving electoral interests to the detriment of the opposition in particular and the national interest in general right in the face of the Sadc mediation, means that Mbeki's team needs to get serious and tougher with Zanu PF and the MDC as a matter of urgency. If the team does not do that then its mediation is doomed to a kind of failure that would widen and deepen the current crisis.

The bottom line is that Mbeki's team should do everything possible under the auspices of Sadc not to allow Zanu PF to unilaterally author and make the proposed 18th constitutional amendment into law. Instead, this amendment which is inevitable before the 2008 general election must be the compromise point to signal the beginning of a genuine constitutional and political transition beyond the current crisis.

Sadc-mandated South African mediators should therefore dissuade both Zanu PF and the MDC from their polarised and polarising politics which have nothing to offer besides mutually asserting each other's alleged illegitimacy as either violent puppets masquerading as democrats or violent electoral thieves masquerading as nationalist revolutionaries.

This means that in addition to what Zanu PF has already indicated to be its desired content for the proposed 18th constitutional amendment, which now also interestingly includes provision for a prime minister and one vice-president in place of the current two vice-presidents, there must be serious consideration of the widespread democratic calls for the inclusion of the following, among other relevant constitutional issues necessary to ensure free and fair elections next year:

* An independent Registrar of Voters (it could be the Electoral Commission) to be fully and directly responsible for the registration of voters and the maintenance of a credible voters' roll;

* Making the delimitation and electoral commissions directly accountable to parliament and for the appointment of their chairpersons and commissioners to be subject to the approval of either the Judicial Service Commission or parliament and for their composition to necessarily reflect the full spectrum of Zimbabwe's political diversity, at least as represented in parliament;

* Allowing voter education to be undertaken by whoever Zimbabwean wants to in a free and transparent manner in accordance with the relevant laws;

* Enabling political parties and candidates to access the public media not only during the election period in the technical sense as happened in 2005 but well before the electoral period where and when it is known that there is an impending election as is now the case regarding the March 2008 general election.

If the government, Zanu PF and the MDC are serious and honest about their commitment to resolving the Zimbabwean crisis, then they should be able to understand why the proposed 18th constitutional amendment offers the best opportunity for a meaningful compromise towards the much needed transition from crisis to sustainable development under a democratic dispensation.

In the same vein, and for the same reasons, Mbeki's Sadc team must understand that if it keeps its eyes off or away from the 18th constitutional amendment it risks dropping if not losing the ball and that would most certainly result in embarrassing failure with catastrophic consequences.

Professor Moyo is a political scientist and MP for Tsholotsho (Indep). This article was

 

originally published in the Zimbabwe Independent

JOIN THE DEBATE ON THIS ARTICLE ON THE NEWZIMBABWE.COM FORUMS
newsdesk@newzimbabwe.com

 

 

Peace and Tranquility???

Peace and Tranquility???

 Cell in RSA: 0791463039

 

ARMY LAUNCHES MANHUNT FOR HERO WHO WANTED TO LIBERATE THE PEOPLE!!!

LINK!!!

By Our Correspondent   BUHERA, June 12, 2007 - Seven uniformed army officials stormed the rural home of a senior army officer here and threatened to kill his father and other family members if they did not disclose his whereabouts.      Colonel Ben Ncube is accused, along with three other senior army officials, of being the masterminds of an attempted coup against President Mugabe on Sunday last week.       "It was at around 10.45 pm," a family member said, "when a man dressed in  army uniformed knocked on the door and asked if this was the Ncube family. When my sister confirmed that it was he went to a car that was parked outside.    He came back accompanied by six other men who were also dressed in military uniform.  "They asked my father several questions about Ben and his family. They threatened to kill him and everyone else around if he insisted that Ben was in Harare .   "They asked if Ben had informed the family of any intention to  travel abroad over the past few months.  In fact, they said they knew that Ben had wanted to leave the country. They said they wanted to know where he had gone to." The family member and a high-ranking army official, who spoke on condition his name was not published, expressed genuine fear of possible victimization, including torture or killing of members of Col Ncube's family. "If they are now visiting his village the next possible move is that they will abduct, torture or kill his closest relatives," said the officer, "Their focal aim will be to force the family to disclose details of his whereabouts."     President Robert Mugabe is said to have survived an assassination plot afterjunior and middle ranking officers led by three senior officers attempted to attackhis two residences in Harare. The deputy commander of the Air Force of Zimbabwe, Air Vice Marshal Elson Moyo and Major General Engelbert Rugeje, the Quartermaster Generalat Army Headquarters were arrested after  being implicated in the attempted coupand assassination plot.   The whereabouts of Ncube remain unknown.   It has been suggested that he may have crossed the border into Botwsana early last week en route to the United States, where some members of  the Ncube family are said to be based.

WHAT NEWS DO YOU HAVE ABOUT ZIM????

Tell the western world about Zimbabwe and vote for <b>Tony Sharp Zimbabwe</b>. The page to vote on is at  http://defendingtheblog.blogspot.com/2007/06/19-nominations-so-far-for-best-post-of.html

You can read the Tony Sharp post at http://tonysharp.blogspot.com/2007/03/abandonment-of-zimbabwe.html

 

A ZRP MEMBER DISHING OUT ZIM JUSTICE!!

LINK!!!!

« Emergency sex and other desperate measures

Grassroots voices need a place at the table

 

Zimbabwe's security forces – police, army and militia - are rather fond of raising their fists to settle disputes and differences of opinion. So, predictably, injuries were the order of the day when the riot police descended upon the WOZA/MOZA members who peacefully marched through Bulawayo on June 06. The marchers were determined to insert their grassroots voices into the current SADC efforts to mediate in Zimbabwe's crisis.

Some of their questions of the SADC process include "we would like to know exactly what South African President Thabo Mbeki, Tanzanian President Kikwete and our SADC brothers and sisters want to achieve by their mediation. Is their role to bring about a new government without any political, economic and social reform? Or is their objective something more meaningful?"

Their concerns are justified as the international community seems increasingly likely to follow the path of least resistance and assist in the installation of the next Big Man once Mugabe is persuaded or agrees to "go". Is that the change we have all worked so hard for over the last 10 years? I don't think so. Prosperity at any cost has a hollow ring. Of course the majority of Zimbabweans want jobs and education and opportunity but many have come to realise that we need a prosperous and just society that future generations can build on and benefit from. Quick fixes just won't do it anymore.

Well done to the Women and Men of Zimbabwe who continue to raise their voices in a country that pretends it has the needs of the people at heart, but far too often prefers to shoot the messengers who bring a wisdom that should have been welcomed years ago

 

 

Peace and Tranquility???

Peace and Tranquility???

 Cell in RSA: 0791463039

 

---

WHY IS GRACE KWINJEH BEING DETAINED IN RSA?????????/

By Ntandoyenkosi Ncube

Last updated: 06/08/2007 02:30:22

 

http://www.newzimbabwe.com/pages/mdc100.16516.html

 

GRACE Kwinjeh, a senior official for a faction of Zimbabwe's main opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) was on Wednesday detained at the Johannesburg International Airport moments after arriving from London.

 

Kwinjeh, a victim of a violent assault by Zimbabwean police in March which drew worldwide condemnation, was in South Africa for a medical review on injuries suffered during the savage beatings.

 

Kwinjeh, 33, is the deputy secretary for international relations in the MDC faction led by Morgan Tsvangirai. In recent weeks, she has been living in London with friends.

 

Friends have expressed fears about her mental state since she was assaulted alongside MDC leader Morgan Tsvangirai on March 11.

 

Friends who spoke to New Zimbabwe.com Thursday said her behaviour had become erratic in recent weeks, and she was given to "uncharacteristic behaviour".

 

It was not clear late Thursday if she had been released from police holding cells at the airport, with police said to be weighing two options of deporting her to Zimbabwe or back to Britain from where she took a direct flight.

 

MDC spokesperson Nelson Chamisa confirmed that Kwinjeh had been barred from entering South Africa, but the party was still seeking to establish the facts.

 

Chamisa charged that Kwinjeh's detention had been politicised, insisting that her visa does not expire until June 20 this year.

 

It was suggested that South African authorities were probably viewing Kwinjeh's activities as "work", contrary to the strict visa conditions barring holders from becoming "a prohibited or undesirable person". The guidelines also state that a visa holder "shall not conduct any work in South Africa".

 

Chamisa said: "Kwinjeh was arrested and detained at the airport at around 7:30am (Wednesday). We are highly exasperated by her detention considering that she is being denied entry into the country and access to doctors.

 

"Looking at the conditions on her visa, we can interpret that she is now an undesirable person in South Africa. We believe that her detention is being politicised since she holds a valid visa."

 

Immigration officials at the airport seized all her particulars including her passport amid claims that she had also been denied access to lawyers and her attempts to reach out to journalists frustrated.

 

An airport official, speaking on condition of anonymity as he was not cleared to talk to the media, said: "There was a threat to deport her back to London late on Wednesday."

South Africa's Home Affairs spokesman Jack Mashapu confirmed Kwinjeh's detention but said the department was on strike and he was unable to assist with media enquiries.

 

After suffering serious injuries during the Harare beatings, Kwinjeh was flown to South Africa following a legal battle. She was admitted at the Milpark Hospital in Johannesburg. She travelled to London on her release.

 

Milpark Hospital spokesperson, Melony Boucher, confirmed that Kwinjeh was expected to see her doctors for medical reviews.

 

"Grace Kwinjeh and Sekai Holland were treated here in March and had an appointment to come and see doctors for check-up. We are consulting with doctors on how they can access her," Boucher said.

 

 

Peace and Tranquility???

Peace and Tranquility???

ATTEMPT ON MUGABE'S LIFE????

Soldiers arrested over alleged assassination plot on Mugabe LINK!!!!

By Our Correspondent   HARARE, June 8, 2007 - President Robert Mugabe is said to have survived an assassination plot on Sunday night after mainly junior and middle ranking officers led by three senior officers tried to bomb his two residences in Harare. Impeccable sources told The Zimbabwe Times that following the plot, believed to have been part of a coup attempt, all soldiers have been placed on high alert. All members of the Presidential Guard have been told that they would now keep their guns instead of surrendering them at the armoury as is the practice at the end of their shifts.   The deputy commander of the Air Force of Zimbabwe, Air Vice Marshal Elson Moyo and Major General Engelbert Rugeje, the Quartermaster General at Army Headquarters, are said to have been detained  after being implicated in the attempted coup and assassination plot.   Moyo and Rugeje were arrested on Wednesday afternoon.   Another senior army officer, Colonel Ben Ncube has also been fingered in the attempted palace coup against Mugabe ; his whereabouts could not be established yesterday   An impeccable source, who is a colonel in the Zimbabwe National Army, told The Zimbabwe Times that 360 junior soldiers had also been arrested as investigations spread.   "An assortment of small weapons went missing at KG VI amoury, Two Brigade and Inkomo Barracks and inquiries appear to link the disappearance of the weapons to the failed coup."   The planned coup coincided with a power blackout which plunged the entire capital in darkness.   The coup was foiled when alert soldiers spotted two military planes re-fuelling at Manyame Air Base.   Further inquiries by the soldiers established that the two planes were carrying heavy bombs, resulting in the immediate arrest of the two pilots.   The Zimbabwe Times is reliably informed that one of the planes was supposed to drop its lethal cargo at Zimbabwe House - Mugabe's official residence - while another was supposed to pulverize his private residence in the plush suburb of Borrowdale Brook.   Mugabe, who was supposed to officiate at a pass out parade of junior officers today, will now be represented by defence minister, Sydney Sekeramai.   The majority of the arrested junior soldiers were taken from the Paratroopers Regiment at Inkomo, a unit formerly headed by Rugeje.   Sekeramai refused to comment. However, on Monday afternoon, a large number of soldiers were  secretly taken for an Army Court Marshal by heavily armed Commandos and military police officers.

 

"Our Cause Is Africa’s Cause" – Baffour Ankomah interviews Robert Mugabe

New African

May, 2007

LINK!!!

After the recent events in Zimbabwe, which saw opposition leaders beaten up by the police, and the decision thereafter by the SADC to stand by Zimbabwe, our editor, Baffour Ankomah, went to interview the president in the eye of the storm, Robert Mugabe. He was in fine fettle.

Baffour: You had a good SADC conference in Tanzania, didn’t you? One British journalist grudgingly reported that you returned to Harare with a spring in your step. Was everything hanging on this summit?

President Robert Mugabe: Well, when we went to Dar es Salaam, it was really to try and explain to our colleagues of SADC the events that happened here on 11 March, so they could get the clear picture. We also wanted to explain to them, in a very clear perspective, why the actions here were not to be seen in isolation but to be read in the context where our erstwhile enemies – Britain and its allies – were actually orchestrating a situation which they believed would lead to regime change here.

This is the explanation I gave them, and I knew they would understand it, I knew that they too had been disturbed by what they had seen on CNN, BBC, Sky News and other television services. But they are solid, SADC is solid; and let it not be forgotten that if imperialism and colonialism were ever solidly fought and defeated, it was here in Southern Africa that the real fight against imperialism took place.

And so we went to Dar es Salaam not to put up a fight but to explain to my colleagues the true situation here, and they understood the explanation. In the circumstances, what they themselves thought was the right thing to do was to support us because they realized that we were besieged for a long time. Economic sanctions have been imposed on us and they have undermined our economy and our efforts to develop. And so, while the world thought Dar es Salaam would deal us a death blow [laughs sarcastically], it was them who were dealt a death blow.

Baffour: At the end of the day, the region showed solidarity with Zimbabwe …

Mugabe: [cuts in] … It did, yes.

Baffour: But I would like you to situate the Zimbabwe case in the wider African context. Why should a Ghanaian or Nigerian or Kenyan or South African or African American support Zimbabwe? Why should Africa stand with Zimbabwe?

Mugabe: Well, obviously, our cause is their cause. The success of Zimbabwe is their success. And we don’t live in isolation, we are not an extension of Europe, we are part of Africa, and so really our stand, as a fight, should be seen as an African cause, and wherever we have Africans, be they in the Diaspora or in Senegal or Ghana where we first got our revolutionary drink, they should be able to understand and appreciate the war we are fighting here, and when they are disillusioned, it is our duty to remove that disillusionment and get them back on the right path as our supporters.

Baffour: You are saying that if Africa allows Zimbabwe to go down, no African country would again be able to pop its head above water. It would be like when Nkrumah was taken out, the African revolutionary fire was extinguished, and we lost the momentum for the past 40 years.

Mugabe: Sure, it would affect them too – the whole of Africa. If you want to read Nkrumah’s own principle – Ghana would not regard itself as totally free and independent unless every inch of Africa was free. So every inch of Africa matters. If that inch loses its freedom, then the whole African continent is affected. It’s freedom minus. And you don’t want anything of that nature to happen to Africa.

And in Dar es Salaam, President Thabo Mbeki put it very clearly. He said: “The fight against Zimbabwe is a fight against us all. Today it is Zimbabwe, tomorrow it will be South Africa, it will be Mozambique, it will be Angola, it will be any other African country. And any government that is perceived to be strong, and to be resistant to imperialists, would be made a target and would be undermined. So let us not allow any point of weakness in the solidarity of SADC, because that weakness will also be transferred to the rest of Africa.”

Baffour: That was quite heart-warming, wasn’t it? But upon seeing the TV pictures of Morgan Tsvangirai and other MDC leaders beaten up by the police, many people around the world are asking: “Why is President Mugabe using the police to beat up his opponents?”

Mugabe: [laughs]. I wasn’t there. I didn’t even know they had been beaten! But if a person challenges the police, breaches law and order, and thinks the police would just look at him and shake hands with him, and say “you’ve done a good thing by tossing and pushing us around”, well, he is quite mistaken. The police are there to maintain law and order. And it doesn’t matter who, if you threaten them with force, they will answer back with force. And the police did their work.

We may regret that in doing their work, they might have exceeded the punishment they gave them. But these things happen. It happens in war, it happens everywhere. If you challenge the police, don’t think that they are going to be merciful with you at all. More so, that Tsvangirai’s own people had earlier beaten up some policemen very badly. There was a group of policemen who were unarmed, and Tsvangirai’s people took advantage of their small number, assailed them, and beat them up very badly. They are now in hospital and I hope they would recover, and recover fully. So the police had the grudge also. They are also human beings. Let us always bear that in mind. If Tsvangirai leaves his home to come and provoke the police because his counterpart, Arthur Mutambara, had been arrested, and Tsvangirai’s people do not want Mutambara to carry the glory of having been arrested and imprisoned, with Tsvangirai having gone home and deserted the struggle, to have that balance of honour and dishonour, and then Tsvangirai wants to correct that by going to challenge the police, at a police station, what do you expect the police to do?

If he had stayed at home, the police would never have gone to his home. But he chose to go to the police station, provoked them, there was a tussle, and they beat him up. So I am saying he was wrong. He is supposed to be a leader, aspiring to be president, and he should know how to behave. Mutambara was not beaten because he knew how to behave. Why should Tsvangirai alone be beaten, and not Mutambara?

Baffour: Again, many people were shocked to hear you tell the West “go hang” when they criticized you personally and your government for the police action against the opposition leaders. What exactly are the British and the Americans and their Western allies doing to destabilize Zimbabwe to elicit such a response fro you?

Mugabe: The sanctions. The British – since Tony Blair came to power and changed the face of the Labour Party completely in regards to relations with us – have reneged on the understanding and agreement reached at Lancaster House [in 1979] regarding the land reform programme and the compensation they agreed to pay to enable us to buy the land from their kith and kin here.

When Blair’s government decided to dishonour it, we said “well, we are also not bound by the agreement any longer, we are released from it and we should not pay any compensation to the white farmers because the funds had stopped flowing from Britain to us. And if we don’t get the funds, naturally we don’t have the capacity to compensate the farmers. And the farmers will have to deal with Britain to compensate them directly.

We will take the land and pay compensation in respect of improvements, and that is what we have honoured. If they had built a dam, a homestead, done some fencing, we are prepared to pay compensation for those, but not the market price of the farm. That’s the responsibility of Britain. This is why Blair is angry. He thought we would tax our poor people here to buy back their own land, but we were not prepared to do that.

And what did Blair do? He doesn’t talk of that. He talks of Zimbabwe that is breaching the tenets of democracy, human rights, rule of law, and which is a dictatorship. But he is very much more of a dictator than any dictator I have read about in modern times in Britain and in Europe. But we always comply with the law. Since 1980, we have complied with our constitution, and every five years we go to elections – parliamentary elections, presidential elections, local government elections – and the ground is open to anyone who wants to participate in these elections, he or she is free to do so.

But Britain and the United States read a completely different picture. Election results that are accepted by Africa as valid, they reject. They reject them because they are at the top of the world.

Baffour: Regarding the Americans, what has changed? I remember you telling me in our first interview in 2002, that the Americans were quite helpful in the early days…

Mugabe: [cuts in] …Yes, the [Jimmy] Carter regime.

Baffour: So why are the Americans now funding regime change activities here to get you out of power? For the first time, they publicly admitted in an official State Department report released in Washington on 5 April 2007 that they have been sponsoring regime change in Zimbabwe, by supporting the opposition, NGOs, the trade unions, the private media, even religious groups, who are working to discredit your government. So why has there been this about-turn.

Mugabe: This is what America has always been. Yes of course, they gave us that assistance during Carter’s administration, because they didn’t want a failure of our constitutional negotiations which were taking place in Lancaster House in London in 1979. But as soon as Carter was out and Ronald Reagan had come in, the funds were stopped, because they said we were communists. They accused me of being a communist. But they never, never really approved of a solid African government, a government that stands on its own. They were behind Nkrumah’s fall, and they have been behind the fall of other governments – in Latin America, everywhere. So we don’t trust them. They just don’t want a strong government, a government that lives by the truth and wants to help its own people, they don’t want that.

Baffour: Is that why you told them to go hang when they criticized you for the police action against the MDC leaders?

Mugabe: Well, if they don’t accept the truth, they should go hang, they can go hang!

Baffour: Knowing the enemy is half the battle won, they say. You know that they are sponsoring the opposition, and there has been violence blamed on the opposition of late. So what is your government doing to control the opposition violence? I find that on Saturday 14 April, they are calling another camouflaged “prayer meeting” in Bulawayo, which their own advertisement calls a “rally”. What is the government going to do?

Mugabe: Well, if it is the prayer meeting by a church within the precincts of a church and they actually pray, we have nothing against it. But if it is going to be a camouflage of a political meeting, the police are there to stop it. We will not brook that; definitely we will not brook any camouflages.

Baffour: Are they not baiting you so that you have another 11 March incident?

Mugabe: Who is baiting us? Of course if they breach the law, the police will be there. The opposition can do another 11 March incident, certainly if they do a repeat, and if they dare challenge the police, they will get more Tsvangirais beaten up.

Baffour: And the international community will criticize you again.

Mugabe: Yes, yes. The same old thing, we will go round and round again. But as long as we feel we are right, fine. They say might is right, we say right is might.

Baffour: I have always wondered why African countries allow Western ambassadors the latitude to behave the way they have done in Zimbabwe recently, when their countries do not allow our ambassadors to dabble in their internal affairs. Why are we allowing them to behave the way they do in Africa, especially their recent behaviour here? Why?

Mugabe: Well, we don’t allow them but they assume that because they represent big countries, therefore they have the right to dictate anything to us, even the right to play the hypocritical game with us. If you look at the stance they adopted, they were there with Tsvangirai and those they regarded as victims on Tsvangirai’s side, but they were never there with victims on our side, and that is the people who had been petrol-bombed or beaten up by MDC thugs who were in hospital. They never visited them.

They took food to Tsvangirai and the others in hospital, the ambassadors carried the food themselves to Tsvangirai and his people, but they wouldn’t do the same to those injured on our side. So there you are, we don’t trust them. They are just a bunch of hypocrites. It is as if they come from a very dark continent where hedonism is still the order of the day. They like to talk of Christianity as having been established in Europe, but they don’t practice it any more.

Baffour: Are there any concrete sanctions that your government could take against such diplomatic misbehaviour, because I think the Geneva Conventions do not allow such behaviour by diplomats in the domestic affairs of countries to which they are accredited.

Mugabe: Well, yes. We have read them the riot act, and if they continue to do that, we will certainly kick them out of the country. It doesn’t matter who it is. If America wants a man like Christopher Dell [their ambassador] to remain here, then he’s got to behave because we will not brook further nonsense from him.

Baffour: Everywhere else, when a country is under siege by foreign powers, as Zimbabwe now is, the opposition closes ranks with the government and fight the siege together. In Zimbabwe, it is the other way round. Have you tried to get your opposition to sit down and think this through?

Mugabe: The opposition is an extension of imperialism, they are agents of imperialism; they are not home-grown opposition people, they were put together as an opposition package by the British, the three parties in Britain – the Labour Party, Conservative Party and the Liberal-Democrats – established the Westminster Foundation Fund, and it was on the strength of that fund that the MDC was formed. They chose the leaders, and they had to come from the labour movement. Tsvangirai became the president of the new movement, and they took Welshman Ncube from the university to become secretary-general. But now they have split into two, and we think they can even split into four, and like the amoeba go on multiplying until they come to nothing.

Baffour: Do you think they are incorrigible because they are agents of imperialism?

Mugabe: I think the Tsvangirai’s side is the one which is just incorrigible, completely incorrigible. They don’t know what politics means really. That in politics, it is not just the negative and the negative and the negative that you go by, there must be positive acts, and but no, as far as they are concerned, would not deal with the government, they would not recognize President Mugabe and so on. Why have they adopted this negative attitude? Because that’s what their masters tell them to do. That is precisely what Blair does. He would not talk to me; he would run away from me as if I am a man-eater.

Baffour: He would not shake your hand.

Mugabe: [Laughs]. He won’t shake my hand.

Baffour: But Jack Straw, when he was foreign secretary, once shook your hand.

Mugabe: Well, he shook my hand by mistake and he regretted it. I don’t know how many times he had to wash his hands after that. [Laughs].

Baffour: Coming back to the opposition, the SADC says dialogue is the best way out. Are both sides ready to give dialogue a serious chance this time around?

Mugabe: Dialogue with people who wouldn’t dialogue? We have been open to dialogue, in fact, with my permission, the government has been in dialogue with those in the MDC who, before the split, wanted to have dialogue with the government, Welshman Ncube and others, and they have been talking about the way forward, and what they regard on their side as areas of constitution that need amending. In 2000, we put forward a draft constitution which they rejected, and now they want that document reinstated, to become the constitution of the country. And we are saying “no, you rejected it, we put it to the people and the vote was lost by 1,000. And that’s it.” Yes, constitutional amendments can be proposed certainly, because we too would like to see certain amendments; we want to enhance the composition of our parliament, we want also to harmonise the holding of presidential and parliamentary elections, and in the process reduce the presidential term from six years to five years. And we have agreed that elections must be held next year, because the current presidential term ends next year. So we will combine the presidential and parliamentary elections which we used to hold separately.

Baffour: There are reports saying that the MDC is not quite ready for the elections next year.

Mugabe: Ready or not ready, we will have elections next year. Mind you, it is the prerogative of the president to call elections any time. But in this particular case, a presidential election is constitutionally due in March or soon after March, because the current presidential term ends in March. So we must go to elections then. If they are not quite ready, well, hard luck. They must get ready. In politics you must stay ready.

Baffour: What if they come and say, “we are not ready, can we please have the elections some time after next year?”

Mugabe: So you are not ready and you think in politics we wait for you, to enable you to take your time? It is when we judge that you are not ready, and we can take advantage of your unprepared, that we perform best, isn’t it? These are tricks of electioneering and it’s done all over. But anyway in this particular case, they knew that the presidential election was due in March next year – they have had six years to prepare, surely they must be able to do something!

Baffour: Now they are talking about a new constitution – their major bone of contention is a new constitution – and they say you cannot write a new constitution and get it approved by the people between now and March next year.

Mugabe: But you can’t just conceive a constitution, who are you? The majority of the people support the ruling party, that’s why we are ruling, and the majority of the people have not demanded a new constitution. However, the government is prepared to offer amendments if the opposition want amendments to the constitution. We will discuss them in the context of what we ourselves are proffering.

Baffour: So you are saying a fresh constitution is out of the question?

Mugabe: Out of the question, certainly! Our current constitution has undergone various amendments and there is no way a fresh constitution can be written between now and March. The opposition must have a mandate from the people for that kind of thing to happen, and they haven’t got it. They are a minority party and they can’t call the tune.

Baffour: Did it shock you when you heard Prof. Arthur Mutambara, the leader of the other MDC faction, say at a press conference in Harare in reaction to the SADC summit, that (his exact words were) “the transformation of the police into a criminal, sadistic, brutal force is worse than anything we ever saw under the [Ian] Smith regime”?

Mugabe: Of course that’s rubbish, pure rubbish! The Smith regime killed, imprisoned, and kidnapped people; they bombed and thousands died. We have treated them with kid-gloves really. You cannot continue to tease the police and lure them in the way they have done, and expect them not to take action against you. They have been very patient, our police, to tell the truth. They have been very, very patient with them. And so Mutambara’s remarks are quite ill-placed. Of course they are political remarks.

Baffour: Talking about kid-gloves, it is interesting that in Zimbabwe the more you bring out the kid-gloves, the more international community paints you as a despot, some have even called you a Hitler.

Mugabe: I was Hitler from even before independence in 1980 because of the party I belong to. We were fighting the whites and it was not Smith the Hitler, it was we who were fighting the Hitlerite system who were called Hitlers.

Baffour: Talking about the party you be long to, Zanu PF, in 2002, at our very first interview, you said if the party found a successor, you would retire and go and write your books. You have since won one presidential election and have just been nominated for another one. Does it mean the party has not yet found a successor? And for how long can you go on?

Mugabe: Well, for as long as I can go and for as long as the party wishes me to go. That’s the combination. And if the party says stand, it means the party has not found a successor. We will find a successor in due course.

Baffour: We hear stories about divisions in Zanu PF, and about some within the party having allied themselves with the British and so on. So, what really is going on in the party?

Mugabe: The party is very united, and you heard voices outside the country, especially in Britain, talking of a central committee that was going to be the nemesis of this man, Mugabe. They were going to deal with him. But they did not deal with me, they dealt with the British.

Baffour: So the stories about the divisions in the party are not true?

Mugabe: Well, you get points of view which may be opposed, and that’s what you get in any political grouping, it happens everywhere. It’s a healthy point of view. But there are no divisions in Zanu PF of the nature that really worries the party. You may get an individual who deviates here and there in terms of his outlook because he has become more materialistic. Yes, you get all that, but these things happen everywhere. But the main body of the party is very solid.

Baffour: So all these stories about coups and people planning coups are just fantasies?

Mugabe: Oh come on, we are talking of a country with an army that has established its name, and not only have we fought against the Rhodesians here, we have gone to secure the Mozambican issue you remember, we’ve also been to various other places, to DRCongo and so on, and two of our commanders were chosen by the UN to command its forces in Angola. It is a solid and well trained army, they are very professional. Talking of a coup is just trying to suggest that they should think of a coup but they will dismiss it as nonsense and completely unbecoming.

Baffour: The opposition newspapers have been reporting that your “exit plan strategy” is to increase the seats in parliament, so that after you are re-elected next year, you will then resign after a few months or so, or at least within a year, and then use the expanded parliament (which will act as an electoral college under the new constitutional proposals), to appoint a successor of your choice. Is that really the game plan?

Mugabe: [Laughs]. No, that’s how people make judgments on certain proposals we’ve put forward. But we are not looking at things that way. A successor will come but not as a product of an enhanced parliament. We want to increase the membership of parliament because we feel that it is long overdue and some of our constituencies are far too large, especially the rural ones, they cannot be covered by one person that easily. This is all it amounts to.

And of course we also feel that time has now come, we are 27 years old as an independent country, and we have had 150 members in the lower house of parliament for quite a long period, and since we are looking at putting up a new parliament house, it should be designed not with 150 in mind but 210. That’s how we are looking at the future.

Baffour: The Catholic Bishops issued a pastoral letter on Easter Sunday criticizing your government. You are a Catholic yourself, were you in church?

Mugabe: Well, I was away then. I arrived on Easter Sunday morning.

Baffour: So you didn’t hear the criticism leveled against you and your government?

Mugabe: No, no, not in church. If I had gone to church and the priest had read that so-called pastoral letter, I would have stood up and said nonsense. It is not something spiritual, it is not religious, the bishops have decided to turn political. And once they turn political, we regard them as no longer being spiritual, and our relations with them would be conducted as if we are dealing with political entities, and this is quite a dangerous path they have chosen for themselves.

I am going to talk to some of them. As for Pius Ncube [the archbishop of Bulawayo], he has long been a lost bishop, he thinks he is close to God, that’s why he says he is praying for me to die. But unfortunately God has not listened to him for all this duration. I don’t know how many times a day he is saying that prayer: “Please God, take that man Robert Mugabe away from us”.

I have said it once at a Catholic gathering that being a bishop does not place one next to God, nor does it make one a chosen person for sainthood. No. A bishop can go to hell while an ordinary person goes to heaven depending on the character of the person. Well, I don’t want to say much about the bishops now, I will say much when I meet them.

But for our bishops, this is a sad, sad story. The whole of this pastoral letter is political nonsense. If you read it, there is no reference at all to what has actually led to our current situation. Yes granted, they refer to the hardships that our people are going through. Yes, there are hardships, but tell me even with these hardships we have maintained a solid educational system, a solid health system, yes there are shortages of drugs, but we’ve tried to maintain our population together.

The droughts are not caused by bad governance, it’s the mercies of the Good Lord that we would be lacking in those days of drought. And when we have droughts, we have never allowed our people to die, never!

We have said the church and state must work hand in hand, but if this is going to be the partner that the Catholics want us to have, then obviously they must know that we will reciprocate as politicians.

Baffour: Talking about the droughts reminds me of the economic sanctions imposed by the West on your country. For a long time, your government played down the effects of the sanctions. Now the cat is out of the bag. So tell me, what is the real impact of sanctions on Zimbabwe? There are people out there who don’t believe that there are any sanctions imposed on your country.

Mugabe: The sanctions have had tremendous impact on us. Mind you when we took over in 1980, our economy was aligned to the West. And most of the fertile lands was in the hands of the Europeans as well as the manufacturing and mining sectors.

We differ with Blair and Blair decides to fight us using political, diplomatic and economic instruments. He doesn’t talk about the difference between us as being the land issue and the compensation from Britain that they have dishonoured.

No, he refers to good governance, human rights, rule of law. He then persuades the members of the European Union to think in the same way. And they agree, after being persuaded by Britain to do so, to impose sanctions on Zimbabwe, and they say these are “personal sanctions” targeted at the leadership.

This is rubbish. But in the meantime what do they do? They influence other countries to cut their economic ties with us. In other words, the soft loans, grants and investments that were coming our way, start decreasing and in some cases actually petering out.

Then they interfere even with our friends in the East and try to persuade them to reduce their relations with us. In some cases, they do stupid things like intercepting ships carrying fuel destined for Zimbabwe. They say “we will pay you 50% more if you divert this fuel from Zimbabwe and sell it to us”. That has happened, they’ve done so. They have also approached India, China and other countries…

Baffour: [cuts in]. These are the British?

Mugabe: The British, they are doing it quietly.

Baffour: And they are the same people who are saying you are a bad manager of the economy?

Mugabe: Yes, yes! They have done that quietly and they are still doing it. Apart from that they have imposed a ban on spare parts for us. There are no spare parts, they say, for our weapons, planes and other machinery that we had bought from them in the past. And these are spare parts we need for our industries, factories and mines.

The Americans are even more blatant about the economic sanctions. They imposed the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act which passed into law in December 2001, which effectively imposed stringent economic sanctions on us.

They then went on to interfere with the international financial institutions; so that even though we have paid our debts to the IMF, they still say the IMF should not give us the balance of payment support that we deserve. And even though we are members of the World Bank, and we have complied with their rules, they have also imposed sanctions against us.

Then the signals to the rest of the world that Zimbabwe is under sanctions, that rings bells and countries that would want to invest in Zimbabwe are being very cautious. They say “ah, we can’t go to this country”. And we are being dragged through the mud every day on CNN, BBC, Sky News, and they are saying to these potential investors, “your investment will not be safe in Zimbabwe, the British farmers have lost their land, and your investment will go the same way”. Pure rubbish, but these messages ring bells in the minds of even our friends. And so the sanctions have wreaked quite some havoc on our economy.

But when we noticed that this was the situation, we looked at our own friends in developing world, and we adopted the Look East Policy – we said “fine, let’s deal with the East; we are now happy that we are getting some investments from there”. We have also looked at ourselves and said, “we are fighting a war, let’s use our own resources as judiciously as we can. We have good agriculture; we may not have good rainy seasons all the time, but when we have them, let’s produce abundantly, and help our farmers”. We have been sustaining our farmers as best we can, especially the small farmer, with seeds and other inputs. We will continue to do that, and also to our manufacturing and mining sectors. Fortunately we have natural resources, lots of minerals in the ground, and we are tapping these resources. Though we would want to have huge volumes of foreign currency which would enable us to get back to where we were, but as they drip in, we live from hand to mouth.

But the situation is much better. We have organized ourselves, we talk to various groups in industry, and even to the workers and are trying to get a social contract in place. We are happy that the majority of the workers do listen, and do want a social contract. The employers are also willing. So we are moving forward in this united way. We are working on an economic turnaround programme, and I think it is working.

Baffour: I was going to ask you about the way forward, but you have covered the ground with that answer. So let me ask you my last question. What message do you have for the constituency outside Zimbabwe – the African diasporic communities around the world who may have become disillusioned after seeing the TV footage of Morgan Tsvangirai & Co beaten up by the police?

Mugabe: The message is that when they are affected by events of that nature, they should always talk to us, and even visit us. If they don’t have means, we will provide the means for them to come and study the situation, understand it and get to know what really would have happened. If they had come, I would have taken them to see the victims of Tsvangirai’s thugs, what they did to the police and innocent people who are now in hospital or just been discharged from hospital. The house they destroyed, the petrol bombs they have thrown, and the damage they have wreaked by these petrol bombs, and what the police have since discovered – the arms, the training abroad, and so on.

All these things are going to be revealed in court. If our friends in the Diaspora came here, we would expose them to this knowledge, and they would be able to judge things for themselves. Yes, here and there, they might say, “oh, the police were guilty of excesses”, but I think on the whole the police acted correctly.


Please credit www.kubatana.net if you make use of material from this website. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License unless stated otherwise.