• Mugabe due in Geneva for UN summit despite travel ban
• Blair: Zimbabwe expulsion a victory for Commonwealth
• Editorial: Mugabe's Opt-Out
• Mbeki to release statement on Zimbabwe
• 'Mugabe has defecated on this nation'
• Mugabe to discuss cyber society
• African body slams Commonwealth
• Commonwealth struggles to show united front as summit ends
• What’s the Commonwealth for?
• South African Communist Delegation Travels to Zimbabwe
• Tony Blair: Commonwealth summit statement in full
• Mugabe has no intention of negotiating a democratic solution to present crisis
• Kenya asks Zimbabwe to reconsider
• Mugabe's mouthpiece: Kick Britain out of Zimbabwe
• Mugabe to attack whites at UN talks
• Obasanjo in pledge to seek reconciliation with Harare
• Obasanjo blasts Howard
• President Mugabe On War Path
• Accept Constructive Criticism
• Vanity reason for Mugabe pull out
• Government compromising public education
• ANALYSIS-Commonwealth pullout seen slowing Zimbabwe reforms
• MDC 'will bring Zimbabwe back'

      Copyright © 2003, Dow Jones Newswires

   (From THE WALL STREET JOURNAL EUROPE) Get-togethers of Commonwealth heads
of government were, frankly, becoming a bit of a bore until Robert Mugabe
livened things up by resigning. Why anyone was surprised at Zimbabwe's
withdrawal is a mystery. But that it was so controversial speaks to the
bigger problems facing this old-world club of Britain and many (though not
all) of its former colonies.

      After years of dithering over how to deal with Mr. Mugabe's land
confiscations and violent rule, the 54-nation Commonwealth finally decided
to suspend Zimbabwe's membership in 2002. The issue has divided the
organization ever since, with South African President Thabo Mbeki pushing to
end Zimbabwe's suspension and winning support from some other (though by no
means all) African leaders.

      It was left to Australian Prime Minister John Howard, British Prime
Minister Tony Blair and Commonwealth Secretary General Don McKinnon (a
former New Zealand foreign minister) to insist the suspension be upheld. The
Commonwealth tried one last time to appease Mr. Mugabe, nominating Nigeria's
President Olusegun Obasanjo to take over the role of chief negotiator from
Mr. McKinnon, who is hated in Harare. But the Zimbabwean leader wasn't
mollified by that gesture. "This is it. Zimbabwe quits and quits it will
be," he reportedly said.

      Had the ouster happened earlier -- or been initiated by the
Commonwealth itself -- it might have left time during this meeting for
discussion of important trade matters or human rights issues and salvaged
some dignity for an organization that seems to have lost sight of its raison
d'etre. Instead, the meeting was dominated by hand-wringing over Zimbabwe
and in the end, it was Mr. Mugabe who pulled the plug.

      At least this move destroyed the fiction, assiduously preserved by Mr.
Mbeki, that nogotiations with Mr. Mugabe could somehow lead anywhere. Why
would a dictator who has no compunction about brutalizing his own people,
ruining his economy and inviting starvation be swayed by the entreaties of
an organization keen for his company and which threatens nothing more than
finger-wagging and a torn-up membership card?

      Promoting the common good of the members of this organization is its
ostensible reason for being and in places such as Nigeria, the Commonwealth,
with the Queen at the symbolic center, is still regarded as carrying weight.
But the way to help Zimbabweans and others suffering from dictatorships is
never appeasement. Unless it can show more backbone against the kinds of
abuses Robert Mugabe has made a career out of, the Commonwealth will have
little clout, and offer little hope, to those who look to it most for
support.
      (END) Dow Jones Newswires

      December 09, 2003 00:30 ET (05:30 GMT)

      By Basildon Peta

Zimbabweans fear President Robert Mugabe's decision to pull out of the
Commonwealth will worsen their plight and pave the way for more repressive
measures.

"The decision means there is no end in sight for our suffering - it means
more sanctions and suffering," said Charity Charidza, who has been laid off
from her clerical job at a commercial bank.

"I think Zimbabwe has everything to lose from getting out of the
Commonwealth, while the Commonwealth has nothing to lose."

Mugabe announced late on Sunday that he was pulling Zimbabwe out of the
Commonwealth. This followed Commonwealth leaders' decision to extend
Zimbabwe's suspension, imposed for electoral irregularities and human rights
abuses.

The suspension decision was opposed by some African leaders, including
President Thabo Mbeki.

Tafadzwa Muchagonei, a Harare city council employee, said he feared there
would be more repression as Mugabe would lash out at his opponents in
revenge for his humiliation at the Commonwealth summit in Nigeria.

"We heard the Commonwealth was trying to put in place some mechanism to help
us out of our problems," said Muchagonei. "The decision to pull out means
everything falls apart and we will be the biggest losers in the end."

Many Zimbabweans believe Mugabe is playing to the African gallery, at cost
to his nation.

"(Mugabe) is playing games at our expense," said Muchagonei. "He wants to
showcase himself as a great African who can fight white people whom he
blames for his troubles in the Commonwealth. But how is that going to help
us?"

Peter Mundoza, a mechanic, said he was too angry to comment on Mugabe's
decision.

"(Mugabe) has defecated on this nation for a long time. It is high time he
was stopped... He has put us in this position where we can't think of
anything except how to survive from day to day... How can I be worried about
commenting on his move?"

Peter Chitsva, a former teacher who has moved here from Zimbabwe and is
making a living by making and selling crafts and stone sculptures, believes
Mugabe's decision is a "huge non-event".

He had become used to Mugabe's taking bizarre decisions that destroyed his
country, he said. Withdrawing from the Commonwealth would not put food on
his table.

"All I know is that the suffering will continue as long as Mugabe remains
with us," Chitsva said.

"The only statement to do with Mugabe that I shall pay attention to is one
announcing his departure from power... That day will be my Christmas."

Joshua Rusere, a Zimbabwean political exile here, was angry that Mugabe had
chosen to pull out of the Commonwealth, denying the organisation the
opportunity to expel him for his dismal human rights record.

"It would have sent a strong signal to Mugabe if he had been expelled by the
Commonwealth. It's unfortunate that Commonwealth leaders are pleading with
him to stay in the club instead of saying good riddance."

Other Zimbabweans said it was likely more repression would follow Mugabe's
decision to pull out.

Mugabe would have nothing to lose as he would no longer have to implement
democratic reforms to satisfy Commonwealth members and gain readmission,
they said.

Unconfirmed information on Monday was that Mugabe intended to target the
remaining whites in Zimbabwe as part of his revenge tactics.

A farmer, who declined to be named, said he had received information that
the remaining white farmers would be driven off their land.

Of about 4 500 white farmers before the controversial land seizures began,
only about 400 remain.

Mugabe had been confident he would be able to attend the Commonwealth heads
of government meeting and was upset when Nigeria's President Olusegun
Obasanjo decided not to invite him.

Many Zimbabweans think it was this humiliation that prompted him to pull
out, although he claimed his decision was based on principle.

The opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) said that the decision
to withdraw was unconstitutional.

The MDC's secretary-general, Welshman Ncube, said Mugabe had not consulted
his cabinet and this was in violation of Zimbabwe's constitution.

Mugabe's supporters have hailed the decision.

"We should pull out from all bodies dominated by white countries and focus
on encouraging the development of black institutions like the African
Union," a so-called war veteran, Alwed Matanda, said. "We could even
encourage the formation of the equivalent of a United Nations for black
countries."

British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said Mugabe's decision was "entirely in
character, sadly".

"I think it's a decision he and the Zimbabwean people will come to
regret." - Foreign Service

  .. This article was originally published on page 5 of The Cape Times on
December 09, 2003

Commonwealth struggles to show united front as summit ends

From Michael Dynes in Abuja

The Commonwealth struggled yesterday to maintain its unity in the face of
the whirlwind unleashed by Zimbabwe’s unilateral withdrawal from the
54-member body of former British colonies. As the heads of government summit
in Nigeria ended, southern African leaders said that the decision to extend
Zimbabwe’s suspension indefinitely had been demanded by Western members who
had little understanding of Africa. "We are unhappy because we cannot accept
these undemocratic procedures," President Chissano of Mozambique, who is
head of the African Union, said. "We are going to express this as a group."
He rebuked Britain, Australia and New Zealand for adopting "pressure and
punishment" tactics against President Mugabe, while southern African
countries had been striving to coax Zimbabwe back into the democratic fold.
President Mwanawasa of Zambia said: "The Western countries bulldozed the
suspension of Zimbabwe partly because of their economic muscle. I am very
disappointed. We leave Abuja more divided than when we arrived." Jack Straw,
the Foreign Secretary, said that Mr Mugabe would regret his decision to
leave the Commonwealth, but added: "President Mugabe will not be there for
ever and other countries have been out of the Commonwealth - including
Nigeria for a period - and come back. I look forward to the time when
Zimbabwe has a democratic government and is back in the Commonwealth."

Mr Mugabe declared his intention to withdraw after being formally told by
President Obasanjo of Nigeria that Zimbabwe’s 20-month suspension had been
extended without limit because of its persistent record of human rights
abuses. The announcement came as little surprise to the summit. Mr Obasanjo
had been in constant touch with Mr Mugabe throughout the four-day gathering
and had told him in advance that an extension of the suspension was the most
likely outcome. Mr Mugabe had told Mr Obasanjo that if that was the case, he
would have no choice but to withdraw. Mr Chissano said that Britain,
Australia and Don McKinnon, the Commonwealth Secretary-General, had shown
little understanding of the struggle by African countries to build democracy
after having emerged only recently from the rule of "abject racialist
states".

But Mr Chissano was himself the target of a veiled reprimand from Mr
Obasanjo, who rejected the criticism that the Commonwealth’s decision had
been "undemocratic". The six-member committee set up to deal with Zimbabwe
had arrived at its decision by consensus. "In a situation like this,
consensus means you may not always get your own way," Mr Obasanjo said. He
said that he had pleaded with Mr Mugabe to stay in the Commonwealth. "But Mr
Mugabe, rightly or wrongly, felt that there were no grounds for extending
its suspension," Mr Obasanjo said. "That’s how he felt. I tried to let him
know that whatever he feels, which I understand, he should try to let the
Commonwealth assist him." The Zimbabwean opposition Movement for Democratic
Change said that Mr Mugabe’s response was to be expected. "We all knew that
he would react in a kneejerk manner," Paul Themba Nyathi, its spokesman,
said. "After all, this is a man who specialises in the destruction of his
own country."

What’s the Commonwealth for?

Robert Mugabe has angrily withdrawn Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth. If the
club of mostly former British colonies cannot encourage or enforce democracy
in its own members, then what is it for?

In a new twist on Groucho Marx’s adage - that he would not like to be a
member of a club that would have him as a member - Robert Mugabe has angrily
withdrawn Zimbabwe’s membership of the Commonwealth. The move came in
response to developments at the weekend, when the club of mainly former
British colonies decided at its summit in the Nigerian capital, Abuja, to
continue the southern African country’s suspension indefinitely. Zimbabwe
had been suspended last year following a presidential election marred by
violence and vote-rigging. Despite all the evidence that things have got
worse, not better, Zimbabwe’s Commonwealth neighbours in southern Africa had
lobbied for its reinstatement at the summit. But they failed in this, and in
a linked attempt to unseat Don McKinnon, the Commonwealth’s
secretary-general and a New Zealander, whom they see as a representative of
what they call the "white" Commonwealth. But if the Commonwealth cannot even
agree on the suspension of a country that has so egregiously departed from
the club’s avowed aims of democracy and human rights, then what purpose does
it serve?

The Commonwealth is indeed an odd creature. It is largely, though not
purely, the remnants of Britain’s empire, which once covered a quarter of
the world’s land surface. Zimbabwe’s withdrawal leaves the club with 53
members - including Australia, Canada, India, Nigeria and South Africa as
well as Britain - bound together in a voluntary association. When the term
"commonwealth" was first used, in the 1920s, it was a means of preserving
ties without the unpleasant colonial overtones that the word "empire"
contained. The second world war, and in particular the fall of Singapore in
1942, made it clear that Britain could no longer defend the empire, and
removed much of the mystique of Britain’s power. During the 1950s and 1960s,
the Commonwealth was one of the vehicles through which Britain could manage
the decolonisation of countries it could no longer afford to govern or
defend (most of which also happened to be hungering after independence). For
the former colonies, there were tangible benefits. Britain had special trade
arrangements that favoured, for example, the bananas from its former
Caribbean dominions over those from Central America. Commonwealth nationals
had the right to migrate to Britain - and many did. Commonwealth citizens
who come to live in Britain still enjoy certain voting privileges over other
foreigners, even over citizens of other European Union (EU) countries.

However, many of these benefits have diminished in the 30 years since
Britain joined the predecessor to the EU. One of the EU’s main purposes is
to be a regional free-trade zone, and Britain is now prohibited from
granting its former colonies special privileges. Britain’s immigration rules
have tightened up too, and most Commonwealth citizens now have special
rights only if they already have relatives in Britain. The Commonwealth
Business Council, a body funded by the club, insists that there are still
significant trade and investment benefits. A spokesman asserts that a shared
language (English is the first or second language throughout the
Commonwealth), common-law tradition and accounting conventions deliver a
"10-15% increase in efficiency in dealing with [other] Commonwealth
[members]". This effect might not be as nebulous as it sounds. Some
economists point to a difference between common-law and civil-law economies.
Above all, the Commonwealth defines its purpose largely in civil-society
terms: the promotion of democracy, human rights and sustainable economic and
social development. In Britain, it seems to have a different significance
for different people. Traditionalists like the link with the lost empire.
Others think that the Commonwealth is a modern interpretation of Rudyard
Kipling’s view that the colonies were the "white man’s burden" - that the
West, in short, has a responsibility to civilise the developing world. Some
on the left see the club as an unwanted relic, while others argue that it is
a way for Britain to atone for its colonial sins and to offer practical help
in the fraught process of democratisation.

Supporters of the Commonwealth also point out that there are some beneficial
cultural links for the former colonies. Britain’s universities retain strong
links with Commonwealth countries, and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office,
Britain’s foreign ministry, runs internship programmes, such as the
Chevening Scholarship for Indian journalists, that are biased towards
Commonwealth nationals. Moreover, though some criticise the Commonwealth for
being little more than a talking shop, it is a talking shop that poor
countries (Zimbabwe apart) seem to like. For former colonies, it is the most
important global organisation that the United States does not dominate. And
though Britain’s Queen Elizabeth is the head of the Commonwealth, Britain
has no special status. Indeed, Tony Blair, Britain’s prime minister, who had
been disgusted at the idea that Zimbabwe’s suspension might be lifted,
expressed his frustration that all votes at the Commonwealth have to be
unanimous - Britain and its anti-Mugabe allies could not pull rank. It is
one of the few international bodies in which a tiny country like St Lucia
has the same standing as G7 members like Britain and Canada. Individuals
join clubs because of the people they will rub shoulders with. Why should
heads of government, and the countries they represent, be any different

South Africa's small but influential Communist Party has sent a delegation
to Zimbabwe to meet political, social and economic leaders. The South
African Communist Party has been a vocal critic of human rights abuses in
Zimbabwe, particularly those against labor leaders.
Jeremy Cronin, secretary general of the South African Communist Party leads
the party's first official visit to Zimbabwe. He has met with members of the
ruling Zanu PF party, the opposition Movement for Democratic Change, trade
unions and other civic organizations.

The membership of Zimbabwe's trade unions has been decimated in recent years
as hundreds of thousands of workers, particularly farm workers, have lost
their jobs in the country's ongoing economic crisis.

South Africa's communist party, which is part of the country's ruling
alliance, has been a consistent critic of human rights abuses by Zimbabwe's
President Robert Mugabe.

Over the past four years, the South African communists have often displeased
South Africa's ruling African National Congress in its criticism of Mr.
Mugabe in neighboring Zimbabwe.

The ANC government's policy on Zimbabwe has been what it describes as quiet
diplomacy, opposing overt criticism of Mr. Mugabe and his policies and
standing behind him diplomatically in international forums, such as the
Commonwealth, a grouping of mostly British former colonies.

While criticizing Mr. Mugabe for human rights abuses, the South African
communist party is also critical of Zimbabwe's opposition party, the MDC,
for failing to offer a coherent political program.

The MDC itself says it has spent the last six months consulting with its
followers and writing policy documents. The package of MDC program is to be
presented to the members at the end of this month.

            Nigeria itself only returned to the Commonwealth in 1999, after
a turbulent period of military rule. The Queen's visit, and the holding of
the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting there, underlines the progress
made since then in rebuilding a democratic and prosperous Nigeria. Britain
is committed to supporting the reform programme led by President Obasanjo,
for whose chairmanship of the Summit I gave sincere congratulations. In a
difficult situation he managed matters with great skill.

            Commonwealth Heads of Government last met in Coolum, Australia,
in March 2002. At Abuja, we reviewed developments since then. We agreed on
the urgent need to relaunch the world trade talks which stalled at Cancun in
September, and underlined our collective commitment to a successful Doha
Development Round.

            That commitment is significant. The Commonwealth represents
one-third of the world's population; developing and developed countries;
large and small states; and agricultural, service and manufacturing-based ec
onomies. All have different perspectives and interests.

            The fact that all of us agreed on the need to relaunch the Doha
Development Round, and on the need for all parties to show flexibility in
the search for agreement, shows that a global deal is possible. Everyone
will gain if the talks succeed, but the biggest winners will be the world's
poor. And if the talks fail, they will be the biggest losers too.

            We discussed other development issues. Heads of Government
agreed on the need to accelerate progress to meet the Millennium Development
Goals, which aim to halve the proportion of people living in poverty by
2015. I reaffirmed the UK's own strong commitment to that goal.

            Heads of Government also underlined their concern at the spread
of HIV/AIDS. It now threatens not only Africa, but increasingly Asia and
other parts of the world. Three million people will die of the virus this
year alone. Two in three people infected live in Commonwealth countries. It
poses one of the gravest threats to sustainable development.

            We agreed on the need to redouble our efforts to fight this
threat. Britain is playing its full part, including through our own Call For
Action on World Aids Day, and we are now the second-largest bilateral donor
in the world on HIV/AIDS, after the USA. Our bilateral aid amounted to more
than £270 million in 2002/03 alone, a real demonstration of commitment on
behalf of the people and Government of Britain.

            The last Commonwealth Summit was postponed following the
terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001. Since then the terrorists have
continued their indiscriminate campaign. We agreed in Abuja that terrorism
threatens everyone, regardless of nationality or faith; and that all
Commonwealth members would stand together to meet and defeat this challenge.

            The meeting considered the situation in the two countries that
have been suspended from the Councils of the Commonwealth: Pakistan and
Zimbabwe. On Pakistan, Heads of Government welcomed the progress made back
towards democratic governance. They expressed the hope that the Pakistan
Parliament would soon pass the necessary measures to allow the lifting of
Pakistan's suspension.

            Where Pakistan has moved forward since Commonwealth leaders last
met, Zimbabwe has gone backwards. The country was suspended from the
Commonwealth in March 2002, shortly after elections, which the
Commonwealth's own observers concluded were neither free nor fair.

            Since then there has been more violence and intimidation against
the opposition MDC; against lawyers and human rights activists; indeed
against anyone speaking up against President Mugabe's oppressive policies.
Zimbabwe's only independent daily newspaper, The Daily News, has been closed
down, despite court orders in its favour.

            Meanwhile, ZANU-PF's ruinous economic policies are driving the
country further and further into chaos. Inflation is over 500%. Zimbabwe's
GDP has halved in five years. The IMF decided last week to begin procedures
to expel Zimbabwe, due to its appalling economic policies. Half of the
population now needs food aid. Britain remains the leading cash donor for
the UN's humanitarian programmes in Zimbabwe. In the last two years, we have
given $100 million in food aid.

            In these circumstances I and others argued that it was
inconceivable that Zimbabwe should be readmitted to the Councils of the
Commonwealth; and that on the contrary it should remain suspended until we
saw concrete evidence of a return to democracy, respect for human rights and
the rule of law - the very principles on which the Commonwealth is founded.

            I am glad to say that this approach was agreed. It was decided
that Zimbabwe should indeed remain suspended from the Councils of the
Commonwealth; that President Obasanjo as Chairman in Office together with
the Commonwealth Secretary General will seek to facilitate progress inside
Zimbabwe; and that if sufficient progress is made on the issues of concern
he will report, via a representative group of six Commonwealth members, to
Heads of Government. Heads will revisit the issue in the light of that
report, and take any decision on the lifting of the suspension by consensus.

            This is the outcome we wanted. It is also the outcome President
Mugabe worked assiduously to avoid. It gives the lie to one of his most
outrageous claims - that the Commonwealth's approach to Zimbabwe is a white
conspiracy led by the UK against black Africans. The fact is that every
single Commonwealth member signed up to the Abuja Statement on Zimbabwe -
including the other 19 African members of the Commonwealth, despite the
strongly held doubts of some of those countries.

            Nor did any African member of the Commonwealth take up Mr
Mugabe's invitation to boycott the Summit meeting. The outcome in Abuja was
hard fought, but in the end a victory for Commonwealth values.

            Mr Mugabe's reaction - to withdraw Zimbabwe from the
Commonwealth - shows clearly that he does not accept Commonwealth
principles. It was a decision taken without regard for the wishes or
wellbeing of the Zimbabwean people. ZANU(PF)'s isolation will be increased.
But the strong bonds that exist between the Zimbabwean people and the rest
of the Commonwealth remain. There will always be a place for a democratic
Zimbabwe in the Commonwealth.

            The Summit also re-elected the present Commonwealth
Secretary-General, Don McKinnon, for a second and final four-year term. We
welcome that outcome. The Secretary General has done an excellent job in his
first term. He will continue to have our full support in his second.

            Finally, I participated at the Commonwealth sports breakfast. We
looked back to Manchester's successful hosting of the last Commonwealth
Games in 2002, and forward to the next in Melbourne in 2006. I highlighted
the UK's future sporting priorities.

            At this Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting a group of more
than fifty countries came together to discuss the issues that matter most to
their peoples - prosperity, security, sustainable development, the fight
against terror - and agreed a common approach on all, in the interests of
all.

            They discussed more controversial issues like Zimbabwe, where it
is no secret that there were and remain a range of differing views among
member states. But here too, through serious discussion and debate, the
Commonwealth was able to reach a consensus on the way forward. I commend the
outcome to the House."

      OPINION PIECE: SOUTH African President Thabo Mbeki in a recent State
visit to Canada assured Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien that talks
were taking place in Zimbabwe between the Mugabe regime and the opposition
MDC and that a settlement was likely soon.

      These comments follow similar confident assurances given by President
Mbeki to President George Bush when he visited South Africa in July.

      These assertions are not new. President Mbeki first commenced his
policy of “quiet diplomacy” in April 2000 following the first brutal murders
committed earlier that same month by the Mugabe regime against the
opposition in the run up to the 2000 Parliamentary elections.

      Since then he has repeatedly stated that this policy was the best way
of resolving the crisis in Zimbabwe.

      The MDC has stated repeatedly since July that whilst there have in the
past been a few informal discussions with elements of the Mugabe regime no
agreement has been reached.

      In fact since President Bush’s visit no discussions or talks of any
description have taken place. The Mugabe regime itself has issued similar
denials about the so-called progress of the talks about talks.

      The only person who persistently insists that talks are taking place,
that agreement has almost been reached and that a settlement is imminent, is
President Mbeki.

      Whilst one doesn’t wish to question President Mbeki’s good faith one
wonders what sort of intelligence he is receiving. What does he know that we
don’t know?

      Has he been advised of something that even the head of our dialogue
team, Hon Professor Welshman Ncube doesn’t know? The South Africans counter
these denials from both parties as coyness on their part – in other words
part of their negotiating strategy and, accordingly, untrue.

      So what in fact is happening?

      In answering this question it is instructive to draw a comparison
between what is taking place in Zimbabwe today and what happened in South
Africa after the release of Nelson Mandela and the commencement of the
Codesa talks which led to the end of apartheid and the first democratic
elections in 1994.

      Whilst there were major setbacks and a continuation of violent
actions, including those perpetrated by a third force, President FW De Klerk
did ensure that an environment was created to facilitate discussions.

      Codesa itself was conducted in a relatively transparent fashion and
the general public was at least aware of its existence and what progress was
being made.

      In other words aside from the inevitable doublespeak and setbacks,
that are part and parcel of any settlement talks, the world was able to
judge from an objective reality that talks were taking place, that all the
parties to them were engaged in the process and that they were bearing
fruit.

      The situation prevailing in Zimbabwe today is a far cry from what
happened in South Africa in the early 1990s.

      Whereas in South Africa attempts were made by the apartheid regime to
create a more conducive environment for talks the converse applies in
Zimbabwe today and the lie regarding the success of the talks and “quiet
diplomacy” is given in the harsh objective reality of the political crack
down that has been experienced in Zimbabwe, ironically since Thabo Mbeki
became George Bush’s “point man” in July. This harsh objective reality is
given in five indicators which show what the Mugabe regime’s true intentions
are.

      1. The August supplementary budget

      In August the Zimbabwean Parliament debated a supplementary budget for
the 2003 financial year. Most budgets are a clear guide as to the policies
which any government is about to implement and this budget is no exception.

      The budget for the CIO (Zimbabwe’s equivalent of the Stazi) doubled to
a total of Z$10 billion. The salary budget for the parent Ministry of the
notorious Youth Brigade (the so called “Green Bombers”, Mugabe’s version of
the Hitler Youth) went up from Z$1,2 billion to Z$3,4 billion.

      To put these increases in context the total budget for drugs and
medical expenses for all of Zimbabwe’s prisoners (conservatively estimated
to number 22 000) went up from the original figure of Z$400 million by
paltry Z$100 million to Z$5 billion.

      Put another way the regime is happy to spend billions on institutions
that are designed to instill fear in the public but is only prepared to
spend approximately Z$ 23000, or US$ 4, per prisoner in a prison system
ravaged by Aids and overcrowding.

      2. The new food distribution policy

      Largely as a result of the chaotic land and economic policies over
half the Zimbabwean population faces starvation. The Mugabe regime has
turned this situation to its own benefit as it has used food as a political
weapon.

      The World Food Programme has attempted to negate this policy by
insisting that NGOs distribute food donated by foreign governments and
institutions.

      In August the regime issued a new food distribution directive that WFP
sourced food must be distributed by government agents.

      Whilst this caused a flutter in the donor community and a Memorandum
of Understanding (that the preexisting system of food distribution by NGOs
would continue) being agreed to between the donor community and the regime,
the fact remains that the original directive has not been withdrawn.

      Whether the Memorandum of Agreement or the directive holds sway is not
the point. There was never any need for the new directive and its issuance
is a clear demonstration of what the regime’s intentions are – it would
still like to use food as a weapon.

      3. Harassment of the MDC and civil society

      Immediately after the Bush/Mbeki meeting in early July the MDC made
several conciliatory gestures to facilitate negotiations. Its MPs and Morgan
Tsvangirai attended the opening of Parliament by Mugabe (having previously
boycotted any functions attended by him); it postponed further mass action
(having organised two extremely successful nationwide strikes in March and
June) and advised that it was prepared to suspend the court challenge to
Mugabe’s March 2002 election.

      Those actions have not been reciprocated by anything other than
ongoing harassment of the MDC by the regime. The August Urban Council
elections were marred by violence, intimidation, fraud and abuse of the
electoral process by the regime.

      Despite this the MDC still managed to win control of 11 of the 12
municipal councils and controls the five largest cities in the country.

      Spurious prosecutions against MDC leaders have continued and new
prosecutions commenced.

      A few weeks ago 3 MDC employees were shot in the MDC headquarters by a
ZANU (PF) supporter; as is customary the wounded employees were arrested and
the ZANU (PF) culprit has not been prosecuted.

      On the 18th November the entire MDC campaign team for the Kadoma
Constituency by-election was arrested and the same team denied access to the
voters’ roll for the constituency.

      These are but a sample of the types of harassment the MDC continues to
endure. Pro-democracy efforts by civil society are not exempt as
demonstrated by the violent suppression of the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade
Union’s peaceful protests by the police on the 18th November.

      Even the ANC’s tripartite alliance partner, COSATU, recognised the
extent of the suppression and threatened to shut down Zimbabwe’s borders
with South Africa.

      The point is that far from liberalising the political environment the
regime has done the very opposite since July.

      4. The banning of the Daily News

      Presidents Mbeki and Obasanjo have in the past year expressed disquiet
regarding legislation designed to silence the press such as the so called
“Access to Information” Act (AIPPA) and announced that they had received
assurances from the regime that the draconian aspects of the Act would be
repealed.

      Whilst the Act has been amended, the draconian measures are still
firmly in place and in September were utilised effectively to ban the only
independent daily newspaper, with the highest circulation of all newspapers,
The Daily News. This is the only independent paper the average Zimbabwean
can afford. Excessive force has been employed by the police to ensure that
the Daily News remains closed - computers have been confiscated and senior
editorial staff, journalists and directors of the company have been
arrested. The regime shows no sign of allowing the Daily News to open again,
indeed government controlled newspapers have celebrated the “demise” of the
Daily News in their columns. Threats have been issued by the regime’s
Minister of Information, Jonathan Moyo, against the only two remaining
independent weekly newspapers. When the regime’s Minister of Justice was
asked in Parliament recently by me whether Moyo’s comments reflected the
regime’s policy, the retort was that the “law” would have to take its course
against these other newspapers, another clear threat and an indication that
the regime has no intention of creating an environment conducive to
negotiations. Threats have even now been directed against the Administrative
Court Judge, Michael Majuru, who ruled recently that the Daily News was
lawfully entitled to operate. All of these measures are designed to ensure
that a free press is not allowed to operate in Zimbabwe. 5. The
militarisation of institutions and society Whilst in Canada President Mbeki
indicated that there was a prospect of a coalition government emerging in
Zimbabwe soon. This sentiment is not matched by facts on the ground. On the
same day President Mbeki spoke in Canada General Zvinavashe, the Commander
of the Armed Forces, announced his intention to retire and to go into some
form of “national” position. Speculation is rife that Mugabe’s intention is
to appoint Zvinavashe as Vice President to replace the late Simon Muzenda.
This would be consistent with Mugabe’s policy of the past few years to
appoint military men to head the Prison service, the Grain Marketing Board,
the Electoral Supervisory Commission, secret police and even Provinces - the
latter demonstrated by Mugabe’s appointment two weeks ago as Governor of
Manicaland Province of the officer in charge of the regime’s military
operations in the Congo. The appointment of this army officer has resulted
in hostilities being directed against MDC leaders in Manicaland in the past
few days. All in all there is nothing to indicate that the Mugabe regime has
any intention of negotiating a peaceful and democratic solution to Zimbabwe’
s crisis. On the contrary there is every indication that the regime is
digging in. What many throughout the world do not seem to grasp is that
Mugabe is a tyrant and tyrants do not negotiate their way out of power. What
also is not appreciated is that Mugabe has very compelling reasons why he
fears losing power. Only two groups of people fully know what happened when
Mugabe deployed his North Korean trained Fifth Brigade in Matabeleland in
January 1983 – the surviving victims and the perpetrators responsible for
the massacres of over 20000 people and the torture of tens of thousands of
others. Mugabe himself is in the unique position of knowing both what
happened (having engineered and directed it in the first place) and of
knowing the depth of anger still felt by the victims (routinely reported to
him by his intelligence services). Just recently the Supreme Court,
increasingly a willing arm of the regime, ruled to suppress the publication
of government reports prepared in the early 1980s which detail what happened
during this period. Furthermore few appreciate the extent to which the
Mugabe regime has looted the resources of Zimbabwe in the last few years.
The leaders of the regime know they simply cannot relinquish power if they
are to continue to hide and retain their ill-gotten gains. It does not
matter what amnesty guarantees the MDC gives Mugabe and those around him who
are guilty of crimes against humanity and corruption. They know that there
is nothing anyone can do to protect themselves from the wrath of the
Zimbabwean public and international law once they lose the safe haven of
political power. Because of this all consuming fear Mugabe himself will not
consider resigning unless three conditions are met. Firstly, a broad
consensus will have to emerge within the ZANU PF leadership regarding a
successor to take over from Mugabe as leader of the party. The party is
seriously divided on this issue at present and Mugabe knows that if he goes
prematurely it could lead to serious internecine strife. Secondly, Mugabe
would have to be satisfied that that proposed successor would not sell him
down the river ala President Mwanawasa’s treatment of former President
Chiluba in neighbouring Zambia this year. One of Mugabe’s greatest
nightmares is the prospect of him being offered up as a sacrificial lamb to
appease the international community after losing power. Thirdly, Mugabe
would have to be satisfied that this chosen successor is able to win a
national Presidential election, in other words that this person would be
able to command support nationwide from, at the very least, rank and file
ZANU PF members. Mugabe’s dilemma is that there is no suitable candidate who
meets all three of the criteria. There certainly is no consensus within the
ZANU PF leadership regarding a successor. Unless ZANU PF has played its
cards close to its chest well there does not appear to be any resolution to
this problem in sight unless General Zvinavashe is viewed as a compromise
candidate between the Mnangagwa and Mujuru factions. Zvinavashe and
Mnangagwa would be the only candidates that Mugabe would trust not to betray
him but both do not command national support. A further complication is that
both are also on the UN sanctions list as a result of their nefarious
activities in the Congo and as a result would not be able to secure
international support and recognition easily, which is vital if the economy
is to be turned around. Former Finance Minister Makoni is probably the only
leader who would get national and international support but Mugabe would
never trust Makoni to keep him out of jail. Until a leader does emerge who
satisfies these criteria, Mugabe will not budge. The facts are obvious. The
Mugabe regime has paid lip service to negotiations and has no real intention
of seeing them through to their logical conclusion. All the regime has done
in the last few months is buy time whilst simultaneously tightening its grip
on power. In this context it is appalling that some in the international
community are seeking to relieve, rather than increase, pressure against the
regime. International pressure against the regime should be increased in the
following ways: 1. Existing targeted sanctions against those leaders of the
regime responsible for gross human rights abuses and corruption should be
maintained, strengthened and broadened. It should be stressed that the MDC
is not calling for the imposition of general economic sanctions, and has
never done so. It is only the regime’s propaganda machine that has put out
the lie that the MDC has called for economic sanctions. 2. Those States
still giving moral support to the regime should be engaged on a bilateral
basis and encouraged to speak out against the human rights abuses taking
place in Zimbabwe. In particular world leaders should no longer accept the
glib assurances that all is well (which fly in the face of the harsh factual
reality of Zimbabwe) made by those who have undertaken to resolve the crisis
on behalf of the international community. 3. The Mugabe regime has
effectively stemmed the flow of information out of the country by banning
foreign journalists and independent local newspapers such as the Daily News.
President Obasanjo said on the 17th November that one of the purposes of his
visit to Zimbabwe was to find out for himself what was happening in the
country. Whilst his efforts are greatly appreciated there is no way he could
accurately assess what is going on in the country in a whistle stop visit to
Harare lasting only a few hours. What is needed is for an eminent persons
group to come to Zimbabwe for at least a week. That group will need to
travel the country and must have an opportunity to speak to rank and file
Zimbabweans, the opposition and civil society groups. 4. The international
community should take every opportunity to invite opposition politicians,
civic leaders and human rights activists to international fora and other
meetings to give them an opportunity to explain to the world just what is
happening in Zimbabwe. Once the full enormity of what is going on in
Zimbabwe is appreciated internationally more will be motivated to do
something constructive to resolve the crisis. 5. Greater attention should be
paid to those who being subjected to massive human rights abuses in
Zimbabwe. In particular greater international attention should be paid to
the plight of people like Morgan Tsvangirai and many other lesser known MDC
and civil society activists facing spurious, trumped up charges some of
which potentially carry the death penalty. 6. Efforts must be made to raise
the Zimbabwean crisis in the United Nations General Assembly. In particular
consideration should be given to the application of the Report of the
International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty given the
Mugabe regime’s abuse of WFP food aid and the use of food as a political
weapon against the Zimbabwean populace. The situation in Zimbabwe cries out
for a visit by Secretary General Kofi Annan. 7. International resources
should be secured to support civil society groups and human rights NGOs that
have been assisting victims of the Mugabe regime and are engaged in non
violent democratic opposition to the regime. Likewise resources should be
obtained to ensure that a free and fair electoral environment is obtained,
for it is only through free and fair elections that legitimacy and stability
can be restored to Zimbabwe. When Presidents Mbeki and Bush held a joint
press conference in Pretoria in July they both acknowledged that the
Zimbabwean crisis demanded urgent attention. Tragically another four months
have been allowed to slip by and if anything the crisis has grown. Zimbabwe
has the fastest declining economy in the world. It is experiencing
hyper-inflation with rates well over 500 percent and sharply rising. Three
million Zimbabweans have sought refuge in neighbouring States and elsewhere
in the last few years. The numbers of refugees pouring out of the country
grow daily and are now impacting fledgling, fragile democracies in the
region. Aids infection rates are amongst the highest in the world with over
one in four people infected. The health system is collapsing as are other
social services. Over five million Zimbabweans face starvation in the coming
months and there is no short term relief in sight because of the regime’s
chaotic land and economic policies which will ensure that even if there are
good rains this coming rainy season insufficient food will be grown. Life
has, in short, become intolerable for the vast majority of Zimbabweans. The
pro-democracy opposition has been accused by some of not being ready to
govern. It has been accused of lacking unity and vision. It has been accused
of not having a concrete “way forward” out of this crisis once new elections
are finally held. It is also accused by its detractors of being a stooge of
the West and whites. This criticism and propaganda ignores the factual
reality. The MDC, despite operating in one of the most draconian political
environments in the world, has almost half the elected seats in Parliament
and this year commenced governing 11 of 12 local governments in the country’
s largest cities. Despite the arrest, torture and detention of virtually
every single member of its National Executive and Parliamentary caucus the
unity and determination to govern of the MDC has never been stronger. The
MDC has spent the whole of 2003 re-crafting its policies to cater for the
rapidly changing economic environment caused by the Mugabe regime’s
disastrous policies and these will be presented to the MDC’s membership at a
convention in December for ratification. The draft policy document approved
at a recent National Executive meeting is impressive. The opposition has
fought a principled non-violent campaign to gain power peacefully and
constitutionally but its options have been systematically terminated by the
regime. These actions of this tyrannical regime will only strengthen the
hand of hawks and reduce the chances of a peaceful resolution to the crisis.
If Zimbabwe implodes there will be devastating consequences for the region
as a whole and much of the fine work done by African democrats such as
President Mbeki will be undone. As difficult as it is for President Mbeki
and other influential democratic leaders to deal with a tyrant in their
midst, the time is now for them to vocalise the principled African
Renaissance leadership that all in SADC expect of them. Time is rapidly
running out for Zimbabwe and the international community must act urgently
and decisively to avoid a major humanitarian catastrophe.

       By David Coltart MP

      David Coltart has been a human rights lawyer in Bulawayo for the last
20 years. In 2000 he was elected to Parliament in the Bulawayo South
Constituency. He stood against a former ZANU (PF) cabinet minister and won
with an 84 percent majority. He is presently the MDC Shadow Minister of
Justice and Constitutional Affairs.

Zimbabwe's state press called on President Robert Mugabe on Tuesday to sever
diplomatic ties with Britain and Australia, blaming British Prime Minister
Tony Blair's government for all the southern African country's economic and
political crises.

"The time has now come for Zimbabwe to fully engage Britain head-on by
cutting all diplomatic ties with the former colonial master and its
sidekick, Australia," the government-controlled daily Herald said in a
front-page editorial. Mugabe announcement on Sunday night that he was
withdrawing Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth after it decided to continue
Zimbabwe's suspension from the 54-member association indefinitely.

The Herald is controlled directly from Mugabe's office. Blair and Australian
Prime Minister John Howard were seen as the leading protagonists for
Zimbabwe's extended suspension. Zimbabwe was first suspended in April last
year after the Commonwealth found that Mugabe had rigged his victory in
presidential elections a month before.

The Herald said that Mugabe's decision to pull out of the Commonwealth "only
deals with the symptoms and not the cause of the disease."

"The issue is not the Commonwealth or any other third parties but Britain
and its Prime Minister, Tony Blair."

It said Britain had brought about "sanctions," imposed by the European
Union, the United States, Australia and New Zealand, which had "savaged"
Zimbabwe's economy.

The Herald went on: "The country's political landscape has been put into
disarray following the creation of the British-sponsored (opposition)
Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) and a host of non-governmental
organisations that have sought to cause mayhem and instability in the
country by staging foolish demonstrations and media campaigns designed to
precipitate instability and undermine the Zimbabwean government."

It said that international concern about human rights, democracy, press
freedom and the independence of the judiciary were "a smokescreen to
maintain the colonial grip on Zimbabwe".

"Kicking Britain out of Zimbabwe and withdrawing from London will have its
repercussions, but it will be a worthwhile price to pay and a true test of
sovereignty," The Herald said.

"Smart" sanctions have been imposed since 2002, and apply exclusively to
Mugabe and members of his immediate ruling clique. Diplomats point out they
go no further than banning them from travel and from holding assets in the
countries imposing the sanctions.

Britain, the colonial authority until Zimbabwe's independence in 1980, has
been the government's largest aid donor and currently is the biggest
contributor to famine relief needed to feed 5,5-million people facing
starvation, and has given 26-million pounds since September 2001.

Cultural ties run deep between the two countries, and Britain has become
home to an estimated 100 000 illegal Zimbabwean economic refugees fleeing
economic chaos at home.

The government routinely blames the British labour government for its
problems, accusing it of spying, sabotage and even of hijacking Zimbabwe's
fuel supplies on the high seas. International and local civil rights groups
have recorded thousands of cases of murder, torture, assault, illegal
detention and other human rights abuses by the government and ruling party
militias since 2000 when Mugabe, fearing imminent defeat in parliamentary
elections launched a campaign of repression to try and destroy the
pro-democracy MDC.

The Commonwealth secretariat reported before the weekend's Commonwealth
summit that Mugabe had done nothing to carry out democratic and electoral
reforms he agreed to since the suspension was imposed.

Mugabe, who turns 80 in February and is now in his 24th year of rule, last
week denounced calls for him to retire. He said he intended to stay in power
at least until 2008. - Sapa

      Mr Obasanjo, the summit's host and current Commonwealth chair,
admitted the strategy put in place last year for dealing with the Zimbabwean
government of President Robert Mugabe had failed but said the summit had
achieved important agreements on trade and development.

      The Zimbabwe issue dominated the four-day meeting in Nigeria, and late
on Sunday night Mr Mugabe announced his country's withdrawal from the
organisation after it it decided to maintain a suspension imposed last year.

      "We are determined to do everything humanly possible within the values
and the principles that we cherish in the Commonwealth to assist Zimbabwe
and facilitate [its] return," Mr Obasanjo said at the summit's closing press
conference.

      Mr Obasanjo said he would send an envoy to Zimbabwe before Christmas
in an attempt to encourage Commonwealth reconciliation with the country,
which was suspended after allegations of fraud and intimidation during
elections last year.

      He insisted the summit agreement to keep Zimbabwe's suspension under
continuous monitoring was still relevant, although he described as a
"failure" a three-member Commonwealth group mandated in March last year to
oversee the Zimbabwe issue. The group consisted of the leaders of Nigeria,
South Africa and Australia.

      Mr Obasanjo criticised both Australia's hardline approach to the
troika and the strong positions taken by some countries ahead of the summit,
where Commonwealth officials said South Africa had led attempts by states
from southern Africa and elsewhere to readmit Zimbabwe straight away.

      Don McKinnon, Commonwealth secretary-general, admitted the summit had
been "one of the more difficult" of recent years but said the organisation
had made good progress in areas other than Zimbabwe.

      The Commonwealth is to send envoys to "key capitals" around the world
to try to help build a consensus on global trade, following the collapse of
the World Trade Organisation's September ministerial summit in Cancún,
Mexico. Next Monday the WTO will hold a special conference in Geneva, in
what is billed as a final effort to resolve outstanding issues.

      A joint statement by Commonwealth leaders called for the early phasing
out of all forms of export subsidies, substantial reductions in
"trade-distorting" domestic subsidies, tariff reform and significant
improvements in countries' access to foreign markets. "We want to see the
issue of Cancún behind us," Mr McKinnon said.

      A communiqué issued by the leaders said the global "war against
terrorism" could not be won by military force and said travel warnings
issued by foreign governments had had a negative impact on the economies of
a number of member states

HARARE, Dec 9 (IPS) - Zimbabwe, already in a dire economic, political and
social situation, faces another bitter year ahead. The ruling ZANU-PF has
declared war against the opposition, the West and the Commonwealth.

ZANU-PF, in power since independence from Britain in 1980, has threatened
tough action against what it calls agents of Zimbabwe's opposition and its
western allies. It has also ordered the government to withdraw its
membership from the Commonwealth.

'The message is clear. The Commonwealth is not vital for Zimbabwe to exist.
We have decided to leave it because it is racist and does not respect our
hard-won independence,' said one ex-combatant of the Zimbabwe?s 1970s war of
liberation.

The commonwealth is an organisation of about 53 independent states which
were formerly parts of the British Empire, established to encourage trade
and friendly relations among its members.

Tapiwa Padera, a war veterans' leader, said there was no going back on the
road ZANU-PF had taken to redress the hardships facing the majority of
Zimbabweans.

He was speaking in a telephone interview with Inter Press Service after this
year's charged annual conference of the ZANU-PF at the weekend in the
southeastern city of Masvingo.

President Robert Mugabe, who until the meeting had kept people guessing on
his exit plans, has praised his party support for him, its decision to leave
the Commonwealth and its backing of his land reform programme.

The former guerrilla leader celebrates his 80th birthday in two months. But
he has dashed hopes for a new face to replace him, arguing that he is still
fit, has the mandate of the people and will rule until they want him out, or
when he feels too tired to go on.

Media commentators had predicted Mugabe would take advantage of the two-day
conference and allow the ruling party to decide on his successor. He says
that was never his idea.

Instead he has chosen war. 'Icho!' Mugabe shouted.

'Charira!' his followers responded, vehemently.

The slogan, coined during the liberation struggle of the 1970s, means 'The
War Has Erupted' and 'direct confrontation'. It was abandoned in 1980 after
Mugabe declared national reconciliation with the white minority settlers in
Rhodesia (now renamed Zimbabwe), following independence.

One political commentator says its invocation now smells bad, especially for
the labour-backed Movement for Democratic Change (MDC). And President Mugabe
has made it clear the threat is genuine.

'Anyone who has a thought to destabilise us must take care that we can
unleash (security) forces on him. I think the MDC have learnt their lesson,'
Mugabe said.

'If they want to violate our rule, the law of the country' We can unleash
legal violence, which we are permitted to do to correct violence. If they
are throwing stones, naturally, some measure of force must be used to term
them.'

Mugabe said Zimbabwe had taken the stance after London continued to use the
MDC to remove him from power and stop seizure of farms owned by about 4,500
whites, who held more than half of the country's prime land.

He said the opposition, to fulfil the scheme, has since launched 'strikes,
demonstrations and senseless protests'. The white-run industry joined in,
creating artificial shortages and hiking prices, while interest rates are
shooting up at commercial banks.

Mugabe said the continued gold production also fails to reflect in the
national reserves. The amount of the yellow metal the state handled annually
in the recent past have since dwindled from between 27 and 29 tonnes to just
10 tonnes.

'But now, with the measures we took, I understand from the Reserve Bank that
gold has now started flowing in,' he said, referring to the recent crackdown
on illegal gold dealings in the country.

Mugabe said 'numerous factories' have also closed down for political
reasons, to cause anger among the people and turn them against the
government for the benefit of the Movement for Democratic Change.

He has announced measures to empower blacks for more goods production, which
will cause competition and force prices down to counter the alleged
sabotage. The state will now take full control to acquire inputs and make
them available to the new producers.

Mugabe has lashed out hard at some senior members of his party who he says
have become too greedy for money and adopted double standards, with 'one leg
in the MDC and another leg in ZANU-PF.'

He accused the members of seizing plots allocated to ordinary people for
either their own use or for relatives and friends.

Mugabe said his government had set up a committee to probe such people, who
face unspecified action if they did not surrender the extra farms.

His administration, he said, would also deal with white farmers like the
'Nicole Brothers' in his home area in western Zvimba District, who are
resisting the agrarian reforms.

Mugabe also said the state would intervene to ensure interest rates, which
have now reached 400 percent, are not only harnessed but are also reversed
immediately.

His pullout from the Commonwealth has been communicated to the group meeting
in Nigeria, which media reports say received the statement Sunday, hours
after it had further extended the suspension of the Southern African
country.

President Olusegun Obasanjo of Nigeria has been given personal charge to
monitor the political climate in Zimbabwe, with hope to restore its
membership. But the Southern African nation has already taken a stand.

Obasanjo, as well as the South African Head of State, Thabo Mbeki, and the
Malawian Leader, Bakili Muluzi, is mediating between ZANU-PF and the MDC to
bring them into talks to end their impasse. The three maintain their efforts
are proceeding well and a solution is possible soon.

However, the MDC dismisses the statements as misleading. It complains
against continued rights violations, while its petitions against the
presidential and legislative poll results stand in the High Court.

The state has also not dropped treason charges against MDC leader Morgan
Tsvangirai, accused of plotting to kill Mugabe before last year's
presidential poll. He faces the death penalty if convicted.

ZANU-PF's conference had raised hopes for an end to Western-led sanctions
and normalisation of the strained international ties, to return the economy
back on track. But the party's weekend declaration to quit the Commonwealth
has shattered those expectations.

The Commonwealth last year suspended Zimbabwe after accusing the ruling
party of grabbing white-owned farms, vote rigging and rights violations
against the opposition. Mugabe, who enjoys support from some developing
countries like South Africa and Cuba, says the accusations and the sanctions
are racist plans to derail his land reform programme.

Zimbabwe used to export food surplus. But the land grab and poor planning,
as well as sanctions, the Cyclone Eline of 2000 and two successive dry
seasons, have forced the country to beg for its staple grain, maize. About
six million people, half the country's population, need food aid now.
(END/2003)

New Vision (Kampala)

EDITORIAL
December 9, 2003
Posted to the web December 9, 2003

Kampala

ZIMBABWE HAS decided to withdraw from membership of the Commonwealth
following the Abuja Conference's decision to maintain its suspension until
it met key democratic benchmarks.

Everyone agrees that Zimbabwe is in freefall. Inflation is running at close
to a 1000 per went. An estimated ten per cent of the population has fled to
Botswana and South Africa. Fuel and foodstuffs are in very short supply.

Once it was a food exporter but three-quarters of its population now survive
on food handouts from the WFP.

Internally the country is bitterly divided. The MDC opposition insists that
the last elections were rigged. The trade unions have called general
strikes. Church leaders have condemned government.

Foreign correspondents have been expelled and the private press virtually
banned

There is no country in Africa, or even in the world, undergoing such
catastrophic decline.

Why then have the leaders of southern Africa been so reluctant to condemn
the political leadership of Zimbabwe?

They fear to appear as imperialist stooges since Mugabe claims to be a
victim of an international conspiracy for daring to confiscate white-owned
farms.

Yet the problem was the manner in which farms were confiscated, not the
action itself. There should have been systematic land reform rather than
land grabbing by Zanu politicians. And if there is a conspiracy why are the
whites providing the food aid that keeps Zimbabwe afloat?

Both Zimbabwe and other African nations should welcome constructive
criticism.

They should not delude themselves that the country will recover just because
Mugabe is readmitted to the Commonwealth and we pretend everything is better
in Zimbabwe.

      AFRICAN academics have never had a rosy life, and while there could be
exceptions, the history of the continent does not have many good stories to
tell about how governments dealt with them.

      Since independence, African governments have waged ideological and
economic wars with academics as African intellectuals demanded good
governance and good remuneration.

      But many a time these demands have been met with both incarceration
and death of those men and women who, through the tomes they devoured in
their pursuit for knowledge and therefore a better understanding of the
world around them, became a threat to the political lives of many African
despots.

      Zimbabwe has not been an exception to that tradition. However, 2003
has provided the worst documentation for posterity in terms of the treatment
university lecturers have been receiving from the government here since the
attainment of independence.

      This year has given a new twist to projections about the country’s
future within the realm of both education in general and the economic decay
in particular.

      The very fact that state universities here are operating under
capacity to the extent that some degree programmes did not for this academic
year enrol any aspiring graduands raises questions about the country’s
future within the provision of a better education for all.

      And this when in the past it was agreed that each country especially
in Africa needed to train its populations in every field as an investment
into the country’s human resources pool.

      Skilled personnel were obviously needed after the coming of
independence to replace manpower which largely represented the colour of the
colonial governments.

      That is precisely why in the 1980s, and even early 1990s, men and
women who went to further their studies abroad still returned home to work
for both their country and families.

      This is what this regime should recall as it dithers about giving
lecturers competitive remuneration and issues threats on academics. That is
how the ruling party deals with problems anyway: issue threats – problem
solved.

      The government should ask itself: why did academics a few years
ago –and still under the same ruling party- readily come back home from
First World universities where they could have lived better lives?

      We could understand why they returned after a sojourn in Eastern
Europe what with its poverty and congenital dictatorships.

      It was perhaps because of two principal issues, and one of them
unfortunately carries an odious ruling party aura today: “patriotism” as
they wanted to work for the country’s development; and perhaps most
importantly, to be with their families.

      But for this country, the brain drain, much like everything else,
inevitably has a domino effect. Amid the reluctance to give university
teachers reasonable rates, does that then mean there will never in the
foreseeable future be any intakes for those programmes that have been
affected by the mass exodus of lecturers?

      What does it mean for the students who were enrolled this year? Are
there are any guarantees that they will finish their programmes within the
stipulated schedules?

      A few years ago, it was something to be envied by the whole
neighbourhood that one’s son or daughter was at university, but amid the
circumstances here, the government has eroded all that.

      A good number of people have become cynical about the whole idea of
knowing that someone has enrolled at a Zimbabwean university.

      And this because, first; there are no longer any guarantees for
landing that dream job; and second with the perennial strikes by lecturers,
what it means is that there are no guarantees that a four-year undergraduate
degree programme for example is finished within those four years.

      It can stretch up to six with the kind of attitude this government has
adopted.

      There are many pointers that this regime has stopped giving a hoot
about the people it claims voted it into power.

      But because the ruling party has made sure it suppresses all forms of
legitimate protests against its many flaws, student activism which today
should be at its loudest considering the government’s failures be it in
university administration or anywhere else, this has, not surprisingly, not
happened.

      It is a huge farce then that despite the government denying these
young people an education, which in the past would assure parents of early
retirement, there still are no street protests by both the lecturers and
their charges, the students.

      It would therefore appear all is well. But we all know all is not
well, the ruling party can always unleash its super cops on unarmed
protestors and suppress student militancy. That is how the regime chooses to
address legitimate complaints.

      What is happening in Zimbabwe as it loses its “brain trust” in the
form of intellectual flight as lecturers go to where they will get the
treatment they deserve, points to a country that will in the long term have
no one to teach at these centres of higher learning.

      The skeletal staff who remain at the different faculties and
departments are not there because they love their country: they are there
because their many applications to universities abroad and other local NGOs
have not been replied – yet.

      If then the future is that ominous, it brings us back to where all
this is coming from. A government whose brief has long ceased to be
addressing the concerns of its citizens surely has lost all reason why it
should be occupying that space.

      But not big surprises here, the regime still firmly believes the
people’s complaints are inspired by British and American malcontents.

      Education remains one the greatest ideals that form a permanent part
of all democratic societies, and that in itself is a truism.

      But when that is seemingly jettisoned for whatever pursuit, questions
have to be asked about where the people’s collective march to a better world
is heading.

      It is also curious that for a government with so many individuals with
PhDs in its cabinet, the men in power who themselves could easily be on some
university teaching post somewhere still think those academics who chose a
life as university teachers did so against their better judgment.

      By Marko Phiri

Cape Town - The Zimbabwean official opposition, the Movement for Democratic
Change (MDC), says that when it comes to power it will restore the country's
membership of the Commonwealth.

Responding to President Robert Mugabe's withdrawal of his country from the
union of former British colonies, MDC secretary general Welshman Ncube said:
"The MDC government, which will come into power as soon as free and fair
elections are conducted in Zimbabwe, will restore the country's membership
to the Commonwealth."

"In this respect we welcome the setting up a committee of seven countries
aimed at assisting Zimbabweans find a solution to the crisis. We hope that
they will succeed in bringing the two main political parties and other
stakeholders to the negotiating table."

Ncube said Mugabe's decision to pull Zimbabwe out of the Commonwealth was
"clearly not in the interest of Zimbabwe and its people but is an attempt to
avoid returning the country to democratic principles".

The opposition secretary general said the constitution of Zimbabwe clearly
provided that decisions such as that of pulling out of the Commonwealth
"must be made on the authority of a cabinet resolution and therefore Mugabe
alone cannot lawfully do the withdrawal of Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth".

The decision was therefore unlawful, Ncube argued.

"We congratulate the Commonwealth for standing firmly on the side of the
people of Zimbabwe and strongly urge the rest of the international community
not to be bullied into turning a blind eye to dictatorship, genocide, murder
and torture under the guise of sovereignty. The decision by the Commonwealth
(to suspend Zimbabwe's membership) confirms Mugabe's illegitimacy."