The ZIMBABWE Situation Our thoughts and prayers are with Zimbabwe
- may peace, truth and justice prevail.
Back to Index
Back to the Top
Back to Index
Geoff Nyarota: A Voice From the Political Wilderness

Sunday Times (Johannesburg)

INTERVIEW
February 2, 2003
Posted to the web February 1, 2003

Johannesburg

Geoffrey Nyarota, the former editor of Zimbabwe's Daily News, has taken up a
fellowship in the US. Before he left this week he spoke to Dingilizwe Ntuli
about his country's prospects.

WHAT are the circumstances surrounding your exit from The Daily News? There
are reports that you were fired but you insist you resigned.


What happened is a complete mystery even to my colleagues at The Daily News.
But no mystery is beyond investigation and exposure, and it will be
resolved. I am in the process of getting to the bottom of this mystery and
until it's resolved, I will not make piecemeal disclosures.

Can you tell us about the state of The Daily News. Is it the paper you had
in mind as the founding editor or has it deviated from that vision?

When we launched in 1999, our aim was to provide Zimbabweans with an
alternative source of information . People needed an alternative to the
existing government-controlled media. We set out to create a paper that
would present a different news angle for the people of Zimbabwe, who had for
so long been subjected to controlled information. We wanted a paper that
would dig deeper and concentrate on investigative journalism to uncover
corruption, especially in government circles.

There was a need for a paper to present news as it was, without distortion.

The problem with the state-controlled The Herald and The Chronicle is that
they treated the country's rich elite as untouchables. We set out to break
that mentality.

To a certain extent, we succeeded in creating a paper for the people because
The Daily News became an instant success and quickly eclipsed The Herald and
The Chronicle.

But in the process of building The Daily News, we became distracted from our
editorial pursuit and spent time defending the existence of the paper from
government attacks.

We had never anticipated that our offices might be bombed, our journalists
arrested, our vendors harassed and our paper banned from certain areas.

I still feel, however, that there is room for improvement if the Zimbabwean
situation returns to normal.

Do you think The Daily News will make it without you?

Yes, I am not The Daily News, just the founding editor. It must survive
without me. A paper is expected to change under the tenure of a new editor,
but no editor can claim that a paper can't make it without him. Papers are
not about editors but are meant to provide a service to the people.

Tell us about the general state of journalism in Zimbabwe. How deep is the
polarisation of the private and public media?

Polarisation between the privately owned and government-controlled media
does exist and it's a very unfortunate development, fuelled by the
information ministry in a bid to weaken the media and cover up the
government's shortcomings.

A corrupt government fears exposure and will not embrace a press that seeks
to expose it. That's why it is dividing journalists from the independent
media and under state control by dangling carrots to reporters working for
the latter in return for sympathetic coverage.

Journalists in Zimbabwe are looking at their pockets and are not worried
about the profession. But I predict that one day their consciences will
function normally and return them to the ethics of this noble profession. I
say this because these same journalists who write that there is adequate
fuel and basic foodstuffs are themselves seen queueing for the same
commodities, and one day they will get fed up.

You broke the Willowvale scandal as editor of The Chronicle in 1988. How did
you manage since it happened outside your paper's jurisdiction - in Harare
when you were based in Bulawayo.

The Herald would not touch it so I encroached on their territory. From
independence up to the time of Willowvale in 1988, Zimbabwean ministers had
acquired the status of demi-gods and I suspect that's why The Herald would
not touch that story.

We had information from Willowvale motor assembly plant, which was 51%
government-owned, that politicians were abusing a scheme that entitled them
to get Mazdas and Toyotas ahead of ordinary people.

I was summoned to State House by President Robert Mugabe, who warned me not
to tarnish his ministers. But I told him that all I had written about was
supported by documental evidence and more was still to come. A few months
later, I was asked to leave The Chronicle for my safety, and called to head
office, where I was given a public relations post to keep me out of
mainstream journalism. I left Zimpapers in January 1990 to join the
Financial Gazette as editor.

What would you say are the highlights of your career?

Launching The Daily News remains the biggest highlight of my career. We
launched it with little financial resources and made a success of it in a
short space of time.

Do you have any regrets?

I am standing on the sidelines when I should be using my experience to
influence the Zimbabwean government to accept the need for an independent
media.

It has taken so long and we were almost there until Information Minister
Jonathan Moyo came onto the scene from nowhere. If I had known Moyo was
headed for that post we could have written about him, but no one knew, not
even Zanu-PF gurus.

How has Zanu-PF survived the last decade and is the MDC a good alternative?

The situation in Zimbabwe is gloomy. Zanu-PF has survived by perfecting the
art of terror. They have institutionalised a campaign of terror since
independence.

Zimbabweans are a terrified lot.

They queue for basics sheepishly and in an orderly way, even though you can
tell that they are not happy. They can't voice their concern. I used to
think it was a fear of the unknown but no, they have seen terror at work and
elsewhere.

If people queue for bread for three hours and when their turn to buy comes
they are turned away because they can't produce a Zanu-PF card, and they
walk away just like that, does that not constitute fear?

On the MDC, I think if a party has support, it becomes an alternative.

Will Zimbabwe ever rid itself of the crisis? Does the solution lie in
removing President Robert Mugabe from power?

I believe the current crisis is not the final destiny of our country. There
is no way such potential and beauty can go to waste just like that. The
solution doesn't lie in removing Mugabe and Zanu-PF but in rededicating
ourselves as a nation to redefining our destiny.

What future do you face?

I am a journalist and I am not at all lost to the profession. My current
plight was caused by an act of insanity on the part of one or two people in
Harare. I will be back in mainstream Zimbabwean journalism as I feel that my
country still needs my skills.

What is the future for the independent press?

It's not rosy but I know that journalists in the independent media are
resilient and they will overcome. Let's forget about Moyo as he is fighting
for his own personal survival.

What is your advice to aspiring journalists?

They should remain dedicated to the profession and bear in mind that there
are no shortcuts .
Back to the Top
Back to Index
Independent (UK)

England players dig in over Zimbabwe
By Stephen Brenkley
02 February 2003


Any prospect of cricket becoming the main feature of the 2003 World Cup
receded further yesterday. The interminable dispute surrounding England's
match in Zimbabwe reached yet another impasse as the Professional
Cricketers' Association demanded further guarantees about safety.

The PCA will continue their offensive this week with the aim of persuading
the England and Wales Cricket Board to withdraw from the fixture. If that
fails, and the board fail to make their case, it is entirely possible that
the players will refuse to travel to Harare.

With the opening ceremony due in Cape Town next Saturday, the tournament is
in now in danger of being overshadowed by ancillary events. Indeed, it is
not yet beyond the bounds of possibility that the tournament, and world
cricket, could descend into chaos.

Two days ago, New Zealand pulled out of their fixture in Kenya, citing
security concerns, and intend taking legal action to avoid being docked
points or money. They were the first country to break ranks with the
International Cricket Council, whose officials have been trying desperately
to maintain a fragile alliance of the major cricketing countries, as well as
their grip on the $550 million that they secured from the Global Cricket
Corporation for television rights to ICC events until the 2007 World Cup.

That cash underpins the financial wellbeing of the whole game - including
the wages of players and the staging of international matches. But there is
a feeling among the England players' representatives that the ECB would have
been wiser to follow the lead of the New Zealand board and pull out on
safety grounds no matter what the ICC view.

Before the ECB management meeting tomorrow morning the PCA's lawyer, Gerrard
Tyrrell, will ask them to consider their duty of care to the players and
whether they are fulfilling that. The PCA also want to see the report
prepared by the Kroll risk-consulting company. The dossier of the American
company, who have been involved in high-profile security cases around the
world, says that the six matches scheduled to take place in Zimbabwe, should
be safe from trouble. But one paragraph in the report is believed to have
raised eyebrows.

Richard Bevan, the England players' representative, said: "All we are
seeking is access to the Kroll report. We need to consider all the
implications before we can make a decision about the fixture in Zimbabwe. I
have to question the judgement of the ICC in not so far allowing us to see
it." The implication is that if the ICC are not willing to share their
security consultants' findings with the players then they might have
something to hide. Similarly, in Kenya, the New Zealand board decided the
risks were too great despite ICC advice.

There is a difference between Kenya and Zimbabwe, whatever the moral
observations to be made. In Kenya, there is definite terrorist activity, in
Zimbabwe there is not. But neither country has been ruled out of bounds by
the Foreign Office, which as of last night was still stating only that
people should exercise vigilance. In addition, the PCA will now point to the
delicacy of the relationship between Zimbabwe and Britain as part of their
overall strategy to persuade the ICC to change their mind.

Dr Ali Bacher, the World Cup director, who has spent three years planning
the event, was in remarkably sanguine form last night. He is part of the
six-man technical committee which will probably have to make a final ruling
on New Zealand's match and any England request to move their fixture.

"No sporting event ever again will be free from this kind of thing," he
said. "The days are gone when you can concentrate on only the sport. But I
can assure you that this competition is being eagerly anticipated in South
Africa." The chief work of the ICC in the week before the first game in the
tournament a week today (South Africa v West Indies in Cape Town) will be on
keeping all the nations together. For instance, while New Zealand have
refused to play in Kenya, the other side due to go there, Sri Lanka, have no
qualms. "Of course, we must have concerns, but we are prepared to accept the
judgement of the ICC, for it is they who sent a team there," said Anura
Tennekoon, chief executive of the Sri Lankan board.

Moral concerns over Zimbabwe have driven the debate in this country (there
is a certain irony in the fact that Kenya ousted their purportedly corrupt
President Moi after 24 years only four weeks ago) but concerns about
security will be dominant this week. The question: "Is it safe?" will be
asked more often than it was by Laurence Olivier's dentist in The Marathon
Man. The surmise grows that it will keep being asked until people get the
answer they want.

There is similar impression to be gleaned from the safety reports
commissioned by the various parties. New Zealand have one suggesting that it
would be unsafe for their players to go to Kenya. Yet the ICC have one (
from Kroll) saying it is safe. No doubt both sets of expert consultants have
been scrupulous in their research. But it is not wholly easy to escape the
conclusion that they have come up with the answers that their employers
might have been looking for.

The ICC delegates to the World Cup will begin to assemble in Cape Town
today. They are still hoping to persuade New Zealand to change their minds.

"Obviously we have different opinions over safety," said their spokesman,
Brendan McClements, yesterday. "We want to meet them to try to allay their
fears." All talks will be aimed at ensuring all matches proceed, if not
quite as planned, then in some other place.

New Zealand have been applauded for their stance, not least at home. But it
definitely jeopardises the ICC's income. Last August, Martin Snedden, the NZ
chief executive, said the TV money was crucial. "If the ICC cannot deliver
on the agreement and the GCC look to pull out, each member country would
lose hundreds of millions of dollars. In our case, 30 to 35 per cent of our
forecast income for five years would be lost and that would have a huge
impact." They may now have the chance to find out how huge.

The ECB through Tim Lamb will make a final attempt to persuade their players
on Thursday. A possible split is on everybody's minds, although Chishty
Mujahid, of the Pakistan board, played it down. "I don't think that will
happen necessarily, but teams like New Zealand can't keep going against the
wishes of the ICC. It doesn't seem right that they can pick and choose where
to play." Let the games begin, if it ever gets that far.
Back to the Top
Back to Index
Daily Telegraph

England caught in a moral dilemma
By Michael Atherton  (Filed: 02/02/2003)


Cricket's own version of pass the parcel has induced some unedifying sights
this past month with players, officials and administrators all scrambling
for the perceived higher ground.

The music finally stopped with New Zealand and in a rare moment of
player-administrator unity and honesty, they risked swingeing financial
penalties, as well as an early World Cup exit when they pulled out of their
fixture in Nairobi.

The stance of the New Zealand cricket board to their match in Kenya has been
consistent ever since they read the report of the International Cricket
Council delegation, which recognised deep concerns over the security
situation.

It was widely known that they would not fulfil their commitment in Nairobi,
no doubt partly due to the team's experience in Karachi last year when a
terrorist bomb exploded near their hotel and Stephen Fleming, the captain,
said that they had seen things that people should not see.

Their forthright approach in attempting to change the ICC's position on
Kenya has been in stark contrast to England's political manoeuvring over
Zimbabwe. Given the opportunity, New Zealand openly asked the ICC to switch
their game; England have yet to ask for the Zimbabwe game to be moved,
hoping instead that the six-man technical committee, who take charge of
events from today, will look upon their plight more sympathetically.

But the England and Wales Cricket Board's position is still not entirely
clear. It has not been an easy introduction for the new chairman, David
Morgan, but within two weeks he has gone from stressing the consequences of
England not fulfilling their contractual obligations (financial ruin for the
English game and a racial split within cricket's governing body) to now
expressing serious reservations about security and the collective
responsibility of the ICC to avoid such risks. The ECB are dancing between
the ICC and the players and seemingly alienating both.

The England cricket team's position has also undergone a volte-face. A
fortnight ago they said it was faintly ludicrous that they should be making
moral and political decisions. Now they have issued a plea to move the game
because of such considerations. Those vacillating positions taken by the
players and the ECB partly reflect the greater media pressures on our
sportsmen and administrators than elsewhere.

Not a word of protest was heard in India this week when Saurav Ganguly
blithely announced that his team would certainly be going to Harare because
they were looked after very well, thank you very much, the last time they
were there.

In Australia you wouldn't know that Zimbabwe is an issue, so little coverage
has it had. Ricky Ponting's assertion that security was his only concern
resulted in none of the derision that greeted Nasser Hussain's earlier pleas
for a higher authority to take responsibility.

The wedge between the England players and the ECB, which became apparent
during the players' statement last week, has largely been driven by the
increasingly active Players' Association and their leader, Richard Bevan. He
was the driving force, not the captain or players, behind their statement in
which they became the only group in world cricket to give this World Cup a
wider moral and human context.

Don't kid yourself, though, that the England cricket team have suddenly
found their moral compass. In Melbourne, a little over a month ago, the team
were largely ignorant of the matter and it had not been raised in any team
meeting. Their statement was a reaction to the widespread public
condemnation of that ignorance. It was their image, rather than the plight
of the Zimbabwean people, that concerned them most. As George Bernard Shaw
said, "An Englishman thinks he is moral when he is only uncomfortable."

The statement was a gamble because of the unwavering, some would say
inflexible, position taken by the ICC over the entire issue. From the start,
security of the players has been their sole guideline to whether any game
should take place. Malcolm Speed has remained impressively implacable
throughout. The ICC, he says, is there to make cricket and security
judgements only.

It might be a narrow view, but it is hard not to feel some sympathy for
Speed's position. One look at Amnesty International's web site reveals
widespread concerns in most cricket playing countries. In Sri Lanka, they
report that "the human rights situation is precarious, with ongoing armed
conflict". They agonise over murder and suppression of free speech in the
north western frontier of Pakistan. In South Africa, "torture still occurs
primarily in the context of criminal investigation." Torture and custodial
violence is rife in the Punjab.

I could go on, but the point is that the ICC are very unlikely to start
ploughing through this moral paddy field because how can they make such
judgements and where would they draw the line? For now, only a fortnight
before the off of what should be a celebration of the game, the situation is
in limbo: England, and no doubt New Zealand, are in the absurd position of
hoping the situation in Zimbabwe and Kenya worsens. But unless it does
deteriorate, the ICC's position is absolutely clear. And that is why it
remains to be seen whether the players' PR exercise last week was
particularly smart.

The onus is now very much back on them. They can exercise what the ECB
insist is their individual right not to go, in which case their World Cup is
almost over before it begins and they find themselves in the middle of a
moral dilemma they are probably not equipped to deal with. Or they can
swallow their pride, go to Zimbabwe and risk showing everyone that their
statement was a sham.
Back to the Top
Back to Index
Independent (UK)

Blair fails to win Mbeki's support
By Jo Dillon, Deputy Political Editor
02 February 2003


Tony Blair's meeting yesterday with South African President Thabo Mbeki
failed to make a breakthrough on the issue of Zimbabwe after four hours of
"wide-ranging" talks.

The two men discussed the Iraq crisis, the New Partnership for Africa's
Development and the Middle East, before turning to Zimbabwe ahead of an
expected announcement by the England cricket team, still grappling over
whether to boycott the World Cup matches scheduled for Zimbabwe.

Britain made it clear ahead of the meeting that Mr Blair wanted to see a
"firmer public stance" against Robert Mugabe's regime. But Mr Mbeki was
never going to shift position to support British-led moves in Europe and
abroad to isolate and vilify Mugabe. Many in South Africa's ruling African
National Congress are understood to admire both the man and his policy of
seizing white-owned commercial farms.

No 10 did not report any progress on Mr Blair's renewed attempt to have the
matches due to be played in Zimbabwe this month cancelled on security
grounds and switched to South Africa. The idea was rejected last week by the
world cricketing authorities. Downing Street, however, described the meeting
as "warm and cordial".

The issue of Zimbabwe will again put Mr Blair at odds with Britain's allies
when the Anglo-French summit is held on Tuesday. The original summit last
November had to be put back after a row between Mr Blair and the French
President, Jacques Chirac, over EU farm subsidies. Now Mr Blair is at odds
with Mr Chirac over the latter's decision to invite President Mugabe to the
Franco-African summit in Paris later this month.
Back to the Top
Back to Index
http://slate.msn.com/id/2078003/

Race and Rescue
Nelson Mandela's odious views on Iraq.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Saturday, February 1, 2003, at 12:28 PM PT


It's a strong field in which to compete, but the contest for the most stupid
remarks about the impending confrontation with Saddam Hussein has apparently
been won by Nelson Mandela. Not content with describing this confrontation
as a "holocaust" and attributing every administration motive to the greed
for oil, the first president of liberated South Africa said that contempt
had been shown for the United Nations because Kofi Annan was black, and that
such things never used to happen when U.N. general secretaries were white.
(This is the second time in six months that Mandela has said this and the
second time that Kofi Annan has had no comment on the suggestion.)

Where to begin? And what to say when Nelson Mandela plays the race card? I
can remember when the secretary-general was Boutros-Ghali, an Egyptian
Coptic Christian married to an Egyptian Jew, and I can remember when he said
that the West only cared about Bosnia because Bosnians were white. I didn't
know how to begin on that occasion, either, because the fact was that the
West at that stage didn't give a damn for the Bosnians. But if it had
followed Boutros-Ghali's advice and let Bosnia slide, we would certainly now
be hearing that nobody cared for the Bosnians because they were Muslim.

In the same period an urgent fax was received at the United Nations HQ from
the French-Canadian commander in Rwanda, Gen. Romeo Dallaire. It warned that
plans for genocide were about to be made real and begged for a small
increase in the U.N. military presence in Kigali. The fax landed on Kofi
Annan's desk (he was then a deputy to Boutros-Ghali) and stayed there.
Madeleine Albright later vetoed any further action to forestall the mass
slaughter of Tutsi by Hutu. I can think of many reasons to condemn Annan's
culpable inaction, but I would hesitate to assert that he lifted no finger
to save fellow Africans because he was by birth a Ghanaian but married to a
Swede (who, incidentally, is a direct descendant of Raoul Wallenberg).

During the last round with Saddam Hussein, the secretary-general of the U.N.
was a listless Peruvian named Javier Perez de Cuellar. He also conceived it
as his job to ask for "more time" (without ever specifying more time for
what) and incurred much American criticism for doing so. Are Peruvians white
or black? Or neither? Does the epidermis count in such matters?

The Burmese U Thant was a ditherer par excellence as secretary-general, but
he enjoyed wide respect for his philosophical bearing and manner. Kurt
Waldheim basked in support from all factions during his period of pointless
jet-setting but was then discovered to have been a raging Nazi and is now,
because of the brown-ness of his former shirt at least, forbidden even to
set foot in the United States. That's racism for you. The only
secretary-general to have been really hated by the leading Western powers
was the pale Scandinavian Dag Hammarskjold, and there are to this day those
who believe that his plane crash in Africa was no accident. He had devoted
himself to the saving of the post-independence Belgian Congo and to the
prevention of Katangese secession: an important cause that Nelson Mandela as
a young man would have followed closely.

In other words, there isn't even any metaphorical truth in what one of the
world's moral heroes has just said. And a pool of embarrassment has formed
around his remarks: Not even Cynthia McKinney is likely to want to push it
this far. I doubt that Jacques Chirac, whose fondness for Africans and for
abrupt interventions in Africa is sans pareil, will want to take advantage
of this rhetorical opportunity, either.

A further question arises. Does Mandela suppose that weapons of mass
destruction are no matter? South Africa is the country most often cited as
exemplary in its decision to destroy the nuclear devices that it built under
the foul old regime and to demonstrate (indeed, to volunteer) clear and
precise compliance with the Non-Proliferation Treaty. In the very week that
Iraq declines contemptuously to do the same, Mandela speaks as if the U.N.
were being insulted only by those who sponsored the disarmament resolution.
And to this he adds the accusation that those who disagree with him are
guilty of racism! There were those who said that South Africa disarmed
itself only so that nukes would not fall into the hands of blacks. Does
Mandela now think that they were right?

The grand old man has made crass remarks before. In a speech in Kenya a few
years ago he said that critics of then-President Moi were motivated by
colonialist nostalgia. The Kenyan voters recently and overwhelmingly
dismissed the candidate of the discredited Moi regime. Mandela also praised
Col. Qaddafi and Maximum Leader Fidel Castro for their help in assisting the
revolution in South Africa (which is true enough in the case of Cuba). But
he said this while defending his policy of uncritical friendship with both
leaders. A man of ordinary moral courage might have gone as far as saying
that he wished they had been elected, as he himself was (by a probable
majority if not plurality of "white" votes as well as black, Indian, and
"mixed" ones). What could he have been afraid of? But political courage and
moral and physical courage are not axiomatically linked, and Mandela has a
surplus only of the last two.

I have never in my life kept a photograph of myself with any politician or
celebrity except the one I have of my meeting with Mandela. I can remember
sitting and drinking several times with his successor Thabo Mbeki, in the
latter's student leftist days. Nothing can take anything away from the
imperishable movement that they and others led. But this latest garbage is a
very timely caution against our common tendency to make supermen and stars
and heroes out of fellow humans. Iraq is not Saddam any more than Zimbabwe
is Mugabe, and being on the right side of history once is no guarantee that
the subsequent fall will not be from a very great height.
Back to the Top
Back to Index
Leader's plea to halt Zimbabwe torture

On the eve of his treason trial, Morgan Tsvangirai, the head of Zimbabwe's
opposition, tells Andrew Meldrum that the world must now intervene to save
his country

Sunday February 2, 2003
The Observer

Faces lit up and people scurried to shake hands or just get close to
Zimbabwe's opposition leader, Morgan Tsvangirai, when he went for an
unexpected walkabout in Harare's Budiro township.
The scruffy vegetable market was briefly transformed. 'Mr President, you are
our true leader,' said a beaming vendor. Others chanted: 'We are hungry, we
are hungry.' Tsvangirai responded, 'I know, I understand. We are going
through hard times.'

This week will be especially tough for Tsvangirai, who goes on trial
tomorrow for his alleged involvement in an assasination attempt on Zimbawe's
tyrannical leader, Robert Mugabe.

In an exclusive interview with The Observer, Tsvangirai declared this
weekend that his country was now facing a 'torture emergency'. 'The UN
should send its special rapporteur; the Commonwealth should investigate.
This is a universal appeal to all international bodies, government and human
rights organisations to investigate what is going on here. In the name of
human rights, it must stop.'

Tsvangirai bitterly attacked France and Portugal for inviting Mugabe to
summits in their capitals in defiance of European Union sanctions, charging
that they will be 'toasting with goblets of the blood of innocent women and
children'.

In the marketplace on Friday, the support for Tsvangirai was tangible, even
from a young man who came up in a T-shirt emblazoned with the emblem of
Zanu-PF, Mugabe's ruling party. 'What's this?' said Tsvangirai in a jocular
tone. 'It's just a T-shirt,' said the man, shaking hands and smiling. 'I
have to have something to wear.'

Some told Tsvangirai how brave he was to stand up to Mugabe. Others said:
'Where have you been? We need you!'

Within a few minutes Tsvangirai got back in his truck and was off to visit
other markets as well as the endless queues - fuel queues, bus queues and
food queues - that define Zimbabwe today.

They were lightning visits, designed to avoid Zimbabwe's police, who have
used draconian security laws to disperse meetings that Tsvangirai was
scheduled to address.

After keeping a relatively low profile since the March presidential
elections, which he narrowly lost to Mugabe amid widespread charges of state
violence and voting fraud, Tsvangirai is reinvigorated and taking the
offensive against the government.

Tsvangirai is enthusiastically received wherever he goes and the
whistle-stop walkabouts are marked by cheers, joking and a lack of the
menace and thuggish threats that are the hallmarks of Mugabe's Zanu-PF. It
has been many years since Mugabe has ventured out to meet the public.

Tsvangirai, 51, appeared relaxed and cheerful, but he has many challenges to
face, not least tomorrow. He has dismissed the charges as 'trumped-up
allegations, part of a campaign of spurious charges against our party's
leaders to try to derail us. We are confident these charges will not hold up
in court'.

In the past few weeks, 10 supporters of Tsvangirai's Movement for Democratic
Change (MDC) have been arrested, including three MPs and a lawyer. They
allege that they were tortured by police, including beatings, clubbing and
electric shocks to the genitals. Their charges are supported by independent
medical examinations.

In January, Zimbabwe was rocked by the news that two of Mugabe's top
deputies allegedly approached Tsvangirai to see if he would join in a
transitional government if they could convince Mugabe to take early
retirement. The news established Tsvangirai as a key player in any
negotiations to resolve Zimbabwe's ongoing crisis.

'Anyone who wants to find a solution must come to the MDC because we have
the allegiance of the people,' Tsvangirai said.

'Mugabe may have the power and the position, but he is totally lacking in
democratic legitimacy. People are looking to the MDC because it stands up
for democracy and speaks up for the issues that affect everyone. Zanu-PF
knows the time for testing the waters is fast running out. Negotiations to
resolve the economic crisis must take place now, or very soon.

'The economic realities are very evident. The government is insolvent and
the situation is totally unsustainable. When people are going hungry, we are
clearly at the wall. The peoples' suffering must stop. That is the key.'

Mugabe's government estimates that eight million of the country's 12 million
people are threatened with starvation. 'The government alone cannot deal
with the magnitude of the food shortages, yet it wants to control food for
political reasons,' Tsvangirai said. 'There is evidence that food is being
steered away from the areas of MDC support. Buhera [Tsvangirai's home area]
and Binga have been starved of any food from the state Grain Marketing
Board.

'It is only because of the intervention of international non-governmental
organisations that there has not been serious loss of life. And the fuel
shortage makes things worse. There is no diesel to transport food.'

South Africa and Nigeria both sent Cabinet Ministers to Zimbabwe in January
who publicly supported Mugabe and did not meet Tsvangirai or any other MDC
member. Tsvangirai denounced South Africa and Nigeria for supporting Mugabe
rather than mediating between all sides. 'We in the MDC recognise the role
of South Africa in help ing to point the way forward for us. South Africa
has the historical precedent of always being part of the solution for this
country. Our concern is over the strategy the Mbeki government has employed.
We question whether it can serve as an honest broker.

'We believe they have compromised themselves by openly supporting Zanu-PF.
This support started with the March elections, but it is now more robust.
The Labour Minister visited here and loudly supported Zanu-PF, the Foreign
Minister, too. And at the ACP meeting, South Africa supported Mugabe. So it
is natural for us to distrust them.'

Tsvangirai spelled out what he believes is necessary to return the troubled
country to democracy. 'The first thing is that Mugabe has got to go.
Mugabe's arrogance and defiance is becoming a national liability,' he said.

'Let's recognise that Zanu-PF, although it is part of the problem, is also
part of the solution. It must be involved in the transitional authority that
we are proposing. The elections must be conducted according to the standards
of the Southern African Development Community [SADC - the group of 15
southern African nations].'

African countries have developed their own standards for democratic
elections and these must be adhered to, Tsvangirai said. 'To allow democracy
to function freely is the only way out.

'We recognise that Mbeki needs a solution to Zimbabwe's crisis, too. If
there is anything we can do to bridge the gap of misunderstanding with South
Africa, then we will try it. But they must deal with us honestly and fairly.

'South Africa has gone through a commendable process of changing governments
using national healing and reconciliation, fully democratic elections, the
creation of a legitimate constitution that gives power to the people. We can
learn from all those steps.'

The next few months are crucial, he said. 'There are many events that are
coming up: the Commonwealth decision in March whether to expel Zimbabwe or
maintain its suspension; Nigerian president Obasanjo will visit here in
February; EU heads of state will meet with their ACP partners soon; the UN
is to consider Zimbabwe. What the international community should say is "We
want to help".

'The international community should not think this is just between two
political parties; they must help the whole nation. To do that they must
consult with all the civic organisations in the space between the parties.
All stakeholders should be consulted; only then can we move forward
together.'
Back to the Top
Back to Index
Letter to the Scotsman


England are right to take in Zimbabwe experience

Duggie Middleton


Dear England cricketers,

Not so long ago, our family group were leaving the grounds of a hospital
where my sister had been born in then Southern Rhodesia 50 years previously,
when we were accosted by two angry officials as we made to drive away from
the shambolic car park, which was hemmed in by a broken-down fence.

The Zimbabweans demanded to know what we were doing, why we were taking
photographs, and ordered us into the hospital. Our explanations were
rejected in animated fashion, and the nostalgic visit rekindling memories of
my sister's birth had turned into a frightening episode, as we were obliged
to wait in a tatty reception area, and police were contacted.

Zimbabwe security were not interested in the presence of four Brits at the
hospital, but we had to explain ourselves to the administrator who, to our
relief, was a young gentleman with impeccable manners. It was the camera, he
explained: the privacy of patients was paramount; what if our pictures
appeared on the front of the New York Times? We all laughed.

We apologised profusely for our lack of foresight, and were relieved to
proceed back to the car park, and drive off.

The incident was not that serious, but it was a shock that aggressive
paranoia seemed to run so deep in a country where many of my relatives had
been born and prospered - until it was time for them to leave.

How many Aids patients languished in the hospital in a continent ravaged by
the disease we do not know, but we assume that anxiety over their
predicament was at the forefront of the administrator's mind.

Our otherwise enjoyable return to Zim came just before the excesses of the
Mugabe regime began to bite extremely hard in a land that is so engaging and
has so much potential that it makes one weep to think of it. After that
trip, when fistfuls of Zimbabwean dollars were needed to complete modest
transactions because of rampant inflation, I seriously considered returning
to the land where I had spent a joyful part of my childhood, to serve as a
volunteer teacher and sports coach.

Events put that idea on hold, but it is still there: the brilliant smiles of
young Zimbabweans provide haunting reminders.

This is where you cricketers come in. Zimbabwe is a sporting nation, or has
been up to this point, whether it is barefooted youngsters kicking a
football on a dusty patch on the outskirts of Harare, rugby on rock-hard
pitches or cricket being conducted in the leafy surroundings of the capital
or in Bulawayo in the south.

I cannot speak for the security situation (relatives are no longer on the
end of a phone-call to Harare) but selfishly, and in the sincere hope that
it will shed a spotlight on the problems of a beloved country and its
wonderful people, I am delighted that you are taking the World Cup to the
land which provided stimulating experiences, sport included, in my younger
days.

Yes, the people have been exploited by the colonial system; yes, the
inequalities remain; but such inequalities will not be overturned by Robert
Mugabe's weird notion of turning land back to his people, whatever the
consequences in hunger and long-term despair.

Cricketers of England: go to play, to observe, to talk, and use the
opportunity to help to inform the world. Not to go would simply have
bolstered Mugabe's excesses.

And to those who cry: "Keep politics out of sport," I would retort: You can'
t keep politics out of sport. Ever.

I hope that you enjoy your cricket and learn about a country with superb
potential, albeit one that is caught in a nightmare that must end.

Yours in sport,

Duggie Middleton
Back to the Top
Back to Index
Scotland on Sunday

      The secret Zimbabwe policeman's cricket ball

      TREVOR GRUNDY


      HIS light-hearted nickname 'Danny Boy' is in stark contrast to his
murky past as the head of Robert Mugabe's dreaded secret police.

      Dan Stannard, the ruddy-faced Irishman once regarded as the most
powerful white man in Zimbabwe and one of Mugabe's chief enforcers, has once
again emerged from the shadows.

      This time, however, Stannard has not been ordered to root out
political dissidents under the auspices of the dreaded Central Intelligence
Organisation (CIO). Instead, he has resurfaced as the man tasked with
assessing the safety of the foreign cricketers who are due to play World Cup
matches in the strife-ridden African nation later this month. Until recently
Stannard was manager of the Zimbabwe cricket team. These days, the man who
once saved Mugabe's life, is the team's security manager.

      Last week the International Cricket Council (ICC) announced that the
controversial matches in Harare and Bulawayo should go ahead despite fears
that players could be attacked, kidnapped or caught up in violent
demonstrations against Mugabe's regime. The decision to press ahead with the
six matches, including an England fixture against Zimbabwe on February 13,
was based on an assessment by the American security consultants Kroll. ICC
chief executive Malcolm Speed, said: "The Kroll report, which was discussed
at length, was categorical in its ultimate assessment that it is safe and
secure for all six matches in Zimbabwe to proceed as planned."

      However, Stannard, one of Mugabe's most trusted former aides, is
widely believed to have been working behind the scenes to persuade ICC
inspectors and senior executives from Kroll that foreign cricketers will not
be in danger.

      "We're safe as houses," Stannard insists, adding that security
preparations in Zimbabwe have been first rate.

      However, Amnesty's Zimbabwe desk officer, Sharmala Naidoo, who has
just made her own tour of the country, is sceptical of the authorities'
claims: "The [Zimbabwean] people who are re-assuring the England team are
the same people who have been arresting human rights workers and journalists
for years."

      Last night a spokesman for the ICC, which commissioned the Kroll
report, refused to confirm or deny that it or Kroll had been involved in
talks with Stannard.

      In the 1990s Stannard served as an intermediary between Mugabe and
worried white farmers, assuring them they had nothing to fear from Zimbabwe'
s president.

      Little is known about his early years, other than the fact that the
65-year-old has spent most of life in Zimbabwe, Rhodesia and South Africa.

      Stannard's long friendship with Robert Mugabe started in 1980 during
the country's first one man, one vote elections. The former British South
African Police was drafted into the CIO as the fledgling state prepared for
black majority rule. Members of the CIO were originally trained by the East
German secret police, the Stasi.

      Stannard was brought in to train a new generation of agents who
infiltrated rival political parties, broke up anti-government demonstrations
and destabilised political groups.

      White soldiers boasted they would kill Mugabe before British Governor
Lord Soames could install him as the country's first black leader. And, just
days into the election campaign, Mugabe was the target of an assassination
attempt.

      In February 1980, Stannard was driving Mugabe towards the Midland
town, Masvingo. Suddenly, he swerved off the road. Moments later the highway
on which they would have been driving exploded into a sheet of flames.

      Stannard's actions not only guaranteed him rapid advancement through
the ranks of the CIO but, more importantly, earned Mugabe's trust.

      He was appointed head of the internal wing of the CIO, which
opposition parties claim has been responsible for the arrest and torture of
hundreds of human rights workers, black politicians and journalists over the
past two years.

      Stannard went on to work for two of the CIO's most efficient
"opposition hunters", Emmerson Mnangagwa, minister of state for security,
and Dr Sydney Sekeramayi, the head of the organisation.

      It was the CIO which masterminded the invasion of Matabeleland by
Mugabe's North Korean-trained Fifth Brigade to crush rebellion by guerrillas
loyal to the ZAPU leader Joshua Nkomo, whom the president had accused of
planning to overthrow the government. It has been claimed up to 50,000
civilians were killed.

      Mugabe, who effectively turned his country into a one-party state as a
result, has refused to apologise to survivors, describing the dead as
"dissidents" bent on overthrowing his new government.

      In 1987 Stannard was awarded Zimbabwe's highest honour, the Order of
Valour. Interestingly, there was no citation for the medal.

      In 1996 Stannard retired as head of the internal unit of the CIO. He
acted as a private business consultant, urging white farmers to ignore the
anti-white rhetoric emerging from Harare Some of the same farmers were to
become victims of the state-orchestrated land-grabs by squatters and 'war
veterans'.

      Then, in March 2000, in what appeared to be a strange twist, Stannard
was appointed manager of the Zimbabwe cricket team on a three-month tour to
the UK. Farm invasions were under way and players were worried that their
families back home would be killed. Stannard was expected to smooth the
situation by assuring his young side that all would be well.

      Asked at that time how he felt about being a cricket team manager and
a former head of the CIO, he replied: " As far as my appointment as team
manager is concerned, there is nothing sinister. It has nothing to do with
my past - I just love cricket."

      So does his former boss. Mugabe is often seen sipping tea, eating cake
and clapping at Harare Sports Club while revelling in the magical thwack of
leather against willow. He once said: "I want all my young men to be
gentlemen and play cricket."

      Nevertheless, Mugabe's ambition of hosting World Cup matches may yet
be thwarted. The fixtures could still be switched at the very last moment,
if the security situation in Zimbabwe deteriorates. In the meantime,
Stannard continues to push the party line, commenting recently: "It is as
safe here now as it ever has been." In a country such as Zimbabwe that isn't
saying much.
Back to the Top
Back to Index
England players' union unhappy over ICC secrecy

England's players' union branded "unacceptable" Saturday the refusal of the
International Cricket Council (ICC) to give it a copy of the controversial
report which says it is safe for World Cup matches in Zimbabwe and Kenya to
go ahead.

England's Professional Cricketers' Association (PCA) also said they had been
contacted by a member of the media who had seen the report and that this had
led to "serious concerns".

England players want their World Cup opener against Zimbabwe in Harare on
February 13 moved on safety and moral grounds to main tournament hosts South
Africa, where the bulk of the event's 54 matches are taking place.

But on Thursday the ICC, following its second executive board teleconference
in as many weeks, said it was safe for the two matches in Kenya and the six
fixtures in famine-threatened Zimbabwe to proceed as scheduled.

The ICC set great store by a report it commissioned from American security
firm Kroll which concluded the matches could take place.

However, this has not convinced New Zealand cricket chiefs who are still
refusing to let the team travel to Nairobi for their match against Kenya on
February 21.

On Saturday, senior figures from England's Professional Cricketers'
Association (PCA), including chief executive David Graveney, also England's
chairman of selectors and managing director Richard Bevan, the England team
representative, took part in a teleconference to discuss the Zimbabwe issue.

Also involved were England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) chairman David
Morgan and the team's lawyer Gerrard Tyrrell.

Statement

In a statement, the PCA said: "The PCA were informed by the ICC via Tim Lamb
(ECB chief executive) on Friday that the Kroll Report (an independent risk
assessment report commissioned by the ICC) would not be made available for
the player representatives.

"However, a meeting would be arranged if requested between the authors of
the report and the player representatives in Cape Town, South Africa, at the
end of next week.

"This is an unacceptable position. The PCA have been contacted by a member
of the media who has had access to the Kroll Report which has led to serious
concerns.

"Without doubt there is an element of risk as the Kroll Report said:
'Extensive disruptions of the matches are planned by elements in the
opposition MDC (Movement for Democratic Change) party'.

"There are serious safety and security issues regarding the media,
supporters and citizens of Zimbabwe, as well as the players, during the time
that the England team will be in Harare," the PCA said.

"In order to understand the conclusion you must have access to the full
report.

"The PCA have made a second request for the Kroll report to David Morgan,
who will be discussing this with the ICC next week.

"It is extremely surprising the ICC have taken this approach with the Kroll
report, considering they have used it to further support their views on the
scheduled matches in Zimbabwe going ahead.

"The ICC must also recognise the relationship between Britain and Zimbabwe
is a special situation. This is confirmed by a quote from President Mugabe:
'Britain is the sworn enemy of Zimbabwe'."

The PCA said Tyrrell would be communicating the PCA's concerns to the ECB's
management board meeting on Monday.

It also said Bevan had asked for a letter from the ECB's insurers confirming
there were no problems insuring the team while it was in Zimbabwe.

Bevan will now fly out Monday to South Africa, where the England team are
currently based.

Britain was once the ruling colonial power in what was then Rhodesia before
Zimbabwe was created as an independent nation in 1980.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair has been one of the severest critics of
Mugabe's regime and the alleged human rights abuses it has carried out.

On Thursday ICC chief executive Malcolm Speed re-iterated matches in the
February 8 to March 23 World Cup could be moved as late as four days in
advance.
Back to the Top
Back to Index
ECB in court over Harare match

Denis Campbell
Sunday February 2, 2003
The Observer

England's controversial World Cup match in Zimbabwe could yet be halted if
the High Court in London declares that the players' employers are acting
illegally in sending Nasser Hussain's side to Harare against their wishes.
The bitter row over the 13 February fixture will move from Lord's to The
Strand in the next few days when Labour MP Derek Wyatt asks the High Court
to declare that the England and Wales Cricket Board have flouted their own
rules over the affair.

Wyatt, the MP for Sittingbourne and North Sheppey, will petition the High
Court for a judicial review of the ECB's behaviour, arguing that they are in
breach of their duty, enshrined in clause four of their own constitution,
'to uphold and enhance the traditions and spirit of the game of cricket'.

Wyatt has received a legal opinion from a Queen's Counsel advising that the
ECB may well be in breach of that obligation because, although they
sympathise with the players' opposition to appearing in the Zimbabwean
capital next week, they are still backing the International Cricket
Council's insistence that England must travel because it is safe to play the
match.

'Nasser Hussain and the rest of the players clearly do not want to play this
match in Zimbabwe, yet at the moment the ECB are still helping to force them
to do something their consciences find repugnant,' said Wyatt. 'I believe
the ECB's stance is contrary to their duty to uphold the spirit of the game
and believe there is a very good chance the judge will agree.

'If the players want to play the match elsewhere, surely forcing them to
play in Zimbabwe violates the sport's true spirit, which is all about
fairness, honesty and integrity,' said Wyatt, who played rugby union for
England. A judicial review is a speedy legal process, and the court should
hand down its judgement by the end of the week.

Through their representative, Richard Bevan of the Professional Cricketers'
Association, the England squad made clear last week that they do not want
the match in Harare to go ahead, and asked for it to be switched to South
Africa. But the ECB, fearful that they could be fined heavily by the ICC if
England refused to play in Zimbabwe, have until now toed the ICC's line.

This week will be crucial in deciding if the match does occur. Tomorrow, any
decision on whether it proceeds passes from the ICC's ruling 10-man board to
the World Cup tournament committee, headed by Dr Ali Bacher of South Africa,
who are less susceptible to the factionalism of world cricket politics. They
may yet move the game, as England want.

Bevan further increased the pressure on the ECB and ICC yesterday by hinting
that Hussain and his team-mates may follow the example of New Zealand, who
have refused to fulfil their match in Kenya in case they become a terrorist
target.

The PCA are also demanding 'full access' to the Kroll Report, the assessment
of the security situation in Zimbabwe upon which the ICC last week
maintained it was safe for World Cup games to proceed in Robert Mugabe's
country. The study warned that 'extensive disruptions of the matches are
planned by elements in the opposition MDC party'. Bevan says players,
officials, fans and Zimbabwean citizens could be at risk if matches
proceeded.

South Africa, who expect to reach the final of the World Cup, were thrashed
by one of their provincial sides in a warm-up match in Cape Town yesterday.
They were bowled out for 155 in 39.5 overs by Western Province, Shaun
Pollock and Lance Klusener in particular struggling to force the ball off
the square. Jacques Kallis contributed an entertaining 17 off seven balls.
Western Province won by seven wickets with 9.5 overs of this 40-
overs-a-side match to spare, Neil Johnson striking 71 off 53 balls.
Back to the Top
Back to Index
ABC Australia

Downer warned that Zimbabwe match will turn violent

The Federal Government has been told widespread protests during Australia's
World Cup cricket match in Zimbabwe are likely to turn violent, Foreign
Minister Alexander Downer said on Sunday.

He said Australia's High Commissioner to Zimbabwe, Jonathon Brown, had sent
the government a "disturbing report" after a two-day reconnaissance mission
in Bulawayo, where Australian cricketers are scheduled to play Zimbabwe on
February 24.

Mr Brown had reported to Canberra that the Zimbabwean police would not
guarantee a controlled response to the planned protests, Mr Downer told
reporters in Adelaide.

Mr Downer also called on the International Cricket Council (ICC) to reverse
its decision to support matches going ahead as scheduled in Zimbabwe and
Kenya.

"It is our view that the ICC should move the games from Zimbabwe to more
appropriate locations in Africa," he said.

Several Australian players have admitted growing concerns about playing in
Zimbabwe.

Matthew Hayden, the world's number one ranked batsman, said on the
Australian team's departure here Thursday that he would refuse to shake the
hand of Zimbabwe president Robert Mugabe because of moral issues.

Zimbabwean golfer Tony Johnstone said in Melbourne on Sunday that
Australia's cricketers risked being targeted by protest groups and would be
used as a propaganda tool by the discredited Zimbabwean government.

"I think there are serious concerns about their safety," said Johnstone, who
now lives in England.

"They can also be used as a tool for any opposition parties for protest."

Mr Downer said the High Commissioner believed Zimbabwean opposition parties
and other groups planned to protest during the match which were likely to be
met aggressively by police.

"His report says, firstly, that the opposition in Bulawayo don't want the
cricket game to go ahead," the minister said.

"Secondly, he believes there will be demonstrations mounted by the
opposition and others in Bulawayo at the time of the game.

"Thirdly, he has been unable to get a commitment from the Zimbabwean police
that they won't react to demonstrators in a disproportionately aggressive
way, thereby undermining the security situation."

The Government would pass on Mr Brown's report to the Australian Cricket
Board and ICC.

"We naturally remained concerned about the security situation," Mr Downer
said, adding about 400 Australians had purchased tickets for the match, so
the government was concerned not just for the cricketers.

Johnstone, 46, who was playing Sunday in the Heineken Classic in Melbourne,
said it was a chronic error by the ICC to insist that the Australian team
play in the troubled African nation.

"The ICC have been going over there and coming back to say security is fine,
but in my opinion when the cricketers go over there, they are going to be
feted by the government and not necessarily be shown what the people are
thinking."

Back to the Top
Back to Index
Fox Sports

I wouldn't play in Zimbabwe: Kirsten
From correspondents in Potchefstroom, South Africa
February 2, 2003

SOUTH AFRICAN veteran Gary Kirsten has admitted he would refuse to play in
Zimbabwe if his side was due to visit the strife-torn nation during the
World Cup.

Kirsten's revelation comes on the back of reports of an Al-Qaeda cell
planning to attack Westerners in Zimbabwe - and South Africa - if the US
goes to war with Iraq.

Kirsten, whose side is not drawn to play any matches in either Zimbabwe or
another trouble spot, Kenya, told a charity function he believed there was a
"security issue" around matches in Zimbabawe.

The Australian Cricket Board and International Cricket Council (ICC) want
Australia's match on February 24 to go ahead at Bulawayo but they are
constantly monitoring a potentially volatile situation.

If players are thought to be at risk, Australia will withdraw.

The safety of the team and officials is the only consideration. Political
and moral questions over president Robert Mugabe's rule will not come into
it.

New Zealand have already pulled out of their clash against Kenya after
receiving information from independent security sources that terrorist
activity was on the boil in Nairobi.

"Politics should be left to the politicians," said Kirsten.

"But I would not play in Zimbabwe... there is a security issue."

A US Government report has detailed a plan by Tablik Ja'maat, an
Al-Qaeda-linked group of militant extremists, to attack US targets in
Zimbabwe if war was declared on Iraq.

Other attacks would take place in Pakistan, Indonesia, Nigeria, Turkey,
South Africa and Israel, according to the report.

Meanwhile, ICC chief executive Malcolm Speed is trying to determine whether
the NZ-Kenya game can be re-scheduled.

If not, options for the Kiwis include taking the matter to an independent
ICC committee of up to five members, appealing to the Court of Arbitration
for Sport, or going to the ICC Cricket World Cup events technical committee.


NZ are set to lose two valuable competition points from a game they would be
almost certain to win but their reluctance to travel to a dangerous area is
understandable after perilously close shaves with terrorist attacks in the
past.

A bomb killed 11 French engineers in a bus outside the New Zealand team's
hotel last year in Karachi, Pakistan. In 1987 in Sri Lanka, a bomb exploded
in a nearby downtown Colombo bus depot. In 1992 in the same country, an
assassination by car bombing, again near the team's hotel, caused the
immediate disintegration of the tour.

Australia are scheduled to be in Bulawayo from February 21-25.
Back to the Top
Back to Index
Sunday Mirror (UK)
 
TV BLOWERS' RICIN TERROR

Feb 2 2003

EXCLUSIVE: Powder package sent to cricket expert's home

By Andy Gardner, Crime Reporter

 

CRICKET legend Henry "Blowers" Blofeld was at the centre of a terrorist alert when an envelope containing a mystery white powder was posted through his door.

Anti-terrorist officers rushed to the TV commentator's home after he rang 999 to report the suspicious package, which he thought could contain deadly anthrax or ricin.

Mr Blofeld feared he had been targeted by al-Qaeda terrorists. Extremists have also promised a campaign of intimidation to try to get England to cancel their World Cup cricket matches in Zimbabwe.

SCARE: Blowers

The unaddressed brown-coloured package had been put through the letterbox of his £750,000 home in Chelsea, West London, which is protected by private security gates.

Officers from the police's Territorial Support Group - which responds to possible terrorist alerts involving "suspicious substances" - rushed to the scene.

One, dressed in a full white protective boiler suit and face mask, went into the house and spent 30 minutes analysing the contents of the package, before taking it away for forensic examination.

A police source said: "Mr Blofeld returned to his home to find an unaddressed envelope. He opened it and saw the powder. Fortunately none of it sprayed out over him and he immediately resealed it before ringing the police.

"He was quite anxious because of all the publicity surrounding the discovery of ricin and the debate over whether England should play World Cup cricket in Zimbabwe."

Six police officers waited outside the property until they were given the all-clear. They spent 90 minutes interviewing Mr Blofeld, 63, and his wife Karin.

The source added: "Mr Blofeld was very calm. The officer had to make a judgement call whether to set up a decontamination unit. He decided it probably wasn't poison and took it away."

The powder has been sent for analysis to the Metropolitan Police forensic laboratory in South London.

The alert came after police warned terrorists could be planning an attack on a high-profile figure following the discovery of an alleged ricin factory in a North London flat.

A chemical suit was also discovered in a raid on a flat in a Paris suburb last month, prompting police operations in London and Manchester.

Police believe terror groups are determined to launch an attack soon, with Britain at the forefront of their planning.

Mr Blofeld, who was awarded an OBE in the New Year's honours list, is strongly against Nasser Hussain's team playing in World Cup matches in Zimbabwe. He said: "I didn't know what the powder was and thought it best to ring the police.

"You can't be too careful at the moment. I have been on TV recently saying a few unsympathetic things about Robert Mugabe, so I wondered whether the powder might be linked to that.

"The police were charming and did a wonderful job."

Back to the Top
Back to Index
Cato Institute

South Africa Helps Libya Gain U.N. Human Rights Seat
by Marian L. Tupy

Marian L. Tupy is assistant director of the Project on Global Economic
Liberty at the Cato Institute.

Libya's election to the chairmanship of the United Nations Human Rights
Commission this week raised eyebrows across the world. The oppressive nature
of Libya's government and disregard for human rights are well known and
thoroughly documented. The European countries, including France, Germany and
Great Britain, which abstained during the vote and thus assured Libya's
victory, are partly to blame for Libya's election. Incapacitated by colonial
guilt, political correctness, and hypersensitivity to criticism emanating
from the developing countries, the Europeans have continuously ignored human
rights abuses by some of the world's most unsavory regimes. In fact, they
made the situation in the developing world worse by subsidizing African
dictators through foreign aid.

But it was the South African government that actively promoted Libya's
candidacy. Yes, South Africa, the nation whose leaders today fought so hard
to end apartheid, now endorses Libya as a "human rights" monitor.

South African diplomats nominated Libya for the chairmanship and then
mustered the necessary votes from among the African and Arab blocs. When the
United States broke with the tradition of electing the chair of the
commission by acclamation and forced a vote on the issue, the South African
ambassador to the UNHRC called the American action "regrettable."

Promotion of dictatorships like Libya casts a huge shadow over South
Africa's own commitment to good governance. As such, it is contrary to South
Africa's long-term political and economic interest.

South Africa is a darling of the international community. It is perceived as
a shining example of multi-racial cohabitation and democratic pluralism
unknown elsewhere on the war-ravaged African continent. That legacy of
toleration and enlightened governance is Nelson Mandela's lasting monument.
But the current South African president is well on the way to dissipating
the good will toward his country in the United States and elsewhere. To be
sure, Mandela's presidency was always going to be a tough act to follow.
From the start, Thabo Mbeki seemed like a puzzling choice to succeed him.
Still, Mbeki's performance on both the domestic and international scenes is
less stellar by the day.

The country suffers from stratospheric levels of crime, low economic growth
and an HIV/AIDS epidemic. Mbeki's response to those issues was to withhold
crime statistics, retard economic growth through restrictive labor laws and
nationalization of mineral rights, and deny the link between HIV and AIDS.
Corruption is so rampant that Nelson Mandela felt compelled to criticize his
own party, the African National Congress. Mbeki's apparatchiks dismissed
Mandela as a man of the past. Instead of addressing pressing domestic
problems, the South African president chose to focus on international
affairs, dispensing "wisdom" about such matters as the conflict between the
Israelis and the Palestinians and possible war in Iraq.

At a significant cost to the South African taxpayer, Mbeki became the first
South African president to acquire a presidential jet, which is to enable
him to pursue his new role as a globetrotting statesman. Apparently, every
prominent African head of state ought to have one. While his people starved,
Zairian dictator Mobutu Sese Seko chartered Concord Es from Air France and
enlarged the airport in his hometown to facilitate the planes' easy
landings.

Mbeki may not be Mobutu, but he has shown himself to be thoroughly
insensitive to the plight of South Africa's poor. To help them, Mbeki should
make every effort to spur economic growth at home. To do that, the South
African government must reassure the world business community that it
believes in economic freedom, the rule of law, and is willing to guarantee
private property rights.

Judging by the company he keeps, President Mbeki is sending the opposite
signals. South Africa was the only democratic country to recognize the
outcome of Zimbabwe's deeply compromised presidential elections and Mbeki
sent his deputy to congratulate Mugabe on his "victory." At no point --
until very recently -- did Mbeki voice his concern over rape of women,
torture and intimidation of opposition, starvation of the population and
unlawful expropriation of the farmers in Zimbabwe. During the U.N. Summit on
Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, Robert Mugabe was welcomed as a
friend.

Another heartfelt welcome was extended to Colonel Gaddafi, who visited South
Africa during the launch of one of Mbeki's grand international designs: the
African Union. On that occasion Gaddafi promised to bankroll Mbeki's plan.
It appears that one of the things Gaddafi asked for in return was the
chairmanship of the UNHRC.

By his actions, President Mbeki deeply compromised the values of democratic
South Africa. It may take a long time for South Africa to fully recover its
lost reputation.
Back to the Top
Back to Index
NZCity

      ICC corrupt; Origin update


      Warren Lees says ICC corrupt- says NZ Cricket stand will lead to
changes; also State of Origin update



2 February 2003

Former New Zealand cricket coach Warren Lees says the International Cricket
Council is corrupt.

This after the ICC decided Kenya is safe enough to play World Cup matches
in.

He believes the ICC has chosen countries like Kenya and Zimbabwe as World
Cup venues, regardless of safety, in return for their continued support.

Lees says the ICC's refusal to move New Zealand's game away from the East
African nation backs up his beliefs.

And he believes the Black Caps stand against playing in Kenya will lead to
major changes in the game.

The English Cricket Board, the International Cricket Player Association and
Australia Players boss Tim May have all pledged their support for New
Zealand's stand.

Lees says the Black Caps' stand against the ICC may mean some other
countries doing the same.

If the Black Caps do not play their match against Kenya, they will forfeit 4
championship points and could face a fine of up to $2.7 million.

Meanwhile a hard-hit 63 from Llorne Howell has helped the South Island to an
eight-run lead over the North Island in its State of Origin cricket match at
North Harbour Stadium today.

Chasing 165 in 25 overs it has made it through to 173 with Howell being the
main contributor.

And the White Ferns have posted a competitive score in their one-day
quadrangular match with India at Lincoln.

They have made 239 for nine with Rebecca Rolls top scoring with 59.

The Australian women have made 226 for eight batting first against England.
Back to the Top
Back to Index
Fox Sports


      Toil, trouble for disunited nations
      February 2, 2003

      THE six-week, fourteen-nation Cricket World Cup gets underway in Cape
Town on Saturday with the heart and soul of the sport at stake just as much
as the trophy itself which will be decided here on March 23.

      Rows over boycotts, security and contracts have cast a shadow over the
tournament with the touchpaper lit by England's fears over playing in
strife-torn and hunger-ravaged Zimbabwe and by India's reluctance to put pen
to paper on deals which they argued were a threat to the health of their own
personal bank accounts.

      But it was New Zealand's decision to pull out of their game in Kenya
on February 21, for fear of being a terrorist target, that finally sparked
the explosion of controversy.

      Kenyan vice-president Michael Kijana Wamalwa urged the Kiwis to
reconsider.

      "I am urging them to reconsider because the act of not coming would be
interpreted as victory by the terrorists," Wamalwa said.

      Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda terrorist network has admitted carrying out
two terrorist attacks in Kenya - one in 1998, which killed 213 people, and
another on November 28 last year in Mombasa where 18 died.

      Meanwhile, England's reluctance to play their February 13 match
against Zimbabwe in Harare becomes more pronounced by the day with the ICC,
the game's governing body, refusing to switch the fixture claiming that
Nasser Hussain's team have nothing to fear.

      Hussain, weary after another marathon, fruitless Ashes campaign is
tired of the controversy.

      "All we are asking for is an urgent review of the game in Zimbabwe,
nothing more," said the skipper who believes the team have made a strong
case for switching the fixture, citing oral, political and safety' issues.

      The England team have come under tremendous pressure to pull out in
protest at president Robert Mugabe's regime.

      Their only consolation is knowing that the match could still be
switched up to four days before the scheduled date.

      But if the game was moved, it would ignite another costly row as it
would involve India, the financial power that drives the world game, who
insist that the game should go-ahead.

      India, along with Pakistan, Namibia and the Netherlands are also
scheduled to play in Zimbabwe, while Sri Lanka have a game in Kenya.

      "The playing conditions should be the same for all teams," a source at
the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) said.

      "All the other group A teams have to travel to Zimbabwe. Why should
England and Australia be exempt?" Like their rivals, India's preparations
too have been far from ideal.

      Only last week, the ICC announced a truce in the contracts row that
had threatened to result in an Indian boycott.

      The ICC's executive board approved a compromise deal that effectively
puts a resolution off until after the event.

      But the ICC is threatening to withold India's nine-million-dollars cut
of World Cup proceeds in the event it is sued for compensation as a result
of the Indian players decision to unilaterally alter their contracts.

      The ICC confirmed it had received "signed but amended contracts" from
the Indian players.

      The BCCI and the players strongly oppose two clauses which are
designed to ban commercial rivals of the official tournament sponsors using
their pre-existing deals with individual players to gain publicity, before,
during and after the World Cup.

      Many Indian stars, including Sachin Tendulkar, enjoy lucrative deals
with non-official sponsors, which they would have had to forego if the
original World Cup contracts were enforced.

      Meanwhile, in South Africa itself, the authorities are taking no
chances with a tournament which, if trouble-free, will bolster the country's
bid to stage the big one - the soccer World Cup in 2010.

      Security will be tight. Every player will be assigned bodyguards,
while fans will be met by metal detectors and security personnel and will be
deterred from running onto the playing area by a 1.7m moat.

      South Africa and holders Australia are most peoples' tips to feature
in the final at the Wanderers.

      Playing at home, Shaun Pollock's team have the self-belief to make
local knowledge count while the Aussies, eager to cement their position as
one of the greatest ever teams, are strong in all departments.

      Runs will come from the likes of Ricky Ponting and Adam Gilchrist
while the fast, bouncy wickets will be a dream for the likes of Brett Lee
and Glenn McGrath.

      England are low on self-confidence after another Ashes trouncing while
India could lack the attack to exploit South African tracks.

      The West Indies are still seemingly in permanent decline while New
Zealand, already with a defeat against their names for refusing to play in
Kenya, will find themselves without the depth to go the extra step.

      Of the other contenders, Sri Lanka have the weaponry but the ongoing
distractions caused by the legality or otherwise of Muttiah Muralitharan's
bowling action could prove crucial.

      Then there's Pakistan. world-beaters one day, in-fighters the next.

      The possibilties are many. So are the pitfalls.
Back to the Top
Back to Index