Zimbabwean war veterans target Asian businesses in land-grabbing campaign
TREVOR GRUNDY
PRESIDENT Robert Mugabe¹s Owar veteran¹ militia is
switching its land-grabbing campaign in Zimbabwe from white-owned farms to
Asian-owned businesses.
The move has echoes of the policy pursued by Idi
Amin in Uganda 30 years ago, which saw 60,000 Asians expelled while their land,
money and businesses were seized .
Last week, the veterans accused the
12,000 people of Asian descent in Zimbabwe of being economic criminals. They
were ordered to hand over money and computers, which might have recorded
transactions that violate the country¹s foreign-exchange laws, or risk having
their homes Onationalised¹ .
Clothes manufacturer Prakash Laloo, from
Bulawayo, said: "We were told that the police and the CIO [Zimbabwe¹s secret
police] will round us up just as Amin did in 1972.
"We have been accused
of flouting the country¹s laws and told that all our properties will be seized.
This is after we have given so much to Mugabe over the years. They are turning
on us because there is no other group that Mugabe can blame for what is
happening ."
With annual inflation having peaked at an all-time high of
200% last month and the IMF expecting it to soar to 500% in June, Zimbabwe¹s
economy is now close to total collapse.
Leaders of the small but
affluent Asian community are considering telling families to prepare to leave.
It is claimed that Asian homes in Harare, Bulawayo, Mutare and Victoria Falls
have already been raided.
Asian community leaders have said they fear
they are being targeted by the militia groups because European farmers have been
effectively Oneutralised¹ following the seizure of white-owned farms over the
last two and a half years.
"First it was the whites, now the Asians and
soon it will be members of the Ndebele areas of Zimbabwe," said a mixed-race
businessman in Harare, who asked not to be named.
" Mugabe feels secure
only with a few people from his own small ethnic group, the Zezurus, which are
part of the Shona tribe. The great rivals to the Shonas are the Ndebeles, who
are offshoots of the Zulus . At independence, we were all Zimbabweans. Now we
are whites, blacks, coloureds, Asians, Shonas, Ndebeles... "
Last year
Andrew Ndlovu, second in command of the National Liberation War Veterans, told
The Herald, a state-controlled newspaper: "We want these Indians to surrender a
percentage of their land . They are not here to develop our country or to work
with us. They are economic looters."
Most of Zimbabwe¹s Asians were born
there. They are descended from families that arrived in east and central Africa
at the end of the 19th century, to work as artisans and clerks while the Germans
and British built roads and railways.
Most Asians were politically
neutral before independence. But since 1980 they have supported the government
and donated vast sums to charities run by ministers and their wives.
Ndlovu and other veterans have advised Asians to admit to engaging in
illegal transactions or face deportation. ©2003
scotsman.com
JUSTICE FOR AGRICULTURE LEGAL COMMUNIQUÉ - February 15,
2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
ZANU-PF
ON THREE LEGS
The situation in Zimbabwe and the tactics adopted by
ZANU-PF to try deal
with the situation, show how very desperate ZANU-PF has
come. Just how
desperate is proven by the fact that right now, even with the
pending war
in Iraq, Mugabe and his cronies are still incredibly unpopular
and
unwelcome all over most of the world.
Obasanjo and Mbeki seem to
be the only two world leaders willing to talk to
Mugabe and speak on his
behalf. If, however, we read the statements in the
right context, we realise
the underlying elements behind all negotiations.
Basically, ZANU-PF have
only got three possible alternatives to try hold
onto their power in
Zimbabwe. These three avenues are the Afro-European
conference in Paris,
Mbeki's policy of "quiet diplomacy", which insinuates
agreement with Made,
and, lastly, the CFU.
AFRO-EUROPEAN SUMMIT - African states have
indicated that the Paris summit
would only take place if Mugabe is allowed to
attend. We all know that
whatever is discussed at the conference will be a
window dressing exercise
to try reduce the international pressure on the
ZANU-PF regime. No matter
how eloquent the speaker, the truth in Zimbabwe
remains blatantly obvious.
The queues for basic commodities, the poverty, the
lawlessness, along with
a never-ending list of humanitarian disasters, are
blatantly apparent and
worsening on a daily basis. If these issues are
addressed in negotiations,
the summit could also be the correct forum to
address the issues of human
rights in Zimbabwe.
MBEKI - Mbeki and his
lack of commitment on the Zimbabwe issue has caused a
lot of uncertainty
internationally. He is the most suitably positioned
person outside of
Zimbabwe to solve the Zimbabwe problem. Yet he has
refused to do so. A closer
look at the man and his record in his own
country shows that he is incapable
of acting and making decisions. South
Africa's success is largely a result of
Mandela's achievements. If Mbeki
cannot even rule a country where the
previous leader addressed the
problems, how do we expect him to aid a country
where the president has not
set out to solve problems, but rather to create
problems.
OBASANJO- The only positive aspect Obasanjo could comment on in
his letter
to Mr Howard, the Prime Minister of Australia, was the apparent
agreement
between farmers and the government on the land issue. The sad
reality is
that there has been no agreement, but the government would like to
have the
world believe that things are normal and that all disputes have
been
addressed and rectified. It appears the government has given the CFU
their
only chance of real survival. If they have, then how have the rest of
the
country benefited? If there has been no break through as government
has
claimed, then why is the CFU silent in disputing this? Surely it must
be
clear to them that they have been conned again. ZANU-PF has not only
taken
the land away from the farmers through the CFU and its policies, but
now
they have also taken away the credibility of the CFU in the eyes of
the
rest of the nation.
CFU must tell the nation, and the world at
large, the truth. If there is no
agreement then let the nation know. On the
other hand if there is agreement
then let the nation know so that we can
expect an improvement in our
standard of living shortly.
Henry Olonga
and Andy Flower have shown us how powerful the truth is. We
must not only
admire them, but follow their humble
example.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Justice
for Agriculture mailing list
To subscribe/unsubscribe: Please write to jag-list-admin@mango.zw
From The Sunday Times (SA), 16 February
Bizos lashes key
witness
Mugabe agent described as a 'clown and
fantasist'
Sunday Times Foreign Desk
The Harare treason
trial of Movement for Democratic Change leader Morgan
Tsvangirai and top
officials of his party gathered pace this week -
culminating in a dramatic
battle of wills between South African advocate
George Bizos and the state's
key witness, Ari Ben-Menashe. At times, our
Harare correspondent reports, the
case "deteriorated into a theatre of
dramatics" as the two clashed during
lengthy cross-examination . While the
case is a serious one, it sometimes
provided free entertainment to the
accused, journalists, observers and others
in the court. Tsvangirai, his
party secretary-general Welshman Ncube and
secretary for agriculture Renson
Gasela are facing treason charges stemming
from an alleged plot to
assassinate President Robert Mugabe. The plot was
allegedly hatched in
meetings with Ben-Menashe's political consultancy,
Dickens & Madson, in
London and Montreal in 2001. The trio deny the
charges, but face the gallows
if convicted.
After spending nearly
the whole of the trial's opening week bogged in
watching and analysing a
fuzzy and inaudible videotape, which the state says
is its key piece of
evidence, the court last week got stuck in another
hurdle: Ben-Menashe's
contract with the Zanu PF government. Bizos demanded
that Ben-Menashe reveal
details of his contract during his testimony and
cross-examination. The
defence wanted the details to verify whether or not
Ben-Menashe was actually
paid US$ 615 000 for publicity work as part of the
sum of about US$ 1 million
he was owed for professional services.
Ben-Menashe admitted he received US$
200 000 from the government immediately
after providing the videotape, which
purportedly shows Tsvangirai planning
to kill Mugabe. Bizos argued that
Ben-Menashe was paid for arranging a sting
operation against his clients and
not for promoting the government's image
abroad. Ben-Menashe denied this but
refused to disclose details of the
contract, citing
confidentiality.
Then proceedings verged on the farcical, with State
Security Minister
Nicholas Goche gagging the release of the contract details,
claiming they
would be "prejudicial to state security". Bizos countered that
the
minister's order was "simply unconstitutional". Judge Paddington Garwe
was
forced to postpone his ruling on the issue four times in two days. When
he
finally delivered his judgment on Wednesday, he said the evidence should
be
led in camera. Lawyers were barred from disclosing details of the
closed
hearing. The trial then shifted into the judge's chambers. But it
later
emerged that the contract details have been freely available in Canada
and
the US. Information in the US Foreign Agents Registration Act files
shows
that Ben-Menashe was hired in January last year as a propaganda
mouthpiece
for Mugabe's government.
After the judge's ruling,
Bizos went on the offensive, describing
Ben-Menashe as a "fraudster, a clown
and fantasist". Quoting from newspaper
articles on Ben-Menashe, Bizos said:
"Anything that Ben-Menashe is involved
in is, prima facie, a scam." But
Ben-Menashe hit back, dismissing the
newspaper allegations as "nonsense".
"This is all a smokescreen because he
(Bizos) can't explain the videotape,"
Ben-Menashe said. "I deny everything
you say . . . It's just all innuendo.
You lie, I don't." Bizos insisted that
Ben-Menashe was seen in international
circles as "a fraud". The star
witness, who admits he is a former Israeli
intelligence operative, was once
described by Time magazine as a "veteran
spinner of stunning-if-true-but . .
. yarns". In the heat of court battle,
Ben-Menashe launched stinging tirades
against Bizos, portraying him as a
"liar" and the MDC as a "terrorist
organisation". Unfazed , Bizos cornered
the Canadian - who he said was an
"unco-operative and cagey witness" - on his
chequered past. Ben-Menashe
ducked and dived when questions were fired at
him. He often said "I don't
know" or "I can't remember that". Bizos insisted
that "at the end of the day
it is Ben-Menashe's credibility which is on
trial". The hearing continues.
Final check on Harare security
By Jon Pierik
17feb03
AUSTRALIA will
cement its commitment to playing in Zimbabwe by sending one
of its most
senior officials to Harare tomorrow to finalise
security
arrangements.
Australian Cricket Board operations manager
Michael Brown and his wife will
fly from Johannesburg to Harare for a
three-day inspection of safety and
security measures ahead of Australia's
World Cup match against the minor
host nation next Monday.
Brown will
attend India's match against Zimbabwe on Wednesday, where he will
check on
player safety procedures at the Harare Sports Club.
He will leave
Zimbabwe on Thursday morning and report his findings to the
players at a team
meeting later this week.
Brown last night stressed Australia would fulfil
its February 24 fixture,
and his visit was only to check the "practical
aspects" of the short tour.
<
"It's about
gathering more information and making sure our players are well
advised,"
Brown said.
"We get a lot of information from a lot of people. The next
stage is to go
and look at the practical aspects of a game.
"This is
not a decision-making, 'do we or won't we go'. Our team is
going."
Australia will fly to Zimbabwe on game eve and leave the morning
after the
match. With England pulling out of its match in Harare, there are
fears
Australia will now be the prime target of anti-government
protesters.
Australia could afford to forfeit the match and surrender the
four points
because it is joint leader of Pool A.
With wins against
their two toughest pool opponents, India and Pakistan,
secured, and expected
victories to come against Holland and Namibia before a
final-round battle
against England, Ricky Ponting's men look certain to
finish the preliminary
round on top.
But after his side's crushing nine-wicket win against India
at the weekend,
skipper Ponting said Australia would not be swayed by
England's decision.
Sunday Herald (UK)
Cricket: All we need now is a sex
scandal
<
Fred Bridgland reports from Johannesburg on a week
where cricket took a back
seat to drunkenness, a failed drugs test, political
conflict and some
self-serving administrators
It has taken two
unlikely Zimbabwean cricketers this past week to rescue the
Cricket World Cup
from the shame that has smothered it because of the
avarice, expediency and
moral cowardice of the tournament administrators and
South Africa's top
politicians.
This World Cup, when the final at the Wanderers in Johannesburg
in five
weeks time is long forgotten, will for ever be remembered for the
black
armbands worn by Henry Olonga and Andy Flower in their country's first
match
'to mourn the death of democracy in our beloved
Zimbabwe'.
Opening themselves to the real risk of retribution under
Robert Mugabe's
draconian laws, they condemned the president -- who rigged
his re-election
10 months ago -- and his security forces for murder, rape,
torture,
deliberate starvation of the people, creation of mass unemployment
and
poverty, draconian suppression of freedom of expression, abuse of the
rule
of law and a host of other human rights abuses.
But the nature of
Mugabe's regime never seemed to matter to Malcolm Speed
and Malcolm Gray of
the International Cricketing Council (ICC), nor Ali
Bacher and Percy Sonn of
South Africa's United Cricket Board, nor John
Morgan of the English and Wales
Cricket Board, nor Nelson Mandela and South
African President Thabo Mbeki and
Judge Albie Sachs, the final arbiter in
the England row about playing in
Zimbabwe.
For them, the game simply had to go on in Zimbabwe's abnormal
society, and
especially England's game. They turned a collective blind eye to
Mugabe's
excesses, making an unholy mess of the cricket tournament they are
hosting.
Rules and money were more important to them than ethics and the
mass
oppression of millions of people. The fallout will probably mean
South
Africa's dream of hosting the World Soccer Cup in 2010 will turn very
sour.
While Olonga, the first black cricketer to play for his country,
and Flower,
by far Zimbabwe's finest player, are the heroes of the 2003 World
Cup,
elsewhere the only thing missing from the tournament so far is a
sex
scandal.
Shane Warne, the world's greatest spinner, departed the
competition without
bowling a ball and after Brigitte, his mother, slipped
him a diuretic
tablet -- used as a masking agent for performance-enhancing
drugs -- to make
him look slimmer on television.
'She badgered him and
he said 'For Christ's sake just give me the tablet'
and never thought
anything of it,' said one relative. 'She is a lovely lady
but she is full on.
To the rest of the world it seems ludicrous, but knowing
Brigitte you can
understand how it happened.'
Warne, who returned home hours before
Australia's first match against
Pakistan in Johannesburg, has been charged
with breaching the Australian
Cricket Board's anti-doping code. He faces a
two-year ban, which could end
his career.
Warne was one of the two
greatest entertainers scheduled to perform in the
tournament. The other was
Jonty Rhodes, the world's best and most
spectacular fielder and one of its
most entertaining batsmen and pleasant of
men. But Rhodes too is gone, his
hand broken in South Africa's match against
Kenya.
Rhodes had decided
to retire from international cricket after the World Cup.
He is a sad loss.
He made fielding cool, taking some of the most spectacular
catches ever. His
exuberance created a buzz in any match South Africa played
and he inspired
coaches everywhere to raise fielding skills to
unprecedented
levels.
Elsewhere, Pakistani wicketkeeper Rashid Latif
and South African United
Cricket Board (UCB) president Percy Sonn
demonstrated that cricket is not
necessarily a friendly game played between
good sports and gentlemen,
Australian player Adam Gilchrist complained to
Australia-Pakistan match
referee Clive Lloyd that Latif had called him a
'white cupcake', or a
four-letter word to that effect, as they battled for
World Cup points.
Sources close to Lloyd said he managed to hear the word
'white' on the
videotape, but couldn't make out the other. Therefore Latif
escaped
punishment, unlike Australia's Darren Lehmann who in Australia had
been
banned for five matches by Lloyd for calling a Sri Lankan cricketer a
'black
cupcake', or word to that effect.
Asked at an Australian
practice session about Latif's let-off, Lehmann said:
'I can't comment on ICC
issues.'
Lehmann made a very important point because it is almost
impossible to find
anyone who can comment on ICC issues and the soap opera
tragedy its
autocratic officials have made of this tournament.
'The
umpires aren't allowed to speak on decisions or actions on the field;
the
referees can't speak on disciplinary hearings; and the players can't
comment
on the umpires or the hearings,' said local cricket commentator
Kevin
McCallum. 'The ICC is an organisation that is occasionally seen yet
seldom
heard, and makes sure that its players are seen often, in as
many
money-making competitions as possible, without saying anything worth
a
damn.'
The most celebrated happening last week was when the
unpleasant Sonn, who
berated England's cricketers for not going to Zimbabwe
when the kind local
police had promised to beat up demonstrators miles away
before they ever got
near the Harare Sports Club, got drunk and disgraced
himself at a match
between Holland and India. Sonn was hurling obscenities at
journalists and
officials while staggering between hospitality boxes with his
trousers
around his ankles.
Sonn has since apologised but has not
withdrawn his threat to cancel this
summer's South African cricket tour to
England because of the English team's
Zimbabwe boycott. His remaining career,
however, may now be even shorter
than those of Warnes and Rhodes.
It
is hard to believe that there has been any cricket at all as yet, but
West
Indies' Brian Lara, Sri Lanka's Sanath Jayasuriya, Australia's Andrew
Symonds
and New Zealand's Scott Styris have all hit centuries.
However, the
iconic figure of the early stages of the tournament is Austin
Codrington, a
dreadlocked plumber of West Indian origin who plays for
Canada's all-amateur
team. Codrington caught the imagination of all fans who
like to see minnows
slay sharks when he took five wickets for 27 runs
against international
cricket's newest test playing country, Bangladesh, and
guided the Canucks to
an unlikely 60-run victory.
Henry Olonga too is dreadlocked and has taken
more than 100 wickets for his
country in test cricket and one day
internationals.
Olonga applauded England for refusing to play in
Zimbabwe, unlike Nelson
Mandela who, some brave future historian may
pronounce, woefully betrayed
the ordinary people of Zimbabwe.
Mandela
told England's cricketers that they 'must go to Zimbabwe ... That is
what
they must do. If we refuse to follow what the international body says,
we
introduce chaos to cricket.'
There was a bitter and sad irony to
Mandela's exhortation. Exactly 40 years
ago a young Greek-South African
attorney, George Bizos, was a member of the
defence team that saved Mandela
from Hendrik Verwoerd's apartheid gallows on
a charge of treason in a famous
trial
This week Bizos, now 74 years old, is in Harare trying to save
Morgan
Tsvangirai -- the man widely judged to have been deprived of the
Zimbabwean
presidency 10 months ago in a rigged election -- from Mugabe's
gallows on a
charge of treason.
It is impossible that Mandela and his
supporters would have backed a world
cricket tournament in South Africa back
in 1963. That he can support one in
2003 in Zimbabwe as Tsvangirai fights for
his life on a similar charge
suggests that Mandela's moral compass has gone
wonky.
Olonga remains certain that the action he and Flower took is
right. 'We
basically want to make a stand against all the human rights abuses
that have
happened in this country,' he said last week. 'We have to prepare
for the
worst, but we did what was in our hearts and what we feel was the
right
thing.
'Making this stand is a big part of what I feel about
participating in this
World Cup for Zimbabwe. I'm not unaware of the dangers.
But I have deep
convictions. I'm doing this as a Christian, not as a black
player.
'Jesus was proactive in confronting the Pharisees. To stand up
for what is
right in Zimbabwe requires confronting the Devil.'
Olonga,
the son of a paediatric doctor, is not only a professional
cricketer. He is
also a singer, with a repertoire from light opera to pop.
Currently, his CD
featuring a song Our Zimbabwe is a best seller in Harare
and
Bulawayo.
'Our Zimbabwe speaks of the Promised Land, a land of peace,
where people
live in harmony to build this nation,' he said. 'This isn't the
case now,
but it's a matter of time before we can sing the song with real
meaning and
before we become what God wants us to be.'
Daily Telegraph
Lamb's position looks in
jeopardy
By Scyld Berry (Filed:
16/02/2003)
England have lost four precious World Cup
points. They have lost
face in the eyes of the other Test-playing countries,
and an amount of money
that will take months to be decided. They may even
lose their captain - by
general consent their best since Mike Brearley - in
dudgeon and disgust.
Nobody emerges from this Zimbabwe story
with a reputation
enhanced. Not the British government, who might have pushed
the matter
further when Zimbabwe were suspended from the Commonwealth in
March last
year; not the International Cricket Council, who might have heard
the alarm
bells then, and joined in relocating England's match against
Zimbabwe to
South Africa; and certainly not the England and Wales Cricket
Board's chief
executive Tim Lamb. To add to all the other losses must be
Lamb's job.
At the nub of this whole episode, bewildering as
it has
sometimes been, has been a lack of understanding and communication. If
we
set the moral arguments aside, for the moment, the fundamental point is
that
the ICC technical committee had a far more comprehensive body of
evidence on
which to base their judgment than the England players had to make
theirs.
Michael Holding, the former West Indian fast bowler
and as fine
a person as any in the world of cricket, was one of the six
members of the
technical committee who unanimously agreed that while the
fears of the
England players were justified, they were not sufficient to
justify the
cancellation of the Zimbabwe match. If Holding - the most
independent member
of the panel, who received death-threats himself when a
player - could
support the ICC's judgment, the evidence must have been pretty
compelling.
A second member of the technical committee, who
did not wish to
be named, said yesterday of Friday evening's hearing in
Johannesburg: "For
90 minutes Deputy Commissioner Pruis, of the South African
police, was
grilled by a top South African QC acting for the ECB, and Pruis
had an
answer for everything." The threats made by the 'Sons and Daughters
of
Zimbabwe' were shown - as far as they could be - to be
hollow.
Such evidence, however, was not made fully available
to the
England players. For example, Lord Condon, of the anti-corruption
unit,
asked Scotland Yard to investigate the threat made by the 'Sons
and
Daughters' to the families of the England players. The threats had
been
contained in a letter, post-marked London, sent to the ECB and received
on
Jan 20.
When the ICC chief executive Malcolm Speed, his
expression as
unwavering as the Sphinx's, delivered the technical committee's
judgment
yesterday in Johannesburg, he noted that "on the basis of the
information
available to Scotland Yard as at 10 February 2003, the 'Sons and
Daughters
of Zimbabwe' did not pose a threat to the families of the England
squad in
the UK". As of yesterday, however, the latest which the England
players and
their representative, Richard Bevan, managing director of the
Professional
Cricketers' Association, had heard was that Scotland Yard's
findings were
"inconclusive".
The evidence presented to
the England players has been
contradictory too through a fault in ICC
procedure which must be remedied.
When Patrick Ronan, the head of ICC
security for this World Cup, made his
presentation to the England cricketers
on Friday, Feb 7, as they sought
reassurances about the security situation in
Harare, he was bound by his
confidentiality agreement not to refer to the
threat made by the 'Sons and
Daughters of Zimbabwe'.
We
can imagine therefore the perturbation of the England players
when they were
told later by the Kroll security expert, employed by the ICC
to supply
intelligence, that 'Sons and Daughters' were a known group, and
indeed one of
their members had been arrested in Zimbabwe. Perturbation not
entirely
relieved when they were subsequently told that the man had been
released
after three days without charge.
There has also been the
difference in values between the ICC and
the ECB. The ICC have only been
interested in the security of players and
officials - a narrow brief which
should be expanded at future World Cups.
The ECB, to their credit, have shown
a "duty of care" or broader concern for
everyone who might have been involved
in the match against Zimbabwe and
caught up in the demonstrations that were
promised for last Thursday. "At no
stage," Bevan said yesterday, "have the
ICC addressed that fact."
In few other ways does Lamb emerge
with credit. As chief
executive, first of the TCCB then of the ECB, his
charming yet patrician
approach - though he was a seam-bowler himself - has
become out-dated. The
England cricketers of today are not estate-workers to
be ordered to jump.
The them-and-us division has become too wide; English
cricket is not so
strong that it can afford players and administrators who do
not pull
together.
It is time for Lamb to be replaced by
another former Middlesex
seam bowler, a man of 46 Tests who has been involved
in most departments of
the game, worthy of trust and respect by all parties -
Angus Fraser.
Daily Telegraph
'You can't shy away from the confrontation'
By Philip
Sherwell in Harare
(Filed: 16/02/2003)
Henry Olonga and Andy
Flower are to meet in Harare to decide whether they
will repeat their
courageous black armband protest when Zimbabwe play their
next cricket World
Cup game against India on Wednesday.
The pair were delighted when the
International Cricket Council ruled on
Friday that it would not punish them
for wearing the armbands during last
week's match with Namibia to mourn "the
death of democracy" in Zimbabwe.
The ICC also said, however, that the
players had "blurred the lines" between
politics and sport and asked them not
to repeat the protest in future games.
"The ICC decision that we should
not face disrepute charges is wonderful
news," Olonga told The Telegraph
yesterday in his first comment since the
ruling. "But Andy and I will have to
get together to discuss what we are
going to do now. It's still too early to
say."
In Zimbabwe, there has been no official response to the dramatic
protest but
President Robert Mugabe is said to be furious at the humiliating
rebuff from
the country's greatest batsman and its first black Test
cricketer.
Flower, 34, will be retiring from international cricket after
the
competition and moving to England to play for Essex, but Olonga,
a
26-year-old fast bowler, knows that his career is in jeopardy after
his
Harare club side began disciplinary procedures. As a black man, his
actions
will be viewed as particularly treacherous by Mr Mugabe.
He
remains defiant, however. "If my career is over, it will not have been
in
vain," he explained cheerfully during an interview at his home in
central
Harare. "Yes, I might be dropped, but that is a risk I am happy to
take.
When you take a stand against what is wrong in this life, then you come
up
against the forces of darkness.
"It is part and parcel of being in
the score zone. It's like going out on
the pitch as a bowler and the batsman
is out to get you. You cannot shy away
from the confrontation. You cannot cop
out of the battle."
The Zimbabwe Cricket Union, which is headed by a
Mugabe loyalist, had asked
the ICC to charge the two players with bringing
the game into disrepute.
Zimbabwean authorities are expected to be much less
lenient than the ICC
once the World Cup is over.
Olonga, an urbane
doctor's son with distinctive orange-tinged dreadlocks,
speaks in the
cultured tones he acquired at public school near Bulawayo,
mixing sporting
analogies with religious zeal.
Olonga is a born-again Christian who
attends what he calls a "full Gospel,
Bible-believing church" and explains
his stance against President Mugabe in
religious terms. "I was the first
black man to play Test cricket for
Zimbabwe. I was their blue-eyed boy. I
have acted now because I believe God
feels it is the right thing to do. God
is the helper of the needy, the
defender of the weak, the voice of those who
cannot speak. It was time to
speak out about these things."
The main
complaint from the Zimbabwean opposition about the World Cup was
that it
would provide a propaganda coup for the Mugabe regime. Olonga and
Flower made
sure the opposite was true with their headline-grabbing gesture
at the
opening game. "If we hadn't done this, others would have benefited
from the
World Cup instead," Olonga says. "Hopefully we have brought the
battle
between good and evil to the fore."
The two men informed nobody of their
plans before Monday's game. Several of
their team mates have since privately
congratulated them; others have
maintained a studied silence over the affair.
Prominent among the latter is
Heath Streak, the captain, known to many in
Zimbabwean cricket as "Mr
Malleable".
Of England's refusal to play in
Zimbabwe, Olonga says simply: "If they took
the decision on moral grounds and
share our motivation to do the right
thing, I commend them."
Nasser
Hussain told The Telegraph yesterday: "Deep down I wish our actions
had been
as clear and courageous as those of the two Zimbabweans."
As Olonga was
speaking in the garden of the modest house, three white
friends are inside,
joking and playing the guitar. Olonga is an impressive
classical singer who,
between training for the World Cup, is putting the
finishing touches to his
first album, a collection of ballads and pop songs
with the appropriate title
of Make It All Count.
Asked about the prospects for reform in Zimbabwe,
he returns to his
Christian theme. "Even dictators don't live for ever,
although they can get
to be very old. God will not tolerate the shedding of
innocent blood
forever. His wrath is mightier than anything man can
muster."
Gulf News, Dubai
Netherlands consider shortening trip
East
London |Reuters | 16-02-2003
The Netherlands
cricket World Cup squad are considering shortening
their trip to Zimbabwe
later this month because of safety concerns.
The team have ruled
out following England's lead in refusing to travel
for their February 28
Group A match in Bulawayo.
But captain Roland Lefebvre said
yesterday: "The less time we spend
there the better, we don't agree with the
situation there, we don't agree
with the political climate but again that is
something the politicians must
decide on.
"We are here to play
cricket and that is what we are going to do. If
the ICC (International
Cricket Council) can guarantee our safety we are
quite happy to travel to
Zimbabwe."
"We might shorten our trip but we will go there and try
and enjoy the
game."
Reuters
I wish our actions had been clearer: Hussain
February 16, 2003 12:09 IST
England captain Nasser Hussain
wishes his team's actions had been as
"clear and courageous" as the protest
made by Zimbabwe's Andy Flower and
Henry Olonga, who launched an attack
against the running of their country.
"We talked about going to
Harare and making a gesture, like wearing
black armbands, or taking a bag of
grain as one of the media suggested,"
Hussain said in his Sunday Telegraph
column.
"It might have been a brave statement but was it a
precedent for us to
set? What would happen if all cricketers, and other
sportsmen, made such
statements in every country they didn't approve
of?
"But...we must not hide from the fact that this is a political
and
moral issue as well, and we haven't made a real gesture of support for
the
people of Zimbabwe.
He added: "Deep down I wish our actions
had been as clear and
courageous as those of the two
Zimbabweans."
Batsman Flower and black team mate Olonga launched an
unprecedented
attack on the running of Zimbabwe as they opened their World
Cup campaign on
Monday.
Former skipper Flower and pace bowler
Olonga, in a joint statement
released just before Zimbabwe's Group A game
against Namibia, said they
would wear black armbands during the
event.
"In doing so we are mourning the death of democracy in our
beloved
Zimbabwe," the statement said.
HORSE'S
MOUTH
Hussain said he had read in the newspapers that some
Zimbabwean
players did not want England to go to Zimbabwe and he wanted to
hear it
"from the horse's mouth".
When England were in Australia
he asked team mate Ronnie Irani to
speak to Andy Flower, as his Essex
captain.
Irani reported that Flower had been changing his mind all
winter,
first thinking England should play in Zimbabwe, then that they
should
boycott the game.
"If the Zimbabwe players weren't sure,
how could we make a judgment?"
said Hussain.
"When I spoke to
Flower on the phone recently, he said that he had his
own decision to make,
and we now know what that was -- to issue the
statement he did on Monday with
Henry Olonga."
Hussain said he had seen a Channel 4 documentary on
Zimbabwe and, by
chance, met the director of the programme just before the
February 8 World
Cup opening ceremony in Cape Town.
"Face to
face I asked him if the situation in Zimbabwe justified my
throwing away not
only four points but, in effect, the most important six
weeks of our
cricketing lives.
"He clarified what he thought was going on, about
people being starved
on account of the party they had voted for. He stated
even worse atrocities
and felt we were doing the right thing."
ISSUES INVOLVED
Hussain added: "Obviously as captain, I had a part
in preparing the
players' statement, released by Richard Bevan, managing
director of the
Players' Cricket Association, about the political, moral and
safety issues
involved.
"Nothing I've heard or seen since has
altered my opinion.
"The fact of the matter, though, is that the
ECB and the players made
their decision on safety and security grounds
alone."
Hussain said the players were told by the England and Wales
Cricket
Board (ECB) that they potentially stood to lose millions of pounds if
there
was a major split in world cricket.
He stressed that the
team were starting to get very confused because
they knew they also had
responsibilities to the ECB and to English cricket
in general.
"We have a moral obligation, too, to our employers and the game at
home," he
said. "We don't want to be remembered as the people who put the
nail in the
coffin of our sport."
At a players meeting on February 9 Hussain
said it was "decision time"
and they had to make up their minds.
"At that stage the majority were saying we shouldn't go because of
what might
happen if people protested at the match.
"How could you live with
yourself if you played a cricket match, which
your government and family
didn't want you to play in, and somebody got
killed?
"And how
could I tell my team to risk everything by going to play in
somebody else's
country.
"It should not have come down to this fiasco. Politicians
should
continue to stand up and speak about the issues so they don't go away
and
something good comes out of this episode."
The Observer
Africa's tragedy
Online commentary: The Observer's
Paul Harris draws on his wide experience
of Africa to argue that blaming the
continent's ills on colonialism or the
west simply allows the real culprits
to evade responsibility. It is time for
the west to realise that aid to
African governments is doing more harm than
good
Sunday February 16,
2003
Robert Mugabe is smiling this week. Despite all the furore over the
England
cricket team's World Cup boycott, despite the courage of Andy Flower
and
Henry Olonga wearing black armbands, and despite the millions starving
in
his country, it has been a good week for for the Zimbabwean president.
A
very good week indeed.
Mugabe has his fellow African leaders - namely
South Africa's Thabo Mbeki
and Nigeria's Olusegun Obasanjo - to thank for
lightening his mood. They
make up two of the three members of the
Commonwealth 'troika' that is to
decide whether or not Zimbabwe's current
suspension is renewed or not. But
thanks to Mbeki and Obasanjo no decision
now needs to be made. They have
declined to meet with the third troika member
- John Howard of Australia -
and called for Zimbabwe to be readmitted to full
membership. With the
Commonwealth so openly divided it seems inconceivable
that the suspension
could now be renewed. Cheers all round in the inner
sanctums of Mugabe's
brutal regime. Without lifting a finger, without
reforming one iota, without
apologising for the hundreds of deaths his rule
has called, Mugabe is to be
welcomed back into the international fold. What a
great day for Mugabe; what
a tragic day for Africa.
Mbeki took the -
slightly surreal - trouble of informing Howard via a
payphone in Hawaii,
where the Australian leader was passing through the
airport. When an
indignant Howard revealed the details of the phone call
outraged South
African officials quickly condemned such a leak. Mbeki's
spokesman blustered
that the South African president 'regrets very much that
the prime minister
[Howard] has publicly made these remarks.'
There was no mention of the
rights and wrongs of the action. No mention of
the fact that Zimbabwe is
plumetting towards the terrible fate of repression
and collapse that has
befallen so much of Africa. No, there was just outrage
that such an appalling
decision and the callously casual attitude of Mbeki
should be made public.
After spending four years living and working as a
journalist in Africa and
visiting 20 countries on that most fantastic of
continents, it pains me not
in the slightest to call such a situation
entirely typical. Of course, it
used to pain me a lot. But that was a long
time ago. Experience changes
everything.
The fact is that Africa is a tragic place. Unbelievably
tragic. It is racked
by war, corruption, AIDS, famine and repression. Yet
Africa's leaders do
very little to alleviate this situation. And when they
get the chance to
take action against the obvious misrule of one of their
number, they let him
off the hook with platitudes and a pat on the back.
Africa's political
leaders - with a tiny handful of exceptions - are worthy
of little but
international contempt. They are a cosy mens club - and they
are ALL men -
whose members only look after their own.
But the sad
fact is that outside their own continent Africa's politicians
have become a
laughing stock. Witness the African Union, the successor to
that other most
pointless of international bodies, the Organisation of
African Unity (whose
brotherly members bickered and fought civil wars for
four decades). Among the
African Union's laudable and yet entirely
implausible aims, are a pan-African
army, a pan-African currency and the
eventual creation of an EU-style
superstate on the African continent. The
fact that Africa cannot feed or
educate millions of its own people seems
secondary to such lofty ideals. The
brains behind the African Union is
Libya's Colonel Muammar Gaddafy. As a
result Libya now has troops
'peace-keeping' in the Central African Republic.
But, late last year,
details emerged of a deal between Libya and the
impoverished CAR emerged
that gave Libya the right to exploit oil and mineral
resources in the
country for 99 years. In return Libya provides 'security'
for CAR President
Ange-Felix Patasse. It is the same old story of corruption
and power.
Nowhere in these deals or organisations, or these political
decisions or
discussions, do the real needs of Africa's ordinary human
citizens ever
figure.
Five years ago there was much talk - led by
Mbeki - of an African
Renaissance. Of a new generation of African leaders who
would throw off the
old corrupt post-independence regimes and lead Africa to
a new beginning. It
simply has not happened. Since then the Congo - whose
brutal former leader
Laurent Kabila was heralded as key to the renaissance -
has fallen apart.
Squabbling over its riches at one point attracted armies
from no fewer than
six other African countries. Somalia has now gone 12 years
with no form of
government and no prospect of getting one. Ivory Coast -
which somehow
survived almost 40 years of independence as relatively peaceful
and
prosperous - is now gripped by not one, not two, but three warring
rebel
factions. Eritrea and Ethiopia have fought a two year war over a
stretch of
barren border territory that cost 70,000 lives and consumed
millions of
pounds of aid that could have fed their starving people. Across
the
continent 38 million people now face famine. In Africa 340 million people
-
or half the population - live on less than $1 a day.
In short,
Africa has continued its spiral of decline. And its leaders are
happily
fiddling while their continent burns. In Swaziland, King Mswati III
has just
bought a new private jet for £28 million. Yet a quarter of his
country needs
food aid, 22 per cent of them have HIV, and the entire Swazi
health budget is
pounds £12.6 million. In Namibia, President Sam Nujoma has
been so inspired
by the 'success' of Mugabe's landgrabbing that he is
threatening to do the
same in his country. He has also banned foreign
programs from television,
denounced Christianity as a foreign philosophy and
called for a revival of
ancestral worship of cattle gods.
In an interview late last year with
respected German southern African
journalist Thomas Knemeyer, Nujoma ranted
and raved like a madman. The
interview was so bizarre that Knemeyer's paper,
Die Weld, printed a full
transcript. At one point Nujoma took umbrage that in
a previous article
Knemeyer had mentioned his purchase of a private
presidential jet. This is
what Nujoma shouted: 'We are entitled to travel by
jet just like other
people. If you go to Germany you find all over jets, even
private people
have them, and therefore the Republic of Namibia cannot buy a
jet? That is
arrogance, arrogance.'
No, Mr President, it is not
arrogance. What is arrogance is that the
President of one of the poorest
countries in the world thinks a good use of
public funds is buying himself a
private plane.
Of course, many people on the left and indeed African
leaders themselves
blame the disastrous situation that Africa is experiencing
on the old evils
of colonialism. African nations, they say, just weren't
given the chance to
develop naturally. Their borders are all wrong. They were
drawn by colonial
officials at European desks with no mind to facts on the
ground. That, of
course, is true. The borders that define Africa are a
reflection of colonial
prejudice. But then again, whose job is it to change
them? It is Africa's.
Yet among the first resolutions the OAU ever passed was
the decision to keep
them. The African Union has not changed that. If
colonial borders were such
a crippling handicap then Africa's independent
nations have had four decades
to change them. They haven't budged them one
inch.
And the myth that African nations' multi-ethnicity has hampered
them also
needs exploding. There is only country which has an entirely
homogenous
population, whose people speak the same language, worship the same
religion
and which has no ethnic minorities. This country's name? Somalia.
Somalia is
no advert for African unity. In the once pretty market town of
Baidoa, where
every building has been destroyed, I went shopping accompanied
by gun-toting
guards in three pick-ups manned by militiamen. It was the only
safe way to
go out on the streets. I met several Western aid workers there.
They lived
under these conditions every day. Of course, it still did not stop
them
eventually being kidnapped. Thankfully, they were not
killed.
Three years ago The Economist magazine ran a cover story called
'Africa: the
hopeless continent'. It caused outrage from the Cape to
Khartoum. This is
typical. Criticism of Africa is regularly derided as racist
or
neo-imperialist. African politicians use the tragedies of Africa's past as
a
catch-all excuse to explain its current tragedies. They use such labels
to
cover their own misdeeds, corruption, war-mongering and
incompetence.
One facet of their argument is to look at the structures of
world trade.
There is no doubt that the west is deeply hypocritical. While
demanding that
African nations take down their trade barriers to Western
goods, they do not
allow Africa into their own markets. While deriding
Africa's
state-controlled economies, they fail to reform the massive
subsidies and
protectionism that keeps numerous Western industries -
especially farming -
alive. It is hardly a level playing field. But then why
does Africa expect
it to be? Africa has become so used to being treated as a
special case, to
being tolerated and patronised by the west, that it has
developed an
immensely damaging dependency culture.
Which raises the
thorniest issue in modern Africa today. Does international
aid do more harm
than good? Last month, I was travelling through Eritrea
reporting on the
threat of famine. I came across two makeshift huts side by
side sitting in a
dry and windy valley. Inside each lived a family. There
were no men present.
The Eritrean government in its wisdom had inducted them
all into military
service. The women and children were all sick. They had
been unable to
harvest crops. Their nearest well was dry. They relied on
monthly food aid of
oil and maize flour to survive.
But what was even more shocking was that
they had been relying on this aid
for two years. Since long before the
drought and long before the government
stole their men. In effect all that
the aid had done was to keep these
families in a 'suspended animation' of
poverty. Without it, they would have
moved years previously. They would have
abandoned their failing farms for a
town. Perhaps that would have exposed
them to crime and AIDS. But it also
could have exposed them to jobs, to a
monetary economy, to the chance of
improving themselves.
Aid also
removes responsibility from African governments. If the
international
community will feed a country's population, support its
schools and run its
clinics, then the government does not have to. It can
feel free to spend its
cash on arms and self-enrichment, on the sort of
grandiose schemes - steel
plants, dams, new capital cities - that provide
opportunities for skimming
off the top.
Of course, Africa has no monopoly on corruption. Britain has
its fair share.
It is endemic in large parts of Asia from Korea to China. Yet
corruption
there does not stop development. In the 1950s South Korea was
behind Kenya
in a whole host of economic indicators. Now South Korea is a
first world
country. Yet when I lived in Kenya from 1999 to 2000 it was
impossible to
even drive between Nairobi and Mombasa. But what causes this?
Why is Asia so
different to Africa when it shares so much in terms of
corruption and
authoritarian rule? Obviously, I have no truck for racist
nonsense. Living
in Africa is hard. It requires harder work, more skill and
more intelligence
than any average Westerner can imagine. Let us shelve
racist arguments of
innate capabilities in the dustbin where they belong.
Instead there seems
something fundamentally wrong, not with Africans, but
with African political
culture. The problem with Africa is simply African
government.
Cynical African observers fed up with the terrible way they
are governed
tell a joke to explain why Asia has developed as Africa has
slipped
backwards. It goes like this: In the 1970s a young Asian and a young
African
go to a Western university together. They study and become firm
friends
before returning to their home countries to take up careers in
their
respective governments. Twenty years later the African decides to visit
his
old friend and catches a plane. The Asian is delighted to see him
and
proudly shows off his fine house, swimming pool and two flashy cars in
the
drive. The African is impressed and congratulates him. The Asian smiles
and
points out of the window to a huge highway in the distance. 'Can you
see
that road project?' he asks. He rubs his hands and winks before saying:
'Ten
percent'.
The next year the Asian returns the visit. The
African's house is twice as
big as his. He has two pools and a fleet of cars
and an army of servants.
The Asian is amazed. 'But you have done better than
me?' he cries. The
African nods and points out of the window. The Asian looks
and there is
nothing but thick, unbroken African bush. The African winks and
rubs his
hands. '100 percent,' he says.
In Africa, as the infamous
Economist article pointed out, the 'shell state'
has come into being. These
are countries which have been destroyed so
thoroughly by their own
government's corruption that they effectively no
longer exist. In Congo vast
tracts of the country are cut off, to all
intents and purposes slipping back
into an age before the first European
explorers set foot there. In Europe,
South America and Asia corruption does
not prevent the general progress of
development. In Africa it is so endemic
that it halts it, and can even send
it in to reverse. I remember travelling
in the heart of southern Sudan down a
raised mud road that provided the only
lifeline to a huge region of rural
bush. I asked the driver of my rebel
convoy who had built the road. 'The
British,' he said. 'Before World War
Two.' Nothing had been built there
since, despite the billions of dollars of
aid that has poured into Sudan
since independence in the 1950s.
In Burundi I have seen the ruined villas
of Belgian planters now covered by
jungle or converted into subsistence
farms. Those colonial relics are a
reminder of a brutal and violent political
system, but they also represented
the chance for economic progress and a
glimpse of First World potential. But
Burundi slipped into chaos and war. Now
the once beautiful lake towns of
central Africa - Bukavu and Goma - are more
associated with genocide than
the genteel 1950s tourism that once made their
names.
The end result of all this misery has been the greatest tragedy of
all:
Africa has made itself irrelevant. Why should we take leaders like
Sam
Nujoma and Robert Mugabe seriously? The west still has many hypocrisies
of
its own - not least over its selective championing of free trade - but it
is
also rapidly shrugging off its guilt at colonialism and looking at
Africa
with a judgemental eye. And Africa's politicians have been found
wanting.
They have nothing to offer the west or their own people. They are
willing to
sell off their country's resources for their own benefit. While
the world
debates the War on Terror and the potential war in Iraq, Africa is
slipping
into an anonymous abyss of its own making. No one in the west is
going to
pull it out.
The centre of discussions on Africa's future is
the New Partnership for
African Development. This is a deal whereby African
countries would commit
to principles of good governance in exhange for debt
relief and aid. I am
all for debt relief. It is the aid bit that bothers me.
Why do African
governments need to be bribed to behave well? And after all,
the main
proponent of NEPAD is Mbeki. The very man who is so keen to let
Mugabe's
crimes go unpunished and unaccounted for. NEPAD is the same old
problem of
dependency and toleration of corruption but in a new friendly 21st
century
guise. We should scrap all debts and we should scrap all official aid
as
well.
But where would that leave Africa? Well, it would leave the
continent
exactly where it should be: with the Africans. Aid will not solve
Africa's
problems. Nor will the West. The only people who can solve the
problems of
Africa, who can change their leaders, who can end corruption, who
can make
Africa rich and educated, who can end the African wars, who can make
Africa
relevent again, are Africans themselves. It is time Africa started to
take
itself seriously.
Mail and Guardian
International row over Mugabe's Paris trip
Harare
16 February 2003 09:33
Zimbabwe's President Robert
Mugabe is expected next week to score a
diplomatic victory against many
Western nations when he visits France, two
days after the renewal of European
Union sanctions against him.
The trip comes as sub-Saharan Africa's most
influential nations Nigeria and
South Africa have thrown their weight behind
Mugabe, recommending lifting
Zimbabwe's suspension from the Commonwealth
political council.
Although officials would not confirm at the weekend
that Mugabe is indeed
travelling to Paris next week, the long-time leader
looks set not to miss
the trip to Europe for the Franco-African summit on
Thursday and Friday.
Senior foreign affairs official Willard Chiwewe last
month indicated that
the invitation to the summit had been
accepted.
EU ambassadors have agreed to renew sanctions against Zimbabwe
--including a
ban on travel to EU states by the country's leadership -- for
another 12
months beyond their expiry on February 18.
But the envoys
also agreed on a waiver for Mugabe to attend the summit in
Paris, after
French leader Jacques Chirac sought a concession for an
exemption on Mugabe,
citing the need for face-to-face dialogue.
This invitation infuriated
Britain, the United States and several European
countries.
Britain's
Europe minister, Denis MacShane, said "it would be a shame for it
(the
Franco-African summit) to be dominated by the presence of Mugabe and
his
small clan of thieves".
Zimbabwe's main opposition leader Morgan
Tsvangirai has described France's
invitation to Mugabe as "a tragedy" which
"amounts to a recognition and
support of Mugabe's gruesome record at
home".
The United States said the invitation was
"regrettable".
France, already embroiled in a dispute with Washington and
London over Iraq,
has justified its Zimbabwe stance by arguing that Mugabe's
presence would
help promote democracy, rule of law and human rights in his
troubled
southern African country.
Under the EU sanctions, Mugabe, his
wife Grace, and 70 leading government or
ruling party officials are not
authorised to enter EU territory. Last year,
Mugabe was, however, allowed to
attend a UN food summit in Rome.
The sanctions also include a freeze on
assets held in the EU by Zimbabwe's
leaders.
The controversial trip is
certain to be a booster for the country's battered
image and coincides with
Mugabe's birthday. He turns 79 on February 21.
Mugabe, whose country is
reeling under acute shortages of basics, a
devastating famine, chaotic land
reforms, hyperinflation of over 208% and
unemployment levels of around 70%,
has of late been a thorn in the flesh for
many western nations.
Nearly
a third of the population faces serious hunger amid allegations that
food is
distributed on grounds of political affiliation.
But support Mugabe
receives from some African countries is a spanner in the
works of the
European Union, which on Friday indefinitely postponed an April
5 EU-Africa
summit in Lisbon, after failing to secure guarantees that Mugabe
would not
attend.
EU member states such as Britain had threatened to boycott the
Lisbon summit
if Mugabe showed up, and some African countries had threatened
in turn to
stay away if the Zimbabwean president was not
invited.
British gay and human rights activist Peter Tatchell is seeking
to arrest
President Mugabe on his arrival in Paris next week for alleged
rights
abuses.
Nigeria and South Africa, the majority members of a
troika which suspended
Zimbabwe from the councils of the 54-member
Commonwealth in March last year,
have indicated that they want to see
Zimbabwe readmitted.
But Commonwealth chief Don McKinnon says the
political and human rights
situation in Zimbabwe has not improved since last
year.
A civic group, the Crisis in Zimbabwe Coalition, said since
Zimbabwe was
suspended from the Commonwealth last year for breaching
democratic rights,
"human rights abuses, torture, arbitrary arrests and
assaults have been on
the increase". -Sapa-AFP
The Australian
Mugabe set for diplomatic coup
February 17,
2003
ZIMBABWE'S President Robert Mugabe is expected next week to score
a
diplomatic victory against many Western nations when he visits France,
two
days after the renewal of European Union sanctions against
him.
The trip comes as sub-Saharan Africa's most influential nations,
Nigeria and
South Africa, have thrown their weight behind Mr Mugabe,
recommending
lifting Zimbabwe's suspension from the Commonwealth political
council.
Although officials would not confirm at the weekend that Mr
Mugabe was
indeed travelling to Paris next week, the long-time leader looks
set not to
miss the trip to Europe for the Franco-African summit on Thursday
and
Friday.
Last month, senior Zimbabwe foreign affairs official
Willard Chiwewe
indicated that the invitation to the summit had been
accepted.
EU ambassadors have agreed to renew sanctions against Zimbabwe,
including a
ban on travel to EU states by the country's leadership, for 12
months beyond
their expiry on February
18.
But the envoys also agreed on a
waiver for Mr Mugabe to attend the Paris
summit, after French President
Jacques Chirac sought a concession for an
exemption on Mr Mugabe, citing the
need for face-to-face dialogue.
This invitation infuriated Britain, the
United States and several European
countries.
Britain's Europe
minister, Denis MacShane, said "it would be a shame for it
(the
Franco-African summit) to be dominated by the presence of Mugabe and
his
small clan of thieves".
Zimbabwe's main opposition leader Morgan
Tsvangirai has described France's
invitation to Mr Mugabe as "a tragedy"
which "amounts to a recognition and
support of Mugabe's gruesome record at
home".
The United States said the invitation was
"regrettable".
France, already embroiled in a dispute with Washington and
London over Iraq,
has justified its Zimbabwe stance by arguing that Mugabe's
presence would
help promote democracy, rule of law and human rights in his
troubled
southern African country.
Under the EU sanctions, Mugabe, his
wife Grace, adn 70 leading government or
ruling party officials are not
authorised to enter EU territory. Last year,
Mugabe was, however, allowed to
attend a UN food summit in Rome.
The sanctions also include a freeze on
assets held in the EU by Zimbabwe's
leaders.
The controversial trip is
certain to be a booster for the country's battered
image and coincides with
Mugabe's birthday. He turns 79 on February 21.
His country is reeling
under acute shortages of basics, a devastating
famine, chaotic land reforms,
hyperinflation of more than 208 percent and
unemployment levels of around 70
percent; but of late, Mugabe has been a
thorn in the flesh for many western
nations.
Nearly a third of the population faces serious hunger amid
allegations that
food is distributed on grounds of political
affiliation.
But support Mugabe receives from some African countries is a
spanner in the
works of the European Union, which on Friday indefinitely
postponed an April
5 EU-Africa summit in Lisbon, after failing to secure
guarantees that Mugabe
would not attend.
EU member states such as
Britain had threatened to boycott the Lisbon summit
if Mugabe showed up, and
some African countries had threatened in turn to
stay away if the Zimbabwean
president was not invited.
British gay and human rights activist Peter
Tatchell is seeking to arrest
President Mugabe on his arrival in Paris next
week for alleged rights
abuses.
Nigeria and South Africa, the majority
members of a troika which suspended
Zimbabwe from the councils of the
54-member Commonwealth in March last year,
have indicated that they want to
see Zimbabwe readmitted.
But Commonwealth chief Don McKinnon says the
political and human rights
situation in Zimbabwe has not improved since last
year.
A civic group, the Crisis in Zimbabwe Coalition, said since
Zimbabwe was
suspended from the Commonwealth last year for breaching
democratic rights,
"human rights abuses, torture, arbitrary arrests and
assaults have been on
the increase".
The Chairman,
CFU Communications.
My dear Stoff,
I have
recently been advised that a proposal has been put forward for about
one
hundred thousand Hectares to be made available for Chinese farmers.
This is a
new and novel proposal, and I was wondering if you were in the
know.
A
number of exciting challenges may well arise from the implementation of
such
a scheme, I think.
First of all, is the CFU part of this programme? Will
they become members
of Our Union when they start farming here? Would they not
perhaps want to
have a Union of the own - the Chi.F.U.? Are they looking at
tea or will
this involve a change of diet for us, where the people will now
get food
for a change - in this case rice? One factor that could cause
problems,
is that they may be placed into a racial category here e.g. an
article in
the Chronicle in April 2000 referred to white commercial farmers
as
"enemies of the state." Some years ago, under the apartheid regime in
South
Africa, I recall that Chinese people were deemed non white, and had
to
apply for a permit to be `temporarily white', for the duration of
their
visit to SA. Should these New Farmers be deemed `white', this could
well be
a disadvantage to them in this country - where we have just witnessed
about
two thousand `white' farmers dispossessed of at least 100 000
Hectares.
What has caused me even more concern is the fact that the
prophecy of that
old man Gala to Shaka in January 1828, that "your country
will be inhabited
by other kings; for your people will perish of famine" is a
little closer
to home.
I seek your guidance, in your own good
time.
Yours faithfully,
J.L.
Robinson.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Justice
for Agriculture mailing list
To subscribe/unsubscribe: Please write to jag-list-admin@mango.zw
SABC
Mbeki raps Howard over Zimbabwe
February 16, 2003, 14:45
|
Australian Prime Minister, John Howard wants further action
against Zimbabwe | Thabo Mbeki, the South
African President, said Australia, which wants a regime change in Zimbabwe,
should consult with other members of the Commonwealth on additional sanctions
against Harare, Malaysia's New Sunday Times reported.
John Howard,
the Australian Prime Minister, said last September the sanctions, set to expire
on March 19, should be tightened, a move opposed by Nigeria and South Africa.
The three countries form a troika which is to decide for the rest of the
Commonwealth whether sanctions should continue or be lifted. In an interview
with the Malaysian newspaper in Cape Town on Thursday, Mbeki said the troika had
no mandate to impose additional sanctions.
"We said to the Prime Minister
of Australia that he, as the chair of the Commonwealth, should consult with
Commonwealth members on additional sanctions on Zimbabwe," said
Mbeki.
"It would be illegal for us to impose sanctions which we don't
have mandate for," he added.
The 54-nation Commonwealth, a group made up
mostly of former British colonies, suspended Zimbabwe last March after President
Robert Mugabe was re-elected in bitterly disputed circumstances.
"How is
the Commonwealth going to implement the resolution to engage Zimbabwe when you
have a resolution that Australia is not going to talk to Zimbabwe? That's an
Australian resolution, but the Commonwealth resolution is to engage Zimbabwe,"
said Mbeki.
South Africa and Nigeria have said Mugabe's government has
recorded enough progress over the past year - in land reform, human rights and
democracy - to warrant re-admission to the Commonwealth. However, Mugabe's
opponents say that stance is a betrayal of Commonwealth principles. They point
to the treason trial of opposition politicians and harsh media and security
laws. Mbeki said a regime change in Zimbabwe would be up to the
Zimbabweans.
"You have Australia and so on, who just want a removal of
President Mugabe. But we are saying that it is the responsibility of the people
of Zimbabwe," he said.
Zimbabwe is grappling with its worst economic
crisis - fueled by soaring unemployment and food shortages - since Mugabe came
to power after independence from Britain in 1980. - Reuters |
SABC
Mugabe dispute sees another EU-African summit cancelled
afrol News, 14 February - For the second time in one year, the quarrel
about inviting Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe has led to the cancellation of a
summit between African and European leaders. After the European Union (EU)
refused to invite Mr Mugabe to Copenhagen last year, a summit had to be moved to
Maputo. Now, the planned April summit in Lisbon is cancelled for the same
reason.
The long awaited EU-African summit in Lisbon in April seems to be
definitively cancelled after African countries had demanded Mr Mugabe be invited
in the same manner as other African Heads of State. Several heavy-weight
countries from Southern Africa had announced they would boycott the summit if Mr
Mugabe was not to be invited.
President Mugabe however is on the EU list of unwanted persons after the
Europeans and the US last year introduced "smart sanctions" against the
Zimbabwean regime. These sanctions include barring the most prominent Zimbabwean
leaders from entering the EU and the US. Only on Wednesday, these sanctions had
been renewed for another year.
The Southern African demand to invite Mr Mugabe thus would have obliged the
EU to break with its own sanctions against Zimbabwe. Several leading European
countries, in particular the UK and the Netherlands, subsequently announced they
would boycott the Lisbon summit if they were to meet Mr Mugabe there. The
organisers therefore have seen no other possibility than cancelling the entire
summit.
President Mugabe on the other hand is invited to participate on a
French-African summit in Paris next week. The Paris summit coincides with the
termination of the EU's current sanctions regime, and the invitation to Mr
Mugabe had caused strong protests from the British Foreign Ministry and the
Zimbabwean opposition. In a piece of horse trading on Wednesday, EU governments
agreed to renew sanctions against Zimbabwe for another year but at the same time
agreeing to Mr Mugabe attending the Paris summit.
The horse trading has irritated the European Parliament, which yesterday by a
solid majority approved a resolution demanding no member countries brake with
the EU's own sanctions regime. The resolution, which had a clear address towards
France, was approved by 82 against 23 votes, with those opposing mainly being
French delegates. The EU Parliament also demanded Zimbabwe improves its human
rights situation.
The deadlocked situation surrounding Mr Mugabe's participation at the planned
Lisbon summit again underlines the growing rift between European and African
governments' views on dictatorial regimes in Africa. The African countries
demand to handle the Zimbabwean crisis on their own, claiming they can use their
jovial contacts with Harare to find an African solution. Sanctions are
protested, even by democracies such as South Africa and Nigeria.
A parallel crisis developed in October last year, during the preparations for
a Copenhagen summit between the EU and the Southern African SADC countries. The
thus Danish rotating EU Presidency was caught in the middle of African
countries, demanding an invitation for Mr Mugabe, and the loudest promoters of
human rights in Zimbabwe; the UK and the Netherlands.
The Danish Presidency, under pressure to organise a much more important EU
summit on the Union's eastwards expansion, finally gave into demands from the
anti-Mugabe fold. Dan Fredriksen of the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs thus
told afrol News an invitation to Mr Mugabe "would undermine the EU's sanction
regime." On short notice, the summit was moved to Maputo (Mozambique), thus
avoiding the problem of inviting Mr Mugabe to the EU.
The Portuguese government already last year protested the thought of moving
or cancelling the Copenhagen summit. In that way, also the April summit in
Lisbon would be endangered, the government suspected at the time. It turned out
to be a precise prediction, even if the host nation has protested the decision.
Until now, there have not been signs of seeking a similar way out of the
diplomatic crisis as last year. No alternative host nation has been suggested,
signalling a cooling in EU-African relations. Unconfirmed reports say the summit
"has been postponed indefinitely."
Mbeki says Zimbabwe looks at media law
JOHANNESBURG (Reuters) - South African President Thabo Mbeki says that
Zimbabwe has agreed that changes are needed in its media laws which critics say
are aimed at muzzling the press.
South Africa has been criticised for taking a soft approach with the
government of President Robert Mugabe, which has been slammed by the West on
human rights issues against the backdrop of a collapsing economy and chronic
food shortages.
But in an interview with the South African Broadcasting Corporation
(SABC), Mbeki said Pretoria's behind-the-scenes talks, or so-called "quiet
diplomacy", were bearing fruit.
"Over all this long period...we've raised concerns about a whole
variety of matters with Zimbabwe," Mbeki said in an interview broadcast on SABC
television.
"One of the matters we've raised with them is that there have been
complaints raised about...legislation passed that has an impact on the press.
That it was necessary to look at that legislation and see what was wrong with it
and change it. And indeed the Zimbabweans have agreed to that," he said.
The media laws make it an offence to publish a "false story", compel
journalists to apply for licences and bar foreigners from working permanently in
the country as reporters.
Several journalists have been detained under the laws, which have been
challenged in the courts.
Mbeki also said that South Africa had discussed with Zimbabwe
legislation that was "limiting democratic freedoms...and indeed they are looking
at that".
Mugabe signed tough security legislation into law just before he was
re-elected in a controversial poll last March that was dismissed as fraudulent
by the West and the opposition.
COMMONWEALTH RIFT
Mbeki's comments echoed those of Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo,
who said in a recent letter to Australian Prime Minister John Howard that
Zimbabwe was making "genuine efforts to respond to...concerns" about the media
laws.
A deep rift has opened in the Commonwealth over Zimbabwe, with Mbeki
and Obasanjo -- who together with Howard form a Commonwealth "troika" mandated
to look at what course of action to take on Harare -- pushing to lift sanctions
that were imposed on the country last year.
Mbeki in his SABC interview reiterated comments made to Malaysia's New
Sunday Times newspaper, saying that the troika had no mandate to impose
additional sanctions and that it needed to discuss the matter with other
members.
Zimbabwe was suspended from the Commonwealth -- a grouping of mostly
former British colonies -- last year and the current sanctions against it expire
on March 19.
Mugabe's domestic critics have accused South Africa and Nigeria of
"sanitising" the Zimbabwean situation, pointing out that Mugabe has not
disbanded pro-government militias blamed for political violence.
Zimbabwe has been taken to task by the West for its seizure of
white-owned farms for redistribution to landless blacks, which critics say has
destroyed a once thriving agriculture sector, and for clamping down on the media
and opposition.
Mbeki said that the Zimbabweans had also agreed to introduce
legislation to give citizenship to people who were living in the country when it
gained independence from Britain in 1980, to ease the plight of Malawian and
Mozambican farm workers displaced by the land redistribution and give them land
rights.