From Pamenus Tuso in Bulawayo issue date
:2005-Oct-08
THE Welfare Society of Bulawayo (WSB) and the Bulawayo City
Council are headed for a clash after the council decided to evict people
growing vegetables at the southern end of West Park cemetery. West Park
was designated and gazetted as a cemetery in 1999. The graveyard's southern
portion, Greenspan Garden, has since its designation been used for growing
vegetables, mainly by Mzilikazi and Barbourfield residents. Last month, the
municipality served notices to the residents to discontinue their activities
in the area. But the intended eviction has angered the WSB, a civic
organisation championing the rights of the city's less privileged
residents. The society has written to mayor Japhet Ndabeni Ncube expressing
its concerns. "The Welfare Society of Bulawayo has learnt with disbelief
that the city council has served notices to the more than 500 welfare
clients at Greenspan Gardens. The executive committee of the society is
nevertheless concerned at the displacement of the people as it will indeed
impact negatively on their welfare," said the letter. The society said
reports emanating from the affected residents suggested that council was
more concerned with the welfare of the dead than the living. But despite
the feud, council has pledged to go ahead with the project. "As much as your
clients will be disadvantaged, the area is designated as a cemetery and
cannot be used for anything else. "In any case, welfare gardens can be
established anywhere while a cemetery must be gazetted," said Bulawayo town
clerk Moffat Ndlovu, responding to WSB's comments. The city's engineering
services department has already prepared the layout plan for the new
cemetery, while the department of health services awaits relocation of the
affected residents. West Park Cemetery was opened in November 1999
THE
Department of Public and Interactive Affairs is geared to see all farmers'
unions in Zimbabwe amalgamate in a major development it says will benefit
the key agricultural sector. Principal director William Nhara told a news
conference in Harare yesterday that the department was set to finalise
proposals made by stakeholders during nationwide consultative
meetings. "For the benefit of the agrarian (reform) and efficiency of the
agricultural sector, it has become imperative for all stakeholders in the
sector to focus on the creation of a single body." The latest development
will see all farmer representatives from small scale, communal (A1) to
commercial (A2) incorporated into a single entity. In the last three months,
Nhara said, the government had been consulting widely with the three major
farmers' unions - the Zimbabwe Farmers' Union (ZFU), Zimbabwe Indigenous
Commercial Farmers' Union (ZICFU) and Commercial Farmers' Union (CFU) - and
the consensus was that they formed one union. "It is the department's hope
that all stakeholders will maintain their mature approach to issues that
will ensure the promotion and welfare of the farmers and protection of their
interests," he said. Nhara added that the idea was also aimed at involving
farmers in the policy and decision making on issues concerning agriculture
an area the farmers complained about being sidelined. "If they speak with
one voice, they will be heard more and even better," he said. The issue
of amalgamating the three farmers unions dates back to the late 1980s when
the Joint Presidency Council (JPC) comprising the ZFU, CFU and ZICFU was
formed. Recently, Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe governor Dr Gideon Gono said the
various farmer representative organisations were causing confusion.
THE government will in January
fork out at least $36 billion in gratuities to former political prisoners,
detainees and restrictees, ending years of lobbying by the political
group. The one-off payout will be in addition to other accompanying benefits
such as education and medical grants being enjoyed by veterans of Zimbabwe's
liberation war. Even though figures were not made available, the other
benefits may even surpass the initial payment to the group, given the
spiralling inflation. According to Statutory Instrument 194 of 2005
published in the Government Gazette yesterday, the ex-prisoners, detainees
and restrictees, numbering 6 000, will receive a one-off payment of $6
million each. Benefits will also include funeral grants and loans for
members wishing to go into business. Under the Ex-Political Prisoners,
Detainees and Restrictees Act, a former prisoner, detainee or restrictee is
defined "as any person who after January 1 1959 was imprisoned, detained, or
restricted in Zimbabwe for a period of at least six months, or for two or
more periods amounting to not less than six months, for political activity
in connection with the bringing about of Zimbabwe's independence on April 18
1980." Beneficiaries wishing to embark on income generating projects can
apply for loans whose rate of interest would be fixed by the responsible
minister. Any ex-political prisoners, detainees and restrictees or their
dependent children wishing to pursue academic or vocational training may be
entitled to "full tuition fees and levies, the cost of all prescribed
textbooks and study materials, and full boarding materials." Payments for
the children's education would only be made if it has been proved that the
people concerned are unable to meet the costs. All the funds would be
released subject to the approval of a board set up in terms of the
Act. Those attending non-government schools and institutions will be entitled
to an education grant equal in amount to the education benefit at government
institutions. The beneficiaries' fund would also be used for their medical
or dental treatment. In addition to these benefits, there would also be
funeral grants that shall be at the same rate as those paid to civil
servants. The funeral benefit shall be payable to the surviving spouse, the
deceased's eldest child over 18 years of age or a close relative. This
extra financial burden on the government will mean that the Minister of
Finance, Herbert Murerwa, will have to accommodate the former prisoners in
next year's budget.
FEATURE: Police overzealousness in enforcing orders
baffles Zimbabweans
Zim Online
Sat 8 October 2005
HARARE - A police officer
mills around the confines of Harare's Africa Unity Square, a folded copy of
the government-owned Herald newspaper sunk inside the side pockets of the
faded blue denim trademark of the police's anti-riot squad.
An
oversized helmet plants monstrous features on him, as he meditatively leans
against a road signpost, with some teargas canisters clipped around his
trouser belt.
Scanning the faces of passersby suspiciously, his
upper teeth chew piteously at the scales of a visibly famished lower lip
before a dehydrated tongue flicks over both lips to restore some life and
luster on them.
It is 3pm and the policeman has been deployed here
together with his colleagues since 4am without any food rations to see them
through the hot afternoon. The operation is to quell a looming demonstration
by a local civic group.
After a lapse of a few minutes, a
battered police Land Rover truck stutters past at high speed, as its
occupants frantically signal that the demonstrators are nearing the famous
square.
Together with his colleagues, the police officer suddenly
springs to life, tightening on the heavy wooden truncheon in readiness for
action.
No sooner does the group of placard-waving youths emerge
round the corner of Nelson Mandela Street than our police officer joins his
colleagues to accost and pummel hard on the heads and bodies of the youthful
demonstrators.
Their crime? Demanding a change to a
constitution that has allowed one of Africa's last remaining Big Man-style
rulers - President Robert Mugabe - to maintain a stranglehold on power since
Zimbabwe's independence from Britain 25 years ago.
It is not
just the excesses of Mugabe and his ruling ZANU PF party that many observers
have found surprising but also the overzealousness with which security
forces particularly the police have crushed any attempt by ordinary citizens
or opposition political parties to challenge the status quo.
But for how long, political analysts wonder, will brutal police firepower
continue to beat back swelling discontent among a population starved of
jobs, food, fuel and almost every other basic survival commodity.
For example in 2000, at the height of violent farm invasions led by
government supporters and self-styled veterans of Zimbabwe's 1970s
independence war, the police remained spectators refusing to uphold the
constitutional duty to protect the property rights of citizens whose farms
and equipment were being seized illegally.
When the courts
ordered the police authorities to arrest the farm invaders, the government
blocked the move saying it could not set war veterans in the law enforcement
agency against those illegally occupying white farms.
Besides
the police force did not have enough manpower to ensure every white-owned
farm was protected, the government said.
But the "understaffed"
police force was however quick to act to enforce law and order, arresting
white farmers or their workers who tried to hit back at the farm
invaders.
Assured the law would not touch them, the war veterans
and their supporters plundered, not just property but life as well. More
than eight white commercial farmers were murdered over the past five years
while several hundreds of their black farm workers were severely
assaulted.
Farm equipment worth billions of dollars was also stolen
while more than 50 percent of wildlife on white-owned conservancies was
poached. No one has been arrested or prosecuted to date for the offences
most of them committed in broad daylight.
Zimbabwe has grappled
severe food shortages for the last five years largely because of the
destabilisation caused on the mainstay agricultural sector by the farm
invasions.
In 2002, the conscience of the police force was again
put to the test when the state agency was called to enforce the tough Access
to Information and Protection of Privacy Act (AIPPA) and the Public Order
and Security Act (POSA).
AIPPA forbids journalists and
newspapers to operate in Zimbabwe without being registered with the
government's Media and Information Commission. Journalists who breach this
law face up to two years in jail while newspapers will be forcibly shut down
and their equipment seized by the state for publishing without being
registered.
The POSA among other things outlaws criticism against
Mugabe and also bans Zimbabweans from gathering in groups of more than three
to discuss politics without permission form the police.
But the
police have used the two laws exclusively against the opposition Movement
for Democratic Change (MDC) party, independent journalists and
newspapers.
Four months ago, the police were at the forefront of
the government's controversial urban clean-up campaign under which thousands
of shantytown homes, city backyard cottages and informal business kiosks
were demolished.
The campaign, condemned as inhumane by the United
Nations, left at least 700 000 people without homes or means of income. A
further 2.4 million people were also affected by the home demolition
campaign, according to the UN.
At least one policeman was
killed during the operation while several hundred other officers were also
left homeless after the backyard cottages they rented were
destroyed.
Even as they fell victim to the clean-up operation,
police officers continued to implement the operation with much zeal and
enthusiasm much to the surprise of many observers.
One senior
police officer explained why his colleagues behaved in this way: "In 2000,
Police Commissioner Augustine Chihuri toured the country threatening to fire
any police officer found to be siding with the 'sellout MDC' and
demonstrated that by firing more than 10 senior officers who issued orders
for the arrest of war veterans who were brutalising innocent
people."
Siding with the MDC in police circles can either mean
actively supporting the opposition party or taking action, no matter how
proper and lawful, against ZANU PF supporters, said the police officer, who
spoke on condition he was not named.
He added: "Chihuri is
presiding over total fear within the police force and this is why his tenure
is being extended because he has converted the police into a ZANU PF
tool."
Police spokesman Wayne Bvudzijena refused to discuss the
matter when contacted by ZimOnline. And among the questions ZimOnline
would have wanted to ask the police Spin Doctor was: For how long shall the
fear of losing their jobs continue to be sufficient to keep junior police
officers, disgruntled by poor pay and working conditions, as willing tools
of their commanders? - ZimOnline
Zimbabwe's sole tyre manufacturer halts operations
Zim Online
Sat
8 October 2005
BULAWAYO - Zimbabwe is sitting on a road carnage
time bomb amid revelations this week that the country's sole tyre
manufacturer has ceased production due to a shortage of foreign currency to
import raw materials.
Dunlop Zimbabwe, which has asked large fleet
operators to import their own raw materials and help save jobs at its
Bulawayo tyre-making plant, said it was last allocated foreign currency by
the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe (RBZ) in mid-July, a situation that was making
it impossible to continue production.
In a document shown to
ZimOnline this week, Dunlop Zimbabwe managing director Phil Whitehead said
the company had run dry of raw materials and had been asked by the RBZ to
hold on for a few weeks following a meeting on 29 August.
He
appealed to companies with excess funds in their foreign currency accounts
(FCAs) to bail the company out so as to save the country jobs and precious
hard cash being used to import tyres. The company employs about 800 workers
and is the sole manufacturer of tyres in the country.
Some 30 000
more workers are employed in downstream industries, according to
Whitehead.
"If there are people with surplus of FCA money available
and following usual exchange control approvals it would be possible to
import raw materials. If you have a big vehicle fleet - it would be good for
us to discuss with you efficient use of your forex to keep your fleets
going," he said.
Imported tyres cost at least eight times more
than locally produced ones and the country requires double the amount of
foreign currency to import a tyre compared to when it imports the raw
materials and manufactures the tyres locally, according to
Whitehead.
An imported light truck tyre costs about Z$17 million
compared to only Z$3 million for a Dunlop manufactured one. The Dunlop brand
is the only locally produced tyre while the rest are imported.
Zimbabwe has grappled severe foreign currency shortages since the
International Monetary Fund (IMF) withdrew balance-of-payments support six
years ago following disagreements with Harare over fiscal policy and other
governance issues.
The hard cash shortages have worsened for
local firms in the last three months after the government diverted a total
US$135 million to the IMF to pay off outstanding debts in a bid to avoid
expulsion from the Fund.
Food, fuel, electricity, essential medical
drugs, industrial machine spares parts and nearly every other basic
commodity is in short supply in Zimbabwe because there is no hard cash to
pay foreign suppliers.
With both the rainy and festival seasons
around the corner the closure of Dunlop could Zimbabwe dearly in lives lost
in road accidents and the number of insurance claims as a result of the
carnage. - ZimOnline
Zimbabwe soldier orders police to detain man for 18
hours
Zim Online
Sat 8 October 2005
KAROI - A top army officer ordered
police in Karoi town to detain a motorist he had a misunderstanding with
while driving around this small farming town, 203km north-west of
Harare.
But the police officer in charge of Kaori, Ernest Duri told
ZimOnline on Friday that the motorist, Raymond Nhemwa, was locked up in
cells for about 18 hours after a report by army major Tichaona Chinyanga
that Nhemwa had insulted President Robert Mugabe.
Duri said:
"Who is the guilty one, the one who pays an admission of guilt fine or that
one who does not? He (Nhemwa) admitted that he had insulted the President
and paid the fine."
Under the government's draconian Public Order
and Security Act, it is an offence to insult or ridicule Mugabe. Several
Zimbabweans have been arrested in the last three years for allegedly
uttering words perceived to be insulting to Mugabe's person or
office.
But Nhemwa, who was locked up in police cells on Tuesday
and released the next day, denies ever insulting Mugabe saying he paid the
fine only to secure his freedom. He said he had a "misunderstanding" with
the army officer who he said accused him of poor driving. Fearing for his
safety, Nhemwa said he decided to report to the police at Karoi police
station.
However, Chinyanga followed him to the police station
where he told police officers to lock him up for insulting
Mugabe.
"I asked the police officers whether there were other
witnesses who could testify that they heard me insulting the President but
the police said it did not matter that there were no witnesses because they
were arresting him on the orders of the army officer," Nhemwa
said.
Chinyanga could not be contacted for comment on the matter
but the Zimbabwe National Army soldier has been accused in the past of
harassing civilians in and around Karoi. - ZimOnline
FEATURE: Zimbabwean school children dash from beerhall to
classroom
Zim Online
Sat 8 October 2005
MUTARE - Every night, Mushando Bar,
a run-down council beerhall in the poor suburb of Sakubva in Mutare city,
explodes into life as patrons drown their seemingly unending
sorrows.
The beerhall is a hive of activity as hundreds of patrons
dance the night away and imbibe their "scuds," a local opaque beer renowned
for its potency.
Young girls who are barely in their teens are
also here, flaunting raw flesh as they sell their souls while engaging in
the "oldest profession."
It is amid this shocking debauchery and
acculturation that would have made old Sodom appear mere child's play, that
nine-year-old Tinashe Musvize wakes up every morning to go to
school.
Tinashe, a Grade 3 pupil from Mutanda Primary School in the
eastern border city of Mutare, frankly admits that his is not the best of
places to call home.
"This is where we now live. I go to school
every day from here and these are all my textbooks," says the shy young boy
from the beerhall storeroom the family has converted into their
bedroom.
Tinashe's textbooks are neatly stacked beside heaps of
crates of beer. The family's earthly possessions, which include some few
thin blankets, are piled in one small corner.
Tinashe's family
is part of a group of 21 families that sought refuge in this beerhall after
their homes and backyard shacks were destroyed by the government three
months ago in a controversial clean-up exercise code-named Operation
Murambatsvina (Drive Out The Filth).
At least 700 000 people were
rendered homeless after President Robert Mugabe sanctioned the destruction
of urban slums in a massive military-style operation.
Another
2.4 million Zimbabweans were also directly affected by the operation,
according to a hard-hitting United Nations report compiled by the world
body's special envoy Anna Tibaijuka.
The United States, Britain,
the European Union and other major Western governments also criticised the
clean-up operation calling it a violation of the rights of the
poor.
But Mugabe has vociferously defended the exercise accusing
critics of the government programme of "romanticising squalor."
As Zimbabwe joined the rest of the world in commemorating World Habitat Day
this week, life has never been the same for Tinashe and the rest of the 21
families here.
"We have problems keeping our children away from the
main bar. But most of the time they sneak in. Our main worry is that this is
the place where all the prostitutes do their business. We are praying for a
safe environment for our children," says Memory Musvize, Tinashe's
mother.
While the families are holed up in this derelict beerhall,
about 265 kilometres away in the capital Harare, Local Government and
National Housing Minister Ignatius Chombo, was cynically paying tribute to
the government for "improving" the housing standards for its
people.
Marking World Habitat Day, Chombo said: "Our government has
moved great strides to ensure that all our people have decent housing.
Indeed our actions over the past months have shown commitment to ensuring
decent accommodation for Zimbabweans."
Like Tinashe and the
other 21 families, Tongai Zisengwe, a small-time cobbler in the city, is
also in the same predicament. He is now staying in a disused soccer pitch,
completely at the mercy of the weather, together with his wife and three
children of school-going age.
"It is because of the government's
actions that I am now living in the open like this. There are no toilets, no
water, nothing for human survival. The government has only worsened my
situation," he says wearing a sad face.
Four months after being
promised better accommodation, Zisengwe is still sleeping in the
open.
"I hear them (government officials) talk about an operation
to build houses for everyone whose home they destroyed. Such talk makes me
angry, very angry.
"I have been to the government offices and
nothing has come up. I was openly told to forget it because the houses are
too few for everyone," he says.
The Zimbabwe government last
July launched an ambitious housing project to placate rising world anger
over the housing demolitions.
The new reconstruction programme,
codenamed Operation Garikai/Hlalani Kuhle has so far failed to meet its
targets as the Harare authorities battle a severe economic crisis blamed on
Mugabe's mismanagement.
Analysts say Harare is too broke to raise
the Z$3 trillion (about US$300 million) needed for the housing project. -
ZimOnline
Mugabe bars food aid distribution until after Senate
polls
Zim Online
Sat 8 October 2005
HARARE - President Robert Mugabe's
government will allow international relief agencies to feed an estimated
four million hungry Zimbabweans only after Senate elections in November,
ZimOnline has learnt.
Authoritative sources said the government
wanted to maintain monopoly on food aid distribution and use it to maximise
votes in the election set for the end of next month.
The
government, which accuses non-governmental organisations (NGOs) of backing
the main opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) party, also wanted
relief agencies shut out of food aid distribution for now because it feared
the NGOs might use the exercise as a pretext to mobilise support for the
MDC.
"The Ministry of Finance and the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe have
been ordered to use the bulk of the foreign currency they have to import
more grain. The grain would be distributed in the rural areas to shore up
support for ZANU PF," said one government, official, who declined to be
named.
State Security Minister Didymus Mutasa, also in
charge of food aid distribution, confirmed the government had held back
until after the Senate polls a decision on whether to invite international
relief agencies to help feed starving Zimbabweans.
But he
denied that this was because the government wanted to manipulate food aid to
win more votes in the election whose exact dates are yet to be made
public.
Mutasa said: "Most of these NGOs play politics with food
and they might as well use the food handouts to influence our people to vote
for the imperial lapdogs, the MDC. We are busy with the Senate elections and
after that we will look at the situation. But it should not be lost that we
have the capacity to feed our own people."
Finance Minister
Herbert Murerwa in August told Parliament that the government was suspending
its Grain Marketing Board's monopoly over maize and wheat trade to allow
private firms to also import the staple grains. But to date private firms
are being allowed to import only stockfeed.
Mugabe, who in July
told World Food Programme (WFP) director James Morris that Harare would
accept aid from the organisation, also promised United Nations Secretary
General Kofi Annan last month that he was not opposed to international help
although the Zimbabwean leader said he was not happy with some NGOs he said
politicised food aid.
The cash-strapped Harare government has
however refused to formally appeal to the WFP for help and has also not
permitted NGOs free reign to feed hungry people insisting it has the
capacity to ensure every Zimbabwean has food.
The WFP and other
international relief agencies are allowed to feed only selected groups of
people living with HIV/AIDS, orphans, school children and the
elderly.
The MDC, churches, human rights and civic groups have in
the past accused Mugabe and his government of denying food aid to opposition
supporters as punishment for not backing the government. The government
denies the charge.
Zimbabwe has faced severe food shortages
since 2001 which critics say are in large part because of the seizure by
Mugabe's administration of productive land from white farmers and giving it
over to landless black villagers.
Failure by the government to
give skills training and inputs support to the black villagers to maintain
production on the former white farms has seen food output plummeting by
about 60 percent. The government however denies its land reforms are
responsible for Zimbabwe's food problems instead blaming this on poor
weather. - ZimOnline
Sokwanele Newsletter : Even the goats are beginning to die
Sokwanele - Enough is Enough - Zimbabwe PROMOTING NON-VIOLENT PRINCIPLES TO
ACHIEVE DEMOCRACY
Even the goats are beginning to
die Sokwanele Report : 7 October 2005 Zimbabweans as a people are not
given to complaining. They put up with no end of hardships and difficulties with
a dull sense of resignation to the worst. Normally such a stoical attitude would
be regarded as a virtue. After all who wants to be known as a whinger? But in
Zimbabwe things are very far from normal. The cause of our suffering as a people
is not the weather or the stars, nor even Tony Blair (someone please tell
Mugabe!) No, the cause of ninety-nine per cent of our suffering can be traced
back to bad governance and the appalling mismanagement of the economy. For this
reason it is high time we stopped suffering in silence, and let out a roar of
disapproval to the authors of our misfortune, who of course are none other than
the ZANU PF elite. It is time we demanded our dignity, our God-given freedom and
the human rights which were once enshrined in our Constitution - until, that is,
the ruling clique decided it was necessary to their continued enjoyment of power
and privilege that we be deprived of them. Because of our tight-lipped
silence who for example, apart from those who experience it as their grinding
daily routine, are aware of the intense suffering of those who live in the more
remote rural areas? Take the Gogo (grandmother) I spoke to this week who
lives in Siabuwa in the Zambezi Valley about a hundred kilometres from Binga.
She had to come into Bulawayo a few weeks ago to visit her daughter and to care
for the young grandchildren while their mother was in hospital. Now it is time
for Gogo to return to her own home in Siabuwa. How would she get there, I asked.
My question prompted the most amazing revelations about the incredible
difficulties now endured by those who live far from the nearest
town. Normally Gogo would have a choice of travelling either via (the Falls
Road) Kamativi and Binga, or via Nkayi and Gokwe. The western or the eastern
route as you could say, both of which take one over some difficult terrain and
bone-shaking roads at the best of times. However in these grossly abnormal times
one does not have these options any more. Because of the acute shortage of fuel
across the whole country most rural buses have just stopped running. People may
queue for days only to be told that the service has been cancelled. No forex, no
fuel, no bus service - leaving thousands of stranded travellers in abject
misery. And that was just the start of Gogo's woes … I enquired further what
she was going to do. Could she not get a lift on some vehicle going to Binga?
Possibly, replied Gogo (and at considerable cost) but the real problem with that
route was how to get from Binga on the shores of Lake Kariba to Siabuwa, a
hundred kilometres inland. No buses have run on this road for many weeks now,
leaving desperate commuters to make the journey on foot. How long would such a
journey take? Two to three days was the reply, depending on one's state of
health. Gogo went on to explain that rural people forced to walk this road had
to be continually on the lookout for wild animals. (The road passes through
forested areas and skirts wildlife safari areas and the Chizarira National
Park). For this reason people tend to walk in groups, and they stop walking at 5
in the evening when the elephants are on the move, to or from the water. Walkers
set up big bonfires at night to scare off the elephants and other wildlife.
What food did these people have, I enquired. Gogo replied that they live off
the wild berries along the road. And was there really no chance of a lift for
exhausted commuters? Only the occasional National Parks landrover, I was
informed, or the even more rare rural ambulance. Apart from the strict orders
given to National Parks drivers not to give lifts along the way, their vehicles
are too small anyway and could at best help a few stranded walkers. If there was
a particularly old or frail person on the road one of the rare ambulances might
provide a lift (at a price), but commuters could not hope for anything more. In
a matter-of-fact tone Gogo explained that patients returning to their rural
homes from the hospital in Binga would normally try to build up their strength
for about a week before starting the journey. So clearly the western route
via Binga was not a realistic possibility for Gogo. Was the eastern route via
Gokwe any better, I enquired. Possibly so, because Gogo had heard that the "Shoe
Shine" buses did occasionally run the long route to Gokwe via Kwekwe. (The Shoe
Shine Company presumably raising some forex for fuel from their Botswana
operations) The fare would be something like $ 680,000 - or was that last week's
rates? In any event from Gokwe onwards, or for the last 165 kilometres of the
journey, she would be on her own. No buses are now running further than Gokwe.
So how would Gogo do this stretch of the journey? That is not impossible, she
replied because there are lorries travelling that route carrying coal from a
nearby mine. However it transpired that the lorry drivers always insist on a
premium for a lift, and that could be up to twice the price of the corresponding
bus fare - if the buses were running, which they are not, if you understand! And
such an inflated price for the doubtful privilege of sitting perched on top of a
load of coal on an open-backed truck. At this point in the conversation I
thought I had taxed Gogo enough about the hazards and discomforts of rural
travel in the Zimbabwe to which Robert Mugabe has reduced us all. What about the
food situation in Siabuwa, I enquired. For over three years I learnt, the
people of that dirt-poor region had been receiving a life-saving monthly food
handout from Save the Children UK. Everyone over the age of 55 (and including
those below that age who were known to be without food) could then rely upon a
generous allocation of mealie-meal, cooking oil and beans. But this was no more,
because ever since the ill-fated Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO) Bill had
first been mooted in 2004 the Mugabe regime had banned humanitarian
organizations like Save the Children from continuing with their general feeding
programmes. Save the Children UK was given permission to continue its
developmental work, such as digging wells to provide drinking water, but was
ordered to discontinue the feeding. The reason cited by local ZANU PF officials
was that these NGOs were engaging in a subversive political programme in support
of the opposition MDC - which according to my well-informed Gogo, was absolute
nonsense. The obvious next question was, how the people are surviving. The
simple answer, it emerged, is that many are not. Many are succumbing to early
deaths as a result of a major food deficiency. Statistics are difficult to come
by in the very nature of the situation - a remote location with only rudimentary
heath care facilities, and extreme sensitivity on the part of ZANU PF to
anything resembling a proper health care study. But said Gogo, people are dying
of malnutrition now. A visitor to the area could not help but notice how thin
most people are. Anyone in the community believed to possess a significant
amount of food, will have a trail of people to the door, virtually begging for
help. My final question to Gogo was how she personally was managing to
survive. She paused and a look of quiet resignation crossed her wizened
features. "Aha," she said, "I used to keep chickens, but now there is an
outbreak of Newcastle disease - right across Binga, Lupane, Hwange. Many, many
chickens have died. Now I have nothing left to sell. The goats have a disease
too. Even the goats are beginning to die." I have to confess I was shocked
and appalled by what Gogo told me this week. I had thought I knew about the
suffering of the rural people, but in truth I knew nothing. Thank God for Gogo's
courage in talking to an unknown reporter. My personal resolve - it's the least
I can do - is to tell her story to as many as will listen. Isn't it time to
end the silence about the intense suffering of ordinary Zimbabweans under this
grossly incompetent and totally uncaring regime? Why don't we all resolve to
tell it the way it is? Let us demand back our stolen freedoms and human rights.
Let us consign this ungodly ZANU PF regime to the dustbin of history where it
belongs.
Visit our website at www.sokwanele.com Visit our
blog: This is Zimbabwe (Sokwanele blog) We have a fundamental right to
freedom of expression! Sokwanele does not endorse the editorial policy of
any source or website except its own. It retains full copyright on its own
articles, which may be reproduced or distributed but may not be materially
altered in any way. Reproduced articles must clearly show the source and owner
of copyright, together with any other notices originally contained therein, as
well as the original date of publication. Sokwanele does not accept
responsibility for any loss or damage arising in any way from receipt of this
email or use thereof. This document, or any part thereof, may not be distributed
for profit.
Tribalism rife for Zimbabweans in exile? (resent with details)
Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 7:38 PM
Subject: Tribalism rife for Zimbabweans in exile? (resent with
details)
Programme divided into two parts, Thursday 06 October
and Thursday 13 October 2005 on the internet and on the respective Fridays on
Medium Wave in the morning. Also on archives for 2 weeks
(internet).
Its
rife but no one wants to talk about it. Behind the Headlines walks on eggs as it
attempts to balance the hot potato of a subject that is tribalism. Is it fair to
paint all Shona speakers with the same brush and blame them for the Gukurahundi
Massacres in Matabeleland? Can we say in the absence of freedom of expression in
Zimbabwe, minority tribes find it easier to let out their bottled up feelings of
resentment once they are in another country? With so many intermarriages who
really is Shona or Ndebele? Do we rely on dishonest politicians to harmonize
relations or as a people we should set our destiny outside those who merely seek
power? Pedzisai Ruhanya (Crisis in Zimbabwe Coalition), Daniel Molokela (Human
rights lawyer) and Musekiwa Makwanya (political commentator)
debate.
SW Radio Africa is
Zimbabwe's only independent radio station broadcasting from the United Kingdom.
The station is staffed by exiled Zimbabwean journalists who because of harsh
media laws cannot broadcast from home.
Full broadcast on Medium Wave -1197KHZ
between 5-7am (Zimbabwean time) and 24 hours on the internet at www.swradioafrica.com.
[This Item is Delivered to the "Africa-English"
Service of the UN's IRIN humanitarian information unit, but may not
necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations. For further information,
free subscriptions, or to change your keywords, contact e-mail:
IRIN@ocha.unon.org or Web: http://www.irinnews.org . If you re-print,
copy, archive or re-post this item, please retain this credit and disclaimer.
Reposting by commercial sites requires written IRIN
permission.]
Copyright (c) UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian
Affairs 2005
Dear Family and Friends, I went grocery shopping at the
biggest wholesale supermarket in Marondera on Friday. In a town with a
population of probably nearly a million people, there are only two
wholesalers and this one used to be jam packed, wall to wall with people.
Just a couple of months ago you would wait, sometimes for half an hour, just
to reach the front of the queue to pay for your groceries. All that has
changed in the last couple of weeks as Zimbabwe's inflation has soared and it
has now become almost impossible for businesses to replace their goods as the
prices are going up so rapidly.
I spent the first ten or fifteen
minutes just walking around the wholesaler looking first at the prices and
then at what wasn't available. Aside from potatoes there were no vegetables
at all to buy; none, not even the common and easy to grow things like
carrots, tomatoes, cabbages or beans. Aside from seven small punnets of
strawberries there was no fruit at all to be bought - not a banana or even
one single orange. There was no bread of any type or any other bread products
like rolls or buns. There was no milk, cheese, eggs, margarine or yoghurt.
There was no sugar, maize meal or flour. Whew, basic shopping for the family
has become a nightmare.
Eventually, after walking around and picking
things up and putting them back, I did eventually buy a weeks worth of
groceries and it was frightening. A four pack of one ply local toilet paper
had increased in price from thirty seven to fifty two thousand dollars in
just six days. My groceries, with no dairy produce, vegetables, meat, alcohol
or confectionery, cost the same as a four bedroomed, two bathroomed house
on an acre of land with a swimming pool had cost just four years ago.
How utterly absurd that this is the situation on the ground in a
small Zimbabwean farming town, where the day time temperatures are in the
high twenties celsius and the farms are right there, on our front and
back doorsteps. How ridiculous too that in these circumstances Zimbabwe
has this week been hosting a UN conference on food safety and security
in Africa. One day during the week I switched on local television to see if
I could find some coverage of the food safety conference. Mr Mugabe's
speech to the delegates was being replayed, the one where he defended
his governments seizure of all white owned commercial farms over the past
five years. "Land, land, land" he said, "means food, food, food to the
people." That speech was followed by a couple of minutes of film footage
showing elaborately dressed women delegates with amazing head gear, acres
of yellow flowing tablecloths, and people sipping delicately from
their bottles of pure spring water. It did not show desperate ordinary people
in Zimbabwe trying to bring food safety into their own homes as they
scour the supermarkets for anything they can afford to buy.
So, while
Mr Mugabe is adamant that land, land, land means food, food, food, ordinary
people like me are saying tick tock, tick tock, how much longer can this
situation hold. It feels like a time bomb which is ticking down, faster and
faster. Please remember the ordinary people of Zimbabwe in your thoughts and
prayers. Until next week, love cathy Copyright cathy buckle 8th October
2005 http://africantears.netfirms.com My
books "African Tears" and "Beyond Tears" are available from: orders@africabookcentre.com
SPEECH BY TONY LEON MP LEADER OF THE DEMOCRATIC ALLIANCE ADDRESS TO THE
INTERNATIONAL POLICY NETWORK INSTITUTE OF ECONOMIC AFFAIRS, LONDON, UNITED
KINGDOM THURSDAY 6 OCTOBER, 2005 – 18H30
“The Prospects for South
Africa and Zimbabwe” (4 257 words)
Introduction
I am grateful
for the opportunity to address this distinguished forum on a subject that is of
pressing concern to South Africans, to Zimbabweans and to friends of Africa
around the world.
South Africa is viewed as a symbol of our continent’s
hopes and prospects at the dawn of the twenty-first century. At the same time,
Zimbabwe, our neighbour to the north, has come to symbolise the bleak history of
postcolonial Africa, its failures and its fears.
I hesitate to speak of
South Africa and Zimbabwe in the same breath – although that is the topic which
my hosts have assigned me and I will do my best to address it. The late Israeli
statesman and diplomat Abba Eban (1915-2002), who was born in South Africa,
often warned of “the perils of analogy”.
A red apple and a red rubber
ball, he used to say, seem almost identical at first. The one is red, round,
shiny and good to eat. The other is red, round, and shiny, too—but that is where
the similarity ends. One small distinction can make all the
difference.
It is frustrating to those of us living in Africa that
people around the world tend to lump African countries together, such that
trouble in one reflects poorly on all.
Africa is unique in suffering
this fate. Few would see North Korea as a reflection on East Asia, for example,
and few would take autocratic Byelorussia as an example of politics in Eastern
Europe.
Furthermore, there are important differences of scale to take
into account. Zimbabwe is a small country, with a population of just under
twelve million people and an economy not much larger than the South African
coastal city of Durban.
South Africa’s population, by contrast, is
roughly four times larger, at forty-five million people. Our economy is more
than twenty times larger; by far the biggest on the continent—and unlike
Zimbabwe’s economy, which is heavily reliant on agriculture, South Africa has a
diverse, modern economy.
Having made these distinctions, it is important
to recognise that South Africa and Zimbabwe share a border, as well as similar
ethnic groups and cultural, linguistic and religious features. Prior to the
present troubles, Zimbabwe was South Africa’s largest trading partner in the
region.
More important, we share a history of British colonialism, of
racial discrimination, of struggles for freedom, and of transitions to
multiparty, nonracial, constitutional democracy. Zimbabwe, in fact, played a
small but important role in helping to facilitate South Africa’s anti-apartheid
struggle and our move into the democratic era.
South Africa:
Parallels and Differences
Zimbabwe’s freedom was achieved more than a
decade earlier than South Africa’s—in 1980 as opposed to 1994—and therefore
Zimbabwe has been seen, for the past twenty-five years, as an indicator of South
Africa’s future political direction.
Many of the same notes of
reconciliation and racial harmony that resounded throughout South Africa’s first
decade of democracy were also heard at Zimbabwe’s independence from President
Robert Mugabe himself.
Five years ago, at the start of Mugabe’s
disastrous, murderous and politically opportunistic land reform campaign, it was
considered alarmist—and even potentially racist—to suggest that South Africa
would “go the same way”.
Now, however, the notion seems less
far-fetched, and certainly less taboo in public discourse in South Africa. The
people raising the prospect of “another Zimbabwe” are not, in the main, white
people but concerned black observers.
Take Trevor Ncube, for example,
one of Africa’s foremost black media entrepreneurs. He built his publishing
empire in Zimbabwe and now owns the highly-regarded weekly Mail & Guardian
in South Africa.
Ncube said in a recent speech: “I'm concerned about
the similarities that I'm reading between South Africa and Zimbabwe, and good
Lord I hope I'm wrong, because if I'm not, then South Africa is headed the
direction of Zimbabwe.”[1]
Increasingly, the parallels between Zimbabwe
and South Africa have become more than just rhetorical.
Land reform is
one example. Under strong pressure from its allies in the South African
Communist Party (SACP) and the Congress of South African Trade Unions (Cosatu),
the government of the African National Congress (ANC) is now pushing a more
radical line on land reform. Senior members of the Cabinet are speaking about
expropriation as a viable alternative to the “willing buyer, willing seller”
approach.
Indeed, late last month the government moved for the first
time to expropriate land from a commercial farmer in the North West Province.
The case involves a dispute over the restitution of land taken away by the
apartheid government, and not simply redistribution of land as such. Still, it
has gained national and international attention.
The great virtue of the
South African system of government, as opposed to the Zimbabwean one, has been
the continued independence of the judiciary. South African courts have ruled
against the government on many occasions, and the government has respected these
decisions, though not always with great enthusiasm. The courts also rule against
opposition parties occasionally, which we have to grin and bear.
Lately,
however, the ruling party has been talking of the need to “transform” the
judiciary. This is not merely an attempt to make the bench more representative
of the demography of the country as a whole, as the Constitution requires.
Rather, “transformation” is being abused to appoint judges that are more
deferential to the executive and to the ruling party.
Already, the
government has proposed new legislation that would give it greater day-to-day
administrative control over the courts. These proposals have prompted stern
protest from senior jurists, black and white.
It is worth remembering
that the Zimbabwean judiciary was also once regarded as robust and independent,
until Mugabe started stacking the courts with subservient partisan appointees.
And long before the rise of Morgan Tsvangirai and the Movement for
Democratic Change, Zimbabwe also had a strong political opposition in the form
of Joshua Nkomo’s Zimbabwe African People’s Union (ZAPU).
That party was
destroyed, partly through a brutal campaign of state terror and murder in
Matabeleland, and partly because Nkomo allowed his party to be absorbed into the
ruling Zimbabwe African National Union-Popular Front (ZANU-PF).
There
is, thankfully, no such state violence in South Africa today, nor is there
likely to be any in the future. And my party, the Democratic Alliance, which is
the largest opposition party, is growing rapidly—more rapidly, indeed, than the
ANC.
We made an historic choice to remain an opposition force when we
could, like Nkomo, have joined the ruling party. In 1996, I was flattered when
President Nelson Mandela offered my party a seat in Cabinet. We held several
talks on his offer, and the repeated sticking point was the issue of whether it
would be possible for our party to serve in the Cabinet and still disagree with
or dissent from some of its decisions.
President Mandela told me that
dissent would be impossible—that we would have to face the world “like Mugabe
and Nkomo”. But I believed that South Africa needed a responsible, viable
dissenting voice. And so the offer was declined.
Today, I think, South
Africa is better off for not having a “Mugabe and Nkomo” in government, but a
proper tension between the government and an opposition loyal to the
Constitution.
But many other, smaller opposition parties have been
swallowed by the ANC or have succumbed to ANC pressure. These include the
once-mighty National Party, which governed during the apartheid era and no
longer exists, as well as the Inkatha Freedom Party, which is losing the
decades-old battle against its ANC rival in the Zulu heartland of KwaZulu
Natal.
The ANC is also determined to extend its control over all
independent public institutions and civil society organisations in the country.
Again, it is important not to overstate the case. In comparing the
first decade of South Africa’s freedom to the first decade of independence in
Zimbabwe, South Africa’s commitment—both political and practical—to human rights
and democracy is far stronger.
One obvious example is that our first
democratically-elected president, Nelson Mandela, stepped down after his first
and only term in office, while Mugabe has been in power for twenty-five years.
Our current President, Thabo Mbeki, has pledged to step down at the end
of his current term in 2009. He has similarly helped persuade former Mozambican
President Joachim Chissano to step down, as well as former Namibian President
Sam Nujoma. The question is why he has failed to do the same in
Zimbabwe.
South African support for Mugabe
Despite South
Africa’s commitment to constitutional democracy and freedom, our government
continues to provide material, political and ideological support to the Mugabe
regime, which has become the most despotic and rights-delinquent government in
all of Southern Africa.
For several years, South Africa’s policy towards
Zimbabwe was referred to as “quiet diplomacy”, but even this bland euphemism is
no longer apt. We are no longer quietly critical of Zimbabwe. We are, on the
contrary, open and avid Mugabe supporters.
This past winter, Zimbabwe
conducted a devastating Khmer Rouge-style campaign of forced removals which it
referred to as Operation Murambatsvina—or “Drive Out the Trash”. Several hundred
thousand homes were destroyed and as many as 2,4-million people—roughly
one-fifth of the population—was affected, according to the United Nations
(UN).
This atrocity, which UN envoy Anna Tibaijuka suggested could
constitute a crime against humanity, is equivalent to the forced removals
carried out by the apartheid government in scale, speed and brutality.
Yet the South African government did not offer even a whimper of
protest or criticism against Mugabe’s actions. Our government did not even
intervene when a shipment of food aid from the South African Council of Churches
(SACC) to the victims of Operation Murambatsvina was prevented from entering
Zimbabwe.
Instead, our government apparently offered Zimbabwe a loan of
several hundred million US dollars to help it pay off its debts to the
International Monetary Fund (IMF) – which is threatening Zimbabwe with
expulsion—and to help the Zimbabwean economy recover from its debilitating,
government-induced and entirely avoidable collapse.
In the end, Mugabe
came up with 120 million US dollars on his own, reportedly by raiding his
country’s foreign exchange reserves. This bought a temporary reprieve from the
IMF, but it pushed the informal exchange rate to 100 000 Zimbabwean dollars to 1
US dollar, a completely unsustainable level.
Thus far our government is
remaining silent about the whole affair, but according to Zimbabwean Reserve
Bank governor Gideon Gono, talks with South Africa about a loan are still
active.
The political cost of propping up Mugabe
In stark
contrast to its lack of results in Zimbabwe, our government has accomplished a
great deal in the field of conflict resolution elsewhere in Africa. South
Africa has helped broker peace agreements in Congo, Burundi and the Ivory Coast.
Our government has also taken up the Palestinian cause and attempted to mediate
between the Israelis and the Palestinians.
But in all this frenetic
worldwide activity, our government seems to have little time to encourage the
Zimbabwean government to speak to its opposition.
The political damage
of South Africa’s relationship with the Mugabe regime is also damaging many of
the bold and hopeful initiatives towards African stability and development that
our government and our President in particular have undertaken.
Firstly,
Mugabe has revived the tragicomic image of the African dictator, just as the
world thought it had consigned the Mobutus, Idi Amins and Sani Abachas to the
dustbin of history.
The New Partnership for Africa’s Development, or
Nepad, has also lost ground, if not credibility. The lofty goals of democracy,
transparency and economic growth and development contained in Nepad’s founding
documents are being torn up one by one in Zimbabwe. And South Africa, which
played the leading role in building Nepad and selling it to the G-8 nations, is
failing to intervene, calling the viability of the whole project into
question.
The African Union has also suffered. It set out, at its
inception in 2002, to shed the image of its predecessor, the Organisation of
African Unity, as a club of dictators. And the AU has, to its credit, sent
peacekeeping missions to Sudan and tabled a report criticising human rights
violations in Zimbabwe. But its leaders have nonetheless refused to condemn
Mugabe’s actions directly.
Even more disappointing has been the
behaviour of Zimbabwe’s neighbours in SADC. Far from criticising him, many SADC
leaders have endorsed Mugabe’s land reform programme on several occasions.
That is not to say that African nations are united behind Zimbabwe. On
the contrary, many African nations refused to join South African’s lead in
defending Zimbabwe at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Abuja,
Nigeria in December 2003. But since then they have rarely translated their
disapproval into open criticism or censure.
It is remarkable that
modernising African leaders are willing to pay the price of condoning Mugabe’s
behaviour, overtly and covertly, given the high cost in terms of continental
aspirations and the perceptions of the international community.
This
week’s issue of the Economist reports that growth in inward foreign investment
in Africa in 2004 was only 0,6 percent, as against 71,8 percent in Asia and 43,9
percent in Latin America. There are many causes of our continent’s economic
stagnation, but clearly support for Mugabe is sending the wrong signals to
investors.
South African potential, and problems
Our
country is on the cusp of great achievements, of seizing the opportunities that
the global economy provides us and using them to grow and develop not only our
own economy, but also the economies of our trading partners throughout the
African continent.
South Africa’s economic growth has broken through
four percent. While this is not as high as the government’s target of six
percent, it is a sign of real progress and extends the gains we have made in the
last ten years, which have seen the longest period of uninterrupted economic
growth in our nation’s history.
South Africa’s economic success also
fuels prosperity in the rest of Africa. Over the past decade our country has
become the single largest source of foreign direct investment on the continent.
In addition, a recent study carried out by researchers at the
International Monetary Fund concluded that “[a] 1 percentage point increase in
South Africa’s per capita GDP growth, sustained over five years, is correlated
with a 0,4 – 0,7 percentage point increase in growth in the rest of Africa”.[2]
Furthermore, millions of South Africans who previously lacked access to
services such as electricity, telephones, water and sanitation are now connected
to them, thanks to ambitious efforts by the national and local governments, in
both ANC- and opposition-controlled areas of the country.
There are,
however, several warning signs.
South Africa has tumbled downwards on
the world’s objective measure of the quality of life, the United Nations
Development Programme’s Human Development Index. We have fallen more than thirty
places in a single decade, and we now rank below even the troubled Palestinian
territories.
The chief reason for our decline is the calamitous drop in
average life expectancy, from roughly seventy to fifty years, due to the rapid
spread of the HIV/Aids pandemic. There are now well over five million South
Africans living with the disease; more than a million are thought to have died
already; and more than a third of young people in their late twenties are
infected.
Unemployment is also an enormous problem. Despite economic
growth, more and more South Africans are out of work. The official unemployment
rate hovers at about thirty percent; it rises to forty percent if we consider
those people who have given up seeking work. Income inequality has decreased
between whites and blacks, but it has grown rapidly among black South
Africans.
This year, with local government elections looming in the next
several months, the spotlight has fallen on municipal governments, half of which
are officially considered dysfunctional enough to warrant intervention from the
central government.
The burden on South Africa’s government and society
will become even heavier if Zimbabwe continues to fail and our country is
flooded with refugees. Already, there are thought to be perhaps as many as two
to three million Zimbabweans living in South Africa, both legally and illegally.
Thousands more arrive every day.
One of the justifications for the
government’s “quiet diplomacy” has been that South Africa can ill afford to
allow Zimbabwe to collapse and to have millions of refugees on our doorstep. Yet
that is precisely what is happening. It is not political change that is causing
Zimbabwe to become unstable, but political stagnation.
And political
stagnation in South Africa is also a possibility, especially if we cannot break
out of racial stereotyping and racial patterns of voting.
Last year, I
was interviewed by Tim Sebastian of the BBC on his Hard Talk programme. He asked
me whether it was really possible for a white person to become President of
South Africa, or if I was simply “delusional”. He would never have asked Michael
Howard, before the recent British election, whether a Jew could become Prime
Minister.
I told him: “I am not interested or obsessed with people’s
racial identity. The previous South Africa failed because of that.”
The
good news is that South African minorities have remained involved in the
political process, which was not the case in Zimbabwe.
The Lancaster
House agreement of 1979 guaranteed white Zimbabweans 20 percent of the seats in
Parliament, whereupon most whites, satisfied that they would be represented,
withdrew from politics.
Racial minorities in South Africa, by contrast,
have chosen to remain involved—and all political parties, including the ANC,
court their votes. This bodes well for the future—not just in terms of minority
rights, but also for racial reconciliation and constitutional democracy as a
whole.
The enduring strength of South Africa’s democracy is our nation’s
greatest asset, and one that we should put to good use in helping to resolve the
Zimbabwe crisis.
The road map to democracy in Zimbabwe
In
2003, the Democratic Alliance proposed a new policy for South Africa to adopt
towards Zimbabwe, called the “Road Map to Democracy in
Zimbabwe”.
Loosely based on the international “road map” to peace
between Israelis and Palestinians, our road map provides clear goals, clear
timetables, clear rewards for progress and clear punishments for
failure.
The Zimbabwe road map incorporates plans for public, multiparty
negotiations; the departure of Mugabe from office; the establishment of an
interim government; the drafting of a new constitution and the holding of new
elections. As Zimbabwe reached each stage, it would be rewarded with greater
international aid and assistance.
We presented the Zimbabwe road map to
then-Deputy President Jacob Zuma and updated it ahead of the Commonwealth’s
Abuja meeting. We proposed that the African Union guide, direct and oversee the
entire process, determining the exact schedule and the specific incentives and
punishments involved.
The idea seemed to find considerable traction in
policy circles, and a similar approach was proposed at the Commonwealth meeting,
which suggested that Zimbabwe remain suspended from the organisation until it
had achieved certain interim reforms. This stepwise approach, however, was not
supported by the South African government, which wanted Zimbabwe to be
re-admitted immediately.
Instead, Zimbabwe left the Commonwealth
entirely after the Abuja meeting.
In contrast to the opposition
perspective, the South African government persists in seeing Zimbabwe (akin to
its approach to HIV/AIDS) as being essentially a problem of poverty and
underdevelopment and, of course, colonialism.
This was illustrated with
vivid clarity when President Mbeki appeared before Parliament to answer
questions recently. DA Chairman Joe Seremane—himself a former victim of the
apartheid government and a prisoner on Robben Island for six years—asked the
President about the effects of Zimbabwe on Africa’s efforts to promote its own
growth and development.
“[W]hy should the South African government
continue backing the ZANU-PF government at the expense of the rest of the
Zimbabwean citizens?” Seremane asked.[3]
President Mbeki’s response was
tellingly evasive:
…I notice that the honourable member hasn’t mentioned
other very large challenges on our continent and I am not quite sure why.
Whether it is the Congo, Sudan, Côte d’Ivoire or Mauritania and so on, these are
matters on which, as I am saying, we are trying to contribute the best we can,
to try and find solutions thereto. Yes, indeed, you need this base that he
referred to in order for each one of our countries to be able to address this
very serious challenge of poverty and underdevelopment.
I do not
believe that I need to say anything more about Zimbabwe. We have addressed this
matter many, many times, and our position hasn’t changed on this issue…[4]
In one respect the President was right: our position hasn’t changed.
But the situation in Zimbabwe has become far, far worse.
In an article
in the current issue of the Spectator, Andrew Gilmour writes approvingly of the
UN’s recent reforms. He notes:
… in one of the most radical restatements
of international law of the past century, the entire UN membership went along
with a declaration accepting the right of the world community to take military
action in the case of governments failing to protect their populations from
genocide, war crimes and ethnic cleansing. Prime Minister Tony Blair was right
when he said, ‘For the first time at this summit we are agreed that states do
not have the right to do what they will within their own borders’. No longer
will governments who carry out mass butchery be able to hide behind the mantra
of national sovereignty to prevent the UN interfering in their
crimes.[5]
There are still limits to what the UN can do to intervene,
certainly in the aftermath of the Iraq war and its difficulties. Military
intervention, even if the UN were to agree on such a course of action, would
create many more problems than it would solve, as would broad economic
sanctions.
When the UN Security Council considered Tibaijuka’s report
on Operation Murambatsvina, it chose to do little more than recommend an urgent
increase in humanitarian aid.
However, the principle was upheld: member
states may not do whatever they like to the rights and lives of their own
citizens.
Conclusion: the need for leadership
There is a strong
case for further UN action on Zimbabwe but what is needed most is political
leadership among Zimbabwe’s neighbours—leadership that is willing to abandon its
fond attachment to antique nationalism and the doctrine of absolute national
sovereignty, and to embrace the cause of human rights.
We need
leadership that is prepared to break the old bonds of “struggle solidarity”
between ZANU-PF and its sister liberation parties. We need leadership that is
prepared to accept that even the parties of liberation can lose elections and
fall from power from time to time.
In many ways, Zimbabwe is repeating
the history of Ian Smith’s Rhodesia in the narrow days after his Unilateral
Declaration of Independence. Mugabe is alone, isolated and resentful, with only
the support of South Africa to count on, along with the shared racial and
ideological allegiances of its ruling party.
The parallels are striking,
save in one respect.
When I was a young boy growing up in Durban, I
remember that virtually the entire white population was pro-Rhodesia and
regarded British Prime Minister Harold Wilson as a sell-out and Ian Smith as a
saviour. Anyone who expressed sympathy for the cause of black Zimbabweans
provoked titters of disapproval.
Today, despite Mugabe’s attempts to
portray himself as the hero of the African masses, and regardless of the support
he receives from radicals living in the comfort of Johannesburg or London, few
Africans care for him at all.
A recent survey by a market research firm
in South Africa found that only fourteen percent of black South Africans
approved of Mugabe’s rule.[6]
In the 1970s, despite his own utter
commitment to apartheid and the near-complete uniformity of white opinion in
South Africa, Prime Minister John Vorster turned his back on Rhodesia in what
Ian Smith was later to describe, in his autobiography of the same name, as “The
Great Betrayal”.
The question is why President Thabo Mbeki cannot bring
himself to do the same—despite widespread disapproval for Mugabe among black
South Africans, despite the enormous economic and political costs of supporting
Mugabe, and despite the great gains for Africa that an end to the Zimbabwe
crisis would bring.
What Britain and South Africa’s friends abroad must
tell President Mbeki at every opportunity is that there is no way the Zimbabwe
crisis is going to be resolved, and no way that Africa will succeed, unless he
takes a stand.
Until he does, the world will be simply waiting for
Mugabe to disappear—to take the “Abacha option”, we might call it. But that may
merely prolong the suffering of ordinary Zimbabweans for many more years. It is
clear that a properly-managed process of political change, while not without its
costs, is the only way forward for Zimbabwe. To leave Mugabe in office would be
a disaster.
South Africa can play a leading role in guiding the
process of change. We simply cannot allow Mugabe to continue in power in
Zimbabwe any longer, nor can we permit the devastation of his country to
continue. It is hurting South Africa; it is hurting Zimbabwe; it is hurting
Africa as a whole.
The world is waiting to assist us in building a new
Zimbabwe. All we have to do is make the right choice—to say “no” to Mugabe and
“yes” to the Zimbabwean people.
I thank
you.
___________________________________________________________________________ [1]
“Media mogul draws SA, Zim parallels.” iafrica.com 16 Aug 2002. URL:
http://iafrica.com/news/sa/145043.htm [2] Arora, Vivek and Athanasios
Vamvakidis. “South Africa in the African Economy: The Implications of South
African Economic Growth for the Rest of Africa”. Paper presented at Bureau for
Economic Research (BER) Conference, Sandton, South Africa 18 July 2004. URL:
http://www.imf.org/external/country/ZAF/rr/pdf/061804.pdf [3] Hansard. Debate
in the National Assembly 8 September 2005. [4] Ibid. [5] Gilmour, Andrew.
“Stop bashing the UN.” The Spectator 1 Oct 2005. [6] Research Surveys. “How
do South Africans view key Government foreign policies?” 7 Dec 2004. URL:
http://www.biz-community.com/Article/196/19/5377.html
