The ZIMBABWE Situation | Our
thoughts and prayers are with Zimbabwe - may peace, truth and justice prevail. |
With
apartheid South Africa it was crystal clear. There was a transnational,
cross
sector, multi-class, multi-race, solidarity against the regime and for
the
people of South Africa. Not, however, in the case of Zimbabwe now -
decidedly
and distinctively not. Why is this so? People, important people,
have begun
to scrutinise this rhetorical question with increasing vigour. Is
it, they
ask, because we fail to understand what is really going on in
Zimbabwe? Or is
it because they - the campaigning pro-democracy groups in
Zimbabwe and the
Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) - fail to make their
case and fail to
adequately communicate what is going on?
The main question is especially
poignant for South Africans, who benefited
from the anti-apartheid movement's
energy and commitment and the economic
sanctions it promoted - ultimately
with significant impact on the apartheid
regime.
Which largely
explains the, at times bitter, sense of resentment at what the
Zimbabwean
campaigners regard as a lack of solidarity from South Africa.
"Fence-sitting"
is the politest of the various expressions of exasperation
used.
You
accuse of us of running to the north, to London and Washington, for
support,
say the Zimbabweans, but who can blame us? When we look south, we
have been
met with equivocation from people we thought of as comrades and,
from your
presidency, obfuscation.
But this, I say, is changing rapidly. The lines
of communication are
improving. Importantly, a critical mass of "principled
consciousness" - the
core ingredient for any display of protest solidarity -
has accrued.
The South African Communist Party issued public statements
after its central
committee meeting a couple of months ago that carefully
stated the
non-negotiables of political freedom that should accompany South
African
diplomatic efforts in Zimbabwe. It deplored the "torture of
political
opponents of the regime and gross violations of human
rights".
And last Friday, after meetings with colleagues from the
Zimbabwe Congress
of Trade Unions, the Congress of South African Trade Unions
went further
than it has before. Speaking at a joint press conference in Cape
Town,
provincial secretary Tony Ehrenreich linked his federation's call
for
sanctions with solidarity sanctions against the apartheid regime and
added
that the time for quiet diplomacy had long passed. For good measure
he
concluded that Robert Mugabe should now go. Finish and
klaar.
Important pockets of "middle" African National Congress are also
now raising
their voices inside the tripartite alliance, pricked by video
evidence, for
example, of politically motivated gang rapes.
A
groundswell of meaningful South African solidarity is growing, with
consensus
about its nodal points: solidarity for the human dignity of
Zimbabweans,
especially those most seriously affected by the crisis - the
unemployed and
indigent, the working class and the peasantry. Solidarity in
relation to the
need to design and then protect a credible set of
negotiations aimed at
unlocking what is now a mutually hurting stalemate.
Solidarity with
Zimbabwean democratic protest. And, perhaps most crucially,
solidarity beyond
free and fair elections, towards the longer-term goal of a
stable government.
One with the institutional capacity to be able to deliver
progressive policy
prescriptions, armed with a new Constitution produced by
a legitimate public
participation process.
These are part of the why and the what elements of
building solidarity.
Attention will now be on adding programmatic content to
the how question.
More vigorous displays of solidarity are likely to follow.
All of which adds
up to a significantly changed climate and one that places
those in power in
and outside of Zimbabwe under more pressure to accept and
push for change.
It seems to me that part of the motivation for these
shifts has as much to
do with South Africa, or Swaziland for that matter, as
Zimbabwe. There is a
parallel process of consciousness percolating through
the minds of
progressive activists and leaders around the region. There are
genuine fears
that the democratic space for progressive forces to resist the
neo-liberal
onslaught is closing, has already closed or may do so
soon.
Projecting perhaps from the disappointments of their own
transitions, there
is acceptance of the need for a more rigorously analytical
response to the
Zimbabwe crisis. The conclusion is straightforward: that
Zimbabwe is a
classic case of a petit bourgeois class stealing the national
democratic
revolution at the cost of the working class.
As some are
now prepared to admit, in its response the left in South Africa
has been
remiss, playing into Mugabe's hands as the liberal right has leapt
into the
void to protest the plight of white farmers.
There are complex and
therefore mitigating reasons for the delay in showing
solidarity. The
progressive left does not want the agenda for Africa to be
set by the United
States or the United Kingdom. There is regret and
confusion at the rapid
deterioration of the post-colonial state. There is an
inadequate
understanding of the political economy of Zimbabwe and of the
balance of
forces. Which is where the channels of communication come in.
Debunking
the myriad mythology that has obscured clear analysis until now is
an
essential outcome of such engagement and therefore a foundation for
building
external solidarity. Concerns can be aired directly and responded
to with
equal candour. We perceive that the MDC lacks ideological coherence
and
strategic wit, charge the South Africans. After all, your leader came
here
and met Tony Leon, makes statements on President Thabo Mbeki that push
the
ANC into a corner and, in any case, how do we know you will be any
different
in government from, say, Frederick Chiluba in Zambia?
Perhaps there have
been tactical blunders, respond the Zimbabweans,
certainly you abandon your
quiet diplomacy and bring out the megaphone when
the MDC blunders. But your
government goes silent when 10 people are
murdered by Mugabe's thugs and
hundreds of workers are arrested as Zanu-PF
oppresses dissent. South Africans
show solidarity with Palestinians, they go
to die as human shields in
Baghdad, but not for Zimbabwe. Part
sophistication and world-wily insight;
part arrogance and isolationism, thus
does the South African response baffle
the Zimbabweans.
Call us what you like, the MDC adds, but deal with the
tortures, the gang
rape, the food insecurity and the fact that workers cannot
access their
wages to feed their families.
This is the challenge now
laid down with firm clarity; a healthily robust
debate prompts a collective
response with an internationalist character. It
is extraordinary that the
conversation is only really getting going now.
Better late than never, for
sure. Substantial external solidarity is an
ideal foil to the installation of
the sort of confidence-building measures
that are essential if Zanu-PF and
the MDC are to enter into formal
negotiations about the way forward. And
thus, well-timed to concentrate the
minds that matter most and thereby to
help propel Zimbabwe into the
transition process that its people so urgently
deserve.
Telegraph
Liberia is freed from tyranny: when is it Zimbabwe's
turn?
By Alec Russell
(Filed: 12/08/2003)
First things first - we should all celebrate. Charles Taylor was the
sort of
African despot who outdid even the most extreme fantasies of
Evelyn
Waugh.
It was his "Small Boy Unit" of drugged-up youths
in the Liberian civil
war of the early 1990s that set the trend for other
warlords across the
continent. He more than anyone personified the gangster
president, that new
breed of leaders who have run riot in the failed states
of West Africa over
the past decade.
And we should not be
beguiled by his folksy preacher's talk. He was
utterly ruthless. Yesterday's
resignation ceremony in Monrovia brought back
chilling memories of a
similarly bizarre occasion seven years ago, as he
campaigned in Liberia's
first so-called free and fair election with what
must be the most shameless
electoral slogan ever.
For the closing speech of his campaign, some
30,000 Liberians had
packed a stadium just outside Monrovia; it was a
sweltering summer's day, as
hot and more humid than London in recent days.
Taylor kept us waiting for
several hours before emerging from a helicopter to
shower the crowd with
biros and T-shirts.
Just as they did over
the weekend, his mellifluent tones trumpeted his
deep spirituality. He
stopped. There was a pause. Then back came the roar
from the crowd: "He
killed my father, he killed my mother, he'd get my
vote." The rest was all
too predictable.
Three days later, Taylor was president. General
"Butt Naked" and other
rival commanders were either looking for a safe haven
or joining his ranks.
The West, true to form, endorsed the election as
essentially "free and
fair". The stage was set for six more years of
mayhem.
Now he has gone and without the bloodshed that
traditionally
accompanies a change in Monrovia's State House. It seems fair
to suggest
that his predecessor, Master Sergeant Samuel Doe, escaped a brutal
death at
Taylor's hands only because a rival, Prince Johnson, got to him
first.
Doe, in only his underpants, eventually bled to death after
Johnson's
men vied to chop off his ears. Doe himself, of course, had known
all about
taking power in Liberia. He killed his predecessor in bed and then
lined up
the cabinet and shot them on the beach.
So yesterday
was arguably a good day for Taylor and his deputy and
short-term successor,
Moses Blah, just as it was for Liberians, whose lives
surely cannot get much
worse. It was also a good day for Africa. The past
few weeks of fighting in
Liberia have made depressing viewing for those
die-hard believers in an
African revival.
Before he went yesterday, the main radio talk show
in Johannesburg,
the ideological engine room of South Africa's much touted
but somewhat
evanescent African Renaissance, was dominated by an agonised
debate on the
sorry state of Africa's reputation.
As it is, a
tyrant has gone and, what is more, African leaders can
take much of the
credit. For several years, there has been little to show
for the new African
mantra of "African solutions to African problems".
But yesterday it
was very much Africa's day. President Thabo Mbeki of
South Africa and other
leaders were to the fore, escorting the rogue Taylor
from power. For all the
recent international bleating about Washington's
reluctance to commit troops,
I would wager that Mbeki and other leaders are
not that upset that the
Americans are not on the ground.
The brutal wars in nearby Sierra
Leone and in Ivory Coast were only
quelled by the intervention of the old
colonial powers, Britain and France.
The sight of American troops pacifying
America's very own "colony" - it was
founded by emancipated slaves in the
19th century - might have grated with
Mbeki, in whose veins African
nationalism flows fast.
So, in years to come, will we see 2003 as
Africa's turning point?
Yesterday's news from Liberia should not be seen in
isolation. Congo's awful
war - one million-plus dead in the past five years -
is petering out, with
rebel delegates now merrily ensconced in the capital,
Kinshasa.
Daniel arap Moi, the wily kleptocrat who misruled Kenya
for so long,
has retired from the fray and his hand-picked successor was
thrashed at the
polls. And in South Africa, just three days ago, Mbeki's
government seemed
to bow to popular pressure and change its controversial
policy on Aids.
And yet the sad truth is that we have been here
before. Political news
from Africa tends to go in cycles. Just six years ago,
the climate seemed
set fair. Mobutu Sese Seko, the Zairean leader and arch
Big Man, had been
toppled, and post-apartheid South Africa was making steady
progress.
A "new" breed of reformist leaders was on the march. Then
the Congo
lapsed into war, Zimbabwe into a Mugabe-inspired chaos, the "new"
leaders
into "old" ways, and the optimism vanished.
So yesterday
marks just a first small step for Liberia and, by
extension, Africa. Liberia
is not just a rogue state. It is a failed state
that has all but ceased to
function. If it is not to slide back to war,
someone needs to take the
lead.
Only last month, George W Bush appeared to accept the Mbeki
doctrine
of African solutions for African problems. That is all very well,
but are
the African nations up to the task? The Nigerian peacekeepers are
today
applauded on the streets of Monrovia, but, just seven years ago,
their
predecessors in an earlier operation were loathed for their
freebooting
ways.
The neo-colonial template is all too obvious.
Sierra Leone, where
British troops are keeping the peace, is a success story.
So, to a lesser
extent, is Ivory Coast, under de facto French military
control.
If Mr Bush's neo-conservative advisers are serious about
their
philosophy of bringing democracy to the Middle East, they could
also
consider expanding the vision to Africa and urging him to send in the
troops
who are floating off shore.
As for Africa, if Mr Mbeki
and other leaders want us to believe that a
page has been turned, they should
now turn their attention to Zimbabwe.
When Mr Mugabe is seen in
Harare flanked by his peers and delivering a
valedictory speech, we will know
Africa really is changing.
New Activism by African Nations: Joining Forces to Solve DisputesAIROBI, Kenya, Aug. 11 — There was a time when Africa might have condemned what happened in Liberia today as inappropriate outside meddling. After all, the president of Ghana, John Kufuor, was on hand in the Liberian capital to announce the terms for Charles Taylor's successor. What business was it of his? Troops from Nigeria and South Africa were there as well to ensure that the civil war had really come to an end. Shouldn't they be back home where they belong? Africa has a troubled history when it comes to sorting out its own affairs. Tyrants have long been protected by an unwritten rule of noninterference. The typical way of persuading an unpopular leader to leave has been to secretly support rebels. But the departure of Mr. Taylor is being heralded as a sign that Africa has adopted a new activist approach toward its trouble spots and its troublemakers. "Africa is coming of age in handling its own affairs," said Maria Nzomo, director of the Institute of Diplomacy and International Studies at the University of Nairobi. "There's a new sense that Africa ought to be refereeing its own disputes." Liberia is but one example. Africans are taking the lead in the peace efforts under way in Congo, Burundi, Somalia and Sudan. African peacekeeping forces are serving throughout the continent. While African presidents are still hesitant to criticize their own, Mr. Taylor's departure coincided with a growing sense among his colleagues that it was time for him to move on. This has long been a continent where meddling by neighbors has typically turned bad into worse. Congo, where half a dozen foreign armies swept in to wreak havoc in 1998, is a prime example. In Sierra Leone a long war was fueled by outside states. In fact, in Liberia itself the rebel movement that put Mr. Taylor in power and the rebel movement that eventually chased him away were backed by neighboring states. In the cases where outside involvement might have done some good, Africa was typically slow to act. When President Julius Nyerere of Tanzania sent troops into Uganda to oust Idi Amin from power in 1979, it was Mr. Nyerere's intervention, not the Ugandan dictator's killing sprees, that prompted a hue and cry across Africa. Mr. Amin was a flawed leader, the continent seemed to be saying, but he was Uganda's flawed leader. Flawed leaders are still enjoying the protection of their fellow African heads of state. Robert Mugabe, who in the view of many has run Zimbabwe into the ground, has received no stern words from the African Union, the group created last year to replace the moribund Organization of African Unity. Some critics say that Africa's approach toward its leaders really has not changed and that Mr. Taylor's departure is not a sign of a new African engagement. "Our leaders are taking credit for what they didn't do," said Moeletsi Mbeki of the South Africa Institute for International Affairs. "African governments were not the ones demanding that Taylor step down. It was George Bush demanding that he step down. We still have a long way to go." Mr. Mbeki, brother of President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa, has been critical of the go-slow approach toward Mr. Mugabe adopted by his brother and other African leaders. "Here's a guy breaking all the rules of democracy," Mr. Mbeki said, "and no African government is stepping forward and saying, `It's time for you to go.' " But others see hopeful signs in the prominent role of the Economic Community of West African States, or Ecowas, in Mr. Taylor's departure. "This was seen not as a Liberia problem but as a regional problem," said J. Stephen Morrison, director of the Africa program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. "That's a change." Liberia's woes are not solved. The country is in ruins, its political future is uncertain and the guns that were blazing in recent weeks are still around. But it will be Africans who will work to piece the country back together again. "It's a fresh start for Liberia," declared Mohamed ibn Chambas, the executive secretary of Ecowas. |
Johannesburg - When she opened the front door to her house, 28
year-old
Patience Makoni (not her real name) thought she was letting in a
friend who
had called earlier to say she would be visiting her later that
day.
Thirty minutes later, with a split upper lip, a severely bruised
neck and
bleeding from her vagina, it became clear to her that she had opened
a door
to the biggest violation of her life.
Events of that day are
still vivid in her mind. Makoni, a vegetable vendor
and supporter of the
Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), was brutally and
repeatedly raped by
seven soldiers during the mass action organised by the
opposition and civil
society groups in June to protest gross human rights
violations in
Zimbabwe.
In a moving testimony that left many in tears, Makoni described
how she was
attacked. "Ten men came to fetch me. They accused me of receiving
support
from (MDC leader) Morgan Tsvangirai. They walked me to a bush
nearby,
started assaulting me with their guns and fists. One of them tore off
my
underwear and they took turns to rape me, while holding me down by
the
neck," she testified.
Three of the soldiers refused to participate
because they did not have
condoms on them.
Makoni is just one of the
hundreds of women in Zimbabwe who are bearing the
brunt of politically
motivated violence. The government refuses to
acknowledge that violence
exists and has been accused of further
perpetuating it.
Survivors,
trying to report beatings, rape, ransacking and looting of their
property and
other criminal acts are, sometimes, arrested, while the
perpetrators are
walking freely in the streets, unleashing violence on
helpless
people.
Risk
Determined that nothing will break their spirit to
bring back peace to
Zimbabwe, Makoni and a group of other women, who have
also suffered other
forms of violence, are telling their stories in the hope
that this will
mobilise action both at home and abroad to force the
government to put an
end to this violence.
These women are risking
their lives. They could be targets for even more
fierce attacks. "I am not
afraid anymore, nothing else could be worse than
what I have experienced
already," said Makoni.
South Africa is their first stop, as part of their
tour that will take them
to other African countries under the auspices of
Crisis in Zimbabwe
Coalition. Taking advantage of South Africa Women's Day,
commemorated on
August 8, the South African-based Zimbabwe Advocacy Campaign
in
collaboration with Crisis in Zimbabwe Coalition brought five women
from
Zimbabwe to tell their stories.
"Government has been unrelenting
in its efforts to try and prevent me from
demanding good governance through
my support of the MDC," said feisty
Sarah
Muchineripi.
Beaten
"I have been beaten repeatedly, my
leg and arm broken. I have lost all my
property, pots and pans, my house and
the means to take care of my
children," she told a group of people, including
human rights activists, who
gathered in Johannesburg to listen to their
stories on Saturday.
Zimbabwe's state machinery has been perfected over
years to divide and rule
the society. The community spirit is broken as women
like Muchineripi can no
longer fall back on family and friends for support
because anyone seen
helping them will be victimised too. Muchinerip's uncle
has been in hospital
since June recovering from wounds sustained when he was
beaten for allegedly
sheltering Muchineripi.
"I am really saddened by
all this because my uncle was not even aware of my
whereabouts - they just
attacked him because he is related to me," lamented
Muchineripi.
In
2000 the world celebrated the dawning of a new millennium.
Unfortunately
for Zimbabwe, that year ushered in political instability which
started after
the majority of Zimbabweans refused to accept a new
constitution which was
considered a product of a flawed process that did not
reflect the wishes of
the people.
Opposition swelling
Parliamentary elections that
followed in June of the same year saw the
government facing its toughest
opposition since independence in 1980. The
ruling Zanu-PF lost a majority of
its seats in urban areas to the opposition
MDC. The violence
escalated.
Presidential elections, dogged by controversy, followed in
2002, sending a
clear message to the government that the support that they
once enjoyed was
waning fast and support for the opposition was clearly
swelling. The
government panicked. They unleashed militia groups (made up of
young men and
women), who are trained to use violent tactics to silence any
opposition.
Unfortunately women continue to bear the brunt of this
violence. Human
rights activists believe that women are easy targets for
violence because of
their status in society. "The fact that hundreds of women
are being raped
clearly indicates a pattern of violence against women,
resulting from
socially constructed perceptions of the position of women in
society and the
power of men," said Everjoice Win, a gender and human rights
activist. She
is also spokesperson for Crisis in Zimbabwe
Coalition.
Hundreds
Violations of a sexual nature continue
unabated because rape is still not
considered a serious issue by society. Win
also feels that Zimbabweans and
foreigners have not yet grasped the gravity
of the political violence in
Zimbabwe because the victims do not have an
identity.
"The world is hearing stories about women and girls being raped
in Zimbabwe.
But the world does not know who these women are, what their
names are and
never get to hear their voices describing what has happened to
them," she
said.
"By bringing these women to South Africa to talk
about their experiences, we
hope you are able to put names and a history to
the victims of violence in
Zimbabwe, instead of just talking about the
hundreds of women who are being
rape," Win told the gathering.
By
telling their stories, these women want the world, especially
Zimbabwe's
neighbours, to understand the extent of human rights abuses
being
perpetuated against women. They want to contribute to efforts of
building
better co-ordinated response to the crisis in Zimbabwe and in other
parts of
the world where women find themselves in similar circumstances. -
Sapa-IPS
Daily Record
ZIMBABWE SCOTS' AID Aug 12 2003
Vow to
beaten family
Lee-Ann Fullerton
A FAMILY beaten and
tortured in Zimbabwe are to get help, the Foreign Office
pledged
yesterday.
Norma Saul, 72, and her 68-year-old husband Ronnie, originally
from
Ayrshire, were attacked by a mob who ransacked the farm they are
managing.
The gang also lured their 39-year-old son, Jamie, from his home
nearby and
ambushed him.
Now the Foreign Office have ordered diplomats
in the troubled country to
offer the Sauls all the help they can.
A
spokesman said: "The High Commission in Harare is looking into the
incident
and investigating the current situation for the Saul family.
"It all
depends on whether the family want to stay or would like to leave.
"There
is only so much we can do if they want to stay but if they would like
to come
home, then we will give them the assistance they need."
Norma and Ronnie
have already lost their own farm to President Robert
Mugabe's land-grab
policy.
Mail and Guardian
Brain drain hits Zimbabwe's health
service
11 August 2003 16:08
Shepherd Mhofu is
disgusted. Recently qualified as a doctor, he is doing his
residency at
Harare's Parirenyatwa hospital.
“I have to perform D and Cs [womb
scrapes] on women without anaesthetic. I
must tell families of critically ill
patients that they must buy intravenous
drips and medicines. We must perform
surgery without gloves," said Mhofu
(26) inhaling deeply from a
cigarette.
"I see patients suffering and dying needlessly because we are
working in an
unprofessional environment. The medical school should have
trained us to
work in medical conditions from 200 years ago."
Mhofu
said he is not paid enough to feed his family, let alone buy a car.
"We are
paid so little that all of us in the medical profession think about
going
overseas," he said. "I don't want to go, but I want to work in
modern
conditions. I want to be paid enough to support my family. That means
I must
go to Britain, or maybe Australia."
Zimbabwe's brain drain has
hit the medical profession particularly hard.
More than 80% of doctors,
nurses and therapists who graduated from the
University of Zimbabwe medical
school since independence in 1980 have gone
to work abroad, primarily in
Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the
United States, according to
recent surveys.
The exodus has badly affected the country's crumbling
health system. The
country has fewer than half the 1 500 doctors needed to
staff government
hospitals adequately.
The University of Zimbabwe is
operating with less than 50% of its lecturers.
The medical school is so badly
affected that the annual intake of new stu
dents has been reduced from 120 to
70.
"Even that is not helping," said one lecturer. "My department has
dropped
from 12 lecturers to three. The standards of teaching are dropping
too."
President Robert Mugabe has accused Britain of "stealing" doctors
and nurses
from Zimbabwe.
"We have created the environment that allows
the upliftment of nurses.
That's why even Britain comes in the dead of night
to steal our people. They
are recruiting pharmacists, doctors and nurses," he
said last year.
But Zimbabwean doctors dispute Mugabe's assessment. "We
are not being
stolen," said a bitter Mhofu. "We are seeking better pay and
better
standards. No one can blame us for that. The government would rather
spend
money on the army and on riot-control vehicles and on new
Mercedes-Benz. If
some of that money were spent on the health system and our
salaries, then we
could stay here."
Harare paediatrician Greg Powell,
chairperson of the Child Protection
Society, complains the brain drain
includes social workers. "Britain is
actively recruiting our social workers
to the point where our department of
social welfare is about to collapse,"
said Powell.
"This means our treatment of Aids orphans is breaking down.
We are seeing
professional recruitment of our social workers by British
agencies. They are
offered salaries 20 times greater than what they get here.
The result is we
have 20 children ready to go to foster homes and it is
delayed because there
are no social workers to do the reports. British
recruiters are directly
responsible for that. They are pillaging our human
resources." - Guardian
Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003