• Mugabe plans Internet gag - reports
• "Racist humiliation"
• JAG Open Letters Forum No. 205
• Be happy, Mugabe tells the starving
• Mbeki claims UK to blame for crisis in Zimbabwe
• Zimbabwe:Time for Courage
• Black critics of Mugabe.....
• Serial killer on the prowl in Harare's avenues area
• Jailed van Hoogstraten trained as Samaritan
• Parents get their wish to save their son

President Robert Mugabe's embattled regime is planning shock new measures to
control all broadcast and Internet-based information, reports said on
Friday.

The move comes barely a day after Mugabe accused Britain of using the
Internet as its new tool in trying to recolonise the Third World.

Media organisations now fear that the government could soon move to regulate
their Internet websites. - Independent Foreign Service

President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa has sprung to the defence of Robert
Mugabe and blamed Britain for the crisis in Zimbabwe.

In his weekly letter to the ruling African National Congress, Mr Mbeki said
President Mugabe'sseizures of white farms had become inevitable because
Britain had not honoured its commitment to fund land reform. Mr Mbeki also
criticised the Commonwealth, saying it did not have the interests of
Zimbabwe's people at heart when it decided to renew the country's suspension
from the organisation. Mr Mugabe pulled his country out of the Commonwealth
on Sunday night in protest at the decision.

President Mbeki dismissed Commonwealth concerns about human rights abuses in
Zimbabwe, saying it had lost sight of the land issue, which he described as
the core of the problems in Zimbabwe.

His remarks are certain to further disappoint those who are already angered
by his defence of Mr Mugabe at the Commonwealth summit in Nigeria and his
attempts to oust its secretary general Don McKinnon, who has been a vocal
critic of Mr Mugabe.

Lovemore Madhuku, a prominent Zimbabwean academic, said: "The point is that
Mbeki is now looking a bit silly by his campaign to defend the totally
indefensible.

"I think he has made it clear that his African Renaissance and Nepad [New
Partnership for Africa's Development] pet projects, which are predicated on
good governance, are not worth the paper on which they are written. Rich
countries must take note and not waste time on these things."

In his defence of Mr Mugabe's government, Mr Mbeki quoted the Kenyan author
Ngugi wa Thiongo: "Africa actually enriches Europe but Africa is made to
believe that it needs Europe to rescue it from poverty." Mr Mbeki said those
who fought for a democratic Zimbabwe "with thousands paying the supreme
price during the struggle, and forgave their oppressors and torturers in a
spirit of national reconciliation, have been turned into repugnant enemies
of democracy".

In a direct reference to Britain, he said: "Those who, in the interest of
their [white] 'kith and kin', did what they could to deny the people of
Zimbabwe their liberty, for as long as they could, have become the eminent
defenders of the democratic rights of the people of Zimbabwe."

Mr Mbeki asked why the land issue had disappeared from the global agenda
when it was at the "core" of the problems in Zimbabwe. Whenever the land
issue was mentioned, he said, it was only "to highlight the plight of the
former white landowners, and to attribute food shortages in Zimbabwe to the
land redistribution programme".

He accused Britain, the United Nations and European Union of not honouring
commitments to help finance land redistribution in Zimbabwe after colonial
rule left most productive farms in the hands of the white minority.

"A forcible process of land redistribution perhaps became inevitable," Mr
Mbeki said. He accused "some within Zimbabwe and elsewhere" of treating
human rights as a tool to overthrow the Zimbabwe government. While
acknowledging that "many things have gone wrong in Zimbabwe", Mr Mbeki
attributed the crisis to machinations by British governments which were
meant to protect the interests of their "white kith and kin".

Fahamu (Oxford)

December 11, 2003
Posted to the web December 12, 2003

ZIMBABWE: TIME FOR COURAGE

Rotimi Sankore

The announcement by Zimbabwean government officials that they would pull the
country out of the Commonwealth following their continued suspension raised
the stakes dramatically, ironically on the eve of International Human Rights
Day on December 10. This has serious implications for the organisations
capacity to promote human rights in Africa and amongst non-African
countries.

If the commonwealth takes no further action, it would appear all a country
has to do to side step its authority is to withdraw from it. If however it
decides to take further steps against the Zimbabwean government as provided
for in its Harare principles, it risks widening the split in the
organisation and triggering a spiralling crisis. It is significant that the
14 member Southern African Development Community (SADC) issued a statement
on the 10th of December expressing its "displeasure and deep concern with
the dismissive, intolerant and rigid attitude displayed by some
(Commonwealth) members." The organisation called for "engagement" and "not
isolation" saying, isolation "will do nothing to assist the people of
Zimbabwe overcome their difficulties".

In this respect, a strong complicating factor is the apparent double
standards exhibited by some 'western' governments. The idea for instance
that any government could float the idea of relaxing sanctions on, or even
ending the suspension of Pakistan while simultaneously calling for stiffer
penalties against Zimbabwe at the Commonwealth may yet rank in history
alongside the worlds biggest foreign policy blunders. Some Asian countries
especially India, which is a traditional opponent of Pakistan, would also
have watched this closely. Alluding to this David Ellery, writing in the
letters pages of the UK Guardian of December 9 2003, stated, "Mugabe is
missing a trick. All he has to do is offer to send a token force to Iraq and
Blair and Bush will be praising him as a bulwark of democracy and human
rights."

This double standards and what is seen by some African governments as covert
support by some 'western' governments for opposition interests opposed to
land reform has not only strengthened Mugabe's resolve, it has mobilised his
party behind him as well as those African governments that share a similar
colonial past.

However, it is important to remember that the central problem as regards
Zimbabwe is not the resolution of the problems in the Commonwealth. The
central problem is the resolution of the crisis in Zimbabwe. The
contradictions in the Commonwealth have long existed and Zimbabwe has only
brought them to the fore again.

To many around the world [including within the Commonwealth], the crisis has
several sides to it. To some the question is "are you for land reform or
not?" To others the question is "are you for democracy and human rights or
not?"

These questions have been shaped by the perceptions that to be strongly for
land reform suggests uncritical support for the Mugabe government and its
policies and that to be strongly for human rights and democracy suggests an
uncritical alliance with 'white farmers', 'former colonial masters' or the
opposition as currently represented by the MDC.

This conundrum confirms that as is sometimes the case, the perception is as
important as the reality. In this case, key factors behind these perceptions
are race and political convenience.

Conflicts that are complicated by race and ideology are often tricky waters
to navigate. It is necessary therefore to be courageous and unambiguous in
standing by principles that will facilitate consistency. In the case of
Zimbabwe, it is time for courage.

It is therefore possible in Zimbabwe and elsewhere, to stand:

- For democracy;

- For the rights to freedom of opinion, expression, association, assembly,
and political participation;

- Media freedom;

- And simultaneously recognise the urgent need for land reform and
redistribution to correct the injustices of colonialism based on racist
oppression, discrimination and exploitation.

It is also principled to stand for correction of colonial injustices and
simultaneously demand that the need for land reform and redistribution
should not and cannot be used as an excuse or cover to sanction violence and
murder. Land reform can and must be carried out but only on a constitutional
and equitable basis. This should have been the position of the Commonwealth;
this should be the position of the African Union and of the SADC.

It is important to sort out the Zimbabwean crisis now on the basis of clear
and unambiguous democratic principles not just for Zimbabwe, but also
because the land problem may rear its head in South Africa sooner than many
think. If it manifests in South Africa on the same basis as it has in
Zimbabwe then the legacy of apartheid, the unresolved issues around race,
the economic divide, the sharper role of ideology in the liberation struggle
and the size of the country and economy - all will combine to make it far
worse than it could ever be in Zimbabwe.

Africans and democratic minded African leaders and governments must not
allow perceived 'western' double standards to distort their views on
democracy. It is possible for President Mugabe to be a former liberation
fighter, to have been once democratically elected and to now pursue
undemocratic policies. Violence is not necessary to ensure land reform in
Zimbabwe. It is also not justified by the fact that colonial settlers used
violence and murder to illegitimately seize land from Africans. Had it been
determined to do so before it started facing political problems, the Mugabe
government could have enforced land reform in a constitutional, legitimate
and equitable way at any time in the last two decades.

For this reason African rights campaigners must be steadfast on the question
of rights and democracy in Zimbabwe and appreciate the fact that support for
democratic principles in Zimbabwe is not the same as endorsing the policies
of "western interests", or any opposition parties or organisations.
International rights campaigners and non-African governments must also be
clear and unequivocal that in addition to campaigning for democratic
principles that they stand for land reform and redistribution as a step
towards correcting the injustices of Zimbabwe's colonial past. If not, they
risk becoming part of the problem instead of contributing to the solution.

Given the opportunity, the people of Zimbabwe will make the right choices
and these choices will in the long run be consistent with democratic
principles, human rights and correcting the injustices of the colonial past
on a constitutional, just and equitable basis.

*Sankore is a member of the Pambazuka Editorial Board and is Coordinator of
CREDO for Freedom of Expression and Associated Rights, which works on rights
issues in Africa. CREDO can be contacted via Pambazuka News or via
info@credonet.org

Fahamu (Oxford)

December 11, 2003
Posted to the web December 12, 2003

BLACK CRITICS OF MUGABE SUPPORT WHITE SUPREMACY

Simon Hinds

Black people around the world are undermined by the black critics of Mugabe.
The black critics are supporting white supremacist beliefs that black
people:

i. should be denied rights and economic benefits enjoyed by white people;

ii. should support white leadership because of their inferiority.

In general, the Zimbabwean issue is about whether black people can limit the
selfish interference of Western elites in their own countries. In
particular, it is about black people restoring ownership of their land from
white beneficiaries of colonialism. This is a southern African problem
because in the region the descendants of colonisers own most of the best
land.

Black people should not judge Mugabe's black critics on the basis of their
opposition to his violence and 'dictatorship'. The real issue is their
relationship to the white supremacist campaign to remove a leader who is in
opposition to it. The critics are dangerous because they refuse to openly
oppose white supremacy.

Mugabe's violence is not the issue. Violence was needed to remove
colonialism in Zimbabwe. No doubt, there were human rights abuses during the
struggle. Yet, a key objective was black land ownership. Violence is a
natural outcome of white farmers refusing to give up land their descendants
stole through violence. The MDC has no problem with violence. But, in no way
would British people accept most of their land being owned by non-whites.

Democracy is not the issue. Reporting on the 2002 Presidential elections,
the Tanzanian Observer Mission concluded: "The results of the election are
the wishes of the people of Zimbabwe." A similar conclusion was reached by
missions from Mozambique, Russia, the former OAU, China, Zambia, Malawi, the
December 12th Movement from the US, Iran, and Japan. The two missions most
quoted in the West were from a Commonwealth group, dominated by white
nations, and from opposition MPs in southern Africa, which was funded by the
anti-Mugabe European Union. Mugabe's black critics use them as the basis of
their 'Mugabe stole the elections' claim.

What is the issue? A massive, covert and overt regime change campaign by
white elites. Is it because they love human rights and democracy? This group
is lead by Zimbabwean white farmers, white South Africans, right-wing
Western politicians and business leaders. This group has the support or
acquiescence of white liberals. Some white liberals are fooled. Yet, the
politics of the leaders are white supremacist. They share the politics of
people who actively opposed the Zimbabwean national struggle.

A network of organisations are leading this campaign. It includes: Zimbabwe
Democracy Trust, the Westminster Democracy Foundation, the European Union's
Africa Working Group, the London-based Royal Institute of International
Affairs, and the US State Department. There are also, of course, Western
governments. Their methods are:

- the creation of and financial support of opposition groups

- use of money to turn civil groups into oppositional groups

- use of violence to destablise Zimbabwe and provoke the Government

- crippling the Zimbabwean economy

- a media campaign

- threatening black countries with the withdrawal of financial support.

On 4 August 2002, The Sunday Mail in Harare reported: " the British
government had funded the opposition party to the tune of nearly Zim$10m in
the run-up to the parliamentary elections. The opposition party has also
confirmed this." The report reveals that the MDC receives financial backing
from Germany, Holland, Denmark and the US.

In other words, Western elites have created and funded opposition groups and
have sought to undermine the economy to produce more support from
Zimbabweans. These elites are engaging in foreign activity that would be
unacceptable in their own countries.

The strategy of the black critics is to blind people to any other issue
other than Mugabe's human rights abuses. Yet, these are abuses they
deliberately provoke. The most charitable view of them is that they are
suffering so much from those abuses that they are blind to or do not
consider the white supremacist agenda of their allies. But this makes them
dangerous fools.

It could be that they are aware of the white supremacy of their allies and
have struck a faustian deal them to get rid of someone who is far worse. But
if Mugabe were that bad there would be former members of the War Veterans
fighting alongside former members of the Rhodesian army to get rid of the
'brutal dictator'.

It could be that their actual alliance is with white liberals. But clearly
white supremacists are using white liberals as a respectable front for their
colonial ambitions. The black critics still ought to be deliberately
distancing themselves from the white supremacists. Yet, none of this is a
satisfactory explanation. The reality is that the leaders of the black
critics are paid hands of racists. It is the continuing silence of the
so-called opposition that proves their complicity in white supremacy.

BLACK CRITICS OF MUGABE SUPPORT WHITE SUPREMACY: PAMBAZUKA RESPONDS

Rotimi Sankore

It requires a great deal of political clarity to sort the issues on Zimbabwe
and a short message cannot do it in depth. Nevertheless I think it is
important to make some clarifications on the question of race and criticism
of President Mugabe.

1. It is not proper or correct to allege/imply that [all] black Mugabe
critics are in effect supporters of white supremacy.

2. I for example could never be accused of being such a person. I do not
need to go into detail but suffice to say that all my life, I have fought
and will continue to fight against all manifestations of racism.

3. I have also lived under [and suffered the consequences of the repression
of] another undemocratic African government that did not have a land
controversy at hand to blur the issues. I have had the unfortunate benefit
of seeing journalist colleagues disappear, be jailed, tortured, killed and
hounded in to exile in many countries. None of them were supporters of white
supremacy. [Ironically, 'western' interests supported some of such dictators
such as Mobutu of Zaire especially during the cold war]

4. Yes there is an overwhelming need for land reform and redistribution not
just in Zimbabwe but also across southern Africa. In truth it should have
been done - not in the last two years - but long ago. It can also be done in
a civil way without inciting lynch mobs to murder people.

5. The issues in Zimbabwe are not just about minority whites owning the most
land and blacks not having access to land. It is also about democracy and
human rights, which are universal concepts. Black people are dying of AIDS
and Famine in Zimbabwe.

6. Yes there is a reasonable element of racism in the support for
anti-Mugabe forces by some white people and western interests. Such
interests are clearly identifiable and there is no need to mix them up with
those that don't share their interests. [Descendants of colonial settlers
for instance would be happy to hang on to their land under any circumstances
and would never have spoken up for human rights of Africans were they not
under attack themselves.]

7. While it is true that white people that have not suffered the
consequences of slavery, colonialism, apartheid or racism do not appreciate
the extent to which race may colour their perception of issues and how this
in turn colours how their actions and policies are perceived by Africans.
The truth is that not all white people are racists. Some have even fought
and died for the anti-apartheid, anti-colonial struggles and the civil
rights movement etc.

8. Mugabe need not have waited till he faced growing political opposition to
sort the land problem. He could have done it when there was little or no
opposition anytime in the previous 20 years. While it is true that some
interests will rather ruin Zimbabwe than see land reform, the truth is that
Mugabe's policies are also undermining the Zimbabwean economy.

9. It may seem attractive to some people to imply that because white
colonial settlers murdered millions of Africans and violently seized land,
the same should be done to them. However although 'revenge' may give immense
satisfaction, this simply reduces the perpetrators to the same bestial
mentality that generated colonial murder and exploitation. [There will never
be enough space here to discuss the place of revenge and vengeance in the
human psyche and society, if it is appropriate or not, to what extent is it
reasonable and so forth.] More importantly if land reform is the objective,
it can be done without mayhem. Prior to the last elections Zanu-PF had
enough political strength to ensure land reform in a constitutional manner.
It is not impossible to do so even now.

10. Finally and to reiterate: It is possible to campaign for democracy and
human rights in Zimbabwe and elsewhere in Africa without being a supporter
of white supremacy. Note also that:

(1) If you fight the beneficiaries of undemocratic policies by undemocratic
means, you loose your legitimacy and moral authority especially if you play
on a legitimate cause to selfishly hang on to power and the fall out is that
thousands of innocent people suffer the consequences. (2) To campaign for
democracy, free expression and other rights in Zimbabwe is not an
endorsement of the MDC or its policies.

The fallouts of slavery, colonialism, apartheid and more sophisticated
modern day exploitation of Africa can only be solved by more democracy and
more human rights, not less. Some racists that were never and never will be
democrats will exploit circumstances to hang on to their land. However in
the long run, a genuinely democratic Zimbabwe will not accept minority
control of majority land, but will address the problem in a non-violent and
democratic manner.

DR CLEMENT LUHANGA

Gaborone, Botswana

Please note that during the regime of General Sani Abacha and the killing of
Ken the Great of the Agoni people the whole Commonwealth was behind
expelling Nigeria from the body. Now comes the great Mugabe who has tortured
and is torturing the people of Zimbabwe and the African leaders are
condoning the suffering of ordinary Zimbabwean men and women. Is this the
type of leadership that we expect from our Presidents? For Gods sake wake up
SADC and African Commonwealth. You are there to care for all the people not
Mugabe alone.

Jailed van Hoogstraten trained as Samaritan

By Christopher Walker

Best wishes from Robert Mugabe, President of Zimbabwe, may not be sought in
many quarters, but for Nicholas van Hoogstraten, Britain’s most notorious
property developer and one of the African nation’s largest landowners, it
clearly means a lot. The despotic President was one of the first to
congratulate him on his release from jail this week, Mr van Hoogstraten
claimed yesterday, after the quashing of his conviction for arranging the
death of a business rival, Mohammed Raja, 62. The multimillionaire served
only 13 months of a ten-year sentence at Belmarsh high-security prison
where, he disclosed, he had been trained as a "listener" by Samaritans.
During an interview with his local paper, the Brighton Evening Argus, Mr van
Hoogstraten, 58, once described by a judge as a "self-appointed emissary of
Beelzebub", displayed a certificate received from the organisation set up in
1953 as a 999 phone service counselling potential suicides. HM Prison
Service Document 10380 declared: "This is to certify that Nick van
Hoogstraten has been trained by The Samaritans of Bexley/Bromley in
listening and befriending skills at HM Prison Belmarsh."

Mr van Hoogstraten, from Uckfield, East Sussex, was freed after a legal
battle during which he argued successfully that the judge had made a mistake
and had misdirected the jury at the original trial where he had been found
guilty of manslaughter. Yesterday the Court of Appeal ruled that an Old
Bailey judge’s unchallengeable ruling that Mr van Hoogstraten should not
face retrial on a manslaughter charge thwarted the interests of justice.
"Those interests require that Mr van Hoogstraten be retried," said Lord
Justice Kennedy, sitting with Mr Justice Curtis and Mr Justice Forbes. But,
as the law stood, he added, the court was powerless to entertain an appeal
by the prosecution against the decision of the retrial judge, Sir Stephen
Mitchell, that Mr van Hoogstraten had no case to answer.

In the interview, Mr van Hoogstraten who is one of the largest landowners in
Zimbabwe, where he acquired 218,000 hectares (540,000 acres) of farmland in
the 1990s, denied claims that his property had been seized by black
squatters. He said that he was still accumulating assets, including a
coalmine, in Zimbabwe. He is also building a grandiose second palace there
to match the £30 million Hamilton Palace he was constructing - until
imprisonment interrupted the works - in the Sussex countryside as a
mausoleum and home to his valuable art collection. In a hint of a
conversion, Mr van Hoogstraten told the paper he had learnt from his time in
jail. "I have been too straightforward in the past. If you are, you are
going to get hammered. I have been learning and Belmarsh is a good place for
learning," he said.

Mr van Hoogstraten, whose precise worth is now unknown but who at the time
of his trial was named as one of Britain’s richest men with a fortune
estimated at more than £500 million, claimed that while inside he had helped
a number of inmates who he felt had also been wrongly convicted. "I am a
good listener," he added. Among those he advised was a Jamaican "Yardie"
gangster, who was freed last month after being acquitted of a murder in
South London, although he is now back behind bars awaiting deportation. Mr
van Hoogstraten spent his time in the high-security wing of Belmarsh and
boasted that he could have escaped had he wanted to. "I could have got out,
but I wanted to stay and prove my innocence," he said. Instead, he spent his
time studying the law, giving tips to fellow prisoners as well as sharing
his knowledge of the stock market with them and the officers. He tried to
rebut suggestions that he was a slum landlord, claiming to have sold most of
his properties, and he insisted that his tenants would be overjoyed by his
release. "I am all right as long as you do not upset me," Mr van
Hoogstraten, trained listener and befriender, added.

By Lindi van Rooyen

Jeremy Mansfield and the Rude Awakening team on 94.7 Highveld Stereo
consider themselves to be rough, tough and hard to bluff.

Most of the time.

On Friday, they couldn't hold back the tears as they helped offer the most
precious Christmas gift of all to a Zimbabwean family: life for their baby
boy.

      Financial assistance has been secured
Harare residents Trevor and Charmaine O'Reilly sent the heart-rending plea
to 94.7: help us save baby Tyler, their son who was born with a heart
defect. Operated on within hours of his birth in September, the child still
needs a series of operations, which can only be done in South Africa and
will cost more than R1-million.

Trevor and Charmaine wrote: "Our only son will die, unless we can give him
the life-saving operation he desperately needs. Please don't put our plea
aside, please read it and let Tyler touch your hearts. Tyler has fought so
hard to be with us that surely this is a sign that he is meant to live.

"Each Christmas in Zimbabwe seems to be much bleaker than the last due to
our current situation. Please make this one an incredible one for us, give
us a ray of hope and help us. This is our desperate Christmas wish."

Theirs was among 28 granted over two weeks by the station in its annual
Christmas wish campaign, which sees individuals and business donating to
help people in need.

Zimbabwe does not have the necessary facilities to cope with such a
complicated and immense heart problem. There are only two hospitals in the
entire African continent equipped to perform these intricate open-heart
surgeries. One is in Sunninghill clinic in Johannesburg and the other in
Cape Town.

With the help of family and friends the O'Reillys managed to scrape enough
money together for a deposit for the first operation, but because of the
economics of Zimbabwe further funds that were collected were only a drop in
the ocean when converted into rands.

The first of the operations has already taken place, but unless the other
two operations are carried out within the next four months his heart will
start to outgrow the artificial "shunt", then his heart will fail to
oxygenate his body and brain and he will die.

Netcare Sunninghill hospital, the Walter Sisulu paediatric cardiac centre
and Ampath laboratories have pledged to assist with the medical procedures.

Financial assistance has been secured from Standard Bank, Colliers
International, Petra diamonds, Montecasino, Auto & General and
Kimberly-Clark (Kleenex), who all deem it a privilege to be part of such a
worthy cause. The latter will also supply baby Tyler with disposable nappies
and baby products to keep him as happy as possible.

Mansfield broke the news to the O'Reillys: "Here is our living tribute.
Tyler, this one's for you, kid."

These words were greeted with a flow of tears from the O'Reillys. Thousands
of people listening in couldn't stop their tears either.