Mugabe's Appointment as AU's Ambassador Open to Debate William
Eagle Washington 17 Jul 2003, 01:37 UTC
Zimbabwe's opposition
says President Robert Mugabe's success at last week's African Union summit
came as a surprise. He was named to a one-year term as the organization's
ambassador to Southern Africa. The opposition, Movement for Democratic Change
says President Mugabe is the wrong man for the job because he violates the
principles of the pan-African organization. Nevertheless, some analysts
disagree.
Critics say President Mugabe violates the AU charter, which
calls for democracy and human rights. His government is under sanctions by
Great Britain, the United States and the Commonwealth for, among other
things, last year's disputed presidential elections.
Western observers
say the voting results were marred by violence and electoral fraud. Also in
dispute is President Mugabe's land redistribution program. It confiscated the
land of over a thousand white commercial farmers without compensation. The
land was handed over to landless blacks and scores of political allies, many
without prior farming experience.
But President Mugabe's poor track
record has not slowed his rise within African organizations.
Before
being named as the AU's ambassador for Southern Africa, he was also the head
of the defense committee of the Southern African Development Community
(SADC). This, despite the fact that Zimbabwe's security forces have been
accused of human rights abuses.
President Mugabe said his election to the
AU post shows that Africans have greater admiration for Zimbabwe than ever
before. A spokesman for South African president Thabo Mbeki said there was
nothing wrong with naming President Mugabe to the job, noting that the
European Union also rotates its leaders among various posts.
Still,
the move by the AU came as a surprise to Sekai Holland, the secretary for
International Affairs for the opposition Movement for Democratic
Change (MDC). Ms. Holland, who attended the AU summit in Maputo, says the AU
may have rewarded President Mugabe with the post in exchange for his
retirement next year from national politics.
"We hear he is
stepping down [as head of his ruling ZANU-PF party] in December and then
calling elections 12 weeks after that," she said. "But I do not think that
will happen the Africans have given him this as a settlement, and they will
get a shock when he does not step down and have elections in March. Mugabe
has made these promises before and he has not stepped down, and he is not
going to."
Others are not so harsh. Che Ajulu, a researcher at the
African Institute of South Africa in Pretoria, says, "In every regional
organization you always have a couple of leaders who go in the opposite
direction. It would be easier to deal with Mugabe if he is still part of the
system, once you let him loose as a loose canon causing trouble and no way to
get him to the table, it will be harder to deal with him."
Mr. Ajulu
favors the continuation of the so-called "quiet diplomacy" of President
Mbeki. He says keeping President Mugabe engaged in African diplomacy has
facilitated talks between Zimbabwe's ruling party and opposition MDC.
Opposition officials deny any talks are taking place.
For some, AU
support for the Zimbabwean leader is a show of resistance by African leaders
to what they perceive as Western interference in
African affairs.
"The African leaders are determined to put the
message across that they are not going to be pushed around by the Bush
administration or the West in general," said Gamal Nkrumah, foreign affairs
editor for Egypt's Al-Ahram weekly, and also the son of Ghanaian independence
leader Kwami Nkrumah. "They feel that in the case of Mugabe that other
African leaders have equally bad records of human rights and good governance
but the reason Robert Mugabe is singled out is because of the race question
and the land question in Zimbabwe, because of European settlers of British
stock. And [they believe] Western leaders turn a blind eye toward similar
human rights violations in other African countries."
For Sekai
Holland, the only reason the West is paying attention to Zimbabwe is because
the Movement for Democratic Change does a good job of making itself
heard.
"If you see a woman screaming with a husband beating you up who
asks for help and then you see another woman hiding that she is being beaten,
which one would you come to help first? Zimbabweans are people who are
organized," she said. "This is why we are getting support."
Ms.
Holland says the situation in Zimbabwe was, in her words, a hot topic at the
Maputo summit, even though it was not officially on the agenda. She says a
delegation from her party met with government officials, civil society
and other political parties at the summit including representatives
of Mozambique's ruling party, FRELIMO. She says she helped update them on
the situation in Zimbabwe and on straightening out misconceptions about
the country's opposition.
For example, she notes that the MDC and even
white commercial farmers favor a conference to decide how to turn land over
to black farmers in a fair and equitable way. She adds that she also
explained to African nationalists that President Mugabe is not acting on
their behalf.
"Mugabe has broken every rule of Pan Africanism," she said.
"Pan Africanism is rejection of the use of violence because it is about
having every one contributing toward a solution. But [instead], Mugabe is
beating us up. The nationalist struggle is [also] about one-person one-vote.
We got independence, but Mugabe has betrayed nationalists by depriving people
who do not like him of the vote. He uses the militia from letting us go cast
our vote."
Ms. Holland also points out that the Citizenship Act used
by the government to disenfranchise whites from voting has also harmed
African migrant workers who have lived in Zimbabwe for generations. The act
forced anyone wishing to remain a citizen to repudiate dual citizenship from
any other country. But many complain that other nations in southern Africa,
as well as Great Britain, do not have a mechanism for repudiating
citizenship.
"The Citizenship Act [disenfranchised] 2,000 whites and
one-and-a-half million Zimbabwean [farm workers] with partial parentage from
Mozambique, Malawi or Zambia. [They are] the strongest base of MDC," said Ms.
Holland. "Followers of Pan Africanism talk about Africa without boundaries
but we are kicking out one and a half million Africans from Zimbabwe to
places their grandfathers left 75 years ago, who were [parented] by
Zimbabweans."
Ms. Holland is confident the AU, under the chairmanship of
Mozambican president Joachim Chissano, will help Zimbabwe's opposition find a
fair and democratic solution to Zimbabwe's crisis. She says that she's
impressed with Mozambique under his leadership adding that Maputo is growing
middle and working classes. She says with the deterioration of the country
under President Mugabe, it will likely take Zimbabwe decades to
catch.
HARARE - Zimbabwean prosecutors urged a Harare court on Wednesday
not to dismiss a treason case against opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai
for allegedly ordering an assasination on the country's president.
The
appeal was made after Tsvangirai's lawyers this week asked the court to halt
the trial against him and two senior party officials because the state had
not proved its case against them.
"For now, there is enough evidence to
warrant that the accused persons be placed on their defence," prosecutor
Morgen Nemadire told Judge Paddington Garwe.
So far the marathon trial
has only heard evidence from around a dozen state witnesses.
The
charges against Tsvangirai and his co-accused hinge on a secretly recorded
videotape of a meeting the opposition leader held with Ari Ben Menashe, a
Canada-based political consultant, in Montreal in late 2001.
It is
alleged that during the meeting Tsvangirai requested that Ben
Menashe assassinate President Robert Mugabe and arrange a coup for him to
take over power.
The MDC trio deny the charges, which carry the death
penalty.
Defence lawyers have told the court it was highly improbable
that Tsvangirai would have approached a complete stranger like Ben Menashe
with a request to assassinate Mugabe.
However, prosecutors claimed
Wednesday that the MDC thought the political consultant could be bought off,
and that the party wanted to exploit his contacts in the Zimbabwe government
to carry out the coup.
"He (Tsvangirai) trusted Menashe," Nemadire said.
"There's no improbability here."
The defence claim that Ben Menashe
was paid by the Zimbabwe government to discredit the opposition party ahead
of a crunch presidential poll last year, which Tsvangirai lost to
Mugabe.
But Nemadire said money paid by the government to Ben Menashe
prior to the Montreal meeting was for "expenses" incurred in obtaining the
videotaped evidence of the alleged plot.
The videotape has proved to
be hazy and only 70-80 percent audible. Defence lawyers there is no evidence
on it to support the treason charge.
The application for discharge was
set to continue on Thursday. AFP
Michael Ancram: Fractured institutions – Saddam's
other victims (Speech)
It is given to few in history to live
through seismic changes in the geometry of international relations, massive
geo-political shifts which mark the transformation of one so-called
‘international order' into another. Such events are marked by great political
tremors, sometimes by a single violent surge or quake after which things will
never be the same again, to be followed by further tremors and aftershocks as
the world changes and adapts.
The End of the Cold War and the fall
of the Berlin Wall were such. The horror of 9/11, and the subsequent actions
in Afghanistan and in Iraq were the tremors of readjustment on the
geo-political landscape that flowed from them.
Original
perspectives and fresh thinking are urgently needed. That which worked in the
past will not necessarily work today.
During the Cold War an uneasy
equilibrium existed as nations coalesced in two countervailing blocs around
NATO and the Warsaw Pact.
The possession of nuclear weapons by both
sides led to the ultimate deterrent doctrine of mutually assured
destruction.
That doctrine worked because both sides reacted
rationally in their assessment of the threats they faced. NATO and the UN
evolved in this atmosphere. As did the EU.
It was then that the
doctrine of containment and deterrence was developed, worked. The Cold War
ended with passive victory for the West.
Hopes of peace however
were misplaced. We live now in a far more uncertain world. As 9/11
demonstrated many of today's threats are irrational, unpredictable and able
to strike with little or no warning. Terrorism, the proliferation of weapons
of mass destruction, failed or rogue states, suppression, starvation, poverty
and disease – these are today's threats.
The key institutions –
the UN, NATO and the EU - were rattled by 9/11 but by and large they
recovered their poise. The events leading up to the Iraq conflict and its
aftermath changed that. The stresses tested these institutions to their
limits causing them to crack and in some cases to fail.
The
swift war in Iraq was a highly successful military operation. Subsequent
wrangles about "the peace", however, have not resolved the problems with the
UN, in NATO and in the EU. If anything the damage has been compounded. It is
crucial that we urgently address the fundamental challenges now facing
them.
These are the vicarious victims of the war against Saddam
Hussein. In some cases the wounds were caused by the war and its run-up; in
others they already existed but the harsh light of the crisis exposed
them.
We need to start by examining the injuries suffered by
these institutions and then look at the ways in which they can best be
addressed.
In a world of pre-emption the need for a means of
legitimation of the actions of nations is pressing. Should the body that
confers such legitimacy be the UN, or another body or process? For many the
United Nations is still widely perceived as the ultimate organisation of
international co-operation, conferring necessary legitimacy on the actions of
states in the international arena, but we must ask whether it remains the
best way of doing so. The stark truth is that in the run up to the Iraq
conflict the UN Security Council was rendered impotent, and in February when
France made it explicitly clear that it would veto any 'second' resolution on
Iraq whether reasonable or supported by the majority of the Security Council,
it was effectively gridlocked.
The drive for a second Security
Council Resolution gave disproportionate influence to small countries on the
Security Council. Their fears of being left to hang out to dry by France
effectively stymied the second resolution – they feared declaring their hand
only to find that France vetoed the resolution anyway.
Far from
being part of the vaunted strength of the UNSC they turned out to be
contributors to its weakness. Government proposals for Security Council
expansion will exacerbate this even further.
The result was stasis.
At a moment when the UNSC was most needed, it was sidelined.
This raised a number of serious questions about the United Nations. Is the
Security Council really supposed to follow through and enforce all
its previous resolutions? Does this only apply to Chapter 7 resolutions? In
any event what sanctions would be available to the UNSC to achieve
such enforcement? Should permanent members have the unfettered right to
veto draft resolutions at whichever stage and whatever their relationship
to previously endorsed resolutions?
Is the 'big power' veto
still a legitimate way of proceeding? That veto which in the past had been
regarded as decisive was fundamentally challenged when Tony Blair announced
that he would not be bound by 'an unreasonable veto'. What is an unreasonable
veto and how, by what criteria and by who is it so defined?
As
the UN now faces its greatest crisis of credibility we must look to the
future. Aside from its vital role in rebuilding Iraq, it faces a number of
severe challenges; the international threat of weapons of mass destruction in
North Korea, the bloody genocide that has already claimed so many lives in
the Congo, and the impending threat of a politically created humanitarian
disaster in Zimbabwe and beyond.
It is a sign of real and
fundamental weakness that the UN has failed to get to grips with these
crises. Its record in censoring countries for human rights abuses leaves much
to be desired. A credible UN must show that it is capable of tackling such
challenges, if it is not to risk becoming just an expensive
accessory.
Then there is NATO which throughout the entire Iraq
conflict sat uninvolved and unused. In what was arguably a defensive exercise
to remove a potential threat to members of NATO it had no role and made no
contribution. Indeed it only made the news when some members, as a gesture of
political protest sought to prevent another member from receiving a missile
defence system it required for its self-defence.
The cornerstone
of the international security policy of Western Europe for over fifty years.
The key player within it was and remains the USA. Western Europe needs NATO.
Eastern Europe - demonstrated by their keenness to sign up – both wants and
needs NATO to ensure their stability. Even Russia wants to be associated with
NATO. The big question is whether and for how long the United States sees
value in remaining actively involved in NATO. NATO needs the US. If it is to
remain at the centre of our security strategy then the US must be persuaded
it needs NATO.
These US doubts were by no means new. Even before
Iraq they had begun to set in. After 9/11 there was a ‘moment' when for the
first time NATO invoked Article 5. A traumatised US gratefully accepted this
as a demonstration of NATO's robust response to the threat to any of its
members. But that was where it ended. The Afghanistan war, despite
post-conflict involvement, was not a NATO engagement. The US and the UK bore
the brunt of that campaign. US doubts about the value of its unreciprocated
commitment to Europe through NATO increased. They developed in spades both in
the run up to and during the Iraq War when any sense of NATO solidarity was
not only absent, but replaced by positive attempts to thwart it. From the
beginning of the conflict the spirit of NATO was undermined by France,
Germany and Belgium. Not only America had apparently begun to question NATO
and its future role.
Some even argued that NATO has passed its
sell-by date. I disagree. The old role may have gone, but there are new
threats to be met. Prague last autumn touched on the edges of this - but that
was pre-Iraq. The Iraq challenge can now be summarised as both a regional and
international threat that the UN balked at, and which had to be met by a
coalition of the willing without the cover of either of these institutions.
Could NATO have had a role, should it have had a role, and what should that
role have been?
Iraq was out of area, but then so is Afghanistan.
It was not classic self-defence, but then the doctrine of pre-emption rarely
is. Could in this instance NATO have embraced the doctrine of pre-emption
with all the potential military obligations that would flow from that? Could
this have encompassed authorising out-of-area conflicts, with what
justification, and on what legal principle? These are questions that need
answering.
The European Union was also severely damaged by the
diplomatic wrangles leading up to and through the Iraq war. France and
Germany along with eight other members ranged against the UK, Spain,
Portugal, Holland and Italy along with most of the new accession countries as
well. The schism was deep, crossing old friendships and oblivious to the
usual squabbles between arguments of integration versus
flexibility.
The fault line now lies between the traditionalist
Europeans on the one side and what might loosely be termed the 'Atlanticists'
on the other. This definition can be further refined by the pre-Iraq divide
that grew between the countervailing arguments of Europe and America or
Europe or America? Those, more Lilliputian than David, who dream of a Europe
to rival and compete with America have tended to be 'old Europe'. They
appear genuinely to believe that Europe can become an emerging superpower to
rival the USA. By contrast many of those who are "new Europe" in their
thinking, particularly the Central and Eastern Europeans, while they
genuinely and wholeheartedly embrace Europe, see the US not as a rival but as
a liberator and friend.
Post-Iraq Europe has lost
direction.
The certainties that bound it together are fractured.
Integrationist friend has been set against integrationist friend. The concept
of a unified foreign policy is an unsalvageable victim. There is no unified
euro-view either on the foreign affairs front or in terms of defence and
security, nor is there ever likely to be.
But the changed
circumstances go further. The comfortable progress to integration has been
publicly undermined to the point of dis-integration – as witnessed earlier
this week by President Chirac backing away from the growth and stability
pact, a key symbol of integration..
All of a sudden the work on the
future of Europe, far from appearing forward and modern seems inward-looking
and out of date. The real choice lies between an improved and dynamic
partnership of sovereign nations and an increasingly top heavy, out-of-touch
supranational entity that will soon to all intents and purposes become a
sovereign political union. In any event these choices are so fundamental that
any move towards the latter could only logically and legitimately proceed
with the consent of the British people, freely and democratically given in a
referendum before any treaty incorporating such changes is
ratified.
The lessons of Iraq must be learned. In the EU that means
not only recognition that ever-closer integration simply will not work but
also that there is now a real risk of a transatlantic split.
These are all institution-centric problems. They became clear in the run-up
to and the conduct of the conflict in Iraq. There is however also a wider
context that must be understood before we can suggest ways to proceed with
modernising and changing these institutions.
We need for a start to
ask the fundamental question about the three institutions as to what their
purpose is. It is only when purpose has been established that we can begin to
look more closely at the options for reform and change. For the
moment we need to tread warily in seeking to provide complete or final
answers. The complexities of the solutions and their inter-relationships are
great.
We must start by understanding what we are trying to
achieve. A world without threatening or expansionist totalitarian hegemonies,
whether religious or secular. A world in which the Rule of Law, personal
and religious freedom, and human rights are recognised and underwritten. A
world in which terrorism as the enemy of civilization is pursued, rooted out
and eliminated with the cooperative efforts of the whole
international community.
As Iain Duncan Smith said in Prague
last week there is a clear link between global insecurity and injustice. In
tackling both of these our self-interest has rightly coincided with our
conscience in preventing failing states becoming rogue and potential breeding
grounds for terrorists.
In that context I will look at the
institutions in the reverse order to that in which I introduced
them.
Europe is perhaps the easiest of the injured institutions
within which to identify the options. They have been around for some time.
There are essentially two; a supranationalist European superpower, or a more
outward looking intergovernmental Union.
Even before Iraq many
of us had believed that some in Europe were aiming for the bridge too far,
for the politically united Europe in a form that could in the realms of
fantasy eventually rival the US as a superpower. This so-called 'projet' has
been on the agenda for some time. For many in Europe it is the fulfilment of
the grand dream that began some fifty years ago. Its never was a realistic or
workable dream and nor is it now. Rather pathetically it is the pursuit of a
fifty-year-old dream that is no longer relevant to the challenges of today.
Iraq reawakened inherent weaknesses that were already there under the
surface. Iraq brought them to the surface.
The newest draft
constitution, which is designed to be the guiding text of the ‘project',
crystallises many of these weaknesses and fears. For all the denials of our
government, what is on offer is a constitution for a discrete political
entity, a politically united Europe, or – in the Prime Minister's preferred
words – a ‘superpower'. The constitution embraces a separate legal
personality for the EU. A declaration of the supremacy of EU law, explicit
for the first time in this Treaty. A five-year president. A Foreign Secretary
with his own diplomatic service. A charter of legally enforceable fundamental
rights. And many areas of policy from economic coordination, through asylum
and immigration to a common foreign and defence policy where increasingly the
centralized institutions of the EU will exercise control. It is the near
fulfillment of the European supranationalist dream.
Iain Duncan
Smith began the process of setting out a well-worked alternative to this in
Prague last week. Our preferred option is a Europe that is a genuine
partnership of sovereign nations, with carefully agreed rules of partnership.
It is not merged nor diluted. As Iain Duncan Smith said in Prague last week:
"Our vision of the New Europe is about more than a just reaction to the
faults of the EU's existing arrangements". He went on to set out our positive
steps to make the EU work and in that speech he made very clear that "The
European nations and the US cannot tackle global insecurity if we become
rivals rather than partners". In that sentence he put his finger on one of
the biggest problems facing the EU and its adaptation to the post-Cold War
world – too often it tries to be built up in to a rival bloc, not a partner,
of the US. I will touch on this a little later.
Ideally in what
is an increasingly fluid world what we are seeking is a partnership that is
agile and flexible and can match changing circumstances. To achieve this it
would certainly be necessary to place less stress on the Treaties and the
acquis - towards a simpler statement of competences, to pursue framework
rather than specific directives, and to return power back to national
parliaments.
There is still a good deal of merit in the Gaullist
concept of the 'Europe de Patries'. It has been heavily eroded by recent
treaties, to an extent by Maastricht but particularly and more recently by
Amsterdam and Nice, which absorbed to the centre many national state
interests for almost nothing in return. It would therefore require proactive
retrieval of power by the nation states. That will require determination and
strong political will. The extent should now become a matter of urgent
consultation with likeminded allies in Europe.
We could make
swift progress by genuinely accepting different interests which in turn
predicate different levels of involvement and at different speeds. The best
example of this is currently in relation to the Euro, but it could extend to
other areas as well. In many ways this element is more consistent with
enlargement than anything emanating from the Convention. While the
'applicant' countries may publicly purport to be 'communitaire', privately
there is a good deal of unease about how to identify and protect particular
national differences and difficulties. An enlarged Europe will only work if
members, old and new, do not feel 'put upon' by established regional powers.
The ability to be different, inherent in any theory of variable geometry, is
not a luxury but an essential if Europe is not to split from
within.
There is then the Europe working in partnership with rather
than in rivalry to America. The US, at the height of its strength, is
inevitably tempted towards the concept of 'unipolarity', to look to do things
on its own, to resent and distance if not marginalize those erstwhile friends
who when the fair weather ended were noticeable at best by their absence and
at worst by downright hostility. What is required is the development of
a flexible Europe within which such groupings can occur without
undermining the whole. It will need to be a relaxed Europe, which is capable
of presiding benignly over such groupings. It will need to be
a non-centralised, non-conforming, non-coercive Europe.
Above
all it must be a Europe based on the democracies of its national parliaments.
They should be initiators of legislation. They should be the forums of
accountability. They should have the right to prevent further integration and
centralisation, applying principles of ‘subsidiarity and proportionality' as
it would be term in Europe, where it does not meet the agreed objectives of
the more outward looking EU. They should be the fount of power and authority,
through their governments, to the EU. That would create an EU that does meet
the needs of the new century, able to move with the increasingly agile
partnerships that are modern international relations.
Then there is
NATO. If the underlying principle for us is the need to keep the US bound
into European Security, then it is not possible simply to set NATO to one
side. Nor would it be right to do so. NATO is now irreversibly enlarged. We
need to define the new strategic role for the new Nato.
Territorial defence is clearly no longer its sole purpose. There is no longer
a single static enemy. The new foes are multiple, diffuse, transient and
global. NATO has to be able to respond in much wider, more
pro-active defensive role. The deterrent effect of its combined might needs
to be more mobile and more diffuse. Article 5, which I believe must remain a
central element, must more clearly indicate real intent and the force to back
it up, if it is to deter and if necessary pre-empt both state and
non-state aggressors.
It would be futile to seek a NATO where
every member nation is required proportionately to replicate the same
military capability as each other. This would not only lead to increasing
duplication and disorganization. It would also place undue burdens on the
smaller members. What we need to seek is a NATO where each member contributes
within its means relevant and deployable capabilities, thereby creating a
NATO of skills and breadth, a NATO that can credibly be seen as an
efficient military organisation with the flexibility to respond effectively
to threats and aggressions from whatever quarter. While the larger nations
must contribute across a wider range of capabilities, smaller nations
will specialise so they can play a real part. In this way NATO could continue
and strengthen its role.
The key question is as to whether NATO
in its role and functions can continue to be based, however loosely on the
principles and legal definitions of self-defence. Already over these last
years it has operated out of area. In Afghanistan two of its members, namely
the US and the UK, invoked Article 51 of the UN Charter to pray self-defence
as the justification of war in Afghanistan. The growing and inevitable
doctrine of pre-emption, upon which I have spoken on other occasions, if it
is to become part of the role of NATO, will require ‘out-of-area'
capabilities that will extend beyond the conventional containment and
deterrence capabilities of the past. Search and destroy, direct military
intervention to restore human rights and the rule of law, peace-making and
peace-keeping are all becoming central parts of the role which NATO
increasingly has to play if it is to retain its relevance.
The
consequences of this are already becoming clear. There needs to be clearer
understanding of the legal authority under international law for military
intervention. Nato's relationships with the United Nations - about which more
later – and with the UN Charter need to be clarified. The UN has only ever
approved two conflicts in its entire history, Korea and the First Gulf War.
How often can we expect Nato to act without explicit UN authority, as we did
in Kosovo?
In a world of global threats, what is the meaning of the
term ‘out-of-area'? NATO already accepts invitations to intervene in
a peace-making role by the UN ‘out of area'. Are there limits? For
instance, NATO could be asked by the UN to intervene, say, in
Africa.
For Nato to act as one in an international crisis, there
also needs to be a shared assessment of threats. That was clearly lacking
before the recent war in Iraq. Alternatively, suggestions have been made that
a renewed and strengthened NATO should divide into two tiers. It is not clear
whether these should be a division of function or of area. The idea of one
set of functions, those of direct intervention, for the US and another, those
of nation building and peacekeeping, for the rest, tends to destroy
the essential cohesion of NATO where combined action creates the
dynamic. Division of area might be considered, although it would be
unrealistic for the European end of NATO to consider major military
intervention and action out of area without the assistance and involvement of
the US except on the most limited scale. The UK would probably be most able
to undertake such action, but unless the circumstances were exceptional we
would prefer US involvement. Or maybe Nato will become a military alliance,
based upon common values, from which coalitions of the willing can be
drawn.
The Government talks about the importance of sustaining NATO
as the "superior alliance". There are fears that the direction being pursued
by the EU, in particular through the new draft constitution, fails to
guarantee the supremacy of NATO. This will undermine and eventually fatally
debilitate and destroy NATO. The developing autonomy of the ESDP has already
destabilised NATO. The UK Government attacked the recent Brussels mini-summit
for undermining NATO, but these countries in turn cited the ESDP as
the authority and agenda for that meeting. Under the Constitution this will
be exacerbated. This must be reversed.
Due to the rise in
anti-Americanism in a number of European states, some in the US government
have begun to re-examine the role of the trans-Atlantic partnership. It is
hard to blame them. If we believe, as I do, in preserving and strengthening
NATO, then we have an urgent task to persuade our American colleagues that
primacy of NATO in Europe is vital for their national security too. We need
to show them that their substantial investment in European defence is a
prerequisite of global stability and peace, and that on the newer front of
proactive preemption their position both physically and psychologically will
be stronger with NATO than without it. NATO however will have to be seen to
be changing if we are to succeed. And it will need to have changed if it is
to have the relevance I seek for it in the future.
Lastly there
is the United Nations. Of the injured institutions this is probably the most
difficult to find clearly pictured in the crystal ball. Do we need the UN?
Can an institution developed in a bi-polar world be made relevant to a
uni-polar or multi-polar world? My answer to the first question is yes from
which it follows that my answer to the second question is that a way to
recreate its relevance must be found. The US and we need to consider how such
relevance can sit easily alongside the US aim of international primacy as per
their National Security Strategy Document.
What is certain is that
it cannot continue as the powerless international organisation it has now in
practice become. If it is to play an important role in international affairs
in the 21st century, it must redefine its role. It must work with the grain
of events and developments rather than against them. At a humanitarian level
the UN has effective agencies such as the World Food Programme, the UNHCR,
and UNRWA and so on. In terms of Health and Education it contributes valuably
and constructively to a better world. While we still need to challenge the
detailed effectiveness of some these, they fulfil a vital role. Nor does it
help presiding over a system that can put Colonel Gadaffi of Libya in the
chair of the UN Human Right Commission, or Iraq in the lead on disarmament!
These idiocies undermine credibility, and measures need to be taken to avoid
them happening in the future.
The question of the UN's future
role remains. Should it simply become a glorified humanitarian agency and how
would that help it further its goal of establishing ‘international peace and
security'? I believe it has reached a crossroads. It has, and we as part of
it have, to decide whether just to strengthen its limited peacekeeping
functions, or deliberately make a step change and to develop a peacemaking
role with all that that would entail. The UN is based on its sovereign nation
states. If it were to go down this road, it would have to work out how it
would deliver its humanitarian, peacekeeping and peacemaking roles
effectively in a world increasingly shaped by non-state actors.
Then there is the matter of the Security Council. Have the events of the last
few months fatally undermined the concept of the Security Council or simply
its reputation in Washington DC? What we know is that when the question was
asked of it in relation to action with Iraq it split and was unable to
produce an answer.
A Security Council that under pressure becomes
gridlocked is an answer to nothing. If the UN is to have a relevant and
influential role then it needs a Security Council that has clout, that does
not become hidebound, and that reflects actual power within the
world.
I believe that we need urgently to reform the criteria for
membership of the Security Council. The Government's pathetic response of
simply increasing the membership by ten, five permanent without veto and five
new rotational solves nothing and confuses everything.
We need
to re-examine the criteria for membership. Should there not then be criteria
for membership based on some formula of population, GDP, military capability
and political stability? Should there be a firm rule that the SC should
proceed by consensus rather than majority vote, and that any minority or
individual member dissenting from the consensus must show just reason for
suspending unanimity.
Selfish commercial reasons should not be
enough. Failure to agree should not make internationally illegal any
unilateral or bilateral action without some further process of declarator as
to illegality and the reason for it. The loose concept of the 'unreasonable'
veto must be nailed.
If the principle of pre-emption - whether
military, economic or political - is adopted, there would then need to be
some means to support decisions and resolutions duly taken. This would entail
a step change in the rather supine and ineffective way in which the UN
currently backs up its own resolutions.
If this route is taken,
there would need to be urgent action to establish the authority vested in
such forces and the basis upon which they could be recruited and from where?
The UN would have to graduate to a real force to be reckoned with, not just
keeping the peace but helping to make it as well.
I firmly
believe that of all the three fractured institutions, the UN is the most
vulnerable. If it is to be rescued, it must change and change radically. We
should lead that change.
I suppose as a most radical option I
should ask whether any of the injured institutions is necessary. If this was
truly a unilateralist's world then the answer might be no. Whatever the
position it must be not in their current form. For all the apparent unipolar
power of the US, I doubt whether this it truly is a unilateralist world.
Primacy rests not simply upon power, but also on acceptance. In the end the
US has to work with her allies if dangerous isolation is not to ensue. The
Anglo-US relationship remains very special. In the run up to the Iraq
conflict, and indeed since, UK influence was undoubtedly central to
persuading America of the diplomatic and political value of the ‘UN
route'.
What is indisputable is that these three institutions
cannot post-Iraq simply be reformed in their old images or aspirations. The
world has changed and so must they. They must adapt to perform different
roles with different structures. They must still be able to provide
international legitimacy for actions taken.
They must also be
capable of evolving relations with the currently relatively quiescent giants
of Russia and China. These will not remain quiet forever, and the
institutions we rebuild now must be shaped to encompass them rather than
alienate them.
I personally am allergic to ‘new world orders' the
broken axles of which litter the trails of history. Nevertheless the three
institutions injured by the Iraq experience, can form the basis for new
international partnerships and cooperation. They need to be restyled so that
they can work together, each secure within its own role, none pulling rank on
another, and all distinct. They can form a platform of stability that can be
enlarged and matched by other institutions and partnerships in other parts of
the world. But only if they are reshaped to meet the challenges of the
future, not the threats of fifty years ago.
None of them are
worth preserving for their history, only for their potential future
contributions. No one, least of all me, is advocating a Hobbesian world where
might alone is right, but we live in a world where might must at least be
recognised and harnessed.
Iraq awoke the world to the weaknesses
and imperfections of the institutions upon which with complacency the
international community had for too long put store. Their credibility was
exposed by Iraq for the sham it had increasingly become.
Tonight
I have offered one set of options for a way forward. There may well be
others. What is certain is that they cannot go on as they are. They must
change, and we can and must lead the drive for that change.
The
article in The Independent of 11th July, 2003 states that Mr. Mbeki and Mr.
Bush are now:
"absolutely of one mind about the urgent need to address
the political and economic changes of Zimbabwe."
Another interesting
perception is:
"Bush has agreed to follow Mbeki's lead on Zimbabwe, in
return promised the generous reconstruction package for Zimbabwe's recovery
in the post-Mugabe era."
This raises a few issues for Mr. Mbeki to be
held accountable for: 1. Urgent - According to the article, the President
will stand down in December, and then an election is to held in
March. *This amounts to another eight months at least that the people of
Zimbabwe will have to suffer. 2. Reconstruction - this word is the
opposite of destruction. *This sounds like a final admission that Mr. Mbeki
is now endorsing another eight months of destruction, and oppression. At the
same time he knows full well that the United States of America, whose
financial muscle has been built on Secure Title is going to pick up the tab
on this humanitarian experiment - is he telling the world and the Zimbabwean
people, that he personally has set the timetable for this experiment which is
not entirely dissimilar to one that was tried in Germany on the Jewish
Community? Are the results not quite what the scientist has set is heart to
prove just yet, requiring a little more time? When will he start the same
experiment in his own country rather than look at the results of the ones
carried out in Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe, and even Malawi over the last
forty years?
There has been debate amongst civic society of a "Truth
and Justice Commission" in Zimbabwe once a responsible and legitimate
Government comes into being. South Africa went on a different road with its
"truth and reconciliation commission" and I believe there will be a price to
be paid for not incorporating the law and justice into that
commission.
Zimbabwe has run along the road of impunity for far too
long. Its various leaders have said, "let's forget about the law and what
the truth of the matter is and meting out justice - we will rather look to
the future! What benefit to the future is there in opening old wounds?"
And so in 1975 the indemnity law, excusing all past and future atrocities
committed by Government officials, was passed. In the transitional
government Lord Soames passed another indemnity statute pardoning all
atrocities from all sides that took place in the "liberation" war. In 1990
clemency order 1 pardoned all offences that took place in the genocide of the
Gukuruhundi and in 2000 another clemency order pardoned perpetrators of
political violence in the parliamentary election. We await a further
clemency order to pardon the political violence that took place in the
presidential election of 2002.
Only when all Zimbabweans realise that
they have to deal with the past (and the present!) will the future be secured
to our children and ourselves. The time for papering over the gaping cracks
in our very foundations and building up on top are surely now over. Such
building is foolish and doomed to failure. If those old festering wounds are
not dealt with, they will corrupt the body of Zimbabwe again in the future
and we will go through the shattering experiences that have torn the country
apart so often once again. So how do we deal with the past?
THE
TRUTH: The first part is to establish the objective truth of what has taken
place in the past. This is a big exercise but much work has already been
done and continues to be done in this regard. It is imperative that all
incidents of violence, corruption, torture, state sponsored theft and the
like get properly documented. Everybody needs to play his or her part in
this. A detailed personal diary is a start. Police RRB numbers, doctors'
certificates, death certificates, reports to human rights organisations and
others are critical. The truth has to be verifiable to tackle the next part
of dealing with the past. Ultimately we cannot do anything without "The
Truth."
THE LAW: The rights and the wrongs of what is established must be
dealt with through the law. The law in essence is about what is right and
wrong. The law was laid down and has changed little since 1444 B.C.
(or thereabouts) when it was given to Moses by God on Mount Sinai.
This "Mosaic Law" is the foundation or constitution on which roman Dutch law
and most of the world's legal systems and indeed societies are based.
Without the law that sets out what is right and wrong humanity founders on
the rocks of immorality and evil. When we call for the law to take its
course in Zimbabwe therefore, we call for what God has set out for us to be
upheld and policed. We have seen various perversions of the law being put
into our statutes in Zimbabwe. These need to be changed and the rule of
law needs to be re-established before a future can be built.
JUSTICE:
It is imperative that once the truth is established and the law is allowed to
take its course justice is meted out through a justice system that has
integrity and independence. For over three centuries after the law was given
to Moses and Israel entered the Promised Land Israel ruled by "the judges"
not "the kings". The book of Judges provides many examples of the principle
that obedience to the law brings peace, whereas disobedience means oppression
and death. The law in itself was not enough. It required leaders with
integrity who were willing to stand up for the law and make sure that justice
took its course. Indemnity and clemency laws run contra to justice and in
actual fact promote further lawlessness and injustice in the future. What
Zimbabwe needs more than anything at this time is leaders with integrity and
moral fortitude who are willing to stand up for justice and for God.
Zimbabwean leaders (and each one of us is a leader in something) need to
grasp this nettle however difficult, or dangerous it might appear and ensure
that they hang on to it, pursue it and don't let go. Until that happens
Zimbabwe remains doomed. Skirting the issue and not dealing with it would be
a horrendous mistake. I for one am hugely encouraged that civic society is
looking at a truth and justice commission. However unsavoury it might appear,
Zimbabweans have to confront with determination their past if they are to
have a future brighter than today.
Once again I read your Jag Forum letter with
trepidation. Open Letter Forum no 113 may as well be open war on CFU no 113.
Aside from Simon's very old letter which he wrote late 2002 but which still
has great relevance, the two other writers were just beating
CFU.
Willie Robertson does not have the right to write a letter on behalf
of Martin Olds. The man I knew was a man of principle who would have taken
his disagreement to the person concerned and would have sorted it out away
from the public eye. Martin Olds would, in my opinion, not have behaved in
the manner that Willie has done. In fact, I suspect that Martin would have
got hold of Willie by now and suggested he found some sort of
constructive employment...perhaps even to try and lead by example.
I
wonder if it isn't time for Ben Freeth to grow up and become a constructive
member of our society. We need to start rebuilding our lives. If he believes
that CFU is past its sell by date, well then get another organisation going
to meet the needs of our people but for heavens sake, don't waste his energy
on fighting an organisation that he does not believe in. Or perhaps, if he is
honest with himself, he is piqued by the fact that they asked him to resign
after he made such a spectacle of himself by going to press on a
employer/employee issue instead of going to his employer to sort it
out.
We all need to move on.....whether that is to rebuild our farming
industry, go elsewhere, go into another form of employment...or whatever. But
to stay in the same old groove, constantly complaining about a single issue,
begins eventually to irritate.
Willie and Ben, please look to the
rising sun, see the good in people, great courage and integrity...and be
proud to be Zimbabwean Please use your boundless energy to help us move
forward so that we can meet the challenges to come ....and
succeed.
Thank you for your contribution.
As you well know Justice for Agriculture has always valued your contribution
and continues to. The very idea of having an Open Letters Forum emanated from
yourself, and it is most comforting for many to see "The Return of the
Oracle" after what seems to have been a bit of a lull.
In this
instance I feel that I must defer to Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say,
but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
This should
continue to be the ethos of this forum, and naturally we look forward to some
contributions from of the leadership of the CFU, but I really do admire the
way in which you have defended them, and I look forward to you defending them
further - until such time as they are big enough to defend themselves
properly.
I enjoyed Mrs Simon's letter regarding the Open Letter
Forum No. 113 and feel it is important to respond.
Openness is a
founding principle of JAG in order to go some way in creating an open
society. The momentum behind "people power" is created by people putting
fear aside and openly stating on the one hand what they believe in and on the
other what they do not believe in. The first part is the constructive side
and the second part is the dissenting side. No open democratic society can
function without the balance of constructive and dissenting voices. The
collapse of communist Russia and the rest of the Eastern Bloc came about
through students initially and then eventually the rest of society saying,
"We will live out our lives as though we lived in the open society that we
believe in." Eventually that open society came into being because enough
people lived it out and "glasnost openness" passed into the English language
(and I hope eventually the Zimbabwean one too).
My dissenting voice as
a result of a UN report quoting a CFU economist as saying, "The agricultural
sector is operating at only 30% of capacity because the ZESA authority is
unable to meet power demands" was, I believe, valid. Mrs Simon's dissenting
voice about me pointing out that the lack of production was in fact due to
evictions by the State I do not believe was valid (unless of course she
concurs with the CFU economist).
If we do not openly challenge what is
wrong and openly stand up for what is right (even at the risk of becoming
unpopular) we will never in Jean Simon' s words "become a constructive member
of our society." It is just this syndrome of letting things go by that has
left Liberia, 156 years after independence, with no schools, no electricity,
no roads, no functioning farms, no law and order and no future for the vast
majority of
Liberian people.
Funnily enough John
Worswick often uses the word Piggyback when he suggests a LEGAL method of a
displaced farmer using a Test Case as means of seeking LEGAL
PROTECTION.
Could you perhaps use this forum to faithfully enunciate your
commitment to using the LEGAL ROUTE which I understand to be the Case brought
by Matabeleland CFU, and the Quinnell Case to engender confidence in
your cattle producers and ex-cattle producers alike?
All
letters published on the open Letter Forum are the views and opinions of the
submitters, and do not represent the official viewpoint of Justice for
Agriculture.
ZIMBABWE’S stand-off
with the United States of America (USA) and Britain surfaced in another form
after Harare reassigned tourism attaches that were to represent the country
in these markets.
Stung by Britain and America’s attacks on its
human rights record and the alleged lack of democracy, the government
overturned the assignments and opted for more friendly destinations.
The three tourism attaches, who were engaged by the Zimbabwe
Tourism Authority (ZTA) in the third quarter of last year, will now
represent Zimbabwe in China, France and South Africa after almost a year of
waiting. Givemore Chidzidzi, ZTA’s marketing and communications
director, confirmed the new destinations. Chidzidzi said: “We (ZTA)
have managed to go through most of the factors which were delaying us. The
way is now clear and we expect them (attaches) to have left the country by
the end of this month.” Sources told The Financial Gazette this week
that the ZTA overturned the previous assignments after being told that the
project faced certain failure had they insisted on the original
destinations. “There was no way the ZTA could have succeeded given the
opposition that was coming from top politicians,” said the source.
Godfrey Pasipanodya, formerly the marketing director for the Rainbow Tourism
Group, will represent Zimbabwe in France. Taka Munyenyiwa, a former
Zimsun Leisure employee, has been seconded to China while Ndaipanei Mukwena,
who was a lecturer at Midlands State University, has been seconded to South
Africa. Chidzidzi said the ZTA has not completely abandoned
traditional markets. “ZTA is diversifying a bit wider. We still have
offices in the UK and Germany and operations are still going on,” he
said. The attaches who were supposed to leave the country in September
last year were delayed by red tape and bureaucratic bungling between ZTA and
the Public Service Commission. China, which played a crucial role in
the war that brought Zimbabwe’s independence in 1980, has over the past two
years become the target of Zimbabwe’s investment drive. Several
companies including Fok Hing International, a clothing company and Sino,
which is into cement manufacturing, have already invested millions of dollars
in Zimbabwe. A number of delegations from China have been visiting
Zimbabwe to pursue investment opportunities. Chidzidzi said China
was a big market for Zimbabwe with lots of potential. The World Tourist
Organisation predicted that most of the tourism traffic in the next decade
would be coming from China. France has also maintained a soft approach
on Zimbabwe despite pressure from the US and other European
countries. South Africa has remained Zimbabwe’s major trading partner
and a key broker in talks to end the political impasse between the ruling
ZANU PF and the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC). Chidzidzi
said: “While the rest of the world has been going down in tourism arrivals,
South Africa has been doing quite well. France is a new emerging market,
which is looking for new and exciting destinations.” Of late, the
government has been placing more emphasis on new markets after failing to
spruce up its image in traditional ones. Tourism arrivals from
traditional markets such as the US, Britain and Germany have dropped
drastically because of the negative publicity the country is receiving from
the international community.
Cyril Zenda Staff Reporter 7/17/03 8:50:30 AM (GMT +2)
ZIMBABWEANS could have been asking for too much if they expected African
leaders to deal with President Robert Mugabe’s government at last week’s
African Union (AU) summit, analysts said this week.
Hopes were high
in the run-up to last week’s second AU summit in Maputo that African leaders
were going to try and find solutions to the growing crises in
Zimbabwe. The hopes were dashed when it emerged that the leaders not
only decided to keep the country off the summit agenda, but expressed
confidence in Mugabe’s leadership by electing him the AU vice chairman
responsible for southern Africa. “There was no reason to expect
African leaders to scrutinise each other because most of them know that they
have some skeletons in their closets,” one delegate at the summit
said. “You can only expect these leaders to support each other instead
of criticising each other,” added the delegate as the leaders moved on with
the AU business as if it was a continuation of the 39-year old Organisation
of African Unity (OAU) which it replaced last July. Although the AU
was founded on high sounding promises of good governance, human rights, rule
of law and such other terms, nothing seemed to really have changed as the
union is still dominated by the same old leaders who made sure the OAU left
no legacy worth mentioning today. “Nothing has changed regarding
African leaders. They are the same old people,” said University of Zimbabwe
lecturer Lovemore Madhuku. “You need to look at the readiness with
which they re-admitted Madagascar to see if they mean what they say, so for
Zimbabweans to expect these same leaders to help them was expecting too
much,” Madhuku said. “African leaders simply do not have the capacity
to solve problems in member countries, and it is up to Zimbabweans to find
their own solution.” Heneri Dzinotyiwei, chairman of Zimbabwe
Integrated Programme and political commentator, said there are much more
serious problems bedevelling the continent such that it is not surprising
that Zimbabwe was not even discussed. “One should understand that at
continental level, there are many more serious problems that the leaders need
to solve, and if they had started off by discussing the Zimbabwean issue,
they would not get anywhere,” Dzinotyiwei said. He said from a
partisan point of view, some people can express disappointment in the way
African leaders are treating the Zimbabwean crisis, but the truth is that the
situation on other parts of the continent need much more urgent
attention. “It is difficult to see how African leaders … with the same
interests of staying in power, will raise yellow or red cards to one another
on behalf of the citizenries of others,” said Joseph Diescho in a paper
entitled Understanding The New Partnership for Africa’s Development
(NEPAD). “In other words, is the (AU) Implementation Committee, or the
Peer Review Committee, the body to receive bounced cheques and act at the
same time as the credit bureau with the power to blacklist their peers? Who
will submit a bounced cheque and on whose behalf?” Diescho asked.
NEPAD, which is now being integrated into the formal structure of the AU,
puts emphasis on good governance, rule of law and human rights and Mugabe,
along with other African leaders whose democratic credentials are suspect,
are closely involved in the process. The leaders, however, are keen
only to implement those sections of NEPAD that they are comfortable with,
leaving out such components as the Peer Review Mechanism (PRM), which would
put AU member states’ governance styles under scrutiny. Most leaders argue
that NEPAD had no business dealing with political, security and conflict
resolution issues on the continent. “I shall, with due respect, consign
the Peer Review Mechanism to the dustbin of history as a sham. I see it as a
misleading new name for the old, discredited structural adjustment fiasco,”
Namibian Prime Minister Theo-Ben Gurirab recently said, speaking for a number
of hardline African leaders who have dismissed NEPAD as a foreign
idea. “Neo-colonialism—which is what the PRM is —is a killer disease:
we must run away from it.” Diescho, however, said it was
understandable that NEPAD emphasised good governance and the rule of law and
democracy in a way that the AU itself would be too vague about.
“This is so because the malaise in Africa today has been brought about by
African leaders who have, like their colonial masters, plundered and pillaged
Africa for their own personal enrichment and aggrandisement,” he said. “They
are part of the problem and therefore their role in finding the solution must
be limited.” In the speech he delivered at the Maputo summit, United
Nations secretary-general Kofi Annan pleaded with the African leaders to
put democratic transformation high on their agenda. “Democracy means
more than holding elections. It requires respect for the rule of law, even by
the government and the party in power. It requires viable institutions to
promote respect for all human rights of our people, including minorities,”
Annan said.
Brian
Mangwende Chief Reporter 7/17/03 8:51:20 AM (GMT +2)
SOUTH
African President Thabo Mbeki this week came in for flak as a dishonest
broker, with political commentators accusing him of having a guarded motive
in his handling of the country’s worsening economic and political
crisis.
They decried the fact that American President George W Bush
whose high profile visit to Africa last week “signified nothing” had been
swayed by Mbeki’s arguments and subsequently bought into the South African
leader’s scheme. Eliphas Mukonowe-shuro, a political analyst and
adviser to opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) president Morgan
Tsvangirai, said Mbeki was very much aware of the gravity of Zimbabwe’s
problems. Mukonoweshuro said Mbeki may be deliberately downplaying the
crisis in Zimbabwe in order to hasten the country’s economic collapse and
give South Africa an unrivalled economic edge in the region.
Besides, Mbeki was intent to capture Zimbabwe’s skilled labour force, likely
to take flight from the country because of poor
economic fundamentals. “His stance is not based on principles,” said
Mukonoweshuro. “Mbeki should realise that if it were not for regional and
international pressure, South Africa would not have done away with the
apartheid regime. He would still be in exile if that pressure was not applied
to bring democracy to South Africa.” Mukonoweshuro added bluntly:
“If our economy collapses, we, as evidenced by what is currently happening,
will see our skilled labour migrate to South Africa and serve their interests
at no cost to them. Zimbabwe’s losses are South Africa’s gains.”
Mukonoweshuro said a strong Zimbabwean economy would be an impediment to a
drive by South African business to penetrate into regional markets.
Zimbabwe, which intervened in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and
Mozambique to ostensibly rescue the two countries from civil rebellion, was
overtaken by South Africa in the penetration of DRC and Mozambican markets
once war stopped in the two countries. Mukonoweshuro asked: “What is
South Africa doing in the DRC and Burundi and why does Mbeki want to send
troops to Liberia if he believes in the theory of quiet diplomacy? It just
shows diplomatic naiveté on his part.” Lovemore Madhuku, a
constitutional law expert and University of Zimbabwe lecturer,
agreed. “How is Mbeki going to explain that contradiction?” Madhuku
asked. Critics said Mbeki’s tactics amounted to trashing the opposition
MDC. “Mbeki’s stance has exposed the MDC in that they had created
an impression that they were placing a lot of faith in the Bush visit,”
Madhuku said. “If Zimbabweans are going to resolve their own problems then
one can not determine the pace at which this would be done. Bush and Mbeki’s
stance reflects the interests of their two countries at the expense of
Zimbabwe. The Americans don’t want to antagonise the South Africans because
of their trade interests in that country.” Brian Kagoro, the
coordinator of Crisis in Zimbabwe Coalition, said Mbeki must do everything in
his power to pressure for reform in the country, moreso a return to
dialogue. But critics also said that Tsvangirai had blundered by
underestimating Mbeki’s friendship to Zimbabwean President Robert
Mugabe. He banked too much on Mbeki to woo the American president to
oust Mugabe or force a re-run of the disputed presidential election.
But this did not happen. Instead, Bush backed Mbeki’s strategy.
Mukonoweshuro added: “Like anywhere in the world where there is conflict, the
affected nation is expected to turn to regional and international leaders for
assistance. I don’t believe that anyone expected Bush to come and wave a
magic wand and bring things back to normal.” He said there was nothing
new in Mbeki’s statement as he has always maintained that a solution to the
Zimbabwean crisis lies with the Zimbabwean people. Castigating South
Africa for taking sides, Kagoro said: “The South Africans have always doubted
the MDC’s capacity and credibility to run the country and they are persuaded
that the MDC is too linked to Western powers. As long as the balance of power
is in favour of ZANU PF, they will always say ‘let them solve their own
problems’, but if there is a slight shift, for instance during the last
stayaway, they rushed here and called for a resumption of dialogue.
“Their foreign minister is on record saying that there will be
no condemnation of Mugabe’s government as long as the ANC is in power.
South Africa’s leaders have repeatedly said there is no crisis in Zimbabwe.
Up to now, South Africa has not condemned human rights abuses here,” Kagoro
said. “Both leaders maintained their positions for the call to the
return of democracy in Zimbabwe. There are fruits to bear if there is a
speedy solution to this. Mbeki has a mutual responsibility to talk through
the Zimbabwean problem. Although no ultimatum was issued, there is evidence
that the two leaders gave themselves a time frame in which Zimbabweans
should resolve the crisis.”
A STORM is brewing
between top government officials and settlers at a farm in Mashonaland East
after ZANU PF stalwarts besieged the farm to facilitate occupation by
provincial party heavyweights.
The settlers, who moved onto the
farm in 2000, accused Goromonzi Rural District Council chairman Oliver Juru
and a ZANU PF activist only identified as Nkatazo of conniving with the
district land distribution committee and senior provincial officials to take
over Oribi Farm near Juru Growth Point. Lawrence Meda, the district
administrator for Goromonzi, was adamant that the new farmers would be moved
from the farm, classified under the A2 model scheme. “I am removing
them (settlers), but the only problem I have at the moment is that my trucks
do not have fuel, otherwise the evictions should have started same time
ago. “They will be relocated to other areas that fall under the A1
Model, where they are supposed to continue with their farming activities,” he
said. ZANU PF heavyweights in Mashonaland East, who attended a meeting
to solve the issue two ago, were at pains to put a human face to the
eviction, but met with stiff resistance from the settlers. David
Karimanzira, the governor for Mashonaland East, Finance Minister Herbert
Murerwa, Member of Parliament for Murewa South Joel Biggie Matiza and
Mashonaland East provincial chairman Ray Kaukonde attended the meeting.
Other high ranking officials present at the meeting included the chairman for
Goromonzi Rural District Council and Chris Chingosho, the provincial
administrator for Mashonaland East. “There was problem on that farm,
but we have resolved it. We should be seeing the settlers relocated within
days,” said Karimanzira. The settlers however, maintained that their
displacement was being done corruptly to safeguard the interest of a few
powerful politicians. “This is corruption at its worst. We have been
here since 2000 and have invested a lot here. Now they want to evict us
saying we were wrongfully allocated this land. “What do they expect
us to do? I wonder whether President Mugabe is aware of what is going on.
They want to give the land to senior ZANU PF officials at our expense, but
they will meet with more than what they bargained for,” said a settler who
declined to be named said. Meda, who refused to disclose the names of
the prospective new owners, said the government was reconciling resettlements
throughout the country by ensuring that farmers are properly
settled. “The land district committee allocated Oribi Farm which falls
under the A2 Model to settlers under the A1 Model. How this was done baffles
me. “But we have made great strides in resolving the issue and
people should be moving out soon,” said a senior ZANU PF official who
declined to be named. Oribi is part of the land measuring about 960
hectares compulsorily acquired from Owen Patrick Conner, 69, who was evicted
in August last year under the controversial land reform. The land is
divided into two sections, namely Stockholm measuring 364 hectares and Oribi,
596 hectares. Conner, 69, the former owner of the farm, said before
leaving the property he used to produce 1 400 tonnes of wheat, 540t of wheat
seed, 1 000t of maize, 200t of potatoes, 540t of seed maize and boasted of
130 head of cattle for export. The Commercial Farmers’ Union said
about 98 percent of commercial farms have been seized by the government under
the land grab exercise, while only 220 440 hectares of the 11.02 million
hectares under commercial farming prior to the fast track system remains
unlisted for compulsory acquisition.
THE perennially
troubled Cold Storage Company Limited (CSC) could crawl back to viability if
managed by a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) put together by banks owed in
excess of $7 billion, The Financial Gazette can reveal.
An
accounting firm tasked to look into problems at the meat processing concern
has advised government to hand-over CSC’s operations to creditors in the
absence of the take-over of its entire debt. Camelsa Chartered
Accountants headed by Reggie Saruchera noted that the accumulation of the
parastatal’s debt from just above $700 million a few years back to over $7
billion showed that the government had run out of ideas on the
issue. Government, which is the sole shareholder in the meat
processing concern, could have inherited CSC’s debt at the time it was
commercialised. It appears the only way out would be to enable banks
set up the SPV that would run the CSC board and management until such a time
the institution can stand on its own. Loans advanced by the banks
would also cease to earn interest. CSC, which requires at least $33
billion inside 24 months to finance farmers in rebuilding the depleted
national herd, would repay the debt from fees generated from leasing its
ranches, among other things. Without that, there is clear and present
danger that financial institutions could proceed to place the company under
liquidation and have its assets auctioned. A number of banks already
have judgements on CSC debts in their favour and such rulings constitute a
major threat to the parastatal’s survival. CSC acting chief executive
officer, Ngoni Chinogaramombe confirmed that Camelsa had completed its
mandate, but refused to disclose its findings and recommendations.
Chinogaramombe insisted that the questions should be put in writing.
He, however, could not respond to questions e-mailed to his office at the
time of going to press. Five banks, namely Genesis Investment Bank, the
Jewel Bank, Kingdom Bank, Time Bank and Trust Bank have already made an offer
to the CSC board chaired by Dairibord Zimbabwe Limited chief executive
officer, Anthony Mandiwanza whose details are being kept under
wraps. The chartered accounting firm noted that CSC had a lot of
potential to return to profitability, but could go under if nothing is done
to rescue the entity. About $9 billion is required to make CSC
viable. CSC requires 5 830 cattle for slaughter that would cost about $2.3
billion. It also needs feedstock at its ranches to feed 7 500 beasts at
a cost of about $5.2 billion. Another $400 million would be required in
cattle stock-feed, while $850 million should be spent in payments to
outstanding creditors. CSC would also need to hunt for a substantive
chief executive officer soon and to dispose of idle assets with the proceeds
going towards debt payment and meeting its working capital
requirements. Sources said the recommendation had been submitted to the
Ministry of Lands and Agriculture for consideration. “A meeting
would be convened soon between the ministry and the CSC board to discuss
Camelsa’s report,” a source said. Meanwhile, the report also noted that
CSC has repossessed 15 of the 30 franchises operating the Meat Pride Brand
for failing to meet their contractual obligations. Six franchises in
Gweru, Harare, Mutare and Masvingo are also under dispute concerning
ownership of assets supplied by CSC. The disputes are currently going through
arbitration. The Meat Pride outlets, which were financed by Trust Bank,
were governed by an arrangement where holders of the agreements would
receive supplies from the parastatal. It was also agreed that the
meat processing concern would collect 80 percent of the franchises’
sales. It then turned out that the 20 percent collected by the
franchise owners was not enough, a situation that was worsened by CSC’s
failure to supply adequate meat to the franchises. CSC has agreed to
pay $21 million to franchise holders after netting counter claims between
itself and other parties involved.
Brian
Mangwende Chief Reporter 7/17/03 8:53:15 AM (GMT +2)
THE
country’s premier private health institution, Avenues Clinic, is reportedly
on the brink of closing shop after failing to contain sky-rocketing overheads
and secure essential drugs at a time when the country’s health delivery
system is threatened with collapse.
“Let’s face facts,” Avenues
Clinic’s managing director Benny Deda said. “We are failing to meet the cost
structure of medical provisions and the pressure of costs continues to rise
making it very difficult for us to operate as most of our products are
imported. “To be honest with you, I am losing senior staff members.
Even the principal matron has left for greener pastures. “In the
past we have had a massive exodus of nurses because of the current economic
hardships,” a dejected Deda said. “What is happening is that nurses are
being interviewed over the phone and offered jobs for better pay.
“Our skilled manpower is being absorbed abroad — in the United Kingdom,
Australia and other countries. We are in dire straits.” Analyst Eric
Bloch yesterday said the closure of the clinic would motivate medial staff in
other health institutions to leave the country. “The brain drain would
be severe,” Bloch said. “The biggest indication is that it is going to
motivate more people to leave the country to seek medical attention elsewhere
or persuade nurses and doctors to work outside the country. “It will
also create further unemployment which is already at 70 percent.”
The sad news comes on the backdrop of a strike by the clinics’ staff which
kicked off on Tuesday. The workers at the the $10 billion institution, whose
strike has put the lives of many patients in danger, are demanding a salary
increment of about 120 percent. But management at the clinic which has
a holding capacity of 180 patients and a staff complement of 500 workers was
adamant that the demand was not feasible. Some patients were
transferred to a sister clinic, West-End Clinic- for urgent medical attention
as the skeleton staff — mostly senior staff — failed to cope. So bad was the
situation that one nurse was attending to an average of 10 patients thereby
reducing the quality of care needed by the sick. Those on strike
could be seen milling around the clinic’s premises, when the Financial
Gazette crew arrived. An angry member of the workers committee who
spoke on condition of anonymity said: “We have resolved not to go back to
work until Deda and his team go. “They are mis-managing things here.
We told him we need a salary increment of 120 percent on a sliding scale
because of the continuous escalation of prices of basic commodities, but he
said he would give us only 40 percent across the board. “He says
there is no money, but he recently bought about three luxury cars for senior
staff.” Deda replied: “We offered the workers a 40 percent increment
taking into consideration our costs against revenue, but they refused.
They insisted on 120 percent, but I can’t afford that. “Most of our
revenue is derived from donors and medical aid societies, but we have been
experiencing problems simply because the money is not coming in. Because of
the strike we have been forced to transfer some patients to West-End Clinic,
but I am happy to say those in the intensive care unit are still in good
hands and their lives not in danger. No one has been compromised.”
Deda said he had since referred the matter to the Ministry of Public Service
Labour and Social Welfare for arbitration. Meanwhile, nurses at
Parirenyatwa and Harare hospitals have resolved to go on strike next week if
the government fails to address their salary grievances.
PRESIDENT Thabo Mbeki’s insistence that stalled
talks between ZANU PF and the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) were now
back on track could have seen a little sunshine breaking through the dark
clouds hovering over Zimbabwe and provoked the rarest of emotions — hope, in
a country precariously hanging on to an eggshell-thin veneer of
stability.
But to cap a series of startling events, the country’s
intransigent feuding political parties moved quickly to pour cold water on
Mbeki’s claims. This sparked off an orgy of speculation about the
country’s political future as people tried to figure out what’s going
on. Could President Mbeki have lied? Was the South African president
just trying to appease President George Bush who is increasingly showing a
flush of impatience with President Mugabe who seems to have decided on a
distant departure date? Highly unlikely. Mbeki is an extraordinary
and cautious politician who is unlikely to stir up such controversy without
knowing where it would all end. No doubt, we have said it before and we will
say it again, the Zimbabwean situation is one that demands delicate arbitrage
but because of his position, President Mbeki has both the diplomatic and
economic clout to assume the responsibility and ensure a deeper rapprochement
between the MDC and ZANU PF. It is true that views on the way
forward might be understandably starkly divided but there is no doubt that
there is a national, regional and international consensus on the need to
expedite negotiations to break the political impasse which is spooking
Zimbabwe today. This is why we do not understand the current confusion over a
negotiated settlement. Much as we acknowledge that politicians the
world over have the mistaken belief that the less people know the better,
Zimbabweans have a right to know exactly what is going on. By
choosing to be politicians these people should know that they have chosen to
get their feet wet and their hands dirty for the sake of this once great
nation, now reduced to an economic basket case — they are supposed to be
accountable to the citizens of this country. The issue concerning
talks should not be decided in some dark room at Harvest House or the ZANU
PF headquarters. Zimbabweans have to be kept in the loop insofar as this
issue is concerned. President Mbeki’s pronouncements and the
subsequent denials from both ZANU PF and the MDC underline why it is said
sometimes we learn more from watching politicians than listening to
them. We would like to point out however that whatever the case, the
country is right at the deep end and the two parties should seriously
consider going back to the negotiating table to rid the country of its ills.
Even now, it is still possible to strike an eleventh hour understanding. But
they have to be sincere. ZANU PF, under whose stewardship the
economy is teetering on the verge of collapse, should realise that it is
perfectly right to be proud of the past, especially the one it has, but it is
wrong and detrimental to progress to live in the past. The MDC, whose
approach to the country’s political crisis lacks leadership depth and overall
vision to guide the nation, should exhibit maturity and stop behaving like
spoilt brats.
Weeks after the hype and fever that gripped the
nation during the week-long “final push” mass stayaways and proposed marches
to State House, an uneasy truce seems to have settled over the whole
country.
The state responded by throwing Morgan Tsvangirai in jail
for exactly two weeks, “in filthy prison conditions in an overcrowded cell at
Harare Remand Prison.” The MDC believes that the two week incarceration only
served to strengthen the people’s resolve to tackle the crisis of legitimacy
in Zimbabwe. Indeed everyone had expectations that reflected their
particular feelings and opinions regarding the MDC led mass action.
Most workers identified with the anti-government protests as their only way
to hit back at a regime that has depleted their basic earnings. At the same
time our inflation trots to the record 500 percent mark by the end of this
year, just as our economic analysts have been predicting for a long time,
meaning that our poor worker will have to bear the brunt of all
price increases. Our youths are painfully beginning to realise and
understand that the ruling party is a conspiracy of old men and party
stalwarts that have no plans of releasing their deathgrip on this
country. They are realising that it is a party of die-hard liberation
war heroes that see all young people, particularly those born after the war
of liberation, as a bastardised generation: ungrateful, euro-centric
and unpatriotic, worse still if they are educated and live in the urban
areas. Students also identified with the mass action because the
government, through the unrepentant ruling party has alienated them as is
exemplified by the infamous and dubious national youth policy. A
national youth policy that is known to be partisan and whose aim is to put
all students and youths into a straitjacket of unquestioning,
party worshipping ‘yes men’ and bootlickers of the state. A policy that is
meant to churn out, in factory style, thousands of brainwashed zombies fed on
a diet of lies and distorted history. Our women have been raped,
abused, dehumanised. They are faced with the unenviable task of becoming
defacto breadwinners, in the place of their jobless husbands, as they sell
vegetables and do cross border trading under an increasingly harsh economic
environment. The “final push” for them presented a golden opportunity to
reclaim their respectability as mothers in a country that has gone to the
dogs. In our teeming high density suburbs, overwhelmed by
uncollected garbage and refuse, characterised by constant electricity and
water cuts, emotions were running high that at last Mugabe’s regime would be
tested for the last time with a resounding flourish. It is true that
contact and dialogue is one way of solving the stalemate in our country, but
is it the only way ? In the broader fold of international politics
those who have the necessary power to convince Mugabe that his time is up
have been strangely vague about their discussions with the embattled
President. Both Presidents Thabo Mbeki and Olusegun Obasanjo have
allowed speculation to prevail. People anxious for a resolution of the
current crisis in Zimbabwe, particularly the media, spin their own versions
of proposed exit plans, succession plans, or even talks of a
transitional government to no avail. In the same vein the church has
tried without success to reach a consensus between the two parties.
The Anglican Archbishop of Cape Town only got promises while our own local
church leaders have been weakened by factions, one supporting ZANU PF’ s
chaotic land reform and the other demonising it. Amid all this, AIDS is
devouring the bulk of our young generation faster than they are being born,
unemployment is exploding. Our health, education and social infrastructure
has collapsed. Bulawayo, the nation’s second largest city, is reported to
have only one full time doctor. Both doctors and lawyers are fleeing this
country as fast as our inflation rate is rising. The people who bear
the brunt of all these economic ills are often referred to as an amorphous,
invisible mass of individuals somewhere out there, faraway from us.
Bread, in recent months has become a scarce basic commodity which now has the
unbelievable reputation of being sold at odd hours of the day, at odd places,
at odd times, and at very odd prices, just like fuel. Bread, cooking
oil, soup, fuel and other commodities are thriving on the black market in a
fashion reminiscent of the liquor inhibition era in The United States. The
inhibition years in America saw the birth of bootlegging — the illegal
procurement and selling of liquor- alongside the growth of crime. It
was such a thriving black market that led to the birth of notorious criminals
such as Al Capone, the so-called god father of crime in America. As if
to quench the rising disillusionment against the ruling party, government
introduced commuter trains to ferry thousands of people from their homes, as
if that would take care of their miseries. The trains, dubbed the “freedom
trains” are well-known features of everyday travelling in Harare and
Bulawayo. The fares are cheap, the travelling unbearable and in some
cases dangerous to the point of death. A few weeks ago one young man
on the Dzivarsekwa-Harare route died after he sustained serious injuries on
the train, in another case a woman and two men fell off the speeding train.
There are other unreported cases of people who fall off these trains,
sometimes losing their lives, or a limb, others just faint in the overcrowded
trains. Members of the uniformed forces, who travel for free, are known
to wantonly assault commuters for merely reading an opposition paper and
other various silly reasons. But against all odds, the camaraderie
and daring on the trains is almost unmatched and presents a perfect microcosm
of life in Zimbabwe. The commuters are so frustrated and stretched to the
limits that they have nothing to lose and so they talk. They discuss
almost every topic under the sun: gossips, prostitution, rape, Aids, love and
one of the most exciting topics, soccer. Fierce debates on politics
rage in the trains, people talk, shout trade insults, share joke, curse
beneath their breaths as they push and shove and struggle to breath.
Now the “freedom train” has set route on free derailing as evidenced by the
recent accident. Surely, which way is the “freedom train” coming our
way? This is life in Zimbabwe. lGivemore Nyanhi is the former
chairman of the Press Club at Harare Polytechnic
“Something for something nothing for nothing,”
so sang Chimurenga music guru Thomas Mapfumo.
This was in the
early 90s, after having detected the virus and little did he know corruption
was going to spread like a wildfire. Then, Zimbabwe was still a good country
to live in with few such cases. Poor government policies, coupled with
political uncertainty have plunged this country into chaos, reducing
Zimbabweans to paupers living well below the poverty datum line.
This has created two classes — the rich and the poor. There is no middle
class anymore. The once promising nation is now full of thugs and
crooks. Corruption is the order of the day. It’s sad that Africa,
with all its natural resources, cannot realise its potential. It has had its
fair share of civil wars, diseases, and bad governance, making it a fertile
place for corruption. People in government have specialised in dipping
their fingers in national coffers. This has mainly benefited their immediate
families and cronies. Some African dictators have become so rich as
to lend their governments some money. Money from the International
Monetory Fund and the World Bank meant for development purposes has been
channelled towards personal projects. In the case of Zimbabwe, Bretton
Woods institutions have severed ties with us. They do not hate us.
We are just irresponsible. We are corrupt. It depends on who you know
to get government tenders. It depends on who you ‘grease’ to get even a
hearse to take your beloved one on their final journey. We are so corrupt we
cannot even respect the dead. Withdrawing money from the bank can be a
nightmare. After oiling a bank official’s palms to get cash, you have a
supermaket chap to give a “cut” for the scarce basic commodities and you
also have the petrol attendant to give a few Zimkwachas to get fuel. The list
is endless. Recently, the government came up with a brilliant idea. We
have fuel problems. We have to share the little that trickles in. It
was laudable to introduce coupons so commuter omnibus operators could get the
scarce commodity and improve on public transport. But the same commuter
omnibus operators, as reported in newspapers, are selling the
coupons. In a situation like ours, there will always be those who use
short cuts and whatever means possible to make money. Some cannot
stomach the idea of standing for a long time in queues for commuter
omnibuses. So, the solution is to gag the rank marshalls with cash.
Getting a national identity document, a birth certificate, let alone
a passport, which is every citizen’s constitutional right, is a hassle
too. In 1980, it would take less than three weeks to get a
national identity document, less than three days to get a birth certificate
and less than seven days to get a passport. Now, you have to bribe
everybody starting the very moment you join the queue. Government
institutions are so corrupt that even people who are supposed to be enforcing
the law have joined the race. We have a fuel crisis that was triggered
by corruption at the National Oil Company of Zimbabwe (NOCZIM) and we have a
looming power crisis blamed on corruption of the top brass at the Zimbabwe
Electricity Supply Authority (ZESA). Are the responsible people
facing the the music? No, they are getting promoted instead, or “retired”
with golden handshakes. Roadblocks are now called automated teller
machines (ATMs) in the police force. Policemen demand bribes from motorists
with impunity. This has resulted in accidents which could have been
avoided had road unworthy vehicles been taken off the road. We have
become a corrupt nation such that we need a complete change of attitude in us
all, starting with those at the top to the ordinary man in the
street. That, with a bit of divine intervention will see us regain
our respectable place on the continent.
Dumisani
Ndlela News Editor 7/17/03 8:49:49 AM (GMT +2)
THE recent
Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe (RBZ) decision to increase the benchmark repurchase
(repo) rate could clash with the government’s desire to depress money market
rates further down to curtail a sharp rise in the interest cost on its
massive domestic debt, analysts said this week.
They warned that
central bank officials had to prepare for serious combat amid threats that a
government decree to lower money market rates was on the cards. An
economist close to Treasury said the government was eager to reduce the
financing cost of its expenditure and would want to dip into cheap funds when
it announces a supplementary budget anytime soon. "The Reserve Bank of
Zimbabwe still accepts to keep rates low for targeted sectors, but it wants
to punish speculators, it wants to punish those borrowing for consumption.
The clash comes on classifying the government - is it a speculator or what? I
think it needs to be accepted that most of its borrowing is consumptive," the
economist said. Gibson Maunganidze, an economist and chief executive
officer of Sunshine Asset Management, said the conflict between the RBZ and
the government was that of balancing political interests with
economic development matters. Maunganidze said he believes the
government should not be treated as a consumptive borrower, even though it
did not qualify as a productive sector. "Punishing the government with
high interest rates would have a direct impact on the budget deficit," said
Maunganidze. "The government is not in the productive sector, but it's
a key player in industry - it is the major consumer of industrial products
and therefore promotes the productive sector in a big way," said
Maunganidze. He said various ministries - health, defence and
education, among others - were big spenders on locally manufactured
products. But John Robertson, an economic consultant, disputes this,
saying the government deserves low interest rates only by reducing the rate
of inflation. "What we need are producers and not consumers. The
government wants to re-arrange the landscape so that only them benefit. That
should not be acceptable," said Robertson. "The government has
become our principal competitor and the fact that it is the biggest consumer
does not elevate its position - it's actually prejudicing the rest of the
consumers who are tax-payers," Robertson maintained. The RBZ said
although the low interest rates were desirable for stimulating investment,
the current high inflation levels - 300.10 percent year-on-year for May -
clearly destroy the real worth of savings, with negative consequences on
investment and economic growth. The RBZ last week hiked the repo rate,
a money market instrument which allows domestic banks to cover unexpected
shortfalls in their daily cash requirements, to an all-time high of 64.50
percent before allowing it to slip marginally to 64.38 during the
week. The repo rate determines the direction of commercial lending
rates and other money market rates. A rise in the repo rate usually indicates
the central bank's desire to hike interest rates across the board.
Robertson said the RBZ all along knew that low interest rates would
be unsustainable in a highly inflationary environment but had chosen to be
an accomplice to political expediency when it accommodated the
government's plans for massive rate cuts. But now, he said, it was
too late to re-orient the market to save the government, which is in a
quandary because its major source of funding, the domestic market, has been
wiped out of savings because of poor returns on money market
investments. "All along, the central bank knew the low interest rates
would destroy savings. They now want to increase interest rates to encourage
people to deposit their money," Robertson told The Financial Gazette
. He said interest rates, which should have been used to curb
rising inflation, had instead become the major push to inflation because low
rates encouraged speculative rather than productive borrowing. In
its arguments for high interest rates, the RBZ said that
entrenched inflationary pressures in the economy could be overcome by raising
rates for non-productive borrowers. Interest rates were first
drastically brought down under a monetary policy tailored to compliment the
year 2001 budget, falling by over 50 percentage points from levels around 70
percent to around 10 percent. Having first increased the statutory
reserve ratio on demand deposits held by commercial and merchant banks from
30 percent to 50 percent, the RBZ made arrangements to release these funds to
the productive sector at a concessionary rate of 30 percent.
Productive sector companies engaged in exporting were made to borrow through
a concessionary export finance facility at a rate of 15 percent. At the
same time, the RBZ reduced the statutory ratio on time and savings deposits
from 30 percent to 20 percent, depressing money market rates to all-time
lows. But after realising that the low interest rates had culminated
into a frenzy of speculative borrowing, the government made a volte face at
the start of the year, ordering the RBZ to force rates up to
curtail speculators. But at the same time, it instructed the RBZ to
allow productive sector companies to borrow through the concessionary
facility at subsidised rates, prompting the emergence of a dual interest rate
policy. Under this policy, the RBZ has been instructed to tighten
the borrowing process to make sure funding under the concessionary scheme
is used specifically for production and export, rather than for
speculation. The policy, designed to compliment the 2003 national
budget, gave the RBZ the task of ensuring that the interest rates policy
embraced the following: lUpward review of deposit rates in order to
benefit savers and encourage savings; lUpward review of interest
rates on consumptive and speculative activities to dampen inflation through
curtailment of inflationary demand for credit; and lNarrowing of the
current high spreads between deposit and lending rates. In line with
that policy thrust, now being shot down by the government, the RBZ has
allowed interest rates on non-productive borrowing to gradually firm
up. Analysts say there has been no evidence to show that the interest
rate concessions that were granted to export and productive sector companies
had indeed resulted in a boost in production. While some companies
threatened with collapse due to high gearing ratios two years ago had indeed
raised their heads above the water, money borrowed under the concessionary
arrangement may have been used in non-productive deals. But critics
say that the two-tier interest rate policy may have stung the government,
which is beginning to bear the brunt of high interest rates because of its
huge domestic debt. Treasury Bills (TBs), through which the government
borrows from the domestic money market, has risen sharply since January when
the dual interest rate policy began operating. For instance, the
two-year TB rate, which started the year with a yield of 31.72 percent,
breached the 100 percent level to reach an all-time high of 103.26 percent in
May, although it marginally eased to a current yield level of 95.95
percent. The one-year TB yield reached a peak of 104.49 after being
freed from the dip, while the one-year TB yield fell to 89.25
percent. But analysts expect that with the recent hike in the repo
rate, the TB rate is likely to rise into fresh territory, exposing the
government's domestic debt to unprecedented interest costs. A rate
of 100 percent on the government's borrowing charge would double the debt,
analysts say. But the government would not be the only casualty of the
high cost of money. Under the repo arrangement, Treasury Bills (TBs)
form the underlying security for borrowing. Banks with TB security
pay an interest charge 20 percentage points above the repo rate, while those
without TB security pay 40 percentage points above the repo rate.
Commercial lending rates are likely to reflect the punitive nature of the
repo arrangement, dealers said yesterday Analysts said they expected
the banking institutions, which raised their minimum lending rates to over 80
percent since January from rates hovering around 40 percent before the dual
interest rate policy, to begin raising their lending rates once more in line
with developments on the repo rate. This, they warned, would have
significantly dangerous effects on industrial operations that were not
benefiting from a concessionary interest rate policy. "There is a
dilemma regarding the appropriate interest rate regime. On the one hand,
government and the productive sectors require low interest rates, for reduced
costs on the budget and production costs respectively. On the other hand, low
interest rates, particularly on deposits, are clearly not consistent with the
thrust of savings mobilisation," the RBZ said in its report.
Dumisani
Ndlela News Editor 7/17/03 9:00:50 AM (GMT +2)
A CRITICAL
food shortage has hit Zimbabwe harder than its regional neighbours, with a
World Food Programme (WFP) report indicating that four million out of 6.5
million southern Africa’s starving souls are in the country.
“The new southern Africa Regional Emergency Operation (EMOP) will attempt to
distribute 540 000 metric tonnes of food aid to 6.5 million people in six
countries from July 1, 2003 to June 30, 2004. Zimbabwe is the hardest hit
country in the region,” said the WFP report on the country’s humanitarian
situation. “WFP will do its best to meet the needs of four million
Zimbabweans … successful achievement of this target will depend on further
generous support from donors,” the report said. Sadly, it noted that
the country was yet to follow its request for food aid with a formal appeal
to the international community, with the WFP reporting that it will run out
of food stocks next month. The WFP said in its report, the latest in a
series of humanitarian updates on the country’s food security situation, that
it had prepared Zimbabwe’s component of the wider EMOP based on a written
request for humanitarian assistance from the Ministry of Labour, Public
Service and Social Welfare in late May. It was still awaiting a
formal appeal for specific amounts of food aid from the country’s
authorities. “Several major donors have made it clear they require such
an appeal before committing resources to fund food aid to Zimbabwe. It takes
at least three months after a donor pledge is made for food aid to arrive in
a country,” the WFP said. Zimbabwe, going through its worst ever
economic crisis since independence in 1980, is facing a serious food shortage
this year due to poor harvests caused by drought and the expropriation of
white-owned farms for peasant black farmers. Most of the reallocated
land is idle because the new farmers have no resources to till the land, let
alone funding to buy critical inputs. The WFP, whose humanitarian
assistance curtailed a famine last year, said its remaining stocks will last
only the next month. “WFP remains extremely concerned about the lack of
food security and the anticipated very limited supply of food in Zimbabwe…the
agency continues to advocate for lifting of the monopoly on the import of
staple foods and of the application of retail price controls on staple foods.
This is particularly important given the serious shortage of foreign
currency, which it is feared will limit the government of Zimbabwe’s food
import capacity,” the report said. The WFP Zimbabwe operations
started as a procurement office with five employees to become a massive
relief operation with more than 200 employees in less than a year.
THE lack of finance
among newly resettled farmers has led to a drastic reduction in the area
under the winter wheat crop by 66.6 percent, an agricultural expert has
said.
The agricultural expert, who spoke on condition that he was
not named, said recent surveys have revealed that only 3 000 hectares have
been put under wheat by commercial farmers whilst the resettled farmers,
agricultural institutions, communal farmers and indigenous commercial farmers
have planted no less than 17 000 hectares. The normal winter wheat
hectarage is 60 000. “The decrease in the hectarage under wheat has
mainly been due to the incapacity by the resettled farmers to make use of the
land acquired from the former commercial farmers because of lack of capital
to finance the crop,” the expert said. White-owned commercial
farmers used to produce 90 percent of the country’s wheat requirements of at
least 300 000 tonnes while the other 60 000 tonnes were imported.
However, the agricultural expert said at most the farmers would produce 100
000 tonnes, a figure amounting to only a third of the
national requirement. The shortages of fuel and the vandalism of
irrigation equipment on commercial farms have also affected the winter
crop. The price of fertiliser has also gone up in less than three
months by over 300 percent and this has plunged the farming sector into
uncertainty as most farmers lack capital. Zimbabwean fertiliser
firms have been facing shortages of foreign currency to purchase raw
materials for the production of the major commodity in the farming
industry. “The continued problems in the agricultural sector are a
nightmare to farmers. We cannot sustain the increases in prices because
farmers do not have a fertiliser company, so government, farmers and the
fertiliser companies should find a lasting solution to the industry,” said
Davidson Mugabe, president of the Indigenous Commercial Farmers’
Union. Mugabe said if conditions had been normal resettled farmers
would plant between 50 000 and 60 000 hectares and produce almost 200 000
tonnes.
I remember arriving home
for a boarding school-break only to discover that my favourite swimming
stream had been declared out of bounds for the entire village.
I
found it a joke that was not funny to be told that that shallow pond had all
of a sudden deepened very much after a mermaid (njuzu) relocated to that part
of the river. One day, when the elders were too engrossed in other
things to take notice of us, a couple of friends and I sneaked down to the
forbidden pond to discover for ourselves what had all of a sudden made our
favourite swimming spot sacred. When we got there it was all quiet.
The water was calm, serene but dark and yet, previously we could make out the
sandy bottom of the river. There was nothing to be afraid of at first,
but when we dipped a very long branch into the stream and failed to feel the
bottom, we immediately knew something was amiss. No one spoke, our
blood raced and our hearts skipped beats as we ran away without looking back.
We never returned to that part of the river again. Even today I
never cease to wonder just how deep that pond had really become.
Indeed, I can’t stop speculating just how deep Zimbabwe’s pool of problems
really is. But just how deep? I am as curious to know as I was about
that forbidden pond. Apparently on the surface everything is fine in
Zimbabwe because there is no election, no mass action, no civil war, no
stayaway — the water is stagnant, its still. Nevertheless, stagnant
water breeds disease and still waters run deep. When the tide
eventually turns, the turbulence of the waters will engulf the political and
economic disease that has been breeding in this ocean of once very beautiful
waters. President Robert Mugabe is navigating on still waters whose
depth he has no concept of. The danger really lies in both the depth and
the calmness. Things might appear tranquil but what is going on under
indicates that soon the sea will be boiling. How then will the old man row
hither and thither? Zimbabweans need to steadfastly refuse to be the
wretched of the learned elite in Africa and indeed the world. Now
and again it is difficult to understand the timidity and docility let alone
the unbearable tolerance we have come to be associated with when confronting
ZANU PF. It’s a marvel how we always adjust or tighten screws when the
price of anything goes up. In fact, the way we systematically adapt is
outrageous. We are frequently noisome about the availability of a
commodity instead of crying foul over the scandalous prices. But the
moment we protest about the pricing of an item, it vanishes into thin
air. This is the vicious whirlpool that goes on beneath the still
waters of the land between the great rivers. Zimbabweans are just
surviving, making the waters appear composed and revealing poignant ignorance
about the magnitude of the economic decline. We have sort of hardened
towards hardships and I’d say we are the most dignified resilient lot that
history will tirelessly refer to. Due to our civilisation we have put
up a façade that the water is still. It’s easy for the international
community to notice still water than to gauge the depth of the pool.
We have lied to ourselves and to the world that inflation is 364.5 percent
deep, that the foreign currency exchange rate is US$1:Z$824 and yet it runs
deeper, perhaps much deeper than the sacred stream of the good old days of my
infancy. We have had to seek divine intervention to sort our political
and economic impasse. Every Sunday the churches have interceded to the
Almighty for a solution to evict the mermaid (njuzu) that has taken away our
swimming and fishing privilege. Men of the cloth have taken it upon
themselves to resuscitate the beleaguered ZANU PF/MDC talks. This
epic appeal to the heavens goes to show that Zimbabwe’s crisis is beyond the
natural hence the prayers to the supernatural. We cannot even tell how
many refugees are in the Diaspora, particularly in the UK. A hundred
thousand? Five hundred thousand? A million? We just can’t tell how
deep. There is also decay in the rule of law. Apart from the
usual lawlessness of police brutality, political violence and human rights
abuses, at a deeper level, the stench of the rotting MDC poll petitions
cannot be endured anymore. A suffocating lawyer brought this to my
attention. His very passionate argument is that: the greatest assault to the
rule of law is the deliberate delay in dealing with the poll
petitions. Clearly, at the rate at which the cases are being handled we
will be electing other parliamentarians and another president before the
hearings are through. I was moved to phone Advocate Adrian de
Bourbon who is handling the MDC poll petition cases and he too, did not sound
too amused about what was holding the hearings. “The problem is that
they can’t find a date for the hearings. The next case will only be heard on
November 3 2003,” he said. Asked why the hearings were taking so long,
he said the legal answer lay with the Judge President Paddington Garwe who,
apparently, is not mandated to comment to the Press. November 3
2003! That’s about 20 months before the next general elections.
Suppose the cases take between three to six months to be concluded
and suppose some MDC members win. They will only be in office for about a
year perhaps, before they contest in the 2005 general election again, only
to lose and appeal to the courts once more, whereupon the hearing will take
yet another three years! Someone in the legal, justice and
parliamentary affairs ministry must have got a salary increase to obscure the
course of justice. We need to hear these cases pronto. We need to hear
that our vote is not a secret because the ballot paper is transparent enough
to be seen by the polling officer to whom the voter must display before
dropping it in the ballot box. We need to hear of the rural elite,
especially teachers being forced to claim illiteracy and then being assisted
to vote by polling officers who are known warlords. We need to hear
of those who voted in order to obtain a maize allocation. We need to
know of the retributions, the violent campaign strategies, ghost voters and
so on. At least these cases could be quite a long branch that could
be invaluable in measuring the depth of Zimbabwe’s pool of problems.
There is no way we can continue daydreaming about a re-run of the elections
unless the court proceedings document and expose that the elections were
indeed flawed and of course stolen. Because we do not know how deep our
pool of problems is we are no better than someone on the death row is, for we
shall drown in these waters. It seems that what someone told us in
church over the weekend has depth: “Zimbabwe’s economy is a dead man
walking.” I can only imagine that right at the bottom of Zimbabwe’s
still waters there can only be a frightening graveyard where no one rests in
peace.