The ZIMBABWE Situation | Our
thoughts and prayers are with Zimbabwe - may peace, truth and justice prevail. |
Roy Bennett
released
Sokwanele Report : 28 June 2005
To the delight of the tens of thousands of Zimbabweans and huge numbers of supporters around the world who have been waiting for this day, Roy Bennett was today released from prison in Harare. Zimbabwe’s most famous prisoner of conscience and icon of the struggle for freedom and democracy, walked free from the regime’s notorious Chikurubi high security prison, which in recent years has come to represent the brutal face of Mugabe’s fascist tyranny.
There were emotional scenes when Bennett was reunited with his wife, Heather, outside the Chikurubi Prison. The reunion was a low key event deliberately because no one had known for sure that the regime would comply with even the most rudimentary standards of justice by observing the convention of remitting one third of the sentence for good behaviour. When they saw him, family and friends immediately commented on how thin the once burly Bennett now was – 27 kgs (4.25 Stone) lighter than when he was committed to one of Mugabe’s hell-hole prisons.
Roy Bennett was elected as Member of Parliament for the Chimanimani constituency in the 2000 Parliamentary Elections, representing the then fledgling Movement for Democratic Change (MDC). He subsequently suffered all manner of harassment, intimidation and outright persecution (see our article on the Sokwanele website, 'Supreme Court Challenge' : 25 May 2005) at the hands of ZANU PF, culminating in his committal to prison on October 28 2004 by a clearly partisan and indeed vengeful group of Members of Parliament. In proceedings which were constitutionally irregular and clearly subject to political bias, ZANU PF used their Parliamentary majority to have Bennett sentenced to imprisonment with hard labour for 15 months, with 3 months suspended. The sentence was manifestly excessive and disproportionate in any event to the “offence” which occurred in May 2004 when Bennett responded to verbal abuse from the Attorney General Patrick Chinamasa by pushing him to the floor of the House. Bennett’s lawyers subsequently made several unsuccessful bids to have the sentence set aside, most recently on May 26 when the matter was argued before the Supreme Court. On that occasion, despite the urgency of the appeal and a concession by the Attorney General (later retracted) that the sentence was disproportionate, the Chief Justice reserved judgment – effectively denying Bennett his constitutional right to a speedy disposition of his case.
Bennett was again selected as the MDC candidate for the Chimanimani constituency for the general election in March 2005. However the regime effectively blocked him from contesting the seat by bringing heavy pressure to bear on the judiciary following a decision in his favour by an electoral court. Mugabe himself declared that the decision of the electoral court was “unacceptable”, and a higher court subsequently over-ruled that decision. His wife, Heather, stood for the MDC and was defeated in a disputed electoral result.
Though much thinner and physically weaker than when last seen in public, Roy Bennett appears to have lost none of his fighting spirit. He is due to give a press conference later today.
Visit our website at
www.sokwanele.com
Visit our blog: This is Zimbabwe
(Sokwanele blog)
We have a fundamental right to freedom of expression!
Sokwanele does not endorse the editorial policy of any source or website except its own. It retains full copyright on its own articles, which may be reproduced or distributed but may not be materially altered in any way. Reproduced articles must clearly show the source and owner of copyright, together with any other notices originally contained therein, as well as the original date of publication. Sokwanele does not accept responsibility for any loss or damage arising in any way from receipt of this email or use thereof. This document, or any part thereof, may not be distributed for profit.
News: An American journalist’s eyewitness view of Zimbabwe’s slide into crisis.
June 28, 2005
In 1980, Andrew Meldrum left his reporting job in southern California, sold his car, and packed his bags for Zimbabwe. The aspiring foreign correspondent was searching for that ever-elusive story: good news from sub-Saharan Africa. He was inspired by recent events in the southern African country formerly known as Rhodesia, which was moving from white minority rule to majority rule after nearly 15 years of civil war. It seemed like a promising place to spend a couple of years. “I found Zimbabwe to be a really exciting and positive place and I found that my work was growing as well,” recalls Meldrum, now 53. “So I just stayed and stayed and stayed.”
Meldrum eventually became the Zimbabwe correspondent for the British newspaper the Guardian. While he was enthralled by his new home, his enchantment with Zimbabwe’s new government quickly wore off. After a brief honeymoon, president Robert Mugabe revealed his true intentions to run Zimbabwe as an autocratic, single-party state. Disconcertingly, Mugabe started targeting his own citizens, starting with a scorched-earth campaign against the opposition in the early 1980s and continuing with recent campaigns to seize white-owned farms, ostracize gays and lesbians, intimidate voters, and silence the press. For ordinary Zimbabweans, the results of Mugabe’s tactics have been disastrous: In the past five years, the country’s GDP has dropped 40 percent, inflation has hit triple digits, the currency has crashed, and its once-thriving commercial farming sector has all but collapsed. In short, the country has gone from being known as southern Africa’s breadbasket to being a basket case. And just when things couldn’t get worse, the Zimbabwean government finds new ways to destabilize the country. In the past few weeks, it has driven 200,000 urban slum dwellers out of their homes, ostensibly to combat squatting and crime. Meldrum says Mugabe and his cronies are doing whatever they can to keep a grip on a tenuous situation: “They’ve run out of any new ideas of how to run the country.”
Meldrum has paid a price for such candor. For years, he had worked in relative freedom, but as Mugabe cracked down on dissent in the late ‘90s, it became increasingly risky to report on government repression. Meldrum’s unflinching stories prompted officials to label him a criminal and a traitor, and in early 2003 he was charged under a new draconian press law. He was acquitted and resolved to stay on, but soon afterward he was forcibly expelled from the country. Now based in Pretoria, South Africa, he continues to report on Zimbabwe for the Guardian. He also has written a new book, Where We Have Hope: A Memoir of Zimbabwe, an eyewitness account of his adopted country’s slide into crisis and despair. Though he can’t imagine when he might be let back into Zimbabwe, Meldrum hasn’t lost the optimism that drew him there 25 years ago. “I am honored to stand up for human rights, press freedom, and democracy,” he writes. “I know they will win in the end.”
MotherJones.com spoke with Andrew Meldrum by phone as he started his American book tour.
Motherjones.com: It’s ironic that you went to Zimbabwe to write positive stories, seeing how the country has since gone from being so hopeful to fitting the into the script of authoritarian government, corruption, and so on.
Andrew Meldrum: It is ironic. What I wanted to show in the book is that it didn’t have to be that way. The situation in Zimbabwe is something that Americans can relate to because it’s not so different from us, in a way. The same issues that are in Zimbabwe—democracy, rule of law, freedom of the press—are here in the U.S. These are the democratic freedoms we have to guard vigilantly wherever we are. And if we don’t watch it, we too could lose them.
MJ: When Robert Mugabe first came to power, do you think it was his intention to remain committed to a fairly democratic Zimbabwe?
AM: It’s hard for me to know what his intentions were, but I don’t think his intentions were to ever give up power. [He had] a different view of democracy, a kind of Eastern European, one-party state kind of democracy, and he has remained true to that vision to this day.
MJ: In your book, Mugabe comes off as an enigmatic figure. He’s Catholic, a teetotaler who wears Saville Row suits; he’s also a fiery nationalist who’s seems oddly out of touch with his country. Do you have any more insight into what drives him?
AM: Power. He wants to hold power. Political power more than money power. He used violence to come to power, not only against the Rhodesian system but even within his own party. There were major challengers who died in car bombs and mysterious accidents. He used violence to come to power and as we have seen in the past few years, he is not afraid to use violence to stay in power.
MJ: Some of this background was known when he came into office. Can you pinpoint a time when people began to think, “We’ve rounded a corner here; things are getting worse.”?
AM: That’s easy. In 1982, Mugabe was challenged by Joshua Nkomo, the main opposition leader, who drew backing from the Ndebele people, a minority group making up 20 percent of the country’s population. Mugabe was outraged that they dared to pose a political challenge. There were some violent protests against the government and Mugabe responded with overwhelming force. He sent in an army brigade that had been specially trained by the North Koreans, and they swept through the Matabeleland countryside. Over 1983 and 1984 it’s estimated that 20,000, maybe even 30,000, rural Ndebele civilians were killed. At the time of the Matabeleland massacres, people began to say, “What is going on here?”
That was, for me, my first major challenge as a reporter. The government didn’t want us to report this, yet every time I would go down to Matabeleland I was flooded with these stories. The government denied this was happening and then they started to try and block us from going into Matabeleland to document these atrocities. I was conflicted over this issue. I could see that in three quarters of the country things were going well; people’s lives were improving. But in a quarter of the country people were suffering and going through a kind of war. It was very frustrating. It was the first time that I was confronted with a situation where I was not saying positive things about the government. I didn’t like that, but on the other hand, I felt that I had a responsibility as a journalist to report on these human rights abuses in the hope that it would hold the government accountable and bring them to an end. I believe that our international reporting helped Mugabe curtail those activities.
MJ: Ever since the Matabeleland massacres, there’s been a pattern of Mugabe singling out groups as scapegoats—first the Ndebele, then gays and lesbians, white farmers, journalists, the opposition. That seems like his standard M.O.
AM: He’s a divisive politician who thrives on pointing at outside groups and saying, “They are the cause of our problems.” Very rarely do you see him saying, “Let’s all group together and become part of the solution.” He did that briefly at independence, but the way he’s operated since then has been very divisive. I think part of it comes from his period as a guerilla leader. If you weren’t in the guerilla camp, why then, you were part of the enemy.
MJ: Yet you write that these attempts at scapegoating haven’t resonated with most Zimbabweans. You argue that the average Zimbabwean is more interested in unity than ethnic or racial divisions.
AM: That’s correct. I shy away from the word “unity,” because Mugabe uses that. His idea of unity is that everybody be a member of ZANU-PF [Zimbabwe African National Union - Patriotic Front, Zimbabwe’s ruling party] and everybody be told by the ZANU-PF central committee what to do and then they do it. That, for him, is national unity. My feeling is that most Zimbabweans will accept other people coming from a different ethnic group, having different sexual preferences. I think they also have a belief in order, the rule of law, in having things done the right way.
MJ: A few years ago, Mugabe mobilized so-called war veterans to seize white-owned farms. The move addressed calls for land redistribution, but at a huge economic price. Do you think it ultimately backfired?
AM: I don’t think it backfired, but I don’t think it worked. What he’s done with the land is further consolidated his power. And it’s not because he turned the land over to poor black Zimbabweans. He evicted the white farmers and turned over the land to his influential supporters—judges, army officers and other people he wants to keep happy. Most importantly, he has shown that he has the power to bestow people with land and even when they get the land, they are there at his behest. If he decides, he can have you thrown off. That’s what we’ve seen in the last year or so. People in several parts of the country who had been used to invade the land and started farming there have been moved off and then an army colonel or an air force commander moves in. What people have learned is not that the land is for them, but that ZANU-PF will control who has access to land.
MJ: It seems that there is going to be even more pressure on the land due to the current campaign to raze urban shantytowns. I recently heard an opposition politician say that she believes this move is a Pol Pot-type tactic of clearing people out of the cities and into the countryside where they are easier to control. Do you see it as having that effect?
AM: Absolutely. I hesitate using Pol Pot. Although we haven’t had the killing fields, when you tear down the homes of thousands of families, in winter weather, force people who are already in poverty to live in the open, it won’t be long before people start dying. The whole idea of reducing the population of the cities and sending them back to the rural areas where they are more easily manipulated is exactly what Mugabe is trying to do. However, what we can see here is one of these situations where Mugabe is trying to turn back the hands of time. Urbanization is a historical trend in Zimbabwe and Africa. Very few leaders can try to turn that around. He may well be overstretching himself.
MJ: Do you think Mugabe’s attitude is, “Well, if I’m going down, you’re going down with me?” Or is this just survival tactics?
AM: It’s “I’ll take what I want and you’re left with the crumbs. I don’t care how you survive; I’m going to stay in power. My party’s going to stay in power and we can do what we want with this country and its resources. But don’t question us.”
MJ: That brings us to the opposition party, the Movement for Democratic Change. In response to the demolitions, it called for a nationwide strike, which appears to have failed. What’s the next move for the MDC?
AM: They have really responded ineffectively to the challenge of ZANU-PF and Mugabe. They have been completely ineffective. They lost the June 2000 parliamentary elections—narrowly; they lost the March 2002 presidential election; and then most recently, in March, they lost the parliamentary elections. They responded in just the past few weeks with outrage, saying these elections were stolen, that there was rigging, violence, intimidation. The most surprising thing is that the MDC did not have something in place to challenge that. They should have been planning that from 2002.
MJ: Can you describe the circumstances that led up to your deportation from the country?
AM: I felt it was my duty to report on human rights abuses, on torture, on rape, corruption, on the stealing of millions from state coffers. This brought me into conflict with the government, and I was arrested and thrown in jail for 48 hours. I eventually wrote a story that the government charged was not true. Then I was put on trial for two months, and in the end I was acquitted of those charges. So I continued carrying on my work. At the time, my friends told me, “Be very careful.” So the government abducted me, took me away and put a hood over my head, held me for 12 hours, and then forcibly put me on a plane. My lawyer had court orders saying it was completely legal for me to stay in the country. But [government officials] said flat out, “We don’t care about these court orders. We know what we’re doing.”
MJ: Do you think that being a white American afforded you some degree of protection?
AM: I do think it afforded me some degree of protection. I wasn’t beaten to a bloody pulp and I wasn’t tortured, which has happened to Zimbabwean journalists. I don’t think that a lot of people thought of me as a white American journalist; they thought of me as a fixture on the scene in Zimbabwe. If I had felt that the average Zimbabwean felt that I was an “enemy of the people,” as the Mugabe government had said, then I would have thought, “Well it’s time for me to go.”
MJ: Was it hard to separate your professional role as a journalist from what was happening to you? After all, you were being attacked by some of the very people you were trying to write about.
AM: I became the focus of the story, but I never took it personally. I tried to use what was happening to me to illustrate that this was happening to other Zimbabwean journalists and to ordinary Zimbabweans. A lot of American journalists think there’s two sides to every story and you give 50 percent to one and 50 percent to the other: “The government says this, the opposition says that, that’s the end of the story, you be the judge.” I don’t think if you’re reporting on human rights abuses you have to spend 50 percent of your story saying what the government says about the situation. I don’t think that that kind of reporting is giving the reader the benefit of your knowledge of a country. I think the reader wants to know what is really going on.
Dave Gilson is Mother Jones' Research Editor.
Mugabe’s police on the rampage
by Briggs Bomba, Zimbabwean activist
THE government’s “clean up” campaign has left over a million people displaced, refugees in their own country. Around 300,000 kids have dropped out of school as a result of the displacements.
Over 22,000 poor people trying to survive on informal trading have been arrested by the police, with goods worth millions of dollars confiscated or destroyed.
In the township of Mabvuku I witnessed the havoc. First came riot police in trucks, singing and drumming as if they were psyching themselves up for war with some alien invaders. The next day the cops came in their hundreds.
Police senior assistant commissioner Edmore Veterai spoke to over 2,000 of his officers before dispatching them into action following some resistance in the ghettos. He said, “Why are you letting the people toss you around?
“From tomorrow, I need reports on my desk saying that we have shot people. The president has given his full support. You should treat this operation like war.”
After the police left the township, the scene was like a funeral.
Arms folded, people stood looking at the rubble that once had been their dwellings as they tried to comprehend what would drive a government to turn against its people with such violence.
Many did not know where to sleep that night. Parents were at a loss on what to say to their children. Many of these houses, now ruins, had stood for over two decades.
Late into the night one could still see women with kids strapped on their backs behind carts carrying the little they could scavenge out of the rubble. Many just lit fires to warm their kids and slept in the open.
When I got to my brothers’ house, a family had huddled onto his verandah with all they could pick up from the rubble. Husband, wife and kids, they were all there.
Inside, a neighbour’s kids were sleeping. Their house had been destroyed while the mother was away at a funeral, leaving the kids stranded on their own in the middle of a rainy winter night.
In Tafara township a child died when a wall fell on her. In Gweru a man committed suicide from the stress and desperation of the situation.
At the Fife Avenue shopping centre vendors come out to their old places in the night. Against all odds they try to sell something.
They have no choice. They have families to feed. Their kids have to go to school. They must pay rent. It’s their only means of survival.
When I was arrested on the eve of last week’s protests against Mugabe, the cops picked up a vendor on the way to the police station. They took us to one of the police internal security intelligence torture rooms. They made the vendor lie down on the floor and beat him mercilessly with a wooden plank.
After beating the poor guy senseless they told him to go and pay a huge fine.
On the streets the same war on the homeless poor is raging on. The cops are rounding up beggars, the mentally ill and all those who have been living on the streets. These people are dumped onto farms such as Caledonia where they are practically prisoners. People live under 24-hour police guard.
One needs to be prepared for the horrible scene inside the camp. The mentally ill who were roaming the streets are tied onto trees to restrain them. There is no safe drinking water, people are drinking from the same water they use for bathing. People sleep in the open and use the bush for ablution.
People fear they will be used as cheap labour on state farms and those owned by ruling Zanu-PF chiefs.
This is the reality of Mugabe’s war on the poor.
© Copyright Socialist Worker (unless otherwise stated). You may republish if you include an active link to the original and leave this notice in place.
Asylum returns immoral - Williams | |||
Charles Clarke has rejected calls for a suspension of all removals - despite concerns about human rights abuses by President Robert Mugabe's regime. The home secretary says each case would be treated individually on its merits. But Dr Williams told BBC's Today programme: "I think it's deeply immoral to send people back there." He was speaking as a report in The Times claimed immigration officers had been ordered to halt deportations to Zimbabwe - despite Tony Blair claiming on Monday that there would be no official suspension of forced removals.
Dozens of Zimbabweans in detention centres across the UK have gone on hunger strike. Conservative shadow home secretary David Davis called UK Zimbabwe policy a "miserable failure". Dr Williams told Radio 4's Today programme the asylum system "isn't working" and called for the government's policy on Zimbabwe to be reviewed. He also urged Zimbabwe's neighbours - particularly South Africa - to "rally round" and put pressure on the Mugabe regime. Failing system? The head of the Church of England said he had visited a number of detention centres where failed asylum seekers were being held pending deportation. "You are often dealing with people who have been here for many years and have roots in the country and are suddenly, without warning, taken into the system," he said. "I think there is a lot in the working of it which is deeply unsatisfactory at the moment, which feels inhuman to the people involved." However, the home secretary has argued that not all Zimbabweans who claim asylum in the UK genuinely face persecution. He said that of those who had been returned there had been "no substantiated reports of mistreatment". On Monday Mr Blair argued that halting all deportations could send a signal around the world "that Britain is open for business" even for failed asylum seekers. Downing Street reiterated that message on Tuesday, insisting there would be "no change in policy" over the deportation of failed asylum seekers to Zimbabwe. Crimes against humanity? The prime minister's spokesman said there had been clear abuse of the asylum system with people falsely claiming to come from Zimbabwe. But Mr Davis said Robert Mugabe's regime was guilty of "crimes against humanity on a massive scale". Shadow foreign secretary Liam Fox said he found it "bizarre" that the government had effectively held an amnesty for 250,000 economic migrants but was endeavouring to send back people who would be persecuted. A ban on deportations to Zimbabwe, which had been in force for two years, was lifted last November. During the first three months of this year 95 Zimbabweans were sent home. Recent moves in Zimbabwe to demolish illegal buildings - which the UN says has left 275,000 people homeless - have drawn objections from the Foreign Office. |
Protest over Zimbabwean
detainees | |||
The 20 demonstrators gathered outside Campsfield House in Oxfordshire said the Zimbabweans' lives were at risk and they should be allowed to stay. On Monday a Turkish man held there is thought to have taken his own life. The government said not all Zimbabweans in the UK faced the threat of persecution if they were sent back.
Protesting outside the centre on Tuesday, Bob Hughes, of the Campaign to Close Campsfield, said: "We have heard the Zimbabweans inside are intensifying their hunger strike. "I believe they are talking about stopping taking liquids as well as food, and there is some talk of sewing lips together." The Home Office confirmed that among the five Zimbabweans being held at Campsfield House is anti-Mugabe activist Crispen Kulinji, who was granted a temporary reprieve at the weekend. Mr Hughes added: "However tough Charles Clarke thinks he is, he will never break their will. He may kill them, or send them back somewhere to be killed, but he will not break them. "We want the people inside to know we are here because it can be very isolating for them. "The asylum process is a mockery. The government makes it more and more difficult for asylum seekers to gain asylum here. There is a presumption that they are all lying." 'Wrong signal' Among those gathered at the site was Anicet Mayela, 32, a former economics student from the Republic of Congo. The former resident of Campsfield House said: "I am here to support my friends. I have been inside here, and at Colnbrook." Earlier on Tuesday the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams said he was "amazed" the policy of returning failed asylum seekers to Zimbabwe was continuing. On Monday Mr Blair argued that halting all deportations could send a signal around the world "that Britain is open for business" even for failed asylum seekers. The prime minister's spokesman said there had been clear abuse of the asylum system with people falsely claiming to come from Zimbabwe. |