The Telegraph
Stephen Bevan and Michael Gwaridzo in Harare, Sunday
Telegraph
Last Updated: 11:29pm BST
19/05/2007
Its economy is crumbling and its people
are struggling to survive in
the face of nearly 4,000 per cent inflation,
food and fuel shortages and the
prospect of power cuts for up to 20 hours a
day. Yet Zimbabwe's president,
Robert Mugabe, is spending £2 million on
perhaps his most grandiose project
yet - a monument to himself.
Work has already begun on a museum, dedicated to the life and dubious
achievements of the 83-year-old president, in his home district of Zvimba,
65 miles west of the capital, Harare.
"As we speak right now,
ground work for the construction of the museum
is at an advanced stage," a
government minister said. "The president wants
the project to be speeded up
so he can open it next year, possibly after
winning the [presidential]
elections."
Mugabe's policies, such as the seizure of white-owned
farms, are
blamed for an economic crisis in which inflation leapt to more
than 3,700
per cent last month. -Unemployment is running at about 80 per
cent and there
are severe shortages of staple foods such as maize and
wheat.
Construction of the grand edifice, which will cover an area
the size
of a football pitch and has been dubbed the "Mugabe shrine", is
being
supervised by the local government minister, Ignatius
Chombo.
Materials are understood to have been obtained from
countries with
regimes friendly to Zimbabwe, such as Malaysia, which
supplied the timber
for Mugabe's lavish Chinese-built residence in
Zvimba.
Once complete, the museum will house Mugabe's prison
letters,
photographs from the war in the Sixties and Seventies against the
minority
white government of Ian Smith, his old clothes and copies of his
famously
fiery, and often intemperate, speeches.
The museum
will also display some of the many gifts the president has
received during
his 27 years in office from those who have enjoyed his
patronage - most of
them members of his ruling Zanu PF party. Pride of place
is expected to be
taken by a 16 ft-long stuffed Nile crocodile - a recent
birthday gift from
Mugabe's loyal ministers and officials.
Presenting the 50-year-old
male crocodile to the president in
February, Webster Shamu, minister for
policy implementation, said it
"symbolised maturity, distilled and
accumulated wisdom, and majestic
authority - attributes that have been
characteristic of the president's
leadership during the protracted
anti-colonialist struggle and even in the
current struggle against
imperialist and neo-colonialist forces".
It was during that
presentation that Mugabe revealed he had been
discussing plans to build a
"shrine" in Zvimba and that the crocodile could
be placed in it. Mr Chombo
confirmed being involved in the project though he
declined to discuss the
costs.
"The idea has been discussed and we are moving on to the
planning
stage," he said. "It would be a shrine for the local community and
one that
would be used to depict the president's life history and legacy as
well as
aspects of the liberation struggle."
The opposition
Movement for Democratic Change accused the president of
self-aggrandisement.
A spokesman, Nelson Chamisa, said: "This is no time for
self-glorification
for individuals, and it shows how skewed are this
government's priorities.
People are struggling to survive and this will be
an island of opulence in a
sea of poverty. It's going to be a white elephant
and it is a waste of state
resources."
Mugabe's extravagance is well-known. Besides his five
official
residences, he owns a number of private houses including the most
recent
addition - a palatial three-storey, 25-bedroom, £8 million residence
in the
exclusive Harare suburb of Borrowdale.
Reuters
Sat 19 May 2007, 9:59
GMT
HARARE (Reuters) - Zimbabwe will cooperate with South African
President
Thabo Mbeki's efforts to mediate between the government and the
opposition
but would not welcome any "parallel initiatives", state media
reported on
Saturday.
Southern African leaders asked Mbeki in March
to mediate between President
Robert Mugabe's government and the opposition
Movement for Democratic Change
(MDC).
The request came at a meeting
of regional leaders following international
criticism of Harare over the
arrest and beating of a group of MDC activists,
including leader Morgan
Tsvangirai, after attempting to hold a prayer rally
in the
capital.
The state-owned Herald newspaper quoted Foreign Affairs
Permanent Secretary
Joey Bimha as saying that Mugabe's government would
cooperate with the Mbeki
mediation.
"The government will therefore do
its utmost to cooperate with President
Mbeki in his efforts to carry out the
mandate given to him by SADC (Southern
African Development Community) and
will thus not entertain any parallel
initiatives, wherever they come from,"
Bimha said.
Bimha did not elaborate, but he appeared to be referring to
recent moves by
the Pan African parliament to embark on a fact-finding
mission.
Mbeki told the South African parliament on Thursday negotiations
were
proceeding "very well", without giving details.
On Friday,
Zimbabwe's main opposition party said it remained committed to
negotiations
with the ZANU PF-led government despite an intensified
crackdown in which
many of its members have been arrested or detained.
The MDC says more
than 600 opposition supporters have been abducted and
tortured by government
agents since February. It says 150 activists and
leaders, including party
president Tsvangirai, have sustained serious
injuries.
Mugabe's
government accuses opposition activists of unleashing violence in
the
townships and engaging in "terrorist" activities, a charge the
opposition
denies.
Xinhua
www.chinaview.cn 2007-05-19
19:47:47
HARARE, May 19 (Xinhua) - The Pan African
Parliament has deferred
to November the adoption of a resolution on a motion
calling upon the House
to send a fact-finding mission to Zimbabwe to probe
alleged human rights
abuses this year as more time was needed to consider
the issue, The Herald
said on Saturday.
The continental
assembly's bureau said it needed time to study the
Zimbabwean motion
together with other recommendations put forward during the
two-week ordinary
session that ended on Friday. PAP president Getrude
Mongella of Tanzania
told the House that only urgent resolutions had to be
adopted.
She said many issues were debated during the
session but some of
them had been overtaken by events after having been
either discussed by the
African Union executive council or at other
continental or regional fora.
Mongella said the continental
parliament's bureau must be given
time to cross-check on some of the issues
that had been raised during debate
before the resolutions were brought for
adoption in the House.
The deferment of the adoption of the
resolution on the motion on
Zimbabwe effectively means that the PAP would
have to wait until the next
ordinary session in November to resolve on
whether the continental
parliament should send a fact-finding mission to the
country.
The motion was moved by South Africa's Inkatha Freedom
Party
Member of Parliament Suzanne Vos and seconded by Botswana opposition
party
Boyce Sebetela last week.
A total of 149 MPs voted in
favor of the motion while 20 voted
against with three other legislators
abstaining.
Reuters
Sat 19 May 2007,
8:21 GMT
HARARE (Reuters) - Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe's government
has warned
miners that they risk losing mining claims undeveloped for
lengthy periods
of time, state media reported on Saturday.
Mines
Minister Amos Midzi told a meeting of the Chamber of Mines that
government
would implement a "use it or lose it" policy to discourage miners
holding
onto claims for speculative purposes without developing them, the
state-owned Herald newspaper said.
"This scenario gives the
impression of a country over-prospected, yet the
truth is the opposite.
There is need to open ground to serious mine
developers," Midzi was quoted
saying.
"Companies should, therefore, brace themselves for the new policy
'use it or
lose it' unless, of course, under special circumstances,
companies should
give realistic explanations as to why they want to keep
undeveloped mines,"
he added.
Midzi said the lack of production at
mines suggested speculative mine
claims, adding that firms would now be
required to provide proof of mineral
discovery before claims could be
registered.
Zimbabwean miners say several mines have closed down as a
result of the
hostile operating environment characterised by a skewed
exchange rate,
hyper-inflation -- now above 3,700 percent year-on-year --
and serious
foreign currency shortages that have made it difficult to import
equipment
and spares.
Uncertainty over government's plans to boost
local control of foreign-owned
mines have also curbed exploration and mine
development.
Mining output declined by 14.4 percent, while gold
deliveries to the central
bank were 18 percent down to just under 11 tonnes
last year.
Gold production, which accounts for 51 percent of total
mineral output, was
21 tonnes in 2004.
Dear Family and Friends,
The last time
I had occasion to call the fire brigade was in March 2002. It
was
just a
couple of weeks before the Presidential elections and a house a
few
doors away was petrol bombed. Windows exploded, the roof collapsed and
a raging
inferno turned night into day. The fire brigade didn't answer their
phone so
I dialled the police. They said they couldn't help as they didn't
have a
vehicle and were unable to alert the fire brigade as the police
telephone was not
able to make outgoing calls. The fire raged out of
control and finally I got
through to the fire brigade. They said they
couldn't send a fire engine as it was
busy picking up a sick person in a
high density suburb. Despite my best efforts
to explain that I wasn't
asking for an ambulance but a fire truck with hoses
and water, the fire
brigade never came.
About eighteen months later, without any explanation,
a new charge suddenly
appeared on rate-payers municipal accounts. It was
called a 'fire levy' and
it had been added to our monthly accounts along
with a massive increase in all
municipal services ranging from 475% for
something called a development
levy, to 1600% for water. On my account for
that month I wrote in big letters: "NOT
PAID:Public Protest; To be
Reduced. " A hastily convened and heated public
meeting, a protest by
residents to the Municipal offices and it was all over.
Victory
came swiftly! The accounts were withdrawn and the increases were
slashed by over 50%.
The 'fire levy,' however, became a permanent
fixture on the bill.
This week Marondera residents received their monthly
Municipal accounts and
were staggered to find that charges have increased by
one thousand two
hundred percent. Phoning for an explanation residents are
being told they can "pay
in instalments." How do you pay a monthly bill in
instalments if the account is
higher than your entire monthly wage, one
resident asked? 'Just pay what you
have" came the reply; "pay in bits and
pieces" the man said.
Another asked if the increase had been advertised
in the press as required
under the Urban Councils act. The municipal employee
said that they didn't
have to advertise in the press because they had
consulted their 'stakeholders'.
Asked who these stakeholders were, the
employee declined to answer and said the
Town Accountant would know but he
wasn't available. When the resident asked if he
was a 'stakeholder' as he
lived in the town, owned property and paid rates, the
municipal employee
said "aaaaah" and laughed but did not answer.
Another resident who
tried to complain declined to reveal his exact address
because he is well
aware of the recriminations which accompany all forms of
protest in Zimbabwe
these days. He met with a very hostile response. The
Municipal employee,
whose salary is paid with our rates, said: "If you don't
want to tell me
where you stay, I no longer want to talk to you" and slammed
the phone
down. Hardly professional behaviour for a senior municipal
employee
who has clearly forgotten just exactly where the money comes from
to pay his salary.
Dialogue and plain common sense have left the
caretakers of this bankrupt
town. People are complaining, more will speak
out. A small picture of the bigger
picture. Until next week, thanks for
reading, love cathy
Copyright cathy buckle 19 May 2007 http://africantears.netfirms.com
New Vision
(Kampala)
EDITORIAL
18 May 2007
Posted to the web 19 May
2007
Kampala
THE European Union (EU) and the African Union (AU)
are wrangling over
whether or not Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe should
attend the
EU-Africa summit scheduled for December in Lisbon, Portugal. The
summit is
important because it seeks to discuss development and
migration-issues that
are dear to Africans.
The AU insists that
outsiders have no right to judge African leaders-to say
who the good guys
and the bad guys are on the continent. But the AU is not
in a position to do
this either, because it lacks acceptable standards for
leaders. It insists
on non-interference in the internal affairs of other
states-an outdated
principle that led to the collapse of the Organisation of
African Unity
(OAU).
For example, the OAU held its summit in Uganda in 1976 at the
height of Idi
Amin's reign of terror and the continental body proved itself
irrelevant. It
was therefore shocking when the recent SADC summit in
Tanzania expressed
"solidarity with" Mugabe at a time when everybody
expected advice for him
not to contest in the next election. This is what
makes the EU different
from African bodies.
The EU banned Mugabe and
his entourage from travelling to Europe for human
rights violations. The AU
knows that Mugabe does not respect human rights,
unleashes terror against
the opposition, his people are starving, the
economy has collapsed and he
has no ideas to reverse all these. So in whose
interest should he be propped
up, ordinary Zimbabweans or himself and fellow
presidents?
The AU
should have benchmarks to isolate the bad apples if it is to stand
the test
of time. Mugabe should stop hiding under a would-be good programme
of land
reform to cause more suffering to his people.
zimbabwejournalists.com
19th May 2007 23:26 GMT
By Trust Matsilele
BEITBRIDGE - Central Intelligence
Organisation agents are alleged to have
descended on this border district as
they move in to clamp down on
opposition supporters fleeing violence in the
country and those being
deported back from South Africa.
Sources
within the security department and Zimra confirmed the recent
developments
saying more opposition supporters and perceived government
enemies will be
victims of the huge deployment sooner or later.
With elections set for
early next year, the Zimbabwe government seems intent
on leaving no stone
unturned, especially the South African-Zimbabwe border
post where thousands
of Zimbabweans use on a daily basis to go in and out of
South
Africa.
The Zimbabwean government accuses the opposition of spreading
negative
reports about the government, especially those who have left the
country
hence the need to stop political violence victims from the lower
echelons of
the MDC from living the country.
Political activist
Joshua Rusere says the move is going to see opposition
and alleged
opposition supporters being tortured and disappearing cases are
set to
increase as it will become increasingly difficult to trace those who
will
have crossed the border and those who will fail.
The minister of Security
Security, Didymus Mutasa, who is Mugabe's close
ally is said to have
dispatched about a hundred agents to the border post
since January this
year.
Unconfirmed reports allege that a number of opposition supporters'
passports
have been confiscated by state agents
Oliver Kubikwa from
the Zimbabwe Political Victims Association says a number
of political
victims who have been deported from South Africa have fallen
straight into
the hands of the security agents.
Journalists, among others, are targeted
by this development. Efforts to get
comment from the minister of state
security's office were unfruitful as he
was reported to be attending
meetings.
Washington Times
TODAY'S
EDITORIAL
May 19, 2007
Zimbabwe's four-digit inflation rate,
the worst in the world, is one sign of
the economic shambles in this
once-prosperous country. After nearly three
decades of misrule under
strongman Robert Mugabe, its farms are wrecked and
its people are on the
brink of starvation. It is therefore a most grisly
curiosity that the United
Nations has just made Zimbabwe head of its
Commission on Sustainable
Development. This, for a regime whose only
sustained activity is destruction
-- the systematic destruction of lives,
communities and wealth.
The
vote to install Zimbabwe came May 11. It was Africa's turn to elect
a chair
and the governments on the continent chose Zimbabwe by a 26-21
margin in a
secret vote, with three abstentions, reportedly as a gesture of
defiance to
the developed world. That rings true, since it certainly could
not have been
for economic reasons. About the most sympathetic face to put
on matters is
that African governments are reacting in defiance to European
and American
environmental and economic policies with which they disagree.
Even so, any
such characterization would also be compelled on the merits to
call this
vote a disgrace.
Zimbabwe is a country where, two years ago, the
government made refugees
of approximately 1.5 million of its citizens in
"Operation Clear the Trash,"
which bulldozed "unlawful" town and cities.
This is a country where potatoes
are a "strategic crop." This is a country
whose opposition leader, Morgan
Tsvangirai, is arrested repeatedly and
beaten by regime forces for the
"crime" of speaking out and holding
political rallies. Now, this regime's
representatives are entrusted with an
organization whose inspiring
principles include the following: "Human beings
are at the centre of
concerns for sustainable development."
European
governments were particularly opposed to Zimbabwe's candidacy,
for reasons
which begin with a very practical concern. Top Zimbabwean
officials chairing
the commission would not be able to travel to many
Western capitals active
in international development because Zimbabwe's
abysmal human-rights record
disqualifies their visas. But they very clearly
were also opposed to
Zimbabwe's bid because of the mockery it makes of the
U.N. development
agenda. Not even the business-as-usual of sanctimony and
the doling of cash
can get underway if this thuggish regime is in charge.
The stage is now
set for a period of even greater confusion than normal
at the United Nations
on the subjects of the environment and economic
development. To the extent
that this serves as further evidence of the need
for drastic change at the
United Nations -- by no means a certain
proposition -- it would be a silver
lining to this vote.
|
May 19, 2007 10:27 AM |
|
Broadcast on 15 May
2007 Moeletsi
Mbeki: Thank
you Brian Kagoro: Thank you Violet.
Violet
Gonda: Now I
am going to start with Moeletsi Mbeki. Many believe that Moeletsi
Mbeki: Well I
think the main reason; the main problem with
The problem is that
Southern African governments; who are themselves behind Robert Mugabe; one can
say, behind ZANU PF, are the ones who are insisting that Zimbabwe must be put
forward. If you recall; when there was an Organization of African Unity meeting;
these issues were put to the background by the Violet: Now Brian Kagoro do you agree with
this? The Zimbabwean Government is responsible for major human rights abuses in
the country, now why are the Southern African countries not criticizing the
Mugabe regime? Brian
Kagoro: I
think there are several factors. The first one is that
It would have to adopt a
position consistent with an acknowledgment that there is political persecution
of a certain group of citizens in And for
And there are some in SADC;
of course; whose views are that the MDC lacks depth to take over the country.
That if it did so there would not be stability and that it will comprise the
stability of the region. These are speculative reasonings that are not proven.
But, amongst the security agencies of course the sort of spectre that is often
dangled is that we saw Chiluba and the disastrous consequences for
And, for
Violet
: Let me just
go back to the issue of domestic consideration that Brian talked about. We know
that there is a huge influx of Zimbabwean refugees fleeing to
Moeletsi
Mbeki: Well
the question of refugee status is a question that isgoverned in
But I just want to add to a
point that Brian I think is overlooking. The reality is that the opposition in
I think several of the
Southern African countries have opposition from the trade unions and from civil
society in their own countries. Violet: You know an ANC member was recently
a guest on this programme and he said that the view in Moeletsi
Mbeki: Ah,
this is a complete fallacy. The MDC is not a puppet of the West, was not set up
by the West anymore than the ANC was set up by the West. The ANC got a lot of
Western support. It got sanctions, it asked for sanctions from Western
countries, from the United States Congress. And it got sanctions from Western
countries that didn’t constitute the ANC being a puppet of the West, so that it
is a fallacy that is being propagated by ZANU PF and its supporters in the
region. Violet: Now Brian given all these issues
and by way of seeking solutions to the Zimbabwean crisis is SADC or the AU
likely to be effective brokers of a peace deal? Brian
Kagoro: I
think Moeletsi has indicated some of the dilemmas. Firstly their premise and
judgment of the Zimbabwean opposition is totally misplaced. Secondly, a
significant number of them fear ghosts in their own closets, skeletons in their
own closets or fear that developments in Zimbabwe would replicate themselves
within their own countries with the emergence of strong opposition and a social
base. In my view there is a critical mass of African leaders who are not
necessarily anti Mugabe or pro Tsvangirai but who are pro-democracy. Who I’d say
are interested in the emergence of a new Africa with a new image and a way of
doing things and are growing increasingly frustrated by the sort of reputation
or reputational hazards that allowing a Zimbabwean type of reputation to persist
would impose on the continent. So I am not sure that SADC
would necessarily be the best abiders for several reasons: That they have been
mired in the politics that we both described – that is 1. No. 2 - none of them
seems to have sufficient willpower or political clout to push Mugabe beyond the
current position that he has adopted. Which is that the feud in Harare or the
crisis in Zimbabwe is a bilateral feud between Harare and Whitehall and the
British government. Perhaps his position will change now that Blair is gone.
Before, SADC’s excuse for not acting was that the Zimbabwean crisis was anchored
around the land issue but now that we witness human rights violations that are
not related to the rest of the historical question of land in any remote way, I
think that SADC no longer has any excuse. If you like ‘the emperor is without
his clothes’ so to speak. But is there political
will? Is there political clout? I doubt that SADC – they will in closed-door
sessions perhaps express concerns – but I doubt that they do have a strong, if
you like, a strong man that will be able to reign in Zimbabwe. Are there
interests on the African continent beyond SADC? Yes, I think there are several,
there are many that will be interested in seeing a resolution to the Zimbabwean
crisis because the crisis is not only political. I mean the political crisis has
worsened other crisis like the structural and the economic crisis but the
resolution of the political question is central to achieving stability and
beginning to session some form of transition and then transformation in
Zimbabwe. And I think that there is sufficient African leadership beyond SADC to
be able to make it happen. Within the AU we have seen
positive signs from the Commission itself where it expressed concerns. But you
know the restrains of diplomacy are such that once SADC has defined this as its
turf and determined that it is going to do something, albeit inadequate, they
have to await the outcome of that process. And of course if you are Zimbabwe who
went through the Troika and another Troika and another Troika and the bilateral
negotiations and all these collapsed and yet the crisis has persisted. So there
would be frustrations if you are Zimbabwe. Generally I think there is a solution
and that solution can be found in African leadership. But, the question is how
do you then broker, how do you ensure that there are more genuine interlocutors
actually are the ones who come into play as opposed to those who are interested
in international public relations for Mr. Mugabe. Violet: That’s what I actually wanted to
find out and back to the issue of SADC and m y next question could be a
difficult one for Moeletsi because President Thabo Mbeki is your brother. Now he
was chosen by SADC leaders in March as mediator for the crisis in Zimbabwe. Do
you think he is the best man for the job? Moeletsi
Mbeki: Well I
can’t say whether he is the best man or not. The situation is that South Africa
has been involved in the Zimbabwean crisis from the very beginning and to tell
you the honest truth the ANC has been saying that Zimbabwe is a democratic
country despite the fact that elections have been rigged in Zimbabwe. They have
give a clean bill of health to the elections that were rigged in Zimbabwe so my
own reading is not so much about this individual or that individual. The point
is that Southern African countries don’t really want a replacement of Mugabe,
they want a reformed ZANU PF to be put in place but they don’t want a free and
fair election, which the MDC can win. Violet: And you know Thabo Mbeki has
received a lot of criticism for the way he is handling the Zimbabwe situation
and I think at one point you were quoted saying South Africa's political elite
is an obstacle in the quest to save Zimbabwe from collapsing. Now why did you
say this? Moeletsi
Mbeki: No, No,
No I never said that. It was the newspaper reporter who said that. I said
Zimbabwe has become a Bantustan of South Africa and as a Bantustan of South
Africa the economy of Zimbabwe is sustained by remittances from Zimbabweans who
work in South Africa and which they send to their families and the goods that
South African companies chasing after that money sent to Zimbabwe. That was my
analysis the other one was by some journalist who wrote his own thing.
Violet: As a political analyst what advice
would you give though to your brother in handling the Zimbabwe issue since he is
the go-between, the one who is facilitating dialogue? Moeletsi
Mbeki: No, No
my brother is President of South Africa. He has his advisers; he has his cabinet
he doesn’t depend on family members for his advise. No I don’t give his er…
Violet: So you don’t talk about the
Zimbabwe situation? Moeletsi
Mbeki: No the
question of him being President of South Africa is not a family matter it’s a
matter of democracy in South Africa. We will then emasculate our democracy if
the family now becomes the ruler of South Africa. That’s not democracy.
Violet: Now moving on to what Zimbabweans
can do about their situation. Brianw hat can people realistically do to deal
with their predicament? Brian Kagoro
: I think
there are things that can be done internally which are to continue to advocate
and fight for their rights. I think that is a duty that every citizen in every
country on the continent, particularly Zimbabweans wherever they are. But there
are some practical issues. I think that the battle for
Zimbabwe won’t be won in only one front. There are some who think that it can be
won on the streets by a march to the State House. I am sad to say I don’t share
that view. There are others who think it would be simply won at a negotiating
table and knowing the history of ZANU, Mugabe – I don’t share that view in
response to a constituency that is definable and defined that is powerful, it is
assertive. There are others who think that the external interlocutors will
actually resolve the internal crisis and as Moeletsi has already said they have
their own strategic and other interests that there would be championing in the
process. So my suggestions would be, perhaps, we have to think somewhat out of
the box. What are the key points of
contention? There is the claim by ZANU of course that there are these sanctions
against them and of course the counter by the opposition that these sanctions
are necessary because you have behaved like a rogue state. You violate human
rights and so in a sense ZANU’s current position is that it will not negotiate
until the sanctions are removed. The opposition’s position as I understand it is
that there are no sanctions against Zimbabwe. There are travel bans against ZANU
PF officials many of whom have declared that they don’t want anything to do with
the West anyway. So here is the small
question for me. If the opposition has no real stake in whether or not there are
travel bans on ZANU PF, one way of upping the anti will be to suggest that ZANU
PF should scrap repressive legislation, commit to the dismantling of the
structural violence – the militia and this new type of abduction and murder of
people. And, that in turn, those who have the capacity to suspend the travel
bans should consider that as a quid pro quo and that if the commitments from
either side are not met within a set period then of course you look at other
alternatives. I think that the red herrings that have kept this negotiation from
going, I don’t think the travel ban are doing any particular amazing work in
keeping a democracy in Zimbabwe or restraining ZANU actions and that is the only
premise that’s holding them. And of course we know this is just gamesmanship.
But call their bluff in a
sense. I am not sure that there would be anyone in the opposition who would want
to stake their life on whether or not the travel ban stay or are removed. They
are not a significant factor. For most people in Zimbabwe it would be not just
economic normalization but the creation of a conducive environment, for
political dialogue and discourse to happen, for citizens to exercise their
rights. And this would mean dealing with the Access to Information and
Protection of Privacy Act, dealing with the Public Order and Security Act - the
legislation. But also dealing with the conduct and practice of violations.
So I would propose that for
those; both the external actors as well as the internal actors; is that we call
Mugabe’s bluff on this matter. Somebody has to demonstrate that they are playing
games. Violet: Do you agree with this Mr. Mbeki?
Do you think that the targeted sanctions should be scrapped as a way of getting
the Mugabe regime to the negotiating table? Moeletsi
Mbeki: Well
it’s not up to us for non-Zimbabweans to specify how Zimbabweans should run
their negotiations so… Violet: At the SADC summit, the SADC
leaders, that was one of the recommendations from the African leaders that
perhaps the West should consider the issue of targeted
sanctions. Moeletsi
Mbeki: Well I
don’t know what the SADC states were going to put what pressure. They didn’t put
an alternative pressure to the western sanctions. So I don’t see that as being
serious proposals. But as I was saying it is up to the Zimbabweans to say what
kind of sanctions should be put where, when and so on. We had the same situation
in South Africa and we demanded comprehensive sanctions against the apartheid
regime but it was us the South Africans who demanded that and we said we would
live with the consequences of those sanctions. So it’s not for me or for us who
are outsiders who are supporters of democracy in Zimbabwe to specify how the
negotiation processes should happen. Violet
: You know
it’s been said that only Zimbabweans can resolve their issue. Now I just wanted
to get your views on this. What does it mean when people say that Zimbabweans
need to do something about their situation. What exactly would they…
Moeletsi
Mbeki: …No I
disagree with that point of view. In our struggle in South Africa we had support
from people from all over the world including Zimbabwe. We had support from the
Zimbabweans, from Tanzanians, Zambians, Mozambicans, Americans, British, Swedes,
Chinese. So we had support from all over the world. When you are fighting a
dictator you need a lot of support. So I don’t accept the
position that only Zimbabweans can resolve the issue. And as I pointed out in
any case the government in Zimbabwe uses a whole lot of international mechanisms
to support itself. So that point I don’t accept I think those of us who want to
see peace and democracy in Zimbabwe have to support the peoples of Zimbabwe. The
strategy obviously has to be developed by the Zimbabwean not by us. But the
support, yes we have to carry on we cannot expect the unarmed innocent people of
Zimbabwe to be able to get on top of a tyrant a brutal tyrant like the ZANU PF
regime all on their own. Violet: Ok and finally Brian Kagoro what
role should Africa play in negotiating a solution to the Zimbabwean crisis in
your view? Brian
Kagoro: I
think Moeletsi has captured it well. There needs to be clear pressure and clear
deliverables that they are demanding of their colleagues. I think it is
insufficient to simply say let the Zimbabweans do something about it, as though
to suggest that a regime that responses with violence to peaceful protests or
even gatherings will accept the opposition coming to its doors to negotiate just
like that. To even suggest, even remotely, that Zimbabweans should consider
anything else other than a peaceful process that they have been engaged.
So my view is very simple
and a straightforward one. Africa should put clear demands if they are going to
make demands of the West around the sanctions they must make clear demands of
Harare around creating the necessary conducive political environment. The
scrapping of repressive legislation and also dismantling the infrastructure of
violence and desisting from perpetrating or encouraging violence and in
particular dealing with the political criminals that have been causing this
violence. I think nothing has been
expected of the Mugabe government and it is unacceptable. So I think there
should be clear censure, clear pressure and a clear expression of the fact that
people want African leadership and Africans aren’t happy with the descent of
Zimbabwe. Not just economic descent but also the political descent that we
witness. I think that ZANU caused it to itself. If it is to retain a legacy, a
historical legacy, of having liberated the country it owes it to itself to
ensure that the citizens have freedom, even freedom from their opponents. Ian
Smith believed in democracy only for the white minority and not for the rest of
the country and if ZANU is to adopt a similar position it is tragic and it is
unfortunate. Violet
Gonda: Thank
you very much Moeletsi Mbeki and Brian Kagoro. Moeletsi
Mbeki: Ok
thank you Brian
Kagoro: Thanks
Violet. Comments and feedback can
be emailed to violet@swradioafrica.com |
The Herald (Harare)
Published by the government of Zimbabwe
19 May 2007
Posted to the web
19 May 2007
Harare
Zimbabwe Broadcasting Holdings is next Friday
-- on Africa Unity Day --
expected to launch a new short wave radio
station, The Voice of Zimbabwe, a
Zimbabwean news and news analysis station
that will broadcast
internationally.
"The station will be Zimbabwe's
first world station. It will broadcast
initially for just two hours a day
and gradually increase its broadcast time
until it becomes a 24 hours a day
news and talk station," ZBH said in a
statement.
"Although aimed
predominantly at a world audience, the station may be of
interest locally
too because of its focus on news, news analysis and
discussion
programmes."
It said the station would broadcast from well-equipped
studios in Gweru,
adding world television broadcasts would be added to the
station during the
course of the year.
The new station is headed by
Happison Muchechetere, who is the station's
general manager, and has more
than 20 years experience in broadcasting.
He joined the Zimbabwe
Broadcasting Corporation as a reporter in 1984 and
has held a number of
senior positions with ZBH, having at different times
been head of Television
Productions, Head of Current Affairs Productions and
Assignments
Editor.
He trained in radio and television production in Tunisia, Holland
and at
Stanford University in the United States.
He was head of
Electronic Services at New Ziana for the past five years.
ZBH group chief
executive Mr Henry Muradzikwa said the station would counter
the hostile
propaganda of other foreign-based radio stations by providing
factual
information about the real situation in Zimbabwe.
"It will not be a
propaganda station. It will present the truth.
"We hope it will also give
Zimbabweans an opportunity to tell their own
story.
"We plan to not
only interview businespeople and other people in urban areas
but to go out
to rural areas and record what people there have to say," he
said.
Muchechetere made a similar point: "We have not been created to
counter or
oppose what other radio stations say.
"Our mission is to
give a true picture of events in Zimbabwe.
"We will not be setting out to
comment on or react to what other stations
say. We will be telling our own
story, the true story of events in
Zimbabwe," he said.
The new
station will give Zimbabweans living abroad and anyone abroad with
an
interest in Zimbabwe the opportunity to hear reports on what is happening
in
Zimbabwe and news analyses from a Zimbabwean perspective.
The Herald
(Harare) Published by the government of Zimbabwe
19 May 2007
Posted
to the web 19 May 2007
Beitbridge Bureau
Harare
SOME
unscrupulous businesspeople in Beitbridge are reportedly cashing in on
the
shortage of sugar by hoarding the commodity, which they later sell in
foreign currency.
The businesspeople were targeting desperate
villagers in remote parts of the
district.
One villager, Mrs
Ngoma Chauke, of Chikwalakwala said yesterday that a 20kg
carton of white
sugar was going for R120. On the parallel market a R100 is
selling for $450
000.
However, the same quantity at local wholesalers was being sold for
$140 000.
"The people are actually capitalising on the situation by
charging in
foreign currency and you can imagine I bought a 20kg carton of
sugar for
R120 because I had no option since I was in need of the commodity,
which is
in short supply in the shops," she said.
According to the
sugar industry, the shortage of the commodity on the formal
market was due
to speculative tendencies.
Hippo Valley Estates chief executive officer
Mr Sydney Mutsambiwa on Tuesday
told the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee
on Foreign Affairs, Industry and
International Trade that the industry faced
a number of constraints at the
start of the season that included shortage of
inputs.
Mr Mutsambiwa, who was presenting oral evidence before the
Committee on the
sugar shortage, said about 446 000 tonnes of sugar were
produced last season
out of a target of 490 000 tonnes.
By the close
of the season last December, there were about 92 tonnes in
stock.
In
Dulibadzimu suburb, some residents were selling a 2kg packet of white
sugar
for between $80 000 and $100 000 against the gazetted price of $13
500.
While the commodity was scarce on the formal market, it was
surprisingly
found in abundance on the black market.
Unscrupulous business people have
access to sugar at wholesale price. The
commodity would then be ferried to
areas which include Chikwalakwala and
Chitulipasi where there was a ready
market.
This was probably because of transport problems due to a poor
road network.
The shortage of sugar has also been attributed to
constraints in accessing
foreign currency to purchase inputs such as coal
that was being imported
from South Africa.
At least US$45 million was
needed annually by the sector to import critical
inputs that include 18
million litres of diesel, two million litres of
petrol and
fertilizer.
Under normal circumstances, at least 5 000 tonnes of the
commodity should be
delivered on the market every week. Illegal exports of
sugar to countries
such as Mozambique were also another factor contributing
to the shortage.
UPI
HARARE, May 19, ZANIS --
Kariba Dam wall is still in a "good and sound
condition" with another
inspection recommended on a ten to twenty years
basis, consultants who
carried out an examination of the dam wall have said.
In a report released
after the April 8 inspection of the dam wall, external
consultants hired by
the Zambezi River Authority, Coyne Et Bellier of France
and Jacobs of the
United Kingdom, said there was overally no deterioration
that could be a
cause for concern. "The unique observations that could be
made were very
encouraging in terms of demonstrating the condition of the
apron and the
bank toe down stream of the wall," the consultants said. Among
the key
findings were that the 'apron' concrete was in a good condition and
was free
from any structural cracking possibly related to foundation
movements. The
plinth and dam wall toe was found to be in 'excellent
condition' without any
sign of erosion while detailed observations proved
that the erosive
potential of the water current at the dam toe was very low.
The series of
spillways drainpipe outlets were found to be in various
conditions without
any adverse effect on the surrounding concrete, the
report revealed. The
Kariba dam supplies Zimbabwe with the bulk of its
electricity requirements.
ZANIS/New Ziana
Weekly Standard
by Claudia Rosett
05/28/2007, Volume 012, Issue
35
For two of Paul Wolfowitz's most prominent
critics, Mark Malloch Brown
and Ad Melkert, the war over the World Bank
presidency could not have come
at a better time. Whatever else the ousting
of Wolfowitz has achieved, it
has done plenty to distract from the North
Korea Cash-for-Kim scandal that
just four months ago was threatening to
engulf the United Nations agency
piloted for the past eight years first by
Malloch Brown and now largely by
Melkert.
That agency is the
U.N. Development Program, or UNDP, and especially
in light of the U.N.
system's sudden interest in ethics, it deserves a lot
more attention. Run by
Malloch Brown from 1999-2005, the UNDP is now home to
Melkert--previously
head of the ethics committee at the World Bank--who has
worked since early
2006 as its hands-on manager and number two man to the
often-traveling
administrator, Kemal Dervis.
Despite its generic name, the UNDP is
not just any old U.N. agency (or
"programme," in U.N. parlance). It is the
alpha in the U.N. alphabet soup,
the U.N.'s flagship in the developing
world. Its administrator is the
third-highest-ranking official in the U.N.
system, and the UNDP is angling
to serve as top boss of all other U.N.
agencies in the field. For years, the
UNDP has enjoyed an image as the model
of a modern, more efficient
U.N.--product of the "reforms" and vast
expansion of both its budget and
braggadocio under Malloch
Brown.
The reality is a lot less wholesome. Operating with even
less
transparency than the opaque
U.N. Secretariat, and now
channeling more than $5 billion per year
worldwide in the name of
development (at least $245 million of that
contributed by U.S. taxpayers),
the UNDP has made a practice of bunking with
dictators from Algeria to
Zimbabwe. It has done this while maintaining
internal oversight controls lax
enough to embarrass Enron in some cases.
This January, in the Cash-for-Kim
scandal, the UNDP got caught playing sugar
daddy to North Korea's nuclear
extortionist regime of Kim Jong Il. It
further emerged that while forking
over hard currency to Kim, UNDP officials
in Pyongyang had been storing
counterfeit U.S. banknotes in their own office
safe.
What has
not been disclosed until now is that the UNDP in Pyongyang
was also busy
shepherding and bankrolling "study tours" of the U.K. and
Europe for North
Korean arms experts, stocking Kim Jong Il's research
libraries with
specialized publications on global security matters, and
dispensing funds on
behalf of other U.N. agencies for such ventures as
sending North Korean
officials to a three-week conference on "statistics" in
Iran. This went on
even after North Korea's U.N.-denounced missile and
nuclear bomb tests last
year.
And though the U.N. has treated Cash for Kim as an anomaly
(recently
suspending UNDP operations in Pyongyang, but nowhere else), the
program's
odd activities hardly begin and end with North Korea. The UNDP is
also
supporting such endeavors as an upgrade for the state-owned national
airline
of Syria, a mullah-approved official youth group in Iran, and a
network of
women's groups in Burma that were recently accused of shaking
down
impoverished villagers for forced membership fees. In Zimbabwe, the
UNDP is
embroiled in unproven allegations that its vehicles have been used
for
smuggling from a diamond mining venture it has been supporting--which
raises
the question of why the UNDP is involved in diamond mining at
all.
In defense of such dubious activities, plus many more (such
as the time it
got caught in 2005 bankrolling anti-Israel propaganda in
Gaza), the UNDP has
issued a stream of denials and prevarications--including
the notion that one
has to break a few eggs to make an omelette.
Such
outrages are the natural result of the UNDP's ever expanding mission to
plan
every developing economy on the planet. UNDP programs are crammed with
new-age U.N. jargon about "capacity building," "national partners," and
"millennium development goals." What they're really talking about is
old-style, top-down central planning, done by UNDP-ocrats in cahoots with
their high-level counterparts in client governments. What the Soviet Union
called five-year plans, the UNDP calls "Multi-Year Funding
Frameworks."
Especially pernicious are the UNDP policies known as
"country ownership" and
"national execution." Under these arrangements,
which account for the bulk
of its projects worldwide, the UNDP turns over
resources and on-site
responsibility to client governments (charging
"cost-recovery" fees in the
process). The idea is that the UNDP, by
encouraging client governments to
design and run their own "development"
projects, will persuade the likes of
Zimbabwe's dictator, Robert Mugabe, or
the Burmese military junta to shape
up. Too often, especially in the most
corrupt and repressive countries, the
result is that the UNDP rolls over,
shoveling money and materials into the
hands of national officials, taking a
cut for its services, and slapping on
top a UNDP seal of good housekeeping.
The specifics of many of these
projects are shrouded from public view under
such
stock labels as "Energy and Environment," or "Capacity Building for
Development Cooperation" (the name of the UNDP project that in January
covered the $12,000-plus business class airfare for a North Korean official
to attend a UNDP board meeting in New York).
For an outsider,
following the more than $5 billion that flows yearly
through the UNDP system
is like tracking Osama bin Laden through the caves
of Tora Bora.
Headquartered in New York, across the street from the landmark
U.N. complex,
the UNDP serves as the U.N.'s main development shop and
coordinating network
around the globe, employing 7,355 staff plus a host of
consultants. The UNDP
has offices in 135 countries, programs in 165; and in
many capitals its
resident representatives have long doubled as emissaries
of the U.N.
secretary general. (That's why a UNDP mission chief in Ghana was
able to
help Kojo Annan, son of former Secretary General Kofi Annan, clear a
Mercedes duty-free through customs in 1998 under false use of his father's
name.) In dispensing funds worldwide--currently $3.7 billion annually for
its own projects, and $1.5 billion on behalf of other U.N. agencies--the
UNDP handles more than one-quarter of the entire U.N. system's $20 billion
annual budget.
To raise money, the UNDP relies not only on "core"
donations from member
states, but according to its comptroller also operates
more than 600 trust
funds, some thematic, some country specific, some
project specific. None are
particularly transparent. There are so-called
public-private partnerships,
in-kind donations, collaborations and
cooperative arrangements with other
U.N. outfits, NGOs, and foundations. In
effect, the UNDP offers itself as a
black box into which donors with almost
any aim can contribute money from
almost anywhere and have it used under the
UNDP label for almost anything
they might want to earmark, as long as the
UNDP agrees--and apparently it
often does. For instance, last year's jaunts
abroad for North Korean arms
experts were pet projects of the UNDP, the
North Korean government, and
donors in Sweden and Germany.
Murk
pervades this maze. The UNDP does not make its internal audit reports
available even to the 36 member states on its own executive board (which
mixes democracies such as the United States and Britain with a gang of
thugocracies currently including Algeria, China, Russia, Kazakhstan,
Pakistan, Guyana, and Belarus, as well as, of course, North Korea). What
does seep out is not promising. The U.N.'s largely toothless "external"
Board of Auditors, in a report released last year, expressed generic concern
at "the increase in project expenditure not audited," and noted that among
the nationally executed projects in 2004 and 2005 that were audited, reports
for some $1 billion worth of spending were submitted late. As of mid-2006,
more than one-quarter of these audit reports had yet to be submitted at
all.
The UNDP's country offices have websites on which they post generic
lists of
"sustainable" goals and programs, but stunningly little is
disclosed in the
way of project details, and almost nothing about spending.
At the UNDP's New
York press office, staffers can be pleasant and work long
hours, but often
appear to have trouble obtaining information themselves. In
response to
pointed queries, the UNDP provided some documentation for two of
the 30
projects underway last year in North Korea--including the
"disarmament"
project described above--then suddenly found it impossible to
lay their
hands on any more. The UNDP provides no regular press briefings.
This month,
the UNDP finally announced a financial "disclosure" policy. It
is modeled on
Annan's farcically empty measures introduced last year for the
U.N.
Secretariat, in which there is no requirement to disclose anything to
anyone
outside the U.N.
Then there's Mark Malloch Brown and the
upmarket house he has been renting
for years on the suburban New York estate
of hedge fund tycoon George
Soros--for whom Malloch Brown has now gone to
work. Reporters queried
Malloch Brown in 2005 about potential conflicts of
interest in renting from
Soros while running a UNDP that by his own
admission was collaborating
"extensively" with Soros's network of
foundations. Malloch Brown's response
was not to provide documentation on
what he claimed was an arm's length
arrangement. Instead, he denounced
reporters for their "bile."
Last year, persistent questioning by Matthew
Russell Lee of the Inner City
Press finally extracted from the UNDP the
information that a book about its
own history, commissioned in 2004 by
Malloch Brown, had cost the
organization $737,000 (including such items as
salary and travel money for
the author, and purchase of copies from the
publisher). The book was a paean
to the UNDP, and to Malloch Brown in
particular, describing his reforms as a
model "of efficiency and
effectiveness."
This is the institution and ethos that were at risk of
exposure when Cash
for Kim hit the headlines. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon,
in a brief flash
of wisdom, promised an independent audit of the entire U.N.
system. But
within days, a classic U.N. cover-up had begun. Ban scaled back
the inquiry
to include only U.N. agencies in Pyongyang, and turned over the
job to the
housebroken U.N. Board of Auditors, who are expected to deliver
their
overdue report any day now. The auditors did not visit North Korea.
They
never even asked for visas.
And so, here we all are, four months
later, having heard from U.N.
officialdom plenty about the pay package of
Paul Wolfowitz's com panion at
the World Bank, but almost nothing more about
the UNDP. At the U.N., they
call this development.
Claudia Rosett is
a journalist-in-residence at the Foundation for the
Defense of
Democracies.