Nicholas Watt, political
editor
Sunday September 16, 2007
The Observer
The archbishop of
York has launched a sustained attack on the government's
policy towards
Zimbabwe, demanding that Gordon Brown end Britain's 'colonial
guilt' and
spearhead a campaign of sanctions against the 'racist'
dictatorship of
Robert Mugabe.
In an outspoken intervention in which he says that Tony
Blair's 'ethical
foreign policy' is a distant memory, Dr John Sentamu warns
that Britain can
no longer stand by while Mugabe follows the example of Idi
Amin and destroys
his country.
Sentamu writes in today's Observer
that Britain's current approach, which is
to regard Zimbabwe as an 'African
problem' to be solved by its neighbours,
has failed. 'The time has come for
Mr Brown, who has already shown himself
to be an African interventionist
through his work at the United Nations in
favour of the people of Darfur,
finally to slay the ghosts of Britain's
colonialist past by thoroughly
revising foreign policy towards Zimbabwe and
to lead the way in
co-ordinating an international response,' he says.
The time for "African
solutions" alone is now over. Despite his best
efforts, President [Thabo]
Mbeki [of South Africa] has failed to help the
people of Zimbabwe. At best,
he has been ineffectual in his efforts to...
persuade Robert Mugabe to
reverse his unjust and brutal regime. At worst,
Mbeki is complicit in his
failing to lead the charge against a neighbour who
is systematically raping
the country he leads.'
Sentamu's intervention will be seen as highly
significant, because Mugabe
will struggle to depict him as a white
colonialist. The archbishop was born
in 1949 in a village near Kampala, the
capital of Uganda.
In a passage that is likely to resonate in Africa,
Sentamu likens Mugabe to
the late Ugandan dictator Amin. Sentamu, who was
imprisoned for 90 days by
Amin after he had showed his independence as a
judge, writes: 'Mugabe is the
worst kind of racist dictator. Having targeted
the whites for their apparent
riches, Mugabe has enacted an awful Orwellian
vision, with the once
oppressed taking on the role of the oppressor and
glorying in their
totalitarian abilities. Like Idi Amin before him in
Uganda, Mugabe has
rallied a country against its former colonial master only
to destroy it
through a dictatorial fervour.'
Sanctions, says the
archbishop, should be modelled on the ones that were
imposed on apartheid
South Africa, 'targeted... against those purveyors of
misery whose luxury is
bought at the cost of unbearable poverty'.
The Foreign Office last night
said that there would be no change in the
government's policy towards
Zimbabwe. Britain offers humanitarian help to
Zimbabweans but is relying on
Harare's neighbours to take political action
so as to avoid accusations that
it is throwing its weight around as a former
colonial power.
A
Foreign Office spokesman said: 'We are supporting people in Zimbabwe with
aid... But it is clear from experience that there needs to be an African
solution there.' Asked if the intervention by a former prisoner of Amin
would persuade the government to change its line, the spokesman said: 'He is
entitled to his view.'
Mugabe received a rapturous reception when he
arrived at a meeting of the
14-nation Southern African Development Community
(SADC) in Zambia last
month. But many African leaders, who have been wary of
criticising Mugabe,
are beginning to voice doubts. Zambia's President, Levy
Mwanawasa, described
Zimbabwe in March as a 'sinking Titanic'.
John
Sentamu
Sunday September 16, 2007
The Observer
In one of his
last actions as Prime Minister, Tony Blair visited Africa to
defend his
'thoroughly interventionist' foreign policy towards the
continent. At the
end of his trip, at a press conference with South African
President Thabo
Mbeki, the Prime Minister admitted that when it came to the
issue of
Zimbabwe, only local pressure would do the job. 'An African
solution,' he
said, 'is needed to this African problem.'
Yet as the BBC's Sue Lloyd-Roberts
demonstrated so vividly on Newsnight last
week, in a remarkable piece of
television journalism, Zimbabwe cannot any
more be seen as an African
problem needing an African solution - it is a
humanitarian
disaster.
Article
continues
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The
statistics alone are devastating: the average life expectancy for women
in
Zimbabwe is 34 years; for men, it is 37. Inflation rages at 8,000 per
cent;
the shelves are empty of bread and maize; in the hospitals and
clinics,
children die for lack of vitamins, food and medicine, while the
ravages of
Aids are exacerbated by government indifference.
In the cramped townships now
home to those supporters of the opposition
whose homes Mugabe destroyed in a
frenzy of destruction called 'Clean Out
the Filth', there is no electricity
or fresh running water and sewage spews
out of the dilapidated buildings.
The first cholera deaths were reported
last week.
The time has come
for Mr Brown, who has already shown himself to be an
African interventionist
through his work at the UN in favour of the people
of Darfur, finally to
slay the ghosts of Britain's colonialist past by
thoroughly revising foreign
policy towards Zimbabwe and to lead the way in
co-ordinating an
international response.
The time for 'African solutions' alone is now
over. Despite his best
efforts, President Mbeki has failed to help the
people of Zimbabwe. At best,
he has been ineffectual in his efforts to
advise, cajole and persuade Robert
Mugabe to reverse his unjust and brutal
regime. At worst, Mbeki is complicit
in his failing to lead the charge
against a neighbour who is systematically
raping the country he
leads.
Britain needs to escape from its colonial guilt when it comes to
Zimbabwe.
Mugabe is the worst kind of racist dictator. Having targeted the
whites for
their apparent riches, Mugabe has enacted an awful Orwellian
vision, with
the once oppressed taking on the role of the oppressor and
glorying in their
totalitarian abilities.
Like Idi Amin before him in
Uganda, Mugabe has rallied a country against its
former colonial master only
to destroy it through a dictatorial fervour.
Enemies are tortured, the press
is censored, the people are starving and
meanwhile the world waits for South
Africa to intervene. That time is now
over.
It is now time for the
sanctions and campaigns that brought an end to
apartheid in South Africa to
be applied to the Mugabe regime. What Britain
deemed to be in the best
interest of the Rhodesian government of Ian Smith
must now be enacted
against the Zimbabwean government of Robert Mugabe. The
smart sanctions
implemented by governments towards terror groups now need to
be brought to
bear upon Mugabe's regime.
The appalling poverty suffered by those who
queue daily for bread in
southern Harare is a world apart from the shops,
boutiques and sprinkled
lawns of northern Harare, where Mugabe's supporters
live in palatial
surroundings. Britain must lead the way in calling for
targeted sanctions
against those purveyors of misery whose luxury is bought
at the cost of
unbearable poverty.
Blair's 'ethical foreign policy'
is a long-forgotten memory, sacrificed upon
an invasion undertaken without
UN sanction. In its place, our new Prime
Minister, with his record on debt
erosion and activism across Africa, is
faced with a spiralling desperation
that demands a response. While Mugabe
may well brand Brown a 'colonialist'
or 'imperialist' for any action he
takes, the people of Zimbabwe look to us,
and to others, to heed the cries
of their suffering and the voices of our
own conscience.
As someone who went on countless marches to campaign for
the ending of Ian
Smith's UDI and apartheid in South Africa, I am deeply
ashamed by what Sue
Lloyd-Roberts reported last week. We now all know. We
cannot look the other
way on Zimbabwe. Enough is enough.
· Dr John
Sentamu is Archbishop of York
Pambazuka News
Why all Africans
must stand up for universal equality, human rights
and social
justice
Rotimi Sankore
First, a statement of principles; Every African
is obliged to stand
up for equality, democracy, human rights and social
justice - not
just for ourselves as individuals or only in our villages,
cities,
countries and regions - but for all Africans across Africa
regardless
of gender, ethnicity, race, political or religious beliefs.
These
must be the bedrock of genuine Pan-Africanism. All of Africa's
anti
slavery, anti colonial and liberation struggles regardless of
their
shortcomings [and yes they had shortcomings] were based on these
very
principles and the concept of an Africa United for social
and
economic development is nothing but empty rhetoric if it is not
based
on them.
Consequently for any body genuinely concerned about the
future of
Africa there can be no politics of convenience. To be sure,
the
Zimbabwean crisis is not the only crisis in Africa, and this
writer
believes that all African's must engage any crisis that endangers
the
social and economic development of Africa on the basis of the
above
stated principles - be it in Darfur, DRC - or Zimbabwe.
However,
the Zimbabwean crisis is arguably the only ongoing crisis in
which one side
(the incumbent government) and its supporters have
mobilised African support
and silenced many by asserting more or less
that its critics are
sympathisers, supporters or agents of foreign
interests and former colonial
masters. This has wrongly narrowed the
framework of the debate on the
Zimbabwean crisis into an
oversimplified context of African nationalism and
anti colonialism
versus imperialism and colonialism. If the name of Africa is
being
invoked in justification of government policy then Africans must
have
a position on it. As we sometimes say, you can't call on your
people,
and not expect your people to call on you.
The above in turn
underlines an outstanding feature of the crisis -
that the current Zimbabwean
government is based on the country's
liberation movement - which was
supported by the majority of
Africans, people of African descent and anti
colonialists universally
against the undemocratic minority white Rhodesian
regime of Ian Smith
and its supporters. The Zimbabwean government has
re-mobilised this
historical support by positioning itself as continuing the
liberation
struggle to "reclaim our land".
By framing issues in terms
of: Are you for land reform or not? Are
you for or against white farmers? Are
you for or against colonialism?
Are you for Africans or the colonialists?
President Mugabe has posed
in a more sophisticated way; the rhetorical
statement so crudely
articulated by George Bush that it eventually backfired
- "you are
either with us or with the enemy".
Such "you are with us,
or with the enemy" rhetoric regardless of the
cause which claims to serve,
its sophistication or crudeness is
dangerous to human rights, to social
justice and ultimately to
Africa's development because it suggests that
anything can be done in
the name of defending 'us' against the alleged
'enemy' or even worse,
that anything can be done to alleged 'enemies' in the
name of
defending 'us'. It also suggests that no wrong can be done in
the
name of fighting the alleged 'enemy' and ultimately that anything
but
unquestioning loyalty is betrayal.
The continuously evolving logic
of such rhetoric is that the
definition of enemy is elastic and 'they' [but
not the government]
can be held responsible for anything and everything that
goes wrong.
Any acceptance of such a political philosophy by either
African
citizens or leaders will stagnate intellectual progress in all
fields
and place Africa in a state of permanent backwardness.
We must
make no mistake about it - all of human progress - in
science, technology,
the social sciences and politics, philosophy and
the arts - is based on
challenging and improving the status quo or
building on previous 'standards'.
Put simply, all of human progress
is based on rigorous examination of
existing conventional wisdoms and
on dissent. Every African and in this case
every Zimbabwean must
therefore have, and exercise the rights to freedom of
opinion,
expression, association and assembly without fear of, or
actually
being beaten senseless, incarcerated or killed. A situation in
which
people face potential sanctions for not toeing the official line
-
are assaulted by 'law enforcement' agents merely for singing and
dancing
[to anti government songs], women are detained for peaceful
protests,
passports are seized and lawyers are beaten for
representing clients is
absolutely unacceptable. If it was wrong for
minority white regimes to have
such policy and practice, it is even
more wrong for a black majority
government based on a liberation
movement to do the same.
Africans
cannot accept any policies from people on whose behalf we
protested when the
same treatment was meted out to them. All Africans
must therefore stand firm
against any idea that being in 'opposition'
means people are not human, or
that they are human but don't have
human rights. It's a question of
principle. All political parties
must be aware of the possibility that they
will not always be in
power - including ZANU-PF. Then they will expect their
rights to be
defended.
If the state of social and economic development
is a key indicator of
the state of affairs in a country, a no less important
indicator lies
in the possibility that all citizens can criticise their
government
and its policies, offer alternate opinions and ultimately
change
their government by civil means if that is the wish of the
majority.
No government - not even the governments of or leaders of
liberation
movements can arrogate to themselves perpetual wisdom and
power.
People can debate indefinitely whether or not the Zimbabwean
crisis
is as a result of poor government policies, or has been provoked
by
sanctions and dirty tricks campaigns by 'colonialists' or both.
What
there is no debate about is that there is a political crisis
linked
to the apparently indefinite stay in power of President Mugabe.
There
is absolutely nothing anti Mugabe about anyone wondering if after
20
years as President another Zimbabwean out of its over 12
million
citizens - whether from his party or any opposition party - cannot
be
elected to lead the country.
In Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa,
Tanzania, Zambia and other
countries leaders of liberation or anti-colonial
movement governments
have stepped down and are still living - Mandela,
Kaunda, Chissano,
Nujoma, Mkapa and the list is growing. In Ghana and Zambia
where the
last African Union and SADC summits respectively held and the
Mugabe
government made it a point to mobilise its supporters there have
been
successful changes of the party of government in 2000 and
1991
respectively without the roof caving in on those countries. 20
years
is enough for any President to make contributions to the progress
of
his or her country. Nobody needs foreign governments to tell us
that.
On the whole African democracy is not perfect but on the balance
it
is heading in the right direction. Zimbabwe cannot be an exception
to
this progressive trend.
The African Union under the stewardship of
Chairperson Konaré
(himself a former leader of Mali that also led by example)
has come a
long way from the OAU and it must underline this point. It is a
sign
of progress that the AU leadership and many member governments
have
so far agreed with African rights campaigners that leaders
of
countries with unresolved rights and governance issues cannot Chair
the
AU unlike the days when even the worst of despots like Idi Amin
could Chair
the former OAU with impunity. The AU and SADC must
continue in the spirit of
the AU constitutive Acts, SADC Declaration
and other key principles and
discourage the idea that African leaders
must stay in power indefinitely so
as to avoid defeat by
colonialists. The colonialists have essentially been
defeated. That
is why the country is called Zimbabwe not Rhodesia, and
President
Mugabe not Ian Smith has been President for 20 years.
Yes
some foreign interests will continue to meddle in Africa, whether
directly or
through proxies - this happens in almost all parts of the
world. But the
future of Africa is now in the hands of Africans. Our
governments can
therefore not adopt the same repressive policies of
the colonialists in the
name of continuing the fight against them. It
is important to emphasise that
democracy is imperfect universally and
also that the pendulum of power often
swings from one end to the
other between ideologies, parties, and factions
within parties.
Parties also evolve and change and what they stand for today
may not
be what they stood for yesterday or will stand for tomorrow.
For
example, the world watched in disbelief during the 2000 Bush
versus
Gore election fiasco in the United States which were it to
have
happened in Africa under the same circumstances would have
been
described as "typically African".
In the spirit of parliamentary
democracy with no term limits, former
Conservative leader Margaret Thatcher
whom presided over the last
days of the Rhodesian regime and whom regarded
the ANC in South
Africa as a 'terrorists' was tempted to go on indefinitely
after 11
years as UK Prime Minister until hounded out in tears by anti
poll
tax mass protests and her own party. Most recently former
Labour
leader Tony Blair under pressure from his own party and the
public
barely managed to negotiate a dignified exit after 10 years in
office.
In Latin America where some governments would consider themselves
as
liberation type governments, Daniel Ortega and the Sandinistas
for
instance lost elections in 1990 to openly foreign backed
Contra's
after coming to power in 1979 on the back of a popular rebellion
that
overthrew the Somoza dynasty. By the 2006 the Sandinistas had
been
voted back into power. How may people looking at US politics
today
would realise that founders of the Republican party in 1854
included
anti-slavery activists and that the Democrats now heavily
supported
by African Americans once benefited handsomely from slave owners.
The
point here is that majority of African countries have been
independent
for only between 13 and 50 years and Africans must take a
longer-term view of
political history.
If despite obviously democratic imperfections many
African and non
African countries have managed to change leaders and parties
of
governments without the world coming to an end, there is no reason
why
it is impossible for Zimbabwe to have a future without President
Mugabe in
power, or for President Mugabe to live without being in
power. Even Ian Smith
leader of the Rhodesian government that
committed countless atrocities
against Africans and swore that Black
majority rule would never happen has
lived in post colonial Zimbabwe
- and is now a grand old man of
88.
There is nothing personal about upholding democracy; the interests
of
the citizens of a country must always come before that of
the
leadership of any government. The above underlines the fact
that
people can also debate without end about whether the
Zimbabwean
economy is collapsing, has already collapsed, or will never
collapse.
The fact is that an estimated three million [undoubtedly very
Black]
Zimbabweans have fled the country with many living as refugees
in
neighbouring countries. They must be running from something. We
now
face the debacle of armed racist farmers on the South African
Zimbabwe
border fulfilling their racist fantasy by being presented
with opportunities
to hunt down and round up Zimbabweans fleeing
across the border in the name
of defending South Africa from invading
"illegal foreign criminals". Even if
the present Zimbabwean
government claims it bears absolutely no
responsibility and that
drought, withdrawal of credit lines, sanctions or
even the cycle of
boom and bust that has caused recessions even in advanced
industrial
economies is responsible for the economic misery, the fact is that
it
is almost impossible to offer alternatives without being
"bashed".
No one but the government can be blamed for the rash of
legislation
that has no other role than to contain, intimidate or
suppress
criticism and peaceful opposition. The laws and policies speak
for
themselves "Public Order and Security Act", "Interception
of
Communications Act" and so forth. How many people demanding
uncritical
loyalty for the Zimbabwean government would happily live
under laws which its
just a question of a matter of time before
anyone becomes an arbitrarily
victim. It makes no difference if the
foot in the boot kicking you and your
rights into a dungeon is Black
or White. A kick is a kick.
'Sanctions'
cannot be blamed for everything. By way of comparison
Cuba a country of
similar population and even greater anti-
imperialist zeal has faced
well-documented and comprehensive
blockades, sanctions and invasions [not to
mention numerous
assassination attempts against its leadership] by "foreign
interests"
over a greater 40-year period and on a scale far surpassing
anything
Zimbabwe will ever experience. Despite obvious democratic
deficits,
the Cuban government has won grudging admiration of even its
critics
because healthy life expectancy in Cuba - at 67 and 70
years
respectively for men and women respectively - has risen and
been
sustained at a level equivalent to and in some cases higher than
in
the most advanced industrial countries. In Zimbabwe current
healthy
life expectancy has sunk to 34 years and 33 years respectively
for
men and women, also making Zimbabwe one of the countries in the
world
where men are expected to live longer than women.
This is not an
endorsement of any section of, or all of the
opposition, or even of
hypocritical foreign policy from some
countries - but rather of the right of
all citizens including the
political opposition to exist without fear of
repression. Just as we
know that being a liberation fighter does not
guarantee that anyone
will be the best possible leader in government, we all
know that
being an 'opposition' movement or leader is not a guarantee
that
anybody will do better than those they seek to replace.
Regardless,
one of the indisputable conditions for the development of Africa
is
that the principles and culture of democracy must be
institutionalised.
No one should insult the memory of countless
Africans murdered by colonial
settlers to facilitate stealing of
their land by suggesting repressive laws
are necessary to implement
or defend land reform. Without doubt land reform
is a necessary part
of social justice for Africans, but it must be judicious,
equitable
and transparent land reform based on respect for human rights and
the
rule of law - not land reform used as a political cudgel to 'bash'
all
critical voices.
I have heard some people argue that the 'enemies' of
Africa now
crying about human rights did not burden their conscience with
such
luxuries when benefiting from 400 years of industrial scale
slavery,
colonialism and brutal exploitation of Africa and its peoples.
In
other words, that 'white farmers' deserve some of their own
medicine.
Not only does such thinking reduce African's to the moral
bankruptcy
of colonialists, it also fails to understand that it risks
granting
unlimited and indefinite power to Africa's actual and
imaginary
liberators such that we may all end up be shackled by them.
Africa's
liberation movements drew their moral strength from the fact that
on
the balance, they fought for social justice, human rights, equality
and
democracy - for all - not for card-carrying members of
ruling
parties.
The philosophical algebra of this equation is that
there should be no
expectations that these principles can be discarded as
inconvenient
while still counting on the unwavering support of all
Africans.
Africans must therefore unite for social justice and human
rights
across Africa - including in Zimbabwe. Some people also think
that
because of either real or imagined 'western' hypocrisy we must
always
give unconditional loyalty to the Mugabe or any government
that
claims to be defending Africa against 'imperialism'.
The
hypocrisy may be real but our primary concern must be the welfare
of
Africans, not whether President Bush as part of his politics of
convenience -
supports the Musharraf military regime in Pakistan
which was suspended from
the Commonwealth in 1999 for overthrowing an
elected government (while
simultaneously passing the Zimbabwe
Democracy and Economic Act), or even
whether some of the western
media engage in 'colonial mentality' reporting
which fulfils negative
stereotypes of Africa. Our health care system,
education, food and
overall social justice and development must come first.
It is
impossible to build on development achievements if everyone
must
agree with official policy. Regardless of party affiliation
nobody's
stomach is neutral on the question of hunger. No disease asks
for
your party card.
While all Africans with any dignity must remain
firmly anti-colonial
and anti-racist, we must also view with scepticism any
blanket anti-
western and anti-white rhetoric. Not withstanding that some
foreign
governments described the ANC and other liberation movements
as
"communists" and "terrorists" or both, while simultaneously
supporting
bandit governments such as the Mobutu regime, Africa's
anti colonial and
liberation movements were supported by millions
across the world including
from the West. Even some governments such
as the Swedish were proud
supporters of liberation movements and post
independence governments long
before it became fashionable to do so.
President Mugabe is a former
teacher and one of Africa's most
educated and experienced leaders. After over
2 decades in power, he
does not really need anyone to tell him that it is not
only possible
to be in office without being in power; it is also possible to
be in
power without moral authority. Once any leader anywhere gets to
that
point it is irrelevant what you claim to stand for. What will
become
relevant is that you did not stand down when you should have done
so
- of your own free will - and in the best interests of your
people.
*Sankore is a Pan-Africanist and Human Rights
Campaigner.
*Comments and responses to editor@pambazuka.org
<mailto:editor@pambazuka.org>, or
comment online at <http://
www.pambazuka.org/>
Sir Ronald Sanders is a business executive and former Caribbean diplomat who publishes widely on small states in the global community. Reponses to: ronaldsanders29@hotmail.com |
Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2007 6:48 AM
Subject: Hunting mice,
now?
,,, it is disturbing that people have been reduced to smoking
out
mice, and more disturbing that this is reported as an activity that
people
normally do.
Andrew Scott
Cape Town.
ZIMBABWE HERALD
- Sat 15 Sept 2007
Fire destroys 210 tonnes of maize
From Tafadzwa
Mofati in BINDURA
OVER 210 tonnes of shelled maize - enough to feed at
least 28 000 people in
a month - and 20 hectares of wheat, were yesterday
reduced to ashes after an
uncontrolled fire believed to have been started by
mice hunters spread to
Athlone Farm here.
The 324-hectare farm is
owned by Mashonaland Central provincial
administrator Mr Josphat
Jaji.
The blaze started at around 8am after workers at a neighbouring
farm on the
west lit the fire to clear a piece of land as they hunted for
mice.
The situation worsened after another fire spread from the southern
part of
the farm, along Mazowe River, resulting in Mr Jaji's wife and
neighbours
failing to control it.
Mr Jaji said his wife, who stays at
the farm, phoned him in the morning
informing him of the blaze.
He
said he later learnt that three workers at a neighbouring farm had
started
the fire with the intention of smoking out mice and hunting
them
down.
Mr Jaji had cleared a seven-metre-wide fireguard around his
fields but the
raging fire managed to jump into the fields, destroying the
wheat and
shelled maize.
Bindura Fire Brigade was promptly called but
they arrived after about
one-and-a-half hours and the water they brought was
inadequate to extinguish
the blaze.
"I called the fire attendants but
they did not come in time. By the time
they arrived, my maize had been
reduced to ashes. As if that was not enough,
the firemen did not have
sufficient water to put out the fire," said Mr
Jaji.
He said he
arrived at the scene before the Fire Brigade and joined his
family and the
farm workers in what proved to be a futile attempt to control
the fire as it
approached the farm from two directions.
A visibly distraught Mr Jaji
said he had been dealt a hard blow as he had
been expecting a bumper wheat
harvest this season after planting 50 hectares
of the winter crop.
"I
have lost about 100 tonnes of wheat. By merely looking at the crop, I
had
expected to get about five tonnes per hectare," he said.
Grain
Marketing Board chief executive Retired Colonel Samuel Muvuti said the
burnt
200 tonnes of maize were enough to feed 4 000 average families of
about seven
members for the whole month.
He said in a rural setting, a family of
seven requires 50kg of mealie-meal a
month and that the lost maize was enough
to feed 28 000 people for a period
of one month.
The Herald (Harare)
Published by the government of Zimbabwe
OPINION
15 September
2007
Posted to the web 15 September 2007
Harare
INFORMAL dining
is the in-thing these days with some open-air places
experiencing brisk
business.
But have you ever checked the sanitary conditions of these
outdoor eating
places?
I stopped over at Turnpike Service
Station, which is about 20km west of
Harare, on Sunday at around 11am on my
way to Bulawayo, and I asked to use
the bathroom.
The lady at the
counter told me to go just round the corner where I found
the toilet door
locked.
When I went back to the young lady to ask for the keys, she told
me to go to
the back where I would find the public toilet.
I found
the toilet -- a pit latrine. When I walked in, the stench was too
much for
me to bear. In fact, the entrance was impassable. Urine flowed from
the
inside to the entrance. Human excreta were everywhere. I stopped and
looked
around.
There was so much activity there. A few metres away were men and
women
drinking and a few metres further down was the popular eating out
joint
known as paWhite House where I had had a meal a week
ago.
Although the meal was well prepared, I suffered a severe tummy ache
the
following day. Now I know why. This place is filthy indeed. You should
have
seen the flies at the pit latrine . . . the green bombers.
To
say I was angry is an understatement. I was in a rage.
Just then a
Nyamweda bus that was heading for Plumtree drove in and stopped
at the
service station. Passengers got out and some headed for the toilet
while
others dashed to the takeaway.
I watched eagerly to see how they would
react upon reaching the toilet.
An elderly woman was so disgusted that
she went to some bush and the rest of
the passengers followed suit. The men
found a "urinary" behind the pit
latrine.
This isn't hygienic, is it?
Imagine how many people do this everyday?
I decided to walk into the
takeaway and insisted on seeing the manager who
apparently could not be
located.
"Why do you serve food and not provide clean ablution facilities
at this
popular service station?" I asked the lady at the
counter.
But she said someone was employed to clean the toilet but it
looked as
though it had been neglected for ages.
All businesspeople
at this complex should work together and come up with a
solution to this
problem. This practice should not continue and I urge city
authorities to
investigate.
But this seems to be the situation at most open air drinking
spots. There is
one at Glen Norah B shops which is popular for its cold
beers and sizzling
roasted meat but the stench from the long grass,
especially during the rainy
season, is unbearable. I know these places
because I had a very close friend
who abused alcohol so much he drove my
friends and me around these places in
search of cold beer and roasted
meat.
The toilets at the bottle stores are a preserve of the few regular
customers
and that means everybody else must use the bush.
I remember
Harare City Council closing down Mereki, which is so popular that
you even
hear foreigners talk about it. Yes, kwaMereki is a joint
Zimbabweans in the
Diaspora recommend to anyone visiting Zimbabwe. But why
is it taking so long
to regularise kwaMereki?
Informal eating places are a common phenomenon
in most African countries as
they provide local dishes in an informal
setting that has no dress code. You
can either sit in your car or get some
garden chairs that are provided or
you bring in your own stools from
home.
This informal dining atmosphere is relaxing and also gives you the
opportunity to meet old friends and talk about subject under the
sun.
And by the way, I have not had the chance to dine out these past few
weeks
because most of restaurants are reeling under the effects of the meat
shortage.
This has made dining out rather difficult, particularly if
you drive to some
out of town place only to discover they now offer purely
vegetarian dishes.
And with the cost of fuel these days, one cannot afford
that luxury. Phoning
around is not the solution either, because our
telephone tariffs are now out
of this world. Worse still, some have closed
shop.
But difficult as it may, I will persevere to find at least one
restaurant to
visit next week and let you know what's cooking. So see you
there then. Bye
for now.
The Herald
(Harare) Published by the government of Zimbabwe
15 September
2007
Posted to the web 15 September 2007
Harare
PERI-URBAN
farming in Harare is set for a major boom following successful
talks between
Government and the Grain Marketing Board over provision of
inputs for the
coming planting season.
In an interview yesterday, Harare Metropolitan
Province Governor Cde David
Karimanzira said talks with GMB over availing of
inputs were concluded and
they were awaiting implementation to prepare for
this year's planting
season.
"We sat down with GMB over inputs
and the parastatal is willing to support
peri-urban farming," said Cde
Karimanzira.
"Other plans in place were to engage Operation Maguta in
view of tilling the
farms as well as provision of
agro-chemicals.
"The onus is now on the farmers to organise themselves in
preparation for
the planting season. GMB said farmers would get inputs after
full payment
while Operation Maguta is paid after harvesting," he
said.
So far, people settled on Reinham Farm in Dzivaresekwa have
benefited from
the programme, which will roll on to Selby Farm in Harare
North where there
are 270 farmers. Cde Karimanzira said both the public and
the private
sectors should work towards promoting peri-urban farming as it
was
sustaining many families as well as contributing to national food
security.
"The private and public sectors should also chip in and support
these
programmes so that in the end the implementation is a success as this
will
not only benefit the families of those involved, but also the nation as
a
whole," he said.
A number of open spaces in urban areas are used
for farming purposes by
residents.
"People are now making the best of
what they have which is a great
development to the nation. Almost all the
open spaces in urban areas have
been cultivated," he said.
Yahoo News
by
Godfrey Marawanyika
HARARE (AFP) - Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe is
consolidating his hold
on power, as he ruthlessly tackles his arch-critics
ahead of 2008 polls in
which he is a candidate, analysts said.
His
latest victim is former Roman Catholic Archbishop of Bulawayo, Pius
Ncube,
one of his strongest critics, who resigned on Tuesday from his post
in the
aftermath of an alleged adultery scandal.
State-run Herald newspaper had
published in July some compromising pictures
which it said depicted the then
cleric having sex with another man's wife.
Ncube, 60, who has been head
of the Bulawayo Diocese since 1998, said his
resignation was intended to
save the Church from further attacks and enable
him to challenge the
adultery charge in court in his private capacity.
"What they did to Ncube
was to send a warning to all critics", said Bill
Saidi, a political
commentator and journalist. "The whole plan was
absolutely
ruthless".
But "they can't blame Ncube for the crisis we are in. The
question is: 27
years after independence, where are we as a nation? The
shops are empty," he
added.
Eldred Masunugure, a lecturer in
political science at the University of
Zimbabwe, said the government has
managed successfully to push out Ncube as
it did not want to be seen
clashing with the Catholic church.
Mugabe, 83, is a Catholic.
"The
government did not want to deal with him whilst he was wearing the
Roman
Catholic garb, they wanted to deal with him personally," he
said.
Mugabe's position has also been consolidated by the division within
the
opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), since its leader Morgan
Tsvangirai decided to boycott senate elections last November.
Early
this month, Tsvangirai was detained briefly by police and later
charged with
disorderly conduct for allegedly causing mayhem when he toured
retail shops
last month.
"With Tsvangirai they tried everything, they charged him with
treason and
that could not suffice, now they are charging him with
disorderly conduct.
They beat him up in March, and at one stage tried to
beat him whilst he was
in hospital," Saidi said.
Rights activist
Lovemore Madhuku said that the government crackdown against
critics will
continue. "By charging Tsvangirai for that petty issue, they
want to show
who is in power," he said.
"When they placed those cameras in Pius
Ncube's bedroom, they wanted to show
that they can do anything to anyone...
and show who is in charge. They have
managed to do just that."
Takura
Zhangazha, a Harare-based political analyst, said despite the
scheming by
Mugabe's government towards perceived foes, people are not
relenting, citing
a two-day job stayaway called for next week by the labour
union to protest
the economic meltdown in the country.
Charging Tsvangirai with disorderly
conduct was a ploy by the ruling party
to hit back at him after he paid a
week-long visit to Australia, Mugabe's
foe country which recently cancelled
the visas of eight Zimbabwean students
whose parents are linked to the
regime, said Zhangazha.
"It's now a bit of tit-for-tat between (ruling)
ZANU-PF and the MDC", he
added.
But deputy information minister
Bright Matonga dismissed allegations that
the government of Mugabe was
deliberately out to silence his arch-critics,
explaining that they deserved
what they got.
"Tsvangirai is an agent of imperialism and he won't be
spared if he commits
a crime... Ncube resigned on his own and that is an
admission that he
committed a crime," he charged.
"The government is
not suing Pius Ncube. He has the platform to do what he
wants, but he knows
as government what we are capable of doing. But this is
not a threat against
him," he said.
News24
15/09/2007 10:59 -
(SA)
Pretoria - The South African presidency on Friday rejected as
untrue reports
that the government had been secretly working to remove
Zimbabwean president
Robert Mugabe from power.
The presidency said in
a statement it wished to "caution the media from
falling victim of those
who, for purposes of advancing political agendas
which may be opposed to the
resolution of the situation in Zimbabwe, peddle
untruths which may impact
negatively on the ongoing process of dialogue."
The statement said the
latest report by the newspaper The Zimbabwean
published in London and
Johannesburg claimed to be privy to minutes which
suggested that the South
African government blamed Mugabe for the situation
in Zimbabwe.
The
report claimed that the "South African government has been secretly
working
to remove [President Mugabe] from power."
'Claims are devoid of
truth'
It further claimed that "The SA officials have been lobbying for
sustained
international pressure to bear on the Mugabe regime."
These
claims by The Zimbabwean were devoid of truth, the South African
presidency
said.
Addressing Parliament a fortnight ago, President Thabo Mbeki
categorically
stated that the South African Government had never, did not
nor would
support "regime change" in Zimbabwe.
The Zimbabwean
completely ignored this publicly stated position of
government, the
statement said.
It also did not make contact with the Presidency or the
Department of
Foreign Affairs to verify the authenticity of minutes it
claimed to have in
its possession.