The Telegraph
By Sophie
Arie
Last Updated: 2:28am BST 27/09/2007
Half of
Zimbabwe's people will be dependent on emergency food aid next
year, a
senior British diplomatic source has said, in a damning indictment
of
President Robert Mugabe's regime.
Of an estimated eight million
Zimbabweans still in the country, "we
know we'll be feeding four million
people by January or February, possibly
more", the official
said.
He estimated that since Mr Mugabe began seizing white-owned
farms in
2000, the population has fallen from 12 million to eight
million.
Of the estimated four million who have fled, up to three
million have
moved to neighbouring South Africa and a large number has moved
to London.
It is estimated that 100,000 Zimbabweans are crossing into South
Africa
every month.
The stated aim of Mr Mugabe's land grab was
to make Zimbabwe
self-sufficient and assert its independence from Britain.
Instead it has
rendered half its population dependent on the outside world
for their next
meal.
Ironically, Britain is now the biggest
single donor paying for food
supplies for Zimbabweans.
Hyperinflation and recent price cuts have worsened the situation
causing "a
really very serious food and every other kind of shortage," the
official
said.
If Mr Mugabe stays in power for another 18 months, a further
two
million people may leave, he warned.
Describing Zimbabwe as
a place that "feels half empty," the diplomat
said rural areas are
particularly badly hit, with middle-aged people "either
dead of HIV or
gone." If Mr Mugabe stays in power, the source, said "he
would outlive
Zimbabwe".
Morgan Tsvangirai, the opposition leader, recently met
the senior
diplomat. "He said to me there is no food in this country. That
is a slight
exaggeration but only a slight one."
Mr Mugabe was
expected to address the UN general assembly in New York
last night amid
reports that he and his Iranian counterpart, Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad, are
considering forming a coalition against "global bullies".
Mr
Mugabe's attempts to control inflation by cutting prices have only
made the
situation much worse. While inflation is officially less than 7,000
per
cent, the official said it was "probably between 13,000 and 20,000 per
cent.
No one knows".
He warned that shortages of supplies were now so bad
that "even the
black market is beginning to dry up".
Yesterday,
the Zimbabwean parliament passed a bill giving local owners
majority control
of foreign firms.
Shell, BP and Barclays are among the British
companies still operating
in Zimbabwe although most foreign companies have
already reduced their
activities in the country to a minimum.
The official said Mr Mugabe was unlikely to relinquish power or be
forced to
stand aside by members of his own Zanu-PF party.
Parliamentary and
presidential elections are due in March. But the
opposition is unlikely to
mount a serious challenge and, he observed, "the
people have chosen flight,
not fight".
Talk of a coup led by retired army commander General
Solomon Mujuru is
gaining momentum, he said. "What's left? General Mujuru
has a palace coup
option," he said.
Reuters
Thu Sep 27, 2007 4:25am
BST
By Claudia Parsons
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Zimbabwe's
president, Robert Mugabe, accused U.S.
President George W. Bush of "rank
hypocrisy" on Wednesday for lecturing him
on human rights and likened the
U.S. Guantanamo Bay prison to a
concentration camp.
"His hands drip
with innocent blood of many nationalities," Mugabe said in a
typically fiery
speech to the U.N. General Assembly. "He kills in Iraq. He
kills in
Afghanistan. And this is supposed to be our master on human
rights?"
Mugabe, 83, in power since independence from Britain in
1980, was speaking
the day after Bush scolded the governments of Belarus,
Syria, Iran and North
Korea as "brutal regimes" in his speech to the General
Assembly.
Bush criticized the Zimbabwe government headed by Mugabe as
"tyrannical" and
an "assault on its people."
Critics accuse Mugabe of
plunging Zimbabwe's once-thriving economy into an
abyss of widespread food
shortages and hyperinflation. Mugabe accuses
Western countries of sabotaging
the economy as punishment for his seizure of
white-owned farms to resettle
landless blacks.
"What rank hypocrisy," Mugabe said of Bush's
speech.
He said Bush imprisoned and tortured people in Abu Ghraib prison
in Iraq and
at Guantanamo, the U.S. military prison in Cuba where al Qaeda
suspects are
held.
"At that concentration camp, international law
does not apply," said Mugabe,
a former Marxist guerrilla who fought for
independence from Britain.
"America is primarily responsible for
rewriting core tenets of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights," he
said. "We seem all guilty for 9/11."
Bush has come under international
criticism for holding suspects without
trial at Guantanamo and for
interrogation techniques that human rights
groups say amount to torture.
Bush denies the United States tortures.
Mugabe said Bush and his ally,
former Prime Minister Tony Blair, "rode
roughshod" over the United Nations
when they went to war in Iraq, yet now
Bush was asking the world body to
expand its role in Iraq.
"Almighty Bush is now coming back to the
U.N. for a rescue package because
his nose is bloodied. Yet he dares to
lecture us on tyranny," Mugabe said.
He accused Britain and the United
States of a campaign to destabilize and
vilify Zimbabwe.
Zimbabwe is
grappling with the world's highest inflation rate of more than
6,600
percent, shortages of foreign exchange, fuel and food and rocketing
unemployment that has left many people unable to buy even basic
foodstuffs.
South African Nobel peace laureate Desmond Tutu told Reuters
on Tuesday he
was "devastated" by the human rights abuses of Mugabe's
government and he
struggled to understand how Mugabe had changed so
drastically after steering
the former British colony to independence.
OneWorld.net
Ida Wahlstrom
OneWorld US
Thu., Sep. 27,
2007
WASHINGTON, Sep 27 (OneWorld) - Civil society
activists from
Zimbabwe recently traveled to the United States to lobby for
a more just
international economic structure and to raise awareness about
their
country's devastating economic crisis.
Ntando
Ndlovu and Rutendo Hadebe spent the majority of their
week-long visit on
Capitol Hill, urging U.S. lawmakers to promote
legislation that favors a
more equitable global economic system.
Many citizens' groups
in Zimbabwe have blamed the country's
economic woes in part on restrictive
policies imposed by the International
Monetary Fund (IMF) and other global
agencies in return for financial
assistance and promises of debt
cancellation.
Zimbabwe has the world's highest inflation rate
and over 35
percent of its citizens are unable to provide for basic
household food
needs.
Ndlovu and Hadebe came to
Washington specifically to encourage
the United States government to take a
leadership role in advancing a fairer
global trade regime and "democratic,
people-centered economic governance" in
the global South in general and in
Zimbabwe in particular.
The United States wields tremendous
power within the governing
boards of the IMF and World Bank, which are both
headquartered here. These
institutions play a crucial gatekeeping role in
directing investments,
loans, and grants that contribute to the development
of poor nations.
In order to more effectively communicate
their message to an
American public, the activists have partnered with the
Philadelphia-based
American Friends Service Committee (AFSC), a Nobel
Prize-winning non-profit
organization that promotes social justice and
global economic fairness.
Of the 12 million Zimbabweans still
living in the country --
several million have fled due to the spiraling
economic and political
situation -- 70 percent reside in rural areas and
work mainly in
agriculture.
Analysts attribute this
country's current economic situation to
various factors that have unraveled
over the last decade. These include a
series of poorly managed and
underfunded land reform programs; a global
economic system that favors
wealthy nations; and isolation from the
international community and most
humanitarian aid agencies, spurred by
repressive and corrupt political
practices.
Although many of Zimbabwe's concerns seem tied to
decisions made
in official circles, Ndlovu and Hadebe emphasized the central
role
grassroots activism can play in affecting political and social change.
The
women told OneWorld that, "if ordinary people are not aware of and
involved
in their country's government, lasting change is not
possible."
A government responsive to its citizens' needs,
the activists
continued, would prioritize "pro-people policies" that not
only guarantee
basic needs such as food and health care but incorporate
regular civilians
into the political decision-making
process.
After independence was achieved from Britain in
1980, Ndlovu
added, the Zimbabwean government made ample investments in
education and
health care, but many simply understood this as newly gained
privileges, not
as innate and indefinite rights.
The
Zimbabwe Coalition on Debt and Development (ZIMCODD), one of
the many
organizations working in partnership with the AFSC, teaches
ordinary
Zimbabweans to be more assertive and to demand their rights be
fulfilled,
even in a period of economic crisis.
Zimbabwe's Women in
Politics Support Unit (WiPSU) is also active
at the grassroots level,
promoting gender equality and political
participation by reaching out to
local communities across Zimbabwe.
Among many other
initiatives, WiPSU is currently staging a
national campaign that demands
full gender parity in government and
throughout Zimbabwean society, arguing
that women leaders are more likely to
promote "pro-people policies" like
expanded health care and education
opportunities.
The
group's team members also travel regularly throughout
Zimbabwe's villages to
educate local people about basic politics. The
programs are intended to
provide rural Zimbabweans the basic tools and
terminology needed to
participate in politics and hold their elected
officials
accountable.
Activist Hadebe agrees with this approach. The
power lies with
the people, she told OneWorld, and leaders should act "in
light of what the
people are asking for."
The activists
are hoping that a combination of people power
within their country and
activist efforts among global financial circles
will bring about lasting
economic and social improvements for the people of
Zimbabwe.
The Zimbabwean
HARARE - It
is high time the Zimbabwe government swallowed its pride and
abandons price
controls enforced in July considering the huge problems they
have created
for business and ordinary Zimbabweans, leading stock market
analysts said
this week.
The pricing of basic foodstuffs at levels 50 percent below normal
market
levels has left firms selling goods below cost, Zimbabwe Stock
Exchange
chairman Emmanuel Munyuki noted.
The price gap has led to job
losses and has intensified food shortages, said
another analyst Witness
Chinyama.
He said it was high time government accepted that its pricing model
did not
work.
Chinyama spoke amid deepening bread shortages, as Zimbabwe
failed to pay for
wheat imports that have been docked at the Beira port for
the past two
months now.
The economic basis of running a bakery has been
rendered "nonsensical",
Chinyama added. "They have to cut back. There have
been some lay-offs."
Food shortages - already widespread in rural areas
because of a grain
shortage - are now a real problem in urban
areas.
Independent studies have found that the price of goods such as soap
and
vegetables have risen by up to 180 percent on a thriving black market
over
the past month alone.
Munyuki said demand for shares in financial
services firms has helped the
stock market withstand the country's economic
collapse.
Many investors have seen high returns from banking stocks, despite
a poorer
performance from shares in industrial and manufacturing concerns
among the
71 companies listed on the stock market.
"We have survived by
the grace of God," Munyuki said. "There is nothing that
anyone has done to
explain why we are still more or less doing business and
still making money.
Other sectors have collapsed altogether... it is nothing
less than a miracle
of God." - Chief Reporter
United Methodist News Service
Sep. 26, 2007
By Linda
Green*
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (UMMS) - Even as the African country of Zimbabwe
falters
under a staggering inflation rate of 7,500 percent, "there is life,"
says a
Zimbabwean native.
Speaking to members of the Africa
University Advisory Development Committee
Sept. 21 and Sept. 22, the
Zimbabwean - who asked for anonymity out of
concern about government
repercussions - said that while numerous challenges
face the sub-Saharan
country, the most difficult is shortages of basic
commodities on market
shelves.
However, food is available outside the established channels.
"One has to
stretch a little bit to make sure food is on the table," she
added.
The development committee, established in 1993, works with the
Africa
University Development Office in Nashville and agencies of The United
Methodist Church to raise money for the school's capital, endowment and
operational needs.
Waiting for change The Zimbabwean native assured
the committee members that
while the country is facing turbulent times,
"there is life in Zimbabwe."
"We are surviving," she said.
What is
happening in Zimbabwe is not new to Africa. "The history of Africa
and the
history of a lot of African countries is that they all have gone
through
some of these adversities and have come out of it," she said.
The country
has experienced water shortages and drought, a lack of foreign
currency,
electrical outages, political repression, economic hardships and
poverty. An
estimated four out of five Zimbabweans live below the poverty
line. Since
2002, an estimated 3 million residents have fled to South Africa
alone,
while others have gone to Zambia and Botswana.
"A few years ago, Angola
faced similar economic challenges, but today has
the fastest-growing economy
in the world, at 35 percent, making it three
times the growth of the United
States," said the Zimbabwean, who does
business throughout the
continent.
Critics of Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe blame government
mismanagement
for much of the nation's woes. At 83, Mugabe has been
Zimbabwe's only
president since the country achieved independence from
Britain 27 years ago.
His tenure has been marked by economic crises that
include chronic shortages
of food and fuel. Unemployment today is estimated
at above 80 percent, and
human rights leader Desmond Tutu, former Anglican
archbishop of Capetown,
has called for Africa and the world to pay attention
to Zimbabwe's plight.
School carries on
Despite all that is
happening, Africa University officials say the school
continues to function
unaffected by the politics of the country. While it is
affected by commodity
shortages, the university farm helps make up for that
by providing
vegetables, milk and eggs for the school.
The university also "continues
to operate without any interference from the
government," James Salley,
director of institutional advancement
He told the committee that all of
Zimbabwe awaits a change. "We believe a
change is going to come to Zimbabwe.
The people are waiting for that change.
It will not be violent but orderly
and in God's time."
A sign of change occurred Sept. 18, when a
constitutional deal was approved
by the country's ruling and main opposition
parties. The constitutional
amendments pave the way for joint parliamentary
and presidential elections
in 2008 and would reduce the president's term
from six to five years. Some
consider the deal a first step in lifting the
country from its economic and
political malaise.
The amendments also
are expected to re-draw electoral boundaries, increase
the number of
representatives and move up parliamentary elections by two
years.
*Green is a United Methodist News Service news writer based in
Nashville,
Tenn.
The Zimbabwean
HARARE
South
Africa's hosting of the 2010 soccer World Cup has been the major
factor
behind that country's change of approach regarding the worsening
crisis in
Zimbabwe.
An official from President Thabo Mbeki's office in Pretoria told
The
Zimbabwean this week that "Mugabe has to go soonest, otherwise we
continue
taking the risk of international politics causing us to lose the
hosting of
the World Cup".
On the other hand, this paper has established
through informed sources privy
to the politics that influence the Federation
of International Football
Associations (FIFA) that Australia is quietly
placing itself to be on stand
by to host the soccer finals in the event SA
is "found to be unsuitable,
mainly for the dangerous and very serious crisis
in Zimbabwe".
"We have to admit it, the hosting of the World Cup became the
major factor
in our government coming to the position that Mugabe has to go
and if Zanu
(PF) has to remain in power, it has to reform or at least work
with the
opposition in a government of national unity," a source
said.
"We are actually under a lot of pressure and racing against time
because by
June next year there must be undoubted signs of things
normalising and the
economy recovering."
The Zimbabwean recently reported
how minutes at hand showed the SA
government now admitting that "they have
acted as a buffer and protected
Mugabe" but who "never meant to keep any of
the promises made to the SA
government. This was seen as the highest level
of abuse of the person and
office of the (SA) presidency". - Itai Dzamara
The Zimbabwean
HARARE - Ruling
party militants are unleashing terror in Zimbabwe's rural
areas, in what the
opposition says is an attempt to lock out its campaigners
ahead of the
crunch 2008 vote.
Militants are storming rural areas, while members of the
ruling party youth
militia in green government-issue uniforms are manning
roadblocks to seal
off districts to supporters of the opposition.
Ian
Makone, the MDC elections secretary, accused President Robert Mugabe's
party
of creating "no go areas" for opposition supporters ahead of the vote
scheduled for March next year.
"Such areas are being systematically
extended ... there is no prospect of
the elections being free and fair in
these areas," he said.
Zanu (PF) spokesman Nathan Shamuyarira was not
immediately available to
respond to the allegations. But he has in the past
denied reports that the
ruling party used intimidation to cow the electorate
into submission.
The Zimbabwean heard that in Karoi, scores of
slogan-chanting militants
ordered farm workers on Sunday to buy ruling party
membership cards to help
them pass through the militia
checkpoints.
Without a card, "you are humiliated. We were made to kneel in
the road and
beg to be let through and sing slogans," said a farm worker who
asked not to
be identified.
The youth militias have ignored government
assurances that only police are
permitted at roadblocks. Police have not
prevented the militias throwing up
checkpoints.
Police were unavailable
for comment on violence.
SW RADIO TRANSCRIPT
Broadcast 25 September
2007
Violet Gonda: My guest on the programme Hot Seat today is Professor
Welshman
Ncube, the Secretary General of the Mutambara led MDC formation.
Thank you
for joining us Professor Ncube.
Welshman Ncube: Thank
you
Violet: Now there are serious divisions over constitutional
Amendment no.18
and many especially in the civil society have accused the
opposition of
betraying the people by agreeing to the Amendments with the
ruling party.
Can you first of all tell us why both MDCs reached this
agreement?
Welshman Ncube: Well let me, Violet, first say that
the agreement or
understanding on Amendment no.18 must be understood in its
proper context.
I am dismayed at the dishonest presentation of what it
stands for and taking
it completely out of context. The context is that -
you have ongoing
dialogue and discussions over a wide-range of issues, which
have caused
conflicts in our country. And as part of that process there came
the issue
of Amendment no.18, which ZANU PF wanted to pursue and that
agreement is a
side agreement within the context of a broader
discussion.
Why did we reach that agreement? Firstly, you have to realise
that we have
agreed in the dialogue that there are five items for
negotiations. First: A
new constitution for Zimbabwe. Secondly: New
electoral laws. Thirdly: Reform
of security legislation including POSA
(Public Order and Security Act).
Fourthly: reform of media laws including
the Broadcasting Services Act as
well as AIPPA (Access to Information and
Protection of Privacy Act). Then
finally: the political climate in the
country. Under the political climate
you have such things as sanctions, the
use of traditional leaders, the youth
militias, violence and so forth and so
on. All those things are on the
agenda.
And in our presentation in
parliament on Tuesday the 18th, we made it very
clear that the side
agreement on Amendment no.18 does not detract to our
commitment to a new
constitution before the elections. And that within the
auspices of the
dialogue there is the understanding we are negotiating the
modalities of how
to come up with a new constitution before the elections.
And the question is
- how can we reconcile the ZANU PF position, which has
been unilateralist in
the past, which has excluded public participation -
with our preferred
position of having an open, transparent process which is
as inclusive and is
as participatory as possible. And that is what is being
negotiated - how do
we find a compromise between those two positions. And
that has to be done
before the elections and that is agreed upon and is
being negotiated
around.
So it is very clear that when we therefore agree to the deal on
Amendment
no.18 it is within a context of undertakings and understandings
that the
question of a new constitution before elections remains firmly on
the
agenda. That is the context that all those who have criticised this
have, in
my view, have deliberately ignored because we have made it clear in
our
presentations in parliament. Even ZANU PF itself made it clear that this
is
a temporary measure pending agreement around the modalities on how to
come
up with a new constitution.
Violet: But Professor Ncube, others
would ask that if you are negotiating
for a new constitution what is the
point of wasting time amending the
present constitution.
Welshman
Ncube: Good question. Remember in any negotiations you cannot get
the
perfect world you want. The perfect world we would have loved - if we
could
get it - was a situation where we did not have to deal with any
piecemeal
Amendments. But the world is not always perfect, you don't always
get what
you want, you have to compromise. We were faced with a situation
where ZANU
PF was saying they have resolutions of its Central Committee,
they have a
commitment to proceed with Amendment no.18. If we did not want
to discuss
Amendment no.18 they would proceed with it as it was published.
Or if we
wanted to discuss it or were willing to discuss it or were
persuaded to
discuss it, we could then deal with our objections on content.
What is it in
the original Amendment no.18, which we were unhappy with. We
then discussed
that and we therefore were able to change significantly the
original
Amendment no.18.
For instance: Out went the appointed members of the
House of Assembly.
Secondly: All elections were now synchronized in one day
including local
government parliamentary as well as presidential. The
variance factor in
delimitation, which they were increasing to 25%, they
agreed to put it back
to 20%. The question of composition of Senate, which
was disproportionately
made of unelected people - we attempted to re-balance
it by providing more
senators who are elected. They became 60 of them. And
all of those things
are an improvement. A marked significant improvement on
Amendment 18.
If anyone then says it would have been better for us to
allow ZANU PF to
proceed unilaterally with an amendment, which contained
many problematic
provisions rather than at least improve on it, then I do
not know what we
want.
For me and for us, it is better to have a
better content than to have the
worst possible content because we are saying
we do not want to talk about
Amendment no.18. Therefore in our view
Amendment no.18 is a great
improvement on content. Fair and fine there are
those who will quibble with
the question of whether or not this little
concession does not violate the
major principle of saying let us make a new
constitution. In our view it
does not for the simple reason that it is a
stepping-stone to the bigger
question. If we can clear Amendment no.18 and
end up with an open and
transparent constitution before the elections - what
is the problem with
that?
Violet: But let's assume it's a step in the
right direction as you seem to
be implying here. What about the other
outstanding issues - like the voter's
roll, the eligibility of voters
outside the country. Why couldn't you as the
opposition "as a confidence
building measure" persuade ZANU PF to allow
postal votes or even to
dismantle youth militia bases before you agreed to
such an
arrangement?
Welshman Ncube: First of all with Amendment no.18.
you could only discuss
those issues, which were already raised in the public
amendment no.18. You
could not start to add issues, which were not covered
by the original
Amendment no.18. That's number 1. Secondly, all those
issues, which you
raised, are firmly on the agenda. I will not pre-empt and
I will not
disclose things, which are supposed to be confidential at this
stage. But
everything you have referred to is firmly on the agenda and being
discussed.
And indeed some of the issues you raised have actually been
cleared in terms
of the dialogue and you have to appreciate that everybody
wants all the five
items to be dealt with so that at the end of the dialogue
you have one
comprehensive agreement covering the five agenda items - the
constitution,
electoral laws, security legislation, media laws, the
political
... and some of them have been cleared or will be cleared.
There will be
compromises there will be agreements around them. But because
you have five
items on the agenda all of which have to be cleared at the end
of the
dialogue, you cannot then have a situation where you are taking out
some of
those things. You need a comprehensive agreement covering all the
five
agenda items. And all those things you refer to are on the
agenda.
Violet: But when are the people or the general public
going to find out
what exactly is being discussed. And why is there so much
secrecy about
these talks between the political
parties?
Welshman Ncube: Well firstly, that question is best
asked to SADC and the
SADC leadership. The rules of the dialogue and
engagement were set by SADC
and were set by the mediator. In their wisdom
they believed that negotiating
in the glare of publicity would ensure - in
our polarised situation that
each of the sides will focus more on public
grand-standing and scoring
points rather than doing proper negotiations.
They then created the rule -
which all the parties accepted - that the
negotiations should remain in
terms of content remain confidential. So I am
not the best person to answer
that question. That question is best answered
by the mediator and SADC who
in fact - in their wisdom, found it necessary
to impose that confidentiality
clause.
Violet: But how then
are you going to be held accountable for the decisions
that you actually
make if you can't at least tell the public the process or
progress of the
talks?
Welshman Ncube: Firstly we are accountable to the
structures of the
political parties we represent and we report
confidentially to our National
Councils. ZANU PF to its Central Committee
or Politburo, the two MDC
formations to their National Councils and that is
where the accountability
lies, in the first
instance.
Violet: But does it not bother you as the
opposition leadership that there
is nobody else - even from the civic
society - being informed but
yourselves. Is this not
elitist?
Welshman Ncube: No it is an issue between the mediator
and the civic
society.
Violet: Now the common understanding
right now is that you have sold out, as
the opposition, and some prominent
civic leaders have called it a betrayal
of principles - in the way that you
have agreed to these amendments with the
ruling party. What can you say
about this?
Welshman Ncube: Firstly, everybody has a right to
form the opinion they
form. We respect the opinion held in good faith by
anyone who holds that
opinion. Regrettably in our view that opinion is
mis-informed and is a down
right wrong. As I have explained previously,
without having to repeat
myself, there is no sell-out agreement of any kind.
This is a comprehensive
dialogue. The agreement on Amendment no.18 must be
understood within the
context of a confidence building, it must be
understood within the context
of that it is a side agreement. The broader
issues, the fundamental issues
are being addressed in the main dialogue and
clearly therefore there is
nothing about selling out in respect of this
specific issue at all.
Violet: But Professor Ncube does it not
now concern you though that you now
don't have the backing of the support
base in the civic society? Let me just
quote some of the responses from
leading civil and human rights leaders who
spoke about this in the different
newspapers or internet sites. The NCA
chairperson Dr. Lovemore Madhuku said
'you have capitulated as the
opposition.' Another human rights lawyer Arnold
Tsunga is also quoted
saying 'it is surprising that the two MDCs could
enter deals with ZPF when
they know the deteriorating human rights
conditions outside parliament.'?
Fambai Ngirande the spokesperson of the
National Association of NGOs said
there was no citizen participation
whatsoever in the formulation of that
amendment. Now as I asked you before -
does this not concern you that you
don't seem to have the backing from the
civil society?
Welshman Ncube: Well firstly you have to ask
yourself what is the proper
role of civil society. The proper role in our
understanding of civil society
is not to be a front for any political party.
It is not to be an extension
of any political party. They are to be
independent, they are to play their
advocacy, they are there to criticise
and to basically mobilise for those
things that they want. And
consequently, in my view, if they hold a
different opinion on this
particular issue they are entitled to voice that
opinion even if in our view
that opinion happens to be wrong. And that is
their proper role. And
therefore you should not seek to conflate and subsume
civil society as an
extension of the MDC or the opposition. The opposition
is about politics. It
is about competing for political office. Civil society
is about advocacy,
about specific certain issues, which fall within the
areas of those civil
society organisations. And for me the most important
thing is that civil
society remains independent and plays that independent
role and if they hold
the opinions they hold and they have articulated
them - that is very good,
in fact that is how it should be.
Violet: But do you not think
what they have to say about the process is
important and is it fair on the
general populace if you don't consult with
stakeholders?
Welshman Ncube: Firstly it is a downright wrong
and a lie to say we have not
been in touch and we have not been consulting
with the civil society. We
have. And if we disagree we disagree. You cannot
say because we have
disagreed we have not consulted and we have not
discussed.?? Secondly, you
ought to realise that civil society, as I have
repeatedly been saying,
ought to be independent ought to have its own views
and indeed in a proper
society in a proper democracy there should not always
be agreeing with the
opposition. They should not always agree with the
ruling party or the
government of the day and I do not see anything wrong in
them holding a
different opinion and articulating that opinion. And if
those? of us who are
in the political forefront consider that they have
valid opinions - those
opinions would be taken into
account.??
Violet: But you know, I spoke with the NCA leader, Dr
Madhuku and he said
that he only saw this document after it was secretly
passed to him by a
parliamentarian and it's interesting that you are saying
that you did
consult with the civic society. Now he says this shows that the
MDC cannot
be trusted. These seems like harsh words from the civic leader.
What can you
say about this???
Welshman Ncube: Violet you're
flogging a dead horse, consultation does not
mean? giving documents. It
means talking and raising the issues that are at
stake and that was done. I
do not wish to be involved in any slanging match
with anybody else. The fact
that we are in disagreement is acknowledged and
is respected. Passing
documents to people is not consultations. Consultation
is discussing the
issues as they arise.??
Violet: You were part of the civil
society as the National Constitution
Assembly in 2000, where you actually
agreed to reject anything that is short
of a people driven constitution. So
what really has changed, did you not as
an opposition agree never to agree
to piecemeal amendments?
Welshman Ncube: First, accept that the
NCA position was never meant to be a
fundamentalist position. The most
important thing was always about finding a
new? democratic constitution. It
was not holding a prisoner hostage to a
process (inaudible). A? process is
always negotiable as long as at the end
of the day there? has been some
participation, at the end of the day there
is a new democratic?
decision.
Secondly, amendment number 18 is merely, as I have
repeatedly said in? this
interview, a side agreement. There is an
understanding that we will have ?to
agree on the modalities of coming with a
new comprehensive constitution?,
which will seek to reconcile our ideal open
transparent people centered
constitution-making-process. With the ZANU PF
way you cannot maintain two
fundamentally opposed positions forever. You
need to sometimes to make a
compromise and that is what we are? talking
about. Where can we find a
compromise, which will be reassuring to
?everybody, which will allow us to
have some public involvement in the?
making of new constitution. That is why
we are in the dialogue and that is
what ?we've been talking about over the
last couple of
months.??
Violet: But do you understand why your critics would
ask about why you are?
having these side agreements because its no secret
that ZANU PF has? never
played by the rules. What makes you think that the
ruling party will? comply
and play by the rules this
time???
Welshman Ncube: Well first, that is a strange question,
we have no reason
to think they? will play by the rules, we have no reason
to think that they
will not. The? whole point of a negotiation if you have a
crisis and you
have a problem you will? negotiate and say - alright these
are the wrong
things that we have ?been doing, we want them to come to an
end. What is the
technical agreement ?we can reach to bring them to an end?
And that is what
we are doing. You ?cannot say because in the past you have
not respected
agreements or you have? done wrong things, we can no longer
find it useful
to negotiate and agree on new rules. It is an exercise in
futility.??
Imagine, for instance in 1979 in the negotiations the
Patriotic Front says;
'Ian Smith has no record of observing agreements he
has a record of violence
and? therefore we can't talk to him because we
don't believe any agreement
will? be implicated.' Imagine in South Africa in
1994, them saying that the
apartheid ?regime had a history of violence, a
history of breaching
agreements therefore? we can't talk to them to have a
new agreement. That is
plain nonsense.?? What you need to do is to put that
issue to the test. You
negotiate, have an? agreement, have mechanism of
insuring its enforcement
and put it to the? test.??
Violet:
But truthfully speaking what is the MDC getting out of this because
the?
violence is continuing, arbitrary arrests are continuing and some even
say?
that the MDC has unwittingly given Mugabe's electoral process
legitimacy
which? will ensure that he will go to elections in a much
stronger
position.? Did ZANU PF really need your endorsement? It is in the
majority
?after all and could have passed this amendment without your
approval. ?So
why did you bother???
Welshman Ncube: That is plainly wrong, it
is plainly wrong and also
dishonest! The ?amendment, which was passed was
not the same Amendment which
ZANU PF wanted ?to enact! I will not repeat
what I said - all the
improvements, which are on ?Amendment no.18 in terms
of composition of the
house of assembly, in terms of? synchronization of
elections. So if we had
let ZANU PF do what it wanted it ?would have passed
the original Amendment
no.18, which would have contained? fundamentally
wrong things that we did
not want to be in place. That is the? point that
ought to be underlined and
underlined clearly, that Amendment? no.18 as
passed is a different creature,
it is a different animal from the ?original
published Amendment no.18.
And secondly, we have said
painstakingly Amendment ?no.18 is not the end. It
is not the beginning and
the end.? It is merely a confidence building
measure and as I have
painstakingly tried ?to say, we have firmly on the
agenda, the issue of a
new constitution? before the election.??
Violet: But I am sorry
Professor Ncube to keep going back to this same
issue, but for ?years the
opposition has questioned Mugabe's legitimacy,
and for years you have been
saying Zimbabweans have no confidence in ZANU
PF. And you even? branded
yourselves as a government in waiting and now you
seem to have made a
u?-turn in the name of 'confidence building measures.'
Your critics ask;
'whose ?confidence are you trying to bring out now???'
Welshman
Ncube: Well, firstly does that imply if the Mugabe regime is
illegitimate?
it means that you can't negotiate with it to create new rules?
Unless of?
course you have arms and you can fight them and drive them and
then you have
imposed peace terms. And therefore as long as they are there
and are a force
to reckon with and you want to change the situation you need
to be able ?to
dialogue with them. It is as plain as that . Anything else,
unless you have?
a war and you can drive them out of the country, is
sustainable.??
Violet: Were you put under pressure by the
South Africans to agree with
ZANU? PF???
Welshman Ncube:
Certainly not. The role of the South Africans is a
facilitation ?role. They
simply bring the parties together. If there is a
dispute they ?help the
parties find alternative ways of compromising around
that disputed ?issue.
So there is no role to pressurise anyone on content,
they can put ?pressure
on people to stay in the negotiating table until they
agree but? they
definitely do not pressurise on anyone on what to accept and
on what not to
?accept.??
Violet: You said during your contribution in
parliament lat week that at
the? negotiating table you are there as one MDC
and that you agreed to
endorse ?this amendment as one MDC, We heard that the
two MDC leaders Morgan
Tsvangirai and Professor Arthur Mutambara met? Thabo
Mbeki last week. So
what are you actually planning regarding the unity
?issue.??
Welshman Ncube : Well we are talking about the SADC
dialogue and Amendment
no.18 and that's a? completely different
matter.??
Violet: Amendment no.18 has to do with elections and
surely the public?
deserves to know what is happening in terms of the two
warring factions in
the ?MDC??
?Welshman Ncube: I am afraid I
have nothing further to add to our National
Councils' ?resolutions and that
is in the public arena and there is nothing
new on the
?issue.?????
Violet: But come elections are you going to
participate as two MDC's or one?
MDC???
Welshman Ncube:
Violet there is absolutely nothing new on that subject! As
things stand at
the moment there is no agreement to fight elections as one.
We? have sought
that agreement we have placed on public record all the
things that ?we did
in order to obtain an agreement. Regrettably no
agreement has been accepted
by both sides and that is where things stand.
And there is nothing? else I
can add unless there is a movement in one
direction or another at the?
moment there is nothing new.??
Violet: But isn't it important to
unify yourselves as the opposition first?
before you commit the nation to be
committed to ZANU PF? We are not hearing?
anything about the unity of the
two MDC's and is this not important first
to? deal with or to
tackle?
??Welshman Ncube: Our National Council has pronounced on
that, that we put a
united front, a coalition against the Mugabe regime and
that we were
instructed to do everything we ?could to secure it and
regrettably we have
not been able to do so.? And it doesn't matter how many
times you ask that
question, the answer will? remain the
same.??
Violet Gonda: And finally Professor Ncube, come elections
and there is no
new? constitution, will the MDC still participate in the
elections???
Welshman Ncube: Well, that's not a decision for me.
All I know is that at
the end of the SADC dialogue and if it flops and there
is no new
constitution and nothing ?happens, the MDC collectively, the
National
Council will have to make their resolution one way or another and
it is not
for me at this stage to pre-empt? that
decision.??
Violet Gonda: Thank you very much Professor Welshman
Ncube.
Comments and feedback can be emailed to violet@swradioafrica.com
Zimbabwe Information Centre Inc – Australia
Dear Friends and Comrades,
The Zimbabwe Information Centre in Australia stands 100 per cent with the people of Zimbabwe in their powerful desire for democratic change, especially now when the Mugabe regime is so isolated from the people, under so much international scrutiny and pressure, and presiding over such a profound economic and social collapse of a once proud nation.
Our view is that the projected national elections in 2008 can only bring about genuine democratic change if:
We believe that the Constitutional amendment on elections adopted by the Zimbabwe parliament on September 20, 2007, can only be a part of this kind of reform package, and that the people of Zimbabwe can have no confidence about the reform process unless there is a total package.
We do believe that the Constitutional amendment of September 20 is part of a process that may enable the full package to take shape.
We realise the enormous stress under which everyone in Zimbabwe is living and working, and express our deepest wish that you can stay united in this delicate moment, to maximise the opportunities for genuine political change to democracy, giving real hope for the revival and reconstruction of your nation.
September 27, 2007.
Peter Murphy, Secretary
The Zimbabwean
BY ITAI DZAMARA
Just
as we tried to establish what had suddenly caused many people to
scramble
around a newspaper vendor along First Street in Harare last week on
Thursday
another stampede down the street attracted our attention. This one
was a
result of the arrival of an ice cream vendor.
Chaos and near fist fights
ensued soon after the arrival of The Zimbabwean
and the Financial Gazette
newspapers. Within about 30 minutes The Zimbabwean
was pronounced finished
and the majority of vendors had hidden many copies
of that would later be
sold at the black market, at prices as high as $50
000.
Zimbabweans are
desperate for information. They are paying the huge price of
evil plans by a
mad regime, and some crazy Jonathan Moyos who made sure to
close newspapers
and continue blocking the establishment of more players in
print and
electronic media. But the story with ice creams is more
saddening.
The
stampede was not at all a result of a huge reduction in prices. They had
actually been increased by more than 100% from those imposed by the wayward
Mugabe regime in July. The major reason behind many Zimbabweans scrambling
for anything that is available, from ice cream, to freezits, bananas and
even cream doughnuts, is they have been condemned to grinding
poverty.
The reality of hunger in the lives of the majority is understated.
A man
arrives home from work and finds his wife and three kids licking their
dry
lips in a the dark because there is no electricity. Visiting the toilet
takes him face to face with heaps of unflushed waste - there has not been
water for almost 24 hours. When electricity is switched on towards
midnight, all that the wife can put together for the family is porridge -
mealie meal has almost run out and there is none to buy in the shops. The
porridge only has a little sugar in it. There is nothing else for the
meal.
The man wakes up in the morning and finds electricity switched off,
water
still not flowing from the taps. He heads for work, having washed
only his
face. Come lunch time, he struggles around the city centre, but
there is
nothing to buy in the shops. There are not even bananas or oranges
on the
streets. He is almost fainting, hence he gives it his best shot to
get an
ice cream after the unexpected arrival of the ice cream man.
These
are harrowing tales everyone now openly discusses in commuter
omnibuses, in
queues and even at funerals in Mutoko. Zimbabweans now know
that despite his
clever deception and propaganda, Robert Mugabe is the
architect of their
hell on earth. His stupid claims about sanctions, MDC,
Blair, Bush or
saboteurs have ceased to impress more than the few hypocrites
that surround
him.
And the time of reckoning shall certainly come!
The Zimbabwean
(26-09-07)
Staff Reporter
Johannesburg: The opposition Movement
for Democratic Change (MDC) led by
Professor Arthur Mutambara will this
weekend hold a rally and congress to
launch next year's elections in
Johannesburg .
According to MDC's information officer Ngqabutho Dube,
Mutambara, vice
President Gibson Sibanda and local chairman Jabulani
Mkwanazi are to address
the rally at Hillbrow Theatre on
Saturday.
Hillbrow is a suburb where thousands of Zimbabweans who have
fled the
political and economic meltdown in their country live.
"As
the South African branch of the MDC we are pleased that President
Mutambara
will come and address exiled Zimbabweans as an expression of the
party's
concern about the worsening political impasse in Zimbabwe ," said
Dube.
This will be the first meeting to be addressed by the senior
leadership of
the MDC in South Africa and according to Dube, more rallies
are lined as
Zimbabwe gears for presidential, parliamentary and council
elections in
March next year.
Dube added that they were a great need
among Zimbabweans in Diaspora to
engage in the democracy project as this
would help in delivering a
democratic dispensation soon.
"All
Zimbabweans are encouraged to come and attend this rally as it will
among
others address the issue of action plan from the party's leadership
structure," added Dube.
Analysts are already predicting a political
victory for the MDC led by
Mutambara as far as the diasporas constituency is
concerned as the other
faction leader Morgan Tsvangirai had previously
failed to address the rally.
VOA
By James Butty
Washington, D.C.
27
September 2007
Several African leaders addressed the UN General
Assembly in New York
Wednesday , including Benin, Botswana, Burundi,
Liberia, Nigeria, Sierra
Leone, Tanzania, and Zimbabwe. Tajudeen
Abdul-Raheem is a Pan-Africanist and
deputy director for the UN Millennium
Campaign based in Nairobi, Kenya. He
told VOA that unlike the past, African
leaders speaking at this year's U.N.
General Assembly meeting are pushing
continental African issues.
"What is interesting to me is the fact that
in the past, African leaders
tended to come these meetings to be led, and
what is emerging now is that
they are actually bringing their own issues
onto the agenda, and I think
this is absolutely important. The speeches of
President Thabo Mbeki (of
South Africa) and President Yar'Adua (of Nigeria),
both of which I listened
to actually emphasized those. They talked about
what they are doing but also
within the wider context of African solutions
to African problems and Africa's
contributions to global solutions, and I
think that is the right way to go,"
he said.
On the situation in
Sudan's Darfur region, Abdul-Raheem said Africa must
remain united in its
demand for President Omar al- Bashir of Sudan to
respect the idea of a
hybrid peacekeeping force.
"There is basic agreement that both the
African Union and the United Nations
need actually to be tougher with the
government of Khartoum that it is
simply not acceptable for a government to
be condoning a massacre of its own
citizens. I think all the agreements are
in place. What is necessary is
implementation, and I think in the spirit of
genuine Pan-Africanism and in
the spirit of global peace and security that
both the African Union and UN
exert pressure and expedite the implementation
of having this hybrid force
on the ground to protect civilians against these
killers," Abdul-Raheem
said.
He said there is an African consensus
about the need to reform not only the
United Nations but also other
international institutions, including the
International Monetary Fund and
the World Bank.
"Really for the UN to have continued relevance and
credibility and
legitimacy with peoples of the world, it must be reformed. A
situation where
five member states will the veto can hold the rest of us for
ransom is
simply not acceptable," he said.
President Bush on Tuesday
extended by one year sanctions against Zimbabwe
government officials,
including President Robert Mugabe for undermining
democracy in that
country.
Abdul-Raheem said change in Zimbabwe cannot be imposed by the
West. Instead
he said the Zimbabweans must decide for
themselves.
"This idea that Western countries can somehow decide for us
where to have
democracy weakens the argument for democracy, and in the
specific case of
Zimbabwe unfortunately, I am of the view that the more
these people posture
on Zimbabwe, the less they are giving room for Africans
to actually help
this problem in Zimbabwe, and they are giving more
ammunition to President
Mugabe who regards anybody who questions the
excesses of the regime as
agents of the West," he said.
Abdul-Raheem
agreed that there is a problem in Zimbabwe the fact that
President Mugabe
has held on to power for nearly three decades. But he said
it is not the
West that can bring about change in Zimbabwe.
"It is not (President) Bush
that will bring change to Zimbabwe. That change
has to come from within, and
I think the mediation role that is being played
through SADC (Southern
Africa Development Community) anchored by South
Africa, should be given some
chance, because at the end of the day, whether
it is ZANU-PF, whether it is
MDC, whether it is non-ZANU-PF, non-MDC, peace
would all Zimbabweans, and
they will still have to live in the same
country," Abdul-Raheem said.