Independent (UK)
Government seeks to save Zimbabwe
sanctions with compromise over Franco-African summit
By Stephen
Castle in Brussels
24 January 2003
The European Union's "smart
sanctions" policy against Robert Mugabe and his
regime was in danger of
dissolving yesterday after disagreements within the
EU and determined
opposition from African nations.
Britain, which is leading the struggle
to save the policy, will offer a
compromise at a meeting on Monday. It will
press for the flawed regime to be
renewed, and in exchange it is prepared to
allow Mr Mugabe to attend a
Franco-African summit in Paris next
month.
It is also willing to allow ministers who are technically banned
from
travelling to Europe to attend a bigger EU-Africa summit in Lisbon
in
April - if Mr Mugabe can be persuaded to stay away.
When the
sanctions were agreed last February, EU foreign ministers agreed to
a visa
ban on the most senior members of the regime as well as a freeze on
their
assets and a ban on the export of equipment that might be used for
internal
repression. To an extent these have increased the isolation of the
regime.
But the consensus concealed a divergence of views among the 15
member states
with reservations among nations with long-standing interests
in
Africa.
France's former foreign minister Hubert Védrine said most
sanctions were
ineffective. But in the run-up to elections EU countries were
willing to go
along with the British strategy because European election
observers had been
prevented from doing their work and the EU had to
react.
Providing no other EU country objects, France is within its rights
to invite
Mr Mugabe to Paris for a formal summit. Zimbabweans can attend UN
gatherings
and international meetings designed to conduct political dialogue
or "to
promote democracy, human rights and the rule of
law".
Crucially, Harare has been backed by its African neighbours, which
have
expressed solidarity and threatened to boycott talks if the
Zimbabwean
president was excluded.
French officials said Mr Mugabe had
been invited with all other African
heads of state. Since many of them stood
accused of human rights abuses of
one kind or another, to single out the
Zimbabwean president for exclusion
would have been
wrong
_______________________
France and Africa: The story of a
special relationship
By John Lichfield
The first Franco-African
summit was a meeting between France and its former
colonies in 1973, but it
has expanded to embrace all African countries.
At the last meeting in
Paris in 1998, 49 countries and 35 heads of state
attended - including
President Robert Mugabe.
The summits have been described as expensive
talking shops. Critics say they
have done little for African problems or for
France's standing in a
continent in which it claims a "special
relationship".
French officials argued yesterday that the invitation to
Mr Mugabe was part
of a blanket invitation to African leaders and that it
would have been wrong
to single him out. Countries such as Libya and Sudan,
have been excluded in
the past because of UN
sanctions.
Independent (UK)
New invitation raises spectre of
Blair-Mugabe meeting
By Stephen castle, Andrew Grice and John
Lichfield
24 January 2003
The Government was battling last night to
head off the prospect of a
face-to-face confrontation between Tony Blair and
Robert Mugabe, the
Zimbabwean President, amid a row over the EU's travel ban
on Harare's
governing elite.
As France confirmed it was inviting Mr
Mugabe to a Franco-African meeting in
Paris next month, British officials
were trying to prevent him attending a
separate summit of EU and African
heads of government in Lisbon on 5 April.
EU foreign ministers will
discuss whether to invite Mr Mugabe to the April
event on Monday. The British
government will propose a compromise under
which a senior Zimbabwean minister
would represent the country instead.
Mr Blair is due to attend the summit
but may stay away if Mr Mugabe attends,
or try to avoid a meeting. Glenys
Kinnock, a Labour MEP, said: "It would
make mockery of sanctions if, at an
EU-Africa summit designed to discuss ...
human rights, you have Mugabe
swanning around and the EU picking up the
bill."
One EU diplomat said
yesterday: "I think there is a very large majority who
don't want him
[Mugabe] there."
But the EU is in a difficult position because other
African nations have
threatened to boycott such meetings unless Harare is
represented.
Britain is pressing for EU foreign ministers to renew
"smart" sanctions
against Zimbabwe, which included a travel ban on Mr Mugabe
and 78 government
figures. In return for French support, Britain will not
veto France's plan
to grant Mr Mugabe a visa to attend next month's summit in
Paris.
British and French officials would not confirm a deal but hinted
there was
an "understanding" in place.
Michael Ancram, the shadow
Foreign Secretary, said it was "deplorable" that
Mr Blair would not promise
to block the Mugabe visit. "There are double
standards when the Government
claims they would prefer the England cricket
team not to play in Zimbabwe yet
won't ensure the EU travel ban is
enforced."
Who's the real villain?
For weeks we have been
obsessing over whether our cricketers should play
World Cup fixtures in
Zimbabwe. But if Tony Blair follows the US into an
unprovoked war on Iraq,
says Pakistan's great all-rounder, cricketing
countries should think the
unthinkable - a boycott of England
Imran Khan
Friday January 24,
2003
The Guardian
It has been interesting - and not a little amusing -
to watch the
contortions and hand-wringing surrounding England's upcoming
cricket World
Cup fixtures in Zimbabwe from afar. Would Tony Blair stop
Nasser Hussain and
his men getting on the plane? Would the English cricket
authorities put
profit or principle first? And once it seemed that Mr Mugabe
had won the
round, how would the English team avoid the prospect of an
embarrassing
public handshake with the reviled Zimbabwean leader? If these
are the
questions that have preoccupied politicians, pundits and sports fans
in
England, though, the Zimbabwe boycott affair has posed a rather
different
one in the minds of many of us in this part of the world: how can
it be that
England is obsessing over the morality of playing cricket in
Zimbabwe at
precisely the same time that it - along with the United States -
is leading
the world to the brink of a grossly unjust and potentially
catastrophic war
against Iraq? Doesn't Mr Blair's acute sensitivity to the
plight of the
Zimbabwean people look just a little ironic next to his
apparent readiness
to vaporise thousands of Iraqis? A little rich,
even?
For the truth is that, while many outside Europe and America would
be
willing to argue the point over whether Mr Mugabe was a tyrant so
brutal
that sportsmen should stay away from his country, you would be hard
pressed
to find anyone who thinks that a war on Iraq makes any sense. George
W Bush
and Tony Blair can say that Saddam Hussein poses a grave threat to the
US
and its allies until they are blue in the face, but no one in the
Muslim
world will ever believe it - in fact, everyone here is convinced that
the
seemingly inevitable attack on Iraq is being orchestrated at the behest
of
the powerful Israeli lobby and to secure the Iraqi oilfields. The
technology
gap between the US and the Muslim states is growing at such a
frightening
pace that the entire Muslim world put together cannot pose any
threat to the
US. This impending war will be even more one-sided than the
native Americans
fighting the US cavalry with bows and arrows.
There
is little love lost for Saddam among Muslims; the vast majority would
love to
see the back of this ruthless dictator. But here everyone remembers
that, not
long ago, Saddam was the US's blue-eyed boy, and his weapons of
mass
destruction were supplied by the western countries. However, there
is
tremendous concern for the 22 million Iraqi people who have already
gone
through terrible suffering. There is also anxiety that after this
one-sided
war there will be a further polarisation between the west and
Islam. Hatred
against America will increase, and most of us fear that there
will be more
terrorist attacks against the US and its citizens.
On
September 11 the entire Muslim world stood behind the US and extended it
full
support in the war against terrorism. This support began to evaporate
when,
just three weeks after 9/11, the unfettered bombing of Afghanistan
began. No
Afghan was involved in the attacks, and yet more Afghan civilians
were killed
by American bombs than all those killed in the Twin Towers.
And since the
attack on Afghanistan, things have gone from bad to worse. On
CNN and the
BBC, the world watched Taliban prisoners of war being summarily
executed.
Many of them were Pakistanis: simple country folk who had not even
heard of
al-Qaida. Other prisoners were whisked away to Guantanamo Bay in
chains. They
neither had the rights that are accorded to PoWs under the
Geneva
conventions, nor were they charged in any court of law. Britain was
not
directly responsible for these abuses, you may say, but I did not hear
Mr
Blair jumping up to condemn the treatment of men like animals in
Guantanamo,
or the brutal treatment meted out to other Taliban prisoners by
the west's
local allies.
The Pakistani government bent over backwards to cooperate
with the US,
despite public anger at the shedding of innocent blood in
Afghanistan. Yet
Pakistanis are being treated as the enemy. The FBI picks up
Pakistani
citizens, who disappear for days on end without trace or charges,
reducing
the sovereign law of Pakistan to mockery and ridicule. Dr Aamir
Aziz, one of
our top orthopaedic surgeons and known for his philanthropic
work,
disappeared one day. There was this bizarre, humiliating spectacle
where his
mother was seen begging the Americans to return her son - all on
Pakistan's
sovereign soil!
In the recent elections in Pakistan, the
religious parties made dramatic
gains. In the country's 55-year history they
had never managed to get more
than 10 seats in the National Assembly. This
time they got 52. What is more,
their support is growing, as seen in the
recent by-elections. This trend can
be observed in almost the entire Muslim
world. An attack on Iraq is going to
exacerbate this hatred. And it is this
hatred, tinged with a lethal feeling
of impotence and humiliation, that
drives certain people to inflict as much
damage as possible on the strong,
even if it means losing their lives in the
process.
This US arrogance
and insensitivity to the feelings of the Islamic world can
be traced back to
the easy defeat of the Taliban. The hardliners surrounding
Bush declared it a
great triumph, as if they had overwhelmed some great
superpower rather than a
medieval militia. Overflowing with confidence, they
are now egging on the US
- and its allies - to subjugate all its "enemies"
with or without the
approval of the world community.
Iraq may well capitulate even quicker
than the ragtag Taliban army did. But
what if there is another terrorist
attack on US soil? Where and how will the
US look for terrorists among 1.3
billion people? Will it start by interning
the six million Muslims residing
in the US? What happens to a country like
Pakistan, with 140 million people,
if some fanatics from here conduct
terrorist attacks against the US? Will we
all face collective punishment
like Afghanistan? This is the fear that is
sweeping through the Muslim
world.
Most of all, is it wise for the US
and Britain to evoke such hatred against
themselves? Given that technology is
advancing all the time and a few people
could inflict an unprecedented amount
of devastation on a civilian
population through chemical, biological and even
miniature nuclear weapons,
is it wise to take this aggressive
course?
The recent experience of Kashmir, Palestine, Chechnya and Sri
Lanka shows
that when human beings reach a stage where they prefer death to a
life of
slavery and humiliation, then even the most powerful armies in the
world
cannot win a clear victory. Most people in the Muslim world believe
that
September 11 was entirely due to America's blind support for Israel.
People
do not blow themselves up because they envy the freedoms of others or
their
way of life. Rather, they want to emulate them. They blow themselves up
only
when a volcano of hopelessness of ever getting those freedoms and rights
for
themselves and their children explodes within them. And the best way
to
defuse that volcano is not to occupy Iraq but to secure a just settlement
of
the Palestinian issue.
Returning to the subject of England and
cricket, most people in the Muslim
world are totally perplexed by Mr Blair's
blind support for Bush. They
always believed that Britain, with its enormous
experience of dealing with
empire and freedom struggles, would have a far
more balanced and mature
foreign policy. What is the reason for this total
subservience to
Washington's wishes, they wonder? Can it really be true, as
Mr Blair claims,
that the only way of preventing an American attack is by
holding Mr Bush's
hand up to the very brink of war? Let's hope that Mr Blair
is right, for if
he and Mr Bush drag their countries into a bloody, immoral
conflict, Britain
will have to take its share of responsibility for the
consequences.
Although I refused to play in apartheid South Africa, I
have never been a
great enthusiast for sporting boycotts - there are so many
countries with
questionable records on human rights that the overzealous
boycotter could
quickly find himself left with nowhere to play. But if and
when this cynical
war begins - and especially if it inflicts large numbers of
Iraqi civilian
casualties - other cricketing countries will have to ask
themselves a tricky
question: should they play in England, a country quite
prepared to visit far
more destruction on Iraq than Mr Mugabe has ever
visited on his own land?
Perhaps it is time to entertain the unthinkable: a
cricket boycott of the
home of cricket. Might that be one language Mr Blair
would understand?
The
Australian
Stop Zimbabwe cricket matches:
Crean
January 24, 2003
AUSTRALIAN cricketers should not go to
strife-torn Zimbabwe for the World
Cup, federal Opposition Leader Simon Crean
said.
The tournament, which begins on February 9, has been plagued by
doubts over
plans to hold matches in both Zimbabwe and Kenya, where security
fears
sharpened after suicide bombers killed 12 people in Mombasa in
December.
"They should not be going there but that will not occur unless
political
leadership is shown again in this country and that a strong case
made by
(Prime Minister) John Howard," he said today in Melbourne.
"He
seems to only want to listen and act strongly when (US President) George
Bush
asks him to do it.
"He seems unprepared on any of these occasions to
actually assert the strong
leadership himself."
Mr Crean
said Mr Howard had been slow off the mark to address the issues
surrounding
the World Cup, including the need to have matches shifted.
"The
International Cricket Board should be pressured more effectively by
people
like John Howard who has said that sanctions should be imposed
against
Zimbabwe," he said.
"He should be bringing every political pressure he
can. Australia is not
without weight in these issues and it's not just him,
it's the authority he
has through CHOGM (Commonwealth Heads of Government
Meeting) as its current
chair."
The
Scotsman
Blair's secret deal over Mugabe
JASON
BEATTIE AND FRED BRIDGLAND
THE government was embroiled in a growing
row over Zimbabwe last night, as
Tony Blair was accused of hypocrisy over a
secret deal allowing the country'
s disgraced president, Robert Mugabe, to
visit Paris.
In what was seen as an extraordinary display of double
standards in the wake
of government opposition to English involvement in the
cricket world cup in
Zimbabwe, Downing Street indicated it would turn a blind
eye to France's
flouting of an EU travel ban on Mugabe.
The
arrangement was seen as an attempt to mollify President Jacques Chirac
amid
damaged British-French relations, and strong opposition in Paris to
military
action in Iraq.
In a sign of Mr Blair's determination not to upset Mr
Chirac, Downing Street
refused to endorse comments by two Cabinet Ministers -
Peter Hain and Clare
Short - who called the French invitation
"disgraceful".
In an inflammatory gesture, President Chirac has invited
Mr Mugabe to a
summit on 19 February despite EU-wide sanctions banning the
Zimbabwean
dictator and his inner circle from travelling to
Europe.
Downing Street admitted yesterday there had been informal talks
between
London and Paris over the Mugabe visit, fuelling speculation that Mr
Blair
had struck a backroom deal with Mr Chirac.
The Prime Minister is
thought to have agreed not to raise objections to the
one-off visit by Mr
Mugabe on condition France agrees to an extension of the
EU sanctions, due to
expire on 18 February. A decision on whether to roll
over the year-long ban
for another 12 months will be made by European
foreign ministers in Brussels
on Monday.
Speculation of a secret deal intensified when Downing Street
refused to give
a formal response to the French request to waive the ban. Mr
Blair's
official spokesman said the government needed more time to study
the
proposal.
The spokesman also admitted Britain had not raised
objections on previous
occasions when individual EU states had applied for
the sanctions to be
waived, including when the Italian government invited Mr
Mugabe to the World
Food Summit in Rome last summer.
The diplomatic
stand-off between London and Paris comes at an sensitive time
for
Anglo-French relations.
As one of the five permanent members of the UN
Security Council, France has
the power to veto a second resolution
sanctioning military action against
Iraq.
But the Prime Minister will
also be careful not to upset his French
counterpart ahead of the rearranged
Anglo-French summit on 4 February.
President Chirac postponed the original
meeting last December after the two
leaders had a stand-up row at the
European heads of government summit in
Brussels over the European agriculture
policy.
Michael Ancram, the shadow foreign secretary, said Mr Blair's
refusal to
criticise France was "deplorable". He contrasted the resolute line
taken by
Ms Short, the international development secretary, and Mr Hain, the
Welsh
Secretary, with the obfuscation of No10.
Mr Hain said the
Zimbabwean president "was not welcome" in Europe. The
government's views on
Mugabe's "odious" regime were well-known, he added. Ms
Short said she found
it "unimaginable" that the French could consider
inviting Mr Mugabe to
Paris.
Downing Street said Ms Short had not given the official response
of the
government.
A spokesman said: "Nobody underestimates the
importance of sanctions and we
do have to have a unanimous EU decision on
sanctions. As to what our
decision will be on the French formal request, I'm
afraid we do have to
consider it for a period."
The weak response
contrasted with the government's firm line over the
England cricket team's
involvement in the world cup in Zimbabwe.
Yet its stance, which left a
final decision with the cricket authorities,
was widely criticised as a
cowardly policy. Cricket's international
governing body, the ICC, will take a
final decision today on whether it is
safe for teams to honour world cup
commitments in Zimbabwe. Although there
was no official statement last night
as the ICC president, Malcolm Speed,
and tournament director, Ali Bacher,
arrived back in South Africa, the six
matches scheduled for Zimbabwe seem
certain to go ahead.
The reaction of Zimbabwe Cricket Union [ZCU]
officials in Harare suggested
the ICC will give the green light for the
Zimbabwe part of the tournament,
mainly hosted by South Africa.
France
defended its decision to invite Mugabe, with a foreign ministry
spokesman
saying the provisions in the travel ban allowed for trips to
conduct a
political dialogue aimed at promoting democracy, the rule of law
and human
rights in Zimbabwe. "We are in accord with the spirit of this
common European
position. We respect the appropriate European procedures and
it is in this
context that we wanted to invite President Mugabe to take part
in the
France-Africa summit," he said.
The
Guardian
World Cup keeps exit door open
Paul
Kelso and Andrew Meldrum in Harare
Friday January 24, 2003
England's
controversial World Cup match in Zimbabwe could be scrapped up to
five days
before it is due to be played, the tournament director Ali Bacher
said
yesterday.
Bacher said that, despite the England and Wales Cricket Board's
pledge to
fulfil the fixture, there was still a possibility that the game
could be
shifted to South Africa at short notice.
Speaking after a
two-day visit to Zimbabwe, Bacher said: "It could be done
quite late. There
are obviously practical problems with moving matches. It
could be done up
until a week, five or six days before the event."
The International
Cricket Council board will today hear the report of its
chief executive
Malcolm Speed, who accompanied Bacher on the trip, as well
as receiving an
update on the situation in Kenya, which is due to host
two
games.
Bacher and Speed met police, cricket administrators and
embassy officials of
the nations scheduled to play in Zimbabwe but said they
did not have time to
meet opposition leaders. Bacher, however, indicated that
he was happy with
the security arrangements in Zimbabwe. "The commissioner of
police believes
it is very impor tant that the games take place in the right
environment,"
he said. "I was very heartened by their approach. They had a
very
comprehensive plan."
Bacher added that, despite having agreed to
go ahead with the Zimbabwe leg
of the tournament last December, the board
could yet decide to hold another
vote when it meets today by conference call.
"If one of the board members,
be that England or Australia or anyone, wants
to test the board's previous
decision, that is certainly open to
them."
Speed said that concerns remained about security but added that he
was
reassured by discussions with the Zimbabwe police and the Zimbabwe
Cricket
Union. "There are a number of concerns about safety and security in
this
country that we are well aware of," he said. "But we have taken them
on
board and that will form part of the report to the board
tomorrow."
Speed said it was possible that the board may want more time
to consider
whether to move the matches to South Africa: "We may not
necessarily take a
decision at [the] meeting. We may even delay it
further."
Zimbabwean opponents of the World Cup matches in Harare and
Bulawayo have
claimed that dozens of opposition supporters have been
arrested, and some
tortured, in a police crackdown ahead of the matches.
After threats to dig
up the pitch at the Harare Sports Club, the ground is
being patrolled by
armed police.
Zimbabwe's draconian laws have been
used to ban public demonstrations in the
past year but Bacher said he was
given assurances that protests would be
tolerated during the matches.
"Provided the process is proper, they will
permit peaceful protest
demonstrations," he said. "We are very keen that the
police presence both
inside and outside the ground should be low profile."
Opponents are keen
to prevent the tournament becoming a propaganda coup for
President Robert
Mugabe when nearly two-thirds of the population is
threatened with famine and
human rights are routinely abused, a concern
shared by the ECB.
David
Graveney, the chairman of selectors, and Richard Bevan of the
Professional
Cricketers' Association met Foreign Office officials yesterday
to discuss
protocol and security issues. An ECB spokesman said it was
determined to
avoid giving Mugabe a propaganda platform when the sides meet
on February 13.
A source with knowledge of the discussions between English
cricket and the
ICC said that there was growing support for moving all the
matches to South
Africa.
"Some voices within the ICC would like to move the fixtures back
into South
Africa and I think they are considering pulling the games out of
Zimbabwe.
You could compensate the board out of the $550m [£340m] that the
ICC is
receiving for commercial rights. I'm sure the board will discuss
it.
"But seven out of 10 board members have to agree to the change and,
unless
common sense prevails, the Asian-African power bloc is likely to
prevent
that happening."
Glasgow
Herald
It is done: history made by
land law
Centuries-old system
ends
ROBBIE
DINWOODIE
HISTORIC legislation reforming
land ownership and access to the
countryside was agreed by the Scottish
Parliament yesterday with the words
tha e criochnaicte - it is
done.
MSPs approved the Land Reform
(Scotland) Bill, giving rural
communities the power to buy the land they live
on and others the right to
access, ending centuries of the landlord
system.
They cheered, clapped, and banged
their desks as the vote in favour of
the bill was declared by Sir David
Steel, the presiding officer, with 101
for with just the 19 votes of the Tory
group against, after the longest
debate in the parliament's
history.
In a confident declaration about
political change in modern Scotland,
Alasdair Morrison, MSP for the Western
Isles, told the parliament: "Tha
latha an uachdarain seachad" - the
landowners' day is over. "Tha e
criochnaicte," he added - it is
done.
The bill was condemned by the
Conservatives, who said it was similar
to the land reform policies pursued by
Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe. Bill
Aitken, the Glasgow Tory MSP, said it was
"one of the darkest days of the
Scottish Parliament", adding: "This bill has
nothing to do with land reform
and everything to do with the other parties in
this parliament being
obsessed by replaying the class wars of 200 years
ago.
"This type of legislation has no
place in modern Scotland. It will
have a dreadful effect not only on those
living in rural areas, but on city
dwellers whose hard-earned tax will be
used to pay for this Mugabe-style
land
grab."
Ross Finnie, the rural development
minister, dismissed the Tory attack
and said the bill would hugely benefit
people in rural communities and
across the country. "This represents a
substantive piece of legislation, a
very reforming piece of legislation, a
progressive piece of legislation, and
I commend it to the
house."
Roseanna Cunningham, the SNP
deputy leader, said: "Freedom to roam on
the land of Scotland is a right long
asserted and dearly held by the
Scottish people and I am glad we have taken
steps to assert that right." She
said she hoped the new law would mark "the
beginning of a significant change
in the pattern of land ownership in
Scotland".
The legislation gives members
of the public a statutory right to
responsible access to the countryside for
recreation and passage.
It also gives
rural communities first refusal when the land where they
live and work is put
up for sale. The most controversial part of the
legislation gives those in
crofting communities the power to buy the land
where they live and work
without it first being put on the market.
The Conservatives tabled a host of amendments, with Mr Aitken
insisting it
was "a land grab of which Robert Mugabe would be proud." George
Lyon, LibDem
MSP for Argyll and Bute, said: "We seek to empower the many
ordinary people
who live and work in Scotland: you seek to support the many
absentee
landlords who see land as a tax shelter and an investment
vehicle."
Golf courses with rights of way
will also be subject to the new law
but places such as the Old Course at St
Andrews will be allowed to fence off
areas before major
tournaments.
John Markland, chairman of
Scottish Natural Heritage, predicted it
would lead to an improved
relationship between ramblers and
landowners.
However, there will be a
search for a landowner willing to mount a
legal challenge under the European
Convention on Human Rights. Robert
Balfour, of the Scottish Land-owners
Federation, said landlords were most
concerned about the possible compulsory
acquisition of salmon fishing,
mineral rights, and adjacent agricultural land
by crofting communities.
Introduce Formal Fuel Rationing of Fuel
The
Herald (Harare)
January 24, 2003
Posted to the web January 24,
2003
Harare
For most motorists, fuel queues have become part of
their lives. Every week,
motorists find a service station and queue for hours
on end.
If they queue during working hours, their employers suffer. If
they queue at
night or weekends, their families suffer.
With the
present foreign currency shortages, it appears that it is not going
to be
possible in the near future for Zimbabwe to import enough petrol and
diesel
to satisfy demand.
Yet the fact that most companies and individuals are
coping suggests that
motorists are getting just enough fuel to keep going. In
effect, the
knowledge that one will have to queue for several hours acts as a
spur
towards avoiding unnecessary motoring.
Most of those in queues
would like to see this rough and ready system of
rationing changed to a more
formal system. In fact, the idea of formal
rationing almost always comes up
in those long conversations that pass the
time while waiting for the tanker
to arrive.
Unfortunately, there is little pressure from decision makers
in either the
private or public sector for rationing. Top civil servants and
business
executives are rarely, if ever, seen in queues. Both groups tend to
drive
vehicles provided by their employer using their employer's
fuel.
It is the ordinary motorist who suffers.
Suggestions have
been made that significant increases in the price of fuel
would also diminish
demand. This might be true to an extent, but since many
motorists queuing are
only looking for half a tank to a tank a week, and
have cut car use down to
the barest minimum, we do not think demand would
ease by much.
Of
course, fuel must be priced so that procurement and distribution costs
are
covered, with a fair profit for Noczim, oil companies and
service
stations.
But the critical problem is a shortage of foreign
currency, not local
currency.
We believe that serious consideration
should now be given to a rationing
scheme. It must be simple, fair, easy to
administer, impervious to
corruption and favouritism, and must include some
sort of provision for
commuter omnibuses and taxis.
Such a scheme is
possible. Some very good ideas have been generated by
inventive motorists in
the queues. Basically, most motorists would want to
see everyone entitled to
coupons for a fixed number of litres a week, such
coupons to be issued on
production of the registration book, which would be
stamped.
Another
scheme would be for motorists to be registered with garages, so that
every
service station would know how much fuel had to be delivered each week
and
every driver would have his "day" for collection.
It might need a
combination of both to make the scheme work efficiently
without
corruption.
Buses and taxis would have assigned service stations. These
would be able to
draw more fuel, with tanks sealed and locked and the keys
kept at the
station. This would avoid the unscrupulous siphoning or draining
of fuel for
resale.
There are many other ideas.
The Minister of
Energy and Power Development should now, in any case, form a
small committee
to discuss and plan a rationing scheme. This committee
should include
representatives from the oil industry, organised business,
the Zimbabwe
Farmers Union, the transport sector, the Consumer Council of
Zimbabwe and the
Automobile Association. A police fraud squad officer would
be a useful member
to help minimise fraud.
Even if supplies will increase soon, it would be
a good idea to have the
scheme ready for the next serious shortage so that
life can continue as near
normal as possible. The terrible pre-Christmas
shortage came when schools
and most industries were closed.
But if the
present supply position is to be long-term, then most motorists
would welcome
a fair and simple rationing scheme. Almost anything would be
better than
queuing for hours.
IOL
Mbeki under fire for 'cheering Mugabe
on'
January 24 2003 at
05:29AM
By Basildon Peta
Harare -
Morgan Tsvangirai, Zimbabwe's opposition leader, took his
frustration with
President Mbeki to diplomats in Harare on Thursday night,
telling them that
Mbeki was denying the existence of the tragic
circumstances in Zimbabwe and
was cheering President Robert Mugabe in the
name of "a dubious African
brotherhood".
In a blistering attack, Tsvangirai said perhaps Mbeki and
his Nigerian
counterpart Olusegun Obasanjo wanted Mugabe's policies to
produce mass
graves which they could then regard as an adequate and
sufficient definition
of the existence of a crisis in Zimbabwe.
"If
this is an expression of the so-called African solutions to African
problems,
or an early manifestation of the so-called Nepad peer review
mechanism, then
Africa is fated to remain a beleaguered and crisis-ridden
continent for a
very long time."
Tsvangirai said that Mbeki's and Obasanjo's offer to
mediate after the
disputed presidential election last March "was nothing but
a cynical and
cruel act of deception".
'Africa is fated to remain a beleaguered continent for a very
long
time'
"The real strategy was to give Zimbabweans a false sense of
hope and thereby
buy time for Mugabe to make good his bloody electoral fraud
and consolidate
his dictatorship," Tsvangirai stated.
He said Mbeki
and Obasanjo had now come out openly in support of the Mugabe
dictatorship
against the people and forces of democracy in Zimbabwe.
"The forthcoming
Commonwealth troika meeting in South Africa is now a cruel
gimmick and
serious opinion in the international community must totally
ignore the
incoherent rants that will emanate from it."
Tsvangirai said Nigerian
Foreign Minister Sule Lamido and his South African
counterpart Nkosazana
Dlamini-Zuma were in Zimbabwe this week, but had not
even bothered to consult
the opposition. Mbeki and Obasanjo continued to
misread the situation in
Zimbabwe, he said.
"The Zimbabwe crisis has never been and is not a
racial issue between black
and white," said
Tsvangirai.
'Nigerian and South African
memories are very short and defective'
"The people being starved to death are
not white; the majority of those
killed by the regime's killing machine are
not white, those who languish in
jail as I speak to you and are subjected to
incessant torture and sub-human
conditions are not white; those in the rural
areas who are daily subjected
to brutal treatment are not white.
"It
is despicable and cheap for anyone to reduce such a tragedy to an issue
of
race for the sake of a fake African brotherhood and
political
expediency."
Tsvangirai lamented the fact that Nkosazana
Dlamini-Zuma even refused to
accept that the murder, torture, political
violence, rape and other
brutalities associated with the Mugabe regime
constituted a crisis that
continuously beckoned for international
attention.
"For a people who have just come out of the shackles of some
of the most
brutal dictatorial regimes in African history and benefited from
the active
intervention of the international community, Nigerian and South
African
memories are very short and defective."
Obasanjo and Mbeki
would bear a heavy responsibility "for the results of the
catastrophic path
they are charting for Zimbabwe", he said. - Independent
Foreign
Service
Tobacco growers forecast poor crop for
Zimbabwe
Bloomberg
January 24 2003 at 08:10AM
Harare - Zimbabwe's tobacco earnings fell to
$434 million last year from
$594 million in 2001 and might slip further this
year, the state-controlled
Herald newspaper said yesterday, citing the
Zimbabwe Tobacco Association
(ZTA).
The size of the crop, the nation's
top foreign exchange earner,
fell to 143 million kilograms from 165 million
kilograms, the growers'
association said.
The ZTA forecast that
drought might cut this year's harvest, the Herald
reported. Crops harvested
to date had been "poor and droughty", the Herald
quoted the ZTA as
saying.
Justice for Agriculture, a group of white farmers, said the crop
might fall
below 50 million kilograms this year because of the seizure of
white-owned
commercial farms for redistribution to black
Zimbabweans.
The Tobacco Development Trust, which sponsors small-scale
tobacco growers,
has forecast the crop will rise to 200 million kilograms. -
Bloomberg
Zimbabwe hopes for ICC backing
Speed had a series of
meetings |
The Zimbabwe Cricket Union are confident of being given the go-ahead to
stage six World Cup matches as scheduled.
International Cricket Council chief executive Malcolm Speed and Dr Ali
Bacher, the head of the World Cup organising committee, have been visiting
Zimbabwe to reassess the security situation.
Speed will report back to the ICC board in London on Friday morning when a
final decision will be taken.
But ZCU chief Vince Hogg said he was happy with the way various meetings had
gone.
 I was very heartened by their desire it should go offwithout
any problems  Ali Bacher |
"We met with four high commissioners - Pakistan, India, Australia and the
United Kingdom - and the commisioner of police and we're very happy with the
plan that was presented," he commented.
England, Australia, India, Pakistan, Namibia and the Netherlands are all due
to play in Zimbabwe - three of the games taking place in Harare, and three in
Bulawayo.
The British and Australian governments have been lobbying for a boycott of
Zimbabwe in protest at the policies of the Mugabe regime.
But both national Boards have confirmed that they will fulfil the fixtures,
providing security is guaranteed.
Speed declined to comment on the likely prospects of the games going ahead,
but described his visit as "very productive".
He said: "We had a lot of meetings and a lot of frank and honest answers from
a lot of people with whom we met.
"I will provide the board with an update tomorrow and we'llsee what response
there is from the board.
"We've said all along that there will be continual monitoring of all of the
World Cup venues right through until when the matches are played. This is an
interim visit to provide an update - that's why we're here and that's what we've
done."
Speed confirmed that Zimbabwe had repeated assurances that all international
journalists accredited for the tournament would be allowed to enter the country
to report on matches.
Earlier this week, a number of media organisations were refused visas to
travel with a World Food Programme delegation to look food shortages in the
country.
|
| |
| "There is a complete breakdown of rule of law. The
custodians of justice are now much more involved in perpetrating violence"
- Amnesty International researcher Sharmala Naidoo
|
Zimbabwe police
torture claim
16.03PM GMT, 24 Jan 2003
Zimbabwe's police are
increasingly involved in torturing President Robert Mugabe's political opponents
as his government increases efforts to crush dissent, according to Amnesty
International.
"There is a complete breakdown of rule of law. The custodians
of justice are now much more involved in perpetrating violence," Amnesty
researcher Sharmala Naidoo told a Johannesburg news conference after a week-long
fact-finding trip to the country.
Mr Naidoo said opposition politicians, human rights
activists, and trade union and teachers' groups had all reported much more
involvement by police officers in punishing dissent.
In the past unofficial youth militias and war veterans groups
have been blamed for political attacks.
Human rights groups say that hundreds of people have been
killed in political violence in Zimbabwe in the last two years, and that the
situation appears to be getting worse.
Mr Naidoo cited several recent alleged cases of harassment
and torture in Zimbabwe, including the January 15 arrest of opposition
legislator Job Sikhala and four other men.
Mr Sikhala, a member of parliament for the opposition
Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), said last week that he was tortured by
police after being arrested for allegedly possessing "subversive documents." Mr
Naidoo said the Amnesty team had seen evidence to back up his claim.
"Clearly there was evidence of torture while in police
custody," Mr Naidoo said. "They were beaten, and there was also evidence of
electric shock torture."
Police have denied previous charges that they were involved
in partisan activities. They have not yet officially responded to Mr Sikhala's
torture allegations.
International criticism of Mr Mugabe has sharpened since his
victory in March 2002 elections which were branded as fraudulent by the MDC and
several Western governments.
Food shortages, blamed in part on Mr Mugabe's policy of
seizing white-owned farms for distribution to landless blacks, have left more
than half the country's 14 million people faced with starvation. Political
activists say arrests and intimidation have increased as the government grapples
with a serious economic crisis.
Mr Mugabe rejects criticism that government policies have
plunged the country into its worst turmoil since independence from Britain in
1980.
Zimbabwe's political strife has sparked security fears
surrounding next month's cricket World Cup, several matches of which are
scheduled to be held in the country. Amnesty said the allegations of police
torture heightened those concerns.
"These are the very same police who are going to be charged
with protecting the (cricket) fans," said Samkelo Mokhine, Amnesty's media
officer for southern Africa.
