http://www.nehandaradio.com
18 September 2008
By Fortune
Tazvida
Zimbabwe's ruling Zanu PF party came out fighting on Wednesday to
deny
reports it was locked in bitter infighting over a power sharing deal
signed
Monday with the MDC. Zanu PF Secretary for Administration Didymus
Mutasa
(whose own State Security Ministry might be scrapped) denied there
were any
divisions in the party. 'There are no divisions in the party. All
members
agree with what the President has done regarding the signing of the
power-sharing agreement with the opposition.'
Mutasa confirmed that
President Robert Mugabe, Prime Minister Morgan
Tsvangirai and his deputy
Arthur Mutambara would meet Thursday to appoint
ministers in a new
government. As Nehanda Radio reported on Wednesday Zanu
PF members loyal to
former army general Solomon Mujuru are bitter Mugabe
wants to reward
loyalists in the rival Emerson Mnangagwa faction. This would
be seen as a
thank you gesture to Mnangagwa, the head of the notorious Joint
Operations
Command that effectively secured Mugabe's violent re-election.
Thursday
is expected to see more bitter horse-trading between the major
players who
are bidding to secure key ministries and influence how the new
government
functions. Speculation is rife the MDC have secured the Home
Affairs,
Justice, Finance and Information Ministries while Zanu PF retained
Defence,
Agriculture, Mines and Prisons. It is also alleged Zanu PF cronies
are
stalling on the cabinet issue to allow time for them to share mining
concessions amongst themselves which will be hard to reverse should they
secure a Mining Ministry.
On Tuesday Mugabe had a meeting with his
party's politburo and followed that
up with another meeting Wednesday with
the Central Committee. Sources told
Nehanda Radio these meetings have been
heated with Mugabe facing the
daunting task of trimming his 30 or so
ministers to only 15 under the new
agreement. Tsvangirai's MDC will get 13
ministries while the smaller MDC
faction led by Mutambara gets 3. - fortune@nehandaradio.com
http://www.zimbabwemetro.com
Local
News
September 18, 2008 | By Simba Dzvairo
ZANU PF 's central committee
and Politburo resolved that the key ministries
of Finance,Home Affairs and
Defence are non negotiable, a development that
could delay announcement of a
new cabinet today and complicate the power
sharing deal that was signed
amind pop and fanfare.
"We cannot cede control of Finance and Home
Affairs to the MDC or any other
party whatsoever,that would be tantamount to
power transfer", said a ZANU PF
Central committee member last night, he also
dismissed a 'cabinet list'
circulating on the internet.
Earlier
Mugabe said the deal with the MDC is humiliating,"If only we had not
blundered in the March . elections we wouldn't be facing this humiliation,"
Mugabe said. "This is what we have to deal with."
MDC sources say
tension is brewing and Mugabe 's sincerity question after
Mugabe chose to
attend meeting of his ZANU-PF party instead of meeting the
new prime
minister Morgan Tsvangirai.
Earlier,one of the negotiators said the
constitutional changes needed to
enact the deal would not be passed for
several weeks.
"These amendments would be tabled before parliament when
it opens next
month," said Patrick Chinamasa, former justice minister, in
The Herald, a
state newspaper. Parliament has been adjourned to Oct 14
however the speaker
has the power to call parliament before the
date.
The power sharing agreement signed on Monday is silent on the
allocation of
ministries in the all inclusive government.
http://www.hararetribune.com
Thursday, 18 September 2008
02:44
Fighting to shoot down reports that ZANU-PF is stalling the
implementation
of the GNU deal singed Monday, ZANU-PF's secretary for
administration said
Robert Mugabe, Morgan Tsvangirai and Arthur Mutambara
will meet today to put
together a new cabinet.
"The three presidents
of the parties could meet tomorrow (Thursday) because
President Mugabe has
no other commitments," Dydimus Mutasa told ZimOnline
"If they meet
tomorrow (Thursday) that's when we will know which ministries
are coming to
ZANU PF and which ones are going to MDC."
There had been confusion and
foreboding Wednesday when it was revealed that
Robert Mugabe chose to spend
the day with ZANU-PF cronies instead of meeting
with Prime Minister
Tsvangirai and his deputy Arthur Mutambara.
However, Mutasa's assertions
have done nothing to shoot down comments by the
former minister of justice
who is quoted as saying that it could take up to
two months before a new
cabinet is sworn in Zimbabwe.
Patrick Chinasa said the delay would be as
a result of the legal and
costitutional requirements that need to be put in
place before the GNU deal
is implemented.
"These amendments would
be tabled before parliament when it opens next
month," Chinamasa
said.
The delay in the formation of the cabinet has fueled speculation
that
ZANU-PF was dragging it's feet, lending credence to the stance by
western
powers that they didn't think the GNU deal would work or would be
implemented.
Western countries led by the United States have
indicated that they will
leave the sanctions on ZANU-PF place until such a
time when they are
convinced Robert Mugabe is committed to the
deal.
If the new unity government can show that it is moving to meet the
principles set out by the United States, "we will be very, very pleased with
this arrangement," US Ambassador to Zimbabwe James McGee said.
Asked
what it would take for Washington to lift its sanctions targeting
President
Robert Mugabe's inner circle, McGee said this would be
"performance-based."
"Our reengagement with Zimbabwe will be based
upon the performance of this
government. And if this government is moving in
a positive direction, then
our response will be a very positive one," he
said. But, if the government
"continues along the same path as previously
our response will be...likewise
in that same direction."
http://www.thezimbabwetimes.com/?p=4334
September 17, 2008
By Tendai
Dumbutshena
ZIMBABWE and Kenya were for many years regarded as two
examples of
successful African countries. They boasted stable political
systems and
relatively prosperous economies.
That reputation in both
countries now lies in tatter
.
In Kenya when incumbent President Mwai
Kibaki realised he was losing an
election he instructed the electoral body
to cook the numbers and proclaim
him winner. Ferocious violence ensued
claiming over 1 000 lives. A deal was
struck under the mediation of former
UN secretary-general Kofi Anan creating
a government of national unity.
Kibaki's rival Raul Odinga who actually won
the election now serves as prime
minister serving under the president. The
man who won plays second fiddle to
one who trampled on the will of the
Kenyan people. In Africa this is hailed
as success.
This example was soon to be followed in Zimbabwe. The leader
of the MDC
Morgan Tsvangirai won the first round of presidential elections
but fell
short of an outright victory. With certain defeat staring incumbent
Robert
Mugabe in the face he unleashed such savage violence that Tsvangirai
had no
option but to pull out of the run-off. Tsvangirai did this he did to
save
lives and not to lend dignity to a blood-soaked charade.
The
AU's tepid response was to call for a government of national unity.
South
Africa's President Thabo Mbeki eventually managed to secure a
so-called
power-sharing agreement in which Tsvangirai like Odinga is a
junior partner.
Again amid much pomp and ceremony this was trumpeted as a
victory for
African diplomacy. African solutions for African problems,
Mugabe
says.
The people of Zimbabwe were denied an opportunity to freely elect
their
president. At gun point a coalition government led by Mugabe was
imposed on
them. Yet they are expected to be ecstatic. They are told that
this is their
only hope for economic salvation. In grand speeches delivered
at the signing
ceremony no mention is made of their inalienable right to
elect leaders of
their choice.
The signing of the power-sharing
agreement in Harare on Monday was nothing
Africa should be proud of. There
were only two winners - Mugabe and Mbeki.
Mugabe won because he is now
recognized as the legitimate President of
Zimbabwe for a full five-year term
without being freely elected. Soon
sanctions will be lifted and some foreign
money will start trickling in. He
hates having the MDC in government but
considering what he has gotten away
with it is a small price to pay. Mbeki
is also a winner because his cynical
diplomacy has succeeded. Since 2000
when Mbeki began his mediation in
Zimbabwe his objective was to protect
Mugabe and keep him in power.
The three losers are the MDC, the people of
Zimbabwe, and the people of
Africa. The MDC may try to sugar-coat the
agreement but the harsh reality is
that they made the substantive
concessions. Mugabe conceded nothing of
substance.
During the course
of the talks the MDC stipulated that the agreement must
reflect the results
of the March 29 elections which they won. It does not.
They wanted a
transitional government of no more than 24 months duration.
They wanted
elections held after this period on the basis of a new
constitution.
What they eventually agreed to is a government that
will be in power for
five years. Mugabe will serve a full five-year term
without being freely
elected, thanks to the generosity of the MDC. As they
will soon find out it
is a generosity that will not be reciprocated in any
way. Tsvangirai
repeatedly said he wanted to be prime minister and head of
government and
would settle for nothing less. He got the title without
executive authority.
Mugabe is head of government and state and
Tsvangirai's boss. A body called
the Council of Ministers which Tsvangirai
will chair was created as bait to
secure his signature. Chasing a mirage of
power he fell for it. Given Mugabe's
megalomania the fact that he is not a
member of this body says it all. It
will be a powerless and irrelevant
talking shop far removed from the centre
of power.
The people of
Zimbabwe lost because this agreement negates their right to
freely elect
leaders. It has proven Mugabe to be right when he said in
Zimbabwe the
bullet is mightier than the ballot. The agreement lent
legitimacy to what
was essentially a coup d'etat on June 27. African people
lost because
another dangerous precedent following Kenya has been set. An
incumbent ruler
using state power to thwart the will of the people
blackmails the nation
into settling for a coalition government which he
leads.
Zimbabwe and
Kenya have now become precedents for other African autocrats to
follow.
Which country will be next? The AU might as well throw out all its
protocols
on elections and governance. They are not worth the reams of paper
they are
written on. In Africa brute force and cynicism carry the day. They
are
applauded and rewarded.
An argument advanced to support Zimbabwe's
power-sharing agreement is that
the people have suffered so much any deal
will do. What condescending
claptrap. Today no plight is greater than that
of the Palestinians. They
have no state with the majority living outside
their homeland in refugee
camps. In Palestine itself they are cramped like
sardines on the West Bank
and Gaza depended on foreign money for their
existence. Given their
desperation is it fair to expect them to accept any
deal from Israel? Or
should they fight for a settlement that meets their
fundamental aspirations
and restores dignity to their people?
That
the MDC is a junior partner in this new government is beyond dispute.
This
puts the party in a precarious position because it now relies on Mugabe's
good faith to salvage something worthwhile from this flawed agreement.
Mugabe has got what he wants - the presidency for a full term and more. Will
he work genuinely to transform Zimbabwe into a decent democratic country or
will he seek to destroy the MDC from close range?
The latter seems
more likely. It is instructive to note what his spokesman
George Charamba
wrote last week in his column in The Herald. He said from
Monday -the day of
the signing- Tsvangirai would begin his journey to
oblivion. This betrays
Mugabe's true intentions - to destroy Tsvangirai and
his party. The MDC will
soon realise the folly of its decision to accept
such a flawed arrangement.
It will have little influence on events, while
wallowing on the margins of
power. Ultimately it will be confronted with a
choice - either to remain in
government powerless and humiliated or to quit.
Whatever decision they make
will not reverse Mugabe's gains.
There will be a honeymoon period during
which the MDC will be accorded a
modicum of respect. This will be a cynical
ploy to convince the world that
the agreement is being honoured. Once
sanctions are lifted and foreign money
flows in the pretence will end.
Compromised and discredited the MDC will be
like a person in an unhappy
marriage who cannot end it for financial
reasons. They will find solace in
their hefty salaries and privileges
watching their political base shrink.
Mugabe's intent will be to ensure that
come 2013 when the next elections are
due the MDC will be in no position to
challenge him and Zanu-PF.
Do
not bet against Mugabe seeking re-election at 89.
http://www.politicsweb.co.za
Eddie Cross
17 September
2008
Eddie Cross writes on the deal signed between the MDC and
Zanu-PF
Yesterday the deal was signed. It has been a tough 8 years to
get here, but
at last we are there! The reaction to the news has been muted
in Zimbabwe -
some have celebrated, others have wept with relief and still
others have
just mused quietly at the cost in lives lost and disrupted and
destroyed. I
walked into my office the morning after the deal was agreed and
one of my
senior staff was sitting there looking at our 'Roll of Honor' -
the names of
all those in our leadership who have died violently since 2000
in the
struggle to regain our dignity as a Nation and our freedom as
individuals.
Many were friends and colleagues; I knew just what he was
thinking.
It is sad that the agreement had to be negotiated in this way
at the
insistence of Thabo Mbeki; there has been no transparency, restricted
consultation and no democratic buy in. People do not know any details and
simply have to accept what was agreed behind closed doors. Not a great start
to a new dispensation. But there was no alternative, we had to have a power
broker and we had no alternative.
Today marks the end of Zanu PF
hegemony over power. From today every
decision on how the government
conducts itself and goes about its business
has to be by consensus with the
MDC. This is not going to be easy for
anyone. We in the MDC must now work
with the very people who have ordered
our arrest, beaten and even killed our
colleagues and abused our rights. We
have to put the past behind us and work
together in designing and
implementing a new dispensation for
Zimbabwe.
The agreement is very African in character. In many respects it
reflects our
culture and traditions. On Tuesday last week Morgan Tsvangirai
requested a
one on one meeting with Mugabe, this was arranged and in the
meeting he said
that if an agreement was not reached, it would have dire
consequences for
everybody. He then proposed that to break the deadlock that
they look at a
revised proposal with a Council of State, headed by Mugabe as
State
President and supervising the work of Cabinet, and headed by
Tsvangirai as
Prime Minister.
The concept received tentative
acceptance and they then saw Mbeki. He
welcomed the idea and Mugabe was
given 24 hours to think it through and
discuss it with his senior officials.
At the next session be baulked at the
concept saying it left him in a
largely ceremonial position. Mbeki then
produced the arrangement that was
finally accepted by both Parties.
Under this new set up, Mugabe is head
of State and Chairman of Cabinet.
However, the concept of a Council of State
was retained by changed slightly
to a Council of Ministers, Chaired by
Tsvangirai as Prime Minister and
responsible for the day to day affairs of
government. In effect therefore
Tsvangirai is Head of Government. All policy
and other decisions by the
Council - once agreed by consensus, will be then
considered by the 'Cabinet'
, the same group of people plus the President
who sits as Chairman of those
sessions with the Prime Minister as co-chair.
Cabinet then must endorse the
decisions of the Council of Ministers and the
minutes be signed by both the
President and the Prime Minister before they
can take effect and be
implemented.
People who know something of
Shona culture will immediately recognize the
arrangement as similar to the
one that is used in traditional society here
to manage the affairs of a
tribal community or clan. The clan recognizes
individuals who become members
of the 'Dare'. This group makes the decisions
and the Chief is then called
in, has the decisions explained to him and he
then announces them to the
people concerned.
I have been privileged to be allowed to sit in such
gatherings - in my own
case it was the Dare of Chief Njelele. The old man
was a bit of a drunkard
and when the Dare (or Council of Elders) met to
consider an issue that was
quite important or complex, they often ordered
the Chief locked up until
they needed him or he would be too far gone to
perform! There was no
disrespect in this and he did not seem to mind the
indignity of it all. He
would then join the Dare, hear the decisions with
great dignity and then
explain them to the people concerned. Very
democratic, very people centered
and a good way to resolve the many issues
that confronted the community.
Can this sort of arrangement work with a
modern government? I think it can
but it will require extraordinary skills
of leadership by Mr. Tsvangirai and
determination by all the Ministers who
will be working with him, to get down
to business, recognize that, like or
not, they are now in government and
must work together. So team building in
the early stages is going to be
essential.
The only other thing I can
say is that our team is ready. We had prepared
for victory in 2000, then in
2002, then again in 2005 and finally in 2008.
So we have had several 'dummy
runs' at this. We know what is needed, what
has to be done and have given a
great deal of thought as to how to do the
operation. I think the Zanu PF
people are going to be surprised at the
extent and depth of the preparations
that have gone into this New Start
operation.
The international
community will be cautious, but as President Kikwete said
to President Bush
in Washington a few weeks ago, give us space, allow us to
negotiate and then
implement an African solution. This is now in place and
we on our part must
now demonstrate we have the capacity and the will to
make it work and to
deliver a better quality of life in all respects to the
people of this
country.
Having just had the triumph of the agreement in Harare,
President Mbeki must
now return to business in South Africa where he faces
fresh challenges in
the form of a resurgent campaign by Jacob Zuma for the
Presidency of South
Africa. In my own view Zuma is now almost certain to be
elected President
next year and for us he takes assumes office a critical
time. Much more than
Mbeki, the MDC has a friend and colleague in Zuma and
we might need his help
in the rough waters that lie ahead, but at least now,
hopefully, we are all
paddling in the same direction.
Eddie Cross is
MP for Bulawayo South and the MDC's Policy Coordinator. This
article first
appeared on his website September 16 2008
http://www.nytimes.com
Editorial
Published: September 17, 2008
There are so many
reasons not to trust Robert Mugabe, Zimbabwe's dictatorial
president. But
the opposition leader, Morgan Tsvangirai - the man who would
have won the
presidency in a fair election - has decided to take a chance by
agreeing
this week to a vaguely defined power-sharing agreement.
With luck, and
continued international pressure, the agreement could be the
start of an
extended transition to democracy and economic revival for
Zimbabwe's
brutalized citizens. That is, undoubtedly, why Mr. Tsvangirai
accepted it,
despite Mr. Mugabe's history of bad faith.
Washington and the European Union
are right to keep their sanctions in place
until it becomes clearer whether
this agreement can produce real change or
is just another devious
maneuver.
Mr. Tsvangirai told a radio interviewer on Wednesday that he
was "quite
certain" about his rival's commitment to the deal. We are less
certain,
especially after an aide to Mr. Mugabe announced that certain
aspects of the
agreement would not go into effect until next
month.
In a democratic Zimbabwe, or in an Africa that insisted on respect
for
democratic elections, Mr. Tsvangirai would be president and Mr. Mugabe
would
be gone. Instead, Mr. Mugabe will remain president, with Mr.
Tsvangirai
becoming prime minister.
Mr. Mugabe's party will hold 15
ministries, Mr. Tsvangirai's 13, and a
splinter opposition party 3. The deal
is very precise on these numbers, but
not on how the powers of the president
and the prime minister will be
apportioned. Both will exercise "executive
power."
The crucial question is how much power Mr. Mugabe will retain to
intimidate
opponents and veto economic reforms. The deal affirms the
principles of free
speech and multiparty democracy, but it also appears to
declare Mr. Mugabe's
disastrous land reform untouchable. Some reports say
that Mr. Mugabe will
keep control over the army, while Mr. Tsvangirai will
control the police.
The army must be kept out of domestic
politics.
With its rich agricultural land and abundant mineral resources,
Zimbabwe
should be thriving. Instead, Mr. Mugabe has turned it into a land
of famine
and desperation, with an annual inflation rate estimated to be 11
million
percent. These man-made disasters cannot be reversed overnight and
without
substantial help.
The United States, Europe and others should
be getting ready to provide
technical support and aid. But first, they must
make sure that this
agreement is real and not just another trick by Mr.
Mugabe to stay in power.
http://www.washingtonpost.com
Editorial
Zimbabwe's political compromise leaves a strongman in power. So
why should
Western governments support it?
Thursday, September 18, 2008;
Page A20
ON ITS FACE, Zimbabwe's political agreement delivers everything
that
President Robert Mugabe could have wished for. Though he lost the
presidential election in March, the 84-year-old strongman will get another
term as president. Though he managed to reverse the election results by
orchestrating a campaign of murder and terror against the opposition, he
will still command the armed forces and have the power to declare martial
law. He will head the cabinet, and his party will have more ministers than
any other. But he will hand off management of his country's catastrophic
economic crisis to opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai, who will have the
task of persuading Western countries to lift sanctions and resume aid --
something that Mr. Mugabe could never hope to accomplish.
It's no
surprise that an agreement brokered by Mr. Mugabe's longtime
apologist and
enabler, South African President Thabo Mbeki, is aimed mainly
at rescuing
his autocratic regime. But what will it do for Zimbabwe's
desperate and
increasingly food-deprived population? That's much harder to
discern from
the text of the agreement or the statements made by Mr.
Tsvangirai and Mr.
Mugabe. At best, the army and Mr. Mugabe's paramilitary
thugs will end a
campaign of violence that has killed more than 200 people
and driven tens of
thousands from their homes. Aid groups may regain the
ability to supply the
hungry; the Red Cross estimates that 2 million are now
short of food and
that the number could rise to 5 million -- nearly half the
population -- by
the end of the year.
What Zimbabwe's accord will not do is restore
democracy or even lay out a
clear path toward it. It will not hold Mr.
Mugabe's thugs accountable for
their murders, rapes and torching of homes.
It will not reverse the
disastrous seizure of large, white-owned commercial
farms, a policy that in
the space of less than a decade has transformed the
country from an African
breadbasket into an economic wasteland with an
official inflation rate of 11
million percent. The agreement even reiterates
Mr. Mugabe's ludicrous demand
that Britain pay dispossessed farmers for the
land he stole.
That's why Western governments have been right to greet
the agreement with
caution. The Bush administration has offered to deliver
emergency food aid,
while reserving judgment on whether the new government
will merit support.
The European Union has explicitly linked a resumption of
aid to "steps to
restore democracy and the rule of law in Zimbabwe,
particularly by
organizing transparent multiparty elections." It's hard to
imagine those
steps taking place while Mr. Mugabe remains in office. But
until they do,
Western governments should not support a regime whose
principal purpose may
be to secure their financial support without meeting
their demands for
fundamental political change.
http://www.thecrimson.com
Published On Thursday, September 18, 2008 12:26
AM
By ALEXANDER R. KONRAD
Weeks after the violence
surrounding the presidential election in Zimbabwe
has subsided, Morgan
Tsvangirai and Robert Mugabe have finally reached a
power-sharing agreement.
In this arrangement, Tsvangirai becomes prime
minister and chairman of the
council of ministers, while Mugabe remains
president, chairman of the
cabinet, and leader of the armed forces. Despite
this political solution,
economic troubles remain. In order to solve them,
the United States, though
perhaps wary of the uncertainty of this political
union, must act decisively
by supporting foreign aid negotiations.
Zimbabwe faces a critical moment
in a history riddled with political
problems. Since Zimbabwean independence
in 1980, President Mugabe has led a
nation gripped by economic recession and
hyperinflation; according to the
Kenya Standard, inflation rates now reach
up to 20 million percent. Mugabe,
as the chief decision-maker in Zimbabwe,
has attempted reforms whose failed
results he has blamed on indeterminable
interference by Western states, such
as Zimbabwe's one-time colonizer, Great
Britain. Amidst all this economic
trouble, Zimbabwe continues to enforce
strict restrictions on distribution
of aid across the country. Any
improvements for life in Zimbabwe will have
to start by lifting these
restrictions.
With an agreement reached, it is now the United States'
turn to step up. A
neutral state actor is needed to ensure that this new
government can address
economic problems in Zimbabwe with foreign aid. Great
Britain has reacted
skeptically to the political agreement, doubting whether
it will cause
actual changes. It has offered to help with financial
resources once
Zimbabwe demonstrates a certain degree of self-help, but
Britain's safe
approach may miss an opportunity for international aid that
America must not
let slip. South Africa remains bound by its proximity and
local trade deals
with Zimbabwe, in addition to its role as a neutral
mediator in African
politics.
The United States, however, shares none
of these political constraints. Even
though it is closely connected with
Great Britain, a country whose
connections to Zimbabwe remain strong, the
United States never occupied
Zimbabwe. Furthermore, since the United States
relies less on trade with
Africa than several other capable powers, such as
China, the United States
can approach negotiations to allow foreign aid as a
neutral party interested
on behalf of humanity.
Practically, the
United States would not even have to provide much of the
funding, if
restrictions loosened. A group of donors in Africa known as the
"Fishmongers
Group" has already vowed to inject approximately $1 billion
into Zimbabwe
once Zimbabwe lifts donation restrictions. The money is there,
waiting; the
United States thus has to only work to facilitate Zimbabwe's
opening-up.
Furthermore, it seems that there is more room for
compromise in Zimbabwe
generally, at least for the time being. Mugabe may be
willing to discuss
economic reform more than in earlier situations, as he
acknowledges the
influence of Tsvangirai and looks forward. By agreeing to
the current
political arrangement, Mugabe has demonstrated at least some
capacity for
negotiation and compromise. And even with Tsvangirai in charge
of the
day-to-day government, Mugabe would be able to claim a portion of the
credit
for any economic successes, with deniability and a ready scapegoat if
the
situation does not improve.
In a self-interested sense, a United
States-brokered compromise on economic
reform in Zimbabwe would help restore
a tarnished international reputation.
One dominant theme in American
politics recently has been the failure to
negotiate and work with other
countries diplomatically. After the infamous
"Coalition of the Willing"
touted by the Bush administration before the
invasion of Iraq, many nations
have grown skeptical of the ability for the
United States to organize and
spearhead a positive and mutually acceptable
agreement among nations.
Joining in efforts to revive Zimbabwe's economy
would help ease this
skepticism and restore some of the United States'
pre-Iraq
reputation.
With the United States' own economy facing growing problems,
such actions
would also demonstrate a true commitment to promoting African
democracy and
economic growth. The collapse of major investment banks and
mortgage giants
in the United States should not hinder the country from
sending diplomatic
aid abroad. Instead, the United States can show that such
economic
uncertainty has not weakened its commitment and capacity for
positive
influence in the global community. This is perhaps more important
in the
tenuous state of international politics right now, since the true
nature of
any person or nation is evident in generosity during hardship, not
prosperity. Investing in a stable Zimbabwe is an investment that is sure to
bring returns; the long-term positive impact of an economically healthy,
democratic Zimbabwe will resonate throughout the world long after the United
States' own recent economic troubles have faded from public
concern.
It is unclear to what extent Tsvangirai will be able to exercise
power over
economic restrictions and to what extent Zimbabwe will take
positive steps
toward following the current power-sharing agreement.
Tsvangirai standing
alongside Mugabe, however, represents in itself a
tentative removal of the
handcuffs that have checked foreign assistance. In
its last several months
in office, the Bush administration must seize this
opportunity to take a
strong, positive stand in foreign policy and finally
help Zimbabwe assume
its position as an African democracy with a hopeful
future.
Alexander R. Konrad '11, a Crimson editorial editor, is a history
concentrator in Quincy House.
http://www.dispatch.co.za
- SANDILE
MEMELA
2008/09/18
PERHAPS
I must caution the people of Zimbabwe against hoping too much for a
beautiful and bright future. Of course, there is much euphoria now that "The
Deal" has been signed.
Robert Mugabe even heaped praises on
President Thabo Mbeki, not only for
being a skilled negotiator, but for his
relentlessness and resilience - he
made African history by bringing three
rival political parties together when
the world had given up
hope.
The cynics however, fear "The Deal" may still fall apart, but for
now, it is
done. However, the ordinary people of Zimbabwe should not make it
a
priority, methinks.
Rather, the people of Zimbabwe, like all people
on the African continent,
and especially those in South Africa, must make
responsibility for self a
priority.
If you do that, you cannot turn
around and point fingers at bishops,
politicians, business people and your
parents for your failures. Bishops,
presidents and political leaders come
and go, but if you take responsibility
for yourself it makes it easier for
you to live with your own situation.
Right now there are far too many
people here who are placing too much hope
in a new post-Mbeki
regime.
If anyone could guarantee that the new regime, under whichever
new
president, could satisfy the aspirations of all the people within five
years, then people could go ahead and put all their eggs in one
basket.
But that it is impossible. The reconstruction of South Africa and
Zimbabwe
is a project that will take much more than the presence or absence
of any
one particular leader.
I fear we have far too many Africans
who place their hopes in particular
personalities, parties or governments,
thinking they are supporting a new
messiah.
Ordinary folks have such
political blind faith that they forget their
personal responsibility to make
things happen for themselves. This
expectancy and dependency traps them in a
form of modern slavery which sees
them unemployed, poor, illiterate,
diseased and, generally, hopeless.
I think the people of Zimbabwe must
free themselves from expecting the
troika of Mugabe, Morgan Tsvangarai or
Arthur Mutambara to do anything for
them.
Personal responsibility and
transforming lives at an individual level should
remain their basic and
ultimate concern.
Tsvangarai and Mutambara have moved into plum positions
and enjoy power, but
I cannot imagine them doing any better than
Mugabe.
They may make a threesome who are destined to get into the
history books,
but they have reached their end. There is nothing beyond
this.
Most African politicians, especially presidents, down the ages
leave office
without having done much for their people.
It has
been 28 years and look at the state of Zimbabwe and the quality of
life of
the people. It is embarrassing.
Tvangarai and Mutambara have been waiting
in the wings to fill Mugabe's
shoes. Ironically they are comrades who ended
up enemies because they both
wanted to be a Mugabe. Now, they are working
with Mugabe - the very man they
wanted to oust - so they can improve things
for the people of Zimbabwe.
I went to a Catholic high school and remember
how, in 1980 after Mugabe took
over, we prayed for genuine freedom to
deliver the people of Zimbabwe from
misery.
But I also learnt at that
time that individuals must take responsibility for
what happens in their own
lives - good and bad.
Nobody can afford to believe that a fallible, human
president can be a
messiah like Jesus Christ. Such a belief is at your own
risk.
Yes, both Mugabe and Mbeki may go soon, but will that mark the
breaking of a
new dawn? That would be a miracle.
Sandile
Memela is an author and spokesperson for the Ministry of Arts and
Culture.
He writes in his personal capacity