Reuters
Thu 4 Sep
2008, 4:32 GMT
HARARE, Sept 4 (Reuters) - Zimbabwean President Robert
Mugabe has said he
will go ahead and form a cabinet if opposition leader
Morgan Tsvangirai does
not sign a power-sharing deal on Thursday, state
media reported.
The state-run Herald newspaper quoted Mugabe as saying
"we will certainly
put together a cabinet" if MDC leader Tsvangirai does not
sign an agreement.
State radio said South African President Thabo Mbeki
would arrive in
Zimbabwe on Thursday to continue his mediation efforts.
http://www.zimonline.co.za
by Cuthbert Nzou
Thursday 04 September 2008
HARARE - Zimbabwe opposition
leader Morgan Tsvangirai has shifted his effort
to mobilising diplomatic
pressure to force President Robert Mugabe to
relinquish power after weeks of
negotiations failed to yield an equitable
power-sharing deal, sources told
ZimOnline on Wednesday.
Power-sharing talks between Tsvangirai's MDC
party and Mugabe's ruling ZANU
PF party ended last weekend without agreement
and the Zimbabwean opposition
leader told South African Radio on Wednesday
that negotiations were unlikely
to resume any time soon.
Senior MDC
officials said that Tsvangirai had in fact lost faith in the
negotiations
held under the mediation of South African President Thabo Mbeki
and had
instead embarked on a campaign to mobilise some of Zimbabwe's
neighbours,
several key African governments and major international powers
to intensify
pressure on Mugabe to give up power.
"Tsvangirai is fed up with this
(talks) process," said a member of the MDC
national executive, who did not
want to be named because he did not have
permission from the party to speak
to the media.
"He has already embarked on a diplomatic offensive that
will see him visit
African countries and ask SADC (Southern African
Development Community)
members, the African Union and the United Nations to
exert pressure on
Mugabe to cede power," the MDC executive member
added.
The opposition official said Tsvangirai began his diplomatic
campaign
immediately after a SADC summit in Johannesburg about a fortnight
ago when
he visited some of Zimbabwe's neighbours.
The next leg of
the campaign, which the MDC official said would begin
Thursday, shall see
Tsvangirai visiting key leaders in West Africa before
touring some
influential European capitals.
MDC spokesman Nelson Chamisa confirmed
Tsvangirai's new focus on mobilising
diplomatic pressure against Mugabe but
insisted that the opposition party
remained committed to the stalled
power-sharing talks.
Chamisa said, "As I speak the president (Tsvangirai)
is in Zambia at the
burial of President Levy Mwanawasa. We expect him back
tomorrow (Thursday)
before he embarks on the diplomatic offensive in West
Africa at the
weekend."
The MDC spokesman - who declined to say
which countries Tsvangirai planned
to visit - said the opposition party
hoped that concerted pressure by
African leaders and other international
players could still force Mugabe to
be more flexible in power-sharing
negotiations than he has been so far.
The talks between ZANU PF and MDC,
aimed at forming a government of national
unity that is seen as the best way
to end Zimbabwe's long-running political
and economic crisis, have stalled
over how to share executive power between
Mugabe and
Tsvangirai.
Under a proposed deal brokered by Mbeki and endorsed by (SADC
Mugabe would
remain executive president in charge of both state and
government.
Tsvangirai would virtually be a ceremonial prime minister
supposedly in
charge of government policy but without power to hire or fire
government
ministers. He would also not chair Cabinet meetings.
The
opposition leader, who under the proposed deal would be required to
report
regularly to Mugabe, refused to sign the deal saying he could not be
a prime
minister without executive power.
Meanwhile, one of Zimbabwe's foremost
political scientists yesterday said
there was need for the international
community to force both Mugabe and
Tsvangirai to climb down from their
positions and reach a compromise deal to
end the country's decade-long
crisis.
University of Zimbabwe political scientist Eldred Masunungure
said the
current political impasse required an external force that could
pressurise
both protagonists in the same way Africa's frontline states and
apartheid
South Africa respectively pushed nationalist guerrillas and
Rhodesia's Ian
Smith to sign the 1979 Lancaster House agreement.
The
agreement paved the way for Zimbabwe's independence in 1980.
He said:
"The missing link in the current talks is an outside force with the
capacity
to exert pressure on the MDC and ZANU PF to reach a compromise.
Smith,
Mugabe (and Joshua Nkomo) were forced to climb down on their demands
at
Lancaster House due to pressure from South Africa and the frontline
leaders." - ZimOnline
http://www.businessday.co.za
04
September 2008
Dumisani
Muleya
Harare
Correspondent
PRESIDENT Thabo Mbeki is expected in Harare today to make a
renewed bid to
break the deadlock in power-sharing talks between President
Robert Mugabe
and Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) leader Morgan
Tsvangirai.
Mbeki is understood to have held brief talks with Mugabe and
Tsvangirai
yesterday in Lusaka at the funeral of Zambian president Levy
Mwanawasa.
Sources said Mbeki was expected to propose that all
Mugabe's executive
powers be discussed and ways be found of dividing them
equally between
Mugabe and Tsvangirai.
Mbeki is likely to propose
that the two men co-chair the cabinet and that
details of Tsvangirai's
position and powers be spelt out when he meets the
two men and Arthur
Mutambara, the leader of a breakaway MDC faction.
"Mbeki is expected
to bring new proposals which he would discuss with
Mugabe, Tsvangirai and
Mutambara. He seems to believe that the parties are
deadlocked but there is
still a huge chance of a breakthrough if viable
offers are tabled," a
diplomatic source said.
"The parties appear far apart on a difficult
yet straightforward issue. But
if both sides move in the right direction
just a bit, a solution could be
easily found."
Mbeki's proposals
could include a new document on the role of the prime
minister in an
envisaged inclusive government. A new plan might entail
expanded and
consolidated powers for the prime minister.
It is understood the revised
document could outline what powers Mugabe would
retain compared to what
Tsvangirai would get.
Under an existing proposal, Tsvangirai would be
the prime minister and
deputy cabinet chairman, whose responsibility
entailed "overseeing the
formulation of policies".
The prime minister
would also ensure the implementation of policies agreed
to by the cabinet.
The proposal says Mugabe and Tsvangirai would agree on
the "allocation of
ministries between them for the purposes of day-to-day
supervision".
Tsvangirai would conduct government business in
parliament and advise Mugabe
on key appointments. He would sit in the
National Security Council,
currently known as the Joint Operations Command.
The body, which brings
army, police and intelligence chiefs together, is
Mugabe's power base.
However, Tsvangirai has refused to sign an
agreement under these proposals,
saying they would make him a weaker partner
in a Mugabe-dominated
government. He wants the agreement to specifically say
he would be head of
government before he signs.
Mugabe has
refused to concede, saying he would be left as a ceremonial
president.
Mutambara's faction says the proposal on the prime
minister's powers is "
realistic in the circumstances".
http://www.thezimbabwetimes.com/?p=3394
September 4, 2008
By George B.N.
Ayittey, Ph.D
FOLKS, I don't know about you but I have been fervently
ticked off by these
blow-by-blow accounts of these on and off again,
never-ending talks. I am so
angry. An African country is being destroyed
right before our own very eyes
and we seem to be totally incapable of doing
anything about it. So much
misery, so much suffering and it is sooo
unnecessary.
The talks have collapsed. I could crow about this, saying "I
told you so."
But that would be hollow or meaningless when there is massive
suffering in
Zimbabwe. Two questions about the talks:
What are these
talks about? Land redistribution? Colonial injustices and
legacies? It is
about POWER. Now we know who are the real zombies who kept
insisting on land
redistribution, Western colonialism and imperialism. They
have all been
fooled because these factors are NOT on the negotiating table.
The talks are
about POWER-SHARING, damn it.
Didn't we hear that two new MEDIATORS - one
from the AU and the other from
the U.N. - have been added? How come we have
not heard from them and only
from Thabo Mbeki? Snookered again,
huh?
Albert Einstein once defined insanity as doing the same thing over
and over
again and expecting different results. These talks have been going
for at
least eight bloody years and they are still talking. Look, human
patience is
not inexhaustible. But leave Mugabe alone; he is not the
problem. We know
what he wants. It is we in the opposition, and those who
want change in
Zimbabwe who are the problem. It is painful to criticize the
opposition
because it might sound like rubbing salt into their wounds. But
we must be
honest with ourselves and be willing to face the painful fact
that we made
some tactical blunders. We must accept this reality and
readjust our
strategies accordingly.
BLUNDER No. 1: Divided
Opposition Front
How in hell do we present a DIVIDED opposition front to
Mugabe? How, how,
how? We were outfoxed when Mugabe rolled out and
shepherded Arthur Mutambara
to the negotiating table. What motivates Arthur
more: His own personal lust
for power or the welfare of the Zimbabwean
PEOPLE? And if Mugabe has brought
in Arthur, why didn't we call his bluff by
insisting on bringing in Simba
Makoni, church leaders and civil society
group leaders because that's where
Morgan's real power lies?
Maybe,
each of the three parties - Arthur, Mugabe and Morgan - are so
obsessed with
POWER and distribution of cabinet positions that they don't
care one hoot
about the massive suffering of the Zimbabwean PEOPLE. If so,
let them talk,
talk, talk and talk about who gets what cabinet post and some
"Charles
Taylor" or "Laurent Kabila" will emerge from the bush to knock some
sense
into their heads.
BLUNDER No.2: Government of National Unity (GNU) is
FLAWED
Sometimes, Zimbabwe's opposition leaders behave as if the country
was the
only one colonized by Britain. As such, they adamantly refuse to pay
much
attention to the experiences of other African countries and are bent on
"re-inventing" the wheel.
Regarding power-sharing talks in a
government of national unity (GNU), this
has never worked in post colonial
Africa. It never worked in Angola, Ivory
Coast, Liberia, Sierra Leone, or
Sudan. Even in South Africa, it lasted for
only one year, when the de Klerk
National Party pulled out of the ANC in
1996. In Kenya, the GNU is in
intensive care unit. The reason why GNU has
such a dismal record is simple:
Jostling arises over the distribution of
cabinet positions. Nobody is
satisfied with what they get and the wrangling
continues. Everybody wants
the ministry of defense and finance portfolios.
To satisfy everyone, more
cabinet positions are created, which inevitably
leads to the swelling of the
bureaucracy. Kenya now has 92 cabinet and
deputy ministers!
Imagine.
So why should the MDC go along with GNU? Even if a GNU can be
crafted, no
incumbent will cede more power to the opposition leader and take
a junior
position. It has never happened in post colonial African history.
So should
the MDC even go for this?
BLUNDER No.3: Not knowing the
enemy
The first rule in warfare is to Know the Enemy. You must know the
strengths
and weaknesses of your enemy. You do not, I repeat, you do not
fight an
enemy of the turf on which he is strongest. For example, the
military has an
awesome superiority in weapons but they are numerically
inferior,
constituting less than 0.1 percent of the population in any
African country.
So you don't fight a military regime in the urban areas
where they are
concentrated. You s-t-r-e-t-c-h them geographically. Get
it?
In a boxing match, you study your opponent's strength and weakness.
He has a
devastating right hook but is vulnerable to a sharp upper cut. A
sensible
strategy is not to develop a right hook too. Rather, you shore up
your
defenses against right hooks and develop a potent upper cut. Too often
in
Africa, the opposition does not develop an "upper cut" and then, when
clobbered with a "right hook," cry "Foul!."
Let me ask you this: What
are the weaknesses of the Mugabe regime?
Scratching your head? So tell me
this, how do you defeat an enemy when you
do not know his weaknesses and are
fighting him on the turf on which he is
strongest? That is exactly what the
MDC has been doing.
It is Mugabe who is calling all the shots. He decides
when to resume and end
the talks. He decides when to re-open Parliament and
the MDC goes by his
playbook and falls in line. This is
absurd.
BLUNDER No. 4: Ineffectual opposition tactics
Of course,
we all want peaceful, non-violent resolution to the crisis in
Zimbabwe.
Engaging the Mugabe regime in dialogue is the preferred option.
But should
that fail, we must have Plan B, C, or D. It seems the opposition
has no such
alternative plans.
To be sure, street protests - as in the Philippines,
Nepal or Thailand are
out of the question. But are street protests the only
internal options?
There are other non-violent options. Shut down the
civil service. Shut down
the internal transportation system. Shut down the
universities. Civil
servants strike, doctors strike, lecturers strike,
students strike,
newspapers strike, farmers strike, etc. etc.
The MDC
has not considered these intern alternatives because it is wedded to
an
externalist strategy. Besides, it seems to be suspicious of CIVIL SOCIETY
groups or other stakeholders, believing that it alone can deliver
change.
Of course, we all know that the MDC faces formidable odds, not to
mention
the vicious attacks, beatings, imprisonment, and torture MDC
officials have
endured. At least, four attempts have been made on Morgan's
life. We all
remember his swollen face and lacerations after he was severely
beaten up in
2006. All that is etched in our collective
memory.
Nonetheless, we have to be honest with ourselves. This crisis
erupted in
2000 and since then, the PEOPLE have patiently waited for change
or an
improvement in their living conditions. But nothing has been achieved
by the
opposition. And patience is not inexhaustible. If the MDC can't
deliver, the
people will start looking elsewhere.
The MDC needs to do
some serious "soul-searching" - a self-critical
analysis. Its tactics aren't
working. A clear distinction needs to be made
between an objective and the
tactics or means of achieving that objective.
Criticizing a tactic as
ineffectual does not mean one is opposed to the
objective.
The
current MDC tactic is flawed. It seems to rest solely on seeking
recognition
of Morgan's March 29 electoral victory from African leaders,
SADC, regional
leaders and the broader international community, as well as
support from the
same to pressure the Mugabe regime to cede power to the
MDC-T. There are so
many problems with this strategy:
It is externally-oriented. Quite apart
from the diplomatic hoops such a
strategy must jump through - for example,
the risk of being seen as
interfering in the internal affairs of a sovereign
country - rare has been
the case where external factors instigated political
change in a post
colonial African country. Beginning in the early 1990s, ALL
political
changes in Africa occurred from within. Even though the West
eventually
imposed sanctions against apartheid South Africa, change in that
country
came from within when the Convention for a Democratic South Africa
(CODESA)
was convened.
The logistics of securing international
sanctions, condemnations and
embargoes are daunting. How long do you think
it would take the United
Nations to impose sanctions against the Mugabe
regime, assuming no country
would veto that resolution? How long do you
think it would take, say the
U.S.or Britain, to send a "Kissinger" to talk
Mugabe out of power? Since
Zimbabwe is land-locked, the most effective
sanctions would be AFRICAN.
Neighboring counties can seal their borders, cut
communication and power
lines. But how long do you think it would take the
neighboring countries to
do this? 10, 20 years? No, till hell freezes
over.
SADC, AU, and African leaders are totally hopeless and useless when
it comes
to effecting political change in another African country. Do I even
have to
say this? If you know this already, then what is the point of going
to these
bodies and leaders for help in effecting change in
Zimbabwe?
Even then, international sanctions don't move dictators. They
never toppled
Saddam Hussein, Kim Il Sung of North Korea, Castro of Cuba,
Abacha of
Nigeria, Ghaddafi of Libya, among others.
Rarer still is
foreign intervention. The only occasion the United Nations
intervenes is
when an African country has totally collapsed: Somalia (1992),
Liberia,
Sierra Leone, Congo DR. Three cases of African intervention may be
noted:
Libya into Chad (1976), Tanzania into Uganda to topple Idi Amin
(1978) and
Ethiopian into Somalia (2006). Zimbabwe hasn't totally collapsed,
nor is any
neighboring willing to invade.
For the MDC to stick bull-headedly to
externally-driven forces for change in
Zimbabwe is insane. Morgan keeps
hopping around from one African capital to
the next, achieving NOTHING,
except tepid assurances of support and
sympathy.
Time is not on the
side of the MDC. People are rapidly losing faith in its
ability to deliver
change. And if people lose faith in the MDC, they will
start "looking
elsewhere" - even at rebel leaders.
(George Ayittey is a prominent
Ghanaian economist, author and president of
the Free Africa Foundation in
Washington DC).
VOA
By Carole Gombakomba
Washington
03
September 2008
Zimbabwean non-governmental organizations say
that they continue to be
barred from providing humanitarian assistance
despite government claims that
food distribution and other forms of aid can
resume if NGOs meet new
registration and reporting
requirements.
Moreover, sources say the government is only allowing the
private voluntary
associations to help the most vulnerable segments,
including people living
with HIV/AIDS, and continues to bar them from
helping the general
population.
Officials of the National Association of
Non-Governmental Organizations say
the government has asked NGO aid
providers to fill out "monitoring and
evaluation forms" which require them
to detail budgets and organizational
structures, with a September 30
deadline.
NANGO officials say NGOs and donors are currently holding a
series of
meetings to determine whether they should comply with the newly
imposed
regulations.
National Director Reverend Forbes Matonga of
Christian Care, a main local
partner for the United Nations World Food
Program told reporter Carole
Gombakomba of VOA's Studio 7 for Zimbabwe that
despite such concerns among
many non-governmental organizations, his
organization is starting to
organize logistics to resume distribution of
food aid.
NGOs advocating human rights, democracy and good governance are
also coming
under new restrictions though they were not covered by an NGO
aid ban Harare
imposed in June.
Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum and
NANGO board member Edison Chihota told
reporter Gombakomba that it is now
harder to operate because rights and
democracy NGOs have not yet received
the new regulations.
VOA
By Blessing Zulu
Washington
03 September
2008
Zimbabwe's unresolved political crisis loomed large
Wednesday as African
leaders gathered in Lusaka, Zambia, for the funeral of
President Levy
Mwanawasa, who died on August 19 in Paris at the age of 59
after suffering a
stroke in June at an African Union summit in
Egypt.
Mr. Mwanawasa was laid to rest on the day he would have turned
60.
South African President Thabo Mbeki delivered the principal eulogy at
the
state funeral, calling Mr. Mwanawasa's passing a great loss to
Africa.
Zambian Information Minister Mike Mulongoti told reporter
Blessing Zulu of
VOA's Studio 7 for Zimbabwe that Mwanawasa was honored by
colleagues in
death as in life.
U.S Assistant Secretary of State for
African Affairs Jendayi Frazer and
British Minister for Africa Mark
Malloch-Brown were also on hand.
President Robert Mugabe and Movement for
Democratic Change founder Morgan
Tsvangirai both traveled to Zambia to
attend the funeral ceremonies.
Upon arriving in Lusaka, President Mugabe
praised Mr. Mwanawasa, describing
him as "frank." Mr. Mwanawasa on a number
of occasions in recent years was
openly critical of Mr. Mugabe and his
government, calling his controversial
re-election June 27
"embarrassing."
The crisis in Zimbabwe hovered over the funeral
proceedings. So serious do
some African leaders consider the crisis that
Foreign Minister Bernard Membe
of Tanzania, currently holding the African
Union chair, said an ad hoc
summit should be held in Lusaka after the
burial.
Zimbabwean power-sharing talks in progress since late July were
on hold,
although some sources said they might pick up again later this week
in
Harare.
Membe said this week that the negotiations should be
wrapped up soon and
recommended a 50-50 division of executive powers between
Mr. Mugabe and
Tsvangirai.
But Reuters quoted Tsvangirai as telling a
Johannesburg radio station
Wednesday that the negotiations have broken down
and were unlikely to resume
soon.
Independent political analyst
Hermann Hanekom told reporter Zulu that the
region has lost a voice of
reason in Levy Mwanawasa.
Violet Gonda: Glen Mpani is my guest on the programme Hot
Seat. He is the Regional Co-ordinator for the transitional justice program at
the Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation in Cape Town , and he is
also studying towards a PhD in political science. Glen is doing his PhD research
on the Tsvangirai led MDC - a party he has been studying for the last 4 years,
and we have invited him to get his thoughts on the happenings in the MDC . Hi
Glen.
Glen Mpani: Hi Violet
it’s good to be on your programme.
Violet Gonda: Thank
you. Let me start by getting your overall impression of the party that is the
MDC .
Glen Mpani: I think that the overall impression
of the MDC can be judged by its output and I think the only barometer that we
can use at this point in time is to judge it based on the successive elections
that the MDC has participated in over the years and you would agree with me that
they have been able to consolidate their gains on the ground by increasing the
numbers of their representatives within local government and within parliament.
And secondly if you look at their supporters, in terms of the numbers that they
have been able to get at the Presidential elections - you will also concur that
their support has been increasing.
But political parties are not only
judged by the numbers of people that vote for them within elections. I think you
also have to judge the party in terms of its institutional structure, the
dynamics, the way in which they are able to mobilise their cells, their
branches, how they coordinate themselves. And I think there are some glaring
weaknesses within the MDC on this line where you have seen some mixed messages
coming out from the political party. And we have also seen in terms of failure
to capitalise on their links at grassroots level leading to different party
members working in discord with what would be the main agenda of the political
party.
Violet Gonda: And Glen how significant is the MDC
’s victory in Parliament, what’s your take on it?
Glen
Mpani: The MDC ’s victory in parliament has basically emboldened the
MDC in the sense that it is coming on the backdrop of the reported pact between
Mutambara and ZANU PF and it was more or less a foregone conclusion that the
alliance was going to win the Speakership. So for Morgan Tsvangirai to win the
Speakership what it simply reflects is that he has got people within the two
parties - the MDC Mutambara formation and ZANU PF - who are aligned to Morgan
Tsvangirai or who believe in the values or the issues that he is trying to put
across. It also reflects on party divisions that are within the two formations
- the Mutambara formation and ZANU PF, and it erodes the confidence of those who
are inclined towards Mutambara in the sense that if the members of parliament
have rebelled against him what one now needs to question is his relevance on the
negotiating table. Who is he representing because he doesn’t have a
constituency?
And the other issue of what it does is that it also creates
two centres of power. We have parliament that has got MDC majority and we have a
senate that has got a ZANU PF majority. So what it simply does is that there is
conflict within the two houses and we are going to see the MDC using the
parliament more effectively to block anything that is not progressive and I
foresee them blocking all budgets and everything else until ZANU PF really
yields to what they would want.
Violet: You know there
was excitement within and outside Zimbabwe over the MDC victory in Parliament.
Do you think it was strategic though for the MDC to field a sitting member of
parliament for the Speakership?
Glen: I would say yes
and no to that Violet. I think the choice of a sitting member of parliament
could have been motivated by the levels of polarisation that exist between the
MDC and ZANU PF. So it was necessary for them to choose a senior member in the
party who might be endowed with experience, political astuteness and
understanding the characters and dynamics in the House. I think Lovemore
Moyo being the chairman of the party was the ideal candidate for that and he has
been in the parliament since 2000. They could have taken other option of
choosing from outside the House but in terms of the experience that they needed
possibly that individual couldn’t have been able to discharge those duties
effectively, so they didn’t want to gamble and that is why they settled for
Lovemore Moyo. And also they might have thought about the fact that Matobo has
been a constituent that they have won successively and they thought that they
could easily win it if they go for another by-election.
But I think the
downside of it is that unfortunately they yielded a seat or created a
by-election in the same vein and I think that gives an opportunity for ZANU PF
to be able to use that by-election to get that seat back. And we have noted the
history of ZANU PF with by-elections that they usually win them and they invest
a lot in these by-elections, capitalise or use violence and all other extra
measures to ensure that they get back this seat. So I think on that turn it was
not strategic.
Violet: And you mentioned earlier about
the failure of the MDC to use its links on the ground. Can you elaborate on
that? And in terms of the strategies of the MDC have they shifted their
strategies from grassroots based into relying in institutional processes such as
parliament and elections?
Glen: The MDC is a mass
movement that was formed based on the support from the students, the women, the
churches and largely from the labour movement. And the MDC defined itself as the
people’s movement that represents the interests of all people. But during the
course of it developing and moving out of being a mass movement it has run on
the banner of a movement that is championing change. So it basically represents
everything to anybody - everybody depending on how those individuals would look
at change. And I think the challenge for them over the years has been to
transform from being a social movement into a political party and how to
aggregate these different interests that they have into one goal - into an
ideology that they can work towards.
And in that process you’d realise
that they are trying to shift from being more grassroots support into cutting
across all the layers of structures that are represented within society. The
downside of it is that unfortunately they are alienating themselves from the
grassroots support and they are only using their support base when it comes to
elections. But over and above during the interim period when there are no
elections there is nothing that is taking place with their
structures.
Violet: So do you think they still have the
capacity to deal with civil mobilisation?
Glen: I think
they have never invested their time in dealing with civil mobilization. They
have used civil mobilisation when they want people to go and vote but they have
never as a political party explored other options that they can use for civil
mobilisation. That is why you have seen that for them even calling for
democratic protests or stayaways of late has been very difficult for them
because their support base cannot be able to grapple with the way they are
strategising it.
Putting it simply Violet, if you want people to protest
over an issue at a national level people cannot protest over legal issues,
abstract issues, human rights issues because those are the issues that they
don’t identify with. They would need to identify with day to day issues. They
don’t have electricity, they don’t have water. The moment my mother is able to
identify with those issues it is easy for you to engage in order to be able to
put pressure or to mobilise to address those issues. But if you talk about the
fact there are no human rights and people are being beaten - yes they can
identify with them but those are not immediate issues that they would want to be
addressed.
Violet: There are some observers who say the
MDC is deflating the potential of the people on the ground by focusing on the
wrong options like the talks. What are your thoughts on
that?
Glen: They are quite right. They are not only
deflating the potential of the people with the talks - elections can also be
viewed as a way of protesting. People can look forward to an election as a way
of venting their disgruntlement with the regime and so over the years people
have been waiting for five years so that they can get their chance to vote. And
in that way all the energies and disgruntlement is channelled towards voting.
Similarly to the negotiations everyone is waiting because the leadership
has said it is optimistic something is going to come out of it and failure is
not an option and in that thing all the structures and all the energies of the
people have been demobilised.
Violet: There are others
who argue that possibly the MDC should have accepted the agreement with ZANU PF
as a way forward rather than its either all or nothing
approach?
Glen: There is no alternative to negotiating
ultimately both parties have to sit and talk but what is important to assess is
whether this is the right time for the talks? Is ZANU PF seriously ready to
engage with them and what other avenues can they explore to get ZANU PF to
negotiate with them sincerely?
We need to be very wary of this thing
because ZANU PF can never negotiate itself out of power but what ZANU PF can be
pushed to be able to do is to negotiate sincerely and be able to ensure that the
reforms that Zimbabwe badly needs are instituted. And the important thing for
the MDC is that they should not put all their eggs in one basket.
So in
terms of this deal that is in front of them those who advocate that they should
have accepted the deal and worked within the structures would need to
interrogate what sort of structures did they have. Did they have the capacity to
manoeuvre and to implement those changes? If they did not that was a limitation
for them because that would in effect erode their support base and make them
unpopular. So that might have possibly informed them in terms of saying ‘should
we accept this deal or not accept it?’
Violet: And you
mentioned that they would also have to push ZANU PF to negotiate sincerely. How
do they do that?
Glen: Pushing ZANU PF to negotiate
sincerely - I think the important thing that we need to understand is that other
than the negotiations that we are having in terms of the inter party talks, we
also have to understand the intra party dynamics within ZANU PF and one would
appreciate that ZANU PF is not only negotiating with the MDC but is also dealing
with the party dynamics within itself. There is a succession issue that has not
been resolved within ZANU PF, there is the Mnangagwa and Mujuru issue that is
there. The party is basically facing a lot of conflict internally. So that in
itself informs the strategies and the positions that they are likely to
take.
So for the MDC in terms of how they can push them to negotiate is
to provide space - I know this would draw a lot of criticism - but to provide
space in a strategic way and in a way in which they can deal with their dynamics
but in such a way that they can also be able to make some gains.
In
these negotiations there were key issues that were on the table; the issue of
the constitution. I think that is a gain that the MDC could say ‘let’s move on
the constitution, let’s reform the constitution,’ without even talking about the
structures that they would want. That is a very important gain that they can put
on the table and have that constitution reformed. So there are some issues that
they can deal with in the interim without destabilising or without affecting the
dynamics of power that are within ZANU PF because as long as those issues are
not resolved ZANU PF will not negotiate
sincerely.
Violet: And from your research of the MDC ,
in the process of negotiating has the MDC effectively delegated the advocacy
role to other groups and to even representatives in its party because others
believe that they are disengaging from their own support base. And the reason
that I am also asking this is because observers say it appears everything
revolves around the negotiators and the president of the party, whilst on the
other hand when you look at ZANU PF - ZANU PF is using its foreign services,
it’s using its war veterans and all these groups within ZANU PF have been
activated to advocate ZANU PF strategies. What are your thoughts on
this?
Glen: One thing I would like to say is that it was
very unfortunate and quite retrogressive for both parties to sign an MoU that
blankets or that pushes for secrecy of what’s happening in the negotiations.
Unfortunately the MDC has disengaged and only goes at intervals to civil society
to inform them what is happening. But ZANU PF consistently within its structures
ensures that they are informed of what is happening. SO the MDC regardless of
the MoU, it should have created a chain of command within its structures where
these issues are debated from their cell to their branch to ensure that no one
says ’we don’t know what is happening.’
Now the public waits for the
media to inform them - whether they are misinforming them - but that is what
they have in this point in time and I think that is a tragedy. When the talks
collapsed even if there was an agreement at these talks they would have had a
lot of explaining to do to say this is what we had to accept and for these
reasons. So it is a top down approach and you are not coming from the ground.
And even if they say they are consulting their Standing Committee, it is a
committee of representatives but what are your structures saying on the ground?
How are you consulting them? And even the teething issues that came out of the
MoU, you could hear the war veterans bringing out a statement saying ‘we are not
accepting you to cede anymore power.’ So you can actually see how the structures
are being used to push for an agenda. If that is happening within the MDC
privately then we don’t know about it but we have had many instances where their
supporters are complaining that ‘we don’t know what is
happening.’
Violet: What about rallying regional support
from SADC & also from the African Union, has it worked for the MDC
?
Glen: It has partly worked for the MDC but you can
only do so much. But one needs to understand that the MDC is working within the
context where previously it has been projected as a foreign party with foreign
interests. It has had to work very hard to identify itself as an African party
and they can only push so much because within SADC we have leaders that are so
loyal and so attached to Mugabe that they will not shift in terms of their
positions, and I think the Communiqué should show evidently that from now on
there is nothing that SADC can do.
The Communiqué addressed Robert Mugabe
as the Head of State regardless of what SADC had said about the elections - the
Pan African Parliament had said about elections and even advising him about the
convening of parliament. It shows where the balance of power lies. Morgan
Tsvangirai can only do so much but I think for now most of the work now needs to
be done in the country by using the structures and the support base that they
have right now.
Violet: How then do you think the MDC
needs to position itself to effect a change of government? You mentioned it
needs to work more with the civil society but in the last eight years the MDC
has been working with all these groups but nothing has really changed and some
say even the grassroots, the people on the ground are failing to participate in
national politics. What are the options for the MDC ?
Glen: I thinking
working with the civil society should not only be symbolic. It should also be at
a strategic level. The first thing that the MDC needs to work on is that they
have won the local government elections, they have the majority in most of these
councils and they should start capitalising on those institutions and structures
to entrench themselves.
Secondly when you are talking about working with
civil society it is for them to support all the initiatives that the civil
society is doing because that is where their support base is. I think we have
been more absorbed in capturing the Executive but there is more that we can do
at a local level, at a grassroots level that can entrench the party into a
position where the ZANU PF has no option but to negotiate with the MDC .
Violet: But what about the civil society itself, why is
it failing to also come up with strategies?
Glen: The
civil society in Zimbabwe has also been decimated. I think the levels of
repression within the country has also made it very difficult because you would
agree with me that even in terms of human capacity most of the people who have
been in civil society have also moved out of the country and they have taken up
jobs elsewhere. Secondly there is also donor fatigue, donors are tired of
rolling out money to NGOs in Zimbabwe and thirdly we are dealing with challenges
that are changing over and over again.
So in terms of capacity to deal
with that you also need a way in which the civil society can be rejuvenated. And
strategically the civil society is planning as things are happening. They are
also caught up in not being proactive to say ’this is what the regime is doing.’
How can we think ahead in terms of planning to deal with the current political
environment. So the impact of the problem on the MDC has also equally affected
the civil society in Zimbabwe .
Violet: And you know
Glen SADC has been under attack for enabling the ZANU PF policy especially on
the issue of not putting pressure on the regime to allow humanitarian aid. Now
the state media has reported that the regime has lifted the food aid ban and if
this is true and if food will be allowed in - does this mean Mugabe’s powers are
slowly chipping away?
Glen : Not necessarily. You will
understand that the block on food aid is not only supporting the MDC supporters
but is also affecting the ZANU PF supporters so in all intents and purposes what
they have simply done is that they have noticed that their people are suffering.
But the lifting of the ban was strategically done the day after Morgan had sent
in a letter which might be viewed as the ZANU PF being magnanimous but this has
to be treated with caution. And thirdly what is more important is that we would
want to see under which conditions these organisations are going to be allowed
to distribute food because we can get a public notice saying this has been
allowed whilst the evidence on the ground is contrary.
Violet: And observers have said the MDC does not have a
plan B and that Morgan Tsvangirai may be forced to sign this power sharing deal
with ZANU PF. What will this mean if they sign?
Glen:
If the deal is signed in its current framework - as it’s being reported - I
think that will alienate Morgan from his constituency base because it will
basically be viewed as a sell-out and it will basically be a reversal of the
gains that they have made over the years because I don’t see him being able to
influence ZANU PF within that structure and he really has to convince the people
why they have decided to sign if there are no changes or there is no shift from
ZANU PF, in terms of their original position to make him a symbolic Prime
Minister who doesn’t have any powers.
Violet: What if
ZANU PF does shift and allows Morgan Tsvangirai to share executive powers with
Robert Mugabe?
Glen: I think that would be a different
scenario if they allow and give him significant sharing powers - despite the
earlier positions that has been given by civil society and Zimbabweans that it
is unacceptable. I think that in itself can give him room to manoeuvre and I
think - in my opinion - it might be a starting point in him accepting to take
that up.
Violet: And a final
word?
Glen: I think what is important in the current
context within Zimbabwe right now is that the struggle doesn’t only need to be
confined within the MDC . The fact that the negotiations have only put the MDC
and ZANU PF on the table but we have some Zimbabweans who are affiliated to
civil society, to different organisations who can be able to broaden this
process. The moment its only limited to two political parties we are likely not
to get the best deal out of it. So one hopes that all the stakeholders who are
outside continue to put pressure in terms of ensuring that at least even at this
late stage the process is broadened.
Violet: Thank you
Glen Mpani.
Glen: Thanks Violet.
Feedback can be emailed to violet@swradioafrica.com
http://www.thezimbabwetimes.com/?p=3390
September 4, 2008
By Raymond
Maingire
HARARE - The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ), the
world's
largest media trade union movement, says Zimbabwe's crisis could be
worse
off if it were not for close coverage given to the crisis by the
international media.
Zimbabwe has never escaped international media
scrutiny since the onset of
government's controversial policies in
2000.
Government says the hostile media coverage is both unbalanced and
unjustified.
But Iden White, secretary general of Brussels based
organization, which
represents journalist unions in 130 countries worldwide,
thinks otherwise.
"I do reject the notion that the international media
are the problem," White
told journalists at the Quill Club, Harare's press
club Wednesday evening.
"If the international media had not intervened a
few years ago as the crisis
here was intensifying, the catastrophe could be
far more disastrous than we
can imagine."
Zimbabwe is in the throes
of a major humanitarian crisis blamed on
government's populist
policies.
White is in Zimbabwe on the mandate of the IFJ international
executive
committee to carry out an investigation into the state of the
media in
Zimbabwe.
The veteran journalist is also going to present
his report to the Federation
of Arab-African journalists' conference in
Nairobi, Kenya in two months
time.
The Nairobi conference will bring
together all African journalist
organizations to come up with an Africa-wide
response to media crises.
Considered one of the world's most hazardous
working environments for
journalists, Zimbabwe is set to top the
agenda.
White criticized the Access to Information and Protection of
Privacy Act
(AIPPA) which the government has used to stifle the local
media.
"The AIPPA should be completely withdrawn," he said. "It's a bad
law that
has been amended and is still a bad law.
"It seems to me
that that was an element of law which was introduced by a
government that
failed to recognize the value of dialogue in resolving
problems with
media."
By controlling the operations of the media, he said, the
government was
criminalizing journalism.
He added, "Government is
restraining journalists and breaking the
fundamental trust in a democracy
that should exist between journalism and
accountability and scrutiny of
their actions as a governing power.
"Going to law is the last thing that
should ever happen when you are dealing
with journalists and the
media."
White urged Zimbabwean journalists to resist political
manipulation that has
divided them into two hostile groups - one that is
pro-government and
another that is anti-government.
He said local
journalists were under pressure to provide balanced coverage
in a
news-starved society when their activities were being stifled by the
law. He
said the reporters could hardly afford basics on meagre salaries.
"This
is a time of a real profound crisis," he lamented. "The conditions in
which
journalists work in, determine the quality of journalism that you get.
There
is no press freedom when journalists exist in conditions of poverty,
corruption and fear."
He said all journalists should be steadfast and
demand a stop in state
interference in their work.
"We have to find
our voice," he said. "We need to challenge government and
take out those
laws which are making journalism difficult."
The 58-year-old Briton had
no kind words for his compatriots within the
British Broadcasting
Corporation (BBC) whom he accused together with some
international media for
sensationalizing the Zimbabwean crisis.
He said: "There is an absolute
fascination with the crisis, with violence,
with images that are designed to
stimulate the notion that you can't walk
anywhere in Zimbabwe without fear
for your life."
The government has imposed a ban on all international
media such as the BBC
and CNN which are deemed hostile to it. But it has not
been able to stop
reports that have sifted out of the country.
Some
local journalists have been forced to flee the country for writing news
seen
as hostile to the establishment.
By Tichaona Sibanda
3
September 2008
A child has died in Binga, Matabeleland North province
from food poisoning
after eating a meal of roots and leaves. This comes at a
time when reports
state the country is facing the prospect of famine on an
unprecedented
scale.
Villagers in Binga and Lupane are surviving on a
diet of wild fruit and
roots. Reporting the starvation and poverty in the
region, MDC MP for Binga,
Joel Gabuza described scenes of extreme
deprivation in villages which have
been cut off from the rest of the country
for months.
Last week the legislator picked up a small family on the side
of a road 18
km south of his constituency. It was a mother and her three
children, and
she was carrying her youngest child who had just died in her
arms.
The other two children were both in a critical condition. Gabuza
rushed the
family to the hospital in Binga. In their desperate hunger, they
had eaten
poisonous roots. Luckily after a few days of care in the hospital
the mother
and two children have survived.
In Chikomba district in
Mashonaland East province women say they have little
choice but to have sex
with men so that they can feed hungry mouths at home.
MDC MP for Mbare,
Piniel Denga who comes from the area told Newsreel on
Wednesday more and
more women were resorting to bartering sex for food as
the crisis in the
country is accelerating much faster than had been
anticipated.
"More
often they are doing it without the use of condoms, therefore putting
themselves and others at risk of becoming infected with HIV. Hunger has
tightened its grip in the district and I understand thousands are abandoning
their homes in search of food," Denga said.
The shortages have
reached critical levels in Mashonaland East where over
500 000 people
urgently need food aid. The MP said the government has failed
to provide
food to starving villagers since June when they distributed 5kg
bags of
maize meal to each household.
Denga said grain millers have become
hunting grounds for women seeking to
barter sex for food. The situation was
made worse by lack of electricity at
times, forcing male customers to spend
nights at the millers and inevitably
attracting the desperate
women.
"Before the presidential run-off, government went around
campaigning for
Mugabe by distributing food to villagers. This only lasted
two days at most
for many families who are now surviving on edible tree
leaves, wild fruit
and roots," Denga said.
Where food is available,
according to the Mbare MP, it is distributed along
political lines. While
the Grain Marketing Board has run out of maize and
the situation shows no
sign of improving, ZANU PF still has a monopoly on
who buys and distributes
the little food left in the country.
Villagers are not being given food
by the government. They are being denied
the right to buy the food if it is
available because they voted MDC during
the
elections.
SW Radio Africa Zimbabwe news
http://www.zimbabwemetro.com
Financial News
September 4, 2008 | By Robert
Tshuma-Financial Editor |
The Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe has reversed a blanket
ban Bureaux De Changes
and licenced 222 of them countrywide on
Wednesday.
In a statement , embattled central bank chief Gideon Gono said
the foreign
currency purchasing centres would be a conduit for locals with
free funds
and international visitors.
"These countrywide and widely
dispersed Foreign Currency Purchasing Centres/
Bureau de Change have been
licenced and registered to commence operations on
the 1st of September 2008
with mandate of acting as conduits for the
remittance of Diaspora funds as
well as centres for purchasing foreign
currency from walk-in clients with
access to free funds and visitors from
abroad.
"This enhanced MTA
framework is designed to complement the country's foreign
currency
generation capacity, as well as ensure a greater level of
convenience to the
Zimbabwean populace, vis-à-vis, transacting in foreign
exchange in a safe,
sound and reliable environment," he said.
Those licensed include
Barnfords, Eurolink and Springridge and have began
operating as foreign
currency purchasing centres.
VOA
By Patience Rusere
Washington
03
September 2008
A leading Zimbabwean economist said Wednesday
that the 10 zeroes lopped off
the national currency early last month could
be back by mid-November and
joined by more by end-2008 if Harare does not
reform economic policy.
Independent economist John Robertson said
continued money-printing by the
Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe to fund government
operations is driving the
currency's dramatic decline which has been
paralleled by a new surge in
prices for basic goods in recent
days.
For example, transport from the Harare suburb of Kuwadzana to the
city
center cost Z$100 on Monday, but by Wednesday had doubled to
Z$200.
Sellers of essentials such as bread and maize meal are demanding
payment in
hard currency. A loaf of bread fetched 20 rand and a bucket of
maize meal
was going for 100 rand.
Robertson has circulated a report
concluding that "nothing of importance"
was achieved in the central bank's
recent redenomination of the currency and
issuance of new notes. He said
that based on parallel market exchange rates,
"prices doubled more than five
times" last month, outpacing the government's
ability to keep enough cash in
circulation.
"To make matters worse, the pace appears to be
accelerating," he wrote. "In
the second half of August, prices were
approaching a doubling rate of twice
a week, and the first movements in
September suggest that the pace is
gathering momentum...Perhaps we should
brace ourselves for the return of the
$50 billion and $100 billion
bearer-cheque notes."
Robertson told reporter Patience Rusere of VOA's
Studio 7 for Zimbabwe that
the Zimbabwe dollar is depreciating at a rate of
about 3,000 percent a
month, warning that if the trend is not checked it
could lead to social
unrest.
http://www.zimbabwemetro.com
Local News
September 4,
2008 | By Raymond Mhaka |
Australian politicians and Zimbabweans have called
for the deportation of
key Mugabe surrogate Reason Wafawarova who has been
residing in Australia
for nearly five years over allegations that he is
propping up Zimbabwe 's
self-inaugurated president Robert
Mugabe.
Writting in The Zimbabwe Times last week, Zimbabwean lawyer
Petina Gappah
accused Wafawarova of Hypocrisy,".It is hypocritical for
Mugabe and his
ministers to slam the West and still send their children to
universities
there, it is hypocritical for Reason Wafawarova and Peter
Mavhunga to be
electronic cheerleaders of Zanu-PF's oppression, and to slam
the West while
enjoying good public transport, and access to doctors, and
all the food they
can afford to buy.",fumed Gappah.
A journalist
writing under the pen name MuckRaker in The Independent slammed
Wafawarova,
"Why don't Peter Mavunga and Reason Wafawarova want to live in
Zimbabwe? .
They prefer the comfort of Britain, the US and Australia. What
courage do
these lick spittle commentators have in running away from their
homeland and
then pretending that the country is being ably managed by a
hero of the
African revolution? None of them have to live with the
consequences of his
disastrous policies but they choose to speak on his
behalf. Mavunga and
Wafawarova: Please come home. We want you to actually
experience the reality
here!", wrote the Muckraker.
Australian Senator Stott Despoja has since
bought up Wafawarova's case in
the Australian Parliament and grilled the
Foreign Affairs Minister why he is
not taking seriously the presence in
Australia of Wafawarova.
Two years ago, Australia's Radio National's
Background Briefing profiled
Wafawarova, who it alleged has continuing links
with the ruling party,
Zanu-PF.
Wendy Carlisle reported Zimbabwe
Parliament's Hansard as showing Wafawarova
"had one of the most senior
roles" in the Ministry of Youth, the
organisation responsible for training
Zimbabwe's youth militia, once
described by Robert Mugabe as Zanu PF's "big,
hard-knuckled fist".
Wafawarova denied this role and took exception and
sued the program. He said
on the Background Briefing program, "the reports
that I was a Director doing
the duties you mentioned are just malicious and
untrue."
The matter was heard in Supreme Court in October last year and
the court
dismissed Wafawarova's claim that he should be paid for defamation
but
instructed the Radio National to retract that Wafawarova was personally
responsible for murdering MDC supporters,but only directed the
militia.
According to sources the issue of Wafawarova's visa was
discussed during the
John Howard government by Immigration Minister Kevin
Andrews but the Howard
government was voted out before a decision could be
made in December last
year.
According to documents in the possession
of Metro,Wafawarova's case number
was 07/506526 under IMMIGRATION AND ENTRY
CONTROL - and the Minister of
Immigration was set to sign a deportation
order.
The current Minister for Immigration and Citizenship Senator Chris
Evans,
who replaced Kevin Andrews is reportedly keen to reopen Wafawarova's
case
and reach a speedy decision.
Immigration experts told Metro that
the Minister might evoke the 'Character
test' clause in the Immigration
Act.
The clause states, that a visa holder can fail the character test
where
"they have, or have had, an association with an individual, group or
organisation suspected of having been, or being, involved in criminal
conduct."
Wafawarova who used to be a political columnist for
Metro,but was later
dropped by the publication following protests from its
readers that his
articles were fanning hate and celebrating violence against
MDC opponents,
is a regular contributor in the government mouth piece The
Herald.
In his latest article discussing the jeering of Mugabe in
parliament by MDC
Members of Parliament, a common trend in parliaments
worldwide, Wafawarova
said ZANU PF must retaliate by assassinating those
MPs.
"I will add and say in Zimbabwe we do not play silly parliamentary
democracy
games over the legacy of our independency. Kill those MPs and we
will rekill
them again in the next life", wrote Wafawarova.
Opponents
accuse Mugabe and many of his senior aides from ZANU PF of gross
human
rights abuses and possible war crimes including the Matabeleland
massacres
of the 1980s and the recent political terror campaign led by
Youths from the
National Service has killed some 146 opposition supporters.
This is an extract - the other letters in this bulletin - from Cathy Buckle
and Eddie Cross - have already been published on Zimbabwe
Situation.
JAG Email: jag@mango.zw; justiceforagriculture@zol.co.zw
Please
send any material for publication in the Open Letter Forum to
jag@mango.zw with "For Open Letter Forum" in the
subject
line.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.
Migratory Goose - Golden Goose
Dear JAG,
The letter from J.
Anderson gets to the very nub of the situation in
Zimbabwe, it
seems.
Anderson has pointed out that Kobus Joubert was very focused on his
own
golden eggs that his golden goose was busy laying.
He believed
that he had protected his goose in a good and proper manner, and
had good
reason to be proud of his brilliant method of protection - a
congenial
relationship with the goose thieves whom we actually know to have
stolen Iain
Kay's goose and were quite happy to assault Iain Kay in the
process.
Kobus
was, and probably still is not alone in that chosen form of goose
insurance -
goose thief collaboration.
History tells us that the goose thieves have
managed to steal about 4 000
commercial geese in the last eight years - under
the guise of land reform.
The goose thieves are many, and are generally
high ranking party
cardholders.
Their stolen geese are largely sick,
dying and dead now.
The golden eggs were the life blood of the people of
Zimbabwe in the form of
basic food - corn, wheat, meat, milk, vegetables as
well as some export
crops like tobacco that brought in foreign currency for
health and imported
inputs to produce even more and better eggs.
But
the goose thieves are very smart - they now say that the new goose
owners
(themselves!) are doing a wonderful job and that the geese have
succumbed to
"sanctions fever" that has nothing to do with goose management!
The empty
stores with no tea, sugar, coffee, milk, meat, vegetables,
sweetcorn or other
foodstuffs are a result of sanctions not the goose
thieves or
corruption!
Iain Kay was always (and still is) more worried about all the
people of
Zimbabwe having an egg and their daily bread for breakfast - than
just
looking after his own eggs.
The goose thieves saw the likes Iain
and Roy Bennet as a threat to their
goose looting exercise and behaved
accordingly.
Kobus (and others?) are now beginning to learn - at a ripe
old age - in a
make shift school in the form of a lay by - that what is good
for the goose
is good for the gander.
Hopefully Kobus can now
understand Iain and will grow from the experience -
and learn that Zimbabwe
needs committed goose carers - not goose thieves or
murderers - and that
goose thieves and murderers usually have their own
interests at heart rather
than those of goose carers.
Goose farmer Gono's paper eggs now have no
value - and everybody can see
what he has done.
Even "the three professors
of parliament" are at pains to know who to blame
now!
When Senator David
returns from the Cape - he will have to mentor them.
Migratory
Goose.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.
Gerry Whitehead - Warning
Dear JAG,
Five police officers came to
my house in Chiredzi at 8.0 am this morning and
said that they were from
Harare and wanted to see my rifles and permits.
After they had finished
checking all the permits and relevant rifles, they
then said that they have
been instructed to confiscate all rifles of 308
calibre and over with the
ammunition plus all reloading equipment. I asked
them for paper work showing
their instructions. They said that they did not
have this paperwork and did
not require it to take my rifles and equipment.
I even battled to get them to
sign a receipt for the equipment taken, but
managed it after threatening to
call my lawyer.
I believe that the ZANU PF government is disarming
citizens in Zimbabwe of
arms that could be used against them; we have been
left with virtually
peashooters to protect ourselves against their army and
militia who are
mostly armed with the AK rifle.
The indication here is
that Mugabe's government has no intention of
surrendering authority to Morgan
Tsvangarai and will fight to stay in power.
Gerry
Whitehead
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
All
letters published on the open Letter Forum are the views and opinions of
the
submitters, and do not represent the official viewpoint of Justice
for
Agriculture.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------