Earlier this month it was announced that Mugabe’s Kimberley Process cronies have decided to give him until June to withdraw the soldiers in the Marange diamond fields. The army runs smuggling operations and use forced labour in mines whose profits benefit Zanu-PF.

Human Rights Watch exposed the horrors of Marange in June. A task team from the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme followed soon after and confirmed HRW’s findings. They recommended Zimbabwe be suspended from trading in diamonds.

But the horrors have continued. “As recently as late October 2009, [HRW] uncovered rampant abuses by the military in Marange including forced labour, child labour, killings, beatings, smuggling, and corruption,” says the rights body.

There is a clear case for Zimbabwe to be suspended. The gems from Marange are blood diamonds, extracted through the persecution and oppression of those living in the area. But no: Zimbabwe gets away with it. By letting them off the hook, “this diamond monitoring body has utterly lost credibility,” says Georgette Gagnon, HRW’s Africa director. She is absolutely right.

Having failed to do anything about the rights abuses and military occupation of Marange, over the past few months since abuses have been exposed, it is highly unlikely that Mugabe will implement the Kimberley Process’s recommendations by the agreed deadline. And with friends like South Africa, Namibia, Tanzania, DRC and Russia — why should he? Doubtless they’ll rush to his defence in June next year.

So the army will continue its plunder. The diamonds will continue to be smuggled. The people — women, children included — will continue to be oppressed and exploited. And the revenues will continue to fund senior Zanu-PF apparatchiks’ lavish lifestyles. All the while, the country continues its implosion: blackouts roll across the country; people starve; hospitals have no medicine; sewage trickles in the street.

Perhaps we should all boycott purchasing diamonds (of course in these dark times it’s not like there are vast hordes rushing to the jewellery shop anyway). But let’s boycott nonetheless. If there was a significant drop in sales, perhaps the diamond-producing countries that allowed Zimbabwe’s shame to continue, will develop scruples. It’s worth a try.

After all, there’s very little one can do, it seems, except jump up and down — and weep, and pray that sanity may prevail in Zimbabwe. MDC leader Morgan Tsvangirai’s re-engagement with Mugabe in the sham “unity” government is a great pity. It means his threats are empty. Mugabe can continue regardless. Do you really think Mugabe’s going to fall in line within thirty days like Tsvangirai’s demanded he do? And what then — another deadline?

The unity government has failed to stop Zanu-PF’s reign of terror: human rights continue to be violated with brutal impunity. And the country continues to fall apart. Tsvangirai is an appeaser. His dalliance with Zanu-PF makes me curious: is he stupid, naïve, or has he been bought by Mugabe’s machine? He reminds me of Neville Chamberlain, and the British prime minister’s desperate attempts to secure “peace in our time” in the months before World War II. Well, as that tragic history showed us, appeasement only led to immense suffering, cataclysmic violence and upheaval.

If Morgan Tsvangirai really cares about his country and the members of his party that continue being persecuted, he must act decisively and abandon the marriage he should never have agreed to. Mugabe needs his foe — and bedfellow — to maintain his legitimacy. If the latter walks away, the promise of aid, investment and all the other lifelines that would prop up the Zanu-PF regime will be pulled away.

I admit, it’s not easy for old Morgan. His job is difficult. And lonely. Shamefully, the SADC (which should stand for Southern African Dictators’ Club thanks to its tireless support for Mugabe’s tyranny) is not interested in true democracy taking root in Zimbabwe. Rather, the regional body craves a continuation of the postcolonial aristocracy in which despotic psychopaths can pillage and persecute freely because they are somehow entitled to. SADC’s logic appears to be that such ghastly behaviour is reward for having liberated their countries from the Europeans.

But the threat of regional alienation is no excuse for Tsvangirai to be co-opted by SADC. It is no excuse for him to become the useful idiot acting out SADC’s wilful contempt for the democratic will of the Zimbabwean people. Zimbabwe has suffered long enough. It is time Tsvangirai stops talking and starts acting.

By Udo W. Froese

As was the case in South Africa’s elections in April 2009 and later, in November in Mozambique, their respective ruling parties and governments grew out of tried-and-tested struggle movements, taking charge from their former colonial-racist occupiers.

Former popular struggle movements also govern other member states of the Southern African Development Community (SADC), Angola and Zimbabwe – the MPLA in Luanda and ZANU-PF in Harare respectively.

All of them have one thing in common – they reflect the interests, the faith and the trust of the average African populations.

Namibia finds herself in the middle of parliamentary and presidential elections and the ruling SWAPO Party seems on the winning trail again – since October 1989, when it won the first democratic elections.

Going by the current stand of votes cast in the coastal region of the ports of Walvis Bay and Luederitz, the analysis that the ruling party will retain its position in the democratic political mainstream, is spot on. The ruling party, SWAPO, will again govern Namibia, like its neighbours Angola, South Africa and Zimbabwe and fellow SADC member, Mozambique – where their former struggle movements form the respective governments today.

SWAPO seems set to win these parliamentary and presidential elections with a defined majority.

Africa’s Painful History of Struggle.

One of the most defining reasons for success of these ruling political parties is Africa’s long, brutal, exploitative race-based colonial history.

For as long as the majority of the population remembers the brutal occupation of former colonial-apartheid-racist South Africa and that of its silent partners in the international Western Judeo-Christian civilisation, with their continuous destabilisation efforts; “tribal and civil wars”; colonial-racist-occupational structures on all levels; a murderous rebel war involving the entire SADC region, hi-jacked as “defending the moral principles of the international Western capitalism against the communist-terrorist Soviet Bloc during the Cold War”.

The aforementioned war had cost hundreds of thousands of African lives. Never had Africa been exposed to such brutalities and torture, dehumanization, abuse, abject poverty, chronic starvation and reckless wars. The colonial-apartheid-racist South Africa took African land with brutal force until 1990.

Would someone please de-confuse this columnist’s understanding of the difference in the definition of the “Holocaust”?

Born in the third generation in Swakopmund, Namibia, Africa, of German colonial settler background well after World War 2, I have seen many international Western productions, read many of their books and other publications, even visited a Holocaust museum. To this day in 2009 I have been aware of the gruesome murder of six million Jews in Germany until shortly before the end of World War 2. This columnist took great strain and was seriously horrified and remains such.

Rightfully, Germany has paid serious reparations settlements to the international Jewish community and the state of Israel, which was formed in 1948. To this day and beyond the Germans will not be allowed to forget that horror.

But, as far as Africa and the mass-killings of Africans are concerned, the referral to a Holocaust thunders in its absence. The foreign-owned and controlled media simply ignores the millions of deaths of African people since World War 2. Are Africans lesser people, I ask from a Caucasian colonial-settler background? Is this Christian?

Meanwhile, Germany has officially apologised to the descendants of the Herero in Namibia for the brutal massacres of their forefathers under German colonial rule.

In the above context, SWAPO Party will certainly win these elections too, like their brothers- and sisters-in-arms in the rest of Africa. It is observed that no other political party can deliver the caliber of Namibia’s SWAPO Party; South Africa’s ANC; Angola’s MPLA; Kenya’s KANU, Mozambique’s FRELIMO and Zimbabwe’s ZANU-PF.

The aforementioned political structures are those of respected, mature and seasoned African leaders.

To assume otherwise, repeatedly attempting to discredit this history through abuse of power; abuse of the law and the judiciary; character assassination; continuous media propaganda; trying to unsettle those political movements and parties through a “foreign civil society”, covert and third force operations, attempting to render them corrupt and toothless old dogs, is in real terms not only an exercise of futility, but an insult to African structures.

South Africa’s Elections a Case In Point.

South Africa’s democratically elected President Jacob Zuma and the ruling ANC had to endure an eight-year long concerted onslaught of vicious daily media propaganda and strategised media disinformation campaigns to character assassinate Jacob Zuma and some of his supporters. This was purgery at its worst.

The abuse of power, of the constitution, of the law and the judiciary and of the media eventually caused the fall of recalled former President Thabo Mbeki and his inner circle. Their rolled-out action of defamation and purgery allegedly seemed to be viewed as a national and regional security threat.

It backfired, as was first demonstrated at the ANC Congress in Polokwane, Limpopo Province, in northern South Africa.

The majority of South Africans realised that it was wrong to centralize power and abuse it. They came out in their numbers and voted for the ANC and Zuma as their President.

Mbeki and his cohorts were disgraced and left embarrassed. Zuma and the real ANC form the government of South Africa today.

Namibia’s Embarrassment.

To now publicly claim that all former struggle movements in the SADC region that form today’s ruling parties and governments have won elections in their respective countries, because they had “moved ballot boxes to exchange genuine ballot boxes with fake ones” (as expressed by Hidipo Hamutenya), creates the perception that those utterances were made by an individual who “either whithers in despair, or is downright mischievously immature, or both”.

When asked for comment, senior academic analysts described the statement from Namibia as “irresponsible accusations” and as that of a “corrupt, colonised mindset of entitlement, un-African by nature”.

The response from senior members of some of the ruling parties in the SADC region was equally scathing.

That unfortunate statement was described as “coming from a confused and troubled mind of an individual, definitely not from an African”.  A senior member from ZANU-PF in Harare, Zimbabwe, stated, “the least said about that unsubstantiated and corrupt opinion of an individual, the better”.

A FRELIMO member in the Maputo Head Quarters described that statement as “unfortunate, misleading and unbecoming”.

All former struggle movements who form today’s governments in the SADC member states and beyond seemed to agree with the rebuke from government in Windhoek, which responded, “The leader of the Rally for Democracy and Progress (RDP), Hidipo Hamutenya, is instigating instability and uproar in the SADC region by accusing all ruling parties in the region of cheating during elections.”

Similar to the political opposition parties RDP/DTA/CoD/RP in Namibia; the Cope/DA/IFP/FF+/UDM in South Africa; the MDC-T in Zimbabwe; RENAMO in Mozambique; the remnants of UNITA in Angola and Raila Odinga’s and his right- hand-man, William Ruto’s party in Kenya, all are not respected political structures in Africa for the reason that they are perceived to be forced into the respective countries and communities by racist-colonial international Western interests and backed by a foreign “civil society”.

A profound reason for not being accepted and respected, certainly not by African heads-of-state of most AU members with the exception of a few, is the serious discomfort most African leaders feel with same old exclusively imperialist-corporate-colonial interests backing the above-mentioned political groupings. Those are not Africa’s interests.

End.

Another one just in from our Man in Harare.

Bennett trial begins

THE trial of Deputy Agriculture Minister designate and Movement for Democratic Change Treasurer General, Roy Bennett started in Mutare today.

Bennett is being charged with attempting to commit banditry, terrorism and sabotage, charges which carry the death penalty.

He has since denied the charges and is saying he is being framed by President Robert Mugabe for standing up for the rights of Zimbabweans.

His lawyer, Beatrice Mtetwa said the trial is expected to resume as scheduled

“The trial will resume on Monday morning at 9 am and it shall be in Court 9,” said Mtetwa. The highly anticipated trial has taken several twists since the arrest of Roy Bennet in February on charges of illegally possessing weapons of war.

Bennet was recently re-arrested after the state issued an indictment. Before that he had been denied permission to travel to South Africa to attend to his businesses.
But his indictment was overturned by a High Court Judge who ended up telling state prosecutor Michael Mugabe not to make a fool out of himself by unnecessarily invoking Section 121 of the Criminal Procedures and Evidence Act.

Bennett was arrested in February at a small airfield as he prepared to go and celebrate Valentine’s Day and his birthday with his family in South Africa, where he lived in self-exile following threats to his life.

The state has religiously used the Act to prolong the incarceration of MDC members and perceived government opponents in jail. Soon after the High Court decision, Attorney General Johannes Tomana took over the case as the lead prosecutor. He said he took the decision to safeguard state security.
Just last week the case took yet another turn when a lawyer representing Peter Hitschman, who has been lined up by the state as the star witness, was arrested. This was after he had written a letter to the AG advising him that his client will not be able to give evidence in court because the information that he gave to investigating officers was obtained through torture.
Mtetwa said Hitschman’s lawyer, Mordekai Mahlangu will be in court on Monday. “I suppose he will be there to represent his client,” said Mtetwa.
The MDC believes Bennett is being put on trial because he is an MDC member. His appointment is one of the numerous outsanding issues under the GPA signed by the country’s three main political parties.

However, in the interview early this year, Bennett vowed never to leave politics or abandon Zimbabweans fighting for their rights, although he was under immense pressure from the authorities. Mugabe has refused to swear him in as a cabinet member, despite his strong endorsement from Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai.

“Part of the persecution is not against me personally but it is against the MDC because I stand for the party in everything I do. I am only there to deliver change to my comrades and my people,” Bennett was quoted saying.

The former MP for Chimanimani – known affectionately as Pachedu – was an early victim of Mugabe-inspired farm invasions. His Chimanimani farm was invaded by militants at the behest of then security minister Didymus Mutasa, who is also Zanu PF secretary for administration who took over the farm.

Bennett was jailed for a year at a remote prison on allegations that he scuffled in Parliament with justice minister Patrick Chinamasa who, analysts said, had severely provoked him when he talked abusively about how Bennett had been dispossessed of his farm.

British subjects can petition the UK Prime Minister, Gordon Brown to help free Mr. Bennett. Click here for the petition.

President Robert Mugabe first rose to power  in the newly formed country of Zimbabwe in 1980 after helping the country gain independence from Britain.  Seven years later, he became president, a title he has since held.

Mugabe was frequently revered as a great leader when he first took office by the international community, a leader with a clear view of what he wanted for Zimbabwe.  In a 1974 interview a journalist questions the president on his hopes for Zimbabe.  He asked Mugabe if he ever saw free elections for the country, Mugabe replied,

“Yes, of course. Why not? We are fighting for democracy.  We would like to see a democratic state established in Zimbabwe. And this means a state based on the majority of the people.”

Fast forward more than 30 years to the 2008 presidential elections and the news reports tell a different story.

“ Overnight, they had been dragged from their homes and beaten by Mugabe supporters….

President Mugabe went on to lose the 2008 March presidential election to opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai of the Movement for Democratic Change Party.  And a few months later, he ordered a run-off after refusing to step down from power.  Mugabe won, but amid accusations of election tampering.

Claims he denies in an interview with Al Jazeera English.

“No. If rigging the elections means winning the elections through majority voting, then, then let it be. That’s precisely, we will be winning, we will be winning all the time.”

Mugabe has since agreed to a unity government, appointing opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai Prime Minister. The Zimbabwe government is now a joint coalition with Mugabe’s ZANU-PF party and Tsvangirai’s Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) Party.  A relationship that seems anything but agreeable.

In a radio interview with UK’s The Guardian last August, Tsvangirai stated he and Mugabe were working together affaby.

“Journalist: You, you believe he does have capacity to change? Or has changed already?

MT: I don’t see any attitude of perpetuating hate or division, polarization of the country

Journalist: It must be hard for you sometimes, you must admit, to swallow what’s been going on in the past and sit down with someone being held responsible for a lot of violence against you personally and your supporters?

MT: what is reconciliation without that? Reconciliation is a major for tolerance across this very serious political divide that exists in this country and how we can stand up as leaders and call nationally unity when between us we don’t like each other?”

But, less than a month after the interview was published, Tsvangirai shared a rather different message at a rally for the MDC party as Africa Times News reported, stating Mugabe’s ZANU-PF party:

“…Continues to violate the law, persecute our members of parliament, spread the language of hate, invades our productive farms…ignores our international treaties.”

Most recently, Tsvangirai has ordered all MDC ministers to stop working from government offices, an order  he too is following until all the political issues are resolved.

Other world leaders seem to agree with Tsvangirai’s hesitation to work with the president.

In 2002 sanctions were applied against President Mugabe when suspicion of election tampering surfaced along with human rights violations.

Those sanctions are still in place in 2009 and European Commissioner for Development and Humanitarian Aid says they will most likely stay.

“…the EU would not resume development aid until more was done to implement the nation’s power-sharing agreement and to restore human rights.”

Alternatively, socio-economic analyst Udo Froese told The Zimbabwe Times:

“[The international West] wanted from the onset a government of regime change not a government of national unity… Hillary Rodham Clinton, the US Secretary of State came to visit Africa on her Africa safari, she also visited South Africa’s President Jacob Zuma… and seemed to be leaning on him that he must lean on Zimbabwe’s President Robert Mugabe to finalize the regime change otherwise sanctions would not be lifted….”

Morgan Tsvangirai, Zimbabwe’s prime minister and leader of the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), has announced its decision to boycott the country’s unity cabinet. (photo, from aljazeera.net)

Although Robert Mugabe, the country’s president, has criticised the party of his estranges coalition partner, he said on Saturday that he remains committed to working with Tsvangirai’s MDC despite the boycott.

However the president called on the MDC to honour the power-sharing agreement it entered with Mugabe’s Zanu-PF party last year in a bid to end political violence.

Earlier this month, Tsvangirai announced the boycott, accusing Mugabe of refusing to fully implement the power-sharing agreement.

At the funeral of one of his party’s senate members, Mugabe said the MDC has “one leg in, and one leg out” of the government.

“The requirement is that we indeed continue step-by-step to move together and whatever are the difficulties, become our difficulties together,” he said.

“For one party … to decide ‘We shall not be fully in the process’ … then you begin to wonder whether you went into the agreement with persons who actually appreciated what going into an agreement means.”

‘Dishonest’

State media also reported on Saturday that Mugabe called the MDC leader “dishonest”.

“They can never be true and genuine partners and they have proved to be dishonest,” he said.

“We, however, want to assure you that we will not allow the situation to continue like that.”

In the same time as Mugabe’s comments, negotiators from the Southern African Development Community (Sadc) proposed an emergency summit to resolve the crisis.

Sadc is a 15-member bloc that has been involved in a search for a solution to Zimbabwe’s governance problems.

Over the past two days, ministers from Mozambique, Swaziland and Zambia, support staff from the Sadc secretariat and representatives of Thabo Mbeki, a Sadc mediator and former South African president, have been meeting Zimbabwean officials.

Even though it was not immediately clear how the negotiations progressed, analysts said there were slim chances of a breakthrough because the Zanu-PF and the MDC remain at loggerheads over some aspects of their power-sharing pact.

The MDC says Zanu-PF has blocked the swearing-in of some of its officials.

The power-sharing deal between Zanu-PF and MDC was signed in September last year, following a crisis after disputed elections and political violence.

Manfred Nowak, the United Nations human rights investigator is throwing tantrum in the media following his ejection from Zimbabwe. Nowak alleges that the Mugabe government has intentionally barred him from entering the country because ‘he knows’ he will find evidence of human rights abuses committed by Mugabe’s party, ZANU-PF. Nowak states, using undiplomatic language and improper protocols, “I can only interpret that, at this point of time, they didn’t want any kind of independent fact-finding on torture and other forms of ill-treatment,” referring to ZANU-PF. He goes on to add, “This is totally unacceptable conduct of a government – of a member state of the United Nations – vis-a-vis a United Nations independent expert who is mandated by the human rights council to carry out fact-finding missions on the invitation of the government.” Notice the last part, “on the invitation of the government.” Also notice Mr. Nowak is exaggerating his importance by implying that he is ‘mandated’ by the U.N.’s  human rights council, an act that is essentially imposed on a U.N. member state by the council through the Security Council. In fact, the government of Zimbabwe invited him voluntarily with no mandate to carry out, other than to investigate rights abuses in the country and report it to the human rights council – an entity that once included Iran, Cuba, China, Saudi Arabia, etc etc.

While he was in South Africa, the government of Zimbabwe asked Nowak not to come now because the government officials he needs to talk to as part of his investigation are busy with SADC mediations on the unity government between Robert Mugabe’s ZANU-PF party and Morgan Tsvangirai’s MDC party that is currently in jeopardy of dissolving. Thus, the government of Zimbabwe rescinded its invitation and asked Nowak to reschedule it for another time before he arrived in the country. But Mr. Nowak, who was only coming to the country on the invitation of the host government, took matters into his own hands and showed up at Harare International Airport with a stupid look on his face and insisting that he was invited by the prime minister, Morgan Tsvangirai – who I should add has ceased to participate in the unity government and has no authority on foreign relations. Accordingly, the immigration authority refused him entry into the country and put him back on the returning flight to South Africa. Case closed, right?

Not if you are Manfred Nowak, a supposed neutral diplomat working for the United Nations. He has spent the last couple of days bitching to every media outlet that is willing to listen to his petulant and undiplomatic behavior. Furthermore, Nowak’s self-righteous attitudes and media blitz seems to reflect a disdain for the United Nation’s own Charter that is built on the foundation of respect for member states’ sovereignty and territorial integrity. If I invite someone to my house party and I change my mind and tell them not to come, I expect my wishes to be followed. If they choose to ignore my request and show up at my door anyway? Of course I would shut the door on their face. Too bad the mindless western media will not put this simple diplomatic issue into context. Granted, there a lot of human rights abuses that have to be investigated in Zimbabwe (it is long overdue) and more importantly, MDC-Tsvangirai supporters are just as culpable in these abuses as ZANU-PF supporters are – a fact the western media has been sweeping under the rug for far too long. Because of Nowak’s self-righteousness and stupidity, many victims of state and political parties’ abuse will not have their stories heard.

The moral of the story though? Don’t invite Manfred Nowak to your house!

Det tilspisser seg mellom Zimbabwes statsminister Morgan Tsvarangirai og diktator Robert Mugabe. Trolig er ikke en samlingsregjering løsningen for et land, fullstendig politisk og økonomisk skakkjørt, etter mange års vanstyre.

Regjeringssammenslåingen som ble iverksatt i fjor høst, har siden da sett ut til å bli vanskelig å gjennomføre. Hyppige arrestasjoner av medlemmer av opposisjonspartiet MDC, samt full splid om viktige posisjoner i regjeringen, utmatter det allerede slitne landet ytterligere.

Valgfusk
Robert Mugabe har ledet landet siden 1980, og innehatt presidentembetet siden 1987, da statsministerembetet ble nedlagt.  I fjor sommer tapte Mugabes parti Zanu-PF valget, til fordel opposisjonsleder Morgan Tsvangirais MDC. Valget ble fort ugyldiggjort, sett med vestlige øyne, da internasjonale observatører ble nektet inngang til landet. Mugabe, som da hadde regjert landet i 28 år, nølte med å offentliggjøre resultatet. MDC var imidlertid tidlig ute med å erklære at de hadde fått flertall i parlamentet – noe som etter en stund ble bekreftet av valgkommisjonen, men med under 50 prosent flertall.

Mugabe erklærte derfor en andre valgomgang, men store uroligheter i landet gjorde dette umulig, og Mugabe klamret seg til makta. Etter intense forhandlinger, klarte imidlertid de to partiene i fjor høst å enes om en regjeringssammenslåing.  Nå spørs det om denne noen gang vil bli gjennomførbar. Historien mellom Tsvangirai og Mugabe er lang, og hvordan skal egentlig to politiske ledere som ikke tåler trynet på hverandre kunne samarbeide?

Kontroversielle reformer
Zimbabwe het en gang Rhodesia, var britisk koloni, og sett på som et afrikansk foregangseksempel – et fremtidshåp. Landet var, og er fortsatt, rik på naturressurser, og var regnet som ”Afrikas kornåker”.  I år 2000 startet imidlertid Robert Mugabe sine jorbruksreformer.  Problemet var at knapt 4000 hvite farmere, eide så mye som 70 prosent av den beste dyrkbare jorden i landet. Og mange svarte mente at de var ”frarøvet” jorden, og at de i så måte også var de rettsmessige eierne.

Tusenvis av hvite farmere ble jaget vekk fra gårdene sine, og for de 600 som fortsatt oppholder seg i landet, pågår terroren fremdeles.

Stoppet bistanden
Reformene i år 2000 ble også starten på en stor økonomisk kollaps i Zimbabwe. Da landet i 2003 opplevde en hungersnød skyldte regjeringen på tørke, mens FNs Matvareprogram sa det var et sammenbrudd i landbrukssektoren. Bistanden inn til landet ble stoppet som konsekvens av den hårreisende politikken, og Zimbabwes diplomatiske forbindelser til vesten havnet på kjølepunktet.

Inflasjonen i landet er et kapittel for seg selv, og nådde i 2006 tusen prosent.

Tidligere denne måneden varslet Storbritannia at de øker bistanden til Zimbabwe til hundre millioner dollar i 2009. Mens vesten ellers vegrer seg for å gjenoppta bistanden, gir britene mer til de sørafrikanske landet, enn noensinne.

Må øke presset
Nå er det kanskje på tide å se etter andre løsninger, enn et samarbeid mellom Zanu-PF og MDC. Problemet er – og Mugabes fordel – at afrikanske ledere vegrer seg stort for å kritisere mannen, som i 1980 ble sett på som en frigjøringshelt i kjølvann av borgerkrigen. Mugabe dyrker fortsatt høy status blant politiske ledere i Afrika, og tabbekvoten ser også ut til å være umåtelig lang.

Samtidig vil neppe den 85-årige lederen gi seg, i den prekære situasjonen landet nå er i. Manglende pressefrihet, human nød og økonomisk kaos er fasit for dagens Zimbabwe.

Noen afrikanske ledere har imidlertid tatt til orde for å få fjernet Mugabe. Den sør-afrikanske erkebiskopen Desmond Tutu og den Kenyanske statsministeren Raila Odinga uttrykte i 2008 at militær makt kunne være løsningen. Sistnevnte oppfordret også Den afrikanske unionens ledere til å engasjere seg mer mot Mugabe.

Zimbabwe har en lang vei å gå, og samlingsregjeringen i Harare ser nå bare ut til å minimere det direkte internasjonale presset mot Mugabe, og skape ytterligere kaos. Zimbabwe trenger trolig et fullkomment regimeskifte for å komme på beina igjen.

British Prime Minister Winston Churchill once remarked that, ‘the inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent vice of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries’. When the ZANU-PF government began de-regulating the economy in the late 1980’s and shifted its economic stance to a capitalist state, the unequal sharing of blessings began. However, in a short ten-year space of time, the government had reverted to its socialist rhetoric, exhorting us to share in the privation wrought by its self-centered embezzlement.

I grew up as part of the ‘born free’ generation. A generation that by and large spent the best years of our lives in relative comfort and enjoying the best of a country that was tipped to be the jewel of the continent. An educated generation that has known no real adversity- war, hunger and revolt all concepts that we only either read about in the newspapers or studied in history class. In short, we are a generation of hopeless cowards; fearful of the slightest confrontation, apathetic and selfish.

Education, as Aristotle astutely articulates, is an ornament in prosperity and a refuge in adversity. In prosperity we paraded ourselves as the products of the best education system in Africa. In adversity, we have taken our educated behinds and become refugees! Democracy is an inheritance that was secured by blood; but now we sit by and watch as it is manipulated by a corrupt few who have betrayed the revolution and now suppress the collective voice of the masses.

It is now time to actively stand and vindicate the blood of our true liberation heroes. We can no longer afford to kow-tow to pretentious old men who would bind us in perpetual gratitude whilst they rob our mothers’ pantries and turn our fathers into vagabonds. We need to show the despots in ZANU PF that they are on the wrong side of history. We need to put an end to this humiliation and unite as a common front, and speak out against injustice.

Martin Luther King once said, ‘If you have not found something to live for, then you better find something to die for.’

Have you found either?

I have written a number of times about how Zimbabwean’s should unite and focus on a targeted theme of revival within our country through a unified call for change. I have been very much encouraged by the private mail I have received from many corners and people who would prefer not to be as outspoken on the issue of regime change in Zimbabwe, but I am furthermore encouraged to see how other African nations are using the power of social media networks to unite the people in Diaspora to bring about change within their own government.

I genuinely believe that a responsible approach to the demand for change in Zimbabwe is needed, and it will only come from those of us who are in Diaspora to engage, co-ordinate and drive forward an agenda of change. Engaging with each other and talking on the same wave length can only bring about a general consensus that will pave the way for a charismatic leadership to take shape and promote our cause.

I recently became aware of group of Nigerians advocating for their government to provide more reliable power infrastructure. Their movement aims to highlight the problems caused to Nigerian people by the lack of a constant power supply in Nigeria and raise awareness of the situation globally. An unreliable power supply cripples industries and hinders advancements in health care and industrial growth they claim on their website.

This group have had a magnificent impact globally, and while their campaign may not be political, their tactics have brought international recognition to their plight and has people talking about their movement and situation all over the world. Through international attention, their situation has gone global and the international media are gearing up for a peaceful protest in October in Lagos, Nigeria. At this time the Nigerian government will fall under the spotlight as the international media comes to town to see how the government tackle the issue of their people demonstrating for change.

Ok fair enough, the impact of their efforts is uncertain granted, but I find it very exciting that a nation have proved my point, that through a combined effort, a unified approach, using the opportunities before us, and the tools we have such as social media, petitions, worldwide demonstration and public pressure, the attention is brought to town, and while change has not yet happened, I am optimistic that change will eventually come to Nigeria as their government realise that they have an entire world calling for them to deliver.

“Africa’s future is up to Africans,” President Obama told us when he visited Ghana on July 11. It is true that so many of us have come to this conclusion and I cannot stress enough how important it is for us to realise this sooner rather than later. The time of waiting for America and the world to sort our problems out has past. International politics are changing in ways that will mean foreign governments are more engaged with matters at home than engaging in international rescue operations.

“You have the power to hold your leaders accountable, and to build institutions that serve the people,” Obama said. Ok, those are strong words, and maybe what he is talking about is that we as a nation need to start talking with one voice and demanding better from our leaders. Perhaps if we as Zimbabweans are willing to unite and call for Mugabe to go, we will gain international support. Maybe what the new order are looking for is for us to take the initiative and paving the way for change to happen.

In whatever way Mugabe leaves, I don’t think that we really care anymore if he is brought to justice for his crimes. I guess there are those who are hurting enough to want to see him pay for his crimes against humanity, and maybe those that believe he should repay what he stole, give back what is not his and be stripped of what he has, but if this is our ultimate goal, how can we expect the man to willingly submit? To be fair I would tend to believe that most of us would just be happy for him to step aside and live out his days in whatever manner he chooses, as long as he does not interfere in politics in anyway shape or form. I do believe that there are people within the Zanu PF regime that very much fear prosecution and put pressure on Mugabe to remain in power to hide behind his frills in a manner of speaking. Truth be told, I do not believe that holding anyone to blame for the mal-governance of our nation is only going to prolong the ransom that Zanu PF holds over our nation.

It is for this reason that I say we need a responsible and reasonable call for change to take place. An unreasonable call for change is only going to prolong the course of change until such time as those who are suitable well fearful for their future are no longer in the picture. However a realistic route to repatriation through a process of reconciliation where people are mature enough to see beyond the past and look towards the economic stability and national security of the country is a course of change that becomes feasible.

The Internet is a powerful tool in empowering people. International and world opinion changes by what they see in the media, but more and more blogs, social media and interaction between people from all walks of life mean that we are more and more able to understand and engage with each other. This blog has opened a door to a whole world of people who may or may not agree with what I say, but who are willing to discuss my opinion and engage in meaningful dialogue. From Iran to China I have spoken with people who read and follow what I have to say. It is the power of this medium that Africa needs to use to its full potential.

Good governance begins with me. A statement that I resoundingly echo as I read it. By making the first step in the direction of engaging with others, by taking an interest in the thoughts and feelings of those around us, we are able to engage in a change. Good governance is the new key words in the cyber world of politics, as so many people analyse the leadership and expectations of their government. Engaging with the grass-roots is the key to becoming powerful and is what most analysts have credited the Obama campaigns success to. His support of online tools to engage with middle America is what gained him huge popularity. The youth of today live through social media. I have watched as two children sitting right next to each other would rather text each other than engage in conversation. The reason is simple. It is easier to say in words the things you are too shy to say in person.

Capture the power of this medium and you can start a whirl wind. And this is where our potential power lies. I firmly believe that Zimbabweans can achieve their greatest goals, and that we will overcome. Rome was not built in a day, and people engage through a dialogue that takes weeks if not years before real substance is gained. Focusing our attention at this early stage in the right direction is our ultimate goal. We will gain recognition, engage with other people and build credibility for our cause. In this way we can only gain support and this ultimately will bring us to our goal. Like every Zimbabwean I know, we want a prosperous, viable, free and fair Zimbabwe to call home once more.

Visitors to Zimbabwe who have been fed a BBC/CNN-type diet of news about ‘The Zimbabwe Crisis’ and how everything in the country has ‘collapsed’ will be surprised at how ‘normal’ Harare looks at first glance. Driving from the airport into town, there are certainly signs of decay since a few years ago, but no immediate or obvious signs of the ‘collapse’ that certain media have in recent years hysterically, lovingly and perhaps even hopefully talked about.

Looking out of the airplane’s windows as it circled to land and on the drive into town in early August, the most obvious change for me was how areas that had once been at least semi-savannah on the outskirts of Harare had been stripped of trees. One manifestation of ‘The Crisis’ in recent years has been the difficulty in accessing forms of modern energy that had once been taken for granted: petrol, diesel, paraffin, butane, coal, electricity, etc. Their availability had been erratic for many years and their cost prohibitive, forcing many people to resort to firewood for energy. Hence the massive deforestation, which I later found was widespread.

The still newish airport is clean and well maintained, though the number of vacant boutiques compared to, for instance, Nairobi airport’s full complement of seemingly thriving over-charging boutiques was one indicator that things were not quite ‘normal.’ On the drive home from the airport there was no dramatic evidence of ‘The Zimbabwe Crisis,’ though the buildings did look shabbier than before and there were definitely more potholes to dodge on the roads. But the over-riding impression for me was the powerful natural beauty and colour of Zimbabwe, not the indices of the difficult times the country has undergone in recent years.

Having had a few days to unwind at home, I began to gradually drive around and explore my home city Harare. There definitely seemed less traffic on the roads than I remembered from a few years ago. Finding a parking spot in the city center was surprisingly easy at any time of day and the roads there were generally in very good shape, as appeared to be most of the visible infrastructure.

In town and in many of the suburban shopping centers there were many more vacant shops than before, but I was also impressed by the number of businesses that had hung on during the difficult years. But almost all had ‘diversified’ in various ways, with all selling a much wider variety of goods and/or services to survive. I thought the general level of service in shops had declined noticeably. I didn’t encounter any outright rudeness but it seemed noticeably common to be met by disinterested, bored and sometimes almost sullen store personnel. Almost all stores I remembered from a few years ago had a much narrower range of goods than during ‘the good old days,’ but many people mentioned to me that what I thought was a limited range of goods was a vast improvement from the situation a few months ago, and that the availability of goods was improving dramatically by the day, one of the early benefits of the US-”dollarization” of the economy.

While the widespread shortages of all kinds of goods was rapidly receding into the past as price controls and currency restrictions fell away, most things seemed very expensive, sometimes absurdly so. In the weeks before my visit home I had visited Europe and the U.S., as well as having passed through Senegal’s capital city Dakar,  a city not known to be cheap, and so I particularly keenly felt the comparatively high cost of goods and services in Harare. It was easy to understand why many Zimbabweans are only grudging in their praise of the ‘normalization’ that has begun to take place. “We are happy the shops are full again but we can’t afford the goods” was a frequent complaint I heard. But even as people grumble about “we can’t afford anything” the shops are certainly not empty of customers, although many merchants and traders said the level of spending was still low and still limited mainly to necessities. Yet all I spoke to agreed that the situation was significantly better than before, and dramatically better than in 2008, the period everyone agreed was Zimbabwe’s low point, with hyperinflation, shortages, violence and political tension and so on at their worst.

As ridiculously expensive as almost everything seemed to be, even in just the one month I was there prices were creeping down to more realistic levels. And if one took the trouble to shop around, which many more people were doing than I remember from before, it was possible to find widely varying prices for the same thing. A big culture change was that even in ‘formal’ shops it was possible to negotiate for price reductions, common in many countries all over the world but previously almost unheard of in Zimbabwe’s stiff formal economy. So merchants are feeling the effects of consumer resistance and growing competition from the opening up of the economy and the greater availability of goods, and they are being forced to respond by lowering their prices. In the shortage economy that had prevailed for several years, the relatively few people who could raise the hard currency to import goods became accustomed to charging huge, arbitrary mark-ups. The merchant was king, not the customer.

One of the most disheartening remaining signs of how Zimbabwe has slid was in the complete absence of a daily media alternative to the state media. There are no daily independent newspapers and at US$2 an issue, the weekly private newspapers are way out of reach of most people. Of course there is no private TV or radio so there is a huge information deficit. But this is not to say the state media dominates the shaping of opinion. Despite its near monopoly, state newspapers, TV and radio are so dull and so blatantly pro-establishment that their credibility is extremely low. The public has largely learned to sense when they are being fed propaganda instead of news, which is rather often, and to dismiss and ridicule it even if they don’t know for sure what the other sides of the story are. Even more than before, the propaganda is so crudely done that I found myself often marveling that the government didn’t find it embarrassing and a negation of its attempt to win heart and minds. The stiffness, awkwardness and the over-the-top nature of much of the state media in the support of Mugabe and ZANU-PF and against Tsvangirai and the MDC had an almost surreal, self-defeating quality in its crudeness.

President Mugabe is still ass-licked by the state media as much as ever before, and in a way that I do not think does him any credit. One big change was that Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe Gideon Gono was no longer the swashbuckling public hero the media had tried to make him out to be when he was first appointed five or so years ago, promising to swiftly bring down hyper-inflation and perform all kinds of other miracles. Even in the slavish state media Gono’s gloss had long turned dull, with him now struggling to defend his controversial legacy to a tired-of-him, sceptical public. One would have to have been there in his early days in office and to experience what a dominant public presence he came to be to understand how far the man has fallen in public esteem.

Electricity and water cuts were frequent, although even in these regards many people said I had visited when the situation was getting much better than it once was. People are inconvenienced but out of necessity have had to adjust, and the down times are handled very matter of factly. Up until a few years ago I had never even seen a fuel-powered electricity generator but now many in the cities who can afford them have them and they are widely advertised in the Press. Those who have boreholes or wells can avoid the worst inconveniences of the periods without running water, but I was shocked by the number of people who calmly mentioned having gone for months without seeing a drop of municipal water in their taps, a major cause of last year’s cholera outbreak.

Visits to some of Harare’s once-bustling industrial areas were depressing. A few years ago a quick drive through any of them would have been enough to show anybody why Zimbabwe’s economy was the sub-region’s most dynamic after South Africa’s. Now they are quiet, many companies still open but quite clearly operating at a low level. The areas do not have the bustle of before; buildings, roads and company premises are no longer maintained like they once proudly were. But from job-seekers to company owners, many people said whereas most companies were just treading water for several years, there are now signs of activity picking up as a result of the policy changes in the economy and the relative political calm.

With low productivity in agriculture and industry for several years, and given all the crises the country has undergone, it is startling to see the number and proportion of smart late-model luxury cars on the streets of Harare. There seemed a very bizarre disconnect between the economy under-performing as it has done for years and the number and types of expensive cars which would have turned one’s head even in a wealthy, ‘normal’ economy. While the signs of the lack of investment in many critical areas of the economy were everywhere, this certainly did not seem to extend to the cars many higher-ups in government and the private sector drive. I’m still trying to figure out what this says, and whether this is positive or not.

My impressions are of a tiny slice of life in Zimbabwe. For instance, I only made two one-day forays into rural areas to visit relatives, and only made one other one-day trip out of Harare during my one-month stay. There are obviously many parts of the traumatic economic and political period Zimbabwe is just coming out of that will only be fully understood by those who were there during it. But the instinctive adaptation that one “who was there” undergoes to the rapidly changing situation is also precisely why it can be hard for them to pin down and catalogue the changes, even though they will have an insider’s deeper understanding of events they were a part of. On the other hand an inside-outsider like me, visiting for the first time in about three years, can much more quickly see what is different even if he has no first-hand knowledge and experience of the factors and events that drove the change.

When I ended my previously visit to Zimbabwe, in early 2007, it was with a very heavy heart. The economy was very steadily declining and the tensions between the rival political parties escalating. That state of affairs had been on-going for close to 10 years. There was a widespread sense that the country was still going down, with no one able to guess when we would hit bottom or how bad things would be then. I left home then worried and depressed.

My feelings were quite different this time. There remain many political and economic problems but there is now a widespread feeling that the worst is behind the country. There is not the same feeling of widespread political dread and economic desperation, even though things are far from easy or back to any definition of ‘normal.’  Everybody grumbles about how high the cost of living still is, but unlike before, prices are stable and in many cases even declining, and goods are widely available, which is a very different scenario from early 2007!

I found widespread relief at the existence of the inclusive government of the major political parties, and I thought that most people were generally much less passionately partisan than I remembered. I also think cynicism about all politicians was higher and more widespread than before, which may be a good sign!

The last ten years or so have been a lost decade for Zimbabwe in many ways. And there is no guarantee that the beginnings of stabilization that are being experienced will take hold or that the country will organize itself to get close to meeting its great potential. The possibility of the political parties going back to the bitter fighting that has contributed so greatly to Zimbabwe’s misery remains very real. But when I left Harare in early September after a month at home, for the first time in many years I felt the stirrings of hope about the country’s prospects.

In the third instalment of  ‘The Matrix’ trilogy, Neo meets the Father of the Matrix, who tells him, amongst other things, that hope is the quintessential human delusion; simultaneously our greatest strength and our greatest weakness.

There was never really any doubt that, as all marriages of convenience are wont to be, the union between ZANU PF and the MDC was going to be based solely on their ability to tolerate each other. However, many of us still hoped so much for the best that we took our hope to that lofty height where we began hoping even against hope itself. Our hope became our weakness.

To be blunt many people, including the MDC, expected too much of ZANU PF. It appears we all forgot that although the rain may beat down upon a leopard’s skin, it can never wash out its spots. At the end of the day, ZANU PF is ZANU PF ‑ the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. They are like the falcon in WB Yeats’ poem, that turns and turns in a widening gyre and can no longer hear the Falconer.

 What will be interesting to see is how the MDC re-invents itself after this GNU debacle. Although they had so sincerely and so hopefully committed themselves, to an arrangement that many prophets had doomed from the start, the way in which it has collapsed gives them a significant opportunity to cut their losses and consolidate their gains. 

The MDC lost a good amount of respect and credibility in some circles for acceding to the GNU arrangement. In all honesty, many of the Prime Minister’s statements over the last six months have sounded uncannily like something out of George Charamba’s handbook. Furthermore, some see the MDC as having been nothing more than a junior partner, under the cosh of ZANU PF’s school-ground bully tactics.

However, in the wake of their conscientious efforts within the GNU, the MDC will look to extract the positive gains of the GNU and put these to work to mend their image. The stemming of rampant inflation; increased investment; and the resuscitation of diplonmatic ties with many important nations are all vital developments that can be effectively utilised in the re-birth of the party.

It would be foolhardy, though, to believe for one second that the cunning old ZANU PF will simply stand by and watch the MDC take credit for any one of these gains. In fact, the legacy of the GNU shall henceforth shape Zimbabwe’s immediate political future, and in particular, the future of press freedom.

In the short duration of the GNU, both parties were, consciously or sub-consciously, fighting to use its few successes to endear themselves to the people. The result of this is that one of the sadder hallmarks of the GNU is the augmentation of the debilitating polarization of the media in Zimbabwe.

The GNU now seems to have died a natural death, but the political tug of war surrounding the praise for its successes and/or the criticism for its failures, is about to get more intense. As the two political elephants fight, it is the control of the media that shall once again take centre stage and, inevitably, the polarisation of the Zimbabwean media is only going to get worse. 

It is testament to ZANU PF’s shrewd perspicacity that they have welcomed their prodigal son, Professor Jonathan Moyo, back into the fold. This move  will surely see the resurrection of the formidable tag-team partnership between him and Tafataona Mahoso; a partnership that succesfully shackled media freedom and editorial independence, and put ZANU PF firmly in the ascendancy in so far as the propaganda machinery is concerned. 

The bag that was the GNU may be torn, but there is no sign of rest for those who shoulder the burden of fighting for media freedom and the de‑polarization of the press in Zimbabwe.

Although the swords are still sheathed, the stage has been set for yet another battle of the pens.

So the MDC have boycotted the parliamentary cabinet in Zimbabwe in protest of the treatment of one if its key members of its own cabinet Roy Bennett who is currently on Police bail awaiting trial on charges of amassing arms of war.

The authorities in Zimbabwe have dropped its somewhat dubious and unsubstantiated claims that Roy Bennett was initially involved with an attempted assassination of Robert Mugabe by pouring oil on the road to Mutare. I mean who ever heard of assassinating a premier by oil when Mugabe travels in a hundred thousand pound armoured vehicle capable of protecting him from a rocket strike. This is a well known and common fact to all Zimbabweans who are familiar with the longest presidential protection procession of any leader in the world.

It is also a well known fact to anyone who has followed the legal situation in Zimbabwe that the charges that have been trumped up against Roy have failed to stand previously when the authorities tried to convict a local arms dealer on the exact same charges three years ago. After a year of repeated arrests, detention and scrambling around by the public prosecution a court date was finally set for the 13th October 2009, but on arrival at court, the police were forced to bail the public prosecutor out of a tight corner by re-arresting Roy on the pretext that the case should appear in the High Court due to its seriousness, when the reality is that even at this late stage the Public prosecutor does not have one single witness against him.

The truth in fact is that Bennett has always been a thorn in Zanu PF’s side. Senior officials who are responsible for calling for the harassment of the MDC politician fear that his appointment to cabinet will open the doors to official calls for those responsible for the destruction of his personal holding, the beating of his wife causing the loss of his unborn child and the confiscation of his business assets, all paid for in cash and approved by the government after independence in 1980, to be brought to justice.

Since the high court called for the permanent stay of the criminal proceedings against Justina Mukoko in September this year, the Zanu PF elite have been nervous as to what other trumped up charges brought against those that are deemed a threat to Zanu PF, will be turned out of court and dropped. If this were the case with Roy Bennett there would be nothing stopping his appointment to cabinet and that is something that Zanu PF cannot allow at this time.

And so MDC-T reaches a standoff with Robert Mugabe’s Zanu PF and has opted to boycott the cabinet in protest of this prolonged campaign of disruption against its elected officials. Personally I can understand their frustration, but in entering into any agreement with Mugabe, it was always destined to be an unequal yoke that bound the two together. There is no way that Mugabe intends to play by the rules, and it has been one uphill battle after another for anything to be achieved as laid out by the GPA.

I read a speech recently given by Arthur Mutambara, leader of the breakaway MDC-M who claims to be an equal member of the Inclusive Government, seeing himself as part of a threesome that works to bring prosperity to the nation. I had to smile to myself at how deluded Arthur must be if he really believes that he has won the bride on equal terms and now lies in bed as an equal with Morgan and Robert. While Arthur is clearly able to play both sides of the table as he leads the party that gives weight to any law that one or the other wishes to pass through parliament, he most certainly is not an equal, as Mugabe will merely brush him aside when he has fulfilled his usefulness. Both MDC parties really need to wake up to the reality that neither Mugabe nor his Zanu PF see the MDC as credible partner going forward.

Personally I have come to the conclusion that until Mugabe is removed from office there will never really be any change in Zimbabwe. Over the last three decades Mugabe has entrenched himself into a fixed place of power, where even a potentially credible threat to his establishment can easily be thwarted by skilful manipulation of his press, secret police, the army and the hierarchy of officials gathered close to the core of his government. It is a widely accepted fact that the ZBC and Herald newspaper are a propaganda machine for the Zanu PF, and it is only those that live outside of the country that get a true and viable reflection of the goings on within Zimbabwe through the international and external press agencies reporting from or about Zimbabwe.

The average Zimbabwean on the ground in Zimbabwe does not understand that sanctions are applied only against specific people within the Zanu PF leadership. They are told that the failure of their crops is due to lack of money due to illegal International Sanctions. When food aid is distributed, it is not done from the WHO or World Food Program, it is done of the back of military vehicles, with the message this is food from your leader to help you survive. No mention is made to the fact that it is infact from the very West that is meant to have caused the crops to fail in the first place.

How then are Morgan and Arthur meant to fight on equal terms while trying to win an election? When games of intimidation and electoral violence are played, even when away from the polling stations, how can any viable opposition party rally its supporter without fear of watching them being beaten and tormented for not supporting the national Zanu PF party?

It is disturbing that the GNU has hit the rocks less than a year from its inception but for any Zimbabwean watching from the side lines it is of no real surprise that we are at this situation. For many of us it is just the expected results of a period which Zanu PF saw as an opportunity to fool the world into granting aid deals to a government desperate to line its pockets.

It is worrying that the political situation could deteriorate further especially in view of the situation which prevailed before the formation of the inclusive government. The greatest concern is the destabilisation that may occur to efforts to recover the economy which the MDC had been undertaking. A total collapse of the GNU could provide Mugabe with all the ammunition he needs to never again agree to a power sharing agreement sitting the failure of the GNU for his dogmatic dictatorship of Zimbabwe.

There are genuine fears that the situation could slide back to desperation. The country had been gradually moving towards stimulating investor confidence but these latest developments will have a devastatingly negative effect on the so-much needed foreign investment. On the political front, a brutal reaction by Zanu PF hardliners cannot be ruled out. The arrest and re-detention of Roy Bennett could be regarded as a warning shot over the bows of the MDC. The Zanu PF is a brutal regime determined to cling to power under any circumstance at any cost necessary to achieve its goal.

Our nation stands on a precipice poised to either spiral into an abyss that all likelihood will spell yet more despair and frustration for the people of Zimbabwe under the evil dictatorship of this one party government lead by Robert Mugabe. The only alternative that remains is for any opposition to rid Zimbabwe of Mugabe and the Zanu PF regime. I can only foresee this happening with international support for regime change within Zimbabwe, and that is going to mean that any leadership really serious about changing the future of Zimbabwe will need to gain the approval of the SADAC member states and support of the West in their bid to remove Mugabe.

The real future of the GNU is uncertain that is for sure, but one thing is definite. You cannot boycott the agreement and expect to remain a respected member of the organisation. No one enjoys being forced into a corner, and Zanu PF will certainly not react well to MDC’s attempt to force them to meet their demands. The sad truth that I think the MDC will find moving forward is that this move has damaged their ability to be taken seriously, and while I fully understand their reasons for the boycott, you cannot be involved only when it suits you and expect to be a full player in the team. I have a horrible feeling in the depth of my stomach that this ploy can only backfire to the detriment and hopes of a nation of desperate Zimbabweans.

Clearly the MDC had to react strongly to Roy Bennett’s shabby treatment by the Zimbabwe government’s legal prosecuting authorities. The senior party official has been indicted yet again on ‘terrorism’ charges that few people believe have any credibility, and that the government has previouslly failed to prosecute. Not only that, but the government of which the MDC is now a part was clearly itching to send him back to prison, although he won bail within a day or so. The harassment of Bennett continues, and in this case in a way designed by the authorities to show how powerless the MDC really is, and how much in effective control Mugabe and ZANU-PF remain, which may be the whole point of the exercise. It must be remembered that all this is on top of the fact that Bennett, the MDC’s choice for deputy agriculture minister in the inclusive government, has not been sworn in since his nomination many months ago, on the grounds of the charges that have been hanging over him.

So I have no trouble understanding that the MDC felt compelled to protest the latest indictment and jailing of Bennett in very strong terms, both because of what seems like very clear persecution of Bennett (the state has so far dismally failed to make a strong case for its terrorism charges against him in previous court appearances) as well as for the MDC to “save face.”

Since joining the inclusive government ZANU-PF has gone out of its way to show in many ways that it does not have the slightest intention to share any meaningful, effective power with the MDC, to the increasing embarrassment of Morgan Tsvangirai and his party. Long before this latest ‘provocation,’ there have been many arguably more serious ones the MDC has protested but withstood in the name of giving their best effort to making the difficult inclusive government work. But as those provocations have continued and escalated, the MDC has been driven further into a corner and pressure has been growing on the party to take some sort of strong stand to try to show that it has not simply rolled over and played dead to the ZANU-PF steamroller.

But was the dramatically announced ‘disengagement’ by the MDC from government and from ‘cooperation with ZANU-PF’ the best way to protest its being sidelined? What does ‘disengagement’ from a government you remain a part of really mean anyway?

Pulling out of the inclusive government would not have been wise for the MDC to do, for many reasons, although that is the strongest statement they are in a position to make. The fact of the existence inclusive government (not so much anything any of the participating parties have done or not done) has been an overwhelmingly positive symbol to battle-scarred Zimbabweans. In its short existence that mere existence of the inclusive government and what it has done to dramatically reduce political tension in the country has quickly been translated to many other areas of life, including and perhaps mainly in the beginnings of economic normalization.

It would therefore not only be irresponsible for any of the parties to the inclusive government to pull out of it now, it would also be politically very risky, with the withdrawing party accused by Zimbabweans of all political persuasions of dragging the country back to the political and economic depths of recent years. Sure there will be diehards in all the parties who were opposed to the very idea of the inclusive government, but particularly now, I believe the overwhelming majority of Zimbabweans believe its existence has brought about huge changes for the better, with prospects for a lot more. The irony is that it is not obvious to me that any of the individual political parties are the direct beneficiary so far of the public approval of the joint government.

Secondly, the new-to-government MDC office holders will be in no hurry to give up the many material inducements of holding office. The salaries may not be much at the moment, but there are the new cars, the foreign trips at public expense and many other perks suddenly available. Issues of principle aside, MDC office holders are not going to give up these personal advantages to go back to the uncertainties of what is still a very difficult economic environment.

For all these reasons and more, withdrawal from the unity government is at this point is neither a realistic nor attractive option for the MDC. What to do then to protest the many humiliations to which the ZANU-PF partner seems intent on goading the MDC with?  A very difficult question, for sure.

I am not going to pretend to have a ready answer to this question. But at first glance there appear to me to be many reasons that the ‘dis-engagement’ is unlikely to achieve any meaningful concessions for the MDC from ZANU-PF, and may create additional problems.

While appreciating why pulling out of the government now is not a good option for the MDC, the notion of “we are still in but we are dis-engaging from ZANU-PF” sounds confusing at best, absurd at worst. How do you stay in the government but ‘dis-engage?’ The MDC runs the risk of being ridiculed with, “they want to go AWOL to sulk at being outmanoeuvred by ZANU-PF at every turn, but they want to also hold on to their perks while doing so.” How on earth does a prime minister boycott meetings of ‘his’ own cabinet?!

ZANU-PF may attempt to thwart the MDC from exercising any real power at every turn, but I don’t believe they want to push the MDC out of the unity government. As much as ZANU-PF may despise the MDC, the general and very quick improvement in overall conditions in the country as a result of the parties coming together in government is clear to all. Being seen to be pushing out the MDC would also be politically/electorally risky to ZANU-PF because of the many Zimbabweans who are just relieved at the breathing space the economy and life in general have received as a result of the two parties having called a truce. Therefore neither party has anything to gain from taking the blame for the collapse of the current arrangement, no matter how imperfect it is.

The ideal situation for ZANU-PF is for the MDC to remain part of the government but to then keep on whittling away as much of its power/authority as possible. That way ZANU-PF can claim a facade of democratic inclusiveness, of continuing to respect regional body SADC’s compromise solution to the country’s political impasse, but doing so while continuing to unilaterally hold on to all the reins of real power. But although this may be ZANU-PF’s preferred scenario, this preference is not likely to be strong enough for it to want to plead with the MDC to ‘re-engage’ with it.

Already ZANU-PF has coolly reacted to the MDC’s theatrics with a dismissive shrug. It has been announced that cabinet and other government business will continue even without the MDC. This was predictable. What will the MDC do now? To sheepishly ‘re-engage’ without having one any concessions from ZANU-PF will just make the MDC look ridiculous and weak. Yet the ‘dis-engagement’ is not much of a leverage to get ZANU-PF to do anything. If the MDC’s ill-defined disengagement continues too long they would have effectively fired themselves from government without any real plan B.

“Constitutional crisis,” some would say, “an election would then have to be held.” Even if so, there is 30 years of evidence to show how ZANU-PF would simply refuse to have the terms of how and when that election is held to be dictated to it, whether by SADC or ‘the international community,’ two centers of influence that the MDC has previously put far too much faith and hope in. While ZANU-PF would not want to be accused of having directly or deliberately pushed out   the MDC from the inclusive government, they are certainly not going to lose any sleep if the MDC  ‘disengages’ itself from participating permanently.

It may be that Bennett may finally and clearly win his case in the courts. But the MDC leader went out of his way to state that Bennett’s treatment was not the only reason for the MDC’s disengagement, that it was just one additional consideration to many other slights the party has suffered at the hands of its ZANU-PF unity government partner. This means that even if the persecution-prosecution of Bennett should now stop, the MDC has implied that it would expect to see many other conditions met before it ‘re-engaged’ with ZANU-PF in doing government business. Yet the MDC has no apparent or easy leverage to wring any significant concession out of ZANU-PF at this point.

The timing of the announcement by the MDC to ‘dis-engage’ means that it will always be perceived by the public that Bennett’s latest troubles were the direct trigger, no matter what Tsvangirai and his officials may say about that merely being the straw that broke the camel’s back. While the party clearly had to take a strong stand in regards to Bennett’s treatment, having the treatment of one man, and this particular one,  linked in the public’s perception with the disengagement is unfortunate for the MDC. It is to appear to give his ill-treatment greater importance than that of the many other MDC officials and members who have or continue to suffer even worse treatment at the hands of various arms of government than Bennett has done. Likewise, if the MDC is seen to be ‘re-engaging’ primarily because the pressure on Bennett has been lifted (legally, politically or both) but without any other significant concessions, similar unfortunate signals would be sent to the national, African and wider international public about the MDC!

So clearly the MDC has been in a very difficult position from day one of its involvement in the unity government, and from many angles. It may well have won the last election outright but had no way to effect that win in the face of a cynical ZANU-PF that was quite prepared to do anything to hold on in power. Even if the MDC really won the vote, the doubt and antipathy of regional and other African leaders towards Tsvangirai and his party is stronger than their respect for the electoral will of Zimbabweans! So neither SADC nor the African Union is inclined to side with the MDC unless Mugabe and ZANU-PF do something so outrageous that they are forced to. The hope that the MDC’s Western backers would turn on the aid taps has not been realised and will not be as long as the party clearly remains the junior partner of the inclusive government. That in turn further weakens the MDC and removes another of what was one of its main points of leverage in the early days of the arrangement (‘respect us and treat us well because it is through us that our rich friends in Europe and America will make milk and honey flow in the streets of Harare’) and has probably emboldened ZANU-PF to think that it would not be any great loss if the MDC pulled out. And on and on.

Yes, the MDC’s frustrations are quite understood.But given all of the foregoing, what is it that the MDC really hopes to achieve with it’s ill-defined ‘disengagement?’ Faced with a clearly insincere partner in government, certainly its choices were limited and difficult. But out of those, the party seems to have exercised the most awkward and ineffectual one. Until I become aware of some brilliant hidden strategy behind the ‘disengement’ which is not apparent to me now, it is difficult to see how the MDC will come off stronger in any sense from its announced stance.

FREED

Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) treasurer general and deputy agriculture minister designate Roy Bennett has been released after spending three nights in police custody.
Bennett was released late Friday night following an order by High Court judge Charles Hungwe earlier in the day.
“He has been released. The prison authorities verified the order after we served them before releasing him,” said Trust Maanda, Bennett’s lawyer.
Hungwe reinstated the US$ 5000 bail, and further ordered Bennett to surrender the title deeds of one of his houses and to report thrice a week at Harare’s Law and Order division between 6 am and 6 pm, conditions that Bennett was given in March when he was granted bail.
“I feel great. I didn’t know it would happen like this. It’s unbelievable,” said Bennett soon after his release.
Bennett said he would not take a break from politics but had been made stronger by the incarceration.
“All this persecution was meant to make me and the party (MDC) back down. But it has made us stronger,” he said.
Earlier in the day MDC leader and Zimbabwe Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai told journalists that Bennett was not being “prosecuted but was being persecuted”.
Bennett’s arrest has made fissures in the coalition administration apparent with MDC cutting all communication with Robert Mugabe’s ZANU PF.

The Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) has cut all contact with President Robert Mugabe, stopped attending cabinet and will not “sit with in meetings with an unreliable and repentant partner”.

MDC leader and Zimbabwe Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai told journalists after a meeting of his party’s national executive that he will also not attend policy development Monday meetings with Mugabe.

The disengagement effectively means a constitutional crisis in Zimbabwe.

“However, it is our right to disengage from a dishonest and unreliable partner. In this regard, whilst being government, we shall forthwith disengage from Zanu PF and in particular from Cabinet and the Council of Ministers until such time as confidence and respect is restored amongst us,” Tsvangirai said.

Tsvangirai demanded a resolution of the outstanding issues that include the appointment of central bank governor, Gideon Gono and Attorney General Johannes Tomana.

“This will include the full resolution of all outstanding issues and the substantial implementation of the GPA. We are aware of the Constitutional implications of our decision, in light of the foundational element of the transitional government that executive power is shared between the President, the Prime Minister and Cabinet,” said Tsvangirai.

“However, it is a Constitutional crisis which should be resolved if Zanu PF and its leadership know that there is a price to pay for procrastination. Naturally should this Constitutional crisis escalate, then the self-evident solution would be the holding of a free and fair election to be conducted by SADC and the AU and under UN supervision,” he added.

Exactly 264 days since the extra-ordinary summit of SADC of 26 January 2009 that directed the formation of the transitional government, which government started work on the 13 February 2009, that administration has still not been fully consummated.

The MDC complained that provincial governors have not been appointed to date despite agreement on every item.

“More indecently is the fact that even the government itself has not fully been constituted due to the failure to swear in the deputy minister of Agriculture. Perhaps more embarrassingly is the fact that there has been no review of the GPA nor of the ministerial positions six months after 26 January 2009.

The party accused ZANU PF of “a complete lack of paradigm shift on the part of Zanu PF”.

“Instead, we have seen total abuse and disrespect of the GPA and in particular of the MDC. Ministerial mandates have been changed unilaterally, government internal rules have not been changed to recognize the new reality. Over and above this, some government agencies, in particular few components in the National Security forces still behave as if the old order exists. The National Security Council itself has met only once in nine months,” said Tsvangirai.

“We are also aware of the extensive militarization of the countryside through massive deployment of the military and the setting up of bases of violence that we saw after the 29th of March 2008. Over and above this, we are aware of over 16 000 of Zanu PF youth functionaries who have been imposed on the government payroll,” he said.

The party also complained about “continuous selective and unequal application of the rule of law”. Tsvangirai said seven of his MDC MPs have been persecuted and convicted on shadowy charges whilst several others are on remand.

“The public media, in particular The Herald and the ZBC continue to treat the MDC and our leaders in government as if they were a third-rate treasonous and sell-out element instead of a genuine and equal partner in the transitional government.

The slow rate of movement and execution of positions agreed in the GPA is also as worrying as it is unacceptable. Indeed, the lack of real movement on the key issues of democratization of the media, the Constitutional reform process, the land audit and the rule of law issues in the GPA are issues that stick out like a sore thumb,” Tsvangirai said.

He said if the constitutional crisis persists UN supervised elections should be conducted.

As 2010 looms, it is time for the Zimbabwean people to unite and become focused on one goal. The united call for the removal of Robert Mugabe and the Zanu PF one party state system of Government in Zimbabwe. Our call for free and fair elections, democracy and freedom of speech has never before been more needed by our nation, and never before have the Zimbabwean people been in such a powerful position to make this call felt all around the world.

I hear you all laughing out loud and muttering under your breath, but allow me a moment of your time, and humour me and read on. I write as I do today having looked back through history at many popular struggles throughout the world. In many ways, it is not uncommon for people who are ruled over with a hard line mantra to eventually buck the trend and begin to demand change. This happened with the African American Movement in the US, the Chinese Freedom Movement in China, the freedom movement in India, the Tibetan Independence movement and so many more that I could write a book just naming them.

The one common trend that sticks out clearly in each of these cases is firstly the fact that the uprising while fraught with difficulties and hardships, were mostly peaceful and calm on the part of the protesters. The governments at the time are the ones that over reacted with the use of force in most cases and through this action brought about a change in opinion worldwide. Secondly each of these movements had strong leadership and stuck to the cause, even when the leadership that they once so diligently followed was gone. Thirdly is that no matter how long the struggle, change was inevitable and when public opinion falls on the side of the oppressed it is inevitable that change will happen.

Let’s take for example the case of Martin Luther King. An obvious parallel for our current situation some might say, but I tend to disagree. Yes it is a large chunk of the population of Zimbabweans around the world that want Mugabe out. Yes it is a call from a people oppressed and cruelly prevented from prospering and being given the freedom of choice and the rights that all humans should enjoy by way of our acceptance of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Yes it is a call from a marginalised group of people who have had much taken from them with little thought to the process by which this has happened and with no thought to the long term detrimental effects on the economy. As was the case with Martin Luther King, any form of protest against the Mugabe regime so far has met with swift and decisive action on behalf of the power he commands over the military and police, let alone his terror squads. Yet there are differences in the struggle. The Zimbabwean situation is a struggle against a corrupt and desperate junta that cling to power to prevent being held accountable for their failure and abuse of power. Generally people are resistant to change because they have a fear of change. This cannot be the case in Zimbabwe, and the fear is of another kind. Furthermore, and more importantly however what is lacking in the Zimbabwean stuation is our Martin Luther King. Strong leadership with a voice of reason and passion has yet to call out to the people of Zimbabwe.

Martin Luther King was the leader of the African American civil rights movement, a clergyman, a respected speaker, a passionate man, and a dedicated leader. He excited in people a sense of moral justice and a yearning to be a part of the movement of change. Even in his death, he deplored the use of violence, and brought about a change in the law and outlook of American people through careful use of pressure at the right moments in the right places and never with the use of violence against the establishment.

In China the death of Hu Yaobang sparked the Tiananmen Square protests in 1989 which culminated in the deaths of hundreds of civilian protestors. One of the most famous images of the 20th Century emerged from this peaceful standoff led mainly by students and intellectuals who gathered to mourn the pro-democracy and anti-corruption activists death. 1 million people gathered in a movement that lasted seven weeks before the military were finally able to clear the square, calling for everything from free market reform to those who called for an end of communism. As the tanks rolled into Tiananmen Square one man had the courage to stand before the tanks and bring them to a complete stop, an image that has captured the attention of the international media and world populous alike. This single demonstration brought about the collapse of a number of communist governments around the world as public opinion changed towards communism and the human plight of people living under these authoritarian governments.

These protests have brought about change for the greater good through the use of pressure and peaceful demonstration. While change did not happen overnight, a slow, constant campaign of pressure, protests, public speeches, brought about a realisation in the public at large that people had a right to put their message across. Change became acceptable because the public embraced it rather than see the prolonged acts of violence carried out in their name. And while some have lead to a complete change in the way people are treated, others are still a work in progress.

If we look at two recent examples of where public pressure and the use of the media, international events and public opinion have begun a process that in time will see the next wave of changes occur through our world as we know it.

Firstly was the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games and how the whole event was hijacked by the Tibetan Monks as a way to highlight their plight in a way that had not been possible for them before this event. The Olympic Games did something for China that no other event could ever have done. It brought the international media to their doorstep. The Tibetan Monks were not foolish when they began an protest just as the Olympic Torch began its tour around the world. It was well known that the reaction from the Chinese government would be decisive, swift and merciless. It was this reckoning that meant that the Tibetan Monks were able to pull one over on the Chinese Officials. The international condemnation of their reaction threatened to derail the whole Olympic Games, and many people were quite willing to stay away in boycott of the games because of this reaction. It was only a monumental effort of the IOC, and the major leaders of the world that brought everyone back in line and agree to participate in the event.

The recent protests in Iran show how times are changing. When people take to the streets in protest in one of the most secretive nations of the world, where people live under a cloak of fear for being persecuted by the secret police for their public protest against the Ayatollah Khomeini, then you know that times are really changing. While the uprising was contained and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was sworn in for another term as President of Iran, it is with quiet wonder at what cost it happened. How long will it be before he is ousted from power through an internal uprising. It would be in the West’s interest to try and support a challenge to power in Iran to oust the existing infrastructure and rid the area of a dangerous loose cannon, and in this protest they have uncovered a deep loathing within the nation of the seat of power in the country. This is something that surely will play into their favour as the game unfolds. It interests me to see what will happen in the years ahead as Iran continues to be a thorn in the side of the West.

But what is interesting more than anything is that an Islamic nation revolted so spectacularly against their leaders. The sudden outbreak of public opinion and the outcry of the people must have shaken the establishment to the very core of its foundation. Never before has such an impassioned call for change been seen in an Arabic nation, let alone a challenge against a supreme leader. Such actions must be a real cause for concern among leaders in Islamic states, as they realise that their people are human too and can tire of the incessant fool hardiness of a government protected by power and lavish lifestyles while their nation and people struggles on, trying survive and make a life for themselves under oppressive international sanctions.

Ok so where does all this lead. Well if you follow the common trend, you’ll see that peaceful protest does in time bring about change. There are some fundamental things that need to be established before this change can be brought about though, and it is not something that will happen overnight, so it needs passion, commitment and a thick skin. Morgan Tsvangirai has already proved that to stand for change in Zimbabwe will mean that you will engage in a hard and painful line. But what we don’t really realise is that Zimbabwean’s are in a rather unique position to make things work to their advantage. It is now that Zimbabwean’s should really be grouping together with a common voice, common language and be sly and cleaver about their approach to changing public opinion in their favour.

Firstly, Zimbabweans need to see beyond colour. Racial integration is something that I personally think will be a sticking point in Africa for many years to come and this is a sad fact. It is unfortunate that the international community don’t really like this attitude of blame everything on your past and never seek for ways of changing your future. Robert Mugabe has successfully run a propaganda campaign that blames the white man, colonialism and the West for every problem that Zimbabwe has. Many fall in line and accept this party mantra as the truth and fail to realise that without the white man, the west and to an extent colonialism they would not be where they are today. Now please before you begin to throw verbal abuse and shout me down, I accept that colonialism was a pathetic attempt by the white man to own the world, to oppress the native people of the land and to rape and pillage the land for their own gain. Yes I understand that it marginalised a people into poverty and bread a deep routed hatred of the Colonialist approach to things. That is a pain that will be carried long into our future as the hatred is passed down from one generation to another, and that is why I feel that we will struggle with this issue long into the future. Society needs to somehow find a way to teach our children that the faults of yesterday’s generation are not the burden and responsibility of this day’s generation.

What colonialism did do however was build an infrastructure that with good governance and business acumen can be built on and grown into a viable and prosperous nation. What Zimbabwe as a nation must come to terms with is that to be successful and productive in today’s world, business and trade will have to take place with the white man, and the it will be the white man that will seek to invest in the infrastructure and future of any new Zimbabwe. Until our government realise that alone we cannot survive, and stop infuriating the West and begin to work with them we are doomed as a nation. This stigma of I am black and you are white is something that we really must address as a we seek to rebuild our nation. Martin Luther King didn’t want a land void of white men, he just wanted the right to live with the same rights and opportunities as a white man. Nelson Mandela didn’t want to punish a nation for the faults of a government, he sought to heal and reconcile his nation through integration and breaking down of racial barriers. The sins of our past are our lessons for tomorrow. And accepting this we learn to grow as people and as a nation.

From within a united front a strong message can take shape that we as Zimbabweans demand change. As this message takes shape and we begin to apply pressure where it is needed I believe earnestly that a strong and diligent leadership will emerge and take shape to guide us in our call for change. 2010 approaches us with speed, and an international platform that we can use to present our case to the international community beckons us on our doorstep. The World Cup will arrive in South Africa next year, and with an estimated 2 million Zimbabwean’s living in South Africa can you imagine the power in our hands right now?

Picture this. A protest of 100,000 Zimbabweans takes to the streets on the day of the opening match in central Johannesburg and sits down in silent protest at the government of Robert Mugabe and the failure of the SADCC nations to do anything about his corrupt regime. Our message will capture and fill every network around the world. Johannesburg will be brought to a standstill, and the plight of the Zimbabwean people, the disgrace of the SADCC nations failure to help them and the deborchery of the Zimbabwean Government will be seen by the whole world. The fact that the people of Zimbabwe peacefully found the need to call out to the world to ask for their assistance as every political avenue in the African Arena has failed will bring the plight of the Zimbabwean people into the home of every football fan in the world. Every news channel will carry and lead with the story. Researchers will be pulled to dig the dirt and reveal as much as possible on the main story of the year. The high light of the World Cup 2010 will always be associated with the day that Zimbabwean’s from every walk of life sat down for the right to freedom and good governance.

This is not all. It is estimated that around a million Zimbabwean’s live in the UK. There is possibly another million in various other places around the globe. Living in Diaspora they call it. Whatever fancy term you wish to link to it, picture this. Christmas eve 2010, 10,000 Zimbabwean’s gather at strategic places in cities all around the globe. New York, London, Madrid, Rome, Sydney, Wellington, Johannesburg, Cape Town, Washington, Toronto to name a few. They hold carol singing ceremonies with speeches that are prepared to back up the call for pressure and removal of Robert Mugabe’s regime across the world, simultaneously, with invitations to the press. If you think about it 10,000 people will fill Time Square in New York. It’ll fill Trafalgar Square in London. Peaceful protests wishing love, peace and goodwill to all men, yet putting our message across in the most powerful terms possible.

We don’t need to take up arms. What we do need is passionate people, with vision and a calling. These are just two ideas that we can use that will spring board a call to change into the Interantional agenda of many nations. What we have to do is take on the oppressive institution of Robert Mugabe and the Zanu PF by challenging the world to take up our plight and back our corner. If we call for every man woman of voting age to write to their leader on our behalf. If we were to create petitions around the world for people to sign, all saying the same thing, all signed by people from every nation that Zimbabweans have fled to, all calling for the UN and other halls of power to drive change in Zimbabwe, then we, yes the humble peaceful people of Zimbabwe can bring about change in our nation. There are many challenges for us to overcome. There will be highs and lows as we seek to overcome, but ultimately I believe that we have what it takes to make a change. We just have not learnt to use that power effectively and to our advantage.

I understand that not everyone will agree with me. I also understand that in order to reach this kind of unification that we must all buy into a common idea, with common goals and a strong agenda. What I have come to realise is that without doing something ourselves we will only be in the same situation in 20 years from now. It may well be under another leader, or a different party, but we will suffer the same historical line that so many other African nations have taken before us. It will only be us who will make a change in Zimbabwe. Just as the UK and other nations face tough decisions over things like spending and economic policies for the next 50 years, it is up to us as a people to make the tough decision of whether we wish to see change and are willing to step up to the mark to make it happen or are willing to let the tide of time make the change for us. I do believe that we need to dialogue between each other and thrash out the pro’s and con’s of our ideas, seek these common goals, find an agenda we can all follow and take up the challenge of changing our nation ourselves.

More details have been released today about Zimbabwe’s unity deal bill, as signed by President Robert Mugabe.  This deal will see Morgan Tsvangirai and other MDC members take prestigious posts in the new power-sharing government.  ‘Our MDC colleagues have been allocated top positions in the government.’ stated Zanu-PF leader Mugabe.  ‘These positions will show the world that Zimbabwe is embracing change and that I am willing to work with the MDC.’

 Tendai Biti, MDC’s secretary-general, will be given the post of Minister for Wildlife – an important position given country’s tourism industry.  ‘Mr.  Biti will take charge of our nation’s fauna, nature reserves and safari parks.’ announced Mugabe.  ‘I have such a trust in this man that I have given him personal responsibility for hand-feeding the crocodiles in the Zambezi river.’

 The MDC’s speaker in Zimbabwe’s lower house of parliament, Lovemore Moyo, also gets a top job, as energy Minister.  ‘Again I have given him special, personal duties.’ Mugabe said.  ‘Mr.  Moyo’s job will be to check the country’s power infrastructure.  He will personally check that all electricity cables are live – eventually he’ll be given specialist testing equipment but until then we’ll waive safety regulations and let him use his tongue.’

 Perhaps the most significant change is that the Joint Operations Command, Mugabe’s military nerve-centre and main facilitator of his grip on power, does not escape the power-sharing process.  Opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai will be assigned the plum role of Minister of defence.  ‘Mr.  Tsvangirai’s duties will include the role of chief-quartermaster, where he will be personally responsible for inspecting our army’s weaponry.  This basically means looking down rifle barrels in search of defects.’ Mugabe continued, before pausing to consult a bodyguard ‘That reminds me,’ he whispered, ‘make sure he gets to inspect the artillery too – just in case.’

 (Written 8 Feb 2009)

MDC President Morgan Tsvangirai  has urged Zimbabweans to prepare themselves for free and fair elections in the next two years that will bring real change to the lives of the people.

Addressing thousands of people at four 10th MDC Anniversary rallies in Matebeleland North over the weekend, Tsvangirai said the Constitution-making process would bring in a free and democratic Zimbabwe.

“The new people-driven Constitution will do away with repressive laws such as the AIPPA (Access to Information and Public Protection Act) and POSA (Public Order and Security Act),” he said. The rallies were held at Manjolo Business Centre, Tinde Business Centre in Binga on Saturday, Sipepa Business Centre and Tsholotsho Growth Point on Sunday.

Thousands of people attended all the four marathon rallies that marked the celebration of MDC’s 10 years since its formation. President Tsvangirai also said he was happy that the people of Zimbabwe had realised that it was only the MDC that could bring real change to the country. “I am grateful that the people of Zimbabwe have realised that the MDC is the party that can bring real change.

“Ten years after the formation of the party, we have moved from being an opposition to the majority party. We have moved from being leaders of the opposition to leaders of government,” he said. He also dispelled reports that the MDC had been swallowed by Zanu PF since it formed the inclusive government with the Zanu PF.

“The MDC is not going to be swallowed by Zanu PF because there is no way that a majority party can be swallowed by a minority party,” he said. The MDC enjoys a majority share in parliament after it defeated Zanu PF in the March 2008 harmonised elections. However, President Tsvangirai bemoaned the lack of paradigm shift on the part of Zanu PF.

“Zanu PF does not want to see progress and this is shown by the continued disregard of the rule of law and the refusal to resolve outstanding issues.

“However, despite these challenges, the past seven months have seen incremental progress. There is stabilisation of the economy. Schools and hospitals have reopened. It is our hope to increase liquidity on the market,” he said. He said the government would see to it that all farmers had access to agricultural inputs in order to increase food production.

“This is only a transitional arrangement but it will give food security to the country. However, this programme will enable you to be self sustainable and bring the country to its former state as the breadbasket of southern Africa,” he said.

Tsvangirai was accompanied by several senior MDC officials, who included, the deputy national organising secretary, Senator Morgen Komichi, national youth chairman, Thamsanqa Mahlangu,  Samuel Sipepa Nkomo and Minister Gorden Moyo. Also present at the rallies were parliamentarians, provincial and district members.

Sources said ZANU-PF heavyweight Solomon Mujuru, a former military commander, holds a 3% stake in African Consolidated Resources, the firm that brought the high court suit… From VOA. Full story

This site may contain information about: certified diamonds. For a different topic see woman watch. The blog is also related to: vintage diamond jewelry.

It is all very well for the world to call for the removal of Robert Mugabe from power within Zimbabwe, but has anyone stopped to consider the effects of life under Robert Mugabe, and the void that would be left in his sudden removal? It is one thing for an invading force to remove a dictator such as we have seen through history when the Allied forces divided up Germany after the removal of Adolf Hitler, or when the American led coalition finally rid Iraq of Saddam Hussein. In these instances we saw the world pour massive amounts of aid into a war torn region to bolster up its people, give the interim government a chance to begin the rebuilding of their nation, but even with all this help, we have watched two nations slowly tear themselves apart before beginning the long walk to reconciliation, reconstruction and recognition on the international stage.

Fair enough, my two examples are slightly different in that they exist under totally different circumstances, both having come out of long and damaging wars, both being divided by powers from within, and both having the lime light of the international community shone directly on them as their situations took centre stage in world politics. I do not believe that Mugabe will ever command such an effect to create a media storm around his removal, but one does begin to wonder what will happen in the absence of the despot. How will the nation begin to rebuild itself without the immediate attention of a world eager to make sure that more of the same does not happen again? Is there any hope that Zimbabwe will reach a point of free fair elections without the presence of Robert Mugabe, or are we headed towards yet another African leader hell bent on lining his own nest as quickly and lavishly as he can?

How do you begin to deal with a nation of mind washed youths who have apparently been beaten into submission and taught to believe that Robert Mugabe is their saviour? How do you take a disillusioned young man who is suddenly faced with a world absent of the pillar of power that he has been taught to believe will be his salvation and bring success to his efforts and teach him that life without Robert Mugabe is a better place? While Zimbabwe is one of the most well educated countries of the African continent, that generation of well informed scholars has either fled their nation for greener pastures, or long given up on the hope of a better life under Robert Mugabe. But the question still stands that without Mugabe is there anyone who currently shows the world that there is hope under their leadership for a better Zimbabwe. Many of the people that you speak to who used to believe that the MDC stood for change now comment that the MDC seem as bad as Mugabe, quietly accepting their place at his table knowing that while they can they are reaping the rewards of being in government in Zimbabwe.

The sad reality for many is that Zimbabwe will more than likely never really reach its once glorious position as a power house of the African continent. Its army are said to be overwhelmed with soldiers suffering from HIV. Its police force is riddled with corruption and operates as an extension of Robert Mugabe’s private army, crushing opposition where ever it springs up across the country. Many of its rank and file will be worried about the possibility of life without Mugabe at the helm, for fear of prosecution for their crimes. The existing hierarchy within government have perpetrated extensive criminal acts through the seizure of land, human rights abuses, murder and corruption, theft and embezzlement of state funds and live in a manner of making hay while the sun shines. You have to wonder how they will react under life without Mugabe. Will there be internal strife in terms of a power struggle within this Hierarchy or have they already worked out between themselves who will take over when Mugabe dies? And will it be a natural death that will remove Mugabe?

How many of his very own people hold things over him as he approaches the end of his days, and is he ever nervous that his past transgressions will come out of the closet to haunt him? Will this haunting be behind closed doors, away from the glare of the media spot light? Is he really as untouchable as he seems and are his days numbered? Obviously there will come a time where breath will leave his body, but it is very intriguing to contemplate the future of Zimbabwe without Mugabe.

There will certainly be a very long road to recovery for anyone to walk down in the rebuilding of Zimbabwe post Mugabe. First of all the spirit of the people will be of prime importance for any leader taking the stage in his absence. The nation as a whole will rejoice at the removal of the dictator from power, be it by force or be it by natural causes, there will be much cause for celebration and jubilation among the Zimbabwean people. But after that initial rejoicing, the realisation of the task at hand will return to face everyone. Change for the man on the street will not be something seen for a long time for the average Zimbabwean, as it will be a huge undertaking for any new leader to initially prove to a sceptical world that they are not more of the same. Life for most Zimbabweans won’t change until real investment returns to the shattered state, and one wonders how in this time of Financial Down Turn any meaningful investment can be rallied to support the new leader. With vast tracts of land promised to the likes of the Chinese in mining rights, mineral rights and various other rights, one wonders what else a new government can offer to a world hungry of cheap raw materials.

Maybe the option of cheap labour will be of interest to the lesser contentious nations of the world like Russia and parts of Eastern Europe, but with the West frowning heavily on the use of cheap labour I can’t see that being much of a leap forward for the Zimbabwean economy, and they would also be competing against the giants of rock bottom labour in India and China where doing it for next to nothing has already got a well established market. With the massive effect of brain drain, there is a huge hole in the people power within Zimbabwe, and one does wonder if without real jobs and the creation of sustainable and viable projects how many of the professional Zimbabweans will want to return in the early stages of a new nation under a new government. I tend to think the majority of us would love to return, but the reality of job security and value for living, many of us will choose to remain where we are for now.

I do wonder about agriculture in Zimbabwe. For Zimbabwe agriculture is the future, but it would appear that vast resources need to be put into teaching the new land owners to maximise the output of the land they now own. Massive investment needs to be pumped into the infrastructure of the agricultural industry and with much of that support coming from the west, one wonders if Zimbabwean’s are going to be willing to open their doors to that kind of invasion of the land they have just won so bitterly, even if the majority of it is now owned in one way or another by the elite of the nation. Will the new leadership have the ability to see beyond colour and realise that only through international co-operation can the agricultural sector be kick started into effective growth patterns. Is there a sense of understanding hidden below the table that will rise up once Mugabe has gone and oust those fooled into the ideology of Mugabe to make way for a democratic growth of the nation, based on the realisation that, “we can’t go it alone!”

The fundamental truth is that in as much as they probably hate to admit it, Zimbabwe needs the white man and the west more than they need it. The African Zimbabwean has for so long dreamt of living a comfortable life style. They have persevered so much, been patient for so long, and deserve some quality of life. I think personally as a Zimbabwean most of us don’t care who wins the war of words. Most of us are not really interested in who’s the boss in the seat of power, as long as they are fair, equal and worthy of our trust. For the average Zimbabwean man, woman or child we would be more than willing to work side by side, be it white, coloured or black. Prosperity and contentment is all we seek, and while life without Mugabe will be a difficult one for the large part until things come together and the world can see we want to be a part of the international community on an equal basis, our government is democratically elected by the people and representative of the interests of its people, then the doors will open for our dreams to come true. Many challenges face us before that day, and huge uncertainties lie before all of us, but I have faith that Zimbabwean people might carry the scars of life under Mugabe with them, but given the chance, given a good leader, given opportunity and the tools to do it, we will rise above.

A Zimbabwe court will on Monday start mass trial of 88 villagers for demanding the return of their property stolen by President Robert Mugabe’s ZANU PF militia during the run-up to the internationally condemned June 2008 presidential run-off election.
On the same day another Nyanga court will hear a civil claim in which 16 villagers all from Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai’s Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) are demanding US$853 for the grain and livestock forcibly taken from them during the violent election.
The MDC says it lost more than 200 of its members during the state-sponsored violence.
The two cases serve as a litmus test for the transitional government’s reconciliation efforts. The transitional government set up a National Healing Reconciliation and Integration organ to deal with issues of transitional justice but the selective application of the law has further poisoned the political landscape.
The state is charging the 88 villagers, who are out on bail, with extortion for demanding back their livestock and grain siphoned during the election period.
The villagers claimed that their goats, chickens and grain was looted from them to feed political activists and militia camped at various terror bases set up by ZANU PF around Nyanga.
The Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights (ZLHR), who are representing the villagers, said the mass trial was ‘unfortunate’.
“It seems the trend has not changed (despite the formation of an inclusive government) that victims continue to be treated as criminals,” said Irene Petras, the ZLHR executive director.
“The fight for human rights in Zimbabwe is far from being over.”

According to court papers the 88, say they were beaten and ordered to surrender goats, chicken and maize crop to feed their abusers. The police have refused to investigate reports by the victims but have been quick to arrest the same people for alleged extortion.

In several of the spurious criminal cases, villagers who lost their property now face charges that include armed robbery and extortion while courts have refused to preside over the villagers’ matters, citing undue external interference. Prosecutors have acknowledged orders from “above” to deny bail at all costs.
In the other case, another Nyanga court is expected to preside over a pre-trial conference in which 16 Nyanga villagers filed civil claims against some ZANU PF supporters seeking compensation for property forcefully taken as ‘fines’ for supporting the MDC.
The villagers are seeking US$853 as damages for sunflower seeds, goats, maize, sorghum, guinea fowls, chicken, groundnuts, beasts and sheep.
If granted, the civil claims victory is likely to set a precedent for other people who were forced to surrender livestock and grain during the politically charged period last year.
Although Tsvangirai and Mugabe have since formed an inclusive government in February this year, issues of transitional justice and national healing remain a minefield.