(NEWZIMBABWE) Goodbye Deborah, Goodbye Bruce!
27/01/2014 00:00:00
by Amai Jukwa
I AM reliably informed that the eager British Ambassador, Deborah Bronnert, will soon be leaving us. I am inconsolable. The same is rumoured of her American colleague, Ambassador Bruce Wharton.
These two have worked especially hard to take us for a ride, insisting that their hatred for President Robert Mugabe is motivated by nothing more than their love for Zimbabwe’s blacks. This is patronising nonsense.
I have always said that Britain cannot claim to sanction Zimbabwe for supposed democratic failings whilst their Queen enjoys tea and biscuits with the Saudi despot, King Abdullah, under whose despotic rule women are denied basic human rights (they can’t even drive a car), religious freedom is violated by statute and democracy is not even enshrined in the constitution.
It takes a special kind of hypocrisy to sustain such a glaringly contradictory foreign policy dance. Surely what is good for the goose is good for the gander? No?
Bruce Wharton is another shameless hypocrite. The United States sends billions of dollars in aid to Egypt. That country has suffered a violent coup in which a democratically elected leader was deposed and imprisoned. A few days ago at least four-dozen pro-democracy demonstrators were shot dead by that military junta. Aljazeera’s journalists are currently being held on trumped-up charges of “joining a terrorist organization”. Shall I speak of that sham of a referendum in which the opposition was not even allowed to put up posters?
I can’t hear you ambassadors. I call Bruce’s name. Where is your democratic sting? What has calmed the democratic fury with which you penned ZIDERA? I call Deborah’s name. Summon your human rights convictions oh fair lady. Egyptians are in need of your white bosom and the love you have so generously showered on us Zimbabweans.
The logical mind must ask why there is no talk of sanctions from those who eagerly prescribed them for Zimbabwe’s democratic illness? Where is the lofty talk of democracy and human rights? Surely what is good for the goose is good for the gander? No?
This shameful duplicity is born of nothing but white supremacy in which Bruce and company feel they have the right to define and change the rules of international relations as they go, and as they see fit, because their discretion is somehow inspired and can be trusted. Who is Amai Jukwa to ask these civilised white ambassadors to explain these contradictions? We don’t explain our actions to little people. We are white and we dine with whomsoever we please.
This is the attitude of white supremacy, a feeling of superiority and entitlement in which one need not explain their actions, they need not justify such violent contradictions. They are white and they are powerful. The rules of accountability do not apply to them.
It is against this intolerable background of white arrogance that I have rejected British and American intervention in Zimbabwe. It is clear their motives are unrighteous and self-serving. As the professor once said, their hands are dirty, their mouths are dirty and they must shut up. We see their dirty hands offering weapons to Egypt. They have no moral authority whatsoever to lecture us on matters of democracy and human rights.
Are we really to believe that Bruce and Deborah love Zimbabwe’s blacks more than they do the people of Egypt? How is it that they are so concerned about us that they are willing to draft sanctions to protect us from this despotic ogre called Mugabe but have no such love for the people of Egypt, Qatar, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia?
It is clear that the British and the Americans, despite their democratic pretensions, are merely operating as part of a vengeful white clique that wants to make an example of the land-grabbing Mugabe. The only sanctions that have been imposed against him are white sanctions by white countries. Why are there no Africans, South Americans, Asians or Arabs who have imposed sanctions? It surely cannot be that these white countries, our former colonisers and enslavers, love us more than the rest of the world.
As we bid farewell to these two ambassadors let it be made clear that their failure will equally befall those who will come after them. This is because Africans are not as stupid as white people believe. We see your duplicity. We see your hypocrisy. We see you self-interest.
In fact, this meddling by Western nations has actually served Zanu PF well as it has discredited otherwise valid complaints by the MDC. As long Britain and America continue to fund, support or sympathise with the MDC, that party will continue to lose elections. They will always be viewed as puppets. This is no different to the disposition Americans and Britons would have to a Chinese or Russian funded party.
Farewell good ambassadors.
Ndatenda, ndini muchembere wenyu Amai Jukwa.
Labels: AMAI JUKWA, AMBASSADORS, BRUCE WHARTON, DEBORAH BRONNERT
Read more...
(HERALD ZW) Wafawarova wants full hearing in Zwambila case
January 4, 2014
Herald Reporter
AUSTRALIA-BASED Zimbabwean journalist Reason Wafawarova wants the courts in that country to set aside a default judgment by a Canberra judge which found him guilty of defaming Zimbabwe’s outgoing ambassador in that country, Ms Jacqueline Zwambila.In a statement yesterday, Wafawarova said he wanted the matter to proceed to a full hearing so that he could justify his claims.
Ms Zwambila sued Wafawarova for defamation after the journalist reported that the envoy stripped in front of embassy staff during a heated argument. But Wafawarova said there was overwhelming evidence against Ms Zwambila.
“The application by the claimant to have my defence struck out on obnoxious technicalities is nothing but a cowardly attempt at escaping a full hearing of the case, a shameful fleeing from glaring and irrefutable evidence,” said Wafawarova.
“That will not be allowed to happen. The Zimbabwe Embassy in Canberra still stands with allegations it raised against Ms Zwambila on November 11 2011 and in its latest media statement the embassy has categorically stated those allegations as fact, and that makes it more compelling for the court case to be heard on its merits.”
Wafawarova said there had been misleading and inaccurate reports by The Canberra Times about the judgment by the judge.
“Firstly, it is absolutely unfounded that it is the ACT Supreme Court’s position that I am ‘an agent of the Mugabe regime’ or that any allegations raised against Zwambila were “false”.
“These words belong entirely to Ms Zwambila and her handlers at Canberra Times. They are not the court’s position.”
“Essentially, the words are a pathetic attempt at smearing my image, and they are part of a larger conspiracy that once led to two court cases in 2007 and 2009, where attempts to have me removed from Australia were thwarted after protracted court hearings.
“It is Ms Zwambila that accepted to serve the Mugabe-led government as its ambassador, and for her to label someone outside that government an agent of the same is plain ridiculous.
“While it is the option of anyone facing destitution to try everything in the book to avoid such a predicament, it is highly preposterous that one would try to hoodwink immigration authorities into granting them a protection visa by publicly pretending that the ACT Supreme Court has discovered ‘an agent’ of Mugabe when the court has not even heard the merits of this case.
“You do not make such ludicrous politicisation of a purely civil matter of this nature without making a complete fool of yourself,” said Wafawarova.
He accused Ms Zwambila and her legal team of avoiding a full hearing of the case because they could not confront the evidence against the latter.
“What the Supreme Court did was to strike out my defence on the technicality that I had refused to submit certain documents demanded by Ms Zwambila’s legal team, which in my opinion have nothing to do with the case.
“No allegation raised against Ms Zwambila was found to be false by the court because the matter did not go for hearing. Any suggestion by the Canberra Times or any other media outlet that allegations against Ms Zwambila were proved to be false are nothing but a pathetic sense of mischievous imagination.
“It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that The Canberra Times are doing Ms Zwambila’s bidding in the hope that the paper can help her escape a fate of hopelessness back in Zimbabwe where the only thing she needs to be protected from is the awaiting poverty.
“The ongoing court case has nothing to do with Ms Zwambila’s unemployment woes, and trying to buttress her case for access to Australia’s social welfare benefits by using this court case as basis for whatever pretensions is frankly puerile,” he said.
Ms Zwambila claimed the article by Wafawarova injured her reputation and profession adding that the story was motivated by malice.
Ms Zwambila is reported to have reached a confidential settlement with The Australian newspaper which carried a similar story.
Wafawarova’s story was published in November 2010.
Labels: AMBASSADORS, AUSTRALIA, COURTS, JAQUELIN ZWAMBILA, REASON WAFAWAROVA
Read more...
(HERALD ZW) An open letter to Bruce and Deborah
October 7, 2013
by Mai Jukwa
My Government alleges that sanctions imposed by your governments have destroyed the Zimbabwean economy. You reject this argument, insisting that you have simply put in place “restrictive measures” on Mugabe and his rowdies. Your view is that these actions have no bearing on the generality of the people. Zanu-PF in turn accuses you of dishonesty.
In response, you issue predictably synthetic statements clarifying your position. It has become a tedious squabble spanning over a decade and with no seeming end in sight. In all this back-and-forth one essential point of principle escapes our conversation.
We have not examined the legitimacy of your actions against Zimbabwe or, as you claim, its oppressive leaders. For the purposes of this conversation, let us assume that Robert Mugabe is indeed guilty of all the democratic transgressions for which he stands accused in your eyes.
The question is whether such culpability gives Britain and the United States the moral (ignore legal) right to impose sanctions?
Examined in isolation, one would answer a speedy yes. However, when one considers the contradictory actions of your governments in relation to other regimes of proven doubtful democratic credentials the answer is perhaps a bit more hesitant.
Naturally, this leads the observer to conclude that your stated reasons (democratic passion) for imposing sanctions against Robert Mugabe are not entirely sincere. It cannot be the case that you sanction Mugabe on grounds of democratic impurity but at the same time enjoy tea and biscuits with the hand-chopping-women-can’t-drive Saudi despot, King Abdulla.
Such a position is an assault on reason itself.
I will not exhaust you by exploring your surprisingly cordial relations with Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman, Turkmenistan and a host of other nations condemned by Human Rights Watch and other democratic barometers.
It would be equally tedious to list nations like Nigeria, Afghanistan and the many others that have held disputed elections but suffer no sanctions, targeted or otherwise.
There is a worrying duplicity to your actions.
By failing to act (sometimes actually congratulating offenders) in other cases of democratic transgression, much doubt is cast on your sincerity when you claim your interference in Zimbabwe’s affairs is motivated by benevolent democratic purism.
It is significant to note that the African Union has called for the lifting of the sanctions imposed on Zimbabwe.
You have ignored these calls.
Sadc has also made similar calls. You have equally ignored Sadc’s concerns.
Thabo Mbeki recently described your attitude as “contempt” for Africa and its institutions.
Unsurprisingly, you do not care what he thinks either.
One wonders whose opinion matters to you.
Belgium?
Of course you are mindful of Belgian economic interests.
This is why you very quickly lifted sanctions on ZMDC at the insistence of Belgium in the hope of protecting Antwerp.
But you refuse to heed the calls of the African Union.
Your greed and brazen hypocrisy is breathtaking.
In all this you continue to claim that you are doing all these things because you care for Zimbabwe’s blacks.
It has nothing to do with white anger over Mugabe’s humiliation of the white farmers, your kith and kin.
The observer wonders why you have this special love for Zimbabwe’s blacks but not for the people of Saudi Arabia? What lucky niggers we are.
Another peculiarity is the whiteness of the sanctions against Zimbabwe. You will note that no South American nation has imposed sanctions on us.
The Arabs have not interfered in our domestic affairs.
The same is true of the peaceful people of Asia and the wider African continent.
The only sanctions against Mugabe are from white nations. This is indeed quite peculiar.
It raises uncomfortable questions about your motives as white nations especially against the background of Mugabe’s humiliation of your white farmer kith and kin. One could be forgiven for entertaining the thought of racial retaliation clothed in the regal apparel of democracy and human rights.
There is a clear racial motive for wishing to teach him a lesson. Perhaps even more damning are the obvious contradictions of your sanctions policy.
A few examples are worth noting.
Jonathan Moyo has been removed from the sanctions list, this without explanation.
He remains part of the beating heart of Zanu-PF strategy and is widely credited with crafting the manifesto whose prescribed policies are of grave concern to your governments.
He certainly has not repented of his past ‘misdeeds’ and, if his rhetoric is anything to go by, he seems very much determined to carry on as he did in past times.
So why has he been removed from the sanctions list?
What good has he done or what evil has he forsaken?
One gets the feeling that your sanctions policy is whimsical and there was never a justifiable reason for him being included on that list in the first place.
Caesar Zvayi’s case makes for equally interesting analysis.
At one time he was also slapped with sanctions, charged with undermining democracy.
I suspect it had something to do with his unabashed and perhaps overly enthusiastic role in delivering state propaganda.
One can find Caesar Zvayi’s editorial methods objectionable but at worst he should be the victim of a damning academic paper not sanctions.
It is not a crime to support Mugabe in the same way it is not a crime to cheer on the bombing of Libya.
I am informed that the said gentleman is now of cheerful persuasion after also finding his name suddenly removed from the sanctions list.
But why should he enjoy such generosity?
He has not repented.
He has not forsaken his past misdeeds if one can call them that.
If anything he is all the more eager and can be found on social networks taunting opposition supporters. He makes no pretense of political impartiality.
There is no objective reason that can be given to explain his removal from the sanctions list.
Again, it becomes clear that he should never have been sanctioned in the first place.
Placing him on the sanctions list was as outrageous as sanctioning the obnoxious Rush Limbaugh for cheering on the invasion of Iraq. It is not as though Zvayi has been calling for and cheering on genocide.
He simply supports an ideology, a political party.
Perhaps the most obscene example of your duplicity as white nations is regarding the Marange diamonds and ZMDC.
In past times, when you foolishly thought you could economically strangle Mugabe from power, you imposed sanctions on ZMDC in the hope of negating the economic benefits of the Marange find.
You condemned the Marange diamonds.
They do not benefit the ordinary people, you bellowed in righteous anger.
The military, which supports Mugabe, is using those diamonds to undermine democracy, you cried.
These are actually blood diamonds, your NGO’s screamed. Blood diamonds? Oh please.
It was just a matter of time before that insatiable white greed overtook your democratic pretensions.
The question is what has changed?
Is the military no longer involved?
Are those diamonds somehow less bloody now?
Not at all, they were never bloody in the first place.
You justified your sanctions using flimsy arguments to give cover to your real objectives.
Now that Sadc and the AU have endorsed Mugabe’s re-election it is becoming increasingly clear that Zanu PF is here to stay. Being the greedy whites that you are, you now want a share of those same ‘bloody’ diamonds you previously condemned.
elgium has thrown away all restraint and made it clear they want to enjoy the benefits that flow from Marange. All this betrays your nature as a dishonest people. I could speak of the now-suspended sanctions against Agribank and IDBZ.
Why were those banks sanctioned in the first place?
We were told they were rotten to the core and were being used to finance Zanu-PF’s subversion of democratic will. Well what has changed?
Again it is yet another example of an incoherent sanctions policy justified based on flimsy arguments.
But even if those arguments are flimsy and without merit, who cares?
You are accountable to nobody.
Such is the nauseous arrogance of white supremacy.
In all this one thing is clear.
Your motives are self-serving and largely racial.
The cheap rhetoric about how much you love our blacks and are trying to protect them from a beastly Mugabe just does not sell anymore.
What we want is to be left alone.
We mean your nations no harm and have no ambition to interfere in your domestic affairs.
We just want to be left alone. Leave Mugabe to us.
If we decide to overthrow his government we will do so of our own initiative. We are quite experienced in that regard, as the Rhodesians will tell you.
Your white club masquerading as benevolent guardians of democracy in Zimbabwe has been discredited.
Our African brothers, as expressed through Sadc and the African Union, do not share your views.
Ndatenda
Ndini muchembere wenyu, Amai Jukwa
Labels: AMBASSADORS, BRUCE DIXON, DEBORAH BRONNERT, SANCTIONS
Read more...
(NEWZIMBABWE) Mugabe recalls all MDC ambassadors
31/10/2013 00:00:00
by Staff Reporter
PRESIDENT Robert Mugabe has reportedly recalled Zimbabwean envoys seconded by the two MDC formations under the shaky coalition agreement sponsored by the regional SADC grouping.
The ambassadorial posts were some of the cushy pickings Zanu PF and the MDCs shared as part of the coalition deal forced on them by SADC after violent but inconclusive elections in 2008.
The coaltion arrangement ended acrimnously with the July 31 elections which were won with a landslide by Mugabe but are dismissed as fraudulent by his rivals.
Morgan Tsvangirai's MDC-T party contributed four ambassadors while the Welshman Ncube-led MDC weighed in with one.
MDC-T spokesperson Douglas Mwonzora confirmed his party’s envoys had been told they were returning home but referred further questions to Tsvangirai’s international advisor Jameson Timba who professed ignorance over the issue.
Said Mwonzora: “It is true I have heard that some have been recalled but although I am not quite certain about this some have remained in their postings.
“I am told Hilda Mufudze is one of those who have been spared but talk to Timba he is the best person on the issue.”
Mufudze is currently Zimbabwe’s ambassador to Sudan.
Foreign Affairs permanent secretary Joey Bimha was not available for comment.
However last month Bimha said Zimbabwe’s 47 foreign representatives would be recalled adding it was likely that Mugabe – swept back into power by a landslide on July 31 – would not be re-appointing the MDC ambassadors.
“As it stands, they signed contracts to serve for four years in 2009, but these contracts have now lapsed,” Bimha said at the time.
The other MDC-T envoys include the scandal-hit Jacqueline Zwambila, ambassador to Australia; Tsvangirai’s cousin Hebson Makuvise who was sent to Germany and Mabel Ngulani was made ambassador to Nigeria.
The Ncube-led MDC’s Trudy Stevenson was stationed in Senegal.
A senior official in the Foreign Affairs Ministry who refused to be identified confirmed that letters of recall were this week dispatched to the envoys and it is now only a matter of time before new representatives are appointed.
Labels: AMBASSADORS, DOUGLAS MWONZORA, MDC
Read more...
(HERALD ZW) Baba Jukwa, Edward Snowden, WikiLeaks
July 14, 2013 SuperAdmin Mai Jukwa
A FEW months ago, I wrote on Deborah and Bruce, the British and American ambassadors. It was my charge that they were shameless hypocrites; not of conscious or deliberate effort but by an involuntary and subconscious superiority complex that has permeated their collective white psyche over a number of centuries.
They have
an odious sense of entitlement, poking their noses into the affairs of others and doing this with
a troubling self-righteous air though their own compound is filthy beyond compare.
They are a law unto themselves
I used to believe the Western world was deliberately objectionable — that they chose to be unjust.
I have since entered a different regime of thought. The contradictions of the Western world are so obvious, so egregious, as to be obvious to even the offender. At least one would think so. Quite clearly this is not the case.
The West does not think itself unjust; if anything it sincerely believes itself to be the salt of the earth.
I now have no doubt in my mind that the British and American ambassadors believe their own nonsense about regime change efforts being motivated by a desire to further human rights and democracy.
Instead of seeing themselves for the gratuitous racists, slave drivers, colonisers, segregationists, Iraq invaders, sanction mongers and greedy capitalists that they are, the British (and their white imperial comrades) see themselves as paragons of virtue.
Not only so, they are puzzled when their acts of global “generosity” are rejected by Africans, Asians and Latin Americans.
The white world sees nothing unjust in Australia or New Zealand.
They were welcomed by the indigenous peoples of those lands and rewarded this generosity with subjugation.
Today Australia and New Zealand are living examples of the wickedness of unchecked white imagination.
They take, take, and continue to take.
Their own lands are not enough for them.
Baba Jukwa and WikiLeaks
Baba Jukwa claims that he is a member of Mugabe’s inner circle.
He is not.
However, let us assume that he is and that all he said thus far was indeed true. Let us assume that Baba Jukwa is indeed leaking State secrets. The contradictions are obvious.
Consider how PayPal, an American online payments processing engine, and VISA, all came together and pulled the plug on WikiLeaks’ funding when Julius Assange began releasing American diplomatic cables and the War Logs.
It was alleged that by exposing American soldiers shooting innocent civilians from a helicopter gunship that Julian Assange was compromising American national security.
Today Assange is holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy in London; his co-conspirator has not been equally lucky and is languishing in an American military facility.
Consider how Facebook seems to very much support the posting of pictures of individuals, their names and phone numbers, together with the encouragement to “phone them and give them no rest” (harassment) as not being in violation of their terms of service.
Would Facebook hold the same position if an anonymous profile began posting the phone numbers of David Cameron’s children and threatening to kidnap them as Baba Jukwa has done to Kasukuwere?
The page would be shut down in minutes.
It is not only that they have offered tacit approval; they have actively encouraged Baba Jukwa.
The Economist and even the BBC carried adoring articles on Baba Jukwa.
It is inconceivable that these organisations would lend support to a page that calls for the abduction of children.
The cunning whites will hurry to say that Mugabe is, in their view, a dictator so the rules that apply for him do not apply to them.
I hate to put things in such prosaic terms but this is precisely how white people think.
It is for this reason that the Americans do not hesitate to drop a bomb to target an alleged insurgent even if he is in bed with his wife and children.
Imagine the outrage if the Russians — pursuing a Chechen rebel — sent in a missile into Manhattan and killed 20 Americans and defended their action by arguing that they had sought the cooperation of the Americans in bringing the rebel to justice but had received no assistance and thus felt compelled to “eliminate” him by any means necessary.
This seems inconceivable because it is grossly unjust but it is happening in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The white world feels that its blood is more precious than the blood of other non-white nationalities.
This is why the West wails itself sore over Sandy Hook, where a mere two dozen kids were killed, but speaks very casually about Iraq where it’s soldiers and the sectarian militia it formed butchered hundreds of thousands.
All this is born of an inherent sense of supremacy that is characteristic of white society. It is not so much born of race but culture.
Mainstream political rhetoric in America unabashedly refers to “safeguarding American interests.”
In their view if a dictator (read Saudi Arabia and Bahrain) serve American oil interests then he is to be supported and supplied with fighter jets.
This sick state of mind is pervasive within the Western world.
Bolivia’s ‘cheap’ President and Edward Snowden
Edward Snowden exposes the depth of Western supremacist thought.
On discovering that the Americans were spying on them, the French and Germans were dismayed.
Allies should not spy on each other, they complained.
Notice that their objection is not to spying against the rest of the world.
Their view is clearly that the Americans can violate the rest of the non-white world with total impunity as long as they do not spy on their fellow “civilised” Europeans.
If it was the case that the Americans had been spying on Bolivia, Nigeria or India then that would have been perfectly acceptable even in view of the fact that none of these nations is at war with America or has expressed any aggressions against it.
But notice that this, the French and Germans are not complaining about spying in general, what has upset them is that they have been put in the same category as niggers for whom they would have expected such activity to be targeted against.
Again the duplicity is obvious to anyone who is not white but the Europeans themselves are entirely oblivious.
One could describe it as intellectual blind spot.
It is blind spot that allows Western ambassadors to jump up and down in synthetic rage at what they call abuses by Mugabe yet their Queen dines with the Saudi despot in whose country women are second class citizens and thieves have feet cut off for having stolen motorbikes. They are oblivious to the violence of their contradiction.
The forced landing of the Bolivian presidential jet outraged Latin America, rightly so.
It is inconceivable that the very nations that routinely scream themselves hoarse over the rule of law would have so flagrantly violated established conventions.
But the message from Europe was clear: you are not one of us and we do not consider your presidency as being of equal weight with that of a European leader.
This is what the Europeans communicated when they forced the Bolivian jet to the ground.
Zero respect.
Their talk of equality is empty and those who take it seriously are to be pitied.
China is hacking us
The Snowden saga exposes the duplicitous nature of Westerners.
Over the past six months the Americans wasted no time to tell the world how nasty the Chinese were.
They were hacking into American computers and the civilised Americans found this unacceptable.
The Chinese had to be put in their place.
This is how cunning and manipulative these people are.
Though they knew that they were actually hacking the Chinese at a greater scale they still thought it right to dishonestly present themselves as an angel of light.
It is the height of deception, but one must not consider this conduct to be out of character.
This is just how they operate.
They manipulate and they deceive.
I view Westerners in quite ungenerous terms.
Their history is littered with slavery, colonialism, and war mongering. It struck me the other day that the only nations that ever talk about sanctioning any other nation on earth are white.
No other race is interested in sanctioning anyone.
It is just the whites. They must ask themselves why this is so.
Ndatenda,
Ndini muchembere wenyu Amai Jukwa
Labels: AMAI JUKWA, AMBASSADORS, BABA JUKWA, BRUCE WHARTON, DEBORAH BONNERT
Read more...
(NEWZIMBABWE, NEWSDAY SA) US to announce policy shift on Zimbabwe
24/04/2013 00:00:00
by Moses Matenga I NewsDay
THE United States will announce major policy changes in its relations with Zimbabwe in a few weeks’ time, Ambassador Bruce Wharton has said.
Wharton told Star FM on Monday night: “It is my sincere hope that we will announce changes on Zimbabwe policy within the next few weeks, and I hope it will be taken in the context that it has to be taken.”
Wharton said the United States understood that Zimbabwe had no obligation to invite observer missions from Western countries during forthcoming general elections, but he hoped the country will open up to the widest scrutiny.
Asked to clarify on the policy changes, the US Embassy public affairs dean Sharon Hudson said she had no adequate details.
Zanu PF representative during the live phone-in radio programme, Christopher Mutsvangwa, spoke glowingly of the US, describing the country as an “elephant” in the international arena.
“Zimbabwe should look forward to working with America. Anything that makes Zimbabwe-America relations move forward is good for Zimbabwe because we are a small country while America is a big country,” Mutsvangwa said.
Relations between Zimbabwe and the United States have been frosty since the latter imposed sanctions in 2001.
However, the US has since re-engaged Zimbabwe with a view to normalising diplomatic relations. Last week, a State Department envoy Andrew Young called on President Robert Mugabe.
Labels: AMBASSADORS, BRUCE WHARTON, SANCTIONS
Read more...
Delegates want diplomats to be ratified by Parliament
By Ernest Chanda and Roy Habaalu
Wed 17 Apr. 2013, 14:01 CAT
DELEGATES at the national convention have introduced and adopted a clause that requires diplomatic appointees to be ratified by the National Assembly.
And the delegates have rejected a proposal to include the minimum of a university degree among the qualifications of a presidential candidate.
When considering an article that talks about the executive functions of a president, the delegates, through a thematic group on Executive and Legislature, added a clause that the National Assembly ratifies diplomatic appointments.
Article 90 (2) states that: "Without limiting clause (1) and the other provisions of this Constitution, the President shall - (b) accredit and appoint ambassadors, high commissioners, plenipotentiaries, diplomatic representatives and consuls."
But the group presented to the convention a proposal that: "Ambassadors, High Commissioners, plenipotentiaries are subject to National Assembly ratification."
Supporting the proposal, Keembe MMD member of parliament Lieutenant General Ronnie Shikapwasha said he had difficulties coordinating with some diplomats when he served as foreign affairs minister.
"As minister I went round visiting many of the ambassadors and many of those that were appointed without Parliament ratification; and there were many questions that I found, how and why some of them were appointed. And therefore it is important that there's a second player that ratifies ambassadors before they go into service. We are not taking away the powers of the president to appoint. No! We are saying when the president appoints let the men be ratified by Parliament in order to ensure that we have a diplomatic cadre of professionals that represent Zambia," said Lt Gen Shikapwasha. "As minister of foreign affairs then, I had many difficulties to move the policy of changing Zambia from that of freedom fighting policy and independence of Southern Africa to the economic policy for some ambassadors to respond."
Supporting the same proposal, former Secretary to the Cabinet Sketchley Sachika said sometimes presidents appointed their girlfriends into foreign service.
But immediate former foreign affairs minister Kabinga Pande disagreed with the two delegates.
"You cannot take away the powers from the president. That (diplomat) is a direct representative of the president. He (president) must have direct power to recall an ambassador who is not performing. And if we allow this clause, Zambia will be the only country to do that," debated Pande.
Bishop John Mambo also argued that ambassadors were not subject to Parliament ratification anywhere in the world, except the United States.
And the convention rejected the degree clause that was introduced outside the draft constitution as one of qualifications of a presidential candidate.
Many delegates felt that there were few people with access to university education.
And the convention rejected a proposal in the draft constitution that the president should consult Parliament before declaring war.
Many delegates said time was a serious factor in war; that by the time the president was consulting Parliament, the nation, including Parliament, would have been bombed.
The delegates resolved that the president be given room to declare war without Parliament ratification.
Meanwhile, Fr Richard Luonde says Zambians would for the first time have a constitution on their own because the government is not interfering in the process.
Fr Luonde said the PF had shown that it was committed to a people-driven constitution by not imposing it desires on delegates drafting the constitution.
"Those who are saying the process would fail will be disappointed because Zambians would have been given what they wanted in the constitution; they will be rewarded at the end," Fr Luonde said.
He said delegates are allowed to debate freely unlike during the Nation Constitutional Conference that never allowed contentious articles to be subjected to a vote.
"MMD imposed things that suited them and never allowed the wishes of the people to prevail but now delegates are debating freely and I hope Zambians would support the outcome of the final product," Fr Luonde.
Officially opening the National Convention, President Michael Sata said he was determined to facilitate a people-driven constitution and urged delegates to consider the assignment a call to national duty.
Labels: AMBASSADORS, CIVIL SERVANTS, PARLIAMENT
Read more...
(HERALD ZW) Maize farmers want US$400/tonne
Friday, 05 April 2013 00:00
COMMENT - Farmers (including tobacco farmers) should pay their taxes in maize.
Farmers unions have submitted proposals to the Government to peg the producer price for maize this year at US$400 per tonne, up from the US$295 which the Grain Marketing Board is currently paying.
Private buyers are offering prices just above US$300 per tonne. The grain marketing season begins on April 1 and the Government is yet to fix the producer price for this year.
Zimbabwe Farmers’ Union second vice president Mr Berean Mukwende said production costs had been increasing by high margins every year while the producer price remained stagnant.
“We have submitted a proposal to Government. We are looking at a price of US$400 per tonne to recoup production costs. That is our recommendation because generally that is also the landing price for imported maize,” he said.
Mr Mukwende said the producer price would protect farmers from unscrupulous grain buyers who often rip them off by offering very low prices.
Maize production has generally declined in the country due to droughts experienced in some parts of the country and also low producer prices which have driven some farmers to shift to other crops like tobacco.
Zimbabwe Commercial Farmers’ Union vice president Mr Johnson Mapira said the GMB should not pay less than US$400 per tonne to restore confidence among farmers.
Mr Mapira urged farmers to aim for higher yields per hectare in order to get more returns.
“We encourage farmers to aim for at least four tonnes of maize per hectare. It is even possible for farmers to get 10 tonnes per hectare and if we multiply it by US$400, it is a lot of money,” he said.
He urged farmers to deliver their grain to the GMB early to prevent it from deteriorating in quality mainly due to pests.
Zimbabwe requires 1 384 million tonnes of grain for human consumption and 350 000 tonnes for livestock and other uses.
This year the country is again facing maize shortages and will have to import with agriculture experts calling on the Government to rehabilitate and install irrigation infrastructure as well as provide incentives for producing the crop. - New Ziana.
http://www.herald.co.zw/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=73459%3Athe-two-white-wicked-ambassadors&catid=93%3Amai-jukwa&Itemid=159#.UWH5BkpTsVc
The two white, wicked ambassadors
Sunday, 07 April 2013 20:35
Some will protest the unrestrained aggression of this title. I offer no apologies for stating facts as they are. If the American and British ambassadors, Bruce and Deborah, wish for a more favourable appraisal, they must put an immediate stop to their shameless acts of dishonesty as well as their wicked and unprovoked aggression.
Let this be made clear, Zimbabwe has not disengaged any nation nor has it been ostracised by the wider international community; we continue to enjoy cordial relations with peace-loving nations.
Brazil, China, Russia, Japan, South Africa, Qatar, India, and Indonesia a host of other countries are true friends of Zimbabwe.
If Britain and the United States wish to re-engage with Zimbabwe they simply need to unclench their imperial fists and shake the hand of friendship that Zimbabwe has extended to all peoples of this earth.
Zimbabwe has not expressed military aggressions against them. We have not sought to annex a chunk of Essex. We have not imposed sanctions against them. We have not sought to sabotage their interests in the region although this is within our capacity.
It is their clenched fist alone that needs reform.
We reject in the strongest terms the propaganda attempt by the British to paint themselves as benevolent hands somehow extending an olive branch to a nation otherwise living in the shadows.
This is nonsense.
The only countries that imposed sanctions on Zimbabwe were white Western nations standing in racist solidarity with the 4500 British farmers that President Mugabe kicked out after Britain foolishly tried to pull fast one by reneging on their Lancaster House commitments.
We are not living in the shadows except to those who think that the West is the sunshine of this world. It is not.
Bruce and Deborah, the chief cheerleaders of these racist machinations that are dishonestly cloaked in the regal language of democracy and human rights, made for a pathetic spectacle these past few weeks.
Prancing about making a nuisance of themselves on social media networks, they were at pains to be seen as extending some kind of generosity for which the people of Zimbabwe needed to applaud them.
This fantasy exists only in their racist heads and cannot be allowed to carry on. It is necessary to now put the facts into perspective and rescue these rogue ambassadors from the captivity of their own delusions.
Only white nations
The only countries that “disengaged” and imposed sanctions — call them targeted or whatever sanitising term you wish — against Zimbabwe were white. This is quite a peculiarity.
Of all the diverse peoples of this earth is it a coincidence that only white nations imposed sanctions? These white former colonisers are so shameless as to claim they imposed these sanctions because they love Zimbabweans.
The contradictions are violent.
All other countries of this earth refused to join their racist and vindictive assault, which was in retaliation for our decision to kick out the British farmers. They stole that land and got their just desserts.
There are no Zimbabwean farmers in Britain and we will never apologise for kicking colonial criminals out.
Those greedy white former farmers salivating at the thought of compensation should read this clearly — not a penny will be paid. We will never tax Zimbabweans to reward British thieves.
They are very angry
The white world had grown accustomed to taking over the land and resources of others and getting away with it. Australia is a perfect example of this.
In that wicked example of white conquest, the indigenous aboriginals live on the periphery of society while criminals of white European extraction have established themselves as the lawful authority.
A similar effort is underway in Argentina.
The insatiable greed of the British is laying claim to the Malvinas, lands that are thousands of miles from Britain. It defies logic.
They have installed their kith and kin on that land and legitimise their shameless acts with empty democratic gestures to rubber stamp their theft.
President Mugabe said no to this, we could not accept domination in our own lands. Mugabe’s ‘chutzpah’ shocked the white world.
Never before had a nigger successfully sequestrated property from the white man. They had grown accustomed to pillaging the resources of indigenous peoples the world over and had elevated their criminality to a legitimate system of ownership.
Robert Mugabe challenged this, smashing their clay-pot doctrines of ownership to pieces.
He had to be taught a lesson.
Jumping up and down, frothing with racist rage, the British co-opted their American brothers and the rest of their white kith and kin. All other nations refused to take part.
This is an important point.
In the end it was only white countries that joined forces against Zimbabwe.
Germany, Australia, New Zealand, Britain, France, the United States and a handful of other pathetically vindictive white countries came together in ungodly alliance and imposed crippling sanctions.
At one time they went to the United Nations begging the rest of the world to join in their unrighteous crusade in a hope to legitimise what was clearly a racial affair.
The world said no.
To this day that racist club remains a shameless grouping of white nations that has tried every dirty trick in the book to paint themselves as friends of Zimbabwe when even drunkards in beer halls know that they are nothing more than Friends of Britain against Zimbabwe.
Shameless hypocrites
How would the people of Britain have reacted if the Kremlin had announced that it was working with the Conservative party to overthrow the Labour government of Tony Blair on the grounds that the invasion of Iraq was an unforgivable transgression that violated international law?
A great number of British citizens disagreed with Tony Blair’s decision to invade a foreign country.
An even greater number, perhaps in the millions, opposed his political ideology and certainly wanted him out of office.
Could we then say the British would embrace this external interference by Vladimir Putin?
I think not.
Would the people not scream treason if documents were uncovered showing the leader of the Conservative party working in cahoots with the Russians, giving them information on government officials and urging them on to sanction the country?
Would this not amount to one of the greatest scandals of British politics? Consider how they screamed themselves sore over cash for questions.
The people of Britain would resent external interference in their domestic affairs and rightly so.
They are a sovereign state. So how is it that Tony Blair confidently stood in the Commons and stated quite publicly that his government was actively working with the MDC?
How is that the WikiLeaks cables show Tendai Biti identifying Government officials and entities that should be placed on the sanctions list?
How is it that we read another cable of Morgan Tsvangirai shamelessly telling the ambassador to keep the sanctions in place and admitting that his public calls for their removal were merely for show?
They still perceive Zimbabwe to be a “sub-territory” where their jurisdiction presides.
They find comfort for their white supremacist ideas in leaders like Tsvangirai who lack the intellectual rigour to realise that they are being used to re-establish this jurisdiction.
Like Abel Muzorewa, Tsvangirai is not a bad man. He is simply being used as British tissue paper and will be disposed of in the rightful place for tissue paper when the time comes.
This is how the British operate.
The use, abuse and then dump padlock-brain puppets.
This glaring duplicity is apparent only to us; the likes of Bruce and Deborah are entirely oblivious.
How else could one explain how they esteem themselves celestial beings of the democratic order and seek to instruct us on the rule of law whilst at the very same time holding a man in Guantanamo Bay for ten years without charge and without trial?
The hypocrisy of Bruce and Deborah is born of an inherent superiority complex that bleeds into the depths of their very intellects from childhood and blinds them to anything that contradicts white domination.
It is a classic case of the Orwellian doublethink in which the depraved mind manages to hold two diametrically opposing thoughts.
This explains why the former white farmers actually think that they deserve compensation for land that they stole from us through violent subjugation whilst at the same time pleading reconciliation and a forgiveness of sins for their colonial misdeeds.
It is quite similar to bandit who waylays a horseman, takes his beast and possessions and flees.
On apprehension that bandit pleads the virtues of forgiveness and mercy but tactfully explains that bygones must bygones and how it is only right he be allowed to keep the horse.
In this way he is not only forgiven of his sins but gets to keep the loot as well.
The rest of us black mortals find this outrageous and are puzzled by this manner of logic, but Deborah and Bruce see it through an entirely different lens. That lens is white.
Diplomatic deodorant
In an effort to stem the stench of their duplicity these two hypocrites run around shouting into every ear that is willing to listen how generous they are and how great their love for Zimbabwe is.
They accomplish this through hollow and ineffectual charitable gestures. They call it aid.
After all these years of British and American generosity I would like to meet even just a single Zimbabwean who was set free from poverty by these said generosities.
I do not ask for a dozen such people, merely one. Not a single peasant in Zimbabwe has had their life changed by these self-serving aid programmes.
If you dare ask me for an example of a person set free by Robert Mugabe’s much-maligned land reform, I will send you to the tobacco floors and show you thousands.
It is unhealthy for the soul to take pleasure in the suffering of an enemy but one is permitted the occasional indulgence.
I took quite some satisfaction in reading of Madhuku’s recent emotional outburst in which he publicly railed against his former Western handlers, admitting that they had used him as a pawn to further their selfish interests.
Tsvangirai’s “Damascus moment” is also fast approaching.
As a child my father often used to say “murungu akaipa”.
In the naiveté of youth I thought him prosaic and extreme. His wisdom becomes evident with each passing day.
We have allowed these dishonest diplomats to carry on unchallenged for far too long. We are stepping into a new season in which we are taking these racist forces right by their demonic horns.
If they value the few remaining shreds of prestige they still enjoy amongst weak and gullible black minds of the Muzorewa persuasion, they would do well to keep a low profile as is becoming of diplomats.
* Mai Jukwa is a loving mother of three. She respects Robert Mugabe, is amused by Tsvangirai and feels sorry for Mutambara.
Labels: AMBASSADORS, GRAIN MARKETING BOARD (ZW), JOHNSON MAPIRA, MAI JUKWA, MAIZE
Read more...
COMMENT - More neoliberal garbage heaped upon the people of Malawi. Read the comments on the original site - people aren't buying it. First fix Britain, Michael, then you have a basis from which to lecture to people about the virtues of currency devaluation. For Michael Nevin's information - we're aware that it weren't the 'bad policies' of President Bingu wa Mutharika that helped give the people of Malawi a hard time. It were the budget suspension by the EU over a $20 million extension of credit to Zimbabwe ("
(NYASATIMES) EU petitioned to suspend aid to Malawi over bankrolling Mugabe"), and the violation of the World Bank's policy of no support for agriculture which on top of that turned out to be hugely successful (
"(HERALD, NYT) How Malawi fed its own people"), that turned the West on President Bingu wa Mutharika and the people of Malawi. Now Michael Nevin is trying to sell that Malawi would have become a failed state if they hadn't devalued the Malawi Kwacha? What a twerp. In Nevin World, it is ok to increase the suffering of the Malawian people, as long as it means greater profits (lower wages) for the extractive industries.
Malawi could have become a failed state without devaluation- British diplomat
By Raphael Tenthani
December 15, 2012
Historic relations between Great Britain and Malawi hit its lowest ebb when former President Bingu wa Mutharika expelled Her Majesty’s top envoy in Lilongwe after a leaked diplomatic cable to London described him as “increasingly becoming autocratic and intolerance of criticism”.
Following his death in April, his successor Joyce Banda went on a diplomatic charm offensive which saw the restoration of residential diplomatic relations between the two countries. RAPHAEL TENTHANI had a conversation with the new British High Commissioner to Malawi Michael Nevin.
Excerpts:
Your Excellency, welcome back to Malawi. I know this is your second tour of duty. How does it feel to be back? Have you found the country the way you left it or it has improved or deteriorated?
It is a great honour for me to be back in Malawi. In our postings system, we bid and compete for jobs, so I obviously wanted to come back and was fortunate to be able to.
I found that there is a growing young, confident, well-educated and talented group of people. There is a greater understanding of and demand for rights. Good progress has been made on infant mortality and raising longevity of life, the latter partly because of access to HIV/AIDS drugs. And there has been some infrastructure development.
But poverty is still far too high; the economic boom and bust, linked to politics, is too frequent; there is talk about large scale irrigation and commercialisation of agriculture but not yet a sustained national drive to achieve it; population growth threatens to undermine the gains made; and democratic institutions could be more robust and effective. However, I do sense the beginnings of a more serious internal discussion about Malawi’s future and the need to reduce donor dependency. The more the country collectively can agree on a vision and focus on getting there, the better.
Michael Nevin inspecting the guard of honor on the day he presenting his letters of Credentials to President Banda
Your coming signified a thaw in the soured relations between Lilongwe and London that came to a head with the expulsion of your predecessor, His Excellency Fergus Cochrane-Dyet. Recently, Britain announced a £20 million budgetary support to Malawi, the first budgetary support since suspension of aid in July 2011. Does this mean that all concerns that led to the suspension have been addressed?
What happened diplomatically between our two countries was unfortunate and I hope never happens again. However, Malawi and the UK have a long standing, deep and broad relationship that goes way beyond diplomatic relations. That helped during those difficult times.
Central to the UK-Malawi relationship is our shared objective to see Malawi lift itself out of poverty. I want to make clear that despite the difficult diplomatic period, the UK never abandoned Malawi. UKAid, through DFID, continued to help people access health, get education and feed themselves. That support has increased in response to what we judge as good economic and governance policies under the new government.
But the economy remains fragile. The one-off £20 million emergency budget support approved by DFID’s Secretary of State Justine Greening recognised that the country needs an extra boost to ensure macro-economic stability, within the context of progress on economic and budgetary management, governance and human rights. The Secretary of State wants to allow the Government to build a good track record of further progress before making any decisions on regular budget support.
One of the reasons that led to either suspension or delay in disbursing of aid to Malawi by the West was the Mutharika administration’s refusal to devalue the kwacha. Now the government of President Joyce Banda has not only devalued but also floated the kwacha. The results are there for all to see: prices of goods and services have gone through the roof. Do you believe it was right for Malawi to not only devalue but also float the kwacha?
There is no doubt that the Malawian economy was in bad shape as a result of the poor economic policies pursued by the previous administration. Perhaps the pain could have been lessened if there had been a move to devalue much earlier, during the last government. But we are where we are.
Floating the exchange rate is part of an appropriate monetary policy. I commend the Governor of the Reserve Bank of Malawi for conducting a difficult balancing act. If the currency does not float, the country gets a false sense of how much its imports do cost and their exports should cost. We saw the effect during the last administration, with currency black markets, forex flight, pressure on state institutions to cook the books and creditors deciding not to lend to Malawi.
Basically, the country was importing far too much, at an unrealistic price, and its reserves and credit were plummeting. Without devaluation, the country could have become a failed state.
Now, with a free exchange rate, international confidence is coming back, exporters to Malawi believe they are getting a fairer price, as do exporters from Malawi, and macro-economic stability is returning. Inflation is high, but it is not hyper-inflation. Sticking to the current monetary, and most importantly, fiscal policies should help to reduce inflation next year.
Some quarters are urging the Banda administration to halt the floatation of the kwacha. Do you think that that would be a wise thing to do?
It would be a disaster. You would quickly see the impact. Economic policy reversals and uncertainty are what the financial money markets, creditors and investors are most wary of. Credit and forex would soon dry up and the black market for forex would return.
All the economic reforms implemented so far are in line with Malawi’s economic recovery programme as agreed with the IMF. We believe this was necessary to address long standing concerns around economic management. If these measures are abandoned, there is a risk that the economy could get worse.
Critics say the West, including Great Britain, hoodwinked the Banda administration to devalue the kwacha with assurances of injection of aid to cushion its after-effects. But the reality now is that such aid is only coming in trickles. Do you agree that such critics have a point?
First of all, the country made its own decision to devalue because it knew that this was in the country’s interests. Secondly, it is a myth to suggest that donors have not responded. From April 2012 to the end of this year, donors will have injected over $0.8billion into Malawi. UKAid alone accounts for over £88 million of that. This is far higher than initially intended.
So any suggestions that the donors have not fulfilled their side of the bargain are either made through lack of knowledge or mischief.
Malawi is still grappling with the issue of minority rights vis-à-vis whether or not to decriminalise same-sex relationships. Prime Minister David Cameron was quoted as saying its aid to developing world will be tied to how such countries treat rights of minorities such as gays and lesbians. Can you explain this?
Our position that fundamental rights, including those of minorities, should be upheld is well known. We are not promoting or forcing anyone to adopt a particular lifestyle. But we do not agree that someone should be put in prison simply because they are gay. Human rights are universal and should not be determined by sexual orientation or gender identity.
But it is for Malawi to decide how to handle this issue within its human rights responsibilities. We welcome the debate that has been started. We do not tie our assistance or relationship purely to one issue, but instead consider the broader indicators and trends of good governance and human rights.
The debate should be conducted on its own merits, not whether there will be more or less money from donors.
There is an on-going debate on whether or not it was proper for President Banda to put the Malawi Electoral Commission under the office of the Vice-President. What’s your take on this?
The independence of the MEC is vital; as is the perception of a credible election. We understand too that the MEC needs a docking point within the administration to help it achieve its objectives. It is for stakeholders to decide whether current arrangements fulfil those goals.
Lastly, Your Excellency, several European countries – including Great Britain – are fighting recession. Will this have any effect on volumes of aid to developing countries like Malawi? (I am specifically talking about the United Kingdom here.)
Yes, we have an austerity budget in the UK. Times are tough there too. That is why it is important to make every pound count, and for the Malawi Government to ensure it is prioritising the right things.
But, despite our own difficult situation, the British people and Government understand the importance of assistance to other countries, and the positive impact that in turn can have on the UK. The British Government remains committed to achieving its target of 0.7% of its GNP spent on development assistance by 2013. The UK – and DFID in particular – has won great admiration for this and is at the forefront globally in urging other countries to match that commitment.
*Source: Daily Times
Labels: AMBASSADORS, GREAT DEPRESSION II, KWACHA (MALAWI), MALAWI, MICHAEL NEVIN, NEOLIBERALISM
Read more...
