In a clear move to secure his future after Government, Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai has officially pleaded with authorities to allow him to purchase his official Highlands mansion for US$4,5 million and his official Mercedes-Benz vehicle for an undisclosed amount. The MDC-T leader’s plea is indicative of the fact that he is not confident of winning the forthcoming harmonised elections while also raising suspicion on the source of his funds.
Impeccable sources told The Sunday Mail last week that Mr Tsvangirai initially disclosed to Public Works Minister Mr Joel Gabuza Gabbuza that he wanted to purchase the luxurious property priced at a whopping US$3 million.
He was asked to make an official request in writing which he did two weeks ago.
The ministry advised the PM that he could only secure the house after paying the US$3 million as well as a further US$1,5 million which would settle a loan granted to him by the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe for the purposes of renovating the property.
Although Minister Gabbuza last night said he is yet to receive official communication on the proposed house purchase, sources maintained the Prime Minister submitted a formal request.
Mr Tsvangirai’s spokesman, Mr Luke Tamborinyoka, could not be reached for comment last night, but several MDC-T officials who commented on the matter expressed shock that their boss had that kind of money to spend on a house, especially now when his party is facing serious financial challenges.
An MDC-T provincial executive member who spoke on condition of anonymity said most party officials were disappointed by their leader’s decision.
“The MDC-T is a party for change, but, definitely US$4,5 million is not small change.”
Another top party official said Mr Tsvangirai risked alienating himself from the party “which is in dire straits.”
“It is wrong timing to do such a thing. Why couldn’t he wait until after the elections? After all, everyone knows that the party’s finances are in a bad state.
“I do not remember the last time we bought vehicles, but, just go to Jongwe (Zanu-PF headquarters in Harare) and you will see how many vehicles are parked there. People in the MDC-T are not happy. We do not even know the last time we bought chairs for our offices.”
The Highlands mansion courted some controversy for the Prime Minister after he was accused of securing two separate loans for the same property. He had allegedly received US$1,5 million from Treasury and another US$1,5 million from the Reserve Bank.
Last week, the Western media attacked him over his apparent love for a lavish lifestyle. In an article titled Tasting Good Life, MDC-T Slips off Pedestal, The New York Times wrote that Mr Tsvangirai was content with forming the inclusive Government alongside Zanu-PF to secure a luxurious lifestyle.
CNN also quizzed him for failing to identify with the masses.
In addition, the Prime Minister’s spending sprees came under the spotlight after he reportedly splashed US$300 000 to buy the silence of his traditional wife, Ms Locadia Karimatsenga Tembo.
CNN Acts as Pentagon Mouthpiece with its “Report” that Iran Shot at a US Drone
By Glen Greenwald
Global Research, November 10, 2012
Common Dreams 8 November 2012
CNN Loses Half Its Viewers: Corporate Media Downhill Plunge Continues As Alternative Media Explodes
Barbara Starr, CNN’s Pentagon reporter (more accurately known as: the Pentagon’s reporter at CNN), has an exciting exclusive today. Exclusively relying upon “three senior officials” in the Obama administration (all anonymous, needless to say), she claims that “two Iranian Su-25 fighter jets fired on an unarmed US Air Force Predator drone in the Persian Gulf last week,” while “the drone was in international airspace east of Kuwait . . . engaged in routine maritime surveillance.”
The drone was not hit, but, says CNN, “the incident raises fresh concerns within the Obama administration about Iranian military aggression in crucial Gulf oil shipping lanes.”
First things first: let us pause for a moment to extend our thoughts and prayers to this US drone. Although it was not physically injured, being shot at by the Iranians – while it was doing nothing other than peacefully minding its own business – must have been a very traumatic experience. I think I speak on behalf of everyone, regardless of political views, when I say that we all wish this brave hero a speedy recovery and hope it is back in full health soon, protecting our freedom.
The CNN report on this incident is revealing indeed. Every paragraph – literally – contains nothing but mindless summaries of the claims of US government officials. There is not an iota of skepticism about any of the assertions, including how this incident happened, what the drone was doing at the time, or where it took place. It is pure US government press release – literally; I defy anyone to identify any differences if the US government had issued its own press release directly rather than issuing it masquerading as a leaked CNN report.
Most notably, CNN does not even bother with the pretense of trying to include the claims of the Iranian government about what happened. There is no indication that the self-described news outlet even made an effort to contact Tehran to obtain their rendition of these events or even confirmation that it occurred. It simply regurgitates the accusations of anonymous US officials that Iran, with no provocation, out of the blue decided to shoot at a US drone in international airspace. (Although CNN does not mention it, last December Iran shot down a US drone which, it claims (and the US does not deny) was in Iranian air space).
That CNN’s prime mission is to serve the US government is hardly news. But given the magnitude of these kinds of accusations – their obvious ability, if not intent, to bolster animosity on the part of the US public toward Iran and heighten tensions between the two nations – shouldn’t CNN at least pretend to be a bit more skeptical and even-handed about how it is reporting these claims? Anonymous Bush officials claim Saddam is reconstituting his nuclear program; anonymous Obama officials claim Iran illegally shot at a US drone for no reason.
But nothing can top this sentence from CNN, intended to explain the significance of this alleged event: “Iran has, at times, been confrontational in the region.” Yes, indeed they have – in stark contrast to the peaceful United States, which never is. Or, as Jeremy Scahill today, anticipating how Starr might present her report on-air on CNN later today: “Iran, which has launched airstrikes in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and [holding earpiece] — wait, what’s that, Wolf? Oh, right. The US, which has…” Scahill was being a bit generous to Wolf Blitzer there, who would be far more likely to add; “yes, that’s right, Barbara: and we should also remind our viewers how Iran, just a few short years ago, attacked its neighbor Iraq, destroyed the country, and then occupied it for almost a decade, showing how aggressive the mullahs are willing to be in this region.”
In case any of you thought the US media would change its future behavior in light of the debacle during the run-up to the Iraq War – and, really, were any of you thinking they would? – this is your answer. The pre-Iraq-War behavior wasn’t an abandonment of their purpose but the supreme affirmation of it: to drape the claims of the US government with independent credibility, dutifully serve its interests, and contrive an appearance of a free press. This is our adversarial, watchdog media in action.
Iranian evil
This all reminds me of a debate I did a couple years ago on MSNBC with Arianna Huffington and the Washington Post’s Jonathan Capehart over Iran and whether it should be viewed as an aggressor and enemy of the US. For most of the debate, MSNBC kept showing scary video footage of a test of a mid-range missile which Iran had just conducted, and then Capehart picked up on that to tell me, in essence: how can you say Iran isn’t aggressive when they’re testing these missiles? Yes, because, clearly, countries of peace (such as the US and Israel) would never do something as belligerent as testing missiles, much like no real Country of Peace would ever want to acquire a nuclear weapon.
Glenn Greenwald is a columnist on civil liberties and US national security issues for the Guardian. A former constitutional lawyer, he was until 2012 a contributing writer at Salon.
Kalungu-Banda urges a new approach to leadership in Africa By Wana Kalala and Speedwell Mupuchi Mon 23 July 2012, 07:30 CAT
AFRICAN leaders need to revisit the notion of leadership as servanthood, says organisation and leadership development consultant Martin Kalungu-Banda. And Post editor Fred M'membe says African journalists should always seek good journalism and strive for excellence.
Making a presentation on the theme 'Leadership in Africa' at a media forum on Friday ahead of yesterday's CNN MultiChoice African Journalist Awards, Kalungu-Banda (right) said many leaders on the continent, whether in government or the business sector, were surrounded by advisors who had lost their individual voice and frequently specialised in second guessing what the leader wanted. "One person with power, and everybody starts second guessing that person with power, and Cabinet meetings quite often are not Cabinet meetings; they are either announcement meetings or instruction meetings. Most of the times, the relationship between a leader especially of a political nature and those around them are those relationships between one adult, a big headmaster, and extremely timid children," he said.
Kalungu-Banda, former advisor of late president Levy Mwanawasa, said the major challenge facing Africa was not poverty or the lack of housing and social services, but that those entrusted with leading had no room to engage in thinking about the challenges they faced.
He said people in positions of authority need to devise mechanisms that would enable them engage constructively with those they lead.
"The higher you go, the less truth reaches you. So you need to get a mechanism for getting down. In your own system as an organisation, as a business, when you start seeing one another as collaborators into the mission of the institution, into the mission of the country, relations become different," he said.
Kalungu-Banda said African leaders had lost the notion of leadership as service, and had instead adopted the biblical creation narrative. "African presidents can actually 'mimic' God. 'Let there be a central bank governor', and there is. 'Let there be headmaster of X', and there is; 'let there not be primary school', and there isn't. It is unnatural for human beings to have such overwhelming power," he said.
Kalungu-Banda said the role of leaders was to inspire those around them. "The primary role of leadership is to create an environment which those you are leading can think in the best way possible.
You are not expected to know all the answers. No matter how good, intelligent and educated you are, you just won't have all the answers it takes to take your society, your organisation to where it ought to be. Create an environment where those immediately around you are and in the different circles are thinking partners," Kalungu-Banda said. He called for a re-defining of the concept of leadership in Africa.
"In a modern state, we've never sat down to define how our leaders and ourselves engage in order to continuously increase the betterment of our systems. Other than the early immediate post-colonial efforts made by Leopold Senghor, Kenneth Kaunda, Julius Nyerere, with their own philosophies, we have not sat down as a continent to re-define leadership in the context of a modern state," he said.
He also urged the media to use the "phenomenal power" it wields responsibly. "In addition to your courage, in addition to your power, think of the possibility that you ought to be intellectual scavengers; because one line of knowledge for people like you won't do. You must be as interested in psychology and neuroscience and biology as you are interested in literary style…How human beings change must be something you are deeply interested in," Kalungu-Banda said.
He said the continent was changing at a fast pace and its leaders should inspire citizens to tap into the richness "within ourselves". "(African leaders) can do symbolic gestures that help us to search for our own giftedness, for our own talents, and then together we can create a better continent," said Kalungu-Banda.
Friday's media forum was attended by media practitioners from across the continent, as well as finalists of yesterday's CNN MultiChoice African Journalist Awards.
And speaking on a panel discussion on Ethics in Journalism at Chaminuka Lodge ahead of yesterday's CNN MultiChoice African Journalist Awards, M'membe urged journalists to defend the practice of journalism whenever and wherever it is threatened.
The panel also comprised Joyce Mhaville, managing director of Tanzania's ITV, Kim Norgaar from CNN International and Gbenga Adefaye, general manager and editor-in-chief of Nigeria's Vanguard.
"By that what I mean is, the greatest right in this world is the right to be wrong. The issues we are dealing with are difficult issues, they are very difficult, complex issues; it's not a question of wrong or right, it's not a question of black or white; these are not like laws, laws are very easy to define. You know when the law is broken. Ethical considerations are complex issues that require discussion.
But the bad journalism that you are condemning today may produce good journalism tomorrow," he said. "…there was a time when Nelson Mandela was called a terrorist in prison by the Western media. Today, the same media is praising Mandela in all sorts of ways. The African National Congress was a terrorist organisation, SWAPO was a terrorist organisation, ZAPU, ZANU, FRELIMO were terrorists organisations. MPLA (Angola) was a terrorist organisation. The Western media carried those stories.
We saw the worst journalism that I can talk about in the reporting of the Western media in this region. One white person is killed in Rhodesia, it is coverage the whole world; hundreds of people are massacred in Kassinga in southern Angola, it's not a story. But that will not stop me from defending the Western media when it is attacked. I am not defending a bad story per se, I am defending the right to journalism. I am defending something that is more supreme than one story or two stories or a thousand stories."
M'membe challenged the media to defend the right to gather information and disseminate it consistently and continually.
"Whether a journalist is wrong or right, I will defend them. I am not defending the wrong act, I am defending their right to do their job. There is no profession where people don't get things wrong. People are dying in hospitals, killed by doctors, most of them don't even go to prison. I get a story wrong, I am sent to prison.
We have to defend journalism, and there is distinction between a bad story and the general practice of journalism. One wrong story does not make me qualify to be condemned for life. A bad newspaper today may be a good newspaper tomorrow that will serve society, the world and humanity," said M'membe. "Let's defend journalism simply because it is journalism…This is the appeal I make to all of you: defend journalism for the sake of journalism, even the journalism that you disagree with, defend it, defend the journalist you detest the most when they are attacked. But when we gather like this, let's critically look at our work in the spirit of criticism and self-criticism." Mhaville urged the journalists from across Africa to defend journalism at all costs.
She called for media houses to educate their journalists on ethics. "It's very important for the African media to learn from each other, we should not only depend on the western media, BBC, CNN because they carry the world agenda, it's high time to have an African agenda in the sense of "I need to get news from Nigeria to hear what the Nigerians are saying and from Southern Africa to hear what the South Africans are saying," she said. Mhaville said only journalists could defend journalism in Africa. She also challenged the media to have ethics that were implementable.
Adefaye challenged journalists to do for themselves what was credible. Norgaard also challenged journalists to reflect on why they became journalists. He noted that the quality of journalism of the independent media in Africa was changing.
"Governments are changing, the economy of Africa is changing, we have a great future ahead in our profession as journalists," said Norgaard. Several African journalists expressed various concerns like low pay and taking bribes that affected the practice of journalism in many countries.
Mixed Reports from Zimbabwe
Propaganda, Lies and Deceit Surround the Situation in Zimbabwe
Share Article | Jul 9, 2008 Andrew Woolford
David Daniels of Friends of Zimbabwe returns to his hotel room after observing the 2005 General Elections in Zimbabwe, turns on the television and sees CNN reporting that Zimbabwe is in a terrible state and there is open violence in the streets, when Daniels saw this he said "Oh my God." According to Daniels what was reported then was totally distorted.
At a forum on July 3, 2008 held at the National Black Theater in Harlem, New York, observers of the June 27th Elections held in Zimbabwe said that what the public is hearing about Zimbabwe are not all true.
The panel for the forum consisted of Viola Plummer, Omowale Clay, Vernon Verdree and Robert Taylor. They spoke on Zimbabwe's national sovereignty, reclaimed land for indigenous Zimbabweans, and economic sanctions on Zimbabwe.
The observers, went to Zimbabwe on invitation from Zimbabwe's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and are apart of the December 12th Movement, located at Sistas' Place in Bedford-Stuyvesant, Brooklyn. This African-American organization has been following the issues across the continent of Africa since 1987 and has recently decided to tackle the issue of Zimbabwe and propaganda surrounding the nation.
Along with news out of Zimbabwe, the panel brought with them the official results of the run-off elections. The results stand at the ZANU-PF winning with 85.5% of the votes.
Vernon Verdree, the youth representative, said that the results of the election are because of Mugabe and ZANU-PF "going to work."
According to the statistics they provided, Mugabe and the ZANU-PF worked very hard in insuring that Zimbabwe stays in control of those who fought against colonial rule, not only did ZANU-PF win by 1,917,269 votes, but also they managed a 42% increase in votes.
The Guardian, a British newspaper released a report on July 5, 2008 that shows ZANU-PF "going to work" in a different way. The news organization reported that they have in their possession video of prison guards marking their ballots for President Mugabe, while civil war veterans (pro-government militia) watched over them.
According to the report the Guardian provided prison guard, Shepard Yuda with a camera, since the news organ was banned from the country.
The video posted on the Guardian website shows the prison guard voting for Muagbe in front of a man they called Shambira. According to the narration done on the video Shambira is an old war veteran who is feared among the prison guards.
Many parts of the video are blurred to protect those who Yuda encountered and some of the translations cover what these people are saying. Only what Yuda and Shambira say have subtitles. Yuda and his family has fled the country in fear of their lives.
The release of this video and images of a beaten white farm owner on CNN would fall under the "western media attack on Zimbabwe" that the December 12th Movement and the supporters of ZANU-PF are claiming the United States and the United Kingdom are using to gain control over Zimbabwe.
The Zimbabwean Ambassador to the United Nations Boniface Chidyausiku said that the United States and its allies were trying to coerce the Security Council of the United Nations to impose economic sanctions on Zimbabwe. These attempts he stated to the Zimbabwean Herald, are coming up futile.
Ambassador Chidyausiku said in the interview that Zimbabwe has a number of confirmed allies in the Security Council, including permanent members China and Russia. Both nations have veto power and according to Chidyausiku, are willing use it if the United States and United Kingdom try to impose an UN economic sanction.
On July 9, 2008 Prime Minister of Britain George Brown used shock tactics at the G8 Summit in Japan to encourage members of the G8 to impose their own economic sanction against Zimbabwe and Mugabe.
When the African Union met on July 1, 2008 in Cairo, Egypt to hold its annual summit, the body recognized Mugabe as President of Zimbabwe, but said that African Union Observers had concluded that the election process had fallen short of the organization's standards.
The United Nations has failed to comment on the election in Zimbabwe, but Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in a press release stated, "Zimbabwe elections did not reflect the true and genuine will of Zimbabweans or produce [a] legitimate result".
In the era of tiny spy cameras, high quality recorders and advance editing equipment solidifying a reality in Zimbabwe is becoming complicated.
Read more at Suite101: Mixed Reports from Zimbabwe: Propaganda, Lies and Deceit Surround the Situation in Zimbabwe http://zimbabwe.suite101.com/article.cfm/mixed_reports_from_zimbabwe#ixzz0mFvrvqyt
THIS is the final of a two-part series in which DR TAFATAONA MAHOSO looks at how President Mugabe’s interview with CNN’s international correspondent Christiane Amanpour exposed the Western media’s double standards and how the regime change lobby has become part of the media’s diary
THE struggle which CNN mounted against President Mugabe and the binary frame used on September 24, 2009 date back to 1957-1961, when the Anglo-Saxon axis waged a war against the African revolution in Congo and murdered the first Congolese prime minister Patrice Lumumba in a swift and cruel process of regime change.
Using the cover of the United Nations and ability to blend white racism with anti-communism, the United States was able to subsume different white nationalist agendas under its synthetic whiteness marketed as global anti-communism.
The British interest expressed through South Africa and the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, the Belgian interest expressed through Belgian companies and soldiers in Katanga, and the US interest and suspicion against the Soviet Union — all came together to eliminate Patrice Lumumba and abort the African revolution.
Significantly, the US lobby group American Committee for Aid to Katanga Freedom Fighters (ACAKFF) did not only promote the blending of white supremacy with anti-communism in the destruction of the African revolution in Congo; it also lived to become the nucleus of the Rhodesia lobby in the US after Rhodesia, like Katanga, declared its unilateral independence in 1965, four years after the overthrow of the African revolution in Congo.
The American lobby for white supremacy in the Congo became the Rhodesia lobby after Rhodesia’s UDI. It also became the source of diplomatic support and mercenaries for Moise Tshombe’s Katanga as for Ian Smith’s Rhodesia.
Therefore Lumumba’s assassination had far-reaching consequences for the African revolution in Southern Africa.
Another significant development was the prevalence of media lies and the willingness of all parties in the imperial triangle not to contradict each other. There was agreement not just on the portrayal of Lumumba and the Congo revolution as communist and anti-Western, but also on the suppression of information on the roles played by the United Nations, the US government, the Belgian government, the British government, the Congolese government and the provincial puppet regime of Tshombe in Katanga.
This willingness to lie and to cover-up what was happening in the Congo is similar to the willingness not only to misrepresent the Zimbabwe war of liberation against settler Rhodesia but also the struggle of the Zimbabwean liberation movement in government in later years to reclaim African land from white settlers.
Using the example of the Congo, we notice the following: the victory of Lumumba’s party in elections in 1960 was both surprising and unwelcome to the imperialist and settlerist interests.
As a result, Lumumba’s victory was followed by a campaign of vilification and demonisation in all the Western capitals and in Rhodesia and South Africa.
Even more astounding was the cover-up of the collective crime of the Western powers and interests against Lumumba and the people of the Congo. This cover-up is being repeated over Zimbabwe. The damage inflicted on Zimbabweans through illegal economic sanctions must be covered up.
Lumumba, Joseph Okito and Maurice Mpolo were murdered the night of January 17, 1961. The bodies were later exhumed and dissolved in acid on January 18, 1961.
The telltale signs of global foul play were everywhere for anyone to see who would bother to exercise curiosity and ask questions. For instance, why did the UN which had come to Congo at the invitation of prime minister Lumumba, proceed to impose sanctions on the prime minister and his government as well as place him under house arrest and therefore facilitate his capture and transfer from Leopoldville (Kinshasa) to Katanga?
After Lumumba and his colleagues were handed to Tshombe and the Belgians, UN officials had opportunity to demand to see the three or to have them handed over to the Red Cross. They did not.
On February 10 a new lie was made up, that Lumumba and his colleagues had mysteriously escaped from prison in Katanga. Then on February 13 a new statement was issued to say that the trio had fallen into the hands of hostile villagers who had swiftly killed them.
Tshombe’s interior minister Godefroid Munongo was used to produce fake death certificates, instead of bodies, as proof that the three had been killed by villagers. The death certificates had been faked by a white Belgian doctor, Guy Pieters, who did not see the bodies but trusted someone else who swore that he had seen the bodies.
In short, it took from January 17 to February 13 1961 for the world to learn that Lumumba and his ministers had been killed. But the announcement itself was meant to compound the multilateral Anglo-Saxon complicity and cover-up.
If we now move to the operations of the "triangle" in Rhodesia and Zimbabwe during Ian Smith’s UDI (1965-1980) and during the Third Chimurenga, that is the land reclamation phase of the revolution from 1992 to 2004 we find both similarities and differences.
In both phases, the US provided the overriding frame and the European Union obliged. Zimbabwe was framed as rebelling against the global neo-liberal demand to "reform".
The victory of Zanu-PF in the 1980 election, though not completely a surprise, was undesirable to the Western powers who had preferred Bishop Abel Muzorewa’s UANC.
There were assassination attempts on Cde Robert Gabriel Mugabe of Zanu-PF followed by an attempted coup d’etat, once Cde Mugabe had won the election. On the eve of independence the Rhodesians destroyed tonnes of sensitive government records with the knowledge and connivance of the Western powers.
At the time this destruction was blamed on the Rhodesians but it now appears that the British and the North Americans did not object to the destruction of evidence because they were also implicated in escalating violence and prolonging the Rhodesian war through top-level visits to Ian Smith and through the supply of oil, weapons and mercenaries in violation of UN sanctions.
In the 1965-1980 period the UN was relatively strong because of the growths of the Non-Aligned Movement and the Organisation of African Unity in the context of a bipolar world. In the 1992-2004 period, however, the weakness of the UN shown in the case of the Congo crisis had returned, with the UNDP, the WFP, Unicef, Unesco and the Global Aids Fund being used against Zimbabwe as if they were bilateral instruments of the UK or US and its EU allies.
More significantly, the weakening of the UN in the 1992-2004 period allowed almost a repeat of what happened in the Congo in the 1960s:
l The unfolding of an elaborate vilification and demonisation programme against Zimbabwe based on mass media;
l The revival of global and white anti-Mugabe lobbies similar to the Katanga and Rhodesia lobbies of the 1960s and 1970s;
l A very high dosage of big trans-Atlantic lies employed against Zimbabwe, similar to those against Lumumba and the Congo revolution in 1960-1961
l The masking of white supremacy under the slogan of "globalisation" similar to the masking of white supremacy under the slogan of combating communism in the 1960s and 1970s.
Therefore there has existed in the US, an Anglo-American, Anglo-Rhodesian lobby to protect white settler interests and Anglo-American interests in Zimbabwe and throughout Sadc. The following words were written in 1979 by a US diplomat and they indicate why the US government and US media still see their mission as the protection of white settlers:
"Our tragedy is that, whether we like it or not, the United States has inherited the role of metropole [or the mother country] of all whites in Southern Africa. This is not a role we welcomed, but it is one we cannot avoid . . . We are the ones who have led the discussions about the future of these countries [including Zimbabwe, South Africa, Namibia, Angola and Mozambique."
These are the words of former US ambassador Elliot P. Skinner at the time of the Lancaster House Conference on Rhodesia in 1979. By that time Skinner was teaching at Columbia University in New York. He was at pains to explain from a white liberal view the consistently reactionary and racist thrust of US policy toward Southern Africa, where the US appeared to favour apartheid and UDI and to be obsessed with the protection of the privileged interests of dwindling white settler minorities at the expense of overwhelming African majorities.
There was in the 1970s in the US a white racist preacher and media personality called Dr Carl McIntyre, whose support of the Rhodesian and South African apartheid regimes could be heard on more than 600 radio stations across the United States for 30 minutes every day for six days a week.
This was in the 1970s and McIntyre was among the pioneers of rightwing politics and rightwing journalism which we see today in the work of Pat Robertson, Christopher Dell, Peta Thornicroft, Christiane Amanpour and all the white media crusaders.
It is time to start telling part of this long and complex story. The crusading, racist and intolerant journalism Africans are enduring today in neo-Rhodesian and neo-apartheid media took some time to develop. It is part of the history of the white racist rightwing, which took power in the West in the last 15 to 30 years. The crusading and sectarian tone of this journalism is not accidental. It is an integral feature of what is sometimes called "robust journalism".
This journalism is sometimes represented by sponsored hate-stations directed against Zimbabwe, against Palestinians, against Cuba, against Venezuela, against Bolivia and against Iran.
For instance, Gerald Horne in is book, "From the Barrel of a Gun: The United States and the War Against Zimbabwe, 1965-1980", has documented the collusion between white Western corporate media and local white media. These two forces colluded in degrading and demonising the African liberation movements, in promoting white supremacy, and in exploiting the myth of superior and protected white womanhood, again in order to degrade African women and humiliate African men.
According to Horne: "Sex rested close to the heart of Rhodesian military operations. Not only was the protection of Rhodesian [white] women from allegedly ravaging Africans seen as a rationale for the war but, like many [white] male enterprises, the military used female images to foment [white] male bonding."
Western "independent" media and white settler media colluded in this racist and sexist strategy. "Romance, sexuality and gender anxiety were an essential component of the elements that drove US citizens to Rhodesia — and kept them there . . . One of the prime linkages in this chain of whiteness were the mass media . . ." The linkages remain now, causing so much Western interest in how we manage our media in Zimbabwe.
Now, any thinking African would therefore carefully scrutinise the scores of supposed mass media companies seeking to open up the Zimbabwean media market and to set up newspapers, magazines, radio stations, television stations and internet services. Who are the owners and drivers of these projects? Why do they seek to bless us now?
This is a rare personal post on this blog, however, I need to get this out of my system. Having watched the lamest excuse for an interview in Christiane Amanpour's self-titled show, what was left of my respect for CNN has sunk to a new low.
How can anyone call themselves an interviewer, when they are 1) completely unprepared, 2) unwilling or unable to listen to the answers and formulate an intellingent follow-up, 3) instead of formulating an intelligent follow-up, simply hurl more accusations, even before the previous question has been answered. I think they managed to tick off even Mugabe opponents. And the facts are pretty easy to find.
For instance.
1) There are no financial sanctions against Zimbabwe
This is so easily disprovable that it is laughable. Economic/financial sanctions are a matter of record. To quote from the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act of 2001, Section 4C titled Multilateral Financing Restriction (Multilateral Financing is the type of banking done between governments and the banks that usually lend or extend credit to governments):
Text of S. 494 [107th]: Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act of 2001 SEC. 4. SUPPORT FOR DEMOCRATIC TRANSITION AND ECONOMIC RECOVERY. (c) MULTILATERAL FINANCING RESTRICTION
... the Secretary of the Treasury shall instruct the United States executive director to each international financial institution to oppose and vote against--
(1) any extension by the respective institution of any loan, credit, or guarantee to the Government of Zimbabwe; or
(2) any cancellation or reduction of indebtedness owed by the Government of Zimbabwe to the United States or any international financial institution.
So what are these international financial institutions, where the Zimbabwean government's credit has been frozen, and loans and guarantees withheld, since early 2002? Well that is covered in Section 3 of ZDERA, titled "DEFINITIONS":
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS- The term `international financial institutions' means the multilateral development banks and the International Monetary Fund.
(2) MULTILATERAL DEVELOPMENT BANKS- The term `multilateral development banks' means the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the International Development Association, the International Finance Corporation, the Inter-American Development Bank, the Asian Development Bank, the Inter-American Investment Corporation, the African Development Bank, the African Development Fund, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and the Multilateral Investment Guaranty Agency.
The Effect Of Sanctions
These are the institutions the Zimbabwean government held most of it's credit lines with. These credit lines were frozen in early 2002. We all know the result of a credit freeze on the United States, a country with infinitely more resources than a Texas sized former colony with a neocolonial economy that depends on exports of raw materials and imports of finished goods and fuel. So what were the effects? Well in the year 2002, Zimbabwe recorded it's first ever (considering data from 2000 to 2007) trade deficit. This is the same year consumer prices went into triple digits. And Agricultural GDP growth rate made it's biggest drop before or since. Not a coincidence.
Not only is this an indication that 'something happened in 2002', and that this something is ZDERA coming into force and freezing the government's credit lines.
2) Whites farming on stolen land is compensation enough
This should raise the heckles of even the most ardent MDC supporter. The entire issue of compensation has been of compensation paid not to black Zimbabweans, but to white farmers. Under the Lancaster House Agreement's Willing Buyer, Willing Seller program, the British and US governments were to compensate the white farmers for the value of the land (also called 'land purchase'), while the Zimbabwean government was to compensate them for the value of changes made, like infrastructure, buildings, etc. So her complete unawareness of any land reform program is pretty ridiculous.
3) Her complete unawareness of the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act, the Lancaster House Constitution, and even the Willing Buyer, Willing Seller land reform programme
Christiane Amanpour seemed stunned that land reform was even on the table, even though it was much of what the Liberation war was fought over, and was included in the Lancaster House Agreement through the Willing Buyer, Willing Seller (WBWS) land reform program, back in 1979/1980.
Under WBWS, the Zimbabwean government would compensate the white farmers for the value of buildings and improvements made to the land, and the British and US governments would compensate white farmers for the market value of the land, also called land purchase.
They almost immediately reneged on their obligations, but together with intervention by regional leaders, land reform was held off until 1997. It was in November 1997, that Claire Short Secretary of State in Tony Blair's government to Minister of Lands Kumbirai Kangai:
I should make it clear that we do not accept that Britain has a special responsibility to meet the costs of land purchase in Zimbabwe. We are a new Government from diverse backgrounds without links to former colonial interests. My own origins are Irish and as you know we were colonised not colonisers.
Now unless I am mistaken, when one side of an international agreement pulls out of that international agreement, the other side is no longer obligated to abide by that agreement. So when it is Britain's obligation to fund land purchase, and they state they 'no longer feel' that it is their obligation to do so, not only does that relieve the Zimbabwean government from abiding by the Willing Buyer, Willing Seller land reform program, it possibly also puts an end to the Lancaster House Agreement, which the Zimbabwean government abided by throughout the 1980s and most of the 1990s.
There is no proof that anything the government did under the new land reform program, the Fast Track land reform program, was illegal. They were not obligated to compensate white farmers under their own program. You could easily argue that white farmers had been compensated enough, with a century's uses of free land and free labor. The average white farmer had 500 hectares of tobacco under cultivation, and 2000 hectares of idle land. At the same time, the 99% of the population that is African, had been forcibly removed to the low rainfall areas of the country.
4) Her generally condescending attitude
Now condescension is one thing. However, you cannot condescend when you have no grasp of the facts, and on top of that, are consistently wrong about what you believe. Her dismissal of the existence of economic sanctions is a case in point. It made her look, correctly, as someone who has made up her mind and is not interested in such things as facts.
However, her assertion that "archbishop Desmond Tutu is a liberation fighter too" was laugh out loud funny. Can you squint your eyes, and imagine Desmond Tutu as a paid up member of MK? Codename: "The Bishop". 'Some people say' he stashed C4 explosives in his staff and handed them out to his priests to blow up congregations, back in the day. He isn't even a member of the ANC. Enough said.
She made the rather infantile claim along the line that "you were given a beautiful country and look what you did with it", which is mindboggling.
I would rate her interview: F. Next time, do your homework, Christiane.
COMMENT - I hate to break it to Rashweat of MISA (another USAID/DFID funded NGO), that 'Amanpour lost', because she was spouting MDC talking points, handed to her (with her head) by her rhodesian army buddies. She had never heard of the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act of 2001 (S.494), or even the Lancaster House Agreement. She didn't know that Britain unilaterally reneged on it's obligation to fund land purchase in Zimbabwe (part of the Willing Buyer, Willing Seller program). And she insisted that there are no economic sanctions on Zimbabwe, even though Tendai Biti has admitted it. But then, that is what you get when you rely on your rhodesian army buddies as your single source of information.
How Amanpour lost to Mugabe
by Rashweat Mukundu
25/09/2009 00:00:00
PRESIDENT Robert Mugabe stuck to his well known script, Amanpour and CNN fumbled all over. Thus after the highly expected interview of Mugabe by senior CNN Journalist, Christiane Amanpour, on Thursday, September 24, it came out, in my view, to a victory for Mugabe, if we take it as a contest.
Amanpour failed to rise above the familiar frames of the western media’s analysis of Zimbabwe -- dictatorship, hunger, land, Roy Bennett and white farmers. These are part of the issues, but more of symptoms of a deeper problem which we hoped CNN would probe.
We expected Amanpour to bring these issues to the interview but in a way that makes it impossible for Mugabe to waive them away so simply. We expected more facts, events and names. And they are many that Mugabe cannot run away from.
Yes, the Zimbabwe crisis is also about land among many other things, but this is more a symptom of a deficiency in democracy that Mugabe demonstrated very early in his rule. It is this failure to understand history and looking at Zimbabwe in compartments that has been the failure of the western media for so long and indeed the Achilles heel of Amanpour when she met Mugabe.
Amanpour stated clearly that her Rhodesian journalists friends, some of them ex-Rhodesian soldiers, really enjoyed the first ten years of Mugabe’s rule. In those ten years, Mugabe presided over the massacre of thousands of Ndebeles who happened to support an opposition party and belong to an ethnic group other than his. It is, therefore, wrong for CNN to say Zimbabwe’s crisis is a post-2000 phenomenon and only so because Mugabe started grabbing farms from white farmers.
Amanpour thus sunk into a familiar tune that Mugabe was well prepared for, giving a full lecture of history which Amanpour was, again, unprepared for. Statistics are there all over the internet on how Mugabe’s government abused donor funds and some resettled farmers sank more into poverty. Mugabe’s views were never seriously challenged.
In any case, let us talk of the crisis in Zimbabwe since 2000. The most affected and those who have suffered the most are the majority of poor Zimbabweans. If there are a people that Mugabe has failed the most and dehumanised the most it is his fellow black Zimbabweans.
Any questioning and framing of the Zimbabwe crisis should, as a consequence, start from this stand point. Mugabe should have been asked about the many MDC supporters who were murdered, again their names are there, about Jestina Mukoko and others who were kidnapped in December 2008. Those who did this are still free, and Zimbabwe courts have been clear that this was wrong.
Hundreds of cases of MDC supporters who lost their lives are recorded and should have been brought to Mugabe by CNN. Their killers are walking scot free and many are known by name. This should have been brought to Mugabe.
The Daily News was bombed three times, 60,000 copies of the Zimbabwean newspapers were burnt in 2008, four newspaper were shut by decree and remain closed while Mugabe’s government is launching one daily paper after another, while denying others that space. These are double standards that should have been brought to Mugabe as undermining the unity government. There were many scenes of violence that were captured by the media in the 2008’s controversial June Presidential by-election that Amanpour should have pinned Mugabe on.
Mugabe is a dictator yes, but one who has created a very sophisticated dictatorship that is not only about power grabbing but distorts and deploys historical narratives for its benefit. It’s a dictatorship that sinisterly divides society along race, ethnicity and ideology. If the western media intends to report Zimbabwe, they should not engage Mugabe in a turf of contested history but talk of the practicalities and realities of life in Zimbabwe -- that story Mugabe cannot dismiss that easily.
It is for this reason that the western media has to change its frames of analysing Zimbabwe and Mugabe, and see the majority of victims of Mugabe’s government not only as statistics but the real victims of this crisis. The violence on ordinary Zimbabweans is not a land issue, but has always existed well before 2000.
A proper analysis needs to go beyond land reform, to look at what Mugabe has done to his own people, the cases of corruption that should have been brought out, the collapse of Kondozi farm, a classical case of the phoney arguments by Mugabe that land reform is about equality and prosperity, the diamonds fiasco in Manicaland.
A well respected journalist like Amanpour was expected to go deeper, bring out examples, the horror and scenes that Mugabe cannot deny. She should have avoided narratives of history that are not in dispute but give it to Mugabe in black and white from the perspectives of the majority of Zimbabweans.
The interview turned to be a successful Public Relations exercise and godsend for Mugabe. This is because we have heard it all before and Mugabe reinforced his message at a world stage. But the real story of Zimbabwe’s majority rarely finds space and it is one that Mugabe cannot deny nor justify by whatever means or explanation.
He can easily explain the land reform on the basis of history, but he cannot explain the kidnapping of Mukoko, the bombing of the Daily News among other many things.
The international media will become relevant only when it sees the Zimbabwe crisis from this holistic perspective. As for Amanpour, we hope she can be better prepared next time.
Rashweat Mukundu is the programmes manager for the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) Regional Secretariat. He writes in his personal capacity
Zuma: Sanctions have not worked
by
27/09/2009 00:00:00
SOUTH African President Jacob Zuma says his country’s diplomacy in Zimbabwe has had more success than the sanctions-driven response by western countries to alleged human rights abuses by President Robert Mugabe’s government.
Zuma also rejected suggestions by CNN’s Christiane Amanpour that the Southern African Development Community (SADC) “has failed to criticise, condemn and insist that President Mugabe imposes and implements the power-sharing agreement” with his opposition rivals.
“What are you all afraid of? Are you still afraid of really trying to implement the law in Zimbabwe?,” Amanpour quizzed Zuma in an interview broadcast on Friday night.
Zuma shot back: “No, we're never afraid. We're never afraid.”
The South African President said his country had been pressured by western countries to “have nothing to do with Zimbabwe”, but his country had deliberately chosen engagement with the Zimbabwe parties.
“It has succeeded. The reason that you can talk about the agreement in Zimbabwe today is because of what we negotiated,” Zuma said. “I think we should accept the fact that, at the beginning of the problem in Zimbabwe, countries and perhaps organisations took different positions.
“Our position was not to stand up and criticise Zimbabwe. It was to engage the Zimbabweans. We engaged.
“You have sanctions. You can't tell me, ‘This is what the sanctions did, and this was the results of the sanctions.’
“… they (western countries) were saying have nothing do with Zimbabwe. Our having something to do with Zimbabwe has produced an agreement, which we are now implementing, and we are saying, ‘Give that process an opportunity.’ That is why we are saying to those who have applied sanctions, ‘Lift the sanctions so that Zimbabwe has a free range to implement the decision that it has taken.’”
The power-sharing government was formed in February after disputed elections last year, but the pact between Mugabe and rivals Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai and Deputy Prime Minister Arthur Mutambara has been beset with problems as the parties accuse each other of failing to fully implement the deal.
President Mugabe CNN interview
Aa transcript of Christiane Amanpour's interview with President Robert Mugabe
Fri, 25 Sep 2009 19:02:00 +0000
THE following is a transcript of Christiane Amanpour's interview with President Robert Mugabe, his first interview with a Western television network in several years. It took place on September 24 in New York, one day before President Mugabe was to address the United Nations. (Source: CNN).
NEW YORK (CNN) -- CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR: And here to address the United Nations, President Mugabe joins me now in the studio. So welcome to this program. Thank you for coming in.
ROBERT MUGABE, PRESIDENT, ZIMBABWE: Thank you.
AMANPOUR: What are you going to ask? Are you going to ask President Obama to lift the sanctions that are imposed?
MUGABE: Not really. I haven't come here for President Obama to address the United States alone. I've come here to address the General Assembly, which is part of the United Nations' structures. And we are entitled to discuss matters that affect us in the global environment and the matters that affect us in a particular way as Zimbabwe. And this is what I'm going to do.
AMANPOUR: So you -- but you obviously are calling for sanctions to be lifted.
MUGABE: Yes, that -- that I will do, certainly. The sanctions are unjustified, illegal, and they are meant for regime change, to address that illegal principle.
AMANPOUR: You say for regime change, but it all really is about trying to get the political situation stabilized. And for the last year, you've been in so-called power-sharing agreement with the leader of the opposition, Morgan Tsvangirai. What does power-sharing to you mean? Many people say that it's in name only right now.
MUGABE: No. It is really power-sharing. And that power-sharing is encapsulated in an agreement we call the global political agreement. And this was arrived at through the facilitation that we got from South Africa, and specifically through the facilitation by former President Thabo Mbeki.
AMANPOUR: The problem, though, is, Mr. President, that many people are saying that you're still -- and your party -- is trying to sort of reduce the MDC majority or their officials in parliament. There are MPs who are being arrested. They're being charged with alleged crimes to prevent them from being able to take office. Why is this still happening?
MUGABE: First, may I make this quite clear, that the global political agreement was arrived at after a series of meetings which involved not just ZANU-PF, as represented by myself and our negotiators, and numbered (ph) also between ZANU-PF and the MDC, as represented by Tsvangirai and Professor Chambara (ph) and their negotiators.
AMANPOUR: Right.
MUGABE: And these -- these provisions in the global agreement were reached after very strenuous discussions had taken place.
AMANPOUR: Right. But the question really is...
MUGABE: And so they were not -- they were not forced upon us. We -- we came to...
AMANPOUR: No, but the question really is...
MUGABE: We came to them deliberately.
AMANPOUR: All right. So why then...
MUGABE: We arrived at them deliberately.
AMANPOUR: All right. So if you say you arrived at them deliberately, why then are their MPs and officials still being harassed?
MUGABE: Because the issue of those who have been arrested is a different matter altogether. Some of them had committed crimes before the global agreement, crimes such as rape and kidnapping. You couldn't -- you couldn't let people who have committed such crimes get away with it merely because there is a global agreement.
AMANPOUR: Has Roy Bennett committed a crime? Why is he not being sworn in?
MUGABE: Roy Bennett has been charged, and on the face of it the charges are very serious. But I'm told -- and I'm told this by the leader of the MDC -- that the prosecution is addressing (ph) no evidence. There are no witnesses. And I've said, if there are no witnesses, the prosecution will arrive at a time when they will say so.
AMANPOUR: So charged with what?
MUGABE: But let's not read that for them. Let them read that conclusion on their own.
AMANPOUR: Do you think that he will -- do you think that he will be appointed?
MUGABE: I have -- yes, yes, yes, if he's acquitted, he will be appointed.
AMANPOUR: But charged with what?
MUGABE: Charged with -- with having, you know, tried to put -- I think he was found responsible for -- that's the allegation. The allegation is that he's responsible for organizing arms of war against Zimbabwe...
AMANPOUR: Well, we'll obviously have to ask him about that, but...
MUGABE: ... and -- and -- and that this -- these are the charges that are being made on the face of them.
AMANPOUR: Well...
MUGABE: But if the prosecution cannot prove that, in fact, he did so, that, in fact, he's guilty of, you know, trying to organize, you know...
AMANPOUR: Mr. Mugabe, that's certainly the first I'm hearing of it, and we will, obviously, put that to them. But can I say this? There are a lot of people -- and you heard in that report -- who considered you an African hero back in 1980, that you came and -- some of my own friends, Rhodesians, some of the people I've worked with who were in the Rhodesian army, then became journalists in Rhodesia were stunned by the conciliatory nature and the addresses that you gave back in 1980...
MUGABE: Yes.
AMANPOUR: ... and describe how, for 10 years, your policies led to prosperity, led to successes in mining and agriculture, and all sorts of things, and then, over the last 10 years, things have really gone south in a big and bad way. Why is it that that's happened?
MUGABE: Over the -- over the last 10 years...
AMANPOUR: No, no, since land reform. And -- and remember that the presidents of Mozambique and Tanzania, when you took the country to liberation, said to you that you have the jewel of Africa in your hands, now look after it.
MUGABE: Yes, we are looking...
AMANPOUR: Did you look after it?
MUGABE: Yes, in a very great way. Over the last 10 years, we have had ZIDERA, the sanctions imposed on us by -- by the United States, plus sanctions imposed upon us by the European Union, over the last 10 years.
AMANPOUR: Right, but they were specifically targeted sanctions...
MUGABE: No.
AMANPOUR: ... against individuals, not against the trade or development.
MUGABE: Zimbabwe -- no, no, no, no. The United States' sanctions on us are real sanctions, economic sanctions. Have you looked at that? Look at them, and you'll satisfy yourselves that they prevent companies from having any dealings with us.
AMANPOUR: But they're very, very specifically targeted.
MUGABE: They prevent any -- any -- they prevent any financial institutions...
AMANPOUR: But how do you account...
MUGABE: ... also from having any relations with us.
AMANPOUR: ... for these incredible statistics, where, since you took over, life expectancy has dropped, manufacturing has fallen...
MUGABE: But I'm just telling you -- I'm just telling you...
AMANPOUR: ... 1 in 14 people are malnourished...
MUGABE: I'm just telling you the reasons. It's because of sanctions mainly.
AMANPOUR: But everybody says it's not because of sanctions. It's because of mismanagement.
MUGABE: Not everybody says so.
AMANPOUR: Most people do. Most independent observers say that.
MUGABE: In Zimbabwe -- it's not true.
AMANPOUR: How to get out of this now? How to get out of this? Do you think -- for instance, right now...
MUGABE: The sanctions -- sanctions must be lifted. And we should have no interference from outside. The continued imperialistic interference in our affairs is affecting the country, obviously.
AMANPOUR: I would like to play one sound bite by a neighbor of yours, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who said the following.
[BEGIN VIDEO CLIP]
ARCHBISHOP DESMOND TUTU, NOBEL PEACE PRIZE WINNER: He's destroyed a wonderful country, a country that used to be a breadbasket. It has now become a basket case itself. But I think now, I mean, that the world must say, "Look, you -- you -- you have been responsible with your cohorts, you have been responsible for gross violations and you are going to face indictment in -- in the Hague, unless you step down.
[END VIDEO CLIP]
AMANPOUR: How do you respond to that, first that you've taken the breadbasket of Africa into a basket case?
MUGABE: No, it's not a basket case at all. Last -- last year, we managed to grow enough food for ourselves. We are not a basket case anymore.
AMANPOUR: One in fourteen people are called malnourished.
MUGABE: No, no, no, no...
AMANPOUR: Your country is practically dependent on humanitarian aid.
MUGABE: ... just now -- you're not talking of the present.
AMANPOUR: I know things have got slightly better in the last year...
MUGABE: They have got much better in terms of food.
AMANPOUR: ... but it's still like a war zone.
MUGABE: People have grown enough food for themselves. We have had years, continuous, successive years of drought. Don't forget that. And in addition...
AMANPOUR: I've seen the drought figures. I've got all the statistics here.
MUGABE: ...sanctions, as well...
AMANPOUR: Yes.
MUGABE: ...and combine the effects of drought with the effects of sanctions, and what do you get?
AMANPOUR: Well, and the effect of what many people are saying is the land reform that really created this huge discrepancy in your ability to farm.
MUGABE: The land...
AMANPOUR: We're going to go to a break, and we'll talk about that when we come back, all right?
MUGABE: Yes, but the land reform is the best thing that could ever have happened.
AMANPOUR: The best thing?
MUGABE: Yes, that could ever have happened to an African country.
AMANPOUR: We will talk about it in a second.
MUGABE: It has to do with national sovereignty.
AMANPOUR: OK. Let's talk about it in a second.
[COMMERCIAL BREAK]
[BEGIN VIDEO CLIP]
MUGABE: I will never, never, never, never surrender. Zimbabwe is mine. I am an Zimbabwean. Zimbabwe for Zimbabweans. Zimbabwe never for the British. Britain for the British.
[END VIDEO CLIP]
AMANPOUR: Is that just political rally rhetoric or -- or did you mean that? What did you mean?
MUGABE: That Zimbabwe belongs to the Zimbabwean people.
AMANPOUR: Right. Do you consider...
MUGABE: Pure and simple.
AMANPOUR: ... and everybody believes that?
MUGABE: Yes. All people believe it.
AMANPOUR: So do you consider white Zimbabweans to be Zimbabweans?
MUGABE: Those who are naturalized and have citizenship, yes.
AMANPOUR: Those who've been living there for years and years and years?
MUGABE: But historically...
AMANPOUR: Right.
MUGABE: ... historically, they have a debt.
AMANPOUR: The people who -- contributing to farming -- historically they have a debt to pay?
MUGABE: Yes, yes, their land. They -- they occupied the land illegally. They seized the land from our people.
AMANPOUR: Look...
MUGABE: And therefore, the process of reform, land reform, involved their handing -- having to hand over the land. We agreed upon this with the British, by the way.
AMANPOUR: Some 80 percent of that land was acquired after you took office, some of the farmland, and with the very certificates that mean government approval. Why are these people being hounded out of the country? Why are they being...
MUGABE: They are not -- they are not being hounded.
AMANPOUR: ... hounded off their land, then?
MUGABE: No, no, no, they're not being hounded out of the country at all.
AMANPOUR: We've just done reports about it.
MUGABE: Those who are in industry and manufacturing and mining are not being...
AMANPOUR: The farmers I'm talking about. Why is that...
MUGABE: ... are not being affected.
AMANPOUR: ... wonderful farmland and why are they being...
MUGABE: What are you talking about? We are getting land from them, and that's all. They're not being hounded out of the country, not at all.
AMANPOUR: They're being hounded off their land.
MUGABE: (inaudible) their land.
AMANPOUR: It's not theirs?
MUGABE: Our -- our land.
AMANPOUR: Even though they bought it, even though they bought it with the certificates of approval from the government?
MUGABE: But haven't you heard of the Lancaster House discussions and the agreement with the British government? Because they are British settlers; originally they have been British settlers. And we agreed at Lancaster House that there would be land reform.
AMANPOUR: But they're citizens. But they're citizens, aren't they? And isn't this farming disaster contributing to your...
MUGABE: Citizens by colonization, seizing land from the original people, indigenous people of the country.
AMANPOUR: But how did that all go so wrong?
MUGABE: You approve of that?
AMANPOUR: How did that all go so wrong? Because when you came in, you -- it was -- it was about reconciliation.
MUGABE: They knew about it. They knew we had this program of land acquisition and land reform. They knew about it.
AMANPOUR: But what about the blacks, then?
MUGABE: And the British knew about it.
AMANPOUR: OK. Let's -- let's talk about the black farm workers whose houses and shanty houses, who work on these farms, they're being bulldozed in an operation that was called "Drive Out the Rubbish"? These are black Zimbabweans.
MUGABE: No, no, there -- there was no -- no operation of that nature. That's...
AMANPOUR: But -- well, how come they're being driven off and their shanty houses...
MUGABE: Who?
AMANPOUR: The farm workers.
MUGABE: No, you're mistaken about the Murambatsvina program, which had to do with slums, getting rid of slums, not getting rid of farm -- farm workers. It had nothing to do with farm workers at all.
Farm workers, by the way, were to be given three choices. One, they could remain on the farm under the new owner and continue working on the farm. Two, if they were alien...
AMANPOUR: The accusation was that they were opposition.
MUGABE: Let -- let -- let me -- no, if they were alien -- and most of them from Mozambique and -- and -- and Zambia, they could choose to go home, in which case we would discuss the package that they deserved.
Three, they could decide to leave the farm and go elsewhere. And also, to -- if they wanted to -- to get resettled, we could resettle them...
AMANPOUR: Mr. Mugabe...
MUGABE: ... under our program of resettling.
AMANPOUR: The fact is, though, that the country has pretty much plunged into a pretty dysfunctional state by all international indicators.
MUGABE: No.
AMANPOUR: My question is, do you regret that some 4 million people have left in the last three to five years?
MUGABE: I don't know about those numbers.
AMANPOUR: But do you regret -- because these are the brain drain, these are the people who've helped make Zimbabwe the success that it was?
MUGABE: Because of the economic situation...
AMANPOUR: OK.
MUGABE: ... people are bound to leave any country. And they have not just left my country. They have left other countries, as well, to go to Britain, Australia, and -- and other places.
AMANPOUR: Let me ask you a question about...
MUGABE: And at the moment, they are coming back home, anyway.
AMANPOUR: Let me ask you a question. We'll move on from this, and we'll ask you a question about -- you heard what Archbishop Desmond Tutu said.
MUGABE: That's nonsense. It's just devilish talk.
AMANPOUR: Devilish talk?
MUGABE: Yes. Yes.
AMANPOUR: Do you -- do you...
MUGABE: He doesn't know what he's talking about, the little man.
AMANPOUR: The little man? He's a Nobel Peace Prize winner.
MUGABE: Oh, come on.
AMANPOUR: He's a liberation fighter, too.
MUGABE: What -- what liberation?
AMANPOUR: South Africa.
MUGABE: No, of course, you don't know what -- what he -- what his status in the ANC amounts to.
AMANPOUR: Can I ask you a question about Nelson Mandela?
MUGABE: He's a great man, that one, yes.
AMANPOUR: Nelson Mandela has got so much of the attention for being the great liberator of -- of Africa.
MUGABE: Yes.
AMANPOUR: You did it earlier. Do you sometimes wish that you had got as much attention?
MUGABE: President Mandela is President Mandela, and Robert Mugabe is Robert Mugabe. Look at him in his own circumstances, and that's it. If you damn him, well and good, but I know my people have great praise for me. I know the African people think -- think very highly of me.
AMANPOUR: Are you...
MUGABE: And that -- that satisfies me.
AMANPOUR: It does?
MUGABE: Yes.
AMANPOUR: Even though you lost these elections?
MUGABE: Which elections?
AMANPOUR: The last ones.
MUGABE: No, we didn't lose the elections at all.
AMANPOUR: But that's why you're going into a power-sharing group. Look...
MUGABE: Come on.
AMANPOUR: ... we can -- we can argue about this. But my question is this: Why is it so difficult to leave power in a reasonable way when you're up, instead of waiting until it gets to this stage?
MUGABE: You don't leave power when imperialists dictate that you leave.
AMANPOUR: No -- no imperialist. You are the president.
MUGABE: No, there is regime change. Haven't you heard of regime change program by Britain and the United States, which is aimed at getting not just Robert Mugabe out of power, but Robert Mugabe and his party out of power? And that naturally means we dig in, remain in our trenches.
AMANPOUR: Are you going to stand for election again?
MUGABE: That will depend on what I decide to do in the future.
AMANPOUR: Can you tell us?
MUGABE: No, not now.
AMANPOUR: Can you imagine running for another election?
MUGABE: I won't tell you that now, I say.
AMANPOUR: Are you afraid, as some have suggested, that one day you might be indicted by the International Criminal Court?
MUGABE: No, I don't care about that, the international -- what they decide is entirely their own affair -- their own affair. I'm concerned about Zimbabwe, and I'm concerned about the lives of the people of Zimbabwe. And don't forget, it was my party which brought democracy into the country. I fought the British. We had to fight the British for democracy for one man, one person, one vote.
AMANPOUR: And that's why people are so disappointed in what happened, because you do get the kudos for having brought that.
MUGABE: But that is still -- that's still the environment.
AMANPOUR: But now people -- and yet this election was so heavily disputed that you have to go into a power-sharing deal.
MUGABE: Well, elections -- elections are...
AMANPOUR: I guess I want to know why -- why to hang on for so long?
MUGABE: Elections -- elections don't go all that smoothly all the time in many countries. That's the situation. Look at what happens elsewhere. They didn't go smoothly here during -- during the first term -- before the first term of -- of office of President Bush. You know what happened in -- in Florida. The 400,000 votes, where did they go? They were stolen by Mr. Bush. And you people said nothing about it.
AMANPOUR: Well, it was very heavily covered, and there's a dispute about the word "stolen." But here's the thing. The power-sharing agreement in Zimbabwe, do you think that that's actually going to be a real power-sharing agreement? I mean, you do control all the heavy-duty ministries, defense, police, mining? Is there going to be real power- sharing? Is it going to get better?
MUGABE: The inclusive government is a real power-sharing arrangement. Don't denigrate it.
AMANPOUR: All right.
MUGABE: We have 14 countries in SADC which are responsible for assisting us in bringing that about and for assisting us also in making it run.
AMANPOUR: All right.
MUGABE: And read what they say. Listen to what they say.
AMANPOUR: All right, Mr. Mugabe. Thank you for coming in. Thank you for talking to us.
advertisement
CNN's Amanpour: reporter or propagandist?
John West - Opinion
Fri, 25 Sep 2009 08:45:00 +0000
DEAR EDITOR - Regarding President Mugabe's CNN interview with Christiane Amanpour, our fears were confirmed! Amanpour sang too much for her supper. But then again, she has to. Just look at who owns CNN and it explains itself.
Also, just as many feared, Amanpour regurgitated all the misinformation about President Mugabe and the land issue and other substantive Zimbabwean concerns, showing little inclination to do a meaningful and objective interview with this warrior and lawyer.
Unless I missed something, I do not recall a question about the Lancaster House Agreement of 1979 which is one of the key agreements underpinning the land question in Zimbabwe. Wouldn't anyone expect a so-called reporter to cover so important a matter in the name of objective reporting?
It is interesting also to note that by comparison, the African American did not become a citizen of the United States based on birth but by the advice and consent of the United States Congress. The 14th Amendment, enacted in 1868, provided that citizenship. So there is the question then whether being born in Zimbabwe one is automatically Zimbabwean. Would we argue that missionaries born on Chinese soil are Chinese? Certainly not.
Overall, the interview with so scholarly a warrior would have been better staged on public broadcasting with someone of the stature of Gwen Ifill doing the interviewing.
The Amanpour interview just didn't cover the ground the substantive issue of land reform demands! She's less of a reporter and more a propagandist.
Mugabe on CNN: US sanctions unjustified
by
25/09/2009 00:00:00
PRESIDENT Robert Mugabe said United States sanctions on Zimbabwe were “unjustified and illegal” in a rare live interview with CNN in New York. Mugabe, set to address the UN General Assembly on Friday, also defended his government’s programme to seize land from white farmers and parcel it out to landless blacks, calling it “the best thing that could have ever happened to an African country”.
He depicted himself as an African hero battling imperialism and foreign attempts to oust him rather than the widespread perception of a dictator clinging to power at the expense of the welfare of his people and country.
He rejected repeated assertions by CNN's Christiane Amanpour that his policies have driven the nation once known as Africa's breadbasket to virtual economic collapse.
Instead, Mugabe accused Britain and the United States of seeking to oust him by imposing economic sanctions, the effects of which he said were worsened by years of drought.
“The sanctions are unjustified, illegal … they are meant for regime change, they are meant to address that illegal principle,” Mugabe said in the interview in which he looked remarkably younger than his 85 years.
Making specific reference to the United States’ Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act 2001, Mugabe said: “The United States sanctions on us are real sanctions, economic sanctions. They prevent any companies from having any dealing with us, they prevent any financial institutions from having any relationship with us.
“The sanctions should lifted and we must have no interference from outside. Imperialist interest in our country is continuing to affect the country adversely.”
Mugabe insisted the sanctions, coupled with “successive years of drought”, were the real cause of Zimbabwe’s economic decline, although striking a positive tone about the country’s current state and future prospects.
“If you combine the effects of drought and effects of sanctions what do you get?,” he quizzed Amanpour.
Mugabe shot down the reporter’s charge that white farmers were being “hounded off their land”. “Not off their land,” Mugabe corrected, “it’s our land. They are British settlers, originally they have been British settlers.”
“But they are citizens, aren’t they?” quipped Amanpour.
“Citizens by colonisation? Seizing land from the original people, the indigenous people of the country, do you approve that?,” Mugabe retorted.
Mugabe revelled in the reporter’s erroneous reference to the 2005 Operation Murambatsvina as a campaign to “bulldoze houses, shanty houses” of black farm workers. She called it “Operation Drive out the Rubbish”.
“No, no. There was no operation of that nature,” Mugabe said. “You are mistaken about the Murambatsvina programme which had to do with slums, getting rid of slums. It had nothing to do with farm workers at all.”
Amanpour played Mugabe a 2008 clip of Archbishop Desmond Tutu in which he said the man who has led Zimbabwe since independence from white minority rule in 1980 should be tried at The Hague.
“That’s nonsense, it’s just devilish talk. He doesn’t know what he’s talking about, the little man,” Mugabe said.
But the “little man” is a Nobel Peace Prize winner, he’s a liberation fighter too, the reporter queried.
“What liberation?” South Africa … “You don’t know what his status in the ANC amounts to!”
Mugabe also refused to answer questions on whether he will stand at the next election, but justified his 29 years in power, insisting: “You don’t leave power when imperialists dictate that you leave. The regime change agenda is not just to get Robert Mugabe out of power, but Robert Mugabe and his party out of power.”
He said he would not be taking lectures from Britain about democracy. “Don’t forget,” he reminded Amanpour, “it was my party which brought democracy to Zimbabwe not the British. We had to fight the British for ‘one man one vote’.”
Mugabe addresses the United Nations General Assembly on Friday, the first since he formed a power sharing government with former rivals Morgan Tsvangirai and Arthur Mutambara in February.
President Mugabe in rare CNN interview
Our reporter
Thu, 24 Sep 2009 14:49:00 +0000
PRESIDENT Robert Mugabe is scheduled to give an interview to CNN's Christiane Amanpour Thursday on the programme "Amanpour".
In President Mugabe's first interview with a major Western media outlet in years, Christiane will explore the historic power-sharing agreement with the inclusive Government there, and get the president's thoughts on the highly-emotive issue of land redistribution.
As Mugabe prepares to take center stage at the United Nations on Friday, Christiane will take the opportunity to ask if the power-sharing agreement in Zimbabwe is really working, if international sanctions are responsible for his country's economic and political turmoil, and what kind of engagement he is looking for from the international community.
Zim to open overseas information centres to boost image
Xinhua
Mon, 18 May 2009 09:10:00 +0000
THE Zimbabwe government is planning to open information centers in five strategic countries and to expand international media coverage of Zimbabwe as it moves to promote the country as a potential investment hub, The Sunday Mail reported.
The initiative ties in with the objectives of last month's ministerial retreat in Victoria Falls, which are aimed at achieving a quick revival of the country's economy.
The Secretary for Media, Information and Publicity George Charamba told the House of Assembly's Portfolio Committee on Media, Information and Communication Technology on Thursday that his ministry was working on recreating a positive image of Zimbabwe.
Although he did not give time-frames for the implementation of the initiative, Charamba said information attaches would be dispatched to South
Africa, Malaysia, China, Britain and the US to spearhead the marketing program.
"The country needs to shed the negative image of the past," he told the committee, whose objective on the day was to acquaint itself with the ministry's operations. Under the program, the information centres will disseminate information on the inclusive government and Zimbabwe's various tourist attractions.
The ministry's international communication directorate will superintend the centers' functions while collaborating with the relevant government portfolios on areas of common focus. Charamba said the formation of the inclusive government had opened a window for Zimbabwe to portray a positive image of itself internationally.
He said this and the country's tourist attractions would be at the center of his ministry's marketing efforts.
"The negative (image of the country) has been because of the political situation and this has been dealt with through the inclusive Government. If we sort out our image mess back home thatwill reflect outwardly," he said.
"So this is our foremost point: The fundamental issue is that Zimbabwe has rediscovered itself and that we are working in unison. We are also piggybacking our image via our natural attractions, as this has been identified as critical for the quick turnaround of our economy."
The Secretary added that South Africa was a target market because of its business and investment value. Malaysia and China, which share strong historical ties with Zimbabwe, are centrally placed in the Far East, making them good business partners and springboards to other Asian markets.
"China is an emerging economic giant. In fact, the West is turning East for its economic turnaround. It is therefore important for an information attache to be based in Beijing and other emerging growth points in that country.
"London (in Britain), whatever the ups and downs of our relations, we need an attache there whether we like it or not. It is a critical market and will also be a springboard for us to reach Paris, Frankfurt and other capitals within range."
Charamba also told the committee, which is chaired by the Member of the House of Assembly for Southert on Gift Chimanikire, that his ministry was also considering reaching international audiences through digital media.
Among such media is satellite television, which would probably require collaboration between Zimbabwe and fellow Southern Africancountries.
Questioned by committee member and Mutare North Member of the House of Assembly Charles Pemhenayi on the measures that his ministry has put in
place to ensure Zimbabwe receives positive international media coverage, he said the international communication directorate was handling this area.
He revealed that the government has been engaging the BBC and CNN with a view to securing their coverage in addition to the work that various foreign journalists are already carrying out locally.
"Zimbabwe is exposed to the international media, as different foreign journalists have been operating here for some time now. There is, however, a dogged perception that we are an impermissible environment as what is referred to as the international media is the CNN and BBC," he said.
"We would want to remind the CNN that they are not banned from this country. Nothing was given either orally or in writing, stating that they had been banned. It is just that they took a solidarity boycott with the BBC after we had said the latter was representing political interests.
"We have taken the decision that they must be engaged: Overtures have been made to both media organisations, and the BBC have said they'll be coming over while the CNN's coverage would be from South Africa."
Illegal regime change takes Internet by storm By Dambudzo Mapuranga
THE British Government appoints the BBC’s entire top management. In fact, one can safely say BBC is a mouthpiece of the British Government. This being said, how then can BBC be expected to report objectively concerning the Government of Zimbabwe seeing that Zanu-PF has been labelled enemy number one by the residents of Number 10 Downing Street. "We cannot independently verify the contents of this story as BBC is banned from reporting in Zimbabwe".
This is the disclaimer that you will find under many of the stories on Zimbabwe on the BBC’s website, TV and radio broadcasts.
The disclaimer is posted solely for the purpose of protecting BBC from being sued by the Government of Zimbabwe over its blatant false news stories.
Several questions arise when one closely examines the disclaimer and chief among them is, if the BBC has failed to verify a story why then would they report it and also post it on its website as a news article?
The only answer that there is to the actions of the BBC is that as long as any story paints a heinous picture of Zanu-PF, President Mugabe and Zimbabwe it will find itself attaining high priority on the BBC website, TV and radio. I am confident that if I were to open a fictitious story chronicling how Zanu-PF supporters have done all sorts of evil deeds on my being and on my property and even include several pictures of road accident victims it will make it on to BBC.
The game of creating news stories is not anything new; in fact the Americans perfected it a long time ago.
A classic example is seen from the American movie "Wag the Dog" starring Robert de Niro and Dustin Hoffman. The concept of the movie being that after news broke out that on the run up to the first Gulf War the Kuwaiti Lobby in Washington, DC commissioned the production of false news stories that showed Iraqi army tanks and soldiers advancing towards a supposed Iraqi/Kuwaiti border. It turns out that the entire footage was shot in the Nevada Desert with the help of the Bush administration.
The deception did not end there. These unscrupulous people went on to produce false testimony before the US Congress (the equivalent of our parliament). The daughter of the then Kuwaiti Ambassador to the United States was coached into testifying and lie before the US Congress on how her entire village was razed and how she escaped being killed by pretending to be dead and covering herself with the intestines of her dead mother.
The partiality of western media houses is well known, as most of them are nothing more than public relations offices of their countries’ foreign affairs ministries.
The negative reporting of the BBC and CNN on Zimbabwe is a mockery of the same institutions their governments claim to be propagating across the globe.
Rumours make juicy stories and are very difficult to take back. The type of irresponsible journalism being witnessed on the Internet has turned BBC and CNN into some of the biggest rumour mills.
Only myopic people and racists would find such rag tag stories to be of value.
Here are two stories that highlight gross irresponsibility on the part of the BBC and CNN. Some of them leave the reader wondering whether the editors of these media houses even bother showing up for work.
Zimbabwe campaign: Secret document
The article claims that undercover BBC news correspondent Ian Pannell obtained evidence of plans by Zimbabwe’s ruling party to harass and drive out opposition supporters.
I for one would like to have whatever medication Zanu-PF legal affairs secretary Cde Emmerson Mnangagwa is drinking, because according to the secret document, Cde Mnangagwa is doing the work of ten very strong men.
One day he is reported to be in South Africa consulting with the ANC, the next day he is hailed as the man running the so called military junta that is now "ruling" Zimbabwe, and now he is heading the Zanu-PF presidential election campaign.
That being said an analysis of the secret document shows that it is a total take. Zanu-PF takes great pride in its work and anyone who is familiar with Zanu-PF’s operations would know that any correspondence or party documents would have the Zanu-PF letterhead. The so called Zanu-PF secret document contains no logo or letterhead to show its origin.
Given that the cunning legal brains of Cde Mnangagwa are said to be heading the Action Plan documented in this disgraceful and shoddily down piece of work one wonders whether there is another Mnangagwa with half a brain who would come up with such a poor strategy.
One can only conclude that this secret document came from some opposition dim-wit with nothing better to do. The poor English used in the document leaves the mouth with a sour taste. The poor fellow then adds the names of several prominent Zanu-PF figures and accredits them to be from the Zanu-PF Midlands Province.
With the exception of Cde Mnangagwa, the rest of the party functionaries are not from the Zanu-PF Midlands Province. Senator Edna Madzongwe is from Mashonaland West Province.
Both Senator Joshua Malinga and Cde Jabulani Sibanda are from the Bulawayo Province, while Cde Joseph Chinotimba is from Manicaland Province.
The BBC failed to realise this and further more it is common knowledge that Politburo members such as Cdes Madzongwe and Mnangagwa head teams in their respective provinces and are not thrown all over the country in a haphazard manner.
Death of a Zimbabwe Activist
In an ironic twist of events Tonderai Ndira became a hero in death and yet he lived the life of a thug.
Despite all her hatred for Zanu-PF, Trudy Stevenson can attest that she did not moan the death of a former MDC-T activist who was responsible for her assault in Mabvuku in 2005, an assault that resulted in head injuries and a fractured arm.
The two police officers based at ZRP Marimba who were unfortunate to be at the station when it was petrol-bombed by Ndira and his accomplices surely did not shed a tear for the man responsible for their skin burns.
None of these heinous acts were featured in the glowing obituary that BBC News posted on Tonderai Ndira. Instead the news article glorified a violent man who died a violent death. The elderly are correct when they say those who live by the gun die by the gun.
"I knew him personally, he was a youth activist who went around the country holding workshops and teaching people their rights."
That is what one unnamed ZimRights official is quoted to have said. Too bad we cannot contact the so-called official and ask him for the names of the three towns where Ndira held human rights workshops.
Ndira’s farewell should have been a true reflection of what he was. It should have said "the death of an MDC-T foot soldier".
The story then tells of how ten men came in a pick up truck to Ndira’s house in Mabvuku armed with AK-47 rifles around seven in the morning and boldly asked Ndira’s wife to inform him that they had come to collect him. The men then abducted Ndira in his underwear in front of his children.
Of all the incredible things you have ever heard this is right up there with "the dog ate my homework" story.
Anyone who has been to Mabvuku or any other high-density suburb knows that there is no way anyone can be abducted at seven in the morning.
Are we meant to believe that somehow there were no people going about their business to witness ten armed men in an open pick-up truck kidnapping Tonderai Ndira?
With the way the MDC-T loves to cry for attention should this not have been on BBC and CNN within thirty minutes of Ndira’s abduction?
Observe how the BBC and CNN seem to be able to report of MDC-T leader Morgan Tsvangirai’s arrests within minutes of them happening.
How then did Ndira’s abduction go unreported for days only to have the news of his death reported to coincide with Tsvangirai’s return from self-imposed exile?
As if that was not enough, Tsvangirai, Zimbabwe’s self-proclaimed saviour "cried" at Ndira’s funeral, to invoke emotions of the Holy Book’s shortest, "Jesus wept" before raising Lazarus from the dead.
BBC now offers to answer readers’ questions about Zimbabwe through their undercover correspondent Ian Pannell. One can only guess what lies this hack of a journalist will be peddling to those who intend to ask him about the political situation in Zimbabwe.
I sent Ian Pannell several questions which I believe to be very pertinent to the Zimbabwean situation, but he is yet to respond to. My questions were:
l Why has the BBC and CNN not reported on MDC-T perpetrated violence against Zanu-PF supporters?
l Why has the BBC failed to reveal where it got the copy of the alleged Secret Zanu-PF campaign document?
l Why has the BBC never written about the effects of the illegal sanctions on ordinary Zimbabweans?
l Why is there no reference to the US’ Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act of 2001 on its website?
l Why does the BBC only quote right wing Rhodesians and MDC-T as the people representing "Zimbabweans"?
In conclusion, the long and short answer is that the Zimbabwe situation has largely been played up by the Western media and it is clear that it is an extension of their foreign relations policy on Africa.
This stark reality puts our private media poles apart with the Western media that they mimic, since our private media believes that "following the flag" is retrogressive.
The Internet, where lies, half truths and misinformation are peddled as news has internationalised the issue with pseudo experts and arm chair critics who have an axe to grind against Zanu-PF, President Mugabe and his Government always being available with "opinions and analyses" of every news item reported by the BBC and CNN and a whole host of other foreign networks.
However, the shameful thing is that the lies always come through, and the embedded journalism shows itself.
"Some even believe we are (...) conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure - one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it." David Rockefeller, Memoirs
