COMMENT - This is the new trend in land theft, facilitated by the IMF, which has never seen a corporate takeover that it didn't support. And called 'development'. If you want to know more about the IMF's land title reform, vs real land redistribution, check out Ambreena Manji's
The Politics Of Land Reform In Africa.
(LUSAKATIMES) Western corporations carve up Africa -the New Scramble for Africa
November 22, 2015
Huge tracts of land in African countries with access to the sea and high economic growth are being targeted by corporations such as Monsanto and Unilever with help from the British and American governments –including millions of dollars that are intended for helping the poor, says a report published today by UK campaigning group World Development Movement.
The document, titled
Carving up a continent: How the UK government is facilitating the corporate takeover of African food systems, explains that a G8 initiative called the New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition is using money intended for poverty reduction to instead ease access to key African locations for some of the world’s biggest companies, which already control much of the global food market.
Doublespeak and the new “scramble for Africa”
What’s more, the New Alliance agreements signed with ten key African countries (Benin, Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Ghana, Ivory Coast, Malawi, Mozambique, Nigeria, Senegal and Tanzania) are conditional, and many of them require the country in question to bring legislation – for example, revising seed laws to force small farmers to buy seeds and fertilisers from the corporates rather than seed sharing, which has been practised for generations and ensures biodiversity.
Under the new paradigm, multinationals gain access to fertile land and agricultural corridors on the pretext of tackling food poverty and helping Africa’s starving and needy. In reality this is doublespeak. If the New Alliance continues unchecked, it’s likely that problems are stored up for the future, as small scale and family farmers are forced off their land to make way for industrial scale crop production. WDM also identifies issues such as insecure and poorly paid jobs and a focus on producing for export markets rather than to feed local populations.
The report’s introduction, by WDM director Nick Dearden, says: “This is an old story given new impetus. More than a century ago the ‘scramble for Africa’ was instituted under the pretence of civilising the continent. Barbaric crimes were committed and the continent systematically de-developed because it profited Europe. Since that time, Africa’s problem has never been a lack of integration into the international economy – the problem is how it is integrated and in whose interests.”
Using money intended for poverty reduction to ease access to key African locations
Oblivious citizens
This isn’t the first time the New Alliance has come under fire – the Guardian newspaper published a critical piece last year. But the general populations of the countries whose taxpayers are supporting this power grab are woefully unaware that it is even happening, and so too are the citizens in whose countries these events are unfolding. This despite the fact that a whopping £600 million of UK aid money, for example, via the Department for International Development (DFID), is being channelled into this between 2012 and 2016.
Ironically this comes at a time when alternatives to the industrialisation of agriculture are being explored worldwide, and as the realities of climate change are being better understood. Africa is a place where new models of permaculture could meet old models of sustainable farming and cooperation to leapfrog the West – finding sustainable and locally owned solutions to nutritious food production.
The ‘scramble for Africa’ was instituted under the pretence of civilising the continent
The wheels are already turning
But this hangs in the balance. Many New Alliance partnership countries, such as Malawi, have already instituted many of the changes demanded as part of their agreement, and it has become much easier for foreign corporations to buy great tracts of land. Ghana recently saw the Plant Breeders’ Bill being pushed through its Parliament by politicians that Food Sovereignty Ghana implied might be on the take.
The corporations involved in the New Alliance are huge – Monsanto, Unilever, Syngenta, DuPont, Cargill, Diageo, SABMiller, Coca Cola, Yara. The last company – Yara – may not be a name you recognise, but is the largest global manufacturer of fertiliser. According to the WDM report, these agrochemicals “already cause serious levels of food poisoning in sub-Saharan Africa, with the UN estimating that health problems linked to pesticides could cost the region $90 billon between 2005 and 2020. Fertilisers also damage soil, leading farmers to rely on them even more in order to maintain production, which increases their risk of getting into debt.”
“The tragic consequences of small-scale farmers’ reliance on fertilisers in India have been much reported. An estimated 250,000 farmers committed suicide between 1995 and 2010 after getting into debt through buying agrochemicals.”
Under the guise of charity
Remember that old development chestnut “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Show him how to fish and you feed him for a lifetime”? The New Alliance seems to be about snapping his fishing rod in half, throwing it into the sea and telling him that you now own the sea and he must buy his fish from you, at wildly fluctuating prices. And it’s under the guise of charity.
The ‘scramble for Africa’ was instituted under the pretence of civilising the continent
Yet look at the personnel. Unilever’s external affairs director was previously at DFID and DFID’s director of policy used to work for Unilever. Meanwhile, for all the talk of wanting to solve African hunger, the chosen countries are almost all coastal, and tend to have high economic growth. Of the countries in Africa that have the worst hunger index scores, only one – Ethiopia – is a New Alliance country.
While all the players talk about poverty reduction and food security, the reality is that the path that will have the most positive effect for African farmers and populations long term is food sovereignty. That means ownership and control of land and non-reliance on imported seeds and foods, as well as being able to adjust crops to need. It might be tempting to apply the machine logic of industrialisation to agriculture and scale it up, on the basis that more food grown equals more people fed. But in reality the problem of hunger is not one to do with volume of food produced worldwide – rather it’s to do with existing unjust systems of food production and distribution. These are the very systems that the New Alliance is desperate to bring to Africa.
Other players are the Alliance for Green Revolution in Africa, set up by the Rockefeller Foundation, and the Gates Foundation; the New Vision for Agriculture, launched by the World Economic Forum and led by 33 multinationals from Monsanto to Walmart; and Grow Africa, a collaboration between the World Economic Forum and the African Union.
Of course, the New Alliance does have its defenders. Namely, international pop gimp Bono’s ONE Foundation, which hit the headlines a few years ago for giving a whopping 1% of its funds to actual charity…
In its 2013 report Growing Africa: Unlocking the potential of agribusiness the World Bank said: “Africa represents the ‘last frontier’ in global food and agricultural markets.” Once Africa’s greatest commodity to line the pockets of its pillagers was its human capital. Now they’re coming for the land, and the sustenance it offers. Don’t wait until it’s too late.
By Grace Kiwanga
Source: This is Africa
Labels: DFID, LAND REFORM, LAND RIGHTS, MONSANTO, NEOCOLONIALISM
Read more...
Is development aid to Malawi anything more than Neo-Colonial Life-Support?
By Nick Wright
August 8, 2012
President Bingu wa Mutharika (with encouragement from Robert Mugabe) was beginning to develop a policy in Malawi that was designed to free Malawi from aid dependency. It was a poorly-conceived policy, and very crudely executed, like everything under Bingu’s immediate direction, but it had the potential to free Malawi from its humiliating status as international beggar.
There was something almost heroic in Bingu’s defiance of the world-order as he, the leader of one of the poorest countries in the world, sent the British ambassador packing and told the donors to “go to hell”. His sudden death in April of this year changed all that. His Vice-President, Joyce Banda, took his place according to the rules of the Malawi Constitution, and reversed that policy. The donors (IMF, DfID, EU, USAID etc) are now pouring back into the country with their bags full of aid-money: hoping to get things back to the old order when that money was injected direcly into the Malawian government as “Budget Support”. Back to the good old days of past-president Bakili Muluzi and his UDF party who knew how to get rid of that money quickly, and without fuss.
No-one has a good word to spare for Bingu these days. The foreign-exchange bureaus are functioning again and the petrol pumps have fuel to sell. Bingu’s appetite for personal self-enrichment and luxury, always suspected, is now obvious for all to see. His scowling, bullying, finger-wagging brand of leadership has been replaced by a more open, more honest and more colourful presidency with a genuine freedom of speech and of the media. The Police and the Anti-Corruption Bureau and the Malawi Broadcasting Corporation are no longer agents of dictatorship.
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, left, meets with Malawi's President Joyce Banda at the State House in Lilongwe.
These are very important developments and the western donors are as pleased with them as are the Malawian people.
But is Malawi in danger of losing something important as the aid-money begins to flow again into Lilongwe. The UK’s Department for International Development (DFID) is a good example. It is back again as Malawi’s biggest donor, with £90 million to spend every year there from its overall budget of £8,000 millions. DFID will be followed by a new British High Commissioner to occupy the vast British embassy in Lilongwe. The hundreds of Malawian NGOs and international charities with offices in Lilongwe are lining up again to spend that DFID money, as are the government ministries (Agriculture, Education, Health) which no longer have to worry their heads about awkward policy- issues and budgets. With an exchange-rate of 436 kwacha to every pound, £90 million pounds converts to so many devalued Malawian kwacha that no-one needs to worry about exhausting that pot. There’ll always be another western donor standing eagerly by, to fill any awkward holes.
Hilary Clinton is due into Lilongwe at the end of this week.
In Britain, and in much of Malawi, DFID is considered to be a benevolent and politically-neutral player on the world stage: concerned only with reducing poverty. Indeed, the money DFID spends on fertilizer- and seed- subsidies in Malawi: (that part of it, at least, which gets past the corrupt Malawian middlemen who are given the government contracts for its purchase from South Africa and Saudi Arabia and for its transportation to the Malawian farmers) DOES some real good for the poor. There really IS poverty-reduction in Malawi, if only for a few months.
BUT does this aid come at a serious political price? Is DFID really politically neutral? Is Joyce Banda’s “good behaviour” as interpreted by the western donor countries irrelevant to it? Is President Banda, for example, free to re-value her hugely de-valued currency without the donors’ authorization? Is she allowed freely to interfere in the tobacco-market, as Bingu so often tried to do, against the US tobacco-buying monopolies and on behalf of Malawi’s tens of thousands of poor tobacco-farmers? Is any of this aid money allowing Malawians to be more self-sufficient? I guess not.
Joyce Banda is the darling of the West, at the moment, and will remain their darling as long as she does what they tell her to do. Paul Kagame, in Rwanda, who was, only yesterday, the blue-eyed boy (so to speak) of the US and British political establishments has now been stripped of his DFID aid-money because of his support for the “wrong” side in the DRC.
As long as the aid money keeps flowing to Malawi, will anyone care about the almost-invisible strings attached to it? The strings will always be pulled by very nice, university-educated, well-intentioned, people, in London, like Andrew Mitchell (the British minister currently in charge of International Development). These people would reject any accusation of “neo-colonialism” with genuine indignation and they have a huge British government department to prepare their self-justifications. Malawian politicians in Lilongwe will hardly feel the pressure exerted by these strings until they dare to renege on the unwritten contracts. Then there’ll be no mistake about the pressure, as Malawian subsistence-farmers are forced to confront serious famine once again and as Malawian voters threaten to change their minds about their political masters. What is a political master worth in Malawi if he doesn’t have “development” funds at his disposal?
The British Empire of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries was administered by nice and well-educated men like the British prime minister, David Cameron, and his Conservative party-colleague, Andrew Mitchell, who believed that they were doing good for the silly “natives” in Africa. It was called “Civilization” then, and is called “International Development” now. In the cold light of history we can now see that the British Empire did as little lasting good for the colonized natives as it did for Britain itself. It actually impoverished them both.
DFID is following a very, very, familiar track.
*Nick Wright
AUTHOR’S REQUEST
“The author would be glad to read polite and well-informed comments on his article by people who have actually read it, and understood what is being said in it. Preferably commenting under their own names. He does not want to be accused of being an enemy of Malawi, or to be told by people who are afraid of their own names that Nick Wright doesn’t really exist !!. Nick Wright does exist and is actually a “mzungu” with some small understanding of, and a real love of, Malawi. He is also quite attached to his own name”
Labels: BINGU WA MUTHARIKA, DFID, DONORS, NEOCOLONIALISM, NEOLIBERALISM
Read more...
Government needs to explain its actions to curb poverty - DFID
By Tilyenji Mwanza and Bright Mukwasa
Tue 19 June 2012, 13:24 CAT
THE Department for International Development says the government needs to explain concrete policy actions it will take to reduce poverty, create employment and expand the economy because previous government policies did not benefit the poorest rural households.
During the poverty reduction budget support review meeting held at the Mulungushi International Conference Centre in Lusaka yesterday, DFID head Mike Hammond said while the government's intentions had been clearly stated,
the DFID was concerned that it was
yet to present a concrete strategy or roadmap for implementing reforms.
"Whilst the government has set out very clear pronouncements to focus its energies on reducing poverty, we, and more importantly the people of Zambia through the ballot box, will judge its commitment on the basis of its policy decisions, resource allocation and results achieved," Hammond said.
"We, and the people of Zambia need to learn about more concrete policy actions this government will take in order to reduce poverty, create more employment opportunities, expand economic development throughout the country, in rural areas, and distribute available resources more equitably."
Hammond said strengthening public financial management was a cornerstone of good governance and any Budget Support programme.
"Government's intentions have been clearly stated, but we are concerned that it is yet to present a concrete strategy or roadmap for implementing reforms. The 2011 PAF assessment shows worrying deterioration in key public financial management indicators and Cooperating Partners are concerned about the lack of availability of timely budget execution reports," Hammond said.
"The Auditor General's Report on spending in 2010 shows that there remains a need to sustain and deepen progress in implementing reforms to Zambia's public financial management systems."
Hammond said DFID's poverty reduction budget support commitments for 2012 were pledged on the understanding that the PF government would not sustain high levels of public spending on uneconomic purchases and subsidies of maize.
"Evidence, notably from the 2010 Living Conditions Monitoring Survey, clearly shows that previous policies did not benefit the poorest rural households, crowded -out development in agriculture, and wasted resources that could be spent on tackling poverty," Hammond said.
He said cooperating partners were concerned that the previous government's commitment on roads crowded-out vital spending on social services such as health and education.
"A government's commitment to the underlying principles cannot be measured on words alone. Real commitment must be demonstrated by actions, concrete plans, resource allocation and ultimately by the progress made in achieving results," Hammond said.
Hammond said according to the revised ROADSIP2 Road Sector Investment Programme2, 36 per cent of the unpaved core road network remained in poor conditions, including 34 of the primary feeder roads.
Hammond said the roads budget allocates the majority of resources to the expensive paving of new roads at the expense of rehabilitation and maintenance of unpaved roads.
"Cooperating partners will continue to offer support to enhance Zambia's capacity to critically appraise infrastructure projects, particularly in the road sector, to ensure that the government has the correct evidence and analysis on which to make investment decisions," Hammond said.
He also said a third supplementary budget allocation for Food Reserve Agency could raise serious concerns over the credibility of the budget process.
He also said another aspect of the budget support was to reinforce and strengthen domestic accountability.
"It is the responsibility of Zambians to hold their government to account. Civil society, parliamentarians, media and others all have a critical role to play," said Hammond.
And Secretary to the Treasury Fredson Yamba said donors have raised a number of concerns relating to the government's commitment to principles of poverty reduction budget support process.
"...these concerns are in the areas of public financial management, commitment to structural reforms, and commitment to effective governance. I would like to take this opportunity to reiterate that the government's commitment to these issues remain unwavering," said Yamba.
"Our plea, therefore, to you our cooperating partners is to engage constructively with us, in our quest to meet these challenges for the betterment of the Zambian people. The tremendous support that the government continues receiving through budget support is highly appreciated, as it impacts positively on improving the livelihoods of our citizens."
Labels: DFID
Read more...
COMMENT - Every year, Africa loses $1 trillion in raw materials, transnational corporations pay no taxes over that, instead taxes are paid by the western taxpayers, which are called 'Donor Aid', or $250 billion (1/4 trillion) a year. Charitable giving (Aunt Mabel's 5 pounds to charity on a sunday) is $6 billion. Donor Aid is a scam. It is even called 'donor aid' so people confuse it with charitable giving. 'Donor Aid' is substituting western taxpayer money for the taxes that should be paid by Anglo-American De Beers, Equinox, First Quantum, Glencore, Chevron, Royal Dutch Shell, Total, etc.
British parliamentarians to quiz Glencore and others over tax avoidance in Zambia
TIME PUBLISHED - Saturday, March 3, 2012, 7:13 am
Reuters reports that British parliamentarians have invited commodities trader Glencore and other unnamed companies in the resources sector to testify next month as part of an inquiry into tax in developing countries.
Parliament’s International Development Committee monitors the work of the
Department for International Development and is
probing tax payments and tax avoidance in the developing world. It has focused its investigation on Zambia, a copper producing giant where Glencore operates alongside other miners including Vedanta Resources and First Quantum.
A number of non-governmental organisations, but also Rio Tinto and brewer SABMiller, have already submitted written evidence as part of the inquiry.
Zambia is Africa’s top copper producer, but it is one of the world’s poorest countries, and its revenue from the sector accounts for barely 1 percent of government revenue. It said last month that it would audit all of its mining houses to dig for back taxes of up to $1 billion.
The committee quotes an estimated $160 billion each year lost by the developing world because of tax avoidance by multinationals.
“We are happy to take part in this inquiry, about taxation in developing countries,” said a spokesman for Glencore, which owns Mopani Copper Mines, one of Zambia’s largest producers.
“Mopani makes a major economic contribution to Zambia, providing over 17,000 jobs, paying its taxes, and making substantial voluntary contributions in education, health and infrastructure development.”
[Reuters]
Labels: DFID, GLENCORE INTERNATIONAL AG, MINING, TAX EVASION
Read more...
ZANACO evaluation fraudulent
TIME PUBLISHED - Wednesday, February 1, 2012, 5:09 pm
The evaluation of ZANACO is said to have been fraudulent, irregular and massively undervalued. And the Net Asset Value methodology used to evaluate ZANACO was problematic and unprofessionally done.
These are the findings established by the Technical Committee on the privatization of ZANACO. Technical Committee Advisor to the Commission of Inquiry Michael Musonda said the Net Asset Value could only have been used if the bank was on the brink of liquidation.
Mr. Musonda submitted to the Sebastian Zulu chaired committee of inquiry that ZANACO had never been known to be on the brink of liquidation.
He told the committee that the method used by the evaluator, Price Waters Coopers, was illegal and unwarranted.
Mr. Musonda submitted that the most ideal value method which was the market valuation price of the 49 per cent stake in the bank could have been in the range of between US$18.4 million and US$23.4 million.
He said this was in contrast of the between US$8.1million and US$8.8 million established by the evaluator to be the market price.
Mr. Musonda submitted that the then ZAMBIA Privatization Agency-ZPA abrogated its mandate by allowing DFID to engage an evaluator of ZANACO assets.
He said that responsibility should have been solely handled by ZPA.
[ZNBC]
Labels: DFID, PRIVATISATION, ZANACO
Read more...
COMMENT - Well Kelvin, here is what works - collecting $1.3 billion in taxes from the mining industry, through the Windfall Tax. And reinvesting it in things people can see and use - like infrastructure, agriculture, manufacturing. Including irrigation to prevent flooding and stabilize agricultural production year to year.
Evaluations key for accountability - DFID
By Kabanda Chulu
Mon 30 Jan. 2012, 13:00 CAT
THE turbulent economic situation prevailing in donor countries has intensified the need to justify that aid resources are improving the lives of poor people, says DFID representative Kelvin Quinlan.
During the evaluation meeting of the poverty reduction budget support synthesis report in Lusaka on Friday, Quinlan said Zambia had recorded a decade of economic growth with
average income ranging from US$300 in 2000 to US$1,070 in 2010.
"Despite this fantastic achievement, Zambia is ranked 164 out of 187 countries on the 2011 UN human development index and 60 per cent of Zambians are still living in poverty," he noted.
"As donors we collectively provide poverty reduction budget support but to end poverty, we need to know what works and what doesn't. So we need to learn lessons around our works and evaluations are so important for accountability to demonstrate what was achieved with money invested because there will be more scrutiny given the economic situation in donor countries."
And Secretary to the Treasury Fredson Yamba said the objective of the evaluation was to try and provide empirical evidence that budget support does realise its objectives in terms of development results, including governance, institutional strengthening, economic development, poverty reduction and improved service delivery.
"The report portrays a good picture for Zambia by concluding that budget support in Zambia has helped to realise a number of objectives," said Yamba.
Labels: DEVELOPMENT, DFID
Read more...
British High Commission clarifies ZAMTEL story in the Post and Zambia Daily Mail Newspapers
TIME PUBLISHED - Sunday, January 29, 2012, 12:13 am
The articles in the Post and Zambia Daily Mail on 28 January concerning Zamtel did not accurately reflect the British High Commission’s position on the issue.
The British High Commission fully supports the efforts to tackle corruption in Zambia. Corruption is not only wrong in itself; it also impedes economic development. DFID is working with the Zambian Government in the fight against corruption.
It is important that any action, including the reversal of the sale of Zamtel, be carried out according to the law, and that this be seen to be the case.
Furthermore, it is in the interests of Zambia that the government acts in such a way as to ensure the continued confidence of investors in the country. The statement of David Pearce, Deputy High Commissioner, on 27 January was in line with the above.
The British High Commission has not said anything further about the reversal of the sale of Zamtel and does not, at this point at least, intend to do so.
MUVITV
Labels: CORRUPTION, DFID, FDI, HIGH COMMISSIONERS, ZAMTEL
Read more...
AFRICAN FOCUS: MDC-T and the sabotage of Zim’s foreign policy
Saturday, 18 June 2011 20:49
Dr Tafataona Mahoso
On June 12 2011, I was interviewed on SABC’s Interface programme as a member of Zimbabwe’s strategic communication delegation sent to South Africa. The interviewer was one Eusebius McKaiser, who was trying to imitate on Interface the format and style of BBC World Service’s Hard Talk programme.
Almost all of McKaiser’s questions were premised on MDC-T anti-Zimbabwe propaganda in South Africa and therefore easy to anticipate and to answer. One particular question which messed up the host’s line of questioning concerned His Excellency President Robert Mugabe: Whether MDC-T’s allegations were not true that the President had been in power too long; that he was too old; that he had lost control of the reins of government; and that he should leave office immediately.
I had calculated that McKaiser would focus on mere opinions and would also seek to lure me to go on and on expressing mere opinion which he would simply denounce and dismiss as either personal or representing only the views of Zanu-PF which would then enable him to dismiss me as just a “Zanu-PF pseudo-intellectual” and “pseudo-academic” who has no choice but to simply repeat Zanu-PF propaganda.
In fact, I had already seen a hint of this MDC line of thinking in an internet briefing by one of the many NGOs representing the anti-Zimbabwe front in South Africa.
Reacting to news of the deployment of the Zimbabwean strategic communication delegation headed by Professor Jonathan Moyo, Crisis in Zimbabwe Coalition in SA had said:
“We understand Zanu-PF has dispatched their so-called high-powered delegation to Johannesburg — comprising the venomous Jonathan Moyo and pseudo-academics Tafataona Mahoso and Vimbai Chivaura, together with Ambassador Chris Mutsvangwa. It appears Zanu-PF wishes to intensify its lobby to get Sadc to set aside Livingstone Troika resolutions.”
Significantly, the view of the President implied in McKaiser’s question on SABC came from MDC-T’s report to the Sadc Troika at Livingstone, Zambia. So, my reply was first to say that His Excellency President Robert Mugabe was elected in the June 2008 Presidential run-off election which MDC-T willingly boycotted for fear of losing.
But more devastating against the interviewer and the MDC-T lies being peddled in South Africa was my reference to Section 20.1.6 of the Global Political Agreement which all three parties in the inclusive Government signed in 2008 and made constitutional through Constitutional Amendment Number 19 of 2009.
I said all three parties signed and swore to an agreement which includes the following:
“There shall be a President, which office shall continue to be occupied by President Robert Gabriel Mugabe. There shall be two (2) Vice-Presidents, who will be nominated by the (same) President and/or Zanu-PF (that is, the President’s party).”
In other words, the defence of the propriety and legitimacy of President Robert Mugabe’s incumbency should not be a matter of one person’s opinion or even one party’s opinion. It derives from an election, from a unanimous tripartite agreement and from a subsequent constitutional amendment passed by a tripartite Parliament of Zimbabwe.
Contrary to this clearly documented information, MDC-T and the NGOs affiliated to it have been telling the SABC and most South Africans they interact with that President Mugabe is an unelected leader who imposed himself on the country, imposed himself on his own party, and somehow forced the other political parties to endure his leadership as President.
So it was critical to show SABC’s McKaiser that the very same people claiming to oppose President Mugabe’s leadership and actually campaigning to sabotage his conduct of Zimbabwe’s foreign policy in fact signed a document accepting the very same President as their President before enshrining that agreement in the Constitution of Zimbabwe and swearing allegiance to the same in front of the same President. They knew the President’s age and they knew how capable he was of leading them. How can they now conduct an external campaign claiming that he is too old or that he has no control over government?
That Interface programme on SABC was just one incident. Prior to that there was the seminar organised by the so-called Institute for a Democratic Alternative for Zimbabwe (IDAZIM) in Sandton on June 8 2011 which was also reported in The Herald on Friday June 10 2011 under the heading “Blow for MDC formations at summit”.
The overall theme of the supposed seminar was “Sadc’s final hurdle to a democratic transition in Zimbabwe: Engaging with security sector reform”.
In a genuine seminar, one would expect that among the presenters there would be someone sent by the Zimbabwe Defence Forces (ZDF) to present the current institutional voice of the ZDF in Zimbabwe. But that was not the case. The presenters were:
* Mr Wilfred Mhanda or Dzinashe Machingura, who absconded from the liberation war and is now head of an NGO called Zimbabwe Liberators’ Platform. His topic was: “The role played by the security sector during and after the 2008 elections in Zimbabwe”;
* Mr Aubrey Matshiqi, whose topic was “Can Sadc through the facilitator, South Africa, tackle security sector reforms in Zimbabwe?”;
* Mr Dewa Mavhinga of MDC-T affiliate Crisis Coalition Zimbabwe, whose topic was “Sadc’s final hurdle to the roadmap: Engaging with the security sector”; and
* Dr Cheryl Hendricks, of the South African Institute for Security Studies, who was to be the discussant.
Where the purpose of the line of questioning during my Interface interview with McKaiser was to criminalise President Robert Mugabe’s incumbency, that of the IDAZIM seminar was to criminalise the role of the Zimbabwe Defence Forces (ZDF) under the cover of an academic discourse. Ironically, it was only the white woman presenter, Dr Cheryl Hendricks, who succeeded in keeping her academic cover by refusing to engage in invective and hyperbole against Zimbabwe’s foreign policy and the ZDF. All the three African presenters betrayed a rabid hatred of Zimbabwe and a burning desire to criminalise the reputation of the ZDF. And to do so, they had to abandon academic pretences and engage in open propaganda.
The first glaring omission was that there was no one on the panel who knew the ZDF in detail and could speak with authority on its nature and characteristics, let alone anyone who knew enough to attempt to say whether or not it should be “reformed”, how it would be reformed and whether the reforms being demanded had not already been carried out since 1980.
The second glaring omission was clear from Mhanda’s presentation which was constructed in such a way as to make it seem as if the history of the ZDF began with the 2008 harmonised elections. Among all the presenters, the few references to real history which were made at best went only as far back as 2002! When some mention of the dissident war of 1984-1987 was made, it was done in isolation and entirely out of context, as Gukurahundi.
The third glaring distortion was the assumption that Zimbabwe’s Inter-party Agreement (GPA) of 2008 is a post-war settlement or peace agreement. This was assumed by the presenters and it was also implied in the book, The Security Sector in Southern Africa, which the organisers distributed for free at the seminar. The introduction to that book, which is jointly sponsored by the Institute for Security Studies (ISS) and the British Department for International Development (DFID), says, for instance:
“In Zimbabwe, despite the formation of a government of national unity, the political atmosphere remains tense. It is instructive that the peace agreement (of 2008) did not specifically include efforts to ensure that the security sector abides by its constitution and laws and the basic precepts of civil security relations.”
This is a lie. There is a thriving judiciary in Zimbabwe and the courts enjoy independence. Mavhinga, for instance, deliberately conflated the functions of the entire security sector in Zimbabwe with the role of certain specialists from the ZDF who are or have recently become medical doctors, engineers, IT specialists, communications experts or academics. The presence of any one or two of these in a civilian institution is therefore taken by MDC formations and Crisis Zimbabwe Coalition as evidence of the “mass militarisation” of civil institutions.
Mavhinga’s allegation of the military takeover of the electoral system was presented as “a declaration of war by Zanu-PF against all its opponents”, as if all the officers of the Air Force of Zimbabwe, all the members of the Zimbabwe National Army, and all the members of the Central Intelligence Organisation, somehow abandoned the borders of Zimbabwe and other posts and concentrated all their personnel on running elections! This was preposterous, but for some reason, no one among the regular audience challenged it. It remained for the special media delegation from Zimbabwe to show that even the basis of the entire seminar was unfounded and unjustified. How could the MDC formations say that the people of Zimbabwe should not hold any elections until the entire security sector is “reformed” when such “reforms” usually take 10 to 15 years?
Other features omitted from the presentations at the seminar were the role of the MDC in perpetrating violence in 2007 and 2011; in fact one main reason for the 2008 agreement was to stop external Anglo-Saxon intrusions into the internal affairs of Zimbabwe and this particular seminar itself represented a continuing invitation to the very same external forces, especially the British, to intervene in Zimbabwe’s internal affairs.
So the purpose of the proposed reforms must be to disarm the forces who liberated Zimbabwe in order to make illegal regime change easier?
Finally, listening to the presenters at the Sandton seminar on June 8 2011, a person from Mars would think that the GPA was a post-war settlement on a country where the judiciary was destroyed by the war and no longer functioning. The presenters alleged that the security forces were a law unto themselves.
But above all, the anti-Zimbabwe campaign is primarily a war against Zimbabwe’s foreign policy and defence policy. The war is focused on President Robert Mugabe and the Presidency precisely because it is the President who is mandated by the constitution to direct Zimbabwe’s defence policy and foreign policy.
In fact the imposition and maintenance of illegal Anglo-Saxon sanctions against the country means that the MDC formations and their sponsors did succeed to a great extent in damaging Zimbabwe’s foreign policy by sowing the lies to justify imposition of sanctions in the first place; by sowing the lies which made it possible to claim that the illegal sanctions were targeted only at certain individuals and therefore of no economic consequence; by sowing the lies which made some people believe that even if the sanctions were real and causing enormous damage to people’s livelihoods — in the end the damage would be worthwhile because the same Anglo-Saxon powers would bring “democracy” and massive “foreign aid” to the people and quickly end their suffering.
Significance of MDC-T’s Campaign against Zimbabwe’s Foreign Policy
Both at the IDAZIM seminar in Sandton on June 8 and during the SABC Interface programme four days later on June 12 — it was clear that the framing of attacks on Zimbabwe’s foreign policy derived from the false report smuggled to the Sadc Troika in Livingstone, Zambia, through the Sadc facilitation team on March 31 2011. In fact the British and US-sponsored MDC demonstrations in South Africa in June 2011 all focused on trying to force the full Sadc Summit to adopt and endorse the discredited, fraudulent and now abandoned Livingstone report.
What the people of Zimbabwe need to know is that
the Anglo-Saxon powers sponsoring the MDC’s debauchment of Zimbabwe’s foreign policy will never allow multiple political parties to generate multiple and contradicting foreign policy positions.
They never allow such positions to be articulated, let alone campaigned for by NGOs and political factions on foreign soil.
And in situations of foreign opposition to or attacks on that foreign policy, the Anglo-Saxon powers do not hesitate to deploy their military and security establishments in defence of their president and his direction of the same foreign policy.
For example, the September 2004 Report of the Defence Science Board Task Force on Strategic Communication of the United States Defence Department states openly on Page 62 that:
“A unifying Presidential vision and broad bipartisan Congressional support are the critical starting points in transforming (the US) strategic communication. Only Presidential direction and the focused actions of Congressional (that is, Parliamentary) leaders can create the political will needed to build the long-term strategic communication capabilities America needs . . . Leadership from the top must drive widespread understanding that national security policies will fail unless interlinked with strategic communication.”
This then explains why the same US government persists on instigating the MDC formations, the NGOs and the Western-sponsored media to focus on denigrating and criminalising the President and the Zimbabwe Defence Forces.
This is why it was necessary for me to tell SABC that all the three parties in our Parliament signed the GPA and swore allegiance to Zimbabwe in front of President Mugabe whom they endorsed through their signatures as President of the entire nation responsible for driving one foreign policy for one Zimbabwe. And the countries sponsoring these parties and their allied NGOs would not allow the sort of treasonous behaviour which we saw among the MDC formations and their affiliated NGOs in South Africa in early June 2011.
According to the 2004 Report of the Defence Science Board of the US Department of Defence already cited:
“Only White House (that is, Presidential) leadership, with support from Cabinet Secretaries (that is all ministers) and Congress, can bring about” a coherent and effective foreign policy.
“Nothing shapes US policies and global perceptions of US foreign and national security objectives more powerfully than the President’s statements and actions, and those of senior officials . . . Swift and sustained Presidential direction is also required to connect strategy to structure.”
Therefore, in the Zimbabwe case, it is treacherous and criminal for the MDC formations to campaign abroad against Zimbabwe’s foreign policy when in fact at home they are sitting on a whole agreement (the GPA), in which they have sworn that President Mugabe should be their President, too, and should direct foreign policy and defence policy on behalf of all Zimbabweans.
It is wrong to denigrate any team sent abroad by that same President to explain and defend that foreign policy to the outside world. People sent by the President to explain and defend Zimbabwe’s interests abroad are no longer just Zanu-PF emissaries, even though the President who sends them happens to be also the leader of Zanu-PF.
That was why it became necessary for me on June 12 to tell McKaiser of SABC that President Mugabe was elected in a poll which MDC-T boycotted for fear of losing; that nevertheless all the three parties to the GPA subsequently endorsed President Mugabe as everyone’s President; and that all the three parties sponsored a constitutional amendment which included acceptance of President Mugabe as President and which the full Parliament passed into law. To the extent that these same parties were now telling the world otherwise, they were not only lying but also refusing to take full responsibility for their own decisions.
As for the Anglo-Saxon powers and African academics, we may cite Blessing Miles Tendi’s book, Making History in Mugabe’s Zimbabwe, in which one academic confessed that the donors have corrupted some academics and intellectuals in Zimbabwe. The academic was quoted as saying:
“I do consultancy work for NGOs and I bend my analysis to please them. I tell NGOs what they want to hear. I tell them Mugabe is bad and there is a serious crisis and I say it loudly so they are satisfied. That way they will come back again next time for my analysis and even bring me new clients. That is how I survive.”
This is the disease which the white donor countries have spread.
We saw it on our trip to South Africa this June 2011.
-The Sunday Mail
Labels: COLOUR REVOLUTIONS, DFID, MDC, NEOCOLONIALISM
Read more...
Scramble for British regime change funds
Sunday, 19 June 2011 00:23 Top Stories
By Munyaradzi Huni
THE British government has released a staggering three million pounds to fund the so-called independent media in the country for it to team up with civil society organisations to
mount an unprecedented propaganda war against President Mugabe, Zanu-PF and some State institutions, it has been established.
This revelation comes hot on the heels of what the British government and its US and EU allies believe are encouraging examples of media and civil society-driven so-called spring revolutions in North Africa where twitter and facebook supported by the global media are said to have ruled the roost.
Official documents obtained by The Sunday Mail this week show that the British government has allocated a total of £4,5 million to the Department for International Development (DFID) allegedly to “strengthen accountable governance” in Zimbabwe by “supporting civil society organisations and media actors” to influence the conduct and results of the forthcoming harmonised elections.
The programme, which is detailed in a document obtained by The Sunday Mail, was first mooted in February when the original terms of reference of the British tender were outlined in a circular identified as “OJEU tender doc: ToRs”.
Now fully under way, the programme runs from April 2011 to September 30 2013.
Three millions pounds have been set aside to cover this period while an additional £1,5 million will be released between April 2012 and March 2013.
According to the British government, the range of activities being funded include but are not limited to “violence monitoring and reporting, civil and voter education, independent print media and independent broadcast media”.
RELATED
*
UK in £4,5 million sinister election project
*
US scorns ‘inept’ MDC leadership
*
Context and cost of media corruption in Zimbabwe.
Already, funding has been made to some so-called independent media houses and journalists (names supplied) some of whom have started churning out sensational, alarmist, scandalous and false stories about the political and security situation in Zimbabwe with an unmistakable thrust to inflame and influence electoral opinion.
Some of the media and so-called civil society elements participating in the British programme were visible in Sandton, South Africa, last week before, during and after the Extraordinary Sadc Summit on Zimbabwe.
Their activities, which are consistent with the DFID blueprint, included organising seminars on elections based on issues such as the much-talked-about security sector reforms and Press conferences which were, in fact, political seminars agitating for elections in 2012 or 2013 in conformity with the £4,5 million funding circle authorised by the British government.
A concerned NGO activist who is intimately familiar with this British project who has participated in its launch activities told The Sunday Mail that he is one out of a number of already disgruntled participants who are unhappy about what he said is the apparent scramble for cash by some editors in the so-called independent media who are elbowing out their own reporters by positioning themselves “in front of the till” to write stories that are fictitious.
Said the activist: “Just take a look and examine who from the private media went to Sandton and read the alarmist stories filed from there and draw your own conclusions.“What I can tell you is that what some Zimbabwean journalists and the editors are doing for money is just not right.
“But this is not new because it has happened before and has involved more or less the same characters, the same newspapers and the same NGOs such as Crisis in Zimbabwe Coalition with the notable exception of the new kids on the block.
“My honest hope and prayer is that this time there would be disgruntled whistle-blowers who are tired of this rot and are prepared to speak out like I am doing by talking to you mukoma.”
A review of the headlines and feature writing in the so-called private media since March 31 when the Livingstone summit was held shows a dramatic increase of clearly exaggerated, misrepresented and false stories that are inflammatory with preposterous claims about alleged and unsubstantiated eruption of political violence, about the silent coup which is not visible or that Sadc has come up with a election roadmap.
In the same vein, there have been endless media stories since April with scurrilous claims about President Mugabe’s age and alleged poor health designed to buttress allegations of a silent coup in the hope of inflaming emotions and promoting political instability in the country as an expression of MDC-T’s election manifesto.
Contacted for comment on these latest developments regarding the British funding, Zanu-PF Politburo member Professor Jonathan Moyo, who is also a political scientist, said:
“The preposition that President Mugabe should prove that he is in good health by never ever visiting a doctor or a medical facility that we now read about in some sections of the media is stupid in every sense and cannot be entertained or believed by rationale people.
“As for the British government, I am sure UK taxpayers would be outraged to hear that £4,5 million of their money is being wasted on incompetent NGOs and ignorant and corrupt journalists who promise to effect regime change in our country when they cannot even spell their own names.
“Otherwise, anyone who imagines that they will do today what they failed to do at the height of hyperinflation is very foolish.
“The truth is that they will get more than they have bargained for because this time we are all very ready and raring to go with the knowledge that the North African spring is behind us.”
Observers told The Sunday Mail last week that the discredited dossier submitted by PM Tsvangirai ahead of the Livingstone Sadc Organ Troika Summit was an example of what the British government are funding with its £4,5 million regime change project.
The observers said British government funds will go down the drain in the same way that PM Tsvangirai’s dossier has gone into the dustbin of history.-The Sunday Mail
Labels: DFID, LIBYA, NEOCOLONIALISM, NEOLIBERALISM
Read more...
Scramble for British regime change funds
Sunday, 19 June 2011 00:23 Top Stories
By Munyaradzi Huni
THE British government has released a staggering three million pounds to fund the so-called independent media in the country for it to team up with civil society organisations to mount an unprecedented propaganda war against President Mugabe, Zanu-PF and some State institutions, it has been established.
This revelation comes hot on the heels of what the British government and its US and EU allies believe are encouraging examples of media and civil society-driven so-called spring revolutions in North Africa where twitter and facebook supported by the global media are said to have ruled the roost.
Official documents obtained by The Sunday Mail this week show that the British government has allocated a total of £4,5 million to the Department for International Development (DFID) allegedly to “strengthen accountable governance” in Zimbabwe by “supporting civil society organisations and media actors” to influence the conduct and results of the forthcoming harmonised elections.
The programme, which is detailed in a document obtained by The Sunday Mail, was first mooted in February when the original terms of reference of the British tender were outlined in a circular identified as “OJEU tender doc: ToRs”.
Now fully under way, the programme runs from April 2011 to September 30 2013.
Three millions pounds have been set aside to cover this period while an additional £1,5 million will be released between April 2012 and March 2013.
According to the British government, the range of activities being funded include but are not limited to “violence monitoring and reporting, civil and voter education, independent print media and independent broadcast media”.
RELATED
* UK in £4,5 million sinister election project
* US scorns ‘inept’ MDC leadership
* Context and cost of media corruption in Zimbabwe.
Already, funding has been made to some so-called independent media houses and journalists (names supplied) some of whom have started churning out sensational, alarmist, scandalous and false stories about the political and security situation in Zimbabwe with an unmistakable thrust to inflame and influence electoral opinion.
Some of the media and so-called civil society elements participating in the British programme were visible in Sandton, South Africa, last week before, during and after the Extraordinary Sadc Summit on Zimbabwe.
Their activities, which are consistent with the DFID blueprint, included organising seminars on elections based on issues such as the much-talked-about security sector reforms and Press conferences which were, in fact, political seminars agitating for elections in 2012 or 2013 in conformity with the £4,5 million funding circle authorised by the British government.
A concerned NGO activist who is intimately familiar with this British project who has participated in its launch activities told The Sunday Mail that he is one out of a number of already disgruntled participants who are unhappy about what he said is the apparent scramble for cash by some editors in the so-called independent media who are elbowing out their own reporters by positioning themselves “in front of the till” to write stories that are fictitious.
Said the activist: “Just take a look and examine who from the private media went to Sandton and read the alarmist stories filed from there and draw your own conclusions.“What I can tell you is that what some Zimbabwean journalists and the editors are doing for money is just not right.
“But this is not new because it has happened before and has involved more or less the same characters, the same newspapers and the same NGOs such as Crisis in Zimbabwe Coalition with the notable exception of the new kids on the block.
“My honest hope and prayer is that this time there would be disgruntled whistle-blowers who are tired of this rot and are prepared to speak out like I am doing by talking to you mukoma.”
A review of the headlines and feature writing in the so-called private media since March 31 when the Livingstone summit was held shows a dramatic increase of clearly exaggerated, misrepresented and false stories that are inflammatory with preposterous claims about alleged and unsubstantiated eruption of political violence, about the silent coup which is not visible or that Sadc has come up with a election roadmap.
In the same vein, there have been endless media stories since April with scurrilous claims about President Mugabe’s age and alleged poor health designed to buttress allegations of a silent coup in the hope of inflaming emotions and promoting political instability in the country as an expression of MDC-T’s election manifesto.
Contacted for comment on these latest developments regarding the British funding, Zanu-PF Politburo member Professor Jonathan Moyo, who is also a political scientist, said:
“The preposition that President Mugabe should prove that he is in good health by never ever visiting a doctor or a medical facility that we now read about in some sections of the media is stupid in every sense and cannot be entertained or believed by rationale people.
“As for the British government, I am sure UK taxpayers would be outraged to hear that £4,5 million of their money is being wasted on incompetent NGOs and ignorant and corrupt journalists who promise to effect regime change in our country when they cannot even spell their own names.
“Otherwise, anyone who imagines that they will do today what they failed to do at the height of hyperinflation is very foolish.
“The truth is that they will get more than they have bargained for because this time we are all very ready and raring to go with the knowledge that the North African spring is behind us.”
Observers told The Sunday Mail last week that the discredited dossier submitted by PM Tsvangirai ahead of the Livingstone Sadc Organ Troika Summit was an example of what the British government are funding with its £4,5 million regime change project.
The observers said British government funds will go down the drain in the same way that PM Tsvangirai’s dossier has gone into the dustbin of history.-The Sunday Mail
Labels: DFID, MDC, NEOCOLONIALISM
Read more...
COMMENT - British Government caught in Zimbabwe election rigging scheme.
UK in £4,5 million sinister election project
Saturday, 05 March 2011 23:54 Top Stories
Sunday Mail Reporter
THE British government, through its Department for International Development (DFID), has hatched a sinister plan to influence the outcome of the impending elections by
pouring about £4,5 million into the coffers of MDC-T-affiliated civil society organisations and the private media, it has been established.
The
civil society organisations, led by Transparency International Zimbabwe, have been assigned to undermine some of the country’s key national institutions ahead of the elections, with Attorney-General Mr Johannes Tomana having been identified as the first target.
Also being targeted is the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission, which last week received a letter from the MDC-T secretary-general, Mr Tendai Biti, who was “suspiciously” proposing a host of changes to the voters’ roll.
Investigations last week revealed that Britain’s DFID has set aside £4,5 million for the project.
The department is surreptitiously scouting for a partner in the initiative titled “strengthening accountable governance in Zimbabwe”.
Last week Britain’s International Development Minister, Mr Andrew Mitchell, announced a 15 percent increase in his government’s purported aid to Zimbabwe in a bid to refute evidence of the existence of economic sanctions on the country and also to camouflage London’s election agenda.
British Ambassador to Harare Mr Mark Canning weighed in, hyping the package as “great news for ordinary Zimbabweans”.
However, it has emerged that focus is on influencing the outcome of this year’s polls via civil society organisations and the private media.
DFID tender contact person Susan Docherty could not be reached for comment yesterday as her UK telephone went unanswered.
Information to hand indicates that the project will be rolled out under the guise of providing civil society and media support.
The DFID is already floating a tender for this purpose. In its programme outline, the department claims the initiative seeks to help increase the engagement of citizens with the Government.
It also says media support will ensure Zimbabweans engage in key decision-making processes from a more enlightened position.
Successful bidders will manage the funds and superintend strategic activities. A total of £3 million will be released in the first year of the contract and the remainder in the next.
Part of the outline reads: “The goal of DFID support to civil society organisations is to increase the engagement of citizens with the Zimbabwean State and to help their interests be more effectively represented.
“The goal of support to independent media is to help Zimbabwe’s citizens engage in civil life and in key decision-making processes in a more informed way.
“It is expected that a contract will be awarded for management of DFID funds in Zimbabwe for approximately 30 months.”
Political analysts said the funding seeks to leverage British interests in the impending plebiscite. They said Western attempts to smuggle a hostile agenda into the country’s internal processes were futile.
“There is no doubt that they want to influence the outcome of the elections,” said an analyst who declined to be identified. “How best can you explain the fact that such funding is coinciding with an election year?”
Transparency International Zimbabwe is already at work as on February 25 this year, its acting executive director, Mr Titus Gwemende, wrote a letter to the Acting Principal Director in the Department of Anti-Corruption under the Ministry of Home Affairs requesting for criminal investigations on the AG.
Mr Gwemende has also written similar letters to key MDC-T personalities in Government such as Mr Obert Gutu.
His letters included a 276-page document entitled “Johannes Tomana’s Reign as Attorney-General of Zimbabwe — A Trail of Questionable Decisions”, that TIZ claims to have prepared after receiving a complaint from the MDC-T on the conduct of the AG.
The document is based on four cases which TIZ claims “warrant a criminal investigation of the conduct of the AG in the public interest”.
However, a retired judge, who refused to be named for professional reasons, said the action by TIZ is tantamount to interfering with the work of the AG.
“What is shocking and even illegal is that Gonese received the letter on 25 February and a few days later, he went to the AG’s Office asking for Mr Tomana’s comments on the report, thereby implying that he was in agreement with it.
“Such reports take time to read and the way Gonese acted raises suspicion. What is even more worrying is that it would be bad practice that we have a Government agency that acts on the basis of an organisation whose political agenda is known and without itself doing its own research.
“More importantly, this looks like a naked and unconstitutional attempt by the MDC-T through TIZ using Gonese’s office to violate Section 76 of the Constitution which requires that the AG discharges his responsibilities without any influence. These people can’t direct the AG. It’s unconstitutional and one gets the feeling that they are interfering with the powers of the AG for political purposes,” said the judge.
The judge went on to tear apart contents of the TIZ document, saying questioning the conduct of the AG in the Charles Nherera case is just a waste of time as the public record shows that Nherera was acquitted by the courts.
“If TIZ and Gonese have problems with Mr Tomana why are they not raising the same issue with the courts that have absolved Nherera? If they centre on Mr Tomana and leave the courts, it clearly shows that this is now a political matter.
“In the other case that TIZ raises in its report about Bright Matonga, they are complaining against the withdrawal of charges yet the key witness in the case, Jayesh Shah, collapsed the case by refusing to testify against Matonga.
“He refused to testify yet Matonga had plea
ded and therefore the trial had started. Surely, the case could not stay open indefinitely without the key witness coming to testify.
“What is even more disturbing is that at the time of some of these cases, Mr Tomana was not yet the AG. You get the feeling that these are attempts to politically manipulate the AG’s decision in current and future cases involving MDC-T members,” said the judge.
Mr Tomana refused to comment, saying: “I am very busy with much more serious issues than to comment about such rubbish.” Regarding the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission, the MDC-T has “sugar-coated” its machinations, saying it is calling for some electoral reforms before elections are held.
In its letter, the MDC-T included about 18 issues that it says should be addressed before elections are held.
Over the years, Western governments — led by Britain and the United States — have been working with some local non-governmental organisations and resident functionaries to oust Zanu-PF following the implementation of the land reform programme.
In 2008, Government suspended the operations of all NGOs after it emerged that a good number of them were vehicles for Western interference in the country’s electoral processes.
Reports then revealed that several of them had received US$6 million from the United States government to destabilise Zimbabwe while simultaneously using food to buy votes for the MDC-T.
Last month, US Secretary of State Mrs Hillary Clinton confirmed her government’s collaboration with civil society. In a speech on internet freedom at the George Washington University in Washington DC, she claimed that information leaked by the WikiLeaks website so far predominantly showed her government’s humanitarian work.
She admitted that US diplomats were in close liaison with activists and journalists in countries whose governments opposed America’s skewed policies.
“Our diplomats closely collaborate with activists, journalists and citizens to challenge the misdeeds of oppressive governments,” she said.
“It is dangerous work. By publishing diplomatic cables, WikiLeaks exposed people to even greater risk.
“For operations like these, confidentiality is essential, especially in the internet age when dangerous information can be sent around the world with the click of a keystroke.”-The Sunday Mail
Labels: DFID, MARK CANNING, NEOCOLONIALISM
Read more...
Economist warns about African govts mismanaging CoST
By Mutale Kapekele
Tue 25 May 2010, 18:40 CAT
THE Construction Sector Transparency initiative (CoST) will not work as long as African governments remain champions for the project, a Malawian economist Khumbutso Banda has observed.
CoST is a World Bank and Britain’s Department for International Development (DFID) funded project aimed at improving transparency in the construction sector. The CoST project is being piloted in seven countries, including Zambia and Malawi up to October this year.
Ministers in charge of the construction sector have been selected to lead the initiative as champions and the Zambian chapter is led by works and supply minister Mike Mulongoti. According to Banda, African governments were not ready to uphold transparency and stamp out corruption in the construction sector.
“African governments tolerate and encourage corruption as active participants and there is no way people like that can be committed to the CoST let alone lead the project as champions,” Banda said.
“For this initiative to work, the civil society has to actively participate and make their governments accountable for all transactions in the construction sector, they have to make them publish what they pay for the works done. The question is do we have CSO Civil Society Organisations that can effectively do that?”
She said the construction sector played a vital role in supporting social and economic development and yet it was consistently ranked as one of the most corrupt areas of economic activity.
Banda said the costs of corruption in public-sector construction projects extended far beyond increasing contract prices and it required people of high integrity to curb the vice.
“Corruption can hinder a nation's social and economic development at grass-roots level by undermining the rule of law and hindering the growth of strong and accountable institutions, on which sustained economic growth depends,” said Banda.
“Corruption can result in unnecessary, unsuitable, defective or dangerous projects, which are often subject to severe delays.
That is why initiatives such as the CoST are required to help us fight corruption in the construction sector. But for the project to be successful, we need the right people to lead the initiative. As it is, our governments have not even shown us how they intend to sustain the project after October when the pilots end.”
Labels: CONSTRUCTION, CoST, DFID
Read more...
DFID urges govt to be clear over corruption fight
Written by Patson Chilemba
Friday, August 28, 2009 3:11:13 PM
DFID head in Zambia Mike Hammond yesterday urged President Rupiah Banda’s government to be clear on their commitment to sustaining the fight against corruption regardless of who is involved. And President Banda said even in the fight against corruption, the nation should not lose sight of the constitutional rights of those accused. During the launch of the National Anti-Corruption Policy at Hotel InterContinental in Lusaka yesterday,
Hammond, who is head of the United Kingdom's Department for International Development (DFID) in Zambia, said strong leadership and political will from President Banda and his government would be needed for the successful implementation of the policy.
"The message needs to continue to be clear that you are ready to confront corruption no matter who is involved and that a policy of zero tolerance means just that. If the government of Zambia is to build on the momentum of the past successes, it must be seen to take action against those that do not abide by rules and no individual should be above the law," he said.
Hammond said this message should be embedded into the culture of all organisations, public and private.
"We will all be watching developments with great interest. But ultimately government is accountable through the ballot box and it will [be] the Zambian people [who] will be watching very closely to ensure that its government remains fully committed to the fight against corruption and who will be the final judges of our success or failure," he said.
Hammond said both the Anti Corruption Commission (ACC) and the Task Force on Corruption had so far done a commendable job in tackling corruption.
He said the Task Force had successfully prosecuted individuals "who have abused Zambia's resources."
"This led to Zambia enjoying a strong reputation internationally for the fight against corruption. But reputations can easily be tarnished if the basis on which they are built is not deepened and strengthe[ned]," Hammond said. "We hope that this strategy and the actions that flow from it will provide the evidence that will maintain Zambia's reputation."
Hammond said while the anti corruption policy would form the basis for further strengthening of the fight against corruption in the country, the challenge would be to effectively implement the policy.
He said it would be important for the government to come up with an implementation plan, which would set out clear actions to combat corruption across government and private sector.
"This must include supporting organisations to develop procedures that prevent corruption, financial mismanagement or money laundering; and supporting investigation and prosecution where prevention has failed," Hammond said. "Where laws and institutions are weak, the plan should also be clear on how government will strengthen the legal and institutional framework."
Hammond said the UK and other donors stood ready to support implementation building on their previous support in the fight against corruption in Zambia.
He said since 2000, the United Kingdom alone had provided seven million pounds to the ACC, and 1.4 million pounds to the Task Force on Corruption.
He said the UK and other donors also supported the development of the National Anti Corruption Policy.
Hammond commended the government for approving the policy, but that good policies did not always lead to good actions.
"...And it is the impact of this policy that the Zambian in the street will be watching with interest," he said.
Hammond said corruption diverted money from delivering public services and away from those who needed it most, mothers and babies who urgently needed health services, children who needed education.
He said decisions based on a corrupt act, were not taken for the public benefit but for private interest.
Hammond said corruption reduced people's confidence in public institutions, making it harder for governments to raise money in the first place.
"Electors are less willing to pay taxes and support corrupt regimes, donors are less willing to provide funds. Corruption will only be tackled if all concerned work together. Government must take the lead and set the place. Donors can provide expertise, which if they are to be effective have to be aligned behind the government's strategy," said Hammond. "Civil society has a key role to play in demanding higher standards and in holding public institutions to account. But it is the average Zambian who will be watching the implementation of the policy and who will want to see its impact on their lives and who will judge us all."
And President Banda emphasised that the responsibility to judge cases of corruption shall remain that of the Judiciary.
He said the government would remain committed to the rule of law and respect for human rights.
"Even as we fight corruption, we should not lose sight of the constitutional rights of the accused. We should always remember that everyone is innocent until proven guilty by the courts of law," President Banda said.
He said he was confident that the policy would galvanize Zambians into forging a strong national alliance against corruption.
"We renew our commitment and resolve to uphold the motto of Zero Tolerance against Corruption. In this regard, I urge all Zambians, and in particular, the institutional stakeholders who participated in developing the policy, to ensure that the agreed actions in the policy are implemented," President Banda said.
He said it would be imperative that the policy be publicized throughout the country, saying the fight against corruption was the responsibility of everyone. He said corruption should not become a norm and should not become an accepted way of life.
President Banda said the support given to the government and investigative agencies by all was indicative of the fact that Zambians abhor corruption and were ready to fight it in a united effort.
He said a practical way of ensuring the realisation of the goals spelt out in the policy was for each sector to develop a code of ethics for its members.
"On our part as government, we shall continue to fulfil our mandate in fighting corruption. Apart from the NACP, government will also ensure that necessary legislation is enacted to enhance the fight against corruption," President Banda said. "In addition, the justice delivery system should continue with its role of providing efficient and expeditious justice to the public. In this regard, all the players in the justice delivery system, that is to say, the Judiciary, the Director of Public Prosecutions Office, the Anti Corruption Commission, the Drug Enforcement Commission etc, should double their respective roles in achieving this goal. At the end of the day, justice should not only be done, it must be seen to be done."
President Banda directed the Secretary to the Cabinet, permanent secretaries and chief executive officers in all the government ministries, departments and agencies to ensure that the aspects of the policy which touched on the public sector in general were speedily implemented.
He said under the policy, ACC would be strengthened and would be the lead institution in the fight against corruption.
President Banda said once the policy was implemented, he expected to see a paradigm shift in the manner in which national affairs were conducted.
President Banda also said the nation should remain focused on putting in place a public service that was current free.
He pointed out a Judiciary that was corrupt free and which dispensed justice fairly and impartially in accordance with the law.
"A free media which practices responsible, balanced and professional journalism, in its role as a purveyor of information," said President Banda. "A labour force which is motivated and dedicated to hard work; one that derives tangible benefits from its daily sweat; a labour force that abhors corruption in all its manifestations."
ACC chairperson Valentine Chileshe, who initially forgot to carry his speech when he went to address the people and caused laughter in the process, said the National Anti Corruption policy sought to address issues of corruption at three levels; namely the institutional, legal and social frameworks.
Labels: CORRUPTION, DFID, MIKE HAMMOND
Read more...
$53m Mobile hospitals is Rupiah’s concept – PS
Written by Patson Chilemba
Friday, May 01, 2009 2:56:08 PM
HEALTH permanent secretary Dr Velepi Mtonga has said the concept to procure mobile hospitals from a friendly country was highlighted by President Rupiah Banda during this year's official opening of the third session of the tenth National Assembly.
And the international donors to the health sector yesterday stated that they were grateful to the Minister of Health Kapembwa Simbao for his assurance that no contract had been agreed on the mobile hospitals.
In a letter dated April 28, 2009 and addressed to Department for International Development (DFID) head Joy Hutcheon, Dr Mtonga stated that President Banda indicated during the official opening of the National Assembly that the government would procure mobile clinics from a friendly country to complement efforts to construct 15 hospitals in the 19 districts that did not currently have any.
"With regards to whether the Mobile Hospital concept is a priority in our National Health Strategic Plan, I wish to indicate that based on our health vision as articulated in our National Health Policies and Strategies of 1991 which is further restated in our National Health Strategic Plan 2006-10, it is the intention of the Zambian Government to bring cost effective health services as close to the family as possible," Dr Mtonga stated.
"One avenue that would contribute to the Ministry's attainment of our health vision is the strengthening of outreach services through mobile health services. The concept was also highlighted by His Excellency the Republican President Mr Rupiah Bwezani Banda in his speech during the official opening of the third session of the tenth National Assembly in 2009 in which he indicated that to complement efforts to construct 15 hospitals in the 19 districts that do not currently have any, Government will procure mobile clinics from a friendly country."
However, Dr Mtonga stated that in the case of the mobile hospitals, the Ministry of Health had not yet firmed up its decision to acquire the facilities as stated in the proposal from China National Aero Technology Import and Export Corporation (CATIC).
She stated that the ministry was still looking at whether it was feasible and cost effective to undertake such an investment in the health sector or a modified version that would suit Zambia's needs.
Dr Mtonga stated that the ministry was to send a team to visit other countries including China where a similar concept had been implemented.
"It would therefore have been premature for the Ministry of Health to present to our Cooperating Partners the Mobile Hospital concept without the Ministry of Health having first arrived at a conclusive decision on moving forward with the Mobile Hospital Concept," she stated.
Dr Mtonga stated that the concept of providing mobile health hospitals/integrated out-reach services was not new to the Ministry of Health.
She stated that the ministry had been providing out-reach services but were limited in scope due to lack of adequate logistical support.
"In this regard, the Ministry of Health has faced many challenges in providing a systematic integrated out-reach health services which should include surgical interventions. Such mobile platforms may operate as a stand alone unit or as a support unit to an existing Health Facility thereby enabling the Ministry to provide mobile health services to the rural communities," she stated.
However, Dr Mtonga stated that as things stood now, the Zambian government had not signed any contract, agreement or loan towards implementing the Mobile Hospital concept.
She stated that government was still consulting with the Ministry of Finance and National Planning on the feasibility to set up mobile hospitals.
"In concluding, allow me as part of our consultative process within the SWAP framework to extend an invitation to our Cooperating Partners to jointly undertake a feasibility and cost effective analysis of the Mobile Hospital concept through the Procurement Technical Working Group once the Ministry of Health has arrived at a conclusive decision on the way forward," Dr Mtonga stated.
"I also wish to take this opportunity to thank all our Cooperating Partners for the support you have rendered to the Ministry of Health in improving the delivery of health services in Zambia."
Dr Mtonga thanked the donors for raising concerns on the mobile hospital project, which the Ministry of Health was currently looking at.
She stated that following the presentation by CATIC to the senior management in the Ministry of Health boardroom on the mobile hospital concept, a committee was set up to scrutinize the document on the proposed hospitals and make recommendations to the permanent secretary.
Dr Mtonga stated that the committee met on March 11 and 13, 2009.
"It was the view of the Committee that in principle, the concept of the Mobile Hospital be supported, but to continue seeking guidance from the Ministry of Finance and National Planning and the Zambia Public Procurement Authority," stated Dr Mtonga.
And according to a statement from donors to the health sector signed by Hutcheon and British High Commissioner to Zambia Tom Carter, the donors were consulting on a suitable date for the signing of the addendum to the 2006 health memorandum of understanding (MoU).
The donors stated they had discussed the proposal to procure mobile hospitals with the health ministry and they were grateful with the Minister of Health's assurance that no contract had been agreed.
The donors stated that the Ministry of Health, Cooperating Partners and other stakeholders would jointly assess the proposal and any other major health policy decisions through the normal mechanism.
"The Cooperating Partners remain committed to supporting the Ministry of Health to achieve goals of the National Health Strategic Plan 2006-2010 and accelerate progress towards the health Millennium Development Goals. Cooperating Partners have not withdrawn their support from the sector and signed agreements - such as the EC's Euro 36 million sector budget support to health - remain unchanged," stated the donors.
"We look forward to the continuing partnership with the Ministry of Health and are consulting on a suitable date for the signing of the addendum to the 2006 health MoU."
On Wednesday, highly-placed sources within the donor community revealed that they [donors] had called off the signing ceremony of the MoU [for support] at the high level forum which was scheduled for yesterday with the government because they needed a satisfactory explanation from the health ministry on the matter.
And DFID health and HIV/AIDS advisor Angela Spilsbury said pressure for the Ministry of Health (MoH) to procure mobile hospital units from a Chinese company is coming from outside the health sector.
On Tuesday, the Zambia Medical Association (ZMA) opposed the government's intention to purchase mobile hospitals, describing it as misplaced priority.
According to sources within the donor community, the Zambian government is in the process of acquiring a US$53 million loan from EX-IM Bank of China to facilitate the acquisition of the mobile hospitals from a Chinese firm called CATIC.
The sources disclosed that donors held meetings last week in Lusaka to discuss this pending transaction between the Ministry of Health, on behalf of the Zambian government, and CATIC concerning the mobile hospitals.
According to sources, the Zambian government was not being honest and sincere on the procurement of mobile hospitals from China.
"It's surprising because government officials are saying, 'there is no deal which has been sealed concerning mobile hospitals'. They are saying, 'what is going on at the moment is consultation over the same matter?' They say that this issue is in its infancy," one of the donors said.
"But we know that this is not correct because we are aware that the PS [permanent secretary] of the Ministry of Health Dr Velepi Mtonga had some time back written a letter to the tender board [now Zambia Public Procurement Authority] asking for a waiver for them to single source these mobile hospitals. We are also aware that the tender board granted them the authority to single source and as we speaking these documents are on their way to the Attorney General's office for approval as per procedure.
"We don't know if it's a coincidence that the President is reorganising the Attorney General's chambers. From what we hear even the tender board was reluctant to give them [Ministry of Health] authority for single sourcing."
Labels: CORRUPTION, DFID, HEALTHCARE, JOY HUTCHEON, RUPIAH BANDA, VELEPI MTONGA
Read more...
COMMENT - Simbao should go, along with Chituwo. 'Sexually depressant drugs'? These incompetent fools need to step down now. I wonder if Simbao and Chituwe wear helmets at dinner, just so they won't hurt themselves.
Simbao calls for sexual depressant drug in fight against HIV/AIDS
Written by Chiwoyu Sinyangwe
Wednesday, April 08, 2009 4:47:17 PM
THERE is need to develop a sexual depressant drug in order to effectively fight the HIV and AIDS scourge, health minister Kapembwa Simbao suggested yesterday. Simbao said the recent continued rise in HIV and AIDS cases in the country especially among the sexually active group was a clear indication that condoms had failed in halting the spread of the pandemic.
"Since we have a drug viagra which enhances the sexuality of our people and most of the people, both the young and the old are using it, I think we should come up with a drug that depresses that [sexual] desire," Simbao told a high level meeting under the theme ‘Large-scale investments in upgrading transport infrastructure in southern Africa: implication for HIV and AIDS and health strategies’.
This was during the just-ended North/South Corridor pledging conference under the special session on HIV and AIDS, which was hosted by United Kingdom Minister of State for Department for International Development (DFID) Gareth Thomas.
Simbao, whose submission was focused on the truck driver-prostitute relationship, said while condoms played a crucial role in preventing the spread of HIV and AIDS, very few people were indulging in safer sex.
Simbao, who is also Senga Hill MMD member of parliament, argued that a sexual depressant drug would help especially married men to abstain from sex while they were on duties that kept them for a long time from their spouses.
"Most people don't actually believe that HIV is transmitted through sexual intercourse and in that effect, condom use has been very ineffective here [in fighting the spread of HIV]," he said. "You just have to look at condoms that are put in places where people are picking them...the condoms are staying longer than they should. It may sound inhumane but we need to take this radical decision to save human lives."
Simbao said the HIV and AIDS scourge continued to be a major drain on the country's resource adding that the annual budget on antiviral therapy had jumped to over US $21.1 million.
Simbao also complained that the rampant spread for HIV and AIDS gave an impression that the government was not doing enough to contain the pandemic when in real sense it was negligence on the part of some individual citizens.
But Thomas said the use of condoms could not be abandoned purely on the basis of low use.
Thomas said while the introduction of a sexually depressant drug could be a very effective tool in containing the spread of HIV and AIDS in the long-term, immediate solution lay in increasing education and awareness on the importance of safer sex.
Labels: DFID, HIV/AIDS, KAPEMBWA SIMBAO, POPULATION CONTROL
Read more...
UK to fund land reform in Uganda
Tuesday, 10th March, 2009
President Yoweri Museveni introduces his daughter, Natasha Karugire, to Queen Elizabeth after a service in Westminster Abbey yesterday
By Vision Reporter
THE British government has finalised modalities through which it will assist Uganda to finance efforts aimed at solving land problems, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has disclosed.
Meeting President Yoweri Museveni on Monday, Brown said his government’s contribution would be channelled through DFID.
The two leaders met at Brown’s official residence and office at Number 10 Downing Street in London. State House yesterday announced that they discussed a number of international issues.
Museveni, who has been in the United Kingdom for a two-day working visit, also attended ceremonies to mark the 60th anniversary of the Commonwealth in his capacity as the chairman of the 53-member state organisation.
During the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Kampala in 2007, Museveni appealed to the British premier to assist Uganda to solve the land problem.
He said it was created by the British colonial government in 1900 when land in Buganda was divided and large chunks allocated to a few landlords.
Museveni said this resulted into making the majority peasants into serfs on their former land.
In the recent past, the country has been grappling with unresolved land wrangles, some involving encroachment on gazetted forests and game reserves.
State House yesterday reported that while discussing the current global financial crisis, Brown told Museveni that there was need for governments to introduce stringent measures to clean the banking systems in their countries.
He suggested that banks should reduce interest rates globally so that people, including industrialists, access funding at low interest rates.
Brown also appealed to Museveni to intervene in the political unrest in Zimbabwe to provide a roadmap to the restoration of democracy.
But Museveni told him that there was need to give the coalition government time to restore full democracy. He was optimistic the coalition government would help to address Zimbabwe’s economic problems.
Brown also asked Museveni to ensure that the Sudanese government implements the comprehensive peace agreement signed between Sudan and the SPLA, which the Khartoum government has not fully implemented.
Labels: DFID, LAND REFORM, UGANDA, YOWERI MUSEVENI
Read more...
US embassy accident story not convincing
Editor's comment
Fri, 13 Mar 2009 03:48:00 +0000
THE US embassy in Harare yesterday issued a statement entitled, "Clarification of Accident Vehicle Ownership". We published it in full. A close look at the statement leaves more questions than answers.
Many people were looking for a statement that said who exactly owned the accident truck that killed Mrs Susan Tsvangirai, the Prime Minister's wife.
It is certainly not enough, or convincing to say: "It (the truck) was purchased with USAID funds by a contractor and belonged to the contractor" without actually saying who that contractor was. I am sure US embassy officials would know who that contractor is (was) since it was purchased using USAID funds.
Interestingly, the truck's number plate, 81 TCE-128, belongs to the US embassy.
Independent legislator Jonathan Moyo was quoted as saying: “How can an American-registered car, purchased with American money, driven by a driver hired from Britain and paid with American money; be owned by a British agency funded by British money and formed from the ashes of a British colonial institution?”
The connection between USAID and United Kingdom's Department for International Development (DfID) in this case is troubling; given that the shooting of Air Marshall Perence Shiri a few months ago involved a USAID employee. This is a strange coincidence.
The US embassy says: "The contractor was delivering essential HIV and AIDS drugs and medical supplies to health clinics under an effort co-financed by USAID and the United Kingdom Department for International Development (DfID)." Surely if it was co-financed by these two organisations, they should be able to give us more details.
Does the U.S. embassy or DfID care to tell us who the contractor was? Was it DfID? If not, who was it? And why did the UK government quickly issue a statement saying the driver was not "sleeping at the wheel" at the time of the accident? How could they know that a few hours after an accident that occured thousands of miles away, in a remote location in Zimbabwe? How come they were privy to this information when the investigating authorities in Zimbabwe were still investigating the cause of the crash?
The US embassy also says: "The driver of the truck, a Zimbabwean national, was an employee of the contractor, not a USAID employee." The embassy seems to have some insider information that we do not know. Again, who is the contractor?
I was also troubled to hear the UK's DfID declare the accident genuine, just hours after the accident. This is the first time that the UK has commented on a tragic Zimbabwean situation and not connected "President Mugabe's regime" to it. How do they know this, or should I say "How did they know this was a 'genuine' accident?" The UK Government's subsequent lack of interest in that incident is also puzzling, to say the least.
The US embassy in Harare's statement is very cleverly presented and packaged. It starts with condolencies to Prime Minister Tsvangirai's family for the death of his wife Susan. It then ends with the U.S. government's food aid pledge.
The statement read: "The U.S. government remains committed to helping the people of Zimbabwe as it has done for decades. The United States provided over $260 million for emergency programs since October 2007, providing food, health care, safe water, and HIV/AIDS prevention, care and treatment."
This is very clever packaging. The "clarification of the accident vehicle story" is sandwiched between a condolence statement and a story about the U.S.'s aid program to Zimbabwe -- two importanst stories deserving their own titling.
This clever 'public diplomacy' diverts attention from the main story, as suggested by the title of the statement. Clever indeed, but many of us think this 'explanation' is very skeletal and the US embassy can, and should, give a more detailed explanation. They could start by naming the 'contractor'.
This statement leaves more questions than answers.
_______________
Philip Murombedzi
philipmurombedzi@yahoo.com
Labels: DFID, EMBASSIES, SUSAN TSVANGIRAI, USA, USAID
Read more...
