Strive Masiyiwa: Blessing that can become a curse
Sunday, 23 June 2013 00:00
“INNOVATE or die,” Mutambara retorted dismissively in response to bankers’ complaints against the EcoCash platform. While it indeed might be true that the banking industry is protesting merely out of capitalist envy, they may have inadvertently stumbled on a serious regulatory issue.
If Econet is not reined in, it will soon present a significant national security threat. Yes, a national security threat.
Mutambara, despite his impressive technical background, has allowed the Econet PR machine to blur the facts of what is actually happening.
This is not a question of innovation; there is ample innovation within the mobile money sphere.
The point of contention is the USSD protocol and how Econet is trying to frustrate financial institutions that want to take advantage of USSD to create their own applications.
The USSD protocol cannot and should not be monopolised by a mobile operator.
Econet has managed to get away with their anti-competitive mischief by obfuscating the argument into one of integration with EcoCash.
This has absolutely nothing to do with EcoCash integration.
When questioned about these issues Econet misleads journalists by pointing to banks that have integrated with EcoCash.
USSD has nothing to do with EcoCash.
Financial institutions are interested in implementing their own solutions via USSD and Econet is frustrating their efforts.
A simple way to understand USSD is to think of it as an SMS service that can send commands and data to a computer. The computer then responds with information or a request for additional information.
The difference is that USSD creates what are known as sessions whereas SMS does not.
In an SMS you send a text to another phone while USSD involves a user interacting with computer software.
This is a crude abstraction but should be enough to give the technically uninitiated some insight into what is actually happening.
It would be outrageous if Econet refused to allow a competitor offering a rival product unfettered access to SMS.
This seems obvious to most of us as we use SMS daily and it seems intuitive that the service should be open to as many as can afford to pay the associated charges.
The same way subscribers feel about having unfettered access to SMS to conduct their daily business is precisely how software developers feel about USSD.
ZimSwitch has implemented its own mobile banking product that rivals EcoCash but Econet refuses to cooperate to allow its network to be used for unrestricted USSD operations outside of EcoCash. This is scandalous.
Telecel and NetOne have fully opened up their networks and ZimSwitch Mobile has already deployed on Telecel but the growth of their product is threatened because the largest network provider is being anti-competitive and is frustrating their efforts.
For the avoidance of doubt, I am talking about mobile-to-mobile payments on bank platforms as well as Zipit to mobile payments. Econet is the only operator in Zimbabwe that is refusing to allow these types of USSD transactions to operate on their network. When questioned, they offer slanderous and shamelessly dishonest excuses such as allegations that their customers will be spammed. This is nonsense.
It’s our spectrum not yours
It is important to realise that the spectrum that Econet is using belongs to the people of Zimbabwe.
There is a limited amount of spectrum and those who are given the privilege of being allocated usage of that spectrum must understand that they are leasing a resource that belongs to all Zimbabweans.
It is our spectrum; it does not belong to Econet.
It is because of this fact (the limited nature of spectrum) that network operators are obliged to allow access to the networks they develop.
This is the price they must pay for enjoying the privilege of having allocated space.
They cannot monopolise their networks through uncompetitive practices as Econet is currently doing.
The capital to set up the network might belong to Econet, but the right to use the limited spectrum is a privilege with carries with it a number of responsibilities.
Those responsibilities include providing access to other operators at reasonable cost. Econet is refusing outright to do this.
Regulating the Econet beast
This brings us to the wider issue of regulation.
While we applaud the growth of Econet and the many jobs it has created, we must also have the foresight to realise that this growth presents a number of regulatory challenges.
If we extrapolate the growth of Econet from the past five years into 2020, it is clear that it will soon completely dominate the market.
This is dangerous.
While Econet might seem very much benign with their cheerful ads on social responsibility, there are already some troubling indications that it is abusing its dominant market position.
The USSD battle with financial institutions is a clear example of this.
The authorities need to do more to create very vigorous regulatory framework to govern the operations of companies that gain a dominant market position like Econet.
This is not to suggest that they should be frustrated in their operations, far from it.
We simply need to ensure that they play by the rules of fairness and equity.
NetOne-MTN merger
It is quite unlikely that the management at NetOne (political as it is) will entertain a merger with MTN or another powerful player given that means they will likely lose their jobs.
Apart from political resistance, our indigenisation laws also present a number of complexities that would stand in the way of such a merger.
This is unfortunate.
A NetOne-MTN merger would rebalance Econet’s dominant position and ensure that a well-equipped rival keeps it in check. It would also offer mobile phone users more choice.
I am not in the know as to why the regulators are unwilling to allow a fourth player into the industry but I could bet a tidy sum that it has more to do with protecting incompetence and mediocrity than protecting the interests of ordinary people.
National Security
These past few weeks we have all watched in disbelief as Edward Snowden, a former NSA contractor, detailed how PRISM, a covert spying operation by the Americans, is collecting mobile phone metadata and Internet communications and storing it in vast data centres. This has been facilitated through Internet companies and mobile phone network providers such a Verizon.
To put it in simple language, the United States has all the information that Walter Mzembi, Saviour Kasukuwere, Emmerson Mnangagwa, Jacob Zuma, Thabo Mbeki or any other public official has ever exchanged via services such as Yahoo, Gmail and other large internet companies.
We know that Verizon has been named as a co-conspirator as regards mobile phone metadata but cannot be sure that it is the only company that has co-operated with the Americans.
This brings us back to the issue of having a single dominant player who controls such a large amount of mobile communication data.
Given Masiyiwa’s cosy relations with the Americans one can be forgiven for being concerned.
The solution is not a direct assault on a particular operator.
Instead, what we need are broad regulations that impress upon all operators, encouraging open network as well as, perhaps even more importantly, robust competition.
Without that we risk entrusting one company with 80 percent of our national data.
Not entirely apropos
Talking about national security, I heard someone propose a communications interception centre of some sort.
Such a facility would chew up to US$22million
To me that would be a waste of funds.
We have plenty of office space at Mukwati Building.
What we need are competent computer scientists, software engineers and mathematicians.
Spending those millions on tempting back whiz kids like Tendekai Muchenje and other sharp minds who have been lured by Microsoft would be a far better use of funds.
The problem with information systems is the dynamic nature of the industry.
Hardware is not the issue.
You need to keep up with the leading technologies. Knowledge is the problem, not hardware. Many of the viruses wreaking havoc on the Internet are built in bedrooms and basements.
Many of the most prolific hackers do not even have offices.
It would be much more beneficial to invest those funds in human resources.
These talented minds will not subject themselves to poor salaries when they know full well what they are worth.
This is why GCHQ is now paying industry level salaries.
We need more brains and less bricks.
This is my own estimation; I hope time will prove me wrong.
Still deviating off topic, I remain puzzled by Strive’s self-imposed exile.
Unless he has done something particularly sinister that we do not know about I cannot see why the authorities would wish him ill.
Nigel Chanakira, who actually suffered scrapes with the law, lives peacefully in this country.
Geoff Nyarota, who did Strive’s Daily News dirty work, equally lives in peace to the point of actually seeking public office (an ambition sadly put to rest in the recent MDC-T primaries).
His political proxy, Tsvangirai, has cosied up to Mugabe and would have more reason to fear harm from an STI than fate at the hands of the security services.
He (Strive) has not been charged with any crime, nor has any public official made utterances that could be read as hostile.
Job Sikhala routinely calls Mugabe a murderer, but is allowed to carry on unmolested by the security services.
So what exactly is Strive afraid of?
Ndatenda, ndini muchembere wenyu Amai Jukwa
Labels: ARTHUR MUTAMBARA, ITC, MAI JUKWA
Read more...
(STICKY) (HERALD ZW) Election 2013: How Mugabe will win
Sunday, 05 May 2013 18:20
Mai Jukwa Political Mondays
Skilled negotiators begin their work by investigating and seeking to understand the mind of their opponent. This is crucial. It is only when you fully grasp the hopes, fears, beliefs and ignorance of your opponent that you can mount a successful seduction.
This election hinges a great deal on being able to convert voters from one persuasion to another. To succeed in this regard, it is important to enter the mind of the opponent and to see the world through his eyes. Let’s consider some generally held beliefs within opposition ranks.
1. Zanu-PF has destroyed the economy through incompetence.
2. Zanu-PF took all the farmland and gave it to a handful of cronies.
3. Britain is working with the MDC-T because they want to help us.
4. The indigenisation drive does not benefit ordinary people.
5. Sanctions only targeted Zanu-PF officials.
The master plan
Thus far, Zanu-PF has only communicated incidental facts. The problem with this kind of story telling is that only the most curious political junkies will take time to add these facts into a coherent political story. The vast majority of voters have neither the interest nor aptitude necessary to join the dots together to make for a coherent message.
It is for this reason why talk of sanctions is not nearly as effective as it could be. We have heard incidental mention of ZDERA but few voters could tell you how this actually worked to strangle the economy. Only a minority knows that the United States is holding onto funds belonging to Chinhoyi council.
Let us consider a more excellent approach, a better way to explain the Western master plan.
What really happened?
Through the 80’s and a greater part of the 90’s, Robert Mugabe was considered a competent leader and Zimbabwe was an example to other nations in Africa. He was so highly regarded that in 1994 the Queen knighted him.
It is this background that makes for quite some perplexity. How did this paragon of goodness suddenly turn into a bearer-cheque-printing monster portrayed by the West? Surely it cannot be that a man who was supremely competent the night before suddenly wakes up clueless as to how an economy is managed?
It’s all about Land
The Zimbabwean story is inextricably bound to the land question. This is the genesis of the crisis. The British now claim their interest in Zimbabwe is limited to democracy and the rule of law. This assertion is false.
A catalogue of video evidence shows the British explaining in their own words that they wanted farm seizures to stop.
Robin Cook makes for delicious viewing and paints quite the picture of an overbearing white man as he declares that he has “made it clear the land seizures must stop.”
Andrew Young is also captured on video candidly explaining why Zimbabwe had to be punished to prevent South Africa from following a similar pattern of land redistribution. There is an abundance of such material floating in the archives, it is the context and manner in which it is delivered that can give it - or rid it of — efficacy.
After failing to stop the Land Reform exercise, there was a concerted campaign to discredit it. It is widely reported that the land was taken by a handful of Zanu-PF cronies. Is this true? The voter would be interested to know that Welshman Ncube, Arthur Mutambara, Morgan Tsvangirai and Tendai Biti all own farms.
This is hardly a picture of Zanu-PF cronies.
The MDC now wants to abandon its previously declared policy on land. At one time Tsvangirai vowed to kick the new farmers off the land. One of his officials promised an intrigued BBC interviewer that his party would restore the white farmers. They now deny having ever said any such thing in the same way Tsvangirai denied having ever married Locardia. Video does not lie.
Sanctions
We are told that sanctions were imposed because the British love Zimbabwe and want us to be good girls and boys that live in accordance with democratic virtues. It is all for our own good.
These are puzzling contradictions when you consider that the first imposition of sanctions specified that these measures were meant, inter alia, to restore “property rights.” The property rights referred to the restoration of white farmers.
It was always about land and this much must become clear in the mind of every voter.
The West, supported by the MDC, has always maintained that it cares for the people of Zimbabwe and has not imposed any sanctions that would affect the generality. This dishonest narrative has been repeated to the point of being elevated to fact.
Let us break down the argument. Is it possible to sanction Agribank, ZB Bank, the GMB, ZMDC and other key institutions without affecting ordinary Zimbabweans? It is a bizarre argument. It is similar to arguing that one can sanction Britain’s National Health Service without affecting ordinary people in that country.
No economy can survive without Balance of Payments support.
How then can ZDERA, which prevents Zimbabwe from borrowing, like all other nations, be considered a targeted sanction? It is not enough to ask these questions. The message must be delivered in a manner that allows the voter to conceptualise the issues. The voter must see the United States for the devil that it is, preventing Zimbabwe from accessing funds. The impact of this financial blockade must be understood.
The MDC’s sanctions spanner
The MDC clearly stated that Mugabe could only be removed from power by making the country ungovernable. Tsvangirai is captured on magnetic tape calling for South Africa to sanction Zimbabwe. In 2002 he said to the BBC: “South Africa should say, ‘OK, under those circumstances we are going to cut fuel, we are going to cut transport links’.”
Even after the formation of the GNU we find evidence of MDC-T perfidy in a damning cable from the United States embassy. Tsvangirai tells the ambassador that he wants the sanctions to remain in place and explains that his public calls for their removal are merely for show. The voter must understand the dishonesty and hypocrisy of Morgan Tsvangirai. In public he says the sanctions must go but then in private he urges on the Americans to maintain them.
The death of tourism
Even more devastating than sanctions is the ‘failed-state’ propaganda war. Condoleezza Rice called Zimbabwe an “outpost of tyranny.” Their media have characterised Zimbabwe as a warzone while Robert Mugabe is portrayed as a bloody-thirsty Hitler type figure.
The view of Zimbabwe is now so contorted by lies that many in the world imagine it to be a violent land ravaged by civil war. Harare is routinely and dishonestly referred to as the worst city on earth in a relentless assault on the image of the country. Their goal is choke off any tourism revenue and scare away would-be investors.
A Zimbabwean woman living in Germany blogged about how she invited a hesitant group of friends to a trip around Zimbabwe. She has to offer assurances that they would be safe.
After some persuasion they agreed. On arrival at the Harare International Airport they were quickly whisked to Meikles hotel and retired for the night. The next morning after breakfast they went on a drive around Harare. During that tour one of the Germans asked, “so where are the gunmen?”
This might surprise Zimbabweans but many Westerners have been subjected to such vicious propaganda as to believe the country is in the same league as Somalia. The effect of this dishonest campaign has been the destruction of our tourism industry.
It is important for the voter to see the dishonest claims in the Daily Mail that slave children are being used to dig diamonds at Marange. The voter must understand how these lies have been used to isolate the country.
Indigenisation — the new battlefront
Africa faces a common problem. It is blessed with abundant resources but that wealth continues to be siphoned out of Africa. Consider the copper rich Zambia.
The Western businesses that are plundering this continent want to continue to do so uninterrupted. These forces have rallied their surrogates in the country to claim the indigenisation drive does not benefit ordinary Zimbabweans. This is the same message we heard as regards the Land Reform.
Can Zanu-PF offer a coherent explanation as to why indigenisation is important? Can it give examples of how the failure to indigenise has adversely affected other mineral rich African nations?
Can Zanu-PF articulate how the man in the street will benefit from these reforms? We recently heard the Zimbabwe Teachers Association asking to draw 10 percent from indigenised shares. That misguided request betrayed a gross ignorance as to what the entire programme is about and how benefits will trickle down to ordinary Zimbabweans. It is a question of communication.
A complicated story
The story of what Zimbabwe has suffered is complex and borders on conspiracy theory but is not impossible to tell. This election boils down to whether or not Zanu-PF can layout the following arguments, among others, in a coherent and plausible manner.
1. The dispute with Britain is entirely over land. Their claims to be protesting over human rights are dishonest.
2. Sanctions were not targeted but affected the wider economy.
3. The sanctions were designed to cripple the economy and to send a message to other African nations that land reform would have adverse consequences.
4. The MDC lobbied for and supported these sanctions.
5. The West has waged a propaganda campaign painting Zimbabwe as a war zone. This has adversely affected tourism.
6. The MDC is a Western project.
It is not merely a question of whether or not the above points are true. Rather, it is how well Zanu-PF can draft this into a compelling message that exposes falsehoods, brings about ideological clarity on Land Reform and Indigenisation and in the process rouses and rides the nationalist sentiment.
On the eve of the election, if even a single voter still believes that sanctions were targeted then Zanu-PF will have failed to communicate the facts. If even a single person still believes that only a handful of cronies benefited from the Land Reform programme, Zanu-PF would have lost a voter to a lie.
The deceptive and manipulative nature of the British must be painted with clarity in the mind of the Zimbabwean voter, none must be left in the naiveté of thinking their meddling is because they care for us.
They must be so reviled, so thoroughly despised, as to taint any politician receiving their support or endorsement. Their history and record around the world is dirty enough to make this possible.
Amai Jukwa is a loving mother of three. She respects Robert Mugabe, is amused by Tsvangirai and feels sorry for Mutambara.
Labels: 2013 ELECTIONS (ZW), MAI JUKWA
Read more...
(HERALD ZW) Maize farmers want US$400/tonne
Friday, 05 April 2013 00:00
COMMENT - Farmers (including tobacco farmers) should pay their taxes in maize.
Farmers unions have submitted proposals to the Government to peg the producer price for maize this year at US$400 per tonne, up from the US$295 which the Grain Marketing Board is currently paying.
Private buyers are offering prices just above US$300 per tonne. The grain marketing season begins on April 1 and the Government is yet to fix the producer price for this year.
Zimbabwe Farmers’ Union second vice president Mr Berean Mukwende said production costs had been increasing by high margins every year while the producer price remained stagnant.
“We have submitted a proposal to Government. We are looking at a price of US$400 per tonne to recoup production costs. That is our recommendation because generally that is also the landing price for imported maize,” he said.
Mr Mukwende said the producer price would protect farmers from unscrupulous grain buyers who often rip them off by offering very low prices.
Maize production has generally declined in the country due to droughts experienced in some parts of the country and also low producer prices which have driven some farmers to shift to other crops like tobacco.
Zimbabwe Commercial Farmers’ Union vice president Mr Johnson Mapira said the GMB should not pay less than US$400 per tonne to restore confidence among farmers.
Mr Mapira urged farmers to aim for higher yields per hectare in order to get more returns.
“We encourage farmers to aim for at least four tonnes of maize per hectare. It is even possible for farmers to get 10 tonnes per hectare and if we multiply it by US$400, it is a lot of money,” he said.
He urged farmers to deliver their grain to the GMB early to prevent it from deteriorating in quality mainly due to pests.
Zimbabwe requires 1 384 million tonnes of grain for human consumption and 350 000 tonnes for livestock and other uses.
This year the country is again facing maize shortages and will have to import with agriculture experts calling on the Government to rehabilitate and install irrigation infrastructure as well as provide incentives for producing the crop. - New Ziana.
http://www.herald.co.zw/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=73459%3Athe-two-white-wicked-ambassadors&catid=93%3Amai-jukwa&Itemid=159#.UWH5BkpTsVc
The two white, wicked ambassadors
Sunday, 07 April 2013 20:35
Some will protest the unrestrained aggression of this title. I offer no apologies for stating facts as they are. If the American and British ambassadors, Bruce and Deborah, wish for a more favourable appraisal, they must put an immediate stop to their shameless acts of dishonesty as well as their wicked and unprovoked aggression.
Let this be made clear, Zimbabwe has not disengaged any nation nor has it been ostracised by the wider international community; we continue to enjoy cordial relations with peace-loving nations.
Brazil, China, Russia, Japan, South Africa, Qatar, India, and Indonesia a host of other countries are true friends of Zimbabwe.
If Britain and the United States wish to re-engage with Zimbabwe they simply need to unclench their imperial fists and shake the hand of friendship that Zimbabwe has extended to all peoples of this earth.
Zimbabwe has not expressed military aggressions against them. We have not sought to annex a chunk of Essex. We have not imposed sanctions against them. We have not sought to sabotage their interests in the region although this is within our capacity.
It is their clenched fist alone that needs reform.
We reject in the strongest terms the propaganda attempt by the British to paint themselves as benevolent hands somehow extending an olive branch to a nation otherwise living in the shadows.
This is nonsense.
The only countries that imposed sanctions on Zimbabwe were white Western nations standing in racist solidarity with the 4500 British farmers that President Mugabe kicked out after Britain foolishly tried to pull fast one by reneging on their Lancaster House commitments.
We are not living in the shadows except to those who think that the West is the sunshine of this world. It is not.
Bruce and Deborah, the chief cheerleaders of these racist machinations that are dishonestly cloaked in the regal language of democracy and human rights, made for a pathetic spectacle these past few weeks.
Prancing about making a nuisance of themselves on social media networks, they were at pains to be seen as extending some kind of generosity for which the people of Zimbabwe needed to applaud them.
This fantasy exists only in their racist heads and cannot be allowed to carry on. It is necessary to now put the facts into perspective and rescue these rogue ambassadors from the captivity of their own delusions.
Only white nations
The only countries that “disengaged” and imposed sanctions — call them targeted or whatever sanitising term you wish — against Zimbabwe were white. This is quite a peculiarity.
Of all the diverse peoples of this earth is it a coincidence that only white nations imposed sanctions? These white former colonisers are so shameless as to claim they imposed these sanctions because they love Zimbabweans.
The contradictions are violent.
All other countries of this earth refused to join their racist and vindictive assault, which was in retaliation for our decision to kick out the British farmers. They stole that land and got their just desserts.
There are no Zimbabwean farmers in Britain and we will never apologise for kicking colonial criminals out.
Those greedy white former farmers salivating at the thought of compensation should read this clearly — not a penny will be paid. We will never tax Zimbabweans to reward British thieves.
They are very angry
The white world had grown accustomed to taking over the land and resources of others and getting away with it. Australia is a perfect example of this.
In that wicked example of white conquest, the indigenous aboriginals live on the periphery of society while criminals of white European extraction have established themselves as the lawful authority.
A similar effort is underway in Argentina.
The insatiable greed of the British is laying claim to the Malvinas, lands that are thousands of miles from Britain. It defies logic.
They have installed their kith and kin on that land and legitimise their shameless acts with empty democratic gestures to rubber stamp their theft.
President Mugabe said no to this, we could not accept domination in our own lands. Mugabe’s ‘chutzpah’ shocked the white world.
Never before had a nigger successfully sequestrated property from the white man. They had grown accustomed to pillaging the resources of indigenous peoples the world over and had elevated their criminality to a legitimate system of ownership.
Robert Mugabe challenged this, smashing their clay-pot doctrines of ownership to pieces.
He had to be taught a lesson.
Jumping up and down, frothing with racist rage, the British co-opted their American brothers and the rest of their white kith and kin. All other nations refused to take part.
This is an important point.
In the end it was only white countries that joined forces against Zimbabwe.
Germany, Australia, New Zealand, Britain, France, the United States and a handful of other pathetically vindictive white countries came together in ungodly alliance and imposed crippling sanctions.
At one time they went to the United Nations begging the rest of the world to join in their unrighteous crusade in a hope to legitimise what was clearly a racial affair.
The world said no.
To this day that racist club remains a shameless grouping of white nations that has tried every dirty trick in the book to paint themselves as friends of Zimbabwe when even drunkards in beer halls know that they are nothing more than Friends of Britain against Zimbabwe.
Shameless hypocrites
How would the people of Britain have reacted if the Kremlin had announced that it was working with the Conservative party to overthrow the Labour government of Tony Blair on the grounds that the invasion of Iraq was an unforgivable transgression that violated international law?
A great number of British citizens disagreed with Tony Blair’s decision to invade a foreign country.
An even greater number, perhaps in the millions, opposed his political ideology and certainly wanted him out of office.
Could we then say the British would embrace this external interference by Vladimir Putin?
I think not.
Would the people not scream treason if documents were uncovered showing the leader of the Conservative party working in cahoots with the Russians, giving them information on government officials and urging them on to sanction the country?
Would this not amount to one of the greatest scandals of British politics? Consider how they screamed themselves sore over cash for questions.
The people of Britain would resent external interference in their domestic affairs and rightly so.
They are a sovereign state. So how is it that Tony Blair confidently stood in the Commons and stated quite publicly that his government was actively working with the MDC?
How is that the WikiLeaks cables show Tendai Biti identifying Government officials and entities that should be placed on the sanctions list?
How is it that we read another cable of Morgan Tsvangirai shamelessly telling the ambassador to keep the sanctions in place and admitting that his public calls for their removal were merely for show?
They still perceive Zimbabwe to be a “sub-territory” where their jurisdiction presides.
They find comfort for their white supremacist ideas in leaders like Tsvangirai who lack the intellectual rigour to realise that they are being used to re-establish this jurisdiction.
Like Abel Muzorewa, Tsvangirai is not a bad man. He is simply being used as British tissue paper and will be disposed of in the rightful place for tissue paper when the time comes.
This is how the British operate.
The use, abuse and then dump padlock-brain puppets.
This glaring duplicity is apparent only to us; the likes of Bruce and Deborah are entirely oblivious.
How else could one explain how they esteem themselves celestial beings of the democratic order and seek to instruct us on the rule of law whilst at the very same time holding a man in Guantanamo Bay for ten years without charge and without trial?
The hypocrisy of Bruce and Deborah is born of an inherent superiority complex that bleeds into the depths of their very intellects from childhood and blinds them to anything that contradicts white domination.
It is a classic case of the Orwellian doublethink in which the depraved mind manages to hold two diametrically opposing thoughts.
This explains why the former white farmers actually think that they deserve compensation for land that they stole from us through violent subjugation whilst at the same time pleading reconciliation and a forgiveness of sins for their colonial misdeeds.
It is quite similar to bandit who waylays a horseman, takes his beast and possessions and flees.
On apprehension that bandit pleads the virtues of forgiveness and mercy but tactfully explains that bygones must bygones and how it is only right he be allowed to keep the horse.
In this way he is not only forgiven of his sins but gets to keep the loot as well.
The rest of us black mortals find this outrageous and are puzzled by this manner of logic, but Deborah and Bruce see it through an entirely different lens. That lens is white.
Diplomatic deodorant
In an effort to stem the stench of their duplicity these two hypocrites run around shouting into every ear that is willing to listen how generous they are and how great their love for Zimbabwe is.
They accomplish this through hollow and ineffectual charitable gestures. They call it aid.
After all these years of British and American generosity I would like to meet even just a single Zimbabwean who was set free from poverty by these said generosities.
I do not ask for a dozen such people, merely one. Not a single peasant in Zimbabwe has had their life changed by these self-serving aid programmes.
If you dare ask me for an example of a person set free by Robert Mugabe’s much-maligned land reform, I will send you to the tobacco floors and show you thousands.
It is unhealthy for the soul to take pleasure in the suffering of an enemy but one is permitted the occasional indulgence.
I took quite some satisfaction in reading of Madhuku’s recent emotional outburst in which he publicly railed against his former Western handlers, admitting that they had used him as a pawn to further their selfish interests.
Tsvangirai’s “Damascus moment” is also fast approaching.
As a child my father often used to say “murungu akaipa”.
In the naiveté of youth I thought him prosaic and extreme. His wisdom becomes evident with each passing day.
We have allowed these dishonest diplomats to carry on unchallenged for far too long. We are stepping into a new season in which we are taking these racist forces right by their demonic horns.
If they value the few remaining shreds of prestige they still enjoy amongst weak and gullible black minds of the Muzorewa persuasion, they would do well to keep a low profile as is becoming of diplomats.
* Mai Jukwa is a loving mother of three. She respects Robert Mugabe, is amused by Tsvangirai and feels sorry for Mutambara.
Labels: AMBASSADORS, GRAIN MARKETING BOARD (ZW), JOHNSON MAPIRA, MAI JUKWA, MAIZE
Read more...
Kasukuwere paying price for silence
21/03/2013 00:00:00
by Mai Jukwa
I OFTEN find myself pulling my hair out in frustration when I see people failing to respond to situations. An example is the ever so docile Kasukuwere who seems content to eat food and carry on business as usual whilst a determined opponent drags his name and reputation in the mud.
At this point it is now public knowledge that Dr. Gideon Gono is pulling no punches in his effort to destroy the youthful minister but Kasukuwere does nothing. He does absolutely nothing! What is most frustrating is that there is a great deal to say in response to the Governors provocations. Having analysed the facts of the case over the past few weeks this is what I would say if I were Kasukuwere. I would write a letter to Zimbabwe.
Dear Zimbabwe,
Over the past few weeks there has been a lot that has been written about my conduct as Minister in charge of Indigenisation. Some of the information you have read is true but a great amount of this has been a mix of innuendo and mischievous gossip.
It is important that Zimbabweans have a clear understanding of what we are trying to achieve through the Indigenisation programme. However, it is equally important that they have confidence in the process. The question on the minds of many Zimbabweans is if this programme benefits all Zimbabweans or whether it is a corrupt scheme merely to line the pockets of Minister Kasukuwere as some have alleged.
A quick background would be helpful. The Indigenisation programme is not a personal project born of my imagination. It is government policy set into law by the Indigenisation and Economic Empowerment Act. The law directs companies with a capitalisation above a set threshold to ensure that indigenous Zimbabweans own 51% of their shares.
The Act does not discriminate between mining, banking or telecoms. It simply states that if a company’s capitalisation crosses the set threshold then it is obliged to comply with this regulation. My role as Minister is to ensure that all affected companies’ come into compliance. This is through assisting these companies by extending deadlines in exceptional circumstances or offering state support in terms of guaranteeing financing in those cases where there is no local capital to absorb available shares.
As you can clearly see, I do not have the legal power to give special treatment or exemptions to particular industries, as the law does not have scope for any such ministerial discretion. It is not the case that Kasukuwere can simply allow the banks to carry on business as usual whilst demanding compliance from the mining and telecoms sector. If I adopted this position we would quickly find ourselves in court, as this would be in violation of the law and would be vigorously challenged by those entities that have been forced to indigenise.
Herein lies a great measure of the confusion surrounding media reports on the matter. Of particular interest to the public has been the seeming rift with Dr. Gideon Gono who has offered an alternative model to the current Indigenisation drive and has publicly disagreed with my approach in effecting the Indigenisation Act.
Whilst I hold the governor in very high regard and welcome his input and opinion, my position on the matter has always been that the final decision on policy implementation rests with my Ministry. This position will not change until such a time as I am removed from government or deployed to a different arena of service. Decisions about Indigenisation can only be made within the Ministry charged with that duty. They cannot be micromanaged by unauthorised external agencies. There are only three bodies to which I am obliged to give an account; these are Cabinet, Parliament and the office of the President.
If it were the case that the “one-size-fits-all” model is inadequate, as Dr. Gono suggests, then the best approach would be to table such a motion in parliament (if one is an elected official) and request an amendment to the legislation as it currently stands. If Parliament shares the same view as the Governor then the law would be amended and as Minister I would immediately be empowered to give special favours to the banks or whichever industry exempted by the amendment. As it stands I just do not have the power to do so and am bound by the law to implement the policy indiscriminately.
It is now a matter of public record that the Governor has summoned a number of institutions that have been indigenised and demanded access to documents detailing the transactions. By chance these documents have the next morning found themselves leaked to the Daily News. Naturally as a human being I resent the feeling of being undermined but in governance one learns to lay aside emotion and focus on policy.
I mention the issue of these documents because it lays out the foundation of what is now called the NIEEBgate supposed scandal.
The Governor went on to request that my Ministry surrender all documents related to indigenisation to his office for supervision. I objected to this purely on the grounds of principal. The RBZ has no legal mandate to scrutinise the activities of the Ministry. It is quite similar to Dr. Gono having demanded that the Ministry of Health surrender their internal documentation for review by his office. No self-respecting Minister would accept such an unwarranted intrusion by an unauthorised party. Not even a company executive would accept that from another manager.
Many in the media have speculated that I rejected these intrusions because there was a trove of ghastly secrets to hide. This is nonsense. My view was that the Governor was now being nuisance and behaving in quite a disruptive and adolescent manner both in public and in private and I was unwilling to continue entertaining his behavior.
After this much was communicated to the RBZ we were quite surprised when the Anti-Corruption Commission came knocking on our doors demanding the very documents that had been requested the day before. We made it clear that we believed they were acting as a proxy and in violation of their mandate. As such it was we would not co-operate unless they obtained a warrant. To obtain any such warrant from the courts they would need to show probable cause, something we knew they could not show given that they were simply operating as a proxy and without any just cause to harass us.
They went to the courts and failed to show probable cause and were slapped down by the Magistrates court. What then happened is unprecedented. The Anti-Corruption Commission proceeded to approach a High Court Justice without advising the court that that a similar application had been rejected by a lower court. Lawyers will appreciate how extraordinarily unlawful that action was. We immediately challenged that warrant. Some parts of the media have conveniently excluded the details of what happened in court that day. The commission was not blocked from investigating us but admitted of their own accord that they had acted unlawfully and that the warrant they were trying to use was fraudulent. We did not even have to argue our case, they admitted this of their own volition and dropped their case.
If the commission is operating of its own accord then we are more than ready to embrace and assist them in their investigations. Our concern was simply that it was likely not a coincidence that they came and demanded documents that Dr. Gono had demanded and been denied access to.
In addition to that, our concerns have been heightened in recent days by revelations that the commission is being paid holiday allowances to the tune of hundreds of thousands and also receiving houses are cars worth over six million dollars from the Reserve Bank. In our view, this unhealthy relationship raises serious questions about conflict of interests and the independence of the commission. It also lends credence to our initial concerns about their involvement. The commissions empowering Act of 2004 states quite clearly that their funding must only come from Parliament. No other government official is allowed to give money, cars or houses to senior officials of the commission.
However, we are very much willing to work with the Anti-Corruption Commission in a transparent and accountable manner. This begins with them writing to us, raising their concerns and explaining which documents they require and for what purpose they require those documents. If we are satisfied that these concerns are legitimate and not merely a ruse to acquire documents for an unauthorised third-party then we will gladly surrender this information.
Yours sincerely,
Minister Kasukuwere
Amai Jukwa is a loving mother of three. She respects Robert Mugabe, is amused by Tsvangirai and feels sorry for Mutambara. She plays on Facebook and Twitter
Labels: MAI JUKWA, SAVIOUR KASUKUWERE
Read more...
Kasukuwere: Zimbabwe’s Julius Malema
07/03/2013 00:00:00
by Mai Jukwa
SAVIOUR Kasukuwere is a politician of muddied reputation. His acquisition of a stake in Interfresh remains a thing of controversy. In addition to those charges of impropriety, his public persona is poorly served by his boisterous style of delivery, a bulky well-fed frame and repeated accusations of corruption.
You see, the Youth Development, Indigenisation and Empowerment Minister paints quite the picture of the villain archetype, a rogue fat cat who represents everything opposition forces rail against.
This background – be it born of fact or fiction – has proved useful to Reserve Bank Governor Gideon Gono’s shrewd political manoeuvring. Kasukuwere presents an easy target; any charge laid against him is easily believed no matter how hollow.
Professor Jonathan Moyo has already laid out an impressive rebuttal of the allegations that were conveniently leaked by Gono to a gullible Daily News at the same time he was publishing his own indigenisation model. What remains is an examination of Gono’s motivations and the implications that follow.
In the commotion that has followed these allegations, a troubling thread has developed. Previously mute voices have now summoned the courage to publicly condemn the entire indigenisation policy. Finance Minister Tendai Biti is quoted as saying that he would, if victorious in the coming elections, move to reverse all indigenisation deals. The general spirit of conversation amongst opposition types is that the entire process has been proved corrupt as they previously alleged.
In all these howls of disapproval, we are not told how a company like ZIMPLATS ceding a 51 percent to locals personally enriches Kasukuwere. It is a brilliant political move by opponents of the policy and entirely founded on nothing more than innuendo. We are eager to see how the money eventually finds itself into Kasukuwere’s pockets but this is not forthcoming. Instead, we are treated to a hysterical type of journalism that continues to scream misleading headlines without regard for facts.
Before we examine Gono’s motives in deliberately setting off this storm, it is important we examine the facts on Kasukuwere’s actual handling of the indigenisation policy. The popular view is of a reckless and hurried execution, which has relied on brutish bullying tactics. The reality is not quite as colourful.
Consider the issue of banks. Foreign-owned banks are yet to come into compliance but have suffered no sanctions, this despite growing evidence that they are deliberately dragging their feet after been quietly encouraged by Gono in this insubordination. But one must realise that indigenisation is a national programme that was passed into law and cabinet has signed off the implementation. The brazen intransigence displayed by the banks is not against the Kasukuwere boogieman, as you would be led to believe. They are refusing to implement the law of the land for their own selfish reasons.
The developing narrative hardly paints the banks as lawbreakers. Instead, we are given a misleading picture of vulnerable banks resisting the menacing and corrupt demands of a rogue minister. The fact of it is that Kasukuwere’s implementation of indigenisation has been relatively tame and well organised. It is nothing of the radical sequestration being peddled by scribes of questionable objectivity.
Consider President Robert Mugabe’s view on the ZIMPLATS deal. In an interview, Mugabe said quite clearly that the 51% stake should have been acquired without compensation of any kind on the argument that the natural resources being mined entitle locals to that stake. Would ZIMPLATS and Gono prefer for Kasukuwere to be less radical and implement the policy as per the instruction of the President and simply demand the stake?
Those close to the process have explained that Kasukuwere has avoided such forcible acquisitions for fear of being dragged into international courts and tribunals by disgruntled shareholders. In the same way that our diamonds were subjected to various unfair restrictions, there is a very real risk of retaliatory action by Western nations barring Zimbabwean platinum citing grounds just as spurious as those used against the Chiadzwa diamonds.
One would be interested to hear Gono’s view as regards the President’s position that Kasukuwere should not provide any consideration in exchange for the stake but instead simply acquire it on the basis that the minerals belong to us? The picture of a corrupt Kasukuwere menacing businesses is quite clearly a dishonest one that has been painted by clever minds at the RBZ.
But one wonders what Gono’s motives are. His public record makes it clear that he wants to derail the indigenisation policy. He is cleverly feigning a mere disagreement with Kasukuwere’s methods but a reading of his alternative model makes clear that he is opposed to the policy itself. One wonders why Gono has taken to public podiums to attack the policy when he could discreetly voice his concerns to cabinet. Who is he pandering to?
Gono’s conduct becomes all the more suspicious seeing that he knows full well that Zanu PF is campaigning on the back of indigenisation. Why would Gono move to attack or diminish the prestige of a policy that his party so desperately relies on? One would imagine that the natural inclination would be to cover up any mistakes and raise them in private. This is especially true given Gono’s own glass house. The man is hardly a saint given how he sucked funds out of private accounts to fund questionable activities.
Indeed, if his motives were pure he would begin his charity closer to home by allowing a full independent audit of the RBZ. The questions then remains, why is Gono doing this?
Jonathan Moyo correctly identifies Gono’s perfidy. Gono is trying to drive a stealth bhora musango campaign. While feigning concern for propriety (which he has not practiced in his own office as Governor), he is achieving two goals. The first is that he is showing his hand to the MDC-T and Western nations as the Good Governor who always stood for truth. The import of his shameless campaign is to suggest that he is a moderate and should therefore have a seat at the table of any future government or at very least avoid any punitive actions that could be meted out against Zanu PF officials.
The second goal is the discrediting of Zanu PF’s key election card. One needs not be reminded of his duplicity that was exposed with the publication of the Wikileaks cables in which he shamefully alleged the President was unwell and would not last another three years.
Kasukuwere finds himself in the position of Julius Malema. The policies and ideas he is championing are noble and beyond contestation. However his opponents will seize on his person in an effort to discredit the policy he preaches. In the same way the Boer-controlled South African media fed the population with an endless drip of detail on the person of Malema without actually discussing the merits of nationalising mines, we will continue to see an obsession with the person of Kasukuwere as opposed to the actual policy of indigenisation.
Amai Jukwa is a loving mother of three. She respects Robert Mugabe, is amused by Tsvangirai and feels sorry for Mutambara
Labels: INDIGENIZATION AND EMPOWERMENT ACT (ZIMBABWE), JULIUS MALEMA, MAI JUKWA, SAVIOUR KASUKUWERE
Read more...
Kasukuwere botched Zimplats deal: Mugabe
01/03/2013 00:00:00
by Staff Reporter
PRESIDENT Robert Mugabe has said his empowerment minister was wrong to sign-off the Zimplats indigenisation compliance deal which has left the tax-payer facing a possible US$350 million hit.
Mugabe piled pressure on Saviour Kasukuwere over the Zimplats deal during an interview with state media to mark his 89th birthday.
The Zanu PF leader said Kasukuwere was wrong to endorse an agreement that requires the government to pay for shares acquired under the country’s indigenisation programme.
South Africa-based Impala Platinum (Implats), early this year, reached a deal to reduce its interest in Zimplats to 49 percent from about 87 percent in line with the country’s indigenisation legislation.
Foreign companies cannot own more than 51 percent of their Zimbabwe operations under a programme driven by Mugabe’s Zanu PF party but opposed by his coalition partners.
Under the terms of the US$971 million Zimplats deal, 20 percent of the shares were handed to community and employee share schemes while the state-run National Indigenisation and Economic Empowerment Fund (NIEEF) would take-over a 31 percent interest in the platinum miner.
Implats however, insisted that Zimbabwe must pay about US$350 million for the NIEEB shareholding.
"If they don't come up with the cash the stake will not be transferred," Implats’ then chief executive, David Brown, said at the time.
But Mugabe said the mineral resource belonged to Zimbabwe and should make up the country’s 51 percent contribution to the business. He said Kasukuwere made a mistake when he agreed the deal.
“Problem ndiyoyo, ivo vakatipa 51 percent vachiti chikwereti chatirikukupai asi tirikukubhadharirai mangwana mozotibhadhara that is where the difference is,” the Zanu PF leader said
“I think that is where our minister made a mistake. He did not quite understand what was happening and yet theory yedu ndeyekuti resource iyoyo ndeyedu and that resource is our share that is where the 51 percent comes from.”
Kasukuwere has led the charge to force foreign companies to comply with the country’s indigenisation laws and, buoyed by the Zimplats deal, recently indicated he would target the banking sector.
However, questions have been raised over some of the transactions agreed to date with critics also querying the role of a Harare-based advisory firm which is demanding US$17 million for consultancy work on the Zimplats deal alone.
Implats has refused to pay the fee arguing the company was engaged by and provided its services to the NIEEB and the Zimbabwe government.
Meanwhile, the government has given Implats 30 days to appeal the seizure of about 28,000 hectares of land believed to hold significant mineral resources for allocation to new investors.
“The President intends to acquire compulsorily part of the land held by Zimplats Holdings … for the utilisation of such mining location for the benefit of the public,” a government notice said Saturday.
However Implats is already demanding US$153 million from the government for ground released in 2006 and has said conclusion of the indigenisation transaction also depends on an agreement being reached over the sum.
COMMENT
*
Mai Jukwa
Daddy Mugabe is wrong-ish. We have always maintained that indigenisation is not about taking shares without paying for them. This is quite distinct from land reform which was 100% our property and for which we have no moral or legal obligation to pay compensation.
If a company raises 500 million dollars to start a mining operation in Zimbabwe surely it is a violation of the worst kind to wait for that company to invest that money in plant and machinery and then suddenly show up and say give us 51% ownership. Even our comrades in Africa would not support that.
If that was governments intention then why not simply introduce a 51% tax on profits?
The idea behind indigenisation is to give controlling stakes to locals. How companies divest that controlling stake is a matter of imagination. If a company is coming to Zimbabwe then it would naturally have to find local partners.
If the local partners did not have the capital to purchase the shares then the burden of imagination would lie with the investing companies to find innovative ways to overcome this challenge. An option would be to limit-exclude dividends to local shares until such a time as the capital has been satisfied. This would take no more than 4 years, at a modest 20% return on equity.
Daddy Mugabe's position becomes unsustainable when we get into service industries like banks. Would we also just demand they give us 51% on the basis that the people who are banking there are black?
Kasukuwere's mistake was that he took on the burden of imagination. He should have left it to the companies to find ways to become compliant. This would have saved him the BrainWorks Capital pseudo-scandal.
Tweeta @AmaiJukwa
Labels: INDIGENIZATION AND EMPOWERMENT ACT (ZIMBABWE), MAI JUKWA, ROBERT MUGABE, SAVIOUR KASUKUWERE, ZIMPLATS
Read more...
COMMENTS - There is a new election on, the lights start to flash, objects start to move mysteriously, and before you know it, the little girl says...
the MDC is the Poltergeist 2 party. With a special appearance by Tony Hawkins. Enjoy.
Britain reignites Mugabe hysteria
26/02/2013 00:00:00
by Mai Jukwa
THE British media routinely subjects its unquestioning audience with a villainous portrayal of a tyrannical Robert Mugabe menacing the streets of Harare with a Kalashnikov in one hand and a machete in the other. This mischievous narrative is not the child of ignorance. There is quite some method to this seeming madness on the part of the British.
Consider a leading article in the UK Daily Mail on August 11, 2010, which carried allegations that child slaves were being forced to dig for Marange diamonds with their bare hands. The culprits, we were told, were Mugabe’s bloodthirsty militiamen who also roamed the surrounding mountains with “vicious killer dogs,” harassing vulnerable locals.
Not to be outdone, the Guardian followed with a screaming headline alleging that Robert Mugabe had a secret diamond fund and was preparing to launch a “terror campaign” across the entire country.
The British are not alone in this dishonesty but have co-opted their kith and kin. The American Huffington Post recently published ‘damning’ revelations of the tortures suffered by a lesbian Zimbabwean who now lives in America. The article told of how the said woman was held in a cell strewn with faeces as the police station had no toilet facilities.
For six days, the report claims, this woman was tortured with batons, kicked in the stomach and made to endure various forms of violent interrogation. On day six, the police demanded she write down the name of every lesbian and homosexual in Zimbabwe because Mugabe had instructed that all of them should be arrested and imprisoned!
The reader in Zimbabwe will immediately identify these sensationalist allegations for the fictitious nonsense that they are. However, the crucial political question is why otherwise competent journalists are engaged in what are patently ridiculous fabrications and an unquestioning acceptance of testimonies by individuals who are likely nothing more than economic migrants that simply want political asylum to allow them permanent residency in these countries.
The reader must not be so naive as to assume that these publications lack the editorial rigour to correctly evaluate these allegations. The decision to allow publication of these decidedly ungenerous articles on Robert Mugabe is part of a wider campaign by Western foreign policy hawks that work in cahoots with media proprietors and politicians.
The core objective is to dehumanise Robert Mugabe. Once the generality has accepted this notion of Mugabe being a black Hitler of sorts, Western governments are then empowered to act against this perceived evil man. Recall how George Bush called Zimbabwe an outpost of tyranny.
To highlight the propaganda of for instance "Mugabe And The White African", that 'Mugabe compared himself to Adolf Hitler, which after two seconds of contemplation should strike anyone as absurd. This is the original quote, according to Rense.com:
Mugabe noted in the speech that he had been compared to the former Nazi leader in the British press, and said he was ready to embrace such a role.
"This Hitler has only one objective: justice for his people, sovereignty for his people, recognitition of the independence of his people and their rights over their resources," he said.
"If that is Hitler, then let me be a Hitler tenfold."
I draw the reader's memory to those now infamous headlines in the Western media alleging that Saddam Hussein was in possession of dangerous weapons of mass destruction and how the world could waste not a minute longer without intervening. History tells us that there were no WMD’s in Iraq.
This is quite similar to how Ian Smith, together with the Western media, portrayed ZANLA and ZIPRA liberation fighters as terrorists. Dehumanise! That is the objective. As such, when Ian Smith committed atrocities, killing thousands of women and children at Chimoio and Nyadzonya, this was painted as a noble ‘termination’ of terrorists. It is an effective technique that has worked through the years and is still ever as effective today.
When Julius Malema began making unwelcome noises about nationalising the country’s mines, he was quickly labelled an extremist radical. The concerted efforts of the Boer-controlled media in South Africa successfully portrayed a noble concept as the dangerous agitations of a madman. He was defeated, for now at least.
This seemingly innocuous reportage has had a devastating effect on Zimbabwe’s tourism. The continued vilification of the government as a rogue regime drunk on blood has had the effect of giving the impression that Zimbabwe is unsafe. The truth of it is that Zimbabwe is perhaps one of the safest tourist destinations in Africa, but this narrative runs contrary to Western foreign policy objectives that dictate that Zimbabwe be reduced to a failed state to ‘teach’ other Africans a lesson never to attempt the ‘foolishness’ of taking back their resources from their former colonial masters.
Once the first stage of demonisation has been completed and Western populations are convinced that a demon is on the loose, the next level of operation is the expression of demands that something be done in the interests of fighting for good to prevail. Western governments then dress themselves in the regal apparel of angels and vow that they will do everything necessary to help the poor people that are supposedly being held ransom by this rampaging demon.
So we are told that the West’s actions in Libya had nothing to do with oil. It was because they so loved Libyans and wanted to see them set free from an evil Muammar Gaddafi. The war in Iraq was not because of oil but because the West so loved Iraqis and wanted to see them set free from that cruel serpent called Saddam Hussein. But one wonders why these Western angels did not offer ZANLA and ZIPRA a single bullet to help them overthrow the racist oppression of Ian Smith. In fact, it is not only that they did not assist – they actively worked against the liberation struggle describing the guerillas as savage terrorists, a narrative which still finds expression in the House of Commons today.
The negative reportage on Zimbabwe has recently been reignited. Last week the Western media was awash with synthetic expressions of concern over human rights in Zimbabwe. This was in response to the dispersal of WOZA protestors by the police. One WOZA protestor was so eager to provoke the police to react that she stepped into the police station and stripped naked. She was arrested and immediately became the poster child for Western calls for closer Western involvement in the coming elections to make sure ‘peaceful protest’ is allowed.
Jenni Williams, the woman who leads WOZA, knew full well they would be arrested and released without charge but upped the ante with the deliberate provocation of police officers in an effort to generate headlines in step with the narrative that is currently being developed by her donors in view of the coming elections.
This is important in view of the reputable opinion polls by MPOI and Freedom House showing that Zanu PF will likely win the coming election. Western governments are at a loss as to how to they can continue to legitimise their portrayal of Mugabe as a murderous despot if he is shown to have won the election.
What we are witnessing are the birth pains of what is going to be a vicious information war in the coming months. If Zanu PF wins the elections, as it likely will, the West will immediately move to discredit the vote as not having been free and fair.
And that shows they do not respect the will of the Zimbabwean people. Any more than they respected the will of the Vietnamese people from 1965 to 1975, for instance. The foreign funding of NGOs is anti-democratic, and is intented to subvert will of the local people, who should be the only ones with a say in the Zimbabwean elections. - MrK]
It is important that Zanu PF responds in kind with equal sophistication. Over the years the party has allowed the West to control the narrative and assumed a defensive position.
A fresh approach is necessary; it is time to take the fight to the enemy. Zanu PF has at its disposal an arsenal of fact and history that exposes the West for what it is. The party must use this to devastating effect and take charge of the conversation.
Someone should do a documentary on the New Farmers. There are tens of thousands of success stories there. Also, it should be pointed out who the MDC is, the implications of their neoliberal policies, and their Anglo-American De Beers connections. Morgan Tsvangirai used to work as a miner for them. To quote his biographer, Sarah Huddleston:
“Morgan loves the mining industry because he was a miner and was given his start in life by Anglo American. He is a miner at heart but he sees both sides of the picture and this policy is not good for the workers or investors,” said Tsvangirai biographer Sarah Hudleston. ”
- MrK
The British often want to paint themselves as the salt of this earth and position themselves through empty charitable gestures as a caring nation that has the interests of our people at heart. Some weaker minds – especially amongst our youth – have been taken in by this sleight of hand. It is a dishonest prestige and there is no good reason why it should carry on unmolested.
Zanu PF has been negligent in allowing the British to carry on this hypocrisy for so long. This coming election let the facts be articulated so clearly that it becomes clear in the mind of every Zimbabwean that Britain does not have our concerns at heart. It is for the white farmer that their heart bleeds.
Amai Jukwa is a loving mother of three. She respects Robert Mugabe, is amused by Tsvangirai and feels sorry for Mutambara. She loves being followed on Twitter @AmaiJukwa
COMMENTS
*
truth0001
this AGAIN IS MASTER PIECE!!! this woman wrote stuff i have been dwelling on lately.. back in 2000 all the way upto 2008, BBC and CNN were powerful and couldnt be challenged as the west's war machinery BUT that is not so anymore!!!!! you dont have to watch BBC or CNN on television set, you can do that on a laptop/online...and the point is THERE IS NO EXCUSE ANYMORE FOR ZANU TO not match and surpass BBC and CNN on the conversation on ZImbabwe. a silly dance move gains a millions of hits in day on You tube....SURELY ZANU can you 'You Tube' the history and contemporary challenges of zimbabwe, the genocide of about 3000 people engineered by MDC and implemented by the white house by use of devastating sanctions!!!
after libya and iraqi, zimbabwe is not in a bad position at all, in been listened to by the world.
yes the west and their Puppets by the name of MDC are going for broke this time, in discrediting a zanu victory and it appears zanu is in sleep mode like stompie idiots...
zanu pf would be total idiots to think that the campaing ground for this election is just zimbabwe. zanu has to make online vedio for africa first and then world. This morons of MDC LIKE to be seen as 'VICTIMS' yet its MDC that was instrumental in the cholera genocide, its time THE RECORD IS SET STRAIGHT to the world, so the world knows the truth of the matter!!! if i were zanu, i would hold memorial services every friday for the 40 000 killed by the racist regime of smith, supported by UK and USA an SA, and the following friday, it would be a memorial day for the those mdc murdered by use of sanctions ie the 3000..this is what zanu has to go over the election period..
The question that zanu has to take to african states is, if we are saying no to military coups, why are we embracing those who come in power on the strengh of sanctions implemented by those that are economically might, when we know a military coup is cleaner and be bloodless whereas sanctions cause serious pain as is shown by the 3000 who died deaths engineered by sanctions, sanctions brought by MDC???
*
Labels: 2013 ELECTIONS (ZW), HUMAN RIGHTS, MAI JUKWA, MDC PROPAGANDA, NGOs, POLITICAL VIOLENCE
Read more...
Britain does not love Zimbabwe
20/02/2013 00:00:00
by Mai Jukwa
THE British waste no opportunity to remind us that they care for the poor people of Zimbabwe. They claim that it is because they are so concerned about human rights and democracy that they have felt compelled to impose sanctions.
These are noble-sounding statements of self-praise that paint British motives in a very kind light. However, we must examine words against actions if we are to discover the real motives of the British in Zimbabwe.
Zimbabwe is being punished because it is charged with violating human rights. This punishment is expressed through sanctions.
Let us begin this examination by use of contrasts as we seek to establish if these sanctions are really because of alleged human rights violations.
Britain demands sanctions on Zimbabwe but says nothing about human rights in many nations that it calls allies. An example is Saudi Arabia. Is this not hypocrisy of the worst kind? If indeed the British are so sore about human rights why do they say nothing about nations that are completely totalitarian and have total disregard for human rights?
Let’s draw back to the contrast with Saudi Arabia. Which country is more democratic? Which country has greater respect for human rights? Zimbabwe is the one that is subject to sanctions, whilst the Saudi King enjoys tea and biscuits with the Queen of England. One would naturally conclude that the Saudi’s must be saints, the salt of the earth.
Consider the freedom of religion. Zimbabweans are free to worship in whatever manner pleases them. Islam, Buddhism, Christianity and a host of other religions are practised without interference from the state. Saudi Arabia, the British chief-ally in the Middle East, does not allow this. Bringing a bible into the country for the purpose proselytising is illegal and punishable by lashings and prolonged imprisonment. These are the people that Britain calls friends. But we are told that Mugabe is the demon who does not respect human rights. We are told that Mugabe is the animal.
In 2005 Mohammed al-Harbi was sentenced to 40 months in prison and 750 lashes after he discussed the bible with students and was alleged to have praised Jews during a class. This is savagery at its best but you will not hear a word of protest from the British who claim they are champions of human rights. I will remind you that these are the laws of the land, not the work of unruly thugs. This is all entirely legal.
What about the rights of women? Around the world universal suffrage has become a standard. It is now commonly held that women are equal to men. But how does Britain's chief ally in the Middle East treat women? They are not allowed to vote. They are not allowed to drive. They are not allowed to travel abroad without the company or permission of a male ‘guardian’ as they are considered to be minors.
In contrast, Zimbabwean women enjoy absolute freedom and can travel as they please and do as they wish. But it is Zimbabwe that is under sanctions for violating human rights not Saudi Arabia. The British tell us we should be thankful for these sanctions as they are in our best interests. They are doing it because they love us. They must imagine us to be great fools.
In November of 2012, Mohammed Ibrahim, a Nigerian man living is Saudi Arabia, was accused of theft. As punishment under the country’s strict Sharia laws, he had his hand chopped off. In June of the same year, Mareeh bin Ali bin Issa al-Asiri was executed for allegedly committing adultery and practicing witchcraft. This is the country that Britain considers an ally. It is not under sanctions. But we are told that Britain is sanctioning the demon Mugabe for violating human rights. The sanctions are because the British have so much love for the poor people of Zimbabwe. One wonders why the British cannot share some of this love with their Saudi ally.
The British are also very much unhappy at what they claim are election irregularities in Zimbabwe. Unless they deem elections free and fair under their terms, then Zimbabwe will remain under sanctions. But let us look at the record and see which country is more democratic. In Zimbabwe we actually hold timeous elections in which we elect parliamentarians and the president. In the last election, the MDC won and took control of parliament. Is this how a dictatorship operates?
Whilst the British howl endlessly about elections in Zimbabwe, their Queen is having feast upon feast with the Saudi King. Are there any opposition parties in Saudi Arabia? The answer is no. Do they even have elections in that country? Again the answer is no. Do they allow anti-government newspapers to publish freely? No again. What about the Internet, is it freely accessible as it is in Zimbabwe? No it is not, the government filters it. The nation is a totalitarian police state that is ruled by a monarch that cannot be questioned. They are not under sanctions. Is it because the British so love Zimbabwe more than they do Saudi Arabia? Why are they not introducing sanctions against that country if they are such champions of democracy?
Has Mugabe created a secret prison in which he holds men indefinitely without trial in violent violation of habeas corpus and the rules of natural justice? No, Guantanamo Bay does not have Robert Mugabe’s name on it. Has Robert Mugabe’s government killed innocent women and children in a drone strike and callously dismissed the atrocity as collateral damage? This is the work of the British and the Americans. For every fifty people killed in a drone strike, only one is an actual insurgent. As the president has previously said, they have much to atone for and very little to lecture us on human rights.
The duplicity and evil of the white man is well documented in history. Their actions in Zimbabwe are not because they love us. Far from it! They are angry because we dared take back land that they stole. They had grown accustomed to plundering nations and getting away with it. They felt it their right as whites to steal, feign regret but keeping possession of the stolen goods. Look at what they are doing to the Aboriginals in Australia. They live on the periphery of society in their own land. In Zimbabwe we said no to their supremacist nonsense and kicked them out. They are enraged beyond measure and want to punish us whilst hiding behind human rights and democracy to lend legitimacy to their cruel actions. It is impossible to hide behind a finger.
We have been quiet for a very long time as they carried on this hypocrisy. However I can assure the West and their surrogate political parties that this election we are going to expose them and expose them clearly. This election is a game changer and we are indeed going to fight like a wounded beast.
Amai Jukwa is a loving mother of three. She respects Robert Mugabe, is amused by Tsvangirai and feels sorry for Mutambara. She loves being followed on Twitter @AmaiJukwa
Labels: LAND REFORM, MAI JUKWA, NEOCOLONIALISM, SANCTIONS, ZDERA
Read more...
Britain does not love Zimbabwe
20/02/2013 00:00:00
by Mai Jukwa
THE British waste no opportunity to remind us that they care for the poor people of Zimbabwe. They claim that it is because they are so concerned about human rights and democracy that they have felt compelled to impose sanctions.
These are noble-sounding statements of self-praise that paint British motives in a very kind light. However, we must examine words against actions if we are to discover the real motives of the British in Zimbabwe.
Zimbabwe is being punished because it is charged with violating human rights. This punishment is expressed through sanctions.
Let us begin this examination by use of contrasts as we seek to establish if these sanctions are really because of alleged human rights violations.
Britain demands sanctions on Zimbabwe but says nothing about human rights in many nations that it calls allies. An example is Saudi Arabia. Is this not hypocrisy of the worst kind? If indeed the British are so sore about human rights why do they say nothing about nations that are completely totalitarian and have total disregard for human rights?
Let’s draw back to the contrast with Saudi Arabia. Which country is more democratic? Which country has greater respect for human rights? Zimbabwe is the one that is subject to sanctions, whilst the Saudi King enjoys tea and biscuits with the Queen of England. One would naturally conclude that the Saudi’s must be saints, the salt of the earth.
Consider the freedom of religion. Zimbabweans are free to worship in whatever manner pleases them. Islam, Buddhism, Christianity and a host of other religions are practised without interference from the state. Saudi Arabia, the British chief-ally in the Middle East, does not allow this. Bringing a bible into the country for the purpose proselytising is illegal and punishable by lashings and prolonged imprisonment. These are the people that Britain calls friends. But we are told that Mugabe is the demon who does not respect human rights. We are told that Mugabe is the animal.
In 2005 Mohammed al-Harbi was sentenced to 40 months in prison and 750 lashes after he discussed the bible with students and was alleged to have praised Jews during a class. This is savagery at its best but you will not hear a word of protest from the British who claim they are champions of human rights. I will remind you that these are the laws of the land, not the work of unruly thugs. This is all entirely legal.
What about the rights of women? Around the world universal suffrage has become a standard. It is now commonly held that women are equal to men. But how does Britain's chief ally in the Middle East treat women? They are not allowed to vote. They are not allowed to drive. They are not allowed to travel abroad without the company or permission of a male ‘guardian’ as they are considered to be minors.
In contrast, Zimbabwean women enjoy absolute freedom and can travel as they please and do as they wish. But it is Zimbabwe that is under sanctions for violating human rights not Saudi Arabia. The British tell us we should be thankful for these sanctions as they are in our best interests. They are doing it because they love us. They must imagine us to be great fools.
In November of 2012, Mohammed Ibrahim, a Nigerian man living is Saudi Arabia, was accused of theft. As punishment under the country’s strict Sharia laws, he had his hand chopped off. In June of the same year, Mareeh bin Ali bin Issa al-Asiri was executed for allegedly committing adultery and practicing witchcraft. This is the country that Britain considers an ally. It is not under sanctions. But we are told that Britain is sanctioning the demon Mugabe for violating human rights. The sanctions are because the British have so much love for the poor people of Zimbabwe. One wonders why the British cannot share some of this love with their Saudi ally.
The British are also very much unhappy at what they claim are election irregularities in Zimbabwe. Unless they deem elections free and fair under their terms, then Zimbabwe will remain under sanctions. But let us look at the record and see which country is more democratic. In Zimbabwe we actually hold timeous elections in which we elect parliamentarians and the president. In the last election, the MDC won and took control of parliament. Is this how a dictatorship operates?
Whilst the British howl endlessly about elections in Zimbabwe, their Queen is having feast upon feast with the Saudi King. Are there any opposition parties in Saudi Arabia? The answer is no. Do they even have elections in that country? Again the answer is no. Do they allow anti-government newspapers to publish freely? No again. What about the Internet, is it freely accessible as it is in Zimbabwe? No it is not, the government filters it. The nation is a totalitarian police state that is ruled by a monarch that cannot be questioned. They are not under sanctions. Is it because the British so love Zimbabwe more than they do Saudi Arabia? Why are they not introducing sanctions against that country if they are such champions of democracy?
Has Mugabe created a secret prison in which he holds men indefinitely without trial in violent violation of habeas corpus and the rules of natural justice? No, Guantanamo Bay does not have Robert Mugabe’s name on it. Has Robert Mugabe’s government killed innocent women and children in a drone strike and callously dismissed the atrocity as collateral damage? This is the work of the British and the Americans. For every fifty people killed in a drone strike, only one is an actual insurgent. As the president has previously said, they have much to atone for and very little to lecture us on human rights.
The duplicity and evil of the white man is well documented in history. Their actions in Zimbabwe are not because they love us. Far from it! They are angry because we dared take back land that they stole. They had grown accustomed to plundering nations and getting away with it. They felt it their right as whites to steal, feign regret but keeping possession of the stolen goods. Look at what they are doing to the Aboriginals in Australia. They live on the periphery of society in their own land. In Zimbabwe we said no to their supremacist nonsense and kicked them out. They are enraged beyond measure and want to punish us whilst hiding behind human rights and democracy to lend legitimacy to their cruel actions. It is impossible to hide behind a finger.
We have been quiet for a very long time as they carried on this hypocrisy. However I can assure the West and their surrogate political parties that this election we are going to expose them and expose them clearly. This election is a game changer and we are indeed going to fight like a wounded beast.
Amai Jukwa is a loving mother of three. She respects Robert Mugabe, is amused by Tsvangirai and feels sorry for Mutambara. She loves being followed on Twitter @AmaiJukwa
Labels: LAND REFORM, MAI JUKWA, NEOCOLONIALISM, SANCTIONS, ZDERA
Read more...
Gono, Kasukuwere: end the mutual destruction
15/02/2013 00:00:00
by Mai Jukwa
FOLLOWING the historic land reform programme in which President Robert Mugabe’s government forcibly reclaimed land that had been possessed through violent British conquest,
Zimbabwe has given birth to an indestructible seed – the idea that Africans can own their resources and enjoy greater control of their own economies.
Many African states will
soon realise their folly and implement the exact same policies we have in Zimbabwe. This execution will perhaps be more elegant, but that elegance is born of
the luxury of hindsight that we as pioneers could never enjoy.
The nature of British conquest is that the empire never relinquishes control of resources. It is for this reason that you find the Australian Aboriginals living on the periphery of society in their own land.
In Kenya, British aristocrats still hold control of vast tracts of land and wield considerable economic power. But there are no Kenyans farming in Britain. Indeed the British press routinely howls in disapproval at the acquisition of football clubs and infrastructure by wealthy Russians and Arab royalty. How is it they cannot understand the Africans distress at having his entire continent held ransom by foreign profiteers?
The idea of indigenous people owning the means of production is sacrosanct. There can be no debate over this matter. As the sun of enlightenment continues to rise over our continent, this voice of reason will grow louder and louder and louder until the imperialists can bear it no more and scream in surrender falling to their knees as they submit to the will of the people. There can be no other way. We are going to take the remaining lands and we will certainly implement indigenisation. We are open to debating implementation but certainly not the principle.
I pray you forgive my turgid introduction, but this is an open letter of chastisement to Reserve Bank governor Gideon Gono and Indigenisation Minister Saviour Kasukuwere.
I felt it necessary to remind them of the context in which we are waging this economic battle. We are standing as game changers and must be ever conscious of our responsibilities, not only to Zimbabwe but also to the continent at large.
The back and forth between these two gentlemen is not the stuff of whispers; indeed it has been played out in full view of the media. But the question I must ask these two men is what precisely are they fighting over? Is it on the principle of ownership or on the implementation of the policy?
I will remind the two of a history I am sure they are well aware of. The import of this history is that revolutions are rarely ever the thing of elegance. When the learned Professor Jonathan Moyo demanded that state media broadcast 70 percent local content, there was widespread outrage amongst those whose vision does not see beyond the next meal.
At the time, the implementation was not as elegant as some would have preferred, but the good professor stood his ground. Today, Zimbabwe enjoys a thriving Urban Grooves industry with celebrities such as Winky D routinely flying abroad to entertain the Diaspora. It takes time for good policy to bear fruit.
The same is true of the Land Reform that was previously slammed as poorly executed. Today, we read conceding reports from Western academics accepting that production is on the up and recovery is certain. I am sure all of us were overjoyed at the recent reports of an extraordinary tobacco harvest. Good policy takes time and often seems messy at onset.
Of necessity, I must ask again what these two gentlemen are fighting over. Is it over the principle of indigenous ownership itself or over the implementation? The only manner in which this adolescent squabble can be resolved is if the terms of the argument are made clear. Reading their submissions, I can safely conclude that Gono objects largely on the grounds of implementation.
Gono is man of impressive imagination and I applaud him for his acumen in policy drafting. His article – Indigenisation: Aiming for Fuller Participation – is a beautiful piece of genius and has quickly received the applause it deserves. I would encourage the government to put it to the currently sitting parliament, as I see nothing that either the MDC or Zanu PF could object to in that document.
However, there is a very serious flaw in the manner in which Gono and Kasukuwere are interacting. These men who are meant to be partners in government seem to be locked in a political fight to the death. Their enmity is not a secret.
Their problem lies in that Gono seems to feel that his model for empowerment is mutually exclusive with the current drive. This is certainly not the case; both policies can be run concurrently. It is not a case of either or, my way or the highway. That is not how government works. Both policies are wonderful and should be implemented.
I cannot see why companies that have complied with the indigenisation directive cannot be directed to source 51% of their inputs from indigenously owned SME’s. In the same vein, I cannot see how the current model is disruptive to Gono’s vision.
I am made to understand in such a way as to believe it that Gono has not sought to assist the process with humility. He has not offered his expertise unconditionally but has stood at the sidelines picking faults in a manner that could be interpreted as malevolent.
Instead of offering no-political-strings-attached help, Gono has taken to the podium and publicly voiced his disapproval. This is an unhelpful and provocative approach especially seeing that Kasukuwere is simply implementing government policy, which has been signed off by cabinet. The notion that Kasukuwere has single-handedly engineered the indigenisation drive is dishonest and those who believe it are naïve.
In this way, Gono has allowed himself to be used as a poster boy by disingenuous forces that feign disapproval on implementation grounds when in fact they disagree as a matter of policy. These Rhodesians live amongst us and count the likes of Tony Hawkins in their ranks.
For his part, Saviour Kasukuwere has made the error of responding to Gono’s taunts in public. It makes for an ugly scene. In addition to that, I feel that Kasukuwere should indeed take heed of Gono’s proposals and support their implementation, as they are not contrary to his current efforts.
At a time when the elections are fast looming, having the central bank viciously challenging a key component of our campaign model is unhelpful. What brings us together is far greater than what sets us apart gentlemen. Come together, have dinner, discuss this and put it behind you.
Amai Jukwa is a loving mother of three. She respects Robert Mugabe, is amused by Tsvangirai and feels sorry for Mutambara. Follower her on Twitter @AmaiJukwa
Labels: GIDEON GONO, INDIGENIZATION AND EMPOWERMENT ACT (ZIMBABWE), LAND REFORM, MAI JUKWA, SAVIOUR KASUKUWERE
Read more...
Zimbabwe will not compensate white farmers
01/02/2013 00:00:00
by Mai Jukwa
THE evicted white farmers have reignited their misguided demands for compensation from the Zimbabwean people. Let it be made clear, Zimbabwe will never compensate the British white settlers aka former white farmers. This is a matter of government policy and is founded on international agreements and cemented by Constitutional Amendment 17.
After the pioneer column established itself in Zimbabwe, the British white settlers began a systematic process of subjugation. The black indigenous people were submitted to forced labour and often times banished from their ancestral lands. The white settlers carved out large chunks of prime land and distributed this amongst their kith and kin.
No compensation was paid to these blacks. Who did these white farmers pay to occupy that land? This is a crucial point; the blacks that were abused by the British government in their failed expedition that was colonial Rhodesia never received a dime of compensation. The British white settlers did not purchase the farms for which they now demand compensation. They stole them.
After 1980, the black majority did not seek retribution. If we were to speak of compensation in April 1980, we would have immediately started by prosecuting the British white settlers for violently occupying Zimbabwean territory. In addition to this, the whites in Zimbabwe were guilty of aiding and abetting the Smith regime. This was a minority that had used force to impose its will against the black majority.
This may seem outrageous but this is exactly how the Jews dealt with the Nazi’s at the Nuremberg trials. They hunted them down and executed them. One will recall the likes of Julius Streicher that were sent to the gallows simply for having disseminated information that was deemed anti-Semite.
But Robert Mugabe has never been of the prosaic type, instead of retribution he spoke of swords morphing into ploughshares and of the love that bound him to his former oppressors. This was Ubuntu at work, but the British white settlers mistook this for weakness, perhaps even stupidity. Why weren’t these blacks taking back their land?
As time passed and the land remained in the hands of the British white settlers, the war veterans asked a pointed question. What did we fight for? The land that was stolen from our fathers was still in the land of the British white settlers.
The new constitution that could have enabled land reform had been defeated in 2000 following the mass intervention by white farmers who coached and bussed in ignorant voters.
Clearly, the only remaining option was to go back into the trenches and to take back what was stolen from us. The war vets invaded properties occupied by British white settlers and this is what history calls the Land Invasions. It was not an invasion, it was liberation!
The British white settlers who we were kind enough not to slaughter at independence are now demanding compensation. There are numerous questions that enter the mind when one hears such absurd demands. What do they want compensation for? Do they want us to compensate them for the thousands of blacks that they slaughtered as they fought the will of the majority? Do they want us to compensate them for the forced labour they subjected our parents to? What exactly do they want compensation for? Or is it just the land they are interested in? They want us to compensate them for the land they stole from us.
The idea of compensating a thief is absurd. The white settlers are indeed thieves. What else do you call a group of white renegades that leave the comfort of the own country and decide to go and take land from poor blacks thousands of miles away? They are thieves and nothing more. They are lucky that we did not prosecute them.
The next question is whom they want to get that compensation from. Do these white farmers really expect poor Zimbabweans from whom they stole land to pay taxes to pay the thief that stole from them? It is a notion so idiotic it can easily make the revolutionary blood in us boil.
The little money that we have in Zimbabwe will be used to build hospitals and to fund education. We will not tax Zimbabweans so we can pay-off thieves.
The British government is responsible for the upkeep of the British white settlers it sent as agents in its colonial conquest. It is the British that must compensate those farmers. Indeed this was the agreement at Lancaster.
Amai Jukwa is a loving mother of three. She respects Robert Mugabe, is amused by Tsvangirai and feels sorry for Mutambara. Follow her on Twitter: @AmaiJukwa
Labels: LAND REFORM, MAI JUKWA, WHITE FARMERS
Read more...
Beware of David Coltart
15/01/2013 00:00:00
by Mai Jukwa
AN EFFECTIVE analysis of the recent back and forth between Givemore Makoni and David Coltart is one that views facts in consideration of wider realities. This examination of wider realities is particularly helpful because it helps the observer to pick out and dismiss specious arguments.
A specious argument is one that has a ring of truth to it but is actually false. Skilled deceivers often make use of this technique. One relies on seemingly plausible foundations to justify a dishonest point.
An example would be a man who has found himself a mistress. The moment his wife fails in even the most minor of issues, he will blow it out of all proportion and speedily demand a divorce. On paper, his complaints may seem legitimate but a closer examination will prove him dishonest.
David Coltart is one such man. A few questions will make my point.
Who benefits if England plays cricket in Zimbabwe? Is it not the vendor who sells burgers and ice-cream? Is it not the nine-year-old who wants to watch his favourite star from SuperSport?
Again I ask, who benefits when an international team comes to this country? Is it not ordinary Zimbabweans who simply want to enjoy their weekend watching a loved sport?
David Coltart led a delegation that advised England not fulfil its World Cup fixture in Zimbabwe. Whose interests was Coltart serving? Was he serving the interests of Zimbabweans who earn a living selling various wares during cricket games? Was he serving the interests of Zimbabweans who wanted to watch the game in their own country? Who sent him to do what he did?
Today, Coltart speaks of the national interest. I speak of viewing matters with the wider reality in consideration. Examine the man’s record.
Let’s consider the recent directives by Coltart which demand that selectors be persons with international experience; specifically, they should have represented Zimbabweans at an international level.
I need not remind Coltart that he is not the minister of Cricket. He is responsible for sports overall. Would the good minister please educate us as to which other sports he has mandated this regime. If his concern is national interest, why is he not similarly exercised about football? I called them the wider reality.
I spoke of football. What about athletics? Tennis is another sport we play, as is rugby. We have different sports in our country. Why did Coltart not introduce universal reforms in all sports in the national interest? What is it about cricket that motivated him to intervene in such an extraordinary way?
He has not volunteered an explanation as to why cricket is such an exception? This is not because he is a man of few words but rather because he knows any explanation would ring desperately hollow.
Coltart knows full well that his reforms narrow the list of eligible selectors in favour of his white friends. Even if they are not his friends, the fact still remains that his reforms will result in very few eligible black selectors. This is exactly how Coltart wants it.
All Zimbabweans want our national teams to succeed but we also want those teams to be national. They cannot be Rhodie clubs.
The suggestion that one can only be an effective selector if they have played at an international level is idiotic. Some of the best football coaches have never kicked the ball themselves. Some of the best political strategists have never run for public office.
Coltart’s argument is nearly as foolish as a university demanding that would-be business professors be individuals who have in the past run a multi-million dollar enterprise. It is absurd. Coltart knows this but he is doing it because he has already hoodwinked his foolish black colleagues by use of a specious argument.
Coltart esteems himself a lover of democratic virtues and human rights. We are routinely subjected to his howls of disapproval on this matter and the other. Let Zimbabweans be warned, he is a fake.
If he is not an imposter, may he please produce a single essay, article or even a mere High School composition that he wrote in objection to white minority rule. He cannot do so because he is a fake humanitarian, a racist wolf dressed in the unassuming apparel of a lamb.
Amai Jukwa is a loving mother of three. She respects Robert Mugabe, is amused by Tsvangirai and feels sorry for Mutambara
Labels: CRICKET, DAVID COLTART, GIVEMORE MAKONI, MAI JUKWA, RACISM
Read more...
