What are diamonds of Zimbabwean origin?
By: Nancy Lovedale
Posted: Sunday, April 24, 2011 6:46 am
CALL it irresponsible journalism. The internet is awash with reports that Indian officials caught on Friday two people with what are believed to be blood diamonds worth Rs10 crore, in Surat.
The diamonds are said to be of Zimbabwean origin. The officials apprehended two people identified as Jorabhai and Premabhai, both residents of Navsari district, near Saiyedpura in Surat.
Sources said the officials seized rough-cut diamonds weighing a total 9.72kg. The value of the diamonds is said to be Rs10.17 crore.
The case is said to be one of the biggest cases of blood diamonds making their way to Surat, popularly known as ‘diamond city’ in the country.
The diamonds are said to be of Zimbabwean origin and were smuggled to Surat via Nairobi, Mumbai and Navsari; but no one seems to care to describe what "Zimbabwean origin" means in this case.
The reports are devoid of facts linking the diamonds to Zimbabwe.
Online publications reporting on Zimbabwe are also reporting this very skeletal story; which fails to establish a prima facie case against Zimbabwe.
One can only deduce that this is yet another case meant to tarnish the diamond industry in Zimbabwe; and is typical of lazy journalism that we have now become accustomed to.
It is ignorant to link every diamond crime to Zimbabwe. If it is indeed true that those diamonds are from Zimbabwe, there should be an accompanying explanation linking Zimbabwe to the case.
You cannot establish facts by simply declaring that the diamonds are of "Zimbabwean origin". How can you tell if diamonds are of Zimbabwean origin?
Blood diamond (also called a converted diamond, conflict diamond, hot diamond, or a war diamond) refers to a diamond mined in a war zone and sold to finance an insurgency, invading army's war efforts. Zimbabwe's diamonds do not meet any of these conditions.
The western world and NGOs are opposing the diamond mines in Zimbabwe citing charges of human rights violations. The Kimberley Process does not mention anything about human rights violations as warranting the blocking of diamond trade.
The KP was launched in 2003 to curb the flow of conflict diamonds and is exceeding its mandate by delving into issues of human rights which should be investigated by bodies like the UN Human Rights Commission and international watchdogs like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.
The KP does not have the mandate nor the capacity to investigate issues of human rights.
*Nancy Lovedale writes from Beijing, China. She is an avid supporter of Arsenal and Dynamos "DeMbare" Football Club and can be reached via nancy_lovedale@yahoo.com
Labels: DIAMONDS, KIMBERLEY PROCESS, NANCY LOVEDALE
Read more...
Tsvangirai using 'deceit' to remain PM
By: Feature by Nancy Lovedale
Posted: Saturday, March 12, 2011 6:41 am
PRIME Minister Morgan Tsvangirai has mastered the art of deceiving people and sometimes openly telling people what they want to hear in order to retain his position as Prime Minister of Zimbabwe.
On Thursday he told reporters that the inclusive Government was not working and that it should be ended, despite having expressed that the same government should run for five years last month. He told reporters that the "marriage" (inclusive Government) had led to confusion and a paralysis of leadership.
Tsvangirai's statement denouncing the inclusive Government was immediately echoed on Friday ambassadors from eight Western nations who appealed to the inclusive Government and the political parties to “respect the spirit and the letter of the GPA”.
The appeal was signed by envoys from Canada, Denmark, Australia, Germany, France, Austria, the Czech Republic and the European Union.
This has raised speculation that the prime minister is back to his tactics of using the EU to ensure that his party remains on the political map.
It has now emerged that Tsvangirai is hoodwinking the people of Zimbabwe to believe that there is no consensus in the inclusive Government, while he has a near-perfect working relationship with President Mugabe.
A day before telling reporters that the inclusive Government was not working, Tsvangirai had told 300 business executives from South Africa, London and the United States of America at a Euromoney Conference in Harare that the inclusive Government was "working very well" and that Cabinet business was proceeding smoothly.
On Tuesday this week, the PM had carried out an interview with a Financial Times reporter where he repeated that the government was working well.
In the interview with FT's Alec Russell, Tsvangirai said of the Cabinet meeting earlier that day: "“It was very good, very productive ... It’s enlightening that everyone was serious about addressing the concerns.”
He added: “If you were to enter the room you would not know who was who, MDC or Zanu-PF. The seating is Zanu-PF, MDC, Zanu-PF, MDC ... and he [Mugabe] and I direct.
"We really do consult when things get out of hand.”
Russell also reveals that the PM had also told David Cameron at the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting in Davos (Switzerland) at the end of January that the inclusive Government was working well.
Shocked by this revelation from PM Tsvangirai, journalist Russell wrote: "So I am all but lost for words at Tsvangirai’s Milquetoast reference to his and Mugabe’s latest meeting – as, I have been told, was David Cameron when he was given a similarly bright-eyed and bushy-tailed account by Tsvangirai at Davos earlier this year."
It is now not clear what the PM's position is.
It is, however, clear that he does not want elections this year and wants the life of the inclusive Government extended, creating confusion among his followers.
He should tell the people of Zimbabwe what exactly is at play here.
If the inclusive Government is that bad, why is he still in?
The tactic of hoodwinking Zimbabweans at an opportune moment and openly telling lies to an increasing naive media audience will soon thin out. The West, we all know, has already revealed via WikiLeaks what it really thinks of the PM.
Only Zimbabweans are currently following the man blindly and the Zimbabwe media's toothcomb was lost a long time ago.
____________
Nancy Lovedale can be reached via nancy_lovedale@yahoo.com. She reports from Beijing, China.
Labels: 2011 ELECTIONS (ZIMBABWE), LYING, MORGAN TSVANGIRAI, NANCY LOVEDALE, NATIONAL UNITY GOVERNMENT
Read more...
Stop Tsvangirai's narcissistic tendencies
By: Nancy Lovedale
Posted: Friday, October 1, 2010 6:20 am
PRIME Minister Morgan Tsvangirai is reported to have changed his tune on sanctions and on the causes of the economic meltdown in Zimbabwe. He has also threatened to boycott the next elections and a vote on the new Constitution saying it will have to be negotiated by the main parties because the process has been a farce.
Mr Tsvangirai cannot have his cake and eat it. He has done so many times with impunity. His call for the lifting of sanctions was always suspect. How could we have expected a man who invited those sanctions in the first place to call for their lifting?
Many of us still remember the pathetic picture of PM Tsvangirai coming off the plane at Johannesburg International Airport with the children of Police Commissioner Augustine Chihuri and Defence Minister Emmerson Mnangagwa who had been deported from Australia.
His own daughter remained in Australia.
We also remember the thousands of deaths from cholera because Zimbabwe could not procure equipment and water treatment chemicals because of sanctions supported by Mr Tsvangirai and the MDC-T.
Coincidentally that cholera ended when Mr Tsvangirai joined the inclusive Government.
So when he says sanctions are targeted at Zanu-PF officials, he is merely courting our ire. Calling them "restrictive measures" smacks of either ignorance, arrogance or sheer vacuousness.
Mr Tsvangirai refused to honour the Kariba Draft which was negotiated by the main political parties saying it was outdated. He did not say which parts of that draft were outdated.
His MDC-T party and civil society organisations then suggested that there has to be a "people-driven constitution" and the current constitutional reform process started.
Now they want that reversed; and another "Kariba Draft" written.
We cannot allow this man to run the affairs of the country like he runs his own household.
A lot of resources have been expended in the process and we cannot allow the prime minister's tantrums to break such an honourable exercise.
Mr Tsvangirai has realised that the outcome of the new constitution will not go in favour of the MDC-T party and that he is nearing his doomsday, hence he wants the new constitution negotiated.
MDC-T spokesman Nelson Chamisa made a ridiculous statement recently to online media. He said "the people" want the constitution negotiated and the prime minister is merely stating what "the people" want.
Mr Chamisa should not hoodwink all of us in broad daylight talking about "the people". His, and Mr Tsvangirai's narcissistic tendencies should be stopped forthwith.
We cannot allow what happened in Mbare last weekend to derail a process that has been virtually incident free up to now.
How come Zanu-PF allowed, and still allows, that process to go on when MDC-T supported sanctions are killing people daily?
The MDC-T can claim all victims of violence if they want. That is nothing compared to the suffering they caused by inviting sanctions. They are the gangsters. How many people died from the effects of the sanctions?
The MDC-T should stop this nonsense about violence. Their violence is there for all to see. Their desire to see Zimbabwe "crashing and burning" is as clear as day.
The problems encountered in the constitutional making process are to be expected in a country that has been bruised and battered.
Mr Tsvangirai and Mr Chamisa can boycott all they want; but they should never claim to represent the people's view on the constitution. There will be a referendum and people will speak then.
We should either now go back to the Kariba Draft, rather than start another useless MDC-T driven exercise; or simply let Copac finish off the exercise and go to referendum.
In the meantime, Mr Tsvangirai can bark all he wants.
_____________________
Nancy Lovedale is an avid supporter of Dynamos FC and Arsenal FC. She writes from Beijing in China and can be reached via nancy_lovedale *** yahoo.com
Labels: KARIBA DRAFT CONSTITUTION, MORGAN TSVANGIRAI, NANCY LOVEDALE, SANCTIONS, ZDERA
Read more...
MDC-T muzzled by mixed loyalties
By: Nancy Lovedale
Posted: Monday, September 6, 2010 2:26 am
IN his famous speech in 1774, British politician and statesman Edmund Burke said to the voters of Bristol that a politician has four loyalties: "To his conscience; to the wishes of his electorate; to the nation; to his party".
Zimbabwe’s current political landscape has been highly polarised for the better part of the last ten years, with many questions being raised about loyalties, and one's responsibilities to society.
Burke omitted loyalty to “other interests”. This is the crux of the problems facing the Movement for Democratic Change party led by Mr Morgan Tsvangirai. It has loyalty to "other interests": western interests.
These interests explain why he sought refuge at the Dutch Embassy in Harare running away from some fictitious threat, just before the 2008 Presidential Election; or represents the government in Washington when that same government is under sanctions; or finds solace in playing golf with people who impose sanctions on his own people.
There has been a struggle between Zanu-PF and those emerging political parties that have sought to replace it, not on the basis of ideas and ideals as one would expect in politics, but on some whimsical, capricious and crude agenda inspired by “other interests”.
With its desperate drive for power, no matter the cost, the MDC-T has become the party of "quid pro quo" – give us this ministry and that ministry; give us governorship posts; fire this person and that person from that post.
Thrown into this equation is an independent media that were once relatively impartial but have now morphed into a propaganda machine dedicated to shamelessly advancing the agenda of the MDC-T; and demonising and criminalising Zanu-PF by innuendo.
The MDC-T has morphed itself into a party that subscribes to "politics of fear of failure" – their own! If they can't/won't/don't make it on their own, someone else has to provide for them, and Zanu-PF is the “fall guy”. This fail-safe guarantee has caused the MDC-T system to self-destruct and fail to present a credible challenge to Zanu-PF.
It now remains, ten plus years after its formation, as a shadow of its former self – with no credible agenda to present to the people of Zimbabwe, but a combative attitude that despises everything that Zanu-PF does without presenting a credible alternative. This has helped parties like Mavambo/Kusile/Dawn and recently constituted Zapu to clamour for that opposition space.
The hype and euphoria that propelled the MDC-T to prominence, helped by the support of an increasingly marginalised and discredited neo-liberal lot, has completely died down and the party is at pains to try and achieve relevance on the Zimbabwean political space; hence, the confusion about which policy to adopt.
Each way it looks, the MDC-T finds itself on some Zanu-PF policy (or agenda) turf; for example, painfully admitting the importance of the land reform programme at the same time trying to disqualify it using some ludicrous disclaimer about how bad “they went about it”.
The irony and tragedy of the inclusive Government is that part of it (the two MDCs) is currently involved in some re-engagement agenda with the European Union – the same people they worked with in framing the illegal and ruinous sanctions on Zimbabwe. This presents a moral and ideological and intellectual dilemma for those who find themselves working to outdo what they did for the last decade. This explains the ideological confusion that is characteristic of the MDC.
The MDC-T mantra about how the land reform programme will be disastrous for Zimbabwe is now so discredited, it needs no further rebuttal. It is as ridiculous as the sanctions-denial mantra. The successes scored in agricultural production in the last season by the new “Chibero College breed of farmers” are an indictment on these ill-advised claims.
Before the formation of the inclusive Government, many of the MDC-T politicians were presented as “men of excellence” ready to take on the honourable job of running the country. They were presented as men who were wedded to their work.
Yet there was always an undercurrent that came from their handlers that muddled their capacity to perform diligently.
That party was constrained by the shackles of the anti-Zanu PF political rules of engagement placed upon them by their handlers. This made them oppose Zanu-PF policies that the west opposed; even if the rest of the Zimbabwean populace thought them honourable. For example, no Zimbabwean has opposed, at least in principle, the land reform programme; or the indigenisation and economic empowerment policy. The litmus test has always been: “Will the public benefit?”
This is why, despite the unrelenting demonization of Zanu-PF, the pinching of the economy by the West, and the avalanche of American dollars in its way, the MDC-T failed to garner enough support, or mobilise enough mass anger (Final Push, Winter of Discontent), to oust President Mugabe.
The MDC-T party has also failed to appreciate the relevance of the emotive issue of the liberation war. They have called for those who fought white imperialism to “move on” or to change. This has ruffled up feathers in the Zanu-PF camp and reminded those cadres of the sacrifices they made in order to free Zimbabwe, juxtaposed with the contribution made by many of those now resident in the MDCs.
The war veterans gave up many of their prime years, shed their blood, lost their limbs, sacrificed their sanity and gave their last true measure of devotion to free even those who now want them to change.
The war is still fresh in their minds; it’s only been thirty years since the last anti-imperialist shot was fired. In any case, even if it was two hundred years later, that very episode cannot go in vain; and those who call for them to “move on” are only failing to appreciate the extent of the sacrifices made.
The questions then to the leadership of the two MDCs are: “Do you wake up in the morning, look in the mirror and truly say everything you’ve done is for the welfare of the Zimbabwean people? Are you loyal to your conscience; to the wishes of the electorate; to the nation; or just to your party?”
________________________
Nancy Lovedale comes from Arcadia in Harare, is based in Beijing (China) and is an avid supporter of Dynamos FC and Arsenal FC. She can be contacted via nancy_lovedale *** yahoo.com
Labels: MDC, NANCY LOVEDALE, NEOCOLONIALISM
Read more...
Wake up call for MDC-T leadership
By: By Nancy Lovedale
Posted: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 2:43 am
THERE is no doubt that the leadership of the MDC-T party has gone through a political education programme that has helped them experience the gagantuan task of running a country.
When they signed the Global Politcal Agreement with Zanu-PF, MDC-T spokesman Nelson Chamisa said, "We are joining government to take over from Zanu-PF". This was the naivety that gripped that party, or the immaturity, at the time. That shrill voice of young Chamisa has completely disappeared.
It is no secret that MDC-T Secretary General Tendai Biti, whom some dodgy western organisation shamelessly cared to call "The Best Finance Minister in Africa" has somewhat toned down his rhetoric and somewhat modified his brusque manner of doing politics.
The onerous task of running a country requires sober-mindedness and the endless demands of the public need sober people to deal with; and Biti is facing the rude awakening.
Running a finance ministry of a country under evil, racist, illegal and ruinous sanctions is no walk-in-the-park.
Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai is also learning on the job. If he thought he could wake up one day running a country with a chequered history like Zimbabwe on some peculiar and dodgy agenda, he now has a different view.
Zimbabweans are no gullible lot. They might look meek and timid, but they have deep introspection; having endured years of racist rule under the far Right Wing Government of Ian Smith; and having gone through a bloody and protracted armed conflict.
They are not about to go through that again; especially on an MDC-T agenda. This is why the MDC-T's "Winter of Discontent" or "Final Push" calls fell on deaf ears.
Zimbabweans simply don't fight their brothers and sisters. They know better.
Zimbabweans know very well that the MDC-T's mantra of human rights and democracy; supported by the West which failed to censure Smith and his Rhodesian Front cabal; is mere hot air.
Such politicking does work with a populace that has been declared the most literate in Africa.
The lesson learnt by the MDC-T should be a wake-up call to other political parties that mushroom in Zimbabwe. They can challenge a party like Zanu-PF, but they have to do it on principle, not some whimsical idea.
They cannot call for sanctions against their own people and destroy their economy; and expect to be rewarded with an outright electoral victory. Voters are not all gullible. Some are, but not all.
The fanciful and capricious manner in which the MDC-T has behaved over the last ten years has rendered it a joke in the country, the region and internationally.
That party and its leadership does not amount to much in the African region; no wonder it is always seen as a discomforting bogey each time there is a Sadc meeting.
With a gullible and illiterate media supporting it, the MDC-T is a perfect example of how not to run a political party on the African continent -- a continent that has endured the ultimate suffering in the hands of a series of racist and evil white minority regimes.
Some of us secretly hope that the next move of the MDC-T is guided by a nationalistic agenda; not some neo-liberal philosophy that does not resonate with the African people.
_____________
Nancy Lovedale writes from Beijing (China). She can be reached via nancy_lovedale@yahoo.com
Labels: MDC, NANCY LOVEDALE, NEOCOLONIALISM
Read more...
COMMENT - Right on, Nancy. Zimbabweans should be extremely wary of any neoliberals. All they are in politics for, is to enrich themselves and sell out the nation's resources.
MDC-T ministers, the brady bunch of Cabinet
By: By Nancy Lovedale
Posted: Saturday, July 24, 2010 5:16 am
SO much has been happening in the inclusive Government, so many debates and power positioning by the various actors. A close look at some of the MDC-T ministers in Cabinet reveals some very interesting aspects.
It is interesting to see just how the likes of Finance Minister Tendai Biti, MDC-T Spokesman Nelson Chamisa, Minister of State in the Prime Minister's Office Jameson Timba and his predecessor Gorden Moyo, and various other MDC-T ministers have been battling to become relevant and efficient ministers.
These four are not the only ones, but they are the most interesting.
Their fight for relevance sometimes outdoes their intelligence. A few examples would suffice.
Minister Biti, since we saw him spring onto the political scene, has been an animated individual. Having gone through various political parties including Edgar Tekere's Zimbabwe Unity Movement and Enoch Dumbutshena's Forum Party, he finally settled for the Movement of Democratic Change party. These three parties provided the young Tendai Laxton Biti an outlet for his energy that many who went to Goromonzi High School with him would attest to. He is rumored to have been as "energetic", for lack of a better word.
Nelson Chamisa, according to sources from Harare Polytechnic, where he allegedly started his "career", is rumored to have been a silent and undeclared student or admirer or Learnmore Jongwe, another animated young man whose energy was often mistaken for intelligence. Jongwe's story is tragic and is a topic for a later discussion.
Mr Timba and Mr Moyo sprung onto the political scene via the "MDC-T backdoor".
These four men have one thing in common. Besides being just interesting characters, they often engage in intellectual battles they never follow-up afterwards.
Mr Biti for instance, always has something that he is angry about. First it was his desire to see Reserve Bank Governor Dr Gideon Gono and Attorney General Johannes Tomana fired from their positions, besides the fact that they were appointed when the MDC-T was dillydallying about "entering Government". I have never known a country that spent a day without an AG or a central bank chief. Mr Biti then tried to have Zimbabwe declared a Highly Indebted Poor Country, besides having 25-infinity percent of the world's rough diamond share, an array of other precious gems, the highest literacy rate in Africa and the best touristic resource. Now he is proposing to have a "Diamond Act" so that he can divert all proceeds from diamond sales to his preferred sectors and "ministries".
The finance minister is also very self-contradictory. On his website, he has a link for the public to give their input into the budgetary process, but fails to consult the same people through their representatives, the Members of Parliament. Biti's excuse is that the MPs were busy with the constitutional outreach programme! Last year, when he presented his budget, this was also an issue. He promised to consult MPs and stakeholders in 2010, but failed on that promise, yet again. One wonders what exactly he means when he argues that he is in government to bring some "sanity" to the running of the country when he fails on such a simple task.
Mr Biti is also interesting, just to watch. One would be excused to think that he always knows what he is saying, given the exuberance of his persona. This is a man who, in one interview, described President Mugabe as "very Victorian" because he happens to drink tea at four o'clock and because his manner is akin to that of an English gentleman. Biti oftentimes shifts from praising to condemning President Mugabe, depending on his mood swing -- and it is quite apparent. One wonders whethersuch mood swings sometimes affect the way he runs the finance ministry.
Mr Nelson Chamisa is another interesting character who has a tendency to leave fights in mid air. He never followed up his fight with Media, Information and Publicity Minister, Webster Shamu or Minister Nicholas Goche. Chamisa is on record saying that the MDC-T is in the inclusive Government to "take power from Zanu-PF", yet at every media opportunity he threatens that the MDC-T will soon leave government because of "Zanu-PF's intransigency", whatever that means. He also claimed that he will teach Minister Shamu about information and IT, despite the fact that Minister Shamu has had wide experience as a broadcaster and as minister.
Mr Chamisa is also a victim of his own craftsmanship. If you follow closely the way he uses words, you are sure to get confused. His ideology is mixed up and he never seems to know what exactly he (or the MDC-T) represents. He prefers to answer questions that are simple, for instance, why Roy Bennett is not Deputy Minister of Agriculture. But he dodges issues like the MDC-T's proposal to include homosexual rights in the new constitution. Sometimes, he is completely silent on crucial issues, like the parallel government or the "reshuffling" of MDC-T ministers, or the allegations of violence in the MDC-T. Infact, he once blamed factional fighting in the MDC-T on Zanu-PF until violence broke out at Harvet House, their headquarters. This time he could only keep quiet.
Mr Chamisa is also on record claiming that the "party of excellence" will ask all their Cabinet members to compile a list of their assets in the name of good governance. That also was never followed up, just like his claims that the MDC-T was investigating corruption and would fire all culprits. A report of that investigation, if it ever happened, was never produced.
Turning to two interesting characters, Mr Timba and Mr Moyo. Minister Timba claimed, in the Prime Minister's Newsletter that the PM had read the riot act to Secretary for Media, Information and Publicity, Mr George Charamba. Mr Charamba's crime was that he had clarified a position that the media never bothered to investigate -- that PM Tsvangirai was going to reassign (or fire) some of the staff working in his office and/or hire new ones.
Mr Charamba merely clarified that the staff in the PM's office were appointed through the Public Service Commission and could only be reassigned or fired through that department. The PSC vets and hires all civil servants and no other civil servant has any power to hire, fire or reassign those positions. In any case, the PSC has to match the skills of these people with the available jobs. Timba said Mr Charamba has no mandate to speak on behalf of government, yet he is the Secretary for Media, Information and Publicity and has to clarify such issues. ironically, Mr Timba worked in the same ministry with Mr Charamba when he was Deputy Minister of Media, Information and Publicity. How he fails to understand Mr Charamba's role beggars belief.
Mr Moyo, who also worked as Minister of State in the PM's Office, also clashed with Mr Charamba over a bilateral investment protection agreement (BIPPA) that was "signed" by PM Tsvangirai and South Korea. Again, Mr Charamba said that such agreements are signed by the president. Any announcement of such agreements is made via the Chief Secretary to the President and Cabinet, not through the PM's (or MDC-T's) office.
This is the calibre of the ministers from the MDC-T, who fail to grasp issues that are important in running the business of government. Other MDC-T ministers and MPs, e.g. Thamsanqa Mahlangu, Theresa Makone, Fidelis Mhashu, Pishau Muchauraya, Obert Gutu, etc are just as interesting.
Given the apparent battle for power between PM Tsvangirai and Mr Biti, one watches from the sidelines for another "bomb" to explode in the MDC-T. Mr Biti's announcement of a wage freeze in his Mid-Term Fiscal Policy Review Statement, was a slap in the face of PM Tsvangirai who categorically claimed, earlier this year, that there would be no wage freeze, and that all civil servants would be paid a "living wage".
In hindsight, we can only conclude that the inclusive Government was a blessing in disguise. One wonders what would have become of Zimbabwe if the MDC-T had gone into power on its own. Zimbabweans, like Zambians, would have lost everything to big businesses and the IMF/WB would be running Zimbabwe right now.
Labels: CABINET, MDC, NANCY LOVEDALE, NEOLIBERALISM, PRIVATISATION, TENDAI BITI, ZAMBIA
Read more...
British arrogance on Zimbabwe is shocking
By: Nancy Lovedale
Posted: Monday, June 14, 2010 10:53 am
A RECENT House of Lords debate on Zimbabwe left a sour taste in my mouth. The Zimbabwean story is being told by a bunch of disgruntled and bitter former absentee landlords whose ancestors and generations of their fellow countrymen were responsible for the problems we endured in the country.
The debate of Thursday 10 June 2010 was one typical debate by Britain and shows its attempts at trying to rewrite the history of Zimbabwe and exonerate Britain from years of plunder and denigration of the majority black population in the country.
These are the stories that make Zimbabweans, in particular, and black people, in general, particularly angry about Britain and its so-called "Great" empire.
They have no iota of regret about the problems they have created in the African lands and today try to whitewash that history.
Lord Anthony St John of Bletso, a British peer, businessman and solicitor, who is one of the ninety hereditary peers who are at the centre of British political debate, opened up a different kind of debate, on "current developments in Zimbabwe" in the House of Lords.
Masquerading as an expert on Zimbabwe, oft citing the flawed and discredited all-party Parliamentary group’s report, dubbed "Land in Zimbabwe: Past Mistakes and Future Prospects", he gave a flawed and arrogant account of Zimbabwe and where it is today. He also exposed British arrogance and lack of foresight and insight on the Zimbabwean situation. For someone educated at Universities of South Africa and Cape Town, you would expect him to know more; or to have sour grapes. We know the latter is true.
He started by paying respect to "the contributions of the late Lady Park of Monmouth and Lord Blaker, both of whom were ardent campaigners for democratisation and for human rights protection in Zimbabwe" - a precedent meant to place Zimbabwe in a wrong historical context; effectively starting the history of Zimbabwe in the late 1990s, and at a time when the British-sponsored puppet party, the Movement for Democratic Change, was put together.
He called Zimbabwe's past 10 years "a lost decade". Interestingly and ironically, this decade coincided with the formation and establishment of their much preferred MDC party, and the entrenchment of the "New Labour" party in British politics.
His version of the "background to the political and economic demise of the country" started in 1997 "as the IMF reform programme was being effectively implemented".
The hereditary peer claimed that "the free market reforms resulted in a growth of the middle class in Zimbabwe, and wealth creation at the time effectively made Zanu-PF less relevant under its current system of patronage."
He claimed: "Furthermore, the so-called war vets were not benefiting from the reforms and growth, and they threatened to remove their support for President Robert Mugabe unless he helped them. The ensuing massive pay-outs of bonuses and allowances had a devastating effect on the fiscal deficit and effectively resulted in the freefall of the Zimbabwe dollar in 1997."
"The war vets then carried on with their threats, which led to the calls for radical land reform. When Robert Mugabe lost the referendum in 2000, he blamed the white farmers for their support for the MDC. This led to rampant farm invasions, and that totally destroyed the fabric of the agricultural sector, which had for many years been the bread-basket of Africa."
This is his version of how Zimbabwe-Britain relations got sour. Nothing is further from the truth and this British attitude of trying to re-write the history of Zimbabwe and present that country as a saviour is what made relations sour in the past decade and put the two countries on a collision course.
We have seen such arrogance repeated elsewhere in Iraq, Afghanistan and many other places where the British have poked their nose and left masses of people dead and countries ruined. Today, the Middle East would have been a different place had Britain not "poked its nose" and left inadvertently in 1948.
Despite attempts at the opposite, we all know that "Great Britain" recognized the Jewish people's "right" to establish a "national home in Palestine". Yet they curtailed entry of Jewish refugees into Israel even after World War II. They split Palestine mandate into an Arab state which has become the modern day Jordan, and Israel.
Lord Anthony did not bother to discuss his country's Labour Party's reneging from Lancaster House obligations on land redistribution and Zimbabwe's reconstruction and how Britain has failed to responsibly handle the fallout from that move. He failed even to mention Claire Short's letter exonerating Britain from centuries of colonisation, plunder, murder and torture. Instead, he wants us to celebrate that Britain is a saviour. How can the killer of your father be your saviour? This is twisted morality!
Today Britain is battling with increasing numbers of "asylum seekers" from Zimbabwe and this is a problem brought by that country's mishandling of the Zimbabwean situation, and its unrepentant attitude and arrogance.
Lord Anthony did not address why the war veterans marched in 1997, the year that the Labour government came into power. Zimbabwe had been independent for 17 years. Why did they not give President Mugabe an ultimatum before then or threaten white commercial farmers before then?
To say that "over the past decade the country has endured rampant inflation and critical food and fuel shortages" and not talk about a raft of sanctions imposed by Britain and the United States on a tiny landlocked country like Zimbabwe, is either sheer ignorance of a blatant attempt to misinform the public.
How could Zimbabwe, in one year (after New Labour came to power) be "hyper inflating and have a 100 trillion Zimbabwe dollar note worth barely £10?" as he says. Why were "the shops empty, farms unproductive, the population ... starving with more than 90 per cent unemployment, and the president’s popularity ... at rock bottom" as Lord Anthony put it? And did Britain not have a hand in this?
Lord Anthony also attributes the "progress" in the Zimbabwean economy to "the appointment of Tendai Biti, the Finance Minister from the MDC, in 2009, the legalisation of the multi-currency system and the scrapping of the Zimbabwe dollar" as having ended Zimbabwe's economic, political and social woes. This is an insult to our intelligence and an attempt to undermine the very literate people of Zimbabwe.
This is arrogance and misinformation. Tendai Biti has done nothing but inherit a Zanu-PF blueprint - an economic document (Budget) that was written by then Acting Finance Minister Patrick Chinamasa. Biti did not introduce multi-currencies. Chinamasa did. Biti and Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai did not bring any aid to Zimbabwe and they spend time plotting the overthrow of President Mugabe. We see, every now and then, PM Tsvangirai and his useless trips to the West coming back home empty handed, except for a "few scraps from the table" and many human rights and undeserved academic awards.
"Thanks to the support from NGOs and Governments around the world, humanitarian aid has been extended to schools and hospitals, as government revenues could not possibly sustain such an expense," writes Lord Anthony, a peer elected by fellow peers to the House of Lords. "The result is that schools and hospitals are now all open and there is clean running water in most of the hospitals."
What Lord Anthony, subliminally, is saying here is that: "Thank Britain for highlighting this success. We will not let the world hate Britain, therefore our public diplomatic approach has to be one of presenting us as saints and saviours, rather than colonisers. Let's stop the sanctions debate and focus on toppling Robert Mugabe."
His version of "land invasions" does not start with the land history of Zimbabwe which started in the early 1890s, but with the Zimbabwean Fast Track Land Reform Programme of 2000. This is not surprising. This was the only time that the white man suffered in Africa.
He also lets the cat out of the bag by saying, "Many farmers are now returning to the land having done deals with the so-called new owners." Perhaps he would care to tell us who these "white farmers" are, and why they are illegally going back to those farms. And why is Britain celebrating a violation of Zimbabwe's land reform laws?
"Seed/maize production has trebled in the past year. The goldmines have reopened and investment is now starting to come back into improving the infrastructure. Of course, one of the major problems facing the goldmines is the lack of power. However, slowly but surely investment is trickling back into the mining sector," says "the British lord" ignoring Tendai Biti's claim that Zimbabwe is on its own. Does the "great lord" read about Zimbabwe, or he has his own version of events in the country?
He arrogantly calls the economic and indigenisation programme that sought to redress what his ancestors made wrong a "political gamut" and wants "South Africa (to exert) enough pressure to bring about meaningful change in Zimbabwe." Why should South Africa right what Britain did wrong? It is not Cde Thabo Mbeki's or Cde Jacob Zuma's role to right Britain's wrongs. In fact, these two men's roles have shown how African diplomacy can triumph in the face of western criticism and western pressure. They have overcome Britain and America's attempts and scuttling political progress in Zimbabwe.
He also claims that the "drafting of the new constitution ... will ensure the success of the GPA" and that "the hardliners are doing everything they can to frustrate the process through using the Attorney-General, the police or the Army, but it is only a handful of hardliners who are causing the problems." Nothing is further from the truth. The inclusive Government has made significant progress already; in a shorter time than did his country with Northern Ireland, if it ever did. Zimbabweans have shown a propensity to work together and forget past acrimony larger than that we have seen anywhere in the world.
Such misinformation is the reason why Britain continues to have diplomatic clashes with Zimbabwe and why relations have been frostier than even during colonial times. The British obsession with the MDC as representing the future of Zimbabwe is astounding. Like Tony Blair, the MDC was once the future, it is not anymore. It has proved to be corruptible and not "holier than thou".
For the British peer to say, "The most recent obstacle to change was ... the gazetting of the indigenisation regulations that effectively stopped the economy in its tracks" is ignorant and an attempt to rewrite of our history and denigration of our struggle as black people. It is an attack on our right to be independent and to self-determine. By lying that "An attempt was made to force all foreign companies to hand over 50 per cent of their equity to local Zimbabweans" the British lord is trying to derail a process that seeks to empower black people, and his rhetoric should never be allowed to reach the mindsets of our people. Unfortunately, his rhetoric is believed and swallowed hook-line-and-sinker by our journalists who publish the falsehoods, in respect of the crumbling "British empire".
In a very patronising way, Lord Anthony writes that the British "are all in favour of black empowerment but the indigenisation programme was clearly ... more of a political tool (and that) it (is) seen as an election winner (and that) it has backfired and ... has negatively affected Zimbabwe-owned businesses trying to raise capital". Who told him that? I wonder what news he reads and where on earth he gets his ideas from. He lies between his teeth: "The regulations are currently being revised, as the Prime Minister, Morgan Tsvangirai, declared them null and void as they had not gone through Cabinet." What powers does Mr Tsvangirai have to do that? How does he nullify and void something that needs Cabinet approval? The British lord, for a lawyer, is demonstrating pure ignorance about the constitutional processes in Zimbabwe.
What "economic achievements in Zimbabwe since February last year" is this man talking about? Does he know the plight of the rural and urban poor and how dollarisation is slowly killing small business and wreaking havoc to rural businesses?
When he says "there is unlikely to be any meaningful change until President Robert Mugabe leaves office" what change exactly is he talking about and who determines change in Zimbabwe? Maybe he should tell the world that "there is unlikely to be meaningful change in Britain until hereditary peers are abolished." That is exactly what the British people want to hear, not words that put Britain on a collision course with Zimbabwe. Britons are concerned by the growing numbers of asylum seekers in that country, and it is such arrogance that is responsible for bloating those numbers. If this is the thinking in British parliament, why are they denying the fact that they seek "regime change" in Zimbabwe?
And who told this peer that "At the age of 86, (President Mugabe's) health (is) deteriorating, especially in the past few months"? Now he is a medical doctor and a lawyer?
He also has the audacity to say "it is conceivable that one of his main reasons for not wanting to step down is the fear that he may be charged by the International Court of Justice for the abuses dating back to the Gukurahundi massacre of the Matabele way back in 1982". What does he know about that era? Why does he not talk about 50,000 blacks who perished at Chimoio and Nyadzonia at the hands of his ancestors? Why does he equate the Zimbabwean situation with "the arrest of Charles Taylor in Liberia a few years ago". In any case, the British leadership and their colonial leaders should go first before the ICJ and the International Criminal Court for killing millions of black and Arab peoples on the African continent and in the Middle East over "dodgy dossiers", before anyone else can be tried. It should happen in historical stages, shouldn't it?
The British lord can plan "a smooth exit for Robert Mugabe from power within Zanu-PF, which would pave the way for a peaceful transition to allow for free and fair elections to be held in that country" as much as he likes. We know one thing: He is not Zimbabwean and will never decisively determine the course of events in that country. He is not a Zimbabwean taxpayer, nor a Zimbabwean voter. The "smooth exit" of President Mugabe will be determined, not planned, by Zimbabweans; just like the British rejected and ejected Tony Blair and Gordon Brown's New Labour party.
What the British lord tries to mask as "proactive pressure" is a return of black sacred land to whites. That will never be tolerated by patriotic Zimbabweans. He can continue on his deluded trajectory and make such ignorant claims like "hyperinflation spelt the end for Zanu as well as Robert Mugabe". He should be told that Zanu does not exist anymore, but Zanu-PF is still very much part and parcel of the political fabric of Zimbabwe and is on the rise again after discovering the hidden tactic of the British.
Lord Anthony is right though to say that "In the past decade, Africa has been the second fastest growing region in the world, with GDP growth of 4.7 per cent. Between 1997 and 2008, GDP grew from $327 billion to $1.6 trillion." Fortunately, Britain cannot influence that success story. Britain's influence in that region, ironically and fortunately, has deteriorated in that decade and so has MDC's in Zimbabwe.
Ironically, the hereditary peer is also right when he says, "I believe that the time has now come for change. I believe that there should be African solutions to African problems. A successful Zimbabwe further undermines the hardliners." Indeed Britain is a hardliner, and Zimbabwe's leadership has undermined those British hardliners and their influence on the world stage. Who would have thought that, given the colonial link between Zimbabwe and Britain, that country would be so disconnected from politics in Zimbabwe and have waning influence in its socio-political and economic future?
Probably President Mugabe was right in saying Gordon Brown is "a tiny dot in the world". Before we know it, Britain as a whole will be a "tiny dot" in Africa, as China and South East Asian countries change the course of events in the world, and modify global pwer relations. This is inevitable and Britain might just become an unwilling spectator, considering that the last Queen's Speech never mentioned Africa or her beloved "Rhodesia".
__________________
Nancy Lovedale writes from Beijing, China. She supports Arsenal FC and Dynamos 'DeMbare' FC and can be reached via nancy_lovedale@yahoo.com
Labels: COLONIALISM, HOUSE OF LORDS, NANCY LOVEDALE
Read more...
More newspapers, less news
By: Nancy Lovedale
Sunday, June 6, 2010 2:36 pm
ANYONE who reads the news on Zimbabwe and how the media freedom mantra has been peddled by journalists working outside the country would have been shocked by how the news of new papers' registration came and passed.
You would have thought that such an event would spark some "revolution", but alas nothing much has changed, and I can bet you, nothing more will happen.
Zimbabwe is still Zimbabwe. Newspapers can only publish what is happening, although in the Zimbabwean situation we have seen some gross fabrication of what is really going on. You cannot tell lies for too long before the public hangs you.
Since the BBC was allowed into Zimbabwe, it looks like the propaganda has died. Even John Simpson, who used to get into the country "at the back of a van" and then walk the streets of Harare in broad daylight (as if he was not conspicuous) has lost interest since the BBC was allowed back in.
Haru Mutasa and Al Jazeera seem to have "died a natural death" in Zimbabwe. You would imagine that since they have all the tools to report and are allowed access to every nook and cranny, they will "nail" the Zimbabwean government. But no! No "mass graves" have been found in Chiadzwa as we were promised, even with the satellite photos that are capable with Google Maps with Street View.
Isn't that the irony of the Zimbabwean story? As soon as government stops responding to the propaganda, it dies down. Every country has "skeletons", even the much loved US and UK.
The embarassment we have seen lately with UK MPs and their expenses scandals, had it happened in Zimbabwe, would have made rich fodder for western media. The British call those exaggerated claims "scandals". They are just protecting their much claimed to be foolproof Westminster system of governance. Those scandals are nothing but theft. They are nothing but corruption. The British media can mask those scandals as much as they want, but if a man takes £45,000 from the fiscus and gives it to his gay lover, he is stealing; no more, no less.
What exactly new will NewsDay, or a daily Financial Gazette, or the publishers of The Daily News tell the world about Zimbabwe that Al Jazeera or BBC is failing to report? The worst has been said, and lied about. Even the caustic Mavamba/Dawn/Kusile spokesman, Denford Magora, who had become a popular blogger overnight has downed tools. Most other such bloggers have given up. The ones that always told the truth (no need to mention them) are still going strong.
As for the likes of SW Radio Africa, and their so-called journalists, ignorance is better spared. They are scrapping hard to find a bad story; even the match between Zimbabwe and Brazil - a historic event in itself - was cast in bad light.
As the MDC-T list of "outstanding issues" is getting smaller, we are not gettng a corresponding rise in pressure, or rhetoric, against sanctions from that camp. Was "media freedom" not a precondition for the MDC-T? Was the appointment of ambassadors, the media and other commissions, etc, not a precondition for calling for the lifting of illegal western sanctions?
Why are journalists not telling their version of the true Zimbabwean story, as they know it, now that "they are allowed to publish and report" or it was just convenient to repeat the tired, oft used phrase, "We are not allowed to broadcast from inside Zimbabwe!"?
The truth is that nothing new is happening in Zimbabwe, that did not happen when these papers were not publishing. Zimbabwe was, and still is, Zimbabwe. The people are still fun-loving and hard-working. Foreigners are still welcome in the country and the people are still as peaceful as ever.
Some of us used to get the shock at how The Daily News led by Geoffrey Nyarota at the time, was reporting. We were shocked, not only at how he could get away with such propaganda, but with the fact that he would "lie" about things that we were also seeing in the country. At one point, we bought the paper just to shock ourselves with the lies, and the hyperbole.
We wondered where and how he was getting that information, or whether we lived in the same country as him; and his journalists (who were gullible at the time and just looking to make a dime).
As a woman, I was very much interested in issues raised by by the likes of Tambu Kahari about how Nyarota treated women in newsrooms in the country. Tambu was labelled as a psycho for standing up for women's rights, and Nyarota chastised her at every given media opportunity (even though the man claims to be a democrat). For me, those were, and still are, the real issues, not some of the spurious propaganda they spread about Zimbabwe.
Some of us want to know how a man like Mutumwa Mawere made so much money, and owned so many companies, in Zimbabwe. Those are the real issues, not the lies about Chiadzwa, etc. Some of us want to know why Rio Tinto mines diamonds at Murowa without the Kimberley Process approval, and yet Canadile and Mbada (not owned by the West) cannot do so. Those are the real issues. We want to know how ACR got all those Chiadzwa mining claims, and why Andrew Cranswick now lives in Britain, a country so far away from Chiadzwa.
As we move into a "new era of publishing in Zimbabwe", as some would want to call it, we hope to see more responsible reportage.
Zimbabweans, fortunately, are no longer as gullible as they were in 1999-2008. They have been through a lot of trauma, but they have wised up as well. They can no longer be lied to by psychotic journalists who sing for their supper daily.
This new era of publishing is not lenient to media liars and cheats that we saw mushrooming around the time the MDC-T was founded.
------------------------
Nancy Lovedale writes from Beijing. She is an avid supporter of Dynamos FC and Arsenal FC and can be reached via nancy_lovedale@yahoo.com
Labels: INTERNATIONAL MEDIA, KIMBERLEY PROCESS, MEDIA, NANCY LOVEDALE, PROPAGANDA
Read more...
African journalists leading the miseducation of our people
By: Nancy Lovedale
Posted: Thursday, April 29, 2010 6:33 am
AFRICAN journalists have a very long way to go, especially the breed that is employed in western-run media houses. Ironically, they are the biggest chunk of reporters on Africa, but not in Africa.
I chuckled when I heard a recent interview between Lance Guma of SW Radio Africa and Andrew Cranswick the CEO of African Consolidated Resources (ACR) - the company claiming to have rights to mine at Chiadzwa in Marange District of Zimbabwe. ACR's claim was cancelled by government over claims that it was obtained fraudulently.
As someone who has been following that case, I expected to hear crucial questions like:
Can you please tell us how you got your licence?
Can you comment on why top officials within the mines ministry are being investigated for fraudulently granting certificates of registration to your company?
Why did you name ACR subsidiaries that were not registered, at the time of application of Certificates of Registration, (e.g. Dashaloo Investment which was incorporated on 29 June 2006, yet from the records kept in the Mining Commissioner’s Registry, it registered its claims on 4 April 2006 and 1 June 2006)?
Why is the main company registered in England and banking offshore, with all white directors, yet it claims to have black directors on its books?
Why are you not in Zimbabwe at the moment? How did you mine 129,000 carats of diamonds from the Marange diamonds when you claim government was killing people there?
Where you complicit in that process? Why did you not stop mining when you discovered these "killings"?
Why are the 129,000 carats now labelled "blood diamonds" when they were mined by ACR?
Is ACR a blood diamonds company now?
These are just some of the questions that could be asked. These are the issues that Zimbabweans want to know.
The lopsidedness of the interview was interesting. It happens everytime a white or MDC-T interviewee is on that station. They are treated with kid gloves and it seems there's a presumption of innocence on these people. They can never do wrong, yet everytime a Zanu-PF member appears on that station it is almost confrontational and it always ends with, "We told you how these people are!" It seems there's always that need to present Zanu-PF in bad light, rather than to question, probe and find out exactly what is going on.
A recent story on President Ahmadinejad's visit to Zimbabwe was interesting. SW Radio got a highly speculative story from the UK's Telegraph newspaper that claimed a uranium deal between Zimbabwe and Iran had been signed, and ran with it. One would think The Telegraph should learn from Zimbabwe, not vice versa. Why should The Telegraph, based in a former colony, tell the Zimbabwean story? This is the excitement and incitement that feeds into the mentality of our people.
Mr Guma sounded sympathetic with Mr Cranswick and severally referred to "your claim" in reference to the revoked claim. He (Mr Guma) played judge and jury. Because of that "compassion", he failed to ask the right questions and Mr Cranswick almost took advantage of that soft line of questioning and started formulating his own questions and answers, and Mr Guma ended up as a listener on his own show.
Mr Guma is just a microcosm of a larger problem in the media. He is an employee of an organisation that has its own agenda. The "news" that is broadcast on SW Radio is lopsided, and one can almost sense some desperation in the line of reporting: desperation to darken Zimbabwe's successes. The website looks like a campaign group's website, yet they claim to run a programme called "Newsreel". This would give the impression that they are broadcasting news on Zimbabwe. But how could news be one-sided? You almost have the feeling that Zimbabwe does not exist anymore when you are on SW Radio, yet on a recent trip back home, I saw a different Zimbabwe. The irony is that, that "station" claims to fight for democracy and media neutrality by constantly attacking The Herald and Zimbabwe's ministry of information and publicity.
One of the problems that organisations like SW Radio have is, they are run by western-based African journalists who rely on "eye-witnesses" and pseudonymed reporters to come up with negative stories about Zimbabwe daily, inorder to promote a particular agenda. The journalists who "tell the story" have their own agenda: to feed half-baked stories that support a particular line of reporting and thereby earn a living. This works well for both parties. It's a marriage of convenience. The problem is that Zimbabwe loses, Africa loses.
This problem is reinforced by a number of "political and economic commentators" who are also trapped in cradles of inferiority; and are happy and forever grateful for that job in the west, or that "leave to remain" in the country, or that cheque sent through the post. You can almost feel the sense of thankfulness in their commentary (serving the master well). These analysts are fed on Euro-centric education and taught about "human rights" and "freedom of speech" to a point where they accept, without question, the western packaging of Africa.
There's not many of them, but they are enough to do the damage. They are often recycled and ready to comment even on issues that are clearly beyond their comprehension.
Then there is a western media organisation like CNN that grants accolades and prizes to "African journalists of outstanding stature", whom they never subsequently employ in their organisations. These African journalists win prizes by telling negative stories about governments that are at loggerheads with the west.
That is always the trend. We see this trend repeated in other non-media western organisations, for instance, Finance Minister Tendai Biti was awarded the Euromoney Emerging Markets award for Best Finance Minister in Africa 2009.
The irony of this award is interesting. The west does not consider Zimbabwe an emerging market, and FM Biti is actually calling Zimbabwe a basket case that needs to declare itself a Highly Indebted Poor Country. Mr Biti had only been in that position for only one year, and was complaining that his job was muzzled by politics. How could he have won that award? Does he truly believe he is "The Best Finance Minister in Africa"?
Feels like the Nobel Committee awarding US President Mr Barack Obama, a peace prize, for work "he will do" in future. Now that work is proving to be different, for instance, sending more troops and equipment to the Middle East "to ensure peace", the Nobel Committee stands in disrepute.
I find it difficult to believe that the CNN MultiChoice African Journalist Competition is now looked at with so much prestige by African journalists; yet the station does not carry anchors from the continent.. The competition is now in its 15th year, and now truly established as a way for African journalists "to better their lives.”
A close look at CNN would reveal the following:
no positive coverage on Africa (almost confrontational, e.g. when President Mugabe was recently on the Armanpour programme);
Africanisation of HIV/AIDS, violence, civil wars (yet the black population in the US has high HIV/AIDS incidents and violence is rife in Iraq and Afghanistan);
no appreciation of Africa's past, e.g. slavery, colonialism and imperialism (yet the Holocaust takes centre-stage in reporting on Israel);
no appreciation that Africa is a work-in-progress, shaped by past depredations (yet the Arab-Israeli, the Taliban, and the Irish problems are considered as such).
There is no appreciation that the crude lines that mark African nations today were drawn by the west (at the Berlin Conferences of 1884-86), and are the source of land problems in Africa today.
Western media today rarely hires black newscasters, or they hire one or two to silence critics. And where they do so, they hire biracial (or light-skinned) newscasters, not the ones from Africa that they give accolades to. Most of the journalists who get accolades have to struggle to get back into newsrooms back home, but that becomes difficult because what earned them the accolades in the first place, would not earn them a job back home.
When Africa is viewed with such scorn and disdain, we have to ask the African journalist being fed on western crumbs the following questions: Why are you purveyors of African mediocrity? Why do you need tokens, hollow awards that are not recognised both in the west and back on the Motherland? Why are you the subtext of our inferiorization? Why are you eager to cheer westernism, and support western jaundiced views of the African?
Unless Africans start showing the true light of what Africa has gone through and present it as an unifinished story and a continent that has gone through a traumatic time instituted by the west, there can never be peace on the continent.
The arguments peddled by west about corruption, violence, etc on the continent are just a distraction to the role the west continues to play in the unfolding African story.
When Mr Obama says Africa can no longer blame the west for its ills, he is being ahistoric and arrogant. Its like saying you cannot accept that you are a product of your parentage. History cannot be erased, and people should read his book, "Dreams From My Father" to see how history shapes the person, no matter what you go through or who you think you are.
For Africa, that history is the history of plunder by the west, of removal of 90 percent of its able-bodied people over decades, through slavery; of extraction of its resources to feed "development" in the west.
If the media, especially our own journalists, cannot tell the African story and contextualise it, they cannot expect those who have caused Africa to be what it is today, to tell that story because it will implicate them. If the African journalist fails to ask the right questions or continues to treat the west with kid gloves, all will be lost in translation and the miseducation of our young people will become commonplace.
_____________________________
Nancy Lovedale writes from Beijing, China. She grew up in Arcadia in Harare and supports Dynamos FC and Arsenal FC. You can reach her via nancy_lovedale@yahoo.com
Labels: ANDREW CRANSWICK, BLOOD DIAMONDS, DIAMONDS, MEDIA, NANCY LOVEDALE, PROPAGANDA, SW RADIO
Read more...
Sisters challenge 'party of excellence'
By: Peter Chimutsa
Posted: Wednesday, April 21, 2010 2:46 am
I READ two interesting articles written by Nancy Lovedale and Nancy Nyamhunga on this publication recently. The two sisters are ahead of the pack in their analyses and are slowly making the online political discussion on Zimbabwe interesting again.
One cannot dispute the fact that Zimbabwean media has been inundated with anti-Mugabe slur at the expense of real political analyses. The two sisters are fearless in their criticism of the MDC-T party; a party which many people, for one reason or the other, think is beyond reproach.
Nancy Nyamhunga's article aptly titled, "Is MDC-T a revolutionary party?" was interesting because it questioned a recent claim by the MDC-T South African branch that it was a revolutionary party. She challenged the ludicrousness of this claim and questioned why Zimbabweans could not understand why Julius Malema, the firebrand ANC Youth League president, fearlessly spoke against the MDC-T as a "Mickey Mouse" or "popcorn" party.
Malema was spot-on. The MDC-T tends to 'pop' each time Zanu-PF comes up with a policy, runs to the media, and then we hear nothing until the next time Zanu-PF proposes something.
Malema spoke as an ANC youth leader, a party with revolutionary ties to Zanu-PF, not as facilitator of Zimbabwe talks.
President Jacob Zuma represents Sadc, not South Africa, when he is facilitating the Zimbabwe talks. His role does not erase history, nor does it erase the fact that ANC's fight against apartheid was supported by both Zanu-PF and PF Zapu. He was wrong to gag Malema for supporting Zanu-PF. Does President Zuma not accept the fact that Zanu-PF helped the ANC in the fight against apartheid in South Africa?
Article continues below
The MDC says it is a revolutionary party because it is, in its twisted way, 'waging a revolution in Zimbabwe'. This is the ignorance that grips that party. This reminds me of the MDC-T list of proposed Zimbabwean heroes that was announced by Nelson Chamisa sometime ago. The list included none other than Tongai "Dhewa" Moyo, amongst other MDC-T 'heroes' they wanted to be laid at the national shrine.
Their understanding of Zimbabwe's history and its heroes is as twisted as the 'ideology' that guides that party. Even Britain, that party's country of choice, has a national shrine for war heroes. This is not unique to Zimbabwe. The Heroes' Acre is a laying place for those who fought in the liberation struggle. The MDC-T can build its own shrine, for its own heroes, if it so desires.
Nancy Lovedale made an interesting observation. She said there will no longer be an MDC-T soon as the so-called "democratic change" is already taking place in the country. Change is inevitable, she says. Indeed it is, and those people who campaign on change are only saying the obvious. I'm yet to see anyone who campaigns on maintaining the status quo.
President Mugabe has campaigned on land and access to the nation's wealth by the majority of Zimbabweans. That is an honourable cause. He brought one-man-one vote that white Rhodesian racist rulers did not offer Zimbabweans; yet today the likes of Roy Bennett, Eddie Cross and others have become champions of democracy. Where were they when blacks were not allowed to vote in their own country?
Black Zimbabweans only started to vote en masse in 1979-80. For the first time black Zimbabweans could walk the pavements of Harare, Bulawayo, Mutare, Gweru. It is indisputable that Zanu-PF introduced democracy to Zimbabwe; not the British and certainly not the MDC-T. Let's not poison Zimbabwe's history.
Nancy Lovedale also attacks the MDC-T for criticising government when it is part of that government and driving government "bimmers and benzos" daily. "The MDC-T party is now a shadow of its former self," she says.
We wonder where the MDC-T will be next year, or the year after. Simply criticising Zanu-PF is no longer fashionable, or tenable. There are real issues to deal with now, like salaries of civil servants and delivery of local council services. The time for child-play for the MDC-T is over.
_____________________
Peter Chimutsa can be contacted via peterchimutsa@yahoo.com
Labels: MDC, NANCY LOVEDALE, NANCY NYAMHUNGA, NEOLIBERALISM
Read more...
Maridadi: MDC-T's daring political jester
By: Nancy Lovedale
Posted: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 11:54 pm
THE drama that took place on Wednesday regarding the Prime Minister's spokesman, James Maridadi cannot go unchallenged. The spokesman played the role of the Chief Secretary to the President and Cabinet and made an announcement that a law that was passed by Parliament in 2007 (the Indigenisation and Economic Empowerment Act) and its accompanying regulations was "null and void".
Maridadi repeated what PM Tsvangirai said on the day of the publication of the regulations by Youth, Indigenisation and Economic Empowerment minister, Saviour Kasukuwere.
What was interesting and troubling, to say the least, was that Maridadi went on to represent Cabinet, when he is not employed by the Public Service Commission (PSC) in that position.
It was also interesting and troubling that Maridadi, whose MDC-T party has been crying for the respect of the rule of law, is representing a group of people who are trying to flout Zimbabwe's laws. Even civil society, including Zimbabwe's growing list of 'lawyers for human rights' and political commentators, were flabbergasted by Maridadi's comments this time.
The MDC-T cannot simply cherry-pick legislation that it sees fit and tries to play the role of Parliament by speaking ill of laws that are not popular with their funders.
We have seen a growing tendency in the MDC-T party where knee-jerk reactions are left to the likes of Maridadi and party spokespersons, like Nelson Chamisa, remain tight-lipped as if to deliberately cause pandemonium and misinform the public; or for fear of being reined in by the president.
President Mugabe cannot rein in Maridadi because he is not a government employee, but Mr Tsvangirai's 'PA in the parallel government'. He simply does not have a job description that is approved by the PSC. How he replaced well-spoken George Sibotshiwe, after the formation of the inclusive Government, is anyone's guess.
By giving Maridadi the right to cause confusion, the MDC-T party knew what exactly was going on. Given the way that Mr Chamisa and the rest of the MDC-T coterie love the media, it was surprising that this important piece of news was left to the naive Maridadi to break. Remember prime minister Tsvangirai's statement at the GPA breakthrough, "We have a deal!" The PM would have made the announcement himself, or left it to the media-loving Chamisa.
In what capacity did Maridadi make the announcement? PM Tsvangirai does not chair Cabinet. He chairs the Council of Ministers. The decision to 'nullify and void' the regulations, according to Maridadi was made by Cabinet, so why should the announcement be made by Maridadi? What formal channels did he use for that purpose? Why did the MDC-T not use Cabinet and Presidential Secretary, Misheck Sibanda?
President Mugabe's press secretary, George Charamba, once remarked that Maridadi did not have the right qualifications to represent the Office of the Prime Minister and was not employed, or paid, by the PSC. So as far as government structures are concerned, Maridadi is a non-entity.
One cannot stop thinking that the MDC-T party is under pressure from its funders to nullify that law. They are now using the likes of Maridadi to cause despondency and misinformation inorder to buy time or hoodwink their funders until election time.
This (mis)information was well-timed to coinincide with PM Tsvangirai's visit to the EU soon. Everyone knows that the PM will be under pressure from the EU leaders regarding the indigenisation and empowerment regulations and his recent media statements.
We just now wait with baited breath to see how they will play this one out, now that President Mugabe has said the law stands and only the regulations will be reviewed.
PM Tsvangirai will have to sharpen his tongue and pull up his socks as he makes the 'holy pilgrimage' to the West this time. He has 'a case to answer' to his funders over his anti-gay slur, and his recent remarks that President Mugabe is "here to stay".
We also wonder if he will visit Southwark Cathedraw this time; where he was infamously booed and heckled by Zimbabweans in London.
Anyone who reads Maridadi and his many diplomatic gaffes seriously and rushes to publish everything that he says does so at their own risk.
Maridadi caused a media and diplomatic frenzy. He even had the German ambassador to Zimbabwe fooled. Ambassador Albrecht Conze said in a statement that the time had come "for a sound and unexcited discussion" about empowering the black majority " when he heard that the indigenisation law was being 'nullified and voided".
It is surprising that Germany would encourage the MDC-T to flout Zimbabwean laws, by nullifying legislation passed by parliament, yet sings the 'rule of law' and extends sanctions (through the EU) on Zimbabwe over alleged non-respect for "the rule of law".
Anyway, Germany's agenda in Zimbabwe is clear. At the prime minister's visit to that country, Chancellor Angela Merkel said point blank that she wanted "expropriated white land" to be returned. The victim, all of a sudden, was the villain; and the MDC-T plays along with that idea.
Media houses in the West went into overdrive over Maridadi's gaffe and even their beloved SW Radio Africa could not tell the heads or tails of that story, until the president's clarification. They had an interesting headline: "Confusion over ‘suspension’ of indigenisation regulations." That is exactly what the MDC-T wanted -- to cause some confusion.
To the MDC-T, we say, "You live by the media, you die by the media." If they keep playing these games and flip-flopping on issues of national importance, they will lose the support they are now beginning to take for granted; but given the short memory of their supporting media, they will keep on "getting away with murder".
In the meantime we ask the million-dollar question: Who pays James Maridadi for playing the jester?
----------------------------
*Nancy Lovedale is a Zimbabwean living and working in Beijing, China. She can be contacted via nancy_lovedale *** yahoo.com
Labels: COLOUR REVOLUTIONS, JAMES MARIDADI, NANCY LOVEDALE
Read more...
South Africa on the road to indigenization
By: Nancy Lovedale
Posted: Saturday, April 3, 2010 6:34 pm
POLITICAL change in South Africa is gathering momentum. Those who basked in the false sense of security that was accorded by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of 1995 are looking with amazement at the changes that are beginning to take shape in that country.
There can never be real peace and security until the millions of blacks who live in the South Western Towns (Soweto) and other poverty-stricken areas, are able to participate and benefit from their economy. That was the purpose of the anti-Apartheid movement; not just a change in the colour of the skin of those who govern.
The Right Wing white lobby in that country watches as events take an unprecedented turn.
First it was Jacob Zuma, who they campaigned against for presidency; now the tide has taken a different twist in the personality of Julius Malema -- the firebrand youth president who has called for the nationalisation of farms and industry.
Nancy Lovedale
With a black population of 79% of the total population, the ANC is likely to rule that country for the foreseeable future. Every black voter will most certainly vote the ANC -- the party that liberated that country from the white Apartheid regime.
From April 1994 when the first post-Apartheid general election was held in South Africa, i.e. an election when all adults could vote irrespective of their race, that country has only seen pockets of the black population advancing. The rest still live in absolute poverty, are victims of violence and have no access to basic sanitation.
In a sense, they are still fighting for their civil rights in 'independent' South Africa.
Groups like AfriForum, that model themselves as 'civil rights organisations' for an already privileged white population, will clash with this impoverished group of black people; some of them who saw the worst atrocities committed by the white supremacist governments of yesteryear.
The South African veteran freedom fighters are still very much alive. Through oral traditions in their poverty-stricken neighbourhoods, they are teaching the born-free about the struggle they went through. They are telling them of Sharpeville Massacre, the murder of Steve Biko and the June 1976 cold-blooded killing of young people who protested against Apartheid and Bantu Education.
An 'economic Apartheid' still exists in South Africa. That is why people like Malema still have a crucial place in that country. They appeal specifically to that group; and unless that group is uprooted from poverty Nelson Mandela's "Rainbow Nation" will remain a mirage.
The tide is turning and change is unstoppable; and some of us who had to flee that country into Zimbabwe remember very well how we were second-class citizens in a country of birth. As a 'Cape Cloured' as I was labelled then, I was treated like dirt and called a Kaffir. My crime was the colour of my skin.
Malema's call for the nationalisation of South African mines should never be dismissed as wishful thinking. The white commercial farmer and the industrialist in Zimbabwe ignored that call. The rest is history. Groups like AfriForum can try and use the courts to effect their 'demands'. They should simply integrate and accept black majority rule and start behaving like all other citizens, before it is too late.
The marginalised, if they constitute the majority, will always have the power to change things.
Companies like DeBeers who have enjoyed a privileged position in that country for centuries will have to make a move sooner or later to peacefully transfer a huge chunk of their wealth to the government of the day, voluntarily. The status quo cannot hold anymore. As long as millions live in poverty, they will always threaten the established business if it has a racial complexion.
The African Rennaisance is full on. There's no turning back. Zimbabwe's indigenisation policy has set a precedent in the region. Everything else is in auto-motion.
_______
Nancy Lovedale writes from Beijing in China. She can be reached via nancy_lovedale *** yahoo.com
Labels: ECONOMY, INDIGENIZATION AND EMPOWERMENT ACT (ZIMBABWE), JULIUS MALEMA, LIBERATION, NANCY LOVEDALE, SOUTH AFRICA
Read more...
