COMMENT - This document highlights the fact that international institutions have targeted Zimbabwe for psychological operations, which should be no surprise to anyone, however this is confirmation. - MrK
TOP SECRET
(JTRIG) Behavioural Science Support for JTRIG’s (Joint Threat Research and Intelligence Group’s) Effects and Online
HUMINT Operations
Mandeep K. Dhami, PhD
Human Systems Group, Information Management Department, Dstl
10 March 2011
Two of the Global team’s current aims are regime change in Zimbabwe by discrediting the present regime
Labels: SANCTIONS, ZIMBABWE
Read more...
COMMENT - The MDC wants to know where you live. They don't sound like they like democracy any more than their rhodesian predecessors did. - MrK
(HERALD ZW) MDC gets roll, demands voters’ photos
Felex Share Senior Reporter
MDC Alliance on Tuesday said it had received a copy of the voters’ roll for the July 30 harmonised elections, but immediately demanded photographs of all registered voters to conduct an audit through door-to-door visits. In a bid to cast aspersions on the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (ZEC) and undermine the credibility of the polls, MDC-T faction leader Mr Nelson Chamisa, who leads a coalition of seven fringe political parties, insisted the voters’ roll was not final.
MDC-T national deputy treasurer Mr Charlton Hwende said they wanted a voters’ roll with pictures, a request described by observers as an intimidation tactic.
ZEC yesterday said the voters’ roll contained adequate information.
Photographs, ZEC commissioner Dr Qhubani Moyo said, would be used by the electoral body on election day for identification purposes.
“The voters’ roll that we compiled does contain photographs of everyone registered,” he said.
“We are going to use those photographs for identification purposes as the commission during voting day. All stakeholders interested in the voters’ roll have been given a voters’ roll that carries adequate information of the voter in terms of their name, age, ID number and also where they are registered.
Can you imagine what it entails to download a file that has images of 5,6 million Zimbabweans for everyone who wants to go through it? We are convinced as a commission that all stakeholders desirous of the voters’ roll do have adequate information.”
Dr Moyo added: “There has been a number of issues being raised by a lot of people saying when we were registering you made a commitment that our details are going to be purely for election purposes and for us now to be giving every stakeholder those pictures creates problems of confidence amongst citizens who would not have registered had they known their pictures would be given to anyone.”
ZEC availed a final voters’ roll last Friday, which contains over 5,6 million registered voters.
Mr Chamisa, who is under fire from alliance partners after he grabbed parliamentary and council seats reserved for them, said the voters’ roll was not final.
“We’ve now established that the voters’ roll ZEC is issuing is not the final roll,” he tweet- ed.
“Those who ‘registered’ during inspection are yet to be added. ZEC claims it will add them later. So ZEC has given us a voters’ roll it knows is not final. Our response is coming, it will be red.”
In his intimidating tweet, Mr Hwende said: “@ZECzim a final voters’ roll without the pictures of the registered voters is unacceptable. We want the final voters’ role with the pictures so that we can do a physical audit through door to door visits.”
Observers yesterday said the frivolous demands being given by the Chamisa-led coalition showed the party was running scared ahead of the elections.
Senior legal counsel Mr Tendai Toto said: “These are methods and tactics of the rightwing brothers and sisters to scuttle the impending elections.
“The demands interfere with voters’ rights to free choice. The exercise of voters’ roll audit can be used by anybody to intimidate the electorate, campaign for or against, and unnecessarily interfere with people’s privacy.
“How will political parties execute the voters’ roll audit if they interfere with voters’ rights as forestated? It is unfortunate that some of these demands are made without due regard to citizens’ rights.
“Before and after the polls it is possible that harassment, bullying, victimisation and compulsive voting can happen especially when image identities are disclosed and publicised.
“If any political parties or interested parties, stakeholders wish to conduct voters’ roll audit (if they have any such mandate) they must consult the database of their respective registered supporters and conduct the audits.”
Political analyst Mr Tafadzwa Mugwadi weighed in: “They are now resorting to desperate spanner-throwing shenanigans to discredit a credible electoral process, which even their member, Eddie Cross, lauded as the best since colonisation.
“Chamisa and crew have been on the forefront demanding a voters’ roll from ZEC and now that that they have it, they are cornered and are running out of a political message.”
Mr Cross this week said this year’s elections would be the best in 54 years.
Labels: DEMOCRACY, ELECTIONS, MDC, ZIMBABWE
Read more...
COMMENT - The Economist Magazine, which ultimately has the same owners as De Beers, has come out for the historic success of landreform in Asia. Of course they benefited of not being under economic sanctions and a credit freeze, which destroyed the national currency. Even so, landreform in Zimbabwe is a remarkable success, as could and should have been predicted from historic precedent.
(ZIMBABWELAND, THE ECONOMIST) “The path to prosperity starts with land reform”, says the Economist
It’s not often that the Economist magazine sings the praises of radical land reform. But on October 12th, the Banyan column on Asia proclaimed: “the path to prosperity starts with land reform”. The article caught my attention, and I read on. Vital reading for all those contemplating the new post Mugabe Zimbabwe.
The piece starts with some stats on economic growth in Asia, and the contrast with Africa and Latin America. It outlines the standard (for the Economist at least) explanations: market-friendly policies, capital accumulation, training and skill development, the importance of institutions and so on. But goes on to argue that the restructuring of agriculture through land reform is an underplayed explanation (of course not a new argument – see Michael Lipton, and many others, on land reform experiences).
“Radical action may be necessary in countries with big, impoverished, rural populations”, the article argues. Wow, this doesn’t sound like the Economist, I thought! It goes on to give the example of China.
“By the 1920s, a tenth of the population owned over seven-tenths of the arable land. Three-quarters of farming families had less than a hectare. Mao Zedong’s Communists reallocated land in every new territory they seized. After the defeat of the Kuomintang (KMT) in 1949, they rolled out land reform nationwide….The effect was immediate. Grain output leapt by perhaps 70% in the decade after the war. When farmers can capture most of the value of their land, they have a powerful incentive to produce. And while smallholder agriculture is hugely labour-intensive, that makes sense when labour is abundant”.
China’s experience encouraged Japan, South Korea and Taiwan to follow. Agriculture boomed. Landed elites of course resisted, compensation was inadequate, and sometimes violence ensued, although not on the scale meted out in China, and in Russia before. In the East Asian countries outside China, land reform was supported by the US (yes, the US was a great advocate back then; how times change!).
The article goes on to explain how Taiwan shows the clearest benefits from land reform:
“[Land reform] started with rent controls and reforms to tenancy. Sales of formerly Japanese-owned land followed. Then, in 1953, came appropriation. The share of land tilled by the owner rose from just over 30% in 1945 to 64% in 1960. Yields on sugar and rice leapt. New markets sprang up for exotic fruits and vegetables. Household farmers dominated early exports. Crucially, income inequality shrank thanks to the new farmer-capitalists. Less spent on imports of food, more money in Taiwanese pockets, a new entrepreneurialism: farming was the start of Taiwan’s economic miracle”.
What happened elsewhere? “Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand could have followed Taiwan’s example, but didn’t. Their economies have done far worse”, the article states. In these countries because of extensive rural, agricultural populations, land distribution matters. Yet “the state favours agribusiness and plantations over small farmers. There is a yawning gap in income between countryside and city”.
Inequality in land has political consequences too: “In South Korea and Taiwan inclusive agricultural growth prefigured the inclusive politics of today’s thriving democracies”. Again by contrast in Southeast Asia, “cronyism and inertia are consequences of an economy that is unfair to those at the bottom”. This has costs in terms of “insurgencies and rural unrest”. If done well, the article concludes, land reform starts to look cheap.
The Economist seems to have joined the ranks of the radical agrarianistas. What has happened? Well, actually not a lot. The economic arguments about agrarian transition have long been made, and the need for equality before growth is well established. Incentives to invest, and the labour-intensive features of smallholder agriculture have long been understood. The experience of Zimbabwe’s land reform offers some pointers, especially from the smallholder A1 farms. The problem is that in the current narrative of agricultural development, big is beautiful, multinational agribusiness investment and finance is essential, and global markets are all – as with Africa’s agricultural growth corridors discussed a few weeks ago.
This narrative is seemingly endlessly promoted by donors (DFID and USAID seem obsessed currently), alongside national governments and political elites, all keen to attract land investment deals. Sometimes there are ‘pro-poor’ tweaks to the narratives; more often it’s old-fashioned external investment, growth and trickle down. This all has somehow drowned out the long-established conventional wisdom and lessons from history that radical, redistributive land reform makes economic (and political and social) sense in many settings.
Of course Asia is different to Africa, and the 1940s different to today, but the basic arguments made many, many times before of course are worth repeating, and the lessons of history worth learning. In none of the positive cases of land reform from Asia did success spring up overnight, but they emerged from intensive, thoughtful state support, and backed (in some cases) by external donors (of course interested more in geopolitics than poor people’s livelihoods, but…).
In Zimbabwe, these conditions have not applied over the last 17 years, and the continued decline in economic conditions and state capacity of any sort, is a tragedy. This now may all change. With the euphoria of change, and in the presence of no doubt much international interest in Zimbabwe, we should not forget the basic argument that land reform can bring prosperity, and the failure to undertake radical land reform can bring many costs, in both the short and long-term. Zimbabwe now has the opportunity to make the most of its land reform.
This post was written by Ian Scoones and first appeared on Zimbabweland
Labels: ASIA, LAND REFORM, THE ECONOMIST MAGAZINE, ZIMBABWE
Read more...
COMMENT - The monopolisation of land a major source of poverty in Rhodesia, South Africa, Namibia, Kenya. It used to be 'white farmers' who monopolised the land, however they too are now increasingly removed from their land by the giant corporations, assisted by the IMF/World Bank's policies and approval. (Moeletsi Mbeki,
02:50) See Ambreena Manji's The Politics Of Landreform In Africa.
It is time to take the land from the giant corporations, and give it to the people. - MrK
(THE PATRIOT ZW) The Struggle For Land in Zimbabwe (1890 – 2010)…..how the BSAC usurped Chief Mutasa’s land
By The Patriot Reporter -
August 25, 2016
By 1896, more than 1 500 000 acres (600 000 hectares), virtually 100 percent of all arable land in the Melsetter District (Chimanimani), had been acquired and occupied by the Boer settler-farmers from South Africa, writes Dr Felix Muchemwa in his book The Struggle For Land in Zimbabwe (1890 – 2010) that The Patriot is serialising.
THERE were lots of gold reserves in the Manyika Kingdom, both reef and alluvial gold, especially along the Revuwe, Chua, Chimezi and Nyahombwe river valleys.
From the mid-19th Century, the Portuguese, led by businessmen Colonel Joaquim Carlos Paiva de Andrade, well known as Gouveia, and Manuel Antonio de Souza, supported by the Portuguese Government, grabbed land from Paramount Chief Mutasa in Manyika.
The Mozambican businesspersons and their company, the Mozambique Company, owned goldfields particularly in Mutare, Revuwe and Buzi river valleys, but not by Mutasa’s permission, but that of the Portuguese Government.
In fact, the Portuguese Government claimed ‘large parts of Shona country on the grounds that their traders and adventurers had penetrated this region during the early 16th Century’.
The claims included Umtali District (Mutare) and Nyanga as on Portuguese maps of that time, but this only drew counter-claims by the British South Africa Company (BSAC) and another company, the African Portuguese Syndicate (APS), owned by South Africans. (Bhila, 1982: pp.234-7)
Then the BSAC went further to impose a treaty on Paramount Chief Mutasa on September 19 1890, which provided that no one could possess land in Manyika except with the consent of the company.
The terms of this concession were quite similar, both in content and in spirit, to the Rudd Concession.
Two months later, on the night of November 16 1890, Major Patrick Forbes, supported by Captain R. Fiennes, made his way to the Paramount Chief, stormed Mutasa’s court, disarmed Gouveia’s soldiers, arrested the Portuguese leaders who were celebrating an agreement with the Paramount Chief and then replaced the Portuguese flag with the Union Jack.
Later on, however, an Anglo-Portuguese Convention of June 11 1891 partitioned the Manyika Kingdom, giving Portugal the Mozambican part of Manyika plus Gazaland and following the partition and the conquest of Matabeleland in 1893, the BSAC went further to include Manicaland in the Matabeleland Order-in-Council on July 18 1894 on the pretext that Manicaland was ruled by King Lobengula as part of Mashonaland before 1893 and was therefore part of the conquest of Matabeleland. (Palley, 1966: pp.114)
But Mutasa was not amused by this and protested directly to the British Secretary of State for the Colonies in London.
And, he was very emphatic that he had never been under King Lobengula’s rule or any king and that since inception in the 14th Century, the Manyika Kingdom had never been under foreign rule. (Bhila,1982: pp.240)
The Paramount Chief’s son, Chimbadzwa, the heir-apparent, was even angrier with these insults from the British.
Despite the conflict between Paramount Chief Mutasa and the BSAC, the Company had, through the Order-in-Council of July 18 1894, laid claim to more than 1 907 492 acres (762 997 hectares) of land which was virtually over 70 percent of Umtali District which included Nyanga. (Palmer, 1977: pp.182)
By 1896, this amounted to 224 farms allocated and occupied by European settler-farmers in this most favoured agricultural region one on the Zimbabwean Highveld and it left very little land for Mutasa’s people who were being forced out of the district by the BSAC.
On January 9 1894, the acting resident magistrate of Umtali demanded the supply of compulsory labour from Chikanga, ‘one of Mutasa’s daughters in charge of a ward,’ and the Sub-chief totally refused to supply the ‘forced’ labour to the gold mines and farms in Umtali District.
The result was that when Magistrate G. Seymour Fort returned, he gave her a 48-hour ultimatum which she again ignored resulting in him moving to confiscate livestock as well as effect arrest.
During the ensuing altercation, Fambesa, the sub-chief’s husband was shot dead while defending her. (Bhila, 1982: pp.241)
In her trial, sub-chief Chikanga completely rejected the Company’s presence and any claimed rights in Manyika and the BSAC responded by banishing the sub-chief, her brother, Chimbadzwa (Mutasa’s heir apparent) and the Manyika Spirit Medium, Muredzwa, to Barwe country.
Paramount Chief Mutasa was also required to unconditionally surrender his whole territory, including the gold-fields, to the BSAC (Bhila pp. 244) and to promise that his people would pay ‘Hut Tax’ and ‘rent’ to the Company and to European settler-farmers.
Behind the scenes, the judgement was, of course, informed by Magistrate Seymour Fort’s prior knowledge of a raging succession war between Chimbadzwa, who detested the BSAC and his half-brother Chiobvu, who favoured the British.
It was a succession battle the Company had fuelled for over four years in a bid to win over Manyika.
So it was that by 1896, virtually all of Mutasa’s land had been usurped by the BSAC and the European settler-farmers and many of his people had left Manyika.
Chimbadzwa, his sister, sub-chief Chikanga, and the Manyika spirit medium, Muredzwa, had been forced into exile.
Tendai Mutasa was a very lonely man and he was little expected to rise against the European settler-occupation of land in June 1896, when the First Chimurenga broke out.
Melsetter District (Chimanimani)
South of Umtali District, Melsetter had been made an administrative district in 1895.
By 1896, more than 1 500 000 acres (600 000 hectares), virtually 100 percent of all arable land in the Melsetter District, had been acquired and occupied by the Boer settler-farmers from South Africa. (Palmer, 1977: pp.182)
Little land remained in African hands, the population of which had dwindled from over 40 000 in 1891, to less than 13 245 people by 1896. (Warhurst, 1975)
Most African people in the district had been gradually forced out of their ancestral lands and driven into the Odzi/Sabi low-veld areas of Zimunya, Marange, Nyanyadzi, Chibuwe, Chisumbanje and Chiredzi.
Those who remained in the district only remained as ‘forced’ labourers or ‘slaves’ called ‘Shangaans’ on settler-farms.
However, despite the great reduction in their number, subjugation of their chiefs and their enslavement, the people of Melsetter still rose up and joined the First Chimurenga against the Boer settler-farmers on August 13 1896.
But unfortunately for them, they were quickly defeated by the Boer territorial forces called the Burghers on August 27 1896.
Labels: GLOBALISATION, LAND REFORM, MOELETSI MBEKI, NEOCOLONIALISM, SOUTH AFRICA, ZIMBABWE
Read more...
(MnG SA) UN cuts food aid for one million Zimbabweans
14 Jan 2014 19:39 Sapa-AFP
Around a million poor Zimbabweans face hunger after the UN World Food Programme announced it was cutting food rations due to a cash crunch. At least 2.2-million people – a quarter of Zimbabwe's rural population – will need food aid until the next harvest in May. (AFP)
About one-million Zimbabweans may go hungry after the UN World Food Programme (WFP) said on Tuesday it was cutting food rations due to a shortage of cash.
"We'd been hoping to have scaled up our seasonal relief operations ... in the coming months with distributions of food and, in some areas, cash," Tomson Phiri, WFP spokesperson in Zimbabwe, said as the country enters the peak of the so-called hunger season.
But "we've had to cut rations for one million of our beneficiaries in recent months and there are likely to be deeper cuts as from next month," Phiri said in a statement.
At least 2.2-million people – a quarter of Zimbabwe's rural population – will need food aid until the next harvest in May, according to estimates by aid agencies and government departments.
Food prices have doubled since last year, forcing many more into hardship, according to the WFP.
The UN food agency needs $80-million to feed hungry Zimbabweans in the next six months.
Cash-strapped
So far it has just $20-million and is working at raising the remaining $60-million, WFP regional spokesperson David Orr told Agence France-Presse in Johannesburg.
"Our operational funding for the next six months is about $80-million and so far we are only a quarter funded," said Orr.
Some of the hardest hit areas are in the west, central and southern regions of the country, Phiri said.
WFP is "very concerned about the food security situation in rural areas right now," he added.
Last week, the cash-strapped government of President Robert Mugabe said it would import 150 000 tonnes of the staple corn from neighbouring countries to avert food shortages.
Food production has dwindled in Zimbabwe in recent years with the government blaming low yields on erratic weather patterns.
But critics say the shortages were caused by Mugabe's land reforms seizing land from white farmers for redistribution to landless blacks in what he said was "a correction of historical imbalances." – Sapa-AFP
Labels: UN, ZIMBABWE
Read more...
(NEWZIMBABWE) Sovereign Wealth Fund gets official seal
22/01/2014 00:00:00
by Miningmx.com
THE government on Tuesday officially tabled its Sovereign Wealth Fund (SWF) which will use the proceeds of royalties from gold, platinum, nickel and diamonds and invest them in "gold bullion, stockpiles of precious stones", as well as other "foreign assets".
The Chamber of Mines said about 75% of the country's gold miners will collapse if the royalties are not reviewed. Platinum producers in Zimbabwe have submitted plans to set-up a refinery to avoid a further 15% levy on raw platinum exports.
Mining industry sources and executives said on Tuesday that they were still pressing the government to review the royalties downwards.
The government will rely on payments from mining companies to boost the fund, whose proceeds will be invested for future use by the state, according to a copy of the bill obtained by Miningmx (and first made public on January 10).
“The objects of the fund are to make secure investments for the benefit and enjoyment of future generations of Zimbabweans and to support fiscal and macroeconomic stabilisation,” said the bill.
The fund has been created at a time when platinum and gold miners in the country are complaining about high royalties. Gold producers pay 7% while platinum miners pay 10% in royalties as Zimbabwe seeks to boost its revenues to prop up a fast declining economy.
The bill says “a portion not exceeding a quarter of the royalties” on gold, diamonds, coal, coal bed methane gas, nickel, chrome and platinum will be paid into the fund.
Additionally, a “portion not exceeding one quarter of the special dividend on the sales of diamonds … and other extractable minerals” will also be paid into the fund.
Proceeds from the fund will be invested, with the help of fund managers to be seconded to the board of the sovereign wealth fund, in “gold bullion, stockpiles of precious stones and other precious metals and foreign assets,” further states the bill.
However, the bill forbids the investment of money contributed into the fund from the sale of the country’s minerals into government debt, domestic lending or the provision of government guarantees.
Economist, Tony Hawkins said on Tuesday that “establishing a fund to invest a tiny proportion of state revenue is not going to have a major impact on Zimbabwe’s economic fortunes” over the medium term.
The bill is expected to be deliberated in parliament, where Mugabe’s Zanu PF has a more than three thirds majority. It is expected to get the green light from the legislature and then signed into law by Mugabe.
Labels: PLATINUM, SOVEREIGN WEALTH FUND (ZW), ZIMBABWE
Read more...
(STICKY) (NEWZIMBABWE) Tobacco exceeds targets, sales near $600m
10/06/2014 00:00:00
by The Source
ZIMBABWE’S tobacco output for the 2014 season on Monday reached 185 million kilogrammes, surpassing the season target by 5 million kg, latest figures show.
The sector continues to recover as resettled small-scale farmers find their feet, but output is still shy of the all-time high of 236 million kg achieved in 2000 before the onset of land reforms. Output plunged to a record low of 48 million in 2008.
Tobacco is a major foreign currency earner for Zimbabwe. Last year, the country sold 167 million kg of tobacco.
Tobacco Industry and Marketing Board (TIMB) statistics show that by Monday, day 74 of auctions, 185 million kg had gone under the hammer, up from 140 million kg sold during the same period last year. The selling season normally spans 90 days.
Revenues amounting to $587 million have been generated compared to $520 million in 2013. Total sales amounted to $577 million last year.
The price, at which the leaf has been sold since opening of floors in February, has declined 14 percent to average $3.17 per kg from last year’s $3.70.
The government has said a jump in production was anticipated following a 29 percent increase to 91,278 in the number of farmers involved in the production of the crop this season, with 90,000 hectares put under the crop.
Zimbabwe has three tobacco auction floors while six contractors have also been licensed to buy the crop this season.
Major exports markets for Zimbabwean tobacco include China, Belgium, Philippines, United Kingdom and Spain.
Labels: INDIGENIZATION AND EMPOWERMENT ACT (ZIMBABWE), TOBACCO, ZIMBABWE
Read more...
(WIKILEAKS) UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 HARARE 000116
SENSITIVE
SIPDIS
AF/S FOR B. WALCH
E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: ECON EFIN EINV PGOV PREL ZI
SUBJECT: Zimbabwe Sets Racial Quota for Business Ownership
¶1. (SBU) SUMMARY: A Government of Zimbabwe (GOZ) minister from President Mugabe's ZANU-PF party has issued regulations meant to force "indigenization" of businesses. The new rules, published on February 5, say that any business worth US$500,000 or more must explain how it will "cede a controlling interest" to "indigenous Zimbabweans." The regulations are to take effect on March 1.
Existing businesses will have 45 days to submit their
indigenization plans. Failure to comply will be punishable by a
fine or up to five years' imprisonment. While the regulations
remove some of the uncertainties created by the thus-far unenforced
Indigenization and Economic Empowerment Act of 2007, they also
raise new questions. Prime Minister Tsvangirai and his Movement
for Democratic Change (MDC) oppose the regulations. This latest
indigenization scare is bound to put another dent in Zimbabwe's
battered reputation and give investors another reason to stay away.
END SUMMARY.
¶2. (U) Statutory Instrument 21 of 2010, dated January 29 but
released on February 9 by Minister of Youth Development,
Indigenisation, and Empowerment Saviour Kasukuwere, says that every
business in Zimbabwe with an "asset value" of at least US$500,000
must submit an "indigenization implementation plan" to his
Ministry. The deadline for existing businesses is 45 days after
the regulations take effect on March 1. New businesses will have
60 days to submit a plan. The goal of each plan must be to
transfer within five years a controlling interest in the business
to indigenous Zimbabweans, who are defined in the Act to be any
person "disadvantaged by unfair discrimination on the grounds of
his or her race" before April 18, 1980, or the descendant of such a
person. A business need not submit an indigenization plan if it
can show that it does "development work," adds value to raw
materials for export, brings new technology or skills to Zimbabwe,
or will "achieve any other socially and economically desirable
objective."
¶3. (U) The regulations list 14 industries "reserved against foreign
investment." These include agriculture, transportation, retail and
wholesale trade, grain milling, advertising, bakeries, tobacco
processing, and milk processing. Given that the underlying
legislation explicitly provide for minority foreign ownership of
businesses, the regulations appear to have the effect of excluding
all foreign investment in the 14 designated industries. There are
also other ambiguities in the regulations. It is not clear whether
"asset value" is net or gross. And the regulations do nothing to
clarify the definition of an indigenous Zimbabwean, which does not
obviously include all black Zimbabweans or necessarily exclude
everyone who might be considered white or of some other race.
Another disturbing source of uncertainty is how the Minister may
choose to interpret the broad exemptions in the regulations. Nor
do the regulations spell out what might become of businesses that
do not meet the five-year indigenization deadline.
¶4. (SBU) So far there have been few public reactions from the
business community. One mining company has advised shareholders
that it is "studying" the regulations and noted that they provide
for future issuance of lower indigenization quotas for specific
industries. The Chamber of Mines, the mining companies' main
lobbying group, has long been engaged in discussions with the GOZ
on indigenization rules. Private reactions range from alarm to
resignation. One prominent businessman sees the issuance of the
regulations as a political ploy by Kasukuwere to curry favor with
Mugabe. In his view, the regulations do not have broad support
within ZANU-PF and are likely to be withdrawn or modified. But he
acknowledged that news of the regulations could have a devastating
effect outside the country on potential investors. Other business
contacts have expressed doubts about the capacity of the GOZ to
implement the regulations. If there is a high degree of compliance
with the reporting requirement, Kasukuwere's ministry could
collapse under an avalanche of paper. But that could also have the
effect of making enforcement all the more arbitrary.
¶5. (U) Press reports say Tsvangirai has called the regulations
"null and void" because they were not approved by the cabinet. His
MDC party released a statement on February 11 calling the statutory
instrument "provocative" and "a deliberate attempt to undermine the
country and its people." The MDC called on the GOZ to withdraw the
regulations.
HARARE 00000116 002 OF 002
¶6. (SBU) COMMENT: With ZANU-PF's popular support draining away,
release of the indigenization regulations now could be a move to
curry favor with the electorate. But sooner or later, the
indigenization law will give way to Stein's Law: "If something
cannot go on forever, it will stop." Until then, intermittent
indigenization scares will help keep Zimbabwe a high-risk zone for
lenders and investors, choking off the financing needed to rebuild
a battered economy. Zimbabwe's macroeconomic recovery is already
starting to look like a dead-cat bounce: the economy is better now
mainly because it could not have gotten worse. Investors and
lenders were already staying away in droves before Kasukuwere made
his move. Even if the just-issued indigenization rules disappear
or are watered down before March 1, Zimbabwe's battered reputation
will carry a new and lasting dent. If the rules stay in place,
prospects for meaningful economic growth this year will dim
significantly. END COMMENT.
RAY
http://wikileaks.org/cable/2010/02/10HARARE118.html
UNCLAS HARARE 000118
SENSITIVE
SIPDIS
AF/S FOR B. WALCH
E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: ECON PREL EAID CN ZI
SUBJECT: CHINESE ENGAGEMENT IN ZIMBABWE
REF: 10 STATE 10152
¶1. (U) Although statistics are not readily available, anecdotal
evidence shows increasing Chinese involvement in Zimbabwe's
economy. The trend became pronounced with the Government of
Zimbabwe's (GOZ) "Look East Policy" in 2003, through which it
sought to emphasize new ties with China in place of traditional
links to Europe and North America. Chinese enterprises are
noticeably active in the retail and construction sectors. One
local press report suggests that 80 percent of Chinese-owned
enterprises are in the retail sector. But Chinese construction
projects receive far more public attention - often negative. For
example, an eight-year-old plan involving Chinese contractors to
widen the highway between Harare and Bulawayo collapsed after only
20 kilometers of construction amid allegations of poor workmanship
and corruption.
¶2. (U) There has been significant Chinese investment in industrial
enterprises. In 2007 Sinosteel Corporation bought Zimasco
Consolidated Enterprises Limited, Zimbabwe's largest ferrochrome
producer. Zimasco suspended production in 2009. In 2004 the China
Building Material Industrial Corporation entered into a joint
venture with the Industrial Development Corporation of Zimbabwe to
establish the Sino-Zimbabwe Cement plant in Midlands Province.
Chinese firms also provided agricultural equipment worth millions
of dollars under the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe's farm mechanization
program in order to show support for the GOZ's land reform program.
In 2009, Zimbabwean officials announced a multi-billion dollar
Chinese investment in platinum mining, but there is no evidence of
actual investment on this scale.
¶3. (U) The GOZ's severe fiscal constraints have put limits on
Chinese engagement. The GOZ is in arrears on its US$400 million in
official debt to China, and this has blocked access to lines of
credit reportedly worth as much as US$950 million. According to
GOZ figures, as of March 2009 Zimbabwe owed US$37.2 million to
China in unpaid principal and interest.
¶4. (SBU) There are no concrete examples of U.S.-China collaboration
in Zimbabwe. Ambassador Ray met with the Chinese ambassador who
indicated his desire to maintain a dialogue with the U.S. and other
Western countries. The principal aims of U.S. policy in Zimbabwe
are a return to democratic governance, restoration of the rule of
law, and protection of human rights. While China has remained
silent on these subjects, it has moved from sole support of ZANU-PF
to a more balanced approach and now has relationships with both
ZANU-PF and MDC-T. The Chinese embassy recently sponsored a golf
tournament in honor of Prime Minister Tsvangirai. While China
may share an interest with the U.S. in restoring Zimbabwe's
investment climate, progress in this area ultimately depends on
governance reforms.
RAY
http://wikileaks.org/cable/2010/02/10HARARE105.html
C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 HARARE 000105
SIPDIS
AF/S FOR BRIAN WALCH
NSC FOR SENIOR AFRICA DIRECTOR MICHELLE GAVIN
ADDIS FOR USAU
E.O. 12958: DECL: 2020/02/16
TAGS: EINV ECON PREL PGOV ZI
SUBJECT: Zimbabwe: Doing Business Zimbabwe-style
REF: HARARE 116
CLASSIFIED BY: Charles A. Ray, Ambassador, STATE, EXEC; REASON:
1.4(B), (D)
¶1. (SBU) A recent conversation with businessman Kumbirai Katsande
illuminated the difficulties of doing business in Zimbabwe.
Katsande is the past president of the Zimbabwe Business Council and
the current head of the Confederation of Zimbabwean Industries. He
is the Managing Director of Ariston Holdings Ltd., which has major
horticultural and tea interests, and the Chairman of NestlC)
Zimbabwe Ltd.
¶2. (C) Katsande described how Ariston came to give up land to High
Court Judge Ben Hlatshwayo. In 2002, Hlatshwayo, in defiance of an
order from his own Court, seized a white commercial farm in the
agriculturally productive area of Banket, about 100 kilometers
northwest of Harare. The farm was near the Mugabe rural home. In
2009, the farm caught the eye of First Lady Grace Mugabe, who
apparently wanted it for her son from her first marriage. She
ordered Hlatshwayo off the land. He countered with a lawsuit but,
unsurprisingly, no judge was willing to hear the case. The powers
that be persuaded Hlatshwayo to leave his 600-hectare farm and
promised him another. He found another farm and demanded the white
owner leave. He then received a call from Minister of Local
Government, Urban and Rural Development Ignatius Chombo, a patron
of the owner, who told him to desist and look for another. He did.
This time he got a call from Minister of Lands and Rural
Resettlement Herbert Murerwa, who had a relationship with the
owner, Hlatshwayo moved on. He finally came to land owned by
Ariston Holdings which, under pressure, agreed to cede him land.
Katsande said Ariston was a bit miffed that Hlatshwayo's original
farm was 600 hectares and he demanded 900 from Ariston. They
ultimately negotiated.
¶3. (C) Last year, in the wake of an international outcry, NestlC)
Zimbabwe, which had been buying milk from Grace Mugabe's dairy
farm, decided to stop. After he and NestlC) workers were
threatened, Katsande contacted President Robert Mugabe's office.
He was told Mugabe had asked Minister of Industry Welshman Ncube to
handle the matter, and that the government would not interfere with
NestlC). Katsande then learned that Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe
Governor Gideon Gono had frozen NestlC) accounts. He contacted
Gono, who said he was acting on Mugabe's behalf. Katsande
convinced him to call Mugabe. He did and backed off. Katsande was
subsequently contacted separately by Minister of Youth and
Indigenization Saviour Kasukuwere and Minister of State in the
President's Office Didymus Mutasa, both of whom threatened him if
he didn't resume buying milk from the first lady. He told them to
contact Ncube. Ncube convinced them that Mugabe had left the
matter with him, and told them that he (Ncube) was not going to
force NestlC) to buy milk from Grace Mugabe. NestlC) has resumed
operations and is not buying milk from Grace Mugabe.
¶4. (SBU) We talked to Katsande just after Kasukuwere had issued
new indigenization regulations (Ref). He said despite
difficulties, NestlC) had a large investment in Zimbabwe and was
going to invest an additional US$10 to US$15 million. But it was
going to make other major investments in Botswana and Mozambique
which would have been made in Zimbabwe but for the unsettled
political situation.
¶5. (C) Finally, Katsande told us about a legal dispute of Ariston
involving tea estates in Chipinge. War veterans tried to take over
some of Ariston's land and a legal case ensued. Ultimately, the
Supreme Court, in a decision signed by the Chief Justice, ruled in
Ariston's favor. But squatting war veterans refused to leave the
estates. When Ariston contacted the police, it was told that farm
invasions were a political matter and the police would therefore
not act. Katsande paid a visit to the local police commissioner in
Chipinge and was told the same thing. Katsande pointed out to the
HARARE 00000105 002 OF 002
police commissioner that the Chief Justice belonged to ZANU-PF and
that the judgment in the legal case was therefore political. He
then threatened to bring an action for contempt against her
personally for defying an order of the Chief Justice if police did
not remove the war veterans within three days. They did.
-------------
COMMENT
-------------
¶6. (C) Katsande's experiences demonstrate the difficulties of
doing business in Zimbabwe. ZANU-PF's abuse of power echoes
throughout the economy and the party's influence will certainly
inhibit economic recovery. Investors not yet active in Zimbabwe
generally understand this and accordingly choose to do business
elsewhere. Foreign companies already here - like NestlC), Chevron,
Implats, and others - will at most hedge their bets in existing
operations but not make major new commitments until Mugabe and the
likes of Kasukuwere have been forced from office. Consider, for
example, the continuing malevolent influence of Reserve Bank
Governor Gideon Gono. Even though the central bank no longer has
the means to disrupt the economy as it did during Zimbabwe's
hyperinflation, the very fact that Gono is still on the payroll
frightens anyone who might consider a financial commitment that
lasts more than a week. On Zimbabwe's current trajectory, Katsande
will have more amusing anecdotes for us next year. END COMMENT.
RAY
http://wikileaks.org/cable/2010/02/10HARARE152.html
UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 04 HARARE 000152
SIPDIS
AF/S FOR B. WALSH
ADDIS ABABA FOR USAU
ADDIS ABABA FOR ACSS
NSC FOR SENIOR AFRICA DIRECTOR
STATE PASS TO USAID FOR L. DOBBINS AND J. HARMON
COMMERCE FOR ROBERT TELCHIN
E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PGOV PREL ASEC PHUM ZI
SUBJECT: ZIM NOTES 02-19-2010
-----------
¶1. SUMMARY
-----------
Mugabe Welcomes Codel Meeks/Watt...
Journalist thrown out of Mugabe/Codel meeting...
Diamond Drama Continues...
Zim Agrees to KP Monitor...
Court Orders Mining at Chiadzwa to Stop...
EU Extends Targeted Sanctions on Zimbabwe...
ZANU-PF Hijacks Civil Servants' Strike...
Police Arrest WOZA Members...
Mexican Journalist Arrested...
HRW Calls Gov't a "Failure"...
Rising Cost of Living Fuels Wage Demands...
Tobacco Selling Season Starts on High Note...
Companies Resort to Rights Issues...
---------------------------------
On the Political and Social Front
----------------------------------
¶2. Congressmen Gregory Meeks (D-NY), Melvin Watt (D-NC), Jack
Kingston (R-GA), and Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) visited Harare this week
and had a nearly two-hour long meeting with President Mugabe at
State House. The delegation also met with Finance Minister Tendai
Biti and visited a USAID-funded livelihoods project. Friday's
Herald featured a large photo of Congressman Meeks and Mugabe
shaking hands next to the headline "US pledges dialogue."
¶3. Freelance journalist (and correspondent of the Zimbabwe Times)
Nkosana Moyo was escorted by the CIO out of a meeting between
President Robert Mugabe and the visiting Congressional Delegation.
Moyo tried to record the proceedings of the meeting when the CIO
accosted him and took him out of State House. He told PAS that they
gave him a 20- 30 minute lecture about patriotism. "They told me I
should not be used by the Americans to demonize Zimbabwe, and took
all my details- address, phone numbers, next of kin, rural home-
and let me go," said Moyo. Moyo said he could not go back to State
house to cover meeting because "I was no longer a in a state of
mind to do anything."
¶4. Transcripts of closed-door hearings led by the parliamentary
committee on mines and energy have revealed probable corruption and
a lack of oversight in the troubled Chiadzwa diamond fields. The
committee, led by the ZANU-PF former Mining Minister Edward
HARARE 00000152 002 OF 004
Chindori-Chininga, has grilled senior leadership from the
parastatals Zimbabwe Mining Development Corporation (ZMDC) and the
Minerals Marketing Corporation of Zimbabwe (MMCZ) on their lack of
oversight of the two joint ventures operating in Chiadzwa, Mbada
Diamonds and Canadile Miners in several hearings this month. Mining
Minister Obert Mpofu is allegedly due to testify soon as well.
¶5. This week Zimbabwe agreed to allow a South African
industrialist with extensive diamond mining experience, Abbey
Chikane, to serve as the resident monitor for the Kimberley Process
Certification Scheme (KPCS) after several other potential monitors
were rejected. Chikane's appointment is the result of the KP work
plan developed in October 2009 at the KP Plenary in Namibia.
Chikane is to have "unfettered" access to Chiadzwa is will need to
approve of diamond shipments before they can be granted a KP
certificate.
¶6. The Supreme Court has ruled that ZMDC and the MMCZ must stop
mining operations at Chiadzwa pending finalization of the ownership
dispute with African Consolidated Resources (ACR). Although ZMDC's
two partners, Mbada and Canadile, may remain on site, they have
been ordered to stop operations. In the meantime, the GOZ has
reportedly cancelled ACR's license to mine the Chiadzwa fields,
giving it up to March 10 to lodge an appeal. ACR contends the
cancellation is unlawful.
¶7. On February 16, the EU extended targeted sanctions on Zimbabwe
for another year and also removed six individuals (mostly deceased)
and nine companies from the list. Of note, sanctions were lifted on
Dumiso Dabengwa, a former ZANU-PF Minister of Home Affairs, who
left ZANU-PF two years ago to reform ZAPU. The EU justified the
extension on the lack of progress in the implementation of the GPA.
Although ZANU-PF dismissed the extension of the sanctions as a
non-event, it has nevertheless said it will not make any
concessions in the GPA talks until all the sanctions are removed.
¶8. Striking civil servants have said that ZANU-PF has hijacked the
strike for political reasons. Civil servants' representatives
reported that ZANU-PF was forcing teachers to join the strike. They
reported that in Masvingo province in southern Zimbabwe, ZANU-PF
and the CIO forced Victoria High School to close at gun point and
ordered the teachers to join the strike. The civil servants are
pressing the government to increase their $150 monthly wages to a
minimum of $630. The government has said it can only increase the
paltry wages by a further $16 because it has no money.
¶9. On February 17 the police arrested two members of Women of
Zimbabwe Arise (WOZA) in the eastern city of Mutare. One of the
women, Rose Rukwewo, is an elderly woman who suffers from hyper
tension. The police arrested the women at their homes for no
apparent reason other than to harass them after they had
participated in a WOZA protest march on February 16. Although the
police admitted they have no evidence to charge the women, they
insisted on detaining them for 48 hours--the maximum period the
police can hold a suspect in detention before they must appear in
court. The women were initially denied access to their lawyer for
several hours.
¶10. In Masvingo on February 12, police arrested a Mexican
journalist who was filming potential tourist sites. The journalist,
HARARE 00000152 003 OF 004
who was in a vehicle belonging to Minister of Tourism Walter Mzembi
(ZANU-PF) and who had a letter of authorization signed by Mzembi,
was held for several hours before being released after Mzembi's
personal intervention. Mzembi later fumed, "We cannot attract
tourists if we do not look at our law and order. [The journalist]
wanted to film for Mexican tourists ahead of the World Cup in South
Africa, but the first call I received once he got there was he was
at a police station. He has understood that we are in a transition
and we have said it will not happen again."
¶11. Human Rights Watch issued a harsh statement this week, calling
the inclusive government a "failure." According to HRW's Director,
Georgette Gagnon, "The transitional power-sharing government is a
sham. From a human rights perspective, nothing has changed for the
better. Robert Mugabe and ZANU-PF are still fully in control." HRW
went on to call for the government to begin preparations for
holding internationally supervised free, fair, and credible
elections that will lead to a legitimate and democratic government
with the political will to bring about change. An article in The
Economist this week also suggested early elections wouldn't be a
bad idea:
http://www.economist.com/world/middleeast-afr ica/displayStory.cfm?s
tory_id=15549373
-----------------------------------
On the Economic and Business Front
----------------------------------
¶12. According to the Consumer Council of Zimbabwe (CCZ), the
average cost of a basket of goods for a family of six rose by about
seven percent from $488.11 in December 2009 to $520.53 in January
¶2010. The jump was attributed to an anticipated increase in civil
servants' salaries and high utility tariffs. To the extent that CCZ
figures are now the basis for determining minimum wages in the
public and private sectors, there will be more pressure for a
general rise in wages.
¶13. The opening of this year's tobacco selling season started on
February 9 amidst expecations of substantial growth in the quantity
sold. The Tobacco Industry Marketing Board (TIMB) projects sales
this year of 77 million kilograms, up from 56 million in 2009. The
TIMB cites favorable prices and an increase in the number of
farmers growing the crop as the main factors behind the increase.
The use of the out-grower schemes has attracted a lot of farmers
since they are well supported by tobacco merchants when compared to
other commercial crops.
¶14. Liquidity constraints in banks and the high cost of borrowing
have forced most companies to go for rights issues and private
placements to raise money for expansion projects. During the week
under review, for example, two publicly listed companies proposed
to raise a total of $40 million through both rights issues and
private placements.
¶15. "We know their attitude. They do not want anyone, any country
in the developing world to make any meaningful development
strides." -- President Robert Mugabe, referring to the West's
alleged efforts to block development in Africa, at the opening of
HARARE 00000152 004 OF 004
the Pan-African Tourism Investment Summit in Harare, February 17,
¶2010.
RAY
Dhanani
http://wikileaks.org/cable/2010/02/10HARARE170.html
UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 HARARE 000170
SENSITIVE
SIPDIS
AF/S FOR BWALCH
DS/IP/AF, DS/TIA/ITA
DRL FOR SMORGAN, MMITTELHAUSER, AND TDANG
DOL/ILAB FOR SHALEY
E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PGOV PHUM PREL ASEC ZI
SUBJECT: ZANU-PF Peacefully Protests Sanctions In Front Of U.S.
Embassy
REF: HARARE 74
---------------
SUMMARY
---------------
¶1. (U) A ZANU-PF organized group protested peacefully in downtown
Harare and in front of the U.S. Embassy on February 24. The
protesters, who were allegedly bused in from outside Harare,
shouted anti-sanctions slogans and appeared to have been paid at
ZANU-PF headquarters after the march ended. Although the group
reportedly intended to present petitions at the U.S. Embassy and at
the headquarters of the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC),
neither has received such a petition. The police escorted the
well-organized protesters but did not inform the Embassy in
advance. Police briefly detained and released one journalist.
There are no other reports of arrests or injuries. END SUMMARY.
------------------------------
March on the Embassy
------------------------------
¶2. (U) At around 10:30 local time, approximately 1,000 ZANU-PF
supporters gathered in downtown Harare for a protest march against
sanctions. According to the MDC, ZANU-PF brought the group to
Harare from nearby rural areas in buses and trucks. The protesters
wore t-shirts that said "sanctions are criminal" and carried
professional-looking posters with slogans such as "We will defeat
sanctions to realize your dreams," "Sanctions are catastrophic to
us," and "Pirate radio stations are stealing our sovereignty." The
group chanted anti-sanctions and pro-ZANU-PF slogans as it was
escorted by police through town.
¶3. (U) At approximately 11:00 the group arrived on Herbert Chitepo
Avenue, about a block east of the chancery. The crowd, following
directions from its leaders, peacefully marched in front of the
Embassy, pausing for about three minutes to boo, pump fists, and
sing ZANU-PF songs. The group also shouted anti-American and
anti-U.S. government slogans, directing some of their comments at
our locally employed guard force. The comments included: "Don't
you want land? What are you getting from the Americans?"; "We know
where you live, we shall get you one by one"; "We want war with
you Americans we are not afraid of you"; "Charles Ray must go, he
is responsible for sanctions"; "You are responsible for our
problems." After jeering for a few moments, the crowd peacefully
moved down the street. While stopped in front of the chancery, a
few in the group attempted to stand on barricades in front of the
entrance but stopped when told to do so by Zimbabwean police.
¶4. (SBU) After moving away from the Embassy, the group returned to
ZANU-PF's headquarters, where it appeared protesters entered the
building in turns, possibly to receive payment for participating.
Although it was rumored throughout the day that the group was going
to present petitions at the Embassy and at MDC headquarters
downtown, no one submitted a petition at either location.
Beginning at approximately 15:00, the group was loaded into buses
in downtown Harare. It appeared that some of the protesters
commandeered some public transport, but the crowds quickly
dissipated when it began to rain heavily.
¶5. (SBU) Although the police succeeded in ensuring the march in
front of the Embassy was peaceful, no one in the Embassy received
advance notice of the protest. The Embassy only learned of it at
10:45 from a civil society contact who heard about it from an MDC
official. The Embassy is still without regular protection by the
Zimbabwean police (reftel).
---------------------------------------
Journalist Detained, Released
---------------------------------------
HARARE 00000170 002 OF 002
¶6. (SBU) Before the march began, plainclothes police detained
freelance journalist Andrisson Manyere for about 15 minutes.
According to Manyere, the police objected to his taking photos
without having first sought permission from the police or ZANU-PF.
According to another journalist in the area, Manyere was
photographing the ZANU-PF youths scrambling for free t-shirts in
front of ZANU-PF's headquarters. Manyere was taken to the nearby
ZANU-PF headquarters building, where ZANU-PF officials and
officers of the Central Intelligence Organization recorded his
details and forced him to delete all of the photos from his camera.
(NOTE: Manyere has been a frequent target of the police. He was
arrested on January 18 in Harare while filming a march by Women of
Zimbabwe Arise. Manyere was abducted in December 2008 and held
incommunicado for several weeks by security agents who tortured
him. He remained in prison until April 2009 and still faces
charges of participating in bombings of police stations. END
NOTE.)
---------------
COMMENT
---------------
¶7. (SBU) Today's protest came as a complete surprise, despite our
slowly improving communication with ZANU-PF and the police. Our
contacts in civil society, who usually hear of large events in
advance, were also caught off guard. Although the rhetoric
expressed by the protesters is nothing new, it is evidence that
ZANU-PF is once again exploiting rural youth to do its bidding,
using enticements of free food, t-shirts, and a trip to Harare.
This was one of the largest protests in Harare in recent memory and
the first to take place in front of the Embassy in at least three
years. END COMMENT.
Dhanani
Labels: INDIGENIZATION AND EMPOWERMENT ACT (ZIMBABWE), WIKILEAKS, ZIMBABWE
Read more...
(NEWZIMBABWE, BUSINESS DAY SA) Govt plans second Antwerp diamond auction
23/12/2013 00:00:00
by Business Day
ZIMBABWE is planning a second auction of its Marange diamonds in February, buoyed by the interest in and sale of more than 279,000 carats of diamonds in Antwerp, Belgium last week which raked in $10.7m.
Mines and mining development permanent secretary, Francis Gudyanga, said on Monday the initial sale of the Marange gemstones last week had "provided insight" and "tangible guidelines" that will allow the Zimbabwe government to fully optimise a second, larger tender of Marange goods.
"The next sale is scheduled for February 12 to 19 2014," Gudyanga said.
The European Union lifted sanctions on Zimbabwean diamonds in September, making way for the first-ever sale of the Marange diamonds in Antwerp, which is regarded as the world’s diamond capital.
Gudyanga pointed out that the auction of the Marange diamonds in Belgium would take place alongside regular sales organised by the State, which have traditionally attracted scores of Indian and Chinese buyers.
"The philosophy of trial tender of Marange goods was to enable government and industry stakeholders to make a thorough assessment of the benefits of selling rough diamonds on the open Antwerp market ... alongside the regular tenders that are organised in Zimbabwe."
An estimated 115 clients showed interest in the Marange diamonds during the sale, compared to the 10 to 15 companies that attend regular auctions in Zimbabwe.
The government is set to pocket $1.6m from the diamond auction in Belgium and will from January 1 seek to reduce the porousness of the diamond industry, of which the contributions to the fiscus have so far been minuscule.
Finance Minister Patrick Chinamasa, in his budget statement presented on Thursday, indicated that Zimbabwe’s treasury would increase mining royalties from 10% to 15% as the cash-strapped government tries to grow its revenue base.
Other measures set to be introduced in the diamond industry include closed-circuit TV surveillance of the entire process of production, sorting and transportation of diamonds.
Diamond production in Zimbabwe has been on the rise to 12 million carats in 2012, from 1,3-million carats recorded in 2009.
Chinamasa has earmarked the economy to grow by 6.1% next year, on strong performance from the mining and agriculture sectors.
Labels: BELGIUM, DIAMONDS, MARANGE DIAMOND FIELDS, ZIMBABWE
Read more...
(BLACK AGENDA REPORT) South Africa and Zimbabwe: A Tale of Two Land Reforms
Tue, 12/17/2013 - 19:57 —
by Harold Green
When Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe attended the memorial service for Nelson Mandela, he “received the loudest cheers and applause” among the dignitaries. Zimbabwe’s successful land reform stands in stark contrast to South Africa, where “barely 10% of farm land has been redistributed,” and the wealth gap – which is a race gap – “has become one of the most unequal in the world.”
South Africa and Zimbabwe: A Tale of Two Land Reforms
by Harold Green
“Zimbabwe's land reform has resulted in hundreds of thousands of Black Zimbabweans becoming new and successful farmers.”
While Nelson Mandela and the ANC are to be praised for their courageous and persistent commitment to ending the racist and brutal system of Apartheid including having taken up arms against it, the question many have begun to ask: How true did they stay to that commitment upon being released from prison and eventually coming to power. The answer to that question can be found in understanding what the specific goals and objectives were of the various South African organizations involved in the Anti-Apartheid Movement.
For Nelson Mandela and the ANC (the most prominent South African anti-apartheid group) they're goals and objectives were crystallized in the ANC's 1955 Freedom Charter. Controversial when it was created, many like Robert Sobukwe who thought it was not nationalistic, not “African” enough, left the ANC to go on to form other anti-apartheid groups. In the case of Robert Sobukwe, he and other former members of the ANC, would go on to form the Pan African Congress in 1959.
Despite the controversial multiracial aspect of the Freedom Charter, there was one important demand in it to which everyone did agree: that land ownership would be the right to all. In the section entitled, “The Land Shall be Shared Among Those Who Work It!” it states:
“Restrictions of land ownership on a racial basis shall be ended, and all the land re-divided amongst those who work it to banish famine and land hunger;
The state shall help the peasants with implements, seed, tractors and dams to save the soil and assist the tillers;
Freedom of movement shall be guaranteed to all who work on the land;
All shall have the right to occupy land wherever they choose;”
Land reform and redistribution was clearly one of the main focal points of the anti-Apartheid movement. While the issue of pass laws, housing, fair compensation for labor, human rights, etc, were important, it was the issue of land, especially among Black South Africans, that factored significantly in the fight to end Apartheid.
”White land owners began asking for far more than what the land was worth leading to inflated land values.”
When Nelson Mandela and the ANC came to power, they made sure the issue of land reform was included in the new constitution. In it, the right to have access to land was guaranteed, albeit with the problematic caveat that there would be no “arbitrary expropriation,” and that land could only be acquired on a “willing seller, willing buyer” basis.
Despite some early successes, the willing seller, willing buyer stipulation has proven to be problematic. White land owners began asking for far more than what the land was worth leading to inflated land values, and making it virtually impossible for the government to sustain funding. Encouragingly, the willing seller, willing buyer stipulation is being abandoned, and a new expropriation bill has been introduced (March 2013) in response to demands that land reform take place on a more equitable basis.
Upon coming to power in 1994 (two years before the new constitution was implemented), the ANC through it's Restitution of Land Rights Act enacted in 1994 and it's Reconstruction and Development Programme (RDP) promised agricultural and land reform. It's stated goal was to put 30% of the 90% of farm land held by whites into the hands of Black farmers, and to settle the hundreds of thousands restitution claims by those Blacks who could prove their families land had been stolen under Apartheid.
Those goals were to have been achieved by 2000. To date, barely 10% of farm land has been redistributed. Sadly, 90% of the resulting farms have failed due to insufficient funding that was promised under the Restitution of Land Rights Act. Bewilderingly, the vast majority of Black South Africans whose land was stolen and thusly had legitimate claims for restitution, have missed the poorly advertised deadline for filing restitution claims with no second chances. Many others have been forced to accept meager payments for land that was stolen, far below current market value. In a word, land reform in South Africa under ANC leadership 20 years hence, has been a “disaster.”
Understandably, Black South Africans are loosing patience with the ineffective manner in which land reform has been carried out. Many are beginning to look at the land reform process implemented by ZANU-PF under the leadership of Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe, and are questioning whether this approach should be followed by the ANC. The leadership of the ANC, in no rush to upset the economic apple cart that has made many of them rich, are scampering to ward off the growing discontent over the slow pace of land reform and other economic justice issues.
Despite the continuous racist ad hominem attacks against Robert Mugabe, coupled with economic sanctions in an attempt to destroy Zimbabwe's land reform agenda, land reform in Zimbabwe is moving along with a considerable degree of success. As evidenced in a host of books and reports published in recent years, most notably Zimbabwe's Fast Track Land Reform by Prosper D. Matondi and Zimbabwe Takes Its Land Back by Joseph Hanlon, Zimbabwe's land reform in spite of it's tumultuous and long overdue start, has resulted in hundreds of thousands of Black Zimbabweans becoming new and successful farmers.
"To date, barely 10% of farm land has been redistributed.”
These reports dispel the racist myths about famine and food shortages due to failing Black farms. What these reports reveal is that these new Black farms are just as profitable as the white owned farms were, producing sufficient food for both Zimbabwe's export and domestic markets.
What is also proving to be successful is Zimbabwe's indigenization program administered through Zimbabwe's Youth, Indigenization and Economic Empowerment ministry. This requires that all foreign companies operating in Zimbabwe sell at least 51% of ownership of the respective companies to local Zimbabweans. Having learned their lesson from the land reform episode that saw ZANU-PF prevail, these foreign companies are offering little resistance to indigenization.
No such indigenization program exist for Black South Africans. Instead, there is the Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) program administered under South Africa's Department of Trade and Industry. It's stated purpose is to: “focus on broadening participation, equity and access to redress for all economic citizens, particularly those previously marginalized”
The BEE list a host of objectives designed to more fully integrate Black South Africans into the South African economy by encouraging Black ownership and entrepreneurship. However, instead of the masses benefiting, there has been a rush by the leadership of the ANC, and other well connected Blacks, to become minority partners and sit on boards of various white owned companies.
This grotesque scenario has prompted Moeletsi Mbeki, brother of former South African president Thabo Mbeki to comment, “it [BEE] strikes the fatal blow against the emergence of black entrepreneurship by creating a small class of unproductive but wealthy black crony capitalists made up of ANC politicians, some retired and others not, who have become strong allies of the economic oligarchy.” It is no secret that corruption amongst ANC's leadership has become pandemic, while the wealth gap between rich and poor (mostly Black) has become one of the most unequal in the world.
As frustration and anger grows among Black South Africans, particularly among Black South African youth who make up 77% of South Africa's population, and who are 70% of the unemployed, coupled with continuing intransigence on the part of white South Africans in their unwillingness to relinquish accumulated advantages, the ANC may very well be facing a Zimbabwean type scenario which they might not be able to control.
”Corruption amongst ANC's leadership has become pandemic.”
Black South African youth view Robert Mugabe as a hero for not only taking back African land from white farmers, but also for successfully standing up to the most powerful economic forces in the world as they imposed near crippling sanctions in their attempt to destroy Zimbabwe's economy and force Robert Mugabe and ZANU-PF from power. No surprise then that at the recent memorial service for Nelson Mandela in Johannesburg, he received the loudest cheers and applause, as well as a standing ovation when acknowledge as one of the attending dignitaries.
If Zimbabwean type scenarios are to break out in South Africa, while surely to be condemned by moneyed interest both inside and outside the country, they might in the long run prove to be just as successful as Zimbabweans’ forced take over of white control farms have been. Of course, the ANC in it's new role as protector of moneyed interest in South Africa will be forced to make a choice. Will they side with the Black masses or with the white minority? If the Marikana mine incident where 34 Black miners were murdered in cold blood (mainly by Black South African police) for demanding better wages is any indication, land reform in South Africa will make land reform in Zimbabwe look like a lunch in the park.
Nearly 15 years after “fast track” land reform began in Zimbabwe, we have seen the vast majority of Zimbabwe's land returned to it's rightful owners. After nearly 20 years of ANC rule in South Africa, the vast majority of South Africa's land is still in the hands of it's white minority. The controversy and criticism the ANC has sought to avoid by not pursuing a more aggressive and just land reform and economic program in the immediate post Apartheid period, will surely come back to haunt them in the post Mandela era. We shall see.
Harold Green is a Pan-African activist based in Los Angeles. He can be contacted at paclwp@msn.com.
Labels: LAND REFORM, SOUTH AFRICA, ZIMBABWE
Read more...
(ROUGH AND POLISHED) De Beers’ Marange ‘saga’ refuses to die down
12.12.2013
Zimbabwe’s former mines minister Obert Mpofu made a chilling revelation three years ago that the diamond mining giant, De Beers “looted tonnes” of diamonds from the Marange mining fields over a period of “15 years” without notifying the state of the discovery of the gems.
“De Beers looted our diamonds for 15 years and were sending them to South Africa without our knowledge and they had even declared that area a restricted area, as if it was their land when the country belongs to us,” he said at the time.
Mpofu went on to say that the government believed then that De Beers was only prospecting and carrying out tests when in “reality” the company was carrying out covert mining activities.
“Everyone knows that the diamonds at Chiadzwa (Marange) are mined from the surface and De Beers was for the last 15 years alleging that they were doing prospecting and carrying out tests when in actual fact they were looting diamonds from Chiadzwa,” he said.
He said De Beers pulled out of the country when government began a probe into the operations of the company after getting wind that there were diamonds in Marange.
However, De Beers denied the allegations.
In an exclusive interview with Rough & Polished following the accusations, the De Beers group’s head of media relations, Lynette Gould said there was no evidence to support the allegations made against the diamond giant.
“If we had been mining 'tonnes' of diamonds, over a 15 year period, there would be a very large hole indeed left behind in Marange,” she said.
“Industrial mining of this magnitude would have been impossible to disguise, let alone keep secret. In conclusion, not only are the allegations outrageous and incredible, but they also lack any evidence, whatsoever.”
This denial by De Beers never stopped the Zimbabwean government from accusing the group of covert activities in Marange, although no much detail of the group’s corporate sins were given.
However, a non-governmental organisation called Centre for Natural Resource Governance (CNRG) tried to give us an insight into the ‘saga’ last month.
It alleged in a report that in 1994, De Beers successfully applied for an Exclusive Prospecting Order for Marange diamond fields and prospected for the next 12 years (1994 – 2006) not 15 years as alleged by Mpofu.
The diamond giant was required to recruit indigenous black Zimbabwean geologists due to an affirmative action policy enforced in the 1990s.
However, CNRG said that the local geologists employed by De Beers were denied access to Marange and naturally they became suspicious.
De Beers allegedly submitted successive misleading reports to the Zimbabwe government which cast doubts on Marange as a viable investment option, but it nevertheless continued “prospecting”.
Villagers in Marange also became suspicious of De Beers activities at Bezely Bridge where a very small makeshift diamond processing plant was established.
“According to villagers interviewed, the plant at Bezely Bridge operated at night only. Villagers and local geologists began pressurizing government to act on the clandestine operations of De Beers,” CNRG claimed.
“Some ZANU PF officials, tipped by indigenous geologists at De Beers, began to demand an end to De Beers operations in Marange.”
It said one of the most vocal proponent for the cancellation of the De Beers prospecting license was the late retired army general Solomon Mujuru.
Under pressure from a section of ZANU PF politicians, De Beers notified the government that it would not seek to have its EPO extended in March 2006.
CNRG further alleged that De Beers was not without support from some sections of the government of Zimbabwe.
“When pressed by villagers to explain what De Beers was doing in Marange, a senior government official who was also Mines Minister at the time, reportedly said De Beers was doing experimentation for fertilizer manufacturing,” said CNRG.
“This was meant to deliberately mislead villagers into believing De Beers activities would boost agricultural production in the area.”
The unnamed minister was said to be determined to renew the De Beers EPO in 2006 despite serious concerns raised by his colleagues in cabinet and in ZANU PF.
He reportedly said anyone willing to prospect in Marange was free to submit an application, adding that according to the law first preference would be given to the current EPO holder, De Beers.
However, ZANU PF officials, led by Mujuru, threatened the interests of the Openheimer family in Zimbabwe if they did not relinquish their hold on Marange.
Then the Openheimer family had a 40 percent controlling stake in De Beers.
CNRG said De Beers, however, pulled out of Marange abruptly on 29 March 2006.
It further alleged that when De Beers pulled out of Marange, some white South Africans, believed to be De Beers employees instructed locals to start panning for diamonds which they would buy once every fortnight, marking the beginning of illegal panning activities.
“The white South Africans also taught the locals how to identify a diamond and advised them of the exact places where they could find diamonds,” said CNRG.
“Prior to the withdrawal of De Beers in 2006, Marange residents did not know how to identify a diamond. The number of artisanal miners rapidly grew from less than 100 in May 2006 to over 10 000 by December 2006.”
CNRG also claimed that in 2011, when the Zimbabwe government, through Mpofu, initiated an investigation into De Beers activities in Marange from 1994 to 2006 all records pertaining to De Beers vanished from the Mining Promotion and Development Unit (MPDU).
The Zimbabwean government suspected that some employees, possibly with links to De Beers, could have been paid by De Beers to destroy evidence.
“However there is also a possibility that some senior government officials who were involved in De Beers activities feared that the investigations would expose them and therefore destroyed the records,” it said.
Mathew Nyaungwa, Editor in Chief of the African Bureau, Rough&Polished
Labels: CORRUPTION, DEBEERS, DIAMONDS, MARANGE DIAMOND FIELDS, ZIMBABWE
Read more...
(NEW AFRICAN MAGAZINE) Democracy and legitimacy in Africa
New African reports
The time has come for Africa to stand up together and fight with one voice the attempts by the metropolitan powers to dictate who is a legitimate leader in Africa and who is not. The history of such dictation shows the pursuit of Western self-interest at the cost of African nationalist interests, writes Dr Motsoko Pheko.
Democracy and legitimacy in Africa
Zimbabwe is once again a wake-up call to all Africans who value their national sovereignty and control of their mineral wealth and other natural resources. The sustained attack on Zimbabwe is an economic war by Western countries on Africa.
These countries have a long history of a “planned regime”. If this fails, they resort to “regime change”. To Britain and America, and all their satellites, “democracy” and “legitimacy” is when their interests prevail over those of the African people.
It is reported that the American, British, Canadian and Australian governments do not believe that the recent election results in Zimbabwe represent the will of the people of Zimbabwe.
It is, therefore, important to point out that for all the long years when African states and the United Nations demanded economic sanctions against Ian Smith’s rebel colonial regime in Rhodesia and against apartheid South Africa, the European powers (led by the USA) opposed these sanctions. Britain’s Margaret Thatcher argued that sanctions would hurt “ordinary Rhodesians and black South Africans”.
This was all false. The countries of Western Europe had long had a “planned regime” strategy during the colonial days in Africa. This was put in place immediately they got a signal that Africans were determined to end colonialism and all forms of domination.
In Zimbabwe, the Western countries preferred Bishop Abel Muzorewa. Many attempts were made to assassinate Robert Mugabe even after the signing of the Lancaster House Agreement in 1979. In colonial Northern Rhodesia (now Zambia), Britain and its Western allies preferred Harry Kumbula to Kenneth Kaunda. In Lesotho, they preferred Jonathan Leabua to Ntsu Mokhehle, to the point of staging a coup d’état against him and stopping his being sworn in as the prime minister of Lesotho.
In Ghana, Britain never liked Kwame Nkrumah. It was only when the “Gold Coast” (now Ghana) became ungovernable that Britain conceded to the demands of Nkrumah’s CPP Party. In Kenya, Jomo Kenyatta of KANU was never the British colonial preference. They called him a Mau Mau leader, “a leader of darkness’”. In South Africa (Azania), Prof. Robert Mangaliso Sobukwe was never liked by the West and their agents. He was imprisoned on Robben Island without even a mockery of a trial and later banished until his death – through poisoning, his colleagues said. President Nkrumah was democratically elected in Ghana. But the Western countries (led again by America) used the CIA to overthrow his government.
Patrice Lumumba was legitimately elected the first prime minister of DRCongo. The Belgian and American governments were involved in his assassination and overthrow of his government. There is also a strong suspicion that white supremacists conspired, possibly with the collusion of Western powers, to assassinate Dag Hammarskjöld, the UN Secretary-General who was championing the Congo’s independence and defending its sovereignty.
Milton Obote of Uganda was equally overthrown by Britain under Edward Heath’s government. Idi Amin was installed and he murdered thousands of Ugandans. All these African leaders were overthrown or killed because they did not fit the “planned regime” strategy of the West. They were not trusted to look after neo-colonial economic interests at the expense of African economic interests.
This century Western leaders have come up with a “regime change” strategy. The excuse is that some African leaders had stayed too long in power. Well, in Britain, Prime Minister Robert Walpole ruled for 21 years. Elsewhere in Africa, Daniel Arap Moi ruled Kenya for 24 years. Hastings Banda ruled Malawi for 33 years. Mobuto Sese Seko ruled DRCongo for 37 years. Gnassingbe Eyadema of Togo was president for 41 years. Omar Bongo Ondima of Gabon equally ruled for 41 years. Hosni Mubarak ruled Egypt for nearly 30 years. Western leaders never pointed fingers at these leaders. They toed the line. They served western interests more than those of their own countries. In fact, Mobutu and Mubarak were very close allies of the USA. None of these leaders were ever asked to give in to democracy until their people drove them out of power.
It is an insult to intelligent Africans who recall that the countries that practised slavery, colonialism and racism and perpetrated atrocities against other humans, killing them and taking their lands and riches, are today posing as “teachers” of “democracy”, “legitimacy”, “good governance” and “rule of law”.
In 1994, the Americans and other Western countries showed up in a big way in apartheid South Africa. They applied their “planned regime” strategy. They picked from the liberation movements who was “extremist” and who was “moderate”. By “moderate” they meant leaders who would protect especially their foreign economic interests at the expense of their own African people.
Western countries, with few exceptions, supported the apartheid regime in South Africa. Relying on this support, Dr Gert Viljoen, the minister of constitutional affairs under President F. W. de Klerk, in 1990 made his government’s position very clear about who the South African regime would negotiate with.
“We want to change our approach,” he said. “But we would be negotiating even the name [of the country]. Many blacks call it Azania. I think there is no likelihood of coming to an agreement with them. They are the extreme Pan Africanist Congress [PAC]. The name Azania sounds a warning note of a break in history. In our thinking, a complete break in history would be unacceptable. We will have to provide some continuation of the past.”
Indeed, that “continuation of the past” is obvious in South Africa today. Whites, who are only 8.9%, according to the recent population census, still control 87% of the land to 13% allocated to the African indigenous majority, who make up a good 79.2% of the population.
This land dispossession is entrenched in section 25(7) of the “New South Africa” constitution, and they tell us this constitution is one of the most progressive in the world!
Explaining the reason why the apartheid regime should quickly negotiate with the “moderates”, The Star newspaper in Johannesburg reported at that time: “To the left of the ANC is the PAC, a bunch too radical for reasonable conversation... Unless the government talks to the ANC soon, and reaches an accommodation, the time will come when it would wish it had the ANC to talk to instead of the more radical organisations. Better by far to talk to the Mandelas, Tambos and Makatinis, conservative men all of them.”
During the 1994 elections, the American government heavily financed Mandela’s ANC to ensure that the De Klerk-Mandela “planned regime” succeeded. Stanley B. Greenberg and Frank Geer directed the ANC election campaign. These two men were President Clinton’s own pollster and image-maker respectively.
In his book, Dispatches from the War Room, Greenberg writes: “The Pan Africanist Congress (PAC) launched an anti-pass campaign... Close to 70 demonstrators in Sharpeville were massacred, putting the international limelight on the Pan Africanist Congress...
“The PAC was the only other party with standing in the anti-apartheid struggle, thus a majority of Africans viewed it favourably. The PAC boycotted the negotiations ... and ... advocated the expropriation of white land without compensation.”
The truth however is that the PAC had a long policy of equitable redistribution of land. It was the European colonial settlers who expropriated land from the Africans, and not the other way round.
Now it is nearly 20 years since the “negotiations” with the “moderates” ended in South Africa. But land and its riches are still the property of a European minority.
When the 1994 election results were announced, even The Times (of London) conceded that the election could not have been considered “free and fair’’. The newspaper reported: “There is agreement that there was widespread fraud and cheating.”
Bill Deeds of the Daily Telegraph (also of London) added his voice: “By our own electoral standard,” he wrote, “the conduct of South Africa’s general election and counting of votes has been deplorable.”
A senior official of the South African apartheid regime later corroborated that the 1994 elections had been “embarrassing and flawed”. He indicated that De Klerk and Mandela agreed that the elections had to be declared “free and fair” because the alternative would have been a political disaster. “We simply could not afford this thing to go down the tube. It would serve no purpose to cry foul.”
This makes it clear that if an African leader is not favoured by Western powers, he is a wrong leader for democracy. If he or she wins elections, they are illegitimate. If indeed, the leaders of Western countries are people of high morals and almost “infallible”, as they think they are, why did they not give even as much as a hint about the flawed elections in South Africa in 1994?
President Clinton’s two experts, Greenberg and Freez, were there. They had financed and conducted the elections. They knew what had happened!
The Western countries were aware of the majority African support for the Pan Africanist Congress and its undeniable strength in the run-up to the 1994 elections in South Africa. On 29 April 1990, Deon Delport of the Star newspaper in Johannesburg wrote: “A recent survey found among many Sowetan youngsters [that] the PAC is increasingly preferred to the ANC which is viewed as being promoted by the apartheid government.”
In the same article, Delport reported that wide support for the PAC had been found by the researcher Sue Lerena for McCann, a Johannesburg-based advertising firm. Lerena later said: “My own view was [that] we could end up like in Zimbabwe where whites were stunned and shocked by the defeat of Bishop Abel Muzorewa by Mr Robert Mugabe.”
The media further reported that: “The so-called main players are losing support, but where is it going to? The most important change over the past years has been the rise in support of the Pan Africanist Congress among blacks. The PAC is poised to emerge as the single most powerful electoral force ... even though it is almost exclusively black.” (Work in progress magazine, 17 June 1993.)
After the assassination of Chris Hani, several newspapers reported on Clarence Makwetu, the president of the PAC and Nelson Mandela of the ANC. “Mr. Nelson Mandela, the icon of the black struggle against apartheid, was booed at a meeting in Soweto when he upset many in a crowd of around 30,000 people with a friendly reference to the ruling apartheid party.
One of the biggest cheers of the two-hour event came when Mr Clarence Makwetu, leader of the radical Pan Africanist Congress, strode into the packed stadium in the middle of Mr Mandela’s speech. “Mr Mandela was forced to pause as the crowd cheered and whistled for a beaming Makwetu who told them ‘we have come to a time when leaders run out of words’. The crowd rose to him and set off thunder flashes, while some ANC officials on the platform looked dismayed.”
So how did the PAC voters disappear on Election Day, 27 April 1994? Was there massive rigging in the presence of Clinton’s own men? What did they do about this? They never said a word after that!
Writing about the strength of the political parties in South Africa, Dr Vladamir Tickhomiov, the learned secretary of the Russian Academy of Science’s African Institute, confirmed prior to the 1994 South African elections, that: “The alliance of the ANC is weaker than that of other black organisations and movements. The ideology of Africanism and black awareness prevail among the majority of the politically active blacks.
“This was especially true when black organisations had the opportunity of leaving the underground and becoming legal.”
“It was not surprising when a German magazine, Geheim, stated: “The so-called independent electoral commission as well as the technical personnel handling the elections in South Africa was infiltrated by the National Intelligence Service (NIS) agents in places like Johannesburg, Western Cape, Pretoria, Port Elizabeth and Durban” (Geheim, 30 April 1994).
Zimbabwe is being attacked because it wants to control its own riches, which have been looted by Western companies for far too long. Africa must defend Zimbabwe. Africa cannot forever have its riches looted by imperialists through puppet leaders. Former slave traders have no credentials to qualify as champions of democracy and legitimacy in Africa.
(Dr Motsoko Pheko is author of several books, among which are ‘The Hidden Side of South African Politics’; and ‘Towards Africa’s Authentic Liberation’)
Labels: COLOUR REVOLUTIONS, DEMOCRACY, NEOCOLONIALISM, ROBERT MUGABE, ZIMBABWE
Read more...
(NEWZIMBABWE) The truth: What Thabo Mbeki said about Zimbabwe elections, land reform
30/08/2013 00:00:00
by Thabo Mbeki
The following is the full transcript of former South African President Thabo Mbeki’s lecture at UNISA’s Thabo Mbeki African Leadership Institute (TMALI). Delivered in Tshwane on August 23, 2013.
CLICK HERE to listen to the audio of his address:
I had thought that you had started yesterday, but I was told only when I arrived here 15 minutes ago that actually you didn’t. I hope that doesn’t signify that as Africans we are always late.
We had agreed that I would speak at the opening of your symposium, because I had to go to Zimbabwe yesterday to participate at the ceremony of the inauguration of President Mugabe as President of Zimbabwe, I’m told that this was the seventh as President and more if you include his Prime Ministership.
The Zimbabweans insisted that I should come, and I agreed with them because they were saying that the inauguration marked the end of the Global Political Agreement which they signed in 2008 in whose evolution we had played a part.
So, I am saying all of this to apologise for speaking to you in the evening rather than in the morning.
But I really like to say to thank you very much for agreeing to participate in this symposium to look at this every important issue, the issue about solutions to Africa’s development. It is indeed very important that as Africans we must focus on all of this and mobilise the intellectual capital that exists among ourselves to answer this question.
What the principal was saying about the last Nelson Mandela Lecture here by Mo Ibrahim raising questions of leadership on the continent, those remarks were correct. I think this is an important part of our challenge as Africans, ourselves to find the solutions to Africa’s development.
I don’t know how many of our leaders on the continent read books. I am sure some of them do – well apart from the Bible and the Quran, other books – but I think we have to produce these books because there are other Africans who read books.
So as we meet at this symposium to look at what we do, we say as African thought leaders asking about where should we be tomorrow, it is important that we have to do this. There is nobody else to do it for us.
The people who have done this for us in the past, and they are many, have said who are these Africans? What are they? What’s their past? Where should they be tomorrow? Other people have said that about us. And what has it produced? Disaster! A disaster from which we should rescue ourselves.
I was saying that yesterday, I was in Zimbabwe for the inauguration of President Mugabe. I don’t know who among us here, what opinions we have about Zimbabwe, but there are certain things which worry me greatly about Zimbabwe.
With regard to the last elections, one of the things that worried me was a very intense and sustained campaign to discredit the elections before they took place, very sustained and very intense. So I was saying to myself, ‘Why?’ And I could see quite clearly that the intention was in the event that the elections resulted in the victory of President Mugabe and Zanu PF, they would obviously be unfair. In the event that they resulted in the election of Morgan Tsvangirai and the MDC, then they would be free and fair. That was the intention.
Although it didn’t surprise me, what disturbed me was that many among us Africans seemed to buy into the story that was being told. And so I was saying to myself that this is very worrying because what it means is that we, as Africans, don’t know enough about ourselves and continue to be enslaved by a narrative about ourselves told by other people.
Any African, anybody following events in Zimbabwe for some time, would not have been surprised at the election results, not in the least, and indeed some of the people who were communicating these negative messages about the elections before they took place, even some of them actually predicted what would happen: that a particular politics of Zimbabwe meant we would have a particular outcome.
There is an old friend of mine in Zimbabwe, another intellectual like yourselves, I won’t mention his name. Shortly before the elections he says, publicly, the MDC is going to sweep in its major victory in the rural areas of Zimbabwe. So I read this thing, and I said: ‘But what’s wrong with him?’ I haven’t spoken to him for some time, but I am going to ask him that question. I said, ‘What’s wrong with him?’ You could never make a prediction like that if you knew what’s been happening in the Zimbabwean rural areas in the last 10 years.
Many years ago and as part of the leadership in this region, we engaged the Zimbabwean leadership – President Mugabe and others – in a very sustained process to discourage them from the manner in which they were handling the issue of land reform. We were saying to them, ‘Yes indeed we agree, the land reform is necessary, but the way in which you are handling it is wrong.’ We tried very hard, ‘No, no you see all of these things about the occupation of the farms by the war veterans, this and that and the other, all of this is wrong’, that’s what we were saying. But fortunately the Zimbabweans didn’t listen to us, they went ahead.
The consequence of it is that, I have looked at at least four books that have been written about the land reform in Zimbabwe, all of which say in fact the process of land reform in Zimbabwe has given land to at least 300-400,000 new land owners, the peasants of Zimbabwe at last own the land. The programme succeeded and has this direct benefit on these huge numbers of Zimbabweans. And so I found it very strange that this intellectual friend of mine could say the MDC would win the elections in the rural areas. They couldn’t, essentially because they were identified by that rural population to have opposed land reform, rightly or wrongly. We can discuss that.
The point I am making is that we still have a challenge to understand our own reality, and I am using the example of Zimbabwe to say that I have a sense that even with regards to this issue, which for some reason for years has been a major issue in the international media and politics and so on, that even we as Africans still have not quite understood Zimbabwe. I think it’s your task to change that, so that we understand ourselves better.
I think we should also ask ourselves the question: Why is Zimbabwe such a major issue for some people? Zimbabwe is a small country by any standard, there is no particular reason why Zimbabwe should be a matter to which the New York Times, the London Guardian and whoever else... why are they paying so much attention to Zimbabwe? Why?
I know why they pay particular attention to us, because they explained it, they said ‘You have too many white people in South Africa. We are concerned about their future. They are our kith and kin. We are worried about what you would do to them, so we keep a very close eye on what happens.’ So we understand, we may not agree with the thinking, but we understand.
But I am saying why this focus on Zimbabwe? Towards the end of last year, they asked me to speak at a conference on Zimbabwe diamonds. So I went, and what surprised me about the conference held at Victoria Falls was that everybody and anybody who has anything to do with diamonds in the world was there. From America, from Israel, from India, from Brussels – everybody. It was not about diamonds in the world, it was about Zimbabwe diamonds. So I was puzzled, saying but why have they all come?
Maybe two hours before we left the conference to come back, we sat in a session which was addressed by one of the Indian diamond people. In the course of his presentation, he explained why; he gave an answer to this query in my head. He said in a few years’ time, Zimbabwe will account for 25 percent of world production of diamonds. So I said, ‘I now understand. I understand why everybody is here.’
But I think the reason there has been this kind of focus on Zimbabwe is that for many years now, the political leadership in Zimbabwe have been communicating a message which many among the powerful players in the world find unacceptable.
I was saying earlier that we opposed, we tried to discourage Zimbabweans from taking the particular steps they took with regard to land reform, acknowledging that it was indeed necessary to have land reform, and I was saying they ignored us. It is, I think, exactly the manner in which they came at that question of land reform that offended other forces in the world who said, ‘This is wrong, we don’t like it’. And unlike us who said, ‘Well, they are not listening. They have done what they want to do about their country, we have to accept that’, these others said, ‘They have set a bad example which we don’t want anybody else in Africa and the rest of the world to follow, so they must pay a price for setting a bad example.’ Bad example, bad in the instance of the interests of these other people, not bad in terms of the interests of the people of Zimbabwe.
So, I think this is part of the reason that there is so much attention, globally, to a country on the continent which is actually in itself – never mind the diamonds – is not that particularly important, but is important because it is setting, in the minds of some, a bad example which must be defeated. But principally are we as intellectuals telling that story? Are we explaining that, in the first instance to ourselves so that we know what is the correct position to take in our own interests; in own defence? My sense is that we are not doing it, we are not explaining why, what is this enormous interest in a small African country here in Southern Africa which really basically – I can’t think of any particular reason why it would have such enormous, global, geo-strategic importance, but it has. Why?
You know, all of us know, the African Union and SADC among others, deployed large numbers of observers for these recent [July 31, 2013] elections. The African Union even had placed its observers there at least a month ahead of the elections. This was to ensure... I don’t think, at least I know of no deployment of African observers of this size because between the AU and SADC, just those two, I think they had at least a thousand observers. I know of no instance when the continent has deployed that kind of number – it is because of this concern about Zimbabwe in particular. And both observer teams have essentially said the elections were peaceful and everybody agrees about that; and they have said the elections were free, and that they represent the opinion of the people of Zimbabwe.
SADC have said they need a bit of time to look at the matter of the fairness of the elections. ‘Yes indeed the elections are credible, they represent the views of the people of Zimbabwe’. The reason SADC observers said that they want to look at this is because they want to look at it in detail and say, for instance, was the media coverage of the contending parties, was it fair and balanced? They may make a determination about that and say it was not fair or fair. Was the location of voting stations done in such a way that it would ensure equal access, relatively is the access between rural and urban areas? They will make a determination about that.
They are not questioning the credibility of the elections, but want to look at this matter about what is meant by ‘fair’ in order to ensure that as a continent when we do indeed conduct elections in future we have some standards to follow in terms of what will constitute this element of ‘fair’. So they decided to leave a residual group in Zimbabwe to look at that question, and the AU agreed to join them, left another group there to do that, which is fine.
I was talking three-four days ago to a member of the executive of the SADC Lawyers Association which includes all the lawyers in this region and their law societies and this and that and the other. They decided to send an observer team to Zimbabwe, which they did. They have done their report and I have asked for a copy but they said they would send it. But what they are telling me is that one of the things that surprised them was that as soon as they made that announcement that they would be deploying an observer team in Zimbabwe, out of the blue, completely unsolicited, they got huge offers of money from the United States to say, “Look, we want to pay for your observer mission.” And they say that we never asked for this money, we had never ever been in contact with these people, we don’t know how they got to know that we were going to do this, but were very, very happy to support us with huge sums of money. But we said, ‘No’, we refused. We said, ‘No, we will finance ourselves’. The reason we did it was because we knew that if we accepted that money, then we would have to produce a report consistent with the views of the paymaster, so we said, ‘No’.
Now, the very strange thing at the end of this story which I am telling you... Well, let me say, what the Zimbabwe government did was of course to refuse that organisations like the EU which have imposed sanctions against Zimbabwe, countries like the US which have imposed sanctions on Zimbabwe, should have election observers for the natural and I think logical reason that, ‘You declared yourselves as an enemy, in what way would you then send observers who are going to be objective in terms of observing these elections, please don’t come.’ I think they were right. Nevertheless, they said all the countries that have embassies in Zimbabwe, the embassies are free to observe the elections, which they did. African, European, Asian – all of them.
But I am saying one of the strange things is that you have the entire continent in terms of its credible and legitimate institutions say, ‘Yes indeed there were problems, and we are going to detail those problems, but these elections represent the will of the people of Zimbabwe.’ Then you have an alternative voice in Washington, London and Brussels which says, ‘No, you Africans are wrong.’ How does that happen? Why this absolute contempt for the view of the Africans about themselves?
I was saying just these two organisations, the AU and SADC, had at least a thousand observers in Zimbabwe – I am not talking about others, even the African Caribbean and Pacific Community had an observer team there, I am not talking about those – watched this process. When the chair of the AU Commission was in Harare and talked to all the political leaders, she said none of them have raised any issues about serious problems with the elections, they hadn’t. And yet when all of these Africans say, ‘Yes problems, we will tell you what these problems were, but the result presents a credible view of the Zimbabweans,’ you have people in America and Europe who say the Africans are wrong. Why? Maybe because the Africans are stupid? The Africans can’t count... or something?
The latest SADC summit has just taken place in Malawi, in Lilongwe. In the days before the summit, during the summit, the British government were putting pressure on the government of Malawi to persuade the summit that there should be an audit done of the Zimbabwean elections.
The MDC decided to go to court in Zimbabwe to contest, as you know, the elections. And then suddenly withdrew the petition. Personally, I was very pleased that they submitted the petition, because it would give a possibility actually to look in detail at all the allegations that have been made about what went wrong with the election. I was quite upset when they said they are withdrawing the petition, because it denied us the possibility to do this thing. But later, I understood why they withdrew, because even in the petition they made various allegations and did not submit to the court any document to substantiate any of the allegations.
At some point during this electoral process, the British ambassador to Zimbabwe spoke to one of the British television channels, and said in one constituency, 17,000 people voted of whom 10,000 were assisted to vote. Now, this is allowed in terms of Zimbabwean processes if you are illiterate, you might be old, you might be blind – whatever – that the people at the voting station can assist you. You come and say, ‘Look, I can’t read but I like Morgan Tsvangirai, please tick for me where it says Morgan Tsvangirai,’ that’s assisted voting which is allowed.
So, the British ambassador says here was this one constituency, 17,000 voters 10,000 of whom were assisted – so many – but she doesn’t identify the constituency, up to today. Morgan, in his affidavit to the Constitutional Court, includes this... ‘There was a constituency where 17,000 people voted, 10,000 of whom were assisted voters’. He doesn’t identify the constituency like the British ambassador.
In the end, I can say (inaudible name) is a very ugly fellow, but if I accuse him of that in court I should prove it. And that became a problem. So, we still don’t know what was the substance, what is the substance of all the allegations made which Washington and London and Brussels have used to say the elections were not credible. We don’t know. In reality, the only reason they were not credible is because Robert Mugabe got elected. That’s all.
I am using this, all of this talking about Zimbabwe, as an example about our continent because all of these things I am saying relating to Zimbabwe you can find the same similar examples on the continent, but we are not challenging it as intellectuals. We are not challenging a narrative, a perspective about our continent which is wrong and self-serving in terms of the interests of other people.
The Zimbabweans now are talking about indigenisation and I can see that there is a big storm brewing about indigenisation. But what is wrong with indigenisation? What is wrong with saying, ‘Here we are as Africans, with all our resources. Sure, we are ready and very willing to interact with the rest of the world about the exploitation of all these resources, but what is the indigenous benefit from the exploitation of these, and even the control?’
You have seen examples of this, all of us have, when Chinese companies in terms of all this theory about free markets, have sought to acquire US firms, they get prohibited. ‘No indigenisation of US intellectual property. We can’t allow it to be owned by the Chinese, so, No!’ When the Africans say ‘indigenisation’, why is this a strange notion and yet when we talk about solutions to Africa’s development one of the issues that we have to address is exactly this indigenisation? How are we utilising our resources to impact positively on African development?
I am saying that because I can see that there is a cloud that is building up somewhere on the horizon when Zimbabweans say ‘indigenisation’. But we have to, as intellectuals and thought leaders, we have got to address that and say, ‘Yes indeed as Africans we are concerned about our own renaissance, our own development, and we must as indigenous people make sure that we have control of our development, our future and that includes our resources, and therefore indigenisation is correct.’ We must demonstrate it even intellectually, which I am quite sure we can.
I wasn’t intending to speak for so long, but as you can see I get very, very agitated about Zimbabwe because it’s very, very clear that the offensive against Zimbabwe is an offensive against the rest of the continent and what has facilitated that offensive is indeed wrong things that Zimbabweans have done. They have done wrong things, they have acted in ways that have been incorrect, so it has been possible for some people to stand up and say, ‘Look, look, look there is a violation of democracy and human rights’, and all of us say, ‘Yes, yes, yes what they did there was not quite right.’
But all of us make mistakes, we have made mistakes here [in South Africa], but they have been used, those mistakes, to mount a particular offensive against Zimbabwe... that offensive is not in the first instance about Zimbabwe, it’s about the future of our continent. So the Zimbabweans have been in the frontline in terms of defending our right as Africans to determine our future, and they are paying a price for that. I think it is our responsibility as African intellectuals to join them, the Zimbabweans, to say, ‘No!’
We have a common responsibility as Africans to determine our destiny and are quite ready to stand up against anybody else who thinks that, ‘Never mind what the thousand African observers say about elections in Zimbabwe, we sitting in Washington and London are wiser than they are. They say the elections were credible, we say that they are very foolish, those elections were not.’ We stand up as Africans to see an end, and really an end, to that contempt for African thought! We have to, if we don’t, this development we are talking about will not happen.
[Transcript by New Zimbabwe.com]
Labels: SANCTIONS, SPEECHES, THABO MBEKI, ZDERA, ZIMBABWE
Read more...
