The website where Zimbabweans can write on what they expect the South African Government to do in trying to solve the Zimbabwean crisis. Send your contributions to: mufarostig@yahoo.co.uk and Rev M S Hove will post it for you! Also view www.dearmrrobertmugabe.blogspot.com, www.dearmrtonyblair.blogspot.com, www.zimgossiper.blogspot.com, www.radicalzim.blogspot.com etc. AMANDLA......AWETHU!


UK Web Hosting
pollcode.com free polls
Who do you believe wanted to assassinate the Tsvangirais?
Robert Mugabe and ZANU-PF! Other forces..... you can give comment! No-one.... just pure accident!   

Snap Shots

Get Free Shots from Snap.com
MP3 music download website, eMusic
Why Join?
eMusic 25 free downloads
Start your free trial

Start downloading your FREE MP3s today and take two weeks to decide if you like eMusic. If you're not 100% satisfied simply cancel before your trial period ends and you'll never pay a dime. Keep the 25 FREE MP3s as a gift just for checking out eMusic.

Start your free trial
Click here to unsubscribe Privacy Policy | Terms of Use

© 2006 eMusic.com, Inc. All rights reserved. iPod® is a registered trademark of Apple Computer, Inc. Apple is not a partner or sponsor of eMusic.com, Inc.

Monitor page
for changes
    
   it's private  

by ChangeDetection
Zimbabwean women want Dignity.Period!

Map IP Address
Powered byIP2Location.com

RADICAL'S REPORT OF COSATU DEMO OF 3 MARCH!


Powered By
widgetmate.com
Sponsored By
Apply for Credit Cards

GoStats

Technorati profile

Technorati link

Add to Technorati Favorites

Wednesday 14 November 2007

PETITION TO SADC FROM ZIMBABWEANS IN THE DIASPORA!

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

                                               
                                                  PETITION
  
                                    TO
 
    SADC STATES
 
   AS A COLLECTIVE FOR EACH SADC STATE 
        TO GRANT TEMPORARY RESIDENCE PERMITS TO       
             ZIMBABWEAN REFUGEES WITHIN THEIR STATES                     

                              

                     ___________________________________
 

           SUBMITTED  BY

 

         ZIMBABWE DIASPORA CIVIC SOCIETY ORGANIZATIONS FORUM

                   ZIMBABWE DIASPORA DEVELOPMENT CHAMBER
                                            GLOBAL ZIMBABWE
 
 
The Zimbabwe Diaspora Civil Societies Forum sent a petition to SADC to countries, and through the SADC secretariat in Botswana, requesting SADC countries as a collective, for each SADC country to grant Temporary residences permits to undocumented displaced Zimbabweans in their territories, until the political crisis in Zimbabwe is resolved.  Over 60% of Zimbabweans displaced as a result of political and economic meltdown in their country are undocumented and have no status.   They are subjected to chronic arrests, detention, deportations and unprecedented humiliation within all these SADC countries.  They are deported back to a hegemonic dictatorship which has consistently committed human rights abuses on its citizens amid hunger and joblessness. 
The Forum await to hear from SADC, who are so far quiet, while people are suffering. 
 
The Forum says we are not Jews in Mecca, but SADC citizens in SADC, and Africans in Africa.  We appreciate the negotiations, but there are no goals beyond the interests of political parties at contest.  The Diaspora is lumped under MDC, the reason being the terms of reference structured by  SADC and that during South Africa's CODESA civil societies were included under the ANC.  There are thousands of good Zimbabweans in the Diaspora, who are here because of situations beyond their control, and not because they subscribe to the MDC.  This lumping is not desirable.  The SADC communiqué for SADC ministers of finance to work out an economic package for Zimbabwe is merely to close the meeting.  The cue comes from South Africa minister of Finance, who said the options for Zimbabwe were spelt to them, and is up to Zimbabwe.  We cannot see SADC raising a minimum of US$10 billion required for Zimbabwe to move out of recession.  None of these initiatives are mobilizing or involving the totality of the citizens or the Diaspora in particular. The core issue of a President controlling an un-audited budget used to pay salaries of thousands of political executioners and vigilantes in the rural and urban areas is neither affected by the negotiations nor authorized by the current constitution. On this approach these initiatives fall short and Zimbabwe will remain in limbo.
 
The petition is our humble approach to SADC.   In return the Diaspora will provide financial assistance to all permit holders so that they engage in viable economic activities and provide a platform for the development of Zimbabwe as well as raising billions, over time,  to finance reconstruction of Zimbabwe.  The Forum wants to be involved in the process of documentation to reduce costs.
 
However should SADC ignore or refuse our request, our last option is to approach an international court of justice with all the evidence of human rights atrocities and abuse of Zimbabweans in SADC.
 
Daniel Molokele +27 72 947 4815
Luke   Zunga      +27 83 528 1561


 


Yahoo! Answers - Get better answers from someone who knows. Try it now.

Friday 19 October 2007

The Africa-EU summit must go ahead!!!




AFRICA-EUROPE RELATIONS

LINK!!!



In an article in the British newspaper, 'The Independent', on 20 September 2007, UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown wrote: "It is also right that I make clear my position on the forthcoming EU-Africa Summit. I want this summit -under the leadership of [Portugal's] Prime Minister Socrates - to be a real success. It is a serious opportunity to forge a stronger partnership between the EU and Africa in order to fight poverty, tackle climate change, and agree new initiatives on education, health and peacekeeping...

"I believe that President Mugabe's presence would undermine the Summit, diverting attention from the important issues that need to be resolved. In those circumstances, my attendance would not be appropriate."

The EU-Africa Summit will be held in Lisbon, Portugal in December, the first having been held in Cairo in 2000. Except for the UK, the member states of the African Union and the European Union are, as far as I could establish, of one mind that all member states of both Unions should attend the Summit.

A shared concern

Africa has rightly insisted that all countries have a right freely to constitute their delegations. Except for the UK, the EU has accepted this. The UK is demanding that the EU should instruct Zimbabwe to exclude President Mugabe from its delegation, arguing among other things, that he is under an EU travel ban.

The British government claims it has taken these and other positions on Zimbabwe because it is concerned about the situation in Zimbabwe and the role of the Zimbabwe government.

Yet, all the other governments that will attend the EU-Africa Summit are equally concerned about the situation in Zimbabwe.

Because of this concern, after many years of continuous engagement with the leaders of Zimbabwe, in March this year the Southern African Development Community (SADC) took two important decisions. One of these was that President Thabo Mbeki should facilitate a dialogue between the government and ruling party of Zimbabwe and the opposition to arrive at an agreement that would address Zimbabwe's political challenges.

During the recent visit of German Chancellor Angela Merkel to our country, President Mbeki reported publicly that the negotiations were proceeding well and would soon be concluded successfully. Everybody, including the British, knows that already, as a result of an agreement arrived at during the dialogue facilitated under the direction of our President, the Zimbabwe ruling party, ZANU PF, and the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) groups jointly sponsored a constitutional amendment in the Zimbabwe parliament.

The second decision taken by SADC was that the community's executive secretary should undertake a review of the Zimbabwe economy and make proposals about what the community should do to assist the economic recovery of Zimbabwe. Having concluded his work, the SADC Finance Ministers are now seized with the task of working out a practical programme of action.

The simple truth, therefore, is that SADC, with the full support of the AU, is not only concerned about the situation in Zimbabwe. It is acting on this concern, with the full support and cooperation of the government, the ruling party and the opposition political formations of Zimbabwe.

Clearly the British government believes all this means nothing. It is suggesting that it is morally superior to everybody else in the EU and the AU. The question to ask is whence this extraordinary sense of superiority.

Regime change

Perhaps the answer lies in an editorial in the British periodical, 'The Economist', of 5 July 2007 headed "The virtues of isolationism".

It said: "In a blistering attack on Mr Mugabe's rule, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Bulawayo, Pius Ncube, said that the state of the country was now so bad that foreign governments (particularly Britain's) should intervene to 'remove' Mr Mugabe from power... Mr Ncube's appeal to the West to remove Mr Mugabe should be taken as a cry of pain, not a reason for the West to invade... it is only the Africans, and particularly the southern Africans, who can apply the strong pressure needed to get rid of him quickly.

"Yet the Portuguese do now have a way to give the African Union a much-needed jolt.
They should refuse to let Mr Mugabe come to Lisbon. That will force Africa's leaders to reconsider their priorities. If that stops the summit from taking place, so be it:
a firm stand would send a powerful message of solidarity to all those in Zimbabwe who long to be rescued from their plight. Welcoming their tormentor to Lisbon for the sake of a jamboree would be a corresponding disgrace."

It is regime change and nothing else. The demand is made in clear language -Southern Africa must carry out this task. The question that needs to be asked is whether this demand reflects the views of the British government.

As a movement, the ANC has always assumed the British Labour Party was anti-colonial and a principled defender of the right of all nations to self-determination. In the post-war years these positions were eminently represented by the Labour Party MP, Fenner Brockway.

Another historical fact, manifested over many decades, is that in our region the British governments have consistently appeased the racist white minorities, and refused to align themselves with the African majorities, honestly responding to their legitimate demands.

In 1910 the British government betrayed our people by handing power in our country to the white minority. The British Labour Party followed this route with regard to Zimbabwe when, as the governing party on 11 November 1965, it refused to suppress the Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI) rebellion of the white minority against the British Crown, led by Ian Smith.

Addressing the British House of Commons on 11 November 1965, Prime Minister Wilson
said: "I repeat that the British Government condemns the purported (unilateral) declaration of independence (UDI) by the former Government of Rhodesia as an illegal act and one which is ineffective in law. It is an act of rebellion against the Crown and against the Constitution as by law established, and actions taken to give effect to it will be treasonable...

"We did not seek this challenge. The House will concede that we did everything in our power to avoid it, but now it has been made, then, with whatever sadness, we shall face this challenge with resolution and determination. Whatever measures the Government, with the support of this House, judge are needed to restore Rhodesia to the rule of law, to allegiance to the Crown, these measures will be taken."

The measures the British government took to respond to what Prime Minister Wilson characterised as rebellion and treason did not include any demand or action to achieve regime change. On the same day, the British newspaper, 'The Guardian', said:
"The sanctions announced (by the Wilson government) are inadequate for the job they have to do - to break the Rhodesian Government."

The Labour government, led by Prime Minister Harold Wilson, did not call for regime change.

The change of regime, the "breaking" of the Rhodesian Government, was brought about by the struggle of the oppressed masses of Zimbabwe, led by their liberation movement, during which thousands of African lives were lost. Similarly, regime change in our own country, to reverse the British betrayal of 1910, came about because of the protracted struggle of our own people, led by our liberation movement, again at great cost in African lives.

The costly victory of the Zimbabwe liberation struggle gave the British government the possibility to resume its responsibility as the colonial power charged with handing over power to the people of Zimbabwe, as it had done in all its colonies in the Caribbean, Asia and Africa, except South Africa.

A promise betrayed

Charged to preside over the 1979 Lancaster House negotiations to decide the future of the Zimbabwe, the British government still tried everything it could to protect the interests of the same white minority in Zimbabwe whose actions it had denounced in
1965 as illegal, rebellious and treasonable.

As a result of these efforts, for 10 years after independence, liberated Zimbabwe was prohibited from acting in a decisive manner to change the pattern of land ownership born of the colonial land dispossession of the indigenous majority, in favour of the white minority.

This was because the British government recognised the centrality of the land question to the colonisation of Zimbabwe, white minority interests, and therefore the liberation struggle.

To balance its insistence that the right of its kith and kin to hold on to the land that had been acquired by force had to be respected for 10 years, the British government, supported by its US counterpart, undertook to provide the government of Zimbabwe with substantial financial resources to acquire land to address the land question, insisting that this should be done on the basis of the "willing seller, willing buyer principle".

After a long period of negotiations with the British Conservative Party government, led by Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, her successor, Prime Minister John Major, finally agreed that the British government would honour the undertakings made during the Lancaster House negotiations, in the same way as the Zimbabwe government had respected its commitments in this regard.

However, the British Labour Party took power in 1997, inflicting a humiliating electoral defeat on the Conservative Party. It has remained in power ever since. As a successor government, and contrary to international convention and the rule of law, it unilaterally repudiated the undertakings made by the John Major government on the land question in Zimbabwe.

To add insult to injury, it arrogantly asserted its right to impose what amounted to a neo-colonial diktat on the government of Zimbabwe. All this was reflected in the infamous 5 November 1997 letter written by the then British Minister for International Development, Claire Short, to Kumbirai Kangai, the then Zimbabwe Minster of Agriculture and Land. She wrote:

"I should make it clear that we do not accept that Britain has a special responsibility to meet the costs of land purchase in Zimbabwe. We are a new Government from diverse backgrounds without links to former colonial interests. My own origins are Irish and as you know we were colonised not colonisers...

"Again, I am told there were discussions in 1989 and 1996 to explore the possibility of further assistance. However that is all in the past. If we look to the present, a number of specific issues are unresolved, including the way in which land would be acquired and compensation paid - clearly it would not help the poor of Zimbabwe if it was done in a way which undermined investor confidence... It follows from this that a programme of rapid land acquisition as you now seem to envisage would be impossible for us to support."

This position stands at the heart both of what has happened in Zimbabwe since this letter was written, and the positions the British government is taking today on the forthcoming EU-Africa Summit.

To right a wrong - miserable advice

Many things have gone wrong in Zimbabwe over the years. Our movement, the ANC, has engaged both ZANU PF and the MDC on these matters continuously, honestly and frankly, over many years.

We know that the South African government, led by the ANC, has done the same, including initiating serious dialogue with the British and other governments, seeking to assist in finding solutions to all the problems affecting Zimbabwe, in the interest of its people.

We have avoided detailing our efforts in public, because we were convinced, as we continue to be, that this would facilitate the speedy resolution of the problems confronting the sister people of our immediate neighbour, Zimbabwe.

We have done so deliberately, understanding that it is more important to work, practically, for the resolution of the challenges in Zimbabwe than to engage in fruitless and self-serving rhetoric as many others have done.

These, by contrast, have presented themselves as the true friends of the people of Zimbabwe. This has led to the situation where the British government makes bold to present itself as being superior to everybody else in Southern Africa, Africa and the EU.

On 7 April 2002, the British 'Observer' published extracts from a paper written by Robert Cooper and published by the Foreign Policy Centre (FPC) entitled "The post-modern state". Cooper contributed his paper to a publication of the FPC focusing on the topic, "Reordering the World: the long term implications of September 11."

'The Observer' described Cooper as "Tony Blair's foreign policy guru". The FPC said:
"Senior British diplomat Robert Cooper has helped to shape British Prime Minister Tony Blair's calls for a new internationalism and a new doctrine of humanitarian intervention which would place limits on state sovereignty."

Among other things, Cooper argued that the collapse of imperialism and colonialism has resulted in global chaos, including the emergence and survival of 'failed states'. To respond to this, he said:

"The most logical way to deal with chaos, and the one employed most often in the past, is colonisation. But this is unacceptable to postmodern states. Empire and imperialism are words that have become a form of abuse and no colonial powers are willing to take on the job, though the opportunities -perhaps even the need - for colonisation is as great as it ever was in the nineteenth century. Those left out of the global economy risk falling into a vicious circle. Weak government means disorder and that means falling investment.

"AII the conditions for imperialism are there, but both the supply and demand for imperialism have dried up. And yet a world in which the efficient and well-governed export stability and liberty seems eminently desirable.

"What is needed is a new kind of imperialism, one compatible with human rights and cosmopolitan values: an imperialism which aims to bring order and organisation but which rests today on the voluntary principle."

An AU-EU partnership

We do not know whether these unapologetically backward and reactionary ideas inform the approach of the British government towards Zimbabwe, but they are consistent with what Claire Short said in her letter to Kumbirai Kangai.

The EU-Africa Summit, long delayed by the British insistence that President Mugabe should be excluded, should go ahead as planned. It must attend seriously to the important issues that are of fundamental concern to Africa and the EU, rather than allow itself to be imprisoned and paralysed by dangerous and destructive neo-colonialist ambitions.

In a 2007 document, the EU commits itself to a strategy that "proposes forging a strategic security and development partnership between the EU and Africa. The strategy focuses on key requirements for sustainable development such as peace and security, good and effective governance, trade, interconnectivity, social cohesion and environmental sustainability. New initiatives have been launched, most notably a governance initiative and a Euro-African Partnership for Infrastructure, which was launched in July 2006.

"Under the Governance Initiative, the EU will, for instance, provide support for reforms triggered by the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM), a unique tool for peer review and peer learning in good democratic governance by and for Africans. And in the context of the Partnership for Infrastructure, the EU will support programmes that facilitate interconnectivity at continental level to promote regional trade, integration, stability and development."

These are some of the matters that should be discussed during the December EU-Africa Summit. Others must include comprehensive EU support for NEPAD, the strengthening of the AU, sustained resource transfers to Africa to help us to meet the Millennium Development Goals and sustained development to defeat poverty and underdevelopment, and genuine respect for the independence and sovereign voice of the peoples of Africa.

Japan, China and India are engaged in dialogue with Africa to help us, themselves, and all humanity to address the "special needs" of Africa that were recognised in the unanimously adopted UN Millennium Declaration of 2000.

It would be very good if all member states of the EU go to Lisbon in December to follow this example, and enter into dialogue with Africa on all issues that Africa and the EU place on the common agenda. If some countries decide to absent themselves from this critically important dialogue, to, feed their celebration of their holiness, regrettable as it is, we surely have the liberty to repeat what 'The Economist' said - so be it.

** Kgalema Motlanthe is Secretary General of the ANC.

Tuesday 25 September 2007

TUTU ATTACKS MUGABE'S "APARTHEID-TYPE" MISRULE!


"LINK 1"

"LINK 2"

26 September 2007

JOHANNESBURG (AFP) — South Africa's Nobel peace laureate Desmond Tutu on Tuesday launched a new attack on the authorities in Zimbabwe, saying their treatment of dissidents was reminiscent of the apartheid regime.

"The stories we are hearing of the harassment of political opponents, detentions without trial, torture and the denial of medical attention are reminiscent of our experiences at the hands of apartheid police," said Tutu, who was a leader of the struggle against South Africa's whites-only rule.

The former archbishop of Cape Town refrained from commenting on how the crisis could have been mitigated by more efficient management, saying it was "a matter for debate by people better-qualified than me."

"There is no debate, however, when it comes to the perpetration of human rights violations, reports of which, according to churches and NGOs, are on the increase."

Tutu has long been an outspoken critic of Zimbabwe's President Robert Mugabe, once calling him a "caricature of an African dictator".

Mugabe, who has been the ruler of Zimbabwe since independence in 1980, has in turn called Tutu "an evil little bishop".

Friday 31 August 2007

President Thabo Mbeki and the Zim "Regime Change" Agenda!

 

Mr Thabo Mbeki is fast getting to a stage where he will be forced to recuse himself from the Zim Situation!
What is "regime change", Cde President?

When the late President Kamuzu Banda was throwing his "enemies" into crocodile-infested rivers, was it "regime change " when Political Parties where formed to try and oust him?
When Democrats in Swaziland are trying to be heard about their plight at the hands of the young Dictator-King, are they involved in "regime change?"
When is "regime change" correct and when is it wrong?
If Mugabe is a Dictator and Mass Murderer, are the people engaged in "regime change" when they peacefully try to remove him?

So for Africa, should we not try remove any Dictator, lest we be accused by the likes of you, Your Excellency, to be accomplices in "regime change?"
NO, BELOVED CDE PRESIDENT: PLEASE ASK HARARE TO SEND YOU A MORE CREDIBLE ARGUMENT.

Rev M S Hove. Cell: 0791463039 mufarostig@yahoo.co.uk
 


 

Monday 27 August 2007

THE MBEKI AND SADC POSITION A LOAD OF IRRESPONSIBLE RUBBISH!



Well, Mr Thabo Mbeki, The State President of South Africa has issued a lengthy statement (LINK) where he has shown the whole world where he and SADC stand as far as the Zimbabwean Crisis is concerned.

Firstly, that the Elections were heavily rigged (LINK!!!) is not an issue at all!

Secondly, that thousands of MDC members were physically assasulted and hundreds others murdered by State Agents(LINK!!!) is similarly not an issue at all!
 
Refer also(LINK!!!)

Thirdly, the fact that Robert Mugabe and ZANU-PF were discarded by the Electorate BEFORE (NB BEFORE) the Infamous Land Invasions is not a material matter at all to Mbeki and SADC!

Fourthly, the fact that Mr Mugabe has presided over the very ZANU-PF for over 27 years without allowing the very ZANU-PF a chance to elect or re-elect him by the democratic Secret Ballot is completely irrelevant to Mr Thabo Mbeki and the various SADC "Excellencies."

Fifthly, the fact that Mugabe was clearly rejected by the Electorate in the controversial 2002 Presidential Election is not part of substance as far as Thabo Mbeki and SADC are concerned!

Knowing Mr Mugabe as we do, he would have excitedly gone through Tsvangirai's Election Petitions without any delay if he was sure he had won them by any margin!

His only statement at the moment is: "That Election Petition is 'frivolous' and 'vexatious'." What exactly does that mean???

We who were part of the rigging machinery know why and how those Elections were rigged!

I, Rev Mufaro Stig Hove, can give a delailed report of how WE (repeat) WE rigged those Elections.

This brings us to the question of the way forward as far as the Zimbabwean crisis is concerned.

Of major concern is for the "Opposition Forces" to clearly define themselves.

1. What exactly is it that they are opposing? They desperatelt need to clearly define their "bottom line."
 
Is it Robert Mugabe as a person meaning therefore that he must go at all costs regardless of the hurdles that continue to mount including the clear message from Thabo Mbeki and SADC? Please make that absolutely clear so that we who have vowed to support the Democratic Forces can see how we can go forward in support.

2.Can there be some National Vision which accommodates ZANU-PF and Robert Mugabe?
 
I, personally, know that Robert Mugabe's very survival depends on his remaining in that Office (even illegitimately as he is doing at the moment.)

So he has intelligently intertwined his fate with that of millions to completely confuse the original issues.

Some of us need to hear what the general position of the Democratic Forces is.

The whole nation is on its kneesat this very momentas we pursue our various "Quiet Diplomacies" etc!

I shouldn't describe the situation on the ground because any serious person knows that there is no economy to talk about in Zimbabwe at the moment!

The talk by President Mwanawasa that the problems of Zimbabwe are being exaggerated must be swiftly dismissed as coming from a timid lunatic who cannot stand and defend his earlier statement that Zimbabwe was a sinking Titanic!

Mbeki's hope that SADC on its own can rescue Zimbabwe is irresponsible rubbish!
 
Utter deliberate rubbish!

Even mighty South Africa can never close all outside doors and depend on its SADC neighbours only! Why does Mbeki not try it for his country just today??
 
Mbeki thinks their position as SADC is the only "Revolutionary and African" position and all others are mere "sell-outs" etc.

The heavy challenge on the shoulders of the Decratic Forces is to clearly and swiftly dissociate themselves from that dangerous perpective (of being viewed as 'sell-outs'.).

Of course its said 'Politics is a dirty game' but never ever relax when powerful leaders join the despicably evil Robert Mugabe in propagating that stinking propaganda.

The tragedy of the Democratic Forces is that they do not seek the help of serious patriots to assist in the "clearing of the air" as far as their position is concerned.
 
Lets identify each other and close ranks as true patriots and complement each other's efforts to counter the heavy Propaganda of Mugabe now joined clearly by Mbeki and Company! 

The Democratic Forces have continued doing a pilgrimage to a clear crook called Thabo Mbeki!

What does Mbeki not know about the evils of Robert Mugabe? Refer to my article "Thabo Mbeki's proverbial long rope!" LINK!!!

Mbeki wants us to believe that South Africa will not play the "big brother" yet he completely ignores the cries of the very Zimbabweans when they describe issues that are not related to the land issue! Mbeki pretends to pursue a "Policy of Quiet Diplomacy" yet we who see through the mist see him actively supporting the rejected demagogue.

When did Zimbabweans start complaining about Mugabe encouraging "corruption" among his "chosen few"? Long before Mugabe's decision to pursue the "rectification of the Historical Land Imbalances."

Please kindly read my APPEAL TO ALL JOURNALISTS AND WRITERS! LINK!.

I swear by the Living God that if Mugabe gets the proverbial "last laugh", Tsvangirai etc will spend their lives in exile until that 83 year old demagogue passes away! Wake up Tsvangirai and Company!
 
Don't be naive!

But the consolation is that there is no serious investor that can take any investment to Zimbabwe while Mugabe is anywhere near the corridors of power!

Thabo Mbeki is a depicable crook if he wants us to think that there is an investor (except himself, perhaps) who can take anything to Zimbabwe even if Mugabe won a "free and fair" Election next year.

Even if Tsvangirai went round seeking the world to support the new Mugabe Regime (if there is one in 2008), no sane investor would go to Zimbabwe with investment.

The real tragedy of Zimbabwe is that Robert Mugabe will cling to power at all costs and all black leaders will have to support him or else risk being labelled "sell-outs."

So Thabo and Company think they will label us "sell-outs" and it will stick?

No, you are mentally unwell Thabo son of Govan!
 
If you think sending "millions of rands" to Mugabe is a permanent solution to the Zim crisis, then lunacy is your misguided position.

You will stand by Robert Mugabe through "thick and thin" and that's your decision!

But you will go down in History as having blundered using SA tax-payers' funds to prop up a despicably evil dictator that we, the humble people of Zimbabwe were trying at all costs to remove.

Do you honestly think that I, Rev Mufaro Stig Hove, a black man would refuse 3000 heactres of free prepared land and a farmhouse etc.?

Would I refuse to be part of ZANU-PF and get all the benefits eg businesses seized from white owners etc.?

So am I a "sell-out" because I say Mugabe has assassinated all his contemporaries since before Independence?

Am I a "sell-out" because I say Mugabe, Munangagwa etc got unfair benefit from the mineral resources in the DRC?

Am I a "sell-out" because I say Mugabe is a dictator who has never allowed even a simple secret ballot even in the private Politburo Meetings?

Mr Mbeki do you not know or you do not want to know?

Even if the Economy of Zimbabwe were returned to a "zero" inflation and there was prosperity such that there is a 100% employment etc., the truth is that Robert Mugabe is still an evil Devil that must go (and you Mr Thabo Mbeki know it very well as well.)

WHO ARE YOU FOOLING?

WHO IS FOOLING-A WHO???

TIME WILL TELL!

Lets keep in touch CDE President.

Yours in the true struggle for a Free Zimbabwe,

Mufaro Stig Hove.....Rev.

(mufarostig@yahoo.co.uk)

Cell: 0791463039 RSA.



 


Yahoo! Answers - Get better answers from someone who knows. Try it now.

Friday 24 August 2007

LETTER FROM PRES MBEKI REFFERING TO THE LUSAKA SADC MEETING!


LETTER FROM THE PRESIDENT

LINK!!!!

SADC returns to Lusaka

On August 16-17, the Southern African Development Community (SADC), which incorporates 14 (and potentially 15) countries, held its 27th Ordinary Summit Meeting of Heads of State and Government in Lusaka, Zambia. To emphasise its importance, the Summit Meeting was attended by all the SADC Heads of State and Government.

(Seychelles, a member of SADC for many years, was not represented because of a continuing discussion about the membership dues it must pay. The Lusaka Summit, fully sympathetic to the concerns of Seychelles, expressed its determination to do everything possible to ensure that this island-state, geographically and otherwise part of Southern Africa, resumes its rightful place as a fully-fledged Member of the Development Community.)

The SADC Brigade

Undoubtedly, one of the high points of the Summit Meeting was the launch of the SADC Regional Peace-keeping Brigade. This military-police-civilian brigade is made up of personnel drawn from 11 of the member states of SADC. It has been constituted to respond to the challenges of peace, security and stability that face our region.

At the same time, it constitutes a component part of the African Union (AU) Standby Force which Africa is forming to ensure that it has the organised and multi-skilled force to enable it to respond expeditiously to all situations of conflict on our Continent. Thus the launch of the SADC Peace-keeping Brigade represented, in concrete terms, the resolve of our region and continent to rely on its resources effectively to ensure peace and security throughout Africa.

It was indeed very moving to see the 11 mixed formations, each behind its national flag for purposes of identification, assembled on the parade grounds at the Lusaka City Airport. Nobody present at the launch ceremony could have avoided being moved by the fact that despite the variety of the national flags that led and identified the various formations, all the members of the Brigade marched and drilled with great precision, responding to the commands of one Commanding Officer.

Clearly, here, at the Lusaka City Airport, the combined political leaders of our region were presented with a palpable example of the readiness of our region of Southern Africa to act together, to promote African unity, to bind all countries of our region to the cause of peace, to guarantee peace, security and stability on our Continent, and to create the necessary conditions for the defeat of poverty and underdevelopment in Africa.

For us, as South Africans, the ceremony to launch the SADC Brigade had a special significance. We were very happy and proud to see members of our National Defence Force and our Police Service parade together with their comrades from the rest of our region. We felt immensely proud when Colonel Botman, of the SANDF, was called upon to assume the position of the bearer of the flag of the Brigade on the very day that the SADC Brigade was born.

Armed and peaceful

In earlier years, the apartheid armed forces, organised in the SADF, had brought death and destruction throughout our region. They had acted as an instrument of destabilisation, destruction, subversion and regime change in the service of the apartheid regime. Their presence, operations and incursions into virtually all the SADC countries had brought death, suffering and misery to thousands of people throughout our region.

Undoubtedly, among the officers from the rest of our region present on the parade ground at Lusaka City Airport, were nationals of various countries who had had to take up arms to defend the independence of their countries, which was under armed attack by forces of aggression that falsely claimed to represent our interests as South Africans.

At the same time, there were officers from the rest of our region who had worked with the commanders and cadres of Umkhonto we Sizwe, and the rest of our movement, out of the public eye even in their own countries, to contribute to the intensification of the struggle to defeat the apartheid crime against humanity. They did this knowing that inevitably, the apartheid regime, with a benign nod from the major Western capitals, would carry out terrorist acts in their countries, targeting both unarmed members and supporters of our movement, and the civilians of our host countries.

Recalling all these painful circumstances, during which the apartheid regime supported the LLA in Lesotho, Super-ZAPU in Zimbabwe, RENAMO in Moçambique, and UNITA in Angola, and various political formations, we could not but be moved to tears by the concrete representation of the fact that democratic South Africa has dedicated all our military capabilities to the cause of peace, friendship, solidarity and development in our region and Continent.

We were moved that men and women of the military, police and associated civilian forces from our region, and their political leaders, openly and unreservedly expressed confidence in our security forces as reliable partners in the common struggle to consolidate our region as an African perimeter of peace, democracy and development.

As President Levy Mwanawasa of Zambia said at the opening session of the SADC Summit Meeting, it was indeed an important matter of note that SADC was meeting in Lusaka for the first time since its formation in the same city in 1980 as the SADCC. As was correctly observed, this was only possible because since 1980, following the independence of Zimbabwe, both Namibia and South Africa had been liberated, ending the long period of colonialism and white minority rule on our Continent.

Regional solidarity

This statement was significant not only as a celebration of victory, but also as a signal of what Southern Africa must do to accelerate its advance towards the eradication of poverty and underdevelopment throughout our region, in the interest of the masses of the people of our region, who had carried the burden of the struggle finally to end colonialism and apartheid in Africa and the world.

Accordingly and correctly, the Lusaka Summit Meeting focused on the urgent task to transform the economies of our region, to ensure that as an integrated whole, they meet the aspirations of the masses of the people of Southern Africa.

In this regard, the Lusaka Summit Meeting was exposed to what can be done. President Bingu wa Mutharika announced that Malawi would donate 5 000 metric tons of maize each to Lesotho and Swaziland, in the light of their food shortages, caused by drought.
President Mwanawasa also announced that Zambia had donated 10 000 metric tons of maize to the World Food Programme (WFP) to be made available to any SADC country in need.

The Zimbabwe economy

The Summit Meeting also approved the urgent initiation of a process that would identify the measures that the SADC region should take to assist in the economic recovery of Zimbabwe. The report prepared by the SADC Secretariat in this regard
says:

"The restoration of the country's foreign exchange generating capacity through Balance of Payments support is crucial: however, the most urgent action that is needed to start this process is to establish lines of credit to enable Zimbabwe to import inputs for its productive sectors, particularly for agriculture and foreign currency generating sectors.

"SADC should do all it can to help Zimbabwe address the issue of sanctions, which is not only hurting the economy through failure to get BoP support and lines of credit, but also through reduced markets for its products. Sanctions also damage the image of Zimbabwe, causing a severe blow to her tourist sector.

"Zimbabwe on her part must continue to implement robust policies to reduce the overvaluation of the exchange rate, to reduce the budget deficit and to control the growth of domestic credit and money supply which fuel inflation, and to reduce price distortions in the economy. Equally important is the need to avoid frequent changes in policy initiatives, which have caused uncertainties and led to the view that the policy environment is unpredictable."

In this regard, on Monday, August 20, the Business Day newspaper published a wholly fabricated story alleging that the SADC leaders were divided over this report, describing a discussion at the Summit Meeting that never took place. This is consistent with an unethical practice in sections of our media in terms of which they manufacture news and information and communicate complete fiction as the truth.

The newspaper manufactured an unbridgeable "rift" resulting in a non-existent paralysis among the leaders, arising out of the discussion that never took place. The fact of the matter is that, acting on the recommendation of the SADC Organ on Politics, Defence and Security, (the Organ), the SADC Summit Meeting accepted the report on the Zimbabwe economy, as well as the proposal of the Organ that our Finance Ministers, in consultation with the Government of Zimbabwe, should use the report to elaborate specific interventions that could be made by our region.

The hostile allegation that our countries have recklessly turned their eyes away from the problems of Zimbabwe, because of the imperatives of solidarity, has always been nothing more than a product of propaganda, which all thinking persons would recognise as such. The reality is that in a very real sense the problems of Zimbabwe are our problems, in the same way that the problems of the rest of Southern Africa are problems for Zimbabwe as well. Our entire region stands to benefit most directly from the recovery of Zimbabwe, in much the same way as Zimbabwe benefits from the progress of the region of Southern Africa, of which it is an integral and inalienable part.

The Lusaka Summit Meeting reconfirmed these fundamental positions, which include unqualified respect for the sovereignty of Zimbabwe and the right of its people to determine their destiny. At no point will SADC and its member states act as a super-power that has the right to expropriate the people of Zimbabwe of their right to self-determination, as imperial Britain did.

African unity & regional economic integration

The Lusaka Summit Meeting agreed that the 2008 normal SADC Summit Meeting, which will be held in our country, will launch our regional Free Trade Area. This Summit Meeting will also discuss the decision to transform the SADC region into a Customs Union by 2010. Before then, detailed work will also be done to prepare the basis for the radical improvement of all elements of the regional infrastructure. All this indicates the serious commitment of SADC rapidly to advance the critically important objective of mutually beneficial regional integration.

As we have reported before, the July 2007 AU Summit Meeting decided that the African Regional Economic Communities must serve as the driving force towards the political and economic unity of Africa. This important decision adds an important dimension to the historic obligation SADC has, seriously to attend to the issue of our region's integration, and its cooperation with other regions of our Continent.

This is particularly important in the light of the fact that our region conveyed a united view at the Accra AU Summit Meeting, insisting that the only rational and possible way to proceed towards the realisation of the objective of a United States of Africa is "from the bottom up", with the RECs, such as SADC, serving as the critical building blocks of the architecture out of which will be realised the age-old continental dream of African unity.

The 27th Ordinary Summit Meeting of SADC confirmed the determination of our region to respond to this challenge. The launch of the SADC Brigade, the first component of the African Union Standby Force, represented a practical demonstration of the commitment of the peoples of Southern Africa to help give meaning to the resolve of the peoples of Africa to take their destiny into their hands. This is confirmed by the fact that the entirety of the AU/UN "hybrid force" for Darfur, which will include SANDF and SAPS personnel, will be composed of African personnel.

As we knew and said during the difficult years when Lusaka served as the Headquarters of the ANC, Africa will be free!

Thabo Mbeki

Thursday 19 July 2007

MBEKI LINKED TO CHRIS HANI ASSASSINATION???


Presidency to study controversial documentary

CAPE TOWN – The presidency has declined to comment on reports that a documentary on the rise to power of President Thabo Mbeki contains a suggestion he had a hand in the 1993 assassination of SA Communist Party leader Chris Hani.
However, it would ask for a copy of the film so the matter could be studied, presidential spokesman Mukoni Ratshitanga said on Thursday.
The controversial documentary, titled “Unauthorised: Thabo Mbeki”, was screened to an audience of 200 invited guests at the Mail and Guardian’s Critical Thinking Forum in Johannesburg on Wednesday evening.
The screening was followed by a panel discussion in which opinions were divided as to whether or not it was possible to defame a sitting president.
The suggestion in the 24-minute documentary, by a voice-over, that Mbeki had a hand in Hani’s assassination was the reason the SABC had not shown the film on television, the broadcaster’s content enterprise executive Mvuso Mbebe said at the event.
Lawyers had noted there were “serious issues” of defamation, and said the SABC editorial team had expressed reservations about the film and called for it not to be screened, Mbebe said.
Ratshitanga on Thursday told Sapa the presidency could not comment on the issue.
“These are reports based on people who have watched the documentary... Until we ourselves have watched it, we cannot make a comment,” he said.
For the same reason, Ratshitanga also declined to comment on whether it was possible the film defamed the president.
The presidency would “assess” the matter today, and request a copy of the film so it could be studied, he said. – Sapa.

LINK!!!!!!!

Last updated
19/07/2007 18:40:55

Sunday 15 July 2007

"THABO MBEKI S PROVERBIAL 'LONG ROPE'." BY THE REV M S HOVE


THABO MBEKI S PROVERBIAL "LONG ROPE."



Preliminary Remarks:

Im very sure many of you have noticed that I haven't written anything myself for some time.

Of course I have written a lot so far: "IS ROBERT MUGABE THE MASTER-ASSASSIN?", "THE RIGGING OF ZIM ELECTIONS", "WHY ZIMBABWEANS DO NOT REBEL", "THE THOUGHTS AND MEMORIES OF A FORMER ZANU_PF CADRE" ETC.

( PLEASE CLICK ON THE HEADINGS TO GET TO THE POSTINGS!)

So why have I not been writing of late?

The reasons are numerous:

1..... Too many things have been happening of late and Ive been busy creating links from my own blogs to articles of interest relevant to our tragic Zim Situation.

2.....I've written a lot before and I've not been getting any challenges and any person can testify that it is very much depressing to talk for months in a room full of people but without any responses whether of agreement or of contradiction. I'm encouraged, though, by the numbers of visitors that come to my site many of them having been led by other bloggers etc from their various sites.
Then

3..... I didn't think I would really have to write about The Hon Thabo Mbeki hoping that he would quickly move away from his dubious so-called "Quiet Diplomacy" and therefore rendering my intended writings irrelevant or, as they say, "overtaken by events."
Now that the "Quiet Diplomacy" seems to "rage on" more vigorously, I can proceed to put pen down to paper.

WHAT EXACTLY IS THIS "QUIET DIPLOMACY" ALL ABOUT???

I'm sure we are aware that there should be and definitely exists a form of brotherhood within the Revolutionary Movements that have successfully unshackled their peoples from the yoke of racism and settler colonialism.

This brotherhood should be extending not only through the length and breadth of Africa but should extend to the so-called Diaspora where the black man has been getting various "raw deals" eg Jamaica , The United States of America etc.

The liberation movements of the then Rhodesia benefited from the already liberated "zones" like Zambia , Tanzania , Ghana etc. The ZANLA and ZIPRA forces owe a lot to the leaderships of the OAU and the FRONTLINE STATES.

So when Mugabe came into power in Zimbabwe , he immediately joined the FRONTLINE STATES which added their weight to the need for the liberation of South West Africa and South Africa itself.

Without doubt Cde Robert Gabriel Mugabe was not found wanting in this regard!

He would announce how much he was contributing from his own salary towards funds that would assist in the AZANIAN AND NAMIBIAN cause.

It would impossible for me to enumerate how saboteurs from the then racist South Africa did various acts to destabilize the newly independent State of Zimbabwe. So without doubt the South Africans and the Namibians owe a lot to Cde Mugabe and Zimbabwe (among other countries).

BUT LETS TAKE A CORNER NOW:

It did not escape the South Africans that Cde Robert Mugabe was rather autocratic and had a somewhat "rough side" to his style of management.

As usual, one does not concentrate on the faults of his neighbour , more so his senior.

Who didn't know that "The Ngwazi" Dr Kamuzu Banda openly boasted that threw his real or perceived "enemies" into the crocodile infested rivers?

Who didn't know that the late Malawian strongman used to send "hit squads" into Eastern Zambia to kidnap and even assassinate his "opponents."

What did Kaunda say about that?

What did anyone say about "The Ngwazi"?

We don't need to ask about Cde Mugabe because Mugabe always disappointed us by going to Malawi and spending far more days on "State Visits" than he spent even in Mozambique where he had received real physical, spiritual and material refuge to the ZANLA Liberation Fighters.

I will not dwell on the real strange admiration that Cde Mugabe had of the despicably evil so called "NGWAZI."

What I'm trying to highlight is the lack of words to at least condemn a fellow President when he de-humanizes his own peoples.

The ANC and PAC know very well how Dr Joshua Nkomo was tormented and hounded in a new Zimbabwe that he had lived all his life struggling to liberate.

Even now they don't need to read books and publications about the "GUKURAHUNDI MASSACRES" of the early 80s. They were in Bulawayo when it all happened.

Moreso, the Ndebeles who suffered more are really descendants of the Zulus who ran away under Lobengula from another war-monger Tshaka in the 19th Century.

The Xhosas (who are relatives of Cde Nelson Mandela and Cde Thabo Mbeki) are also of a significant number in the area affected by "GUKURAHUNDI".

These Xhosas came as servants of the white man during the period of the PIONEER COLUMN and other later expeditions.

I'm trying to highlight that Zimbabwe , to the South Africans , is not a country that is far removed like, say, Somalia , the DRC, or Ethiopia .

Zimbabwe is really like an extension of South Africa .

So where is the problem?

Does South Africa lack compassion about what's happening just across the river? But surely even the Limpopo crocodiles have been heard saying "Thank God for the Zim crisis and thank God more for President Mbeki's Quiet Diplomacy!"

Does Mbeki not know the magnitude of the problem?

Lets go slowly over this one!

There is no doubt that Mugabe had great joy to see Namibia and subsequently South Africa/Azania getting their Independence .

The very serious problem that emerged was when Cde Nelson Mandela's "glory" overshadowed that of Cde Robert Mugabe. No serious Political Analyst should ever under-estimate this issue.

Mugabe is a very sensitive person who does not forgive any-one who even attempts (obviously through no fault of his) to get a greater standing ovation than his.

THAT IS ROBERT MUGABE'S REAL "FAULT LINE!!!"

Everything else we can describe eg assassinations etc come from that fault-line! Its nothing he can do about it himself especially at this late stage in his life. Only lessons we must learn for the future.

In Zimbabwe itself, no politician can get more attention than him. All who speak must refer to him and say they have been sent to convey whatever "goodies" etc that they will be donating even personally! At major events eg at National Funerals only Cde Mugabe will speak! Mugabe is the BE ALL in ZANU-PF and in ZIMBABWE !

And he stupidly enjoys that situation!

All the intellectuals eg Cde Nathan Shamuyarira have been reduced to making small statements mainly "rubber-stamping" decisions that will have been really made by one man, ROBERT MUGABE!

Remember that Dr Shamuyarira left Government around 1998 saying he would concentrate on writing a book about Robert Mugabe. But he also said he wasn't happy about the welfare of the people as early as at that time. But the trillion dollar question (Zim dollars, of course) is where is the book 9 nine years down the line?

Ladies and Gentlemen we are dealing with a demagogue who has literally "urinated' into the very revolution that we were supposed to be very proud of! Everyone is not of any value except Cde Mugabe himself! He gives value to people and withdraws it when he feels like!

The very people that set him up where he is at the moment and who unwillingly prop him up at that elevated position have no power to remove him! Those that tried died in mysterious car accidents or are alive…YES… but completely "immobilized."

Now Thabo Mbeki knows all this and is one of the most intelligent people in South Africa . Cde Thabo Mbeki sits in front of a Computer and not only "surfs" the Internet but he also writes letters himself personally which are posted to the ANC WEBSITE and I get a copy in my "IN-BOX" every Friday afternoon without fail!

Again, my question is: WHAT WENT WRONG BETWEEN THE ZIM STRONGMAN AND THE SOUTH AFRICAN POLITICIANS?

When the late dictator Laurent Kabila of the DRC requested assistance in the mid-90s, Mugabe asked Cde Nelson Mandela if he could also contribute troops but Cde Nelson Mandela declined. I will not try and analyse why Mandela could not commit himself but knowing Mugabe as we do, that was completely unforgivable.

Mugabe weeps inside and blood oozes from his heart to other internal organs and he gets really depressed when "snubbed."

When the revered Nobel Prize winner the Archbishop Desmond Tutu asked Mugabe to please release those jailed mercenaries, Mugabe treated him as a Primary School Headmaster would treat a very naughty school boy.

During the farm invasions of 2000 onwards, the South African envoy, the High Commissioner himself was nearly killed when the violent war veterans mistook him for some MDC official at a farm to the north of CHINHOYI.

During the 2002 Elections, South African Observer Mission members were severely assaulted when ZANU-PF thugs mistook them for MDC Officials since they were having some meetings with MDC Officials.

LINK!!!!!!

So to tell everyone the truth, there is nothing that CDe Thabo Mbeki doesn't know about the Zim story!

In fact, he himself once languished in Mugabe's jail and may write a book about that after Mugabe's departure from Office or expiry (whichever comes first.)

SO AS CDE WILF MBANGA ONCE ASKED, "WHY MBEKI?????"


Here are my own humble views:

Cde Mbeki just wants Mugabe to have the longest rope possible and let the world watch how the fool will use it!
Cde Mbeki does not want to have any of Mugabe's blood on his hands.

Mugabe must have the luxury and privileged of hanging himself.

But above all, Mbeki is a very seasoned intellectual.

He must know that a nation gets the best out of their situation if they liberate themselves with their own hands!

A baby is healthiest if he gets out the womb on his own!

A little chick will not survive if you break open the egg shell for it!

The little chick must use its own "muscles" to force that shell open!

The Zimbos must liberate themselves!

BUT MORE FRIGHTENING OBSERVATIONS:

MBEKI'S INCLINATIONS TOWARDS THE "MUGABE STYLES!"

Prevent the Zulus from getting into power! (Mugabe style!)

Suppress the Inquiries about the Assassination of Cde Chris Hani! (Mugabe style!)

So fellow Zimbos .....there we are!

WE ARE ALL ON OUR OWN!

MAY THE GOOD LORD ABOVE HAVE MERCY ON OUR SOULS!

(ASK ME....MY REPLY: "THE WORLD MUST ARM OUR YOUTHS TO OUST THAT DERANGED, MISGUIDED DEMAGOGUE! ONLY A BULLET WILL REMOVE THAT UNREFORMED TERRORIST! WE NEVER GOT DEMOCRACY! THERE WAS MORE DEMOCRACY FOR THE BLACK MAN UNDER IAN SMITH ALTHOUGH IT WAS LIMITED AND RESTRICTED!)

REV MUFARO STIG HOVE!

Cell: 0791463039 RSA

mufarostig@yahoo.co.uk

Thursday 12 July 2007

SOUTH AFRICA SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF ITS COLLUSION WITH MUGABE!!!

South Africa: For Our Collusion With Mugabe Black SA Should Feel Ashamed


LINK!!!!!
Business Day (Johannesburg)

OPINION
12 July 2007
Posted to the web 12 July 2007

Xolela Mangcu
Johannesburg

"IF WE are incapable of being ashamed of our country, we do not love it. It is a shame that can be valuably mobilised," renowned scholar of nationalism Benedict Anderson said during an address at Wits last year.

I have often locked horns with many white South Africans over their lack of shame about apartheid. This lack of shame has often turned into outright denial of how apartheid gave them a cruel and unfair advantage over black people. I suppose their unspoken logic is that any expression of shame would lead to a pronouncement of guilt, which would in turn to lead to punishment.


But as Anderson puts it, there is something intrinsically redemptive about shame - without extending into guilt and punishment.

In the same way that I have been astonished by this lack of shame in white society, I cannot see how black people cannot be ashamed by our complicity in the Zimbabwean tragedy.

I will leave criticism of "quiet diplomacy" to foreign policy experts. I am talking about something much more basic and simple than such sophisticated concepts. I am simply asking whether we can feel proud about our South African identity and our values given our own collusion in what has happened in Zimbabwe.

Collusion may seem like a strong word. After all, our country did not send troops to put down the people of Zimbabwe. But I would argue that we provided this monstrous dictator with psychological aid and comfort. Our leaders and intellectuals swallowed President Robert Mugabe's lie that Zimbabwe's problems were a creation of the western world. We gave him standing ovations and received him with thunderous applause whenever he came here. We put down his critics as agents of the west or sellouts or coconuts of one type or the other.

We argued for noninterference as articulately as our former oppressors did during those long dark decades of apartheid. We did and said all of these things even as we witnessed the destruction on our television screens. The idea of a country in which the government has to arrest shop-owners for increasing prices to stay in business is truly absurd.

Reasonable people have been asking how it is that a whole society can stand by while their ruler does as he wishes with the whole country. In many ways that is a question for the people of Zimbabwe to answer. The question for South Africans to answer is how could we have given psychological aid and comfort to the agents of this tragedy. Personally, I was sickened by the whole thing, and our participation in it. I always felt we had squandered our moral authority in defence of an irredeemable monster.

I suppose part of the reason I write is to simply record my own reactions to history. And when it comes to Zimbabwe it is a history of which I am utterly ashamed.

In the final analysis my expression of shame about our support for Mugabe also has something to do with our political future. I fear that in our support for Mugabe we demonstrated that we lost the basic value of ubuntu that was supposed to underpin our political democracy. If we can show such callousness towards the people of Zimbabwe, what would stop us from such callousness to our neighbours here at home?

After all, world history is littered with examples of neighbours turning on each other in the name of ethnic and racial nationalism, mainly at the instigation of thugs and gangsters lodged deep within the state. For example, there is still more we need to know more about the genocidal campaigns that Mugabe is said to have unleashed on the people of Matabeleland in the 1980s.

In the final analysis, Mugabe's terror raises lessons for SA about what happens when thugs take over the state, when its citizens become accomplices to the terror, and when politicians and intellectuals become the chief theoreticians of that terror. We have the responsibility to do some soul-searching about our own role in this sordid and tragic affair, if only to prevent it from happening here any time in the future.

Relevant Links

Southern Africa
South Africa
Zimbabwe



Our first instinct may be to deny any such complicity, and say there is nothing we could have done. But did we really have to applaud this murderous dictator? What does that say about us and our own cultural and political values? How did we become cheerleaders in an unseemly celebration of mass murder and gangsterism?

The answer must begin with a sense of shame, but then shame presupposes an articulation of preexisting values. I still look forward to the day when all this racial nationalism is no longer with us, and we can speak openly about the values we hold in common.

Mangcu is executive chairman of the Platform for Public Deliberation, and a visiting scholar at the Public Intellectual Life Project at the University of the Witwatersrand.

SOUTH AFRICA SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF ITS COLLUSION WITH MUGABE!!!

South Africa: For Our Collusion With Mugabe Black SA Should Feel Ashamed


LINK!!!!!
Business Day (Johannesburg)

OPINION
12 July 2007
Posted to the web 12 July 2007

Xolela Mangcu
Johannesburg

"IF WE are incapable of being ashamed of our country, we do not love it. It is a shame that can be valuably mobilised," renowned scholar of nationalism Benedict Anderson said during an address at Wits last year.

I have often locked horns with many white South Africans over their lack of shame about apartheid. This lack of shame has often turned into outright denial of how apartheid gave them a cruel and unfair advantage over black people. I suppose their unspoken logic is that any expression of shame would lead to a pronouncement of guilt, which would in turn to lead to punishment.


But as Anderson puts it, there is something intrinsically redemptive about shame - without extending into guilt and punishment.

In the same way that I have been astonished by this lack of shame in white society, I cannot see how black people cannot be ashamed by our complicity in the Zimbabwean tragedy.

I will leave criticism of "quiet diplomacy" to foreign policy experts. I am talking about something much more basic and simple than such sophisticated concepts. I am simply asking whether we can feel proud about our South African identity and our values given our own collusion in what has happened in Zimbabwe.

Collusion may seem like a strong word. After all, our country did not send troops to put down the people of Zimbabwe. But I would argue that we provided this monstrous dictator with psychological aid and comfort. Our leaders and intellectuals swallowed President Robert Mugabe's lie that Zimbabwe's problems were a creation of the western world. We gave him standing ovations and received him with thunderous applause whenever he came here. We put down his critics as agents of the west or sellouts or coconuts of one type or the other.

We argued for noninterference as articulately as our former oppressors did during those long dark decades of apartheid. We did and said all of these things even as we witnessed the destruction on our television screens. The idea of a country in which the government has to arrest shop-owners for increasing prices to stay in business is truly absurd.

Reasonable people have been asking how it is that a whole society can stand by while their ruler does as he wishes with the whole country. In many ways that is a question for the people of Zimbabwe to answer. The question for South Africans to answer is how could we have given psychological aid and comfort to the agents of this tragedy. Personally, I was sickened by the whole thing, and our participation in it. I always felt we had squandered our moral authority in defence of an irredeemable monster.

I suppose part of the reason I write is to simply record my own reactions to history. And when it comes to Zimbabwe it is a history of which I am utterly ashamed.

In the final analysis my expression of shame about our support for Mugabe also has something to do with our political future. I fear that in our support for Mugabe we demonstrated that we lost the basic value of ubuntu that was supposed to underpin our political democracy. If we can show such callousness towards the people of Zimbabwe, what would stop us from such callousness to our neighbours here at home?

After all, world history is littered with examples of neighbours turning on each other in the name of ethnic and racial nationalism, mainly at the instigation of thugs and gangsters lodged deep within the state. For example, there is still more we need to know more about the genocidal campaigns that Mugabe is said to have unleashed on the people of Matabeleland in the 1980s.

In the final analysis, Mugabe's terror raises lessons for SA about what happens when thugs take over the state, when its citizens become accomplices to the terror, and when politicians and intellectuals become the chief theoreticians of that terror. We have the responsibility to do some soul-searching about our own role in this sordid and tragic affair, if only to prevent it from happening here any time in the future.

Relevant Links

Southern Africa
South Africa
Zimbabwe



Our first instinct may be to deny any such complicity, and say there is nothing we could have done. But did we really have to applaud this murderous dictator? What does that say about us and our own cultural and political values? How did we become cheerleaders in an unseemly celebration of mass murder and gangsterism?

The answer must begin with a sense of shame, but then shame presupposes an articulation of preexisting values. I still look forward to the day when all this racial nationalism is no longer with us, and we can speak openly about the values we hold in common.

Mangcu is executive chairman of the Platform for Public Deliberation, and a visiting scholar at the Public Intellectual Life Project at the University of the Witwatersrand.