Messages From Zimbabwe

History shows that the Zimbabwean president might not have been in his present position without the help of the British government, writes David Moore

Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe claims to have been locked in conflict with all things British for a long time. Celebrating the European Union’s decision to welcome him to the Lisbon summit with African heads of state late last year, he gloated at the “disintegration” of Britain’s “sinister campaign… to isolate us”. At the United Nations general assembly meeting in September, he declared Zimbabwe “won its independence… after a protracted war against British colonial imperialism which denied us human rights and democracy”. Mugabe said that British colonialism was - and is - “the most visible form of (Western) control” over Southern Africa, the negation of “our sovereignties”. He decried the “sense of human rights” of George Bush, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown which “precludes our people’s right to their God-given resources”.

Yet, an investigation of Mugabe’s history with the British “colonialists” shows he was eager to co-operate with them. He embraced their notions of human rights and justice. Archival evidence shows he was close to these “sinister” forces in 1970, writing personal letters and telegrams from Salisbury’s jail to Prime Minister Harold Wilson to support his wife’s stay in England. The British also helped him eliminate a group of radical young guerrilla soldiers threatening his precarious hold on the Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU) later in that decade. In 1967, Mugabe’s wife Sarah, often called Sally, received a scholarship to study secretarial science in London while her husband was imprisoned. The Ariel Foundation was her sponsor. Ariel, founded by Kenneth Kaunda’s one-time adviser Dennis Grennan and funded largely by the tobacco-enriched Ditchley Foundation, was devoted to introducing African nationalists to western politicians and capitalists.

Sally needed special authorisation from the British foreign and commonwealth office (FCO) for her studies. The FCO telegram to Accra (where she, a Ghanaian, was residing while her husband was in jail) authorising her entry permit says Ariel “is well known to us”. In scribbles, it asks: “Would you wish to have this on your files? If not, it can be destroyed.” Sally studied for the next two years, while also working as the director’s personal assistant and a dress-making teacher at the Africa Centre in Covent Garden. However, by the end of 1969 Mervyn Rees, the home secretary, wanted her out. Her marriage to Mugabe did not allow her citizenship in the illegally independent state; thus, the British owed her none of the protection due to the pariah’s residents. The home secretary told her to return to Ghana. Grennan, in whose home Sally lived - “she was like a sister to my children”, he said in an August 2007 interview - mounted a petition campaign for her to stay.

Colin Legum’s articles in The Observer helped too: referring to examples of white Rhodesians living in England with dubious legality, Legum suggested things might have been different if Sally had shared then Rhodesian prime minister Ian Smith’s race. The petition garnered nearly 400 parliamentarians’ signatures. Victory ensued. Legalities notwithstanding, Sally could stay. Perhaps Mugabe’s telegram and letter to Wilson helped too. His and Sally’s entreaties to various “imperialists” indicated their willingness to utilise the empire’s services. Hoping humanitarian persuasion would dissolve legalities, they employed the moral imperative of human rights discourse. On February 23 1970, Sally wrote to Maurice Foley, the Royal African Society director who had been importuned by Ariel Foundation’s executive secretary Anthony Hughes to take up her case. She wanted Foley’s advice on how to “touch the hearts of the decision makers”.

Hughes had said to Foley that Sally’s case was “exceptional” due to “human and political factors”: her trials and tribulations had brought her to a “breakdown”. In any case the British state should take on responsibility for the residents of a rogue state. “Surely,” he wrote, “Britain has a moral duty to alleviate, not worsen, her unhappiness.” In a letter to MP Bernard Braine, Hughes refers to “Robert” as if they were mutual friends. He reminds Braine that “for… personal reasons” the Ariel Foundation thought it “appropriate to bring Mrs Mugabe to Britain in order to help her obtain further skills”. Robert Mugabe’s June 8 1970 telegram, addressed directly to Wilson at 10 Downing Street appeals that “you recognise her status and grant residence permit till my release from political detention”. A three-page letter follows a day later, documenting the case’s history. Mugabe pleads on legal grounds, but ends with “more than that” - that is, the British state’s “moral responsibilities towards… persons in my circumstances (and) their wives …”

He closes with a request: “Sir, that you personally exercise your mind on the case… so that justice is done to my wife and myself”. The postscript follows: “I regret that the consequences of my writing this letter will inevitably be a surcharge on you, Sir…” Mugabe’s and his interlocutors’ language is laden with the human rights discourse so derided in his speeches of today and used with such slipperiness by the West. Mugabe’s words are Victorian and moralistic, pleading yet almost secure in assuming idealistic yet rational and middle-class action. His appeal to justice goes beyond the letter of the law and the strictures of sovereignty. It’s no wonder that his London friends lauded his cool intellect and asceticism (in contrast to Joshua Nkomo spending all their money on women and drink, Grennan said). Six years later, in the aftermath of the assassination of Herbert Chitepo, ZANU’s national chairman, and the leadership vacuum it left, Mugabe’s climb to the top of the party’s hierarchy seemed threatened by a group of young, radical guerrilla soldiers.

The Zimbabwean People’s Army (ZIPA) had taken the liberation struggle back from the hands of those who had engineered a “détente” process intended to create a pliant state to replace Smith’s, and had come close to uniting Zimbabwe’s rival nationalist parties to boot. Archival evidence suggests the British helped Mugabe win this battle against the ZIPA soldiers. ZIPA was resisting going to the Geneva conference organised by Henry Kissinger, the United States secretary of state, behind one leader. They supported a united front. As arrangements were being made for the conference, on September 29 1976, Ted Rowlands, the minister of state for the FCO, telegrammed home from his Gaborone meeting with Nkomo, the leader of Zimbabwe’s “other” liberation movement, that “Mugabe was… controlled by the young men… in Mozambique”.

The British were worried that they were too radical for a conference designed to usher in a Zimbabwe compatible with their hopes for their last colony. It would be essential to convince the “young men” controlling Mugabe - who could, as the British ambassador in Maputo put it, “turn out to be African Palestinians” - to lay down their arms and go to the conference. One way to do this would be to offer their host - President Samora Machel of Mozambique - some assistance if he co-operated. Sure enough, an interest-free loan of £15 million (in two parts) was arranged and Machel told ZIPA’s leaders to go to Geneva. On their return, he agreed with Mugabe’s request to jail them. Mugabe was no longer under their control, and went on to consolidate his leadership of ZANU PF. The rest, as they say, is history - a history for which Mugabe has much to thank the British, who managed to create their own form of “blowback”.

(Source)

Nationwide power outages shut down basic services across Zambia and Zimbabwe for hours on Saturday and Sunday as anger mounted in South Africa over power cuts that have wreaked havoc in the continent’s economic hub. There was no immediate explanation for Saturday night’s blackout, which hit Zambia and neighboring Zimbabwe almost simultaneously in the early evening, and it was unclear whether there was any connection. Power was restored in Zambia about eight hours later, but long-suffering Zimbabweans remained without electricity, water, telephones and traffic signals for much of Sunday. Power and water outages occur daily in Zimbabwe’s crumbling economy but not on a national scale. Zimbabwe state radio, running on generators, reported the outage was caused by a major breakdown but did not elaborate. The state power utility gave no explanation as power returned in some areas Sunday afternoon.

In one apartment district in central Harare, cheering erupted when the electricity came back on, replaced by jeering and catcalling when it went off again a few minutes later. The outage shut down automated teller machines and checkout tills at stores and pharmacies, forcing some to close their doors an hour after opening Sunday. Check and local credit card transactions could not be processed. Harassed officials in Harare said a fault “tripped” the national power grid, plunging the entire country into darkness Saturday night. Unofficial reports in Zambia - which relies on hydroelectricity - said there appeared to be turbine problems at one of the country’s dams. Both countries have been hit by exceptionally heavy seasonal rains, which is affecting equipment.

Power and water outages have worsened in Zimbabwe dramatically in recent weeks. The Zimbabwe Electricity Supply Authority said earlier this month it had no hard currency for imported spare parts to repair equipment dating back up to 40 years. Zimbabwe imports about 40% of its power from regional neighbors and is in arrears in hard currency for most of the imports. It is suffering chronic shortages of hard currency, local money, food, gasoline and most basic goods. One of its main suppliers, South Africa, is having its own acute problems with large parts of the country suffering blackouts often lasting several hours. State utility company Eskom says demand is simply too high for it to keep up with, but there is mounting fury that the power cuts are unpredictable and are causing unnecessary economic losses and personal misery.

Outraged commuters set fire to six trains near the capital Pretoria on Friday evening after being delayed for two hours due to power outages. South Africa’s opposition Democratic Alliance said on Sunday that Eskom should cancel supply contracts with its neighbors while its domestic market was in such turmoil. “Regardless of our contractual obligations, there can simply be no reason for South Africa to supply Namibia, Zimbabwe and Mozambique when there is such a desperate lack of reserve capacity in our domestic market,” it said. Veteran Zimbabwean journalist Peta Thornycroft, who is now based in South Africa, expressed surprise that South Africans should be so upset about “only six power cuts in the last five or six days, and none longer than five hours,” - compared with the eight years of disruption in Zimbabwe. She had words of advice in the Sunday Argus newspaper for suffering South Africans, such as installing solar panels on the roof connected to a large car battery; buying paraffin fridges; and switching to gas. “Want to know how to cope in this time of gloom?” she said. “Ask a Zimbabwean.”

(Source)

Addendum: This evening I was in communication with a friend in Zimbabwe, and I can report that once again, the whole of Zimbabwe is without power.

RE

The SADC initiative to resolve the crisis in Zimbabwe has ended with President Robert Mugabe rejecting all suggestions made by President Thabo Mbeki to break the deadlock. “As we stand, the negotiations have ended in failure, the initiative is over,” said a well-placed source in the diplomatic community in Harare. Mbeki flew to Harare yesterday and spent nearly five hours with Mugabe, but the Zimbabwean leader would not accept any of the three deadlock-breaking mechanisms brought to the table. The talks broke down last month after Mugabe refused to allow the new constitution that had been negotiated and which ruling ZANU PF party and opposition MDC negotiators had agreed should be in place before the national elections due in March. Mugabe also would not consider delaying the polls. Among the proposals Mbeki put to Mugabe was that a referendum be held on the new constitution. Mugabe claimed there was no time for a referendum. According to insiders, Mbeki did not try to wrench further concessions from the MDC when he met its negotiators at the SA High Commission after being rejected by Mugabe.

“He is well-informed, he has understood all the issues well, so there was nothing more he could expect the MDC to do. It’s all over,” the source said. The MDC now has to decide whether to boycott the elections or contest them on what inevitably will be an uneven playing field. Also, it has to mull over a proposal by a faction in the ruling ZANU PF led by retired army commander Solomon Mujuru that wants the MDC to boycott the polls so the faction can put up its own candidates. “These people want the MDC to fight their battles for them,” the diplomatic source said. “They never had the (courage) to take on Mugabe before, now they want the MDC to… do the dirty work so they can hold onto their positions in ZANU PF.” The MDC’s two factions were reunited in their reaction to Mugabe’s intransigence. An MDC member on the fringes of the negotiations said: “Mbeki is very sharp on this. He was very creative. He really thought about it before he went in and he really tried. But once again, he has found personal assurances from Mugabe are not enough. Mugabe will double-cross all the way.”

(Source)

In Harare yesterday I saw long lines outside a number of CABS branches (I don’t have an account with them thank goodness) and in all cases I saw that the army, police etc. were lined up separately. I presume this is because they are entitled to preferential service.

I believe this is in violation of International Law as enshrined in The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international instruments.

“Decisions on the conditions for promotion, the availability of products or the allocation of supplier contracts should be taken without discrimination or regard to arbitrary preferences.”

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights calls on every individual and every organ of society to play its part in securing the observance of the rights set forth in the Declaration. Hence an organization has a responsibility to safeguard human rights in its operations, as well as in its wider sphere of influence. Furthermore, under international law, there are some fundamental provisions that all are bound to observe. Breaches of these fundamental human rights entail liability under international law.

If CABS are made aware of the potential moral, criminal or other legal liability under International Law an organization may be regarded as complicit in these abuses if it in some way authorizes, tolerates or knowingly ignores the abuses committed by a connected organization (such as CABS). In some cases, complicity may give rise to criminal or other legal liability. While the participation of the organization may not directly cause abuse, complicity may consist of providing practical assistance or encouragement to actions that increase their extent. In other words, as I understand this, any individual or organization dealing with CABS knowing they are committing these abuses will be tainted with the crime.

(Source: via email)

In Robert Mugabe’s Zimbabwe, everyone is a millionaire. You have to be: a loaf of bread costs a million Zimbabwe dollars, a newspaper costs two million, and a decent joint of beef costs a hundred million. The only problem is that the average wage is 20 million dollars a month. They’re called Mugabe dollars and it isn’t a term of affection. Everyone queues here: in the supermarkets, at the petrol stations and in the banks, in order to draw out the money to buy anything. Inflation is so high that items which cost a mere 20 million dollars yesterday are likely to cost double that by tomorrow. For some reason, the government refuses to print million-dollar notes; perhaps it thinks it would look bad. The highest note is for 750,000 dollars, and doing the maths is horrendous.

It’s extraordinarily difficult to find anyone here who supports President Mugabe. He is loathed in the Harare slums. In Mbare, where two years ago his thugs bulldozed the shanties housing thousands of opposition supporters, small children shouted anti-Mugabe slogans as we drove past. Shopkeepers, domestic workers, hospital staff, AIDS patients, people selling handicrafts in the street - they all hate him. A very senior ZANU PF figure, a man who sees himself as a king-maker, met me clandestinely in Harare. He hated Mugabe more than any of the others. I am in Zimbabwe undercover, together with two colleagues. The BBC is banned, so it felt particularly good to broadcast live from here for last night’s Ten O’Clock News. It’s the first time any British television news organisation has broadcast from Zimbabwe since Mugabe refused to let foreign journalists come here.

The biggest problem is that BBC World, our international television news channel, has a big following here, especially among the political elite. There’s a real danger of being recognised and arrested. Back in London a make-up artist fitted me out with a beard, to make me look like an Afrikaans farmer. But it had a habit of coming loose in the heat and, if we were caught, it seemed unwise to wear a disguise. So I’ve just worn a baseball cap to cover my untidy white hair. I look pretty awful, but not as bad as I looked in the beard. The disguise has worked pretty well. We have been in Harare for a week, and have spent a lot of time driving and walking round the city, the suburbs and the slums. Recording what is known in the trade as a “piece to camera”, walking down a main street in Harare apparently talking to myself, was the tensest moment. I had to do it a couple of times, regardless of the onlookers and the police stooges.

So far I have been recognised three times. Once was in an expensive restaurant, where we were filming how the Mugabe elite live. Our own meal came to 290 million dollars; I left a 10 million dollar tip (about £2.50). Once was by a senior opposition figure whom I wanted to interview anyway, since he had recently been tortured by Mugabe’s secret police. And once was in a shop where I wanted to find a pair of Zimbabwe’s famous Courtenay boots. Yet unpleasant though Mugabe’s Zimbabwe is politically, it isn’t Idi Amin’s Uganda. There is still a certain degree of personal freedom here. People can be tortured for their political beliefs but it’s rare for anyone to be killed. The murders of white farmers eight years ago have not been repeated. But there are spies everywhere. One attached himself to the BBC’s cameraman Nigel Bateson as he finished some clandestine filming in an empty supermarket.

“I would so much like to be your friend,” the stooge said. “Won’t you give me your name and phone number?” “I couldn’t do a thing like that,” Nigel replied, “I hardly know you.” And because Mugabe is so unpopular, it has been easy for us to find people to shelter us and help us. For them, I suspect, it’s a quiet act of resistance. The BBC has called me on three different occasions to warn me of rumours that we were in Harare. Each time the three of us discussed the possibility that we might be caught and sent to a Zimbabwean prison. Each time we agreed to stay on and finish the job. That job is almost finished now. We have established that there is a major split within the ruling ZANU PF party, and that a former finance minister, Simba Makoni, is being put forward by a powerful grouping as a candidate to challenge Mr Mugabe for the presidency. The high-level ZANU PF figure who briefed us in secret was certain that 2008 was likely to be the year Mugabe’s hold on power was either weakened or ended.

But he won’t be brought down by a popular revolution. A combination of a new and tougher approach by South Africa, the worsening economy, and a palace coup may do the job. But Mugabe is clever and resourceful. Even now, it is too soon to write his political obituary. As for us, we will be crossing the Zimbabwean border about the time this article appears. After so many years of being banned, it’s been a real pleasure, if slightly nerve-racking, to spend a week here again. This is a magnificent country. It just deserves to be governed better.

(Source)

Political plotters in Harare and Johannesburg are injecting some excitement into the run-up to this year’s elections in Zimbabwe with talk about a ‘United Front’ against President Mugabe and the ruling Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front. It has been launched by ZANU PF stalwart-turned-dissident General Solomon Mujuru, with support from other ZANU PF figures, such as the well regarded Simba Makoni and publisher Ibbo Mandaza. The idea is to team up with a broad alliance of opponents to the Mugabe clique that is running ZANU PF. It is unclear where this will leave the opposition Movement for Democratic Change, currently split between Morgan Tsvangirai and Arthur Mutambara. According to its organisers, the United Front would run its own presidential candidate against Mugabe as well as its own parliamentary candidates against ZANU PF. South Africa-based Zimbabweans, such as publisher Trevor Ncube and telecoms magnate Strive Masiyiwa, are joining forces to give support from outside. Mugabe’s Spokesman George Charamba mocked the United Front plan in his column in the state-owned Harare daily The Herald. Yet if the United Front comes to fruition, it will be a more serious threat to ZANU PF rule than the launching of the MDC in 2000, because of ZANU-PF dissidents such as Mujuru and Makoni.

Big problems will bedevil the United Front from the outset: will it have the discipline to agree on a common and credible presidential candidate against Mugabe and will it have the strength to withstand the likely onslaught from the pro-Mugabe wing of ZANU PF? The critical issue is whether it can win over enough support from within ZANU PF to damage its electoral preparations.

Part of the strength of ZANU PF is its elaborate political cell structure and the control of the party and state apparatus over political activities. Both Mujuru and his long-time rival in ZANU-PF, Emmerson Mnangagwa, command groups of loyalists in the military and intelligence organisations. Breaking the party’s mould will be a trial of strength between the two men.

Mugabe’s election as ZANU-PF flag bearer at the party congress last month in the teeth of backroom opposition from Mujuru has reinstated the President’s close ties with former Security Minister Mnangagwa who, as Mugabe’s anointed successor, is once again being called ‘Son of God’. Insiders expect Mugabe to turn up the heat on Mujuru (some of whose close allies have been arrested on corruption charges), Makoni and Mandaza - even though Makoni is yet to state public support for the United Front.

The Front’s chances will also depend on the timing of the elections. Mugabe is keen to hold them in March: that will give his opponents little time to organise a campaign or to agree substantial political reform in the South African-mediated negotiations between the government and its opponents.

Whatever opposition it faces, ZANU-PF is reshuffling some of its key officials. This will affect its top brass in Matebeleland: John Nkomo, Dumiso Dabengwa, Sithembiso Nyoni and Sikhanyiso Ndlovu. So far, the MDC has been more prone to splits. After a round of arguments last year, its factions have agreed to field a single presidential candidate, Tsvangirai.

The economy gets, if possible, worse. Central Bank Governor Gideon Gono, having failed dismally, will probably get another four-year term. The shops are empty, the Treasury is out of control and the Bank has printed 67 trillion Zimbabwe dollars’ worth of banknotes, of which Z$65 trillion has gone missing. Gono’s (unachieved) inflation target is a ruinous 2,000%. At least it rained a lot over the New Year holiday, so the currency crisis, which meant a disastrous start to the year, may be followed by a comforting harvest.

(via email)

The MDC this weekend kicks off the New Zimbabwe Campaign rallies in Harare as a platform to rev the party’s engine and to demand free and fair elections ahead of the watershed national elections.

On Saturday, the party’s leadership will address rallies at Stodart Grounds in Mbare at 10am before proceeding to Chemhanza stadium in Dzivarasekwa in the afternoon, where the New Zimbabwe team led by President Morgan Tsvangirai will articulate the trajectory to a new Zimbabwe.

On Sunday, the New Zimbabwe Campaign team addresses a rally in the morning at Mapostori open area in Glen View. Another star rally is slated for Huruyadzo shopping centre in St Mary’s in Chitungwiza the same afternoon.

The New Zimbabwe Campaign is a national outreach programme that will be held throughout the country with special emphasis on rural areas. 300 rallies have been slated for the rural areas up to the end of January. Special attention is being paid to the rural areas to spread the message of change in a new Zimbabwe.

The message for the New Zimbabwe Campaign has four components, namely the campaign for free and fair elections, the People’s Campaign to end suffering, the united front and an international campaign for free and fair polls.

Through the MDC, the people of Zimbabwe are demanding that the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission be reconstituted to undertake a transparent and all-inclusive voter registration and delimitation exercise. The MDC wants a new constitution before the next election and the date of the election that allows implementation of comprehensive reforms and tangible deliverables. The people want international observation and monitoring of the elections at least three months before the poll. The people want equal access to the media as well as all Zimbabweans in the Diaspora to exercise their right to vote. In the event that a new, credible voters roll cannot be put in place ahead of the poll, the MDC wants every eligible Zimbabwean to be allowed to cast their vote upon producing their national identity card as happened in the 1980 elections.

The MDC is demanding free and fair elections that represent the legitimate will of the people of Zimbabwe on who should govern them. Another contested electoral outcome is not acceptable for the country and the rallies are the national expression for the people’s demand for a free and fair poll.

A people’s campaign to end suffering, which will also be part of the New Zimbabwe campaign, will provide people with the platform to articulate their endemic problems in accessing cash, transport, food, fuel, power, jobs, affordable health care and education. More importantly, this is a campaign to reclaim our dignity and glory as a people.

The New Zimbabwe campaign entails the people’s demand for a united front of political parties, civic groups, churches, students and workers to coalesce into a formidable movement to be midwives to a new Zimbabwe and a new beginning. The party is working hard to achieve the unity of all democratic forces in 2008. At the National Council meeting of 16 December 2007, the party resolved to put the people’s aspirations ahead of any artificial cleavages that may derail the democratic train.

The New Zimbabwe Campaign will also take an international dimension. There will be an International Campaign where every Zimbabwean based outside country will take part in the demand for free and fair polls. In this campaign, the party appeals to every Zimbabwean, wherever they are in the Diaspora, in whatever they do, to find their own little way of contributing to the sculpturing of a new Zimbabwe by demanding a free and fair election.

Zimbabweans are fighting for change. We want a new Zimbabwe which guarantees a secure future for ourselves and our families. We want freedom and economic prosperity. We want a government that can be a source of hope and economic and social progress. We want to restore our pride as a people.

2008 is the people’s year for change, for jobs, for food and for the restoration of our dignity. Collectively, the people can stop their suffering. A New Zimbabwe, a new beginning. This is our year!!

(via email)

Howzit

I have tried for two days to do this posting, and try as I might, I cannot get the html code for these articles to behave! Very frustrating.

So rather than post the articles, I will post the links instead.

Very interesting reading - and proof, at least, to me, that there are people living in various places around the world that the story of the Zimbabweans crisis is slowly, ever so slowly, getting through.

Andre Carrel - The Zimbabwe Experience - Part One

Andre Carrel - The Zimbabwe Experience - Part Two

Andre Carrel - The Zimbabwe Experience - Part Three

Andre Carrel - The Zimbabwe Experience - Part Four

Andre Carrel - The Zimbabwe Experience - Conclusion

Take care.

‘debvhu

On Christmas Eve, 24th December, 2007, Charles Sigauke and his father (now working in SA but home for the Christmas period) were brutally attacked and beaten in Chimanimani, by one Brighton (Mashopeka) Muchuwa, well known side kick of the murderer Joseph Mwale of the CIO. Both Charles and his father were hospitalized in Chimanimani, but Charles died on Christmas day. The post mortem report confirms he died from internal bleeding. He was buried at Birchenough Bridge on 1st January, 2008.

Muchuwa was arrested and detained in Mutare but has since been released. He has apparently paid for the funeral of the deceased.

We can only hope that Muchuwa does not get away with this murder like his colleague Joseph Mwale.

Once again we reiterate that paying for the funerals of MDC members beaten to death does not exonerate the perpetrator.

When our songs will be forgotten,

The peace dream will be dead,

The flame lily will wither,

Our memories have fled.

When the last of our ashes

Is lost in wind and rain,

Yet somewhere in the scatter

Our blood lines will remain.

When the last of us has given

All we had to give,

Within the nations of the earth

Our heritage will live.

Sinclair Ellis (December 2007)