http://dkaiyo.tigblog.org/ What's on the minds of young leaders from around the globe? en-us http://dkaiyo.tigblog.org/post/565381

WAY FORWARD: Arthur Mutambara

•In this article, MDC leader Arthur Mutambara looks at the difficulties in implementing the September 15 GPA, the unhelpfulness of western interventions in Zimbabwe's domestic politics while interrogating existing strategies for achieving democracy in Zimbabwe:


THE year 2008 was a very difficult one for us as a nation. Since the inconclusive harmonised elections held on March 29, there has been a political impasse in our land. The country has been without a legitimate government. Our economy has virtually collapsed, while disease and starvation are ravaging our people. Hopelessness and despair characterise and define the national psyche. There has been complete leadership failure across the board, within Zimbabwe, in the region and in the international community.
As we start a new year, let us reflect on some of the major debates that are shaping our politics as we exit 2008. Of particular interest in this treatise are the uncomfortable realities and challenges that sometimes we shy away from confronting. In particular we seek to slay that elephant in the national living room: How ignorant and unstrategic external involvement in the Zimbabwean discourse does more harm than good.

We seek to argue that in the year 2008, brazen and crass Western shenanigans have actually undermined the opposition and strengthened Robert Mugabe. More importantly, it is our submission that the uninformed and reckless foreign policy positions of Western governments, in particular the US and the UK, have negatively impacted our national interest. Zimbabweans have to clearly understand this for our collective fortunes to be different in the year 2009.

The ‘Mugabe Must Go’ Chorus

As we exited 2008, in the month of December, there was a crescendo of demands for the departure of Mugabe from the political stage. There is nothing new and creative in this Mugabe must go mantra. The trouble is that many people and institutions on this track suffer from the disease of the heart being in the right place, while the mind is not being applied. One needs both a good heart and a good mind.

Some of us have been singing the Mugabe must go mantra for the past 21 years, to no avail. Incidentally, Western governments disagreed with us in 1988 when we turned against the Zanu PF regime. Now they patronise us, as if they understand why Mugabe must go, better than us, his Zimbabwean victims.

We have been fighting Mugabe for two decades, where have you been America and Europe? Why did you support Mugabe in the late 1980’s when we were opposing him? Why did you actively back him during Gukurahundi? We never heard you say ‘Mugabe must go’ during that period. Instead you gave him prestigious awards on both sides of the Atlantic.

We can understand it if your defence is that you are slow learners and late bloomers where our matters are concerned. We can accept that. But it then also means you must take your cue from us who understand the Zimbabwean terrain better. You must accept that you are essentially ignorant, unstrategic, and hence ineffective where African matters are concerned. While you seek to assist us in our struggles for change, your brazen behaviour effectively undermines us and strengthens our opponents. You must listen to us and not the other way round.

The December 2008 ‘Mugabe must go’ chorus was as pathetic as it was both unimaginative and predictable. It started with Kenyan Prime Minister Raila Odinga, Bishop John Sentamu and Archbishop Desmond Tutu, in that order. As soon as they were done, David Milliband and Condi Rice came in to support the “many” voices of African leaders. Thereafter, it was Gordon Brown, George Bush, Sarkozy, and Merkel. Then every European leader and their grandmother joined in, supporting the “many” voices of African leaders. To crown it all, there was an incompetent dash to the UN Security Council, where everything came crumbling down: what an embarrassing non-event. Why was anyone surprised by this unmitigated failure? Was there ever a method in the madness? What was to be the logical conclusion of the chorus?

First and foremost there was no African leader who had spoken. So whom, were the Western leaders purporting to support? Soon after Odinga spoke, he was contradicted by his own Foreign Minister. This means he was not speaking on behalf of Kenya or President Kibaki. Bishop Sentamu does not speak for any African country. Well, the same for Tutu; he is a good African who speaks for no African nation. For him to be effective he should work on convincing the South African political leadership to adopt his views.

Interesting enough, even the usually reckless and unimaginative Ian Khama was not part of the African voices. So when these American and European leaders went into chorus, who were they supporting? In a continent of 53 countries, the US and UK could not convince a single African President to be part of their elegant chorus.

If the Western leaders were indeed just supporting themselves, why did they lie that they were supporting voices of African leaders? If they care about what African leaders think, why did they not spend enough time convincing the real African leaders of the correctness of Western positions and thereafter, have the African leaders speak first?

Surely if, for example, Presidents Kgalema Motlanthe, Armando Geubuza, José Eduardo dos Santos, Jakaya Kikwete and Mwai Kibaki had taken a particular collective position on Zimbabwe, and Western governments had come in to support them, there would have been some traction.

But no, the Western powers chose to create their own pseudo African leaders, and then force a world chorus. This was sure to fail. Beyond the chorus, there was no real strategy to resolve the crisis in Zimbabwe. There was no specific action that the US and the UK were going to take after the chorus. Would it not have been logical to back the slogans with both procedural plans and proper African buy-in?

It seems the rationale was that Mugabe was just going to fall off the Zimbabwe political stage because of the deafening sound of Western leaders repeating the same meaningless message. How pathetic! Well, shame on them for trivialising the legitimate struggle of our people.

The Avenues through which Mugabe Can Go

There are three ways Mugabe can be removed from the Presidency and leadership of Zimbabwe: (1) use of violence or arms of war (2) peaceful mass uprising or demonstrations (3) free and fair elections.

The use of violence to drive out Mugabe has been suggested in certain quarters. What has not been done is an interrogation of what form this will take, its meaning, consequences and the aftermath. One way a violent overthrow can be envisaged is to have American and British troops invade Zimbabwe as they did in Iraq. Of course they can get rid of Mugabe that way.

However, Western forces will have to bleed on Zimbabwean soil in the process. It will not be a walk in the park. After the US misadventure in Somalia, where American marines were slaughtered in the streets of Mogadishu, the debate in the US Senate was very instructive. The key sentiment was quite unequivocal, “That entire country of Somalia is not worth a single American life. We should never allow American lives to be lost in defence of these worthless African countries.”

That was the attitude then. Has anything changed? Jendayi Frazer, Condi Rice and George Bush, are you now ready to bleed in pursuit of African freedom and prosperity? If you are not prepared to have US marines killed in Zimbabwe, please just shut up on the issue of military intervention to remove Mugabe.

Let us assume for a minute that these Western leaders are serious players and not just careless talkers. They can then actually bring their troops into Zimbabwe and get the job done. After Mugabe is gone the Saddam way, what happens next? What has US military intervention produced in Iraq and Afghanistan? Do we have democratic outcomes in these countries? Are they peaceful, democratic and prosperous nations? Why would the Zimbabwean outcome be any different? If not, then why should this even be considered as an option?

In terms of foreign armies invading Zimbabwe, it is only Western nations that are worth analysing as we have attempted above. Only two African countries, Botswana and Kenya, have expressed an appetite for physical confrontation with Zimbabwe. We will not even dignify Botswana’s posturing with too much discussion. They have no army but an incompetent police force which has no capacity to invade a desert much less a country with Zimbabwe’s military experience. Raila Odinga does not speak for the Kenyan government, so the analysis ends there. If only he could start by convincing his own government, we will have more to say about the efficacy of his utterances.

The other version of violence that can certainly topple Mugabe is an armed struggle waged by Zimbabweans themselves in the same way that ZANLA and ZIPRA executed war against Ian Smith. How feasible and practical is this proposition at this point in time and within the geopolitical context of the SADC region? Is it even a desirable alternative for the people of Zimbabwe? We believe there are no affirmative responses to either of these questions.

The second possible method by which Mugabe can be deposed is through peaceful mass uprisings or demonstrations. Do we have the capacity as Zimbabweans to execute these? What do the gallant efforts of the NCA and WOZA teach us. How many of us join their brave marches? How many Zimbabweans joined the soldiers when they went on the rampage on the streets of Harare?

It is clear that the appetite for an ‘Orange Revolution’ in Zimbabwe has still to be developed, before a mass uprising becomes a realistic platform to drive Mugabe out. Our politicians within the opposition movement also have to be ready to assume the sacrifices that this option entails. Where political leaders go into hiding at the slightest threat of persecution, we fail to see how this option can be brought to fruition.

This leaves us with the third and only avenue for the departure of Mugabe, that is, through free and fair elections. The question then becomes how do we achieve a free and fair election in Zimbabwe? Certainly not through demanding harmonised elections today which will be conducted under June 27 conditions. Needless to say, in such a plebiscite, Mugabe will capture the Presidency and the current combined opposition majority in Parliament will be completely reversed.

Let us be strategic. Our people and country are not election ready at the moment. We need to go through a transitional period in which we resolve the humanitarian crisis afflicting our people, carry out national healing, begin economic recovery, and more importantly adopt a new people-driven democratic constitution. This is the bridge that Zimbabwe needs in its march to democracy. After that, we can then carry out free and fair elections. If Mugabe participates in those elections, he will be defeated. This is the only practical way that will lead to Mugabe’s departure.

The Global Political Agreement of September 15, 2008, seeks to facilitate such a possibility. Folks, this is as good as it gets. Unfortunately, Mugabe will have to be part of the transition, as we explain in the next section. Brown and Bush must get over their foolish, uninformed and unstrategic obsession with Mugabe going today. If they cannot explicitly articulate how they are going to remove him, they should please just back off, and allow our country to move on. We have to save Zimbabwean lives that are being lost needlessly.

Why Mugabe Cannot Go Away Through Talks

The election results from March 29, 2008, produced no outright winner both in Parliament and at the Presidency. The June 27 re-run was an illegitimate farce, so we are stuck with the March inconclusive outcome. As democrats, we must accept that this means that Mugabe and his party are as much a factor as Tsvangirai and his party are.

Short of a new set of elections or change of leadership by their parties, it means neither Tsvangirai nor Mugabe can be negotiated away. On what basis can we have a negotiated agreement that excludes Robert Mugabe? If we accept the March results as legitimate, he is a leader of a party which has 99 MPs vs. 100 for MDC-T, 30 Senators vs. 24 for MDC-T. He came second to Tsvangirai, 43.2% vs. 47.8%. More importantly Mugabe currently possesses the Presidency of Zimbabwe, yes illegitimately. Well, at law they say that possession is 90% of ownership.

The fact that Mugabe has this power of incumbency is the reason why Arthur Mutambara is still on trial in the Supreme Court, Tendai Biti has treason charges around his neck, activists are being abducted, and Morgan Tsvangirai, the Prime Minister-designate, had a torrid time getting a passport. This means Mugabe is in charge of the Zimbabwean State. Given this reality on the ground, and the electoral outcome of March 29, 2008, (which because of our lack of strategic thinking we have all sanitised as a legitimate outcome), it is foolishness to think that you can negotiate Mugabe out of power, and somehow miraculously achieve a power sharing arrangement that excludes him.

In terms of democratic practice it will be unjust, and in terms of real politick it will be impossible. Oh yes, on the basis of the March 29 results, Mugabe should be part of any power sharing transitional authority in Zimbabwe, since he is President of a Party well represented in both legislative houses, and he came second in the inconclusive Presidential race. We might not like these democratic circumstances, but we have to live with that reality.

Politics is an art of the possible, as Bismarck once famously said. In the current Zimbabwean political landscape, the possibilities belong to both Robert Mugabe and Morgan Tsvangirai. They need each other. We can debate the specific role that Mugabe should play. For now that debate was settled by Mugabe, Tsvangirai and Mutambara when they signed the Global Political Agreement (GPA). Mugabe is President-designate and Morgan Tsvangirai is Prime Minister-designate. But, are we saying that GPA is the only show in town? No, absolutely not.
Alternative Frameworks to the GPA

A lot of debates and thinking has gone into crafting alternatives to the agreement of September 15, 2008. Unfortunately, it has been a comedy of errors and unsophisticated hallucinations. Even well respected international bodies like the International Crisis Group (ICG) have been found miserably wanting. Renowned conflict resolution experts, civic society leaders and Western pundits have shown astonishing lack of creativity and imagination.

The starting point in establishing an alternative path for Zimbabwe consists of grasping a clear understanding of why we are having challenges in implementing the current GPA. The new formulation must then robustly illustrate how it will avoid these current challenges. Beyond this, the efficacy, process details, timelines and milestones of any new strategy must then be clearly articulated. None of the critics of the current GPA has even begun to do any of the above.

Among a number of obstacles to consummation, the major challenge we have faced in executing the Zimbabwean GPA is the inability to achieve sufficient buy-in from the two major protagonists in the political impasse: Zanu PF and MDC-T. They are the critical players in any national transitional discussion, because any agreed arrangement will require legal effect through a constitutional amendment in parliament. Such a change will require a two thirds majority which can only be achieved by the participation of both Zanu PF and MDC-T, as a minimum requirement.

None of the proposals from the ICG, the civic society groups (both national and regional), or the arrogant and ignorant international community has addressed this simple challenge: How are you going to ensure that both MDC-T and Zanu PF will embrace your new grand proposal? If one or both of them do not accept your framework what are you going to do? Please, this is commonsensical. Anyone seeking to resolve the Zimbabwean crisis democratically and within the laws of Zimbabwe must apply their mind to this critical success factor: the show stopper.

The busy bodies at the ICG and in civic society do not even have the capacity to appreciate the existence of the problem, much less the intellect to develop the requisite solution. We are not saying it is impossible to develop an alternative negotiated framework to the September GPA. We are emphasising that it will require good and rigorously working minds to come up with one.

The reasons why we insist on fixing and then implementing the current flawed and imperfect GPA is because at some point the buy-in between the two key protagonist was achieved through the signatures of the MOU on July 21, 2008, and the GPA on September 15, 2008. Yes, there are disagreements now, but there are two agreed reference points. The key players and their teams have been actively negotiating the political impasse from March 29, 2008, and now four months after signing the GPA there are still implementation challenges.

Yes, this is bad and regrettable. However, let us be careful not to throw out the baby with the bath water. If we adopt a completely new process, how and when are we going to convince the two key players to start working towards an MOU? Are you going to get that MOU signed soon, and after that how much time will be required to get to a new GPA of sorts? Furthermore, while we embark on these new processes that require time and resources what will be happening to the suffering people of Zimbabwe, the collapsed economy, and the destroyed industrial base? Given the hardened positions of the two protagonists at the moment, can you even begin to sell the new path to them?

The most bizarre, irritating and clearly ineffective critics of the current GPA are those that premise their proposals by denouncing one of the two key protagonists. Usually it is Mugabe and his Zanu PF who are dismissed. How do you even conceptualise a negotiated outcome without the involvement of the Zanu PF group? We thought it was common cause that you do not make peace with your friends, but with your opponents.

One would expect someone of Jendayi Frazer’s stature to understand all this. How does she say that the US supports the negotiated power sharing, but insists that Mugabe must not be involved? Making these statements while defying the consistent advice that she received from all the South African leaders that she interacted with means that Frazer is insulting the SA leadership at every level. By this disrespectful conduct, she is humiliating both SADC and the AU.

In this situation, with respect to the US-proposed dialogue framework, who will be the principals, negotiators, facilitators and guarantors? South Africa is the only country with leverage on Zimbabwe. To bring any kind of change in Zimbabwe you have to work with SA, and not insult or humiliate them. Anyone serious about the Zimbabwean agenda must grasp this.

Jendayi, I assume that she is supportive of Mr Tsvangirai and she wants him to succeed. Does she actually have any respect for him? He signed the GPA in which Mugabe is designated as the President. Is it that she thinks Mr. Tsvangirai does not know what is good for him and therefore she has to lead him every step of the way?

By the way, it is not true that the US government supported the agreement when it was signed. For the record, both the US and the UK were opposed to the GPA from the beginning. They did not like the fact that Mugabe was both Head of State and Chairman of Cabinet, and they despised the GPA positions on land reform and sanctions. Everyone knows this. We are not children.

The US and the UK are now taking advantage of the delay in implementation of the agreement to savage and destroy the GPA. Do Frazer and her government have a workable alternative framework to the current GPA, together with an enforcement mechanism? And what is this that she said about the weakness and incompetence of her favorite GPA principal? Did she not say the following; “Tsvangirai is too weak and incompetent for us to allow him to be in an inclusive government with Mugabe. He will be completely outmaneuvered. Tsvangirai is not as strong as Odinga. If he was, we would have allowed him to get into the GNU with Mugabe?”

How can she possibly say such insulting remarks about her favorite opposition leader? With friends like these, who needs enemies? Incidentally, did she share her views about Tsvangirai with him? Why not? Anyway, who is she to allow or disallow African leaders? Does the US government have locus standi to do this? From where does she derive such legal, political or moral authority? Would a reverse scenario where international players seek to influence US politics be acceptable to the US?

Jendayi, can’t you see that you are ruining the opposition you seek to assist, and strengthening Mugabe that you seek to destroy? You are foolishly confirming everything that Mugabe has said about the opposition: that we are puppets. Moreover, Mugabe’s strengths are Africa, Pan-Africanism and anti-Imperialism. Any foreign policy that undermines African leaders and African institutions plays right into Mugabe’s game plan. Why can’t Western diplomats master these basics? Why do we have a premonition that most of the destructive grandstanding by Western governments is meant for their domestic constituencies?

More specifically, US foreign policy is always characterised by double standards, hypocrisy and dishonesty all rooted in the pursuit of US permanent interests. We seriously hope that incoming US President Obama and his new team will depart from this ignorant, ruinous and ineffective foreign policy that effectively undermines its intended beneficiaries, strengthens the targeted villains, while blighting the US standing in the World.

Things have to change in 2009. We are not naïve. We know that the general thrust of the US foreign policy objective is largely independent of both the individual who is the US President and the Party they belong to. However, we hope the policy execution, nuances and tactics will be different. Zimbabweans have great expectations.

Collapse of the Mugabe Regime

It is clear that the Mugabe regime will not collapse because of economic decay, mass starvation or epidemics such as cholera. The formal economy collapsed way back when. The regime survives on the informal sector and through rent-seeking behaviours. Yes, ordinary people are perishing and will continue to do so, but the regime will not collapse. Can we all come to grips with this?

The diamonds of Chiadzwa, the Platinum Mines, and assistance from friendly nations such as DRC, Angola, China and Russia will see the regime pull through another 5-10 years. Of course this will be at major cost to the population. Zimbabweans should care about this.

However, to the external players that suggest that we must wait for the collapse of the regime at any cost, the needless loss of life in pursuit of the departure of Mugabe is a small price to pay. After all, the lives lost are Black lives which are not equivalent to White lives. Since September 15, 2008, we have had Western governments encouraging the continuation of suffering and death of our people in the misguided belief that this will lead to the collapse of the Mugabe regime. Well, this will not happen, and our people are dying in vain. All Zimbabwean leaders must understand this.

We must collectively take responsibility for the calamity afflicting our country. In particular, Robert Mugabe and Morgan Tsvangirai are equally culpable for the failure to work together. They are effectively working against the interests of their supporters and the generality of our citizenry. The two leaders are more concerned about a misguided power play executed at the expense of Zimbabwean lives. They have blood on their hands. The US and UK governments who are specifically undermining SADC efforts to establish an inclusive government in Zimbabwe are complicit in this crime against humanity.

In the case of these Western governments, they are driven by racism and utter disrespect for African lives. As Africans, our position is that not a single Zimbabwean life should be used as a stick to inflict pain on Robert Mugabe. People’s lives are too important to be used as ineffective political tools and weapons. We all know that Mugabe will not collapse because of cholera, mass starvation and a collapsed economy, so why are we supporting this ineffective strategy?

Nevertheless, let us deceive ourselves for a moment and assume the game plan works and the Mugabe regime actually collapses through the existing crisis. Why are we assuming that such a demise of Mugabe will lead to a democratic outcome? We saw what happened in Guinea when their dictator died. Did the opposition take over? Nope. If the Mugabe regime collapses, it is most likely that the army will take over. Some ambitious and gutsy colonel or general will step in. Our democratisation processes will, resultantly, regress at least 10 years.

There is absolutely no way Tsvangirai and his Party will be the beneficiaries of the collapse of Robert Mugabe. Quite to the contrary, the Zanu PF regime will make sure they collapse together with Tsvangirai and MDC-T. Do the current abductions, confessions and dubious trials of activists mean anything to anyone? MDC-T will not exist after the demise of Mugabe. I hope Tsvangirai understands this in no uncertain terms. I wish our brazen and unintelligent Western friends will do more listening and thinking.

This Mugabe must collapse strategy is not in the best interest of Zimbabwe. A regime change agenda achieved through a scorched earth policy is not what we need in our country. It will not benefit anyone. As Zimbabweans, we should think seriously about options that will allow us to continue to build, brick by brick, our democratic institutions.

Opportunity for a New Beginning

The year 2009 presents us with an opportunity for a new beginning. However, for this to be achieved, we have to learn some difficult lessons from inconvenient truths. We have to do things differently. We must embrace self-criticism as part of our best practices, and adopt an interrogative and questioning attitude to all stakeholders, including those that purport to support our struggles and our national interest.

In the struggle for a peaceful, democratic and prosperous Zimbabwe, it is not enough to be right. It is not enough to be a victim or to have the higher moral authority. The victims must behave well. Those with moral high ground must be driven by principles and values. Those on the right side of history must be thoughtful and strategic. Those that support victims of despotic regimes must apply their analytical skills. Good heart, bad mind will not cut it.

In all this, we must always put the people first. We must cherish servant leadership. Only then can we succeed. While external players and events affect our country, we must take responsibility for our own circumstances. We should be at the centre of our struggles and be the drivers of our nation building processes. We must have enough leadership strength to define and determine both the terms of reference and frameworks through which foreigners participate in the affairs of our nation.

In 2009, Zimbabweans must set the agenda and own the rules of the game. We must be masters of our own destiny. The critique of external influences that has been proffered should not be used to absolve us as citizens. We as Zimbabweans, created the current socio-political and economic crisis, and we will be the primary drivers and developers of the sustainable answers. And yes, a people do get a government that they deserve. Let us all be the change we wish to see in the year 2009.

Arthur G.O. Mutambara is president of MDC

http://www.newzimbabwe.com/pages/mutambara4.19221.html
]]> Thu, 08 Jan 2009 05:01:00 EST http://dkaiyo.tigblog.org/post/565381 -17.863889 31.029722-17.86388931.029722 http://dkaiyo.tigblog.org/post/565231
By Reason Wafawarova in SYDNEY, Australia

YET again the world watches in utter disgust as Israel engages in its ritual killings of innocent Palestinian civilians and children, just because the Israeli ruling elite are of the belief that "this is the time for fighting", according to Ehud Barak, the Israeli Defence Minister.

The British and the Americans awkwardly blame "Palestinian aggression" for the brutalities of Israel and they dimly mumble something remotely linked to a call for restraint.

Meanwhile, Israeli authorities are reported to be arrogantly declaring a no time frame continued bombardment of Gaza.

The principle of universality is perhaps the most elementary of all moral truisms. However, when one is confronted with United States and Israeli exceptionalism, there is this flat rejection of universality in the Western intellectual, moral and political culture.

Formally the post-war consensus as enshrined in the United Nations Charter’s Article 51, on principles governing the use of force remains in effect.

The brutal and unacceptable aggression by Israel on Palestinians brings to light this revealing and disturbing scenario that portrays a shift in the spectrum of opinion in Western elite circles.

While none of them are willing to be honestly barbaric enough to openly and explicitly reject the post-World War II consensus, the truth is that the consensus is being ignored and is deemed too extreme to consider under the Israeli "special circumstances".

The only time the consensus is rigorously preached by Western politicians is during public discussions and electoral politicking.

The end of the last millennium and the beginning of this was characterised by a forceful articulation of a departure from the post-war consensus.

Nato’s bombing of Serbia, the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan and the 2003 rape of Iraq are classic expressions of this departure and arrogant deviation.

The Western intellectual and political culture has coined the phrase "illegal but legitimate" to try and give a face of decency to this terrorism.

The enthusiastic support by Western intellectuals for resort to violence they deem to be legitimate is, of course, a gross violation of the principle of universality.

It is a violation enshrined in the historical and somewhat racial prejudices that say only the "unpeople of this world" (as Mark Curtis would put it) are liable to crime and barbarity.

When one takes a look at George W. Bush’s doctrine of "anticipatory self-defence", as articulated in the US National Security Strategy of September 2002, then it is interesting to see how what applies to the US has become unacceptable banditry for all others, unless they are authorised allies and client states of the US.

The post-war consensus still reaffirms the stand of the world on war — that is the world outside what the West calls "the international community", namely itself.

The declarations of Sadc and the African Union on the political impasse in Zimbabwe only received crude derision from Western circles.

This is the standard reaction to the "bleatings" of the lesser peoples of this world.

When the Declaration of the South Summit of 2000 was made, firmly rejecting the "so-called right of humanitarian intervention", the same committed derision from the West was poured mercilessly.

The accompanying detailed and sophisticated analysis of neo-liberal globalisation was thoroughly ignored in the West, just like the Sadc resolution that says there must be an inclusive government in Zimbabwe "forthwith".

Back to the Bush doctrine of "anticipatory self-defence", a US "senior official", later confirmed to be Condoleezza Rice, outlined that the phrase refers to "the right of the United States to attack a country that it thinks could attack it first".

This is the same lady who concluded that international court jurisdiction has "proven inappropriate for the United States", and that the US is not subject to "international law and norms" generally.

While the majority of American and Western citizens hold the view that force can only be used when there is strong evidence that a country is in imminent danger of being attacked, the elitist view is apparently very different.

The idea of exceptionalism was evident as early as the time of the Nuremberg Tribunal. Both the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials were flawed, if the least were to be said. They were founded on rejection of the principle of universality.

In order to bring the defeated war criminals to justice, it was deemed necessary to devise definitions of "war crime" and "crime against humanity". The tribunal’s chief counsel for war crimes, Telford Taylor, explained how this was done.

Said Taylor: "Since both sides had played the terrible game of urban destruction — the Allies far more successfully — there was no basis for criminal charges against the Germans or Japanese, and, in fact, no such charges were brought . . . Aerial bombardment had been used so extensively and ruthlessly on the Allied side as well as the Axis side that neither at Nuremberg nor Tokyo was the issue made a part of the trials."

The operative definition of "crime" became: Crime that you committed or carried out but we did not. By this logic, the Nazi war criminals were absolved each time the defence could show that their US and UK counterparts carried out the same crimes.

On these grounds, the tribunal excused Admiral Karl Donitz from "breaches of the international law of submarine warfare" on the grounds of testimony from the British Admiralty and US Admiral Nimitz that America and the UK had carried out the same crimes from the first days of the war.

While it can be argued that neither side was punished for these crimes, it remains clear that the approach discredited international law, as well as subsequent tribunals like the Yugoslavia Tribunal and the Special Court for Sierra Leone at The Hague.

Washington’s self-exemption from international law and the fundamental principle of universality, together with Israel’s blatant breaches of international law and every peace treaty in existence, are clear indicators of a world headed for disaster.

When one considers the behaviour of the US at international level, the practice of exceptionalism is understandable.

If the West entertained for a moment the principle of universality and also accepted for once that every country, just like the US, has the right of "anticipatory self-defence" against terror or those "they think might attack" them first, then countries like Iran, Cuba and Nicaragua in the 1980s would have been entitled to attack the US whichever way possible, given the involvement in very serious terrorist attacks against them, including blatantly advertised threats of attack on the part of Iran. Such conclusions are considered utterly outrageous, of course.

Well, an inquiry by British journalists in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks found out that, "Osama bin Laden and the Taliban received threats of possible American military strikes against them two months before the terrorist assaults on New York and Washington", which "raises the possibility that bin Laden, far from launching the attacks on the World Trade Centre in New York and the Pentagon out of the blue, was launching a pre-emptive strike in response to what he saw as US threats".

This, by US and UK standards, must be legitimate anticipatory self-defence; unthinkable as it is.

In similar fashion one could argue that Japan’s bombing of US colonies, Hawaii and the Philippines, was legitimate anticipatory self-defence since the American Press was awash with details of how American planes were capable of "burning down Tokyo, a city of rice-paper and wood houses" — all from bases in Hawaii and the Philippines.

On November 15, 1941, US General George C. Marshall explained that "there won’t be any hesitation about bombing civilians".

This provided far more justification for anticipatory self-defence than anything so far conjured up by Bush, Blair, Ehud Olmert or anyone else from the Allied West.

We all know the implications of applying these elementary moral principles. The general meaning and implications of international law are clear enough for anyone to understand, much as law is subject to a scope of interpretation.

Washington and Israel’s unilateral ‘‘right’’ to resort to force is nothing but arrogant behaviour motivated by the might of military supremacy.

This military supremacy is the only explanation that can be given when Condoleezza Rice writes in Foreign Affairs (2000) condemning the "reflexive appeal . . . to notions of international law and norms, and the belief that the support of many states — or even better, of institutions like the United Nations — is essential to the legitimate exercise of power."

Rice reiterated that the US needs not to conform to "illusory norms of international behaviour", or "adhere to every international convention and agreement that someone thinks to propose."

It is interesting to note that the US expects every country apart from its clients and allies to rigorously obey these norms, not as they are but as the US interprets them; or else countries risk facing what befell Iraq, Afghanistan, Chile or Zimbabwe.

According to the Clinton doctrine, America is entitled to resort to "unilateral use of military power in order to ensure uninhibited access to key markets, energy supplies, and strategic resources".

This, of course, does not apply to other countries. They are not even allowed access to their own resources and Zimbabwe is just paying heavily for accessing its own land.

Nicaragua, Grenada, Laos and other countries were invaded by the US for claiming ownership of their own resources.

The Israeli forces are massacring Palestinians today for their own land and all that can be heard from the US and the UK are feeble and faint calls for restraint.

They speak louder against a cholera outbreak in Zimbabwe. They shout raucously for regime change in Zimbabwe and they even advocate the use of force, something they condemned with the holiest of anger when Russia invaded Georgia earlier this year.

Zimbabweans need to look at these world events objectively and surely we cannot all be fooled by the same people all the time.

Zimbabwe we are one and together we will overcome.

It is homeland or death!

l Reason Wafawarova is a political writer and can be contacted on wafawarova@yahoo.co.uk or reason@rwafawarova.com or visit www.rwafawarova.com
]]> Thu, 08 Jan 2009 04:28:00 EST http://dkaiyo.tigblog.org/post/565231 -17.863889 31.029722-17.86388931.029722 http://dkaiyo.tigblog.org/post/555457
Of late Botswana has become a vocal critic of the conflict in Zimbabwe. It went as far as suggesting the removal of President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe. Botswana’s Foreign Affairs Minister recently said his country is prepared to host a democratic resistance movement led by the opposition to topple President Mugabe from power. Such utterances have been condemned by Zimbabwean authorities labelling them as provocative and absurd. But while Botswana is trying to display its moral credentials to the region and the world at large, its own record at home is not that pleasant.

This article raises the issues that taint Botswana’s good standing as a progressive nation and thus making its criticism of Zimbabwe pure nuisance.

Rich but Poor

Since independence, Botswana has experienced one of the fastest growth rates in per capita income in the world. Transforming itself, in the process, from a poor country with a per capita of US$80 to a per capita of US$6 000. This makes Botswana one of the African countries with the highest average personal incomes on the continent. [1] Moreover, Botswana’s economic growth averaged 9% per year from 1967 to 2006 and towards the end of last year its foreign exchange reserves stood at US$10.2 billion.

However, despite these impressive achievements Botswana’s population is generally poor. Unemployment is close to 40%.

There is one doctor for each 5 150 people.

Botswana’s life expectancy at birth was 64 years in 1990 and in 2005 it fell to 39 years and is estimated to fall further to 31 years in the year 2015. Ironically, during the same period and for the same indicator Zimbabwe’s statistics are 59 years (1990), 33 years (2005) and 31 years in the year 2015.

The Plight of Indigenous People

In 2006, the Paris-based International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) together with the leading human rights group in Botswana, DITSHWANELO supported the view of the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination that the Botswana government is not doing enough to contain discrimination directed towards indigenous people, certain ethnic groups, non-citizens, asylum seekers and refugees in Botswana.

The UN Committee recommended then that the authorities should “review the constitutional definition of discrimination as it does not explicitly prohibit discrimination based on descent, national or ethnic origin and indirect discrimination. Furthermore, it asks for a review of the exceptions to the prohibition of discrimination in relation to non-citizens and on the basis of ethnic origin or tribe.”

In September this year, the National broadcaster Btv, which is heavily controlled by the government, was criticised by a multicultural advocacy group called RETENG for introducing only a Setswana language news bulletin and leaving out other local indigenous languages during a programming shake-up at the broadcaster. The advocacy group expressed grief over government’s reluctance to listen to those who promote indigenous languages.

The country’s Chieftainship Act and the Tribal Territories Act are said to have recognised only the Tswana-speaking tribes. The non-recognition of some tribes, leads to non-representation in the House of Chiefs, resulting in such tribes being disadvantaged when it comes to land allocation.

Political Tolerance

In 2005, professor Kenneth Good who is Australian by birth but lived in Botswana for about 20 years, was declared a persona non grata by the then President Festus Mogae after the professor criticised the manner in which the presidential transitions in that country are handled. The professor’s criticism was contained in an academic paper entitled “Presidential Succession in Botswana: No Model for Africa”. He referred to Botswana’s democracy as “unhealthy” and with “severe restrictions and limitations upon it”.

In that paper Professor Good argued that Botswana’s presidential succession is dominated by a handful privileged clique and that presidential decisions are unquestionable.

The deportation of Professor Good attracted the attention of the International Press Institute (IPI), which condemned the deportation in a letter to the government. In that letter the IPI reasoned that the court insistence that the president has the prerogative to give or not give reason why he declared professor Good an undesired immigrant could only be interpreted as the application of Section 93 of the Penal Code which regards the insulting of a president or a member of the National Assembly as an offence.

In the same letter, the IPI reiterated its call for the worldwide repeal of Section 93 of the Penal Code as it in their views gives room to governments to crack down on their critics.

In August this year, a deputy minister in President Khama’s cabinet was reported to having called for the amendment of the Constitution to allow a presidential third term for the incumbent. Despite being regarded as one of the wealthiest nations on the African continent, the deputy minister argued that Botswana is a poor country that could not be able to maintain three former presidents, thus the need to prolong President Khama’s term of office from 2018 to 2023.

In jest, now that former president Festus Mogae is the recipient of the Mo Ibrahim Prize which consists of US$5 million over 10 years and US$200 000 annually for life afterwards and also a possible additional US$200 000 per year for 10 years towards charity work. The deputy minister should perhaps ask ex-president Mogae to consider declining the government allowance. However, seriously talking, the deputy minister’s undesirable wish has the potential to ruin Botswana’s revered political stability and respect for the rule of law and thus should be avoided in the future.

Death Penalty

Earlier this year, the UN Human Rights Committee (HRC), in its concluding remarks called on the Government of Botswana to move towards the abolition of the death penalty. The HRC was appalled by the government’s stance that it has no intention of abolishing the death penalty from its statutes. In a submission to the HRC, the FIDH and DITSHWANELO criticised the government for carrying out the execution process of prisoners in secrecy. The two organisations called on government to provide family members with information regarding the execution of their loved ones.

In November 2007, DITSHWANELO reminded the government that its continuing application of the death penalty goes against the moratorium that was brought in place by a resolution adopted by the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly.

Furthermore, the organisation reminded the government that the death penalty is against the basic principle of human dignity as expressed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and thus should be done away with. Moreover, it reminded the government that there is no reliable substantiation that declares the death penalty as the most efficient deterrent against crime.

Corporal Punishment

Botswana is perhaps one of the few countries that mete out punishment in the form of corporal punishment. While this form of punishment has been outlawed in many civilised countries over the world, in Botswana it is legal.

Botswana’s judiciary allows the application of corporal punishment to people aged from 14 and up. Meaning that children aged between 14 and 18 are subjected to corporal punishment. That is not in the spirit of many UN human rights conventions such as the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Furthermore, Botswana has so far gone against the advice of the African Charter of Human Rights and People’s Rights to replace corporal punishment with less humiliating options.

According to the UN’s Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, corporal punishment, punishment by placing in a dark cell, and all cruel, inhuman or degrading punishments shall be completely prohibited as punishments for disciplinary offences.

Evicting the San People

The United Nations human rights agency UNHCHR has in the past criticised Botswana’s treatment of its minority citizens, especially the indigenous San people. The UNHCHR were not happy with the removal of the San people from the Central Kalahari Game Reserve (CKGR) by the Government.

In 2002, the San people took the Botswana government to court to oppose the forceful removal from the CKGR. However, the San people’s quest for justice has been marred by bad tactics employed by government in order to frustrate them.

First, the authorities in Botswana barred the San people from stating their case before the UNHCHR’s Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination during that committee’s session in Geneva in 2006.

The passports of the representatives of the San people from their organisation called First People of the Kalahari were confiscated, making it impossible for them to travel to Geneva.

Secondly, a few months before the court ruling on the issue of the relocation of the San people from the CKGR, a senior official from the Ministry of Communications, Science and Technology, instructed the state media to refrain from covering news items that were seen as criticising the government position regarding the San eviction from the CKGR.

The same official reminded the state media practitioners to carry the interests of the state above anything else in their reporting. He accused the private media of being unpatriotic in their reporting.

Thirdly, in 2006, the Court ruled that the eviction order was illegal and ordered government to permit the San people return to their land. But the government has blatantly refused to uphold that court ruling and instead decided to apply it selectively.

For instance, the San people could only return to the CKGR on condition that they acquire special hunting licenses and that they should not expect government to provide them with water for human consumption.

According to the HRC and the US State Department, such conditions were viewed as deliberate attempts by the Botswana government to discourage the evicted San communities from returning to the CKGR.

While government is said to be claiming that the Kalahari reserve could not maintain the San livelihoods, others are arguing that the government’s main motive is to displace the San people so that they make way for companies that wants to exploit the diamond-rich CKGR.

Mistreating of Zimbabweans

Botswana foreign minister Phandu Skelemani was recently quoted in the media as saying, “Anybody who comes to Botswana saying that they fear for their life, from their own country, we will not chase them away”.

But this goodwill by the minister does not reflect the situation on the ground considering that in 2004 about 72,112 Zimbabweans were deported from Botswana and 38 000 in 2006. While Botswana is happily benefiting from Zimbabwe’s demise by employing qualified Zimbabweans in its public and private sector, it is on the other hand chasing back those who are regarded as illegal immigrants. In most cases illegal immigrants are those who are uneducated and thus regarded as a burden.

The treatment of Zimbabweans immigrants in Botswana has at times raised tensions between the two neighbouring countries. With Botswana arguing that flogging is the method of punishment preferred by Zimbabweans found guilty of committing a crime. But Zimbabwean authorities have condemned such antique form of retribution. They claim that Zimbabweans are coerced into accepting corporal punishment over being arrested since once arrested they are beaten and their money and belongings are impounded before being deported to Zimbabwe.

In conclusion, Botswana’s seems to lack any commitment to address all these concerns as raised by various stakeholders. And it is only proper that if it wants its opposition to the Mugabe regime to be taken seriously, that it handle s its own domestic mess with the same vigour and arrogance.

[This article was first published on the website of Namibia's New Era newspaper.]
]]> Thu, 18 Dec 2008 07:08:00 EST http://dkaiyo.tigblog.org/post/555457 -17.863889 31.029722-17.86388931.029722 http://dkaiyo.tigblog.org/post/555453
-

THE recent "Mugabe must go" chorus is slowly ebbing away. Started by British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and echoed by French and American presidents Nicolas Sarkozy and George Bush respectively, it was always going to be a cacophony of desperation.

Where has anyone ever heard of a war fought over the outbreak of cholera, a disease that is endemic in several countries in Africa? The victims of cholera, in addition to being victims of illegal sanctions, were now supposed to be victims of an imported war.

To their credit, most international bodies, under the leadership of the World Health Organisation, rushed in health experts and resources instead of the invading forces desired by Mr Brown. Sadc had already taken the lead by supplying human and material resources.

The Western call for the invasion of Zimbabwe did not find takers among African leaders, except for gullible Kenyan Prime Minister Raila Odinga and a couple of bishops-for-hire.

Odinga’s voice was, however, quickly drowned by that of Kenyan Foreign Affairs Minister Mr Moses Wetangula, who stated unequivocally: "AU (African Union) statutes do not provide for military invasion of sovereign states like Zimbabwe."

It is simple to understand why African leaders have taken the position they have taken. Through the AU and its regional arm Sadc, African leaders have brokered what they believe is a workable solution to the political impasse in Zimbabwe. That solution is the power-sharing agreement among the parties represented in Parliament in Zimbabwe.

This is the plan regional powerhouse South Africa affirmed last week. Ruling out deploying troops in Zimbabwe, South Africa urged the parties to the political dispute in Zimbabwe to abide by the September 15 agreement to establish an inclusive Government.

The September 15 agreement, which, though providing for the creation of a weak inclusive Government, still does not satisfy the Western powers, whose goal has always been to reverse the gains of Zimbabwe’s independence, specifically the land reform programme. It has never been about the black majority of Zimbabweans who they claim to be fighting for. They have relentlessly punished them through the economic sanctions.

This is why they are quick to celebrate misfortunes like the cholera outbreak, and see in them an opportunity to achieve their nefarious agenda. So condescending have they been in their determination to oust President Mugabe that they have been irrationally issuing orders to African leaders to play ball or lose economic aid.

They have only succeeded in irritating most of Africa’s leaders and left their man Morgan Tsvangirai naked. In the eyes of African leaders, Tsvangirai is a quisling who is controlled by Western strings. This is why his diplomatic foray into Africa has yielded nothing. Now he is back in Botswana, pondering his next move.

His option is an easy one. He must retrace his steps back home and join President Mugabe and Deputy Prime Minister-designate Arthur Mutambara in implementing the September 15 agreement. This is what the whole of Zimbabwe and Africa is waiting for. This is what the whole of Africa has told him and will continue to tell him.

The Zimbabwe political impasse and the resultant economic crisis has offered Sadc an opportunity to assert itself as a strong regional body capable of solving the region’s problems.

Apart from the lone dissension by Botswana, Sadc has remarkably responded with both political and practical support for Zimbabwe last seen when Angola, Namibia and Zimbabwe teamed up to militarily rescue the Democratic Republic of Congo from foreign invasion.

The region’s leaders are very clear about the precedence a foreign invasion of Zimbabwe would create. With most of them led by liberation movements, it is obvious the greedy and meddlesome Western powers will not be satisfied with just Zimbabwe as a trophy. They will want more.

Sadc must remain resolute in its determination to see a peaceful resolution of the Zimbabwe question through the power-sharing agreement. It must also continue with its practical assistance in the form of resources to fight cholera and inputs to rescue Zimbabwe’s agricultural season.

By taking the lead in offering practical assistance, Sadc has created for itself a moral standing to continue to superintend over Zimbabwe’s search for solutions to its political and economic challenges.
]]> Thu, 18 Dec 2008 06:55:00 EST http://dkaiyo.tigblog.org/post/555453 -17.863889 31.029722-17.86388931.029722 http://dkaiyo.tigblog.org/post/543209
“We beg the Pope to help, to pray for us so that the government changes its attitude towards us and respects our rights as indigenous peoples of this land,” said a spokesman for the Bushmen this week.

Despite Botswana’s High Court having affirmed the Bushmen’s rights to live in their reserve in 2006, the government of the new president General Ian Seretse Khama continues to violate their rights.

It has given the company Gem Diamonds permission to mine diamonds on Bushmen land.

Not one Bushman has received a hunting permit since the High Court ruling, making it unlawful for the government to withhold permits. None of the Bushmen have been allowed to access borehole water on their land. Hunting and borehole water are the backbone of Bushmen life. Life is now extremely difficult for them.

The appeal to the Pope was not coincidental. On 1 July, the Pope expressed his solidarity and support for the indigenous peoples of Raposa-Serra do Sol in Brazil when he met them in the Vatican and declared “We will do everything possible to help protect your land.”

These autochthonous peoples have a right to their land. They have an emotional historical connection to these lands Their linguistic, cultural and social/organizational identity is through these lands. Infact, their existence is expressed through the lands from which they are being evicted.

The colonizing or expansionary activities of the Batswana government today threatens this group.

This is the case with the Indians of Raposa–Serra do Sol; the Dongria Kondh living in the Niyamgiri Hills in Orissa, India; the (Red) Indians of North America; the Maoris of New Zealand; the Aborigines of Australia; the Masai and Ogiek of Kenya: the Innu of Canada – the list is endless, but the plight is the same.

These groups share one common characteristic – their governments are purportedly democratic. Australia, Canada, New Zealand, U.S., and India are considered thriving democracies. Botswana and Kenya are said to be models of democracy on the African continent.

A majority of these countries also share an interesting similarity: they control the big mining companies and conglomerates.

Large mining projects in these regions take place in rural areas, where they coexist with indigenous communities, and they advance at the same time as many of these communities become poorer and poorer.

India, Canada and Australia have moved significant groups of indigenous peoples from their lands to open up areas for uranium and other mining; and have failed to compensate them.

Where the indigenous have stayed, the consequences have been dire.

Examples suffice. Traditional heads opposed uranium mining in Meghalaya (India) and members of a Special Operations Team (SOT) of Meghalaya police killed five militants of the Hynniewtrep National Liberation Council (HNLC) last year. In the U.S., the House Committee clashed with federal agencies whom they accused of incompetence in dealing with the mess left from uranium mining on Navajo land. A study found that the cancer rate doubled among Aborigines near Ranger mine (Australia).

Botswana’s Bushmen

Closer to home, in Botswana, the plight of the Bushmen cannot be overemphasized.

A recent study of the plight of the modern Bushmen revealed some troubling statistics. 90% have been forced to abandon their traditional hunter/gatherer lifestyle and merge with pastural/urbanized.

The Botswana government and De Beers/Anglo American interests have been responsible for pushing away (colonizing) the Bushmen who, according to anthropologists, ethnologists and paleontologists, have inhabited Southern Africa for at least 40,000 years.

This is the plight of indigenous peoples, who are minorities in their own countries.

Khama, Conservation International and Sadc

Botswana President Ian Khama recently snubbed a Southern African Development Community summit to discuss problems in Zimbabwe and the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Many reasons were advanced for that snub. It has now emerged that he was attending a meeting of Conservation International in the United States at a time when the summit was going on in South Africa.

President Khama is reported to have made “prior arrangements” to attend the U.S. meeting and could not substitute it for a crisis meeting in the region.

Conservation International is an NGO and there have been concerns in Botswana as to President Khama’s eligibility to sit on an NGO board whilst also serving as a Head of State.

But, that is not the main issue. The issue is that President Khama has been responsible for the plight of the Bushmen. Infact, Khama and his predecessor, Festus Mogae, have presided over this “colonisation” of Bushmen lands and have been rewarded for it.

Former President Mogae was recently awarded a prize for “exemplary leadership” – the Mo Ibrahim prize for “good governance”.

Giving an “Achievement In Africa Leadership Award” to Mogae was an ironic twist that left the Bushmen flabbergasted. They cried: “We don’t think he should receive this award because of how he treated us when he was President of Botswana. He evicted us from our ancestral land and that has really affected our lives. He put us into poverty, HIV-AIDS and alcoholism.”

Survival International wrote: “Festus Mogae's government evicted the Bushmen from their ancestral land in the Central Kalahari Game Reserve in 2002, and banned them from hunting and gathering.

“Bushman hunters were arrested and tortured; those protesting peacefully against the evictions were arrested and shot at; and at least one woman died of starvation and thirst when Mogae's government shut down the borders of the reserve.”

The Mo Ibrahim Prize consists of US$ 5 million over 10 years and US$ 200,000 annually for life thereafter. Interestingly, the committee awarding the prize included former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, one of the “Elders” recently denied entry in Zimbabwe.

Does good governance not demand respect for people, especially minorities? President Mogae's tenure overturned decades of respect for Bushmen land rights and makes a mockery of the Mo Ibrahim prize.

President Khama, who is a Board Member of Conservation International (the only Head of State), makes a mockery of that NGO by denying the Bushmen their rights.

Conservation International says of its mission: “We believe that the Earth's natural heritage must be maintained if future generations are to thrive spiritually, culturally, and economically. Our mission is to conserve the Earth's living heritage – our global biodiversity – and to demonstrate that human societies are able to live harmoniously with nature.”

Ironically, the natural heritage of the Bushmen is not maintained; the Bushmen do not “thrive spiritually, culturally, and economically” today and they are not “living harmoniously with nature” in Botswana.

The irony of “democracies”

This is the irony of democracies. It is inseparable from big business interests. Richard Branson (and other big businesses) is reportedly supportive of, and funds, the Group of Elders. He is the epitome of big business and has huge interests in the region. The mining conglomerates: Anglo-American etc fund research projects on “democracy” and big-business-friendly Governments go high up the “Index of Democracy” ladder every year.

Kenya, with its appalling record on violence and corruption, is heralded a thriving African democracy; never mind the failing State, with all the aid being pumped in.

Botswana, with its appalling attitude and neo-colonial attitude towards a 4,000 year legacy of the Bushmen, is considered a thriving democracy. It is the only country that still has customary (judicial) whipping of convicted criminals, including women. If that is not torture, then what is?

Corporal punishment is shunned by “modern democracies”. How come this “democracy” is rewarded for such an archaic practice?

Even women in Botswana are still whipped; hence the Setswana saying that "Ya mosimane ke e nkgwe", meaning that corporal punishment was traditionally for males only.

Democracy in Africa

The future of democracy in Africa is threatened not by Africa’s inability to develop functional social and political systems.

It is not even threatened by the intransigence of the current crop of leadership, per se.

It is threatened by non-African business interests – big business interests – that are responsible for the movement of our peoples from their lands; and for the manipulation of our socio-political and economic systems to make way for their interests – the creation of new markets for their mass produced commodities from the West and for the exploitation of our vast resources.

The plight of all indigenous peoples can be traced back to some big business interests – a strange coincidence.

Current “targeted sanctions” against Zimbabwe are aimed at businessmen with huge interests in big business and mining and mining related companies. This is not a coincidence.

New additions to the U.S. sanctions list are mining magnates: John Bredenkamp (who the U.S. said was involved in arms trading and diamond extraction), Muller Conrad "Billy" Rautenbach (who it said was linked with mining projects that "enriched the government")

Companies designated by the Bush administration do not include Anglo-American – which is heavily involved in mining deals in the country. Surely AA should also be “propping up the regime”. This exclusion is also not a coincidence.

Unless our democracies become true democracies, for Africa, we can never extricate ourselves from the very troubling web created by big business interests.

The reality of the moment is that big business and Western governments are so intertwined that the difference is now almost non-existent.

At least for now, we hope, Botswana will not be used as a launch pad for the recolonization of Africa by big business. Paying huge monetary prizes to presidents – who are elected by the people – defeats the whole purpose of “governing for the people, by the people”. Presidents will become Chief Executive Officers who “govern for business” and ignore the plight of their people, especially those indigenous people who have an inalienable right to their lands.

info@talkzimbabwe.com

http://www.talkzimbabwe.com/news/117/ARTICLE/3813/2008-11-28.html]]> Mon, 01 Dec 2008 03:19:00 EST http://dkaiyo.tigblog.org/post/543209 -17.863889 31.029722-17.86388931.029722 http://dkaiyo.tigblog.org/post/540323
By Tafataona Mahoso

WHILE former Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo was dancing with Laurent Nkunda’s war criminals in the DRC, Zimbabwe was confronted by three other former somebodies demanding to come here also.

These were former UN secretary-general Kofi Annan, ex-US President Jimmy Carter and former Mozambican First Lady Graca Machel, who is now married to Nelson Mandela.
These three claim to constitute a humanitarian mission or commission without saying how they were chosen to constitute such a mission or who commissioned them on the basis of what authority and to accomplish what task!
The very same Anglo-Saxon forces who were behind the so-called UN Special Envoys in 2005 are behind the current mission.
People will remember Anna Kajumulo Tibaijuka and Jan Egeland who came here claiming to represent Annan’s office and turning out to be "CIA jackals" in the service of Anglo-American interests.
If humanitarian tragedies are that important, why don’t these "Eminent Elders" go to Afghanistan where the Anglo-Saxon powers are fully in charge and where more than four million Afghan women and children face a bleak and severe winter without food or shelter?
If Afghanistan is too far away, the elders could perhaps go to Somalia where "regime change" has made it possible for that country to go for 17 years with no legitimate central Government.
Why do they seek to divide and destabilise a stable country?
From the point of view of Africa and the Sadc region, Mrs Machel and Carter can be forgiven for not knowing what they are doing or how to do it.
Annan, however, is expected to know better because he is a well-trained and experienced diplomat. He is also an experienced African who by now should know enough about the tricks of imperialism and white racism.
Therefore, whether or not the Government of Zimbabwe eventually allows these three busybodies to come in, the people need to examine Annan’s score card.
He became secretary-general of the United Nations in 1997 because one country alone refused to renew Boutros Boutros-Ghali’s second term in that post.
The UN Security Council had voted 14 to 1 in favour of renewal of Boutros-Ghali’s term but the US stopped the renewal because he was viewed as too close to the Non-Aligned Movement to allow the UN to be used as a front for the dismantling and recolonisation of former Yugoslavia by Nato.
The same US administration was instrumental in Annan’s elevation as Mr Boutros-Ghali’s successor.
The US and Nato got their way at the UN, proceeded to dismantle Yugoslavia, waged an air war against Serbia, and created conditions for the final secession of Kosovo from Serbia.
In celebration of this US-Nato colonisation of the UN under Annan, the then Chairman of the US Foreign Relations Committee Senator Jesse Helms asked to address the Security Council and was allowed to do so on 20 January 2000.
This was the first time someone from that US Senate office had ever addressed the UN Security Council.
This is what Senator Helms told the Security Council on 20 January 2000.
"They (US citizens) know instinctively that the UN lives and breathes on the hard-earned money of the American taxpayers. And yet they have heard comments here in New York constantly calling the United States a ‘deadbeat’ . . . They see the majority of the UN members voting against America in the General Assembly.
"They have read reports of raucous cheering of UN delegates in Rome, when US efforts to amend the International Criminal Court Treaty to protect American soldiers were defeated . . . Now, I grant you, the money we (the US) spend on the UN is not charity. To the contrary, it is an investment — investment from which the American people rightly expect a return.
"They expect a reformed UN that works more efficiently, and which respects the sovereignty of the United States . . . So, as the representatives of the UN’s largest investors, the American people, we have not only a right, but a responsibility, to insist on specific reforms in exchange for their investment . . . Most Americans do not regard the United Nations as an end in and of itself — they see it as just one part of America’s diplomatic arsenal."
After Yugoslavia, Serbia and Kosovo, Annan’s most spectacular failure was Iraq.
The secretary-general failed to use the reports of UN weapons inspectors in Iraq to strengthen those powers and organisations who were opposed to the US-UK campaign to invade the country.
This failure is clearly documented in the massive collection of articles by Media Lens Media Alert, which is entitled "The Western Media and Iraq: Selected Articles".
Once Iraq was invaded in violation of the UN Charter and on the basis of lies that UN weapons inspectors and the UN secretary-general knew to be lies, Annan faced another spectacular failure.
His own representative in Iraq was killed, when insurgents against the illegal occupation of that country accused the UN mission there of being indistinguishable from the US-UK occupation forces.
The insurgents bombed the UN mission headquarters in Iraq.
Under Annan, UN offices were again attacked by patriots in Cote d’Ivoire and Lebanon, again for failure by UN representatives there to distinguish themselves from the imperialist interests of France, the US, the EU (in the case of Cote d’Ivoire) and the interests of the US and Israel (in the case of Lebanon).
Zimbabweans of course remember Annan as the UN secretary-general who, when he occupied that office, failed to stop the UK, the US, the EU, Australia and their white racist allies from imposing sanctions against Zimbabwe.
Zimbabweans also remember that President Robert Mugabe has used every UN forum since 2000 to appeal to the UN to stop the Anglo-Saxon axis from its illegal interference in the internal affairs of Zimbabwe.
We received no help from Annan.
But Annan did far worse than failing to use his office to mobilise the UN to protect Zimbabwe.
Annan’s office itself inflicted much damage on Zimbabwe when it agreed to send Tibaijuka and Egeland on missions similar to the one which he now wants to lead.
The 2005 Zanu-PF National People’s Conference in Esigodini condemned the behaviour of Annan’s so-called special envoys.
The same conference urged the Government of Zimbabwe in future to be highly sceptical of any similar envoys and missions.
The behaviour of the two envoys was shocking because it did not fit the manner and style of UN diplomats as Zimbabweans used to know them during our Second Chimurenga in the 1970s and during the best years of the Non-Aligned Movement.
This new and strange behaviour by Annan’s subordinates fits that of the people John Perkins calls "CIA jackals" in his book Confessions of an Economic Hitman. It fits the behaviour of the people whom Cuban patriots call "mules."
Mules are unsuspected people whose job is to smuggle someone’s information or agenda through well-guarded doors or borders.
CIA jackals are spies planted in NGOs, companies and multilateral and inter-governmental agencies to carry out the destabilisation missions of singular countries or blocs of countries.
They are usually called in at the third stage of imperialist intervention, when the first two stages have failed to produce results.
The whole typology of intervention and destabilisation in pursuit of regime change includes five stages, the last of which is direct military intervention as we see in Iraq today, according to John Perkins.
CIA jackals are spy-activists whose aim is to cause social, political and psychological havoc by attacking the public morale and unity of the people as demonstrated in the last two elections in Zimbabwe.
The language of Tibaijuka’s report and the language that Egeland used on the BBC after visiting Zimbabwe was not the language of UN special envoys.
It was the language of CIA jackals, intended to denigrate, provoke, insult, demoralise and divide the people of Zimbabwe.
But besides the language, there was also real conduct. Both Egeland and Tibaijuka betrayed their real agendas when they got to Bulawayo.
This means that the people who sent them believed that Bulawayo in particular and Matabeleland in general provide the soft entry points for clandestine destabilisation forces.
Bulawayo is the place where both "envoys" withdrew from the public domain into backyard and gutter projects and politics beyond the reach of the media and beyond the eyes of the public officials.
This was not accidental.
The NGOs and Embassies who have sought to sponsor divisive politics in the last 15 years have also tended to treat Bulawayo in particular and Matabeleland in general as if they were their pet projects and not local domains of a sovereign country.
Through Egeland, the British, the EU and America were trying to influence the UN to treat Zimbabwe differently from similar cases because here they had already gone ahead with Tibaijuka to condemn the urban ghetto reclamation and reconstruction programmes here as "genocide".
To remain consistent and in order not to embarrass the NGOs that they sponsored to denounce the programmes, these imperialist forces wanted the UN to install refugee tents in Zimbabwe’s cities.
Such tents would serve as photogenic propaganda sites for global mass media and all the imbedded spies and journalists here.
Crisis Zimbabwe Coalition would get a boost to its reason to exist, since Zimbabwe would then appear as a country with a massive and permanent internal refugee population.
The NGOs could be paid to induce ordinary poor people to join the tent tenants just as many were also induced to trek to Britain and South Africa and lie about needing political asylum.
But such scheming on the part of the US and UK is delusional.
The overwhelming majority of the people of Zimbabwe are pre-occupied with land redistribution, resettlement and the agrarian revolution.
How do we know this?
We know this from Zanu-PF’s 2005 Esigodini National People’s Conference which resolved to condemn the two UN envoys serving as spies for Britain, US and EU forces against Zimbabwe.
Therefore the Government of Zimbabwe is to be encouraged to insist that the UN must not make ridiculous demands on member states which are not UN demands but are the bilateral requirements of a minority of white countries such as Britain, Australia, America and some EU countries.
Likewise, unemployed busybodies like Annan, Machel, Desmond Tutu, Obasanjo and Carter must stop making absurd demands on African peoples.
Government must remember that the Anglo-Saxon powers have not yet declared a truce in their media terrorism against Zimbabwe, which has been a critical feature of their overall propaganda war.
In that war, humanitarian intervention has been used most frequently. As Ludo Martens has warned; "This sort of campaign (which applies psychological terrorism under the guise of human rights concerns) is nevertheless nothing new and should not come as a surprise to progressive people.
"Military specialists have written many books and articles about the weapon of disinformation in Nato doctrine (for instance). According to those specialists, disinformation can be a weapon as powerful as heavy artillery.
"In the words of Colonel Trinquier, French specialist in anti-communist warfare: ‘Today war is a whole consisting of actions of all kinds, political, social, economic, psychological, armed, and so on, which aim to overthrow established power in a country.’
"In every important struggle the facts brought to us by the imperialist media are a well-doctored mixture of lies, half-truths and real facts."
The so-called "Eminent African Elders" have been nominated by imperialism to try to reverse the diplomatic achievements of former South African President Cde Thabo Mbeki and Sadc in Zimbabwe.
Martens also cites a CIA specialist in the science of lying who wrote about how the US conducted its "black propaganda" against the people of Vietnam.
"Just writing that communists are bad is cheap. The art is (for the CIA to get certain forces) to commit crimes disguised as communists, that is the way to gain credibility."
In the Zimbabwean case, the US and UK have lost credibility over Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Guantanamo Bay and Abu Graib Prison.
Their forces therefore gravitate toward those institutions, which still have some credibility.
The UN has a long relationship with the leaders of Zimbabwe. Therefore it is a most attractive target for infiltration, manipulation and even intimidation.
In fact, some of the manipulation is not even made known to UN officials.
For example, in 2005 some embedded journalists were supposed to come to Zimbabwe under the guise of covering our Senate elections when in fact their task was to take pictures and stage stories which could be manipulated and sensationalised in order to scandalise the UN humanitarian coordinator against us.
Putting homeless people in make-shift tents, as proposed by Annan’s envoy in 2005, instead of building solid houses in real communities is typical of what is notoriously known as the "misery industry" driven by NGOs.
The tents would provide the symbolic confirmation of the crisis outlined in Tibaijuka’s report but impossible to justify on the ground where the people’s pre-occupation then and now has always been how to get the inputs needed for a potentially good farming season.
Therefore, the best these retired stooges could do for the people of Zimbabwe is to get the US and the UK to lift their illegal and racist sanctions.
However, we have already said the UN and its volunteers are targeted because they are more credible that the British Foreign Office, the US State Department or the CIA.
The UN has a relationship with the people of Zimbabwe going back to their struggles against UDI and apartheid.
That good track record can be abused by a now thoroughly compromised UN system to achieve objectives contrary to those which the people were pursuing during earlier struggles.









http://www.herald.co.zw/inside.aspx?sectid=994cat=10
]]> Thu, 27 Nov 2008 03:13:00 EST http://dkaiyo.tigblog.org/post/540323 -17.863889 31.029722-17.86388931.029722 http://dkaiyo.tigblog.org/post/539497 Wall St. crash to cost NY 225 000 jobs


Reuters


Tue, 25 Nov 2008 00:38:00 +0000


WALL Street's painful downsizing could cost 225,000 New Yorkers their jobs over the next two years as it recent era of outsize profits may have ended and it adapts to less leverage, the state comptroller said on Monday.

The securities industry could clip a total of 38,000 workers by next October, and another 10,000 employees could be axed in related fields, such as banking, insurance, and real estate, Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli forecast in a new report.

Wall Street seems to have overpaid its employees in the first six months of this year, DiNapoli said adding that total compensation ate up "an unsustainable" 97 percent of net revenues. In contrast, the ratio averaged only 53 percent from 1990 to 2006.

And unlike previous cycles in this traditionally boom-and-bust industry, Wall Street might not revisit its recent mistakes, at least for awhile, because the federal bank bailout includes some new curbs while the new Democratic Obama administration views stiffer regulations as a must.

Further, the new bank holding company model adopted by Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley after rival Lehman Brothers was allowed to sink into bankruptcy, comes with regulations that did not apply to these titans when they were investment banks.

"The challenge is that we know that Wall Street is going to look different than before we went into this," DiNapoli said,

The end of the leverage generation could transform investment banking, withering mergers and acquisitions. It also might herald a era of lower but more stable profits, he said.

Wall Street likely will employ fewer people -- and reward them less generously, DiNapoli added, predicting that the past few years of "outsize" profits would not be matched again.

The securities industry lost 16,000 jobs last month on a year-over-year basis, the state Labor Department said last week. Because these workers are paid so generously, an average of almost $400,000 last year, these jobs spur hiring in many other sectors, from shops to advertising firms.

That intensifies the pain of Wall Street's breakdown, as each of this industry's jobs could cause two workers to be laid off in New York City and 1.3 employees to be cut in the state, the Democratic comptroller explained.

Securities company executives, moreover, should not reap bonuses because it's "inappropriate to reward poor performance," DiNapoli said, noting that broker/dealer desks of New York Stock Exchange member firms lost almost $21 billion in the first six months of this year.

BEWARE OF SHRINKING BONUSES

Bonuses now could plunge in half, the way they did in the early 2000s, after the end of the Internet speculative fever and the deadly September 11 air attacks in 2001, DiNapoli said.

That might bring these payments down to $16 billion. This will also hurt Wall Street's lower-level employees, who just like investment bankers and top traders, often rely heavily on bonuses. "New York will feel a lot of pain from a shrunken bonus pool," DiNapoli said.

The state and city could lose $6.5 billion in tax revenues from Wall Street over two years. New York City gets 12 percent of its tax revenues from this industry, while the state gets 20 percent.

DiNapoli also warned that job "losses could be greater if the economic downturn is deeper and longer than currently forecast."

Wall Street's job force peaked at 200,300 in December 2000. As of last month, this sector employed 171,400 people, according to the state Labor Department.

New York City lost 232,1000 private-sector jobs in the recession that stretched from 2001 to 2003.

(Reporting by Joan Gralla; Editing by Theodore d'Afflisio





http://www.talkzimbabwe.com/news/120/ARTICLE/3794/2008-11-25.html
]]> Wed, 26 Nov 2008 05:19:00 EST http://dkaiyo.tigblog.org/post/539497 -17.863889 31.029722-17.86388931.029722 http://dkaiyo.tigblog.org/post/538267
By Stephen T. Maimbodei

I have read Graham Hancock’s "Lords of Poverty: the Power, Prestige, and Corruption of the International Aid Business" many times since 1992 and love it for laying bare the rotten innards of the international aid business.

It is a world of vultures; where the poor are big business for the rich and powerful from the glittering cities of the Western world.

Africa’s natural disasters and civil strife are also a boon.

Real and imagined humanitarian crises have propelled them to dizzying heights of influence and prominence.

And once again the people of Zimbabwe are being short-changed by sons and daughters of this continent working in cahoots with powerful Western governments and their media.

As usual, President Mugabe is to blame, and what is new about that?

The intended visit by the trio of the so-called "Elders" comprising former UN secretary-general Kofi Annan, former US president Jimmy Carter and former Mozambican and South African First Lady Graca Machel, which has already taken the lime light from the beneficiaries of the "humanitarian assistance", makes one wonder what the bigger picture is.

It all has to do with Western policy towards Zanu-PF, which never changes even as we expect a new US administration to take over next year.

When I listened to Carter and Annan desperately trying to paint sordid pictures of Zimbabwe, I felt very sad and went back to Hancock.

The challenges faced by ordinary people in this country cannot be trivialised to this level, and neither can they be dealt with in a one-day meeting with principals of the power sharing deal.

Concerned people need to be on sight to see what the West’s so-called "travel bans" have done to the dignity of the Zimbabwean people.

That the so-called "Elders" desperately wanted this visit despite advice from Government is cause for concern.

Both Annan and Graca Machel are Africans whose countries are members of regional blocs, Sadc and the African Union, to which Zimbabwe belongs. Sadc is yet to complete its mandate of ensuring that the power-sharing deal is implemented, with the assistance of the AU.

So, what agenda is the "Elders" mission, which is now being implemented from neighbouring South Africa, meant to achieve?

Zimbabwe’s revolution cannot also be reduced to fuzzy terms such as "governance, rule of law and human rights" whose shelf life and credibility are questionable.

Machel knows Zimbabwe’s situation too well to believe that a 28-year journey could have completed the unfinished business centred on land.

Frelimo and Zanla fought side by side as comrades-in-arms for land and self-determination.

Why is it also that the visit looks like the "Elders" are passing a vote of no confidence not only on talks facilitator former President Thabo Mbeki, but also on Africa’s regional bodies?

And why also set such a dangerous precedent — bypassing the continent’s recognised bodies?

At whose bidding is this raucous visit being made? What is amazing is that before the dawn of the multi-billion-dollar aid industry, the UN, with assistance from organisations like the International Committee of the Red Cross, were able to handle humanitarian crises in any part of the world without sending such circuses as this one.

Annan knows this since he worked for the UN for many years before becoming its top diplomat.

Why this peculiar approach towards Zimbabwe?

Thus Annan’s claims that they would now assess the humanitarian crisis from neighbouring South Africa are nothing but a smoke screen to the real issue behind the visit.

If the mission was humanitarian, why the consultations with some regional leaders?

What value do the consultations add to the humanitarian situation if the very countries cannot directly assist the people of Zimbabwe?

Why also has Kenyan Prime Minister Raila Odinga been so quick to condemn Zimbabwe, while at the same time calling for a peacekeeping force to be deployed?

What peace is there to keep in a country whose humanitarian crisis Annan describes as "intolerable"?

A peacekeeping force for food and cholera? Sounds more like declaring war on "terror".

How different is this mission from the UN-sponsored fact-finding mission by Anna Tibaijuka who lives under the pall of a human catastrophe in Nairobi called Kibera?

With this kind of aiding and abetting, how far again is Zimbabwe from another UNSC-sponsored resolution?

However, The Herald columnist Nathaniel Manheru implied it in last Saturday’s instalment.

The missing link in the whole saga is former American Democrat President Jimmy Carter.

The 84-year-old Nobel laureate told the media that it was a "novel experience" for him since he had never before been denied a visa.

He probably needs to know that thousands of well meaning Zimbabweans are denied entry visas into the United States every day.

Carter, President from 1977 to 1981, hails from America’s Deep South.

He was defeated by Ronald Reagan in 1980, and was widely criticised for the poor state of the economy and also viewed by some as weak in handling foreign policy.

Apart from the 1979 Lancaster House Conference taking place during his presidency, it was also during that same year that the Iranian revolution took place and Americans were taken hostage in Teheran.

It was also during the Carter administration that the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. Zimbabwe, Iran and Afghanistan! These are still hot spots on the international scene and the United States is fully involved in all of them.

Why then are we missing the plot? And why do we call something a visit when it is not?

Is it also a coincidence that Carter, one of the few US presidents to leave office with one of the lowest approval ratings is doing a Zimbabwe mission when Bush is exiting office with the lowest approval ratings, over the economy and foreign policy?

The Carter administration was party to the Lancaster House Conference in 1979 and Zimbabwe gained independence the year Carter was defeated by the Republicans.

Carter has also so far been the only US president — serving or former — to visit Zimbabwe (in 1986).

However, it was a visit full of controversy.

Carter walked out of the US Fourth of July commemoration after then minister of Youth, Sport and Culture Cde David Karimanzira attacked US policies. From that time relations between Zimbabwe and the United States nose-dived and the Reagan administration cut aid to Zimbabwe.

Nevertheless, Zimbabwe remained under Carter’s spotlight through his Carter Centre. In its February 1993 issue, the NGO’s newsletter Africa Demos described Zimbabwe as a "directed democracy", meaning "although it had a political system in which formal institutions and practices of constitutional democracy were present, in practice, however, the extensive powers of the ruler, party or regime severely limited contestation by individuals, organised groups, legislative assemblies and the judiciary".

However, the July/August edition described Zimbabwe as a "moderate democracy", meaning that "formal commitments to a democratic transition were accompanied by only measured, cautious and preliminary steps toward institutionalisation or pluralism. "Promises reflected a sense of democratic purpose, but needs were not yet commensurate with pledges".

Only the Lord knows how Zimbabwe’s political system could transform so dramatically in so short a period. Carter’s value to the delegation actually lies in what happened at the 1979 Lancaster House Conference.

Former Commonwealth secretary general Sir Shridath Ramphal (1975-1990) revealed the extent of the Carter administration’s role in brokering a deal between the Patriotic Front and the Smith regime in an interview with Gugulethu Moyo and Mark Ashurst.

Sir Shridath was adviser to the Patriotic Front led by President Mugabe and late Vice President Joshua Nkomo at the Lancaster House talks.

Said Sir Shridath: "I made the suggestion that we must find a way to get a guarantee of support from the British government [and] internationally, of funds that would allow them to compulsorily acquire enough land to begin the process of land resettlement. And I said to them: ‘I invited the American ambassador to meet with me’.

"I said to him: ‘If you don’t help now, Lancaster House will break up. All that we have achieved will be lost and that will only strengthen the hand of apartheid South Africa.’ Kingman [Brewster, the American ambassador] said: ‘I am with you. I think this is the right approach. I have to talk to Washington. Give me 24 hours’.

"He came back the next day. He had spoken to Cyrus Vance [the American Secretary of State] who had spoken to President Carter and they had authorised Brewster to say to me, and through me to the Patriotic Front, that they would support the establishment of an agricultural development fund and they would make a substantial contribution to it, that they would recognise the right of the government after the elections to use this fund to help to defray any compensation, that the fund would be a responsibility they would accept, providing it was matched by the British government and had an international character.

"That was the American response. It could not have been more positive. He left me with no doubt that it would be very substantial. I said: ‘That’s fine you telling me, but you have to say this to the Patriotic Front.’ The next day, the [American] deputy ambassador came to my home and I told Mugabe and Nkomo what the ambassador had told me.

"He confirmed to them that this was the position of the American government and that they would inform the British government. He recommended that on the basis, the Patriotic Front should return to the conference…"

Twenty-eight years later, it is disturbing that successive US administrations make it look like land is no longer an issue and would rather use "governance" as the central issue to the Zimbabwe question.

So, has Carter come to fulfil that 1979 promise in full, and help the Obama administration in the process?

After the falsehoods and demonisation peddled for so long about the Land Reform Programme, what will Carter tell President Mugabe?

Will he continue to claim, despite the humanitarian problems, the real issue is about elections?

However, why hide behind the Mandela name when all we know is that this is nothing but another regime change strategy fully sponsored and supported by America, Britain and their allies?





http://www.herald.co.zw/inside.aspx?sectid=948cat=10
]]> Tue, 25 Nov 2008 03:13:00 EST http://dkaiyo.tigblog.org/post/538267 -17.863889 31.029722-17.86388931.029722 http://dkaiyo.tigblog.org/post/537379
AFRICAN FOCUS By Tafataona P. Mahoso

FROM the point of view of the ordinary citizen of Zimbabwe, the population is experiencing semi-genocidal conditions similar to those experienced at the height of the war of liberation between 1975 and the end of 1979, but this time without civil war.

The semi-genocidal conditions include: the closure of a significant number of schools and colleges; the closure of a significant number of hospitals and clinics; food shortages and escalating prices of those foods which are available; hardening attitudes and denials of reality across political divides (despite everyone’s desire for unity and peace); and a general state of shock.

The last symptom, the general state of shock, has been defined by Naomi Klein in The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, as follows: "A state of shock . . . is a moment when there is a gap between fast-moving events and the information that exists to explain them . . . [The predominance of] raw reality, unprocessed by story, narrative, or anything that could bridge the gap between reality and understanding . . . Without a story, we are . . . intensely vulnerable to those people who are ready to take advantage of the chaos for their own ends. As soon as we have a new narrative that offers a perspective on the shocking events, we become re-oriented and the world begins to make sense once again."

On November 20 2008, the Governor of the Reserve Bank, Dr Gideon Gono, held a Press conference at which he tried to explain to the public the shocking experiences which people have endured at the banks, in supermarkets and elsewhere, shocking experiences which are caused by hyperinflation which shows itself in the form of shortages of cash, escalating prices, dollarisation and the destruction of the national currency.

Dr Gono suggested that the shocking developments which people had experienced for a long time now are related to the illegal sanctions imposed on the country by the United Kingdom, the United States, the European Union and their allies related to regime change politics; and related to psychological war as well as corruption and greed.

As we have tried to demonstrate in previous installments, the imposition of illegal sanctions on Zimbabwe devastated society and the economy by increasing opportunities for illegal activity. Under illegal sanctions it becomes difficult to separate illegal activities that are motivated by regime change-related espionage and destabilisation from those caused by sheer greed, from those caused through incompetence and ignorance.

Illegal regime change as the overall objective of the British and their external allies and internal proxies remains confusing because it requires the use of any and all forms of destabilisation short of military invasion. As Ludo Martens pointed out, quoting the French specialist Colonel Trinquier: "Today war is a whole consisting of actions of all kinds, political, social, economic, psychological, armed . . . which aim to overthrow established power in a country"

This is the meaning of regime change. But underneath that umbrella of regime change, there are various fronts: psychological war or propaganda; information warfare; and financial warfare.

While the New Labour government of Britain has been the most open about the desire for a military invasion, the US State Department has been more open about financial warfare and psychological war.

The speech which former US Ambassador to Zimbabwe Christopher Dell gave at Africa University in Mutare on November 2 2005 was entitled "Plain Talk About the Zimbabwean Economy" and it served to launch the planning phase of the financial warfare, four years after the passage of the US sanctions law called the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act (Zidera). When the planning of the financial warfare was in place towards the end of 2007, Ambassador Dell gave another speech in Bulawayo in which he set a hyperinflation target of 1 800 000 percent by the end of 2007 which he said would bring down the economy and the Government of Zimbabwe.

The psychological war was revealed by former US Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Walter Kansteiner to The Washington Times on August 20 2002 and reported in The Herald in Zimbabwe on August 22.

In that revelation, Walter Kansteiner named so-called independent journalists and independent media, "civil" society organisations and non-governmental organisations as well as selected governments in the Sadc region, as partners with the US State Department in the psychological and political war against Zimbabwe.

But the two fronts of the regime change onslaught which have not been explained are information and financial warfare.

In his paper called Financial Warfare Professor Michel Chossudovsky describes financial warfare as: "The worldwide scramble to appropriate wealth through financial manipulation. This manipulation of market forces by powerful actors constitutes a form of financial and economic warfare. No need to recolonise lost territory or send in invading armies. In the late 20th Century, the outright conquest of nations, meaning the control over productive assets, labour, natural resources and institutions can be carried out in an impersonal fashion from the corporate boardroom: commands are dispatched from a computer terminal, or a cellphone. The relevant data are instantly relayed to major financial markets — often resulting in immediate disruptions in the functioning of national economies."

But the vehicles and instruments used go beyond just finance and the financial sector. So do the concepts.

It is, therefore, important to note that the phenomena which the RBZ Governor described at his Press conference on November 20 2008 included both financial and information warfare. It was also clear that the explanations of these phenomena and events given by the regime change forces were aimed at psychological warfare, that is to turn the population affected by financial and information warfare against the RBZ and the entire social and political order behind the Governor.

It is, therefore, important to define information warfare before explaining how it operates with and sometimes as financial warfare. The US Information Warfare Site (IWS) defines information warfare as: "any action to deny, exploit, corrupt or destroy the enemy’s information and its functions; protecting ourselves against those actions; and exploiting our own military information functions . . . US information warriors would be able to disable important enemy command and control or civilian infrastructure systems with little, if any, loss of life".

The US IWS then gives many illustrations of actions which constitute information warfare. Two examples are quite telling: Stock or commodity exchanges, electric power grids and municipal air traffic control systems and . . . air traffic control or navigation systems could be manipulated or disrupted, with accompanying economic or societal disruption, physical destruction or loss of life.

Computer intruders might steal and disclose confidential, personal, medical or financial information, as a tool for blackmail, extortion, or to cause widespread social disruption or embarrassment.

Now, if we look at the daily needs and aspirations of the majority of the citizens of Zimbabwe and the policies of the Government of Zimbabwe in response to those needs and aspirations of the people, we can identify the following social objectives which the financial warfare, the information warfare and the psychological warfare together aim to defeat.

First, both the Government and the people want a stable currency, stable prices and affordable goods produced locally and imported from abroad.

Second, both the Government and the people want to be able to punish those who seek to defeat their objectives regarding the economy and the living conditions of the people. But under the conditions of economic liberalisation introduced at the time of the Economic Structural Adjustment Programme and worsened by the imposition of sanctions, it is difficult to maintain stability and to identify those who are engaged in acts of economic and financial destabilisation — let alone to punish them.

The Government and the people find, for instance, that a barrage of rates have been created, and are constantly thrown at them, and used to justify acts that fuel hyperinflation. For instance, when we use the following terms casually we are most likely describing the information war features of the overall economic war against ourselves:

l Old Mutual Implied Rate

l the transfer rate

l the RTGS rate

l the official Government rate

l the parallel market rate

l the inter-bank rate

l the Zimbabwe dollar cash price

l the foreign currency cash price

l the foreign currency transfer rate

l the bank cheque price

l the personal cheque price

l the parallel market price.

Most of these rates and prices have been used to defeat the official Government rate and the inter-bank rate.

If we now return to the US definition of information warfare, we notice that the unleashing of all these supposed rates, as if they constitute reality, has had many destructive effects on the people.

It has denied many the use of their cheque books, because they are heavily penalised for using cheques. As the RBZ Governor pointed out, even the use of guaranteed bank cheques was recently rendered impossible because a score or so bank managers went on to guarantee and write bank cheques for which there were no funds. But the overall impact of all these contradictory rates has been to drive hyperinflation against the Zimbabwe dollar until the nation as a whole is now being denied the right to use its own currency.

In the end, most people do not know what to believe about the value of goods, the value of their money (in local or foreign currency), the value of their stocks, the value of their labour or the value of their produce.

The purpose of all the various types of warfare, intended to substitute or precede military intervention, is made clear in Chapter 2 of the IWS documents which chapter is called The Conduct of Information Warfare and International Law. The authors conclude that: ". . . manipulating an adversary nation to the extent that its citizens or leaders become unhinged from reality, especially when the effects cannot be known or controlled, may be no less wrongful than to force another nation into starvation or cannibalism. The potentially dangerous results of perception manipulation are more than theoretical . . . The use of propaganda, video morphing, or deceptive broadcasts to the extent that they spur unrestrained civil war or even genocide, may be thus illegal".

But these methods were used in Venezuela in late 2002; in Yugoslavia in 1999; in Iraq in 2003; and in Rwanda in 1994. They have been used in Zimbabwe.

The document produced for ZWNEWS by the so-called Zimbabwe Human Rights Forum and other NGOs was premised on the assumption that the combination of psychological war, financial and information warfare had made the Zimbabwean people and their leaders sufficiently "unhinged" or "freaked up" enough to precipitate a genocidal war far worse than Rwanda 1994. The document was called Is Zimbabwe on the Brink of Genocide? The researchers concluded that genocide was imminent in Zimbabwe and would happen by January 2003!

The fact that this has not happened despite all the attempts is reason to pay tribute to the people and leaders of our nation who have rejected illegal regime change.



]]> Mon, 24 Nov 2008 07:20:00 EST http://dkaiyo.tigblog.org/post/537379 -17.863889 31.029722-17.86388931.029722 http://dkaiyo.tigblog.org/post/522541

Philip Murombedzi


ZIMBABWEANS everywhere celebrated the election of Senator Barack Obama as President of the United States of America and so did many Africans and African-Americans who are now hopeful that with this Black man in the driving seat, there is hope for a seismic policy shift in the United States and a reconnection with the rest of the world.

One of the reasons why Sen. Obama was elected, besides the effectiveness of his campaign, his intelligence and his powers of oratory, is because many people were fed up with Washington and its policies which are divorced from reality. Many people questioned the war in Iraq and America’s unilateralism or aggression towards weaker states.

Sen. Obama got support from many people who were fed up with the detached leadership of George W. Bush, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. Many people do not doubt the sincerity of these men when they say they want to protect their countries’ democracy from being threatened. We believe them. We do not think they are inherently bad people and when they wake up everyday and look in the mirror, they truly see themselves as good people who want to make change and protect their countries.

But they forgot one thing: There are many countries in the world, not just their own. There are so many interests in the world. There are also good countries outside of the G7/G8 fold. There are also very important countries elsewhere in the world that could help their own countries achieve their objectives.

For instance, Britain and the US are now looking to China and the Arab world to help resolve the global financial crisis. Gordon Brown last week said he was asking Arab countries to contribute to the International Monetary Fund to help resolve the global financial crisis. He qualified his statement by saying he was not going with a “begging bowl”. But we know he was. He was in that region three months ago, trying to persuade them to reduce oil prices again with no “begging bowl”.

President Bush is looking to China – whom America already owes trillions of dollars – to help bail them out, yet we hear (in Bush and president-elect Obama) that America is still the strongest country in the world. It is no longer. There has been a power shift in the world and the countries of South East Asia are changing the global power distribution, and the West has to look elsewhere for cues.

President-elect Obama will have to show that he can bridge that divide – that he can make the connections that Bush and his Allies failed to make, if the world is going to be a better place – after all he campaigned on that ticket and the world is watching.

President-elect Obama will also have to fight for the connection of Washington and those who have fought for civil rights, for so many years in America. He is their only hope and he campaigned on that ticket too, although he specifically avoided mention of those two words in his campaign – ‘civil rights’. Nowhere did we hear Sen. Obama campaign for civil rights, which is one reason why the Rev. Jesse Jackson made the lurid comments he made about him, for which he later apologized.

Rev. Jackson who shed tears on the eve of Sen. Obama’s election, could have had a mixture of emotions – that finally a Black man was going to be President, but also that the speech made was devoid of direct talk about civil rights and about the plight of Blacks in America, who suffered years of slavery and second-class citizenship – are still suffering today. Rev. Jackson was there on the fateful night when Rev. Martin Luther King was assassinated and these events are very significant to him and the Black (minority) people he represents. He was a presidential hopeful himself, who campaigned on a “civil rights ticket” in the eighties.

We cannot prejudge President-elect Obama. He has shown some leadership thus far, but we also remember that he made a speech to the US Senate on March 15 2007 to the effect that “regime change” should be supported in Zimbabwe. He has also reached out to MDC leader, Morgan Tsvangirai, but not President Mugabe. We believe that for Sen. Obama to understand the true picture of Zimbabwe, and before he makes public statements about Zimbabwe, he should reach out to stakeholders in the country. The MDC leader is not infallible and neither is President Mugabe. Any outsider who wants to understand the struggles that Zimbabwe has gone through, is going through, will go through, will have to reach out to all persuasions in the country.

Just like we will not prejudge the Black President-elect, he should not prejudge our country, but should help resolve our crisis – and the crisis of the many millions of Blacks, Hispanics, Indians and other minorities in America.

We hope ‘President Obama’ will not be a token president who will be used by the powers-that-be in Washington to justify Black inclusion in American politics knowing fully well that the levers of power are still in the white-controlled institutions crafted centuries ago. Obama has made a giant step, but the small strides being made by Black people daily are very crucial as well.

Trevor Philips, Chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality in Britain made an interesting observation this weekend. As one of the most prominent civil rights campaigners in Britain, Philips told The Times newspaper: “If Barack Obama had lived here (in Britain) I would be very surprised if even somebody as brilliant as him would have been able to break through the institutional stranglehold that there is on power within the Labour Party.” It has to be said that the same “institutional stranglehold” is still existent in America. We wait to see whether Obama’s appointments will reflect the racial composition of the United States. He should not favour Blacks simply because he is Black, but he should not just favour Whites as well. He should strike a balance in appointments and include skilled Blacks, Indians, Hispanics, etc in his administration.

Those who have been following the campaigns by Sen. Obama will agree that he ran a spirited, rainbow campaign. His rallies were filled with all races and he was loved by everyone. He had record attendances in Berlin, Germany. That spirit should be carried forward to his administration – he should have a rainbow administration.

Indications so far are that there will be very few changes in Washington, which is sad. If, as President, Obama does not address the plight of the Black and minority populations in America, it will take centuries to address those issues and Obama will only remain as a token President to silent those who thought America was never ready for a Black President.

If he manages to address those issues he would have created a precedent that will have a domino effect on the rest of future administrations in America (Black-led or White-led). He will be the standard by which to measure any future administration’s efforts at extending civil liberties to minority groups.

That Sen. Obama chastised those people who did not believe in what he termed “American democracy” at his winning speech in Chicago on Tuesday last week, was unfortunate. Many of those people who did not believe in “American democracy” are the suffering populations in America – the Blacks, Hispanics, the Indians and others. These communities have been at the receiving end of the brutality of a system Obama was fighting in his campaign.

Interesting last note: Sen. Obama’s speech to hundreds of thousands of supporters in Chicago – one of the most widely-watched and repeated political addresses in recent history was partly written in a flat in Notting Hill, West London by a twenty-seven year old White man. Nothing wrong with the skin colour of the speech-writer, but when the speech fails to address the issues of civil liberties that have been at the forefront of Black and minority campaign for many years and fails to mention the forerunner to the cause (like Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and the Rev. Jesse Jackson), one wonders what type of administration to expect under “President Barack Obama”.

philipmurombedzi@yahoo.com

ARTICLE ATTACHMENTS




READER OPINIONS

N/A • N/A
Subject: Obama
Sun, 09 Nov 2008 19:53:57 • I share Simpson's views on the Obama presidency. The question is who will be pulling the strings will it be the Money Masters (the rich bankers) and the usual Washington crowd. Time will tell. Yes, we are all awating to see whether he carries out the same failed Bush policies with regards to Zimbabwe. If Obama really believes in freedom and liberty, then the first thing he should do is to repeal the Zidera Act,2001 and lift sanctions against Zim. Why is the US public allowing their govt to make the Zim economy scream and thereby impoverish its people. Zimbabweans have no quarrel with the American people.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Simpson • n/a
Subject: Waiting to see
Sun, 09 Nov 2008 16:59:43 • Am a bit sceptical as well - but being as intelligent as he is, Africa wait to see the change it can believe in. That means revisiting american foreign policy in Africa under Bush administration.

Surely if Bush was a disaster at home - he could not have been right away from home. Interestingly, in Zim MDC-T have been enjoying cosy relations with the republicans. Chematama and Mcgee are best of mates, but i was surprised to hear Biti congratulating Obama and refering to Bush as being arrogant. It was the first time any MDC-T official has ever seen anything wrong with the Bush administration.

Obama is going to be tested in the way he is going to deal with the Palestine/Israel conflict, Iran and Zimbabwe. Surely if he represents change that we can all believe in, then Obama must revisit the Bush admin`s policy towards these case studies. He only need to listen to their side of the story and make an informed judgement from facts not from manufactured, stage-managed events.

My only fear is that the american institutions not presidency direct foreign policy and as such Obama may not be able to have any influence at all.

However, as the occupier of the most prestigious house in the world, he should be able to engage these countries not to ostracise based on lies. He shd also not be too close to Brown for that matter - but make independent judgements.

Interesting events are already happening - Claire short is leading a european delegation to Palestine to fight for their oppression from Israel, not sure why at this moment taking into account Short wrote that infamous Zim letter and served in a labour gvt for a long time without taking this radical step. could it be anything to do with making Obama`s presidential tenure difficult, given the fact that Obama`s campaign team was led by jews.

For the first time, sky news had the headline in bold red :Hamas willing to speak to Obama. Very strange indeed since hamas has always been referred to as a terrorist organisation.

I think we are going to see many more interesting developments - however if the developments helps in making the world a fairer place, including Uk paying for land reform in zim without weird conditions, or speeding up real land reform and empowering the black populace in south africa then we would welcome them.

We wait and see.

http://www.talkzimbabwe.com/news/139/ARTICLE/3709/2008-11-09.html

]]> Mon, 10 Nov 2008 07:56:00 EST http://dkaiyo.tigblog.org/post/522541 -17.863889 31.029722-17.86388931.029722 http://dkaiyo.tigblog.org/post/522417
By Stephen T. Maimbodei

"AN election in Africa has once again ended with the opposition rejecting the final results and claiming that the election was rigged". When the headline was read out on Sunday evening, I heaved a sigh, and exclaimed: "Boy oh boy, not again!"

I have always wondered whether the cry about election fraud, which almost always comes soon after election results are announced, is an indictment on our young and fledgling democracies and their ability to successfully administer elections
I have also wondered if this actually is a plus sign in nation state building. And I also question, administer them for whom, and in whose interests? Are the people ever a factor in all these? Are the underlying issues as simplistic as I am making them to be?
There seems to be an unwritten African code, which says that a strong opposition party pitting itself against the ruling party should win any election, whether parliamentary or presidential. If they fail to win, then the election and the electoral system are condemned, and the denunciation carries more weight if the Western media champions it.
For years now, we have witnessed that any opposition defeat automatically becomes electoral fraud, accompanied by the usual jibe that the election has been stolen, and claims that the poll was not free and fair and that these are a potent enough mix to produce a rigged poll.
This is a script whose template has been replicated all over Africa when opposition parties lose to ruling parties. It is tired copy, but one which is happily accepted in the West, and one which reinforces the stereotypical images of undemocratic election processes in Africa, and the inability to govern.
The next step is for the opposition to reject the results, take the matter to the courts, and demand a recount. Zimbabwe is currently in a political malaise because of this phenomenon.
On October 30, Zambians went to the polls to elect a president to replace the late Levy Mwanawasa who passed on last August. Four contestants vied for the post although at the end only two remained major contenders, then acting President Rupiah Banda of the Movement for Multiparty Democracy and Michael Sata of the Patriotic Front.
Out of a population of 11 477 447, more than 3 million are, according to the Electoral Commission of Zambia, registered voters, and 1 768 210 people cast valid votes, which is less than 50 percent of the total number of registered voters. It is quite clear then that voter turnout was low. However, when all was said and done, Sata rejected the result, alleging malpractices, demanded a recount and announced his intention to challenge the results in court.
As if to give credence to Sata’s claims, the Western media made an issue of the fact that President Banda won the election by a narrow margin, and went on to be sworn in barely two hours after the announcement of the final result.
President Banda beat his rival by 35 209 votes. One wonders why winning an election with a narrow margin, where the difference between the two is greater than the number of votes grossed by the fourth contestant who polled 13 683 votes, would be an issue. According to election observers — local, regional and international — the elections were conducted in a free and fair manner in accordance with the Sadc guidelines on the conduct of elections.
Sata had initially asked the Electoral Commission of Zambia to delay announcing the full result since he believed that his initial lead was going to be maintained. However, his request was denied and he claimed in an interview that "a bunch of thieves have stolen (his) votes".
This was the second time Sata claimed electoral fraud. In the previous poll that pitted him against late Mwanawasa, he did the same and took the case up to the Zambian courts. What is disturbing in this trend, which seems to be quite unique to African politics, is the number of times election fraud cases arise in most elections. And it is almost like a given that the opposition has to win an election in order for the election to be accepted as free and fair. Why?
Zimbabwe, Kenya, Nigeria, Malawi, Uganda, Mozambique, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia and many others have had these problems, whether genuine or not genuine. These are problems that stall national development and make it difficult for incoming governments to implement developmental projects as time and scarce resources are wasted in what President Banda has described as "petty squabbles".
Who also says that if a candidate is initially leading, then it is a given that they should emerge the ultimate winner? Who also says that if one wins by a small margin, then the results are questionable?
A Zambia National Broadcasting Corporation reporter interviewed an official from one of the opposition political parties (not PF) who expressed satisfaction with the electoral process. Then, they were waiting for the last batch of results from 20 constituencies in outlying areas and all believed to be MMD strongholds just like urban centres were Sata’s strongholds.
An MMD official who was also interviewed on ZNBC expressed satisfaction with the voting process, and said that despite the razor-thin difference between the two leading contenders, MMD was confident of victory since they already had the results which had been posted outside polling stations in the various constituencies.
Why, therefore, did the opposition claim electoral fraud if the process was transparent and was endorsed by various observers? Is electoral fraud being institutionalised even in cases where it is unwarranted in order to diminish Africa’s electoral systems? Who stands to benefit each time people refuse to accept the results of a process they would have participated in? Not the people obviously!
Depending on what the Zambian constitution says, Sata should accept the results. Doing so is a sign of respect to the Zambian people — his supporters and others who did not vote for him.
Development programmes in Africa cannot be sacrificed on the altar of expediency and personal egos should rise above the people’s interests.

]]> Mon, 10 Nov 2008 05:03:00 EST http://dkaiyo.tigblog.org/post/522417 -17.863889 31.029722-17.86388931.029722 http://dkaiyo.tigblog.org/post/512258
Lovemore Nyatsine


Wed, 29 Oct 2008 00:03:00 +0000



IN DOING consulting work in the mining industry, I come across all kinds of business challenges. Mines have in their employ men and women whose only job is to come and make things better. This is called optimization and can take the form of business process reengineering, six sigma, capability maturity modeling, organization redesign and development, change management or a complete revamp. These men and women must of necessity have the heart of a revolutionary and the stamina of a champion.

Revolutionaries operate by both insight and foresight. They are visionary and intuitive by nature. Champions have the pedigree and passion to last the whole distance. The revolutionary will see the future, and the champions will take us there.

The world is in urgent need of optimization. We need men and women who will rise and makes things better. These need to be revolutionary at heart and champion in spirit.

The Challenge

The world is tired of ‘chef revolutionaries’ whose measure of success is the size of their belly. Neither does the world want any more smooth-talking and debonair Wall Street investor savvy wheeler dealers. Nor politicians who bicker over who will sleep in the main bedroom when the house is on fire. Life can be more serious than that. Let’s start a war of making the world a better place not just for today but tomorrow. We have a generational responsibility to bequeath to future generations a better world.

At the current rate, there is a risk that this could potentially be a generation that impoverished the world – environmentally, socially, economically and politically. God forbid. With so much advancement around, it is incomprehensible that we have more poor people and less healthy people than we had 50 years ago. The world is sick and needs to be fixed. This kind of sickness needs more than a pain killer, but urgent radical surgery.

Real Revolutionaries

I want to challenge, even provoke you to be stirred to say “Not under my watch”. History records men and women who stood up and said “Not under my watch”. The Mandela’s, Gandhi’s, Mother Theresa, Masiyiwa Family (through Capernaum Trust), Gates Family Trust, Buffet and others come to mind. We need the proverbial Daniel’s, Nehemiah’s, David’s and Deborah’s who will rise and slay the ‘Philistines’ of economic greed, poverty, political mediocrity, debauchery and destructive consumption.

Real revolutionaries are driven by a desire to make a generational impact. They seek to pursue grand societal goals even at the expense of personal advancement. This is contrary to latter day self proclaimed “revolutionaries” whose sense of entitlement has condemned whole nations to abject economic and social depravity.

You too can make a difference. You just need to take your place and play your part. The real revolution starts with you in the way you think and act. Change that village or town even if it means planting trees. Think beyond yourself for a change. What will future generations say about you, if at all?

Spirit of Champions

Champions are usually not super humans. They are common men or women who are driven by a desire to achieve a goal. The mark of champions is the ability to identify a goal and work towards it. What need is within your reach community, town, village or nation that you could address. It’s not about money, Gandhi had none – are you willing to take “response – ability”?

The world is crying for champions. Champions take ‘response-ability’. They respond to a need using their ability. Mother Theresa was a champion for the poor who turned Calcutta upside down. Mandela was a champion for the oppressed. Kenyan Nobel laureate Wangari Maathai is a champion for Kenyan forests (sustainable development) Indian scientist Vandana Shiva is a global anti GMO campaigner.

They are all ordinary individuals who have set extraordinary goals for themselves. The point is you can also play a part. Let me end by quoting one of my favourite quotes by Wangari Maathai: "In the course of history, there comes a time when humanity is called to shift to a new level of consciousness, to reach a higher moral ground. A time when we have to shed our fear and give hope to each other. That time is now."





http://www.talkzimbabwe.com/news/138/ARTICLE/3629/2008-10-29.html]]> Wed, 29 Oct 2008 10:37:00 EDT http://dkaiyo.tigblog.org/post/512258 -17.863889 31.029722-17.86388931.029722 http://dkaiyo.tigblog.org/post/512255 IMF may need to "print money" to bail out countries


Daily Telegraph


Tue, 28 Oct 2008 11:32:00 +0000



E-MAIL PRINT PDF VERSION XML VERSION TEXT



THE International Monetary Fund may soon lack the money to bail out an ever growing list of countries crumbling across Eastern Europe, Latin America, Africa, and parts of Asia, raising concerns that it will have to tap taxpayers in Western countries for a capital infusion or resort to the nuclear option of printing its own money.

IMF's work in countries such as Turkey is only just beginning.

The Fund is already close to committing a quarter of its $200bn (£130bn) reserve chest, with a loans to Iceland ($2bn), Ukraine ($16.5bn), and talks underway with Pakistan ($14.5bn), Hungary ($10bn), as well as Belarus and Serbia.

Neil Schering, emerging market strategist at Capital Economics, said the IMF's work in the great arc of countries from the Baltic states to Turkey is only just beginning.

"When you tot up the countries across the region with external funding needs, you get to $500bn or $600bn very quickly, and that blows the IMF out of the water. The Fund may soon have to start calling on the West for additional funds," he said.

Brad Setser, an expert on capital flows at the Council for Foreign Relations, said Russia, Mexico, Brazil and India have together spent $75bn of their reserves defending their currencies this month, and South Korea is grappling with a serious banking crisis.

"Right now the IMF is too small to meet the foreign currency liquidity needs of the larger emerging economies. We're in a dangerous situation and there is the risk of extreme moves in the markets, as we have seen with the Brazilian real. I hope policy-makers understand how serious this is," he said.

The IMF, led by Dominique Strauss-Kahn, has the power to raise money on the capital markets by issuing `AAA' bonds under its own name. It has never resorted to this option, preferring to tap members states for deposits.

The nuclear option is to print money by issuing Special Drawing Rights, in effect acting as if it were the world's central bank. This was done briefly after the fall of the Soviet Union but has never been used as systematic tool of policy to head off a global financial crisis.

"The IMF can in theory create liquidity like a central bank," said an informed source. "There are a lot of ideas kicking around."

For now, Eastern Europe is the epicentre of the crisis. Lars Christensen, a strategist at Danske Bank, said the lighting speed and size of Ukraine's bail-out suggest the IMF is worried about the geo-strategic risk in the Black Sea region, as well as the imminent risk a financial pandemic.

"The IMF clearly fears a domino effect in Eastern Europe where a collapse in one country automatically leads to a collapse in another," he said. - Daily Telegraph






http://www.talkzimbabwe.com/news/120/ARTICLE/3624/2008-10-28.html
]]> Wed, 29 Oct 2008 09:23:00 EDT http://dkaiyo.tigblog.org/post/512255 -17.863889 31.029722-17.86388931.029722 http://dkaiyo.tigblog.org/post/512088
Gulf states also urged to contribute to economic rescue fund to ensure it can help struggling economies
Gordon Brown will this weekend call on China and oil-producing countries in the Gulf to pump hundreds of billions of dollars into the International Monetary Fund to prevent the global financial "contagion" from destroying vulnerable economies.

As the IMF finalizes plans to shore up the Hungarian and Ukrainian economies with combined loans of $29bn, the prime minister will make clear that more needs to be done to ensure the fund can step in to help struggling economies.

Brown outlined his plans in Downing Street yesterday before flying to Paris for talks with the French president, Nicolas Sarkozy. "The IMF has said it has $250bn available and new instruments to lend to countries in crisis," Brown said. "But this may not be enough. It is becoming increasingly clear to me that we cannot delay and that we now need substantial resources in addition to the $250bn that the IMF already has available.

"We need this for the crisis that we face now in the 21st century ... It is necessary at this stage to prevent this international contagion and I believe we should take action on this new fund immediately."

The prime minister will use a visit to the Gulf over the weekend and a telephone conversation with the Chinese prime minister, Wen Jiabao, later this week to say that countries with surpluses should take the burden of bolstering the IMF. China is estimated to have $1.7tn in reserves: some of this is allocated to Chinese sovereign wealth funds, but some is available in foreign exchange reserves.

Brown said: "I think it is the countries that have got substantial reserves, the oil-rich countries and others who are going to be the biggest contributors to this fund. Obviously I am going to the Gulf at the weekend and it is one of the items that will be on the discussion with all the international leaders. China also has very substantial reserves."

Brown has offered strong support to Dominique Strauss-Kahn, head of the IMF, who is negotiating two emergency loan packages to eastern European countries. Hungary, an EU member, needs a $12.5bn loan while Ukraine wants $16.5bn.

Brown hopes to make progress on boosting the IMF ahead of a meeting of the G20 group of world leaders in Washington next month designed to pave the way for a major restructuring of the so-called Bretton Woods postwar world financial institutions, of which the IMF is a key component.

Brown had what was described as a "brainstorming session" in Paris yesterday with Sarkozy, who will host an informal EU summit next Friday, one week before the Washington meeting. Brown will tomorrow hold talks in London with Angela Merkel, the German chancellor.

In a gesture intended to underline their special relationship, Sarkozy hosted Brown at La Lanterne, his weekend residence in a lodge within the grounds of the Palace of Versailles, where he spent his wedding weekend and which he once used as a retreat with Carla Bruni. Sarkozy described the new close relationship with Britain as an "entente formidable" and said the two countries were working "hand in hand". He said that the EU, which already has €12bn of liquidity to respond to the crisis and support a number of member-states, should increase that capacity to €20bn. He said he had a "very great interest" in Brown's proposals on the IMF, and that countries must not just dwell on financial regulations and rebuilding capitalism, but also governance.

The close French-British partnership - which French commentators put down to Sarkozy's burning desire to get results as European president and Brown's desire to turn round his fortunes at home - comes in contrast to tension between France and its traditional ally Germany over reactions to the crisis. Germany is holding back on Sarkozy's proposal for an economic government for the eurozone.

Despite his string of high-profile meetings with international leaders, Sarkozy is under pressure in France to show that he is not just grandstanding on the world stage, but dealing with the economic fallout at home. As France threatens to slip back into its dark days of high unemployment, he unveiled a raft of national measures to secure contracts and limit job losses.

The meeting in Paris came as Lord Mandelson warned that protectionist countries, which would like to exploit the financial crisis, should be resisted. In a speech in Moscow, the business secretary said: "The case for globalisation has to be made. Failure to do so will see the advance of the forces of resource nationalism and economic isolationism at the expense of openness and prosperity."

© Guardian News Media 2008
Published: 10/28/2008

Look East Policy
]]> Wed, 29 Oct 2008 06:50:00 EDT http://dkaiyo.tigblog.org/post/512088 -17.863889 31.029722-17.86388931.029722 http://dkaiyo.tigblog.org/post/511045 By David Gardner

Last updated at 9:41 AM on 28th October 2008

Comments (8) Add to My Stories
Barack Obama is refusing to alter his schedule of high-profile appearances despite increasing fears about his safety.

Security has been stepped up around the Democratic presidential candidate after federal agents foiled a plot by two racists to kill him.

Tomorrow he will appear alongside Bill Clinton in Florida where a crowd of more than 100,000 is expected.

Florida is known to be home to a large number of white supremacists with the group Stormfront based in the Palm Beach area.



Neo-Nazis: Daniel Cowart (left) and Paul Schlesselman, seen posing with guns on their Myspace pages, have been charged over a plot to assassinate Barack Obama and 101 other black Americans
Extra police are likely to be drafted in for the rally with access to Mr Obama restricted to those who have been vetted by his campaign team and undergone stringent security checks.

As the US election enters its final week, and the Democratic presidential candidate remains ahead in almost every poll, concerns remain high among some party members that an attempt on his life could be made.

Mr Obama's bid to become the first black president of America has stirred up hatred among white supremacists.

As details of the latest plot emerged it was revealed that secret service agents guarding the senator were unaware of it.

According to CBS TV, the Obama campaign only found out about it when his plane landed in Pittsburgh yesterday afternoon.

Daniel Cowart, 20, and Paul Schlesselman, 18, appeared in court on Friday flanked by agents from the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and Explosives Agency.

Enlarge Enlarge Arrests: Cowart, left, and Schlesselman in their police mugshots
The agency is supposed to share information with the secret service - but the 12 agents assigned to Mr Obama had not been told about the threat.

The two skinheads were arrested on Wednesday after shooting at a church in Brownsville, Tennessee.

They planned to rob a gun store and go on a murderous rampage, with the black Democrat candidate their final target, court records revealed last night.

A predominantly black high school in Tennessee was also high on their hit-list, it was alleged.
Cowart and Schlesselman were charged with possessing an unregistered firearm, conspiring to steal firearms and threatening a candidate for president.

The pair intended to shoot 88 African-Americans and decapitate another 14, said Jim Cavanaugh, of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

The number 88 is an abbreviation of Heil Hitler as H is the eighth letter of the alphabet and 14 refers to a 14-word slogan coined by American white supremacist leader David Lane who is serving a 190-year jail sentence.
The pair told investigators they planned to speed a truck towards Mr Obama while 'shooting at him from the windows'.

According to court documents unsealed last night, they 'stated they would dress in all-white tuxedos and wear top hats during the assassination attempt'.


Plot: U.S. Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama was on the hit list of 102 black Americans to be killed in a murder spree in Tennessee
Both said that they were 'willing to die during this attempt'.

'They said that would be their last, final act - that they would attempt to kill Senator Obama,' said Mr Cavanaugh.

'They didn't believe they would be able to do it, but that they would get killed trying.'

Police became suspicious because the pair used chalk to draw a swastika and 'numerous racially motivated words and symbols' on Cowart's car.

They allegedly began discussing the murder plot after meeting online about a month ago.

In the affidavit, agents said the two men 'discussed the killing spree to include targeting a predominately African-American school, going state to state while robbing individuals and continuing to kill people'.

The plot was similar to one uncovered during the Democratic Party convention in Denver in August.
Then, three white supremacists-were arrested after being found with a sniper rifle and being high on drugs.

Later, FBI agents and the Secret Service decided not to charge them after coming to the conclusion they did not pose a real threat.

The latest plot came to light with just a week to go in the race to be the next President of the United States.

Both Mr Obama and Republican candidate John McCain were in Ohio, seen as a crucial state in the election next Tuesday.

Senator McCain was busily repeating his charge that Mr Obama was a tax-and-spend liberal.

But having said over the weekend that he and President Bush, as fellow Republicans, share some economic philosophies, Mr McCain was accused of doing a U-turn yesterday.

'We (Obama and McCain) both disagree with President Bush on economic policies,' Mr McCain said in Cleveland. 'My approach is to get spending under control.'

He added that the difference was 'he (Obama) thinks taxes have been too low and I think that spending has been too high'.

In Canton, Ohio, Mr Obama said: 'After 21 months and three debates, Senator McCain still has not been able to tell the American people a single major thing he'd do differently from George Bush when it comes to the economy.'

He claimed that 'the biggest gamble we can take is embracing the same old Bush-McCain policies that have failed us for the last eight years'.




http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1081049/Defiant-Obama-shrugs-neo-Nazi-plot-assassinate-slaughter-dozens-black-school-pupils.html]]> Tue, 28 Oct 2008 05:18:00 EDT http://dkaiyo.tigblog.org/post/511045 -17.863889 31.029722-17.86388931.029722 http://dkaiyo.tigblog.org/post/510969 By David Gardner

Last updated at 7:52 AM on 28th October 2008

Comments (8) Add to My Stories
A plot to kill Barack Obama and slaughter dozens of black school pupils was foiled yesterday.

Two neo-Nazis planned to rob a gun store and go on a murderous rampage, with the black Democrat candidate their final target, court records revealed last night.

A predominantly black high school in Tennessee was also high on their hit-list, it was alleged.



Neo-Nazis: Daniel Cowart (left) and Paul Schlesselman, seen posing with guns on their Myspace pages, have been charged over a plot to assassinate Barack Obama and 101 other black Americans
Daniel Cowart, 20, of Bells, Tennessee, and Paul Schlesselman, 18, of West Helena, in the neighbouring state of Arkansas, were charged with possessing an unregistered firearm, conspiring to steal firearms and threatening a candidate for president.

The pair intended to shoot 88 African-Americans and decapitate another 14, said Jim Cavanaugh, of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

The numbers 88 and 14 are symbolic in the white supremacist community.

The pair told investigators they planned to speed a truck towards Mr Obama while 'shooting at him from the windows'.

According to court documents unsealed last night, they 'stated they would dress in all-white tuxedos and wear top hats during the assassination attempt'.

Both said that they were 'willing to die during this attempt'.

'They said that would be their last, final act - that they would attempt to kill Senator Obama,' said Mr Cavanaugh.

'They didn't believe they would be able to do it, but that they would get killed trying.'

Police became suspicious because the pair used chalk to draw a swastika and 'numerous racially motivated words and symbols' on Cowart's car.

They allegedly began discussing the murder plot after meeting online about a month ago.

In the affidavit, agents said the two men 'discussed the killing spree to include targeting a predominately African-American school, going state to state while robbing individuals and continuing to kill people'.

Anti-racism campaigners said the number 88 is used by white supremacists as an abbreviation for Heil Hitler as H is the eighth letter of the alphabet.

The figure 14 represents a slogan consisting of that many words, coined by American white supremacist leader David Lane, who is serving a 190-year jail sentence.

The plot was similar to one uncovered during the Democratic Party convention in Denver in August.



Plot: U.S. Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama was on the hit list of 102 black Americans to be killed in a murder spree in TennesseeThen, three white supremacists-were arrested after being found with a sniper rifle and being high on drugs.

Later, FBI agents and the Secret Service decided not to charge them after coming to the conclusion they did not pose a real threat.

The latest plot came to light with just a week to go in the race to be the next President of the United States.

Both Mr Obama and Republican candidate John McCain were in Ohio, seen as a crucial state in the election next Tuesday.

Senator McCain was busily repeating his charge that Mr Obama was a tax-and-spend liberal.

But having said over the weekend that he and President Bush, as fellow Republicans, share some economic philosophies, Mr McCain was accused of doing a U-turn yesterday.

'We (Obama and McCain) both disagree with President Bush on economic policies,' Mr McCain said in Cleveland. 'My approach is to get spending under control.'

He added that the difference was 'he (Obama) thinks taxes have been too low and I think that spending has been too high'.

In Canton, Ohio, Mr Obama said: 'After 21 months and three debates, Senator McCain still has not been able to tell the American people a single major thing he'd do differently from George Bush when it comes to the economy.'

He claimed that 'the biggest gamble we can take is embracing the same old Bush-McCain policies that have failed in the last eight years




http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1081049/Neo-Nazi-plot-assassinate-Barack-Obama-slaughter-dozens-black-school-pupils-foiled-FBI.html]]> Tue, 28 Oct 2008 04:52:00 EDT http://dkaiyo.tigblog.org/post/510969 -17.863889 31.029722-17.86388931.029722 http://dkaiyo.tigblog.org/post/510132 McCain: 'Popular means qualify'?


Jarga Kebba Gigo


Sun, 26 Oct 2008 23:00:00 +0000

EVERY time John McCain is confronted about Sarah Palin's qualification he decrepitly responds, “Look, she is the most popular governor...” Saddam Hussein and many other leaders had over 90% rating that we occasionally blame on slow evolution, isolation, the ignorance of their people, and/or the iron fist of those leaders.

Alaska is the Republican village where Mr. Ted Stevens, the longest-serving Senate Republican reigns longer than Palin and with higher ratings, but presently under corruption charges.

So a Republican governor or Senator who lords over rich Alaska 'village' with little over half a million people cannot mean s/he can lead a populated U.S. and 'populated world' with limited resources.

As the Alaska village grows in population and evolution, numerous 'Ted Stevens' will face corruption charges, 'Sarah Palins' will be accused of power abuse and the most honest Republicans/Democrats will not have extremely high ratings or reign forever like the embattled 'king' called Ted Steven.

Mr. Steven is popular and the longest serving Republican Senator, but is he among the most qualified Senators?

McCain desperately chose Palin to primarily win women votes as evident in his appealing ads specifically to women just before picking Palin. Obviously, he miscalculated the intelligence of women to follow any “popular” woman who is not only at odds with women’s issues, but is simply mistaken on simple issues that transcend gender.

Palin is not even fit to be a Governor, much more a President. Alaska just happens to be rich and less problematic, just as an unqualified King who comfortably ruled rich African millennia before Africa was invaded will not be able to properly rule a small town of today's Africa.

Maybe McCain thought the most popular female Governor/Senator will mean the most qualified running mate to win female votes.

Alaska is such a Republican village that they are yet to elect a non-Republican Senator.

Their mild Republican Governors are replaced with extreme Republicans. So the hunting-mum who enjoys fighting quickly runs out of Democrats to run into Republicans and that is what McCain misinterprets as “reformist” or secondary argument for “the most popular governor”.

Besides personal attacks, what new reforming proposals has Palin presented yet? Or should I write another article: 'Fighter Means Reformist'?

McCain says anything just to win votes ignoring the fact that people can think for themselves and his opponents will question his claims. Accusing Obama of “socialism” just because Obama wants to raise taxes on those making over $250,000 to its prior level during the Bill Clinton era is unwise. Why didn't he accuse former President Bill Clinton of “socialism” then?

Now he is basically asking Americans whether they prefer the popular and successful “socialism” of Bill Clinton or the failed and 'qualified' “capitalism” of George Bush.

Obviously, Americans who enjoyed the “socialism” of Bill Clinton will opt for the capitalism of Obama. So we cannot blame McCain's decadence on Palin alone, McCain is making unwise moves that are out of the topic: 'popular means qualify'?

The strong appeal to female voters has even landed Obama in the wrong direction of confronting Black males and hip-hop. Obama's mistake was accusing hip-hop of “misogyny”. It may be advantageous politically but it is beguiled, apathetic, short sighted, backward, and unfounded that Black males or hip-hop can be blamed for the social ills that plague our society.

Admittedly, there are mistaken Black men mainly due to retaliation against an imposed culture and mistaken hip-hop artists for similar reasons.

I will defend hip hop and these young Black men, more than Palin defended her pregnant teenage daughter.

I will urge for learning and tolerance on my mistaken children except the deserts who sully their own unnecessarily.

If Obama is open minded enough to listen to Iran, Joe the plumber, blood-stained Senators, etc then hip-hop deserves a listening ear and debate before unfounded castigations. We will gladly teach him the true 'Dreams of his father' or the nightmares that cause our stunning retaliations. Otherwise we are ready to war with 'him' and every arrogant woman until one of his daughters grows to teach him and the world that criticisms, misunderstood terms or faulty words do not amount to misogyny.

Life is a distinctive test from collective tests. Whether or not 'popular means qualify', urban music will dominate the Americas and influence the world.

On international affairs, it seems 'popular means qualify' only if you are a Republican. World leaders, including European ones, show more support to Barrack Obama than McCain but McCain claims he is more qualified on foreign affairs.

It is important for the American people to understand the relation between desirable working relationships and indolence striving relationships. It will be a lot harder for John McCain to defend America in a global village where America can be brought to her knees by few resisting small countries.

The days of American bullying are over. If 'popular ever means qualify' then history should credit McCain.

May God bless ‘Showlove Trinity’: Let's Learn, Let's Work, Let's Have Fun.

By Jigster
An African Philosopher

]]> Mon, 27 Oct 2008 10:43:00 EDT http://dkaiyo.tigblog.org/post/510132 -17.863889 31.029722-17.86388931.029722 http://dkaiyo.tigblog.org/post/507496 What makes a good friend? Read on to find out...
He is not the most caring person in this world, but when I am in tears, he’ll do whatever it takes to make me smile. He is not the world’s greatest listener, but when my mind stops working and I go on blabbering like a fool to vent my frustrations, he listens to me. We are not compatible per se, we do not always agree with each others point of view and have our share of arguments and spats, but yet after we fight, he often comes and tries to patch things up without any further arguments about who said what…He one of the most blunt speakers I’ve ever known and yet when it comes to my faults and my failures, he somehow manages to pick out just the right words to make me realize my mistakes without hurting me…He does not pamper me…really he doesn’t …but when I do silly things like wake him up at three in the morning and ask him if we could go and have ice-cream …he yells at me…even calls me names and yet I find his car outside my door within fifteen minutes and we are off to our favorite ice-cream parlor! Well I could just go on and on…the point is - he is not the greatest human being on the earth, I know he is not perfect and yet to me he seems like perfection.

Good friends always make life seem so much easier and better. In our busy lives, at times when you feel bogged down and isolated, it is your friends who come through…So what makes a good friend? I know that there is absolutely no need to give out definitions of a good friend or list out elements of a good friend, since the answers are subjective. To each his own – my idea of a good friend need not necessarily be accepted by everyone. However, based on my observations I have decided to give this a shot and compile a set of qualities or abilities that are a must have for being a good friend!

Complete acceptance is one of the key elements in any human relationship. In case you are a good friend, you need to completely accept your friend with his/her flaws. Friendship is all about the knowing and accepting people as they are. One of the biggest test of friendship is the Dependability of a friend. Whether it is about keeping a secret, or whether it is about taking help in an emergency – dependability is definitely an important ingredient in the friendship.

Togetherness is one of the most beautiful aspects of friendship. No matter what friends always stick together! Be it one of the dullest days of your life while you are killing time doing absolutely nothing, or one of the toughest battles of life or be it one of your most memorable moments in life like your graduation or your birthday – friends are always with you no matter what! Unconditional support and encouragement is one of the things which friends have. Even when your friend thinks you are wrong, he/she will first try and convince you, but if that fails, rest assured that no matter which way you choose, true friends are always two steps behind!

If you look hideous in that gaudy dress you bought last week – a true friend will always tell you so! Honesty is indispensable in any relationship. True friends who never hesitate to speak up their minds, are ready to give you a taste of the bitter truth – but they’ll either sugar coat it – or help you cope with it! Often there comes a time when two friends are competing for the same thing – at times like these – a true friend will never get jealous but will never let a competition affect your friendship.

Often when you are feeling low or depressed, you will never have to explain it to your friend that you are feeling low. A true friend knows when you are upset. Understanding without words what is the ultimate level of good friendship. To be a good friend you need to have patience to understand your friend inside out. The mood swings, sign language, codes – friends know it all! Friends are all this and much more…Friends are a helping hand, a comforting shoulder to lean on, a patient ear to listen to you and most important a warm and loving hug to embrace you!

By Uttara Manohar
Published: 10/21/2008



http://www.buzzle.com/articles/what-makes-a-good-friend.html]]> Fri, 24 Oct 2008 09:38:00 EDT http://dkaiyo.tigblog.org/post/507496 -17.863889 31.029722-17.86388931.029722 http://dkaiyo.tigblog.org/post/507495 Voting is one of the crucial processes that is instrumental in the success of a democracy. Read more about reasons why people should vote...
"The Government is useless, there is nothing they can do to make our lives better, the rising prices, the unemployment, the escalating crime rate…they have no answers", said Mike. "Well, if you are really concerned about all these things, you should have voted Mikey!", said John. "May be a better candidate would have won, and may be he would have taken some effective measures for improvement…Unless you vote you just can’t blame the government, because you have failed your duties!"

Well if you are one of those people who think voting is a waste of time and keep on complaining about how the government is a complete failure; then it is time you realize the importance of voting, and do your bit towards enhancing the government functioning! Here are some reasons why people should vote…

Reasons Why People Should Vote

Be it an election for a county commissioners, governor, state officials, legislators or the president - it is these people who have the rights to formulate policies that will affect your town, your job, your country, your taxes.

Voting ensures that your opinion is taken into account while appointing the person who holds the reins of power. People who are elected have the power to formulate educational policies which are instrumental in shaping the future of children and hence the future of the nation itself.

Health care, highways, jobs, taxes or even food, the elected representatives have the power to take decisions over some of the most vital issues in our life. So would you be comfortable in letting "anybody" take over these powers, without exercising your right to vote? Voting is one of the fundamental processes, which is instrumental in the development of a healthy democracy.

Next time there is an election in your country, state or town, think of people who are living under tyrannical dictatorships or are under curfews and cannot exercise their right to opinion. Your right to vote is your right to expression and opinion. Do not take your right for granted. Try and appreciate the power of voting by exercising it!

By Uttara Manohar
Published: 10/23/2008




http://www.buzzle.com/articles/reasons-why-people-should-vote.html
]]> Fri, 24 Oct 2008 09:38:00 EDT http://dkaiyo.tigblog.org/post/507495 -17.863889 31.029722-17.86388931.029722 http://dkaiyo.tigblog.org/post/507478 Party pulls ad spending amid signs of disarray over prospect of sweeping Democratic gains in Congress
The Republican party showed signs of disarray yesterday over the prospect of a Barack Obama presidential victory being matched by sweeping gains on November 4 by the Democrats in Congress on a scale not witnessed since the 1930s.

Figures show the Democrats outspending the Republicans 4-1 in congressional races across the country. Democrats are also being helped by huge turnouts of African-Americans and young voters in states where Obama is unlikely to win but where those in congressional races stand to benefit.

Among indications of panic yesterday, the National Republican Congressional Committee pulled $50,000 (£31,000) in ads scheduled for broadcast from Monday for Michele Bachman, a Republican congresswoman from Minnesota. The party effectively disowned her over remarks she made on television on Friday in which she said Obama "may have anti-American views". The committee is also withdrawing funding from other congressional races seen as futile contests.

If Obama won the White House and the Democrats gained more seats in the house and Senate - and even reached the magic 60 seats in the Senate that would allow the Democrats to override any Republican attempts to filibuster legislation - he would potentially be in one of the strongest positions enjoyed by any Democratic president since Roosevelt in 1932.

Tom Mann, a political analyst at the Brookings Institution, said yesterday the Democrats could gain seven to 10 senate seats and 20 to 30 in the House.

With polls showing Obama extending his lead in key states, John McCain fought yesterday on a "Joe the plumber" platform, saying an Obama presidency would mean tax increases for the working and middle classes. He also returned to the theme that Obama is too inexperienced to face an international crisis.

Obama, after a rally in Indianapolis, abandoned campaigning temporarily to visit his ailing grandmother, Madelyn Dunham, in Hawaii. In a CBS interview Obama said he did not want to repeat the mistake of not being at his mother's bedside before she died. He said of his grandmother: "We knew she wasn't doing well, but you know, the diagnosis was such that we thought we had a little more time and we didn't."

The Republican party is facing tight races across the country in congressional seats it would normally regard as safe. Even Elizabeth Dole, a Republican senator from North Carolina, which has been Republican for 35 years, is on the defensive, with an ad warning voters that the Democrats should not be allowed total control of the White House and Congress. The Democrats had struggled to find someone to stand against her, given she was regarded as unassailable, but the eventual candidate, Kay Hagan, now enjoys a narrow poll lead.

In Minnesota, Bachman's Democratic rival, Elwyn Tinklenberg, had also been regarded as a no-hoper. But since Bachman's remarks about Obama, Tinklenberg has been the beneficiary of a backlash, taking in $1.3m in donations since Friday.

The non-partisan Campaign Finance Institute reported on Wednesday that the Democratic Congressional Committee has spent $37m since August on behalf of its Congressional candidates, compared with the NRCC's $9.6m.

Democrats are expected to make gains in the Senate in southern states such as Mississippi, Kentucky and Georgia, where there are big African-American populations, many of whom are set to turn out for the first time to vote for Obama.

© Guardian News Media 2008
Published: 10/23/2008
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/231672.html]]> Fri, 24 Oct 2008 08:56:00 EDT http://dkaiyo.tigblog.org/post/507478 -17.863889 31.029722-17.86388931.029722 http://dkaiyo.tigblog.org/post/507397
By Reason Wafawarova in SYDNEY, Australia

IT is amazing how Western commentators and historians have developed an awesome tradition that says whatever the West does is utterly guided by benign intent and by an unappreciated nobility of intentions towards less unfortunate people.

From the massacre of Indians in North America by British pioneers in the 16th Century, the near eradication of Aboriginal people by British pioneer settlers in Australia, the ignominious era of slavery, the ruinous colonial dispensation all the way to the atrocities of imperial wars of the 20th and 21st century — all this has been painted in history books and Press records as unfortunate aspects of history that were a result of noble intention.

So it has always been. Africa was colonised and brutalised to bring civilisation to the natives.

The slave trade was an unfortunate but effective way of bringing primitive Africa in touch with the "civilised world".

During the conquest war against the Philippines, the US massacred hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians and children in the name of what was called "the Spanish-American War".

Of this brutality the New York Times had this comment in its editorial: "Whether we like or not, we must go on slaughtering the natives in English fashion, and taking what muddy glory lies in the wholesale killing till they have learned to respect our arms. The more difficult task of getting them to respect our intentions will follow.

"The struggle must continue until the misguided creatures there shall have their eyes bathed in enough blood to cause their vision to be cleared and to understand that not only is resistance useless, but that those whom they are now holding as enemies have no purpose toward them except to consecrate to liberty and to open for them a way to happiness".

This is the logic that says the natives, in their hopeless blindness, never really understand the beneficence of Western intentions.

As a result the West must reluctantly continue to slaughter them as is happening in war torn Afghanistan and in Iraq, as is happening in sanctions ravaged Zimbabwe and as happened to Grenada, Panama, Nicaragua, Chile and many other countries so far "civilised and democratised" by the West.

The sanctions killing so many children in Zimbabwe are, in this sense a reluctant continuation of slaughter meant to open the eyes of the natives so they can see the beneficence of western capitalist investment — and so they can see they are nothing without western investment and western donor aid.

In 1900, the US Republican National Convention prematurely announced of the Philippines War that "the American people have conducted and in victory concluded a war for liberty and human rights."

This was the time the leading sociologist, Franklin Henry Giddings, devised what he called "consent without consent".

He explained it thus, "If in later years the colonised see and admit that the disputed relation was for the highest interest, it may be reasonably held that authority has been imposed with the consent of the governed."

By this logic we are told that in the later years of Zimbabwean independence, the natives have admitted that the disputed and loathed white settler rule of Ian Smith was in fact for the highest interest of the country.

That colonialism was all for the best of intentions and that President Mugabe has single-handedly ruined that white good will.

It is the logic of a parent preventing a child from running into the streets. Natives are no different to toddlers thinking they are clever by running onto busy streets.

They, like children have no idea what is good for them and what is dangerous.

This is the logic that the beneficiaries of Western civilisation have hopelessly failed to understand – the endless goodwill of the West.

By repossessing their stolen land, Zimbabweans did not only underestimate the strength of the West but also failed to respect the supremacy of Western hegemony.

The perception here is that Zimbabweans were not aware of the strength of the enemy, or is it the master.

This is why the US is arrogantly waving sanctions threats by the sidelines of power-sharing talks between the ruling Zanu-PF and the Western-sponsored opposition MDC.

The idea is to send a chilling message that the awesome devastation of western economic strangulation will be fully implemented if the outcome of the talks does not fall within the expectation of the West.

The Filipino nationalist, Sixto Lopez, saw this mentality during the US aggression against his country and he responded, "The Filipinos have accepted the arbitrament of war, and war is the worst condition conceivable, especially when waged by an Anglo-Saxon race which despises its opponent as an alien or inferior people.

"Yet the Filipinos accepted it with a full knowledge of its horror and of the sacrifices in life and property which they knew they would be called upon to make."

The people of Zimbabwe accepted the confrontation with Britain over the reclamation of their land through The Third Chimurenga with a full knowledge of the horrors and the sacrifices in life and dignity that they knew they would be called upon to make.

IT is the same sacrifice that they were called upon to make in The Second Chimurenga when hundreds of thousands of young Zimbabweans took on the oppressive colonial master in a 14 -year war of attrition — the war that brought down the Rhodesian colonial empire.

Now the same people are supposed to surrender to the biting effect of economic sanctions and the rest of the world is supposed to watch in awe as Zimbabwe comes begging on its knees to the western masters.

In 1958 the distinguished American historian, Samuel Eliot Morison, wrote scornfully about resistance by natives.

He wrote, ". . . backward people getting enlarged notions of nationalism and turning ferociously on Europeans who have attempted to civilise them."

This is like the notion that says Zimbabweans turned ferociously on the white farmers "that fed them".

In 1954, the New York Times editors commented on the American sponsored coup that restored the Shah in Iran.

They said, "Underdeveloped countries with rich resources now have an object lesson in the heavy cost that must be paid by one of their number which goes berserk with fanatical nationalism."

Is this not what we are hearing about Zimbabwe as the West keeps reiterating on the price so far paid through the ruinous sanctions imposed in 2001?

The rest of the developing world must now watch in awe the object lesson in the heavy cost so far paid by one of their number that went berserk with "fanatical nationalism".

l To be continued


http://www.herald.co.zw/inside.aspx?sectid=30cat=10
]]> Fri, 24 Oct 2008 03:26:00 EDT http://dkaiyo.tigblog.org/post/507397 -17.863889 31.029722-17.86388931.029722 http://dkaiyo.tigblog.org/post/507226


WE salute African leaders for holding the historic tripartite summit in Kampala, Uganda, that brought together Sadc, Comesa and the East African Community to discuss various issues, among them trade liberalisation, regional infrastructure development and legal and institutional arrangements as a prelude t

o realigning the regions for greater integration.
Africa is lagging behind other continents that have moved to obliterate artificial barriers to promote greater interaction.
The importance of the summit, coming as it does at a time Africa is seized with the modalities of forming a Union Government, cannot be overemphasised.
Disparate communities, all of which borrow their identities from the legacy of colonialism, have acted as a hindrance to the dream of a United States of Africa as countries tended to compartmentalise themselves.
This only served to perpetuate the age-old colonial strategy of divide and rule that has fed conflicts on the continent.
It is unforgiveable that at a time Africa is supposed to be moving towards a Union Government, we identify ourselves either by geographical location giving us Southern, East, and West African communities or colonial language groups that translate to Anglophone, Lusophone and Francophone Africa.
What this compartmentalisation does is accentuate non-existent differences yet we share common history, culture and languages that transcend the boundaries of the 1885 Berlin Conference that partitioned the continent for easy plunder.
We hope the summit has paved the way for the establishment of the long-desired African Economic Community that will translate into a common currency and free trade.
Overlapping membership has constrained the capacities of each Regional Economic Community (REC) to meet various goals, among them unfettered movement of citizens, common currencies and free trade.The tripartite summit could not have come at a better time, as it is what Zimbabwe has been agitating for as a prelude to the envisaged United States of Africa. Zimbabwe is for a bottom-up approach to the Union Government, using the regional economic communities as building blocks.
We hope this summit will not fizzle out at the level of a talk-shop but that the deliberations will translate to concrete action plans that will see Africa obliterate the inherited artificial boundaries.
Each community has particular strengths and weaknesses and we hope the leaders take the best from each REC, learn from previous mistakes, and expedite the dream of the founding fathers who launched the OAU in 1963, all of whom were desirous of a United States of Africa.




http://www.herald.co.zw/inside.aspx?sectid=645cat=10]]> Thu, 23 Oct 2008 09:52:00 EDT http://dkaiyo.tigblog.org/post/507226 -17.863889 31.029722-17.86388931.029722 http://dkaiyo.tigblog.org/post/507221


WE salute African leaders for holding the historic tripartite summit in Kampala, Uganda, that brought together Sadc, Comesa and the East African Community to discuss various issues, among them trade liberalisation, regional infrastructure development and legal and institutional arrangements as a prelude t

o realigning the regions for greater integration.
Africa is lagging behind other continents that have moved to obliterate artificial barriers to promote greater interaction.
The importance of the summit, coming as it does at a time Africa is seized with the modalities of forming a Union Government, cannot be overemphasised.
Disparate communities, all of which borrow their identities from the legacy of colonialism, have acted as a hindrance to the dream of a United States of Africa as countries tended to compartmentalise themselves.
This only served to perpetuate the age-old colonial strategy of divide and rule that has fed conflicts on the continent.
It is unforgiveable that at a time Africa is supposed to be moving towards a Union Government, we identify ourselves either by geographical location giving us Southern, East, and West African communities or colonial language groups that translate to Anglophone, Lusophone and Francophone Africa.
What this compartmentalisation does is accentuate non-existent differences yet we share common history, culture and languages that transcend the boundaries of the 1885 Berlin Conference that partitioned the continent for easy plunder.
We hope the summit has paved the way for the establishment of the long-desired African Economic Community that will translate into a common currency and free trade.
Overlapping membership has constrained the capacities of each Regional Economic Community (REC) to meet various goals, among them unfettered movement of citizens, common currencies and free trade.The tripartite summit could not have come at a better time, as it is what Zimbabwe has been agitating for as a prelude to the envisaged United States of Africa. Zimbabwe is for a bottom-up approach to the Union Government, using the regional economic communities as building blocks.
We hope this summit will not fizzle out at the level of a talk-shop but that the deliberations will translate to concrete action plans that will see Africa obliterate the inherited artificial boundaries.
Each community has particular strengths and weaknesses and we hope the leaders take the best from each REC, learn from previous mistakes, and expedite the dream of the founding fathers who launched the OAU in 1963, all of whom were desirous of a United States of Africa.



]]> Thu, 23 Oct 2008 09:03:00 EDT http://dkaiyo.tigblog.org/post/507221 -17.863889 31.029722-17.86388931.029722 http://dkaiyo.tigblog.org/post/506903 Sky-high voter interest, new ballot machines and shortage of poll staff could jeopardize voting, Pew group warns
A "perfect storm" could be building for US election day on November 4 because of a combination of sky-high voter interest, new ballot machines and a shortage of poll staff, the independent Pew group warned yesterday.

The Washington-based group set out a long series of problems still facing the US despite reforms aimed at avoiding a repeat of the 2000 and 2004 debacles.

The launch of the 77-page report came as legal clashes over voter registration and hours-long queues formed outside booths set up for early voting in states across the US. Voting is now underway in 46 of the 50 states, though election day is still almost a fortnight away.

Virginia, a battleground state, said it will step up security at polling booths on November 4. Election officials fear trouble because of passions aroused by the election, by long queues, or by people being told they are not eligible to vote.

Doug Chapin, director of Pew's electionline.org, said: "People talk about meltdown. It is over-optimistic to think that 130 million people can vote and something does not go wrong ... We have spent eight years sorting the plumbing, but on November 4 we are going to crank up the system."

The excitement created by Barack Obama could result in a record turnout, with African-Americans and young voters, both previously less likely to vote, predicted to cast ballots in large numbers this time round. New voters are registering in record numbers in almost every state.

Officials in Virginia recently ordered 200,000 more voter registration forms.

Thousands of lawyers are being recruited by Obama and John McCain to police polling booths, offering advice to supporters denied the vote or challenging the eligibility of rivals.

Pew is one of the most respected research organizations in the US, and publishes annual updates on the state of the election process.

Yesterday's report, Election preview 2008: what if we had an election and everyone came?, says: "Eight years after the uncovered problems in the 2000 election and more than five years after the creation of the Help America Vote Act of 2002, millions of Americans will head to the polls on November 4 in what many are predicting will be the highest-turnout election in recent memory.

"Like the infamous Nor'easter that sank the Andrea Gail, another perfect storm may be brewing, only this one has the potential to combine a record turnout with an insufficient number of poll workers and a voting system still in flux."

Election officials are struggling in some places to recruit the tens of thousands of extra staff that will be needed.

Another problem for election officials is the electronic voting systems introduced in many states after the "hanging chads" controversy in Florida in 2000.

The report notes that voting machines bought only six years ago have been replaced in Florida, California and other states after officials and Congress became concerned about security and reliability.

Some states and counties have returned to paper, but with optical scanners that should theoretically allow for faster counting. This amounts to the third change since 2000.

One of the biggest flashpoints is voter registration, particularly in states such as Ohio, Indiana, Florida, Pennsylvania, Georgia and Missouri.

Chapin said there is fierce litigation in Indiana and Georgia, where new rules require voters to show photo IDs. Republicans claim this it aimed at preventing vote fraud, while Democrats argue it is a form of voter suppression.

The report identifies 12 states where there could be problems on election day: Indiana, Georgia, Florida, Ohio, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado and Virginia, and the district of Washington DC.

Officials are encouraging early voting and absentee ballots to try to relieve the pressure on November 4.

© Guardian News Media 2008
Published: 10/21/2008



http://www.buzzle.com/articles/231223.html]]> Wed, 22 Oct 2008 08:46:00 EDT http://dkaiyo.tigblog.org/post/506903 -17.863889 31.029722-17.86388931.029722 http://dkaiyo.tigblog.org/post/506815

Prince Kahari – Opinion


Sun, 19 Oct 2008 21:52:00 +0000

I was shocked to read in Friday 17 October’s edition of London Lite newspaper that British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown had given a directive to garage owners to lower their prices or face an inquiry by the government leading to a possible fine.

The title of the article should have been “Brown threatens business takeovers” to mirror an earlier London Lite headline entitled “Robert Mugabe threatens firms in Zimbabwe”. But not in the UK! The article’s title was masked as: “High pump prices fuel drivers’ rage”. This title effectively protected Brown from his increasing interference in business activity and his government’s failure to regulate effectively. Instead the author passed the buck and blamed the garages.

Two months’ ago we saw Brown in the Middle East trying to negotiate lower fuel prices. Surely garage owners should maintain a level of profitability by charging the prices they are charging. But we all know those prices will deal a huge blow to the already waning political misfortunes of the British Prime Minister.

Without justifying the Zimbabwean government’s directive, which I have criticised in this publication before, I was shocked that those who criticise our governments are themselves capable of the same actions.

Interestingly, a government that has also blamed the Zimbabwean government for interfering in the normal running of private business now owns almost 60% of the banking sector in the UK. Brown has officially and effectively nationalised key institutions of the western capitalist system – the banks.

Call it a bailout package or whatever – it is nationalisation. The state owns the banking system in the UK – something that would have been unthinkable before. The state has also fired banking executives without giving them severance packages. Isn’t this dictatorship? Or should we call it ‘rescuing the economy’?

This, unfortunately, is Gordon Brown’s version of capitalism – authoritarian and dictatorial capitalism of the West, and interestingly US outgoing President George W Bush, is taking cues from the British Prime Minister.


Prince Kahari writes fron London, UK
princekahari@yahoo.com




http://www.talkzimbabwe.com/news/130/ARTICLE/3560/2008-10-19.html]]> Wed, 22 Oct 2008 06:09:00 EDT http://dkaiyo.tigblog.org/post/506815 -17.863889 31.029722-17.86388931.029722