SADC leaders betrayed Zimbabweans at Lusaka summit!!

LINK!!!!!!!

Tuesday 04 September 2007


By Tanonoka Joseph Whande

GABORONE – President Robert Mugabe got another standing ovation for capably pulling in the opposite direction of where the Southern African Development Community (SADC) is trying to go.

The ovation came, not from those rent-a-crowd mobs we see at airports whenever an African president leaves or arrives home, but from the African Heads of State themselves.

In the last 15 years and more, Mugabe has done nothing but ruin a country, murdering a nation and its economy. It’s sad that we are losing count of those citizens whose deaths he is responsible for.

Mugabe has literally chased judges and magistrates out of the country, with most of them now in Britain, Botswana, South Africa and surrounding countries. So are Zimbabwean engineers, doctors and other professionals.

Many Zimbabwean journalists, in and outside the country, have been attacked; many have gone missing, with others turning up dead.

Mugabe withholds food from the hungry citizens because he suspects them of being loyal to opposition political parties.

The economies of South Africa and Botswana, countries both whose presidents were in the crowd applauding Mugabe, are the saddest victims of Mugabe’s behaviour.

Mugabe has even had the temerity to refuse food help for the starving people and, for years now, has even been denying women access to donated sanitary pads, which are no longer available in the country.

As they gathered in Lusaka, Mugabe achieved an inflation rate of 7 634.8 percent. And for that, he got a standing ovation!

SADC leaders applauded Mugabe for killing a nation. So it came to pass that I was betrayed in a little town called Lusaka in Zambia. The whole nation of Zimbabwe was betrayed by these leaders.

Villagers in Angola, Lesotho, the DR Congo, South Africa, Namibia, Botswana, and women and tribesmen in the whole of southern Africa were betrayed as well.

And they are the ones who are paying for the now conspicuous and indefensible buffoonery of regional leaders. How many of its men, women and children does Africa bury everyday?

Dead at the short-sightedness of Africa’s leaders. We are at war with ourselves. And we kill while our presidents applaud. As per their annual custom, our leaders met to deliberate on our difficulties.

Africans, always full of faith, bred in compassion and optimistic, waited expectantly. The wart on Africa’s face remains.

Our leaders came back home to be met, at the airports, by cabinet ministers and cheering members of society congratulating them for having put, like Pink Floyd said, another brick in the wall, closing out any possibility for change in Zimbabwe.

Like numerous times before, all SADC leaders applauded a murderer in their midst. It was betrayal and treachery of continental proportions.

Thabo Mbeki, who miraculously succeeded to get all SADC leaders into a full nelson, poisoned the gathered leaders and shielded Mugabe. And none of the SADC leaders dissented or yelled for help.

Instead, they applauded the murderer among them, calling him a liberator to whom, apparently, they gave the assignment to kill his own citizens and top it all with destroying not only their countries but the progress of the African continent.

Treachery is ugly and that is what we all got from our leaders. Who is Mugabe fighting in Zimbabwe? Mugabe is fighting his own defenceless citizens. Zimbabwe is not at war but lives worse than one at war.

Zimbabwe is not under sanctions but, rightfully, Mugabe and his cohorts are. SADC leaders lackadaisically ignore that. For years now, SADC leaders have been betraying the African people.

SADC leaders must be charged with negligence, sedition and treason. They always claim collective responsibility, don’t they? Oh, George Bizos, where are you?

The shameful betrayal in Lusaka sent totally wrong messages beyond our region.

SADC continues to betray Africa. And someone must pay. I am more pained because we were betrayed by presidents from our own region who had gathered to debate the problems in our own region and yet decided to ignore the source of our region’s regression.

The fiend, Mugabe, himself, calls African leaders ‘cowards’ and SADC leaders congregated in Zambia to prove Mugabe right. Instead of censuring Mugabe, they promised him money which, of course, they don’t have.

A collection of what I would like to believe was ‘a bevy of popularly elected southern African leaders’ gathered in Zambia and decided that what is happening in Zimbabwe is inconsequential; they decided that it did not warrant urgent action or intervention.

Mwanawasa made a u-turn and declared that the problems in Zimbabwe are exaggerated, really? African leaders said they would rather give Zimbabwe money than stop Mugabe from killing his citizens and messing up the region.

And we heard the regular nonsensical ‘tough talk.’ This time it was from SADC executive secretary, Tomaz Augusto Salomao.

In a report, Salomao repeated the International Monetary Fund’s war cry, saying Zimbabwe must undertake “comprehensive economic reforms that should include currency reforms, expenditure cuts and a stable policy environment.”

Utter rubbish! Why skate the issue? No amount of money will make a difference in Zimbabwe unless there is political, not economic, reform.

The prevailing political atmosphere in Zimbabwe can neither support nor accommodate an economic renewal.

Who would invest in Zimbabwe today when property ownership depends on the pillow talk between the president and his spouse? Where there are no property rights, there are no human rights.

Zimbabwe needs political reform first before an economic renaissance. And no meaningful political reforms will ever materialise as long as Mugabe is around or in power.

The IMF is interested in money matters, which is why they have always bankrolled dictators around the world. Why, I wonder, do Africans so easily forget the rancid experience of oppression?

Unless Salomao is only there to mime his masters’ voices, he should just quietly enjoy his perks. SADC leaders left for Zambia knowing fully well how Mugabe, the individual, not Zimbabwe the nation, is hurting their nations.

They ignored that but agreed on decisions that do not benefit their own countries or the people of Zimbabwe. And, for what even God would love to understand, they decided to please Mugabe, the one individual who has destroyed not only Zimbabwe but is disturbing the entire region.

They applauded Mugabe, the very man who is causing them sleepless nights. How could they? Yes, just how could they? I do not believe for one moment that President Festus Mogae, let alone Botswana, agrees with what transpired in Lusaka.

Are Tanzania’s Kikwete and Zambia’s Mwanawasa sure about what they are letting happen in Zimbabwe? I agree that we should all forgive Thabo Mbeki because the man is out of his depths.

Mugabe’s defenders tell the world that the Zimbabwean issue can only be solved by Zimbabweans themselves. And yet they know what kind of grip the country is under. Zimbabwe ceased to be an ‘internal problem’ decades ago.

Have we not seen what Mugabe does to elected parliamentarians, the very custodians of democracy in any normal country? Zimbabwe needs outside help.

SADC leaders will be surprised to find that, since the last time they blinked, Mugabe had turned them into unwitting dictators; for one does not have to oppress his own people to be a dictator or tyrant.

SADC leaders huddle behind the irresponsible and reckless notion of collective responsibility. They should not continue to play games. There now exists a serious possibility of an armed insurrection in Zimbabwe, an armed struggle - if you prefer.

And, when it happens, the dissenters will not ask for permission from neighbouring countries. It is called spontaneity and spontaneity is untamed.

SADC leaders, you better listen; this catastrophe is coming to a country near you. That is collective responsibility!

*Tanonoka Joseph Whande is a Botswana-based Zimbabwean writer

WHY AFRICA FINDS IT HARD TO SUPPORT THE MDC!

LINK TO CORRECTION DONE BY IZZY MUTANHAURWA!

LINK!!!!!

By Reason Wafawarova

THE March 31 2007 Sadc Dar-es Salaam communiqué on Zimbabwe; the July 2007 Accra AU Conference’s position on the same; and the reaffirmation of the African stance at the 27th Sadc Summit in Lusaka, Zambia; have all but sent one clear message to the MDC:

Africa stands by Zimbabwe.

These three gatherings unanimously expressed solidarity with the position of the Government, officially (and maybe rightly) stated as the "people of Zimbabwe". Africa has, three times in a row; in a period of five months, unequivocally and solidly stood by Zimbabwe in relation to the illegal sanctions regime, the land reform programme as well as the validity of the last three national elections in which the MDC participated and lost.

That solidarity has expressed condemnation of the Western-administered economic sanctions on Zimbabwe, supported the land reform policy and validated the election results for 2000, 2002 and 2005 as free and fair.

The solidarity has gone further and proposed packages to rescue Zimbabwe from its current problems.

All this has been against expectations of a heavy-handed approach and hard-line stance on Zimbabwe from the Western ruling elite and members of their MDC political project.

Both the MDC and the Western ruling elite are clearly less than amused that African leaders have not lived up to their bidding on Zimbabwe in general and President Mugabe in particular.

The question to be asked is why Africa finds it so hard to support a party that claims to be a champion of democracy or better still; why have these African leaders failed to see the alleged excesses and inhumane nature of the Zimbabwean Government?

The simple answer that has often been put forward is that all those African leaders supporting or failing to condemn Zimbabwe are either equal "dictators" or simply too impressed by President Robert Mugabe’s credentials as a liberation icon.

Some have even inferred that it is all because all Africans are inherently corrupt and genetically incapable of handling complex matters related to things like economic policies.

This, of course, is not only simplistic and reductionist thinking but also smacks of gross inferiority complex on the part of Africans who embrace such warped thinking.

The MDC has expressed its disappointment with South Africa, Sadc, Comesa and the AU so many times since its formation in 1999 that one actually wonders if political insight and free and fair political space are a phenomenon only as young as eight years; the life span of the MDC? At least judging by the rulings of the MDC on each and every decision taken by any of these African stakeholders on Zimbabwe.

Every time a position is made on Zimbabwe, it turns out that the position falls short of MDC expectations and is subsequently lampooned as "unfree and unfair."

If there is one thing the MDC factions have always got right, it is the assertion that the problems in Zimbabwe need a political solution. However, that political solution does not necessarily lie in illegal regime change nor does it lie in an MDC government.

The solution lies in resolving the bilateral conflict between Harare and London, a conflict that has been given a semblance of multi-lateralism when Britain lobbied the EU to back its position.

As the 19th century Prussian conflict theorist, Carl von Clausewitz put it; conflict or war "is politics continued by other means." Marx and Engels regarded conflict as the continuation politics of the powers concerned. In this context it is more than important to analyse all the political aspects of a conflict or a crisis as the Zimbabwean situation is often termed.

Here, there is need to find the real policies (not the stated ones) of which a conflict is a continuation, and the policies of the players involved in that conflict. There is need to examine all the belligerent powers, not just one.

If one agrees with the policies that have led to the conflict from one side of the conflict, then they agree with the politics of that particular side, even when such policies are pursued through the means of a struggle, revolution or force.

Conversely, if one is a political opponent of the policies from another side, then they do not put aside their political opposition simply because the side they agree with has decided to confront the conflict by forceful or revolutionary means.

What happens is that one remains an opponent of the policies and politics that led to the conflict itself and not necessarily to the means by which the conflict has been pursued.

Only pacifists are opposed to conflict just for the sake of attaining peace through maintaining the status quo and those politicians heading African states are most certainly not a bunch of moralistic pacifists bent on turning the other cheek each time an imperialist blow is thrown at them. They are like every other politician worthy the name; visionaries sworn to fight for emancipation and a legacy of positive social change.

They support Zimbabwe’s land reform programme, not necessarily because they agree with the modalities of how the policy has been implemented so far but primarily because they support the politics behind the land reform programme.

They support Harare’s position with regard to the Western-administered sanctions regime, not necessarily because Harare is home to fellow Africans but because they fundamentally agree with the politics that led to those sanctions; or conversely, they disagree with the politics that motivated the Western allies who have imposed sanctions on Zimbabwe.

The stated politics behind the sanctions are that they are firstly not economic sanctions but mere travel bans, a fact disputed even by the US State Department itself, if one looks at their March 2007 announcement that they are actually stepping up the anti-Zimbabwe programme through the so-called Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act.

The other stated politics behind the sanctions states that Zimbabwe is pursuing "unsound policies", that Zimbabwe is governed by a tyrannical regime, that there is a culture of human rights violations, that the political playing field is uneven, that the declining wealth of the country is a result of gross looting by those in power, that elections after the formation of the MDC have all been fraudulent and that President Mugabe is the sole dictatorial individual making everybody in Zimbabwe suffer.

The Government, with apparent support from the African family, disputes the stated politics and asserts that the real politics is nothing more than the bitterness of the British and their western allies over the seizure of white-held, not owned, farms for onward distribution to landless black people.

After all, they seem to argue; no imperialist goal has ever been pursued in the name of its real intentions. No imperialist army, of course, marches off to war under the slogans "Higher Corporate Profits!" or "Blood for Oil!" on its banners.

No, the army marches behind the massive power of the imperialist rulers’ ideological agents-its politicians and their mass media.

These work overtime to create a pretext that can convince the ordinary people that the imperialist rulers are fighting against tyranny, for democracy, for the defence of their families, against terrorism, for freedom and human rights, against any evil their minds can cook up or for any "noble" causes their imagination can muster.

It is the expectation for these super attractive happily ever after sweet freedoms and liberties that many of the youthful Zimbabweans in the MDC have come to a point where they now consider themselves citizens of a "new Zimbabwe", pretty much the same way we hear religious people saying they do not belong to their homes here on earth but to a new home in Heaven.

For 90 years, Zimbabweans were made servile citizens in their own homeland under brutal apartheid British rule and that yoke was broken on April 18 1980. For 27 years, Zimbabweans have considered themselves citizens of an independent Zimbabwe and they have always believed that they are African Zimbabweans.

In comes the western money bags, thrown right into the hands of one Morgan Tsvangirai and his MDC and we have a whole bunch of youngsters and misguided elderly people clamouring for a new status as Western Zimbabweans, hailing from what they call "new Zimbabwe".

In 1992, Noam Chomsky, a prolific and renowned intellectual, was asked by Heinz Dieterich why some Latin Americans had turned themselves into "Ibero-Americans" (after 150 years as Latin Americans) and how a bit of Spanish money could make such a change possible after such a long time of a solid identity.

Noam Chomsky replied, "People have a price, some will sell themselves for five cents, others will demand a million dollars."

To this writer, it would appear like many in the MDC have given themselves for two cents and it is because of this cheap price that Africa finds it hard to support or stand by the MDC. The opposition has just postured as a cheap outfit of donor mongers bent on selling our birthright for two cents and its simply difficult if not impossible for any African worthy the name to identify with the MDC.

Africa, through South Africa, Sadc, Comesa or the AU, has simply refused to support the western politics behind the problems in Zimbabwe. To the contrary, they have openly supported the Zimbabwean politics behind the Harare-London bilateral conflict. To this end they have refused to be mere pacifists blinded by bruises of rebels who come second best in physical showdowns with the police.

They rather choose to view the conflict in the context of its politics, regretting what might be considered the excesses of the conflict but never losing sight of the just cause for which Zimbabwean politics stands.

In this context, the MDC is right in pointing out that the solution lies in politics. It lies in the politics of the MDC realising that a Western Zimbabwe is not going to materialise and that Zimbabwe can never be bought for five cents.

The solution lies in the realisation that the imperial agenda of reversing the land reform programme is not worthy supporting, regardless of the baited silver. It is not worthy supporting because it is a tool of permanent subjugation of one’s own people. It seeks to reinstate our pre-1980 status as servile citizens in our own motherland.

As for Arthur Mutambara; the message is very clear. There is absolutely no need to make a fool out of oneself by trying a hopeless juggle between the western money-bags and one’s birthright.

It only makes one look plain ridiculous in the eyes of both Zimbabweans and the Western ruling elite.

The learned Professor has to simply come home to himself and tell the Westerners that he is no longer for sale and return every cent "donated" to his faction after he was installed to the presidency by Professor Welshman Ncube.

It is almost cruel to advise Tsvangirai to do the same because in all honesty, the man deserves the money since he is basically career-less and politically hopeless. This writer would insist that Tsvangirai should desist from calling for more sanctions on the country and should stop misleading his sponsors by telling them that change is in the pipeline.

However, he deserves to keep whatever proceeds of treachery he has so far acquired, purely on the moral grounds of the uncertainty of his future. After all, the crumbs did take Bishop Abel Muzorewa a substantial amount of time before we began to hear rumours of destitution.

Anyway, this may be the lighter side of our Zimbabwean politics but the serious side is that the MDC; in all its shapes, factions and formations should seriously consider transforming itself into a home-grown opposition party by firstly cutting its unholy ties with our country’s erstwhile oppressors.

The sooner those in the MDC realise that their politics cannot be supported in Africa the better for all who genuinely want to promote democracy through a multi-party system.

This writer is certain that Zimbabweans are a hopeful people and will soon solve the current problems and shame the vultures waiting for land re-grabbing disguised through the vehicle of freedom and democracy or maybe property rights.

l Reason Wafawarova is a Zimbabwean writer writing from Sydney, Australia. He can be contacted at wafawarova@yahoo.co.uk

MESSAGE TO ARCHBISHOP PIUS NCUBE!!

We hold you in High Esteem!

However, it is more honourable for a people to fight for themselves!

Please be brave enough to seek equipment for us to liberate ourselves!

It is more honourable that we do the job of liberating ourselves!

CHINYAVADA!

chinyavada1@yahoo.com

Cell: 0848239724 South Africa!

MBEKI: A SCAPEGOAT FOR MDC "FAILURES!" SAYS SOME INTELLECTUAL!

Zimbabwe: Mbeki a scapegoat for MDC failures

May 12, 2007 12:36 PM

By Dr Sehlare Makgetlaneng    http://www.africanpath.com/p_blogEntry.cfm?blogEntryID=737   MORE and more people are facing the brutal reality that the effective national response to Zimbabwe's socio-political and economic problems is the key starting point in the resolution of these problems.   Central to this national task is the reality that Zimbabweans under the leadership of their political parties and civil society organisations must organise themselves to have dialogue among themselves to find means to resolve their country's problems. This is the case despite their different and antagonistic socio-political and economic interests.   Any political party which is in practice committed to the resolution of the national problems must struggle to bring together the people of its country to discuss strategies and tactics essential for the resolution of the national question.   If the people of a particular country through their political parties have failed to execute this national task, they should not blame people of other countries. They should blame themselves and their individual and organisational leaders.   The political parties of Zimbabwe have failed to execute this task. The leading opposition political party, the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), has failed to execute this task. It has attributed this failure to the programme of action embarked upon by the ruling party, Zimbabwe African National Union - Patriotic Front to entrench itself in power. It has reduced this programme of action to President Robert Mugabe.   The key reason behind this failure is the lack of serious well-organised opposition to the present political governance in the country. As a result of this failure, the MDC and its internal and external supporters have blamed political leaders of Africa for what they regard as their failure to resolve Zimbabwe's problems as if it is not the task of the people of Zimbabwe under the leadership of the MDC to resolve the Zimbabwean problems.   This is their means to hide the profound and unique practical and theoretical weakness of the MDC. The task of African political leaders and the people of other African countries through their organisations is to support Zimbabweans in their efforts to resolve their national problems.   While the MDC has sustained the politics of opposition in Zimbabwe, few people are convinced that it is capable to take care of the political administration of the society or to govern. There is an emerging popular position that it has failed to oppose the ruling party. Its practical and theoretical weakness has been intensified by its division into two organised factions under the leadership of Morgan Tsvangirai and Arthur Mutambara. They are referred to as MDC Tsvangirai and MDC Mutambara.   The two MDCs' lack of leadership and ideas appropriate even to challenge the ruling party, not to mention to mobilise Zimbabweans into action and to articulate strategies and tactics to convince Zimbabweans that one of them is capable to govern the country and to lead its reconstruction and development programme, is unique and frightening.   They are disorganised and divided to pose any serious, well-organised threat to the ruling party. Despite their unity which is their opposition to Mugabe, they have individually and collectively failed to formulate appropriate strategy and tactics to exert pressure upon the ruling party to see the structural and fundamental need to have a serious dialogue with them.   The failure of Zimbabweans to organise themselves, to have dialogue among themselves and to find means to resolve their country's problems has led the Southern African Development Community (SADC) to appoint President Thabo Mbeki to facilitate dialogue between Zimbabwe's ruling party and the opposition party.   Far from being the victory of the MDC, this development has further marginalised the MDC by demonstrating that it has been so far incapable of impelling the ruling party to see a need for a serious dialogue with it.   The ruling party has not been weakened by this development. Far from regionalising the Zimbabwean conflict, it has re-affirmed that the Zimbabwean crisis is the national question to be resolved by Zimbabweans. It has re-affirmed the position of African leaders that Zimbabweans, not external actors, must solve their own national problem.   This development has led some of those who maintain that the task of resolving Zimbabwe's problems is primarily that of African leaders, not of the people of Zimbabwe, to abandon their position which is obviously incorrect.   This incorrect position has its fundamentalist supporters in the former frontline state of the settler colonial rule in Southern Africa, the former settler colonial South Africa. It is articulated in the Southern African national newspapers.   The Weekender, published in Johannesburg, in its 21-22 April 2007 editorial maintains that it is the task of president Mbeki to solve Zimbabwe's problems. Questioning his intentions as the facilitator of dialogue between the ruling party and the opposition of Zimbabwe, The Weekender maintains that Mbeki ''will not bring back 4-million escapees'' or ''4-million Zimbabweans'' who represent ''a third of the country's population'' who have ''fled their country of birth to set up home everywhere, from the obvious places such as'' the United Kingdom and South Africa, to ''the less likely locations of Taiwan, Eastern Europe and the Far East.''   It continues, pointing out that Mbeki ''cannot reverse Zimbabwe's brain drain and its inexorable economic slide, nor stem the rot of its institutions of governance. He can do nothing about the social ills that have resulted from Zimbabwe's meltdown, such as unemployment and worsening HIV/AIDS burden.''   This position of The Weekender is as if Mbeki is the president of Zimbabwe or as if Zimbabwe is a province of South Africa. The point is that Zimbabweans' problems which we are told that Mbeki cannot solve are obviously problems to be solved by Zimbabweans, not by Mbeki.   President Mbeki has become a target of some European South Africans. Some of these European South Africans are against Africans of South Africa. They claim to be for Africans of Zimbabwe. This is interesting aspect of the position of a considerable number of European South Africans. They are against Africans of South Africa and claim to be for their brothers and sisters of other African countries.   David Bullard of Sunday Times, another national newspaper published in Johannesburg, had a published piece, 'Offer Zimbabweans dignity – and visas'', on April 22, 2007. He maintains that various newspapers articles have ''described how highly qualified Zimbabweans are having to eke out a living as security guards or waiters. Desperately as they are, they run the risk of being exploited because they are not legal citizens and there's no chance of them filing an official complaint.''   This is the problem faced by Zimbabweans, not only in South Africa but also in other countries throughout the world. It is the problem faced by Africans of other African countries and by those who are not Africans throughout the world. David Bullard argues as if this is the problem faced only by Zimbabweans only in South Africa.   Bullard's position is the same position of regarding South Africa as one block which is unjust and the rest of Africa as another block which is just. It is the same position which isolates South Africa from the rest of the continent in terms of contributing towards the solution to problems faced by the continent or some African countries such as Zimbabwe. This can best be understood if we take into account Bullard's position that the South African ''government's stand on Zimbabwe is an international disgrace, particularly for a party that fought for racial equality and justice.''   Which political party in Africa which is either now or was in the past the ruling party which fought for racial inequality and injustice? The ruling parties of the colonial Africa, not of post-colonial Africa, fought for racial inequality and injustice.   Bullard maintains the position that it is the responsibility of South Africa to solve Zimbabwe's problems. If South Africa does not make serious efforts to solve Zimbabwe's problems, these problems ''are bound to get worse.''   He argues that it is because the South African government has refused to solve Zimbabwe's problems that these problems are going to increase. Maintaining that quiet diplomacy ''loosely translated,'' means ''we can't be bothered to do anything and, besides, we're hoping the problem just goes away,'' he concludes that the problem ''hasn't and, thanks to the ANC government's spinelessness, things are bound to get worse.''   Bullard concludes his article by appealing to President Mbeki to ''offer Zimbabweans dignity – and visas.'' In his words: ''So please Mr Mbeki, stop being a pipe-smoking intellectual for once and set up a fast-tracking system to legalise these unfortunate [Zimbabwean] people. Having betrayed them for so long it's the least we can do.''   President Mbeki of South Africa has betrayed the masses of the people of Zimbabwe by not solving their national problems? Really?   This is the same problem of not critically viewing the Movement for Democratic Change. Mbeki has been used as a means to avoid the issue of confronting the internal dynamics of the MDC particularly its weaknesses and failure to constitute itself as a viable opposition political party practically threatening to assume state political power.   It is a tragedy of Zimbabwean politics of opposition that as the leading opposition party, the MDC continues regarding such individuals as its supporters – individuals who support the interests of their fellow Europeans in Zimbabwe and throughout the world.   It should not oppose in theory what it supports in practice that the resolution to Zimbabwe's socio-political and economic problems is not within itself, the MDC Tsvangirai or the MDC Mutambara, but within the ruling party, the Zimbabwe African National Union – Patriotic Front.     Dr Sehlare Makgetlaneng is the Head of Southern Africa and SADC programme at the Africa Institute of South Africa in Pretoria, South Africa.

 

---

Yahoo! Mail is the world's favourite email. Don't settle for less, sign up for your free account today.

THE INTERVIEW BY THEARCHBISHOP PIUS NCUBE!

PLEASE CLICK BELOWAND SEE AND HEAR FOR YOURSELF!

 

http://youtube.com/watch?v=bHb_VwTIPm4

 

---

The all-new Yahoo! Mail goes wherever you go - free your email address from your Internet provider.

"NO,.... NO AMNESTY FOR ROBERT MUGABE!"by Siphosami Malunga.

Amnesty for Mugabe out of question

 

http://www.newzimbabwe.com/pages/opinion265.16376.html

I HAVE been following with great interest the reports of Robert Mugabe's possible exit from power with certain guarantees of immunity from prosecutions for criminal offences committed during his rule.

The story of Mugabe's possible vacation of the Presidency is certainly good news, but the reports of an immunity deal accompanying that exit is not.

The debate regarding Mugabe's exit with or without immunities is a political one in which the whole nation should openly participate in. The question of Mugabe's immunity for past crimes is both a moral as well as a legal one. It too should be openly debated by all.

Before we can delve into a discussion of immunity for Mugabe, it is necessary to consider just what it is that he would be receiving immunity for. Only once the full range of prosecutable offences committed by Mugabe or under his stewardship is understood can a debate on whether he should be granted immunity be held.

Political expediency cannot and should not be allowed to subordinate the interests of justice and rule of law considerations. I will set out the various issues that accompany considerations relating to immunity for human rights atrocities in transitional societies. As will be shown below, immunity or amnesty for Mugabe and his henchmen for the serious human rights violations committed during his reign is totally out of the question.

Arguments in favour of amnesty
It has often been said that however compelling the demand for peace may be, there can be "no peace without justice". This view has gained ground in the past decade, with concerted efforts in many states where human rights violations have occurred on a wide scale, for accountability for such violations. The arguments for trading justice for peace have been motivated by the fact, achieving peace and obtaining justice are at times incompatible goals.

Justifications for immunities have included the fact that, in order to put an end to civil strife or internal or international armed conflict, it is at times necessary to negotiate with the very same political, civilian or military leaders who have been responsible for committing war crimes and crimes against humanity in those societies.

According to Michael Scharf, in such instances, insisting on prosecutions may unduly prolong a conflict or strife and result in more deaths, destruction and human suffering. The compelling need to alleviate human suffering is clearly a pressing one. An analysis of the manner in which several States have dealt with their former rulers who have committed serious human rights violations shows that this consideration has played an important part in determining that amnesty provisions be included as part of the exit strategy for an exiting abusive government.

The cases of South Africa, Chile, Argentina, Cambodia, El Salvador, Haiti, Uruguay and Guatemala where amnesties have been granted for international crimes committed by former rulers in those countries illustrate this point. In such cases, the amnesty provisions have often been a part and parcel of the peace deal between the outgoing and incoming governments.

Zimbabwe is itself no stranger to the concept of amnesties. In 1980, the Amnesty Ordinance 3 of 1979 and the Amnesty (General Pardon) Ordinance 12 of 1980, both passed during the transitional administration by Lord Soames, provided that the there would be no lawful prosecution of members of the former Smith Regime or the security forces or persons or forces acting in opposition to that regime for any act done by them. This meant that those responsible for the most heinous crimes in the 1970's including members of the Rhodesian army, ZANLA and ZIPRA were not made accountable for their crimes.

Scharf, citing Payam Akhavan of the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, says: "It is not unusual in the political stage to see the metamorphosis of yesterdays war monger into today's peace broker. Examples of this abound."

In Sierra Leone, the Abidjan and Lome Peace Agreement had to be negotiated with, among others, the former rebel leaders at peace talks including Foday Sankoh, now facing prosecution for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Likewise, Slobodan Milosevic, the former President of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, who died during trial before the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, played a crucial role in the Dayton Peace Accord that brought an end to the armed conflict in the Former Yugoslavia.

Even during the negotiations of the Dayton Accord, calls for a commitment to prosecuting known perpetrators of war crimes and crimes against humanity were conveniently given a deaf ear by the peace brokers with the Chief U.S negotiator Richard Holbrook stating regarding the question of Milosevic's alleged participation in committing serious human rights violations that it was "not his role to make a judgement" and adding that it was not possible to "make peace without President Milosevic."

Needless to say, the turn of events whether deliberate or not has seen Slobodan Milosevic stand trial in The Hague for war crimes and crimes against humanity. In Haiti, the military junta led by General Raol Cedras and Brigadier General Phillipe Bamby, which regime executed over 3000 civilian political opponents and tortured many others, agreed to relinquish power in the Governors Island Agreement in return for a full amnesty for their crimes which had been described by the some world leaders as "crimes against humanity".

In South Africa, following years of the State-sanctioned policy of apartheid during and pursuant to which serious human rights violations were committed, the apartheid regime negotiated a settlement, which culminated in the establishment of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission which comprised of a Committee on Human Rights Violations, a Committee on Amnesty, and a Committee on Reparations and Rehabilitation. In terms of the process in South Africa, persons who made full disclosure of their apartheid crimes accompanied with a personal application for amnesty could receive it. Proponents of this transitional system have argued that it staved off civil war and allowed for the "peaceful transfer to a fully democratic society."

As appears from above, the granting of amnesty for human rights violations is not a novel issue. What the example of South Africa demonstrates is the insistence on some form of accountability for known human rights violations. The absence of prosecutions for human rights violations must not necessarily entail immunity or the absence of justice.

Michael Scharf calls this a "misconception that the granting of amnesty from prosecution is equivalent to the absence of accountability and redress." Often as occurred in South Africa, and Haiti, the amnesty provisions are accompanied by provisions for compensation or monetary reparation to victims and their families, the establishment of a truth-telling requirement in the form of truth commissions set up to officially identify perpetrators and document atrocities. The proponents of these measures argue that although they may not be exactly the same as criminal prosecutions, they achieve much of what prosecutions are designed to achieve such as, "prevention, deterrence, punishment, and rehabilitation "

The Advantages of Prosecution
I will now turn to the benefits of prosecutions. As has been shown above, in most cases where amnesties have been granted, it has not been because prosecutions have not at all been considered. Indeed, most societies faced with such situations have had a preference for prosecutions as opposed to amnesties. What is important to consider is that amnesties have not been the logical option chosen. They have been resorted to out of a lack of choice or as a measure of last resort.

Recalling that amnesties only benefit those to whom they are granted, it is no surprise that they are used by those most responsible for serious human rights violations who invariably brutally hold the reigns of power as a bargaining tool for their exit. Much like a situation of "absolve me from all my past serious human rights violations or else I will remain in power and continue to commit them."

There are many advantages of prosecutions of human rights offenders. The most readily ascertainable one is that prosecuting those persons responsible for serious human rights violations serves to discourage future human rights abusers from committing them. This ensures that the rule of law is enforced and respect for the law guaranteed. Societies where human rights are violated are often societies where the rule of law has ceased to exist. Zimbabwe is a case in point. In such societies, a return to democratic government must be accompanied by a re-establishment of the rule of law and this is signalled by the punishment of those persons most responsible for human rights violations.

It is difficult to countenance the restoration of the rule of law without the attendant prosecution of well-known human rights violators. A new regime that attempts to instill democracy or rule of law without taking the necessary steps to hold accountable known human rights abusers undermines the very thing it seeks to build and by so doing assumes responsibility for failing to provide justice and institutionalising impunity. This is particularly the case where the alleged human rights abusers are political, civilian and military leaders.

Another advantage of prosecutions is that it deters vigilante justice. A system of justice that does not ensure accountability or applies it discriminatorily encourages those whom it disadvantages to take the law into their own hands. This resort is understandable. It is impossible to imagine, say, what the victims of the serious human rights atrocities in Matabeleland, and indeed throughout Zimbabwe, should be expected to do in the absence of a formal justice system to address the acts committed against them, but take the law into their hands.

It will be recalled that in Haiti there were several reported instances of vigilante justice with members of the public exacting violence against the former members of the military regime who had been granted amnesty for their human rights abuses. Similar instances of instant mob justice have occurred in Romania during the revolution, where members of the public killed the former ruler Nikolaea Ceausescu. This resort to vigilante justice should be discouraged.

However, it should be recalled that where members of the public have confidence in the justice system to deal with human rights violators, they would generally submit them to it. The most important consideration in all this is whether the public is assured that the State judicial system will adequately deal with human rights violators. The greater that confidence, the less likely the resort to vigilante justice. Where a political transition is accompanied by amnesties for human rights abusers, it often leaves victims or families of victims with a permanent sense of helplessness and despair at the loss of the only opportunity for justice. This is what encourages vigilante justice. It is my submission that in Zimbabwe, the lack of prosecutorial measures regarding those responsible for serious human rights abuses including Mugabe and his henchmen would translate into a serious threat to the peace of the entire country not to mention constituting a festering sore.

A failure to prosecute those leaders responsible for serious human rights atrocities breeds contempt for the law and encourages future human rights violations. This is particularly the case in Zimbabwe. President Mugabe received wide acclaim for his magnanimous speech at Independence in 1980, where he agreed to "draw the line through the past" in order to achieve reconciliation of all the parties involved in the conflict. Although there were numerous advantages to this stance by Mugabe, such as the restoration of political stability, confidence in the political system, economic stability and thereby investment promotion it had as many disadvantages.

The main disadvantage with this policy is that it gave those persons who had committed serious human rights abuses the impression that it was not only acceptable but also commendable to commit such offences, as some of them were retained or absorbed into the civil service and the military often at very high levels. Whilst an attempt can be made to understand the motivation for the Independence amnesties as mentioned above, the subsequent selective and discriminate use of amnesty powers by Mugabe to benefit only his supporters and political cronies, shows a clear abuse of a mechanism that me only be resorted to only in exceptional circumstances.

Most horrendously, the use of amnesty provision in Zimbabwe has done exactly what amnesty provisions do -- perpetuate impunity. The seriousness of this can be gleaned by considering that the same perpetrators of human rights abuses in Zimbabwe have continued to hold official positions in both government and the military. The worst result of the use of amnesty provisions in Zimbabwe has been the continuation of grave violations of human rights.

Following the Independence amnesties, the Fifth Brigade went on to commit incontestably heinous human rights atrocities in Matabeleland in the 1980's. Ironically, this spate of state-sanctioned human rights abuses was followed by a blanket amnesty for perpetrators. What is important to note with regards to the Fifth Brigade atrocities is that the amnesty provisions may have been also designed to cover Mugabe himself and his senior political and military lieutenants.

According to the doctrine of command responsibility, Mugabe could be considered as being individually responsible as a superior/commander for the criminal acts (including genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by members of the security forces including the Fifth Brigade as Prime Minister and Minister of Defence at the relevant time where he failed to prevent the commission of such offences or failed to punish them after their commission. Mugabe's involvement in the crimes committed by the Fifth Brigade can be gleaned from his statements at its passing out parade where he called on it to "work with the people" and to "plough and reconstruct." He is also reported by the Chronicle of 18 April 1983 as saying that:

"Obviously it cannot ever be a sane policy to mete out blanket punishment to innocent people although in areas where banditry and dissident activity are rampant, civilian sympathy is a common feature and it may not be possible to distinguish innocent from guilty."

Yet another indication of Mugabe's involvement in serious human rights abuses by the Fifth Brigade in Matabeleland is his comments reported by the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights in April 1983 where he is alleged to have said that: "Where men and women provide food for dissidents, when we get there we eradicate them. We do not differentiate when we fight, because you can't tell who is a dissident and who is not..."

Similarly, the then Minister of State Security, Emmerson Mnangagwa, then responsible for the Central Intelligence Organisation may also be considered responsible for the actions of those of his subordinates who are found to have committed serious human rights abuses. This is particularly the case considering among other things, the following statements attributed to Mnangagwa at a rally in Victoria Falls in March 1983, and reported in the Chronicle where he allegedly told the rally that the government had the option (which it had not yet chosen) of burning down "all the villages infested with dissidents" and that " the campaign against dissidents can only succeed if the infrastructure that nurtures them is destroyed."

In April 1983, Minister Mnangagwa allegedly conceded at another rally that the attacks against dissidents had also wiped out their supporters. He reportedly went on to state that those who followed government laws would have their lives prolonged while those who collaborated with dissidents would have their lives shortened. It is ironic some of the reports of an exit strategy for Mugabe have suggested Mnangagwa as his possible successor.

Needless to say, the then Commander of the Fifth Brigade, Perence Shiri, would also fall into this category. It may be necessary to point out that ironically, Retired Colonel Dyke, who was recently reported to be mediating an exit strategy for Mugabe may himself be a possible target for prosecution arising out of his Command of the Paratrooper Regiment in the Matabeleland campaign where thousands of innocent civilians were killed.

In relation to his own role in Matabeleland, Retired Col. Dyke is reported in the report Breaking the Silence: Building True Peace which cites statements allegedly made by Dyke to K. Yapp and cited in her paper presented at the Britain Zimbabwe Society's Research Day, June 8, 1996, as saying that had an "operation like the Fifth Brigade not taken place, that battle would have gone on for years and years as a festering sore."

He reportedly went on to say: "I believe the Matabele understand that sort of treatment far better than the treatment I myself was giving them, when we would just hunt and kill a man if he was armed.."

He went on to say, "the fact is that when the Fifth Brigade went in, they did brutally deal with the problem. If you were a dissident sympathiser you died. And it brought peace very quickly."

It is indeed ironic that Dyke should be playing a part in the reported exit plan but not at all surprising as naturally he would be expected to seek an amnesty for himself.

The "break with the past" or "drawing a line through the past" as Mugabe called it at Independence, should never amount to "sweeping everything under the carpet" as has happened in Zimbabwe. Following periods of undemocratic rule during which serious human rights violations have occurred, new or reinstated democracies need, more than anything else legitimacy. The primary challenge to Mugabe's rule since the March 2002 Presidential elections has been that it is illegitimate. Establishing a legitimate democracy requires that the past misdeeds of the previous regime are revealed in their entirety. This involves a transparent, credible and fair account of violations as well as those responsible for committing them. By their nature, criminal trials can generate this information comprehensively.

The starting point of accountability would be the factual allegations by the Prosecution regarding the acts committed, including the identities of the perpetrators and the various roles or forms of participation in committing the crimes. The next stage would be the evidence presented in support of these allegations and the evidence of the accused persons in rebuttal. Ultimately, the extent of information a criminal trial may expose includes the nature and extent of the violations, the method by which they were planned and carried out, the fate of the individual victims, the identities of the architects and the perpetrators of the crimes.

While it is true that truth commissions such as the one in South Africa can also provide a historic record of human rights violations, the criminal justice system has always been the primary form of accountability for criminal conduct. The fact that a criminal trial affords both the victims and the accused the opportunity to tell their story and culminates in a decision or verdict and punishment makes this form of accountability the obvious choice.

According to US Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, Chief Prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials in Germany, the most important legacy of the Nuremberg Trial was that it provided the documentation of Nazi atrocities "with such authenticity and in such detail that there can be no responsible denial of these crimes in the future." In a statement subsequently quoted by the International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda and the Former Yugoslavia, he went on to say that the trial process had involved proving "incredible events by credible evidence".

Taking these views into account, Zimbabwe stands out clearly as needing prosecutions for past human rights violations. The Zimbabwean government has not only stifled debate of these human rights violations but has totally ignored calls for action. In the height of the Matabeleland atrocities in the 1980's, the government imposed a curfew in the affected areas and expelled foreign journalists much like it has done in recent times. This to a great extent prevented the accurate recording of the full extent of violations by the media and the dissemination of this information outside the affected areas.

Although the Mugabe government bowed to local and international pressure by establishing the Chihambakwe Commission to investigate alleged human rights atrocities by the Fifth Brigade and other security agencies, it has refused to date to make public the findings of that Commission. The government has responded to the damning report of the Catholic Commission and Justice, Breaking the Silence – Building True Peace regarding human rights atrocities in Matabeleland and the Midlands with indifference, contempt and scorn. What this illustrates is that the Mugabe regime has neither interest nor inclination to account for its past human rights abuses.

Instead of punishing known perpetrators like Perence Shiri who commanded the Fifth Brigade in Matabeleland, it has rewarded him with elevation to the position of Airforce Commander. This makes the argument for prosecutorial options of accountability more compelling. Not only has the government committed human rights violations, it has attempted to "sweep them under the carpet" and reward perpetrators.

Another benefit of prosecuting human rights violators is that in most cases, national reconciliation cannot realistically take place unless justice has been achieved. In Zimbabwe, the majority of the victims of the human rights atrocities of the Fifth Brigade are Ndebele-speakers who either supported PF-Zapu or were perceived by their attackers to support it. As a result the human rights atrocities have created a divide along ethnic lines where the Ndebele speaking part of the Zimbabwean population habours feelings of fear and mistrust for the government which at the time is perceived as having been Shona.

While in the past great efforts have been made by both Zanu PF and formerly PF-Zapu leaders to stifle discussion of these important issues, it cannot be denied that the Unity Accord between Zanu PF and PF-Zapu is widely regarded as having been the capitulation of PF-Zapu. In the absence of an accountability mechanism in relation to human rights abuses committed by the then Zanu PF government, victims of human rights abuses whether or not they were supporters of PF-Zapu remain skeptical of a government that has targeted then for human rights abuse in the past. It cannot be said that national reconciliation in the classical sense in which it must be pursued and achieved had been so achieved in Zimbabwe.

The prosecution of those persons who committed serious human rights violations would assure the victims, largely people from Matabeleland, that indeed the actions of the then Zanu PF regime are widely condemned, not condoned and that the general Zimbabwean society has no room for ethnic divisions or perceptions of discrimination on ethnic lines. Only such an approach would achieve true and total national reconciliation. Mugabe's exit from power should give an incoming government an opportunity to achieve true reconciliation of the entire country, taking into account events of the past.

A new government is not expected to have any political baggage relating to persecution of part of the population. It would therefore be folly for it to inherit it -- something akin to moving into a dirty house without cleaning it out. A new government in Zimbabwe, however, has a duty to assure all citizens of the protection of the State regardless of their ethnic or political backgrounds. Only by doing this will a new government gain and maintain the confidence of its entire population.

Yet another reason why Mugabe and his henchmen should be prosecuted is the responsibility of an incoming government to provide justice. While a State or government can validly forgive, via amnesty, crimes solely against itself such as sedition, treason, and other related offences, as the only injured party or victim of those crimes is the State itself, it is difficult to justify forgiving serious crimes against the person such as murder, rape, torture, unlawful detentions and other inhumane acts causing great physical and mental suffering to victims. For the latter offences, holding those responsible for committing these crimes is a duty owed to the victim.

By way of illustration: shortly after its deployment into Matabeleland in March 1983, the Fifth Brigade shot and killed 55 unarmed villagers in cold–blood in one incident in Cewale, Matabeleland North. In another incident reported by the CCJP, 52 villagers were shot in a small village of Silwane in Lupane on 6 February 1983, while other examples include the shooting of 7 villagers to death by the Fifth Brigade after ordering them to dig their own grave at Kumbula School in Pumula Village in West Tsholotsho on 13 February 1983, and the shooting of 5 villagers by the Fifth Brigade and their burial in a shallow mass grave at Sahlupheka in West Tsholotsho, the shooting to death by the Fifth Brigade of 12 people after forcing them into two mass graves at Tankahukwe, West Tsholotsho in February 1983.

Five villagers were shot and buried in a mass grave at Egomeni, West Tsholotsho, in February 1983, the CCJP also recorded the shooting to death by the Fifth Brigade of 12 people including two teachers by the Fifth Brigade at Cawujena in West Tsholotsho on 8 February 1983, the burning to death in one hut of 22 villagers at Solonkwe in West Tsholotsho in June 1983, the killing of 7 villagers in Salankomo, West Tsholotsho on 28 January 1983 after rounding 12 villagers into a hut and setting it alight and shooting 6 of the 12 people, including a baby and a girl as they ran out of the burning hut, the shooting to death of 12 people by the Fifth Brigade at Musikawa near Tsholotsho Town in Matabeleland on 30 January 1983.

These examples are not exhaustive. The question to be asked would be: "In what way would an amnesty for Mugabe and other human rights perpetrators ensure that justice is delivered to the victims of these crimes?"

There is no doubt that prosecuting and punishing those members of the Fifth Brigade who committed these crimes, together with their commanders, would provide the victims or their families with the solace that their suffering has at least been recognised and partially remedied. In addition, prosecuting and punishing violators would restore the victims' sense of worth as human beings and citizens of Zimbabwe. Prosecuting violators may also be accompanied by orders regarding financial or other compensation or restitution for victims.

In Matabeleland for example, many families of victims, through the acts of the Fifth Brigade, lost breadwinners and have had to scrounge to survive. At the same time, there are many reported cases of the Fifth Brigade burning down whole villages together with victims' entire life possessions and at times pillaging property and money from their victims. Justice would be met in such instances by orders for restitution or compensation. It would also ensure that those violators who are prosecuted are punished and send the message that such gross violations of human rights are intolerable in modern democratic states.

I have already pointed out the challenges that a new democratic dispensation would have with regards to delivering justice and re-establishing the rule of law. The positive act of prosecuting human rights violators constitutes an important signal to all Zimbabweans that the new government is committed to reinforcing the rule of law and assumes total responsibility for this important duty. On the other hand, failure to prosecute known violators engenders feelings of hostility and cynicism towards the new government, which "now possessed with the power to actually do something chooses to do nothing."

It is often said in post-oppressive regimes that have not sought accountability for past human rights violations that, once the former opponents of the regime "taste" or assume power, the interests of the victims who have suffered serious human rights abuses cease to matter, and these victims must continue to live with their suffering while politicking and amnesia takes centre stage at the highest political levels. It should be recalled that even with the so called Unity Accord between PF-Zapu and Zanu PF, the plight of the victims who suffered countless human rights abuses was never addressed or advocated insistently even by PF-Zapu as a condition of the Accord.

An amnesty for Mugabe and his henchmen would mean that he enjoys an extremely comfortable retirement at the expense of the brutalised Zimbabwean citizens while they remain grappling with the suffering caused by his government during his rule without respite. This cannot be expected to endear the new government to the people.

Finally, one of the most compelling reasons for the prosecution of Mugabe is the need to discourage future leaders in Zimbabwe from committing similar human rights violations. It has been shown that the magnanimous independence amnesties insured that none of the human rights violations during the colonial regime were properly accounted for. Those persons who committed these human rights abuses were not punished. This can only be expected to have encouraged the perpetrators of the Fifth Brigade atrocities to commit similar if not worse violations. Subsequent amnesties for the Fifth Brigade atrocities can only be expected to have encouraged further or continued human rights abuses by government authorities or agents in Zimbabwe as has been seen from the Parliamentary elections in June 2000 and the Presidential elections in March 2002.

Indeed, the serious human rights violations currently occurring in Zimbabwe including murders, torture and other forms of persecution of the opposition can be considered as spin-off of previous human rights violations which have gone unpunished. To illustrate this point, one only has to draw parallels with the shooting of Patrick Kombayi by the then Vice President Muzenda's CIO operative aides in the 1990 election, and their subsequently being granted amnesty by Mugabe following their conviction, and the recent brutal killing of the MDC President Morgan Tsvangirai's election agents allegedly by CIO operatives among other recent cases of election violence.

There is further credence, gleaned from a global analysis to the view that failure to prosecute violators encourages future leaders to commit similar or worse violations. There is historical evidence for example that Adolf Hitler took a cue, twenty years later, from the Turkish massacres of the Armenians in he First World War. The Turks had received an amnesty for their crimes. There have been suggestions that the failure to prosecute the likes of Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, Idi Amin, Mohamed Farrah Aidid, and perhaps even Robert Mugabe may have encouraged the Serbs to unleash their policy of ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia and the Hutu's to do the same against the Tutsis in Rwanda.

On a positive note, in recent times, the international community through the United Nations has taken the position that amnesties cannot be granted for international crimes.

This has been the case in Sierra Leone where following years of armed conflict, the Special Envoy of the Secretary- General appended a disclaimer to the Peace Agreement which ended that conflict and granted amnesty for previous serious human rights abuses, to the effect that the United Nations did not recognise the principle of granting amnesty for international crimes such as war crimes and crimes against humanity.

The fact that an agreement has been concluded between the United Nations and the government of Sierra Leone for the prosecution of those persons most responsible for committing international crimes during the conflict in that country indicates that amnesties are indeed out of the question. Similarly, the prosecutions of persons responsible for serious violations of human rights in East Timor both in East Timor and in Indonesia further adds weight to the arguments for prosecution of Mugabe and his henchmen.

In conclusion, the granting of an amnesty is in itself an act of official forgiveness for past misdeeds. It follows that it must be the person to whom the misdeed has been directed or the victim who exercises the choice to forgive. In order to be motivated to forgive, a victim might take into account the fact that his attacker has shown remorse and "come clean" by confessing all that he has done. The victim might also consider that the attacker has apologised for his past misdeeds and offered some form of restitution or compensation. It might also be considered by the victim that an attacker has repented and chosen the virtuous path thereafter desisting from repeating the same acts. Evidently none of these preconditions exist in relation to Mugabe and his human rights victims. Who will dare grant him amnesty?

 

Malunga is a Zimbabwean lawyer based in South East Asia. Acknowledgements: Michael P. Scharf: The Amnesty Exception to the Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, 32 CORNELL Int'l L. J. 507 (1999)

 

"MUGABE AT HIS SUNSET BUT OPPOSITION IS IN DISARRAY!"

As Mugabe era ebbs, opposition is deeply divided in Zimbabwe

 

By Michael Wines

Published: May 8, 2007

 

 

   Listen to Article

 

 

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/05/08/news/zim.php

 

 

JOHANNESBURG: The last couple of years have been exceedingly tough for the Movement for Democratic Change, the only opposition political party of any note in Zimbabwe.

Party officials have been beaten with stones and logs; their cars have been hijacked; their posters have been methodically stripped from street poles. In one memorable instance, thugs tried to toss the party's director of security down a sixth-floor stairwell at the party's headquarters.

And those are just the attacks they have endured from their own members.

Even more than the Zimbabwean government's frequently brutal abductions and assaults on members of the MDC, the internecine brawls are evidence that all is not well inside Zimbabwe's political opposition, the force upon which the West has pinned its hopes for democratic change.

As President Robert Mugabe's 27-year rule enters what many analysts call a terminal phase, the self-proclaimed democratic opposition is near its nadir. The Movement for Democratic Change is split into two bitterly opposed factions, at war over ideology, power and prestige. Each has called the other a tool of Mugabe's spy service, the Central Intelligence Organization, and each has accused the other of betraying the party's democratic ideals.

Today on IHT.com

UN program to fight global warming is target of criticism

Inquiry expected into possible Dow Jones insider trading

Troubled East Timor goes to the polls to elect president

Now, with a crucial national election looming, the question is whether the two factions can reform their tactics and patch up their differences long enough to mount a serious challenge to Mugabe - and if they do, whether ordinary people will care.

Some Zimbabweans are skeptical. "They don't seriously challenge the regime," said Mike Davies, who leads a civic group, the Combined Harare Residents Association. "You ask young people here what they want, and their No. 1 answer is 'I want to get the hell out of Zimbabwe.' They don't buy into the MDC."

Another expert, a political analyst in Harare, the capital, who refused to be identified for fear of expulsion by the government, was dismissive. "As a political party," he said, "they haven't cut the mustard."

An unlikely amalgam of whites and blacks, trade unionists and intellectuals, the Movement for Democratic Change nearly won control of Parliament in 2000, just a year after its founding, and nearly beat Mugabe in the 2002 presidential contest.

By the end of 2006, however, repeated miscalculations and sometimes violent infighting had divided the party into two feuding camps, both almost irrelevant.

They might still be, had Mugabe's riot police not severely beaten dozens of opposition members during a protest March 11, including Morgan Tsvangirai, the popular figure who now heads the party's largest faction.

Although Tsvangirai and his loyalists presided over the party's decline - and not a little of the violence - his head wound and swollen eye instantly elevated the party's profile in the world press, turning him into a symbol of democratic change in Zimbabwe.

For the MDC, Tsvangirai's drubbing could be a godsend. Though the economy is in ruins, millions of citizens have fled the country and most of those who remain resent Mugabe, who at 83 has declared his intention to seek a new term as president in elections next March.

Zimbabwe's neighbors, belatedly alarmed at the unraveling next door, have appointed President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa to mediate guarantees of a free and fair election.

Most political analysts say Mugabe has already begun his campaign, in his own way. In February his agents began a wave of kidnappings and beatings of hundreds of Movement for Democratic Change leaders - a crusade, critics say, to destroy the opposition's will to contest another election.

Faced with that campaign, the two MDC factions have declared a temporary truce and pledged to wage a single campaign against Mugabe. But with 11 months left before the vote, they have yet to choose a presidential candidate or a parliamentary slate, much less a campaign plan.

Brian Raftopoulos, a Zimbabwean political scientist at the Institute for Justice and Reconciliation in Cape Town, says the clock is ticking. "They have to agree at the very minimum on a common election strategy and a common nominee for president," he said. "I think they've got very little time to do that."

In interviews, both Tsvangirai and Welshman Ncube, the general secretary of the opposing MDC faction, said that they were in serious talks to put aside their rivalry and refocus their energies on defeating Mugabe.

That will be a tall order, for as Ncube says, the two sides are at odds over bedrock issues about the role of a democratic opposition. One is the principle of majority rule; the other is the acceptability of violence as a political tactic.

 

---

Yahoo! Mail is the world's favourite email. Don't settle for less, sign up for your free account today.

"PLEASE END VICIOUS CYCLE OF EVIL" PLEADS MR SILENCE CHIHURI!

Tsvangirai's overture is a sobering thought

 

The proposition by Morgan Tsvangirai of an amnesty for Mugabe and his inner circle for the good of Zimbabwe and Zimbabweans should be hailed by all genuinely peace loving Zimbabwe. This vicious cycle has to be ended somewhere. It cannot be a continuous orgy of retribution and retaliation. Common sense has to prevail from source with the national and political leadership.

 

If Mugabe could wave the olive branch to Ian Smith and Co then surely there should be nothing untoward about Tsvangirai doing the same to Mugabe. Smith killed thousands of innocent Zimbabweans not to mention the guerrillas who sacrificed their lives to liberate us. When Mugabe tore into the airwaves on the even of independence with his statesmanlike speech of reconciliation and forgiveness, he was hailed as a pragmatic leader who was a breath of fresh air. I think Tsvangirai is mulling the route that makes great leaders because as he said in an interview a short while ago, no amount of retribution will ever heal the wounds of those who have suffered at the hands of the monstrous dictatorship that is ZANU PF.

 

Nelson Mandela emerged from the ashes of apartheid South Africa to become one of the greatest leaders Africa has ever produced. Yet the bedrock of Mandela's policy was enmeshed in conciliation and reaching out to the very people who had humiliated him, killed most of his comrade-in-arms and oppressed Black South Africans. Mandela was never vilified but he was lauded as a great man of wisdom and integrity. I personally think that Tsvingirai has latched a gear up his ladder of leadership with a statesmanlike and visionary proposition for peace and brotherhood. Zimbabwe is desperate for that spirit today - of conciliation and tolerance.

 

Yes the wounds are still fresh and the fire of pain is still burning in the hearts of Zimbabweans, but Tsvangirai is no less a victim himself. He has endured as much pain and suffering at the hands of the dictatorship and he is merely chatting the way as a leader. Of course bold moves always come with at times misplaced recriminations. I am one of those people who in the past have yearned to see bold moves being taken by our political leadership and I should be among the first to welcome when such signs of political sanity manifest themselves in the form of propositions and overtures that would certainly guarantee peace and continued prosperity in our strife torn country.   

 

Zimbabwe today is a country that is deeply divided with the seeds of division being largely sown by politicians who are the government of the day. Ours is a dangerously polarised country today, and it would be a recipe for full-scale strife should no bold efforts be made by future leaders to normalise the trend towards worse disintegration. This is a very opportune moment to start chatting the conciliatory course of futurist politics because the successful reconstruction and rehabilitation of Zimbabwe will hugely hinge upon wisdom and peaceable existence rather than animosity.

 

Yes Mugabe has presided over one of the worst regimes in our time and overseen the worst decadence during his tenure. But history has told that those who mess up never do it with an intention to clean up because if this were the case, then they would never do it in the first place. However, it is always the duty of others to do the clean up and our country is one that needs quite a bit of cleaning up in the comings years. That kind of national purification will have to start with plugging the source of the dirty that is Mugabe. If you rapture a leaking pipe then you will end up with more sewage on yours hands. Mugabe is no different because he is dragging a lot of dangerous baggage with him.

 

People may clamour for Mugabe's blood but they may needlessly prolong the suffering of the innocent citizens of our country some of whom are dying needless deaths due to lack of ordinary medicines. Others are going for days on end without a decent meal while sleeping in the open. All this is because Mugabe cannot be dislodged and will not yield power without force. The consequences of employing force on Mugabe, entrenched as he is at the moment, is a disastrous deterioration and prolongation of the prevailing situation. The circumstances obtaining in our country are precarious and any further slip down the slop will be catastrophic and even much more difficult to recover from. The more threats we hail at Mugabe the deeper he digs in his heels.

 

Tsvangirai's proposition maybe misconstrued for a fall on the last hurdle or maybe given as a sign of someone looking for a quick fix to the current problem, but that is no quick fix at all. In fact that move will prove to be the largest block on the foundation of the future of Zimbabwe. It should be known that Zimbabwe is one nation and that the electorate is the same that is courted by ZANU PF and the MDC. There has to be a constructive approach towards reaching out to that electorate no matter how divided it is between ZANU PF and the MDC. The people who today sing ZANU PF songs and vote ZANU PF are the same who tomorrow might vote for the MDC. They will not be won over by force but rather, they will need to be reached out to. And that includes their leadership as well no matter how cruel. They have to be shown the way because following their footsteps would be total failure to raise the bar of leadership.

 

The Zimbabwean crisis will only take a homegrown solution and that solution can only be found if our leaders start exploring the ways that benefit the nation more than themselves. Tsvangirai is exploring one such avenue and it is a very refreshing move. Mugabe will not listen to anyone and least of all Thabo Mbeki. This so-called South African initiative fronted by Mbeki will be in the sand in no time and the sooner Zimbabweans realise that the better. Mugabe will never willingly retire as long as the prospect of prosecution and incarceration lingers over his conscience. The man knows what he has done and because power has its limits, he is powerless to forgive himself. It will only take the people to forgive disgraced leaders like Mugabe and Co and people like Tsvangirai do have the morale high ground to seek consensus on such an essential national issue. Tsvangirai is simply seeking consensus and the people of Zimbabwe should duly yield it.

 

It should be bone in mind that Mugabe still has a significant following in Zimbabwe. His supporters are a cocktail of genuine admirers and sympathisers who still view Mugabe as the hero of our liberation struggle. Then there are the crooks that would love to have Mugabe where he is for as long as possible, not because they love him, but because it is enriching them. Of course it would be a loss and painful experience to allow such people to go scot-free and not be brought to book. However, the benefits of allowing all Zimbabweans the experience of all-inclusive and peaceful reconstruction and re-integration into economic and political existence, far out ways the loss of revenge through the prevalence of common sense over animalism.  

 

Mugabe and his inner circle are all terribly arrogant and they would beat their chests loud but this is the time for nation builders rather than nation wreckers to assume the national mantle. It is time for leaders who have the vision to take Zimbabwe into that next level and it will take tough decisions take by humble citizens with the pragmatism to forgive and move on. Leaders need the support of their people to see through those difficult but necessary decisions.

 

 

Silence Chihuri is a Zimbabwean who writes from Scotland. He can be contacted on silencechihuri@hotmail.com