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

 

EXILED ZIMBABWEANS PRINT A "ONCE-OFF" COPY OF THE "DAILY NEWS!"

Amnesty Int'l publishes version of The Daily News

 

ex www.talkzimbabwe.com 8 May, 2007.

Geoffrey Nyarota - founder and former editor-in-chief of the The Daily News

Itayi Garande 08.MAY.07

 

EXILED Zimbabwean journalists and researchers published a one-off issue of the banned and closed newspaper, The Daily News dedicated to covering the current state of Zimbabwe's media on Press Freedom Day.

The paper aptly named The Daily News in Exile is a six-page report of violence, repression, and struggle in the troubled country.

Focussing mainly on the Zanu PF government's clamp down on freedom of expression, Geoffrey Nyarota (founder and former editor-in-chief of the The Daily News and now editor of the online paper - thezimbabwetimes.com) writes about "his experience as a Zimbabwean newsman and his fears for the colleagues he was forced to leave behind."

Other contributors to the special edition are Sandra Nyaira (former political correspondent with The Daily News), Nyasha Nyakunu, (Research and Information Officer for the Media Institute of Southern Africa) and Simeon Mawanza, researcher on Zimbabwe with Amnesty International.

The edition tells the story of The Daily News, from its founding in 1999 up to the time it stopped publishing on February 6 2004.

When it eventually closed in 2004, it had risen to become the nation's leading independent news source, despite the bombing of its printing press, the arrest of its staff, the occupation of its offices by police, and constant harassment by state monitors.

The Daily News in Exilecarries the slogan "Telling It Like It Is For World Press Freedom Day" (May 3). It carries detailed reports, statistics, editorials, cartoons, and photographs that recount recent and historical press freedom violations in Zimbabwe.

The paper was published by the Amnesty International Irish Section, and is written by Geoffrey Nyarota (the founder and former editor-in-chief of The Daily News), Sandra Nyaira (a correpondent for The Daily News), and researchers Nyasha Nyakunu and Simeon Mawanza.


Please click here to read The Daily News In Exile in PDF format

 

---

Inbox full of unwanted email? Get leading protection and 1GB storage with All New Yahoo! Mail.

"More journalists persecuted while we talk endlessly !" Geoff Nyarota.

http://www.thezimbabwetimes.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=857&Itemid=44     Presentation by Geoffrey Nyarota, Managing Editor of The Zimbabwe Times.com in Medellin, Colombia, on Friday May 4, on the occasion of the commemoration of World Press Freedom Day.   I WISH to start by saying,  "Gracias",  to UNESCO for extending an invitation and for  availing me the opportunity to participate in this very important forum on the momentous occasion of the commemoration of World Press freedom Day.   I was requested to prepare a presentation for this session of the conference which addresses the important issue of what action should be taken to promote the safety of journalists.   Having made the necessary preparation, I was advised, much to my dismay, just before the beginning of the session that, in making their presentations, panelists would be restricted to only five minutes each in the interests of time. It is not possible for me to compress that presentation into five minutes, while doing full justice to an issue which touches on the very survival of members of my profession. I am therefore putting my prepared presentation aside in order to make a short statement on a matter that I believe to be of crucial importance.   If you detect a certain frustration in my statement your observation will be quite accurate. I am going to be deliberately provocative, though. I will, however, do my very best, Madam Chair (Catherine Gicheru of Kenya), to respect your time restriction.   As a rule, journalists are fascinated by statistics. We always seek to impress with our profound knowledge of statistical data, much of it downloaded from the Internet moments before we show it off.   I will cite an example. I will dazzle you with shocking statistics about my country. Zimbabwe attained nationhood as an independent state in 1980. We inherited from our former colonial rulers a country that was rich and prosperous, although it was emerging for a protracted period of guerilla warfare and international economic sanctions. Our immediate challenge was to rebuild our war-torn nation, while restoring it to peace, dignity, full democracy and prosperity. We were determined to achieve success.   Our new leader, Mr Robert Mugabe, was a man of rare qualities and determination. We regarded him as a national hero. On the international scene he was held in equally high esteem as a world statesman. As I stand before this august gathering today, some of those early ideals, expectations and optimistic objectives are now confined to the annals of our short history. The Zimbabwe story has become one of tragedy and suffering.   Today an estimated 3 million of Zimbabwe's population of 14, 5 million live outside their country as economic and political refugees. They will be found in large numbers in South Africa, the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, Australia and further afield.   The majority of citizens, who remain inside the country, live in abject poverty. Through the poor economic planning of the same Mr Mugabe's government, they now experience serious shortages of essential commodities, such as basic food. There is a serious shortage of foreign currency to import petroleum products. As a result there is a thriving black market for both foreign currency and for petrol. The official rate of exchange is one US dollar to $250 Zimbabwe dollars. On the black market, where even cabinet ministers conduct business, the amount currently fluctuates between $2 500 and $3 000.  It may be of interest to you to know that 27 years ago the Zimbabwean currency was slightly stronger than the US dollar.   More statistics – the rate of unemployment currently stands at more than 80 percent, while at more than 2 300 percent Zimbabwe's rate of inflation is the highest in the world. The second highest inflation is that of Iraq, a country at war for the past four years. Even then, I believe Iraq's rate of inflation is well below 50 percent.   More than 20 000 innocent Zimbabweans were massacred in an orgy of violence unleashed by government in what was early evidence of Mr Mugabe's intolerance to opposing political views. Meanwhile, in the same spirit of intolerance, four newspapers have been banned by the government, including The Daily News, the newspaper of which I was the founding editor back in 1999. Now, for a country that was destined for peace and prosperity only 27 years ago, these are, indeed shocking statistics.   But my question to you is, "How many among you have ever stopped to think what the closure of newspaper actually entails in terms of human suffering."   But before I put that question, let me state that when I leave this conference, one very brief statement will be printed indelibly in my mind. It was a statement made by Mr Julio Munoz, executive director of the Inter-American Press Association, IAPA.   Speaking in the session immediately before this one he said: "More action, less rhetoric."   Brief statement, profound meaning.   Journalists are trained and paid to write. I have since discovered that we also love to talk – just like the politicians, whose rambling speeches we so love to despise. Over the past two decades I have attended many media conferences. At these conferences we have dedicated and re-dedicated ourselves to continuing to wage the campaign for press freedom and democracy. But authoritarian politicians have since discovered that we are mere talkers. They explore that weakness to their benefit and to our utter undoing.   In my book, Against the Grain, I named Chapter 12, "The sword is mightier than the pen", a cynical play with the famous saying, "The pen is mightier that the sword." I have become skeptical about that.   As I stand before you, I am living testimony to the insecurity and vulnerability of journalists in my part of the world. If the situation of press freedom in my country was free I would be back in Zimbabwe today. I would be celebrating the run-away success of the award-winning Daily News with the paper's staff and with it's readers. Instead I live in exile.   Not only was the paper's printing press bombed; the paper itself was banned. The paper's journalists were harassed and arrested on spurious charges. As the editor I was arrested several times. I was publicly declared an enemy of the state and received death threats. An assassin was hired to execute me. Fortunately, his conscience got the better of him. The paper was very effectively infiltrated by government agents. I was eventually driven into exile.   People tell me, now that it's no longer there, that they now realize or appreciate what a crucial role The Daily News played in the campaign to restore democracy to Zimbabwe. Sometimes mankind does not appreciate the value of freedom until that freedom is taken away. More sadly, rarely do professional colleagues, friends and those of my compatriots that I communicate with ever to stop to ask how I survive in the Diaspora. They somehow assume that the United States has some mechanism that automatically guarantees the sustenance of editors or other journalists arriving on its shores after fleeing from the ravages of one Third World dictator or another.   But, let me assure you, no journalist from the Third World should arrive at The New York Times or other US mainstream publication with a starry-eyed expectation to be shown to their new desk just because they are refugees fleeing from persecution. Many of these papers say they are cutting down on editorial staff, anyway. When this truth eventually dawned on me I hit on an enterprising idea – launch a Zimbabwe-based news website for the benefit of the millions earlier referred to and of those Zimbabweans in the homeland who are fortunate enough to have access to the Internet. Such venture would hopefully also create gainful occupation for some of those jobless or grossly underpaid journalists still in the country.   When I attempted to canvass for sponsorship for what I considered to be a worthwhile venture in the national interest, I was in for disappointment. I was told in more than one case that to qualify for any assistance I would have to be based back in the country.   I could not believe my ears.   Undaunted the project proceeded, courtesy of the charitable intervention of patriotic and progressive friends. Much to my wife's consternation, our own meager family resources have constantly been exploited to ensure that our correspondents inside Zimbabwe are adequately compensated for their enterprise and courage.   The closure of The Daily News entailed loss of employment for more than 300 bread- winners. But how many of you gathered here today have ever proceeded beyond the statistics to consider what this instant loss of income entails; what it means to be suddenly without income to pay for shelter, for food for the family, for transport, for clothing or for school fees for the children?   Cynically, this situation arises, not because the journalist has failed to perform in his or her job, but because he or she has been excellent or outstanding, much to the chagrin of a non-performing ruling elite. We are talking here about loss of income, not just for one month or so but, in the most extreme cases, for more than three years now.   Many of those journalists who have left the country now survive by working in menial jobs, far removed from the hustle and bustle of the newsroom. Instead, some now take care of patients in homes for the aged. Not only does this break the back of once powerful journalists; it also breaks their proud spirit. How many of you here today have ever stopped to consider what it means to the spouse or the children when the head of a family is arrested, tortured, jailed or murdered?   To me these are the real issues of safety of journalists. Is there safety after persecution.   Meanwhile, Mr Mugabe continues to inflict anguish and injury on those journalists who still go about discharging their lawful duty while working in Zimbabwe's shrinking independent press. Over the past two months one journalist, Edward Chamboko was murdered. This is the first time a journalist has been killed in Zimbabwe. Two others, Tsvangirayi Mukwazhi, the award- winning photographer of the United States-based The Zimbabwe Times, and Gift Phiri, a correspondent for the United Kingdom-based The Zimbabwean were arrested. Both were severely assaulted while in police custody.   The large number of internet-based Zimbabwean publications now flourishing on the internet bears testimony to the indomitable spirit of the country's journalists in the face of remarkable hardship and persecution.   Meanwhile, Mr Mugabe continues to willfully subject journalists to torture with Total impunity and arrogant disdain. Since I attended my first media conference More than 20 years ago countless resolutions have been passed by various media organisations. Meanwhile, the state of insecurity among the enterprising and valiant journalists of my country has actually deteriorated significantly.   Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much.             (Geoffrey Nyarota is the laureate in 2002 of the UNESCO/Guillermo Cano World Press Freedom Award. This year' award was presented posthumously on wednesday to Anna Politkovskaya, the Russian investigative journalist who was gunned down in cold blood in October 2006. Nyarota has won nine other international journalism awards, including the World Association of Newspapers' Golden Pen of Freedom Award (2002), the Media Institute of Southern Africa's Press Freedom Award (2001), the Commonwealth Press Union's Terry Pierce-Goulding Memorial Award (1989) and the National Association of Black Journalists of America's Percy Qoboza Memorial Award (1989 and 2004).) JOIN THE DEBATE IN THE FORUM

 

---

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