International Crisis Group (ICG), a global political think tank released a report on Zimbabwe that has generated a lot of attention in cyberspace over the past 48 hours. Here’s the important stuff, the recommendations ICG makes in the report,

To the Government of Zimbabwe and ZANU-PF:

1. Abandon plans to extend President Mugabe’s term beyond its expiration in March 2008 and support SADC-led negotiations to implement an exit strategy for him no later than that date.

2. Negotiate with the MDC on a constitutional framework, power-sharing agreement, detailed agenda and benchmarks for a two-year political transition, beginning in March 2008, including:

(a) adoption of a constitutional amendment in the July 2007 parliamentary session providing for nomination in March 2008, by two-thirds majority, of a non-executive president, an executive prime minister and de-linking of government and ZANU-PF party positions;

(b) a power-sharing agreement leading in early 2008 to a transitional government, including ZANU-PF and the MDC, tasked with producing a new draft constitution, repealing repressive laws, drawing up a new voters roll and demilitarising and depoliticising state institutions in accordance with agreed timelines and benchmarks, and leading to internationally supervised elections in 2010; and

(c) implementation of an emergency economic recovery plan to curb inflation, restore donor and foreign investor confidence and boost mining and agricultural production, including establishment of a Land Commission with a strong technocratic base and wide representation of Zimbabwean stakeholders to recommend policies aimed at ending the land crisis.

3. Abandon plans for a new urban displacement program and act to redress the damage done by Operation Murambatsvina by:

(a) providing shelter to its homeless victims; and

(b) implementing the recommendations of the Tibaijuka Report, including compensation for those whose property was destroyed, unhindered access for humanitarian workers and aid and creation of an environment for effective reconstruction and resettlement.

To the Movement for Democratic Change:

4. Proceed with internal efforts to establish minimum unity within the party and a common front for dealing with the government and ZANU-PF and contesting presidential and parliamentary elections, while retaining reunification as the ultimate goal.

5. Hold internal consultations between faction leaders to adopt a joint strategy aiming at:

(a) finalising negotiations with ZANU-PF over constitutional reforms, a power-sharing agreement and formation of a transitional government in March 2008; and

(b) preparing for a March 2008 presidential election if negotiations with ZANU-PF fail, and President Mugabe retains power.

To Zimbabwean and South African Civil Society Organisations:

6. Initiate legal proceedings in South African courts to attach any assets stolen from the Zimbabwean government and transferred to or invested in South Africa and to obtain the arrest and prosecution of egregious Zimbabwean human rights abusers visiting South Africa.

To SADC and South Africa:

7. Engage with the U.S. and the EU to adopt a joint strategy for resolving the crisis that includes:

(a) mediation by SADC of negotiations for an exit deal on expiration of President Mugabe’s term in 2008 and of an agreement between ZANU-PF and the MDC on a power-sharing transitional government to oversee development of a new constitution, repeal repressive laws and hold internationally supervised presidential and parliamentary elections in 2010; and

(b) understandings on the use by the U.S. and EU of incentives and disincentives to support the strategy in regard to targeted sanctions, political relations with the transitional government and resumption of assistance.

8. Engage with the Zimbabwe government to facilitate talks between ZANU-PF and the MDC leading to the above steps.

9. Convene an urgent meeting of the SADC Organ on Politics, Defence and Security Co-operation to consider the regional consequences of the economic meltdown in Zimbabwe and recommend action by the Heads of State summit to deal with the situation.

To the United States and the European Union:

10. Engage with SADC countries to adopt the above-mentioned joint strategy, including understandings on timelines and benchmarks to be met by the Zimbabwean authorities in restoring and implementing a democratic process.

11. Increase pressure on President Mugabe and other ZANU-PF leaders if they do not cooperate with efforts to begin a transition and restore democracy, including by taking the following measures to close loopholes in targeted personal sanctions:

(a) apply the sanctions also to family members and business associates of those on the lists;

(b) cancel visas and residence permits of those on the lists and their family members; and

(c) add Reserve Bank Governor Gideon Gono to the EU list.

12. Portugal, holding the EU Presidency in the second half of 2007, should not invite President Mugabe and other members of the Zimbabwe government or ZANU-PF on the EU targeted sanctions list to the EU-AU summit unless significant reforms have already been undertaken.

13. Increase funding for training and other capacity-building assistance to democratic forces in Zimbabwe.

To the United Nations Secretary-General:

14. Assign a senior official – a new Special Envoy to Zimbabwe, the Special Adviser to the Secretary General on Africa or a high-level member of the Department of Political Affairs – responsibility for the Zimbabwe portfolio including to support the SADC-led initiative, and monitor the situation for the Secretary General.

To the United Nations Security Council:

15. Begin discussions aimed at placing the situation in Zimbabwe on the agenda as a threat to international peace and security.

To the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights or in the alternative the Human Rights Council:

16. Initiate a follow-up investigation on the Tibaijuka Report, including plans for a new urban displacement campaign, arrests of informal miners and political repression, and recommend actions to the member states, the Security Council and the Secretariat.

To the Commonwealth Secretariat:

17. Encourage Commonwealth member countries in Southern Africa to help mediate a political settlement for a post-Mugabe Zimbabwe, setting benchmarks for a return of the country to the organisation.

18. Establish a group of Eminent Persons to engage with Zimbabwe, using the good offices of its regional members to facilitate access.

19. Work through Commonwealth civil society organizations to build up civil society capacity in Zimbabwe.

I can’t say the report, recommendations, or all the attention it is getting have me jumping out of my seat. Don’t get me wrong, I am not going to dismiss the report either, there’s clearly been a diligent effort by the group to document the status quo in Zimbabwe today.
(more…)

Zimbabwean President, Robert Mugabe turned 83 a week ago. While he celebrated at a lengthy gala in Gweru which was forced on residents and school children there, police issued a repressive ban on rallies and demonstrations in Harare. The ban, the regime’s latest measure at calming an incessent tide of anger, is evidence that there are deep cracks and fissures in the nation’s foundations as Eddie Cross notes;

The situation in Zimbabwe has deteriorated sharply in the past few days. The government has imposed a ban on public meetings, the strikes are continuing with the State run hospitals now completely paralysed, Doctors and Nurses refuse to go back to work. The Universities are due to open on Monday but staff is on strike and there are no signs of compromise. Students plan to join the strike on Monday in support of their lecturers and demanding attention to the stark conditions under which they are living. The ZCTU has announced a national strike in a month’s time and the State Security Minister has threatened them with dire action.

Now a form of curfew is being imposed on the high-density townships across the country in an effort to bring the situation under control. These are clearly signs of panic in the realms of government.

Tomorrow should be the start of a 4-month freeze on prices and wages - however I understand the proposal has been abandoned as being simply unworkable. No statements are forthcoming from the authorities and to say the least, there is considerable confusion in business and Union circles. The Governor of the Reserve Bank speaks of a ‘Social Contract’ but none exists.

(more…)

How long, oh Lord?

Perhaps this has been the most common question that I have been asked in recent weeks. People look at me anxiously and hope for an indication that things are not as bad as they seem and that there is some hope that this long nightmare might end.

That is a tough question – perhaps because there is no answer. The truth of the matter is that we might wake up tomorrow morning and find that everything has changed. The reality is however, that change is not likely to come very soon and it is how we manage that bit of information that matters.

Let’s just review the overall situation that confronts us right now.

It is now certain that 2007 is going to be much worse than 2006. Inflation is going to be higher, the economy will almost certainly shrink – for the 9th year in a row and the flood of economic refugees into other countries will, if anything get worse. Shortages will be more widespread and this will
create additional problems for those of us who live here. I predict that the coming agricultural season will be much worse than in the past year. Output across the board will be lower – without exception.

Then there is the situation in Zanu PF. Mr. Mugabe is no longer functioning effectively as Head of State – he is working very short hours and for whatever reason is already in a state of semi retirement. He has moved to his new home in Harare and goes into the office late in the morning
returning home before midday. Few people are seeing him and it is clear that government is confused and divided – no strong central direction is apparent. Everybody is doing his or her own thing.

Then there is the succession debate. Rumors abound about Mugabe’s future plans – they all point to him stepping down and it would appear from our sources that the debate on whether to allow him to remain President until 2010 has been quashed. It would appear to us that he is now committed to
retirement in March 2008, if not sooner. A recurrent Zanu PF nightmare is that he might become incapacitated sooner than March 2008, leaving Zanu unprepared for the succession battles that will follow.
(more…)

For almost all of the 20th Century, a basic dictum of international diplomacy was “non interference in the internal affairs of other States”. Even today, Mugabe angrily denounces all attempts to even discuss the crisis in Zimbabwe at international gatherings as “interference in our internal affairs.” At the SADC summit last month he stormed out of that gathering and flew home 24 hours early when leaders insisted that the Zimbabwe situation be discussed in a closed session.

Today in Darfur the international community faces a fresh challenge – the Sudanese government is flatly refusing to allow more effective UN surveillance of the situation in Darfur and is continuing to try to subjugate the people of Darfur by means of armed force using both State resources and informal armed forces. The international media is still allowed into the Sudan and so we can see for ourselves the effects of this situation on the ordinary men and women of the western region of Sudan. We can see the refugee camps, the fresh graves; hear the stories of those whose lives and rights are being abused by a dictatorial Islamic regime.

In recent times the issue of non-interference in the internal affairs of sovereign States has come under scrutiny. People are questioning the dictate and saying that where a government is threatening the fundamental human and
political rights of its people, the international community has the responsibility to act in solidarity with the poor and defenseless. So today we are seeing really tough talk at the UN about Darfur and we are also seeing more and more prominent people from all walks of life saying that the international community has the responsibility to interfere.

In southern Africa we have been there as well – both the Rhodesian and South African governments used the dictate to argue that outsiders had no right to interfere. But eventually, the gravity of the crisis and the threat to the
stability of the region persuaded those with power to take action. In both cases the international community appointed a “point man” to take responsibility for coordinating and directing the resolution of the crisis. In both cases they were successful. Henry Kissenger was the point man on Rhodesia and Margaret Thatcher the point “man” for South Africa.

What happened after their intervention was critical, but it was their (often unsung) actions that actually broke the logjam and made all else possible. If you had told me that South Africa would go through the process that led
to the 1994 elections without serious violence and upheaval – I would have said you were nuts. But it happened and the key element was a carefully planned and executed political action backed by the threat of the use of
power. Such threats are only credible when they are real and can be backed up by action if needed.

Today it is 30 years since Henry Kissenger flew into South Africa and held talks with a team of Ministers led by Ian Smith at Union Buildings in Pretoria. He came with a plan agreed by key African leaders and the backing
of the global community at the time. He arrived when Rhodesia was in the throes of an armed struggle with the armies of Zanla and Zipra who were demanding one-man one vote (democracy). 150 000 men were under arms and the
ordinary population of the country was being brutalized by all sides. The economy was in dire straights and there was no end in sight for the conflict. There were fears the conflict might spread into South Africa itself. Smith was totally in charge and even the South Africans were wary of taking him on politically.

Kissenger persuaded the South Africans that there was no future for Rhodesia under Smith. That backing the Smith government was not only a waste of South African resources but was having a negative impact on the survival and prosperity of South Africa itself. He was well prepared and the US had used its considerable intelligence capacity to ensure that he could argue this case with some force and conviction.

Kissenger sympathized with Smith – recognised his courage and determination and even his love of the country he led. But he also understood that he was never going to win and that if the final defeat came any way other than
through negotiation, it would be a disaster. He presented his plan to the Rhodesian team and after they had debated it amongst themselves for a while, they rejected it. At that point the President of South Africa came in and
said to the Rhodesian delegation that if they walked out of that room without an agreement, he would cut off their essential supplies and all future support would cease. Smith went on to call it the “Great Betrayal” but in fact what those two foreign leaders did that day was to rescue the country from itself and open the way to a new beginning.

The Rhodesians flew home and Smith went on television 30 years ago on the 23rd September 1976 to say they had agreed to a transition to real democracy. It took 3 more years but when Zimbabwe was born on the 18th April
1980, Henry Kissenger was, in a very real sense, its father.

Today the international media are banned from Zimbabwe and unless someone has the courage and the equipment to film something clandestinely – the world cannot see what is happening here. That does not excuse leaders. They
should not require pictures to make decisions on situations like Darfur and Zimbabwe. Unfortunately very often that is the case – but it should not be so. They know what is happening – they have other resources, reports,
intelligence and their diplomats.

The crisis in Darfur is serious, but it does not compare to the situation in Zimbabwe where a criminal class is in power, is terrified of its past and is fighting to stay in control at any cost. The consequences are there for all
to see – GDP down by half, exports by two thirds, life expectancy by half in a decade, elections a sham, the media totally controlled and all forms of opposition ruthlessly put down by armed force and violence. We are a threat
to regional stability and prosperity; our economic and political refugees are drowning the social and economic systems of our neighbors. Our leadership is unrepentant – even of genocide and the mass destruction of homes and livelihoods. They are guilty of the theft of national assets and income on a scale that has not been seen in recent years in the rest of the world.

Like Burma and North Korea they have built up a military State that is able and willing to maintain itself on what remains and can continue to do so indefinitely. The only recourse of its beleaguered and embattled population is flight or a form of national “house arrest”.

The Zimbabwe situation is one that is wide open to international intervention. The failure by African leaders, the South African leadership in particular, demands that the international community itself takes a fresh look at what is going on and what can be done to get things back on track. Unlike Darfur, Iraq, Burma and North Korea – Zimbabwe is vulnerable to international action. It is a small country with limited resources – none of them really strategic, it is land locked and its neighbors hold the key to the survival of the regime.

This is a problem that can be fixed. For the sake of its people, the international community has an obligation to interfere. It does not require military intervention of any sort, just coordinated and concerted action by the leaders of democracies in Africa and abroad.

Eddie Cross
Bulawayo, 2nd October 2006

Technorati Tags: Zimbabwe, Zimbabwe Crisis, International Relations, Foreign Relations, Human Rights

The mud cake thick charade that is Zimbabwe sunk to it’s lowest yesterday when Botswana’s president Festus Mogae officially opened the Harare Agricultural Show. That Mogae played along is no surprise, it is the audacity by Mugabe and his cronies in government to hold up a non existant relationship with a country that has made no secret of their contempt of Zimbabweans that is galling.

Years after independece in Zimbabweans and the batswana cultivated a famously cordial relationship. After all, most if not all residents of Matebeleland South province in Zimbabwe have lineages span across Zimbabwe and Botswana’s boarders. Many a Tswana were educated at Zimbabwe’s colleges university and returned to their home country for a job. Reciprocally, many a trained Zimbabwe established themselves in Botswana’s smaller, but much more stable economy during the first fifteen years of our independence.

So it only seemed natural when things turned sour in Zimbabwe, that a mass exodus for Botswana beginning first in the south of Zimbabwe became one of the most plied routes to “greener pastures” for desperate Zimbabweans. For a while, our neighbors in Botswana tolerated the surging influx of Zimbo’s. It wasn’t anything new, our countries had mutually exchanged people, skills and resources for much of the last 20 years. I can even remember a family vacation in Gaborone, Botswana’s capitol back in the day. And, if I am not mistaken, I remember my mother buying me my first “safari suit” outfit on that trip. Mugabe made safari suits popular to seven year old Zimbabwean boys in the mid-eighties.

After years of sustained heightened influx from their northern neighbors, the Batswana’s longsuffering patience began to run. They had watched better qualified Zimbabweans come and take their jobs and enjoy a better quality of life in their own country and had had enough. Right around 2000, word of Batswana’s targeted hostility began to leak out. Pretty soon after that it became news. Zimbabwean’s were being murdered by angry Tswana’s; Botswana was reipartriating Zimbabweans by the truckload everyday; Botswana was couping despertate Zimbabweans in inhumane animal pens for miniscule offences and the litany continues. There’s one headline that definitively marked a new era in the relations between our countries and our people; Botswana erected an electric fence to slow down the tidal wave of Zimbabweans.

Despite their best diplomatic efforts to project the new fence is nothing more than a measure to stem the spread of foot and mouth disease between cattle heards close to the boarders, Botswana’s government received several protests from their colleagues in Harare. All the while Zimbabwean border jumpers had figured out how isolate the portions of the fence long enough so that they could sneak back into what had become a promised land; Botswana. This controversy is well articulated in the PBS Wide Angle documentary Border Jumpers
(more…)

Technorati Tags: Zimbabwe, Harare Agricultural Show, Mugabe

On Saturday, the Churches in Zimbabwe held a National Convention to debate the crisis in Zimbabwe and the way forward. The meetiung attracted a large number of delegates - 300 plus - and representatives of the Unions, Civic groups and 5 political parties attended. The meeting was chaired and fascilitated by the Christian Alliance.

Morgan Tsvangirai played a key role and this is his address to the Convention. Because of time constraints he did not read this at the meeting but spoke to it. It makes interesting reading and I commend it to you. In addition to this speech, Morgan called all five political leaders to the podium to pledge their commitment to unity of purpose and action in the weeks ahead. The road map was accepted as was a draft “democracy charter”. All constituent bodies are now being asked to register as part of a “Broad Aliance to Save Zimbabwe” and within 7 days the leaders of this Alliance will meet to agree on a combined action progragramme designed to force Zanu PF to come to the negotiating table.

Eddie Cross
Bulawayo, 31 July 2006.

Tsvangirai address the Save Zimbabwe convention
Political Perspectives to the national crisis

Address by Morgan Tsvangirai, President of the Movement for Democratic Change at the Save Zimbabwe Convention, Harare, Zimbabwe.

29 July 2006

Introduction
May I open my address by thanking civil society and the people of Zimbabwe for staying the course? Against all odds, civil society has never wavered on matters of principle. You are with the people, as always. The record speaks for itself. In colonial times, it was the church, student movements and trade unions that spearheaded the struggle for freedom. After Independence, the people remained vigilant, constantly demanding their democratic space.

At the end of the first decade of our Independence, it became clear that our revolution was fast losing track. An avaricious nationalistic clique had abandoned the ideals of the liberation struggle. Corruption began to flourish. Our nation’s political leadership began to lose their focus. The labour movement came under pressure from the workers to de-link itself from that ruling elite. The ZCTU declared its autonomy from Zanu PF. We were informed and guided by the workers whose welfare was now on the block.

The workers were concerned by a steady erosion of their gains since Independence and decided to confront both their employers and the government. The people raised their voices and demanded their space. Part of Zanu PF’s response included far-reaching legislative changes to restrict academic freedom. This invited the anger of students and progressive intellectuals. They, too, like the workers, declared a rights dispute with the government. After the unification of Zanu PF and PF ZAPU and the declaration of intent to establish a one-party state, Zimbabweans realized that they faced a hard transition and began to search for political alternatives.

The introduction of Economic Structural Adjustment Programme in 1991 heightened the ideological confusion in Zanu PF and opened the way for even greater confrontation between the workers, the church, students and all advocates of free political space. We felt then that part of the problem lay with the Lancaster House Constitution. We began to agitate for a new Constitution. This led to the formation of the Constitutional Movement in the mid-nineties. After years of struggle along this route, we met as the National Working Peoples’ Convention to debate our fate.

The National Working Peoples’ Convention
In short, the National Working Peoples’ Convention decided then to form an alternative political movement to take on Zanu PF. We agreed, as civil society, to challenge Zanu PF and to attend to pressing governance issues whose contagion cut across our political, social and economic life. Seven months later, the Movement for Democratic Change, MDC, became a reality. In February, Zanu PF tested his first defeat in a national referendum to decide on a government drafted Constitution.

That was another major turning point in Zimbabwe. It was a people’s
victory. This was the first victory for civil society. It is not my
intention at this forum to chronicle six years of struggle and intense political activity in Zimbabwe. But let me place on record that a wounded Mugabe, in response to the crisis, targeted the people. Mugabe declared a war with the people. Mugabe declared a war with the world. The aim was to stretch the MDC and to test the people’s resilience and seriousness. Unlike his peers, Mugabe failed to work out an exit strategy when it was clear that he had outlived his usefulness.

For two decades, our national and institutional systems failed to address growing internal frictions and tensions arising from a self-created crisis of governance. The existing institutions and governance methods no longer worked. To this day, Zimbabwe finds itself saddled with persistent political imbalances, which can no longer be sustained because of numerous political deficits. However, these imbalances and policy flip-flops, which have affected all of us, show a dictatorship flame-out that should offer us a superb opportunity to start afresh.

Together, we are bearing the brunt of the social, economic and political costs of the dictatorship. The MDC, as you all know is an institution that arose from a resolution of the National Working People’s Convention. The MDC is the political face of the people’s struggle. The MDC is a mere symbol of the people’s resistance. But the bulk of the work rests with all of us, with the people, through the party, civil society and through you. The view of the National Working People’s Convention was that a political alternative should challenge the status quo and to bring about change. The birth of the MDC was a people’s response to an unbearable set of circumstances around them.

Our main strategy was to take on the regime at the ballot box. We succeed in this approach. But the people were unable to assume power. The dictatorship responded in a manner that has surprised the world. It is fair to note that on our part, we seriously under-estimated the dictator’s ability and determination to defy reasonable opinion. As we review the performance of the entire democratic movement, an opportunity presents itself for self-introspection. It is a fact that the MDC is still more of a broad-based movement than a political party in the strict sense of the word. We draw our support from everywhere, literally. Our support emerges from any person keen to see a new dispensation, a new democratic framework, and a New Zimbabwe. While some in civil society may argue that they have no vested interest in attaining political power as individuals, they remain an indispensable part of this liberation culture.

After February 2000 and the wholesale destabilization of commercial agriculture and the rule of law, the MDC attracted millions of new members, new supporters, new sympathizers and new allies whose ideological positions were at variance with the thrust of the initiators of the MDC project.

Conservatives, liberals, democrats, socialists, patriots, anarchists and extremists in our society and beyond found a home in the MDC, creating a mix that was not only difficult to manage but highly open to infiltration, manipulation and opportunism.

The mix became pronounced more glaringly in our international relations regime. Liberal democrats sought an association with us; so did the conservatives and liberals. They invited us to join their international solidarity groups and to take up membership of the same. But our ideology, Mr Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, is social democracy. Quite often we were embarrassed to be lumped in the same basket with rebel African rag-tag and ornamental opposition forces and extremely conservative and racial units. These contradictions have earned us a lot of misunderstandings and sometimes open hostility.

Our goal is to complete the unfinished agenda of the liberation struggle: to extend the people’s freedoms. Our objective remains and has always been to search for a lasting solution to the national crisis. Our vision is a New Zimbabwe.

We have tried everything: elections, dialogue, local and international lobbying, symbolic mass action, judicial redress and the law, and Parliamentary pressure. We know something out of all that. While we made some inroads here and there in exposing the weaknesses of the dictatorship, we believe we now have to break new ground in order to make real progress.

The experiences of the past six years are instructive. Countrywide, the people are demanding a short final phase of the struggle. We all realize that a long struggle wears down its own activists and supporters. A long struggle tends to be overwhelmed by unexpected challenges and changed circumstances. Many expected a short and clean sweep, but that was not be. We have to be realistic: you can’t put time frames to a struggle of this nature. Together, we have been exposed to a serious onslaught from the regime. That onslaught almost disorganized us.

The final phase of our struggle
As we enter the decisive and final phase of our struggle, allow me Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen to reflect on my experience and to attempt to place a forecast on what lies before us. The roots of this struggle reside on a serious national grievance: a grievance that is at the heart of our national politics. The MDC represents a rallying cry for the fulfilment of an uncompleted national agenda, a national assignment and a national revolution.

We cherish a value system that bound us together to confront colonialism. Zimbabweans always believed in, and even fought for, justice. We respect our dignity. The concept of hunhu hwe munhu or ubuntu, has guided our relations in our homes, in our communities and in our natural interactions with our neighbours from time immemorial. We long for liberty and personal advancement. We aspire for a society with equal opportunities. Our culture calls on us to support each other. We believe in stability and empathy. As a people, we are natural social democrats.

Zimbabweans look in hope and a deep longing for a united nation. Inside our chests moves a spirit that seeks to express freely the basic traits of our common humanity and togetherness, which for so long has been suppressed and negatively exploited by a variety of political parasites.

We feel betrayed because we never expected the nationalistic elite to simply replace the colonial administrator at Independence and perpetuate inequality, political corruption and divisions in our society. We question the seriousness and the changed, modern-day credentials of the new minority in our midst, the new elite in power. We realized that Zanu PF’s equality debate was flawed right from the beginning - it was based on a narrow principle of equality across race and colour. The party failed to see beyond this, such that today, we live in a society soaked in black-on-black oppression.

Colonialism taught us that a minority always tampers with our national values. A minority thrives on a patronage system. A minority develops cartels and breeds corruption. And when challenged, a greedy minority in power often retreats into a distorted form of nationalism and invokes fears of the unknown; a minority looks to our colonial past for opportunistic and comparative defence.

As I said earlier, after 20 years of abuse our national institutions and systems gave in. The crisis of governance reached a stage when it was no longer possible to keep the lid on. The people refused to be cowed into submission. Today, Zimbabweans desire and demand a leadership, at all levels, with a clear vision, a national sense of modesty, and much courage, born of honest and patriotic concern to articulate our common humanity, our common goals and our Zimbabwean identity within the global community.

Zimbabweans are keen to restore their confidence in the concept of public service and public good. After a serious bruising and more than two decades of unfulfilled promises and political deception, the people eagerly wait for leaders with hearts and minds large enough for the urgent task of attending to our immediate humanitarian emergencies, national healing, national reconstruction, justice and equality. There is a national consensus accepting that it will take a great deal of hard work, personal humility and patriotism to bring us together and rebuild our tattered lives and our shattered nation.

Zimbabweans expect an extension of a system of values that celebrates the sanctity of life and an unfettered extension of freedom. As a people at the heart of danger and struggling with hard transition, we must exercise caution and demand irreversible safeguards to insulate the nation against possible future abuse, regardless of who is in power. The people expect a permanent opening for liberty, personal security and collective advancement. We risk sliding into a form of generational irrelevance; we risk permanent national disability unless we show leadership and confront the dictatorship at a time when literally the nation is fully behind us.

More than at any juncture in the past, this is certainly the time we must take a proactive stance and work out the necessary political and institutional arrangements that will form the basis of a broadly shared sustainable solution to the crisis. The crisis here may be clear to every Zimbabwean, but not to Robert Mugabe and a few of powerful cronies and associates. Their mental block has become a major source of national implosion. Mugabe and his team are failing to connect with something larger than their personal egos. As a result, their leadership is unable to give Zimbabwean life any meaning at all.

We believe the time has come for Robert Mugabe to step aside because he has become an unacceptable national liability. He has lost himself. He seems stuck in a time warp and within the myth of measurement, propelling him to think that if he goes, Zimbabwe will varnish. In life, you cannot measure what you have done, especially that which is good. We recognize Mugabe’s contribution to the liberation struggle. However, we differ with his apparent reluctance to take an exit package and to enjoy, in retirement, an otherwise noble position as one of the icons of the liberation struggle and a founding father of modern Zimbabwe.

We find discomfort in his insistence to cling on to power, run the country aground and destroy the future of millions of young people. We believe he no longer has the ideas and the energy to grapple with the needs of a new generation to pilot the ship of state in the right direction. But, we still need him to assist us in this transition because while he is the source of the problem and he is also part of the solution.

With his concurrence and influence, we can soft-land the crisis; achieve our main goal of completing the unfinished business from the liberation struggle and realize our vision of a new Zimbabwe. If Mugabe allows Zimbabweans today to search for an honest national solution, the discussion will be over in a few hours because we all know and agree on what needs to be done to impel the nation out of the woods. Leadership must give meanings to the lives of others. Leadership requires an honest application of love and an open heart.

Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, the MDC is fully behind an orderly transition to a new Zimbabwe. We are against any form of retribution. We are against the use of force to settle political scores. We pledge to allow the past to guide, and not to derail, us as we work into the future. We shall never allow history and our personal preferences or grievances to interfere with this vision.

We support a democracy charter as a moral, contractual barometer for our society and a guiding expression of our national values, regardless of who is in government. We are unhappy with the unnecessary delay in resolving our national crisis at a time when all Zimbabweans, across the political divide, are agreed on the fundamental issues confronting our country.

We are dismayed that despite the national consensus on the need for a new Zimbabwe, some among us wish to see Zimbabwe burn when we know our problem and politically we have the solutions. For instance, the nation accepts and expects a new Constitution, good governance and a compassionate state, economic revival, land and agrarian reform, respect for private property rights, direct foreign investment and international legitimacy, food security, an open government, strong national institutions and jobs. We sincerely believe Zimbabwe must move fast and sort itself out because of the geo-political, social and economic developments facing the SADC region. In 2010, the region, led by South Africa, hosts the soccer World Cup.

As I said earlier, there is a real possibility of creating a dangerous political vacuum in Zimbabwe. Together with Mugabe and Zanu PF, we must seek a way to avoid further damage to our nation. We need everybody in this delicate transition. As a nation, we must manage that process; otherwise the 2010 World Cup shall be marred by a political blot. A military junta could step in to fill the possible political vacuum.

Already Mugabe, conscious of his advanced age and with a view to increase his own security, has militarised our main national institutions: power generation and supply, food production, food procurement and food security, fuel management and distribution, national parks and wildlife management, agriculture, industry and commerce, election management and administration, key civil service departments and parastatals, land distribution and local government. The entire state sector is now in the hands of the military.

In theory, there may be nothing wrong with military personnel offering assistance to a beleaguered regime on behalf of the people. But our experience in Zimbabwe is unique. In 2002 and thereafter, the military took over the administration and management of national elections, with disastrous results. We have it on record that some ambitious elements in the military harbour a negative view of the people’s sovereign right to elect a government of their choice.

International attention shall shift radically to Southern Africa over the next four years as the region prepares for the international soccer competition. Our crisis shall interfere with regional harmony if we continue to postpone the inevitable. A solution is urgent because of the historic task ahead. Zimbabwe needs to embark on a major reconstruction agenda and to re-set its mind and consciousness in order to play a meaningful part in the hosting of the World Cup.

History will judge us harshly if we allow our own internal problems to soil this critical event with, as expected, haphazard migration across the Limpopo, squabbles over disputed elections, lack of political space, a flawed Constitution, starvation and insecurity and bad governance.

Although Germany played host to the 2006 World Cup, 13 European nations participated and assisted in one way or the other. Europe housed and provided facilities to various national teams, visitors and official delegations before the official kick-off of the competition. We are hosting the World Cup. Let us join the region in the preparations for this event.

We are therefore proposing that we deal with our national issues way before 2010, better still three or four years before this international showcase to allow us to rehabilitate our nation, recover our national pride and dignity and play our complimentary role in hosting the World Cup. Let us avoid alienating ourselves further from our neighbours. We must work together to re-open our links with the rest of the business community and participate, as a stable community, in international events. At the moment, we are simply an irritant, a gadfly ready to muddy a noble cause in 2010. We hope and pray that Robert Mugabe and Zanu PF understand that as Zimbabweans we have a responsibility, a duty to our people and to the region.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, while some in this struggle may feel tortured and betrayed, powerless and hopeless, my sincere advice to the people is: stay the course and lead with an open heart. Let us remain compassionate in our search for a lasting solution to the national crisis. Let us pay attention to the people’s pain, against all odds.

I thank you.

Technorati Tags: Zimbabwe, MDC, Zimbabwe Crisis, Morgan Tsvangirai, Democracy, Zimbabwe Politics

Apparently frustrated by his party’s penchant for a quick buck and lust for power, Mugabe bombarded his party’s top members not once but twice over the weekend. Speaking to ZANU’s central committee on Friday Mugabe lashed out at the members over corruption saying,

These cases of [members] wanting to enrich themselves are increasing in number. You are not being fair — some people are just being crookish. Zanu-PF is going to embark on a major cleansing exercise to remove those elements bent on tarnishing the image of the party by their wayward behaviour with their private and public lives.

The aged leader, did not leave any stone unturned in his long harangue. Taking a swipe at the MDC over recent violence within the party, Mugabe charged lies and violence were seated deep within the party. He contended this was something western powers refused to listen to. He alsoissued a thinly veiled threat to the MDC about their planned mass action saying he wanted police given more powers to crush such revolts. He continued saying the only way to secure power was by election.

On Saturday the Central Committee found themselves under Mugabe’s cross hairs when Mugabe characterized some of them as rabidly power hungry.

The things we hear about succession, succession, succession — zvatinonzwa zvacho, zvakaoma. Hapana zvakadaro. If I were to write books, I would write volumes and volumes of nonsensical things. Vamwe vanoenda kun’anga kuti ndinoda kuita ichi. Imi weee . . . N’anga huru is the people of Zimbabwe. Hazvina n’anga mukati izvi. (We hear lots of unbelievable stories about succession. We hear some people are consulting witchdoctors . . . but the biggest witchdoctor is the people of Zimbabwe. There is no need to consult witchdoctors.)

“If you do your work and work with the people well, the people will recognise you. Unhu hwako tinenge tichida kuti hunge huri hwakanaka.” (We want people with dignity.)

Fascinating. (more…)

Violet: We continue the teleconference interview discussing various issues of national interest with three people who have at one time or another advised some of the key players in Zimbabwean politics - political analyst Professor Brian Raftopoulos, former Information Minister, now independent MP Professor Jonathan Moyo and leading economist John Robertson. This week we are going to be discussing how Mugabe thinks. What is his mindset? Why is he allowing the country to collapse so totally? A huge part of that collapse has been economic and so we start this week’s discussion with the economy.

With inflation nearing 1200% it’s been said the economy has become Mugabe’s real opposition. So I first asked economist John Robertson to explain the state of the economy and tell us how bad things really are.

Robertson: The state of the economy is certainly extremely serious. We have lost about half of our gross domestic product. The GDP per capita has come down to less that US$1 per day for the population as a whole and at that level we have, I am afraid, a very debilitated population. I think many, many people are suffering malnutrition and because of the treatment and the various little security measures taken by the government we have also a traumatised population. Which might explain why they have not taken mass action to date. There was some evidence of courage to do that back in 1997/ 98, but the treatment that was meted out to the people after that has left them very, very cautious and very anxious not to have that experience again.
Now these problems are mounting in such a way that the economy can no longer employ most of the people. We’ve got some 300 000 youngsters turning 18 in this country every year – about maybe 10% of them can find work – the rest of them are unemployed and unable to find any kind of suitable employment anywhere. So they have to leave the country if they want work. We’ve got many of them leaving for South Africa illegally and facing very serious problems when they do that. I think that we face a very, very long recovery unless we get a massive amount of assistance from abroad. And once again I say that South Africa’s position here is the most important. We could speak of following the same path of recovery as say Uganda or Ethiopia or Mozambique and each of those cases we are talking more than 30 years and they still haven’t come right. We could come right very much more quickly with a lot of assistance from South Africa. I believe that the South African assistance could be in the form of the assistance given say to East Germany by West Germany when the Berlin Wall came down.
(more…)