admin
Another packed week for the media in Zimbabwe.
And, oh, by the way, even for South Africa, too, what with the drama that we expected — and witnessed — during President Jacob Zuma’s State of the Nation Address (SONA).
Boy, you have to marvel at what happens in other climes!
Is democracy so sweet, so sour; so revolutionary and so reckless?
It is the tale of the South African democracy and “cow-ntry” (as they call it), a truly tragic country that was colonised by European adventurists over 300 years ago, which colonisation mutated into a monster called apartheid that only nominally ended 20 short years ago.
Nominally, because the racist system of apartheid, that is racial segregation, is largely still alive and well, with black people having had their flag but not the economy.
It is the state of affairs that makes black people, marginalised as they are in their own country, a festering, perpetually angry mass that is given to orgies of violence against each other and foreigners.
Thursday was just a manifestation of that anger: that strong undercurrent of bitterness, frustration and hate.
And we watched the coercive institutions being deployed to strike out and silence, even when, in the case of the security arms that kicked and boxed EFF members, they are clearly not mandated to do so.
But such is the democracy of, in, our southern neighbours. We haven’t seen the last of the drama.
After the “State of Nonsense Address”, as Malema called it, there will be reactions to it, and more.
Welcome, endure the
hostility
Ordinarily we say, welcome and enjoy the hospitality.
Minister of Information, Media and Broadcasting Services Professor Jonathan Moyo announced with some ceremony that he was joining social media, in particular, Facebook and Twitter this week.
He says he had previously vowed never to join the social networks “in a thousand years”.
But he saw the light and noted that, “social media have become so ubiquitous and so pervasive that it is no longer possible to be relevant in any human endeavour without using them.”
‘’Let’s get started’’, he declared.
He has since started, and by now we strongly feel he has since come to grips with the nature of his interlocutors on the same social media where a quantifiable majority is anything from petty, hostile and downright unhelpful as partakers of any national discourse.
Such is the nature of the social media, a space occupied largely, and especially where political matters are concerned, by bitter, out-of-touch individuals in the diaspora who happen to futilely support the opposition MDC and are given to making unhelpful and reckless comments on anything that happens in Zimbabwe.
Just go to any comments feed of a major online newspaper and witness for yourself.
The same crowd confronted Prof Moyo’s accounts.
We hope he will endure the hostility and rise above the din of the lunatic fringe in delivering his mandate.
Wayward Wharton
We were rather taken aback by the behaviour of the US Ambassador Bruce Wharton, this week.
At a time a lot of things are happening geopolitically with Zimbabwe, the new African Union chair, not left beshind, we sought to ask Wharton a few questions about US-Zimbabwe relations in light of those happenings that include the thawing EU-Zimbabwe relations — the British are here and the Belgians will becoming — while America itself recently unfroze relations with Cuba, after more than 50 years of US-instigated hostility.
However, Wharton, upon receiving a set of questions sent by The Herald responded in a most noxious, childish and ultimately cowardly manner.
Who says bullies are cowards?
Here is our Wharton through one Karen Kelley:
“Thank you for the request yesterday to interview with Ambassador Wharton for publication of an article in the Herald newspaper and for the proposed questions you submitted. I took a careful look at your questions and, frankly, I was disappointed that your inquiries only focused on a very narrow range of issues in the US-Zimbabwe relationship. Based on the proposed questions you provided, I did not see where, over the course of this proposed interview, Ambassador Wharton would have been accorded the opportunity to discuss the numerous initiatives, projects and programmes that the US mission undertakes on a daily basis to support the people of Zimbabwe in their aspirations for a democratically stable and economically vibrant future.
“Based on this conclusion, I discussed your interview request with Ambassador Wharton and advised him of my recommendation that he decline to interview with you at this time. The Ambassador has decided to accept my recommendation, and so I am informing you through this message of this decision…”
Surely, you can do better than that, Mister Wharton!
All we needed to know…
Below are questions we submitted to the mission:
1. How do you describe the state and nature of relations between the US and Zimbabwe at the moment?
2. The question of sanctions remains one of the contentious issues in the diplomatic relations between the US and Zimbabwe. Now, the EU has been easing sanctions and is set to fully engage Zimbabwe. What is the position of the US on sanctions removal considering, for example that Section 6 of your sanctions law entails consultation with the EU, Canada and “appropriate foreign countries” on the enforcement of sanctions against Zimbabwe?
3. The US recently re-engaged with Cuba after 50 years of sanctions against Cuba. Many people have been asking what, really, stops the US from re-engaging Zimbabwe when it has done so with communist Cuba?
4. Some reasons that have been advanced for the imposition and maintenance of sanctions on Zimbabwe concern the so-called human rights and rule of law. However, it has been observed that US is on friendly terms with some of the worst dictatorships such as Saudi Arabia where President Obama was, recently, to mourn King Abdullah. Is there not a contradiction in this?
5. Are economic interests a part of US considerations in relations with Zimbabwe, or anybody for that matter?
6. How does the US relate to the fact that President Mugabe who is under your sanctions is both SADC and African Union chairman? Politically, does this not strain your relations with the two bodies?
7. You insist that sanctions apply certain nationals, including President Mugabe, and entities, which include parastatals. How do you justify that these are targeted measures when the President, the CEO of the country, is sanctioned?
8. We have seen the US punishing certain individuals for allegedly lobbying for the removal of sanctions on Zimbabwe.
Why is such lobbying illegal and were Zimbabwe to institute laws proscribing lobbying for sanctions against Zimbabwe, which some individuals have done in the past, would it be right?
9. We understand the US (through USAID) has been unhappy with the misappropriation of funds by local NGOs. Can you explain the circumstances?
10. And it has been noted that the same organisations such as the Crisis Coalition have been on the forefront of de-campaigning the present Government, is this not evidence that the US is engaged in regime change efforts?
11. Anything to look forward to in future US-Zim relations?
We are not VOA!
We asked these questions not only because they are timely and relevant, but also because they concern our country that has been drawn back by noxious international relations.
We reserve the right to ask what we think is relevant.
When Zimbabweans think of America as a polity, all they see are illegal sanctions that country imposed that we now hear have taken the country back to the levels of Rhodesian Federation. Ask Tendai Biti, he said so a week ago.
Relations between the US and Zimbabwe revolve around, and have been defined by the so-called Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act December 21, 2001 and the Executive Order 13288 of March 6, 2003.
The former empowered the US financially stifle Zimbabwe by denying it access to multi-lateral lending institutions and facilities, including for health and humanitarian assistance; while the latter expressly states that Zimbabwe “constitute(s) an unusual and extraordinary threat to the foreign policy of the United States”.
These are the US instruments of policy on Zimbabwe and they pose an equally unusual and extraordinary threat to the well-being of this country.
Anything else that US does, including phoney agricultural projects with communities that otherwise do not need the help of foreigners; buying off young people with scholarships and emerging businesspeople, women and professionals with dubious opportunities, is all propaganda.
We are not seriously expected to dwell on that hoax, are we?
We are not Voice of America, are we?
And we notice that, the US Embassy in Harare has been afforded loads of undeserved airtime on one of our radio stations to present its propaganda and phoney programmes meant to distract attention from sanctions that are biting ordinary people.
We hope we are seeing the end of that soon.
And, can anyone tell us how the US supports “democratically stable and economically vibrant future” for Zimbabwe by making its economy scream because of racist sanctions?
Guilty as charged
Because the US petulantly refused to answer our questions, it can only hold that what we charge them of is correct.
First, the US is not justified in imposing and continuing with its racist sanctions regime against Zimbabwe and does so from a position of sadistic evil.
The US is so hypocritical that it on one hand embraces head-chopping monarchs that do not allow any civil liberties to its citizens, including women, who are prohibited from driving cars while it punishes a democratic country like Zimbabwe.
The US is a hypocritical nation that seeks to hoodwink citizens of this country with trinkets and corrupt inducements while masking the greater evil of its sanctions that has cost Zimbabwe billions of dollars which would have better served the people of this country.
In the final analysis, and unless US accepts that it needs to change its attitude against the innocent people of Zimbabwe who are suffering because of its undue sanctions and over an issue that Britain itself, which instigated reprisals against Zimbabwe, is getting over, the US remains a present, continuing and extraordinary threat to Zimbabwe.
Zimbabweans have no beef with Americans, who are given to high-handedness and historically have been against the interests of our black people, including through aiding the racist Rhodesian government of Ian Smith.
On that note we welcome the moves by the EU to normalise relations with Zimbabwe with Britain making good tentative moves. We can only encourage them to do more.
Besides, they know better.
Online Reporter