zimfinalpush
Fri, 19 Jan 2007 00:09:00
http://www.zimdaily.com/news/117/ARTICLE/1238/2007-01-19.html
Ivor Waldeck
In order to understand President Mugabe it is necessary to know something
about the early history of Zimbabwe.
The Shona tribe that Mugabe is a member of, was terrorised by the (black)
settler Ndebele (Matabele) tribe that arrived in Southern Matabeleland from
Kwazulu-Natal in about 1840 - a breakaway branch of the Zulu Kingdom in what
was then Natal.
As late as 1890, Mugabe's grandparents would have experienced the wrath of
the marauding Matabele impis.
The extremely cruel yearly raids on the Shona by the warlike Matabele, only
ceased in 1890 when Rhodes' pioneer column reached that part of the
continent. The new (white) settlers put a stop to the practice.
Historians believe that but for this intervention, the Shona tribe would in
all probability have been wiped out. Because of the past tribal history,
intense hatred still exists between the two ethnic groupings.
During the war of liberation against the Rhodesians that culminated in
independence in 1980, there were two distinct black liberation factions -
ZANU (Shona) and ZIPRA (Matabele). On the battlefield, there were many
deadly clashes between the two factions.
When Zimbabwe gained independence in 1980, the various military factions
including ZANU and ZIPRA, were integrated into the new national army.
Some ZIPRA (Matabele) guerrillas remained in the bush because of mistrust of
ZANU (Shona) and others deserted the new army because they feared that their
Shona commanders were planning their demise.
There followed a period of insurrection, lawlessness and outright warfare
between ZANU and ZIPRA forces. Matabele ZIPRA deserters and their colleagues
remaining in the bush, were labelled 'dissidents' by Mugabe and were killed
wherever they were found - often brutally and in cold blood. Emmerson
Mnangagwa, the then Minister of State Security, announced in parliament in
February 1984 that 459 'bandits' as he labelled them, had been killed. There
is little doubt that many more than that number were eliminated.
Mugabe had meantime called in the communist North Koreans to train the
5-Brigade (1981). He had a sinister motive for doing so.
The 5-Brigade, which was directly answerable to Mugabe, was variously
deployed in Matabeleland over the period 1983 to 1984 - ostensibly to locate
and destroy ZIPRA 'dissidents'. Ultimately, in February 1983, some 16000
square kilometres of Southern Matabeleland and an area of the Midlands
inhabited by mainly Matabele people, was cordoned off. Soon thereafter a
24-hour curfew was imposed.
No food was allowed into the curfew area and as the region was in the grips
of a third drought in a row, thousands of innocent rural people starved to
death.
The 5-Brigade then commenced the systematic and indiscriminate elimination
of innocent Ndebele men, women and children.
What supposedly started off as a war against 'dissidents' ended up as an
attempt to crush the Matabele nation - nothing other than a classic case of
genocide - more politely referred to as 'ethnic cleansing'.
This was punishment and retribution for the attacks suffered by the Shona at
the hands of the Matabele during he 1840-1890 period. Mugabe's 5-Brigade
wiped out entire villages so that there were no survivors to tell tales -
other villagers simply disappeared.
At least 15 000 and possibly as many as 30 000 were killed in the most
brutal fashion - the true number may never be known because of the vast area
involved and the methods used. Ian Smith, the former Rhodesian Prime
Minister in his book 'The Great Betrayal', puts the death toll at 30 000.
The 5-Brigade was led by Colonel Perence Shiri - currently commander of the
Zimbabwe Air Force.
This inhuman thug daubed 'The Beast of Bhalagwe', set up a torture and
killing camp in Southern Matabeleland.
Thousands of men, women and children - regardless of age or health - were
rounded up and conveyed to this and other camps to be re-educated in typical
'old style' communist fashion.
Thousands of innocents were murdered, raped, maimed, beaten or simply
disappeared. Horrendous and sickening methods of torture were employed.
Camp detainees were made to dig graves for their colleagues and when the
killing rate accelerated, bodies were dumped down disused mine shafts.
The feared Central Intelligence Organisation under the control of Emmerson
Mnangagwa (until recently - January 2005 - Mugabe's heir apparent), then
Minister of State Security in Mugabe's office, was at the forefront of the
brutal and sadistic forms of torture and killings.
The ANC had a presence in Zimbabwe at the time these atrocities occurred.
There has never been any condemnation by the ANC of the genocide Mugabe
perpetrated on his own black population after independence in 1980.
The atrocities committed by the 5-Brigade are well documented especially by
the Zimbabwe Catholic Commission of Justice and Peace, in books, articles
and reports by several investigative journalists.
Following an international outcry, Mugabe in September 1983, set up a
commission of inquiry headed by a lawyer Mr Chihambakwe to investigate the
allegations. Although fearful of the repercussions, hundreds of eyewitnesses
to the atrocities turned up to give evidence.
Mugabe undertook to make the report of the commission public, but it was
suppressed. When taken to court (December 1999) in an effort to force the
release of the report he, through his legal representative, claimed that it
was lost! Mugabe is no doubt well aware that the report - wherever it is -
will be used as evidence to prosecute him for crimes against humanity.
The seizure of white owned commercial farms that commenced in 2000 was and
is a desperate attempt to stay in power - his trump and last card in order
to secure victory at the 2002 elections.
These politically inspired land seizures led to the deaths of many, and the
displacement of some four thousand mainly white commercial farmers and an
estimated 1.5 million black farm workers and their families.
Mugabe does not give a jot about the illegality or consequences of his
actions. He has brought economic ruin on his country to save his own skin
and to remain in power - and not for the ideological reasons he claims.
The seizure of white commercial farms resulted in the commencement of
Zimbabwe's economic collapse.
The suggestion that drought was and is the cause of crop failures has been
proved to be a false story put about by Mugabe in order to account for
famine in Zimbabwe. Craig Richardson (Associate Professor of Economics at
Salem College in the United States) in a comprehensive independent report
tabled at the United Nations, proves conclusively that the only 'drought' in
recent times was in 2001-2002.
Rainfall for that season was only 22 percent below the 50-year average, and
in late 2001 dams throughout Zimbabwe were reported full and the stored
water available to agriculture.
The resettled black farmers planted few crops either then or thereafter -
leading to famine, which persists in 2006.
Mbeki's statement to the American press (June 2005) that the famine in
Zimbabwe is due to the drought is a distortion of the truth - yet another
indication of his support for his despotic and tyrannical friend.
According to a World Bank report on Zimbabwe (February 2005) the
redistribution of 80% white commercial farmland to the landless poor, has
resulted in 70% of Zimbabwe's 11.6 million people living below the poverty
line.
The admission (London Daily Telegraph January 2006) by the Mugabe government
that its seizure of white-owned farms has benefited fewer than 10% of black
Zimbabweans promised new futures as commercial landowners, establishes
Mugabe's destruction of agriculture and the resultant famine.
The Zimbabwe Land Ministry report declares that a third of the land given to
these new farmers is lying idle, nothing was happening on another 11% and
30% was classed as 'under-utilised'.
The resettlement scheme has benefited only 4 867 people while 1.5 million
black farm workers and their families were kicked off white owned farms.
Mbeki's glib acceptance of lies propagated by Mugabe concerning the land
grab and his June 2003 prediction that by June 2004 the Zimbabwe crises
would be resolved - sold to the British and Americans as the objective of
his "quiet diplomacy" - are but further examples of the lengths to which
Mbeki is prepared to go to support his tyrannical friend and dictator.
Mbeki should be aware that knowingly repeating lies put about by Mugabe will
ultimately question his credibility.
So why is it that President Mbeki, the ANC and other black African leaders
are tolerant of this despot - described by Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu
as "the archetypal African dictator".
Why is the killing of black people by a black tyrant (the label given to
Mugabe by non other than former President Nelson Mandela), seemingly
acceptable to them and most of black Africa.
It is a historical fact that the ANC and both Zimbabwean liberation
movements were instructed in Marxist/Leninist ideology either in Moscow or
in China. Mbeki, a loyal member of the Communist party when in exile (as was
his father), received instruction at the Lenin School in Moscow. Mugabe has
put into practice what the Red Chinese taught him at the Nanking Military
Academy.
Mugabe even produced his version of the "Thoughts Of Mao" - containing
typical Marxist rhetoric. His 'Youth Militia' - the 'Green Bombers' trained
to kill terrorise and disrupt those who oppose him - are reminiscent of
Mao's youthful 'Red Guard' that terrorised the Chinese population during the
Cultural Revolution.
Mugabe and Mbeki have, according to international political commentators,
both put into practice the Lenin doctrine of 'Democratic Centralism' learnt
from their respective Communist masters - a Marxist/Socialist system whereby
all important policy decisions are taken by an 'inner circle' or 'politburo'
rendering the parliamentary process sterile - the antithesis of any truly
democratic system of government.
In order to carry out his policies, Mbeki surrounds himself with individuals
such as Essop Pahad - an ardent communist - who broadcast Soviet propaganda
from Prague during Moscow's hey day, and described the Soviet Union's August
1968 invasion of Czechoslovakia as " the Fraternal Assistance".
It is no secret that not many years ago the ANC would have encouraged Mugabe
to dispossess and kill white farmers - which was after all one of the
objectives of the ANC in South Africa.
Other of Mugabe's actions would also have received the ANC's enthusiastic
support, and I suspect that many of his actions and utterances still do -
like Foreign Affair's consistent and public support for his land grab
policy, and Mbeki's mischievous blaming (December 2003) of Britain for the
Zimbabwe land crises - in support of lies put about by Mugabe.
Most importantly Mugabe, also not many years ago, actively supported the
ANC's war effort in South Africa. ANC cadres were trained in Zimbabwe and
supplied with ammunition, weapons and explosives, with which to carry out
their work in South Africa.
Mugabe often reminds the ANC of the part he played in their struggle - no
doubt the ANC'S "hour of need" Mbeki so often refers to.
Mbeki's lack of firm action against Mugabe can only be due to the historical
and ideological backgrounds they share - which is a bad omen for South
Africa.
Mbeki could have and still can bring Mugabe to heel by simply threatening to
close the border, and if necessary, restrict trade and the flow of
essentials supplies to Zimbabwe - a successful ploy John Vorster and Henry
Kissinger used to force the Rhodesians to end their war and accept the
principle of majority rule.
And what of the broken agreement Mugabe made with Mbeki and the presidents
of Mozambique (Chisano)and Namibia (Nujoma) at the Victoria Falls in 2000
when he undertook to remove the war veterans from occupied white commercial
farms within a month.
There was no comment from the tripartite when Mugabe, within the same month,
reneged on his undertakings - just a supportive silence.
One wonders just what Mbeki's real agenda is because the world might well
conclude that Mbeki's indifference to Mugabe's human rights violations will
be seen as laying the groundwork for future human rights violations in South
Africa - an observation (December 2003) made by the Anglican Archbishop
Emeritus, Desmond Tutu.
Former South African Nobel Peace Laureate President F W de Klerk warns
(January 2006) on his de Klerk Foundation website, that in the published
Mbeki "second decade of liberation" plan, the ANC intends to take over the
country's assets and violate property rights currently protected under the
constitution.
The ANC has already resolved to dispense with the 'willing buyer, willing
seller' principle relating to the acquisition of white owned farms, and
replacing it with acquisition by expropriation should the government's
valuations be refused.
A Bill currently before the South African parliament (February 2006), seeks
to give the Minister of Justice the final "authority over the administration
and budget of all courts".
The General council of the Bar of SA (January 2006) is concerned that the
executive is taking over the functions of the judiciary. In August 2006 a
judge of the South African High Court warned of a looming constitutional
crises because the ANC has ignored high court orders - a clear sign that the
ANC (like the Mugabe regime) considers itself to be the lawmaker.
Desmond Tutu's observation concerning the possibility of future human rights
violations in South Africa seems ominously prophetic.
Helen Suzman, a former staunch supporter of the ANC and anti-apartheid
activist, concludes (London Weekly Telegraph May 2004) "Mbeki and other
black African leaders support Mugabe's actions in effectively kicking the
white man out of Zimbabwe".
She accuses Mbeki of supporting the Mugabe's anti - white stance "Mugabe has
done that to the whites, and I think that is exactly what Mbeki admires
about him". And further "Do not think for a moment that Mbeki is not
anti-white - he is, most definitely".
Mbeki and other black African leaders, who applaud Mugabe for kicking out
the whites, have clearly not stopped to think that the ultimate victims are
the black citizens of Zimbabwe.
South Africa and the region will, I fear, in the final analysis, pay the
price for protecting a despicable and cruel tyrant who only remains in power
through cheating, lying, killing, torturing, gagging, starving and
intimidating opponents, formulating laws controlling the media which are
regularly tightened, and prohibiting opposition meetings and demonstrations
- the political practises of communist Eastern Europe of the 1960's.
The ANC and most other black African leaders indulgently refer to Mugabe's
uncivilised methods as 'African Style Democracy'. In December 2004 at the
ZANU-PF conference held in Harare, the Secretary General of the ANC Henry
Magothi praised Mugabe and his policies and said that the ANC and people of
South Africa are confident that ZANU-PF "as a party of revolution, will
continue to play a leading role in the political and economic independence
of Zimbabwe".
It is this unqualified praise and acceptance of Mugabe's draconian policies
which concerns the free democratic world and which Archbishop Emeritus,
Desmond Tutu, warns might be regarded by the free world as "laying the
groundwork for future human rights violations in South Africa".
This watering down of genuine democratic principles was again applied to the
2005 Zimbabwean elections which could not be ruled free and fair even by the
South African observer mission which could only described them as
"reflecting the will of the people".
When asked (April 2005) why he chose not to declare the elections 'free and
fair' the delegation head Minister Membathisi Mdladlana retorted - "We see
no reason to follow anybody else's culture".
Mugabe's (June 2005) cruel displacement affecting some 2.4 million urban
black citizens (UN Tibaijufa report para 3.2.3) by destroying shanty homes
and businesses, is according to some observers, designed to drive
disaffected urban voters to the famine-hit countryside - where his political
support base is - for political re-education and to prevent a popular
uprising.
Despite the August 2005 report of the United Nations special envoy Anna
Tibaijufa condemning Mugabe's actions, Mbeki the ANC and the African Union,
maintain their silence as they regard the matter as an 'internal matter for
Zimbabwe'.
Mugabe's statement that trillions of Zimbabwe dollars are to be spent on
re-housing the dispossessed is just another lie, and clearly just a ruse to
placate his critics and satisfy his African supporters.
The civilized world by contrast sees Mugabe as an illegitimate leader of an
illegitimate government, and unlike the ANC, regards the outcome of the
March 2005 parliamentary elections as rigged.
The international community insists on a new round of internationally
supervised elections in Zimbabwe.
United States Secretary of Sate, Colin Powell, is on record as saying
(September 2002) that there must be regime change in Zimbabwe and his
successor Condoleezza Rice, regards Zimbabwe as an "outpost of tyranny"
(January 2005) - an observation which Mbeki, in unqualified support of his
tyrannical friend, objected to.
The American Ambassador to Zimbabwe, Christopher Dell in a speech to the
Africa University of Zimbabwe on the 02 November 2005, had this to say about
America's Zimbabwe policy "... only when Zimbabwe's government restores the
rule of law, conducts free and fair elections, puts military and police
forces under effective civilian control, repeals repressive legislation, and
commits to an equitable, legal, and transparent land reform program will we
support financial support for the government of Zimbabwe".
Mugabe, over a twenty-six year period, has employed terror tactics against
all those he regards as a threat.
He planned, instigated, committed or otherwise aided and abetted a campaign
of violence directed against the civilian population of Zimbabwe. He has to
stay in power because he knows that as soon as he loses the protection of
his office, he and others of his regime will, if justice is to prevail, have
to stand trial at The Hague for genocide and crimes against humanity.
World leaders must surely come to realise that Mbeki's "quiet diplomacy" is
a charade - described by those opposing Mugabe in Zimbabwe as "an act of
blatant deception". Mbeki (London May 2006) is reported as now relying on
the United Nations to unravel the mess in Zimbabwe. The fact that he did not
comment on his government's failed "quiet diplomacy" policy, gives grist to
the perception that it was a charade and designed to deceive.
Zimbabwe sinks further and further into the abyss while the concerned world
looks on, and Mbeki, with measured arrogance born of absolute power, looks
the other way.
By IVOR WALDECK
Email - goodhopepark@worldonline.co.za
I was a judicial officer in Zimbabwe until 1983. After independence inquest
dockets were passed to me in 1982, which revealed that the National Army or
other government forces were murdering ZIPRA 'dissidents'. I was threatened
with detention if I, as was my judicial duty to do, held public inquests
into the deaths. I still have these dockets in my possession.
After 22 years in the Department of Justice, I resigned and left Zimbabwe in
1983 because I could not work for a government that after independence,
engaged in the cold blooded murder of its own citizens.
It is remarkable how few people know the real story about Mugabe and just
how murderous, tyrannical and evil he is. It is mainly the black people of
that country who have suffered because Mugabe has to retain the reigns of
power in order to survive politically.
The whites were pawns in the game and the Matabele killed in their thousands
because of ethnicity and their political opposition to him. Mugabe has
brought shame on the African continent and his country to its economic knees
with an inflation rate in May 2006 of 1000+% (and climbing), and the life
expectancy of the population falling from one of the highest in Africa to
one of the worst in the world - men 37 women 34 (World Health Organisation
report 2006).
The liberators of Sub-Saharan Africa have shown themselves to be incapable
of democratic governance - because democracy would have seen them voted out
of office.
In May 2006 the ANC ousted from power in local government elections in Cape
Town, led a campaign of violence against the newly elected Mayor of Cape
Town. Liberators will not tolerate being voted out of power, and this
seemingly minor episode is a timely warning of things to come.
Liberation governments have turned corrupt and rely on brute force to remain
in power and to retain the spoils. Commentators have expressed surprise at
how quickly corruption has, within ten short years, spread to the upper
echelons of the ANC government "... it is alarming that official corruption,
that constant scourge of post-colonial Africa, has seemingly taken root so
soon after democratic elections, and may have reached into the very highest
levels of government" (Editorial - British Weekly Telegraph - June 2005).
Since June 2005 there has been a marked increase in crime involving the ANC.
High profile figures have been convicted, and the prosecution or intended
prosecution of twenty-three ANC members of parliament for theft and fraud
involving public funds have come before the courts. Crimes involving
violence have escalated alarmingly.
The official crime statistics for the 2005/2006 period catalogues 18 793
murders (50 a day), 20 533 attempted murders, 54 926 rapes - 23 453
involving children (42%), 119 726 robberies involving aggravating
circumstances, 74 723 common robberies, 4 873 robberies of business premises
and 9 391 of residential premises, 12 825 'carjackings' and 385 cash in
transit heists that more often than not involve extreme violence. It is
generally believed that the authorities have manipulated the crime
statistics in order to claim a reduction in crime trends.
A disturbing aspect of crime statistics over the years is the fact that
since the ANC came into power, over 1 500 white farmers have been murdered
on their farms.
Some of these murders were sadistic and cruel in the extreme, and many
believe that they were and are politically motivated - the objective being
to drive white farmers off the land. The policy is succeeding, as the most
dangerous occupation in South Africa is being a white farmer.
The history of Sub-Saharan Africa is replete with examples of liberation
governments that have used chaotic situations involving criminality, to
cower the populace and drive out those who they regard as opponents of the
system. The Marxist socialist Eastern bloc countries of the sixties were
masters of this technique.
Another ominous sign is the firm control the ANC has on the broadcasting
media that it uses for propaganda purposes. It also actively prevents the
opinions of those who oppose the ANC from being aired or screened. These are
actions which can usually be attributed to dictatorships.
In April 2006 the ANC secretary-general Kgalema Motlanthe led a delegation
to Cuba - to be followed by a visit to China - to study the relationship
between party and state.
Both the Cuban and Chinese communist parties are single party systems that
are repressive and undemocratic. It is disturbing that the ANC hierarchy
should want to learn anything from either of the two countries where human
rights abuses are legend. The implications are ominous for South Africa.
The truth about Mugabe, Mbeki and the ANC, is a story that must be told and
spread far and wide, as it would be tragic if Mugabe escapes punishment for
his wrong-doing, and South Africa via the ANC, is permitted to travel the
same route Zimbabwe and every other liberation government in Sub-Saharan
Africa has travelled.
The United Nations must urgently be urged to respond and act.
No comments:
Post a Comment